New Pamphlet on CA Open Carry

Decoligny · Feb 25, 2008

imported post

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.

BEFORE THE TRANSFER TO THE NEW WEBSITE, THIS PAMPHLET WAS DOWNLOADED OVER 13,000 TIMES.

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D35533_8_7142810983

ConditionThree · Feb 25, 2008

imported post

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 firearmsis generally prohibited,..."

I may be being overly critical and put too high a premium on wording- but all ofourguides 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 · Feb 25, 2008

imported post

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 whilekeeping itas 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.

MudCamper · Feb 28, 2008

imported post

I like it. Nice layout too. Haven't gone over it with the fine tooth comb yet, but I will.

Decoligny · Feb 28, 2008

imported post

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.

cato · Mar 2, 2008

imported post

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 · Mar 2, 2008

imported post

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 · Mar 2, 2008

imported post

deleted

cato · Mar 2, 2008

imported post

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 propertyare preempted. The state has legislated very extensively on possession. The state has even specificallymentioned 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 explainand 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

Decoligny · Mar 2, 2008

imported post

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.

Click to expand...

Most city/county codes dealing with firearm possession in public places and on private propertyare preempted. The state has legislated very extensively on possession. The state has even specificallymentioned 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 explainand 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, theymay still lead to arrest by City Police."

Rob P. · Mar 6, 2008

imported post

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 · Mar 6, 2008

imported post

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.

CA_Libertarian · Mar 6, 2008

imported post

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 · Mar 22, 2008

imported post

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=92652

Looks like the word is being spread throughout the land. :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

ConditionThree · Mar 23, 2008

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=92652

Looks like the word is being spread throughout the land. :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

Yeah and it only took 2 years of repeatedly telling pro-gunners that it was 'legal' to get them to this point.

cato · Mar 23, 2008

imported post

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.

cato · Mar 27, 2008

imported post

Bumb (poor man's westcoast sticky)

Decoligny · Mar 28, 2008

imported post

deleted

cato · Apr 7, 2008

imported post

Thanks! and good job.

Decoligny · Apr 13, 2008

imported post

cato wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

I know that S.F. recently got shot down by CA Supreme Court

Click to expand...

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.

New Pamphlet on CA Open Carry

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member