Yawn,
I think you need to slow your roll a little.
Relax. Take a breath. Technically, 626.9 does not use "public place" language or intent. The confusion was the injection of my case, were the judge ruled that if private property is open to the public, then it isn't "private property within the meaning of 626.9". This ruling resulted that I could not avail myself of the private property defense. But keep in mind that my case is not case law.
Whether your "private property" is "private property for the meaning of 626.9" is up to your particular DA's interpretation. That is where the warning came from. Beware that the plain language used and understood by most doesn't mean you will be free and clear. Be prepared to be unlawfully arrested, charged, and even convicted of a crime. If you aren't prepared for that, don't open carry.
With that said, I will attempt to bullet-point clarify:
*Fence or no fence makes no difference in the application of 626.9 at this time.
*You are protected from enforcement if any of the following:
*You are transporting a firearm other than a handgun.
*You possess a firearm in the trunk of a car, or fully enclosed secure container as defined in 12026.
*You are on private property, within a business, or within a residence.
AND
*Your possession is otherwise legal. (Not illegally concealed, loaded, brandished, not prohibited person, etc.)
Case law says that a sidewalk subject to ease-of-way to a public entity (i.e. a public sidewalk) you are not protected, as it is not private property (People v. Tapia)
Places we KNOW that is not exempt (this is not complete):
*Public sidewalks
*Public roads
*Public land
Other important case law in relation to 626.9, (I forget the cases) but essentially:
*It is 1000 feet or less
*Within is inclusive of a firearm in a car if any part of the car is at or within 1000 feet, even if the firearm isn't
Now, that deals with 626.9.
Since this is a GFSZ I will not address the others.
