California non-resident concealed carry?

[Swedish K]

First 2A incorporation decision came out of 9th, if you forgot

Fair enough - perhaps it was penance for the sins of their other actions...

 

[mjbskwim]

I may be wrong, but I don't think California will issue to a non-resident. I believe it is a "may-issue" state, so even if you are a resident, it's a lot tougher to get a permit.

Since it's only the rich that get them,I'm under the ASSumtion there is some bonding issues at hand.

There is some out lying counties that have open carry.
But in general,it is county by county.

NorCal has said in the past they would make another state.They don't all think alike down there.

 

[Swedish K]

Since it's only the rich that get them,I'm under the ASSumtion there is some bonding issues at hand.

There is some out lying counties that have open carry.
But in general,it is county by county.

NorCal has said in the past they would make another state.They don't all think alike down there.

It's not all only the rich - depending on county. A friend had one as he ran a business in a marginal part of sacramento - you would regularly find stripped cars dumped around the industrial area his business was in. When I went to apply for my permit they wouldn't give me an application even though I had an 07 FFL (manufacturing) and worked for a state saw enforcement agency. That was the standard method of not issuing permits - if you can't get an application you don't have an official letter of denial so you can't contest it. Several counties have been sued over this practice and most have lost but many will issue one to drop the case - if you have been issued a permit you no longer have a valid complaint - and they continue on not providing applications.
After a federal investigation into Sacramento County Sheriff's office issue policies they revised the process and as of late last year they have become much more agreeable when you try to apply. Still the majority of permits in ca are issued to LEO and immediate family of LEO. The justification for this is the belief that LEO family members may be targeted for the actions of the officers. I think another reason LEO family are given preferential treatment is so that they won't be picked up in other jurisdictions for weapons left under the seat of family vehicles.

The Federal investigation in Sacramento started when a retired federal agent was denied a CCW. The investigation discovered that the majority of permit holders had contributed heavily to the sheriff's election campaign and that at least a few of the permit holders (who happened to donate to the campaign) didn't meet criteria for having a permit. It also came to their attention that one party had pulled his carry gun on more than 2 occasions while heavily intoxicated in bars over verbal arguments without justifiable reason to brandish a weapon. The individual was given a ride home to sleep it off and the official reports were either lost or never filed. The only reason this came to light was that the local PD had filed reports that the SO had taken over the case - professional courtesy. It was also discovered that Sacramento PD would tell people who asked about permits to contact the SO while the SO (at request of police chief) would refer them back to the police chief.
The investigation is most likely the reason that Sacramento is now easier to apply - along with the last sheriff issuing permits once all candidates to replace him stating that they would issue permits for reasonable requests.

Then you have counties like San Fransisco - a few years back they had 7 permits issued (since 1987 there has never been more than 10 active permits out at any time) - as of last year it was down to 4 permits. Guess who has one of those limited permits - Senator anti gun Dianne Feinstein.

 

[fd15k]

The investigation is most likely the reason that Sacramento is now easier to apply - along with the last sheriff issuing permits once all candidates to replace him stating that they would issue permits for reasonable requests.

Sacramento readily issues permits since some time last year due to the lawsuit brought on them by Calguns Foundation. Complaint was originally filed against Sacramento and Yolo counties, but during the process Sacramento revised their policies and became virtually "shall issue", so they were removed from the lawsuit. Complaint against Yolo county is still ongoing.

 

[mjbskwim]

But California is county by county,correct?

 

[fd15k]

But California is county by county,correct?

Yes, it varies.

View attachment 194322

 

[mjbskwim]

WOW
Of coarse 99.99% of my contact with California is family in LA county.

 

[CHLChris]

The next question becomes: If one is somehow able to get a CHL in Cali from some supportive county, would they be able to carry across the entire state? Why is there no county that is providing licenses for a fee to tens of thousands of people? They could really make bank!!

I have a Clark County CPL and I live in Oregon. I could imagine that Clark County makes a good amount of extra money by issuing in this way.

If Modoc County, for example, started issuing permits to anybody who asked, they could make a LOT of money.

 

[fd15k]

The next question becomes: If one is somehow able to get a CHL in Cali from some supportive county, would they be able to carry across the entire state? Why is there no county that is providing licenses for a fee to tens of thousands of people? They could really make bank!!

I have a Clark County CPL and I live in Oregon. I could imagine that Clark County makes a good amount of extra money by issuing in this way.

If Modoc County, for example, started issuing permits to anybody who asked, they could make a LOT of money.

CA permits are valid in the entire state. Issuing agency (PD or SD) can put additional restrictions, but it's rare. You idea won't work, because state law requires residency in the given locality for one to apply. So if you don't reside in the area you're applying, not only permit will be revoked by the DOJ, but also the agency will have a problem. Thus it will never happen

 

[johnbrownraider]

Found this ....

ENAL CODE
SECTION 26150-26225





26150. (a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person
upon proof of all of the following:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the
county, or the applicant's principal place of employment or business
is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant
spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or
business.
(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described
in Section 26165.
(b) The sheriff may issue a license under subdivision (a) in
either of the following formats:
(1) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000
persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a
license to carry loaded and exposed in only that county a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.