• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

complete CCW trainig before application can be submitted ?

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
Today I went to apply for a CCW. The clerk told me I had to complete a firearms training course BEFORE I could submit my application. Is that true ? I don't think it is.
[video=youtube;8X5Dh7wefNY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X5Dh7wefNY[/video]
 
Last edited:

D_FIN

New member
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
1
Location
Magna
You must live in one of socialist commie states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
974
Location
SoCal, , USA
In CA the 'normal' process is to submit the application and pay a portion of the total fees. There is a maximum percentage they can charge upfront - around 10%. Edit: 20% of the local fee ($100 max) is the most they can charge at the time of application PC26190(b)(2)

The application is evaluated for preliminary 'good cause' and 'good moral character'

The issuing agency then provides a thumbs up/down with regard to 'good cause' and a preliminary ruling on 'good character'

If its a thumbs-up for 'good cause' and nothing bad for 'moral character' the applicant will be given the green light to take training and perform a live scan.

Training will be from a list of agency approved trainers. Live-scan is typically performed by the same agency, but its possible to perform it elsewhere if you are given the proper codes. This is the step where the real costs start to hit.

Its also possible at this point to be sent to a psychologist. Cost is fixed at $150. It must be a psychologist used for evaluating LEO recruits. This is VERY rare.

Once live scan is returned to the agency, they make their final determination whether or not to issue. Its highly unusual to be denied at this step, but it can happen. Final fees are paid and the license is issued.

The legislated procedures are available in the CA Penal Code (26150 - 26225)

Edits:
If that's Torrence, CA PD in the video, its either a really old video (before the process was changed by the legislature), she made a mistake, or the PD needs to be corrected.

As I understand it, that department was notoriously no-issue, but some information has come out recently that the department might now be issuing. If they did indeed recently change their policies, they might not have brought them all up to date yet.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,161
Location
here nc
mjones, one would presume, per forum dictates, a cite will be forth coming for your tidbit of information?

ipse

edited...mjones my humblest apology...you in fact did provide a cite, and i missed it as i was expecting a hyper link.

ipse
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,161
Location
here nc
Today I went to apply for a CCW. The clerk told me I had to complete a firearms training course BEFORE I could submit my application. Is that true ? I don't think it is.
(video snipped cuz i couldn't stand to give it any more aire time)

op, i find it interesting, in passing ~ as i am betting you are as well, you decided to post your pursuit for a CA concealed carry video, which was posted on youtube the same day, on a OPEN CARRY site and asked a question about the process...

things to make you go hummmm....

ipse

added text....is that brake lights fading on the horizon?

further i wonder if he had consent to record the nice LE helping him...
quote: The Law:

The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).


In California, always try and get the consent of all parties before recording them, especially if it is reasonable to assume their communications might be “private” or “confidential.” In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, a violation could also trigger the California wiretapping law in a civil lawsuit for damages by the victim(s). (See also Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.) California’s wiretapping law requires “two-party consent”. In California, in is a criminal act, to record or eavesdrop on confidential communications, like private phone calls, private chats, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. (See Cal. Penal Code § 632.) unquote http://www.ehlinelaw.com/civil-rights/filming-police-legal/
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,161
Location
here nc
The legislated procedures are available in the CA Penal Code (26150 - 26225)

wasn't aware you visited this forum via drive-by nom de plume...

one would presume with 759 posts under their ID belt the member would be aware, unless they were only showing their prowess with a video cam?

ipse

edited Nightmare, you are also provided an apology ~ so tendered.
 
Last edited:

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
wasn't aware you visited this forum via drive-by nom de plume...

one would presume with 759 posts under their ID belt the member would be aware, unless they were only showing their prowess with a video cam?

ipse

I tried making sense of your posts but I couldn't. Do you have someone that can translate for you ?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,161
Location
here nc
I tried making sense of your posts but I couldn't. Do you have someone that can translate for you ?

translated...the post you quoted wasn't meant nor directed towards you...

ipse
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
974
Location
SoCal, , USA
mjones, one would presume, per forum dictates, a cite will be forth coming for your tidbit of information?

ipse

One would presume you didn't read the post - it does contain citations. Multiple in fact. :banghead:
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
974
Location
SoCal, , USA
further i wonder if he had consent to record the nice LE helping him...
quote: The Law:

The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).


In California, always try and get the consent of all parties before recording them, especially if it is reasonable to assume their communications might be “private” or “confidential.” In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, a violation could also trigger the California wiretapping law in a civil lawsuit for damages by the victim(s). (See also Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.) California’s wiretapping law requires “two-party consent”. In California, in is a criminal act, to record or eavesdrop on confidential communications, like private phone calls, private chats, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. (See Cal. Penal Code § 632.) unquote http://www.ehlinelaw.com/civil-rights/filming-police-legal/

Its very settled case-law in the 9th circuit that there is no expectation of privacy for public officials and police in the performance of their duties (without interference)

see Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995) (assuming a First Amendment right to record the police); see also Adkins v. Limtiaco, _ Fed. App'x _, No. 11-17543, 2013 WL 4046720 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2013) (recognizing First Amendment right to photograph police, citing Fordyce).
 
Top