On a recent episode of Gun Owners Radio, hosts Michael Schwartz, Alisha Curtin, and Dakota Adelphia dug into a policy out of California’s Contra Costa County that restricts what concealed carriers can actually carry. As Adelphia discovered, the county forbids pistol-mounted red-dot optics, weapon-mounted lights, and lasers for CCW holders.
Schwartz didn’t mince words, calling the rule “ridiculous,” while Curtin framed it as part of a broader wave of county-by-county restrictions that make little sense in 2025. Whether you agree with their tone or not, the policy itself is striking – and worth examining on the merits the trio brought forward.
“Not Up for Debate”: The County’s Answer
Adelphia said the issue first came to her via a former student with a Contra Costa permit who was barred from carrying a pistol with a red dot. Skeptical at first, Adelphia looked up the county’s rules and then phoned the CCW desk at the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office. According to her account, the staffer confirmed the ban but offered no justification beyond, “It’s our policy,” adding that the policy was “not up for debate.” Curtin says the call ended abruptly after she asked for context. That exchange, bureaucratic and opaque, became the spark for a larger on-air discussion.
Out of Step With Police Practice
Adelphia’s bigger point was simple: law enforcement across California is moving toward red-dot optics and frequently runs weapon-mounted lights on duty pistols. Whether you’re a cop or a civilian, a red dot can speed up target acquisition, particularly under stress, and a white light is essential for positive target identification in low light. Schwartz pounced on the inconsistency: if the sheriff’s own deputies are pictured with optics on their guns, why deny the same safety benefits to trained, vetted CCW holders?
A Spreading Trend, Not a One-Off
Curtin noted that Alameda County recently tightened its own CCW accessory rules—no dots, no lights – suggesting this is not just a Contra Costa quirk. Adelphia added that as California counties expand nonresident permitting and approve third-party vendors, more idiosyncratic restrict – ons are surfacing. By comparison, San Diego County now allows red dots and doesn’t cap the number of handguns listed on a permit – progress Schwartz credited to sustained, local advocacy.
The Laundry List: Caps, Calibers, and Barrel Lengths
Adelphia dug deeper into Contra Costa’s fine print: a maximum of two handguns on a permit; no single-action-only pistols (so, no classic 1911s); no derringers; a caliber window limited roughly to .32 through .45; and a permitted barrel length range between about 1.875 and 6 inches. The Sheriff’s Office also inspects listed firearms. Some of these limits may affect a small slice of carriers, but, as the hosts stressed, the blanket ban on red dots, lights, and lasers will touch an ever-growing number of modern carry setups.
The County’s Stated Reasons – and the Rebuttal
Citing reporting by attorney Konstadinos Moros at The Truth About Guns, Schwartz summarized Contra Costa’s rationale: (1) permittees might use inferior accessories that compromise reliability; (2) attachments can complicate a smooth draw without proper training; and (3) attachments make guns harder to conceal. Curtin’s answer was pragmatic: if quality is the concern, publish an approved-equipment list or catch issues during inspection rather than issuing a blanket ban. Schwartz added that if draw technique is the worry, the solution is training standards, not prohibitions. As for concealment, Adelphia countered that many compact carry guns with micro red dots and compact lights conceal just fine with good holsters and clothing choices.
The Practice Gap: Deputies vs. Citizens
Schwartz hammered the fairness angle: if deputies can run red dots and weapon lights, civilians should be allowed to do so after passing training and qualification. Curtin said she even found social media photos of Contra Costa deputies with optics-equipped pistols, underscoring the double standard. The trio argued that the county’s rule privileges government users of modern tech while denying the same safety tools to citizens who face the same uncertainties in dark parking lots and dim hallways.
Performance and Public Safety, Not Fashion
Adelphia made the performance case: in competition and real training environments, dot shooters often outpace iron-sight shooters, especially under stress and for those with aging eyes. In low light – a large share of defensive encounters – a white light is a safety device, not an accessory of convenience, because identifying what (or who) you’re pointing at is non-negotiable ethically and legally. Adelphia even offered, on-air, to donate time to help the sheriff’s team understand proper mounting, zeroing, and co-witnessing – arguing the policy could be modernized without compromising standards.
Accessibility Matters: The .22-Caliber Problem
When Adelphia raised the county’s caliber restrictions, she highlighted a population often ignored by policymakers: older shooters and those with arthritis or reduced hand strength. Many can safely and accurately run a .22 LR or other mild recoiling platforms – but not a 9mm or .38. Curtin acknowledged the common “stopping power” critique but came back to first principles: a gun you can safely control and confidently shoot is better than no gun at all. My take: if we say self-defense is a right rooted in personal safety, rules that exclude physically limited citizens from viable options are ethically suspect and, at a minimum, deserve a hard re-think.
A Provocative On-Air Suggestion – And Real-World Risks
Schwartz floated a controversial tactic: comply just long enough to get your permit, then carry the accessories that help you survive – red dot, light, whatever – day to day, even if the policy forbids it, because “your life is more important.” Curtin tapped the brakes, warning that if you’re ever involved in a defensive incident, carrying “off-policy” could cost you your permit and complicate your legal defense. My view: however sympathetic Schwartz’s point about survival is, staying within local rules is the safer legal position. If the policy is irrational, change it through training proposals, public pressure, and litigation – don’t hand a prosecutor an easy narrative.
How to Push Back Productively
All three hosts encouraged civic pressure: call the CCW desk, ask for the written rationale, and, politely, press for clarity. Curtin mentioned that Sheriff David Livingston says he consults a firearms committee made up of instructor employees. If you know members of that committee, share data on modern optics reliability, dot adoption in law enforcement, and low-light identification standards. Schwartz even challenged the sheriff to a range day – a rhetorical flourish, sure, but the spirit is sound: test assumptions in daylight with timers, targets, and measurable outcomes. If policy follows performance, the policy should evolve.
A Better Path Forward
The Gun Owners Radio team framed Contra Costa’s policy as draconian and outdated. Strip away the rhetoric, and their core asks are reasonable: publish clear standards for acceptable equipment, test and train to those standards, and abandon the blanket bans that deny widely adopted, safety-relevant tools to vetted citizens. If the concern is quality, certify brands or models. If the concern is training, require proof of proficiency. If the concern is concealment, define objective measurements. Policies that start with “no” and end with “because we said so” erode trust – and miss a chance to make carry safer and more competent for everyone.
Not a Complicated Fix
Contra Costa’s accessory bans don’t align with modern best practice, and – per Michael Schwartz, Alisha Curtin, and Dakota Adelphia – they likely reduce public safety by handicapping trained CCW holders. The fix isn’t complicated: bring the rules into line with what police already do, require quality gear, mandate relevant training, and explain the why in writing. If Sheriff Livingston’s office takes up Curtin’s offer to collaborate, Contra Costa could move from a cautionary tale to a model of measured, evidence-driven CCW policy. That would be a win for civil liberties, a win for safety, and frankly, a win for public confidence in how the county regulates responsible gun owners.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.
