CCW Magazine Capacity for CCW

[treelogger]

A) I never described myself as a law-abiding citizen.

It is clear from what you wrote that you are not one.

B) GOOD citizens don’t mindlessly, brainlessly obey every single law that’s passed, just because.

In society, you get to pick which laws you choose to follow. You also get to live with the consequences.

Just because it’s legal, doesn’t in any way make it CONSTITUTIONAL, ...

Our society has a mechanism for deciding what is constitutional or not. And you aren't it, nor am I. The courts are. You are free to have opinions on it, and you even free to voice those opinions, but that doesn't make those laws invalid.

My advice for forum discussions would be to moderate yourself, and be less insulting. Otherwise people will not take you seriously, and write you off as an another anarchist blowhard. And yes, I chose that word carefully.

 

[treelogger]

I will make another (prob. provocative) response here. Cops get exempted from the vast majority of California gun control laws, because their unions support the said laws. Not only active-duty, but also off-duty and retired cops get a break. Any comments?

That meme shows up often, particularly from the right (anti-union) wing of the discussion. I don't think there really is much to this argument. In those states where anti-gun laws pass, they do because anti-gun politicians are in the majority, and unions don't get to vote in state legislatures. While unions often financially support the campaigns of democratic candidates greatly, the payoff for that is typically not in laws that reward union members. What we see quite often (and Sacramento is a prime example) is government jobs for union leadership (that's one of the reason California has some many boards and commissions), and financial rewards for unionized government jobs. If you talk to the rank and file of non-government unions, they will tell you that California is actually not at all pro union. For example, overtime pay in Illinois is much better, and the "division of labor standards enforcement" in California is actually very pro-business and anti worker, unlike east coast states where the equivalent organizations are stacked with union staff.

In my opinion, the underlying reason is quite different. California legislators (and much of the gun control movement) do believe that LEOs are on the good side of society, and their presence helps to keep society running well and crime under control. From that viewpoint, it makes sense to have LEOs (including off duty and retirees) well armed.

Now politically the left wing has a love-hate relationship with LEOs. While they love them to protect little old ladies and kids playing in the park, they hate it when LEOs break up student protests or enforce laws against minorities or immigrants. The politics on the right wing are pretty much a mirror image, perhaps a hate-love relationship: while they are typically anti-government including against law enforcement (see above, where a right-wing user openly espouses breaking laws, which implies he wouldn't like laws to be enforced), they are also very much pro law and order, with "back the blue" and blue line flags.

But no, police unions don't just go shopping at the State Capitol for the laws they like to have. On the contrary: make friends with some state law enforcement (CHP or Park Rangers), and they pretty uniformly despise the legislature for screwing them over.

 

[SomeOne]

That meme shows up often, particularly from the right (anti-union) wing of the discussion. I don't think there really is much to this argument. In those states where anti-gun laws pass, they do because anti-gun politicians are in the majority, and unions don't get to vote in state legislatures. While unions often financially support the campaigns of democratic candidates greatly, the payoff for that is typically not in laws that reward union members. What we see quite often (and Sacramento is a prime example) is government jobs for union leadership (that's one of the reason California has some many boards and commissions), and financial rewards for unionized government jobs. If you talk to the rank and file of non-government unions, they will tell you that California is actually not at all pro union. For example, overtime pay in Illinois is much better, and the "division of labor standards enforcement" in California is actually very pro-business and anti worker, unlike east coast states where the equivalent organizations are stacked with union staff.

In my opinion, the underlying reason is quite different. California legislators (and much of the gun control movement) do believe that LEOs are on the good side of society, and their presence helps to keep society running well and crime under control. From that viewpoint, it makes sense to have LEOs (including off duty and retirees) well armed.

Now politically the left wing has a love-hate relationship with LEOs. While they love them to protect little old ladies and kids playing in the park, they hate it when LEOs break up student protests or enforce laws against minorities or immigrants. The politics on the right wing are pretty much a mirror image, perhaps a hate-love relationship: while they are typically anti-government including against law enforcement (see above, where a right-wing user openly espouses breaking laws, which implies he wouldn't like laws to be enforced), they are also very much pro law and order, with "back the blue" and blue line flags.

But no, police unions don't just go shopping at the State Capitol for the laws they like to have. On the contrary: make friends with some state law enforcement (CHP or Park Rangers), and they pretty uniformly despise the legislature for screwing them over.

I would disagree here. It's well-known the gun control bills slide through the legislative process easily, once those are supported by the police unions. Obviously, the support comes in exchanges of other perks, plus exempt for the active and retired policemen. Very few gun control laws get passed when police unions oppose. Practically, every time a gun control bill faces such an opposition, the police unions flip their stance for more perks and again exempt for the policemen. No wonder, police doesn't get much of respect from 2A community in California.

 

[DrJonesUSA]

It is clear from what you wrote that you are not one.


In society, you get to pick which laws you choose to follow. You also get to live with the consequences.


Our society has a mechanism for deciding what is constitutional or not. And you aren't it, nor am I. The courts are. You are free to have opinions on it, and you even free to voice those opinions, but that doesn't make those laws invalid.

My advice for forum discussions would be to moderate yourself, and be less insulting. Otherwise people will not take you seriously, and write you off as an another anarchist blowhard. And yes, I chose that word carefully.

LOL ok, dad.
If you're going to draw that many conclusions from a couple sentences, you're not nearly as smart as you clearly fancy yourself to be.

 

[M1A Rifleman]

Did the 16 hour CCW course tonight and per the instructor, SB2 has a provision requiring no more than 10 rounds for CCW, so this would be State Law.

This is different than the current allowance to possess and use std mags pending submission of Duncan to SCOTUS. SB2 apparently specifically says nogo to carry for CCW.

 

[Joker67]

There is a stay. After Freedom Week, the Solano County Sheriff said it was fine to carry standard cap mags . Right now, for 90 DAYS , it’s still not illegal while they try to get the case granted cert before SCOTUS.
At my renewal last week , our instructor told us we could carry during the 90 day period. If the Supreme Court doesn’t grant cert , then it’s illegal . Until then , go ahead. I’ve carried one ten and one standard cap since Freedom Week.

 

[M1A Rifleman]

As I understand the issue, std mags have been declared illegal, there is now a 90 day stay on any prosecution, however they are still illegal to possess.

That said, the CCW permit allows that you can carry equipment that is legal.

I had the same interpretation as you stated above, and stated the same to the course instructor when he said you can’t carry std cap mags for CcW. The stay on enforcement does not make them legal to own and use, and for CCW there are specific requirements on legal equipment.

 

[NorCalBusa]

Did the 16 hour CCW course tonight and per the instructor, SB2 has a provision requiring no more than 10 rounds for CCW, so this would be State Law.

This is different than the current allowance to possess and use std mags pending submission of Duncan to SCOTUS. SB2 apparently specifically says nogo to carry for CCW.

Like LEO's, Instructors aren't necessarily expert or current on the law. They could be a really great teacher of how to shoot, or not.

 

[Joker67]

I’m in Solano County. Right after Freedom Week in 2019, we wrote the Sheriff regarding the IA policy on CCW with standard mags. He replied in the affirmative . Since 2019, after that approval from the IA, I’ve carried standard mags since they were acquired legally .

My most recent renewal instructor is former LE who works with the county. This discussion again came up with the Sheriff recently who is fine with the continued use of Freedom Week mags during the 90 day stay.
It may be by county depending on how anti 2A they are like Alameda or Santa Clara.

If the Supreme Court takes the case, which is unlikely, then the stay continues until they hear the case. Cops I’ve talked to aren’t enforcing it with CCW holders. That’s anecdotal conversation with Bay Area cops who do USPSA and what their department policy is. I’ve also met rabidly rule bound cop RO’s who like to tell you everything that is illegal but they are kind of FUDDS.

 

[M1A Rifleman]

I get your points, but like NorCal points out, LEO’s may not be experts either so their approval of std cap use is not a legal standard either since it would be up to the DA that charges.

Another point the instructor made to reinforce his position was that LEO’s use std caps while on duty, but stated when performing security duty on the side they need to use 10 end mags. This seems odd to me since I thought LEO’s were on duty 24-7, so why would they change out guns/mags? I could see an Ouse with using a department issued weapon for other work, and maybe even off duty carry, but I don’t recall LEO’s being forbidden form std cap mags unless they retire.

Wish there was something with more reliable detail to read to get a better answer.