Applying For Concealed Firearm Permit in California - Torrance (1 Viewer)

[Kal'Stang]

Thought that getting a gun was easy?

 

[Common Sense 1]

The detective from the firearms section responds: "This is not our primary job."

I hope there was a lawsuit filed in federal court.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The conversion of constitutional rights into mere state issued privileges should be ruled unconstitutional. Texas has now essentially outlawed even the open carry of a handgun and has converted their CHL law into a LTC law - the only good part is that the non-refundable application fees have been lowered and they are granted on a 'shall issue' (need a reason to deny) rather than 'may issue' (need a reason to approve) basis.

 

[Rexedgar]

Something fishy here. The viewer doesn’t find out until the end that this applicant has a five year adversarial relationship with this police department. My state is very lax; proof of a firearms course or a DD-214 and $50 get a five year permit.

 

[Lutherf]

Something fishy here. The viewer doesn’t find out until the end that this applicant has a five year adversarial relationship with this police department. My state is very lax; proof of a firearms course or a DD-214 and $50 get a five year permit.

Whether the guy has a history of an "adversarial relationship" with the department or not shouldn't mean that the PD can shirk their statutory duties.

While I don't have to deal with this crap in AZ I do, in my line of work, end up with similar tactics from banks which often have policies not in compliance with state or federal law. You can fight the policies but, as a rule, doing so costs you more than the desired result is worth...so nobody fights it.

 

[Rexedgar]

Whether the guy has a history of an "adversarial relationship" with the department or not shouldn't mean that the PD can shirk their statutory duties.

While I don't have to deal with this crap in AZ I do, in my line of work, end up with similar tactics from banks which often have policies not in compliance with state or federal law. You can fight the policies but, as a rule, doing so costs you more than the desired result is worth...so nobody fights it.

The Torrance PD don’t seem to be treating all applicants in the same manner. Proof is the issue/decline of other applicants. I feel we need Paul Harvey and his “rest of the story” segment here.

 

[Lutherf]

The Torrance PD don’t seem to be treating all applicants in the same manner. Proof is the issue/decline of other applicants. I feel we need Paul Harvey and his “rest of the story” segment here.

I get it that the guy is a PITA and that they're messing with him. It's one of those things that bureaucrats tend to be really good at. Also, for all I know the guy has a history of mental instability of he's a "crusader". Still, they should at least do their job.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Whether the guy has a history of an "adversarial relationship" with the department or not shouldn't mean that the PD can shirk their statutory duties.

While I don't have to deal with this crap in AZ I do, in my line of work, end up with similar tactics from banks which often have policies not in compliance with state or federal law. You can fight the policies but, as a rule, doing so costs you more than the desired result is worth...so nobody fights it.

Getting the government to do its job, or even to comply with the law, requires government cooperation. The government, in this case, took the (non-refundable?) application fee (which that moron eventually freely offered) and he is unlikely to ever get his CCW permit "processed". He has succeeded only in making a goofy video which exposes the reality of the CA CCW 'process' - friends of the mayor/police get their CCW permits approved and others get denied.

 

[apdst]

Something fishy here. The viewer doesn’t find out until the end that this applicant has a five year adversarial relationship with this police department. My state is very lax; proof of a firearms course or a DD-214 and $50 get a five year permit.

The PD can't deny a citizen his constitutional rights because they don't like him.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The conversion of constitutional rights into mere state issued privileges should be ruled unconstitutional. Texas has now essentially outlawed even the open carry of a handgun and has converted their CHL law into a LTC law - the only good part is that the non-refundable application fees have been lowered and they are granted on a 'shall issue' (need a reason to deny) rather than 'may issue' (need a reason to approve) basis.

When did all this happen? I thought Texas had very lax gun laws. They did when I lived there. (2001 - 2012)
After checking, it doesn't look like Texas has altogether outlawed open carry at all, they've placed a few restrictions on it.
A residential or commercial property owner has the right to tell an open carry holder to leave the premises.

Texas still has some of the most Constitution-friendly firearm regulations in the country, save for maybe Vermont.
By the way, California's Castle Doctrine, while not previously codified as such, is fairly healthy...it's their Concealed Carry laws which are problematic. Some counties will issue a permit, and some never do, it's apparently up to the individual sheriffs.

 

[ttwtt78640]

When did all this happen? I thought Texas had very lax gun laws. They did when I lived there. (2001 - 2012)
After checking, it doesn't look like Texas has altogether outlawed open carry at all, they've placed a few restrictions on it.
A residential or commercial property owner has the right to tell an open carry holder to leave the premises.

Texas still has some of the most Constitution-friendly firearm regulations in the country, save for maybe Vermont.
By the way, California's Castle Doctrine, while not previously codified as such, is fairly healthy...it's their Concealed Carry laws which are problematic. Some counties will issue a permit, and some never do, it's apparently up to the individual sheriffs.

Without a LTC you may legally carry a (loaded?) handgun on, within or enroute to your property (including boats, RVs and cars/trucks) in Texas but the law never explains how a (loaded?) handgun was ever legally carried away from those personal 'safe zones' absent a LTC. Essentially, to legally carry a (loaded?) handgun outside of your property in Texas you now need a LTC.

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun or club; and
(2) is not:
(A) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Without a LTC you may legally carry a (loaded?) handgun on, within or enroute to your property (including boats, RVs and cars/trucks) in Texas but the law never explains how a (loaded?) handgun was ever legally carried away from those personal 'safe zones' absent a LTC. Essentially, to legally carry a (loaded?) handgun outside of your property in Texas you now need a LTC.



https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm

I have always viewed concealed carry as being preferable to open carry.
To me anyway, open carry is fine out in the rural areas but in town, it almost seems like a big red sign inviting problems.
I won't categorically refer to it as "menacing" but I am mindful of the fact that there are some who tend toward that kind of behavior. So for me, concealed carry seems to be more discreet, and if anything, safer.
No one who doesn't need to know, needs to know, that you're carrying.

One would think that concealed carry would be easier to get than open carry.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I have always viewed concealed carry as being preferable to open carry.
To me anyway, open carry is fine out in the rural areas but in town, it almost seems like a big red sign inviting problems.
I won't categorically refer to it as "menacing" but I am mindful of the fact that there are some who tend toward that kind of behavior. So for me, concealed carry seems to be more discreet, and if anything, safer.
No one who doesn't need to know, needs to know, that you're carrying.

One would think that concealed carry would be easier to get than open carry.

One would think that both are part of the 2A. The 2A specifies a right to keep and bear arms yet the states have (cleverly?) come up with a way to rent the "and bear" part back to you for a handsome "user fee" with a threat of prosecution if you opt not to get a LTC. So long as the gun remains holstered the difference between open and concealed carry is negligible. Once drawn, how it was carried before that matters little.