TexasCHLforum.com

There is a slight chance that I might be taking a position in California. I've looked into the CHL laws a little. Wondering if any of you have done through the process and how it was for you. I would be in the suburbs of Sacramento.

AlaskanInTexas wrote:There is a slight chance that I might be taking a position in California. I've looked into the CHL laws a little. Wondering if any of you have done through the process and how it was for you. I would be in the suburbs of Sacramento.

If you haven't already, you may also want to ask this question over on http://www.calguns.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Concealed carry forum link
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/foru ... 9223&f=179" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My understanding of the current situation is that it is VERY dependent on your local issuing authority.
Live in a place with a pro-2A Sheriff/Chief LEO and it's much easier to get a permit.

RoyGBiv wrote:

AlaskanInTexas wrote:There is a slight chance that I might be taking a position in California. I've looked into the CHL laws a little. Wondering if any of you have done through the process and how it was for you. I would be in the suburbs of Sacramento.

If you haven't already, you may also want to ask this question over on http://www.calguns.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Concealed carry forum link
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/foru ... 9223&f=179" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My understanding of the current situation is that it is VERY dependent on your local issuing authority.
Live in a place with a pro-2A Sheriff/Chief LEO and it's much easier to get a permit.

It is entirely dependent on the local sheriff or police chief.

I lived in California for many years and never tried to get a CWP.
The only person I knew who had one was a retired police sergeant.

CA is a "may issue" state. Be prepared to answer the question about why you need a CWP.

Sacramento has many suburbs. I believe that the more rural counties in the foothills [gold country] would be best, if there is where you are going to live.

Good Luck to you!

WildBill wrote:CA is a "may issue" state. Be prepared to answer the question about why you need a CWP.

I wonder if this will work?

Q: Why do you need a CWP?
A: Because my gun safe is too small to fit all my guns and I don't want to leave the extras lying around the house.

Apparently not a lot of folks in California have them either if this data is accurate...

http://www.legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In California, CWPs are issued by the local sheriff, and most local sheriffs are not inclined to issue them, PARTICULARLY in those counties of which large metropolitan areas are the county seat. That pretty much rules out San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Alameda counties - which contain the cities of.......you guessed it.....San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Oakland (got you on that last one!).

San Bernardino county as well as some of the more rural counties will issue a few permits. When we were in California just this past December, we had an interesting incident. We were at the Target in Pasadena, and in one of the big elevators between floors (it's a 3 story store), when my son (who at the time carried a Kimber Pro Carry for EDC) brushed his hand across his right hip, looked at me, and said, "it just doesn't feel right". The only other person in the elevator besides my family and me was this other woman, who chuckled, and said "no, it doesn't does it?". Then she volunteered to us that she was probably the only woman in San Bernardino county with a carry license. So we talked with her for a few minutes about concealed carry matters. Probably nobody else would have known what my son was saying, but she got it immediately.

The problem you'll run into in California too, is that although your local sheriff issued permit is supposed to be valid statewide, most of the anti-gun counties won't honor it in the breach; you might well be arrested and charged, and your gun confiscated. You may eventually prevail, but the legal costs may well be greater than the cost of just walking away from ownership of that gun.

Recent court developments have mandated that California's "may issue" status is a 2nd Amendment violation and the courts have ordered the state to become "shall issue", but that process is still being worked out (and fought over), and you can take it to the bank that individual leftist metropolitan centers will eventually lobby the legislature for, and get, local preemption of state law so that they can continue to trample the Constitution. It will take a ruling at the federal level to begin to hammer down those walls - and even then, as we have learned from DC and Chicago's reactions to the Heller and McDonald cases respectively, local governments will likely continue to defy the law long after the issue has been settled by the courts.......as is happening here, except in reverse: https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/ ... arry-case/. The San Diego County Sheriff lost in the 9th Circuit decision in Peruta v. San Diego, in which it was held that the Sheriff's "Good Cause" policy constituted an infringement on the right to carry. This policy declared that the applicant had to show "good cause" for why they should be issued a permit before the Sheriff would issue one. Of course, "NO cause" was "good cause" enough to meet the Sheriff's arbitrary threshold. He conceded the fight in the light of the ruling, which in effect, made California into a "shall issue" state. However, California's hard leftist AG Kamala Harris has tried to intervene in the case, demanding that the 9th circuit revisit the case for an en banc ruling. Alan Gura, among others, has filed a brief arguing that Harris has no standing because the court had all the materials that it needed to consider the case, and that the materials under consideration don't change just because of an en benc hearing; therefore an en banc hearing will hear no new evidence or other materials, and the en banc court would therefore be compelled to deliver the same decision. Therefore Kamala Harris's motion is merely an attempt to delay or circumnavigate justice.

No doubt. She is a commie hag.

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem you'll run into in California too, is that although your local sheriff issued permit is supposed to be valid statewide, most of the anti-gun counties won't honor it in the breach; you might well be arrested and charged, and your gun confiscated. You may eventually prevail, but the legal costs may well be greater than the cost of just walking away from ownership of that gun.

No doubt. She is a commie hag.

TAM you should know better. No personal attacks are allowed!

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem you'll run into in California too, is that although your local sheriff issued permit is supposed to be valid statewide, most of the anti-gun counties won't honor it in the breach; you might well be arrested and charged, and your gun confiscated. You may eventually prevail, but the legal costs may well be greater than the cost of just walking away from ownership of that gun.

No doubt. She is a commie hag.

TAM you should know better. No personal attacks are allowed!

But he meant it in the nicest possible way!

Pawpaw wrote:

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem you'll run into in California too, is that although your local sheriff issued permit is supposed to be valid statewide, most of the anti-gun counties won't honor it in the breach; you might well be arrested and charged, and your gun confiscated. You may eventually prevail, but the legal costs may well be greater than the cost of just walking away from ownership of that gun.

No doubt. She is a commie hag.

TAM you should know better. No personal attacks are allowed!

But he meant it in the nicest possible way!

I am sure he did. I apologize!

Just from what I hear the California CHL is much like big foot , a much talked about but seldom seen phenomena .