Carrying in Vehicle

[RedhorseG20]

NOLACOPUSMC humbled?

After he teaches the middle east everything about guns that will wear off

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I think what gets lost here is that our (our = laypeople on the forum) interpretation of the law doesn't matter. How I read it, or you read it, is irrelevant. How a judge has read it and how it has played out in court is what matters, sets precedent, and understanding for attorneys.

Hence, the danger of reading the law and proclaiming what it means, without understanding how it has been applied in cases.

That is why I tend to follow the direction of the AG and experienced attorneys, etc, instead of the bickering on the forums about what you can/can't/should/shouldn't do.

I'd guess Ernie Gammon knows more about CHL laws than any other non-attorney member here, and he doesn't even bother contributing anymore due to all the specious misinformation and squabbling after he has gotten the info from the horse's mouth.

That said, all my knowledge is purely academic, so my opinions on just about everything = irrelevant.

i agree 100%.

I guess we should all just throw our hands up and do whatever we want right?

I guess there is nothing to benefit from discussing issues "academically" to at least attempt to gain a direction of logic (somewhat of an oxymoron considering we are talking about the LA legal system).

Hell, why do we even discuss tactics since we never know what will happen until it happens? No need to have a plan, just leave it all up to chance.

The caveat in all of this is just like you stated...you can do things "by the book" and get screwed in court, or you can completely screw the pooch "and get off" scott free. There will always be a certain element of chance involved when one is forced to deal with the legal system because ultimately human decision is involved and that as we all know is not infallible. However, I still think it is a good idea to have a solid foundation of the laws, while not absolute, to at least guide your decision making.

Hell, some people know the law full and well and make a conscious decision to break it because they do not agree with it or feel their circumstances exempt them from it. But at least the are making as informed a decision as they possibly could.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

After he teaches the middle east everything about guns that will wear off

Trust me there wiseass, I am learning a lot more than I am teaching. LOL

 

[Guate_shooter]

Trust me there wiseass, I am learning a lot more than I am teaching. LOL

You missing some craklins and some boudin right??????/ LOL

 

[Baldrik78]

Trust me there wiseass, I am learning a lot more than I am teaching. LOL

Like where they hide the step-stools so you can mount your camel?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

You missing some craklins and some boudin right??????/ LOL

Dude, I would so go for some boudin right now.....

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Like where they hide the step-stools so you can mount your camel?

LOL. Now tht is some funny shite, I don't care who you are. LOL

 

[kirkdbergeron]

Well all i got to say is, get a damn CHP and most of this information you will not have to worry bout, now I said MOST not all, CHP LEGALLY, and all is well ....

 

[oldman45]

You sir have a wealth of knowledge and a uniques history of experience to draw upon. However, as I am sure you would agree, the law can say whatever it wants, but once it gets in a courtroom, it is up to a judge or jury.

I anxiously wait for any citations you can provide about this matter as this is one of the few times I would revel in being proved wrong as I think it would be a great statement for gun owners. Also, if you can provide a written copy of an AG opinion from an AG in the last 20 years in reference to this, that would be wonderful.

Thanks for your time.

The arrest you made must not have been contested. Unless the person was disturbing the peace or some other charge such as domestic violence or personal injury to others, an officer does not have powers of arrest for a victimless act committed on private property. Many people plead guilty without rerpresentation and some are found guilty and do not appeal. However, I had a case in 2004 where an officer made an arrest for public intoxication on private property. The man won his case and was paid a lot of money for the arrest and detainment.

I can name you several high priced lawyers that would jump on such as case as you mention, given only those facts stated for free in exchange for the contengency fee in the award they will get later.

BTW: It was ruled yesterday in 26th Judicial District court that a POST certified officer can make an arrest outside his jurisdiction for a misdemeanor. The case brought before the court was being represented by a former LA State Police Officer that is now an attorney. He represented a DUI arrestee that was stopped in Benton, LA by a Greenwood, LA Police Officer at the verbal instructions of a State Police Officer enroute to the area. The Judge ruled officially that an officer has the right to arrest in cases like this outside their jurisdiction for misdemeanor crimes. Until now, the powers of arrest outside jurisdiction was limited to felony cases and officers ouside their area were considered private citizens.

 

[oldman45]

Well all i got to say is, get a damn CHP and most of this information you will not have to worry bout, now I said MOST not all, CHP LEGALLY, and all is well ....

Actually with a CHP, you can be illegal. Try carrying into a Circle K or one of the SOuthland Property sub companies. If a clerk sees it, you are toast. We all have done it in places where firearms are forbidden but we do so unknowingly. With a CHP, you can have a gun in your car while dropping off mail at the Post Office and you can be charged with a Federal Firearms violation. I personally think that law sucks but we are forbidden to carry on Federal property, even in a vehicle. An attorney in the 1st Judical District and I had this discussion a few weeks ago during a recess. He has a Parish CHP and admits that he does carry daily to the Post Office for mail drops but with the gun in his car, he is in violation of the law.

There are other ways as well but most people never have a problem.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

The arrest you made must not have been contested. Unless the person was disturbing the peace or some other charge such as domestic violence or personal injury to others, an officer does not have powers of arrest for a victimless act committed on private property. Many people plead guilty without rerpresentation and some are found guilty and do not appeal. However, I had a case in 2004 where an officer made an arrest for public intoxication on private property. The man won his case and was paid a lot of money for the arrest and detainment.

I can name you several high priced lawyers that would jump on such as case as you mention, given only those facts stated for free in exchange for the contengency fee in the award they will get later.

BTW: It was ruled yesterday in 26th Judicial District court that a POST certified officer can make an arrest outside his jurisdiction for a misdemeanor. The case brought before the court was being represented by a former LA State Police Officer that is now an attorney. He represented a DUI arrestee that was stopped in Benton, LA by a Greenwood, LA Police Officer at the verbal instructions of a State Police Officer enroute to the area. The Judge ruled officially that an officer has the right to arrest in cases like this outside their jurisdiction for misdemeanor crimes. Until now, the powers of arrest outside jurisdiction was limited to felony cases and officers ouside their area were considered private citizens.

Thanks for that last bit of information. Please provide a citation for that also. That is a very interesting move considering the current trend, IMO, of removing certain "powers" of LEO. I definitely want to learn more about this legally, though i would never attempt it unless extenuating circumstances, because it will ultimately lead to a political **** storm.

As far as you example about "PUBLIC" intoxication, i agree that cannot occur on private property unless very specific circumstances exist that are basically ancillary to the public intox.

I am further confused by your example in that you list DTP and then state that an officer has no power of arrest for a victimless crime on private property. In all DTP arrests, their is no specific victim other than "society" (as listed on reports), so it is in fact, relative to persons and personal property "victimless" yet you list it as a possible qualifier for an arrest on private property.

I agree that at times people plead guilty out of ignorance of the law or poor representation; however, in every criminal case I have been involved in, the person either plead (Fing DA) or was found guilty. i have never had a person walk on any charges I have filed. That is because I only arrest people based on probable cause of guilt and I write my reports well and include all facts and witness statements.

In one of the cases I mentioned earlier, I received a call of a 4WD truck cutting donuts and driving in a reckless manner. Upon arrival, i witnessed the vehicle doing donuts and driving in a reckless manner. Upon investigation, it was found to be the person's own property. However, given the manner of his driving, the fact that he was drunk, and the proximity of other homes and relative danger to the public, I arrested him for Reckless Operation and DUI. He refused the test and was found guilty on both charges. This was in Lafayette in the late 90's.

If your background is what you claim it to be, and I have no reason to doubt it, then I will submit that you have a lifetime of experience more than me. However, on this particular point of fact, I believe you to be mistaken. It appears to me that you are drawing on your years of experience and attempting to extrapolate it to similar situations because it fits the schema of what makes sense based on your background. WHile normally that would work, in this particular case I feel it does not based on the particulars of the law.

While I will openly agree that weather or not it is infact "illegal" to drive with a firearm concealed on your person in your personal vehicle without a valid CHP is "open to interpretation"( as is every single law we have at some point), until someone is arrested for it, and even then, any other court may find differently the next day, I am 100% positive that you are mistaken on the fact that you cannot be arrested for DWI on your private property.

i can, an others have, arrested people for cutting their own grass on a riding lawnmower when intoxicated.

In fact, pretty much the only crimes you cannot be arrested or cited for while on your private property are moving violations (32 code), and of course personal property possession related crimes, like trespassing, criminal damage, theft, etc.


Respectfully

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Actually with a CHP, you can be illegal. Try carrying into a Circle K or one of the SOuthland Property sub companies. If a clerk sees it, you are toast. We all have done it in places where firearms are forbidden but we do so unknowingly. With a CHP, you can have a gun in your car while dropping off mail at the Post Office and you can be charged with a Federal Firearms violation. I personally think that law sucks but we are forbidden to carry on Federal property, even in a vehicle. An attorney in the 1st Judical District and I had this discussion a few weeks ago during a recess. He has a Parish CHP and admits that he does carry daily to the Post Office for mail drops but with the gun in his car, he is in violation of the law.

There are other ways as well but most people never have a problem.

1. If the clerk sees it, what would the charge be?

2. Even is it is in your car during transport and travel?

 

[oldman45]

1. If the clerk sees it, what would the charge be?

2. Even is it is in your car during transport and travel?

I just got a call from a former DA now in private personal injury law. I asked him about the private property issue. He said that, in his opinion based on 35 yrs of practice, a person can be arrested for anything but getting the charge to stick would be another issue.

I have also being in trial where a DUI was issued by a LASP and it was found by the Judge to be bogus.

I personally hate plea bargains but they happen when cases are weak.

In the case where others may be endangered, then yes a charge may stick.

My first large case was in 1984 in which a driver was legally intoxicated and he was rightfully so charged but there was a bicyclist fatality. (State vs Copes) The jury was not allowed to know certain things such as the youth was riding a bike that was bought by the driver, that the sheriffs department had been called numerous times to the boy for playing chicken with cars and school busses on the bike and a few other things. The jury heard that the man was not driving in a reckless fashion, was a good, hard working and honest person and the accident could not have been avoided. He was found guilty of Vehicular Homicide but the Appeals Court reversed the decision and he was found guilty of DUI in the lower court. I was called in to offer facts that the accident was unavoidable and my testimony was the basis for the overturn. LA law was later amended to allow for drivers in unavoidable accidents to be charged with VH. However occasionally a driver will still be so charged and it sometimes will hold.

As to the police ruling, you can read it at:

http://www.ktbs.com/news/24847099/detail.html

 

[charlie12]

Actually with a CHP, you can be illegal. Try carrying into a Circle K or one of the SOuthland Property sub companies. If a clerk sees it, you are toast. We all have done it in places where firearms are forbidden but we do so unknowingly. With a CHP, you can have a gun in your car while dropping off mail at the Post Office and you can be charged with a Federal Firearms violation. I personally think that law sucks but we are forbidden to carry on Federal property, even in a vehicle. An attorney in the 1st Judical District and I had this discussion a few weeks ago during a recess. He has a Parish CHP and admits that he does carry daily to the Post Office for mail drops but with the gun in his car, he is in violation of the law.

There are other ways as well but most people never have a problem.

Why would it be illegal to carry in Circle K with a CHP? The ones I go to are not posted with no weapon signs.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I just got a call from a former DA now in private personal injury law. I asked him about the private property issue. He said that, in his opinion based on 35 yrs of practice, a person can be arrested for anything but getting the charge to stick would be another issue.

I have also being in trial where a DUI was issued by a LASP and it was found by the Judge to be bogus.

I personally hate plea bargains but they happen when cases are weak.

In the case where others may be endangered, then yes a charge may stick.

My first large case was in 1984 in which a driver was legally intoxicated and he was rightfully so charged but there was a bicyclist fatality. (State vs Copes) The jury was not allowed to know certain things such as the youth was riding a bike that was bought by the driver, that the sheriffs department had been called numerous times to the boy for playing chicken with cars and school busses on the bike and a few other things. The jury heard that the man was not driving in a reckless fashion, was a good, hard working and honest person and the accident could not have been avoided. He was found guilty of Vehicular Homicide but the Appeals Court reversed the decision and he was found guilty of DUI in the lower court. I was called in to offer facts that the accident was unavoidable and my testimony was the basis for the overturn. LA law was later amended to allow for drivers in unavoidable accidents to be charged with VH. However occasionally a driver will still be so charged and it sometimes will hold.

As to the police ruling, you can read it at:

http://www.ktbs.com/news/24847099/detail.html

Took him 35 yers to figure that out?

OK, I have no idea what you are talking about or how any of the above relates to anything discussed here, and the article explains that officers are only allowed to stop suspected DUI on request of jurisdictional agency in certain circumstances, not to make misdemeanor arrests out of jurisdiction.

Thanks for your help...I have it from here.

 

[Guate_shooter]

<------ More confussed than a new born in a strip club.

 

[oldman45]

Took him 35 yers to figure that out?

OK, I have no idea what you are talking about or how any of the above relates to anything discussed here, and the article explains that officers are only allowed to stop suspected DUI on request of jurisdictional agency in certain circumstances, not to make misdemeanor arrests out of jurisdiction.

Thanks for your help...I have it from here.

Ok read this. It covers more background.

http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/...late-court-reverses-trial-courts-in-DWI-cases

As to the relation to the above, I was setting background for info that will be posted tomorrow when I get some books from the law library.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

<------ More confussed than a new born in a strip club.

You ain't the only one. LOL

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Ok read this. It covers more background.

http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/...late-court-reverses-trial-courts-in-DWI-cases

As to the relation to the above, I was setting background for info that will be posted tomorrow when I get some books from the law library.

Maybe you should read it first. It is basically the same article....DUI's only.


BTW...media stories are not citations.

If so, they would stand as proof that Alf fathered Paris hilton and Aliens wore Farmer's skin as coat.






HAHA....whoever you are, you got me...

 

[charlie12]

You cannot carry concealed on the neighbor's property with a permit unless you have his permission. .

From the LSP website it state's


The provisions of R.S. 40:1379.3 (N) shall not limit the right of a property owner, lessee, or other lawful custodian to prohibit or restrict access of those persons possessing a concealed handgun pursuant to a permit issued under this Section. No individual to whom a concealed handgun permit is issued may carry such concealed handgun into the private residence of another without first receiving the consent of that person.

To me there is a difference between INTO a private RESIDENCE and what you said ON the neighbor's property.
Did I miss something written somewhere else?