With a CCW in California, am I allowed to OC loaded?

[CalCop]

Kind of like having a license to drive. Because I have a class C, can I drive a Class A? After all, I have a driver's license...

Actually its harder to get a CCW than to be able to OC. So, using your example...it's more like having a Class A license...of course you could still drive a Class C. Got a CCW...of course you could still OC. (using your example, anyway.)

[CSDGuy]

CalCop: sort of. Depending upon your county of residence, it can be harder to get a CCW than it is to LOC. However, you get into a prohibited discharge area, and you can not LOC without bumping into a 12031 problem. LOC licenses just don't happen, so... The analogy is not not quite exact. A more exact analogy (though issued by separate agencies) is driver's licenses and Airmen's Certificates. Can I fly a plane legally on a Driver's license alone? Can I drive a car on an Airmen's Certificate alone? They're both means of transportation...

The issue is that 12031 has a few instances where it won't apply and we're talking LOADED open carry vs UNLOADED open carry. It's far easier to do UOC than LOC because as long as the weapon is open carried, 12025 isn't a problem. Remember, CCW with a loaded firearm without a license in places that isn't your property or place of business and in a prohibited discharge zone gets 2 charges: 12025 and 12031. Open Carry stops 12025 from coming into play. If you LOC in a prohibited discharge area, you get charged with 12031 if you do not fit into any of the exceptions. Either of the licenses issued under 12050 would "cure" that problem. However, (being Devil's Advocate) you must question the validity of a CCW License if you're relying on it for LOC/12031 protection. I mean, Licenses issued under 12050 come in only two formats:

(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

Notice that the CCW says nothing about "loaded and exposed" and the "loaded and exposed" says nothing about concealed carry. Those two types of licenses appear to be exclusive of the other. LOC renders CCW invalid because you're not following the term of the license on it's face. Similarly, you can not CCW on a "loaded and exposed" license. So, I would argue that relying on a CCW to allow LOC is unwise at best because your license is explicitly for CCW and not for LOC.

12031 recognizes the possibility of either license's existence, covering both at the same time, stating that persons licensed under 12050 are exempt. If one type of license can not be used for the other purpose, then it follows that if one license is used for the other purpose, that license is invalid for that purpose and the person is effectively unlicensed/delicensed for that other purpose.

Crazy, ain't it?

I think California should end up one of two ways: LOC ok w/o license and CCW ok with a license (like Oregon) or more like Tennessee: License to carry a weapon - open or concealed is ok with that one license.

Yes, I'm playing "Devil's Advocate" here... and the courts could simply interpret that 12031's 12050 exemption is valid regardless of mode of carry. Are there any binding cases directly on this point? I have no idea. So, I'd simply play it safe as it pertains to LOC.

[nicki]

Post Nordyke

I figure post Nordyke assuming we get incorporation, we get open carry as a right.

Follow up with court rulings to determine what are compeling restrictions on our rights "real sensitive zones" so that we don't carry in areas that can get us into legal hot water.

After that is done, sheriffs will probably feel alot of pressure to go shall issue on CCW permits, espeically if it is tied as the sheriff using the system for personal gain.

Since we will have open carry as a right, it would be smart for a sheriff not to load unreasonable restrictions on CCW permits unless he wants all of us just to open carry.

What would be unreasonable restrictions. Well some things I would consider unreasonable.

1. No carry in restaurants. I can see bars, but not restaurants.

2. Limit number of guns. I have no issue with qualification with guns, but a limit of 1 to 2 guns per CCW, especially if we have open carry.

3. Limited to only SB15 guns.

4. Posting high bonds.

Right now a CCW permit even if you are in a good country isn't cheap.

Figure the permit is close to 200 dollars, it is only good for 2 years, you have to take a training class, the sheriff may require a psych eval,(another 200 dollars) and just getting a permit could cost you anywhere from 300 to 600 dollars.

Nicki

[PressCheck]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PressCheck
It's a license to carry a Concealed Weapon. ie: CCW

I have a UNRESTRICTERD CA CCW, and would never consider OC. I'd lose the element of suprise, and "freak" people out.

Good for you. I still think you're reading it as if licensing prohibits to licensees what is legal for everyone else to do.

Can anyone show me the clause, subsection, or phrase in 12050 that refers to the license to carry as a "CCW"? Nope. CCW is in the Cal Penal Code, but it refers to an endorsment that only retired peace officers can acquire. See 12027 (B) and (E). If you are not a retired peace officer you cannot have a CCW endorsement. But you may obtain a license to conceal your weapon.

Can anyone show me the statute, clause, subsection, or phrase in the California Penal Code including 12050 that prohibits exposed carry, accidental exposed carry, weapon printing, as it relates to those licensed to carry concealed? Yes, yes... 626.9, 12031, 171(b)- but they all have an exemption for licensees. Again, the only thing that could prohibit open carry by a licensee is for an issuing agency to enact a restriction and put it on the license. Even then, the 'reasonableness' could be challenged as it creates a situation where two classes of citizens are treated differently.

The 'element of surprise' is not a deterent to crime. Waiting until a crime is being commited to take action to put a stop to it is not 'prevention'.

A criminal does not know who may be armed- so if by concealing and retaining the element of surprise, are you not making yourself more attractive to the criminal by appearing weak? Are you not at a considerable disadvantage by having the appearance of weakness and then having to draw from concealment, particularly at close range?

On the flip side; An armed man is the deterent. The behavior of those who see an armed man, police or not, is reserved, inhibited. It is from the foreknowledge that if some ill-willed action is taken against the armed person, they are prepared to use that level of force if necessary. Do people really 'freak out'? Seldom. But if they do it is not from terror, but of fear borne in ignorance, unfamiliarity or outrage that someone dare arm themselves in this 'peaceful', 'violence free' utopia we live in.

While I respect your "opinion" - I couldn't Disagree More.

[DDT]

Figure the permit is close to 200 dollars, it is only good for 2 years, you have to take a training class, the sheriff may require a psych eval,(another 200 dollars) and just getting a permit could cost you anywhere from 300 to 600 dollars.

Let's worry about Shall Issue first, then we can go after the gouging. I'm sure that once shall issue is the law of the land the cadre of people fighting for the rights of the underprivileged will put their skills to good use to ensure that legal right to carry is available to all.

[Liberty1]

To clear up the crap in this thread about the legal stuff.


We are talking about OC loaded in this case.

Now 12027(j) exempts people with a license pursuant to 12050 (CCW) from 12025 which is concealed carry.

12027(j)
The carrying of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person by a person who is authorized to carry that weapon in a concealed manner pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050).

The part in bold is redundant because if you open carried a handgun you wouldn't be breaking 12025 in the first place thus 12025 does not apply.



So now the loaded part.

12031(a) is what you could be charged with. Loaded weapon.

and 12031(b)(6)

12031(b)(6)
The carrying of pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person by persons who are authorized to carry those weapons pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4.

Notice how is says nothing of the requirement of the handgun being concealed. Also the part in bold simply means handguns. NOTE, it does not allow you to carry loaded anything else like rifles or shotguns.



Simple in the law, but like others have stated, the issuing agency may place restrictions on your license. If you violate those restrictions then they may revoke your license.

This is what I'm talking about. I like the way you think.

12031(b)(6)
The carrying of pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person by persons who are authorized to carry those weapons pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4.

Who is authorized? Persons who are authorized to (not "required to") carry those weapons pursuant to Art. 3...

I see that IF you are authorized via 12050 (i 0r ii) you're exempt.

If OC is banned by a 12050...(i) LTC, how does one ever legally let it see daylight at the range? What, the OC prohibition doesn't apply there? Why not? There is no exemption written into 12031(b)(6) or explicit authorization in 12050 (i) to OC there.

And the Bratton analogy is spot on.

But I'm not yet (or any time soon) an authorizing CLEO too bad for you all non LTCers).

[CSDGuy]

Who is authorized? Persons who are authorized to (not "required to") carry those weapons pursuant to Art. 3...

I see that IF you are authorized via 12050 (i 0r ii) you're exempt.

If OC is banned by a 12050...(i) LTC, how does one ever legally let it see daylight at the range? What, the OC prohibition doesn't apply there? Why not? There is no exemption written into 12031(b)(6) or explicit authorization in 12050 (i) to OC there.

And the Bratton analogy is spot on.

But I'm not yet (or any time soon) an authorizing CLEO too bad for you all non LTCers).

(I've been playing Devil's Advocate on this thread, so bear with me.)
Open Carry isn't banned in 12050, neither is what 12050 calls "loaded and exposed" (what's also called Loaded Open Carry (LOC)). The LOC Ban is from 12031. In particular, what's banned is Loaded Carry in specific places:

12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when
he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a
prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

If you do not carry loaded in one of the areas above, 12031 doesn't apply. Where things get interesting is reading this part:

(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following:
(6) The carrying of pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable
of being concealed upon the person by persons who are authorized to
carry those weapons pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section
12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4.

What I'm referring to is the carrying of a weapon in a manner that is inconsistent (or unauthorized) with the purpose of the license in places where loaded carry would be otherwise banned/illegal. So the question that would need to be answered is, since 12050 has two types of licenses that both allow for loaded carry, is LOC an authorized method of carrying a weapon if a person has a CCW license only?

As to the carrying/handling of loaded weapons at shooting ranges, it's actually pretty easy. Ranges are on property that is either outside a prohibited discharge zone OR the city/county has authorized that property to be an area where weapons can be discharged legally (thus, not within a prohibited discharge zone) and therefore, weapons can be loaded at the range with the intention of discharging them...

I wouldn't be surprised if there's additional language elsewhere in the F&G or PC that "authorizes" discharge of firearms at a designated shooting range where discharge would otherwise be illegal...