Question about carrying at my work place.

[BonoVox]

Originally Posted by SierraNevadaCCW

Go read the laws...it's clear as day. It is pretty clear to me anyway. I'm not aware of an case law that would make the current writen state law invalid.

Anyway...I'm going on vacation. So have a good time with this question....but I think it's right there in black and white if you read it.

Enjoy your vacation!!

[Harry Carry]

The way I read that is that an officer or employee may have a weapon with permission, but it says nothing about carrying, either open or concealed. It does seem to speak to a 'person's place of business', which to me sounds like it must be your business (you are the owner).

[SierraNevadaCCW]

Originally Posted by Harry Carry

The way I read that is that an officer or employee may have a weapon with permission, but it says nothing about carrying, either open or concealed. It does seem to speak to a 'person's place of business', which to me sounds like it must be your business (you are the owner).

I don't know how you can miss it. LOL It's right there in three seperate sections in black and white.

And clearly states "employee" in two seperate sections. And Yes it does say plenty about carrying openly or concealed...and I pasted the sections and underlined the places where it says it.

I'm not sure what else I can do for you.

I give up.

[Harry Carry]

Sierra,

No one is trying to argue. But being as gun laws, especially in California, are open for interpretation in a major way, trying to get a total grasp on the language is difficult. Let me explain my reasoning.

Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen of the United States or legal resident 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, who carries, either openly or concealed, anywhere within the citizen's or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

This seems to explicitly apply to the legal resident's place of business, i.e. the owner. Maybe that is open to interpretation, maybe not, but to my eyes it doesn't clearly include an employee in the exception to carrying open or concealed.

12031(h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that property.

Again in this section it does not explicitly say an employee can carry concealed or open. Kind of ludicrous when this is all about regulations on who can carry concealed, but as this section doesn't reference an employee actually carrying open or concealed, as the previously quoted section did when refering to a resident's 'place of business', this is not clear cut to me.

I'm sure CCWI can give a definitive answer when he pops in.

[SierraNevadaCCW]

Originally Posted by Harry Carry

Sierra,

I'm sure CCWI can give a definitive answer when he pops in.

But I can't? Sheesh.

I guess I'll call it a day and go back to packing our suitcases.

[CCWInstructor]

Scott, don't take it personal. They don't know you and they know me. Of course I know you and you background, they don't. They are also watching this thread on another site. The original poster started it on two differnt locations. My name has come up in both locations.

The other location has a differnt answer than yours, because he is quoting a book that is three years old. Your answer is correct. It is also private property, assuming you are inside your place of business.

HOWEVER!, if you don't have written permission from the owner, can you be charged if the owner calls the police? YES!

I'm going back to training now. Thanks for all the phones calls, PM's and IM's pointing me to ths thread.

For the record, you can trust him folks.

[bigdMP]

Thanks for all the help guys. I'll ask another question. I work at a facility that has a school on the grounds. Does that change weather I can or can't carry with my employers permission? I have a vested interest in keeping these kids here safe from nut Jobs like at VT, but I fear that my attempts at getting a CCW from our left wing Sheriff here in SD will prevent those aspirations.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by BearFlagger

Where's Hammer when you need him? Is that grilled cheese I smell?

I'm lying low...They don't listen to me either (And they know me!).

[cato]

Register and read the full case law here: MY FindLaw


People v. Barela(1991) 234 Cal.App.3d Supp. 15 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 458
1. Appellate Department, Superior Court, San Francisco
[Crim. A. No. 4261. Apr 25, 1991.]

OPINION
KAY, P. J.
Statement of Facts
On January 16, 1990, San Francisco Police Officer Carlos Racinos arrested appellant for carrying a concealed weapon in a Zim's Restaurant (hereafter Zim's). The People charged appellant with violating Penal Code sections 12025, subdivision (b) (carrying certain firearms without license); [234 Cal.App.3d Supp. 17] 12031, subdivision (a) (carrying loaded firearm in public place or on public street, a misdemeanor); and 538d (false personation of a peace officer). The People agreed to dismiss the Penal Code section 538d charge, and appellant stood trial for the weapons charges.
At trial Christopher Ware, a Zim's manager, testified that appellant provided security at Zim's in exchange for free or discounted meals. Leonard Peoples testified that he and appellant entered into an oral agreement with John Yupango, an assistant manager at Zim's, to provide security there. Peoples also testified that Yupango authorized him and appellant to carry a gun.
The prosecution called Officer Racinos, who testified that Yupango told him that appellant did not work as a security guard at Zim's. The prosecution also called Donald Jong, the general manager at Zim's, who testified that Yupango believed that appellant was a police officer. Jong further testified that Yupango did not have the authority to decide who could carry a gun in the restaurant....

...Appellant argues that the Legislature, by expressly disapproving People v. Melton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 580, meant to allow employees such as convenience store clerks to carry concealed weapons at work. This argument ignores the fact that not every employee's workplace is a "place of business" within the meaning of Penal Code section 12026. The legislative statement of purpose makes clear that an employee must have a possessory interest in his or her workplace in order for that workplace to be considered the employee's "place of business" under section 12026. Only those employees who have the right to exclude others from their workplace, and the right to control activities there, may carry concealed weapons at work without a permit or license. [234 Cal.App.3d Supp. 21] It is therefore ordered that the judgment in municipal court action No. 1213585 be affirmed.
Gyemant, J., and Garcia, J., concurred.




People v. Marotta (1981) 128 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 611
1. [Crim. A. No. 18489. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles. December 9, 1981.]

OPINION
ROTHMAN, J.
Defendant was charged with carrying, concealed within a vehicle, a .25 caliber automatic pistol in violation of Penal Code section 12025 (count I); carrying a concealed weapon on his person in violation of subdivision (b) Penal Code section 12025 (count II); [128 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4] and carrying a loaded firearm on his person and in a vehicle in a public place and on a public street in violation of "vehicle code" (meaning Penal Code) section 12031 (count III). fn. 1
The cause was submitted on a written stipulation that defendant possessed a loaded .25 caliber automatic pistol on the floorboard of his taxicab, which cab he was operating under a lease he secured that evening from Speedy Cab Company. Defendant carried the weapon for protection while operating the taxicab, and had no license to carry it. The court found defendant guilty on all counts, and imposed a probationary sentence.
Defendant appeals the conviction, asserting the same issue he presented to the trial court: that he was entitled to keep the pistol in his "place of business"--his taxicab--under the provisions of Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (h). We agree with defendant's contention and reverse the conviction.

Edit: One judge dissented.

[JALLEN]

So, how do those cases set out above square with the People v. Overturf, an appellate court decision interpreting PC12031, opinion quoted in another thread here. In Overturf, it seems like the courts hung their hats on the distinction between "carrying" a loaded firearm which was forbidden, and "having" a loaded firearm in a place of business or home, leaving the inference that it was OK to "have" a loaded firearm otherwise lawful, but not to "carry" a loaded firearm in those places. All situations, of course, without a CCW permit.

Overturf is a Court of Appeals case, while the other two were Appellate Department of Superior Court, IIRC.

[BonoVox]

Who dug this out of the cellar????

Ok, new tact. How is this relevant to either getting a CCW, or law that affects those with a CCW?

[X-ffdo]

Originally Posted by BonoVox

Who dug this out of the cellar????

Ok, new tact. How is this relevant to either getting a CCW, or law that affects those with a CCW?

Ehh ?....Good Question.

[SierraNevadaCCW]

Looks like in People v. Barela there was a problem with the "employment" status of the man arrested and it was disputed. He was also charged originally with PC 538D which is displaying a police officer badge...later dropped. Not only was the "employment" status disputed...the person who "gave permission" had no authority to do so...(not the owner of the business/property)

In the case involving the taxi cab...the man was arrested in public in his work vehicle...which was not on private property...right? If you're not on private property...you need a CCW to carry in your vehicle.

Each case has issues....and don't quite understand how these would relate to an employee on private property with a concealed weapon and permission to do so by the owner of said property.

I'm not sure either opinion or ruling would affect an actual employee with proof of permission by the owner of the private property they are on. It's private property...

As the owner of my property...I can give anyone permission to carry a concealed weapon while on my property and there is nothing anyone could do about it. Unless that person is a felon or not allowed to have a firearm in his or her possession for other reasons under the law.

[JALLEN]

Originally Posted by SierraNevadaCCW

Looks like in People v. Barela there was a problem with the "employment" status of the man arrested and it was disputed. He was also charged originally with PC 538D which is displaying a police officer badge...later dropped. Not only was the "employment" status disputed...the person who "gave permission" had no authority to do so...(not the owner of the business/property)

In the case involving the taxi cab...the man was arrested in public in his work vehicle...which was not on private property...right? If you're not on private property...you need a CCW to carry in your vehicle.

Each case has issues....and don't quite understand how these would relate to an employee on private property with a concealed weapon and permission to do so by the owner of said property.

I'm not sure either opinion or ruling would affect an actual employee with proof of permission by the owner of the private property they are on. It's private property...

As the owner of my property...I can give anyone permission to carry a concealed weapon while on my property and there is nothing anyone could do about it. Unless that person is a felon or not allowed to have a firearm in his or her possession for other reasons under the law.

In Overturf, the man was on his property, carried a loaded pistol which he discharged into a pile of dirt, on property which he owned. He was convicted of violating PC12031, carrying a loaded firearm. The opinion seems to distinguish the legislature's use of the term "carry" in one section, and "have", or "having" in another, in their minds two different forms of "possession".

I'm trying to reconcile this opinion with the others, to have a clear understanding of the limitations imposed by current law. Many of us, who although desirous of having permits, may not be able to get one in the current political climate, and are thus left with whatever exceptions to the prohibitions there are to protect ourselves in the home and office.

[SierraNevadaCCW]

Originally Posted by JALLEN

In Overturf, the man was on his property, carried a loaded pistol which he discharged into a pile of dirt, on property which he owned. He was convicted of violating PC12031, carrying a loaded firearm. The opinion seems to distinguish the legislature's use of the term "carry" in one section, and "have", or "having" in another, in their minds two different forms of "possession".

I'm trying to reconcile this opinion with the others, to have a clear understanding of the limitations imposed by current law. Many of us, who although desirous of having permits, may not be able to get one in the current political climate, and are thus left with whatever exceptions to the prohibitions there are to protect ourselves in the home and office.

Ahh...ok. Do you have this Overturf case synopsis you can paste here?