Those of you in a shall-issue state: do you want a California CCW?

[Jim March]

Folks, we've missed something really, really big on this subject.

Up until now, we've assumed that only a California resident could obtain a CA state CCW from their sheriff or police chief, and that out-of-state residents need not apply.

Except for one teeeensy little detail.

Cali law concerning CCW (Penal Codes 12050-12054) does indeed say "you apply to your Sheriff or Chief". But absolutely nothing says it has to be a *California* Sheriff or Chief.

No, I'm not kidding. I'll quote the whole thing below.

In order for, say, the Pima County (AZ) Sheriff where I live to issue a Cali CCW, all he has to do is:

1) Come up with a "local policy manual" on how he'll handle training and "good cause". In AZ that would be easy: require the possession of an AZ permit before applying for Cali would cover training and the initial background check, and he can just say "for personal protection" is adequate "good cause". The whole thing comes to two sentences or so.

2) Collect up to $100 per applicant, passing $25 of that along to the California DOJ for the rest of the CCW processing.

3) Because the training and background check bits are already covered by the AZ Department of Public Safety, all the Arizona sheriff or chief has to do is mail envelopes back and forth to Cal-DOJ and write a two-sentence policy manual. The CCW application form is already designed by Cal-DOJ and available for download as a PDF. It's basically a license to print money - $75 a head.

Can somebody explain why an AZ sheriff or police chief or one operating under similar laws wouldn't jump on this with both feet?

Note that if Cal-DOJ balks at all this, anybody denied would have cause to sue in Federal court due to the constitutional bar against states discriminating against out-of-state residents in the handling of a Federally protected civil right - which Heller just clearly stated. See also the US Supreme Court cases of Ward v. Maryland (1870):

http://supreme.justia.com/us/79/418/

...and Saenz v. Roe (1999):

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/526/489.html

Full text of the relevant law below...try and spot any holes I've missed, guys...

---

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 12050-12054

12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the
person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists
for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of
the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a
course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to
that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the
following formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) 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 that county a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.
(B) The chief or other head of a municipal police department of
any city or city and county, upon proof that the person applying is
of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and
that the person applying is a resident of that city and has
completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may
issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of
the following formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county in which the city is
located is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent
federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in
that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.
(C) The sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a
municipal police department of any city or city and county, upon
proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good
cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying is a
person who has been deputized or appointed as a peace officer
pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 830.6 by that sheriff
or that chief of police or other head of a municipal police
department, may issue to that person a license to carry concealed a
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person. Direct or indirect fees for the issuance of a license
pursuant to this subparagraph may be waived. The fact that an
applicant for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person has been deputized or
appointed as a peace officer pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of
Section 830.6 shall be considered only for the purpose of issuing a
license pursuant to this subparagraph, and shall not be considered
for the purpose of issuing a license pursuant to subparagraph (A) or
(B).
(D) For the purpose of subparagraph (A), the applicant shall
satisfy any one of the following:
(i) Is a resident of the county or a city within the county.
(ii) Spends a substantial period of time in the applicant's
principal place of employment or business in the county or a city
within the county.
(E) (i) For new license applicants, the course of training may be
any course acceptable to the licensing authority, shall not exceed 16
hours, and shall include instruction on at least firearm safety and
the law regarding the permissible use of a firearm. Notwithstanding
this clause, the licensing authority may require a community college
course certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training, up to a maximum of 24 hours, but only if required uniformly
of all license applicants without exception.
(ii) For license renewal applicants, the course of training may be
any course acceptable to the licensing authority, shall be no less
than four hours, and shall include instruction on at least firearm
safety and the law regarding the permissible use of a firearm. No
course of training shall be required for any person certified by the
licensing authority as a trainer for purposes of this subparagraph,
in order for that person to renew a license issued pursuant to this
section.
(2) (A) (i) Except as otherwise provided in clause (ii),
subparagraphs (C) and (D) of this paragraph, and subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (4) of subdivision (f), a license issued pursuant to
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) is valid for any period of
time not to exceed two years from the date of the license.
(ii) If the licensee's place of employment or business was the
basis for issuance of the license pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1), the license is valid for any period of time not to
exceed 90 days from the date of the license. The license shall be
valid only in the county in which the license was originally issued.
The licensee shall give a copy of this license to the licensing
authority of the city, county, or city and county in which he or she
resides. The licensing authority that originally issued the license
shall inform the licensee verbally and in writing in at least
16-point type of this obligation to give a copy of the license to the
licensing authority of the city, county, or city and county of
residence. Any application to renew or extend the validity of, or
reissue, the license may be granted only upon the concurrence of the
licensing authority that originally issued the license and the
licensing authority of the city, county, or city and county in which
the licensee resides.
(B) A license issued pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1)
to a peace officer appointed pursuant to Section 830.6 is valid for
any period of time not to exceed four years from the date of the
license, except that the license shall be invalid upon the conclusion
of the person's appointment pursuant to Section 830.6 if the
four-year period has not otherwise expired or any other condition
imposed pursuant to this section does not limit the validity of the
license to a shorter time period.
(C) A license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1) is valid for any period of time not to exceed three
years from the date of the license if the license is issued to any of
the following individuals:
(i) A judge of a California court of record.
(ii) A full-time court commissioner of a California court of
record.
(iii) A judge of a federal court.
(iv) A magistrate of a federal court.
(D) A license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1) is valid for any period of time not to exceed four
years from the date of the license if the license is issued to a
custodial officer who is an employee of the sheriff as provided in
Section 831.5, except that the license shall be invalid upon the
conclusion of the person's employment pursuant to Section 831.5 if
the four-year period has not otherwise expired or any other condition
imposed pursuant to this section does not limit the validity of the
license to a shorter time period.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a city or county may be
considered an applicant's "principal place of employment or business"
only if the applicant is physically present in the jurisdiction
during a substantial part of his or her working hours for purposes of
that employment or business.
(b) A license may include any reasonable restrictions or
conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including
restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under
which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be
indicated on any license issued.
(d) A license shall not be issued if the Department of Justice
determines that the person is prohibited by state or federal law from
possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm.
(e) (1) The license shall be revoked by the local licensing
authority if at any time either the local licensing authority is
notified by the Department of Justice that a licensee is prohibited
by state or federal law from owning or purchasing firearms, or the
local licensing authority determines that the person is prohibited by
state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or
purchasing a firearm.
(2) If at any time the Department of Justice determines that a
licensee is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing,
receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm, the department shall
immediately notify the local licensing authority of the
determination.
(3) If the local licensing authority revokes the license, the
Department of Justice shall be notified of the revocation pursuant to
Section 12053. The licensee shall also be immediately notified of
the revocation in writing.
(f) (1) A person issued a license pursuant to this section may
apply to the licensing authority for an amendment to the license to
do one or more of the following:
(A) Add or delete authority to carry a particular pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.
(B) Authorize the licensee to carry concealed a pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(C) If the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons
according to the most recent federal decennial census, authorize the
licensee to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.
(D) Change any restrictions or conditions on the license,
including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and
circumstances under which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or
other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(2) When the licensee changes his or her address, the license
shall be amended to reflect the new address and a new license shall
be issued pursuant to paragraph (3).
(3) If the licensing authority amends the license, a new license
shall be issued to the licensee reflecting the amendments.
(4) (A) The licensee shall notify the licensing authority in
writing within 10 days of any change in the licensee's place of
residence.
(B) If the license is one to carry concealed a pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, then it
may not be revoked solely because the licensee changes his or her
place of residence to another county if the licensee has not breached
any conditions or restrictions set forth in the license and has not
become prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving,
owning, or purchasing a firearm. However, any license issued
pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision
(a) shall expire 90 days after the licensee moves from the county of
issuance if the licensee's place of residence was the basis for
issuance of the license.
(C) If the license is one to carry loaded and exposed a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, the license shall be revoked immediately if the licensee
changes his or her place of residence to another county.
(5) An amendment to the license does not extend the original
expiration date of the license and the license shall be subject to
renewal at the same time as if the license had not been amended.
(6) An application to amend a license does not constitute an
application for renewal of the license.
(g) Nothing in this article shall preclude the chief or other head
of a municipal police department of any city from entering an
agreement with the sheriff of the county in which the city is located
for the sheriff to process all applications for licenses, renewals
of licenses, and amendments to licenses, pursuant to this article.

12050.2. Within three months of the effective date of the act
adding this section, each licensing authority shall publish and make
available a written policy summarizing the provisions of
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 12050.

[Jim March]

12051. (a) (1) The standard application form for licenses described
in paragraph (3) shall require information from the applicant
including, but not limited to, the name, occupation, residence and
business address of the applicant, his or her age, height, weight,
color of eyes and hair, and reason for desiring a license to carry
the weapon. Applications for licenses shall be filed in writing, and
signed by the applicant. Any license issued upon the application
shall set forth the licensee's name, occupation, residence and
business address, his or her age, height, weight, color of eyes and
hair, the reason for desiring a license to carry the weapon, and
shall, in addition, contain a description of the weapon or weapons
authorized to be carried, giving the name of the manufacturer, the
serial number, and the caliber. The license issued to the licensee
may be laminated.
(2) Applications for amendments to licenses shall be filed in
writing and signed by the applicant, and shall state what type of
amendment is sought pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 12050 and
the reason for desiring the amendment.
(3) (A) Applications for amendments to licenses, applications for
licenses, amendments to licenses, and licenses shall be uniform
throughout the state, upon forms to be prescribed by the Attorney
General. The Attorney General shall convene a committee composed of
one representative of the California State Sheriffs' Association, one
representative of the California Police Chiefs' Association, and one
representative of the Department of Justice to review, and as
deemed appropriate, revise the standard application form for
licenses. The committee shall meet for this purpose if two of the
committee's members deem that necessary. The application shall
include a section summarizing the statutory provisions of state law
that result in the automatic denial of a license.
(B) The forms shall contain a provision whereby the applicant
attests to the truth of statements contained in the application.
(C) An applicant shall not be required to complete any additional
application or form for a license, or to provide any information
other than that necessary to complete the standard application form
described in subparagraph (A), except to clarify or interpret
information provided by the applicant on the standard application
form.
(D) The standard application form described in subparagraph (A) is
deemed to be a local form expressly exempt from the requirements of
the Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with
Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government
Code.
(b) Any person who files an application required by subdivision
(a) knowing that statements contained therein are false is guilty of
a misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who knowingly makes a false statement on the
application regarding any of the following shall be guilty of a
felony:
(1) The denial or revocation of a license, or the denial of an
amendment to a license, issued pursuant to Section 12050.
(2) A criminal conviction.
(3) A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(4) The use of a controlled substance.
(5) A dishonorable discharge from military service.
(6) A commitment to a mental institution.
(7) A renunciation of United States citizenship.

12052. (a) The fingerprints of each applicant shall be taken and
two copies on forms prescribed by the Department of Justice shall be
forwarded to the department. Upon receipt of the fingerprints and the
fee as prescribed in Section 12054, the department shall promptly
furnish the forwarding licensing authority a report of all data and
information pertaining to any applicant of which there is a record in
its office, including information as to whether the person is
prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving,
owning, or purchasing a firearm. No license shall be issued by any
licensing authority until after receipt of the report from the
department.
(b) However, if the license applicant has previously applied to
the same licensing authority for a license to carry firearms pursuant
to Section 12050 and the applicant's fingerprints and fee have been
previously forwarded to the Department of Justice, as provided by
this section, the licensing authority shall note the previous
identification numbers and other data that would provide positive
identification in the files of the Department of Justice on the copy
of any subsequent license submitted to the department in conformance
with Section 12053 and no additional application form or fingerprints
shall be required.
(c) If the license applicant has a license issued pursuant to
Section 12050 and the applicant's fingerprints have been previously
forwarded to the Department of Justice, as provided in this section,
the licensing authority shall note the previous identification
numbers and other data that would provide positive identification in
the files of the Department of Justice on the copy of any subsequent
license submitted to the department in conformance with Section 12053
and no additional fingerprints shall be required.

12052.5. The licensing authority shall give written notice to the
applicant indicating if the license is approved or denied within 90
days of the initial application for a new license or a license
renewal or 30 days after receipt of the applicant's criminal
background check from the Department of Justice, whichever is later.

12053. (a) A record of the following shall be maintained in the
office of the licensing authority:
(1) The denial of a license.
(2) The denial of an amendment to a license.
(3) The issuance of a license.
(4) The amendment of a license.
(5) The revocation of a license.
(b) Copies of each of the following shall be filed immediately by
the issuing officer or authority with the Department of Justice:
(1) The denial of a license.
(2) The denial of an amendment to a license.
(3) The issuance of a license.
(4) The amendment of a license.
(5) The revocation of a license.
(c) Commencing on or before January 1, 2000, and annually
thereafter, each licensing authority shall submit to the Attorney
General the total number of licenses issued to peace officers,
pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 12050, and to judges, pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 12050. The Attorney
General shall collect and record the information submitted pursuant
to this subdivision by county and licensing authority.

12054. (a) Each applicant for a new license or for the renewal of a
license shall pay at the time of filing his or her application a fee
determined by the Department of Justice not to exceed the
application processing costs of the Department of Justice for the
direct costs of furnishing the report required by Section 12052.
After the department establishes fees sufficient to reimburse the
department for processing costs, fees charged shall increase at a
rate not to exceed the legislatively approved annual cost-of-living
adjustments for the department's budget. The officer receiving the
application and the fee shall transmit the fee, with the fingerprints
if required, to the Department of Justice. The licensing authority
of any city, city and county, or county may charge an additional fee
in an amount equal to the actual costs for processing the application
for a new license, excluding fingerprint and training costs, but in
no case to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), and shall transmit the
additional fee, if any, to the city, city and county, or county
treasury. The first 20 percent of this additional local fee may be
collected upon filing of the initial application. The balance of the
fee shall be collected only upon issuance of the license.
The licensing authority may charge an additional fee, not to
exceed twenty-five dollars ($25), for processing the application for
a license renewal, and shall transmit an additional fee, if any, to
the city, city and county, or county treasury. These local fees may
be increased at a rate not to exceed any increase in the California
Consumer Price Index as compiled and reported by the California
Department of Industrial Relations.
(b) In the case of an amended license pursuant to subdivision (f)
of Section 12050, the licensing authority of any city, city and
county, or county may charge a fee, not to exceed ten dollars ($10),
except that the fee may be increased at a rate not to exceed any
increase in the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and
reported by the California Department of Industrial Relations, for
processing the amended license and shall transmit the fee to the
city, city and county, or county treasury.
(c) If psychological testing on the initial application is
required by the licensing authority, the license applicant shall be
referred to a licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority
for the psychological testing of its own employees. The applicant
may be charged for the actual cost of the testing in an amount not to
exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150). Additional psychological
testing of an applicant seeking license renewal shall be required
only if there is compelling evidence to indicate that a test is
necessary. The cost to the applicant for this additional testing
shall not exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150).
(d) Except as authorized pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and
(c), no requirement, charge, assessment, fee, or condition that
requires the payment of any additional funds by the applicant may be
imposed by any licensing authority as a condition of the application
for a license.

[ilbob]

You have an evil mind.

I am betting there is some general provision in CA law that handles this kind of phrasing.

have you tried passing this by CGF?

[Jim March]

I figured next step was to run it past Sandy Froman, NRA BoD and a lawyer here in Tucson. If she thinks it might fly, I'm hoping she knows either the Tucson PD Chief or the Pima Sheriff...

[vranasaurus]

Since it is a state law you'd have to sue in California court. If the courts there agreed with this interpretation, which they likely wouldn't, then there would be out of state permits issued until the California legilsature promptly changed the law.

The courts are likely to determine that by county or municipality the law is refering to municiplalities and counties within the state of California as state law has no jurisdiction over counties or municipalities outside of the state.

anybody denied would have cause to sue in Federal court due to the constitutional bar against states discriminating against out-of-state residents in the handling of a Federally protected civil right

Heller did not saying the carrying of weapons was a civil right. It said essentially that the possession of an operable handgun within the home for self defense is a constitutional right.

[Jim March]

When a state discriminates against residents of another state, it's automatically a Federal court issue.

As to Heller, go back and read it again. "Keep" and "Bear" arms is linked, and "bear arms" is defined in our favor. And while states have the ability to restrict or even eliminate CCW, it's within the context of the cases at footnote 9, all of which say the same thing: CCW can be restricted only when open carry is legal.

Open carry of loaded guns is illegal in Cali. Open carry of unloaded gets you major harassment, and in light of Heller's note that unloaded guns don't meet the civil right to self defense, doesn't even matter.

[vranasaurus]

If Heller held that it was a right to carry it would have forced DC to implement some kind CCW or Carry law which it didn't.

The holding in Heller was:

In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Such a holding does not make it a right to carry. Much of the discussion in Heller hints at a right to carry but that was not the holding in the case.

[Jim March]

So you believe we only have those civil rights the court has specifically enumerated?



Heller lays all kinds of blueprints for future challenges, and lower courts have to at least consider the possibilities.

Put another way: having established in Heller that we have a personal civil right to KEEP arms (loaded) for personal defense, how could a lower court separate out the right to BEAR arms? They would literally have to manufacture a disconnect between "keep" and "bear" when no such disconnect has even been theorized in law review articles.

[vranasaurus]

No what I am saying is that Heller does not make it a slam dunk that a federal court will force the state of California to allow non-residents to carry. In fact that argument, to me is independent of the state law. Heller lays out a blue print but the building has yet to be uilt. And with the way the courts work it wil take awhile.

Your arguing two different things.

1. The constitution guarantees the right to carry a firearm.

2. California Law allows out of state police officials to issue California CCW permits.

Those two issues are independent of one another.

In order to challenge California Law your first going to need the federal courts to incorporate. Which is well on its way to happening.

Second you're going to need to challenge California's May issue law. The best way to do that is to get a Cali Resident to challenge it. Having a non-resident challenge adds some unnecessary quirk to the case that could further complicate it. You want a simple challenge.

I am resident of California and the state laws prohibitng me from carrying violate my constitutional RKBA.

Sounds a whole lot cleaner than:

I am a resident of Arizona and Californias law against prohibiting me from carrying vioalte my constitutional RKBA.

In the latter you would have to show exactly when your rights were infringed as you don't live in California and the courts could rule you have no standing to challenge California law. A California residnet would have a much easier time showing standing.

[Jim March]

In order to challenge California Law your first going to need the federal courts to incorporate.

Read Ward v. Maryland 1870, and then read the Slaughter-House case of 1872, including it's specific support for the Ward logic.

What happened was, the court in 1870 decided that "no state shall abridge the privileges and immunities of US citizenship" (in the 14th Amendment of 1868) meant that states couldn't discriminate against the residents of other states. Then Slaughter-House followed that up with "states can do anything they want to people in their own states, but we're still going with the barrier on interstate discrimination found in Ward" and Slaughter-House quotes Ward and supports it.

Meaning cross-border discrimination issues are already "incorporated" in cases exactly like what we see here: a state discriminating against residents of another state.

[csmsss]

Pretty simple for me. I don't really think of California as being part of the same nation I love and hold dear, so any end-run around California's CCW statutes is of no importance to me.

[vranasaurus]

Trying to get a California CCW by arguing that they must issue one to non-residents or it's discrimination is a weak argument that will get you nowhere.

The state of California is not discriminating against you. If there were a right and California only recognized it for residents then you might have a point. But under current case law there is no right to carry and states are free to determine who may carry.

Is the Slaughter-house

Until the SCOTUS holds some right to carry nation wide and applies the 2A to the states you will not get anywhere.

And in order to make that happen you need a few rulings in between.

1. You need the 2A incorporated.

2. You need a holding of the right to carry

3. Then if California only allows residents to carry you will have a case.

[zonamo]

If she thinks it might fly, I'm hoping she knows either the Tucson PD Chief or the Pima Sheriff...

Can't see the interim Police Chief sticking his neck out on anything. Dupnik would be a long shot too (bad pun, I know).

If you really wanted to test this, Graham County Sheriff Preston Allred would be a better bet.

[Jim March]

Well we may have found the fly in the ointment: a clause in the Cali government code defining "county". See the post by Librarian at:

http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=408081

The idea isn't TOTALLY dead yet but...it's on life support .

[BillCA]

Hi Jim,

Good theory, but I as I suspected, the devil is in the details. I was looking for the definition of "Sheriff" or "County Sheriff" to see if the office was defined as being only in the state of California. Looks like I should've looked up "county" first.

Heck, a paralegal might be able to research this fairly quickly for you for a small fee. But like Librarian on THR, I think you're cut off by the definitions of the agencies involved.

[Yellowfin]

Pretty simple for me. I don't really think of California as being part of the same nation I love and hold dear, so any end-run around California's CCW statutes is of no importance to me.

There is a very big reason you're wrong. California makes laws for the rest of this country by electing over 1/8th of Congress and by its influence (not just this particular instance having the Speaker of the House) wields considerable power in what goes on. Combined with NY, MA, IL, MD, and NJ, you've got a very big reason to care about the anti gun states and what you need to do to help turn them around. The anti gun political machine must be broken.

[HarrySchell]

The "may issue" law in Ca has been challenged but such have lost in tossing the "may" part but gained CCW's for plaintiffs showing rank discrimination or malfeasance in granting permits.

AB 357 is now in committee to toss the "may" for "shall" but I expect it will be bottled up by Democrats and the "go along to get along" Reps they own. :barf:

The big fight is going to be over taxation and the budget fiasco. The state budget is just part of the issue, as municipalities and counties are seeing revenue declines past what most of them ever imagined would happen. The economy is slowing yet and the stimulus, emphasizing welfare, will just delay the day of reckoning a bit. The booze party is collapsing, a tea party brewing. This little people's republic is running out of other people's money, and the commoners who pay for it are getting testy, finally.

Other than really irrelevant things, the solons in Sacto may not get much done this year. Maybe. :barf: :barf:

[mnhntr]

Who the heck wants to go to Kalifornia

[Yellowfin]

Who the heck wants to go to Kalifornia

Truckers, airline pilots, vendors, military, engineers, IT guys, and anyone else who has to go there for work. My wife got assigned here for 2 years of job training, otherwise we'd have NEVER come here. We won't be back. Out of state CCW's is a BIG need for folks coming here, and we need out of state CCW reciprocity to reencourage tourism and trade.

[jfrey123]

Instead of supporting this, why don't we all just support the current House Resolution that would require all states to recognize a CCW from a seperate state? Even states that prohibit CCW completely would be required to allow the CCW with certain Federal restrictions on carry....


Seems a lot easier to me.

[ilbob]

Instead of supporting this, why don't we all just support the current House Resolution that would require all states to recognize a CCW from a seperate state? Even states that prohibit CCW completely would be required to allow the CCW with certain Federal restrictions on carry....

what constitutional authority would congress use?

[vranasaurus]

The interstate commerce and full faith and crdit clauses.

[gb_in_ga]

Back to answering the OP's question:

No. I have no interest in getting a Cali CCW. None whatsoever.

I have written off the whole left coast as being one long boycott zone. One big long leftist hellhole, and I have no desire to prop them up with the sales tax/hotel tax/various other lefty tax money that my presence would bring, even on vacation. I'm not setting foot there. I'll not spend one thin dime there. Phooey on them. So -- why bother going through the bother of becoming CCW legal there? :barf::barf::barf:

[ilbob]

The interstate commerce and full faith and crdit clauses.

Since neither has anything whatsoever to do with CC, I ask again what constitutional authority would congress have to do such a thing?

I would submit there is no constitutional authority for it, but that has never stopped them before.

[jfrey123]

ilbob, I'm not an expert, but I assume it would be the same constitutional authority they use to make sure your Illinois driver's license is recognised in Nevada. Or the marriage license for a man and his wife issued in Florida is valid in Alaska. I believe the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment covers it:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No state shall enforce any law which shall abridge my privilege to carry a concealed firearm under my Nevada Concealed Firearm Permit.