California Open Carry

[Liberty1]

Hello all!

This is a great resource for open carrying in California: Link Removed

Carry On!

 

[maybejim]

If you read the law you find for all practical purposes Open Carry is illegal in Kalifornia. The law says you can carry an unloaded gun. What's the purpose of carrying an unloaded gun?

Now case law (or so I have been informed in the classes I have taken) is that a handgun is considered loaded if you have ammunition for it anywhere on your body (or in a bag you are carrying).

So no, for all practical purposes you can not open carry in Kalifornia.

 

[Liberty1]

If you read the law you find for all practical purposes Open Carry is illegal in Kalifornia. The law says you can carry an unloaded gun. What's the purpose of carrying an unloaded gun?

Now case law (or so I have been informed in the classes I have taken) is that a handgun is considered loaded if you have ammunition for it anywhere on your body (or in a bag you are carrying).

So no, for all practical purposes you can not open carry in Kalifornia.

Yes in incorporated cities no ammunition is allowed to be in the firearm (this includes the magazine attached to the firearm). Loaded open carry is not prohibited in unincorporated territory (People vs Knight) (except where discharge of a firearm is prohibited by law - any discharge prohibition triggers the loaded prohibition in state law) PC 12031.

However, loaded mags or speed loaders carried separately from the firearm are not prohibited unless one is engaged in a felony crime (PC 12023). Otherwise possession of ammunition which is not in a possition to be fired (People vs Clark) is not generally prohibited (excepting PC 171c - the state capitol grounds).

An unloaded openly carried holstered handgun with separate loaded mags (or one unloaded and lawfully concealed in a locked case or quick open safe in the car) is only seconds away from being loaded and is a bit more useful then one at home in the safe.

Yes you'll need to excuse this stupid law which the bad guys don't obey but exercising this where one can not get a CCW (issuance is discretionary) or to help teach others and police about CA carry laws is a step forward in reclaiming our infringed carry Rights.

 

[maybejim]

However, loaded mags or speed loaders carried separately from the firearm are not prohibited unless one is engaged in a felony crime (PC 12023). Otherwise possession of ammunition which is not in a position to be fired (People vs Clark) is not generally prohibited (excepting PC 171c - the state capitol grounds).

According to two different (retired cops) instructors that I have had, carrying a loaded mag on your body with an open carry gun will get you arrested and charged. You may beat it (they say some have not) but it will cost you a bundle.

So again, I say for all practical purposes open carry is not legal in Kalifornia.

Now yes, if you are out hunting, or out in the middle of nowhere, you might not be hassled and you might not be arrested. But you will be relying on a cop knowing the law. I just read a story of a guy being arrested and hauled in by a deputy sheriff. He was let off but it still cost him a day and a hassle.

An unloaded openly carried holstered handgun with separate loaded mags (or one unloaded and lawfully concealed in a locked case or quick open safe in the car) is only seconds away from being loaded and is a bit more useful then one at home in the safe.

Well there you go, ask the BG to hang on while you go back to your trunk (you can't carry inside the passenger compartment or within reach of the driver/passengers if there is no trunk), unlock your case, load your magazine, load the gun, and shoot the guy while he's laughing his behind off at your actions.

I'm not really talking about the law but rather practicality and reality.

 

[Liberty1]

I'm not really talking about the law...

I am talking about the law and I enforce it too. I'm sworn as a municipal police officer (PC 830.1). If any officer wishes to engage in a false arrest then they are opening their department to a civil suit and if they knew it was a false arrest then they are subject to a prosecution.

And following incorporation of the 2nd A. against the states, as might happen shortly in the 9th Circuit with Nordyke vs King, depts will be subject to a very expensive US Code 42 section 1983 civil rights suit for engaging in false arrests.

The link I posted has numerous dept. memos advising their personnel that unloaded open carry with separate loaded mags is legal on foot and in a vehicle in incorporated cities and the prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

PC 12031 (loaded prohibited) does cramp the OC style quite a bit I'll grant you. But understanding the state of current law does allow those willing to take what lawful steps they might for personal self defense AND push the activist envelope on 2nd A. issues.

 

[Liberty1]

If you're in CA then also check out Calguns.net

 

[maybejim]

Talk along but if you're just a poor peon citizen and open carry in Kalifornia, you are in for a heap of woe.

Link Removed

It is unlawful to carry a loaded rifle, shotgun, or
handgun in any public place or on any public street in
an incorporated area or an area where firing a firearm is
prohibited. In California, a firearm is considered loaded
if unexpended ammunition capable of being used in the
firearm is attached in any manner to the firearm. The
following persons and situations are exceptions:
• persons shooting on target ranges, or while hunting
on the premises of a shooting club.​

• a person who reasonably believes that he or his


My understanding is there has been at least one case where the judge ruled that having ammunition on your body was having it "attached" to the gun.

There's the "law" as written and the "law" as practiced. The Constitution as written says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but you know and I know that is not the law as practiced. The same is true for Open Carry in Kalifornia.

I have neither the money nor the interest to challenge the "law" as practiced on Open Carry in Kalifornia. If you do, jump to it but I recommend the average peon citizen not do it unless they have lot's of money and lots of time to donate to the protection of our gun rights.

 

[Liberty1]

My understanding is there has been at least one case where the judge ruled that having ammunition on your body was having it "attached" to the gun.

Citation please?

People vs Clark is the controlling case law - the court found that a person who was in possession of meth was not also in violation of having a loaded firearm with a shotgun with ammunition attached via a butt stock holder.

That court also found that a firearm is not loaded unless it is loaded in a position from which ammunition can be fired.

This was from a CA Appellate Court and is binding on all other sister courts and all lower trial courts and can only be overturned by the CA SC.

As for UOC (unloaded open carry) not being for everyone at this time in CA, I agree. But for those willing to stack the deck in their favor (recording device, friendly witnesses, OC brochures, knowing the law and knowing they are not in a prohibited zone etc...) there is the possibility for ground to be taken on the RKBA's front in CA. LEOs are being educated about the law and for those who fail to take notice there is civil court action to get their attention.

The Calguns Foundation and it's Calguns.net members have been active in supporting it's members who have decided to reclaim their rights under the law.

Together we are stronger.

 

[DarrellM5]

Way too many gray areas for me. There's too much chance of unknowingly violating some sort of law.

To summarize, it's too confusing, which is probably the way they want it.

 

[S&WM&P40]

recording device

Then we get into another law ( CA wiretap law/Privacy Act) The California wiretap act prohibits the recording of communications if one or more parties reasonably believe the communication is not being recorded or overheard
So you would have to tell the person/LEO hey I'M auto recording this. At such time they could tell you turn it off or walk away or arrest you if you do not turn it off. Any tapes you get that you do not let the person know you are recording will be thrown out and you can be sued. Flanagan v. Flanagan, March 14, 2002. California's Invasion of Privacy Act prohibits the recording of "confidential communications" unless all parties to the conversation consent. The California lower courts have reached different conclusions about what constitutes a "confidential communication." Some have endorsed the view that "a conversation is confidential only if the party has an objectively reasonable expectation that the content will not later be divulged to third parties." Under this reading of the statute, a news source who knows he or she is talking to a reporter generally expects that the contents of the conversation will be disclosed -- unless there is a promise of confidentiality, of course. Thus a reporter would have been able to record such a conversation without first obtaining the source's consent.

The California Supreme Court rejected this definition, however, holding that a conversation is confidential if a party to that conversation "has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded," regardless of whether a reasonable person would expect the contents of that conversation to be divulged to others. The court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the exact nature of the stepson's expectations regarding the recorded conversations.

Although the California case did not involve a media defendant, the ruling likely will be applied to reporters engaged in newsgathering. Under the new standard, the surreptitious recording of any conversation with a source -- even when the source knows he or she is talking "on the record" to a reporter -- may give rise to liability under California's Privacy Act if the source later can show that he or she reasonably believed the conversation would not be tape recorded. If everyone participating in the conversation consents to the recording, however, then the act does not apply.

All in all i would not Go to LA/CA if you paid for the trip for me. I would not test the laws as the cops on that side of the country like to use knight sticks to get the point across.

 

[wuzfuz]

Why in the blue Susie would anyone in their right mind carry an unloaded weapon in a holster in plain view? He might as well wear one of those sandwich signs stating, "Hey, gangbangers! Free gun here, just take it." On the other hand, if I read the stated law correctly, I can buy an SKS rifle and walk down the street in LA with it on my hip and if confronted by a cop, I could tell him, " it's okay, it's unloaded."who would be dumb enough to confront a person carrying what looks like an AK-47? ROFL Thank you, but I will just avoid Caliphony.

 

[maybejim]

Citation please?

I don't have one but it was mentioned by 2 different instructors who were both retired LAPD Police Officers. Could they be wrong? Of course but if two who are instructors (for Security Guard cards and CCW and Utah Carry Permits) have the wrong information, so will a lot of other even less informed active Police Officers.

Now there was a suggestion of Open Carry in a vehicle. I'm pretty sure that will get you arrested and hauled in (possibly not convicted but it still gives you a record and costs you a bundle).

According to the Summary of California Gun Laws & Basic Safety Rules from the CRPA:

"With certain exceptions, a concealed handgun can legally be transported within a motor vehicle without a permit only by carrying it: 1) unloaded: and 2) locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a separate locked container other than the utility or glove compartment. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, it must be carried in a locked container separate from the utility or glove compartment. Ammunition cannot be attached to the handgun in any manner..."

"The legal authorization to transport a concealed handgun without a permit unloaded and in a motor vehicle's trunk or a separate locked container in Penal Code Section 12026.1 applies only while going to or from the specific places, and for the specific purposes, identified in Penal Code Section 12062.2 (going hunting, to or from a range, etc.)...

Technically, as long as the handgun is not loaded and is not even partially concealed from view in any way (such as half way under the seat or being concealed inside a holster or a non-locking gun case) the answer is yes. But this manner of transporting a handgun may result in unnecessary problems and legal expenses...."

That's not a battle I am presently interested in fighting (I presently have a carry permit).

As for UOC (unloaded open carry) not being for everyone at this time in CA, I agree. But for those willing to stack the deck in their favor (recording device, friendly witnesses, OC brochures, knowing the law and knowing they are not in a prohibited zone etc...) there is the possibility for ground to be taken on the RKBA's front in CA. LEOs are being educated about the law and for those who fail to take notice there is civil court action to get their attention.

Personally I'd like to see it fought as unconstitutional to declare that the gun carried in open carry for sure and probably concealed, to be illegal. I have too little money and too little time to pursue that avenue on my own however.

The Calguns Foundation and it's Calguns.net members have been active in supporting it's members who have decided to reclaim their rights under the law.

I guess we have to start somewhere. However I'm not a fan of open carry and really see no purpose in open carry of an unloaded gun.

 

[Liberty1]

That's not a battle I am presently interested in fighting (I presently have a carry permit).

Personally I'd like to see it fought as unconstitutional to declare that the gun carried in open carry for sure and probably concealed, to be illegal. I have too little money and too little time to pursue that avenue on my own however.

I guess we have to start somewhere. However I'm not a fan of open carry and really see no purpose in open carry of an unloaded gun.

I'll start with being happy with just your moral support and knowing that you're now a little more familiar with CA's often confusing gun laws.. Do however stop by calguns.net and see what an "Army of Davids" has accomplished against Goliath (CA DOJ and misinformed LEOs and DAs) in regards to Open Carry, (OLLs) Off List Lower rifles - AR-15, AKs, etc... and soon we will be taking on the State's bogus "safe" handgun roster!!!

We also raised about $80,000 for the fight in the last 6 mo of 2008!

 

[maybejim]

That's good! I have gone to calguns and will be back.

 

[AZSATT]

Can CA LEO's Carry Off Duty??

Fortunately, I'm happily ignorant of the California gun laws, and trust I won't ever have to know them.

But, as a former LEO (MI) myself I have to wonder, can't a credential-carrying off-duty LEO carry while off-duty in CA??

 

[maybejim]

Fortunately, I'm happily ignorant of the California gun laws, and trust I won't ever have to know them.

But, as a former LEO (MI) myself I have to wonder, can't a credential-carrying off-duty LEO carry while off-duty in CA??

Yes they can carry, they are a special government agent and not subject to many of the Kalifornia laws that apply to the peon civilians.

 

[Liberty1]

Fortunately, I'm happily ignorant of the California gun laws, and trust I won't ever have to know them.

But, as a former LEO (MI) myself I have to wonder, can't a credential-carrying off-duty LEO carry while off-duty in CA??

Yes, full time peace officers, under state law can carry even if they are not allowed to carry on duty such as in the case of some state prison guards.

Orange County Employees Association vs Orange County is an CA Appellate Court case where it was determined that state peace officer's status (which is held by municiple and county peace officers) conveyed by the legislature (with includes some off duty responsibilities such as enforcing ABC code and accepting a private persons arrest) superseded an employers interest in regulating off duty firearm carry.

And there are not a few AG opinions along the same thought process which were cited by the court.

 

[CitaDeL]

Why Open Carry in California?

Hello fellow gun rights advocates.

For my first post on USA Carry, it seems that I must explain my activism and advocacy of open carry in California.

In my search for freedom and knowledge, I asked around to those people who I thought would know about whether exposed carry was legal in California. Many, including law enforcement and "CCW" instructors, said it was illegal, yet could not cite a specific prohibition. There isnt one. There is however, a labyrinth of restrictions and exemptions which when navigated, allow a person to exercise the most basic human right- that of armed self-defense.

Having carried concealed under the privledge of a license since the mid 1990's, I was no newcomer to being armed. The appeal of being able to exercise the right, unadulterated by the permission of a public servant, has and continues to be a very satisfying pursuit. It was in 2006, after consulting with a local attorney, that I began carrying a firearm exposed in a belt holster. In retrospect this attorney's understanding of the issue was about an inch deep, but they did confirm my understanding of the penal code. An exposed firearm carried in a belt holster is not concealed and not a violation of the law. A firearm without ammunition in a position to fire, is not in most instances a "loaded weapon" and therefore not a violation of the law.

I carrried at regular intervals for about a year before I had any police interaction. I was detained for about ten minutes by city police officers who confirmed that the method I was carrying my firearm was indeed legal, albeit uncommon. This anecdote seemed to reassure others in the burgeoning open carry community and others imitated this method of carry with varying results. So far, I am aware of about 10 similar police interactions with open carry advocates in California, none of which has resulted in a conviction of any crime. As a result of this form of activism there have been no fewer than seven memos both from departmental and organizational sources detailing for law enforcement the lawfulness of exposed carry.

The movement continues to advance and the likelhood that open carry will be used a powerful tool to push authorities for shall issue LTC is growing. Given that Californians are on the cusp of securing the 2nd as a right, we will require some means to exercise it- Since "CCW"/LTC is a revocable privledge, then open carry must be the unrestrained right.

Why would anyone carry an unloaded weapon?

To comply with the law. Given the choice, I would prefer a loaded weapon- but better to have an unloaded weapon with magazines or speed loaders at hand than to be completely defenseless. I have practiced my presentation and loading- In about 4-5 seconds I am ready for bear.

To be the deterent. Even with an unloaded weapon, there is an effect on human behavior that cannot be obtained by carrying concealed. By carrying a semi-auto with an empty magazine in the well, the illusion is sufficient that any self-doubting criminal would rather run away that confront someone who by all appearances posesses lethal force.

To voice my dissent. There are no good gun prohibitions and by carrying my weapon I am protesting the laws that abridge my right to armed self-defense and legislators who would have me dependent upon police who have no obligation to protect me.

To be an ambassador for gun owners. By being a visiable gun owner, I dispel the myth that only police and criminals carry guns for protection. Average people own and carry guns- they go shopping for groceries, eat at restaurants, go to the movies, read books in the park, or shop for shoes in the mall. Their firearm is a tool, an accessory for their safety and the safety of their family, nothing more.

To advance the second amendment. By putting feet to my beliefs, others will follow to restore the rights we have allowed to be eroded by tyrants and traitors.

 

[Boomboy007]

Lead on, CitaDel!

Next time I am in Kalifornia, I shall endeavor to follow your lead. I trust you can refer a decent 2A lawyer?

:yes4:

 

[Liberty1]

Next time I am in Kalifornia, I shall endeavor to follow your lead. I trust you can refer a decent 2A lawyer?

:yes4:

They are few and far between (and very very busy preparing for post Nordyke suits).

While I won't ask that you not do something clearly legal and I would never discourage one from lawfully carrying for self defense, as an out of stater, I would encourage you to be aware of the difficulty of a non-resident successfully resisting a false arrest and getting your property back without huge expense.

After a full read of Link Removed and ALL the links and a study of our penal code, I'd feel more comfortable with what ever fully informed decision you make.

Carry On!