Wikpedia and California Open Carry laws

[Peashooter]

Interesting read.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Open_Carr y_Laws




[edit] Open Carry Laws
Personal possession (i.e. carry) of a loaded firearm is prohibited in incorporated areas (such as inside city limits) or prohibited areas of unincorporated territory without a license to carry or other exemption provided for by law.[24] A license to carry "loaded and exposed" may be issued by a Police Chief or County Sheriff in a county with population of less than 200,000 persons at the last census.[25] No license or permit is required to openly carry a loaded firearm in unincorporated areas where discharge is not prohibited by local ordinance.

In spite of these restrictions, there is no section of the California penal code that specifically prohibits open carry of an unloaded handgun (though possession may be restricted or prohibited in certain areas such as a State Park (CCR Title 14, Div.3, chap. 1, s 4313 (a), in a school zone (PC626.9) or federal properties like a Post Office or National Park (36 C.F.R. 2.4(a)).

Carrying a loaded magazine separate from the handgun is also not prohibited under the penal code (Subdivision (g) of California Penal Code 12031 defines what constitutes a loaded weapon).

In the case of People v. Clark (1996) a shotgun shell attached to the shotgun, although not chambered or placed in a position where it was able to be fired, was declared to be legal under California law and the charge of having a loaded firearm against Clark was dismissed.

[Rob P.]

And???

Open carry has been discussed here many times. Some advocate not doing it because it could ruffle a great many feathers. Some advocate doing so because it may lead to change in our firearms laws for the better. Some do so because they don't have any other choice.

The end result is that it IS possible to openly carry a firearm legally. It's not easy and the Wiki entry isn't nearly sufficient in giving you enough info to do anything with because there are NUMEROUS hazards and traps for the unenlightened.

[CitaDeL]

And???

I suppose this was brought up because many people either do not realize that it is possible in California or assumed that it wasn't a possibility because California is such a restrictive anti-gun state.

In any case, I wouldnt be too hasty to chastise anyone posting their curiousity...

And on another note, if we think the Wiki article is inaccurate or omits important details, perhaps we should take up the responsibility to maintain the content.

[ViPER395]

[me] Yes sir officer. Wikipedia said it was completely legal.

[JBT] Wick-a-what?? Drop the weapon! Get on the #$(^!%& ground! [baton hits back of head]

[mymonkeyman]

As long as you don't mind being arrested and released after the LEO reads the penal code. And as long as you know you won't be within how many bazillion yards of a school.

[bunni]

arrested and released after the LEO reads the penal code

:rofl2:

That's a good one.

[pullnshoot25]

I open carry with my Tracker .44mag all the time. I paid a bunch for the rig, I might as well use it!

[CitaDeL]

As long as you don't mind being arrested and released after the LEO reads the penal code. And as long as you know you won't be within how many bazillion yards of a school.

You mean 'detained', Im sure. So far, no one I am aware of has been 'arrested' for open carry in compliance with Californias limitations. I'm aware of two detainments by city police, which resulted in the subjects being freed after brief field interviews.

[mymonkeyman]

You mean 'detained', Im sure. So far, no one I am aware of has been 'arrested' for open carry in compliance with Californias limitations. I'm aware of two detainments by city police, which resulted in the subjects being freed after brief field interviews.

Well whether you are arrested for the purposes of police procedure, you are arrested for the purposes of the 4th amendment as soon as you would not reasonably feel free to leave. The arrested/detained distinction isn't a relevant one: you can be seized, you can be held, you can be charged, you can be arraigned, you can be indicted or found to have sufficient evidence to stand trial, and you can be tried, and you can be convicted and you can be sentenced and final judgment can be entered. Those all have legal significance, what a police officer considers to be an arrest v. a detainment do not.

[CitaDeL]

Well whether you are arrested for the purposes of police procedure, you are arrested for the purposes of the 4th amendment as soon as you would not reasonably feel free to leave. The arrested/detained distinction isn't a relevant one: you can be seized, you can be held, you can be charged, you can be arraigned, you can be indicted or found to have sufficient evidence to stand trial, and you can be tried, and you can be convicted and you can be sentenced and final judgment can be entered. Those all have legal significance, what a police officer considers to be an arrest v. a detainment do not.

An arrest only occurs when police take you into custody after they have determined that you have violated the law and are charging you with the commission of a crime. Detainment occurs in the course of a police investigation, whether you are the subject of interest or a witness to a crime- if the police cannot immediately charge you with a crime, the police must allow you to go in a reasonable amount of time. The police cannot hold you without first having a 'reasonable articulable suspicion" that a crime has been commited or will soon be commited, and cannot hold you indefinately without charging a subject with a crime.

These are not distictions about what a police officer considers to be arrest v. detainment,... this is what our courts have determined.

[Rob P.]

An arrest only occurs when police take you into custody after they have determined that you have violated the law and are charging you with the commission of a crime. Detainment occurs in the course of a police investigation, whether you are the subject of interest or a witness to a crime- if the police cannot immediately charge you with a crime, the police must allow you to go in a reasonable amount of time. The police cannot hold you without first having a 'reasonable articulable suspicion" that a crime has been commited or will soon be commited, and cannot hold you indefinately without charging a subject with a crime.

These are not distictions about what a police officer considers to be arrest v. detainment,... this is what our courts have determined.

This is not quite accurate. An "arrest" can take place without there being any charges or criminal activity. The ONLY difference between an "arrest" and a "detention" is degree. What that degree is in any given situation depends on the facts of that particular situation.

The officer's opinion on arrest vs detention is irrelevant insofar as to determine if there was in fact an arrest or not.

The big difference in our opinions here is because usually we are concerned with a lawful arrest vs. a lawful detention. Unfortunately, when it comes to guns, discussion on arrests or detentions MUST include the possibility of an unlawful arrest. This means that an arrest can take place without criminal charges or activity if LEO act over aggressively or over zealously.

[mymonkeyman]

An arrest only occurs when police take you into custody after they have determined that you have violated the law and are charging you with the commission of a crime. Detainment occurs in the course of a police investigation, whether you are the subject of interest or a witness to a crime- if the police cannot immediately charge you with a crime, the police must allow you to go in a reasonable amount of time. The police cannot hold you without first having a 'reasonable articulable suspicion" that a crime has been commited or will soon be commited, and cannot hold you indefinately without charging a subject with a crime.

These are not distictions about what a police officer considers to be arrest v. detainment,... this is what our courts have determined.

You are right that person may constitutionally be seized upon less than probable cause (i.e. reasonable suspicion) for limited circumstances and for limited times (e.g. Terry Stop), but as soon as they reasonably feel not free to leave it is has constitutional significance, e.g. Miranda requirement, fruit of the poisonous tree, etc.

You are equating what is called a "formal arrest" or "custodial arrest" with an "arrest" or "seizure." In most jurisdictions you can do a formal or custodial arrest for a limited period of time and not charge a person, so the "formal arrest" has almost no legal significance. It may create a paper trail, but the constitutional consequences of an arrest may and typically do come sooner than when the custodial arrest occurs. Similarly, the statutory consequences of an arrest do not come until the person has been charged. Many police departments have tried getting away with forcing people to "go downtown" and say that it's not an arrest (i.e. after they failed to give a Miranda), and therefore does not need probable cause. Courts know better and bust them for it. See e.g. Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985); Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (2003).