Maybe some rational city-county lawmakers could make it mandatory for all business license holders in their jurisdictions to post that notice as a condition of business license renewal.
Not a day goes by that I'm not thankful I got the hell out of that benighted state 15 years ago. For the sakes of those of you still there and trying to stay sane, I hope it reverses course one of these days.
Posts: 15234 | Location: North Carolina | Registered: October 15, 2007
Seems like a solid guy. Not sure he would get my vote based off one topic, however it’s great to see anyone from California supporting CCW in any way.
What an asinine law to have to post “we allow ccw”. I wonder if/what the sign size requirements are?
quote:
Originally posted by sigmonkey: I'd fly to Turks and Caicos with live ammo falling out of my pockets before getting within spitting distance of NJ with a firearm.
My dad lives in Placer county, it’s definitely a “red” area, in this “blue” state. They were one of several counties in CA that issued CCWs quite liberally before the Bruen decision. They also didn’t give much of a F when it came to governor nuisance’s covid mandates. Sheriff Woo’s department, and the police departments in that county, don’t play the bullshit PC games either, like you see in big city/leftist areas of CA.
Posts: 495 | Location: California | Registered: July 27, 2002
His support of CCW doesn't surprise me. I have a cousin that retired from that department a few years ago. During all those years that he worked there, he told stories about the department and his fellow deputies. It seemed that they all felt this way.
quote:
Originally posted by joel9507: Not a day goes by that I'm not thankful I got the hell out of that benighted state 15 years ago.
I hear ya! I got out 26 years ago and have never looked back.
This is a timely thread. As a Placer County CCW holder, I got a letter from the sheriff outlining major changes brought on by SB2. In general, they all suck and won't bring about any decrease in gang banger crime. Here are the highlights:
1) References are required. It doesn't specify whether this is for new applicants only or if renewals will also be required to provide references.
2) Mental Health Training - a one our class.
3) And the private business signage requirement. This sucks big time. Most business owners are unaware that many of their customers are already carrying. I'm afraid this will cause many of them to default to not posting any signage, therefore making it illegal to carry there. That will suck.
P229
Posts: 3975 | Location: Sacramento, CA | Registered: November 21, 2008
Doesn't the injunction negate #3? It's so confusing the current status.
"Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it." L.Tolstoy "A government is just a body of people, usually, notably, ungoverned." Shepherd Book
Posts: 13215 | Location: In the gilded cage | Registered: December 09, 2007
Originally posted by Twist18: My dad lives in Placer county, it’s definitely a “red” area, in this “blue” state. They were one of several counties in CA that issued CCWs quite liberally before the Bruen decision. They also didn’t give much of a F when it came to governor nuisance’s covid mandates. Sheriff Woo’s department, and the police departments in that county, don’t play the bullshit PC games either, like you see in big city/leftist areas of CA.
Kern County [at least the area around my wife's hometown, Tehachapi] seemed similar. My MIL had a CCW permit for years before they relocated to TX.
And the private business signage requirement. This sucks big time. Most business owners are unaware that many of their customers are already carrying. I'm afraid this will cause many of them to default to not posting any signage, therefore making it illegal to carry there. That will suck.
I'm sure the VCDL (Virginia Citizen's Defense League) would be delighted to provide you with a number of "No Guns = No Money" cards to leave at relevant businesses.
Posts: 6932 | Location: NoVA | Registered: July 22, 2009
Originally posted by nhtagmember: wonder if the Sheriff can just tell his deputies to quietly 'ignore' the 'law'
Of course he can. The big city PDs do it all the time. The large county DAs have decided to ignore large swaths of the penal code. The Placer sheriff can decide to not see things and if he has to see some of those things the Placer DA can choose to not prosecute.
Posts: 4366 | Location: Peoples Republic of Berkeley | Registered: June 12, 2008
Placer County is generally a good one overall and has remained red for now. There have been a ton of San Francisco Bay Area transplants the past few years and many unfortunately have been bringing their politics with them. Luckily the Trump flags and bumper stickers are still way more prevalent over the other party’s ones.
Posts: 482 | Location: Out West | Registered: January 14, 2014
From the discussion at Calguns, the signage requirement is part blocked by the injunction:
quote:
The ruling affects only these sensitive areas of SB 2. (5) Local government buildings only "as it applies to parking areas and public appurtenant areas adjacent to where legislative, judicial, or other governmental business is conducted",* (7) Hospitals, mental health facilities, nursing homes, medical offices, urgent care facilities, and other places where medical services are customarily provided, (8) Public transportation, (9) Establishments where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises, (10) Public gatherings and special events, (11) Playgrounds and private youth centers, (12) Parks and athletic facilities, (13) Department of Parks and Recreation and Department of Fish and Wildlife property, except hunting areas, (15) Casinos and gambling establishments, (16) Stadiums and arenas, (17) Public libraries, (19) Amusement parks, (20) Zoos and museums, (22) Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, (23) Financial institutions, and (26) Any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator clearly and conspicuously posts a sign indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. *They also seek to enjoin SB2 to the extent it makes any "parking areas" a "sensitive place." (May Mot. at 4; see May Reply at 8 [clarifying that they challenge subsection (a)(5) regarding local government buildings only "as it applies to parking areas and public appurtenant areas adjacent to where legislative, judicial, or other governmental business is conducted"].)
That leaves in place the following: (1) A place prohibited by Section 626.9 (K-12) (2) Preschool or childcare facility (3) Executive or legislative branch of the state government, except as allowed pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 171c. (4) Courts (5) Local government buildings not including parking areas and public appurtenant areas adjacent to where legislative, judicial, or other governmental business is conducted (See 5, Above) (6) Correctional institutions (14) Colleges/Universities. (18) Airport or passenger vessel terminal, as those terms are defined in subdivision (a) of Section 171.5. (Note: 171.5 is significantly enhanced from the previous statute and is subject to exemptions in Section 26230(b), (c), or (e). - - See Below**) (21) Nuclear Energy facility (24) Law enforcement agency. (25) A polling place. (27) Any other place or area prohibited by other provisions of state law. (28) Any other place or area prohibited by federal law. (29) Any other place or area prohibited by local law. **26230:
If I was hearing correctly, they got everything they wanted in the injunction, but some of the things weren’t covered in the injunction because they didn’t have specific plaintiffs to argue every single aspect of SB2.
...Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel, was just a freight train coming your way...
Posts: 2598 | Location: Simi Valley, CA | Registered: September 25, 2007
