Law enforcement 'stunned' by booming rate of ca concealed carry applications

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by Hermitt, Apr 28, 2014.

  1. Hermitt

    Hermitt Hey! Get Off My Lawn! Member

    In the two months since the U.S. Ninth Court of Appeals struck down the "good cause" requirement in California, law enforcement officials have been "stunned" by the booming rate of concealed carry permit applications.


    According to The New York Times, in Orange County alone, almost 4,000 residents, eight times the usual number, have applied for a permit.
    The February 13 ruling by the Ninth Circuit is on appeal and has not been finalized, but Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens is pushing forward without the "good cause" requirement. As a result, there are so many applicants in her county that there is now "a 30-month wait to schedule the required in-person hearing to obtain a permit."
    Unless and until the ruling is reversed, Hutchens says "it is the law of the land," and she is hiring more part-time staff "to handle "the crush of applications."

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...oming-Rate-of-CA-Concealed-Carry-Applications
     
  2. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    30 month wait.... That's a joke....
     

  3. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,500
    10,715
    NE Utah
    They are only stunned because they were ignorant of the real world their constituents live in.:rolleyes:
     
  4. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    Let's not forget the good news :

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Hermitt

    Hermitt Hey! Get Off My Lawn! Member

    But that doessn't do much good when you have to wait 2-1/2 years to schedule the 'required' in-person hearing to obtain a permit..... :confused:
     
  6. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    Duh........;)
     
  7. madchad

    madchad o_O Member

    That in person hearing is caca. It boils down to you having to show up and ask them. Daily, and most days several times a day I am SO glad to be a Texan.
     
  8. johnnyBgood

    johnnyBgood Member

    353
    1

    In my county you just go online to get your face to face.
     
  9. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,500
    10,715
    NE Utah
    SWAGA, you are missing the entire point here.

    If she REALLY wanted to make this work, she'd whittle the in-person hearing down to a 30 second handshake, nice to see you, here you go.

    Good government doesn't spend money backing up stupid laws, it saves money by working within the system in a more efficient way.
     
  10. Just carry a sign that says "Bad guys I am taking a time out from being a victim for 30 months until I can schedule a in person hearing to defend myself."
     
  11. tallbump

    tallbump Supporting Member

    In person face to face meeting? Huhzuh what? :confused:

    How in the world doe these laws come into play? :mad:
     
  12. mawguy

    mawguy Sheep Dog Member

    In our [gun] community, we are quite aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect one citizen from another. Unfortunately, many police and their departments think they do. "To protect and serve"? If you are law enforcement, and it is your job to protect, I ask you to look in the mirror and explain why you have so many victims of violent crime.

    Citizens are arming themselves because the police could never protect them, even if they tried AND people are beginning to believe that they should protect themselves.
     
  13. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Just to play Devil's Advocate, perhaps an "in person hearing" could be used advantageously for some person (good Lord, at this point ANY PERSON!) to take, you know, maybe 5 whole minutes to try to assess, "is this person a raving nutjob who's off his meds?"

    We, as the "gun culture," keep talking about, "maybe someone should have noticed" after every whack job goes postal and shoots up a school or office building (like the FedEx that JUST HAPPENED!)

    So, if they're required by law to do a face-to-face, perhaps it might be reasonably applied. Sure I don't expect part time workers to be qualified to give a psych eval, but even just a reasonable person who might be able red flag on "he had a really weird vibe and kept twitching" could be useful, right?

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk (sometimes playing Devil's Advocate is fun!)
     
  14. In some states the in person is just for fingerprints.
     
  15. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,500
    10,715
    NE Utah
    That could be legitimate. But we all know the gov't doesn't EVER work that way, they could screw up a wet dream.

    Instead of noticing the nut jobs, we'd end up with "I didn't like his attitude", or "He was just so SERIOUS, he scared me!":eek:.

    Not to mention...Joe Nutjob is on his meds when he hits the interview, a week later he isn't. Oh well, we tried.;)

    That system isn't even worth the money it would cost.
     
  16. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Which is why red flags aren't Denials and the output needs to be monitored for abuse.

    Well, that's certainly true. But, c'mon, trying is certainly better than the "what???" attitude most seem to take, right?

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk (Lawyer for Satan)
     
  17. TNTRAILERTRASH

    TNTRAILERTRASH Supporting Member

    This is a way of stalling so they can reverse the decision, or an executive order can outlaw guns.
     
  18. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    How? They say they're hiring more to help process and try to catch up with demand.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  19. Branth

    Branth Member

    6,275
    4
    They SAY they're trying to catch up with demand.

    Also, I'm always leery of subjective things like "he looked shifty" being used to deny rights. That's just inviting discrimination.
     
  20. madchad

    madchad o_O Member

    Although not "shifty" I do appear slightly deranged. I wear sunglasses outside my home at all times which alleviates nervousness with the general public. Most people don't look me in the eye for more than an instant. I don't challenge them, they just see something that spooks them. It's a problem and would cause problems if I had to do a F2F with strangers. I know the sheriff here and if I wanted a CCL it wouldn't make a difference but with a stranger, especially a government official from Cali, it likely would. Even my happy face looks riled up and ready to pounce. Hell, of all my neighbors only one will speak to me but they've known six generations of my family.

    What gets me most about this whole thing is that some jerks in suits think they are right to dictate who can do what. **** those people sideways. Damn nazis.