18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

What's new
  • Welcome

    Welcome to CAguns

    Join California’s gun owner community. Create a free account to join discussions and explore member features.

    Join freeLog in
Rost Martin R1MF comes to Califnoria

CCW Contra Costa County

DIYPSCM said:
I bought my house in 1999 for $370... listing for $850. I couldn't buy my own house.
Click to expand...
I almost got one in the 300's... tiny 2 bedroom, back in like 2018, with VA loan. God outbid by a Chinese cash buyer by like 100k+. USA!
 
Moved to Pinole Valley for the sleepy town vibes. 15 mins from RRGC and 10 mins from San Pablo Reservoir fishing.

Got twice the house I would have got if I bought on the Peninsula.
 
DIYPSCM said:
When I originally started my CCW journey I started with the City... they gave me an application that looked like a copy of a copy of a copy... literally unreadable. The general attitude was "don't bother".
Click to expand...
Sounds familiar. Got the application and was told, "Just to let you know, we don't approve these"
 
NorCalBusa said:
Curious, what makes you say that?
Click to expand...
Surprised to hear that, Brentwood has always been more conservative than normal bay area, I am good friends with the former mayor that was our church pastor and I know the new mayor and they're both conservative. Brentwood PD has an established CCW protocol same as everyone else you just apply.
 
Hey guys - I need you to DM me if you have a CCW permit issued by Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. Have some questions as we consider litigation. Thanks.
 
Gawernator said:
Probably within 30 days if it's like CA rules
Click to expand...
This is after the court date has been set; right? Seems like the paperwork in that file looks like just a submission by one party (Dillon and SAF) to the court house; explaining their side of the story. In a scenario like this, doesn’t the other party (CoCo) also need to submit their paperwork to the court house; explaining their side of the story? The court date is then set by the courthouse, only after both parties have submitted their paperwork to the court house; right? Which could then be technically like 3-6 months out; after it is confirmed by the courthouse that both parties have submitted?
 
2muchsoysauce4allthisrice said:
This is after the court date has been set; right? Seems like the paperwork in that file looks like just a submission by one party (Dillon and SAF) to the court house; explaining their side of the story. In a scenario like this, doesn’t the other party (CoCo) also need to submit their paperwork to the court house; explaining their side of the story? The court date is then set by the courthouse, only after both parties have submitted their paperwork to the court house; right? Which could then be technically like 3-6 months out; after it is confirmed by the courthouse that both parties have submitted?
Click to expand...
I’m not as familiar with federal suits but usually after you’re served with a copy of a lawsuit you have 21 or 30 days or 60 days to respond
 
kmoros said:
Lawsuit filed!

Click to expand...
!!?? " This is fantastic and horrifically poorly timed all in one. Hopefully the County caves or it will end up in the 9th making bad law.
The 9th already addressed this rationale. Accessories are not protected by and don’t implicate the 2nd. It’s that simple for the 9th. It’s toast before it begins. If it is not a “firearm” (here is the new two part test the 9th created to avoid SCOTUS’ new protections) then it doesn’t implicate the 2nd and Bruen is inapplicable.
Then we move to SCOTUS which, like the mag ban cases, will just ignore it. It’s not juicy. It’s not a handgun ban. It’s not anything they want to rule on as it requires too much minutia for four Justices who hate guns.
Bruen left far too much room in dicta about the State’s rights to regulate - but not ban - CCW rights to hang a beautiful noose around most CCW plaintiffs necks. In my humble opinion anyway.
If this backfires it will do so in a way that is bad for all firearm accessories in Cali - and not just for CCW.
This isn’t a firearm absolute ban case. CCW holders can carry just not with the “accessories” they want. This isn’t a good one to fight given SCOTUS recalcitrance to take any gun cases."

Facebook

www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom