The California Penal Code Sections relating to CCWs requires that the applicant be a "RESIDENT".
There are seveal different specific definitions of "RESIDENT" for differnet purposes found in severalsections of the California Penal Code.
For what ever purpose or reason, the California Legislature chose not to defineor state their intent regarding the use of the term "RESIDENT" when they enacted the Penal Code Sections regarding CCWs.
If the Calfifornia Legislature wanted to require a specific period of time to establish residency for CCW purposes, they would have done so.
It is not for local issuingagencies to create new provisions of the law or expand on the intent of the legislature. There is a very interesting 2006 Supreme Court Decison authored by Justice Scalia regarding this type of situtaiton. It involved the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA and how they continually expanded their power without the benefit of any change in the law by Congress.
Though not specific to firearms, one can easily see where the logic of this Supreme Court decsion could easily apply to firearm permit requirements across the country.
Supreme Court of the United States
John A. RAPANOS, et al., Petitioners,
June Carabell et al., Petitioners,
United States Army Corps of Engineers et al.
Nos. 04-1034, 04-1384.
Argued Feb. 21, 2006.
Decided June 19, 2006.
By looking at other sections of the California Penal Code one can clearly see that they know how to be specific and define the the terms "RESIDENT" and/or 'RESIDENCY" for use in the areas of Voting, Holding Public Office, Active Duty Miltary Service, Personal Taxes,Driver's Licenses, Vehicle Registration,College Tuition, Hunting Licenses,Fishing Licenses,Divorce,Child Supportetc..