• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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 in GOGA (National Parks, San Francisco)

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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).
 

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
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...
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
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)
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
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
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3858483#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.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

MudCamper wrote:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3858483#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!
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
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...
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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!
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
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.
 

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
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?
 
Top