Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Home Carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Turlock, California, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    Am I to understand that you cannot carry loaded at your home, business, or on your property, but you can carry concealed?
    Thus I can UOC with concealed mags?


  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    You can do whatever the hell you want in your home, business or on your property. Carry loaded, carry concealed, carry however.

    Concealed at home, business, or property is fine:
    Code:
    12026.  (a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen
    of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who
    resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within
    the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
    code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
    who carries, either openly or concealed, anywhere within the citizen'
    s or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on
    private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal
    resident any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
    concealed upon the person.
    (b) No permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or
    carry, either openly or concealed, shall be required of any citizen
    of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who
    resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within
    the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
    code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to
    purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed,
    a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
    the person within the citizen's or legal resident's place of
    residence, place of business, or on private property owned or
    lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident.
    (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the
    application of Section 12031.
    Loaded at home is fine:
    Code:
    12031(l) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a
    loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of
    residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.
    Loaded at your business or private property is fine:
    Code:
    12031(h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in
    any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any
    officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful
    purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm
    within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful
    possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that
    property.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Whittier, California, USA
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    It may not say much coming from a LEO but my cousin says you cannot carry in your front yard loaded. Only in the house. Again, she is a newby.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    The Overturf decision could get you snagged in the interpretation of both 12025 and 12031 (and the exemptions thereof). Overturf is a sickening read; literally I get nauseous every time I read it, so I won't post any quotes this time. Basically, "carrying" and "possessing" (or "having") are not the same thing. Just pay close attention to what exactly is exempted: carrying or possession.
    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.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    The Overturf decision could get you snagged in the interpretation of both 12025 and 12031 (and the exemptions thereof). Overturf is a sickening read; literally I get nauseous every time I read it, so I won't post any quotes this time. Basically, "carrying" and "possessing" (or "having") are not the same thing. Just pay close attention to what exactly is exempted: carrying or possession.
    In todays political climate, i.e. post Heller, I don't think Overturf will ever come into play.

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    From Overturf:

    [1] "Carrying" and "having" are not synonymous. "Having" relates to an "act or state of possessing," Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, page 1145, while "carrying" refers to the "act or instance of carrying" and the verb "carry" in relevant definition connotes "to convey, or transport ...;" and "to transfer from one place ... to another." (Id. at p. 412.)

    Wow, what a horrible reading of the law. By the court's rationale we could go through every part of the penal code and find the word "have" or "possess" and have them only apply when we own something but not when we are carrying it. Take for example 647e.

    Code:
    647e.  (a) A city, county, or city and county may by local ordinance
    provide that no person who has in his or her possession any bottle,
    can or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage which has
    been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been
    partially removed, shall enter, be, or remain on the posted premises
    of, including the posted parking lot immediately adjacent to, any
    retail package off-sale alcoholic beverage licensee licensed pursuant
    to Division 9 (commencing with Section 23000) of the Business and
    Professions Code, or on any public sidewalk immediately adjacent to
    the licensed and posted premises.  Any person violating any provision
    of such an ordinance shall be guilty of an infraction.
    So this statute is meant to mean that if at our house or in our car or in another state on some property of ours, if we happen to own an opened alcoholic beverage, then a city or county could prevent us from entering the sidewalk next to or the premises of a alcoholic beverage seller that is mentioned in the law. Of course! I can totally see why the state wouldn't want that.

    What a joke. Possession means one thing one place, and a totally different thing elsewhere.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Turlock, California, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    nice, thanks guys.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Again, I happen to be in a nice unique situation.

    1. I live in unincorporated Kern County.

    2. There are no ordinances prohibiting the discharge of a firearm.

    1 + 2 =I am allowed to carry a loaded firearm (PC 12031)

    3.I am exempted from 12025 and I am permitted to CARRY afirearm either openly or concealed, anywhere within the myplace of residence, place of business, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by me any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. (PC 12026)


    Unincorporated Kern County + no ordinances prohibiting firearms discharge + 12031 + 12026 - 12025= I can legally carry a loaded gun, either openly or concealed, on private property owned by ME.

    I love the new math. :celebrate

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Antelope, California, USA
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    Deco... rub it in why don't ya

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Turlock, California, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    Yeah, well now I'm confused again.
    I gather that I can carry open or concealed in my home, on my property, or at my place of business... As stated in 12026 (a,b,c).
    I also gather that I can have a loaded firearm in my home, on my property, or at my place of business... As per 12031 (l, h).
    I could run the risk of someone questioning the decision to carry loaded on the basis of the Overturf ruling which states that I can have but not carry a loaded weapon at above mentioned places, but that may be unlikely due to the Heller ruling.
    I also run the risk of a newbie LEO crapping themselves when they see me mowing my front lawn with my glock on.
    12031 (e) says that I do not have to allow a peace officer to inspect my weapon unless I am on PUBLIC property (right?). So they have no right to check it at my home, prop, business... This is also true for all places that discharging firearms is legal (like national forests).

    So within the scope of 12031(e) even if I was carrying loaded on my prop, they could not legally verify it without my consent?

    So... they want us to leave loaded guns laying around the house because they don't want us carrying them... but in the end they have no justification to even check if that's what we're doing?

    Is that right?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L.A. County, California, USA
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    Californian wrote:
    Yeah, well now I'm confused again.
    I gather that I can carry open or concealed in my home, on my property, or at my place of business... As stated in 12026 (a,b,c).
    I also gather that I can have a loaded firearm in my home, on my property, or at my place of business... As per 12031 (l, h).
    I could run the risk of someone questioning the decision to carry loaded on the basis of the Overturf ruling which states that I can have but not carry a loaded weapon at above mentioned places, but that may be unlikely due to the Heller ruling.
    I also run the risk of a newbie LEO crapping themselves when they see me mowing my front lawn with my glock on.
    12031 (e) says that I do not have to allow a peace officer to inspect my weapon unless I am on PUBLIC property (right?). So they have no right to check it at my home, prop, business... This is also true for all places that discharging firearms is legal (like national forests).

    So within the scope of 12031(e) even if I was carrying loaded on my prop, they could not legally verify it without my consent?

    So... they want us to leave loaded guns laying around the house because they don't want us carrying them... but in the end they have no justification to even check if that's what we're doing?

    Is that right?
    CA's firearms laws should be retitled "Dazed and Confused". Welcome to the world of the vague and infringed.

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

    Post imported post

    Overturf is insane, and we all should just ignore it IMO. It was just a lame way for an anti-gun court in the 70's to uphold a conviction. I'd bet you'd be laughed out of court if you tried to argue that way now, especially after Scalia's clarification on "bearing arms".

    "Having" may mean something different than "carrying", but 12031 prohibits "carrying", so why would it need to include an exemption on"having"? I'll tell you why. "Having" includes "carrying". In order to "carry" something, you have to "have" it.

    Insane. Reminds me of "It depends on what the definition of is is." Yeah, right.



  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    mikewilliams wrote:
    A person may possess, carry, and transport loaded, and operable firearms or other weapons within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport loaded and operable firearms or other weapons in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.

    ------------------------
    mikewilliams


    Missouri Treatment Centers
    Is this a Fish and Game code? Please cite the code sections for this. I haven't heard of it. 36 CFR 2.4 (a) states that operable firearms are not allowed at all in National Parks. I'd love to hear that there is some exemption to this.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    mikewilliams wrote:
    A person may possess, carry, and transport loaded, and operable firearms or other weapons within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport loaded and operable firearms or other weapons in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.

    ------------------------
    mikewilliams


    Missouri Treatment Centers
    Is this a Fish and Game code? Please cite the code sections for this. I haven't heard of it. 36 CFR 2.4 (a) states that operable firearms are not allowed at all in National Parks. I'd love to hear that there is some exemption to this.
    That looks like the forest service code. Sorry I don't know the number so I can't cite. You are right the current National Park code doesn't allow operable firearms. They are considering changing it to allow concealed permit holders to carry concealed in states where they are allowed to carry in state parks, though. The (second) comment period ends Friday. You can post your comment at:

    http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...0000648053d497

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    but from what bigtoe416 said its legal to carry and havein a national forrest as long as youre in your campground.[12031(l)]

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    poothrowingape wrote:
    but from what bigtoe416 said its legal to carry and havein a national forrest as long as youre in your campground.[12031(l)]
    Actually, it's legal to carry just about everywhere in National Forests. mikewilliams said National Park. Perhaps hehad the two confused...



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    poothrowingape wrote:
    but from what bigtoe416 said its legal to carry and havein a national forrest as long as youre in your campground.[12031(l)]
    Actually, it's legal to carry just about everywhere in National Forests. mikewilliams said National Park. Perhaps hehad the two confused...

    so it is legalin a forrest, but not in a park? if so what do campgrounds go in under? and lakes too?

    i live in fresno and go up into the mountains all the time for fun. it would be awesome to know all this stuff

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    poothrowingape wrote:
    so it is legalin a forrest, but not in a park? if so what do campgrounds go in under? and lakes too?

    i live in fresno and go up into the mountains all the time for fun. it would be awesome to know all this stuff

    Per federal law it is illegal to even possess firearms in a National Park. However, firearms may be possessed within temporary lodging or a vehicle when unloaded and "packed, cased, or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use."

    California State Parks also have an identical law.

    So in both National and State Parks you cannot even have operable firearms in your campsite. The campiste wording is from California state law, and relates to 12025 and 12031.

    National Forests are completely different, under a different branch of the federal government. Here firearms are allowed. However, all state laws apply, so 12025 and 12031 apply. Can't conceal, and can't load in developed areas, near roads, bodies of water. You can load and conceal in your own campsite (but not in your neighbors campsite or on the way to the portapottie if it's a developed campsite).

    http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/prog.../welcome.shtml

    Also BLM lands are very gun freindly:

    http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/rec...ing.print.html

    Basically, everything in the flyer holds true in National Forests and BLM,with most of the territory therebeing "non-prohibited area of unincorporated territory".



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Turlock, California, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    And the map for the BLM lands is obtainable at...

    ???



  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Californian wrote:
    And the map for the BLM lands is obtainable at...

    ???

    There's this nifty tool called Google. You may have heard of it:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=map+o...+in+California



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    Its OK Californian,

    We love you anyway, We'er all in the same boat here in Cal.

    I really do like Navada much better though. Keep OC-ing buddy !

    Robin47

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    Per federal law it is illegal to even possess firearms in a National Park. However, firearms may be possessed within temporary lodging or a vehicle when unloaded and "packed, cased, or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use."

    California State Parks also have an identical law.

    So in both National and State Parks you cannot even have operable firearms in your campsite. The campiste wording is from California state law, and relates to 12025 and 12031.

    National Forests are completely different, under a different branch of the federal government. Here firearms are allowed. However, all state laws apply, so 12025 and 12031 apply. Can't conceal, and can't load in developed areas, near roads, bodies of water. You can load and conceal in your own campsite (but not in your neighbors campsite or on the way to the portapottie if it's a developed campsite).

    http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/prog.../welcome.shtml

    Also BLM lands are very gun freindly:

    http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/rec...ing.print.html

    Basically, everything in the flyer holds true in National Forests and BLM,with most of the territory therebeing "non-prohibited area of unincorporated territory".

    And the award for most helpful response goes to....mudcamper.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Turlock, California, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    Aw shucks, now I feel like a real tard.

    Here's another question for yall regarding home carry.

    A person's home is approximately 500 ft from an elementary school, can they carry at home, on prop, etc, as per PC 12026(a)?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Turlock, California, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    Ok, to answer my own question for those who wish to know...

    PC 626.9 (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the
    Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
    (b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person
    knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in
    paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written
    permission of the school district superintendent, his or her
    designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as
    specified in subdivision (f).
    (c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
    under any of the following circumstances:
    (1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
    property
    , if the place of residence, place of business, or private
    property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
    firearm is otherwise lawful.


    Uh huh...:celebrate


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    Californian wrote:
    Ok, to answer my own question for those who wish to know...

    PC 626.9 (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the
    Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
    (b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person
    knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in
    paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written
    permission of the school district superintendent, his or her
    designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as
    specified in subdivision (f).
    (c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
    under any of the following circumstances:
    (1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
    property
    , if the place of residence, place of business, or private
    property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
    firearm is otherwise lawful.


    Uh huh...:celebrate

    this also a good thing to know here in clovis. CUSD(clovis unified school district) is literally building schools herefaster than they can make acceptable names for. i.e. "bud Rank elementary"

    There is going to be an elementary school build across the street from my family's property. This wouldnt be a problem except the normal 1000ft area for firearms goes well into our catle pasture. Plus,since your head female in our heard is just like the angry, fiendishhornedcattle you see in the cartoons, we need to carry some kind of protection with us in the our field.


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
  •