Carrying on Private Property?

[PositiveInfluence]

I was mainly asking this so I know if I can or can not carry my gun out onto my property at night before I go to bed to check my field and make sure nobody is trespassing. This is routinely done at about 11PM to 1AM. I want to carry out there because the people I have run into commonly carry knives and other sharp objects, I want to be able to protect myself. And when I do carry on my property I make sure to have a less than lethal force on me such as pepper spray to not have to go straight to my firearm.

[kilrain]

I realize what the law states. I also know that there is some BAD case law out there too. Just talk to Thesus if you don't believe me. I know his case was a bit different but, the judge ruled that since the public can enter freely enter the private property, it is treated as "public property"!

Of course there is bad case law, there is also bad statutory law, bad enforcement of the law, etc. That is not really what was asked. 12026 is the statute that specifically addresses the carrying of firearms on private property and, according to the law, it is specifically allowed, or actually not specifically disallowed, for the owner of the property of the property to do so.

As previously stated, that doesn't mean you won't be hassled or arrested or even charged, it just means you have a very strong defense, criminally speaking, and possible grounds for a civil suit.

No more no less.

[kilrain]

I'm not trying to argue, here is just some food for thought.

People v. Yarbrough (2008)

and:

"When construing statutes forbidding certain behavior in a 'public place' or 'public area,' California courts have routinely held that privately-owned property can constitute a public place." (People v. Tapia, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1161.)

I'll make a quick comment before reading the case, based only on the quote. I promise I'll try to read the case later.

I understand that private property can be considered a public place and I believe it's properly called "private property open to the public," but that is semantics. Wal-Mart is private property yet it is considered a public place. A shopping mall is private property yet it is a public place. I've read case law, although I don't have the cite at this time, that said the thresh hold of the front door of your residence was considered public for the purpose of serving an arrest warrant. I get it but this situation is quite different and here is why.

Many time, courts don't have guidance when interpreting laws or the vagaries surrounding them, such as what is and what is not public, when it is and when it is not public, etc. For purposes of this situation, the court has a specific statutory law that defines the actions that are allowable, or, to be more precise, not disallowed.

In fact, the statute specifically allows/does not disallow a business owner to carry, concealed or not, at their place of business. So a nightclub owner can walk around his packed, alcohol serving establishment with a shotgun slung over his shoulder and a brace of six shooters, if he so chooses, and it's perfectly legal. It may not be the best way to attract the customers, but then again I ain't a business man.

As previously stated, discretion is usually the better part of valor however the law is pretty clear about this. The place where most people fail is that they violate other laws while not violating the one they are concentrating on. At least that's been my experience.

[CSDGuy]

If you're drunk, and you're in your house, and you go outside... guess what? You can be arrested for PC 647f because you're now "in public" even though you haven't stepped off your property.

[kilrain]

I'm not trying to argue, here is just some food for thought.

People v. Yarbrough (2008)

and:

"When construing statutes forbidding certain behavior in a 'public place' or 'public area,' California courts have routinely held that privately-owned property can constitute a public place." (People v. Tapia, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1161.)

Okay, read Yarbrough and it isn't even close to what we are talking about for several reasons. The most important reason, however, is that the defendant was not on private property owned or lawfully possessed by him. That simple fact precludes him from any protection afforded him by 12026 PC.

As for the quote from Tapia, I read that case also. After the quote, there are several examples of "private property" being open to, or considered, public for various reasons however none of them deals with what we are talking about here. I also reckon that none of them had to deal with a specific statutory law allowing/not disallowing a specific act, which is what 12026 PC does.

Thanks for the case law though, it is interesting sometimes.

[kilrain]

If you're drunk, and you're in your house, and you go outside... guess what? You can be arrested for PC 647f because you're now "in public" even though you haven't stepped off your property.

While it has nothing to do with what we are talking about here, I'll respond by saying........maybe/maybe not and so what?

You can also be hooked for public intoxication in a bar, which is also private property and a business designed to serve you alcohol.

Also, and again, there is no specific statute in California that allows/does not disallow someone being drunk on their own private property.

[PositiveInfluence]

I may be only 21 but I am not dumb enough to drink and carry my gun.

[kilrain]

I may be only 21 but I am not dumb enough to drink and carry my gun.

A wise choice!