Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Just thought of possible legal reasoning for LOC in unicorporated areas

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Riverside County, California, USA

    Post imported post

    Just thought of possible legal reasoning for LOC in unicorporated areas:

    The determination of whether or not 12031 applies in unincorporated areas is if it is a prohibited area. That has been loosely interpreted to mean any area with a ban on recreational shooting. But the law specifies "prohibited" meaning that under no circumstances may a firearm be discharged. Since discharge in self defense would still be permitted, the law shouldn't apply.

    For purposes of example I will highlight three general purposes for discharging a firearm: hunting, target, self defense. If you are in an area where target practice is allowed, but hunting is not, you are clearly not in a prohibited area. What I am arguing is that if you are in an area that target practice and hunting are prohibited, but self defense is not, then you are not in a prohibited area within the meaning of 12031.


  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Post imported post

    I think the reasoning is valid. I'm sure somebody has been found guilty of 12031 while in a pseudo-prohibited unincorporated area, though I doubt they tried to argue your point.

Posting Permissions

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