Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To be fair to the law, it's the issue of the permit. So if you apply and are permitted to carry in x, travel to y, unknowingly you are breaking the state law. Puts an unreasonable burden on the citizen of knowing where one can and where one can't.
In my state, a building/property can prohibit cc, but it's a state license. The building/property must post very clearly at any and all entrances/exits. That seems reasonable. The California permit authorizing county by county does not.
In California if you have a permit you can carry anywhere in the state beside few places like courthouses. It is just if you live in a county that does not issue you will never get a permit but if you live in a county that does you will. I have a fundamentally different civil right to protect myself outside of my home than another ca citizen 20 miles away in a different county.
Someone from an issuing county can carry right in front of San Francisco city hall legally, it is just the county of San Francisco has issue zero permits in the last decade to the close to 800k people that live in that county.
Sort of. Carry could be banned within a city's limit, but outside an incorporated city but still within a county, one may carry if licensed.
@shootinglife, CA is technically a "may issue" state, but in reality, it is governed county-by-county. I know that as a resident of Los Angeles county, there is a better chance that mankind will solve the poverty and global warming problem before I'll ever be issued a license to carry. But, if I were to live about five miles further north, over the county line into Kern county, I would be issued a license without any problems.
This whole Peruta issue really doesn't affect me because I'm retiring in a few months and am moving out of state. I already have licenses to carry in every state west of the Mississippi, (except for CO and CA), and most of those east of the Mississippi.
Question: does each county now have to disclose at any and all entrances between counties if it is permissible to prevent undo burden on those issues permits?
To be fair to the law, it's the issue of the permit. So if you apply and are permitted to carry in x, travel to y, unknowingly you are breaking the state law. Puts an unreasonable burden on the citizen of knowing where one can and where one can't.
In my state, a building/property can prohibit cc, but it's a state license. The building/property must post very clearly at any and all entrances/exits. That seems reasonable. The California permit authorizing county by county does not.
If a resident of a CA county is issued a license to conceal carry, it is valid statewide, (however, a specific city in the state could prohibit).
Bottom Line, Democrats don't want any regular people to carry guns, period.
Only the authorities of government. You know, the ones who can declare martial law
or launch false-flag terrorism designed to lock us into their matrix.
Oh, and if you own a gun, it has to be a hunting rifle or shotgun under certain specs,
that way, when TSHTF, you can't hurt the SWAT team charging down your door.
If a resident of a CA county is issued a license to conceal carry, it is valid statewide, (however, a specific city in the state could prohibit).
No they can't prohibit where a person with a license could. A private business can and certain secure areas such a courthouses and airports passed security, bus a city cannot ban someone with a permit carrying a gun from entering their city.
1) It wasn't a Federal Judge, it was an eleven judge panel, be nice to get the story straight.
2) WHERE does the 2nd Amendent mention 'concealed carry'?
3) Seems to me this decision leaves it up to the state to decide who can CC and gives the people of the state the power to elect those who believe as they do.
What's the problem?
9th circuit, the most overturned Circuit Court in the US.
I assume you are referring to an incorporated city prohibition. If true, I stand corrected. And, I will defer to you from here on out. You have a pretty good handle on the issue and I've already had my say. Keep up the good work.
1) It wasn't a Federal Judge, it was an eleven judge panel, be nice to get the story straight.
2) WHERE does the 2nd Amendent mention 'concealed carry'?
3) Seems to me this decision leaves it up to the state to decide who can CC and gives the people of the state the power to elect those who believe as they do.
What's the problem?
Cool. Let's leave those pesky constitutional rights up to the states.
If Kansas wants to restrict abortion, leave it up to them.
If Mississippi wants a poll tax on blacks, leave it up to them.
If Arizona wants to arrest illegals and send them back, leave it up to them.
If Massachusetts wants to restrict free speech, leave it up to them.
I like the way you think!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
