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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-08-2019, 2:49 PM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Penal Code Application

I've been told that businesses can deny application of the California Penal Code as a condition of entry to their premises. I believe that is incorrect info.

How can a private venue deny CPC 25450. (a) since this section specifies an exemption to concealed weapons laws?

The CA Penal Code applies everywhere within CA. So how can any private entity deny CPC 25450. (a)?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-08-2019, 3:37 PM
Yodaman Yodaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,817
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

It’s private property.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-08-2019, 3:59 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,911
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMP3 View Post
I've been told that businesses can deny application of the California Penal Code as a condition of entry to their premises. I believe that is incorrect info.

How can a private venue deny CPC 25450. (a) since this section specifies an exemption to concealed weapons laws?

The CA Penal Code applies everywhere within CA. So how can any private entity deny CPC 25450. (a)?
You're confusing two separate rules here.

A private business is not "denying application of the California Penal Code" if they elect not to allow concealed weapons on their property.

Penal Code section 25450(a) exempts some current and retired LEOs from the California statutory provision in Penal Code section 25400 prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. That's all that it does.

Private property owners, which some specific exceptions not relevant here, have the right to control the use of their property. When they elect to do in a manner that restricts concealed carry, they're doing so on their right as a property owner, and not on the basis of PC 25400.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-10-2019, 10:30 AM
Tallship's Avatar
Tallship Tallship is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 560
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The same way a business owner can allow anyone concealed or open carry in his business premises.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-10-2019, 11:33 AM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,429
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallship View Post
The same way a business owner can allow anyone concealed or open carry in his business premises.
Not true.
They can allow employees to carry openly in areas not accessible to the public.
They can not allow employees or customers to carry openly, or concealed without a permit, in areas normally open to the public.

Yes, gun shops and pawn shops violate this regularly, and LE turns a blind eye (understandably), but start carrying openly in your cell phone store and you're going to have some problems if a cop walks in.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-10-2019, 11:58 AM
1911_sfca's Avatar
1911_sfca 1911_sfca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,336
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
Not true.
They can allow employees to carry openly in areas not accessible to the public.
They can not allow employees or customers to carry openly, or concealed without a permit, in areas normally open to the public.

Yes, gun shops and pawn shops violate this regularly, and LE turns a blind eye (understandably), but start carrying openly in your cell phone store and you're going to have some problems if a cop walks in.
Huh? Can you please cite the penal code section or case law where this legal theory arises from?

Check out PC 26035, as well as PC 25605. It doesn't mention anything about "not open to the public."

Last edited by 1911_sfca; 02-10-2019 at 12:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-10-2019, 12:55 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,984
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911_sfca View Post
Huh? Can you please cite the penal code section or case law where this legal theory arises from?

Check out PC 26035, as well as PC 25605. It doesn't mention anything about "not open to the public."
Please see the wiki article, http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...oncealed_Carry
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

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.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-10-2019, 12:56 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,911
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911_sfca View Post
Huh? Can you please cite the penal code section or case law where this legal theory arises from?

Check out PC 26035, as well as PC 25605. It doesn't mention anything about "not open to the public."
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.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-11-2019, 3:30 AM
1911_sfca's Avatar
1911_sfca 1911_sfca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,336
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
  #10  
Old 02-11-2019, 8:43 AM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 4,647
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911_sfca View Post
Thanks, I have read the article and I still have the same opinion.



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.
I'm not too sure you understood what the OP's question was. I don't see anything about business owner's or employee's carrying in his question. Seemed to be more about business owner's posting no gun's sign's to apply to everyone at their business.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-11-2019, 9:53 AM
1911_sfca's Avatar
1911_sfca 1911_sfca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,336
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
I'm not too sure you understood what the OP's question was. I don't see anything about business owner's or employee's carrying in his question. Seemed to be more about business owner's posting no gun's sign's to apply to everyone at their business.
That's true, I'm not sure I understood the question as worded -- whether a business owner can "deny application" of the penal code on premises, which seemed to be getting at whether they could prohibit concealed carry by customers on their property. It veered into the subject I was discussing on post #4.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-12-2019, 2:03 PM
Coolguy101 Coolguy101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 348
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I was told by the CA DOJ that gunstore employees can open or conceal inside the store IF they have a COE. That did not apply to outdoors on the property that is visible to the public. If they did not have a COE, they could not carry.

No, I don't have it in writing so I realize that information is probably useless. But that's what I was told.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-12-2019, 8:13 PM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yodaman View Post
It’s private property.
Are you implying that the California Penal Code does not apply to private property?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-12-2019, 8:20 PM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
You're confusing two separate rules here.

A private business is not "denying application of the California Penal Code" if they elect not to allow concealed weapons on their property.

Penal Code section 25450(a) exempts some current and retired LEOs from the California statutory provision in Penal Code section 25400 prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. That's all that it does.

Private property owners, which some specific exceptions not relevant here, have the right to control the use of their property. When they elect to do in a manner that restricts concealed carry, they're doing so on their right as a property owner, and not on the basis of PC 25400.
I'm not sure I agree with you. California Penal Code Section 25450 includes active and honorably retired cops. If a private business that invites members of the public into its business could deny CPC 25450, then it could deny on-duty cops carrying concealed handguns.

Remember that CPC 25450 is an exemption to concealed weapons laws. It is a horse of a different color than CCW law. In fact, it is not comparable to CA's CCW laws. It's an exemption from CA's CCW law.

How can a business deny a codified section of the California Penal Code?

The California Penal Code applies everywhere within CA, private businesses included.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-12-2019, 8:26 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,446
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMP3 View Post
Are you implying that the California Penal Code does not apply to private property?
IIANAL But I avoided more then one exhibition of speed charge back in the day by pointing out that I was on private property at the time.

LEO's hated us doing burnouts in the KMart parking lot late at night. Judge saw it my way more then once. But this was back in the 70's so what do I know.
__________________
IF WE EVER FORGET WE ARE ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
THEN WE WILL BE A NATION GONE UNDER.
Ronald Reagan


We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-12-2019, 8:26 PM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Your link does not apply to California Penal Code Section 25450:

ARTICLE 2. Peace Officer Exemption [25450 - 25475] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )


25450.

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.

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...0.&lawCode=PEN
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-12-2019, 8:28 PM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
IIANAL But I avoided more then one exhibition of speed charge back in the day by pointing out that I was on private property at the time.

LEO's hated us doing burnouts in the KMart parking lot late at night. Judge saw it my way more then once. But this was back in the 70's so what do I know.
The California Vehicle Code does not defined exemptions to CCW laws.

It's not a logical comparison.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-12-2019, 8:31 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,446
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMP3 View Post
The California Vehicle Code does not defined exemptions to CCW laws.

It's not a logical comparison.
We were talking about Private Property.
__________________
IF WE EVER FORGET WE ARE ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
THEN WE WILL BE A NATION GONE UNDER.
Ronald Reagan


We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-12-2019, 8:42 PM
Yodaman Yodaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,817
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMP3 View Post
Are you implying that the California Penal Code does not apply to private property?


I wasn’t. But we all know the PC does not give authority to do something a private property the owner does not want in the case stated.


PC does not give authority to override the desires of the proprietor of a property.


Only covers the exempt status.


You can’t say because I’m exempt status I have the power of CA behind me to let me do what I want on your property Joe Schmoe.

While someone may not get arrested for carrying on private property where the owner does not want them to.

They can be booted or denied service which is common place at many venues in CA.

As I said, It’s private property.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-12-2019, 9:18 PM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yodaman View Post
I wasn’t. But we all know the PC does not give authority to do something a private property the owner does not want in the case stated.


PC does not give authority to override the desires of the proprietor of a property.


Only covers the exempt status.


You can’t say because I’m exempt status I have the power of CA behind me to let me do what I want on your property Joe Schmoe.


While someone may not get arrested for carrying on private property where the owner does not want them to.

They can be booted or denied service which is common place at many venues in CA.

As I said, It’s private property.
What is the source of your info?

The California Penal Code is the source of law, not any person.

The California Penal Code applies everywhere in CA, including private property. A murderer can't use a defense of private property should he murder another on his private property.

Can you cite a source of law that accords a private property owner ability to deny application of the California Penal Code on private property?

Thanks

Last edited by EMP3; 02-12-2019 at 9:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-12-2019, 9:21 PM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
We were talking about Private Property.
I know. Can you cite a legal source that accords ability of a business owner to deny application of the California Penal Code on private property?

Remember that California Penal Code Section 25450 is an exemption to CCW laws. Cops & honorably retired cops carry in accordance to source independent to laws that apply to persons carrying pursuant to CCW law.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-12-2019, 9:25 PM
Yodaman Yodaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,817
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

I tend not to get wrapped in threads where someone asks me to research law for them.

Remember, if the PC does not give over arching power here.


Think of it like your house...if someone who is exempt off duty walked into your house with a firearm concealed to visit or with a friend, and you do not want them there because of that reason, you can still ask them to leave.


Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-12-2019, 9:30 PM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've had a manager of local indoor range tell me that he'd take a concealed weapon from cops and honorably retired cops in his place of business. Since he knew everything, reason was not within his realm of operation. It's not wise to reason with one who knows he's right, even when codified law would place him in jeopardy of one or more felonies. Should he try, he'd go to jail for grand theft person, possibly strong armed robbery should he use force to disarm one covered by CPC 25450.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-12-2019, 9:35 PM
Yodaman Yodaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,817
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMP3 View Post
I've had a manager of local indoor range tell me that he'd take a concealed weapon from cops and honorably retired cops in his place of business. Since he knew everything, reason was not within his realm of operation. It's not wise to reason with one who knows he's right, even when codified law would place him in jeopardy of one or more felonies. Should he try, he'd go to jail for grand theft person, possibly strong armed robbery should he use force to disarm one covered by CPC 25450.


Probably just range talk. Smoke blowing at its worst. He can ask that they locker their firearms. But I highly doubt he has “taken” a gun from anyone. Or at least anyone who is exempt. Not gonna happen.

Name the range and I bet other will chime in with their stories of that guy.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-12-2019, 9:46 PM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yodaman,

I think your confusion has arisen with commingling CA CCW laws with peace officer and honorably retired peace officer exemption to CA CCW laws.

A DNA relative who's a criminal lawyer of considerable renown has told me that CPC 25450, the peace officer exemption, is controlling.

Cops do not enforce business policy. They enforce law.

The California Penal Code applies everywhere within CA, even your home. Were you to commit a crime in your home, cops would have legal authority to investigate, arrest, arm's reach search of your home (see Chimel v. California) and take you to jail for an alleged crime. You would not be able to use a defense of private property, for the California Penal Code's authority does not end at your property lines.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-12-2019, 9:57 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,911
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMP3 View Post
I know. Can you cite a legal source that accords ability of a business owner to deny application of the California Penal Code on private property?

Remember that California Penal Code Section 25450 is an exemption to CCW laws. Cops & honorably retired cops carry in accordance to source independent to laws that apply to persons carrying pursuant to CCW law.
EMP3,

We're going around in circles here.

There is no legal source that accords the private property owner the ability to "deny application of the Penal Code." Stop looking for it. It ain't there.

Methinks that you're trying the frame the question to support the position that you'd like to have - that CCW holders and LEOSA covered folks could carry concealed on private property. It don't work that way.

PC section 25450 gives an exemption from the Penal Code provisions that would otherwise make concealed carry illegal. It only applies to the Penal Code prohibition on concealed carry. It does not give you the right to concealed carry. There's a distinction between these two things that you're just not getting.

When the private property owner elects to prohibit concealed carry, he is doing so under his rights as a property owner. There's no involvement of the Penal Code at that point. Now if you refuse to leave the property at the owner's request (because you refuse to disarm), then Penal Code section 602 comes into play. The PC exemption that you claim under section 25450 don't extend to section 602.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-13-2019, 1:54 AM
Yodaman Yodaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,817
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
EMP3,



We're going around in circles here.



There is no legal source that accords the private property owner the ability to "deny application of the Penal Code." Stop looking for it. It ain't there.



Methinks that you're trying the frame the question to support the position that you'd like to have - that CCW holders and LEOSA covered folks could carry concealed on private property. It don't work that way.



PC section 25450 gives an exemption from the Penal Code provisions that would otherwise make concealed carry illegal. It only applies to the Penal Code prohibition on concealed carry. It does not give you the right to concealed carry. There's a distinction between these two things that you're just not getting.



When the private property owner elects to prohibit concealed carry, he is doing so under his rights as a property owner. There's no involvement of the Penal Code at that point. Now if you refuse to leave the property at the owner's request (because you refuse to disarm), then Penal Code section 602 comes into play. The PC exemption that you claim under section 25450 don't extend to section 602.


This is well said
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-13-2019, 5:35 AM
eta34's Avatar
eta34 eta34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,059
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
EMP3,

We're going around in circles here.

There is no legal source that accords the private property owner the ability to "deny application of the Penal Code." Stop looking for it. It ain't there.

Methinks that you're trying the frame the question to support the position that you'd like to have - that CCW holders and LEOSA covered folks could carry concealed on private property. It don't work that way.

PC section 25450 gives an exemption from the Penal Code provisions that would otherwise make concealed carry illegal. It only applies to the Penal Code prohibition on concealed carry. It does not give you the right to concealed carry. There's a distinction between these two things that you're just not getting.

When the private property owner elects to prohibit concealed carry, he is doing so under his rights as a property owner. There's no involvement of the Penal Code at that point. Now if you refuse to leave the property at the owner's request (because you refuse to disarm), then Penal Code section 602 comes into play. The PC exemption that you claim under section 25450 don't extend to section 602.
This. Time to end the thread.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-13-2019, 7:52 AM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
EMP3,

We're going around in circles here.

There is no legal source that accords the private property owner the ability to "deny application of the Penal Code." Stop looking for it. It ain't there.

Methinks that you're trying the frame the question to support the position that you'd like to have - that CCW holders and LEOSA covered folks could carry concealed on private property. It don't work that way.

PC section 25450 gives an exemption from the Penal Code provisions that would otherwise make concealed carry illegal. It only applies to the Penal Code prohibition on concealed carry. It does not give you the right to concealed carry. There's a distinction between these two things that you're just not getting.

When the private property owner elects to prohibit concealed carry, he is doing so under his rights as a property owner. There's no involvement of the Penal Code at that point. Now if you refuse to leave the property at the owner's request (because you refuse to disarm), then Penal Code section 602 comes into play. The PC exemption that you claim under section 25450 don't extend to section 602.

Good Morning Rick,

No. I'm not going around in circles. I've been riding a very straight line. Methinks you're not grasping the concept of CPC 25450. (a): peace officer exemption to CCW laws.

It might help were you to approach this from a perspective of concepts. If your belief that private property precludes a penal code section, then that private property concept would apply to other sections of the penal code. There is no legal concept that prevents application of the California Penal Code on private property.

The concept under review is the California Penal Code codified law that exempts on-duty and honorably retired cops from CCW laws.

The penal code is the definitive code of behavior in CA. There is no other CA legal code in conflict with it. A private property owner cannot elect to deny application of the California Penal Code. Were your concept correct, he could possess illegal weapons within his residence and cite your nonexistent private property exemption to penal code application. A private property owner or one in control of it could deny on-duty cops entry by citing your belief that has absolutely no basis in any law.

Your thinks is effort to support your supposition of your belief that the penal code can be denied due to nebulous property right. That is patently incorrect. The penal code applies to every location, public or private, in CA. It applies within your home.

Yes, CPC 25450 does accord cops and honorably retired cops right to carry at their discretion. It does not give anyone authority to interfere with that codified right

Can you cite one legal source or case law that supports your belief that CPC 25450 is applicable at arbitrary discretion of anyone?

Thinking in concepts, if cops were denied the codified right to carry where desire within CA, CPC 25450 would not be necessary. Cops and honorably retired cops would be shifted to CCW law.

Also, you might be confusing CCW laws with CPC 25450. They are not congruent laws. CPC 25450 is a peace office exemption to CCW laws.

I can find no case law involving CPC 25450. There could be any number of reasons for it. Courts would deny suits based upon the controlling law, which is CPC 25450. And there is no ambiguity of California Penal Code Section 25450: law enforcement officers and honorably retired CA law enforcement officers have the RIGHT to carry consistent with CPC 25450.

Once again, CPC 25450 exempts cops and honorably retired cops from CCW laws. Were it as you think it is, the section would have included a provision that would grant private business owners/managers ability to deny application of the California Penal Code on their private property.

Cops do not enforce business policy. They enforce law.

I'd greatly appreciate any legal authority that supports your belief that people can deny application of the California Penal Code on private property.

BTW, as of a few years ago, the CA AG's office had no case law on CPC 25450. That section stood as legislative intent: cops are exempt from CCW laws. This opinion was consistent with an opinion of a renown criminal defense attorney.

BTW, if you took a step back and thought about the concept of application of California Penal Code authority, you'd come to the conclusion that it's absurd that any person or business could arbitrarily invalidate any CPC section.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-13-2019, 7:58 AM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

eta 34,

Pursuit of Socratic knowledge has no end.

It could end were anyone to prove with legal citation that private property owners/managers have legal ability to invalidate CPC 25450. That would bring this knowledge seeking endeavor to a conclusion.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-13-2019, 9:09 AM
Yodaman Yodaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,817
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default Penal Code Application

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMP3 View Post
eta 34,

Pursuit of Socratic knowledge has no end.

It could end were anyone to prove with legal citation that private property owners/managers have legal ability to invalidate CPC 25450. That would bring this knowledge seeking endeavor to a conclusion.


When seeking the truth, you must seek both sides of the story.

Sorry EMP. Sounds like your heard and mind as hard against anything other than the answer you want.

Agreed, this thread should end if your “ears” aren’t open to listen.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-13-2019, 9:29 AM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 791
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

PC 602.

Private property owner can tell you to pound sand for any reason whatsoever; including carrying on their property. Thus, the “no firearms allowed” sign. As many people say though, “concealed is concealed”.

Done. Please stop this madness.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-13-2019, 9:37 AM
eta34's Avatar
eta34 eta34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,059
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by esy View Post
PC 602.

Private property owner can tell you to pound sand for any reason whatsoever; including carrying on their property. Thus, the “no firearms allowed” sign. As many people say though, “concealed is concealed”.

Done. Please stop this madness.
This.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-13-2019, 9:42 AM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 4,647
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If nothing else this thread has given justification to all the people who say that cops believe themselves to be special class. Even though that is not the case with most, all it takes is one being very vocal pushing that concept to convince many people that is the case.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-13-2019, 9:54 AM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by esy View Post
PC 602.

Private property owner can tell you to pound sand for any reason whatsoever; including carrying on their property. Thus, the “no firearms allowed” sign. As many people say though, “concealed is concealed”.

Done. Please stop this madness.
Where did you learn this.

If there is madness, this would be it: "Private property owner can tell you to pound sand for any reason whatsoever..."
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:10 AM
eta34's Avatar
eta34 eta34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,059
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMP3 View Post
Where did you learn this.

If there is madness, this would be it: "Private property owner can tell you to pound sand for any reason whatsoever..."
You can't be this obtuse.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:50 AM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's how I see this playing out: a venue, Dodger Stadium for instance, will deny entry to an off-duty cop who's protected by CPC 25450. A ticket is a contract, an invitation to attend a baseball game. A cop, knowing that LAPD cops are performing as assigned, will comply. They're brothers, and one will know that the other is performing as ordered. The aggrieved cop sue the LA Dodgers for depriving him of his rights under CPC 25450. My guess is the Dodgers will settle out of court.

The California Penal Code is the definitive criminal code in CA. Unless found unconstitutional, its laws are controlling.

One would be operating to his very severe detriment to assume the CA Penal Code does not apply on private property.

CPC 25450 is unequivocal: all cops, on & off duty have RIGHT to carry concealed handguns. Honorably retired cops have that identical RIGHT. Legislative intent was to allow cops to protect themselves from fatal retribution arising from practice of their profession.

Do not confuse CCW laws with CPC 25450. The latter is an exemption of the former.

There is no private property exception to CPC 25450. If a cop is in a place in which he has a legal right (invited onto property to conduct business), he has a right to possess a concealed handgun.

This is not a personal issue. It's not a private property issue. It is a supremacy issue: the California Penal Code is superior to private property interests. A criminal would not be immune from arrest by claiming private property interest.

CCW laws are not germane to CPC 25450, for CPC 25450 clearly states that cops are EXEMPT from CCW laws.

I would caution those who intend to proceed according to beliefs that are not consistent with law. Cops do not enforce beliefs nor do they enforce business policy. In this case, the law is clear. If private property interests superseded CPC 25450, it would have be codified within the section. If it's not codified, it's not law. In this case, there is no law that prevents a cop covered by CPC 25450 from carrying a concealed weapon anywhere within CA, assuming he has a legal right to enter private property; e.g., attend a Dodgers game.

A few posters have strongly held beliefs about private property immunity from penal code authority. I'd urge you to rethink that belief. It might be wise to invest in a high-end criminal defense attorney's time. I can definitively tell you that the California Penal Code applies everywhere within CA, including inside of your homes. It is the primary controlling authority of CA law. I'd recommend caution about operating from prejudice when interacting with an armed off-duty cop. Forcing an armed off-duty cop from a business due to prejudice, business policy, etc., would violate rights granted to him by law and codified within California Penal Code Section 25450.

If there were a private property exception to CPC 25450, it would have be legislatively enacted. Were we to think reasonably and logically, we'd arrive at rationale for not excluding private property within CPC 25450. Politicians would be at extreme risk of finding real jobs were they to grant restaurants authority to deny off-duty cops right to carry while dining, and while dining a banger whom he had arrested a week prior murdered a defenseless cop.

There was sound legislative reason for exempting cops from CCW laws.

BTW, while I'm in possession of retirement credentials, I couldn't tell you the last time I've carried. I live in a very safe area. My intent was flesh out knowledge. Anything less won't suffice.

Keep in mind that I share DNA with an internationally known criminal defense attorney who has represented famous clients including the brother of a well known Disney executive and others in the entertainment industry. He has categorically told me that no one has authority to invalidate supremacy of the California Penal Code. He has told me it would be illegal for anyone to interfere with rights granted to cops as codified by CPC 25450. And no, private property isn't completely private. Businesses have to comply with federal, state, and local laws, and and a business license grants implied consent to regulatory inspection; e.g., health department restaurant inspections.

Socratic inquiry based upon reason, logic, and civility will flesh out knowledge. We're after knowledge. Anything less is opinion
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:50 AM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eta34 View Post
You can't be this obtuse.
What part is giving you difficulty?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:58 AM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
If nothing else this thread has given justification to all the people who say that cops believe themselves to be special class. Even though that is not the case with most, all it takes is one being very vocal pushing that concept to convince many people that is the case.
Cops are sworn to enforce law. They are given legal authority to practice their profession consistent with law. Calling cops a special class is pejorative. It is an elite class that operates consistent with law.

Cops are granted legal authority to carry guns in order to protect themselves from retribution arising from the performance of their duties. Its very common for cops to be threatened with murder by criminals they've arrested. Not granting cops legal authority to defend themselves when they're most vulnerable would be insanity.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-13-2019, 11:30 AM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 791
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

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 9:39 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.