• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Home Carry

Californian

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
13
Location
Turlock, California, USA
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?
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 

Citizen Al

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
2
Location
, ,
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.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
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.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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 [size="3"]Code,[/size] 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.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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
 

Californian

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
13
Location
Turlock, California, USA
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?:banghead:
 

4armed Architect

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
149
Location
L.A. County, California, USA
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?:banghead:
CA's firearms laws should be retitled "Dazed and Confused". Welcome to the world of the vague and infringed.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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.
 

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
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/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648053d497
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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...
 

poothrowingape

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
210
Location
fresno, California, USA
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
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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/programs/trails/welcome.shtml

Also BLM lands are very gun freindly:

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/recreation/hunting.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".
 
Top