-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Traveling to San Francisco
- Thread starter Prophet
- Start date
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
The Alameda Sherriff's Department was bluffing as far as it being a misdemeanor to bring an "uncased" firearm into the non-secure portion of the Airport.
CA PENAL CODE SECTION 171.5.
(a) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Airport" means an airport, with a secured area, that regularly serves an air carrier holding a certificate issued by the United States Secretary of Transportation.
(2) "Passenger vessel terminal" means only that portion of a harbor or port facility, as described in Section 105.105(a)(2) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, with a secured area that regularly serves scheduled commuter or passenger operations.
(3) "Sterile area" means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program to which access generally is controlled through the screening of persons and property, as specified in Section 1540.5 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or a portion of any passenger vessel terminal to which, pursuant to the
requirements set forth in Sections 105.255(a)(1), 105.255(c)(1), and 105.260(a) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, access is generally controlled in a manner consistent with the passenger vessel terminal's security plan and the MARSEC level in effect at the time.
(b) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, within any sterile area of an airport or a passenger vessel terminal, any of the items listed in subdivision (c).
(c) The following items are unlawful to possess as provided in subdivision (b):
(1) Any firearm.
(2) Any knife with a blade length in excess of four inches, the blade of which is fixed, or is capable of being fixed, in an unguarded position by the use of one or two hands.
(3) Any box cutter or straight razor.
(4) Any metal military practice hand grenade.
(5) Any metal replica hand grenade.
(6) Any plastic replica hand grenade.
(7) Any imitation firearm as defined in Section 417.4.
(8) Any frame, receiver, barrel, or magazine of a firearm.
(9) Any unauthorized tear gas weapon.
(10) Any taser or stun gun, as defined in Section 244.5.
(11) Any instrument that expels a metallic projectile, such as a BB or pellet, through the force of air pressure, CO2 pressure, or spring action, or any spot marker gun or paint gun.
(12) Any ammunition as defined in Section 12316.
(d) Subdivision (b) shall not apply to, or affect, any of the following:
(1) A duly appointed peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a retired peace officer with authorization to carry concealed weapons as described in subdivision (a) of Section 12027, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, or any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer.
(2) A person who has authorization to possess a weapon specified in subdivision (c), granted in writing by an airport security coordinator who is designated as specified in Section 1542.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and who is responsible for the security of the airport.
(3) A person, including an employee of a licensed contract guard service, who has authorization to possess a weapon specified in subdivision (c) granted in writing by a person discharging the duties of Facility Security Officer or Company Security Officer pursuant to an approved United States Coast Guard facility security plan, and
who is responsible for the security of the passenger vessel terminal.
(e) A violation of this section is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(f) The provisions of this section are cumulative, and shall not be construed as restricting the application of any other law. However, an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by this and any other provision of law shall not be punished under more than one provision.
(g) Nothing in this section is intended to affect existing state or federal law regarding the transportation of firearms on airplanes in checked luggage, or the possession of the items listed in subdivision (c) in areas that are not "sterile areas."
The Alameda Sherriff's Department was bluffing as far as it being a misdemeanor to bring an "uncased" firearm into the non-secure portion of the Airport.
CA PENAL CODE SECTION 171.5.
(a) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Airport" means an airport, with a secured area, that regularly serves an air carrier holding a certificate issued by the United States Secretary of Transportation.
(2) "Passenger vessel terminal" means only that portion of a harbor or port facility, as described in Section 105.105(a)(2) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, with a secured area that regularly serves scheduled commuter or passenger operations.
(3) "Sterile area" means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program to which access generally is controlled through the screening of persons and property, as specified in Section 1540.5 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or a portion of any passenger vessel terminal to which, pursuant to the
requirements set forth in Sections 105.255(a)(1), 105.255(c)(1), and 105.260(a) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, access is generally controlled in a manner consistent with the passenger vessel terminal's security plan and the MARSEC level in effect at the time.
(b) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, within any sterile area of an airport or a passenger vessel terminal, any of the items listed in subdivision (c).
(c) The following items are unlawful to possess as provided in subdivision (b):
(1) Any firearm.
(2) Any knife with a blade length in excess of four inches, the blade of which is fixed, or is capable of being fixed, in an unguarded position by the use of one or two hands.
(3) Any box cutter or straight razor.
(4) Any metal military practice hand grenade.
(5) Any metal replica hand grenade.
(6) Any plastic replica hand grenade.
(7) Any imitation firearm as defined in Section 417.4.
(8) Any frame, receiver, barrel, or magazine of a firearm.
(9) Any unauthorized tear gas weapon.
(10) Any taser or stun gun, as defined in Section 244.5.
(11) Any instrument that expels a metallic projectile, such as a BB or pellet, through the force of air pressure, CO2 pressure, or spring action, or any spot marker gun or paint gun.
(12) Any ammunition as defined in Section 12316.
(d) Subdivision (b) shall not apply to, or affect, any of the following:
(1) A duly appointed peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a retired peace officer with authorization to carry concealed weapons as described in subdivision (a) of Section 12027, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, or any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer.
(2) A person who has authorization to possess a weapon specified in subdivision (c), granted in writing by an airport security coordinator who is designated as specified in Section 1542.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and who is responsible for the security of the airport.
(3) A person, including an employee of a licensed contract guard service, who has authorization to possess a weapon specified in subdivision (c) granted in writing by a person discharging the duties of Facility Security Officer or Company Security Officer pursuant to an approved United States Coast Guard facility security plan, and
who is responsible for the security of the passenger vessel terminal.
(e) A violation of this section is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(f) The provisions of this section are cumulative, and shall not be construed as restricting the application of any other law. However, an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by this and any other provision of law shall not be punished under more than one provision.
(g) Nothing in this section is intended to affect existing state or federal law regarding the transportation of firearms on airplanes in checked luggage, or the possession of the items listed in subdivision (c) in areas that are not "sterile areas."
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
Sorry, but you have to be nuts to live in the Peoples Demokratic Repulik of Kalifornia. I was there for two years back in the early '70s while at Mather AFB in Sacramento for Navigator training, then at George AFB in Victorville for F-4 training. Back then, they could read the constitution and had a governor by the name of Reagan who believed in it. Now, you have more freedom in Bosnia. With that pos pelosi and the two dirtbag senators you have, Kalifornia even beats out Taxachusetts with Hanoi John Kerry and the 600 pound drunk, Senator Chivas. You have my sympathy. The RSAs dealing with firearms in NH, TX, VA and CO COMBINED take two or three pages. You have an encyclopedia of what rights you give up to live there. We have just as much sunshine, no humidity and freedom here in Colorado. Plus, I like the Atlantic ocean a lot better than the Pacific! :shock:
Sorry, but you have to be nuts to live in the Peoples Demokratic Repulik of Kalifornia. I was there for two years back in the early '70s while at Mather AFB in Sacramento for Navigator training, then at George AFB in Victorville for F-4 training. Back then, they could read the constitution and had a governor by the name of Reagan who believed in it. Now, you have more freedom in Bosnia. With that pos pelosi and the two dirtbag senators you have, Kalifornia even beats out Taxachusetts with Hanoi John Kerry and the 600 pound drunk, Senator Chivas. You have my sympathy. The RSAs dealing with firearms in NH, TX, VA and CO COMBINED take two or three pages. You have an encyclopedia of what rights you give up to live there. We have just as much sunshine, no humidity and freedom here in Colorado. Plus, I like the Atlantic ocean a lot better than the Pacific! :shock:
MudCamper
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I hate trolls like you, gunslinger. You come onto the CA forum to insult California and Californians. I was born in California. My family, and extended family all live here. My friends all live here. We are all pro-2A. We are fighting for YOUR 2A rights here. We are on the front lines.Would you rather that the 20 million sensible people in CA all pack up and abandon our homeland, and our rights, to the idiots?
I hate trolls like you, gunslinger. You come onto the CA forum to insult California and Californians. I was born in California. My family, and extended family all live here. My friends all live here. We are all pro-2A. We are fighting for YOUR 2A rights here. We are on the front lines.Would you rather that the 20 million sensible people in CA all pack up and abandon our homeland, and our rights, to the idiots?
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
MudCamper wrote:
MudCamper wrote:
Sorry, but you'd better read up on the definition of trolls. This is an opinion forum, not a party line. Nowhere did I insult the CA 2A supporter, merely the state. You're no more on the 'front lines' than any of us who support the 2A in CO, NM or American Samoa, you merely have to fight your own inept government. And much of what I said was meant in good humor. I lived in CA for 2 years, went from there to Vietnam--if you want to talk about fighting on the front line, and was sorry to see what became of what was then a great state with a great governor. Save your insults for the enemy, which is not me. Or aren't you bright enough to know the difference. Feel free to come on the CO site any time you like. This is still, with the exception of a good part of your state, a free country...and a free forum.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
MudCamper wrote:
Furthermore, as much as CA laws can piss me off, there really aren't any non-firearm-related rights that one must abandon to live in California. And there are plenty of states that have individual laws worse than California's, like Texas' no-OC law (as an example).
Gunslinger wrote:
You assertion that Reagan was a dutiful guardian of the Constitution is not only ridiculous, it (and the rest of your post) indicates a narrow-mindedness and level of ignorance that we, as 2A activists, should seek to avoid. It's not a good idea to make a bad impression on people, which is exactly what you did to me, and I am as pro-2A as you can get. It's especially not a good idea to make a bad impression on people whose minds you seek to change (that is to say, those who are not yet especially pro-2A, but may become so), which is exactly what your attitude will do.
MudCamper wrote:
I agree. Gunslinger's post was definitely trolling.
Furthermore, as much as CA laws can piss me off, there really aren't any non-firearm-related rights that one must abandon to live in California. And there are plenty of states that have individual laws worse than California's, like Texas' no-OC law (as an example).
Gunslinger wrote:
I'm not so sure of that.
You assertion that Reagan was a dutiful guardian of the Constitution is not only ridiculous, it (and the rest of your post) indicates a narrow-mindedness and level of ignorance that we, as 2A activists, should seek to avoid. It's not a good idea to make a bad impression on people, which is exactly what you did to me, and I am as pro-2A as you can get. It's especially not a good idea to make a bad impression on people whose minds you seek to change (that is to say, those who are not yet especially pro-2A, but may become so), which is exactly what your attitude will do.
MudCamper
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
Actually, I took this entire sentance as an insult. How should I have taken it.
Perhaps my use of the word hate was a little to harsh. But I just get really sick of the California bashing. When you attack California, you attack it's citizens. That includes me.
As for these pearls of wisdom:
Gunslinger wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
Actually, I took this entire sentance as an insult. How should I have taken it.
Perhaps my use of the word hate was a little to harsh. But I just get really sick of the California bashing. When you attack California, you attack it's citizens. That includes me.
As for these pearls of wisdom:
Gunslinger wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
The carry laws were the same under Reagan.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
There was no gun ban in San Fran under Reagan. There were also no restrictive statutes concerning gun shows, gun sales and ammunition purchase. The police in most cities respected the rights of civilians to target shoot, open carry away from urban areas, and use guns in self defense. California has gone downhill over the past 10-15 years at an exponential rate with respect to gun rights. Under Reagan, the anti-gun crowd was virtually an non-entity--and your congressional delegation wasn't the worst in the country with respect to 2nd Amendment issues. I'm in CA often for meetings, and it remains a beautiful state. Unfortunately, it is no longer one I would ever consider living in.
And as far as saying TX has worse laws than CA on guns, you must be breathing in too much of that smog outside of the beltway. Get real. TX is a shall issue state and gun friendly. The PDR of CA is at the other pole. If you want a CCW in Houston, you get it within 30 days. How long does it take in San Fran? How about your (Marshaul's) neighbor to Fairfax, DC? Gimme a break. Look at the congressmen who signed the amicus curiae brief in support of Heller by state. Then tell me TX is worse than CA.
There was no gun ban in San Fran under Reagan. There were also no restrictive statutes concerning gun shows, gun sales and ammunition purchase. The police in most cities respected the rights of civilians to target shoot, open carry away from urban areas, and use guns in self defense. California has gone downhill over the past 10-15 years at an exponential rate with respect to gun rights. Under Reagan, the anti-gun crowd was virtually an non-entity--and your congressional delegation wasn't the worst in the country with respect to 2nd Amendment issues. I'm in CA often for meetings, and it remains a beautiful state. Unfortunately, it is no longer one I would ever consider living in.
And as far as saying TX has worse laws than CA on guns, you must be breathing in too much of that smog outside of the beltway. Get real. TX is a shall issue state and gun friendly. The PDR of CA is at the other pole. If you want a CCW in Houston, you get it within 30 days. How long does it take in San Fran? How about your (Marshaul's) neighbor to Fairfax, DC? Gimme a break. Look at the congressmen who signed the amicus curiae brief in support of Heller by state. Then tell me TX is worse than CA.
Army
Regular Member
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
So poo on you for quitting and running away from Calli. We're still pretty damn tough, we'll get along fine without you.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
Army wrote:
Army wrote:
I left CA, George AFB, to go fly F-4s in Vietnam. Not sure I'd call that "quitting."Gunslinger wrote:So poo on you for quitting and running away from Calli. We're still pretty damn tough, we'll get along fine without you.
Prophet
Regular Member
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
Classic response!Army wrote:I left CA, George AFB, to go fly F-4s in Vietnam. Not sure I'd call that "quitting."Gunslinger wrote:So poo on you for quitting and running away from Calli. We're still pretty damn tough, we'll get along fine without you.
imported post
Mudcamper,
Gunslinger did say he meant most of his original post in good humor, rather
than a direct attack. That's how I originally read it. I myself have referred
to CA as the PRCA, also for humor, and I live in CA. I believe he was attacking
our anti-gun political climate rather than the good people of California.
Gunslinger, a lot of times good-natured ribbing gets lost in a post. As
a favor to us Californians, could you please be careful with CA insults in
the future? (I've got no problem with insults to our politicians or laws,
but the state as a whole is not deserving of insults.)
gridboy
Mudcamper,
Gunslinger did say he meant most of his original post in good humor, rather
than a direct attack. That's how I originally read it. I myself have referred
to CA as the PRCA, also for humor, and I live in CA. I believe he was attacking
our anti-gun political climate rather than the good people of California.
Gunslinger, a lot of times good-natured ribbing gets lost in a post. As
a favor to us Californians, could you please be careful with CA insults in
the future? (I've got no problem with insults to our politicians or laws,
but the state as a whole is not deserving of insults.)
gridboy
MudCamper
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
What statutes are there now? I still go to gun shows.
Gunslinger wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
What I originally said was that the carry laws are the same as Reagan's time. 12025, 12026, 12031, and 12050 all existed. You couldn't get a CCW then and now. All the restrictions on Open Carry were the same.
Gunslinger wrote:
We have lost many battles. But we've been winning some lately as well. Post Heller we'll probably start winning a lot more. And it's thanks to those California Patriots who stay to fight, not those that leave yet feel they need to visit California forums to ant-burn.
Gunslinger wrote:
I assume you refer to Prop H, which, as expected has been overturned.
Gunslinger wrote:
What statutes are there now? I still go to gun shows.
Gunslinger wrote:
OK gun sales I'll give you. There are absurd restrictions on this. Ammunition? No restriction on sales. Only the crazy stupid lead ammo ban on hunting which I agree is horrible.
Gunslinger wrote:
No change here. You state "target shoot" and "carry away from urban areas". Exactly. Then as now they don't want us carrying in urban areas. Then and now you can still use a firearm legally for self defense.
What I originally said was that the carry laws are the same as Reagan's time. 12025, 12026, 12031, and 12050 all existed. You couldn't get a CCW then and now. All the restrictions on Open Carry were the same.
Gunslinger wrote:
We have lost many battles. But we've been winning some lately as well. Post Heller we'll probably start winning a lot more. And it's thanks to those California Patriots who stay to fight, not those that leave yet feel they need to visit California forums to ant-burn.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
"And it's thanks to those California Patriots who stay to fight, not those that leave yet feel they need to visit California forums to ant-burn."
So, I guess honorably serving your country in Vietnam separates you from being a "patriot" if you had to leave CA to do it.
As I said before, we fight just as hard for the 'right of the people' in Colorado, New Hampshire, Texas and Virginia--just to mention my recent homes, as those in California do. We simply do it in states that already value that right, not one that has demonstrated contempt for it.
"And it's thanks to those California Patriots who stay to fight, not those that leave yet feel they need to visit California forums to ant-burn."
So, I guess honorably serving your country in Vietnam separates you from being a "patriot" if you had to leave CA to do it.
As I said before, we fight just as hard for the 'right of the people' in Colorado, New Hampshire, Texas and Virginia--just to mention my recent homes, as those in California do. We simply do it in states that already value that right, not one that has demonstrated contempt for it.
MudCamper
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
You may fight just as hard for gun rights. You may not. But those uf us in CA have a tough fight. There is no debating that. Something that most non-Californians forget is that there are still millions of pro-gunners here.
And as for states that have "demonstrated contempt" for gun rights, lets look at the worst offender, the District of Columbia. Worst gun laws in the country. Butsome of those folks out there will be responsible for the most important pro-gun Supreme Court ruling of all time. Thank god for those DC folks. They will help us all in our fight, from that terrible place of "demonstrated contempt".
Gunslinger wrote:
I said nor impliedno such thing. Grow up. You served our country at war. Nothing can take that honor from you.
Gunslinger wrote:
You may fight just as hard for gun rights. You may not. But those uf us in CA have a tough fight. There is no debating that. Something that most non-Californians forget is that there are still millions of pro-gunners here.
And as for states that have "demonstrated contempt" for gun rights, lets look at the worst offender, the District of Columbia. Worst gun laws in the country. Butsome of those folks out there will be responsible for the most important pro-gun Supreme Court ruling of all time. Thank god for those DC folks. They will help us all in our fight, from that terrible place of "demonstrated contempt".
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
That isn't actually what I said, at all. I just get really annoyed with all the "PRK" bullshit and talk as though California is "really like another country," which it isn't, at all. Acting as though we are the only state who has too much gun legislation is ignoring the fact that every state in the union violates the very clear instruction, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Gunslinger wrote:
That isn't actually what I said, at all. I just get really annoyed with all the "PRK" bullshit and talk as though California is "really like another country," which it isn't, at all. Acting as though we are the only state who has too much gun legislation is ignoring the fact that every state in the union violates the very clear instruction, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
marshaul wrote:
I don't agree with you. There are many states that fully accept the 'right of the people.' Colorado is one, New Hampshire, VT, FL and VA are others. Plus most of the West and South. Yes, there are some regulations, but I have no problem with CC laws (except VT where there is none) or making it hard for me to buy an RPG or M-60. If my attempt at humor insults CA, it wasn't intended for the millions of good people that live there, but this is an open forum--NOT just CA. I call the PDR of Taxachusetts exactly that, and I lived there, or in New England (NH) for many years. Some states are solid with we who are strict constructionists and believe the 2nd A means what it says. Don't blanket all with the anti gun states like NY, CA, MA, IL and WI.
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
I have to disagree with you. None of the states you listed, to my knowledge, recognize the right to bear arms in absolute terms. Most of those states require a permit to conceal (what gives them the right to regulate concealed carry?). I'm sure each of those states in some way restricts the right to keep/bear arms. While it may be much less of a restriction than states like CA, that doesn't mean they aren't violating your rights to some lesser degree.
Gunslinger wrote:
I have to disagree with you. None of the states you listed, to my knowledge, recognize the right to bear arms in absolute terms. Most of those states require a permit to conceal (what gives them the right to regulate concealed carry?). I'm sure each of those states in some way restricts the right to keep/bear arms. While it may be much less of a restriction than states like CA, that doesn't mean they aren't violating your rights to some lesser degree.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
All Bill of Rights freedoms are limited, in some respect, by both Federal and State laws. The old "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" ruling by Justice Holmes is one of the most famous. The so called "Terry search" is another that lessens the 4th Amendment. The right to a speedy trial has been affirmed by the Federal 'Speedy trial statue,' but you still may have to wait 6 months. So, I agree in principle with your statements, but the reality is how much your absolute freedoms are limited. The states I mentioned limit the right to keep and bear arms minimally. In VA,NH and CO there is NO state prohibition against owning an automatic weapon, just as an example. In most states, there is.
All Bill of Rights freedoms are limited, in some respect, by both Federal and State laws. The old "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" ruling by Justice Holmes is one of the most famous. The so called "Terry search" is another that lessens the 4th Amendment. The right to a speedy trial has been affirmed by the Federal 'Speedy trial statue,' but you still may have to wait 6 months. So, I agree in principle with your statements, but the reality is how much your absolute freedoms are limited. The states I mentioned limit the right to keep and bear arms minimally. In VA,NH and CO there is NO state prohibition against owning an automatic weapon, just as an example. In most states, there is.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Alaska is the only state that allows open and concealed carry without a permit. Alaska is the only state which even comes close to not infringing upon our right to bear arms.
I don't give a damn about your qualifications.
Alaska is the only state that allows open and concealed carry without a permit. Alaska is the only state which even comes close to not infringing upon our right to bear arms.
I don't give a damn about your qualifications.