Los Angeles

[Mute]

Add one more for the LASD database. I applied as a business owner of a firearms training company. I documented that I not only transport guns to my classes but that I also transport loaner guns for students, as well as ammunition for these classes. The application was denied because it does not "satisfy the requirements of good cause". This was not unexpected, but I figured we might as well get this information out there so you'll know not to waste your money and effort. I would say that this places AV still firmly in the deep red category.

[LoadedM333]

Add one more for the LASD database. I applied as a business owner of a firearms training company. I documented that I not only transport guns to my classes but that I also transport loaner guns for students, as well as ammunition for these classes. The application was denied because it does not "satisfy the requirements of good cause". This was not unexpected, but I figured we might as well get this information out there so you'll know not to waste your money and effort. I would say that this places AV still firmly in the deep red category.

I was going to write congratulatory comment when I read the beginning of your post but then I saw the application was denied.

[Paladin]

Add one more for the LASD database. I applied as a business owner of a firearms training company. I documented that I not only transport guns to my classes but that I also transport loaner guns for students, as well as ammunition for these classes. The application was denied because it does not "satisfy the requirements of good cause". This was not unexpected, but I figured we might as well get this information out there so you'll know not to waste your money and effort. I would say that this places AV still firmly in the deep red category.

Well that sucks. Sorry to hear.

The colors have shifted to describing the type of acceptable GCs, but I see there’s another missing dimension: the quantity or severity of the GC. To make up an example using similar facts: someone has a part time firearm training business. They transport a few firearms and a few hundred rounds worth a few thousand dollars a few times per month. That’s Light Red. Yet so is a full time trainer/owner who transports several firearms and several hundred rounds worth several thousand dollars several times a week. Will the IA decide they face they both same risk of attack? Probably not.

That is what may have happened to you. Your GC has an sufficient quality but an insufficient quantity. You’re like a rent collector or small business owner making cash deposits of a several hundred dollars versus several thousand dollars. That’s my best guess.

[82SC]

I have a 2 friends in the LASD process and they have passed the live interview phase and waiting on the next step.

I think the main difference I've seen when speaking to and reading about who advances and who doesn't is this:
(I am not justifying LASD's thought process in the least but just what I've amassed)

They don't care about potential threats or hypothetical threats. While I think MUTE would have gotten a CCW in any other county his case is purely a potential threat. They need to hear there is an active threat. BUT the threshold is not active warrants or filed police reports or restraining orders. While those may strengthen your case, it is not required that it rises to that high of a level. But there has to have been actual incidents of threats or violence that has driven you to fear for your life and safety and motivated you to apply for a CCW. Could be as simple as having been approached and verbally threatened multiple times at a similar place and time by the same or different individuals.

For Example, with everything MUTE said plus:
I've had a couple disgruntled students that were not following gun safety instructions during my class and I kicked them out of the class. They stormed off saying that I stole their money and they know where I work and that I'll just jump you and take your guns from you next time. And I reported them to my local PD and filed a report.

Or while packing up a class a car drove by and then circled back and watched me packing up the items in the car. I stopped and they said to me "nice guns! That's alot of ammo". One of the people in the car said "we should steal them and sell them for a bunch of money". They laughed and drove off. But last month I thought I saw the same car parked a couple blocks away. I never reported it because I thought there were joking. But now I'm worried.

Or after wrapping up a class late at night a couple times I've noticed a car following me for a long time. I pulled off and waited it out at a Ralphs and the car followed me into the lot but then drove away. I didn't really think much of it until it happened a second time. I don't know the make and model of the car but I'm worried it will happen again.


They don't care if you carry millions of dollars of jewels or cash. Or you transport a little or a lot of guns. They will say you should have the proper safety and security setup as part of doing business. They want to know that there has been an actual threat to your safety. And I think based on the degree of threat level or seriousness of the threat, one huge one or a few small ones that present a pattern would give you "Good Cause"

The 2 applicants I know had multiple incidents, none with an official file or officially reported. The incidents were due to their residence and place of work. And they've live interviewed and were told to advance to live scan. All of my gun shop owner friends, jewelers, pharmacy rep friends that used the potential threat as GC all failed.

Just my 2 cents.

[Mute]

Well that sucks. Sorry to hear.

The colors have shifted to describing the type of acceptable GCs, but I see there’s another missing dimension: the quantity or severity of the GC. To make up an example using similar facts: someone has a part time firearm training business. They transport a few firearms and a few hundred rounds worth a few thousand dollars a few times per month. That’s Light Red. Yet so is a full time trainer/owner who transports several firearms and several hundred rounds worth several thousand dollars several times a week. Will the IA decide they face they both same risk of attack? Probably not.

That is what may have happened to you. Your GC has an sufficient quality but an insufficient quantity. You’re like a rent collector or small business owner making cash deposits of a several hundred dollars versus several thousand dollars. That’s my best guess.

I specified that I operate a full time business and can be transporting firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition with combined value well into the 5 figure range, regularly. I also noted that my class and event schedules are posted publicly in group emails and my business and Facebook website. My conclusions is that neither quality or quantity was the issue on my GC statement. I would agree with 82SC's conclusion on the results.

[dearjohn013]

I have a 2 friends in the LASD process and they have passed the live interview phase and waiting on the next step.

[Paladin]

The One who got issued shared this because some asked.

Both interview and [CCW permit] pick up were conducted at Sherman block building at the former LASD HQ.

[Mute]

I think LASD is swamped, most likely due to larger than normal influx of CCW applications. It took them something like 7 weeks to send me my denial.

[kflakes]

I think LASD is swamped, most likely due to larger than normal influx of CCW applications. It took them something like 7 weeks to send me my denial.

Did you get a rejection letter without an interview at all?

[Trump1]

Misleading Policy.

In my opinion, I believe the Sheriff's policy is misleading.

Per the Sheriff, good cause shall exist only if the following prevails:

"Sufficient evidence of potential danger to life or of great bodily harm to the applicant, his or her spouse or dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources and which danger cannot be reasonably avoided by alternative measures, and which danger would be significantly mitigated by the applicant's carrying of a concealed firearm."

What you or I think "Sufficient evidence of potential danger" means is irrelevant. What matters is the Sheriff's definition. So, per the Sheriff's rejection letter, Sufficient evidence of potential danger "refers to a current situation which involves a specific person(s) who has threatened an individual and who has displayed a pattern of behavior which would suggest that the threat(s) could be carried out."

In closing, I hope this post helps or clarifies the Sheriff's policy for anyone thinking of applying for a CCW.

[82SC]

So here is a rough estimate based on the 2 that I have personal knowledge

App sent -- Day 0

Check Cashed -- Day 30

Call for interview -- Day 35-40
One of them had a follow-up call for clarification of GC -- Day 50-65

Call to Schedule Live Interview -- Day 50 (Day 75) So about a week after last phone call

Live Interview -- Day 57-64 (Day 82-90) Depends on their schedule

Email to proceed to Live Scan -- Day 71 (Day 97)

Completion of Live Scan -- Both did right away and it took a week to be completed

So application "completed" -- Day 78 (day 104)
Neither has done training

Applicant 1 has been waiting for about a month for the next step
Applicant 2 has been waiting about 1 week

Dates have been fudged a little so I'm sure the math doesn't add up. Just don't want either applicant to have their application put at risk but its a rough estimate



But as Paladin has stated LASD is trying to figure this out as well
So I'm sure things are different for everyone
But just so you have a rough idea.

[Mute]

Did you get a rejection letter without an interview at all?

Just rejection letter.

[recoil]

So then, after reading all these recent posts, it appears that nothing has changed for the average citizen who doesn't have someone actively threatening them. I see no cause for optimism at this point.

[Trump1]

So then, after reading all these recent posts, it appears that nothing has changed for the average citizen who doesn't have someone actively threatening them. I see no cause for optimism at this point.

Unfortunately, for the average citizen this is true. Sadly, personal safety is insufficient good cause. Yet, personal safety is the basis for applying for a CCW, but your personal safety is only relevant if there's a "credible threat." The Deputy I spoke with made it clear that "credible threat" must exist.

This policy is nonsensical and typical of a big government agency. Your personal safety only matters is there's a "credible threat" otherwise your personal safety doesn't matter.

[ezaircon4jc]

Thanks for the info.

Is it illegal to share CCW process on this site?
Can people get in trouble for sharing their experience?

No, it is not... HOWEVER, L.A. County is so weird and snowflakeish about issuing permits, permittees are leery (rightly) of publicizing their information. LEO's do frequent here and no one wants to jeopardize their permit. Permitees of other counties are more open about their process. I posted my timeline in the San Diego forum. Sheriff Gore seems to be following through with his promise to issue more permits; over 4300 so far.