mjones
Regular Member
99% of how we're regaining our 2a rights in California is at the judicial level. Please say thank you by making a donation to the CGF.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Sacramento County (California) goes "shall issue" on concealed handgun permits!
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
99% of how we're regaining our 2a rights in California is at the judicial level. Please say thank you by making a donation to the CGF.
devildoc5
Regular Member
A significant amount of money transferred from your bank account to the sheriffs reelection campaign....
Noel
Regular Member
Wow... I just saw this... at least this is a step in the right direction... Hell they have to do something to let us protect our selfs... They can keep laying off the police and letting the cons out of prisons with no chance of find a job... Thats a really volatile combination... :banghead:
devildoc5
Regular Member
Yeah but the libs will NEVER see it like we do, especially not in those terms.
Also remember criminals that get killed by someone protecting themselves from the criminal are 9 times out of 10 just "troubled youths who were trying to get their life back together."
That is how the libs will always see it. Not "this guy was trying to rape that woman with a knife and she stood up for herself and wasn't going to become a victim."
They will never see that side of it....
I figured that would help... but what else, what other good reasons? Anyone have a CC permit?
I am not getting any its on this good reason stuff... anyone outside of Sac try to get a CC and get turned down? Did they tell you why? For those in Sac, what does a CC license allow for you to do. CC through GFSZ's? (that right there would be great!)
thanks
mjones
Regular Member
See this thread at CalGuns.net for the 'where can I not carry with a CCW license' information:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5363481
A 12050 resident license to carry concealed is good statewide.
Being a CCW holder also provides a small benefit as it pertains to Open Carry. A 12050 CCW license provides an exemption to UOC in a GFSZ in 626.9(l).
626.9 (l) This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer
as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of
Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the
federal government who is carrying out official duties while in
California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in
making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually
engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of
this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance
of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the
firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of
Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged
in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision
(e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions Code.
HOWEVER, keep a couple things in mind...
There is ZERO tested case-law on this. As such, I would NOT recommend doing this unless you fully understand the reprocussions.
If you get arrested for this you will likely lose your CCW license regardless of the outcome.
I would recommend you have at least $30,000 bucks set aside for your legal defense.
You can NOT carry LOADED in a 12031 prohibited area unless your firearm is CONCEALED.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5363481
A 12050 resident license to carry concealed is good statewide.
Being a CCW holder also provides a small benefit as it pertains to Open Carry. A 12050 CCW license provides an exemption to UOC in a GFSZ in 626.9(l).
626.9 (l) This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer
as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of
Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the
federal government who is carrying out official duties while in
California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in
making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually
engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of
this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance
of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the
firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of
Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged
in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision
(e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions Code.
HOWEVER, keep a couple things in mind...
There is ZERO tested case-law on this. As such, I would NOT recommend doing this unless you fully understand the reprocussions.
If you get arrested for this you will likely lose your CCW license regardless of the outcome.
I would recommend you have at least $30,000 bucks set aside for your legal defense.
You can NOT carry LOADED in a 12031 prohibited area unless your firearm is CONCEALED.
Last edited:
devildoc5
Regular Member
I wouldn't necessarily say that this is untested ground. It is just untested in CA.
Various courts have upheld that a LTC (whatever form that may be) is acceptable for breaking the Federal GFSZ.
Matter of fact it is even codified in federal law:
Title 18 USC Section 922.
The code goes on further to state that a "school zone" is school property and any area withing 1000' of school property.
Sound familiar?
Various courts have upheld that a LTC (whatever form that may be) is acceptable for breaking the Federal GFSZ.
Matter of fact it is even codified in federal law:
Title 18 USC Section 922.
The code goes on further to state that a "school zone" is school property and any area withing 1000' of school property.
Sound familiar?
since9
Campaign Veteran
Let's see, I wrote my letter to Governor Swarzenegger concerning AB 1934 on...
Hmm.
Thank GOD that bill died! :banana: :monkey :banana:
Part of my argument to the former Governor was that combined with the "may issue" and near total denial of CCL's throughout California, AB 1934 would result in a de facto handgun ban. Although I don't live in California, I invoked my right as the parent of a child who does live in California to speak on his behalf, for his safety and protection afforded him by his mother, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins who do live in California, all of whom AB 1934 would diminish their ability to protect and care for the safety and well-being of my child.
I also made two recommendations, put simply, here: A) Veto 1934; B) Enact shall-issue CC licensing throughout the state. Of the latter, I explained why it's so important to ensure that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, if not in an unrestricted manner, then at least beneath an outer later of clothing.
Again, and fortunately, 1934 died anyway. But it appears the second recommendation did not fall on dead ears.
Given California's many millions of people, I sincerely doubt my letter ever reached the Governor's desk, much less was the impetus behind Sacremento's recent legislation. Still, someone was counting the letters both pro and con AB 1934, and possibly putting those with additional recommendations into a pile for further consideration.
I'd like to think I had a hand in it, even if mine was but one of 50,000 such hands.
Folks, I've worked with my own U.S. Congressman on a couple of issues, and I know for a fact the letters he receives are, at the very least, skimmed and counted one way or the other. People are assigned to collect the better-written representative samples from all sides of an issue, and he himself randomly selects samples from the entire stack.
At the very least your letter is skimmed and counted. If it's well-written, it might actually be read.
Hmm.
AB 1934, as amended, Saldana. Firearms.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it an offense to carry
a concealed handgun on the person or in a vehicle, as specified.
Existing law provides that firearms carried openly in belt holsters
are not concealed within the meaning of those provisions.
This bill would delete the exception pertaining to firearms
carried openly in belt holsters. The bill would also establish an
exemption to the offense for transportation of a firearm by members
of specified organizations going directly to or from official parade
duty or ceremonial occasions, as specified.
By expanding the scope of an existing offense, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it an offense to carry
a loaded firearm in specified public areas.
The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor,
punishable as specified, to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the
person in specified public areas.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it an offense to carry
a concealed handgun on the person or in a vehicle, as specified.
Existing law provides that firearms carried openly in belt holsters
are not concealed within the meaning of those provisions.
This bill would delete the exception pertaining to firearms
carried openly in belt holsters. The bill would also establish an
exemption to the offense for transportation of a firearm by members
of specified organizations going directly to or from official parade
duty or ceremonial occasions, as specified.
By expanding the scope of an existing offense, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it an offense to carry
a loaded firearm in specified public areas.
The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor,
punishable as specified, to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the
person in specified public areas.
Thank GOD that bill died! :banana: :monkey :banana:
Part of my argument to the former Governor was that combined with the "may issue" and near total denial of CCL's throughout California, AB 1934 would result in a de facto handgun ban. Although I don't live in California, I invoked my right as the parent of a child who does live in California to speak on his behalf, for his safety and protection afforded him by his mother, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins who do live in California, all of whom AB 1934 would diminish their ability to protect and care for the safety and well-being of my child.
I also made two recommendations, put simply, here: A) Veto 1934; B) Enact shall-issue CC licensing throughout the state. Of the latter, I explained why it's so important to ensure that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, if not in an unrestricted manner, then at least beneath an outer later of clothing.
Again, and fortunately, 1934 died anyway. But it appears the second recommendation did not fall on dead ears.
Given California's many millions of people, I sincerely doubt my letter ever reached the Governor's desk, much less was the impetus behind Sacremento's recent legislation. Still, someone was counting the letters both pro and con AB 1934, and possibly putting those with additional recommendations into a pile for further consideration.
I'd like to think I had a hand in it, even if mine was but one of 50,000 such hands.
Folks, I've worked with my own U.S. Congressman on a couple of issues, and I know for a fact the letters he receives are, at the very least, skimmed and counted one way or the other. People are assigned to collect the better-written representative samples from all sides of an issue, and he himself randomly selects samples from the entire stack.
At the very least your letter is skimmed and counted. If it's well-written, it might actually be read.
EXTREMEOPS1
Campaign Veteran
You can ......
Your AR rifle needs to be California "Legal" or Compliant with all of the State Firearms Laws and Regulations. There are a minimum of 3 things you need in order to configure your rifle and then add all of the features you would like. Without these 3 items, you may be committing a felony.
You Need:
•An off list Lower Receiver (OLL)
•A Fixed Magazine (Bullet Button)
•A Magazine with a capacity of No More than 10 Rounds
Welcome back
Fortunately mine has all these restrictions so I'm good to go
Your AR rifle needs to be California "Legal" or Compliant with all of the State Firearms Laws and Regulations. There are a minimum of 3 things you need in order to configure your rifle and then add all of the features you would like. Without these 3 items, you may be committing a felony.
You Need:
•An off list Lower Receiver (OLL)
•A Fixed Magazine (Bullet Button)
•A Magazine with a capacity of No More than 10 Rounds
Welcome back
Fortunately mine has all these restrictions so I'm good to go
Born2Lose
Regular Member
OR
- An Off List Lower
- No evil features (collapsable stock, flash suppresor, pistol grip, forward grip)
Then you can use your pre-ban high cap mags like i do.
I have a Stag Arms M4gery with A2 stock, monster man grip, and a muzzle brake.
I use my pre-ban 30, 40, and 100 round drum mag.
Check out the Calguns Assault Weapon flowchart. (it's blocked at work so i can't post link)