| Author | Post |
|---|
SomeGuyInCali
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24th, 2009 11:25 pm |
|
Does anyone know the legality of LOC on private property that is not yours but you are authorized to be there. The owner of the property is not present to be aware of your LOC status.
Here's the scenario:
A Real Estate Appraiser goes into a bad neighborhood to valuate a bank repossessed vacant home. Often times these properties become inhabited by hiding criminals, drug labs or disgruntled homeowners. It goes without saying that these properties can be dangerous for a real estate agent or appraiser. The appraiser is, however, fully authorized to be on the property by virtue of the fact that the lending back has hired said appraiser to valuate the property. The appraiser faces an attacker coming at him/her, draws LOC weapon and shoots attacker.
Since an appraiser has little chance of actually speaking with someone to "authorize" a load gun on the property what are the legalities? I did some research and did not find anything that would it this scenario.
I have a friend who has run into several dangerous situations while valuating REO (Real Estate Owned) properties and came face to face with dangerous people.
Most of the time the attacker in this situation would be armed with a knife. Some might argue that a knife is not enough to constitute use of deadly force with a gun. However, citing the Sergant Dennis Tueller Drill, a knife attacker within 21 feet poses a significant and imminent danger of your life. You must know this prior to being in this situation to be defensible in court, without prior knoweledge you can be tried for murder. You must have a prior knowledge of what is actually deadly force to establish reasonable belief that your life is in danger. Dennis Tueller specified this.
Attached Image (viewed 372 times):
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24th, 2009 11:53 pm |
|
If the individual were forced to defend their life, then they would fall under the 12031 exemption that allows for a loaded firearm if that person reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property.
However, that isn't likely to be when the person carrying the firearm is going to get into trouble.
It's when you are going from your vehicle to the house, when a neighbor call the cops for a MWAG and the cops get there as you are going across the lawn back to your car. The cops then come and find the person with a loaded firearm, instant 12031 violation, loaded firearm in a public place in an incorporated city.
|
mjones
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | SoCal, USA |
| Posts: | 221 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24th, 2009 11:56 pm |
|
SomeGuyInCali wrote: Does anyone know the legality of LOC on private property that is not yours but you are authorized to be there. The owner of the property is not present to be aware of your LOC status.
If you are in a public place in a city or in a prohibited area of a non-city; you need to meet one of the exemptions in PC 12031 in order to carry loaded.
I've bolded what look to be the most relevant items to this scenario.
CA Penal Code ----------
12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when
he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a
prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Peace officers...
(2) A retired peace officer...
(3) An honorably retired peace officer ...
(4) Members of the military forces of this state or of the United
States engaged in the performance of their duties.
(5) Persons who are using target ranges
(6) [CCW Holders]
(7) Armored vehicle guards
(8) Upon approval of the sheriff of the county in which they
reside, honorably retired federal officers ...
(c) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following who
have completed a regular course in firearms training approved by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training:
(1) Patrol special police officers ...
(2) The carrying of weapons by animal control officers ...
(3) Harbor police officers ...
(d) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following ...
(1) Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other
financial institutions ...
(2) Guards of contract carriers operating armored vehicles...
(3) Private investigators and private patrol operators ...
(4) Uniformed security guards ...
(5) Uniformed security guards...
(6) Uniformed employees of private patrol operators ...
...
(h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in
any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any
officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful
purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm
within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful
possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that
property.
(i) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from carrying
a loaded firearm in an area within an incorporated city while
engaged in hunting...
(j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the
carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would
otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the
person or property of himself or herself or of another is in
immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is
necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used
in this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and
after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has
been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its
assistance.
(k) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying
of a loaded firearm by any person while engaged in the act of making
or attempting to make a lawful arrest.
(l) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a
loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of
residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.
|
SomeGuyInCali
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 01:23 am |
|
mjones wrote:
(c) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following who
have completed a regular course in firearms training approved by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training:
(1) Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other
financial institutions ...
So does this imply that a subcontractor of a bank would be exempt in this case while on the job for that bank?
BTW, thank you for your very insightful post!
|
SomeGuyInCali
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 01:26 am |
|
Decoligny wrote: If the individual were forced to defend their life, then they would fall under the 12031 exemption that allows for a loaded firearm if that person reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property.
However, that isn't likely to be when the person carrying the firearm is going to get into trouble.
It's when you are going from your vehicle to the house, when a neighbor call the cops for a MWAG and the cops get there as you are going across the lawn back to your car. The cops then come and find the person with a loaded firearm, instant 12031 violation, loaded firearm in a public place in an incorporated city.
Good point... so in this case you would need to unload before setting foot on the public sidewalk or street.
|
mjones
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | SoCal, USA |
| Posts: | 221 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 03:30 am |
|
SomeGuyInCali wrote: mjones wrote:
(c) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following who
have completed a regular course in firearms training approved by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training:
(1) Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other
financial institutions ...
So does this imply that a subcontractor of a bank would be exempt in this case while on the job for that bank?
BTW, thank you for your very insightful post!
By my reading of the more complete code...only if trained and issued a firearms certificate to go along with a guard card...or if off-duty Law Enforcement.
--------
12031.
...
(d) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following who
have been issued a certificate pursuant to Section 12033. The
certificate shall not be required of any person who is a peace
officer, who has completed all training required by law for the
exercise of his or her power as a peace officer, and who is employed
while not on duty as a peace officer.
(1) Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other
financial institutions while actually employed in and about the
shipment, transportation, or delivery of any money, treasure,
bullion, bonds, or other thing of value within this state.
12033. The Department of Consumer Affairs may issue a certificate
to any person referred to in subdivision (d) of Section 12031, upon
notification by the school where the course was completed, that the
person has successfully completed a course in the carrying and use of
firearms and a course of training in the exercise of the powers of
arrest which meet the standards prescribed by the department pursuant
to Section 7583.5 of the Business and Professions Code.
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 05:14 pm |
|
SomeGuyInCali wrote: Decoligny wrote: If the individual were forced to defend their life, then they would fall under the 12031 exemption that allows for a loaded firearm if that person reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property.
However, that isn't likely to be when the person carrying the firearm is going to get into trouble.
It's when you are going from your vehicle to the house, when a neighbor call the cops for a MWAG and the cops get there as you are going across the lawn back to your car. The cops then come and find the person with a loaded firearm, instant 12031 violation, loaded firearm in a public place in an incorporated city.
Good point... so in this case you would need to unload before setting foot on the public sidewalk or street.
I believe it is the Overturf (maybe Overstreet, can't remember) case that ruled that a front yard without a fence is considered a "public place". So you would have to wait until you entered the front door to load, and unload before you exited.
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1607 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:38 pm |
|
Overturf 
BUY THIS BOOK TOO http://www.gunlawpress.com/
Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:48 pm by cato
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 12:42 am |
|
(h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in
any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any
officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful
purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm
within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful
possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that
property.
To save you some painful reading, the Overturf decision basically stated that you can "have" a loaded firearm on private property, but that doesn't mean you can "carry" that firearm. The court determined that the legislature did not intend to permit the carrying of loaded firearms, only the possession.
For example, a gas station clerk could "have" a loaded shotgun on a shelf behind the counter, as it is not carried.
|
SomeGuyInCali
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 02:31 am |
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: (h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in
any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any
officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful
purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm
within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful
possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that
property.
To save you some painful reading, the Overturf decision basically stated that you can "have" a loaded firearm on private property, but that doesn't mean you can "carry" that firearm. The court determined that the legislature did not intend to permit the carrying of loaded firearms, only the possession.
For example, a gas station clerk could "have" a loaded shotgun on a shelf behind the counter, as it is not carried.
It would seem in this scenario it would be best to obtain a concealed carry permit (near impossible) and not show anything.
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 07:39 am |
|
LUCC would probably be a viable option if one isn't able/willing to get a permission slip.
|
bad_ace
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 08:26 am |
|
I wonder if the employees at the local indoor range are aware of this ruling? 
All of them open carry loaded.
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 09:43 pm |
|
bad_ace wrote: I wonder if the employees at the local indoor range are aware of this ruling?
All of them open carry loaded.
I know they do at all the gun stores in my town. Either the cops don't care, or are just blissfully ignorant.
|
SomeGuyInCali
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 11:34 pm |
|
bad_ace wrote: I wonder if the employees at the local indoor range are aware of this ruling?
All of them open carry loaded.
I know my friend was issued a CCW. But it is only allowed while he is on-the-job at a liquor store. Apparently ABC Is encouraging or requiring a loaded gun on the premises.
Last edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 04:11 am by SomeGuyInCali
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1607 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 11:46 pm |
|
bad_ace wrote: I wonder if the employees at the local indoor range are aware of this ruling?
All of them open carry loaded.
If 12031 is not applicable then you don't need an exemption.
|
mjones
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | SoCal, USA |
| Posts: | 221 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 03:15 am |
|
cato wrote: bad_ace wrote: I wonder if the employees at the local indoor range are aware of this ruling?
All of them open carry loaded.
If 12031 is not applicable then you don't need an exemption.
aka - an indoor range is not a public place?
I know the inside of my home isn't a public place...but with the way Theseus is being treated, I'm not sure the inside of any business is a non-public place anymore 
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 03:04 am |
|
cato wrote: bad_ace wrote: I wonder if the employees at the local indoor range are aware of this ruling?
All of them open carry loaded.
If 12031 is not applicable then you don't need an exemption.
Overturf says 12031 applies to all public places.
Behind the counter they may be OK, but that might even be a stretch. I could imagine a DA arguing that it would be public indecency if they were nude behind the counter, so it's in public view, making it a public place.
For example, Modesto has an ordinance making it a misdemeanor to possess an open alcoholic beverage in public, except on the premises of places that are licensed to serve alcohol. I've seen the PD arrest people under this ordinance when they were on private property, but in public view. (This led one club to put a 7-foot wooden fence around their outdoor smoking lounge, so the patrons could drink outside. Most clubs just have a bouncer take your drink at the door.)
In any case, under Overturf, as soon as they step out onto the public sales floor the gun shop employees would be in violation.
|
SomeGuyInCali
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 05:17 am |
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: Most clubs just have a bouncer take your drink at the door.)
Ha! Until recently I was one of these bouncers at a club in Modesto. On the topic of private property, we had a policy that while you were in the club you were not allowed to have a firearm on your person. This even applied to off-duty police officers.
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 05:42 am |
|
I don't mind not allowing my my sidearm, but allow me a place to store it that isn't my car. . . In Virginia it was my understanding that a business could ask you to remove your sidearm, but that they had to control it and provide for its security. . . I might be mistaken or that might have changed though.
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 12:11 am |
|
SomeGuyInCali wrote: CA_Libertarian wrote: Most clubs just have a bouncer take your drink at the door.)
Ha! Until recently I was one of these bouncers at a club in Modesto. On the topic of private property, we had a policy that while you were in the club you were not allowed to have a firearm on your person. This even applied to off-duty police officers.
A club I worked at in Turlock had a similar policy. The owner made an exception once, and this off-duty corrections officer ended up getting arrested for brandishing. After that I understood the policy.
|
Current time is 10:20 am | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|
