PDA

View Full Version : UOC arrest in Vista - school zone


Bill_in_SD
04-27-2009, 11:40 AM
This will be interesting...... (bold added for emphasis)

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/2009/04/teen_arrested_near_school_with.html

April 27, 2009
Teen with rifle arrested near school

Sheriff's deputies arrested a 14-year-old boy who was walking by a Vista middle school with an unloaded .22-caliber rifle Monday morning, Lt. Mike Munsey said.

A passerby reported seeing the teen walking east on Olive Avenue toward North Melrose Drive just after 10:15 a.m., Munsey said. When deputies confronted the boy on the sidewalk in front of Washington Middle School, he dropped the unloaded rifle, Munsey said. Deputies arrested him and took him to Juvenile Hall.

Munsey said the school wasn't placed on lockdown, as deputies arrested the boy before notifying the school. He said there didn't appear to be a threat. "As far as we know, he was just walking by on his way to someplace else," Munsey said.
Posted by Matthew Rodriguez | 12:06 PM

CitaDeL
04-27-2009, 11:43 AM
This will be interesting...... (bold added for emphasis)


Teen with rifle arrested near school



On what charge? This is no crime under 626.9- So this must be a federal school zone charge?

rkt88edmo
04-27-2009, 11:49 AM
Probably an air rifle

DDT
04-27-2009, 11:53 AM
On charges of being stupid in public.

That may be the same charges the officers face when they find out the kid wasn't violating the CA GFSZ.

Is there a "parental supervision" code? I know the kid was no danger but talk about stupid. Vista isn't the boonies, you can't let a 14 year old carry around a gun near a school in today's world.

Untamed1972
04-27-2009, 12:05 PM
I have a couple questions:

1) If he was 14 and school was in session such that a lockdown could have been called for.....Why wasn't the kid in school?

2) I asked this before in another thread but never got an answer. Can a CA peace officer arrest and charge someone with a federal crime?

Soldier415
04-27-2009, 12:32 PM
This should be quite interesting

foxtrotuniformlima
04-27-2009, 12:39 PM
I have a couple questions:

2) I asked this before in another thread but never got an answer. Can a CA peace officer arrest and charge someone with a federal crime?

As far as I know, a peace officer cannot charge anyone with a crime - federal or otherwise. They can arrest them on suspicion but the charging gets done by the US Attorney or local DA.

Curtis
04-27-2009, 12:45 PM
Why wasn't the kid in school?

I know in my area most schools are year round. If memory serves me, they are three weeks on and two weeks off with some extended time off during Christmas and summer.

demnogis
04-27-2009, 12:47 PM
Looks like this will become OC precedence in determination of "Sterile Areas" per Nordyke wording, and challenging the 626.9/626.95 PC.

On another note... There are age restrictions on possession on concealable weapons such as pistols, but what about rifles? 18 correct?

pullnshoot25
04-27-2009, 12:53 PM
If I recall correctly, with parental permission a minor may possess and utilize a long gun.

Having said that, what will happen with this kid? Can he be charged with the federal law?

pullnshoot25
04-27-2009, 12:55 PM
I hope this kid is just left alone, this is not a malicious incident. However, this is California.

How I long for days long gone.

CalNRA
04-27-2009, 1:09 PM
I hope this kid is just left alone, this is not a malicious incident. However, this is California.

How I long for days long gone.

ditto.

The deputies is potentially ruining a kid's life as well as his family's. This is a good stern lecture situation, nothing more.

Untamed1972
04-27-2009, 2:00 PM
As far as I know, a peace officer cannot charge anyone with a crime - federal or otherwise. They can arrest them on suspicion but the charging gets done by the US Attorney or local DA.

That still doesn't quite answer my question. Can a CA peace officer arrest someone solely on violation of a federal statute? Or can only a federal LEO do that? That is my question. Does a CA sworn peace officer who only has authority in the state he is sworn have the authority to enforce a federal statute?

There....does that make it more clear? Because in my mind I'm linking it with for example why CA LEO's illegal immigrants for being here illegally. At most they can detain them for CBP to actually arrest them.

bigtoe416
04-27-2009, 2:21 PM
Is the sidewalk around the school grounds considered to be school property? I'm assuming not, but if so the kid could be charged with having a weapon on school grounds (I can't think of what law that violates, but I'm assuming it's against the law).

Grumpyoldretiredcop
04-27-2009, 2:30 PM
See 626.9 PC (possession of firearm in school zone) and 626 PC (California definition of "school zone" relative to 626.9 PC).

You can find them here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=87132515813+5+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve).

Librarian
04-27-2009, 3:33 PM
See 626.9 PC (possession of firearm in school zone) and 626 PC (California definition of "school zone" relative to 626.9 PC).

You can find them here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=87132515813+5+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve).

I started to react, but I'm pretty sure CitaDel is right. 626.9 really only governs bringing any firearm onto actual school grounds and handguns while transporting through school zones.

It clearly seems to freak people out, but transporting an unloaded long gun by carrying it down the sidewalk - openly or cased, locked or unlocked - is legal if one does not go into any prohibited areas.

See also http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Gun_Free_School_Zones

wash
04-27-2009, 3:47 PM
Could this be the perfect case to challenge the school zone law in criminal court instead of civil?

I assume that at 14 he can't be tried as an adult and he'll only lose his RKBA until he's 18 or at worst 25?

I hope the right people consider this angle...

tombinghamthegreat
04-27-2009, 4:08 PM
Is it just me or could this make a good post Nordyke case for the school zone issue?

Grumpyoldretiredcop
04-27-2009, 4:14 PM
I started to react, but I'm pretty sure CitaDel is right. 626.9 really only governs bringing any firearm onto actual school grounds and handguns while transporting through school zones.

It clearly seems to freak people out, but transporting an unloaded long gun by carrying it down the sidewalk - openly or cased, locked or unlocked - is legal if one does not go into any prohibited areas.

See also http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Gun_Free_School_Zones

Yup... I didn't read all the way through the section. 629 c. (2) specifically exempts "the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law." and so doesn't look as though it could apply in this case.

Now I'm wondering what the officer used as PC for the arrest, too.

BTW, the link in my previous post seems to be dead already. For anybody interested, California codes can be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov

JDay
04-27-2009, 4:21 PM
Now I'm wondering what the officer used as PC for the arrest, too.

Isn't it obvious what he used for PC? 14 year old with an unloaded rifle... must have been on his way to shoot the place up :rolleyes: On a more serious note, when I was in HS I once got arrested and released to my parents because I had a round of live ammo in my backpack. IIRC I was told that I needed to have written permission to be in possession on my person. DA declined to prosecute.

CitaDeL
04-27-2009, 4:54 PM
Now I'm wondering what the officer used as PC for the arrest, too.


Should be a matter of public record. I think the charges should be PRA'd to see how they are handling the matter. They probably wont release his name, since he is a minor, but I see no reason why they wouldnt divulge other details.

Roadrunner
04-27-2009, 5:01 PM
Can you imagine the reaction from the parents when they were told that their kid had been arrested? This brings someone into the fight who may otherwise not have been interested until now. What's very interesting is that the GFSZ prohibits handguns to be carried like that but allows rifles. Obviously the legislative geniuses that dream up these laws didn't know or didn't consider the maximum effective range of each firearm when they slapped together these laws. Will our Calguns legal team go to bat for this boy so that he has the best fighting for him?

Librarian
04-27-2009, 5:12 PM
BTW, the link in my previous post seems to be dead already. For anybody interested, California codes can be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov

That site is subject to bit rot in the links. A slightly better one is
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen.html

jb7706
04-27-2009, 5:12 PM
Makes me sick for the poor kid. One of my high school classes required students to bring rifles and shotguns to school for marksmanship training. It was not at all unusual to see 16 year old kids with slung rifles standing outside the school waiting for the bell to ring. Now that I think of it the usual raucous behavior was much toned down those days... Even without the class kids were often seen walking through town with guns of different flavors. As long as we were not being stupid no one batted an eye. The sheriff may have admonished one or two, but no one was ever arrested. How times have changed, and I'm only in my 30's.

IW378
04-27-2009, 5:35 PM
Makes me sick for the poor kid. One of my high school classes required students to bring rifles and shotguns to school for marksmanship training. It was not at all unusual to see 16 year old kids with slung rifles standing outside the school waiting for the bell to ring. Now that I think of it the usual raucous behavior was much toned down those days... Even without the class kids were often seen walking through town with guns of different flavors. As long as we were not being stupid no one batted an eye. The sheriff may have admonished one or two, but no one was ever arrested. How times have changed, and I'm only in my 30's.
Yep. I remember in 7th grade during the bad weather time of year in leu of p.e. we had hunters safety course offered to us with a few feild trips to the rifle range.
We were allowed to bring our rifles and ammo to school with us (on the school bus mind you):eek: Life was good nothing like being on a school bus with your classmates and some kids getting ready for rifle training. Probably the high point of my nylon 66's life. LOL. I'm in my thirties as well. Man have things changed for the worst.
Luke

pullnshoot25
04-27-2009, 6:27 PM
Yep. I remember in 7th grade during the bad weather time of year in leu of p.e. we had hunters safety course offered to us with a few feild trips to the rifle range.
We were allowed to bring our rifles and ammo to school with us (on the school bus mind you):eek: Life was good nothing like being on a school bus with your classmates and some kids getting ready for rifle training. Probably the high point of my nylon 66's life. LOL. I'm in my thirties as well. Man have things changed for the worst.
Luke

My brother used to clean his rifle in the back of his pickup truck while talking to a security guard at lunch time.

After school, he would shoot squirrels while everyone was at tennis practice.

nukechaser
04-27-2009, 9:21 PM
Can you imagine the reaction from the parents when they were told that their kid had been arrested? This brings someone into the fight who may otherwise not have been interested until now. What's very interesting is that the GFSZ prohibits handguns to be carried like that but allows rifles. Obviously the legislative geniuses that dream up these laws didn't know or didn't consider the maximum effective range of each firearm when they slapped together these laws. Will our Calguns legal team go to bat for this boy so that he has the best fighting for him?

I hope the parents/kid prevail, and the knuckleheads at the PD/DA have to pay everyone's legal fees. During tight budgets, this gets their attention.

Racefiend
04-27-2009, 10:29 PM
Could this be the perfect case to challenge the school zone law in criminal court instead of civil?

I assume that at 14 he can't be tried as an adult and he'll only lose his RKBA until he's 18 or at worst 25?

I hope the right people consider this angle...

I'm no lawyer, but I think you have to be charged with an ACTUAL law before you can fight the law in court. I see no law against what he did.

gravedigger
04-27-2009, 11:19 PM
We're talking about the San Diego Sheriff's office here. I'm guessing that they just arrested him because they didn't like seeing a 14 year old with a rifle near a school. They don't have the best rep for actually considering what the law allows them to do BEFORE they do it. They just do whatever floats their boat, and rely on not having any repercussions for bad judgment after the fact, which is usually the case.

I don't blame them for stopping him, but they should not have arrested him, and CalGuns should look into defending him. Criminal cases make law much faster than civil cases. We should make sure that GOOD law comes out of this. Also, I'd like to know how much ammo, if any, the boy was carrying. If he had NO ammo on him, then the sheriff had no call to arrest him at all. He might as well have been carrying a lead pipe and a 2x4. I'll watch for further details.

Still, we cannot rule out the possibility that he had a box of ammo already stashed somewhere awaiting his arrival. No word on where he was coming from, or headed to, and why? I suppose it is possible this was perfectly innocent. It is also possible that he was stopped before acting out on some plot to make the 11:000 news. Only time will tell!

yellowfin
04-27-2009, 11:40 PM
Moral of the story: avoid Vista, use Mac.

glockwise2000
04-27-2009, 11:45 PM
Moral of the story: avoid Vista, use Mac.

Mac is anti-gun LOL.

N6ATF
04-27-2009, 11:59 PM
Mac is anti-gun LOL.

I'll take anti-gun over pro-daily forced sodomy... but we're getting too OT. :sleeping:

nick
04-28-2009, 1:28 AM
YUp, gotta stay with XP or 2003... So, where were we?

pullnshoot25
04-28-2009, 1:29 AM
We're talking about the San Diego Sheriff's office here. I'm guessing that they just arrested him because they didn't like seeing a 14 year old with a rifle near a school. They don't have the best rep for actually considering what the law allows them to do BEFORE they do it. They just do whatever floats their boat, and rely on not having any repercussions for bad judgment after the fact, which is usually the case.

I don't blame them for stopping him, but they should not have arrested him, and CalGuns should look into defending him. Criminal cases make law much faster than civil cases. We should make sure that GOOD law comes out of this. Also, I'd like to know how much ammo, if any, the boy was carrying. If he had NO ammo on him, then the sheriff had no call to arrest him at all. He might as well have been carrying a lead pipe and a 2x4. I'll watch for further details.

Still, we cannot rule out the possibility that he had a box of ammo already stashed somewhere awaiting his arrival. No word on where he was coming from, or headed to, and why? I suppose it is possible this was perfectly innocent. It is also possible that he was stopped before acting out on some plot to make the 11:000 news. Only time will tell!

If someone is going to shoot up someplace, they aren't letting people know it beforehand by waltzing up with the gun displayed. I think that this whole endeavor was completely innocent. However, I don't have all the facts, it is just my gut feeling.

cousinkix1953
04-28-2009, 3:58 AM
That still doesn't quite answer my question. Can a CA peace officer arrest someone solely on violation of a federal statute? Or can only a federal LEO do that? That is my question. Does a CA sworn peace officer who only has authority in the state he is sworn have the authority to enforce a federal statute?

There....does that make it more clear? Because in my mind I'm linking it with for example why CA LEO's illegal immigrants for being here illegally. At most they can detain them for CBP to actually arrest them.
Sure they can! Why do the local police chase bank robbers and respond to calls about funny money being used at shopping malls? Those are federal offenses. On the other hand, they lie about not being able to enforce immigration laws...

JDay
04-28-2009, 4:38 AM
Sure they can! Why do the local police chase bank robbers and respond to calls about funny money being used at shopping malls? Those are federal offenses. On the other hand, they lie about not being able to enforce immigration laws...

The California PC has laws against robbery and counterfeiting.

GaryV
04-28-2009, 7:05 AM
Yes, state/county/local LE can arrest you for federal crimes. The general rule of thumb is that LE can arrest you for violating the laws of any political entity to which they belong, at their level or higher, but not for violating the laws of any political entity lower than their level. So a city PO could arrest you for violating any law of their city, county, state, or the US; but a sheriff's deputy (unless they are contracted by the city) cannot arrest you for violating city ordinances. And a fed can only arrest you for violating federal laws.

Untamed1972
04-28-2009, 7:23 AM
Yes, state/county/local LE can arrest you for federal crimes. The general rule of thumb is that LE can arrest you for violating the laws of any political entity to which they belong, at their level or higher, but not for violating the laws of any political entity lower than their level. So a city PO could arrest you for violating any law of their city, county, state, or the US; but a sheriff's deputy (unless they are contracted by the city) cannot arrest you for violating city ordinances. And a fed can only arrest you for violating federal laws.

Roger that! :thumbsup: That was something I was always curious about but had never had a chance to look into.

audi2539
04-28-2009, 7:39 AM
ohhh... it's SD... he was charged with being insensitive to Liberals eyes of having to endure seeing a gun and a civil law case is pending by criminal thugs deterred by his OC from committing successful robberies/ sarc

gbp
04-28-2009, 8:55 AM
As far as I know, a peace officer cannot charge anyone with a crime - federal or otherwise. They can arrest them on suspicion but the charging gets done by the US Attorney or local DA.

I believe you are correct

Jpach
04-28-2009, 9:04 AM
This sucks. It sparked a question in my mind though. If Fed law says we cant be within 1000ft or so within a school zone with a rifle, then why are people still doing it thinking its ok just because CA law doesnt say so? Isnt it kind of like how CA cant escape the SCOTUS ruling in Heller? They MUST obey federal law so therefore all of the UOCers that carry long guns within 1K ft of a school zone should be busted. Or am I just dead crazy?

Manic Moran
04-28-2009, 9:23 AM
And a fed can only arrest you for violating federal laws.

You telling me that an FBI agent can't arrest somebody for murder?

*Goes off to plot*

NTM

demnogis
04-28-2009, 9:26 AM
The original Fed law in 1990 was ruled unconstitutional. It was very slightly reworded and brought back in during 1995 (I think). It was not challenged a second time.

CA also implemented their own "Gun Free School Zone" law, which has morphed into what it is today - an attempt to create 1000ft "sterile" or "sensitive" areas around schools. Some of the laws applicable within these zones are unconstitutional and need to be challenged.

Librarian
04-28-2009, 11:30 AM
Or am I just dead crazy?

Well, you are trying to apply logic to a gun control law. That's indicative of something, but I'm sure only that such ridiculous behavior will never get you elected to anything.

More's the pity.

pullnshoot25
04-28-2009, 12:45 PM
Got some info from a confidential source.

Kid is being charged with the school zone crap and concealing a firearm (it was partially concealed). He apparently walked right in front of a middle school on his way to a friends house to shoot bottles. He cooperated and is in Juvenile Hall right now.

I just quoted my source some penal code. Basically, it is not a crime to carry a long gun as a minor and there isn't a minimum age for doing so. For concealable firearms you have to be 16 and either with a parent or with permission.

Also, it is not a crime to conceal a long gun.

Also, it is not a crime, according to state law, to carry a long gun in a school zone.

However, GFSZA makes it a crime. My question is, what takes stronger precedence, the state or the federal law?

I am really really REALLY hoping that they reconsider ruining this kids life.

Untamed1972
04-28-2009, 12:56 PM
Kid is being charged with the school zone crap and concealing a firearm (it was partially concealed). He apparently walked right in front of a middle school on his way to a friends house to shoot bottles. He cooperated and is in Juvenile Hall right now.

I just quoted my source some penal code. Basically, it is not a crime to carry a long gun as a minor and there isn't a minimum age for doing so. For concealable firearms you have to be 16 and either with a parent or with permission.

Also, it is not a crime to conceal a long gun.

How can you get charged with concealing a gun that the PC defines as not capable of being concealed?

That would mean everytime you put a long gun in the trunk of your car to take it to the range you're committing a crime by concealing it. Heck....just putting it in a gun case is concealing it by those terms.

DDT
04-28-2009, 12:56 PM
Well, as far as GFSZA goes, it's already been challenged and knocked down once. I doubt it will withstand scrutiny as re-written. The first time was also before Heller so it would make for an even stronger case.

Now, I doubt the state or "The Right People" really want a 14 year old in the middle of this whole thing but that horse has left the stable.

Librarian
04-28-2009, 12:57 PM
Got some info from a confidential source.

Kid is being charged with the school zone crap and concealing a firearm (it was partially concealed). He apparently walked right in front of a middle school on his way to a friends house to shoot bottles. He cooperated and is in Juvenile Hall right now.

I just quoted my source some penal code. Basically, it is not a crime to carry a long gun as a minor and there isn't a minimum age for doing so. For concealable firearms you have to be 16 and either with a parent or with permission.

Also, it is not a crime to conceal a long gun.

Also, it is not a crime, according to state law, to carry a long gun in a school zone.

However, GFSZA makes it a crime. My question is, what takes stronger precedence, the state or the federal law?

I am really really REALLY hoping that they reconsider ruining this kids life.


What silly people ...

They'll have to turn him over to the Feds to prosecute for 18 USC 922 (q), I think. Based on information at hand, seems he hasn't violated any CA law.

DDT
04-28-2009, 12:57 PM
How can youi get charged with concealing a gun that the PC defines as not capable of being concealed?

You can get charged with anything. It simply won't stick is all.

Untamed1972
04-28-2009, 12:59 PM
You telling me that an FBI agent can't arrest somebody for murder?

*Goes off to plot*

NTM

I do believe there are federal murder statutes as well.

But you don't have to worry about that FBI agent writing you a parking ticket! :thumbsup: (unless perhaps you're violating a federal parking code in a national park or something)

JDay
04-28-2009, 1:00 PM
However, GFSZA makes it a crime. My question is, what takes stronger precedence, the state or the federal law?

I am really really REALLY hoping that they reconsider ruining this kids life.

I doubt the DA can file federal charges.

Untamed1972
04-28-2009, 1:01 PM
Yes, state/county/local LE can arrest you for federal crimes. The general rule of thumb is that LE can arrest you for violating the laws of any political entity to which they belong, at their level or higher, but not for violating the laws of any political entity lower than their level. So a city PO could arrest you for violating any law of their city, county, state, or the US; but a sheriff's deputy (unless they are contracted by the city) cannot arrest you for violating city ordinances. And a fed can only arrest you for violating federal laws.

But if this is the case then how is it that BLM officers are messing with people and there OLLs, or writing offroaders tickets for violation CVC codes?

demnogis
04-28-2009, 1:12 PM
IMHO it seems like this city is going to charge for the max they can and try to plea-bargain down to a lesser charge that revokes the kid's gun rights for a ridiculous amount of time.

I would not be surprised if they tried to push to charge as an adult due to the "seriousness" of the crime.

Untamed1972
04-28-2009, 1:22 PM
IMHO it seems like this city is going to charge for the max they can and try to plea-bargain down to a lesser charge that revokes the kid's gun rights for a ridiculous amount of time.

I would not be surprised if they tried to push to charge as an adult due to the "seriousness" of the crime.

I wouldn't be suprised if they try to go after the parents somehow for some kind of negligence charge.

CmpsdNoMore
04-28-2009, 1:35 PM
Right down the road from me.
Tagged for future info.

Theseus
04-28-2009, 1:35 PM
It is as suggested, it doesn't matter if the person is guilty or not, it is what the DA can argue vs what the defense can argue.

It will cost them money to fight this and they may just cave in. I sure hope not. Can we get in touch with this kid and/or his people to try and help him out?

JDay
04-28-2009, 1:43 PM
But if this is the case then how is it that BLM officers are messing with people and there OLLs, or writing offroaders tickets for violation CVC codes?

There's probably an agreement of some sort with the local police/DA and BLM, same as how you can get cited for violating CVC on a military base

GaryV
04-28-2009, 5:03 PM
You telling me that an FBI agent can't arrest somebody for murder?

*Goes off to plot*

NTM

That's right, unless it is committed on federal property. Otherwise it is not a federal crime and the FBI has no jurisdiction. This is why bank robbery was made a federal crime in the 1930s. Until then, all you had to do was cross the state line and you were home-free. The police of the victimized state couldn't chase you, and the feds had no jurisdiction.

GaryV
04-28-2009, 5:15 PM
But if this is the case then how is it that BLM officers are messing with people and there OLLs, or writing offroaders tickets for violation CVC codes?

LEOs of higher jurisdictions can be given limited or full powers to enforce laws of lower political entities, if the lower entity grants them these powers. This happens sometimes with the county sheriff's office, in towns that choose not to have their own police force. BLM may be granted powers to enforce state laws on federal land under their control. But technically federal land is not under state authority anyway. This is why we could drink on-post when I was in the Army at 18, even though the CA legal limit was 21.

Wizard99
04-28-2009, 5:38 PM
I don't think they will charge him as an adult. It would be to his advantage if they did. Then he would be subject to bail and due process. The juvenile court system is very arbitrary. They pretty much operate under the "if he could have done it he probably did" mentality. If he is lucky they will release him to his parents until the court date. If not he will spend at least a few weeks in juvenile hall.

retired
04-28-2009, 5:50 PM
I don't think they will charge him as an adult. It would be to his advantage if they did. Then he would be subject to bail and due process. The juvenile court system is very arbitrary. They pretty much operate under the "if he could have done it he probably did" mentality. If he is lucky they will release him to his parents until the court date. If not he will spend at least a few weeks in juvenile hall.

And if so, he will have an opportunity to meet some really nice people who may help him explore some parts of his body that he would have rather kept to himself.:(

510dat
04-28-2009, 6:16 PM
They will likely pressure the family to get a plea. It doesn't matter what he actually did, if they can get him to admit (via plea bargain) that he illegally concealed a concealable firearm.

Someone who knows them should warn the family about this.

nick
04-28-2009, 6:20 PM
I'm curious, if the DA knowingly (and they have to know, given their job, right?) charges you with the crime that doesn't exist, and given that the 2nd Amendment is now incorporated, can the DA be prosecuted? If so, it looks like the case we should help out on.

Can the police officers involved be prosecuted for the same? After all, we may have the law on our side, but if we can still be arbitrarily prosecuted for something that's not illegal, it's not good enough.

Matt C
04-28-2009, 6:27 PM
I'm curious, if the DA knowingly (and they have to know, given their job, right?) charges you with the crime that doesn't exist, and given that the 2nd Amendment is now incorporated, can the DA be prosecuted?


Sure, the DA's office can prosecute a DA for prosecuting a gun owner. And if you believe it will ever happen, I have this great time share opportunity to tell you about.

nick
04-28-2009, 6:37 PM
Sure, the DA's office can prosecute a DA for prosecuting a gun owner. And if you believe it will ever happen, I have this great time share opportunity to tell you about.

Well, first of all, I'm interested to hear about your timeshare. I've been meaning to get one for a long time.

Secondly, I was thinking more along the lines of the specific deputy DA (as opposed to the DA's office) and specific police officers (as opposed to their department) being sued for civil rights violations.

GaryV
04-28-2009, 6:40 PM
This sucks. It sparked a question in my mind though. If Fed law says we cant be within 1000ft or so within a school zone with a rifle, then why are people still doing it thinking its ok just because CA law doesnt say so? Isnt it kind of like how CA cant escape the SCOTUS ruling in Heller? They MUST obey federal law so therefore all of the UOCers that carry long guns within 1K ft of a school zone should be busted. Or am I just dead crazy?

The reason why people still do it is that it's highly unusual (though perfectly legal) for local LEOs to arrest someone for a federal offense. This just happens to be one of those situations where they probably thought that what the kid was doing was a violation of state law as well, even though it wasn't, and now they have to invent BS violations like concealing a long gun, since the feds are unlikely to prosecute. But yes, federal law makes it a crime, so it is illegal, and anyone doing it could be arrested.

cousinkix1953
04-28-2009, 6:59 PM
The California PC has laws against robbery and counterfeiting.
But they are FEDERAL crimes which involve the FBI and Secret Service. In truth, the local police take an oath to enforce all of those laws; but crooked politicians want to play games with illegal aliens, who get caught with illegal guns. I won't vote for at least two gubenatorial candidates because they're just so full of s---...

N6ATF
04-28-2009, 7:13 PM
They will likely pressure the family to get a plea. It doesn't matter what he actually did, if they can get him to admit (via plea bargain) that he illegally concealed an unconcealable firearm (according to the law).

Fixed.

GuyW
04-29-2009, 11:18 AM
now they have to invent BS violations like concealing a long gun

...which is totally legal...
.

DDT
04-29-2009, 11:24 AM
I'm curious, if the DA knowingly (and they have to know, given their job, right?) charges you with the crime that doesn't exist, and given that the 2nd Amendment is now incorporated, can the DA be prosecuted? If so, it looks like the case we should help out on.

You would be truly shocked at how far prosecutorial immunity reaches.

I doubt that a prosecutor could be charged in such a case. (Well; they could be charged for anything but I don't think they'd be convicted)

ETA: 2A's incorporation via 14A could change this as I don't know if there is a special exemption from immunity when it comes to civil rights or how civil rights would be interpreted in such cases.

Untamed1972
04-29-2009, 11:38 AM
You would be truly shocked at how far prosecutorial immunity reaches.

I doubt that a prosecutor could be charged in such a case. (Well; they could be charged for anything but I don't think they'd be convicted)

ETA: 2A's incorporation via 14A could change this as I don't know if there is a special exemption from immunity when it comes to civil rights or how civil rights would be interpreted in such cases.

Couldn't that fall under that "violation of civil rights under color of authority" USC code section? forget the number off the top of my head. I would think the accused person would at least have civil recourse against the county for false arrest perhaps and malicious prosecution if they knowing charged someone with something that wasn't a crime.

rbgaynor
04-29-2009, 2:51 PM
Couldn't that fall under that "violation of civil rights under color of authority" USC code section? forget the number off the top of my head.

18 U.S.C. 242