imported post
Decoligny wrote:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B204571.PDF
Here is an interesting piece of case law.
Put that fence up around your front yard and you are good to go carrying a loaded firearm, even in Compton.
I was reading about stuff like this recently. Here are some case laws regarding private property being a public place:
People v. Olson (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 592, 598 [driveway, lawn, and porch in front of defendant's house were public places for purposes of section 647, subdivision (f), in that they were accessible and open to common or general use]
People v. Green (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 766, 771 [hospital parking lot, accessible to members of public having business with the hospital, was a public place]
cf. People v. White (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 886, 890-893 [defendant's fenced front yard, containing three dogs which acted as deterrents to public access, was not a public place for purposes of section 647, subdivision (f), even though the yard was open to public view]
But relevant to carrying a firearm, 12025, 12031, and 626.9 all have exceptions for private property which is not the case in other laws prohibiting certain acts in public places. In People v. Tapia (2005)129 Cal.App.4th 1153 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 158 it states:
That the Legislature did not necessarily intend section 626.9 to be governed by the "public place" analysis is also suggested by the exception for places of business. It is readily apparent that a great many places of business are open to common use and enjoyment by members of the public. Nonetheless, section 626.9's exception expressly encompasses places of business.
In Tapia (2005), a sidewalk was ruled to be more public property than private for the purposes of 626.9.
This is complicated by People v. Yarbrough (2008) , Cal.App.4th where a conviction for 12025 and 12031 where upheld against a defendant while he was in a driveway.
But, in spite of Tapia, the convictions were upheld based on public place analysis. The defendant claimed Heller, and challenged jury instructions regarding public place definition, but never raised the private property exception. Since the private place exception was never raised by the defendant, the appellate judge ignored that detail.
As it stands, it is my opinion (IANAL/TINLA) that you are legally protected in having a loaded and or concealed handgun in your front yard. It is the unfortunate reality however,that it is a coin toss whether or not a DA or judge would respect the law.
