| Author | Post |
|---|
MudCamper
Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 20th, 2007 08:10 pm |
|
I've created a single-sheet (two-sided) document with all of the relevant California (and other) codes regulating the carry and transport of firearms (not including CCW).
http://www.californiaopencarry.org/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf
I intend to keep a copy of this flyer with me in my vehicle at all times, for such times that I may be legally open carrying or otherwise legally transporting. It is my intent that this document can be used to educate citizens and LEO in California. Feel free to copy and distribute it.
Also, please feel free to make criticisms and revision recommendations. And if I've plagiarized anyone without knowing it, please point that out. This document got started by using many references posted in this forum by member ConditionThree, and then with editing advise from cato and CA_Libertarian.
Last edited on Wed Jun 25th, 2008 08:07 pm by MudCamper
|
ConditionThree
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21st, 2007 04:55 am |
|
| MudCamper- It looks good. I'm pleased that you were able to utilize the information we've been working with here and am grateful you see value in its distribution.
|
cato
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21st, 2007 07:32 am |
|
MudCamper wrote: This document got started by using many references posted in this forum by member ConditionThree, and then with editing advise from cato and CA_Libertarian.
Oh sure, name all of the guilty parties to deflect attention from yourself...perhaps we'll share the same cell in the CA DOJ gulag if we don't make it to New Hampshire quick enough.  Attached Image (viewed 2966 times):
|
MudCamper
Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21st, 2007 05:28 pm |
|
cato wrote: Oh sure, name all of the guilty parties to deflect attention from yourself...perhaps we'll share the same cell in the CA DOJ gulag if we don't make it to New Hampshire quick enough.
LOL cato. I sometimes wonder if I will get a vist from the DOJ, because of the Rifle Flyer though.
|
cato
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 10:23 am |
|
MudCamper wrote: cato wrote: Oh sure, name all of the guilty parties to deflect attention from yourself...perhaps we'll share the same cell in the CA DOJ gulag if we don't make it to New Hampshire quick enough.
LOL cato. I sometimes wonder if I will get a vist from the DOJ, because of the Rifle Flyer though.
That's ok as the "Rifle Flyer" shall live on regardless of what they do to you.
.
Attached Image (viewed 2939 times):
|
Armed4Life
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23rd, 2007 01:27 am |
|
| Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe that all handguns must also be registered in CA and all magazines must have a capacity of 10 rounds or less. I believe registration of long guns is voluntary.
|
cato
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23rd, 2007 02:32 am |
|
Armed4Life wrote: Please correct me if I am wrong ...
Ok you asked for it. 
Newly purchased pistols get registered with the state when you buy them. If one moves to CA they must register pistols they bring with them within a certain time frame. Pistols owned before the reg. requirement, which was started some time in the 90's, do not have to be registered.
The state is forbidden by law from requiring long arms registration (voluntary reg. is possible). CA assault weapons are a different class and were required to be registered by a certain date.
Possession of magazines with 10+ capacity is not banned. As of 1/1/2000, importation, manufacture, sale, and or give away of 10+ cap. magazines is prohibited unless in an exempt class (police, armored car companies, ...)
.
Attached Image (viewed 2923 times):
 Last edited on Sun Sep 23rd, 2007 02:40 am by cato
|
Armed4Life
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23rd, 2007 03:04 pm |
|
| Cato......Thanks for the clarifications.
|
MudCamper
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23rd, 2007 07:03 pm |
|
OK to get back on the thread topic, carry/transport, I see a lot of people stating that there is some significance to the county population in regard to open carry. The number 200,000 keeps coming up. But I can find no such reference in any codes. Is 200,000 thing just recycled bad information?
|
ConditionThree
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23rd, 2007 10:22 pm |
|
MudCamper wrote: OK to get back on the thread topic, carry/transport, I see a lot of people stating that there is some significance to the county population in regard to open carry. The number 200,000 keeps coming up. But I can find no such reference in any codes. Is 200,000 thing just recycled bad information?
The significance of 200,000 persons is from PC12050- the statute that authorizes issuance of licenses to carry. I quote:
12050. (a)(1)(A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
This number is only significant to the issuance of licenses to carry loaded and exposed. It has no bearing on the excersize of unlicensed open carry in areas not prohibited by PC12031.
|
MudCamper
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24th, 2007 07:30 pm |
|
12050. OK. Thanks for the info! I've been ignoring 12050 because I live in Sonoma county, and stand a better chance of winning the lotto than getting a permit (and I don't buy lotto tickets).
|
cato
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 8th, 2007 09:52 am |
|
| bump as this should be a sticky on the CA board Attached Image (viewed 2766 times):
 Last edited on Mon Oct 8th, 2007 09:54 am by cato
|
stingray4540
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 25 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16th, 2007 06:57 pm |
|
Yes, this should be a sticky.
|
cato
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 08:45 pm |
|
| West Coast Bump (aka poor man's sticky) Attached Image (viewed 2660 times):
 Last edited on Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 04:31 am by cato
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 01:22 pm |
|
Another thread got me thinking about the legality of loaded carry.
12031(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.
People v Overturf
And, finally, subdivision (i) states: "(i) 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."
It can thus be seen that none of the subdivisions (f) through (j) expressly create any exemptions from the liability established for violation of subdivision (a).
...
[1] "Carrying" and "having" are not synonymous. "Having" relates to an "act or state of possessing," Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, page 1145, while "carrying" refers to the "act or instance of carrying" and the verb "carry" in relevant definition connotes "to convey, or transport ...;" and "to transfer from one place ... to another." (Id. at p. 412.)
According to this court's interpretation: while 12031(l) gives you permission to have a loaded firearm under you immediate control, it does not grant you permission to carry that loaded firearm.
Reading through 12031's subsections, I found the following:- (b)-(c) exempt LEOs and persons with licenses through Consumer Affairs (security guards, etc)
- (e)-(h) do not mention the word "carry" at all
- (i)-(k) allow "carry" of loaded weapons while (i)hunting, (j) when in immediate, grave danger, (k) while making a lawful arrest
- (l) uses "have" as opposed to "carry"
I'm afraid the court's interpretation is literal and technically correct. I doubt that this was the intent of the law, but as we all know, legislators have little to do with how the laws will be enforced (so much for representative government).
While it is very unlikely any LEOs will be entering your home to inspect your firearm, it would appear that carrying a loaded firearm in your home is illegal (if you live in an incorporated area).
I don't know if this is worth adding to the flyer... just a thought.
|
ConditionThree
Activist Member
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 02:46 pm |
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: I'm afraid the court's interpretation is literal and technically correct. I doubt that this was the intent of the law, but as we all know, legislators have little to do with how the laws will be enforced (so much for representative government).
While it is very unlikely any LEOs will be entering your home to inspect your firearm, it would appear that carrying a loaded firearm in your home is illegal (if you live in an incorporated area).
I don't know if this is worth adding to the flyer... just a thought.
BUZZER!
I know it's really easy to get hung up by single lines of penal code- but PC12031 does not regulate loaded firearms outside of public places or public streets in incorporated areas. The deal with "Overturf" is that he was in a 'public place' on private property that was a common use area of what I believe was an apartment complex.
If you want to carry a loaded weapon on your property or in your home you may- the trouble arrises if that property is considered 'public', or common access, such as apartments and condos are. (Personally, I think the court got the ruling wrong- but that is another issue.)
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 03:14 pm |
|
ConditionThree wrote: BUZZER!
I know it's really easy to get hung up by single lines of penal code- but PC12031 does not regulate loaded firearms outside of public places or public streets in incorporated areas. The deal with "Overturf" is that he was in a 'public place' on private property that was a common use area of what I believe was an apartment complex.
If you want to carry a loaded weapon on your property or in your home you may- the trouble arrises if that property is considered 'public', or common access, such as apartments and condos are. (Personally, I think the court got the ruling wrong- but that is another issue.)
OK, I feel dumb now. You are correct on the part about carrying in your home. Inside your home would practically NEVER be considered public (unless you're maybe having an 'open house' to show it for sale).
I'm not as certain about outdoor private property though. I don't have any citations handy, but it's pretty well established (I think) that your front yard is considered public access (such as when a solicitor comes to your front door). The guy from the electric company can go into your back yard to read the meter without asking permission. Also, sometimes people will walk around to the back yard (to see if you're there) when you don't answer your front door. I could easily see CA courts considering your entire property open to the public.
I also think a footnote may still be in order for purposes of carrying loaded if your place of business is open to the public. Ironically, if your business is not open to the public you are much less likely to need to defend yourself... gotta love bass-ackwards CA.
I can't wait to get to New Hampshire, where the RKBA is recognized.
Last edited on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 03:16 pm by CA_Libertarian
|
ConditionThree
Activist Member
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 08:29 pm |
|
CA_Libertarian wrote:
I also think a footnote may still be in order for purposes of carrying loaded if your place of business is open to the public. Ironically, if your business is not open to the public you are much less likely to need to defend yourself... gotta love bass-ackwards CA.
Okay. So how do the gunshop owners and employees get away with open carry in their gun stores? The gun stores are a private business that is open to the public, yet I'm certain they are carrying loaded weapons inside incorporated city limits.
Something to chew on.
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 12:27 am |
|
Bump - if any moderators read this please sticky.
|
G20-10mm
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 1st, 2008 03:30 am |
|
I'm headed to Calif tommorrow for a couple weeks for a family emergency. I have a CCW issued in Arizona. I know that Ca does NOT have reciprocity with AZ.
I OC'd (loaded) in Calif many years ago with no probs, but I see laws have changed there (whats new) and from what I've been able to read up on, Ca Law as it's fine still to OC
any new laws as of 08 that I might have missed. I'll be glad to be back in AZ once this is over
Thanks for any info
|
Current time is 06:03 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
