Moral character

[Tankerman777]

Hello everyone, can we start discussing the good moral character requirements for getting a concealed carry permit?. There are good people out there that have made some stupid mistakes 5,10,20,30 plus years ago that will no doubt be denied their concealed carry permit. I would like to know about any in pertaining to the abolishment of the GMC requirements. Happy new year everyone ��������������������

[TKM]

The search function can't possibly be that bad.

[Calbix]

It's a combination of your issuing agency and their decision on a case by case basis. As long as you're not a prohibited person and the incident was a long time ago and you disclose it upfront, you probably have a decent chance. But again, without knowing specifics it is impossible to say anything for certain.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[Tankerman777]

I own multiple firearms, I have been purchasing firearms for over fifteen years now. I live in Solano County a dark green country. Thank you so much for your opinions. ��������

[mikeyr]

my question is not about any issues in my past, but its that I don't have any friends. I play with old (1930s) British cars in my garage, all my friends are on the net in other countries since that is where the cars are. And when not in the garage, I am at work. I work on the other side of the DMZ (a university) so I can't ask any co-workers to write me a letter they are anti-gun. With the exception of family, I really don't have anyone to ask to write me a good moral character letter. I will have to figure that out when I apply in a few months.

[L84CABO]

GMC is patently illegal/unconstitutional.

Some corrupt, authoritarian, tyrannical sheriffs have simply replaced "good cause" with "good moral character." They are BOTH unconstitutional for the exact same reason...it is not an objective standard and allows the Sheriff to deny purely on subjective opinion. There is also no text, history, or tradition to support it.

It will fall eventually. But it may take some lawsuits.

[clb]

And some have not...
When frisco issues, it will be final...

[Chewy65]

The requirement that proof be shown of GMC is patently unconstitutional for two reasons.

1. At least so for and to my knowledge, neither the text of the 2A nor the history of the nation indicates that any sort of requirement was contemplated, but even if they did

2. California statutes permit extremely broad discretion to be applied in the investigation and interpretation of GMC and there is no national historical tradition of firearm regulatory schemes which permits administrators wide discretion. See the following from Sudaby quoting Bruen.

More plainly stated, although the Court in no way suggests that America lacks a historical tradition of firearm-licensing schemes, it finds (based on the current briefing of the parties) that America lacks a historical tradition of firearm-licensing schemes conferring open-ended discretion on licensing officers. See NYSRPA, 142 S. Ct. at 2123 (“But the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are ‘shall issue’ jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability.”) (emphasis added). Indeed, in his concurring opinion in NYSRPA, Associate
Justice Kavanaugh (joined by Chief Justice Roberts) stated as follows:
As the Court explains, New York's outlier may-issue regime is constitutionally problematic because it grants open-ended discretion to licensing officials and authorizes licenses only for those applicants who can show some special need apart from self-defense. Those features of New York's regime—the unchanneled discretion for licensing officials and the special-need requirement—in effect deny the right to carry handguns for self-defense to many “ordinary, law-abiding citizens.’ . . . Going forward, therefore, . . . the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today's decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-issue States.

NYSRPA, 142 S. Ct. at 2162 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (emphasis added).