Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Concealed Carry Discussion (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=179)
-   -   CCW at SF Zoo? (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1424216)

jessdigs 02-11-2018 7:51 PM

CCW at SF Zoo?
 
My wife is planning a trip to SF Zoo soon. I'm thinking about taking off work and going.
Does the SF Zoo have metal detectors?
Can one CCW at the SF Zoo?
I went to the Oakland zoo a few years ago and don't remember metal detectors. Haven't been to Sam Francisco zoo since my wife and I were dating over 10 years ago. Any info appreciated.
I tried to search, but could not find any threads except an old 2007 gun broker forum thread.
Thanks.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Robotron2k84 02-11-2018 10:01 PM

My guess would be no, as I've never seen metal detectors, but SF police code makes it a crime to carry concealed (no exemption for CCW permit holders) on city-owned property and on public property that carries an alcohol license, both of which apply to the Zoo.

SF Police Code 617(12)(C)(1)(a):

Quote:

(a) As used in this section, the term "City property" means real property, including any buildings thereon, owned or leased by the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter "City"), and in the City's possession or in the possession of a public or private entity under contract with the City to perform a public purpose including but not limited to the following property: recreational and park property including but not limited to Golden Gate Park, the San Francisco zoo, Hilltop Park and San Francisco's parks and playgrounds, plazas including but not limited to United Nations Plaza and Hallidie Plaza, community centers such as Ella Hill Hutch Community Center, and property of the Department of Recreations and Parks, the Port, and the Public Utilities Commission.

The term "City property" does not include any "local public building" as defined in Penal Code Section 171b(c), where the state regulates possession of firearms pursuant to Penal Code Section 171b.

The term "City property" also does not include the public right-of-way owned by the City and County of San Francisco including any area across, along, on, over, upon, and within the dedicated public alleys, boulevards, courts, lanes, roads, sidewalks, streets, and ways within the City or any property owned by the City that is outside the territorial limits of the City and County of San Francisco.

Sticka 02-11-2018 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 (Post 21273050)
My guess would be no, as I've never seen metal detectors, but SF police code makes it a crime to carry concealed on city-owned property and on public property that carries an alcohol license, both of which apply to the Zoo.

SF Police Code 617(12)(C)(1)(a):

I may be wrong...but I think that state CCW trumps SF police code......whatever that is!
Alcohol license has nothing to do with it, if you don't drink!

wannabefree 02-11-2018 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticka (Post 21273069)
I may be wrong...but I think that state CCW trumps SF police code......whatever that is!
Alcohol license has nothing to do with it, if you don't drink!

From a strictly legal point of view I believe you are correct but if caught you better lawyer up cause they will likely arrest you and let you tell it to a judge.
SF used to be a nice place to visit now its liberal craphole and the whole place is a ZOO.

jessdigs 02-11-2018 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 (Post 21273050)
My guess would be no, as I've never seen metal detectors, but SF police code makes it a crime to carry concealed (no exemption for CCW permit holders) on city-owned property and on public property that carries an alcohol license, both of which apply to the Zoo.

SF Police Code 617(12)(C)(1)(a):

I did find an article about that
SF Passes What Some Call Most Strict Gun Law In U.S.

SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco city leaders announced Wednesday the adoption of what they called one of the strictest anti-gun laws in the country.

Co-author and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris joined Mayor Gavin Newsom as he signed the legislation into law.
The new law would restrict both the sale and possession of firearms on city property.

Gun owners would be required to store weapons in a locked box, according to Harris.

Dealers would have to submit inventory to the police every six months.

Harris said the new law was passed in part because San Francisco leaders feel a sense of urgency about stopping gun violence that has spiked in areas of the city.

"We are making the statement in a local jurisdiction where federal and state law have failed that we as San Franciscans will take those matters into our own hands," Harris said.

"We respect the right to bear arms, the right for people to own guns," said Mayor Newsom. "We also respect common sense for people, consideration when purchasing a gun."

The Executive Director of the Gun Owners Association told NBC11's Lisa Bernard the laws are "anti self-defense."

He attacked San Francisco Supervisors for supporting the legislation, according to Bernard.

Supervisor Tom Ammiano said the laws are worth a try partly because of the rising homicide rate.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

jessdigs 02-11-2018 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 (Post 21273050)
My guess would be no, as I've never seen metal detectors, but SF police code makes it a crime to carry concealed (no exemption for CCW permit holders) on city-owned property and on public property that carries an alcohol license, both of which apply to the Zoo.

SF Police Code 617(12)(C)(1)(a):

Thanks for posting the code.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Sticka 02-11-2018 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wannabefree (Post 21273088)
From a strictly legal point of view I believe you are correct but if caught you better lawyer up cause they will likely arrest you and let you tell it to a judge.
SF used to be a nice place to visit now its liberal craphole and the whole place is a ZOO.

They can't do CHIT!!
I have seen many people say that "their friend's friend" or "they heard"....it is all BS.
I have seen many threads with people offering $100 for an "ACTUAL" case where someone was convicted for carrying in SF with a legal CA permit. Guess what?...no one comes up with a case.
It doesn't happen. It is a wive's tale. Statewide means STATEWIDE.....even if they don't want it too!

Robotron2k84 02-11-2018 10:31 PM

Most counties have an exemption for CCW permits from their ordinances to carry on county property in non sensitive areas. SF does not, and SF is both city and county. Carry at your own peril against their code and on City property.

Sticka 02-11-2018 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 (Post 21273133)
Most counties have an exemption for CCW permits from their ordinances to carry on county property in non sensitive areas. SF does not, and SF is both city and county. Carry at your own peril against their code and on City property.

Please show me ONE instance where SF trumped state law on a CCW case.

Robotron2k84 02-11-2018 11:00 PM

PC 25400 doesn't preclude a city or county from enacting time/place restrictions on CCW that are stricter than state law.

Just because no one has been prosecuted yet, that I could find, doesn't mean they couldn't charge you with violation of their city code. Is it likely, dunno. That's why carry at your own peril was justified.

To be clear, we aren't just talking about anywhere in SF, specifically this question is about property the city manages for public use.

You can read more here (page 6):

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

Bainter1212 02-12-2018 6:12 AM

To answer the OP.....there are NO metal detectors at the SF zoo. Physically, you can carry to your heart's content.

Legally, you need to figure that out for yourself.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Big Jake 02-12-2018 6:14 AM

Concealed is concealed!!!!!!!!!

dk94044 02-12-2018 7:12 AM

No search, no metal detectors, had on my EDC Spyderco and didn't notice until afterwards, not an issue, but also it's a safe place, the tigers won't jump the higher barrier now to maul you after getting high and throwing rocks.

jessdigs 02-12-2018 7:26 AM

So it's looking like while most times having a valid CCW will exempt the holder from gun free zones, this is not the case with city of SF probably.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Bainter1212 02-12-2018 8:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dk94044 (Post 21273620)
No search, no metal detectors, had on my EDC Spyderco and didn't notice until afterwards, not an issue, but also it's a safe place, the tigers won't jump the higher barrier now to maul you after getting high and throwing rocks.

LOL

Dk is alluding to an incident a couple of years back where some kids were harassing the tiger at the SF zoo. The tiger then climbed out of it's enclosure and chased the kids. I believe he mauled one of them to death in front of the cafeteria entryway.

Supposedly they fixed the problem with the enclosure. I certainly prefer to have a gun on me in the presence of lions, tiger or bears (oh my!). They also have a male gorilla there that looks like he could rip your limbs off. That enclosure doesn't impress me either.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Sticka 02-12-2018 9:14 AM

You have the same restrictions in San Francisco that you have in the rest of the state. They are not special, even though they like to think that they are.



Quote:

Originally Posted by jessdigs (Post 21273652)
So it's looking like while most times having a valid CCW will exempt the holder from gun free zones, this is not the case with city of SF probably.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


jessdigs 02-12-2018 9:39 AM

Well I thought maybe we'll go to academy of science instead, but Golden gate Park, same rules apply.
I guess we'll go to exploratorium.

Blade Gunner 02-12-2018 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessdigs (Post 21272504)
My wife is planning a trip to SF Zoo soon. I'm thinking about taking off work and going.
Does the SF Zoo have metal detectors?
Can one CCW at the SF Zoo?
I went to the Oakland zoo a few years ago and don't remember metal detectors. Haven't been to Sam Francisco zoo since my wife and I were dating over 10 years ago. Any info appreciated.
I tried to search, but could not find any threads except an old 2007 gun broker forum thread.
Thanks.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

There are no metal detectors, but if you can find an overlay map of all the gun free zones in SF, basically 90% of the city is a gun free zone. You can’t even leave an unloaded gun locked in your trunk if the trunk can be opened from the passenger compartment after someone breaks into your car, which San Francisco considers a nuisance crime. So when you report your gun stolen, as you’re required to do, the police charge you with a crime.

Robotron2k84 02-12-2018 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessdigs (Post 21274123)
Well I thought maybe we'll go to academy of science instead, but Golden gate Park, same rules apply.
I guess we'll go to exploratorium.

For the sake of consistency:

The Exploratorium building itself is private, but other buildings, piers and accessways around the Embarcadero on the Bay side are part of the Port of San Francisco and subject to the same code as the Zoo or GG Park. There is no clear delineation or signage to indicate. Consider supporting cities with your dollars that don't seek to render you defenseless.

We desperately need HR.38 to go into effect to nullify this.

jessdigs 02-12-2018 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 (Post 21274399)
For the sake of consistency:

The Exploratorium building itself is private, but other buildings, piers and accessways around the Embarcadero on the Bay side are part of the Port of San Francisco and subject to the same code as the Zoo or GG Park. There is no clear delineation or signage to indicate. Consider supporting cities with your dollars that don't seek to render you defenseless.

We desperately need HR.38 to go into effect to nullify this.

Oh I completely agree that I shouldn't give any establishment in SF any of my money. The only reason that we are even considering SF Zoo is that my wife won tickets for two adults and three kids in a raffle, so it would be a waste not to use them. I was trying to talk my wife in to something else, but anything worth doing is going to have these restrictions
I don't think that I would ever choose to go to San Francisco for anything unless I have to, but spending a day with the kids at the zoo just sounds like a good family activity.

I guess I will just suck it up and make a day of it. It's not the end of the world.

Librarian 02-12-2018 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessdigs (Post 21273652)
So it's looking like while most times having a valid CCW will exempt the holder from gun free zones, this is not the case with city of SF probably.

State CCW law does NOT, repeat NOT, over-ride local CCW restrictions. We already have a loss in court, where a member sued San Mateo County over a lack of an exemption for CA CCW holders in county parks.

See this old thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=490930

CSACANNONEER 02-12-2018 12:42 PM

Let's look at SF Police Code a little closer.

Quote:

C.1 Possession or Sale of Firearms or Ammunition on County Property Prohibited. No person shall:
(1) Bring onto or possess on county property a firearm, loaded or unloaded, or ammunition for a firearm.
(2) Sell on county property a firearm, loaded or unloaded, or ammunition for a firearm.
Quote:

C.1 Definitions.
(1) City and County Property.
(a) As used in this section, the term "City property" means real property, including any buildings thereon, owned or leased by the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter "City"), and in the City's possession or in the possession of a public or private entity under contract with the City to perform a public purpose including but not limited to the following property: recreational and park property including but not limited to Golden Gate Park, the San Francisco zoo, Hilltop Park and San Francisco's parks and playgrounds, plazas including but not limited to United Nations Plaza and Hallidie Plaza, community centers such as Ella Hill Hutch Community Center, and property of the Department of Recreations and Parks, the Port, and the Public Utilities Commission.
Bookmark (b)2 The term "City property" does not include any "local public building" as defined in Penal Code Section 171b(c), where the state regulates possession of firearms pursuant to Penal Code Section 171b.
(c) The term "City property" also does not include the public right-of-way owned by the City and County of San Francisco including any area across, along, on, over, upon, and within the dedicated public alleys, boulevards, courts, lanes, roads, sidewalks, streets, and ways within the City or any property owned by the City that is outside the territorial limits of the City and County of San Francisco.
So, it appears that per SF Code, it is legal to CCW (with a CA LTC) on any sidewalk, way, etc. Therefore, it should be legal to carry on any pathway at the zoo. Also, just about every city building would be exempt from the SF code since they all fall under PC 171(b). I'm betting that it is 100% legal to CCW at the zoo.

Quote:

171b. (a) Any person who brings or possesses within any state or local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the public pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of, or Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, the Government Code, any of the following is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison:


.....


(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to, or affect, any of the following:


....


(3) A person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6.
Can anyone point out any flaws in my logic besides the obvious one "It's San Francisco"?

Robotron2k84 02-12-2018 1:22 PM

See the code cited in post #2. SF Zoo is specifically called out as being private property and not subject to PC 171b by their City code.

CSACANNONEER 02-12-2018 2:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 (Post 21275072)
See the code cited in post #2. SF Zoo is specifically called out as being private property and not subject to PC 171b by their City code.

But, the buildings inside the zoo are covered by PC 171(b) and, the sidewalks and ways are exempt for the police code. So, it could be argued that buildings and walking areas are OK but cages and pens are not.

baggss 02-12-2018 2:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER (Post 21275292)
But, the buildings inside the zoo are covered by PC 171(b) and, the sidewalks and ways are exempt for the police code. So, it could be argued that buildings and walking areas are OK but cages and pens are not.

The easy answer, for me at least, is just don't go to SF or their Zoo....

CSACANNONEER 02-12-2018 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggss (Post 21275335)
The easy answer, for me at least, is just don't go to SF or their Zoo....

Last time I was at the SF Zoo, I used my Zoo Key. Who remembers Zoo Keys?

Librarian 02-13-2018 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER (Post 21277452)
Last time I was at the SF Zoo, I used my Zoo Key. Who remembers Zoo Keys?

I do.

I also remember seagulls grabbing everybody's lunch; my daughter still hates the sea rats after 25 years ...

Bainter1212 02-13-2018 5:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Librarian (Post 21277576)
I do.

I also remember seagulls grabbing everybody's lunch; my daughter still hates the sea rats after 25 years ...

Ooh funny story!

We were at the SF zoo playground letting my 4 yr old play. BIL and I saw a seagull hop right up to a little girl and steal the sandwich out of her hands.
The father ran up to it and yelled, the seagull took two steps backward and turned to look at the man.
They proceeded to stare each other down.

You could see the internal struggle in the man, as his empathy and environmentalism battled with the repressed manhood that was buried deep down inside of him.

At that moment, a little boy of about 5, who was running past the seagull, gave it a hearty kick as he ran by, making it fly away.

The father looked relieved. He sat down on the bench, called his wife, and bragged to her about how he protected his daughter from an evil seagull.

My BIL and I watched the whole thing and we were rolling. What a freaking puss that guy was LOL.

Snakebit 02-13-2018 3:18 PM

On December 25, 2007, a tigress escaped from its enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo and attacked three men. Two of the men were brothers, Paul and Kulbir Dhailwal, and the third was their friend, Carlos Sousa. The tigress, which was called Tatiana, first attacked Kulbir. Sousa tried distracting her but only attracted calamity to himself, as she left Kulbir and fatally attacked him. Tatiana wasn’t done. She followed Kulbir’s blood trail for over 274 meters (900 ft) before catching up with Paul, who had fled the scene with Kulbir. She attacked Paul but didn’t kill him before she was killed by the police.[8] The two surviving men initially denied taunting the tigress, but Paul later confessed that they did taunt her. He claimed that all three yelled and waved at Tatiana, although he denied that they threw anything into her enclosure.

baggss 02-13-2018 3:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snakebit (Post 21279944)
On December 25, 2007, a tigress escaped from its enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo and attacked three men. Two of the men were brothers, Paul and Kulbir Dhailwal, and the third was their friend, Carlos Sousa. The tigress, which was called Tatiana, first attacked Kulbir. Sousa tried distracting her but only attracted calamity to himself, as she left Kulbir and fatally attacked him. Tatiana wasnít done. She followed Kulbirís blood trail for over 274 meters (900 ft) before catching up with Paul, who had fled the scene with Kulbir. She attacked Paul but didnít kill him before she was killed by the police.[8] The two surviving men initially denied taunting the tigress, but Paul later confessed that they did taunt her. He claimed that all three yelled and waved at Tatiana, although he denied that they threw anything into her enclosure.

So how big was his legal settlement from the Zoo?

jessdigs 02-14-2018 7:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggss (Post 21279976)
So how big was his legal settlement from the Zoo?

900k
https://www.mercurynews.com/2009/05/...francisco-zoo/

irocZlo 02-14-2018 7:50 AM

If it makes OP feel any better, their security guards are all actually open carrying & on bikes.

Robotron2k84 02-18-2018 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER (Post 21275292)
But, the buildings inside the zoo are covered by PC 171(b) and, the sidewalks and ways are exempt for the police code. So, it could be argued that buildings and walking areas are OK but cages and pens are not.

As luck would have it, my daughter's friend's birthday was at the Zoo yesterday and I found myself in attendance. A couple of notes:

1) There is a big blue and white sign on the left of the main gate, attached to the gift shop building that proclaims that firearms and ammunition are prohibited on the grounds.

2) The entire property and parking lot are fenced off from the surrounding area, for obvious reasons, and a claim of public thoroughfare would be difficult to sustain. Especially considering that city property extends to the pumping station and ocean, plus a limited access highway on its western edge and no private property abuts the Zoo.

3) The site is access controlled and tickets presented, making it not strictly a public setting, and likely not subject to 171b at all.

4) Aside from the main cafe and bathrooms, the only other building you can actually go into that doesn't have an animal exhibit is the gift shop.

5) There are numerous armed guards on bicycles throughout the park.

So, from a legal perspective, I don't think there is much of an argument that you could make that would open the Zoo up for 171b regulation. And, since there is armed security and controlled access that you would have a real problem sustaining an argument of reasonable fear in the event you actually had a gun legally and needed to use it, at least in the jurisdiction that the Zoo resides, and against two-legged predators. The Zoo staff has access to rifles for the four-legged ones.

CSACANNONEER 02-18-2018 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 (Post 21299007)
As luck would have it, my daughter's friend's birthday was at the zoo yesterday and I found myself in attendance. A couple of notes:

1) There is a big blue and white sign on the left of the main gate, attached to the gift shop building that proclaims that firearms and ammunition are prohibited on the grounds.

2) The entire property and parking lot are fenced off from the surrounding area, for obvious reasons, and a claim of public thoroughfare would be difficult to sustain.

3) the site is access controlled and tickets presented, making it not strictly a public setting, and likely not subject to 171b at all.

4) Aside from the main cafe and bathrooms, the only other building you can actually go into that doesn't have an animal exhibit is the gift shop.

5) There are plenty of armed guards on bicycles throughout the park.

So, from a legal perspective, I don't think there is much of an argument that you could make that would open the Zoo up for 171b regulation, and that since there is armed security and controlled access that you would have a real problem sustaining an argument of reasonable fear in the event you actually had a gun legally and needed to use it, at least in the jurisdiction that the Zoo resides, and against two-legged predators. The zoo staff has access to rifles for the four-legged ones.

Signage doesn't have any legal meaning in CA. The presences of armed guards in no way negates legal concealed carrying, The fact that it is a controlled area does not negate the fact that it is owned by the public and public property as far as PC 171(b) goes, does it? Do you have any cite to support any of your assumptions? I'm always up for learning something new if it's supported by facts. So far, all you've shown is that you will probably be subject to being cited for trespass if you are discovered and do not leave after being asked to.

Robotron2k84 02-18-2018 11:44 AM

171b doesn't apply because the buildings that you can go into are staffed by contractors and not government employees. The businesses that manage them are for-profit and are tenants of the Zoo. This matters for the code.

As for signage, it doesn't have force of law, but informs you that SFPC applies, which carries a misdemeanor charge for possession on the property.

I'm sure the SF DA could also find a way to charge you with PC 602 for violation of their firearms notification.

CSACANNONEER 02-19-2018 7:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 (Post 21299129)
171b doesn't apply because the buildings that you can go into are staffed by contractors and not government employees. The businesses that manage them are for-profit and are tenants of the Zoo. This matters for the code.

As for signage, it doesn't have force of law, but informs you that SFPC applies, which carries a misdemeanor charge for possession on the property.

I'm sure the SF DA could also find a way to charge you with PC 602 for violation of their firearms notification.

But Police Code 602 CLEARLY exempts all "ways" etc. So, carrying on the walkways and pathways inside the zoo. So, carrying inside the zoo but on the pathways sure appears legal.

Quote:

(c) The term "City property" also does not include the public right-of-way owned by the City and County of San Francisco including any area across, along, on, over, upon, and within the dedicated public alleys, boulevards, courts, lanes, roads, sidewalks, streets, and ways within the City or any property owned by the City that is outside the territorial limits of the City and County of San Francisco.
Also, can you please show me where PC 171(b) exempts building that are staffed by private contractors? I'm having trouble finding that exemption. Thanks in advance.

BTW, I have no doubt that the SF DA would try to prosecute no matter what the law actually is.

Robotron2k84 02-19-2018 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER (Post 21301685)
Also, can you please show me where PC 171(b) exempts building that are staffed by private contractors? I'm having trouble finding that exemption. Thanks in advance.

In the buildings with only contractors, there are no regularly employed state or local government employees. Buildings that house Zoo employees carry do not enter signs for the public. Ergo, 171(b) does not apply to the buildings not staffed by government employees, and since the CCW exemption only exists where 171(b) applies, no such exemption is possible:

CA PC 171(b):

Quote:

(a) Any person who brings or possesses within any state or local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the public pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of, or Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, the Government Code, any of the following is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison:
(1) Any firearm.


...

(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to, or affect, any of the following:
(3) A person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6.

...

(c) As used in this section, “state or local public building” means a building that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) It is a building or part of a building owned or leased by the state or local government, if state or local public employees are regularly present for the purposes of performing their official duties. A state or local public building includes, but is not limited to, a building that contains a courtroom.

(2) It is not a building or facility, or a part thereof, that is referred to in Section 171c, 171d, 626.9, 626.95, or 626.10 of this code, or in Section 18544 of the Elections Code.
(3) It is a building not regularly used, and not intended to be used, by state or local employees as a place of residence.
(Amended by Stats. 2010, Ch. 178, Sec. 45. (SB 1115) Effective January 1, 2011. Operative January 1, 2012, by Sec. 107 of Ch. 178.)
Potential criminal trespass citings that DA could charge, and I don't know for a fact that the exterior fencing is posted for no trespass, but given the nature of the facility I would cautiously assume it is:

CA PC 602:

Quote:

Except as provided in subdivisions (u), (v), and (x), and Section 602.8, every person who willfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor:

...

(k) Entering any lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence, for the purpose of injuring any property or property rights or with the intention of interfering with, obstructing, or injuring any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of the land, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession.
(l) Entering any lands under cultivation or enclosed by fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another, or entering upon uncultivated or unenclosed lands where signs forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the lands without the written permission of the owner of the land, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, and any of the following:
(1) Refusing or failing to leave the lands immediately upon being requested by the owner of the land, the owner’s agent, or by the person in lawful possession to leave the lands.
(2) Tearing down, mutilating, or destroying any sign, signboard, or notice forbidding trespass or hunting on the lands.
(3) Removing, injuring, unlocking, or tampering with any lock on any gate on or leading into the lands.
(4) Discharging any firearm.
(m) Entering and occupying real property or structures of any kind without the consent of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession.

...

Robotron2k84 02-19-2018 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER (Post 21301685)
But Police Code 602 [sic: 617] CLEARLY exempts all "ways" etc. So, carrying on the walkways and pathways inside the zoo. So, carrying inside the zoo but on the pathways sure appears legal.

I also think you are getting hung up on the SFPC definition's order of precedence. The entire Zoo property is called out specifically, so would supersede any subordinate definition of "city property."

That's just my read of it.

There's a reason that the 171(b) exclusion is in the subordinate definition for the SFPC code cited. My belief is that the city attorney concluded that the properties mentioned in the first definition fall outside of 171(b), and from my observations, and the plain reading of the code, it would appear to be a correct assumption, for the Zoo.

SF may be politically an enemy, but the city is full of resourceful legal professionals that know how to find the wiggle room to achieve their agenda. By my count, carrying CCW on Zoo property nets you at least two, maybe three misdemeanor charges without even unholstering or firing your weapon if need be.

Regardless of if you are convicted, you will lose your license if caught doing so.

CSACANNONEER 02-19-2018 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 (Post 21302374)
In the buildings with only contractors, there are no regularly employed state or local government employees. Buildings that house Zoo employees carry do not enter signs for the public. Ergo, 171(b) does not apply to the buildings not staffed by government employees, and since the CCW exemption only exists where 171(b) applies, no such exemption is possible:

CA PC 171(b):



Potential criminal trespass citings that DA could charge, and I don't know for a fact that the exterior fencing is posted for no trespass, but given the nature of the facility I would cautiously assume it is:

CA PC 602:

For criminal trespass, one has to be asked to leave and refuse to do so within a reasonable time but, yea, if someone refuses to leave, they could easily be charged with and convicted of trespass.

As far as 171(b) goes, As long as a city, county or state employee regularly enters that building as part of his/her employment, you seem to agree that it would be covered under 171(b). I agree that if no government employee regularly enters a specific building as part of their employment, it would not be covered under 171(b). However, that is not exactly what you originally claimed. You originally said "staffed by" and I contend that it only takes a government employee to routinely enter the building as part of their employment to qualify it as a building covered by 171(b). There is no requirement for a government employee to be stationed at said building.

CSACANNONEER 02-19-2018 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 (Post 21302650)
I also think you are getting hung up on the SFPC definition's order of precedence. The entire Zoo property is called out specifically, so would supersede any subordinate definition of "city property."

That's just my read of it.

There's a reason that the 171(b) exclusion is in the subordinate definition for the SFPC code cited. My belief is that the city attorney concluded that the properties mentioned in the first definition fall outside of 171(b), and from my observations, and the plain reading of the code, it would appear to be a correct assumption, for the Zoo.

SF may be politically an enemy, but the city is full of resourceful legal professionals that know how to find the wiggle room to achieve their agenda. By my count, carrying CCW on Zoo property nets you at least two, maybe three misdemeanor charges without even unholstering or firing your weapon if need be.

Regardless of if you are convicted, you will lose your license if caught doing so.

Well, let's look closer at the legal definition:

Quote:

(1) City and County Property.
(a) As used in this section, the term "City property" means real property, including any buildings thereon, owned or leased by the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter "City"), and in the City's possession or in the possession of a public or private entity under contract with the City to perform a public purpose including but not limited to the following property: recreational and park property including but not limited to Golden Gate Park, the San Francisco zoo, Hilltop Park and San Francisco's parks and playgrounds, plazas including but not limited to United Nations Plaza and Hallidie Plaza, community centers such as Ella Hill Hutch Community Center, and property of the Department of Recreations and Parks, the Port, and the Public Utilities Commission.
Bookmark (b)2 The term "City property" does not include any "local public building" as defined in Penal Code Section 171b(c), where the state regulates possession of firearms pursuant to Penal Code Section 171b.
(c) The term "City property" also does not include the public right-of-way owned by the City and County of San Francisco including any area across, along, on, over, upon, and within the dedicated public alleys, boulevards, courts, lanes, roads, sidewalks, streets, and ways within the City or any property owned by the City that is outside the territorial limits of the City and County of San Francisco.
Like every other law and legal definition I've read, it starts out with the most general definition and then exempts many places (or actions) from that generalization.

If we used your idea of order of precedence when looking at PC30515, we would have to believe that a BENELLI MP90 was legally an AW in CA since, the part of the law which exempts it from being an AW comes after the general definition of AW, right?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.