CCW Frustration with expensive and nearly useless CCW permit

[Baldy333]

You think California is bad? Just go out of state with a California issued CCW and see what it does for you...

Well, you can carry in all the blue and green states (and I think the yellow), even though we don't recognize any other state's CCWs.

 

[1911-CV]

We may get some relief from the Supreme Court hearing the case Wolford v. Lopez, which challenges a 2023 Hawaii law that restricts carrying firearms in public places like parks, beaches, and private businesses without the owner's permission. The central question is whether Hawaii's law is consistent with the Second Amendment, particularly after the 2022 Bruen decision, which expanded gun rights to carry in public for self-defense. The Court will determine the constitutionality of "sensitive places" laws and the requirement for consent to carry on private property. Recall that the 9th Circuit upheld the injunction against the California version of the 'vampire clause' restricting CCW permittee's right to carry on private property that is open to the public and not an otherwise listed 'sensitive place'; but allowed the Hawaii version to go into effect. Link to SCOTUS blog

I agree that California CCW's are expensive but feel they are far from 'nearly useless'.

 

[MattB]

Why do we have to go through years of appeals to deal with California’s blatant disregard for the constitution? Why can’t this go straight to SCOTUS based on the immediate and gross impact that California’s legislation has on our rights?

 

[ejhyun]

So, as I read the comments of this post, I get more and more confused. Regardless of your CCW status, carrying illegally is a misdemeanor. People are advocating carrying illegally, so why did you get your permit?

If the 6 areas that are currently enjoined, get banned then that is pretty much everywhere..except your own home or a fellow CCW holders home. Which means, if you are going to follow what is suggested on this post then everyone will be breaking the law.

Aren't we all fighting for our rights to own, NOT advocating ways to provide more reasons to restrict our rights.

If CCW holders do not behave responsibly, they will use that as reasons to restrict more of our rights. If you want to advocate illegal carrying then just carry illegally and do not make it harder for the rest.

Trust me guys, it sickens me that California is so restrictive. I would love to buy a new PDP Steel Frame but having to pay double what someone 200 miles away has to pay makes me vomit. But these are not reasons to advocate irresponsibility.

 

[NorCalBusa]

Well, you can carry in all the blue and green states (and I think the yellow), even though we don't recognize any other state's CCWs.

There's a reason many are called "fly over states"...

 

[NorCalBusa]

Point conceded, but assuming you had a legitimate self-defense shoot, it's still better than facing criminal and civil court costs on your own.

I hope so. I think the firearm prepaid boys need to stop imitating insurance and plainly call it what it is. Its not accidental they enjoy the misconception.

 

[bazooka]

When I decided to get my CCW, I read the probate code included in the application. I almost decided not to bother with the license since it would be impossible to stay legal. Since getting my license, I haven't carried outside the home because of the legal risk. In my situation, that risk is far greater than encountering a situation that would require my gun for protection. My friend is not so lucky since his job keeps him on the road visiting locations he's never been to before. In his shoes I would stay armed.

In addition to those location restrictions, my license is particularly limited; I can only have two entirely unmodified weapons with no red dots. So, to maintain the relevance of my training (should I even need to carry and be competent), I never use optics.

It's really tough for me to justify the effort to keep my license, but I will maintain it to support the cause as best I can. It's also a matter of pride.

 

[NationMostWanted]

I know it sucks with the restrictions on our permits but I wouldn't want to let mine expire in case there's a chance where I wouldn't be allowed to get one again. Hopefully one day the changes goes away.

I feel we should be allowed to go where we want as permit holder, outside of federal buildings. That's why there's a permit to begin with. Other day I went to museum and had to lock it up

 

[treelogger]

Why do we have to go through years of appeals to deal with California’s blatant disregard for the constitution? Why can’t this go straight to SCOTUS based on the immediate and gross impact that California’s legislation has on our rights?

First: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that California's carry laws (including SB2) are unconstitutional. That's like your opinion, but not the reality. In our system of government, laws are assumed to be constitutional, until and unless found otherwise. And while that happens occasionally (recent examples in the past two decades include Heller, MacDonald, and Bruen), it hasn't happened for our CCW laws. And it doesn't look particularly likely in light of Bruen, which decided that New York's license scheme was basically good to go, except licenses have to be actually available, without a needs test beforehand, and with only objective criteria. Wolford might change some of the place restrictions, and Bruen also upended the system by which gun control laws are evaluated, but California's CCW system seems to stand the test of court scrutiny.

Second: Our system for evaluating laws has been in place for over 200 years, since Marbury. You want it to be slow, thorough, and deliberate, otherwise you end up with too many wrong answers. Sort of funny to hear that from me: I just spent 3 hours in a courtroom, including the commute, this morning, but I still appreciate the court's attempts to get it right, and hear all sides. We have to all recognize that the Supreme Court has been massively politicized, so right now a decision there would be good for gun rights; 20 years ago, that was roughly the opposite. Right now, the federal district and appeals court is what is giving the system stability. Also, the Supreme Court only hears a small number of cases every year, typically 70, or about 3% of what is submitted to it. For a country the size of the US, the Supreme Court should have several hundred justices, and hear a heck of a lot more cases. But that can't happen (because the federal legislature is deadlocked, and has been for a generation), so "going straight to SCOTUS" is neither available nor desirable.

If the 6 areas that are currently enjoined, get banned then that is pretty much everywhere..except your own home or a fellow CCW holders home.

That may be true if you live in a densely populated city. It is definitely false in rural areas, and at best half true in suburbia. From my house, I can go about 5 miles in any direction before getting to any place where carrying is restricted, and I could walk to work with only a few such places along the way.

In a nutshell, California has two CCW systems: One for dense cities (where carrying is de-facto prohibited) and a different one for rural areas (where carrying with a permit is allowed). Again, this points out the inequity in the system.

Aren't we all fighting for our rights to own, NOT advocating ways to provide more reasons to restrict our rights.

If CCW holders do not behave responsibly, they will use that as reasons to restrict more of our rights.

Absolutely agree. Reckless and irresponsible gun people are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I would love to buy a new PDP Steel Frame but having to pay double what someone 200 miles away has to pay makes me vomit.

But consider that California also has much higher salaries for many professions. A person with real-world skills in Silicon Valley also makes double what the same person would make in Mississippi or West Virgini. So that expensive Walther pistol is just part of the higher cost of living, just like a cup of yoghurt costs more in Cupertino than in Greenwood, MS (median household income: $22K per year).

 

[Baldy333]

... My license is particularly limited; I can only have two entirely unmodified weapons with no red dots. So, to maintain the relevance of my training (should I even need to carry and be competent), I never use optics.

It's really tough for me to justify the effort to keep my license, but I will maintain it to support the cause as best I can. It's also a matter of pride.

"no red dots"

That would prevent an old fart like me from carrying, since iron sights don't resolve for me anymore, especially in dark circumstances. Even Alameda County isn't that restrictive.

"maintain it to support the cause"

You and me too brother, I may not get much out of it, but I'm personally helping to preserve our 2A rights by legally maintaining my right to carry.

 

[1911-CV]

When I decided to get my CCW, I read the probate code included in the application. I almost decided not to bother with the license since it would be impossible to stay legal. ...
It's really tough for me to justify the effort to keep my license, but I will maintain it to support the cause as best I can. It's also a matter of pride.

I suspect you meant the Penal Code, and the text of the law is more restrictive than what is actually in operation thanks to injunctions at the 9th Circuit. When the 9th Circuit (federal court) blocks enforcement of a part of state law, either temporarily with an injunction (now), or permanently with a final judgment, the language 'on the books' doesn't automatically change; but Law Enforcement and District Attorneys are advised that those sections are not in effect and cannot result in charges. Here is a good summary of the current status: Injunction Against SB 2’s Concealed Carry Ban Partly Upheld (the original injunction blocked enforcement of even more sections of SB2).

Note: It is CCW holder's obligation to stay abreast of the changing legal landscape.

 

[bazooka]

I suspect you meant the Penal Code, and the text of the law is more restrictive than what is actually in operation thanks to injunctions at the 9th Circuit. When the 9th Circuit (federal court) blocks enforcement of a part of state law, either temporarily with an injunction (now), or permanently with a final judgment, the language 'on the books' doesn't automatically change; but Law Enforcement and District Attorneys are advised that those sections are not in effect and cannot result in charges. Here is a good summary of the current status: Injunction Against SB 2’s Concealed Carry Ban Partly Upheld (the original injunction blocked enforcement of even more sections of SB2).

Note: It is CCW holder's obligation to stay abreast of the changing legal landscape.

Yes, sorry, "Penal Code section 26230 - Prohibited Places" is included in the document they gave me.

It's really beyond me to keep memorizing the list of prohibited places as it changes and then match that list to wherever I might be traveling on a particular day. Heck, I'm not even sure I could memorize it if it didn't change; It seems designed to trip me up or simply to discourage carrying. The very last line reading "Any other place or area prohibited by local law" left me realizing that I knew nothing about my local laws with regard to carrying. I suspect onerous provisions in those are not being challenged in any court.

I guess citizens break laws unintentionally all the time. Unfortunately, the general population's position on guns could make honest mistakes with respect to gun laws harder to recover from.

 

[Baldy333]

Yes, sorry, "Penal Code section 26230 - Prohibited Places" is included in the document they gave me.

It's really beyond me to keep memorizing the list of prohibited places as it changes and then match that list to wherever I might be traveling on a particular day. Heck, I'm not even sure I could memorize it if it didn't change; It seems designed to trip me up or simply to discourage carrying. The very last line reading "Any other place or area prohibited by local law" left me realizing that I knew nothing about my local laws with regard to carrying. I suspect onerous provisions in those are not being challenged in any court.

I guess citizens break laws unintentionally all the time. Unfortunately, the general population's position on guns could make honest mistakes with respect to gun laws harder to recover from.

Unfortunately I think you are exactly right.

 

[bazooka]

"no red dots"

That would prevent an old fart like me from carrying, since iron sights don't resolve for me anymore, especially in dark circumstances. Even Alameda County isn't that restrictive.

"maintain it to support the cause"

You and me too brother, I may not get much out of it, but I'm personally helping to preserve our 2A rights by legally maintaining my right to carry.

I'm an old fart too. I had cataract surgery 1.5 weeks ago. We'll see how I do when I return to the range. The lens I chose is a fixed focal length lens set to see at distance. Optics would eliminate the need to focus on my sights, which I can now only do with my non-dominant eye.

I'm licensed in Contra Costa County since my city doesn't handle it. Maybe I should sue them for age discrimination. To be fair, I haven't asked them if they would make an exception. I found them friendly and accommodating throughout the licensing procedures.

 

[treelogger]

Optics would eliminate the need to focus on my sights, which I can now only do with my non-dominant eye.

I know it may not be practical for CCW, but have you considered shooting glasses, where the focus is adjusted to be exactly at the distance of the front sight? I use those for target shooting. In theory, one could even combine them with multi-focal glasses, such as driving glasses that have far focus at the top, and focus on the dashboard and such lower down. You could ask your optometrist to adjust them to the distance to your sights.

There used to be a really good shooting optometrist here in the Bay Area (Dr. Norman Wong, of the Mission District in SF), but he retired. I can recommend other good ones via PM.

 

[Baldy333]

I'm an old fart too. I had cataract surgery 1.5 weeks ago. We'll see how I do when I return to the range. The lens I chose is a fixed focal length lens set to see at distance. Optics would eliminate the need to focus on my sights, which I can now only do with my non-dominant eye.

I'm licensed in Contra Costa County since my city doesn't handle it. Maybe I should sue them for age discrimination. To be fair, I haven't asked them if they would make an exception. I found them friendly and accommodating throughout the licensing procedures.

For me, I can either see the sights or the target but not both at the same time. A red dot optic is like having eyes 30-years younger. The 1.75" group was hand held at 10 yards using a Holosun Ronin HS507Comp, but my EDC wears a HE507c-Gr X2 ACSS.

 

[MattB]

First: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that California's carry laws (including SB2) are unconstitutional. That's like your opinion, but not the reality. In our system of government, laws are assumed to be constitutional, until and unless found otherwise. And while that happens occasionally (recent examples in the past two decades include Heller, MacDonald, and Bruen), it hasn't happened for our CCW laws. And it doesn't look particularly likely in light of Bruen, which decided that New York's license scheme was basically good to go, except licenses have to be actually available, without a needs test beforehand, and with only objective criteria. Wolford might change some of the place restrictions, and Bruen also upended the system by which gun control laws are evaluated, but California's CCW system seems to stand the test of court scrutiny.

Second: Our system for evaluating laws has been in place for over 200 years, since Marbury. You want it to be slow, thorough, and deliberate, otherwise you end up with too many wrong answers. Sort of funny to hear that from me: I just spent 3 hours in a courtroom, including the commute, this morning, but I still appreciate the court's attempts to get it right, and hear all sides. We have to all recognize that the Supreme Court has been massively politicized, so right now a decision there would be good for gun rights; 20 years ago, that was roughly the opposite. Right now, the federal district and appeals court is what is giving the system stability. Also, the Supreme Court only hears a small number of cases every year, typically 70, or about 3% of what is submitted to it. For a country the size of the US, the Supreme Court should have several hundred justices, and hear a heck of a lot more cases. But that can't happen (because the federal legislature is deadlocked, and has been for a generation), so "going straight to SCOTUS" is neither available nor desirable.


That may be true if you live in a densely populated city. It is definitely false in rural areas, and at best half true in suburbia. From my house, I can go about 5 miles in any direction before getting to any place where carrying is restricted, and I could walk to work with only a few such places along the way.

In a nutshell, California has two CCW systems: One for dense cities (where carrying is de-facto prohibited) and a different one for rural areas (where carrying with a permit is allowed). Again, this points out the inequity in the system.


Absolutely agree. Reckless and irresponsible gun people are part of the problem, not part of the solution.


But consider that California also has much higher salaries for many professions. A person with real-world skills in Silicon Valley also makes double what the same person would make in Mississippi or West Virgini. So that expensive Walther pistol is just part of the higher cost of living, just like a cup of yoghurt costs more in Cupertino than in Greenwood, MS (median household income: $22K per year).

I don’t need to be a lawyer (and I am not) to know that all of California’s anti gun laws are grotesquely unconstitutional. Bruen has been decided and “shall not be infringed” doesn’t include “unless the democrat party doesn’t like it.” We should not have to go through a bunch of Democrat activists on the 9th circuit to get relief.

 

[five.five-six]

If it comes down to it would you rather be carried by 6 of your closest friends/family or judged by a jury of 12 peers? That's the question you need to ask yourself

The problem is that anyone who can’t get out of jury duty isn’t my peer.


That’s only partly in jest. The last Jury duty I completed was over 20 years ago. I do consider jury duty my civic duty and have never “tried to get out of it”. That said, with a career and a separate construction business and a family, I almost always reschedule and it just seems that my summons is vacated before I actually participate. It’s not just Jury duty, I have a very nice boat and sand car and lots of guns that I can never find time for. I want to get the family back to the BFI for 2 weeks but business and job and school just keeps getting in the way.

Point being, anyone mad at Trump because their EBT won’t work isn’t my peer.

 

[Sparrow Dynamics]

That's kind of what the Sheriff's deputy that interviewed me said too (although he turned off the recorder when he said it). Maybe I'm just too law-abiding.

Just an FYI if it makes you feel any better. The Founders (and other men at that time), in their writings (letters, essays, speeches, etc.) didn't use the term "law-abiding citizen", but you can find the occasional use of "peaceable citizen".

"Self defense is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish." - Mercy Otis Warren (1788)

To the community reading this... here are some other quotes to ponder (please take a moment to read) and to help us consider where America was, and where it is now. Individual liberty should be the primary object and yet we've fallen away from that. We are not advocating breaking the law... read the quotes and make your own choices in life because you are responsible for you.

"That which is not just, is not Law; and that which is not Law, ought not to be obeyed." - Algernon Sidney (1683)

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson (1819)

"To say that an unconstitutional law must be obeyed until it is repealed, is saying that an unconstitutional law is just as obligatory as a constitutional one, – for the latter is binding only until it is repealed. There would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power." - Lysander Spooner (1850)

"When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object." - Patrick Henry's speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention (1788)

"There is nothing that will destroy liberty more than a prevailing opinion that it is better to tamely to submit than nobly assert and vindicate our privileges." - James Otis, Jr. writing as "Freeborn American" (27 Apr 1767)

 

[treelogger]

I don’t need to be a lawyer (and I am not) to know that all of California’s anti gun laws are grotesquely unconstitutional.

Sorry to be obnoxious, but you are simply wrong on that. You don't get to decide what is unconstitutional and what isn't. You may have opinions on it, but your opinions are not relevant. These decisions are made by courts. And so far, more often than not California's laws are found to be constitutional, but a significant fraction are found unconstitutional. A blanket statement such as yours above is nonsense.

We should not have to go through a bunch of Democrat activists on the 9th circuit to get relief.

You don't seem to be aware that roughly 45% of the active judges on the 9th circuit were appointed by republican presidents.

The Founders (and other men at that time), in their writings (letters, essays, speeches, etc.) ...

The writings of the founders are nearly completely irrelevant today, except for history lessons.