Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 03-12-2015, 6:46 PM
msternin msternin is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 854
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daydrmr999 View Post
Fyi, San Bernardino county also does not issue the rice paper, just the hard card.
Let's just assume for the sake of argument the FD/BOF 4501 is the "real" LTC, it doesn't really surprise me that many IAs who issue don't provide this. I'm sure the DOJ has very little, if any, guidance on this form. Other than processing live scan backgrounds and collecting IA statistical data, the DOJ seems to be quite hands off with how IAs issue and really have nothing to do with licensure. Notwithstanding trying to intervene into Peruta
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-12-2015, 7:19 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msternin View Post
Let's just assume for the sake of argument the FD/BOF 4501 is the "real" LTC, it doesn't really surprise me that many IAs who issue don't provide this. I'm sure the DOJ has very little, if any, guidance on this form. Other than processing live scan backgrounds and collecting IA statistical data, the DOJ seems to be quite hands off with how IAs issue and really have nothing to do with licensure. Notwithstanding trying to intervene into Peruta
Apparently, I am confused. The statute says the form is standardized and approved by OAG. Why do we have to "assume" the FD/BOF 4501 is the "real" license?

Notwithstanding that, what's the point?

The statutes say the sheriff or COP may issue. DOJ has no authority in the issuance or denial. DOJ performs ministerial duties regarding standardized paperwork and acting as a collection point for background checks with a ministerial reporting function to the IA.

Last edited by Dvrjon; 03-12-2015 at 7:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-12-2015, 7:39 PM
msternin msternin is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 854
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Apparently, I am confused. The statute says the form is standardized and approved by OAG. Why do we have to "assume" the FD/BOF 4501 is the "real" license?

Notwithstanding that, what's the point?

The statutes say the sheriff or COP may issue. DOJ has no authority in the issuance or denial. DOJ performs ministerial duties regarding standardized paperwork and acting as a collection point for background checks with a ministerial reporting function to the IA.
The statute doesn't make mention of a specific form number in the case of the application either, but the DOJ will tell you the only uniform standard app approved by them is a 4012. This is done so the forms can be renamed/renumbered as need for administrative purposes.

As far as the "notwithstanding", I was simply trying to say the DOJ generally stays out of local IA licensing policy.

ADDITIONAL: While I'm sure you are quite familiar with the verbiage of PC 26175, the language is quite clear in that the legislature grants the OAG the authority and provides prescriptive instructions on the construction of the app and the license itself as well as guidelines around what is required for completing the app, etc...

Last edited by msternin; 03-12-2015 at 7:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-12-2015, 8:06 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,818
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msternin View Post
To quote you "Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs", I don't believe that LEOs are under any obligation to verify or validate individual assertions of being a licensee if not in possession while carrying. If they want to hem you up under those circumstance they will. Not to mention it seems to be a common condition of carry from most IA policies that I've read.
Sure, but if you do carry your license, you eliminate one obvious problem. If LE wants to make difficulties after that, no way of which I am aware to prevent that.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-12-2015, 8:12 PM
msternin msternin is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 854
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Sure, but if you do carry your license, you eliminate one obvious problem. If LE wants to make difficulties after that, no way of which I am aware to prevent that.
Absolutely. Licensees must discipline themselves to ensuring they have all required elements necessary to avoid complications when carrying.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-12-2015, 9:24 PM
mike_in_ca's Avatar
mike_in_ca mike_in_ca is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 259
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_in_ca View Post
I had this conversation with Melissa when I picked up the "new" credit card style. I previously had the rice paper FD 4501. She showed me the completed FD 4501 form in my file with all the same information as my issued card.

Said as long as the issuing agency has a copy of the 4501 form they can issue their own card as long as it contains all the same information.

Don't take my word for it.... Feel free to contact OCSD And ask.
This is what Melissa said ^^^
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-12-2015, 9:38 PM
msternin msternin is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 854
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_in_ca View Post
This is what Melissa said ^^^
That may be the policy of the OCSD and is generally accepted intra-IA jurisdiction, however the point of me initiating the thread was that I was unaware, until the Cal DOJ made me aware, that the only binding state-wide document that has legal weight in ANY jurisdiction is the 4501. Anything else an IA gives you is a nice to have. Take that for what you will. It just seems prudent to request this document from your IA especially if you may travel outside the IAs geographic area of jurisdiction, simply as a matter of best practice.

It's not a matter of what OC does versus Riverside or other IAs, I too was previously under the impression the IA simply created the make-up of their own license and that served as a state-wide acceptable "form" as long as it contained the info required under 26175 (i). Per the DOJs opinion of 26175 (i), it does not.

For example, you could have your OCSD issued LTC card, but not the 4501 and have an issue in Stanislaus County, and that LEO is under NO obligation to accept your OCSD card as legitimate proof licensing. Reality and odds are, they will, but there's always the possibility of that one LEO having a bad day and deciding to hem you up.

-Of course you could always tell that LEO "Melissa said" :-)
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-13-2015, 1:30 AM
mike_in_ca's Avatar
mike_in_ca mike_in_ca is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 259
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

The form 4501 is what is filed by the OCSD to the DOJ after you have been issued a CCW. Even if you have the old school form that was issued... any LEO is under no obligation to accept that as legitimate proof either.

I would think it does not matter one way or another because any LEO that has concerns about the authenticity of your permit will call the issuing agency. They will not call the DOJ.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-13-2015, 2:22 AM
VintageRider VintageRider is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 78
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

FCSD gives both the "rice paper" and a hard card. The investigator I spoke with was pretty explicit about the hard card being good in FC only. The paper was to be carried outside of the county.

I didn't realize the form had a designation to it, but now that I know it does and why, it make total sense. I thought it was odd that I would have two different forms for the permit.

And I second the motion to add an endorsement to the CDL.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-13-2015, 5:18 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Or an endorsement to a CA DL or ID - why carry two cards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintageRider View Post
And I second the motion to add an endorsement to the CDL.
At first glance, this seems like a logical solution as it would be very convenient and tie separate data bases together. Law Enforcement would be able to make direct checks on validity, providing further advantage.

But, While this would be convenient, I dislike the idea of providing that information to store clerks, waiters, etc. when asked for identification. "Yup, that's the guy at the table and these are the guns he could have on him."

Additionally, some merchants are now sweeping the magnetic strip on the back of the license to capture data to support a sale. I'm reluctant to expose my LTC information to yet another database.

Last edited by Dvrjon; 03-13-2015 at 5:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 03-13-2015, 5:38 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msternin View Post
The statute doesn't make mention of a specific form number in the case of the application either, but the DOJ will tell you the only uniform standard app approved by them is a 4012. This is done so the forms can be renamed/renumbered as need for administrative purposes.

As far as the "notwithstanding", I was simply trying to say the DOJ generally stays out of local IA licensing policy.

ADDITIONAL: While I'm sure you are quite familiar with the verbiage of PC 26175, the language is quite clear in that the legislature grants the OAG the authority and provides prescriptive instructions on the construction of the app and the license itself as well as guidelines around what is required for completing the app, etc...
True, but the Legislature does not issue forms...that's the Administration's job .

The activities you outlined above are the ministerial duties assigned to OAG by the Legislature in support of the LTC program. The Legislature has told OAG what they are to do, just as it has vested sole authority for issuance of LTCs with the IAs. Because of this, OAG has little choice but to stay out of local issuance policy.

But what perplexes me is why OAG does not enforce the statute where it clearly constrains the IA? The statute is clear on the unique form of the license, yet IAs are contravening the statute and usurping the sole authority of the OAG in this area. This could easily be clarified by issuance of an OAG Information Bulletin either disapproving or approving local card design. (Examples here: http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls)

I believe the OAG has not intervened because the issue is not large enough to warrant intervention. and it is not to her advantage at this point. As LTC grows in this state, and Peruta sorts out, this would give the OAG some additional future leverage in the program. No reason to waste the shot now.

Best.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-13-2015, 5:57 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_in_ca View Post
I had this conversation with Melissa when I picked up the "new" credit card style. I previously had the rice paper FD 4501. She showed me the completed FD 4501 form in my file with all the same information as my issued card.

Said as long as the issuing agency has a copy of the 4501 form they can issue their own card as long as it contains all the same information.
So. If you went to the DMV to get a new license, and they showed you the license, put it back in a file, and then gave you a different card, would you believe you have been issued a Driver's License?

If you have a child and you are shown a Birth Certificate, then given a piece of plastic, would you have been issued your child's Birth Certificate?

If you get married, and you are shown your marriage license but are given a piece of plastic, have you been issued a License to Marry?

I would suggest that, if it doesn't come into your possession, it hasn't been "issued".
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-13-2015, 6:16 AM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 7,749
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default DOJ FD 4501/BOF 4501, The Real CCW/LTC?

Or they just run the serial number on the gun and it tells them it's a CCW gun (as to validating if the CCW is legal)
The 4501 is sent to doj, with your thumb print, that is the official notice to doj along with your $52 check of your serial numbers and such, if a county isn't doing that, a person might have an issue, seems doj would notice a batch without thumb prints, so I'm guessing they may not give you the 4501 but are getting your thumb print on it
Monterey was about to do cards but figured why if the person needed to carry both, so nixed the idea

Last edited by Tripper; 03-13-2015 at 6:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-13-2015, 6:26 AM
msternin msternin is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 854
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
True, but the Legislature does not issue forms...that's the Administration's job .
I never said the leg issues the forms. I said grants the authority.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
I believe the OAG has not intervened because the issue is not large enough to warrant intervention. and it is not to her advantage at this point. As LTC grows in this state, and Peruta sorts out, this would give the OAG some additional future leverage in the program. No reason to waste the shot now.
The AG has no standing as it relates to County or Municipal IA policies. 3rd parties don't have legal standing. That would be analogous to your friend being hurt, but can't afford an attorney, so rather than you funding his case you file suit against the other party instead of him. -Maybe some of the CGNers who once or still practice can expand or clarify standing and 3rd party standing.

That said, the AGs powers and authority would expand when and if the statues change and that office is granted more statutory authority.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-13-2015, 6:33 AM
msternin msternin is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 854
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper View Post
Or they just run the serial number on the gun and it tells them it's a CCW gun
Again, LEOs are under NO such obligation to sort out your mistakes during the course of a field investigation.

Weapons related investigations heightens the entire threat profile of the circumstance and isn't really comparable to say... driving when you've inadvertently left your wallet, containing your driver license, at home.

Notwithstanding your DL being suspended or in another condition that would get you arrested, driving without your license in your possession is an infraction versus getting caught with a concealed (and likely loaded) weapon is much more severe.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-13-2015, 6:35 AM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 7,749
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

I was responding to the 'how do they know if CCW is valid'
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-13-2015, 6:40 AM
msternin msternin is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 854
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper View Post
I was responding to the 'how do they know if CCW is valid'
Understood. According to the DAG I spoke with, the validity of the 4501 can be done through records checks. From a procedural perspective on how this is done by an IA during a field investigation is unknown to me. Although it seems reasonable the IA has some type of computer access (or maybe a phone number) to AFS or other DOJ systems to run serial numbers and determine validity of 4501s.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-13-2015, 8:10 AM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 7,749
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

If an officer on the street runs the serial number on your CCW gun, the result will contain something along the lines of ***CCW***, running your name will have the same entry added to any of your CCW guns that are returned, if you don't have too many guns, the list stops after so many, and says must get hard copy for more info
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-13-2015, 10:17 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,021
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msternin View Post
I never said the leg issues the forms. I said grants the authority.
Sorry, I read the following as implying that the Legislature would entertain such an action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msternin View Post
The statute doesn't make mention of a specific form number in the case of the application...
The point I was making is the Legislature does not place form numbers in statutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msternin View Post
The AG has no standing as it relates to County or Municipal IA policies. 3rd parties don't have legal standing.
PC 26175 appears to give the AG standing in regards to the form and uniformity of the license, as it reserves the approval of the form to the AG. Using a form not prescribed by the AG directly conflicts with the AG's statutory authority.
Quote:
...[a]pplications for licenses, applications for amendments to licenses, amendments to licenses, and licenses under this article shall be uniform throughout the state, upon forms to be prescribed by the Attorney General.
It would appear the BOF 4501 is the real LTC. The BOF version was issued in 2008, making the FD 4501 obsolete. Since LTCs (generally) expire in only two years, none of the FD version are still valid.

Best.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-13-2015, 10:31 AM
msternin msternin is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 854
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Sorry, I read the following as implying that the Legislature would entertain such an action. The point I was making is the Legislature does not place form numbers in statutes.
Noted. I was aware they don't do this. :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
PC 26175 appears to give the AG standing in regards to the form and uniformity of the license, as it reserves the approval of the form to the AG. Using a form not prescribed by the AG directly conflicts with the AG's statutory authority.
Arguable, as many a suits have been dismissed against the AG predicated on their assertion of no standing in "local" PD or Sheriff licensing business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
It would appear the BOF 4501 is the real LTC. The BOF version was issued in 2008, making the FD 4501 obsolete. Since LTCs (generally) expire in only two years, none of the FD version are still valid.
Noted, the FD 4501 is obsolete, however, the document I attached was provided as the result of a PRA I did with Glendora Police Department and was issued in 2014. Clearly they still have a stack of old forms. Odds are they're still using for their initial supply from ages ago.

Clearly we're all on the same side here. 1 team - 1 fight. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 03-14-2015, 8:51 AM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,217
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

San Mateo County folds that form in half and laminates it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-15-2015, 11:48 AM
JohnCCW's Avatar
JohnCCW JohnCCW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Madera County
Posts: 1,198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
San Mateo County folds that form in half and laminates it.
So- there are no restriction on the back then?
Probably not- since the SMSO only allows "special" people CCW.
__________________
Don't ask how many guns I own, I lost count.
Rick Perry, Ted Cruz Trump for President 2016, because Hillary is NOT an option.

Last edited by JohnCCW; 03-15-2015 at 11:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-15-2015, 11:56 AM
msternin msternin is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 854
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnCCW View Post
So- there are no restriction on the back then?
Probably not- since the SMSO only allows "special" people CCW.
I'm just curious if anyone can redact, if needed, and scan the backside of this form. I've only seem the front side.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-15-2015, 2:06 PM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 7,749
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

The reverse side is blank unless someone specifically puts something on it
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-15-2015, 2:17 PM
msternin msternin is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 854
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper View Post
The reverse side is blank unless someone specifically puts something on it
Okay, gotcha. So IA's must use the back side for listing more than 3 weapons and or other restrictions that don't fit on the front.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-15-2015, 2:19 PM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 7,749
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

I believe they are suppose to use additional forms, but I've read around here that some counties list additional firearms on back
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 03-15-2015, 2:27 PM
msternin msternin is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 854
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper View Post
I believe they are suppose to use additional forms, but I've read around here that some counties list additional firearms on back
Makes sense.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 03-15-2015, 3:02 PM
slipknot95758 slipknot95758 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 659
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

San joaquine Does the rice paper folded with a color photo and thumb print, then laminated. It is larger than a standard dl but it still fits behind my id in the wallet
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-09-2015, 11:28 AM
Flyliner Flyliner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 264
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

So has anyone requested a copy of their BOF 4501 from their IA yet (from in IA that normally gives out a hard card instead, like OCSD)?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-09-2015, 1:58 PM
tanks's Avatar
tanks tanks is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 3,103
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msternin View Post
Perhaps if the State ever took over the LTC process, the license itself would be more akin to a driver license in make up.
If the State took over the LTC process none of us would ever get a CCW permit.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-09-2015, 4:43 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default DOJ FD 4501/BOF 4501, The Real CCW/LTC?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyliner View Post
So has anyone requested a copy of their BOF 4501 from their IA yet (from in IA that normally gives out a hard card instead, like OCSD)?

I've never seen the need to.

.

Last edited by Doheny; 04-12-2015 at 11:57 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-12-2015, 11:33 AM
bblr's Avatar
bblr bblr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 299
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrieta578 View Post
I am going to try and answer my own question:

The FD 4501 (10/99) I believe is the old "Firearms Document" 4501 Revised in Oct, 1999.

The BOF 4501 (11/08) I believe is the new "Bureau of Firearms" document 4501 revised in November of 2008
Mine is neither. Mine is rice paper but is BOF 4012 (11/08).
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-12-2015, 3:47 PM
msternin msternin is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 854
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bblr View Post
Mine is neither. Mine is rice paper but is BOF 4012 (11/08).
That's strange since a BOF 4012 is the CCW application form number.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-27-2015, 11:09 PM
gunmansion's Avatar
gunmansion gunmansion is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: California
Posts: 88
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I shouldn't complain because I'm grateful to have one, but my CA rice paper is starting to look like the dead sea scrolls. Even the dimensions are downright obnoxious. The Utah and Nevada are much more manageable in the wallet.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-28-2015, 12:03 AM
Sleighter's Avatar
Sleighter Sleighter is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Riverside County - where the rednecks and hillbillies meet the suburbs
Posts: 3,648
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Thanks msternin for your continued fight for LTC here in CA. You're doing good work.

However, I doubt that this will ever be an issue. There are a number of things that the OAG has direction over regarding the LTC process that they simply don't monitor or correct that are abused on a daily basis. I don't see them fighting over the forms used by IA's when the law in general regarding ccw issuance is trampled and disregarded by every IA that I'm aware of. Put simply, nobody seems to care what the legal requirements actually are as long as each IA gets to do whatever they want.
__________________
If you are wondering if you can get a LTC in Riverside County: THE ANSWER IS YES!

Join the discussion at:http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=352777
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-28-2015, 2:53 AM
mobbology's Avatar
mobbology mobbology is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: in a free county
Posts: 423
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

What counties does not issue the rice paper permits? I don't even bother carrying the hard card permit as my IA says it means nothing.
__________________
Subscribe to "MOBBIN Outdoors"
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-28-2015, 7:51 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobbology View Post
What counties does not issue the rice paper permits? I don't even bother carrying the hard card permit as my IA says it means nothing.

Orange County doesn't issue paper, only the card.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-28-2015, 9:21 AM
TACOPS's Avatar
TACOPS TACOPS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Napa, CA
Posts: 260
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

My IA authorized the lamination of the BOF 4501 (11/06) form. I had it laminated at FedEx/Kinkos with the thin laminate which you can fold in half. Size is now 2 5/8" x 4 3/16" folded. Compact and preserved.
__________________


NRA Certified Pistol & Certified Rifle Instructor
CA DoJ Handgun Safety Certificate Certified Instructor
Utah Department of Public Safety Concealed Firearm Instructor

Last edited by TACOPS; 04-28-2015 at 11:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-28-2015, 10:56 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TACOPS View Post
My IA authorized the lamination of the BOF 4501 (11/06) form. I had it laminate at FedEx/Kinkos with the thin laminate which you can fold in half. Size is now 2 5/8" x 4 3/16" folded. Compact and preserved.

The PC specifically permits it, so no need for authorization from your IA.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 04-28-2015, 11:07 AM
TACOPS's Avatar
TACOPS TACOPS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Napa, CA
Posts: 260
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Yes I know I looked up the PC, but since I called the SO to ask and identified myself, there is now a recording of the SO representative saying lamination of my CCW is permissible/authorized.
__________________


NRA Certified Pistol & Certified Rifle Instructor
CA DoJ Handgun Safety Certificate Certified Instructor
Utah Department of Public Safety Concealed Firearm Instructor
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:46 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.