Penal Code Application

[EMP3]

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

Your link does not apply to California Penal Code Section 25450:

ARTICLE 2. Peace Officer Exemption [25450 - 25475] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )


25450.

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.

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...0.&lawCode=PEN

[EMP3]

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.

The California Vehicle Code does not defined exemptions to CCW laws.

It's not a logical comparison.

[71MUSTY]

The California Vehicle Code does not defined exemptions to CCW laws.

It's not a logical comparison.

We were talking about Private Property.

[Yodaman]

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

[EMP3]

I wasn’t. But we all know the PC does not give authority to do something a private property the owner does not want in the case stated.


PC does not give authority to override the desires of the proprietor of a property.


Only covers the exempt status.


You can’t say because I’m exempt status I have the power of CA behind me to let me do what I want on your property Joe Schmoe.


While someone may not get arrested for carrying on private property where the owner does not want them to.

They can be booted or denied service which is common place at many venues in CA.

As I said, It’s private property.

What is the source of your info?

The California Penal Code is the source of law, not any person.

The California Penal Code applies everywhere in CA, including private property. A murderer can't use a defense of private property should he murder another on his private property.

Can you cite a source of law that accords a private property owner ability to deny application of the California Penal Code on private property?

Thanks

[EMP3]

We were talking about Private Property.

I know. Can you cite a legal source that accords ability of a business owner to deny application of the California Penal Code on private property?

Remember that California Penal Code Section 25450 is an exemption to CCW laws. Cops & honorably retired cops carry in accordance to source independent to laws that apply to persons carrying pursuant to CCW law.

[Yodaman]

I tend not to get wrapped in threads where someone asks me to research law for them.

Remember, if the PC does not give over arching power here.


Think of it like your house...if someone who is exempt off duty walked into your house with a firearm concealed to visit or with a friend, and you do not want them there because of that reason, you can still ask them to leave.

[EMP3]

I've had a manager of local indoor range tell me that he'd take a concealed weapon from cops and honorably retired cops in his place of business. Since he knew everything, reason was not within his realm of operation. It's not wise to reason with one who knows he's right, even when codified law would place him in jeopardy of one or more felonies. Should he try, he'd go to jail for grand theft person, possibly strong armed robbery should he use force to disarm one covered by CPC 25450.

[Yodaman]

I've had a manager of local indoor range tell me that he'd take a concealed weapon from cops and honorably retired cops in his place of business. Since he knew everything, reason was not within his realm of operation. It's not wise to reason with one who knows he's right, even when codified law would place him in jeopardy of one or more felonies. Should he try, he'd go to jail for grand theft person, possibly strong armed robbery should he use force to disarm one covered by CPC 25450.

[EMP3]

Yodaman,

I think your confusion has arisen with commingling CA CCW laws with peace officer and honorably retired peace officer exemption to CA CCW laws.

A DNA relative who's a criminal lawyer of considerable renown has told me that CPC 25450, the peace officer exemption, is controlling.

Cops do not enforce business policy. They enforce law.

The California Penal Code applies everywhere within CA, even your home. Were you to commit a crime in your home, cops would have legal authority to investigate, arrest, arm's reach search of your home (see Chimel v. California) and take you to jail for an alleged crime. You would not be able to use a defense of private property, for the California Penal Code's authority does not end at your property lines.

[RickD427]

I know. Can you cite a legal source that accords ability of a business owner to deny application of the California Penal Code on private property?

Remember that California Penal Code Section 25450 is an exemption to CCW laws. Cops & honorably retired cops carry in accordance to source independent to laws that apply to persons carrying pursuant to CCW law.

EMP3,

We're going around in circles here.

There is no legal source that accords the private property owner the ability to "deny application of the Penal Code." Stop looking for it. It ain't there.

Methinks that you're trying the frame the question to support the position that you'd like to have - that CCW holders and LEOSA covered folks could carry concealed on private property. It don't work that way.

PC section 25450 gives an exemption from the Penal Code provisions that would otherwise make concealed carry illegal. It only applies to the Penal Code prohibition on concealed carry. It does not give you the right to concealed carry. There's a distinction between these two things that you're just not getting.

When the private property owner elects to prohibit concealed carry, he is doing so under his rights as a property owner. There's no involvement of the Penal Code at that point. Now if you refuse to leave the property at the owner's request (because you refuse to disarm), then Penal Code section 602 comes into play. The PC exemption that you claim under section 25450 don't extend to section 602.

[Yodaman]

EMP3,



We're going around in circles here.



There is no legal source that accords the private property owner the ability to "deny application of the Penal Code." Stop looking for it. It ain't there.



Methinks that you're trying the frame the question to support the position that you'd like to have - that CCW holders and LEOSA covered folks could carry concealed on private property. It don't work that way.



PC section 25450 gives an exemption from the Penal Code provisions that would otherwise make concealed carry illegal. It only applies to the Penal Code prohibition on concealed carry. It does not give you the right to concealed carry. There's a distinction between these two things that you're just not getting.



When the private property owner elects to prohibit concealed carry, he is doing so under his rights as a property owner. There's no involvement of the Penal Code at that point. Now if you refuse to leave the property at the owner's request (because you refuse to disarm), then Penal Code section 602 comes into play. The PC exemption that you claim under section 25450 don't extend to section 602.

This is well said

[eta34]

EMP3,

We're going around in circles here.

There is no legal source that accords the private property owner the ability to "deny application of the Penal Code." Stop looking for it. It ain't there.

Methinks that you're trying the frame the question to support the position that you'd like to have - that CCW holders and LEOSA covered folks could carry concealed on private property. It don't work that way.

PC section 25450 gives an exemption from the Penal Code provisions that would otherwise make concealed carry illegal. It only applies to the Penal Code prohibition on concealed carry. It does not give you the right to concealed carry. There's a distinction between these two things that you're just not getting.

When the private property owner elects to prohibit concealed carry, he is doing so under his rights as a property owner. There's no involvement of the Penal Code at that point. Now if you refuse to leave the property at the owner's request (because you refuse to disarm), then Penal Code section 602 comes into play. The PC exemption that you claim under section 25450 don't extend to section 602.

This. Time to end the thread.

[EMP3]

EMP3,

We're going around in circles here.

There is no legal source that accords the private property owner the ability to "deny application of the Penal Code." Stop looking for it. It ain't there.

Methinks that you're trying the frame the question to support the position that you'd like to have - that CCW holders and LEOSA covered folks could carry concealed on private property. It don't work that way.

PC section 25450 gives an exemption from the Penal Code provisions that would otherwise make concealed carry illegal. It only applies to the Penal Code prohibition on concealed carry. It does not give you the right to concealed carry. There's a distinction between these two things that you're just not getting.

When the private property owner elects to prohibit concealed carry, he is doing so under his rights as a property owner. There's no involvement of the Penal Code at that point. Now if you refuse to leave the property at the owner's request (because you refuse to disarm), then Penal Code section 602 comes into play. The PC exemption that you claim under section 25450 don't extend to section 602.

Good Morning Rick,

No. I'm not going around in circles. I've been riding a very straight line. Methinks you're not grasping the concept of CPC 25450. (a): peace officer exemption to CCW laws.

It might help were you to approach this from a perspective of concepts. If your belief that private property precludes a penal code section, then that private property concept would apply to other sections of the penal code. There is no legal concept that prevents application of the California Penal Code on private property.

The concept under review is the California Penal Code codified law that exempts on-duty and honorably retired cops from CCW laws.

The penal code is the definitive code of behavior in CA. There is no other CA legal code in conflict with it. A private property owner cannot elect to deny application of the California Penal Code. Were your concept correct, he could possess illegal weapons within his residence and cite your nonexistent private property exemption to penal code application. A private property owner or one in control of it could deny on-duty cops entry by citing your belief that has absolutely no basis in any law.

Your thinks is effort to support your supposition of your belief that the penal code can be denied due to nebulous property right. That is patently incorrect. The penal code applies to every location, public or private, in CA. It applies within your home.

Yes, CPC 25450 does accord cops and honorably retired cops right to carry at their discretion. It does not give anyone authority to interfere with that codified right

Can you cite one legal source or case law that supports your belief that CPC 25450 is applicable at arbitrary discretion of anyone?

Thinking in concepts, if cops were denied the codified right to carry where desire within CA, CPC 25450 would not be necessary. Cops and honorably retired cops would be shifted to CCW law.

Also, you might be confusing CCW laws with CPC 25450. They are not congruent laws. CPC 25450 is a peace office exemption to CCW laws.

I can find no case law involving CPC 25450. There could be any number of reasons for it. Courts would deny suits based upon the controlling law, which is CPC 25450. And there is no ambiguity of California Penal Code Section 25450: law enforcement officers and honorably retired CA law enforcement officers have the RIGHT to carry consistent with CPC 25450.

Once again, CPC 25450 exempts cops and honorably retired cops from CCW laws. Were it as you think it is, the section would have included a provision that would grant private business owners/managers ability to deny application of the California Penal Code on their private property.

Cops do not enforce business policy. They enforce law.

I'd greatly appreciate any legal authority that supports your belief that people can deny application of the California Penal Code on private property.

BTW, as of a few years ago, the CA AG's office had no case law on CPC 25450. That section stood as legislative intent: cops are exempt from CCW laws. This opinion was consistent with an opinion of a renown criminal defense attorney.

BTW, if you took a step back and thought about the concept of application of California Penal Code authority, you'd come to the conclusion that it's absurd that any person or business could arbitrarily invalidate any CPC section.

[EMP3]

eta 34,

Pursuit of Socratic knowledge has no end.

It could end were anyone to prove with legal citation that private property owners/managers have legal ability to invalidate CPC 25450. That would bring this knowledge seeking endeavor to a conclusion.