San Diego CCW

[CessnaDriver]

Breaking the silence here.
Got the letter. �� 77 days from 2nd interview.
My GC was from work. I manage a business, hire/fire, make the cash deposits, etc.
The clerk said from the get go that I did not need permission or approval from the business owner to get an LTC.
I was required pay stubs as proof of employment and the bank statements with matching receipts as proof of GC.
The clerk was awesome from the beginning and honestly she seemed to be interested in helping me drafting a good GC.
I reeived a call about a week ago, something I had never found on my record showed up. They asked me to go and add it and sign it. It was a low profile conviction from 18 years ago.. I honestly tought I
Would get denied after this.
I have never met or supported Gore.
I would love to thank San Diego County Gun Owners, their checklist and training videos helped a lot.
P.s.
somehere back in this thread there was an argument about having gun training in relation to GC.
I originally had. Paragraph in my GC statement where I talked about myself as a person with training suited for an LTC.
The clerk had me remove it.

Good to hear.
Was there any home visit to check your address?

[GuillermoAntonio]

Good to hear.
Was there any home visit to check your address?

Not to my house. But they did ask me for proof of address.
As far as I know no one went to the business but the business is brick and mortar and well known in the area.

[Rico3]

[Paladin]

Just had my 2nd appointment yesterday. The clerk was pretty helpful and seemed to think mine was a slam dunk. My original GC was shaky but after talking a bit with her about past work we changed things up. The biggest thing they want as far as GC is documentation it seems. Private documents are good but public documents(ie police reports, news stories) that support your GC are ideal. I’ll be sure to report what the decision is in a couple months.

Yep, because, believe it or not, some people just make s--- up.

Not only that, but some people try to "game the system" and virtually "cut & paste" the GC of someone else who got a CCW.

Remember: the odds are when you first show up, they don't know you from Adam, and since a LOT of them do nothing but deal with thugs all day, they can be quite jaded.

[70runner]

Was out shootin at range Wed. There was a local (North San Diego County) CCW firearms instructor at the pistol range working with a younger gal (everyone looks younger to me . My neighbor (who has a CCW) and I got to chatting with him after the session. He said, in general, he hasn't seen much change in county CCW permits, remains pretty tough on GC in his opinion.

[marcusrn]

He's bogus.

[Kate]

CCW Extra page requirements

Hi All,
I just received a SD CCW. The last thing I signed was a "To Whom It May Concern" piece of paper that listed 10 things I may not do while carrying. It is the same as is on the CCW Application form. Two of them were "Consume any alcoholic beverage" and essentially, Be in a Bar.

HandgunLaw.US suggests that The CalGunsFoundation says neither alcohol nor bars are mentioned in the penal code regarding concealed carry, and that the restrictions on the application do not have the force of law.

Supporting the assertion by HandGunLaw, the CalGunsFoundation wiki has a Q&A that says, "Q: Can I drink and concealed carry if I have a permit?
A: The Penal Code is silent on alcohol use or presence and Concealed Weapons License holders. Some issuing authorities are not silent. "

The wiki mentions other things that are restricted if it says so on the permit. (Such as carrying in, "in establishments that serve alcohol.")

Is this separate piece of paper essentially an extension of my permit?

Does the separate paper, which is not the application, have the force of law?

Does the separate paper amount to the SD County Sheriff adding all those restrictions to my permit?

Thank you for your thoughts and interpretations...

K

[ACfixer]

^^^ Way to go Kate.

To answer your questions, the way I (and only I) interpret it is that you aren't necessarily breaking a law to be in a bar (for instance), but violating terms of your permit. Hence possession in a bar would not result in being charged with a crime, but rather a loss of your LTC.

[MajorCaliber]

I think that is the right question at least. If you are consuming alcohol while carrying, what are the consequences, revocation of your permit or prosecution for illegal carrying of a concealed weapon as if you had no permit at all? I think we are entitled to a clear answer along with its legal justification from SDSO. I don't have the exact language handy, but I believe the wording on my says "while consuming alcohol" but I'd have to check on that.

[ACfixer]

I think that is the right question at least. If you are consuming alcohol while carrying, what are the consequences, revocation of your permit or prosecution for illegal carrying of a concealed weapon as if you had no permit at all? I think we are entitled to a clear answer along with its legal justification from SDSO. I don't have the exact language handy, but I believe the wording on my says "while consuming alcohol" but I'd have to check on that.

Yeah that's the rub for sure... I kind of lean towards the former since there's no state statute on the booze/gun thing but I don't thing it's a huge stretch to see it this way as well.

Of course not drinking or hanging out in bars while armed prevents it from ever being an issue.

[Kate]

Of course not drinking or hanging out in bars while armed prevents it from ever being an issue.

I totally concur. And understand. And, do I want to carry or not? I DO go out to dinner, and generally have wine with dinner. If it means going to jail, probably I don't carry, in which case I risk being a victim per my Good Cause statement. And, if I do carry, I lose the permit, in which case I risk being a victim per my Good Cause statement.

Maybe the CCW doesn't actually make things better...

[MajorCaliber]

Ok, I checked. The exact wording on my sheet says while carrying, I may not "consume any alcoholic beverage" or "be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on site consumption".

I believe laws and regulations should be written clearly enough so that the average person can determine if a specific behavior violates the rule or not. I understand the first condition, that is pretty clear. The second one is less so. Leaving aside the issue that it makes no sense for me not to be able to carry in a bar if I'm not drinking alcohol, I can't always determine the "primary purpose" of an establishment. Taco Bell is pretty clearly OK, and a bar like Cheers is pretty clearly not. But what is the primary purpose of a TGI Fridays? Lots of people go there to eat and not drink, and lots go to drink and not eat. How am I supposed to know if I am in compliance or not? Am I just supposed to guess and hope the LEO guesses the same way I do? This part seems impermissibly vague.

[Kate]

Ok, I checked. The exact wording on my sheet says while carrying, I may not "consume any alcoholic beverage" or "be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on site consumption".

But what is the primary purpose of a TGI Fridays? Lots of people go there to eat and not drink, and lots go to drink and not eat. How am I supposed to know if I am in compliance or not? Am I just supposed to guess and hope the LEO guesses the same way I do? This part seems impermissibly vague.

Perhaps adding to the confusion, when Bernardo went over the "be in a place" clause, he said, "like a bar, or the bar area of a restaurant." Presumably, the bar area of a restaurant has as its primary purpose serving alcohol.

So, I interpreted that to mean not only Cheers, but the bar area at TGIF.

Impermissibly vague or not, I think I know what they intend. For me, the first constraint, about consuming, is tougher than the second about place. That first constraint means I can't carry in a common situation for me, which means I have to accept higher risk than the general population. At least presumably higher risk, as the Sheriff's CCW panel accepted by GC.

[ACfixer]

Perhaps adding to the confusion, when Bernardo went over the "be in a place" clause, he said, "like a bar, or the bar area of a restaurant." Presumably, the bar area of a restaurant has as its primary purpose serving alcohol.

So, I interpreted that to mean not only Cheers, but the bar area at TGIF.

Impermissibly vague or not, I think I know what they intend. For me, the first constraint, about consuming, is tougher than the second about place. That first constraint means I can't carry in a common situation for me, which means I have to accept higher risk than the general population. At least presumably higher risk, as the Sheriff's CCW panel accepted by GC.

The general consensus here Kate is that if they have a real kitchen (range hood and health dept. inspections etc.) which means Applebees and TGIF, you are good to carry but not drink. That is a restaurant, not6 a bar. A lot of threads on this, but it kind of boils down to the type of liquor license perhaps (type 47 or 48) and it's fairly easily separated by whether people under 21 are allowed on the premises. This is not to be construed as legal advice obviously, but that's how I personally decide. Other states have different rules.

[Kate]

Thanks, All.

I very much appreciate the information and your experience!