CA:Orange County - Lady was told July 26, 2016 for appointment for CCW

CA:Orange County - Lady was told July 26, 2016 for an appointment for carry permit

Since the regulations have been changed, there was been a flood of applications for the carry permit in Orange County California. One applicant was told to come in for an appointment July 26 2016.


http://www.ocregister.com/articles/permit-606285-concealed-department.html


'The notice told the Fountain Valley resident that her appointment was July 26. OK, she thought, but then she checked what day of the week that was. Saturday. That didn’t make sense, so she looked closer.'

“It was July 26, 2016,” she said. “I don’t even have a calendar for 2016. I might be dead by 2016.” "

I wonder what legal options are there for the applicants wanting to get a permit, but were told to wait for a very long time.

.
.

 

Yeah, at what point does the court say the delays are too long and you are not actually complying.

Seems they are trying to improve things by hiring but still being slow. A 5x increase in applications should result in at most a 5x increase in delay time.

 

2856 applications... 3 year wait.... From my math it sounds like they have one person working on applications.

 

I first saw the article on the Open Carry forums today. One of the people commenting on the post mentioned this interesting point.


http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...rview-is-July-2016!!!!!&p=2048209#post2048209


"When a California judge ruled gays could marry, the county officers started issuing licenses within 48 hours. Then there was an injunction filed.

When the SCOTUS struck down Californias ban on same sex marriage, the counties resumed issuing licenses again in 48 hours.

I guess the 2nd Amendment isn't very important. "

It is an interesting point....

.

 

Probably not far off base; when approvals are rare it does not take many resources to handle the applications. Especially because most won't even bother applying.

If that is the reason we may need to take more of wait and see approach. Give them a chance to increase staff levels and devote more appropriate resources. That being said it is not an extremely gun friendly area so can't just let up on the pressure. Two year wait times are unacceptable orange county residents that care about gun rights need to let those in charge of the process know that.

 

Typically, the same guys/gals that do the processing and backgrounds for CCW licenses have a lot of other responsibilities, as well.

Other local licensing has to be processed, which may range from things like new/existing massage parlors to contractors who use and store high explosives. Depending on the agency, it might well include background checks for hiring, which can mean for both sworn & non-sworn positions, and sometimes for other local depts that need background checks done. It's not like those people are sitting around and waiting for something to do.

The article makes it sound as though the Sheriff's Office is going to be devoting more money from its existing budget to try and provide more resources for processing the huge increase in CCW applications. That ought to be applauded and appreciated. I doubt the county supervisors are just giving them extra money to fund it, so it's money that was probably ear-marked for something else in the budget in the first place, and we all know how budgets are continually shrinking.

Anyway, with the attention on the backlog and processing of NEW applications, I wonder how quickly the RENEWAL applications are going to be able to be processed for existing CCW licensees as their licenses approach expiration?

The standard license is only good for 2 years (used to be 1 year prior to 1999), although the judicial officer license is good for 3 years and the license for reserves is good for 4 years (not the reserves that are classified by their agencies as designated level 1's, and who may already be authorized to carry 24/7 as a full-time peace officer without needing a CCW license).

I imagine this is something that's going to be under consideration by increasingly more Sheriff's and Chief's if the decision in the San Diego case withstands higher scrutiny.

 

While the 'long time to wait' objections are valid, Orange County has begun re-scheduling appointments much sooner. Calguns applicants are reporting they have been receiving phone calls to re-schedule. (Yes, that's Sheriff's Office calling the applicants.)

The Board of Supervisors authorized paying ten or a dozen retired deputies to review applications, IIRC, and the additional staff is coming on line.

In the California context, OC looks pretty good; granted, that's a bit like saying 'In the leprosy context, venereal disease looks pretty good'. In a number of counties we're starting from a very low base.

 

Nice to see the Board and Sheriff working closely to try and address this issue.

This would be a good use of retired deputies being paid as per diem temporary employees. Saves the Sheriff from having to pay from the OT budget to shift around regularly paid/assigned deputies, and addresses the public's concern & needs.

 

It is an interesting point, but to be fair I doubt that legalizing gay marriage resulted in a 5x increase in the number of applications.

Still a 2 1/2 year wait is ridiculous. Time to gear up to meet the demand.

 

Does a marriage license require a background check?

 

Actually there are waiting periods and blood tests in some states.

http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-license-requirements.html


As far as background checks go...how long does it take to do a background check? Fed NICS is a few minutes (or less). State NICS few minutes or more?

.

 

Sounds to me like a bunch of intentional foot dragging that caught some attention and got a little improvement. Hopefully folks apply for their first CWP remember who the Sheriff was overseeing this mess and consider voting in a new one.

 

Are there any handguns that are legal to carry in California anymore? Seemed like a short time ago the majors were pulling sales out of the state over the micro-stamping idiocy.

 

Buying new from dealers is the issue - see http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/, 1070 models on the Roster on 3/31/14.

What an issuing agency will allow one to carry is variable and locally controlled.

 

Certainly, but we aren't talking about "some states" the subject is California and per your link, there is no waiting period there. And no background check which was my point.

But can the Fed NICS be used for anything other than a firearms purchase through an FFL? And what does CA law require for CCW? If the law is specific about what kind of BG check is acceptable, and it doesn't specify NICS, then how long a NICS check takes is irrelevant.

 

Kentucky State Police does monthly background checks for people who have Kentucky's carry permit (CDWL). So I imagine police departments throughout the country have access to the same database.

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=8&f=27&t=479298

"My local dealer, that seems to stay pretty well knowledgeable on these kinds of things, told me the state does do a NICS check on CCDW holders every month. He said this is a big reason why permit holders don't have to do a background check when they buy a gun from an FFL in state. In many states permit holders still have to do a NICS check when they buy a gun because the BATF-E has deemed that states permit system (or more importantly their method of identifying those that should have their permit revoked) were not good enough. By doing the monthly NICS check, KY can identify those permit holders that may have committed and offense worthy of permit revocation in another state."


Also

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-635605.html

"it's that the state of KY is running a monthly NICS check on every permit holder independent of any gun purchases. Presumably they would do this in order to discover permit holders who have become ineligible to redeem or receive firearms since the last monthly check, at that point it seems logical they would suspend the permit holders license and whatever else they can dream up.

Even if they use some version of eCheck this still places an additional burden on the NICS system, after all computer systems and networks are not free."

If KY regularly can do MONTHLY checks for all it's permit holders, it should not take 2-1/2 years to do a background check for that lady in California. (Assuming that the story is correct to begin with). Does KY really use NICS or just some regular police database that has the same information as NICS?

And I can't believe that Kentucky is the only state doing monthly background checks on all it's carry permit holders. But that is for another topic.........

My question is: Is there a background check that has the same exact information as NICS, but it isn't NICS...that Police Departments regularly use?

Does KY really use NICS or just some regular police database that has the same information as NICS?

.

 

Would actually make sense too if the backlog of applications represents "pent up demand" due to the shift from may-issue to shall-issue that will level off in years to come.

Still, State of Tennessee handled my handgun carry permit application through the state dept. of safety, with TBI and FBI background checks, in 90 days. Previously we had a system of county level carry permits, 95 county sheriffs, 95 different sets of standards, and it just did not work well.

 

The FBI maintains the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) for use by law enforcement agencies. Agencies can directly access the database to do their own searches, they don't have to request a search from the FBI. It is my understanding that NICS is not a separate database, but a search program run by the FBI on NCIC to extract the data required by Brady for approval for a firearms purchase by an FFL.

The FBI has operators assigned to NICS, to run checks for FFLs. LE agencies must run their own checks, using their own operators. They don't just call the FBI and ask for a yea or nay like an FFL does with NICS. That means that LE agencies running a lot of NCIC checks, must hire and train operators and have the computers for them to operate. Until those things are in place, there is going to be a bottleneck.

 

Maybe they should move to shall issue, as in Colorado or Georgia. I believe the wait time is 90 days and it shall be issued, regardless of where they are in the process.

 

Illinois is broke but put together a system in 180 days. I got my carry permit 58 days after applying on line.

 

That is how it is supposed to work but not always. (Sorry the one person that does it was on vacation...)

This is just a mess in CA because it was forced on them with no warning. The existing processes for small volumes don't seem to scale and there is little motivation for the legislature to set a statewide policy.

Hate to say it but have to give it a little time for things to improve as long as they are making efforts to do so. If next year they are still saying the appointments are 2+ years out then there is cause for another lawsuit.

 

I beg to differ; Peruta was filed October, 2009, and finally (maybe!) came out with a result February, 2014.

'Unwilling to believe' is a bit different from 'no warning' after more than four years.

 

When Peruta was filed is not exactly relevant. The counties and/or the state could not respond until the ruling was issued and they knew what the court required.

Or are you saying that they should have anticipated losing the case in court and started making preps 5 years ago? Why would they feel a need to do that?

 

I don't understand what all the whining and voting out the sheriff talk is about. Orange County is embracing the change better than most.




From a couple weeks ago.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...weapons-20140320,0,835929.story#axzz2xhKMSlAx

They are also looking in to possibly hiring up to 5 permanent people to process the applications

 

I'm saying the resistance to preparing to issue to a reasonable volume of applicants is political and philosophically anti-gun. Orange County could have developed contingency plans for this result, but did not.

When the California counties like San Francisco and Contra Costa and Alameda and Los Angeles are compelled to abandon their 'preferences' in the face of a constitutional right, they will make exactly the same excuse for not issuing - 'oh, we do not have the staff!'

The process to issue licenses need not take anywhere the time and resources now devoted to the effort - numerous other states manage quite well.