Armed FFL employees

[jtmkinsd]

I think this is where it can get sticky...

The Legislature responded to the Melton decision (206 Cal.App.3d 580) by amending
Penal Code section 12026 to provide that a person may carry a concealable weapon
"either openly or concealed" in his or her place of business or residence.fn. 1
The Legislature also enacted an accompanying statement of purpose: "The purpose
of enacting this measure is to abrogate the holding in People v. Melton,
206 Cal.App.3d 580, insofar as that decision [234 Cal.App.3d Supp. 20] purports
to require the issuance of a concealed weapons permit in order to carry a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, whether
openly or concealed, within the places mentioned in Section 12026 of the Penal
Code, by an individual who has a proprietary, possessory, or substantial ownership
interest in the placeOnly those
employees who have the right to exclude others from their workplace, and the
right to control activities there, may carry concealed weapons at work without
a permit or license.


I can see a DA having all kinds of fun with these restrictions. The "public" areas of the store? The "possessory interest" needed...A legal opinion would be nice...but in the end, it wouldn't mean you wouldn't have a gigantic headache on your hands if something went wrong.

[tube snake boogie]

You need to become familiar with the peculiar case of People vs Overturf. See the wiki entry: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...oncealed_Carry

Interesting Decision in 1976. One wonders if the result would be the same now, given that in 1970s the CASC held the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment.
Thank goodness I live within a fenced and gated community. Ironic how those that do have "greater" second amendment rights than apartment/condo dwellers and the like.

[Librarian]

So, my summary of the law and the case law runs this way - note there are those who disagree, and without a clarifying judicial opinion, my summary is just free electrons ...

(1) and (2) apparently are simply true.
1) owners or those with possessory interest can carry concealed and loaded inside their very own businesses.

2) with the permission of an owner, as (1), employees in that business may possess loaded handguns. Possess, however, does not necessarily include carry.

3) I think (1) and (2) combined allow employees OPEN LOADED carry but not concealed carry.

Without CCW, all 3 apply only inside the lockable doors of the shop - not sidewalk or parking lot or taking trash out back.

Seems to me that I recall River City in Sac, back in the 70s, had a locked front door; one had to knock for admission. And every staff person inside was open carrying.

I spent an hour or two on Lexis some time back, and I could not find any opinions on point.

[ElectronWrangler]

AAA Sporting Goods in Vallejo has a locked door that you have to be buzzed through. Everyone inside is carrying.
EW

[Capt. Speirs]

Parking lot is a "private property"

Check for school zone!

[paul0660]

Thank goodness I live within a fenced and gated community

Unless yours is the only family living in that gated area, once you step outside your door you are in a public accessible area.

[inbox485]

I don't think so. that is like saying you cannot carry a weapon on the parking lot of your home cause the mailman or Avon lady can walk on it to knock on your door.
what statute or case law do you cite to support your position, or are you just guessing/assuming?

Me thinks you have some homework to do. There are lots of private properties that are still public places.

[pullnshoot25]

I don't think so. that is like saying you cannot carry a weapon on the parking lot of your home cause the mailman or Avon lady can walk on it to knock on your door.
what statute or case law do you cite to support your position, or are you just guessing/assuming?

It is written into the code as to what defines a public or private space.

Do thy homework.

[BillCA]

It is written into the code as to what defines a public or private space.

Do thy homework.

Good luck on that.
I've tried searching most of the applicable codes and even CCR for a definition of "public place". Nada. Zip, Zero. Zilch. If someone knows where it resides, a code & section number would be good.

[pullnshoot25]

Re: Armed FFL employees

It is written into the code as to what defines a public or private space.

Do thy homework.

Good luck on that.
I've tried searching most of the applicable codes and even CCR for a definition of "public place". Nada. Zip, Zero. Zilch. If someone knows where it resides, a code & section number would be good.

If I get to it before librarian posts, then I will post it up.

[inbox485]

Here's a couple. Case law on left. My rantings and annotations on right. Relevant code references within.

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AX9Wq5IwKUx5ZHh2NHFqaF8xMGZod24zcmZw&hl=en

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AX9Wq5IwKUx5ZHh2NHFqaF8zZnYzZjQ3Zjk&hl=en

[BillCA]

Here's a couple. Case law on left. My rantings and annotations on right. Relevant code references within.

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AX9Wq5IwKUx5ZHh2NHFqaF8xMGZod24zcmZw&hl=en

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0A...zZjQ3Zjk&hl=en

The first document deals with a public sidewalk (an easement) and not the issue of typically understood private property. I would expect that any part of the property that is publicly maintained by a .Gov agency would legally be public property or a public place.

The 2nd document was not accessible using your credentials.

The oxymoron here is that the courts claim you must have a possessory interest in the property -- i.e. the ability to use it to the exclusion of others -- which seems to imply that your front lawn is not a public place because you may exclude others from it (602pc).

The additional silliness is when courts claim that a fence and gate are required to show this exclusion. In so far as I can determine, said gate does not need to be locked to exclude others.

It seems that the .gov wants it both ways. Your front yard or parking lot is your property, your responsibility, your liability, yet, you may not enjoy it to its full benefit -- i.e. wearing your holstered pistol while mowing the lawn -- because it forms a "public place". This strikes me as a subtle 5th amendment violation in that it "takes" your property rights and devalues your property. If one's property is 850 feet from curb to doorstep, does this mean anywhere on the front property is a "public place"?

[inbox485]

The first document deals with a public sidewalk (an easement) and not the issue of typically understood private property. I would expect that any part of the property that is publicly maintained by a .Gov agency would legally be public property or a public place.

The 2nd document was not accessible using your credentials.

The oxymoron here is that the courts claim you must have a possessory interest in the property -- i.e. the ability to use it to the exclusion of others -- which seems to imply that your front lawn is not a public place because you may exclude others from it (602pc).

The additional silliness is when courts claim that a fence and gate are required to show this exclusion. In so far as I can determine, said gate does not need to be locked to exclude others.

It seems that the .gov wants it both ways. Your front yard or parking lot is your property, your responsibility, your liability, yet, you may not enjoy it to its full benefit -- i.e. wearing your holstered pistol while mowing the lawn -- because it forms a "public place". This strikes me as a subtle 5th amendment violation in that it "takes" your property rights and devalues your property. If one's property is 850 feet from curb to doorstep, does this mean anywhere on the front property is a "public place"?

No idea what is wrong with the second link. It is set to share with everyone, but it isn't working that way. The case was:
People v. Overturf , 64 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1
In a nut shell, it covers the differences between "have" and "carry" in 12025 and 12031.

[Librarian]

Already posted the link to the Wiki UCC article and it has the links to Overturf, Yarbrough and Strider.

There's no general definition of 'public place' for firearms in PC; there are a couple of sections where 'public place' is defined for other things.

[tube snake boogie]

It is obvious that a Public Place will depend upon the facts and circumstances, and of course the justices who are hearing the case at that time (funny how that works). I tend to believe that the 1976 Overturf decision is overly broad (note no other court has broadened it to a SFR, and it is an old case ripe for reconsideration) and that if anyone CC in their front yard of a SFR (not an apt), I am confident that would be fine.
Now, commercial property, which is what a store or an apartment is, a sidewalk which is public property, etc., is really a different story.
I'd be willing to bet on it, I do everyday...

cheers!