Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-26-2013, 1:38 PM
IrishPirate's Avatar
IrishPirate IrishPirate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Roseville, PRK
Posts: 6,401
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default New Placer County restrictions

Just renewed my CCW and once the new license came in the mail I noticed that Placer has printed some new restrictions on the back of it.



I don't really have an issue with any of these things, I think they are pretty much all common sense....except the third one. It seems slightly vague to me. Any "place" having the primary purpose of selling alcohol??? so I can't go grab a gatorade from a a liquor store if I'm carrying??? I know it was meant to mean Bars, Clubs, etc, but I think this is one of those things that could backfire and bite someone in the azz.

On the front of the license, under my listed weapons, it says "Restrictions (if any): INVALID IF LICENSEE HAS BEEN CONSUMING ALCOHOL OR DRUGS" and that's it....no "continued on back"...."see back for more"...."additional on reverse"....nothing of that nature. I'm obviously not a lawyer, so I don't know how cut and dry these things have to be, but I know that if it isn't printed as a restriction on your license, it isn't a restriction. Is this one of those loophole things that PCSO thought they were closing the gap between the license and the application, but really they aren't...or maybe they are???.....

I'm perfectly happy complying with the restrictions (though I would like a little bit of clarification on whether or not I can buy a non-alcoholic drink at a liquor store, or carry while I'm the sober driver for my wife and her friends on a wine tasting outing and be able to go into the tasting room) but I figured I'd open this up for a little discussion to see what the legal eagles think is going on here and maybe give them a heads up in case something does need to be changed.

Discuss while I get my flame suit on for those gunners with reading comprehension problems who are sure to think i'm questioning my ability to get drunk or go to a bar while carrying....
__________________

Most civilization is based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.
People Should Not Be Afraid Of Their Governments, Governments Should Be Afraid Of Their People

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-26-2013, 1:43 PM
zonzin's Avatar
zonzin zonzin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free state of Idaho!!
Posts: 779
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

What about "... prohibited by law or sign"? Does that mean if any establishment has a no guns sign it now has the force of law? Or does it mean places such as Federal Buildings, USPO's, etc?

.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - Second Amendment T-Shirts


ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ - Go Greek. Lifetime member Kappa Kappa Bang (KKB) Fraternity
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-26-2013, 2:10 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPirate View Post
Just renewed my CCW and once the new license came in the mail I noticed that Placer has printed some new restrictions on the back of it.



I don't really have an issue with any of these things, I think they are pretty much all common sense....except the third one. It seems slightly vague to me. Any "place" having the primary purpose of selling alcohol??? so I can't go grab a gatorade from a a liquor store if I'm carrying??? I know it was meant to mean Bars, Clubs, etc, but I think this is one of those things that could backfire and bite someone in the azz.

On the front of the license, under my listed weapons, it says "Restrictions (if any): INVALID IF LICENSEE HAS BEEN CONSUMING ALCOHOL OR DRUGS" and that's it....no "continued on back"...."see back for more"...."additional on reverse"....nothing of that nature. I'm obviously not a lawyer, so I don't know how cut and dry these things have to be, but I know that if it isn't printed as a restriction on your license, it isn't a restriction. Is this one of those loophole things that PCSO thought they were closing the gap between the license and the application, but really they aren't...or maybe they are???.....

I'm perfectly happy complying with the restrictions (though I would like a little bit of clarification on whether or not I can buy a non-alcoholic drink at a liquor store, or carry while I'm the sober driver for my wife and her friends on a wine tasting outing and be able to go into the tasting room) but I figured I'd open this up for a little discussion to see what the legal eagles think is going on here and maybe give them a heads up in case something does need to be changed.

Discuss while I get my flame suit on for those gunners with reading comprehension problems who are sure to think i'm questioning my ability to get drunk or go to a bar while carrying....
I think they are talking about (as you noted) places they sell alcohol to be consumed on the premises. For instance a bar would be a prohibited place for you while a restaurant with a bar in it would not be a prohibited place for you to carry. The primary function of the restaurant would be for consumption of food. The bars primary goal is to serve alcoholic beverages.

As far as the sign prohibiting weapons, concealed is concealed and sometimes when carrying i forget its on me. I'm sure i have walked passed a sign but didn't see it. I went to a movie once and saw the sign on the way out. OOPS! Oh well. In order for you to be in violation, you would have to have seen the sign, shown or displayed your weapon, been asked to leave and you refuse to. Just an FYI
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-26-2013, 7:25 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPirate View Post
Just renewed my CCW and once the new license came in the mail I noticed that Placer has printed some new restrictions on the back of it.



I don't really have an issue with any of these things, I think they are pretty much all common sense....except the third one. It seems slightly vague to me. Any "place" having the primary purpose of selling alcohol??? so I can't go grab a gatorade from a a liquor store if I'm carrying??? I know it was meant to mean Bars, Clubs, etc, but I think this is one of those things that could backfire and bite someone in the azz.

On the front of the license, under my listed weapons, it says "Restrictions (if any): INVALID IF LICENSEE HAS BEEN CONSUMING ALCOHOL OR DRUGS" and that's it....no "continued on back"...."see back for more"...."additional on reverse"....nothing of that nature. I'm obviously not a lawyer, so I don't know how cut and dry these things have to be, but I know that if it isn't printed as a restriction on your license, it isn't a restriction. Is this one of those loophole things that PCSO thought they were closing the gap between the license and the application, but really they aren't...or maybe they are???.....

I'm perfectly happy complying with the restrictions (though I would like a little bit of clarification on whether or not I can buy a non-alcoholic drink at a liquor store, or carry while I'm the sober driver for my wife and her friends on a wine tasting outing and be able to go into the tasting room) but I figured I'd open this up for a little discussion to see what the legal eagles think is going on here and maybe give them a heads up in case something does need to be changed.

Discuss while I get my flame suit on for those gunners with reading comprehension problems who are sure to think i'm questioning my ability to get drunk or go to a bar while carrying....
Quote:
26200. (a) A license issued pursuant to this article may include
any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the issuing authority
deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place,
manner, and circumstances under which the licensee may carry a
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person.
(b) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be
indicated on any license issued
.

Note my emphasis on (b) - What do you think about restrictions that are not indicated on any license issued? That's right... no restriction at all.

The Sheriff rightly concluded that the licenses he issues must indicate what restrictions apply to the license- else no other law enforcement agency would know that any restrictions might apply.

For those who mistakenly believed that the Placer County Sheriff was 'shall issue', this should be your moment of epiphany. The addition of constraints to the time, place and manner illustrate the flexion of the Sheriff's considerable and arbitrary discretion.

Given the imprinted restrictions;
  • You may not enter a Liquor Store. BevMo is out.
  • You may not enter a bar.
  • You may not enter any commercial establishment or residence that displays a sign prohibiting weapons.
  • You may not carry your firearm if you have taken an antihistamine, aspirin, cough syrup, or any OTC pain relievers, acid reflux medicine, or anti-cramping medicine. Drugs are bad kids. Don't do drugs.
  • You must tell every police officer that you are a carry licensee whether or not you have your carry firearm on or with you. Now that makes the DUI checkpoint or traffic infraction so much more interesting, don't you think?

These constraints are utter idiocy. In some circumstances it would be better to LUCC and be able to keep your business to yourself.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-26-2013, 7:29 PM
epilepticninja's Avatar
epilepticninja epilepticninja is offline
misanthrope
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river...
Posts: 3,438
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

That last one gets me. Why do I need to disclose I'm a CCW holder if I'm not carrying a concealed weapon? wtf? At least Sac Co. has you only notify if you are carrying. Cops don't give a **** about ppl with CCW licenses if they aren't in possession.
__________________
"You are asking how a watch works, when you should just mind the time."

- Alejandro Gillick
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-26-2013, 7:57 PM
Motorola's Avatar
Motorola Motorola is offline
Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
That last one gets me. Why do I need to disclose I'm a CCW holder if I'm not carrying a concealed weapon? wtf? At least Sac Co. has you only notify if you are carrying. Cops don't give a **** about ppl with CCW licenses if they aren't in possession.
I think the purpose is so that if you do something questionable, even when not armed, you give the leo the option to contact your issuing agency to let them know what you were doing even with no arrest, papertrail, etc.

It's really just another way for them to obtain information, and potentially revoke your permit.

Last edited by Motorola; 08-26-2013 at 8:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-26-2013, 8:20 PM
Lagduf Lagduf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Placer County
Posts: 676
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
For those who mistakenly believed that the Placer County Sheriff was 'shall issue', this should be your moment of epiphany. The addition of constraints to the time, place and manner illustrate the flexion of the Sheriff's considerable and arbitrary discretion.
I'm sorry to hear there were those who thought this was the case.

To the best of my knowledge Placer has never issued for "self defense" which is the ultimate test of shall issue. Some years ago it used to say on the Placer Sheriff website that "Self Defense" was expressly not a good cause.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gio
It is so nice to drop mags freely even though I do that now with my featureless AR and AK it is not the same as the real thing. Like Coca Cola here in the US compared to Mexico with real sugar not corn syrup!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-26-2013, 9:16 PM
IrishPirate's Avatar
IrishPirate IrishPirate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Roseville, PRK
Posts: 6,401
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
I think they are talking about (as you noted) places they sell alcohol to be consumed on the premises. For instance a bar would be a prohibited place for you while a restaurant with a bar in it would not be a prohibited place for you to carry. The primary function of the restaurant would be for consumption of food. The bars primary goal is to serve alcoholic beverages.

As far as the sign prohibiting weapons, concealed is concealed and sometimes when carrying i forget its on me. I'm sure i have walked passed a sign but didn't see it. I went to a movie once and saw the sign on the way out. OOPS! Oh well. In order for you to be in violation, you would have to have seen the sign, shown or displayed your weapon, been asked to leave and you refuse to. Just an FYI
If the verbage said "any place that primarily serves alcohol" then it would be clear. But since it says "sells" alcohol, then BevMo, Total Wine, any and all Liquor Stores, Vineyards, or Breweries are all off limits. I don't see why these places should be off limits since you can't consume alcohol in them (except vinyards and breweries).

Also, just saying "i didn't see the sign" isn't a justifiable reason for...well anything. If the sign is posted, it's posted and that's all that has to happen for you to be breaking a law, or be in violation of a restriction on a license.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Note my emphasis on (b) - What do you think about restrictions that are not indicated on any license issued? That's right... no restriction at all.

The Sheriff rightly concluded that the licenses he issues must indicate what restrictions apply to the license- else no other law enforcement agency would know that any restrictions might apply.

For those who mistakenly believed that the Placer County Sheriff was 'shall issue', this should be your moment of epiphany. The addition of constraints to the time, place and manner illustrate the flexion of the Sheriff's considerable and arbitrary discretion.

Given the imprinted restrictions;
  • You may not enter a Liquor Store. BevMo is out.
  • You may not enter a bar.
  • You may not enter any commercial establishment or residence that displays a sign prohibiting weapons.
  • You may not carry your firearm if you have taken an antihistamine, aspirin, cough syrup, or any OTC pain relievers, acid reflux medicine, or anti-cramping medicine. Drugs are bad kids. Don't do drugs.
  • You must tell every police officer that you are a carry licensee whether or not you have your carry firearm on or with you. Now that makes the DUI checkpoint or traffic infraction so much more interesting, don't you think?

These constraints are utter idiocy. In some circumstances it would be better to LUCC and be able to keep your business to yourself.
I guess I didn't realize the full extent of how crazy it really is. Now it really does sound more intrusive and absurd!

Is there anything on the legal side that can be done to get PCSO to clarify or remove some of these restrictions? (small fish compared to what CGN has on it's plate, I know....)
__________________

Most civilization is based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.
People Should Not Be Afraid Of Their Governments, Governments Should Be Afraid Of Their People

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-27-2013, 8:38 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

If you guys are so inclined to think to much into these restrictions, thats your problem. I would call the dept. and have them clarify their position. I find it hard to believe that it would be against policy to walk into a liquor store to buy a pack of gum, can of chew, or even beer that will be consumed later as being a violation. YOU SHOULD BRING THIS TO THEIR ATTENTION. If all else fails then complain. It was probably an oversight.

Our Sheriff has one restriction. our CCW is void if we are impaired by alcohol, illegal drugs or impaired by prescription drugs. ( pain killers/drugs that alter your state of mind) They made this clear for us. Non mind altering drugs (drugs that don't make you high) are not a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-27-2013, 9:57 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
If you guys are so inclined to think to much into these restrictions, thats your problem. I would call the dept. and have them clarify their position. I find it hard to believe that it would be against policy to walk into a liquor store to buy a pack of gum, can of chew, or even beer that will be consumed later as being a violation. YOU SHOULD BRING THIS TO THEIR ATTENTION. If all else fails then complain. It was probably an oversight.
Actually, you have it backwards. If anyone has a problem with the issuing agencies idiotic restrictions, that is the issuing agencies problem, since they created it.
You are correct that constituents should complain, because not only do the restrictions fall into the 'unreasonable' category (yes, there is a 'reasonableness' test to restrictions- 26200(b)), but many problems with the Placer County proceedures are unnecessarily burdensome and even unlawful.
If you are inclined to contact the S/O about anything regarding their carry license policy, you should not phone them. Write a brief letter addressing your concerns and request that they respond by mail. This way you have a paper trail if the need to pursue it as a legal matter arises. If their written response seems 'hinky' you can always pass it on to the CGF or someone knowledgable on LTC law.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-27-2013, 3:22 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Actually, you have it backwards. If anyone has a problem with the issuing agencies idiotic restrictions, that is the issuing agencies problem, since they created it.
You are correct that constituents should complain, because not only do the restrictions fall into the 'unreasonable' category (yes, there is a 'reasonableness' test to restrictions- 26200(b)), but many problems with the Placer County proceedures are unnecessarily burdensome and even unlawful.
If you are inclined to contact the S/O about anything regarding their carry license policy, you should not phone them. Write a brief letter addressing your concerns and request that they respond by mail. This way you have a paper trail if the need to pursue it as a legal matter arises. If their written response seems 'hinky' you can always pass it on to the CGF or someone knowledgable on LTC law.
No i don't have it backwards and here is why, I doubt the Sheriff himself puts to much time into this part of their job. Someone came up with the idea that its not a good idea to be in a bar while drinking or with a bunch of drunks when you are carrying. Some staffer was told to put down in the restrictions that CCW holders can't go into a place that has alcohol. So they put it down that way without realizing what they just did.

THEN we come here and complain without even calling the SO to find out what the intent was. In Lake county it was illegal to be on prescription drugs while carrying. It was then pointed out that penicilin and other drugs were prescription but not mind altering. They agreed, fixed the problem and moved on. They even addressed the signage problem. We were told if we follow the law and remain concealed there would be no problem. FYI! They hated the fact that you would have to leave a loaded handgun in your car!! They want it on our person at every point and not subject it to being stolen because of a sign.

At least thats the case with our county. We do an initial 16 hour training course. (real training too) This time allows for all the questions and all the ideas to be on the table and how both the sheriff and the DA would react to us in certain situations. Its a pretty comprehensive class. I personally have the phone number to my trainer. (A Deputy) If something happens i have him on speed dial for help. Our dept. will help us out of county if needed. They don't want other authorities messing with us or their authority on issuing.

Last edited by taperxz; 08-27-2013 at 3:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-27-2013, 4:40 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,822
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Some of the Placer Sheriff's list are not restrictions or onerous: "...shall not commit any criminal act." As noted, the list of Placer Sheriff "Restrictions" cannot be restrictions unless they are on the license. However, the constraints placed on the contract you signed as an application are contractually binding on you.

The Standard Application (which you signed, indicating a contractual responsibilty) contains the following information within the liability constraints of Section 4: (http://www.sacsheriff.com/organizati...cw-doj-app.pdf)

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.


Pretty much the same (except for the signage and the being where alcohol is sold). I suspect the Sheriff left it to an underling and a law school intern (possibly the same) who then wrote up this stuff. You appear to have four courses of action:
1. Follow the Sheriff's missives as they are issued (good luck staying informed)
2. Follow statute and your contractual obligations
3. Ignore all of this crap and, literally, carry on.
4. Call the Sheriff and his staff out and illustrate they are wrong. When they respond, "My license, My rules". Remind them the statute was written to anticipate and stop that kind of attitude.

I don't have a recommendation for you.

Cheers.

JR

Last edited by Dvrjon; 08-27-2013 at 4:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-27-2013, 5:21 PM
Lagduf Lagduf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Placer County
Posts: 676
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

In the past month I've had interactions with police twice in an official capacity in the course of my job.

When I talked to them, with my supervisor and co-workers present in the same room does the Placer County Sheriff really wants me to drop an "Oh by the way officer, I'm required by Placer County Sheriff's department policy to tell you that I have a concealed weapons permit."

I'm sure that would go down great at the school I work at.

Not that I care if my co-workers know I own firearms - it's more so that it's really none of their business.

When I call the non-emergency police number do I have to inform as well?

It says ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTACT.

ANY.

That's absurd.

Really disappointed with these new restrictions and frankly I hope CGF pressure can be brought to bear on Placer eventually. The myth of Placer being shall issue has been perpetuated far too long.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gio
It is so nice to drop mags freely even though I do that now with my featureless AR and AK it is not the same as the real thing. Like Coca Cola here in the US compared to Mexico with real sugar not corn syrup!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-27-2013, 5:26 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagduf View Post

Really disappointed with these new restrictions and frankly I hope CGF pressure can be brought to bear on Placer eventually. The myth of Placer being shall issue has been perpetuated far too long.
How about you and irishpirate simply contact your SO and explain what you see to them?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-27-2013, 5:36 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What concerns me is the restriction entitled "Unjustifiably Display Weapon".

Statistics-and my own ugly experience-bear proof that a majority of citizen-versus-criminal encounters end once the bad guy knows their target is armed. So , once the criminal runs away its curtains?

Not exactly. The bad guy-or his associates- can call the cops claiming YOU, the intended target of a violent robbery or worse, were the instigator who drew a gun on them as they minded their own lawful business.

20 minutes later you get a knock on the door-or the bad guy beats your call to the 911 dispatcher. Out come the handcuffs, your CCW permit is confiscated, and YOURE arrested for being the alleged instigator.

Think this is FUD? I wish. Mas Ayoob's documented a few cases where the citizen was detained or arrested because the police assumed the bad guys were the victims at first blush. Based on the language of the CCW permit, the authorities can revoke it even if you drew but didn't shoot in self defense.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-27-2013, 5:44 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
What concerns me is the restriction entitled "Unjustifiably Display Weapon".

Statistics-and my own ugly experience-bear proof that a majority of citizen-versus-criminal encounters end once the bad guy knows their target is armed. So , once the criminal runs away its curtains?

Not exactly. The bad guy-or his associates- can call the cops claiming YOU, the intended target of a violent robbery or worse, were the instigator who drew a gun on them as they minded their own lawful business.

20 minutes later you get a knock on the door-or the bad guy beats your call to the 911 dispatcher. Out come the handcuffs, your CCW permit is confiscated, and YOURE arrested for being the alleged instigator.

Think this is FUD? I wish. Mas Ayoob's documented a few cases where the citizen was detained or arrested because the police assumed the bad guys were the victims at first blush. Based on the language of the CCW permit, the authorities can revoke it even if you drew but didn't shoot in self defense.
You are supposed to notify your agency when such a thing happens. If you are up front and honest about the situation, nothing will happen. Its the reason why they issued it to you. No shots fired is a great thing.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-28-2013, 9:29 AM
JeffCinSac JeffCinSac is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 442
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...r#post11973844
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-28-2013, 11:48 AM
medicdude's Avatar
medicdude medicdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,045
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zonzin View Post
What about "... prohibited by law or sign"? Does that mean if any establishment has a no guns sign it now has the force of law? Or does it mean places such as Federal Buildings, USPO's, etc?

.
I recently heard that counties are putting this restriction on there to appease businesses. Will it get your permit revoked? I dunno. You test it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-28-2013, 5:43 PM
Synergy's Avatar
Synergy Synergy is offline
I need more cowbell!!!!!!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The good part of California!
Posts: 14,310
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post

These constraints are utter idiocy. In some circumstances it would be better to LUCC and be able to keep your business to yourself.
Just finished my 16 hr class () with John Taylor of Best Handgun Training today. In class he addressed his complaints regarding the last item with Sheriff Bonner. His issue with the "disclosure clause" is that a Placer CCW holder in a anti-gun county such as LA or SF may receive undue LE scrutiny regardless if the licensee is in possession of their weapon.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-10-2013, 11:33 PM
IrishPirate's Avatar
IrishPirate IrishPirate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Roseville, PRK
Posts: 6,401
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Got clarification about the alcohol question. Stores are ok, bars in a restaurant are ok, but anywhere that only sells alcohol for consumption on the premises is off limits. I guess they're discussing changing "sells" to "serves" now....
__________________

Most civilization is based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.
People Should Not Be Afraid Of Their Governments, Governments Should Be Afraid Of Their People

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-10-2013, 11:57 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,479
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPirate View Post
Got clarification about the alcohol question. Stores are ok, bars in a restaurant are ok, but anywhere that only sells alcohol for consumption on the premises is off limits. I guess they're discussing changing "sells" to "serves" now....
Good work, and good that the SO is getting around to better consideration of their requirements.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum - most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:04 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.