Warrants Exercise Application Form 5 To: Fill & Download for Free

The short answer is YES, but you need to get the police Chief to issue you a CCW License. (Most likely unless your good friends with the Chief or know people with considerable power its very unlikely.)The official Long Legal answer:From San Francisco Police Department website:Pursuant to Penal Code section 26160, this policy is intended to provide the public with asummary of the criteria that the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) considers when reviewingapplications for a license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW license).IntroductionA CCW license authorizes the license holder to carry a pre-approved firearm concealed on theirperson in some situations outside their home or place of business. California Penal Code section 26155vests the Chief of the San Francisco Police Department with the authority to approve or deny CCWlicenses to applicants who reside within the City and County of San Francisco. A CCW license can beissued for up to two years, or three years if the licensee is a judge, court commissioner or magistrate.The Chief may impose further conditions or restrictions on a license as he or she deems warranted.In California, the decision to issue a CCW license is discretionary. Penal Code section 26155provides that the Chief "may" issue, but is not required to issue, a CCW license if certain minimumstatutory criteria are satisfied. The Chief's decision to issue a CCW license will depend on thecircumstances in each individual case, and there is no guarantee that an applicant will receive a CCWlicense even if he or she satisfies all of the criteria listed below. If the circumstances warrant, the Chiefalso has the discretion to waive some of the listed requirements.Basic Eligibility RequirementsTo be eligible for a CCW license, the applicant must prove that he or she is --1. A San Francisco resident;2. A citizen or legal resident of the United States; and3. At least 21 years of age at the time the application is submitted.Good Cause for IssuanceThe applicant must establish that there is good cause for the Chief of Police to issue a CCWlicense. In light of the fact that San Francisco is the second most densely populated urban area in thecountry, and weighing the defensive benefit of carrying concealed firearms in public against the risk ofsurprise to law enforcement, the risk of avoidable and dangerous conflict escalation in a public setting,and the risk to general public safety that discharging firearms poses to law enforcement and bystandersalike, the Chief has determined on the basis of experience and judgment that good cause to issue a CCWlicense to San Francisco residents will generally only exist in conditions of necessity. Accordingly,applicants should be able to supply convincing evidence of the following:1. There is a reported, documented, presently existing, and significant risk of danger to life or ofgreat bodily injury to the applicant and/or his or her spouse, domestic partner or dependents;2. The danger of harm is specific to the applicant or his or her immediate family and is notgenerally shared by other similarly situated members of the public;3. Existing law enforcement resources cannot adequately address the danger of harm;4. The danger of harm cannot reasonably be avoided by alternative measures; and5. Licensing the applicant to carry a concealed weapon is significantly likely to reduce thedanger of harm.While each of the above factors is considered in the decision making process, the Chief makes agood cause determination based on the totality of the circumstances presented in each individual case.Good Moral CharacterOnce an eligible applicant makes a preliminary showing of good cause, the SFPD will conduct abackground investigation to determine whether the applicant is of good moral character. Todemonstrate good moral character, the applicant must, at a minimum:1. Pass a background check performed by the California Department of Justice using theapplicant's fingerprints and the information provided on the standard application form.2. Be and remain qualified under state and federal law to possess, receive, own, and/orpurchase a firearm.3. Have no history of citations, arrests, convictions, civil lawsuits, employment discharges,license denials, license revocations or other actions indicating a possible propensity for violence, moralturpitude, drug and/or alcohol abuse, carelessness with weapons and/or dishonesty.4. Provide positive personal character references, preferably from members of thecommunity who are not relatives and who are aware that the applicant seeks a license to carry aconcealed weapon.The Chief's moral character determination is discretionary and based on the totality of thecircumstances presented in each individual case.Personal SuitabilityThe applicant must be free of any physical, psychiatric, and/or psychological conditions thatmight negatively impact his or her exercise of sound judgment and/or ability to handle a firearm safely.The SFPD requires applicants to successfully complete a psychological examination.Firearms Training and Range QualificationThe applicant must establish legal ownership and registration of the weapon he or she seeks tocarry concealed and successfully complete a course of firearms training of up to 16 hours, as determinedby the SFPD. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate proficiency and accuracy with the weapon tobe licensed at the SFPD shooting range.Application and Licensing FeesApplication and fingerprinting fees must be paid when the application is submitted. The cost ofpsychological testing and firearms training is the applicant's responsibility. A licensing fee will applywhen a license issues. Please consult the current fee schedule.Further InformationApplication forms, detailed application instructions, and a current fee schedule are availablefrom the SFPD Legal Division at 850 Bryant St., Suite 575, San Francisco, CA. 94103. Applicationsmust be submitted in person. Questions about the application process and other CCW- related inquiriesshould be directed to the Officer-in-Charge, SFPD Legal Division, at (415) 553-1511.

For some reason people seem to believe that the success of demonetisation depends on whether the money comes back or not. That is not a logical conclusion to make, in my humble opinion.Had the money not been deposited in bank accounts, then demonetisation would have completely failed. It is better to have it deposited in the accounts than to not see it at all.Let me explain. Here are some quick facts.We wanted demonetisation to be a tool useful for eradication of black money. That was the stated goal before this exercise started, so I will stick to that, not by the changed goal posts.How do you eradicate black money when you don’t officially know who holds how much? It is estimated that only 6–10% of black money is actually held in cash.Since money is deposited in banks, two things have happened:We are able to identify who that money belongs to. This is out of self declaration. We know how much money was held by whom.We have achieved the first logical step to begin a paper trail that can help us to identify the real owners of black money.Now, I know what you are thinking: it’s all gas, you say! Because it is not easy to trace the money once it is already deposited in someone’s name. Indeed, it’s true that this is not easy. However, there is no other way.What would have happened if the money did not return?The fact that some money did not return would mean that there is someone out there who had so much black money, that he preferred to let all his cash go to waste rather than exposing himself.Imagine this - Notes of Rs 1,000 found floating in holy Ganga river in Varanasi. So there is someone out there who, instead of depositing his notes in the bank, preferred to let it all go to waste. There were people who even left the old currency notes in sacks, like this - 2 Sacks Of Torn 500, 1,000 Rupee Notes Found In Posh Kolkata AreaAre you sure this was good news? Think again.The person who threw those notes in the river had black money worth much more than that. He had it stashed away in illegal foreign holdings, he had it in the form of jewellery, vehicles, land, shell corporations etc. And now we have no way of knowing who that person was.But by depositing that cash, he has opened the door for further investigation. And that can be the real success of demonetisation.We already know that more number of people have started filing income tax returns. Now we have a lot of potential to check the transaction trail. It’s easy to link a person’s income tax returns of the past few years and then match it with the amount of cash deposited by him.If there is anything suspicious (for example, if the cash deposited is more than a certain percentage of the income for the last 5 years), then the income tax department can proceed to initiate an enquiry against that person.When a scrutiny starts, everything else is taken into account - his other assets, his connections with other people, the incomes of his partners and employees and employers. That is how you identify the black money.But if nothing is deposited at all, off you go! At best, it could become a one time theoretical advantage, but nothing substantial to act upon. If the money had not returned, demonetisation would have become a one-time thing with no long term systematic repercussions.Thankfully, it’s not that bad. Money has come back, and we have managed to successfully identify the first person in a trail of transactions.But, from here, we go to the tricky part.The government has a lot of information to start scrutinising the accounts of various individuals in the country. They have a lot of potential, but they need to use it now. Of that, I am a bit suspicious.I would expect more show cause notices now, more income tax raids, the tax officers more alert in identifying the trail of transactions and where the money came from and where it went. It’s all out there.The government should hire experts like Chartered Accountants, or even forensic auditors to identify this. It’s a golden opportunity of the type that never comes so easily in decades. And it’s out there in the open, we only need to seize it and identify the people who have this black money.Only question is: can they do it?Many people have expressed that the cost of printing the currency was too high, and that the hit on the economy’s GDP was also a lot so that it warrants a detailed scrutiny of whether this exercise was successful or not.In my opinion: the benefits will take a lot of time to accrue. If we start rushing to a decision now about whether it’s good or bad, or successful or not, then we are not looking at the bigger picture.The costs have already been incurred, so judging it as failure or success is not going to take it back. But we still have a lot of potential to reap benefits from this. If we want to be a responsible electorate, then we should be asking the government this:How much has the tax collection increased post demonetisation?What is the criteria that the government will select for identifying the accounts that they would like to scrutinise better?How many show cause notices have been served based on the deposits in the bank accounts during this tenure? What is the status of those cases? How is the investigation going?What is the adopted strategy for changing the legal and administrative framework to support the investigation? Are officers being given new responsibilities and powers now?Can we establish fast track courts for resolution of the cases that will inevitably emerge from this scrutiny? Can we ensure that this does not end up being dragged in courts forever?I am keen on that. And the media, as well as the community at large are responsible to ensure that this happens. File an RTI application, as many as you can, to make sure that the costs incurred for demonetisation are justified by the benefits arising out of it.To sum it up, I would just like to say that 99% currency returning in the bank accounts does not define failure or success. However, it lays a good foundation for reaping enough benefits in the future.The success or failure depends on what happens now.Keep a watch.

Oh my favourite legal instrument which makes up most of my professional tool nowadays.The GDPR[1] replaces the current Directive[2] and it is effective from May 2018. Among the new features is the possibility to be fined up to 4% of the global turnover or otherwise be sanctioned including an injunction to cease all commercial activities dealing with personal data, depending on the gravity of the violation.The GDPR is applicable to the US entities to the extent such entities process personal data in order to provide a service or a good within the EU territories. So the processing could actually be in Siberia or the US- the GDPR applies as long as it is intended to be used for purposes on the EU territory. This effect of the GDPR is what we call the long arm of jurisdiction.There are three main routes through which the GDPR is applicable to the US:International data transfers (Art. 44): The entities which deal with the personal data must have adequate safeguards in their country for handling such personal data (if the processing is aimed at providing a service or a good within the EU territory). The adequacy is achieved by a number of ways, the most efficient of which is for the data-receiving country to have its own institution supervising the businesses according to the EU standards. The US currently takes care of that federally. So the US businesses should take great care to follow the FTC’s rules.[3]For the sake of completeness, the cases which deal with the international data transfers up to date are: ComputerServe saga, Lindqvist[4], the Passenger Name Record, the Microsoft Warrant case and the seminal Schrems[5] case. I will not go into analysing those cases, however.Territorial applicability as per Art. 3(1): the GDPR applies to data controllers and processors:that have an “establishment” in the EU, andwhere the data processing takes places “in the context of the activities of such an establishment” whether in the EU or not.So what amounts to an establishment? “Establishment” was defined by the Weltimmo Court[6] (which built its reasoning upon another seminal case the Google v Spain[7] ). Accordingly, an establishment extends to any real and effective activity — even a minimal one — exercised through stable arrangements. There is a two-prong test to be applied if an establishment exists:is the activity of the controller in respect of that processing mainly or entirely directed at that Member State? anddoes that controller have a representative in that Member State, who is responsible for that activity and for representing the controller in the administrative and judicial proceedings relating to the processing of the data concerned?3. Territorial applicability as per Art. 3(2): The GDPR applies to “the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to:the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; orthe monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.”So any US business selling goods or services to the EU, or carrying out profiling of natural persons to be used in the EU territories are subject to the GDPR irrespective of whether they have an office in the EU.Also important to note that the current Directive required that the data controllers (you, the businesses) used equipment in establishing jurisdiction. This equipment concept has caused a lot of confusion and uncertainty, and proved ineffective in including all the means through which it was possible to show a stable existence. After all, this is 2018. Businesses which deal with the Europeans establish themselves without setting up an office or using servers in Europe. So the GDPR removes the difficulties faced by the national authorities and courts in their effort to make a broad reading of the word equipment to include e.g. use of cookies and other technologies without a physical device. In that sense, the GDPR has expanded the applicability of the rules greatly.______________________________________________________________________________Disclaimer: Although it forms the base of a legal advice, this answer is not provided with a view to give legal advice on a specific matter to a specific client. I am not responsible for the ways of interpretation other than which I have explicitly stated herein.Please do get in touch if you need more assistance on the matters of data protection & privacy!Footnotes[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN[2] EUR-Lex - 31995L0046 - EN - EUR-Lex[3] Federal Trade Commission Enforcement of the U.S.-EU and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Frameworks[4] CURIA - List of results[5] CURIA - Documents[6] CURIA - Documents[7] CURIA - List of results