PDA

View Full Version : CGF Volunteer Education


E Pluribus Unum
02-10-2011, 11:51 PM
I want to say that I had a wonderful time with all of my Calguns brethren over the last few days at the World Ag Show. There were a lot of knowledgeable people there and everyone helped; it was awesome to see the interest in our cause! :) Greasemonkey and Wildhalker deserve a copious amount of Kudos for organizing a great event!

I do see an area where we volunteers can improve in order to better serve these people. I think we need to standardize what we tell people at events. I would love to have an internal CGF "memo" that lists the foundation's official stance on some things. For example, in addition to the thousands of correct, awesome statements that were made to show goers, I did here some common FUD:

"..in order to transport a handgun in a vehicle, the ammunition and firearm must be in a separate compartment..." (12020)

"..in order to carry a `concealable firearm' in your vehicle, it must be in a locked case..." (12025)

".. while transporting a handgun in your vehicle, you must be going to or from a shooting place..." (12026.1 12026.2)

"you can only use or possess high capacity magazines if you owned them prior to the ban (2001)" (12020)

Every single one of these statements is false; they are full of half-truths. While those practices may be illegal in many scenarios, or following that advise may be prudent, making these statements is not true in all scenarios.

I did not want to step on any toes, so I said nothing when I heard these things. I implore fellow volunteers to read the CGF wiki link ENTIRELY before EVERY event they volunteer at. Consider this part of your volunteer time; it is very important that the information we disseminate to the public is true, and accurate in every way.

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


In all, I had a great time, and as was said at the event... "Our group can do ANYTHING.

CHS
02-11-2011, 7:29 AM
When talking to the general public, I like to give them the shortest and easiest to understand answer that is also "legally safest".

So for example, I wouldn't have said:
"..in order to transport a handgun in a vehicle, the ammunition and firearm must be in a separate compartment..." (12020)

But I probably would have said:
"you can only use or possess high capacity magazines if you owned them prior to the ban (2001)" (12020)

Or:
"..in order to carry a `concealable firearm' in your vehicle, it must be in a locked case..." (12025)

Not because they are factually correct (obviously, they aren't), but to fully explain them you must start listing the exceptions and rules and the next thing you know you're fully explaining the PC without really giving the person the answer they were looking for.

If I tell someone that they must transport handguns unloaded in locked containers, they will probably never ever have a misunderstanding with the cops.

If I start telling someone about open carry, school zones, etc, then the REAL answer gets lost in the noise of confusion and the public walks away going 'What the hell did he say again?', leading to a possible arrest later on (transporting guns unlocked through school zones, ex).

Same goes with magazines.

When you start explaining all the nuances of the law, they can get confused and might latch onto the legally correct statement of "It's legal to own and use post-2001 high capacity magazines". Then they go out to Arizona and buy a bunch and import them into California, committing a felony.

If the person you're talking to takes an honest and genuine interest in the ACTUAL laws nuances, then by all means give them the whole skinny and try to make them understand what's legal and what's not.

But if someone just comes up to me and asks "So how do I drive around with a handgun in my car?" I'm going to tell them "Unloaded and in a locked container". It's the answer they are looking for an it's legally safest.

PolishMike
02-11-2011, 7:35 AM
You have to cater what you are saying to your audience.

dantodd
02-11-2011, 8:22 AM
There are stop few situations in which you can get away with a handgun NOT in a locked case that conveying all the issues one would need to be familiar with would be more confusing.

Same for large capacity magazines. "you must have had them before the ban, unless you decide to break the law, in which case you get away after 3 years, but never admit to anything if a cop arrests/questions you. While factual and pertinent in a legal discussion in an educational environment it sounds a bit like advice to break the law.

CHS
02-11-2011, 11:03 AM
You have to cater what you are saying to your audience.

Exactly my point :)

Though this is a good thread to discuss outright FUD or bad information like these lines:

"..in order to transport a handgun in a vehicle, the ammunition and firearm must be in a separate compartment..." (12020)

".. while transporting a handgun in your vehicle, you must be going to or from a shooting place..." (12026.1 12026.2)

Those are just wrong, and no Calgunner should be caught saying things like that while representing the CGF or CGN.

We are supposed to know better.

E Pluribus Unum
02-11-2011, 11:05 AM
When talking to the general public, I like to give them the shortest and easiest to understand answer that is also "legally safest".

So for example, I wouldn't have said:
"..in order to transport a handgun in a vehicle, the ammunition and firearm must be in a separate compartment..." (12020)

But I probably would have said:
"you can only use or possess high capacity magazines if you owned them prior to the ban (2001)" (12020)

Or:
"..in order to carry a `concealable firearm' in your vehicle, it must be in a locked case..." (12025)

Not because they are factually correct (obviously, they aren't), but to fully explain them you must start listing the exceptions and rules and the next thing you know you're fully explaining the PC without really giving the person the answer they were looking for.

If I tell someone that they must transport handguns unloaded in locked containers, they will probably never ever have a misunderstanding with the cops.

If I start telling someone about open carry, school zones, etc, then the REAL answer gets lost in the noise of confusion and the public walks away going 'What the hell did he say again?', leading to a possible arrest later on (transporting guns unlocked through school zones, ex).

Same goes with magazines.

When you start explaining all the nuances of the law, they can get confused and might latch onto the legally correct statement of "It's legal to own and use post-2001 high capacity magazines". Then they go out to Arizona and buy a bunch and import them into California, committing a felony.

If the person you're talking to takes an honest and genuine interest in the ACTUAL laws nuances, then by all means give them the whole skinny and try to make them understand what's legal and what's not.

But if someone just comes up to me and asks "So how do I drive around with a handgun in my car?" I'm going to tell them "Unloaded and in a locked container". It's the answer they are looking for an it's legally safest.

There are stop few situations in which you can get away with a handgun NOT in a locked case that conveying all the issues one would need to be familiar with would be more confusing.

Same for large capacity magazines. "you must have had them before the ban, unless you decide to break the law, in which case you get away after 3 years, but never admit to anything if a cop arrests/questions you. While factual and pertinent in a legal discussion in an educational environment it sounds a bit like advice to break the law.


The issue I have with it is that people are coming to us for information. We either need to give them the correct information, or tell them "it's complicated".

Making statements that are not true because it is "simpler" than what the law says just makes no sense to me.

If you think about it, in those situations, informing them of the law correctly is not that complicated.


"..in order to transport a handgun in a vehicle, the ammunition and firearm must be in a separate compartment..." (12020)

In this scenario, this statement is just absolutely false. The correct statement is "In order for a firearm to be considered loaded, there must be a round in the chamber, or a loaded magazine in the magazine well; anything else is unloaded".


"..in order to carry a `concealable firearm' in your vehicle, it must be in a locked case..." (12025)

This should have been:

"You can carry your handgun to and from the range in a locked case, or you can carry it openly as long as you are not within 1000 feet of a school."

Remember, the statement is wrong not only because of excluding the open carry exception, but because when one is carrying a handgun in a locked case, concealed, there are location requirements in 12026.1 and 12026.2. One cannot simply drive around town with a concealed handgun case. They can, however, drive around town with it in the open, provided they avoid schools. So you see, the law is very complicated. Advising someone that they can carry their handgun in a locked case without mentioning the restrictions is inviting someone to break the law too.

".. while transporting a handgun in your vehicle, you must be going to or from a shooting place..."

There are many exceptions to this, the biggest of which is unconcealed open carry in a vehicle.

"you can only use or possess high capacity magazines if you owned them prior to the ban (2001)" (12020)

We've all gone around and around about the high capacity magazines. Some people hate them, others love them. Regardless of which side you are on, this statement is absolutely false no matter which way you look at it. I think the message to the public should be a very simple statement:

"using high capacity magazines is always legal in a featureless gun- it is illegal to buy, trade, loan, give, or manufacture them"

That statement is factual, and it is simple.

Regardless of where CGF stands on these issues, I think that uniformity is important. If a person comes to the booth and asks one of the common questions, they should get the same exact answer today that they received yesterday. I would love to see a pamphlet that addresses handgun transportation, high capacity magazines, et cetera; it is a very common question and I think there should be a standard "cookie cutter" response.

chief003
02-11-2011, 2:32 PM
I agree that California firearms laws are overly complex. They can turn an otherwise well intentioned community member into an uninformed criminal.

As an example, just this afternoon my father, who was a peace officer 40 years, made the statement that firearms and ammunition need to be stored in separate containers when transported in a vehicle. He thought he was right...was sure of it...but as we know, he was not.

How the laws are shared with the general public matters. Keep it simple without initial discussion of the nuances and intricacies we debate here. Joe Citizen who asks a question needs to know enough to firmly stay on the ‘right’ side of the law. Turn them onto Calguns to learn the exceptions, therefore and what ifs of the topics we discuss until the small hours of the morning

Thank you,

Chief003

wildhawker
02-11-2011, 3:36 PM
The issue is that we cannot give specific legal advice, but we can tell people what the law (and caselaw) says (or an accurate summary/analysis - for example, the flowchart). The best policy is to provide them with the tools and walk them through the steps of determining the appropriate outcome for their facts.

KISS is important.

E Pluribus Unum
02-11-2011, 4:39 PM
The issue is that we cannot give specific legal advice, but we can tell people what the law (and caselaw) says (or an accurate summary/analysis - for example, the flowchart). The best policy is to provide them with the tools and walk them through the steps of determining the appropriate outcome for their facts.

KISS is important.

No doubt that KISS is very important; one should not need to be an attorney to understand it.

That being said, giving "simple" advise that could cause someone to break the law is bad ju ju too.

If you tell someone "In order to carry a gun in your vehicle, it must be in a locked case..." without telling them the restriction that they must be going to and from specific locations might lead someone to throw his pistol case in the car and drive around with it at all times.

I would love to see a "flow chart type" self-help brochure made covering handgun transportation. At the very least, make sure volunteers are all on the same page, making the same statements.

Fish
02-11-2011, 4:59 PM
If you tell someone "In order to carry a gun in your vehicle, it must be in a locked case..." without telling them the restriction that they must be going to and from specific locations might lead someone to throw his pistol case in the car and drive around with it at all times.


Er... doesn't 12026.1 (or whatever the new number is) allow you to do exactly this?

E Pluribus Unum
02-11-2011, 5:27 PM
Er... doesn't 12026.1 (or whatever the new number is) allow you to do exactly this?

Yes. The issue is the "must".

You may carry a concealed weapon within a vehicle provided that it is in a locked container and it is to and from a specific location (shooting range, et cetera). This only applies to concealed weapons.

Weapons on the back seat in plain view can be carried without a locked case outside school zones.

Fish
02-11-2011, 8:34 PM
You may carry a concealed weapon within a vehicle provided that it is in a locked container and it is to and from a specific location (shooting range, et cetera).


I am not a lawyer, so perhaps someone on the forum who is can tell me if and why my understanding of the law is incorrect.

We're talking about PC. 12025, the relevant part of which says:

12025. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following:
(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.


12026.1 and 12026.2 create exceptions to 12025. 12026.2 is the one that lists 20 specific purpose exceptions: target range, purchase, repair, motion picture, etc. I think that's the one you're referring to when you say it must be directly to or from a specific location.

12026.1 creates an entirely separate exception to 12025. 12026.1 reads, in relevant part:

12026.1. (a) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not 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, from transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than the utility or glove compartment.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm, the firearm is contained within a locked container.


AIUI, this creates a completely separate and independent exception from the one created in 12026.2, one that only depends (1) and (2) and has nothing to do with the list of specific purposes created by 12026.2.

So, suppose I take a gun that I have in my house, unload it and lock it in a gun case. I carry it from my home directly to my car. I leave it locked in its case in the back seat of my car for three months as I go about my normal business. I then take it to the shooting range, and back to my car. I leave it in my car (unloaded in its locked container) for another three months and then take it back into to my house.

I submit that I have stayed completely within the 12026.1 exception this entire time. The entire time the gun was in a locked container in my car it was covered by paragraph (1), and therefore lawful. In carrying it directly between my house, my car, and the range I have been within the bounds of (2), as each time I was carrying the gun I was carrying it for a lawful purpose. 12026.1(a)(1) provides no time limit for how long the gun may be in my car (it doesn't say "directly"), and 12026.1(a)(2) does not impose any limitations on the purpose for which I am carrying it as long as that purpose (in other words, what I'm going to do with the gun when I get done carrying it) is lawful.

Am I mistaken? If so, why?

E Pluribus Unum
02-11-2011, 8:53 PM
I am not a lawyer, so perhaps someone on the forum who is can tell me if and why my understanding of the law is incorrect.

We're talking about PC. 12025, the relevant part of which says:



12026.1 and 12026.2 create exceptions to 12025. 12026.2 is the one that lists 20 specific purpose exceptions: target range, purchase, repair, motion picture, etc. I think that's the one you're referring to when you say it must be directly to or from a specific location.

12026.1 creates an entirely separate exception to 12025. 12026.1 reads, in relevant part:


AIUI, this creates a completely separate and independent exception from the one created in 12026.2, one that only depends (1) and (2) and has nothing to do with the list of specific purposes created by 12026.2.

So, suppose I take a gun that I have in my house, unload it and lock it in a gun case. I carry it from my home directly to my car. I leave it locked in its case in the back seat of my car for three months as I go about my normal business. I then take it to the shooting range, and back to my car. I leave it in my car (unloaded in its locked container) for another three months and then take it back into to my house.

I submit that I have stayed completely within the 12026.1 exception this entire time. The entire time the gun was in a locked container in my car it was covered by paragraph (1), and therefore lawful. In carrying it directly between my house, my car, and the range I have been within the bounds of (2), as each time I was carrying the gun I was carrying it for a lawful purpose. 12026.1(a)(1) provides no time limit for how long the gun may be in my car (it doesn't say "directly"), and 12026.1(a)(2) does not impose any limitations on the purpose for which I am carrying it as long as that purpose (in other words, what I'm going to do with the gun when I get done carrying it) is lawful.

Am I mistaken? If so, why?

As I understand the sections, and I understand your scenario, I believe you are correct.

The issue you run into would be if you kept it in your car, and went on a Sunday drive. If I read the statutes correctly, the purpose is to allow one the ability to transport a firearm in their vehicle for a specific purpose; they do not want you and I to have a firearm in the vehicle at all times for personal defense.

MP301
02-11-2011, 10:18 PM
Here is another thread I found on this issue...

And to reinforce the OP's conclusion that 12026.1 and 12026.2 are separate from each other, 12026.2 includes:

Quote:
If you are exempt from 12025 by way of 12026.1, then 12026.2(c) specifically states that it does not limit you any further.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=133364