• 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
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.
 

N6ATF

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

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
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.
 

N6ATF

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

CA_Libertarian

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

MudCamper wrote:
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.


A polite tyrant is still a tyrant. However, you're right that it's probably in our best interest to be polite in hopes of being persuasive.

My dad always told me, "you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
 

bigtoe416

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

Is there a statute which requires a CCW holder to present the license to a peace officer when demanded?

I'm thinking I may try my "partially concealed empty holster" trick for this event and see if any park police want to egregiously violate innumerable laws.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:
Is there a statute which requires a CCW holder to present the license to a peace officer when demanded?

I'm thinking I may try my "partially concealed empty holster" trick for this event and see if any park police want to egregiously violate innumerable laws.

I've been watching the Nevada page here, as we may be moving to Las Vegas this spring. Working out some real estate options now. Ihave learned a few things about their laws there, but not all. If you are stopped for a traffic violation, and you are carrying concealed I think you are required to show your drivers license and CW permit.

Livingin Clark county (Las Vegas) requires you to register all weapons. They issue aregistration card,but there is no requirement to carry the registration card (blue card) while open carrying. If you have a CW permit, you can open carry or concealed carry. CW permits are "shall issue". The registration requirement is so thay can return stolen guns to their proper owner. But the LEO's have no information if any guns have been returned.

There is no law against open carry and they have state premption. Just some weapon free zones likesome gov buildings, secure areasinairports and on school property.

With the exception of the registration requirement, it looks like a good plan for Calif.
 

mjones

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

bigtoe416 wrote:
Is there a statute which requires a CCW holder to present the license to a peace officer when demanded?

I'm thinking I may try my "partially concealed empty holster" trick for this event and see if any park police want to egregiously violate innumerable laws.
Not that I can find...
 

mjones

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

Gundude wrote:

If you are stopped for a traffic violation, and you are carrying concealed I think you are required to show your drivers license and CW permit.
Negative...unless this is a 'restriction printed on the license'Which Ithink afew issuing authorities actually do.
 

camsoup

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
167
Location
Red Bluff, California, USA
imported post

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.

So, BLM officers, Forest Service Officers And National Park Rangers can only enforce CA PC, if it relates to sec 836 or the health and Safety code section 5150

What powers are granted to them by sections 836 and 5150?
 

bigtoe416

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

5150, as you have probably heard before, means if you're mentally insane and endangering yourself or others.

http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=05001-06000&file=5150-5157

836 is the powers of arrest statute which gives peace officers the ability to arrest a person if they have probable cause. Since we're not criminals and we're not violating any laws, there is never PC to arrest us.

http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=833-851.90
 

N6ATF

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

pullnshoot25 wrote:
I hate missing out on all the fun!

I love how cops love to respect our rights by molesting us at every turn. Criminey.
It's like a Japanese drama... I love you so much - /punch - I love you so much - /kick - I love you so much - /rape - I love you so much - /strangle...
 

CA_Libertarian

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

bigtoe416 wrote:
Is there a statute which requires a CCW holder to present the license to a peace officer when demanded?

I'm thinking I may try my "partially concealed empty holster" trick for this event and see if any park police want to egregiously violate innumerable laws.
Not that I know of. However, unless you prove you're exempt from 12025, you could easily be arrested for violating same.
 

bigtoe416

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

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Not that I know of. However, unless you prove you're exempt from 12025, you could easily be arrested for violating same.
This is true if the police officers somehow know that I am concealing a weapon.

This gets into the total wackiness that is used to classify weapons as visible and concealed. A totally concealed weapon is concealed, a totally visible weapon is not concealed. A weapon that is partially concealed is neither concealed nor visible, and yet, is concealed and visible. Huh?

If I have a partially concealed weapon that I'm openly carrying, I can be charged with having a concealed weapon.
If I have a partially concealed weapon that I am trying to carry concealed, I am loaded open carrying, and I can potentially be charged with 12031 thanks to the recent rewording of the law. I could also lose my (hypothetical) CCW.

Of course, carrying a partially concealed empty holster circumvents all that legal mumbo jumbo since it's totally legal, but invites unlawful intrusions to take place by unethical police officers.
 

mjones

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

bigtoe416 wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Not that I know of. However, unless you prove you're exempt from 12025, you could easily be arrested for violating same.
This is true if the police officers somehow know that I am concealing a weapon.

This gets into the total wackiness that is used to classify weapons as visible and concealed. A totally concealed weapon is concealed, a totally visible weapon is not concealed. A weapon that is partially concealed is neither concealed nor visible, and yet, is concealed and visible. Huh?

If I have a partially concealed weapon that I'm openly carrying, I can be charged with having a concealed weapon.
If I have a partially concealed weapon that I am trying to carry concealed, I am loaded open carrying, and I can potentially be charged with 12031 thanks to the recent rewording of the law. I could also lose my (hypothetical) CCW.

Of course, carrying a partially concealed empty holster circumvents all that legal mumbo jumbo since it's totally legal, but invites unlawful intrusions to take place by unethical police officers.

The 'right people' over at CalGuns feel confident that there is enough case-law on the books which clearly indicate that "Partially concealed = Concealed" In theory this would prevent a 12050 CCW Licensee from being convicted of 'incidentally not concealing' and being charged with 12031 (Loaded)
 
Top