|
Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Shall Issue vs May Issue In CA
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? Last edited by riprap; 08-11-2009 at 7:39 PM.. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
~ ~ |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Frank One rifle, one planet, Holland's 375 Life Member NRA, CRPA and SAF |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Or should the push be for a more harmonized rational “May Issue” statewide standard..." addresses your concern.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
ETA apparently this is true in Michigan and North Carolina, possibly Utah and Virginia
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. Last edited by Librarian; 08-12-2009 at 2:01 AM.. Reason: more info |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Frank One rifle, one planet, Holland's 375 Life Member NRA, CRPA and SAF Last edited by Fjold; 08-12-2009 at 12:42 PM.. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"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 . Last edited by Doheny; 08-12-2009 at 9:09 AM.. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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?
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Quote:
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 Quote:
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I agree to the fact that getting your CCW pulled, is the issue at hand.
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. Last edited by riprap; 08-12-2009 at 5:05 PM.. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Quote:
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
What sits between may and shall?
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Quote:
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Frank One rifle, one planet, Holland's 375 Life Member NRA, CRPA and SAF |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Such as...?
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Quote:
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Quote:
Last edited by MrClamperSir; 08-14-2009 at 10:56 AM.. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
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
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
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): Quote:
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. . Last edited by Doheny; 08-14-2009 at 11:21 AM.. |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
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... |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by Doheny; 08-14-2009 at 2:43 PM.. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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?
Last edited by riprap; 08-14-2009 at 3:39 PM.. |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Likely not. Many states that are shall issue have restrictions that say you can't carry where prohibited.
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Yes but those are relatively reasonable places, bars and federal buildings mostly.
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Quote:
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
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.)
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Quote:
Last edited by MrClamperSir; 08-15-2009 at 9:13 AM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|