PDA

View Full Version : CCW in front yard -No permit


sfpcservice
02-04-2009, 9:04 AM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=150836&page=2

I started veering off the course of the thread posted above and wanted to start a separate thread discussing whether or not it is legal to CCW Loaded in my own front yard. I don't have a fence in my front yard, which ends at the city sidewalk/street. And a nice little extra, I am surrounded on all sides by a school zone.

1911su16b870
02-04-2009, 9:26 AM
Just walk into the house when the po-po is in sight :D

Omega13device
02-04-2009, 9:54 AM
In your scenario concealed should be ok per 12026 PC.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1110315&postcount=49

Loaded is most likely illegal per 12031 PC and People v. Overturf.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1112667&postcount=66

Also as I noted in the post above, if you're in "any public place or any public street" a peace officer has the right to check your firearm to see if it's loaded. They cannot do that in your home.

WokMaster1
02-04-2009, 10:02 AM
we used to have a saying when I lived in Texas: "Concealed is Concealed."

The saying nowadays is "If you got caught carrying a CONCEALED weapon, you have FAILed!!!!":D

Good question, OP. I'd like to know too.

sfpcservice
02-04-2009, 10:14 AM
Just walk into the house when the po-po is in sight :D

But, what's to say when you answer your front door, that you have removed the "physical barrier" between yourself and the public, and are therefore in violation? I see an opportunity for an activist DA to get really stupid......

p7m8jg
02-04-2009, 10:32 AM
In my view of the law, it says "residence", it doesn't say "inside the home". Residence includes the property surrounding your house. It's yours. It's private. It should not be a violation of either 12025 nor 12031.

Also get a copy of "How to Own a GUn & Stay Out of Jail" by John Machtinger. They're only about $15 and worth their weight in gold for examples.

The 2008 copy on pg 49 states "You may carry a handgun concealed on your person or in your vehicle when you are in your residence, in your place of business, or on your private property." it also references Penal Code 12031(h)

Now, will you be contacted by the cops if they see you holding your shotgun on the front porch? Undoubtedly. Will you be violating the law if its loaded? Not in my opinion.

sfpcservice
02-04-2009, 10:36 AM
Now, will you be contacted by the cops if they see you holding your shotgun on the front porch? Undoubtedly. Will you be violating the law if its loaded? Not in my opinion.

Just politely inform the Policeman that as soon as he steps off the sidewalk onto your property he is trespassing. I'm sure he will respect your statements and just drive away!:thumbsup:

Ironchef
02-04-2009, 11:00 AM
In your scenario concealed should be ok per 12026 PC.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1110315&postcount=49

Loaded is most likely illegal per 12031 PC and People v. Overturf.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1112667&postcount=66

Also as I noted in the post above, if you're in "any public place or any public street" a peace officer has the right to check your firearm to see if it's loaded. They cannot do that in your home.

12026 is the key but I've heard it masterfully cited on CG by LIbrarian and others that your front yard is also a public place in that someone can freely enter your yard..therefore you are in violation of 12025 and 12031. Further discussion is usually along the lines of "what if I have a fence in front?" To which the answer is usually "if people can still access your front/side/back yard through or over fences, then it's public.." or something to that effect.

In short, and technically, I would think unless you have a gated environment AND no tresspassing signs posted (which make it illegal to enter your property), then you could carry loaded and concealed or open. But don't quote me on that.

1911su16b870
02-04-2009, 11:01 AM
But, what's to say when you answer your front door, that you have removed the "physical barrier" between yourself and the public, and are therefore in violation? I see an opportunity for an activist DA to get really stupid......

Secure the firearm so that you are not in violation. Then answer the door, step outside, closing the door behind your, for your consensual contact.

glockman19
02-04-2009, 3:37 PM
My "Private Property" is NOT "Public Property". If you're invited you are welcome. If you enter without permission, excluding DWP & Gas Co. employees they have permission, you are TRESSPASSING.

Apartments are the only places where there are "common areas". Condo's and Townhouse "common area" is "Private Property" as it is a residence for owners/renters and guests, all who would have permission to enter, most I know have an entry gate and gated parking.

Police have NO RIGHT to enter unless there is a warrant or "Probable Cause".

Install a fence for your front yard with a gate and you'd have the added legal protection of a man made barrier that one would have to breach in some way to enter the "Private Property" as a TRESSPASSER.

I feel confident carrying in any manner on my property.

the_donald_
02-04-2009, 3:54 PM
How 'bout putting a small sign by your front door that states:

"If you can read this, you are trespassing":thumbsup:

IGOTDIRT4U
02-04-2009, 3:58 PM
Rule of thumb. Where the meter reader goes, so goes the public.

glockman19
02-04-2009, 4:09 PM
Rule of thumb. Where the meter reader goes, so goes the public.

So Wrong. They are NOT the public. They have your permission to enter your property for the sole reason to read the meter.

I had wireless devices installed that eliminate the need for entry. DWP/Gas Co. drive by...take a reading and never enter the gated property.

tombinghamthegreat
02-04-2009, 4:36 PM
So Wrong. They are NOT the public. They have your permission to enter your property for the sole reason to read the meter.


Who lets the meter reader on their property? Also that is wrong. A fully enclosed yard is private. a locked gate is even better. My property is enclosed with a 6 foot fence with locked gates so i am good there. A driveway should be legal...

sfpcservice
02-04-2009, 4:47 PM
Who lets the meter reader on their property?

In our case, there is an easement on our deed that allows the meter reader onto the corner of our property where the meter is located to take their reading. Maybe you have a similar easement that you are unaware of, or maybe you don't?

sierratangofoxtrotunion
02-04-2009, 4:53 PM
Rule of thumb. Where the meter reader goes, so goes the public.

At work the meters are inside the building. PG&E guy just saunters straight in like he owns the place and walks back to the meters. We all recognize the guy and don't think twice, but believe me "the entire shop" is not "public." I'd be interested to see what insurance companies call public and private.

rayra
02-04-2009, 4:56 PM
12026 is the key but I've heard it masterfully cited on CG by LIbrarian and others that your front yard is also a public place in that someone can freely enter your yard..therefore you are in violation of 12025 and 12031. Further discussion is usually along the lines of "what if I have a fence in front?" To which the answer is usually "if people can still access your front/side/back yard through or over fences, then it's public.." or something to that effect.

In short, and technically, I would think unless you have a gated environment AND no tresspassing signs posted (which make it illegal to enter your property), then you could carry loaded and concealed or open. But don't quote me on that.

That's damned bunk, then, because if someone trips and falls on one of my sprinkler heads it's suddenly private and my homeowners insurance provider is going to get a workout. Basically whichever way SCREWS ME the most is the way public / private is interpreted?

I'm on my own property - not in the easement / public right of way - I'm carrying CONCEALED and will leave the rest for a court fight - because after all, it's CONCEALED and the only way it ever comes to the attention of law enforcement is after I've been assaulted ON MY OWN PROPERTY and I've successfully defended myself. So I'm not about to cower about minority legal concerns (no pun intended).

hawk1
02-04-2009, 5:38 PM
But, what's to say when you answer your front door, that you have removed the "physical barrier" between yourself and the public, and are therefore in violation? I see an opportunity for an activist DA to get really stupid......

If your front yard is fenced in with a closed gate you might be ok.

If you venture out into your open front yard you will get busted. Just the same as if you're drinking on your porch, you can get arrested for drunk in public. Your entire property needs to be fenced. You can go a step further and post signs.



No 'pysical barrier' needed.

Section 12025 does not apply to or affect any of the following:
• Any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not prohibited from owning or possessing firearms pursuant to Penal Code sections 12021 or 12021.1 or section 8100 or 8101 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, may carry, either openly or concealed, anywhere within his or her place of business, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by him or her any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. A permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry is not required under these circumstances. (Penal Code § 12026.)


Notice it does not say inside your dwelling, house, etc...

glockman19
02-04-2009, 5:45 PM
If your front yard is fenced in with a closed gate you might be ok.

If you venture out into your open front yard you will get busted. Just the same as if you're drinking on your porch, you can get arrested for drunk in public. Your entire property needs to be fenced. You can go a step further and post signs.

FUD

No 'pysical barrier' needed.


Quote:
Section 12025 does not apply to or affect any of the following:
• Any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not prohibited from owning or possessing firearms pursuant to Penal Code sections 12021 or 12021.1 or section 8100 or 8101 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, may carry, either openly or concealed, anywhere within his or her place of business, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by him or her any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. A permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry is not required under these circumstances. (Penal Code § 12026.)


Notice it does not say inside your dwelling, house, etc...

Thank you for clarifying for those who:

1) can't read.
2) don't use the SEARCH button.
:)

GuyW
02-04-2009, 5:57 PM
The unfenced private property question was already answered in Overturf. Ignore it at your peril....

hawk1
02-04-2009, 6:05 PM
Maybe not. I have seen people arrested for drinking in public (their front yard), drunk in public (their front porch/garage), and being arrested for drunk in public after "stepping outside to talk with the officer".

However, this has only happened when the front yard being unfenced.

I'll research when I get a chance.

Drinking in public is not relevent as there are specific laws for alcohol. Believe me, you will not get arrested for holding a bottle of Tequila in your hands.

He asked about concealed carry on his own property. Not shooting his handgun at targets in the front yard.

ZRX61
02-04-2009, 6:19 PM
Just remember that Glendale PD issue tickets for "drinking in public" if you are in your own BACK yard & can seen from the street....

wellerjohn
02-04-2009, 7:54 PM
I'm on my own property - not in the easement / public right of way - I'm carrying CONCEALED and will leave the rest for a court fight - because after all, it's CONCEALED and the only way it ever comes to the attention of law enforcement is after I've been assaulted ON MY OWN PROPERTY and I've successfully defended myself. So I'm not about to cower about minority legal concerns (no pun intended).

+100:thumbsup:

wellerjohn
02-04-2009, 7:56 PM
If you venture out into your open front yard you will get busted.

Thats why keeping it concealed is paramount.

hawk1
02-04-2009, 8:27 PM
Just remember that Glendale PD issue tickets for "drinking in public" if you are in your own BACK yard & can seen from the street....

I already got flamed for spreading FUD. It's futile. Class is over.

Class is back in.
Lets break this down to easy examples.

Can you understand the difference between drinking beer in the front yard versus just sitting all day next to a case of beer without opening it?

Now just imagine having your concealed weapon on your person versus shooting targets stapled to your tree.

Understand the difference?

Omega13device
02-04-2009, 10:33 PM
I'm on my own property - not in the easement / public right of way - I'm carrying CONCEALED and will leave the rest for a court fight - because after all, it's CONCEALED and the only way it ever comes to the attention of law enforcement is after I've been assaulted ON MY OWN PROPERTY and I've successfully defended myself. So I'm not about to cower about minority legal concerns (no pun intended).
Some of you need to remember, the penal code treats CONCEALED separately from LOADED.

Yes you can carry legally concealed on your unfenced lawn (12026) but you cannot legally carry loaded (12031). If you don't believe me then reread Overturf. He was in the driveway of the apartment building he owned with a loaded handgun and was found guilty of violating 12031.

GuyW
02-04-2009, 11:45 PM
Class is back in.
Lets break this down to easy examples.

Can you understand the difference between drinking beer in the front yard versus just sitting all day next to a case of beer without opening it?

Now just imagine having your concealed weapon on your person versus shooting targets stapled to your tree.

Understand the difference?

Gawd - you must be a government school teacher.

How do your deficient examples compare private with private-open to-the-public?
.

DocSkinner
02-05-2009, 12:53 AM
In my view of the law, it says "residence", it doesn't say "inside the home". Residence includes the property surrounding your house. It's yours. It's private. It should not be a violation of either 12025 nor 12031.

Also get a copy of "How to Own a GUn & Stay Out of Jail" by John Machtinger. They're only about $15 and worth their weight in gold for examples.

The 2008 copy on pg 49 states "You may carry a handgun concealed on your person or in your vehicle when you are in your residence, in your place of business, or on your private property." it also references Penal Code 12031(h)

Now, will you be contacted by the cops if they see you holding your shotgun on the front porch? Undoubtedly. Will you be violating the law if its loaded? Not in my opinion.

regretfully it also falls to the threatening/offensive display - some neighbor could feel you were directly threatening them, and then any 'display' could get you slapped. But if it is out of sight - they can't say they felt threatened by something they didn't ever see.

hawk1
02-05-2009, 8:17 AM
Gawd - you must be a government school teacher.

How do your deficient examples compare private with private-open to-the-public?
.

Nope, not a school teacher, gub'mint or otherwise.

It says on private property owned or lawfully possessed by him or her .

Your property is exactly that. It is not open to the public. You can allow the public to enter your property, but that does not prevent you from carrying a concealed weapon. Suppose you own a liquor store. It is your private property that is open to the public. You can carry legally there as well. Read the law once again, anywhere within his or her place of business.

hawk1
02-05-2009, 8:29 AM
Some of you need to remember, the penal code treats CONCEALED separately from LOADED.

Yes you can carry legally concealed on your unfenced lawn (12026) but you cannot legally carry loaded (12031). If you don't believe me then reread Overturf. He was in the driveway of the apartment building he owned with a loaded handgun and was found guilty of violating 12031.

Not true. Although I'm not sure what an "Overturf" is to read.

PC 12031
a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when
he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a
prohibited area of unincorporated territory.


He must not have "owned" the apartment building, driveway, or where he was physically when arrested. That, or did not have permission from the owner(s). Just renting an individual apartment does not make him an owner.

GuyW
02-05-2009, 9:17 AM
He must not have "owned" the apartment building, driveway, or where he was physically when arrested.

Yes, he did. Read the case, and then come back and tell us we're wrong.

.

CSDGuy
02-05-2009, 9:43 AM
The problem is that 12031 and 12026 have similar language about public places. The findings about public places in Overturf would apply to CCW in a front yard when there's no fence to indicate no public access is allowed. Since the two sections of code do NOT have identical language and a pure 12025 case (person Unloaded CCW in a front yard...) probably hasn't gotten to the Cal Supreme Court, you'd be in a dark gray area. Mr. Overturf's case would have been even more on this point had he CCW'd before he'd done what he did... and subsequently gotten arrested, tried, and convicted.

GuyW
02-05-2009, 9:50 AM
The findings about public places in Overturf would apply to CCW in a front yard when there's no fence to indicate no public access is allowed.

Mere presence of a fence is no protection. Overturf had a fenced property. "Psycological" delineation of "your turf" is not relevant.

The concept is that the public is physically prevented from entering. That means a fence with a locked gate, or a vegetative barrier like a hedge, and a locked gate.
.

Glock22Fan
02-05-2009, 9:52 AM
I have heard learned members of this board and elsewhere claiming that Overturf might not stand if a similar case happened again. Whether this is true or not, I am not sufficiently knowledgable - and I would not want to be the test subject.

Certainly, Overturf doesn't make sense to me as a layman, and I suspect Heller might affect it after incorporation.

Doggboy
02-05-2009, 10:04 AM
I think the issue with the Overturf case would be, whether he owned the land or not apartments have common areas that are not considered private. It is the same as having a party at your house, if the gate is open to the back yard with no security, the yard has become a public place.

Ironchef
02-05-2009, 10:05 AM
Someone from the public who enters your yard, your porch, your backyard or your HOME is NOT breaking any law or trespassing..unless you've verbally told them to leave or you have plainly visible signage declaring there is no trespassing on your property.

If someone cannot get on your property or see you on your property (aka, front yard mowing the lawn), then you could LOC or conceal a loaded gun without any worries if I'm not mistaken. There's alot of fud in this thread..possibly some of mine though I doubt it. I'm taking my information from at least one good thread on this exact topic and your property is not your property in the way many of you think..in regards to CCW or LOCing.

As for overturf..isn't that the one with the guy at the apartment complex common area?

Glock22Fan
02-05-2009, 10:25 AM
As for overturf..isn't that the one with the guy at the apartment complex common area?

Yes

It is also Los Angeles Superior Court and is not binding outside Los Angeles - although that would not necessarily stop another court reaching the same conclusion.

gimebakmybulits
02-05-2009, 12:21 PM
[1] "Carrying" and "having" are not synonymous. "Having" relates to an "act or state of possessing," Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, page 1145, while "carrying" refers to the "act or instance of carrying" and the verb "carry" in relevant definition connotes "to convey, or transport ...;" and "to transfer from one place ... to another." (Id. at p. 412.)


Thus, before one may "carry" a weapon owned, possessed, or kept on the specified premises, there must be a reasonable belief that the person or property of the defendant or another is in immediate danger and that it is necessary to carry the weapon in order to preserve the endangered person or property.

It seems to me that you can’t “have” something physical without first “carrying” it. So wouldn't this ruling appear to make the act of “having” a firearm anywhere illegal since the “carry” part is the basis for the ruling unless of course you are in fear for your life or property?
Funny because that seems to be the reason the appellant was “carrying” the gun in the first place.

Fate
02-05-2009, 12:47 PM
Surprised Overturf wasn't busted for "discharge of a firearm" rather than carrying. :confused:

Librarian
02-05-2009, 1:09 PM
[1] "Carrying" and "having" are not synonymous. "Having" relates to an "act or state of possessing," Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, page 1145, while "carrying" refers to the "act or instance of carrying" and the verb "carry" in relevant definition connotes "to convey, or transport ...;" and "to transfer from one place ... to another." (Id. at p. 412.)


Thus, before one may "carry" a weapon owned, possessed, or kept on the specified premises, there must be a reasonable belief that the person or property of the defendant or another is in immediate danger and that it is necessary to carry the weapon in order to preserve the endangered person or property.

It seems to me that you can’t “have” something physical without first “carrying” it. So wouldn't this ruling appear to make the act of “having” a firearm anywhere illegal since the “carry” part is the basis for the ruling unless of course you are in fear for your life or property?
Funny because that seems to be the reason the appellant was “carrying” the gun in the first place.

Overturf (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/legal/539-people-v-overturf-carrying-private-property-outdoors.html) is the reason PC 12026 was amended to this 12026. (a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen of the United States or legalesident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,

who carries, either openly or concealed,

anywhere within the citizen's or legal resident's place of residence, place of business,

or

on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident

any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
However, 12031(h) still says (h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that property.
The Overturf decision asserts that the parking lot of that apartment complex was "property which, while "public" within the definition of subdivision (a)," apparently based on Overturf's own argument; the court does not explain why that parking lot on private property was 'public'.

Public place from in re Zorn, 59 Cal.2d 650
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal2d/59/650.html
"public" has been defined as " 'Common to all or many; general; open to common use,' " and " 'Open to common, or general use, participation, enjoyment, etc.; as, a public place, tax, or meeting.' " (Gardner v. Vic Tanny Compton, Inc., 182 Cal.App.2d 506, 510 [4] [6 Cal.Rptr. 490, 87 A.L.R.2d 113]; In re Koehne, supra, at p. 649 [5]; cf. Darius v. Apostolos, 68 Colo. 323 [190 P. 510, 511 [2, 3], 10 A.L.R. 986].) but see
People v. White(1991) (http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/227/886.html) 227 Cal.App.3d 886 , 278 Cal.Rptr. 48 Whether a particular location is a "public place" depends upon the facts of the individual case. (People v. Belanger (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 654, 657-659 [52 Cal.Rptr. 660] [defendant found intoxicated inside a private automobile parked along public street curb deemed arrested in a public place].) Appellant herein was located in his own front yard surrounded by a three-and-a-half- foot-high fence with a gate which was unlocked at the time. The gate was not standing open. Deputy Moore opened it. Appellant released three dogs into the yard, which from all appearances acted as an effective if unintentional deterrent to the arresting officer.fn. 2 This fenced yard cannot be characterized as a "public place," i.e., "common to all or many; general; open to common use." (In re Zorn, supra, 59 Cal.2d 650, 652.) In contrast to Olson, the fence, gate and dogs all provided challenge to public access. Appellant may have been found intoxicated in a place exposed to public [227 Cal.App.3d 893] view but that, in and of itself, is not a violation of section 647, subdivision (f). (In re Koehne, supra, 59 Cal.2d 646, 648- 649.)

"public place" is redefined all over the penal code. See the Jury Instructions, available here (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/criminaljuryinstructions/).

GuyW
02-05-2009, 1:15 PM
I think the issue with the Overturf case would be, whether he owned the land or not apartments have common areas that are not considered private. It is the same as having a party at your house, if the gate is open to the back yard with no security, the yard has become a public place.

Some of you keep looking for non-existent loopholes. Overturf owned the whole freakin' shooting match....apts, land, parking lot...

It ought not be law, but it is...
.

GuyW
02-05-2009, 1:26 PM
It seems to me that you can’t “have” something physical without first “carrying” it. So wouldn't this ruling appear to make the act of “having” a firearm anywhere illegal since the “carry” part is the basis for the ruling unless of course you are in fear for your life or property?

More illogical parsing that doesn't comport to the law, IMHO.

Of course if one owns something, and/or "has" something, they may OCCASIONALLY pick it up and move it to another location.

"Carry" is basically a term of art here, allowing the concept of "held in the hand", but more basically meaning "on the body".

If a person could plausibly claim that the robber came in just as he was moving his gun from A to B, fine. If he was wearing a holster, not fine.

Carrying the gun in a holster over an extended period of time is not the same.

The quoted post also is commingling the concepts of carry and loaded. The PC allows an exception for carrying an unloaded _concealed_ gun on private property. The PC only allows an exception for "having" a loaded gun, however.

I can however, imagine a liquor store who works at various locations within his store, moving his loaded gun from the cash register area, to the rear storage room, and back, etc.
.

CSDGuy
02-05-2009, 1:27 PM
Mere presence of a fence is no protection. Overturf had a fenced property. "Psycological" delineation of "your turf" is not relevant.

The concept is that the public is physically prevented from entering. That means a fence with a locked gate, or a vegetative barrier like a hedge, and a locked gate.
.
I was referring to a barrier type fence that is normally secured instead of a decorative fence or one that has a gate that is normally open. Big difference. One way the area would be considered public, the other, not.
I have heard learned members of this board and elsewhere claiming that Overturf might not stand if a similar case happened again. Whether this is true or not, I am not sufficiently knowledgable - and I would not want to be the test subject.

Certainly, Overturf doesn't make sense to me as a layman, and I suspect Heller might affect it after incorporation.
You might be right about this. Heller probably will affect the Overturf decision, but only after incorporation. ;) We might need a test case for it though... and I'm not that person.
Surprised Overturf wasn't busted for "discharge of a firearm" rather than carrying. :confused:They probably tried, I wouldn't be surprised if he was acquitted on that charge and found guilty of violating 12031...

pullnshoot25
02-05-2009, 1:28 PM
Who lets the meter reader on their property? Also that is wrong. A fully enclosed yard is private. a locked gate is even better. My property is enclosed with a 6 foot fence with locked gates so i am good there. A driveway should be legal...

Not according to case law, there is a specific example of property carry with an emphasis on driveways cited in "How to own a gun and stay out of jail"

Holy crap, I need to get that book and publish all the names of the cases.

Librarian
02-05-2009, 1:52 PM
I
They probably tried, I wouldn't be surprised if he was acquitted on that charge and found guilty of violating 12031...

Right. That's the conviction Overturf appealed.

dreyna14
02-05-2009, 3:23 PM
This is what I'm going to do. I'll make a small, wheeled cart that I can keep my gun on. It will be tied to my belt with a string so wherever I go on my property, it will follow me. Since I "have" the loaded firearm on my property, I'm good to go (12025/12026/12031). But since I'm neither in direct possession nor carrying it, 12031 doesn't apply. Hmm, maybe this can work elsewhere. Anybody up for LCC (Loaded Cart Carry)? We can just walk around with our little carts tied to us and nobody can say s*** since we're not "carrying" anything.

No I haven't done any drugs today.

N6ATF
02-05-2009, 3:25 PM
LOL