Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Businesses & Their Parking Lots Question

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    hey all

    though i am in NM, i still travel to CA often.
    i have read the laws, case laws and the many stories on this forum.

    am i missing something regarding the parking lots of the businesses?

    i have read about going from your car to inside the business, then holstering your weapon.
    isnt the parking lot considered part of the business, especially if it is in the business lease?

    if someone can clarify this, it will help me and possibly others also.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Nope. If it is publicly accessible then it is not private property based on CA law. Lame, I know, but that is the truth. I think the case is called Overturf and maybe Tapia. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Pullnshoot is not completely accurate. For the purposes of California Penal Code 12031, private property open to or accessible by the public is not private property.

    Overturf does not impact any other law at this point.

    So as long as you are lawfully unloaded open carrying and you are not knowingly within 1000 feet of a school you are pretty good to go.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    Pullnshoot is not completely accurate. For the purposes of California Penal Code 12031, private property open to or accessible by the public is not private property.

    Overturf does not impact any other law at this point.

    So as long as you are lawfully unloaded open carrying and you are not knowingly within 1000 feet of a school you are pretty good to go.
    Whoops, got the wording wrong on it on my part. Crap!

    Many here do not recommend relying on the "not knowingly" part too much.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    Theseus wrote:
    Pullnshoot is not completely accurate. For the purposes of California Penal Code 12031, private property open to or accessible by the public is not private property.

    Overturf does not impact any other law at this point.

    So as long as you are lawfully unloaded open carrying and you are not knowingly within 1000 feet of a school you are pretty good to go.
    Whoops, got the wording wrong on it on my part. Crap!

    Many here do not recommend relying on the "not knowingly" part too much.
    Why not? That could be the one part of the law that prevents me from being convicted?

    They have to prove that you knew the school existed. . . Something near impossible absent me admitting to it. Since I didn't know the school to exist or that I was within 1000 feet of a school, they can't get me to admit otherwise.

  6. #6
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    Theseus wrote:
    Pullnshoot is not completely accurate. For the purposes of California Penal Code 12031, private property open to or accessible by the public is not private property.

    Overturf does not impact any other law at this point.

    So as long as you are lawfully unloaded open carrying and you are not knowingly within 1000 feet of a school you are pretty good to go.
    Whoops, got the wording wrong on it on my part. Crap!

    Many here do not recommend relying on the "not knowingly" part too much.
    Why not? That could be the one part of the law that prevents me from being convicted?

    They have to prove that you knew the school existed. . . Something near impossible absent me admitting to it. Since I didn't know the school to exist or that I was within 1000 feet of a school, they can't get me to admit otherwise.
    Perhaps pullnshoot was referring to the odds of getting arrested. Not knowing the school was there (subjective)is something I suspect the cops will let the courts decide while they implement the law according to the (objective) 1000 ft rule. So in other words, they will prosecute you and let you and your attorneyargue to the jury you didn't know the school was there. Classic PRK MO, guilty until proven innocent.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    I might believe you, except that none of the officers that detained me knew about 626.9. Didn't know it even existed, according to their court testimony. . . I know they are lying, but they said it swore to it, so they must be telling the truth.

    My interaction with other officers leads me to understand that many officers that are not working within schools don't have knowledge of this law. This is likely changed now that there have been so many OC related memo's, but as recent as November of last year apparently at least 4 officers in the Alhambra PD did not know.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    What's the latest on this 1000 foot rule around schools? As stupid as it is (in California), it is still the law - one can be busted for it. Is anyone working to destroy this ridiculous legislation?

    Betteryet, can we send the fool(s) that drafted this idiodic legislation straight to the gas chamber,gallows, ortar pit? Without a trial?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Bull Frog wrote:
    What's the latest on this 1000 foot rule around schools? As stupid as it is (in California), it is still the law - one can be busted for it. Is anyone working to destroy this ridiculous legislation?
    Nope, since UOCers are responsible for a bill expanding it to 1500 feet, it will be allowed to be signed into law first as punishment for exercising the bastardized right to bear, then maybe it'll be challenged in a couple of years, instead of being challenged in its current form.

    Or maybe the 1,000' federal zone recreated in contempt of court will be challenged, in hopes that it will invalidate all the states' zones and not be passed into law yet another time by the traitorous victim disarmers.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    They have to prove that you knew the school existed.
    Actually, they don't. All that have to prove is that you reasonably should have known.

    California Penal Code 626.9 (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).

    So, if you could see the school, or there was a sign on the street saying there was a school speed limit when children were present, or a school crosswalk, or any other indication there was a school nearby,you could be held to the reasonable standard.


  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Old Timer wrote:
    They have to prove that you knew the school existed.
    Actually, they don't. All that have to prove is that you reasonably should have known.

    California Penal Code 626.9 (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).

    So, if you could see the school, or there was a sign on the street saying there was a school speed limit when children were present, or a school crosswalk, or any other indication there was a school nearby,you could be held to the reasonable standard.
    Not necessarily right, but somewhat right.

    The measure of what is reasonable is still to highly debatable.

    Reasonably know is highly subjective, and from my research there is indication that in the state of California "to know or reasonably should know" is commonly acknowledged by the court as an "intent" requirement.

    One would have to prove that you had intent to bring the firearm in what you knew to be a school zone. . . Like, if you were a gang member waiting a block or two from the school so you could gun down a rival.


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

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    Nope, since UOCers are responsible for a bill expanding it to 1500 feet, it will be allowed to be signed into law first as punishment for exercising the bastardized right to bear...
    Didn't you hear? UOC'ers are also responsible for global warming, the mortgage meltdown,the high unemployment rate, and the Swine flu.


    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

Posting Permissions

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