California CCW Application limbo

[soul]

After the initial Peruta win news, many of the Californians applied for CCW with "Self Defense" as a reason.

The stricter counties seems be sitting on pile of these applications, and don't seem to be processing and sending our rejection notices.

So now suppose one of the applicants who has this application in the pile, faced a unfortunate life and death situation and having CCW would have protected him or his family but he could not.

Can he sue the county and/or other state officials who delayed and blocked him in exercising one of the fundamental constitutional right?

[dvs762]

sure..in theory..but this is a Socialist state...better luck with the powerball

[E Michael]

Sure they can sue. Can they win?

[Crazed_SS]

After the initial Peruta win news, many of the Californians applied for CCW with "Self Defense" as a reason.

The stricter counties seems be sitting on pile of these applications, and don't seem to be processing and sending our rejection notices.

So now suppose one of the applicants who has this application in the pile, faced a unfortunate life and death situation and having CCW would have protected him or his family but he could not.

Can he sue the county and/or other state officials who delayed and blocked him in exercising one of the fundamental constitutional right?

San Diego is just keeping them for records.

https://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

Applications previously submitted that were held in abeyance pending a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Peruta vs. County of San Diego, et. al. will have no further action taken on them, however, they will be maintained for five years, pursuant to the Department's record retention policy.

Also, such a lawsuit would likely fail miserably as no one can say for certain what would have happened.

[ironpegasus]

Except doesn't the law require them to act on them rather than sit in permanent abeyance? The fact that they aren't rejecting them in accordance with what statute says they must do should be sufficient to win something, even if all it accomplishes is a bunch of people getting rejection letters.

At what point do we say enough is enough and either insist that our chief law enforcement officers obey all the laws they are sworn to uphold or, in the alternative, reboot the entire system because it's hopelessly broken? There is only so much malfeasance and corruption that the average person can stand. I'd like to think that your average American (even in California) is reaching their tolerance limit.

[tiger04]

Yes, the issuing authority has up to 90 days from the individual turning
in the application, or 30 days after the sheriff or police chief receives the
background check results from the Department of Justice, whichever is
later, to provide the required written notice to the applicant indicating that
the license has been approved or denied.

[Untamed1972]

After the initial Peruta win news, many of the Californians applied for CCW with "Self Defense" as a reason.

The stricter counties seems be sitting on pile of these applications, and don't seem to be processing and sending our rejection notices.

So now suppose one of the applicants who has this application in the pile, faced a unfortunate life and death situation and having CCW would have protected him or his family but he could not.

Can he sue the county and/or other state officials who delayed and blocked him in exercising one of the fundamental constitutional right?

You would lose instantly because the court decided you have not fundamental right to carry a weapon for self-defense. They would just say "you can't be deprived of a right you don't have."

The letter I received from SDSO-Gore basically said "you're being denied now for lack of good cause, but we're holding your app in case the court says different." The court didn't say different.....so its not in abeyance anymore.....the denial is now effective. You're always welcome to go in and reapply if you think you can articulate a more heightened good cause.