Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Can city prohibit UOC

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    I've been lurking on the forums for a while now. I've been told my home town doesn't allow UOC because of city ordinance. I would think these large cities would have such city ordinance if that was the case.

    Can a city use municipal code to prohibit UOC in city limits?, or does state law triumph city law in this instance?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    crash5150 wrote:
    I've been lurking on the forums for a while now. I've been told my home town doesn't allow UOC because of city ordinance. I would think these large cities would have such city ordinance if that was the case.

    Can a city use municipal code to prohibit UOC in city limits?, or does state law triumph city law in this instance?
    Where are you? If you are in Calif, state gun laws supercede city laws.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote
    Where are you? If you are in Calif, state gun laws supercede city laws.
    I am in California. I've heard from various LEO's in City of Napa to arrest all people that UOC

  4. #4
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    Napa does not have an ordinance against carrying firearms. The only reference that I could find in the municipal code was in reference to discharging a firearm:

    Code:
    9.20.010 Discharging firearms.
          A.   Every person who, except in a regularly licensed shooting gallery, shall discharge any pistol, firearm, air gun, musket, slingshot or instrument of any kind, character or description, which throws a bullet, shot or missile for any distance, by means of the elastic force of gases or any explosive substance, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
          B.   The provisions of subsection A shall not apply to the discharging of shotguns in a hunting area for which a permit has been issued by the police chief. Said hunting areas shall not be smaller than one hundred acres nor lie within one hundred yards of any public road or residence and shall be subject to such further reasonable restrictions as may be set forth in the permit. Neither shall they apply to police officers acting in the line of duty.
    (Rev. Code 1954, § 6162; Ord. 1308, 1958; Ord. 1619, 1964)
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Generally it appears Cal. Penal Code Sections 12031 and 12050 create field preemption as to local ordiances except as to ordiances banning gun carry on city proeprty. See Cal. S. Ct. opinion in Nordyke case (finding no preemption in 12031 for local property).

    So in theory, you should be OK to carry per Cal. Penal Code Sections 12031 and 12050 in public places, including sidewalks and roads.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Go to www.californiaopencarry.com and read. Lots of good info there.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  7. #7
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Generally it appears Cal. Penal Code Sections 12031 and 12050 create field preemption as to local ordiances except as to ordiances banning gun carry on city proeprty. See Cal. S. Ct. opinion in Nordyke case (finding no preemption in 12031 for local property).

    So in theory, you should be OK to carry per Cal. Penal Code Sections 12031 and 12050 in public places, including sidewalks and roads.
    Mike, I'd like your opinion on 171b with regard to preemption for Public Buildings (as opposed to Public Property) Do you think it encompasses the field of regulation strong enough such that a local city council couldn't pass additional firearms restrictions in city buildings?

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Sometimes cities do pass additional restrictions, but they legally do not have the authority to do so, other than shooting restrictions. California state law does not allow local law to preempt state law.

    I've heard from various LEO's in City of Napa to arrest all people that UOC
    This is a fairly typical arrogant LE reaction to what they perceive as a threat to their authority. It used to be more common with other LEAs until the UOC memos started circulating. You could send your local LEA a flyer and a couple of the LE memos.



  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    Mike, I'd like your opinion on 171b with regard to preemption for Public Buildings (as opposed to Public Property) Do you think it encompasses the field of regulation strong enough such that a local city council couldn't pass additional firearms restrictions in city buildings?
    what is 171b?

    did you read the Cal. S. Ct. opinion in Nordyke which I read as concluding that Cal. localities are not preempted under 12031 from banning gun possession on locality ownern real estate (including buildings)?

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    Mike, I'd like your opinion on 171b with regard to preemption for Public Buildings (as opposed to Public Property) Do you think it encompasses the field of regulation strong enough such that a local city council couldn't pass additional firearms restrictions in city buildings?
    Statute already prohibits firearms in ALL "public buildings" - (any place public employees regularly work). How can a city get any more restrictive than the state's full-on ban?
    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    Could the city claim that the public areas, like streets and sidewalks are also part of city property since they are required for the upkeep?

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    crash5150 wrote:
    Could the city claim that the public areas, like streets and sidewalks are also part of city property since they are required for the upkeep?
    They could try this but its a stretch to say that the public rights of way are city "property" - and in the end its a question of field preemption - provision of law which is part of the Cal. constitution

Posting Permissions

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