[HondaMasterTech]

Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum

Maybe this will change your mind:

This doesn't change my mind. I understood the author the first time I read the book. Not sure what you are arguing against.

[4D5auto]

Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum

All gun charges were dismissed. The gun was held while the case was adjudicated and then I had to wait 30 days for a DOJ background check to get my own weapon back.

It cost me $2500 because the Impound fee (they towed my car) was $900.00 as we were in the middle of nowhere.

The rest of the expense came from the little detail that I had an expired license at the time so they charged me with a misdemeanor unlicensed driver VC12500A violation that I did 30 hours community service for.

All of this costs money... in addition to the fine.

I was very happy with my defense attorney; originally I was going to do 1 year in jail, loss of firearm, lose driver's license. In the end I paid the state $200 and did 30 hours community service... I think I made out very well but I still consider it a loss because it cost so much.

Now knowing just a little more of your personal situation, I would venture to guess, that most of the trouble you had with the fines incurred, was due to,

"The rest of the expense came from the little detail that I had an expired license at the time so they charged me with a misdemeanor unlicensed driver VC12500A violation that I did 30 hours community service for."

that little detail! I know people who were caught driving on suspended licenses and expired licenses, it's pretty pricey! Now, you compounded your situation with the other. Cha- Ching!

[4D5auto]

Without having a current PC in front of me,of which I haven't had one in many years, the verbiage apparently has changed.


"This is what the law says:

Quote:
(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 recall it being as, Going to or coming from. As with all things in life, the constant, is change..

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by 4D5auto

Without having a current PC in front of me,of which I haven't had one in many years, the verbiage apparently has changed.


"This is what the law says:

Quote:
(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 recall it being as, Going to or coming from. As with all things in life, the constant, is change..

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

[packnrat]

All the time I go up to the mt's I take my pig tag, bear tag, and hunting paper work,
Never want to pass up a chance to get some fresh meat.
Even have a fishing permit,
Fresh trout :-)

Just a bonse I can carry for protection,
A couple years back a couple of "guys" were hiking around during deer season, stealing others deers at gun point.
Never know.

[OutbreakPLZ]

eat lead fishies!!!!

[HondaMasterTech]

You cannot USE a handgun to fish.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by HondaMasterTech

You cannot USE a handgun to fish.

Not really true....

If you are fishing in the ocean and fall in with a handgun strapped to you and you are then attacked by a shark, you may use the handgun in self defense against the shark.

Afterwards... why let that meat go to waste?

[HondaMasterTech]

Sharks usually dont consume people. The victim typically craps their pants. That taste makes the shark let go. If I went on a boat in the ocean Id eat a bunch of pickled eggs...

[mikeyluke]

Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum

Nope, I am just naturally this arrogant...




I have family in LE and I have had a more than average experience fighting the legal system. As I mentioned before, I was arrested while carrying concealed while hunting all the while telling the cop "read PC 12027" and he refused. He booked me on a "loaded" weapon as well because I had a loaded magazine near the gun despite me citing Fish and Game Code 2006 and people v. Clark.

I have found first hand... and paid $2500 to figure out exactly WHERE that fine line is drawn between legal, and not legal. Just because I was legal did not stop me from losing my gun for 5 months, and $2500. Once you've done that, it changes your outlook a bit.

It may sound like I am nit picking because 95% of us travel to and from hunting in a vehicle and that article points out the fact that its illegal in a vehicle. There are many however that do NOT use a vehicle when on their way hunting and fishing and for THOSE people who might read your post and ASSUME something, I play the nit picker. I do this because not everyone has the bankroll to fight the system and win.

Forgive me if I sounded a bit harsh. At no time did I mean to be disrespectful.

Well said!! Seems the justice system as a whole is designed to charge and confiscate, ask questions later. I don't mean to be disrespectful to LE at all but, in many circumstances LE counts on the fact that most folks can't afford to be litigious when facing charges involving penal codes that are intentionally written using ambiguous language.

I had a similar situation happen to a friend a while back and soon it became apparent that fighting the charge (plus losing his weapon )was very cost prohibitive. "The System" separates those who have means and those who don't rather harshly when you compare individual case outcomes.(not to mention the sharky Criminal Defense lawyers) I'm sure there are plenty of good ones out there, I just haven't heard of any. Both the lawyers and the Judges conspire against defendants in a shake-down racket. It's all about the Benjamins, period. Do I sound a bit cynical? Yup.

E Pluribus Unim,
I'm shocked you actually got your gun back. Pray tell, how did you get that done? In Solano County, they just take 'em, you never see your property again.


Again, Well Said,

mikey

[pieeater]

One cannot carry loaded concealed ANYWHERE without a valid CCW, a peace officer, or some other exemption from 12025.

I thought you could carry concealed loaded at your house/ business. Also at your campsite? What about hunting private property? If i'm up at my friends ranch in the middle of no where I cant carry loaded/ concealed with his permission while hunting?

[GuyW]

Originally Posted by pieeater

One cannot carry loaded concealed ANYWHERE without a valid CCW, a peace officer, or some other exemption from 12025.

I thought you could carry concealed loaded at your house/ business. Also at your campsite? What about hunting private property? If i'm up at my friends ranch in the middle of no where I cant carry loaded/ concealed with his permission while hunting?

Mostly right, and there are PC exemptions for concealed carry while hunting / fishing, and if in an area where shooting is allowed, loaded as well.

Originally Posted by pieeater

I thought you could carry concealed loaded at your....business.

You can only have a loaded gun in your business - not carry. You can carry a concealed but unloaded gun in your business.

.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by mikeyluke

I'm shocked you actually got your gun back. Pray tell, how did you get that done? In Solano County, they just take 'em, you never see your property again.

They tried like hell to get it destroyed. When I hired my attorney I told him:

1) I will not let them destroy my gun

2) I will not except a deal that suspends my firearm ownership

The DA offered three different deals, I refused every one. The last one they came at me with was plead guilty to misdemeanor 12500(a), do 30 hours community service, gun charges are dismissed, I get my gun back. I took that one.

After the case was finalized, the property sergeant at the CHP was angry he had to give it back.

Originally Posted by GuyW

Mostly right, and there are PC exemptions for concealed carry while hunting / fishing, and if in an area where shooting is allowed, loaded as well.

You must put my statement in context. In the context of the conversation, we were talking about transporting a firearm. When not actually hunting or fishing a licensed hunter or fisherman may carry it concealed... but not loaded:

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.
(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.

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.

[MudCamper]

Originally Posted by GuyW

You can only have a loaded gun in your business - not carry. You can carry a concealed but unloaded gun in your business.

Not correct. Both 12025 (concealed) and 12031 (loaded) include exemptions for home and business. You can carry loaded and concealed in your home and business.

12026. (a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state … who carries, either openly or concealed, anywhere within the citizen's or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

12031 (h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that property.
(l) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.

[GuyW]

Haven't we had this dance before?

Originally Posted by GuyW

You can only have a loaded gun in your business - not carry. You can carry a concealed but unloaded gun in your business.

Originally Posted by MudCamper

Not correct. Both 12025 (concealed) and 12031 (loaded) include exemptions for home and business. You can carry loaded and concealed in your home and business.

12026 (a) allows carrying a gun - doesn't say loaded

Quote:
12026. (a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state … who carries, either openly or concealed, anywhere within the citizen's or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

12031 allows a loaded gun, but not carry.

Quote:
12031 (h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that property.
(l) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.

I'm following the analysis procedure in Machtinger's book...

.

[MudCamper]

Originally Posted by GuyW

Haven't we had this dance before?

I think you had it with others.

So you are fixating on the word "having" in the 12031 exemption and assuming (IMO incorrectly) that it means that you still cannot "carry" in your business.

Reminds me of "It depends on what the definition of "is" is."

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

ETA: And let me cite People v. Clark (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1147 , 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 99, which further cites Beaty v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 897, 902 [231 Cal.Rptr. 128] with regard to 12031:

A statute "must be given a reasonable and commonsense interpretation consistent with the apparent purpose and intention of the Legislature, practical rather than technical in nature, and which, when applied, will result in wise policy rather than mischief or absurdity.

[GuyW]

Originally Posted by MudCamper

I think you had it with others.

So you are fixating on the word "having" in the 12031 exemption and assuming (IMO incorrectly) that it means that you still cannot "carry" in your business.

Reminds me of "It depends on what the definition of "is" is."

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Most significantly, you're also disagreeing with case law that holds that the word "have" actually means something (ie, what I offered).
.

[MudCamper]

Originally Posted by GuyW

Mot significantly, you're also disagreeing with case law that holds that the word "have" actually means something (ie, what I offered).
.

No. It's all about the context. Please cite the case you refer to. Perhaps you posted after I added the People v Clark citation. IMO your word play meets that definition of "absurd".

Let me ask you this, is "holding" a loaded firearm in one's business legal in your world? Clearly "having" is, but "carrying" is not. How does one load/unload the weapon without violating your interpretation?

[GuyW]

Originally Posted by MudCamper

Let me ask you this, is "holding" a loaded firearm in one's business legal in your world? Clearly "having" is, but "carrying" is not. How does one load/unload the weapon without violating your interpretation?

Plain english.

"Have" does not preclude occasional picking up or occasional carrying. CONTINUAL carrying is different from having.

A liquor store owner can pick up his loaded handgun from the cash register area, and take it into the back room where he again sets it down. In general, he "has" it, but is not carrying it.

I'll post the case upon which I base this.
.

[GuyW]

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/legal/5...-outdoors.html

People vs. Overturf holds (in part):

"...[1] "Carrying" and "having" are not synonymous. "Having" relates to an "act or state of possessing," Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, page 1145, while "carrying" refers to the "act or instance of carrying" and the verb "carry" in relevant definition connotes "to convey, or transport ...;" and "to transfer from one place ... to another." (Id. at p. 412.)

There is a distinct difference in the two concepts. Speaking generally in the context of statutes concerned with firearms, "carry" or "carrying" has been said to be used in the sense of holding or bearing arms. (In re Bergen (1923) 61 Cal.App. 226, 228 [214 P. 521]; People v. Smith (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d Supp. 875, 878 [164 P.2d 857]. fn. 2 We think that "having," as it appears in subdivisions (f) and (j) of section 12031, is to be read in the sense of "owning, possessing, or keeping," and we so hold for three reasons.

In the first place, ascribing such a meaning to the word "having" comports with the dictionary definition mentioned above. fn. 3

In the second place, such a meaning gives practical content to the distinction between "carrying" and "having," and harmonizes the subdivisions of the statute. Under our reading of the statute, it is proper [64 Cal.App.3d Supp. 7] for a person to own, possess or keep a weapon at his place of business or his residence or on his private property, as the case may be, but not to carry it about thereon unless it is necessary to use it under circumstances where use of a firearm is otherwise lawful. Subdivision (h) of section 12031 expressly says as much: "Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or another is in immediate danger and that the carrying of such weapon is necessary for the preservation of such person or property."

Thus, before one may "carry" a weapon owned, possessed, or kept on the specified premises, there must be a reasonable belief that the person or property of the defendant or another is in immediate danger and that it is necessary to carry the weapon in order to preserve the endangered person or property.

In the third place, such a reading harmonizes with the companion firearm control statutes, Penal Code sections 12025 and 12026. As previously noted, section 12025 makes it an offense to carry concealed upon a person or in a vehicle (without having a license so to do) a firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. Section 12026 provides an exception to section 12025. It states that section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit a citizen over the age of 18 years (with certain exceptions) "from owning, possessing, or keeping within his place of residence or place of business" a firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. The section also provides that no license to purchase, own, possess or keep a firearm at one's place of residence or business shall be required. In People v. Frost (1932) 125 Cal.App. Supp. 794 [12 P.2d 1096], this court considered the language of the exception now embodied in section 12026. We there said "By no possible liberality of construction could we hold that any of the acts mentioned in this exception are denounced by the prohibitive parts of the section." (125 Cal.App. Supp. at p. 796.) That language is a clear indication that "owning, possessing, or keeping" a firearm at one's place of residence or business does not equate with "carrying" such a weapon.

[MudCamper]

Originally Posted by GuyW

Plain english.

"Have" does not preclude occasional picking up or occasional carrying. CONTINUAL carrying is different from having.

A liquor store owner can pick up his loaded handgun from the cash register area, and take it into the back room where he again sets it down. In general, he "has" it, but is not carrying it.

I'll post the case upon which I base this.
.

"A liquor store owner can pick up his loaded handgun from the cash register area, and take it into the back room where he again sets it down. In general, he "has" it, but is not carrying it."

So now you define "carrying" as "taking", and saying that is OK. Sorry but you are not being consistent. I stand by my argument that this word play is "absurd" and therefore inapplicable as the judges in Clark and Beaty stated.

I do not buy your logic at all. The exception within 12031 clearly intended to apply to the prohibition within 12031, "carrying".

How about this, is there any case where a person was convicted for 12031 for "carrying" in his own business? ETA: OK, Overturf was a 12031 case. I've never actually read it. I will now...

[MudCamper]

OK. After reading Overturf, I concede. I do not agree. The logic is flawed. But some insane court did manage to mangle the words into case law. You are correct.

What I also find crazy is they seem to imply that you cannot carry in your own home either, even though that doesn't even meet the code's "public place" requirement.

[locosway]

Doesn't this ruling promote unauthorized access to firearms?

If the firearm is carried on the person, there's little chance of someone gaining access to it. If the gun is loaded and sitting under the counter, or in the back room, then there's more of a chance that someone else could access that weapon.

Also, if you carry (in your hand) the weapon from room to room as you work, then wouldn't that be threatening to patrons or others? Someone carrying a holstered gun is barely noticed, but if you walk around with it in your hand it's threatening, even by CA law.

One last thing. What difference does it make if the gun is loaded and on your person, or loaded and concealed under a counter?

[locosway]

Here is how the current law reads:

"Any person over the age of 18 who is not prohibited from possessing firearms, and if otherwise
lawful, may keep and carry a firearm or have a firearm loaded at his or her place of residence,
temporary residence, campsite, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the person.
(Penal Code §§ 12026, 12031(h) and (l).) Any person engaged in any lawful business (including
nonprofit organizations) or any officer, employee, or agent authorized for lawful purposes connected
with the business may possess a loaded firearm within the place of business if that person is
over 18 years of age and not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms. (Penal Code §§ 12026,
12031(h).)"

So basically even the law says you can possess but not carry in a business. Which leads me back to why so many small store owners carry a firearm in their business. Is this law not enforced?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by locosway

Here is how the current law reads:

"Any person over the age of 18 who is not prohibited from possessing firearms, and if otherwise
lawful, may keep and carry a firearm or have a firearm loaded at his or her place of residence,
temporary residence, campsite, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the person.
(Penal Code §§ 12026, 12031(h) and (l).) Any person engaged in any lawful business (including
nonprofit organizations) or any officer, employee, or agent authorized for lawful purposes connected
with the business may possess a loaded firearm within the place of business if that person is
over 18 years of age and not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms. (Penal Code §§ 12026,
12031(h).)"

So basically even the law says you can possess but not carry in a business. Which leads me back to why so many small store owners carry a firearm in their business. Is this law not enforced?

You're quoting from Overturf, I believe; 12026 was amended after that case - 12026(a) says

12026. (a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen
of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who
resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within
the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
who carries, either openly or concealed, anywhere within the citizen'
s or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on
private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal
resident any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.

[tube_ee]

Originally Posted by tiko

+100 for this, by the time you use to type GO TO THE SEARCH FUNCTION then you could already answer the question.

The search function of this, the dominant forum software on the 'net, is terminally brain-dead.

If you're going to tell people to search, it's probably best that "search" actually works in a functional and non-surprising way. Neither of which adjectives apply in this case.

It's not CalGuns... it's the developers. Almost every gun board I'm has this problem, because they all use this software.

--Shannon