Is "Open Carry" legal in California?

[John BigBootay]

I have heard that it is, but have not actually researched it. Anecdotally, I once went to a tiny California border town and saw some cow hands walk into a general store and they were all openly packing heat.

But it seems far-fetched to walk into a crowded Vons in Studio City with a gat strapped to your hip. Is it legal?

[John BigBootay]

1. Just noticed the Fairfax story above--

Will look through it to see if it answers my question-- that was a total coincidence.

[enfield collector]

2. it's probably a local law, which is why Feinstien decided to get a

concealed carry liscense for herself so she could pack heat.

[iverglas]

6. ah, probability and theory

it's probably a local law, which is why Feinstien
decided to get a concealed carry liscense for herself
so she could pack heat.

That's worded a little obscurely, I'm afraid.

Are you saying that the reason why Feinstein decided to get a licence was because it's a local law? If so, does this make some sense? Do people do things because they're legal, or specifically because they're locally legal?? Don't people usually have an actual reason for spending their time and energy and money doing stuff? I don't run out and cross the street every five minutes just because it's legal for me to do so ...

Do you imagine that maybe Diane Feinstein had some sort of actual reason?

Hmm, I thought maybe I could discern an alternative and more meaningful meaning in that statement, but I don't think I can.

Well, perhaps you're saying that "open carry" is (probably) locally legal, but not legal elsewhere, so Diane Feinstein needed a "concealed carry" permit in order to carry a firearm.

Well, I suppose that makes sense. Although I'm not seeing a point. Yeah, if the law says you need a permit to carry a firearm and must carry it concealed, then somebody who wants to carry a firearm must get a permit and carry it concealed. Anybody. Not just Diane Feinstein. Was she just a name you pulled from a hat? Would "Joe Blow" have worked equally well?

Will you explain to dunderheaded moi what you were saying?

[John BigBootay]

8. I'm a dunderhead too- I didn't grok this post--

But I will say I find it annoying that politicians, celebrities and high-profile citizens seem to be given leeway in issuance of CCW's whereas "Joe Blow" can blow it out his A$$ if he believes he needs one.

[iverglas]

9. phew

I'm a dunderhead too- I didn't grok this post--

So it wasn't just me. You *did* mean that other post and not mine, right??

But I will say I find it annoying that politicians, celebrities and high-profile citizens seem to be given leeway in issuance of CCW's whereas "Joe Blow" can blow it out his A$$ if he believes he needs one.

Not an issue where I'm at, to my knowledge. Not much of anybody gets the things.

And not specifically relevant to Diane Feinstein either, of course, from what I know of the matter. From what I gather, she might have qualified for such a permit even up here in Canada:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-207/whole.html

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS RESTRICTED FIREARMS OR PROHIBITED HANDGUNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 20 OF THE ACT

Protection of Life

2. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where

(a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;

(b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and

(c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.

Lawful Profession or Occupation

3. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation are where

(a) the individual's principal activity is the handling, transportation or protection of cash, negotiable instruments or other goods of substantial value, and firearms are required for the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of that handling, transportation or protection activity;

(b) the individual is working in a remote wilderness area and firearms are required for the protection of the life of that individual or of other individuals from wild animals; or

(c) the individual is engaged in the occupation of trapping in a province and is licensed or authorized and trained as required by the laws of the province.

AUTHORIZATIONS TO CARRY

Issuance

4. A chief firearms officer shall not issue to an individual an authorization to carry a particular restricted firearm or prohibited handgun that is required in the circumstances described in section 2 or for the purpose described in paragraph 3(a) unless

(a) the individual has successfully completed training in firearms proficiency and the use of force; and

(b) the chief firearms officer determines that the particular restricted firearm or prohibited handgun is appropriate in those circumstances or for that purpose.

I gather that Feinstein would have qualified under sections 2 and 4.


(If you're idly interested in the various regulations, I linked to them all here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=15464)

[enfield collector]

10. a local ordinance probably forbids open carry. therefore

the only way to carry is concealed. laws are like that here, with ones in county A being opposed to those in county B even though the counties abutt. then there's the state vaiations as wel......
Feinstien got her's in SF, which almost never issues them except in special cases. so she can get one but a person living in a high crime area might not, presumably because Feinstien's life is more valuable and needs the protection that ordinary people can't get.

[iverglas]

23. such presumptuous presumptions

Feinstien got her's in SF, which almost never issues them except in special cases. so she can get one but a person living in a high crime area might not, presumably because Feinstien's life is more valuable and needs the protection that ordinary people can't get.

I'm surprised you'd say that anyone's life, let alone Diane Feinstein's, is more valuable than anyone else's, but there ya go, you did.

Me, I'd presume that the reason was that she had received numerous death threats. And I don't find it at all bizarre or inegalitarian that the very "liberal" Mayor of a large city in the US, whom I would presume to be a target for just about any nutball or hater of feminazi bitches for miles around, would be more likely than just about anybody else to be granted a permit to carry a firearm.

And I really just do see a distinction between a person who is specifically targetted by violentlly insane or violently hateful people for doing her public duty and somebody who "lives in a high-crime area". There are people who are out to kill the former, and not the latter.

[John BigBootay]

28. I can think of many "average Joes" who

arguably might need a CCW but are not permitted one: jewelry merchants, perhaps, who must transport small quantities of stock in and out of their stores. Delivery people who must deliver valuable goods to bad neighborhoods. Anyone who has a job requiring the carrying of large amounts of cash or valuables-- these people are likely targets for robbery and by all rights should be allowed to concealed carry, IMHO.

[enfield collector]

30. actually I said presumably. I don't think her life is anymore

valuable than mine or yours. I'd be surprised about the death threats since she lives in one of the most progressive areas in CA, but you never know.

[iverglas]

32. point of clarification, Mr./Ms. Speaker; and point of privilege

actually I said presumably. I don't think
her life is anymore valuable than mine or yours.

Here's what you actually did say:

presumably because Feinstien's life is more valuable
and needs the protection that ordinary people can't get.

Presumably, what you *meant* to say was:

presumably because Feinstein's life is regarded as more valuable
and needs the protection that ordinary people can't get.

What you did was essentially to question the sufficiency of the presumed reason, not question the reason.
I believe you meant to question the presumed reason, not its sufficiency.

It's my job, and I do it well and am paid handsomely.


And now on to more substantive matters.


I'd be surprised about the death threats since
she lives in one of the most progressive areas in CA,
but you never know.

Actually, I'd presume that one could know fairly readily, if one bothered to try to find out. Has it occurred to you to bother to try to find out the reason, rather than to presume what it was?

Your arguments might be just a teeny weeny bit more persuasive if you did that.

I'm not sure about the death threats, but perhaps you recall the names Harvey Milk and George Moscone?
http://feinstein.senate.gov/biography.html

In 1969, she was elected to the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, where she served 2 ½ terms as President of the Board.

She became Mayor of San Francisco in November 1978 following the assassination of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk ... .

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/milk.htm

The shooter was Supervisor Dan White, a conservative board member who had campaigned on a platform of law and order, civic pride, and family values.

White, packing a gun and extra bullets, climbed through a window in City Hall in order to confront Milk and Moscone about his troubled tenure on the Board of Supervisors. After shooting Moscone four times at close range, White reloaded his gun, walked to the other side of the building, and invited Milk into his former office. White shot Milk in the arm, the chest, and twice in the head. He then fled the building the same way that he had entered. A few hours after Diane Feinstein, who became Acting Mayor, named him as a suspect, White turned himself in.

"One of the most progressive areas in CA" it may be, but that doesn't necessarily make it safe for progressive politicians.

Now, wouldn't it be nice if, next time somebody "presumed" some reason why Diane Feinstein was issued a permit to carry a concealed firearm, the somebody didn't pretend not to know any of this? I take it as a personal insult when people are that disingenuous in a discussion in which I am involved, 'cause I just don't like being treated like a fool.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

3. I though Open Carry was always a no-no, it certainly is in Mass

The mass A license is quite clear that only conceal carry is allowed.

[John BigBootay]

4. The Fairfax story here says otherwise--

Some folks in VA were carrying openly-- it caused concern, but it turned out the were not violating the law. Open carry was allowed. I think this is a little known state-by-state issue.

[enfield collector]

5. open carry has been legal here in AZ

since the old west days I think.

[mosin]

11. Open carry is legal in many places

In Ohio, open carry is legal, and unregulated by the state.

Concealed carry was long illegal, and is now licensed.

[FatSlob]

13. Are you surprised?

Mass. does a fantastic job of only recongnizing some liberties.

[slackmaster]

7. Many municipalities restrict it, otherwise it's OK

If you're out in the sticks it's perfectly legal.

If you walked into Vons in Studio City with a six-shooter on your hip and dressed in cowboy attire people would probably figure you were an actor on a break. In any other kind of clothing the LAPD SWAT team would be all over you in a heartbeat.

[bigbillhaywood]

12. Used to be legal even in urban areas. The Black Panthers changed

all that, and "open carry" was quickly legislated away in most urban areas of California. New gun control measures were also passed in Sacremento as a result of the Black urban unrest. The Black Panthers showed up at the State House armed with shotguns and M-14s (because at the time it was still legal) to protest the new gun control measures being discussed.

[FatSlob]

14. Are you saying that CA gun control is racist?

If not, then I will. If the above is correct, then CA laws regarding the carry of arms are racist.

[bigbillhaywood]

16. Yeah, and the law the Black Panthers protested was signed by Reagan

[FeebMaster]

18. Surely not Reagan!

I thought he was some kind of pro-gun man-god.

[FatSlob]

20. Very interesting. More proof that Reagan wasn't as pro-gun

as he is made out to be.

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. Definately racist.

Cant have the black folks walking the streets carrying guns... :eyes:

You see the main purpose of this law was to disarm blacks and other minorities.

But wait what is that you say, "but doesnt this law effect whites aswell."

Well this is how they get around that problem. California is a "may issue" state.

from packing.org
Contrary to popular belief, CCW permits are in fact issued within the State of California. The decision is made by appointed city law enforcement or elected county law enforcement. Cities generally defer the decision to the County Sheriff; therefore, the chance of issuance varies from county to county, and from elected Sheriff to elected Sheriff. Keep that in mind when you vote

Anyone want to bet that the majority of people who get issued concealed carry permits are White, and that minorities in general are rejected for permits more often than not.

[iverglas]

25. and anti-rape laws are misogynist!!

No one has answered my question yet, although I've asked it numerous times, so allow me. Laws against rape were originally made out of very very anti-woman sentiments and for anti-woman reasons. It's time to get rid of them, right?

Laws prohibiting rape, and punishing people who raped women, date from way back.

And way back, they weren't designed to protect women. Nobody actually gave a shit about women, as you may recall.

They were designed to protect men. Men were entitled to the exclusive use of their women's sexual and reporductive services. If another man used those services without the first man's consent, he was depriving the first man of that exclusivity, and also of the security of knowing that his property would be passed on to his own offspring and not to a cuckoo planted in his nest.

There was nothing pro-woman about rape laws when they first appeared. They treated women rape victims completely differently from victims of other crimes (requiring evidence of a sort not required for any other crime, and making the woman's own testimony either irrelevant or insufficient). A woman whose sexual and reproductive services weren't of concern to an appropriate man had no real protection against sexual assault; nobody cared if someone appropriated her sexual or reproductive services against her will. Laws like this persist in some places to this day.

So, now. Let us repeal all laws prohibiting the sexual assault of women. They are misogynist laws and must be abolished.

Have I got it right?

[enfield collector]

15. who'd have thought that gun grabbers would be

motivated by race. ted nugent would be proud of them.

[slackmaster]

17. Google "Mulford Act"

To see what California's most famous Republican favorite son did to the right to bear arms.

[John BigBootay]

21. Fascinating.

I am not a native to So.Cal. so this history is new to me.

One thing is apparently true-- there seems to be an element of racism and classism in the Mulford Act-- and this is something ALL democrats should be aware of and against.

Yet, isn't it interesting that this concept is not understood by many democrats?

[John BigBootay]

19. Interesting, Big Bill! What a tangled web we weave, eh?

[CO Liberal]

24. Is "Drew Carey" Legal in California?

:-)

[iverglas]

26. How 'bout Jim Carrey??

He's Canadian, after all, so he should probably just butt out.

[slackmaster]

27. Only when Diedrich Bader doesn't wear his hair in a mullet

n/t

[happyslug]

29. ATF Web site as to State Firearm Laws

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/statelaws/22edition.htm

[happyslug]

31. Authority to Transport:

12026.1. Authority to transport or carry concealable firearms.

(a) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, from transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the following applies to the
firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle’s trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than the utility or glove compartment.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm, the firearm is contained within a locked container.

(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with this chapter.

(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device.

12026.2. Exemptions from prohibition against carrying certain firearms without license.

(a) Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following:
(1) The possession of a firearm by an authorized participant in a motion picture, television, or video production or entertainment event when the participant lawfully uses the firearm as part of that production or event or while going directly to, or coming directly from, that production or event.
(2) The possession of a firearm in a locked container by a member of any club or organization, organized for the purpose of lawfully collecting and lawfully displaying pistols, revolvers, or other firearms, while the member is at meetings of the clubs or organizations or while going directly to, and coming directly from, those meetings.
(3) The transportation of a firearm by a participant when going directly to, or coming directly from, a recognized safety or hunter safety class, or a recognized sporting event involving that firearm.
(4) The transportation of a firearm by a person listed in Section 12026 directly between any of the places mentioned in Section 12026.
(5) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a fixed place of business or private residential property for the purpose of the lawful repair or the lawful transfer, sale, or loan of that firearm.
(6) The transportation of a firearm by a person listed in Section 12026 when going directly from the place where that person lawfully received that firearm to that person’s place of residence or place of business or to private property owned or lawfully possessed by that person.
(7) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a gun show, swap meet, or similar event to which the public is invited, for the purpose of displaying that firearm in a lawful manner.
(8) The transportation of a firearm by an authorized employee or agent of a supplier of firearms when going directly to, or coming directly
from, a motion picture, television, or video production or entertainment event for the purpose of providing that firearm to an authorized participant to lawfully use as a part of that production
or event.
(9) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a target range, which holds a regulatory or business license, for the purposes of practicing shooting at targets with that firearm at that target range.
(10) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a place designated by a person authorized
to issue licenses pursuant to Section 12050 when done at the request of the issuing agency so that the issuing agency can determine
whether or not a license should be issued to that person to carry that firearm.
(11) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a law enforcement agency for the purpose
of a lawful transfer, sale, or loan of that firearm pursuant to Section 12084.
(12) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a lawful camping activity for the purpose of having that firearm available for lawful personal protection while at the lawful campsite. This paragraph shall not be construed to override the statutory authority granted to the Department of Parks and Recreation or any other state or local governmental agencies to promulgate rules and regulations governing the administration of parks
and campgrounds.
(13) The transportation of a firearm by a person in order to comply with subdivision (c) or (i) of Section 12078 as it pertains to that firearm.
(14) The transportation of a firearm by a person in order to utilize subdivision (l) of Section 12078 as it pertains to that firearm.
(15) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a gun show or event, as defined in Section 178.100 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, for the purpose of lawfully transferring, selling, or loaning that firearm in accordance with subdivision (d) of Section 12072.
(16) The transportation of a firearm by a person in order to utilize paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 12078 as it pertains to that firearm.
(17) The transportation of a firearm by a person who finds the firearm in order to comply with Article 1 (commencing with Section 2080) of
Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code as it pertains to that firearm and if that firearm is being transported to a law enforcement agency, the person gives prior notice to the law enforcement agency that he or she is transporting the firearm to the law enforcement agency.
(18) The transportation of a firearm by a person who finds the firearm and is transporting it to a law enforcement agency for disposition according to law, if he or she gives prior notice to the law enforcement agency that he or she is ATF P 5300.5 (2000 – 22nd ed.)
page 22 transporting the firearm to the law enforcement agency for disposition according to law.
(19) The transportation of a firearm by a person in order to comply with paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072 as it pertains to that firearm.
(20) The transportation of a firearm by a person in order to comply with paragraph (3) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072 as it pertains to that firearm.
(21) The transportation of a firearm by a person for the purpose of obtaining an identification number or mark assigned for that firearm from the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12092.

(b) In order for a firearm to be exempted under subdivision (a), while being transported to or from a place, the firearm shall be unloaded, kept in a locked container, as defined in subdivision (d), and the course of travel shall include only those deviations between authorized locations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

(c) This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with this chapter.

(d) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. The term "locked container" does not include the utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle.