Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:46 AM
Socratic Socratic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default CPC 25450

CPC 25450 is a law enforcement officer exemption from CPC 25400. It gives cops and honorably retired cops ability to carry concealed weapons. There are no exceptions contained with CPC 25450. It is absolute in its authority.

How can private entities such as Disneyland and the LA Dodgers legally deny cops ability to carry handguns on their premises in violation of CPC 25450? Angels stadium is owned by the city of Anaheim. It also denies cops' rights codified by CPC 25450. What legal theory are they using to deny cops' rights guaranteed by CPC 25450?

If any private entity can deny the existence of CPC 25450, then what practical effect does that section have? Could 7-11 demand that off-duty cops leave their guns at home? Could a shopping mall deny entry to off-duty cops who are carrying guns?

I'm going with Disneyland and the LA Dodgers violating cops' statutory right under CPC 25450 were they to deny entry to their facilities to cops who have concealed weapons. Their business practices and policies do not usurp the California Penal Code.
  #2  
Old 03-20-2017, 1:46 PM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 508
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

25450 allows us to carry it and not be charged with a crime (25400).

Any and all businesses are on private property. If we are not at those private properties conducting on-duty, law enforcement business, they do not allow it and can tell us to kick rocks. I understand that we are peace officers 24/7/365, however, I'm sure that there are departmental orders that speak about off-duty contacts and how one "should not" engage in them.

In short, their house, their rules.
  #3  
Old 03-20-2017, 3:51 PM
micro911's Avatar
micro911 micro911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

I went to the Disneyland and left my pistol in the car. I felt naked all day until I returned to the car. Maybe some officers in the past made some kind of mistakes carrying their pistols??? Although they said it is a safe place, I felt vulnerable without my firearm.
  #4  
Old 03-20-2017, 6:13 PM
Socratic Socratic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by esy View Post
25450 allows us to carry it and not be charged with a crime (25400).

Any and all businesses are on private property. If we are not at those private properties conducting on-duty, law enforcement business, they do not allow it and can tell us to kick rocks. I understand that we are peace officers 24/7/365, however, I'm sure that there are departmental orders that speak about off-duty contacts and how one "should not" engage in them.

In short, their house, their rules.
Are you implying that the California Penal Code does not apply on private property?

My guess that were a business policy that conflicts with CPC 25450 challenged in court, the Penal Code will be upheld. Otherwise, CPC 25450 would have included something to the effect of, "Business policies prevail when in conflict with CPC 25450."
  #5  
Old 03-20-2017, 8:48 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,151
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Their house, their rules. It is perfectly legal to walk around with adult magazines, but do you want your neighbor to come in to your house and read them in front of your young children. Probably not. You have the right to ask your neighbor to leave your house. If he refuses then you can call the police and ask that trespassing charges be filed and he be removed.

It is the same for the mouse house. Because of their political leanings, they have decided to remove firearms from their house. If they ask you to remove your firearm and you refuse, they will ask you to go.

It is all political. I used to have yearly passes for my family. I no longer support the mouse house. I spend my money at knotts berry farm where I, as a leo, am invited in without question.

Their house, their rules. My money, my choice where i spend it.
  #6  
Old 03-21-2017, 4:00 AM
RestrictedColt RestrictedColt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Hacienda Heights
Posts: 211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Do Disney and the stadium have posted signs? Been a long time since I've been to either.
  #7  
Old 03-21-2017, 8:50 AM
Socratic Socratic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMike View Post
Their house, their rules. It is perfectly legal to walk around with adult magazines, but do you want your neighbor to come in to your house and read them in front of your young children. Probably not. You have the right to ask your neighbor to leave your house. If he refuses then you can call the police and ask that trespassing charges be filed and he be removed.

It is the same for the mouse house. Because of their political leanings, they have decided to remove firearms from their house. If they ask you to remove your firearm and you refuse, they will ask you to go.

It is all political. I used to have yearly passes for my family. I no longer support the mouse house. I spend my money at knotts berry farm where I, as a leo, am invited in without question.

Their house, their rules. My money, my choice where i spend it.
Mike, are you analogizing adult magazines to a California Penal Code statute? I sure hope not.

Not, it's not their house their rules. Do you think that rape would fall under their house their rules? The California Penal Code applies everywhere in California, even in their houses. No one can create any business policy that contradicts the California Penal Code. And cops do not enforce business policies. They enforce law.

Were I 10-8 and responded to a call of an off-duty cop who was denied entry to any private business, I'd explained to the informant that we don't enforce business policies, that the off-duty cop has a right to carry a gun wherever he wants within California, and that he should consult with a lawyer before denying a cop of his STATUTORY RIGHT to carry a gun. The off-duty cop who's accorded right to carry under CPC 25450 would be the one suffering damages hence basis for a lawsuit.

Last edited by Socratic; 03-21-2017 at 9:07 AM..
  #8  
Old 03-21-2017, 9:02 AM
ls2monaro's Avatar
ls2monaro ls2monaro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 563
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

^ My response is I have the right to remove anyone I don't want from my property and/or business. If they refuse to leave then they are subject to arrest for trespassing.

If I don't want guns on my property then I don't have to allow it. If I don't want my mother in law on my property, then I don't have to allow it, if I don't want marijuana on my property then I don't have to allow it, etc...

Last edited by ls2monaro; 03-21-2017 at 9:06 AM..
  #9  
Old 03-21-2017, 10:13 AM
Socratic Socratic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ls2monaro View Post
^ My response is I have the right to remove anyone I don't want from my property and/or business. If they refuse to leave then they are subject to arrest for trespassing.

If I don't want guns on my property then I don't have to allow it. If I don't want my mother in law on my property, then I don't have to allow it, if I don't want marijuana on my property then I don't have to allow it, etc...
Now that would depend upon attendant facts. You have no right to remove a meter reader from your property. Cops have right to access curtilage of your home in performance of their duties. Were you to resist, obstruct, or delay cops in the performance of their duties, you would be subject to arrest.

If you own a business and invite public in to conduct business, you can't deny access without cause (Civil Rights Act of 1964). And that's the gist of my query: how can any business deny entry to his place of business any person who has statutory authority under California Penal Code Section 25450?

CPC 25450 is definitive and absolute. There is nothing within that section that grants anyone authority to invalidate it. Hence, one who falls within the purview of CPC 25450 should be treated as would any other person entering a business to conduct business. It one were to deny an off-duty cop right to enter solely because of his legally protected right to carry a concealed handgun, he would infringe upon the cop's right thus causing the cop damages under law. The cop should be able to sue the one denying his right in order to recover damages.

Many years ago, when I confronted this issue at Angels Stadium when Disney owned the Angels, I asked a lawyer who is a Cal Bar Certified Criminal Law Specialist whether Disney's policy was legal under what was then CPC 12027 but is now 25450. He said told me the policy was not legally enforceable because the California Penal Code was controlling, not Disney's business policy. He asked whether I wanted to pursue it. Since I was a cop at that time, I told him that I didn't.
  #10  
Old 03-21-2017, 10:35 AM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 508
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Does your department have an order about off-duty carry and off-duty contacts?
  #11  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:06 AM
Samuelx Samuelx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,294
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

The way I read it, they can't arrest "you" for carrying concealed - but they don't have to let you in or allow you to stay. I haven't seen any codes/statutes that say we can carry anywhere/everywhere we want off-duty, no matter what. Commercial flights, cruise ships, Staples center, etc.
  #12  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:06 AM
Socratic Socratic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not that I can remember.

The agency from which I am retired did not have policy that contradicted any law.
  #13  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:17 AM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 2,999
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

May have already been addressed, but as mentioned in the OP, 25450 PC provides exemption specifically to 25400 PC, for LEOs.

When a person, LEO or not, is otherwise legally carrying a firearms but is asked to remove it for the purpose of entering into, or remaining on private property, 602 PC (trespassing) is the appropriate code. 25450 PC provides no exemption to Section 602.

Scenario:

Officer A is off-duty and wants to go to Store B. Upon entering Store B, Officer A is approached by store staff who have noticed he is carrying a firearm. The staff informs Officer A that the owner of the business has a policy against the carry of firearms in the business. Staff also informs Officer A that if he does not want to remove his firearm, he would have to leave the premises. Officer A becomes indignant and refuses to leave the premise and also refuses to remove the firearm. He has now violated Section 602 PC; however, he is not in violation of Section 25400 PC.
__________________
CERTIFIED GLOCK ARMORER

"Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." - Theodore Roosevelt

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmorris7556 View Post
They teach you secret stuff I can't mention on line.
  #14  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:18 AM
Socratic Socratic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuelx View Post
The way I read it, they can't arrest "you" for carrying concealed - but they don't have to let you in or allow you to stay. I haven't seen any codes/statutes that say we can carry anywhere/everywhere we want off-duty, no matter what. Commercial flights, cruise ships, Staples center, etc.
Commercial transportation such as airlines and cruise ships are covered by federal law. HR 218 does not apply to commercial transportation that's covered under federal law. Here I'm writing about only California and California Penal Code Section 25450.

How can anyone be arrested for obeying law?

CPC 25450 reads that we can carry anywhere. The California Penal Code applies everywhere within the state.

If a business were to deny entry or not allow an off-duty cop who's is within CPC 25450 to stay, then would not his rights be violated because he is acting consistent with statutory law?

We have to remember that cops do not enforce business policies. Cops enforce laws. Business policies cannot contradict law. How can any business policy contradict CPC 25450?

If our state's legislature wanted exceptions and conditions to CPC 25450, they would have been included within the statute; e.g., "Nothing in this section denies a business owner to deny entry to an off-duty cops who is carrying a concealed weapon." But no such phrase is within CPC 25450.
  #15  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:24 AM
Socratic Socratic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hola omgwtfbbq,

Here's CPC 25450 verbatim:



As provided in this article, Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following:

(a) Any peace officer, listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably retired.

(b) Any other duly appointed peace officer.

(c) Any honorably retired peace officer listed in subdivision (c) of Section 830.5.

(d) Any other honorably retired peace officer who during the course and scope of his or her appointment as a peace officer was authorized to, and did, carry a firearm.

(e) Any full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California.

(f) Any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while the person is actually engaged in assisting that officer.

Hence, CPC 25400 does not apply to those listed under CPC 25450; hence, CPC 25400 cannot be controlling.
  #16  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:30 AM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 2,999
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic View Post
Hola omgwtfbbq,

Here's CPC 25450 verbatim:



As provided in this article, Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following:

(a) Any peace officer, listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably retired.

(b) Any other duly appointed peace officer.

(c) Any honorably retired peace officer listed in subdivision (c) of Section 830.5.

(d) Any other honorably retired peace officer who during the course and scope of his or her appointment as a peace officer was authorized to, and did, carry a firearm.

(e) Any full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California.

(f) Any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while the person is actually engaged in assisting that officer.

Hence, CPC 25400 does not apply to those listed under CPC 25450; hence, CPC 25400 cannot be controlling.
Again; 25400 PC is not the code section activated by a refusal to remove an otherwise lawfully carried firearms on private property. Therefore, no exemption to such code applies.

When an LEO is asked to remove their firearm from a privately owned piece of land or business, they violation Section 602.1(a) of the PC which reads:

Quote:
602.1 (a) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner or agent of a business establishment open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or their customers, and who refuses to leave the premises of the business establishment after being requested to leave by the owner or the owner’s agent, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the owner or owner’s agent, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
If an LEO refuses to remove their firearm and also refuses to leave the business or privately owned property after being advised by the owner, or agent of the owner to do so, he/she is in violation of the aforementioned section. An exemption to an entirely different code section cannot be applied.


EDIT: I should add that if the piece of privately owned property is noncommercial in nature (ie a private residence) then the appropriate code section is 602.5(a) or (b), rather than 602.1(a) PC.
__________________
CERTIFIED GLOCK ARMORER

"Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." - Theodore Roosevelt

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmorris7556 View Post
They teach you secret stuff I can't mention on line.

Last edited by omgwtfbbq; 03-21-2017 at 11:35 AM..
  #17  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:47 AM
Socratic Socratic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

omgwtfbbq,

How you could arrest anyone for CPC 602 who is within the law? An arrest of one covered by CPC 25450 for refusing to remove his gun for CPC 602 would be a false arrest. As CPC 25450 clearly states, cops are exempt from CPC 25400.

You might what to check with a DDA before you'd arrest an off-duty cop who's covered by CPC 25450 for violating a business policy.

A Cal Bar Certified Criminal Law Specialist who was once a DDA and who has tried a whole lot of cases told me that Disney's policy violated law. It gets even better. The Anaheim PD officer who stored my gun for me told me that he knew Disney's policy was illegal, that he was merely following orders.

No one can force anyone covered under CPC 25450 to remover his gun. He is protected by CPC 25450, which has no conditions or qualifications. Were you to arrest a cop because of a business policy violation, you'd be good for committing a false arrest. Cops do not enforce business policies. They enforce law. And the law under review is pretty damned clear: those covered under CPC 25450 can carry concealed handguns wherever they choose, not wherever business policies choose.

Again, check with a DDA before you proceed.
  #18  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:58 AM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 2,999
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic View Post
omgwtfbbq,

How you could arrest anyone for CPC 602 who is within the law? An arrest of one covered by CPC 25450 for refusing to remove his gun for CPC 602 would be a false arrest. As CPC 25450 clearly states, cops are exempt from CPC 25400.

You might what to check with a DDA before you'd arrest an off-duty cop who's covered by CPC 25450 for violating a business policy.

A Cal Bar Certified Criminal Law Specialist who was once a DDA and who has tried a whole lot of cases told me that Disney's policy violated law. It gets even better. The Anaheim PD officer who stored my gun for me told me that he knew Disney's policy was illegal, that he was merely following orders.

No one can force anyone covered under CPC 25450 to remover his gun. He is protected by CPC 25450, which has no conditions or qualifications. Were you to arrest a cop because of a business policy violation, you'd be good for committing a false arrest. Cops do not enforce business policies. They enforce law. And the law under review is pretty damned clear: those covered under CPC 25450 can carry concealed handguns wherever they choose, not wherever business policies choose.

Again, check with a DDA before you proceed.
Again... The instant behavior is not the removal of the gun from the LEO's person. The instant behavior is the refusal to leave the property and/or business once the LEO has been advised of the condition that they leave the premises or disarm themselves. 25400 does not apply because the instant behavior has, legally speaking, nothing to do with carrying a firearm.

The behavior need only be that the individual, LEO or not, was asked to leave the premises due to behaving in a way the owner, or agent of the owner believes interrupts or obstructs the conduct of their business. The law would be applied exactly the same if the LEO was wearing a sweatshirt or jacket with the hood up, or was wearing a backpack, and these behaviors were deemed by the owner or their agent to be obstructive to the conduct of their business.

In the case of a non-commercial property, the behavior need not actually obstruct or interrupt anything other than the fact the owner or their agent don't want the defendant there. The why, is immaterial.
__________________
CERTIFIED GLOCK ARMORER

"Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." - Theodore Roosevelt

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmorris7556 View Post
They teach you secret stuff I can't mention on line.
  #19  
Old 03-21-2017, 2:03 PM
RestrictedColt RestrictedColt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Hacienda Heights
Posts: 211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For those who think 25450 gives absolute rights to carry anywhere; does that mean I can't refuse to let an armed retired cop onto my property or into my house?

The average person has the right to carry a knife, does that mean that Disney can't refuse to let me in with one?

My understanding of 25450 is that it exempts certain people from restrictions of carrying, but I see no verbiage giving them absolute rights to carry anywhere they wish.
  #20  
Old 03-21-2017, 2:40 PM
Socratic Socratic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can't understand where confusion lies. CPC 25450 is controlling:

Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following:

(a)Any peace officer, listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably retired.

In very simple language, CPC 25400 does not apply to cops. Ever. Period. End of story. A cop cannot even bring up CPC 25400 when it comes to those who are covered under CPC 25450. They are exempt from CPC 25400. It's a moot and irrelevant section. CPC 25450 and only CPC 25450 is controlling. Period.

Now, the question is: how can any business refuse to comply with law? If it is true that businesses can refuse to comply with law, of what use is CPC 25450? Why was that section included in the penal code?

For the poster who said he didn't read anything in the section that reads a cop can carry a concealed handgun, that is not the way law works. It is legal unless proscribed by law. If CPC 25450 were not comprehensive, legislators would have included where this section does not apply. And I can figure out why. What would you suppose would happen were Joe of Joe's Market tried to take a concealed weapon off of an off-duty cop who were shopping for a can of dog food because his business policy is NO ONE carries in his place of business? Sorry, Joe, law says otherwise.

Can someone show me case law or statutory law that contradicts the absolute statutory provisions of CPC 25450?
  #21  
Old 03-21-2017, 2:57 PM
Socratic Socratic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

omgwtfbbq,

The behavior that you allege interferes with a business owner's business in an off-duty cop carrying a gun. How could you prove that an off-duty cop carrying a gun consistent with CPC 25450 interferes with anything, let alone a business owner's ability to conduct business?

If anything, the business owner would be discriminating against a class of persons, in this case, off-duty cops. My bet is that an off-duty cop could pursue a civil suit against a business owner for discrimination.

Were I still 10-8 and had to respond to such a call, I'd tell the informant that the off-duty cop has a legal right to carry his gun, and I'd show him CPC 25450. Once the cop ID'd himself to me, I'd tell the informant that if he wants the cop arrested, he's doing it, not me. I'd tell him that he's responsible for for all consequences (civil suit) if he were to go with an arrest. I'd cite and release the cop with the business owner signing the cite and a citizen's arrest form. But I wouldn't want it to be resolved in such a manner. I'd try to resolve it by helping the business owner understand the law and why law allows an off-duty cop to carry his gun. If the business owner is reasonable, I'm sure he'd understand and be good-to-go.

Due to the increase of cop murders, I'd hope that all cops carry off-duty.

BTW, years ago I ran into a very small town grocery store to grab a few items. My wife & kids were in our car that was parked outside. My gun was in our car. I could not believe that I stood in line at a check out counter behind two AB (ID'd by tats) members. I'd of felt a lot more comfortable if I had had my gun. It was a valuable lesson.

For those who aren't cops, Aryan Brotherhood members would kill an off-duty cop in a heartbeat.
  #22  
Old 03-21-2017, 2:59 PM
eta34's Avatar
eta34 eta34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,957
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Since you seem to be so certain of your position, why not sue these establishments for "violating your rights?" Why is there no mass litigation sponsored by police officers? Do you not think this has been hashed out already?
  #23  
Old 03-21-2017, 3:32 PM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 2,999
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic View Post
I can't understand where confusion lies. CPC 25450 is controlling:

Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following:

(a)Any peace officer, listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably retired.

In very simple language, CPC 25400 does not apply to cops. Ever. Period. End of story. A cop cannot even bring up CPC 25400 when it comes to those who are covered under CPC 25450. They are exempt from CPC 25400. It's a moot and irrelevant section. CPC 25450 and only CPC 25450 is controlling. Period.

Now, the question is: how can any business refuse to comply with law? If it is true that businesses can refuse to comply with law, of what use is CPC 25450? Why was that section included in the penal code?

For the poster who said he didn't read anything in the section that reads a cop can carry a concealed handgun, that is not the way law works. It is legal unless proscribed by law. If CPC 25450 were not comprehensive, legislators would have included where this section does not apply. And I can figure out why. What would you suppose would happen were Joe of Joe's Market tried to take a concealed weapon off of an off-duty cop who were shopping for a can of dog food because his business policy is NO ONE carries in his place of business? Sorry, Joe, law says otherwise.
You are correct in your understanding of the application of 25450 PC and 25400 PC in that it ensures that an LEO as defined within 25450 cannot be charged with 25400 under most circumstances.

However, as I've previously stated, multiple times, 25450 PC and 25400 PC have absolutely nothing to do with question you posed in the OP.

Further, no one other than yourself has mentioned anything about a private property owner or agent thereof attempting to forcibly remove a firearm from anyone's person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic View Post
Were I still 10-8 and had to respond to such a call, I'd tell the informant that the off-duty cop has a legal right to carry his gun, and I'd show him CPC 25450. Once the cop ID'd himself to me, I'd tell the informant that if he wants the cop arrested, he's doing it, not me. I'd tell him that he's responsible for for all consequences (civil suit) if he were to go with an arrest. I'd cite and release the cop with the business owner signing the cite and a citizen's arrest form. But I wouldn't want it to be resolved in such a manner. I'd try to resolve it by helping the business owner understand the law and why law allows an off-duty cop to carry his gun. If the business owner is reasonable, I'm sure he'd understand and be good-to-go.
That would be fine, but you would still be technically wrong.
__________________
CERTIFIED GLOCK ARMORER

"Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." - Theodore Roosevelt

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmorris7556 View Post
They teach you secret stuff I can't mention on line.
  #24  
Old 03-21-2017, 5:26 PM
cr250chevy cr250chevy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 867
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

The exemption protects cops from the penal code. Private places who ban guns are not doing so under the penal code. So if an LEO violates a private entities rules they cannot be charged with illegal ccw, BUT that private company could kick you off their private grounds and ban you. Remember there is a difference between the law (penal code), and private business' rule(s).
The only way to address this issue is the comply, sue (good luck), or get the legislature to write a new law banning private entities from creating rules that stop cops from carrying guns on their premises.
Personally I dislike the idea of a cop being disarmed, but I am a strong believer in individual and business rights to regulate their personal property.
*I heard Disneyland banned cops from carrying in their park after a cops gun was left in one of the logs at Splash Mountain, it was found by a kid :/ after that I can't blame them...

Last edited by cr250chevy; 03-21-2017 at 5:31 PM..
  #25  
Old 03-21-2017, 7:18 PM
eta34's Avatar
eta34 eta34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,957
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

So the goalpost has shifted. Now we are talking about a private citizen disarming an off-duty cop? There is a reason PORAC and none of the police unions have addressed this issue. It is because the OP is incorrect.
  #26  
Old 03-21-2017, 8:03 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,883
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Socratic,

You've built your whole argument on a fallacy.

Penal Code section 25450 does not state that an LEO is authorized to carry a firearm anywhere. That just isn't in the code. Please go read it, closely. You got it wrong.

All that Penal Code section 25450 does is provide that a covered LEO is exempt from the provisions of section 25400 which would otherwise make CCW a crime.

There's a big legal distinction between these two things. The foremost being that a private organization like Disneyland really isn't affected by section 25400 or 25450. If they elect to deny entrance to an armed off-duty officer, they have offended neither section.

There is no state law that would be violated if an off-duty, or retired, LEO chose to carry a weapon into Disneyland, but Disneyland is free to evict, and if refused, then there is a trespass violation. The key to this point is that 25450 does not provide you a "right" that Disneyland would be violating by this action. All that 25450 does is exempt you from 25400 and that doesn't involve Disneyland in the least.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
  #27  
Old 03-22-2017, 7:48 AM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 8,120
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic View Post
I'm going with Disneyland and the LA Dodgers violating cops' statutory right under CPC 25450 were they to deny entry to their facilities to cops who have concealed weapons. Their business practices and policies do not usurp the California Penal Code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic View Post
Were I 10-8 and responded to a call of an off-duty cop who was denied entry to any private business, I'd explained to the informant that we don't enforce business policies, that the off-duty cop has a right to carry a gun wherever he wants within California, and that he should consult with a lawyer before denying a cop of his STATUTORY RIGHT to carry a gun. The off-duty cop who's accorded right to carry under CPC 25450 would be the one suffering damages hence basis for a lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic View Post
If you own a business and invite public in to conduct business, you can't deny access without cause (Civil Rights Act of 1964). And that's the gist of my query: how can any business deny entry to his place of business any person who has statutory authority under California Penal Code Section 25450?

CPC 25450 is definitive and absolute. There is nothing within that section that grants anyone authority to invalidate it. Hence, one who falls within the purview of CPC 25450 should be treated as would any other person entering a business to conduct business. It one were to deny an off-duty cop [/b]right to enter solely because of his legally protected right[/b] to carry a concealed handgun, he would infringe upon the cop's right thus causing the cop damages under law. The cop should be able to sue the one denying his right in order to recover damages.
What Rick said...

In addition you have some confusion related to what is a "right" and what is an "authority" granted by law...Or an exemption to some laws.

They are two very different animals.

LEO's and retired LEO's have no additional "rights" than any other citizen. They do have additional authority and exemptions.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


  #28  
Old 03-22-2017, 9:47 AM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,125
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic View Post
I can't understand where confusion lies. CPC 25450 is controlling:

Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following:

(a)Any peace officer, listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably retired.

In very simple language, CPC 25400 does not apply to cops. Ever. Period. End of story. A cop cannot even bring up CPC 25400 when it comes to those who are covered under CPC 25450. They are exempt from CPC 25400. It's a moot and irrelevant section. CPC 25450 and only CPC 25450 is controlling. Period.

Now, the question is: how can any business refuse to comply with law? If it is true that businesses can refuse to comply with law, of what use is CPC 25450? Why was that section included in the penal code?

For the poster who said he didn't read anything in the section that reads a cop can carry a concealed handgun, that is not the way law works. It is legal unless proscribed by law. If CPC 25450 were not comprehensive, legislators would have included where this section does not apply. And I can figure out why. What would you suppose would happen were Joe of Joe's Market tried to take a concealed weapon off of an off-duty cop who were shopping for a can of dog food because his business policy is NO ONE carries in his place of business? Sorry, Joe, law says otherwise.

Can someone show me case law or statutory law that contradicts the absolute statutory provisions of CPC 25450?
If 25450 is 'controlling' then so is 25655. So Disneyland isn't allowed to turn away CCW holders either. The reality is, you are correct...sorta. Mouse-house can't get one in trouble for unlawful concealed carry, but they CAN deny entry to someone who is lawfully concealing with a consequence of unlawful trespass.

25655. Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, 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 Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150).
  #29  
Old 03-22-2017, 11:25 AM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hangin in the AZ
Posts: 8,187
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011

NRA Life Member
CRPA Life Member
NRA Certified Instructor
  #30  
Old 03-22-2017, 8:18 PM
sacmedic01 sacmedic01 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 65
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post


^^^This^^^

I've watched this thread and am mystified as to why the OP doesn't get it. The sections he references merely exempt the persons listed from the prohibition on carrying a concealed weapon. It doesn't say that you can carry it anywhere you like despite the property owner's wishes. Apples and oranges.
  #31  
Old 03-23-2017, 2:52 PM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 508
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacmedic01 View Post
^^^This^^^

I've watched this thread and am mystified as to why the OP doesn't get it. The sections he references merely exempt the persons listed from the prohibition on carrying a concealed weapon. It doesn't say that you can carry it anywhere you like despite the property owner's wishes. Apples and oranges.
Troll perhaps?
  #32  
Old 03-23-2017, 3:03 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,883
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by esy View Post
Troll perhaps?
I do notice that the OP has gone missing from this thread.

I would think that we either have found a troll here, or a very junior LEO who hasn't figured out which side is "up" yet.


I'm going with a troll.......
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
  #33  
Old 03-23-2017, 3:27 PM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 2,999
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
I do notice that the OP has gone missing from this thread.

I would think that we either have found a troll here, or a very junior LEO who hasn't figured out which side is "up" yet.


I'm going with a troll.......
I was thinking this too. After a few rounds of back and forth I did look like this:

__________________
CERTIFIED GLOCK ARMORER

"Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." - Theodore Roosevelt

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmorris7556 View Post
They teach you secret stuff I can't mention on line.
  #34  
Old 03-24-2017, 5:48 AM
skyungjae's Avatar
skyungjae skyungjae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 616
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

That was entertaining.
__________________
Keeper of Cold Steel
USMC/2111
  #35  
Old 03-24-2017, 7:41 PM
TrailerparkTrash's Avatar
TrailerparkTrash TrailerparkTrash is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DPRK- Democratic People's Republic of Koreafornia
Posts: 2,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Business have the right to refuse service to anyone and for no reason whatsoever. The exception however is that they can't refuse service based on one's race, creed, religion, sex, etc.... Job profession (a cop), can be grounds to deny entry and/or refuse to conduct business with the person if they so choose.
__________________


My views:

-I hate being bipolar its awesome.

-Life member, NRA
-10mm. Because .45ACP just doesn't cut it anymore.
-Hold my beer. Watch this.
-Trump. Get some...
-ΙΧΘΥΣ <><
  #36  
Old 03-24-2017, 7:45 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,039
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Seems like we're done here.
__________________
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:16 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.