• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Los Angeles National Forest

MudCamper

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
MudCamper wrote:
In much of the National Forest you can LOC. Although where shooting is prohibited you can only UOC. Mike will disagree with me on this. . . .
See Fireams in Forests and Parks.
Click to expand...


Well, we agree that County shooting bans create Section 12031 prohibited areas even in National Forests, and I wouldpossibly agree with you that some federal no shooting restrictions might do the same, unfortunately, but in looking at your treatise you link to above, I don't think thatFish and Game Code s 3004creates off limits areas as the shooting prohibition plainly applies only "while hunting."

I also have reservations on whether a temporary federal land no shooting order would create a Section 12031 prohibited area - I'm not sure why yet, but this sort of ephemeral shooting ban does not smell like that contemplated in 12031.

But then again, is there any other Calif. case law construing whether state law refers to foreign law when it refers general to "law"?

Really, I still am on the fence over whether a non-California sovereign's (i.e., the United States) shooting ban triggers a load ban under 12031 - see discussion of United States v. Small at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_v._United_States (federal statutory term "any court" does not include those in foreign countries).
Click to expand...

Yet another case law for me to read! :)

In the meantime, please see my last 2 posts in this related thread: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/34676-2.html
 
T

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Mike, you keep sayign the NPS carry ban is lifted on Jan 19th, but I could swear that the last VA Alert I saw on this said Feb 22 (George Washington's birthday, which is how I remember it).
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
Mike, you keep sayign the NPS carry ban is lifted on Jan 19th, but I could swear that the last VA Alert I saw on this said Feb 22 (George Washington's birthday, which is how I remember it).
Click to expand...
I tend to do that lately, forget things. i will check the date again.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
R

Rattrapper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
218
Location
Swanzey,NH, ,
imported post

I cited two case laws in my first comment about this topic, Yes, they come from Massachusetts. and if we follow history Massachusetts was the model for the U.S. Constitution. Now NPS ans USFS are not the same NPS is in the Dept. of Interior and USFA is in the Dept. of Agriculture. Thus diiferent rules.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Rattrapper wrote:
I cited two case laws in my first comment about this topic, Yes, they come from Massachusetts. and if we follow history Massachusetts was the model for the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...
The cases you cite are in standard case citation form and we do not know if they are even reportable - moreover, a Massachussetts case does not bind California courts.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
R

Rattrapper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
218
Location
Swanzey,NH, ,
imported post

I agree they are not "binding" on Ca. Courts, though traditionaly another courts case law is used to bolster an agrument, We would not be dealing with Ca. Court on this matter as an argument would to be have to addressed in Federal Court as to whether the state, county, city, or town could prohibit what the Federal Permits on Federal Property. I agree that NPS will be using the same rules as USFS and BLM.
I also agree that carrying a LOC could only be done in a very narrow scope in the area of topic, "hunting" with a hunting license and knowing what is in season at that time.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Rattrapper wrote:
I also agree that carrying a LOC could only be done in a very narrow scope in the area of topic, "hunting" with a hunting license and knowing what is in season at that time.
Click to expand...
huh? no way - there is no need to be hunting to open carry on BLM, National Forest, or soon, National park land - hunting has nothing to do with prohibited area in Section 12031 either.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Rattrapper wrote:
I agree they are not "binding" on Ca. Courts, though traditionaly another courts case law is used to bolster an agrument, We would not be dealing with Ca. Court on this matter as an argument would to be have to addressed in Federal Court as to whether the state, county, city, or town could prohibit what the Federal Permits on Federal Property.
Click to expand...
Thsi argument will not come up - as you admit, federal law explicitly assimilates state law re gun carry on the national lands we are discussing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top