California Open Carry

[Liberty1]

Hello all!

This is a great resource for open carrying in California: californiaopencarry.org

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by maybejim

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.

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/CASL.pdf

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]

Originally Posted by maybejim

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.