Penal Code Application

[EMP3]

I've been told that businesses can deny application of the California Penal Code as a condition of entry to their premises. I believe that is incorrect info.

How can a private venue deny CPC 25450. (a) since this section specifies an exemption to concealed weapons laws?

The CA Penal Code applies everywhere within CA. So how can any private entity deny CPC 25450. (a)?

[Yodaman]

[RickD427]

I've been told that businesses can deny application of the California Penal Code as a condition of entry to their premises. I believe that is incorrect info.

How can a private venue deny CPC 25450. (a) since this section specifies an exemption to concealed weapons laws?

The CA Penal Code applies everywhere within CA. So how can any private entity deny CPC 25450. (a)?

You're confusing two separate rules here.

A private business is not "denying application of the California Penal Code" if they elect not to allow concealed weapons on their property.

Penal Code section 25450(a) exempts some current and retired LEOs from the California statutory provision in Penal Code section 25400 prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. That's all that it does.

Private property owners, which some specific exceptions not relevant here, have the right to control the use of their property. When they elect to do in a manner that restricts concealed carry, they're doing so on their right as a property owner, and not on the basis of PC 25400.

[Tallship]

The same way a business owner can allow anyone concealed or open carry in his business premises.

[Cokebottle]

The same way a business owner can allow anyone concealed or open carry in his business premises.

Not true.
They can allow employees to carry openly in areas not accessible to the public.
They can not allow employees or customers to carry openly, or concealed without a permit, in areas normally open to the public.

Yes, gun shops and pawn shops violate this regularly, and LE turns a blind eye (understandably), but start carrying openly in your cell phone store and you're going to have some problems if a cop walks in.

[1911_sfca]

Not true.
They can allow employees to carry openly in areas not accessible to the public.
They can not allow employees or customers to carry openly, or concealed without a permit, in areas normally open to the public.

Yes, gun shops and pawn shops violate this regularly, and LE turns a blind eye (understandably), but start carrying openly in your cell phone store and you're going to have some problems if a cop walks in.

Huh? Can you please cite the penal code section or case law where this legal theory arises from?

Check out PC 26035, as well as PC 25605. It doesn't mention anything about "not open to the public."

[Librarian]

Huh? Can you please cite the penal code section or case law where this legal theory arises from?

Check out PC 26035, as well as PC 25605. It doesn't mention anything about "not open to the public."

Please see the wiki article, http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...oncealed_Carry

[RickD427]

Huh? Can you please cite the penal code section or case law where this legal theory arises from?

Check out PC 26035, as well as PC 25605. It doesn't mention anything about "not open to the public."

Penal Code section 26035 only permits the possession of a firearm upon the property. It does not extend the carrying of the weapon, or to the concealed carry of the weapon.

Methinks you should re-read section 25605, and particularly subparagraph (c). That's where you get to the part that limits application to "areas not open to the public." Subparagraph (c) provides that "Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the application of Sections 25850 to 26055, inclusive." It's section 25850 that contains the part about "not open to the public."

But to really explode your point of view, please give a close read to the California Court of Appeals decision in People v Overturf. The court considered pretty much the same facts that you've posed here in upholding Mr. Overturf's conviction for carrying a loaded firearm at his place of business.

[1911_sfca]

Please see the wiki article, http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...oncealed_Carry

Thanks, I have read the article and I still have the same opinion.

Penal Code section 26035 only permits the possession of a firearm upon the property. It does not extend the carrying of the weapon, or to the concealed carry of the weapon.

Methinks you should re-read section 25605, and particularly subparagraph (c). That's where you get to the part that limits application to "areas not open to the public." Subparagraph (c) provides that "Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the application of Sections 25850 to 26055, inclusive." It's section 25850 that contains the part about "not open to the public."

But to really explode your point of view, please give a close read to the California Court of Appeals decision in People v Overturf. The court considered pretty much the same facts that you've posed here in upholding Mr. Overturf's conviction for carrying a loaded firearm at his place of business.

I am familiar with PC 25605, and subsection (c) states that it does not affect the restriction on carrying loaded in a public place or upon a public street. To my knowledge, the term "public place" is not defined in the penal code as it relates to this section, however. A private business such as a store would not be a "public place" for the purposes of restricting the owner or employee, specifically allowed to carry, from carrying loaded.

The relevant case here is People v. Melton (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 580. In this case, a convenience store clerk was convicted of carrying concealed in his place of employment. The court drew a slightly bizarre distinction between a carrying a concealable firearm, and carrying a concealable firearm, concealed.

The legislature promptly amended the penal code with the express purpose of fixing this ambiguity; in other words, the PC was specifically crafted to allow a convenience store clerk to carry concealed in his place of business.

Let's look at the situation and facts in People v. Overturf -- it is about a landlord carrying in the courtyard of an apartment building on 3 acres of land, and getting into a dispute with victim, one of his employees, who lived in the same apartment complex. Overturf fired a warning shot at the victim. The courts find that the common areas of an apartment building are "public," not a private residence or place of business for Overturf.

Since this thread was talking about employees or a business owner carrying a firearm within the business, Overturf is wildly irrelevant to that fact pattern, and the legislative changes made in 1989 responding to the bad court decision in Melton, are what would apply. So my opinion is unchanged. It is legal for a business owner (or employees who have a possessory interest in the business, e.g. can tell people to leave, and can control what activities take place inside the business) to legally carry within the business.

And sure, we can agree that you can't tote around a gun in the common areas of an apartment complex and rely on the exemptions of 25605PC. That's entirely unrelated to what we were discussing and it doesn't "explode" anything.

[P5Ret]

Thanks, I have read the article and I still have the same opinion.



I am familiar with PC 25605, and subsection (c) states that it does not affect the restriction on carrying loaded in a public place or upon a public street. To my knowledge, the term "public place" is not defined in the penal code as it relates to this section, however. A private business such as a store would not be a "public place" for the purposes of restricting the owner or employee, specifically allowed to carry, from carrying loaded.

The relevant case here is People v. Melton (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 580. In this case, a convenience store clerk was convicted of carrying concealed in his place of employment. The court drew a slightly bizarre distinction between a carrying a concealable firearm, and carrying a concealable firearm, concealed.

The legislature promptly amended the penal code with the express purpose of fixing this ambiguity; in other words, the PC was specifically crafted to allow a convenience store clerk to carry concealed in his place of business.

Let's look at the situation and facts in People v. Overturf -- it is about a landlord carrying in the courtyard of an apartment building on 3 acres of land, and getting into a dispute with victim, one of his employees, who lived in the same apartment complex. Overturf fired a warning shot at the victim. The courts find that the common areas of an apartment building are "public," not a private residence or place of business for Overturf.

Since this thread was talking about employees or a business owner carrying a firearm within the business, Overturf is wildly irrelevant to that fact pattern, and the legislative changes made in 1989 responding to the bad court decision in Melton, are what would apply. So my opinion is unchanged. It is legal for a business owner (or employees who have a possessory interest in the business, e.g. can tell people to leave, and can control what activities take place inside the business) to legally carry within the business.

And sure, we can agree that you can't tote around a gun in the common areas of an apartment complex and rely on the exemptions of 25605PC. That's entirely unrelated to what we were discussing and it doesn't "explode" anything.

I'm not too sure you understood what the OP's question was. I don't see anything about business owner's or employee's carrying in his question. Seemed to be more about business owner's posting no gun's sign's to apply to everyone at their business.

[1911_sfca]

I'm not too sure you understood what the OP's question was. I don't see anything about business owner's or employee's carrying in his question. Seemed to be more about business owner's posting no gun's sign's to apply to everyone at their business.

That's true, I'm not sure I understood the question as worded -- whether a business owner can "deny application" of the penal code on premises, which seemed to be getting at whether they could prohibit concealed carry by customers on their property. It veered into the subject I was discussing on post #4.

[Coolguy101]

I was told by the CA DOJ that gunstore employees can open or conceal inside the store IF they have a COE. That did not apply to outdoors on the property that is visible to the public. If they did not have a COE, they could not carry.

No, I don't have it in writing so I realize that information is probably useless. But that's what I was told.

[EMP3]

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

[EMP3]

You're confusing two separate rules here.

A private business is not "denying application of the California Penal Code" if they elect not to allow concealed weapons on their property.

Penal Code section 25450(a) exempts some current and retired LEOs from the California statutory provision in Penal Code section 25400 prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. That's all that it does.

Private property owners, which some specific exceptions not relevant here, have the right to control the use of their property. When they elect to do in a manner that restricts concealed carry, they're doing so on their right as a property owner, and not on the basis of PC 25400.

I'm not sure I agree with you. California Penal Code Section 25450 includes active and honorably retired cops. If a private business that invites members of the public into its business could deny CPC 25450, then it could deny on-duty cops carrying concealed handguns.

Remember that CPC 25450 is an exemption to concealed weapons laws. It is a horse of a different color than CCW law. In fact, it is not comparable to CA's CCW laws. It's an exemption from CA's CCW law.

How can a business deny a codified section of the California Penal Code?

The California Penal Code applies everywhere within CA, private businesses included.

[71MUSTY]

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

IIANAL But I avoided more then one exhibition of speed charge back in the day by pointing out that I was on private property at the time.

LEO's hated us doing burnouts in the KMart parking lot late at night. Judge saw it my way more then once. But this was back in the 70's so what do I know.