Got My ***** Chewed Out By OCSD On My Renewal

[EM2]

Originally Posted by robert101

"After sitting down this Sargent tells me he's going to cancel and revoke my CCW permit and kick Roger out off the CCW training program. "

Yea, this sounds like a hot head just having a love afar with authority and wanting to be the big man. All he had to say was that it was not allowed by the department.

I'm glad your permit was granted and you could move on.

THIS! for sure.
There was absolutely no reason for him to get emotional.

Did you offer to take him to a safe space so he could calm down?

[EM2]

Originally Posted by OCEquestrian

...
I didnt tell you what you need or dont need, the Sheriffs department does that nicely. I simply offered up a "work around" of what I use as a "trunk gun", the M1 carbine as its a rifle caliber, small, short , light and not requiring a bullet button or fixed 10 rnd magazine.

You forgot, it's fun to shoot and hand loading is very easy.
Love my M1 Carbine from the CMP.
I also keep a small two pouch mag pouch on the stock for 20 rounds at hand.

[OCEquestrian]

Originally Posted by EM2

I also keep a small two pouch mag pouch on the stock for 20 rounds at hand.

Me too... all I have to do is grab it out of the trunk and I have 30 rounds at my disposal without having to grab anything else but the rifle. Again...its the perfect trunk gun...

[WMG]

So are we on to trunk guns now?
I have a sks .... an ar .... an M1 .....and a mosin 44 all designated as truck guns ..... I'm only down to one M1 carbine and don't abuse that but I did have one as a truck/trucnk gun .,..... er , I should say was the wifes as she is a carbine junkie
truck/trunk guns are my favorite category of firearms
and mine lead a hard life

[OCEquestrian]

Originally Posted by WMG

So are we on to trunk guns now?

Why not? It would seem some people are into "quick draw" trunk guns to fend off the weekly rioting mob, hence the AR pistol in the trunk loaded and listed on your CCW. ...

[BrokerB]

Just as likely to use your dirty harry or "race glock" as much as an ar pistol. Which is better to stop a threat...no logical argument can be made which has a much higher percentage of stopping power.

The real deal.is no one here said they want to carry an ar on themselves, let alone their only defensive weapon

Sad to see folks tell others what and how they are able to defend themselves. Then try to ridicule with ...ohhhh fend off weekly mobs..... ya jackash, just like you do with your 1911 right?

[JohnCCW]

OP- You have some big cohones to tell LEO you want a rifle caliber pistol "trunk gun"... that you don't intend to conceal carry... on your CCW permit.

If I was the IA, I would make you retake the class, or cancel your permit with extreme prejudice.

IMHO- Trunk gun (long gun) is too risky as an every day thing with all the new laws. Save for the risky trips only.

[jewie27]

be glad you have a CCW at all. The rest of us up here in LA county can't even get one.

[FIREBALL_BRIAN]

that leo bumped his head.

[OCEquestrian]

Originally Posted by BrokerB

Just as likely to use your dirty harry or "race glock" as much as an ar pistol. Which is better to stop a threat...no logical argument can be made which has a much higher percentage of stopping power.

The real deal.is no one here said they want to carry an ar on themselves, let alone their only defensive weapon

Sad to see folks tell others what and how they are able to defend themselves. Then try to ridicule with ...ohhhh fend off weekly mobs..... ya jackash, just like you do with your 1911 right?

[wagon b0y]

I have an AR pistol on my permit right now.

[Doheny]

Originally Posted by wagon b0y

I have an AR pistol on my permit right now.

But you’re not in OC.

[wagon b0y]

Originally Posted by Doheny

But you’re not in OC.

Correct.

But people were saying they only heard stories of ppl that said they have an AR pistol on permits.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by wagon b0y

Correct.

But people were saying they only heard stories of ppl that said they have an AR pistol on permits.

How do we know this isn't another?

[wagon b0y]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

How do we know this isn't another?

Aero Pistol lower.

Its on the backside of permit because front side is full. No limit on guns.

[ShadyatBest]

Originally Posted by DDscar

Lol cerakote makes handguns unsafe or something? Wow

A bad cerakote job can make a gun unsafe for sure

It's just a clever handle

[Tango-Alpha]

Originally Posted by JohnCCW

OP- You have some big cohones to tell LEO you want a rifle caliber pistol "trunk gun"... that you don't intend to conceal carry... on your CCW permit.

If I was the IA, I would make you retake the class, or cancel your permit with extreme prejudice.

IMHO- Trunk gun (long gun) is too risky as an every day thing with all the new laws. Save for the risky trips only.

OP,

Not to be overly critical of you, and I'm not defending the Sheriff's reaction, but to put it plainly, he was certainly within his authority to cancel your permit, so you really should consider yourself very fortunate that all you got was an ***** chewing for your lack of judgement.

You are a gun owner. You already understand that AR-15's are considered to be evil weapons of mass destruction and the State continues to make every effort possible to ban ownership altogether. Just to emphasize the point, Jan. 1st the new law goes in to effect banning the use of AR's with Bullet Buttons, which was the only legal way to own such a firearm, without registration. Now that configuration will no longer be legal. So in this environment, please explain, what on earth was going through your mind that it seemed perfectly reasonable and necessary to add an AR-15 pistol to your permit? Was the myriad of excellent concealable firearm choices not suitable, that you felt the only possibility you could come up with was an AR Pistol? Your explanation of a trunk gun really doesn't pass the logic test either.

Actions like yours can be a detriment and cast a negative shadow of doubt on reasonable law abiding gun owners in the minds of Sheriff's throughout the state to whom we seek approval for obtaining a CCW. Sound reasoning, excellent judgment and supreme critical thinking skills are mandatory when it comes to carrying a concealed firearm in public. Consider the repudiation of your actions by fellow Gun Owners and the ***** chewing that you received by the Sheriff himself to be a lesson learned which should never be repeated.

[BrokerB]

Ya.... only cops should be able to use rifle rounds for defense.

What a bunch of cowards running around here. A bullet button firearm will still be completely legal to use. A handgun is never an equal replacement for a rifle round. Only superior characteristic is carrying and concealment. How my life/work style are is none of your business. If I sell Cool's and King Kobra to all the Stab and Grab shops in big blue city s holes..who gave you the god power to tell me what to use?

If you dont ask you will never receive.

Oh....its a feeeeeeling because ar is soooo evil.

Tuck your own tail.

[BrokerB]

Ohhh... "reasonable "

There is your talking points... just need "reasoanvel gun control "..right??? Sad

The op never said his only gun would be an ar.. so no, its not his "only reasonable choice". Lord have mercy.

[ladiver]

This is an interesting thread. I don't see anything wrong with what the OP did, nor how it was handled by OCSD.

Based on many of the replies here, there is no reason for more than one gun allowed on the permit.

I have 4 listed on my permit and I carry one. It is the same one every day. Why do I have the others? When I go to the range I don't want to worry about my range bag and ammo sitting on my seat. The laws are pretty stupid, but I will not be the one to be made an example of.

I have a S&W500 that I would put on my permit, but I could not imagine the pain of qualifying. 72 rounds would not be fun...for my hands or wallet.

[rugershooter]

Ok, so I fail to see the problem that so many here have with putting an AR pistol on your permit. If the gun is legal and it is legal to have it on your permit, there shouldn't be a problem with exercising your rights. I was just reading another thread on here about a guy who said he doesn't want to risk catching a felony because he can't keep up the the complicated laws so he wants to get rid of his AR and got so much crap for it because he's bowing to the anti gun agenda and scare tactics. We already know what the antis are going to keep trying to pass more laws, regardless of whether or not people are "poking the bear". What's the point of having a right if you're too scared to exercise it?
Instead of being a total douche, the cop could've calmly explained that it was against their policy. He was just on a power trip. There's absolutely no reason to berate and threaten someone for wanting to do something that is perfectly legal.

[Erion929]

Originally Posted by ladiver

This is an interesting thread. I don't see anything wrong with what the OP did, not how it was handled by OCSD.

Based on many of the replies here, there is no reason for more than one gun allowed on the permit.

I have 4 listed on my permit and I carry one. It is the same one every day. Why do I have the others? When I go to the range I don't want to worry about my range bag and ammo sitting on my seat. The laws are pretty stupid, but I will not be the one to be made an example of.

I have a S&W500 that I would put on my permit, but I could not imagine the pain of qualifying. 72 rounds would not be fun...for my hands or wallet.

I don't think anyone here is really advocating one gun on a CCW license.

As far as your problem, stick a $5 padlock on your bag and call it a day. You are really worried about just driving off with your range handgun(s) forgetfully sitting on the seat?


-

[Tango-Alpha]

Originally Posted by Erion929

I don't think anyone here is really advocating one gun on a CCW license.

As far as your problem, stick a $5 padlock on your bag and call it a day. You are really worried about just driving off with your range handgun(s) forgetfully sitting on the seat?


-

Agreed! Nobody is advocating a one gun per CCW permit policy. The extreme reaction by some to this topic is what I find perplexing, especially amongst a group of individuals who have gone through the process of successfully obtaining a CCW. Very few gun owners are afforded the right to carry in public (CCW). As everyone knows, most people are denied and relatively few permits are issued. I don't agree that our rights should be so severely restricted, but we all understand that is one of the tradeoffs of living in this state vs. TX, AZ, NV, etc, etc...

We're all on the same team here and supporting 2A rights for all Americans. Nobody is making the argument here that you shouldn't be allowed to have an AR Pistol on your permit either. It's a matter of whether it's prudent or not to push the envelope by attempting to add it to your CCW permit, given the anti AR gun history in our state, our very restrictive laws governing the very ownership of such a firearm, let alone being permitted to have it listed on your permit. This is where judgment comes in to play. Just because you may be allowed to do a particular thing, doesn't make it necessarily wise or prudent to do so.

Eg....When I lived in Indiana many years ago, I obtained my carry permit. The permit issued to me had no restrictions on what method of carry (concealed or open carry) or what firearm(s) I could carry. Technically speaking I could have walked around town with a S&W 500 or Desert Eagle .50 on my hip in plain view and I would have been within the law doing so. However, common sense dictated that concealed carry would be more prudent, appropriate and safer. For that reason, I carried a Beretta which was easily concealed underneath a jacket.

The same logic would apply to trying to add an AR Pistol to a CCW permit.
The fact that AR ownership is highly regulated and restrictive in CA and that the OP's Firearms Instructor questioned the matter should have been enough to recognize that the Sheriff was probably going to question the OP's choice of a suitable weapon for CCW. The Sheriff's reaction simply confirmed what should have been obvious from the beginning. The outcome of this situation was both predictable and avoidable. As gun owners, we must choose our battles carefully.

A lesson learned....the hard way.

[ladiver]

Originally Posted by Tango-Alpha

Eg....When I lived in Indiana many years ago, I obtained my carry permit. The permit issued to me had no restrictions on what method of carry (concealed or open carry) or what firearm(s) I could carry. Technically speaking I could have walked around town with a S&W 500 or Desert Eagle .50 on my hip in plain view and I would have been within the law doing so. However, common sense dictated that concealed carry would be more prudent, appropriate and safer. For that reason, I carried a Beretta which was easily concealed underneath a jacket.

I think we are arguing exactly the same point. When you were in Indiana, your permit "allowed" you to do many things that were not prudent and never would be done. I would put an AR pistol on my permit, not because I would carry it, but because it gives me a few extra protections than not having it listed. No way would I carry a S&W500, but if I were camping in bear country, I would probably have it with me. In my pack is still concealed, although the bear spray is much more readily available while on trail.

[Tango-Alpha]

Originally Posted by ladiver

I think we are arguing exactly the same point. When you were in Indiana, your permit "allowed" you to do many things that were not prudent and never would be done. I would put an AR pistol on my permit, not because I would carry it, but because it gives me a few extra protections than not having it listed. No way would I carry a S&W500, but if I were camping in bear country, I would probably have it with me. In my pack is still concealed, although the bear spray is much more readily available while on trail.

I get where you’re coming from and I support the right to be able to use our discretion about time, place, method and firearm of choice as the situation calls for. However, I never would have ever attempted it because how it turned out, is exactly the outcome I would have expected.

Think of it this way...the state of California wants to outright ban the AR-15 in all its various forms. Going a step further, they’d very much like to confiscate them and prosecute law abiding gun owners who possess them. So then, if you have the same understanding, why would you think you’d have a chance of having it added to your CCW permit? This is the same firearm that we cannot legally own after Dec. 31st (without registration) in long gun form, even with a bullet button (fixed magazine).

So taking that same gun, only in pistol form where it’s more concealable in public than a rifle....to me is reason enough for me not to consider adding to a CCW permit. It’s just asking for problems and that’s exactly how it turned out.

That’s all I was really trying to point out.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[downdiver2]

Sergeants was misspelled multiple times by multiple people.

[BrokerB]

I guess me having my 15/33/100 round mags and drums.... I should also just hide them. Even if they are compltly legal for me to use.

Ar15s are not banned, no registration required in certain configurations.

The shaming of folks who abide by the law is repugnant.

[WFO_Racer]

Some of the replies are epic. I have my FN Five Seven on my permit some call that a so called rifle round .

When I renewed my permit I emailed them and asked if my 4” barrel Smith & Wesson 500 revolver could be added. They hemmed and hawed but then it dawned on me that firing that pig to qualify it would kill my hand .

Still may add it unless they change their minds about allowing it.

[billvau]

I got told the same thing in my CCW training (not by the county!) - stock, stock, stock. Even if the county allowed it, that would be the first thing used against me in any kind of court case stemming from an incident. They go after you as evil for modifying your gun to make it easier to kill, kill, kill.

[rugershooter]

Originally Posted by billvau

I got told the same thing in my CCW training (not by the county!) - stock, stock, stock. Even if the county allowed it, that would be the first thing used against me in any kind of court case stemming from an incident. They go after you as evil for modifying your gun to make it easier to kill, kill, kill.

Did he provide any court cases to support this? I keep hearing this from people and it's a common idea to not modify defensive guns, but I rarely, if ever, hear supporting court cases.

[BrokerB]

Rarely? So you have seen/read atleast one xourt case. Go ahead and modify your trigger. If you cant hit your target witha 6lb trigger compared to a 3.5lb trigger i call BS, body dumped with adrenaline. No worries, during civil trial you can just spend an additional 10/20$ grand more on a profesional testimony saying your trigger is what Miculek uses.

Massad Ayoob covered this in documented court cases already. Go read a couple of his defensove use with firearms books.

I put meprolights on my g19s...same as factory Glock sites. Thats as far as I have gone. Well i did soften the glock knuckle area.

[M1NM]

Originally Posted by OCGunFan

..... I explain my reasoning for wanting an AR Pistol on my permit. Having spent 3 days in the middle of the LA Riots, I wanted the AR as a trunk gun

Therefore no permit required. Just keep it in the trunk and drag it out for the next riot.

[rugershooter]

Originally Posted by BrokerB

Rarely? So you have seen/read atleast one xourt case. Go ahead and modify your trigger. If you cant hit your target witha 6lb trigger compared to a 3.5lb trigger i call BS, body dumped with adrenaline. No worries, during civil trial you can just spend an additional 10/20$ grand more on a profesional testimony saying your trigger is what Miculek uses.

Massad Ayoob covered this in documented court cases already. Go read a couple of his defensove use with firearms books.

I put meprolights on my g19s...same as factory Glock sites. Thats as far as I have gone. Well i did soften the glock knuckle area.

I don't have any documented and readily accessible for reference. A 6 lb vs. 3 lb trigger is irrelevant. What matters is if there is a statistically significant risk of those modifications being an issue. To my knowledge, I can't remember hearing of convictions or civil cases based solely or in part on using a modified defensive gun.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by BrokerB

Massad Ayoob covered this in documented court cases already. Go read a couple of his defensove use with firearms books.

Actually, he hasn't.
He talks about it and writes about it, but when called out, he has been unable to provide any actual documentation connected to verifiable real-life situations where it has been an issue.

Even in the case of the AZ cop with the "You're F****d" dust cover on his AR that everyone likes to point to, the judge ruled against it being admitted into evidence.


If the shooter claims that the shooting was an accident, then modifications could be a real issue. If the shooting was an intentional self defense shooting, it is no longer an issue.

I intended to shoot, therefore, the trigger pull weight, night sights, and extended slide release did not make the gun any more likely to discharge or to discharge when I did not intend to.

[MrOrange]

Musings about political correctness don't provide a definitive answer as to why the AR was refused. OCGunFan said the Deputy said it was because it was modified, while grantar2 said it was because it was a rifle-caliber pistol. If it was due to being rifle-caliber, why didn't the Deputy say that instead of saying it was because it was modified? If OCGunFan made the pistol, then ain't he the manufacturer, and therefore how he initially put it together is indeed the OEM, unmodified state?

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

Actually, he hasn't.
He talks about it and writes about it, but when called out, he has been unable to provide any actual documentation connected to verifiable real-life situations where it has been an issue.

Even in the case of the AZ cop with the "You're F****d" dust cover on his AR that everyone likes to point to, the judge ruled against it being admitted into evidence.

If the shooter claims that the shooting was an accident, then modifications could be a real issue. If the shooting was an intentional self defense shooting, it is no longer an issue.

I intended to shoot, therefore, the trigger pull weight, night sights, and extended slide release did not make the gun any more likely to discharge or to discharge when I did not intend to.

That's not the point as far as I'm concerned. Yes you can logically defeat it, but why give the opposition the argument in the first place? Then there's the jury of soccer moms and pajama boys (not to mention the judge) who may listen to a logically successful defense of the mod job but still think it means the defendant was reckless, if not kill-crazy. In response to those that demand a record of mods being a factor, I say please produce the transcribed thought processes of every juror & judge who's ever been on such a case.

Originally Posted by Pentathlete

I am the instructor referred to in this thread and I appreciate how the whole thing was handled by OCSD. Sgt D spent about 1/2 hour with me on the phone and could have not have been more professional. My student told me he spent another 1/2 hour with him! That reflects a guy who cares; NOT a bureaucrat on a power trip -OR- a guy with a closed mind. I wrote Army policy in the Pentagon years ago and "get" what it means to accept "stewardship" for a program with wide implications. I had a common "tongue-in-cheek" evaluation when someone screwed-up under my command. I'd often say: "Good initiative ... Poor judgment." In this case, my decision to go ahead and submit evidence of my student's shooting ability with his AR pistol and let the OCSD decide if he could have it on his permit was respectfully considered and I stand corrected for taking initiative that didn't help the cause of our collective right to bear arms. To the extent this thread is about learning ... let's appreciate what we have here in OC. i know I do.

Where da "like" button at? Thanks for stepping up and posting your take on the situation. I don't think the submission was wrong. When someone on this forum has an idea to expand a legal envelope, it's usually answered with maybe, not for me, but if you want to be the test case, go ahead. Well, here's someone that did step up, and now a big part of the group is saying it was stupid. (And now we know that this instance wasn't a test case.)

Yes, I acknowledge that the OC ain't a rural county, and the politics & which rights are fashionable are different. Back to OCGunFan being a trailblazer for the rest a y'all. You know the old saying: "The pioneers get the arrows."

[rugershooter]

Originally Posted by MrOrange

Musings about political correctness don't provide a definitive answer as to why the AR was refused. OCGunFan said the Deputy said it was because it was modified, while grantar2 said it was because it was a rifle-caliber pistol. If it was due to being rifle-caliber, why didn't the Deputy say that instead of saying it was because it was modified? If OCGunFan made the pistol, then ain't he the manufacturer, and therefore how he initially put it together is indeed the OEM, unmodified state?




That's not the point as far as I'm concerned. Yes you can logically defeat it, but why give the opposition the argument in the first place? Then there's the jury of soccer moms and pajama boys (not to mention the judge) who may listen to a logically successful defense of the mod job but still think it means the defendant was reckless, if not kill-crazy. In response to those that demand a record of mods being a factor, I say please produce the transcribed thought processes of every juror & judge who's ever been on such a case.




Where da "like" button at? Thanks for stepping up and posting your take on the situation. I don't think the submission was wrong. When someone on this forum has an idea to expand a legal envelope, it's usually answered with maybe, not for me, but if you want to be the test case, go ahead. Well, here's someone that did step up, and now a big part of the group is saying it was stupid. (And now we know that this instance wasn't a test case.)

Yes, I acknowledge that the OC ain't a rural county, and the politics & which rights are fashionable are different. Back to OCGunFan being a trailblazer for the rest a y'all. You know the old saying: "The pioneers get the arrows."

My rebuttal to that is questioning where you draw the line. I know I've seen media hype about hollow points as being more lethal. A prosecutor can twist anything in any way he wants. You're using the same type of pistol your local cops do? You're a cop wanna be. Using hollow points? You're using "extra lethal" ammunition so you can cause as much damage as possible. I'm sure there are a lot of other ways a prosecutor can make his case to twist the truth for a stupid jury. The whole reason I don't take the suggestions to not mod a gun too seriously is because there doesn't seem to be a statistically significant risk of that causing any legal problems. I base that on a lack of cited cases and since it seems to be conjecture, I can think of other scenarios that may be just as likely.

[OCEquestrian]

Originally Posted by downdiver2

Sergeants was misspelled multiple times by multiple people.

Let me guess... you were / are a "S-E-R-G-E-A-N-T" or you are a copy editor right?

[Chewy65]

Concealed weapons licenses are supposed to be issued for purposes of defense and with an eye towards ensuring that is qualified to safely use there defensive weapon. Ask yourself if the use of an AR pistol significantly increases the likelihood that rounds will miss or over penetrate the bad guy and strike innocents.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Concealed weapons licenses are supposed to be issued for purposes of defense and with an eye towards ensuring that is qualified to safely use there defensive weapon. Ask yourself if the use of an AR pistol significantly increases the likelihood that rounds will miss or over penetrate the bad guy and strike innocents.

Noooooo, concealed weapon license schemes are designed to make exercising your right to self defense more difficult, and to intimidate the average citizen into not even trying.

We should be able to bear any arms we are able to afford.

I think sometimes that many people have been oppressed for so long as to not understand their loss of Liberty.

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by EM2

Noooooo, concealed weapon license schemes are designed to make exercising your right to self defense more difficult, and to intimidate the average citizen into not even trying.

We should be able to bear any arms we are able to afford.

I think sometimes that many people have been oppressed for so long as to not understand their loss of Liberty.

Historically for CA...

CA may issue CCW system was implemented (1924) in order to ensure only people of the "correct" minority could be able to obtain CCW permits for protection.

Over time (1960-80s), that evolved...
... (generally) in urban areas, to only people of the "correct" social-economic-politcal class could be allowed to obtain CCW permits.
... (generally) in rural areas, to people who could legally own/possess firearms and are determined to be a person of "good moral character" could be allowed to obtain CCW permits.