Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 06-04-2014, 8:09 AM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

This is the response I received this morning from Metrolink. Looks like they're a no-go.

Quote:
Dear Mr. Steadyrock,

Thank you for contacting us through our website.

Please know that passengers are not permitted to carry firearms on Metrolink trains. However, an Armored Guard can carry a weapon to and from work on a public conveyance, while in uniform, with the weapon safely holstered and clearly visible; weapons cannot be concealed. The person must have a state-issued guard card available to present to any law enforcement representative upon request.

If you have additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us via our website at www.metrolinktrains.com or telephone our Customer Service Center at 1-800-371-5465 (LINK).

Sincerely,

Metrolink Customer Engagement
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 06-04-2014, 11:21 AM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,324
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steadyrock View Post
This is the response I received this morning from Metrolink. Looks like they're a no-go.
I'm hoping you understand the difference between 'does XYZ have rules about or desire you not to carry' vs legal/illegal conduct.

The response you received from Metrolink is about what they want; not about the legality. Ultimately the legal answer to your question is whether or not Metrolink is a "common carrier." If they are, I don't think there is even an exemption for security guards as their response espouses.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 06-04-2014, 12:57 PM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I agree with you and yes, I understand the difference. From your post, I infer that loaded or unsecured firearms are never allowed on "common carriers"? I'll do some research on that and post back here with their common carrier status.

However, given the above response I suppose the risk is you could be asked to get off at the next stop or risk trespassing, and wind up stranded somewhere. Could try to catch the next train to your destination I suppose, but it means a significant delay and I reckon the conductors would be way ahead of you on that. Radio travels fast.
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 06-04-2014, 2:34 PM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,324
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steadyrock View Post
From your post, I infer that loaded or unsecured firearms are never allowed on "common carriers"? I'll do some research on that and post back here with their common carrier status.
Correct, "common carriers" are essentially federal gun free zones for most people.

From post #1:
Common carriers without written consent of the carrier. [18 U.S.C. § 922 (e)]
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 06-05-2014, 2:05 AM
nil's Avatar
nil nil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 701
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mej16489 View Post
Correct, "common carriers" are essentially federal gun free zones for most people.

From post #1:
Common carriers without written consent of the carrier. [18 U.S.C. § 922 (e)]
What is a common carrier? Airline? Bus line? Train line?
__________________
Buying something from Amazon? Use this link to support Calguns & The Calguns Foundation: Shop42a.com

Traveling 2A-friendly Notary Public serving OC and parts of LA counties. Please PM for more information.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 06-05-2014, 9:54 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,084
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mej16489 View Post
Correct, "common carriers" are essentially federal gun free zones for most people.

From post #1:
Common carriers without written consent of the carrier. [18 U.S.C. § 922 (e)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nil View Post
What is a common carrier? Airline? Bus line? Train line?
In relevant part, 18 USC 922 (e) says
Quote:
except that any passenger who owns or legally possesses a firearm or ammunition being transported aboard any common or contract carrier for movement with the passenger in interstate or foreign commerce may deliver said firearm or ammunition into the custody of the pilot, captain, conductor or operator of such common or contract carrier for the duration of the trip without violating any of the provisions of this chapter.
This suggests to me that agencies like BART or SFMuni are not included, though they may have their own, enforceable, rules.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 06-11-2014, 6:45 AM
RunsWithGuns's Avatar
RunsWithGuns RunsWithGuns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Palm Desert, CA / Orange, CA
Posts: 123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Three areas to clarify if anyone has new info? Saw a couple notes but not sure.

For current CCW permit with no restrictions... and in each case assuming nothing is posted

1) City Council meetings (concerned might fall under any legislative office cite that follows: "The State Capitol, any legislative office, any office of the Governor or other constitutional officer...") from first list in this thread

2) Police department / Sheriff's office. Pretty sure it's legal, but is it enough of a gray area that should lock my gun in the car whenever there on business?

2) Child Care center (does this fall under schools or have it's own restrictions?)
__________________
.
"It's not the odds that guide me, it's the stakes." - Calguns Member Quote
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 06-11-2014, 7:14 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunsWithGuns View Post
Three areas to clarify if anyone has new info? Saw a couple notes but not sure.

For current CCW permit with no restrictions... and in each case assuming nothing is posted

1) City Council meetings (concerned might fall under any legislative office cite that follows: "The State Capitol, any legislative office, any office of the Governor or other constitutional officer...") from first list in this thread

2) Police department / Sheriff's office. Pretty sure it's legal, but is it enough of a gray area that should lock my gun in the car whenever there on business?

2) Child Care center (does this fall under schools or have it's own restrictions?)
1. Local government is not covered by PC 171. However, local governments may believe they can establish restrictions through local ordinances.

2. Local government issue. However, since law enforcement issues the CCWs and likes to know who has guns in the station house, calling ahead seems prudent.

3. Child Day Care is not included in school definitions. See http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Gu...#Definitions_2
However, location is important. Example: Day care center in a federal building; no carry due to federal regulation.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 06-11-2014, 9:33 PM
RunsWithGuns's Avatar
RunsWithGuns RunsWithGuns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Palm Desert, CA / Orange, CA
Posts: 123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Thanks Dvrjon... I just hate trying to read these codes for fear of jumping to the wrong conclusions.

For #1 / City Council Thanks for the reference, I checked California Penal Code 171b. (a) then (b) where the LTC/CCW exclusion appears to be at (3)... if I'm reading it right of course.

For #2 / PD/Sheriff's Office seems weird they would issue the license but exclude their own premises. Wish we had a case or code or quote/letter of some sort to reference there too. In part because it's become common for the PD to space-share with other departments and businesses. Anyone have something to add?

For #3 / Child Care Center So, 18 US Code Sec 922 (a) (q) (2) (B) (ii) is the exemption for the LTC/CCW for schools? I could see an argument for child day care being a form of private school, so a school exemption seems to cover it better than day care not being specified.

Last, I realize if in an "gray" area consistently it might be best to get a letter confirming a specific individual may carry there, but more individuals aware of the LTC/CCW increases the chance of third parties pointing to the LTC/CCW person and saying they should "do something" at a time when the LTC/CCW holder might believe a low profile would be more appropriate... or of the authority on-site refusing to issue a permission letter more due to personal bias against firearms than for legal reasons, and actually making it more of an issue than to not ask for the letter to begin with...

Comments appreciated! Thanks.
__________________
.
"It's not the odds that guide me, it's the stakes." - Calguns Member Quote
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 06-11-2014, 9:39 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 12,813
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

/\ Why would you need a letter to carry somewhere, especially when it's to remain concealed?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 06-11-2014, 10:51 PM
RunsWithGuns's Avatar
RunsWithGuns RunsWithGuns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Palm Desert, CA / Orange, CA
Posts: 123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

You shouldn't -- and asking for a letter or email clarification could seriously backfire so I should probably edit that out of my comment... Was just thinking of someone who is frequently working or traversing a "Gray Area" who does not want to risk being the "test case" in a legal action. If just keeping it concealed were the only criteria we probably wouldn't need this thread or a LTC/CCW anyway lol
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 06-12-2014, 4:56 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunsWithGuns View Post
Thanks Dvrjon... I just hate trying to read these codes for fear of jumping to the wrong conclusions.

Comments appreciated! Thanks.
Stop it! You're over-worrying this. Read the Wiki.

Read the Wiki, then read the Code. Repeat as necessary. If you have specific questions, post in the forums with a specific title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunsWithGuns View Post
For #3 / Child Care Center So, 18 US Code Sec 922 (a) (q) (2) (B) (ii) is the exemption for the LTC/CCW for schools? I could see an argument for child day care being a form of private school, so a school exemption seems to cover it better than day care not being specified.
What you can possibly "see" doesn't matter. California School Zone is defined as K-12: See PC 626.9(e)(1) and 626.9(l).

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunsWithGuns View Post
For #2 / PD/Sheriff's Office seems weird they would issue the license but exclude their own premises. Wish we had a case or code or quote/letter of some sort to reference there too. In part because it's become common for the PD to space-share with other departments and businesses. Anyone have something to add?
Police Stations: seriously, how often do you think this is really a problem? How often do you frequent the PD/sheriff office. There are other things to litigate.

-"Letters": What you're suggesting would ultimately mean you'd be carrying a binder full of letters. If asked, most would say, "No", due to the potential liability of allowing access. Owners of property can set parameters for entering their premises.

While you seem to require written instructions on exactly where and when you can carry, Some prefer less guidance and structure to the process to maintain some latitude on decisions regarding CCW.

Cheers.

Last edited by Dvrjon; 06-12-2014 at 6:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 06-12-2014, 7:22 AM
RunsWithGuns's Avatar
RunsWithGuns RunsWithGuns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Palm Desert, CA / Orange, CA
Posts: 123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the info.

Just FYI, we are required to be in these three areas (the three I had questions about) multiple times per month which is why we appreciate the wiki info and thread. If it was a couple times a year would not bother the community asking for input, although if we wondered, perhaps someone else did too... avoiding the Police Department is understandable, but everyone should be at their City Council meetings

Thanks again for taking time to share your thoughts and the code references.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 06-29-2014, 3:21 PM
AtomicOrange's Avatar
AtomicOrange AtomicOrange is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange Co.
Posts: 164
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default No ccw in Orange County parks, beaches, or rec areas

Like at John Wayne Airport, there is an ordinance that applies to Orange County parks, beaches, and recreation areas. Can not carry, but can be locked in trunk (separate from passenger area).

Sec. 2-5-37. Firearms, weapons, fireworks, replica firearms.

No person shall have any fireworks, firearms, replica firearms, air gun, paint ball gun, BB gun, slingshot or bow or hunting arrow or any weapon in his possession or in his vehicle other than in a closed trunk, storage compartment or other area separated from the passenger section of the vehicle, in any park, beach or recreational area, nor shall any person discharge any firearm, fireworks or weapon or display any replica firearm upon or into any park, beach or recreational area; provided, however, that the Director may designate areas in which such activity is permitted.

(Ord. No. 99-21, § 2, 8-31-99)
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 07-02-2014, 7:44 PM
eventhorizons eventhorizons is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Bernardino County High Desert
Posts: 104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jb7706 View Post
POSTED PROHIBITED federal facilities staffed by federal employees [TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 930 Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities]
Social Security Administration offices
US Military Installations
The other day I take my son down the the Navy Recruiters office, which is located in a public strip mall. It is sparsely furnished and is only open afternoons on irregular days.

No signs on the door. (I checked later.)

I am killing time playing Sudoku as he goes over some paperwork and I happen to notice a crappy 6th-generation photocopy crudely taped to some promotional signboard over by the TV and couches. I was across the room, so it was too far away for me to read it completely, but I could make out enough that it was prohibiting all weapons. I thought to myself, "How in the hell is a legitimate law-abiding person supposed to be notified by this?"

Since I was carrying at the time, I didn't want to bring attention to myself by taking a picture of the sign. (The only people in the place were two recruiters, myself and my son.)

When he was done, we left.

Since the military leases it and the people working there are military types, I guess this would be a "Federal Facility staffed by Federal Employees".

However, my question is: Does this constitute "POSTED PROHIBITED"? There is no way that someone walking in and directly sitting down to talk to a recruiter would be even capable of seeing this notice.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 07-02-2014, 9:04 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eventhorizons View Post
However, my question is: Does this constitute "POSTED PROHIBITED"? There is no way that someone walking in and directly sitting down to talk to a recruiter would be even capable of seeing this notice.
Nope. Doesn't appear to be. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-...p44-sec930.htm
Quote:
§930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
///
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
///
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 07-07-2014, 5:55 PM
drinktothat421 drinktothat421 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 393
iTrader: 6 / 88%
Default

Do zoo's count at wildlife preserves? So no ccw?
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 07-14-2014, 2:17 PM
silvergreek silvergreek is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Carry in SFO

I have been told that it is an unwritten policy in San Francisco tha anyone with a valid CCW will spend the night in jail. Their reason is that the SF Police Depthas limted personnel and cannot get to it until the following day.

Can anyone confirm this or have they exprerienced this?
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 07-14-2014, 2:24 PM
jb7706's Avatar
jb7706 jb7706 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Elk Grove
Posts: 1,570
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silvergreek View Post
I have been told that it is an unwritten policy in San Francisco tha anyone with a valid CCW will spend the night in jail. Their reason is that the SF Police Depthas limted personnel and cannot get to it until the following day.

Can anyone confirm this or have they exprerienced this?
This bit of FUD just refuses to die. Unless you have a restriction printed on your license that says you can't carry in SF then it is legal to carry there. Tossing me in the klink for doing nothing wrong because they may or may not like my LTC would create a very nice documentation trail for my attorney.

FWIW I have not set foot in SF without at least one gun on me in 4+ years. Never had any sort of issue.
__________________
The statements above are mine alone and do not reflect the policies or positions of Folsom Shooting Club or Sacramento Valley Shooting Center unless otherwise noted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
Sacramento would declare martial law sooner than they'd meet with Gandhi, Gautama Budda, and Jesus Christ if the three were packing heat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Even people not from San Francisco can appreciate a good public spanking like this.
WANTED: G19. New or near new condition in Sacramento area.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 09-06-2014, 8:44 PM
Jeep67cj5's Avatar
Jeep67cj5 Jeep67cj5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 678
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Yea, can't carry on Amtrak or metro link. Needs to be locked.
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 09-06-2014, 9:05 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeep67cj5 View Post
Yea, can't carry on Amtrak or metro link. Needs to be locked.
Can you provide a citation or reference for this, please
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 09-08-2014, 9:58 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 755
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Can you provide a citation or reference for this, please
Yes, that's an easy one and straight from the OP: 18 U.S.C. § 922 (e) That's a federal statute saying you can't carry on a "Common Carrier" without their permission. Both Amtrak and Metro link are common carriers.
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 09-09-2014, 2:53 AM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow
Posts: 1,785
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
Yes, that's an easy one and straight from the OP: 18 U.S.C. § 922 (e) That's a federal statute saying you can't carry on a "Common Carrier" without their permission. Both Amtrak and Metro link are common carriers.
Except that 18 USC § 922 (e) only applies to transportation of goods or persons in interstate or foreign commerce.

18 USC § 922 (e) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to deliver or cause to be delivered to any common or contract carrier for transportation or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, to persons other than licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors, any package or other container in which there is any firearm or ammunition without written notice to the carrier that such firearm or ammunition is being transported or shipped; except that any passenger who owns or legally possesses a firearm or ammunition being transported aboard any common or contract carrier for movement with the passenger in interstate or foreign commerce may deliver said firearm or ammunition into the custody of the pilot, captain, conductor or operator of such common or contract carrier for the duration of the trip without violating any of the provisions of this chapter. No common or contract carrier shall require or cause any label, tag, or other written notice to be placed on the outside of any package, luggage, or other container that such package, luggage, or other container contains a firearm.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 09-09-2014, 5:16 AM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 755
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

OK, I admit that I had missed that part. If it doesn't cover intrastate travel, why include it in this thread?

Just to continue the thought though, since an entity like Amtrak is capable of traveling interstate as a regular part of its business, would that preclude carrying on an Amtrak train?
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 10-03-2014, 6:24 AM
idntwn2 idntwn2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 281
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2 View Post
kinda funny cause I was banned from the other gun forum for supporting this position and admitting that I did in fact carry while voting.
I was respectful in my opinion but as soon as I admitted to carrying while voting a few years ago they banned me without explaination.
They banned me too for a similar interpretation of a different section. Lotta FUD over there.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 10-03-2014, 6:52 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by idntwn2 View Post
They banned me too for a similar interpretation of a different section. Lotta FUD over there.
Welcome to this side. Reading, thinking and discussion are encouraged.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 10-03-2014, 9:14 AM
idntwn2 idntwn2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 281
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Welcome to this side. Reading, thinking and discussion are encouraged.
Indeed Sir. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 10-03-2014, 6:55 PM
Mithrandir13's Avatar
Mithrandir13 Mithrandir13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 832
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

this thread is a great resource!!

thanks again!!
__________________
The founding fathers did a wonderful thing when they included the second amendment to the constitution...

Yes... and this! http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

Good Guys with Guns HERE
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 11-17-2014, 7:43 PM
locosway's Avatar
locosway locosway is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 11,346
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I was looking for the code that says non-sterile areas of the airports in Orange County are off limits, but I'm coming up short. Does anyone know what code prohibits that?

Also, would being outside the building, but on airport property be considered a non-sterile area? I've never seen that area defined anywhere.
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
CA DOJ Certified Instructor
Glock Certified Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 11-17-2014, 8:04 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locosway View Post
I was looking for the code that says non-sterile areas of the airports in Orange County are off limits, but I'm coming up short. Does anyone know what code prohibits that?

Also, would being outside the building, but on airport property be considered a non-sterile area? I've never seen that area defined anywhere.
Re: "Non-Sterile Areas" are everything other than a "Sterile Area": PC 171.5:
Quote:
(a) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Airport" means an airport, with a secured area, that regularly serves an air carrier holding a certificate issued by the United States Secretary of Transportation.
(2) "Passenger vessel terminal" means only that portion of a harbor or port facility, as described in Section 105.105(a)(2) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, with a secured area that regularly serves scheduled commuter or passenger operations.
(3) "Sterile area" means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program to which access generally is controlled through the screening of persons and property, as specified in Section 1540.5 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or a portion of any passenger vessel terminal to which, pursuant to the requirements set forth in Sections 105.255(a)(1), 105.255(c)(1), and 105.260(a) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, access is generally controlled in a manner consistent with the passenger vessel terminal's security plan and the MARSEC level in effect at the time.
(b) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, within any sterile area of an airport or a passenger vessel terminal, any of the items listed in subdivision (c).
(c) The following items are unlawful to possess as provided in subdivision (b):
(1) Any firearm.
Ordinance 2725:

An Ordinance Adopting the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange, California.

Quote:
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, California, does ordain as follows:

Section 1. A comprehensive ordinance code entitled "Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange," three copies of which are on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, is hereby adopted pursuant to Government Code Sections 25126, 25127, and 25128 of the State of California, and in the manner prescribed by Section 50022.1, et seq., of said Government Code, as the ordinance code for the County of Orange.

Section 2. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person convicted for a violation of any of the provisions of this Code, unless otherwise specifically provided in this Code, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period of not more than six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.
"OCCO" = "Orange County Codified Ordinances"

Quote:
OCCO 2-1-53(i)
No person, except peace officers, an authorized post office or Airport employee or a member of the armed forces of the United States on official duty, shall carry any weapon, explosive or flammable material on or about his person, openly or concealed, on the Airport without the written permission of the Airport Director. This Section shall not apply to persons carrying firearms in cases, broken down or unloaded when said firearms are being transported by air. For the purposes of this section, a weapon includes all those listed in California Penal Code Sections 12000-12654.
Source, Page 388, https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code...0%20%23120.pdf

Note: The prohibition is "on" the airport, not "in" the airport.

State law does not pre-empt local action in this area. See: PC 53071.

Best.

Last edited by Dvrjon; 11-17-2014 at 8:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 11-17-2014, 8:10 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,084
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Definition by subtraction. We know what the 'sterile area' is: PC 171.5
Quote:
(3) “Sterile area” means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program to which access generally is controlled through the screening of persons and property, as specified in Section 1540.5 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or a portion of any passenger vessel terminal to which, pursuant to the requirements set forth in Sections 105.255(a)(1), 105.255(c)(1), and 105.260(a) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, access is generally controlled in a manner consistent with the passenger vessel terminal’s security plan and the MARSEC level in effect at the time.
Doesn't meet that definition, not a part of the 'sterile area'.

OC Ordinances, 21-5-53 say
Quote:
(i) No person, except peace officers, an authorized post office or Airport employee or a member of the armed forces of the United States on official duty, shall carry any weapon, explosive or flammable material on or about his person, openly or concealed, on the Airport without the written permission of the Airport Director. This Section shall not apply to persons carrying firearms in cases, broken down or unloaded when said firearms are being transported by air. For the purposes of this section, a weapon includes all those listed in California Penal Code Sections 12000-12654.
ETA Dvrjon cuts and pastes faster tonight!

An odd law - seems to prohibit lighters, matches, cigarettes, paper ...
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 11-17-2014 at 8:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 11-18-2014, 9:34 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nil View Post
Does something similar exist for LAX?
Yes. See #5, at: http://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/Ai...ral_201112.pdf

Detail info is here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...0&postcount=38

And, LAX also operates Ontario Airport, so expect the same.

It should be noted that on another board, there is an attempt under way to get written confirmation for OCSD that the ordinance is not enforced at John Wayne Airport. Verbal contact with JWA law enforcement indicates they don't even know about the ordinance.

Last edited by Dvrjon; 11-18-2014 at 9:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 11-24-2014, 3:00 PM
joshB exCorps joshB exCorps is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I will soon submit for CCW out of San Joaquin County. In preparation, I have been doing some research regarding where I can/where I can't carry concealed. Specifically, I commute from my home in Tracy to work in the San Jose area, usually using the commuter rail service Altamont Corridor Express (ACE).
Posted on all ACE platforms is a reference to CPC 171.7b which states:
Quote:
(b) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess within any
sterile area of a public transit facility any of the following, if
the sterile area is posted with a statement providing reasonable
notice that prosecution may result from possession of these items:
(1) Any firearm...
A public transit facility being defined as (CPC 171.7a)(emphasis mine):
Quote:
(a) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Public transit facility" means any land, building, or
equipment, or any interest therein, including any station on a public
transportation route
, to which access is controlled in a manner
consistent with the public transit authority's security plan, whether
or not the operation thereof produces revenue, that has as its
primary purpose the operation of a public transit system or the
providing of services to the passengers of a public transit system. A
public transit system includes the vehicles used in the system,
including, but not limited to, motor vehicles, streetcars, trackless
trolleys, buses, light rail systems, rapid transit systems, subways,
trains, or jitneys, that transport members of the public for hire.
To this point, this seems in congruence with the "common carrier" provisions discussed previously in this thread (i.e. taxi, shuttle, Amtrak, etc.). The interesting points come in subsection (c). There are provisions exempting peace officers (active and retired), transit cops and the like, as well as (CPC 171.7c(2)):
Quote:
(2) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) does not apply to or affect a
person who is exempt from the prohibition against carrying a handgun
pursuant to Section 25400 if the carrying of that handgun is in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the exemption specified
in Article 2 (commencing with Section 25450) of Chapter 2 of Division
5 of Title 4 of Part 6 or Sections 25615 to 25655, inclusive.
CPC 25400 is your concealed weapons definitions and penalties. The pertinent section is CPC 25655, which states:
Quote:
Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, the carrying of
a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person by a person who is authorized to carry that weapon in a
concealed manner pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
26150).
CPC 26150 being, of course, a civilian CCW permit. This PC daisy-chain seems to exempt CCW permit holders from carry restrictions on mass-transit systems, at the very least.
My question, after all this, is how to de-conflict any apparent "common carrier" carry prohibitions, and statutory exemptions granted under CPC 171.7.
Note: I have discussed this at length with a retired LEO, as well as a LEO that works for Santa Clara County DA, both of which carry on the train daily (I believe) and they concur with my conclusion.
__________________
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
~ Gen. James Mattis, USMC
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 11-24-2014, 4:20 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

@JoshB exCorps:

Since you seem to have one-off access to the Santa Clara County DA, it might be helpful to see if your LEO friend can have an ADA run through your process. After all, they would be the first line of prosecution if your analysis contains a flaw.

Best.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 11-24-2014, 4:30 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 755
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshB exCorps View Post
CPC 26150 being, of course, a civilian CCW permit. This PC daisy-chain seems to exempt CCW permit holders from carry restrictions on mass-transit systems, at the very least.
My question, after all this, is how to de-conflict any apparent "common carrier" carry prohibitions, and statutory exemptions granted under CPC 171.7.
Note: I have discussed this at length with a retired LEO, as well as a LEO that works for Santa Clara County DA, both of which carry on the train daily (I believe) and they concur with my conclusion.
As you have pointed out in the law, a person holding a valid license to carry is exempt.

So, I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase it please?
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 11-29-2014, 8:49 AM
Mithrandir13's Avatar
Mithrandir13 Mithrandir13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 832
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter...un-free-zones/

"California (with approval of the superintendent)"

I didn't see any of this in the pc???
pc262.9 (L)
__________________
The founding fathers did a wonderful thing when they included the second amendment to the constitution...

Yes... and this! http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

Good Guys with Guns HERE
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 11-29-2014, 11:44 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,084
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir13 View Post
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter...un-free-zones/

"California (with approval of the superintendent)"

I didn't see any of this in the pc???
pc262.9 (L)
Website is wrong - it's if you do NOT have a license that you need permission to carry from superintendent or authorized rep.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 11-29-2014, 12:20 PM
jb7706's Avatar
jb7706 jb7706 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Elk Grove
Posts: 1,570
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The common carrier prohibitions I quoted are federal law, and in reference to Alcatraz ferries originally. It appears that your research indicates a state exemption to state laws regarding common carriers there is still the federal law to contend with. I honestly have no idea how/when/where/if federal law applies to common carriers in your example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshB exCorps View Post
I will soon submit for CCW out of San Joaquin County. In preparation, I have been doing some research regarding where I can/where I can't carry concealed. Specifically, I commute from my home in Tracy to work in the San Jose area, usually using the commuter rail service Altamont Corridor Express (ACE).
Posted on all ACE platforms is a reference to CPC 171.7b which states:

A public transit facility being defined as (CPC 171.7a)(emphasis mine):

To this point, this seems in congruence with the "common carrier" provisions discussed previously in this thread (i.e. taxi, shuttle, Amtrak, etc.). The interesting points come in subsection (c). There are provisions exempting peace officers (active and retired), transit cops and the like, as well as (CPC 171.7c(2)):

CPC 25400 is your concealed weapons definitions and penalties. The pertinent section is CPC 25655, which states:

CPC 26150 being, of course, a civilian CCW permit. This PC daisy-chain seems to exempt CCW permit holders from carry restrictions on mass-transit systems, at the very least.
My question, after all this, is how to de-conflict any apparent "common carrier" carry prohibitions, and statutory exemptions granted under CPC 171.7.
Note: I have discussed this at length with a retired LEO, as well as a LEO that works for Santa Clara County DA, both of which carry on the train daily (I believe) and they concur with my conclusion.
__________________
The statements above are mine alone and do not reflect the policies or positions of Folsom Shooting Club or Sacramento Valley Shooting Center unless otherwise noted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
Sacramento would declare martial law sooner than they'd meet with Gandhi, Gautama Budda, and Jesus Christ if the three were packing heat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Even people not from San Francisco can appreciate a good public spanking like this.
WANTED: G19. New or near new condition in Sacramento area.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 11-29-2014, 12:50 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,084
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
2) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) does not apply to or affect a
person who is exempt from the prohibition against carrying a handgun
pursuant to Section 25400 if the carrying of that handgun is in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the exemption specified
in Article 2 (commencing with Section 25450) of Chapter 2 of Division
5 of Title 4 of Part 6 or Sections 25615 to 25655, inclusive.
A nit - that's PC 171.7(c)(2), that exempts LTC holders from the prohibition the transit authority cites. (The format of the citation is important.)
Quote:
My question, after all this, is how to de-conflict any apparent "common carrier" carry prohibitions, and statutory exemptions granted under CPC 171.7.
But I can't interpret this to find what concerns you further.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 02-02-2015, 5:55 AM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Update regarding Metrolink trains in SoCal. Still no love. Also I noticed last week that DHS and TSA are running baggage searches and dogs at some stations now.

From the Metrolink Customer Service dept, dated 1/30/2015:
" Please know that, with the exception of peace officers wearing a Class “A” uniform, riders are not permitted to carry firearms on Metrolink trains or at train stations. "
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:05 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.