PDA

View Full Version : How many CCW are there? GAO report 2012


Librarian
07-19-2012, 11:22 AM
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf

h/t Instapundit

The state-by-state summary is in a table, starting at page 80 of the .pdf

SilverTauron
07-19-2012, 11:28 AM
Some interesting numbers from the table on page 80.

Percent of CCW permits compared to state population as of December 2011:
New Jersey 0.5%
California 0.1%
Hawaii 0% , for 0 permits were issued.

njineermike
07-19-2012, 11:29 AM
Even New Jersey issues more permits than California?? Are you KIDDING ME????



:facepalm:

Librarian
07-19-2012, 11:38 AM
OK, this is weird.

Table 8 gives the resident/non-resident split. It has introductory matter that says Of the 48 states that issue concealed carry permits, 26 issue to residents and nonresidents of their state, and of these 26 states that issue to nonresidents, 10 provided data on the number of valid nonresident permits, as shown in the table.

California is on the list.

Where, in CA law or practice, is it permissible to issue to non-CA-residents?

ETA so, I emailed one of the contact people at GAO to ask.

NoJoke
07-19-2012, 11:39 AM
Someone should start a "denied" thread and get a head count from this site.

I'll start- DENIED :(

ap3572001
07-19-2012, 11:39 AM
I have been reading a lot about CCW's in Ca.

In reality , how easy is it today for an adult who can own firearms to get a CCW? In or around Major cities (SF, LA, San Diego, San Jose etc).

Lets compare with Nevada, Oregon, Washington etc.

dantodd
07-19-2012, 11:48 AM
Where, in CA law or practice, is it permissible to issue to non-CA-residents?

Do you have to be a CA resident to be issued a 90 day LTC for your county of work?

njineermike
07-19-2012, 11:49 AM
I have been reading a lot about CCW's in Ca.

In reality , how easy is it today for an adult who can own firearms to get a CCW? In or around Major cities (SF, LA, San Diego, San Jose etc).

Lets compare with Nevada, Oregon, Washington etc.

Washington: 7.1
Oregon: 5.1
Nevada: 2.8



Yep. We're in a craphole.

Connor P Price
07-19-2012, 11:49 AM
Interesting reading.

ap3572001
07-19-2012, 12:17 PM
Washington: 7.1
Oregon: 5.1
Nevada: 2.8



Yep. We're in a craphole.

What is 7.1 5.1 2.8 ????

What I mean is how likely can a person who lives not too far from a big city get a CCW.

wildhawker
07-19-2012, 12:21 PM
Do you have to be a CA resident to be issued a 90 day LTC for your county of work?

If one of those exists in the dataset that GAO used, which is likely very similar or the same data as we used for our audit report, then DOJ doesn't/didn't know about it.

-Brandon

wildhawker
07-19-2012, 12:22 PM
In case people haven't seen it, here's the CGF 2011 audit report: http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/2011_ltc_audit/CGF%202011%20LTC%20STATS.pdf

-Brandon

njineermike
07-19-2012, 12:23 PM
What is 7.1 5.1 2.8 ????

What I mean is how likely can a person who lives not too far from a big city get a CCW.

I think we have that for county by county here in the state right here on this site someplace.

nick
07-19-2012, 12:32 PM
I have been reading a lot about CCW's in Ca.

In reality , how easy is it today for an adult who can own firearms to get a CCW? In or around Major cities (SF, LA, San Diego, San Jose etc).

Lets compare with Nevada, Oregon, Washington etc.

Not at all. It's pretty much no-issue in large metro areas in CA, other than the Sheriff's friends and donors. OC is the closest we have to "maybe-issue".

Connor P Price
07-19-2012, 12:51 PM
I have been reading a lot about CCW's in Ca.

In reality , how easy is it today for an adult who can own firearms to get a CCW? In or around Major cities (SF, LA, San Diego, San Jose etc).

Lets compare with Nevada, Oregon, Washington etc.

What is 7.1 5.1 2.8 ????

What I mean is how likely can a person who lives not too far from a big city get a CCW.

Depending on what county one lives in within CA's boundaries, issuance may be as lenient as Utah or as impossible as Illinois. SF, flat out not happening; LA, only if your Lee Baca's golf partner, an actor, or a very connected businessman who moves large amounts of cash; SD, maybe a bit more lenient than LA but not a whole lot; San Jose, I don't know. Bring in less densely populated rural counties like Kern County and you're looking at virtual shall issue. There is nothing in the way of consistency.

Look at a county somewhere in between like mine, Ventura, it gets even weirder. Permits are granted quite a bit more than many other counties but nobody seems to talk about it. It's been very nearly impossible for me to find people who have been issued permits excepting a few with legitimately elevated good cause. However thanks to CGF we know that a number of people have been issued permits with self defense, or similarly insignificant good causes. Why don't those people talk about it? My guess is that they're friends of the sheriff, have been issued permits as favors, and know better than to talk about it.

Librarian
07-19-2012, 2:01 PM
Let us pretend we're on the same side here.

paul0660
07-19-2012, 2:07 PM
Since the relative trickle of new Sacramento apps seeming brought the process to a standstill, imagine if we went shall issue. They would actually have to devote resources to it and streamline the process.

interstellar
07-19-2012, 2:32 PM
Great timing on this data - thanks.

BTW, I was told by my CCW here in Butte County that no states recognize CA issued permits. Hmmm. More research needed.

Librarian
07-19-2012, 2:46 PM
Great timing on this data - thanks.

BTW, I was told by my CCW here in Butte County that no states recognize CA issued permits. Hmmm. More research needed.

Eclectic readers find lots of stuff. :D

dantodd
07-19-2012, 3:05 PM
Not at all. It's pretty much no-issue in large metro areas in CA, other than the Sheriff's friends and donors. OC is the closest we have to "maybe-issue".

You can add San Mateo county to that list too. While there aren't a ton of licenses issued it appears that one doesn't have to be politically connected and having actual "elevated risk" is generally adequate.

dantodd
07-19-2012, 3:15 PM
If one of those exists in the dataset that GAO used, which is likely very similar or the same data as we used for our audit report, then DOJ doesn't/didn't know about it.

-Brandon

look at table 8, it says they aren't aware of any non-resident permits issued. John was asking if there was such a thing and I merely suggested that maybe a sheriff could issue a 90 day permit to an out of state resident. (Maybe for executive protection work etc.)

SilverTauron
07-19-2012, 4:37 PM
OK, this is weird.

Table 8 gives the resident/non-resident split. It has introductory matter that says

California is on the list.

Where, in CA law or practice, is it permissible to issue to non-CA-residents?

ETA so, I emailed one of the contact people at GAO to ask.

It would seem that would be an error. On page 42 the study describes part of California's eligibility requirements thus:


Eligibility Requirements: The license may be issued if the following
conditions are met:
1. the person applying is of good moral character;
2. good cause exists for the issuance;
3. the applicant is a resident of the county or city within the county;
4. the applicant has completed a course of training; and

wildhawker
07-19-2012, 4:40 PM
look at table 8, it says they aren't aware of any non-resident permits issued. John was asking if there was such a thing and I merely suggested that maybe a sheriff could issue a 90 day permit to an out of state resident. (Maybe for executive protection work etc.)

Yes, the employment type license can be issued to any non-prohibited person.

-Brandon

wildhawker
07-19-2012, 4:44 PM
It would seem that would be an error. On page 42 the study describes part of California's eligibility requirements thus:


Eligibility Requirements: The license may be issued if the following
conditions are met:
1. the person applying is of good moral character;
2. good cause exists for the issuance;
3. the applicant is a resident of the county or city within the county;
4. the applicant has completed a course of training; and

Here's what the law actually says:

26150. (a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:

(1) The applicant is of good moral character.

(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.

(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the county, or the applicant’s principal place of employment or business is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business.

(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described in Section 26165.

(b) The sheriff may issue a license under subdivision (a) in either of the following formats:

(1) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(2) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in only that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. Emphasis added.

-Brandon

J.D.Allen
07-19-2012, 4:45 PM
Someone should start a "denied" thread and get a head count from this site.

I'll start- DENIED :(

Me too. DENIED. TWICE.

glockwise2000
07-19-2012, 4:49 PM
Hooray for UT:
Utah - 347,000 - 19.3%

SilverTauron
07-19-2012, 5:11 PM
So theoretically, a resident of a neighboring state-or one wealthy jet-setter who commutes to CA via airplane-could apply for a CA LTC even though they don't live in CA.

I say theoretically because people who DO live in CA are denied LTC's , and if the jet setters have money for planes they can afford to strategically donate to the right people for a permit anyhow.

Agent Orange
07-19-2012, 5:24 PM
This appears to be the study Congress ordered for the National Reciprocity Act.

Kappy
07-19-2012, 6:52 PM
The only thing I really need to know? I have mine.

mag360
07-19-2012, 7:42 PM
Yeah but millions dont which is why we have to keep pushing for this in CA

Fjold
07-19-2012, 7:51 PM
What is 7.1 5.1 2.8 ????

What I mean is how likely can a person who lives not too far from a big city get a CCW.

Easy for people in the 5th (Fresno), 6th (Sacramento) and 9th (Bakersfield) largest cities in California

hoffmang
07-19-2012, 8:29 PM
BTW, I was told by my CCW here in Butte County that no states recognize CA issued permits. Hmmm. More research needed.
A surprising number of states honor California's LTC.

See attached.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
07-19-2012, 8:54 PM
So theoretically, a resident of a neighboring state-or one wealthy jet-setter who commutes to CA via airplane-could apply for a CA LTC even though they don't live in CA.

I say theoretically because people who DO live in CA are denied LTC's , and if the jet setters have money for planes they can afford to strategically donate to the right people for a permit anyhow.

You can bet that when we have a positive decision in Richards, after a mandate is issued, there is an absolute certainty that there will be a lawsuit, probably using a preliminary injunction, against a sheriff to get issued a 2 year statewide LTC by a non-resident of California who is not employed/business anywhere in the state.

Lugiahua
07-20-2012, 12:23 AM
Washington: 7.1
Oregon: 5.1
Nevada: 2.8



Yep. We're in a craphole.

furthermore, some states do not require a permit to bear arms at first place..

Librarian
07-20-2012, 11:22 AM
OK, this is weird.

Table 8 gives the resident/non-resident split. It has introductory matter that says

California is on the list.

Where, in CA law or practice, is it permissible to issue to non-CA-residents?

ETA so, I emailed one of the contact people at GAO to ask.

It would seem that would be an error. On page 42 the study describes part of California's eligibility requirements thus:


Eligibility Requirements: The license may be issued if the following
conditions are met:
1. the person applying is of good moral character;
2. good cause exists for the issuance;
3. the applicant is a resident of the county or city within the county;
4. the applicant has completed a course of training; and

Yes, the employment type license can be issued to any non-prohibited person.

-Brandon

And that is indeed the answer.

Got a nice email from a GAO senior lawyer this morning, pointing that out specifically, and also noting that explanation is on p 14 of the report: Of the 48 states that issue permits, 22 states’ laws allow for authorities to issue only to residents of their state, while 26 allow for issuance to both residents and nonresidents. State laws allow issuing authorities to issue permits to nonresidents in 10 of these 26 states on a limited basis. For example, the issuing authorities in California may issue permits to nonresidents whose principal place of employment or business is within the state. 22 The remaining 16 states do not have such limitations. See appendix VI for a listing of states that issue nonresident permits and the number of permits issued as of December 31, 2011.
...
Footnote: 22 California issues permits to applicants whose principal place of employment or business is in the country or city, and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business. Cal. Penal Code, 26150(a)(3). However, this type of permit is valid for any period of time not to exceed 90 days from the issue date of the license (Cal. Penal Code, 26220(b)) and is valid only in the county in which it was originally issued Cal. Penal Code, 26220(b).

He also noted "We also provided a draft of our report to California state officials to confirm these facts."

I know there are a few of those issued - don't recall what the statewide count was, but pretty small.