Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Concealed Carry Discussion (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=179)
-   -   Sacramento County CCW New Restrictions/Policy Changes (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=644456)

xounlistedxox 11-15-2012 9:54 AM

Sacramento County CCW New Restrictions/Policy Changes
 
So I'm taking my CCW 4 Hour Refresher Course right now. The instructor passed out new restrictions. One of which is

"During any law enforcement contact, you are required to disclose your status as a CCW permit holder and you must disclose whether or not you are carrying a weapon on your person or in your vehicle"

supra 11-15-2012 12:31 PM

It's worded a little differently, but they print it as a restriction on the permit. Started a few months ago.

xounlistedxox 11-15-2012 8:07 PM

I think this is even less reasonable than any of the other policies. Anything we can do about it?

Old_Bald_Guy 11-15-2012 8:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xounlistedxox (Post 9731671)
I think this is even less reasonable than any of the other policies. Anything we can do about it?

Nothing, but so what? Of all the possible restrictions an issuing agency can legally put on there, this one seems pretty benign to me. I can't see getting upset over this. Do you really want to withhold that info if you are officially contacted by law enforcement? If you can avoid possible complications by disclosing that you're legally carrying, why wouldn't you?

Orson 11-15-2012 9:00 PM

In red ink
 
Yup, at the bottom of the LTC issued in Sacramento County you will see...

"If contacted by law enforcement and carrying a concealed weapon, you must advise the officer of the presence of a firearm either on your person or otherwise present."

Personally, I don't have an issue with this; as, I've always planned to inform a LEO of my concealed piece in the event of a traffic stop. (I respect the opinion of those who disagree with me on this, I know there is some controversy here.)

.

xounlistedxox 11-15-2012 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old_Bald_Guy (Post 9731976)
Nothing, but so what? Of all the possible restrictions an issuing agency can legally put on there, this one seems pretty benign to me. I can't see getting upset over this. Do you really want to withhold that info if you are officially contacted by law enforcement? If you can avoid possible complications by disclosing that you're legally carrying, why wouldn't you?

My point is that if they can just put whatever restrictions they want on it they can effectively make it nearly impossible to carry, so what is the point of carrying while trying to comply with law? Most of the problem is exactly what you just said. Masses of people including pro gunners just think "oh yeah this restriction is reasonable", or "yeah we don't need AK's, or AR's" That makes it easy for the anti's to keep taking away our rights, or imposing restrictions on our rights until they're gone.

As far as notifying law enforcement... it is none of their business if I carry or not. If I tell them I'm carrying then can they check my weapon? What is the point of that? That poses more danger imo than if I disclosed nothing. If I were on my way to the range and were stopped I would not normally let any member of law enforcement know I had any firearms in my vehicle. I wouldn't let them search my vehicle. It's none of their business. Now with this CCW I am not only required to notify them that I am a CCW Holder, but that I have this firearm or that firearm in my vehicle. Firearms could be considered probable cause? If so then I can basically be treated as if I am on search and seizure probation/parole.

I am no expert on CA Laws, so if someone can clarify what to say to avoid this situation if stopped it would be greatly appreciated. Simply stating the obvious of "don't get pulled over in the first place" will not be of any help. I have only been pulled over twice in the past five years with no tickets issued in over 7 years. Both traffic stops were for no reasonable cause. Both times what I would consider harassment ensued. I have never been arrested. Never been convicted of a crime.

xounlistedxox 11-15-2012 9:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orson (Post 9732080)
Yup, at the bottom of the LTC issued in Sacramento County you will see...

"If contacted by law enforcement and carrying a concealed weapon, you must advise the officer of the presence of a firearm either on your person or otherwise present."

Personally, I don't have an issue with this; as, I've always planned to inform a LEO of my concealed piece in the event of a traffic stop. (I respect the opinion of those who disagree with me on this, I know there is some controversy here.)

.

Maybe you have never seen this video? This is the one where the law enforcement officer goes crazy on the citizen for not informing him of his CCW. Many times over the citizen tries to tell the officer, but he is so controlling he does not let the citizen get any words in and any words that are said are completely ignored.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc

Old_Bald_Guy 11-16-2012 4:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xounlistedxox (Post 9732595)
I am no expert on CA Laws, so if someone can clarify what to say to avoid this situation if stopped it would be greatly appreciated. Simply stating the obvious of "don't get pulled over in the first place" will not be of any help. I have only been pulled over twice in the past five years with no tickets issued in over 7 years. Both traffic stops were for no reasonable cause. Both times what I would consider harassment ensued. I have never been arrested. Never been convicted of a crime.

If this thread is about agreement or disagreement with the fact that issuing agencies are legally allowed to add restrictions, there's a lot of fodder for that discussion. If its about your options, there are none, unless you intend to disregard the restrictions and risk losing your license. The restrictions are legal under current California law.

xounlistedxox 11-16-2012 4:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old_Bald_Guy (Post 9737017)
If this thread is a discussion about agreement or disagreement with the fact that issuing agencies are legally allowed to add restrictions, there's more fodder for that discussion. If its about your options, there are none, unless you intend to disregard the restrictions and risk losing your license. The restrictions are legal under current California law.

I guess that's what happens when we allow the gov't to make our given rights into priveledges.

Old_Bald_Guy 11-16-2012 4:54 PM

Okay, but your immediate issue is how to retain your license. I don't buy into slippery slope arguments all that often, but even if I did, it'd be purely academic to a nuts and bolts discussion of how to comply with the restrictions.

Old_Bald_Guy 11-16-2012 4:58 PM

This particular restriction is a pretty painless one. It's easy to comply with, and I would do it even if it were not a requirement. Yes, it is a little strange to have to advise when you're NOT carrying, but whatever--it's the requirement and I'll follow it.

xounlistedxox 11-16-2012 5:03 PM

At what point do we stand up for our rights? Once all of our rights are taken away? After the gov't has taken our firearms?

Old_Bald_Guy 11-16-2012 5:26 PM

Your idea is to stand up for your rights by violating the restrictions on your license and then losing it?

Old_Bald_Guy 11-16-2012 5:26 PM

What do you plan to accomplish by that?

xounlistedxox 11-16-2012 5:35 PM

How do you think the civil rights movement started? If they didn't stand up to do something things would be much different now.

Am I supposed to walk up to every officer I see and make sure to tell them that I am a CCW Holder and if I am carrying? Just incase they might notice it and then take away my CCW because I didn't tell them about it before hand? I see LEO's quite often(probably at least once a week sometimes more) at work, out eating etc

anbu_yoshi 11-16-2012 5:46 PM

I could sworn I read in the CA handbook that if an LEO asks to see your weapon to verify that there isn't one in the chamber, you'd have to surrender it to the LEO.

I don't see how this is any different if he asks to see your gun or not upon being aware that you are a permit holder. How else is he supposed know to verify that you don't have a round in the chamber.

It's illegal otherwise to carry without a permit.

Old_Bald_Guy 11-16-2012 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xounlistedxox (Post 9737332)
Am I supposed to walk up to every officer I see and make sure to tell them that I am a CCW Holder and if I am carrying? Just incase they might notice it and then take away my CCW because I didn't tell them about it before hand? I see LEO's quite often(probably at least once a week sometimes more) at work, out eating etc

Clearly you are not familiar with what the restriction actually requires. You haven't read it thoroughly.

xounlistedxox 11-16-2012 6:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old_Bald_Guy (Post 9737450)
Clearly you are not familiar with what the restriction actually requires. You haven't read it thoroughly.

I have read and understand it. I also see the potential for the egotistical LEO's to be able to cause problems with this addition. Like the video above.

Old_Bald_Guy 11-16-2012 6:20 PM

Anyone of the mind to jack you up is gonna do it with or without this restriction. The chances of that happening are low, but if you ignore the restriction they may be slightly less low. I don't think you're clear in what "contacted by law enforcement" means (based on your comment about going up to every cop you see).

xounlistedxox 11-16-2012 6:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old_Bald_Guy (Post 9737610)
Anyone of the mind to jack you up is gonna do it with or without this restriction. The chances of that happening are low, but if you ignore the restriction they may be slightly less low. I don't think you're clear in what "contacted by law enforcement" means (based on your comment about going up to every cop you see).

As with nearly any CA Law/Policy the wording is vague. To me this means it's up for interpretation. What I would consider "contact" will differ from what you may consider contact. Some people might say "contact" would be if LEO's had to come to your place of residence, pull you over in your vehicle, stop you while walking down the street etc. Others may say "contact" is being involved in a conversation with an LEO regardless of what it is about. Maybe some would even say getting anywhere near an LEO could be considered contact.

Old_Bald_Guy 11-16-2012 6:30 PM

I was stopped recently--an example of being contacted by law enforcement (radar...going a little too fast). First time in decades. I handed my LTC to the officer along with my DL. Once he saw it, I told him I was required to notify him even though I wasn't carrying at the time (on the way to work, where I never carry). He said he appreciated being told. No big deal. Very low key. When I fill out my renewal application, I'll list this contact on the form.

People get unnecessarily worked up about this. I would advise even if it were not required. Makes a lot more sense than subjecting yourself to the results of it being discovered w/o notification.

Lives_In_Fresno 11-16-2012 6:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xounlistedxox (Post 9737164)
At what point do we stand up for our rights? Once all of our rights are taken away? After the gov't has taken our firearms?

Stand up for our rights how? I haven't seen any proposals from you in this thread, yet. All I've seen so far is disagreement with the restrictions.

Old_Bald_Guy 11-16-2012 6:40 PM

He doesn't like the restriction. There's nothing he can do except comply or not comply. If he doesn't comply, he risks complications at the time of the contact, and loss of his license. If that happens, he won't get it back, because the restriction is legal.

hoffmang 11-16-2012 9:03 PM

1. As a matter of civilian and officer safety, any time you're carrying and your asked for ID you should hand the officer ID and your LTC. I would be loathe to announce that you're carrying to a LEO, but I'm never loathe to hand them a permit and then answer their questions about your carry status once they are asking you based on your license.

2. Is this a valid government requirement? It may be. It's a very small burden on the right to carry and not irrational. Having the officer know that if you frisks you he's going to find a gun and have him not in the mind to freak out keeps your blood quantity high. Right now is not the time to be attacking a virtually shall issue county. That time might come after we get the cases to SCOTUS (and recall this county ducked those cases - hence your ability to carry - be thankful.) After the SCOTUS decision we'll re-asses.

For now enjoy carrying and exercising your rights in a way that many of the residents of other populous counties do not.

-Gene

BrokerB 11-17-2012 12:09 AM

I do enjoy my right to carry for living in sac county .

Does this new rule say only when asked for id? Or if your next to with someone , in car or street you are supposed to say only...I am armed !...or sir i have an ltc and its on my person : )

Lives_In_Fresno 11-17-2012 7:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrokerB (Post 9739308)
I do enjoy my right to carry for living in sac county .

Does this new rule say only when asked for id? Or if your next to with someone , in car or street you are supposed to say only...I am armed !...or sir i have an ltc and its on my person : )


I asked this question of the guy who issued my permit in Fresno, and he clarified that it is only official contact that they are interested in.

Thus, they mean when an officer is talking to you on official business. Casual contact such as "hi, how are things?" when you pass at Starbucks are definitely not what they mean, here in Fresno.

Old_Bald_Guy 11-17-2012 8:14 AM

This has been hashed, rehashed, and supermeta-hashed in previous threads, so I'm not sure what else can be added, but the Starbucks scenario is what I immediately thought of when I read the "what am I supposed to do, go up to every cop I see..." statement.
Casual communication (Like when you need to get past the officer in line and you say, "Excuse me, may I get through the line so I can grab some napkins from the dispenser on the counter, because my triple super-caff latte grande vente foamy pumpkin mocha is sticking in my mustache?"), there's no need to show him your LTC.

xounlistedxox 11-17-2012 10:53 AM

Thank all of you guys for sharing your insight and opinions. I just wrote a detailed email to the Sacramento County CCW email. I took all of the questions in this thread and anything else I could think of and sent it directly to them. They have been pretty good about getting back to me in a timely fashion previously.

Lone_Gunman 11-17-2012 2:55 PM

Jeez, just show 'em your permit. It IDs you as one of the good guys and will likely get you off with a warning anyway.

Hopalong 11-17-2012 3:17 PM

Don't sweat the small stuff, pick your battles wisely, and besides

This is considered good manners

EM2 11-17-2012 6:43 PM

I have seen people on here and other sites claim difficulty with law enforcement for both disclosing & not disclosing they have a permit.
Some officers may take your disclosing that you have a permit as some sly way of trying to get out of a ticket and other times when people have not disclosed their permit and it was discovered it did not go well.

I see no reason an issuing agency should make disclosure mandatory other than as a means of maintianing some sort of egotistical control over the people.

It is my opinion that there should be no disclosure requirement and that decision should be left to the individual to make that determination based upon the situation.

Sunday 11-17-2012 7:05 PM

Give the cop the permit along with your drivers license. It is much better than saying I have a gun.

xounlistedxox 11-17-2012 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EM2 (Post 9743287)
I have seen people on here and other sites claim difficulty with law enforcement for both disclosing & not disclosing they have a permit.
Some officers may take your disclosing that you have a permit as some sly way of trying to get out of a ticket and other times when people have not disclosed their permit and it was discovered it did not go well.

I see no reason an issuing agency should make disclosure mandatory other than as a means of maintianing some sort of egotistical control over the people.

It is my opinion that there should be no disclosure requirement and that decision should be left to the individual to make that determination based upon the situation.

I agree 100%.

Lately I have turned into a pro gun fanatic of sorts. I am now as pro gun as DiFi is anti gun. I find that any restriction is 100% unreasonable. If government agencies are not required to tell me that they are carrying a concealed firearm, then I should not be required to tell them that I am carrying a firearm. If they need an AR15, a shotgun and a pistol all with standard capacity magazines and no bullet button in every partol car, so do we as citizens need these weapons in our cars. We are in the same world. If they need it, so do I.

I am tired of pro gunners constantly talking about how some restrictions are reasonable. How do you think we got to where we are now with all of these ridiculous laws? The generations before me have failed. Now it is our time to take it all back. You give the anti's an inch they will take more than a mile my friends.

Old_Bald_Guy 11-18-2012 8:39 AM

If you want a thread to voice your disagreement, okay, that can serve a purpose. A little venting can be good for the blood pressure. Your question in your second post, however, indicates that you want to know what can be done about SSD's restriction. The answer is nothing, right now (see post 24). You don't like that answer, but it's an accurate one.

Quote:

I am tired of pro gunners constantly talking about how some restrictions are reasonable. How do you think we got to where we are now with all of these ridiculous laws? The generations before me have failed. Now it is our time to take it all back. You give the anti's an inch they will take more than a mile my friends.
If you ask a question, you'll get responses. Not everyone is as much of a "fanatic" (your characterization) as you are. There are two extremes: Absolute prohibition for everyone vs no regulation at all. I doubt you want convicted violent felons to face no penalties at all for gun possession, and if you do want them to face legal consequences for possession of firearms, then you favor some regulation. Pseudo-digitization of something vexed by so many variables as the regulation of behavior of the individual for the good of the group is, in my opinion, a logically indefensible position. Slippery slope arguments generally fall into this category.

xounlistedxox 11-18-2012 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old_Bald_Guy (Post 9745610)
If you want a thread to voice your disagreement, okay, that can serve a purpose. A little venting can be good for the blood pressure. Your question in your second post, however, indicates that you want to know what can be done about SSD's restriction. The answer is nothing, right now (see post 24). You don't like that answer, but it's an accurate one.



If you ask a question, you'll get responses. Not everyone is as much of a "fanatic" (your characterization) as you are. There are two extremes: Absolute prohibition for everyone vs no regulation at all. I doubt you want convicted violent felons to face no penalties at all for gun possession, and if you do want them to face legal consequences for possession of firearms, then you favor some regulation. Pseudo-digitization of something vexed by so many variables as the regulation of behavior of the individual for the good of the group is, in my opinion, a logically indefensible position. Slippery slope arguments generally fall into this category.

I do recall at one time thinking something to the effect of having more strict penalties for felons with firearms was a good way to go. This was up until the point that I realized then all the gov't would have to do is start making all crimes felonies. The transition of misdemeanor to felony crimes would start small, then take over all crimes. If you can't own firearms or vote that's exactly where the gov't wants you to be.
I recall reading somewhere that per capita we have more prisoners in the USA than anywhere else in the world. If that is true I don't believe this idea(stated above) is too far fetched.

Old_Bald_Guy 11-18-2012 10:13 AM

We have a larger percentage of people in prison than most other countries; not sure exactly where we rank. A significant factor in that is "war" on drugs. The "government will make more crimes felonies in order to get our guns" argument, where's the evidence of such a radical plan?

fizux 11-18-2012 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anbu_yoshi (Post 9737405)
I could sworn I read in the CA handbook that if an LEO asks to see your weapon to verify that there isn't one in the chamber, you'd have to surrender it to the LEO.

I don't see how this is any different if he asks to see your gun or not upon being aware that you are a permit holder. How else is he supposed know to verify that you don't have a round in the chamber.

It's illegal otherwise to carry without a permit.

Carrying a loaded firearm in public is illegal without a permit, and the statute provides that the officer can check the firearm to ensure compliance without a warrant or any other probable cause.

If you have a permit, there is no longer a need to check the chamber because it doesn't matter whether the firearm is loaded or not -- you aren't in violation of the loaded firearm law.

adrenaline 11-18-2012 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lives_In_Fresno (Post 9740038)
I asked this question of the guy who issued my permit in Fresno, and he clarified that it is only official contact that they are interested in.

Thus, they mean when an officer is talking to you on official business. Casual contact such as "hi, how are things?" when you pass at Starbucks are definitely not what they mean, here in Fresno.

An officer rang my door bell almost a few minutes after I got home, I peeked out the door and holstered the weapon as he wanted me to come out and talk to him. There was a break in a few houses down and he wanted to know if I have seen anything suspicious. I told him that I remembered a loud crash at 2 am thinking it was my house....cleared my house and perimeter and simply went back to bed thinking I was dreaming or something.

In this particular case where I am assisting an officer, would we have to divulge that we are armed?

P.S. - I just watched that video. OMG. @ 13:28 the officer says, "You know what I should have done? I tell you what I should have done. As soon as I saw your gun, I shoulda taken two steps back, pulled my glock 40, and just put 10 bullets in your *** and let you drop. And I wouldn't have lost any sleep! Do you understand me? And he [his partner] would've been a nice witness as I executed you, because you are stupid!"

I hope any officers that read this see that as a perfect example of how NOT to be. Such a sad state we are in if our police across America are like this (and I know people are genuinely good so most of them aren't....at least I am hoping). If I was a police officer, I'd write in to that department and express my embarrassment and disappointment to his behavior with this citizen. :mad:

fizux 11-18-2012 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old_Bald_Guy (Post 9746064)
We have a larger percentage of people in prison than most other countries; not sure exactly where we rank. A significant factor in that is "war" on drugs. The "government will make more crimes felonies in order to get our guns" argument, where's the evidence of such a radical plan?

The US has more capable law enforcement; crime isn't necessarily worse, just more people get caught here because all cops watch CSI.

The US also refrains from executing arbitrary segments of its population, which accounts for some countries' lower prison populations. The president of Iran said that there is no homosexuality in his country -- since the punishment is death, it's not a big mystery why there might be a skew in the population. Saddam Hussein gassed his Kurds, while Che Guevara and the Castro brothers schwacked their way to lower prison populations as well. In the US, we provide prisoners with cable TV and sex change operations.

Once upon a time, a $1000 fine was a big deal. A ticket for driving without insurance is now more than that. We went from a few dozen federal crimes in 1900 to about 5,000 or so today. Much of the conduct that used to be normal is now a felony, in many cases because the traditional common law mens rea requirement has been eliminated. This has produced some very asinine results.

Do you ever buy lobster? Make sure it comes in the proper packaging, and check Honduran export laws. U.S v. McNab, 331 F.3d 1228 (2003).

In relation to voting rights, the left calls it the "new Jim Crow." With modern technology, vast numbers of new crimes, selective enforcement, and the ability to tax you to pay for it all, a properly placed politician can take out opponents using law enforcement assets.

With all that in mind, do you think Sen. Leland Yee and his sidekick honestly haven't considered imposing arbitrary laws to unfairly ensnare as many gun owners as possible with a BS felony?

Old_Bald_Guy 11-18-2012 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fizux (Post 9746664)
The US has more capable law enforcement; crime isn't necessarily worse, just more people get caught here because all cops watch CSI.

All cops watch CSI? I'd venture a guess that very few cops ever watch anything as silly as CSI. Anyway, I didn't make any claim one way or the other regarding crime rates here compared to other countries. i was responding to a comment from another poster.


Quote:

The US also refrains from executing arbitrary segments of its population, which accounts for some countries' lower prison populations. The president of Iran said that there is no homosexuality in his country -- since the punishment is death, it's not a big mystery why there might be a skew in the population. Saddam Hussein gassed his Kurds, while Che Guevara and the Castro brothers schwacked their way to lower prison populations as well. In the US, we provide prisoners with cable TV and sex change operations.
"U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf is believed to be the first federal judge to order prison officials to provide sex-reassignment surgery for a transgender inmate."
I'm aware of this case. Do you have evidence of this on a large scale? I'd bet not.

Quote:

Once upon a time, a $1000 fine was a big deal.
Once upon a time, it cost a nickel to get into a movie.


Quote:

We went from a few dozen federal crimes in 1900 to about 5,000 or so today.
Source of numbers? And, if true, do you propose to compare the complexity of society then and now?

Quote:

Much of the conduct that used to be normal is now a felony, in many cases because the traditional common law mens rea requirement has been eliminated. This has produced some very asinine results.
http://www.fuerstlaw.com/wp/index.ph...onstitutional/

Quote:

Do you ever buy lobster? Make sure it comes in the proper packaging, and check Honduran export laws. U.S v. McNab, 331 F.3d 1228 (2003).
I eat lobster that I buy at a restaurant or a retail outlet or at the farmers market under the freeway from city-licensed vendors. I do not import lobsters.

Quote:

In relation to voting rights, the left calls it the "new Jim Crow." With modern technology, vast numbers of new crimes, selective enforcement, and the ability to tax you to pay for it all, a properly placed politician can take out opponents using law enforcement assets.
And they can be denied that power, just as Mittens was rejected despite massive voter suppression efforts in Ohio and Florida.

Quote:

With all that in mind, do you think Sen. Leland Yee and his sidekick honestly haven't considered imposing arbitrary laws to unfairly ensnare as many gun owners as possible with a BS felony?
I'm sure they have. I'm sure they'll try to get away with as much as they think they can. We probably disagree on the extent to which they'll try to go, but yes, I agree that gun politics in CA are screwed. I find myself in general agreement on that particular issue with people I share little to no common ground with on anything else.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.