Why is CCW so unpopular here?

[KingRansom]

I absolutely hear what you're saying. I think initially the reaction of law enforcement is going to be pretty severe just because a firearm was used and somebody looks like Swiss cheese. Hopefully a district attorney has enough common sense not to prosecute what is a good shooting, but we all know they have an agenda these days.

 

[Gawernator]

I absolutely hear what you're saying. I think initially the reaction of law enforcement is going to be pretty severe just because a firearm was used and somebody looks like Swiss cheese. Hopefully a district attorney has enough common sense not to prosecute what is a good shooting, but we all know they have an agenda these days.

I think the pendulum has really swung hard back the other way the last few years. We’ve seen hard liberal DA’s replaced in multiple large counties by more moderate options that are tougher on crime. I could be wrong but I haven’t seen any self defense shooting charged like that in recent times. It’s rare anyways as we can see lawful CCW holders are extremely rare. If a criminal goes to rob someone it’s like a 99.5% chance they’re unarmed according to these rough stats.

 

[KingRansom]

During the Biden administration you'd be absolutely effed if you had a Soros backed da. I don't know what it was but God damn they love to come after the good guys

 

[vplaza96]

Not sure if it has anything to do with the low numbers, but when I lived in San Diego county years ago, the county required 'good cause' to get one, so I didn't entertain the thought of getting one.

When I moved to San Bernardino county, I immediately applied for mine since Sheriff Dicus didn't believe in the good cause requirement. The attitude from the department was that they want residents who can get one to get one.

Maybe San Diego county residents aren't aware that the county is now 'shall issue'.

 

[CadeH]

I carry every day (Riverside County) and I only know 1 other person in my group of gun friends who does as well. I have had probably 10-15 people ask me about the CCW permitting process and all but the 1 said the 16 hour class is a deal breaker. I got my permit because I help run my family's business and have had too many trespass interactions that end with a threat from the other side, and my ex girlfriend (dating when I initially got my ccw) had a stalker ex that sent me vaguely threatening messages when we got together. My friend got his permit because he has a wife and kid that have gotten harassed/threatened by homeless men in downtown Riverside.

 

[Gawernator]

During the Biden administration you'd be absolutely effed if you had a Soros backed da. I don't know what it was but God damn they love to come after the good guys

It's on purpose. They want you weak and reliant on the government for protection, so someone defending themselves goes against that and they want to punish you for it. High crime= more fearful populace - easier to control and manipulate. Trying to keep this on topic of why Californians don't carry though lol

 

[Gawernator]

I carry every day (Riverside County) and I only know 1 other person in my group of gun friends who does as well. I have had probably 10-15 people ask me about the CCW permitting process and all but the 1 said the 16 hour class is a deal breaker. I got my permit because I help run my family's business and have had too many trespass interactions that end with a threat from the other side, and my ex girlfriend (dating when I initially got my ccw) had a stalker ex that sent me vaguely threatening messages when we got together. My friend got his permit because he has a wife and kid that have gotten harassed/threatened by homeless men in downtown Riverside.

Must be where we come from but the majority of my friend circle that is into guns also daily carries, probably 80-85% of a dozen or so guys that come to mind.

 

[Gawernator]

I absolutely hear what you're saying. I think initially the reaction of law enforcement is going to be pretty severe just because a firearm was used and somebody looks like Swiss cheese. Hopefully a district attorney has enough common sense not to prosecute what is a good shooting, but we all know they have an agenda these days.

I put it into chatgpt lol

KingRansom is right about one narrower point: even a justified shooting can be disruptive and expensive. You may lose the firearm temporarily, need counsel immediately, face civil litigation, lose work, or spend months waiting for a charging decision. But “you’re completely screwed anyhow” is forum melodrama. Clearly justified shootings frequently result in no charges.

Your observation is largely correct: the cases that become prosecutions usually contain bad or disputed facts, such as pursuit, mutual combat, provocation, shooting after the threat ended, firing at a fleeing person, contradictory statements, intoxication, unlawful weapon possession, or weak evidence that the alleged attacker presented an imminent deadly threat. The permit does not legalize the shooting; it merely legalizes carrying the weapon.

The actual hierarchy of causes​

In rough order, the low rate is probably driven by:

1. Most people perceive no immediate need.
2. California lacks a broad everyday-carry culture.
3. Decades of restrictive issuance created ignorance and institutional inertia.
4. The process is costly, slow, invasive, and time-consuming.
5. Carry restrictions make the permit less useful.
6. Daily carry requires behavioral and wardrobe changes.
7. Some gun owners fear legal consequences or administrative denial.
8. Employers and workplaces often prohibit possession.
9. Some people own guns strictly for home defense or recreation.
10. A smaller number carry illegally and therefore never appear in the statistics.
    
    
    
11. There actually have not been many high-profile California cases in the last couple of years involving licensed CCW holderswho made a strong self-defense claim and were then aggressively prosecuted. Those cases are surprisingly uncommon.
    
    
    Some observations:
    
    
    1. Most justified defensive gun uses never become headline news. If investigators conclude the shooting was justified, the case may end with no charges and only local media coverage.
    2. The California cases that do become famous usually involve bad facts, such as:
       • the shooter pursued the suspect,
       • the threat had ended,
       • the shooter initiated or escalated the confrontation,
       • there were inconsistent witness statements,
       • intoxication,
       • road rage,
       • gang affiliations, or
       • unlawful firearm possession.
    3. CCW holders as a group have a very low crime rate. Consequently, there are simply not many criminal prosecutions involving licensed carriers.
12. 
    One case that illustrates how facts matter is the prosecution of Kyle Carruth (Texas, not California). Although he claimed self-defense after shooting a man on his property, prosecutors argued he escalated the confrontation by leaving a place of safety, retrieving a rifle, and continuing the encounter. He was ultimately convicted. That case is frequently discussed in CCW training because it demonstrates that legally being armed does not automatically make a shooting justified.
    
    
    In California, prosecutors generally look at questions like:
    
    
    • Were you the initial aggressor?
    • Could a reasonable person believe there was an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury?
    • Did the threat still exist when you fired?
    • Did your statements match the physical evidence?
    • Do surveillance video and witnesses support your account?
13. 
    Those factors tend to drive charging decisions much more than whether you possessed a CCW. California law recognizes lawful self-defense when those elements are satisfied.
    
    
    One point from your forum discussion is worth refining. The comment that you'll automatically be arrested, bankrupted, and prosecuted after any defensive shooting is overstated. If you shoot someone, expect:
    
    
    • to be detained or at least interviewed,
    • your firearm to be seized as evidence,
    • detectives to conduct a thorough investigation,
    • and for the district attorney to review the case.
14. 
    Whether you're arrested or charged depends heavily on the facts. A clearly documented, objectively reasonable self-defense case may result in no charges at all, although legal expenses and disruption can still be substantial.
    
    
    If you're interested, I can also compile 10–15 California self-defense shootings from the last decade—both charged and uncharged—and explain exactly what facts caused prosecutors to file charges or decline them. That comparison is useful because patterns emerge very quickly.

 

[Gawernator]

1. Vista ax attack, January 2023: clear CCW defensive shooting​

In Vista, San Diego County, a man reportedly attacked another man with an ax on private property. The intended victim was identified by authorities as a CCW holder and shot the ax-wielding attacker. Police described the shooting as self-defense. I found no reported prosecution of the permit holder.


This is probably the cleanest recent California example matching your exact question:

• Licensed carrier
• Weapon clearly capable of causing death or great bodily injury
• Active attack
• Shooting stopped the attack
• No pursuit or revenge component reported

2. Banko Brown shooting, San Francisco, April 2023: arrested, released, no charges​

An armed Walgreens security guard, Michael Earl-Wayne Anthony, shot Banko Brown following a physical struggle. Brown was unarmed, but Anthony said Brown threatened to stab him and appeared to lunge toward him. San Francisco police arrested Anthony on suspicion of murder, but District Attorney Brooke Jenkins declined charges because the evidence could not disprove Anthony’s stated reasonable belief that he faced an imminent threat.


This was not a conventional private CCW encounter; Anthony was working armed security. Still, it directly undermines the claim that a San Francisco prosecutor will automatically prosecute any armed defender. The facts were controversial, the deceased was unarmed, there were protests, and the DA still declined charges.

3. Watsonville bar shooting, November 2023: return fire justified, but illegal-carry charge remained​

Sergio Ramos Carranza became involved in a fight at a Watsonville bar. After the men were removed, the other man returned with a gun and opened fire. Carranza returned fire, killing the attacker, but his rounds also killed bartender Carolina Martinez and wounded three bystanders.


The Monterey County DA treated Carranza’s gunfire as lawful self-defense and did not charge him with either homicide. He was charged only with unlawfully possessing or carrying the weapon and ultimately received probation.


This is a remarkable result because the defender accidentally killed an innocent person. It illustrates that California prosecutors do apply transferred self-defense principles when the initial shooting is legally justified. It also illustrates why having a CCW matters: Carranza escaped homicide charges but still suffered a weapons conviction because his possession was unlawful.

4. Newport Beach home invasion, April 2024: homeowner shot armed invader​

Several suspects entered a Newport Beach residence during a targeted early-morning home invasion. The resident shot one suspect, who was found armed outside the home. Another suspect died from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Four occupants of the home were unharmed, and no charge against the homeowner was publicly reported.


This was inside a residence, so a CCW permit was irrelevant. It nevertheless shows California authorities do not normally prosecute straightforward armed-home-invasion defenses.

5. Valley Village burglary, July 2024: homeowner shot intruder​

At least two burglars entered an occupied Valley Village home. The homeowner confronted them and shot one intruder twice; the second fled. The homeowner was also injured and was taken to a hospital. No prosecution of the homeowner was reported in the available coverage.


Again, not a CCW case because it occurred inside the home, but the factual structure is clean: unlawful entry, occupied residence, confrontation and injury.

6. Oakland homeowner, June 2024: initially arrested, eventual outcome unclear publicly​

A 77-year-old Oakland homeowner shot and killed one of several alleged burglars after they reportedly arrived in a stolen vehicle and attempted to enter his home. One suspect allegedly possessed a replica gun and the deceased reportedly carried a crowbar. Police arrested the homeowner on suspicion of murder, while reports also stated that the revolver used had been reported stolen. The Alameda County DA initially reviewed whether charges should be brought.


This is the kind of case forum members cite when saying, “You’ll automatically be arrested.” But it does not establish that the homeowner was prosecuted for a justified shooting. The arrest appears to have involved unresolved factual questions and the allegedly stolen firearm. I could not verify a final publicly reported homicide prosecution from reliable sources.


The lesson is narrower: even favorable-looking facts do not guarantee release at the scene, especially when the defender declines to provide an initial account and the gun itself creates an independent legal issue.

7. Newport Beach homeowner cleared, 2021: formal DA exoneration​

Although slightly older, this is one of the better official California examples. The Orange County DA formally cleared a Newport Beach homeowner who shot and killed an intruder. The DA concluded that the homeowner acted lawfully and committed no criminal wrongdoing.


Formal declination letters for ordinary civilians are uncommon because many cases never generate a public written report. This one clearly shows California’s legal framework working as intended.

What the cases actually show​

Your position in the forum is closer to reality than KingRansom’s.


There is no apparent recent pattern of California district attorneys prosecuting licensed CCW holders despite clean, objectively reasonable self-defense facts. The examples that produce arrest, charges, or extended controversy usually involve at least one complicating factor:

• The defender participated in or restarted the confrontation.
• The defender pursued someone who was escaping.
• The attacker was unarmed or the threat was ambiguous.
• Innocent bystanders were struck.
• The gun was illegally possessed or carried.
• The defender made damaging statements.
• Video contradicted the defender.
• The threat had already ended.
• Alcohol, road rage, domestic conflict, or mutual combat was involved.

The Vista ax case is what a clean public CCW shooting looks like. It barely generated sustained news because the facts apparently pointed strongly toward self-defense.


The Banko Brown case is even more revealing politically. It occurred in San Francisco, involved an unarmed deceased person, generated organized protests, and was racially and politically charged. The DA nevertheless declined to prosecute because she believed the state could not disprove reasonable self-defense.


So the claim that a California CCW holder who shoots lawfully is automatically “completely screwed” is not supported by the recent record. The realistic expectation is:

• Immediate disarming and detention
• Firearm seizure
• Extensive questioning and evidence collection
• DA review
• Possible arrest when facts are uncertain
• Potential civil litigation
• Significant need for competent counsel

But prosecution is not the normal outcome when the physical evidence, witnesses, video, and defender’s conduct all establish an imminent deadly threat. The relative absence of prosecuted clean CCW cases is itself meaningful evidence.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

True but also remember reddit doesn’t represent real life most of the time. Due to censorship Reddit in general swings pretty hard left wing. Even in the CAguns subreddit they are somehow anti 2A and anti rights some of the time. Their most active mod 420blazeark was actively ting on the DOJ for trying to get the roster and Glock banned overturned. I pray they aren’t representative of the average CA gun owner

Why would a mod of a CA gun owner forum actively praise a Biden nominated judge going against DOJ in a lawsuit for our gun rights … really makes you think.

Reddit makes Portland look like a conservative enclave.

The fact which bothers me the most about CCW is "prohibited places", some of which would be ideal for CCW (such as anywhere one might hike and encounter wildlife or wild humans). 16 hours of class time is easy, much of which can be done online as I understand it. Cost can be prohibitive for some but that's not my objection.

 

[Gawernator]

Reddit makes Portland look like a conservative enclave.

The fact which bothers me the most about CCW is "prohibited places", some of which would be ideal for CCW (such as anywhere one might hike and encounter wildlife or wild humans). 16 hours of class time is easy, much of which can be done online as I understand it. Cost can be prohibitive for some but that's not my objection.

Most based artist ever. With the new Supreme Court ruling it sounds like most prohibited places will be struck down

 

[Jimi Jah]

California doesn't like guns. Carry one and bad things can happen here that don't happen in other states.

 

[CadeH]

True but also remember reddit doesn’t represent real life most of the time. Due to censorship Reddit in general swings pretty hard left wing. Even in the CAguns subreddit they are somehow anti 2A and anti rights some of the time. Their most active mod 420blazeark was actively ting on the DOJ for trying to get the roster and Glock banned overturned. I pray they aren’t representative of the average CA gun owner

Why would a mod of a CA gun owner forum actively praise a Biden nominated judge going against DOJ in a lawsuit for our gun rights … really makes you think.

Reddit is what it is, I like to provide information on there about the laws but have to actively ignore the political side of things because it is so infuriating. The common opinion on the CAGuns reddit is that red are just as bad on guns as blue is, because in the 1960s Reagan signed a bipartisan bill banning loaded open carry. Ignore the decades of gun control pushed by blue after that or that the bill was bipartisan, red just bad because 1960s.

That is the same mod that banned me for a month for pointing out that he thinks PGO shotguns DROSed as "Other"s can be turned into an AOW, but AR receivers DROSed as "Other"s cannot even though legally speaking they are the exact same thing. Apparently that makes a federal SBR (I gave him ATF guidance that says that they don't care what a DROS says), then it became it makes a state SBR (AOWs are exempt from being a state SBR), then I just gave up and waited out the ban because arguing with someone who doesn't truly understand what they are arguing about is pointless. Also if you DROS a lower and it is not DROSed as an "Other" then the FFL is doing it wrong, theres a DOJ memo from when the category was introduced via lawsuit settlement that specifically says that they are supposed to be.

Must be where we come from but the majority of my friend circle that is into guns also daily carries, probably 80-85% of a dozen or so guys that come to mind.

I am 26, a lot of the gun guys are friends from school or work over the years that got into it because they went with me one time and got hooked. More casual than people like us, but definitely indicative of the general CA gun owner I imagine.

 

[Gawernator]

Reddit is what it is, I like to provide information on there about the laws but have to actively ignore the political side of things because it is so infuriating. The common opinion on the CAGuns reddit is that red are just as bad on guns as blue is, because in the 1960s Reagan signed a bipartisan bill banning loaded open carry. Ignore the decades of gun control pushed by blue after that or that the bill was bipartisan, red just bad because 1960s.

That is the same mod that banned me for a month for pointing out that he thinks PGO shotguns DROSed as "Other"s can be turned into an AOW, but AR receivers DROSed as "Other"s cannot even though legally speaking they are the exact same thing. Apparently that makes a federal SBR (I gave him ATF guidance that says that they don't care what a DROS says), then it became it makes a state SBR (AOWs are exempt from being a state SBR), then I just gave up and waited out the ban because arguing with someone who doesn't truly understand what they are arguing about is pointless. Also if you DROS a lower and it is not DROSed as an "Other" then the FFL is doing it wrong, theres a DOJ memo from when the category was introduced via lawsuit settlement that specifically says that they are supposed to be.

I am 26, a lot of the gun guys are friends from school or work over the years that got into it because they went with me one time and got hooked. More casual than people like us, but definitely indicative of the general CA gun owner I imagine.

Yeah, logic and intellect are not his strong suits, he can't handle any pushback due to his insecurities so he will ban you. I remember he banned me for replying with federal law that ICE are law enforcement officers and he rage banned me lol.

 

[Gravel]

CCW insurance is a must, good judgement is a must.

I can’t recall where I read it, but someone correctly said that CCW are not for attacking a bad guy, they’re for creating distance. The idea is to change that attackers mind, either by influencing thinking or inflicting pain if they’re really determined. But the instant they stop approaching/attacking, the fight is over and I’m getting my family and myself out of the situation. Let law enforcement capture and punish, that’s their job, not mine.

I’m a fan of CCW, it enables an old guy like me to convince a younger, stronger person that they should leave me alone. And that’s all I want, just let me and my family live a normal life without becoming crime victims.

 

[Gawernator]

Idk about creating distance, I am standing my ground if it makes logical sense

 

[fayceless27]

Because the state government intentionally makes it as difficult as possible. 16-hour class, upwards of a thousand dollars in fees, etc. etc...

exactly. Ask your self how many people do u know that have just a spare 1k+ laying around to pay the state just to apply for the ccw. Then take into account the fact that u have to already have all the guns you want to carry at time of signing up. You want at minimum 2 because in the low chance u have to use it the state's going to have it for years.

 

[Gawernator]

exactly. Ask your self how many people do u know that have just a spare 1k+ laying around to pay the state just to apply for the ccw. Then take into account the fact that u have to already have all the guns you want to carry at time of signing up. You want at minimum 2 because in the low chance u have to use it the state's going to have it for years.

Most places it's not 1k up front. But if you can't afford a ccw class and fees how will you afford a handgun and training with it? Ammo is not that cheap

 

[otatop]

I could've bought ~7,000 rounds of 9mm Blazer for the cost of my CCW.

 

[joefrank64k]

I’m retired LEO. My first CCW was ‘free’ for being active duty (just had to devote 20+ years to the job, haha!!)

If you’re honorably retired, your retiree CCW is shall issue (unless you retired medically for stress, or are otherwise prohibited) and is also free.

I renew every five years for free. My department even supplies the qual ammo and sends you on your way with a new box of duty ammo. All free.

We can carry whatever gun is legal with no caliber restrictions.

All this to say for me, CCW was EZPZ. Why wouldn’t you have one, right?

I’ve carried a gun daily for over 30 years now. There is no way I’d ever not carry now. I’ve carried running marathons, haha!! Not carrying would be like leaving the house without my smartphone.

However, prior to my LEO CCW, I never carried and, being in LA County, I never bothered applying for a CCW.

Since I had no concept of what it was like to carry, if I discovered that I *could* apply, but it was $1,000, hours of instruction, psych test, background check, limits on what you can carry, renewals every two (now three) years that cost more $$…I don’t think I’d apply.

So I get why the CCW numbers are so low.