Ccw carry inside usps post office

[Gawernator]

That’s the spirit! LOL.

It’s okay. Since you won’t be carrying at the post office, I’ll do my best to protect you and yours too if someone decides to go postal while we’re both in line trying to buy stamps.

I was thinking most post offices are pretty small, you're really gonna run away like a coward instead of just shooting the guy? Jeez, I guess at least the men will handle business in the post office lol

 

[riceman]

Jeb52 is not wrong​

I have been trying to quote Jeb52 but having problems. Please make a Caguns book for dummies because I are one. If I haven't said it enough here goes I hate F*****g computers. My era we used pencils and type writers
This is from 10 years ago. Very good info for people with CCWs.

 

[dvoncock]

@dvoncock hey we need your advice with federal land lol

As far as I’m aware, California’s “sensitive paces” statute has never included U.S. Post Offices.

In terms of CCW on federal land, I’m sure. There’s a U.S.C. section that allows CCW outdoors at National Parks, if otherwise permitted by the state where a particular park is located. So, in a constitutional carry state or with a valid CCW, it would be legal. But most local and state parks are “sensitive places” under California’s definition.

 

[Gawernator]

Jeb52 is not wrong​

I have been trying to quote Jeb52 but having problems. Please make a Caguns book for dummies because I are one. If I haven't said it enough here goes I hate F*****g computers. My era we used pencils and type writers
This is from 10 years ago. Very good info for people with CCWs.

This guy is not credible nor persuasive, he clearly has no idea what he's talking about other than not being a hero. 80% FUD video plus severely out of date. Post COVID and defund the police society has swung back much harder on anti crime stances and use of force in the bodycam era. That's why he fails to cite even one case to support his claims, because it's all made up.

You should definitely have CCW insurance just in case. Good luck finding a jury to award a mass shooter's family damages against you, dude sounds like a clown. CCW is much more normalized now and is legal across all of CA post bruen. The only thing he's right on is don't be a hero, focus on self defense. His claims that a DA will prosecute you for lawfully shooting a mass shooter is comical at best, downright retarded at worst, especially in 2026+. Mass shooters are universally hated. I'd like to see all the case law backing up his claims. The idea that if a mass shooter pulls out a gun right in front of you, and you kill the shooter that you will prosecuted and then lose everything in a civil suit is so far fetched.

California law expressly recognizes deadly force in defense of another person. A homicide is justified when the defender reasonably believes another person faces imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury, reasonably believes deadly force is necessary, and uses no more force than reasonably necessary. There is also no duty to retreat when those requirements are met.

If that supposedly happens with any regularity, cite the cases. Name the California CCW holders who clearly stopped active mass shooters, were nevertheless convicted despite satisfying the defense-of-others standard, and then lost everything to the shooter’s family. Otherwise, it is speculation presented as legal expertise.

@dvoncock if I'm wrong let me know

 

[dvoncock]

The closest case of a mass shooter’s family suing a defender is the North Hollywood shootout. The mother of the gunman/robber who bleed out waiting for an ambulance sued the LAPD/City of Los Angeles. Her claim was that officers intentionally let him die by not allowing medics inside the perimeter after the threat was over. The suit didn’t go anywhere.

California indeed recognizes defense of others as self-defense. The only hiccup I can imagine is stepping into an ambiguous situation. For example, imagine you see a guy beating the out of his wife in a parking lot, steep in, then need to use a CCW when the wifebeater turns his attention on you. That could potentially negate your self defense claim because you engaged in a mutual combat. In a true mass shooter scenario, it’s hard to imagine a defender getting jammed up, but stranger things have happened. One example that comes to mind is the citizen who took down an active shooter at a mall from like 50 yards. Dude has mad skills and is a hero. But if he’d missed and hit a bystander, god only knows what would’ve happened to him.

All of that said, I fall on the side of the guy who said he would not engage. My purpose for having a CCW is to defend my family, self, and exercise of constitutional rights, not to be part of Wayne LaPierre civilian constabulary good guys with guns. If TSHF, I have no idea what I personally would do. But my active self protection plan has always been to get my family and self to a place of safety, and then only fight if cornered or given no other option. I’m no John Wick and don’t want to be Charles Bronson.

 

[Gawernator]

The closest case of a mass shooter’s family suing a defender is the North Hollywood shootout. The mother of the gunman/robber who bleed out waiting for an ambulance sued the LAPD/City of Los Angeles. Her claim was that officers intentionally let him die by not allowing medics inside the perimeter after the threat was over. The suit didn’t go anywhere.

California indeed recognizes defense of others as self-defense. The only hiccup I can imagine is stepping into an ambiguous situation. For example, imagine you self a guy beating the out of his wife in a parking lot, steep in, then need to act in self defense when the wifebeater turns his attention on you. That could potentially negate your self defense claim because you were engaged in a mutual combat. In a true mass shooter scenario, it’s hard to imagine a defender getting jammed up, but stranger things have happened. One example that comes to mind is the citizen who took down an active shooter at a mall from 50 yards. Dude had mad skills and is a hero. But if he’d missed and hit a bystander, god only knows what would’ve happened to him.

All of that said, I fall on the side of the guy who said he would not engage. My purpose for having a CCW is to defend my family, self and, exercise of my rights, not to be part of Wayne LaPierre civilian constabulary good guys with guns. If TSHF, I have no idea what I personally would do. But my active self protection plan has always been to get my family and self to a place of safety and only fight if cornered or give no other option. I’m no John Wick and don’t want to be Charles Bronson.

I think people are conflating shooting an active shooter in front of/near you/immediate threat vs chasing down the shooter to be a hero. Those are not the same actions. If the shooter is far away well sucks for those people, they should get a CCW too.

 

[NationMostWanted]

So when does this go live for us? Now?

 

[CadeH]

https://www.ksbw.com/article/man-arrested-for-pajaro-bar-shooting-that-killed-2-acted-in-self-defense-da-says/45977564

"Under the legal doctrine of transferred intent, if a person fires justifiably in self-defense and inadvertently injures or kills an innocent bystander, the law of self-defense applies, and the person does not commit a criminal act. Under this law, the person who initiated the gunfire is responsible for all injuries or deaths that result," the DA's office noted.

That was in Monterey County which is heavily D leaning.

I think people are conflating shooting an active shooter in front of/near you/immediate threat vs chasing down the shooter to be a hero. Those are not the same actions. If the shooter is far away well sucks for those people, they should get a CCW too.

In California its also legal to chase down a mass shooter and be a hero, it just really isn't a good idea since the cops are also chasing down the shooter and their main information they're going off of is going to be "man with gun shooting".

 

[Gawernator]

So when does this go live for us? Now?

Yes the injunction is already in effect, if you are a SAF member.

 

[Gawernator]

https://www.ksbw.com/article/man-arrested-for-pajaro-bar-shooting-that-killed-2-acted-in-self-defense-da-says/45977564

"Under the legal doctrine of transferred intent, if a person fires justifiably in self-defense and inadvertently injures or kills an innocent bystander, the law of self-defense applies, and the person does not commit a criminal act. Under this law, the person who initiated the gunfire is responsible for all injuries or deaths that result," the DA's office noted.

That was in Monterey County which is heavily D leaning.


In California its also legal to chase down a mass shooter and be a hero, it just really isn't a good idea since the cops are also chasing down the shooter and their main information they're going off of is going to be "man with gun shooting".

Rekt for felony carrying in public lol. Such a backwards Democrat society. Least no murder charge.

 

[ekardscribner73]

Yes and yes

 

[CadeH]

Rekt for felony carrying in public lol. Such a backwards Democrat society. Least no murder charge.

Pen 25850 is what he was charged with, my guess is the gun wasn't registered to him since they didn't hook him on felon in possession charges too. Interestingly I do not see a court case for him listed on the Superior Court of Monterey County's case search, so I have no way of actually looking at what he was charged with specifically and what the results of the trial were.

 

[dvoncock]

Rekt for felony carrying in public lol. Such a backwards Democrat society. Least no murder charge.

If we’re being intellectually honest, getting jammed up after hitting three bystanders with an illegally carried pistol world be the result regardless of what political party holds the DA’s office.

 

[Gawernator]

Pen 25850 is what he was charged with, my guess is the gun wasn't registered to him since they didn't hook him on felon in possession charges too. Interestingly I do not see a court case for him listed on the Superior Court of Monterey County's case search, so I have no way of actually looking at what he was charged with specifically and what the results of the trial were.

As a PI man do I love easy to use sites like this with no login or fee lol. Alameda county is one of the worst around here.

Yeah, weird. I even tried right now, I spent $2 for you to do a criminal records search on Delvepoint with his full name and DOB and county and no records turned up. I'm guessing either it was reduced to a misdemeanor and got sealed, or charges were dropped.

 

[Gawernator]

If we’re being intellectually honest, getting jammed up after hitting three bystanders with an illegally carried pistol world would be the result regardless of what political party holds the DA’s office.

He's obviously no winner, but it shouldn't be illegal to carry a handgun for a non felon per the 2A.

Can you find his case number? I already spent $2 on a search and I'm not calling the court clerk lol.

 

[CadeH]

He's obviously no winner, but it shouldn't be illegal to carry a handgun for a non felon per the 2A.

Can you find his case number? I already spent $2 on a search and I'm not calling the court clerk lol.

I found a felony conviction out of Santa Cruz County where he is from, convicted in 2003 for felony possession of a controlled substance. I cannot find a single thing about the loaded weapon charge out of Monterey County so they either dropped the charges or it was sealed after pleaing to a misdemeanor.

 

[Gawernator]

I found a felony conviction out of Santa Cruz County where he is from, convicted in 2003 for felony possession of a controlled substance. I cannot find a single thing about the loaded weapon charge out of Monterey County so they either dropped the charges or it was sealed after pleaing to a misdemeanor.

That is probably not the same guy. There's so many latinos with the same name it gets difficult

 

[CadeH]

That is probably not the same guy. There's so many latinos with the same name it gets difficult

I am not sure, it is the same full name and the Monterey DA press release lists him as being from Watsonville, which is in Santa Cruz County. There are a handful of traffic tickets that list Watsonville and the same full name, but Santa Cruz County doesn't list the DOB of those charged so I cannot match them up. The charges were filed by Highway Patrol without a location listed so that doesn't narrow things down. He was charged with HS11377(A)-F and HS11364-M, so I am guessing meth. He was 47 in 2023 so would have been about 27 in 2003, which if my estranged uncle is anything to go by is prime meth years.

In regards to the same name issue I will say that the only thing related to a Sergio Ramos in Santa Cruz County is a gofundme that says he had an aortic dissection in June and is permanently wheelchair-bound now.

The picture posted by the Police here lines up with the image from the gofundme. I would not be surprised if the charge got dropped after the medical event.

 

[Gawernator]

I am not sure, it is the same full name and the Monterey DA press release lists him as being from Watsonville, which is in Santa Cruz County. There are a handful of traffic tickets that list Watsonville and the same full name, but Santa Cruz County doesn't list the DOB of those charged so I cannot match them up. The charges were filed by Highway Patrol without a location listed so that doesn't narrow things down. He was charged with HS11377(A)-F and HS11364-M, so I am guessing meth. He was 47 in 2023 so would have been about 27 in 2003, which if my estranged uncle is anything to go by is prime meth years.

In regards to the same name issue I will say that the only thing related to a Sergio Ramos in Santa Cruz County is a gofundme that says he had an aortic dissection in June and is permanently wheelchair-bound now.

The picture posted by the Police here lines up with the image from the gofundme. I would not be surprised if the charge got dropped after the medical event.

4 days ago? Wild. But if he was a felon he would have been charged with felon in possession.

 

[CadeH]

4 days ago? Wild. But if he was a felon he would have been charged with felon in possession.

I have no clue in that regards honestly. The Santa Cruz Sentinel also talks about the felony conviction in this article. Pen 25850 (c) (1) lists it as a felony if the person has previously been convicted of a felony. All of the other things listed in Pen 25850 don't really seem applicable:

(c) Carrying a loaded firearm in violation of this section is punishable, as follows:

(1) Where the person previously has been convicted of any felony, or of any crime made punishable by a provision listed in Section 16580, as a felony.

(2) Where the firearm is stolen and the person knew or had reasonable cause to believe that it was stolen, as a felony.

(3) Where the person is an active participant in a criminal street gang, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 186.22, under the California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 186.20) of Title 7 of Part 1), as a felony.

(4) Where the person is not in lawful possession of the firearm, or is within a class of persons prohibited from possessing or acquiring a firearm pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 29900) of Division 9 of this title, or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as a felony.

(5) Where the person has been convicted of a crime against a person or property, or of a narcotics or dangerous drug violation, by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

(6) Where the person is not listed with the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 11106 as the recorded owner of the handgun, by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(7) In all cases other than those specified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, as a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

No felon in possession charge is just weird though. Case No. F05471 if you want to look it up yourself.