PDA

View Full Version : $45 dollar ticket


todd2968
03-29-2010, 1:33 PM
A buddy of mine was fined because he set his loaded firearm (both shotgun and pistol) on his car while he adjusted his gear, just before head headed into The National forest.
Any thoughts is that a stretch or is this valid?

Thanks for your time.

ocspeedracer
03-29-2010, 1:36 PM
if that was given by a game warden your friend should consider themself lucky, they can just take all of your stuff for setting your guns against/on your vehicle or any other infraction of the like.

imtheomegaman
03-29-2010, 1:38 PM
What was the ticket for? Who issued it? Where?

todd2968
03-29-2010, 1:40 PM
It was a game warden. My friend is military and maybe the guy cut him a break it just seems silly, and can you find out where this goofy law is please. San Diego

KylaGWolf
03-29-2010, 1:54 PM
Well CA fish and game have a lot of idiotic laws...but I digress

jnojr
03-29-2010, 2:54 PM
Any time an encounter with armed agents of the state results in nothing but you losing $45, you have to call that a good day.

CaliforniaCarry
03-29-2010, 3:27 PM
Any time an encounter with armed agents of the state results in nothing but you losing $45, you have to call that a good day.

Agreed. But is this for real? What is the purpose of this law? I'm so confused.

Merc1138
03-29-2010, 3:32 PM
Agreed. But is this for real? What is the purpose of this law? I'm so confused.

Someone probably came up with it because they thought it'd help stop poachers or something. It's stupid. A buddy of mine got a warning for fishing in the delta with a jag(pole with a hook on it) because the fish and game guy saw it in the car 50 feet away, apparently possession of a jag is illegal within 100 yards of the water or some silly crap. Why? Because someone felt like making a law and couldn't come up with anything useful, so they made a DFG regulation.

M1A Rifleman
03-29-2010, 3:43 PM
Seems silly, but as others said he was lucky. MOP is wardens tend to have 0 tolerence at best, and at worst make-up to issue fines.

My dad was fined when I was a kid because he had my hunting license along with his own. He held mine while we were deer hunting since I was a dumb kid, and he feared I'd loose it and get us both in trouble.

The next weekend he went hunting without me, and found the warden who wanted to see his license. He reaches in his bag and gives the guy mine :o. Gets a BIG ticket. Even the judge did'nt care about his excuse. Now that I have kids of my own, his reasoning for holding my license seems reasonable, to bad law enforcement does get being responsible. :rolleyes:

jwb28
03-29-2010, 4:30 PM
Your friend got off lucky. I leaned a loaded shotgun up agaist a car (stupid I know) almost 30 years ago when I was 18 or 19 and i was 85.00. I believe it was for a loaded gun "in" a vehicle on a way open to the public. I said its not in the car. The reply was what ever the code section .....reads in, apon or on.

AndrewMendez
03-29-2010, 4:35 PM
Anyone have a link to the law pertaining to this?

nn3453
03-29-2010, 4:50 PM
All the more reason to take your hunting dollars out of California. Game wardens are dicks, and will take your gear for the stupidest of infractions. I only hunt with beat up junk here in California, because I would hate to loose anything nice. Just one more reason to abandon this state.

Another pointless post that does nothing to address 2A rights in California.

ETD1010
03-29-2010, 5:13 PM
Wow, the one time we had Fish and Game come out and talk to us, we had ALL of our guns in/on/around our car. We were using the car as our "table" to hold stuff in as we shot.. We've always done this.. And this time the Fish and Game officer was only concerned if we were cutting down trees. . .


Or did I misunderstand, and you were on a hunting trip, and this is about hunting laws?

DirtyDave
03-29-2010, 5:17 PM
Anyone have a link to the law pertaining to this?

I dont have a link but it is considered having a loaded weapon in/on a vehicle. It is the same law, you cant drive with a loaded weapon, but it includes being stopped and setting the gun on your tailgate/hood whatever.

ar15robert
03-29-2010, 5:20 PM
Your friend got off lucky. I leaned a loaded shotgun up agaist a car (stupid I know) almost 30 years ago when I was 18 or 19 and i was 85.00. I believe it was for a loaded gun "in" a vehicle on a way open to the public. I said its not in the car. The reply was what ever the code section .....reads in, apon or on.

I believe thats what the violation is for.You hear about it usually when its bird season.Just touching the vehichle is a no no if its loaded.

Yes some wardens can cite you for anything and if they dont they act like they are giving you a break.I had one check a lobster last year my gauge showed it as barely legal the gauge end was barely hanging on the carapace of the lobster.Same went for the wardens when he checked his response was its close but i will give you that one.My response was "you have no choice the gauge didnt drop onto the carapace"He gave a dirty look but left me alone after that and went on his way.

SickofSoCal
03-29-2010, 5:21 PM
All the more reason to take your hunting dollars out of California. Game wardens are dicks, and will take your gear for the stupidest of infractions. I only hunt with beat up junk here in California, because I would hate to loose anything nice. Just one more reason to abandon this state.

Here here

Shotgun Man
03-29-2010, 5:51 PM
Anyone have a link to the law pertaining to this?

The pertinent law is Fish and Game Code Section 2006:

2006. Possession of loaded rifle or shotgun in vehicle; Exceptions



It is unlawful to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle or conveyance or its attachments which is standing on or along or is being driven on or along any public highway or other way open to the public.

A rifle or shotgun shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in the firing chamber but not when the only cartridges or shells are in the magazine.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to peace officers or members of the armed forces of this State or the United States, while on duty or going to or returning from duty.



You wouldn't think that this would apply because it prohibits a loaded longarm in any vehicle.

Then the AG weighs in with a wacky opinion talking about safety, etc. (See below.)

Mind you, an AG's opinion from 1972 is not law. The CGF should challenge this case. The AG opines "in" means "on."

This is odd because I've known a few women in my life who definitely distinguished between "in" and "on."



55 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 119
QUESTION:
Mr. E. C. Fullerton, Chief of Operations, Department of Fish and Game, has requested an opinion on the following question:

Is it a violation of section 2006 of the Fish and Game Code for a person to place a loaded rifle or shotgun on the hood, fender, or top of a motor vehicle, or in the bed or cargo carrying space of a pickup truck, when such vehicle is standing on or along a public highway or other way open to the public?

The conclusion is:
It would be a violation of section 2006 of the Fish and Game Code as this section applies to the placing of a loaded rifle or shotgun on the exterior portion of a vehicle as well as in the interior thereof, if the violator has possession of such weapon.
OPINIONBY:
EVELLE J. YOUNGER, Attorney General; Raymond H. Williamson, Deputy
OPINION:
[**119] ANALYSIS
Section 2006 of the Fish and Game Code [*2] provides as follows:

"It is unlawful to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle or conveyance or its attachments which is standing on or along or is being driven on or along any public highway or other way open to the public.
[**120] "A rifle or shotgun shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in the firing chamber but not when the only cartridges or shells are in the magazine.
"The provisions of this section shall not apply to peace officers or members of the armed forces of this State or the Unted States, while on duty or going to or returning from duty."

It is assumed from the question presented that the person so placing the gun has possession of the same as required by the above section.
The word "vehicle" includes an automobile or pickup truck ( People v. Smith, 72 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 875 (1946); Vol. 44, Words and Phrases, p. 146). It is to be noted that under the above wording of section 2006 the prohibition is directed against the possession of a loaded rifle or shotgun "in any vehicle . . . or its attachments. . . ." (Emphasis added.) It is because of the [*3] appearance of the word "in" in section 2006 that the question presented arises. Did the Legislature intend that a violation of this section only occurs when the loaded gun is possessed within or inside the interior of the vehicle or its attachments? For the reasons expressed hereafter we conclude that the Legislature intended no such semantic subtlety.
The word "in" while meaning "within" or "inside of" is also susceptible of many other varied and broad meanings dependent upon how it is used in context. By definition it can mean "on"; "with reference to"; "as concerns." (Webster's Third International Dictionary, 1961 Edition.) The word "in" has also been judicially construed.
In the early case of Woods v. State, 7 So. 495 (1890 Miss.), it was held that the word "in" as used in a Mississippi statute prohibiting shooting "in" the highways is equivalent to and interchangeable with "on." Hence an indictment charging the defendant with shooting "in" the highway is proper. The court had this interesting comment at page 496:

"But it is a legal anachronism to now plead to the sufficiency of an indictment that it charges a defendant with shooting on' [*4] a highway when the statute denounces shooting in' the highway. The prepositions are interchangeable in this connection, just as they are in prosecutions for racing on' the highway. In this sense what occurs on the highway must be held to occur in it also. The administration of the criminal law declines such subtle distinctions in definitions."

In the slightly later case of Andrews v. State, 70 S.E. Rep. 111 (1911 Ga.), the indictment charged the accused with unlawfully shooting a pistol "while in a railroad passenger car." The evidence showed that the accused shot the pistol while on the outside platform of the car. The appellate court held there was no material variance between the evidence adduced and the offense with which the accused was charged, stating at page 112:

[**121] "Criminal statutes must be strictly construed, but this does not mean that the strictness must be so narrow as to emasculate the purpose of the statute, or to impair the intention of the Legislature. The meaning that should be given to words in a statute should be such as would carry out the full purpose of the Legislature in the enactment of such legislation. [*5] It would be absurd to contend that the Legislature intended that a person inside of a car, shooting out of the window thereof, would be guilty of a violation of this act, while a person who was on the platform or the steps of the car, and was shooting out of the car, would not be guilty of its violation. The context as a whole clearly indicates that all the parts of the car -- the steps, the platform, the inside, and even the top of the car -- are within the terms of the act, reasonably construed, for the purpose of carrying out in full the purpose of the Legislature.
"The preposition in' as a prefix to the article the' and a noun -- as in the house,' or in the car,' or in the ship' -- means not only inside the house, or car, or ship, but also on the house,' on the car,' or on the ship.' See Standard Dictionary. The word in' is ordinarily accepted and used as an equivalent of the word on.' 4 Words and Phrases Judicially Defined, 3464. The Supreme Court of Mississippi, in construing the word in,' as used in the statute prohibiting shooting in the highways, declares that it is equivalent to and interchangeable with the word on.' . . .
"We conclude that the trial [*6] judge was right in his construction of the statute under which the indictment is framed, that the words, or shoot, while in such car, any gun, pistol, or other weapon of any kind,' include the act of a person standing on the platform or the steps of the car, who shoots a gun, pistol, or other weapon; in other words, that the word in' in this statute means on' the car, and is not restricted to the narrow meaning of inside' or within' the car."

The interchangeability of the words "in" and "on" has also been applied to accident insurance coverage. Where the coverage specifies while "in" an automobile it is generally accepted that such is equivalent also to "on" an automobile. Cases have arisen involving the application of such a clause to a situation where the insured was injured while standing on the running board of a vehicle. The courts have held that "in" and "on" were synonymous in such insurance provisions and hence the insured was covered. ( Inter Ocean Ins. Co. etc. v. Norris, 326 S.W.2d 437 (1959 Tenn.); Independence Ins. Co. v. Jeffries' Adm'r., 172 S.W.2d 566 (1943 Ky.); Gilbert v. Fed. Life Ins. Co., 241 N.W. 150 [*7] (1932 Mich.); Guaranty Trust Co. v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 294 P. 585, 587-588 (1930 Wash.); see also Vol. 2OA, Words and Phrases, pp. 13-15.)
It is manifest that the purpose to be accomplished by section 2006 of the Fish and Game Code is to prevent the hazard or menace to the public of a loaded rifle or shotgun in or on a vehicle, while the vehicle is on a public highway or [**122] other public way. To apply a restricted and narrow meaning to the use of the word "in" would in our opinion stultify the legislative objective.
It is also an accepted rule of statutory construction that the meaning of a statute is to be sought in the language used by the Legislature, but such rule does not mean that courts are always to be governed by exact phraseology and literal meaning of every word or phrase employed. The primary consideration is the legislative purpose to be achieved ( Glashoff v. Glashoff, 57 Cal. App. 2d 108 (1943);$= > Silver v. Brown, 63 Cal. 2d 841 (1966); Stockton School Dist. of San Joaquin County v. Wright, 134 Cal. 64 (1901); [*8] People ex rel. S. F. and S. J. Ry. Co. v. Craycroft, 111 Cal. 544 (1896)).
Thus based upon the above authority it is concluded that a violation does occur under section 2006 of the Fish and Game Code when a person in possession of a loaded rifle or shotgun, places such loaded weapon on the hood, fender, or top of a motor vehicle, or in the bed or cargo carrying space of a pickup truck or its attachments thereto, when such vehicle is standing on or along a public highway or other way open to the public.


BTW, the thread title should be changed to something along the lines of "Ticket by DFG for Loaded Gun On Vehicle."

G-Man WC
03-29-2010, 6:02 PM
I'm sure this is the law in many states. I saw a young hunter with a
20 ga that was in a rush to get out of his grandfathers truck.
He spotted a covey as they were pulling up to park and didn't think or remember he was hot. It went off inside the cab, just missing his jaw. It could have ended badly real quick.
I'd like to think it's a saftey thing F&G is reminding us of.
I'm not saying it's right handing out tickets with said weapon on or leaning on the outside vehicle. But I still see and have I've seen a lot of hunters doing the rat patrol with loaded center fires, road hunting for deer from trucks. It appears that some brand of truck side mirrors make a good rifle rest. -g

paul0660
03-29-2010, 6:13 PM
So the F&G code says that loaded means with a round in the chamber, and a loaded mag is ok?

Evelle Younger was a longwinded tool.

Shotgun Man
03-29-2010, 6:55 PM
So the F&G code says that loaded means with a round in the chamber, and a loaded mag is ok?

Evelle Younger was a longwinded tool.

Yes, loaded mag is okay with an unloaded chamber, assuming you're not violating some other law involving incorporated, prohibited areas, etc.

The big point is that the AG enages in mental gymnastics to construe "in" to mean "on." Statutes are to construed in favor of the accused. The legislature failed to include "on a vehicle" in their nonsense legislation. So you got a running dog lackey AG from 1972 (I question whether JB would opine similary) quick to pick up the slack. This should not be tolerated.

This case galls me.

todd2968
03-29-2010, 8:02 PM
Rock on!!!!
My friend beat the charge!!!!!!
You'll never guess why!!!!


Because his doors were locked at the time!!!
They have some weird laws here in California.

Dr Rockso
03-29-2010, 8:04 PM
Rock on!!!!
My friend beat the charge!!!!!!
You'll never guess why!!!!


Because his doors were locked at the time!!!
They have some weird laws here in California.

Congrats to your friend, but wtf?

sfpcservice
03-29-2010, 8:10 PM
I think CGF should obtain and post the Court transcripts of this case!

todd2968
03-29-2010, 8:17 PM
Another pointless post that does nothing to address 2A rights in California.

This is actually to the heart of our 2nd ammendment.


This is our right to keep and bear arms wether it is touching your car or not

ScottB
03-29-2010, 8:26 PM
people lean loaded guns on cars and then drive off. A couple AD's an injury or two and Poof! a new law.

It only takes a couple screwups and we all have a new obligation

BTW, wardens and cops size you up often before you know they are there and they make a final impression in the first few seconds of an encounter. Before you have that meeting, take a look look at your appearance and your attitude though their eyes and ask yourself: If the roles were reversed, what would be going through your mind? Would you like you?

todd2968
03-29-2010, 8:29 PM
no I 'd like to give this guy the benefit of the doubt but he has to be a gun nazi!!!

taperxz
03-29-2010, 8:39 PM
California game wardens have one rule, when in doubt site the person and let the system deal with it. Fish and Game generates most all there funding from citations, licenses and tags. Most of which is supposed to go back to maintaining wild life. Very little left in revenue to actually keep the wardens.

Give the guy a $45 ticket and most will just pay so they don't have to appear.

Foriegn power
03-29-2010, 8:55 PM
I heard some D.F.G hating, something like all D.F.G Wardens are 'dicks,' etc please there is no need for that. Every law enforcement individual has their discretion some are better than others. Was your friend going hunting or target shooting? In a national forest?

nn3453
03-29-2010, 9:33 PM
This is actually to the heart of our 2nd ammendment.


This is our right to keep and bear arms wether it is touching your car or not

I agree, but posts like "laws here suck, another reason to move out of here" don't really achieve anything. Want to change things? Fight back.

M1A Rifleman
03-30-2010, 6:17 AM
Another pointless post that does nothing to address 2A rights in California.

I disagree. I also will no longer will hunt in this ##% state - and have not for the last 15-years. I'm getting close to the same decision for fishing. Have you looked at the recent fishing regs?

franklinarmory
03-30-2010, 7:08 AM
I disagree. I also will no longer will hunt in this ##% state - and have not for the last 15-years. I'm getting close to the same decision for fishing. Have you looked at the recent fishing regs?

Oh Great! California only sold a little more than 200,000 hunting licenses last year in a state of over 36,000,000! That's less than 0.005 of the population! Refusing to hunt will only support PETA & other anti-gun groups. While a sporting purpose is not necessary for a 2A defense, it is supportive. Just think how much easier it will be for the general public to go along with gun control especially if PETA & other groups do away with our hunting opportunities because so few people bother to hunt anyhow!

Challenge the ticket; challenge the law!

M1A Rifleman
03-30-2010, 7:16 AM
Oh Great! California only sold a little more than 200,000 hunting licenses last year in a state of over 36,000,000! That's less than 0.005 of the population! Refusing to hunt will only support PETA & other anti-gun groups. While a sporting purpose is not necessary for a 2A defense, it is supportive. Just think how much easier it will be for the general public to go along with gun control especially if PETA & other groups do away with our hunting opportunities because so few people bother to hunt anyhow!

Challenge the ticket; challenge the law!

Hunting and Fishing in "other" friendly states supports those states and helps the cause. If you don't hunt or fish in CA, means they don't get your money and tax dollars for the tags, licenses, & fines and the end result is DFG will get less money, which results in less agents. I hear already there are only four DFG wardens for northern california - seems like its working. Also, I think " Heller" already made it clear that owning guns is not just for hunting.

Sheepdog1968
03-30-2010, 7:25 AM
Agreed. But is this for real? What is the purpose of this law? I'm so confused.

It is a safety thing. Gun could accidentially slide off, fall, and discharge. They talk a lot about this in hunter ed classes. A $45 fine will ensure you and your friend never forget. Also, make sure u don't have a cartridge in the chamber when crossing streams and going over fencesn getting into a treestand.

franklinarmory
03-30-2010, 7:44 AM
I hear already there are only four DFG wardens for northern california - seems like its working.

I don't know the exact number of DFG wardens, but I do know there are a lot more than just four. I've met all of the ones in my counties. My guess is that there is probably about 40 in Northern California. I respect your point about not giving Ca your money, but if you don't hunt, then they have won. BTW, I hope the goal is not to get rid of all DFG agents. They do serve a role to deter poachers and others that would destroy our wild game and lands.

Even if the state didn't collect one dime in tags, they would still get the 11% excise tax from YOU every time YOU buy a gun or ammo!!! People forget that these funds are paid by the manufacturer. It's transparent, but the money is real. Now wouldn't they be more inclined to have Green Peace types in charge of the DFG if no one bothered to hunt anyhow???

xxdabroxx
03-30-2010, 8:24 AM
Cool he got out of it, was he parked on the side of a road?

Would it make a difference if you were off the beaten path? Where is the line?

2006. Possession of loaded rifle or shotgun in vehicle; Exceptions



It is unlawful to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle or conveyance or its attachments which is standing on or along or is being driven on or along any public highway or other way open to the public.

A rifle or shotgun shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in the firing chamber but not when the only cartridges or shells are in the magazine.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to peace officers or members of the armed forces of this State or the United States, while on duty or going to or returning from duty.

Is a road on private property a "way open to the public"? What if you went through a gate? Can i legally hunt from inside a vehicle while on private property behind a gate?

My reading is that if it is not open to the public, loaded in vehicle is OK?

GuyW
03-30-2010, 1:05 PM
A buddy of mine was fined because he set his loaded firearm (both shotgun and pistol) on his car while he adjusted his gear, just before head headed into The National forest.
Any thoughts is that a stretch or is this valid?

Thanks for your time.

F&G writes lots of these tickets - pure BS.

.

todd2968
03-30-2010, 4:56 PM
It is a safety thing. Gun could accidentially slide off, fall, and discharge. They talk a lot about this in hunter ed classes. A $45 fine will ensure you and your friend never forget. Also, make sure u don't have a cartridge in the chamber when crossing streams and going over fencesn getting into a treestand.

I'm an adult like a need MY Government (he is acting on behalf of the gov) to give me silly rules that are supposed to protect me.
You can't have a gun in your car because you might have road rage. I am an adult and responsible for my actions.
You have to have a calorie count on your menus because your to stupid to know that fast food is bad for you.

FREEDOM !!!!

jaq
04-01-2010, 5:44 PM
Hunting and Fishing in "other" friendly states supports those states and helps the cause. If you don't hunt or fish in CA, means they don't get your money and tax dollars for the tags, licenses, & fines and the end result is DFG will get less money, which results in less agents.. .

I don't think that strategy will work. Apparently they are keeping themselves busy and bringing in revenue by patrolling the highways, and handing out citations.

I was recently ticketed on the 101 near Santa Barbara when I passed a slow-moving (60mph +or- 5), passing-lane blocking, dark green pickup truck. I was forced to pass him on the right, and as I attempted to complete my pass, he sped up. I increased my speed and he did the same. I figured it was some road-raging a-hole with a complex about being passed.

When I finally made it around him, he started tailgating me and then threw on his lights... a tiny, low profile light bar blinking red & blue. I thought, WTF? Who and/or what is this? I pulled over, he made a "tactical" dismounted approach on the right side of my vehicle (hand on his gun, crouching, turned sideways to present small target); whereupon I rolled down my window and asked him, "Who the f are you?"

He said, "State police. Do you know how fast you were going?"

I couldn't friggin believe it. He wrote me a ticket for speeding. I will fight it to til the cows come home.

GuidoGuns
04-01-2010, 6:34 PM
Apparently they are keeping themselves busy and bringing in revenue by patrolling the highways, and handing out citations.

I was recently ticketed on the 101 near Santa Barbara when I passed a slow-moving (60mph +or- 5), passing-lane blocking, dark green pickup truck.

DFG writting up traffic citations. Well I guess it makes sense USA Today article: "Speeding 'cushion may dwindle due to recession (http://http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-30-speeding-cushion_N.htm?se=yahoorefer):
Everyone has to bring in cash for the state. No if they could only stop spending it. :rolleyes:

M1A Rifleman
04-02-2010, 6:47 AM
I don't think that strategy will work. Apparently they are keeping themselves busy and bringing in revenue by patrolling the highways, and handing out citations.

I was recently ticketed on the 101 near Santa Barbara when I passed a slow-moving (60mph +or- 5), passing-lane blocking, dark green pickup truck. I was forced to pass him on the right, and as I attempted to complete my pass, he sped up. I increased my speed and he did the same. I figured it was some road-raging a-hole with a complex about being passed.

When I finally made it around him, he started tailgating me and then threw on his lights... a tiny, low profile light bar blinking red & blue. I thought, WTF? Who and/or what is this? I pulled over, he made a "tactical" dismounted approach on the right side of my vehicle (hand on his gun, crouching, turned sideways to present small target); whereupon I rolled down my window and asked him, "Who the f are you?"

He said, "State police. Do you know how fast you were going?"

I couldn't friggin believe it. He wrote me a ticket for speeding. I will fight it to til the cows come home.

Does DFG = Fish and Game? I have seen State Police and wondered what they were all about, but I don't think DFG is State Police.

jaq
04-03-2010, 9:45 AM
Does DFG = Fish and Game? I have seen State Police and wondered what they were all about, but I don't think DFG is State Police.

Yes, DFG = California Department of Fish and Game. And yes, he emphatically responded "State Police, sir" to my repeated inquiries as to who the hell he was and under what authority he was detaining and citing me.

packnrat
04-04-2010, 9:45 AM
can you say revenue.

but at only $45.usd very light bill.
could have been much worse.

pay it and shut up about it or a judge might make a deal out of it.


:TFH:


.