PDA

View Full Version : CCW in LA County?


devildog999
03-14-2009, 10:49 PM
Quick question for you guys that might know a little something about CCW in LA County.

Is it even possible to actually get a CCW in LA County? I live in Santa Clarita and haven't looked into it too much, always thought it wasn't likely to get one out here, but is it possible? Anyone have a CA CCW in LA County?

Thanks in advance

Quiet
03-14-2009, 10:57 PM
Is it even possible to actually get a CCW in LA County?

NO.

Los Angeles County is near impossible to obtain a CCW permit.

devildog999
03-14-2009, 11:58 PM
NO.

Los Angeles County is near impossible to obtain a CCW permit.

I figured as much :(

I figure you gotta be a LEO to obtain one

Jonathan Doe
03-15-2009, 6:56 AM
LEOs do not need the CCW. They are authorized to carry anyways. Some small cities are easier to get the CCW. One time I saw Gary Coleman had a CCW from Culver City.

Kingofthehill
03-15-2009, 8:26 AM
Im in Santa Clarita too... I researched it to death and YUP... impossible.

JOe

rabagley
03-15-2009, 9:07 AM
Contribute to the sheriff's re-election campaign to the point that you get noticed. Then ask him for a favor.

It's the only way you've got a chance in LA.

Spearo
03-15-2009, 9:37 AM
What a bunch of bs.

fleegman
03-15-2009, 10:54 AM
I moved to the Santa Clarita area in 1998 with an official notification that my ex had been detained for trying to hire a hitman to kill me and my kids. Still couldn't get a CCW.

nick
03-15-2009, 11:04 AM
LEOs do not need the CCW. They are authorized to carry anyways. Some small cities are easier to get the CCW. One time I saw Gary Coleman had a CCW from Culver City.

Odd. I checked, and it looks like Culver City, like most other cities in L.A. County, outsourced its CCW issuance to LASD. Maybe they made an exception in his case.

CSACANNONEER
03-15-2009, 11:08 AM
It's easier to get a CCW in LA than in SF or San Mateo County but, that's not saying much.

nick
03-15-2009, 11:41 AM
It's easier to get a CCW in LA than in SF or San Mateo County but, that's not saying much.

Glad to see you got a good micrometer for the AK build party :p

Colt
03-15-2009, 1:26 PM
Odd. I checked, and it looks like Culver City, like most other cities in L.A. County, outsourced its CCW issuance to LASD. Maybe they made an exception in his case.

Yeah, but it was a small exception...

PressCheck
03-15-2009, 1:39 PM
Contribute to the sheriff's re-election campaign to the point that you get noticed. Then ask him for a favor.

It's the only way you've got a chance in LA.


OLD Wives Tale.

Jonathan Doe
03-15-2009, 4:17 PM
I know personally someone who has a CCW in LA county. I think he has a political ties with someone high up.

devildog999
03-15-2009, 7:47 PM
I moved to the Santa Clarita area in 1998 with an official notification that my ex had been detained for trying to hire a hitman to kill me and my kids. Still couldn't get a CCW.

Now that my friend is a genuine load of BS!! (the part about them not issuing a CCW, I would think that what your wife did would be reason enough to be issued one)

MMA Ryan
03-15-2009, 10:15 PM
I have a friend in Santa Clarita Valley that has a CCW permit. The catch, he obtained his permit in Kern County as he has a house up the 5 freeway in Frazier Park.

TheBundo
03-15-2009, 10:21 PM
I moved to the Santa Clarita area in 1998 with an official notification that my ex had been detained for trying to hire a hitman to kill me and my kids. Still couldn't get a CCW.

I believe you don't need a CCW to legally carry under death threats. I believe there is a loophole in the law.

Quiet
03-15-2009, 11:29 PM
I believe you don't need a CCW to legally carry under death threats. I believe there is a loophole in the law.

You will still be arrested for and charged with carrying concealed without a permit. It needs to be proven during trial that you were in "grave danger", in order to not get convicted of carrying concealed without a permit. That's if you have a current restraining order on the person that is threatening you.

If you have no restraining order, then you can have a loaded weapon in public only when you are in "immediate" grave danger. "Immediate" being the time period you contact LE and LE arriving at your location.


Penal Code 12025.5
(a) A violation of Section 12025 is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety. This section may not apply when the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person's life or safety. It is not the intent of the Legislature to limit, restrict, or narrow the application of current statutory or judicial authority to apply this or other justifications to defendants charged with violating Section 12025 or of committing other similar offenses.
(b) Upon trial for violating Section 12025, the trier of fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief that he or she was in grave danger.

Penal Code 12031
(j)(1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its assistance.
(2) A violation of this section is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety. This paragraph may not apply when the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person's life or safety. It is not the intent of the Legislature to limit, restrict, or narrow the application of current statutory or judicial authority to apply this or other justifications to defendants charged with violating Section 12025 or of committing other similar offenses.
Upon trial for violating this section, the trier of fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief that he or she was in grave danger.

TheBundo
03-15-2009, 11:56 PM
You will still be arrested for and charged with carrying concealed without a permit. It needs to be proven during trial that you were in "grave danger", in order to not get convicted of carrying concealed without a permit. That's if you have a current restraining order on the person that is threatening you.

If you have no restraining order, then you can have a loaded weapon in public only when you are in "immediate" grave danger. "Immediate" being the time period you contact LE and LE arriving at your location.


Penal Code 12025.5
(a) A violation of Section 12025 is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety. This section may not apply when the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person's life or safety. It is not the intent of the Legislature to limit, restrict, or narrow the application of current statutory or judicial authority to apply this or other justifications to defendants charged with violating Section 12025 or of committing other similar offenses.
(b) Upon trial for violating Section 12025, the trier of fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief that he or she was in grave danger.

Penal Code 12031
(j)(1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its assistance.
(2) A violation of this section is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety. This paragraph may not apply when the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person's life or safety. It is not the intent of the Legislature to limit, restrict, or narrow the application of current statutory or judicial authority to apply this or other justifications to defendants charged with violating Section 12025 or of committing other similar offenses.
Upon trial for violating this section, the trier of fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief that he or she was in grave danger.


I assumed that, if they hired a hitman, it would likely have led to a restraining order

Seesm
03-16-2009, 12:57 AM
THat is total B.S. I think we all should be able to carry concealed and people woudl be waay nicer... Oh wait I have said this before...

mej16489
03-16-2009, 3:14 PM
Odd. I checked, and it looks like Culver City, like most other cities in L.A. County, outsourced its CCW issuance to LASD. Maybe they made an exception in his case.

That was likely back when it was not required that you actually be a resident of the issueing city. Back in the early 90s the Chief of Police for Culver City would issue CCWs to any LA County resident.