Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-25-2015, 11:48 PM
Swampcrip's Avatar
Swampcrip Swampcrip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,418
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default Don't want to shoot myself in the foot.

I have a ccw in oc under the gcs of self defense. I want to go in and modify my list of carry guns. My fear is that if I walk in to modify it they might pay attention to my permit and revoke it. Should I keep what I have listed and be happy or attempt to modify my list?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-26-2015, 12:00 AM
eviioiive's Avatar
eviioiive eviioiive is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,495
iTrader: 64 / 99%
Default

Why would they revoke it? What did you do?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Your name has been publicly printed in newspapers and on the web, your expectation of privacy is flat gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUNS.NET
You have been banned for the following reason: posting other member's personal info without permission. I don't care what your reasoning is that is not allowed.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-26-2015, 12:16 AM
Swampcrip's Avatar
Swampcrip Swampcrip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,418
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eviioiive View Post
Why would they revoke it? What did you do?
I didn't do anything to warrant it being revoked. It's just that they stopped accepting self defense as a good cause statement. There was talk about a possibility of revoking the permits that used self defense as a good cause.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-26-2015, 5:50 AM
sixoclockhold sixoclockhold is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,047
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You didn't come to the party prepared?

Sure go on in, tell them you have issues and just can't make thru your probationary period.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-26-2015, 6:02 AM
Albs's Avatar
Albs Albs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,952
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

You don't even have to go in and modify it, you can just email them the paperwork if you're adding a gun, mail CCW card, and the $10.22 (Don't quote me on that) check or money order and they'll send you a new card to your house.
__________________
Quote:
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-26-2015, 6:58 AM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Freedom, NC
Posts: 8,511
iTrader: 75 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixoclockhold View Post
You didn't come to the party prepared?

Sure go on in, tell them you have issues and just can't make thru your probationary period.
Wow.. that was a completely useless and negative post.. oh wait, didn't notice it was you.. lol
__________________
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
― Ayn Rand

Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA, Guardian Front Sight
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-26-2015, 9:06 AM
teg33 teg33 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,454
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I would keep what I have & be happy if I was you and enjoy it while it last.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-26-2015, 9:15 AM
CG of MP's Avatar
CG of MP CG of MP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 681
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How disgusting that he should have to worry the loss of a RIGHT because he wants to slightly change the manner in which that right is exercised.

Where would the civil rights leaders be if one had to ask the following:
I own a newspaper oc. I want to go in and change the color of the paper I use and the print typeface/font. My fear is that if I walk in to modify my business license they might pay attention to my permit and revoke it. Should I keep what I have listed and be happy or attempt to modify my paper choice?
__________________
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
Miranda vs. Arizona
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...
District of Columbia vs. Heller
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-26-2015, 10:06 AM
D0Over D0Over is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 266
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I have a permit issued for the same reason you quoted. I just successfully completed an update (removed a weapon from my permit). Printed the form. Filled it out and mailed it with a check for $10.22. Someone from the office called once they received the paperwork. She mailed me the updated card with a return envelope.

Very smooth and easy process and they did not ask me about my good cause statement.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-26-2015, 10:11 AM
sixoclockhold sixoclockhold is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,047
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG of MP View Post
How disgusting that he should have to worry the loss of a RIGHT because he wants to slightly change the manner in which that right is exercised.

Where would the civil rights leaders be if one had to ask the following:
I own a newspaper oc. I want to go in and change the color of the paper I use and the print typeface/font. My fear is that if I walk in to modify my business license they might pay attention to my permit and revoke it. Should I keep what I have listed and be happy or attempt to modify my paper choice?
"If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That" Times they be a changing...

Where is it said concealed carry in public is a right? I thought this State currently was May Issue, sounds more like a privilege.

If you were my employee and I told my crew we have a big job tomorrow, be on time, pack a lunch and have your tools. You show up in the morning and say boss, can I run home a minute, I forgot my lunch and I'm prone to hypoglycemia.

Go ahead, we'll all wait.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-26-2015, 10:36 AM
caliberetta's Avatar
caliberetta caliberetta is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,535
iTrader: 115 / 100%
Default

You will not lose your permit if you request to modify your weapons list.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-26-2015, 11:28 AM
LBDamned's Avatar
LBDamned LBDamned is offline
Made in the USA
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free in AZ!!! yes, it's worth the Pain to make it happen!
Posts: 10,987
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampcrip View Post
I didn't do anything to warrant it being revoked. It's just that they stopped accepting self defense as a good cause statement. There was talk about a possibility of revoking the permits that used self defense as a good cause.
I haven't read/heard anything about possibility of pre-Peruta being revoked... in fact, just the opposite - the Sheriff stated they won't pull those permits.

You'll be fine making changes to your carry weapons.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MachineGuntongue View Post
Music is magic - Wisdom is golden - Learning to navigate life better as we age is amazing and a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
It only has as much power as you give it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBDamned
I know some things about a lot of things - and a lot of things about some things - but I don't know everything about anything
-----------------------------
"RIGHT POWER!"
http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w558/LBDamneds/Misc/III_zpsofbisb36.jpg
-----------------------------
Dignity, Respect, Purpose - Live It!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-26-2015, 2:59 PM
CG of MP's Avatar
CG of MP CG of MP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 681
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Where is it said concealed carry in public is a right? I thought this State currently was May Issue, sounds more like a privilege.
As to where it is said... Oh some worthless dusty old document mentioned something about keeping and BEARing arms.
Open Carry is foreclosed by California law (with very few exceptions) therefore the only legal recourse IS in fact concealed (see Peruta). Therefore concealed carry IS the right in question as it is the only possible way to exercise the 'uninfringeable' right.
__________________
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
Miranda vs. Arizona
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...
District of Columbia vs. Heller

Last edited by CG of MP; 04-26-2015 at 3:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-26-2015, 3:34 PM
sixoclockhold sixoclockhold is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,047
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG of MP View Post
As to where it is said... Oh some worthless dusty old document mentioned something about keeping and BEARing arms.
Open Carry is foreclosed by California law (with very few exceptions) therefore the only legal recourse IS in fact concealed (see Peruta). Therefore concealed carry IS the right in question as it is the only possible way to exercise the 'uninfringeable' right.
So what you previously said is not true, instead you describe the reasons why Cali is in a pickle to change their tune on gun control, but no where does is say in those dusty old documents that we have a "right" to concealed carry. It is a privilege constitutionally.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-26-2015, 3:53 PM
Old_Bald_Guy's Avatar
Old_Bald_Guy Old_Bald_Guy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California
Posts: 2,901
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What was this thread about? Can't remember. Oh yeah--a person should not shoot his or her foot--it can fracture metatarsi and the like. Something like that.
__________________
"Almost every reform movement has a lunatic fringe, but here, the fringe is apparently sane."
― Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-26-2015, 4:12 PM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

You should be paying closer attention. She has already formally stated that permits issued under self defense are lawful and will not be revoked.

You have nothing to worry about. It is your right, claim it and enjoy it.
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-26-2015, 4:18 PM
CG of MP's Avatar
CG of MP CG of MP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 681
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The hell it is a 'privilege'.

The 'right' to keep and bear arms is enumerated it is not granted. The founders were assuredly not granting a privilege but rather acknowledging an incontrovertible right of mankind. Just because a lesser government body has decided by force of law via government to usurp that right and declare it a privilege does not make it philosophically so in reality.

This philosophical and linguistic minutiae is actually critically important for us as 2A supporters and Americans to fully grasp. The declaratory nature of 'enumeration' is not the GRANTING of a right but a RECOGNIZING of that right. If we go by the philosophy that drives the constitution and therefore ostensibly the entire body of law in the nation, the right to self protection and to keep and bear arms in order to do so supersedes even the Constitution itself! This applies to many of our other constitutional liberties as well!

Despite the fact that incorrectly applied State powers have used declaratory legal means to redefine the constitutional framer's use of the English language and has made bearing arms a defacto privilege does NOT mean that the right is therefore a privilege to be granted to some men and not to others.

The State can declare the sky to be made of nacho cheese and they would be no less incorrect.
__________________
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
Miranda vs. Arizona
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...
District of Columbia vs. Heller
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-26-2015, 4:28 PM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG of MP View Post
The State can declare the sky to be made of nacho cheese and they would be no less incorrect.

Sig worthy
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-26-2015, 9:37 PM
Swampcrip's Avatar
Swampcrip Swampcrip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,418
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Thanks to everyone who clarified this for me. To the rest thanks for the entertainment.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-27-2015, 12:46 AM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Don't want to shoot myself in the foot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG of MP View Post
The hell it is a 'privilege'.

The 'right' to keep and bear arms is enumerated it is not granted. The founders were assuredly not granting a privilege but rather acknowledging an incontrovertible right of mankind. Just because a lesser government body has decided by force of law via government to usurp that right and declare it a privilege does not make it philosophically so in reality.

Actually he is correct in the larger context. The right to keep and bear arms is, as you have stated, a human right protected by (rather than manufactured by) our Constitution. We all know what 'keep' means and both Heller and MacDonald affirmed it. I believe that 'beat' has two simultaneous meanings, linguistically:

- To carry. "Job had a heavy burden to bear."
- To use. "The hole seemed impossible to dig until dynamite was brought to bear on the hardened soil."

So our right to possess, carry, and use arms is not to be infringed. How those arms are carried, open or concealed, is legally a matter of privilege. Within the microcosm of California we have had that choice of carry means restricted by the declaratory ban on open carry, so the only available option for us to exercise the rights contained in bear is concealed (such is the principal claim in Peruta and why I believe it or similar sister cases will ultimately prevail. But concealed as a means of carry is not a right in itself. Absent such restrictions, other states that allow both methods of carry may choose to declare one or the other a "privilege" subject to enhanced screening and permission-granting mechanisms, and a privilege may be revoked leaving the carrier with the other as his/her only means of exercising their right.

Don't conflate rights with privileges, you'll only confuse yourself.
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-27-2015, 5:20 AM
sixoclockhold sixoclockhold is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,047
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steadyrock View Post
Actually he is correct in the larger context. The right to keep and bear arms is, as you have stated, a human right protected by (rather than manufactured by) our Constitution. We all know what 'keep' means and both Heller and MacDonald affirmed it. I believe that 'beat' has two simultaneous meanings, linguistically:

- To carry. "Job had a heavy burden to bear."
- To use. "The hole seemed impossible to dig until dynamite was brought to bear on the hardened soil."

So our right to possess, carry, and use arms is not to be infringed. How those arms are carried, open or concealed, is legally a matter of privilege. Within the microcosm of California we have had that choice of carry means restricted by the declaratory ban on open carry, so the only available option for us to exercise the rights contained in bear is concealed (such is the principal claim in Peruta and why I believe it or similar sister cases will ultimately prevail. But concealed as a means of carry is not a right in itself. Absent such restrictions, other states that allow both methods of carry may choose to declare one or the other a "privilege" subject to enhanced screening and permission-granting mechanisms, and a privilege may be revoked leaving the carrier with the other as his/her only means of exercising their right.

Don't conflate rights with privileges, you'll only confuse yourself.
“Actually he is correct in the larger context.” Au contraire, no larger context, it is the point, I stuck the landing. But thank you for the clarification anyway.

Now on to why I think you will be incorrect on Peruta. KISS principle, common sense should always be at work for the layman. Peruta will be overturned because it is impossible to uphold. When we drill down, we awaken to the fact that a musket cannot be concealed carried and that is my weapon of choice, afforded to me in my right to bear arms. Furthermore, while it is possible for someone short of a full deck, to paint themselves into a corner, I don’t believe Government can and thus California’s no open carry law will be reversed.

Mr. Peruta will be afforded the right to open carry, with conditions, the weapon of his choosing, unloaded of course.

The brave will go out testing the 9th ruling, the State will repeal the bad law, the public will get spooked, we will go back to square one with the fact that the State was a Retard in any future legal wrangling.

Enjoy the CCW while you can but the first ones to be stripped will be “self-defense” GC followed by the rest. Oh and go ahead and change that permit for $10.22, a government losing proposition, because as king, I’m calling you out first as a waste of taxpayer funds.

Fuky Guru, keeping it real.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-27-2015, 5:23 AM
sixoclockhold sixoclockhold is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,047
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampcrip View Post
Thanks to everyone who clarified this for me. To the rest thanks for the entertainment.

You're Welcome..............
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-27-2015, 6:29 AM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Don't want to shoot myself in the foot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixoclockhold View Post
“Actually he is correct in the larger context.” Au contraire, no larger context, it is the point, I stuck the landing. But thank you for the clarification anyway.



Now on to why I think you will be incorrect on Peruta. KISS principle, common sense should always be at work for the layman. Peruta will be overturned because it is impossible to uphold. When we drill down, we awaken to the fact that a musket cannot be concealed carried and that is my weapon of choice, afforded to me in my right to bear arms. Furthermore, while it is possible for someone short of a full deck, to paint themselves into a corner, I don’t believe Government can and thus California’s no open carry law will be reversed.



Mr. Peruta will be afforded the right to open carry, with conditions, the weapon of his choosing, unloaded of course.



The brave will go out testing the 9th ruling, the State will repeal the bad law, the public will get spooked, we will go back to square one with the fact that the State was a Retard in any future legal wrangling.



Enjoy the CCW while you can but the first ones to be stripped will be “self-defense” GC followed by the rest. Oh and go ahead and change that permit for $10.22, a government losing proposition, because as king, I’m calling you out first as a waste of taxpayer funds.



Fuky Guru, keeping it real.

I see. You're that guy. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're trolling, because I don't think anybody could actually believe what you wrote as true.

We have already determined long ago that 2A applies to weapons in common use at the current time, so much for the musket thing. Even if that weren't true, folks concealed pistols all the time in colonial times.

As to your second point, I see zero incentive for the state to overturn the open carry ban. Given that they must allow a method of carry, it is within their best interest to reluctantly choose concealed.

Finally, while we're all v. impressed, you can check the self-fellating language at the door. We're all adults, here.
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-27-2015, 6:38 AM
sixoclockhold sixoclockhold is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,047
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steadyrock View Post
I see. You're that guy. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're trolling, because I don't think anybody could actually believe what you wrote as true.

We have already determined long ago that 2A applies to weapons in common use at the current time, so much for the musket thing. Even if that weren't true, folks concealed pistols all the time in colonial times.

As to your second point, I see zero incentive for the state to overturn the open carry ban. Given that they must allow a method of carry, it is within their best interest to reluctantly choose concealed.

Finally, while we're all v. impressed, you can check the self-fellating language at the door. We're all adults, here.
I'll try not to be too "hard on" ya in a few months when we get the results.

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-27-2015, 7:29 AM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixoclockhold View Post
I'll try not to be too "hard on" ya in a few months when we get the results.




In a few months we are going to a marionette court. Truth will prevail at SCOTUS.
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-27-2015, 8:00 AM
sixoclockhold sixoclockhold is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,047
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steadyrock View Post
In a few months we are going to a marionette court. Truth will prevail at SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS has been reluctant to discuss the matter, what makes you believe they would now do so, "if" the 9th paves the way for Mr. Peruta to self-defense via open carry? They wouldn't or need to. If the fight were strictly on prejudice behavior on part of the SD, then the 9th would certainly be able to handle it.

This current case isn't even an argument, a blind man with screws loose could see our current laws are unconstitutional. The en banc is so they get it right now.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-27-2015, 11:26 AM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixoclockhold View Post
The SCOTUS has been reluctant to discuss the matter, what makes you believe they would now do so, "if" the 9th paves the way for Mr. Peruta to self-defense via open carry? They wouldn't or need to. If the fight were strictly on prejudice behavior on part of the SD, then the 9th would certainly be able to handle it.



This current case isn't even an argument, a blind man with screws loose could see our current laws are unconstitutional. The en banc is so they get it right now.

I hope you're right and guardedly share your optimism. It was my original line of thinking as well, weighted down with a wet blanket of pessimism by the CGN crowd asking, "Do you really think they would re-hear a case just to affirm it?" They're right, in that there is no compelling need to do so. Remember that even courts aren't as insulated from back room pressure as we like to think they are, and getting manhandled by the original 9th decision isn't good for her Senate bid.

That they are combining cases makes for a slightly stronger argument that they are merely considering the totality of concerns to issue a summary opinion. IF they uphold Peruta, I don't see much chance of SCOTUS taking an appeal from the DOJ.
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:53 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.