PDA

View Full Version : Carry on Campus in CA - things we don't have to fight


hoffmang
06-10-2011, 6:53 PM
Lots of folks complain about how bad we have it here in California so I want to point out one of the not so obvious benefits of California.

The reason there is no big fight about carrying on college campuses in California is that we already can.

Anyone with a 12050 permit can carry anywhere on a public college campus due to the exemption in PC 626.9 (l) (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Gun_Free_School_Zones) and Government Code 53071 (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/State_Preemption_of_Some_Gun_Regulation).

Unlike Nevada (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/8183c1dc09ed459f8adfb16610f108fe/NV--Campus-Carry/), Colorado (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=442557), Texas (http://www.americanindependent.com/184958/wentworth-campus-carry-legislation-texas), Louisiana (http://www.2theadvocate.com/blogs/politicsblog/122972148.html), or Arizona (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-19/news/29470025_1_gun-rights-advocates-gun-owners-second-amendment-rights), we will not have to fight to have the right to bear arms on or through a public college campus.

It's but one of the reasons that CGF is respecting the California Legislature's wishes that we all get 12050 permits. As a strategy, constitutionalizing (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Richards_v._Prieto) that process automatically gets us campus carry too.

For example, all Sacramentans can carry at Sac State, UCSF or UCLA.

As a side note, if we went after LOC first, then the UC's could stop us all from carrying on those campuses...

-Gene

mag360
06-10-2011, 7:06 PM
Wish i'd gotten my Sac CCW before I was in LA by UCLA this weekend. I would have been more likely to see some sights in some of the less desirable areas of los angeles.

Connor P Price
06-10-2011, 7:06 PM
Important to note that doing so would result in expulsion for students on many campuses throughout the state.

hoffmang
06-10-2011, 7:17 PM
Important to note that doing so would result in expulsion for students on many campuses throughout the state.

If the school is public, it would be illegal for them to expel you if you had a 12050 permit. Private schools are different.

-Gene

rkt88edmo
06-10-2011, 7:48 PM
The deuce you say!

pitchbaby
06-10-2011, 7:48 PM
Not that it helps me personally, but I am glad to have this clarification anyway. Thanks Gene!

Window_Seat
06-10-2011, 7:49 PM
Good points, but is this something that puts a barrier in front of a 626.9 challenge?

Erik.

hoffmang
06-10-2011, 7:57 PM
Good points, but is this something that puts a barrier in front of a 626.9 challenge?

Why challenge 626.9 if you have a permit and a win leaves you still having to challenge the federal ban too?

And don't think that campus PD's wouldn't try to enforce the federal ban...

-Gene

Connor P Price
06-10-2011, 8:09 PM
If the school is public, it would be illegal for them to expel you if you had a 12050 permit. Private schools are different.

-Gene

True. This still irks me though. Many of the best schools in the country are private schools and I don't think people should have to choose between going to a private school that might be better than any public schools they were accepted to which would require them to be defenseless, or possibly going to a lesser school to be able to defend themselves.

The libertarian in me wants private business to be able to dictate what is allowed on their premises which should logically include schools. However I just can't help but feel that students should have the right to go to the best school they can get into and shouldn't have to be defenseless to do so. There my emotions go getting in the way of my rationality again!

Does anyone think we should have protection for 12050 holders at private schools to? Not that our legislature would ever pass something like that. (Gene, if you think I'm derailing the thread to much let me know and I'll start a new one for this discussion.)

wellerjohn
06-10-2011, 8:16 PM
True. This still irks me though. Many of the best schools in the country are private schools and I don't think people should have to choose between going to a private school that might be better than any public schools they were accepted to which would require them to be defenseless, or possibly going to a lesser school to be able to defend themselves.

The libertarian in me wants private business to be able to dictate what is allowed on their premises which should logically include schools. However I just can't help but feel that students should have the right to go to the best school they can get into and shouldn't have to be defenseless to do so. There my emotions go getting in the way of my rationality again!

Does anyone think we should have protection for 12050 holders at private schools to? Not that our legislature would ever pass something like that. (Gene, if you think I'm derailing the thread to much let me know and I'll start a new one for this discussion.)

Focus on the big picture, if you need the gun then being expelled will be the least of your worries. Keep it concealed properly and know one will know, except you.

riprap
06-10-2011, 8:18 PM
Sticky!

kln5
06-10-2011, 8:26 PM
On the back of my permit it has six restrictions.

#6. On any school grounds.

These were put on by the sheriff on the back of the permit.
Do I loose that exemption?

Uriah02
06-10-2011, 8:28 PM
Sticky?

Paul S
06-10-2011, 8:40 PM
On the back of my permit it has six restrictions.

#6. On any school grounds.

These were put on by the sheriff on the back of the permit.
Do I loose that exemption?

I believe...and I'm open to correction on this....you could not be prosecuted
on the issue...but you dang sure would have that permit revoked. My Fresno permit has a similar restriction as well as others. They are noted with red ink via a rubber stamp on the back of the permit.

When my son was playing H.S. basketball I was about ready to march into the gym and realized I was still armed. I approached one the the officers, explained and asked if I could put my pistol in the trunk of his cruiser? He said yes and all was well. Don't think that would happen today.

hoffmang
06-10-2011, 8:52 PM
On the back of my permit it has six restrictions.

#6. On any school grounds.

These were put on by the sheriff on the back of the permit.
Do I loose that exemption?

Before we're done with the carry cases, crap like that can be on your permit. After - not so much.

-Gene

Dreaded Claymore
06-10-2011, 9:15 PM
I could hardly believe it when, after very careful reading of the law, I discovered that CCW on campus was legal. I even asked the Chief of Police of the campus police to make sure, and he said, yeah, it was legal. (This was before I found out that police are often bad at knowing the law. (No offense, LEOs, firearms law is insanely complicated and you probably don't know it all if you aren't a gun nerd.))

MountainMike
06-10-2011, 9:38 PM
True. This still irks me though. Many of the best schools in the country are private schools and I don't think people should have to choose between going to a private school that might be better than any public schools they were accepted to which would require them to be defenseless, or possibly going to a lesser school to be able to defend themselves.

The libertarian in me wants private business to be able to dictate what is allowed on their premises which should logically include schools. However I just can't help but feel that students should have the right to go to the best school they can get into and shouldn't have to be defenseless to do so. There my emotions go getting in the way of my rationality again!

Does anyone think we should have protection for 12050 holders at private schools to? Not that our legislature would ever pass something like that. (Gene, if you think I'm derailing the thread to much let me know and I'll start a new one for this discussion.)
I believe you are overlooking a fundamental responsibility of the government in that it exists to ensure the rights of the citizenry are not infringed upon by anyone. This would include private organizations.

Gene,
Rumor has it Monterey County will be shall issue so I have only recently come to realize California is much friendlier toward possessors of a CCP than most of the free states and I thank you for the additional information. I'm out of school and I don't patronize any of the local watering holes but it is nice to know.

Funtimes
06-10-2011, 9:43 PM
Before we're done with the carry cases, crap like that can be on your permit. After - not so much.

-Gene

Wouldn't it be pre-empted by CA state law? I mean if they can say no schools, can't they just say no starbucks or public gatherings.

Muzz
06-10-2011, 9:58 PM
Shhhhh! Nobody tell DeLeon...he'll lose sleep until he drafts a bill to close this horrible public safety loophole.

wildhawker
06-10-2011, 10:02 PM
I'm not hearing shall-issue; Monterey isn't accepting applications at all right now.

-Brandon

I believe you are overlooking a fundamental responsibility of the government in that it exists to ensure the rights of the citizenry are not infringed upon by anyone. This would include private organizations.

Gene,
Rumor has it Monterey County will be shall issue so I have only recently come to realize California is much friendlier toward possessors of a CCP than most of the free states and I thank you for the additional information. I'm out of school and I don't patronize any of the local watering holes but it is nice to know.

Ubermcoupe
06-10-2011, 10:07 PM
... public safety loophole.

Not the loophole... :eek:

CenterX
06-10-2011, 10:15 PM
Gene - Excellent clarification and reminder.
And, nice to know that the restrictions are being challenged.
I've often wondered if a CCW without restrictions packing in a county with restrictions would get a bum wrap for infringing one of the unknown "special" county restrictions.
Any insight on this would be great.

Kid Stanislaus
06-10-2011, 10:19 PM
Wish i'd gotten my Sac CCW before I was in LA by UCLA this weekend. I would have been more likely to see some sights in some of the less desirable areas of los angeles.

I won't go anywhere WITH my gun (and CCW) that I wouldn't go WITHOUT it.

MountainMike
06-10-2011, 10:22 PM
I'm not hearing shall-issue; Monterey isn't accepting applications at all right now.

-Brandon

Rumor has it Monterey County will be shall issue...Our current county sheriff promised self defense is an acceptable good cause statement in his campagine. He has yet to deliver on that promise but word has it the Sherrif's Office is establishing an application process. But now we are derailing the thread.

Window_Seat
06-10-2011, 10:31 PM
Why challenge 626.9 if you have a permit and a win leaves you still having to challenge the federal ban too?

And don't think that campus PD's wouldn't try to enforce the federal ban...

-Gene

Ahh... TRY... A loaded term... :p

I'm certain that they would (trust me, I'm certain, and there's a reason I'm so certain that Campus PD would [try to] enforce the federal ban), so which gets challenged first, 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A), or CA PC 626.9, or concomitant in different districts?

A DA would pursue a CCWless conviction for violating GFSZ, even after a good shoot, would s/he not, which is why the 2 GFSZ challenges deserve priority (after Richards & Peruta), no?

"Zone" was not mentioned in the Heller sensitive places holding, so why should it not be a matter of when for both, and very close together?

Erik.

Anchors
06-10-2011, 10:37 PM
We also don't have "stop and id" or relinquishing legally CCW'd firearms to LE during traffic stops do we?

Can't you also carry in bars/open liqour retailers here??

Those are other advantages you guys have over AZ if you can actually get a permit.

Librarian
06-10-2011, 11:25 PM
Gene - Excellent clarification and reminder.
And, nice to know that the restrictions are being challenged.
I've often wondered if a CCW without restrictions packing in a county with restrictions would get a bum wrap for infringing one of the unknown "special" county restrictions.
Any insight on this would be great.

The law reads that any restrictions on CCW must be on the face of the license.

Restrictions NOT on yours, because it comes from a different issuing agency, do not apply to you.

safewaysecurity
06-10-2011, 11:40 PM
Also courthouse carry

hoffmang
06-10-2011, 11:49 PM
Ahh... TRY... A loaded term... :p

I'm certain that they would (trust me, I'm certain, and there's a reason I'm so certain that Campus PD would [try to] enforce the federal ban), so which gets challenged first, 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A), or CA PC 626.9, or concomitant in different districts?

A DA would pursue a CCWless conviction for violating GFSZ, even after a good shoot, would s/he not, which is why the 2 GFSZ challenges deserve priority (after Richards & Peruta), no?

"Zone" was not mentioned in the Heller sensitive places holding, so why should it not be a matter of when for both, and very close together?
No.

If you have a 12050 permit you are exempt from both the state and federal GFSZ. Why pick fights one doesn't have to. Let's get 12050 permits and ignore both GFSZ acts.
We also don't have "stop and id" or relinquishing legally CCW'd firearms to LE during traffic stops do we?

Can't you also carry in bars/open liqour retailers here??

Those are other advantages you guys have over AZ if you can actually get a permit.
Though I don't recommend it, you can carry with a BAC of .12 in California, in a bar...

-Gene

thefinger
06-11-2011, 1:21 AM
You have no idea how many of my LEO friends deny that there is an exception for 12050 permit holders in 626.9. They always like to argue with me until I email them the PC text. The argument usually doesn't last long after that, hehe.

ldivinag
06-11-2011, 2:56 AM
on CSU campuses, as a staff or faculty, you can be FIRED if found with a weapon, LEGAL or not.

and in my case, even a legal 3" folding knife... (stupid head of HR...)

Gray Peterson
06-11-2011, 7:14 AM
on CSU campuses, as a staff or faculty, you can be FIRED if found with a weapon, LEGAL or not.

and in my case, even a legal 3" folding knife... (stupid head of HR...)

Gene's trying to tell you that if your firearm is on a PC12050 license, terminating you would be a violation of state law. Folding knives have nothing to do with it.

His legal reasoning is correct, given the language of Fiscal.

I open carry
06-11-2011, 8:03 AM
Gene, Grey,
This begs a question.

If, upon being hired, or enrolled into a state college, the person knowingly signs the contract with the language in it that states that "he/she will be fired/expelled if found with a firearm on his/her person .... etc"
How would this not be a legal means to fire/expel that person? Just because they have a CCW.

I agree with you about the GFSZ's and being convicted with that crime. It should not be a legal issue.
However, you are bound by the contract you sign upon being hired. Are you not?

Gene, from your link... "A PC 12050/26150 CCW allows permit holders to legally carry their listed handguns on both K-12 and college/university properties and campuses. That does not insulate a licensed student or employee of a school from administrative or job disciplinary action if the school prohibits carry for those groups."

Gray Peterson
06-11-2011, 8:12 AM
Gene, Grey,
This begs a question.

If, upon being hired, or enrolled into a state college, the person knowingly signs the contract with the language in it that states that "he/she will be fired/expelled if found with a firearm on his/her person .... etc"
How would this not be a legal means to fire/expel that person? Just because they have a CCW.

I agree with you about the GFSZ's and being convicted with that crime. It should not be a legal issue.
However, you are bound by the contract you sign upon being hired. Are you not?

Contracts do not override state law. State agencies, local governments, and districts may not regulate in any manner the possession of PC12050 licensed pistols, revolvers, or other firearms, PERIOD.

The link he gives with the descriptor was written before the full analysis of Fiscal applicability to state agencies and districts were determined. Fiscal was decided in 2008. That writing and understanding was pre-Fiscal.

Though I'm going even more out on a limb here, but I do not believe that the sheriff's have the authority to ban carry on schools and college campuses using a facial restriction on the license themselves. Again, Fiscal applies to the actions of the sheriff's in their licensing authority (local government). The Legislature has determined that PC12050 licenses shall be exempt from the state GFSZA's in it's entirety, and for the sheriff's to frustrate the legislature's intent is not an appropriate time/place/manner restrictions. Remember that we're not dealing with constitutionality, we're dealing with pure matters of state law so therefor the constitutional question of "time/place/manner" restrictions of where someone can and cannot carry, and the dicta that Heller said about schools is not applicable here.

E Pluribus Unum
06-11-2011, 8:19 AM
on CSU campuses, as a staff or faculty, you can be FIRED if found with a weapon, LEGAL or not.

and in my case, even a legal 3" folding knife... (stupid head of HR...)

You were not fired for that; that was just the reason they used.

I open carry
06-11-2011, 8:21 AM
Then, if that is the case, I believe it is time to re-write the link. Sense it was on Cal-guns blog that he linked.

Otherwise, Cal guns is spreading some bad advice. Don't you think?

I am all for the truth to get out. I just want to make sure that it is the truth. We have the same people saying two different things. This just does not look professional.

Gray Peterson
06-11-2011, 8:42 AM
Then, if that is the case, I believe it is time to re-write the link. Sense it was on Cal-guns blog that he linked.

Otherwise, Cal guns is spreading some bad advice. Don't you think?

I am all for the truth to get out. I just want to make sure that it is the truth. We have the same people saying two different things. This just does not look professional.

A few things:

A) It's a wiki, not a blog.
B) The CGF wiki was defaced a few weeks ago and as a result the page is in a lockdown status and inaccessible. I don't even think Gene has access to it at the moment. That being said, I am not sure of his capacity to make that statement, if he was saying in his personal capacity or as chairman of the CGF board. Altering the wiki with that determination and removing such a line could require board approval, unlike amending a legal case wiki like my case. Until that is the case, don't you think it's safer, from an official standpoint, to say "You can be disciplined" in the "official" source to keep people out of trouble?
C) Yes, Gene's contention is that not only is it lawful to carry on a college campus, that you cannot be disciplined as an employee or suspended/expelled/punished as a student because of the preemptive effect of the Fiscal decision as the colleges are state agencies. Here is what he didn't say: Start carrying and challenge the policies. Do not do this at the moment. We have numerous allies on the college campuses who can do this battle with the proper application of legal force assistance from CGF, and who are also tenure protected too so they can't get fired for filing a writ of mandate against the college....

Window_Seat
06-11-2011, 8:45 AM
No.

If you have a 12050 permit you are exempt from both the state and federal GFSZ. Why pick fights one doesn't have to. Let's get 12050 permits and ignore both GFSZ acts.

Though I don't recommend it, you can carry with a BAC of .12 in California, in a bar...

-Gene

I finally get to disagree with you for once on principle, LOL... :hide:

What's that saying or statement about how one wasn't attacked while his neighbors were, so that person didn't rise up, and now that person is not with us?

I might have my 12050 permit thanks to the tireless work of CGF, SAF, CRPA and NRA, but that person who has been subjugated to a frivolous DVRO may not ever be able to get one, so they are going to always be bound and controlled by that zone regulation which is prohibitory... We might be able to help that person (who could genuinely need a CCW because of threats of stalking, past violent confrontations, etc.) successfully challenge h/er denial, but meanwhile... We talk not so favorably about UOC, but some hands are just tied too tightly.

I respect any decision to, or not to take on a challenge, but I for one would like to see this be challenged (in the right posture, of course) AFTER the other more priority based challenges are either won or settled in the courts.

I'm able to wait the entire :twoweeks: if that's what it takes, but IF 626.9 doesn't get challenged at all, it will be a precursor to not just legislation increasing the zone to 1500' like now, but one day, 2000', then 5280', then 5280 miles.

It's already been settled that our Legislature will NOT change their attitude, and because of that, everything that equates to what is considered a chilling of the right outside the home in non-sensitive areas MUST BE CHALLENGED, but again, in the right posture with the right attitude. Please don't take this as my going GOA (as in the no compromise, get rid of all 20,000+ GC regs RIGHT NOW), it's just something that has always been on my wish list.

Otherwise, I'll still be donating to CGF (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate) when (not if) able to, and supporting the CCW Sunshine Initiative (http://www.cgfstore.org/). Like I said, and I not just respect wholeheartedly, CGFs decisions, but I support them too, but this will be on my mind always.

Erik.

Stonewalker
06-11-2011, 10:29 AM
Lots of folks complain about how bad we have it here in California so I want to point out one of the not so obvious benefits of California.

The reason there is no big fight about carrying on college campuses in California is that we already can.

Anyone with a 12050 permit can carry anywhere on a public college campus due to the exemption in PC 626.9 (l) (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Gun_Free_School_Zones) and Government Code 53071 (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/State_Preemption_of_Some_Gun_Regulation).

Unlike Nevada (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/8183c1dc09ed459f8adfb16610f108fe/NV--Campus-Carry/), Colorado (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=442557), Texas (http://www.americanindependent.com/184958/wentworth-campus-carry-legislation-texas), Louisiana (http://www.2theadvocate.com/blogs/politicsblog/122972148.html), or Arizona (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-19/news/29470025_1_gun-rights-advocates-gun-owners-second-amendment-rights), we will not have to fight to have the right to bear arms on or through a public college campus.

It's but one of the reasons that CGF is respecting the California Legislature's wishes that we all get 12050 permits. As a strategy, constitutionalizing (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Richards_v._Prieto) that process automatically gets us campus carry too.

For example, all Sacramentans can carry at Sac State, UCSF or UCLA.

As a side note, if we went after LOC first, then the UC's could stop us all from carrying on those campuses...

-Gene

But Gene, all you CGF guys care about is CCW cases. You don't want other people jumping in on your action. You know... for the money. You think OC is dumb and you are all just cowards who aren't willing to practice your constitutional right. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DUH...

At least that's what I heard on another forum, so it must be true :rolleyes:

hoffmang
06-11-2011, 10:31 AM
Gene, from your link... "A PC 12050/26150 CCW allows permit holders to legally carry their listed handguns on both K-12 and college/university properties and campuses. That does not insulate a licensed student or employee of a school from administrative or job disciplinary action if the school prohibits carry for those groups."
Today, before we have carry as a recognized right, you can get in trouble for carrying on a university campus as a student or faculty. 12050 permit holders do have a pretty darn good state statutory defense. Once we have bear from SCOTUS, things change radically. A university as employer might have the ability to restrict an employee's gun carrying as an employer, but that's going to be analyzed like speech restrictions. A public university in California can not (absent changing the Penal Code or Government Code) penalize you for exercising your fundamental rights and your state statutory privilege vested via your 12050 permit.

I might have my 12050 permit thanks to the tireless work of CGF, SAF, CRPA and NRA, but that person who has been subjugated to a frivolous DVRO may not ever be able to get one, so they are going to always be bound and controlled by that zone regulation which is prohibitory...

Why not just fix the stupid DVRO stuff instead of fretting? The problem is with the way the restraining orders are granted - not with the manner of carry. If you get hit with an RO, you aren't going to be able to carry any gun, much less possess it.

-Gene

dantodd
06-11-2011, 10:48 AM
Erik,

If CGF ignores the CFSZ situation it doesn't mean our won't be addressed. A successful challenge if the fed. statute in a constitutional carry state would essentially kill the CA law.

Werewolf1021
06-11-2011, 11:00 AM
Wait. Public college's cant expel you for carrying a legal ccw with a permit?

:43::43::43:


So, what would happen if they tried? Would you have to sue?

Andy Taylor
06-11-2011, 11:20 AM
You have no idea how many of my LEO friends deny that there is an exception for 12050 permit holders in 626.9. They always like to argue with me until I email them the PC text. The argument usually doesn't last long after that, hehe.

A friend and I just did that with a Twin Rivers School District officer.

hoffmang
06-11-2011, 11:26 AM
Wait. Public college's cant expel you for carrying a legal ccw with a permit?

:43::43::43:


So, what would happen if they tried? Would you have to sue?

You would show them the law. If they went through with it, you'd contact e.g. CGF and we'd help you sue. Be clear that you have to have a 12050 Permit.

-Gene

Catechol
06-11-2011, 4:24 PM
Lots of folks complain about how bad we have it here in California so I want to point out one of the not so obvious benefits of California.

The reason there is no big fight about carrying on college campuses in California is that we already can.

Anyone with a 12050 permit can carry anywhere on a public college campus due to the exemption in PC 626.9 (l) (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Gun_Free_School_Zones) and Government Code 53071 (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/State_Preemption_of_Some_Gun_Regulation).

Unlike Nevada (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/8183c1dc09ed459f8adfb16610f108fe/NV--Campus-Carry/), Colorado (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=442557), Texas (http://www.americanindependent.com/184958/wentworth-campus-carry-legislation-texas), Louisiana (http://www.2theadvocate.com/blogs/politicsblog/122972148.html), or Arizona (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-19/news/29470025_1_gun-rights-advocates-gun-owners-second-amendment-rights), we will not have to fight to have the right to bear arms on or through a public college campus.

It's a misconception that Arizona criminal statues prohibit college carry. ARS 13-3102 (the applicable statute) only has a prohibition against K-12 carry. College carry is "illegal" by order of the Arizona Board of Regents, but only applies to those subject to sanctions by ABOR, such as students, faculty, staff, and alumni. There are no criminal penalties for the possession of a firearm by anyone not a prohibited person, on a college campus in AZ. College students in AZ -- unlike the other states mentioned -- are free to carry on campus without fear of prosecution so long as they do not violate any other provision of law.

Anchors
06-11-2011, 7:28 PM
Though I don't recommend it, you can carry with a BAC of .12 in California, in a bar...

-Gene

I don't go to bars or drink at all, which is why it annoys me even more that I can't carry in AZ restaurants that serve alcohol. I have the CCW permit in route to solve that though, but still.

Also, California not having the "opt out" signs with the force of the law is a bonus in my opinion...many here disagree and support the business owners rights. I agree that they should be able to ask me to leave, but the opt out sign is too much imo.

paul0660
06-11-2011, 7:42 PM
Also courthouse carry

Kind of random input, Safeway, but actually permitted CCW carry is only illegal in Federal courts. Otherwise, the only restriction is for parties of an action being heard........they may not carry.

mossy
06-11-2011, 7:54 PM
Lots of folks complain about how bad we have it here in California so I want to point out one of the not so obvious benefits of California.

The reason there is no big fight about carrying on college campuses in California is that we already can.

Anyone with a 12050 permit can carry anywhere on a public college campus due to the exemption in PC 626.9 (l) (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Gun_Free_School_Zones) and Government Code 53071 (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/State_Preemption_of_Some_Gun_Regulation).

Unlike Nevada (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/8183c1dc09ed459f8adfb16610f108fe/NV--Campus-Carry/), Colorado (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=442557), Texas (http://www.americanindependent.com/184958/wentworth-campus-carry-legislation-texas), Louisiana (http://www.2theadvocate.com/blogs/politicsblog/122972148.html), or Arizona (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-19/news/29470025_1_gun-rights-advocates-gun-owners-second-amendment-rights), we will not have to fight to have the right to bear arms on or through a public college campus.

It's but one of the reasons that CGF is respecting the California Legislature's wishes that we all get 12050 permits. As a strategy, constitutionalizing (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Richards_v._Prieto) that process automatically gets us campus carry too.

For example, all Sacramentans can carry at Sac State, UCSF or UCLA.

As a side note, if we went after LOC first, then the UC's could stop us all from carrying on those campuses...

-Gene

MANY of us cannot even dream of getting 12050 permits because we live in a very hostile county, also my college doesn't allow guns on campus so if i did by some crazy miracle obtain a CCW permit i would be expelled if found with a CCW on campus

skyscraper
06-11-2011, 8:13 PM
MANY of us cannot even dream of getting 12050 permits because we live in a very hostile county, also my college doesn't allow guns on campus so if i did by some crazy miracle obtain a CCW permit i would be expelled if found with a CCW on campus

You should read the rest of the thread after his first post. YOur latter statement is addressed.

hoffmang
06-11-2011, 8:27 PM
MANY of us cannot even dream of getting 12050 permits because we live in a very hostile county, also my college doesn't allow guns on campus so if i did by some crazy miracle obtain a CCW permit i would be expelled if found with a CCW on campus

And that's why we're part of a nationwide strategy to force may issue states into shall issue. That will be complete in June of 2012 or June of 2013.

And no, if you have a 12050 permit, a public school can't expel you based on state law.

-Gene

jb7706
06-11-2011, 9:32 PM
MANY of us cannot even dream of getting 12050 permits because we live in a very hostile county...

I once said the same thing about Sac County. I'm coming up on a year of CCW in California. CGF, SAF an the constellation of others in our corner are making progress. The permit in my wallet is proof that miracles can and do happen in no issue counties. Take heart, your turn is coming.

GrizzlyGuy
06-12-2011, 7:24 AM
Interesting thread, my psyops spidey senses are tingling.

randian
06-12-2011, 8:03 AM
The reason there is no big fight about carrying on college campuses in California is that we already can.
It's true that California has some of the most, perhaps the most, liberal carry rules in the nation. If you have a license, you can carry where many "good" gun states won't let you, like K-12 schools, courthouses (the few who don't have metal detectors), and airport passenger terminals. However, I don't understand why you think that the law would stay that way should shall-issue be imposed upon California. Once the proles can carry, I'm certain a whole host of restrictions would quickly be proposed and passed by the legislature. California licenses would likely become the most restrictive rather than the least.

Gray Peterson
06-12-2011, 8:17 AM
It's true that California has some of the most, perhaps the most, liberal carry rules in the nation. If you have a license, you can carry where many "good" gun states won't let you, like K-12 schools, courthouses (the few who don't have metal detectors), and airport passenger terminals. However, I don't understand why you think that the law would stay that way should shall-issue be imposed upon California. Once the proles can carry, I'm certain a whole host of restrictions would quickly be proposed and passed by the legislature. California licenses would likely become the most restrictive rather than the least.

You would be incorrect. Not only would there be a resistance to this idea (something about legislators not wanting to restrict their own rights, funny that), there's also the potential litigation factor. The state is going to have to explain to a federal judge why they determined K12-colleges were a sensitive place when for many decades, when both rural and urban counties who had self defense as good cause were able to carry there with no issue and now suddenly they cannot.

OleCuss
06-12-2011, 8:36 AM
.
.
.
And no, if you have a 12050 permit, a public school can't expel you based on state law.

-Gene

Mightn't it be better to say that yes, a public school might expel you for permitted CCW - but they would be doing so illegally and you should win in court when you sued them over their action.

Unfortunately, I suspect many schools won't understand the relevant law and might not follow the law even if they know it. But your lawyer (in conjunction with CGF) would give them a very rapid education in the matter. Not sure it would even make it to court. . .

randian
06-12-2011, 9:27 AM
You would be incorrect. Not only would there be a resistance to this idea (something about legislators not wanting to restrict their own rights, funny that), there's also the potential litigation factor.
They'd just exempt both themselves and judges while they're at it. Many judges see no contradiction between having their own carry permit while denying them to the general public. They are not likely to challenge the legislature on its determination that legislators deserve special privileges, any more than they would challenge the legislature on its determination that judges also deserve special privileges.

Why would the legislature care about litigation? The taxpayers pay for that. All they have to do is survive the initial motion to enjoin enforcement of the new restrictions. Putting things off a few more years while it percolates through the courts would be seen as a win.

hoffmang
06-12-2011, 9:46 AM
They'd just exempt both themselves and judges while they're at it. Many judges see no contradiction between having their own carry permit while denying them to the general public. They are not likely to challenge the legislature on its determination that legislators deserve special privileges, any more than they would challenge the legislature on its determination that judges also deserve special privileges.

Why would the legislature care about litigation? The taxpayers pay for that. All they have to do is survive the initial motion to enjoin enforcement of the new restrictions. Putting things off a few more years while it percolates through the courts would be seen as a win.

Just like retired cops aren't special under Silviera (and that was under rational basis scrutiny) anyone but Judges and active duty law enforcement can't get special favors anymore based on equal protections. The current CCW system has all sorts of politically powerful using it. They (and the sheriffs and chiefs they patronize) will not take kindly to making the 12050 permit less valuable. The politics of the Sheriffs and Chiefs organizations will finally be working with us.

You can see some of this in how Law Enforcement all of a sudden doesn't support the AWCA now that it might take guns from them on retirement. Sucks to be reminded your just a citizen...

-Gene

resident-shooter
06-12-2011, 9:52 AM
And don't think that campus PD's wouldn't try to enforce the federal ban...

-Gene

Perhaps then sending their departments letters with reminders of the law would help? :)

hoffmang
06-12-2011, 9:54 AM
Perhaps then sending their departments letters with reminders of the law would help? :)

Especially after a SCOTUS carry win, yes.

-Gene

Decoligny
06-12-2011, 10:06 AM
I believe...and I'm open to correction on this....you could not be prosecuted
on the issue...but you dang sure would have that permit revoked. My Fresno permit has a similar restriction as well as others. They are noted with red ink via a rubber stamp on the back of the permit.

When my son was playing H.S. basketball I was about ready to march into the gym and realized I was still armed. I approached one the the officers, explained and asked if I could put my pistol in the trunk of his cruiser? He said yes and all was well. Don't think that would happen today.

If the restriction is on the CCW, then the CCW is not valid in the restricted places. That means that if you carry concealed onto an area covered by 626.9 you risk a 626.9 charge, a 12025 charge, and a 12031 charge because you legally have NO LICENSE in the restricted areas listed on the CCW.

OleCuss
06-12-2011, 10:14 AM
If the restriction is on the CCW, then the CCW is not valid in the restricted places. That means that if you carry concealed onto an area covered by 626.9 you risk a 626.9 charge, a 12025 charge, and a 12031 charge because you legally have NO LICENSE in the restricted areas listed on the CCW.

I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

The Sheriff's designating certain areas as being off-limits to CCW does not over-ride the state law which says that you can carry in those areas. Upshot is that the CCW is valid in those areas.

But the sheriff can yank your permit for having violated your restrictions.

So you don't risk jail time (unless your LEO is out of control) but you'll lose your CCW license and your sheriff won't be interested in issuing another until forced to do so.

FWIW

Decoligny
06-12-2011, 10:18 AM
I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

The Sheriff's designating certain areas as being off-limits to CCW does not over-ride the state law which says that you can carry in those areas.

But the sheriff can yank your permit for having violated your restrictions.

So you don't risk jail time (unless your LEO is out of control) but you'll lose your CCW license and your sheriff won't be interested in issuing another until forced to do so.

FWIW

I think you would be charged with all three. It would take a really good lawyer ( CGF) to win using the argument above. However, the fight would still have to be fought.

OleCuss
06-12-2011, 10:31 AM
I think you would be charged with all three. It would take a really good lawyer ( CGF) to win using the argument above. However, the fight would still have to be fought.

I suppose you could be right, but I'm pretty sure the upshot of previous discussions came down on the side of - it's legal despite anything the sheriff says.

Doesn't mean that it is a smart idea. To paraphrase what another has said, discretion is a whole lot cheaper than a defense attorney.

taperxz
06-12-2011, 10:56 AM
With all due respect to the right people, I find it a little hard to believe that and instructor on a UC campus could not be fired for violating an employment contract. Drinking is legal but is probably not allowed while "on the job" These items may very well be mandated by a workers comp insurance policy and is why it was put into a contract. The contract would nullify any and all tenure of the employee.

An instructor, instructs the class at hand. That does not mean an instructor can go haywire with their 1A rights and mis instruct or teach out of the realm of the universities instructional departments policies. (also grounds for termination)

I am not against what Gene is saying but, I certainly am questioning the validity of an employment contract. In order to continue employment one must accept what they can and can't do in that "8 hour period" or quit/ be terminated.

Not trying to argue my point but....

hoffmang
06-12-2011, 1:21 PM
With all due respect to the right people, I find it a little hard to believe that and instructor on a UC campus could not be fired for violating an employment contract. Drinking is legal but is probably not allowed while "on the job" These items may very well be mandated by a workers comp insurance policy and is why it was put into a contract. The contract would nullify any and all tenure of the employee.

And you saw me mention the state agency as employer may have more room to prohibit constitutional conduct while on the job. Drinking is a bad example since it's not a fundamental enumerated right. Speaking is. Some prohibitions on speech may exist, but in that parallel academic freedom limits a public agencies oversight of even that.

Students, however, are a much easier question.

-Gene

safewaysecurity
06-12-2011, 1:47 PM
Kind of random input, Safeway, but actually permitted CCW carry is only illegal in Federal courts. Otherwise, the only restriction is for parties of an action being heard........they may not carry.

I didn't mean it was illegal I meant it was legal lol. We can carry in couthouses as long as they are not federal and we are not a party of an action.

Paul S
06-12-2011, 2:20 PM
I didn't mean it was illegal I meant it was legal lol. We can carry in couthouses as long as they are not federal and we are not a party of an action.



:D Yes you can in Fresno IF you can get by the deputies and the metal detectors in the county courthouses who actually refused me entry because I have a 2.25 inch pocket knife on my key chain. I had to walk next door to the jail and have one of my former colleagues (I'm a retired C/O) hold the dang key ring for me. I had already put my sidearm in a gun locker at the jail before I went into the courthouse.

bodger
06-12-2011, 3:24 PM
You have no idea how many of my LEO friends deny that there is an exception for 12050 permit holders in 626.9. They always like to argue with me until I email them the PC text. The argument usually doesn't last long after that, hehe.


Sounds like a good reason to e-mail every LEO in the state so that they all stop arguing that point.
I know that isn't really feasible, but as more counties go Shall Issue, that's a good one to publicize to street cops.

taperxz
06-12-2011, 5:02 PM
And you saw me mention the state agency as employer may have more room to prohibit constitutional conduct while on the job. Drinking is a bad example since it's not a fundamental enumerated right. Speaking is. Some prohibitions on speech may exist, but in that parallel academic freedom limits a public agencies oversight of even that.

Students, however, are a much easier question.

-Gene

The 21st amend. Squashed the 18th. I know I know! Maybe not the individual right to drink but it could be argued that it was the intent to be able to drink alcohol. As a right.:D

randian
06-12-2011, 5:17 PM
I didn't mean it was illegal I meant it was legal lol. We can carry in couthouses as long as they are not federal and we are not a party of an action.
Know any courthouses in your area without metal detectors and armed guards? It might be legal, but I doubt the LEOs at the door trust law abiding citizens with carry permits.

Catechol
06-12-2011, 10:07 PM
I think you would be charged with all three. It would take a really good lawyer ( CGF) to win using the argument above. However, the fight would still have to be fought.

And if he entered any building, PC 459 as well.

Decoligny
06-12-2011, 11:26 PM
And if he entered any building, PC 459 as well.

They would have to prove intent to commit a felony.