Shall Issue vs May Issue In CA [Archive]

riprap

08-11-2009, 07:23 PM

First let me be absolutely clear in stating that I 100% support everyone’s God given right to protect themselves and exercise CCW as a means to that end. Don’t interpret the following as anything contrary. Spare me the flames.

I’ve lived and been/am CCW in both Shall Issue and May Issue states. If you can obtain a CCW in CA, it’s absolutely one of the best sets of circumstances imaginable. Why?
1) Few to no (mostly no) posted businesses (ie, “No Firearms Permitted” placards in storefront windows) and,
2) No “51%” placards (concealed carry permissible in any food serving establishment provided the sales of the business are at least 51% non alcohol (ie food); otherwise illegal, even by card carrying CCW).

The hodgepodge tapestry of carry/no carry zones created in highly populated areas by posting “No” and “51%” placards can be an absolute nightmare.

Fundamental questions: Should the push really be for “Shall Issue” in CA, recognizing that more/more liberal “No” or “51%” placard standards will likely be a concession, enabling entire cities (perhaps entire counties) to legally rid all of their business/retail districts of CCW? Or should the push be for a more harmonized rational “May Issue” statewide standard with current/fewer “No” or “51%” placard options? Another concession I worry about in a Shall Issue CA is qualifying standards being virtually physically or financially next to impossible to achieve/obtain.

Your thoughts?

bombmaster

08-11-2009, 07:39 PM

I agree with you I have thought that the best permit to have would be a permit in a .0001% issue county. Unfortunately my selfish side kicks in and Im hoping for a "shall issue" state knowing that it will ruin it for everyone that currently has a "Cadillac" California CCW permit.

UziDoesIt

08-11-2009, 07:41 PM

First of all, "if you can obtain ccw in CA", is like saying if you can bench 850 lbs, its humanly possible but very few have done it, and some will never achieve it no matter how hard they try.

After that I guess your argument is to say if we change one restrictive legislation but not change many others, we will be worse off ... I think lets take it one ineffective legislation at a time.

Fjold

08-11-2009, 07:46 PM

riprap

08-11-2009, 07:48 PM

With may-issue you also get a hodge podge of different restrictions according to each Sheriff's policy.

Kern County CCW permits come with the restriction that you cannot consume any alcoholic beverage while carrying, even one beer is off limits.
"Or should the push be for a more harmonized rational “May Issue” statewide standard..." addresses your concern.

riprap

08-11-2009, 07:58 PM

There are some very valid, near irrefutable, arguments to make the standards for Shall Issue (in a state such as CA) very onerous. It would be disingenuous to post these on this forum.

Turo

08-11-2009, 08:33 PM

1) Few to no (mostly no) posted businesses (ie, “No Firearms Permitted” placards in storefront windows) and,

I was always under the impression that it didn't matter if a business posted a sign or not. You aren't bound to their signs under state law.

on the 51% rule, can someone explain to me what the rule is on that one? I've been looking for a while now and can't seem to find it.

Librarian

08-11-2009, 11:49 PM

I was always under the impression that it didn't matter if a business posted a sign or not. You aren't bound to their signs under state law.
I believe the expectation implied is that with 'shall issue' would also come 'posting rights' so businesses and whatnot could forbid carry on their premises. As you say, not currently in effect in CA.

on the 51% rule, can someone explain to me what the rule is on that one? I've been looking for a while now and can't seem to find it.
I think this is in reference to some places that prohibit carry in establishments that derive 51% or more of their income from [on-site consumption] alcohol sales. Not in effect in CA, though could be added by the issuer as a restriction on the license.

ETA apparently this is true in Michigan and North Carolina, possibly Utah and Virginia

Fjold

08-12-2009, 06:42 AM

I was merely pointing out differences in may-issue versus shall-issue, personally I'm a shall-issue type.

The 51% rule is based on other States' laws. Some states forbid the carrying of concealed weapons in any business that does 51% of their business in alcohol sales. The law is designed to keep CCW holders out of bars.

Again the signs forbidding entry to people with concealed weapons is in certain states only who pass the laws that allow business owners to forbid entry to people who carry. It's a way of appeasing the strong property rights land and business owners and people who don't want guns on their property. In some States it is a felony to bring a concealed weapon into an establishment that has the correct signage prohibiting it.

Doheny

08-12-2009, 08:17 AM

With may-issue you also get a hodge podge of different restrictions according to each Sheriff's policy.

Kern County CCW permits come with the restriction that you cannot consume any alcoholic beverage while carrying, even one beer is off limits.

That's actually a restriction on everyone who has a CCW in california. This is directly from the state-wide application, page 6:

While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:

• Consume any alcoholic beverage.So, if you have a California CCW, you shouldn't be drinking any alcohol at all, no matter who issues your CCW.

Doheny

08-12-2009, 08:36 AM

on the 51% rule, can someone explain to me what the rule is on that one? I've been looking for a while now and can't seem to find it.

California does not have a "51% rule" like other states, but the permit application does say that you cannot:

"Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption."

That pretty much describes a bar. For instance, you can't go sit in Joe's corner bar, but you can go have dinner at El Torito where they do serve alcohol (but of course, you can't drink.) The question comes up if you can be in the bar at El Torito while waiting for your table. I would say it would be a bad idea, since the primary purpose of that area of the restaurant is to serve alcohol

.

MrClamperSir

08-12-2009, 10:15 AM

Fundamental questions: Should the push really be for “Shall Issue” in CA, recognizing that more/more liberal “No” or “51%” placard standards will likely be a concession, enabling entire cities (perhaps entire counties) to legally rid all of their business/retail districts of CCW? Or should the push be for a more harmonized rational “May Issue” statewide standard with current/fewer “No” or “51%” placard options? Another concession I worry about in a Shall Issue CA is qualifying standards being virtually physically or financially next to impossible to achieve/obtain.

While I completely understand your concerns (I have previously lived in Texas) I don't believe it is right to restrict all persons eligible, to spare a few some inconvienences. So you can legally CCW in a bar now, so what, you can't drink. If you are suggesting the rest of Californians should not be allowed the same options as those that happen to live in a friendly co. just so that a person who doesn't drink, BUT WANTS TO HANGOUT IN A BAR WITH A FIREARM, is ridiculous. The business signage is something we don't have to worry about right now, and may not in the future. That fact is we don't know what Ca. will be like once the laws change, but I'm one who would like to find out.

So to answer your question specificly, YES we should push for shall issue.

I don't know where, if anywhere, there are " entire cities (perhaps entire counties) that legally rid all of their business/retail districts of CCW ". Is that happenning now in a shall issue state?

johnthomas

08-12-2009, 10:38 AM

I never thought booze and guns mixed anyway. I quit drinking 24 years ago, as I recall, most of the rational decisions I made while under the influence ended with a lousy breakfast and big fine.

SkyStorm82

08-12-2009, 11:05 AM

I wouldn't have a problem with a business putting up a sign. It shouldn't be a crime though to disregard the sign. All they should be able to do is tell you to leave.

mej16489

08-12-2009, 11:25 AM

That's actually a restriction on everyone who has a CCW in california. This is directly from the state-wide application, page 6:

So, if you have a California CCW, you shouldn't be drinking any alcohol at all, no matter who issues your CCW.

I don't think we have any example cases of where someone has been prosecuted for CCW for breaking one of the standard apllication enumerated rules. Possibly some permits pulled, but that's annecdotal information at best.

It remains to be seen if anything in the standard application for ccw is legally binding on the permit holder. If I remember correctly off the top of my head, all of the items in that list are already illegal in some fashion elsewhere in the CA Penal Code, except the alcohol related items.

From PC 12050; The letter of the law is that

(b) A license may include any reasonable restrictions or
conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including
restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under
which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be
indicated on any license issued.

Doheny

08-12-2009, 12:06 PM

I don't think we have any example cases of where someone has been prosecuted for CCW for breaking one of the standard apllication enumerated rules. Possibly some permits pulled, but that's annecdotal information at best.

It remains to be seen if anything in the standard application for ccw is legally binding on the permit holder. If I remember correctly off the top of my head, all of the items in that list are already illegal in some fashion elsewhere in the CA Penal Code, except the alcohol related items.

From PC 12050; The letter of the law is that

Prosecution vs. getting permits pulled wasn't the issue. The issue is that a poster stated what Kern does in relation to not being able to drink any alcohol. In fact, no one with a California CCW can drink alcohol when carrying, regardless of who issues the permit.

Why wouldn't the restrictions on the standard application be binding? Yes, the code section you provided does state restrictions must be placed on the permit, but if you look at "b" it clearly refers to restrictions placed by the issuing authority, that is, the agency who issued your permit (Kern Co., or whomever.) The restrictions from the standard application aren't required to be on the permit.

MrClamperSir

08-12-2009, 01:17 PM

Prosecution vs. getting permits pulled wasn't the issue. The issue is that a poster stated what Kern does in relation to not being able to drink any alcohol. In fact, no one with a California CCW can drink alcohol when carrying, regardless of who issues the permit.

Why wouldn't the restrictions on the standard application be binding? Yes, the code section you provided does state restrictions must be placed on the permit, but if you look at "b" it clearly refers to restrictions placed by the issuing authority, that is, the agency who issued your permit (Kern Co., or whomever.) The restrictions from the standard application aren't required to be on the permit.

Absolutely. And I'll add there are a number of things you WILL be held legally accountable for, if you use your weapon, that are not listed on the permit.

I agree to the fact that getting your CCW pulled, is the issue at hand.

riprap

08-12-2009, 05:02 PM

If you are suggesting the rest of Californians should not be allowed the same options as those that happen to live in a friendly co. just so that a person who doesn't drink, BUT WANTS TO HANGOUT IN A BAR WITH A FIREARM, is ridiculous.
"First let me be absolutely clear in stating that I 100% support everyone’s God given right to protect themselves and exercise CCW as a means to that end. Don’t interpret the following as anything contrary" explains my position. BTW, I'm not into hanging out at bars.

I don't know where, if anywhere, there are " entire cities (perhaps entire counties) that legally rid all of their business/retail districts of CCW ". Is that happenning now in a shall issue state?
It's not happening to my knowledge, however it would be very easy to implement in an anti-CCW city, or county for that matter. There are various existing business models that could easily impose such conditions. It's a real possibility. Again, it would be disingenuous to openly discuss the "how to's" on such a forum.

Librarian

08-12-2009, 05:23 PM

It may not have any practical application, but there is no statutory authority for the State to provide restrictions; those are all allocated to the issuing authority.

The application language on alcohol is as binding as the DOJ's 'assault weapon' list.

Cross the intent of the issuer, lose the permit - but the State is not the issuer.

weezil_boi

08-12-2009, 05:58 PM

Fundamental questions: Should the push really be for “Shall Issue” in CA, recognizing that more/more liberal “No” or “51%” placard standards will likely be a concession, enabling entire cities (perhaps entire counties) to legally rid all of their business/retail districts of CCW? Or should the push be for a more harmonized rational “May Issue” statewide standard with current/fewer “No” or “51%” placard options? Another concession I worry about in a Shall Issue CA is qualifying standards being virtually physically or financially next to impossible to achieve/obtain.

Your thoughts?

regarding the original issue brought up in this thread... i'd say that even if it did create a greater burden / inceonvenience to all CCW holders, its the right thing to do.

Shall issue is the only sane position for this state. period.

imagine another state permit that could be issued by a local agency at their discretion... but once issued is good anywhere in the state. a driver's license, a hunting license, fishing license, handgun safety permit, etc. What makes a CCW so different?

In fact, iit would be great for smokers to have no rules / local laws about where they can / cant smoke... if there were so few that people rarely ran into them. I guess the idea would simply be "who cares"?

I see what you are saying but I think equal access to CCW and right of protection for the many trumps convenience of those who already have them.

Besides, maybe if we were shall issue and our state overcame the fear... we would see businesses back off and not care so much. Ahhhhh.... but then we'd be called TEXAS :)

riprap

08-12-2009, 06:08 PM

I see what you are saying but I think equal access to CCW and right of protection for the many trumps convenience of those who already have them.
Again, I believe everyone has the God given right to protect themselves, especially via CCW. I just question if we are overlooking an approach/strategy that sits somewhere between Shall and May, with all the benefits and none of the downside of either.

MrClamperSir

08-14-2009, 12:13 AM

"First let me be absolutely clear in stating that I 100% support everyone’s God given right to protect themselves and exercise CCW as a means to that end. Don’t interpret the following as anything contrary" explains my position. BTW, I'm not into hanging out at bars.

So than why post a question asking "should the push really be for “Shall Issue” in CA" Of course it should, especially given your statement above. However the way you state the pro's and con's of Ca. moving to shall issue it would very much seem, you being one who CCWs, would prefer the state remain may issue.

It's not happening to my knowledge, however it would be very easy to implement in an anti-CCW city, or county for that matter. There are various existing business models that could easily impose such conditions. It's a real possibility. Again, it would be disingenuous to openly discuss the "how to's" on such a forum.

A business can post a no firearms sign but it can't be enforced. If such a business "discovers" you are carrying they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, it becomes criminal trespass, that's it. That's the only law you are guilty of. If you are CCW, people shouldn't discover you are carrying and if they do and ask you to leave, leave. I think your claims that it would be very easy to implement in an anti-CCW city, or county are baseless and paranoid. That doesn't mean I don't think S.F. or some others wouldn't make an effort to be unaccommodating but the laws would not be on their side and they'd lose in the end.

MrClamperSir

08-14-2009, 12:15 AM

Again, I believe everyone has the God given right to protect themselves, especially via CCW. I just question if we are overlooking an approach/strategy that sits somewhere between Shall and May, with all the benefits and none of the downside of either.

What sits between may and shall? :confused:

house

08-14-2009, 05:51 AM

not to change the direction of the thread but does anyone who have a ccw actually abide by the signs that are posted that say no guns? I dont remember anywhere on my ccw that says that i have to abide by those signs, i was always under the impression that while issued a ccw in california i was operating under the same authority as a LEO for carrying a firearm. In the old days in Arizona i know that your permit had a bunch of limits that you had to agree to one was to obey "clearly posted signs" but i dont recall signing anything even remotely similar on CA CCW.

riprap

08-14-2009, 05:58 AM

A business can post a no firearms sign but it can't be enforced. If such a business "discovers" you are carrying they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, it becomes criminal trespass, that's it. That's the only law you are guilty of. If you are CCW, people shouldn't discover you are carrying and if they do and ask you to leave, leave.

Your assumption is that CA will implement Shall Issue in a rationale manner, similar to some other states. Given CA’s track record on other regs, I have little confidence in a rational outcome and am prepared for “Shall Issue” on paper, however, operationally, a de facto ban for all but a select few; further confounded by CA’s version of aggressive “No” and “51%” liberties for businesses, unlike any seen before.

I think your claims that it would be very easy to implement in an anti-CCW city, or county are baseless and paranoid. That doesn't mean I don't think S.F. or some others wouldn't make an effort to be unaccommodating but the laws would not be on their side and they'd lose in the end.
There are known models in place today in CA that “persuade” businesses to comply with “standards”, and are perfectly legal.

Again, for the record, I believe everyone has the God given right to protect themselves, especially via CCW. Hopefully the concessions to achieve Shall Issue don’t result in a de facto ban for all but a select few.

Fjold

08-14-2009, 06:08 AM

MrClamperSir

08-14-2009, 08:28 AM

Your assumption is that CA will implement Shall Issue in a rationale manner, similar to some other states

I have made no such assumptions. I have no idea how Ca. will operate under shall issue, my point is, I want to find out.

There are known models in place today in CA that “persuade” businesses to comply with “standards”, and are perfectly legal.

Such as...?

MrClamperSir

08-14-2009, 08:30 AM

Gnzrme

08-14-2009, 09:46 AM

Little deviation...When Robert Blake was sitting in the resturant with Bonnie Lee Blakely exercising his CCW permit (and planning other things), did he consume alcohol....He was found inocent of the murder charge, did they pull his permit afterwords...Probably not...Never heard if he consumed alcohol that night..anybody recall

hoffmang

08-14-2009, 09:57 AM

Since we are most likely to get "shall issue" carry permits through the Federal Courts, some of these concerns are more mooted.

Librarian wisely points out that there is no real authority to punish you for violating a supposed "restriction" on your CCW. When the right to have a permit is Constitutional, those restrictions will have to survive heightened scrutiny. Alcohol restrictions will probably pass scrutiny, but it would have to be a law and not a policy generally and the only real recourse absent a law would be to revoke your permit. However, at that point they're revoking a permit for a fundamental right so it's going to be a hard process for the state.

-Gene

Gnzrme

08-14-2009, 10:54 AM

Gene,

Are you stating that CA will become a Shall Issue state? How is the case progressing...I saw that you were asking for a Summary Judgement...Does this mean the case is comming to a close?

Doheny

08-14-2009, 11:01 AM

It's a misnomer to think that CA CCWs don't have any restrictions on them; below is a list of restrictions that apply to everyone with a CA CCW (from the standard application that everyone fills out):

While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:

• Consume any alcoholic beverage.
• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption.
• Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
• Refuse to show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon
demand.
• Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties.
• Present himself/herself as a peace officer to any person unless he/she is, in fact, a peace
officer as defined by California law.
• Unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.
• Carry a concealed weapon not listed on the permit.
• Carry a concealed weapon at times or circumstances other than those specified in the permit.

In regards to "no weapons" signs, they're not binding. However, should you somehow be caught there could be issues. For instance, you could be asked to leave and if you choose not to, the cops could be called, or the cops could be called straight away. While it may not be an arrestable offense, a report certainly would be taken and likely forwarded to your issuing agency. They (your issuing agency) may not appreciate that you didn't comply with the signs and they could pull your permit. Yes, it's a stretch, but entirely possible and reportedly has happened.

It also depends on there the sign is. On private property, they don't mean much. But on public property they likely do carry weight. For instance, at Angel's Stadium, only on duty LEOs can carry. Even off duty LEOs are asked to leave their weapons in their vehicle.

In short, Shall Issue would be best. It may add some more restrictions, but at least having a CCW would be a right, vs. being at the whim of the CLEO.

.

8-Ball

08-14-2009, 11:14 AM

Go for "SHALL"... it will make it easy to decide which businesses will earn my dollars when they put up signs...

Of course, there will be the pro 2A signs as well...

Alcohol and guns...? I've got some camping gear from my childhood riddled with Vodka/Tang inspired holes... never a good idea...

hoffmang

08-14-2009, 02:16 PM

It's a misnomer to think that CA CCWs don't have any restrictions on them; below is a list of restrictions that apply to everyone with a CA CCW (from the standard application that everyone fills out):

Here is the issue though. A couple of those restrictions have Penal Code sections to back them up, e.g. brandishing, impersonating an officer. However, showing the license on demand may actually be a fourth amendment violation. I'm certain that they can not bar you from being under the influence of prescribed medication. My point is that, post Sykes, the states only real remedy for most of those restrictions is for the sheriff to revoke. And, post Sykes, you would have a constitutional property interest in your permit as well as a Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment interest. Revocations will not be allowed to be taken lightly.

-Gene

Doheny

08-14-2009, 02:36 PM

Here is the issue though. A couple of those restrictions have Penal Code sections to back them up, e.g. brandishing, impersonating an officer. However, showing the license on demand may actually be a fourth amendment violation. I'm certain that they can not bar you from being under the influence of prescribed medication. My point is that, post Sykes, the states only real remedy for most of those restrictions is for the sheriff to revoke. And, post Sykes, you would have a constitutional property interest in your permit as well as a Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment interest. Revocations will not be allowed to be taken lightly.

-Gene

Agreed.

riprap

08-14-2009, 03:34 PM

In regards to "no weapons" signs, they're not binding.
In the state that prides itself as having "enlightened" the rest of the US about higher/better air, water, and emissions standards, would this be expected to remain as such?

Doheny

08-14-2009, 05:19 PM

In the state that prides itself as having "enlightened" the rest of the US about higher/better air, water, and emissions standards, would this be expected to remain as such?

Likely not. Many states that are shall issue have restrictions that say you can't carry where prohibited.

MrClamperSir

08-14-2009, 06:17 PM

Likely not. Many states that are shall issue have restrictions that say you can't carry where prohibited.

Yes but those are relatively reasonable places, bars and federal buildings mostly.

Doheny

08-15-2009, 08:33 AM

Yes but those are relatively reasonable places, bars and federal buildings mostly.

True, but from what I've read, private property owners (businesses) can post "no firearms" signs and they need to be obeyed (in shall issues states that have such restrictions.)

MrClamperSir

08-15-2009, 08:54 AM

True, but from what I've read, private property owners (businesses) can post "no firearms" signs and they need to be obeyed (in shall issues states that have such restrictions.)

And why not? If someone owns a business, they have put a lot of work, money, and thought into said business. They have every right, in my opinion, to regulate what or who is in their store. Besides their rights we have to respect, it also allows me as an individual with a CCW to know that I don't want to patronize a place like that. I'll do business elsewhere.

And again to the point of all this, I am willing to take the risk that these signs MAY be posted, if it means Ca. goes shall issue.

hoffmang

08-15-2009, 09:18 AM

There is always a risk of private property owners trying to restrict carry (or any fundamental right) on their premises. In California state courts in a case called Pruneyard many large commercial properties were deemed to be the equivalent of the public square for the expression of speech. I don't think we can get that but we may try at a later date.

However, the realities of California carry law are this. When we get shall issue through the courts, there will be much less publicity leading to property owners posting signs. In all likelihood, no laws will be passed so the current Penal Code will be what we all carry under. Property owners have no ability to stop someone from concealed carrying beyond asking them to leave if they find them concealed carrying - an unlikely event. When they ask you to leave, then you have to leave or be arrested for trespassing. Moral of that story is, be properly concealed.

As to the supposed moral and legal right of property owners - that's not such a clear argument. Just because they post a sign on their property that says they can strip search you randomly doesn't mean that they can.

In addition I hear some fear mongering that cities or counties are going to do everything they can to stop shall issue. That argument shows a strong lack of understanding of the Federal Courts. Southern cities tried to frustrate desegregation all the time - until Federal Courts ruled against them. Once we have an appellate decision that the right to carry is a fundamental right, the additional cases against those who are recalcitrant are virtual cake walks that pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees.

Finally, there seems to be an undercurrent that we should keep "may issue" so that we don't run into these problems. That smacks of a certain class of cutting of your nose to spite your face. What that does is denies the right of self defense to anyone who lives in an urban county - 70-80% of the population of California - just to protect the current privileges of a small minority in this state.

-Gene

riprap

08-15-2009, 03:14 PM

Finally, there seems to be an undercurrent that we should keep "may issue" so that we don't run into these problems. That smacks of a certain class of cutting of your nose to spite your face. What that does is denies the right of self defense to anyone who lives in an urban county - 70-80% of the population of California - just to protect the current privileges of a small minority in this state.
Only a naïve fool would fail to recognize or acknowledge that he is one sheriff election, recall, or heartbeat away from losing his CCW for the foreseeable future. Just ask Orange County.

Ideally, Shall Issue in CA is administered with the ease I described in the “OR Non Resident Application” thread and maintains the freedoms experienced by current CCWs.

I know, I know… have your cake and eat it…

It will be interesting to see where we land and how the anti’s respond.