Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: CA Ct. of Appeals says open carry not illegal in unincorporated areas

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Keep this reference handy in California, and make sure you know what areas are incorporated, and those which are not!

    People v. Knight, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 384 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)(the open carry of handguns is not unlawful in unincorporated areas of California where shooting is not prohibited;evidence subsequently obtained as a result of the search incident to an unlawful firearms related arrest must be suppressed).

    See news report at http://www.metnews.com/articles/2004/knig090304.htm ("C.A.: Firearm Ban Applies Only Where Shooting Is Illegal," Metropolitan News-Enterprise, by David Watson, 3 September 2004).

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    Is this loaded or unloaded?

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Loaded.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    Cato spent some time showing me some info. I think the problem is that often PC is read in point form when it should be read in context.

    There is an interesting thread on CACCW about state gunlaws in general...in a comparison one was shown to have 2 pages of gunlaws. California had something like 149 pages of legislation referring to gun laws.

    Doesn't make it easy to figure out what they are trying to say...probably done on purpose hoping many would just throw up their hands and say "Screw it"

    I'm still looking for the actual thread...

    ============Edited to add===================

    Here it is.

    http://www.californiaccw.org/posts/list/3533.page

  6. #6
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    IAmASensFan wrote:
    Cato spent some time showing me some info. I think the problem is that often PC is read in point form when it should be read in context.


    This is a little offtopic- but anyway;

    It is impossible to read the Penal Code in context. If you do, you often have to accept dozens of paragraphs and thousands of words as a whole.

    Most of the time law is written in such a way as to place the prohibitions in a single paragraph- the definitions and references to related code in a dozen or more clauses and then wrap up with the exemptions and exclusions.

    So we run into this problem of a law on the books that starts off like this;
    PC-###### (a) It is prohibited for any person, to chew, cause to chew, or offer for chewing, any substance having the color, flavor, and appearance of bubble gum.
    and ends up like this;


    PC-###### (a) It is prohibited for any person, to chew, cause to chew, or offer for chewing, any substance having the color, flavor, and appearance of bubble gum.

    (1) Bubble gum for the purposes of this code is defined as a "spherical hard candy orb, when masticated shall enable the masticator (or chewer) to inflate the substance outside the masticators (or chewer's) mouth".

    (2) Flavoring for the purposes of this code is defined as the traditional bubble gum flavor usually associated with bubble gum.

    (3) Coloring shall not be limited to pink, but shall also include red, blue, yellow, green, and white.

    (c) Punishment for the infraction in subdivision (a) is public flogging, commencing upon conviction.

    (d) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following classes of people.

    (1) Small children under direct supervision of a parent or legal guardian.

    (2) Adults who have completed the required training course ingum chewing and bubbleblowing, which is to be admistered by a State regulated instructor.

    (3) Anyone who has demonstrated the ability to insert money into a vending maching and turn the knob todispense bubble gum.

    (e) Any gum, no matter what the source, that cannot be blown into bubbles is not included by definition in subdivision (a)
    When you take it as one chunk, it is very difficult to ascertain what is and isnt legal when NOT all of it directly applies to you. This is why I try to break it down into digestable points-- because most other people read the prohibition up front and start rending their clothes and throwing ashes on themselves, wailing and lamenting that they can not chew gum anymore, because the law forbids it. Then, with this incomplete knowledge, they tell others that they too,must not chew gum either... because the law forbids it and the penalties are severe.

    This is how I break down the above phoney code.
    PC-###### (a) It is prohibited for any person, to chew, cause to chew, or offer for chewing, any substance having the color, flavor, and appearance of bubble gum.

    d) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following classes of people.

    (3) Anyone who has demonstrated the ability to insert money into a vending maching and turn the knob todispense bubble gum.
    So chewing gum is okay if you know how to use a vending machine. Maybe we could continue this in a different thread, yes?
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •