CPC 25450

[omgwtfbbq]

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.

Again; 25400 PC is not the code section activated by a refusal to remove an otherwise lawfully carried firearms on private property. Therefore, no exemption to such code applies.

When an LEO is asked to remove their firearm from a privately owned piece of land or business, they violation Section 602.1(a) of the PC which reads:

602.1 (a) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner or agent of a business establishment open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or their customers, and who refuses to leave the premises of the business establishment after being requested to leave by the owner or the owner’s agent, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the owner or owner’s agent, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

If an LEO refuses to remove their firearm and also refuses to leave the business or privately owned property after being advised by the owner, or agent of the owner to do so, he/she is in violation of the aforementioned section. An exemption to an entirely different code section cannot be applied.


EDIT: I should add that if the piece of privately owned property is noncommercial in nature (ie a private residence) then the appropriate code section is 602.5(a) or (b), rather than 602.1(a) PC.

[Socratic]

omgwtfbbq,

How you could arrest anyone for CPC 602 who is within the law? An arrest of one covered by CPC 25450 for refusing to remove his gun for CPC 602 would be a false arrest. As CPC 25450 clearly states, cops are exempt from CPC 25400.

You might what to check with a DDA before you'd arrest an off-duty cop who's covered by CPC 25450 for violating a business policy.

A Cal Bar Certified Criminal Law Specialist who was once a DDA and who has tried a whole lot of cases told me that Disney's policy violated law. It gets even better. The Anaheim PD officer who stored my gun for me told me that he knew Disney's policy was illegal, that he was merely following orders.

No one can force anyone covered under CPC 25450 to remover his gun. He is protected by CPC 25450, which has no conditions or qualifications. Were you to arrest a cop because of a business policy violation, you'd be good for committing a false arrest. Cops do not enforce business policies. They enforce law. And the law under review is pretty damned clear: those covered under CPC 25450 can carry concealed handguns wherever they choose, not wherever business policies choose.

Again, check with a DDA before you proceed.

[omgwtfbbq]

omgwtfbbq,

How you could arrest anyone for CPC 602 who is within the law? An arrest of one covered by CPC 25450 for refusing to remove his gun for CPC 602 would be a false arrest. As CPC 25450 clearly states, cops are exempt from CPC 25400.

You might what to check with a DDA before you'd arrest an off-duty cop who's covered by CPC 25450 for violating a business policy.

A Cal Bar Certified Criminal Law Specialist who was once a DDA and who has tried a whole lot of cases told me that Disney's policy violated law. It gets even better. The Anaheim PD officer who stored my gun for me told me that he knew Disney's policy was illegal, that he was merely following orders.

No one can force anyone covered under CPC 25450 to remover his gun. He is protected by CPC 25450, which has no conditions or qualifications. Were you to arrest a cop because of a business policy violation, you'd be good for committing a false arrest. Cops do not enforce business policies. They enforce law. And the law under review is pretty damned clear: those covered under CPC 25450 can carry concealed handguns wherever they choose, not wherever business policies choose.

Again, check with a DDA before you proceed.

Again... The instant behavior is not the removal of the gun from the LEO's person. The instant behavior is the refusal to leave the property and/or business once the LEO has been advised of the condition that they leave the premises or disarm themselves. 25400 does not apply because the instant behavior has, legally speaking, nothing to do with carrying a firearm.

The behavior need only be that the individual, LEO or not, was asked to leave the premises due to behaving in a way the owner, or agent of the owner believes interrupts or obstructs the conduct of their business. The law would be applied exactly the same if the LEO was wearing a sweatshirt or jacket with the hood up, or was wearing a backpack, and these behaviors were deemed by the owner or their agent to be obstructive to the conduct of their business.

In the case of a non-commercial property, the behavior need not actually obstruct or interrupt anything other than the fact the owner or their agent don't want the defendant there. The why, is immaterial.

[RestrictedColt]

For those who think 25450 gives absolute rights to carry anywhere; does that mean I can't refuse to let an armed retired cop onto my property or into my house?

The average person has the right to carry a knife, does that mean that Disney can't refuse to let me in with one?

My understanding of 25450 is that it exempts certain people from restrictions of carrying, but I see no verbiage giving them absolute rights to carry anywhere they wish.

[Socratic]

I can't understand where confusion lies. CPC 25450 is controlling:

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.

In very simple language, CPC 25400 does not apply to cops. Ever. Period. End of story. A cop cannot even bring up CPC 25400 when it comes to those who are covered under CPC 25450. They are exempt from CPC 25400. It's a moot and irrelevant section. CPC 25450 and only CPC 25450 is controlling. Period.

Now, the question is: how can any business refuse to comply with law? If it is true that businesses can refuse to comply with law, of what use is CPC 25450? Why was that section included in the penal code?

For the poster who said he didn't read anything in the section that reads a cop can carry a concealed handgun, that is not the way law works. It is legal unless proscribed by law. If CPC 25450 were not comprehensive, legislators would have included where this section does not apply. And I can figure out why. What would you suppose would happen were Joe of Joe's Market tried to take a concealed weapon off of an off-duty cop who were shopping for a can of dog food because his business policy is NO ONE carries in his place of business? Sorry, Joe, law says otherwise.

Can someone show me case law or statutory law that contradicts the absolute statutory provisions of CPC 25450?

[Socratic]

omgwtfbbq,

The behavior that you allege interferes with a business owner's business in an off-duty cop carrying a gun. How could you prove that an off-duty cop carrying a gun consistent with CPC 25450 interferes with anything, let alone a business owner's ability to conduct business?

If anything, the business owner would be discriminating against a class of persons, in this case, off-duty cops. My bet is that an off-duty cop could pursue a civil suit against a business owner for discrimination.

Were I still 10-8 and had to respond to such a call, I'd tell the informant that the off-duty cop has a legal right to carry his gun, and I'd show him CPC 25450. Once the cop ID'd himself to me, I'd tell the informant that if he wants the cop arrested, he's doing it, not me. I'd tell him that he's responsible for for all consequences (civil suit) if he were to go with an arrest. I'd cite and release the cop with the business owner signing the cite and a citizen's arrest form. But I wouldn't want it to be resolved in such a manner. I'd try to resolve it by helping the business owner understand the law and why law allows an off-duty cop to carry his gun. If the business owner is reasonable, I'm sure he'd understand and be good-to-go.

Due to the increase of cop murders, I'd hope that all cops carry off-duty.

BTW, years ago I ran into a very small town grocery store to grab a few items. My wife & kids were in our car that was parked outside. My gun was in our car. I could not believe that I stood in line at a check out counter behind two AB (ID'd by tats) members. I'd of felt a lot more comfortable if I had had my gun. It was a valuable lesson.

For those who aren't cops, Aryan Brotherhood members would kill an off-duty cop in a heartbeat.

[eta34]

Since you seem to be so certain of your position, why not sue these establishments for "violating your rights?" Why is there no mass litigation sponsored by police officers? Do you not think this has been hashed out already?

[omgwtfbbq]

I can't understand where confusion lies. CPC 25450 is controlling:

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.

In very simple language, CPC 25400 does not apply to cops. Ever. Period. End of story. A cop cannot even bring up CPC 25400 when it comes to those who are covered under CPC 25450. They are exempt from CPC 25400. It's a moot and irrelevant section. CPC 25450 and only CPC 25450 is controlling. Period.

Now, the question is: how can any business refuse to comply with law? If it is true that businesses can refuse to comply with law, of what use is CPC 25450? Why was that section included in the penal code?

For the poster who said he didn't read anything in the section that reads a cop can carry a concealed handgun, that is not the way law works. It is legal unless proscribed by law. If CPC 25450 were not comprehensive, legislators would have included where this section does not apply. And I can figure out why. What would you suppose would happen were Joe of Joe's Market tried to take a concealed weapon off of an off-duty cop who were shopping for a can of dog food because his business policy is NO ONE carries in his place of business? Sorry, Joe, law says otherwise.

You are correct in your understanding of the application of 25450 PC and 25400 PC in that it ensures that an LEO as defined within 25450 cannot be charged with 25400 under most circumstances.

However, as I've previously stated, multiple times, 25450 PC and 25400 PC have absolutely nothing to do with question you posed in the OP.

Further, no one other than yourself has mentioned anything about a private property owner or agent thereof attempting to forcibly remove a firearm from anyone's person.

Were I still 10-8 and had to respond to such a call, I'd tell the informant that the off-duty cop has a legal right to carry his gun, and I'd show him CPC 25450. Once the cop ID'd himself to me, I'd tell the informant that if he wants the cop arrested, he's doing it, not me. I'd tell him that he's responsible for for all consequences (civil suit) if he were to go with an arrest. I'd cite and release the cop with the business owner signing the cite and a citizen's arrest form. But I wouldn't want it to be resolved in such a manner. I'd try to resolve it by helping the business owner understand the law and why law allows an off-duty cop to carry his gun. If the business owner is reasonable, I'm sure he'd understand and be good-to-go.

That would be fine, but you would still be technically wrong.

[cr250chevy]

The exemption protects cops from the penal code. Private places who ban guns are not doing so under the penal code. So if an LEO violates a private entities rules they cannot be charged with illegal ccw, BUT that private company could kick you off their private grounds and ban you. Remember there is a difference between the law (penal code), and private business' rule(s).
The only way to address this issue is the comply, sue (good luck), or get the legislature to write a new law banning private entities from creating rules that stop cops from carrying guns on their premises.
Personally I dislike the idea of a cop being disarmed, but I am a strong believer in individual and business rights to regulate their personal property.
*I heard Disneyland banned cops from carrying in their park after a cops gun was left in one of the logs at Splash Mountain, it was found by a kid :/ after that I can't blame them...

[eta34]

So the goalpost has shifted. Now we are talking about a private citizen disarming an off-duty cop? There is a reason PORAC and none of the police unions have addressed this issue. It is because the OP is incorrect.

[RickD427]

Socratic,

You've built your whole argument on a fallacy.

Penal Code section 25450 does not state that an LEO is authorized to carry a firearm anywhere. That just isn't in the code. Please go read it, closely. You got it wrong.

All that Penal Code section 25450 does is provide that a covered LEO is exempt from the provisions of section 25400 which would otherwise make CCW a crime.

There's a big legal distinction between these two things. The foremost being that a private organization like Disneyland really isn't affected by section 25400 or 25450. If they elect to deny entrance to an armed off-duty officer, they have offended neither section.

There is no state law that would be violated if an off-duty, or retired, LEO chose to carry a weapon into Disneyland, but Disneyland is free to evict, and if refused, then there is a trespass violation. The key to this point is that 25450 does not provide you a "right" that Disneyland would be violating by this action. All that 25450 does is exempt you from 25400 and that doesn't involve Disneyland in the least.

[SVT-40]

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.

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.

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 [/b]right to enter solely because of his legally protected right[/b] 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.

What Rick said...

In addition you have some confusion related to what is a "right" and what is an "authority" granted by law...Or an exemption to some laws.

They are two very different animals.

LEO's and retired LEO's have no additional "rights" than any other citizen. They do have additional authority and exemptions.

[mej16489]

I can't understand where confusion lies. CPC 25450 is controlling:

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.

In very simple language, CPC 25400 does not apply to cops. Ever. Period. End of story. A cop cannot even bring up CPC 25400 when it comes to those who are covered under CPC 25450. They are exempt from CPC 25400. It's a moot and irrelevant section. CPC 25450 and only CPC 25450 is controlling. Period.

Now, the question is: how can any business refuse to comply with law? If it is true that businesses can refuse to comply with law, of what use is CPC 25450? Why was that section included in the penal code?

For the poster who said he didn't read anything in the section that reads a cop can carry a concealed handgun, that is not the way law works. It is legal unless proscribed by law. If CPC 25450 were not comprehensive, legislators would have included where this section does not apply. And I can figure out why. What would you suppose would happen were Joe of Joe's Market tried to take a concealed weapon off of an off-duty cop who were shopping for a can of dog food because his business policy is NO ONE carries in his place of business? Sorry, Joe, law says otherwise.

Can someone show me case law or statutory law that contradicts the absolute statutory provisions of CPC 25450?

If 25450 is 'controlling' then so is 25655. So Disneyland isn't allowed to turn away CCW holders either. The reality is, you are correct...sorta. Mouse-house can't get one in trouble for unlawful concealed carry, but they CAN deny entry to someone who is lawfully concealing with a consequence of unlawful trespass.

25655. Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, 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 Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150).

[Ron-Solo]

[sacmedic01]

^^^This^^^

I've watched this thread and am mystified as to why the OP doesn't get it. The sections he references merely exempt the persons listed from the prohibition on carrying a concealed weapon. It doesn't say that you can carry it anywhere you like despite the property owner's wishes. Apples and oranges.