The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

62coltnavy · February 22, 2014, 03:53 PM

"A police site analysis of the decision:"

Greg Suhr is a lying sack of [expletive deleted.] As of the end of 2103, there were exactly 4 CCWs issued for the City and County of SF out of a population of 825,000, one by the Sheriff, and one by Suhr, and two by other police agencies for reserve officers working in the city. The two to "civilian employees" were one each of the sheriff's office and the SFPD, respectively. One of the latter was undoubtedly issued by Suhr to SF Sheriff Mirikami who, not being a LEO, could not legally carry a firearm in the city. (Source: CalGuns Foundation 2013 Carry License Statistics.) In a recent interview, Suhr said that there should be a subjective evaluation of applicants based on objective standards. (Not sure what he meant by that.) He has stated on several occasions that he does not want citizens carrying firearms in "his" city, as he considers armed civilians to be a threat to police officers.

Cal law does allow for a mental exam--optionally--but in SF it is mandatory. SF has tried to require applicants to pass a shooting qualification judged by the same standards as imposed on SFPD, to be taken at the SFPD range, and monitored by a SFPD range officer--with all costs, including range rental and the salary of the RO to be paid by the applicant. I seem to recall that the City also sought to limit the guns applicants would be allowed to carry to those allowed to be carried by SFPD (.38 revolver or 9 mm pistol, maybe a .40, but no .45). When these requirements were challenged by CalGuns as illegal under the state statute as in excess of the maximum fees and requirements proscribed, SFPD took down the requirements from its web site, but it is unclear if they are still imposed.

[By contrast, in rural counties, an applicant can usually take the class first, walk in the application to the SO, get an interview that week or the next, and as long as the interview goes well and the background check is clean, will receive a license in a matter of weeks.]

From the article, it is obvious that Suhr will do everything in his power to discourage as many people from even applying as possible, and make the process as long and as arduous as possible. I suspect that there will be lawsuits in his future.

February 22, 2014, 03:53 PM	#182
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	"A police site analysis of the decision:" Greg Suhr is a lying sack of [expletive deleted.] As of the end of 2103, there were exactly 4 CCWs issued for the City and County of SF out of a population of 825,000, one by the Sheriff, and one by Suhr, and two by other police agencies for reserve officers working in the city. The two to "civilian employees" were one each of the sheriff's office and the SFPD, respectively. One of the latter was undoubtedly issued by Suhr to SF Sheriff Mirikami who, not being a LEO, could not legally carry a firearm in the city. (Source: CalGuns Foundation 2013 Carry License Statistics.) In a recent interview, Suhr said that there should be a subjective evaluation of applicants based on objective standards. (Not sure what he meant by that.) He has stated on several occasions that he does not want citizens carrying firearms in "his" city, as he considers armed civilians to be a threat to police officers. Cal law does allow for a mental exam--optionally--but in SF it is mandatory. SF has tried to require applicants to pass a shooting qualification judged by the same standards as imposed on SFPD, to be taken at the SFPD range, and monitored by a SFPD range officer--with all costs, including range rental and the salary of the RO to be paid by the applicant. I seem to recall that the City also sought to limit the guns applicants would be allowed to carry to those allowed to be carried by SFPD (.38 revolver or 9 mm pistol, maybe a .40, but no .45). When these requirements were challenged by CalGuns as illegal under the state statute as in excess of the maximum fees and requirements proscribed, SFPD took down the requirements from its web site, but it is unclear if they are still imposed. [By contrast, in rural counties, an applicant can usually take the class first, walk in the application to the SO, get an interview that week or the next, and as long as the interview goes well and the background check is clean, will receive a license in a matter of weeks.] From the article, it is obvious that Suhr will do everything in his power to discourage as many people from even applying as possible, and make the process as long and as arduous as possible. I suspect that there will be lawsuits in his future.