|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CA: State auditor finds discrepancies in Sacramento County's CCW permit processes
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
To carry a concealed weapon in California, you must have a conceal and carry weapons (CCW) permit.
In Sacramento County, the sheriff's department determines if someone qualifies for a license by looking at four requirements: good moral character, good cause for the license, is a resident of the county and has completed firearms training.
A newly released state audit found inconsistencies with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department permitting process for CCW.
The state auditor reviewed three counties: Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/16/2017)
|
Correction: State Audit Finds Major Discrepancies in Los Angeles County.
"The audit said none of the three counties were consistent in using their own internal standards to evaluate applications.
In Sacramento, the auditor also found that the sheriff's department doesn't collect sufficient documentation to prove applicants meet all CCW permit requirements.
All three departments charge application processing fees for CCW licensing, but the fees do not appear to cover the costs of the programs.
The report also states it found the starkest failure to follow policy in Los Angeles County." |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
