Los Angeles

[JC2020]

Soooo....how things just turned so fast. A deputy from LASD called me back and said after reviewing my package again, that the policy has changed so being a non-sworn member dealing with inmates could be accepted as good cause now. Apparently since I turned in my application before all those changes were made official, I was denied before anyone was familiar with the new changes. She will call me back for an interview. I will keep you guys updated on the actual process. Of course, at any time, they could still deny it in the end. But this is great news.

Yes, please keep us updated! Good luck on your interview!

I'm particularly interested to know if they interview each and every one of your neighbors. I'm not sure how mine would respond to being contacted about my CCW application.

[Paladin]

Soooo....how things just turned so fast. A deputy from LASD called me back and said after reviewing my package again, that the policy has changed so being a non-sworn member dealing with inmates could be accepted as good cause now. Apparently since I turned in my application before all those changes were made official, I was denied before anyone was familiar with the new changes. The deputy will call me back for an interview. I will keep you guys updated on the actual process. Of course, at any time, they could still deny it in the end. But this is great news.

I had a feeling this was the case. Someone PMed me a LASD document early this month which showed they were in the midst of changing things. Even now, LASD still has the old policy linked at their CCW page: https://lasd.org/ccw_info.html

I wonder why AV is announcing this change as he's making the transition rather than waiting until all changes are in place and the process is up and running smoothly. Whatever. I'm just happy to get more evidence that "change you can believe in" (as a 2nd A supporter) really has come to LA Co. (FWIW I'm saving the smilie for people who say they've gotten issued.)

[Paladin]

LASD's new CCW info webpage and policy

Well, they've left their old CCW Info page up at https://lasd.org/ccw_info.html and its links are still active, but they no longer link to it from their homepage. The CCW link on their homepage goes to a new CCW Info page at https://lasd.org/ccw/ From there you can link to their new CCW Policy (dated 7/21/2020) at https://lasd.org/wp-content/uploads/...icy_072320.pdf

Since it is a government document, I'll quote it in whole.

Manual of Policy and Procedures: 5-09/380.05 -Policy Statement __________________________________________________ ___________

5-09/380.05 -Policy Statement

No Carrying a Concealed Weapon License (CCW) should be granted merely for the personal convenience of the applicant. Each application shall be individually reviewed for good cause.

5-09/380.10 -Application Requests

Any person may obtain the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearm’s Standard Initial and Renewal Application for License to Carry a Concealed Weapon (form BOF 4012 revised 11/2012) from any station, the concerned Assistant Sheriff, or Undersheriff.

Each applicant must demonstrate proof of residence and good character. In addition, good cause for the purposes of Penal Code section 26150 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.

With respect to certain law enforcement personnel who are not “peace officers” as defined by the California Penal Code, the Sheriff may, but is not compelled to, find that such persons demonstrate the existence of prima facie good cause.

Only residents of Los Angeles County are eligible for a Standard CCW. A non-resident of Los Angeles County may be eligible for a 90 Day (Employment) CCW.

If the applicant resides in an incorporated city not policed by this Department, they must apply to the chief of police of their city of residence for a Carrying a Concealed Weapon License (CCW) and have such application acted upon. Within 60 days after a denial of such application, such city resident may file a separate application with the Sheriff’s Department, attaching a copy of the Letter of Denial by the chief of police.

Here's what we care about, LASD's new GC standard (with my formatting changes):

(1) Sufficient evidence of potential danger to life or of great bodily harm to the applicant, his or her spouse or dependent child, (2) which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources and (3) which danger cannot be reasonably avoided by alternative measures, and (4) which danger would be significantly mitigated by the applicant's carrying of a concealed firearm.

ETA: Now let's compare it to the old GC standard:

... convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or of great bodily harm to the applicant, his 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.

Look at these important changes: from a requirement for "convincing evidence" to only "sufficient evidence"; from "a clear and present danger to life ..." to only a "potential danger to life ...". Words mean things and both of those changes significantly increase the number of people who will satisfy AV's new GC standard vs the old McDonnell GC standard.

The GC standard is based on CA AG John Van de Kamp's Opinion Letter of the mid 1980s. The conjunctive "and" rather than the disjunctive "or" before the two "which danger" means all 4 conditions must be met simultaneously. I know of 2 other IAs that say they use a similar GC standard when in fact they don't, they issue more liberally (one Yellow and the other Dark Green but short of SD = GC). So, we have to wait and see until CGNers apply and get issued/denied and then post about it before we'll know how restrictively LASD is reading it for GC. But because of the subtle, but important, wording changes between the old and new LASD GC standard, my guess is LASD has gone to at least Light Red, maybe even Yellow. (LASD could even go to Light or Dark Green using that new GC standard, if they wanted, depending upon how broadly they interpret/construe words.) Time will tell....

Pity that AV didn't just do what San Diego Co Sheriff Gore did in describing suitable GC statements. That would give more applicants confidence in knowing before applying whether they have a solid chance or not. See about halfway down at: https://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

[Paladin]

LASD's new CCW fees list

Something else most people wonder about are the fees involved. Fortunately, AV posts them: only $10 to get a GC determination. $93 for Live Scan and $56 for actual license. So, you'll be out $159 for your initial CCW plus the cost of training (training is done after GC approval and GMC/background check approval). For a renewal, you're out only $81! Thank you Sheriff Villanueva!

Notice there's no mention of a Psych Eval fee (usu. the statutory max. of $150).

(1) Putting all the fees right out there, (2) charging comparatively low amount for the whole process, (3) not requiring a $150 Psych Eval and (4) charging a minimal amount for a GC determination all together indicate Sheriff AV is keeping his campaign promise and, more recently, his word to issue more CCWs.

CCW Non-Refundable Fees

Fees are subject to change

Application Fee: $10 (Initial and Renewal)

Live Scan (DOJ): $93 Standard (Two-Year)
Initial License: $56 Standard (Two-Year)
DOJ Renewal Fee: $52 Standard (Two-Year)
License Renewal: $29 Standard (Two-Year)

[Paladin]

Under Application Process:

A $10 non-refundable check or money order made payable to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) should be included with the application. Once the application is received, the applicant will be contacted to schedule an interview. Prior to submitting an application, please ensure all qualifications have been met to avoid any delay.

Is that a phone interview? in person? or will both be done?

[Paladin]

(5) Here's another indication that AV wants to issue CCWs: LASD has a link to "Concealed Weapons Policy" under "Services" right on their homepage as well as under the "Resources" drop-down menu. IOW AV isn't hiding CCW info.

(6) And yet another indication: AV could easily enter into Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with each of the issuing Chiefs of Police (CoP) in his county and agree to NOT issue CCWs to their city's residents who've been denied by those very PDs. But AV has NOT done that. If your own CoP doesn't want you to get a CCW for insufficient GC, AV will give you another chance.

ETA: (7) Another indication: There's no mention of a requirement for character reference letters.

Required Documents

The following documents are required to continue through the interview process. Any required document not provided, will result in a cancelled interview and will need to be re-scheduled.

Valid California Driver’s License or California Identification Card
Proof of Los Angeles County Residency (utility bill)
DD-214 (if applicable)
Documents supporting good cause, if applicable (police reports, restraining orders, etc.)

EVERYTHING that I'm seeing (and not seeing) points toward legitimate CCW (and GC) liberalization (and NOTHING in the opposite direction). Frankly, outside of a SCOTUS win, I never thought I'd see the day.

Now we just need some CGN applicants to test if this is all true.

[Paladin]

I just remembered something. AV first started talking about increasing CCWs in the afternoon of June 15th, after not talking about CCWs since taking office. The question was/is why start talking (and making changes) now, after being in office for a year and a half?

I just remembered something that happened that morning: SCOTUS denied cert to ten 2nd A cases, including 6 carry cases. (8) I wonder if AV was ignoring CCWs hoping for SCOTUS to make up their minds first so that he would have political cover to follow. When they denied cert (and seeing Trump being weak in polls, as well as seeing the GOP hold on the Senate weakening), AV decided to act on his own, without being able to hide behind a SCOTUS decision.

ETA: this is the 8th possible motive for CCW reform by AV.

[Big Jake]

I just remembered something. AV first started talking about increasing CCWs in the afternoon of June 15th, after not talking about CCWs since taking office. The question was/is why start talking (and making changes) now, after being in office for a year and a half?

I just remembered something that happened that morning: SCOTUS denied cert to ten 2nd A cases, including 6 carry cases. I wonder if AV was ignoring CCWs hoping for SCOTUS to make up their minds first so that he would have political cover to follow. When they denied cert (and seeing Trump being weak in polls, as well as seeing the GOP hold on the Senate weakening), AV decided to act on his own, without being able to hide behind a SCOTUS decision.

He will not issue because he works in a liberal county where CCW is not supported by the electorate that put him in office. End of story!!!

P.S. I'm still waiting to eat that crow!

[Paladin]

He will not issue because he works in a liberal county where CCW is not supported by the electorate that put him in office. End of story!!!

Right. That's why he's even making these pro-CCW announcements: he wants to turn "the electorate that put him in office" against him!!!

You know, "the [same] electorate" that would never line up outside of gun stores to buy guns....

Yep, makes sense.

P.S. I'm still waiting to eat that crow!

It took AV 5 1/2 weeks to go from announcement to putting his new CCW policy and process online. (Acc to Calicrap even after that the LEO involed with judging his GC didn't know of the change.) This next month is when brave, bold pioneers will apply for CCWs while more timid gunnies hold on to their mother's skirt strings. That brings us to the end of Aug. Sept is when I expect to hear about GC decisions (approved/denied). (I'm being conservative.)

For those approved, they then have to pass the GMC and DOJ background checks. The latter may be a problem given the nationwide flood of US DOJ and statewide flood of CA DOJ checks being run due to panic gun buying due to CV19 and BLM "peaceful protests"(TM). I have no idea how long this step will take.

Then there's the little matter of getting CV19 compliant training. What sort of wait list will they have?

After all of that is final approval (or denial), and make an appointment to come in and pick up their CCW. My *guess* is sometime before Jan 1st, unless there's a flood of applicants. But with CV19 shutdowns/lockdowns continuing and flu season coming up, who knows what other factors may get in the way.
Last, is for people to post on CGN that they've got their CCW in hand.

[BumBum]

I'm encouraged by these signs, and lord knows Sheriff Villanueva is looking for some new allies in his dispute with the Board of Supervisors. Remember that he won the election with only a razor thin margin. I submitted my application a little over a week ago and I will update when I hear anything back.

[Mute]

I may have to apply again just to test the waters.

[$nake-Eye$]

I may have to apply again just to test the waters.

This will be try #3 for me; may be 3rd times a charm... lol...

[Paladin]

A little something for comparison. This is from Ala Co SO:

At some point during your application process, an investigator from the Internal Affairs/CCW License Unit will contact you to obtain information. It is possible that the investigator handling your request may also contact your references, family, co-workers and persons that the investigator believes will be able to provide the Sheriff's Office with information to determine your suitability to carry a concealed weapon. The investigator may inform the people contacted that you are applying for a CCW license, and ask for their opinion regarding your qualification to receive a CCW license.

https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/admin_ia_ccw.php



If anyone who applies with LASD learns of anything like "reference" or "neighbor" interviews during the process, please let us know. If you're even required to provide character references let us know.

[00Medic]

Tagged for updates. I'm on the fence as to start the process or wait and see.

[Paladin]

Tagged for updates. I'm on the fence as to start the process or wait and see.

FWIW I'd say if you've got Dark Red or Light Red Good Cause, go for it.

If you've got Yellow, your call. It only cost $10 to get a GC determination.

If you've only got Light Green, I'd probably wait until others with stronger GC post getting issued. But then again, if you wait there might be a FLOOD of applications submitted before you submit yours and LASD might get backed up for a year or more. (Like what happened to OC after we won the 3-judge panel in Peruta.)

For a breakdown of the colors, see post #31 in the CoCoCo CCW advice thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1482924