CCW Limits

[TurboS600]

WOW!!


Just...WOW!!

I can't remember reading so much FUD in one thread in a looooong time.

To the OP, your question has been answered if you can sift through the BS to find it. Simply put, the LTC is a STATE permit that is issued by the LOCAL authority, be that the Sheriff or Chief of Police. It is valid for use throughout the state.

Just be aware of all the STATE laws pertaining to concealed carry and carry legally and confidently wherever you go. The FUD spread liberally above should not sway your decision on where you should or should not carry. LA and SF are dangerous areas and whether or not you are going to get hassled depends on whether or not you are carrying correctly. Concealed MEANS concealed. If you are detained or even arrested you will be covered and protected by STATE laws regardless of the knucklehead decisions or assumptions made by LEO during an encounter.

I have first-hand knowledge of LA Sheriff deputies stopping a citizen with a LTC on the side of the freeway and 3 deputies (the one who made the stop, a back-up officer called when the first one realized there was a weapon somewhere in his vicinity , and a SUPERVISOR summoned to the scene) who ALL were of the opinion that LTC did not allow you to carry the weapon LOADED! They only allowed him to leave (with his crying 8 year old son in tow) after he unloaded his weapon and secured it in the trunk.

Weird stuff CAN happen when you are carrying concealed so just be aware of your surroundings but carry everywhere you can legally carry.

[Tripper]

"That turns out not to be the case ..." Very indirect, very soft, but conveys "You're wrong" in a less confrontational way.

I wonder how much trouble I'm going to be in tomorrow

[QuarterBoreGunner]

San Francisco or LA may arrest you anyway and confiscate your weapon, but they have no basis for doing so.

I'll issue my standard wager to produce any factual evidence of this every happening.

[Tripper]

I'll issue my standard wager to produce any factual evidence of this every happening.

San Francisco bans possession of firearms "upon public premises selling or serving alcoholic beverages" (San
Francisco Municipal Code SEC. 3603).
Certain city and county parks ordinances ban the possession of firearms and do not exempt PC 12050 license holders.

I'm not sure it was ever overturned only became unenforceable

I'll see if I find more

[bergmen]

San Francisco bans possession of firearms "upon public premises selling or serving alcoholic beverages" (San
Francisco Municipal Code SEC. 3603).
Certain city and county parks ordinances ban the possession of firearms and do not exempt PC 12050 license holders.

I'm not sure it was ever overturned only became unenforceable

I'll see if I find more

I've read this before (Article 36) but for the life of me I cannot understand the "Public Premises" definitions under 3601 (d). If I am seated in a restaurant that happens to also serve alcoholic beverages (bona fide public eating place) it seems as though this is an exception and I can legally carry.

This might take a Legal Eagle to interpret for us laypersons.

Dan

[QuarterBoreGunner]

San Francisco bans possession of firearms "upon public premises selling or serving alcoholic beverages" (San
Francisco Municipal Code SEC. 3603).
Certain city and county parks ordinances ban the possession of firearms and do not exempt PC 12050 license holders.

I'm not sure it was ever overturned only became unenforceable

I'll see if I find more

Well, since the standard application paperwork from the California DOJ says virtually the same thing, that's a non-starter:

While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee
shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:

• Consume any alcoholic beverage.
• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.

No, my wager is in regards to the FUD perpetrated that SFPD can and will illegally penalize, harass, etc. a lawful LTC. It's always "I heard from a friend who's a blah blah blah." I've yet to be pointed to a factual, confirmed case of this ever happening.

This is non-sense, and is a text book definition of confirmation bias.

[QuarterBoreGunner]

I've read this before (Article 36) but for the life of me I cannot understand the "Public Premises" definitions under 3601 (d). If I am seated in a restaurant that happens to also serve alcoholic beverages (bona fide public eating place) it seems as though this is an exception and I can legally carry.

This might take a Legal Eagle to interpret for us laypersons.

Dan

The DOJ qualifier of "Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption." emphasis mine.

This, to me at least, means: bars, no. Restaurants, okay. Nightclubs, uhm... well if there's a show, maybe yes, if just say dancing, maybe not.

[jb7706]

The DOJ qualifier of "Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption." emphasis mine.

This, to me at least, means: bars, no. Restaurants, okay. Nightclubs, uhm... well if there's a show, maybe yes, if just say dancing, maybe not.

Personal rule of thumb: If you have to be 21 to enter it's a no go zone.

Since it's actually printed on my license I obey. Not a problem for me as I have not been in a bar in about a decade.

[Librarian]

The DOJ qualifier of "Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption." emphasis mine.

This, to me at least, means: bars, no. Restaurants, okay.

If ever I can get LTC, this will be my rule as well.

Drinking alcohol, however, would be right out for me.

[bergmen]

The DOJ qualifier of "Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption." emphasis mine.

This, to me at least, means: bars, no. Restaurants, okay. Nightclubs, uhm... well if there's a show, maybe yes, if just say dancing, maybe not.

Well, I've always understood the Cal DOJ definition. It was taught in my CCW class and very easily understood. If SF parallels this I see no reason to have anything in their Police Code. 3601 sounds like it is intending to mean any premise that serves alcohol period whether it is in a restaurant that incidentally serves alcoholic beverages or a bar. Here is the wording:

3601 (d): "Public premises" includes (1) premises licensed with any type of licenses other than an on-sale beer license, and maintained and operated for the selling or serving of alcoholic beverages to the public for consumption on the premises, and in which food shall not be sold or served to the public as in a bona fide public eating place, but upon which premises food products may be sold or served incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages; (2) premises licensed with an on-sale beer license, in which food shall not be served or sold to the public as in a bona fide public eating place, and in which sandwiches, salads, desserts, and similar short orders shall not be sold or served.


I hate to keep beating this horse but I visit SF frequently and choose to carry when I am there. I DO want to do so legally though and a proper interpretation of (d) is important for this.

Dan

[bergmen]

If ever I can get LTC, this will be my rule as well.

Drinking alcohol, however, would be right out for me.

Oh, I agree completely. I never imbibe while carrying at all (LTC lists "not valid" while under the influence).

Dan

[cranemech]

Well, I've always understood the Cal DOJ definition. It was taught in my CCW class and very easily understood. If SF parallels this I see no reason to have anything in their Police Code. 3601 sounds like it is intending to mean any premise that serves alcohol period whether it is in a restaurant that incidentally serves alcoholic beverages or a bar. Here is the wording:

3601 (d): "Public premises" includes (1) premises licensed with any type of licenses other than an on-sale beer license, and maintained and operated for the selling or serving of alcoholic beverages to the public for consumption on the premises, and in which food shall not be sold or served to the public as in a bona fide public eating place, but upon which premises food products may be sold or served incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages; (2) premises licensed with an on-sale beer license, in which food shall not be served or sold to the public as in a bona fide public eating place, and in which sandwiches, salads, desserts, and similar short orders shall not be sold or served.


I hate to keep beating this horse but I visit SF frequently and choose to carry when I am there. I DO want to do so legally though and a proper interpretation of (d) is important for this.

Dan

IANAL but the way I interpret the section:

(1) is an establishment that has a license to sell beer/wine/hard liquor and has "bar food" available to eat on site. Basically a regular bar.

(2) is an establishment that has a license to sell beer/wine but no hard liquor and has "bar food" available to eat on site.

I think they are just differentiating between different liquor licenses.

Beer/wine/hard liquor vs. beer/wine only.

[Tripper]

I think it comes down to primary purpose if the establishment
Bar, primary drink alcohol
Chili's is primarily food, with side of alcohol, red lobster is the same
Chilis and red lobster you can carry.
Please pay special attention to the first two words of my statement
IANAL

Other states have a 51% rule, where the CCW rules apply and the establishment has to post 51% at the entrance to claim they are above the 51 and you cannot CCW or something to that effect

Just read a story for Utah that now allows guns in bars for a year now, and basically proves its not bad, I think recently was the 1 year mark of that law there which brought the story

[mag360]

If they serve food it has got to be good to go you cannot possibly expect an average person to know the revenue of an establishment to find out if selling alcohol is their primary purpose.

When i go to a nightclub i might be dancing, eating way before i think about drinking. Until they clarify primary purpose their is no way we can be expected to magically in know.

[mej16489]

I have a buddy who owns an Outback restaurant. He's told me on many occasions that he sells food below cost after factoring in labor portion, transportation portion, etc. He says 100% of the restaurant profit is accounted for in drinks (both alcoholic and non)

I'm going to have to ask him if he's ever done a breakdown of alcoholic vs non...it wouldn't surprise me if alcohol is greater than 50%.