Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Open Carry in GOGA (National Parks, San Francisco)

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Posted on CalGuns: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=263332

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...p;d=1264530769

    It's all about UOC, not LOC, which means they must plan on banning shooting in this/these parks.

    What's GOGA anyway?

    ETA: It's Golden Gate National Recreation Area. So it is in incorporated Territory. At least part of it. What about the Marin side? If it's not, then LOC would be legal, and (e) checks would be illegal.


  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    The northern side of Golden Gate bridge looks to be unincorporated according to this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...ighlighted.svg

    ETA: Here is the map of the National Recreation Area: http://www.nps.gov/goga/planyourvisi...d/GOGAmap1.pdf

    If you are thinking of open carrying around this area, remember that you cannot carry in state parks, and Mount Tamalpais State Park is close by.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    yelohamr wrote: good memo i think.



    here is the number to that office if anyone wants to comment to them.

    (415) 561-5185
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    good memo i think.
    Except for no mention that 12031 does not apply in non-prohibited areas of unincorporated territory, and that (e) checks are not allowed in such areas. So unless the Park bans shooting in the unincorporated areas we can legally LOC in those areas. (like the Marin Headlands).



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    I printed a copy of the memo to keep in the car, along with the memos from the San Diego DA and OPD. Not that I've ever needed them, but there may be a day...

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    I did a brief look through Marin county codes and I found a prohibition of discharging firearms when closer than 1000 yards of incorporated land. I think the closest incorporated city is Sausalito, which would mean that it's safe to LOC on the Marin side of the Golden Gate Bridge as soon as the Federal law goes into effect February 22, 2010.

  8. #8
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    I did a brief look through Marin county codes and I found a prohibition of discharging firearms when closer than 1000 yards of incorporated land. I think the closest incorporated city is Sausalito, which would mean that it's safe to LOC on the Marin side of the Golden Gate Bridge as soon as the Federal law goes into effect February 22, 2010.
    Isn't that only for rifles?

    6.56.065 Discharge of rifles in the vicinity of cities.


    Any person who discharges a rifle within five hundred yards of the city limits of the cities of Fairfax, Novato and San Rafael, or within one thousand yards of the city limits of any other incorporated city in Marin County shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

    The foregoing shall not apply to members or guests of target or hunting clubs or similar activities, hunting or shooting on property owned or controlled, or for which permission has been granted to use such property to the club or activity; provided, that the board of supervisors has issued a permit acknowledging the existence of said club or activity.

    (Ord. 2385 § 1, 1978)


    I'm not really sure if this 'safety' zone ordinance would be a problem...

    6.56.070 Restrictions on use.

    Any person who discharges any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, air rifle, spring-loaded BB gun, or firearm within one hundred fifty yards of any building, dwelling house, road, camp, or other place where human beings usually inhabit, assemble, frequent, or pass, said one hundred fifty yard area being hereby declared a "safety zone," is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both such fine or imprisonment; and

    In addition to the foregoing absolute prohibition, any person who, without reasonable regard for the safety of persons or property, discharges any such firearm at, in or in the direction of any building, dwelling house, road, camp or other place where human beings usually inhabit, assemble, frequent or pass, although outside the one hundred fifty yard limitation, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or by both such fine or imprisonment.

    (Ord. 1464 § 1, 1965: Ord. 266 § 1, 1938)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    This memo is almost the same as the Sunnyvale memo. Looks like they just used cut and paste and made a few changes.

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    bigtoe416 wrote:
    I did a brief look through Marin county codes and I found a prohibition of discharging firearms when closer than 1000 yards of incorporated land. I think the closest incorporated city is Sausalito, which would mean that it's safe to LOC on the Marin side of the Golden Gate Bridge as soon as the Federal law goes into effect February 22, 2010.
    Isn't that only for rifles?
    Indeed it is. Lesson learned, don't try to summarize statutes unless you're actually looking at them.

    The second part you quoted seems more damning. It's going to be hard to find a place 150 yards away from a road which is still in the National Recreation Area.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Best memo yet.

    I've really put Turlock on the map! I think this is the 3rd memo mentioning my detention there.

    I like that the author was fairly thorough in citing code and case. Most importantly, it notes that 12031(e) is NOT allowed to be a detention beyond examining the firearm's loaded condition.

    Yet still, there's that allegation that we're trying to encite LE into violating our rights so we can sue... yet nobody has done so to date...

    But I still view that as positive. They are aware they are potentially going to be held accountable. If honor and goodness won't make them respect our rights, maybe fear will.

    I give this one 4 out of 5 dancing bananas.

    :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate
    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.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...83#post3858483

    Jason Wu, SFFO Commander, called me back this morning.

    He was very friendly. He stated that he understands what UOCers are doing, and respects their constitutional rights. He further stated that he hopes to maintain a mutual respect between his officers and UOCers.

    He stated that he (and the Park Service) do interpret that 36 CFR 2.4 (a) (iii) does trigger the "prohibited area" language in 12031 and that therefore no loading is allowed in the Parks. He did acknowledge that the campsite exception to 12031 would allow loading in one's campsite, provided it is a legal campsite. (I gathered that there is no camping in his particular jurisdiction.)

    I asked if his officers would do (e) checks, and he said yes, they will. He said that they had to keep officer safety in mind, but that they will try to be respectful.

    He also stated that he is willing (actually quite interested) in meeting and talking with anyone about these subjects.



  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...83#post3858483

    Jason Wu, SFFO Commander, called me back this morning.

    He was very friendly. He stated that he understands what UOCers are doing, and respects their constitutional rights. He further stated that he hopes to maintain a mutual respect between his officers and UOCers.

    He stated that he (and the Park Service) do interpret that 36 CFR 2.4 (a) (iii) does trigger the "prohibited area" language in 12031 and that therefore no loading is allowed in the Parks. He did acknowledge that the campsite exception to 12031 would allow loading in one's campsite, provided it is a legal campsite. (I gathered that there is no camping in his particular jurisdiction.)

    I asked if his officers would do (e) checks, and he said yes, they will. He said that they had to keep officer safety in mind, but that they will try to be respectful.

    He also stated that he is willing (actually quite interested) in meeting and talking with anyone about these subjects.

    Man, federal officers must LOVE CA, because they can violate the 2A, 4A, and 5A at will!

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I wonder what the legal ramifications would be for a federal officer using a CA statute as an excuse for ignore well-settled 4A law (Terry v Ohio, et al).

    Too early to share anything yet... but I think I may have just had an idea...
    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.

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

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    I wonder what the legal ramifications would be for a federal officer using a CA statute as an excuse for ignore well-settled 4A law (Terry v Ohio, et al).

    Too early to share anything yet... but I think I may have just had an idea...
    I like the way you're thinking.

    Let's briefly remind ourselves what 12031(e) says:

    (e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.
    Who can perform a 12031(e) check? A peace officer. Where are peace officers defined? In Part 2, Title 3, Chapter 4.5 of the penal code, which is entitled "Peace Officers."

    If you go through who is a peace officer, you'll see that it is a HUUUUUUGE list. Surely a national park ranger or park police would be found in the list, right?

    But...no! This section below says both "Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers are not California peace officers" and "National park rangers are not California peace officers."

    Code:
    830.8.  (a) Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement
    officers are not California peace officers, but may exercise the
    powers of arrest of a peace officer in any of the following
    circumstances:
    (1) Any circumstances specified in Section 836 or Section 5150 of
    the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of state or local
    laws.
    (2) When these investigators and law enforcement officers are
    engaged in the enforcement of federal criminal laws and exercise the
    arrest powers only incidental to the performance of these duties.
    (3) When requested by a California law enforcement agency to be
    involved in a joint task force or criminal investigation.
    (4) When probable cause exists to believe that a public offense
    that involves immediate danger to persons or property has just
    occurred or is being committed.
    In all of these instances, the provisions of Section 847 shall
    apply. These investigators and law enforcement officers, prior to the
    exercise of these arrest powers, shall have been certified by their
    agency heads as having satisfied the training requirements of Section
    832, or the equivalent thereof.
    This subdivision does not apply to federal officers of the Bureau
    of Land Management or the Forest Service of the Department of
    Agriculture. These officers have no authority to enforce California
    statutes without the written consent of the sheriff or the chief of
    police in whose jurisdiction they are assigned.
    (b) Duly authorized federal employees who comply with the training
    requirements set forth in Section 832 are peace officers when they
    are engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws on property
    owned or possessed by the United States government, or on any street,
    sidewalk, or property adjacent thereto, and with the written consent
    of the sheriff or the chief of police, respectively, in whose
    jurisdiction the property is situated.
    (c) National park rangers are not California peace officers but
    may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer as specified in
    Section 836 and the powers of a peace officer specified in Section
    5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of state or
    local laws provided these rangers are exercising the arrest powers
    incidental to the performance of their federal duties or providing or
    attempting to provide law enforcement services in response to a
    request initiated by California state park rangers to assist in
    preserving the peace and protecting state parks and other property
    for which California state park rangers are responsible. National
    park rangers, prior to the exercise of these arrest powers, shall
    have been certified by their agency heads as having satisfactorily
    completed the training requirements of Section 832.3, or the
    equivalent thereof.
    (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during a state of
    war emergency or a state of emergency, as defined in Section 8558 of
    the Government Code, federal criminal investigators and law
    enforcement officers who are assisting California law enforcement
    officers in carrying out emergency operations are not deemed
    California peace officers, but may exercise the powers of arrest of a
    peace officer as specified in Section 836 and the powers of a peace
    officer specified in Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions
    Code for violations of state or local laws. In these instances, the
    provisions of Section 847 and of Section 8655 of the Government Code
    shall apply.
    (e) (1) Any qualified person who is appointed as a Washoe tribal
    law enforcement officer is not a California peace officer, but may
    exercise the powers of a Washoe tribal peace officer when engaged in
    the enforcement of Washoe tribal criminal laws against any person who
    is an Indian, as defined in subsection (a) of Section 450b of Title
    25 of the United States Code, on Washoe tribal land. The respective
    prosecuting authorities, in consultation with law enforcement
    agencies, may agree on who shall have initial responsibility for
    prosecution of specified infractions. This subdivision is not meant
    to confer cross-deputized status as California peace officers, nor to
    confer California peace officer status upon Washoe tribal law
    enforcement officers when enforcing state or local laws in the State
    of California. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose
    liability upon or to require indemnification by the County of Alpine
    or the State of California for any act performed by an officer of the
    Washoe Tribe. Washoe tribal law enforcement officers shall have the
    right to travel to and from Washoe tribal lands within California in
    order to carry out tribal duties.
    (2) Washoe tribal law enforcement officers are exempted from the
    provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 12025 and subdivision (a) of
    Section 12031 while performing their official duties on their tribal
    lands or while proceeding by a direct route to or from the tribal
    lands. Tribal law enforcement vehicles are deemed to be emergency
    vehicles within the meaning of Section 30 of the Vehicle Code while
    performing official police services.
    (3) As used in this subdivision, the term "Washoe tribal lands"
    includes the following:
    (A) All lands located in the County of Alpine within the limits of
    the reservation created for the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and
    California, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent and including
    rights-of-way running through the reservation and all tribal trust
    lands.
    (B) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not
    been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.
    (4) As used in this subdivision, the term "Washoe tribal law"
    refers to the laws codified in the Law and Order Code of the Washoe
    Tribe of Nevada and California, as adopted by the Tribal Council of
    the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California.
    Now, there are a lot of little, "except when acting under code X" which I haven't checked yet, but taking this on face value, it appears that the federal police and rangers cannot perform 12031(e) checks.


    ETA: After looking through the various exceptions, it looks as though my first impressions were correct and the federal agents will NOT be considered peace officers, and therefore will not be able to perform a 12031(e) check. Now if they have written permission from the sheriff or police chief, then we can begin to discuss the wording of somebody who is "engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws". But until then, we're clear.

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    I wonder what the legal ramifications would be for a federal officer using a CA statute as an excuse for ignore well-settled 4A law (Terry v Ohio, et al).

    Too early to share anything yet... but I think I may have just had an idea...
    I like the way you're thinking.

    Let's briefly remind ourselves what 12031(e) says:

    (e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.
    Who can perform a 12031(e) check? A peace officer. Where are peace officers defined? In Part 2, Title 3, Chapter 4.5 of the penal code, which is entitled "Peace Officers."

    If you go through who is a peace officer, you'll see that it is a HUUUUUUGE list. Surely a national park ranger or park police would be found in the list, right?

    But...no! This section below says both "Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers are not California peace officers" and "National park rangers are not California peace officers."

    Aha! this limitation on e checks lends credence to the argument that federal discharge bans do not create prohibited areas - "law" in state law means state law!

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    We may want to vet a particular park ranger. One who we see, sees us but not that we've seen them, looks down at the gun, gets our attention and only shouts a greeting with optional thumbs up, leaves, and we don't get any contact (at least bad contact) from other rangers the rest of the day.

    Then we approach this park ranger in extreme confidence, continue the vetting process to determine if they are truly 2A or just had to go to the bathroom that day. If they are pro-2A beyond a reasonable doubt, ask if they would be willing to give us undeniable standing for a civil rights lawsuit, if we sign a hold harmless against suing in personal capacity.

    Then the next time we go to the park, we get (e) checked by them, on camera and voice recorder, then go file a 1983 action in federal court with prayers for permanent injunction against all federal officers violating the constitution on behalf of unconstitutional state laws.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    ...

    Excellent analysis. Damn your brain works fast!
    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.

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

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    We may want to vet a particular park ranger. One who we see, sees us but not that we've seen them, looks down at the gun, gets our attention and only shouts a greeting with optional thumbs up, leaves, and we don't get any contact (at least bad contact) from other rangers the rest of the day.

    Then we approach this park ranger in extreme confidence, continue the vetting process to determine if they are truly 2A or just had to go to the bathroom that day. If they are pro-2A beyond a reasonable doubt, ask if they would be willing to give us undeniable standing for a civil rights lawsuit, if we sign a hold harmless against suing in personal capacity.

    Then the next time we go to the park, we get (e) checked by them, on camera and voice recorder, then go file a 1983 action in federal court with prayers for permanent injunction against all federal officers violating the constitution on behalf of unconstitutional state laws.

    Erm.....

    You are...joking...right?


  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Just FYI Jason Wu was extending me an olive branch, so let's please keep this civil. Yes, it appears that Bigtoe is on to something here, but IMO we (or I) should inform them of this code language and try to proceed in the most diplomatic way possible.

    Also, this info should be cross-posted on CalGuns for further discussion there. If somebody hasn't already I will do so.


  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    N6ATF wrote:
    We may want to vet a particular park ranger. One who we see, sees us but not that we've seen them, looks down at the gun, gets our attention and only shouts a greeting with optional thumbs up, leaves, and we don't get any contact (at least bad contact) from other rangers the rest of the day.

    Then we approach this park ranger in extreme confidence, continue the vetting process to determine if they are truly 2A or just had to go to the bathroom that day. If they are pro-2A beyond a reasonable doubt, ask if they would be willing to give us undeniable standing for a civil rights lawsuit, if we sign a hold harmless against suing in personal capacity.

    Then the next time we go to the park, we get (e) checked by them, on camera and voice recorder, then go file a 1983 action in federal court with prayers for permanent injunction against all federal officers violating the constitution on behalf of unconstitutional state laws.

    Erm.....

    You are...joking...right?
    Those violating civil rights with malice get sued in personal capacity.
    Those violating civil rights to help us restore said civil rights don't get sued in personal capacity.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Sometimes things seem so desperate and unfair that its the only reasonable response to fight dirty.

    I've had similar passing fancies, but I had to think hard about whether or not I could ask someone to commit a crime, in order to further my own agenda.

    And that just doesn't sit well with me.



  24. #24
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    Ecellent analysis Bigtoe!

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    Sometimes things seem so desperate and unfair that its the only reasonable response to fight dirty.

    I've had similar passing fancies, but I had to think hard about whether or not I could ask someone to commit a crime, in order to further my own agenda.

    And that just doesn't sit well with me.

    The government will refuse to admit it is a crime even after SCOTUS rules against them. Victimless crime if we make sure we're not victims.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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