Fresno Bee - California gun laws confusing in National Parks too

imported post

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/22/1868629/fed-state-rules-blur-issue-of.html

SNIP

California doesn’t allow concealed weapons permits from any other state.

That’s not the knock on California’s law, though. The law is just confusing, said Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, an Internet-based group supporting the right to carry holstered handguns.

Without a concealed weapons permit, it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm on the body in urban public places, according to the California law.

But it is legal to carry the loaded weapon if you are in the act of hunting or fishing. It is also legal to have the loaded firearm in a person’s residence, motel room, campsite, business or on private property.

Another point of contention: A loaded firearm can be carried openly in an unincorporated area without a concealed weapons permit, unless the area forbids firing weapons. Yosemite officials say the park qualifies as an unincorporated area with a gun-firing ban.

But Stollenwerk said he is not so sure Yosemite or any other national park can qualify for the gun-firing ban under state laws. He said California’s law could be interpreted to apply only to local jurisdictions, such as counties, not the federal government.

“It’s not easy to understand California’s laws,” Stollenwerk said. “It would be much simpler to just allow open carry of loaded firearms in all of California.”

imported post

"But passage of the law disappointed rangers associations and the National Parks and Conservation Association, a parks advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. They tenaciously opposed the law for years, fearing an increase in wildlife poaching and danger to visitors."

Last time I checked, this law didn't allow poaching..

That would be like increasing the speed limit law and some idiot coming out and saying "Well since speed limits are higher.. people are able to drive faster to and from a bank robbery.. so we are going to see an increase in bank robberies now.."

The logic in these liberals heads is disturbing. How do they sleep at night?

God job though Mike! Good to have a logical voice in the article.

imported post

Unfortunately the article is a little unclear - the critical policy ambiguity lies in whether a federal shooting ban triggers a California load ban for open carry in unincorporated territories.

See Cal. Penal Code Section 12031 and People v. Knight at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c045858.pdf

imported post

Ah, the good ol' Bee..

imported post

Mike wrote:

But it is legal to carry the loaded weapon if you are in the act of hunting or fishing.

Click to expand...

I wish these "news" outlets would do at least a little homework before putting an article together. :banghead: The fishing and hunting exemption allows you to conceal, not load. There are other sections of PC that allow loading, but this is not one of them.



To all new UOCers, this is a good example of why you MUST read California PC for yourself. Read everything even remotely firearms related until you know it front, backwards, and in the dark. The disinfo shown here by the Sacramento Bee is a prime example of how these reporters are often lazy, incompetent or both. Acting on disinfo like this could make you a felon in California. Put bluntly, listening to people who are full of **** can really **** you as a gun owner. KNOW THE LAW!

Rant over!

imported post

Hello Mike Hunt, et allia:

Hunting is not allowed on Yosemite National Park. I would not conceal or loada side armand expect 12027 (g) to keep you from performing the perp-walk. I view 12027 (g) as a "get out of jail free card" if charges are brought and you are being judged by a jury of your peers. I would instruct my atty to consider using 12027 (g) as a tactical defense weapon to blow away the prosecution (legally, not literally). Always have a fishing and hunting license--in Yosemite carry some fishing gear and know what fishing is legal when you are there.

Also, does 12027 (g) allow a hunter/fisherman to conceal unloaded to and from the expedition, while loading and concealing during the expedition? I dun-no! Read it carefully.

The points being made by the article and posters are correct. The laws are a tangled mess. I found this site and the OC movement by doing my yearly "due-diligence" as a law abiding citizen. I check forlaw changesbefore I start hiking, hunting, fishing, and plinking for a new season.

I was on BLM land where hunting is legal; however, target shooting is banned by CFR. If I don't have a hunting license can I still LOC if I am not hunting? I would not do it if I were you!

Thanks for an informative site.

markm

imported post

Hey all,

Something else that is pertinant to this thread.

When I lived in Tuolumne County, the Sheriff had to negotiate an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with the Stanislaus National Forest and Yosemite National Park to allow the feds to provide police officers for patrolling the park and Stanislaus NF. According to our Sheriff, police power belonged to himself and CA DOJ. Previously, our Sheriff provided all police authority for the Park and NF.

Contrary to popular belief, the federal government is a "glorified" land owner in the state of California as to its possesions, Yosemite NationalPark and Stanislaus NF included. The federal law enforcement officers must follow state law, which includes CDFG codes.

I have a nephew in Michigan. He and his wife are NF police officers. They have to follow Michigan law and they operate under an MOU between the local Sheriff and the NFS. I don't know the exact details; however, my nephew has confirmed such an arrangement, althoughhe did not know the exact details of the MOU.

Isn't federal supremacy only viable in a law or CFR that is constitutionally based? Federal law takes precendence regarding interstate commerce, federal waterways, civil rights type issues, and others?

Again, it gets complicated.

markm

imported post

Mark, to answer your question about whether or not 12027(g) allows a licensed sportsman to carry concealed and/or loaded, it does indeed allow you to carry concealed (with certain caveats), but it does not entitle you to carry loaded. There is a specific requirement there that you may not carry loaded while going to or coming from the sporting expedition, except if carrying concealed pursuant to PC 12050 (CCW permit). As far as carrying concealed and loaded while actually engaged in lawful hunting or fishing, that is still dictated by penal code 12031. Without a 12050 CCW permit, you may not carry loaded unless you are in an area where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited. If you were in an area where shooting is legal, and possessing a hunting or fishing license, and engaged in either sport, you could most likely carry concealed and loaded. That is my interpretation from a plain reading of the statutes and I am not a lawyer, so my advice is not meant to be authoritative.

imported post

(g) Licensed hunters or fishermen carrying pistols, revolvers, or
other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person while
engaged in hunting or fishing, or transporting those firearms
unloaded when going to or returning from the hunting or fishing
expedition.


12025 does NOT apply to ^^^^^^^



And to answer Mark's question, no license, no dice as you can see above.

imported post

Thanks WEWD and Mike,

Your interpretation is in line with my interpretation. However, I have not found case law to help interpret and clarify the meaning of the law.

As I posted earlier, If I make a mistake and cover a portion of my handgun with a shirt tail while hunting, I will use 12027 (g) to get an acquittal.

Thanks,

markm