national FOREST clarification

imported post

im planning a trip to plumas national forest and need some clarification on gun laws. (i don't think I've ever been to a national forest so i haven't researched the laws too much)

i called today and was told that all guns must be openly carried, whether in a vehicle or on your person. in your vehicle all guns must be unloaded and in plain sight, or in a locked container if out of sight (including long guns). i was also told that firearms (long guns or handguns) may be loaded and open carried outside of the vehicle, but never concealed. no shooting within 200ft of a designated camp or recreation area, no shooting over water, or over roadways.

the only thing that seems a little strange to me is that my long guns have to be locked, and that i cant loaded OC in a vehicle. is any of the info i received inaccurate and is there anything else i should know?


thanks.

imported post

Well, mostly correct, but not quite.

The info that you get from FS employees tends to be a bit mixed up and confused. This isn't really their fault, as basically, all California state laws apply, and as we all know it can be quite difficult to navigate state laws.

Here is the FS policy on firearms: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/trails/welcome.shtml

And here is a very detailed writeup I created about this subject: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457

This includes text and links to ALL applicable federal and state laws.

Some of the basic info:

- Unloaded Open Carry is legal almost everywhere in these lands
- Loaded Open Carry is legal in areas where shooting is not prohibited, and in one's campsite
- Shooting is prohibited within 150 yards of any residence, building, campsite, or developed site, or on/across a road or body of water
- Forest administrators have the authority to prohibit shooting in other areas of the NF but must post this information
- Loaded Concealed Carry is legal for licensed hunters/fishermen, while hunting/fishing, and only where shooting is not prohibited
- Unloaded Concealed Carry is legal for licensed hunters/fishermen, while traveling to/from hunting/fishing trips

Long guns do not need to be locked up. Whoever gave you that info is just confused.

You can't load in your vehicle because shooting restrictions on roads trigger 12031.

Read the linked thread for all of the details.

imported post

Cool. Thanks man.

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

You can't load in your vehicle because shooting restrictions on roads trigger 12031.

Click to expand...

Um, why would this be true on National Forests if not true on roads outside national forests?

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

- Shooting is prohibited within 150 yards of any residence, building, campsite, or developed site, or on/across a road or body of water

Click to expand...

What statute or regulation causes this to be so?

imported post

Mike wrote:

MudCamper wrote:

- Shooting is prohibited within 150 yards of any residence, building, campsite, or developed site, or on/across a road or body of water

Click to expand...

What statute or regulation causes this to be so?

Click to expand...

36 CFR 261.10 (d)

This and every other federal and state code relevant to NFs and other public lands is listed in the link in my first post of this thread.

imported post

Mike wrote:

MudCamper wrote:

You can't load in your vehicle because shooting restrictions on roads trigger 12031.

Click to expand...

Um, why would this be true on National Forests if not true on roads outside national forests?

Click to expand...

You and I have never agreed on interpretations of 12031. We've flogged this dead horse many times before in other threads. No need to cite People v Knight. And further, IMO it is irresponsible to advise others that 12031 doesn't trigger on public roads, unless you are willing to pay for their legal defense. Whatever you believe, California DAs and LEOs believe it does.

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

Mike wrote:

MudCamper wrote:

You can't load in your vehicle because shooting restrictions on roads trigger 12031.

Click to expand...

Um, why would this be true on National Forests if not true on roads outside national forests?

Click to expand...

You and I have never agreed on interpretations of 12031. We've flogged this dead horse many times before in other threads. No need to cite People v Knight. And further, IMO it is irresponsible to advise others that 12031 doesn't trigger on public roads, unless you are willing to pay for their legal defense. Whatever you believe, California DAs and LEOs believe it does.

Click to expand...

But under People v Knight and its progeny the state prohibition on shooting on roads doe not create a prohibited area under Setion 12031 - that is a fact.

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

Mike wrote:

MudCamper wrote:

- Shooting is prohibited within 150 yards of any residence, building, campsite, or developed site, or on/across a road or body of water

Click to expand...

What statute or regulation causes this to be so?

Click to expand...

36 CFR 261.10 (d)

Click to expand...

But why would a federal sovereign's road discharge ban create a prohibited area within the meaning of Section 12031 when the state sovereign's law does not, see People v. Knight and its progeny?

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

Mike wrote:

MudCamper wrote:

- Shooting is prohibited within 150 yards of any residence, building, campsite, or developed site, or on/across a road or body of water

Click to expand...

What statute or regulation causes this to be so?

Click to expand...

36 CFR 261.10 (d)

This and every other federal and state code relevant to NFs and other public lands is listed in the link in my first post of this thread.

Click to expand...

Is there really a state statute against shooting within 150 yeards of a building? i thought the only prohibition was "hunting" within150 yards of a building, and that's why we have at least one Ca. App. Ct. case saying gun carry inside banks does not violate Section 12031 . . . hmm?

imported post

Mike wrote:

that is a fact.

Click to expand...

No. That is your well-cemented opinion.

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

Mike wrote:

that is a fact.

Click to expand...

No. That is your well-cemented opinion.

Click to expand...

No, it's a fact that the Appeals Court of California has held that "section 374c" does not make it unlawful under section 12031 to carry loaded guns openly on or near roads in unincorporated areas because such an interpretation"is contrary to the opinion of the Attorney General that section 374c does not make rural roads a prohibited area within the meaning of section 12031, subdivision (f). (51 Ops. Atty. Gen. 197, 200.)." PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SEGURA, 2006 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4969 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2006).

imported post

so, while we're off topic and all, does anyone know anyone that would want to trade jeep wrangler TJ suspension and tires for my ar15?

imported post

not to much changes in a natinoal forest then? correct me if i have something wrong here:

transport long guns open or in a bag locked or not, doesnt matter

transport handguns open or locked in a bag

loaded only where shooting is allowed

shoot in a safe area /direction at a safe distance from anyone

uoc should be good to go pretty much anywhere whether in a vehicle or not

does all of this sound right?

imported post

Let me cite the footnote from page 10 of the Knight decision, which seems to be the basis for this "local ordinance only" interpretation:

This construction is consistent with an opinion of the Attorney General in 1968, shortly after the enactment of section 12031. The Attorney General concluded “section 12031 does not prohibit the carrying of a rifle or shotgun with unexpended shells or cartridges in the magazine on a public road in an unincorporated area where there are no local ordinances or other laws or regulations prohibiting the discharge of firearms.” (51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 197 (1968).)

Click to expand...

And for the moment, let's stick to the topic at hand, the National Forests in California. I'll look into the state-wide 374c later, as you've found yet another case I haven't read yet.

36 CFR 261.10 (d) prohibits shooting on or across NF roads. 12031 defines prohibited area as anywhere shooting is prohibited. Even the citation of the attorney general in Knight include "or other laws or regulations". It does not have to be only the local ordinance.

It seems to me that all you are trying to do is win an argument, to prove you are right at all costs. If you advise Californians to violate 12031, that cost may well include the time, money, freedom, and firearms rights of those hapless people that do take your advise.

imported post

dirtykoala wrote:

not to much changes in a natinoal forest then? correct me if i have something wrong here:

transport long guns open or in a bag locked or not, doesnt matter

transport handguns open or locked in a bag

loaded only where shooting is allowed

shoot in a safe area /direction at a safe distance from anyone

uoc should be good to go pretty much anywhere whether in a vehicle or not

does all of this sound right?

Click to expand...

It does to me.

imported post

Unfortunately PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SEGURA is unpublished, and is not case law, and cannot be cited or relied upon in a CA court.

On a related note, all these documents keep referring to an attorney general opinion back in the 60's. Mike, do you have a link to a full copy of this opinion document? I'd like to see the actual context.

imported post

Thanks for the question DK. I am eagerly awaiting SA1067 to HR627 to kick in next year to allow self defense firearms within the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=111&amdt=s1067

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1112eLcRi:e48673:

I enjoy hunting in the local refuges, but the current firearms laws in them are bizarre to say the least.

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

Unfortunately PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SEGURA is unpublished, and is not case law, and cannot be cited or relied upon in a CA court.

On a related note, all these documents keep referring to an attorney general opinion back in the 60's. Mike, do you have a link to a full copy of this opinion document? I'd like to see the actual context.

Click to expand...

Citation of unpublished oinions is becoming the norm in may courts, certainly federal courts, not sure about california - but the point is though that the law is what it is and the unpublished opinions are consistent with it - 12031 is not read literally as People v. Knight, and the results in its progeny show, unpublished or not - no appeals court case says 374C creates prohibited area for purposes of 12031. Even in People v. Knight the Defendants were on a road, right?

The AG opinion from 1968 is not used by the courts diectly to limit the reach of prohibited areas - rather it is relied upon to support the courts' interpretation of the statute as the court thinks it was intended by the legisature - part of the AG opinion about proximity to buildings resulting in prohibited areas is plainly wrong as the game law regulation cited relates to a ban on discharge while hunting, not all discharges - this part of the AG opinion is ignored by the appeals courts of calif. as evidenced by the case where the court refuses to apply 12031 against a man who carried a gun in a bank! (that case also notes that the shooting ban in Ca. penal Code 415 for towns and villages was repealed by the legislature after 1968, eliminating the only other state code prohibited area acknowledged by the AG opinion - hence it appears that creating a prohibited area for 12031 can only be done by the local bodies (I think this means only Counties unless villages and towns have the power to enact shootng bans).

This is not unusual - courts often use the parts ofother authorities they like or agree with and ignore other parts.

Somebody in California needs to go to a law library and copy the AG opinion from a reporter and pdf it and post it - the relevant section says:

"The discussion above regarding the Legislature's purpose in enacting section 12031 suggests that the term 'public street' is to be given a narrow meaning. The thrust of the section is not against the use of all firearms but only against use 'inimical to the peace and safety of the people of California.' Further, the application of the section's prohibition to unincorporated areas is modified by the injection of the concept, "prohibited area.' It is clear, therefore, that the Legislature intended that there be a recognizable distinction in applying the prohibition of section 12031 as between incorporated areas and unincorporated areas. To make 'public streets' synonymous with 'public roads and highways' would leave little meaningful difference between incorporated and unincorporated areas." 51 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 197 (1968).

As we know the legislature of California has taken notice of the fact that section 374C does not create a loaded open carry ban on roads via 12031 because they introduced a bill to do same but it failed when the legislature could not overrride the Gubenator's veto - and that veto message stated that the veto sustains the current law which makes this a local option.

But of course it probably remains prudent to not carry loaded in calif. because it is so hard to know when you are in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area unless you know that County's ordiances, and it is also hard to know when you might enter an incorporated area as you travel about the state.

imported post

Mike wrote:

MudCamper wrote: Somebody in California needs to go to a law library and copy the AG opinion from a reporter and pdf it and post it - the relevant section says:

Click to expand...

OK. I will try to find this document.

While I hope you are right, it will be an uphill battle. So many DAs and LEOs already believe 374c triggers 12031, which will translate into arrests and charges filed.

Just a couple of examples:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/Los_Angeles_DA-2008-22_Carrying_Guns.pdf

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/OCSD%20Training%20Bulletin.pdf

It is also generally unlawful to carry a loaded firearm (whether concealed or not) in a public place in incorporated cities and in prohibited areas of unincorporated territory. (PC § 12031) Because "prohibited area" includes any place where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm, this includes all public streets. (PC § 374c)

Click to expand...

If the distinction turns out to be some arcane definition of street vs road vs highway, then it will be an even more difficult battle.

It may just be more easy (and certainly more fruitful) to work on getting 12031 overturned in it's entirety post-incorporation...