Sonoma

[renomay]

The part that I’m honestly most upset about is the change in restrictions about duty to inform. Because at the time I got my permit there was no duty to inform. And that’s not on my license to inform them. So what if I got pulled over and didn’t know to inform them? Am I under those term that didn’t exist? They have all my contact information so why didn’t they let everyone know about that?

[LarsHansent]

Okay, I assumed there would be duty to inform, but it's good to get confirmation. Thanks guys!

Reno, definitely agree about mags and good idea with insurance/registration placement - I'm gonna adopt it.

[TheBest]

A stock Glock is definitely better than no Glock, but it would seem to me there is and should be a difference between modifications and accessories.

Did anyone who asked get any indication as to whether this policy is a unchanged holdover or is new? I doubt anyone has a Pre-Essick policy sheet?

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but at least in regards to accessories (sights, lights) a few respectful letters making the case for why they should be allowed may go a long way in changing the policy. I can imagine the argument that could be made for why triggers etc. shouldn't be modified, but I come up dry with any argument against sights or lights. The use of "adding laser sights" in the policy makes it murkier, but I'd almost think that the "no changes whatsoever" that was being given as a response to inquiries may be a misinterpretation.

I took my training course in Ukiah over a month after the policy was posted. They went down the line asking Sonoma residents if anyone had modifications. Most people had upgraded sights and the instructors seemed to think that was okay. So if the policy is actually so strict that we can only use right out of the box guns, there's definitely a communication breakdown.

Additionally, in the policy under the renewal section:
"Submitting any firearm to be considered for a license renewal to the Firearms Instructor for a full safety inspection. The Sheriff reserves the right to deny a license for any firearm that has been altered from the manufacturer’s specifications or that is unsafe".
This would definitely imply the "previously approved" portion of the license restrictions means what was qualified with, not what is stock.


Unrelated side question as I'm still awaiting final approval and haven't found an answer anywhere. Is there a duty to inform law enforcement of your CCW if you were to get pulled over in Sonoma? If no, and you are visiting a county where you would, do their rules apply or do you follow the issuing county's policy?

When it's a statement like that, it leads me to believe that lightening the trigger would make it "altered from mfg's spec or unsafe" whereas a light or laser has no bearing on the performance or safety features.

[renomay]

I got mine in August. Looks like the newer policy went into effect late October.

[707caz]

Interesting. When did you get yours? Mine must be older.

[renomay]

Interesting. When did you get yours? Mine must be older.

[707caz]

Mine does.

[renomay]

Please no one ask about high cap mags. Let’s not push any further. Cause it seems like they’re gonna make every restriction possible.

[renomay]

The back of my permit doesn’t say I need to inform them...

[renomay]

I couldn’t find anything about duty to inform on the policy when I applied?

[renomay]

[707caz]

Unrelated side question as I'm still awaiting final approval and haven't found an answer anywhere. Is there a duty to inform law enforcement of your CCW if you were to get pulled over in Sonoma? If no, and you are visiting a county where you would, do their rules apply or do you follow the issuing county's policy?

[NorCalBusa]

Seems to me prohibiting a legal, common, safety modification like a light, RMR or laser would put some liability right on the county should that become part of a bad shoot, no?

"If I just had a (insert whatever device) I would have been able to (insert reason to not shoot) and escape instead".

[Robotron2k84]

[LarsHansent]

A stock Glock is definitely better than no Glock, but it would seem to me there is and should be a difference between modifications and accessories.

Did anyone who asked get any indication as to whether this policy is a unchanged holdover or is new? I doubt anyone has a Pre-Essick policy sheet?

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but at least in regards to accessories (sights, lights) a few respectful letters making the case for why they should be allowed may go a long way in changing the policy. I can imagine the argument that could be made for why triggers etc. shouldn't be modified, but I come up dry with any argument against sights or lights. The use of "adding laser sights" in the policy makes it murkier, but I'd almost think that the "no changes whatsoever" that was being given as a response to inquiries may be a misinterpretation.

I took my training course in Ukiah over a month after the policy was posted. They went down the line asking Sonoma residents if anyone had modifications. Most people had upgraded sights and the instructors seemed to think that was okay. So if the policy is actually so strict that we can only use right out of the box guns, there's definitely a communication breakdown.

Additionally, in the policy under the renewal section:
"Submitting any firearm to be considered for a license renewal to the Firearms Instructor for a full safety inspection. The Sheriff reserves the right to deny a license for any firearm that has been altered from the manufacturer’s specifications or that is unsafe".
This would definitely imply the "previously approved" portion of the license restrictions means what was qualified with, not what is stock.


Unrelated side question as I'm still awaiting final approval and haven't found an answer anywhere. Is there a duty to inform law enforcement of your CCW if you were to get pulled over in Sonoma? If no, and you are visiting a county where you would, do their rules apply or do you follow the issuing county's policy?