CPC 25450

[Socratic]

CPC 25450 is a law enforcement officer exemption from CPC 25400. It gives cops and honorably retired cops ability to carry concealed weapons. There are no exceptions contained with CPC 25450. It is absolute in its authority.

How can private entities such as Disneyland and the LA Dodgers legally deny cops ability to carry handguns on their premises in violation of CPC 25450? Angels stadium is owned by the city of Anaheim. It also denies cops' rights codified by CPC 25450. What legal theory are they using to deny cops' rights guaranteed by CPC 25450?

If any private entity can deny the existence of CPC 25450, then what practical effect does that section have? Could 7-11 demand that off-duty cops leave their guns at home? Could a shopping mall deny entry to off-duty cops who are carrying guns?

I'm going with Disneyland and the LA Dodgers violating cops' statutory right under CPC 25450 were they to deny entry to their facilities to cops who have concealed weapons. Their business practices and policies do not usurp the California Penal Code.

[esy]

25450 allows us to carry it and not be charged with a crime (25400).

Any and all businesses are on private property. If we are not at those private properties conducting on-duty, law enforcement business, they do not allow it and can tell us to kick rocks. I understand that we are peace officers 24/7/365, however, I'm sure that there are departmental orders that speak about off-duty contacts and how one "should not" engage in them.

In short, their house, their rules.

[micro911]

I went to the Disneyland and left my pistol in the car. I felt naked all day until I returned to the car. Maybe some officers in the past made some kind of mistakes carrying their pistols??? Although they said it is a safe place, I felt vulnerable without my firearm.

[Socratic]

25450 allows us to carry it and not be charged with a crime (25400).

Any and all businesses are on private property. If we are not at those private properties conducting on-duty, law enforcement business, they do not allow it and can tell us to kick rocks. I understand that we are peace officers 24/7/365, however, I'm sure that there are departmental orders that speak about off-duty contacts and how one "should not" engage in them.

In short, their house, their rules.

Are you implying that the California Penal Code does not apply on private property?

My guess that were a business policy that conflicts with CPC 25450 challenged in court, the Penal Code will be upheld. Otherwise, CPC 25450 would have included something to the effect of, "Business policies prevail when in conflict with CPC 25450."

[CaptMike]

Their house, their rules. It is perfectly legal to walk around with adult magazines, but do you want your neighbor to come in to your house and read them in front of your young children. Probably not. You have the right to ask your neighbor to leave your house. If he refuses then you can call the police and ask that trespassing charges be filed and he be removed.

It is the same for the mouse house. Because of their political leanings, they have decided to remove firearms from their house. If they ask you to remove your firearm and you refuse, they will ask you to go.

It is all political. I used to have yearly passes for my family. I no longer support the mouse house. I spend my money at knotts berry farm where I, as a leo, am invited in without question.

Their house, their rules. My money, my choice where i spend it.

[RestrictedColt]

Do Disney and the stadium have posted signs? Been a long time since I've been to either.

[Socratic]

Their house, their rules. It is perfectly legal to walk around with adult magazines, but do you want your neighbor to come in to your house and read them in front of your young children. Probably not. You have the right to ask your neighbor to leave your house. If he refuses then you can call the police and ask that trespassing charges be filed and he be removed.

It is the same for the mouse house. Because of their political leanings, they have decided to remove firearms from their house. If they ask you to remove your firearm and you refuse, they will ask you to go.

It is all political. I used to have yearly passes for my family. I no longer support the mouse house. I spend my money at knotts berry farm where I, as a leo, am invited in without question.

Their house, their rules. My money, my choice where i spend it.

Mike, are you analogizing adult magazines to a California Penal Code statute? I sure hope not.

Not, it's not their house their rules. Do you think that rape would fall under their house their rules? The California Penal Code applies everywhere in California, even in their houses. No one can create any business policy that contradicts the California Penal Code. And cops do not enforce business policies. They enforce law.

Were I 10-8 and responded to a call of an off-duty cop who was denied entry to any private business, I'd explained to the informant that we don't enforce business policies, that the off-duty cop has a right to carry a gun wherever he wants within California, and that he should consult with a lawyer before denying a cop of his STATUTORY RIGHT to carry a gun. The off-duty cop who's accorded right to carry under CPC 25450 would be the one suffering damages hence basis for a lawsuit.

[ls2monaro]

^ My response is I have the right to remove anyone I don't want from my property and/or business. If they refuse to leave then they are subject to arrest for trespassing.

If I don't want guns on my property then I don't have to allow it. If I don't want my mother in law on my property, then I don't have to allow it, if I don't want marijuana on my property then I don't have to allow it, etc...

[Socratic]

^ My response is I have the right to remove anyone I don't want from my property and/or business. If they refuse to leave then they are subject to arrest for trespassing.

If I don't want guns on my property then I don't have to allow it. If I don't want my mother in law on my property, then I don't have to allow it, if I don't want marijuana on my property then I don't have to allow it, etc...

Now that would depend upon attendant facts. You have no right to remove a meter reader from your property. Cops have right to access curtilage of your home in performance of their duties. Were you to resist, obstruct, or delay cops in the performance of their duties, you would be subject to arrest.

If you own a business and invite public in to conduct business, you can't deny access without cause (Civil Rights Act of 1964). And that's the gist of my query: how can any business deny entry to his place of business any person who has statutory authority under California Penal Code Section 25450?

CPC 25450 is definitive and absolute. There is nothing within that section that grants anyone authority to invalidate it. Hence, one who falls within the purview of CPC 25450 should be treated as would any other person entering a business to conduct business. It one were to deny an off-duty cop right to enter solely because of his legally protected right to carry a concealed handgun, he would infringe upon the cop's right thus causing the cop damages under law. The cop should be able to sue the one denying his right in order to recover damages.

Many years ago, when I confronted this issue at Angels Stadium when Disney owned the Angels, I asked a lawyer who is a Cal Bar Certified Criminal Law Specialist whether Disney's policy was legal under what was then CPC 12027 but is now 25450. He said told me the policy was not legally enforceable because the California Penal Code was controlling, not Disney's business policy. He asked whether I wanted to pursue it. Since I was a cop at that time, I told him that I didn't.

[esy]

Does your department have an order about off-duty carry and off-duty contacts?

[Samuelx]

The way I read it, they can't arrest "you" for carrying concealed - but they don't have to let you in or allow you to stay. I haven't seen any codes/statutes that say we can carry anywhere/everywhere we want off-duty, no matter what. Commercial flights, cruise ships, Staples center, etc.

[Socratic]

Not that I can remember.

The agency from which I am retired did not have policy that contradicted any law.

[omgwtfbbq]

May have already been addressed, but as mentioned in the OP, 25450 PC provides exemption specifically to 25400 PC, for LEOs.

When a person, LEO or not, is otherwise legally carrying a firearms but is asked to remove it for the purpose of entering into, or remaining on private property, 602 PC (trespassing) is the appropriate code. 25450 PC provides no exemption to Section 602.

Scenario:

Officer A is off-duty and wants to go to Store B. Upon entering Store B, Officer A is approached by store staff who have noticed he is carrying a firearm. The staff informs Officer A that the owner of the business has a policy against the carry of firearms in the business. Staff also informs Officer A that if he does not want to remove his firearm, he would have to leave the premises. Officer A becomes indignant and refuses to leave the premise and also refuses to remove the firearm. He has now violated Section 602 PC; however, he is not in violation of Section 25400 PC.

[Socratic]

The way I read it, they can't arrest "you" for carrying concealed - but they don't have to let you in or allow you to stay. I haven't seen any codes/statutes that say we can carry anywhere/everywhere we want off-duty, no matter what. Commercial flights, cruise ships, Staples center, etc.

Commercial transportation such as airlines and cruise ships are covered by federal law. HR 218 does not apply to commercial transportation that's covered under federal law. Here I'm writing about only California and California Penal Code Section 25450.

How can anyone be arrested for obeying law?

CPC 25450 reads that we can carry anywhere. The California Penal Code applies everywhere within the state.

If a business were to deny entry or not allow an off-duty cop who's is within CPC 25450 to stay, then would not his rights be violated because he is acting consistent with statutory law?

We have to remember that cops do not enforce business policies. Cops enforce laws. Business policies cannot contradict law. How can any business policy contradict CPC 25450?

If our state's legislature wanted exceptions and conditions to CPC 25450, they would have been included within the statute; e.g., "Nothing in this section denies a business owner to deny entry to an off-duty cops who is carrying a concealed weapon." But no such phrase is within CPC 25450.

[Socratic]

Hola omgwtfbbq,

Here's CPC 25450 verbatim:



As provided in this article, Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following:

(a) Any peace officer, listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably retired.

(b) Any other duly appointed peace officer.

(c) Any honorably retired peace officer listed in subdivision (c) of Section 830.5.

(d) Any other honorably retired peace officer who during the course and scope of his or her appointment as a peace officer was authorized to, and did, carry a firearm.

(e) Any full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California.

(f) Any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while the person is actually engaged in assisting that officer.

Hence, CPC 25400 does not apply to those listed under CPC 25450; hence, CPC 25400 cannot be controlling.