Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Constructing a Ca Unincorporated Area Loaded Carry Map?

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    ConditionThree wrote:
    All kidding aside, these experiences have demonstrated thatdespite all warnings from self-professingpro-gun gurus andpaper pushing civil servants, it ispossible to carry a firearm openly in the State of California without alarming thecitizenry.
    Yup, great work folks!

    If somebody produces a map of unincorporated (i.e, FREE) California, we will link to it from the CA page!!
    That is such a huge task my head spins at the thought. Perhaps congress can give me a several million dollar grant so I could do it. The proplem is that each unincorporated jurisdiction can set "no discharge zones" which per state law makes loaded carry illegal. Here is an example of what we'd have to figure out to know what the discharge zones are in just one county (Riverside):

    9.20.020 Zones.

    For the purpose of this article the county is divided into two zones, the "western zone" and the "eastern zone."
    A. The western zone is defined as: that portion of the county lying westerly of the following line:

    Beginning at the Riverside-San Bernardino County line on the center line of the Banning Canyon Road; thence Southerly, along the said center line of the Banning Canyon Road to a point of intersection with the center line of U.S. Highway 10; thence Westerly, along the said center line of U.S. Highway 10 to a point of intersection with the center line of Lambs Canyon Road, (now known as State Highway 79); thence Southerly and Easterly, along the said center line of State Highway 79 to a point of intersection with the center line of Soboba Road; thence Southeasterly, along the said center line of Soboba Road to the West line of Section 5, T5S, R1E, SMB; thence Southerly, along the said West line of Section 5, T5S, R1E, SBM., to the Southerly line of San Jacinto River; thence Easterly and Southeasterly, along the said Southerly line of San Jacinto River to the East line of Section 14, T5S, R1E, SBM., said East line of Section 14, also being a portion of the West boundary line of the San Bernardino National Forest; thence Southerly, along the said East line of Section 14, and Southerly along the said West line of the San Bernardino National Forestry Boundary, to the Southeast corner of Section 35, T5S, R1E, SBM.; thence Westerly, along the South lines of Section 35, 34, 33, 32, and 31, of T5S, R1E, SBM., and continuing Westerly along the South lines of Sections 36, 35 and the South line of the E 1/2 of Section 34, to a point of intersection with the centerline of State Street, thence Southerly, along the said center line of State Street to a point of intersection with the center line of Cactus Valley Road; thence Easterly, along the said center line of Cactus Valley Road to a point of intersection with the center line of Sage Road; thence Southerly, Southeasterly and Easterly along the various courses of the said center line of Sage Road, to a point of intersection with the center line of the Temecula-Aguanga Road, (Also known as State Highway 71); thence Southeasterly, along the said center line of Temecula-Aguanga Road (Also known as State Highway 71) to a point of intersection with the Riverside-San Diego County line.

    B. The eastern zone is defined as that portion of the county lying easterly of the line described in subsection A of this section. (Ord. 514.10 § 2, 1996)

    9.20.030 Discharge unlawful when.

    It is unlawful in either the western zone or the eastern zone for any person to shoot or discharge any firearm within three hundred (300) yards of any occupied or unoccupied building, house or dwelling place, without the written consent of the owner or occupant thereof, or any shotgun within one hundred fifty (150) yards, or any other firearm within three hundred (300) yards of any corral, paddock, feed yard, dairy, barn or other farm building where cattle, horses, sheep or other animals are raised, milked, fed, trained, housed or confined, without the written consent of the owner or operator thereof, or within three hundred (300) yards of any park, public campgrounds, or state riding and hiking trail, or for any person to shoot or discharge within three hundred (300) yards of any public highway, public road or public street any firearm other than a shotgun used in lawfully hunting game pursuant to a valid hunting license.
    B. It is unlawful in either the western zone or the eastern zone for any person to shoot or discharge within one mile of any incorporated city any firearm, other than a shotgun used in lawfully hunting game pursuant to a valid hunting license.
    C. It is unlawful in either the western zone or the eastern zone to shoot or discharge any firearm between one-half hour after sunset and one-half hour before sunrise of the following day.(Ord. 514.10 §§ 3--5, 1996)

    9.20.040 Discharge or possession in western zone--Restrictions.

    It is unlawful in the western zone for any person to shoot or discharge any firearm, or to have in his or her possession within said zone any loaded rifle or shotgun except as follows:
    A. The discharging of a shotgun used in lawfully hunting game pursuant to a valid hunting license, or the possession of a loaded shotgun used in lawfully hunting game pursuant to a valid hunting license shall be permitted in the western zone during the period July 4th through January 15th, inclusive, of each year; provided, however, that this subsection shall not be construed to permit the discharging to a shotgun or the possession of a loaded shotgun within the boundaries of any closed area described in Section 9.20.060.
    B. The discharging of a firearm used in lawfully hunting deer by persons possessing valid deer license tag or permits, or the possession of a loaded rifle or shotgun used in lawfully hunting deer by such persons shall be permitted in the following described area in the western zone during that deer hunting season as is from time to time prescribed for such area by the rules and regulations of the fish and game commission, or by statute:
    That portion of the western zone lying south and west of the following line:

    U.S. Highway 60 easterly from the Riverside-San Bernardino County Line to U.S. Highway 395, U.S. Highway 395 southerly to State Highway 74, State Highway 74 easterly to County Road R-3 in the town of Hemet, southerly on County Road R-3 through the town of Sage to State Highway 71 at the town of Radec, Southeasterly on State Highway 71 to State Highway 79 near the town of Aguanga, southeasterly on State Highway 79 to the Riverside County Line.
    (Ord. 514.10 § 6, 1996)

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    well, can you make a map showing the unincorp areas of CA?

    The down the road, code each sub-area as confirmed carry or no carry areas? I bet most counties do not have ordiances banning guns

  3. #3
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Ya, Kern Co. would be easy:
    9.20.010 Discharging BB or other projectile device in grossly negligent manner--Punishment--Definitions--Firearms.
    C. Discharge of firearms or other dangerous weapons shall continue to be governed by and enforced under state and federal law. (Ord. G-6756 § 3, 2001)

    9.20.030 Public parks.

    It is unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm, BB device, bow and arrow device, slingshot or other instrument commonly used or which may be used for propelling or throwing any shot, arrow, rock or other missile within or upon the land or water area within the territorial limits of any public or recreational area owned, maintained or operated by the county, except in an area designated for that purpose after approval by the sheriff and the director of parks. (Ord. G-6756 § 4, 2001)


    Now if I only had some computer skills!


  4. #4
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Oops. I highjacked my own thread back there.

    Here's a start. Incorporated areas are in black.



    Granted, Cato is right about properly detailing local discharge prohibitions, however in most counties,there arent many ordinances prohibiting discharge. Shasta has one Im aware of, and that is in the one mile area surrounding Shasta Dam. These areas are so small, that a state map, wont show any detail at all.
    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

  5. #5
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    And unless one is driving on private property loaded car carry is out due to PC 374c -discharge prohibitedfromhighway. The PC doesn't define highway but the in the VC a "highway" is any public road (including alleys) from property line to property line so that includes public sidewalks and public right of way along the roadtoo.

    added: But People vs Knight did not find unincorporated loaded car carry illegal in its decision. So I'm confused.


    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/467.html



  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    And unless one is driving on private property loaded car carry is out due to PC 374c -discharge prohibitedfromhighway.
    I don't follow you at all - discharge bans have nothing to do with carry. you may6 carry openly a loaded handgun in a vehicle in California provided (1) you are in an unincorporated area and (2) that county has not enacted any ordiance banning open carry.



  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post


    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.

    12031 (f) As used in this section, "prohibited area" means any place where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon.

    So this combined with 374C makes carrying loaded illegal almost everywhere.


    Plus I have researched Sonoma, Mendocino, and Lake counties, and they all have bans on shooting within(a varying) number of yards ofanybuildings.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    ...I have researched Sonoma, Mendocino, and Lake counties, and they all have bans on shooting within (a varying) number of yards ofanybuildings.
    Stanislaus county has a similar ban: no shooting within (50, IIRC) yards of a dwelling unless you have permission from the owner/occupant.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Just a thought...

    While you're at it, how about adding places where firearms are prohibited (i.e. state parks)?
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  10. #10
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Just a thought...

    While you're at it, how about adding places where firearms are prohibited (i.e. state parks)?
    Call me a pessimist, but I think it would be easier to repeal all carry prohibitions.

    (I'm sorry. That wasnt constructive- but it felt good.)
    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

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Just a thought...

    While you're at it, how about adding places where firearms are prohibited (i.e. state parks)?
    Call me a pessimist, but I think it would be easier to repeal all carry prohibitions.

    (I'm sorry. That wasnt constructive- but it felt good.)
    Actually, the state parks part is pretty easy; the maps already exist on the F&G website. One would just need the computer graphics know-how to overlay it onto this map.

    And don't worry about being a pessimist; I won't judge. I'm the one getting out of this hell hole ASAP. It's not just the gun rights (read personal safety) issues, it's the communism that's really getting to me.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    IMO a map is not useful. It is mesleading. Because of 12031(f) / 374c and further because if 12031(f) and most county ordinances restricting shooting near any dwellings, in most areas it is not legal to carry loaded. You'd have to be off any road, not within range of any buildings. Just keep the mags outta the gun.

    People v Knight has been brought up. All it shows is that the courts make mistakes. The trial court misread 12031 and paid no attention to the unincorporated wording. The appellate court overturned the trial court's decision, but failed to see that the defendant was still guilty because of 374c. Two mistakes (arguably one good, one bad). Courts make mistakes all the time. If they didn't, we wouldn't need the appeal process.



  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    People v Knight has been brought up. All it shows is that the courts make mistakes. The trial court misread 12031 and paid no attention to the unincorporated wording. The appellate court overturned the trial court's decision, but failed to see that the defendant was still guilty because of 374c. Two mistakes (arguably one good, one bad). Courts make mistakes all the time. If they didn't, we wouldn't need the appeal process.
    I disagree - the appeal ct. in People v Knight construed CA law in a way that let's the sections of law operate together logically. The law is what the judges say it is.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    MudCamper wrote:
    People v Knight has been brought up. All it shows is that the courts make mistakes. The trial court misread 12031 and paid no attention to the unincorporated wording. The appellate court overturned the trial court's decision, but failed to see that the defendant was still guilty because of 374c. Two mistakes (arguably one good, one bad). Courts make mistakes all the time. If they didn't, we wouldn't need the appeal process.
    I disagree - the appeal ct. in People v Knight construed CA law in a way that let's the sections of law operate together logically. The law is what the judges say it is.
    You may disagree, but you could be charged and would be successfully prosecuted if you carry loaded on a public highway and don't have a CCW permit. I personally know LEO who use 374c to charge on 12031. It is quite clear that the Knight case was originally prosecuted on invalid grounds - that 12031 applies anywhere. It was overturned because of this. This will not defend you in other future prosecutions where the courts and DAs are more informed on the actual law.





  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Well I just looked back in my emails and found what my LEO friend stated. This was from a conversation I was having with him while working on my flyer:

    Tuolumne County made a ordinance defining all public roads as prohibited
    areas for the purposes of 12031 to try and clean up the confusion.

    It kind of makes sense, cause you cant shoot from a road anyways per 374c.
    Every person who shoots any firearm from or upon a public
    road or highway is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    Fresno Sheriff's Office did some dirtbags for 12031 on a forest road based
    on 374c.. I dont know what the outcome was.
    So it wasn't him personally, but clearly you're going to risk getting arrested if you choose to ignore 12031(f) and 374c.




  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Yeah, it's rare for a court to misinterpret the law in favor of gun rights. 374c clearly makes it illegal to discharge a firearm on/from a public road. This logically qualifies such as prohibited areas.

    I think this is the first case I've seen where a bad decision improved a bad law. I highly doubt the Knight decision would stand up to scrutiny if 374c were introduced as fact in a new case.

    If you want to be a test case, I'm sure there's a DA out there more than happy to see if it sticks.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    You may disagree, but you could be charged and would be successfully prosecuted if you carry loaded on a public highway and don't have a CCW permit. I personally know LEO who use 374c to charge on 12031. It is quite clear that the Knight case was originally prosecuted on invalid grounds - that 12031 applies anywhere. It was overturned because of this. This will not defend you in other future prosecutions where the courts and DAs are more informed on the actual law.
    Knight Overturned? Cite?



  18. #18
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    MudCamper wrote:
    You may disagree, but you could be charged and would be successfully prosecuted if you carry loaded on a public highway and don't have a CCW permit. I personally know LEO who use 374c to charge on 12031. It is quite clear that the Knight case was originally prosecuted on invalid grounds - that 12031 applies anywhere. It was overturned because of this. This will not defend you in other future prosecutions where the courts and DAs are more informed on the actual law.
    Knight Overturned? Cite?

    The cite is People v. Knight.

    The case was originally a conviction.

    It was overturned in appeals court and Knight was let off.

    The prosecution could have easily won the conviction if they had originally included the 374c violation as a justification for a 12031 violation.

    Thus the general opinion that People v. Knight doesn't really provide good solid case law.

    The prosecutors and police if encountering the exact same circumstances as in the original Knight arrest would charge correctly and get a conviction.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    The cite is People v. Knight.

    The case was originally a conviction.

    It was overturned in appeals court and Knight was let off.

    The prosecution could have easily won the conviction if they had originally included the 374c violation as a justification for a 12031 violation.

    Thus the general opinion that People v. Knight doesn't really provide good solid case law.

    The prosecutors and police if encountering the exact same circumstances as in the original Knight arrest would charge correctly and get a conviction.
    The appeals court in Knight cited to an AG Opinion cleary agreeing with Mr. Knight!

    Knight is binding upon Calif. trial courts; further, even if overturned, a gun owners explicit reliance on Knight and the AG Opinion provides a mistake of law defense to the offense until Knight is overturned. United States v. Albertini, 830 F.2d 985 (9th Cir.1987)

    Finally, there would not be a bill in the legislature to overturn Knight were it erroneous.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    The cite is People v. Knight.

    The case was originally a conviction.

    It was overturned in appeals court and Knight was let off.

    The prosecution could have easily won the conviction if they had originally included the 374c violation as a justification for a 12031 violation.

    Thus the general opinion that People v. Knight doesn't really provide good solid case law.

    The prosecutors and police if encountering the exact same circumstances as in the original Knight arrest would charge correctly and get a conviction.
    The appeals court in Knight cited to an AG Opinion cleary agreeing with Mr. Knight!

    Knight is binding upon Calif. trial courts; further, even if overturned, a gun owners explicit reliance on Knight and the AG Opinion provides a mistake of law defense to the offense until Knight is overturned. United States v. Albertini, 830 F.2d 985 (9th Cir.1987)

    Finally, there would not be a bill in the legislature to overturn Knight were it erroneous.
    From People v. Knight: This case turns on whether the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for violation of section 12031 and this turns on whether the prosecution established at the suppression hearing that defendant’s possession of a loaded gun was a crime at the place defendant was detained.

    At the suppression hearing the prosecution maintained the search was incident to defendant’s lawful arrest for violation of section 12031. At the suppression hearing the prosecution maintained the search was incident to defendant’s lawful arrest for violation of section 12031.It failed, however, to establish defendant was lawfully arrested because it did not establish the encounter took place in an area where defendant was prohibited to carry a loaded firearm or that the officers reasonably believed defendant was in such an area.


    This is the reason Knight was overturned on appeal, and he went free, is because the prosecution failed to establish that the encounter took place in an area where the defendant was prohibited to carry a loaded firearm.

    If the arresting officers, or the district attorney has properly applied PC 374c as the definition of a prohibited area (making the assuming thatKnight's vehiclewas actually on a public road) , they would have met the courts burden of proof criteria.

    If Knight's vehiclewas completely off of the road,(which may have been the case) then he was not in a prohibited area and PC 374c would not be a player at all.

  21. #21
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    If Knight's vehiclewas completely off of the road, (which may have been the case) then he was not in a prohibited area and PC 374c would not be a player at all.
    A little law enforcement bird has told me that the 'prohibited area' would include the area between the pavement to the private property line when we are discussing public roads and highways.
    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

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    If Knight's vehiclewas completely off of the road, (which may have been the case) then he was not in a prohibited area and PC 374c would not be a player at all.
    The record is clear that Knight was on the road, come on.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    If Knight's vehiclewas completely off of the road, (which may have been the case) then he was not in a prohibited area and PC 374c would not be a player at all.
    The record is clear that Knight was on the road, come on.
    Then it all boils down to this one point. In an appeal, no new evidence, and no new charges can be brought up. In the original case, the arresting officer and the district attorney screwed the pooch and did not realize that PC 374c would have made their case water tight as it made the road a prohibited place. They were going with loaded weapon in any place as being prohibited. The appeals court said that they didn't prove he was in a prohibited area so no go on the search, as no criminal act was commited based on what the cop put forth at the original trial.



  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Then it all boils down to this one point. In an appeal, no new evidence, and no new charges can be brought up. In the original case, the arresting officer and the district attorney screwed the pooch and did not realize that PC 374c would have made their case water tight as it made the road a prohibited place. They were going with loaded weapon in any place as being prohibited. The appeals court said that they didn't prove he was in a prohibited area so no go on the search, as no criminal act was commited based on what the cop put forth at the original trial.
    No, it all boils down to the point that Knight, which cited to an AG Opinion on this question,is binding on trial courts in Calif. - mere roads are not prohibited areas within the meaning of the California's ban on open carry in prohibited areaa of unincorporated areas.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    The problem with CA open carry is that it's not allowed where CCW permit issuance is low or non existent to serve as a substitute for it. I would love to be able to OC to get around Sheriff (of Nottingham) Smith's blockade, but no dice.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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