| Author | Post |
|---|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25th, 2008 06:35 pm |
|
Here is a pamphlet that I have put together.
This needs to be printed on both sides in landscape format with it turning on the short edge.
Updated on 22 Apr to correct typo.
Previous revisions have been downloaded 5798 times.
AVAILABLE IN A BI-FOLD VERSION A COUPLE POSTS DOWN.
AVAILABLE IN PDF FORMAT NEAR THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 2 OF THIS THREAD.
 This Pamphlet Has Been Downloaded
OVER
11,000 TIMES !!
Attachment: A Pocket review of California Penal Code 7th Revision.doc (Downloaded 1039 times) Last edited on Sun Mar 21st, 2010 03:03 am by Decoligny
|
ConditionThree
Activist Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26th, 2008 02:09 am |
|
Between Mudcampers, yours and my pamphlets I think the topic is pretty well covered.
I'd have to say I like your bi-fold brochure format. Not too sure about some of the wording though-
Example;
PC 171b – Can’t open carry any firearm into state or local public buildings or at any meeting required to be open to the public
The statute prohibits weapons possession, not 'open carry'.
Example;
PC 12031 – Can’t carry a LOADED firearm in an incorporated city or in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory
You can carry a loaded firearm in an incorporated city- under certain exemptions. Instead of writing 'can't' I would lean towards "Possession of loaded firearms is generally prohibited,..."
I may be being overly critical and put too high a premium on wording- but all of our guides could use some refinement. Sure would be nice to have this run through an attorneys fine toothed comb, but I doubt we would find one in California to give it their legal blessing.
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26th, 2008 04:24 am |
|
ConditionThree wrote: Between Mudcampers, yours and my pamphlets I think the topic is pretty well covered.
I'd have to say I like your bi-fold brochure format. Not too sure about some of the wording though-
Example;
PC 171b – Can’t open carry any firearm into state or local public buildings or at any meeting required to be open to the public
The statute prohibits weapons possession, not 'open carry'.
Example;
PC 12031 – Can’t carry a LOADED firearm in an incorporated city or in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory
You can carry a loaded firearm in an incorporated city- under certain exemptions. Instead of writing 'can't' I would lean towards "Possession of loaded firearms is generally prohibited,..."
I may be being overly critical and put too high a premium on wording- but all of our guides could use some refinement. Sure would be nice to have this run through an attorneys fine toothed comb, but I doubt we would find one in California to give it their legal blessing.
Yeah, I hear ya. I was kind of coming at it from a specific "Open Carry/non-LTC holder" perspective and was tryng to address just that aspect while keeping it as simple a presentation as possible. I look at it as more of a guide to what the law says so that people can peruse the pamphlet, find the applicable code and look up the actual legalese at their own convenience.
I have no problem with rewriting any portion of the pamphlet, but it has to fit in the space given.
Last edited on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 10:54 pm by Decoligny
|
MudCamper
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 10:23 pm |
|
I like it. Nice layout too. Haven't gone over it with the fine tooth comb yet, but I will.
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
Here is another version in a Bi-Fold setup.
Just print it in landscape and flip it on the short edge.
Then just fold in the middle.
Attachment: CALIFORNIA_OPEN_CARRY_BI-FOLD (Revision 2).doc (Downloaded 306 times) Last edited on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 09:12 pm by Decoligny
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1933 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 05:49 pm |
|
I think this should be included as it "allows" open carry possession at play grounds/youth centers provided one is not in violation of 417 (b), 12031 (loaded firearm), and 12025 (concealed).
626.95. (a) Any person who is in violation of paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a), or subdivision (b), of Section 417 , or Section
12025 or 12031, upon the grounds of or within a playground, or a
public or private youth center during hours in which the facility is
open for business, classes, or school-related programs, or at any
time when minors are using the facility, knowing that he or she is on
or within those grounds, shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison for one, two, or three years, or in a county jail not
exceeding one year.
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 07:25 pm |
|
Thanks Cato,
I will look at including that. I also have to look at including a statement to be aware of any county/city ordanances that make carrying, open or otherwise, illegal. In another thread here in the CA forum, a poster listed an ordanance from Palo Alto, if I remember correctly that makes it illegal to carry in most circumstances within Palo Alto City Limits. Haven't looked at it closely yet, but I will.
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 07:44 pm |
|
deleted
Last edited on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 07:46 pm by Decoligny
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1933 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 08:09 pm |
|
Decoligny wrote: Thanks Cato,
I will look at including that. I also have to look at including a statement to be aware of any county/city ordnances that make carrying, open or otherwise, illegal. In another thread here in the CA forum, a poster listed an ordnance from Palo Alto, if I remember correctly that makes it illegal to carry in most circumstances within Palo Alto City Limits. Haven't looked at it closely yet, but I will.
Most city/county codes dealing with firearm possession in public places and on private property are preempted. The state has legislated very extensively on possession. The state has even specifically mentioned openly carried firearms in several statutes, as well as dealt with loaded firearms in public and concealed firearms. Those city/county possession laws are void under the "explicit" and "implied" preemption that courts have recognized as existing under Ca statute and our state constitution IMO.
Still it is a confusing issue to discuss and explain and as IANAL I'd love to hear a Ca gun lawyers opinion on these city/county carry possession muni codes and whether they are in whole or part preempted as written.
Note: Berkley has a total ban on possession of semi-autos - which is clearly preempted as broadly as it is written. These places need to be sued!!!!!
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=89204&highlight=berkley
Last edited on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 08:09 pm by cato
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 08:25 pm |
|
cato wrote: Decoligny wrote: Thanks Cato,
I will look at including that. I also have to look at including a statement to be aware of any county/city ordnances that make carrying, open or otherwise, illegal. In another thread here in the CA forum, a poster listed an ordnance from Palo Alto, if I remember correctly that makes it illegal to carry in most circumstances within Palo Alto City Limits. Haven't looked at it closely yet, but I will.
Most city/county codes dealing with firearm possession in public places and on private property are preempted. The state has legislated very extensively on possession. The state has even specifically mentioned openly carried firearms in several statutes, as well as dealt with loaded firearms in public and concealed firearms. Those city/county possession laws are void under the "explicit" and "implied" preemption that courts have recognized as existing under Ca statute and our state constitution IMO.
Still it is a confusing issue to discuss and explain and as IANAL I'd love to hear a Ca gun lawyers opinion on these city/county carry possession muni codes and whether they are in whole or part preempted as written.
Note: Berkley has a total ban on possession of semi-autos - which is clearly preempted as broadly as it is written. These places need to be sued!!!!!
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=89204&highlight=berkley
I agree. I was thinking more on the lines of including a disclaimer something like "Be aware that there may still be City/Municiple Ordinaces that while may not be legally enforcable due to State preemption, they may still lead to arrest by City Police."
Last edited on Fri Mar 7th, 2008 07:20 pm by Decoligny
|
Rob P.
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 6th, 2008 05:47 pm |
|
I haven't looked at the pamphlet but I would err towards including something on the premption issue. Something like Cato' comment with edits:
Caution: There are some local ordinances which deal with firearm possession in public places and on private property. These ordinances MAY BE preempted under Cal P.C [section] and [case citations]. The state has legislated very extensively on possession. City/county possession laws MAY BE void under the "explicit" and "implied" preemptions that courts have determined exist.
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 6th, 2008 08:58 pm |
|
I would appreciate any help finding anything about preemption. I haven't found anything in the P.C. nor have I seen any case law.
The only thing I could find on State preemption was Government Code 53701 which preempts only the registration and licensing of firearms.
I know that S.F. recently got shot down by CA Supreme Court, but that was about ownership within city limits IIRC.
Last edited on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 09:16 pm by Decoligny
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri Mar 7th, 2008 05:32 am |
|
Decoligny wrote: I would appreciate any help finding anything about preemption. I haven't found anything in the P.C. nor have I seen any case law.
The only thing I could find on State preemption was Government Code 53701 which preempts only the registration and licensing of firearms.
I know that S.F. recently got shot down by CA Supreme Court, but that was about ownership within city limits IIRC.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/5166.html
Enjoy.
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 04:59 am |
|
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=92652
Looks like the word is being spread throughout the land.
|
ConditionThree
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 09:42 am |
|
Decoligny wrote: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=92652
Looks like the word is being spread throughout the land.
Yeah and it only took 2 years of repeatedly telling pro-gunners that it was 'legal' to get them to this point.
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1933 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 10:11 pm |
|
Decoligny wrote: I know that S.F. recently got shot down by CA Supreme Court
No. It was an appellate court decision that struck down measure "H". SF has now appealed to the CASC and it has not yet been accepted or argued.Last edited on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 10:13 pm by cato
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1933 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 27th, 2008 11:02 pm |
|
Bumb (poor man's westcoast sticky)
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28th, 2008 04:37 pm |
|
| deleted Last edited on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 10:56 pm by Decoligny
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1933 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 08:01 pm |
|
| Thanks! and good job.
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 13th, 2008 06:35 pm |
|
cato wrote: Decoligny wrote: I know that S.F. recently got shot down by CA Supreme Court
No. It was an appellate court decision that struck down measure "H". SF has now appealed to the CASC and it has not yet been accepted or argued. Well, It has been now. Just have to fight off the anti-preemption bill now.
Last edited on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 06:40 pm by Decoligny
|
Current time is 03:10 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
