Open Carry in California questions?

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

Mike wrote:

Check out the CA page and read People v. Knight- it would appear they had no cause to detain you and you had no cause to surrender your firearm or any identification you might have carried, save your fishing license (maybe).

Click to expand...

The problem with People v Knight is that it is invalid. Knight was actually in violation of 12031, but the appeals court was not aware of it, and dismissed his charges.

Click to expand...

Well, fortunately, Judge MudCamper was not on that panel, so there is no problem - People v. Knight is the law of california, citing to an AG Opinion with same result, and likely only to be turned overturned, if ever, by the Calif. S. Ct. Even the legislature knows Knight is good law - that's why SB 1171 was introduced this year, to try to ban open carry of loaded handguns in vwehicles in unincorproated areas.

imported post

The court in People v Knight simply made a mistake. They overlooked 374c.

If you carry a firearm openly, on any public road in California, and it is loaded, you will be in violation of 12031 per 12031(f) and 374c. You will be arrested, charged, and convicted. You would lose any appeal.

This is not opinion. This has nothing to do with People v Knight. It is the law in California now. It is in the code. Go read it.



[align=left]1171 shows that the legislature is also unaware of 374c. In Sonoma County I'm not so lucky. My local cops and DA are fully aware of 374c. Just because the court in People v Knight overlooked a law doesn't mean you can't be charged with it. Why do you insist on giving people advice that will result in violating the law?[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left][/align]

imported post

All handgun purchases in the State of California since 1991 have been registered in a computer database. LEO can run the serial number on your firearm and they will get the record of sale. If you violate 12025, and the firearm is not registered this way, there is a sentance enhancement - even if you bought the firearm legally before 1991. If the firearm is legally "registered" this way, the 12025 violation will be a misdemeanor.

Mudcamper,

Basically,Handgun"s bought before 1991 are not registered in a computerbase? Is this correct? Therefore how can you get an enhancement by buying the firearm through a private sale prior to 1989 -especially if you have a written receipt from the person that sold you the firearm and the owners originalpaperwork and sales slip? How would LEO know if its Registered or not because of the age of said firearm?By carrying a weapon bought like this really a violation of 12025? If so,Then does one have to go to a gunstore , with your original sales receipt and pay to get the firearm registered in your name some way?

If your open carrying loaded, on a dirt trail in an unincorporated area (Mountains), and your not near a lake or public road, or on a prohibited are, while enguaged in Fishing ,then none of this should apply? Does the phrase Public Place mean a backpacking trail 12 miles away from any known roadin which you might encounter several people?

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.





[align=left](f) As used in this section, "prohibited area" means any place where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon.[/align]





[align=left]374c Every person who shoots any firearm from or upon a public road or highway is guilty of a misdemeanor.[/align]

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

The court in People v Knight simply made a mistake. They overlooked 374c.

If you carry a firearm openly, on any public road in California, and it is loaded, you will be in violation of 12031 per 12031(f) and 374c. You will be arrested, charged, and convicted. You would lose any appeal.

This is not opinion. This has nothing to do with People v Knight. It is the law in California now. It is in the code. Go read it.

Click to expand...

Well, that's not the way it works - the Courts tell us what the law is - you think it was mistaken as a matter of statutory construction - that can be said about almost every court decision.Saying Knight is bad law because you discovered a wrinkle you think the Court did not consider is like DC saying Heller is bad law because Scalia forgot to explain away one of the Federalist Papers which appeared to cast doubt on the right to bear arms. So, OK, when you are on the Cal. S. Ct. you can try to overrule Knight if it ever gets to you.

But in the meantime, Knight is binding on state trial courts in California. Further, reliance on Knight can be asserted as a defense under Mistake of Law doctrine. See generally, United States v. Albertini, 830 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1987).

imported post

Mike wrote:

MudCamper wrote:

The court in People v Knight simply made a mistake. They overlooked 374c.

If you carry a firearm openly, on any public road in California, and it is loaded, you will be in violation of 12031 per 12031(f) and 374c. You will be arrested, charged, and convicted. You would lose any appeal.

This is not opinion. This has nothing to do with People v Knight. It is the law in California now. It is in the code. Go read it.

Click to expand...

Well, that's not the way it works - the Courts tell us what the law is - you think it was mistaken as a matter of statutory construction - that can be said about almost every court decision.Saying Knight is bad law because you discovered a wrinkle you think the Court did not consider is like DC saying Heller is bad law because Scalia forgot to explain away one of the Federalist Papers which appeared to cast doubt on the right to bear arms. So, OK, when you are on the Cal. S. Ct. you can try to overrule Knight if it ever gets to you.

But in the meantime, Knight is binding on state trial courts in California. Further, reliance on Knight can be asserted as a defense under Mistake of Law doctrine. See generally, United States v. Albertini, 830 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1987).

Click to expand...

Well, I still do not agree with you, but even if you were correct, it doesn't change the fact that I have been told by LEO in 3 different jurisdictions that they would arrest me if I carried a loaded firearm on a public road, and they would use 374c and 12031(f) to do so. Further, most counties have no-shooting restrictions near any buildings, which triggers 12031(f). And People v Knight specifically mentioned that "local ordinances" restricting shooting would have also triggered a conviction.

I also believe that touting People v Knight to newbies is just going to get them arrested. It gives them the false sense that they can load. Better that they know all the limits so that they succeed and help further our cause.

I think you are exhibiting denial. You dislike it so much you don't want to accept that it is true. I understand that. It took me a while to accept that concealed magazine = concealed handgun under CA law. It's insane, but it's true. But I belive to give people the false impression that they can do something, when if they do so will result in their arrest, is irresponsible, and perhaps criminally negligent.

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

Well, I still do not agree with you, but even if you were correct, it doesn't change the fact that I have been told by LEO in 3 different jurisdictions that they would arrest me if I carried a loaded firearm on a public road,

Click to expand...

How many times must we remind people not to ask LEOs for legal advice?

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

I also believe that touting People v Knight to newbies is just going to get them arrested. It gives them the false sense that they can load.

Click to expand...

Right - we had better not follow the appeal court decision - who do those bozzos think they are?

imported post

Mike wrote:

MudCamper wrote:

I also believe that touting People v Knight to newbies is just going to get them arrested. It gives them the false sense that they can load.

Click to expand...

Right - we had better not follow the appeal court decision - who do those bozzos think they are?

Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is that People v Knight cannot help you when you clearly violate current law. The area where Knight did not have a shooting ordinance. That, and the fact that the court was unaware of 374c is what saved him.

Clearly, from reading Knight, if a person loads in an "area where there arelocal ordinances or other laws or regulations prohibiting the discharge of firearms" then said person would not be able to use People v Knight as a defense. It's write there in the ruling.

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

Mike wrote:

MudCamper wrote:

I also believe that touting People v Knight to newbies is just going to get them arrested. It gives them the false sense that they can load.

Click to expand...

Right - we had better not follow the appeal court decision - who do those bozzos think they are?

Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is that People v Knight cannot help you when you clearly violate current law. The area where Knight did not have a shooting ordinance. That, and the fact that the court was unaware of 374c is what saved him.

Clearly, from reading Knight, if a person loads in an "area where there arelocal ordinances or other laws or regulations prohibiting the discharge of firearms" then said person would not be able to use People v Knight as a defense. It's write there in the ruling.

Click to expand...

County regulations could impact one's ability to carry loaded, yes. But the idea that Knight is invalid because the appeals court was "unaware of 374c" is not relevant - arm chair jurists are plenty, but the court made the law and the law it is - And Knight only becomes a "defense" if an appeals court, presumably the Cal. S. Ct., overturns Kinght's rule of law - then it becomes assertable as a Mistake of Law defense doctrine.