PDA

View Full Version : Open Carry in GGNRA (San Francisco/Marin)


general jacks
01-26-2010, 9:33 AM
Important memo attached.

wildhawker
01-26-2010, 9:36 AM
This is a better memo than we've seen to date; thanks for the post!

Purple K
01-26-2010, 9:43 AM
Thank You!

MudCamper
01-26-2010, 9:44 AM
Interesting. But he's talking about UOC. What National Parks are in incorporated territory? If they are not in incorporated territory, then LOC would be legal, and (e) checks would be illegal. Unless of course they post an order banning shooting in the parks, which I guess they plan to do...

What's GOGA? That a park? ETA: OK, it's Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I guess that means it is in incorporated territory.

xxdabroxx
01-26-2010, 9:45 AM
537 pc needs to be revised very very badly.

general jacks
01-26-2010, 9:52 AM
GOGA= Golden Gate. It's the National Recreation Area which encompasses both sides of the Golden Gate Bridge. (San Francisco and Marin).

MudCamper
01-26-2010, 9:55 AM
GOGA= Golden Gate. It's the National Recreation Area which encompasses both sides of the Golden Gate Bridge. (San Francisco and Marin).

So is the Marin side in incorporated territory? If not, then without an order per 36 CFR 261.58, LOC would be legal, and 12031(e) checks would not be allowed.

Roadrunner
01-26-2010, 9:56 AM
Good memo, but there is still an air of an authoritarian attitude in it. To point out my observations:

1. They note that UOCers are always polite

2. They note that UOCers are always with in the law.

3. They practially quake in their boots when they observe that UOCers always have appropriate recording equipment and legal counsel on hand.

4. But even though these actions are typical of UOC behavior, they seem to insist that UOCers, for all of their positive attributes are a potential threat to them and society in general.

5. Are there no boundaries to how stupid and arrogant those people can be?

jdberger
01-26-2010, 10:03 AM
Good memo, but there is still an air of an authoritarian attitude in it. To point out my observations:

1. They note that UOCers are always polite

2. They note that UOCers are always with in the law.

3. They practially quake in their boots when they observe that UOCers always have appropriate recording equipment and legal counsel on hand.

4. But even though these actions are typical of UOC behavior, they seem to insist that UOCers, for all of their positive attributes are a potential threat to them and society in general.

5. Are there no boundaries to how stupid and arrogant those people can be?

that last one is rhetorical, right? :D

xxdabroxx
01-26-2010, 10:05 AM
but they have guns so they must be bad.

pullnshoot25
01-26-2010, 10:11 AM
HOLY ****! This is a great friggin memo. They still have to come around to the idea that 12031 is inherently illegal but hot diggity damn, they ARE ACTUALLY TELLING THE TRUTH! AMA-ZA-ZING!

Roadrunner
01-26-2010, 10:16 AM
that last one is rhetorical, right? :D

Well, I for one wish that our illustrious Bureau of firearms at the State Department of Justice would get the guts to actually come on and comment instead of lurking like vermin in the shadows trying to figure out how to screw legitimate and law abiding gun owners over. But hey, I guess when you think that you are the privileged class and others are not worthy of being in the club, you have to protect the privileges that you think are exclusive to the elite.

Decoligny
01-26-2010, 10:16 AM
"UOC enthusiasts percieve themselves as law abiding citizens exercising their rights." Emphasis mine.

How about "UOC enthusiasts are law abiding citizen exercising their rights"?

"Percieving themselves" makes it look like "it's just how they see themselves, not how it is in reality".

MudCamper
01-26-2010, 10:26 AM
"UOC enthusiasts percieve themselves as law abiding citizens exercising their rights." Emphasis mine.


This language, as well as a large portion of this memo, are direct cut-and-paste of one of the other memos (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/36464.html). I forget which one.

wildhawker
01-26-2010, 10:28 AM
Baby steps, leading to bigger steps. This is a big step in the right direction. We're not there yet.

CitaDeL
01-26-2010, 11:34 AM
This memo even addresses the responses and questions of emergency dispatchers. That appears to be the first published indictation that a change has been made in how 911 MWAG calls will be handled.

choprzrul
01-26-2010, 11:49 AM
but they have guns so they must be bad.

The police or the citizen???

putput
01-26-2010, 12:02 PM
Post incorporation I'd love to have an open carry outing (lunch er sumptin) RIGHT THERE...

bigcalidave
01-26-2010, 12:13 PM
"UOC enthusiasts percieve themselves as law abiding citizens exercising their rights." Emphasis mine.

How about "UOC enthusiasts are law abiding citizen exercising their rights"?

"Percieving themselves" makes it look like "it's just how they see themselves, not how it is in reality".

Did you look over this statement?

"This is a constitutional right, and we must adjust our responses accordingly in light of the above legislation"

This was a GREAT memo for this UOC movement. This is a federal LEO laying out the rules for contact, admitting it is constitutional, admitting it is legal, etc.

The way it is written leads me to believe the concern is with the officers enforcing the law, and making sure that they follow the rules. They want the officers to know they understand the difficulties presented by the situation, but that it is completely legal.

Excellent!

Forward this memo to the wiki, and refer any LEO agencies you plan on dealing with to it!

demnogis
01-26-2010, 12:15 PM
This memo is GREAT in comparison to the many others. It should include a notation about the incorporated/unincorporated bits of 12031. The NP policy taking effect means that I can -- and will -- carry on the next family NP trip.

The police or the citizen??? Well, isn't a LEO both? I jest...

MudCamper
01-26-2010, 12:38 PM
This memo even addresses the responses and questions of emergency dispatchers. That appears to be the first published indictation that a change has been made in how 911 MWAG calls will be handled.

No, this was copied from the Sunnyvale memo and slightly modified: http://www.opencarryradio.com/documents/Sunnyvale_California_Memo_18_Sep_09.pdf

Roadrunner
01-26-2010, 1:27 PM
Did you look over this statement?

"This is a constitutional right, and we must adjust our responses accordingly in light of the above legislation"

This was a GREAT memo for this UOC movement. This is a federal LEO laying out the rules for contact, reluctantly admitting it is constitutional, reluctantly admitting it is legal, etc.

The way it is written leads me to believe the concern is with the officers enforcing the law, and making sure that they follow the rules. They want the officers to know they understand the difficulties presented by the situation, but that it is completely legal.

Excellent!

Forward this memo to the wiki, and refer any LEO agencies you plan on dealing with to it!

I'm not disparaging any part of your post, it was just easier to copy and place emphasis on your post. I believe that most of the cooperation is due mostly to the fact that the police know that typically each encounter will be recorded. For the most part, when a person knows their words or actions could come back to haunt them, people are careful what words or actions they choose.

bigcalidave
01-26-2010, 1:44 PM
I don't think the office is reluctant. I think they expect the officers to resist and they really wanted to let them know how they expect these situations to turn out. Letting the officers know they should be very careful how they approach UOCers is good policy..


Forward this memo to local media outlets, and announce a UOC event in the Presidio or maybe Crissy fields on Monday, Feb 22 2010 ?? Thank the commander of the SF field office for his memo? I think it may be OK to take them up on their offer of fair treatment, and celebrate the new law coming into effect!

Oh no!!! A bunch of people with guns were walking their dogs on Crissy field today! Nobody was shot!

Roadrunner
01-26-2010, 2:20 PM
I don't think the office is reluctant. I think they expect the officers to resist and they really wanted to let them know how they expect these situations to turn out. Letting the officers know they should be very careful how they approach UOCers is good policy..


Forward this memo to local media outlets, and announce a UOC event in the Presidio or maybe Crissy fields on Monday, Feb 22 2010 ?? Thank the commander of the SF field office for his memo? I think it may be OK to take them up on their offer of fair treatment, and celebrate the new law coming into effect!

Oh no!!! A bunch of people with guns were walking their dogs on Crissy field today! Nobody was shot!

I'm impressed with how Calgunners managed to intercept the memos from all of the police departments. I have quite a collection to hand out to anyone I know that needs to see them.

CitaDeL
01-26-2010, 5:36 PM
No, this was copied from the Sunnyvale memo and slightly modified: http://www.opencarryradio.com/documents/Sunnyvale_California_Memo_18_Sep_09.pdf

Interesting. I hadnt read that one. But since they are copy and pasting, I guess I am pleased they selected one to plagerize that included some directions for dispatchers.

sfpcservice
01-26-2010, 5:41 PM
Do schools entirely encompassed within the federal property count for 626.9 GFSZ or only school outside of the enclave? I saw the commanders note on Galileo High School (City Property) and that they could arrest for 626.9 if UOC' in Fort Mason (Federal Property across the street).

However, the Bay School of San Francisco is located on the East side of the Presidio and if it counts for 626.9, would rule out a large portion of the Presidio for OC. Anybody know the answer to this one?

sfpcservice
01-26-2010, 5:52 PM
So is the Marin side in incorporated territory? If not, then without an order per 36 CFR 261.58, LOC would be legal, and 12031(e) checks would not be allowed.

The law you cited is for National Forest Service Land. The applicable weapons law for the National Park Service areas of the GGNRA is 36CFR 2.4

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/36cfr2.4.htm

And the applicable law for weapons on Presidio Trust land within the GGNRA is 36CFR 1002.4 which is a cut and paste of the NPS law.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/36cfr1002.4.htm

Although, portions of these laws are now defunct as the new laws takes effect I think.

MudCamper
01-26-2010, 8:46 PM
The law you cited is for National Forest Service Land. The applicable weapons law for the National Park Service areas of the GGNRA is 36CFR 2.4

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/36cfr2.4.htm

And the applicable law for weapons on Presidio Trust land within the GGNRA is 36CFR 1002.4 which is a cut and paste of the NPS law.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/36cfr1002.4.htm

Although, portions of these laws are now defunct as the new laws takes effect I think.

The law I cited can apply to both National Forests and National Parks. It's just that 36 CFR 2.4 when created by Reagon made 36 CFR 261.58 irrelevant in the National Parks. But now HR 627 will undo 36 CFR 2.4. That's what's happening on February 22 this year. It's all in my post, Firearms in Forests and Parks (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457).

Librarian
01-26-2010, 9:18 PM
Important memo attached.

Added to the wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Open_Carry_Unloaded); thanks, general jacks!

Lagduf
01-26-2010, 10:03 PM
Great memo except for when it states UOCers "perceive" themselves as law abiding citizens. I personally found that disgusting, as well as that it appears to hint that anyone with a firearm in public who isn't an LEO is a threat or danger to public safety.

I can't wait until CCW will be shall issue.

FreedomIsNotFree
01-26-2010, 10:34 PM
Just to clarify. National Parks have restrictions that National Forests, Wilderness Areas and BLM land do not have, even if they are in UNincorporated areas of the state. For example, although Yosemite is not an incorporated city/town the rules regarding firearms are more restrictive than the surrounding National Forests.

Another example would be Pfieffer State Park near Big Sur. I hike the Ventana Wilderness area regularly and open carry loaded, but I must be aware of my entrance to the park as the rules on transporting firearms change.

hoffmang
01-26-2010, 10:45 PM
Two separate things to think about.

1. Park Police are bound by the Second Amendment today. SFPD is not.

2. There are restrictions in Federal Parks about long arms that don't apply to handguns. Make sure one looks into those issues before thinking about carrying anything in a Federal park.

-Gene

ChrisO
01-26-2010, 10:57 PM
Great memo except for when it states UOCers "perceive" themselves as law abiding citizens. I personally found that disgusting, as well as that it appears to hint that anyone with a firearm in public who isn't an LEO is a threat or danger to public safety.

I can't wait until CCW will be shall issue.

Ehhh I'm not getting my hopes up... can't even UOC right now. Well we can but it wouldn't help the cause especially for someone like me with no money for a lawyer or a new i pod to record all my encounters :/ .

BillCA
01-27-2010, 12:44 AM
First off, we should send "thank you" notes to the commander of the SF field office of the NPP. He should be commended for issuing the notice with attention to fairness on both sides. The memo speaks directly to the NPP officers, informs them of the situation and outlines proper operational procedures. It also lowers the stress levels by describing past UOC encounters, while acknowledging the potential risk in any "armed" encounter.

Now... as to some of the CGN comments...
My initial reaction is some people refuse to recognize positive progress when it slaps them in the face.

Re: "Authoritarian attitude" noted by RoadRunner..
The memo pointed out that past encounters have shown UOC'ers to be polite and respectful -- thus letting LEOs know hostile encounters should be rare.

It also points out that UOC'ers carry recording devices to recordillegal actions by police. This lets the LEOs know that their actions may be carefully scrutinized after the fact. This is very far from "quaking in their boots" as RoadRunner suggests.

The memo never states that UOCers are always with in the law - that would be misleading. It does say that UOC is a constitutional right and the police must adjust their approach to the issue.

UOC'er DO perceive themselves as law abiding citizens exercising their rights. There is nothing incorrect with this statement. The purpose of this statement is to inform the LEO that, from the citizen's perspective, he is operating within his legal rights and he intends to remain law-abiding. As opposed to some other group who may seek to "push" various laws through civil disobedience (such as "brandishing" the guns by twirling them and exhibiting them in fast draw exhibitions). To the officer then, if the UOC'er is encountered also, say "illegally" smoking within 20-feet of a building's door, it is probably due to accident or ignorance of the distance or violation.

they seem to insist that UOCers, for all of their positive attributes are a potential threat to them and society in general.
And you found that where exactly in the memo?
From what I see, the memo addresses the need to balance YOUR rights against the police power granted in 12031(e) to insure the firearm is unloaded. Thus, the effort to emphasize a minimum contact to make that determination.


"Percieving themselves" makes it look like "it's just how they see themselves, not how it is in reality".

Can you guarantee that every person participating in a UOC event is a "law-abiding" citizen? You cannot. The odds that just ONE person may inadvertently violate some little-known statute makes a blanket statement rhetorical.

There are some very large "wins" in this memo. They point out the 1000-ft GFSZ rule, but only if it is reasonable that the person knew they were within 1000-ft. Which would make it problematic for an officer to arrest someone standing 999 ft way from the school without allowing them the opportunity to move. The fact that the NPP stresses respecting the rights of UOC citizens and minimizing the contact. The addition of dispatcher procedures to help determine a UOC event from a "man with a gun" call.

Further, officers are admonished to Demonstrate the utmost professionalism in [their] conduct. And they are reminded they are required to respect the rights of others. These key elements indicate that abusing their authority will be viewed as professional misconduct.

MudCamper
01-27-2010, 8:00 AM
Just to clarify. National Parks have restrictions that National Forests, Wilderness Areas and BLM land do not have, even if they are in UNincorporated areas of the state. For example, although Yosemite is not an incorporated city/town the rules regarding firearms are more restrictive than the surrounding National Forests.

I am very well aware (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457) of the differences between National Forests and National Parks. But on February 22, 2010, the National Parks will be much more like the National Forests than they are right now, with regard to firearms. Read my link. Look for HR 627.

Another example would be Pfieffer State Park near Big Sur. I hike the Ventana Wilderness area regularly and open carry loaded, but I must be aware of my entrance to the park as the rules on transporting firearms change.

State Parks are a completely different animal. Run by California, not the fed. Again, see this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457).

marshaul
02-04-2010, 11:47 AM
Well, isn't a LEO both? I jest...

Both a citizen and a good, law-abiding one? Now you've gone too far!

MudCamper
02-19-2010, 9:21 AM
I am composing a letter in response to this memo. Any editing input by CalGunners would be appreciated. Here's my first draft:

February 19, 2010


Commander, SFFO
National Park Service
United States Park Police
San Francisco Field Office
Bldg 1217 Ralston Ave
San Francisco, CA 94129


I recently had a chance to read your memo titled “Open Carry of Firearms in GOGA”. A copy of it is included with this letter. I noticed a couple of important omissions that I will point out in this letter.

The memo repeatedly asserts that Californian’s must open carry their firearms unloaded in order to comply with CA PC 12031. This is only true in incorporated cities, or in “prohibited areas” of unincorporated territory. Further, “prohibited area” is defined as areas where shooting is prohibited by local ordinance. For clarification on this, see PC 12031, the attached California Attorney General opinion, and People v Knight ruling.

If there are areas in the Park that are not within an incorporated territory (like for example the Marin Headlands) and are not prohibited areas, then loaded open carry is legal.

Additionally, 12031(e) checks are only authorized where loading is prohibited. Where loaded carry is not prohibited, (e) checks are not legal, and citizens are not required to submit to the checks.

Please consider updating your memo and making all personnel who received it aware of these significant points.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Thank you,

Paul Higgins,
Bay Area Citizen,
Park User, and
Firearms Rights Advocate


ETA:

51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 197 (1968) (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=9023)
People v Knight (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c045858.pdf)
People v Segura (http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5C2006%5C20060608_0004819.CA.htm/qx)

Decoligny
02-19-2010, 9:26 AM
I am composing a letter in response to this memo. Any editing input by CalGunners would be appreciated. Here's my first draft:

Quote:
February 19, 2010


Commander, SFFO
National Park Service
San Francisco Field Office


I recently had a chance to read your memo titled “Open Carry of Firearms in GOGA”. A copy of it is included with this letter. I noticed a couple of important omissions that I will point out in this letter.

The memo repeatedly asserts that Californian’s must open carry their firearms unloaded in order to comply with CA PC 12031. This is only true in unincorporated cities territory, or in “prohibited areas” of unincorporated territory. Further, “prohibited area” is defined as areas where shooting is prohibited by local ordinance. For clarification on this, see PC 12031, the attached California Attorney General opinion, and People v Knight ruling.

If there are areas in the Park that are not within an incorporated territory (like for example the Marin Headlands) and are not prohibited areas, then loaded open carry is legal.

Additionally, 12031(e) checks are only authorized where loading is prohibited. Where loaded carry is not prohibited, (e) checks are not legal, and citizens are not required to submit to the checks.

Please consider updating your memo and making all personnel who received it aware of these significant points.

Thank you,

Paul Higgins,
Bay Area Citizen,
Park User, and
Firearms Rights Advocate


And annoyingly, OCDO appears to be down right now, so I can't link the AG Opinion nor People v Knight. I will asap.

See fixes above

MudCamper
02-19-2010, 9:27 AM
See fixes above

Thank you!

Southwest Chuck
02-19-2010, 10:19 AM
Great letter MC! Here's Another suggested addition

I am composing a letter in response to this memo. Any editing input by CalGunners would be appreciated. Here's my first draft:
February 19, 2010


Commander, SFFO
National Park Service
United States Park Police
San Francisco Field Office
Bldg 1217 Ralston Ave
San Francisco, CA 94129


I recently had a chance to read your memo titled “Open Carry of Firearms in GOGA”. A copy of it is included with this letter. I noticed a couple of important omissions that I will point out in this letter.

The memo repeatedly asserts that Californian’s must open carry their firearms unloaded in order to comply with CA PC 12031. This is only true in incorporated cities, or in “prohibited areas” of unincorporated territory. Further, “prohibited area” is defined as areas where shooting is prohibited by local ordinance. For clarification on this, see PC 12031, the attached California Attorney General opinion, and People v Knight ruling.

If there are areas in the Park that are not within an incorporated territory (like for example the Marin Headlands) and are not prohibited areas, then loaded open carry is legal.

Additionally, 12031(e) checks are only authorized where loading is prohibited. Where loaded carry is not prohibited, (e) checks are not legal, and citizens are not required to submit to the checks.

Please consider updating your memo and making all personnel who received it aware of these significant points. Failure to do so would put law abiding citizens at risk of being unlawfully detained by Park personel and open up the Park Police to liability claims based on the violation of Park users Civil and 2nd Amendment Rights

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Thank you,

Paul Higgins,
Bay Area Citizen,
Park User, and
Firearms Rights Advocate


ETA:

51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 197 (1968) (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=9023)
People v Knight (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c045858.pdf)
People v Segura (http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5C2006%5C20060608_0004819.CA.htm/qx)

Should you CC this to other Officials also?

MudCamper
02-19-2010, 10:27 AM
Great letter MC! Here's Another suggested addition

Should you CC this to other Officials also?

Both good suggestions. But as to the latter, it's a fat packet already, going certified mail, and I'm not really sure who else to send it to.

I think with whatever press release and new policies we are about to see coming in the next few days, I'll be writing more letters to more federal bureaucrats soon enough...

Southwest Chuck
02-19-2010, 10:38 AM
Both good suggestions. But as to the latter, it's a fat packet already, going certified mail, and I'm not really sure who else to send it to.

I think with whatever press release and new policies we are about to see coming in the next few days, I'll be writing more letters to more federal bureaucrats soon enough...

:thumbsup:

erik
02-19-2010, 10:50 AM
537 pc needs to be revised very very badly.

Definitely.

The "covered" portion is problematic. It makes no distinction between welding a meta plate over the number vs a picatinny light mount covering the S/N on my Five.seveN.

BigDogatPlay
02-19-2010, 10:57 AM
A few things to think about....

** GGNRA is, for the most part, not exclusive federal jurisdiction. At best a lot will be concurrent and some may be proprietary. In the latter two all the laws of the local authority can and do apply. Example... if an ordinance in San Francisco forbids UOC, then you are likely not going to be immune from that while on the federal enclave.

** Most, if not all, of GGNRA in Marin County is in unincorporated lands. However, I would do some very deep research in the county code before LOC. County and city government in Marin as a whole is very much anti-gun.

** This is a good memo, all things considered. It tilts in the general direction of the Park Service to "be nice". I think it would be a good gesture to send the Chief of the San Francisco Field Office a short note of thanks for respecting the Constitution and the rights of citizens.

Southwest Chuck
02-19-2010, 11:01 AM
Both good suggestions. But as to the latter, it's a fat packet already, going certified mail, and I'm not really sure who else to send it to.

I think with whatever press release and new policies we are about to see coming in the next few days, I'll be writing more letters to more federal bureaucrats soon enough...

If it's not too late, I would suggest adding and ending phrase that requires a response such as:

"Please advise me at your earliest convenience as to the actions you intend to take regarding this matter. "

Or something to that effect. Otherwise it's good to go IMHO :thumbsup:

odysseus
02-19-2010, 11:05 AM
Both good suggestions. But as to the latter, it's a fat packet already, going certified mail, and I'm not really sure who else to send it to.

I think with whatever press release and new policies we are about to see coming in the next few days, I'll be writing more letters to more federal bureaucrats soon enough...

Mudcamper - thanks for doing this. I am really curious what they say about unincorporated areas like Marin Headlands for LOC.

BigDogatPlay
02-19-2010, 11:21 AM
From the Marin County Code....

6.56.020 Trespass with firearm.
No person shall discharge or possess any firearms on or upon any lands belonging to or occupied by another unless he has in his possession the written permission of the owner of said lands or his agent or person in lawful possession thereof.

My read is that any UOC or LOC in the Marin Headlands would require written permission of the GGNRA Superintendent or his delegate.

There are also specific county ordinances banning possession of firearms on any county property and in county parks.

Having said that.... I wonder if the old Army rifle range back in the Headlands is still servicable? :D

surfinguru
02-19-2010, 12:01 PM
This is good news IMO.

However, not to be too picky, but under the "What To Expect" section, I'm not really big on the "enthusiasts" label. Why not "persons" or "citizens?"

BigDogatPlay
02-19-2010, 1:15 PM
Having said that.... I wonder if the old Army rifle range back in the Headlands is still servicable? :D

Answered my own question... the rifle range is listed as a historic site. Bummer.

MudCamper
02-19-2010, 1:55 PM
** Most, if not all, of GGNRA in Marin County is in unincorporated lands. However, I would do some very deep research in the county code before LOC. County and city government in Marin as a whole is very much anti-gun.

I am still advising anyone who will listen to me to only UOC on NP lands at this point. But there's no reason not to try and get LOC.

** This is a good memo, all things considered. It tilts in the general direction of the Park Service to "be nice". I think it would be a good gesture to send the Chief of the San Francisco Field Office a short note of thanks for respecting the Constitution and the rights of citizens.

Yes. I've decided not to add the "civil suit" language as it could be viewed as threatening, and I have every intention of keeping things friendly.

odysseus
02-19-2010, 9:53 PM
This just came across on Marin IJ's website: http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_14436734

Guns to be allowed in Muir Woods, GGNRA and Point Reyes starting Monday
Mark Prado
Posted: 02/19/2010 07:09:32 PM PST


Beginning Monday it will be legal to bring loaded, concealed weapons into Muir Woods National Monument, Point Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
The Bush administration overturned a 25-year-old Reagan administration federal rule that restricted loaded guns in national parks after the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and declared that individuals have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense and other purposes.

Now under the new rule visitors can legally carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge - but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms. California allows concealed weapons.

"We have been working closely with local, state and federal officials to ensure that we clearly understand the provisions of the laws that will now apply to our visitors when they are in the park," said Don Neubacher, Point Reyes National Seashore superintendent. "We encourage every visitor who may wish to bring firearms to the park to do their research ahead of time and ensure that they are aware of and abide by the laws that apply. Our goal is to provide safe, enjoyable park visits for everyone."

The change is being criticized by some.

"Allowing untrained and unlicensed people carrying guns in national parks is an invitation to disaster," said John Waterman, president of the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge,

Fraternal Order of Police. "It puts the safety of the public and rangers at increased risk and virtually invites the desecration of our natural and historic treasures. This law threatens the very nature of a family-friendly national park. We will continue to work to change this law."
The previous Reagan-era gun rules were designed to curb poaching and they worked. Commercial and opportunistic poaching decreased with the prohibition on open-armed carry of firearms in national parks, Waterman said.

The National Rifle Association, which led efforts to change the gun regulations, applauded the new rule.

A spokesman for the National Rifle Association scoffed at the idea that parks would become more dangerous, saying people have been assaulted and even murdered in national parks.

"This common-sense measure will enhance the self-defense rights of law-abiding Americans and also ensure uniformity of firearm laws within a state," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

There are still some restrictions in parks. Weapons cannot be brought into federal buildings. At the Point Reyes National Seashore, signs are posted at the visitors center, park headquarters and other buildings reminding visitors that weapons are not allowed in buildings.

Guns will be allowed in all but about 20 of the park service's 392 locations, including some of its most iconic parks: Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, Yosemite and Rocky Mountain National Park.

The park service has prepared for months for the new law.

"We will administer this law as we do all others - fairly and consistently," said Jon Jarvis, National Park Service director.

jdberger
02-19-2010, 10:09 PM
Great quotes in juxtaposition.

Now under the new rule visitors can legally carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge - but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms. California allows concealed weapons.


The change is being criticized by some.

"Allowing untrained and unlicensed people carrying guns in national parks is an invitation to disaster," said John Waterman, president of the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police.

Methinks John Waterman knows not what he's talking about.

Who could these "untrained unlicensed" holders of PERMITS to CCW be?

What a tool.

patsline74
02-19-2010, 10:23 PM
Maybe add to the letter something along the lines of: While 12031 (e) checks are available to officers, the officer is not required to conduct the search if he/she chooses not to.
At least that's my (limited) understanding of 12031.

odysseus
02-21-2010, 3:30 PM
There is an online vote now that just went live on the main page for the article I posted. Check it out and vote.

http://www.marinij.com/

GoodEyeSniper
02-21-2010, 6:36 PM
There is an online vote now that just went live on the main page for the article I posted. Check it out and vote.

http://www.marinij.com/

The knee-jerk reaction by soccer moms on there can be quite frustrating. Especially the ones that keep responding, no matter how many times they've been shut down.

6172crew
02-21-2010, 6:58 PM
I'm impressed with how Calgunners managed to intercept the memos from all of the police departments. I have quite a collection to hand out to anyone I know that needs to see them.

Maybe most cops are on our side. I dont think most of these memos needed the FOIA. At least 75% of all LE are former military and a bunch of those are former Marines, I don't think I have ever met a anti-gun Marine.

The elected LE are not who I am talking about, those tend to be politicians who are back biting/anti-gun.

Alaric
02-21-2010, 8:42 PM
I found this portion of the memo interesting:

There is current discussion as the the applicability of this new legislation to Area B of the Presidio.

For anyone wondering what they mean by "Area B", this is not where they dissect aliens and study their flying saucers, that's Area 57 you're thinking of.

In 1996, Congress devised a management and funding model unique among national parks, and created the Presidio Trust to preserve the Presidio’s natural, scenic, cultural, and recreational resources, and to become financially self-sufficient. The Trust manages the interior 80 percent of Presidio lands (known as Area B), including most buildings and infrastructure. The National Park Service manages coastal areas (known as Area A).
http://www.presidio.gov/trust/

However, Park Police do patrol both areas (A and B) (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2763673&postcount=6), as well as other areas of the GGNRA (like Fort Mason, etc.).

As was previously pointed out, large portions of Area B may be off limits anyway, due to their proximity to schools both in the Presidio, and in the city of SF proper. I find this disappointing, as I was looking forward to UOC'ing at the LDAC facility in Area B. Figured the Yoda fountain (http://www.yelp.com/biz/yoda-fountain-at-lucasfilms-hq-san-francisco) would be the perfect back drop for a picture.

It'll be interesting to see if they try to call all of Area B off-limits (assuming there are areas outside of school zones) due to the unique nature of the park as managed by the Presidio Trust and not the NPS.

Nonetheless, it's important to be aware that the area B debate doesn't yet seem to be settled, and UOC should likely be avoided there at this time (unless you have ample resources to fight a charge).

pullnshoot25
02-21-2010, 8:49 PM
Maybe most cops are on our side. I dont think most of these memos needed the FOIA. At least 75% of all LE are former military and a bunch of those are former Marines, I don't think I have ever met a anti-gun Marine.

The elected LE are not who I am talking about, those tend to be politicians who are back biting/anti-gun.

I have met plenty. Oh, let's not forget Tuason!

gunsmith
02-21-2010, 11:58 PM
the marin journal is fuddy, you DO NOT need a ccw, you can UOC in keeping with CA law, right?

dantodd
02-22-2010, 12:49 AM
the marin journal is fuddy, you DO NOT need a ccw, you can UOC in keeping with CA law, right?

You can UOC, LOC or CCW in keeping with CA law.

MudCamper
02-22-2010, 8:39 AM
The Bush administration overturned a 25-year-old Reagan administration federal rule that restricted loaded guns in national parks after the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban

What crap. It was Obama. The Bush order never took effect. This was included in the Credit Card Accountability Act, and Obama signed it into law.

IGOTDIRT4U
02-22-2010, 9:02 AM
I'm impressed with how Calgunners managed to intercept the memos from all of the police departments. I have quite a collection to hand out to anyone I know that needs to see them.

Hmmm, maybe a sticky?!? At least that way all of the known ones we have managed to capture here are in one spot?

odysseus
02-22-2010, 11:12 AM
You can UOC, LOC or CCW in keeping with CA law.

I can understand the CCW and UOC concepts here for GGNRA land. However I am not clear on how one can LOC right now. Is that clear from what we know?

MudCamper
02-22-2010, 11:15 AM
I can understand the CCW and UOC concepts here for GGNRA land. However I am not clear on how one can LOC right now. Is that clear from what we know?

Not clear: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3846986&postcount=40

IrishPirate
02-22-2010, 11:26 AM
OP, i appreciate the post! thanks alot! printing it out now to send to my brother who only just heard about UOC....... :eek:

swhatb
02-22-2010, 3:51 PM
tag

gunsmith
02-23-2010, 7:58 PM
You can UOC, LOC or CCW in keeping with CA law.
that tells me squat, can I or can I not carry UOC or LOC in Muir Woods?
Does ANYONE know?

MudCamper
02-23-2010, 8:37 PM
that tells me squat, can I or can I not carry UOC or LOC in Muir Woods?
Does ANYONE know?

You keep asking the same question in multiple threads. Please stop that.

I believe Grizzly posted links specific to Muir Woods in one of the other threads.

In general it works like this:

- LOC (loaded open carry) is not legal.
- However, LOC is 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.

And of course stay out of school zones, as has been pointed out in the other threads.

And more details are available in the Firearms in Forests and Parks (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457) thread.

MudCamper
02-24-2010, 9:06 AM
I am composing a letter in response to this memo. Any editing input by CalGunners would be appreciated. Here's my first draft:


Jason Wu, SFFO Commander, called me back this morning.

He was very friendly. He stated that he understands what UOCers are doing, and respects their constitutional rights. He further stated that he hopes to maintain a mutual respect between his officers and UOCers.

He stated that he (and the Park Service) do interpret that 36 CFR 2.4 (a) (iii) does trigger the "prohibited area" language in 12031 and that therefore no loading is allowed in the Parks. He did acknowledge that the campsite exception to 12031 would allow loading in one's campsite, provided it is a legal campsite. (I gathered that there is no camping in his particular jurisdiction.)

I asked if his officers would do (e) checks, and he said yes, they will. He said that they had to keep officer safety in mind, but that they will try to be respectful.

He also stated that he is willing (actually quite interested) in meeting and talking with anyone about these subjects.

Southwest Chuck
02-24-2010, 9:18 AM
Jason Wu, SFFO Commander, called me back this morning.

He was very friendly. He stated that he understands what UOCers are doing, and respects their constitutional rights. He further stated that he hopes to maintain a mutual respect between his officers and UOCers.

He stated that he (and the Park Service) do interpret that 36 CFR 2.4 (a) (iii) does trigger the "prohibited area" language in 12031 and that therefore no loading is allowed in the Parks. He did acknowledge that the campsite exception to 12031 would allow loading in one's campsite, provided it is a legal campsite. (I gathered that there is no camping in his particular jurisdiction.)

I asked if his officers would do (e) checks, and he said yes, they will. He said that they had to keep officer safety in mind, but that they will try to be respectful.

He also stated that he is willing (actually quite interested) in meeting and talking with anyone about these subjects.

Mudcamper, did you bring up 512(b) which prohibits them from enforcing 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii) since he did acknowledge that in doing so it triggers the prohibited language in PC 12031?

It seems that that is the type of regulation enforcement that is specifically prohibited in 512(b). If you haven't already, please read the basis of my argument HERE (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3858214&posted=1#post3858214) . It seems to be an argument to pursue and explore since again, Congress stated that all three sub-section provisions (36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(i)(ii)(iii) violated our 2A rights.

Maybe you should call him back and ask him about it :D .

MudCamper
02-24-2010, 9:24 AM
Maybe you should call him back and ask him about it :D .

I am emailing him the url to your thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=273182).

Southwest Chuck
02-24-2010, 9:31 AM
I am emailing him the url to your thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=273182).

COOL ! I would like his viewpoint on it. I just hope his enthusiasm to discuss this topic doesn't disappear, accompanied with a resulting sound of "crickets" in the background after reading it. :D


...

Wolfpack331
02-24-2010, 11:12 AM
Just FYI

There is a real campground in the Presidio. Its called Rob Hill Campground. I think its under construction, but may still be open.

Alaric
02-24-2010, 11:25 AM
Just FYI

There is a real campground in the Presidio. Its called Rob Hill Campground. I think its under construction, but may still be open.

Last I heard they were rebuilding it, but it's open now and they are accepting reservations.

http://www.presidio.gov/experiences/camp.htm

dantodd
02-24-2010, 1:33 PM
Last I heard they were rebuilding it, but it's open now and they are accepting reservations.

http://www.presidio.gov/experiences/camp.htm

We should have a CalGuns group campout. That would be awesome!

Alaric
02-24-2010, 1:36 PM
We should have a CalGuns group campout. That would be awesome!

Not a bad idea. It is an awesome camping area.

I spent over four years living in the Presidio and this could be just the excuse I need to get back up there. :)

camsoup
02-24-2010, 3:35 PM
Just a quick recap in layman terms...

National Park Service says it is illegal to discharge per 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii), which in turn would trigger CA PC 12031(f) and make it illegal to LOC.


The new law says in 512(b), that C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(i),(ii)),and (iii) are prohibited from being enforced.


Therefore CA PC 12031 (f) CAN NOT be triggered by C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii), because C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii) cannot be enforced per 512(b).

End result, We should be Good To Go for LOC in National parks in CA, as long as we are not in a federal facility.



WOOT! Reading the statutes and the new law, especially 512 (b) it seems you have indeed found that LOC is Legal in NP's in CA. Very nice!! :D

GrizzlyGuy
02-24-2010, 4:29 PM
Not a bad idea. It is an awesome camping area.

I spent over four years living in the Presidio and this could be just the excuse I need to get back up there. :)

On Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&view=map&q=schools&sll=37.797255,-122.472153&sspn=0.004909,0.010375&ie=UTF8&radius=0.28&rq=1&ev=zi&hq=schools&hnear=&ll=37.79845,-122.472228&spn=0.004909,0.010375&t=h&z=17), that campground looks to be within 1000-ish feet of the Marin Horizon School (http://www.marinhorizon.org/podium/default.aspx), depending on where the school grounds border is.

Oh well, could always try LLCC (Locked Loaded Concealed Carry) for a change of pace. :)

ETA: Scrap the LLCC idea. GFSZ's require locked and unloaded.

bigtoe416
02-24-2010, 4:39 PM
Cross-posting this from the opencarry discussion http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/37168-1.html:

CA_Libertarian wrote: "I wonder what the legal ramifications would be for a federal officer using a CA statute as an excuse for ignore well-settled 4A law (Terry v Ohio, et al).

Too early to share anything yet... but I think I may have just had an idea..."

I like the way you're thinking.

Let's briefly remind ourselves what 12031(e) says:

" (e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section."

Who can perform a 12031(e) check? A peace officer. Where are peace officers defined? In Part 2, Title 3, Chapter 4.5 of the penal code, which is entitled "Peace Officers."

If you go through who is a peace officer, you'll see that it is a HUUUUUUGE list. Surely a national park ranger or park police would be found in the list, right?

But...no! This section below says both "Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers are not California peace officers" and "National park rangers are not California peace officers."

830.8. (a) Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement
officers are not California peace officers, but may exercise the
powers of arrest of a peace officer in any of the following
circumstances:
(1) Any circumstances specified in Section 836 or Section 5150 of
the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of state or local
laws.
(2) When these investigators and law enforcement officers are
engaged in the enforcement of federal criminal laws and exercise the
arrest powers only incidental to the performance of these duties.
(3) When requested by a California law enforcement agency to be
involved in a joint task force or criminal investigation.
(4) When probable cause exists to believe that a public offense
that involves immediate danger to persons or property has just
occurred or is being committed.
In all of these instances, the provisions of Section 847 shall
apply. These investigators and law enforcement officers, prior to the
exercise of these arrest powers, shall have been certified by their
agency heads as having satisfied the training requirements of Section
832, or the equivalent thereof.
This subdivision does not apply to federal officers of the Bureau
of Land Management or the Forest Service of the Department of
Agriculture. These officers have no authority to enforce California
statutes without the written consent of the sheriff or the chief of
police in whose jurisdiction they are assigned.
(b) Duly authorized federal employees who comply with the training
requirements set forth in Section 832 are peace officers when they
are engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws on property
owned or possessed by the United States government, or on any street,
sidewalk, or property adjacent thereto, and with the written consent
of the sheriff or the chief of police, respectively, in whose
jurisdiction the property is situated.
(c) National park rangers are not California peace officers but
may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer as specified in
Section 836 and the powers of a peace officer specified in Section
5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of state or
local laws provided these rangers are exercising the arrest powers
incidental to the performance of their federal duties or providing or
attempting to provide law enforcement services in response to a
request initiated by California state park rangers to assist in
preserving the peace and protecting state parks and other property
for which California state park rangers are responsible. National
park rangers, prior to the exercise of these arrest powers, shall
have been certified by their agency heads as having satisfactorily
completed the training requirements of Section 832.3, or the
equivalent thereof.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during a state of
war emergency or a state of emergency, as defined in Section 8558 of
the Government Code, federal criminal investigators and law
enforcement officers who are assisting California law enforcement
officers in carrying out emergency operations are not deemed
California peace officers, but may exercise the powers of arrest of a
peace officer as specified in Section 836 and the powers of a peace
officer specified in Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code for violations of state or local laws. In these instances, the
provisions of Section 847 and of Section 8655 of the Government Code
shall apply.
(e) (1) Any qualified person who is appointed as a Washoe tribal
law enforcement officer is not a California peace officer, but may
exercise the powers of a Washoe tribal peace officer when engaged in
the enforcement of Washoe tribal criminal laws against any person who
is an Indian, as defined in subsection (a) of Section 450b of Title
25 of the United States Code, on Washoe tribal land. The respective
prosecuting authorities, in consultation with law enforcement
agencies, may agree on who shall have initial responsibility for
prosecution of specified infractions. This subdivision is not meant
to confer cross-deputized status as California peace officers, nor to
confer California peace officer status upon Washoe tribal law
enforcement officers when enforcing state or local laws in the State
of California. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose
liability upon or to require indemnification by the County of Alpine
or the State of California for any act performed by an officer of the
Washoe Tribe. Washoe tribal law enforcement officers shall have the
right to travel to and from Washoe tribal lands within California in
order to carry out tribal duties.
(2) Washoe tribal law enforcement officers are exempted from the
provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 12025 and subdivision (a) of
Section 12031 while performing their official duties on their tribal
lands or while proceeding by a direct route to or from the tribal
lands. Tribal law enforcement vehicles are deemed to be emergency
vehicles within the meaning of Section 30 of the Vehicle Code while
performing official police services.
(3) As used in this subdivision, the term "Washoe tribal lands"
includes the following:
(A) All lands located in the County of Alpine within the limits of
the reservation created for the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and
California, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent and including
rights-of-way running through the reservation and all tribal trust
lands.
(B) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not
been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.
(4) As used in this subdivision, the term "Washoe tribal law"
refers to the laws codified in the Law and Order Code of the Washoe
Tribe of Nevada and California, as adopted by the Tribal Council of
the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California.

Now, there are a lot of little, "except when acting under code X" which I haven't checked yet, but taking this on face value, it appears that the federal police and rangers cannot perform 12031(e) checks.


ETA: After looking through the various exceptions, it looks as though my first impressions were correct and the federal agents will NOT be considered peace officers, and therefore will not be able to perform a 12031(e) check. Now if they have written permission from the sheriff or police chief, then we can begin to discuss the wording of somebody who is "engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws". But until then, we're clear.

dantodd
02-24-2010, 4:45 PM
Now, there are a lot of little, "except when acting under code X" which I haven't checked yet, but taking this on face value, it appears that the federal police and rangers cannot perform 12031(e) checks.


ETA: After looking through the various exceptions, it looks as though my first impressions were correct and the federal agents will NOT be considered peace officers, and therefore will not be able to perform a 12031(e) check. Now if they have written permission from the sheriff or police chief, then we can begin to discuss the wording of somebody who is "engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws". But until then, we're clear.

While I generally am not a big fan of "go ahead and break the law if LE is not authorized to prove it" I have to say that if this is accurate and the NP lawyers get wind of it you might be pretty safe unless you run into a California LEO. Federal law enforcement officers are not real crazy about violating someone's 4th amendment rights as that gets expensive defending a 42 USC 1983 suit. This is also one of those places that qualified immunity might get pierced.

odysseus
02-24-2010, 4:51 PM
Should be, but it doesn't seem Park Service or their Police are operating with that understanding. Maybe this is something for CGF if they think it is worth their time, but some kind of expressed authority needs to confirm in official writing this premise before anyone LOCs in GGNRA.

Just a quick recap in layman terms...

National Park Service says it is illegal to discharge per 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii), which in turn would trigger CA PC 12031(f) and make it illegal to LOC.

The new law says in 512(b), that C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(i),(ii)),and (iii) are prohibited from being enforced.

Therefore CA PC 12031 (f) CAN NOT be triggered by C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii), because C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii) cannot be enforced per 512(b).

End result, We should be Good To Go for LOC in National parks in CA, as long as we are not in a federal facility.

WOOT! Reading the statutes and the new law, especially 512 (b) it seems you have indeed found that LOC is Legal in NP's in CA. Very nice!! :D

Southwest Chuck
02-24-2010, 5:01 PM
Should be, but it doesn't seem Park Service or their Police are operating with that understanding. Maybe this is something for CGF if they think it is worth their time, but some kind of expressed authority needs to confirm in official writing this premise before anyone LOCs in GGNRA.
Originally Posted by camsoup View Post
Just a quick recap in layman terms...

National Park Service says it is illegal to discharge per 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii), which in turn would trigger CA PC 12031(f) and make it illegal to LOC.

The new law says in 512(b), that C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(i),(ii)),and (iii) are prohibited from being enforced.

Therefore CA PC 12031 (f) CAN NOT be triggered by C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii), because C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii) cannot be enforced per 512(b).

End result, We should be Good To Go for LOC in National parks in CA, as long as we are not in a federal facility.

WOOT! Reading the statutes and the new law, especially 512 (b) it seems you have indeed found that LOC is Legal in NP's in CA. Very nice!!


I most surely agree with odysseus that this needs to be confirmed by our legal guru(s) as I said in my original post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=273182). If the NPS can't be convinced of this interpretation and thus change the wording of C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii), to exempt a self defense discharge, then it could be very dangerous to LOC in a CA National Park at this point in time.

Theseus
02-25-2010, 7:27 AM
On Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&view=map&q=schools&sll=37.797255,-122.472153&sspn=0.004909,0.010375&ie=UTF8&radius=0.28&rq=1&ev=zi&hq=schools&hnear=&ll=37.79845,-122.472228&spn=0.004909,0.010375&t=h&z=17), that campground looks to be within 1000-ish feet of the Marin Horizon School (http://www.marinhorizon.org/podium/default.aspx), depending on where the school grounds border is.

Oh well, could always try LLCC (Locked Loaded Concealed Carry) for a change of pace. :)

ETA: Scrap the LLCC idea. GFSZ's require locked and unloaded.

Don't be so sure! The exemption for 12031 allows loaded at temporary residences such as campsites. 626.9 exempts you while "within" a residence.

Also, the campsite is private property.

GrizzlyGuy
02-25-2010, 9:09 AM
Don't be so sure! The exemption for 12031 allows loaded at temporary residences such as campsites. 626.9 exempts you while "within" a residence.

Also, the campsite is private property.

Ahhh... I didn't realize that the campground was on private property. That would handle it for both 626.9 and the federal GFSZ law.

Note that the federal GFSZ law (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Gun_Free_School_Zones#Law) doesn't have the 'within residence' exception you mentioned. So if you were camped on government land (e.g., out in the national forest) you would be violating it by having a loaded firearm inside your tent, even though you'd be OK per 12031. No worries in this case, but up here in national forest land I'll bet you could find some places like that.

rdsr
02-25-2010, 10:24 AM
Please clarify the part where it is stated that the officer retreives the weapon from the holster.

Does the law state that the officer must remove the weapon from the holster or is the carrier allowed to do it?






Roy

camsoup
02-25-2010, 4:12 PM
Please clarify the part where it is stated that the officer retreives the weapon from the holster.

Does the law state that the officer must remove the weapon from the holster or is the carrier allowed to do it?






Roy

The law does not state that the officer must remove the weapon. But it is a very good idea to have them do so, and a very BAD idea to remove it yourself. It would just open you up to the chance of an officer saying you were brandishing, or they thought you made a threatening move while removing the handgun, etc etc.

dantodd
02-25-2010, 4:16 PM
Please clarify the part where it is stated that the officer retreives the weapon from the holster.

Does the law state that the officer must remove the weapon from the holster or is the carrier allowed to do it?

Read the EPA Detective and Facebook thread and tell me if you really want to have a witness (who didn't hear the conversation) say that he saw you removing your handgun from a holster while interacting with Rod Tuason. Of course, if he has his way, the witness might be giving testimony to an IA officer while Rod takes 2 weeks off. In other words let him remove it for himself.

BigDogatPlay
02-25-2010, 4:37 PM
Before UOC or LOC takes place anywhere in GGNRA some key questions need to be asked and answered....

** Jurisdiction... is it exclusive federal, concurrent with state and local or propietary which means that state and local have virtually total jurisdiction. My understanding is that it can and does vary at different places around GGNRA.

** If concurrent or propietary, do county ordinances in SF and Marin preclude LOC? In Marin, I believe the answer would be yes, based on my own research. San Francisco I have not yet researched but I believe it would also be yes.

** Are there county ordinances on UOC specifically in either or both counties?

** Are there county ordinances in particular regarding carrying of arms? Example, Marin's County Code has a section which expressly forbids carrying a firearm on the property of another without express written consent of the landowner or person in control.

Lots of questions to answer.

camsoup
02-25-2010, 5:18 PM
Before UOC or LOC takes place anywhere in GGNRA some key questions need to be asked and answered....

** Jurisdiction... is it exclusive federal, concurrent with state and local or propietary which means that state and local have virtually total jurisdiction. My understanding is that it can and does vary at different places around GGNRA.

** If concurrent or propietary, do county ordinances in SF and Marin preclude LOC? In Marin, I believe the answer would be yes, based on my own research. San Francisco I have not yet researched but I believe it would also be yes.

** Are there county ordinances on UOC specifically in either or both counties?

** Are there county ordinances in particular regarding carrying of arms? Example, Marin's County Code has a section which expressly forbids carrying a firearm on the property of another without express written consent of the landowner or person in control.

Lots of questions to answer.

County codes are preempted by state law, other than general bans on discharge.

Marin can say it is illegal to carry on another persons property without permission, but it is not a valid law because its preempted by the state.

dantodd
02-25-2010, 7:28 PM
Before UOC or LOC takes place anywhere in GGNRA some key questions need to be asked and answered....

** Jurisdiction... is it exclusive federal, concurrent with state and local or propietary which means that state and local have virtually total jurisdiction. My understanding is that it can and does vary at different places around GGNRA.

** If concurrent or propietary, do county ordinances in SF and Marin preclude LOC? In Marin, I believe the answer would be yes, based on my own research. San Francisco I have not yet researched but I believe it would also be yes.

** Are there county ordinances on UOC specifically in either or both counties?

** Are there county ordinances in particular regarding carrying of arms? Example, Marin's County Code has a section which expressly forbids carrying a firearm on the property of another without express written consent of the landowner or person in control.

Lots of questions to answer.

Unless discharge in legal in GGNRA (which I highly doubt) then CA PC prevents the keeping of a loaded gun without a CCW. If this were to happen and if it is 1000' clear of any school it would have to be UOC.

BigDogatPlay
02-25-2010, 11:00 PM
County codes are preempted by state law, other than general bans on discharge.

Marin can say it is illegal to carry on another persons property without permission, but it is not a valid law because its preempted by the state.

I see some legal opinions that local ordinances would not fly, but I'd hate to make case law that finds otherwise.

dantodd
02-25-2010, 11:03 PM
Citation for that opinion? Not trying to argue, but wondering the frame of reference.

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
State Preemption of Firearm Regulation

* 53071. It is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation of the registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms as encompassed by the provisions of the Penal Code, and such provisions shall be exclusive of all local regulations, relating to registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision as defined in Section 1721 of the Labor Code.
* 53071.5 By the enforcement of this section, the Legislature occupies the whole field of regulation of the manufacture, sale, or possession of imitation firearms, as defined in Section 12250 of the Penal Code, and that section shall preempt and be exclusive of all regulations relating to the manufacture, sale, or possession of imitation firearms, including regulations governing the manufacture, sale, or possession of BB devices and air rifles described in subdivision (g) of Section 12001 of the Penal Code.

bigtoe416
02-26-2010, 9:19 AM
Sorry dantodd, I don't believe that is the correct preemption citation. There's a general preemption section in the California constitution which makes all state statutes overrule conflicting local ones.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

SEC. 7. A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all
local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in
conflict with general laws.