Legal Issues

Court Ruling Ends California Concealed Carry Restrictions

Town Crier Cartoon

California Gun Rights Restored — 9th Circuit Court Denies Peruta Appeal

Earlier this year, The Shooter’s Log reported a Second Amendment rights win in California when the Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel in Peruta v. San Diego affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public. San Diego County had denied lead plaintiff Edward Peruta and others a license to carry concealed, which, according to state law, required residents to show “good cause” for carrying—personal safety alone did not qualify as good cause in California.

The court disagreed and struck the highly subjective “good cause” requirement. That was a major win from a state known for being very left of center and extremely anti-gun in its politics. Of course a win for the good guys means sour grapes for the anti-gunners who immediately demanded San Diego’s Sheriff William Gore appeal the decision.

Gavel with American flag
Gun owners’ in California won a major victory in gun rights.

The Sheriff seems to be a true American who believes in citizens’ constitutional rights though. The Sheriff refused to intervene so the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and none other than California Attorney General Kamala Harris intervened in an attempt to stomp on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Harris and Brady petitioned the court to present evidence in the case that would force an appeal. The court saw through the ruse however, and noted essentially that the case had begun over four years prior to the late entrants sudden urge to become involved. In the end, “the panel held that the movants did not meet the heavy burden of demonstrating imperative reasons in favor of intervention on appeal. Noting that the movants sought intervention more than four years after the case began, the panel stated that the stage of the proceedings, the length of the delay, and the reason for the delay all weighed against timeliness. In the absence of a timely motion, intervention was unavailable.” Further clarifying the reasoning behind the court’s decision, “The panel further concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 did not provide a basis for intervention because the panel’s opinion never drew into question the constitutionality of any California statute, but only questioned San Diego County’s exercise of regulatory authority under the relevant state statutes, specifically the County’s policy that an assertion of self-defense is insufficient to demonstrate “good cause” under the California statutory scheme.” Essentially, this all means Harris, Brady and a handful of other who all sought to jump on the bandwagon after the original ruling were simply too late to the game. It is a victory and one that Second Amendment enthusiasts and the citizens of California can celebrate. This removes a major hurdle in the battle to force lawmakers and rouge leaders to recognize our natural and constitutional right to bear arms and self-defense.

What do you think of California’s gun laws? Does anyone have information to share about Sheriff W. Gore? Share your thoughts in the comment section.


The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (125)

  1. Let me start by telling you that I LOVE AMERICA.
    I am outraged by the recent rulings by these Spineless Cowards who call themselves Judges…
    I stand and will defend all that is good and decent in this Country.
    Therefore , from this day forward I do not recognize California as part of the United States of America.And this includes any other State that bans US citizens from legally carrying concealed weapons….
    Furthermore, I consider the ruling by the 9th CCofA as a Treasonous Act upon the citizens of these United States of America…
    I do herby call on all my Gun Owning Brothers and Sisters to demand the Immediate Arrest and Detention of all the Judges residing on the 9th CCofA. And any another Judges that choose to ban Law Abiding citizens the right to carry Consealed Weapons.
    This is a direct Violation of the Declaration of Independence…
    This Violates our Rights to Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the right to protect ourselves from any gun carrying criminals who try to separate us from our property.
    And this Act of Treason Prohibits us from Thwarting any act of Aggression at our Schools,Churches,Nightclubs or at any Public function.
    Thank You and God Bless America

  2. I think that all of the politicians need to remember how voted them in to office. They are supposed to work for the people to protect our rights. Not to take our rights away.

  3. The trick in CA is getting the permit in the first place. After that, if your record is clean, renewal effort and expense should be minimal. I believe that is also the opportunity CA gives you to change any of the three “approved” carry guns enumerated on your permit.

    In AZ, a permit holder renews by downloading a form from the AZ-DPS website, filling it out and submitting it with the current fee, which is nominal. You have a window of around 90 days before, and 60 days after, the expiration date to renew without having to submit a new application. AZ puts no limits or ID on which guns you are allowed to carry.

  4. To Smitty 550.
    I believe the renewal fee is $80. It is for two years and I was told you could do it via telephone or online.

    1. Alex, do you know if re-qualification at a shooting range and/or classroom time is also involved every two years? Also, I wonder if $80 is an arbitrary amount that is thrown at the re-applicant or if it truly reflects the costs incurred by the “system.” It seems to me that if such entities as Amazon don’t charge anything to purchase from them online that the same situation should apply to those who reapply for their CCW online. Wagonmaster, what do you say?

    2. I believe it is like a drivers license. As long as you don’t let it get out dated you don’t have to take another class room session or re-qualify. with your guns. Who knows what the real costs incurred are.

  5. For me the bottom line is that 2A rights are part of a constellation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They work as a package and government agencies at any level, and private enterprises doing business with the general public, lack the authority to pick and choose which rights they will honor and which they will ignore. In the real world, such exceptions are made all the time, but these are the result of political accommodations and are subject to review and reversal.

  6. Some participants in this thread feel there is no difference between private property used as a home and private property used as a business open to the general public. There is, and the law recognizes this. Does the health department inspect your home kitchen twice a year? Does your spouse need a state cosmetology license to give you a haircut? You can invite or prohibit anyone, for any reason, from your home but if you run a lunch counter or a movie theater, you can’t discriminate using criteria that violates the constitution. The analogy between a restaurant prohibiting smokers and prohibiting a customer engaged in lawful concealed carry is false. Smoking is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. 2A rights are. My point was simply that if state and local governments cannot pass laws limiting or prohibiting the practice of a constitutional right, why are businesses open to the general public allowed to do so? And if they are, what other constitutional rights are free to violate? Can they prohibit customers of a certain race? You get the idea. Since many mass shootings occur in “gun free” (“free killing”) zones like theaters, shopping malls, and offices, and since businesses open to the public are otherwise required to observe health and safety laws, I’m not sure where their authority comes from to deny law-abiding patrons the right to exercise the most basic health & safety law there is: the right to self-defense. Again, a proprietor operating under a business license and soliciting traffic to his premises is not the same as a homeowner peaceably enjoying his “castle.”

    1. I agree with and understand your points, and feel that there should be no restrictions to carrying a concealed weapon anywhere deemed a “public place.” But this is not the de facto situation in more restrictive states such as California, where carrying even a toy gun down the street might cause the carrier to be gunned down by an overzealous cop. Regarding open carry, would it be overly-restrictive, however, to disallow someone with an AK-47 strapped to his body access to a business, even in an open-carry state? Couldn’t the business owner argue that such an action scared the other customers? Keep in mind that I am playing devil’s advocate here. What I am getting at is: what does the law say about this? Is it a case of “civil rights” vs. “right to carry?”

      One of the least restrictive states is Arizona. I wonder if the issue has arisen in AZ, where a business had tried to deny access to a person openly carrying a firearm. Of course, the subject of carrying a concealed weapon into a business is not even on the table since the business owner naturally wouldn’t deny access to a person who was not known by the business owner to carry a hidden weapon.

    2. Perhaps I can shed a little light here.

      There are certain businesses in California that place a sign stating no guns allowed. It means nothing unlike in some states. A citizen with a CCW can enter that establishment anytime he chooses without recourse. That’s why we have a CCW, to legally carry concealed anywhere in the entire state that is not federal (or state, courthouse for example) property.

      However, should one brandish accidentally, the establishment has the right to ask them to leave and not return. Should they refuse, a trespass charge is the only legal ramification the establishment has… when the police show up, the brandishing charge that will go along with the trespass charge, will end your CCW permit once and for all.

      You just smile and leave.

    3. I talked with Wagonmaster this morning on the phone; he is VERY knowledgeable about the carry situation in Arizona, his home state. He is also very sharp on gun laws in general there, and has some good opinions on what is happening in California, his former home state. I hope he adds some interesting and insightful information after reading this post.

    4. Please clarify for me, your statement about “accidentally brandishing” your weapon. Do you mean that if your cover garment accidentally rides up over your weapon and someone sees it, you are brandishing? And secondly, if you did not intentionally show your weapon and were asked by the establishment to leave, and you refused on the grounds that, as you stated, you have the right to carry anywhere in the state (with noted exceptions), and the police were called, could you not present your CCW permit to the responding officers? Would that not then negate the trespass charge? (Since as you stated, the weapon was accidentally seen). The officers could simply explain to the business in question that you have the right to carry in public. You might still be strongly urged by the police to leave, but doubtful any citation would be issued.

    5. Not being a lawyer, I cannot specifically answer your question. Added to that is the fact that laws vary from state to state and even within a state. But, yes, your cover garment riding up can in some jurisdictions be considered brandishing which is not protected by simply having a CCW.

      Business have a right refuse service. However, that has been challenged recently in cases such as gay marriage versus a business’ right to refuse service. This same protection may apply to those with a CCW, but I have not heard of it being successfully challenged if challenged at all.

      Lastly, if you value your CCW, be careful about waiting for the police to be called in an effort to have them explain your right to carry to a business owner. One small slip up and you’ll end up with the citation and the forfeiture of your CCW as a minimum. Police loathe answering a call regarding someone with a gun. Even if you are 100 percent within your rights and the law, it is extremely unlikely you will be approached that way by law enforcement. Remember, at the point of initial contact, all the information provided to the police has been by the person reporting you and for officer safety, they are not not going to arrive looking to champion the cause of gun rights. ~Dave Dolbee

    6. Yes I mean if your cover garment rides up and exposes your holster or weapon.

      The police are not going to be amused by an accidental brandish any more than the proprietor of the establishment so there will be no offer of explanation by authorities especially here in California.

      You just leave and the issue is over.

  7. Good points, from the perspective of an individual homeowner. My issue was with a proprietor (or artificial person, like a corporation) doing business with the general public. These entities are governed by all kinds of laws and regulations that do not apply to private individuals. That being the case, I wonder about the justification for a proprietor (or corporate board) to arbitrarily deny what is otherwise a constitutionally guaranteed right. Use your imagination and think about all kinds of other things they could prohibit “in their castle.” A lot of statutes and case law limits their ability to be a “nation within a nation.” Really just food for thought.

  8. Per Dean Chapelle’s comment: that sword cuts both ways. If state governments have no ability to curtail rights guaranteed under the
    Constitution, why are business owners allowed to do it under the guise of rights in property? That is, if a retail store owner doesn’t like firearms, s/he can prohibit them even if the state allows concealed carry. If the proprietor can remove my 2A rights, what other rights can they prohibit, limit, or ignore? I realize I can take my business elsewhere, but the whole civil rights movement was aimed at enforcing Constitutional rights in both the public and private domains.

    1. Are you sure you don’t have that backward? Philosophically speaking, if you want to force a business owner to allow you to carry, would you not be violating their rights under the guise of Constitutionality. Legally speaking, i’m actually not sure, since the state still regains ownership over all land within its borders (except Texas).

    2. The crux is that there is a difference between “private” and “public.” As a property owner, I have the “right” to use my property as I see fit, as long as no laws or statutes are violated. The “right to carry” laws were written to legalize the carrying of guns for self-defense in public places, not on someone’s private property.

      Here are a few thoughts on the matter from “BikeNut,” who responded on an un-labeled site on Google as to the question of private property owners being forced to allow guns onto their property. I thought the post was well-written and logical.

      “…only the government can “infringe” upon a right since the 2nd Amendment only applies to the government. It does not apply to individuals exercising their right to control who and how their property is used. Since you have no right at all to be on/in someone elses property neither do your rights have any right to be there.

      After all.. if people had the right to be on/in any and all property no matter who owns it then I, and my gun, would have just as much right to sit in your living room as you do.. so.. what time is supper?

      And no matter how many times it is explained it seems there is still some difficulty understanding that a property owner with a no guns rule is NOT restricting your right to bear arms but is restricting access to his property to YOU because you are bearing an arm. All you need do is not go on/in that property and your right to bear arms remains unrestricted.

      It’s not your gun that is being told not to come in.. it is YOU who is being told to not come in with your gun.

      Perhaps that is what annoys some folks so much… knowing they just are not important enough to be able to do whatever they want on/in property other people own.”

      [Wagonmaster, I feel that denying anyone access to their property or home because they are carrying a firearm is no different than denying access to one’s house because they are a smoker, a estranged spouse who is considered dangerous, or even someone who comes to your door trying to sell you their religion. It is perfectly within our rights to deny access to anyone for any reason, other than such things as police who are in hot pursuit of a criminal.

      Our home is our “castle,” and to me, the “civil rights” argument is not even germane here. Maybe there is an attorney on board who can change my mind, but for now, there ain’t nobody coming into my home or onto my property unless I say they can.

    3. To expand on my original reply to Wagonmaster: Thank you for specifying that you were referring to businesses/corporations, and not home owners. The issue you pose is a good one. I tried to get some input from the internet regarding legal questions regarding a business owner’s right to deny access to someone carrying a firearm, possible civil rights violations, etc., and this article was all I could find. I know that this law might apply only to Kansas, but for what it’s worth:

      It seems that “civil rights” may not be applicable here, such as it would if a business owner were to deny access to someone wearing a turban or who was in a wheelchair. But….then again….it would be interesting if the issue of CCW carry as applies to business access wasexplained by someone knowledgeable than I.

      As for me, if I owned a business, I would have no problem with a person carrying a concealed weapon, but there are business owners out there who might have a different attitude. It seems that if a weapon is concealed, however, the entire issue is moot.

  9. I find it courious, that all of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the “Bill of “Rights” are applicable to the cities, counties and the states, except the Secound Amendment. Do we see restriction on the press, or the Right to Assemble, do we quarter soldiers in people’s home? Is the a notation in the Constitution which allows cities, counties and states to negate the Constitution and make their own laws? Or, is it just your typical socialist control freak who know better than the Founding Fathers?

  10. Regardless of the ruling, it seems to be on a county-by-county basis. there is NO chance of getting a CA CCW in Alameda or Contra Costa counties, unless you know someone. The average citizen is still deprived of his or hers Constitutional rights. This is what happens when the current administration in CA is bought and paid for. The courts are so slow, and the CA politicians obey them only when they want to, and there are no consequences for their actions when they don’t. STOP VOTING FOR THESE PEOPLE!

    1. The only votes that count or are counted in CA are those that are cast in the three bastions of liberalism here…The entire Bay area and L.A./San Diego counties. THEY are the ones that keep voting for career anti-gun politicians the likes of Brown, Boxer, Feinstien, and DeLeon. I live in the Central Valley, where the majority of people are gun owners, but our voices are never heard, and our votes are never seen because we are “outgunned” at the polls by the population centers of the state. Calling or writing State Senators or Congresspeople here is therefore a futile effort. There are some in state government who are pro-gun, but not enough, as evinced by the plethora of anti-gun bills that keep coming up. and the seeming ease with which they pass.

  11. Every American should read the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and George Orwell’s, ANIMAL FARM at least once a year.

    1. Yes. A person familiar with the constitution and the other writings of the founders would know that ALL weapons laws are unconstitutional and thus invalid.

  12. In Response to Smitty 550.
    I applied for a CCW in Calif. It took some time but it was pretty painless. I had to take a class on the CA gun laws, qualify with the hand guns that I would be carrying( you can have up five on your permit). I have 3. The class & the firearms qualification was $250. Some places are higher in price and charge an additional $50 per firearm over one. Next step is to pay your fee for the background check. In Ventura County it is $125. Then you wait for a call to make an appointment for an interview. Mine took about 3 months to get an appointment and the inter view took about 5 min. Then you wait some more. When you are notified you pay your fee for the license which in Ventura County is $80. Then you wait some more. Then you get a phone call to come in and pick up your card. It looks similar to a D/L. All in all it took about 7 months total. They said they had too many applicants and not enough staff due to budget cuts. Like I said it took some time but it was painless. Money wise it was a total of $455 but you don’t have to pay it all at once. It was an interesting experience. The deputies and staff were very professional and friendly. No body looked you me like I was a crazed gunman and they all said congratulations. Good luck with your experience.

    1. I got the same treatment with Orange County. The Orange County sherriff is very nice to anyone who is applying for ccw. Applied in March of this year and recievd permit in October.

    2. “They said they had too many applicants and not enough staff due to budget cuts.” Where are all these applicants when it comes to voting?

    3. Robert, a friend was supposed to go through the application process at our local sheriff’s office two days ago. He had to postpone his visit until Friday, November 21. He will report what happened at that time, including fees, classes required, etc. I will then post his findings.

      Frankly, I see no problem with classes; they are valuable, especially from the standpoint of what might occur that would put the firearm owner into a legal bind for wounding or killing a perp. But….I am concerned with the $450-500 total fee that seems to be floating around on the internet. If it costs that much, and if I would be forced to renew the CCW permit every couple of years for some ridiculous fee and/or taking another class, I’m afraid I would have to go “bare.” I have not carried a concealed weapon yet, and if the price I would have to pay, both in time and money, is unreasonable, I will just “pass” on the CCW. I live in California, just north of San Francisco…a bastion of liberalism.

  13. You know I have been a loyal NRA Member for over 20 years and I have to say that this is one for the good guys. I paid my dues and even sent in extra as I have had it, now I see that it went to something really good. Thank you all whoever you are, your sensible decision will always be remembered as one big win. Now I can move back to San Deigo and love it for sure. Yes I am now a CCP holder in the state of Indiana.

  14. Another thought: We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

  15. Bravo for the court; however, Sheriff Gore is still refusing to comply even though most other southern California counties started complying after the initial ruling almost a year ago. See this notice from the Sheriff’s office website stating the intent to not issue yet for the purpose of self defense, despite the latest ruling. I suspect that the stalling will continue until some court forces him to comply.

    “The issue of whether the State, the Brady Center, and/or CPCA and CPOA can intervene in the case has been settled – they cannot. However, the issue of whether or not the full Ninth Circuit will review the case en banc remains unanswered. The full court can accept a case for en banc review even if none of the parties make such a request – only time will answer that question.

    Therefore nothing has changed for us, we will continue to process applications as we have been doing. Others that wish to place an application in abeyance may do so in person, not by mail. Should the decision be upheld, we will contact the applicants in the order applications were received.”

    1. Is gore above the law? He carries a gun for self protection and we can’t . Another dictator who thinks his life is more important then ours. They show up after the crime and make a report, after the victim is dead from a criminal’s gun shot wound . Mr. gore-leave your gun at home and join the rest of us.

  16. Sheriff Gore is not “a true American who believes in citizens’ constitutional rights though.”

    He knew he lost and had no leg to stand on with other recent case law. Gore is only in office because as Republican as San diego is it still has a very high progressive voter population. we have UCSD and SDSU with in a few miles of each other a hot bed of liberal voters.

  17. This latest decision is a breath of fresh air for those of us in Kalifornia who believe in and defend the 2nd Amendment, but it is much too early to break out the champagne. There is more jurisprudence to come in the future, and, (due to Circuit Court splits), this might very well end up on the Supreme Court docket. The great irony here is that it was the California Legislature’s banning of open carry a few years ago that brought about this decision. The U.S. Supreme court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald codified a citizen’s right to bear arms outside of the home. With the open carry option nullified, the only other available option is concealed carry. The Legislator’s hoisted themselves on their own petard!

  18. This is just beginning of the fight for California. The next most logical step is to strike down all local laws so in state travelers who carry won’t run into problems passing through every city and town they enter. Uniformity of laws throughout the state is very necessary. That said, this is indeed a very good day for the people of the state.

  19. California is issuing driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, people that are in America that have broken the law to enter this country. The laws are not enforced regarding this group who work for cash and or outside the proper scope of taxers, etc.

    Legal US citizens and native born Americans residing in California who do not have a criminal record are deprived of a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon. California’s Governor Brown is content to allow illegals to remain here and take their money for a driver’s license. He will not take our money for A CCW. He can rest assured he is protected by ARMED officers. Believe California’s CCW enactment when it happens. Game score, Illegals 1, Citizens 0.

    1. George Winston: Good post. Constitutional liberties are not to be taxed or charged fees by the government(s). If this is carried on, the money hungry parasites will institute a tax for being a citizen; uh call it a citizen license fee, illegals do not have to pay. I do not understand why gun owners march down to these pious, liberal bureaucrats, hand over money to them to establish some pseudo right. They should be screaming this is an infringement on my constitutional rights. Where is the court cases on this issue? Where in the Constitution does it distinguish between slung on my shoulder, or under clothing. The liberals have still made great strides in shackling our 2A rights, that ground needs to be taken back. For the ground game, the liberals are still stomping on our turf. We need a lot more wins in court to regain the the gun rights our ancestors had. Liberals infrigement on 2A liberties is a force, as amply stated by a Lord Acton quote, “Authority that does not exist for Liberty is not authority but force.”

  20. As far as I am concerned there is no victory in till we have a national CCW data base that recognizes all states. I got my florida permit threw the mail so easy, California bay area’s ccw application is un believable and costly. The bottom line is if you can buy a gun and do not have any violent charges and can own a gun you should be able to be approved for a license. Hey if they asked for some extra gun training and a ccw corse that is not a big deal I think people need to be educated on the legality of carrying lethal deadly force.

    1. J. Stevens: I know our founders lived in dangerous times, and lethal deadly force did not bother them when the Constitution was adopted. Why should it bother us? The world is a dangerous place. Always was and will always be, no matter how safe the liberals claim it is.

  21. “This removes a major hurdle in the battle to force lawmakers and rouge leaders to recognize our natural …”. “Rouge”? Really? Its “rogue” gentlemen, please.

  22. Democrats in Cal.are anti gun for the every day person.BUT if you are a politician or a movie star it is ok to have armed guards with ccw.WE need to take back our rights !

  23. Sadly, we’ve moved out of the realm of government ‘of, by and for’ the people. Therefore, we must needs fight to get back what was not theirs to take in the first place. I find it amazing that people don’t even understand the meaning of the NAME of the Constitution. It is the document that defines that constituency of the government – not the people. Any time the Constitution is viewed as a way to limit the people, it ceases to be the definition of the government, and instead becomes the definition of the populace. This is why amendments like the 18th amendment establishing prohibition (a limit on the people) should never happen. And it’s why the 2nd amendment doesn’t restrict the rights of the people. Although the language is somewhat archaic, it is very clear by this statement: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    I’ve often used this as an example to explain this to my anti-gun friends: what if an amendment said this: “Delicious bread being necessary to a good dinner, the right of the people to keep and use flour shall not be infringed”. Would that mean that the ONLY reason a citizen should be allowed to have flour would be because we want delicious bread? Of course not – we would have the RIGHT to use flour to make cookies or whatever, and even if we never made bread, that right can’t be taken. The limitation is on the government – in the case of the 2nd amendment, there is a BENEFIT to the government to have the population armed – the people become the militia that is necessary to the security of the free state. For this reason, the government is barred from infringing our right to keep and bear arms. Pretty simple, actually. Odd how hard it is to get this point across to the adversaries of freedom within our midst…

    1. Doug: Coming in late on your post. Your comment(s) reveal the condition of the dumbed down voter (DDV). Most of our citizens in this country have no inkling of how the Constitution limits our representatives, not the citizens. In turn they elect liberals that think they are little gods that can do anything they want. A foreigner, Lord Acton, had more understanding of our Constitution than our modern day DDV, as noted in his quote, “The great novelty of the American Constitution was that it imposed checks on the representatives of the people.”

  24. @John: You are off on your terms. It is the opposite. “Shall Issue States” are favorable to pro-gun advocates for the most part. It means issuing authorities CANNOT deny a concealed-carry permit based on their own, or regional criteria, personal or political agendas, or undefined reasoning.

    There are generally 4 classifications that describe how a state is usually described based on its track-record as an issuing authority:

    Shall-Issue: Permit required with well-defined criteria statewide. Those meeting criteria SHALL be issued a permit regardless of the issuing authority.

    May-Issue: Permit required. Issuance is political and inconsistent in every region throughout that state. Issuance is rare and at the sole discretion of each local authority in office at the time of application.

    No-Issue: There are no laws for any kind of permit issuance. Usually have laws forbidding any type of carry and do not honor other state’s licenses by visitors.

    Unrestricted: No permit or training required to carry open or concealed (Alaska, Arizona and Vermont).

    1. “Shall-Issue: Permit required with well-defined criteria statewide. Those meeting criteria SHALL be issued a permit regardless of the issuing authority. ”

      G-man, what is meant by “well-defined criteria?” I was once issued a permit to carry (yes, in California), but I was restricted to using the permit to carry cash from my office to the bank, and was restricted from carrying a firearm anywhere else. Are you saying that the “well-defined criteria” you stated would similarly restrict applicants from carrying a firearm throughout the state?

    2. @ Smitty 550: Well first and foremost, California is not a “Shall-Issue” state; it is a “May-Issue” state. So asking such a “Shall-Issue” question with California in the same sentence could not possibly be answered.

      With that in mind, the burdensome rules that were created to apply to your permit may very well have only applied in your county and were concocted by your sheriff. Another California county may have a completely different set of rules for the same permit.

      If however your same scenario were to have occurred in say Florida or Texas, which are “Shall-Issue” states, one could be guaranteed the same rules for such a permit would apply to everyone regardless of those state’s issuing counties. I hope this clarifies your question.

    3. Thanks, G-man. The proof will be known tomorrow morning when a friend applies for a permit. He is steeped in the carry laws, and if he can’t get a permit without miles of red tape and/or a fee that is beyond absurd, I seriously doubt that the court ruling will be anything other than smoke being blown up our arses. I’ll keep you posted.

    4. To all in this group: See what a mess this has become when we depart from the Constitution, and break down into a bunch of little feudal kingdoms. States are to uphold the Constitution, not rewrite it, or filter it to suit another agenda. Lord Acton quoted this, “The great novelty of the American Constitution was that it imposed checks on the representatives of the people.” The problem now is the liberals, who claim to be are reps., do not want to be checked by the Constitution, or even to acknowledge it.

  25. So much for CC this state has created so many fees before you get your final permit, you have to wonder is it our right to be charged approx $1000 for a right we Constitutionally have.

  26. I live in TX and glad I do. My wife & I just applied for our CHL, a “bucket list” item for me. I didn’t apply so I could now shoot somebody like libs think. Fact is, I haven’t heard of an instance of a CHL carrier shooting someone since a guy shot a man reaching in his car beating the crap out of him and wouldn’t stop after repeated pleadings & demands to stop. Witnesses backed him up 100%. I’m encouraged by this ruling in CA and by the results of the recent mid-terms. I said encouraged, not fooled to think life will change immediately. We have to continue to make change at the voting booth, that’s how law-abiding societies do it. Congratulations, CA! Now, let’s continue to have our legislators and STATE/LOCAL politicians vote for our constitutional rights.

  27. We’ve already been told some time ago that CA is now a shale issue state. All we have to do is go put our selves in their crosshairs, which to me is by far scarier than facing the common street thug when I’m unarmed. So what does this mean, just carry naturally with no permit? All this nonsense is our own faults anyway for consenting to and living by unconstitutional “laws” . Oh but don’t worry we’ll get republicans in there and all will be well because there not paid and run by the same special interest…..

    1. What a wishful thinker you are, Justaman!! And I wish that for our nation, too: that the Republican leaders would finally show some of what many men LIVE by and do the right thing to put our people back under the shelter of the U. S. Constitution. We really need one of these court cases in NY. My son in CT cannot even remove his guns to store them with us in Texas because he would have to transport through NY – and that alone would involve a prison sentence if we were caught. Talk about power lust and injustice!!

    2. Justaman, I must disagree. The anti-gun laws are not “our own fault.” It is strictly due to the liberal media’s bias, plus the fact that the majority of California voters are liberal and have been misled for years (thanks to the media) to believe that gun confiscation will result in the elimination of crime in general and mass murder in particular. Gun owners know this is pure nonsense, but we are outnumbered. We certainly should not assume blame for having the deck stacked against us.

    3. Smitty my brother, I understand exactly what you are saying because I used to received my world view from fox news which is tailored perfectly to keep strong conservative patriots like us at bay. And if we believe that the vote is counted by the well meaning noncriminal then we are either not informed or in a deep dark denial. Both of which are the main ingredients in the recipe for the failure of an advanced society.

    4. In a constitutional republic it doesn’t matter how the deck is stacked. They cant vote to take away our rights so if we choose to follow unconstitutional laws or policies enforced by corporation then that’s how we will live. Its easier to say the lemmings have voted to take our rights than it is to say were being chumped by the criminal elite.

  28. Is this only for San Diego’s county or all ca counties? I live in the sf Bay Area and it’s next to impossible to get a permit.

    1. My son lives in Orange County and got his Orange County California CCW License. Since this is the decision of the Federal 9th District Court of Appeals, as I understand this it applies to everyone in the Federal 9th District Court of Appeals, not just California.

  29. Congratulations for winning back what you already had. Now please come to WA State and save us from the infringements of I-594.

    1. It means the State, it was a Federal Judges ruling on the lawsuit so it basically told CA. it couldn’t violate the law. I too lived in the Bay Area and worked many nights in west Oakland, believe me “I carried.” I moved to Modesto 30 years ago, I carried when I thought I should. But since this ruling I have obtained a CCP in Stanislaus County. I took a class and that was $100.00 classroom and range qualifying cost to County was about $115.00 for the County, you can list 3 on your carry permit and it’s good for three years. If I lived in the Bay Area now I would get one even if I didn’t need it. Just to shove it up the State Attorney Generals rather ugly bum

  30. As former resident of Cal and ccw holder for my new home state. I’m glad that this hurdle, has pass, now lets hope the rest of the states judges overrule these bans that some of the states seem “so call necessary” to have to proctect is citizens. which most of us know is not true. these so call protector should really read indepth the 2nd ammendment., not what they want to take out of contexts..

  31. “…force lawmakers and rouge leaders ..”

    Unless someone meant Khmer Rouge here (and that is certainly possible, given California’s Rouge leanings), it’s likely that “rogue” was the word you were looking for.

  32. Your 2nd Amendment Rights are not granted to you by anyone. The Constitution includes this in it Bill of Unalienable Rights…… Unalienable means inseparable from any person…..qua —- “God Given.” The language is explicit….. “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “the right to keep and bear arms shall be granted, shall be allowed….or shall be permitted….” The Right to Keep and bear arms is based on every person’s NATURAL GOD GIVEN RIGHT to defend one’s self, and this is not granted by any government. Government that can grant rights….can take them away….and this is NOT espoused in our Constitution. Your “gratitude” is misplaced….taking nearly a year to lift an UNCONSTITUTINOAL prohibition on your right to carry a firearm should be looked upon with disgust and contempt….not gratitude.

    1. Howdy Thomas.
      My gratitude is spot on. Disgust and contempt is what brought me to the fight… the fight for my children’s future. Unalienable is the other reason I will firmly plant my life on the line against “regressive central planning tyrants” of elected authority or their weaselly bureaucratic lap dogs.
      Six years of work has resulted in a major slap down against these malignant anti-American trash and that is worthy of a celebration. We’ve earned this one for the future, in California of all places. Cheers!
      The work is far from over.

    2. T. Gunn: Very well put. Why give accolades to some liberal bureaucates who claim they are blessing you with constitutional liberties established by our founders. They have no right to claim that glory for themselves, it belongs only to the great founders of our great Constitution.

  33. I wish that the law makers would understand that the bad guys don’t obey any and all laws that are made they will hurt you for any reason and even for just fun so these same law makers tie the hands of all the good guys that even if it came to pass if armed and have the chance would protect the family members and even the same law makers if need be…i hope that they can understand that if they evened the playing field that violent crimes would go down and most likely stop…so to all of the law makers both local..state and federal take your heads out of the sand and start doing the right thing and let all us GOOD GUYS PROTECT OUR FAMILIES ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD NEED HELP IN LIFE SAVING TIME1

  34. It is nice to hear legal headway is being made with CCW permits. But, if Sheriffs & police chiefs refuse to issue CCWP then nothing has changed in CA. As CA gun owners we are regulated more & restricted much more than most states for firearms. Yet, CA is not the leading problem state with crimes using firearms. Our Liberal lawmakers are very hostile towards it’s law-abiding citizen gun owners. This must change if we wish to keep our guns & protect our families. Our last election sent a clear message to these anti-gun law makers. They in office for the people not against them. If these elected law makers will not change the views then, it is time for them to go. We cannot afford to lose our freedom & lives due to their defiance.

  35. I grew up in CA. I spent my first 40 years there. From age 21 to 40. I always carried in my vehicle. Kept my nose clean and never got caught. I have since had a CC permit in Oregon, Nevada and now Arizona. I still have kids in CA, and would like to see them reciprocate so I would be legal when I visit, but it still does not keep me from carrying. I wouldn’t think of going into CA unarmed.

  36. You do not want this guy as your sheriff! He’s a political hack that does the bidding of the left. The only thing positive he’s on on this issue is to stay out of the way. The ccw policy (lack of ccw that is) has not changed here in San Diego and will not with him in office unless he is specifically ordered to do so. He still refuses to give ccw based on self defense!

  37. Kudos to Sheriff Gore. I wish Md had someone like him. We need someone with balls to fight to get our 2nd Amendment Rights back in Maryland. O’Malley , Ex. Gov. has made us the laughing stock of other states. He did a great disservice to the good people of Md, who lost their rights here. Even the FBI came out with a report that in 2013 over 21 Million requests to purchase guns were processed. Seems like gun related murders went down 4.4 %, and other crimes went down 4.1%, imagine that, more guns and crime went down. Shows what a donkey O’Malley and his stooges are. This report can be seen on

  38. My fear, having just called the local sheriff’s office a few months ago in San Francisco is they will still just tell you to get lost and they don’t care about the ruling. Something must be done on the federal level to force local agencies to comply otherwise this will all be for nothing. California is notorious for not caring about the law if it doesn’t work in their idealogical favor, and of course stretching the law as far as possible to make it work in their idealogical favor. My question is, what will be done federally to ensure the rights of Californian’s are indeed protected?

    1. t0pgear: From the Fed viewpoint (attorney general) 2A liberties seems to take a backseat to civil rights. Constitutional Liberties have no state boundaries, they are uniform across the states, and fully supported by the Fed. Problem is getting the Fed to act on all, instead of pick and chose. The states are not to be fuedal kingdoms when Constitutional Liberties are at stake. If it was civil rights Holder and Obama would be at your door step. Uniformity for Constitutional LIberties does not exist when filtered through the liberal eyeglass.

  39. Hey, why should law abiding citizens be allowed to defend themselves? On the other hand Cali just downgraded possession of a stolen firearm a citable misdemeanor instead of a felony. Go figure.

  40. The SD sheriff still refuses to issue ccw based on self defense. Based on latest website info, he will wait for others to challenge assuming it will go to the full 9th or suppream court in a year or 2. Unless specifically ordered, which has not happened, he will continue to only issue ccw to his political supporters.

  41. The Oath of office which Sheriff Gore took, stated: “I Bill Gore, do solemnly swear, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and The Constitution of the State of California against ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC…….”

    Now, it is important to understand that this language (minus “the state of California) is the same language in the oath of office for all members of Congress, as well as all Commissioned Military Officers. The importance of this latter group, is that as a consequence of these words, all US military officers are bound by their oath, to DISOBEY ANY ORDER THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    This therefore also holds true for this sheriff; and in fact any law enforcement officer who swears an other that includes this language. Moreover: The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Thus, any US Constitutional power that is expressly prohibited to the states, is not enforceable by any state law or state constitution. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution States: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Every English language dictionary defines “to keep” as meaning TO OWN, and “to bear” as meaning TO CARRY. Since the US Constitution explicitly states….that this right of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED…… any US State that prohibits any law abiding US Citizen from owning or carrying a fire arm, is in direct violation of the US Constitution, which that state ratified.

    ALL State laws limiting, controlling, or otherwise impacting the free and lawful ownership of firearms are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and a violation of their own ratification of that document.

    1. F. A. Grieger; Very good. We need to have justices take a Constitution 101 class, and none of that pass and fail stuff.

  42. Smitty, that may not be as much of a major win for San Diego as you might think. The sheriff is a minion of the left-wingers and now that we are getting full of fraudulent voters, and illegal voters we are in a lot of trouble.

  43. The champagne is premature. Even with “good cause” off the table, issuing agencies in CA can still use any criteria they want to determine good character, psychological fitness, and perceived public risk. The only way the situation will change materially is if the state legislature passes (and the governor signs into law) appropriate legislation making CA a “shall issue” state.

    1. You’re exactly right Wagonmaster. You can’t believe the corruption on our police department, and the uselessness of our sheriff’s dept. Our left-wing LEOs will probably not ever issue CCWs except to their inner circle of friends.

    2. I started the process of obtaining a CCW in Calif. in March of this year. It took about 7 months to complete and I received the license in Oct. of this year. There was no hassle anywhere along the way. The process was completed in a very professional manner and no body looked at me like I was doing something illegal. It seemed like they wanted to make the process as painless as possible. My thanks to the Ventura County Sheriffs Office for making sure that I was granted my 2nd amendment rights.

    3. Calfornia: Please tell us how much you paid for that pseudo right piece of paper, and what is the renewal fee and period?

    4. Wagonmaster is right. I was born and raised in California and in 50+ years nothing has or will change for the better on 2nd amendment rights until the Democrats become the minority party in this state. This recent Peruta ruling only says the AG and Brady bunch cannot intervene at this time. The state still can, and likely will, appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. And even if the Peruta finding prevails, Calif Democrats and their minion law enforcement following will through every conceivable hurdle to make acquisition of firearms and CCW permits prohibited. That’s why the only way to change this madness is get rid of the Democratic majority in California. But good luck on that one.

    5. Wagonmaster is right. I was born and raised in California and in 50+ years nothing has or will change for the better on 2nd amendment rights until the Democrats become the minority party in this state. This recent Peruta ruling only says the AG and Brady bunch cannot intervene at this time. The state still can, and likely will, appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. And even if the Peruta finding prevails, Calif Democrats and their minion law enforcement following will throw every conceivable hurdle to make acquisition of firearms and CCW permits prohibitive. That’s why the only way to change this madness is get rid of the Democratic majority in California. But good luck on that one.

  44. There has been a growing miss-concern that the American citizen needs protection from themselves by taking away their rights given in the Bill of Rights. Yet, the people that are trying to remove those rights are reserving those rights for themselves. Vote!

  45. Just to clarify, the actions, or lack thereof by the San Diego Sheriff, Bill Gore does not warrant any credit whatsoever. He has always been a political coward on the issue from day one. He remains neutral so he can claim appeasement to both sides of the issue.

    As the chief law enforcement officer, the people of his county have always deserved to know where he stands on such important issues as Second Amendment Constitutional rights. But instead of being clear, the Sheriff has always passed the buck by claiming he is simply complying with state laws and that his hands are tied on issuance issues. Yet not once has he ever responded to specific requests to cite which so-called laws were preventing him from issuing concealed permits – mainly because there never were any.

    Regardless of this recent ruling, California laws have always placed the final decision of issuance on each area’s chief law enforcement officer. This man has never had the excuse of “my hands are tied” as he has always claimed.

    The only thing he did right was chose not to appeal the Circuit Court’s decision. But he deserves no special thanks for that because he did what he has always done, which is… to remain neutral and do nothing at all. And that was to be expected.


  47. This is CHAMPAGNE time.

    Put the skepticism back in the box, break out the bubbly and go get your concealed carry. Those of us that stand and fight the “central planners” of California have handed them their arse on a platter.

    The left now stands there stupefied knowing that it is they that have been out maneuvered. When “they” outlawed open carry this was the inevitable result.

    Congratulations to the California Sheriff’s for finally upholding the Constitution. I raise a glass to you, the CRPA and every citizen of California that is willing and able to exercise your right to bear arms. CHEERS!

    1. Before breaking out the bubbly, it’s my understanding that only 3 counties (Orange, Ventura, & 1 other) have been issuing CCW’s (since the original Feb. 2014 ruling) based on self defense alone. Ironically, San Diego is not one of them. I’m hopeful that this latest decision will persuade all LE Officials in the state to start issuing based on self defense.
      I urge all gun owners to apply for their CCW’s while keeping in mind it is a Huge responsibility requiring much insight.

    2. Shasta county has been approving CCW out as long as people meet the rest on the requirements.

  48. So…..has anyone rushed down to their local law enforcement agency to obtain a CCW? If so, what was your experience, including fees, training required, and any other red tape?

    1. It’s a county-by-county thing. Where I live in Butte County it is very easy for me (or anyone) to get a CCW and it allows us to carry in restricted areas such as Oakland where they can’t get CCW’s no matter what their reasons are. It’s ridiculous and makes no sense, kinda like the rest of the state.

    2. @ birdmannpk: Just to clarify, it isn’t your county that allows you to carry “in restricted areas such as Oakland where they can’t get CCW’s”. What is actually going on is, state law previously stipulated that the sheriff of each county is allowed to determine who is allowed to obtain a CCW or not, but once you have it, the law is equally applied no matter where you travel in California because the CCW laws are governed by the state not county.

      Prior to this ruling, the obstacle to getting a CCW was always your local sheriff or chief law enforcement officer that refused to issue because the state law extended that authority to these local heads of law enforcement. However, now that the court case is officially settled all counties must issue the CCWs based on your application for self-defense.

      In other words, a sheriff no matter which county, can no longer randomly deny a CCW application as long as you list “Self-defense” as the reason.

    3. So you’re saying any sheriff in any ca county can’t deny a ccw applicant because my cause is “for self defense”? I live in alameda county if that helps.

    4. In a shall issue state the sheriff has the authority to issue or not the law usually leaves it the their discretion. So if you want permits you need to have a sheriff that issues permits. So when it comes election time elect the right sheriff, it’s as simple as that. I don’t think CA will ever becoming a right to carry state. You might do as I did and get the hell out of CA and move to a state that doesn’t have all those burned out hippies running your life as they see fit. I moved in 1976 and haven’t regretted it in the least. The only thing CA has going for it is the weather.

    5. When I heard the news last winter, I started the ball rolling here in my home county of San Bernardino and received my CCW in late September. After 8 hours of classroom time and an hour at the range with fees totaling about $300. (Fingerprinting, administration, classroom and range fees) Good for two years and then I reapply but with less fees and class time. All in all, a good experience carried out in a professional manner by a Sheriff who honors the US constitution!

  49. As a Californian I’m happy with the results of the decision but as long as we have clowns like Brown and Harris in Sacramento I fear our second amendment rights will always be in jeopardy. And yet they’re small potatoes compared to the idiots we have in Washington.

    I sympathize with the gentleman a year younger than me. I live in Riverside County and I’m not really that interested in carrying concealed heat but when I’m home the gun safe is always available to the last click. I’d like my wife to get a CCW though because she works in San Bernardino and that’s a real social sewer. If what the gentleman said about only needing to show my DD214 is true I may try to do it just for the hell of it.

    1. @ Hank Alvarez: That would be a negative on using your DD-214 to bypass the training for a CA CCW. It is mandatory for all.

      There are many other states with common sense enough to allow it, but California is not one of them. Sorry.

  50. This sets a legal presidence that all other practitioners of jurisprudence can use in chalenges in other states, counties, cities and even on a federal level with a federal carry permit as our right under the constitution where men carried their fire arme where they went without restriction except locally. this is what was the original intent of the Constitution. It was originally writened in order so if need arose,a man was armed and able to defend property life and Liberty. We may once again this Ideal but I would not count on this happening. The Courts are to conservitive and I do not think it will go this far but maybe California will respect other States CCR’s

  51. @ EVERYONE:

    Before this topic becomes too spun out of control, allow me to clarify a few misstatements already being made by other commenters…

    First I wish to address Ross who incorrectly stated:

    “It isn’t law yet. Of course, the anti-gun people are appealing it. I would think, if it happens at all, it could take a couple of years. Maybe even longer, who knows. But, don’t run out and buy a handgun and holster for concealment yet. This is old news. It happened at least a couple of months or more ago, if memory serves me right. I didn’t pay a lot of attention to it because I knew what would happen.”

    Ross, I believe you are confused in that this is not old news. While you are correct the original ruling was several months ago, the updated news, and point of this entire article is to inform readers that the “appeals” process is now over and the restrictive California permit laws MUST now be changed to favor issuance.

    That is a big win and quite exciting. So stop being such a negative ninny and go apply for your permit buddy. Since the ruling, officials are now saying that the number of new permit applications that flood in will determine the speed by which they will be forced to update their statutes to reflect the change in law. So go get ‘em folks. Even if you get denied, keep applying and encourage others to do so as well. Remember they view the amount of applicants as a mandate.

    Second I wish to address Don Haines who incorrectly speculated this will have no effect on Hawaii:

    Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact there is a very similar case on hold by the 9th Circuit in Hawaii (Baker v. Kealoha) which is waiting for the appeals process to end in California’s “Peruta Appeal”.

    Interestingly that 3-Judge panel in Hawaii also ruled in favor of carry, but in order to prevent any conflict, they chose to place their ruling on hold until California’s “Peruta Appeal” had concluded in order to prevent any conflict. However, now that the “Peruta Appeal” is over, they will finalize the positive ruling in Hawaii as well.

    This is all great news for gun rights folks. Get active, stop being so negative. We are winning by leaps and bounds folks, so smile and rejoice.

  52. This is great for California. Sadly, it probably will have no bearing on Hawaii which also has some pretty ridiculous restrictive gun laws. From what I’ve seen, Hawaii has a better chance at regaining independence than getting CCW permits for average citizens. And yes, there are many who would like the U.S. to honor it’s agreement in the last century to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii.

    1. Japs should have taken the islands, subdued the locals, and forced the US into a major naval engagement closer to the mainland. Their only option now is economic dominance, and play the liberal scene. Anyway, so much for the fuedal kingdom they want, foreign interests will be their king(s). Then, gun rights will be totally lost to the lowly servants, and the puppet ruler will claim how good they have it.

  53. This news sounds too good to be true; as a result, I am skeptical. So….if I get it correctly, does this mean that I can now march into my local sheriff’s office or police department and ask for and receive a CCW with no strings attached, other than my having to have a clean record, not being a felon, etc.?

    I always like to be prepared and would appreciate finding where I can get a copy of the newly-passed CCW law to take with me when I get the anticipated static from some uninformed clerk in the offices mentioned previously.

    And, what other hoops must I jump through? A nuts-and-bolts article needs to be published with the necessary steps needed by the ordinary citizen to obtain a CCW. What about it, Dave?

    1. It isn’t law yet. Of course, the anti-gun people are appealing it. I would think, if it happens at all, it could take a couple of years. Maybe even longer, who knows. But, don’t run out and buy a handgun and holster for concealment yet. This is old news. It happened at least a couple of months or more ago, if memory serves me right. I didn’t pay a lot of attention to it because I knew what would happen.

  54. Good for California! Of course it happens AFTER I move to Texas. Glad my old friends can more readily begin to pursue a concealed carry license!

  55. I live in Riverside County and would like to get a CCW lic. I am 72 years old and live alone in my home. When you look at news programs all you hear is shootings, home invasions, people getting beat up and robbed. Everytime I leave the house I wonder what is out there. I am a disabled vet at 100%. The County has rules about CCW lic. such as taking a safety course, qualifying with my weapon and going before a board plus filling out paper work for the County and the justice dept. I would like to know what you think my chances are of getting a CCW lic. By the way I am a law abiding citizen who goes to the range at least twice a month.
    Thank You…, Wayne

    1. In most states if you are a veteran all you have to is show your dd-214 and you don’t have to do any shooting or classes..just show dd-214 to the instructor at the gun store

    2. @ wayne cardoos: I was waiting for someone from California to answer, but since not, I’ll take a shot. I am not from California and have only ever visited for various law enforcement conferences and on vacation.

      As law enforcement agents/officers, most of us do not have to concern ourselves with each state’s laws because we are protected under LEOSA to carry regardless of any state restrictions. The point in my preface is to warn you that the following advice is pure speculation on my part, as I am not an authority on California law.

      However, given the original ruling was a win in favor of carry for all California residents, and now with the recent appeals to that win having been denied, I would say it is no longer about “your chances” of getting a license, and is now more of a guaranteed right for you to get one.

      Albeit, you may have to wait for the dust to settle now that the appeals are over. This is because new rules must be implemented now that everyone will be flocking for a permit. That should already be underway and I recommend you check into it now. Hopefully they’ve even done away with that bogus board you said you must go before.

      But essentially you no longer will be required to prove you have “good cause” for requesting a gun permit and instead ANYONE eligible may simply apply for one under the right to “self-defense”; which was always everyone’s right in the first place as solidified in the Second Amendment.

      As a parting question: Would your military service by chance ever happen to have included time as any type of military police or authority with military arrest (apprehension) authority? If so, the latest changes to the law enforcement weapons carry law (LEOSA) was recently updated to include former military that operated in that capacity.

      Interestingly there is no limit as to how long ago, but you will have to prove at least 10 accumulative years in such a career field.

      I hope this helps.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Discover more from The Shooter's Log

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading