Good Moral Character CCW

[crazyScott90]

Why do I need to use the search function?

One thread with a person who claims the reason they were denied was a few traffic tickets spread out over the course of many years?

Throw a little logic at that. You don't think that your average person has a few traffic tickets over the course of many years? So apply that logic to issuing CCWs - why aren't there DOZENS of threads speaking to denials based on traffic tickets?

Also I said A traffic ticket - not a couple. Which in my experience when people say "a couple" its usually a lot more, oh yeah and a DUI or two that they didn't mention.

See, it's easy to challenge the validity of someones statement by saying they're probably lying, but if you want logic thrown at it then that's what I'll do:

Why would he lie about the nature of his denial? If he had something serious on his record (felony/DUI) that got him denied it hardly makes sense to go to CalGuns asking for help resolving traffic tickets/good moral character denial when he knows perfectly well that the traffic tickets aren't what got him denied.

Plus, it makes sense in context:

The reason it probably hasn't been an issue until now is because prior to Peruta, a Sheriff could say you simply lacked good cause and tell you to pound sand. And that would be the end of it. But now they can't really get away with it anymore, so they are using/abusing the other ambiguous part of the penal code to deny people their right to self defense.

What's more, while it may be true that most people have a ticket or two on their record (and no that shouldn't be cause for denial), that is still only a statement about the population in general, not the average CCW applicant. The prohibitive and highly restrictive nature of CA CCW probably meant that the typical applicant was a bit more squeaky clean in their background than an applicant from a state where you don't have to disclose resolved speeding tickets on the application. How many people saw that section on the application and simply didn't apply? My guess is there have been more than a few.

So with all of this in mind, I think it's perfectly plausible that we didn't see a case where someone was denied under good moral character for having minor traffic violations on his record until around this time when the good cause barrier-to-entry is starting to fall.

[SanPedroShooter]

Lol.. I just got a speeding ticket last week.

Looks like I will have to keep carrying the old fashion way....

[rsacks]

Speaking of this, it also asks if you have ever used narcotics or illegal drugs. Does this go back to high school if you're in your 50s? Do you disclose it?

[IVC]

Speaking of this, it also asks if you have ever used narcotics or illegal drugs. Does this go back to high school if you're in your 50s? Do you disclose it?

Let me guess. A friend of yours did it and he would like to know... Right?

[rsacks]

Let me guess. A friend of yours did it and he would like to know... Right?

No, pretty sure it was me and Bill Clinton.

Anybody here who DIDN'T smoke pot once or twice in high school?

[bassplayer]

No, pretty sure it was me and Bill Clinton.

Anybody here who DIDN'T smoke pot once or twice in high school?

Me. I was playing in a couple of bands, working 15-20 hours per week, playing on three soccer teams and needed time for girls! Something had to give.

FWIW, I got really against drugs when one of my bassists OD'd and died. That would set anyone back!

Dan K.

[SanPedroShooter]

I guess it comes down to whether or not it can be proved. Is there a paper trail on the joint you smoked behind the gym in 1972?

I intend to be exactly as honest and fair with the state as it is to me. But I am a cranky malcontent, so grain of salt and all that.

[rsacks]

I guess it comes down to whether or not it can be proved. Is there a paper trail on the joint you smoked behind the gym in 1972?

I intend to be exactly as honest and fair with the state as it is to me. But I am a cranky malcontent, so grain of salt and all that.

Wow. Right on as to the year, impressive. FWIW I am TOTALLY against drugs. I did however smoke pot a couple of times in high school, haven't touched anything illegal in 30+ years. Didn't like it, didn't turn into a habit. NEVER been arrested or charged with ANY crime whatsoever. So if that constitutes good moral character, then I am there.

I do however, harbor a very deep distrust of our government, and tend to be fiercely independent, never taking someone else's word for anything. If I need to find truth and reality, it has to come from within. And I totally like and agree with the lat line of your post, thank you.

[GoZoner]

Many people are in this situation. So many people that even the DOD and DOE secret and top-secret security clearances only ask for 7 and 10 years of history. Otherwise, they'd never have anybody pass a clearance investigation. But, the CA CCW application has NO such time period limitation. Convenient for the CA DOJ, huh?

There are serious consequences if you lie on the CA CCW application; in some counties they ask for personal references - what if one of your references is contacted and asked about past drug use? Create a web of lies?

The statute of limitations on misdemeanor marijuana use is, what, 6 months. Probably not in 1972 though. If you tell the sheriff that you used in 1972, can they do anything else other than deny your CCW?

Note: Here is a guy who lied/forgot about a plea of no-contest to felony MJ possession in 2002. Just a week ago, they arrested him for the CCW lie when he returned to check on his CCW application. Yes, it is different from usage in 1972 or is a lie a lie?

[SanPedroShooter]

Wow. Right on as to the year, impressive. FWIW I am TOTALLY against drugs. I did however smoke pot a couple of times in high school, haven't touched anything illegal in 30+ years. Didn't like it, didn't turn into a habit. NEVER been arrested or charged with ANY crime whatsoever. So if that constitutes good moral character, then I am there.

I do however, harbor a very deep distrust of our government, and tend to be fiercely independent, never taking someone else's word for anything. If I need to find truth and reality, it has to come from within. And I totally like and agree with the lat line of your post, thank you.

I don't know man. They say honesty is the best policy, but over the years Ive heard many people offer slight tweaks to that particular policy.

I wasn't even born in 1972, but I have seen guys, guys that are 100x more 'law abiding' than I am agonize over a parking ticket they got in the 90's and it turns my stomach.

I currently have three separate carry permits, two FFLs and my COE is in the mail. I am also a veteran that held a secret clearance. I do however probably have bad moral character. At least according to the sheriff of LA county.

We are pilgrims in an... oh wait see sig line.

[Esexx]

Very lucky!

The only thing that would have been generated (because you didn't get cited or arrested) in an "Incident Report." This is generated anytime the PD has contact or has a call for service which is recorded by the dispatch center only and this will not show up in a local records check.

There is no written record in your case unless the officer did a FI (Field Interview) and that will only show up in a local record check. That would consist of the issuing agency going to Chula Vista PD and have them run your name in their local records system. Even if that happened, it would just give your personal information and the narrative would simply say you were contacted for exhibition of speed and you admitted to having 2 drinks, but you checked OK or advised and the call was cleared.

However in your case, I highly doubt that happened by your description the event.

Good luck!

, I was one time pulled over for exhibition of speed and the officer asked me if I had been drinking that night. I told her yes, although I only had 2 beers I chose to be honest. She didn't make me do a sobriety test and I wasn't given a citation or anything other than a verbal warning and told to walk my "F'n butt back home" which I was extremely grateful for. Does this get recorded anywhere?

The police typically generate some kind of written report for any official contact with a member of the public, but that's not something that should show up on a background check.

[Mayor McRifle]

Note: Here is a guy who lied/forgot about a plea of no-contest to felony MJ possession in 2002. Just a week ago, they arrested him for the CCW lie when he returned to check on his CCW application. Yes, it is different from usage in 1972 or is a lie a lie?

Statutes against false official statements, perjury, and the like, generally don't differentiate between "big lies" and "little lies," so a lie is a lie. Whether that lie is material enough to constitute a lack of good moral character is still up to the issuing agency. Despite what many posters here insist, the determination of good moral character is still subjective under current California CCW law, and what might be considered a lack of good moral character can vary from issuing agency to issuing agency.

[GoZoner]

Statutes against false official statements, perjury, and the like, generally don't differentiate between "big lies" and "little lies," so a lie is a lie. Whether that lie is material enough to constitute a lack of good moral character is still up to the issuing agency. Despite what many posters here insist, the determination of good moral character is still subjective under current California CCW law, and what might be considered a lack of good moral character can vary from issuing agency to issuing agency.

Is there a risk to admitting MJ use, as the recent poster noted, as far back as '1972'? Obviously, because of the subjective standard, one might be denied CCW - but any other risk?

[SanPedroShooter]

Is there a risk to admitting MJ use, as the recent poster noted, as far back as '1972'? Obviously, because of the subjective standard, one might be denied CCW - but any other risk?

Once again, can they prove you lied? Is there a paper trail? A witness?

I think this whole topic is somewhat unprofitable speculation.

Don't ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies.

[Mayor McRifle]

Is there a risk to admitting MJ use, as the recent poster noted, as far back as '1972'? Obviously, because of the subjective standard, one might be denied CCW - but any other risk?

The statute of limitations would have long ago run out, but it would be difficult (and foolish) to rule out other risks. For example, if you had lied about it in other instances (e.g., when applying for your current job, or when enlisting or applying for a commission in the military, etc.), you are now on record as having lied about it then, and employment status or clearances could be at risk.

You have to decide which would have a greater impact on your issuing agency's judgment of your moral character: past drug use, or lying about past drug use. And the latter transgression necessarily includes the former, as well -- but only if you get caught in your lie. Let your conscience be your guide.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
~ Sir Walter Scott