PDA

View Full Version : Almost got arrested again


E Pluribus Unum
04-22-2008, 6:00 PM
To make a long story short, I was arrested a few years ago for carrying a concealed weapon while hunting. This is perfectly legal but the officer did not know that. It eneded with a full dismissal. This is of course after thousands in attorney fees.

Well, it almost happened again. Afterwards I went down to the office and talked to the Sergeant and he reaffirmed the officer's original position.

I am posting the subsequent letter that I wrote him. Can you people read it and see if I am missing something. I did consult my attorney but attorney's can be wrong.


Hello Officer Anonymous,

I am the man you discussed firearms law with in the lobby today. I want to preface this whole thing by saying I know you talk to many ignorant people who “know the law” and will argue their ignorance indefinitely. I got the feeling that you thought my goal was bent on fighting. I want to assure you that it is the farthest from my intention. My goal is education; either mine or yours (the FPD). Please know that you are not the first person that I have contacted regarding this. I have written California Department of Justice Firearms Bureau. Before all of this I consulted private counsel to insure that my position was legal. I want to thank you for your willingness to discuss this issue with me. Most people would just make a statement of what “the law” is and refuse to discuss it further. I appreciate you at least keeping an open mind enough to hear me out regarding this.
I will break up this response into different areas for organization.

The Current Scenario:
I was pulled over on highway 178 in the Kern Canyon about a mile east of China Gardens camp ground. My Glock 17 handgun was on the passenger seat next to me with an unloaded magazine in the mag well. In the center console next to me were 10 rounds of 9mm ammunition. The officer was very professional and remained respectful throughout the entire encounter. He did say however that because I had unspent ammunition within the same passenger compartment as my handgun and both were accessible from the driver seat that I had committed a misdemeanor and he could arrest me for it. He advised me that I needed to put the gun in the trunk or get a lock box.

What is Loaded:
It seems to me that we both agree that carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle is illegal. What we disagree on is what constitutes “loaded”. The officer in the canyon, Officer Mead, and you all referred to the definition of “loaded” as being ammunition and firearm being in “immediate possession of the driver”. If I remember you correctly you stated, “The ammunition and the gun cannot be accessible from the driver so that if you get mad you cannot grab the gun, load it, and shoot someone”. I can only assume that you get this definition from the penal code. The penal code section that has this verbiage is penal code section 171e.

171e. A firearm shall be deemed loaded for the purposes of Sections
171c and 171d whenever both the firearm and unexpended ammunition
capable of being discharged from such firearm are in the immediate
possession of the same person.

As you can see, this definition is limited only to section 171c (No loaded firearms in State buildings, et cetera) and section 171d (No loaded firearms in official’s residences).

For firearms in general, loaded is defined in PC 12031(g) as the following:

(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm;

In addition, there have been many court cases which cover the definition of “loaded” in 12031. The most important of which was People v. Clark, 45 Cal. App. 4th 1147, 1154 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1996) which stated the following:

The Legislature in Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (g), provided some examples of how a shell would be "attached" to a firearm so that the firearm is loaded, i.e., in the firing chamber, magazine or clip; situations in which the firearm would be "loaded" in the usual meaning of the word, i.e., the shell is placed in a position from which it can be fired. Significantly, the Legislature also provided that a muzzle-loader firearm must be capped or primed, have a powder charge and ball in the barrel or cylinder before it is deemed "loaded," again a definition which is consistent with the common meaning of the term "loaded," i.e., ready for firing.

Given the examples are all consistent with an intent to use the common meaning of "loaded," it follows the Legislature's use of the phrase "attached in any manner" to the firearm was intended to encompass a situation where a shell or cartridge might be attached to a firearm or "loaded" for firing by some unconventional method. The phrase does not demonstrate a clear Legislative intent to deem a firearm loaded no matter how a shell is attached to a firearm; in particular, it does not indicate a clear intent to deem a gun "loaded" when the ammunition, as here, is in a storage compartment which is not equivalent to either a magazine or clip and from which the ammunition cannot be fired.


So, reading the 12031 definition of loaded and People v Clark’s interpretation, my ammunition would have had to be in the magazine, and the magazine placed within the mag well or a round in the chamber. Loose ammunition in the center console would not be loaded under the law.

Carrying Concealed:
I told the officer that I was on my way to fish in Kernville and that next time I would conceal the firearm. He cautioned me against this and said that was also a misdemeanor. When we discussed this in the lobby you seemed concerned about this stating “what is to stop a gang banger from throwing a fishing pole in his back seat and saying he’s going fishing”. I can see your concern in this matter but a gang member is not allowed to have a firearm and ammunition in his immediate possession as that is a loaded weapon. Also, if a man were driving down Chester Ave. at 11:00pm he would have a hard time sticking to the story that he is going fishing. I was pulled over wearing a fishing license less than a quarter mile from the Kern River with a back seat full of fishing poles, fresh bait and tackle. 12027(g) clearly exempts licensed fisherman from 12025, my intention to fish is clear and I would therefore qualify for the exemption. I could therefore carry my firearm in a concealed holster provided no rounds were physically attached to the gun.

Open Carry:
You expressed concern that I would try to use the “hunter and fisherman” exemption to carry concealed without a license. While it is true that I am a licensed fisherman, and a licensed hunter and I do hunt and fish on a weekly basis I would never try to use this exemption unless blatantly obvious. If I lived downtown and I decided to go hunting I could carry my Glock concealed on my person without a license on my way to and from hunting or fishing but I would not. I would not for the reason that I would (and do) open carry. I carry my non-loaded firearm in a holster on my belt and as long as I am not obviously in a school zone and I stick to all of the laws regarding firearms it is perfectly legal. There is no Kern County ordinance forbidding the open carry of unloaded handguns and the only City of Bakersfield ordinance regarding handguns is a prohibition of taking firearms into city parks.

The officer indicated that in order for a handgun to be legally transported in a vehicle it must either be in a locked container or be placed in the trunk. This is also an error as this is simply one of the exemptions to 12025. A handgun placed in plain sight does not need to be in a locked container.

Conclusion:
Again, thank you for your time in this matter. If you can offer any corrections to this it would be much appreciated. I have also included some information regarding open carry and loaded firearms in the form of two PDF files. These documents were given to my attorney and he signed them off as being factual so it is not simply a Google search and a myspace page. I am sure you have contacts at the DA’s office; if you need to forward any of my contact information to them to assist in resolving this matter feel free to do so.


Sincerely,



Chris Doe

wilit
04-22-2008, 6:07 PM
Do you have any copies of the court documents from the prior dismissal? I would maybe include those to show it's the same situation and is not illegal.

E Pluribus Unum
04-22-2008, 6:12 PM
Do you have any copies of the court documents from the prior dismissal? I would maybe include those to show it's the same situation and is not illegal.

I spoke with him about it; apparently just because a case is dismissed is not good enough. Cases are dismissed all of the time for insufficient evidense or as a result of a plea bargain. The fact that the charges are dismissed does not prove that the person was arrested unjustly; it simply proves there was not enough evidense to support a conviction.

Matt C
04-22-2008, 6:13 PM
Actually the ammo can be attached to the firearm as long as it in not in a position from which is can be fired. IE you can have an unloaded shotgun with live shells in the side saddle carrier. That is people v. Clark and is published case law.

CitaDeL
04-22-2008, 6:21 PM
To make a long story short, I was arrested a few years ago for carrying a concealed weapon while hunting. This is perfectly legal but the officer did not know that. It eneded with a full dismissal. This is of course after thousands in attorney fees.

Well, it almost happened again. Afterwards I went down to the office and talked to the Sergeant and he reaffirmed the officer's original position.

I am posting the subsequent letter that I wrote him. Can you people read it and see if I am missing something. I did consult my attorney but attorney's can be wrong.

You covered your accurate understanding of the law very well... Thumbs up.

mymonkeyman
04-22-2008, 6:25 PM
Yea, you should quote People v. Clark in the memo.


The Legislature in Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (g), provided some examples of how a shell would be "attached" to a firearm so that the firearm is loaded, i.e., in the firing chamber, magazine or clip; situations in which the firearm would be "loaded" in the usual meaning of the word, i.e., the shell is placed in a position from which it can be fired. Significantly, the Legislature also provided that a muzzle-loader firearm must be capped or primed, have a powder charge and ball in the barrel or cylinder before it is deemed "loaded," again a definition which is consistent with the common meaning of the term "loaded," i.e., ready for firing.

Given the examples are all consistent with an intent to use the common meaning of "loaded," it follows the Legislature's use of the phrase "attached in any manner" to the firearm was intended to encompass a situation where a shell or cartridge might be attached to a firearm or "loaded" for firing by some unconventional method. The phrase does not demonstrate a clear Legislative intent to deem a firearm loaded no matter how a shell is attached to a firearm; in particular, it does not indicate a clear intent to deem a gun "loaded" when the ammunition, as here, is in a storage compartment which is not equivalent to either a magazine or clip and from which the ammunition cannot be fired.


People v. Clark, 45 Cal. App. 4th 1147, 1154 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1996).


We note, initially, that the apparent purpose of subdivision (e) is to make it clear that for purpose of section 12031 the usual meaning of "loaded firearm" is to apply. . . . The loading of a gun simply affects the condition of the weapon by making it immediately useful for firing.


People v. Heffner, 70 Cal. App. 3d 643, 650 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1977).


Common statutory definitions of "loaded" firearms include loaded and attached magazines or clips.


Rupf v. Yan, 85 Cal. App. 4th 411, 432 n.7 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2000).


In 1967 the Legislature enacted section 171c of the Penal Code, which in substance makes it a crime (a possible felony) to bring a loaded firearm into or to possess a loaded firearm within the state Capitol, any legislative office, office of the Governor, or other constitutional officer or legislative committee room (none of these is involved in this case), or within or upon the grounds of any public school, the University of California, or state colleges. (Diablo Valley College is a public school.) Exceptions are made for certain officers and licensed persons. (Another section of the Penal Code, 171d, has to do with loaded firearms at legislators', the Governor's, and the officers' residences.)

In the same year, the Legislature enacted section 12031 of the Penal Code, which makes it a misdemeanor for any person to carry a loaded firearm "on his person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory." ("Prohibited area" is defined in subdivision (d) of the section as a place where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon.) Exceptions are provided for various kinds of officers, guards, etc. and for certain uses such as upon target ranges, at shooting clubs, and making a lawful arrest; and it is stated that it is not forbidden to have a loaded weapon at one's place of residence or at one's place of business, or under circumstances which cause a person reasonably to believe that the person or the property of himself or another is in immediate danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of person or property.

The definitions of a loaded firearm are different in the statutes affecting the carrying or possession of firearms in the two kinds of places. Penal Code section 171e, which implements section 171c and section 171d, provides that: A firearm shall be deemed loaded for the purposes of Sections 171c and 171d whenever both the firearm and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from such firearm are in the immediate possession of the same person. Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (e) reads: "A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell, consisting of a case which holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder."


People v. De Long, 11 Cal. App. 3d 786, 789-790 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1970).

Rivers
04-22-2008, 6:26 PM
Actually the ammo can be attached to the firearm as long as it in not in a position from which is can be fired. IE you can have an unloaded shotgun with live shells in the side saddle carrier. That is people v. Clark and is published case law.

There is a bill currently pending in the CA Assembly that would redefine a loaded firearm to INCLUDE having live shells attached to the firearm in ANY way, including side saddle carriers.

hawk1
04-22-2008, 6:31 PM
Letter speaks for itself and well written. However, I doubt you will get a reply from the officer. :(

Matt C
04-22-2008, 6:32 PM
There is a bill currently pending in the CA Assembly that would redefine a loaded firearm to INCLUDE having live shells attached to the firearm in ANY way, including side saddle carriers.

That's not really what it does, and that's not law yet and may never be. BTW for those interested-

Senate Bill 1171 (Scott) would redefine the definition of a "loaded" firearm. SB 1171, as amended, Scott. Firearms.

Existing law prohibits, for hunting purposes, the possession of a loaded rifle or shotgun in a vehicle that is standing or being driven on a public highway or other public way. Existing law provides that for these purposes, the rifle or shotgun is deemed to be loaded if there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in the firing chamber, but not when the only cartridges or shells are in the magazine. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor pursuant to other provisions of existing law.

This bill would repeal those provisions expand the scope of these prohibitions to include any loaded firearm, and to include a vehicle standing or being driven on a public street or public road. The bill would recast the definition of a loaded firearm for these purposes so that a firearm would be deemed loaded when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, the firing chamber, magazine, or clip attached to the firearm, provided however, that a muzzle-loader firearm would be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder .

By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle in a public place or a public street in an incorporated city, or in a public place or public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Existing law makes this offense punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on underlying circumstances, as specified.

This bill would recast those provisions to prohibit a person from carrying a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while the person or vehicle is in any public place or on any public street, public road, or public highway in an incorporated city, to prohibit a person from carrying a loaded firearm on his or her person in any public place or public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory, and to prohibit a person from carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street, public road, or public highway in any part of an unincorporated territory . The bill would make related, conforming changes.

Existing law makes the offense of carrying a loaded firearm punishable as a felony or as a misdemeanor depending upon the underlying circumstances, as specified.

By changing the definition of this expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also delete an inoperative provision requiring the filing of annual reports by the district attorney of each county and by the Attorney General containing specified data on persons charged with carrying a loaded firearm.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it an offense for a person to sell, lease, or transfer firearms unless the person is licensed, as specified.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

MrTuffPaws
04-22-2008, 6:34 PM
How did you get arrested the first time with a concealed gun?

pnkssbtz
04-22-2008, 6:36 PM
How did you get arrested the first time with a concealed gun?

Probably by an uninformed LEO making an illegal arrest for something that is perfectly legal, exactly in the same fashion that EPU missed being arrested in this instance?

Liberty1
04-22-2008, 6:42 PM
Rivers,

If that is the "hunting loaded bill" as described on the NRA site, it has near identical loaded language to 12031 PC (the current non-hunting standard) but goes a little further. So its still a step backwards as it criminalizes all loaded firearms in a vehicle in all unincorporated areas even areas where 12031 currently allows loaded in vehicle and adds pistols where as the F&G code only dealt with rifles and shotguns.



E.P.U.,

Thanks for doing more then your fair share just to exercise and educate based on the current statutes.

If you don't mind giving us the name of the Sgt and Officer, I know someone who'd like to make contact with Kern SO over this issue of the mis-interpretation of the loaded and concealed statutes.

Kern is the last place this should be an issue. And People vs Knight, loaded in unincorporated non-prohibited areas is OK, happened in Kern so if any department should know 12031 it's Kern SO.

POST is even teaching this currently and citing People vs Knight and People vs Clark.

pnkssbtz
04-22-2008, 6:45 PM
E.P.U.,

Thanks for doing more then your fair share just to exercise and educate based on the current statutes.

If you don't mind giving us the name of the Sgt and Officer, I know someone who'd like to make contact with Kern SO over this issue of the mis-interpretation of the loaded and concealed statutes.

Kern is the last place this should be an issue. And People vs Knight, loaded in unincorporated non-prohibited areas is OK, happened in Kern so if any department should know 12031 it's Kern SO.

POST is even teaching this currently and citing People vs Knight and People vs Clark.LEO's are people too. People have egos and beliefs. All it takes is one CLEO with who disagrees with the law to enforce his own (per)version of it.

E Pluribus Unum
04-22-2008, 6:53 PM
How did you get arrested the first time with a concealed gun?

I kinda want to stay away from this as it will confuse the issue at hand. That being said I will answer your question. Let me preface this with the following:

The Following has nothing to do with the incident I am currently contesting. This was a few years ago when I actually WAS arrested.

The cliche overused excuse "weaving". I broke no traffic laws but they claimed I was "weaving" and had PC to pull over pending a sobriety test.

I had an expired driver's license so I ended up pleading guilty to 12500a but the gun charges were dismissed.

I was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. (Carrying a concealed weapon while hunting is legal)

Carrying a loaded weapon in public. (I had a loaded mag in the gun but no rounds in the chamber which is legal while hunting in unincorporated areas.
Though I was hunting and in unincorporated territory it would have been perfectly legal but because the vehicle was on a roadway and it is illegal to shoot from a roadway, the loaded weapon was also illegal because I was in a "prohibited area".)

Loaded open carry is legal in unincorporated areas. As soon as one steps onto a paved road, it is illegal to shoot from a paved road and that means you are carrying a loaded weapon in a prohibited place. One of those little things that bites you in the butt... :)

What saved me on the loaded weapon in public was the fact that I was hunting and the 9mm round is a "method of take" for deer and F&G code section 2006 defines "loaded" as a round in the chamber. Because the mag was in the gun but no round was in the chamber it was legal; barely. :)

Liberty1
04-22-2008, 7:00 PM
LEO's are people too.


True. But this is a training issue. The dept. should at least be notified that a legal update to the troops is in order. Unlawful actions by police do occasionally have liabilities and can be embarrassing. And if this is addressed now it could aid anyone so unlawfully arrested in the future.

12027g and 12025f were codified for a reason. It was placed there by pro-self defense/hunting/fishing legislators at the time of enaction.

E Pluribus Unum
04-22-2008, 7:02 PM
E.P.U.,

Thanks for doing more then your fair share just to exercise and educate based on the current statutes.

If you don't mind giving us the name of the Sgt and Officer, I know someone who'd like to make contact with Kern SO over this issue of the mis-interpretation of the loaded and concealed statutes.

Kern is the last place this should be an issue. And People vs Knight, loaded in unincorporated non-prohibited areas is OK, happened in Kern so if any department should know 12031 it's Kern SO.

POST is even teaching this currently and citing People vs Knight and People vs Clark.

I am withholding that information until I make heads or tails of it. Calguns is notorious for people wanting to get involved and open the "flood gates" for activism. I want to give this officer a chance to respond to me personally first. If he gets bombarded by 500 emails he will simply label it as "diluted gun nuts" and not waste his time on it.

The goal here is to educate, not innundate. These guys have better things to do like go catch bad guys. I want to waste as little of his time as possible and still obtain my goal.

If there are any high-ranking LEOS or other public officials that would be willing to contact him for credibility purposes then by all means PM me and I may forward his contact information.

USN CHIEF
04-22-2008, 7:03 PM
The letter sounds well written and I really hope that they take the time to read it and not just throw it away or shred it..

Liberty1
04-22-2008, 7:06 PM
EPU,

I'd recommend sending the letter via e-mail and or registered return receipt to a pay grade higher then the Sgt. Find out who handles their legislative and case law training updates and make that person the point of contact. CC the Sgt if you want to.

What was the PC for the stop this time?

E Pluribus Unum
04-22-2008, 7:11 PM
EPU,

I'd recommend sending the letter via e-mail and or registered return receipt to a pay grade higher then the Sgt. Find out who handles their legislative and case law training updates and make that person the point of contact. CC the Sgt if you want to.

What was the PC for the stop this time?

Crossing the double yellow lines.... sound familiar?? :(

I was rounding an inside left turn and my left front tire touched the double yellow. He was parked in a turn-out watching the spot like a hawk. I was guilty... no doubt.

I swear... I have the worst luck. I don't break many laws but when I do there's ALWAYS a cop there to see it.. :(

This of course 9 days after getting my driver's license back.

I was being a good boy... doing 40 in a mustang that could easily do 60 up the canyon. When he pulled me over I thought I was going to be wrongfully accused of speeding again... Might as well been... at least then I could have made his day hell in court. I can't really defend this one as I was guilty but oh well. Traffic school for me...

E Pluribus Unum
04-22-2008, 7:59 PM
Yea, you should quote People v. Clark in the memo.

I've updated the memo accordingly.

hoffmang
04-22-2008, 8:13 PM
There is one other statute you may want to reference. In the Penal Code there is a definition for a known street criminal that makes having a loaded magazine a and a firearm within reach a loaded weapon, but that only applies in that section.

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
04-22-2008, 9:03 PM
There is one other statute you may want to reference. In the Penal Code there is a definition for a known street criminal that makes having a loaded magazine a and a firearm within reach a loaded weapon, but that only applies in that section.

-Gene

I could have swore I saw that at one time in the penal code but I don't see it now.

I see where possession of gun (unloaded or otherwise) and a magazine is a felony while in the commission of a "street gang crime" but the section that says a gang member with gun and any ammo is "loaded" eludes me.


12021.5 (b)
Every person who carries a loaded or unloaded firearm together
with a detachable shotgun magazine, a detachable pistol magazine, a
detachable magazine, or a belt-feeding device on his or her person,
or in a vehicle, during the commission or attempted commission of any
street gang crimes described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section
186.22, shall, upon conviction of the felony or attempted felony, be
punished by an additional term of imprisonment in the state prison
for two, three, or four years in the court's discretion.

bigdave1121
04-22-2008, 9:21 PM
Very well written letter EPU. I also ope the LEOs take the time to read it. Keep us updated.

Nodda Duma
04-22-2008, 9:27 PM
If I understand your story right, you got pulled over for going over the yellow line on 178? Geez, I didn't know it was possible to actually stay entirely in your own lane on that road...I always figured the painted lines in Kern Canyon were more of a suggestion. What a tough break.

BTW, don't know where you were headed, but if it was all the way through, it's the same amount of time to go down 58 and up 14. Of course, 178 *is* a fun road in a sportster.

-Jason

E Pluribus Unum
04-22-2008, 9:33 PM
If I understand your story right, you got pulled over for going over the yellow line on 178? Geez, I didn't know it was possible to actually stay entirely in your own lane on that road...I always figured the painted lines in Kern Canyon were more of a suggestion. What a tough break.

BTW, don't know where you were headed, but if it was all the way through, it's the same amount of time to go down 58 and up 14. Of course, 178 *is* a fun road in a sportster.

-Jason

I used to drive to Trona once a week. I've been through your little Ridgecrest appendage town many a time... been up over walker pass many times. I LOVE Indian Wells brewing company.. good steak and beer.

As far as the double yellow is concerned... yeah... everyone does it... doesn't mean it's legal... :) It sucks... I swear I have the worst luck on the planet.

P.S.
I got the crossing over a double yellow ticket on my way to court to setup payments for a previous violation of crossing a double yellow in the same canyon less than a mile from where I did it the first time. I was fishing the river on my way up to help justify it in my own mind.

DedEye
04-22-2008, 10:22 PM
I swear... I have the worst luck. I don't break many laws but when I do there's ALWAYS a cop there to see it.. :(

Except for every time you drove your car without a license ;) :rolleyes:.

Nodda Duma
04-22-2008, 11:11 PM
I've been through your little Ridgecrest appendage town many a time... been up over walker pass many times. I LOVE Indian Wells brewing company.. good steak and beer.


Lol "Ridgecrest appendage". Haven't heard that one. This valley is a great place to live and work if you don't mind the heat. *Very* gun friendly. Our Friends of the NRA dinner last weekend raised something like $50k net. The ranges are just down the road from me and stay really busy.

And yeah, the steak and beer at the brewing company is great. Mojave Red is my drink of choice. A place called The Homestead used to be open right next to them, and in my opinion had better steak..but they closed down a couple of years ago.

-Jason

Pthfndr
04-22-2008, 11:14 PM
tagged for future reading.

E Pluribus Unum
04-24-2008, 2:59 PM
I just got off of the phone with the officer I sent the email to.

It did not convince him at all. He said that his information comes from the Attorney General's office and that is what they go off of. Even if I were able to convince him otherwise he would not have the power to change what is taught to the officers because that comes directly from Sacramento; even if I talked to the head guy here in Kern County it would not matter because training material comes from the higher ups.

I mentioned that other agencies such as the Kern County District Attorney's office regards a loaded weapon as ammunition being attached to the firearm. He re-affirmed that his agency regards a loaded handgun as ammunition and handgun being accessible by the driver and referred me to PC 12031.

I asked that if I received a letter from the Attorney General's office stating that a driver with a handgun and ammuntion not attached to the firearm but available to him did not constitute a loaded firearm, would he be willing to listen to me. He stated that he would be very interested if I obtained such a letter.

So, it looks like I have my marching orders. I need to contact the AG office and ask them.

I think I will also ask other agencies to see what their policy is on loaded firearms.

P.S.
Though he remained respectful throughout the whole ordeal, he made it very apparent that he did not want to discuss the legalities of it. I know his position and he knows mine. We disagree and it will take his superiors to correct it.

MudCamper
04-24-2008, 5:12 PM
Wow. I haven't read the 171e definition until now. I just updated my Open Carry Flyer (http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf) to include this in the list of alternate loaded definitions:

** There is a common misconception that merely possessing both a firearm and ammunition on one’s person legally equates to “loaded”. This mistake stems from several PC sections that do not apply to the law-abiding gun owner. 12001(j) and 12023 only apply to carrying a firearm while committing a felony. 12021.5 applies only to street gang crimes as defined in 186.22. 12022.2 only applies to armor piercing ammunition. 12025(b)(6)(A) can only apply when one is convicted of a 12025 violation (carrying concealed). 171e only applies to 171c and 171d violations (inside the State Capitol, legislative offices, Governor’s mansion, etc.). And one final note about the definition of loaded: Fish and Game codes have a different (and more lenient) definition of loaded, which may apply to licensed hunters while actually hunting.

MudCamper
04-24-2008, 5:14 PM
He re-affirmed that his agency regards a loaded handgun as ammunition and handgun being accessible by the driver and referred me to PC 12031.

Odd. 12031 isn't all that long. It's an easy read. Nowhere in there does it state what he says.

mymonkeyman
04-24-2008, 5:17 PM
Odd. 12031 isn't all that long. It's an easy read. Nowhere in there does it state what he says.

A lot of people think laws are some kind of magical formulas and simply won't try to read them.

E Pluribus Unum
04-24-2008, 6:16 PM
Odd. 12031 isn't all that long. It's an easy read. Nowhere in there does it state what he says.

I know. He only knows what he's been told and refuses to read the law. He says that the law does not reflect CASE law. The literature given to him from the AG office encompases statute law and case law.

This will be an uphill battle but I wont put it down.

MudCamper
04-24-2008, 6:22 PM
I know. He only knows what he's been told and refuses to read the law. He says that the law does not reflect CASE law. The literature given to him from the AG office encompases statute law and case law.

Yep. The law includes case law alright. And People v. Clark proves him wrong.

E Pluribus Unum
04-24-2008, 9:51 PM
I have a recording of the conversation. Its 24 minutes long. I wonder if anyone would want to listen to it.

mymonkeyman
04-24-2008, 10:21 PM
I have a recording of the conversation. Its 24 minutes long. I wonder if anyone would want to listen to it.

Please tell me you told him you were recording.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-24-2008, 10:29 PM
I wonder if he is talking about a recording of the initial stop...or the subsequent separate conversation with with the Sergeant. If its the latter, it aint worth squat in court if the Sergeant didn't know he was being recorded.

retired
04-25-2008, 12:35 AM
or the subsequent separate conversation with with the Sergeant

If this is what you taped, you might not want to let that Sgt. know that you did. You also might want to read 632pc. I could be wrong as I did a fast read of the section and I'm half asleep, but it says you cannot do it without advising the other party. Something about a $2500 fine and jail or state time stood out.

Notwithstanding this, I thought your email to him was good and good luck with the AG. Please let us know the outcome if you would as I'm sure I'm not the only one interested. Thanks.

E Pluribus Unum
04-25-2008, 1:33 AM
Please tell me you told him you were recording.

Of course I did not.

I wonder if he is talking about a recording of the initial stop...or the subsequent separate conversation with with the Sergeant. If its the latter, it aint worth squat in court if the Sergeant didn't know he was being recorded.

I do not record for court. I record for me.


If this is what you taped, you might not want to let that Sgt. know that you did. You also might want to read 632pc. I could be wrong as I did a fast read of the section and I'm half asleep, but it says you cannot do it without advising the other party. Something about a $2500 fine and jail or state time stood out.

There needs to be an expectation of privacy. If we were in a closed room not exposed to the public it would be different. The lobby of the police station is open to the public. It is perfectly legal to record in a public place without telling anyone that the recording is occuring. It is also admissable in court without the party's consent because it is in a public place.

PC 632(c):
(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

The conversation was in the lobby of the police station around several police officers and 6-10 private citizens that had business there. One can hardly deduce an expectation of privacy.

I'm not concerned with admissability in court. I record conversations so that I can accurately quote someone in correspondance. If I made the recording available it would be devoid of names for anonymity.

I was just curious if there was an interest in listening to the 24 minute conversation with the sergeant. It does not appear that there is so I will not waste the time.

Liberty1
04-25-2008, 1:57 PM
Of course I did not.



The conversation was in the lobby of the police station around several police officers and 6-10 private citizens that had business there. One can hardly deduce an expectation of privacy.

Looks legal to me. I want to hear it.

l_Z_l
04-25-2008, 2:11 PM
Me too...curious about how he was...

mymonkeyman
04-25-2008, 3:08 PM
Of course I did not.



I do not record for court. I record for me.




There needs to be an expectation of privacy. If we were in a closed room not exposed to the public it would be different. The lobby of the police station is open to the public. It is perfectly legal to record in a public place without telling anyone that the recording is occuring. It is also admissable in court without the party's consent because it is in a public place.



The conversation was in the lobby of the police station around several police officers and 6-10 private citizens that had business there. One can hardly deduce an expectation of privacy.

I'm not concerned with admissability in court. I record conversations so that I can accurately quote someone in correspondance. If I made the recording available it would be devoid of names for anonymity.

I was just curious if there was an interest in listening to the 24 minute conversation with the sergeant. It does not appear that there is so I will not waste the time.


That's fine. I thought you were recording a phone call. Sure go ahead and MP3 it.

MT1
04-25-2008, 6:18 PM
Too bad this country has moved to "guilty until you prove yourself innocent"

So once we prove that the officer's/ DA's are wrong there is no repercussions, it would be nice if the DA had to pay your loss of wages out of his own pocket for wasting your time/money, and the taxpayers money on these BS cases.

Matt C
04-25-2008, 6:33 PM
i want to hear it

ditto

E Pluribus Unum
04-26-2008, 1:56 AM
OK, I've posted it. It will be down for a couple hours on Saturday but it will be back up by saturday night.

I know I had a couple things wrong. I was very nervous at the time; this was before I went home and refreshed my recollection of the gun laws. In my nervousness, I had a couple things wrong. I came down from Isabella and spoke with the sergeant without any time to prepare.

I forgot about California Penal Code that forbids open carry near a school. I also forgot that it's not "gang members" but people in commission of "gang crimes".

Not bad considering I hadn't dealt with it in months...

I also quoted 12026(f) that exempts hunters when its actually 12027(g).


Here it is (http://www.bakersfieldtech.com/upload/pdall.mp3)

DedEye
04-26-2008, 2:12 AM
You really need to send him the ruling from People v. Clark.

E Pluribus Unum
04-26-2008, 3:12 AM
You really need to send him the ruling from People v. Clark.

Already did... read the original post. None of that matters to him; he is not an attorney; unless his superiors tell him, he wont believe me.

DedEye
04-26-2008, 3:15 AM
Already did... read the original post. None of that matters to him; he is not an attorney; unless his superiors tell him, he wont believe me.

Ah gotcha. Forgot about the original post and said that after listening to him sounding like a broken record on the recording.

Sounds like an education job for the Calguns Foundation, eh ;)?

johnny_22
04-26-2008, 6:53 AM
I purchased a copy two years ago to compare what a police officer learned about firearm carry vs. what was in my "How to Own a Gun and Stay out of Jail" book. The officer is quoting the book correctly.

http://www.copware.com/products/reference.html

It appears we need to ask AG Brown to update the book to get Bakersfield PD to change.

E Pluribus Unum
04-26-2008, 12:54 PM
It appears we need to ask AG Brown to update the book to get Bakersfield PD to change.

I never said which agency it was though I am sure most police agencies are fed the same BS as the others.

johnny_22
04-26-2008, 5:21 PM
Someone said "Bakersfield". Reminded me of that fine Fox TV show from the 1990s.

E Pluribus Unum
04-26-2008, 9:15 PM
Ok guys.... the audio recording is up again... server is back up.

Here it is (http://www.bakersfieldtech.com/upload/pdall.mp3)

G17GUY
04-26-2008, 11:53 PM
Ok guys.... the audio recording is up again... server is back up.

Here it is (http://www.bakersfieldtech.com/upload/pdall.mp3)

Rule #1 - Arrest now, ask questions later.

G17GUY
04-26-2008, 11:57 PM
Rule #1 - Arrest now, ask questions later.

What was the document he gave you a copy of that came from the AG office?

E Pluribus Unum
04-27-2008, 12:00 AM
What was the document he gave you a copy of that came from the AG office?

Peace officer's legal source book


There is a link to purchase it earlier in the thread.

Liberty1
04-27-2008, 2:28 PM
OK, I've posted it. It will be down for a couple hours on Saturday but it will be back up by saturday night.

I know I had a couple things wrong. I was very nervous at the time; this was before I went home and refreshed my recollection of the gun laws. In my nervousness, I had a couple things wrong. I came down from Isabella and spoke with the sergeant without any time to prepare.

I forgot about California Penal Code that forbids open carry near a school. I also forgot that it's not "gang members" but people in commission of "gang crimes".

Not bad considering I hadn't dealt with it in months...

I also quoted 12026(f) that exempts hunters when its actually 12027(g).


Here it is (http://www.bakersfieldtech.com/upload/pdall.mp3)

It was painful to listen to :banghead:., but made it through to the end :). You need to find out who at the dept. is responsible for legal updates/training and deal with that individual only. If you put the department on notice (written mailed registered return receipt with cc to your attorney) as to the PC and case law and they fail to property train their officers/deputies you then have more options civilly to redress any future grievances.

Also....WHY aren't you carrying on your person ALL THE TIME the OC brochures or your own cheat sheet of PC exemption to 12025, etc...???

Good job on the recording but learn your codes!:)

You're walking the Penal code walk but talk the talk.....LEOs say 12-o-25, 12-o-31 etc...not 1-2-0-2-5

vinny_land
04-27-2008, 4:20 PM
Ok guys.... the audio recording is up again... server is back up.

Here it is (http://www.bakersfieldtech.com/upload/pdall.mp3)

Do you smell like fish?
My fingers do...do you wanna smell them?:jump::p:D

Interesting conversation. This is why PRK blows, confusing information about what is OC and what is considered "loaded". People in Bakotopia cant have a CCW because we live in the city??? Also during the 14:00 mark, what do you mean you have something set up with your attorney?

E Pluribus Unum
04-27-2008, 6:00 PM
It was painful to listen to :banghead:., but made it through to the end :). You need to find out who at the dept. is responsible for legal updates/training and deal with that individual only. If you put the department on notice (written mailed registered return receipt with cc to your attorney) as to the PC and case law and they fail to property train their officers/deputies you then have more options civilly to redress any future grievances.

Also....WHY aren't you carrying on your person ALL THE TIME the OC brochures or your own cheat sheet of PC exemption to 12025, etc...???

Good job on the recording but learn your codes!:)

You're walking the Penal code walk but talk the talk.....LEOs say 12-o-25, 12-o-31 etc...not 1-2-0-2-5

The agency involved is the California Highway Patrol. I am told by this sergeant that all training material and rules comes directly from Sacramento; The CHP has a "general counsel" division that is responsible for that based out of Sacramento. It is not a local PD.

MudCamper
04-27-2008, 8:08 PM
OK. It was painful for me to listen to. Both you and the LEO were all over the map on the subject. Both of you stated some correct and some incorrect information. You didn't stick to your guns (so to speak) and you let the conversation get very confused. You need to know the law or bring paper with you. In the end, the LEO probably just thinks that you are a trouble-maker who doesn't know what he's talking about. I would advise having copies of all relevant PC and case laws with you before speaking with law enforcement, and know ahead of time what you want to accomplish. It was very unclear to me why you were speaking to him, other than just to argue.

bruss01
04-27-2008, 9:09 PM
The cliche overused excuse "weaving". I broke no traffic laws but they claimed I was "weaving" and had PC to pull over pending a sobriety test.

I had an expired driver's license so I ended up pleading guilty to 12500a but the gun charges were dismissed.

I was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. (Carrying a concealed weapon while hunting is legal)

Which were you doing, driving, hunting, or hunting from a moving automobile?

I think it is one thing in most people's mind to be out in the woods, shotgun in hand, stalking a boar/deer/pheasants/whatever with a pistol on your belt just in case you get in a situation where it is needed. I think it is something else entirely to wake up in the morning, roll out of bed, put your huntin' cap on, and claim that you are therefore "hunting" and can proceed to strap on a pistol then get in your car and go driving around looking for a place to hunt, because you have a license and game is in season. I wasn't aware that you could be considered "hunting" while driving around on public roads. What did I miss? I thought that when you are on public roads you are transporting the pistol, not "hunting" and must obey all the usual laws regarding transportation of a pistol. Again, tell me what I missed.

Liberty1
04-27-2008, 9:22 PM
The agency involved is the California Highway Patrol. I am told by this sergeant that all training material and rules comes directly from Sacramento; The CHP has a "general counsel" division that is responsible for that based out of Sacramento. It is not a local PD.

I'm very surprised! They usually have their stuff together but then again they deal mostly with traffic stuff (triple A with a gun:p)

Ok, at this point I'd do a complaint. The officer threatened you with arrest for a lawful activity even though he only advised you of this perceived violation he was still wrong as the law applies to you - which must violate some policy.

Let IA dig into it and if they uncover some lack of training on the subject it will get addressed with some training.

Liberty1
04-27-2008, 9:26 PM
Again, tell me what I missed.

The Penal Code:p










































section 12027(g) - licensed fishers and hunters exempt from 12025(conceal prohibited) while enroute to/from fishing/hunting with unloaded firearm.

E Pluribus Unum
04-27-2008, 9:43 PM
OK. It was painful for me to listen to. Both you and the LEO were all over the map on the subject. Both of you stated some correct and some incorrect information. You didn't stick to your guns (so to speak) and you let the conversation get very confused. You need to know the law or bring paper with you. In the end, the LEO probably just thinks that you are a trouble-maker who doesn't know what he's talking about. I would advise having copies of all relevant PC and case laws with you before speaking with law enforcement, and know ahead of time what you want to accomplish. It was very unclear to me why you were speaking to him, other than just to argue.

The only thing I was wrong about was no guns within 1000 ft of a school.

What else was I wrong about?

I was pulled over by the officer; I had no documents on me and if I did I would not have argued with him. I argued with the officer 2 years ago and it got me arrested and I spent 12 hours in jail. I wont argue with the arresting officer any more.

I anticipated talking to the sergeant and the sergeant KNOWING the law. After I finished fishing I drove straight to the CHP station and planned on the sergeant saying "we will be sure to train that officer" or something of the like. I had no idea that the entire department would be completely ignorant of the law. If I had known I was going into battle I would have printed the stuff out and been prepared.

Which were you doing, driving, hunting, or hunting from a moving automobile?

I think it is one thing in most people's mind to be out in the woods, shotgun in hand, stalking a boar/deer/pheasants/whatever with a pistol on your belt just in case you get in a situation where it is needed. I think it is something else entirely to wake up in the morning, roll out of bed, put your huntin' cap on, and claim that you are therefore "hunting" and can proceed to strap on a pistol then get in your car and go driving around looking for a place to hunt, because you have a license and game is in season. I wasn't aware that you could be considered "hunting" while driving around on public roads. What did I miss? I thought that when you are on public roads you are transporting the pistol, not "hunting" and must obey all the usual laws regarding transportation of a pistol. Again, tell me what I missed.

It is the law.


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.
(2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

12027. Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:
(g) Licensed hunters or fishermen carrying pistols, revolvers, or
other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person while
engaged in hunting or fishing, or transporting those firearms
unloaded when going to or returning from the hunting or fishing
expedition.


I was less than a mile from the best fishing in Kern county with a car full of fishing gear wearing a fishing license. I obviously qualified for the exemption.

Liberty1
04-27-2008, 10:06 PM
I anticipated talking to the sergeant and the sergeant KNOWING the law.

What you're dealing with is lack of exposure to some of the PC's most unknown codes (I'd say most of the PC codes, thousands of them, are unknown to most LEOS and private persons). Criminals are actually in violation of the firearm codes and LEO's are generally exempt and since Californian's don't exercise their exemptions or non prohibited open carry options LEO's don't get exposure to them.

I'd recommend to all to print out a few of the OC brochures from opencarry.org CA forum and keep them in your car or shooting bag. See a LEO, pass one out with a smile, even if you're not carrying.

Decoligny
04-27-2008, 10:29 PM
There is this one.

http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf

And there is the one in my signature below.

Both good info.

Liberty1
04-27-2008, 10:45 PM
The problem with 12025 is that it prohibits ALL concealed carry and then lists exemptions. So they are really affirmative defenses to the presumption that you are in violation of 12025. The burden of proving your innocents is on you and the good will of an officer, even if you're carrying in a locked case or have a License to Carry; but some exemptions are certainly easier to prove then others.


And for those claiming 12027 exemptions print this out and carry it. So does (e) work for UPS drivers or over the road truckers? :)


12027. Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:
(a) (1) (A) Any peace officer, listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2,
or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably
retired, other duly appointed peace officers, honorably retired peace
officers listed in subdivision (c) of Section 830.5, other honorably
retired peace officers...
(b) The possession or transportation of unloaded pistols,
revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the
person as merchandise by a person who is engaged in the business of
manufacturing, importing, wholesaling, repairing, or dealing in
firearms and who is licensed to engage in that business or the
authorized representative or authorized agent of that person while
engaged in the lawful course of the business.
(c) Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, or Marine
Corps of the United States, or the National Guard, when on duty, or
organizations which are by law authorized to purchase or receive
those weapons from the United States or this state.
(d) The carrying of unloaded pistols, revolvers, or other firearms
capable of being concealed upon the person by duly authorized
military or civil organizations while parading, or the members
thereof when going to and from the places of meeting of their
respective organizations.
(e) Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other
financial institutions while actually employed in and about the
shipment, transportation, or delivery of any money, treasure,
bullion, bonds, or other thing of value within this state.
(f) Members of any club or organization organized for the purpose
of practicing shooting at targets upon established target ranges,
whether public or private, while the members are using pistols,
revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the
person upon the target ranges, or transporting these firearms
unloaded when going to and from the ranges.
(g) Licensed hunters or fishermen carrying pistols, revolvers, or
other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person while
engaged in hunting or fishing, or transporting those firearms
unloaded when going to or returning from the hunting or fishing
expedition.
(h) Transportation of unloaded firearms by a person operating a
licensed common carrier or an authorized agent or employee thereof
when transported in conformance with applicable federal law.
(i) Upon approval of the sheriff of the county in which they
reside, honorably retired federal officers or agents of federal law
enforcement agencies...
(j) The carrying of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person by a person who is authorized to
carry that weapon in a concealed manner pursuant to Article 3
(commencing with Section 12050).

Da_shotcaller
04-27-2008, 11:42 PM
The problem with 12025 is that it prohibits ALL concealed carry and then lists exemptions. So they are really affirmative defenses to the presumption that you are in violation of 12025. The burden of proving your innocents is on you and the good will of an officer, even if you're carrying in a locked case or have a License to Carry; but some exemptions are certainly easier to prove then others.


And for those claiming 12027 exemptions print this out and carry it. So does (e) work for UPS drivers or over the road truckers? :)


12027. Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:
(f) Members of any club or organization organized for the purpose
of practicing shooting at targets upon established target ranges,
whether public or private, while the members are using pistols,
revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the
person upon the target ranges, or transporting these firearms
unloaded when going to and from the ranges.
(g) Licensed hunters or fishermen carrying pistols, revolvers, or
other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person while
engaged in hunting or fishing, or transporting those firearms
unloaded when going to or returning from the hunting or fishing
expedition.


Just out of curiousity especially with this two excemptions that probably affect most of us in here. Am I right to say that in order for us to be excempt with section 12025 we either have to be engage in hunting or fishing or practicing shooting in an established target ranges. But when we start transporting our unloaded weapons going to or from then we have to transposrt it in accordance to 12026.1 PC. So failure to abide 12026.1 PC will then put you in violation of 12025 PC.

And since the OP is not engaged in hunting or fishing at that time but transporting and not in accordance to 12026.1 PC that puts him in violation of 12025 PC.

To the OP just a question during this traffic stop do you think the officer have a PC to think that your not the legal owner of the gun? Or did he verify that you are the legal owner of the gun?

scotthmt
04-27-2008, 11:43 PM
So having a gun in the car with a loaded magazine next to it IS NOT ILLEGAL? I got into an arguement with my friend and he would not back down saying that a loaded magazine is a loaded gun

pullnshoot25
04-27-2008, 11:52 PM
I have a recording of the conversation. Its 24 minutes long. I wonder if anyone would want to listen to it.

I do!

E Pluribus Unum
04-27-2008, 11:53 PM
So having a gun in the car with a loaded magazine next to it IS NOT ILLEGAL? I got into an arguement with my friend and he would not back down saying that a loaded magazine is a loaded gun

The law says "No ammo attached to the gun". Some liberal jurisdictions translated this to mean, "ammo in the magazine is loaded regardless if the mag is in the gun or not". For this reason many people were taught to keep the ammo completely seperate from the gun.

In 1996 there was an appellate court decision People vs. Clark which totally changed everything. After 1996 "loaded" means ammunition in the magazine, magazine in the gun and or round in the chamber.

Anything else is legal. You could even have a fully loaded magazine duct-taped to the handgun and it is legal.

pullnshoot25
04-27-2008, 11:57 PM
What a crock of horsecrap. I am sorry you had to go through all of that dude.

scotthmt
04-28-2008, 12:13 AM
The law says "No ammo attached to the gun". Some liberal jurisdictions translated this to mean, "ammo in the magazine is loaded regardless if the mag is in the gun or not". For this reason many people were taught to keep the ammo completely seperate from the gun.

In 1996 there was an appellate court decision People vs. Clark which totally changed everything. After 1996 "loaded" means ammunition in the magazine, magazine in the gun and or round in the chamber.

Anything else is legal. You could even have a fully loaded magazine duct-taped to the handgun and it is legal.

exactly what i thought, now im gonna shut my friend up.

Liberty1
04-28-2008, 12:43 AM
Just out of curiousity especially with this two excemptions that probably affect most of us in here. Am I right to say that in order for us to be excempt with section 12025 we either have to be engage in hunting or fishing or practicing shooting in an established target ranges. But when we start transporting our unloaded weapons going to or from then we have to transposrt it in accordance to 12026.1 PC. So failure to abide 12026.1 PC will then put you in violation of 12025 PC. And since the OP is not engaged in hunting or fishing at that time but transporting and not in accordance to 12026.1 PC that puts him in violation of 12025 PC.


12026.1a, 12026.2a and 12027 all list exemptions to 12025 and are not dependent on each other for validity. They are separate statutes. I qualify under 12027(a)(1)(A). EPU was claiming 12027 (g). For both of us our exemption states "12027. Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following..."

Exempt is exempt if one qualifies. No locked container is required for 12027 qualified persons. Now my exemption is easier to prove then his but they both have the same equal exemption language of "12025 does not apply" except most of the other exemptions in 12027 must be unloaded.

during this traffic stop do you think the officer have a PC to think that your not the legal owner of the gun?

Absent concent or an arrestable offense, an officer would not have authority to conduct a serial number stolen check unless he could independently discover probable cause to believe the firearm was stolen. Even then a warrant may technically be needed to seize and run the search absent an arrest prior to the search. 12031(e) authorizes a loaded check but nothing more...and even that I consider a 4th A violation absent normal PC to arrest for 12031 loaded or another crime. And 12031 violates the 2A if we can get a decent ruling out of SCOTUS in Heller as a foundation.

In most of the county, loaded exposed firearm carry, in and of itself, does not rise to the level of suspicion required for even a "Terry vs Ohio" investigatory stop: http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=757&issue_id=122005

bruss01
04-28-2008, 9:17 AM
The Penal Code:p
section 12027(g) - licensed fishers and hunters exempt from 12025(conceal prohibited) while enroute to/from fishing/hunting with unloaded firearm.

Ok, I guess it hinges on how you interpret "enroute"... I always figured that covered the 100 yards from your car/truck to the creek bank or duck blind, not the 100 miles from your bedroom to the parking lot near the creek. Do we have any clarification on the meaning of "enroute"?

bruss01
04-28-2008, 9:24 AM
I was pulled over by the officer;

I was less than a mile from the best fishing in Kern county with a car full of fishing gear wearing a fishing license. I obviously qualified for the exemption.

I don't see anything specific in that part of the code about vehicles or public roads (maybe I'm missing it?). I always interpreted "going to or returning from" as foot travel in the area where you are hunting or fishing, i.e. not vehicle transportation on public roads. I just assumed - since there is no indication otherwise - that vehicle transportation of a pistol is unaffected meaning all the safe storage for transportation rules still apply. Is this too narrow a reading of the law, and are there any court cases that clarify this point? Or statement from the DOJ?

Appreciate the discussion.

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 9:27 AM
Ok, I guess it hinges on how you interpret "enroute"... I always figured that covered the 100 yards from your car/truck to the creek bank or duck blind, not the 100 miles from your bedroom to the parking lot near the creek. Do we have any clarification on the meaning of "enroute"?

I already quoted the law... please read it.

12025 makes it illegal to carry concealed on your person or in a vehicle.

12027 says 12025 does not apply to licensed hunters/fisherman going to or coming from an expedition. That means if one is going to or coming from, concealed carry is legal in a vehicle as well as on his person.


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.
(2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

12027. Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:
(g) Licensed hunters or fishermen carrying pistols, revolvers, or
other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person while
engaged in hunting or fishing, or transporting those firearms
unloaded when going to or returning from the hunting or fishing
expedition.

bruss01
04-28-2008, 11:54 AM
I already quoted the law... please read it.

12025 makes it illegal to carry concealed on your person or in a vehicle.

12027 says 12025 does not apply to licensed hunters/fisherman going to or coming from an expedition. That means if one is going to or coming from, concealed carry is legal in a vehicle as well as on his person.

I DO see an exemption from being charged with carrying concealed in your vehicle.

I DO NOT see an exemption from safe storage for transportation. Maybe that is elsewhere in the PC? Or it is "implied"? Do "implied" exemptions count?

Just because you have an exemption from one part of the PC, do you automatically get a pass on the other parts? THAT is the disconnect that I am referring to. Sorry if that is confusing - but that seems to be the point of most CA gun laws, to cause confusion.

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 12:13 PM
I filed a formal complaint with the CHP:

On 4-22 I was pulled over for a traffic infraction on 178 one mile East of China Gardens camp ground. I had an unloaded Glock 17 handgun in plain view on the seat next to me and 10 rounds of ammunition in the center console. I was told by the officer that this constituted a "loaded weapon" and was a misdemeanor and I could be arrested for it. I then apologized and told the officer that next time I would conceal the firearm. He told me that this too was a misdemeanor. I was traveling with fishing gear and was obviously exempted from 12025 by section 12027(g) but decided not to argue with the officer. I went down to office 420 and spoke with a sergeant Doe about various gun laws. He affirmed the officer's position stating several times that "the CHP considers a loaded firearm to be a gun and ammunition accessible by the driver". He advised that if I continued to drive with my handgun and its ammunition accessible that I would be subject to arrest. He also argued that no exemption exists for licensed fisherman on a fishing trip. Among some of his other statements was that it is illegal to have an unloaded firearm in a public place. We spoke for 30 minutes about firearms laws where the sergeant was gravely mistaken. I wanted to talk about officer training and he stated that training comes from Sacramento and no one in the local field office is responsible for officer training. He gave me his email address where I sent him the definition of loaded as offered by Penal Code 12031(g) and People v. Clark. After no response I called him and he said that he had received the email but there was nothing that I could do because the CHP gets its training material from Sacramento, not from an internet search by a private citizen. I have been previously arrested by the CHP for carrying a concealed firearm while hunting, meeting the exemption in 12027(g). I lost 12 hours of my life and over $1000 in attorney fees. Though not expected to know every law, law enforcement owes it to the people they serve to at least know what constitutes a "loaded weapon" under the law and then teach it to the officers in the field to insure that no one's freedom is deprived due to ignorance. I can understand one officer but I have encountered now 4 CHP officers in office 420 that do not know the law.

I will point out that in all correspondence all of the officers involved were professional and attempted to be very helpful. I do not blame the officers as they can only be expected to be as competent as the training they receive. My complaint is that the CHP is not adequately training its officers for the job at hand. Those officers are in turn arresting citizens and or threatening arrest where no law has been broken.

I swear under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is factual.

Me

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 12:16 PM
I DO NOT see an exemption from safe storage for transportation. Maybe that is elsewhere in the PC? Or it is "implied"? Do "implied" exemptions count?

No part of the penal code requires a gun to be in a locked case. It is legal to carry it in the open. It is legal to carry it in a holster provided that it is not concealed.

This section makes its carry legal even if concealed while going to or from a hunt/fishing trip.

Show me in the penal code where it talks about "safe storage for transportation".

Da_shotcaller
04-28-2008, 12:53 PM
12026.1a, 12026.2a and 12027 all list exemptions to 12025 and are not dependent on each other for validity. They are separate statutes. I qualify under 12027(a)(1)(A). EPU was claiming 12027 (g). For both of us our exemption states "12027. Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following..."

Exempt is exempt if one qualifies. No locked container is required for 12027 qualified persons. Now my exemption is easier to prove then his but they both have the same equal exemption language of "12025 does not apply" except most of the other exemptions in 12027 must be unloaded.

Absent concent or an arrestable offense, an officer would not have authority to conduct a serial number stolen check unless he could independently discover probable cause to believe the firearm was stolen. Even then a warrant may technically be needed to seize and run the search absent an arrest prior to the search. 12031(e) authorizes a loaded check but nothing more...and even that I consider a 4th A violation absent normal PC to arrest for 12031 loaded or another crime. And 12031 violates the 2A if we can get a decent ruling out of SCOTUS in Heller as a foundation.

In most of the county, loaded exposed firearm carry, in and of itself, does not rise to the level of suspicion required for even a "Terry vs Ohio" investigatory stop: http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=757&issue_id=122005

Well I believed that the word or transporting plays a vital role in here.
I believed 12027 PC is written with the intention that a reasonable person understand that when transporting a gun that it should be in conjunction with 12026.1 PC. Once a person gets into their vehicle and start driving back home they are no longer engage in a fishing or hunting expedition. With this is mind you are now engeage in transporting a firearm which is where 12026.1 PC gets involve. Do you think it's reasonable if I decided to drive let say 10 hrs to go to San Diego with my fishing pole in the back of my car and my unloaded firearm in the passenger seat within an arms reach?

In the OP situation the gun was clearly in plain view. Could this be a violation of 12025 PC? He could have been easily been arrested on that that's why the officer who pulled him over warned him that he could have been arrested for misdemeanor. Can the officer check if the gun was loaded and if he's the legal owner of the gun? I'll say yes because the gun that we are talking about is in plain view.

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 1:03 PM
I don't mean to sound rude so please do not take this the wrong way.

This has been covered many many times before so I will paraphrase for you.


Well I believed that the word or transporting plays a vital role in here.
I believed 12027 PC is written with the intention that a reasonable person understand that when transporting a gun that it should be in conjunction with 12026.1 PC.

A locked case is ONLY required while carrying concealed. Either on your person or in a vehicle. That is where 12026 gets involved. It exempts CONCEALED carry on the person or in a vehicle when certain conditions are met. It has nothing to do with transportation in general. It only says "Ok, if you want to carry your gun in a locked case, it can be concealed".


Once a person gets into their vehicle and start driving back home they are no longer engage in a fishing or hunting expedition. With this is mind you are now engeage in transporting a firearm which is where 12026.1 PC gets involve.

Again, this is an exception for carrying concealed. You are correct in assuming that were it not for 12027, it would be illegal to carry concealed in a vehicle because 12026 does not exempt hunters from concealed carry; it exempts locked containers from concealed carry.


Do you think it's reasonable if I decided to drive let say 10 hrs to go to San Diego with my fishing pole in the back of my car and my unloaded firearm in the passenger seat within an arms reach?

This is legal whether you are fishing or hunting. An open-carried firearm is perfectly legal.


In the OP situation the gun was clearly in plain view. Could this be a violation of 12025 PC?

12025 makes it illegal to carry a CONCEALED firearm; how would carrying one in the open be a violation?


He could have been easily been arrested on that that's why the officer who pulled him over warned him that he could have been arrested for misdemeanor.
Again, it was perfectly legal; there were no misdemeanors committed.


Can the officer check if the gun was loaded and if he's the legal owner of the gun? I'll say yes because the gun that we are talking about is in plain view.

Yes, an officer can check to see if a gun is loaded. He took both my Glock and my OLL to the patrol car where he checked for rounds.

Da_shotcaller
04-28-2008, 1:19 PM
No part of the penal code requires a gun to be in a locked case. It is legal to carry it in the open. It is legal to carry it in a holster provided that it is not concealed.

This section makes its carry legal even if concealed while going to or from a hunt/fishing trip.

Show me in the penal code where it talks about "safe storage for transportation".

As long as it's unloaded and in a holster and not concealed then I would agree with you. But now we are dealing with open carry which is totally different from what the situation the OP encountered.

If you read 12026.1 PC then it will clearly show you what the law expected when someone is transproting a firearms. Violation of 12025 PC doesn't mean that you need to have a loaded fireamrs. There's nothing in that section that says that the firearms need to be loaded to be in violation with this section. 12025 PC is a misdemeanor but if the said fireamrs was deemed loaded at the time then 12031 PC will kick in thus making your misdeamenor charges to a felony charges.

GuyW
04-28-2008, 1:45 PM
...1996...appellate court decision People vs. Clark which totally changed everything. After 1996 "loaded" means ammunition in the magazine, magazine in the gun and or round in the chamber....

Ambiguous. Do you mean:

After 1996 "loaded" means ammunition in the magazine AND SAME magazine in the gun and/or round in the chamber?

GuyW
04-28-2008, 1:49 PM
Ok, I guess it hinges on how you interpret "enroute"... I always figured that covered the 100 yards from your car/truck to the creek bank or duck blind, not the 100 miles from your bedroom to the parking lot near the creek. Do we have any clarification on the meaning of "enroute"?

"Enroute" isn't the law, which was posted previously in this thread.

Law:

"or transporting these firearms unloaded when going to and from the ranges.
(g) Licensed hunters or fishermen carrying pistols, revolvers, or
other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person while
engaged in hunting or fishing, or transporting those firearms
unloaded when going to or returning from the hunting or fishing
expedition."

Da_shotcaller
04-28-2008, 2:19 PM
I don't mean to sound rude so please do not take this the wrong way.

This has been covered many many times before so I will paraphrase for you.

A locked case is ONLY required while carrying concealed. Either on your person or in a vehicle. That is where 12026 gets involved. It exempts CONCEALED carry on the person or in a vehicle when certain conditions are met. It has nothing to do with transportation in general. It only says "Ok, if you want to carry your gun in a locked case, it can be concealed".

Again, this is an exception for carrying concealed. You are correct in assuming that were it not for 12027, it would be illegal to carry concealed in a vehicle because 12026 does not exempt hunters from concealed carry; it exempts locked containers from concealed carry.

This is legal whether you are fishing or hunting. An open-carried firearm is perfectly legal.

12025 makes it illegal to carry a CONCEALED firearm; how would carrying one in the open be a violation?

Again, it was perfectly legal; there were no misdemeanors committed.

Yes, an officer can check to see if a gun is loaded. He took both my Glock and my OLL to the patrol car where he checked for rounds.

Don't worry I don't think you are being rude at all. In my point of view this is just a healthy discussion between a couple of adult person. In the end it's either you sway me in your direction as the right thing, maybe I'll sway you in my direction as the right thing or we both think our way is the right thing. Ok so here's my response.

As far as 12025 PC concealed weapon is concerned CA law defines it as not only literally meaning concealed or hidden but also capable of being concealed. In your situation your firearm is not in a locked container and we both agree with that one. It's in plain view on the seat right next to you. So it's easily accessible to you and capable of being concealed if you decided to. So when you're in your vehicle and driving you are now transporting your gun thus 12026.1 should be in effect.


You said that hunter are not exempt for 12026.1 for carrying concealed. I agree with this because for me when a hunter is not engaged in hunting anymore but engaged in transporting then 12026.1 should be used or else you would be in violation with 12025. 12026.1 doesn't exempt locked container. It is actually an exemption to 12025 as long as you transport the gun in accordance to 12026.1. This is the law on how an individual should transport a gun.

SO driving for 10 hours on my way to a lake already qualifies me as a hunter or fisherman? 12027 won't exempt you since you are not engage in unting or fishing yet. And as far as open carry well for me the definition of that will be that your firearm is unloaded in a holster in plain view. So having it in a passenger seat next to you doesn't qualify as open carry.

How can it be considered concealed when in plain view? One you are transporting that gun in a vehicle not in accordance to 12026.1. So according to Ca Penal Code that's a violation of 12025 PC.

Im not asking if he can check your firearms. What I asked was if he checked your firearms when you got pulled over. Because I know he can check it. An no he didn't only checked it in his patrol car to see if it's loaded. He also checked that gun to see if you are the legal owner.


My point in this is not to have an arguement but marely to just find a simple way. Is it worth the hassle for some of us to spend time in jail, spent our hard earned money trying to protect our innocence and putting our family to all this drama because we think we are exempted. Or is it better to say well if im engaged in hunting then im exempted form carrying a concealed weapon. But now I'm done hunting and I'm on my way home then maybe I'd be better of transporting this gun on how the law intended it to be transported.

Decoligny
04-28-2008, 2:47 PM
As far as 12025 PC concealed weapon is concerned CA law defines it as not only literally meaning concealed or hidden but also capable of being concealed. No, it defines a violation as actually concealing "a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"

In your situation your firearm is not in a locked container and we both agree with that one. It's in plain view on the seat right next to you. So it's easily accessible to you and capable of being concealed if you decided to. So when you're in your vehicle and driving you are now transporting your gun thus 12026.1 should be in effect.

You said that hunter are not exempt for 12026.1 for carrying concealed. I agree with this because for me when a hunter is not engaged in hunting anymore but engaged in transporting then 12026.1 should be used or else you would be in violation with 12025. 12026.1 doesn't exempt locked container. It is actually an exemption to 12025 as long as you transport the gun in accordance to 12026.1. This is the law on how an individual should transport a gun. No this simply provides a way to be exempt from the restriction imposed in 12025

SO driving for 10 hours on my way to a lake already qualifies me as a hunter or fisherman? 12027 won't exempt you since you are not engage in unting or fishing yet. And as far as open carry well for me the definition of that will be that your firearm is unloaded in a holster in plain view. So having it in a passenger seat next to you doesn't qualify as open carry. If it is not actually concealed, it is open carry. The belt holster is simply ONE definition and should not be considered as the only way to open carry.

How can it be considered concealed when in plain view? One you are transporting that gun in a vehicle not in accordance to 12026.1. So according to Ca Penal Code that's a violation of 12025 PC. No, you are really reaching on that one. 12026.1 is not a requirement clause, it is an exemption clause. If you were required to carry in compliance with 12026.1, then violating 12026.1 would be a chargable offense, it is not.

Im not asking if he can check your firearms. What I asked was if he checked your firearms when you got pulled over. Because I know he can check it. An no he didn't only checked it in his patrol car to see if it's loaded. He also checked that gun to see if you are the legal owner.

My point in this is not to have an arguement but marely to just find a simple way. Is it worth the hassle for some of us to spend time in jail, spend our hard earned money trying to protect our innocence and putting our family to all this drama because we think we are exempted. Or is it better to say well if im engaged in hunting then im exempted form carrying a concealed weapon. But now I'm done hunting and I'm on my way home then maybe I'd be better of transporting this gun on how the law intended it to be transported.

What no one seems to realize it that 12026.1 is specifically an EXEMPTION CLAUSE. You cannot be charged with violating 12026.1.
12026.1 say that if you do a.b.c., then you are exempt from 12025. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you completely ignore 12026.1, you still would have to VIOLATE specific rules of law listed in 12025 to be charged with a concealed weapons charge.

Glock22Fan
04-28-2008, 2:52 PM
As far as 12025 PC concealed weapon is concerned CA law defines it as not only literally meaning concealed or hidden but also capable of being concealed. In your situation your firearm is not in a locked container and we both agree with that one. It's in plain view on the seat right next to you. So it's easily accessible to you and capable of being concealed if you decided to. So when you're in your vehicle and driving you are now transporting your gun thus 12026.1 should be in effect.

No, because "capable of being concealed" is only in effect when the firearm actually is concealed. I've emphasised this the first time, you will see the other cases.

pc12025 (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.
(2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he
or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.

Of course, this is the usual Sacramento slipshod law. There's people who could conceal a SAW under their clothing. However, "capable of being concealed" usually translates to "Any handgun."

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 6:32 PM
As far as 12025 PC concealed weapon is concerned CA law defines it as not only literally meaning concealed or hidden but also capable of being concealed. In your situation your firearm is not in a locked container and we both agree with that one. It's in plain view on the seat right next to you. So it's easily accessible to you and capable of being concealed if you decided to. So when you're in your vehicle and driving you are now transporting your gun thus 12026.1 should be in effect.

You are missing the point. "Other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" is the legal way to say "all other handguns". As technology changes they don't want to have to re-write all the laws to encompass the new types of concealable firearms so they make a catchall term of "other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person". I can wear a trenchcoat and conceal a remington 870. Doing so is perfectly legal eventhough it is generally illegal to carry a concealed weapon.

If I carry a fixed-blade knife in a concealed sheath, that is a felony. I can carry a remington 870 in a trenchcoat and that is perfectly legal. Eventhough any firearm is capable of being concealed... the term "other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" just means "all handguns".


You said that hunter are not exempt for 12026.1 for carrying concealed. I agree with this because for me when a hunter is not engaged in hunting anymore but engaged in transporting then 12026.1 should be used or else you would be in violation with 12025. 12026.1 doesn't exempt locked container. It is actually an exemption to 12025 as long as you transport the gun in accordance to 12026.1.

That is not what I said. What I said was 12026.1 does not exempt hunters from concealed carry. 12027(g) DOES.


This is the law on how an individual should transport a gun.

No, it is not. As I said, locked cases are NOT a requirement of the law.


SO driving for 10 hours on my way to a lake already qualifies me as a hunter or fisherman? 12027 won't exempt you since you are not engage in unting or fishing yet.

Yes, as long as you are going to or coming from, you do not have to be actually hunting or fishing. One is exempt simply if he is on his way.


And as far as open carry well for me the definition of that will be that your firearm is unloaded in a holster in plain view. So having it in a passenger seat next to you doesn't qualify as open carry.

This is complete BS. A firearm in the open on the seat next to you with no ammo attached to the weapon is perfectly legal.


How can it be considered concealed when in plain view? One you are transporting that gun in a vehicle not in accordance to 12026.1.

12026.1 is not a requirement, it is an exemption. The scope of that law is limited to the application of 12025. If 12025 does not apply, then neither does 12026.1.


So according to Ca Penal Code that's a violation of 12025 PC.

Again... no.. it is not... please stop spreading ignorance.


An no he didn't only checked it in his patrol car to see if it's loaded. He also checked that gun to see if you are the legal owner.

Again.. more anus talk. He took them back to his patrol car and cleared the weapon. He NEVER called in the serial numbers. He even commented saying "I wont waste your time calling in the serial numbers, people with legal firearms don't carry them in the open."



Or is it better to say well if im engaged in hunting then im exempted form carrying a concealed weapon. But now I'm done hunting and I'm on my way home then maybe I'd be better of transporting this gun on how the law intended it to be transported.

I am sure that some police... and most criminals would prefer all law abiding citizens to have their firearms neatly placed in a locked container within a locked trunk separate from the ammunition. THen when the firearm is needed it takes a minute to pop the trunk, unlock the gun, load the magazine, load the gun and prepare to defend one's self. I hunt with an $1700 M1A rifle. If I pull into a 7-11 and someone breaks into my truck to get the weapon I want to be armed when I come back out and discover it. That is my option and my right under 12027(g).

I have paid money for an attorney to tell me what the law is. You may not understand it but please do not argue a position of ignorance. If you want the peace of mind that would be yours if you understood why the law says what it says then hire an attorney; that is what I did.

Da_shotcaller
04-28-2008, 6:40 PM
What no one seems to realize it that 12026.1 is specifically an EXEMPTION CLAUSE. You cannot be charged with violating 12026.1.
12026.1 say that if you do a.b.c., then you are exempt from 12025. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you completely ignore 12026.1, you still would have to VIOLATE specific rules of law listed in 12025 to be charged with a concealed weapons charge.

Ok I do know that's 12026.1 is an exemption not a violation. This is what i've been trying to say all this time. If your transporting a gun in your vehicle then 12026.1 should be used.

If you disregard 12026.1 while transporting then you can be in violation of 12025 PC. As far as specific rules what other specific rules 12025(a) is the actual violation and under (a) section there's only 3 sections under that. So if you're driving and you got your unloaded handgun on the passenger next to you then your in violation of 12025(a)(1) PC. Am i still missing something in here?

ljg17
04-28-2008, 6:47 PM
My point in this is not to have an arguement but marely to just find a simple way. Is it worth the hassle for some of us to spend time in jail, spent our hard earned money trying to protect our innocence and putting our family to all this drama because we think we are exempted. Or is it better to say well if im engaged in hunting then im exempted form carrying a concealed weapon. But now I'm done hunting and I'm on my way home then maybe I'd be better of transporting this gun on how the law intended it to be transported.

No one on this board should be concerned with intent. The law is the law. If we continue to allow ourselves to be degraded by intentions then hunting will only mean after game is spotted and fishing will only mean while the fish is on the line. The law is clear and applies during travel to and from. My hat is off to the OP, he has really done his civic duty, and upheld his responsibility to himself and all of us to protect and defend.

Da_shotcaller
04-28-2008, 7:03 PM
Again.. more anus talk. He took them back to his patrol car and cleared the weapon. He NEVER called in the serial numbers. He even commented saying "I wont waste your time calling in the serial numbers, people with legal firearms don't carry them in the open."

I am sure that some police... and most criminals would prefer all law abiding citizens to have their firearms neatly placed in a locked container within a locked trunk separate from the ammunition. THen when the firearm is needed it takes a minute to pop the trunk, unlock the gun, load the magazine, load the gun and prepare to defend one's self. I hunt with an $1700 M1A rifle. If I pull into a 7-11 and someone breaks into my truck to get the weapon I want to be armed when I come back out and discover it. That is my option and my right under 12027(g).

I have paid money for an attorney to tell me what the law is. You may not understand it but please do not argue a position of ignorance. If you want the peace of mind that would be yours if you understood why the law says what it says then hire an attorney; that is what I did.

By that statement the officer used his discretion of not checking the serial number. But he could have checked it if he wanted to.

So you paid a lot of money for your attorney to tell you the law. That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid paying some attorney my hard earned money so he can tell me the law. So to avoid that I basically follow a simple rule when I'm done hunting. I simply put my rifle and my S & W model 29 44 mag in a container in the back of my trunk to avoid all te hassle. That's the only thing im trying to point out. There are simpler things a person can do to avoid all the hassle.

By the way I also own a M1a and I love that gun and also my other gun. That's why I always put it in the trunk of my car when I'm transporting it. That way if I ever stop by to 711 to get something I have a peace of mind that it's not gonna get stolen by someone because i left it in plain view. Out of sight out of mind.

Liberty1
04-28-2008, 7:11 PM
Ok I do know that's 12026.1 is an exemption not a violation. This is what i've been trying to say all this time. If your transporting a gun in your vehicle then 12026.1 should be used.

If you disregard 12026.1 while transporting then you can be in violation of 12025 PC. As far as specific rules what other specific rules 12025(a) is the actual violation and under (a) section there's only 3 sections under that. So if you're driving and you got your unloaded handgun on the passenger next to you then your in violation of 12025(a)(1) PC. Am i still missing something in here?

Yes, 12026.1a, 12026.2a and 12027 are all separate exemptions to 12025. Pick one which applies to you and you are exempt. I choose to claim 12027(a)(1)(A). Are you saying I still need to follow 12026.1a and or 12026.2a?

Liberty1
04-28-2008, 7:19 PM
By that statement the officer used his discretion of not checking the serial number. But he could have checked it if he wanted to.

That would be a 4th A violation absent consent, a warrant, or PC to arrest and seize the firearm as safe keeping or evidence. 12031e authorizes a loaded check only.

Say I stop you for speeding. Is it my discretion to seize your cell phone, run a stolen check, just because it could be stolen? What about any entertainment equipment, TV, DVD player, etc... you happen to have in plain view? Can I run the serial #'s? I cannot search (a records check is a search) without your consent, a warrant, or PC to arrest the driver and take the items as safe keeping or evidence.

mymonkeyman
04-28-2008, 7:25 PM
That would be a 4th A violation absent consent, a warrant, or PC to arrest and seize the firearm as safe keeping or evidence. 12031e authorizes a loaded check only.

I don't think that the constitutionality of a loaded check depends on 12031e. A state statute cannot override the federal constitution. Those CA cases approving of loaded checks did so under Terry. The constitutionality of 12031e in situations not falling within a Terry stop or other PC framework are up for debate.

Once the officer has inspected the weapon in compliance with the constitution, there is no more privacy interest in the serial number so he would be free to check it. The officer is also free to hold onto the weapon for the entirety of a Terry stop.

Liberty1
04-28-2008, 7:39 PM
I don't think that the constitutionality of a loaded check depends on 12031e. A state statute cannot override the federal constitution. Those CA cases approving of loaded checks did so under Terry. The constitutionality of 12031e in situations not falling within a Terry stop or other PC framework are up for debate.

Once the officer has inspected the weapon in compliance with the constitution, there is no more privacy interest in the serial number so he would be free to check it. The officer is also free to hold onto the weapon for the entirety of a Terry stop.

Ok, I can respect your opinion on this. It seemed clear to me that in order to investigate for stolen (via a serial # check) there would need to be the normal PC/RS to seize property for such an investigation. I don't see 12031 allowing this as it would prolong the detention without cause.

But I'll be disappointed to learn your right. Any case law you can point me to?





I agree a seizure and firearm loaded check pursuant to 12031e of a firearm carried by an otherwise lawful individual should be a 4th A violation. Hope this gets addressed soon. A few of our Open Carriers who have been detained and seized pursuant to 12031e now have standing to challenge this but that takes $$$$$$. They were all allowed to proceed with openly carried firearm after the detention I'm happy to report.

added: Just re read your post. So your saying if "Terry" is satisfied (12031 notwithstanding) then a serial # check is ok even if it is not connected with the reason for the stop?

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 8:22 PM
Ok I do know that's 12026.1 is an exemption not a violation. This is what i've been trying to say all this time. If your transporting a gun in your vehicle then 12026.1 should be used.

12026.1 does not tell one how to transport a firearm in a vehicle. 12026.1 exempts one from a prosecution of 12025 if certain criteria are met.

12026.2 does not tell one how to transport a firearm on his person. 12026.2 exempts one from a prosecution of 12025 if certain criteria are met.

12027(g) does not tell one how to transport a firearm while going to or coming from a hunt/fishing trip. 12027(g) exempts one from a prosecution of 12025 if certain criteria are met.

You need to let go of the idea that "this is how firearms should be carried." That is not the legislative intent. It is simply to prevent those that qualify from being prosecuted for having a concealed weapon. Merely possessing a handgun capable of being concealed does not make it concealed. In order to violate 12025 it must be at least partially concealed.


If you disregard 12026.1 while transporting then you can be in violation of 12025 PC.

Only if you don't meet any of the other exemptions. Example: People who hold a valid CCW are exempted. Peace officers are exempted. There are many other types of person that are exempted from 12025. If what you were saying is true than it would apply to everyone that is exempted. I don't understand what is so hard for you to understand.


As far as specific rules what other specific rules 12025(a) is the actual violation and under (a) section there's only 3 sections under that. So if you're driving and you got your unloaded handgun on the passenger next to you then your in violation of 12025(a)(1) PC. Am i still missing something in here?

Yes.

Here is the law:


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.



tr.v. con·cealed, con·ceal·ing, con·ceals
To keep from being seen, found, observed, or discovered


It does not ban the carry of firearms capable of being concealed... it bans the CONCEALED carry of firearms capable of being concealed.

You think the law says this:"A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following:(1) Carries 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."

If one took the "concealed" out of that sentance than what you are saying would be true.

Decoligny
04-28-2008, 9:02 PM
Ok I do know that's 12026.1 is an exemption not a violation. This is what i've been trying to say all this time. If your transporting a gun in your vehicle then 12026.1 should be used.

If you disregard 12026.1 while transporting then you can be in violation of 12025 PC. As far as specific rules what other specific rules 12025(a) is the actual violation and under (a) section there's only 3 sections under that. So if you're driving and you got your unloaded handgun on the passenger next to you then your in violation of 12025(a)(1) PC. Am i still missing something in here?

YES by God you are missing something!!!

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.

The crime is in CONCEALING the firearm.

If the gun is on the passenger's seat next to you, and is completely visible, and not loaded, then you have commited NO CRIME AT ALL.

There is no crime in having a firearm that can be concealed laying unloaded on the passenger seat of your car.

scotthmt
04-28-2008, 10:40 PM
YES by God you are missing something!!!

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.

The crime is in CONCEALING the firearm.

If the gun is on the passenger's seat next to you, and is completely visible, and not loaded, then you have commited NO CRIME AT ALL.

There is no crime in having a firearm that can be concealed laying unloaded on the passenger seat of your car.


even with a loaded magazine next to it correct?

Liberty1
04-28-2008, 11:11 PM
even with a loaded magazine next to it correct?

Yes, even with an exposed loaded mag next to the exposed firearm provided that there is no amunition in the chamber or magazine attached in a position from which it can fire (in the well) Read 12031 (g) and People vs Clark

from the horses mouth (albeit they only deal with the lawfully conceal fiream locked case option with no mention of exposed possession):

http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html#05

I will be traveling to California and want to carry my weapon. I currently have a concealed weapon permit. How can I legally transport my weapon while driving through the state?

California law does not recognize concealed weapon permits from other states; therefore, they would not be held valid. If you wish to transport a handgun during your California visit, it should be carried unloaded in a locked container. In the absence of a suitable container, you may secure the unloaded handgun in the locked trunk of a passenger car. Ammunition may be kept in the same container or trunk, but the handgun must remain unloaded with no rounds in the cylinder and no loaded magazines in the magazine well.

read and print this http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/8457.html look up all the codes and read the full citations

packnrat
04-28-2008, 11:22 PM
Crossing the double yellow lines.... sound familiar?? :(

I was rounding an inside left turn and my left front tire touched the double yellow. He was parked in a turn-out watching the spot like a hawk. I was guilty... no doubt.

I swear... I have the worst luck. I don't break many laws but when I do there's ALWAYS a cop there to see it.. :(

This of course 9 days after getting my driver's license back.

I was being a good boy... doing 40 in a mustang that could easily do 60 up the canyon. When he pulled me over I thought I was going to be wrongfully accused of speeding again... Might as well been... at least then I could have made his day hell in court. I can't really defend this one as I was guilty but oh well. Traffic school for me...



if the leo was parked at that spot, check to see how many tickets he did there and how many other officers did at that same spot...????

does the word "trap" say anything.

will not solve the "other" problem but "traps" are not not legal??

could be addrest as a dangerous spot for safety...for the childern you know.

but i also agree the letter is a good one..if and i hope not, but if i ever get into some trouble i will do a letter kinda like yours.

.

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2008, 12:37 AM
but i also agree the letter is a good one..if and i hope not, but if i ever get into some trouble i will do a letter kinda like yours..

By the sound of it I seriously doubt it. ;)

That is not a "trap". An officer is more than able to monitor a section of roadway that is home to law breakers.

Speed traps are illegal and are defined (if memory serves) in Vehicle Code 40802. I think you will find that it meets none of the definitions of a speed trap.

Da_shotcaller
04-29-2008, 8:33 AM
That would be a 4th A violation absent consent, a warrant, or PC to arrest and seize the firearm as safe keeping or evidence. 12031e authorizes a loaded check only.

Say I stop you for speeding. Is it my discretion to seize your cell phone, run a stolen check, just because it could be stolen? What about any entertainment equipment, TV, DVD player, etc... you happen to have in plain view? Can I run the serial #'s? I cannot search (a records check is a search) without your consent, a warrant, or PC to arrest the driver and take the items as safe keeping or evidence.


I might be wrong but i remeber reading it somewhere that there's some law that an officer can examine if the firearms is loaded. Just can't remember which one.

Liberty1
04-29-2008, 8:47 AM
I might be wrong but i remeber reading it somewhere that there's some law that an officer can examine if the firearms is loaded. Just can't remember which one.

12031 (e)

Glock22Fan
04-29-2008, 9:36 AM
So if you're driving and you got your unloaded handgun on the passenger next to you then your in violation of 12025(a)(1) PC. Am i still missing something in here?

Yes you are. Go back to my post 88 (page 9) and read pc12025 again. A gun that is capable of being concealed is only illegal while it is actually being carried concealed.

GuyW
04-29-2008, 11:41 AM
YES by God you are missing something!!!

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.

The crime is in CONCEALING the firearm.

If the gun is on the passenger's seat next to you, and is completely visible, and not loaded, then you have commited NO CRIME AT ALL.

There is no crime in having a firearm that can be concealed laying unloaded on the passenger seat of your car.

His problem may be that he reads "concealed-by-virtue-of-gun-being-in-a-vehicle", which is not what it says...

GuyW
04-29-2008, 11:46 AM
if the leo was parked at that spot, check to see how many tickets he did there and how many other officers did at that same spot...????

does the word "trap" say anything.

will not solve the "other" problem but "traps" are not not legal??

could be addrest as a dangerous spot for safety...for the childern you know.

but i also agree the letter is a good one..if and i hope not, but if i ever get into some trouble i will do a letter kinda like yours.
.

Exactly - I'd send a registered letter identifying the portion of road as being a dangerous road, as evidenced by the fact that reasonable drivers cannot avoid violating the centerline...and do a public records request for all tickets issued on that stretch of road to prove it.

This does 2 things: perhaps stops the use of the trap for writing tickets, and possibly gets the road fixed to eliminate the problem.

Gee, 'ya think the County road maintenance employees or Caltrans locals also know about this situation? (knowledge by any employee is imputed to the agency)...

EDIT IN: the term "trap" is applied to more than "speed trap" useage...

hill billy
04-29-2008, 12:01 PM
I filed a formal complaint with the CHP:


I swear under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is factual.

MeIt will be very interesting to see what becomes of that complaint. I would file the same complaint with the AG's office.

tcrpe
04-29-2008, 3:21 PM
Looks legal to me. I want to hear it.

Occasionally I'm on the phone with a bank, utility or some other monolithic bureaucracy.

It seems that they always say, "This call may be recorded for quality purposes."

So, of course, I go ahead and turn on my recorder, as it sounds like permission to me . . . .

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2008, 3:25 PM
Occasionally I'm on the phone with a bank, utility or some other monolithic bureaucracy.

It seems that they always say, "This call may be recorded for quality purposes."

So, of course, I go ahead and turn on my recorder, as it sounds like permission to me . . . .

The expectation of privacy is between two parties. If they give you notice that there is no expectation of privacy then it goes both ways.

I have no cite on this and I don't know 100% that it is the law but that is what's reasonable. I doubt its ever been challanged.

Da_shotcaller
04-30-2008, 5:33 PM
His problem may be that he reads "concealed-by-virtue-of-gun-being-in-a-vehicle", which is not what it says...


Well actually I got to admit that I probably got sidetrack thinking there's a violation when transporting a a firearm next to you on the passenger seat. And since 12025, 12031, 12027 and 12026.1 were being discussed I got so fixated with that.

Let me just tell you guys that I'm in no way telling you guys that you shouldn't do what you guys like. All I'm trying to do is clarify that there's no law being violated by doing so.

Like what I said earlier I'm not trying to argue with anyone in this board but I'm just trying to have a healthy discussion as far as firearms law which can be helpful to everyone.

Since a lot of you guys really got a good grip with this gun laws in Cali then let me ask you this. With the OP situation do you guys think that 12020 PC could have been used? Like what I said I'm not really good at this gun law but IMHO 12020 could have been used. But then again I've been found wrong a lot of times already so I might be wrong again in this one.

E Pluribus Unum
05-01-2008, 2:08 AM
Like what I said I'm not really good at this gun law but IMHO 12020 could have been used. But then again I've been found wrong a lot of times already so I might be wrong again in this one.

So now that you have been proven wrong on 12025 and 12031 you open the door for 12020?? Are you just TRYING to find a way to make this illegal?

12020 is a huge section. It outlaws everything from nunchuk (sp) to the sale of hi cap magazines, Which portion of 12020 could I have been violating. Please quote it.


Honestly it sounds like you are a troll trying to start problems. If you are "not really good at this gun law" then why argue? If you understand legal-ese then read it for yourself. If you don't have the knowledge to understand it then take what we are saying as fact or hire an attorney. Certainly do not waste our time arguing about it.

I am telling you that no law was broken. I am sorry that you do not understand that but it is the case. If you have questions as to WHY then I am more than happy to answer them but don't argue when you are not sure your position is correct.

rorschach
05-01-2008, 2:50 AM
With the OP situation do you guys think that 12020 PC could have been used? Like what I said I'm not really good at this gun law but IMHO 12020 could have been used.

:kest:

Tagged. Nice work EPU.

MudCamper
05-01-2008, 10:07 AM
Since a lot of you guys really got a good grip with this gun laws in Cali then let me ask you this. With the OP situation do you guys think that 12020 PC could have been used? Like what I said I'm not really good at this gun law but IMHO 12020 could have been used. But then again I've been found wrong a lot of times already so I might be wrong again in this one.

12020 is about illegal weapons. The OP's firearms are not such.

Da_shotcaller
05-01-2008, 10:25 AM
12020 is about illegal weapons. The OP's firearms are not such.

You are right it's not an illegal weapon. But if you look at subdivison (b) (17) it could be considered illegal possesion of weapon. It can be applied as illegal possesion by merely not transporting it in a lock container. This is where 12026.1 and 12026.2 meant a lot to gun owners in california.

MudCamper
05-01-2008, 10:33 AM
You are right it's not an illegal weapon. But if you look at subdivison (b) (17) it could be considered illegal possesion of weapon. It can be applied as illegal possesion by merely not transporting it in a lock container. This is where 12026.1 and 12026.2 meant a lot to gun owners in california.

Well, the 12020(b)(17) exemption only applies to 12020(a) so it applies to "any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any camouflaging firearm container", and not any other firearms.

E Pluribus Unum
05-01-2008, 10:41 AM
It can be applied as illegal possesion by merely not transporting it in a lock container.

We've covered this before; what do you not understand?

What requires it to be transported in a locked container? We already covered 12026.1 and 12026.2 are not requirements, they are exemptions from CONCEALED carry. What are you missing here?

Show me in the law where it says firearms carried openly must be in locked containers.

P.S.
You wont find it.

Da_shotcaller
05-01-2008, 10:43 AM
So now that you have been proven wrong on 12025 and 12031 you open the door for 12020?? Are you just TRYING to find a way to make this illegal?

12020 is a huge section. It outlaws everything from nunchuk (sp) to the sale of hi cap magazines, Which portion of 12020 could I have been violating. Please quote it.


Honestly it sounds like you are a troll trying to start problems. If you are "not really good at this gun law" then why argue? If you understand legal-ese then read it for yourself. If you don't have the knowledge to understand it then take what we are saying as fact or hire an attorney. Certainly do not waste our time arguing about it.

I am telling you that no law was broken. I am sorry that you do not understand that but it is the case. If you have questions as to WHY then I am more than happy to answer them but don't argue when you are not sure your position is correct.


Im not a troll and definately not trying to start a problem. What I'm actually doing is making sure that none of us run in to a problem. If you look at section (B) (17) these area can be a problem by transporting it like the way you did.

Just because I'm having this discussion doesn't mean I'm trying to start a problem. All I'm trying is to get a detailed explanation. And how am I suppose to know if my position is correct or wrong if I don't discuss it. I always believe that in order for me to broaden my knowledge on some subject matter that I should discuss it with people who claims to be expert on that matter.

Da_shotcaller
05-01-2008, 10:45 AM
We've covered this before; what do you not understand?

What requires it to be transported in a locked container? We already covered 12026.1 and 12026.2 are not requirements, they are exemptions from CONCEALED carry. What are you missing here?

Show me in the law where it says firearms carried openly must be in locked containers.

P.S.
You wont find it.

You are right on that one it's an exemption for concealed carry. But 12026.1 and 12026.2 can easily cause problems with Unlawful Carrying and Possesion of a weapon.

Glock22Fan
05-01-2008, 10:47 AM
DA Shotcaller,

This has been discussed enough. I suggest that you transport however you think appropriate and allow others, who have probably read the laws as much as you have, to transport the way they wish.

Further discussion seems pointless.

E Pluribus Unum
05-01-2008, 10:49 AM
Im not a troll and definately not trying to start a problem. What I'm actually doing is making sure that none of us run in to a problem. If you look at section (B) (17) these area can be a problem by transporting it like the way you did.

Just because I'm having this discussion doesn't mean I'm trying to start a problem. All I'm trying is to get a detailed explanation. And how am I suppose to know if my position is correct or wrong if I don't discuss it. I always believe that in order for me to broaden my knowledge on some subject matter that I should discuss it with people who claims to be expert on that matter.

Read all of the posts. B(17) only applies to ILLEGAL weapons, not legal weapons that are illegally transported. Even if I had been transporting it illegally it would not apply because my Glock 17 is a legal weapon in California.

You are not trying to seek knowlege; you are not asking questions; you are making statements that are not true. You are arguing points which are not true; you are refusing to accept not just me but several people in this thread that say it was perfectly legal.

Why are you so stuck on the idea that it was done illegally?

You are right on that one it's an exemption for concealed carry. But 12026.1 and 12026.2 can easily cause problems with Unlawful Carrying and Possesion of a weapon.

HOW??? Exlplain how...

If they are simply exemptions from concealed carry how can thier verbiage "easily cause problems with Unlawful Carrying and Possesion of a weapon"?

Da_shotcaller
05-01-2008, 10:55 AM
Well, the 12020(b)(17) exemption only applies to 12020(a) so it applies to "any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any camouflaging firearm container", and not any other firearms.

It says any firearms. And by DOJ definition "firearms" is any device, designed as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel a projectile by force of any explosion or combustion. By that definition are you going to tell me that your Colt 1911, Glock 17, or what other guns you own is not a firearm.

Also cane gun, wallet gun or any undetectable firearms is by itself illegal already to possess. Subdivison B 17 deals with firearms we can legally possess that's why the word "is not prohibited from possessing " is there.

Da_shotcaller
05-01-2008, 11:00 AM
Read all of the posts. B(17) only applies to ILLEGAL weapons, not legal weapons that are illegally transported. Even if I had been transporting it illegally it would not apply because my Glock 17 is a legal weapon in California.

You are not trying to seek knowlege; you are not asking questions; you are making statements that are not true. You are arguing points which are not true; you are refusing to accept not just me but several people in this thread that say it was perfectly legal.

Why are you so stuck on the idea that it was done illegally?



HOW??? Exlplain how...

If they are simply exemptions from concealed carry how can thier verbiage "easily cause problems with Unlawful Carrying and Possesion of a weapon"?


Concealed weapon and Unlawful carrying and possesion are totally different law. And if you read the sections that I mentioned earlier then by transposting the gun not in accordance with 12026.1 then it can be a problem. You are right they can't charge you with concealed weapon because it's not concealed but it might be grounds for illegal possesion.

mymonkeyman
05-01-2008, 11:19 AM
Concealed weapon and Unlawful carrying and possesion are totally different law. And if you read the sections that I mentioned earlier then by transposting the gun not in accordance with 12026.1 then it can be a problem. You are right they can't charge you with concealed weapon because it's not concealed but it might be grounds for illegal possesion.

Your failure to understand how to read statutes is frightening. There is no statute for general "illegal possession." You are not going to incorporate a section (12026.1) that constitutes an exception to the section that creates a crime (12025) into a wholly unrelated statute (12020). Even more strikingly, 12020(b) does not create crimes, it is a list of exceptions to the crimes listed in 12020(a).

Even further, 12020(b)(17) is only a limited exception to 12020(a) for a person who isn't a felon to possess & transport certain firearms that are otherwise categorically illegal to possess for the purposes of turning them into the police. Yes, 12020(b)(17) says "all firearms," but that is only after 12020(b) says "Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:" 12020(b)(17) on its own does nothing, it just lists its conduct. A list of conduct without saying "is a crime" or "is an exception" or the like is meaningless. That 12020(b) starts with "Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:" means it is only relevant as to the extent it is an exception to 12020(a). So you have to go through 12020 and look for every firearm that is illegal to possess that is not a SBS or SBR (since that is specifically excluded from 12020(b)(17)), and you can then possess/transport those for the purposes of turning them into the police. The only firearms listed in 12020(a) are: any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any camouflaging firearm container (arguably), any zip gun, and any unconventional pistol.

Please stop trying to read statutes. You just aren't good at it.

E Pluribus Unum
05-01-2008, 11:26 AM
You are right they can't charge you with concealed weapon because it's not concealed but it might be grounds for illegal possesion.

Why? We stated that 12026.1 and 12026.2 are only exemptions. If one chooses to carry concealed he can rely on 12026.1 and 12026.2 to carry the firearm lawfully concealed. If the firearm is concealed and one does not meet any other exemption it needs to be in a locked case; that is true.

Nothing requires a locked case for a firearm that is in the open. Show me that and I will buy you a steak.

Stunt_Pirate
05-01-2008, 11:43 AM
A quote comes to mind...
"Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact." -- George Eliot

Da: it is clear, even from my extremely limited grasp of penal code, that you are completely wrong in everything that you have said. Accept it, move on, and stop trying to hijack the thread. I want to read about the education of the department in question by EPU and not 15 pages of your mistaken information.

Da_shotcaller
05-01-2008, 11:50 AM
Why? We stated that 12026.1 and 12026.2 are only exemptions. If one chooses to carry concealed he can rely on 12026.1 and 12026.2 to carry the firearm lawfully concealed. If the firearm is concealed and one does not meet any other exemption it needs to be in a locked case; that is true.

Nothing requires a locked case for a firearm that is in the open. Show me that and I will buy you a steak.

I will be traveling to California and want to carry my weapon. I currently have a concealed weapon permit. How can I legally transport my weapon while driving through the state?

California law does not recognize concealed weapon permits from other states; therefore, they would not be held valid. If you wish to transport a handgun during your California visit, it should be carried unloaded in a locked container. In the absence of a suitable container, you may secure the unloaded handgun in the locked trunk of a passenger car. Ammunition may be kept in the same container or trunk, but the handgun must remain unloaded with no rounds in the cylinder and no loaded magazines in the magazine well.

If you have additional questions, contact the California Department of Justice at 916-227-3703.


So what you're saying is that for the past few years all the LEO in California lied to us about how we should transport a gun. That they are practicing something illegal and it should be challenge.

Well as far as Im concern i'll continue transporting my guns the way i've been doing for the past few years. Since it really doesn't bother me to transpost it that way and I don't see any advantages in transporting it next to me anyway. Also knowing my luck if i decided to transport a gun next to me like you did then I know that i'll be arrested. Worst I might get pulled over by a rookie cop who get so nervous seeing the gun next to me and just shoot me.

mymonkeyman
05-01-2008, 11:55 AM
I will be traveling to California and want to carry my weapon. I currently have a concealed weapon permit. How can I legally transport my weapon while driving through the state?

California law does not recognize concealed weapon permits from other states; therefore, they would not be held valid. If you wish to transport a handgun during your California visit, it should be carried unloaded in a locked container. In the absence of a suitable container, you may secure the unloaded handgun in the locked trunk of a passenger car. Ammunition may be kept in the same container or trunk, but the handgun must remain unloaded with no rounds in the cylinder and no loaded magazines in the magazine well.

If you have additional questions, contact the California Department of Justice at 916-227-3703.


So what you're saying is that for the past few years all the LEO in California lied to us about how we should transport a gun. That they are practicing something illegal and it should be challenge.

Well as far as Im concern i'll continue transporting my guns the way i've been doing for the past few years. Since it really doesn't bother me to transpost it that way and I don't see any advantages in transporting it next to me anyway. Also knowing my luck if i decided to transport a gun next to me like you did then I know that i'll be arrested. Worst I might get pulled over by a rookie cop who get so nervous seeing the gun next to me and just shoot me.

Surprisingly enough CA DOJ answers to questions are not the law. Also, notice the word "should." The word should does not mean that is the only legal way to ever transport handguns, only that it is the preferred way, which is true. If you ever end up going in a school zone, it is illegal to possess the handgun unless it is unloaded and in a locked trunk or locked container (which is not a car's glove or utility box).

Secondly, no one is saying that it is illegal to carry a handgun unloaded in a locked container, it is just not the only way that is legal.

Stunt_Pirate
05-01-2008, 12:03 PM
Wow, just wow.

What the LEOs said is one way to carry legally in CA. No one is saying carrying a gun in a locked container is illegal, clearly the penal code makes an exception that says it is legal. Where did you get that from?

You are saying that because one way of carrying a firearm is legal, all other ways must be illegal. Can you see why this is a flawed argument? Apparently not.

As for the advantages for people to legally open carry a firearm in a vehicle or otherwise: let's just say it is because they can, it is legal and they want to.

Amazing what reading comprehension can do for understanding a topic...

Da_shotcaller
05-01-2008, 12:07 PM
Surprisingly enough CA DOJ answers to questions are not the law. Also, notice the word "should." The word should does not mean that is the only legal way to ever transport handguns, only that it is the preferred way, which is true. If you ever end up going in a school zone, it is illegal to possess the handgun unless it is unloaded and in a locked trunk or locked container (which is not a car's glove or utility box).

Secondly, no one is saying that it is illegal to carry a handgun unloaded in a locked container, it is just not the only way that is legal.

Like what you said it's the preferred way. The same way that they instill to their officer. The same officer who probably pull me over and arrest me. It's just too much of a hassle for someone like me. I can't afford to get arrested because some cop thinks their way is the only way. And can't afford to spend a lot of money just to tell this cop that they are wrong.


But this is only my own personal opinion.

mymonkeyman
05-01-2008, 12:10 PM
Like what you said it's the preferred way. The same way that they instill to their officer. The same officer who probably pull me over and arrest me. It's just too much of a hassle for someone like me. I can't afford to get arrested because some cop thinks their way is the only way. And can't afford to spend a lot of money just to tell this cop that they are wrong.


But this is only my own personal opinion.

Fine, say it's your personal opinion about the best way to carry, but that is different from what you were saying earlier when you were erroneously citing the law. Don't confuse the two.

The fact that the police are uneducated in the law is kind of the whole point of this thread, so I don't see what you are contributing. I don't feel so much more enlightened knowing that you have a lower tolerance for being falsely arrested.

Decoligny
05-01-2008, 12:15 PM
After reading all this stuff and he still doesn't get it, there is blood shooting out of my eyes. Should I be concerned?:beatdeadhorse5:

GuyW
05-01-2008, 12:39 PM
It says any firearms. And by DOJ definition "firearms" is any device, designed as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel a projectile by force of any explosion or combustion. By that definition are you going to tell me that your Colt 1911, Glock 17, or what other guns you own is not a firearm.

Also cane gun, wallet gun or any undetectable firearms is by itself illegal already to possess. Subdivison B 17 deals with firearms we can legally possess that's why the word "is not prohibited from possessing " is there.

Only a lawyer (or lawyer wannabe) bent on mayhem or a troll could post this line of drivel...

STFU

E Pluribus Unum
05-01-2008, 1:26 PM
Like what you said it's the preferred way. The same way that they instill to their officer. The same officer who probably pull me over and arrest me. It's just too much of a hassle for someone like me. I can't afford to get arrested because some cop thinks their way is the only way. And can't afford to spend a lot of money just to tell this cop that they are wrong.


But this is only my own personal opinion.

No, this is one man's ignorant rambling.

This is right off the DOJ Website:
Category 2. AK and AR-15 Series Weapons
The California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 in Kasler v. Lockyer. This decision took effect August 16, 2000. Effective August 16, 2000, firearm models that are variations of the AK or AR-15, with only minor differences from those two models, are assault weapons under the original Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. AK and AR-15 series weapons were controlled as of August 16, 2000, and must have been registered as assault weapons with the Department of Justice on or before January 23, 2001. The only legal option for Category 2 assault weapons that were not registered on or before January 23, 2001, is to surrender them to law enforcement pursuant to Penal Code section 12288. These assault weapons are controlled regardless of whether they have Category 3 (Penal Code section 12276.1 - SB 23) characteristics.

You have posted before that you have OLL rifles, including one from "model 1 sales". According to the DOJ that is an "AR SERIES weapon" and is a Category 2 assault weapon.

The OLL situation is proven to be legal due to case law but if one reads the statute, it is clear that they are illegal. It plainly states "All AR series" weapons and if one leaves it at that and never reads the case law then he would deduce their illegality.

This is completely different because there is no statute that outlaws it. I have read your previous posts and I can tell that you are either an immigrant, you have a problem with the English language, or you are a few beers short of a six pack. This is why I have tried to be patient with you. At this point I am done. You are either too stubborn or too much of a bumpkin to understand it. Neither is my problem; please stay out of my post as it detracts from the purpose of it. I am trying to educate law enforcement, not the close-minded.

E Pluribus Unum
05-06-2008, 1:46 AM
OK.

Update time:

I got a call today from a different Sergeant from the same office. Apparently my complaint to Sacramento was routed back to Bakersfield. That Sergeant talked to the lt and they both concurred that my position was correct and that they have an officer training issue.

He will call me back when he has more information.

When I explained the first sergeant's position that gang bangers could simply throw a fishing pole in the back of the car this current sergeant replied with, "Well, if that is his concern then he should contact his legislators to close the loophole in the law. We can only enforce the law as it is written, not how we would choose to apply it."

I was very impressed with this new sergeant.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-06-2008, 2:04 AM
OK.

Update time:

I got a call today from a different Sergeant from the same office. Apparently my complaint to Sacramento was routed back to Bakersfield. That Sergeant talked to the lt and they both concurred that my position was correct and that they have an officer training issue.

He will call me back when he has more information.

When I explained the first sergeant's position that gang bangers could simply throw a fishing pole in the back of the car this current sergeant replied with, "Well, if that is his concern then he should contact his legislators to close the loophole in the law. We can only enforce the law as it is written, not how we would choose to apply it."

I was very impressed with this new sergeant.

I suggest you request a written response. Not sure if they are required to or not, but it could help "defuse" the situation if you are ever in similar circumstances. Also, it would be golden in the event you needed to sue.

Linh
05-06-2008, 11:40 PM
OK.

Update time:

I got a call today from a different Sergeant from the same office. Apparently my complaint to Sacramento was routed back to Bakersfield. That Sergeant talked to the lt and they both concurred that my position was correct and that they have an officer training issue.

He will call me back when he has more information.

When I explained the first sergeant's position that gang bangers could simply throw a fishing pole in the back of the car this current sergeant replied with, "Well, if that is his concern then he should contact his legislators to close the loophole in the law. We can only enforce the law as it is written, not how we would choose to apply it."

I was very impressed with this new sergeant.

Congrats, I heard that audio recording and stop listening after a few mins that cop was rude. Thanks for sticking up for your gun rights and you saved some other guys from being arrested later on.

savs2k
05-25-2008, 1:49 AM
sorry to bring this thread back from the dead guys, I have been trying to find out the laws on carrying when fishing. after 3 differnt threads and no luck and weeks of searching and reading this thread would probally be my best luck. I am trying to find the legality of fishing with a pistol on a belt holster. I remember when I took my HSC it said that the carry concealed rule is exempt and that you may carry concealed when fishing or hunting. However i read on some forum (i cant remember where) and they said that is true however there are also places when fishing you can not carry and i dont remember and cant find the information at all.

so my question is when i go fishing, am I allowed to carry concealed? What about loaded and loaded and concealed. If not is open carry ok?

Im not sure what kind of place is ok to carry at and not ok to carry at.
state park?
national parks?
county parks?
how about a body of water that does not count as a park?

I mostly fish at reservoirs, tracy delta, and sometimes sac river.

I really would like to know the legality of carrying at these places fishing. I am usually out fishing at 4 or 5am and the good spots there take a decent walk to get to so I always feel the need to carry. Crappy if any reception on my cellphone and hardly anyone out there if anyone but my buddies with low or no light source. Thanks in advance guys. And for the record yes I do carry a valid fishing license.

savs2k
05-25-2008, 1:55 AM
by the way I will be at coyote lake near gilroy (I belive it is santa clara county) Stevens creek reservoir recently and tracy delta are the main places i would like to know. I am leaving for coyote lake at 5am (3 hours) and hope for a reply thanks again guys Im would like to not be arrested for this as well as the op

E Pluribus Unum
05-25-2008, 3:19 AM
sorry to bring this thread back from the dead guys, I have been trying to find out the laws on carrying when fishing. after 3 differnt threads and no luck and weeks of searching and reading this thread would probally be my best luck. I am trying to find the legality of fishing with a pistol on a belt holster. I remember when I took my HSC it said that the carry concealed rule is exempt and that you may carry concealed when fishing or hunting. However i read on some forum (i cant remember where) and they said that is true however there are also places when fishing you can not carry and i dont remember and cant find the information at all.

so my question is when i go fishing, am I allowed to carry concealed? What about loaded and loaded and concealed. If not is open carry ok?

Im not sure what kind of place is ok to carry at and not ok to carry at.
state park?
national parks?
county parks?
how about a body of water that does not count as a park?

I mostly fish at reservoirs, tracy delta, and sometimes sac river.

I really would like to know the legality of carrying at these places fishing. I am usually out fishing at 4 or 5am and the good spots there take a decent walk to get to so I always feel the need to carry. Crappy if any reception on my cellphone and hardly anyone out there if anyone but my buddies with low or no light source. Thanks in advance guys. And for the record yes I do carry a valid fishing license.

You have to realize that carrying concealed and carrying loaded are two different things and have nothing to do with each other.

California Penal Code Section 12027(g) allows licensed hunters and licensed fisherman to carry concealed without a permit going to or coming from hunting/fishing or while actually engaged in hunting/fishing.

Loaded is another story.

If you are not in a national park.
If you are not within 1000 feet of a school.
If you are not within an incorporated city limits.
If you are in a place where firearms are legal (no post offices et cetera)
If you are in a place where discharge of a firearm is legal (not on a blacktop road et cetera).

Then a loaded firearm is legal whether you are hunting/fishing or not.


So.... a loaded firearm is legal in rural areas that are not incorporated territories.

If going to, coming from, or actually hunting and fishing the firearm can be carried concealed. If not going to or from or actually engaged in these activities the firearm must be carried in the open (on a holster) but so long as the "loaded weapon" rules I listed above are met it can be loaded.

For example:

Example 1:
You are not licensed to fish or hunt and you are going hiking in the middle of nowhere. You can carry your handgun in a holster with it loaded provided that it is not concealed. (Assuming no county ordinance has forbidden open carry).

Example 2:
You are pulled over on I-5 on your way through Los Angeles with a fishing license, fishing pole and tackle in the back. You have a concealed firearm in a belt holster and a loaded magazine in your pocket. You are on your way to fish in Bakersfield at the Kern River. No law has been broken because you are exempt from 12025 (carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle) by 12027(g).


Just remember that a loaded weapon and a concealed weapon are two different crimes with 2 different exceptions.

Despite popular belief California Penal Code and People vs. Clark defines a loaded weapon as rounds in the magazine and the magazine in the mag-well and or a round in the chamber. Mere possession of ammo and gun is not "loaded" as many police would tell you.

cbn620
05-25-2008, 4:41 AM
E_Pluribus, good lookin' out my friend. You need to come up to Fresno County and give our law enforcement officers a few lessons.

savs2k
05-25-2008, 5:38 AM
thanks alot this helps ALOT. so there as long as there are no city ord. county park is fair game for concealed? just to be safe unloaded.

E Pluribus Unum
05-25-2008, 11:18 AM
thanks alot this helps ALOT. so there as long as there are no city ord. county park is fair game for concealed? just to be safe unloaded.

If you are going to or from hunting or fishing or actually hunting or fishing you can carry concealed despite any county or city ordinances. 12027(g) is an exemption similar to a CCW permit. The city or county ordinance would be against open carry.

glockman19
05-25-2008, 2:19 PM
E Pluribus,

Congrats and great follow through. The sarg was truely an embarasment to the department with his inability to understand the laws he's supposed to uphold.

i had a similar discussion wiht the watch commander at the West Valley Station in Reseda and he was just as ill informed. I also asked about open carry and he repeated the same threatening line, "they get a call 'man with a gun' and they will take you down".

I plan on making copies of the OC flyer and Color Laminated copy of the AW Flyer to my local stations in addition to mailing a copy to the chief of the LAPD & LASD so they can train their officers properly.

Education is the Key to uor success in this state.