PDA

View Full Version : Criminal's Advantage?


Ding126
08-25-2008, 12:06 PM
With all the reports from the Bay Area on the " take over robbeies " Where robbers have been going into businesses and robbing them and their patrons. It has been going on for two months now.

Do you think the robbers are comforted by knowing there is no CCW in CA? I keep thinking, if people were able to CCW these robberies would never of happened or they would of been stopped by now.

We deserve the right to have the ability to protect our family & property..If we choose.

What are your thoughts?

alex00
08-25-2008, 12:26 PM
It doesn't matter what we think. The people with the power to make decisions for us are too afraid of guns to ever let mere citizens carry a gun to defend themselves. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence showing that guns can save lives, the anti-gun rule makers will not allow law abiding citizens to carry guns. It is something that we must fight for, it will never be handed over in California.

Beelzy
08-25-2008, 12:27 PM
I feel that if everyone had guns, the criminals would start wearing bullet
proof vests.

Then I would have to re-train myself from using the Mozambique Drill.

Hmm, would save ammo though, I'm torn on this one.

berto
08-25-2008, 12:40 PM
At this point it's a bunch of copycats picking easy targets. The guys pulling these jobs aren't brain surgeons and probably don't factor CCW into their poor decisions. Now, if one of them got plugged by a CCW holder it might dissuade some others from making the same decision but some of the robbers would start shooting. Even with increased ease of obtaining a CCW turning into a greater number of CCW holders many of the stick-up artists would still face a much greater likelihood of getting shot in their own neighborhoods. Its a target rich environment and I'm not sure there are enough potential CCW holders in the area.

Many restaurants in the areas being hit didn't really pay attention to safety and did stupid things like reconcile the night's till at the front window while the door was unlocked.

Librarian
08-25-2008, 12:46 PM
Odds are pretty good that no one would be armed.

CA has about 75,000 sworn police officers (no idea about how many Feds authorized to carry are in CA) and about 40,000 CCW licenses active.

CA has about 36 million residents, about 24 million aged 21-80, who would be possible CCW candidates. (IIRC I guessed once that maybe 3 or 4% have criminal records.) Most places find that, after a change in CCW law, around 4% of the eligibles actually get licenses.

So, in very round numbered estimates, I'd guess that we have around 100,000 CCW-possible folks today, with around 1/3 of the 75,000 officers in uniform (or, at least, on duty) at any one time.

4% of 24 million is about a million (take away from legal eligibles); 4% of 23 million is 920,000 (which would include the current officers and CCW holders).

So, if CA went shall-issue, we might see a change from 100,000 people carrying to 900,000 people carrying.

Of course, the 4% number might be wrong, and even the licensed folks have been shown not to carry every day, and location/employer restrictions would assure that not all would be able to carry all the time.

This also doesn't account for something already legal - business owners carrying in their businesses, and employees having access to guns at work.

It also does not account for illegal carry, whether by folks who intend to commit violent crimes or folks who carry only for self defense but cannot get a CCW 'blessing'.

I doubt whether most criminals would think about odds changing from 1/360 to 9/360 (1/40). But they might think about increased arrests and other results which may occur after such a change in the number of legal CCW holders.

Rivers
08-25-2008, 12:48 PM
It is entirely legal to have or even carry a loaded handgun INSIDE or ON your own business premises. You do not need to have a CCW to do that. As long as you are legally able to possess a handgun (i.e. not a felon, etc.), you can keep the handgun.

However, your self-protection stops when you close the door and proceed to make a bank run, etc. without your handgun. For that, you do need a CCW.

Glock22Fan
08-25-2008, 1:12 PM
It is entirely legal to have or even carry a loaded handgun INSIDE or ON your own business premises. You do not need to have a CCW to do that. As long as you are legally able to possess a handgun (i.e. not a felon, etc.), you can keep the handgun.

But employees, and a lot of the time it is employees actually working there, must (unless they have a CCW) wear their firearms openly and only with the owners' permission. Wouldn't go down too well in many restaurants, I think.

nicki
08-25-2008, 1:23 PM
It is true that business owners can have guns for defense provided the business is not a franchise since many franchises prohibit franchisees or their employees from having guns at work.

Most businesses consult lawyers and lawyers will reccomend not having a gun at teh business for liability.

The political climate will determine how many shopowners will have guns, since they want to appease the powers that be.

If shopowner's percieve a political backlash from having guns, it just isn't worth it to them.

Crime is a cancer, and unless people stand up, it gets worse. The problem is finding people who will stand up. Few will take that first step.

When a society starts to not only recognize, but encourage armed defense, it sends a message to criminals that some of the sheep will now have fangs.

CCW is not the complete answer to violent crime, rather it is part of a blanced solution to reducing violent crime.

When people have hope, they see opportunity and they see that they won't have the fruit of their labor taken away by high taxes, that is when we will see significant reductions in crime.

As long as people have no hope, they are desperate, that opportunities just aren't there, we will have crime because people have to survive by whatever means necessary.

Combine that with social policies that have broken down family units, take away a moral sense of right and wrong, throw in corrupt government and what else would the results be.

Nicki

ldivinag
08-25-2008, 1:26 PM
I feel that if everyone had guns, the criminals would start wearing bullet
proof vests.

Then I would have to re-train myself from using the Mozambique Drill.

Hmm, would save ammo though, I'm torn on this one.


why havent you been training on the MD? :43:

dont forget the failure drill, which is 2 to the COM and then a headshot.

stag1500
08-25-2008, 2:25 PM
Even if a criminal wears a bullet proof vest, it's still going to hurt like hell to get shot in the torso. That would disable them long enough for the decisive head shot.

BigKevLA
08-25-2008, 4:20 PM
It is true that business owners can have guns for defense provided the business is not a franchise since many franchises prohibit franchisees or their employees from having guns at work.

Most businesses consult lawyers and lawyers will reccomend not having a gun at teh business for liability.

The political climate will determine how many shopowners will have guns, since they want to appease the powers that be.

If shopowner's percieve a political backlash from having guns, it just isn't worth it to them.

Crime is a cancer, and unless people stand up, it gets worse. The problem is finding people who will stand up. Few will take that first step.

When a society starts to not only recognize, but encourage armed defense, it sends a message to criminals that some of the sheep will now have fangs.

CCW is not the complete answer to violent crime, rather it is part of a blanced solution to reducing violent crime.

When people have hope, they see opportunity and they see that they won't have the fruit of their labor taken away by high taxes, that is when we will see significant reductions in crime.

As long as people have no hope, they are desperate, that opportunities just aren't there, we will have crime because people have to survive by whatever means necessary.

Combine that with social policies that have broken down family units, take away a moral sense of right and wrong, throw in corrupt government and what else would the results be.

Nicki

Very well put.

Bugei
08-26-2008, 7:24 AM
Crime is a cancer, and unless people stand up, it gets worse. The problem is finding people who will stand up. Few will take that first step.

Nicki

Yeah. I'd love to donate money for a Public Service Announcement (PSA). You see them a lot. After a while you tune them out...but the brain hears them and through repetition, attitudes change. It works for them...like with smoking and drunk driving. Late night comedians used to make jokes about doing those things, but now there's a stigma. They're boiling the frog; we could too.

"You're tired of crime. We all are. No one wants to be a victim of crime. Well, it's a citizens job to not be a victim of crime. It's the police's job to catch criminals after a crime; it's your job to stop them during a crime.

"Do your part. Do the Three P's of Good Citizenship:

"Pack.

"Practice.

"Protect.

"It's for the children. This has been a Public Service Announcement by the Good Citizen's Council for a Safe America."

zinfull
08-26-2008, 8:20 AM
This is all and good BUT, there has been little physical violence in the take overs and there fore in the state of CA you have no fear of physical harm. After all it is just money and you do not have a right to kill over money.

If the take overs start hitting the high class areas where our politicians dine them maybe we will get some action but as for the normal citizens we are screwed.

Jerry

Librarian
08-26-2008, 2:58 PM
"You're tired of crime. We all are. No one wants to be a victim of crime. Well, it's a citizens job to not be a victim of crime. It's the police's job to catch criminals after a crime; it's your job to stop them during a crime.

"Do your part. Do the Three P's of Good Citizenship:

"Pack.

"Practice.

"Protect.

"It's for the children. This has been a Public Service Announcement by the Good Citizen's Council for a Safe America."
I like that.

I bet, though, focus group testing would get a bad reaction to "it's your job to stop them during a crime.", since the widespread current perception is that stopping crime is a job for cops. "it's your job to stop them protect yourself and your family during a crime." seems to me more likely to resonate.

And how do you protect? By stopping them, of course. Words have power, which is why a PSA might help, eventually.

Just quibbling over the script - I really think it's a good idea.

Salty
08-26-2008, 3:07 PM
Many restaurants in the areas being hit didn't really pay attention to safety and did stupid things like reconcile the night's till at the front window while the door was unlocked.

Ha! I worked in a restaurant in high school and every night around 10pm the owner would pull out the cash drawer, grab a calculator, a notebook, and head over to the table right next to the front door. The doors weren't just unlocked, but they were usually open because it tended to get steamy during closing with all the dishwashing and floor moping and such.

Experimentalist
08-26-2008, 3:08 PM
Odds are pretty good that no one would be armed.

{edit}

I doubt whether most criminals would think about odds changing from 1/360 to 9/360 (1/40). But they might think about increased arrests and other results which may occur after such a change in the number of legal CCW holders.

Nice analysis, Librarian.

You make a good point about the criminals not "doing the math" so to speak. However, I tend to think that general knowledge of concealed carry would weigh on the mind of someone contemplating a takeover style crime.

Criminals may be dumb in many ways, but many have shown strong survival skills considering the environment in which they were raised.

alex00
08-26-2008, 5:03 PM
This is all and good BUT, there has been little physical violence in the take overs and there fore in the state of CA you have no fear of physical harm. After all it is just money and you do not have a right to kill over money.

If the take overs start hitting the high class areas where our politicians dine them maybe we will get some action but as for the normal citizens we are screwed.

Jerry

Just because they don't shoot the gun doesn't mean there is not violence. The simple act of pulling a gun and demanding money is by definition violent. I would be willing to bet the contents of my safe that the people being robbed have a very great fear of physical harm.

You are correct stating that you have no right to kill over money or property. But these take over robberies are not property crimes, they are violent robberies involving taking property with the threat of violence. Most people faced with an armed assailant would be well within their rights to "stop" that person. Of course none of us would shoot to kill, we shoot to stop. Coincidentally, the best way to stop them is the hit the same areas that are really important to keep living.

Make no mistake, when someone is armed, tying to take your money, you are no longer shooting them over money, you are shooting them to survive.

Ten Rounder
08-26-2008, 6:05 PM
Why risk using (or loosing) your CCW to go on a hunting expedition for young holdup punks. I lived and worked in Oakland for over 14 years at one time. It is going to take a few deaths and several shootouts till this will pass. When I am working down south I no longer have or make reasons to go to that part of the east bay after dark. Why go looking for a shootout with punks when I can avoid the area all together. I know that I might have more training, but that is no assurance that I would walk away in any manner with multi assailants. An outsider CCW holder is going to be held looking like a Cowboy. A CCW is nothing more than a personal protection license, it does not allow me to protect the shop keepers money or some lady's purse. Once the shooting starts or the gun is pointed in my direction, only then are all bets are off. Like I already said it is going to take a few deaths and multi shootouts to change the attitudes of Oakland, Jerry Brown couldn't do and I don't think Ron Deliums will either.

berto
08-26-2008, 6:14 PM
This is all and good BUT, there has been little physical violence in the take overs and there fore in the state of CA you have no fear of physical harm. After all it is just money and you do not have a right to kill over money.

If the take overs start hitting the high class areas where our politicians dine them maybe we will get some action but as for the normal citizens we are screwed.

Jerry

I fear for my life, safety, and well-being any time a gun is pointed in my direction.

Librarian
08-26-2008, 7:12 PM
Why risk using (or loosing) your CCW to go on a hunting expedition for young holdup punks. I lived and worked in Oakland for over 14 years at one time. It is going to take a few deaths and several shootouts till this will pass. When I am working down south I no longer have or make reasons to go to that part of the east bay after dark. Why go looking for a shootout with punks when I can avoid the area all together. I know that I might have more training, but that is no assurance that I would walk away in any manner with multi assailants. An outsider CCW holder is going to be held looking like a Cowboy. A CCW is nothing more than a personal protection license, it does not allow me to protect the shop keepers money or some lady's purse. Once the shooting starts or the gun is pointed in my direction, only then are all bets are off. Like I already said it is going to take a few deaths and multi shootouts to change the attitudes of Oakland, Jerry Brown couldn't do and I don't think Ron Deliums will either.

On the other hand, why cede large areas in a city to the criminals? If one has legitimate business in a place, one ought to be able to accomplish that business, even if it's merely a quiet meal, without fear of being robbed or otherwise a victim of crime.

I don't see in this thread any indications of a "Deathwish (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071402/)" kind of mentality.

Ten Rounder
08-26-2008, 9:32 PM
On the other hand, why cede large areas in a city to the criminals? If one has legitimate business in a place, one ought to be able to accomplish that business, even if it's merely a quiet meal, without fear of being robbed or otherwise a victim of crime.

I don't see in this thread any indications of a "Deathwish (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071402/)" kind of mentality.

OPD has already ceded those areas. Why do you think the robberies are still happening? It all comes down to CHOICE, I choose not to get all worked up over Oakland as I don't have a dog in this fight anymore. All the inner cities have the same problems. Parts of San Francisco are the same as Oakland, just the street names are different. I have lived in both.

Deathwish???? LOL The movie was all about taking the fight to criminals. I am not saying that. It is all about choice as I already said. Why leave my green zone, to have a peaceful quiet dinner in the war zone? What are the odds on any given night of an encounter in the restaurants of Oakland? 3000:1.? I stand a better chance at getting in a shoot out than winning the Lottery.

Oakland needs to host a California CCW Convention and then watch the youngsters quake in their boots as they loose the city. Oakland might have a heart attack too, with all those registered guns on the street.

dexter9659
08-26-2008, 9:49 PM
Id like to see a store with 100+ visible and obvious video cameras, and large signs that read

http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p321/dexter9659/wedontcall-911-1.png

Clodbuster
08-27-2008, 11:52 AM
The only action will be the movement of limited police resources from the low class area to protect the high class area.

But you'll always have the un-armed Guardian Angels... Now I hear the Mayor wants Oakland to hire private security to patrol the streets. Guess civilian contractors are cheaper than LE.


Clod

[QUOTE=zinfull;1469508]
If the take overs start hitting the high class areas where our politicians dine them maybe we will get some action but as for the normal citizens we are screwed.
/QUOTE]

GuyW
08-27-2008, 12:35 PM
It is entirely legal to have or even carry a loaded handgun INSIDE or ON your own business premises. You do not need to have a CCW to do that. As long as you are legally able to possess a handgun (i.e. not a felon, etc.), you can keep the handgun.


FUD

Please show me where is legal to CARRY (not have) a loaded handgun inside a business....

.

Librarian
08-27-2008, 1:09 PM
FUD

Please show me where is legal to CARRY (not have) a loaded handgun inside a business....

.
Right here:
12025. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when
he or she does any of the following:
...

12026. (a) 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.
(b) No permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or
carry, either openly or concealed, shall be required of 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, to
purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed,
a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person 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.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the
application of Section 12031.

12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when
he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a
prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

Let me repeat "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" - this does not apply to employees, but they can be given permission to carry OPENLY by the owner of such a business, just as the owner of private property can give permission to visitors or staff to carry.

Loaded depends on how "public" is interpreted.

BigKevLA
08-27-2008, 1:15 PM
I carry everyday at my business!

Ten Rounder
08-27-2008, 1:29 PM
FUD

Please show me where is legal to CARRY (not have) a loaded handgun inside a business....

.

Section 12025 does not apply to or affect any of the following:
12025 is the infraction of concealed carry

California Penal Code Section 12026
(a) 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.
(b) No permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or
carry, either openly or concealed, shall be required of 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, to
purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed,
a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person 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.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the
application of Section 12031.

Now for the loaded carry part in
PC12031(6)(h)the following
(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.

GuyW
08-27-2008, 1:32 PM
Right here...

....Loaded depends on how "public" is interpreted.


FUD.

You have posted the PC exclusion-to-concealed-carry-prohibition, about carrying an UNLOADED gun, openly or concealed, and you also included the portion that says that such section doesn't change PC 12031 (no loaded guns unless EXCEPTION is listed)

PC 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.

Have, not carry. No baloney about what "public" place means....2 cases hold this to be law.

Again, show me where its legal for a business owner to CARRY a LOADED gun in his business....

Business owners need a CCW to actually protect themselves....
.

Bugei
08-27-2008, 1:47 PM
...
Again, show me where its legal for a business owner to CARRY a loaded gun in his business....
.

You know, I read a lot of posts and a good number of them are very erudite guys batting back and forth the PC codes and disagreeing about what's legal and what's not. It's enlightening.

But it's also sad. Because when the law becomes so complicated that even savvy guys experienced in reviewing both the law and the court cases that arise from it disagree....including appeal courts and Supreme Court...and they can't agree on what a law actually says, why....

How is a cop on the beat supposed to apply these laws effectively? By arresting anything that looks like it might be an offense and letting the lawyers and the judges sort it out.

How is a citizen supposed to know how to behave? Putting aside the difference between what's legal and what's right for a moment.

Yeah, I know that there's a legal concept of "void through vagueness" (I was looking at the Olofsen appeal today), but these vague and contradictory laws are going to be enforced until repealed...and even beyond, in some cases, because there's so much of it that no one can know all of it.

It just makes me tired some days. Too much law. Too much nonsense.

Here's a question for any presidential candidate:
"Hey, there, Senator. Based on the recent Heller v DC decision, what federal laws are you going to insist are repealed by Congress as being unconstitutional?"

Answer: "Well, harumph....we're studying this....blah..." Pick a candidate, that's the answer you'll get.

Too complicated. It's all gone off the tracks. But we have to play anyway or concede our children's future.

GuyW
08-27-2008, 1:59 PM
Business owners need a CCW to actually protect themselves....

And we should educate and enlist the small business owners about this. They (many anyway) should be our natural allies in either fixing the PC, or fixing the CCW law, or BOTH.

A good place to start would be a flyer distributed to Oakland restaurants....

Librarian
08-27-2008, 2:04 PM
FUD. I don't think this means what you seem to think it means.

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.

I'm not inducing any of those.

You have posted the PC exclusion-to-concealed-carry-prohibition, about carrying an UNLOADED gun, openly or concealed, and you also included the portion that says that such section doesn't change PC 12031 (no loaded guns unless EXCEPTION is listed)

PC 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.

Have, not carry. No baloney about what "public" place means....2 cases hold this to be law.
I can be educated. Which cases, please?

GuyW
08-27-2008, 2:16 PM
I don't think this means what you seem to think it means.

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.

I'm not inducing any of those.


I often use FUD as shorthand for "bull#$%%".

Actually, I was being kind, because you were giving folks peace of mind that they could engage in illegal actions.

Ten Rounder
08-27-2008, 2:21 PM
FUD.
Again, show me where its legal for a business owner to CARRY a LOADED gun in his business....

Business owners need a CCW to actually protect themselves....


I don't think I can help you. You are too stuck in your owns thoughts and perceptions. I'll go simple here.

My understanding of a business is that you occupy a (box) and conduct business of some sort in this (box). Once you leave the threshold of this (box) you are out in public. A CCW is not required while you are in your own (box). So the same can be said about your home, it is also a (box) too.

GuyW
08-27-2008, 2:37 PM
Here's one of the cases (and the pre-eminent one I think):

People vs. Overturf concluded that the CA Penal Code allows HAVING a loaded gun in a public place (business, property) but not carrying a loaded gun, unless it's "necessary to use it" in a lawful way. Defendant found guilty. (paraphrased by me from "Own a Gun and Stay Out of Jail").

The case says:

"...[1] "Carrying" and "having" are not synonymous. "Having" relates to an "act or state of possessing," Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, page 1145, while "carrying" refers to the "act or instance of carrying" and the verb "carry" in relevant definition connotes "to convey, or transport ...;" and "to transfer from one place ... to another." (Id. at p. 412.)

There is a distinct difference in the two concepts. Speaking generally in the context of statutes concerned with firearms, "carry" or "carrying" has been said to be used in the sense of holding or bearing arms. (In re Bergen (1923) 61 Cal.App. 226, 228 [214 P. 521]; People v. Smith (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d Supp. 875, 878 [164 P.2d 857]. fn. 2 We think that "having," as it appears in subdivisions (f) and (j) of section 12031, is to be read in the sense of "owning, possessing, or keeping," and we so hold for three reasons..."

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/legal/539-people-v-overturf-carrying-private-property-outdoors.html

Here's another thread that's on-topic

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=100836&highlight=loaded+gun

Librarian
08-27-2008, 2:38 PM
I often use FUD as shorthand for "bull#$%%".

Actually, I was being kind, because you were giving folks peace of mind that they could engage in illegal actions.

Thank you for your kindness - we all need all we can get. But if you mean "BS", "FUD" is not a suitable substitute.

Now, about the cases? Posts crossed...

'K. People v. Overturf , 64 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/legal/539-people-v-overturf-carrying-private-property-outdoors.html)

Yep, that's what Judge Cole said.

Overturf's argument was essentially what I had suggested, that the degree of 'public' was at issue. Happens that Overturf was in a lot weaker situation than I had envisioned, but Cole turned the whole thing out, and upheld Overturf's conviction for loaded carry.
Under our reading of the statute, it is proper [64 Cal.App.3d Supp. 7] for a person to own, possess or keep a weapon at his place of business or his residence or on his private property, as the case may be, but not to carry it about thereon unless it is necessary to use it under circumstances where use of a firearm is otherwise lawful. Subdivision (h) of section 12031 expressly says as much: "Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or another is in immediate danger and that the carrying of such weapon is necessary for the preservation of such person or property."

Thus, before one may "carry" a weapon owned, possessed, or kept on the specified premises, there must be a reasonable belief that the person or property of the defendant or another is in immediate danger and that it is necessary to carry the weapon in order to preserve the endangered person or property.Cole keeps leaving out "loaded", but that's clearly what he means in a 12031 case

Hmm. Cole says It states that section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit a citizen over the age of 18 years (with certain exceptions) "from owning, possessing, or keeping within his place of residence or place of business" a firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. The section also provides that no license to purchase, own, possess or keep a firearm at one's place of residence or business shall be required.

12026(b) currently says "(b) No permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed,".

Is it possible 12026 has been amended since 1976? I'm pretty sure it has.

Ah yes - we did this in January: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=973468&postcount=9

You didn't agree then, either, but I suggest Overturf has been overtaken by new law.

Now, to remove ambiguity, it would be far better for the owner to have CCW. And I don't suggest that a business owner take a loaded-carry option without consulting his lawyer.

GuyW
08-27-2008, 2:49 PM
I don't think I can help you. You are too stuck in your owns thoughts and perceptions. I'll go simple here.

My understanding of a business is that you occupy a (box) and conduct business of some sort in this (box). Once you leave the threshold of this (box) you are out in public. A CCW is not required while you are in your own (box). So the same can be said about your home, it is also a (box) too.

If your concept here is a business owner LOCKED into his building with no possible access by the public into the building, carrying a loaded handgun - I agree. (Who cares? What's he protecting himself against - carniverous termites?)

If your concept is a business owner in a building (or on property) where patrons come and go at will (the usual circumstance), you're dead wrong.

Ten Rounder
08-27-2008, 3:55 PM
If your concept here is a business owner LOCKED into his building with no possible access by the public into the building - I agree. (Who cares? What's he protecting himself against - carniverous termites?)

If your concept is a business owner in a building (or on property) where patrons come and go at will (the usual circumstance), you're dead-*** wrong.

Overturf was an asshat himself, and left the threshold. The key word is threshold. His business was clearly not outside of his building which were public access. Discharging into the dirt was a classic stupid error on his part. I am surprised he was not charged with that so close to the buildings.

Show me where I'm wrong. But doubt you can or will and I repeat this again.

I don't think I can help you. You are too stuck in your owns thoughts and perceptions.

RomanDad
08-27-2008, 4:17 PM
Hmmm.... I actually think Guys argument is interesting.... Very interesting....


[edit- ITS MORE THAN INTERESTING!!!! Thank you guy!]

Librarian
08-27-2008, 4:47 PM
Hmmm.... I actually think Guys argument is interesting.... Very interesting....


[edit- ITS MORE THAN INTERESTING!!!! Thank you guy!]
Which argument? Not the one based on Overturf...

RomanDad
08-27-2008, 4:51 PM
Which argument? Not the one based on Overturf...

Yes... That one... But it has to do with something else.... Not this thread.... Carry on.... Nothing to see here....

BigKevLA
08-27-2008, 4:53 PM
I would love for a LEO to chime in and give us an opinion...........

GuyW
08-27-2008, 4:56 PM
Overturf....left the threshold. The key word is threshold....

Funny thing - I re-read Overturf looking for the word threshold...

(wait for it...)
.
.
.
.
.....it isn't there!....

...His business was clearly not outside of his building which were public access.

Really? The parking lot, landscaping, and various improvements to his real fee property are not part and parcel of the apartments he is in the business of renting? Odd...I guess the apartment renters give no value (pay no $) for an assigned private parking space...As you can read - he argued himself that the area was part of his business (and the Court agreed):

"Appellant argues that subdivision (f) exempts him from liability both because the incident took place on property which constitutes his place of business within the meaning of subdivision (f) and on property which, while "public" within the definition of subdivision (a), nevertheless was his private property within subdivision (f)."

He (and you) already lost on this point....private business property that anyone can freely enter is "public space"...including such areas WITHIN a structure...

I don't think I can help you. You are too stuck in your owns thoughts and perceptions.

Perhaps - but I'm not the one adding non-existent words to the case law...

RomanDad
08-27-2008, 4:59 PM
I would love for a LEO to chime in and give us an opinion...........

Why?

LEOs opinion on the law is pretty meaningless. Now if you had said Judge, or attorney (you know, people who are recognized by the State as experts on the law) then I might understand.

Asking an LEO for his opinion on the law is like asking an EMT to treat your cancer.

Librarian
08-27-2008, 6:54 PM
Yes... That one... But it has to do with something else.... Not this thread.... Carry on.... Nothing to see here....

BTW, RomanDad, you make noises as if you have seen the inside of a law school.

Do you think Overturf's analysis of have/carry is still good law since the legislature amended 12026?

RomanDad
08-27-2008, 6:58 PM
BTW, RomanDad, you make noises as if you have seen the inside of a law school.

Do you think Overturf's analysis of have/carry is still good law since the legislature amended 12026?

Sorry. I have nothing to add to this thread anymore.

BigKevLA
08-27-2008, 9:58 PM
Why?

LEOs opinion on the law is pretty meaningless. Now if you had said Judge, or attorney (you know, people who are recognized by the State as experts on the law) then I might understand.

Asking an LEO for his opinion on the law is like asking an EMT to treat your cancer.


Because I have not seen a judge or attorney go out and arrest someone. They are the first line people and based on what they "think" can determine if you need an attorney or have to see a judge.