Sacramento LTC holders: No carry signs now listed on LTC?

[thebronze]

I just found out today that Sacramento County now has a policy of not allowing any LTC if a "No Firearms Allowed" sign is posted.

I just looked on SSD's website and it's posted there.

Failure of the permit holder to adhere to these restrictions will result in the
revocation of the concealed weapons permit.

It's supposedly now being listed as a condition on the actual LTC card, along with the "no alcohol consumption" condition.

Does anyone have any additional info on this?

Has anyone been issued an LTC with this listed on it?

Is this an issue that CGF should address?

[OleCuss]

I don't think CGF should work on this one at this time.

Net effect is that despite what your carry license suggests, it is legal for you to carry your concealed firearm into a privately owned facility which has signage saying that it is not permitted. The proprietor can ask you to leave and then arrest you for trespassing if you do not leave. And the issuer of the carry license will revoke your carry license.

I think any fix for this is a ways down the road. In the meantime, respect the property owner's rights and don't patronize their business if they try to keep you out (doesn't hurt to tell them they are losing your business).

But do remember, going into posted governmental facilities (including the post office even if it is not posted) is a different matter. You can get seriously messed up if you carry there and get caught.

Edit: BTW, I don't spend my time looking for the signage. If I happen to see a sign saying they don't want my business, I respect that. But I don't spend my time looking for stupid signs which do not give me very useful information.

[GettoPhilosopher]

@OleCuss: If it's a requirement listed ON the license, it is legally binding. If nothing is listed on the license, then you're right...it's just a "if you get caught and if you refuse to leave THEN trespassing charges" thing.

[Stonewalker]

What if somebody got their LTC revoked for violating a bs policy like this, but not violating state law? Test case against such 'micro-management'?

[Untamed1972]

@OleCuss: If it's a requirement listed ON the license, it is legally binding. If nothing is listed on the license, then you're right...it's just a "if you get caught and if you refuse to leave THEN trespassing charges" thing.

I beleive the point is that it is not a crime to carry into a posted building. At most your permit can be revoked, but there is no criminal penalty for which you can be prosecuted for ingnoring the sign.

Although getting your permit revoked would certainly suck.

[jb7706]

FWIW that is not new policy, it has been that way for the last couple of years at least. I can't help on the license restriction thing.

[Nick Justice]

Well, really? What did you all expect? Since when has the opposition just laid down and surrendered?

[Mstrty]

FWIW that is not new policy, it has been that way for the last couple of years at least. I can't help on the license restriction thing.

I believe JB is correct. You may just be noticing it now. We have discussed this before, I just cant find the old thread.
What the Sheriff wants and what the law allows does not always equate. :wink:

[thebronze]

FWIW that is not new policy, it has been that way for the last couple of years at least. I can't help on the license restriction thing.

This is the first time I've seen that listed in their policy and listing it on the LTC is most certainly new.

[Mstrty]

This is the first time I've seen that listed in their policy and listing it on the LTC is most certainly new.

I have no evidence it is listed on the permits. If it is on the permits then that is new to me. Call SCSO they will tell you.
In the past they sent letters to all holders when a change to the card was made.

[lawaia]

I beleive the point is that it is not a crime to carry into a posted building. At most your permit can be revoked, but there is no criminal penalty for which you can be prosecuted for ingnoring the sign.

Although getting your permit revoked would certainly suck.

Actually, it does state "permit invalid if violated". I believe this means you could potentially be charged for carrying without a permit if you ignore the restriction.

[mej16489]

But do remember, going into posted federal governmental facilities (including the post office even if it is not posted) is a different matter. You can get seriously messed up if you carry there and get caught.

Small clarification added above.

Most State/Local .gov buildings generally have exemptions for LTC holders.

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

[paul0660]

Actually, it does state "permit invalid if violated". I believe this means you could potentially be charged for carrying without a permit if you ignore the restriction.

It is very unclear, but that is a possible interpretation.

[jb7706]

This is the first time I've seen that listed in their policy and listing it on the LTC is most certainly new.

Here is a policy from a couple of years ago that has the not where signs prohibit language.

I'll believe the restriction when I see it on a permit. I can't tell you how many times I have heard that the SO was doing this or that only to find it totally untrue. Rumors fly fast.

Have you actually seen a permit with that restriction? I'm not being a wise guy, I'm honestly curious.

[OleCuss]

Small clarification added above.

Most State/Local .gov buildings generally have exemptions for LTC holders.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...d.php?t=338205

Point appreciated.