PDA

View Full Version : open carry in a unincorporated area


sportsman
05-05-2012, 5:08 PM
what is the law on open carry in a unincorporated area with homes

yzernie
05-05-2012, 5:35 PM
Open carry of what?...handgun, long gun?

sportsman
05-05-2012, 5:42 PM
sorry open carry of a hand gun

Lives_In_Fresno
05-05-2012, 6:38 PM
Well, the law on open carry there is the same as open carry elsewhere. Open carry is illegal in CA.

Decoligny
05-05-2012, 8:09 PM
Well, the law on open carry there is the same as open carry elsewhere. Open carry is illegal in CA.

You really aught to read and understand the law before making blanket statements like that.

Open carry of unloaded handguns is illegal inside the city limits of an incorporated city, and there are many exceptions to this listed in the law. For example someone with an LTC can legally open carry an unloaded handgun in an incorporated city.

It is also still 100% legal to open carry unloaded handguns or LOADED handguns in unincoporated territory where discharge of a firearm is not prohibited by law.

Big O
05-05-2012, 9:10 PM
If I may, I'd like to ask an additional question related to this.

Say you're out hunting with a buddy, where hunting is allowed of course, but target shooting is not. The only allowed discharge of firearms is for the purpose of taking game. I understand that while hunting (non-archery season), carrying of a sidearm is allowed openly or concealed, provided you have hunting ammunition loaded (no FMJ, non lead if in condor zone.) So at the end of the day, you get back to your vehicle, half hour past sunset has passed and hunting is no longer legal. You hang around to smoke a cigar, enjoy the view, watch the heavens above, talk a little bit about whatever is on your mind, etc. Is there a legal way to carry a loaded sidearm for the purposes of protection? Seeing that you're out in the boonies, one can be an easy target for predatory wildlife or humans. You're not pitching a tent and not camping for the night, just hanging out for another hour or so to enjoy the evening scenery.

Also, carrying of a sidearm while hunting with shotgun in shotgun only zone. Seems that the law only allows carrying of a sidearm if it's legal to hunt with that sidearm.

Of course, this if for the non LTC crowd.


Thanks

CitaDeL
05-05-2012, 9:26 PM
Well, the law on open carry there is the same as open carry elsewhere. Open carry is illegal in CA.

Please. Read more, answer only questions you know the answer to. As pointed out by Decoligny, your post is not wholly correct.

You really aught to read and understand the law before making blanket statements like that.

Open carry of unloaded handguns is illegal inside the city limits of an incorporated city, and there are many exceptions to this listed in the law. For example someone with an LTC can legally open carry an unloaded handgun in an incorporated city.

It is also still 100% legal to open carry unloaded handguns or LOADED handguns in unincoporated territory where discharge of a firearm is not prohibited by law.

Decoligny, a LTC would have to be in the form of a License to Carry Loaded and Exposed which are only available in counties of populations less than 200K on the last census and only in the county of issuance. The legislature has ensured that those with a concealed carry license do not exploit exposed carry who are not specifically licensed to do so.

If I may, I'd like to ask an additional question related to this.

Say you're out hunting with a buddy, where hunting is allowed of course, but target shooting is not. The only allowed discharge of firearms is for the purpose of taking game. I understand that while hunting (non-archery season), carrying of a sidearm is allowed openly or concealed, provided you have hunting ammunition loaded (no FMJ, non lead if in condor zone.) So at the end of the day, you get back to your vehicle, half hour past sunset has passed and hunting is no longer legal. You hang around to smoke a cigar, enjoy the view, watch the heavens above, talk a little bit about whatever is on your mind, etc. Is there a legal way to carry a loaded sidearm for the purposes of protection? Seeing that you're out in the boonies, one can be an easy target for predatory wildlife or humans. You're not pitching a tent and not camping for the night, just hanging out for another hour or so to enjoy the evening scenery.

Also, carrying of a sidearm while hunting with shotgun in shotgun only zone. Seems that the law only allows carrying of a sidearm if it's legal to hunt with that sidearm.


Thanks

Big O... So, from the picture you are painting, one must assume that self-defense arms (read handguns) are not permitted on a hunt and that self-defense is not a protected 2A activity while hunting. I believe the prohibition is in taking game with arms that are not otherwise approved- not in keeping, possessing or bearing arms for other purposes than hunting.

Big O
05-05-2012, 10:57 PM
Big O... So, from the picture you are painting, one must assume that self-defense arms (read handguns) are not permitted on a hunt and that self-defense is not a protected 2A activity while hunting. I believe the prohibition is in taking game with arms that are not otherwise approved- not in keeping, possessing or bearing arms for other purposes than hunting.
How does this translate in the real world? We know there's an exception in 12027 for hunters while hunting. Half hour past sunset, you're no longer hunting, though sometimes still hiking back to the car and would like to keep a loaded sidearm or long gun for protection. Since you're in an area that does not allow target shooting and you're no longer hunting, the exception in 12027 goes away (the to/from clause only allows unloaded concealed carry.) Since target shooting is prohibited, open or concealed carrying of a loaded firearm seems to be a violation. It would be great if the right people can offer some guidance.

Decoligny
05-06-2012, 12:05 AM
Decoligny, a LTC would have to be in the form of a License to Carry Loaded and Exposed which are only available in counties of populations less than 200K on the last census and only in the county of issuance. The legislature has ensured that those with a concealed carry license do not exploit exposed carry who are not specifically licensed to do so.

Not so.

One of the multitude of exemptions to the new law against open carry of on UNLOADED handgun is for holders of LTCs.

Jason Davis of Davis and Associates, one of the most respected firearms lawyers around, wrote a letter/analysis listing 116 specific exemptions to AB 144 aka PC 26350.

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/file/53-davis-cgf-ab-144-analysis-a-faqs.html

Exemption #38 is for LTC/CCW holders.

Lugiahua
05-06-2012, 3:38 AM
How do you find out if an area is so called "legal to discharge firearms" ?

VAReact
05-06-2012, 6:37 AM
How do you find out if an area is so called "legal to discharge firearms" ?

This is found in county ordinances. Google search your county for ordinances and you should be able to find it. For example, LA County:

http://search.municode.com/html/16274/index.htm

See Chapter 13.66

hope this helps

CitaDeL
05-06-2012, 7:18 AM
Not so.

One of the multitude of exemptions to the new law against open carry of on UNLOADED handgun is for holders of LTCs.

Jason Davis of Davis and Associates, one of the most respected firearms lawyers around, wrote a letter/analysis listing 116 specific exemptions to AB 144 aka PC 26350.

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/file/53-davis-cgf-ab-144-analysis-a-faqs.html

Exemption #38 is for LTC/CCW holders.

Yeah, I've read that. And it seems to me that there is a conflict between the laws and their administration. On one hand, you have a blanket exemption for licenses to carry and on the other, you have a requirement to carry a concealable firearm in the manner pursuant to the form of license issued.

With agencies issuing under the presumption that they possess unlimited descretion for issuance (as well as revocation), those presenting their licenses to authorities to exploit the blanket exemption in Portantino's law will be at the mercy of the issuing agencies whims to enforce the legislatures tightened prohibitions on licensees.

Even before this question was raised and the applicable laws were even concieved, I had the answer. There is no exemption for licensees if the issuing agencies exercise unlimited descretion and the result is revocation.

I will concede, that you would have an exemption for so long as you hold the license- so in effect, it is much like Monopoly's 'Get-Out-of-Jail-Free' card- you may draw it, but you only get to use it once before it goes back into the deck.

Decoligny
05-06-2012, 9:52 AM
Yeah, I've read that. And it seems to me that there is a conflict between the laws and their administration. On one hand, you have a blanket exemption for licenses to carry and on the other, you have a requirement to carry a concealable firearm in the manner pursuant to the form of license issued.

With agencies issuing under the presumption that they possess unlimited descretion for issuance (as well as revocation), those presenting their licenses to authorities to exploit the blanket exemption in Portantino's law will be at the mercy of the issuing agencies whims to enforce the legislatures tightened prohibitions on licensees.

Even before this question was raised and the applicable laws were even concieved, I had the answer. There is no exemption for licensees if the issuing agencies exercise unlimited descretion and the result is revocation.

I will concede, that you would have an exemption for so long as you hold the license- so in effect, it is much like Monopoly's 'Get-Out-of-Jail-Free' card- you may draw it, but you only get to use it once before it goes back into the deck.

And it is a major lawsuit waiting to happen. The sheriff revoking the license has to give the reason in writing. In this case the reason would basically read "License revoked because licensee was following the law as written."

CitaDeL
05-06-2012, 12:02 PM
And it is a major lawsuit waiting to happen. The sheriff revoking the license has to give the reason in writing. In this case the reason would basically read "License revoked because licensee was following the law as written."

I disagree. Today, the letter I imagine would read as follows;

Being issued a license to carry comes with the responsibility to comply with policies set forth by state law and this office. Carrying a firearm in an exposed manner is contrary to state law and our philosophy. Therefore, your license to carry is revoked, effective immediately. Please return your license in the envelope enclosed.

The signifigance of a lawsuit is only proportional to the interest and funding to pursue it... so unless one is situated to respond forcefully to a revocation for no damn good reason, one shouldnt jeopardize the license by presenting it to a peace officer while not engaging in the licensed actions.

taperxz
05-06-2012, 12:09 PM
I disagree. Today, the letter I imagine would read as follows;

Being issued a license to carry comes with the responsibility to comply with policies set forth by state law and this office. Carrying a firearm in an exposed manner is contrary to state law and our philosophy. Therefore, your license to carry is revoked, effective immediately. Please return your license in the envelope enclosed.

The signifigance of a lawsuit is only proportional to the interest and funding to pursue it... so unless one is situated to respond forcefully to a revocation for no damn good reason, one shouldnt jeopardize the license by presenting it to a peace officer while not engaging in the licensed actions.

Sorry, do you dream this stuff up? UOC is legal to those who have an LTC (period)

With your logic a hunter who has an LTC and is hunting or on his way to or from hunting would also have his/her license revoked for such and event. As you now, hunting is also and exemption for UOC.

CitaDeL
05-06-2012, 12:40 PM
Sorry, do you dream this stuff up? UOC is legal to those who have an LTC (period)

With your logic a hunter who has an LTC and is hunting or on his way to or from hunting would also have his/her license revoked for such and event. As you now, hunting is also and exemption for UOC.

Do I dream this up? No. I don't have to, since I am something of an authority on the matter. It is no coincidence that the text of the example letter is dripping with officious arrogance.

And with my example, the issuing agency could very well revoke a LTC for someone openly carrying while hunting, walking in unincorporated territory, or on private property if they decided that it was not in a manner pursuant to the licence that was issued. While all of those things are lawful, there is no apparent limitation on what an agency can revoke for, in spite of the statute outlining just three conditions.

Librarian
05-06-2012, 1:14 PM
Sorry, do you dream this stuff up? UOC is legal to those who have an LTC (period)

No, it isn't.

Because there actually exists a 'loaded and exposed' type of license to carry, we know for certain that people given the other kind of LTC are expected to carry concealed.

There's no criminal penalty for it, in the sense of something special for LTC holders that is different from anyone else, but the issuing agency might choose to revoke an LTC over some incidents of open carry.

Wherever it is legal for anyone to OC, it is still also legal for an LTC holder to OC.

taperxz
05-06-2012, 1:22 PM
LTC holders are not exempt from the Unloaded Open Carry law? That was my point. Maybe i misunderstood what Cita Del was saying.

I read that they are exempt from the UOC law just as hunters and a whole slew of other exemptions. So if thats the case how could an LTC holder have his license revoked for UOC ing?

taperxz
05-06-2012, 1:24 PM
sorry guys, after re-reading this i realized and ASSUMED LOL this thread was about UOC not loaded carry. MY BAD. :D

CitaDeL
05-06-2012, 2:32 PM
LTC holders are not exempt from the Unloaded Open Carry law? That was my point. Maybe i misunderstood what Cita Del was saying.

I read that they are exempt from the UOC law just as hunters and a whole slew of other exemptions. So if thats the case how could an LTC holder have his license revoked for UOC ing?

Yes, the law exempts licensees from violating the unloaded open carry prohibition. And one may explain that to an issuing agency all day long. But the exemption will not inhibit the issuing agency from taking unilateral punitive action against a licensee for UOC activities since it is not pursuant to the form of the license that was issued.

If the license is for concealed carry and the licensee carries exposed, the issuing agency is unconstrained by any judicial or historical precedent that would prevent revocation.

The sequence of events goes a little like this;


Individual becomes licensed to carry.
Licensee carries unloaded and exposed in compliance with the law in counter to issuing agencies unpublished desire for licensees to carry all weapons concealed at all times.
Licensee is briefly detained by peace officer while UOC.
Issuing agency is informed of detention related to UOC.
Issuing agency skips due process and revokes license to carry on any contrived basis.


As with Orange County, they don't need a reason to revoke, but asserting that some policy or law has been violated gives them sufficient cause. Yes, there is an exemption- but depending on where you got your license, it may be an exemption for as long as one is able to hold a license (which may be once- if it is revoked immediately).

taperxz
05-06-2012, 2:37 PM
Yes, the law exempts licensees from violating the unloaded open carry prohibition. And one may explain that to an issuing agency all day long. But the exemption will not inhibit the issuing agency from taking unilateral punitive action against a licensee for UOC activities since it is not pursuant to the form of the license that was issued.

If the license is for concealed carry and the licensee carries exposed, the issuing agency is unconstrained by any judicial or historical precedent that would prevent revocation.

The sequence of events goes a little like this;


Individual becomes licensed to carry.
Licensee carries unloaded and exposed in compliance with the law in counter to issuing agencies unpublished desire for licensees to carry all weapons concealed at all times.
Licensee is briefly detained by peace officer while UOC.
Issuing agency is informed of detention related to UOC.
Issuing agency skips due process and revokes license to carry on any contrived basis.


As with Orange County, they don't need a reason to revoke, but asserting that some policy or law has been violated gives them sufficient cause. Yes, there is an exemption- but depending on where you got your license, it may be an exemption for as long as one is able to hold a license (which may be once- if it is revoked immediately).

No, look what i bolded above. Only the concealable weapons on the permit are available for LTC use. So, what if you UOC a different weapon? You have an LTC, you UOC a gun that is NOT on the permit, The law says you are exempt and you are not using a gun on the permit.

CitaDeL
05-06-2012, 2:41 PM
No, look what i bolded above. Only the concealable weapons on the permit are available for LTC use. So, what if you UOC a different weapon?

So, one would have to purchase another weapon that is not listed on the license, to carry it in a manner that is not pursuant to the form of the license that was issued?

taperxz
05-06-2012, 2:46 PM
So, one would have to purchase another weapon that is not listed on the license, to carry it in a manner that is not pursuant to the form of the license that was issued?

Sure why not? One law gives you the ability to UOC legally, The LTC says you can only carry a certain listed gun a certain way, they would be separate but legal means of carry. Forgive me, i have more than just one or two guns:D

taperxz
05-06-2012, 2:49 PM
Keep in mind, some sheriffs only allow as little as two guns on a permit. So having to BUY one would be ehhh to do this, but some have a legal right to UOC and the separate gun that is not on the LTC to do it. Between what you're saying and what im saying it seems to be legal to me even though IANAL.

CitaDeL
05-06-2012, 2:57 PM
Sure why not? One law gives you the ability to UOC legally, The LTC says you can only carry a certain listed gun a certain way, they would be separate but legal means of carry. Forgive me, i have more than just one or two guns:D

The monkey wrench is that the issuing agency can still say, "Well, Mr Taperxz, we have decided based upon your contact with police in this instance, that we do not trust your judgement with a firearm as a licensee..."- Even if the firearm you are carrying isnt on the license.

Again, there is nothing constraining an issuing agency from revoking a license. This is why there are NO shall issue counties in California, regardless of what people might say about permissive issuance (green) counties.

We must achieve a victory where a license cannot be revoked for anything less than being a prohibited person or a change in residency.

taperxz
05-06-2012, 3:02 PM
The monkey wrench is that the issuing agency can still say, "Well, Mr Taperxz, we have decided based upon your contact with police in this instance, that we do not trust your judgement with a firearm as a licensee..."- Even if the firearm you are carrying isnt on the license.

Again, there is nothing constraining an issuing agency from revoking a license. This is why there are NO shall issue counties in California, regardless of what people might say about permissive issuance (green) counties.

We must achieve a victory where a license cannot be revoked for anything less than being a prohibited person or a change in residency.

Perhaps, or the Sheriff can find that what you were doing was legal to the letter of the law and agree that the state gave you the ability to UOC because you have an LTC. At very least i don't think you would be prosecuted for UOC in this instance.

CitaDeL
05-06-2012, 3:04 PM
Perhaps, or the Sheriff can find that what you were doing was legal to the letter of the law and agree that the state gave you the ability to UOC because you have an LTC. At very least i don't think you would be prosecuted for UOC in this instance.

No, you might not be prosecuted or convicted, but you would no longer have a license to carry. Which is what I have been arguing from the beginning. It would be a one-time exemption once your license was pulled.

Moto4Fun
05-06-2012, 3:10 PM
Someone please explain to me why a person who has a LTC would carry an unloaded exposed handgun.

I see the debate taking place here, and I understand that one might do it just to challenge authority (continuing the UOC movement), but I can't comprehend any real world scenario that makes the scenario relevant.

taperxz
05-06-2012, 3:14 PM
No, you might not be prosecuted or convicted, but you would no longer have a license to carry. Which is what I have been arguing from the beginning. It would be a one-time exemption once your license was pulled.

Perhaps a one time exemption for an LTCer but your analogy is still speculative with no real test cases to prove what you are saying will happen. At this point all you have is the letter of the law. So, again, what about a hunter who can legally UOC to and from, with an LTC, whose hunting pistol isn't on the LTC? (perhaps to large to really conceal comfortably) Would they too risk their LTC? If so, where do you come up with facts where this would/could happen?

taperxz
05-06-2012, 3:15 PM
OH and my point above is that they now are using TWO exemptions.

CitaDeL
05-06-2012, 3:16 PM
Someone please explain to me why a person who has a LTC would carry an unloaded exposed handgun.

I see the debate taking place here, and I understand that one might do it just to challenge authority (continuing the UOC movement), but I can't comprehend any real world scenario that makes the scenario relevant.

Because at one point, it was legal with or without a license. And sometimes, it is necessary to challenge those perpetuating illegal and discriminatory policies.

CitaDeL
05-06-2012, 3:19 PM
Perhaps a one time exemption for an LTCer but your analogy is still speculative with no real test cases to prove what you are saying will happen. At this point all you have is the letter of the law. So, again, what about a hunter who can legally UOC to and from, with an LTC, whose hunting pistol isn't on the LTC? (perhaps to large to really conceal comfortably) Would they too risk their LTC? If so, where do you come up with facts where this would/could happen?

There is no need to speculate, when a 'test case' has already occured in real time. It isnt difficult to transcribe previous events to hypotheticals involving the same facts.

taperxz
05-06-2012, 3:26 PM
OK, what test case involved the scenario i brought up? UOC exemptions are pretty new.

taperxz
05-06-2012, 3:29 PM
Because at one point, it was legal with or without a license. And sometimes, it is necessary to challenge those perpetuating illegal and discriminatory policies.

OH and +1 on this^^^