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

[kcbrown]

Nope, never saw this coming.

[MudCamper]

And this is the basic problem with CCW "reform". It's still a permission slip. They can still change the rules or take it away.

Winning in court is the only way to truly get our rights back.

[negolien]

LOL

I TOLD YA.. but noooooo you didn't want to believe me cause ya'll know everything...Remember the thread on theaters?

[wildhawker]

Nope, never saw this coming.

Of course you did, and so did everyone else paying attention.

This is a fight between the inherently good (freedom) and the inherently evil (removing freedom by force) that's existed since the beginning of human existence, and will continue throughout it. Who doesn't think it's going to be a fight?

Yes, we have much fighting left to do. And it will never end. But, it will get better, at least in some narrow slice of philosophy that we call the right to keep and bear arms [for self-defense].

-Brandon

[753X0]

It seems to be a slightly different case here in OR with "shall issue" in place. OR also has a state preemption statute on the books, so a municipality can't restrict guns or carry permits.

[wildhawker]

It seems to be a slightly different case here in OR with "shall issue" in place. OR also has a state preemption statute on the books, so a municipality can't restrict guns or carry permits.

You just said some very important and relevant things.

-Brandon

[kcbrown]

Of course you did, and so did everyone else paying attention.

This is a fight between the inherently good (freedom) and the inherently evil (removing freedom by force) that's existed since the beginning of human existence, and will continue throughout it. Who doesn't think it's going to be a fight?

Yes, we have much fighting left to do. And it will never end. But, it will get better, at least in some narrow slice of philosophy that we call the right to keep and bear arms [for self-defense].

Agreed, with a few reservations.

Everything depends on how bold the judiciary is willing to be on this. If the judiciary is wishy-washy on it, then we will make precious few real gains, especially if issuing authorities are allowed to place any restrictions on licenses that aren't explicitly listed in law. The reason is that such restrictions are infinite in scope and number, and it will be impossible to fight all variations of them in court.

The restriction here is but a taste of what's to come, even in a shall-issue environment.


I fully expect we're going to see licenses with restrictions that prohibit carry in GFSZs. If the GFSZ itself is very difficult to challenge, so too will such a restriction, for the same reasons. And that will effectively nullify the right.

[wildhawker]

I think you're either overlooking or too deeply discounting 753X0's post that I quoted on purpose.

-Brandon

[Tarn_Helm]

yet another reason

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.



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?

This anti-Second-Amendment rule is yet another reason why I wish I could leave this state populated by an apparently overwhelming majority of retards.

[Connor P Price]

Agreed, with a few reservations.

Everything depends on how bold the judiciary is willing to be on this. If the judiciary is wishy-washy on it, then we will make precious few real gains, especially if issuing authorities are allowed to place any restrictions on licenses that aren't explicitly listed in law. The reason is that such restrictions are infinite in scope and number, and it will be impossible to fight all variations of them in court.

The restriction here is but a taste of what's to come, even in a shall-issue environment.


I fully expect we're going to see licenses with restrictions that prohibit carry in GFSZs. If the GFSZ itself is very difficult to challenge, so too will such a restriction, for the same reasons. And that will effectively nullify the right.

That would be troublesome indeed. Your pretty creative with this stuff.

I'd like to see restrictions by the sheriffs gone entirely, that's a tough egg to crack though.

ETA... On second thought, maybe its not that tough of an egg to crack after a re-reading of the above posts.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

[thebronze]

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.

JB, you're correct that it was there before (in the policy), but I hadn't remembered reading it.

I have not seen any permits with that on it, only heard anecdotal stories of people saying they have it on theirs. I have not personally seen one.

[kcbrown]

That would be troublesome indeed. Your pretty creative with this stuff.

I'd like to see restrictions by the sheriffs gone entirely, that's a tough egg to crack though.

ETA... On second thought, maybe its not that tough of an egg to crack after a re-reading of the above posts.

As things are right now, it's a real worry. In the future, well ... difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.

[vincewarde]

What I find distressing.....

What I find distressing is that there is no specification for minimum sign size and location. I know of a location that forbids guns - it's buried in an 8.5x11 sign covering a ton of other issues. It's printed in about 12pt type. The only reason I read it was that I had time to kill.

Virtually every "shall issue" state specifies the size and location of these signs so CCW holders can actually see them. This could really be a problem if someone was nailed for violating a sign that could be easily overlooked.

[hoffmang]

1. If it's not on the permit it's not a valid restriction so go with what is on your actual license.

2. We are still in a pre-bear SCOTUS case world. In a post bear world things like this change dramatically.

-Gene

[Shenaniguns]

I have a new license coming soon with my new address, they cashed the check last week so I will update if the restriction is on there.