Sac PD Blog answers Open Carry Question

imported post



Dear MrNapa,

Can I call you lefty - not because of political views, but because I see that you’d carry your gun on the left side?! In this state, a private citizen has every right to carry a firearm, as long as it isn’t concealed, the weapon is unloaded, and the ammunition is unattached. There are other stipulations including that you can’t carry the weapon within 1,000 feet of a school, airport, or other government building. This being said, you must be prepared to be stopped by law enforcement. We will stop you to ensure that it is unloaded. Additionally, most private citizens have a heightened sense of awareness after 9/11, and will probably call us to report a man in plain clothes carrying a gun in a public place. We have an obligation to investigate, and we will.

This same law doesn’t apply when driving a vehicle. California Penal Code Section 12026.2 states that when transporting the firearm in a vehicle, it must be placed in a locked container (other than the utility or glove compartment), and can’t be loaded.

I viewed the video you suggested. It seemed that the motivation for this group may be for other purposes in addition to protection. Thank you for your post and I hope this answered your question.

Officer Michelle



http://blog.sacpd.org/?p=1305

imported post

Interesting. She should read up over at californiaopencarry.org for a better understanding of the PC. She is wrong about car carry as that section she quoted is an EXEMPTION to 12025 not a criminal statute mandating locked case carry in vehicles. And as far as carrying within 1000' of airports and gov buildings...there are no such laws.

If anyone responds to her (if it is a she)PLEASE make it gentle and polite ONLY pointing out the errors and redirecting her to the correct codes as reference. Or just invite her here.

imported post

About the 1000' school, airport, gov building....33% right....FAIL. School correct.

About the carry in a vehicle...UOC in a car is the same as on the street.....FAIL.

Reference....San Diego County DA

imported post

She's real; and female

Sac PD is rife with propagandists and political correctness. I doubt she would ever visit here in public fashion. But we can visit her.

imported post

A lot of cops have the mistaken idea that a firearm becomes concealed the second it enters a vehicle, and therefore must be locked up. Not true at all. Plain view is not concealed and neither is belt carry. 12026.x are also frequently misinterpreted.

The "unattached ammunition" part is also frequently misunderstood. People v. Clark established that the legislative intent of the language in 12031 was to prohibit the weapon being loaded in the common understanding of what "loaded" means, that is to say that the ammunition may not be in a position from which it can readily be fired, or through simple manipulation (charging the action of the weapon) the weapon be made to fire. That translates into empty chamber, empty magazine/magazine well. Even if the ammunition were actually "attached" to the weapon, as in Clark, where live shotshells were attached to the buttstock of a shotgun, the weapon was not loaded because the ammunition was not in a position from which it could be fired.

imported post

That is one good way to keep spreading the word.
For those that have the time and motivation to find
and post things in a articulate way to get more people
interested and motivated in this movement.
I think a lot of counties and police departments are doing these type of blogs now.

imported post

cato wrote:

Interesting. She should read up over at californiaopencarry.org for a better understanding of the PC. She is wrong about car carry as that section she quoted is an EXEMPTION to 12025 not a criminal statute mandating locked case carry in vehicles. And as far as carrying within 1000' of airports and gov buildings...there are no such laws.

If anyone responds to her (if it is a she)PLEASE make it gentle and polite ONLY pointing out the errors and redirecting her to the correct codes as reference. Or just invite her here.

Click to expand...

Done.

imported post

As indicated, I repsonded to the posting. Since my comment has not appeared on the website I must conclude that the message has not yet be reviewed or that it has, but was not appropriate in the moderators eyes.

imported post

I just posted the folowing which shows on my screen but is probably for me only to see:


--


Comment by majstoll
Posted on November 25, 2009 at 5:47 pm

Officer Michelle’s comments are partly correct. While it is true that persons open carrying a handgun in incorporated areas of California must do so unloaded, this is not true in unincorporated areas of California where folks may openly carry loaded handguns except where the county has banned shooting - see the appeal court decision in People v. Young [correction, Knight] at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c045858.pdf Further, there is no ban on openly carrying guns in vehicles, nor is there any 1,000 foot gun carry ban zone around airports and government buildings - in fact, you can open carry in the non-secure areas of airports, like LAX, etc., without violating any California or federal law. Learn more at OpenCarry.org

imported post

Mike wrote:

I just posted the folowing which shows on my screen but is probably for me only to see:

--


Comment by majstoll
Posted on November 25, 2009 at 5:47 pm

Officer Michelle’s comments are partly correct. While it is true that persons open carrying a handgun in incorporated areas of California must do so unloaded, this is not true in unincorporated areas of California where folks may openly carry loaded handguns except where the county has banned shooting - see the appeal court decision in People v. Young at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c045858.pdf. Further, there is no ban on openly carrying guns in vehicles, nor is there any 1,000 foot gun carry ban zone around airports and government buildings - in fact, you can open carry in the non-secure areas of airports, like LAX, etc., without violating any California or federal law. Learn more at OpenCarry.org

Click to expand...

Nicely done, Mike. In retrospect, I should have copied my response in anticipation that it would not be displayed publically. Hopefully they will be open enough to show such responses if they are being moderated. The findlaw link appears to be dead, BTW.

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

The findlaw link appears to be dead, BTW.

Click to expand...

I just found People v. Knight at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c045858.pdf- the problem was the period after the link got swept up into the link - now fixed above - but see also People v. Strider at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b204571.pdf (SEP 09) suppressing evidence and discussing "public place" within meaning of 12031 and that front yard inside unlocked fence is not a public pace.

imported post

Mike wrote:

People v. Young at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c045858.pdf

Click to expand...

It's Knight. Too bad I thought there was new case law on LOC.

Mike, I'm still having trouble explaining "prohibited area" because of all the non-county shooting prohibitions out there. When you have the time lol:I'm sure you have nothing going on backEast)could you help us with a paper explaining this?

imported post

cato wrote:

Mike wrote:

People v. Young at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c045858.pdf

Click to expand...

It's Knight. Too bad I thought there was new case law on LOC.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I have Young burned into my head for some reason - will fix it above.

imported post

cato wrote:

Mike, I'm still having trouble explaining "prohibited area" because of all the non-county shooting prohibitions out there. When you have the time lol:I'm sure you have nothing going on backEast)could you help us with a paper explaining this?

Click to expand...

The best authorities are People v. Knight, the 1968 AG opinion, and the unpublished opinions that pretty much flow from those two sources of law.

SNIP

"Applying this principle to give meaning to each word and

[align=left]phrase in the statute, section 12031, subdivision (a)(1),[/align]
[align=left]prohibits carrying a loaded firearm on one’s person or in a[/align]
[align=left]vehicle: (1) while in any public place in an incorporated city;[/align]
[align=left](2) while on any public street in an incorporated city;[/align]
[align=left](3) while in any public place in a prohibited area of[/align]
[align=left]unincorporated territory; or (4) while on any public street in a[/align]
[align=left]prohibited area of unincorporated territory."[/align]
Look at how the court applies rules of statutory construction to make sense out of 12031 - and like the AG opinion, comes to the conclusion that the state statute banning shooting on roads does not operate to create a prohibited area because that reading of the statute would defeat the legislature's pupose in creating two regimes of gun carry in the state, giving Counties the option to create prohibited areas by ordinance, hence the local option in Gov. Schwartzenager's veto message

What other non-county shooting prohibitions concern you? These things do not come up in the unpublished opinions which have even said 12031's load ban does not apply inside a bank in an incorporated area.

imported post

cato wrote:

Mike wrote:

People v. Young at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c045858.pdf

Click to expand...

It's Knight. Too bad I thought there was new case law on LOC.

Click to expand...

yes we do - that is People v. Strider at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b204571.pdf- this case goes into the construction of the term public place and finds that a yard is apparently not a public place so you can carry loaded there even if inside an incorporated area, says the court.

imported post

Mike wrote:

the 1968 AG opinion,

Click to expand...

Do you have a link or copy to post?



I trust your info but other regs/laws which concern OCers in unincorporated areas are Fire Marshal No Shooting Orders during dryness,National Forest prohibited shooting areas, Fish and Game prohibitions on shooting from trails, within so many feet of buildings, or populated areas etc...

It's hard for many to understand their non application to 12031 so most just UOC to be safe.

imported post

cato wrote:

Mike wrote:

the 1968 AG opinion,

Click to expand...

Do you have a link or copy to post?

Click to expand...

no, just proprietary downloads - can you go to a law library and copy and pdf the opinion and post?

imported post

cato wrote:

I trust your info but other regs/laws which concern OCers in unincorporated areas are Fire Marshal No Shooting Orders during dryness,National Forest prohibited shooting areas, Fish and Game prohibitions on shooting from trails, within so many feet of buildings, or populated areas etc...

Click to expand...

These are potential problems for loaded open carry but such facts do not yet appear in appeals court decisions and it is at least arguable that for the same reason the generic state wide road shooting ban does not creat a prohibited area under 12031, then neither do these other non-County shooting bans - do you have cites to the fish and game regulations banning all shooting on trails and near buildings or populated areas? I seem to recall that at least one of these regulation merely banned hunting, not all discharges.

imported post

Mike wrote:

cato wrote:

I trust your info but other regs/laws which concern OCers in unincorporated areas are Fire Marshal No Shooting Orders during dryness,National Forest prohibited shooting areas, Fish and Game prohibitions on shooting from trails, within so many feet of buildings, or populated areas etc...

Click to expand...

These are potential problems for loaded open carry but such facts do not yet appear in appeals court decisions and it is at least arguable that for the same reason the generic state wide road shooting ban does not creat a prohibited area under 12031, then neither do these other non-County shooting bans - do you have cites to the fish and game regulations banning all shooting on trails and near buildings or populated areas? I seem to recall that at least one of these regulation merely banned hunting, not all discharges.

Click to expand...

I don't have the F&G rules in front of me, but the main thing that comes to mind is this: The prohibitions on shooting within certain distances of buildings all contain the wording "while hunting".

So, if you are walking down a trail and pass 10 feet from a building, and you have no hunting license, and you are carrying a loaded firearm, you are not violating the F&G rules in regards to the buildings. There may be other regulations that state you can't carry a firearm in an area designated for hunting unless you have a valid hunting license, but I am not sure.

I know that while walking down my street, I can have a loaded gun, because it is not a hunting area, and there are no prohibitions in Kern County other than no shooting in County Parks.