PDA

View Full Version : open cary question


9-12
05-01-2010, 9:24 PM
So now that Starbucks has said it will allow open carry within it's stores as long as it's within the law, and that they will recognise the laws regarding carrying firearms, I was wondering:

If I'm on their property, private property, and I have their permission to have a firearm on their property, and I sit down and load my 1911 while drinking my coffee, am I legal?

Librarian
05-01-2010, 9:50 PM
So now that Starbucks has said it will allow open carry within it's stores as long as it's within the law, and that they will recognise the laws regarding carrying firearms, I was wondering:

If I'm on their property, private property, and I have their permission to have a firearm on their property, and I sit down and load my 1911 while drinking my coffee, am I legal?

Very probably not.

If you worked there, and an actual owner told you you could have a loaded handgun, probably that would work. (Who owns a corporation such that permission could be granted? CEO or designee, I suppose, but I don't know.)

But despite private ownership, the ordinary course of business gives access to the public - for example, you. That raises the 12031 issue.

9-12
05-01-2010, 9:55 PM
Very probably not.

If you worked there, and an actual owner told you you could have a loaded handgun, probably that would work. (Who owns a corporation such that permission could be granted? CEO or designee, I suppose, but I don't know.)

But despite private ownership, the ordinary course of business gives access to the public - for example, you. That raises the 12031 issue.
Can you direct me to that issue?
Thanks.

Cokebottle
05-01-2010, 9:57 PM
Can you direct me to that issue?
Thanks.
If you are not familiar with PC 12031, you have no business even discussing open carry.

9-12
05-01-2010, 10:06 PM
If you are not familiar with PC 12031, you have no business even discussing open carry.
Oh give me a break. You want to be helpful or not?

Hogxtz
05-01-2010, 10:13 PM
Oh give me a break. You want to be helpful or not?

Actually, he was being very helpfull to you and you didn't /or refuse to see it. BTW, language like that will get you banned very fast.

Advise, unless you know all the laws inside and out regarding UOC, don't ever do it. Chances are you will wind up in jail and loose your right to own a firearm for a very long time.

Cokebottle
05-01-2010, 10:18 PM
Oh give me a break. You want to be helpful or not?
I'm serious.

That is one of the basic laws covering carrying a weapon.

I'm seeing a disturbing trend in threads here on Calguns where people are asking "Is it okay to do XYZ" when XYZ may or may not be clearly illegal, but even if legal, it's definitely pushing the bounds of legality, and whether legal or not, is likely to result in arrest.

"Can I open carry loaded with blanks?"
"Why can't I have my bullet button tool attached to the gun?"

If you've got $50k in the bank, feel free to tempt fate by carrying a loaded weapon in a public place in an incorporated area.

In many cases, the "Best" answer to these questions is "At this time, the right people do not recommend it".... BTW: That goes for open carry period, regardless of Starbucks policies.

Short story, don't build an AR/AK without being completely familiar with California assault weapon laws.
Don't open carry... either loaded or unloaded... without being fully familiar with 12031 and related statutes AND case law that has impacted how those laws are enforced.

9-12
05-01-2010, 10:35 PM
Actually, he was being very helpfull to you and you didn't /or refuse to see it. BTW, language like that will get you banned very fast.

Advise, unless you know all the laws inside and out regarding UOC, don't ever do it. Chances are you will wind up in jail and loose your right to own a firearm for a very long time.Why do you suppose I asked the question? Not for a short dismissive "arrogant sounding" answer, and not for a lecture. I pretty much understand most of the laws regarding open carry...sorry if I didn't recognise the number.
You're assuming because I asked a question (that I can't seem to find a clear asnwer to) that you know what I know?
Why didn't you just answer my question?
Advise: don't assume.

Window_Seat
05-01-2010, 10:37 PM
IBTL...

12026. (a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen
of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who
resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within
the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
who carries, either openly or concealed, anywhere within the citizen'
s or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on
private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal
resident any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.
(b) No permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or
carry, either openly or concealed, shall be required of any citizen
of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who
resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within
the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to
purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed,
a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person within the citizen's or legal resident's place of
residence, place of business, or on private property owned or
lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the
application of Section 12031.


So you have to be the owner of the shop in order to LOC or even CCW, unless there's a better interpretation. I tried to research if the owner of the business can give you permission to LOC or even CCW in their business, but nothing.

Erik.

9-12
05-01-2010, 10:39 PM
I'm serious.

That is one of the basic laws covering carrying a weapon.

I'm seeing a disturbing trend in threads here on Calguns where people are asking "Is it okay to do XYZ" when XYZ may or may not be clearly illegal, but even if legal, it's definitely pushing the bounds of legality, and whether legal or not, is likely to result in arrest.

"Can I open carry loaded with blanks?"
"Why can't I have my bullet button tool attached to the gun?"

If you've got $50k in the bank, feel free to tempt fate by carrying a loaded weapon in a public place in an incorporated area.

In many cases, the "Best" answer to these questions is "At this time, the right people do not recommend it".... BTW: That goes for open carry period, regardless of Starbucks policies.

Short story, don't build an AR/AK without being completely familiar with California assault weapon laws.
Don't open carry... either loaded or unloaded... without being fully familiar with 12031 and related statutes AND case law that has impacted how those laws are enforced.Again, I just asked a simple question, not for a lecture. Just a simple link to the law would be more helpful than anything you've offered so far.
Is that asking too much? Again, do you wish to be helpful? It would be appreciated.

nn3453
05-01-2010, 10:43 PM
Have a nice life.

^^

These guys are trying to help you. Try not to let the thing between your legs get in the way of reading comprehension and actually trying to understand that you're being offered advice. Good advice.

Good luck. The guys are just trying to help.

9-12
05-01-2010, 10:48 PM
Thanks Eric. On that same line of thinking, does my neighbor have the right or authority to allow me or give me permission to carry (open or ccw) on his/her private property?
Reason I'm asking is to help with a discussion I'm having with a friend. He's been in contact with all the local LE offices regarding open carry, and we're both reading and asking lots of questions. This question came up regarding "private property" and neither of us could find the answer.
FWIW...neither of us has any immediate intention of "testing" these laws. Just trying to be informed.
Thanks again for the quote.IBTL...



So you have to be the owner of the shop in order to LOC or even CCW, unless there's a better interpretation. I tried to research if the owner of the business can give you permission to LOC or even CCW in their business, but nothing.

Erik.

Window_Seat
05-01-2010, 11:06 PM
12031 (l) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of
residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.

This is (I suppose, but could be wrong) for if you are staying at a hotel/motel. I suppose you could also have temporary residency, but would one have to be involved in a slumber party? Just not a "place of business".

I still wouldn't do it here in CA, at least until after McDonald/Nordyke is decided (providing it's in our favor), and it's sanctioned by CGN/F (that is, UOC, not LOC), simply because it is more unprotected, and the DA would take any opportunity to pounce on you if at all possible.

Otherwise, further is best answered by one of the esteemed legal council here.

Erik.

Window_Seat
05-01-2010, 11:09 PM
^^

These guys are trying to help you. Try not to let the thing between your legs get in the way of reading comprehension and actually trying to understand that you're being offered advice. Good advice.

Good luck. The guys are just trying to help.

I also concur, it can be easy to misunderstand (as I do from time to time). I've had worse comments directed at me, and they still weren't directed as mean spirited. Hope the above helps.

Erik.

pullnshoot25
05-01-2010, 11:11 PM
Oh give me a break. You want to be helpful or not?

Oil your bearings there, crescentthamum, the man is right.

Check my sig line for the faq while simultaneously checking popping a chill pill.

9-12
05-01-2010, 11:27 PM
Oil your bearings there, crestenthamum, the man is right.

Check my sig line for the faq while simultaneously checking popping a chill pill.I'm sorry, but to tell me I have no business discussing something simply becuase I asked a question is not right, nor was it helpful in any way, but thank you for your intention and the links.

9-12
05-01-2010, 11:29 PM
This is (I suppose, but could be wrong) for if you are staying at a hotel/motel. I suppose you could also have temporary residency, but would one have to be involved in a slumber party? Just not a "place of business".

I still wouldn't do it here in CA, at least until after McDonald/Nordyke is decided (providing it's in our favor), and it's sanctioned by CGN/F (that is, UOC, not LOC), simply because it is more unprotected, and the DA would take any opportunity to pounce on you if at all possible.

Otherwise, further is best answered by one of the esteemed legal council here.

Erik.Makes sense. It's given me plenty of directions to go for further learning. Thanks.

Bill Carson
05-02-2010, 12:07 AM
So now that Starbucks has said it will allow open carry within it's stores as long as it's within the law, and that they will recognise the laws regarding carrying firearms, I was wondering:

If I'm on their property, private property, and I have their permission to have a firearm on their property, and I sit down and load my 1911 while drinking my coffee, am I legal?

They usually do not own the property. They are tenants. Why would you want to load your weapon at a coffee shop ?

pullnshoot25
05-02-2010, 12:33 AM
I'm sorry, but to tell me I have no business discussing something simply becuase I asked a question is not right, nor was it helpful in any way, but thank you for your intention and the links.

Rrrright.

Maestro Pistolero
05-02-2010, 1:25 AM
He has no business DISCUSSING open carry? How exactly does one ask a question without discussing a subject? His reaction was outside of protocol here, but not unreasonable.

Bt the way, one does have to check the pejorative name-calling here, even if someone else has, in fact, been penis-like.

9-12
05-02-2010, 1:45 AM
They usually do not own the property. They are tenants. Why would you want to load your weapon at a coffee shop ?How, then, can they (Starbucks) come out with a general policy statement regarding all their stores? (Open carry in their stores is nothing new in some states) They obviously have the authority.
I don't know that I would want to load my weapon, but I'd like to know if I could. The question was asked to see where open carry laws and private property boundaries intersect.

9-12
05-02-2010, 1:49 AM
He has no business DISCUSSING open carry? How exactly does one ask a question without discussing a subject? His reaction was outside of protocol here, but not unreasonable.

Bt the way, one does have to check the pejorative name-calling here, even if someone else has, in fact, been penis-like.:cool:

big red
05-02-2010, 1:55 AM
Window Seat, you did what 9-12 asked and handled it better than anyone. tempers on either side do not get us anywhere and it only drives gun owners and interested parties away. 9-12 now has a place to start his education and hopefully he will get better responses as his education continues. Somoen says something I will ask for a citation a lot of the time not because I don't trust the answer but I might learn more by reading the actual language and everyone reads the same law differently due to past experiences. Again, Window Seat thank you for the citation and cooler head. 9-12, you may have found yourself a mentor or at least a friend to turn to in Window Seat.

GrizzlyGuy
05-02-2010, 6:56 AM
Thanks Eric. On that same line of thinking, does my neighbor have the right or authority to allow me or give me permission to carry (open or ccw) on his/her private property?
Reason I'm asking is to help with a discussion I'm having with a friend. He's been in contact with all the local LE offices regarding open carry, and we're both reading and asking lots of questions. This question came up regarding "private property" and neither of us could find the answer.
FWIW...neither of us has any immediate intention of "testing" these laws. Just trying to be informed.
Thanks again for the quote.

See here: Unlicensed Concealed Carry (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Unlicensed_Concealed_Carry#At_Home)

If your neighbor gives you permission to be on his property, you can carry concealed anywhere on his property since you 'lawfully possess' his property. You would be using the 12026 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12026.html) concealed carry exemption in that case.

(a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen
of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years... who carries, either openly or concealed... on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident

However, you can only carry loaded in the areas of his property that are not also public places. This part (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Unlicensed_Concealed_Carry#Semi_Public_Places_Rest rictions) of the wiki page I linked to explains that further.

Librarian gave you the correct answer regarding Starbucks or other privately owned businesses or similar properties that are open to the public.

Librarian
05-02-2010, 7:34 AM
9-12, I apologize for not being more expansive - I thought you were starting from a deeper knowledge base.

You have discovered that open carry is a bit of a hot-button issue.
How, then, can they (Starbucks) come out with a general policy statement regarding all their stores? (Open carry in their stores is nothing new in some states) They obviously have the authority.They're exercising their private property rights to not restrict a legal behavior - unloaded open carry. They could also ask you to leave instead of accepting your business.

9-12
05-02-2010, 8:53 AM
Thanks guys for the help. Good info.
This is an onion.

9-12
05-02-2010, 8:56 AM
9-12, I apologize for not being more expansive - I thought you were starting from a deeper knowledge base.

You have discovered that open carry is a bit of a hot-button issue.
They're exercising their private property rights to not restrict a legal behavior - unloaded open carry. They could also ask you to leave instead of accepting your business.
I understand now that although Starbucks has ownership authority over the property, the fact that it's open to the public changes things.
Thanks again.

Cokebottle
05-02-2010, 9:30 AM
How, then, can they (Starbucks) come out with a general policy statement regarding all their stores? (Open carry in their stores is nothing new in some states) They obviously have the authority.
I don't know that I would want to load my weapon, but I'd like to know if I could. The question was asked to see where open carry laws and private property boundaries intersect.
Because open carry is legal outside of school zones.
A business/property owner can prohibit it, but no permission is needed to do so.
Loaded carry is generally illegal without a CCW in an incorporated area outside of your permanent or temporary residence.

Cokebottle
05-02-2010, 9:40 AM
He has no business DISCUSSING open carry? How exactly does one ask a question without discussing a subject? His reaction was outside of protocol here, but not unreasonable.

Bt the way, one does have to check the pejorative name-calling here, even if someone else has, in fact, been penis-like.
It's called learning to crawl before attempting to run.

Learn the basics before attempting to push the envelope.
You wouldn't, as a new driver with no experience on motorcycles, hop on a GSXr and attempt to ride Mulholland and keep up with an experienced group..... What the OP did (the way the question and followup comments were phrased) was no different than someone wanting to tweak their suspension for maximum cornering when they don't even own a basic tool set and have never done anything mechanically more complex than match up the colors on the cables and sockets on their Gateway computer.

I stand by my statement... Don't waste people's time asking questions about open carry until you have done your own research and learned the ins and outs of the law. The fact that the OP didn't recognize the reference to PC12031 says that this hasn't been done. He may have scanned the laws (as he indicated that he's done AFTER I made my statement), but he hasn't taken the time to study them, or the number beginning with "120" would have been immediately recognizable.

Add to this, the fact that the Calguns Foundation will be able to provide NO support for those arrested for OC, and "the right people" are currently recommending that we not open carry (and these reasons go beyond just the fact that you might get arrested, they have implications affecting everyone.)

ChuckBooty
05-02-2010, 9:58 AM
Unfortunately as these things become more and more main-stream, you're going to get more and more "main-stream" people trying this out. Just like the OLL issue...there are now AK and AR pattern rifles readily available in gun shops. People are going to buy them without an intimate knowledge as to what exactly MAKES that rifle legal.

Same with UOC...

Maestro Pistolero
05-02-2010, 11:51 AM
It's called learning to crawl before attempting to run.It was a question. Jeez, lighten up. The tone that some here take, especially with new members is really off-putting, and sophomoric. What exactly do we think this accomplishes? I just don't get it. We all start somewhere. Either answer the question in a helpful way, or move on. Please.

9-12
05-02-2010, 12:40 PM
I apologise for my response last night. It came on the heels of another issue I was dealing with. You made your point and position clear.

Funny you should use the analogy of suspension. I do a lot of race car fabrication and suspension work, and do some racing as well. I also build racing engines. I deal with all kinds of questions from all kinds of people in that arena, and usually, the first thing I try and do is find out what the person knows so I know how to answer their question. I don't assume what they know, nor do I tell them off, or lecture them for asking a stupid question. I want their experience to be a good one, not drive them away. I want them to walk away with more knowledge and with the feeling they can come back and ask anything they want, no matter how "stupid" the question. There are no stupid questions...only stupid answers. I am not above any of them because there was a point where I was completely ignorant, and someone else endured my stupid questions. Imagine God's muse at our stupidity, yet He endures us every day. It's good to give back the same. ;)

It's called learning to crawl before attempting to run.

Learn the basics before attempting to push the envelope.
You wouldn't, as a new driver with no experience on motorcycles, hop on a GSXr and attempt to ride Mulholland and keep up with an experienced group..... What the OP did (the way the question and followup comments were phrased) was no different than someone wanting to tweak their suspension for maximum cornering when they don't even own a basic tool set and have never done anything mechanically more complex than match up the colors on the cables and sockets on their Gateway computer.

I stand by my statement... Don't waste people's time asking questions about open carry until you have done your own research and learned the ins and outs of the law. The fact that the OP didn't recognize the reference to PC12031 says that this hasn't been done. He may have scanned the laws (as he indicated that he's done AFTER I made my statement), but he hasn't taken the time to study them, or the number beginning with "120" would have been immediately recognizable.

Add to this, the fact that the Calguns Foundation will be able to provide NO support for those arrested for OC, and "the right people" are currently recommending that we not open carry (and these reasons go beyond just the fact that you might get arrested, they have implications affecting everyone.)

big red
05-02-2010, 4:12 PM
9-12: It is interesting that the students of today become the teachers of tomorrow and from some of the responses I have seen to your question it is ovbious some of the teachers might not have turned out so well from their student days. What does that leave us with for those they "teach" and become the teachers of tomorrow? I have seen some pretty sarcastic dudes on here who only know how to put down people. Like the real world you'll learn to avoid and ignore them.

Cokebottle
05-02-2010, 7:30 PM
It was a question. Jeez, lighten up. The tone that some here take, especially with new members is really off-putting, and sophomoric. What exactly do we think this accomplishes? I just don't get it. We all start somewhere. Either answer the question in a helpful way, or move on. Please.
Except 9-12 isn't a new member ;)

I tend to be a little more patient with the newbies.

9-12
05-02-2010, 7:41 PM
9-12: It is interesting that the students of today become the teachers of tomorrow and from some of the responses I have seen to your question it is ovbious some of the teachers might not have turned out so well from their student days. What does that leave us with for those they "teach" and become the teachers of tomorrow? I have seen some pretty sarcastic dudes on here who only know how to put down people. Like the real world you'll learn to avoid and ignore them.Only too true, big red.

Cokebottle
05-02-2010, 7:45 PM
I apologise for my response last night. It came on the heels of another issue I was dealing with. You made your point and position clear.

Funny you should use the analogy of suspension. I do a lot of race car fabrication and suspension work, and do some racing as well. I also build racing engines. I deal with all kinds of questions from all kinds of people in that arena, and usually, the first thing I try and do is find out what the person knows so I know how to answer their question. I don't assume what they know, nor do I tell them off, or lecture them for asking a stupid question. I want their experience to be a good one, not drive them away. I want them to walk away with more knowledge and with the feeling they can come back and ask anything they want, no matter how "stupid" the question. There are no stupid questions...only stupid answers. I am not above any of them because there was a point where I was completely ignorant, and someone else endured my stupid questions. Imagine God's muse at our stupidity, yet He endures us every day. It's good to give back the same. ;)
I also have to apologize for being a bit short. It's been a long couple of weeks and I haven't been feeling 100%, so I've been a bit grumpier than usual.

As was mentioned above, open carry is a bit of a hot topic for some. Personally, I fully support a person's right to carry in any way legally possible including open, but by the same token, a mis-step involving open carry has the potential to create problems for us in a post-McDonald California. There are already measures proposed in Sacramento that will outright ban unloaded open carry, primarily due to the publicity surrounding Starbucks and the UOC events of the last year.
A couple of weeks ago, one of the senior members cracked a joke that isn't far from the truth... "How does a Californian with an unloaded gun shoot himself in the foot? UOC."
While "The Right People" currently advise against UOC, there are those that feel that UOC is simply pointless and a "less than smart" form of political protest.

I hear ya on helping out people, and I'll do the same, especially in person, but it can be difficult online where it's hard to determine the person's level. I used that example because it's something I run into on motorcycle forums all the time. I'll be as helpful as I can, but often it is very obvious from the git-go that the person asking is lacking in the basic skills needed to do the job, and it would be better for him to find someone to do it. If they're local, I'll be happy to ride over and do it for them and try to teach them some of the basics... but while I'm a firm believer that nobody gives as much of a crap about your _____ or your life than YOU (and even if it were rocket science, you won't find any rocket scientists at the Kawasaki dealership), there are many jobs that shouldn't be attempted by someone who hasn't even seen it done before.

I simply took your failure to recognize the PC reference as an indication that you were not familiar with the carry laws.

Bill Carson
05-02-2010, 7:48 PM
How, then, can they (Starbucks) come out with a general policy statement regarding all their stores? (Open carry in their stores is nothing new in some states) They obviously have the authority.
I don't know that I would want to load my weapon, but I'd like to know if I could. The question was asked to see where open carry laws and private property boundaries intersect.

It is what they are allowing in their stores. They mave have landlords that do not allow open carry on ther property. If that is the case then the landlords rules supercede the tenants policies.

9-12
05-02-2010, 9:26 PM
It is what they are allowing in their stores. They mave have landlords that do not allow open carry on ther property. If that is the case then the landlords rules supercede the tenants policies.
Do you have anything to support that?

Here's what I've learned, thanks to some great links above.
Private property that alows access to the public falls under "semi public" or public laws regarding firearms.

Carrying a loaded concealed firearm is prohibited in areas open to the public, even if they are on private property.

See People vs. Overturf. I'm guessing this encompasses LOC as well? From what I'm gathering, loaded is loaded, open or concealed?

Even employees can't arbitrarily LOC or CC on private property with public access, even with permission:

an employee must have a possessory interest in his or her workplace in order for that workplace to be considered the employee's "place of business" under section 12026. Only those employees who have the right to exclude others from their workplace, and the right to control activities there, may carry concealed weapons at work without a permit or license.

If I'm reading correctly, an employee with a possessory interest (not just any employee) can, while CC or LOC, stand behind the counter and move throughout the business in areas where there is no bublic access, but once they come out from behind the counter and come into any area where the public has access, they (and no one else without a CCW permit) are no longer alowed to LOC or CC.

9-12
05-02-2010, 9:27 PM
I also have to apologize for being a bit short. It's been a long couple of weeks and I haven't been feeling 100%, so I've been a bit grumpier than usual.

As was mentioned above, open carry is a bit of a hot topic for some. Personally, I fully support a person's right to carry in any way legally possible including open, but by the same token, a mis-step involving open carry has the potential to create problems for us in a post-McDonald California. There are already measures proposed in Sacramento that will outright ban unloaded open carry, primarily due to the publicity surrounding Starbucks and the UOC events of the last year.
A couple of weeks ago, one of the senior members cracked a joke that isn't far from the truth... "How does a Californian with an unloaded gun shoot himself in the foot? UOC."
While "The Right People" currently advise against UOC, there are those that feel that UOC is simply pointless and a "less than smart" form of political protest.

I hear ya on helping out people, and I'll do the same, especially in person, but it can be difficult online where it's hard to determine the person's level. I used that example because it's something I run into on motorcycle forums all the time. I'll be as helpful as I can, but often it is very obvious from the git-go that the person asking is lacking in the basic skills needed to do the job, and it would be better for him to find someone to do it. If they're local, I'll be happy to ride over and do it for them and try to teach them some of the basics... but while I'm a firm believer that nobody gives as much of a crap about your _____ or your life than YOU (and even if it were rocket science, you won't find any rocket scientists at the Kawasaki dealership), there are many jobs that shouldn't be attempted by someone who hasn't even seen it done before.

I simply took your failure to recognize the PC reference as an indication that you were not familiar with the carry laws.Not a problem, and thanks.

Bill Carson
05-02-2010, 10:06 PM
Do you have anything to support that?

Here's what I've learned, thanks to some great links above.
Private property that alows access to the public falls under "semi public" or public laws regarding firearms.

Carrying a loaded concealed firearm is prohibited in areas open to the public, even if they are on private property.

See People vs. Overturf. I'm guessing this encompasses LOC as well? From what I'm gathering, loaded is loaded, open or concealed?

Even employees can't arbitrarily LOC or CC on private property with public access, even with permission:

an employee must have a possessory interest in his or her workplace in order for that workplace to be considered the employee's "place of business" under section 12026. Only those employees who have the right to exclude others from their workplace, and the right to control activities there, may carry concealed weapons at work without a permit or license.

If I'm reading correctly, an employee with a possessory interest (not just any employee) can, while CC or LOC, stand behind the counter and move throughout the business in areas where there is no bublic access, but once they come out from behind the counter and come into any area where the public has access, they (and no one else without a CCW permit) are no longer alowed to LOC or CC.

Your original post was regarding open carry at starbucks. Which is actually UOC not to be confused with open carry like some other states have. We are seperating the two because starbucks is in many states as you know. Since we are in calguns forum we must be talking about california UOC law and starbucks policy in california. If your landlord tells you that you can plant a palm tree in the middle of your front lawn but the home owners association says you can't then you can't. Only a free standing starbucks would be their property. Every other starbucks would be leasing the property. So if the property owner had a policy against UOC then it does not matter what starbucks policy is. Starbucks policy also changes state to state regarding the guns laws of that particular state. for instance they allow LOC in arizona since that is the state law. Even if the law allows an employee to UOC at work , starbucks does not.

Cokebottle
05-02-2010, 10:14 PM
Your original post was regarding open carry at starbucks.
Check a few posts down... the original question used Starbucks as an example, but the specific situation was actually related to "private" property in general and whether someone can be given (or who can give) permission to LOC.

I can invite you into my home, and tell you that you may LOC or LCC, you may ethically carry, and the cops will be none the wiser... but is it truly legal?
*I* can legally LOC or LCC within any residence or temporary residence, but when I invite you into my home, does it then also become your temporary residence?

Guess I'm going to start leaving toothbrushes at my friends' homes :D

Bill Carson
05-02-2010, 10:57 PM
Check a few posts down... the original question used Starbucks as an example, but the specific situation was actually related to "private" property in general and whether someone can be given (or who can give) permission to LOC.

I can invite you into my home, and tell you that you may LOC or LCC, you may ethically carry, and the cops will be none the wiser... but is it truly legal?
*I* can legally LOC or LCC within any residence or temporary residence, but when I invite you into my home, does it then also become your temporary residence?

Guess I'm going to start leaving toothbrushes at my friends' homes :D

Is it their private property if they are leasing and is it private property when it is to be used for the general public ? A private residence and a business would be under different laws, wouldn't they ?

Lexy99
05-02-2010, 11:15 PM
You might want to check out the ongoing case of a person who posts under the name Theus I believe. He was arrested in CA for open carry when he was at a coin operated laundry. The charge was being within 1000ft of a school zone. His contention was that since he was on the premises of the private business that that exempted him from the 1000ft law. Although the law in CA does in fact state you are exempted from the school zone law while on private property, the judge and prosecutor ruled that the laundry was a public business and does NOT qualify as "private property" under CA 12031.

These are the facts as I know them.

9-12
05-02-2010, 11:40 PM
You might want to check out the ongoing case of a person who posts under the name Theus I believe. He was arrested in CA for open carry when he was at a coin operated laundry. The charge was being within 1000ft of a school zone. His contention was that since he was on the premises of the private business that that exempted him from the 1000ft law. Although the law in CA does in fact state you are exempted from the school zone law while on private property, the judge and prosecutor ruled that the laundry was a public business and does NOT qualify as "private property" under CA 12031.

These are the facts as I know them.This is how I would understand the law as I read it. Any part of (your) private property which will allow access to the public, even a public bathroom, is no longer "private property" where gun laws are concerned.

If he had read this thread, he'd know better. ;)

Cokebottle
05-03-2010, 5:23 AM
That is one of the facets of his appeal.
626.9 says nothing about "public property" or "public access" in the way other statutes, such as drunk in public, do.

626.9 is very simply worded and states that a handgun must not be carried within 1000ft of any k-12 school that the person reasonably knows or should know about, EXCEPT for Private Property, a Place of Residence, or a Place of Business.

Trust me, Theseus knows the law and was remaining within the bounds of the law as written (and his gun was unloaded).
This was a political prosecution by an activist Deputy DA and judge. The cops didn't think there was a violation of law... it wasn't until several days later that he was notified that he was wanted

The judge disallowed his defense that he didn't know about the school or should not have reasonably known about it.
The judge disallowed his defense that he was on private property by redefining the law that "private property" does not include property accessible to the public.
The judge disallowed his defense that he was in a place of business because he was outdoors.

Theseus was factually innocent of all charges, but yet was still convicted.

GM4spd
05-03-2010, 5:42 AM
I'm seeing a disturbing trend in threads here on Calguns where people are asking "Is it okay to do XYZ" when XYZ may or may not be clearly illegal

This is happening more and more---every day-- it's an epidemic. Pete

9-12
05-03-2010, 7:56 AM
That is one of the facets of his appeal.
626.9 says nothing about "public property" or "public access" in the way other statutes, such as drunk in public, do.

626.9 is very simply worded and states that a handgun must not be carried within 1000ft of any k-12 school that the person reasonably knows or should know about, EXCEPT for Private Property, a Place of Residence, or a Place of Business.

Trust me, Theseus knows the law and was remaining within the bounds of the law as written (and his gun was unloaded).
This was a political prosecution by an activist Deputy DA and judge. The cops didn't think there was a violation of law... it wasn't until several days later that he was notified that he was wanted

The judge disallowed his defense that he didn't know about the school or should not have reasonably known about it.
The judge disallowed his defense that he was on private property by redefining the law that "private property" does not include property accessible to the public.
The judge disallowed his defense that he was in a place of business because he was outdoors.

Theseus was factually innocent of all charges, but yet was still convicted.
So in this case the grey area is where public and private property intersect or the definition of "semi private" property? If the law says, as was my example with Starbucks, where the public has access to private property, it's considered public property, wouldn't he have been in violation of UOC within the school limit on public property?
Not trying to defend the decision here...I think its absurd that we have to have these discussions. I just want to be clear.

big red
05-03-2010, 10:41 AM
The distrubing trend of more and more people coming to calguns and asking "dumb" questions may be the result of the public waking up and searching for answers anyplace they can find them. We should answer those questions by referring them to online sites for citations and referrences that they can reasonably read for themselves. I see this trend as an increasingly aware public now becoming desperate for answers and we should welcome these people with open arms and educate them. There are going to be many more in the days and months to come as people in California come out of their stupor.

pullnshoot25
05-03-2010, 10:45 AM
The distrubing trend of more and more people coming to calguns and asking "dumb" questions may be the result of the public waking up and searching for answers anyplace they can find them. We should answer those questions by referring them to online sites for citations and referrences that they can reasonably read for themselves. I see this trend as an increasingly aware public now becoming desperate for answers and we should welcome these people with open arms and educate them. There are going to be many more in the days and months to come as people in California come out of their stupor.

Yep.

Let's bust out the guides instead of answering questions over and over.

GrizzlyGuy
05-03-2010, 11:50 AM
So in this case the grey area is where public and private property intersect or the definition of "semi private" property? If the law says, as was my example with Starbucks, where the public has access to private property, it's considered public property, wouldn't he have been in violation of UOC within the school limit on public property?
Not trying to defend the decision here...I think its absurd that we have to have these discussions. I just want to be clear.

In Theseus's 626.9 case, the judge was basically making up as he went along. Based on his "logic", he would likely consider being at a Starbucks within a school zone the same as Theseus being at the laundromat: they are both privately owned businesses open to the public.

Cokebottle
05-03-2010, 7:11 PM
So in this case the grey area is where public and private property intersect or the definition of "semi private" property? If the law says, as was my example with Starbucks, where the public has access to private property, it's considered public property, wouldn't he have been in violation of UOC within the school limit on public property?
Not trying to defend the decision here...I think its absurd that we have to have these discussions. I just want to be clear.
Actually, the two cases are not entirely similar. Theseus was practicing unloaded open carry, which is legal in California even on public property, except for the rights-free school zone restrictions imposed by 626.9.

And that's the crux of the issue for Theseus. The law doesn't say anything about "semi-private" property... it says "private property" OR "place of residence" OR "place of business"... all three of those are (supposed to be) exempt from the restrictions of 626.9.
Having "place of business" in there eliminates the issue of "accessible to the public"... Following the letter of the ruling, it would be theoretically legal to walk into a Wal Mart carrying, but not legal to walk to the sporting goods section in the back corner of the store.

The judge and DA completely overstepped their authority in legislating from the bench. The judge and DA took the wording of other statutes that do address "private property open to the public", such as drunk in public, public nudity, etc... and applied it where the clear wording of the law does not apply.
The thing that is very disturbing about the way the proceedings went, was that even though Theseus carried his gun to the parking lot in a locked container, and then after arriving on the private property removed it, one of the comments from the deputy DA was "Well, the gun must have gotten there somehow", implying that whether or not he was in violation in the parking lot, he "must have been" in violation at some point en-route.
The fact of the matter is that he was NOT aware of the presence of the school (which is another exemption). I am familiar with the intersection where he was arrested, and to be aware of the school, one would have to be traveling southbound. Though it is not a "minor" street, it is not a commonly used throughway between the two freeways in that area. I've worked in that area a LOT, and have never traveled south on that road... nor was I aware of the school.

The DA and judge basically threw out three of the seven exceptions provided for in 626.9, every one of which applied, and convicted him.
It was no different than if one were legally carrying in their vehicle in a locked container, and having the judge and DA throw out the exceptions provided for in 12026(a)(1) and convicting them under 12025(a)(1).

For reference, here are the applicable sections of PC 626.9:
(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
(b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written permission of the school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as specified in subdivision (f).
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful.
(2) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle. This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.
(3) When the person possessing the firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety. This subdivision may not apply when the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person's life or safety. Upon a trial for violating subdivision (b), the trier of a fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief that he or she was in grave danger.
(4) When the person is exempt from the prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to subdivision (b), (d), (e), or (h) of Section 12027.
As you can see, this relates only to school zones, so it is a completely separate issue from your original question regarding the legality of carrying loaded while on private property with permission.

FWIW: Loaded open carry is legal in unincorporated county areas where the discharge of a firearm is not otherwise prohibited... with a couple of exceptions. 626.9 would be one exception, and I believe being in a vehicle on a highway is another exception.
I do LOC while riding my dirtbike outside of state parks... generally on BLM land, but there are some passages through private property.

Cokebottle
05-03-2010, 7:15 PM
The distrubing trend of more and more people coming to calguns and asking "dumb" questions may be the result of the public waking up and searching for answers anyplace they can find them. We should answer those questions by referring them to online sites for citations and referrences that they can reasonably read for themselves. I see this trend as an increasingly aware public now becoming desperate for answers and we should welcome these people with open arms and educate them. There are going to be many more in the days and months to come as people in California come out of their stupor.
Except that when answered, many of these "newbies" continue to push the issue, as if attempting to find a loophole... or... as many suspect... they are trolls working for the anti's who are looking to get an answer that they can use to discredit Calguns. Many of them immediately cop an attitude and even go to the point of "thugging up". There was one such thread last November or December regarding using a magnet as a bullet button tool... this was a few weeks before the "felony button" made it's appearance at the Cow Palace.
He got his answer, and the proceeded to argue about how it wasn't illegal.
He wasn't looking for an answer... he was looking for affirmation, and he was pissed when he didn't get it.

Cokebottle
05-03-2010, 7:19 PM
So here is how the judge amended 626.9 from the bench:

(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
(b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written permission of the school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as specified in subdivision (f).
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful.
(2) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle. This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.
(3) When the person possessing the firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety. This subdivision may not apply when the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person's life or safety. Upon a trial for violating subdivision (b), the trier of a fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief that he or she was in grave danger.
(4) When the person is exempt from the prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to subdivision (b), (d), (e), or (h) of Section 12027.

HowardW56
05-03-2010, 7:43 PM
Why do you suppose I asked the question? Not for a short dismissive "arrogant sounding" answer, and not for a lecture. I pretty much understand most of the laws regarding open carry...sorry if I didn't recognise the number.
You're assuming because I asked a question (that I can't seem to find a clear asnwer to) that you know what I know?
Why didn't you just answer my question?
Advise: don't assume.

Go to the page below & start reading... Pretty much understanding the laws will get you pretty much arrested...


http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page

Rwnielsen
05-03-2010, 7:53 PM
(and these reasons go beyond just the fact that you might get arrested, they have implications affecting everyone.)

Thank you

kamnamurt
05-03-2010, 8:12 PM
so formal here

neuron
05-03-2010, 8:30 PM
We need to understand PC 12025 and 12031 (the concealed gun and loaded gun laws, respectively) to make sense of all this stuff. As regards businesses, anowner[I] of the business may carry a [I]concealed, and loaded[I] weapon on premises. An [I]authorized[I] (by the owner) employee or anyone else may carry openly (loaded or unloaded). A member of the public may carry openlly and UNLOADED per current CA law (unless the anti-UOC bill passes), but if the business/property owner asks you to leave, you must, or you can be charged with trespass.

You are allowed under current CA law to carry openly and [I]unloaded....
Loading your weapon, without an accepted exemption (such as immediate self-defense) is a big no-no, and will place you in violation of PC 12031.

Lexy99
05-03-2010, 8:42 PM
I am on the Open Carry forum and we have been planning an open carry walk in Mahattan Beach and Hermosa Beach. We googled and googled and googled and finally determined our route at one point would take us between 998 and 1002 feet of a school zone. In California with the way the police and DA's are, that not enough.

If you want to open carry you have to be prepared to be arrested. I dont mean you have to be prepared for a nnight in jail and then brag to your friends.

You have to be prepared to lose your job, be threatened by a powerful and vengeful DA for 12 months, pay $75,000 in legal fees, have your named in the news as a "raving lunatic who was going to shoot up a school", have all your guns confiscated and NEVER given back depsite being cleared, have your home raided and searched at 4am when your wife and kids are sleeping.

Isnt America great ?

9-12
05-03-2010, 9:06 PM
Go to the page below & start reading... Pretty much understanding the laws will get you pretty much arrested...


http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_PageThanks for the link and advice. You're obviously a very wise man.

9-12
05-03-2010, 9:11 PM
Actually, the two cases are not entirely similar. Theseus was practicing unloaded open carry, which is legal in California even on public property, except for the rights-free school zone restrictions imposed by 626.9.

And that's the crux of the issue for Theseus. The law doesn't say anything about "semi-private" property... it says "private property" OR "place of residence" OR "place of business"... all three of those are (supposed to be) exempt from the restrictions of 626.9.
Having "place of business" in there eliminates the issue of "accessible to the public"... Following the letter of the ruling, it would be theoretically legal to walk into a Wal Mart carrying, but not legal to walk to the sporting goods section in the back corner of the store.

The judge and DA completely overstepped their authority in legislating from the bench. The judge and DA took the wording of other statutes that do address "private property open to the public", such as drunk in public, public nudity, etc... and applied it where the clear wording of the law does not apply.
The thing that is very disturbing about the way the proceedings went, was that even though Theseus carried his gun to the parking lot in a locked container, and then after arriving on the private property removed it, one of the comments from the deputy DA was "Well, the gun must have gotten there somehow", implying that whether or not he was in violation in the parking lot, he "must have been" in violation at some point en-route.
The fact of the matter is that he was NOT aware of the presence of the school (which is another exemption). I am familiar with the intersection where he was arrested, and to be aware of the school, one would have to be traveling southbound. Though it is not a "minor" street, it is not a commonly used throughway between the two freeways in that area. I've worked in that area a LOT, and have never traveled south on that road... nor was I aware of the school.

The DA and judge basically threw out three of the seven exceptions provided for in 626.9, every one of which applied, and convicted him.
It was no different than if one were legally carrying in their vehicle in a locked container, and having the judge and DA throw out the exceptions provided for in 12026(a)(1) and convicting them under 12025(a)(1).

For reference, here are the applicable sections of PC 626.9:

As you can see, this relates only to school zones, so it is a completely separate issue from your original question regarding the legality of carrying loaded while on private property with permission.

FWIW: Loaded open carry is legal in unincorporated county areas where the discharge of a firearm is not otherwise prohibited... with a couple of exceptions. 626.9 would be one exception, and I believe being in a vehicle on a highway is another exception.
I do LOC while riding my dirtbike outside of state parks... generally on BLM land, but there are some passages through private property.Thanks very much for taking the time to lay that out for me. I do appreciate it.

9-12
05-03-2010, 9:25 PM
So here is how the judge amended 626.9 from the bench:
Rich, whats your opinion about People vs. Overturf?
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Unlicensed_Concealed_Carry#Semi_Public_Places_Rest rictions

Cokebottle
05-03-2010, 9:40 PM
Rich, whats your opinion about People vs. Overturf?
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Unlicensed_Concealed_Carry#Semi_Public_Places_Rest rictions
I don't agree with the decision. Even though Overturf is a case of loaded carry, I suspect that the DA and judge had it in the backs of their minds when they persecuted Theseus.

And this takes us to one of the reasons that "The Right People" are advising against UOC at this time. In the present political environment, it is entirely possible that a case such as Theseus could solidify case law affecting UOC in a similar manner as Overturf.

9-12
05-03-2010, 10:15 PM
I don't agree with the decision. Even though Overturf is a case of loaded carry, I suspect that the DA and judge had it in the backs of their minds when they persecuted Theseus.

And this takes us to one of the reasons that "The Right People" are advising against UOC at this time. In the present political environment, it is entirely possible that a case such as Theseus could solidify case law affecting UOC in a similar manner as Overturf.
Thanks. After scrolling down the page I see: "the legislative change to PC 12026 in the interim casts some doubt on Overturf." but in the end it says, "...the current jurisprudence in California is that if the public can come unmolested or unchallenged into an area, you can not conceal or openly carry a loaded firearm in that area unless you have a specific and immediate need to defend life or property." I understand this has gotten a little bit away from the UOC issues, but carrying a firearm is pointless unless you can load it, and it's clear that's one of the areas where there is still some misunderstanding. Even if the above statement isn't consistent with the wording of the law, it's probably good advice.

I agree with not putting things any further in the hands of the courts, but at the same time, it's frustrating. They have us afraid, which is obviously their present tactic while they plan their next moves. By being afraid, we give them power and time. By not being afraid, we give them purpose and excuse.

I've heard reference to "The Right People" now several times. Who are these "right people"?

N6ATF
05-03-2010, 10:26 PM
Pretty much Fully and completely understanding the laws better than most attorneys will get you pretty much arrested... prosecuted, and the law rewritten specifically to harm you, since you dared to exercise your civil rights.


Fixed.

Cokebottle
05-03-2010, 11:23 PM
Thanks. After scrolling down the page I see: "the legislative change to PC 12026 in the interim casts some doubt on Overturf." but in the end it says, "...the current jurisprudence in California is that if the public can come unmolested or unchallenged into an area, you can not conceal or openly carry a loaded firearm in that area unless you have a specific and immediate need to defend life or property."
True... with a few exceptions as I mentioned where UOC is legal in unincorporated areas where discharge is not otherwise prohibited.
I understand this has gotten a little bit away from the UOC issues, but carrying a firearm is pointless unless you can load it,
Yes and no. For a revolver, even with speed loaders, absolutely, but for a semi-auto, it can be carried with the slide locked back in some holsters. At that point, it can very quickly become loaded and chambered.
Remember... there is no restriction on carrying ammo for the gun that you are UOC (provided that the loaded magazines are not themselves concealed).
I've heard reference to "The Right People" now several times. Who are these "right people"?
Calguns Foundation. Bill, Gene, Kevin, Ben, etc....