|
Camping, Hiking and Outdoor Activities Camping, hiking, and other outdoor activities within. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by MudCamper; 11-09-2009 at 7:41 AM.. |
#82
|
||||
|
||||
I'm not interested in shooting out there at all, it's too populated for that as it's a popular area.
However, I may cross dirt roads. So how does the LOC work when crossing a road and such? Also, what's the penalty for carrying a firearm in a no shooting zone? If I'm not shooting, can they fine me just for possessing in a no shooting zone?
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor NRA Certified Instructor CA DOJ Certified Instructor Glock Certified Armorer |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The National Forest does not prohibit loading firearms, even where they prohibit shooting. But California law (PC 12031) prohibits loading anywhere where shooting is prohibited. The CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) prohibits shooting on/across roads in the NF. So, technically you'd be violating California Penal Code 12031 when you carry a loaded gun on the road in the NF. It's not just a fine. It's a misdemeanor. Now some have argued recently (in other threads) that the federal code does not trigger the prohibited area language in 12031, that it takes a local county ordinance to do this. Maybe true, maybe not. Further, a federal Forest Service ranger may not know the subtleties of California law, or may not care, as long as you are not shooting. So what does all this contradiction mean? That your mileage may vary. Do what you fell comfortable with. Personally, I do not carry loaded in any area of the NF where shooting is prohibited. I've run into some pretty gun-ho sheriff's deputes in the NF. |
#84
|
||||
|
||||
So, UOC is completely safe if you're going to potentially cross roads and come near water areas.
LOC is perfectly fine if you're in back country and will not be coming near roads or other prohibited things, correct?
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor NRA Certified Instructor CA DOJ Certified Instructor Glock Certified Armorer |
#85
|
||||
|
||||
Correct. (Or rather, this is also my interpretation.)
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you for compiling this information in one post MudCamper, it's a great reference! There's so much regulation I'd wager very few people understand all the rules. I was initially confused by the following bit though:
Quote:
I suggest making a semantic distinction by changing the second quoted instance of 'campsite' to 'campground' - unless of course I'm wrong and this is even more complicated than I think it is. Last edited by ironpants; 10-22-2009 at 7:50 PM.. |
#91
|
||||
|
||||
I doubt you would be harassed for a thigh holster, but I've wondered how the law works as well. I guess one would have to ask, does a thigh holster get mentioned in any other laws? If not, perhaps it just wasn't defined by the legislature?
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor NRA Certified Instructor CA DOJ Certified Instructor Glock Certified Armorer |
#92
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It says belt...a thigh rig TECHNICALLY is suspended from your belt...I wonder because I heard of a similar situation where a fixed blade knife was carried on the calf and the gentlemen was cited for it (http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/knifelaw.html) Then again, 12020 is more specific because it says, "Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this section." So it got me to thinking... Wearing a hiking pack with a waist belt makes it really uncomfortable to wear a holster on your strongside. I've tried suspending the holster from the waist belt on the pack...but then if I take off my pack...my gun goes with it... |
#93
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I see what you are saying. If "campsite" in the CFR means any undesignated campsite, then you cannot shoot, but 12031 doesn't apply because of the residence exemption. Odd combination of loaded but no shooting. ETA: "Campsite" is not defined. "Camping" is, and "developed area" is. And the term "designated" is sometimes used in the code with "campsite" although not defined. What does all this mean? IMO it means "campsite" means just what we think it does: anywhere a person is camping, anywhere a person pitches a tent or parks a camper or lays a sleeping bag. Does this mean we can't shoot there if it's our own undesignated campsite out in the boonies? IMO the code likely was not intended to apply there, and you are likely not going to have any problems shooting there. Now if you were shooting within 150 yards of somebody else's campsite I think you'd be in trouble, but this falls into the area of common sense. FYI from CFR 36 1.4 (a) Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by MudCamper; 10-26-2009 at 9:16 AM.. |
#94
|
||||
|
||||
PC 12025 makes concealing illegal. Unconcealed handguns are legal. The belt holster is just one clarification that it is not concealed. Any other method of carry that does not conceal is also legal. While it is not specifically spelled out, it is legal.
|
#95
|
||||
|
||||
I just reread the FS policy overview on their website. It's changed since I last read it. Now it includes this,
Quote:
ETA: OK I have an email in to Jamie Schwartz. Waiting on his reply... Last edited by MudCamper; 11-02-2009 at 9:13 AM.. |
#96
|
||||
|
||||
UPDATE
I was wrong. I received an email back from Mr. Shwartz. It merely stated the following: Quote:
Quote:
I will update this thread accordingly. |
#97
|
||||
|
||||
So how do you know which wilderness areas ban firearms and those that don't ban them? I have seen numerous wilderness area border markers and none say firearms are banned. How does one stay legal?
|
#98
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor NRA Certified Instructor CA DOJ Certified Instructor Glock Certified Armorer |
#99
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
But this really isn't something to be worried about since I know of no case where it is actually ordered in a National Forest in California anyway. Now 36 CFR 261.58 (m) is sometimes (rarely) ordered (prohibits shooting). Last edited by MudCamper; 11-09-2009 at 11:51 PM.. |
#100
|
||||
|
||||
I've found that the Wilderness.net website can be useful for quickly finding a particular wilderness area's managing agency's website and contact info.
Just go to the list of California wilderness areas, click on the one you are interested in, then click on the "Links" tab. It will contain links to the managing agency's website (but only if it's NF, NP, or BLM). |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
It should not take a team of attorneys and 12 more intelligent people to figure these things out. Just carry the gun and take your chances. Keep a low profile. Keep the mag loaded but dont chamber. Have a fish/hunting lic.
Just plain nuts! |
#102
|
||||
|
||||
Take your chances with jail, fines, attorney fees, and possibly becoming a prohibited person?
If I'm taking my chances, I'll do it concealed. Taking chances with the gun in the open is stupid.
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor NRA Certified Instructor CA DOJ Certified Instructor Glock Certified Armorer |
#103
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It's not that complicated. If you are too lazy to figure out where the exact line is for where you are and what you are doing, then heed this advice: In the NF or BLM, open carry unloaded, with ammo / loaded mags handy. After February 22, 2010, do the same in NPs. In State Parks, keep firearms unloaded and locked up. When in doubt, keep firearms unloaded and locked up. Last edited by MudCamper; 11-18-2009 at 9:27 AM.. |
#104
|
||||
|
||||
Or out of sight.
Really, when did we get to the point that a walk through the woods requires constant attention to the status of the kit gun in your tackle box or the cougar protection riding on your hip? Clearly, the only way you can be sure of not running afoul of the law, is to ensure the law doesn't know you are packing. |
#105
|
||||
|
||||
Exactly.
|
#106
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#107
|
||||
|
||||
Bump with the Examiner.com article, "National Park Service to educate public on gun rights".
We're only a month and a half away from the change, and we still have no official word from the NPS on this. I'm initiating contact with NPS officials to see if we can get some clarification. ETA: Philip Selleck, Chief of Special Regulations and Park Uses, stated that they are actively working to finalize press releases and web page updates. Last edited by MudCamper; 01-06-2010 at 10:06 AM.. |
#108
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Hunt; 01-13-2010 at 10:12 AM.. |
#109
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"Unless in the lawful pursuit of game mammals and fowl" something like that. This means the area is open for legal hunting NOT endless hours of target shooting. Buy a hunting license coyotes are lawful game with any centerfire pistol or rifle open season. |
#110
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Now in all likelihood the legislative intent of 12031 probably did not include banning loaded on back-woods dirt roads in the NF, but technically it works out that way. And recently I discovered (thanks to bigtoe416 on OCDO) the Attorney General opinion from just after 12031 became law (51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 197 (1968)), that tries to clarify some of these points, but it in fact adds a lot of confusion. I'm still trying to sort it out myself. Plus I do not know how much weight these opinions actually have in court. Last edited by MudCamper; 01-13-2010 at 1:58 PM.. |
#111
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The next thing I need to grapple with is the mechanical means of conveyance transport through State Parks. It seems the intention is to prevent transport by foot (backpackers) even if unloaded and in locked container. This is very prejudiced, it prevents access to other public lands for hunting, I encounter this often adjacent to Anza Borrego State Park. So far I haven't found any exemptions that would allow someone to backpack/transport through a State Park. On the other hand there is no direct reference to prohibiting a backpacker to transport a firearm. Possibly item (b) could be used to support the notion that backpackers can't be unfairly prevented transporting to a lawful hunting unit even through a State Park especially in light of any lack of strict prohibition to do so Quote:
Last edited by Hunt; 01-13-2010 at 2:32 PM.. |
#112
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#113
|
||||
|
||||
Memo about Golden Gate Park: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=263332
|
#114
|
||||
|
||||
New National Park policy documents available in this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=266215
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
So, in your estimation Mudcamper,(or any other knowledgeable people here,) based on the new documents above, will LOC be legal in CA ? More specifically, Death Valley National Park (much of it) is located in unincorporated area's of Inyo County where the discharge of a firearm is not otherwise restricted, (same as the BLM lands there). So will LOC be available to us, or only UOC?
I know we're still in a can of worms state here. I way I see it, on one hand, County Reg.s say we can discharge, and thus NPS is directed to honor State law, which gives us LOC. One the other, in the Guidence/Implementation Doc. posted in the link above, it states : "Section 512 does not affect the enforcement of the regulatory prohibition on the use of firearms within the National Park System, see 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii), which should continue to be enforced as appropriate." Would California recognize this as a restriction on discharge and thus no LOC? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg. I understand the dificulties here and the contradictions involved. 1. Inyo County says you can discharge = LOC is ok 2. NPS must honor State Law. 3. NPS says that (via 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii) ) is still valid and No Discharge allowed. (*See Note Below) 4. Based on #3 above, CA says no LOC. So which has preemption? *Note: In Sec.512. (a)(4) Congress states that this section(36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(i)(ii)(iii) violates our 2nd A. rights, but it seems the NPS is ignoring (iii) discharge (using) and will still enforce this. So in your opinion, where do we stand on this? Edited to Add : Just another thought. Since California does not prosecute federal law for Medical Marijuana use since State Law allows it, would it be a stretch to assume they wouldn't prosecute LOC since State /Locate law allows it but as in the MJ case above, the Feds don't? One more tid-bit to chew on. The NPS also says in the Guidence/Implementation Doc. that: Applying the term “law of the State” in Section 512 requires that NPS look to the provisions of applicable state law, which includes local and county laws and ordinances that may derive from state law. Insofar as Section 512 refers to "an assembled and functional firearm,” we interpret that phrase to include loaded firearms. Based on that language, I interpret that we can LOC where allowed by State/Local Law with-in the National Park. Discharge however (target shooting, etc.), would be pushing the envelope and would not recommend it except in Self Defense. Am I on the right track here?
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Southwest Chuck; 02-07-2010 at 10:59 AM.. |
#116
|
||||
|
||||
IMO, if the Park Service posts no shooting orders per 36 CFR 261.58 (or some other authoritative code that I am missing), then LOC would trigger the "prohibited area" language of 12031, and would therefore be illegal.
Some may argue based on the 1968 AG opinion that it does not, as some (i.e. People v Knight and People v Segura) believe that it must be a local shooting prohibition. However, I don't read the AG opinion that way, and I bet most LE are not even aware of it, and will just assume 12031 applies, and you may end up being the new test case. UOC will be legal. And LOC will definitely also be if they do not impose any shooting restrictions. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#119
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
(iii) uses the word "using". That's a pretty broad term. It could include (i) and (ii), but obviously that wouldn't fly given the new law. I honestly don't know what to think. We may very well be able to get away with LOC, but I just don't know yet. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Even then, if they don't have a problem with LOC, we may still face risk (although diminished) of being prosecuted (12031) by an over zealous County Prosecuter (think Theasus) with a citation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii) . It's something they could hold over your head, so to speak.... (Well sir, your carrying exposed and loaded is within Federal Law here in the Park, but may well be Illegal per CA State Law. Generally, we're not in the business of enforcing State Law, but just don't push it ).... with an insinuation of put it away or leave.
__________________
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|