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
  #241  
Old 02-02-2015, 11:06 AM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,312
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steadyrock View Post
Update regarding Metrolink trains in SoCal. Still no love. Also I noticed last week that DHS and TSA are running baggage searches and dogs at some stations now.

From the Metrolink Customer Service dept, dated 1/30/2015:
" Please know that, with the exception of peace officers wearing a Class “A” uniform, riders are not permitted to carry firearms on Metrolink trains or at train stations. "
Its not illegal, LTC holders are exempt from the prohibition.
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 02-02-2015, 4:34 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 mej16489 View Post
Its not illegal, LTC holders are exempt from the prohibition.

There is an important difference between illegal and prohibited. If you're saying there is a specific exemption [i]in the Metrolink policy[/] for CCW holders, I'd be quite interested to see it as my question to them was very explicit that I had a CCW. If you're just saying that it's not illegal and all they can do is ask me to get off, you're probably right. But you try being stuck in Buena Park at 630 in the morning, 20 miles from work and 30 miles from home with no way to get to either location. I'll pass.
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 02-02-2015, 5:19 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,613
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steadyrock View Post
Update regarding Metrolink trains in SoCal. Still no love. Also I noticed last week that DHS and TSA are running baggage searches and dogs at some stations now.

From the Metrolink Customer Service dept, dated 1/30/2015:
" Please know that, with the exception of peace officers wearing a Class “A” uniform, riders are not permitted to carry firearms on Metrolink trains or at train stations. "
Did metrolink cite CA PC for their regulation?

PC 171.7 looks like the general authority, and (c)(2), as noted above, exempts LTC holders.

Getting them to understand that may be a chore ...
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 02-02-2015, 8:11 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 Librarian View Post
Did metrolink cite CA PC for their regulation?

PC 171.7 looks like the general authority, and (c)(2), as noted above, exempts LTC holders.

Getting them to understand that may be a chore ...
No PC cited, just the general statement as I quoted verbatim. It may be significant that this reply differs from the reply I got last June, which also included armed guards with a guard card. I do get the feeling that the customer service personnel aren't fully educated, and I can't find any policies posted on their website.

So, I appreciate the clarity but does this PC also mean that it would be unlawful for a public transit authority such as Metrolink to have a policy prohibiting CCW?
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 02-02-2015, 8:56 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,613
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steadyrock View Post
No PC cited, just the general statement as I quoted verbatim. It may be significant that this reply differs from the reply I got last June, which also included armed guards with a guard card. I do get the feeling that the customer service personnel aren't fully educated, and I can't find any policies posted on their website.

So, I appreciate the clarity but does this PC also mean that it would be unlawful for a public transit authority such as Metrolink to have a policy prohibiting CCW?
I think it should be possible for them to be prevented from enforcing it. But that runs right up against 'talk to a Real Lawyer'.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 02-08-2015, 1:42 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 755
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

I just learned something. Apparently there was a ruling by a district court in Colorado that modifies the current law governing carry on a USPS parking lot.

As I understand it, and have been teaching it, you cannot carry in a Post Office or on grounds owned by the Post Office to include the parking lot. However, I just discovered this case: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=2006&as_vis=1 Bonidy v. USPS.

Does this mean anyone can park in a USPS parking lot and lock their gun in the car? Or does this just apply to Colorado?

Here's a link to a news article about it: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 02-08-2015, 2:52 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,613
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Bonidy is on appeal to the 10th Circuit. See also http://michellawyers.com/bonidy-v-usps-appeal/ -- oral arguments last October (2014).

I don't think we can yet use it for anything practical in California.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 02-08-2015, 7:31 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 755
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

OK, I was thinking it might be something like that. I will continue as before.
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 03-05-2015, 12:12 AM
lelush lelush is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does a public library count as a government building in relation to government building CCW restrictions?
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 03-05-2015, 12:30 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,613
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lelush View Post
Does a public library count as a government building in relation to government building CCW restrictions?
It can be. 171b (c)
Quote:
(c) As used in this section, “state or local public building” means a building that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) It is a building or part of a building owned or leased by the state or local government, if state or local public employees are regularly present for the purposes of performing their official duties. A state or local public building includes, but is not limited to, a building that contains a courtroom.

(2) It is not a building or facility, or a part thereof, that is referred to in Section 171c, 171d, 626.9, 626.95, or 626.10 of this code, or in Section 18544 of the Elections Code.

(3) It is a building not regularly used, and not intended to be used, by state or local employees as a place of residence.
But there are multi-purpose buildings, and sometimes parts of libraries are used for 171b-type meetings
Quote:

(a) Any person who brings or possesses within any state or local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the public pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of, or Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, the Government Code, any of the following is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison:

(1) Any firearm.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 03-05-2015 at 12:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 03-05-2015, 5:54 AM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 755
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

You quoted 171b (a), but you have to include the whole aspect of the law. It goes on to paragraph b:
Quote:
(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:

(3) A person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant
to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title
4 of Part 6.
So, unless it's a federal library, with a posting saying guns are not allowed, and staffed with federal employees, it's OK to carry there as long as you have a valid CCW (license to carry a concealed firearm).
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 03-05-2015, 8:18 PM
lelush lelush is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Thanks

Thanks for both your replies and assistance, they are actually both useful.

To give more context because the department that issues the license can attach more terms, which while you can't be arrested over it can lead to license revocation the terms I am looking at are here.

http://ocsd.org/gov/sheriff/about/in.../ccw/terms.asp

8.) f) and h)

f) Possession of a firearm at any city, county, state, or federal building where prohibited by law,

h) Possession of a firearm at any other location where firearms are normally prohibited by law,

Note h says "normally prohibited"

It references "prohibited by law" which may make the latter applicable, unless it is trying to nullify the ccw exception.

Maybe I am looking too much into it, but do want to make sure.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 03-05-2015, 9:24 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,613
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
You quoted 171b (a), but you have to include the whole aspect of the law. It goes on to paragraph b:


So, unless it's a federal library, with a posting saying guns are not allowed, and staffed with federal employees, it's OK to carry there as long as you have a valid CCW (license to carry a concealed firearm).
Ah, thanks Rastoff. You're quite right. I must have been more tired last night than I realized.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 03-05-2015, 9:40 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 755
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

lelush,
I'm not a lawyer. The best advice I can give is to read the law yourself.
PC 26150-26255 cover the license to carry.
PC 171b covers carry in a state building. PC 171b(b)(3) is the CCW exemption.

Read these laws and see what you see.
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com

Last edited by Rastoff; 03-15-2015 at 11:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 03-06-2015, 3:23 PM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,312
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
PC 171(b) covers carry in a state building. PC 171(b)(b)(3) is the CCW exemption.
Just a polite correction, that should read as PC 171b and PC 171b(b)(3)

171(b) doesn't exist (Penal Code 171, section b)
Whereas Penal Code 171b does exist.
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 03-06-2015, 3:48 PM
lelush lelush is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yep, you guys were very knowledgable and helpful to give me more information and guide me to legal references. Thanks for your assistance, it was appreciated.

I see those items and it would be clear if the OC Sheriff CCW license terms didn't seem to want to restrict those with terms like "normally prohibited" and such. I doubt even many lawyers would be familiar enough to give a for sure answer....

Maybe another OC CCW holder has an answer to that question, if any of you guys know any active members that can be messaged about it.

I will write to the department and see their answer as well, if I get a clear reply I will post it here to assist others if anyone else ever has the questions and has a permit from the OC Sheriff.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 03-14-2015, 4:20 AM
IRISH50 IRISH50 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just glad we can get them !!!
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 03-15-2015, 11:24 AM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 755
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mej16489 View Post
Just a polite correction, that should read as PC 171b and PC 171b(b)(3)

171(b) doesn't exist (Penal Code 171, section b)
Whereas Penal Code 171b does exist.
Got it. I've corrected my post. Thanks for the lesson. Yes, when it comes to the law, it pays to be specific.
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 04-01-2015, 1:37 PM
KWalkerM KWalkerM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,032
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

can anyone comment on National Forest Offices? I would assume that it is a no-go even with a LTC since it is federal.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 04-01-2015, 1:44 PM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,312
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KWalkerM View Post
can anyone comment on National Forest Offices? I would assume that it is a no-go even with a LTC since it is federal.
I would expect federal employees to be 'regularly present' at a Nation Forest Office. Thus, if all entrance are posted as 'no guns', then carry would be illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 04-28-2015, 2:14 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,762
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

National Forest Rules: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5066182.pdf

and this: http://cucamongawilderness.org/ca-fi...nd-the-forest/
Quote:
#2 - National Forest Details:
•LOC and UOC are legal everywhere except "prohibited areas" (areas where shooting is prohibited)
•LOC, UOC, UCC, and LCC are all legal in one's campsite. (PC 26055, 26383, & 25605)
•Shooting is prohibited within 150 yards of any residence, building, campsite, or developed site ("prohibited areas")
•Shooting is prohibited on or across roads or bodies of water ("prohibited areas")
•Forest administrators have the authority to prohibit shooting in other areas of the NF but must clearly post this information ("prohibited areas")
•LCC is legal for licensed hunters/fishermen, while hunting/fishing, but only where shooting is not prohibited (PC 25640)
•UCC is legal for licensed hunters/fishermen while hunting/fishing and while traveling to/from hunting/fishing expeditions (PC 25640)
•UOC is legal for licensed hunters while hunting and while traveling to/from hunting expeditions (PC 26366)
CA CCW/LTC permit holders may LCC in anywhere in National Forest areas except in federal facilities (buildings with federal employees and no-firearms signs posted)).
U.S.C. 18 Section 930: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
Quote:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
/snip/
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
/snip/
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

Last edited by Dvrjon; 04-28-2015 at 2:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 05-16-2015, 8:39 PM
Bullwhip55 Bullwhip55 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 233
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

What about sporting events, At&t Park. Most likely not needed during the baseball game, but getting to and from is another matter. What does BART have to say about CCW's.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 05-16-2015, 10:04 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,613
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullwhip55 View Post
What about sporting events, At&t Park. Most likely not needed during the baseball game, but getting to and from is another matter. What does BART have to say about CCW's.
BART says nothing. I suppose they have not gotten around to it.

I don't know if the AT&T staff is good at it yet, but they are supposed to be wanding patrons as they enter, and MLB wants the teams to ban firearms and other weapons.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 05-17-2015, 8:51 AM
Bullwhip55 Bullwhip55 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 233
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the help...
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 06-02-2015, 6:00 PM
Larrylee186 Larrylee186 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 341
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

So I just jumped on this page and wanted to ask if CCW holders are allowed to carry in the Ventura Casino. I don't think its Indian reservations. Does anyone know?
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 06-02-2015, 7:54 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 755
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Larrylee186,
The comprehensive list is in the OP. Is that casino listed there?

I should add, just because you can do something doesn't make it a wise decision.
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com

Last edited by Rastoff; 06-02-2015 at 7:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 06-06-2015, 11:44 AM
Larrylee186 Larrylee186 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 341
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Yea good point.
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 06-06-2015, 11:54 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,762
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrylee186 View Post
So I just jumped on this page and wanted to ask if CCW holders are allowed to carry in the Ventura Casino. I don't think its Indian reservations. Does anyone know?
I'm guessing they serve alcohol at the tables.

Probably not the best place to frequent for long hours while carrying under an LTC.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 07-02-2015, 7:41 AM
HRDLEDR HRDLEDR is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 95
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

The list on page one says permit holders are exempt from school zones, however was that recently changed to where we cannot anymore?
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 07-02-2015, 8:11 AM
faris1984's Avatar
faris1984 faris1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,120
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jb7706 View Post
626.9(L) contains the exemption for 12050 license holders. CCW is exempt from Gun Free Zone laws.
exempt from school ground or 1000 feet from the school or both?.
I'm new to CCW and got my license yesterday.
Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 07-02-2015, 10:06 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,762
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRDLEDR View Post
The list on page one says permit holders are exempt from school zones, however was that recently changed to where we cannot anymore?
Quote:
Originally Posted by faris1984 View Post
exempt from school ground or 1000 feet from the school or both?.
I'm new to CCW and got my license yesterday.
Thanks
Current exemption is for GFSZ and school grounds. http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Gu...nes#Exemptions

SB707, currently in Cal Legislature, would remove the school grounds exemption. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1045405

Last edited by Dvrjon; 07-02-2015 at 10:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 07-02-2015, 10:52 AM
KingChiron's Avatar
KingChiron KingChiron is offline
Captain of the Gun Boat
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Rampart
Posts: 652
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

^ beat me to the post
__________________

*Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer. So don't take my advice as counsel.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." -Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 07-02-2015, 4:14 PM
HRDLEDR HRDLEDR is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 95
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Ok. So laws have not changed yet? And if the bill passes then we will only be prohibited from school grounds, not the 1000 feet. Correct?
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 07-02-2015, 5:36 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,613
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRDLEDR View Post
Ok. So laws have not changed yet? And if the bill passes then we will only be prohibited from school grounds, not the 1000 feet. Correct?
Yes.

If the bill passes, should take effect 1 Jan 2016.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 07-02-2015, 6:14 PM
HRDLEDR HRDLEDR is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 95
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Yes.

If the bill passes, should take effect 1 Jan 2016.
Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 07-02-2015, 8:54 PM
Mithrandir13's Avatar
Mithrandir13 Mithrandir13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 827
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Typical Peoples Republik of Californiastan to try and remove the GFSZ exemption for CCW'ers... afterall.. there are sooooo many problems this would solve!!

I hate california... I will leave as soon as I can!
.
.
__________________
The founding fathers did a wonderful thing when they included the second amendment to the constitution...

Yes... and this! http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

Good Guys with Guns HERE
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 07-02-2015, 9:13 PM
Old_Bald_Guy's Avatar
Old_Bald_Guy Old_Bald_Guy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California
Posts: 2,887
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Don't go to Ohio. Their law is pretty similar.
__________________
"Almost every reform movement has a lunatic fringe, but here, the fringe is apparently sane."
― Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 07-03-2015, 5:23 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,762
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir13 View Post
Typical Peoples Republik of Californiastan to try and remove the GFSZ exemption for CCW'ers... afterall.. there are sooooo many problems this would solve!!

I hate california... I will leave as soon as I can!.
They are not trying to remove the Gun Free School Zone exemption. They are trying to remove the exemption which allows CCW carry ON school grounds. The GFSZ would still be exempt for CCW.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 07-03-2015, 6:08 AM
Old_Bald_Guy's Avatar
Old_Bald_Guy Old_Bald_Guy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California
Posts: 2,887
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Don't go to Louisiana either. Entire GFSZ off limits.

I'll list a few more for you, Mithrandir13, when I get the time. Maybe give you a little data to include along with the parroted nicknames for California.
__________________
"Almost every reform movement has a lunatic fringe, but here, the fringe is apparently sane."
― Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 07-07-2015, 8:45 PM
HRDLEDR HRDLEDR is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 95
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

"Courthouse when you are a party to an action pending before the court [PC 171b(b)(2)(B)]
Family Law courts [depending on the presiding judge]"

These are restricted areas to carry. Would I be correct in assuming that I can carry beyond the metal detectors when I have jury duty or need to visit the sheriffs office (it is in the courthouse)?
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 1:43 AM.




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.