Why should it be that only your local Sheriff or Police Chief can issue CCW?

[michaelh1951]

As it stand now, only your own Sheriff or COP can issue a CCW permit. Why should this be? Nobody thinks you should have to go to your local DMV to get a license....any DMV in the state is fine. Same for any statewide permit, licence, tax, or anything else I can think of.

Obviously local matters (city, county, etc) are determined locally, but the CCW permit is valid statewide.

If the standards are to be uniform, as per Bruen, why should the issuance of a statewide permit only be be determined locally?

Next lawsuit?

[splithoof]

[Librarian]

The question that is interesting is would it be any better if the state took it over and administered it. Part of that would depend on which donkey dicks were in charge in Sac. I could see it getting much worse, ala Los Angeles county.

Imagine if you will the effect of another DMV-like bureaucracy.

Some years ago Quentin Kopp proposed a bill that would have allowed an Issuing Agency to deny a CCW to someone the IA knew was likely a Bad Guy, but with no criminal history; that was intended to cover gang members without arrests (yet) and folks one might Red Flag these days - but only if the IA would go on the record with exactly why they wanted to deny. Local knowledge was then, and I think now, important for an IA to make a decision.

If you accept CCW licensing at all, that is.

[splithoof]

Imagine if you will the effect of another DMV-like bureaucracy.

Some years ago Quentin Kopp proposed a bill that would have allowed an Issuing Agency to deny a CCW to someone the IA knew was likely a Bad Guy, but with no criminal history; that was intended to cover gang members without arrests (yet) and folks one might Red Flag these days - but only if the IA would go on the record with exactly why they wanted to deny. Local knowledge was then, and I think now, important for an IA to make a decision.

If you accept CCW licensing at all, that is.

Thank you for providing yet another example of why I personally do not like the concept of requiring any

[Rickybillegas]

Well, it depends on where you live. If you live in L.A., S.F., Santa Clara Co., et. then a uniform state run issuing agency might benefit you. But if you live in a 2nd amendment friendly Co. or City, then bugger off.
For example I believe even pre Bruen counties like Orange and Riverside were issuing permits based on self defense, whereas other counties 'rewarded' the chosen few who happened to be "I know so and so".
I believe in Illinois the issuing is granted only through the state police. I wouldn't want that here. I mean it's a valid issue and some would lose and some would gain by a uniform issuing agency,
but as imperfect as it is, the current system is the best.

[BAJ475]

Well, it depends on where you live. If you live in L.A., S.F., Santa Clara Co., et. then a uniform state run issuing agency might benefit you. But if you live in a 2nd amendment friendly Co. or City, then bugger off.
For example I believe even pre Bruen counties like Orange and Riverside were issuing permits based on self defense, whereas other counties 'rewarded' the chosen few who happened to be "I know so and so".
I believe in Illinois the issuing is granted only through the state police. I wouldn't want that here. I mean it's a valid issue and some would lose and some would gain by a uniform issuing agency,
but as imperfect as it is, the current system is the best.

No it is not. You are only considering California. Twenty-nine states have a much better system.

[Rickybillegas]

No it is not. You are only considering California. Twenty-nine states have a much better system.

Ok, I'll re-word it. If a permitting system is state law (as allowed by Bruen), then what we CA. have is the best we can do. I think you know what I meant. I think it was clear I was talking about Ca.

[bohoki]

my theory was smaller towns the local constabulary would know certain citizens that were not really criminal but were to weird to give one like imagine the andy griffith character earnest t bass

[michaelh1951]

Another thing bad about the present scheme is that if you move to another jurisdiction, you need to surrender your permit and start entirely from the beginning with a new IA. You can literally move across the street, into another city or county, lose your permit, and go through the possibly two year ordeal again.

[9Cal_OC]

Another thing bad about the present scheme is that if you move to another jurisdiction, you need to surrender your permit and start entirely from the beginning with a new IA. You can literally move across the street, into another city or county, lose your permit, and go through the possibly two year ordeal again.

[Rickybillegas]

Another thing bad about the present scheme is that if you move to another jurisdiction, you need to surrender your permit and start entirely from the beginning with a new IA. You can literally move across the street, into another city or county, lose your permit, and go through the possibly two year ordeal again.

You're right. I didn't consider that. That's an extremely rotten aspect of the current scheme. It could be amended by legislation that would allow moving to another jurisdiction to serve out the term of the permit and then
re-apply in the new jurisdiction as a renewal. But of course this being California that'll never happen. Anything to stifle our rights here in this 'golden state'. Considering Ca. will never go constitutional carry in our lifetimes.
We know SCOTUS won't save us. Would we rather the permits be conducted and issued by CHP (state police) and then do away with region to region issues?

[Citadelgrad87]

If the state stepped in and took over, they simply would not issue.

[splithoof]

If the state stepped in and took over, they simply would not issue.

Very likely. No matter what The Eunuchs of SCOTUS say, California and the 9th will do whatever they want, and nobody will stop them. Being than nearly ALL 2A cases must be heard by The Eunuchs of SCOTUS, it takes literally decades to effect change.

[Preston-CLB]

If the State did become the IA for every jurisdiction in CA the bureaucracy would be enormous, and enormously costly. Guess who would foot the bill? Yep, you get the prize behind door #1.

Personally, I do not see local governments giving up their right to self-governance as they see fit while continuing to abide by state law.

CA DOJ already receives revenue from IA's when folks apply for CCW to cover their costs, and local gov't gets revenue to cover their costs.

I understand the patchwork of different policies and costs is burdensome, but a state-wide clearing house, like the DMV would be cluster of massive proportions and allow the state to deny anyone a CCW for nebulous cause.
-P

[michaelh1951]

I didn't really have in mind that the State would become the one and only IA, although I guess realistically that's what they would do to us. What I really had in mind was that an applicant could go to ANY sheriff (and possibly also COP) in the state, not just his own. Venue picking, so to speak.

After all, all 58 Sheriffs are elected and properly qualified. Why shouldn't he be trusted to issue CCWs that are valid statewide. COP are appointed, not elected, so the case for them is a little weaker than for sheriffs.

The high school kids in my area know that a particular DMV office is the best and easiest place to get their licence, and they all go there. Pilots know which aviation medical examiner is best to go to, and well as which designated examiner. Why should a CCW applicant be required to go to a known anti 2A sheriff or COP just because he happens to live on one side of the city limit or county line when the Sheriff of some other county is known to be fair and cooperative?