PDA

View Full Version : CCW w/o a permit and use of weapon for protection


Untamed1972
03-27-2009, 2:31 PM
I was having a conversation with a family member the other day about AB357 and various related issues and the question came up "If a person was to just CCW w/o a permit and then actually had to use the weapon in a self-defense situation would the fact that the person was CCW w/o a permit negate it being a justifiable use of force?"

I know a first offense CCW w/o a permit is misdemeanor and I'm not saying I do it or would do it. I was just curious as to how it would possibly be viewed by a DA or the courts or the LEOs if you justifiably used and illegally concealed weapon? This all of course being an otherwise law-abiding citizen with no criminal record and is not prohibited from posessing firearms.

I await the intelligent responses from the great legal minds of CalGuns. And I know.....it's illegal to CCW w/o a permit....so we don't need to cover that part ok! :thumbsup:

Dr Rockso
03-27-2009, 2:34 PM
I can't see how it would be more than the misdemeanor charge that would otherwise accompany the first offense of carrying without a license.

Stanze
03-27-2009, 2:49 PM
http://ww.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20060201/news_7m1salcido.html

Man without CCW shoots and kills man in San Diego. Ruled justifiable homicide. DA prosecutes on carrying without CCW.

RomanDad
03-27-2009, 2:51 PM
I was having a conversation with a family member the other day about AB357 and various related issues and the question came up "If a person was to just CCW w/o a permit and then actually had to use the weapon in a self-defense situation would the fact that the person was CCW w/o a permit negate it being a justifiable use of force?"

I know a first offense CCW w/o a permit is misdemeanor and I'm not saying I do it or would do it. I was just curious as to how it would possibly be viewed by a DA or the courts or the LEOs if you justifiably used and illegally concealed weapon? This all of course being an otherwise law-abiding citizen with no criminal record and is not prohibited from posessing firearms.

I await the intelligent responses from the great legal minds of CalGuns. And I know.....it's illegal to CCW w/o a permit....so we don't need to cover that part ok! :thumbsup:


The question is unanswerable, because it really depends on the FACTS of the case.

Simply saying "it was self defense" doesnt make it so. The fact that the shooter is ADMITTING to carrying a loaded firearm ILLEGALLY, may make the REST of their story LESS LIKELY TO BE TRUE in a jury's eyes. Jury's tend to judge people based on gut feelings, and some jurors may say "Hes breaking the law here, so I wont believe ANYTHING he says..."

For example (and yes, this comes from an ACTUAL CASE)- You shoot and kill a man on a rural road in an apparent road rage type incident. You are the only surviving witness. You were engaged in an affair with the victims wife, however both you and the wife say the affair ended some time before the shooting (although by the time the trial comes around, you are now married to the widow). You both also testify that the Husband had been harassing you and stalking you and that you began carrying a loaded gun in your vehicle because of it. However, you did not notify the POLICE of any such harassment or threats. You say that you encountered the husband while you were both out driving, he chased you, you pulled over, he attacked you and you shot him in self defense. There is circumstantial evidence that you may have intentionally planned the entire event, and killed the husband to be with his wife.

So.... WHO DOES THE JURY BELEIVE??? Do they think you had that loaded gun to DEFEND yourself???? Or because you planned to KILL YOUR GIRLFRIENDS HUSBAND??? And yes, its an unusual fact pattern, which is why its such an interesting case, but you can strip the sordid love triangle out and still be left with the underlying question a jury has to answer: "WHY WAS HE ILLEGALLY CARRYING A LOADED GUN?- WAS IT TO DEFEND HIMSELF??? OR DID HE SET OUT TO KILL SOMEBODY???"



I dont know the answer. Neither do you.

Untamed1972
03-27-2009, 2:58 PM
http://ww.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20060201/news_7m1salcido.html

Man without CCW shoots and kills man in San Diego. Ruled justifiable homicide. DA prosecutes on carrying without CCW.

I wonder what the disposition of that CCW w/o permit charge ended up being? Trial? Conviction? Plea bargain? Dropped?

CAL.BAR
03-27-2009, 3:01 PM
Even if it is "only" a misdemeanor, as a weapons offense, it would cause the loss of that person's right to own or possess dangerous or deadly weapons for 10 years thereafter.

Untamed1972
03-27-2009, 3:02 PM
Well that's a long pretty long stretch from my intended question RomanDad.

Try and keep it simple. I'm talking about a situation that someone with a valid CCW permit is attacked thru no fault of their own, robbery attempt or something like that, and the victim shoots in self defense.

Now same situation....only difference is CCW person is carrying w/o a permit. I'm not talking any shady circumstance type thing. Just an average person going about their business and being attacked, like at an ATM machine or something simple like that.

Untamed1972
03-27-2009, 3:04 PM
Even if it is "only" a misdemeanor, as a weapons offense, it would cause the loss of that person's right to own or possess dangerous or deadly weapons for 10 years thereafter.

But ending up dead because you couldn't defend yourself means losing your guns rights and EVERYTHING else forever! Tough call to make huh?

As I've asked in my other thread.....which do you fear more....the law or the criminals?

CCWFacts
03-27-2009, 3:12 PM
Man without CCW shoots and kills man in San Diego. Ruled justifiable homicide. DA prosecutes on carrying without CCW.

It happens. Bernhard Goetz, the (in)famous NYC subway shooter, was acquitted of assault but got stuck with a felony of illegal carrying / possession. Here in CA it's "just" a misdemeanor so it's not as serious a crime.

Untamed1972
03-27-2009, 3:14 PM
It happens. Bernhard Goetz, the (in)famous NYC subway shooter, was acquitted of assault but got stuck with a felony of illegal carrying / possession.

Oh yeah.....I forgot about ole' Bernie! But....Bernie is still breathin' ain't he.

RomanDad
03-27-2009, 3:17 PM
Well that's a long pretty long stretch from my intended question Roman Dad.

Try and keep it simple. I'm talking about a situation that someone with a valid CCW permit is attacked thru no fault of their own, robbery attempt or something like that, and the victim shoots in self defense.

Now same situation....only difference is CCW person is carrying w/o a permit. I'm not talking any shady circumstance type thing. Just an average person going about their business and being attacked, like at an ATM machine or something simple like that.

But see... You have to assume a certain omniscience to make those assumptions that a cop, D.A. and Jury don't possess...

Homicide investigations don't happen the way they do on TV.... The people empowered with determining WHAT HAPPENED, don't get to see the crime committed before the opening credits run. THEY ARE STRANGERS TO YOU AND THE EVENTS.

The cop who investigates your case, doesn't know you from Adam.... And he certainly doesn't start out from the place you have.... "that you're just a good guy". Their starting assumption, like it or not, is that a crime has been committed until they are satisfied it didn't. EVERYBODY who shoots somebody claims self defense. Most of them are lying to one degree or another (either that it was INTENTIONAL and made to LOOK like self defense, or more likely, they BELEIVED they had a right to use lethal force, but legally DID NOT YET HAVE THAT RIGHT.... Either way, a homicide offense has been committed). ALL THEY REALLY KNOW ABOUT YOU, IS THAT YOU KILLED SOMEBODY.... And that you were ILLEGALLY carrying a loaded gun when it happened.



Likewise- The D.A. DOESNT KNOW YOU FROM ADAM. You say you're just a good old law abiding citizen, but ALL OF THE PEOPLE THEY DEAL WITH SAY THAT.... D.A.s HAVE to come from the position, that the defendant's LIE.... And in the end, the evidence often cuts two ways.... Its usually a GRAY area.... Some evidence will suggest it went down just the way you say it did.... Other evidence will suggest you're a scumbag, or you jumped the gun.... (the weight of breaking 12025 in the first place will definitely be added to the later). In the end, they make a judgement call on whether to charge you or not and WHAT to charge you with....

Same goes for a jury.... THEY DONT KNOW YOU.... They have a VERY limited snapshot of the worst day of your life. They know NOTHING ELSE ABOUT YOU. They don't come from the position of thinking "you're just an average guy", because when you carry a loaded gun illegally, you're already NOT THAT GUY IN MANY OF THEIR MINDS.

FOR ALL OF THESE PEOPLE, EVERY HOMICIDE is a "SHADY SITUATION." Your job as a gun owner is to make your circumstances as UNSHADY as possible.

You may not LIKE the answer.... but that's the truth.

Untamed1972
03-27-2009, 3:33 PM
Oh....I get what you're saying RomanDad. That's why I asked about the law and any relevent case law that would indicate how it could go if the circumstances were justifiable. But I also realize anything can happen.

In court alot of weight is put on credibility. So if the CCW person can establish some credibility like, no criminal record, never been arrested, no traffic tickets or not recently, home owner, stable employment history, no history of drug use, good character witnesses and so vs. the guy you shot trying to rob you at the ATM, long criminal record, history of drug use, under influence at time of shooting blah, blah, blah.....such things will lend the CCW person more credibility.

Yeah.....you're still gonna dinged for CCW w/o permit, but would you rather be dead at the hands of crack head who wants your money for his next fix?

GJJ
03-27-2009, 3:39 PM
I do not think you loose your gun rights on a first offense for carry w/o permit.

CCWFacts
03-27-2009, 3:43 PM
IANAL, but it seems like a lot of the early-on decisions in the criminal justice process are based on assessments of the characters involved. And really, for someone to be carrying illegally, I would wonder, was something happening that made the person expect a need? I would want to know what that reason is. Those reasons could be:


A woman carries because her ex-husband has made threats
A lawyer carries because he had a criminal client who was unhappy with an outcome
An Oakland merchant carries because he's been robbed before, as he was leaving his shop


But the list of reasons why people carry without permits also include:


Someone has anger problems and has tendency to get into fights, and doesn't want to lose
A drug dealer (or pimp etc), perhaps without any convictions yet for drug dealing, who is afraid because being a drug dealer is dangerous
A person with poor self-control or bad judgment who has gotten into trouble before, and rather than changing his behavior, he decides to start carrying a gun


Those two lists are representative of the reasons why someone would carry without a permit. The people on List 1 have every reason to carry. The people on List 2, on the other hand, are not blameless. They are making decisions that has lead to them using a gun.

The DA and jurors must first decide which list the person is on, which already puts the person at some risk, and then if the person is on List 2, the shooting is not a clear and blameless self-defense shooting.

Whiskey_Sauer
03-27-2009, 3:44 PM
I know a first offense CCW w/o a permit is misdemeanor and I'm not saying I do it or would do it. I was just curious as to how it would possibly be viewed by a DA or the courts or the LEOs if you justifiably used and illegally concealed weapon? This all of course being an otherwise law-abiding citizen with no criminal record and is not prohibited from posessing firearms.

Believe me when I tell you that even if the prosecuting agency declines to file a homicide/assault/brandishing charge on the grounds of justification or self-defense, the chances of being charged with PC 12025/12031 is very high. In fact, in a way, charging the gun counts acts as a "compromise" solution as far as the pressure on the charging DA to act.

CCWFacts
03-27-2009, 3:45 PM
I do not think you loose your gun rights on a first offense for carry w/o permit.

First offense could easily come with 10 years of probation, meaning a ten-year loss of gun rights. That's not a lifetime loss, but it's pretty significant.

Whiskey_Sauer
03-27-2009, 3:47 PM
IANAL, but it seems like a lot of the early-on decisions in the criminal justice process are based on assessments of the characters involved. And really, for someone to be carrying illegally, I would wonder, was something happening that made the person expect a need? I would want to know what that reason is. Those reasons could be:


A woman carries because her ex-husband has made threats
A lawyer carries because he had a criminal client who was unhappy with an outcome
An Oakland merchant carries because he's been robbed before, as he was leaving his shop


There is a legal defense of necessity in the law.

However, you need to have damn good facts. And frankly, unless the defendant in the first two examples made repeated, documented reports to the police about the subject's conduct, and sought temporary restraining orders, and applied for a CCW in the last example, that defense would be easily overcome in my opinion.

Whiskey_Sauer
03-27-2009, 3:49 PM
Likewise- The D.A. DOESNT KNOW YOU FROM ADAM. You say you're just a good old law abiding citizen, but ALL OF THE PEOPLE THEY DEAL WITH SAY THAT.... D.A.s HAVE to come from the position, that the defendant's LIE.... And in the end, the evidence often cuts two ways.... Its usually a GRAY area.... Some evidence will suggest it went down just the way you say it did.... Other evidence will suggest you're a scumbag, or you jumped the gun.... (the weight of breaking 12025 in the first place will definitely be added to the later). In the end, they make a judgement call on whether to charge you or not and WHAT to charge you with....

[...]

You may not LIKE the answer.... but that's the truth.

That is, indeed, the truth.

Whiskey_Sauer
03-27-2009, 3:57 PM
Yeah.....you're still gonna dinged for CCW w/o permit, but would you rather be dead at the hands of crack head who wants your money for his next fix?

Well, the cliche goes, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

But that presupposes that you're being judged by 12 on the murder/assault/brandishing charge, after the fact only. The fact is, carrying concealed (without a permit) exposes you to criminal liability, and the chances of you getting caught and arrested for 12025/12031 is far greater than the chances of you being a victim of a homicide. By far.

geeknow
03-27-2009, 4:02 PM
Even if it is "only" a misdemeanor, as a weapons offense, it would cause the loss of that person's right to own or possess dangerous or deadly weapons for 10 years thereafter.

Is this fact?

RomanDad
03-27-2009, 4:04 PM
Is this fact?

yep.... Its a Disqualifying gun related misdemeanor....

N6ATF
03-27-2009, 4:33 PM
In a situation where...
1) you are carrying concealed without a constitutional infringement in your wallet
2) there are no witnesses to your victimization
3) there are no cameras to record your victimization
4) there are no police to observe your victimization
5) you have to use your concealed weapon to stop a threat of great bodily injury or death

How would you be arrested for CCW without constitutional infringement if there was no probable cause that you had concealed the gun prior to using it? Perhaps you were UOCing or LCCing it if you had a sufficient holster or container to do so. By the time anyone arrives, the threat should be over and you should not have it concealed to incriminate yourself.

Shotgun Man
03-27-2009, 4:36 PM
yep.... Its a Disqualifying gun related misdemeanor....

Where are you guys finding that?

12021 which seems to list the disqualifying misdemeanors doesn't mention 12025.


(c) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) or paragraph (2) of
this subdivision, any person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor
violation of Section 71, 76, 136.1, 136.5, or 140, subdivision (d) of
Section 148, Section 171b, 171c, 171d, 186.28, 240, 241, 242, 243,
243.4, 244.5, 245, 245.5, 246.3, 247, 273.5, 273.6, 417, 417.6, 422,
626.9, 646.9, 12023, or 12024, subdivision (b) or (d) of Section
12034, Section 12040, subdivision (b) of Section 12072, subdivision
(a) of former Section 12100, Section 12220, 12320, or 12590, or
Section 8100, 8101, or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any
firearm-related offense pursuant to Sections 871.5 and 1001.5 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, or of the conduct punished in
paragraph (3) of subdivision (g) of Section 12072, and who, within 10
years of the conviction, owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or
her possession or under his or her custody or control, any firearm
is guilty of a public offense, which shall be punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state
prison, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
both that imprisonment and fine. The court, on forms prescribed by
the Department of Justice, shall notify the department of persons
subject to this subdivision. However, the prohibition in this
paragraph may be reduced, eliminated, or conditioned as provided in
paragraph (2) or (3).

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=12001-13000&file=12020-12040

CCWFacts
03-27-2009, 4:37 PM
yep.... Its a Disqualifying gun related misdemeanor....

I thought loss of gun rights for illegal CCW is because it is usually plead as a 10-year probation, and guns are prohibited during probation?

ZirconJohn
03-27-2009, 4:47 PM
One thing to consider when carrying a concealed firearm on your person without a permit is what would happen in a case of an accident.

Let's say you you are a pedestrian and get hit by a vehicle (?). Perhaps you are in a car accident, or you are in a Lowe's and a display falls on you, or at your local Restaurant you slip and fall, you are out... unconscious, and you are found to have a firearm on you.

There are things to consider other than defending your life when you consider carrying without a permit.

Shotgun Man
03-27-2009, 4:58 PM
I thought loss of gun rights for illegal CCW is because it is usually plead as a 10-year probation, and guns are prohibited during probation?

I've never heard of ten years of California probation. Absent extraordinary circumstances, five years is generally accepted as the limit. See PC 1203.1

However, where the maximum possible term of the sentence is five years or less, then the period of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence may, in the discretion of the court, continue for not over five years.

GuyW
03-27-2009, 5:03 PM
I've never heard of ten years of California probation. Absent extraordinary circumstances, five years is generally accepted as the limit. See PC 1203.1

My impression was that 3 yrs may be typical...
.

NickM1
03-27-2009, 5:45 PM
This is a very interesting discussion on many levels. The blatant violations of the 2nd Amendment demonstrated by any jurisdiction which even speaks on the subject, let alone legislates or regulates on it, are matters of politics, not necessarily policy, and certainly not good policy by any stretch. The truth is, if you are convicted of "Illegal CCW" for its own sake, that is to say, if that is your only offense, be it misdemeanor or felony, you are in effect a political prisoner.

No legislature, court, county board, city council, or any elected or appointed government official or body of officials has the authority to violate your rights under the constitution. This obviously includes the 2nd Amendment. I urge everyone to become very familiar with the definition of the word "infringe" and understand that the first job of the 2nd Amendment is to defend itself.

Librarian
03-27-2009, 7:06 PM
Where are you guys finding that?

12021 which seems to list the disqualifying misdemeanors doesn't mention 12025.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=12001-13000&file=12020-12040

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/prohibcatmisd.pdf

LIST OF PROHIBITING MISDEMEANORS

Firearm prohibitions for misdemeanor violations of the offenses listed below are generally for ten years from the date of conviction, but the duration of each prohibition may vary. All statutory references are to the California Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

[[ our usual firearms problems ... ]]

# Armed criminal action ( 12023.)
# Possessing a deadly weapon with intent to commit an assault ( 12024.)
# Driver of any vehicle who knowingly permits another person to discharge a firearm from the vehicle or any person who willfully and maliciously discharges a firearm from a motor vehicle ( 12034(b) or (d).)
# Criminal possession of a firearm ( 12040.)
# Firearms dealer who sells, transfers or gives possession of any firearm to a minor or a handgun to a person under 21 ( 12072(b).)
# Various violations involving sales and transfers of firearms ( 12072(g)(3).)
# Person or corporation who sells any concealable firearm to any minor (former 12100(a).)
# Unauthorized possession/transportation of a machine gun ( 12220.)
# Possession of ammunition designed to penetrate metal or armor ( 12320.)
# Carrying a concealed or loaded firearm or other deadly weapon or wearing a peace officer uniform while picketing ( 12590.)

CCWFacts
03-27-2009, 7:09 PM
I've never heard of ten years of California probation. Absent extraordinary circumstances, five years is generally accepted as the limit. See PC 1203.1

Ok, thanks for the explanation / additional info.

sfpcservice
03-27-2009, 8:32 PM
How about you're walking down main street with your wife and kids while illegally CCW'ing. All it would take is a gust of wind and an attentive cop. The next thing you know, your wife is pulling your kids away from you by one arm because the cop has his gun pointed at you. You get flattened out on the sidewalk, disarmed at gunpoint, and your kids see the whole thing and hate cops forever because the police took their daddy away.

This is Post-Oakland folks; who here thinks the police in California will have any patience for this? I've always said "it's your life, do what you want"; but do your family a favor and think it over a little.

PS- Believe me, I think it's total crap that this has to be thought of before deciding on the level of protection a "good-guy" wants to carry. In the end it is your decision if you think it's worth it. I will keep my thoughts on that to myself.... ;-)

RomanDad
03-27-2009, 9:31 PM
My impression was that 3 yrs may be typical...
.

Keep in mind... The original scenario involved a USE of the gun (presumably with a Dead guy).... Not JUST 12025/31.

rabagley
03-27-2009, 11:53 PM
How about you're walking down main street with your wife and kids while illegally CCW'ing. All it would take is a gust of wind and an attentive cop.

I'm betting you've never taken a CCW class. Part of concealed carry in Texas is that the gun must always be concealed while in public. As a result, how to prevent marking (unintentionally revealing the presence of your weapon) was one of the topics covered in my CCW class in Texas.

If you do take such a class, you'll find that an excellent starting point is to choose a gun that is of a size appropriate to your ability to conceal it. Second is to use appropriate concealment techniques to minimize the chance that the gun will be spotted (holster, other concealing carrier).


A Kahr PM-9 (or other mouse gun) in a pocket holster or another specifically designed concealment holster is concealed.
A properly sized firearm in a concealment purse, day planner, or fanny pack is concealed.
A Taurus 650 CIA (5-shot .357 revolver) in a heavy jacket's pocket may be concealed.
A large automatic in a kidney holster is not concealed.
A small revolver in an ankle holster without specifically designed boots is not concealed.


If an attentive cop can spot your gun when a breeze lifts your coat, you're doing it wrong and might get a warning or a citation were you to be that careless with your CCW in Texas.

Of course, we were talking about legal CCW here in California, right? Since it is legal (with the appropriate license), I don't think that a discussion about proper concealment techniques should be problematic...

TheBundo
03-28-2009, 3:05 AM
This is what makes me hate that we have a legal system, rather than a justice system. And it doesn't help me feel good about LEO's, because they participate in such a folly. In VT or AK, the carry is legal with no permit. In 38 OTHER states, it's SHALL ISSUE. CA residents can be granted SHALL ISSUE in 38 or so other states easily. But here, we're a criminal, despite our best intentions and good heart.

BillCA
03-28-2009, 5:00 AM
There is a legal defense of necessity in the law.

However, you need to have damn good facts. And frankly, unless the defendant in the first two examples made repeated, documented reports to the police about the subject's conduct, and sought temporary restraining orders, and applied for a CCW in the last example, that defense would be easily overcome in my opinion.

One may, in fact, carry without a CCW permit in California, but it is like the earlier Ohio law where you put your fate in the hands of a judge later.


The T.R.O. Exemption to 12025
12025.5. (a) A violation of Section 12025 is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety.


It is not a carte blanche permit to carry. The judge will want to understand how immediate the "grave danger" was and the nature of same.

If your TRO is against a spouse and that spouse happens to be in prison on unrelated charges, the judge will probably rule against you.

M I K
03-28-2009, 5:39 AM
This is a very interesting discussion on many levels. The blatant violations of the 2nd Amendment demonstrated by any jurisdiction which even speaks on the subject, let alone legislates or regulates on it, are matters of politics, not necessarily policy, and certainly not good policy by any stretch. The truth is, if you are convicted of "Illegal CCW" for its own sake, that is to say, if that is your only offense, be it misdemeanor or felony, you are in effect a political prisoner.

No legislature, court, county board, city council, or any elected or appointed government official or body of officials has the authority to violate your rights under the constitution. This obviously includes the 2nd Amendment. I urge everyone to become very familiar with the definition of the word "infringe" and understand that the first job of the 2nd Amendment is to defend itself.


EXACTLY!. And thank you for that reply.

sfpcservice
03-28-2009, 9:30 AM
I'm betting you've never taken a CCW class. Part of concealed carry in Texas is that the gun must always be concealed while in public. As a result, how to prevent marking (unintentionally revealing the presence of your weapon) was one of the topics covered in my CCW class in Texas.

If you do take such a class, you'll find that an excellent starting point is to choose a gun that is of a size appropriate to your ability to conceal it. Second is to use appropriate concealment techniques to minimize the chance that the gun will be spotted (holster, other concealing carrier).


A Kahr PM-9 (or other mouse gun) in a pocket holster or another specifically designed concealment holster is concealed.
A properly sized firearm in a concealment purse, day planner, or fanny pack is concealed.
A Taurus 650 CIA (5-shot .357 revolver) in a heavy jacket's pocket may be concealed.
A large automatic in a kidney holster is not concealed.
A small revolver in an ankle holster without specifically designed boots is not concealed.


If an attentive cop can spot your gun when a breeze lifts your coat, you're doing it wrong and might get a warning or a citation were you to be that careless with your CCW in Texas.

Of course, we were talking about legal CCW here in California, right? Since it is legal (with the appropriate license), I don't think that a discussion about proper concealment techniques should be problematic...


Ok, mine was a pretty broad example. But if you head over to http://www.calccw.com, you will find plenty of stories about "unintentional showing", mostly by permit holders. If that were to happen to an illegal CCW'er, the consequences could literally devastate your family. By the way, I agree that concealed means concealed. If it shows, you blew it.

CAL.BAR
03-28-2009, 2:40 PM
Ok, thanks for the explanation / additional info.

And while the offense is not strictly on the disqualifying misdemeanor list, probation would be a minimum of 3 years and a term of that probation would unquestionably be "do not own, use or possess" any dangerous or deadly weapon". So no guns.

So you'd better have a pretty damn good reason to CCW w/o permit. B/c in general I think that your chances of being caught after carrying day after day are A LOT greater than needing to use the firearm in self defense. Right?

gunsmith
03-28-2009, 3:09 PM
I carried sans permit for years, even had debates about ccw with SFPD officers about RKBA, concealed is concealed, they have to have pc to search.
I have not been doing it lately though because I do not have as many guns as I used to and would be disarmed for awhile if they confiscated it.

gunsmith
03-28-2009, 3:14 PM
however, on topic, I thought that if used in a justifiable self defense AND it was a "legal" WRT the DOJ knowing it yours, that you would be fine. it was always my understanding. I bet the guy they're prosecuting (in the article linked) didn't have his gun (de facto)registered.
newspaper articles always leave the nuanced reality of gunownership out of the story

Henry47
03-28-2009, 3:14 PM
I carried sans permit for years, even had debates about ccw with SFPD officers about RKBA, concealed is concealed, they have to have pc to search.
I have not been doing it lately though because I do not have as many guns as I used to and would be disarmed for awhile if they confiscated it.

:thumbsup:

Mazilla
03-28-2009, 4:55 PM
I dont know the answer. Neither do you.

I know the answer, but I'm not tellin. :p

GJJ
03-28-2009, 5:30 PM
And while the offense is not strictly on the disqualifying misdemeanor list, probation would be a minimum of 3 years and a term of that probation would unquestionably be "do not own, use or possess" any dangerous or deadly weapon". So no guns.

So you'd better have a pretty damn good reason to CCW w/o permit. B/c in general I think that your chances of being caught after carrying day after day are A LOT greater than needing to use the firearm in self defense. Right?

Where do you get that the probation would be a minimum of 3 years and the term would be to not own any weapons?

Can you back that up?

BillCA
03-29-2009, 11:22 AM
I carried sans permit for years, even had debates about ccw with SFPD officers about RKBA, concealed is concealed, they have to have pc to search.
Call me jaded, but police officers can find almost any reason to make a contact and if at all hinky about you, perform a "Terry search" and justify it later.

When I was in my early 30's, working late at night when I stopped at 7-11 for some caffiene and nicotine. I was standing outside the car enjoying the coffee and a smoke, listening to a replay of Paul Harvey when Santa Clara PD showed up. Their excuse for the contact was that it was after 2am, bars were closed and DUI's sometimes "stopped for coffee" to sober up. We chatted, I was able to stand up on my own, didn't slur words and wasn't threatening. They still wanted to do a pat-down search (despite me wearing slacks and a polo shirt). Legally speaking, such a Terry search would be illegal. In practical terms, there's not much you can do about it. And it was not phrased as a request.

I have not been doing it lately though because I do not have as many guns as I used to and would be disarmed for awhile if they confiscated it.
:thumbsup:

While I do worry about crime and some young punk targeting older people, I find the attitude of the legal establishment in California is such that, even a rational, cautious and mature person confined to a wheelchair by a prior mugging gets no sympathy. This is especially egregious in California where some agencies refuse to issue permits.

GuyW
03-29-2009, 11:39 AM
.....police officers can find almost any reason to make a contact and if at all hinky about you, perform a "Terry search" and justify it later.


By NEW law, all police contacts should be recorded (at least audio), AND officers have to verbalize search justification right then or its thrown out later in court.

That would stop the after-the-fact prevarication / @$$-covering / creative reinterpretation that occurs now...

Anything that increases honesty and transparency by government is a move forward for truth, justice, and the American way...

.

U2BassAce
03-29-2009, 12:42 PM
Either way, a homicide offense has been committed). ALL THEY REALLY KNOW ABOUT YOU, IS THAT YOU KILLED SOMEBODY.... And that you were ILLEGALLY carrying a loaded gun when it happened.





Same goes for a jury.... THEY DONT KNOW YOU.... They have a VERY limited snapshot of the worst day of your life. They know NOTHING ELSE ABOUT YOU. They don't come from the position of thinking "you're just an average guy", because when you carry a loaded gun illegally, you're already NOT THAT GUY IN MANY OF THEIR MINDS.

FOR ALL OF THESE PEOPLE, EVERY HOMICIDE is a "SHADY SITUATION." Your job as a gun owner is to make your circumstances as UNSHADY as possible.

.

Great points from someone that knows the law and the inside of a courtroom.

Bottom line you have set yourself up fighting a fight with the odds against you from the start. Think of poker. After the flop...would I feel good having a 3 to 1 - 2 to 1 - 1.1 to 1 (you get the point) advantage against me? Does it mean I won't win the hand? No! But I might feel a bit vulnerable at that point. Myself, when it comes time that my fate (freedom etc) is outside my control. I REALLY would want the odds in my favor.

Hey that is California law. 42 states allow Shall Issue CCW. California does not. Fight for it!:chris:

gunsmith
03-29-2009, 12:48 PM
http://ww.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20060201/news_7m1salcido.html

Man without CCW shoots and kills man in San Diego. Ruled justifiable homicide. DA prosecutes on carrying without CCW.

I bet ( even though I do not have the money to wager )
that his carry piece wasn't listed with the doj.

and that there is more to the story then the paper is saying

edited to add, this happened in 2006, I can't find out the outcome, was anyone tracking this? did Dean go to jail?

U2BassAce
03-29-2009, 1:00 PM
I bet ( even though I do not have the money to wager )
that his carry piece wasn't listed with the doj.

and that there is more to the story then the paper is saying

So what? That just pushes it to a possible Felony. Does not change the facts.

This whole scenario is like this. I steal a car. I crash car and LEO thinks I am drunk and arrests me for DUI and stealing car. Later from blood test it is determined I was not DUI. But I get prosecuted for grand theft for stealing car but not for DUI in stolen car. Same logic.

There is some wiggle room ( I use that loosely) for being in immediate danger of your life for carrying an "illegal" CCW. But circumstances in this thread would not meet that threshold IMHO, YMMV my .02.

IE I am walking up to ATM and am robbed at gun point and pull my non licensed CCW and shoot away. Unless you can tell the future that will not make the cut.

Stormfeather
03-29-2009, 1:44 PM
By NEW law, all police contacts should be recorded (at least audio), AND officers have to verbalize search justification right then or its thrown out later in court.

That would stop the after-the-fact prevarication / @$$-covering / creative reinterpretation that occurs now...

Anything that increases honesty and transparency by government is a move forward for truth, justice, and the American way...

.

Could you post up this law that you are talking about please?

GuyW
03-29-2009, 2:14 PM
Could you post up this law that you are talking about please?

Proposed, hypothetical...

U2BassAce
03-29-2009, 2:17 PM
Could you post up this law that you are talking about please?

Originally Posted by GuyW
By NEW law, all police contacts should be recorded (at least audio), AND officers have to verbalize search justification right then or its thrown out later in court.

That would stop the after-the-fact prevarication / @$$-covering / creative reinterpretation that occurs now...

Anything that increases honesty and transparency by government is a move forward for truth, justice, and the American way...

;) should

gunsmith
03-31-2009, 6:49 PM
I bet ( even though I do not have the money to wager )
that his carry piece wasn't listed with the doj.

and that there is more to the story then the paper is saying
http://ww.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20060201/news_7m1salcido.html

edited to add, this happened in 2006, I can't find out the outcome, was anyone tracking this? did Dean go to jail?

we can come up with theory all day/night, what happened to Dean?

swhatb
04-01-2009, 9:39 AM
everybody should read this!

Untamed1972
04-02-2009, 9:35 AM
I just think it's odd if you take say the facts of the article posted on the first page about the guy in SD.

If he had not been carrying the gun he likely would have ended up dead and for what....not giving a homeless guy a cigarette.

So he doesn't get charged for murder because it was justified self-defense, but he gets charged with another crime for the weapon he used to defend himself, but had he NOT been carrying it he would have been dead.

Just shows how there is no logic in the legal system.