What is the procedure for obtaining a CCW in Sacramento County?

[wildhawker]

No Spin,

Go apply using some variant of self-defense as good cause. Yes, it means you have to ignore political minutiae and rhetoric and actually submit your application.

If you're denied, PM or email me.

[dantodd]

The best predictor of the future, is the past...dont lie to us know Jones and think we are too dumb to figure it out...we have enough of that at the Federal and State level.

I believe if you read through this thread you will see that some of the posters here have recently been approved. Perhaps you are looking too far into the past for your purposes. It only costs $20 to try. It's a lot less hassle than getting on here to complain.

[N6ATF]

"Every penny is sacred and shall not be paid without a 100% guarantee it will not go to waste!"

[Python2]

. It only costs $20 to try. It's a lot less hassle than getting on here to complain.

Not even that, there are counties that will take your application without shelling out a penny until you are approved. I should know, been through it.

[Python2]

Type and model for semi-autos, just the words "Revolvers Authorized" if you have qualified with any wheel gun.

Yes. Thanks for further clarification.

[Gray Peterson]

John McGinness has had over 3 years to change the policy. Scott Jones the self admitted "Chief of Staff" to McGinness wrote the current policy. Now I hear they are making it easier to get a CCW. Im a firm believer in Shall Issue. Changing you policy to get votes is offensive and dishonest.

The best predictor of the future, is the past...dont lie to us know Jones and think we are too dumb to figure it out...we have enough of that at the Federal and State level.

Let's see....first post in the forum, an attack on Scott Jones. Hmm...

Do you wish to be more educated on the legal situation surrounding this policy change or are you more interested in attacking Scott Jones? PM me if you feel like learning the truth. Personally, I don't care which one of the candidates win, but you need to realize that the reason for the policy change has absolutely nothing to do with the 2010 election.

[jb7706]

Not even that, there are counties that will take your application without shelling out a penny until you are approved. I should know, been through it.

However Sacramento County is not one of them. They want your $20 up front. That said a box of retail ammo costs more than that. Other than the irritation of dealing with all the hoops what's to lose?

[thebronze]

Let's see....first post in the forum, an attack on Scott Jones. Hmm...

Do you wish to be more educated on the legal situation surrounding this policy change or are you more interested in attacking Scott Jones? PM me if you feel like learning the truth. Personally, I don't care which one of the candidates win, but you need to realize that the reason for the policy change has absolutely nothing to do with the 2010 election.

Then what is the reason?

Regarding Sacramento CCW's there seems to be a lot vague statements and innuendo by people supposedly "in the know", about why X should be done vs. Y being done. Why not give people the information they're asking for? If there's a reason for not telling us (pending litigation, etc.) then just tell us that.

Why is it so hard for people to just be honest about things?

[jb7706]

If there's a reason for not telling us (pending litigation, etc.) then just tell us that.

Read Sykes, then think about for a bit. Is it worth posting tactical information in a public forum?

[dantodd]

Then what is the reason?

Regarding Sacramento CCW's there seems to be a lot vague statements and innuendo by people supposedly "in the know", about why X should be done vs. Y being done. Why not give people the information they're asking for? If there's a reason for not telling us (pending litigation, etc.) then just tell us that.

Why is it so hard for people to just be honest about things?

It can sometimes be frustrating to fall in behind a leader, or group of leaders. If you cannot take the leadership's word that now is a good time to apply and you fear wasting the $20 and half hour of your time to fill in the application so that you might have the ability to defend yourself then move along.

There is a reason the CGF is regarded as leaders, it is because they have proven themselves and earned that title. If they are saying now is a good time to apply then, if you live in Sacto, you should apply.

Sometimes you will learn more from reading between the lines than by being a belligerent literalist.

[Untamed1972]

The app has space for three guns, and it does state to use additional pages to add more if needed. Seems silly to restrict ti to particular guns. I could see an argument to qualify with revolvers or semiautomatics, but it's a weak one.

I have read in posts here and elsewhere that the Sheriff of some counties does verify that the gun listed is registered to the applicant, but those are of unknown age/reliability. I don't have links to them either, but will see if I can dig them up.

If you go read thru some of the posting in Gray Petersons statutory compliance threads there were soem counties requiring this and other things like you had to submit your guns to the Dept's armor to be inspected you had to have the ammo you are going to carry approved and a buch of other really insane crap. All requirements I'm sure the friends of the sheriff who actually get approved have waived for them. I thought San Diego had the registration requirement too, but I went back and checked their webpage and it's not there.

Although I'm inclined to think if you claimed to be a CA resident since before registration started and you're listing a gun that is newer than when registration began and it's not registered it might raise some eyebrows about how you got it? Or if you moved to CA after registration started then legally you should have registered your guns within 60days. So if you're thinking about listing an unregistered gun on your permit make sure you have a legal reason why it's not registered. Which would pretty much mean it was a gun you legally owned in CA before registration was enacted.

You wouldn't want to have you permit denied because of suspected hankypanky with how you aquire your guns.

[Glock22Fan]

Let's try to put this to bed.

You are fine having a gun registered to your spouse on your CCW.

Unless you have some really deep-seated resistance to registering your firearms (I guess you have bought nothing legally the last many years) why not spend the $19 (I believe) registering them? It doesn't take long, it really isn't a hassle and it could solve problems.

[hoffmang]

Unless you have some really deep-seated resistance to registering your firearms (I guess you have bought nothing legally the last many years) why not spend the $19 (I believe) registering them? It doesn't take long, it really isn't a hassle and it could solve problems.

As a practical matter, I agree. However issuing agencies need to follow the law and that requirement is contrary to the Penal Code specifically.

If they hold us to the letter of the law...

-Gene

[Glock22Fan]

As a practical matter, I agree. However issuing agencies need to follow the law and that requirement is contrary to the Penal Code specifically.

If they hold us to the letter of the law...

-Gene

I agree in principle, but, as you say, there is always the practical aspect; some principles should be stuck to, but sometimes it is easier, and nothing really lost, to go with the flow.

[Gray Peterson]

Let's try to put this to bed.

You are fine having a gun registered to your spouse on your CCW.

Unless you have some really deep-seated resistance to registering your firearms (I guess you have bought nothing legally the last many years) why not spend the $19 (I believe) registering them? It doesn't take long, it really isn't a hassle and it could solve problems.

Penal Code 12054(d) and Government Code 53071. GC specifically, as a county cannot require you to VOLREG your guns, neither can they require it for you in specific.