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 > OUTDOORS, HUNTING AND SURVIVAL > Camping, Hiking and Outdoor Activities
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Camping, Hiking and Outdoor Activities Camping, hiking, and other outdoor activities within.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 09-28-2009, 8:26 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errorz View Post
When going up Holy Jim in Silverado, you see the "entering National Forestry Area" and upon leaving it reminds you of your departure. There is the posted sign as well that states "no shooting near campsites, buildings, etc"

The difficult part of Holy Jim is at the trailhead marker, there are the NFS "NO SHOOTING" stickers.

I have carried LOC before for safety, though wonder if because of the stickers (no sign) that this is not permitted. There is no camping allowed up there nor buildings (short of the radio towers at the top) to have to worry about...

If anyone can shed light on these stickers, that would be great. But for me, It still has a degree of gray area...
Per 36 CFR 261.50 and 36 CFR 261.58, the local forest supervisor can close off areas to shooting. And when they do, they are required to post it. This is likely the reason for your signs. The question then becomes, how far or where exactly this shooting restriction extends. This would be a good time to contact your local ranger station and find out. In these areas you are limited to UOC. It is important to remember though, that they can only prohibit shooting. They do not have the legal authority to ban the possession or carry of firearms. (Update: Per 36 CFR 261.57 they can ban possession, but only in wilderness areas.)

Last edited by MudCamper; 11-09-2009 at 7:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-28-2009, 9:41 AM
locosway's Avatar
locosway locosway is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 11,343
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I'm not interested in shooting out there at all, it's too populated for that as it's a popular area.

However, I may cross dirt roads. So how does the LOC work when crossing a road and such?

Also, what's the penalty for carrying a firearm in a no shooting zone? If I'm not shooting, can they fine me just for possessing in a no shooting zone?
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
CA DOJ Certified Instructor
Glock Certified Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-28-2009, 10:04 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locosway View Post
I'm not interested in shooting out there at all, it's too populated for that as it's a popular area.

However, I may cross dirt roads. So how does the LOC work when crossing a road and such?

Also, what's the penalty for carrying a firearm in a no shooting zone? If I'm not shooting, can they fine me just for possessing in a no shooting zone?
This has all been discussed repeatedly, in this very thread. I will try and paraphrase.

The National Forest does not prohibit loading firearms, even where they prohibit shooting. But California law (PC 12031) prohibits loading anywhere where shooting is prohibited. The CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) prohibits shooting on/across roads in the NF. So, technically you'd be violating California Penal Code 12031 when you carry a loaded gun on the road in the NF. It's not just a fine. It's a misdemeanor.

Now some have argued recently (in other threads) that the federal code does not trigger the prohibited area language in 12031, that it takes a local county ordinance to do this. Maybe true, maybe not. Further, a federal Forest Service ranger may not know the subtleties of California law, or may not care, as long as you are not shooting. So what does all this contradiction mean? That your mileage may vary. Do what you fell comfortable with. Personally, I do not carry loaded in any area of the NF where shooting is prohibited. I've run into some pretty gun-ho sheriff's deputes in the NF.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-28-2009, 10:07 AM
locosway's Avatar
locosway locosway is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 11,343
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

So, UOC is completely safe if you're going to potentially cross roads and come near water areas.

LOC is perfectly fine if you're in back country and will not be coming near roads or other prohibited things, correct?
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
CA DOJ Certified Instructor
Glock Certified Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-28-2009, 10:29 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locosway View Post
So, UOC is completely safe if you're going to potentially cross roads and come near water areas.

LOC is perfectly fine if you're in back country and will not be coming near roads or other prohibited things, correct?
Correct. (Or rather, this is also my interpretation.)
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 10-10-2009, 6:30 AM
ontmark's Avatar
ontmark ontmark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vallejo, CA
Posts: 1,088
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Great Work MudCamper
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 10-21-2009, 8:49 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

BTT for addition of 43 CFR 8364 and 8365 BLM firearms restrictions to the second post.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 10-22-2009, 6:18 AM
Nadir_E Nadir_E is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LA County
Posts: 109
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Another round of thanks for an extraordinarily informative post.

-N
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 10-22-2009, 7:42 PM
ironpants ironpants is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 32
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Thank you for compiling this information in one post MudCamper, it's a great reference! There's so much regulation I'd wager very few people understand all the rules. I was initially confused by the following bit though:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
*2 - Loaded Open Carry is legal in areas where shooting is not prohibited, and in one's campsite
*2 - Shooting is prohibited within 150 yards of any residence, building, campsite, or developed site, or on/across a road or body of water
Which I first took to mean that while LOC is legal at my campsite, discharging my firearm is not. On further reading it seems that shooting is prohibited at any designated public campground. So if my campsite is not within a campground (and in an area where shooting is not otherwise prohibited) I can legally shoot.

I suggest making a semantic distinction by changing the second quoted instance of 'campsite' to 'campground' - unless of course I'm wrong and this is even more complicated than I think it is.

Last edited by ironpants; 10-22-2009 at 7:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 10-23-2009, 3:50 PM
bubbagump's Avatar
bubbagump bubbagump is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Humble, TX
Posts: 2,302
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section.

So does that mean I can't UOC with a thigh rig?
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 10-23-2009, 4:18 PM
locosway's Avatar
locosway locosway is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 11,343
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I doubt you would be harassed for a thigh holster, but I've wondered how the law works as well. I guess one would have to ask, does a thigh holster get mentioned in any other laws? If not, perhaps it just wasn't defined by the legislature?
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
CA DOJ Certified Instructor
Glock Certified Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 10-23-2009, 4:33 PM
bubbagump's Avatar
bubbagump bubbagump is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Humble, TX
Posts: 2,302
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locosway View Post
I doubt you would be harassed for a thigh holster, but I've wondered how the law works as well. I guess one would have to ask, does a thigh holster get mentioned in any other laws? If not, perhaps it just wasn't defined by the legislature?

It says belt...a thigh rig TECHNICALLY is suspended from your belt...I wonder because I heard of a similar situation where a fixed blade knife was carried on the calf and the gentlemen was cited for it (http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/knifelaw.html)

Then again, 12020 is more specific because it says, "Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this section."

So it got me to thinking...

Wearing a hiking pack with a waist belt makes it really uncomfortable to wear a holster on your strongside. I've tried suspending the holster from the waist belt on the pack...but then if I take off my pack...my gun goes with it...
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 10-26-2009, 7:57 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpants View Post
Which I first took to mean that while LOC is legal at my campsite, discharging my firearm is not. On further reading it seems that shooting is prohibited at any designated public campground. So if my campsite is not within a campground (and in an area where shooting is not otherwise prohibited) I can legally shoot.

I suggest making a semantic distinction by changing the second quoted instance of 'campsite' to 'campground' - unless of course I'm wrong and this is even more complicated than I think it is.
The term "Campsite" is the term used in both the PC for the temporary residence exemption, and also in the CFR for the shooting prohibition. I don't think the CFR is clear on the definition of "campsite", as to whether it means designated campground or not, but I will try to determine that. It may just be one of those gray areas that is not well defined.

I see what you are saying. If "campsite" in the CFR means any undesignated campsite, then you cannot shoot, but 12031 doesn't apply because of the residence exemption. Odd combination of loaded but no shooting.

ETA: "Campsite" is not defined. "Camping" is, and "developed area" is. And the term "designated" is sometimes used in the code with "campsite" although not defined. What does all this mean? IMO it means "campsite" means just what we think it does: anywhere a person is camping, anywhere a person pitches a tent or parks a camper or lays a sleeping bag. Does this mean we can't shoot there if it's our own undesignated campsite out in the boonies? IMO the code likely was not intended to apply there, and you are likely not going to have any problems shooting there. Now if you were shooting within 150 yards of somebody else's campsite I think you'd be in trouble, but this falls into the area of common sense.

FYI from CFR 36 1.4 (a)

Quote:
Camping means the erecting of a tent or shelter of natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, parking of a motor vehicle, motor home or trailer, or mooring of a vessel for the apparent purpose of overnight occupancy.
Quote:
Developed area means roads, parking areas, picnic areas, campgrounds, or other structures, facilities or lands located within development and historic zones depicted on the park area land management and use map.

Last edited by MudCamper; 10-26-2009 at 9:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 10-26-2009, 8:01 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbagump View Post
(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section.

So does that mean I can't UOC with a thigh rig?
PC 12025 makes concealing illegal. Unconcealed handguns are legal. The belt holster is just one clarification that it is not concealed. Any other method of carry that does not conceal is also legal. While it is not specifically spelled out, it is legal.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 11-02-2009, 8:01 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

I just reread the FS policy overview on their website. It's changed since I last read it. Now it includes this,

Quote:
If you are planning on visiting a designated Wilderness Area, the Regional Forester or Forest Supervisor has the option to implement a special local order which additionally prohibits the mere possession of a firearm within that Wilderness Area.
As far as I know, it is not within their authority to ban possession, only shooting. I will contact the author of that page and ask him to cite the CFR that gives this authority, or to correct that page if none exists.

ETA: OK I have an email in to Jamie Schwartz. Waiting on his reply...

Last edited by MudCamper; 11-02-2009 at 9:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 11-09-2009, 7:37 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

UPDATE

I was wrong. I received an email back from Mr. Shwartz. It merely stated the following:

Quote:
In regards to your question please reference 36 CFR 261.57 (c). Thank-you for your interest in National Forest Mangement
I'd always known of 36 CFR 261.58 which authorizes banning shooting. Just one section away 36 CFR 261.57 (c) states the following:

Quote:
§ 261.57 National Forest wilderness.

When provided by an order, the following are prohibited:

(a) Entering or being in the area.

(b) Possessing camping or pack-outfitting equipment, as specified in the order.

(c) Possessing a firearm or firework.

(d) Possessing any non-burnable food or beverage containers, including deposit bottles, except for non-burnable containers designed and intended for repeated use.

(e) Grazing.

(f) Storing equipment, personal property or supplies.

(g) Disposing of debris, garbage, or other waste.

(h) Possessing or using a wagon, cart or other vehicle.
There you have it. They can ban guns outright in wilderness areas if they choose. Be sure never to visit such areas.

I will update this thread accordingly.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 11-09-2009, 7:54 PM
smle-man's Avatar
smle-man smle-man is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Right here
Posts: 6,851
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

So how do you know which wilderness areas ban firearms and those that don't ban them? I have seen numerous wilderness area border markers and none say firearms are banned. How does one stay legal?
__________________


"Everybody dies.. the thing is, to die well' Jack Harper

I'm a seven percenter
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 11-09-2009, 8:47 PM
locosway's Avatar
locosway locosway is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 11,343
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
UPDATE

I was wrong. I received an email back from Mr. Shwartz. It merely stated the following:



I'd always known of 36 CFR 261.58 which authorizes banning shooting. Just one section away 36 CFR 261.57 (c) states the following:



There you have it. They can ban guns outright in wilderness areas if they choose. Be sure never to visit such areas.

I will update this thread accordingly.
How does this hold up on National Forest property. Isn't that considered Federal land, and if so, doesn't Heller completely apply?
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
CA DOJ Certified Instructor
Glock Certified Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 11-09-2009, 11:47 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smle-man View Post
So how do you know which wilderness areas ban firearms and those that don't ban them? I have seen numerous wilderness area border markers and none say firearms are banned. How does one stay legal?
They have to post the orders, in the ranger stations and the effected areas. Read 36 CFR 261.50 if you want the specifics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by locosway View Post
How does this hold up on National Forest property. Isn't that considered Federal land, and if so, doesn't Heller completely apply?
IMO banning possession is unconstitutional post-Heller. So 36 CFR 261.57 (c) is illegal.

But this really isn't something to be worried about since I know of no case where it is actually ordered in a National Forest in California anyway. Now 36 CFR 261.58 (m) is sometimes (rarely) ordered (prohibits shooting).

Last edited by MudCamper; 11-09-2009 at 11:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 11-13-2009, 7:52 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

I've found that the Wilderness.net website can be useful for quickly finding a particular wilderness area's managing agency's website and contact info.

Just go to the list of California wilderness areas, click on the one you are interested in, then click on the "Links" tab. It will contain links to the managing agency's website (but only if it's NF, NP, or BLM).
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 11-18-2009, 12:23 AM
problemchild problemchild is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 33.753276,-118.19139
Posts: 6,968
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

It should not take a team of attorneys and 12 more intelligent people to figure these things out. Just carry the gun and take your chances. Keep a low profile. Keep the mag loaded but dont chamber. Have a fish/hunting lic.

Just plain nuts!
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-18-2009, 6:23 AM
locosway's Avatar
locosway locosway is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 11,343
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Take your chances with jail, fines, attorney fees, and possibly becoming a prohibited person?

If I'm taking my chances, I'll do it concealed. Taking chances with the gun in the open is stupid.
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
CA DOJ Certified Instructor
Glock Certified Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-18-2009, 8:54 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild View Post
It should not take a team of attorneys and 12 more intelligent people to figure these things out. Just carry the gun and take your chances. Keep a low profile. Keep the mag loaded but dont chamber. Have a fish/hunting lic.
That is extremely bad advice.

It's not that complicated. If you are too lazy to figure out where the exact line is for where you are and what you are doing, then heed this advice:

In the NF or BLM, open carry unloaded, with ammo / loaded mags handy. After February 22, 2010, do the same in NPs. In State Parks, keep firearms unloaded and locked up. When in doubt, keep firearms unloaded and locked up.

Last edited by MudCamper; 11-18-2009 at 9:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:00 AM
Taggart's Avatar
Taggart Taggart is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 56
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
When in doubt, keep firearms unloaded and locked up.
Or out of sight.

Really, when did we get to the point that a walk through the woods requires constant attention to the status of the kit gun in your tackle box or the cougar protection riding on your hip? Clearly, the only way you can be sure of not running afoul of the law, is to ensure the law doesn't know you are packing.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:01 AM
Taggart's Avatar
Taggart Taggart is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 56
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locosway View Post
Take your chances with jail, fines, attorney fees, and possibly becoming a prohibited person?

If I'm taking my chances, I'll do it concealed. Taking chances with the gun in the open is stupid.
Exactly.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 11-30-2009, 3:16 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taggart View Post
Or out of sight.

Really, when did we get to the point that a walk through the woods requires constant attention to the status of the kit gun in your tackle box or the cougar protection riding on your hip? Clearly, the only way you can be sure of not running afoul of the law, is to ensure the law doesn't know you are packing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by locosway View Post
Take your chances with jail, fines, attorney fees, and possibly becoming a prohibited person?

If I'm taking my chances, I'll do it concealed. Taking chances with the gun in the open is stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taggart View Post
Exactly.
You are all recommending violating PC 12025. Please do not advocate illegal activity in this thread. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-06-2010, 9:13 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Bump with the Examiner.com article, "National Park Service to educate public on gun rights".

We're only a month and a half away from the change, and we still have no official word from the NPS on this. I'm initiating contact with NPS officials to see if we can get some clarification.

ETA: Philip Selleck, Chief of Special Regulations and Park Uses, stated that they are actively working to finalize press releases and web page updates.

Last edited by MudCamper; 01-06-2010 at 10:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-13-2010, 9:14 AM
Hunt's Avatar
Hunt Hunt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,192
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
(d) Discharging a firearm or any other implement capable of taking human life, causing injury, or damaging property as follows:

(1) In or within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site or occupied area, or
I think we should discuss this because everyone believes this to mean possession of a loaded firearm. I read it as discharge so you don't need to unload within 150 yards of these areas, but then again it would be wise to unload so not to be cited for illegal hunting, because the DFG regs do place some additional limitations relative to the 150 yards.
Quote:
(a) It is unlawful for any person, other than the owner, person in possession of the premises, or a person having the express permission of the owner or person in possession of the premises, to hunt or to discharge while hunting, any firearm or other deadly weapon within 150 yards of any occupied dwelling house, residence, or other building or any barn or other outbuilding used in connection therewith. The 150-yard area is a "safety zone."
so the DFG adds the activity of hunting to 150 yards of restricted structures etc. so after comparing these relevant regulations concerning legal hunting areas the only time you need to unload while legally hunting is when approaching to within 150 yards of restricted structures. I don't find any language that says you can't possess loaded firearms on a NF or BLM road.


Quote:
36 CFR 261.10 (d) (National Forests and National Parks)


Quote:
The following are prohibited:

(d) Discharging a firearm or any other implement capable of taking human life, causing injury, or damaging property as follows:

(1) In or within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site or occupied area, or
(2) Across or on a National Forest System road or a body of water adjacent thereto, or in any manner or place whereby any person or property is exposed to injury or damage as a result in such discharge.
this doesn't address the activity of hunting only discharge from or accross a NF road. We should be able to walk along the roads and hunt with loaded firearms step off road to shoot no worries about being within 150 yards of a road.

Last edited by Hunt; 01-13-2010 at 10:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-13-2010, 9:41 AM
Hunt's Avatar
Hunt Hunt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,192
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errorz View Post

If anyone can shed light on these stickers, that would be great. But for me, It still has a degree of gray area...
I have encountered similar stickers the ones I have encountered all continue with fine print,
"Unless in the lawful pursuit of game mammals and fowl" something like that. This means the area is open for legal hunting NOT endless hours of target shooting.
Buy a hunting license coyotes are lawful game with any centerfire pistol or rifle open season.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-13-2010, 1:42 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunt View Post
I think we should discuss this because everyone believes this to mean possession of a loaded firearm. I read it as discharge so you don't need to unload within 150 yards of these areas, but then again it would be wise to unload so not to be cited for illegal hunting, because the DFG regs do place some additional limitations relative to the 150 yards.

so the DFG adds the activity of hunting to 150 yards of restricted structures etc. so after comparing these relevant regulations concerning legal hunting areas the only time you need to unload while legally hunting is when approaching to within 150 yards of restricted structures. I don't find any language that says you can't possess loaded firearms on a NF or BLM road.

this doesn't address the activity of hunting only discharge from or accross a NF road. We should be able to walk along the roads and hunt with loaded firearms step off road to shoot no worries about being within 150 yards of a road.
Yes, the discharge prohibitions do not prohibit loading per se. But California penal code 12031 states that you can't load "in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory" and goes on to define ""prohibited area" means any place where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon".

Now in all likelihood the legislative intent of 12031 probably did not include banning loaded on back-woods dirt roads in the NF, but technically it works out that way.

And recently I discovered (thanks to bigtoe416 on OCDO) the Attorney General opinion from just after 12031 became law (51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 197 (1968)), that tries to clarify some of these points, but it in fact adds a lot of confusion. I'm still trying to sort it out myself. Plus I do not know how much weight these opinions actually have in court.

Last edited by MudCamper; 01-13-2010 at 1:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 01-13-2010, 2:14 PM
Hunt's Avatar
Hunt Hunt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,192
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
Yes, the discharge prohibitions do not prohibit loading per se. But California penal code 12031 states that you can't load "in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory" and goes on to define ""prohibited area" means any place where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon".

Now in all likelihood the legislative intent of 12031 probably did not include banning loaded on back-woods dirt roads in the NF, but technically it works out that way.

And recently I discovered (thanks to bigtoe416 on OCDO) the Attorney General opinion from just after 12031 became law (51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 197 (1968)), that tries to clarify some of these points, but it in fact adds a lot of confusion. I'm still trying to sort it out myself. Plus I do not know how much weight these opinions actually have in court.
so we are good to go on NF roads if unloaded, that is better than how some of this is interpreted to be, " unload 150 yards away from NF road."

The next thing I need to grapple with is the mechanical means of conveyance transport through State Parks. It seems the intention is to prevent transport by foot (backpackers) even if unloaded and in locked container. This is very prejudiced, it prevents access to other public lands for hunting, I encounter this often adjacent to Anza Borrego State Park. So far I haven't found any exemptions that would allow someone to backpack/transport through a State Park. On the other hand there is no direct reference to prohibiting a backpacker to transport a firearm. Possibly item (b) could be used to support the notion that backpackers can't be unfairly prevented transporting to a lawful hunting unit even through a State Park especially in light of any lack of strict prohibition to do so
Quote:
§ 4313. Weapons and Traps...
(b) Nothing herein contained shall be construed in derogation of the use of weapons permitted by law or regulation and to be used for hunting in any unit, or portion thereof, open to hunting.
[/QUOTE]

Last edited by Hunt; 01-13-2010 at 2:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-14-2010, 7:54 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunt View Post
The next thing I need to grapple with is the mechanical means of conveyance transport through State Parks. It seems the intention is to prevent transport by foot (backpackers) even if unloaded and in locked container. This is very prejudiced, it prevents access to other public lands for hunting, I encounter this often adjacent to Anza Borrego State Park. So far I haven't found any exemptions that would allow someone to backpack/transport through a State Park.
I don't know of a solution for this particular problem.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 01-26-2010, 9:58 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Memo about Golden Gate Park: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=263332
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02-03-2010, 9:58 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

New National Park policy documents available in this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=266215
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 02-07-2010, 10:27 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,851
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So, in your estimation Mudcamper,(or any other knowledgeable people here,) based on the new documents above, will LOC be legal in CA ? More specifically, Death Valley National Park (much of it) is located in unincorporated area's of Inyo County where the discharge of a firearm is not otherwise restricted, (same as the BLM lands there). So will LOC be available to us, or only UOC?

I know we're still in a can of worms state here. I way I see it, on one hand,
County Reg.s say we can discharge, and thus NPS is directed to honor State law, which gives us LOC. One the other, in the Guidence/Implementation Doc. posted in the link above, it states :

"Section 512 does not affect the enforcement of the regulatory prohibition on the use of firearms within the National Park System, see 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii), which should continue to be enforced as appropriate."

Would California recognize this as a restriction on discharge and thus no LOC?

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg. I understand the dificulties here and the contradictions involved.

1. Inyo County says you can discharge = LOC is ok
2. NPS must honor State Law.
3. NPS says that (via 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii) ) is still valid and No Discharge allowed. (*See Note Below)
4. Based on #3 above, CA says no LOC.

So which has preemption?

*Note: In Sec.512. (a)(4) Congress states that this section(36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(i)(ii)(iii) violates our 2nd A. rights, but it seems the NPS is ignoring (iii) discharge (using) and will still enforce this.

So in your opinion, where do we stand on this?

Edited to Add :

Just another thought. Since California does not prosecute federal law for Medical Marijuana use since State Law allows it, would it be a stretch to assume they wouldn't prosecute LOC since State /Locate law allows it but as in the MJ case above, the Feds don't?

One more tid-bit to chew on.

The NPS also says in the Guidence/Implementation Doc. that:

Applying the term “law of the State” in Section 512 requires that NPS look to the provisions of applicable state law, which includes local and county laws and ordinances that may derive from state law. Insofar as Section 512 refers to "an assembled and functional firearm,” we interpret that phrase to include loaded firearms.

Based on that language, I interpret that we can LOC where allowed by State/Local Law with-in the National Park.

Discharge however (target shooting, etc.), would be pushing the envelope and would not recommend it except in Self Defense.

Am I on the right track here?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice

Last edited by Southwest Chuck; 02-07-2010 at 10:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-07-2010, 11:24 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

IMO, if the Park Service posts no shooting orders per 36 CFR 261.58 (or some other authoritative code that I am missing), then LOC would trigger the "prohibited area" language of 12031, and would therefore be illegal.

Some may argue based on the 1968 AG opinion that it does not, as some (i.e. People v Knight and People v Segura) believe that it must be a local shooting prohibition. However, I don't read the AG opinion that way, and I bet most LE are not even aware of it, and will just assume 12031 applies, and you may end up being the new test case.

UOC will be legal. And LOC will definitely also be if they do not impose any shooting restrictions.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02-07-2010, 11:39 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,851
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
IMO, if the Park Service posts no shooting orders per 36 CFR 261.58 (or some other authoritative code that I am missing), then LOC would trigger the "prohibited area" language of 12031, and would therefore be illegal.

Some may argue based on the 1968 AG opinion that it does not, as some (i.e. People v Knight and People v Segura) believe that it must be a local shooting prohibition. However, I don't read the AG opinion that way, and I bet most LE are not even aware of it, and will just assume 12031 applies, and you may end up being the new test case.

UOC will be legal. And LOC will definitely also be if they do not impose any shooting restrictions.
But the shooting restrictions are in place via 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii), arn't they?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-07-2010, 11:39 AM
darkshier's Avatar
darkshier darkshier is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 231
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thanks for all the clarification MudCamper. You are always answering our ?'s and that is just awesome!
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02-08-2010, 10:42 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
But the shooting restrictions are in place via 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii), arn't they?
It's a bit of a quandary, isn't it. Let's read the code:

Quote:
(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited:

(i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net

(ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net

(iii) Using a weapon, trap or net
(i) and (ii) are specifically rendered void per Section 512 of HR 627.

(iii) uses the word "using". That's a pretty broad term. It could include (i) and (ii), but obviously that wouldn't fly given the new law. I honestly don't know what to think. We may very well be able to get away with LOC, but I just don't know yet.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 02-08-2010, 12:03 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,851
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
It's a bit of a quandary, isn't it. Let's read the code:



(i) and (ii) are specifically rendered void per Section 512 of HR 627.

(iii) uses the word "using". That's a pretty broad term. It could include (i) and (ii), but obviously that wouldn't fly given the new law. I honestly don't know what to think. We may very well be able to get away with LOC, but I just don't know yet.
Great word, quandary. That's what we're in, in this instance, right now, for sure. Landmines all around until it gets sorted out. And NO, I don't want to be a test case . I guess it's a wait and see approach to see how the Park Service reacts to the first Open Carriers both UOC/LOC. Hopefully DVNP / YNP/ etc. will issue there own Guidence/Implementation Document on CA Law clarifying their position on the matter .

Even then, if they don't have a problem with LOC, we may still face risk (although diminished) of being prosecuted (12031) by an over zealous County Prosecuter (think Theasus) with a citation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii) . It's something they could hold over your head, so to speak.... (Well sir, your carrying exposed and loaded is within Federal Law here in the Park, but may well be Illegal per CA State Law. Generally, we're not in the business of enforcing State Law, but just don't push it ).... with an insinuation of put it away or leave.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 2:45 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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.