The wait time for a concealed carry permit in Riverside County, California, now sits at two years.
That means a law-abiding citizen who applies for a concealed permit out of fear for his life has to find a way to survive unarmed while waiting 24 months to receive a permit allowing him to carry a gun for self-defense.
According to the Reno Gazzette Journal, the wait time for applicants who apply for a concealed carry permit in Riverside County “has climbed from a few months to two years.” This means law-abiding citizens like 56-year-old Steve Perkio have to apply with the understanding that it will literally be years before they get a permit.
Perkio already has a non-resident permit outside of California, and that permit allows him to carry in 26 states across the country. But California refuses to recognize any permit but its own, which means Parkio’s out-of-state permit is not valid in his home state. And it also means Parkio is at the mercy of the criminal element while he waits two years for the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office to approve his concealed carry application.
And it should be remembered that even after two years, the issuance of a permit does not rest solely on Parkio being a law-abiding citizen but on Parkio being able to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a gun daily. So he may wait two years only to have the sheiff’s office arbitrarily reject his application.
News of the two year wait in Riverside County comes on top of the report that Los Angeles County has only issued 197 permits for its 10.2 million residents. The discrepancy in the meager number of permits issued in a such a large population was uncovered by the California State Auditor. Moreover, the NRA-ILA observed that the Auditor found the “good cause” requirement was arbitrarily followed, if at all, in many of the instances where permits were issued.
This brings us back to the earlier point on Perkio, that even after waiting two years and being a law-abiding citizen he may be refused a permit unless he proves “good cause.”
* * *
NRA Readies Lawsuit Against California Ammunition Control
The National Rifle Association is readying a lawsuit against California’s new ammunition controls and that suit focuses on the failure to meet “statutorily mandated” deadlines throughout the lead-up to the launch of the controls.
Breitbart News reported that the ammunition controls went into effect January 1, 2018. They bar out-of-state ammunition purchases and require that all in-state purchases be made from a licensed dealer. This shrinks the supply, which will inevitably drive up price. Moreover, they require that any ammunition purchased online be sent to a licensed in-state dealer, who will then charge a processing fee for the ammo, thereby driving the price up even further.
This is all a prelude to the state’s January 1, 2019, goal of instituting point-of-sale background checks for ammunition purchases. Those sales will also carry a fee, ubiquitously to cover the cost of the background check. But the fee will drive the price of ammo even higher.
The NRA-ILA clams certain “statutorily mandated” deadlines were missed throughout the process of getting the ammunition controls in place, and argues that the controls must be halted because of this. According to the NRA-ILA, “The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has approved the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed ammunition vendor regulations after failing to meet the statutorily mandated deadline of July 1, 2017 and the effective date of January 1, 2018.”
The NRA has enjoyed recent success against California gun control. For example, on June 29, 2017, a “high capacity” magazine ban was blocked two days before its scheduled implementation. The ban was stopped via a suit brought by the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued the ruling. ABC News quoted Benitez saying, “If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.”
Law-abiding firearm owners face a similar, “untenable choice” if the draconian ammunition controls are allowed to stand.