So where do you guys carry. (CCW) ("Can't" and "Do" merged)

[faris1984]

Hi fellow Calgunners
Does anyone have a complete list where I can't carry in California.
Thanks

[rivraton]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=338205

[Old_Bald_Guy]

Where I can't carry CCW?

Read all of that, and then use as general rule of thumb here in Sac County: No carry in county or city buildings, no regional/county parks, no City of Sacramento parks (which also means no zoo), no Cosumnes CSD parks, no parks in any parks/rec district except maybe Southgate (not sure, they may have changed by now), no post office (obviously not county-specific), no county sanitation district land. School campuses are legal until SB 707 passes the Assembly and the governor signs it. Beware at CSUS, and at Los Rios junior colleges, because the LEO's there may or may not know it's still legal. Also, remember that the entire American River Parkway from Nimbus Dam to Discovery Park is a county regional park, so no carry there either. No City of Elk Grove, Galt, Folsom, Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova city buildings. Not sure about Isleton--do they even have a city hall anymore? If so, don't carry there. No carry on Cosumnes Preserve land. You CAN carry on the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (same law as in National Parks).

And no, there's no state preemption for any of this.

[Old_Bald_Guy]

I've probably forgotten something.

[slipknot95758]

Are this places a restriction put on by sac county sheriff or do they have a law in place for it

[Librarian]

City/county ordinances.

[slipknot95758]

I thought they weren't allowed to make a law against ccw

[faris1984]

Read all of that, and then use as general rule of thumb here in Sac County: No carry in county or city buildings, no regional/county parks, no City of Sacramento parks (which also means no zoo), no Cosumnes CSD parks, no parks in any parks/rec district except maybe Southgate (not sure, they may have changed by now), no post office (obviously not county-specific), no county sanitation district land. School campuses are legal until SB 707 passes the Assembly and the governor signs it. Beware at CSUS, and at Los Rios junior colleges, because the LEO's there may or may not know it's still legal. Also, remember that the entire American River Parkway from Nimbus Dam to Discovery Park is a county regional park, so no carry there either. No City of Elk Grove, Galt, Folsom, Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova city buildings. Not sure about Isleton--do they even have a city hall anymore? If so, don't carry there. No carry on Cosumnes Preserve land. You CAN carry on the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (same law as in National Parks).

And no, there's no state preemption for any of this.

Thanks alot. Wow regional parks are no go.

[Librarian]

I thought they weren't allowed to make a law against ccw

We wish that were so.

Not yet.

For the Sacramento area parks, and some others, the actual language I seem to recall is 'no guns at all' and they miss the (obvious to me) exception for licensed CCW. Even the state in the GFSZ law, PC 626.9, managed the exception for schools. (That's the thing SB-707 is trying to break; discussion of the bill goes to CA 2A Politics.)

[faris1984]

No guns sign is exempt from CCW?

[Dvrjon]

No guns sign is exempt from CCW?

No, the statute is silent on "no guns signs". All that means is it is not a criminal act to carry in those areas.

However, if identified and asked to leave, and you do not, you may be subject to trespassing violations.

Also, you should be aware that the Sac Sheriff has established a condition upon issuance which voids the license if carried in an area posted as no guns by the owner. See: Page 2, first paragraph, third bullet at http://www.sacsheriff.com/Pages/Orga...cw_process.pdf)

[AreWeNotMen?]

Also, you should be aware that the Sac Sheriff has established a condition upon issuance which voids the license if carried in an area posted as no guns by the owner. See: Page 2, first paragraph, third bullet at http://www.sacsheriff.com/Pages/Orga...cw_process.pdf)

Doesn't that need to be on our actual permit v. buried on a webpage? Mine only states the restriction about consuming alcohol/hanging out in bars.

[slipknot95758]

Yes it has to be listed on the permit to be legal, the only problem you would have us if caught they would pull your permit most likely

[v.kevin]

Wow! If and when I go to Sacramento, I think I will leave the gun locked in the NanoVault. Seems to me like, if you don't know the area well, you're most likely going to violate one of those stupid ordinances.

[Dvrjon]

Doesn't that need to be on our actual permit v. buried on a webpage? Mine only states the restriction about consuming alcohol/hanging out in bars.

(If you have a Sac Sheriff license, I suspect it also has information regarding LEO contacts).

It's a Sheriff's policy of which you should be aware. Since the Sheriff's CCW page tells you to read the policy and links to it, they have publicly unburied it. This is still a "may issue" state. Taken another way, that means the IA "may un-issue", commonly referred to as "revoke". (Insert ongoing diatribes re: 2A, Right to Bear, etc.)

To the question:

The statute says (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26200.html):

26200. (a) A license issued pursuant to this article may include
any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the issuing authority
deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place,
manner, and circumstances under which the licensee may carry a
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed uponn
the person.
(b) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be
indicated on any license issued.

So, are "restrictions" and "conditions" the same? Section 4 of the Standard Application refers to, "CCW License Conditions and Restrictions," so, at some level, they are not the same. (See: http://www.sacsheriff.com/Pages/Orga...cw-doj-app.pdf)

Subdivision (a) of the statute allows the IA to include "restrictions" or "conditions" on the license, indicating they are different things. But, subdivision (b) requires only the "restrictions" be placed on the license. The "conditions" allowed in subdivision (a) are not stated in subdivision (b) as being required to be placed on the license.

The above is a cautionary observation, not a legal opinion. And no, I don't know if the courts have decided on this specific wording's meaning (probably not). We can leave it to the legal scholars to parse the language further, but that's the black letter law. It is, at best, ambiguous. At worst, it's crystal clear.

You could make the argument that the signage stuff has to be on the license, since the Sac Sheriff policy contains independent sections for "conditions" and "restrictions", and the signage is listed as a restriction. But I suspect the end result will be a revocation or non-renewal.

Best.