Out here in the rural western part of the state it seems it matters mostly who is chief of your local PD. They can issue the permit then place 'restrictions' on it. These may allow only hunting and target shooting or hunting and 'sporting' ie- you can CC while hiking/camping. All of it is a clear violation of the 2nd. I have several friends that are more towards the middle of the state in a large city that are issued A licenses without restrictions. However the mindset out here is strange. We have farmers and workers and middle class people who are forced to abide by town/state laws that affected by the influx of 'artists' and second home owners who vote for antigun representation.
A relative who has owned guns since the '60s had obtained the non restriction A when all this licensing nonsense first went into effect, after moving about 8 or so miles to another town, that license was downgraded to hunting/sporting. So this individual could no longer CC a weapon. Because he moved to another town.
Now time has passed, a new chief is in control, my relative now has no restrictions on his new permit. He didn't change, the law didn't change. The whim of an appointed officer did. This state is so anti rights its sickening.
The elected officials appoint chiefs, so therefore the antis win when they vote for those who are against legal gun usage/ownership.
I was told before that my restrictions would be lifted if the chief "didn't hear anything bad" over the next few years.
Its nuts. Either you can or can't have guns. Should be up to federal law. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not up for states to decide. I'm big on states rights, however the founding documents clearly define the Rights that the states have no control over. The Bill of Rights is set up to protect the people from the governments over reach.