View Single Post
  #9  
Old 02-11-2019, 2:30 AM
1911_sfca's Avatar
1911_sfca 1911_sfca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,371
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Thanks, I have read the article and I still have the same opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427
Penal Code section 26035 only permits the possession of a firearm upon the property. It does not extend the carrying of the weapon, or to the concealed carry of the weapon.

Methinks you should re-read section 25605, and particularly subparagraph (c). That's where you get to the part that limits application to "areas not open to the public." Subparagraph (c) provides that "Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the application of Sections 25850 to 26055, inclusive." It's section 25850 that contains the part about "not open to the public."

But to really explode your point of view, please give a close read to the California Court of Appeals decision in People v Overturf. The court considered pretty much the same facts that you've posed here in upholding Mr. Overturf's conviction for carrying a loaded firearm at his place of business.
I am familiar with PC 25605, and subsection (c) states that it does not affect the restriction on carrying loaded in a public place or upon a public street. To my knowledge, the term "public place" is not defined in the penal code as it relates to this section, however. A private business such as a store would not be a "public place" for the purposes of restricting the owner or employee, specifically allowed to carry, from carrying loaded.

The relevant case here is People v. Melton (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 580. In this case, a convenience store clerk was convicted of carrying concealed in his place of employment. The court drew a slightly bizarre distinction between a carrying a concealable firearm, and carrying a concealable firearm, concealed.

The legislature promptly amended the penal code with the express purpose of fixing this ambiguity; in other words, the PC was specifically crafted to allow a convenience store clerk to carry concealed in his place of business.

Let's look at the situation and facts in People v. Overturf -- it is about a landlord carrying in the courtyard of an apartment building on 3 acres of land, and getting into a dispute with victim, one of his employees, who lived in the same apartment complex. Overturf fired a warning shot at the victim. The courts find that the common areas of an apartment building are "public," not a private residence or place of business for Overturf.

Since this thread was talking about employees or a business owner carrying a firearm within the business, Overturf is wildly irrelevant to that fact pattern, and the legislative changes made in 1989 responding to the bad court decision in Melton, are what would apply. So my opinion is unchanged. It is legal for a business owner (or employees who have a possessory interest in the business, e.g. can tell people to leave, and can control what activities take place inside the business) to legally carry within the business.

And sure, we can agree that you can't tote around a gun in the common areas of an apartment complex and rely on the exemptions of 25605PC. That's entirely unrelated to what we were discussing and it doesn't "explode" anything.
Reply With Quote