Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Collaborative Open Carry FAQ Project

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    So I have started an OC FAQ and while some guys and I have contributed to it, more work is needed.

    Any help with adding information, linking citations, cleaning up grammar, etc. would be appreciated.

    This FAQ will go a long way in having a way to help the uninitiated become more quickly familiar with and knowledgeable about the laws, risks and benefits of OC/UOC in California.

    Let's make this happen. The following link is for a GoogleDoc where no login or password is needed. Simply click and type!

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZ...R0ZGJnOQ&hl=en


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Some help would go a long way with this. Hell, you can even consider it an Xmas present. I know a lot of you have good opinions and facts, just let it out!

    -N8

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    I guess my question for you is, what would you want us to write?
    Our interpretations of the law are speculative unless based on previous case precedent.
    Our recommendations for handgun and holster choices are pretty much anecdotal.

    Would you want like, experiences of what is ok, and not ok? I see some of that content, laid out in scenario form, so I guess I could contribute there.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    The document is a bit long and meandering - stick to open carry.

    The part about loaded open carry rights is not very helpful - treating People v. Knight and the 5 or 6 appeals court cases that have followed knight as questionable law, but treating People v. Clark as law that can be relied on is illogical.

    Yes, a criminal defendant could in theory erroneously be convicted of violating 12031 for open carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle on a road - but a criminal defendant could in theory erroneously be convicted of violating 12031 for having a magazine on their belt too.

    People v. Knight is as good a source of law as People v. Clark - in California, penal Code Section 374(c) does not make all road "prohibited areas" within the meaning of Section 12031. This point is so unremarkable that in People v. Sugurra the appeals court cited Kinght and the Calif. AG opinion to side with the Defendant who was carrying on a road outside of any incorporated area and apparently not an area where the County has banned all shooting - the court's decision to not "publish" the case (even thoguh everybody knows about it and it is on Lexis and WestLaw) is that it was not remarkabl - no new law was made that day in Sugurra.

    You can't logically advise people that it is acceptable to rely on Clark and open carry magazines on belts, but not to rely on Knight and load up where legal. A better track would be to advise pople not to carry loaded unless they are absolutely sure they are not in an incorporated area and sue the County has not banned shooting there.

    In my opinion, unloaded open carry is not really open carry - and worse, you guys by statute are subject to suspicionless seazure by the police to inspect load condition - and this statute puts pressure on thepolice to "do somthing" everytime they see or hear about you.

    Organizing events where open carry is legal s what I would be doing if i still lived in California.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    The document is a bit long and meandering - stick to open carry.

    The part about loaded open carry rights is not very helpful - treating People v. Knight and the 5 or 6 appeals court cases that have followed knight as questionable law, but treating People v. Clark as law that can be relied on is illogical.

    Yes, a criminal defendant could in theory erroneously be convicted of violating 12031 for open carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle on a road - but a criminal defendant could in theory erroneously be convicted of violating 12031 for having a magazine on their belt too.

    People v. Knight is as good a source of law as People v. Clark - in California, penal Code Section 374(c) does not make all road "prohibited areas" within the meaning of Section 12031.* This point is so unremarkable that in People v. Sugurra the appeals court cited Kinght and the Calif. AG opinion to side with the Defendant who was carrying on a road outside of any incorporated area and apparently not an area where the County has banned all shooting - the court's decision to not "publish" the case (even thoguh everybody knows about it and it is on Lexis and WestLaw) is that it was not remarkabl - no new law was made that day in Sugurra.

    You can't logically advise people that it is acceptable to rely on Clark and open carry magazines on belts, but not to rely on Knight and load up where legal.* A better track would be to advise pople not to carry loaded unless they are absolutely sure they are not in an incorporated area and sue the County has not banned shooting there.

    In my opinion, unloaded open carry is not really open carry - and worse, you guys by statute are subject to suspicionless seazure by the police to inspect load condition - and this statute puts pressure on thepolice to "do somthing" everytime they see or hear about you.

    Organizing events where open carry is legal s what I would be doing if i still lived in California.
    Unfortunately, those areas are few and far between. I only know of one area that is even remotely close by and there is literally nothing there.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Mike does raise a good point. I believe I was the one that wrote that section; I'll try to find time to edit it down if someone doesn't beat me to it.
    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.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    It is good to bring up the recent People v. Strider case, a published opinion citing to People v. Knight.

    But Strider is not a Fourth Amendment case about police entering yeards or curtilage - it is a case construing the meaning of "public place" for purposes of Section 12031.

    The Strider court concluded that the "area inside the fenced yard was not a public place within the meaning of section 12031."

    Hence, there was no crime to carry a gun there; hence, as is the tradition in Fourth Amendment law, there was no reasonable articulable suspician to seize Mr. Strider at all.

    The take away from Strider is that even in incorporated areas, one can open carry loaded handguns in areas which are not "public places." A "public place" is a place, even on private property, where "a member of the public can access the place without challenge.‟ Id. “[A] location guarded by a fence or locked door is not readily accessible to the public, and is not a public place.” Id.



Posting Permissions

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