This is a discussion on Who needs to know? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Hello All, I have a question and as this is a personal opinion thing all comments are welcome. I am in the process of getting ...
I have a question and as this is a personal opinion thing all comments are welcome.
I am in the process of getting my CCW in CA. Yes believe it or not the county I live in seems to be pretty CCW friendly.
The detective who did the interview process said that he would send some units to my neighbors to ask them about our relationship. So my question is do you personally believe that I should give my neighbors the heads up? The detective assured me that he did not care what their opinion was on CCW, just needed to determine our relationship as "moral character" is a major factor for issuance. As I am not sure if they will be told about the reason for the visit I am not sure if I need to tell them in advance.
F.Y.I. we are all friends and have kids that play together, live on a small cul de sac and have block parties together. We are not strangers. I don't mind telling them I am just trying to keep it respectful and feel if the sheriff is showing up to their house because of me I have a responsibility to tell em.
Thanks in advance!
If I would hazard an opinion, and if you and your neighbors are on good terms, I would say nothing to them. The only one who knows I have a CCW is my wife, period.
Best way to win a gun fight? "That's easy, don't show up."
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything."
Nope, no reason to divulge your intent to carry to anyone without a bona fide need to know.
The cops who may question some neighbors might even ask them 'blind' questions about you - i.e., "ever have any problems with BigJon?" or "what do you know about him" - without mentioning anything about a firearms license. So since you don't know for certain that they will be asked, you don't know who they'll ask, and you don't know what will be asked - just keep mum.
And later on, if your neighbors ask you why the cops were asking about you (and some might be too embarrassed to ask), there's no need to "confess" the purpose. You don't need to be coy or mysterious, but unless they're range buddies of yours, just give a neutral answer ("maybe it's about a job I applied for" or "I was a victim of identity theft") and change the subject. It's no one's biz but yours.
AZCDL Life Member
NRA Patron Member
NROI Chief Range Officer
I wouldn't share the information either. Besides not needing to know, you may be changing the relationship with your neighbor in a negative way. IMO, it's always good to be as friendly as possible with your neighbors.
Wish I understood why the detective even gave you a heads up on this. Anything that is told to him by neighbors etal is colored in so many ways that it almost, if not completely, irrelevant and has nothing to do with your ability to obtain a CCWP. What if their moral character is suspect and you are the only decent guy on the block--you get denied? Ridculous waste of time. Probably better off NOT giving a heads up---forewarning like that can easily be considered a negative.
In an attempt to keep your neighborhood relationships solid, I wouldn't suggest tempting fate. Keep your application private.
Contact the detective who interviewed you to ask about how these follow-up interviews will be conducted, & whether the reason for the inquiries will be given. Another reason for not disclosing fully to your neighbors is the possibility that one with 'anti-firearm' feelings may weight their answers to the interviewer.
If you feel you must prepare your neighbors for these visits, I'd suggest telling them that you inquired about safety issues in your city & that the LEO's are following up accordingly. No need to lie, just give them the heads-up about the visit. Keep the nitty-gritty to yourself.
"Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)
Who you tell about CC'ing is your business. It does annoy me that the LEO's think it's their business, and your neighbors business, too.
Do you know if they mention CC? Or just random questions? Regardless, you would not have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer to put it together if you know LE has to do that.
I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!
"Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"
I am sorry to hear that this neighborhood interview is required in your area to be able to excercise your 2-A rights and to satisfy your local government.
I would not mention anything about it to my neighbors.
I would like to know what the LEO is going to tell your neighbors the reason for his questions about you to them is.
"Violence is seldom the answer, but when it is the answer it is the only answer".
"A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves".
Our right to bear arms doesn't depend on whether or not LEOs and neighbors think we're sweet, or sour.
The only prohibitive factors are (Or at least should be.):
1. Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
2. Have you ever been convicted of domestic battery.
3. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally incompetent?
After my tour of duty in the service ended back in '77, I tried to obtain a LTCH in Terrible Haute, IN, which, contrary to State law used to be 'may' issue rather than 'shall' issue. The LEOs on duty smugly informed me that I didn't need to carry a handgun. So I wasn't able to obtain a LTCH until the Governor made it perfectly to these tyrants with badges via a document reluctantly given to applicants by local LE that the police couldn't prevent law-abiding citizens from securing a LTCH in IN.
Telling me I didn't need to carry a handgun was truly audacious. I'm sure glad there are so many other folks who know what my needs are so I don't have to think or provide for myself.
And Jesus said, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)
I am a peaceful man. But I am not a pacifist.
since your in calif...go to calccw for great info on counties and procedures...nice people there as here!!!
Asking your neighbors as a requirement for a CCW permit?
That's all you need is cops asking your neighbors about YOU...sounds like fuel for the rumor mill to me.OMO
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Thanks all. It's an interesting situation to say the least. He did say that their opinion of guns or carrying would not "infringe on my constitutional right" to do so.
He just said it was one way they determined the moral character...but as some have said, what if I'm the only one with morals?
Keep u posted on what they ask if my neighbors bring it up.
Federal judge rules against Calif. gun advocates « All Things NewsObviously a tyrannical attempt to give local LE power to infringe on 2A. Gura filed an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. This could go all the way to the Supreme Court.A federal judge ruled [in May] there is no constitutional right to carry a hidden gun in public — a decision that dealt a setback to gun-rights advocates who had challenged how much discretion California law enforcement officials have in issuing concealed weapons permits.
U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. in Sacramento supported a policy by Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto that says applicants must have a reason, such as a safety threat, to legally carry a concealed weapon in his county northwest of Sacramento.
Prieto was sued by opponents claiming sheriffs, who issue most concealed weapons permits, must give the documents to any applicant as long as they are not mentally ill, do not have a criminal background and complete a training course.
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.