Why should we lose our CA CCW & have to apply again when moving to new county???

[Paladin]

Why is it that, even if we win Shall Issue (gutted GC requirement), if we get a CCW and then move to another county, we lose our CCW and have to go thru the whole, long, drawn out and expensive application and qualification process again??? (with possible loss of the ability to defend ourselves in public if the timing does not work out perfectly)

Isn't that a lot like prior to Silvester, where having been allowed/authorized to own a gun, we had to go thru that whole waiting process again to get another one? (Silvester shot that down based up Peruta and the "Keep" part of the 2nd A) I think an analogous case based upon Peruta and "Bear" could work!

Are there any cases in the pipeline to invalidate the law that requires loss by the old county and reapplication w/new county? Or is there something I've missed in this idea that came to me as I was drifting off to sleep?

Time to get back into bed. I'll ck back in the morning.

[Librarian]

It's in PC.

A proponent would likely suggest that personal knowledge of the issuing agency should be an influence on whether the license should be issued.

Others, OTOH, might suggest the proper restriction would be violations of law resulting in convictions, such that an applicant might be a 'prohibited person'; that would be public record, and the utility of such personal knowledge would be small.

[Paladin]

Things are more clear in the morning....

I changed the title of the thread from "Why do we..." to "Why should we...." While gunnies will, naturally, say "We shouldn't!", as I shall explain, even from an anti's perspective we shouldn't! This requirement is illogical (aka IRRATIONAL)!

It's in PC.

That's what the state said in Silvester re. extra waiting periods ("cooling off" periods) and the court said "Unconstitutional!" burden on RKA, struck down that part of the code, stayed the order to allow legislature to pass a rewrite, and then will lift the stay. Same here, but only w/the RBA.

A proponent would likely suggest that personal knowledge of the issuing agency should be an influence on whether the license should be issued.

And that is EXACTLY why we should NOT lose our CCW when we move to a new county: if any issuing county has "insider"/"personal" knowledge of our "moral character" and whether it is "good" or not, it is the county in which we have been residing (and they issued us a CCW), not a new county where we have not been residing. Like in Silvester, this burden does NOT pass even a "rational basis" test.

Unless CA requires us to be a resident in the new county for a period of time before applying (as some issuing authorities illegally require), they'll be operating off of ZERO "personal"/"insider" knowledge/experience of us.

We may NOT have to wait for a new series of cases to challenge and defeat GMC first before bringing cases challenging this part of the code. The court, like in Silvester, could say "Unconstitutional!" burden, but this time on our RBA, strike down that part of the code, stay the order 90 - 180 days to allow the legislature time to pass a rewrite, and then lift the stay.

Others, OTOH, might suggest the proper restriction would be violations of law resulting in convictions, such that an applicant might be a 'prohibited person'; that would be public record, and the utility of such personal knowledge would be small.

Here you're talking about after we've gutted the GMC requirement to the point of "not disqualified to own." Are there new, separate cases from Peruta/Richards/Baker in CA9 attacking GMC? IIRC, Richards was, but CA9 decided to go w/Peruta rather than Richards as the primary CCW case.

While this law is a burden on people who have a county issued CCW and move out of that county to a new one, it is especially a burden on people who have a city issued CCW -- they have to go thru the whole process again when they move out of that city, even if they stay in the same county.

Bottom line: once we get a CA CCW, unless we become disqualified, we should keep it until it expires, and then get a new one w/either our current city or county.

[teg33]

The requirement is all about local king aka sheriff political ego/need. CCW permit is one of sheriff political tools.

[Jimi Jah]

Rights are conditional in the USA. Who sets the conditions is the King.

[ccmc]

That's how it is in may issue states where the issuing agencies are local rather than state. Probably the same in states like NY - not saying it's right, but that's why it's may issue. I'm pretty sure in shall issue states that issue by county this isn't a problem ie you just inform your new county sheriff of your new address.

Oddly enough in a state like MD where the state police is the issuing agency this might not be a problem if you're one of the connected few able to get a carry permit. But I guess the same applies anywhere for the connected few.

[Librarian]

While this law is a burden on people who have a county issued CCW and move out of that county to a new one, it is especially a burden on people who have a city issued CCW -- they have to go thru the whole process again when they move out of that city, even if they stay in the same county.

Not accurate, fortunately: PC 26210

...
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), if a licensee's place of
residence was the basis for issuance of a license, any license issued
pursuant to Section 26150 or 26155 shall expire 90 days after the
licensee moves from the county of issuance.

26150 is from a Sheriff, 26155 is from a CoP.

[ElDub1950]

The only way to accomplish that would be to remove issuance of CCW permits from the local IA and move it to the state level.

The LAST thing you want is to have to get a state issued CCW permit. The antis would love that because basically no one would ever get a CCW, EVER!

[ccmc]

The only way to accomplish that would be to remove issuance of CCW permits from the local IA and move it to the state level.

The LAST thing you want is to have to get a state issued CCW permit. The antis would love that because basically no one would ever get a CCW, EVER!

That's not always true. Florida used to be may issue by county sheriff until 1987 when it went to a state issued shall issue system.

[wireless]

I think eventually the law makers are going to gut the current CCW law to make it as restrictive shall issue as possible. When they do this, I am betting they won't include the reapply at new county piece.

They CA legislatures could rewrite the law or they could start striking out certain pieces to the law. Sort of like how they started off striking to "assault" weapons by banning guns with certain names, and slowly start restricting LTCs. In Illinois they didn't have a conceal carry law in place so it was enacted from the ground up. We do have may issue in place though, so the legislature could go about creating the new carry law a few different ways.

[ldsnet]

The only way to accomplish that would be to remove issuance of CCW permits from the local IA and move it to the state level.

The LAST thing you want is to have to get a state issued CCW permit. The antis would love that because basically no one would ever get a CCW, EVER!

Not quite, if we get it moved to state level, it would also have to go "shall issue" there is no way a single agency in Sacramento could make a "may issue" decision for 7 MILLION CCW permits (2% of the 38 Million population in CA) any game they played would be slapped down as unconstitutional.

As we get closer and closer to the courts admitting carry is the same protected right as specified in the "bear arms" in the 2A, the closer we get to forcing intermediate/strict scrutiny on the CCW application process.

Patrua and Silvester got us much closer, a few more court wins and the whole house of cards falls down on the legislature (just as it did in IL).

[wireless]

760,000*

[wildhawker]

The only way to accomplish that would be to remove issuance of CCW permits from the local IA and move it to the state level.

The LAST thing you want is to have to get a state issued CCW permit. The antis would love that because basically no one would ever get a CCW, EVER!

I agree with the fact that it might require state-issued licenses (save for the fact that others states can and do successfully use local IAs to handle the ministerial task of issuance) but couldn't disagree more given out politics. Locals have been in charge for decades and only recently did we cross 60,000 licensees in a state of 38 million people.

[ElDub1950]

Not quite, if we get it moved to state level, it would also have to go "shall issue" there is no way a single agency in Sacramento could make a "may issue" decision for 7 MILLION CCW permits (2% of the 38 Million population in CA) any game they played would be slapped down as unconstitutional.

As we get closer and closer to the courts admitting carry is the same protected right as specified in the "bear arms" in the 2A, the closer we get to forcing intermediate/strict scrutiny on the CCW application process.

Patrua and Silvester got us much closer, a few more court wins and the whole house of cards falls down on the legislature (just as it did in IL).

I support all the groups who are fighting this battle for us and they have had success in slowing the erosion of our rights, and I sincerely appreciate it and will continue to support them with my $$ and my votes.

The simple fact is, though, our rights continue to disappear, just not as fast as the ultra-liberal state would like. The realistic odds of CA becoming a shall issue state are about as close to zero as they can get. At least in our lifetimes.

[Paladin]

Not accurate, fortunately: PC 26210 26150 is from a Sheriff, 26155 is from a CoP.

Well, some good news for a change....

I'm actually glad to hear this.

But it does not alter my central thesis: there is no rational basis for the PC that says you must lose your CCW and apply to get a new one when you move from one county to another and, therefore, this should be easy to attack post Peruta and Silvester.