Ranchero
Regular Member
imported post
Any advise on UOC while ridin' yer horse within city limits?
Any advise on UOC while ridin' yer horse within city limits?
-
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.
-
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.
Open Carry on Horseback
- Thread starter Ranchero
- Start date
yelohamr
Regular Member
imported post
If you ride through a school zone, put your unloaded gun in a locked saddle bag.
If you ride through a school zone, put your unloaded gun in a locked saddle bag.
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
What about a C&R Winchester lever action?
What about a C&R Winchester lever action?
demnogis
Regular Member
imported post
We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
demnogis
Regular Member
imported post
The penal code references possession as a qualifier, but transportation as the exclusion; that is what confuses most.
bigtoe416 wrote:
The penal code references possession as a qualifier, but transportation as the exclusion; that is what confuses most.
bigtoe416 wrote:
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
demnogis wrote:
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.
demnogis wrote:
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.
demnogis
Regular Member
imported post
NorCo only has like 3 schools and a medium-sized RCC campus right?
Decoligny wrote:
NorCo only has like 3 schools and a medium-sized RCC campus right?
Decoligny wrote:
camsoup
Regular Member
imported post
Decoligny wrote:
(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!
Decoligny wrote:
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!
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
camsoup 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.
camsoup 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.
camsoup
Regular Member
imported post
Decoligny wrote:
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.
Decoligny wrote:
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.
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.
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.
imported post
oc4ever wrote:
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.
oc4ever wrote:
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.
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.
+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.
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.
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.
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
wewd wrote:
wewd wrote:
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.
stuckinchico
Regular Member
imported post
Its actually quite entertaining watchin city officers trying to decide the best way to detain me while on horseback
Its actually quite entertaining watchin city officers trying to decide the best way to detain me while on horseback
heliopolissolutions
Regular Member
imported post
CA_Libertarian wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Holy COW!