CALIFORNIA OPEN CARRY QUESTION(CONCERNING KNIFE CARRY NOT GUN)?

[mate]

IM LOOKING FOR KNOWLEDGE AND ADVICE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED ON THIS SUBJECT, IF YOU COME HERE TO COMPLAIN OR WRITE SOMETHING NEGATIVE OR STUPID, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO BE, YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY BE REPORTED FOR HARASSMENT.

Open carry law, this means that I can carry my knife on my side which is 7" in blade length 12" all together, Why? because i support this law and i will keep carrying until ,y rights are taken from me. I have no felonies, no criminal record and nothing to stop me from carrying it, so I dont want to hear crap about why I shouldnt carry it or redundant questions of why I am carrying it in the first place. 1. its none of your damn business. 2. just because you dont or wouldn't doesn't mean others will, not everyone is as biased as most people. Now I can carry my knife anywhere aslong as I am not near a school or anything like that. I carry it everywhere and so far have never had a problem with citizens or LEO, in fact ive had several conversations with LEOs about the law, none have been had any problems. However my question is whats with private property with public access.. Now ive hear many different tails about this. "its legal to carry on private property aslong as there are no signs that say otherwise."....."not all security guards understand the law and if there is no signs or anything notifying the public there is really nothing they can do"....."Verbal warnings to take off knife by security do not qualify as a justifiable notification if nothing on the property has stated such"

Then there is the opposition such as "they do not need signs, its private property, they can do what they want."....."once your on private its there rules regardless of your rights and laws"...."verbal warnings is all they need, if you dont listen the cops will be called and you will be arrested"


You see I am very well versed in the law especially knife carry, however this is ridiculous. my ideal (wich may be wrong to some) even if private property it is still within california, which is still inside the US. wich means to me all laws and rights should apply, that logic is like saying. I can kill someone in my house and the laws outside dont apply. As far as im concerned, the rental cops arent the owneers of the place and unles the owners themselves tell me otherwise or at the very least have signs up, why should I believe them, what if the rental cops are wrong yet they keep doing it, what if the owner would allow it, yet they dont know.

So whats the truth here people? what is right and what is wrong for future reference?


So my question is, whats the truth here, do the rental cops have the rights to fvck with people?

[bercnan72]

I have answered you privately, but there is a little more to your question here. Theoretically, the state COULD allow the owner of private property open to the public (like a mall) to prohibit entry by people with knives. However, I am unaware of any California law which does that. As far as private property open to the public is concerned, a person can be arrested for refusing to leave only if he has the intent to interfere with lawful business, is intimidating other customers, or has been convicted of a violent felony committed on the property. (Pen C 602, 602.1.) That is the legal answer.

The practical answer is that the mall owner has a lot more power and influence in the community than you do. You can be sure that if you insist upon taking your knife to the mall, and refuse to leave, the police will find some reason to arrest you. Put another way, whether the rental cops have the RIGHT to F with you, they certainly have the ABILITY to do so. My advice is to leave your knife in the car while shopping.

[doran]

We are nation of laws. You don't like the laws, become part of the process and change the laws. Whatever they are

[ricard83]

This is just to inform you of the California private security regulations only, maroon:
In California ,Security Guards are required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS), of the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Applicants must be at least 18 years old, undergo a criminal history background check through the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and complete a 40-hour course of required training. This required training is broken down into smaller training sections and time-lines. The first is 8-hours of BSIS-designed instruction on powers to arrest and weapons. Then, within 30 days of getting the individual officers license, they must receive 16-hours of training on various mandatory and elective courses. Finally, within 6-months of getting their license, they must receive an additional 16-hours of training on various mandatory and elective courses.
California security officers are also required to complete 8-hours of annual training on security-related topics, after the first, above mentioned 40-hours are complete.
The training and exam may be administered by any private patrol operator or by any of a large number of certified training facilities. This training can be classroom or online. ,[29][30]
That being said, Most security officers do not carry weapons and have the same powers of arrest as a private citizen, called a "private person" arrest, "any person" arrest, or "citizen's arrest." If weapons are carried, additional permits and training are usually required. Armed security personnel are generally used to protect sensitive sites such as government and military installations, armored money transports, casinos, banks (or other financial institutions), nuclear power plants, etc. However, armed security is quickly becoming a standard for vehicle patrol officers and on many other non-government sites.
Security guard/officer continue to gain broader responsibilities. A growing trend is the increased use of private security to support services previously provided by police departments. James F. Pastor addresses substantive legal and public policy issues which directly or indirectly relate to the provision of security services. These can be demonstrated by the logic of alternative or supplemental service providers. The use of private police has particular appeal because property or business owners can directly contract for public safety services, thereby providing welcome relief for municipal budgets. Finally, private police functions can be flexible, depending upon the financial, organizational, political, and situational circumstances of the client.[26]
In conclusion, I understand if your built like a twelve year old girl or have a tiny chachee and need to compensate with weapons and sharp toys, but If you run into someone who's actually trained in combat and start waving your pointy metal stick, you'll get your head handed to you on a plate, tiger.