Question for SFPD officers regarding CCW holders

[Supertac916]

I wanted to first off by thanking all of the LEO's for your dedicated service and putting your lives on the line everyday.

I recently had my final interview for my Placer county CCW and I asked the processor, if there were any other restrictions besides the ones on the permit. She mentioned that the city of San Francisco won't honor our CCW's and we maybe detained and our firearm confiscated, if caught carrying within city limits. She even continued to state that we could be arrested for illegal concealed carry, but from my understanding state law overule any city ordinances.

I've heard this from several individuals from CCW instructors to now the issuing agency themselves. Is this true? If so I've been carrying for the last 10 years with my Sac county permit without knowing I could have gotten myself into trouble.

If it's not I won't have to worry about it. What is your protocall for dealing with a law abiding citizen who's carrying should you come across one of us?

Appreciate the input... Thanks..

[thebronze]

The city of SF will end up paying you a lot of money.

[Supertac916]

The city of SF will end up paying you a lot of money.

LOL.. Getting into a lawsuit with the city and LE is probably as high on my list of things I want to do in my life as getting robbed at gunpoint. I'd prefer to avoid both cases

[thebronze]

Hey, you asked.

Just carry your gun. The whole point of CCW is that no one knows you have it. If anything happened and SFPD arrested you, for CCW, it would be an illegal arrest and you'd get a lot of money for violating your civil rights.

I'm certainly not worried about carrying in SF. Neither should you be.

[Librarian]

You didn't believe the answers you got in the LTC thread you started? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=621768

LTC is a state license. It's valid all over the state. San Francisco, even though it seems to want to be its own country, is still part of California, and a valid LTC from Placer is valid in San Francisco and Los Angeles and every other city and county.

[Supertac916]

You didn't believe the answers you got in the LTC thread you started? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=621768

LTC is a state license. It's valid all over the state. San Francisco, even though it seems to want to be its own country, is still part of California, and a valid LTC from Placer is valid in San Francisco and Los Angeles and every other city and county.

Thanks Librarian.. I honestly don't understand how the issuing agencies don't even know the laws regarding the CCW's they're issuing. I decided to post this in the LEO forums because they would be the ones stopping us, if we're ever careless or have to use our firearms to defend ourselves. Just wanted the LE perspective.

By law we're allowed to carry, but if there are cities where they would treat us like a criminal I would like to know. If SFPD officers or other cities require officers to confiscate firearms and detain, even after presenting our CCW's. It would be good to know. Guess none of them really want to comment on the topic. So according to California law I will carry in any city and stop worrying about it.

[P5Ret]

I spoke to a retired SFPD sergeant he knows of no ordinance that prohibits lawful concealed carry within the city limits. I have never seen or heard any stories about someone being detained for lawful carry in SF, nor have I ever had any problems. He also mentioned that most districts do not have the man power to call volume to look for chicken sh## city ordinances.

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Man I wish this FUD re: LTC and San Francisco would just die already. It's nonsensical on the face of it.

[thebronze]

By law we're allowed to carry, but if there are cities where they would treat us like a criminal I would like to know.

You'd better get used to that in just about ANY city. More than likely, if you end up having to use your gun to defend yourself, that's what you're going to get treated like, at least initially. Your LTC class should have covered that with you.

[QuarterBoreGunner]

You'd better get used to that in just about ANY city. More than likely, if you end up having to use your gun to defend yourself, that's what you're going to get treated like, at least initially. Your LTC class should have covered that with you.

Bull. Stop spreading fear.

[sfpcservice]

I think you're going to find this is a non-issue in San Francisco. As stated, your agency was wrong. I have carried in san Francisco many times, on Bart and muni. Unless you skin it, people will just go on ignoring you. The only people who can't legally carry in San Francisco are it's own residents, anybody with a permit from another county can carry in SF to their hearts content.

[Lives_In_Fresno]

I think you're going to find this is a non-issue in San Francisco. As stated, your agency was wrong. I have carried in san Francisco many times, on Bart and muni. Unless you skin it, people will just go on ignoring you. The only people who can't legally carry in San Francisco are it's own residents, anybody with a permit from another county can carry in SF to their hearts content.

I would have thought that BART and Muni would be considered "common carriers", and thus prohibiting concealed carry under federal law.

(according to http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=338205)

So, is BART not a common carrier? (Or, perhaps the information at the link isn't correct?)

[tonyxcom]

Everywhere I read about the "common carriers" refers to interstate or foreign commerce.

http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC00922.html

(e) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to deliver or cause to be delivered to any common or contract carrier for transportation or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, to persons other than licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors, any package or other container in which there is any firearm or ammunition without written notice to the carrier that such firearm or ammunition is being transported or shipped; except that any passenger who owns or legally possesses a firearm or ammunition being transported aboard any common or contract carrier for movement with the passenger in interstate or foreign commerce may deliver said firearm or ammunition into the custody of the pilot, captain, conductor or operator of such common or contract carrier for the duration of the trip without violating any of the provisions of this chapter. No common or contract carrier shall require or cause any label, tag, or other written notice to be placed on the outside of any package, luggage, or other container that such package, luggage, or other container contains a firearm.

So if this movement isn't interstate then it doesn't apply?

[Librarian]

Everywhere I read about the "common carriers" refers to interstate or foreign commerce.

http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC00922.html

So if this movement isn't interstate then it doesn't apply?

So far as Federal law is concerned, interstate appears to be required before it applies here. BART is, however, a 'common carrier'.

[ap3572001]

In SF Ca CCW is a CA CCW. I never heard anything different.