Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Shotgun Carry.....

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    Well unfortunately I cannot go in to detail, because of an impending criminal complaint.... I am trying to find the law regarding open carry of unloaded shotguns. Apparently my local police department has a problem with UOC (and eye sight) and decided to seize my handgun as "evidence" so I want to make sure that this one is "visible". Can anyone point me in the direction of the section of the law that covers shotgun carry?

    Thanks!!!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    So. Orange County CA, California, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    Im sure its legal, but I'd be ready to get stopped an awful lot.

    The OC SD tried taking 5 of my handguns that were in an unlocked case as "evidence"... and I asked for what crime, the reply was "unlawful transport".

    long story short and an hour later... they let me go, with my guns.


    ::Cheers::

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    12001. (a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol," "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
    12025. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following: (1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. (2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. (3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
    There is no explicit shotgun carry section. Shotguns and long rifles fall
    under the unconcealable group provided that the barrel is at least 16 inches
    in length. So do whatever you want with your shotgun, stick it in your car,
    put it under a trench coat, throw it over your shoulder, walk next to a
    school.

    Just don't load it (put shells inside the shotgun) or walk onto school
    grounds or into a public building (post office, police station, etc.)
    and you'll be okay.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    Whoa, lets hold on here. ANY firearm must be in a locked container if you are within 1000' of a K-12 school. Do not carry near a school, handgun or long gun. Shotguns must have at least an 18" barrel and must be 26" overall.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    M198 wrote:
    Whoa, lets hold on here. ANY firearm must be in a locked container if you are within 1000' of a K-12 school. Do not carry near a school, handgun or long gun. Shotguns must have at least an 18" barrel and must be 26" overall.
    CA school zone law only covers handguns and firearms capable of being concealed on the person. It specifically says that it does not prohibit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearms....

    The FEDERAL gun free school zone act, does limit ALL guns within 1000' of a school.


    Two different Gun free school zone acts.

    I guess the question is can a city/county/state LEO charge you for the Federal crime of carrying a long arm within 1000' of a school?


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    Error on the side of caution.

    camsoup wrote:
    M198 wrote:
    Whoa, lets hold on here. ANY firearm must be in a locked container if you are within 1000' of a K-12 school. Do not carry near a school, handgun or long gun. Shotguns must have at least an 18" barrel and must be 26" overall.
    CA school zone law only covers handguns and firearms capable of being concealed on the person. It specifically says that it does not prohibit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearms....

    The FEDERAL gun free school zone act, does limit ALL guns within 1000' of a school.


    Two different Gun free school zone acts.

    I guess the question is can a city/county/state LEO charge you for the Federal crime of carrying a long arm within 1000' of a school?

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    The Federal Law is unconstitutional and was ruled as such in United States v. Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez). Congress repassed the law after Lopez with the addition of a few words saying that they had the power thanks to the commerce clause. Except the court ruled they didn't have the power because the tie between the possession of a firearm inside a school zone is too tenuous of a connection to affecting interstate commerce.

    The very first sentence of the "Held" portion of the Lopez ruling is "The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority." It doesn't get much clearer than that. They go on to say, "...the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce."

    Therefore I carry unlocked long rifles within 1000' of schools and don't worry at all about being prosecuted for it. I highly recommend everybody do the same since the Judicial system of our government has invalidated that law.

    Here is the entire opinion: http://supreme.justia.com/us/514/549/case.html

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    The Federal Law is unconstitutional and was ruled as such in United States v. Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez). Congress repassed the law after Lopez with the addition of a few words saying that they had the power thanks to the commerce clause. Except the court ruled they didn't have the power because the tie between the possession of a firearm inside a school zone is too tenuous of a connection to affecting interstate commerce.

    The very first sentence of the "Held" portion of the Lopez ruling is "The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority." It doesn't get much clearer than that. They go on to say, "...the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce."

    Therefore I carry unlocked long rifles within 1000' of schools and don't worry at all about being prosecuted for it. I highly recommend everybody do the same since the Judicial system of our government has invalidated that law.

    Here is the entire opinion: http://supreme.justia.com/us/514/549/case.html
    +1... with an exception

    Since the law was reenacted, you can still be charged with it, and it could possibly require another trip to SCOTUS to overturn your conviciton. I don't find it hard to imagine a cop, DA, judge, and jury all ignoring the fact the US Congress is trying to circumvent the judicial review process.

    So, keep in mind there are some added risks when you're "on the radar."
    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.

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    +1... with an exception

    Since the law was reenacted, you can still be charged with it, and it could possibly require another trip to SCOTUS to overturn your conviciton. I don't find it hard to imagine a cop, DA, judge, and jury all ignoring the fact the US Congress is trying to circumvent the judicial review process.

    So, keep in mind there are some added risks when you're "on the radar."
    I seriously hope the very first judge would dismiss the case based on Lopez. If not then I'd immediately lose all hope for the judicial system.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    I seriously hope the very first judge would dismiss the case based on Lopez. If not then I'd immediately lose all hope for the judicial system.
    What is this "hope" thing of which you speak? I hope you brought enough for the rest of the class.
    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    I have OC'd my shotgun several times around here. I will be doing it again. But keep in mind you must be transporting your firearm for a lawful purpose. Just driving around with it with no purpose at the ready may bring you mounds of grief in the way of defense atty fees.

    officer: Where are you going?

    You: To (or from) my business

    or

    You: To a friends house who is going to look at my shotgun

    or

    You: North



    Asking for trouble would be:

    Officer: Where are you going?

    You: nowhere in particular

    or

    You: to baskin robbins for ice cream



  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    I have OC'd my shotgun several times around here. I will be doing it again. But keep in mind you must be transporting your firearm for a lawful purpose. Just driving around with it with no purpose at the ready may bring you mounds of grief in the way of defense atty fees.

    It would seem to me that a lawful purpose isany purpose that is not unlawful, including no purpose. The codes specify what is unlawful and everything else is lawful.What is the unlawful purpose that I am being charged with? Having no purpose is not unlawful. Or am I missing something??
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    I have OC'd my shotgun several times around here. I will be doing it again. But keep in mind you must be transporting your firearm for a lawful purpose. Just driving around with it with no purpose at the ready may bring you mounds of grief in the way of defense atty fees.

    It would seem to me that a lawful purpose isany purpose that is not unlawful, including no purpose. The codes specify what is unlawful and everything else is lawful.What is the unlawful purpose that I am being charged with? Having no purpose is not unlawful. Or am I missing something??
    Yes sir,



    You're missing this part: Attorney fee$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Nothing wrong with seeing the plain language of the law...or code if you will. Practicing it on an empty wallet is another matter though. In this case, you still open carry, but without adding to your defensive load in court. It's "yes I was carrying it for a lawful purpose", as opposed to "bring on the charges". The pointI was making is, have your lawful purpose in mind. In fact, practice it so it is second nature.

    Do you really want to spend 2K of your money provingthat your carrying it to baskin robbins wasnot unlawful, or would you rather spend zero or 500.00proving you were actually headed to yourfriends houseto show him your shotgun, andyou thought you'd bring ice cream as a friendly gesture?



  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    I have OC'd my shotgun several times around here. I will be doing it again. But keep in mind you must be transporting your firearm for a lawful purpose. Just driving around with it with no purpose at the ready may bring you mounds of grief in the way of defense atty fees.

    It would seem to me that a lawful purpose isany purpose that is not unlawful, including no purpose. The codes specify what is unlawful and everything else is lawful.What is the unlawful purpose that I am being charged with? Having no purpose is not unlawful. Or am I missing something??
    Yes sir,



    You're missing this part: Attorney fee$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Nothing wrong with seeing the plain language of the law...or code if you will. Practicing it on an empty wallet is another matter though. In this case, you still open carry, but without adding to your defensive load in court. It's "yes I was carrying it for a lawful purpose", as opposed to "bring on the charges". The pointI was making is, have your lawful purpose in mind. In fact, practice it so it is second nature.

    Do you really want to spend 2K of your money provingthat your carrying it to baskin robbins wasnot unlawful, or would you rather spend zero or 500.00proving you were actually headed to yourfriends houseto show him your shotgun, andyou thought you'd bring ice cream as a friendly gesture?

    I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me.

    If we live in a society where law-abiding citizens must explain to an LEO how it iswe are keeping the law and ifwe don't explain -we get arrested, then I say our government has crossed the line drawn in the sand by our forefathers!

    How much isour freedom worth???

    It's priceless!
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me.
    No, the code doesn't say you have to articulate your lawful purpose. You'd be doing that to a judge or jury. If you're articulating to either of those, you've pretty much spent 2K or more already.

    I'm keeping the money in my wallet and telling the cops what they need to hear to get both of us back on our merry ways

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Not to be a pest, but the statements above about the law need cites, and links and quotes if possible.

    It cuts down on misunderstandings. And lets the person see for himself what the law actually says.

    Its in the forum rules:

    7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.



    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me.
    No, the code doesn't say you have to articulate your lawful purpose. You'd be doing that to a judge or jury. If you're articulating to either of those, you've pretty much spent 2K or more already.

    I'm keeping the money in my wallet and telling the cops what they need to hear to get both of us back on our merry ways
    Let's just say I was arrested because I was carryingmy unloaded legally configured shotgun around in my truck. I am a law-abiding citizen and have not been involved in criminal activity. And I refused to answer questions invoking my 5th amendment right.

    (Cite: U.S. Constitution "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...")

    What would I be charged with?

    How could a judge compel me to testify against myself?


    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  18. #18
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    12001. (a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol," "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
    12025. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following: (1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. (2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. (3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
    There is no explicit shotgun carry section. Shotguns and long rifles fall
    under the unconcealable group provided that the barrel is at least 16 inches
    in length. So do whatever you want with your shotgun, stick it in your car,
    put it under a trench coat, throw it over your shoulder, walk next to a
    school.

    Just don't load it (put shells inside the shotgun) or walk onto school
    grounds or into a public building (post office, police station, etc.)
    and you'll be okay.
    I admit to not having read the California code recently. I recall something about the legislature giveing the police authority to stop anyone with a gun in order to examine it to make sure it is unloaded. Am I correct, or has this rule been superceded or perhaps there are exceptions that I am unaware of?

  19. #19
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    As far as im concerned its unlawful.. Unless of course i missed the news flash that California succeeded from the Union... However there is a law that does state that. However i do have the opportunity to challenge it on the 17th as Far as it is the grounds for my detention. I am still trying to figure out where CAL APPS gets off over ruling a US SUPREME Court ruling that has yet to be challenged or overturned. ANd it my understanding, correct me if I am wrong but the lower courts must follow it superiors

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me.
    No, the code doesn't say you have to articulate your lawful purpose. You'd be doing that to a judge or jury. If you're articulating to either of those, you've pretty much spent 2K or more already.

    I'm keeping the money in my wallet and telling the cops what they need to hear to get both of us back on our merry ways
    Let's just say I was arrested because I was carryingmy unloaded legally configured shotgun around in my truck. I am a law-abiding citizen and have not been involved in criminal activity. And I refused to answer questions invoking my 5th amendment right.

    (Cite: U.S. Constitution "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...")

    What would I be charged with?

    How could a judge compel me to testify against myself?

    You could be charged with any one of many code violations that an officer felt that the circumstances dictated. Even disturbing the peace. You could remain silent before the police, and the judge or jury, however they would then make up their minds on your charges with the evidence presented by witnesses and the prosecutor. The way I see a judge or jury, they cannot say you had a lawful purpose if you don't declare one.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elk Grove, California, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    You could be charged with any one of many code violations that an officer felt that the circumstances dictated. Even disturbing the peace.

    That's odd, I read on my local PD's website that an officer's peace cannot be disturbed and that someone other than the officer would have to sign a complaint. The reference to PC 415 on Elk Grove PD's site can be found at: http://www.elkgrovepd.org/more/faq-quality-life.asp#q07

    I believe Rancho Cordova PD says the same?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    nukechaser wrote:
    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    You could be charged with any one of many code violations that an officer felt that the circumstances dictated. Even disturbing the peace.

    That's odd, I read on my local PD's website that an officer's peace cannot be disturbed and that someone other than the officer would have to sign a complaint. The reference to PC 415 on Elk Grove PD's site can be found at: http://www.elkgrovepd.org/more/faq-quality-life.asp#q07

    I believe Rancho Cordova PD says the same?
    The police usually respond because of a complaint. With all the anti-gun people is California, who's to say someone wouldn't sign a complaint?I wasn't predicting that charge by the way. Just giving an example. Another one would be that someone charging they were threatened by your actions. You know; "So you felt threatened by the man with the gun as he neared you ma'am?"

    Not every cop wants to arrest you for a gun violation, so give them reason not to.



  23. #23
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me.
    No, the code doesn't say you have to articulate your lawful purpose. You'd be doing that to a judge or jury. If you're articulating to either of those, you've pretty much spent 2K or more already.

    I'm keeping the money in my wallet and telling the cops what they need to hear to get both of us back on our merry ways
    Let's just say I was arrested because I was carryingmy unloaded legally configured shotgun around in my truck. I am a law-abiding citizen and have not been involved in criminal activity. And I refused to answer questions invoking my 5th amendment right.

    (Cite: U.S. Constitution "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...")

    What would I be charged with?

    How could a judge compel me to testify against myself?

    You could be charged with any one of many code violations that an officer felt that the circumstances dictated. Even disturbing the peace. You could remain silent before the police, and the judge or jury, however they would then make up their minds on your charges with the evidence presented by witnesses and the prosecutor. The way I see a judge or jury, they cannot say you had a lawful purpose if you don't declare one.
    I invoke my 5th amendment rights on this thread!
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  24. #24
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Too much fud in this thread to even begin to address it all nothing to see here folks move along move along



    To begin with shotguns are probably the legally safest firearms to possess under CA law. It goes get a little ambiguous in school zones however if one is on foot (unloaded in cars being transportedaremore clearlyOK).


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me.
    No, the code doesn't say you have to articulate your lawful purpose. You'd be doing that to a judge or jury. If you're articulating to either of those, you've pretty much spent 2K or more already.

    I'm keeping the money in my wallet and telling the cops what they need to hear to get both of us back on our merry ways
    Let's just say I was arrested because I was carryingmy unloaded legally configured shotgun around in my truck. I am a law-abiding citizen and have not been involved in criminal activity. And I refused to answer questions invoking my 5th amendment right.

    (Cite: U.S. Constitution "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...")

    What would I be charged with?

    How could a judge compel me to testify against myself?

    You could be charged with any one of many code violations that an officer felt that the circumstances dictated. Even disturbing the peace. You could remain silent before the police, and the judge or jury, however they would then make up their minds on your charges with the evidence presented by witnesses and the prosecutor. The way I see a judge or jury, they cannot say you had a lawful purpose if you don't declare one.
    What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If they can't prove you were up to an unlawful purpose, despite suspicions, shouldn't that result in a not guilty verdict? I'm not sure that having an unloaded firearm would satisfy the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. They should have to PROVE that you have an unlawful purpose.

    Except that it's california. I guess you have a point, but everywhere else it wouldn't convict, I don't think.

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
  •