LOC While in Campsite Clarity

[MudCamper]

A campsite is specifically listed as an exception in the statute. A prosecutor can pretend your front yard isn't your residence, but he'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that a campsite isn't a campsite.

It is specifically listed in 12031 (loaded), and for this reason I do not think you could be successfully prosecuted for this when in your campsite, even if it is publicly accessible. However, 12025/12026 do not specifically state this. They only state residence. While one's campsite is legally one's residence, I wonder if it would be harder to defend in court just because of the wording. Of course, it's unlikely that you'd ever wind up in court if you were concealing...

[ballistics101]

Not to shoot at.. Decoys so that the ranger or LE see them and drive right by without hassling us honest folk. Like a decoy of a bear or something to take attention elsewhere.

[Crom]

Please take note of this 9th circuit case (dealing with 4A law).

USA V. Basher

Classifying the area outside of a tent in a National Park or National Forest lands campsite as curtilage would be very problematic. A tent is comparable to a house, apartment, or hotel room because it is a private area where people sleep and change clothing. See Gooch, 6 F.3d at 677. However, campsites, such as the dispersed, ill-defined site here, are open to the public and exposed.

Basher was a prohibited person in possession of a weapon.

I first saw Basher in this post here

[ballistics101]

Regarding Basher. I do not find that very well related as, Basher was not allowed to possess of a firearm. His firearm as well was located inside the tent. He was firing shots off the night before inside the campsite. He violated several rules here, however none of these rules were because he carried loaded outside of his campsite. He was not allowed to possess a firearm, let alone discharge one inside the campsite for no apparent reason, and the shotgun was below the legal 18". He undeniably broke the law and drew much attention to himself in the process. While it was a good read, I do not think it applies to the honest person (whom can possess a firearm) carrying a Loaded firearm, openly or concealed in ones own campsite.

If he was cordially carrying a loaded firearm concealed or openly within his campsite, and not shooting at Jupiter, I feel quite certain he would have made it home just in time for Mom's famous stew. That not being the case, I do not feel he should be allowed to posses a firearm either.

However the context from the record you chose,

[14] Classifying the area outside of a tent in a National Park or National Forest lands campsite as curtilage would be very problematic. A tent is comparable to a house, apartment, or hotel room because it is a private area where people sleep and change clothing. See Gooch, 6 F.3d at 677. However, campsites, such as the dispersed, ill-defined site here, are open to the public and exposed.

Is quite interesting indeed, and does apply to the law abiding as well. So i guess I stand corrected, it does apply.

[Southwest Chuck]

While you may have been on a Rant Chuck, It was well said and well received. If we cower and do not exercise our rights, they will be taken away. Which is why forums such as this are great for learning the correct format to do so..

Thank you. I don't usually "pop-off" like that, but it's been a festering thorn in my side ever since the concept of "Tent carry" came up a while back.

Maybe your argument can be used to dismantle the whole "front yard isn't private property" BS.

I have been saying this for years, but noone wanted to listen.

Around your tent, or outside your camper, surely it is (at least) the same as being in your front yard without a gated fence.

The problem as I see it, is, that the concept and definition of "Private Property" has been repeatedly been bastardized over the years through laws and courtroom edicts to fit what ever was needed at the time, even if they were contradictory of each other and usurped private property owners rights. That's why we now have very fuzzy definitions and applications of it and why, in my opinion, Theseus was convicted.

This, as yet, has not generally happened with the definition of a Campsite. therefore, we are on much firmer ground with that term, especially due to the wording of the statute. Remember I said generally, as Crom's post below is a partial exception, and gives us some good lessons.

A campsite is specifically listed as an exception in the statute. A prosecutor can pretend your front yard isn't your residence, but he'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that a campsite isn't a campsite.

I agree completely.

OK so lets say you take the approach of cordoning off an area with rope to prevent entry. Would that be equal to a fence? Could that also put LE in a place where entry would or could require a SW in order to enter your camp to lets say inspect your guns or anything for that matter? I would have to think that most LE would not let a rope stop them, but in court, would the search or inspection of the firearm be allowed in court if LE decided to arrest you for confusion of firearms laws or whatever fishing expedition they decide to go on?

I think that would be stretching the application and reasonable bounds a bit. What the rope "would" do, however, would be to delineate the boundaries of your campsite for the purposes of LOC compliance. Instead of a rope, though, I use "things" in such a way that any reasonable person could/would conclude that with-in those boundaries, that area would be considered a part of my "Campsite" and that I've made a good faith effort to comply with the law.

Please take note of this 9th circuit case (dealing with 4A law).

USA V. Basher

Classifying the area outside of a tent in a National Park or National Forest lands campsite as curtilage would be very problematic. A tent is comparable to a house, apartment, or hotel room because it is a private area where people sleep and change clothing. See Gooch, 6 F.3d at 677. However, campsites, such as the dispersed, ill-defined site here, are open to the public and exposed.

Basher was a prohibited person in possession of a weapon.

I first saw Basher in this post here

Here is a case that, IMO, that is not comparable or applicable to this situation (see bolded phrases above). "We" are not prohibited persons. "We" are law abiding citizens not otherwise prohibited, in otherwise legal possession of a firearm. That my friends, makes all the difference! I don't imagine (or care, really) if it is "problematic" for the court. That is why I make sure to properly "Define" my "Campsite". Everyone should, and then STAY with-in those boudaries while LOC'ing.

The court in this case was doing what too many courts are in the habit of doing; trying to find a way to rationalize their ruling and skirt the plain language of the law and using any excuse to justify it, but in so doing, usurping the rights of the law abiding, just to put "one" guy away.

Originally Posted by chris12: To clarify, I'm not saying that is how it should be. Just having read through a couple of the Theseus threads I'm not convinced the court could understand "Campsite" as they can't seem to understand "Private property". The whole thing irks me too!

I'm all for people doing their own risk assessment.

Sorry if I came off too brisk. My post wasn't directed at you, but rather the subject matter. I did see some reluctant support for it though on your part (which is OK for you to apply for yourself). Rather than give someone a recommendation based on YOUR risk assessment, I would prefer to give people enough information so that they can preform there own risk assessment for themselves, given there own individual circumstances and level of comfort.

Edited to Add:

........Is quite interesting indeed, and does apply to the law abiding as well. So i guess I stand corrected, it does apply.

I disagree for reasons stated above.

[Librarian]

I would prefer to give people enough information so that they can preform there own risk assessment for themselves, given there own individual circumstances and level of comfort.

A man after my own heart.

[Southwest Chuck]

When I say use rope, I mean, and tie it up on stakes. A true boundary that must be jumped over or crawled under.

I understand, but we're getting into different areas of the law, here. Remember, we're talking about a Campsite here. If you could truly erect a (temporary) barrier that could be deemed to establish "Privacy" and exclusivity, while at the same time excluding public access without being "challenged" by you, then yes, that greatly increases your protection. If that's the case, RAS or PC would have to be present, but also remember that things are very visible to prying eyes in a camping scenario.

The odds of someone actually erecting such a barrier, to me, would draw much more unwanted attention to oneself than just LOCing, IMO.

Edit:

I think at that point, your establishing "property rights" albeit temporary property rights. At that point we've come full circle and are again delving into the fuzzy-ness of that term.

[Southwest Chuck]

A man after my own heart.

Man-crush?

I thought only Gene, Brandon and Alan G. deserved such, uh, adoration

[Meplat]

Yeh I was on a rant when I typed that

Edit: I'll also add that most of my camping is in unincorporated areas where "discharge is not otherwise prohibited", so it's rarely been an issue for me.

Is a dog bowel anything like a cotton boll?

[Meplat]

To clarify, I'm not saying that is how it should be. Just having read through a couple of the Theseus threads I'm not convinced the court could understand "Campsite" as they can't seem to understand "Private property". The whole thing irks me too!

I'm all for people doing their own risk assessment.