About to get my permit, Where can I NOT carry?

[treelogger]

My county gave me a list with my permit and other instructions.

And note that if you violate the instructions, your permit is not valid. So if the permit says "do not carry within 1/2 mile of a purple flying elephant", and you miss dumbo overhead, you are committing the crime of unpermitted concealed carry, even though you have a (temporarily useless) piece of paper in your wallet. Would this be enforced as harshly as it sounds? Time will tell.

Cue the age-old discussion on, “What is, ‘a place having a primary purpose’…..”

Ultimately, that is a question of fact, which is decided by the trier of fact, usually a jury. The currently popular rule of thumb is: an establishment that derives over half of its revenue from the sale of alcohol. Again, whether the DA wants to be in front of a jury with that question is to be seen, and depends on the rest of the case.

 

[Glock270]

Im even more confused now lol

 

[Joker67]

Good , then donate to CRPA, GOA and FPC to have this thrown out.

 

[tomrkba]

The list is fairly exhaustive, but at least some places are temporarily open.

There are only two sensitive places per the Constitution and text, history, and tradition: 1) Legislative building where the legislature deliberates bills, and 2) courthouses. EVERYTHING else is open for the expression of the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, we're stupid and are allowing the courts to place restrictions on our right.

 

[Makoman]

And note that if you violate the instructions, your permit is not valid. So if the permit says "do not carry within 1/2 mile of a purple flying elephant", and you miss dumbo overhead, you are committing the crime of unpermitted concealed carry, even though you have a (temporarily useless) piece of paper in your wallet. Would this be enforced as harshly as it sounds? Time will tell.


Ultimately, that is a question of fact, which is decided by the trier of fact, usually a jury. The currently popular rule of thumb is: an establishment that derives over half of its revenue from the sale of alcohol. Again, whether the DA wants to be in front of a jury with that question is to be seen, and depends on the rest of the case.

I recently renewed my CCW and asked the issuing officer this very question. She specifically said if it's bar, primary purpose is serving alcohol, so no go. If it's a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol, primary purpose is serving food so you're OK as long as you're not drinking. The question is, is all law enforcement on the same page regarding this? Has this been explained to them the way she stated it to me? Do we know of anyone that's gotten their CCW revoked for carrying in a restaurant that happens to also serve alcohol and has had to fight it in court? That's probably, unfortuntely, the only way we will ever know for sure.

I wish SCOTUS would weigh in on all of this once and for all.

 

[Striker62]

The language on a "place having a primary purpose" is misleading and is contradicted by USCCA and californiacarry.org


>> This should be the law of the land, but it is not confirmed by USCCA or californiacarry.org <<<<
The CA. penal code reads where "alcohol is served for the primary purpose". It appears a restaurant is okay, whose primary purpose is food. However two primary sources say no>>>

USCCA (Insurance I carry) - Can you carry a concealed firearm in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol in California?
No, as of January 1st, 2024.


Restricted Areas for firearms in California
No guns zones in effect are: Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol
https://www.californiacarry.org/restricted-areas.html

 

[Makoman]

The language on a "place having a primary purpose" is misleading and is contradicted by USCCA and californiacarry.org


>> This should be the law of the land, but it is not confirmed by USCCA or californiacarry.org <<<<
The CA. penal code reads where "alcohol is served for the primary purpose". It appears a restaurant is okay, whose primary purpose is food. However two primary sources say no>>>

USCCA (Insurance I carry) - Can you carry a concealed firearm in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol in California?
No, as of January 1st, 2024.


Restricted Areas for firearms in California
No guns zones in effect are: Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol
https://www.californiacarry.org/restricted-areas.html

I don't know that I would really consider those as primary sources as they are both third parties. An insurance company, and California carry I believe is just a gun rights group, no? If you scroll down to the bottom of their page regarding SB2 they have fine print that reads..."All codes are from the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. Codes may have omissions and abridgments made for the sake of brevity. All emphasis has been added, except certain terms leading definition statutes or regulations may be italicized in the original..."

I think this is why everyone is confused as hell.

 

[Striker62]

100% agree. It is very concerning that USCCA as a concealed carry insurance company is providing misinformation. These are the folks you call when you're involved in a defensive encounter.

 

[Dvrjon]

TL;DR: Bars and restaurants serving intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises are off limits under the sensitive places code.

The rest of the story:

This has been a relatively confusing case for discussion….Here’s 84 pages of Decision to while away your lives. May was combined with the Hawaii case, stays were placed; injunctions set and lifted, blah blah blah. In the end, CRPA reported:

The latest ruling in May v. Bonta is something of a split decision, with some key victories achieved and some work left to do. This fight is most definitely not over, and we need your urgent support to keep pushing forward!!

Here’s where we won back your right to carry:
Hospitals
Churches
Medical facilities
Public transit
Gatherings that require a permit
Parking areas attached to these places
The “Vampire Rule”

Here’s where we came up short on today’s ruling (and what we’ll keep pushing on!):
Bars and restaurants serving alcohol
Playgrounds
Parks, State Parks
Casinos
Stadiums and Arenas
Libraries
Zoos
Museums
Parking areas

This was outlined in Post #7 when the ruling came down, (but apparently needed more focus as we moved along).

Let’s stop for a moment and read the SB 2 text (now codified law) uourselves.

CA PEN 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:
(1) Consume an alcoholic beverage or controlled substance as described in Sections 11053 to 11058, inclusive, of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption.

That section codified the Conditions and Restrictions carried on the Application for CCW, (Page 10).They have always been there, but SB 2 made sure they were made a matter of law.

Scroll down to section 26230(a)(9) and you will find:

CA PEN 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.

That’s part of the much-loved “sensitive spaces” prohibitions. And, just to make sure everybody is locked in on prohibitions, this is included on Page 14 of the application which you sign acknowledging these Penal Code prohibitions. (Page 17 of the Application).

So, under 26200, an applicant acknowledges the long-standing application prohibition that they can’t, “(b)e in a place having a primary purpose…”, (Read = bars) and under 26230, the applicant acknowledges the new prohibition on sensitive spaces that they can’t carry, “where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises”. (Read = bars and/or restaurants).

If caught, you might plead ambiguity, but they are both in force, so you’re gonna get one or the other (I would guess that Section 26230 would prevail because it was written after section 26200 - they knew 26200 existed and still felt the need for 26230).

At any rate, bars and restaurants serving booze on premises are off limits under the sensitive places code.

 

[lamduhh]

You could go to calguns.net and check out the discussion about the SB2 lawsuit.

this site never works for me. unless you have a special link for us to use



show me a screen shot of it working or i call bs. at this point i would only go back so i can grab a screenshot of my itrader and my profile as a member since early 2000's

 

[Striker62]

TL;DR: Bars and restaurants serving intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises are off limits under the sensitive places code.

The rest of the story:

This has been a relatively confusing case for discussion….Here’s 84 pages of Decision to while away your lives. May was combined with the Hawaii case, stays were placed; injunctions set and lifted, blah blah blah. In the end, CRPA reported:

This was outlined in Post #7 when the ruling came down, (but apparently needed more focus as we moved along).

Let’s stop for a moment and read the SB 2 text (now codified law) uourselves.

That section codified the Conditions and Restrictions carried on the Application for CCW, (Page 10).They have always been there, but SB 2 made sure they were made a matter of law.

Scroll down to section 26230(a)(9) and you will find:

That’s part of the much-loved “sensitive spaces” prohibitions. And, just to make sure everybody is locked in on prohibitions, this is included on Page 14 of the application which you sign acknowledging these Penal Code prohibitions. (Page 17 of the Application).

So, under 26200, an applicant acknowledges the long-standing application prohibition that they can’t, “(b)e in a place having a primary purpose…”, (Read = bars) and under 26230, the applicant acknowledges the new prohibition on sensitive spaces that they can’t carry, “where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises”. (Read = bars and/or restaurants).

If caught, you might plead ambiguity, but they are both in force, so you’re gonna get one or the other (I would guess that Section 26230 would prevail because it was written after section 26200 - they knew 26200 existed and still felt the need for 26230).

At any rate, bars and restaurants serving booze on premises are off limits under the sensitive places code.

Thank you for this perfect clarification

 

[Makoman]

TL;DR: Bars and restaurants serving intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises are off limits under the sensitive places code.

The rest of the story:

This has been a relatively confusing case for discussion….Here’s 84 pages of Decision to while away your lives. May was combined with the Hawaii case, stays were placed; injunctions set and lifted, blah blah blah. In the end, CRPA reported:

This was outlined in Post #7 when the ruling came down, (but apparently needed more focus as we moved along).

Let’s stop for a moment and read the SB 2 text (now codified law) uourselves.

That section codified the Conditions and Restrictions carried on the Application for CCW, (Page 10).They have always been there, but SB 2 made sure they were made a matter of law.

Scroll down to section 26230(a)(9) and you will find:

That’s part of the much-loved “sensitive spaces” prohibitions. And, just to make sure everybody is locked in on prohibitions, this is included on Page 14 of the application which you sign acknowledging these Penal Code prohibitions. (Page 17 of the Application).

So, under 26200, an applicant acknowledges the long-standing application prohibition that they can’t, “(b)e in a place having a primary purpose…”, (Read = bars) and under 26230, the applicant acknowledges the new prohibition on sensitive spaces that they can’t carry, “where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises”. (Read = bars and/or restaurants).

If caught, you might plead ambiguity, but they are both in force, so you’re gonna get one or the other (I would guess that Section 26230 would prevail because it was written after section 26200 - they knew 26200 existed and still felt the need for 26230).

At any rate, bars and restaurants serving booze on premises are off limits under the sensitive places code.

The sad part is that if LASD gave me incorrect info, they are likely giving others incorrect info. Thanks for posting this along with the penal code numbers/sections.

 

[Striker62]

The sad part is that if LASD gave me incorrect info, they are likely giving others incorrect info. Thanks for posting this along with the penal code numbers/sections.

Exactly! these laws are so confusing and misinterpreted.

 

[cobian1984]

Probably shorter to list the places you CAN carry at this point

 

[Dvrjon]

The sad part is that if LASD gave me incorrect info, they are likely giving others incorrect info. Thanks for posting this along with the penal code numbers/sections.

Exactly! these laws are so confusing and misinterpreted.

Probably shorter to list the places you CAN carry at this point

Since this is Do-Do, here are some "Do's" to Do:

1. Do expect LEO staff, including IAs, to not be walking encyclopedia of these laws. They aren’t consultants, and they don’t study the codes. They are usually reliant on what senior officials tell them, and the more senior those officials are, the less granular is their knowledge.
2. Do remember our personal responsibility to read and understand what we sign. Frankly, the other side hopes we look at the form, shrug and sign. This also includes the ATF 4473.
3. Do take the time to read the application (linked in my post). It’s important to know what you’ve agreed to.
4. Do resist the impulse to lower your vigilance simply because there’s a bunch of boilerplate in the document…in fact, the enormous content of a document like the application should set off alarms.
5. Do understand, the Legislature did not pass a concealed carry law to support "shall issue". SB 2 is designed to prohibit concealed carry. So far, it's been incredibly effective.

 

[Dvrjon]

Probably shorter to list the places you CAN carry at this point

Read post #7.

 

[jben_]

this site never works for me. unless you have a special link for us to use

View attachment 38672

show me a screen shot of it working or i call bs. at this point i would only go back so i can grab a screenshot of my itrader and my profile as a member since early 2000's

Like this?

 

[lamduhh]

Like this?

yes just like that. so does it normally take 2 days for the server to come back online? how long does it stay up before going back down?

 

[jben_]

yes just like that. so does it normally take 2 days for the server to come back online? how long does it stay up before going back down?

If you're referring to the 2 days lag in responding to you, no. I don't spend much time on this site. Didn't see you call me out. Not enough new or interesting posts here.

I am on Calguns daily. Way more traffic there. It is definitely down at times, but if you try again a little later it's working fine. Certainly annoying and I hold out hope it will someday get fixed. But to say Calguns never works is patently false.

 

[rds95991]

I just renewed my permit and there is a change in one area I am aware of: Anywhere that serves alcohol. Prior I believe it required that the primary business was the sale of alcohol. So now, Chili's, Applebee's, etc. are now out.