PDA

View Full Version : County/City CCW residency requirements?


nicki
07-11-2011, 12:53 PM
A person can go to ANY DMV department in the state to conduct any business regarding their cars.

Is there any merit in attacking the so called "residency requirements"?

I realize that we probably will get some form of "Shall Issue" soon from cases, the problem is I expect many of those sheriffs to foot drag so to speak.

If we eliminated the "residency requirements" and we had a "shall issue", sheriffs in counties that are gun friendly and process permits in a timely manner with no games could find that they are getting a nice influx of applications.

The only issue a local agency could "maybe argue" would be "loss of funds".

Of course the fact that they already were "Losing funds" because they wouldn't process applications in the first place is something they would probably hope the court would overlook.:TFH:

A ruling stating that applicants could go outside their counties, even if they had to pay their counties an additional fee for lost revenues would mean that that argument would be blown out of court.

Yes it would suck to pay an additional 100 dollars, but it would mean people in the anti gun counties could get CCW permits quicker.

Perhaps the extra funds could be held by the courts in escrow until the county is in compliance with CCW rulings.

Nicki

Gray Peterson
07-11-2011, 1:23 PM
A person can go to ANY DMV department in the state to conduct any business regarding their cars.

Is there any merit in attacking the so called "residency requirements"?

I realize that we probably will get some form of "Shall Issue" soon from cases, the problem is I expect many of those sheriffs to foot drag so to speak.

If we eliminated the "residency requirements" and we had a "shall issue", sheriffs in counties that are gun friendly and process permits in a timely manner with no games could find that they are getting a nice influx of applications.

The only issue a local agency could "maybe argue" would be "loss of funds".

Of course the fact that they already were "Losing funds" because they wouldn't process applications in the first place is something they would probably hope the court would overlook.:TFH:

A ruling stating that applicants could go outside their counties, even if they had to pay their counties an additional fee for lost revenues would mean that that argument would be blown out of court.

Yes it would suck to pay an additional 100 dollars, but it would mean people in the anti gun counties could get CCW permits quicker.

Perhaps the extra funds could be held by the courts in escrow until the county is in compliance with CCW rulings.

Nicki

The difference with DMV is that DMV is all statewide standard stuff whereas the sheriff's are discretionary. This is an ancillary issue to the larger question of "is there a right".

As detailed by Professor Kates in a study of California gun law history, until 1969, there was no "County of Residency" requirement. Any resident of the United States could apply for a license, and people in LA could apply to a friendlier county. The urban sheriff's pitched a fit and got that "loophole" closed.

We cannot challenge the residency provisions in California effectively until there is a right that is outside of discretion.

ccmc
07-12-2011, 6:06 AM
We cannot challenge the residency provisions in California effectively until there is a right that is outside of discretion.

Why not? Both MD and NJ are discretionary issue states, yet they allow non-residents to apply.

Quiet
07-12-2011, 7:12 AM
Why not? Both MD and NJ are discretionary issue states, yet they allow non-residents to apply.

MD & NJ state laws are different from CA state laws.

Gray Peterson
07-12-2011, 7:24 AM
Why not? Both MD and NJ are discretionary issue states, yet they allow non-residents to apply.

MD & NJ state laws are different from CA state laws.

Both states allow by statute a non-resident application. However they could decide for whatever reason to not process the applications due to difficulty with background checks (which we all know is false but they are not being challenged by the courts in this regard).

We need a pure carry case win at SCOTUS. Then we can go after "county of residency".

ccmc
07-12-2011, 4:13 PM
Both states allow by statute a non-resident application. However they could decide for whatever reason to not process the applications due to difficulty with background checks (which we all know is false but they are not being challenged by the courts in this regard).

I don't believe this would happen. The permits may difficult to get for residents and non-residents alike, but to take someone's money and then not process the application is too close to criminal theft.

taperxz
07-12-2011, 4:17 PM
I don't believe this would happen. The permits may difficult to get for residents and non-residents alike, but to take someone's money and then not process the application is too close to criminal theft.

Some CA sheriffs have been doing this for years. I don't see any in jail either.

wildhawker
07-12-2011, 4:30 PM
I don't believe this would happen. The permits may difficult to get for residents and non-residents alike, but to take someone's money and then not process the application is too close to criminal theft.

Most likely would be a case where the authority returns the application and fees paid. This happens even here in CA.

-Brandon

Gray Peterson
07-12-2011, 4:40 PM
I don't believe this would happen. The permits may difficult to get for residents and non-residents alike, but to take someone's money and then not process the application is too close to criminal theft.

That's what they do to residents.

ccmc
07-15-2011, 6:15 AM
So I got curious about this and went to MD and NJ state police websites to look at the applications. Not much different than any other applications I've seen except for the references and statement of need (which I guess is simila to California's Good Cause). In MD both residents and non-residents apply to the state police, in NJ it looks like residents apply to their local LEA while non-residents presumably apply to the state police. NJ requires four photographs! What in the world do they need so many for? If I get a wild hair up my you know what, maybe I'll apply to one or the other just to see what happens. I don't even have that option in CA.

nicki
07-15-2011, 10:41 AM
As detailed by Professor Kates in a study of California gun law history, until 1969, there was no "County of Residency" requirement. Any resident of the United States could apply for a license, and people in LA could apply to a friendlier county. The urban sheriff's pitched a fit and got that "loophole" closed.



This is very interesting to me because up to 1967 loaded open carry was legal and we didn't have the "school zone" issue.

I would expect that many people who did carry guns didn't bother with CCW permits because many would just discreetly carry their guns to their cars and then take their guns with them to their businesses.

The passage of the Mulford Act closed that door and probably led to a increase in demand for CCW permits. The urban sheriffs wouldn't issue even though from what I remember from my childhood memories, civil unrest and crime was growing at the end of the 60's.

Would make sense that people would go to other counties.

This puts a new light on "Gene Byrd" and West Isleton back in 1996. Apparently up to 1998, a resident of a county could apply at any LEO in their county.

In practice, Gene Byrd was the only chief in the state who would issue to non city residents in his county(Sacramento). When he had issued over 1000 permits, then Sheriff Lou Blanas had his friend then State Sen Tim Johnson push through a bill closing that option.

Seems to me there is a "pattern" here to eliminate average folks ability to carry any kind of firearm. Of course many of these sheriffs if they had their way would eliminate private gun ownership.

Nicki

ccmc
07-27-2011, 6:30 AM
Most likely would be a case where the authority returns the application and fees paid. This happens even here in CA.

-Brandon

OK, anecdotally not the case. We'll see where it goes.

MudCamper
07-27-2011, 9:26 AM
The thing is, the current 12050 requirement is for "residence", not "primary" nor "permanent" residence. It just states:

(D)For the purpose of subparagraph (A), the applicant shall satisfy any one of the following:

(i)Is a resident of the county or a city within the county.

So if I am camped in a local campground, or staying in a local hotel, I legally am a resident. Temporary or part-time resident, but resident none the less.

The PC even goes so far as to state this:

(4)(A)The licensee shall notify the licensing authority in writing within 10 days of any change in the licensee's place of residence.

(B)If the license is one to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, then it may not be revoked solely because the licensee changes his or her place of residence to another county if the licensee has not breached any conditions or restrictions set forth in the license and has not become prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. However, any license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall expire 90 days after the licensee moves from the county of issuance if the licensee's place of residence was the basis for issuance of the license.

So the PC explicitly states that you can move to another county and the permit is still valid.

The problem is, the County Sheriffs have added the "primary" or "permanent" resident requirement themselves. If we had a true pro-2A Sheriff somewhere (like Sheriff Palmer in OR), he could issue permits to temporary residents.

Gray Peterson
07-27-2011, 9:49 AM
The thing is, the current 12050 requirement is for "residence", not "primary" nor "permanent" residence. It just states:



So if I am camped in a local campground, or staying in a local hotel, I legally am a resident. Temporary or part-time resident, but resident none the less.

The PC even goes so far as to state this:

So the PC explicitly states that you can move to another county and the permit is still valid.

The problem is, the County Sheriffs have added the "primary" or "permanent" resident requirement themselves. If we had a true pro-2A Sheriff somewhere (like Sheriff Palmer in OR), he could issue permits to temporary residents.

Not worth the drama insofar as the sheriff's are concerned, even the really supposedly "pro-gun" ones.

Better idea is to A) Win Richards and then B) File a Peterson-style case against a sheriff.

wildhawker
07-27-2011, 10:18 AM
Not worth the drama insofar as the sheriff's are concerned, even the really supposedly "pro-gun" ones.

Better idea is to A) Win Richards and then B) File a Peterson-style case against a sheriff.

Yes, agreed.

Also, Mudcamper, the legislative history of PC 12050 et seq clearly cuts against your interpretation. There zero chance that case goes anywhere, and no licensing authority in California would be imprudent enough to be the next Eugene Byrd.

-Brandon

ccmc
07-27-2011, 10:57 AM
The thing is, the current 12050 requirement is for "residence", not "primary" nor "permanent" residence. It just states:



So if I am camped in a local campground, or staying in a local hotel, I legally am a resident. Temporary or part-time resident, but resident none the less.

The PC even goes so far as to state this:



So the PC explicitly states that you can move to another county and the permit is still valid.

The problem is, the County Sheriffs have added the "primary" or "permanent" resident requirement themselves. If we had a true pro-2A Sheriff somewhere (like Sheriff Palmer in OR), he could issue permits to temporary residents.

Interesting idea. There was a thread on another forum about non-resident CA permits. Someone posted that there were actually a couple of pro-gun sheriffs that did indeed issue to non-residents but the loophole was closed about 10 years ago (supposedly due to intense lobbying by anti-gun sheriffs). I know that when I emailed one of the more gun friendly sheriff departments in CA they told me it was their POLICY to only accept applications from county residents, and they were unaware of any LE agencies within CA that didn't have this policy or if it would even be legal under state law.

Gray Peterson
07-27-2011, 11:26 AM
Yes, agreed.

Also, Mudcamper, the legislative history of PC 12050 et seq clearly cuts against your interpretation. There zero chance that case goes anywhere, and no licensing authority in California would be imprudent enough to be the next Eugene Byrd.

-Brandon

To be clear: Eugene Byrd never issued to non-residents of the County of Sacramento or even temporary residents. His enemies in the Sheriff's Office (Sheriff Craig and Undersheriff Blanas) repeatedly made that claim and the media like lapdogs reported this as fact in order to smear Chief Byrd.

This excuse was also used by DOJ (headed up by AG Dan Lungren) when they essentially stopped processing applications for Byrd. SAF filed a writ of mandate suit on CalDOJ to force them to process the background checks for permit applications, because the law states that issuing authorities cannot issue before receiving the DOJ background check report. CalDOJ made this claim before the Sacramento County Superior Court saying it as fact, but when asked to provide actual proof they couldn't produce any. Of course, the media did not report this. This is where the "legend of Gene Byrd issuing carry licenses to out of county people and out of staters" came from.

wildhawker
07-27-2011, 11:33 AM
I'm not sure that's entirely correct, Gray. I don't doubt that it was leveraged, and indeed, the legend became part of the official record.

That said, it doesn't practically matter. Byrd will forever be known as "that guy", and so would any licensing authority that tries something wonky on a losing issue.

-Brandon

To be clear: Eugene Byrd never issued to non-residents of the County of Sacramento or even temporary residents. His enemies in the Sheriff's Office (Sheriff Craig and Undersheriff Blanas) repeatedly made that claim and the media like lapdogs reported this as fact in order to smear Chief Byrd.

This excuse was also used by DOJ (headed up by AG Dan Lungren) when they essentially stopped processing applications for Byrd. SAF filed a writ of mandate suit on CalDOJ to force them to process the background checks for permit applications, because the law states that issuing authorities cannot issue before receiving the DOJ background check report. CalDOJ made this claim before the Sacramento County Superior Court saying it as fact, but when asked to provide actual proof they couldn't produce any. Of course, the media did not report this. This is where the "legend of Gene Byrd issuing carry licenses to out of county people and out of staters" came from.

MudCamper
07-27-2011, 1:38 PM
Yes, agreed.

Also, Mudcamper, the legislative history of PC 12050 et seq clearly cuts against your interpretation.

Well I'm not interpreting it. I'm quoting it. They use the term "residence". Residence is used in many other parts of the PC, and never does it equate to "permanent" or "primary". It always includes temporary. Primary or permanent residence would be "domicile".

But I'm not disagreeing with you though about legislative intent nor how it would likely end up if in court. If I were a millionaire, I might take up that fight (along with many others!).

wildhawker
07-27-2011, 1:46 PM
Well I'm not interpreting it. I'm quoting it. They use the term "residence". Residence is used in many other parts of the PC, and never does it equate to "permanent" or "primary". It always includes temporary. Primary or permanent residence would be "domicile".

But I'm not disagreeing with you though about legislative intent nor how it would likely end up if in court. If I were a millionaire, I might take up that fight (along with many others!).

Fair 'nuff, but I'd rather you donate that millions to cases that can win. ;)

-Brandon

mej16489
07-27-2011, 2:39 PM
So the PC explicitly states that you can move to another county and the permit is still valid.


...but it would still expire in 90 days.

ccmc
07-27-2011, 6:13 PM
...but it would still expire in 90 days.

And that's how long non-resident permits were valid on the rare occasions they were issued. And I believe they were only valid in the county where issued, not statewide. Hard to believe that California can get away with this kind of BS, but I guess New York does as well.

AVgunGUY
08-18-2011, 9:27 PM
Gray/Brandon -

So - on a not so hypothetical basis - if I had a home in Orange County where my weekdays are spent and a home in Riverside where I spend some weekends, I think I would fall under the the "primary"/"secondary" type situation. Specifically, both OC and RIV would likely view my residence as OC. But if I spend 10 of the 20 hours I work a week physically in Riverside (50% of my work week) managing properties, would the combination of the two give me enough in RIV to apply successfully.

Prior to this thread I had mentally gone down the path that i reside in OC and don't spend "substantial time working" in RIV (10 hours a week).

I had assumed that even if I could apply saying that I had substantial time working in RIV the SO would look at it pragmatically as I only spend 25% of a normal work week and not enough time to call it my primary residence.

I guess the real question is, if you have a little of both 12050(a)(1)(D)(i) and (ii) can they be combined to satisfy (D) overall?

Tango-Alpha
08-18-2011, 10:38 PM
To determine which is your primary residence it could be as simple as finding out what address you listed on your tax return as your primary residence.

Gray/Brandon -

So - on a not so hypothetical basis - if I had a home in Orange County where my weekdays are spent and a home in Riverside where I spend some weekends, I think I would fall under the the "primary"/"secondary" type situation. Specifically, both OC and RIV would likely view my residence as OC. But if I spend 10 of the 20 hours I work a week physically in Riverside (50% of my work week) managing properties, would the combination of the two give me enough in RIV to apply successfully.

Prior to this thread I had mentally gone down the path that i reside in OC and don't spend "substantial time working" in RIV (10 hours a week).

I had assumed that even if I could apply saying that I had substantial time working in RIV the SO would look at it pragmatically as I only spend 25% of a normal work week and not enough time to call it my primary residence.

I guess the real question is, if you have a little of both 12050(a)(1)(D)(i) and (ii) can they be combined to satisfy (D) overall?

AVgunGUY
08-18-2011, 11:00 PM
Tax returns, DL, gym card, Starbucks card - all OC.

But I was going for something more subtle - I don't think my primary residence is RIV, so it would not be possible to tell the SO something different.

Up until now I also would not have thought that the time I spend working in RIV was enough by itself - very little time thinking here - so I could be way off base.

But if I combine the two it seems (at least from a simpletons view) that I have a closer nexus to RIV that would seem to give the RCSO some authority to issue (perceived or otherwise).

I'm trying not to argue the statutory point - just the SO's perception that they could accept the application.

If it is as simple as having documentation showing the RIV address - a tax return wouldn't be a big deal, DL would also seem simple enough - but it would not change the fact that I physically spend more time at the property located in OC. if asked where my PRIMARY residence is, I would answer honestly OC.