SAN FRANCISCO MEETUP, Presidio National Park (Feb. 27th 2010) 11am

[marshaul]

imported post

nerdyvirgin wrote:

local laws apply which means here in the bay presidio is off limits for guns

Please cite the laws you're referring to.

This post is a rather egregious violator of forum Rule #7. This is the kind of situation this rule was designed for. Please think about the potential ramifications of such a statement, both if true and if false. And you make it uncorroborated!

 

[nerdyvirgin]

imported post

sorry i wasnt saying it was against the law while watching the news on channel 2 they said for alcatraz and presidio that guns are still off limits, thats why hoping for more info, and saying for people to be careful, and the news was saying state and local laws still in effect. there is no article for it thats why i said i just saw it on the channel 2 news at 6pm. thats why i said also not everything the news says is true andwhy im asking if anyone hasmore info, and just didnt want to get too excited about oc'ing in presidio for trash pick up

 

[bigtoe416]

imported post

Well, Point Reyes is most likely in unincorporated territory, so I'm guessing you can LOC there (provided that you're far enough away from roads to avoid that Marin county statute). There's nothing special about the Presidio, it's just part of San Francisco, and carrying an unloaded firearm is perfectly fine in SF if you can manage to escape the school zones. Also, any local statutes would be preempted by state laws, so therefore it is highly likely that UOCing in the Presidio is perfectly fine.

 

[nerdyvirgin]

imported post

i also just noticed u only quoted part of my sentence the beginning of it i was saying i dont know if its true, so im sorry if i worded or typed it one way and was thinking another ,also i stated i just saw it on the news not in an article so i can see how it looks like it from ur point of view of reading it . Sorry my bad

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Alright, well I can see now looking back that you were asking for clarification. But, no offense, your post was rather hard to parse. I misunderstood exactly what you were trying to say.

Sorry for being abrupt with you.

 

[nerdyvirgin]

imported post

not a problem it was my fault i was too excited reading the post and while i was reading the news came up, i had foot in mouth syndrome . i will try to put more thought in what im typing in the future,

 

[MudCamper]

imported post

The media outlets are going to be spreading some serious FUD the next few months. Here is the truth:

In a nutshell, in the National Parks, in California:

- LOC (loaded open carry) is likely not legal. (12031 (f) with 36 CFR 2.4 (a) (1) (iii))
- However, LOC is definitely legal in one's campsite.
- UOC (unloaded open carry, with loaded mags nearby) is legal everywhere except "federal facilities" (buildings with federal employees).
- Loaded concealed carry is legal with a CA CCW permit.

This and the details have all been updated in the Firearms in Forests and Parks thread on CalGuns.

Help fight the FUD and spread the word.

 

[MudCamper]

imported post

And here is the Golden Gate National Recreation Area web page on the topic:

http://www.nps.gov/goga/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm

The media is confused about the fact that firearms are prohibited in "federal facilities", which only means buildings with federal employees working in them.

 

[bigtoe416]

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

- LOC (loaded open carry) is likely not legal. (12031 (f) with 36 CFR 2.4 (a) (1) (iii))

Thanks for the info MudCamper!

Just to explain this a bit further since it's quite confusing to me...this is how we still don't have LOC in this state. 12031(f) prohibits carrying loaded where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm. 36 CFR 2.4(a)(1)(iii) says it's unlawful to,

(i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net
(ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net
(iii) Using a weapon, trap or net

The law that now makes it legal to carry in National Parks says,

The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and

(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

One could argue that a functional firearm is a loaded firearm since the purpose of a firearm is to fire bullets out of it. Without ammunition loaded into the firearm, it cannot perform its function, and hence, isn't a functional firearm. So lets say that according to this federal law, carrying a loaded firearm is totally fine. Unfortunately, the law doesn't allow for "use" of a firearm, or the "carry" of a firearm, just "possessing" one.

What we have here is yet another distinction between carrying and possessing, which as we have learned from People v Overturf (see here for discussion: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_t...d=12&highlight=carrying+possessing+front+yard ) , these things are somehow different.

So since we can't use a firearm according to federal law, and according to 12031(f) we can't carry loaded if discharging a firearm is prohibited, we can't LOC.

I'd also argue that under Overturf's logic that the carrying of firearms is still restricted in National Parks, but possessing them is totally fine (whatever that means). If you look at the GGNRA website on this subject, they only talk about how possession is now lawful: http://www.nps.gov/goga/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm

I'm slightly concerned at this point that the difference between carrying and possession opens a legal hole for any UOCer in a national park to be prosecuted for violating federal law.

 

[Livermoron]

imported post

Thanks All for the posts of clarification!

See you all Saturday Morning in SF... More details to come on Meetup location(s) during the day - STAY TUNED :celebrate

Carry On,

Livermoron

 

[marshaul]

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

MudCamper wrote:

- LOC (loaded open carry) is likely not legal. (12031 (f) with 36 CFR 2.4 (a) (1) (iii))

Thanks for the info MudCamper!

Just to explain this a bit further since it's quite confusing to me...this is how we still don't have LOC in this state. 12031(f) prohibits carrying loaded where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm. 36 CFR 2.4(a)(1)(iii) says it's unlawful to,

(i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net
(ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net
(iii) Using a weapon, trap or net

The law that now makes it legal to carry in National Parks says,

The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and

(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

One could argue that a functional firearm is a loaded firearm since the purpose of a firearm is to fire bullets out of it. Without ammunition loaded into the firearm, it cannot perform its function, and hence, isn't a functional firearm. So lets say that according to this federal law, carrying a loaded firearm is totally fine. Unfortunately, the law doesn't allow for "use" of a firearm, or the "carry" of a firearm, just "possessing" one.

What we have here is yet another distinction between carrying and possessing, which as we have learned from People v Overturf (see here for discussion: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_t...d=12&highlight=carrying+possessing+front+yard ) , these things are somehow different.

So since we can't use a firearm according to federal law, and according to 12031(f) we can't carry loaded if discharging a firearm is prohibited, we can't LOC.

I'd also argue that under Overturf's logic that the carrying of firearms is still restricted in National Parks, but possessing them is totally fine (whatever that means). If you look at the GGNRA website on this subject, they only talk about how possession is now lawful: http://www.nps.gov/goga/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm

I'm slightly concerned at this point that the difference between carrying and possession opens a legal hole for any UOCer in a national park to be prosecuted for violating federal law.

I'm not entirely sure I'm following your reasoning.

However, if the Federal regulation only permits "possession" as per Overturf's definition, that likely is going to put it on the fast track to have that definition reviewed.

Reason being, people all over the country assume that this allows them to carry. Because this is a Federal law, "possession" must be defined universally. It cannot use California's definition one minute and another the next. If possession is not carry, then lots of people are going to be upset and are going to wish to challenge that interpretation.

The way I read what you've posted, "carrying" being illegal by virtue of being prohibited and "possession" being the only exemption are both functions of Federal law and thus must apply everywhere, even outside California. Depending, that is, upon how the Federal courts wish to interpret "possession".

 

[cato]

imported post

Yes that "if" could be a problem. I'm interested to see how this will be applied. All gun carry in NPs is still "prohibited" unless you are exempt.

So one may still possibly be lawfully detained or even arrested pending proof that one meets the exemption ("if").

The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and

(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

As for "Overturf" it is state case law and has no bearing on the interpretation of this fed. law. But I do see your point on the wording. Thankfully the fed law is a misdemeanor and I really doubt fed. prosecutors would bring charges over this interpretation.

If detained by fed. rangers/LE and if a demand for ID is made I would "not consent" but would "comply" until more is known about the enforcement/interpretation of this exemption to the law.

Also remember "lying" to a fed. officer is a crime in and of itself.

 

[MudCamper]

imported post

IMO the intent of the legislature in this case was very clear. They wanted functional (i.e. loaded) firearms available to citizens in the Parks. However, they also stated that state laws had to be honored. That leaves us in a bad spot here in California. While I hope we will get LOC in the Parks either by a Park official ruling (doubtful), or eventually the hard way by fighting 12031 post-Incorporation, the current cautious recommendation would be to stick to UOC.

 

[MudCamper]

imported post

IMPORTANT READING:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=37168&forum_id=12&jump_to=666751#p666751

 

[MudCamper]

imported post

Another thing to watch out for in the Pesidio are school zones: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3857592&postcount=10

 

[bad_ace]

imported post

I'll be there with ShadyLane and Cooper (the unofficial mascot of Bay Area Open Carriers). Hope it doesn't rain.

 

[bad_ace]

imported post

A GalGunner found people encouraging others via Craigslist to call the police and report open carriers even if they have to lie and say the OCer threatened them with the gun.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3862102&postcount=1

Keep your head on a swivel and be safe. Let's maintain the "Buddy System", don't go alone.

 

[Gundude]

imported post

bad_ace wrote:

A GalGunner found people encouraging others via Craigslist to call the police and report open carriers even if they have to lie and say the OCer threatened them with the gun.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3862102&postcount=1

Keep your head on a swivel and be safe. Let's maintain the "Buddy System", don't go alone.

Don't forget, it's against the law to make a false police report.

 

[cato]

imported post

Give this info to a loved one to have available if you live in the Bay areajust in case. Don isone of the best...http://www.dklawoffice.com/

 

[vladbutsky]

imported post

I'm not sure if I will be able to come because of another event that was scheduled long time ago for this Saturday. But I'm really trying to make it

This would be the first time OC event for me so I'm not clear on how these events are organized. Here are my newb's questions:

1) When does the event start?

2) How do I find the rest of the team if I come? Park is reasonably big and full of SZ. I don't want to find myself in a wrong place there...

Thanks.