CCW while on probation?

[goo-uh]

Are you Armenian

no lol

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

no lol

I would doubt this answer coming from a id thief.

 

[ikeo1]

thank you i might just wait and make it easier on myself, it would be cool to probably be the first person on probation with a ccw though

Usually if you have a CCW and you have a problem, they'll take it away if you're on probation. Don't need to explain yourself more man, sounds like your family friend did you dirty. IMHO he's not your friend, if he didn't tell you the risk and you make a choice.

 

[goo-uh]

I would doubt this answer coming from a id thief.

you guys are funny and i can’t tell if its trolling or genuine

 

[Hit Factor]

hey i’m just trying to play it by the book, yall act like the president isn’t a felon

Perfect example. The president wrote “legal fees” on a check to his own attorney instead of “non disclosure agreement,” over a decade ago, before he was even president. That’s a classic “malum prohibitum” offense. No one was hurt, no one was victimized — the only reason it’s a crime at all is because the legislature passed a law saying you’re prohibited from doing it. Now compare that to stealing someone’s identity in order to basically steal goods and services from others. Even if there was no law prohibiting it, that behavior is wrong (sorry, there’s no way around it), and could be viewed as disqualifying by many people — including those deciding whether or not their agency should issue you a license to carry a concealed weapon under the current state of the law in California.

 

[Gawernator]

no lol

 

[ikeo1]

you guys are funny and i can’t tell if its trolling or genuine

its both.. it be like that lil cuz...

 

[Gawernator]

Perfect example. The president wrote “legal fees” on a check to his own attorney instead of “non disclosure agreement,” over a decade ago, before he was even president. That’s a classic “malum prohibitum” offense. No one was hurt, no one was victimized — the only reason it’s a crime at all is because the legislature passed a law saying you’re prohibited from doing it. Now compare that to stealing someone’s identity in order to basically steal goods and services from others. Even if there was no law prohibiting it, that behavior is wrong (sorry, there’s no way around it), and could be viewed as disqualifying by many people — including those deciding whether or not their agency should issue a license to carry a concealed weapon to you under the current state of the law in California.

Lol not to mention rich/powerful people don't need CCW anyways, they have bodyguards

 

[goo-uh]

Perfect example. The president wrote “legal fees” on a check to his own attorney instead of “non disclosure agreement,” over a decade ago, before he was even president. That’s a classic “malum prohibitum” offense. No one was hurt, no one was victimized — the only reason it’s a crime at all is because the legislature passed a law saying you’re prohibited from doing it. Now compare that to stealing someone’s identity in order to basically steal goods and services from others. Even if there was no law prohibiting it, that behavior is wrong (sorry, there’s no way around it), and could be viewed as disqualifying by many people — including those deciding whether or not their agency should issue a license to carry a concealed weapon to you under the current state of the law in California.

but that’s my whole thing, it’s not really like they get to chose if they want to? i thought the new law is they SHALL issue unless im specifically disqualified under a statue

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

but that’s my whole thing, it’s not really like they get to chose if they want to? i thought the new law is they SHALL issue unless im specifically disqualified under a statue

Bro. Stealing IDs is easier if you carry a gun.

 

[goo-uh]

Bro. Stealing IDs is easier if you carry a gun.

and who the hell is going out of their way to carry legally just to commit crimes with it that sounds like a bunch of extra work for nothing

 

[Gawernator]

but that’s my whole thing, it’s not really like they get to chose if they want to? i thought the new law is they SHALL issue unless im specifically disqualified under a statue

No they can still deny for bad moral character. Just can't require "good cause"

 

[Hit Factor]

but that’s my whole thing, it’s not really like they get to chose if they want to? i thought the new law is they SHALL issue unless im specifically disqualified under a statue

I feel like we’re going in circles here. Time for me to get off this ride. Once again, good luck to you.

 

[Gawernator]

and who the hell is going out of their way to carry legally just to commit crimes with it that sounds like a bunch of extra work for nothing

My Armenian friend said Armenians

 

[goo-uh]

No they can still deny for bad moral character. Just can't require "good cause"

 

[goo-uh]

regardless thank everyone for their input, was genuinely just looking for opinions. everyone on reddit was calling me a idiot too so i’m not suprised

 

[RustVendor]

Why are you asking us and not the issuing agency?

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Since you asked A.I., I asked A.I., and looks like you have a chance. But also remember, in the case you get rejected, you invited LE to let them know a criminal with guns is looking to carry their gun. (maybe enough to harass you or look deeper into your life.) I'm just speculating.

 

[GeeQ87]

My Armenian friend said Armenians

Or Russian lmao

 

[goo-uh]

Why are you asking us and not the issuing agency?

i did she basically said i can move forward but it’s not guaranteed