Improvement on CA CCW firearms

[X-ffdo]

OK......Let's throw another bomb....since everyone is in the argument mode!
It goes like this, new twist!!!
Why bother with night sights? After the first muzzle blast in the dark, you can't see the "blasted" night sights any more because now you are blinded from the gun blast!!!!
Try it!!!

[sholling]

Originally Posted by Justaguy

What we disagree on is the concept that a government employee is somehow liable for the actions of an individual who has been granted a permit or license. Apply the same logic to any other sort of license, say, a contractors license. You can't sue the State of California for a licensed contractor screwing up. You can sue the contractor but not the State.
Can you give an example where this has happened? I don't believe you can.

If I were at my office, I would be able to cite the specific law or case that proves the point.....

My premise isn't the granting of license creates liability because I don't believe that it does or that it should. It's the action of forbidding the use of a safety device that is in common use and has been shown to reduce the number of potential accidents. For example if she ordered that red lights and sirens never be used during pursuits and could not site anything other than her own policy or prejudices or department tradition as a reason. Sovereign immunity would exempt the legislature from action if they outlawed red lights and sirens but the sheriff creating a policy against using safety devices I'm not so sure. Anyway I will defer to your expertise and if you say there is no way then I'll take you at your word.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by Justaguy

While it might be "my right", it's not something I've ever said and my actions certainly don't support that statement:
2. My J-Frame sports a laser grip.

I know that's true because he bought it from me.

[sholling]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

I know that's true because he bought it from me.

I don't doubt the man's word or yours. I keep them on 2 of my M&Ps and 2 of my 1911s and may add one to my j-frame if I don't sell it. I want every edge I can get in an emergency.

[Gronk Bronson]

Originally Posted by Justaguy

That's quite a bold statement (public agency employee is responsible for actions of a citizen they issued a permit/license to).
Care to back that statement up with some evidence?

I'm not trying to be confrontational but I think you are 100% wrong on this.

+2

I was reading this thread and wanted to ask the question. In Kern Co. section 6 of my application has this weird "hold harmless" clause thing that... and if I'm reading it correctly....if I shoot someone, your can't blame the sheriff for issuing me a permit. ?? Is that only a Kern Co thing or SOP for a CA CCW permit application? I too am not trying to beat up a dead horse, or start trouble, but I'm just curious.

[sholling]

Originally Posted by Gronk Bronson

+2

I was reading this thread and wanted to ask the question. In Kern Co. section 6 of my application has this weird "hold harmless" clause thing that... and if I'm reading it correctly....if I shoot someone, your can't blame the sheriff for issuing me a permit. ?? Is that only a Kern Co thing or SOP for a CA CCW permit application? I too am not trying to beat up a dead horse, or start trouble, but I'm just curious.

The hold harmless is an agreement that you as the applicant cannot sue the sheriff for your own misuse of the permit. That's a completely different animal than what I was saying. My point was completely different. Closer to the Sheriff banning the use of sights on your handgun. If you missed and hit an innocent bystander because the sheriff banned the use of sights would she have any legal liability for putting restrictions on your ability to aim. It's not about you as the permit holder suing her. It's about the innocent bystander suing. I'll leave that to the experts.

[Quietpi]

A "Hold Harmless" clause means that if the S.O. is sued due to your actions, you are indemnifying the S.O. You will cover their expenses.

Not to be taken lightly, it is a common clause in contracts where liability could be an issue.

I know that some departments require a liability insurance policy, and that they be named an "additional insured." The policy is a good idea in any case, and naming another party an "additional insured" usually doesn't cost much more. But YMMV.

[sholling]

Originally Posted by Quietpi

A "Hold Harmless" clause means that if the S.O. is sued due to your actions, you are indemnifying the S.O. You will cover their expenses.

It means that you won't sue the sheriff not that you will pay their legal bills. In other words if you issue me a permit - I agree not to sue you in the event that I shoot myself in the leg while holstering a Glock.

hold harmless clause definition

Provision in an agreement under which one or both parties agree not to hold the other party responsible for any loss, damage, or legal liability. In effect, this clause indemnifies the parties on a unilateral or reciprocal basis (as the case may be). See also indemnity clause.

[Quietpi]

Well, actually, the two are very closely related in the final analysis. We're just using two different law dictionaries.

Black's Law Dictionary: Hold Harmless -- see Indemnity clause.
Indemnity clause: A contractual provision in which one party agrees to answer for any specified or unspecified liability or harm that the other party might incur — Also termed hold-harmless clause.