The phrase "public place" isn’t well, or exactly defined, in terms of open carry. "Public place" is not defined by 25850, although “public street” is clear in its meaning. The definition section of Part 6 of the Penal Code is no help.
Your driveway or front yard may be a public place.
The sidewalk, parking lot, or area in front of your business may be a public place.
Your driveway or front yard may be a public place.
The sidewalk, parking lot, or area in front of your business may be a public place.
17040. As used in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 26350) of Division 5 of Title 4, “public place” has the same meaning as in Section 25850.
Though it is applicable only to imitation firearms, the following section sheds some light on what the Penal Code may consider a public place in the context of weapons.
20170. (a) No person may openly display or expose any imitation firearm in a public place.
(b) As used in this section, “public place” means an area open to the public and includes any of the following:
(1) A street.
(2) A sidewalk.
(3) A bridge.
(4) An alley.
(5) A plaza.
(6) A park.
(7) A driveway.
(8) A front yard.
(9) A parking lot.
(10) An automobile, whether moving or not.
(11) A building open to the general public, including one that serves food or drink, or provides entertainment.
(12) A doorway or entrance to a building or dwelling.
(13) A public school.
(14) A public or private college or university.
In the context of prostitution, “public place” is defined similarly.
653.20. (b) “Public place” means an area open to the public, or an alley, plaza, park, driveway, or parking lot, or an automobile, whether moving or not, or a building open to the general public, including one which serves food or drink, or provides entertainment, or the doorways and entrances to a building or dwelling, or the grounds enclosing a building or dwelling.
Can I openly carry in my front yard?
Possibly, but it would only be recommended in exigent circumstances or if your front yard is securely fenced and you are prepared for an adverse reaction from neighbors and law enforcement.
California law and jurisprudence seems to recognize front yards and driveways that aren't fenced as public places because members of the public can come to your door without restriction. Solicitors, neighbors, fundraisers, candidates, the mailman, or anyone wanting to speak with you can just come up and knock.
The Penal Code sections for concealed, loaded, and unloaded carry do not state a fence is required, but the other constructions of a "public place" in the Penal Code might not be in your favor. The case law is not strong in this area. It is likely a new case might show that the front yard is indeed private property within the meaning of the legion of exemptions, but rolling the dice on being a test case in California is not a good proposition.
Possibly, but it would only be recommended in exigent circumstances or if your front yard is securely fenced and you are prepared for an adverse reaction from neighbors and law enforcement.
California law and jurisprudence seems to recognize front yards and driveways that aren't fenced as public places because members of the public can come to your door without restriction. Solicitors, neighbors, fundraisers, candidates, the mailman, or anyone wanting to speak with you can just come up and knock.
The Penal Code sections for concealed, loaded, and unloaded carry do not state a fence is required, but the other constructions of a "public place" in the Penal Code might not be in your favor. The case law is not strong in this area. It is likely a new case might show that the front yard is indeed private property within the meaning of the legion of exemptions, but rolling the dice on being a test case in California is not a good proposition.
Case Law
Strider; fenced front yard not public
People v. Strider, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1393 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)
Deputies observed Strider with a chrome handgun and pursued him into the house, finding drugs. Strider was charged with carrying a loaded firearm in a public place. Lower courts found that "the fenced front yard was a public place." The Appeals court disagreed.
People v. Strider, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1393 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)
Deputies observed Strider with a chrome handgun and pursued him into the house, finding drugs. Strider was charged with carrying a loaded firearm in a public place. Lower courts found that "the fenced front yard was a public place." The Appeals court disagreed.
...we conclude that the porch and area inside the fenced yard was not a public place within the meaning of section 12031."
'The People urge that the front yard was a public place because it could be easily viewed through the fence.[...] That a fenced, secured area is visible to the public cannot, in our view, serve as the touchstone to establish it was a public place. The interior of a home may be easily visible through open curtains or large windows, but clearly it would not qualify as a public place within the meaning of the statute.
In Yarbrough, the driveway did not belong to defendant nor was he invited there and in Overturf, the driveway was part of a three-building apartment complex.
Yarbrough: stranger’s open driveway is public
In People v. Yarbrough [169 Cal.App.4th 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)
86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 674], it was found a driveway may be a public place.
"We conclude that the trial court properly advised the jury that a private driveway may be a 'public place if it is reasonably accessible to the public without a barrier.'" However, this was not the appellant's home but rather a random driveway.
Yarbrough: stranger’s open driveway is public
In People v. Yarbrough [169 Cal.App.4th 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)
86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 674], it was found a driveway may be a public place.
"We conclude that the trial court properly advised the jury that a private driveway may be a 'public place if it is reasonably accessible to the public without a barrier.'" However, this was not the appellant's home but rather a random driveway.
Here, the front driveway of the residence had no obstacles to occupancy by the public. The car parked in the driveway appeared to be abandoned, and the residence was for sale. The driveway was unenclosed, visible to the public, exposed to general view, and had no other physical barrier to access. Defendant and his companions had gathered freely on the driveway, although the residence did not belong to any of them and they had no ownership or possessory interest in the property. The owner of the premises was neither present nor, as far as we know from the record, had the owner given permission to anyone to congregate there.
The circumstances may be different if an armed citizen were in his own driveway.
Overturf: apartment driveway is public
From the People v. Overturf [(1976) 64 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 134 Cal.Rptr. 769] holding an apartment complex driveway may be considered a public place.
A "a 49-year-old man suffering from severe rheumatoid arthritis" was confronted by a former employee who "threatened to knock defendant's teeth down his throat." When Overturf investigated what he thought was the "victim" and several friends ("athletic young men of large build whose ages run from 19 to 21" as the court noted) tampering with his vehicle, he brought his gun.
Overturf's major mistake was firing an unjustified warning shot into a pile of dirt when the three men advanced on him. Overturf was arrested for carrying a loaded firearm in public. He argued that as he owned the driveway and it constituted his place of business, carrying a gun was exempt there.
Disgustingly, the appeals court found that "'owning, possessing, or keeping' a firearm at one's place of residence or business does not equate with 'carrying' such a weapon." The dissenting judge opined:
Overturf: apartment driveway is public
From the People v. Overturf [(1976) 64 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 134 Cal.Rptr. 769] holding an apartment complex driveway may be considered a public place.
A "a 49-year-old man suffering from severe rheumatoid arthritis" was confronted by a former employee who "threatened to knock defendant's teeth down his throat." When Overturf investigated what he thought was the "victim" and several friends ("athletic young men of large build whose ages run from 19 to 21" as the court noted) tampering with his vehicle, he brought his gun.
Overturf's major mistake was firing an unjustified warning shot into a pile of dirt when the three men advanced on him. Overturf was arrested for carrying a loaded firearm in public. He argued that as he owned the driveway and it constituted his place of business, carrying a gun was exempt there.
Disgustingly, the appeals court found that "'owning, possessing, or keeping' a firearm at one's place of residence or business does not equate with 'carrying' such a weapon." The dissenting judge opined:
It is ironic that the person who sought to defend himself and his property should be arrested. It is the height of irony that, to accept the sheriff's view of the law, the defendant can only possess a weapon but cannot use it under such circumstances, and that he may only carry a weapon while immured behind the doors of his home but cannot use it an inch past his threshold.
The judges also ignored the exemption allowing one to carry a firearm to protect life or property in imminent danger, which should have been an obvious reason to dismiss the case.
Based on the Overturf decision, the common area of an apartment/housing complex would be considered a public place, especially in light of the above statutes.
Based on the Overturf decision, the common area of an apartment/housing complex would be considered a public place, especially in light of the above statutes.