Does misdemeanor automatically DQ me from CCW permit?

[RuggedJay]

I pled guilty to a misdemeanor Hit & Run property damage charge 4 years ago. Paid the restitution, did 1 year summary probation, 20 hours community service and 8 hours drivers ed class.

Am I automatically DQ'd from getting a CCW in LA County through the Sherif's Dept.

I cross posted in the CCW section since this pertains to both CCW and Law.

[9Cal_OC]

Possibly. Really depends. Ironically since you’re not prohibited from owning firearms, you should be able to obtain a CCW.

But with Good Moral Character being a thing when applying for a CCW, they may advise you wait a little longer. JMO

[BAJ475]

Possibly. Really depends. Ironically since you’re not prohibited from owning firearms, you should be able to obtain a CCW.

But with Good Moral Character being a thing when applying for a CCW, they may advise you wait a little longer. JMO

Where are you coming up with a good moral character requirement? I do not see that in PC 25150.

[G-forceJunkie]

Where are you coming up with a good moral character requirement? I do not see that in PC 25150.

While CA has changed the wording, here is what they say in SB-2, Section 1, paragraph C:

(c) Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of “shall-issue” concealed carry licensing standards enacted in 43 states that include qualification standards that “are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding responsible citizens,’” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2138 fn.9. The laws of at least 21 of these states authorize officials to deny concealed carry licenses to otherwise eligible applicants who are found not to be law-abiding or responsible based on a determination that the applicant lacks the character or temperament to carry firearms in public spaces or otherwise presents a danger to self, others, or the community at large.

The bolded parts are done by me.

[Munny$hot]

I'd say no you're GTG. They will question you about it and see if your answer is reasonable or not. If you where scared and didn't know what to do that may be a better answer then you didn't want to get caught. If you've been clean without multiple offences since then I really wouldn't worry. I have first hand knowledge of someone having a loaded firearm under the seat, plead to a misdemeanor and still got their CCW. The reason was back then California denied most people their 2A right to bear arms.

[BAJ475]

While CA has changed the wording, here is what they say in SB-2, Section 1, paragraph C:

(c) Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of “shall-issue” concealed carry licensing standards enacted in 43 states that include qualification standards that “are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding responsible citizens,’” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2138 fn.9. The laws of at least 21 of these states authorize officials to deny concealed carry licenses to otherwise eligible applicants who are found not to be law-abiding or responsible based on a determination that the applicant lacks the character or temperament to carry firearms in public spaces or otherwise presents a danger to self, others, or the community at large.

The bolded parts are done by me.

Thanks for your reply. Just goes to show how full of BS the California legislature is. There are 29 permitless carry states, leaving only 16, not 21, states with possible restrictions denying those deemed not responsible the right to carry. Then there is Rahimi where the entire court rejected the argument that those deemed irresponsible or not responsible could be denied their Second Amendment rights.

The claim that the United States Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of “shall-issue” concealed carry licensing standards enacted in 43 states is more BS. The court did no such thing. In the majority opinion written by Justice Thomas, the court merely observed that were 43 shall issue jurisdictions where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability. Nowhere in the majority's opinion did it affirm or even address the validity of the shall-issue concealed carry licensing standards in those 43 states. In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote "to underscore two important points about the limits of the Court’s decision. First, the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes—known as 'shall-issue' regimes—that are employed in 43 States." Not affecting is far short of affirming. Thus, Justice Kavanaugh's statement that "the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so," is merely an observation that the court's opinion did not address the validity of these licensing regimes because they were not before the court.

[lastinline]

Four years? NO. You demonstrated a lack of judgement. Why should the LASD trust you to carry a gun?
The Supreme Court can say whatever they want, but Luna obviously dosent care. Evidence that it will now take most applicants 28 months. By the time they eventually look at you however, it will have been 6 years, so you may have a chance.
Some people have got a CCW from LASD even after a CCW violation after ten years. You might have a chance, but I don’t think 4 years is enough.
This is what we get when allowing licensing schemes to take over constitutional,rights. Best of luck to you.