Los Angeles

[MajorCaliber]

No reason to wait for a year from the date of denial.

If a decision is positive (Nash and Koch get their permits), then even if it is a narrow opinion, it will at least say the "proper cause" requirement, as applied by the permit issuer, must accept a general cause such as "desire to exercise my fundamental right of self-defense." It would not invalidate the NY statute but would require that it be applied in that way. The same would be required of law enforcement in any other "proper cause" or "good cause" jurisdiction, and the statute in California would not necessarily be invalid so long as the sheriff accepts the more general "good cause" as good enough.

If you have been denied with a checkmark in the denial letter next to "good cause," I would immediately submit a letter with a copy of the denial letter asking for reconsideration of your application on the basis of the new Supreme Court decision.

Hopefully, AV is already thinking this through and planning for what his department will do the day after various likely decisions. At a minimum he will have to stop denying on GC and possibly also GMC issues. Let's hope he tells us what procedure to follow for those already so denied--letter to reconsider or new application from scratch. I imagine he will go for new application since in most cases the address proofs will not be considered sufficiently current and the training and possibly livescan may have expired.

[localpew]

So ATI number should be emailed immediately after doing the live scan, right?

[LrdVaderZ]

Hopefully, AV is already thinking this through and planning for what his department will do the day after various likely decisions. At a minimum he will have to stop denying on GC and possibly also GMC issues. Let's hope he tells us what procedure to follow for those already so denied--letter to reconsider or new application from scratch. I imagine he will go for new application since in most cases the address proofs will not be considered sufficiently current and the training and possibly livescan may have expired.

I hope that LASD will setup and enable Permitium to make things easier on everyone

[Stevo818]

So ATI number should be emailed immediately after doing the live scan, right?

[EDRB]

So ATI number should be emailed immediately after doing the live scan, right?

The ATI number is on the bottom right of the live scan form you would have been given by the live scan person,

[KA1978]

So ATI number should be emailed immediately after doing the live scan, right?

[LARES]

[localpew]

[Osp05]

Then you have the one person that had his live scan done and waited for confirmation from ccw unit. The unit didn't receive the number and was waiting for it for over 6 weeks. Then he had to confirm his ATI number after ccw unit emailed him what was the status of his live scan.

I emailed ccw unit and my deputy my ATI number as a safety net.

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk

[LARES]

[LARES]

I finally scheduled my CCW training for 12/18 with MedicUp. I wish I could have gotten it done soon but work has been busy working 6 days a week🥲

[Paladin]

There have been several cases of rideshare drivers and many cases of food delivery drivers using CCWs to save their lives. If you do that work and live in a Light Red or Yellow county you may want to print out news articles about such attacks (ones with and without CCWing drivers), to prove elevated GC.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/philadelphia-armed-robbery-uber-driver-162744266.html

[MajorCaliber]

@Paladin

I believe the San Diego CCW unit has been unwilling to issue to an employee if carrying on the job violates the employer's policy. What do we know about situations like this where the applicant is an independent contractor rather than a employee but it is still against the company's policy? Do we have examples to clarify this issue in L.A. or elsewhere?

[LrdVaderZ]

@Paladin

I believe the San Diego CCW unit has been unwilling to issue to an employee if carrying on the job violates the employer's policy. What do we know about situations like this where the applicant is an independent contractor rather than a employee but it is still against the company's policy? Do we have examples to clarify this issue in L.A. or elsewhere?

I did bring up the Uber thing at my interview, and as proof provided my LAX pass

[Cowboyup5606]

Good morning all, let’s hope for a lot of calls and e-mails from LASD today and tomorrow. If not we are screwed until after the holiday.