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

[Paladin]

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.

No, just let the CCW expire on its own regardless of where you move to within CA. If you want another CCW, submit a new application at your new location.

Actually, if/once we win on GC (Peruta), and GMC (???), once you get a CCW from ANY LEA in CA, we might be able to change it to a renewal application vs. another new application.

As I asked earlier: Is/are there any new case/s challenging GMC in the pipeline?

[Paladin]

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.

Can't wait to see what the numbers will be this coming Dec/Jan now that San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Ventura, and Orange have all started accepting SD as GC.

I heard that some CGNers are pushing on Riverside too.

Then there's Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Diego who have all said once Peruta is final (), they'll accept SD as GC. That's a TON more of new applicants (total pop. ~7M).

Any thoughts on the legal attack I've suggested to gut the requirement that you lose your CCW after moving out of the issuing county?

Are there other cases that have been filed to attack GMC?

[Untamed1972]

Simple answer is because it's currently the law. But remembing it's an unconstitutional law that's been around since the 20's with the racist intent of keeping guns out of the hands of certain minority classes.

So with an ever evolving 2A right it is something that will have to change. If there is going to be CCWs at all, they should be issued from a central state agency and get the locals out of it.

Any of the "personal knowledge to the agency" kind of stuff and "discretionary decision making" like GMC issues will have to go out the window. The only things an issuing agency should be able to decide on should be covered by a criminal history check. Not prohibited = Issue the permit. Period.

[The Shadow]

I still think that there could be a corner of DMV that could be set up by DOJ to issue CCWs.

Since California likes to use liberal models, I think Washington states CCW guidelines are a pretty good fit. The only tweak would be to have a DOJ employee do all of the processing to issuance. Live scan finger printing is optional, in that the state could set up Live scan at each of their offices, or they could just stick with paper finger print cards.

[OleCuss]

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 suspect that if I were doing the pro-liberty litigating that I would want to have the licenses issued by the state - not by local authorities.

You would then have only one entity you would have to sue when your rights are being violated. The way it is right now you may have to sue dozens of issuing authorities and still have unevenly applied rights.

Having limited funds for litigating, I suspect having only a single entity I had to sue would be a benefit. It'd also be a benefit to the various authorities we'd no longer have to be suing.

Yeah, I don't really want anything to do with Kamala Harris, but even she can be forced into doing the right thing - eventually. What's more, it'd be really cool to have Kamala Harris having to sign my carry permit. . .

[e90bmw]

I'd rather have a state system for various reasons outlined in previous posts.
If the state had a state level CCW system we would be shall issue. The state doesn't have the resources.

We would take the training course and submit the paperwork.
There would be a database of approved courses and instructors.

It would be run much like a Notary Commission from the Secretary of State.
You pass the test, livescan and submit the paperwork. Done.

Actually, a petition/poposition drive to make it a state system might make it.
Think about the wording. It establishes a single framework for handgun carry permits. Allows the state to administer and control.

I like it!!

[dca965]

I'd rather have a state system for various reasons outlined in previous posts.
If the state had a state level CCW system we would be shall issue. The state doesn't have the resources.

We would take the training course and submit the paperwork.
There would be a database of approved courses and instructors.

It would be run much like a Notary Commission from the Secretary of State.
You pass the test, livescan and submit the paperwork. Done.

Actually, a petition/poposition drive to make it a state system might make it.
Think about the wording. It establishes a single framework for handgun carry permits. Allows the state to administer and control.

I like it!!

(emphasis mine)

The state DOES have the resources, they are just so Anti-2A, they won't allow it.

See states such as: OR, WA, AZ, UT, NV, etc....

[Hopalong]

Simple answer. If the state wanted to, they would. They don't, so they won't.

The reason is politics, state and local.

Since when can the words "rational basis" be used, when something is politically motivated?