Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: LOCing at work

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    A friend of mine works at a store inthe mall and the other day her manager was verbally assaulted and threatened by 3 little punk gang bangers. We were able to get them off property andafter the owner foundout, nowhe wants his employees armed.

    Which way of carry should they do? OC? CC?

    Would it be legal for his employees to be armed? i know he can be but what kind of red tape are they going to run in to?

    Since they lease the store could the managers of the mall restrict them from carrying within their own store?



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

    Post imported post

    Good question. I'll refer them to the book "how to own a gun and stay out of jail" and to contact an attorney.

    The question is mainly: does 12031 apply in the business? As to OC/CC only the owner is generallyviewed as getting to CC in the place of businessnot the hired helpso OC would be the way. Then there is Overturf and "having" vs "carrying". That's another attorney question.

    Get the book and read it!



    photo by oleg volk:


  3. #3
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    It is 100% legal for the employees to carry any way they choose, no permits necessary, as long as they stay within the confines of the business. I would CCW and transport to/from the business in a locked hard case.

    PC 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.
    PC 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.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

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

    Post imported post

    Cato's advice is probably wisest: talk to an attorney.

    The law seems to state that any "authorized employee or agent" can be exempted from 12025 while working and while travelling directly to/from work. I'm not aware of any case law restricting this exemption. Even though it is not required in writing, I'd have that authorization in writing. One copy in the lawyer's safe, one copy in my pocket.

    HOWEVER: 12031 is not exempted. The Overturf decision dictates that a loaded weapon may be "possessed" in the work place, but not "carried". So, if the boss wants to keep a loaded gun behind the counter, that should be legal since the employee would be in "posession", but not "carrying".

    Interestingly, 12025 only prohibits the "carrying" of a concealed firearm, not "possession". So a weapon concealed on a shelf under the counter wouldn't even be subject to 12025.

    The property owner could prohibit possession of firearms by their tenants, but it would have to be in the lease contract. I'm assuming it's not in the lease, so it should be fine. I'm not an attorney, but if I were, I'd say "what they don't know can't hurt you." I wouldn't advice asking for permission.
    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
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    HOWEVER: 12031 is not exempted. The Overturf decision dictates that a loaded weapon may be "possessed" in the work place, but not "carried". So, if the boss wants to keep a loaded gun behind the counter, that should be legal since the employee would be in "posession", but not "carrying".
    So my question is how do the gun shops get around this? I called my local gun shop and asked them...they said its absolutely legal in your place of business, just don't go outside. Isn't that what Overturf was about, he went outside?
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    HOWEVER: 12031 is not exempted. The Overturf decision dictates that a loaded weapon may be "possessed" in the work place, but not "carried". So, if the boss wants to keep a loaded gun behind the counter, that should be legal since the employee would be in "posession", but not "carrying".
    So my question is how do the gun shops get around this? I called my local gun shop and asked them...they said its absolutely legal in your place of business, just don't go outside. Isn't that what Overturf was about, he went outside?
    He did go outside, but the same exemption for being inside applies to being outside while you're on the private property of your business or residence (in Overturf's case, it was both).

    What the court got him on is that it is possible to "possess" without "carrying", so when the statute exempts "possession" that doesn't indicate an exemption to "carrying" as well. The court concluded that the legislature would have written "carrying" if they intended to include that form of possession.

    I hope you read the decision for yourself. But be warned, it's ugly. It will raise your blood pressure and turn your stomach.

    ETA: forgot to mention gun shops...

    Gun shops get away with it, but that doesn't make it legal. Overturf is the law of the land. The gun shops are simply lucky LE don't know (or simply don't care enough) to enforce the stupidity of the law. This may be partially that it's culturally acceptable for gun shop employees to OC.
    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    that is so screwed up! overturf appeals a mr meanerand he should have won. youre stuck with stupic case law. they should have just charged him with wreckless endangerment. he already called the cops and could have locked the door and wait. with his 22, just in case!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    coolusername2007 wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    HOWEVER: 12031 is not exempted. The Overturf decision dictates that a loaded weapon may be "possessed" in the work place, but not "carried". So, if the boss wants to keep a loaded gun behind the counter, that should be legal since the employee would be in "posession", but not "carrying".
    So my question is how do the gun shops get around this? I called my local gun shop and asked them...they said its absolutely legal in your place of business, just don't go outside. Isn't that what Overturf was about, he went outside?
    He did go outside, but the same exemption for being inside applies to being outside while you're on the private property of your business or residence (in Overturf's case, it was both).

    What the court got him on is that it is possible to "possess" without "carrying", so when the statute exempts "possession" that doesn't indicate an exemption to "carrying" as well. The court concluded that the legislature would have written "carrying" if they intended to include that form of possession.

    I hope you read the decision for yourself. But be warned, it's ugly. It will raise your blood pressure and turn your stomach.

    ETA: forgot to mention gun shops...

    Gun shops get away with it, but that doesn't make it legal. Overturf is the law of the land. The gun shops are simply lucky LE don't know (or simply don't care enough) to enforce the stupidity of the law. This may be partially that it's culturally acceptable for gun shop employees to OC.
    The gun shop by me started OCing around the time I started OCing there. I inspired them

  9. #9
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    What the court got him on is that it is possible to "possess" without "carrying", so when the statute exempts "possession" that doesn't indicate an exemption to "carrying" as well. The court concluded that the legislature would have written "carrying" if they intended to include that form of possession.

    I hope you read the decision for yourself. But be warned, it's ugly. It will raise your blood pressure and turn your stomach.

    ETA: forgot to mention gun shops...

    Gun shops get away with it, but that doesn't make it legal. Overturf is the law of the land. The gun shops are simply lucky LE don't know (or simply don't care enough) to enforce the stupidity of the law. This may be partially that it's culturally acceptable for gun shop employees to OC.
    Yes, I read Overturf, and yes the judge's decision was mind boggling, vernacular contortionism, and just plain stupid. Talk about legislating from the bench, this is a clear case of that.

    I think gun shops get away with it for the same reason we can get away with it. They stay inside their business' walls, while we do the same in our business' and/or houses, regardless of Overturf. Buy hey, I could be wrong.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  10. #10
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    The gun shop by me started OCing around the time I started OCing there. I inspired them
    LOC in their store? Or UOC out in public? I don't think I've ever set foot in a gun shop where the help didn't have a loaded sidearm. Except for general sporting goods stores. I always figured they had some sort of special exemption due to their type of business.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    The gun shop by me started OCing around the time I started OCing there. I inspired them
    LOC in their store? Or UOC out in public? I don't think I've ever set foot in a gun shop where the help didn't have a loaded sidearm. Except for general sporting goods stores. I always figured they had some sort of special exemption due to their type of business.
    LOC in the store. They never did that AFAIK until I started. I was so surprised that I almost asked one of the owners if he was a Calguns member when I saw his gun. Then I realized he was the owner



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •