Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,962 Posts
That seems to be slightly longer than what I assume is the statutorially defined time frame. I guess they get away with it because they can. It seems like a ripe issue for a lawsuit.

https://www.usacarry.com/california_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

The processing time for a California License to Carry is within 90 days of the initial application or 30 days after they receive the background check from the Department of Justice, whichever is later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,405 Posts

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
See, this is why letting government require their permission for you to exercise your rights often doesn't work out so well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taurus92

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,962 Posts
Is there a timeline for sending the information to the doj for the background check? If they don't send it they can never receive it.
From the link I provided it appears they have 90 days to complete the process once you submit an application. But the applications just sit in a pile untouched because of "budget constraints." There's also a mandatory "safety course" and a potential pysch examination which you pay for. The whole process is expensive, time consuming and designed to frustrate the citizen from even applying. It works exactly as planned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,405 Posts
From the link I provided it appears they have 90 days to complete the process once you submit an application. But the applications just sit in a pile untouched because of "budget constraints." There's also a mandatory "safety course" and a potential pysch examination which you pay for. The whole process is expensive, time consuming and designed to frustrate the citizen from even applying. It works exactly as planned.
The last section says 90 day or 30 from receiving background check whichever is later
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,962 Posts
If your application just sits in a pile of other applications with no actions taken for 2 years, it's really a moot point, isn't it? CA doesn't want to issue carry licenses.
 

·
Like a Boss
Joined
·
3,034 Posts
"We don't have the budget" isn't a credible excuse for delays with a process that directly generates revenue. According to the USACarry link, the Sheriff's office gets $100 for each permit (that's just the fee paid to the agency; prints, training, etc. are charged separately). They could be totally caught up if they hired $25/hr clerks who could process just two applications per day.

So there are only three possibilities. 1, the Sheriff is lying about being a "pro-2nd Amendment Republican" and is intentionally delaying permits because he doesn't want his constituents to be armed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not the case.

2, processing applications is so time-consuming that a single application can't be processed in $100 of employee time (e.g. 4 hours for an employee making $25/hr). I can't believe that's the case, even in California, unless the Sheriff has a particularly inefficient process or particularly incompetent employees.

Which leaves 3, which is that the permit process makes money for the Sheriff's office, and he uses that revenue to subsidize other operations. That's fine* if it's how the Sheriff chooses to budget, but he should be honest about it. Instead of saying he doesn't have the money to fund enough people to keep up with the permits, he should acknowledge that he has plenty of money from the permit fees but is choosing to spend most of it on [whatever] because he thinks that having [whatever] is more important than citizens receiving CCW permits in a timely fashion.

*-"Fine" in the sense that the Sheriff has discretion over his budget. Once his budget choices cause his office to violate state law with regards to permit issuance, he should be required to get into compliance even if he'd prefer to allocate his budget otherwise.
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,408 Posts
There is no reasonable excuse for it. The basis for this is that kommiefornia politicians generally want to stop crime and take guns away from everyone and their unicorn farts have convinced them this will do it.

Nemo
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
So there are only three possibilities. 1, the Sheriff is lying about being a "pro-2nd Amendment Republican" and is intentionally delaying permits because he doesn't want his constituents to be armed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not the case.
I won't. While option 3 is a logical explanation, a person who is not lying would not permit option 3 to get in the way of citizens in his county exercising a fundamental human right.

He's a liar.

Riverside County is historically* a Republican area of California. He has to say what he has to say to get elected and stay in office.

*I add historically because immigration is changing this. The more third worlders we permit in the US, the more and more we will see voting patterns change. Just like the south - the more yankees that moved here, the more the south changed from Democrat to Republican and started dumping its old, racist ways. Anyway, Riverside County went 63% for Reagan at his reelection. They voted by small margins for Obama and Hillary more recently. Immigration has driven the change. Whites in Riverside County are now a minority, and they were not just a few years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil1979

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Perhaps Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff needs a class-action lawsuit filed against him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,222 Posts
Perhaps Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff needs a class-action lawsuit filed against him.
I would prefer a commercial fraud case. He accepted money for a service (processing applications). He has blatently refused to perform that service. Hold him personally accountable for the business practices of his office. Note that he is not being prosecuted for failing to ISSUE a permit but for failure to PROCESS the applications within the contractual time lines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil1979
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top