PDA

View Full Version : When can/should we start applying for a CCW?


Window_Seat
04-26-2009, 10:42 PM
No I am not getting impatient, but I'm hoping that it won't be more than 1 year before I can without the so called GC that is "required" under 12050. I would be willing to go to the ALCO Sheriff to apply & be denied, but I don't have the $$ to take them to court, so I'll continue donating to CGF. I know that this won't happen overnight, but I don't believe that it is unreasonable to expect something positive to happen within the next few months. Why not?

Is there a Post Nodyke CGF SICCW legal offense fund that could be initiated? I would be willing to donate a certain amount every 2 weeks (pay periods) for this cause. Meanwhile, $50.00 donated tonight to the CGF.

Erik.

yellowfin
04-26-2009, 10:46 PM
A coordinated effort will be in order.

JDay
04-26-2009, 10:47 PM
TWO WEEKS!

Soldier415
04-26-2009, 10:48 PM
TWO WEEKS!
What he said

Ducman
04-26-2009, 11:41 PM
TWO WEEKS!

but.....that's what they said last week.....


j/k don't mind me, I'm just bored :p

CnCFunFactory
04-27-2009, 12:30 AM
but.....that's what they said last week.....


j/k don't mind me, I'm just bored :p

brutally funny :p

Bob Ragen
04-27-2009, 9:33 PM
I have already been working in the process of getting a CCW. I,m not looking for a lawsuit, I was working on this a couple of months back and now am ready with my Good Cause. I have an appointment on May 12th and am proceeding forward.

Also why is there not a CCW thread, unless I missed it?

CCWFacts
04-27-2009, 10:10 PM
The legal eagles here had better hurry on this. It is only a short amount of time before pro se nuts start filing lawsuits on this.

gotgunz
04-28-2009, 1:28 AM
I have already been working in the process of getting a CCW. I,m not looking for a lawsuit, I was working on this a couple of months back and now am ready with my Good Cause. I have an appointment on May 12th and am proceeding forward.

Also why is there not a CCW thread, unless I missed it?


Don't tease the keyboard commandos about the fact that you live in a pro-ccw county; it upsets them when they realize that ultimately they have the power to move, even though they won't admit that they are the ones that choose to stay and complain. :rolleyes:

Fjold
04-28-2009, 7:31 AM
I had a friend talk to the Sargeant who processes the CCW applications here in Kern County. They usually get 8-10 applications per month.

This month they received over 400 applications.

Standard
04-28-2009, 7:56 AM
Don't tease the keyboard commandos about the fact that you live in a pro-ccw county; it upsets them when they realize that ultimately they have the power to move, even though they won't admit that they are the ones that choose to stay and complain. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: yourself - some of us can't leave a good job to move to a rural county where jobs may not be available and sell our house at a loss in this down economy just to get a CCW that should be available to us here anyways. So yes, we will complain about our local governments not protecting our constitutional rights. :rolleyes:

pullnshoot25
04-28-2009, 8:43 AM
I had a friend talk to the Sargeant who processes the CCW applications here in Kern County. They usually get 8-10 applications per month.

This month they received over 400 applications.

Holy crapballs, batman!

Gryff
04-28-2009, 8:51 AM
Don't tease the keyboard commandos about the fact that you live in a pro-ccw county; it upsets them when they realize that ultimately they have the power to move, even though they won't admit that they are the ones that choose to stay and complain. :rolleyes:

Yeah sure...I'll just jump in the moving van with my wife and stepkids and move to wherever I want. Their father (and his attorney) won't have any problem with it, I'm sure.

Any other stupid glib suggestions?

JDoe
04-28-2009, 9:23 AM
I had a friend talk to the Sargeant who processes the CCW applications here in Kern County. They usually get 8-10 applications per month.

This month they received over 400 applications.

400 applications? Hmmmm...how long does each CCW application take to process including the interview (and denial)?

That could get expensive. :43:

yellowfin
04-28-2009, 9:25 AM
400 applications? Hmmmm...how long does each CCW application take to process including the interview (and denial)?

That could get expensive. :43:
Kern County doesn't deny CCW's for clean applicants.

gotgunz
04-28-2009, 10:58 AM
:rolleyes: yourself - some of us can't leave a good job to move to a rural county where jobs may not be available and sell our house at a loss in this down economy just to get a CCW that should be available to us here anyways. So yes, we will complain about our local governments not protecting our constitutional rights. :rolleyes:


I agree with the housing issue but when the market was hot and every home could be sold in a matter of days at a huge profit the complainers stayed put.


Yeah sure...I'll just jump in the moving van with my wife and stepkids and move to wherever I want. Their father (and his attorney) won't have any problem with it, I'm sure.

Any other stupid glib suggestions?

As someone who has dealt with this ( I have custody of the kid), I know for a fact that there is no judge in the land that would accept a marriage settlement agreement that limits either parties ability to freely move. It's not like you have to leave state or go to the ends of the earth. I can be at the state capitol in less than 40 mins.

Obviously the current state of the economy is dictating alot of what people are doing but this ccw biz has been going on for years and even when people were living high on the hog they complained and stayed put.

Any other whinny comments?

ilbob
04-28-2009, 11:26 AM
My guess is at least several years. Maybe as many as five before you see anything of any substance.

Look at DC. Even after Heller DC is still doing everything they can to prevent people from acquiring firearms and no carry permits are being issued at all.

nic
04-28-2009, 11:33 AM
Gotgunz-
No one in this country should ever have to move in order to exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights. The 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, should be valid no matter where one chooses to live.

Simply moving to a different place in order to get CCW is not only impractical and silly, but it plays right into the anti-gun crowd's agenda of forcing legal gun owners to do things they should not have to do in the first place.

Regards,
Nic

I agree with the housing issue but when the market was hot and every home could be sold in a matter of days at a huge profit the complainers stayed put.




As someone who has dealt with this ( I have custody of the kid), I know for a fact that there is no judge in the land that would accept a marriage settlement agreement that limits either parties ability to freely move. It's not like you have to leave state or go to the ends of the earth. I can be at the state capitol in less than 40 mins.

Obviously the current state of the economy is dictating alot of what people are doing but this ccw biz has been going on for years and even when people were living high on the hog they complained and stayed put.

Any other whinny comments?

Doheny
04-28-2009, 11:49 AM
My guess is at least several years. Maybe as many as five before you see anything of any substance.

I agree. An example is here in Orange County. The sheriff has been quoted as saying that the 2A does not apply to CCW. If a sheriff isn't issuing now, he/she won't be until state law changes requiring it, and that won't be for a number of years.

demnogis
04-28-2009, 11:57 AM
Hopefully here in Orange County we can get to work on replacing Hutchens with a pro-ccw sheriff who will respect and support the peoples' rights. As opposed to... enacting their own agenda.

A bit of a sideways movement; is it true that the OC sheriffs take the whole fee of the CCW before processing an application? I thought the law said they are only to take 20% on application, the rest on acceptance.

gotgunz
04-28-2009, 12:46 PM
Gotgunz-
No one in this country should ever have to move in order to exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights. The 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, should be valid no matter where one chooses to live.

Simply moving to a different place in order to get CCW is not only impractical and silly, but it plays right into the anti-gun crowd's agenda of forcing legal gun owners to do things they should not have to do in the first place.

Regards,
Nic

I don't disagree with the intent of your message but where exactly does it say in the constitution that you or I have a "right" to carry a concealed, loaded firearm?

mblat
04-28-2009, 12:49 PM
The legal eagles here had better hurry on this. It is only a short amount of time before pro se nuts start filing lawsuits on this.

hear, hear!

nic
04-28-2009, 1:10 PM
Right to keep and bear arms seems pretty unambiguous to me.
I know that people seem to like to interpret and reinterpret that word ad nauseum, but I sometimes wonder how the heck you'd bear anything without carrying it...

I don't disagree with the intent of your message but where exactly does it say in the constitution that you or I have a "right" to carry a concealed, loaded firearm?

JDay
04-28-2009, 1:12 PM
I don't disagree with the intent of your message but where exactly does it say in the constitution that you or I have a "right" to carry a concealed, loaded firearm?

Where in the Constitution does it say that we DO NOT have a right to carry concealed? Read the Second Amendment where it clearly states "to keep and bear". I consider the CCW requirement to be an infringement on my rights.

Kid Stanislaus
04-28-2009, 1:55 PM
My guess is at least several years. Maybe as many as five before you see anything of any substance.

Then we get to tackle the provision in the law allowing the sheriff to deny if we can't PROVE we are a person of "good moral character".

Fjold
04-28-2009, 2:29 PM
400 applications? Hmmmm...how long does each CCW application take to process including the interview (and denial)?

That could get expensive. :43:


Here in Kern County you submit your application with your reason.

After the Sheriff's office reviews and approves your reason, they tell you that you are approved conditional to passing the background check, required training, etc. Then you pay your application fee.

DDT
04-28-2009, 2:33 PM
Don't tease the keyboard commandos about the fact that you live in a pro-ccw county; it upsets them when they realize that ultimately they have the power to move, even though they won't admit that they are the ones that choose to stay and complain. :rolleyes:

That makes about as much sense as the GunBroker guys who refuse to sell to CA gun owners and just suggest they move to a more gun friendly state.

Thanks so much for all the support for restoring our 2A rights in CA.

DDT
04-28-2009, 2:35 PM
I don't disagree with the intent of your message but where exactly does it say in the constitution that you or I have a "right" to carry a concealed, loaded firearm?

uh..... the bit that says the government can't infringe on my right to bear arms. I don't know how hard that is to understand. Now, there may be some wiggle room for the government to say that I can bear them, but only openly. But in CA we don't even have that option.

Even if CA tried to deny concealed carry by permitting open carry they'd have to force all off-duty cops to carry the same way to prevent an equal protections suit not to mention all the judges, actors, millionaire donors etc. In other words, it won't fly.

bulgron
04-28-2009, 2:50 PM
Don't tease the keyboard commandos about the fact that you live in a pro-ccw county; it upsets them when they realize that ultimately they have the power to move, even though they won't admit that they are the ones that choose to stay and complain. :rolleyes:

I don't disagree with the intent of your message but where exactly does it say in the constitution that you or I have a "right" to carry a concealed, loaded firearm?

As others have stated, the 2A ought to protect our right to carry a loaded firearm in public somehow or another, without fear of persecution by agents of the state.

But I always wonder why people like you think that running away is the best answer. (e.g. If you don't like your county's CCW policies, then move. If you don't like California's gun laws, then move. Blah, blah, blah.) You can only run away so far, and then the people who want to deny you the right to armed self-defense will catch up to you. See, for example, the current drama in the OC.

You seem to think that everyone on this board who complains about the state of CCW in California is doing only that -- complaining. What a horrible opinion you have of your fellow Calgunners. It seems to me that, instead, people on this board (and others like it) are supporting CalGuns, the NRA, and other such organizations in a myriad of ways including time and cash. We're also all waiting for the green light to start hammering our issuing authorities with CCW requests so that we can push this state to recognize our right to go about in public carrying a gun for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

To my mind, these are not the actions of a bunch of whiners. Rather, these are the actions of a bunch of people working to protect and restore our constitutional rights. And hats off to 'em all.

Gryff
04-28-2009, 3:40 PM
As someone who has dealt with this ( I have custody of the kid), I know for a fact that there is no judge in the land that would accept a marriage settlement agreement that limits either parties ability to freely move...Any other whinny comments?

Yep, that you comments are still idiotic glib and naive.

We're long past her marriage settlement. If we arbitrarily decide to move somewhere now without a strongly compelling reason, we could lose the kids. Just because you're given custody doesn't mean that you can do and go wherever you want, and I'm pretty sure that "Because I want a CCW" won't carry a lot of weight in court.

Any other adolescent unhelpful assertions you'd like to offer?

Untamed1972
04-28-2009, 3:44 PM
It would seem now that 2A has been declared and individual right and has been incorporated to the states it will be easier to now attack the "& bear" part of 2A. Because before it could have been claimed the "& bear" part was refering to bearing arms for the militia. But with 2A being declared an individual right it seems to whittle down quite a bit the wiggle room any legal authority would have to infringe on what "keep & BEAR" means. Simply look the definition up in the dictionary, in the absence of other defining language included in 2A one must go with the most commonly understood meaning of the word. To try and do anything else is just someone obviously trying to deny you a plainly stated right.

JDay
04-28-2009, 3:50 PM
It would seem now that 2A has been declared and individual right and has been incorporated to the states it will be easier to now attack the "& bear" part of 2A. Because before it could have been claimed the "& bear" part was refering to bearing arms for the militia. But with 2A being declared an individual right it seems to whittle down quite a bit the wiggle room any legal authority would have to infringe on what "keep & BEAR" means. Simply look the definition up in the dictionary, in the absence of other defining language included in 2A one must go with the most commonly understood meaning of the word. To try and do anything else is just someone obviously trying to deny you a plainly stated right.

Actually you have to go with the common meaning at the time the Bill of Rights was written. Meanings do change over time. I wonder if we could organize a LOC meet and then file a class action in the 9th circuit court if we were to be prosecuted? Not that I'm suggesting this would be a good thing to do.

CHS
04-28-2009, 3:51 PM
I don't disagree with the intent of your message but where exactly does it say in the constitution that you or I have a "right" to carry a concealed, loaded firearm?

Are you really that dense?

Have you *READ* the Constitution? Pay attention to the Bill of Rights, 2nd amendment. It says:

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Untamed1972
04-28-2009, 4:02 PM
Actually you have to go with the common meaning at the time the Bill of Rights was written. Meanings do change over time. I wonder if we could organize a LOC meet and then file a class action in the 9th circuit court if we were to be prosecuted? Not that I'm suggesting this would be a good thing to do.

Yes...meanings do change but I doubt the meanig of the word "bear" has really changed that kmuch since then. Especially since it's not a very commonly used word anymore. We use the term "carry" now in modern english. To bear in modern english would mean to carry. And there is nothing in 2A like any of the BOR ammendments to indicate that this or any other right was restricted to a person's home only.

Texas Boy
04-28-2009, 5:22 PM
Just like the 2A was the only amendment that didn't apply to individuals, it is now the only amendment that only applies in your home? :rolleyes:

Not buying it. But I do agree that we will probably have to wait years for this to play out in the courts.

G30 Steve
04-28-2009, 5:31 PM
I agree. An example is here in Orange County. The sheriff has been quoted as saying that the 2A does not apply to CCW. If a sheriff isn't issuing now, he/she won't be until state law changes requiring it, and that won't be for a number of years.Even though she swore to uphold the US Constitution her position on enforcing the California Penal Code, at least those sections that fit her left-leaning political agenda, will not change.
IMHO - Until PC 12031 is repealed (by Heller), discretionary issue will continue to be abused by anti-gun CLEO's like Hutchens and her mentor Baca. Once loaded open carry is re-established as the law of the land they'll change their minds about 12025. They'll find concealed carry more acceptable in our civilized society.

Bob Ragen
04-28-2009, 9:22 PM
Don't tease the keyboard commandos about the fact that you live in a pro-ccw county; it upsets them when they realize that ultimately they have the power to move, even though they won't admit that they are the ones that choose to stay and complain. :rolleyes:

Wasn't meaning to start anything. I just wanted to comment that I was going forth with goal of obtaining a CCW. Where I live, to me, really had no bearing. Although El Dorado county may seem Pro-ccw the EDSO still scrutinizes very closely the "Good Cause" so nobody is a shoe in.

By the way I move to EDC in 1990 from Santa Clara County.

gotgunz
04-28-2009, 10:21 PM
As others have stated, the 2A ought to protect our right to carry a loaded firearm in public somehow or another, without fear of persecution by agents of the state.

But, as I understand the 2nd and the recent Heller decision it does not protect you from this. This doesn't mean that I don't think it shouldn't, just that it doesn't.


But I always wonder why people like you think that running away is the best answer. (e.g. If you don't like your county's CCW policies, then move. If you don't like California's gun laws, then move. Blah, blah, blah.) You can only run away so far, and then the people who want to deny you the right to armed self-defense will catch up to you. See, for example, the current drama in the OC.

Careful, you're assuming that I think "running away" is the best answer. I never said that it was. I only stated the obvious; if you are so pissed about the current state of affairs and are unwilling to wait it out, move!


You seem to think that everyone on this board who complains about the state of CCW in California is doing only that -- complaining. What a horrible opinion you have of your fellow Calgunners. It seems to me that, instead, people on this board (and others like it) are supporting CalGuns, the NRA, and other such organizations in a myriad of ways including time and cash. We're also all waiting for the green light to start hammering our issuing authorities with CCW requests so that we can push this state to recognize our right to go about in public carrying a gun for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

Again, you're assuming which is typically a sure fire way to be wrong.


Yep, that you comments are still idiotic glib and naive.


We're long past her marriage settlement. If we arbitrarily decide to move somewhere now without a strongly compelling reason, we could lose the kids. Just because you're given custody doesn't mean that you can do and go wherever you want, and I'm pretty sure that "Because I want a CCW" won't carry a lot of weight in court.

Any other adolescent unhelpful assertions you'd like to offer?

Would you like to take any more shots at my perceived lack of intelligence while you try to explain something that you apparently have no clue about?

Unbeknownst to you, I went through a divorce & child custody battle and I have had custody of my daughter since '95. I did this without an attorney during the O.J. era and I can tell you that the only restriction is that I have to notify the birthing apparatus of any change in address or phone number within 24 hours and must have either her or the courts permission to take the child out of California. I am compelled to think that you have got to be getting low on hot air if you expect anybody to believe that you would lose custody based soley on the fact that you moved. Sorry, I'm not buying it; any other bull**** you'd like to spread?

Are you really that dense?

Have you *READ* the Constitution? Pay attention to the Bill of Rights, 2nd amendment. It says:

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You must be related to Gryff. Would you like to take a shot at my intelligence also?

While I stated opinion, you guys are spewing comments from your pieholes about someone you know nothing about. And for your info I have read the constitution, specifically the second section. I have also read the penal code as well. I, unlike you Mr. Law Professor, do not interpret "bear" as to mean to carry loaded & concealed and that is what I believe the Heller decision said also; Sorry, that is my 'dense' opinion. It is ironic that in all probability you guys were singing the praises of the Heller decision last year until you realized that it didn't completely fit your wants or desires.

What you don't know is that I teach the class for ccw in my local counties. I am very much a supporter of ccw and while I don't advocate that it is for everybody, I think the current set up is prejudiced. It gives the cleo too much authority without any system of checks & balances. Shall issue is certainly the way to go and in my opinion (this means that I alone think this), open carry should be banned as it would be a mute point with ccw. Open carry, again in my opinion does no good for the RKBA causes as it only scares the sheeple and takes the element of surprise away.

My original point is that people like to complain and when you two have had some years pass under your shoes you too will see this as fact; humans are whinners by nature (as proven here time and again). From the tone of your posts it would appear that you need to worry about getting out of high school first.

Perhaps you would like to reply with a comment about my mother? I am frankly surprised that you missed this opportunity. :rolleyes:

Done feeding the trolls.....

bulgron
04-29-2009, 1:11 AM
But, as I understand the 2nd and the recent Heller decision it does not protect you from this. This doesn't mean that I don't think it shouldn't, just that it doesn't.

Do you think that Heller is the end of the road for Second Amendment litigation? Because it isn't.

Heller was important because it killed once and for all the broken idea that the Second Amendment was a collective right. It also said that outright bans on the keeping of arms are unconstitutional.

Heller was largely silent on the bearing of arms (although it did recognize the individual's right to bear arms -- that is, carry them -- within their own home). Why was Heller silent about bearing of arms? Why, because that wasn't the question the litigants were asking the court, of course.

Are people going to be asking the courts about bearing arms in public? You betcha! It just hasn't happened yet. Why not? Why, because first we had to get that sticky business of incorporation out of the way. Which it very nearly is out of the way, now, thanks to Nordyke.

Something that Heller did say was that governments can regulate CCW, because historically (before the constitution was ratified) governments always had regulated CCW. Fair enough. So if the phrase "and bear arms" means anything, then it must mean that people generally have the right to carry arms openly in public.

Of course, the courts may very well say that some form of the bearing of arms must be permitted by the states, but they could leave it up to the states to decide how they want their residents to bear arms. Those states with shall-issue licensing may very well pass constitutional muster, and in those circumstances an individual state might be able to say "shall-issue CCW, but no loaded open carry." Which is what I think CA will end up doing. If the courts agree that's constitutional.

It is also entirely within the realm of possibility that the courts will say that Loaded Open Carry is a constitutionally protected activity, full stop. After all, given originalist examinations, that's clearly what the founders were thinking about, as well as what they practiced.

Of course, we don't really know what form of "bearing arms" is constitutionally protected yet, because no one has yet asked the courts that question. But if I'm reading the tea leaves around here correctly, that question is about to get asked of the courts.

You might not like the idea of Loaded Open Carry (frankly, neither do I), but if that's what's protected then that's what we'll do. Unless California would like to issue us CCWs so as to keep our ugly old pistols out of sight and therefore out of mind, of course.

press1280
04-29-2009, 3:56 AM
Although dicta(I think it would be considered), Heller did paint the picture that the states would have great latitude in regulation of firearms, but all out bans on handguns and carry of handguns would be unconstitutional. The state can outlaw concealed carry but must allow open carry(I assume loaded, since the gun doesn't function without ammo).And the reverse may also be true, like TX allowing concealed but not open carry. But they can't have their cake and eat it too. The 19th century cases cited involved open carry prohibitions(Nunn v. Georgia), and were characterized as one of the few laws coming close to the extreme gun ban in DC. So, indirectly, CA,IL, and no/may-issues are coming close to DC's gun ban at least in SCOTUS' eyes.
I don't think it'll take years to get shall-issue in CA now. What lame excuse can these no-issue counties use? "Well, we gave a CCW to three people last year so we didn't ban it."