Riverside County Sheriff DENIES CCW for Mistaken Identity No Good Cause and Demanded Social Security Number

Riverside County Sheriff Unconstitutionally DENIES CCW for No Good Cause & Violates Multiple Civil Rights

March 25, 2023

2.77M Views

0 Likes

0 Comments

Calguns is a known online chat forum for gun enthusiasts. With California becoming a “shall issue” state and the recent ruling regarding parts of the handgun roster being unconstitutional, CCW permits have been a popular topic over the last several years, with cases clarifying many unconstitutional actions of CCW issue agencies.

Important to notes before we begin:

There is no need for a social security number.
There is NOTHING OBJECTIVE about the social security number
Since there is no financial transaction that has to be reported, a subjective metric and unlawful under Bruen.
McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling upheld that a right to bear arms is fundamental
California is a “shall-issue” state per Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v Bruen ruling

Ninth Circuit’s decision in the case of Young v. Hawaii

Ninth Circuit’s decision in the case of Young v. Hawaii, which was decided in July 2021, after the Bruen case.

In the Young case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Hawaii’s requirement for applicants to provide a social security number when applying for a license to carry a firearm violated the Second Amendment. The court found that the requirement was not necessary to determine an applicant’s eligibility for a license and that it could deter individuals from applying for a license.

The Young case was decided in the Ninth Circuit and California is located within the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction and could serve as persuasive authority if a similar case were to be brought in California.

The court reasoned that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms for self-defense, and that the requirement of a social security number does not serve a compelling government interest in regulating that right.

While the Young case specifically addressed the requirement of a social security number for a license to carry a firearm in Hawaii, its reasoning could potentially be applied to other concealed carry permit requirements in other states.

Specifically, if a requirement for a concealed carry permit is found to be unnecessary or overly burdensome, it could be challenged as a violation of the Second Amendment.

The User’s Horrible Riverside Sheriff Experience:

Recently one user described their experience with Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s office and it is extremely concerning to many. The user alleges several violations of California Penal Code, California Civil Code, The Bane Act, The Second & Fourteenth Amendments, California Government Code, and the CA Public Records Acts. The user alleges the following violations:

UNLAWFUL DENIAL OF CCW PERMIT
VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
VIOLATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT
VIOLATION OF BANE ACT
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 26190
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 26202
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 11135
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 52.1
VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT.

Initially Riverside Sheriff did not have the SSN as “required” information, but now after the user has submitted their complaints and is threatening to sue, Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco has changed the Riverside County Sheriff website to “require” a SSN. As you can see from the time stamped documents below.

Riverside COunty sheriff Changes social security requirement amidst complaint and investigations

California Penal Code section 26190

California Penal Code section 26190 specifies that an applicant for a CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) permit is not required to provide their social security number as a condition of issuing a permit. The law states that an applicant may voluntarily provide their social security number to facilitate the background check, but it is not mandatory.

Subsection (e) of section 26190 explicitly states that an applicant for a CCW permit is not required to provide any information on the initial application other than that which is necessary to complete the application. This information may include the applicant’s name, address, place of birth, telephone number, and California driver’s license number or California identification card number, if any.

The subsection goes on to state that an applicant may voluntarily submit any other information relevant to the issuance of the license requested by the issuing authority. Therefore, while an applicant may voluntarily provide their social security number, it is not required by law to do so.

So if the applicant “completed” and “submitted” the application it without his social security number (SSN) then he was able to to “complete the application” without his SSN.

When Mark Skoglund asked the applicant to “verify” his information, by “providing” his information, he was essentially tricking the applicant into providing his SSN. Whether it be because they forgot to program their online application to require it is another conversation. The fact remains that the applicant completed their application and did not submit their SSN along with it.

When the applicant questioned why he was now being “required” to provide his SSN, Riverside Sheriff Mark Skoglund threatened to cancel the applicants CCW application.

Note, Mark Skoglund tells the applicant he must “verify the required information.” You cannot “verify” something with someone if you never provided it to them in the first place. That is a form of social engineering.

The Bane Act

The Bane Act is a California law that prohibits the use of threats, intimidation, or coercion to interfere with someone’s constitutional or statutory rights. The exact text of the Bane Act, found in California Civil Code section 52.1, states:

“(a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured.”

Therefore, the Bane Act prohibits using threats, intimidation, or coercion to interfere with someone’s constitutional or statutory rights, including the right to refuse to provide certain information, and provides a civil remedy for individuals whose rights have been violated.

The user also explains their experience in great detail. The user wrote on in a statement:

” I wanted to share my experience.

Application submitted: 09/16/2022
Training done: 10/22/2022
Interview: 02/14/2023
Denied: 03/23/2023

I am Black. Riverside, Norco, Fallbrook, and Riverside county has always had racism and discrimination issues.

I applied for my CCW permit on 09/16/2022 and the earliest interview was February 14, 2023 11:00 AM PST at the following location: Riverside Ben Clark Training Center, 16791 Davis Ave, Riverside, CA 92518

On 02/13/2023 I was emailed that my interview would be changed to a phone interview.

On 02/14/2023 I was called by someone who immediately demanded my social security number to continue the process. Straight up social engineering from Riverside Sheriff. They asked to “verify” the social security number I put on my application, but I distinctly remember NOT putting my SSN as it was NOT “required” to “complete” and/or “submit” the application……….. I asked why they needed my social and me asking the question sent her into a defensive angry rant. She ended the rant by asking if I would like to speak to her supervisor and I said “sure.” She put Mark Skoglund on the phone and he was beyond angry and aggressive. “What can i do for you?!” ….. I then repeat my curiosity of wanting to know why they “need” my personal social security number. Especially since California Penal Code 26190 states that a social is not “required.” He tells me without my social they wont be processing my application and that they need it to verify my identity.

I think to myself: This guy is still trying to use social engineering on me…Why are they still lying…? Why are these Sheriffs lying..? I never gave it to them in the first place. They know this….. So why do they keep asking me to “verify” the social I put on my application, when I never submitted my SSN. This must be their sneaky was of getting it. “please verify what you never gave me.” Still, I am shocked this Riverside Sheriff is LYING!!! STRAIGHT UP LYING! You know I never gave you my social! lol Why are you asking me to “verify” it..? I understood this from the get…. Thus why I asked “why do you need it exactly?” — He could have even said “we forgot to get it” and I would have given it to him. But he kept lying and avoiding accountability and trying to trick me into giving it.

I again ask him why they cannot verify me by all of the information and documentation I have already provided..? Skoglund states they “need” the social and then abruptly says, “you know what, you have a good day” and hangs up in my face…

Flabbergasted, I email the CCW unit and cc’d Skoglund. He then calls me back and says something to the effect of “are you ready to give me your social now?” I still told him I’d like to know why I can’t be verified by the other “required” information. He hung on me again….

I then emailed the CCW unit again and cc’d Skoglund.

I then called Riverside County Sheriff Executive Offices and explained my issue. I express that I simply wanted to finish my cow interview, but wanted to know why I was being forced to provide my social security number. They told me that was a reasonable inquiry and that a supervisor would be calling me back.

I was told by their staff that they would email the Captain (Walter Mendez) and file a formal complaint for me.

After 30 minutes of waiting I drove to their training center/CCW interview location. When I arrived I expressed I wanted to file a complaint and/or speak to a supervisor.

After about 4-5 minute my phone rang and it was Mark Skoglungs supervisor. I re-exlained the situation again and he was a bit shocked that Skoglund has treated me as he did, and told me that he would get someone to come out and assist me and complete my interview.

I acknowledged his statement and waited for someone to come outside and greet me.

After about 5 minute, Skoglund came out to greet me with a smirk on his face.

He walks me to the back and we start the interview. He then AGAIN asks me, ?are you ready to give me your social NOW???

I pause, and again tell him I don?t mind but need to know why you need it, when my understanding is I am not ?required? to provide it, as per section 26190 of the California Penal Code.

The subsection goes on to state that an applicant may voluntarily submit any other information relevant to the issuance of the license requested by the issuing authority. Therefore, while an applicant may voluntarily provide their social security number, it is not required by law to do so.

AGAIN, I SUBMITTED AND COMPLETED MY APPLICATION WITHOUT MY SSN. Demanding it after is asking for additional information, that wasn’t required to complete the application.

He tells me he ?needs it? to verify my identity and that it is ?required.? I re-explain again that he has my ID, me in person here, my utility bills, my birth certificate, and my address. I’m not “verifying” my social but rather now I am providing it to you because I never gave it to you in the first place..?

He simply again states that he needs it and it is required and my application will be cancel if I do not provide it and goes into his “because I said so” mode…
Under duress and clear coercion I provide my social security number to Mark Skoglund. ? This coercion that forced me to provide my social is a violation of the Bane Act and violation of California Government Code section 11135, and Violation of Civil code section 52.1.

We do the interview and then I leave and go complete my live scan.

My lives can results come back by 02/22/2023.

Therefore, the Bane Act prohibits using threats, intimidation, or coercion to interfere with someone’s constitutional or statutory rights, including the right to refuse to provide certain information, and provides a civil remedy for individuals whose rights have been violated.

I am then contacted by Serena Henrotin with the CCW unit who begins to ask me a bunch of additional questions and ask for additional information, since my name is very very common.

She tells me I have 13 ?possible criminal records? which may just be traffic tickets. A case at Children and Family services, a failure to appear in Las Vegas, and more. She tells me: I am waiting to hear back from various agencies and obtain reports. Orange County and Los Angeles County can take a while to respond. Maybe you can help expedite the process by providing a summary of some incidents so I do not have to wait to hear a back. I received information about thirteen possible criminal records as well as civil suits in which you are named the defendant.”

I am flabbergasted at her response……….I can account for my whereabouts at all times and I am certain anything she thinks may be mine is 1000% mistaken identity. She also doesn’t even sound sure about her own findings….

I told Henrotin I literally just completed a Live Scan for TSA pre-check and they determined I was eligible and none of this even came up. I provided her proof. She stopped responding via email for several days.

After not hearing from her I followed up for an update given the legal timeframe to provide me with a response per section 26150, section 26202, and section 26205 was approaching in two (2) days.

The Sheriff is required by law to:

“notify the applicant of its approval or denial within 90 days of the initial application, or, if the application requires the submission of fingerprints, within 30 days of the date the local law enforcement agency receives the completed fingerprint card or other fingerprint transmission forms prescribed by the Department of Justice, whichever is later.”

She responded and told me it was my responsibility to complete her investigation, despite California law clearly stating the applicant is not responsible for completing the Sheriff’s investigation.

I received confirmation from Las Vegas “Records fingerprint Bureau / Record Challenges” department that the alleged failure to appear Depute Serena Henrotin was libelously accusing me of, was not associated with me at all.

unconstitutional denial of ccw by riverside sheriff rob bonta is biased

Her final response was to send me an automated response stating that my CCW permit had been denied DUE TO:

“Issuance of a CCW is a discretionary decision under California law and is based on the totality of the information provided during the application process. This process includes, but is not limited to, the applicant?s “good moral character”, that “good cause” exists for issuance of the license and completion of the necessary training course. After careful review of your application, we regret to inform you that your request for a CCW license is denied. This denial is based upon the discretionary authority provided under California Penal Code Section 26150 (a)(1). If you have any questions please contact Lieutenant Vig at 951-955-0433. Criminal History”

Unconstitutional CCW Denial by Riverside California Sheriff

No information other than that has been provided yet.

I then received a letter from LT. Deanna Pecoraro stating all of my allegations against Mark Skoglund were “unfounded.”

Deanna Pecoraro stated my complaint was “unfounded” despite having proof such as:

phone calls logs
emails where Skoglund said my social was “required”
the law saying the social is not required
Skoglund’s obvious social engineering actions of lying to get me to provide my social security number
Skoglund’s coercion and threat of canceling my application

collusion amongst riverside county sheriff and deputies in ccw department

CAPTAIN WALTER MENDEZ stopped all communication with me as well.

I submitted a formal complaints and supporting evidence such as email conversations and applicable reference to the law. I also submitted an APPEAL for what I believe is an unlawful denial.

I am indeed eligible and I am absolutely positive any false positives she referenced are not me. She even said I have a case at family and child services, and I just had my first child with my wife of 10+ years, and she definitely doesn?t have a case against me. No, I do not have any other children. I am certain.

I filed a police report in California and Nevada for the mistaken identity issues. They said they have a “records challenge” division that will be assisting me with handling these issues because they hear this OFTEN.

I have not heard anything back from Riverside Sheriff and I have a lawsuit drafted and ready to go..

I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT have any of these background issues Deputy Serena Henrotin stated I do. She has also yet to provide me with any information on whether she successful confirmed none of that was mine.

I have a background I litigation, business, IP, and some other areas of law and have seen great success. Finding attorneys that have the actual knowledge to assist with this is seeming impossible, but I will gladly file PRO SE if I must.

Riverside did NOT require SSN when I applied. They are just sneaky, shady, and trying to cover their tracks. When I submitted my complaint I saved a copy of their website that showed it was NOT required. I submitted that with my complaint because my SSN was not “required to complete the application.” Just like someone above said, they TOO did not provide their SSN.

They literally JUST changed that. Likely because my pending lawsuit and complaints.

A complaint regarding these civil rights violations have also been submitted to Rob Bonta, who has not even so much as responded to me yet.

. @RobBonta / @CivilRights Launches Investigation into @RSO for Civil Rights and Constitutional Violationshttps://t.co/I3nT14DgLe #civilrights #blackcommunities #melanated #blackriverside #riversidecounty #california #secondamendment #Constitution #DepartmentOfJustice pic.twitter.com/Ua1ilKmz8K

— Creative Geniusess ™ (@creativegeniuse) March 29, 2023

Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling:

Second Amendment right is “Fundamental”

The statement reads: “We hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

This statement affirms that the right to bear arms for self-defense, as protected by the Second Amendment, is a fundamental right that applies to all individuals, including those living in the states.

Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v Bruen ruling:

California is a “Shall-Issue” state as of, June 23rd, 2022

The case’s decision was released on June 23, 2022. In a 6–3 opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the state law was unconstitutional as it infringed on the , reversing the Second Circuit’s decision. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling on the NYSRPA v Bruen on June 23rd, 2022 California has been a “shall-issue” state.

Shall issue means that as long as an applicant passes the basic requirements set out by state law, the issuing authority (county sheriff, police department, state police, etc.) is compelled to issue a permit. In other words, local law enforcement officials cannot deny an applicant a permit if the applicant meets all of the criteria. There are currently 41 shall-issue states, including permitless-carry states that issue permits for purposes of reciprocity (allowing residents of their state to carry in other states with favorable reciprocity). Also, there are states that may be identified as shall-issue that, in practice, operate on a may-issue basis.

As a letter from the Benbrook Law Group states to Rob Bonta. Conditioning a carry license on a discretionary evaluation of an applicant’s “good moral character” is patently inconsistent with Bruen’s repeated statements that the carry right may not be denied by non-objective criteria applied by a local government official. Bruen considered and rejected New York’s “proper cause” requirement for a carry license, but it left no doubt that it was the discretionary aspect of the licensing regime—requiring citizens to convince a government official that they deserved a license based on their circumstances—that fell outside the historical tradition of permissible firearm regulation.

For example, the majority opinion contrasted New York’s regime to “shall issue” states “where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny license based on a perceived lack of need or suitability.” Bruen, at *6 (emphasis added). In “may issue” states like New York and California, however, “authorities ha[d before Bruen] discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses, even when the applicant satisfied statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license.” Id. The Court pressed the issue in a footnote stressing that the constitutionality of shall-issue regimes should not be doubted so long as they rely on objective criteria similar to the way licensing officials issue permits for expressive activity under the First Amendment:

[I]t appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

In Shuttlesworth, the permitting regime violated the First Amendment because it gave local officials “unbridled” discretion to deny a parade or demonstration permit based on their “judgment” whether “public welfare, peace, safety, . . . good order, [or] morals” convinced them that the speech activity should be denied. 394 U.S. at 149-50. In Cantwell, the state violated the Constitution by conditioning Jehovah’s Witnesses from soliciting money pending review of an application to determine whether the solicitation really was for “religious” purposes: The “decision to issue or refuse [the approval] involves appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion.” 310 U.S. at 305. And so it is here, with the Legal Alert’s encouragement that local licensing officials (1) require all citizens seeking a carry license to plead their case, (2) conduct “investigations” into the applicant’s “moral character,” and (3) make an “independent determination. This is no longer permissible after Bruen.

Lest there be any doubt, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence further demonstrates why the approach advocated in the Legal Alert is a nonstarter:

The Court’s decision addresses only the unusual discretionary licensing regimes, known as “may-issue” regimes, that are employed by 6 States including New York. As the Court explains, New York’s outlier may-issue regime is constitutionally problematic because it grants open-ended discretion to licensing officials and authorizes licenses only for those applicants who can show some special need apart from self-defense. Those features of New York’s regime—the unchanneled discretion for licensing officials and the special-need requirement— in effect deny the right to carry handguns for self-defense to many “ordinary, lawabiding citizens.” . . . . . .

Unlike New York’s may-issue regime, those shall-issue regimes do not grant open-ended discretion to licensing officials and do not require a showing of some special need apart from self-defense. As petitioners acknowledge, shall-issue licensing regimes are constitutionally permissible, subject of course to an asapplied challenge if a shall-issue licensing regime does not operate in that manner in practice.

Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-issue States. Bruen, at *38-39 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (emphasis added). In short, the Bruen decision stands for the proposition that all citizens who are not prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights (under a constitutionally sound analysis) must be able to carry firearms in public for self-defense. When local issuing agencies