IAs prohibiting modifications?

[Bullwinkle]

Over in the Handguns forum, there has been a lot of chatter in various threads about how some Issuing Authorities (emphasis on "some") do not allow modifications to handguns listed on a CCW permit; the weapons must be out-of-the-box stock configuration.

Of course, my first response was, "define 'modification'" [actually it was "BS!"]. I mean, are these people trying to imply that an IA would consider changing grip panels or installing night sights a "modification"?

So I intend to contact my IA directly and determine what, if anything, is prohibited in my county. On the other hand, I don't want to stick my foot in my mouth either, and act like a fool by reacting to FUD/idiocy (even though I suppose I already could be guilty of that by posting this ).

Can anyone give me one example of an IA that specifically prohibits modifications to weapons listed on a CCW permit? If so, where can the official policy statement be found? Because without one, it's just hearsay, even if your IA "told" you directly that was the case.



[And as an aside, assuming there is such an example, I'm okay in that IA's jurisdiction as long as my IA is okay with modifications, right? Otherwise, this opens up a can of worms (as if it isn't already) and brings us back to non-standardized policy throughout the state again, something the CalGuns Foundation worked hard to eliminate. And of course, as far as the law is concerned, if there's no law on the books prohibiting modifications, then there's no legal recourse for an IA to enforce such a policy, right? This just seems to me to be too "out there" to really be true... but this is Kalifornia, after all.]

Thanks!

[9Cal_OC]

Read through the SD CCW page. IIRC SD is pretty lenient on modifications. Most of those that have been strict are up north.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Bullwinkle

And of course, as far as the law is concerned, if there's no law on the books prohibiting modifications, then there's no legal recourse for an IA to enforce such a policy, right? This just seems to me to be too "out there" to really be true... but this is Kalifornia, after all.]

Thanks!

It's legal for an IA to revoke a license or decline to renew it, for failing to follow IA whims conditions.

[splithoof]

When I was in Kern county, they did not ask, and we did not volunteer. Nothing radical though, other than tuned revolver and auto pistol triggers done by professional gunsmiths. Sights as well.

[Red9]

Coco county. No mods, flashlights, laser, red dots. No mods to firearm. Must be box stock. No SA semiauto i.e. 1911s.
Only two on permit.

Sent from my moto g 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

[SDDAVE56]

I've never been asked, be either of the two agencies I qual at.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by Bullwinkle

Can anyone give me one example of an IA that specifically prohibits modifications to weapons listed on a CCW permit? If so, where can the official policy statement be found?

Here's one, you can find more. Not FUD

https://www.placer.ca.gov/2400/Weapons

We allow modification to enhance sighting such as laser sights and or night sights. This includes modifications to grips. We do not allow modifications to the weapons that would alter it from the manufacturer's original setting

Here's another, randomly found with Google

https://public.powerdms.com/SANTAMON...cuments/251543

The alteration of any previously approved firearm including, but not limited to adjusting the trigger pull, adding laser sights or modifications shall void any license and serve as grounds for revocation.

And another, I'm not going to stay up all night doing this

https://www.burbankpd.org/file.aspx?DocumentId=2636

The alteration of any previously approved firearm including, but not limited to adjusting the trigger pull, adding laser sights or modifications shall void any license and serve as grounds for revocation.

You might have noticed some copy and paste there. Likely DOJ is giving these IAs the language.

Bottom line: unless you stone cold know that any and all mods are allowed, you'd be smart to assume they are not allowed. The consequences for getting it wrong could be catastrophic.

[SlowDrifter]

Originally Posted by SDDAVE56

I've never been asked, be either of the two agencies I qual at.

They won't ask until, Heaven forbid, you have to use it. Then they will ask, and theyll have access to it. Not sure of the consequences, though. Could the IA retroactively revoke your license making it unlawful carry and use?

[Mark49]

I don't think modifications are clear cut across the board.

Grip change, light rail, optics should be good.

Like the above post, your IA is concerned about "after a justifiable shooting."
Meaning at the possible criminal trial, or the most likely civil trial.

The word I hear is "hair trigger" Don't modify your Glock 5.5# factory. By doing so the now dead perp's family will try you as a gun killing loose cannon.

Many IA are trying to save you from yourself.

[Rickybillegas]

Here's a theoretical question: Suppose you are traveling in an area not in your IA jurisdiction. You are stopped by LEO for whatever reason. You declare you have a weapon and a permit to carry. But your firearm is not an approved firearm in that jurisdiction. Such as a 1911 (not approved in some locations), or other modifications approved by your IA, but not in the county of your residence. Could this be a problem, or do they honor your permit regardless?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

Here's a theoretical question: Suppose you are traveling in an area not in your IA jurisdiction. You are stopped by LEO for whatever reason. You declare you have a weapon and a permit to carry. But your firearm is not an approved firearm in that jurisdiction. Such as a 1911 (not approved in some locations), or other modifications approved by your IA, but not in the county of your residence. Could this be a problem, or do they honor your permit regardless?

Supposed to honor the CA permits from wherever issued - it's a state license.

That doesn't exclude that some LE agency might be mis-trained on the point.

[BearCreekRoad]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

Here's a theoretical question: Suppose you are traveling in an area not in your IA jurisdiction. You are stopped by LEO for whatever reason. You declare you have a weapon and a permit to carry. But your firearm is not an approved firearm in that jurisdiction. Such as a 1911 (not approved in some locations), or other modifications approved by your IA, but not in the county of your residence. Could this be a problem, or do they honor your permit regardless?

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the CCW permit.

If means: The person this permit is issued to, John Doe, born on the 31st of February 1971, is allowed to carry concealed, any of the following guns: (a) Smith&Ruger model 123 caliber 9mm, (b) Gleckler+Sog model 456 caliber 38 special, as long as they are in the unmodified factory configuration. This permit is valid in all of California. It is restricted to never be valid in the zoo next to the pythons.

The restriction on what guns and in what configuration can be carried are part of the permit and apply to the person who is permitted. They do not apply to the service area of a particular LE agency.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by SlowDrifter

Could the IA retroactively revoke your license making it unlawful carry and use?

Yes - they could. It has happened. A district attorney in fact had his license retroactively revoked and then plead guilty to carrying without a license, because he violated the terms of the permit by consuming alcohol while carrying.

He had to use the gun and was not prosecuted for the shooting, but was prosecuted for not having a valid CCW because he had violated the terms.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...d-in-gun-case/

Gardner had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but permit holders are not allowed to carry guns in bars or while consuming alcohol. Gardner and his companion had been consuming alcohol before the incident, authorities said.

He was charged earlier this month with two misdemeanors for carrying a concealed weapon in public. He pleaded guilty to one count of carrying a concealed firearm prior to his sentencing on Wednesday, Sacramento officials reported.

If they can do it to a D.A., they can and will do it to you or me.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Supposed to honor the CA permits from wherever issued - it's a state license.

That doesn't exclude that some LE agency might be mis-trained on the point.

Yes, thanks, that's what I thought, but you're right, some LEO might give you grief just because they can. Chances are slim you would ever have a problem, but never be surprised, just be aware.

[flyer898]

In the Gardner case, it was not that the Mendocino sheriff revoked the permit retro-actively; instead, the permit was not valid while Gardner was consuming alcohol. For example, while drinking or under the influence - permit not valid; next day after the alcohol has worn off - permit again valid.
Mr. Gardner was a deputy DA (I used to work with him), and he lost his job over this incident.
Skyhawk, I think your analysis might be better stated: if they would prosecute me for breaking the law, then they should prosecute law enforcement as well.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by flyer898

In the Gardner case, it was not that the Mendocino sheriff revoked the permit retro-actively; instead, the permit was not valid while Gardner was consuming alcohol.

You are correct though the net effect was the same

Originally Posted by flyer898

For example, while drinking or under the influence - permit not valid; next day after the alcohol has worn off - permit again valid.

That is true, but for a modified gun it would not be - you would always be in violation while carrying the modified gun in public

Originally Posted by flyer898

Mr. Gardner was a deputy DA (I used to work with him), and he lost his job over this incident.

Definitely a crappy deal he got. At least he still has a law license, IIRC he got a 90 day suspension from the BAR

Originally Posted by flyer898

Skyhawk, I think your analysis might be better stated: if they would prosecute me for breaking the law, then they should prosecute law enforcement as well.

Agreed, it should be a two way street but we know it is not always...

[ronlglock]

San Mateo county doesn't allow mods. Why? They have a long enough backlog with people whining they aren't being processed. For a mod, the SO needs to pull your record, send the email letting you go to a qual and then they have to update your record and print your new card.



As it is, they hired new staff to get CCWs to folks and they really want to focus on that. Can you imagine how many new carriers change their minds every 15 days?



PS: Not affiliated with the SO in any way related to CCW. Just what I have picked up.