• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

California IVN - Saldana's open carry bill is convoluted, does not outirght ban open carry

cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
cato wrote:
Mike wrote:
Click to expand...
OK, I lost - what "removal of 12025(f)"?
Click to expand...
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1901-1950/ab_1934_bill_20100406_amended_asm_v98.html

SEC. 5. Section 12025 of the Penal Code
is amended to read:...


(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section. The above section is struck through and replaced with

(f) For purposes of this section, "lawful possession of
the firearm" means that the person who has possession or custody of
the firearm either lawfully owns the firearm or has the permission of
the lawful owner or a person who otherwise has apparent authority to
possess or have custody of the firearm. A person who takes a firearm
without the permission of the lawful owner or without the permission
of a person who has lawful custody of the firearm does not have
lawful possession of the firearm.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This does not affect vehicle carry...
Click to expand...


Sure it could for a vehicle occupant with an otherwise openly worn beltholstered handgunwhich is not in plain view from the outside such asfrom thepoint of viewby a LEO during a traffic stop. Without 12025 (f) I see successful prosecutions for PC 12025 (a)(1)concealed within a vehicle happening.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
Sure it could for a vehicle occupant with an otherwise openly worn beltholstered handgunwhich is not in plain view from the outside such asfrom thepoint of viewby a LEO during a traffic stop. Without 12025 (f) I see successful prosecutions for PC 12025 (a)(1)concealed within a vehicle happening.
Click to expand...
I don't see this change as affecting open carry in vehicles at all - else a person could be prosecuted now for concealing in a holster outside a vehicle.
 
N

Nick Justice

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
34
Location
, ,
imported post

cato wrote:
Mike wrote:
cato wrote:
Mike wrote:
http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/california-legislation-taking-open-carry-gun-rights


Does this mean permitted individuals are prohibited from open carrying?
Click to expand...
The 12031 PCchange in the exemption language for 12050 licensees which took effect 01/01/10 subjects those licensees to a 12031 violation IF they are carrying outside of their license class (open or concealed). This change was inspired reportedly by a 12050 Loaded and Exposedlicensee, issued by a>200,000 population county,loaded open carrying in the City of LA last year. The DA's office determined the law as written at that timedid not allow them to prosecute for 12031 PC. Now it does.
Click to expand...
OK, but only if the pistol is also loaded.
Click to expand...
Yes but then they violate 12037 (UOC prohibited if not in a vehicle)as there is no exemption for 12050 licensees.
Click to expand...
You can see why CA gun carry/license lawshave to change.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
Sure it could for a vehicle occupant with an otherwise openly worn beltholstered handgunwhich is not in plain view from the outside such asfrom thepoint of viewby a LEO during a traffic stop. Without 12025 (f) I see successful prosecutions for PC 12025 (a)(1)concealed within a vehicle happening.
Click to expand...
What California case has ever said 12025 (f) makes open carry in a vehicle more lenient to begin with?

I don't recall ever seeing one, so I see no reason why removal of it makes any difference - if you are standing sideways on the street, 1/2 of the people walking by are not going to see your sidearm, yet it is not concealed for purposes of the concealed carry ban.
 
mjones

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
imported post

Mike wrote:
What California case has ever said 12025 (f) makes open carry in a vehicle more lenient to begin with?

I don't recall ever seeing one, so I see no reason why removal of it makes any difference - if you are standing sideways on the street, 1/2 of the people walking by are not going to see your sidearm, yet it is not concealed for purposes of the concealed carry ban.
Click to expand...
California has a long history of successful prosecutions resulting in partially conceald = concealed. 12025(f) is the only legislated guarantee to avoid a concealment charge. Obviously there are many methods of 'not concealed' but (f) is the only one declared in the law here.
 
MudCamper

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

If they remove 12025(f) from the PC, I guarantee you that some DAs will prosecute for 12025 when the person was clearly open carrying, but using a holster. They will cite People v Hale and they will win. The removal of this from the PC is VERY BAD. We need to get this bill vetoed. (I'm assuming it will pass both houses.)
 
B

blockwater

New member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

I’ve read this thing over a few times. I’ve also read over this forum a few times looking for a definitive answer to my question but I can’t seem to get any clear info.

My question is does this bill ban open carry in just city areas, or does it ban open carry on all public lands including BLM, forestry service, national park, and wilderness areas in California? I know this bill does not cover private land, gun ranges, or such types of land.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

blockwater wrote:
I’ve read this thing over a few times. I’ve also read over this forum a few times looking for a definitive answer to my question but I can’t seem to get any clear info.

My question is does this bill ban open carry in just city areas, or does it ban open carry on all public lands including BLM, forestry service, national park, and wilderness areas in California? I know this bill does not cover private land, gun ranges, or such types of land.
Click to expand...
Read the actual bill - you will see that it does not ban unloaded open carry where loaded open carry is now, and wold still be,lawful. Open carry on the lands you mention would still be partially governed by the complicated regime explained in People v. Knight and other cases along with Saldana's new code section.
 
B

blockwater

New member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

Thank you Mike I’ll read over it again, it’s just so baaaaddd! Can you suggest what section I should read?

I have to be honest I’m most worried about a ban on wilderness areas &c. Living in San Bernardino Co. I’ll be honest I wouldn’t open carry in the city. To add I’ve never had any issues in incorporated areas of the county, but however I’ve had a few run-ins in the country. Out in the back country there aren’t any cops but there are quite a few nutjobs.
 
F

floorguy24

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
6
Location
, ,
imported post

This Bill does NOT apply to National Forests in California. Federal lawdoes trumpstate law.

For example, in Stanislaus National Forest you are allowed to open carry loaded OR unloaded all year long. There are restrictions of course (not around schools, government buildings, etc.) but in general, not a problem. I checked this out with both the county Sheriff Department as well as the U.S. Forest Service.

I double checked this with Saldanas Office as well. Her staff researched this and actually called me back to let me know her Bill does not apply as just described. I'm sure she wishes it did/could though!
 
cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

floorguy24 wrote:
This Bill does NOT apply to National Forests in California. Federal lawdoes trumpstate law.

For example, in Stanislaus National Forest you are allowed to open carry loaded OR unloaded all year long. There are restrictions of course (not around schools, government buildings, etc.) but in general, not a problem. I checked this out with both the county Sheriff Department as well as the U.S. Forest Service.

I double checked this with Saldanas Office as well. Her staff researched this and actually called me back to let me know her Bill does not apply as just described. I'm sure she wishes it did/could though!
Click to expand...

You are wrong. It WILL apply in all unincorporated areas to the same extent as 12031 PC when thereis a prohibition against discharge of a firearm including areas of National Forests.

Her staff either lied to you or doesn't understand the bill's restrictions. For example, UOC will be banned in the Angeles National Forest in LA county because of the discharge prohibition in the county code.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
floorguy24 wrote:
I double checked this with Saldanas Office as well. Her staff researched this and actually called me back to let me know her Bill does not apply as just described. I'm sure she wishes it did/could though!
Click to expand...

You are wrong. It WILL apply in all unincorporated areas to the same extent as 12031 PC when thereis a prohibition against discharge of a firearm including areas of National Forests.

Her staff either lied to you or doesn't understand the bill's restrictions. For example, UOC will be banned in the Angeles National Forest in LA county because of the discharge prohibition in the county code.
Click to expand...
Right - Saldana's bill does reach into unincorporated terretories as described by Cato - so you would still be able to unloaded or loaded open carry in unincorporated terretories where the coutny has not prohibited shooting, how are you going to get your handgun to from these areas while on foot? you would have to know precisely where you are at all times, precisely where the shooting ban areas are, and I guess lock and encase the handgun where shooting is banned (presumably that is not concealed under Cal. law. So this is a very onerous restriction imposed by Saldana even in unincorporated terretories.
 
F

floorguy24

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
6
Location
, ,
imported post

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

I'm going with what the U.S. Forest Service and Sheriffs Department says on this, they know what they're talking about.

They both said Federal Law overides State Law and not to worry.

Good enough for me.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

floorguy24 wrote:
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

I'm going with what the U.S. Forest Service and Sheriffs Department says on this, they know what they're talking about.

They both said Federal Law overides State Law and not to worry.

Good enough for me.
Click to expand...
Don;t be surprized if the rank in file law enforcement officers of the Forest Service, and County Sheriff deputies patrolling the forests are more informed than than the people you spoke to - and your arrest will bring bad publicity on all of us.
 
B

blockwater

New member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

Thanks guys for the info.

Floorguy,

It’s CA. they do what they want here. As for federal law superseding state law look at proposition 420.
 
MudCamper

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

Listen up people. I am a bit of an expert on this particular topic.

This bill WILL ban open carry in MOST of the places you want to go in the National Forest and BLM. In those lands, shooting is prohibited on/across roads, streams, bodies of water, and within 150 yards of any buildings, campsites, or developed areas. This bill bans open carry in any prohibited areas. Yes, you will still be able to carry loaded when out in the proverbial sticks. But as an avid NF user, I know from experience that most of the time I spend ends up in a prohibited area.

Fight this bill. It will effectively ban open carry in the NF and BLM.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

MudCamper wrote:
Listen up people. I am a bit of an expert on this particular topic.

This bill WILL ban open carry in MOST of the places you want to go in the National Forest and BLM. In those lands, shooting is prohibited on/across roads, streams, bodies of water, and within 150 yards of any buildings, campsites, or developed areas. This bill bans open carry in any prohibited areas. Yes, you will still be able to carry loaded when out in the proverbial sticks. But as an avid NF user, I know from experience that most of the time I spend ends up in a prohibited area.

Fight this bill. It will effectively ban open carry in the NF and BLM.
Click to expand...
Exactly - this bill will make you into a law breaker in unincorporated terretories, guaranteed.
 
F

floorguy24

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
6
Location
, ,
imported post

Mike wrote:
floorguy24 wrote:
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

I'm going with what the U.S. Forest Service and Sheriffs Department says on this, they know what they're talking about.

They both said Federal Law overides State Law and not to worry.

Good enough for me.
Click to expand...
Don;t be surprized if the rank in file law enforcement officers of the Forest Service, and County Sheriff deputies patrolling the forests are more informed than than the people you spoke to - and your arrest will bring bad publicity on all of us.
Click to expand...
My arrest?? Gimme a break!


Are you missing my point here?

The "law enforcement officers of the Forest Service, and County Sheriff deputies patrolling the forests" are the very people I spoke to FIRST as my first post states.

And yes, since they are the ones patroling these areas they are the ones to ask.

It does not matter what your/our/my opinion on the law is, they enforce it. Not us.

Therefore, who better to ask than those enforcing/patrolling?

I could care less who thinks they're right or wrong here, just do the best for yourself and check first before going out in these National Forests in California. If your local law enforcement says don't, than don't. If they say do, than do.

No matter how I look at this stupid Bill, I see no benefit to anyone but the criminal.

But if this #@!!*# thing passes, we all need to be carefull on how to go about doing what we want to do with our Handguns.

And if you can't say you believe what your local law enforcement suggests/tells you, than you're in a bad spot my friend.

I'll fight side by side with you, just not against you.

Have a good one. :lol:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top