PDA

View Full Version : CGF Blog: On the heels of AB 144, CGF publishes statewide carry license statistics


wildhawker
10-11-2011, 2:21 AM
Especially significant in light of California Gov. Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr.'s signing of AB 144 into law - a piece of legislation that does nothing but frustrate the rights of law-abiding gun owners - Calguns Foundation has published statistics on all active carry licenses and licensing authorities across the state.

Note that the 2011 statewide audit report (generated from a historic release of information from DOJ) includes data on all types of active licenses (civilian, judicial, reserve officer, custodial) from all licensing authorities in the state. It's a must-see for anyone who cares about the state of licensing here in California. Read more at the link.

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/blog/entry/on-the-heels-of-ab-144-cgf-publishes-2011-statewide-carry-license-stats.html

I want to thank MatrixCPA for his amazing efforts, patience, and willingness to dive into this significant project of organizing, compiling, and reporting the DOJ 2011 audit data. Without his help, the report simply could not have been done on this schedule or as professionally rendered. Buy him a beer when you see him.

I'd also like to thank our resident Librarian for being a tremendous contributor on this project. I'm not sure how he not only knows, but remembers, so many different things, but he just simply makes things happen. As with MatrixCPA, buy Librarian a beer next chance you get.

Please, friends, consider making a donation (https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/donate.html) to support future efforts like this one. Freedom really isn't free (nor does it allow for much sleep).

-Brandon

jaymz
10-11-2011, 4:09 AM
Very nice work guys!

Ubermcoupe
10-11-2011, 4:41 AM
Awesome job, keep up the great work guys! :thumbsup:

GrizzlyGuy
10-11-2011, 4:58 AM
Nice work!

One suggestion for improvement: add a column to the summary table (or create a second table) that shows the Per 1,000 Adult Residents number(s) for each county. You could choose to show the Civilian and Law Enforcement/Government Employees numbers along with the total, but the total is probably of the most interest to people in summary format.

I heard once that DOJ can also provide the total number of applications approved and rejected by each agency. If that data really is available it would be nice to include it as well.

SanPedroShooter
10-11-2011, 5:24 AM
Wow. So the final total is about 1 legally carried handgun for every 1000 California residents?

Also, I was suprised to see that a small local PD near me had issued 2 LTC's. This means they have to take all apps right? It is a very wealthy community, maybe one of the wealthiest in the state. I imagine they never declared "g" or whatever so they could provide this "service" to their residents. Maybe I should call and ask for an application...;)

tgriffin
10-11-2011, 5:52 AM
Impressive that the overwhelming majority of counties saw an increase in permits issued. Great work CGF.

zonzin
10-11-2011, 5:57 AM
Unbelievable,,

San Francisco 0

Civilian 0.00000

Law Enforcement/Government Employees 0.00000

San Francisco Total (Adult Residents: 697,711)

HowardW56
10-11-2011, 6:22 AM
Kudos to MatrixCPA, he did a ton of work on this one.....

Zimz
10-11-2011, 6:44 AM
Unbelievable,,

San Francisco 0

Civilian 0.00000

Law Enforcement/Government Employees 0.00000

San Francisco Total (Adult Residents: 697,711)

LA co is just as bad if you look at the 7+ million residents. Twice as many LE have licences over the few civilians.

ubet
10-11-2011, 6:48 AM
Is their any data out there to cross reference this with how many apps were turned in? To give a ratio of approved to denied?

Apparently even difi isnt important enough to have a ccw anymore.

Python2
10-11-2011, 6:52 AM
Very impressive, worth my contribution, guess its time again. Thank you folks.

sacto929
10-11-2011, 7:19 AM
The numbers for the large metro counties (SF, LA, SB, SD, Bay Area...) are really not too surprising given their bend toward the left. What is surprising is that several "rural" counties (Imperial, Kings, Merced, El Dorado) are below 4 LTC per 1,000 residents. Even the counties with "high" numbers are only in the teens or 20's per 1,000 residents. That works out to less than 2% of adults have LTC, even in SI counties, for the most part. Of course, the data regarding applied vs. rejected, prohibited, etc., is not shown, but the numbers certainly do not make the case for "...everyone will have a gun on their hips..." and "...blood will run in the streets..." like so many on the anti side like to tout.

Thanks for the data, CGF. I've added you to my charitable giving campaign through work! :D

Untamed1972
10-11-2011, 7:24 AM
Interesting that in San Diego county both El Cajon and La Mesa PD are show to have currently active issued LTCs from both of those agencies despite having declared "g" and giving issuing authority to the Sheriff.

Tier One Arms
10-11-2011, 7:31 AM
Great job with the data

duane_black
10-11-2011, 7:33 AM
Very interesting stuff. Thanks for all the hard work on this. I need to move to Shasta County it would seem.

:)

Ubermcoupe
10-11-2011, 7:34 AM
I was actually surprised by SCC SO issuing 55 civilian LTCs. I figured it would have been lower.

sfpcservice
10-11-2011, 8:26 AM
I'm noticing may of the PD's in counties that are "No Issue" have about 1-3 Civilian permits out. I wouldn't be surprised if those were Council Members or City Managers. It would be icing on the cake if this could be confirmed and published if true.

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 8:30 AM
Is their any data out there to cross reference this with how many apps were turned in? To give a ratio of approved to denied?

Yes and no. We do have data going to "pending" (meaning that DOJ has not received any notice of approval/denial/cancellation yet), and data of approval/denial/revocation/prohibited status. These will be the basis for some additional reports in the future. Ultimately, we expect that data from the licensing authorities themselves will afford us a different, more focused look at their actual rate of application/denial.

The data in the report released today are active licenses as reported by DOJ (remember that licensing authorities must report to DOJ), who collects and retains the information under authority of this section of the Penal Code:

12053. (a) A record of the following shall be maintained in the
office of the licensing authority:
(1) The denial of a license.
(2) The denial of an amendment to a license.
(3) The issuance of a license.
(4) The amendment of a license.
(5) The revocation of a license.
(b) Copies of each of the following shall be filed immediately by
the issuing officer or authority with the Department of Justice:
(1) The denial of a license.
(2) The denial of an amendment to a license.
(3) The issuance of a license.
(4) The amendment of a license.
(5) The revocation of a license.
(c) Commencing on or before January 1, 2000, and annually
thereafter, each licensing authority shall submit to the Attorney
General the total number of licenses issued to peace officers,
pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 12050, and to judges, pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 12050. The Attorney
General shall collect and record the information submitted pursuant
to this subdivision by county and licensing authority.

-Brandon

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 8:49 AM
I'm noticing may of the PD's in counties that are "No Issue" have about 1-3 Civilian permits out. I wouldn't be surprised if those were Council Members or City Managers. It would be icing on the cake if this could be confirmed and published if true.

I think one of the values of this report is exactly what you and Untamed1972 highlight. Now that we have the Ambassador program setup and preparing to roll, we will soon see exactly what is up there...

MatrixCPA
10-11-2011, 9:10 AM
I want to thank MatrixCPA for his amazing efforts...Buy him a beer when you see him.

For the record, I'm not much of a beer drinker. I prefer the hard stuff. :cool2:

Connor P Price
10-11-2011, 9:18 AM
For the record, I'm not much of a beer drinker. I prefer the hard stuff. :cool2:

Fair enough, either way, kudos are in order!
:King:

Untamed1972
10-11-2011, 9:23 AM
I think one of the values of this report is exactly what you and Untamed1972 highlight. Now that we have the Ambassador program setup and preparing to roll, we will soon see exactly what is up there...

Question.....once a PD has declared "g" does that make any LTC they issue following that invalid?

If that PD had issued an LTC prior to declaring "g", does declaring "g" then preclude them renewing previously issued LTCs?

sfpcservice
10-11-2011, 9:42 AM
I think one of the values of this report is exactly what you and Untamed1972 highlight. Now that we have the Ambassador program setup and preparing to roll, we will soon see exactly what is up there...

Actually, the more I think about this the more I believe it may be a pivotal factor in proving the injustice of the current system. I recall reading a book that mentioned "all animals on the farm are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

Awaiting the death punch sound. :90:

Ubermcoupe
10-11-2011, 10:11 AM
For the record, I'm not much of a beer drinker. I prefer the hard stuff. :cool2:

Dark or Light?

Whiskey is my forte'.

MatrixCPA
10-11-2011, 10:28 AM
Dark or Light?

Whiskey is my forte'.

I prefer dark--whiskey or rum. A mixed drink I invented is the White Captain. It's a White Russian with Capt. Morgan's Spiced Rum instead of the vodka. It's a million times better. :)

TNP'R
10-11-2011, 10:31 AM
Not to down play the numbers but as the blog says
Of California's 28,000,000 adults, only about 33,000 "civilians" are currently licensed to carry a firearm in the state

33,000 people, thats not a big number in the grand scheme of things however that is a big enough number to do damage I mean if the brady campaign is right and that who ever owns a gun is a lunatic then there's 33,000 people out there ready to kill! 33,000 people do not go out and commit murders every day in this state I would like to see the number climb over 1 million. It's time this state becomes a threat to criminals and not to law abiding citizens.

m03
10-11-2011, 10:42 AM
Actually, the more I think about this the more I believe it may be a pivotal factor in proving the injustice of the current system. I recall reading a book that mentioned "all animals on the farm are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others".


You're thinking of Animal Farm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm).

Shenaniguns
10-11-2011, 10:52 AM
Awesome!

Just Dave
10-11-2011, 11:08 AM
Unbelievable,,

San Francisco 0

Civilian 0.00000

Law Enforcement/Government Employees 0.00000

San Francisco Total (Adult Residents: 697,711)

Looks like their only CCW moved.

not-fishing
10-11-2011, 11:12 AM
I prefer dark--whiskey or rum. A mixed drink I invented is the White Captain. It's a White Russian with Capt. Morgan's Spiced Rum instead of the vodka. It's a million times better. :)

Every so often I have to take my pain medicine at night.

It's for the violently torn right shoulder that was never repaired 25 years ago, the ripped knee not-fixed 40 years ago, the bad back from decades of pouring / finishing concrete - framing then lifting walls / beams.

I put a shot of coffee in my bigger mug.

Then 5 Mississippi's (free pour) of Scotch, Burbon, Irish, Rum, Tequela or what ever I have that's over 90 proof (as long as it's not gin). They all come in big cheap bottles (sometimes plastic).

A shot of Dunnigans irish cream (the cheap stuff in big bottles).

A minute on the nuke.

Then I sit read a little and sip my medicine. :D

After reading about the last Bill's that Jerry signed, I needed two doses of Medicine. :36:

I hope all those involved with the CCW listing well. I also hope you don't mind if I post excerpts of the data in the "Comments" section of the Sacramento Bee as often as I can.

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 11:12 AM
SF's sole LTC holder is still an employee of the Sheriff's Office.

Paul S
10-11-2011, 11:25 AM
Question.....once a PD has declared "g" does that make any LTC they issue following that invalid?

If that PD had issued an LTC prior to declaring "g", does declaring "g" then preclude them renewing previously issued LTCs?

You're killin'' me here. I thought I was fairly well dialed into most of the slang and acronyms used here...but I am LOST on this one. :confused:

Flintlock Tom
10-11-2011, 11:35 AM
And, of course, the statistics do not show the number of would-be applicants who did not apply because they were told it would be denied.
So when a particular Sheriff's office claims to have approved 90% of all applications, it's completely meaningless because he only allowed 10% to apply.

Untamed1972
10-11-2011, 11:52 AM
You're killin'' me here. I thought I was fairly well dialed into most of the slang and acronyms used here...but I am LOST on this one. :confused:

"g" is a subsection paragraph in the penal code which allows a municpal PD to cede CCW issuing authority to the Sheriff of the county they are in.

Declaring "g" is where the PD issues a letter of agreement to allow the sheriff to be the issuing authority.

Legally, once a PD declares "g" they cannot issue LTCs to anyone. Either they issue, or they dont, but they can't tell some people to go to the Sheriff and then also issue to those who they want to issue to.

So that's why I noted, in SD county there are 2 PD's which have declared "g", yet seem to still have issued LTCs also, despite being prohibited by "g" from doing so.

Paul S
10-11-2011, 12:13 PM
Untamed:

Thanks for the clarification.. much appreciated.

trashman
10-11-2011, 12:14 PM
SF's sole LTC holder is still an employee of the Sheriff's Office.

How come it's not noted in the stats? I know you guys were assuming that the LTC would get voluntarily surrendered or revoked...

--Neill

Legasat
10-11-2011, 12:23 PM
Great job to get those stats. I know it took a lot of hard work.

Keep them coming!!!

navyinrwanda
10-11-2011, 2:21 PM
What is the goal of this effort?

Crom
10-11-2011, 2:32 PM
So that's why I noted, in SD county there are 2 PD's which have declared "g", yet seem to still have issued LTCs also, despite being prohibited by "g" from doing so.

It appears that La Mesa PD issued a permit to a Judge, and El Cajon PD issued a permit to one civilian. It's very interesting indeed. I think this warrants investigating.

DEPUTYBILL
10-11-2011, 2:37 PM
Sorry if I missed it,but are reired officers/deputies counted in the issued? if so,are they under law enforcement or civilian?

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 3:03 PM
Sorry if I missed it,but are reired officers/deputies counted in the issued? if so,are they under law enforcement or civilian?

Retirees would need to be classed as a "civilian", so they are reported as such.

-Brandon

armygunsmith
10-11-2011, 3:13 PM
Very nice work! Thanks!

hoffmang
10-11-2011, 3:23 PM
What is the goal of this effort?

A couple of the key items in no order and not exhaustive.

1. Is your county/city shall issue? This is a pretty strong indicator.

2. How is the CGF carry initiative working? You can see the impacts in certain counties.

3. Is CGF getting a complete set of Public Records when requested?

4. When counties are forced to go shall issue, how many applicants should they expect? Very useful in moving some folks off the fence as a purely pragmatic manner in front of a Supreme Court decision on carry.

This data does show that we were doubly correct to focus on Sheriffs.

-Gene

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 3:23 PM
What is the goal of this effort?

We've discussed it here quite a bit, as well as at www.calgunsfoundation.org in various blogs and press releases.

To summarize:

* Open-government Sunshine component to inform public/news/stakeholders with objective licensing data (going to actual issuance/denial, contours of policies (written and as-applied).

* Compliance component: with state law, 14A EP.

* One-stop shop of all current forms and application instructions.

* LTC application experience feedback form for data collection going to underground issues we might not catch in public records.

* CGF best practices.

* Soon: LTC applicant help desk & local Ambassadors to engage with licensing authorities, applicants, and in 'meatspace' forums (ranges, gun clubs, Rotary, etc.) to educate on current 2A/bear news and LTC info.

* A few other things we can't discuss openly just yet.

-Brandon

Librarian
10-11-2011, 3:32 PM
4. When counties are forced to go shall issue, how many applicants should they expect? Very useful in moving some folks off the fence as a purely pragmatic manner in front of a Supreme Court decision on carry.

This one has some further interest for me; consider the appointment systems and actual time-to-issue by various agencies. 'Issue eventually' is far better than 'issue never', but this function needs to be brought in line with other licensing and permitting activities.

At some point the issuing agencies will need to come to one of two conclusions: 'we need more staff to do this' OR 'we need a streamlined process that will work with the staff we have'.

The issuing agencies would be helped some if the length-of-issue were longer than 2 years, but that's out of their control.

navyinrwanda
10-11-2011, 6:07 PM
A couple of the key items in no order and not exhaustive.

1. Is your county/city shall issue? This is a pretty strong indicator.

2. How is the CGF carry initiative working? You can see the impacts in certain counties.

3. Is CGF getting a complete set of Public Records when requested?

4. When counties are forced to go shall issue, how many applicants should they expect? Very useful in moving some folks off the fence as a purely pragmatic manner in front of a Supreme Court decision on carry.

This data does show that we were doubly correct to focus on Sheriffs.

-Gene
I was asking specifically about the data compilation announced above (and not ancillary efforts) since CGF claimed that this compilation consumed considerable resources – and used this claim to solicit more contributions.

So I'm still not clear on why this data (particularly only in this raw form) is so important. Surely there are other readily available sources that can inform residents as to whether or not their locality is “shall issue?” Or if it's intended to provide internal metrics on other CGF programs, how will this one-time snapshot show progress? Or is this just the first year of data in an ongoing collection program? If it's intended to verify local sheriff compliance with public records requests, why is it vital to insure that each and every license application is released (i.e., how many applications stating “self defense” as good cause are enough)? And if it is, are you doing so? And, if so, when can we expect to see reports? Finally, is it appropriate for CGF to expend donor funds now to inform sheriffs about future service obligations that may not occur for at least another year (or longer)?

There are obviously many different restrictions imposed on self-defense rights by various California jurisdictions. It's important to have clarity – and accountability – on how publicly-solicited contributions are used to fight these restrictions.

hoffmang
10-11-2011, 6:32 PM
I was asking specifically about the data compilation announced above (and not ancillary efforts) since CGF claimed that this compilation consumed considerable resources – and used this claim to solicit more contributions.


Did you even read my post?

We have reasons to worry that certain applications are "overlooked" when reported to us but of course can not be over looked when reported to CA DOJ as that would make the carrier look like he has a forged license.

And this program cost time and more time, not money directly. What will cost is sending out the 610 update to all issuers.

-Gene

Treb5
10-11-2011, 6:43 PM
I notice there are several cities not listed in Alameda County. Is that because of their claiming G and deferring to the Sheriff.

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 6:51 PM
I notice there are several cities not listed in Alameda County. Is that because of their claiming G and deferring to the Sheriff.

Yes; Dublin, for example, is confirmed to defer to ACSO.

-Brandon

goober
10-11-2011, 6:55 PM
Great job wildhawker, MatrixCPA and Librarian!
MatrixCPA I'm not sure if we've met, but drinks are on me for all 3 of you next time the opportunity arises.
:cheers2:

goober
10-11-2011, 7:04 PM
I was asking specifically about the data compilation announced above (and not ancillary efforts) since CGF claimed that this compilation consumed considerable resources – and used this claim to solicit more contributions.


I don't think you understand how this sort of work gets done.
wildhawker, Matrix CPA, and Librarian (as well as a good number of other folks) work tirelessly to further OUR cause and protect OUR rights on a completely VOLUNTEER basis.
These efforts, which generally involve much burning of midnight oil and missed sleep, don't cost CGF or anyone A SINGLE dollar.
The litigation that may follow or result, however, can be quite costly. Hence the plea for contributions. But please don't conflate the data compilation and publication effort with those that actually cost money. The former are paid for with plain old dedication and blood/sweat/tears.

wilit
10-11-2011, 7:14 PM
Very cool.

I was surprised to see Alpine Co. only had 8 licensees out there. Remember that thread from several years ago about buying land in Alpine Co. and getting CCW's issued to everyone? LOL.

Fjold
10-11-2011, 7:38 PM
I can't believe that Sacramento County is basically "shall issue" and there are only 1,255 applicants and pending applications.

sfpcservice
10-11-2011, 7:48 PM
I noticed Suisun City in Solano County is not listed, is this because they are declaring g?

Racer_X
10-11-2011, 7:52 PM
I noticed Suisun City in Solano County is not listed, is this because they are declaring g?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=7306903&postcount=49

hoffmang
10-11-2011, 7:52 PM
I can't believe that Sacramento County is basically "shall issue" and there are only 1,350 applicants and pending applications.

The line is long and I don't think they're pending until your first meeting is over. Notice the growth rate however.

-Gene

Nor-Cal
10-11-2011, 8:12 PM
Very nice work guys!

Librarian
10-11-2011, 8:19 PM
I was looking for something else, and I see John Lott has picked up on this report - http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

Flopper
10-11-2011, 8:46 PM
I can't believe that Sacramento County is basically "shall issue" and there are only 1,350 applicants and pending applications.

Chew on this:

Several months after Sacramento went Shall Issue, I was in this forum's Market and noticed a seller was selling a compact pistol because "Nobody in CA is getting CCW[sic] any time soon."

The seller--who was not a newb and fairly active--listed his location as "Sacramento." I filled him on Sac's new LTC policy, and he kept his piece and got an LTC.

There's a reason the media outlets don't give real firearms news and instead hype up hoplophobia through demagoguery and yellow journalism; as you can see, their propaganda works.

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 8:55 PM
I was looking for something else, and I see John Lott has picked up on this report - http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

:whistling: :43:

-Brandon

vonderplatz
10-11-2011, 8:56 PM
San Benito went from 18 to 3, but the pending is 32 with a possible of 35? So does this mean they let all the LTC from the previous Sheriff expire, and are now issuing? Seems the only thing I can take from the stats.

hoffmang
10-11-2011, 9:25 PM
:whistling: :43:

-Brandon

How is mom? :reddevil:

-Gene

mag360
10-11-2011, 9:50 PM
I can't believe that Sacramento County is basically "shall issue" and there are only 1,350 applicants and pending applications.

The line has stretched out into next August for the Sheriff interview last time I checked... keeps getting longer and longer.

AlexDD
10-11-2011, 9:51 PM
I want to confirm I am reading this correctly. If a City is listed, then they are the ones accepting applications and haven't claimed G which I am understanding they delegated their authority to the Sheriff.

It looks like my City has issued a total of 1 civilian permit for a city with greater than 200,000 in population.

Ps I found this for Montebello PD on the web. It is their retiree license policy. Montebello is listed on the Calguns data.

http://www.mtbpoa.com/RetireeCCW.pdf

http://www.mtbpoa.com/Retireefirearmsqualificationform(REVISED3-20-11).pdf

My question is do we think there are agencies that are issuing to their retirees in house but then claim "g" to the public?

If so, is that valuable to the cause?

AlexDD
10-11-2011, 10:03 PM
My question is do we think there are agencies that are issuing to their retirees in house but then claim "g" to the public?

If so, is that valuable to the cause?

Here is the first one. Garden Grove Police Department has General Order 16.6

http://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/internet/pdf/pd/ch16.pdf

that outlines the chief issuing to reserve officers. When I look at the Calguns chart for Orange County I do not see Garden Grove issuing any reserve permits.

Have I misread something or what am I misunderstanding or is there a logical reason?

gobler
10-11-2011, 10:16 PM
First off, AMAZING work CGF:79: Thank you all and yes, even though my wife just lost her job I am still going to find funds for donation. :)

I noticed that West Covina (my city) issued 8 reserve officer LTC's but no personal. Does this mean I "can" go to our city for an app? Does this new info help in pressuring them to issue?? Or should I go to the LASD??? :confused: