• 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.

Los Angeles DA Issues Notice - OC IS LEGAL!!!!

BSProof

New member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
45
Location
, ,
imported post

Decoligny wrote:
It is not really vague, it just takes a lot of indepth research to know what areas are "prohibited areas".

How about just doing a public records request for the documentation listing those areas. Take the rocks out your wheel barrel.

And while your at it, get it certified and authenticated by the custodian of records, so that you would have a document(s) to show LEOs should it ever be an issue.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

Nick the Sniper wrote:
Decoligny wrote:
It is not really vague, it just takes a lot of indepth research to know what areas are "prohibited areas".

How about just doing a public records request for the documentation listing those areas. Take the rocks out your wheel barrel.

And while your at it, get it certified and authenticated by the custodian of records, so that you would have a document(s) to show LEOs should it ever be an issue.

There are areas covered by Federal laws (BLM lands).

There are 58 counties in California, all with thier own ordinances.

There are the Fish and Game Laws to consider, and they vary due to what hunting season it might happen to be.

There might even be ordinances passed by unincorporated townships (not sure).

It is a daunting task to consider as there is no single point where a record request could be sent.

Our best bet is to keep fighting to get 12031 thrown out.

Putting together a comprehensive database of prohibited areas would be difficult at best, and keeping it updated would be next to impossible unless you were to constantly watch every ordinace brought before every governmental body in California.

I know that the areas that I Open Carry are not "prohibited". Kern County has no ordinances prohibiting the discharge of firearms. I live outside any town or city limits. There are no restricted hunting areas around me. The Fish and Game regulations prohibit the discharge of firearms within 500 yard (IIRC) or a house or building, but only while engaged in hunting. It took a lot of time just to find out that information.
 

Mike

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

Decoligny wrote:
There are areas covered by Federal laws (BLM lands).
. . . Our best bet is to keep fighting to get 12031 thrown out.

I thought BLM lands were OK for carry just like National Forests, correct?

Also, 12031 was explicitly sustained in broad sweeping langauge as consistent with Heller by a Calif. appeals court in San. Francisco. People v. Flores (2008) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ , DJDAR 18615, WL 5265343

Soforget trying to overtunr 12031 in any near term - heck it took a Gubenatorial veto to stop the legislature from fortifying 12031 to apply to all public areas and in vehicles in unincorporated areas!
 

Mike

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

cato wrote:
I wish Mike had made his argument this clear two years ago. Becausewe've been putting the otherinterpretation out thereI think we've done some harm to LOC in unincorporated territory.
No harm in being conservative on a personal level, but if we are talking about what the law "is," then we go with the current case law. There is that old rule "never look a gift horse in the mouth."

But Knight was cited favorably only 18 months ago by another appeals ct. panel in People v. Segura, 2006 WL 1576022 at 2, Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2006) which spoke even more clearly on the 374c issue that concerns some folks:

In People v. Knight (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1576, in the context of a suppression motion, the Third District had occasion to review section 12031, subdivision (a)(1). The court concluded the suppression motion should have been granted because the officers did not have reasonable cause to believe defendant had committed a felony by possession of a weapon in an incorporated city or a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. In so holding the court stated, “ection 12031, subdivision (a)(1), prohibits carrying a loaded firearm on one's person or in a vehicle: (1) while in any public place in an incorporated city; (2) while on any public street in an incorporated city; (3) while in any public place in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory; or (4) while on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.” ( Id. at p. 1576.)

Here, the evidence showed that Segura's possession of the .38 caliber revolver occurred in an unincorporated area of Tulare County. However, the prosecution did not present any evidence that it occurred in a “prohibited area.”

Respondent contends that the possession of the revolver occurred in a “prohibited area” of Tulare county within the meaning of section 12031, subdivision (f) because section 374c makes it unlawful to shoot a firearm from or upon a public road or highway. According to respondent, Segura must have carried the revolver on a public street in order for it to have reached the location where it was found.

We reject respondent's contention because it is contrary to the opinion of the Attorney General that section 374c does not make rural roads a prohibited area within the meaning of section 12031, subdivision (f). (51 Ops. Atty. Gen. 197, 200.)
 

Mike

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

Also, here is what you get when you look at the annotated 12031 in WestLaw:

"Prohibited area

This section does not prohibit the carrying of a rifle or a shotgun with unexpended shells or cartridges in the magazine on a public road in an incorporated area where there are no local ordinances or other laws or regulations prohibiting the discharge of firearms. 51 Op.Atty.Gen. 197, 10-3-68.

Section 374c does make every public road or highway a prohibited area as defined in this section. 51 Op.Atty.Gen. 197, 10-3-68.

Fish & G.C. § 3004 is a prohibited area as defined in this section, but carrying of loaded weapons is forbidden by this section only if the prohibited area coincides with a public place. 51 Op.Atty.Gen. 197, 10-3-68." West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 12031.
 

Cowboy_Rick

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
233
Location
, ,
imported post

OPEN CARRY, of an empty firearm? Doesn't make any sense to me. Might as well carry a BALLPEEN hammer without a handle!
 

cato

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

Cowboy_Rick wrote:

Might as well carry a BALLPEEN hammer without a handle!

No, you just carry the hammer separate from the handle. You need to hammer something? Reconnect the handle.

It's not what we want but it's what the law allows; unloaded open carry with separate loaded magazines. Need to loaded for self defense? Draw gun and mag. Insert mag and rack.
 

cato

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

Mike wrote:
Decoligny wrote:
There are areas covered by Federal laws (BLM lands).
. . . Our best bet is to keep fighting to get 12031 thrown out.

I thought BLM lands were OK for carry just like National Forests, correct?
Even BLM and Nat. Forests have "no discharge areas" by code. Also Fire Marshals can declare no discharge areas when certain conditions exist. Sorry no citations.
 

Mike

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

cato wrote:
Mike wrote:
Decoligny wrote:
There are areas covered by Federal laws (BLM lands).
. . . Our best bet is to keep fighting to get 12031 thrown out.

I thought BLM lands were OK for carry just like National Forests, correct?
Even BLM and Nat. Forests have "no discharge areas" by code. Also Fire Marshals can declare no discharge areas when certain conditions exist. Sorry no citations.
Hmm, I see gray area. See Knight. The focus of the construction of 12031 appears to be on the unincorporatedlocality, not any entity's regulation, even the federal government.
 

Mike

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

Mike wrote:
cato wrote:
I wish Mike had made his argument this clear two years ago. Becausewe've been putting the otherinterpretation out thereI think we've done some harm to LOC in unincorporated territory.
No harm in being conservative on a personal level, but if we are talking about what the law "is," then we go with the current case law. There is that old rule "never look a gift horse in the mouth."

But Knight was cited favorably only 18 months ago by another appeals ct. panel in People v. Segura, 2006 WL 1576022 at 2, Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2006) which spoke even more clearly on the 374c issue that concerns some folks:

In People v. Knight (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1576, in the context of a suppression motion, the Third District had occasion to review section 12031, subdivision (a)(1). The court concluded the suppression motion should have been granted because the officers did not have reasonable cause to believe defendant had committed a felony by possession of a weapon in an incorporated city or a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. In so holding the court stated, “ection 12031, subdivision (a)(1), prohibits carrying a loaded firearm on one's person or in a vehicle: (1) while in any public place in an incorporated city; (2) while on any public street in an incorporated city; (3) while in any public place in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory; or (4) while on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.” ( Id. at p. 1576.)

Here, the evidence showed that Segura's possession of the .38 caliber revolver occurred in an unincorporated area of Tulare County. However, the prosecution did not present any evidence that it occurred in a “prohibited area.”

Respondent contends that the possession of the revolver occurred in a “prohibited area” of Tulare county within the meaning of section 12031, subdivision (f) because section 374c makes it unlawful to shoot a firearm from or upon a public road or highway. According to respondent, Segura must have carried the revolver on a public street in order for it to have reached the location where it was found.

We reject respondent's contention because it is contrary to the opinion of the Attorney General that section 374c does not make rural roads a prohibited area within the meaning of section 12031, subdivision (f). (51 Ops. Atty. Gen. 197, 200.)

The above post is now edited to be correct - I had some cut and paste problems from the case.
 

Tex

New member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
111
Location
, ,
imported post

This is the first time in my life I must begrudgingly admit respect for lawyers, after re-reading these posts over and over, it even began to make sense to me. Mike when you are in Killeen look me up. Hi-Volume Car Stereo at 719 W. Rancier Ave. I am truly glad you are in our corner.
 

Mike

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

Tex4OC wrote:
This is the first time in my life I must begrudgingly admit respect for lawyers, after re-reading these posts over and over, it even began to make sense to me. Mike when you are in Killeen look me up. Hi-Volume Car Stereo at 719 W. Rancier Ave. I am truly glad you are in our corner.
Well I'm not a lawyer yet but the judges who write these opinons are - and though we all get flustered when some judges do not give reasonable force to the Second Amendment, I would say many or most judges especially at the appeallate level do think carefully before they construe statutes, especially complicated criminal statutes, and craft narrower and more fair interpretations than what theplain cold text might appear to mean at first reading.
 

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

I'm still waiting for CA to break off into the ocean, along with the idiots that come up with laws banning the use of loaded guns, while criminals ignore such laws.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

Statesman wrote:
I'm still waiting for CA to break off into the ocean, along with the idiots that come up with laws banning the use of loaded guns, while criminals ignore such laws.
Don't you know that when the BIG ONE hits, that everything east of California is going to slip into the ocean? :shock: :lol:
 

cato

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

Statesman wrote:
I'm still waiting for CA to break off into the ocean, along with the idiots that come up with laws banning the use of loaded guns, while criminals ignore such laws.
Don 't forget to throw some of us a line!
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

cato wrote:
Statesman wrote:
I'm still waiting for CA to break off into the ocean, along with the idiots that come up with laws banning the use of loaded guns, while criminals ignore such laws.
Don 't forget to throw some of us a line!

SV-Libertarian has a boat you can use.

Its just that its running out of free-board from all the...uh...2nd Amendment ballast.
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
imported post

How much "inspection" is allowed? My taurus has a chambered round indicator,
is this not sticking out enough to demand I just merrily move along now?
Do they need probable cause before they can claim I might have tampered with the
indicator? God help me if they see the 17 round mags though.:shock:

Seems the next step will be verifying the microstamps on the fireing pin.
But for Kalifornia it seems a good start towards restoring your rights. 1/5000th down
about 50+ billion to go, of course there is the alternative to move, but then the dumb
ones also move and spred the insanity.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:
SNIP...
there is the alternative to move, but then the dumb
ones also move and spred the insanity.
Or the Dumb ones stay where they are and since the smart ones are no longer there they (the dumb ones) claim some sort of "mandate" because their percentage number has increased!!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

JoeSparky
 

cato2

New member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
159
Location
, ,
imported post

LASD memo just published



http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=1890257#post1890257

icon1.gif
LA Sheriff's Department Open Carry Memo


This apparently went out internally at LASD:

------------

OPENLY CARRIED FIREARMS

Scenario:
You respond to a "Man with a gun" call at a local shopping mall. You locate the suspect walking through the mall. He is armed with a handgun carried in a belt holster. You detain the individual and determine that the handgun is unloaded. The subject has two fully loaded, highcapacity magazines for the weapon in his pocket. The subject explains that he is a believer in the Second Amendment and is carrying the weapon because he has a right to do so. What are your options as the handling deputy?

Discussion:
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (128 S.Ct 2783) that the Second Amendment provided an individual right for persons to "keep and bear arms". Just as the right to free speech does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, the Heller decision recognized reasonable limits on the exercise of that right. Prior to the Heller decision, case law in the 9th Federal Circuit (including California) held that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals. In many respects, Heller is a landmark case. When a landmark decision is made, the Supreme Court does not decide all questions relating to the issue. It rules on the primary question, and then leaves it to lower courts to define the limits of the ruling through subsequent cases. Heller does not appear to impact any of California's weapons laws, but it does expose those laws to new challenge.

We have seen recent evidence of various gun rights advocacy groups attempting to raise those challenges. In several recent events, law enforcement officers have been presented with situations similar to the one above. Some of these events were audio recorded (and possibly video-recorded as well). It appears that the subjects were attempting to lure the officers into taking unfounded enforcement efforts to bring attention to their cause and/or to form the basis for court action.

This is also occurring at a time when law enforcement has been presented with several tragic events involving "active shooters". This presents a significant challenge to responding deputies. It is difficult to determine the intent of an armed person. If deputies casually approach an armed individual who proves to be an "active shooter", the consequences can be tragic for the deputy and public. On the other hand, appropriate officer safety measures in contacting armed persons may seem excessive to those who believe they are only securing a constitutional right.

We are not aware of any instances involving armed persons where the proper use of officer safety measures has produced liability for the agency or officer/deputy. Penal Code §12031(e) provides you with the authority to inspect any firearm carried in public to determine if it is loaded. Refusal to submit to an inspection is cause to arrest for a violation of §12031. This is an inspection authority and no probable cause is required to conduct an inspection. It should be noted that the purpose of this inspection is limited to a determination of whether or not the weapon is loaded.

You have the ability to run a records check of the weapon's serial number if it is visible to you during the course of the weapon inspection. Considerable case law holds that you are not required to "close your eyes" to things you observe during the lawful performance of your duties. Your authority to detain the subject while conducting the 12031(e) inspection is limited.

Once it is established that the weapon is being lawfully carried, and there are no other circumstances justifying the detention of the subject, the detention must end. As a general rule, with some exceptions discussed below, it is not illegal to carry an unloaded firearm in a public place. Here is a partial listing of circumstances where the simple possession of an unloaded firearm, in public, is prohibited:

• Within 1,500 feet (WRONG THAT IS KNOWINGLY WITHIN 1000'...) of a public or private school (grades K-12) (626.9 PC). (Note: specific exceptions exist for residences, and for the transportation of firearms within containers.)

• Upon the grounds of a university or college (626.9 PC)

• By persons with felony convictions or by drug addicts (12021(a)(1) PC)

• By persons with specified misdemeanor convictions (12021(a)(2) +12021(c)(1) PC) (Note: The specified crimes are primarily assaults, batteries, domestic violence and weapons violations.)

• In connection with street gang activity (12021.5 PC)

• With the intent of committing a felony (12023 PC)

• While wearing a mask to conceal identity (12040 PC)

• Possession of a concealable firearm by a minor (12101 PC)

• By persons adjudicated with mental disorders under specified conditions (8103(a)(1) WIC)

• By persons who have been detained under 5150 WIC as a danger to self or others within the preceding five years. (8103(f)(1) WIC)

When is a firearm considered "Loaded"?
The short answer is that it depends on the circumstances. Ordinarily, a firearm is loaded if the ammunition is placed into the weapon in a manner that it could be fired. If the suspect is being charged with carrying the firearm with the intent to commit a felony (12023 PC), then a special definition of "loaded" applies. The firearm is considered "loaded" if the weapon, and ammunition capable of being fired in the weapon, are in the immediate possession of the subject (12001(j) PC). Penal Code § 171e provides a similar definition of "loaded" for firearms carried in the state capitol or offices (171c PC), and in the residences of designated elected officials (171d PC). Deputies should be familiar with this special definition, and be careful not to apply it to circumstances not involving a violation of sections 171c, 171d, or 12023.

The majority of offenses involving the carrying of a loaded weapon fall under 12031 PC. Section 12031(g) defines a weapon as being loaded when the ammunition is in, or attached to, the firearm. It specifically provides that a weapon is loaded if there is ammunition in the firing chamber, magazine or clip. The California Court of Appeal considered the question of when a weapon is loaded in the case of People v. Harvey Lee Clark (45 Cal App. 4th 1147). The defendant had a single-shot shotgun which had no shell in the chamber. It had a buttstock shell holder which held live rounds. The court clarified the "attached to" language of 12031(g) holding that the weapon was unloaded since the rounds could not be fired from the buttstock holder.

High Capacity Magazines (more than 10 rounds):
Effective January 1, 2000, it became a felony to manufacture, import, sell, keep for sale, give, or lend, a high-capacity magazine. There is no prohibition on the simple possession of a high capacity magazine.

Conclusion:
Law enforcement officers have the duty to protect the safety and rights of all members of our society. The "Open Carry" movement provides a very unique situation where a lawfully armed person will present an apparent threat to others. Penal Code § 12031(e) is your primary tool to resolve these cases. It is also very important to remain cognizant of the agendas that various advocacy groups may possess. The best advice for dealing with any individual who may be trying to test you is: Remain professional, know the law, and enforce it fairly.

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
NEWSLETTER
Field Operations Support Services
VOLUME 09 NUMBER 01 DATE: January 5, 2009

John D. Williams
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.

-------

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation
DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights" -Anon
rolleyes.gif
 

Mike

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

it's a better memo than the LA DA produced - maybe he shared my memo on his memo with the Sheriff?

I am wondering about the constitutionality of this inspection protocol - absent reasonable suspicion that a gun is loaded, I am thinking that stopping a person to inspect their gun violates the 4th amendment the same way pulling over a car just because you see it be driven to check for a license is generally unconstitutional.

Any thoughts on this? What does the Calif. code say re DL inspection and how have the courts contrued it?
 
Top