Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Open Carry on Horseback

  1. #1
    Regular Member Ranchero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NORCO, California, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    Any advise on UOC while ridin' yer horse within city limits?


    FREEDOM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    If you ride through a school zone, put your unloaded gun in a locked saddle bag.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    What about a C&R Winchester lever action?

  4. #4
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  5. #5
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.
    People get hung up on the word "transportation". Put the rifle in a scabbard. It's not slung over your shoulder, so you're not "carrying" it, but you are "transporting" it.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
    Just to clarify, are you talking about what wewd mentioned? The transportation thing?

  7. #7
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    The penal code references possession as a qualifier, but transportation as the exclusion; that is what confuses most.

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    demnogis wrote:
    We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
    Just to clarify, are you talking about what wewd mentioned? The transportation thing?
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
    No were not.

    626.9 does not apply to long guns.

    The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act however does apply to long guns.

    Just don't get stopped by a Federal Officer if you are riding within 1,000 feet of school property.

  9. #9
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    NorCo only has like 3 schools and a medium-sized RCC campus right?

    Decoligny wrote:
    demnogis wrote:
    We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
    No were not.

    626.9 does not apply to long guns.

    The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act however does apply to long guns.

    Just don't get stopped by a Federal Officer if you are riding within 1,000 feet of* school property.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    demnogis wrote:
    We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
    No were not.

    626.9 does not apply to long guns.

    The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act however does apply to long guns.

    Just don't get stopped by a Federal Officer if you are riding within 1,000 feet of school property.
    This is from the 1996 GFSZ Act

    (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
    preempting or preventing a State or local government
    from enacting a statute establishing gun-free
    school zones as provided in this subsection.



    Since CA has its own GFSZ act, the federal one cannot preempt it, therefore since CA only has a restriction on concealable firearms, I don't see how the federal law can apply to us in CA. Transporting long arms looks to be OK to me!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    camsoup wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    demnogis wrote:
    We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
    No were not.

    626.9 does not apply to long guns.

    The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act however does apply to long guns.

    Just don't get stopped by a Federal Officer if you are riding within 1,000 feet of school property.
    This is from the 1996 GFSZ Act

    (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
    preempting or preventing a State or local government
    from enacting a statute establishing gun-free
    school zones as provided in this subsection.



    Since CA has its own GFSZ act, the federal one cannot preempt it, therefore since CA only has a restriction on concealable firearms, I don't see how the federal law can apply to us in CA. Transporting long arms looks to be OK to me!
    So, what you are saying is, if California made a law saying it is illegal to carry a gun within 10 feet of school property, that law makes the Federal Law null and void in the 990 feet beyond the 10 foot line? I don't think so.

    What this does, is give the state the right to go above and beyond the Federal Law. The state recently tried to increase the GFSZ to 1,500 feet. The Federal Law is written so that the state can make its own law more stringent than the Federal Law if they so choose. It does nothing to eliminate the areas (long guns) that the Federal Law applies to.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    So, what you are saying is, if California made a law saying it is illegal to carry a gun within 10 feet of school property, that law makes the Federal Law null and void in the 990 feet beyond the 10 foot line? I don't think so.

    What this does, is give the state the right to go above and beyond the Federal Law. The state recently tried to increase the GFSZ to 1,500 feet. The Federal Law is written so that the state can make its own law more stringent than the Federal Law if they so choose. It does nothing to eliminate the areas (long guns) that the Federal Law applies to.
    That is the correct interpretation of the wording in my opinion. But really, it doesn't matter because the federal GFSZ law is unconstitutional.

    From U.S. v. Lopez:

    Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.

    Second, §922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case by case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that §922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. 2-19.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    camsoup wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    demnogis wrote:
    We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
    No were not.

    626.9 does not apply to long guns.

    The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act however does apply to long guns.

    Just don't get stopped by a Federal Officer if you are riding within 1,000 feet of school property.
    This is from the 1996 GFSZ Act

    (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
    preempting or preventing a State or local government
    from enacting a statute establishing gun-free
    school zones as provided in this subsection.



    Since CA has its own GFSZ act, the federal one cannot preempt it, therefore since CA only has a restriction on concealable firearms, I don't see how the federal law can apply to us in CA. Transporting long arms looks to be OK to me!
    So, what you are saying is, if California made a law saying it is illegal to carry a gun within 10 feet of school property, that law makes the Federal Law null and void in the 990 feet beyond the 10 foot line? I don't think so.

    What this does, is give the state the right to go above and beyond the Federal Law. The state recently tried to increase the GFSZ to 1,500 feet. The Federal Law is written so that the state can make its own law more stringent than the Federal Law if they so choose. It does nothing to eliminate the areas (long guns) that the Federal Law applies to.
    Yes that is the way I read it.... for example CA says its OK to have a 215 card and smoke marijuana...its illegal per the feds, but they have said they will not prosecute.


    Why else would it say, (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
    preempting
    or preventing a State or local government
    from enacting a statute establishing gun-free
    school zones
    .....

    I read that as to say that the federal law will not preempt a state law or prevent the state from creating such law.


    CA firearms law have preemption to city/county other than discharge.

    Long beach may come up with a ban on all firearms in the city, but it isn't a legal law. And the state of CA is not going to enforce it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    I have read 629.6 several times. I am still having a problem understanding where it specifically excludes shotguns and long guns from the 1000 foot GFSZ unlocked. Most of the law talks about "firearms". All of the LEO training bulletins just say guns/firearms as a violation of 629.6.

    This is another law that is clear as mud. I think a LEO after reading the law is going to have an easy time arresting you for cruising by a school zone with a shotgun, loaded or not.

  15. #15
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    oc4ever wrote:
    I have read 629.6 several times. I am still having a problem understanding where it specifically excludes shotguns and long guns from the 1000 foot GFSZ unlocked. Most of the law talks about "firearms". All of the LEO training bulletins just say guns/firearms as a violation of 629.6.

    This is another law that is clear as mud. I think a LEO after reading the law is going to have an easy time arresting you for cruising by a school zone with a shotgun, loaded or not.
    626.9 (c)(2) makes exemptions to the law. The first is for unloaded, cased and locked handguns, revolvers, and other firearms able to be concealed on the person such as an AOW shotgun. The second paragraph exempts long guns, and does not specify that they must be locked up. The only point of contention is that it says "transportation" and not "carry" and does not define transportation.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  16. #16
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    +1 to wewd. It doesn't say you can't carry a rifle/shotgun through a school zone. But then it doesn't say you can (unless you're transporting it). In my book, that means if I'm going somewhere with a rifle or shotgun, I can go through school zones without worry (even if it is on my person). I might read up on the law a bit more if I wanted to go stand outside a school with a shotgun though, or walk around one, or do yoga next to one, etc.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    My point is if the LEO's are reading their training bulletins,they just mostly talk about firearms regarding GFSZ, and are not specific about concealed versus shotguns, loaded versus unloaded. I am going to start a new post out of this horse thread to get some others input. By the way Norco is a nice place if you like the horseriding lifestyle.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.
    People get hung up on the word "transportation". Put the rifle in a scabbard. It's not slung over your shoulder, so you're not "carrying" it, but you are "transporting" it.
    Per the CA Court of Appeals in People v Overturf the definition of "carry" is "transport". Under current case law, these two terms are interchangeable in statute.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  19. #19
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Its actually quite entertaining watchin city officers trying to decide the best way to detain me while on horseback

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    wewd wrote:
    This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.
    People get hung up on the word "transportation". Put the rifle in a scabbard. It's not slung over your shoulder, so you're not "carrying" it, but you are "transporting" it.
    Per the CA Court of Appeals in People v Overturf the definition of "carry" is "transport". Under current case law, these two terms are interchangeable in statute.
    Holy COW!

Posting Permissions

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