Common retailers with “no firearms” signs?

[jkcerda]

1 what sign?
2 store signs are not law, they can only ask you to leave and if they do then do so.
3 vote with your wallet if you don't need product or can get it from somewhere w/o the sign
4 this is kommiefornia, business might simply be covering their butt with a feel good sign
5 smirk and do as you please, been to plenty of places with signs while carrying, stood next to cops outside Disney's city walk since they had metal detectors and cops did not bother me.
6 concealed means concealed
7 I don't even look legal.........

 

[Gawernator]

Oh interesting, my CCW instructor was fudding them. He told us originally they had to have a sign explicitly saying you were allowed to carry a firearm, but that after the court decision you can carry in any store/publicly accessible business UNLESS they have a sign saying no firearms allowed.

So essentially I’m legally allowed to carry in Whole Foods or other businesses with an “no guns” sign unless someone notices me print and asks me to leave?

He's right, it is part of SB2 and it says that in the Sac CCW fact sheet they give you. In the past the signs didn't mean anything legally but under SB2 they make it illegal to carry where the owner puts a no gun sign (irony, we know). However with multiple entrances in some buildings and how small some of the signs are I think you could probably have some legal defense... who knows. Realistically if you carry concealed unless they have metal detectors nobody will ever know.

 

[Gawernator]

What sign?

Rhetorical question.

Funny you say that because I did go into a store with one of those no gun signs but didn't see it until I left because it was like 4 inches tall at the very bottom corner of the door...

 

[1911-CV]

He's right, it is part of SB2 and it says that in the Sac CCW fact sheet they give you. In the past the signs didn't mean anything legally but under SB2 they make it illegal to carry where the owner puts a no gun sign (irony, we know). However with multiple entrances in some buildings and how small some of the signs are I think you could probably have some legal defense... who knows. Realistically if you carry concealed unless they have metal detectors nobody will ever know.

Private businesses and signage are part of SB 2 and you can go online and read the statute, but it is part that has been enjoined by the 9th Circuit, at least for now, meaning it is not currently enforceable. The 9th has gone through the CA list of 'prohibited places', allowing some to be in force and blocking others, at least for now. The "Wolford" case that has been argued before the US Supreme Court (awaiting decision) will almost certainly change the set of allowed/prohibited places.

This reference appears to be accurate as of today: SB 2 Reference

 

[Dvrjon]

Check with your issuing agency. Sac county says if there is a sign you cannot carry.

Is that something they can add in themselves? I thought they just have power over the application process, what guns/mods to allow, screening procedures, etc. If the sensitive places are outlined in legislation do they really have the power to alter that? I’m just asking hypothetically, I’m not about to be the test case.

Anyone an attorney or well versed enough in this stuff to opine on whether or not an IA has the authority to restrict carry in a business that has a “no firearms” sign posted? I understand they have pretty broad authority to regulate how they issue the permits but can they actually add a category of sensitive/restricted places when those restrictions are already enshrined in the legislation?

Again, I’m not going to test it, but just curious.

Yes it is. When I had a permit in sac county they also restricted parks and that was in 2018 and pre sb2.

Please see: CA PEN 26200(b)

26200. [...]​

(b) In addition to the restrictions and conditions listed in subdivision (a), a license issued pursuant to this chapter may also include any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the licensing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which a licensee may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.

So, yes, the IA can further restrict the license. This was put in Penal Code well before SB 2 passed.

And, while we're here, at any time, you can only carry 2 of your licensed firearms under the protections of the CCW statutes. That's not IA discretion...its an artifact of SB 2:

(d) A licensee authorized to carry a firearm pursuant to this chapter shall not carry more than two firearms under the licensee’s control at one time.

 

[2muchsoysauce4allthisrice]

Costco is technically a no firearms please business. So, every time I walk by the front door I look for signs but there are none. However, I found out online that when signing for membership most folks don’t catch the part that says; “ Costco policy prohibits firearms and other weapons to be brought into the warehouse, except in the case of authorized law-enforcement officers.” I know I missed it; didn’t realize until later.

Maybe when they originally created these terms they were thinking of open carry making others uncomfortable if they are unarmed themselves.

Well guess what, I think concealed makes a very pleasant shopping experience for their customers and other members; because they don’t know unless someone is excessively printing. Plus, are they not technically supposed to at least put up a sign?

Are guns & personal firearms allowed in Costco Warehouses?

Welcome to the Costco Customer Service page. Explore our many helpful self-service options and learn more about popular topics.

customerservice.costco.com

“ Costco Wholesale is a membership-only warehouse club. It isn’t open to the general public. As such, it restricts membership to qualified individuals who agree to our membership conditions. We have the right, and the obligation to our members, to enact and enforce our membership rules. By obtaining a Costco membership card, our members agree to comply with the Membership Rules and the Privileges and Conditions of membership. The Member Service Employees at the exit doors are also obliged to follow these rules. At Costco, we don’t believe it’s necessary to bring firearms into our warehouses, except in the case of authorized law enforcement officers. For the protection of all our members and employees, we feel this is a reasonable and prudent precaution to ensure a pleasant shopping experience and safe workplace. Our policy is meant to protect our members and employees in all warehouses around the world. This isn’t a new policy, and we don’t customize this policy for each city/county/state/country where we do business. Our primary goal at Costco Wholesale is to keep our members happy. If you believe that our policy restricting members from bringing firearms into our warehouses is unfair or excessively burdensome, or you cannot agree to abide by this policy, Costco will promptly refund your annual membership fee upon request. Thank you for your understanding.”

 

[1911-CV]

Costco is technically a no firearms please business. So, every time I walk by the front door I look for signs but there are none. However, I found out online that when signing for membership most folks don’t catch the part that says; “ Costco policy prohibits firearms and other weapons to be brought into the warehouse, except in the case of authorized law-enforcement officers.” I know I missed it; didn’t realize until later.

Maybe when they originally created these terms they were thinking of open carry making others uncomfortable if they are unarmed themselves.

Well guess what, I think concealed makes a very pleasant shopping experience for their customers and other members; because they don’t know unless someone is excessively printing. Plus, are they not technically supposed to at least put up a sign?

Are guns & personal firearms allowed in Costco Warehouses?

Welcome to the Costco Customer Service page. Explore our many helpful self-service options and learn more about popular topics.

customerservice.costco.com

“ Costco Wholesale is a membership-only warehouse club. It isn’t open to the general public. As such, it restricts membership to qualified individuals who agree to our membership conditions. We have the right, and the obligation to our members, to enact and enforce our membership rules. By obtaining a Costco membership card, our members agree to comply with the Membership Rules and the Privileges and Conditions of membership. The Member Service Employees at the exit doors are also obliged to follow these rules. At Costco, we don’t believe it’s necessary to bring firearms into our warehouses, except in the case of authorized law enforcement officers. For the protection of all our members and employees, we feel this is a reasonable and prudent precaution to ensure a pleasant shopping experience and safe workplace. Our policy is meant to protect our members and employees in all warehouses around the world. This isn’t a new policy, and we don’t customize this policy for each city/county/state/country where we do business. Our primary goal at Costco Wholesale is to keep our members happy. If you believe that our policy restricting members from bringing firearms into our warehouses is unfair or excessively burdensome, or you cannot agree to abide by this policy, Costco will promptly refund your annual membership fee upon request. Thank you for your understanding.”

You've agreed to the terms as a condition of membership. Do you care if they revoke your membership?

 

[Wolkenflieger]

If you lose your CostCo membership, DoorDash will still shop there for you.

 

[Gawernator]

Private businesses and signage are part of SB 2 and you can go online and read the statute, but it is part that has been enjoined by the 9th Circuit, at least for now, meaning it is not currently enforceable. The 9th has gone through the CA list of 'prohibited places', allowing some to be in force and blocking others, at least for now. The "Wolford" case that has been argued before the US Supreme Court (awaiting decision) will almost certainly change the set of allowed/prohibited places.

This reference appears to be accurate as of today: SB 2 Reference

Sorry no you’re conflating two different types of signs. That is talking about the vampire law where they have to put guns allowed signs. We were talking about no firearms allowed signs which is the complete opposite.

They are enforceable just call the sheriff and ask.

 

[Gawernator]

Costco is technically a no firearms please business. So, every time I walk by the front door I look for signs but there are none. However, I found out online that when signing for membership most folks don’t catch the part that says; “ Costco policy prohibits firearms and other weapons to be brought into the warehouse, except in the case of authorized law-enforcement officers.” I know I missed it; didn’t realize until later.

Maybe when they originally created these terms they were thinking of open carry making others uncomfortable if they are unarmed themselves.

Well guess what, I think concealed makes a very pleasant shopping experience for their customers and other members; because they don’t know unless someone is excessively printing. Plus, are they not technically supposed to at least put up a sign?

Are guns & personal firearms allowed in Costco Warehouses?

Welcome to the Costco Customer Service page. Explore our many helpful self-service options and learn more about popular topics.

customerservice.costco.com

“ Costco Wholesale is a membership-only warehouse club. It isn’t open to the general public. As such, it restricts membership to qualified individuals who agree to our membership conditions. We have the right, and the obligation to our members, to enact and enforce our membership rules. By obtaining a Costco membership card, our members agree to comply with the Membership Rules and the Privileges and Conditions of membership. The Member Service Employees at the exit doors are also obliged to follow these rules. At Costco, we don’t believe it’s necessary to bring firearms into our warehouses, except in the case of authorized law enforcement officers. For the protection of all our members and employees, we feel this is a reasonable and prudent precaution to ensure a pleasant shopping experience and safe workplace. Our policy is meant to protect our members and employees in all warehouses around the world. This isn’t a new policy, and we don’t customize this policy for each city/county/state/country where we do business. Our primary goal at Costco Wholesale is to keep our members happy. If you believe that our policy restricting members from bringing firearms into our warehouses is unfair or excessively burdensome, or you cannot agree to abide by this policy, Costco will promptly refund your annual membership fee upon request. Thank you for your understanding.”

Even excessively printing people don’t know, or at least don’t care. I had a skin tight polo once that was nearly outlining the gun and nobody in Costco cared. lol.
People are too oblivious

 

[1911-CV]

Sorry no you’re conflating two different types of signs. That is talking about the vampire law where they have to put guns allowed signs. We were talking about no firearms allowed signs which is the complete opposite.

They are enforceable just call the sheriff and ask.

The 'no gun' signs are meaningless in California except for perhaps in the few jurisdictions where the Issuing Agency includes them in their additional conditions for issuance of a CCW. Please cite any code section to the contrary.

 

[Dvrjon]

He's right, it is part of SB2 and it says that in the Sac CCW fact sheet they give you. In the past the signs didn't mean anything legally but under SB2 they make it illegal to carry where the owner puts a no gun sign (irony, we know).

Cite your statute or re-read the Fact Sheet. Nothing in SB 2 makes it illegal to carry in a business which has displayed a "no guns" sign.

Generally, businesses can post "no guns" (they can also post "no shirt, no shoes, no service"), but that doesn't make it illegal. You will not be arrested for carrying on those premises. If you are asked to leave, and you don't, the owner or management can call the police and they can arrest you for trespassing.

If your IA has a local rule prohibiting carry on "no guns" posted property, once caught and reported to the IA, they can declare your permit void at the point of infraction - - that means as soon as stepping over the threshold you have violated the Terms and Conditions of the license. At that time, you can be arrested for unlicensed concealed carry and unlicensed loaded carry.

But SB 2 does not prohibit concealed carry simply because a store owner has posted the property.

However with multiple entrances in some buildings and how small some of the signs are I think you could probably have some legal defense... who knows. Realistically if you carry concealed unless they have metal detectors nobody will ever know.

This flies in the face of your premise that carry in these areas is illegal. Size of sign is not the issue. Under your rubric, if it's tagged , it's tagged and illegal.
The only place SB 2 talked about size of signs was in the (now) stayed Vampire nonsense of posting the allowance of guns.

 

[couragewolf]

obligatory:

 

[weaverftw]

If your IA has a local rule prohibiting carry on "no guns" posted property, once caught and reported to the IA, they can declare your permit void at the point of infraction - - that means as soon as stepping over the threshold you have violated the Terms and Conditions of the license. At that time, you can be arrested for unlicensed concealed carry and unlicensed loaded carry.

According to Matt Cubeiro’s response to my question during his AMA, this is not accurate. His opinion is that you still had a valid CCW at the time, however the IA can revoke it due to your breaking the restrictions. But you cannot be charged with unlawful carry without a permit (although he caveated that it’s possible someone could face such a charge due to an overzealous DA)

 

[treelogger]

According to Matt Cubeiro’s response to my question during his AMA, this is not accurate. His opinion is that you still had a valid CCW at the time, however the IA can revoke it due to your breaking the restrictions. But you cannot be charged with unlawful carry without a permit (although he caveated that it’s possible someone could face such a charge due to an overzealous DA)

That is Mr. Cubeiro's opinion. And while I respect his considerable experience in matters of gun law, he is not my attorney. Several other people (including bar members) have held the opposite opinion, that a permit that has conditions included becomes facially invalid if the conditions are violated. We have to remember that Mr. Cubeiro is also partly paid by the CRPA, and as such part of his job is to give hope to gun people. I'm waiting for a precedent-setting case to give that argument a strong foundation.

Let me give you a (crazy and laughable) example. I have here in my hand a piece of plastic that says "State of California, Driver License", and my name and picture. It has conditions printed in the back, for example GVWR < 26000 lbs. I drive past a "do not enter sign" and the wrong way into a one-way street. Then I tell the cop: You can't write me a ticket, look here, I'm licensed to drive a car, and my Honda is not over 26000 pounds. This license says nothing about which way to go down the street.

Technically, the answer the cop (or the DA if it comes to a criminal trial) should give is the following: the ticket is not for driving without a license, and not based on the legal theory that the license becomes (momentarily or permanently) invalid when violating signs. The ticket is for violating a VC section that quite explicitly says "one does not just drive into Mordor little one way streets". But what is also clear: Any license is not valid for using it outside its restrictions, whether that is explicitly punishable by law, or implicit in the issuance of the license. If I get a building permit to replace my water heater, I can't use it to build the Taj Mahal next to my house.

One thing that makes this discussion complex is that revocation of a license is an administrative act, and such it has procedural requirements, such as due process, the ability to respond and rebut, hearings, and all that. Which may or may not mean that a CCW can not instantaneously become invalid. Making that argument would require digging deep into con law and admin law, and I don't want to find myself in that position.

 

[Hydroflask]

This is both the reality and the practical effect of these signs:

View attachment 172650

I try to avoid places that try to “prohibit” firearms from predators and other criminals (who, by definition, don’t obey laws anyway). They’re more dangerous for everybody, whether you’re carrying or not. It’s no coincidence that almost all mass shootings take place in “gun free zones.” Predators attack where they’re less likely to be quickly stopped.

Someone needs to make these stickers so people/2A activists can post them up when they encounter these signs. Similar to the 'I did that!' stickers people were putting up at gas stations in 2021-2023.

 

[2muchsoysauce4allthisrice]

You've agreed to the terms as a condition of membership. Do you care if they revoke your membership?

That’s true.

 

[Dvrjon]

According to Matt Cubeiro’s response to my question during his AMA, this is not accurate. His opinion is that you still had a valid CCW at the time, however the IA can revoke it due to your breaking the restrictions. But you cannot be charged with unlawful carry without a permit (although he caveated that it’s possible someone could face such a charge due to an overzealous DA)

In advance, my apologies for the length. There is much to unpack, and the references and facts and stuff, lengthen the piece.

First, let's do away with the notion of the "overzealous DA". DA's are elected and retained based on success. That means winning cases. They don't take on unsubstantiated actions just because they are overzealous. They are extremely cautious and Mr. Cubiero knows this. So, the trope of the "Boogey-man" DA on a rampage against gun owners needs to die. There are a-holes out there, but they have to make sure their records reflect their abilities in a good way.

///////////////

Regarding Mr. Cubiero's insights into the issue at hand: His comment that "you cannot be charged", followed with, "someone could face a charge", appears to be disingenuous. If it cannot happen, how could it happen to someone? Reading that again, I guess he's saying it can't happen unless it does. Nice. (I'm sure there will be some legalese repost claiming a difference betweeen, "facing a charge" and "being charged". But that argument is, as you'll see, inapt to this discussion.)
///////////////////
For purposes of this discussion let's agree that the controls and rigor exercised over CCWs in this state have become extremely more stringent in the past decade. SB 2 is the shining gem which supports this contention in that it incorporated and enhanced the prohibitions contained in the previous licensing application to include prohibiting being even close to alcohol while carrying.

Now, let's go back to October 2013, when Damon Gardner, an Assistant District Attorney from Mendocino County, came to Sacramento. As an ADA, Mr. Gardner was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Briefly, while in Sacramento, he spent a long evening drinking. At around mid-night, Gardner got into an altercation with two individuals, was being bested in a fight and drew his CCW weapon and shot one of the individuals. According to the detective’s report, Gardner and his girlfriend had been drinking since 5:30 p.m.,...Gardner’s blood-alcohol level at the time law enforcement officers tested him registered 0.079, well after the altercation.

Mike Geniella, a spokesman for the the Mendocino County District Attorney's Office {issuing authority for the CCW}, told KCRA 3 that Gardner had been knocked to the ground and claimed the shooting was in self-defense.

Geniella said Gardner carried a concealed weapons permit, but said that permit would have been invalidated because, he said, Gardner had been drinking alcohol at a bar prior to the incident.

Remember, this was a decade before SB 2 placed the current conditions on no alcohol into statute; they were present in the application. Also, the Mendocino DA was not the prosecutor in this case. It was in Sacramento and fell to the Sacramento DA. Since the permit was invalid if Gardner was under the influence of alcohol or drugs (according to his IA, above), Gardner was subsequently arrested on charges of unlicensed carry of a concealed weapon and carrying a loaded weapon in public. (So, he initially “faced charges", and then he was "charged").

Prosecutors dismissed one count on Gardner of carrying a concealed weapon in public. Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Grippi said Friday the shooting appeared to be in self-defense. “We felt there was sufficient evidence we couldn’t overcome self-defense,” Grippi said in an interview. (So much for that "over-zealous" DA).

Gardner pled guilty to one charge of carrying a concealed weapon, got 30 days on the Sheriff's work crew and 3 years probation. He also got fired. His girl friend who also worked for the Mendocino DA office was also fired.

The bottom line is that, although this was a Superior Court case settled by plea and doesn't set a universal precedent, it is a real-life story of caution. Especially since the current black-letter law goes to such extremes to make the case for invalidation of licenses at the moment of commission.

e.g.:

26200.​

(a) While carrying a firearm as authorized by a license issued pursuant to this chapter, a licensee shall not do any of the following:

If you do these things, then you are not carrying a firearm as authorized.

26230.​

(a) A person granted a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, or 26170 shall not carry a firearm on or into any of the following:

Again, if a person CCWs a firearm into any of the identified areas, they are not a person granted a license to carry.

Nothing there says, "May result in the revocation or suspension of your license," as in past times. Now it says if you are authorized or licensed to carry you shall not do these things. The easy corollary to that is, if you do any of these things, you are no longer a person who is licensed or authorized to carry.

It's also important to note that all of the egregious provisions of SB 2 are completely incorporated into the application which each of us signs for a CCW. That means no one has a defense of, "I didn't know that."
Just my take on the issue and Mr. Gardner (still an attorney) might just be in agreement.

 

[Gawernator]

Cite your statute or re-read the Fact Sheet. Nothing in SB 2 makes it illegal to carry in a business which has displayed a "no guns" sign.

Generally, businesses can post "no guns" (they can also post "no shirt, no shoes, no service"), but that doesn't make it illegal. You will not be arrested for carrying on those premises. If you are asked to leave, and you don't, the owner or management can call the police and they can arrest you for trespassing.

If your IA has a local rule prohibiting carry on "no guns" posted property, once caught and reported to the IA, they can declare your permit void at the point of infraction - - that means as soon as stepping over the threshold you have violated the Terms and Conditions of the license. At that time, you can be arrested for unlicensed concealed carry and unlicensed loaded carry.

But SB 2 does not prohibit concealed carry simply because a store owner has posted the property.

This flies in the face of your premise that carry in these areas is illegal. Size of sign is not the issue. Under your rubric, if it's tagged , it's tagged and illegal.
The only place SB 2 talked about size of signs was in the (now) stayed Vampire nonsense of posting the allowance of guns.

I'm going off the info sheet provided by Sac County Sheriff when they issued my CCW post SB2. They are the ones that would arrest us however chatGPT says:

So if they have a sign, they can trespass you and make you leave however it's not a crime to CCW in that business?

--

Yes, for an ordinary private business open to the public, that is basically the current situation.

Because Penal Code § 26230(a)(26), the SB2 provision that would have made private commercial property off-limits by default unless the owner posted permission, is still enjoined, simply carrying into a normal business is not, by itself, the standalone SB2 offense that provision tried to create.

But a business owner can still forbid guns on their property and can still order you to leave. If they post a “No Firearms” sign or otherwise give notice and you refuse to leave, the problem becomes ordinary property-rights / trespass law, not the enjoined SB2 default-ban rule. The Ninth Circuit specifically noted that property owners still retain the right to exclude armed entrants even though subsection (26) is blocked.

So the clean answer is:

Carrying in despite a sign at an ordinary business is not currently the separate SB2 “you entered a forbidden place” crime under the enjoined private-property subsection.
Refusing to leave after notice can still get you jammed up for trespass or related issues.


Just goes to show you law enforcement often times don't even understand the law.


Seems like they can also revoke your permit?
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
CCW Policies & Procedures
Revised 01/01/2026
Conditions on Approved Permits:
• No firearm is permitted to be carried unless qualification documentation is on file with this Office
and the weapon is listed on the CCW Permit.
• Obey all laws.
• Permit holders MUST report to the Sacramento Sheriff’s Office within 10 days of any arrest of the
permit holder, or any contact with law enforcement or incident involving any firearm and provide
full details of the incident. Please submit an email to ccw@sacsheriff.com and provide full details of
the incident or contact, including the date/time of occurrence, if you disclosed to the officer your
status as a CCW permit holder & that you were or were not conceal carrying your firearm at the
time of contact, and whether you pointed it or displayed it at anyone, or whether anyone pointed a
firearm at you.
• You must change your home address with DMV within 10 days of the day you move per California
Vehicle Code Section 14600(a) and with the CCW Unit within 10 days per Penal Code Section
26210.
• Permit holder shall have the original issued CCW permit in their possession when carrying a
concealed firearm.
Violation of any of the above conditions may result in the revocation of your CCW Permit.
Restrictions Applicable to All Sacramento Sheriff’s Office Permit Holders:
 Permit will be invalid if violated; list is not all-inclusive (Penal Code Section 26230(a))
• Not valid if consuming alcohol. Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol (and related parking areas).
• No permitted weapon is allowed where weapons are prohibited by law.
(Examples: Airports, schools and other prohibited locations)
• No permitted weapon is allowed at locations where a sign is posted prohibiting weapons.
• CCW Permit shall NOT be copied or altered in any manner or form.
• Other restrictions, conditions and laws as outlined in the CCW Application, BOF Form 4012.
• The Sheriff may impose additional restrictions.
• During any law enforcement contact, you are required to disclose your status as a CCW permit
holder and you must disclose whether or not you are carrying a weapon on your person or
otherwise present.
Failure by the CCW Permit Holder to adhere to these restrictions will result in the revocation of
the CCW Permit.

https://permitium-downloads.s3.amazonaws.com/CCW-BUREAU-POLICIES-AND-PROCEDURES.pdf

 

[weaverftw]

I'm going off the info sheet provided by Sac County Sheriff when they issued my CCW post SB2. They are the ones that would arrest us however chatGPT says:

So if they have a sign, they can trespass you and make you leave however it's not a crime to CCW in that business?

--

Yes, for an ordinary private business open to the public, that is basically the current situation.

Because Penal Code § 26230(a)(26), the SB2 provision that would have made private commercial property off-limits by default unless the owner posted permission, is still enjoined, simply carrying into a normal business is not, by itself, the standalone SB2 offense that provision tried to create.

But a business owner can still forbid guns on their property and can still order you to leave. If they post a “No Firearms” sign or otherwise give notice and you refuse to leave, the problem becomes ordinary property-rights / trespass law, not the enjoined SB2 default-ban rule. The Ninth Circuit specifically noted that property owners still retain the right to exclude armed entrants even though subsection (26) is blocked.

So the clean answer is:

Carrying in despite a sign at an ordinary business is not currently the separate SB2 “you entered a forbidden place” crime under the enjoined private-property subsection.
Refusing to leave after notice can still get you jammed up for trespass or related issues.


Just goes to show you law enforcement often times don't even understand the law.


Seems like they can also revoke your permit?
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
CCW Policies & Procedures
Revised 01/01/2026
Conditions on Approved Permits:
• No firearm is permitted to be carried unless qualification documentation is on file with this Office
and the weapon is listed on the CCW Permit.
• Obey all laws.
• Permit holders MUST report to the Sacramento Sheriff’s Office within 10 days of any arrest of the
permit holder, or any contact with law enforcement or incident involving any firearm and provide
full details of the incident. Please submit an email to ccw@sacsheriff.com and provide full details of
the incident or contact, including the date/time of occurrence, if you disclosed to the officer your
status as a CCW permit holder & that you were or were not conceal carrying your firearm at the
time of contact, and whether you pointed it or displayed it at anyone, or whether anyone pointed a
firearm at you.
• You must change your home address with DMV within 10 days of the day you move per California
Vehicle Code Section 14600(a) and with the CCW Unit within 10 days per Penal Code Section
26210.
• Permit holder shall have the original issued CCW permit in their possession when carrying a
concealed firearm.
Violation of any of the above conditions may result in the revocation of your CCW Permit.
Restrictions Applicable to All Sacramento Sheriff’s Office Permit Holders:
 Permit will be invalid if violated; list is not all-inclusive (Penal Code Section 26230(a))
• Not valid if consuming alcohol. Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol (and related parking areas).
• No permitted weapon is allowed where weapons are prohibited by law.
(Examples: Airports, schools and other prohibited locations)
• No permitted weapon is allowed at locations where a sign is posted prohibiting weapons.
• CCW Permit shall NOT be copied or altered in any manner or form.
• Other restrictions, conditions and laws as outlined in the CCW Application, BOF Form 4012.
• The Sheriff may impose additional restrictions.
• During any law enforcement contact, you are required to disclose your status as a CCW permit
holder and you must disclose whether or not you are carrying a weapon on your person or
otherwise present.
Failure by the CCW Permit Holder to adhere to these restrictions will result in the revocation of
the CCW Permit.

https://permitium-downloads.s3.amazonaws.com/CCW-BUREAU-POLICIES-AND-PROCEDURES.pdf

They’re two separate issues. Yes, it’s not unlawful statewide to carry in a business if they have a “no firearms” sign (normal trespassing laws apply). BUT IAs have authority to impose other restrictions on the permits, and Sac County Sheriff says you can’t carry in such a store. So they can revoke your permit if you do, AND the question of whether you could also be charged with carrying without a permit in this situation is a gray area and one I’m not willing to be a test case on.