halo6941
Regular Member
imported post
Ihave a question are you allowed to carry a loaded firearm on your person in your own house?
Ihave a question are you allowed to carry a loaded firearm on your person in your own house?
-
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.
-
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.
carry loaded on private property.
- Thread starter halo6941
- Start date
Army
Regular Member
imported post
In the house, and inside a FENCED yard.
If the front lawn has no fencing,do NOT carry there. A fence denies public access. Any crossing of the fence is trespassing, since the purpose of the fence is to deny access to the property.
No fence, means the area is accessable to anyone, regardless of who actually owns the property. The law is not based on reality, but lawsuits.
Fully fenced backyard, carry anything you want.
In the house, and inside a FENCED yard.
If the front lawn has no fencing,do NOT carry there. A fence denies public access. Any crossing of the fence is trespassing, since the purpose of the fence is to deny access to the property.
No fence, means the area is accessable to anyone, regardless of who actually owns the property. The law is not based on reality, but lawsuits.
Fully fenced backyard, carry anything you want.
PincheOgro1
Regular Member
imported post
halo6941 wrote:
halo6941 wrote:
Of course. I have mine loaded all the time in house. But like ARMY says, not in front yard W/O a fence.
imported post
Hello All,
I have a question that relates the front yard fence thing.
As I read case-law, I believe the fence needs to have a gate that closes and latches shut. Or, it can be spring loaded to close.
A picket fence with no gate may not create a "private area." A picket fence with a gate is another story.
Am I reading case law correctly or not?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b204571.pdf
The pertinant case law is detailed towards the end of the ruling above.
markm
Hello All,
I have a question that relates the front yard fence thing.
As I read case-law, I believe the fence needs to have a gate that closes and latches shut. Or, it can be spring loaded to close.
A picket fence with no gate may not create a "private area." A picket fence with a gate is another story.
Am I reading case law correctly or not?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b204571.pdf
The pertinant case law is detailed towards the end of the ruling above.
markm
imported post
Howdy MarkBofRAdvocate,
Concept: You can minimize your risk from LEs/DAs/Judges by fenced your property.
Here why may the judge rules in the future case:
(Like your you find it in 2009 case and they did refer from this case as below.)
People v. White (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 886, 890-893 [defendant’s fenced front yard, was not a place for purposes of section 647, subdivision (f), even though the yard was open to public view].
... DISCUSSION
I. Appellant's Front Yard as a Public Place [at the end of I. ...]
... Whether a particular location is a "public place" depends upon the facts of the individual case. (People v. Belanger (1966) 243 Cal. App.2d 654, 657-659 [52 Cal. Rptr. 660] [defendant found intoxicated inside a private automobile parked along public street curb deemed arrested in a public place].) Appellant herein was located in his own front yard surrounded by a three-and-a-half-foot-high fence with a gate which was unlocked at the time. The gate was not standing open. Deputy Moore opened it. Appellant released three dogs into the yard, which from all appearances acted as an effective if unintentional deterrent to the arresting officer. This fenced yard cannot be characterized as a "public place," i.e., "common to all or many; general; open to common use." (In re Zorn, supra, 59 Cal.2d 650, 652.) In contrast to Olson, the fence, gate and dogs all provided challenge to public access. Appellant may have been found intoxicated in a place exposed to public view but that, in and of itself, is not a violation of section 647, subdivision (f). (In re Koehne, supra, 59 Cal.2d 646, 648-649.)
Another idea for protecting from pool or spa as well drinking from the bottles or cans.
Howdy MarkBofRAdvocate,
Concept: You can minimize your risk from LEs/DAs/Judges by fenced your property.
Here why may the judge rules in the future case:
(Like your you find it in 2009 case and they did refer from this case as below.)
People v. White (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 886, 890-893 [defendant’s fenced front yard, was not a place for purposes of section 647, subdivision (f), even though the yard was open to public view].
... DISCUSSION
I. Appellant's Front Yard as a Public Place [at the end of I. ...]
... Whether a particular location is a "public place" depends upon the facts of the individual case. (People v. Belanger (1966) 243 Cal. App.2d 654, 657-659 [52 Cal. Rptr. 660] [defendant found intoxicated inside a private automobile parked along public street curb deemed arrested in a public place].) Appellant herein was located in his own front yard surrounded by a three-and-a-half-foot-high fence with a gate which was unlocked at the time. The gate was not standing open. Deputy Moore opened it. Appellant released three dogs into the yard, which from all appearances acted as an effective if unintentional deterrent to the arresting officer. This fenced yard cannot be characterized as a "public place," i.e., "common to all or many; general; open to common use." (In re Zorn, supra, 59 Cal.2d 650, 652.) In contrast to Olson, the fence, gate and dogs all provided challenge to public access. Appellant may have been found intoxicated in a place exposed to public view but that, in and of itself, is not a violation of section 647, subdivision (f). (In re Koehne, supra, 59 Cal.2d 646, 648-649.)
Another idea for protecting from pool or spa as well drinking from the bottles or cans.
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
The key word is "challenge" to entry. It doesn't have to be an imposing barrier, nor a physical one. Just any sort of challenge. One case even lists a fenced apartment complex with the front gate often propped open as a "challenge." So even though the physical barrier was not complete, the fence/open gate were still treated as a deterrent to unauthorized entry.
In the end, it will be up to the judge/jury to decide if your "challenge" to entry is significant enough. 6" picket garden fence might not cut it, but a 3.5' chain link fence should do it.
MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
Yes.
The key word is "challenge" to entry. It doesn't have to be an imposing barrier, nor a physical one. Just any sort of challenge. One case even lists a fenced apartment complex with the front gate often propped open as a "challenge." So even though the physical barrier was not complete, the fence/open gate were still treated as a deterrent to unauthorized entry.
In the end, it will be up to the judge/jury to decide if your "challenge" to entry is significant enough. 6" picket garden fence might not cut it, but a 3.5' chain link fence should do it.