Open carry in California National Forests--now that AB 144 is law

[kevincal]

So now that AB 144 is law in California, I am asking anyone out there to tell me if loaded or unloaded open carry is still legal when within California National Forest boundaries, and when within an un-incorporated area. For example, can we carry openly as we used to be able to, when on a national forest trail?
Thanks for your help!!

 

[Mike]

So now that AB 144 is law in California, I am asking anyone out there to tell me if loaded or unloaded open carry is still legal when within California National Forest boundaries, and when within an un-incorporated area. For example, can we carry openly as we used to be able to, when on a national forest trail?
Thanks for your help!!

AB 144 does not apply to the open carry of loaded or unloaded handguns in unincorporated territories UNLESS the **locality**, e.g., County, has banned all discharge on the spot ("prohibited area") you are open carrying. State law discharge bans do not count says the California Appeals Courts, because the creating "prohibited areas" thru discharge bans are a "local option." See Schwartzenegger veto of effort to ban loaded open carry in public areas.

So if you are open carrying a loaded or unloaded handgun in a bank, grocery store, sidewalk or street, or inside a vehicle as you drive down the highway, or in a national park on foot or in a vehicle, the analysis is the same as above.

First, where are you? If you are in an unincorporated area, then has the locality banned all discharge? If not, the AB 144's changes to the law do not reach you, nor do the police have power to conduct "e-checks," the police stops for load conditions they will still do inside cities for folks carrying long guns.. However, continue - what other law might apply to criminalize your conduct? School zone anyone?

AB 144 really did not change as much as people think it did - it's just an issue of situational awareness.

Folks should find some unincorporated but public places to hold some nice OC picnics.

 

[oc4ever]

Mike, AB144 does not change much? Are you kidding????

Mike, how can you say AB144 does not change much. You are right if you live on a farm in a rural county, but most California residents do not. That statement shows how little you know about this State. You must have not noticed that California is full of a lot of really big cities. Ever heard of Los Angeles County? This one county has 2 MILLION MORE people in it than the whole State of Virginia combined. Most of these people reside in incorporated cities and various other shooting prohibited areas basicallly disarming almost everyone legally that want to carry handguns. Not surprisingly, the crooks find this a great place to "do business" by robbing, raping and murder the legally abiding unarmed citizens at will. This law has wiped out 37 MILLION U.S. Citizens from open carry handgun for defending themselves in public. I would say that is really a big deal and dwarfs some of the other States problems. You might want to re-think your statement over a little more

 

[ConditionThree]

oc4ever - in the context of the question that was being asked, AB144/26350 changes very little. There are very few National Forests that are in incorporated territory. (This is of course, even without invoking the myriad of exceptions.)

 

[oc4ever]

THE OC SHIP ......"USS HANDGUN"..........HAS SUNK in California

Condition Three, the reality is that hardly any of us California residents conduct any of our daily lives in the National Forest. The threats to our well being remain in the highly populated areas where the vast majority of street crime occurs. The new laws effect more than 37 million of our fellow citizens, more of a group than many of the other States combined. This is a big blow to 2A rights nationally by population. This is like saying the Titanic sunk and almost every person onboard drowned, but the good news that one lifeboat with the less than 1/10 of one percent of "CCW permitted folks" managed to live to fight for 2A. So AB144 has hardly affected us at all? I respectfully disagree. It is the biggest national gun grabbing of citizens rights since the 1967 open carry law took effect in California, followed by the GFSZ fiasco. I Am moving on to long gun defense for the time being as a matter of protest. My Valtro PM5 magazine feed shotgun, is one of my effective California legal weapons that fully loads all 7 rounds in a couple of seconds. I would "wet" myself if I saw someone coming towards me with it that meant me harm.

So much for low profile OC'ing.

 

[Mike]

Besides being ment to help think thru a National Forest carry question, what I also meant by "AB 144 really did not change as much as people think it did" is that the press keeps reporting that open carry of handguns is unlawful throughout California - that's not true, and probably legal in most of California by land area to open carry loaded and unloaded guns, long and short.

 

[oc4ever]

the numbers don't lie

Hey Mike, I understand your geographical optimism for California handgun OC. You are correct, a majority of the land mass of California is available to open carry if you look at a map. Too bad the vast majority of California citizens live in the 1/3 of the coastal and urban area where OC is mostly unavailable. As an example, take the Shasta-Trinity National Forest area, (this is area near where ConditionThree lives). It is 2.2 million acres of land, about the landmass size of Ohio. However "only" 450,000 people live in this area, less than 1/50th of the State population, yet OC is restricted in the most populace cities in this small sample area. If you factor, the Sierra Nevada Mountain range, Yosemite National Park, and most of the 1/3 east side of California, the vast OC allowed area is very sparely populated and contains 15 million acres of BLM (almost statistically uninhabited) federal land. California has 482 cities , which contain the vast majority of residents.


Here is the overall population for California in 2010 according to the US Census. Rural population: 845,229 Urban population: 36,408,727 Total Population: 37,253,956

Over 16 million people live in the greater Los Angeles, Orange and metro western Riverside County areas, almost all of which is incorporated, and/or a GFSZ and unavailable to handgun OC.

These are the real numbers, they don't lie. I hope you see the scope of the restriction to handgun OC in California. Be glad you live in Virginia.

I will try to remember to turn the light switch off when I leave here.

 

[ConditionThree]

It is 2.2 million acres of land, about the landmass size of Ohio.

Not that this difuses your arguement, but Ohio is about 26 million acres.

 

[oc4ever]

never believe what the goverment tells you....

ConditionThree, below is the link to a US Forest Service PDF that I took the information from. It is in the fifth story, paragraph one under "Shasta Cascade Wonderland".The original official color US Forest Service PDF from 2001 is still available online if you care to look it up:

USDA Forest Service
Special Places Newsletter
A Travel and Tourism Planner’s Guide to
Your National Forests
September 2001 Volume 1 – Issue 1


http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/tourism/Special_Places_Vol1.html

I didn't just pull the numbers out of a hat. If the gov-er-mint can't add up their own land in a State, I sure can't with my ruler!!!

Good for you that you reside in the "good part" of California. The bottom line point was to our out-of-state moderator Mike; the vast majority of Californians can not enjoy the relatively (nonsensical and stupid)"less restrictive" handgun OC rules that were in place before Jan 1,2012 .

 

[Statkowski]

How about a map of California showing where one can and can't carry?

 

[ConditionThree]

How about a map of California showing where one can and can't carry?

Oh, you mean a map that fully integrates all of Californias gun-free school zones (including private and charter schools), the city limits of each of its 482 incorporated cities, the boundaries of 278 state parks, boundaries of postal properties outside incorporated city limits, and each area designated by local ordinance as a 'no discharge zone'.

No, we don't have that.

ConditionThree, below is the link to a US Forest Service PDF that I took the information from. It is in the fifth story, paragraph one under "Shasta Cascade Wonderland".The original official color US Forest Service PDF from 2001 is still available online if you care to look it up:

USDA Forest Service
Special Places Newsletter
A Travel and Tourism Planner’s Guide to
Your National Forests
September 2001 Volume 1 – Issue 1


http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/tourism/Special_Places_Vol1.html

I didn't just pull the numbers out of a hat. If the gov-er-mint can't add up their own land in a State, I sure can't with my ruler!!!

Good for you that you reside in the "good part" of California. The bottom line point was to our out-of-state moderator Mike; the vast majority of Californians can not enjoy the relatively (nonsensical and stupid)"less restrictive" handgun OC rules that were in place before Jan 1,2012 .

I read the article. Nowhere does it indicate that the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is the size of Ohio. It does indicate that the Shasta Cascade region is about the size of Ohio. You have to bear in mind that the Cascade mountain range crosses three states starting in northern California into southern British Columbia. If you want to snip off northern California from Lake Tahoe to Mendocino, this would pretty accurately fit this size analogy.

Take a look at that part of the map. In it, there are incorporated city limits around Redding, Chico, and every city that has its own police department and city council up the I-5 corridor. Each of these communities have schools and with them, 1000 foot gun free school zones. While the population is more widely distributed, the very same rules that apply to people in San Fransisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego apply here- in the GOOD part of California. This means I am subjected to exactly the same restrictions that you are. But I am not going to carry a long gun around town with me, claiming that this the only option California law has left me. Because that would be a lie in light of the fact that the restrictions have not eliminated other options. I am not licensed and I carry a handgun with me daily.

Since these other options are being exercised, one has to ask whether the decision to carry a long gun in urban areas is a exercise of the first amendment or the second. I contend that since your long guns are not loaded ready for confrontation, that it can only be the former- that such activity is a 'protest' inasmuch as when one carries a sign with a slogan written on it and casts no shadow on the second amendment.

One must also ask themselves whether carrying such a sign (which along with it bears the burden of dragging its carrier into a host of 4th and 5th amendment perils) is a practical use of our time and resources to defend. Not just in court, but from the reach of the anti-gun legislators who have herded open carriers into a corral of their own limited thinking. By carrying this sign, complaining that this is their only means to exercise their rights, I believe those that insist on LGOC are doing two things wrong... 1) They are not being intellectually honest about the law and what activities it restricts and 2) they are falling for the temptation that the legislators have put before them by delibertately omiting long guns from their new law.

I say this was their intent to leave this corral gate open in the hopes that the more radical open carry enthusiasts would willingly go through it, so the law makers can point to them as cause for new, more repressive prohibitions. By contrast, not doing what these legislators wanted, we can appear as the more rational, less reactionary party. By working within the law they created, we can difuse the appearance that any average person with a gun is a nutty extremist- and we can do so with the aid of those who enforce the law.

 

[Shoobee]

Concealed carry is the thing that is and always was prohibited in the national forest and BLM lands.

 

[Shoobee]

How about a map of California showing where one can and can't carry?

Try this one:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/deermaps.html

Green is USFS and golden is BLM.

 

[mjones]

Concealed carry is the thing that is and always was prohibited in the national forest and BLM lands.

There are many options for legal concealed carry on national forest and BLM lands in CA.

A California License to Carry Concealed.
Concealed (unloaded) while traveling to/from hunting/fishing.
Concealed & Loaded while hunting/Fishing.

 

[markm]

Besides being ment to help think thru a National Forest carry question, what I also meant by "AB 144 really did not change as much as people think it did" is that the press keeps reporting that open carry of handguns is unlawful throughout California - that's not true, and probably legal in most of California by land area to open carry loaded and unloaded guns, long and short.

Hey Mike,

Your context was right on. +1

Question (I will appreciate your opinion): How does AB 144 affect UOC on National Park lands relative to Section 512, Credit Card Accounability Act? Many claim the conservative approach is that the term "use" in PC 26388 means "discharge". I am not so sure. Does a federally imposed discharge ban have merit in California's hangun regulatory scheme?

Tuolomne County Board of Supervisors did not ban discharge in Northern Yosemite. Nor did Mariposa County Board of Supervisors.

markm

 

[njkennelly]

Still quite unclear

So I was reading this thread because I am planning a trip Inyo National Forest (INF), and thought it might answer my question. Which it does not. I sent the following email to the INF Field Office:

Good Day,

Would you please send me the link/information relating to all firearms related information for Inyo National Forest? I'm planning a 3 day backpacking trip on the Cottonwood Lakes Trail to Lower Soldier Lake, and would like to carry my firearm for protection/self defense.

Thank you for your time,
Noah



...and this was the reply:

You must follow the local state laws for carrying a firearm. It is your responsibility to know these regulations.

Additionally, the forest regulations are as follows:

A firearm may not be discharged in the following National Forest areas:

Within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site, or occupied area; or
Across or on a Forest Development road or an adjacent body of water, or in any manner or place whereby any person or property is exposed to injury or damage as a result of such discharge; or
Into or within any cave.


I hope that helps,


Deb Schweizer
Public Affairs Specialist
Inyo National Forest
760-873-2427
760-920-2347
debraaschweizer@fs.fed.us




So, I guess if you can LOC in unincorporated areas, does Inyo National Forest qualify as Unincorporated? Can someone lay out how CA LOC laws specifically relate to National Forest land in plain english and post the (not so plain english) snip from the Statute that applies?

Thanks all

 

[ConditionThree]

So I was reading this thread because I am planning a trip Inyo National Forest (INF), and thought it might answer my question. Which it does not. I sent the following email to the INF Field Office:

Good Day,

Would you please send me the link/information relating to all firearms related information for Inyo National Forest? I'm planning a 3 day backpacking trip on the Cottonwood Lakes Trail to Lower Soldier Lake, and would like to carry my firearm for protection/self defense.

Thank you for your time,
Noah



...and this was the reply:

You must follow the local state laws for carrying a firearm. It is your responsibility to know these regulations.

Additionally, the forest regulations are as follows:

A firearm may not be discharged in the following National Forest areas:

Within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site, or occupied area; or
Across or on a Forest Development road or an adjacent body of water, or in any manner or place whereby any person or property is exposed to injury or damage as a result of such discharge; or
Into or within any cave.


I hope that helps,


Deb Schweizer
Public Affairs Specialist
Inyo National Forest
760-873-2427
760-920-2347
debraaschweizer@fs.fed.us




So, I guess if you can LOC in unincorporated areas, does Inyo National Forest qualify as Unincorporated? Can someone lay out how CA LOC laws specifically relate to National Forest land in plain english and post the (not so plain english) snip from the Statute that applies?

Thanks all

You might not be aware of it, but you are seeking legal advice from people who are not attorneys. You will only receive short nebulous answers suggesting you should know what the law is, and that you should obey it whatever it is. Police don't have to know the law or advise you how you should act- and one shouldn't ask them and inadvertently give them the authority.

I am a largely anonymous stranger on the internet and I don't claim to be any legal authority whatsoever. The short and dirty is the law prohibiting open carry in California only applies in the same places where loaded guns are prohibited- incorporated areas and places where discharge has been prohibited by local ordnance. Beyond that, is within 1000 feet of a school, state and national parks.

 

[njkennelly]

You might not be aware of it, but you are seeking legal advice from people who are not attorneys. You will only receive short nebulous answers suggesting you should know what the law is, and that you should obey it whatever it is. Police don't have to know the law or advise you how you should act- and one shouldn't ask them and inadvertently give them the authority.

I am a largely anonymous stranger on the internet and I don't claim to be any legal authority whatsoever. The short and dirty is the law prohibiting open carry in California only applies in the same places where loaded guns are prohibited- incorporated areas and places where discharge has been prohibited by local ordnance. Beyond that, is within 1000 feet of a school, state and national parks.

Yes, I am aware of all that stuff and was not asking the Forest Service Representative for their thoughts or interpretation of the law. That's why I was asking for the link to the Law. She obviously could not provide that, so I reached out on this forum to those who are generally much more versed in the law than those paid to enforce it, all while understanding that we are not lawyers.

So, this brings me to my next question...

If I can not discharge a firearm (as "local ordinance" from the Inyo National Forest Service)...

"within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site, or occupied area: or Across or on a Forest Development road or an adjacent body of water, or in any manner or place whereby any person or property is exposed to injury or damage as a result of such discharge; or into or within a cave."

...then is it illegal to (loaded) open carry there by CA law?

 

[mjones]

Yes, I am aware of all that stuff and was not asking the Forest Service Representative for their thoughts or interpretation of the law. That's why I was asking for the link to the Law. She obviously could not provide that, so I reached out on this forum to those who are generally much more versed in the law than those paid to enforce it, all while understanding that we are not lawyers.

So, this brings me to my next question...

If I can not discharge a firearm (as "local ordinance" from the Inyo National Forest Service)...

"within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site, or occupied area: or Across or on a Forest Development road or an adjacent body of water, or in any manner or place whereby any person or property is exposed to injury or damage as a result of such discharge; or into or within a cave."

...then is it illegal to (loaded) open carry there by CA law?

That's basically correct. The only clear exception to what you have learned is that loaded carry is specifically legal within one's campsite (it's your temporary residence just like a hotel room would be)

My apologies, but I'm not in a position to provide the direct penal code citation for that at the moment. Hopefully someone else will pass it on. It's probably in the California forum stickies somewhere.

 

[TravyLeigh]

Do you guys know if it's legal to OC while looking for gold? I prospect out in the Tahoe national forest, and we've seen bears and stuff... Also we're going to try and claim a piece of land out there. Is it legal to OC with a full mag in out there?