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

[Rickybillegas]

"A building, parking area, or portion of a building under the control of"

To further validate my point, reading the above, it's careful to say a 'portion of the building' rather than for example "the entire building within which the prohibited establishment is enclosed". They clearly state a 'portion of the building' rather than the entire building. By the same token, the parking area is that portion of the entire premises which is under the control of___________

[Rickybillegas]

I should qualify by saying I am not a lawyer, however I do deal with properties,
parking, allocations, building assignments, municipal codes, building codes almost every day in my professional capacity, so this is not a legal opinion,
rather from a code compliance perspective.

[GetMeCoffee]

Is the OP still around or can anyone add the new prohibited areas (the non-enjoined ones) to the first post?

Aside from the remaining 25230(a) places, which many are aware of, there's a few others slipped into PC 171.5 and 171.7:

• PC 171.5 - Cannot CCW in an airport parking area or anywhewre on the property. Probably means you can't CCW when picking someone up at the airport, even if you don't get out of your car.
• PC 171.7 - Cannot CCW on public transportation or even in a station. Probably includes parking lots.

There may be others strewn through SB2 that would be easy to miss.

[9Cal_OC]

Is the OP still around or can anyone add the new prohibited areas (the non-enjoined ones) to the first post?

Aside from the remaining 25230(a) places, which many are aware of, there's a few others slipped into PC 171.5 and 171.7:

• PC 171.5 - Cannot CCW in an airport parking area or anywhewre on the property. Probably means you can't CCW when picking someone up at the airport, even if you don't get out of your car.
• PC 171.7 - Cannot CCW on public transportation or even in a station. Probably includes parking lots.

There may be others strewn through SB2 that would be easy to miss.

Public transit is part of the injunction. Federal interstate travel like Amtrak is usually a no-go though.

Here’s the summary provided by CRPA:

https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SB-2-Stay-Location-Information.pdf

[GetMeCoffee]

Public transit is part of the injunction. Federal interstate travel like Amtrak is usually a no-go though.

Here?s the summary provided by CRPA:
https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/...nformation.pdf

Are you sure? The injunction applies to PC 26230(a)(8) which prohibits CCW on public transportation, but the injunction does not mention PC 171.7 which separately prohibits possession on public transit and associated property. Here is the text of the injunction:

ARE HEREBY PRELIMINARILY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code ? 26230(a)(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (15), (16), (17), (19), (20), (22), (23), and (26) against any individuals with permits to carry a concealed weapon issued under California Penal Code sections 26150 or 26155. They are also PRELIMINARILY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code ? 26230 as it pertains to parking areas.

No mention of PC 171.7 (or 171.5) both of which were added by SB2 apparently.

[Rustlin’ Jack]

Public transit is part of the injunction. Federal interstate travel like Amtrak is usually a no-go though.

Here?s the summary provided by CRPA:
https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/...nformation.pdf

I agree with 9Cal OC on this one. I reread the injunction and noted the following points:

The plaintiffs challenged SB2 as a whole in the categories that affected them. One of the categories challenged was public transportation. The judge mentioned some of the sections amended by SB2, but the challenge was leveled at anything mentioned by the plaintiffs covered by SB2.

Even though 171.7 PC was amended to drop the ccw exemption, it is still all about public transportation. The judge never said that only sensitive places defined under Section 26230 (a)(8) were challenged, he broadly included public transportation in the discussion and the conclusion to issue the injunction.

Since PC 171.7 was amended under SB2, the public transportation part also is enjoined.

I am sure Bonta would see it differently, but I believe the injunction applies to all public transportation.

[GetMeCoffee]

I agree with 9Cal OC on this one. I reread the injunction and noted the following points:

The plaintiffs challenged SB2 as a whole in the categories that affected them. One of the categories challenged was public transportation. The judge mentioned some of the sections amended by SB2, but the challenge was leveled at anything mentioned by the plaintiffs covered by SB2.

Even though 171.7 PC was amended to drop the ccw exemption, it is still all about public transportation. The judge never said that only sensitive places defined under Section 26230 (a)(8) were challenged, he broadly included public transportation in the discussion and the conclusion to issue the injunction.

Since PC 171.7 was amended under SB2, the public transportation part also is enjoined.

I am sure Bonta would see it differently, but I believe the injunction applies to all public transportation.

I posted the exact language of the injunction above, and I'd just add that PC171.7 deals with possession, not carry. Of course in order to carry, one must also possess. The injunction specifically lists sections of 26230 that may not be enforced along with the more general "parking area" statement which also targets 26230.

The injunction does not say "those parts of SB2", "other aspects of SB2", nor a mention of PC 171.7. So that leads me to believe that someone caught with a CCW on public transit will get prosecuted under PC 171.7

That said, I'm just a layman with the law. I'll happily defer to anyone who can confidently state that the injunction's mention of 26230(a)(8) would necessarily and without question also enjoin enforcement of the revised PC 171.7. Is that indeed the case?

[Rickybillegas]

I'm wondering if this latest injunction (Judge Carney 1/222/24 f.13) covers state parks like Anza Borrego. I believe it would because his injunction identifies that under the state identifies department of parks and recreation.

The park rules under 'regulations' state: "Firearms and fireworks are prohibited anywhere in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park." with no exception listed for anyone (including LEO or LEOSA?)

Does anyone know any other law that would override this injunction?

[Rumblemonkey]

Del Mar Fred Hall show, I expect they are wanding/scanning?UPDATE- I saw pics of one of the gates, scanners/wands. I WAS WRONG! NO SCANNERS/WANDS! Must have been stock footage from some time ago. I went to the Del Mar show today and was delighted to see just buy a ticket and head in. Great news-

[Irvine]

Public transit is part of the injunction. Federal interstate travel like Amtrak is usually a no-go though.

Here?s the summary provided by CRPA:
https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/...nformation.pdf

Going through this CRPA document, I found this:>
On January 6, 2024, the court lifted a stay on the injunction on sensitive places in SB 2. The
following places are now back to being allowed places for carry in California.
In addition to the places below, the judge also issued the injunction against SB 2 for all
parking lots in every section of the law. This does not change the California Gun-Free Schools
Act restrictions or federal restrictions still in force.

- A public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires
the issuance of a permit from a federal, state, or local government and sidewalk or street
immediately adjacent to the public gathering but is not more than 1,000 feet from the event
or gathering.

Does this mean that one can carry legally at an organized rally / protest?
I seemed to recall that one wasn't able to. These laws make my head spin.

[The Geologist]

So does the injunction on SB2 allow CCW in public buildings again ?

Before SB2 - 171(b)(3) - A person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6.

As amended by SB2 - 171(b)(3) - A person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 who possesses the firearm within a building designated for a court proceeding, including matters before a superior court, district court of appeal, or the California Supreme Court, and is a justice, judge, or commissioner of the court.

[Quiet]

So does the injunction on SB2 allow CCW in public buildings again ?

Before SB2 - 171(b)(3) - A person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6.

As amended by SB2 - 171(b)(3) - A person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 who possesses the firearm within a building designated for a court proceeding, including matters before a superior court, district court of appeal, or the California Supreme Court, and is a justice, judge, or commissioner of the court.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=28417224&postcount=4

[mk2dave]

Any one know about Arlington Theater in Santa Barbara? It says no bags, so I don't expect a bag check.

[gwb]

Since SB2 is in effect, where can you carry.
it appears CA. Has restricted CCW to the point that is it even worth it ?

[M1A Rifleman]

Couple of questions regarding SB2 sensitive places:

Is a Federal National Park, such as Yosemite considered no CCW in CA under SB2? It’s a park and the 9th ruled carry in Parks is a no. The ruling did not differentiate.

What about restaurants that happen to serve alcohol, but the primary service is food. The CCW 16 hour class mentioned something about primary service of 51% being food, it’s ok to carry. But, this seems contrary to SB2 language and it seems this may be the old standard prior to SB2.

Getting conflicting info?