California Patrol Units........

[mdrdep]

From the L.A. County Code:

17.04.620 Firearms and other weapons.

A person shall not bring into, discharge, or shoot any firearms, air gun, slingshot, or bow and arrow in any park except at areas designated for such purpose by the director. (Ord. 10729 § 7, 1973: Ord. 10309 Art. 3 § 34, 1971.)

[mdrdep]

Believe it or not I could not find any local ordinances in West Hollywood or the County Code that prohibit the open carry of an unloaded firearm. However the open carry of knives is prohibited in both areas. What that tells me is these local governments have not passed such an ordinance because it has never been an issue. Most of them probably assume it is already illegal. So the only thing an "Open Carry Rally" would do is bring this oversight to the attention of the local officials who would probably respond by passing such an ordinance lickety split.......

[Wanna Be Cop]

Parks are one thing, but we are talking about people carrying on the streets and into stores.

Did you see how cilvians reacted to those people who carried their weapons into the zoo. The Zoo staff had to call the police just to see if that was legal for them to bring firearms inside.

I wonder if these people who do carry weapons openly are obligated to take a life if a violent crime occur in their presence because they are armed with a firearm? I can see this case in court now.

[LA DEP]

All you need to find is ONE round of ammunition that is even remotely accessible to the person in possession of the weapon.....its now considered loaded........

These fools need to realize something.....CA is a VERY non-gun friendly state....and they arent helping one iota in reversing that trend.....

MDR......I would swear on a stack of bibles that WHD had such an ordinance....because we ARRESTED someone for it......of course, it was back in the dark ages of the very early 90s.......

I'm wondering if it got bounced along with their version of the AWB and SNS ban that they had until it was successfully challenged in court......that would have been in the late 90s/early 2000s.......

[LA DEP]

Parks are one thing, but we are talking about people carrying on the streets and into stores.

Did you see how cilvians reacted to those people who carried their weapons into the zoo. The Zoo staff had to call the police just to see if that was legal for them to bring firearms inside.

I wonder if these people who do carry weapons openly are obligated to take a life if a violent crime occur in their presence because they are armed with a firearm? I can see this case in court now.

NOPE.......no civilian is obligated to do ANYTHING to stop or prevent a crime from occurring......

[nobodyjr]

All you need to find is ONE round of ammunition that is even remotely accessible to the person in possession of the weapon.....its now considered loaded........
.

wrong.
12031 g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or
shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip
thereof attached to the firearm.


Your definition of loaded applies to possession of a gun and ammo while committing a felony or being involved in a gang. And it's only an enhancement not a charge. For a normal citizens with a registered gun the gun actually has to be loaded (mag in the chamber). It's based on People V clark case law. The open carry guys are carrying mags in the left pocket and guns on the right side. It's legal based on case law- as crazy as it seems.



I'm not a supporter of open carry nor against it. But it's their right and they aren't violating the law (if they are doing it as they claim). Roughing them up and making up bs charges is crap.

And to add to that, getting roughed up and getting false charges placed on them is exactly what some of the extremist open carry guys want to happen. They are looking to nail some department in a lawsuit and make a name for their cause and some $$$$

[LA DEP]

wrong.
12031 g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or
shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip
thereof attached to the firearm.


Your definition of loaded applies to possession of a gun and ammo while committing a felony or being involved in a gang. And it's only an enhancement not a charge. For a normal citizens with a registered gun the gun actually has to be loaded (mag in the chamber). It's based on People V clark case law. The open carry guys are carrying mags in the left pocket and guns on the right side. It's legal based on case law- as crazy as it seems.



I'm not a supporter of open carry nor against it. But it's their right and they aren't violating the law (if they are doing it as they claim). Roughing them up and making up bs charges is crap.

And to add to that, getting roughed up and getting false charges placed on them is exactly what some of the extremist open carry guys want to happen. They are looking to nail some department in a lawsuit and make a name for their cause and some $$$$

ummmmm....no

The definition of 'loaded' is whatever the judge says it is.......

There are a couple of cases (one in CA, one somewhere back east) that the judge ruled exactly as described.......in one of the cases, the weapon (and ammo) were together in a unlocked case.....the ammo WAS NOT in the weapon......but it was deemed 'loaded'.......

A DA that I dealt with a few years ago stated the same thing....and FILED a case based on a similar type incident....which the guy PLEAD OUT to.....

I do agree that these knuckleheads are looking for a lawsuit......but it is most likely going to be for wrongfull death.....not false arrest.....

They have ZERO sympathy from me......and I am to the right of Attila the Hun on gun rights stuff....as well as a Patron Member of the NRA.....

[nobodyjr]

this is the Sac PD training memo:

** High Priority **

It has come to my attention that a gun rights group in the Sacramento area may attempt to test officers' knowledge on the firearms laws. Recently an individual called the Sacramento Police Department and inquired about carrying an unloaded handgun in a holster on his belt in public. The caller reported he was told it was illegal and could be arrested. Members of a group known as Open Carry have suggested going to a Sacramento restaurant wearing non-concealed pistols on their belts.

They have indicated someone will call the police and report a subject is wearing a firearm. When police arrive someone from the group will be secretly videotaping the police contact with the armed subject. It seems the group's goal is to have an officer arrest the person for 12025 or seize their firearm and then use the video in a civil law suit against the police officer.

The following are some firearms laws that may apply if confronted with a subject wearing a pistol in a belt holster:

PC 12025 (f), unloaded firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of section 12025.

PC 12025 only applies to concealable firearms, which is defined in PC12001(a) as a pistol, revolver or firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches. There is nothing prohibiting someone from carrying an unloaded, concealed rifle or shotgun on their person or in their vehicle unless the barrel is less than 16 inches.

PC 12031(g), A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm. **Case law now states the ammunition must be in a position from which is can be fired (People. v. Clark)

PC 12031(e), in order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

In "People v. Clark" (1996), the California Court of Appeal clarified that in order to be "loaded" a firearm must have ammunition "placed into a position from which it can be fired." It even went so far as to point out as an example of what is not loaded to include shells attached to a shotgun inside a buttstock shell carrier. ** There is a common misconception that merely possessing both a firearm and ammunition in close proximity legally equates to loaded. This mistake stems from several PC sections that do not apply to PC 12031. 12001(j) only applies to 12023 (carry with intent to commit a felony). 12025(b)(6)(A) is a sentence enhancement which only applies if one violates 12025 (carrying concealed).

Scenario: a person is walking down the street with an unloaded pistol carried openly on their belt. There is a loaded magazine for the pistol located next to the pistol in a magazine pouch. You run the pistol through the automated firearm system and there is no dealer record of sale. ** NOT a violation of PC 12025 or PC 12031.

Scenario: a person is walking down the street with a shotgun (18 inch barrel) under their coat. **NOT a 12025 violation.

Scenario: a person walking down the street has a pistol worn openly on their belt with a loaded magazine inserted into the pistol, but no round in the chamber. You run the firearm and there is a dealer record of sale to the suspect. Suspect has no criminal history. **misdemeanor violation of PC 12031. Note: If there is no dealer record of sale for the firearm or the dealer record of sale is not in the suspect's name the charge can be elevated to a felony PC 12031(a)(2)(f).

Remember that in any scenario PC 12031(e) gives you the authority to detain the person so you can inspect the firearm per PC 12031(e). Unless you develop additional probable cause, the length of the detention will be limited to the time required to inspect the firearm.

** With the exception of assault weapons, there is no law that requires a handgun or long gun to be registered with the California Department of Justice. The DOJ registration language found in PC 12025(b)(6) and 12031(a)(2)(f) is a sentencing enhancement if you already have a PC 12025 or PC 12031 violation.

[gonzo1510]

This is not a smart move. CCW is the only smart way to carry if your not wearing a uniform.

From what I understand Chief Bratton and Sheriff Baca do not issue them.. It's like trying to squeeze blood from a stone

[LA DEP]

Again, I disagree with some of their points above....as I have CHARGED (and the DA filed) for the non-registered handgun in possession section......and (if I remember correctly) that was the only charge filed......

Is the 'People V Clark' the most RECENT decision regarding this?.....the arrest (and conviction) was after this.....around 2000 or so......

[LA DEP]

From what I understand Chief Bratton and Sheriff Baca do not issue them.. It's like trying to squeeze blood from a stone

Correct....you are wasting the paper to even apply for one.....

One of the IE coppers on here said that they are not as uncommon there....not sure if Riverside or SB.....

[LA DEP]

At least for me....the bottom line is this:

They will be treated as armed suspects.....they will be charged to the fullest extent of the law (which could very well be....nothing).......if they come in the area again, they get to have a very close look of the sidewalk....again.......

I hope they realize how close they are to death, each and every time they pull this BS?.......all it is going to take is for one of them to twitch wrong, or one of US to interpret what may be an innocent move as something else.....

[jato]

Depending on the nature of the contact, I would not sweat other citizens wearing guns in holsters. I have been to several calls this year where other people were armed in my presence. For me, it is all about context. If I were reacting to a felony or violent crime in progress, people will likely get proned out.

But then again I don't work in a war zone and high percentage of people in my area own guns (rural unincorporated). They all know if you dial 911, you may wait 15-30 minutes for a deputy. I once responded to a shooting and it took me 30 minutes driving code 3. I was the first law enforcement unit to arrive. YMMV.

[jato]

PC 12031 g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm.

The above is the standard we use in San Diego County. A firearm with an empty chamber and a loaded magazine sitting on the same car seat is considered unloaded. The ammo must not touch the gun.

Additionally, per our DA liaison, PC 12031 does not apply to legal shooting areas within the unincorporated county.

12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when
he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a
prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

[Mike1904]

I saw the videos on that website and my mouth dropped. I don't see this happening in L.A County.... Maybe Riverside County though due to the rural areas.

Yeah good luck trying to do that in Moreno Valley, the City of Riverside, Murrietta, Perris, Indio, Coachella, or even the rich neighborhoods in Palm Desert or Palm Springs.