Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Guests with LOC on private property?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    94

    Post imported post

    I know that property residents can LOC or CCW on their own property, but does this extend to guests as well?

    Just wondering whether well advertised LOC barbecues on private property would be a worthwhile tool. Bradys and others would not be permitted on the property without committing a crime so that might help maintain distance.

    Are other locations available that would have the same advantages of private property?

    The only problem is that this advertises to criminals where they might be able to steal firearms.

    Just brain storming...

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    You as the property owner can only LOC if your property is not considered a "public place", an unfenced front yard, is considered a "public place" via overtutrf. Therefore LOC in incorporated area on your front (unfenced) lawn is a 12031 violation.


    God bless America...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    94

    Post imported post

    How high does the fence have to be?

    Can always invite the media into the back yard.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    Guy, I posed a similar question a few days ago. After a little research and help from a few knowledgeable people I found this site that will answer your question:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...es/b204571.pdf


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    94

    Post imported post

    Actually the question about the fence was not serious, but the information is interesting.

    Wonder if this could apply to other things like those turkeys that let their friggin mutts urinate on my lawn and turn it brown.

    Oh, well.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    Yep. It's considered a public place. Best way to keep 'em off your lawn is to shoot 'em!:celebrate

    OK, maybe not.:P

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    If you posted "No Trespassing" signs around the perimeter of the front yard, would it still be considered a public place? I think the best approach would be to use the fence and the sign.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    94

    Post imported post

    Hawaii FiveO wrote:
    Yep. It's considered a public place. Best way to keep 'em off your lawn is to shoot 'em!:celebrate

    OK, maybe not.:P
    No, doesn't rise to level of deserving violence.

    Sometimes, however, when I see these people and have my dog out I will say something like "No, Bella, no snacks." as she looks at the offending mutt. They seem to find that there is a more convenient sidewalk on the other side of the street or at least treat our walk as if it were covered with rattlesnakes.

    Truth is that Bella would rather play than fight, but her energy can be intimidating. She has decked a dog three times her size in play and could snap at the little yappers as one bit her last year. Just a warning snap, though.



  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    camsoup wrote:
    You as the property owner can only LOC if your property is not considered a "public place", an unfenced front yard, is considered a "public place" via overtutrf. Therefore LOC in incorporated area on your front (unfenced) lawn is a 12031 violation.
    To be clear, Overturf wasn't so much about him being in a public place as it was about the exemption he claimed.

    12031(h):
    Code:
    Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that property.
    The court in Overturf found that the legislature's use of the term "have" implied only "possession", and that possession is distinctly different than "carrying". The court then defines "carrying" as transporting from one place to another.

    So, if you are immobile, or your firearm is resting on a nearby table/chair/whatever, then you're covered under the above exemption... maybe.

    However, as we learned in Theseus' 626.9 case, the trial court may get kinda crazy when determining what "private property" is...
    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.

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    The newly published case of People v. Strider is what you all need to read re "public place" for purposes of Section 12031 - and yes, the fence issue is key to making private land not a "public place."

    The "private poperty" school zone exemption is another thing entirely.

Posting Permissions

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