Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are obviously special then. The only exceptions that I've been told of involve applying in a large northern county where the sheriff encourages the citizenry to be armed because of the time involved in responding to calls for assistance, such as in Mendocino.I got mine ( Initial ) in 2012 in under 5 weeks ( From Class to the Rice paper in my mailbox ) and all my 2 year renewals since have been as prompt
ShastaYou are obviously special then. The only exceptions that I've been told of involve applying in a large northern county where the sheriff encourages the citizenry to be armed because of the time involved in responding to calls for assistance, such as in Mendocino.
Family in Ventura County ( Moorpark ) have theirsYou are obviously special then. The only exceptions that I've been told of involve applying in a large northern county where the sheriff encourages the citizenry to be armed because of the time involved in responding to calls for assistance, such as in Mendocino.
longtime Childhood Friend From Culver City ( Los Angeles County ) got his well over a Year AgoYou are obviously special then. The only exceptions that I've been told of involve applying in a large northern county where the sheriff encourages the citizenry to be armed because of the time involved in responding to calls for assistance, such as in Mendocino.
You have been duped into thinking that infringing on a Constitutional right will miraculously stop gun crime. Criminals will get a gun and do not give a shit about laws. The only thing the anti-Constitutionalist are trying to do is disarm law abiding citizens.100%
Then flood America with Turd World Criminals and Illegals & Cartel Henchmen & their Families and Single Military Age Males From potentially Hostile Countries and their Sapper Spy Handlers ...You have been duped into thinking that infringing on a Constitutional right will miraculously stop gun crime. Criminals will get a gun and do not give a shit about laws. The only thing the anti-Constitutionalist are trying to do is disarm law abiding citizens.
LASO wouldn’t even give William Bratton a CCW when he was Chief of LAPD. California wasn’t a “may issue“ state, it was a won’t issue state unless you were connected. Of course I‘m talking about the major liberal run counties, a lot of the inland “red”counties were far more reasonable.Thank you for posting those requirements, it never occurred to me that there were still conditions for carrying a concealed weapon, licensed or not. This is reassuring as long as people understand that some people will carry whether they meet the requirements or not.
As far as my concerns about being arrested for carrying unlawfully, this was in California, my home state which is a may issue state and unless you're a member of Congress (the late Dianne Feinstein), a State Legislator (can't recall his name or find him via Google but I believe his last name starts with a 'P'), a celebrity (Sean Penn readily comes to mind) or have a buddy on staff at one of the Sheriff's offices, they "won't" issue. I had two different agencies deny my application but that didn't keep them from coming out to where I was living and asking some of the neighbors about me, people whom I had never met and who knew next to nothing about me.
So then the dilemma comes down to which risk do you take? Do you risk your life by going defenseless and not securing the means by which you at least have a fighting chance to protect yourself. Or do you risk your freedom, and future opportunities to obtain any measure of success in life by allowing yourself to be saddled with a criminal record, involving a firearm which would in the eyes of most squarely place me in the category of "thug", "gangster", "hoodlum", etc.
I had to leave the state in order to obtain a permit and I was issued my first one 2 days after the attacks on 9-11. And ever since acquiring my first carry sidearm, I've been harassed by our government during every single flight I have ever taken in the years since. They only ceased about 6 years ago and only after I stopped traveling with my firearm because I was going to my sister's new home and simply didn't want "them" following me to her house or using any of their tricks they employ to mess with her and or her family.
While the 4th amendment prohibits the government from unreasonable searches & seizures, apparently the only remedy available under the 4th is the exclusion of any evidence unlawfully (unconstitutionally) obtained. In other words, using the fact that I was in possession of a "weapon", "dangerous weapon", "lethal firearm" is always the pretext they could use, but since there was no contraband or anything in my possession that was unlawful, there was never a tribunal of any sorts to exclude anything as evidence from because there were never any charges, no hearings or any other formal accusations, just constant harassment and at times ruining some of my clothing and other personal belonging in my luggage.
That's why I said that with a permit, at least they can't arrest me for merely being armed.
It is a more reliable source than what you use.First, it's MSN. Not the most reliable source.
Second, the entire "article" is two sentences.
Third, no other news outlet has said anything about it.
Ahhh, very niceShasta
I suggest you consider moving out of California.Thank you for posting those requirements, it never occurred to me that there were still conditions for carrying a concealed weapon, licensed or not. This is reassuring as long as people understand that some people will carry whether they meet the requirements or not.
As far as my concerns about being arrested for carrying unlawfully, this was in California, my home state which is a may issue state and unless you're a member of Congress (the late Dianne Feinstein), a State Legislator (can't recall his name or find him via Google but I believe his last name starts with a 'P'), a celebrity (Sean Penn readily comes to mind) or have a buddy on staff at one of the Sheriff's offices, they "won't" issue. I had two different agencies deny my application but that didn't keep them from coming out to where I was living and asking some of the neighbors about me, people whom I had never met and who knew next to nothing about me.
So then the dilemma comes down to which risk do you take? Do you risk your life by going defenseless and not securing the means by which you at least have a fighting chance to protect yourself. Or do you risk your freedom, and future opportunities to obtain any measure of success in life by allowing yourself to be saddled with a criminal record, involving a firearm which would in the eyes of most squarely place me in the category of "thug", "gangster", "hoodlum", etc.
I had to leave the state in order to obtain a permit and I was issued my first one 2 days after the attacks on 9-11. And ever since acquiring my first carry sidearm, I've been harassed by our government during every single flight I have ever taken in the years since. They only ceased about 6 years ago and only after I stopped traveling with my firearm because I was going to my sister's new home and simply didn't want "them" following me to her house or using any of their tricks they employ to mess with her and or her family.
While the 4th amendment prohibits the government from unreasonable searches & seizures, apparently the only remedy available under the 4th is the exclusion of any evidence unlawfully (unconstitutionally) obtained. In other words, using the fact that I was in possession of a "weapon", "dangerous weapon", "lethal firearm" is always the pretext they could use, but since there was no contraband or anything in my possession that was unlawful, there was never a tribunal of any sorts to exclude anything as evidence from because there were never any charges, no hearings or any other formal accusations, just constant harassment and at times ruining some of my clothing and other personal belonging in my luggage.
That's why I said that with a permit, at least they can't arrest me for merely being armed.
LOL thinking your pistol is going to fight off hundreds of armed individuals.Oct 7 massacre in Israel should have been lesson enough to all the gun grabbers there or here, that people shouldn't be unarmed inside or outside of their homes.
LOL thinking some magical entity grants you your rights. Sounds like you're a psycho that shouldnt be allowed to have a gun.You're dreaming. Those guys don't care about permits. They'll come after you with or without a permit.
You'll pardon me for saying so, but I don't need a permit to defend myself. It is my God given right to do that, not a privilege granted by government.
Government can stick its permits and rotate. They're worthless anyway, obviously they can't be enforced. Not when every Tom Dick or Harry can buy an unregistered piece on the local street corner for 100 bucks.
The difference between you and the bad guys is how you use your weapon, not whether you have one.
No it isnt.Those pesky Constitutional rights. If the firearm was illegally obtained the anti-Constitutional loons will ignore the criminal and moan about how we need more gun control. If the firearm is legal the anti-Constitutionalist will moan that we need more gun control. Of course the whole point is to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.
If it were self explanatory, there wouldnt be a need to mention a "well regulated militia". I personally dont agree with the ruling in District of Columbia vs Heller, but I accept it as the current interpretation of the 2nd. That's not to say it can't change in the future when other justices are on the court.First, shall not be infringed trumps “good moral character”
Second, in NY Republicans are de facto not of “good moral character”
Third “…shall not be infringed” is self explanatory
Yeah, “well regulated militia” is beyond human comprehension.If it were self explanatory, there wouldnt be a need to mention a "well regulated militia". I personally dont agree with the ruling in District of Columbia vs Heller, but I accept it as the current interpretation of the 2nd. That's not to say it can't change in the future when other justices are on the court.
Right because criminals are known for following the law. I'm sure every gun control law and ban you loons want will convince criminals to give up their guns. Fucking moron.No it isnt.
If all of the bases are covered then this is the best news the US could hope for!Supreme Court Emergency Decision To End All Firearm Permits Nationwide Gets Put Into Motion
And of course an anti-Constitutionalist like yourself will ignore everything in the 2nd after the comma. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Founding Fathers where very clear on the peoples right separate from the militia.If it were self explanatory, there wouldnt be a need to mention a "well regulated militia". I personally dont agree with the ruling in District of Columbia vs Heller, but I accept it as the current interpretation of the 2nd. That's not to say it can't change in the future when other justices are on the court.
Read what I wrote, idiot.And of course an anti-Constitutionalist like yourself will ignore everything in the 2nd after the comma. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Founding Fathers where very clear on the peoples right separate from the militia.
Seem to work quite well in other countries. Save your breath telling me to move. That doesnt address my point.Right because criminals are known for following the law. I'm sure every gun control law and ban you loons want will convince criminals to give up their guns. Fucking moron.
