CA DOJ New Reg Proposals for CCW

[Helmut]

Regulations: Carry Concealed Weapons Licenses

Summary In late June 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1 (Bruen), holding that the State of New York’s requirement that “proper cause” be demonstrated in order to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon...

oag.ca.gov

 

[ikeo1]

Summary:

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that New York’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed carry permits was unconstitutional. Following this decision, California’s Attorney General declared the state’s “good cause” requirement for concealed carry weapon (CCW) licenses unconstitutional, prompting the need for legislative reform.

Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) replaced California’s “good cause” and “good moral character” standards with defined, objective criteria for determining CCW license eligibility. Under SB 2, local authorities must issue or renew a CCW license if the applicant meets the requirements and is not disqualified based on specific criteria. Applicants can challenge disqualification decisions in superior court. SB 2 also updated other CCW requirements, including minimum age, training standards, and weapon ownership rules.

The California Department of Justice was authorized to implement SB 2 through emergency regulations, which were completed in three parts:

1. General CCW topics.
2. Design standards for a uniform license.
3. Expansion of DOJ Certified Instructor training entities to include CHP, CDCR, and the NRA.

These emergency regulations will expire on January 1, 2026, unless made permanent. The Department has initiated the rulemaking process to adopt these regulations permanently, currently undergoing a 45-day public comment period, closing on February 19, 2025. Public comments may be submitted via mail or email.

 

[DRH50BMG]

Is this the current qualification test and is it already required for renewals?

 

[Malibu]

Check out article 5, as it relates to sign regulations:

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/ccwl-text-of-proposed-regulations-rev-12-2024.pdf

If anyone even thinks for a second that the state of California will simply sit back and let citizens have firearms in public without doing everything in their power to stop it is foolish. All the “better” IA’s can hand out permits to whomever they wish, but the state can impose such draconian rules to curtail when one can actually carry. This is an example of the ongoing fight. Others simply make the process so drawn out, resulting in extreme delays.
LASD is but one IA taking full advantage of this, as we can see.

Additionally, this is worth noting:
“However, the Supreme Court expressly stated that it is constitutional for states to require a license to carry a firearm in public. The decision accordingly required a legislative response.”
Result: the citizens are F*U*C*K*E*D. Depending on where one resides, things could now be worse off than before insofar as CCW issues go. SCOTUS did this, and thus opened the door to other constitutional rights being subjected to licensing schemes.

This is politics. Anything having to do with firearms, ammunition, shooting, hunting, or gun culture is so intertwined with politics that it can’t be separated.

 

[1911-CV]

Is this the current qualification test and is it already required for renewals?


View attachment 26773

No, this is the test required for CCW DOJ Certified Instructors. The initial and renewal qualification test required for CCW issuance is still set by the issuing agency and varies widely across the state.

 

[1911-CV]

Check out article 5, as it relates to sign regulations:

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/ccwl-text-of-proposed-regulations-rev-12-2024.pdf

....

The current federal injunction prevents enforcement of Penal Code 26230(26), effectively making the sign regulation moot. At least for the moment.

PC 26230
(26) Any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator of the establishment clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that licenseholders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.

 

[Drivedabizness]

Bruen said that shall issue regimes can be implemented but they cannot be "onerous or time consuming". The States response was DESIGNED to be both. We can only hoppe the Trump DOJ will begin weighing in on these Federal cases in our favor. Prosecution of criminals on the Left will be helpful to "encourage" the others.

 

[Malibu]

Bruen said that shall issue regimes can be implemented but they cannot be "onerous or time consuming". The States response was DESIGNED to be both. We can only hoppe the Trump DOJ will begin weighing in on these Federal cases in our favor. Prosecution of criminals on the Left will be helpful to "encourage" the others.

I appreciate your knowledge of the ruling, however IMO California and other blue states will simply thumb their noses at SCOTUS rulings, because there are NO teeth in enforcing them, and so far they have gotten away with it. And they celebrate so much. IMO SCOTUS screwed up when they allowed any type of “permission” systems to be kept, and we are seeing how that has been twisted. Hopefully things will change, but at this point I really doubt it.