|
Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
||||
|
||||
No ... I'll just remove the face diaper FIRST ... then, pull, point, and fire!
__________________
. "A rattlesnake that doesn't bite teaches you nothing" -- Jessamyn West "Only God has the touch to create these magnificent rattlesnakes and their signature greatness in nature" -- unknown . ......GO HERE FOR--► My YouTube Channel |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, this horse has been well and truly beaten well past death. But...
Things are about to change... 15 June, California moves out of the COVID levels, and masks are no longer *required.* However, many people will still wear masks for reasons that still apply, such as not vaccinated, compromised immune system, etc. AFTER 15 June, do we believe that all of the COVID exceptions that allow CCW holders to wear masks AND carry concealed will still apply? That is, can I continue to wear a mask AND carry after 15 June? And, if those exemptions still apply, does this essentially negate practical enforcement of PC 25300(a)? Katie |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
PC section 25300(a) is poorly worded. It defines the crime as wearing a mask while carrying a firearm "so as to hide the person's identity." Many would like to read the section as having the intent or purpose of hiding identity, but that's not what the section says. But there is a need to apply some level of common sense to enforcement, so long as the mask is worn for the purpose of COVID protection, I don't see anyone enforcing the section.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#84
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"Two dead?!? HOW?!?" [sigh] "Bullets, mortar fire, heavy artillery salvos, terminal syphilis, bad luck --- the usual things, Captain." |
#85
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"So as to" is an idiom with a known and recorded, common usage meaning. Free Dictionary: so as to: In order to; with the intention of. Dictionary.com: In order to, ESL: The idiomatic phrase “so as to” means in order to perform some kind of action that will have an effect on object or person. English Study Page: use the structure of “so as to” to declare our goal or purpose. Longman Dictionary: so as to do something; formal in order to do something Power Thesaurus: in order to; conj.: purpose, aim; in order to Synonyms.com: with the objective/purpose/aim to.... (do something) If your purpose or aim is to hide your identity, then you have a problem. If not, you don't. How do you tell the difference? Not my job. On with life.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.” "Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool." "The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first." |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not applying common sense as I'm reading verbatim the law. It clearly states that an intent to hide identity is a material part of the law. That is real simple for me. All of those that desire to hold true to a miss-interpretation and don't feel comfortable understanding the intent - go for it.
|
#87
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by DaveInOroValley; 05-25-2021 at 8:10 AM.. |
#88
|
||||
|
||||
Assumption: It is incredibly likely that at some point (probably MANY times) in the last 15 months, CCW holders have worn a mask during a traffic stop, and declared their status as a CCW holder (as required by some counties).
Fact: In 15 months, there has not been a single reported incident of law enforcement arresting or harassing PPE wearers with CCWs in CA. Conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from above assumption & fact: The letter of the law is vague; it is unclear if one could be held in violation of it for wearing PPE while CCW. Some say yes, some say no. So, like most things in life, it is a risk that theoretically might exist. But the evidence suggests that the risk is incredibly small, such that it has never been reported to be a problem by anyone, ever. So you can either choose to walk on eggshells, which is your right, or you can continue doing what you believe is right, knowing that there's a tiny (but remotely possible, in theory) risk that it could get you in trouble. My opinion, worth every penny you're paying for it: Nearly all LEOs will appreciate the courtesy of your wearing PPE in their presence, and will not harass you for it even if you have a CCW, as long as you remain respectful to them and abide by other laws. Furthmore, even if you were hypothetically charged by the officer for violation of the CCW face covering law, it is incredibly unlikely that a DA will try to press that charge in today's political/pandemic climate. But, of course, JMHO, IANAL, YMMV, etc. etc. And one can also reasonably assume that the risk (however big or small it is) is probably different in some areas of CA than in others. Some jurisdictions are known to be hostile to 2A, while other jurisdictions have outright said they consider PPE to be an exemption to the face covering law and will not charge anyone for violating it.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. Last edited by CandG; 05-25-2021 at 8:10 AM.. |
#90
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Don't ask how many guns I own, I lost count. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Well, to be clear, a few people dispute that, including the Librarian multiple times in this thread, starting with Post #20: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...6&postcount=20 Katie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|