National Park carry

[2bikemike]

Originally Posted by Tom98915

+1 on the 2-legged animals

As for the 4-legged ones, I ALLEGEDLY heard some people quote 3-S rule "shoot-shovel, shaddup" and I will leave it at that.

I know someone who lives in the wilds of Michigan who says that about feral cats and such that frequent their lands.

[mark]

lots of feral dogs out here, the unoffical saying from a certain land management group is "smoke em if ya got em"

of course they are meaning out in the unincoprporated areas

[sealbeach]

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

I know someone who lives in the wilds of Michigan who says that about feral cats and such that frequent their lands.

A feral cat can sure eat a lot of gophers, mice and rats, something to think about.

[derringer]

Originally Posted by cj cake

I just spoke with the FCSO Concealed Weapons Permits office. I was told that the current permits do not need to be changed to reflect the policy change. New permits and renewals will not have that restriction printed on the permits.

This is not logical.

Restrictions are listed on permits when the activity would otherwise be legal for CCW. If it is listed, it is not permited. Any responding LEO would take it that way. I suppose the FCSO may simply dismiss the report on the grounds that the law regarding National Park CCW has changed and they are fine with that, but National Park no-carry was never something that had to be listed anyway.

Are these also listed on the Fresno permits?

"This CCW does not authorize the holder to use the licensed concealed weapon in a first degree murder."
"This CCW does not authorize the holder to use the licensed concealed weapon in a second degree murder."
"This CCW does not authorize the holder to use the licensed concealed weapon in a third degree murder."
"This CCW does not authorize the holder to use the licensed concealed weapon to hold up a bank."
"This CCW does not authorize the holder to use the licensed concealed weapon to wave out the window when cut off in traffic."
Etc., etc., etc...

Of course, I'm being facetious, but putting already illegal activities on the permit is ridiculously redundant. I would definitely ask to have the National Park "restriction" taken off.

[Quietpi]

For a host of reasons, "shoot, shovel, shaddup" will not work in a national park. The only thing you'll get for all your shoveling is that you'll be in a deeper hole than you would have been. And, trust me, the hole will be plenty deep before you even get out your shovel.

[Tom98915]

Originally Posted by Quietpi

For a host of reasons, "shoot, shovel, shaddup" will not work in a national park. The only thing you'll get for all your shoveling is that you'll be in a deeper hole than you would have been. And, trust me, the hole will be plenty deep before you even get out your shovel.

HELLO, let me repeat myself - I ALLEGEDLY heard some people quote the 3-S rule.

"ALLEGEDLY" being the key word here, as in take it with a grain of salt. OK?

[Jarhead1978]

Tom,
I wonder how this decision is gonna work in Redwood Nat'l Park up here on the North Coast?? Where we can drive through it on Hwy 101, and while going over Bald Hills Road towards Weitchepec?? I do carry while on those roads transversing through those areas...

Maybe I may have to make a road trip to Yosemite, or Lassen Nat'l Park when the weather improves later this spring! Now what weapon should I carry. That and do I use a IWB, or a shoulder holster?? Decisions, decisions!!

[Tom98915]

Originally Posted by Jarhead1978

Tom,
I wonder how this decision is gonna work in Redwood Nat'l Park up here on the North Coast?? Where we can drive through it on Hwy 101, and while going over Bald Hills Road towards Weitchepec?? I do carry while on those roads transversing through those areas...

Maybe I may have to make a road trip to Yosemite, or Lassen Nat'l Park when the weather improves later this spring! Now what weapon should I carry. That and do I use a IWB, or a shoulder holster?? Decisions, decisions!!

As of Feb 20 we can carry there without being law breakers. From what I know of tribal laws, f you a traveling over tribal land going merely as a way to your destination, you are not breaking laws as long as you are only passing thru. As for possession, the local tribes informed me to "leave it in the car in your lock box" and that is fine.

[mjones]

Originally Posted by derringer

This is not logical.

Restrictions are listed on permits when the activity would otherwise be legal for CCW. If it is listed, it is not permited. Any responding LEO would take it that way. I suppose the FCSO may simply dismiss the report on the grounds that the law regarding National Park CCW has changed and they are fine with that, but National Park no-carry was never something that had to be listed anyway.

Are these also listed on the Fresno permits?

"This CCW does not authorize the holder to use the licensed concealed weapon in a first degree murder."
"This CCW does not authorize the holder to use the licensed concealed weapon in a second degree murder."
"This CCW does not authorize the holder to use the licensed concealed weapon in a third degree murder."
"This CCW does not authorize the holder to use the licensed concealed weapon to hold up a bank."
"This CCW does not authorize the holder to use the licensed concealed weapon to wave out the window when cut off in traffic."
Etc., etc., etc...

Of course, I'm being facetious, but putting already illegal activities on the permit is ridiculously redundant. I would definitely ask to have the National Park "restriction" taken off.

I agree, its wierd. FCSO also list Gun Free School Zones on their permits. I know that if I was still LEO I would interpret that as a if the sheriff herself was standing infront of me and said, "This permit is not valid within 1000' of a K-12 school" although I personally wouldn't pursue the issue depending on the circumstances, but another LEO would certainly be justified in arresting someone.

Break printed restriction = license not valid = no exemption for 12025.

[derringer]

Originally Posted by mjones

I agree, its wierd. FCSO also list Gun Free School Zones on their permits. I know that if I was still LEO I would interpret that as a if the sheriff herself was standing infront of me and said, "This permit is not valid within 1000' of a K-12 school" although I personally wouldn't pursue the issue depending on the circumstances, but another LEO would certainly be justified in arresting someone.

Break printed restriction = license not valid = no exemption for 12025.

You're kidding, right?
You mean to tell me that a Fresno County CCW has to map out each and every K-12 school and stay .189 miles away from all of them throughout a day of shopping, getting gas, going out to eat, driving to a friend's house, etc? Now I know the FCSO has some screws loose!

What about Post Offices? Do they also go out of their way to list them too?!

[mjones]

Originally Posted by derringer

You're kidding, right?
You mean to tell me that a Fresno County CCW has to map out each and every K-12 school and stay .189 miles away from all of them throughout a day of shopping, getting gas, going out to eat, driving to a friend's house, etc? Now I know the FCSO has some screws loose!

What about Post Offices? Do they also go out of their way to list them too?!

3boyzmom is the one who originally mentioned it. I can't remember if she brought forth FCSOs explanation here or at CalGuns.

I seem to remember she inquired about it with FCSO and she was told something that didn't make any legal sense to me. Maybe she will chime in.

[derringer]

Originally Posted by mjones

3boyzmom is the one who originally mentioned it. I can't remember if she brought forth FCSOs explanation here or at CalGuns.

I'd sure like to hear about that one. I don't remember reading it here. I thought she was in Sacramento County.

[mjones]

Originally Posted by derringer

I'd sure like to hear about that one. I don't remember reading it here. I thought she was in Sacramento County.

Bah, I'm sorry - yes, she is sac county - its sac county that has the GFSZ printed restriction.

That's what I get for trying to sneak gun forum time in while up to my eyeballs at work

[cj cake]

The Fresno County permit states:

"TO ANY PEACE OFFICER
Carrying a weapon is not authorized in any National Park, school grounds, commercial airport facility, or when the holder is under the influence of alcohol or medication/drugs. The holder is responsible for exercising good judgment and sound decision making in care, transport, holstering, and/or use of the permitted weapons. If the holder violates any of the above circumstances or is arrested for criminal misconduct, this license is to be seized and returned to the Fresno County Sheriff's Dept."

There are a lot of problems with these restrictions.

1. If I carry a pocket knife in "school ground", I could loose my CCW. "Carrying a weapon is not authorized in any school grounds" "If the holder violates any of the above circumstances or is arrested for criminal misconduct, this license is to be seized and returned to the Fresno County Sheriff's Dept."

2. If I pop two Tylenol, "medication/drugs", and carry a pocket knife, I could loose my CCW. ""Carrying a weapon is not authorized when the holder is under the influence of alcohol or medication/drugs." "If the holder violates any of the above circumstances or is arrested for criminal misconduct, this license is to be seized and returned to the Fresno County Sheriff's Dept."

3. What constitutes good judgment in the care of my weapons? "The holder is responsible for exercising good judgment and sound decision making in care, transport, holstering, and/or use of the permitted weapons. Do I have to clean them once a week?

I asked for clarification on some of these restrictions, like what exactly is "under the influence"? We could assume it is similar to DUI rules, but that may not be the case. I was told that I would have to contact DOJ for this clarification. After speaking with DOJ, I was informed that they could not give legal advice and they could not answer this question.

[derringer]

Originally Posted by cj cake

The Fresno County permit states:

"TO ANY PEACE OFFICER
Carrying a weapon is not authorized in any National Park, school grounds, commercial airport facility, or when the holder is under the influence of alcohol or medication/drugs. The holder is responsible for exercising good judgment and sound decision making in care, transport, holstering, and/or use of the permitted weapons. If the holder violates any of the above circumstances or is arrested for criminal misconduct, this license is to be seized and returned to the Fresno County Sheriff's Dept."

Wow! Nothing about Post Offices

National Park carry is (was) a moot point. Now that it will be legal, the permit will still be saying that the card holder cannot CCW there.

"School grounds" is much, much better than "within 1000' of a school", but still.....why?

Better to have the CCW, even with the redundant and unnecessary restrictions. Had it said "no carry within 1000' of a school", then I could see how having the CCW could really get one into trouble.