Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Concealed weapon permits reflect a patchwork of standards in California

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Active Concealed Weapons Permits

Lt. Fernando Martinez, Lodi Police Department

“The way our policy works is you have to show just cause to be issued a (concealed weapons permit). For the mere purpose of protecting yourself or family without any threat, that reason is kind of vague. You have to show that you’re in some kind of threat because of what you do or because you’re in danger.”

Assemblywoman Kristin Olson, R-Riverbank

“(Law enforcement agencies) should be issuing concealed weapons permits to people who apply for them, unless there is a legal reason not to. So if that is not being followed throughout the state ... then perhaps we do need some clarifying criteria and (a) standard at the state level.”

Chief Deputy Jason Gates, Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office

“It’s a statewide issue (in Oregon). We’re all doing it the same way so we know the (concealed weapons) holder has gone through the same background process. We know that the process has been followed.”

Sgt. Jason Ramos, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office

“Gone are the days that a bus drivers or traveling jeweler will be denied a permit. If you want to protect your family, that’s a good enough reason for us.”

Posted: Saturday, September 21, 2013 12:15 am

Say you’re a jeweler living in Sacramento County. You’d like to carry a concealed handgun for security reasons. If you apply for a concealed weapon permit, you are very likely to be issued one. A jeweler living in Lodi would likely be successful, too.

But one living in San Francisco is out of luck. San Francisco very rarely issues permits. In fact, there are only two in a city of 700,000.

Getting a concealed weapon permit in California is a roll of the dice, a News-Sentinel investigation has found.

Standards vary wildly from agency to agency. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office, for instance, rejects more applicants than they approve, while the Calaveras County Sheriff’s Office approves more than 90 percent.

Today, almost no continuity exists among the dozens of agencies entrusted to issue permits in California. The differences can reflect the political outlook of a sheriff or police chief, or the amount of money an agency chooses to spend processing applications.

The result: A jurisdictional welter in which some residents can get a permit as easily as filing a tax return, while others are left waiting months for near-certain denial.

The issue is heating up in California, as gun laws are debated and many residents want guns for their own safety and protection.

A number of residents are suing restrictive agencies of violating equal-protection rights.

And in light of the News-Sentinel’s investigation, some California lawmakers say reform is needed.

“There shouldn’t be such significant variance in how many permits are allocated,” said Assemblywoman Kristin Olson, a Republican representing the 12th District, which includes numerous communities, including Lockeford. “(Law enforcement agencies) should be issuing concealed weapons permits to people who apply for them, unless there is a legal reason not to. So if that is not being followed throughout the state ... then perhaps we do need some clarifying criteria and standard at the state level.”

Why a concealed weapon?

Californians apply for concealed weapons permits for a variety of reasons.

A father may want to protect his wife and children. A retired judge or law enforcement officer could fear retribution. And there are those who feel self-defense is their constitutional right.

When a citizen applies for a concealed weapons permit, agencies require them to pass a background check, a shooting proficiency test and a psychological evaluation. The applicant must also submit a sworn affidavit explaining why they need to carry a concealed gun.

If granted a permit, the applicant can carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed in public. Even if the applicant is denied a permit, they can still store a weapon at their home.

Today, more than 55,000 Californians — nearly the population of Lodi — are permitted to carry concealed weapons.

In most states, law enforcement agencies issue permits based on a statewide standard.

But in California, each agency, from the tiniest police force to the largest sheriff’s department, develops its own standard. It can be based on politics, population, personal opinion, budget cuts — and at anytime, for any reason, an agency can change its policy.

For many years, obtaining a permit through the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office was so difficult many residents didn’t bother to apply.

But when budget cuts forced Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness to lay off 122 deputies in 2009, he decided that residents living in his jurisdiction should have the ability to protect themselves in the event of an emergency.

Almost overnight, McGinness reversed the department’s stance on concealed weapons permits. One of the state’s most restrictive agencies in the state became one of the most permissive.

“Gone are the days that a bus drivers or traveling jeweler will be denied a permit,” Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Jason Ramos said. “If you want to protect your family, that’s a good enough reason for us.”

Today, the Sacramento Sheriff’s Office approves roughly 90 percent of applications. Within the county, there are more than 3,500 permit holders — up from 800 in 2011.

The department also plans to approve nearly all of the 4,000 residents currently waiting for their applications to be reviewed.

A patchwork system

A woman wanting to carry a firearm for protection would likely receive a permit in Sacramento County.

Her reason isn't  likely fly in other jurisdictions, though, including San Joaquin County.

As of May, there are 327 holders through the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office. In addition, the sheriff’s office received 41 new concealed weapons applications between January and March of this year, but approved only five. 

Lodi’s Dave Wellenbrock is a former chief deputy district attorney and deputy public defender for San Joaquin County who has seen the concealed weapons issue from different angles.

He says some former prosecutors have obtained concealed weapons permits for self-defense.

Getting a permit varies “incredibly” throughout the state, he said.

“It’s really pretty arbitrary and varies with the scene,” he said. “There’s not many guidelines on who has them and who shouldn’t get them at the state level. It depends on who the head of the local agency thinks should have one. And because there are no guidelines on who should have one, it creates a wide range of discretion.”

In fact, getting a concealed weapons permit in some areas is nearly impossible.

The San Francisco County Sheriff’s Office has approved one application in the last 30 years (it expired in 2008). Today, there are just two permit holders within the county, and both were obtained through the police department.

In general, rural counties are quicker to approve permits than urban counties.

Between 2011 and 2012, the Calaveras County Sheriff’s Office approved 93 percent of applications, while the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office approved just 36 percent.

In recent years, the Lodi Police Department has granted permits to the majority of applicants, including 11 in 2011 and nine in 2012.

According to Lodi Police Lt. Fernando Martinez, applicants must work with large amounts of cash or prove there is a specific and imminent threat against their life in order to receive a permit.

“The way our policy works is you have to show just cause to be issued a (concealed weapons permit),” he said. “For the mere purpose of protecting yourself or family without any threat, that reason is kind of vague. You have to show that you’re in some kind of threat because of what you do or because you’re in danger.”

Writing their own rules

Throughout the state, agencies write their own rules, and some lawmakers think that’s wrong.

“To me it’s pretty cut and dry,” Olson said. “We shouldn’t need anything more than the Second Amendment in order to have a clear criteria. Obviously at this point, that hasn’t been sufficient in California, because I, too, have heard many reports of arbitrary standards as to when they’re issued and when they aren’t in many counties.”

Some legislators, including Olson and Dan Logue, a Republican representing the third district which includes Chico, believe the regulatory patchwork is unconstitutional.

Olson, however, says a statewide standard isn’t the solution.

And while a clear solution doesn’t yet exist, Olson says California lawmakers need to at least prevent agencies from stone-walling applicants.

“I and other legislators should look into whether we should introduce legislation to make it very clear ... that (law enforcement agencies) should be issuing concealed weapons to those who apply for them unless they are a prohibited person,” she said. “And in that instance, they absolutely should not issue them.”

Concealed weapons in other states

In Oregon, things are different.

Each permit application is reviewed by the sheriff’s office. Unlike California, police chiefs cannot issue permits.

Each applicant is subject to a background check. And once the process is complete, every applicant is approved or denied based on a statewide standard.

“It ensures that you don’t have 36 counties with local politics playing a factor in this one issue,” said Chief Deputy Jason Gates of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office. “It’s a statewide issue. We’re all doing it the same way so we know the (concealed weapons) holder has gone through the same background process. We know that the process has been followed.”

In Multnomah County, which incorporates Portland and Gresham, the first and fourth most populated cities in Oregon, there are 24,000 permit holders — almost half the number that exist throughout California.

Gates says that in Oregon, a “shall issue” state, agencies approve more applications than they deny. In other states, like Arizona, residents don’t even need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

But throughout the country, the majority of states approve applicants based on a statewide standard.

Gates says adopting the process followed in California would create “chaos” in Oregon.

“It would be a huge step backwards from the process we have now,” Gates said. “It’s a waste of time to separate the law by county. I would be very opposed to that occurring in Oregon. It’s going to take law-abiding citizens and make them criminals. It criminalizes someone who has a legal basis for carrying their firearm concealed.”

Emotions complicate reform

About three dozen bills related to firearms were introduced in the California Legislature this year.

None addressed the growing debate over concealed weapons permits.

Based on a string of mass shootings nationwide, Olson says the sentiment of lawmakers in Sacramento is to strengthen gun control.

But lawmakers should begin addressing the array of standards.

“The emotion surrounding the gun debate unfortunately supersedes logic in many instances,” she said. “There have been some horrific tragedies that have happened in the last couple of years in the United States that cause all of us to react in horror. But unfortunately, many lawmakers make decisions based on emotion rather than logic.”

Five years ago, San Francisco resident Jeff Levinger looked into getting a concealed weapons permit.

He says crime in his once-peaceful neighborhood had skyrocketed. He frequently heard stories from friends and neighbors who’d been assaulted merely walking home.

Wanting to be prepared in case he was ever in danger, Levinger investigated the process to carry a concealed weapon. He couldn’t find anyone who could even walk him through the application process, and he knew the chances of moving forward were close to nil.

Discouraged, he gave up.

But Levinger said that if the law is ever changed, he’d try again.

“It’s my right as an American,” he said. “There are times and places that it’s quite appropriate to be prepared in that way.”

More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.

5 comments:

  • Sam John posted at 12:00 am on Sat, Jan 4, 2014.

    Sam William John Posts: 1

    This article is RIFE with inaccuracies and falsehoods!!

    [thumbdown]

     
  • Dennis Moore posted at 10:13 am on Mon, Sep 23, 2013.

    Dennis Moore Posts: 8

    Joanne asked, "Why in the world would one need to carry a concealed weapon outside their home just for the general protection of their family?"

    Google "Mother Jones US Mass Shootings" and look at the table that is presented. Now consider how many of those would have had a lower death toll if even one person present had a CCW.

    Now take a look at the news to see the reports of people being robbed and shot/stabbed/beaten just on their way home from the store, or walking down the street.

    You are obviously of the mindset that "It can't happen here, and it can't happen to me." Wrong. It CAN happen here, and it CAN happen to you.

    If I carry a concealed weapon for twenty years and never use it, you'll say I didn't need it and I'll say Thank God. A concealed weapon is not something that is going to be used every day, and, and statistics would show that most are never used, but if that one unthinkable time does occur, it is better to be prepared.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 9:17 am on Mon, Sep 23, 2013.

    advocate Posts: 499

    Gives them that feeling of supreme power, Ms. Bobin. Many are cowards who stepped on someone's toes or ripped them off in the past and merely carry out of fear of that someone extricating revenge on them or their families. Thereare plenty of those cowards in the good ol' boys ranks.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:32 am on Sun, Sep 22, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4305

    Why in the world would one need to carry a concealed weapon outside their home just for the general protection of their family?

    If one is involved in a business that might be subject to high crimes/robberies, i.e., transporting cash or other valuables on a routine basis, they should be allowed a permit.

    But just to carry around a gun in public is sheer nonsense, like the group that convenes at Starbucks and loves to flaunt their open carry weapons for all to see, like that is some type of symbol that sends a message. If you think you are in "danger" at Starbucks you have some serious problems.

    I think Lt. Martinez's comment was very appropriate.

     
  • jeff palmer posted at 7:24 pm on Sat, Sep 21, 2013.

    boom1967 Posts: 2

    As a resident of Lodi I am disgusted that one of those sworn to protect our community places such little value on families. The reason to protect our most cherished people in our lives should be more than enough reason to be issued a permit. The lt is a disgrace to the community with such an attitude.

     

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists