CCW Frustration with expensive and nearly useless CCW permit

[Joker67]

The CRPA is actively fighting this. If you haven’t contributed to them , but have a CCW, you need to support them. They have a plan in place. You can donate money, you can look up a local chapter and donate time.

If you are unhappy with SB2 but don’t contribute to the fight, it doesn’t advance the cause. You can donate with a note : this is specifically to fight SB2.

AB 1333 is also coming back and we all need to fight it ( duty to retreat).

 

[DJD100]

So is this now "state parks", or all "parks" (i.e. city parks and county parks without current restrictions etc)?

Plus a million on the CRPA, join and donate now if Ya'll haven't already!

 

[Dvrjon]

So is this now "state parks", or all "parks" (i.e. city parks and county parks without current restrictions etc)?

Plus a million on the CRPA, join and donate now if Ya'll haven't already!

All parks.

National Parks are a curiosity because they are federal, but they run on the premise that you can CCW if licensed by, and under the conditions of, the state in which the park resides.

 

[Baldy333]

The bottom six bullets with bold location font are enjoined from enforcement until the appeal is settled.

The one of those bottom six that bothers me most is the one that says you can only carry in a store ("private property open to the public") if the store posts a sign saying it's okay to carry. Nobody's going to post such a sign. It should be the other way around, you can carry unless they post a sign saying it's not allowed.

 

[Baldy333]

All parks.

National Parks are a curiosity because they are federal, but they run on the premise that you can CCW if licensed by, and under the conditions of, the state in which the park resides.

This is what I find from a google search of whether my ccw permit is valid in the regional parks...

In general, a California Concealed Carry Weapons License (CCWL) is not valid in East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) parks, as they are considered "parks" and are subject to restrictions.

 

[kdub1290]

The one of those bottom six that bothers me most is the one that says you can only carry in a store ("private property open to the public") if the store posts a sign saying it's okay to carry. Nobody's going to post such a sign. It should be the other way around, you can carry unless they post a sign saying it's not allowed.

Yes, that’s true. Luckily, that portion isn’t being enforced currently. Nowhere besides gun stores would post such a sign.

 

[Dvrjon]

The one of those bottom six that bothers me most is the one that says you can only carry in a store ("private property open to the public") if the store posts a sign saying it's okay to carry. Nobody's going to post such a sign. It should be the other way around, you can carry unless they post a sign saying it's not allowed.

On the posted PDF, the six at the bottom are still enjoined and cannot be enforced. Remember, all of these things are included within the body of SB 2. They were challenged in the Courts, and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that some of the items are not unconstitutional. Those are the ones at the top of the notice...they can be enforced.
The issue you are addressing is the provision in the law which would have required private property to post that CCW was allowed (colloquially called the "Vampire Rule", as Vampires have to be invited in). The Court found that to be unconstitutional and unenforceable.The current status is (in a different format):

The following places are permissible to carry concealed with a CCW:

• Hospitals
• Churches
• Medical facilities
• Public transit
• Gatherings that require a permit
• “Private-Property Default Rule” – meaning private business owners are not required to post signs specifically allowing CCWs in their business
• Parking areas connected to or in control of the above

The following places are prohibited from carrying concealed with a CCW:

• Bars and restaurants serving alcohol
• Playgrounds
• Parks, State Parks
• Casinos
• Stadiums and Arenas
• Libraries
• Zoos
• Museums
• Parking areas connected to or in control of the above

 

[Dvrjon]

This is what I find from a google search of whether my ccw permit is valid in the regional parks...

In general, a California Concealed Carry Weapons License (CCWL) is not valid in East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) parks, as they are considered "parks" and are subject to restrictions.

The enforceable provisions against carry are imposed upon "Parks", which must be read as "local parks", because the citation goes on to reference real property of the (State) Department of Recreation. However, the State statute doesnʻt directly cover federal (National) parks.

- Parks, athletic areas, and athletic facilities (and adjacent streets and sidewalks);
- Most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife

Hereʻs the Original Notice with the Court Decision appended to it. Itʻs a little more reader-friendly than the previous PDF image.

 

[sramirez68]

i would get your permit and renew. You never know when it will be impossible to get. Also, we need numbers to be significant! The parks and places that serve alcohol is a big one. My wife and I like to head to downtown Chico for dinner, but there is issues there and I do not like being able to carry to and in the restaurant.

You can carry at an establishment that serves alcohol as long as it’s not the main source of revenue. Like a brewery or a winery etc. you can carry at a Applebees or an establishment that’s both food and drink. DNBs would be questionable.

 

[Baldy333]

You can carry at an establishment that serves alcohol as long as it’s not the main source of revenue. Like a brewery or a winery etc. you can carry at a Applebees or an establishment that’s both food and drink. DNBs would be questionable.

I'm not an expert, and I don't want to pretend to know much on this, but according to USCCA (link in bold): USCCA California Page

CARRY IN BARS/RESTAURANTS THAT SERVE ALCOHOL? Can you carry a concealed firearm in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol in California?

No, as of January 1st, 2024.

And again, as a CCW permit holder, I'm frustrated with all the places we can't carry.

 

[Striker62]

You can carry at an establishment that serves alcohol as long as it’s not the main source of revenue. Like a brewery or a winery etc. you can carry at a Applebees or an establishment that’s both food and drink. DNBs would be questionable.

Re-read entirety of post 15 & 27, Locations that serve alcohol are no-go

 

[Dvrjon]

The confusion comes from two separate sections of the Code from SB2:

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:[…]
(2) Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption.

This was carried over from the CCW Application in Section 5, Conditions and Restrictions (Page 10). Since this was on the previous app, the bill author sought to codify all of the conditions itemized on the application to give them the force of law.

But, when SB 2 was enacted it also contained a separate list of prohibited “sensitive spaces” which included:

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:[…]
(9) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a vendor or an establishment where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises.

This language wasn’t enjoined by the court.

Since the “primary purpose” clause is on the app, it is very easy to stop reading the code and accept that result. However, the “sensitive spaces” section enhances the prohibition to encompass anywhere alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises. That covers Applebys and anywhere else that serves food and offers alcohol.

 

[21SF 2.0]

Keep voting democrat

 

[SDDAVE56]

Keep voting democrat

I wonder how many Democrats have CCW Permits / Firearms, but wonder why their 2A rights are disappearing??????

 

[21SF 2.0]

You would be surprised how many democrats own guns

 

[westsidearms]

I came here just to remind everyone that concealed means concealed. And I am not posting a sign in my shop and I am sure as hell never going to care that you CONCEALED carry in there.

 

[Markbsae]

My renewal is due and I’m on the fence about whether to bother or not.

This is exactly the purpose of this legislation and why it is important to persevere.

 

[21SF 2.0]

I think people who are on the fence don’t take it seriously, and likely don’t carry 24/7

 

[Baldy333]

I think people who are on the fence don’t take it seriously, and likely don’t carry 24/7

I have a buddy who applied, but then discovered the CCW is going to cost him in the neighborhood of $1000, including $400 for a psych eval, 2-day class, testing, application fees. Then he sees all the places it's not legal for him to carry and his answer is "why bother?"

 

[5ForFighting]

Not everyone lives in fear 24/7, and most people have lives which take them places where carrying is illegal. You’re then forced to unholster and put your weapon away, increasing the risk of someone calling the cops to report that “there’s a man with a gun”, as well as opening up the possibility of it being stolen when you’re away from the vehicle.

Just one example: having to park down the street from their kids’ school to pick them up is not an option for some because of the age of their kids.

When you balance the risk of getting caught carrying where you’re not permitted, and the real life costs of that professionally and personally, versus the likelihood of actually needing to ever draw to protect yourself or others from death or grave bodily injury, something that even the vast majority of cops don’t ever do in their entire careers, you would have to be an idiot to not at least question if the effort and exposure of the CCW is worth it in California.