California CCW - concealed carry forum

I travel often enough into Oregon for short periods. As best as I can determine, Oregon non resident permits are issued at the discretion of County Sheriff if a resident of a bordering state has a compelling business interest in Oregon. Anyone have any gouge on strategy for obtaining an oregon non resident CCW?

Go here: http://oregonfirearms.org

Right, that's where I got most my gouge. I was wondering if anyone knew a sheriff who was sympathetic.

There was somebody who used to be on this board who told me that like in California, every Sheriff is different, if you go to the right one, there is no "compelling interest" need. He got his pretty much on a whim, pretty much like a "CCW spree". Got his nevada, mailed off his Utah, FL, NH, applied and received WA and oregon all over a long weekend. He didn't tell me which county in Oregon, but he said he "dropped in to the Sheriffs office and applied".

jcn0903 wrote:

Right, that's where I got most my gouge. I was wondering if anyone knew a sheriff who was sympathetic.

If you find out please let us know . I would like to apply for my permit as well. I know OG supports applications from CA if you have a CA CCW

Try Sheriff Tim Evenger in Klamath County, Or. That's where I got mine. Although I did have a compelling need, he seemed to be somewhat willing to consider non-residents. His staff is very helpful - particularly his records supervisor, Becky.

Hammer wrote:

Try Sheriff Tim Evenger in Klamath County, Or. That's where I got mine. Although I did have a compelling need, he seemed to be somewhat willing to consider non-residents. His staff is very helpful - particularly his records supervisor, Becky.

Thank you for the info. That's the kind of detailed info that people need, that I hoped to collect when I started this forum. Being better informed makes everything go more smoothly.

Last year I talked with Jim March about the Oregon CCW law.

Oregon is shall issue for residents, but discretionary issue for non residents.

Few years back California tried doing this game with welfare benefits, but got nailed by the Federal courts as violating equal protection.

There is already court precendent on our side.

Trouble is getting to Oregon. As a non resident you can county shop, but if anyone is interested in setting some court precendents on equal protection on CCW issuance, Oregon would be a good state to hit.

Of course I would not encourage lawsuits without consulting with others such as many members of this forum first.

Nicki

I believe that Washington county treats non-residents pretty good. My godson is an officer with the Beaverton P.D. and he told me that when I inquired a couple of years ago. Of course, I've been too lazy to go up there and apply, but will probably do so the next time I venture up there. I'll probably be talking to him over the holidays so I'll quiz him some more
and give a report.

As non residents we can apply in any county.

The trick is to find a shall issue sheriff, leg work needs to be done.

nicki wrote:

Last year I talked with Jim March about the Oregon CCW law.

Oregon is shall issue for residents, but discretionary issue for non residents.

Few years back California tried doing this game with welfare benefits, but got nailed by the Federal courts as violating equal protection.

There is already court precendent on our side.

Trouble is getting to Oregon. As a non resident you can county shop, but if anyone is interested in setting some court precendents on equal protection on CCW issuance, Oregon would be a good state to hit.

Of course I would not encourage lawsuits without consulting with others such as many members of this forum first.

Nicki

Forget Oregon, lets try this in California so they can join the rest of the United States. A lawsuit similar to the welfare one may be able to force CA to issue non-resident CCW's.

As far as Oregon, the general policy (counties do vary) is that southern Oregon takes care of Nevada and California residents, eastern Oregon takes care of Nevada, and Idaho residents, and northern Oregon takes care of Washington residents.

Keep in mind, open carry in Oregon is legal except in Beaverton and Portland (unless you have a concealed handgun license).

Forcing Oregon to issue to non-residents on a shall-issue basis would be a good case, but there is a chance (not this election cycle) that they could either pass reciprocity or treat non-residents the way Washington does....for California's legislature to consider reciprocity or issuing non-resident permits..... well, Japan, Australia, and the U.K. will be issuing handgun licenses (possession and carrying) on a shall-issue basis before that happens.

Doing a lawsuit in California was an idea that Jim March and I actually talked about rather than Oregon as something to consider.

The trick would be to find a pro gun sheriff who would roll over, basically throw a federal case. Hell, a hostile sheriff wouldn't be able to fight either, but just having one who would just go to court and take the hit, no bs, no delaying motions woule get things in motion.

Of course that would mean a mass exodus to people to Nevada, Arizona and Oregon for non resident california ccw permits.

Funny thing, this situation actually eixsts in Delaware. Delaware recognizes Florida CCW permits, but is still discretionary for their own residents.

Nicki

nicki wrote:

Doing a lawsuit in California was an idea that Jim March and I actually talked about rather than Oregon as something to consider.

The trick would be to find a pro gun sheriff who would roll over, basically throw a federal case. Hell, a hostile sheriff wouldn't be able to fight either, but just having one who would just go to court and take the hit, no bs, no delaying motions woule get things in motion.

Of course that would mean a mass exodus to people to Nevada, Arizona and Oregon for non resident california ccw permits.

Funny thing, this situation actually eixsts in Delaware. Delaware recognizes Florida CCW permits, but is still discretionary for their own residents.

Nicki

Working in law enforcement, I can tell you that background checks do not take a long time. It's not like CCW holders are undergoing a top secret clearance check. You know how long it takes the Sheriff in Mobile County, Alabama to run a background check on someone for a pistol license?

5 TO 10 MINUTES

Secondly, no sheriff would be flooded with applications to the point where they could not handle it.

At $100 a license, any department could hire a temp staff to process the applications and still have $$$ left over.

Besides, you would still have to apply in person and sit through the class. This would deter a lot of people.

Billy Jack, do you have interest in this, if you'd like, we could discuss this. I can't be a test applicant as the case would be thrown out over Federal Law if I was the test; however, I would be willing to give some $$$ to help out in a well planned case to force CA to issue to non-residents.

This would also cut back on the needless investigations into CCW applicants. Who cares if they volunteer at the YMCA or the old folks center. Just check to see if they are eligible by law to have a license.

You know how long it takes the Rhode Island AG's office to run fingerprints and a background check on Pistol Permit holders?

About a week.

Billy Jack is no longer on this list.

ccwinstructor wrote:

Billy Jack is no longer on this list.

I was going to say that... "Billy Jack has LEFT the building."

akulahawk wrote:

ccwinstructor wrote:

Billy Jack is no longer on this list.

I was going to say that... "Billy Jack has LEFT the building."

Where did he go. I've seen his new site, but if he left this one... why?

Jared wrote:

akulahawk wrote:

ccwinstructor wrote:

Billy Jack is no longer on this list.

I was going to say that... "Billy Jack has LEFT the building."

Where did he go. I've seen his new site, but if he left this one... why?

Between Billy Jack and Jim March there were issues following Admin's. site rules.
I guess if you cant play by the rules, the game is over and rightly so.

spc

spc wrote:

Jared wrote:

akulahawk wrote:

ccwinstructor wrote:

Billy Jack is no longer on this list.

I was going to say that... "Billy Jack has LEFT the building."

Where did he go. I've seen his new site, but if he left this one... why?

Between Billy Jack and Jim March there were issues following Admin's. site rules.
I guess if you cant play by the rules, the game is over and rightly so.

spc

I'm not following you, what kind of rules?

Jared wrote:

I'm not following you, what kind of rules?

Jared: These rules.....

Admin wrote:

CaliforniaCCW.org is only about a month old, and yet I already know as a fact that sheriffs, sheriffs' candidates and other top LEOs in California are reading this forum. What does that mean for us?

The main thing it means is we need to keep this forum positive and free of name-calling. Every sheriff or police chief or city councilman who visits this site should come away thinking, "these people sound reasonable. Their views make sense. They're on our side. We can trust them."

Every post you make, please keep that in mind. I have done almost no moderation so far in this forum and I would like to keep it as little as possible.

However, as time goes on, we will need some guidelines.

Some are obvious and universal to all serious discussion forums: No vulgarities, no personal attacks, keep it civil and polite. Some I need to state more clearly: we need to always post with a respectful attitude towards sheriffs and other LEOs, including those who are not issuing, even those who have unfortunately linked CCW issuance with campaign contributions or other such practices. I would suggest to those sheriffs: would you rather get big contributions from a small handful of friends, or have a big chunk of your voters carrying permits with your signature on them? Sheriffs, broad CCW issuance can be a big political win for you by creating a big group of people who will keep voting for you. I know that I'll vote for whoever signs my permit. And of course, CCWs create a big group of people who will make your counties safer and keep your officers safer.

Other guidelines we need for this forum: We can't have any attacks on people of particular political views or parties. To put it more concretely, no attacks or put-downs of Democrats or liberals. CCW reform cuts accross all political lines. Could any liberal really be in favor of a system which gives advantage to the wealthy in the issuance of a government permit? No way, not if they really understand the issue. In fact, I'm considering creating a sub-forum here just for Democrats, to make it clear: Democrats are welcome on this forum. Even Democrats who disagree are welcome, so long as they keep it civil, on-topic and based in reason.

Those are the guidelines for now. Please read them and use common sense and keep the tone here positive and inviting.

Jared: pretty much everyone here follows these rules without asking or even knowing what the rules are. It's not because they've read them, it's because that is how decent people treat each other. They also see how we treat each other here and subconsciously do the same thing. They also see just when Admin locks a thread because it has gone too far or it has run it's course. Most threads simply stop because they've gone their course. Some get out of hand and Admin or Chooch (his moderator) steps in to quiet things down by locking a thread. When that happens, everyone kind of steps back and realizes what happened and why and productive discussion begins again in a different thread.

I'm surprised that it has taken someone this long to ask "Why?" about Billy Jack and others. Please don't get me wrong or get the wrong impression about us or BJ. He's a wonderful source of information. His style of asking, answering, and challenging (that can be a very good thing) questions, thoughts, ideas and assumptions was abrasive at times. He was asked and warned repeatedly to lighten up a bit in his abrasiveness and to please follow the guidelines. He ultimately didn't. In short, he brought his situation on himself.

I certainly am not privy to all the happenings here. To get an idea of how things happened, just read BJ's posts and the threads that they were in.

I am neither supporting or defending any parties in this post. I am merely attempting to show kind of the "reader's digest" version of what happened and how. No one here wants to be a part of any hostile activity or actions and please do not take this as a flame upon anyone here, past or present. It is what it is.

akulahawk wrote:

Jared wrote:

I'm not following you, what kind of rules?

Jared: These rules.....

Admin wrote:

CaliforniaCCW.org is only about a month old, and yet I already know as a fact that sheriffs, sheriffs' candidates and other top LEOs in California are reading this forum. What does that mean for us?

The main thing it means is we need to keep this forum positive and free of name-calling. Every sheriff or police chief or city councilman who visits this site should come away thinking, "these people sound reasonable. Their views make sense. They're on our side. We can trust them."

Every post you make, please keep that in mind. I have done almost no moderation so far in this forum and I would like to keep it as little as possible.

However, as time goes on, we will need some guidelines.

Some are obvious and universal to all serious discussion forums: No vulgarities, no personal attacks, keep it civil and polite. Some I need to state more clearly: we need to always post with a respectful attitude towards sheriffs and other LEOs, including those who are not issuing, even those who have unfortunately linked CCW issuance with campaign contributions or other such practices. I would suggest to those sheriffs: would you rather get big contributions from a small handful of friends, or have a big chunk of your voters carrying permits with your signature on them? Sheriffs, broad CCW issuance can be a big political win for you by creating a big group of people who will keep voting for you. I know that I'll vote for whoever signs my permit. And of course, CCWs create a big group of people who will make your counties safer and keep your officers safer.

Other guidelines we need for this forum: We can't have any attacks on people of particular political views or parties. To put it more concretely, no attacks or put-downs of Democrats or liberals. CCW reform cuts accross all political lines. Could any liberal really be in favor of a system which gives advantage to the wealthy in the issuance of a government permit? No way, not if they really understand the issue. In fact, I'm considering creating a sub-forum here just for Democrats, to make it clear: Democrats are welcome on this forum. Even Democrats who disagree are welcome, so long as they keep it civil, on-topic and based in reason.

Those are the guidelines for now. Please read them and use common sense and keep the tone here positive and inviting.

Jared: pretty much everyone here follows these rules without asking or even knowing what the rules are. It's not because they've read them, it's because that is how decent people treat each other. They also see how we treat each other here and subconsciously do the same thing. They also see just when Admin locks a thread because it has gone too far or it has run it's course. Most threads simply stop because they've gone their course. Some get out of hand and Admin or Chooch (his moderator) steps in to quiet things down by locking a thread. When that happens, everyone kind of steps back and realizes what happened and why and productive discussion begins again in a different thread.

I'm surprised that it has taken someone this long to ask "Why?" about Billy Jack and others. Please don't get me wrong or get the wrong impression about us or BJ. He's a wonderful source of information. His style of asking, answering, and challenging (that can be a very good thing) questions, thoughts, ideas and assumptions was abrasive at times. He was asked and warned repeatedly to lighten up a bit in his abrasiveness and to please follow the guidelines. He ultimately didn't. In short, he brought his situation on himself.

I certainly am not privy to all the happenings here. To get an idea of how things happened, just read BJ's posts and the threads that they were in.

I am neither supporting or defending any parties in this post. I am merely attempting to show kind of the "reader's digest" version of what happened and how. No one here wants to be a part of any hostile activity or actions and please do not take this as a flame upon anyone here, past or present. It is what it is.

Thank You akulahawk for the very complete and detailed answer to a very good question. Your answer is more complete than I probably would have given.

BJ is a world of information and enthusiam towards CCW issuance, but his manner was a little abrasive at times and was warned many times, just as Jim March. It is a shame they both could not moderaste their posts enough to still be mambers here and help to make this forum a little more complete.

Admin. has set reasonable standards of decency and ethics here and we all try to abide by them.

spc