CCW while on probation?

[NorCalBusa]

By now, he should have spoken with his IA & posted the details.

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

 

[Rickvs]

they probably didn’t mention it to the agency or were going over 100 something crazy

last question, if i said F- it and move forward with interview now and get declined you think it would make it any harder to try again in a year or whatever?

One question on the orm i filed out in San Bernardino and previously in ORange, asked if I had poreviously been denied and why. That could come up in a second attempt if denied. For what it's worth. (When the Sheriff changed in Orange County, she denied me for lack of good cause. I said that on my subsequent application and it was not an issue. San Bernardino didn't care due to the reason for denial.)

 

[NorCalBusa]

One question on the orm i filed out in San Bernardino and previously in ORange, asked if I had poreviously been denied and why. That could come up in a second attempt if denied. For what it's worth. (When the Sheriff changed in Orange County, she denied me for lack of good cause. I said that on my subsequent application and it was not an issue. San Bernardino didn't care due to the reason for denial.)

Correct except one detail "could" come up is not quite correct. "Absolutely F-ing for sure it will" is a bit closer to the mark.

 

[spyrish]

Thinking outside the box, did the person who's identity you stole have a ccw? If so, wouldn't this be a renewal for you?

 

[psun786]

I would advise waiting until at least the probation period is over before applying, as the chance of being denied now is extremely high. Although a CIMT is not a statutory disqualifier, most IAs want applicants with a prior CIMT to "demonstrate that sufficient time has passed since the offense and establish a subsequent history of responsible, law-abiding conduct" before granting a CCW.

If you proceed with the application and get denied, you’ll have a denial on your record. Not only might you need to wait before reapplying, depending on the IA, but you would also have to check the “prior denial” box on your next application, which by itself could raise additional concerns for the reviewing officer.

 

[WSS01]

How about non criminal charges like a mental health 5150? Can IA's see the charge (which is supposed to be covered by HIIPA)? 5150's usually are accompanied by a 8103 (welfare and inst) which is a 5 year firearm prohibition, but it can be appealed if you demonstrate you are of sound mind. I may have the description wrong but that is the basics.

 

[Specialist_muted]

How about non criminal charges like a mental health 5150? Can IA's see the charge (which is supposed to be covered by HIIPA)? 5150's usually are accompanied by a 8103 (welfare and inst) which is a 5 year firearm prohibition, but it can be appealed if you demonstrate you are of sound mind. I may have the description wrong but that is the basics.

The California CCW application forces you, under penalty of perjury, to self-report any history of mental health treatment, regardless of whether it was voluntary or involuntary.

Under California law, psychiatric facilities are legally mandated to report formal 5150 admissions to the Department of Justice to enforce state firearm prohibitions.

 

[RickD427]

How about non criminal charges like a mental health 5150? Can IA's see the charge (which is supposed to be covered by HIIPA)? 5150's usually are accompanied by a 8103 (welfare and inst) which is a 5 year firearm prohibition, but it can be appealed if you demonstrate you are of sound mind. I may have the description wrong but that is the basics.

Yes, LE agencies have visibility to WIC 5150 records.

There is no protection to such records under HIPAA. There is a statutory basis for the release of such records, and the California DOJ, as the operator of the data system is not a covered entity under HIPAA.

Please note that the 5 year firearms prohibition under WIC 8103 only applies to some, but not all, WIC 5150 commitments. As you correctly point out, it is possible for a person to be relieved of their 8103 disability through an available appeal process.

 

[WSS01]

Yes, LE agencies have visibility to WIC 5150 records.

There is no protection to such records under HIPAA. There is a statutory basis for the release of such records, and the California DOJ, as the operator of the data system is not a covered entity under HIPAA.

Please note that the 5 year firearms prohibition under WIC 8103 only applies to some, but not all, WIC 5150 commitments. As you correctly point out, it is possible for a person to be relieved of their 8103 disability through an available appeal process.

If you receive your rights back (via WIC 8103 appeal) within a year of 5150, is this a CCW dis qualifier?

 

[Specialist_muted]

If you receive your rights back (via WIC 8103 appeal) within a year of 5150, is this a CCW dis qualifier?

Explicitly? No. Effectively? Probably.

The state loves to keep these things as clear as mud.

 

[RustVendor]

Explicitly? No. Effectively? Probably.

The state loves to keep these things as clear as mud.

CCW permitting is done by your local jurisdictions

 

[Specialist_muted]

CCW permitting is done by your local jurisdictions

The state creates a direct statutory paradox: winning a WIC 8103 appeal officially restores your firearm rights after a WIC 5150 hold, yet they deliberately exempt those records from HIPAA so local law enforcement still sees them during your background check. They declare you legally safe to possess a firearm but provide zero statewide standard on how that successfully appealed hold actually impacts your CCW eligibility, passing the buck entirely to the local issuing authority. The state goes a step further and makes it worse with voluntary mental health disclosures. On one hand, they supposedly encourage seeking help, even mandating mental health resources in CCW training. On the other hand, the state’s standard DOJ application asks open-ended questions about voluntary therapy and medication, empowering local jurisdictions to demand a psychological evaluation or use your honesty against you.

"Get help, we encourage it, but if you admit to it on our forms, we'll let your local sheriff or police chief use it as a reason to deny you. And if you fail to disclose it, we'll make sure they have to deny you."

 

[RustVendor]

The state creates a direct statutory paradox: winning a WIC 8103 appeal officially restores your firearm rights after a WIC 5150 hold, yet they deliberately exempt those records from HIPAA so local law enforcement still sees them during your background check. They declare you legally safe to possess a firearm but provide zero statewide standard on how that successfully appealed hold actually impacts your CCW eligibility, passing the buck entirely to the local issuing authority. The state goes a step further and makes it worse with voluntary mental health disclosures. On one hand, they supposedly encourage seeking help, even mandating mental health resources in CCW training. On the other hand, the state’s standard DOJ application asks open-ended questions about voluntary therapy and medication, empowering local jurisdictions to demand a psychological evaluation or use your honesty against you.

"Get help, we encourage it, but if you admit to it on our forms, we'll let your local sheriff or police chief use it as a reason to deny you. And if you fail to disclose it, we'll make sure they have to deny you."

Its still up to local jurisdictions, they can do whatever they want.

 

[Specialist_muted]

Its still up to local jurisdictions, they can do whatever they want.

You literally just made my point for me...

 

[RustVendor]

You literally just made my point for me...

Which is the point I made in the first place, so we agree. I'm not sure we want it to have more state oversight because we would likely end up with what the worst counties have instead of the more lenient

 

[ikeo1]

You literally just made my point for me...

This happens a lot, when everyone tries to prove their point. It’s mildly entertaining