Legal to conceal carry in garage?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

On my cell phone so this may not be as clear as if I was typing, but I just re-read the theseus appeal decision, if he was on "private property" he would have had a defense, but the courts basically said private property does not include privately owned property that is a "public place" i.e. as defined in the "public place" body of caselaw. If an unfenced front yard or driveway can be a public place, is there any authority precluding an argument that the front yard or driveway is therefore not private property for purposes of the concealed carry exemption cited in the wiki?

[taperxz]

No gate or fence? No carry in incorporated areas or unincorporated prohibited areas.

For instance, it is illegal for one to enter through a gate or fence when posted when they were not specifically allowed entry. A process server is not allowed to enter a residence when such fence or gate exists in order to get to a front door. They must wait at the gate for the person to come down to the gate or open the gate to engage a person being served.

This would imply a non gated/fenced yard is granted the distinction of "public access" which in turn would make it illegal to carry in this area. Fenced or gated is GTG IMHO.

There are many other laws that pertain to this distinction that do not involve the carry of a firearm. Mostly trespass law and how it its determined.

[GrizzlyGuy]

On my cell phone so this may not be as clear as if I was typing, but I just re-read the theseus appeal decision, if he was on "private property" he would have had a defense, but the courts basically said private property does not include privately owned property that is a "public place" i.e. as defined in the various cases cited earlier in this thread. If an unfenced front yard or driveway can be a public place, is there any authority precluding an argument that the front yard or driveway is therefore not private property for purposes of the concealed carry exemption cited in the wiki?

No, a prosecutor could make such an argument and may even win it. Here in CA where courts love to make decisions that are anti-gun, anti-liberty or both, he may even be likely to win it. But as far as I know, that hasn't happened yet in a case that involves:

1) Concealed but unloaded gun
2) Carried on, and by the owner of,
3) Private property
4) That isn't a business open to the public

[taperxz]

No, a prosecutor could make such an argument and may even win it. Here in CA where courts love to make decisions that are anti-gun, anti-liberty or both, he may even be likely to win it. But as far as I know, that hasn't happened yet in a case that involves:

1) Concealed but unloaded gun
2) Carried on, and by the owner of,
3) Private property
4) That isn't a business open to the public

Technically the above happens everyday when certain criteria are followed. Think transport.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

So would it be fair to say that concealed carry in one's unfenced front yard may or may not be legal depending on how "private property" is interpreted?

[Springfield45]

I do not live in cit limits.
I have a gated driveway.
I have a No Trespassing Sign posted.
My garage is over 100 yards from the road.

My garage is my own personal gun shop, armory and gun smithing area door closed or not.

In my case it is legal.

If I had a garage that was in a city on a street 30 feet from a sidewalk I would not have anything out that people could see that might draw attention to me. Weather it is legal or not why draw attention that might cost you money to defend yourself.

[IVC]

So would it be fair to say that concealed carry in one's unfenced front yard may or may not be legal depending on how "private property" is interpreted?

It might or might not be fair to say it.

[taperxz]

So would it be fair to say that concealed carry in one's unfenced front yard may or may not be legal depending on how "private property" is interpreted?

Pretty much

[taperxz]

Its also my opinion that by not fencing the property you are actually inviting public access to the front door.

Trespass signs are only a warning that illegal trespass is forbidden and the trespasser will be asked to leave. Signs with a fence constitute illegal trespass with the ability to detain and arrest. If this were any guide to the topic.

Of course this is my rural experience.

[GrizzlyGuy]

So would it be fair to say that concealed carry in one's unfenced front yard may or may not be legal depending on how "private property" is interpreted?

Yes. We live in a society where the judiciary can reinterpret any law in whatever way they choose, whenever they want, regardless of how plain and unambiguous the legislature's original language was. I'm pretty sure that the phrase "that is not publicly accessible" was available in the English language at the time the legislators wrote "private property" without any additional qualifications, but hey, a little fact like that never stopped a judge from determining that the legislature's intent was entirely different from what they actually wrote.

You originally asked about a sentence in the wiki. As I said, I believe that one particular sentence to be erroneous in that the 25605 exemption DOES NOT apply to loaded carry. Setting that aside, unless the wiki specifically states otherwise, it is intended to summarize what the law and jurisprudence is right now. It isn't meant to identify each and every instance where something could change in the future due to judicial fiat.

[HokeySon]

Not sure how well People v. Corners illustrates your point.

Ahh.... Fabio .... I wondered when you would come out to defend your little brother ...

I pointed out to your little brother that the sole case he was relying on to support his argument was an Appellate Division case as as such was not "precedent ... and not binding on any other court"

As even the quote you providing says, "Of course, a decision of the Appellate Department of the San Francisco Superior Court is not binding upon the Butte County Superior Court nor upon this court."

Pretty simple, no?


People v. Corners
The trial court in the present case reluctantly felt compelled to follow O'Rourke. Of course, a decision of the Appellate Department of the San Francisco Superior Court is not binding upon the Butte County Superior Court nor upon this court. However, we find O'Rourke persuasive and conclude the trial court properly denied the People's request for restitution.

[HokeySon]

Your opinion was that the words were not synonymous, the published appellate court opinion says otherwise. That's not a strawman. At best you can say the meaning of the word depends on the context, which is obviously true. So now we are arguing about context, which is pointless.



Actually, I don't know. I tend to assume you are correct since they are both superior courts, but it's possible that even after prop 220 the appellate department retained some higher jurisdiction, at least within the same county. If you have a cite that settles the question I'd be genuinely interested to see it.

In any case however, my position remains unchanged. There is authority (even if only persuasive) for the proposition that absent a significant barrier residential property is a public place for the purposes of the loaded carry statute. There is no authority (let alone binding) too support the proposition that this does not apply to the "curtilage", absent such a barrier. Furthermore, Strider, which is binding on trial courts, suggests the same thing:

Note that the court is using "challenge" to refer to a physical obstacle. This is consistent with Overturf.

At a bare minimum I don't think the law here is settled in favor of the legality of carry on private property absent a physical barrier. That is my only point. We are all adults and can make our own decisions, but at least all the facts should be out there.

So, after all this, when you finally respond to the issue, you say you don't know... and later in this thread you now claim to just playing devils advocate ...

Right. You were affirmatively calling others out as reckless and inappropriate, then "wrong" on an issue that you know admit you no nothing about.

Whatever.

[Tincon]

So, after all this, when you finally respond to the issue, you say you don't know... and later in this thread you now claim to just playing devils advocate ...

Right. You were affirmatively calling others out as reckless and inappropriate, then "wrong" on an issue that you know admit you no nothing about.

Ok Charles, so since I'm so full of it will you personally defend anyone who is charged for carrying on their property pro bono(for free)? I got the information out there, that's what I wanted to accomplish, so you can go back to whatever rock you crawled out from under.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Ahh.... Fabio .... I wondered when you would come out to defend your little brother ...

Ahh.... Charles .... you like to waste time belaboring a retarded point don't you ...

Appellate division opinions are not "binding" on superior court judges. Federal court opinions (other than USSC) are not "binding" on state court trial judges or appellate court justices. Appellate decisions from one appellate district are not "binding" on other appellate districts. An opinion from one federal circuit court of appeals is not "binding" on another circuit court of appeals. And so on. So what? Trial judges and appellate justices follow these "non-binding" ... but "persuasive" .... authorities day in and day out, just like in the opinion you cited lol. Did you really cite that opinion in a case where you were arguing that the trial court should not follow a non-binding appellate division opinion? God help us ...

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

law.com, meet Wikipedia:

Precedent can be binding and precedent can also be persuasive

Where did CGF find this guy?!