Penal Code Application

[Yodaman]

Penal Code Application

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.

[esy]

PC 602.

Private property owner can tell you to pound sand for any reason whatsoever; including carrying on their property. Thus, the “no firearms allowed” sign. As many people say though, “concealed is concealed”.

Done. Please stop this madness.

[eta34]

This.

[P5Ret]

If nothing else this thread has given justification to all the people who say that cops believe themselves to be special class. Even though that is not the case with most, all it takes is one being very vocal pushing that concept to convince many people that is the case.

[EMP3]

Where did you learn this.

If there is madness, this would be it: "Private property owner can tell you to pound sand for any reason whatsoever..."

[eta34]

Where did you learn this.

If there is madness, this would be it: "Private property owner can tell you to pound sand for any reason whatsoever..."

You can't be this obtuse.

[EMP3]

Here's how I see this playing out: a venue, Dodger Stadium for instance, will deny entry to an off-duty cop who's protected by CPC 25450. A ticket is a contract, an invitation to attend a baseball game. A cop, knowing that LAPD cops are performing as assigned, will comply. They're brothers, and one will know that the other is performing as ordered. The aggrieved cop sue the LA Dodgers for depriving him of his rights under CPC 25450. My guess is the Dodgers will settle out of court.

The California Penal Code is the definitive criminal code in CA. Unless found unconstitutional, its laws are controlling.

One would be operating to his very severe detriment to assume the CA Penal Code does not apply on private property.

CPC 25450 is unequivocal: all cops, on & off duty have RIGHT to carry concealed handguns. Honorably retired cops have that identical RIGHT. Legislative intent was to allow cops to protect themselves from fatal retribution arising from practice of their profession.

Do not confuse CCW laws with CPC 25450. The latter is an exemption of the former.

There is no private property exception to CPC 25450. If a cop is in a place in which he has a legal right (invited onto property to conduct business), he has a right to possess a concealed handgun.

This is not a personal issue. It's not a private property issue. It is a supremacy issue: the California Penal Code is superior to private property interests. A criminal would not be immune from arrest by claiming private property interest.

CCW laws are not germane to CPC 25450, for CPC 25450 clearly states that cops are EXEMPT from CCW laws.

I would caution those who intend to proceed according to beliefs that are not consistent with law. Cops do not enforce beliefs nor do they enforce business policy. In this case, the law is clear. If private property interests superseded CPC 25450, it would have be codified within the section. If it's not codified, it's not law. In this case, there is no law that prevents a cop covered by CPC 25450 from carrying a concealed weapon anywhere within CA, assuming he has a legal right to enter private property; e.g., attend a Dodgers game.

A few posters have strongly held beliefs about private property immunity from penal code authority. I'd urge you to rethink that belief. It might be wise to invest in a high-end criminal defense attorney's time. I can definitively tell you that the California Penal Code applies everywhere within CA, including inside of your homes. It is the primary controlling authority of CA law. I'd recommend caution about operating from prejudice when interacting with an armed off-duty cop. Forcing an armed off-duty cop from a business due to prejudice, business policy, etc., would violate rights granted to him by law and codified within California Penal Code Section 25450.

If there were a private property exception to CPC 25450, it would have be legislatively enacted. Were we to think reasonably and logically, we'd arrive at rationale for not excluding private property within CPC 25450. Politicians would be at extreme risk of finding real jobs were they to grant restaurants authority to deny off-duty cops right to carry while dining, and while dining a banger whom he had arrested a week prior murdered a defenseless cop.

There was sound legislative reason for exempting cops from CCW laws.

BTW, while I'm in possession of retirement credentials, I couldn't tell you the last time I've carried. I live in a very safe area. My intent was flesh out knowledge. Anything less won't suffice.

Keep in mind that I share DNA with an internationally known criminal defense attorney who has represented famous clients including the brother of a well known Disney executive and others in the entertainment industry. He has categorically told me that no one has authority to invalidate supremacy of the California Penal Code. He has told me it would be illegal for anyone to interfere with rights granted to cops as codified by CPC 25450. And no, private property isn't completely private. Businesses have to comply with federal, state, and local laws, and and a business license grants implied consent to regulatory inspection; e.g., health department restaurant inspections.

Socratic inquiry based upon reason, logic, and civility will flesh out knowledge. We're after knowledge. Anything less is opinion

[EMP3]

You can't be this obtuse.

What part is giving you difficulty?

[EMP3]

If nothing else this thread has given justification to all the people who say that cops believe themselves to be special class. Even though that is not the case with most, all it takes is one being very vocal pushing that concept to convince many people that is the case.

Cops are sworn to enforce law. They are given legal authority to practice their profession consistent with law. Calling cops a special class is pejorative. It is an elite class that operates consistent with law.

Cops are granted legal authority to carry guns in order to protect themselves from retribution arising from the performance of their duties. Its very common for cops to be threatened with murder by criminals they've arrested. Not granting cops legal authority to defend themselves when they're most vulnerable would be insanity.

[esy]

[eta34]

Perhaps you should be the test case then. Seems that there are literally hundreds of private businesses "violating the law daily." Theme parks, sports stadiums, concert venues, etc. All of those places routinely deny off-duty officers the ability to carry firearms in their respective venues. You say you have retirement credentials...go make your case. It is curious that if these places were truly violating the law, no major police union has filed suit.

You have also referenced your DNA relation to some high-powered attorney. If you are so confident in his opinion, why not state his name? Why does your relation to him/her provide you with any credibility?

[code_blue]

Ya know, even in free states with constitutional open and concealed carry, private business owners can still put up signs not allowing firearms on/in the premises. The patrons must comply or risk being asked to leave and face trespassing charges for refusing if the authorities get involved.

Also, the "murder on private property" analogy... it's bad. There is a big difference between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes. Mala in se crimes are never OK (assuming the mens rea is present); anytime or anywhere. Mala prohibita crimes have a lot more flexibility in operation and practical application.

[Samuelx]

Perhaps you should be the test case then. Seems that there are literally hundreds of private businesses "violating the law daily." Theme parks, sports stadiums, concert venues, etc. All of those places routinely deny off-duty officers the ability to carry firearms in their respective venues. You say you have retirement credentials...go make your case. It is curious that if these places were truly violating the law, no major police union has filed suit.

You have also referenced your DNA relation to some high-powered attorney. If you are so confident in his opinion, why not state his name? Why does your relation to him/her provide you with any credibility?

This, that, and the other thing!

If we're going to keep going round and round, let's at least make it interesting:

[pacrat]

And "Samuelx" is declared the winner of the most interesting circular post.

[Yodaman]

And "Samuelx" is declared the winner of the most interesting circular post.

Lol