PDA

View Full Version : OCSD CCW new policy released.


CWM4A1
08-11-2008, 3:38 PM
Fresh off Sheriff Hutchens' Blog:

http://blog.ocsd.org/post/2008/08/11/New-Carry-Concealed-Weapons-Permit-Policy-Announced-by-Sheriff.aspx

Actual policy is in the link toward the bottom of the blog:

http://blog.ocsd.org/file.axd?file=CCW+Department+policy+-+August+2008.pdf

MrTuffPaws
08-11-2008, 3:40 PM
Hmmm, that doesn't sound good.

Crazed_SS
08-11-2008, 3:41 PM
Interesting.. sounds almost exactly like San Diego County Policy here, http://www.calccw.com/Forums/county-faq/437-san-diego-county-requirements-ccw.html .. looks like the party's over in Orange County.

thedrickel
08-11-2008, 3:48 PM
Wow, this part caught my eye. Is this normal in other jurisdictions?

http://i33.tinypic.com/669c0p.jpg

M. Sage
08-11-2008, 3:50 PM
... and Crimson Trace grips are right out.

WTH? The department armorer has to "inspect" the ammo you plan on carrying? As in.. the specific ammo, every round of it? Or just the brand? He's either going to have to "inspect" a crapload of ammo, or not a lot of permits are going to be issued... :(

Crazed_SS
08-11-2008, 3:50 PM
OC has been doing the inspection thing since for awhile now. From what I've been told, it's kinda going to the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld.. everything better be in order or "NO CCW FOR YOU!"

CCWFacts
08-11-2008, 3:54 PM
Wow, this part caught my eye. Is this normal in other jurisdictions?

Those types of restrictions aren't unique. I think San Bernardino has an ammo restriction sort of like that. "No modification from factory" is also not unheard of. It's reasonable; they want to know that the person is serious about it, is carrying serious equipment of good quality; and doesn't have a gun that has been modified. There was an "accident" at FS once where someone had an aftermarket trigger that was wider or differently shaped from the original, and it had a bad interaction with his holster, and he had a bullet go down his leg. That's the kind of stuff they are afraid of, because it will make the papers: "OC CCW holder shoots self while holstering dangerously-modified gun".

CavTrooper
08-11-2008, 4:02 PM
Wow, that's just asinine.

Evreyone who supports "may issue" CCW is in part responsible for ludicruios policies like this and in my mind are branded "anti" just as much as the chiefs that write them.

No permit required or at the very most "shall issue" should be the standard in CA, bring this state on line with the majority of the Country!

Casual Observer
08-11-2008, 4:07 PM
... and Crimson Trace grips are right out.

WTH? The department armorer has to "inspect" the ammo you plan on carrying? As in.. the specific ammo, every round of it? Or just the brand? He's either going to have to "inspect" a crapload of ammo, or not a lot of permits are going to be issued... :(

It was like this under Corona. No lasers or fancy aftermarket mods.

If you want to smooth out an old trigger, that was fine. Dropping it down to a 2.5# pull was not.

hawk1
08-11-2008, 4:41 PM
A person would be a fool to have a lightened trigger pull on a concealed carry piece. :eek:

CCWFacts
08-11-2008, 4:50 PM
... and Crimson Trace grips are right out.

(a) Every person who, except in self-defense, aims or
points a laser scope, as defined in subdivision (b), or a laser
pointer, as defined in subdivision (c), at another person in a
threatening manner with the specific intent to cause a reasonable
person fear of bodily harm is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail for up to 30 days.

That's why. Perhaps they are being overly cautious, but this is California and it's very easy for an incident to sound very bad in the papers, and if the guy had a CCW, you can imagine the headlines. Sheriff is an elected position and, if they're going to issue CCWs, they want to do everything possible to avoid any bad publicity that could arise from it. Lasers have been used a lot in movies (because it makes it more dramatic) and as we all know, anti-gun types base their opinions on what happens in movies.

Knauga
08-11-2008, 6:27 PM
Those types of restrictions aren't unique. I think San Bernardino has an ammo restriction sort of like that.

No requirements other than the ammo must be factory self-defense ammunition. There was a time when you had to sign a form stating that you would only use factory hollow point ammunition. That form seems to have fallen by the wayside.

383green
08-11-2008, 7:05 PM
That's why.

Well, that's just plain silly (I'm criticizing OCSD here, not CCWFacts). They're concerned about it being a 30-day misdemeanor to point a laser at somebody, even though the laser in this case is attached to a frickin' gun that's also being pointed at the same person?! What's next, voiding the permit if the bearer carries while walking their dog, because the dog might poop on the sidewalk while the bearer draws down on a random pedestrian? :rolleyes:

Bishop
08-11-2008, 7:59 PM
This doesn't appear very different from the original policy.

I think the big question was going to surround the non-business-related frequent transport of valuable goods (guns), which (as I recall) had no specific mention in the CCW policy under Carona. Her message on the blog differs slightly from the official CCW policy (pdf) in that she seems to note there may exist specific instances where citizens need to be protected from non-specific crime.

I'll wait until I start seeing some good causes get denied before I decide anything.

We didn't expect shall issue.

CCWFacts
08-11-2008, 8:08 PM
No requirements other than the ammo must be factory self-defense ammunition. There was a time when you had to sign a form stating that you would only use factory hollow point ammunition. That form seems to have fallen by the wayside.

Ah, ok, I did somehow remember that SB had a "hollowpoints only" type policy. I guess they realized that that's a small issue in the larger scheme of things.

Well, that's just plain silly (I'm criticizing OCSD here, not CCWFacts). They're concerned about it being a 30-day misdemeanor to point a laser at somebody, even though the laser in this case is attached to a frickin' gun that's also being pointed at the same person?! :rolleyes:

I know, I know, but if someone drew, the perp. got scared and ran away, and then the incident was reported (as is required) and then it got into the papers, you know how they can get a story 180 degrees wrong, and then throw in a laser that only the bad guys use in Hollywood... Their policy is already pushing the envelope if they issue to "normal" people. And what if a CCW holder there does decide to be a Hollywood action hero / anti-hero and use his laser for intimidation? I can understand why they are extremely cautious about anything like that that could create a bad perception, and, due to our friends in Hollywood, lasers are scary.

It's ridiculous, we should be shall-issue and not have any of this nonsense, but in this state the idea of issuing any permits at all is already controversial.

Remember the movie that made lasers famous, and that created the mental image of "lasers are for bad guys"? Hint: an evil robot, in the form of a very buff human who looks like our current governor, used a pistol with a laser to off innocent women named Sara Connor. That's why only bad guys have lasers.

pizzatorte
08-11-2008, 9:27 PM
It's reasonable.

No, it isn't. Restrictions like this merely exist to show us our place. There is no honor in being conciliatory towards those who would trample your rights.

CCWFacts
08-11-2008, 10:24 PM
No, it isn't. Restrictions like this merely exist to show us our place. There is no honor in being conciliatory towards those who would trample your rights.

It's a reasonable decision for them to make, given the situation here. They're already out on a limb with their policy. One single incident could be a disaster for everyone.

I wish we had a law like Nevada's, etc, with none of this, but we should gratefully acknowledge those sheriffs in this state who go out on a limb. OC is leading California by being the first urban county in Southern CA to issue the way it has. That's something we should support. These restrictions, which are unfortunate, are tolerable, given that they are out on a limb by issuing any permits at all.

Let's hope this is just one temporary stage in our progress to true shall-issue with no silliness.