PDA

View Full Version : Is "carry" equivalent to "transport"?


pullnshoot25
12-24-2009, 1:54 PM
So I just did some sniffing around in an attempt to determine the whole "carry v. transport" lingo and I came across a few little things. I am not sure if this is new but here it goes anyways.

I shall quote People v. Melton, which summarily quotes People v. Overtuf

In People v. Overturf (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [134 Cal.Rptr. 769], defendant owned and managed a three-building apartment complex in Los Angeles County. He had hired a young man to do gardening and maintenance work in exchange for a salary and an apartment. The employee annoyed other tenants with loud parties and excessive consumption of alcohol. For these reasons, defendant discharged the employee and told him to remove his personal effects from the apartment. The employee returned to pick up his things and brought three of his friends. A dispute arose as to how much money defendant owed the employee. The employee threatened defendant and the latter returned to his apartment and telephoned the sheriff. In the meantime, defendant saw the three men on his driveway and feared they might be tampering with his car. Fearing for his safety, defendant took a .22-caliber pistol from his apartment, went to the driveway, and fired the weapon once into a pile of dirt. The municipal court convicted defendant of violating former section 12031, subdivision (a). Defendant appealed, contending subdivision (f) of the statute (now subdivision (h)) exempted him from liability. 2 The Appellate Department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. The statute stated nothing in the section shall prevent or preclude any person engaged in lawful business from having a loaded firearm within such person's place of business or upon such person's private property. However, when the statute referred to geographical areas where certain conduct is permitted -- "place of business" and "private property" in subdivision (f) -- the statute stated only that nothing in the section shall prevent any person from having a loaded weapon. The appellate department held "carrying" and "having" are not synonymous terms. "Having" relates to an act or state of possessing while "carrying" refers to the act or instance of carrying. The verb "carry" means to convey or transport or transfer from one place to another. "Having," as it appears in subdivision (f) of section 12031, is to be read in the sense of "owning, possessing, or keeping." The court held such a reading harmonizes with the companion firearm control statutes, sections 12025 and 12026. The court noted section 12025 makes it an offense to carry a concealable firearm upon a person or in a vehicle without having a license to do so. The court stated section 12026 provides an exception to section 12025. The latter section states section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit a citizen over age 18 from owning, possessing, or keeping a concealable firearm within his place of residence or place of business. The section also provides no license to purchase, own, possess or keep a firearm at one's place of residence or business shall be required. The appellate department held that language was a clear indication that "owning, possessing, or keeping" a firearm at one's place of residence or business does not equate with "carrying" such a weapon.

An interesting footnote to People v. Overturf

2 We have found no cases expressly defining the word "carries" as used in section 12031. In re Bergen, supra, and People v. Smith, supra, each deal with a predecessor of Penal Code section 12025, a statute which makes it an offense to carry concealed within a vehicle or upon a person a firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. In each of those cases the court adverted to the general definition discussed in our text above. The Smith court differed with the Bergen court in concluding that a defendant could carry a weapon in the absence of actual locomotion (72 Cal.App.2d Supp. at p. 879), a difference not relevant to this case.

So.... do you guys think it is safe to conclude that transport=carry or what?

AndrewMendez
12-24-2009, 2:50 PM
Nate, I had to read that twice. How can Carry = Transport. So I am "carrying" my gun every time it sits in my trunk on the way to the range?

pullnshoot25
12-24-2009, 2:59 PM
Nate, I had to read that twice. How can Carry = Transport. So I am "carrying" my gun every time it sits in my trunk on the way to the range?

Its not that it Carry=transport but that it is equivalent to transport.

GrizzlyGuy
12-24-2009, 3:02 PM
So I just did some sniffing around in an attempt to determine the whole "carry v. transport" lingo and I came across a few little things. I am not sure if this is new but here it goes anyways.

I did an analysis like that a few weeks ago. Here is what I came up with (all in same thread):

The Overturf Part (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3484352&postcount=22)

Overturf + Dictionary (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3484621&postcount=25)

I'm Just a-Walkin' and a-Carryin' and a-Transportin'... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3485296&postcount=27)

I got to the same place as you: carry=transport. :)

ETA: Not saying I'm right, IANAL, just saying I arrived at the same point as you did.

bplvr
12-24-2009, 6:45 PM
So I just did some sniffing around in an attempt to determine the whole "carry v. transport" lingo and I came across a few little things. I am not sure if this is new but here it goes anyways.

I shall quote People v. Melton, which summarily quotes People v. Overtuf

In People v. Overturf (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [134 Cal.Rptr. 769], defendant owned and managed a three-building apartment complex in Los Angeles County. He had hired a young man to do gardening and maintenance work in exchange for a salary and an apartment. The employee annoyed other tenants with loud parties and excessive consumption of alcohol. For these reasons, defendant discharged the employee and told him to remove his personal effects from the apartment. The employee returned to pick up his things and brought three of his friends. A dispute arose as to how much money defendant owed the employee. The employee threatened defendant and the latter returned to his apartment and telephoned the sheriff. In the meantime, defendant saw the three men on his driveway and feared they might be tampering with his car. Fearing for his safety, defendant took a .22-caliber pistol from his apartment, went to the driveway, and fired the weapon once into a pile of dirt. The municipal court convicted defendant of violating former section 12031, subdivision (a). Defendant appealed, contending subdivision (f) of the statute (now subdivision (h)) exempted him from liability. 2 The Appellate Department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. The statute stated nothing in the section shall prevent or preclude any person engaged in lawful business from having a loaded firearm within such person's place of business or upon such person's private property. However, when the statute referred to geographical areas where certain conduct is permitted -- "place of business" and "private property" in subdivision (f) -- the statute stated only that nothing in the section shall prevent any person from having a loaded weapon. The appellate department held "carrying" and "having" are not synonymous terms. "Having" relates to an act or state of possessing while "carrying" refers to the act or instance of carrying. The verb "carry" means to convey or transport or transfer from one place to another. "Having," as it appears in subdivision (f) of section 12031, is to be read in the sense of "owning, possessing, or keeping." The court held such a reading harmonizes with the companion firearm control statutes, sections 12025 and 12026. The court noted section 12025 makes it an offense to carry a concealable firearm upon a person or in a vehicle without having a license to ]do so. The court stated section 12026 provides an exception to section 12025. The latter section states section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit a citizen over age 18 from owning, possessing, or keeping a concealable firearm within his place of residence or place of business. The section also provides no license to purchase, own, possess or keep a firearm at one's place of residence or business shall be required. The appellate department held that language was a clear indication that "owning, possessing, or keeping" a firearm at one's place of residence or business does not equate with "carrying" such a weapon.

An interesting footnote to People v. Overturf

2 We have found no cases expressly defining the word "carries" as used in section 12031. In re Bergen, supra, and People v. Smith, supra, each deal with a predecessor of Penal Code section 12025, a statute which makes it an offense to carry concealed within a vehicle or upon a person a firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. In each of those cases the court adverted to the general definition discussed in our text above. The Smith court differed with the Bergen court in concluding that a defendant could carry a weapon in the absence of actual locomotion (72 Cal.App.2d Supp. at p. 879), a difference not relevant to this case.

So.... do you guys think it is safe to conclude that transport=carry or what?
--------------------
notice that the part I high-lighted makes no mention of "loaded".

It looks like 'carry ' means you are standing still . Take one step of locomotion and you are transporting. ie :motion

I am sure that a 'wise Latina' could sort out this legal mumbo-jumbo. ......which is where this kind of BS needs to go.

==================

Librarian
12-24-2009, 6:55 PM
There's one important issue to remember: Overturf is the direct cause of an amendment to 12026.1:
12026.1. (a) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any
citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or
is temporarily within this state, and who is not prohibited by state
or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a
firearm, from transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that
the following applies to the firearm:


You cannot read Overturf in isolation.