An ICE operation spiraled into chaos in Worcester, Massachusetts street after agents detained a woman as she clung to her baby—without showing a warrant.
As far as CCW policy, it’s my understand that cities are very aligned with the state DOJ. I’ve looked at a few policies in the past across cities, and they’re basically cookie-cutter.
As far as issuing, yea, it’s up to your local sherif.
I wasn’t aware of local-specific excise taxes for firearms. The state does have that 11% one though.
Very curious about that renter ban, haven’t heard of that one.
Not trying to be argumentative, just enjoy the nuances of CA gun laws lol
And I agree, on your sentiment. I don’t have any issues with firearm regulation, I just want it applied with common sense. The state of CA’s gun laws feel like they’re a shitty compromise. The guns right’s group fight against the “ban all guns” group, and what’s left is this. Both sides are uncompromising and take little wins here and there. But the environment it creates is weird, and doesn’t flow well. And definitely doesn’t do any favors for law abiding owners.
The official renter ban is a bit of a loophole - a lot of Bay Area counties are taking over old federal properties (Navy and Coast Guard bases, former superfund sites, etc) and turning them into housing. Federal laws prevented having firearms in these places (for obvious reasons, can’t bring a gun to a navy base lol). During the “transition” period where the housing is partially built but not completed, there’s typically a joint ownership with the gun rules carried over from when it was purely federal property. The municipality could get these rules removed, but they really don’t want to. It’s a benefit to them.
But more typically, you’ll see every large landlord in the area ban firearms as a part of the lease agreement, with the tacit encouragement of local governments. So it’s not law, but you still can’t really have one.
Interesting, hadn’t heard about the situation in SF. That’s unfortunate.
And yes… good old SB2. CA had a relatively lax CCW policy, until we became a “shall issue” state. Now there’s all this policy reform.
If the final part of SB2 kicks in, it’ll be pointless to have a CCW. The last part changes private property that’s open to the public from a default permitted carry, to a default not permitted.
So any business that wants to allow lawful CCW would need to clearly place a sign to opt-in. Which isn’t happening in this state lol.
Fortunately that last part is still being “stayed”. But so was the entire bill at one point. So I’m not holding my breath.
I totally acknowledge that we need gun control, but not restrictions. And going after CCW holders? Literally the owners with the highest level of training? Most compliant with the law? Bananas.
But anyway, I see where you’re originally coming from. It is kinda death by a thousand cuts. Slowly eroding away at gun rights. In the worst way… Criminals could care less about what’s legal, hence criminal.
As far as CCW policy, it’s my understand that cities are very aligned with the state DOJ. I’ve looked at a few policies in the past across cities, and they’re basically cookie-cutter.
As far as issuing, yea, it’s up to your local sherif.
I wasn’t aware of local-specific excise taxes for firearms. The state does have that 11% one though.
Very curious about that renter ban, haven’t heard of that one.
Not trying to be argumentative, just enjoy the nuances of CA gun laws lol
And I agree, on your sentiment. I don’t have any issues with firearm regulation, I just want it applied with common sense. The state of CA’s gun laws feel like they’re a shitty compromise. The guns right’s group fight against the “ban all guns” group, and what’s left is this. Both sides are uncompromising and take little wins here and there. But the environment it creates is weird, and doesn’t flow well. And definitely doesn’t do any favors for law abiding owners.
The official renter ban is a bit of a loophole - a lot of Bay Area counties are taking over old federal properties (Navy and Coast Guard bases, former superfund sites, etc) and turning them into housing. Federal laws prevented having firearms in these places (for obvious reasons, can’t bring a gun to a navy base lol). During the “transition” period where the housing is partially built but not completed, there’s typically a joint ownership with the gun rules carried over from when it was purely federal property. The municipality could get these rules removed, but they really don’t want to. It’s a benefit to them.
But more typically, you’ll see every large landlord in the area ban firearms as a part of the lease agreement, with the tacit encouragement of local governments. So it’s not law, but you still can’t really have one.
Edit: plus the ban on all these places: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-02/judges-let-new-california-law-barring-guns-in-many-places-take-effect-challenge-ongoing
It’s illegal to have any firearm (even with a concealed carry license) in almost any public setting.
Interesting, hadn’t heard about the situation in SF. That’s unfortunate.
And yes… good old SB2. CA had a relatively lax CCW policy, until we became a “shall issue” state. Now there’s all this policy reform.
If the final part of SB2 kicks in, it’ll be pointless to have a CCW. The last part changes private property that’s open to the public from a default permitted carry, to a default not permitted.
So any business that wants to allow lawful CCW would need to clearly place a sign to opt-in. Which isn’t happening in this state lol.
Fortunately that last part is still being “stayed”. But so was the entire bill at one point. So I’m not holding my breath.
I totally acknowledge that we need gun control, but not restrictions. And going after CCW holders? Literally the owners with the highest level of training? Most compliant with the law? Bananas.
But anyway, I see where you’re originally coming from. It is kinda death by a thousand cuts. Slowly eroding away at gun rights. In the worst way… Criminals could care less about what’s legal, hence criminal.