Definitive "Where can I carry in CA?" list (Legalities)

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by HRDLEDR

"Courthouse when you are a party to an action pending before the court [PC 171b(b)(2)(B)]
Family Law courts [depending on the presiding judge]"

These are restricted areas to carry. Would I be correct in assuming that I can carry beyond the metal detectors when I have jury duty or need to visit the sheriffs office (it is in the courthouse)?

No.

[HRDLEDR]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

No.

Is there something that says no, or is that just an opinion? Or are you saying that I am not wrong in thinking that?

[Old_Bald_Guy]

Originally Posted by HRDLEDR

Is there something that says no, or is that just an opinion? Or are you saying that I am not wrong in thinking that?

Sounds like he's saying you ARE wrong in thinking that, because in most jurisdictions, you are wrong in saying that. Against county code in Sacramento County as well as numerous other counties. There may be some where it's not, but my guess is they're few and far between. And no, there's no state preemption.

What county are you in?

[HRDLEDR]

Solano

[HRDLEDR]

So I should look beyond the "definitive where can I carry in California" list for some county laws? Where would I look for those? (Thanks for your guidance)

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by HRDLEDR

So I should look beyond the "definitive where can I carry in California" list for some county laws? Where would I look for those? (Thanks for your guidance)

Won't help for courthouses - supervising judges get a lot of leeway on what they want done in courthouses, and generally guns on anyone but sworn LEO seems to give them the collywobbles.

[FALCONOPS]

Originally Posted by HRDLEDR

Is there something that says no, or is that just an opinion? Or are you saying that I am not wrong in thinking that?

Well, for your specific scenario go to the source:
http://www.solano.courts.ca.gov/mate...srev021913.pdf

Punchline: No guns.

Presiding Judges are given wide leeway to do what they want. It's their fiefdom.

[EDIT: What Librarian said.]

[HRDLEDR]

Thanks!

[Old_Bald_Guy]

And for all of the Solano County Codes, 23 milliseconds with the Googles leads to this:

http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/solanocounty/

[Rastoff]

Originally Posted by HRDLEDR

Would I be correct in assuming that I can carry beyond the metal detectors when I have jury duty...

Let's assume that this is legal for a moment. Do you really think it's a good idea to attempt to get a gun into a court house?

[HRDLEDR]

Originally Posted by Rastoff

Let's assume that this is legal for a moment. Do you really think it's a good idea to attempt to get a gun into a court house?

I don't see any issue with a ccw holder being armed in a courthouse. That is why I asked the question.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by jb7706

The ferry service to Alcatraz has opted to not allow guns on board effectively making Alcatraz a no LTC zone.

"Oh you're not allowed to carry a gun? I got a godd***ed gun! If I'd'a known this was gonna happen, I'd'a brought my mother-f**in' gun! Help!"

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by HRDLEDR

Would I be correct in assuming that I can carry beyond the metal detectors when I have jury duty or need to visit the sheriffs office (it is in the courthouse)?

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

No.

Originally Posted by HRDLEDR

Is there something that says no, or is that just an opinion? Or are you saying that I am not wrong in thinking that?

I don't see any issue with a ccw holder being armed in a courthouse. That is why I asked the question.

As noted by others, the Presiding Judge has the authority to control the court.

Sacramento Court also bans CCW. Sacramento operates under a Standing Order from the Presiding Judge, signed in 2001. http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/general/s...courthouse.pdf

Sac Sheriff staff firearms policies recognize the authority on page 6 at the bottom. (Section VII (b)) http://calgunlaws.com/wp-content/upl...PRAR-Resp..pdf. And limit carry to uniforms, only.

Alameda County did it too, but allows peace officers in. http://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/Res...%202014-09.PDF. This was issued by the Presiding Judge, so one might harbor the thought that it has some legal basis. Alameda cites its authority as Code of Civil Procedure sections 128 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws and 187 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 187 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws

The citations follow:

Article 2. Incidental Powers and Duties of Courts - California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128 (http://law.onecle.com/california/civ...edure/128.html)

128. (a) Every court shall have the power to do all of the following:
(1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence.

Chapter 5. Miscellaneous Provisions Respecting Courts of Justice - California Code of Civil Procedure Section 187 (http://law.onecle.com/california/civ...edure/187.html)

187. When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.

That's it.

Best.

[HRDLEDR]

�� thanks!

[Rastoff]

Originally Posted by HRDLEDR

I don't see any issue with a ccw holder being armed in a courthouse. That is why I asked the question.

I guess my response came off a little snarky. Sorry for that. It was not my intent.

What I was getting at, and what I've run into myself, is that very few outside of us (those who take the time to actually research the law) really know the law. So, even though it may be legal, it could lead to unwarranted trouble from the ignorant.

I'm with you, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a law abiding citizen, who can legally possess a gun, to carry in a court room.

[aztecwarrior76]

Has anyone here visit Point Reyes with a CCW? How was your experience. I'm planing a trip with the Mrs, but I'm concerned since website states fire arms are permitted but some areas are signs in some facilities. Does anyone knows which facilities are those? If I CC is this going to ruin my trip? Thank you

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by aztecwarrior76

Has anyone here visit Point Reyes with a CCW? How was your experience. I'm planing a trip with the Mrs, but I'm concerned since website states fire arms are permitted but some areas are signs in some facilities. Does anyone knows which facilities are those? If I CC is this going to ruin my trip? Thank you

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

It's a national park, on which one can CCW under the laws of the state in which the park is located.

Federal facilities in which federal employees regularly work are off limits to carry and are posted.

[aztecwarrior76]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

It's a national park, on which one can CCW under the laws of the state in which the park is located.

Federal facilities in which federal employees regularly work are off limits to carry and are posted.

Thank you for the info. I wanted to be 100% sure.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[Rastoff]

I was recently challenged on the law governing Federal facilities. In reference to military installations, the challenger said that the law only governs buildings, not the entire base. Hmmm, OK, lets look at the law:

I'm not going to post the whole law here, but here is a link to it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

The most relevant part is this:

Originally Posted by 930(g)(1)

The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

So, this paragraph specifically states that the law pertains to buildings. The logical conclusion would be that the part inside the fence, but not inside a building, would then be legal to carry. In other words, a person holding a valid CCW license could legally carry onto a base as long as they didn't carry into a building.

Is there something I'm missing? Is there another law specifically covering military installations? If there is, I can't find it. I'm very curious to hear what you guys have to say about it.

[jb7706]

They will likely nail you with trespassing. See page 10. This is for Ft Hood, but I would bet that many/most/all other installations have similar regulations.

Originally Posted by Rastoff

I was recently challenged on the law governing Federal facilities. In reference to military installations, the challenger said that the law only governs buildings, not the entire base. Hmmm, OK, lets look at the law:

I'm not going to post the whole law here, but here is a link to it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

The most relevant part is this:
So, this paragraph specifically states that the law pertains to buildings. The logical conclusion would be that the part inside the fence, but not inside a building, would then be legal to carry. In other words, a person holding a valid CCW license could legally carry onto a base as long as they didn't carry into a building.

Is there something I'm missing? Is there another law specifically covering military installations? If there is, I can't find it. I'm very curious to hear what you guys have to say about it.

[Rastoff]

Originally Posted by jb7706

They will likely nail you with trespassing.

There are only two ways to be charged legally with trespassing:

1. If a place requires special access rights for everyone who enters. This is true of all US military installations. However, for me, and everyone else who works at the base, we have been granted access.
2. If a person is asked to leave and they don't.

The main take away here is a risk vs reward dilemma. I work at Edwards AFB along with thousands of others. It is impossible to live any closer than about 20 miles from the base. That's a good distance to travel when you're not on the base.

Based on the current understanding, a person cannot even leave their gun in their car while on base. Thus, they are disarmed for quite a distance going to and coming from work every day. If it is indeed legal to have a gun in the car, then it could be left in the car while at work and put on as soon as they exit the base.

There are current threats from ISIS (and others) directed toward our military and anyone working with them. This puts me, and the thousands of others at bases like Edwards, in harms way. It would be a tremendous advantage to us to be able to be armed as soon as we're off base.


I'm not a lawyer. So, a lot of this legal stuff is confusing to me. Even so, what I've discovered here seems quite plain. As I see it now, the worst that could happen is they ask you to leave. That's a far cry from the possibility of a felony.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Rastoff

I was recently challenged on the law governing Federal facilities. In reference to military installations, the challenger said that the law only governs buildings, not the entire base. Hmmm, OK, lets look at the law:

I'm not going to post the whole law here, but here is a link to it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

The most relevant part is this:
So, this paragraph specifically states that the law pertains to buildings. The logical conclusion would be that the part inside the fence, but not inside a building, would then be legal to carry. In other words, a person holding a valid CCW license could legally carry onto a base as long as they didn't carry into a building.

Is there something I'm missing? Is there another law specifically covering military installations? If there is, I can't find it. I'm very curious to hear what you guys have to say about it.

I was always told by my military lawyers that the "Enclave Clause" of THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 held the key to our authorities inside the wire.

This grants Congress authority to establish the District of Columbia and military installations within the states and to hold them apart from local jurisdictional controls.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Local rules (like state CCW) don't apply inside the fences.

DOD manages the installations through regulations. Department of Defense directive 5210.56, February 25, 1992, was considered "effective immediately" for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

That directive explicitly authorizes DOD personnel to carry firearms while engaged in law enforcement or security duties, protecting personnel, vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners. It did not authorize anything else, so effectively limited and controlled the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. In the Penal Code, that which is not illegal is legal. In the world of military regulations, the reverse is true. Only those things in Regulations are authorized.

IANAL, nor am I a Constitutional scholar.

[Librarian]

A quick look comes up with http://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnr.../firearms.html

Navy suggests installation firearms policies are 'lawful general orders' and 'These policies apply to all Sailors and civilian employees regardless if assigned to a ship, submarine, aircraft squadron or ashore command.'

It seems likely that other commands and services generally share that opinion.

See also Army Regulation 190-14, and 10 USC 113

(a)There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.
(b)The Secretary is the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense. Subject to the direction of the President and to this title and section 2 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3002) he has authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense.

There's the catch-all 'SecDef can make any rules he thinks needed' authorization - including delegating to service Secretaries and officers.

[Rastoff]

Thanks gentlemen. I knew there was more to this than meets the eye. When it comes to matters of law there always is.

I'm not convinced that we've exhausted all there is to know here. Still, we all have to be smart. I have not changed my stance on this subject, i.e. no guns on military installations.

[packnrat]

why the post office?
they keep saying they are not part of the federal government.
not pushing the point, just as a "federal office it is not" os so they keep stating.
public parking lot in front of the post office,
ie: shopping center parking lot,
as oposed to the parking lot just for the post office.


.

[Old_Bald_Guy]

Huh?

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Old_Bald_Guy

Huh?

Well said.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by packnrat

why the post office?
they keep saying they are not part of the federal government.
not pushing the point, just as a "federal office it is not" os so they keep stating.
public parking lot in front of the post office,
ie: shopping center parking lot,
as oposed to the parking lot just for the post office.


.

See Bonidy.

[Rastoff]

I just discovered this:
38 CFR 1.218(b) (37) and (38)
(b) Schedule of offenses and penalties. Conduct in violation of the rules and regulations set forth in paragraph (a) of this section subjects an offender to arrest and removal from the premises. Whomever shall be found guilty of violating these rules and regulations while on any property under the charge and control of VA is subject to a fine as stated in the schedule set forth herein or, if appropriate, the payment of fixed sum in lieu of appearance (forfeiture of collateral) as may be provided for in rules of the United States District Court. Violations included in the schedule of offenses and penalties may also subject an offender to a term of imprisonment of not more than six months, as may be determined appropriate by a magistrate or judge of the United States District Court:
(37) Possession of firearms, carried either openly or concealed, whether loaded or unloaded (except by Federal or State law enforcement officers on official business, $500.
(38) Introduction or possession of explosives, or explosive devices which fire a projectile, ammunition, or combustibles, $500.

The important take away here is underlined in red. This law prohibits guns even in the parking lot, just like the USPS law. I hadn't seen that before.

[vtec]

As of today Dec 10,2015, Does NOT apply to a person holding a valid CCW in CA.....ARTICLE 3..Section 12050..PC:626.9 (l)....However, I read a "CHANGE" pending to void this CCW exemption for Public/Private K-12, colleges and Universities beginning JAN. 1, 2016...Does anyone know for certain if this "new" law has been approved to take effect next year???

[Librarian]

Governor signed it. The CCW on-campus exemptions for K-12 and for colleges/universities both go away Jan 1, 2016.

[Old_Bald_Guy]

And I don't know about anyone else's IA, but SSD sent out emails to advising/reminding everyone. I got two.

[getafterit]

Originally Posted by jb7706

626.9(L) contains the exemption for 12050 license holders. CCW is exempt from Gun Free Zone laws.

I know the school zones and carrying has been beat to death but is it in fact legal to carry on, around and inside county school buildings?
My friend just met with the Del Norte sheriff and he told him that the way he (the sheriff) interprets the law is that school grounds are a no go.
Everything I have been reading says otherwise.

I see the couple of post above mine covered this. So Jan. 1, 2016 makes it a no go right?

[Big Jake]

Originally Posted by getafterit

I know the school zones and carrying has been beat to death but is it in fact legal to carry on, around and inside county school buildings?
My friend just met with the Del Norte sheriff and he told him that the way he (the sheriff) interprets the law is that school grounds are a no go.
Everything I have been reading says otherwise.

I see the couple of post above mine covered this. So Jan. 1, 2016 makes it a no go right?

Correct. 1/1/16 school carry is illegal by CCW holders.

[Cokebottle]

School carry on the actual property.

This has been beaten to death and many people are STILL confusing the new law, which prohibits carry on school property, with the GFSZ which prohibits carry by those not licensed, within 1000ft of a K-12 school.

CCW in the 1000ft zone surrounding K-12 schools is NOT impacted by this new law, only carry on campus (including college/university property)

[getafterit]

So "they" give us the right to conceal carry but limit more and more where one may carry.
Of all the places a school seems like one of the places where one would need one.

[getafterit]

Originally Posted by Big Jake

Correct. 1/1/16 school carry is illegal by CCW holders.

1159pm, legal. 12:00am felony. So much bs.

[HRDLEDR]

Originally Posted by getafterit

1159pm, legal. 12:00am felony. So much bs.

You are probably trespassing at 11:59pm, but yep.

[getafterit]

This is true.

[UKDude]

The first post seems to be missing the forbidden area in Sacramento called CalExpo (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 4955.)