PDA

View Full Version : Obtaining a CCW from another county?


Skin1991
11-28-2012, 4:50 PM
I live in Contra Costa County, basically not much of a chance for getting a CCW, but my family, not me personally, but my family owns a house in shasta county, pretty much on the lake itself. Can i apply for a CCW in shasta county due to the fact we own a house there? i saw that you need proof of residency for a year so what would that mean that technically i would have to live there year round? Sorry if this is a dumb question but i am curious. Thanks guys.

taperxz
11-28-2012, 4:58 PM
I live in Contra Costa County, basically not much of a chance for getting a CCW, but my family, not me personally, but my family owns a house in shasta county, pretty much on the lake itself. Can i apply for a CCW in shasta county due to the fact we own a house there? i saw that you need proof of residency for a year so what would that mean that technically i would have to live there year round? Sorry if this is a dumb question but i am curious. Thanks guys.

"in todays world" You WILL need to satisfy the sheriffs residency requirements. They usually want to see utility bills, DL, ect.

Skin1991
11-28-2012, 5:48 PM
"in todays world" You WILL need to satisfy the sheriffs residency requirements. They usually want to see utility bills, DL, ect.

I figured that was the deal. hmm well there goes that idea

CitaDeL
11-28-2012, 6:45 PM
I figured that was the deal. hmm well there goes that idea

Setting aside the unlawful requirement to prove residency with documentation such as utility bills and other superfluous flotsam, there is the little matter of signing the application affirming a false statement. Lying on the application is a misdemeanor.

stix213
11-28-2012, 7:21 PM
Actually move there

jb7706
11-28-2012, 7:33 PM
You must be a resident of the county that you apply to. You will have to move to and live in that county as your primary residence to apply there.

Skin1991
11-28-2012, 8:11 PM
You must be a resident of the county that you apply to. You will have to move to and live in that county as your primary residence to apply there.

Thank you. And I wasn't planning on lying on anything I was trying to figure out if it was ok or not.

xhy
11-28-2012, 9:41 PM
You'll probably need to register to vote in that county as well (or at least not be registered to vote in a different county).

Librarian
11-28-2012, 11:07 PM
Setting aside the unlawful requirement to prove residency with documentation such as utility bills and other superfluous flotsam

Welllll, yes and no.

26175 does say (g) An applicant shall not be required to complete any additional
application or form for a license, or to provide any information
other than that necessary to complete the standard application form
described in subdivision (a), except to clarify or interpret
information provided by the applicant on the standard application
form. and 26150 says one requirement is (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.

The state didn't bother to define what it means to be "a resident of the county" or how that could be demonstrated - but the Sheriff is obligated to establish that the applicant lives within his/her area of authority.

Hopalong
11-29-2012, 5:33 AM
The application in my county says that you must supply

"an item of cancelled United States postage", and

A copy of your driver's license

CitaDeL
11-29-2012, 6:46 AM
Welllll, yes and no.

26175 does say and 26150 says one requirement is

The state didn't bother to define what it means to be "a resident of the county" or how that could be demonstrated - but the Sheriff is obligated to establish that the applicant lives within his/her area of authority.

And that is perfectly satisfied in declaring on the application under penalty of perjury. If it is the Sheriff's obligation to establish the applicant lives in the issuing authorities jurisdiction, then it is incumbent upon the Sheriff to conduct an investigation if they question the accuracy of something that is included on the submitted application, not to demand anything outside their authority in the licensing scheme. Demanding someone prove residency with more paperwork exceeds that authority.

AyatollahGondola
11-29-2012, 6:53 AM
Welllll, yes and no.

26175 does say and 26150 says one requirement is

The state didn't bother to define what it means to be "a resident of the county" or how that could be demonstrated - but the Sheriff is obligated to establish that the applicant lives within his/her area of authority.

the California government code sets forth the definition of residence

AyatollahGondola
11-29-2012, 7:03 AM
(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.

If I recall correctly, this section was primarily added to fix a problem of an out-of-state resident working in this state.

Librarian
11-29-2012, 8:26 AM
the California government code sets forth the definition of residence

Yes - of the state. I think you and I would agree that state residence should be enough, but PC requires the issuing agency to establish county or city. No help anywhere for making that determination.

If I recall correctly, this section was primarily added to fix a problem of an out-of-state resident working in this state.

Actually, if you look at that very carefully, it implies that a non-resident of California would be eligible. Still, only for the 90-day version.

Glock22Fan
11-29-2012, 8:39 AM
Welllll, yes and no.

26175 does say and 26150 says one requirement is

The state didn't bother to define what it means to be "a resident of the county" or how that could be demonstrated - but the Sheriff is obligated to establish that the applicant lives within his/her area of authority.

And most Sheriffs will take pro-active steps to determine this, which may include sending out a deputy to ask neighbors how often they see you, does the house look deserted most of the time and so on.

AyatollahGondola
11-29-2012, 9:04 AM
Yes - of the state. I think you and I would agree that state residence should be enough, but PC requires the issuing agency to establish county or city. No help anywhere for making that determination..

244. In determining the place of residence the following rules
shall be observed:
(a) It is the place where one remains when not called elsewhere
for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he or
she returns in seasons of repose.
(b) There can only be one residence.
(c) A residence cannot be lost until another is gained.

It could be that this section of the government code pre-dates the penal code section you refer to, and maybe even the county and city formations, but is pretty plain about establishing where your residence is. If there are no other definitions, I would think this one could be tendered. If you're registered to vote, claim a tax exemption, sue someone claiming the county as proper jurisdiction because of your residency, serve on a jury in a county court, and on and on would prove residency


Actually, if you look at that very carefully, it implies that a non-resident of California would be eligible. Still, only for the 90-day version

Not sure what you mean here; My point was also that that section allowed for a non-resident to be allowed issuance of a CCW, regardless of being a resident of another state

winnre
11-29-2012, 9:15 AM
Why must one be a US citizen to get a CCW?

Untamed1972
11-29-2012, 9:16 AM
I figured that was the deal. hmm well there goes that idea

If your cars and DL are not regsitered at the Shasta address and your voter registration is not there your palce of employment is not there either or within reasonable commuting distance.....then you're not a resident there.

Uxi
11-29-2012, 9:25 AM
Interesting argument, particularly on the nuances Librarian points out. I bought a house in LA County (and find new reasons to increasingly regret it), but still am registered to vote in San Bernardino county, where I also work. I still have a fair amount of bills that go to the San Bernardino county address, as well as my primary bank being in that county, as well.

obviously I don't have a shot in hell of getting a CCW from Baca in the realistic near future but it's not inconceivable from San Bernardino. I could, of course, establish a legitimate dual residency and actually sleep and "live" at least a few days a week in San Bernardino county if I so chose, though it would make me regret the mortgage in LA county all the more...

CitaDeL
11-29-2012, 9:40 AM
Why must one be a US citizen to get a CCW?

Yeah, that is a funny one too. You only need to be a legal resident. Citizenship requirements are also unlawful.

eltee
11-29-2012, 9:49 AM
Someone I know owns a home up there. His primary home is in Marin County, but he spends weekends and free time up there and his driver's license reflects his address up there, not Marin. He pays utilities, etc. up there.

He applied for a CCW. The SO sent someone to the neighboring houses as part of their background check, and the neighbors said he was a good guy, etc. but that he "...was only there once in a while."

He did not get a CCW.

AyatollahGondola
11-29-2012, 10:20 AM
. I could, of course, establish a legitimate dual residency and actually sleep and "live" at least a few days a week in San Bernardino county if I so chose, though it would make me regret the mortgage in LA county all the more...

No, the Government code states

(b) There can only be one residence.
(c) A residence cannot be lost until another is gained.

wildhawker
11-29-2012, 10:38 AM
Someone I know owns a home up there. His primary home is in Marin County, but he spends weekends and free time up there and his driver's license reflects his address up there, not Marin. He pays utilities, etc. up there.

He applied for a CCW. The SO sent someone to the neighboring houses as part of their background check, and the neighbors said he was a good guy, etc. but that he "...was only there once in a while."

He did not get a CCW.

I wish that person would have contacted me. I would have loved to review the facts surrounding the denial.

-Brandon

Skin1991
11-29-2012, 10:45 AM
And as far as obtaining one in Contra Costa county, don't even bother right?

Librarian
11-29-2012, 11:13 AM
And as far as obtaining one in Contra Costa county, don't even bother right?

For now, that's practical. Very low probability of actually getting one, but not zero; can't hurt to apply.

Note where I live. I'm really interested in CoCoCo ...

Librarian
11-29-2012, 11:26 AM
It could be that this section of the government code pre-dates the penal code section you refer to, and maybe even the county and city formations, but is pretty plain about establishing where your residence is. If there are no other definitions, I would think this one could be tendered. If you're registered to vote, claim a tax exemption, sue someone claiming the county as proper jurisdiction because of your residency, serve on a jury in a county court, and on and on would prove residency


I agree. Now, how are those behaviors and conditions demonstrated to the Sheriff?

I'm happy with Glock22Fan and CitaDel's response - make the Sheriff actually investigate, and at some transitional state we may get that requirement given to the issuing agencies. That is, the agencies either get to believe the application, acknowledged as true 'under penalty of perjury', or they don't believe, and investigate to decide whether they need to have a perjury prosecuted.

We're not there yet.

Not sure what you mean here; My point was also that that section allowed for a non-resident to be allowed issuance of a CCW, regardless of being a resident of another state

That was in response to If I recall correctly, this section was primarily added to fix a problem of an out-of-state resident working in this state. I had read that as meaning 'prevent out of state'.

That bit of the PC doesn't actually impose any kind of residency for the business-location-based LTC; I had sloppily thought that was meant for CA citizens who lived in one place and worked in another. Can't find it just now, but I think it was USDOJ that put out a report on CCW laws, and that report said that provision would allow out of state people to get licenses. I emailed the authors, and got a nice short reply from one of their lawyers.

loose_electron
11-29-2012, 12:02 PM
Interesting - I was in a gun store out near Yosemite a few years ago.
The owner told me the story that the county was CCW friendly and a lot of people with vacation homes in the area got their CCW there, although they mostly resided in more urban areas like LA and SD counties.

Second hand information, but the sheriff did not seem to have any problems with it.

wildhawker
11-29-2012, 1:54 PM
Interesting - I was in a gun store out near Yosemite a few years ago.
The owner told me the story that the county was CCW friendly and a lot of people with vacation homes in the area got their CCW there, although they mostly resided in more urban areas like LA and SD counties.

Second hand information, but the sheriff did not seem to have any problems with it.

Perhaps the Sheriff had a more constitutional view and didn't narrowly interpret the undefined "residency" requirement.

-Brandon

Bullets&Whitewalls
11-29-2012, 2:16 PM
I thought I read somewhere awhile back that the ccw is only good for the county it is issued in? Is that true? So If you were granted a ccw in shasta and Had to unfortunately use your weapon in contra costa your ccw would not cover you? And to be clear I am asking not trying to spread false info.

taperxz
11-29-2012, 2:37 PM
I thought I read somewhere awhile back that the ccw is only good for the county it is issued in? Is that true? So If you were granted a ccw in shasta and Had to unfortunately use your weapon in contra costa your ccw would not cover you? And to be clear I am asking not trying to spread false info.

The license is good state wide

corcoraj2002
11-29-2012, 3:22 PM
You'll probably need to register to vote in that county as well (or at least not be registered to vote in a different county).

You do not have to be a citizen of the US to get a CCW, so no need to be registered to vote, your latter comment is probably valid.

jaymz
11-29-2012, 3:26 PM
According to the site linked below, "residence" is easily established. Too bad most, if not all sheriffs don't see it that way.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=residence

JTecalo
11-29-2012, 4:26 PM
The license is good state wide

I have wondered if a LTC is good state wide, then why must you apply in the county you live. If you are not qualified a background check can be done anywhere from any sheriff's dept.

In the large heavily populated counties the sheriff's dept probably doesn't know you from adam and couldn't comment on your "moral" qualifications.

You can buy a gun in any county if you are willing to drive to purchase then make the drive to pick it up, why shouldn't LTC be the same.

skyscraper
11-29-2012, 4:29 PM
I have wondered if a LTC is good state wide, then why must you apply in the county you live. If you are not qualified a background check can be done anywhere from any sheriff's dept.

In the large heavily populated counties the sheriff's dept probably doesn't know you from adam and couldn't comment on your "moral" qualifications.

You can buy a gun in any county if you are willing to drive to purchase then make the drive to pick it up, why shouldn't LTC be the same.

I agree. Issuing licenses should be that way, but they aren't.(yet)

AyatollahGondola
11-29-2012, 4:34 PM
IThat bit of the PC doesn't actually impose any kind of residency for the business-location-based LTC; I had sloppily thought that was meant for CA citizens who lived in one place and worked in another. Can't find it just now, but I think it was USDOJ that put out a report on CCW laws, and that report said that provision would allow out of state people to get licenses. I emailed the authors, and got a nice short reply from one of their lawyers.

Like what? A request for a retainer, or a bill for legal advice?

JTecalo
11-29-2012, 4:37 PM
I agree. Issuing licenses should be that way, but they aren't.(yet)

yeah I know just thinking how hard will it be in San Benito county when I move back in a couple of months. would be nice to apply in another "friendly" county.

Up here in OR. I just applied, they ran a check, and 2-3 weeks later I had my LTC. AZ was even easier, fingerprints and a check for the fees.

wildhawker
11-29-2012, 5:50 PM
According to the site linked below, "residence" is easily established. Too bad most, if not all sheriffs don't see it that way.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=residence

That isn't the applicable standard.

-Brandon

Librarian
11-29-2012, 6:27 PM
Like what? A request for a retainer, or a bill for legal advice?

Heh!

Neither - a confirmation that they really meant to include CA in the states that would issue to non-residents, based on that phrase.

jaymz
11-29-2012, 6:34 PM
That isn't the applicable standard.

-Brandon

I know. The problem seems to be that "resident/residence" is not defined in regards to LTC. It would make sense (I know, I know. Making sense and using logic is not something that CA lawmakers are very familiar with), that the typical legal definition would apply until it gets legally defined otherwise.

wildhawker
11-29-2012, 6:39 PM
I know. The problem seems to be that "resident/residence" is not defined in regards to LTC. It would make sense (I know, I know. Making sense and using logic is not something that CA lawmakers are very familiar with), that the typical legal definition would apply until it gets legally defined otherwise.

Only way for such to be applied would be for the law to be challenged and precedent set. (San Berdoo may just 'help' with that, we'll see...)

However, there's better ways of tackling the residence issue post-2A bear.

-Brandon

Gray Peterson
11-29-2012, 7:37 PM
I have wondered if a LTC is good state wide, then why must you apply in the county you live. If you are not qualified a background check can be done anywhere from any sheriff's dept.

In the large heavily populated counties the sheriff's dept probably doesn't know you from adam and couldn't comment on your "moral" qualifications.

You can buy a gun in any county if you are willing to drive to purchase then make the drive to pick it up, why shouldn't LTC be the same.

Until 1969, you could in fact do exactly that. There was no "county of residency" requirement at all. People from AZ, NV, OR, WA could apply for 1 year LTC's. Residents of LA could go to another county.

That all changed in 1969.

We can't even discuss getting residents the ability to apply to any county until we take care of the non-residents first. If it's facially struck, then there would be no need to take on another piece of litigation for the situation.

One step at a time.

JTecalo
11-30-2012, 7:09 AM
Until 1969, you could in fact do exactly that. There was no "county of residency" requirement at all. People from AZ, NV, OR, WA could apply for 1 year LTC's. Residents of LA could go to another county.

That all changed in 1969.

We can't even discuss getting residents the ability to apply to any county until we take care of the non-residents first. If it's facially struck, then there would be no need to take on another piece of litigation for the situation.

One step at a time.

No I know this all needs to proceed in an ordered fashion. I did not know about the change in 1969, what initiated the change?

Gray Peterson
11-30-2012, 7:47 AM
No I know this all needs to proceed in an ordered fashion. I did not know about the change in 1969, what initiated the change?

Sheriff Peter Pitchess is what happened.

hvengel
11-30-2012, 10:51 AM
Just as an FYI for those who are not familiar with the history of CCW laws in California it was much later (mid 1990s) before the law changed to prevent applying in another justification outside of your county/city of residence. The PD in Isleton, California was issuing to anyone who passed a background check and they would accept apps from any California resident for a time in the 1990s. This PO'ed the anti's and the law was changed so that you could only apply in our county/city of residence. So there where really two sets of changes to the law; the 1969 change to not allow out of state residents to get a CCW and the change in the 1990s to force everyone to apply in their own county/city of residence.

See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=426069 for more details.

Gray Peterson
11-30-2012, 10:57 AM
Just as an FYI for those who are not familiar with the history of CCW laws in California it was much later (mid 1990s) before the law changed to prevent applying in another justification outside of your county/city of residence. The PD in Isleton, California was issuing to anyone who passed a background check and they would accept apps from any California resident for a time in the 1990s. This PO'ed the anti's and the law was changed so that you could only apply in our county/city of residence. So there where really two sets of changes to the law; the 1969 change to not allow out of state residents to get a CCW and the change in the 1990s to force everyone to apply in their own county/city of residence.

See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=426069 for more details.

Slightly incorrect. The "Isleton loophole" was were a city was able to issue to resident of the county the city was in.

bergmen
11-30-2012, 11:22 AM
Slightly incorrect. The "Isleton loophole" was where a city was able to issue to resident of the county the city was in.

That is correct. I was a resident of San Joaquin County at the time and I could not have applied since I was not a resident of Sacramento County (Chief Byrd made that clear at the time).

Dan