Filling in CCW permit Application

[gravedigger]

So I am filling in the various fields of my .PDF application, when I run across this:

State of California, Department of Justice

Standard Application for CCW License

Section 7 – Investigator’s Interview Notes – (continued)

If the CCW license is desired for self-protection, the protection of others, or for the protection
of large sums of money or valuable property, you are required to explain and provide good
cause for issuance of the license. For example, has your life or property been threatened or
jeopardized? Explain incidents and include dates, times, locations, and names of police agencies
to which these incidents were reported.

Details of Reason for Applicant desiring a CCW License (use additional sheets if needed).

So ... if I read this correctly, the mere fact that I feel my LIFE is worth defending is not "good cause" to receive a permit? My life ALONE is not deemed to be of sufficient value to afford me, an honest law-abiding citizen with a SQUEAKY CLEAN record, the means by which to defend myself against an imminent threat to my life that may appear at any moment in the future, without warning? Someone has to have threatened me, and I would have had to REPORT it? Are they telling me that I need to show proof of a series of previous life threatening situations I have, only by the grace of God, escaped while unarmed and defenseless, BEFORE they will allow me to have the means to defend myself?

I wonder if I fill out the REASONS by listing ALL of the situations in California where some psycho walked into a public place and started blasting away at innocent UNARMED civilians while the cops were NOT around, would that constitute "good cause?"

I'd start with the McDonalds Massacre at San Ysidro, and work my way up the coast.

The AUDACITY of this state, to tell me that simply by being ALIVE, I am not worthy of the means to DEFEND my life?!?

[Knauga]

Largest factor in what is "good cause" is the county where you live.

Most will want to know what puts you at higher risk of crime than the average person. That threshold varies wildly between counties.

[Gunhacker]

It's California... why would you be surprised?

Since when has common sense reasoning prevailed in CA with laws associated with firearms?

If you want to get an idea what the odds are of geting one issued, that a look at this CCW report on the DOJ website:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ccwissuances2007.pdf

Take a look at the numbers for Shasta County 2,377 permits issued last year, now that's the place to be.... but if you're in Solano with a grand total of 49, it's good friggin luck.

The decision and criteria is completely subjective in each and every jurisdiction.

[Casual Observer]

It is entirely up to your county sheriff to set the standard with respects as to what is "valuable" enough to warrant a CCW.

And since the County Sheriff is more of a political position than a law enforcement one, they tend to appease the politicians who they answer to. Two very good cases in point are Sacramento and Orange County.

The Sacramento Sheriff (who's name escapes me at the moment) ran on a pro-CCW platform. However, after being elected, he maintained the status quo as to CCWs (that is to say....rarely issuing). The general consensus is that he has to "tow the line" with respects to Sacramento politics.

Second, in Orange County, the County Board of Supervisors dismissed the two pro-CCW candidates (Anderson and Hunt, both of whom have decades of service to OCSD under their belts and wide support with the rank and file) for an outsider who was a wild card when it came to CCW. Thankfully, at least for the time being, it doesn't appear like she's made any drastic changes.

[walter]

If the CCW license is desired for self-protection, the protection of others, or for the protection
of large sums of money or valuable property, you are required to explain and provide good
cause for issuance of the license. For example, has your life or property been threatened or
jeopardized? Explain incidents and include dates, times, locations, and names of police agencies
to which these incidents were reported.


So ... if I read this correctly, the mere fact that I feel my LIFE is worth defending is not "good cause" to receive a permit? My life ALONE is not deemed to be of sufficient value to afford me, an honest law-abiding citizen with a SQUEAKY CLEAN record, the means by which to defend myself against an imminent threat to my life that may appear at any moment in the future, without warning? Someone has to have threatened me, and I would have had to REPORT it? Are they telling me that I need to show proof of a series of previous life threatening situations I have, only by the grace of God, escaped while unarmed and defenseless, BEFORE they will allow me to have the means to defend myself?

lol, just use that whole paragraph as your answer

[Quiet]

Second, in Orange County, the County Board of Supervisors dismissed the two pro-CCW candidates (Anderson and Hunt, both of whom have decades of service to OCSD under their belts and wide support with the rank and file) for an outsider who was a wild card when it came to CCW. Thankfully, at least for the time being, it doesn't appear like she's made any drastic changes.

lol. I guess you haven't heard about the changes to OCSD's CCW policy.
I would say the psych exam during the application process is a drastic change.

[emc002]

If you're really a grave digger, you should put zombies as your good cause.
Seriously!

[Sam]

the difference between the two words shall and may are very large...it annoys me to no end but luckily I have a good shot at getting my accepted letter in the mail soon.

[Riodog]

GraveDigger, I'll make it real easy to understand.

THE ONLY WORTH OF YOUR LIFE TO ANY POLITICIAN IS YOUR VOTE! NOTHING ELSE. They don't give a rat's *** about you, your family, etc.

Rio

[VAHEVAHE]

So I am filling in the various fields of my .PDF application, when I run across this:

If the CCW license is desired for self-protection, the protection of others, or for the protection
of large sums of money or valuable property, you are required to explain and provide good
cause for issuance of the license. For example, has your life or property been threatened or
jeopardized? Explain incidents and include dates, times, locations, and names of police agencies
to which these incidents were reported.

Details of Reason for Applicant desiring a CCW License (use additional sheets if needed).

So ... if I read this correctly, the mere fact that I feel my LIFE is worth defending is not "good cause" to receive a permit? My life ALONE is not deemed to be of sufficient value to afford me, an honest law-abiding citizen with a SQUEAKY CLEAN record, the means by which to defend myself against an imminent threat to my life that may appear at any moment in the future, without warning? Someone has to have threatened me, and I would have had to REPORT it? Are they telling me that I need to show proof of a series of previous life threatening situations I have, only by the grace of God, escaped while unarmed and defenseless, BEFORE they will allow me to have the means to defend myself?


Yup

I wonder if I fill out the REASONS by listing ALL of the situations in California where some psycho walked into a public place and started blasting away at innocent UNARMED civilians while the cops were NOT around, would that constitute "good cause?"

I'd start with the McDonalds Massacre at San Ysidro, and work my way up the coast.

The AUDACITY of this state, to tell me that simply by being ALIVE, I am not worthy of the means to DEFEND my life?!?

That is what they are saying buddy. I'm surprised that your surprised.

[Greg-Dawg]

Take a CCW course.

[yellowfin]

According to good cause, only NASCAR drivers should have seatbelts. It started out as a Jim Crow law, but they kept it on the books and decided that they like that it screws almost everyone these days.

[Casual Observer]

lol. I guess you haven't heard about the changes to OCSD's CCW policy.
I would say the psych exam during the application process is a drastic change.

IIRC they haven't required it of anyone yet. The policy says it *MAY* be required. They either have to require it of everyone or no one. The final decision hasn't been made yet as far as I know.