Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: City bans most CCW's and OC on public property

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    Found this newly passed City of Corona Ordinance banning CCW's and any weapons on public property. The only exception is retired LEO"s. Since the law does not define what public property is, this is a very slippery slope. Is it parks? restrooms? The airport property leased by the City, but owned by the US Goverment? This should be clearly spelled out besides public buildings.

    I can not believe the CALGUN guys are not all over this for preemption.

    Here is the text in full:
    /
    CHAPTER 9.52
    POSSESSION OF FIREARMS ON CITY PROPERTY AND WITHIN CITY BUILDINGS


    9.52.010 Possession prohibited. No person shall knowingly possess on one’s person or in one’s vehicle any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, while upon City property or within any city building, unless otherwise permitted by state or federal law. For purposes of this chapter, city property shall not include public street, road or sidewalk easements.
    (Ord. 2997 § 2 (part), 2009)

    9.52.020 The provisions of §§ 9.52.010 and 9.52.020 shall not affect the rights to carry and/or possess firearms in the vehicle or upon the person, whether loaded or unloaded, of the following exempted persons, provided that upon demand the exempted person produces verifiable information identifying themselves as a member of the class of exempted persons licensed to possess such firearms:
    (A) State peace officers, as defined in Title 3, Part 2, Chapter 4.5 of the Penal Code (Sections 830, et seq.), in accordance with their on-duty or off-duty obligations or rights, and as prescribed by the jurisdiction regulating their possession of said firearms;
    (B) Retired state peace officers, as defined in Title 3, Part 2, Chapter 4.5 of the Penal Code (Sections 830 et seq.), who have been lawfully issued and who lawfully possess a conceal and carry weapon permit, commonly known as a CCW permit, as set forth in Title 4, Part 2, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Penal Code (Sections 12050, et seq.), or who are otherwise lawfully authorized to carry a concealed weapon in accordance with state or local law;
    (C) Authorized federal law enforcement officers or investigators in accordance with their on-duty or off-duty obligations or rights, and as prescribed by the jurisdiction regulating their possession of said firearms.
    (D) Retired federal law enforcement officers or investigators who have been lawfully issued and who lawfully possess a conceal and carry weapon permit, commonly known as a "CCW" permit, as set forth in Title 4, Part 2, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Penal Code (Sections 12050, et seq.), or who are otherwise lawfully authorized to carry a concealed weapon in accordance with state or local law;
    (E) A guard or messenger of a financial institution, a guard of a contract carrier operating an armored vehicle, a licensed private investigator, patrol operator, or alarm company operator, or uniformed security guard as these occupations are defined in Penal Code Section 12031(d) and who holds a valid certificate issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs under Penal Code Section 12033, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment;
    (F) A person lawfully transporting firearms or ammunition in a motor vehicle on City streets or roads; or
    (G) A member of the military forces of the State of California or of the United States while engaged in the performance of his or her duties.
    (Ord. 2997 § 2 (part), 2009)

    9.52.030 The provisions of § 9.52.010 shall be enforceable irrespective of the lawful issuance to, and possession by, a person, other than a retired state peace officer or federal law enforcement officer or investigator as provided for in § 9.52.020, of any conceal and carry weapon permit, commonly known as a "CCW" permit, as set forth in Title 4, Part 2, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Penal Code (Sections 12050, et seq.) (Ord. 2997 § 2 (part), 2009)



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

    Post imported post

    This type of ordinance is exempted from preemption.

    Now, what "city property" can mean is still unclear to me. In Nordyke v King, the county ordinance prohibited firearms at the fair grounds (property owned/controlled by the county). The Nordykes wanted to use the fair grounds to hold a gun show, and were told they could not bring guns onto the county property.

    I'll leave it to you to read the Nordyke decision (9th Circuit Court of Appeals). While the decision has been suspended pending an en banc review (and that review is pending the outcome of McDonald in the SCOTUS)... there may be some citations within the case that will give you an idea of how the courts interpret this ability of localities to regulate firearm possession.

    Normally I would be eager to delve into the research myself, but in a few months much of that case law may become mooted by the state's impending discovery of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
    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.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    The ordinance seems to apply to city streets and roads. CA_Lib, how is that not preempted by state law?


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    oc4ever wrote:
    SNIP

    9.52.010 Possession prohibited. No person shall knowingly possess on one’s person or in one’s vehicle any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, while upon City property or within any city building, unless otherwise permitted by state or federal law. For purposes of this chapter, city property shall not include public street, road or sidewalk easements.
    (Ord. 2997 § 2 (part), 2009)

    Bolded for easier reading :P


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    City property is public property, ie; streets, roads, sidewalks.

    They did add: "...unless otherwise permitted by state or federal law."

    Which it does.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    619P95 wrote:
    oc4ever wrote:
    SNIP

    9.52.010 Possession prohibited. No person shall knowingly possess on one’s person or in one’s vehicle any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, while upon City property or within any city building, unless otherwise permitted by state or federal law. For purposes of this chapter, city property shall not include public street, road or sidewalk easements.
    (Ord. 2997 § 2 (part), 2009)

    Bolded for easier reading :P
    OK I missed that. I saw section (F) which included only transporting exemptions for roads and assumed that meant they included roads.


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    The reason I posted this had to do with Theseus GFSZ case. He was on private property within the school zone(which was exempted by the law), but it was considered "public property" by the judge for reasons of his violation. If you take that same logic here, this law pretty much wipes out CCW and OC within the Corona City limits except at a private dwelling.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Wow.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    I did not see the decision, but are you sure he called it "public property" and not a "public place"? There is a subtle distinction there. I can't see how the area he was in would be "public property" as it was clearly private property. However, since the area was open to the public (just like your front yard probably is) it is a "public place".

    There is case law to back up the public place thing. If there is no impediment for a member of the public from getting there, like a fence or gate or something, then it is a public place.

    If a police officer sees you in your front yard (where there is no gate or fence) with a firearm, and you are within a GFSZ, then he would have reasonable cause to contact you for this violation of the law. If on the other hand there was a fence around your yard, even if he could still see you, there is no cause to contact you, as it is not illegal to have a firearm in a private place.

    That is at least my read on how it works. But then again, IANAL.

  10. #10
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    oc4ever wrote:
    9.52.010 Possession prohibited. No person shall knowingly possess on one’s person or in one’s vehicle any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, while upon City property or within any city building, unless otherwise permitted by state or federal law. For purposes of this chapter, city property shall not include public street, road or sidewalk easements.
    (Ord. 2997 § 2 (part), 2009)

    9.52.030 The provisions of § 9.52.010 shall be enforceable irrespective of the lawful issuance to, and possession by, a person, other than a retired state peace officer or federal law enforcement officer or investigator as provided for in § 9.52.020, of any conceal and carry weapon permit, commonly known as a "CCW" permit, as set forth in Title 4, Part 2, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Penal Code (Sections 12050, et seq.) (Ord. 2997 § 2 (part), 2009)

    Doesn't surprise me, not even the contradiction in their own code. Just reaffirms the need for active local political participation. The people of Corona will either agree with this new ordinance, or they need new representation.


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

Posting Permissions

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