PDA

View Full Version : Theuses Case: The bare facts?


bruss01
11-07-2009, 4:44 PM
Until recently I had zero interest in UOC cases and so I have not been following the umpteen thousand pages of threads on this case. Can someone give me the bare facts in a nutshell? By "bare facts" I mean separate out all the "I though" or "he intended" or "What they thought was the case" and just give me the facts, jack. Such as where this took place, who was present, what was said, what citation was made or charges levied, etc. It should be easy enough to put this into a paragraph or two, and then maybe the mods would like to sticky that response so latecomers to the party (like myself) can come up to speed without spending half a day researching the case. If there is already a post of this sort, please just point me there, but please not to something with 50 odd pages and details dribbled out in one post after another, so to get everything you basically end up reading 50 pages.

troysland
11-07-2009, 4:59 PM
I sat with Theseus at a Tony Roma's before a Town Hall Meeting in Alhambra a while back. He pretty much explained he was at a laundromat while UOC. Someone called the cops, they arrived, he was questioned. He explained that there actually was a school in the area, but I don't recall if it was inside of 1000 ft. distance or just outside. If anyone recalls more details, please chime in.

mej16489
11-07-2009, 5:00 PM
Theseus was UOC at a private property laundry-mat which is within a Gun Free School Zone (GFSZ)

Violation of the GFSZ is a prohibitive misdeameanor if convicted (loss of gun rughts for 10 years)

The operative aspects of violating the GFSZ:
1) Possesion of a handgun
2) Offender knew or should have reasonably known that he was within 1000 feet of a K-12 school

The operative exemptions:
1) The handgun is in a locked container
2) The offender is on or within private property which is not owned by the school.

------
Theseus was contacted by Law Enforcement outside the front door of the Laundry Mat (I think he went out to have a smoke)
The LEOs performed an 'E-Check' (PC 12031e) to determine if the OC handgun was loaded and found that it was not.
LEOs at some point obtained identification of Theseus - I'm vague on the circumstances, but I think I'm clear that Theseus didn't voluntarily identify himself.
LEOs were of the opinion that no crime occurred and left.

A few days later (duration?) Theseus received filed charges from the DAs office in the mail.

LEOs testified that they were unaware that the 'incident' occurred within a GFSZ.
Somehow the judge has mandated that, 'private property which is open to the public is not private property'
Guilty verdict by jury

Fjold
11-07-2009, 6:59 PM
The powers to be can make a lot of mistakes, the people cannot make one.

hoffmang
11-07-2009, 7:43 PM
Let me give you the bare facts as I understand them.

1. Theseus drove to a laundromat with an unloaded handgun registered to him in a locked container.

2. Theseus opened the locked container in the parking lot of said laundromat and holstered the unloaded firearm.

3. Theseus proceeded to do some laundry and also at times sat on a bench outside of the strip mall laundromat on the sidewalk next to the facility, but not on the "public" sidewalk. The sidewalk in front of the strip mall did abut the public sidewalk.

4. Theseus had done some due diligence about school zones and did not believe he was in a school zone. He also had assumed he was on private property so to the extent he was aware that he might be in a school zone, he thought the private property exemption applied.

5. Officers responded to a man with a gun call.

6. When the officers responded Theseus was sitting on the bench outside the laundromat but inside the parking lot area in an area marked "private property" by the little inset signs.

7. The officers did a 12031(e) check and demanded and received identification. Theseus was co-operative. The officers contacted dispatch to ask a bunch of questions of whether he was actually breaking any laws. The school zone issue came up but dispatch and the supervisor dispatch was talking to didn't think the school zone was an issue. The officer returned his firearm to him after about 20 minutes of questioning and left him there with his gun at the laundromat.

8. A couple of months later a DA sent a summons for a violating 626.9.

9. In pre-trial motions, the judge denied a motion that the lot was "private property" or that Theseus had no knowledge of a GFSZ.

Those are the facts as best I know them.

-Gene

bodger
11-07-2009, 8:06 PM
Let me give you the bare facts as I understand them.

1. Theseus drove to a laundromat with an unloaded handgun registered to him in a locked container.

2. Theseus opened the locked container in the parking lot of said laundromat and holstered the unloaded firearm.

3. Theseus proceeded to do some laundry and also at times sat on a bench outside of the strip mall laundromat on the sidewalk next to the facility, but not on the "public" sidewalk. The sidewalk in front of the strip mall did abut the public sidewalk.

4. Theseus had done some due diligence about school zones and did not believe he was in a school zone. He also had assumed he was on private property so to the extent he was aware that he might be in a school zone, he thought the private property exemption applied.

5. Officers responded to a man with a gun call.

6. When the officers responded Theseus was sitting on the bench outside the laundromat but inside the parking lot area in an area marked "private property" by the little inset signs.

7. The officers did a 12031(e) check and demanded and received identification. Theseus was co-operative. The officers contacted dispatch to ask a bunch of questions of whether he was actually breaking any laws. The school zone issue came up but dispatch and the supervisor dispatch was talking to didn't think the school zone was an issue. The officer returned his firearm to him after about 20 minutes of questioning and left him there with his gun at the laundromat.

8. A couple of months later a DA sent a summons for a violating 626.9.

9. In pre-trial motions, the judge denied a motion that the lot was "private property" or that Theseus had no knowledge of a GFSZ.

Those are the facts as best I know them.

-Gene


Makes me wonder what questioning took 20 minutes. That's a lot of questions.

hoffmang
11-07-2009, 8:24 PM
Makes me wonder what questioning took 20 minutes. That's a lot of questions.

Reading between the lines, it was the "waiting for dispatch" moments in the questioning.

Don't forget how long just getting a speeding ticket for 15 over takes...

-Gene

MP301
11-07-2009, 9:01 PM
So, is he Convicted pending appeal at this point or no? And what do you think the outcome here will be Gene?

hoffmang
11-07-2009, 9:20 PM
So, is he Convicted pending appeal at this point or no? And what do you think the outcome here will be Gene?

He's convicted. He has not yet been sentenced. I'm not yet at a place where I can share an opinion on the appeal.

-Gene

CSDGuy
11-07-2009, 9:22 PM
So, is he Convicted pending appeal at this point or no? And what do you think the outcome here will be Gene?
As things stand now, he's been convicted. He has not yet been sentenced. He is expected to appeal that conviction. All this is stuff I've learned from reading the one or two threads on this... I'm sure Gene probably and others have an opinion about appeals... but to me, it makes sense to hold off announcing anything firm on that end until it is time to file.

To Theseus: good luck!

Soldier415
11-08-2009, 5:13 AM
I had wondered about this myself. Interesting that no arrest, but received charges by mail. Overzealous DA with an anti-gun agenda?

bodger
11-08-2009, 6:22 AM
I had wondered about this myself. Interesting that no arrest, but received charges by mail. Overzealous DA with an anti-gun agenda?

The following quote from Theseus appeared in another thread:

As for the judge and DA, I believe that they both truly did what they believed to be their job. The judge made what I believe to be by him, proper legal decisions. It does no one any good to call them names or berate them personally.

"Believed to be their job" is what frightens me.

But I wasn't there, Theseus was, so it's not my place to second guess anyone.

MindBuilder
11-08-2009, 7:16 AM
The distance to the school has been reportedly measured to be a bit over 500 feet.

Theseus
11-08-2009, 5:09 PM
It is hard not to comment. . . .

When I can I will make public all the documents of the proceedings.

Until then I can't comment any further on the case.

Shotgun Man
11-08-2009, 5:22 PM
So, is he Convicted pending appeal at this point or no? And what do you think the outcome here will be Gene?

He's not convicted under CA law until he's sentenced, but that's just nit-picking.

Theseus
11-08-2009, 5:33 PM
No. technically I am convicted the moment the clerk reads the jury's verdict of guilty.

Court finished about 4:30 PM. I still had firearms in the house. Had I come directly home I could be a prohibited person in possession. Fortunate for me I knew the law enough to make sure I was protected before coming home.

pullnshoot25
11-08-2009, 6:26 PM
Makes me wonder what questioning took 20 minutes. That's a lot of questions.

That is actually a "normal" length of time for a detention for UOC.

bodger
11-08-2009, 7:35 PM
That is actually a "normal" length of time for a detention for UOC.


Sounds like a cooling off period. :D

If all the cops are legally allowed to do is an (e) check and go about their business, they shouldn't be taking 20 minutes.

But if wishes were horses....

MindBuilder
11-08-2009, 9:51 PM
No. technically I am convicted the moment the clerk reads the jury's verdict of guilty.

Court finished about 4:30 PM. I still had firearms in the house. Had I come directly home I could be a prohibited person in possession. Fortunate for me I knew the law enough to make sure I was protected before coming home.
I thought you weren't convicted until your appeals ended. I'm probably wrong as I don't even know where I heard that. But what makes you think you're convicted and prohibited immediately upon the reading of the verdict? I guess your lawyer told you but I'm still curious. A hasty Google search turned up a couple things that make me wonder about the convicted at verdict idea.
A judgment of conviction by the court must follow a plea of guilty just as a judgment of conviction must follow a jury verdict of guilty
Another quote reads:
When Defendant Files Untimely Notice of Appeal That is Later Dismissed, Conviction is Final Under 2255 When the Time for Appeal Expired
I think both of these cases were federal, so it could be different here in a California state court.

Meplat
11-08-2009, 10:12 PM
I know we are discouraging UOC at this time and the foundation cannot support UOCers. But I seems to me that we need to support this appeal vigorously to avoid bad case law.:confused:

bodger
11-09-2009, 6:56 AM
I know we are discouraging UOC at this time and the foundation cannot support UOCers. But I seems to me that we need to support this appeal vigorously to avoid bad case law.:confused:


I agree. I'm donating again this week.

As for case law, if Theseus wins his appeal, has this debacle helped or harmed the overall 2A movement in CA?

Decoligny
11-09-2009, 7:10 AM
I thought you weren't convicted until your appeals ended. I'm probably wrong as I don't even know where I heard that. But what makes you think you're convicted and prohibited immediately upon the reading of the verdict? I guess your lawyer told you but I'm still curious. A hasty Google search turned up a couple things that make me wonder about the convicted at verdict idea.

Another quote reads:

I think both of these cases were federal, so it could be different here in a California state court.

If that were the case there would be a whole lot less people waiting 20 years on Death Row. They would be out in the community, "unconvicted" until their final appeal failed. Then they would be taken into custody and walked immediately to the execution chamber.

jnojr
11-09-2009, 10:21 AM
I agree. I'm donating again this week.

Donating to whom? Is CGF involved with this case? I was under the impression they were staying far, far away from UOC cases.

GrizzlyGuy
11-09-2009, 10:33 AM
Donating to whom? Is CGF involved with this case? I was under the impression they were staying far, far away from UOC cases.

See here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=237835

Or direct to the donation page:

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/36-current-legal-cases/67-donate-to-theseus-open-carry-case

Decoligny
11-09-2009, 11:23 AM
Donating to whom? Is CGF involved with this case? I was under the impression they were staying far, far away from UOC cases.

While not directly supporting the case, CGF has graciously set up a method for accepting donations from those who would like to financially support Theseus's case.

MindBuilder
11-09-2009, 12:03 PM
Decoligny wrote:
Mindbuilder wrote:
I thought you weren't convicted until your appeals ended.
If that were the case there would be a whole lot less people waiting 20 years on Death Row. They would be out in the community, "unconvicted" until their final appeal failed. Then they would be taken into custody and walked immediately to the execution chamber.
Defendants who are "innocent" until proven guilty are often held without bail even before the verdict. And defendants who are found guilty by the jury are often allowed to remain out on bail while their appeals are pending (as I'm guessing will happen here). Maybe the judge has the discretion to delay a judgment of conviction until after the appeals, depending on if he thinks the appeals are frivolous. So maybe it's not until your appeals have ended but rather when the judges think you've had enough appeals.

Decoligny
11-09-2009, 12:17 PM
Decoligny wrote:

Defendants who are "innocent" until proven guilty are often held without bail even before the verdict. And defendants who are found guilty by the jury are often allowed to remain out on bail while their appeals are pending (as I'm guessing will happen here). Maybe the judge has the discretion to delay a judgment of conviction until after the appeals, depending on if he thinks the appeals are frivolous. So maybe it's not until your appeals have ended but rather when the judges think you've had enough appeals.

You are confusing "custody" with conviction.

O.J. Simpson was convicted in Las Vegas. He is currently in custody serving his sentence. He requested that he be allowed to remain out of custody on his own recognizance while awaiting his appeal. If they had allowed him to remain out of jail, he would still be a convicted criminal until his case was either overturned or the appeal court upholds the original verdict and he would then be returned to custody.

Ex-Sheriff Mike Corona is currently a convicted criminal, he was convicted of witness tampering on Jan 16, 2009. He was sentenced to 66 months in State Prison in Apr 27, 2009. Three months and 11 days after his conviction. He is currently free awaiting appeal. He is not in custody, but is still a convicted criminal.

B.D.Dubloon
11-09-2009, 12:25 PM
In cases where someone owns guns but is convicted of something which prohibits them from having them, what must be done with their guns? Can they just store them at a location they don't have access to (locked in a family/friend's house), or do they need to be sold? Could the guns remain registered in the convict's name? Especially in a case like this where in 10 years he could reposes them.

cmth
11-09-2009, 4:08 PM
One detail everyone is missing is that his identification was unlawfully obtained from him. He declined to provide identification, which is his right in California, and without permission the officer seized his wallet from his pants pocket and unlawfully searched his wallet and retrieved his driver license. This information was barred from the criminal trial and the jury never knew it. This alone will assure his conviction is overturned.

Had he not been identified there never would have been a charge or a trial. This is why it is of the utmost importance that anyone UOCing not carry any form of identification on themselves. You have absolutely nothing to gain by identifying yourself (either by choice or by force) and potentially a lot to lose if you do. Don't even give them your first name. By "cooperating" you could be signing your own death warrant, so to speak.

Theseus
11-10-2009, 9:53 AM
I agree. I'm donating again this week.

As for case law, if Theseus wins his appeal, has this debacle helped or harmed the overall 2A movement in CA?

My winning on appeal will not necessarily improve the 2A movement in CA, but it certainly won't harm it. The real risk of harm is in my losing the appeal. If I lose it has the potential to make bad case law. It would practically make open carry illegal in urban areas.

Rest assured though, if there were much a risk of that I would not be appealing. The appeals court would have to not just change the law, but ignore decades of jurisprudence to not overturn my case.

On the other hand, when I win my appeal, we will have proven case law that enforces the protection of private property. That can go a long way in advancing UOC cause.

Glock22Fan
11-10-2009, 1:43 PM
Theseus, Any idea how long it will be before the standard reply of "two weeks" has any real significance??

Theseus
11-11-2009, 12:09 PM
It is my understanding that I will not be fully vindicated for about 1 year.

bigcalidave
11-11-2009, 11:00 PM
Stay tough!!! Don't let them beat you down.

How's it feel to be a prohibited person?? :(

Theseus
11-12-2009, 8:51 AM
Stay tough!!! Don't let them beat you down.

How's it feel to be a prohibited person?? :(

It's like getting divorced and losing custody of your children with no visitation.

MindBuilder
11-12-2009, 11:48 AM
Has a judgement of conviction been entered against you? Not a jury verdict of guilty, but a "judgement of conviction" issued by the judge.

mmartin
11-12-2009, 11:55 AM
It's like getting divorced and losing custody of your children with no visitation.
ouch.

Meplat
11-12-2009, 2:42 PM
The wife should not be a prohibited person. Is there any practical way to exploit that fact. Not to encourage any fudging on the letter of the law but she could be the family 'protector' for a year. Sometimes a mom has to step up.


It's like getting divorced and losing custody of your children with no visitation.

KylaGWolf
11-12-2009, 8:15 PM
The wife should not be a prohibited person. Is there any practical way to exploit that fact. Not to encourage any fudging on the letter of the law but she could be the family 'protector' for a year. Sometimes a mom has to step up.

Nope if he lives in the house the guns can't be in the same house. Reason I know that family friend hubby was a felon and he had a gun before he went to prison before he was allowed back home gun had to be gone and proven to be gone.

hoffmang
11-12-2009, 8:18 PM
Nope if he lives in the house the guns can't be in the same house. Reason I know that family friend hubby was a felon and he had a gun before he went to prison before he was allowed back home gun had to be gone and proven to be gone.

This rule has changed after Heller. If his wife is the only person with the combo to the safe and promises to not give him access, she can not be denied the fundamental right of self defense.

Not all DA's understand this issue yet, but the judges - even in hostile California- seem to.

-Gene

bodger
11-12-2009, 9:50 PM
This rule has changed after Heller. If his wife is the only person with the combo to the safe and promises to not give him access, she can not be denied the fundamental right of self defense.

Not all DA's understand this issue yet, but the judges - even in hostile California- seem to.

-Gene



Does this mean he could accompany his wife to the range with "her" guns and shoot?

MindBuilder
11-13-2009, 12:58 AM
hubby was a felon and he had a gun before he went to prison before he was allowed back home gun had to be gone and proven to be gone.
It may have been that he got out on parole rather than serving his whole sentence. A parolee may have to get permission to move into a particular household. And a parole officer might deny permission if there is a gun in the house. Even if the parole officer doesn't have the legal power to prohibit such a thing, he may still threaten to send the parolee back to prison, and just hope his bluff isn't called.

Cokebottle
11-13-2009, 1:01 AM
Does this mean he could accompany his wife to the range with "her" guns and shoot?
promises to not give him access
No
He can watch her shoot.

bodger
11-13-2009, 4:43 AM
No
He can watch her shoot.


Ouch. Essentially banned from touching a firearm. For what, ten years if this isn't overturned on appeal.

This really makes the term "free state" literal when you compare CA to most others.

An example of a CA gun law that doesn't make sense in the first place, probably was not actually violated by Theseus anyway, causing him to be prohibited person.

A little too close to fascism for me.

GuyW
11-13-2009, 6:09 AM
An example of a CA gun law that doesn't make sense in the first place, probably was not actually violated by Theseus anyway, causing him to be prohibited person.

A little too close to fascism for me.

It's straight-up judicial fascism...
.

mmartin
11-13-2009, 11:44 AM
It may have been that he got out on parole rather than serving his whole sentence. A parolee may have to get permission to move into a particular household. And a parole officer might deny permission if there is a gun in the house. Even if the parole officer doesn't have the legal power to prohibit such a thing, he may still threaten to send the parolee back to prison, and just hope his bluff isn't called.

what we were told when we were facing essentially the same thing is this: basically he can't be in possession... if he's home, the guns cannot be accessible to him (they have to be locked up.) that means if they do a search (which they can do without a warrant because of the conviction and probation) and find the safe open or guns out, he's toasted. he's considered to be in possession in the home if he could put his hands on the gun without opening the safe. and of course, he has to not know the combo to the safe.

the exception is that the spouse could carry in the house if the gun was on their person, but should the spouse lay the gun down on a table, now its a violation.

megan

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-13-2009, 12:59 PM
One detail everyone is missing is that his identification was unlawfully obtained from him. He declined to provide identification, which is his right in California, and without permission the officer seized his wallet from his pants pocket and unlawfully searched his wallet and retrieved his driver license. This information was barred from the criminal trial and the jury never knew it. This alone will assure his conviction is overturned.

Had he not been identified there never would have been a charge or a trial. This is why it is of the utmost importance that anyone UOCing not carry any form of identification on themselves. You have absolutely nothing to gain by identifying yourself (either by choice or by force) and potentially a lot to lose if you do. Don't even give them your first name. By "cooperating" you could be signing your own death warrant, so to speak.

Welcome to 148 PC. Enjoy your stay.

ryang
11-13-2009, 2:13 PM
This is why it is of the utmost importance that anyone UOCing not carry any form of identification on themselves. You have absolutely nothing to gain by identifying yourself (either by choice or by force) and potentially a lot to lose if you do. Don't even give them your first name.

This is a great example of the kind of ignorant BS that's easy to give but will cause you grief if you try to follow. Try it and at best you will lose a couple hours when they transport you to jail and do a LifeScan to verify your identify. You will also have the pleasure of arranging your own transportation back to where you were.

Depending on how far you take cmth's wonderful advice you could also be charged with 148.9(b) for falsely identifying yourself or 148(a)(1) for obstructing an officer. Both are misdemeanors.

anthonyca
11-13-2009, 2:59 PM
This is a great example of the kind of ignorant BS that's easy to give but will cause you grief if you try to follow. Try it and at best you will lose a couple hours when they transport you to jail and do a LifeScan to verify your identify. You will also have the pleasure of arranging your own transportation back to where you were.

Depending on how far you take cmth's wonderful advice you could also be charged with 148.9(b) for falsely identifying yourself or 148(a)(1) for obstructing an officer. Both are misdemeanors.

Don't they need probable cause?

MudCamper
11-13-2009, 4:15 PM
This is a great example of the kind of ignorant BS that's easy to give but will cause you grief if you try to follow. Try it and at best you will lose a couple hours when they transport you to jail and do a LifeScan to verify your identify. You will also have the pleasure of arranging your own transportation back to where you were.

Depending on how far you take cmth's wonderful advice you could also be charged with 148.9(b) for falsely identifying yourself or 148(a)(1) for obstructing an officer. Both are misdemeanors.

You are absolutely WRONG.

The reason UOCers no longer identify themselves is to avoid situations EXACTLY like Theseus'. And California is NOT a stop-and-identify state. LEO need probable cause. You do NOT have to show ID or identify yourself.

There have been countless threads on this topic here and on OCDO. Also why don't you start by reading this LEA memo that gets it right: http://www.opencarryradio.com/documents/Sunnyvale_California_Memo_18_Sep_09.pdf

Let me quote from that memo:

In short, per the District Attorney's office, there is no authority that we are aware of that requires them to identify themselves so do not enforce the 148 PC section solely under this circumstance.

pnkssbtz
11-13-2009, 4:33 PM
9. In pre-trial motions, the judge denied a motion that the lot was "private property" or that Theseus had no knowledge of a GFSZ.
How does this interpretation of private property laws conform with the actual way private property laws work?


It is my understanding that the judge is "making sh*t up" with his/her's interpretation of this.

Cokebottle
11-13-2009, 4:35 PM
How does this interpretation of private property laws conform with the actual way private property laws work?

It is my understanding that the judge is "making sh*t up" with his/her's interpretation of this.
Agreed.

That's why we have an appeals process for convictions.

pnkssbtz
11-13-2009, 4:35 PM
*EDITED*

MudCamper
11-13-2009, 5:02 PM
If that is the case, and Theseus has evidence of them gaining identification illegally, wouldn't their ability to charge him be dismissed due to them knowing his name and charging him "Fruit of the poisonous tree"?

Yes. This was one of many of his valid defenses that the judge suppressed. And FYI we're not supposed to be posting about this stuff until after Theseus' sentencing.

pnkssbtz
11-13-2009, 5:18 PM
Yes. This was one of many of his valid defenses that the judge suppressed. And FYI we're not supposed to be posting about this stuff until after Theseus' sentencing.Sorry... I'll edit my posts.

KylaGWolf
11-13-2009, 8:02 PM
It may have been that he got out on parole rather than serving his whole sentence. A parolee may have to get permission to move into a particular household. And a parole officer might deny permission if there is a gun in the house. Even if the parole officer doesn't have the legal power to prohibit such a thing, he may still threaten to send the parolee back to prison, and just hope his bluff isn't called.

Nope even after his time was up he couldn't have a gun in the house period.

Theseus
11-13-2009, 10:06 PM
what we were told when we were facing essentially the same thing is this: basically he can't be in possession... if he's home, the guns cannot be accessible to him (they have to be locked up.) that means if they do a search (which they can do without a warrant because of the conviction and probation) and find the safe open or guns out, he's toasted. he's considered to be in possession in the home if he could put his hands on the gun without opening the safe. and of course, he has to not know the combo to the safe.

the exception is that the spouse could carry in the house if the gun was on their person, but should the spouse lay the gun down on a table, now its a violation.

megan

To my understanding the bolded is wrong. The only way is if I accept as a condition of probation a waiver of my rights.

They would still have to have PC and get a search warrant.

greg36f
11-13-2009, 10:26 PM
To my understanding the bolded is wrong. The only way is if I accept as a condition of probation a waiver of my rights.

They would still have to have PC and get a search warrant.

Theseus, you are correct..However a "4th waiver" is a standard term of probation and it may be difficult to avoid it. No 4th waiver by defendant, no offer of probation........I know some people that have served thier full sentences in order to avoid terms of probation.

MudCamper
11-14-2009, 7:59 AM
Sorry... I'll edit my posts.

I don't know that you need to do that. Let's get it from the source.

Theseus, is there any problem with us discussing anything related to your case at this time, before sentencing?

Theseus
11-14-2009, 9:56 PM
I don't know that you need to do that. Let's get it from the source.

Theseus, is there any problem with us discussing anything related to your case at this time, before sentencing?

I don't know... My first time being convicted of anything. To my understanding though I believe they have more leeway to use statements against me for sentencing. . . But I don't see the logic in using someone elses words against me, and I don't think they will try.

Theseus
11-14-2009, 10:00 PM
Theseus, you are correct..However a "4th waiver" is a standard term of probation and it may be difficult to avoid it. No 4th waiver by defendant, no offer of probation........I know some people that have served thier full sentences in order to avoid terms of probation.

I believe that it is common for a person to receive the full sentence as a punishment for not accepting probation.

But again, I don't know.

Cokebottle
11-14-2009, 10:16 PM
I believe that it is common for a person to receive the full sentence as a punishment for not accepting probation.

But again, I don't know.
That's the way it was with my DUI in '91. Accept suspended sentence on the condition of successful completion of probation, and even though the sentence was only a year or less, the probationary period lasted either 5 or 7 years, and included the stipulation "Violate no law".

Of course, violating many laws likely would not have resulted in the suspension being revoked, but it would have entailed a return to the judge, who probably would have been sick of seeing me had I been going in every 6 months for speeding tickets.

bruss01
11-15-2009, 9:02 AM
I am surprised that with all the gun geeks in this state, in this modern day of GPS-enabled cell phones, that none of them have coded a cell phone app that gives you a warning bleep when you get within 1200 feet of a school zone and an alert ping when you get within 1000 feet of a school. It seems to me that would be the only way to UOC safely in this state. You strap on your UOC pistol to leave the house, you launch the cell-phone app, and out the door you go. I bet a lot of us would like the app just so we could get an idea of how many school zones there are and how many you pass within 1000 feet of on a daily basis.

Any takers, cell-phone app geeks? I think there's a market!

snobord99
11-15-2009, 10:15 AM
I thought you weren't convicted until your appeals ended. I'm probably wrong as I don't even know where I heard that. But what makes you think you're convicted and prohibited immediately upon the reading of the verdict? I guess your lawyer told you but I'm still curious. A hasty Google search turned up a couple things that make me wonder about the convicted at verdict idea.

A judgment of conviction by the court must follow a plea of guilty just as a judgment of conviction must follow a jury verdict of guilty

Another quote reads:

When Defendant Files Untimely Notice of Appeal That is Later Dismissed, Conviction is Final Under 2255 When the Time for Appeal Expired

I think both of these cases were federal, so it could be different here in a California state court.

Both of those statements are accurate and it has nothing to do with state vs federal systems. A conviction means you were found guilty by a jury, or judge if you opted for the bench trial. However, after a conviction you can still appeal the conviction so the case isn't finalized yet. When a case is final, it means that you've been convicted and you've already exhausted all your appeal options so the case is over (hence, final).

hollabillz
11-15-2009, 10:50 AM
I am surprised that with all the gun geeks in this state, in this modern day of GPS-enabled cell phones, that none of them have coded a cell phone app that gives you a warning bleep when you get within 1200 feet of a school zone and an alert ping when you get within 1000 feet of a school. It seems to me that would be the only way to UOC safely in this state. You strap on your UOC pistol to leave the house, you launch the cell-phone app, and out the door you go. I bet a lot of us would like the app just so we could get an idea of how many school zones there are and how many you pass within 1000 feet of on a daily basis.

Any takers, cell-phone app geeks? I think there's a market!

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=156779

However, the database measures the 1000 ft from a point within the school, not 1000 ft from the boundaries of the school, making it approximate. An iPhone app of this would similarly be approximate, you'd get both false positives and negatives which would kinda defeat the purpose. :(

But at least we're keeping our schools safe! :43:

MindBuilder
11-15-2009, 11:00 AM
The question is, at what point does the prohibition on gun possession come into effect; when the jury returns the verdict, when the judge enters a judgment of conviction, or when the case is finalized(ie appeals are exhausted)? I would guess that the prohibition takes effect when the judgment of conviction is entered, but I could imagine it might be delayed if a higher court agreed to hear the appeal. And if an appeal is likely and the judge thinks it stands a good chance of success, is it possible the judge would delay a judgment of conviction until an appeal was completed?

Cokebottle
11-15-2009, 11:22 AM
I am surprised that with all the gun geeks in this state, in this modern day of GPS-enabled cell phones, that none of them have coded a cell phone app that gives you a warning bleep when you get within 1200 feet of a school zone and an alert ping when you get within 1000 feet of a school. It seems to me that would be the only way to UOC safely in this state.
The law clearly states "reasonably should have known".
By having such a device, you would have effectively eliminated one of your defenses if you are arrested.

Remember, it's not just walking, it's driving as well. You would have to set the alarm to trigger at 2,000ft+ to give yourself time to make a turn or pull over and secure the gun... and you may as well just transport locked up anyways since there are pretty much no places in an urbanized area that are not within 2,000ft of a K-12.

If you set the alarm for 1000ft, you aren't notified until you are in violation, and the notification removes the defense option.

kcbrown
11-15-2009, 3:40 PM
The law clearly states "reasonably should have known".
By having such a device, you would have effectively eliminated one of your defenses if you are arrested.


Theseus' case demonstrates the real possibility that this defense is worthless.

Cokebottle
11-15-2009, 3:51 PM
Theseus' case demonstrates the real possibility that this defense is worthless.
It demonstrates that neither of the exemptions written into the law are worth the paper they were written on in that courtroom.

Theseus absolutely was exempt under the "private property" exemption.
Whether he was factually exempt under "reasonably should have known" is between Theseus and his personal Deity.

Theseus
11-15-2009, 4:14 PM
It demonstrates that neither of the exemptions written into the law are worth the paper they were written on in that courtroom.

Theseus absolutely was exempt under the "private property" exemption.
Whether he was factually exempt under "reasonably should have known" is between Theseus and his personal Deity.

Guess I chose the wrong time to become my own deity? Ha ha.

The DA's argument and he kind of made it to the jury is that since I carried the gun I had a duty to inform myself of all the laws AND all the schools, and that it is reasonable to expect that. . . thus I reasonably should have known.

Cokebottle
11-15-2009, 4:17 PM
Guess I chose the wrong time to become my own deity? Ha ha.
That's exactly why I worded it that way ;)

Jeez... I don't even know what to say as to the DA's expectations of reasonable.
For what radius around your home would you be expected to be aware of the borders of the GFSZ?
Your routes to and from work?
Shopping?

Nobody.... not even people who are walking encyclopedias, can know where every school is even within areas that they frequent.

iRIGHTi
11-15-2009, 4:34 PM
wish we could organize a 1000+ man/woman UOC here in So Cal. with all the members here it seems like it should be fairly easy. fight fire with fire and generate some legal defense funds at the same time. 1000x$10/head +++ others who would donate.

what city beach should we go clean up? i'm down with 1 vote for Long Beach :cool2:

maybe cause for a new thread :confused:

Hang tough Theseus. The, "kids" will be home soon!

bigcalidave
11-15-2009, 5:22 PM
how many GFSZ ONLY violations or convictions have there been? You know, only "crime" was having a weapon in a school zone?? Is that available?

Librarian
11-15-2009, 5:48 PM
how many GFSZ ONLY violations or convictions have there been? You know, only "crime" was having a weapon in a school zone?? Is that available?

At the Appeals Court level, I believe there are about 6 CA cases. More than 2, fewer than 10.

Theseus
11-15-2009, 5:59 PM
You're right on that last statement. I think it's been concluded that the cops who stopped Theseus weren't aware that there was a school within 1000'.

And if the cops on patrol in an area they are familiar with don't know, how the hell can we be expected to "reasonably know"?

That GFSZ is BS anyway. a Catch-22 for UOC.

I have tried clarifying this, but it hasn't seemed to catch on.

It seems the cops knew there was a school within 1000 feet. They didn't know about 626.9 prohibiting firearms within 1000 feet.

It is actually kind of funny. I didn't know about the school, but I did know about 626.9. . .

bodger
11-15-2009, 8:45 PM
I have tried clarifying this, but it hasn't seemed to catch on.

It seems the cops knew there was a school within 1000 feet. They didn't know about 626.9 prohibiting firearms within 1000 feet.

It is actually kind of funny. I didn't know about the school, but I did know about 626.9. . .


The cops not knowing the law is worse than them not knowing where the school is.
Gawd.

snobord99
11-15-2009, 9:04 PM
The cops not knowing the law is worse than them not knowing where the school is.
Gawd.

No it's not. Cops should know the law, but no one in the world knows every law there is. To expect a cop to know every single penal code, health and safety code, vehicle code, insurance code, etc code (as well as the interpretation of the codes) is not a very reasonable expectation. Not even lawyers who specialize in a particular field will know every code relevant to that field.

Cokebottle
11-15-2009, 9:06 PM
No it's not. Cops should know the law, but no one in the world knows every law there is. To expect a cop to know every single penal code, health and safety code, vehicle code, insurance code, etc code (as well as the interpretation of the codes) is not a very reasonable expectation. Not even lawyers who specialize in a particular field will know every code relevant to that field.
Yet the judge and jury not only expect a gun owner to know every law, but also the location of every public and private k-12?

hoffmang
11-15-2009, 9:42 PM
Yet the judge and jury not only expect a gun owner to know every law, but also the location of every public and private k-12?

No. The truth is that most California state judges and juries believe that no gun owner should be armed in public. I don't like it, but ignoring that reality has its dangers.

-Gene

bigcalidave
11-15-2009, 10:04 PM
At the Appeals Court level, I believe there are about 6 CA cases. More than 2, fewer than 10.

Have any of them ended favorably?

peekay331
11-15-2009, 10:05 PM
Yes. This was one of many of his valid defenses that the judge suppressed. And FYI we're not supposed to be posting about this stuff until after Theseus' sentencing.
that argument doesn't work because of inevitable discovery. Even if they didn't have his identification card, they would have gotten his identity eventually, e.g. Livescan, etc.

Riodog
11-15-2009, 10:10 PM
Let's get back to the "private property" issue. Now mind you, I might have missed something along the way as I really detest reading the uninformed opinions of everyone that thinks they have a constitutional right to blah, blah, blah, so just hear me out.

The "private property" in Theuses' case was NOT his private property. While UOC may be legal as a generality it does have it's restrictions. This property was 'open to the public' and it does make a difference due to it's location. Had he been the owner the out-come might have been different.

Just my personal opinion, the law is a bad law, ->the wording is unclear- the DA, Judge just saw an opportunity to add a conviction to their resume's and poor Theuses got caught in a slippery slope situation.

While I don't think that UOC serves any purpose or furthers our cause in this state and is a huge waste of money just to pay these worthless, arrogant leeches off of the public trough, I am sincerely sorry Theuses is going thru this ordeal.

I know of a few gunsmiths that work out of their homes and they are well within the GFSZ. Hope I don't get busted when I drop off my whatever at their place as I usually don't 'secure ' anything in a locked container.
Rio
ps. Kes, can we get a FU smiley? It just might be appropriate in certain instances.

Cokebottle
11-15-2009, 10:26 PM
that argument doesn't work because of inevitable discovery. Even if they didn't have his identification card, they would have gotten his identity eventually, e.g. Livescan, etc.
How?

He's not "chipped". They only had Constitutional authority to perform an E check to verify that the gun was in fact unloaded.
They did not have RS or PC that a crime had been or was about to be committed, so they did not have Constitutional authority to run the serial number through DOJ to verify registration status and the owner's name.

Cokebottle
11-15-2009, 10:33 PM
The "private property" in Theuses' case was NOT his private property. While UOC may be legal as a generality it does have it's restrictions. This property was 'open to the public' and it does make a difference due to it's location. Had he been the owner the out-come might have been different.
The law states "private property, place of residence, or place of business".
Other laws referencing private property, such as drunk in public, specify "publicly accessible property".

"Publicly accessible property" encompasses a far greater percentage of land than "public property".
By specifying "private property" in addition to "place of residence" and "place of business", it is very clear that the author did not intend to restrict permissible areas solely to "indoors".

WRT the ruling in Theseus' case... yes... you would be in the exact same predicament while UOC from your car to his front door if you park in his driveway.
If you park on the street, then you are in violation regardless of the exemptions during the time that you are moving from your car to his property line.
In addition, you are in violation when driving through the GFSZ approaching his house.

bigcalidave
11-15-2009, 11:33 PM
Ok, lexisnexis investigation into 626.9,
Follow along by searching on lexisnexis.com in the CA courts.

First guy had a gun in his camper, where he lived, parked next to a school. Tried to argue that his camper was his residence, and the court of appeals decided that since he could have parked more than 1000' away, it didn't count.
GOOGLE DOCS case docket PEOPLE V ANSON (http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3A7mjz3tWsa5EJ%3Aftp.resource.org%2Fcourts .gov%2Fstates%2FCal.Ct.App%2FG027960.PDF+appeals+6 26.9&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNHlvvocqtSb-sq6oL15cnO7xe0NNA)

Second case
PEOPLE V MEJIA (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:noxBIVvNnMcJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/g022388.doc+appeals+626.9&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
This guy got busted in his car, or getting out of his car, right at the 1000' mark. I have no idea when it was measured but for some reason his defense didn't even think to go for the "reasonably should have known" exemption. Instead they tried to say that only part of his car could have been within 1000'. He should have had a better lawyer.


Third case,
people V Tapia, where the court said that the sidewalk was not private property. Rest of the case is a bunch of sides to a ****ty story, and tapia was probably in the wrong all the way.

4th. An old case from the 70's PEOPLE V SINGER where the guy argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague, then pleaded guilty? Didn't do him a whole lot of good.

5th. PEOPLE V ANAIM Victim (of the law) lived in university housing, or housing near the school but owned by the university. Had a gun IN his house. Case wasn't reviewed in appeals, and they made the revisions to the law to extend to all of the school grounds and change some language. This one bugs me, because he was busted for a weapon in his house, because it was on school grounds. And they refused to let him appeal it.

6th People V Joeseph G., A minor who had a handgun in his locker at school. Let him burn. Not reviewed.

Ok those are the only ones I find where 626.9 was charged. Nobody came out in a good way... Ugh.

Cokebottle
11-15-2009, 11:38 PM
5th. PEOPLE V ANAIM Victim (of the law) lived in university housing, or housing near the school but owned by the university. Had a gun IN his house. Case wasn't reviewed in appeals, and they made the revisions to the law to extend to all of the school grounds and change some language. This one bugs me, because he was busted for a weapon in his house, because it was on school grounds. And they refused to let him appeal it.
626.9 only applies to K-12, unless the university was also within 1000ft.
In that case, the "place of residence" exemption should have covered him, but the fact that the university as a whole (including housing) is legally "public property" could have trumped the residence exemption.

bigcalidave
11-15-2009, 11:46 PM
I don't write it, I only report it.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:i9k9bDmYgjgJ:info.sen.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/asm/ab_2601-2650/ab_2609_cfa_19980609_220217_sen_comm.html+%22peopl e+v+anaim%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5CPLS%5C1996%5C19960716_0005.ca.htm/qx

SkiDevil
11-15-2009, 11:48 PM
No it's not. Cops should know the law, but no one in the world knows every law there is. To expect a cop to know every single penal code, health and safety code, vehicle code, insurance code, etc code (as well as the interpretation of the codes) is not a very reasonable expectation. Not even lawyers who specialize in a particular field will know every code relevant to that field.

There are 29 codes in California, not counting Federal statutes/ regulations and individual municipal ordinances.

Most police academies are about 6 months long. Difficult to thoroughly 'educate' someone in that short amount of time.

Many lawyers have spent 3 years in Law School, not counting time in court and/ or practicing law. And many do not still 'know' the law.

snobord99
11-16-2009, 10:06 AM
There are 29 codes in California, not counting Federal statutes/ regulations and individual municipal ordinances.

Most police academies are about 6 months long. Difficult to thoroughly 'educate' someone in that short amount of time.

Many lawyers have spent 3 years in Law School, not counting time in court and/ or practicing law. And many do not still 'know' the law.

Well, in all fairness, cops don't need to know every code since a lot of them are codes dealing with civil matters (e.g., contracts) that have nothing to do with law enforcement.

snobord99
11-16-2009, 10:09 AM
Yet the judge and jury not only expect a gun owner to know every law, but also the location of every public and private k-12?

Yes, but that's just the general rule that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Fair? Probably not, but it's the world we live in and if your mom told you the world was fair, well...she lied to you.

ryang
11-19-2009, 10:42 AM
You are absolutely WRONG. You do NOT have to show ID or identify yourself.

Also why don't you start by reading this LEA memo that gets it right: http://www.opencarryradio.com/documents/Sunnyvale_California_Memo_18_Sep_09.pdf

By "gets it right" you mean is favorable to your position. Remember this bit:
"Whether the scenario you describe constitutes repairing or manufacturing a large capacity magazine depends upon the legal opinion of the prosecutor in the jurisdiction where the acts occur. There are 58 district attorneys in California's 58 counties."

In the PDF you cited, the Santa Clara DA's position is not to detain or arrest for failure to provide ID. The Alameda DA's position is LEO can run the person to ensure they can legally possess a firearm. Of course both DAs can change their opinions at any time so there's no way to be sure.

The point I am making is if you think you are secure in your belief that you absolutely do not have to provide ID when UOC'ing you are mistaken. That mistake can cost you time, money or both.

LEO need probable cause.
LEOs need probable cause to arrest. LEOs need reasonable suspicion to detain. There are key differences in the standards of "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" just as there are in what LEOs can do incident to "arrest" versus "detention". I suspect you do not know what they are and applying the standards for arrest to a detention is a good receipe for trouble.

Theseus
11-19-2009, 2:06 PM
Let's get back to the "private property" issue. Now mind you, I might have missed something along the way as I really detest reading the uninformed opinions of everyone that thinks they have a constitutional right to blah, blah, blah, so just hear me out.

The "private property" in Theuses' case was NOT his private property. While UOC may be legal as a generality it does have it's restrictions. This property was 'open to the public' and it does make a difference due to it's location. Had he been the owner the out-come might have been different.

Just my personal opinion, the law is a bad law, ->the wording is unclear- the DA, Judge just saw an opportunity to add a conviction to their resume's and poor Theuses got caught in a slippery slope situation.

While I don't think that UOC serves any purpose or furthers our cause in this state and is a huge waste of money just to pay these worthless, arrogant leeches off of the public trough, I am sincerely sorry Theuses is going thru this ordeal.

I know of a few gunsmiths that work out of their homes and they are well within the GFSZ. Hope I don't get busted when I drop off my whatever at their place as I usually don't 'secure ' anything in a locked container.
Rio
ps. Kes, can we get a FU smiley? It just might be appropriate in certain instances.

You too are still making the same mistake of putting meaning in the mouth of the law.

As written the exemption is within any residence, business and on private property not part of the school grounds and possession is otherwise lawful.

It isn't like 12025 exemption 12026(b) that says "on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident."

626.9 does not require that I possess, control, own or get permission from the property owner. I am exempt on all private property not part of the school grounds and if otherwise lawful.

Either the law is what it says or it isn't.

626.9 does not use "public place" or "open to the public" arguments.

"When the Legislature uses materially different language in statutory provisions addressing the same subject or related subjects, the normal inference is that the Legislature intended a difference in meaning. [Citation.]" (People v. Trevino (2001) 26 Cal.4th 237, 242; see also People v. Bland (2002) 28 Cal.4th 313, 337
[" ' " 'It is a well recognized principle of statutory construction that when the Legislature has carefully employed a term in one place and has excluded it in another, it should not be implied where excluded.' " [Citation.]' "]; Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena (1990) 51 Cal.3d 564, 576.)That the Legislature did not necessarily intend section 626.9 to be governed by the "public place" analysis is also suggested by the exception for places of business. It is readily apparent that a great many places of business are open to common use and enjoyment by members of the public. Nonetheless, section 626.9's exception expressly encompasses places of business.[Citation.]" (People v. Tapia (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1153 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 158)

MudCamper
11-19-2009, 2:29 PM
The point I am making is if you think you are secure in your belief that you absolutely do not have to provide ID when UOC'ing you are mistaken.

No. You are mistaken. California has no stop-and-identify law. The only one it did have, 647(e), was ruled unconstitutional, and in addition, in 2008 it was repealed.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson

I defy you to prove that California has a stop-and-identify law, or that police have this authority, when you are not suspected of breaking any laws. Yes, if a LEO does not understand 12031 and/or 12025 and mistakenly detains you, he may well make even more ignorant mistakes and demand your ID. I am not talking about ignorance. I am talking about true authority under the law.

Cokebottle
11-19-2009, 3:03 PM
LEOs need probable cause to arrest. LEOs need reasonable suspicion to detain.
They also need PC to search, and if you do not volunteer your ID, they are "searching" when they violate your personal space to retrieve it from your pocket.

ryang
11-19-2009, 6:20 PM
I defy you to prove that California has a stop-and-identify law, or that police have this authority, when you are not suspected of breaking any laws.
It's the "when you are not suspected of breaking any laws" that's the rub.
Here's how this can go down:
LEO sees someone UOC. They can do the following:
1. Check the firearm to verify it is unloaded.
2. Note the serial number and request dispatch check if it's stolen.
3. Verify you are of age to carry a firearm.
4. Verify you are not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm.

The last two require positive ID. If the LEO can articulate why there is reasonable suspicion (not to you but to his Sgt/Lt) then they have the authority to verify your ID.

Oh, off topic but congrats on providing cites to support your arguments. Very few people bother to do that. I still maintain you're wrong but it's refreshing to see. :)

demnogis
11-19-2009, 6:34 PM
Yes, the LEO can do all of those things.

Although, the LEO only has the authority to do a load inspection of the firearm itself. Absent of any probable cause that you are breaking a law, committing a crime or about to commit a crime. To have probable cause to do anything beyond point #1 they would need reasonable, articulate suspicion providing such. If you're not covered in gang tats, under age or walking across the street from a school, where's the Probable Cause?

Going beyond point #1 in your list is where LEOs get into "violating your rights" territory. Are any of us saying it doesn't happen? No. Should it happen? Most certainly not! That's why you see so many memos getting circled around, gradually getting closer and closer to the proper method of an encounter with someone Openly Carrying.

Example: At the Redlands Open Market meet in October, Redlands PD just performed (e) checks and let us about our way. There were no demands for ID, no serial #s run "because they could", no cuffs and "I'll tell you if you can have a gun" speeches. Redlands PD has got it going right. Now we need to get (many) other LEAs to catch up.

It's the "when you are not suspected of breaking any laws" that's the rub.
Here's how this can go down:
LEO sees someone UOC. They can do the following:
1. Check the firearm to verify it is unloaded.
2. Note the serial number and request dispatch check if it's stolen.
3. Verify you are of age to carry a firearm.
4. Verify you are not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm.

The last two require positive ID. If the LEO can articulate why there is reasonable suspicion (not to you but to his Sgt/Lt) then they have the authority to verify your ID.

Oh, off topic but congrats on providing cites to support your arguments. Very few people bother to do that. I still maintain you're wrong but it's refreshing to see. :)

nick
11-19-2009, 6:42 PM
Yes, but that's just the general rule that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Fair? Probably not, but it's the world we live in and if your mom told you the world was fair, well...she lied to you.

Actually, the law in question specifically states that you're only guilty if you have a "reasonable knowledge" of the school in question.

snobord99
11-19-2009, 7:10 PM
They also need PC to search, and if you do not volunteer your ID, they are "searching" when they violate your personal space to retrieve it from your pocket.

They don't always need PC to search. Reasonable suspicion could be enough for a search...but it's probably pretty hard to argue that checking ID was for officer safety.

snobord99
11-19-2009, 7:12 PM
Actually, the law in question specifically states that you're only guilty if you have a "reasonable knowledge" of the school in question.

Actually, it's not "reasonable knowledge," it's "knows, or reasonably should know" (emphasis added). I don't know of a single statute which requires "reasonable knowledge."

ryang
11-19-2009, 7:32 PM
To have probable cause to do anything beyond point #1 they would need reasonable, articulate suspicion providing such.
You, like MudCamper, are mixing probable cause with reasonable suspicion. They are not the same.

As I have stated, the Alameda DA has stated LEOs can run ID of UOCers. Other DAs or agencies may have similar policies. If you UOC and meet such a LEO, refusing to provide ID will not be a happy experience.

MudCamper
11-19-2009, 7:42 PM
You, like MudCamper, are mixing probable cause with reasonable suspicion. They are not the same.

As I have stated, the Alameda DA has stated LEOs can run ID of UOCers. Other DAs or agencies may have similar policies. If you UOC and meet such a LEO, refusing to provide ID will not be a happy experience.

ryang, you are flat out wrong. And now you are cherry picking your sources (when you were just complaining that I was). Remember the Santa Clara DA? One of these DAs is right, and one of them is wrong. Plain and simple. You choose the one who disregards case law. Fine. I'm done arguing with you.

MP301
11-19-2009, 7:55 PM
double post...see next one

MP301
11-19-2009, 8:10 PM
You, like MudCamper, are mixing probable cause with reasonable suspicion. They are not the same.

As I have stated, the Alameda DA has stated LEOs can run ID of UOCers. Other DAs or agencies may have similar policies. If you UOC and meet such a LEO, refusing to provide ID will not be a happy experience.

It might not be a happy experience, but its still the law. If you have other things goin on that might get you in trouble and they are fishing, then maybe maybe being cooperative is the way to go..i dunno.....but, if your doing nothing wrong, have nothing wrong on your person and have nothing wrong with you in general, what are the advantages of voluntarily giving up your rights? What exactly are they going to do to you if you refuse to provide ID? Rub butter on your chest and make you sing band camp songs?

"Contempt of cop" is what they call it when you dont do what they want you to do. It isnt illegal if you are not beaking the law. If it gets thier knickers in a twist because you dont let them step on your rights, so be it. They may even make more dumb moves to make the settlement even bigger....who knows.

Heres a great example....an LEO wants to search your car. Your a law abiding citizen who never breaks the law, so you think "sure....why not." I might get you out of that speeding ticket if you cooperate...You've got nothing to hide yada yada. BUT, you didnt realize when you took your teenagers and thier friends to school that morning that one of them accidently dropped a bag of dope.....or a stolen gun....or WTF ever....and guess what? "I never saw that before in my life officer!" Oh yeah, that officer just happens to be a mind reader and the best judge of character in the world and lets you go with a stern warnng.......NOT! As a matter of fact, LE wont be the only folks that think your full of S***......your friends, family, co-workers, the jury....will most likely all assume the worst...you get the idea.

You should never volunteer anything that you are not required to volunteer...simply because you want to appear cooperative to LE. The antiquated theory that if you dont let them search, they are going to anyway, is total BS. If they do search without your permission, (without the proper conditions being met), and they do find something, it could get thrown out of court. If you give them permission to search...or unecessarily run your mouth, you are screwed and tatooed if they find something...whether you put it in the car or someone else did.

I am pro LE without question, but get irritated when the position is abused....really freakin irritated.

hoffmang
11-19-2009, 8:58 PM
Seizing ID without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion is a classic 4A violation in a state where the "must show ID" clause was struck down by SCOTUS.

-Gene

Theseus
11-19-2009, 9:01 PM
In all but #1 they are fishing for evidence, not solving or investigating a crime.

It is equal to the idea that the police can stop you on the street and demand ID because you are smoking a cigarette. A ridiculous notion and one that they are sure to lose.

It's the "when you are not suspected of breaking any laws" that's the rub.
Here's how this can go down:
LEO sees someone UOC. They can do the following:
1. Check the firearm to verify it is unloaded.
2. Note the serial number and request dispatch check if it's stolen.
3. Verify you are of age to carry a firearm.
4. Verify you are not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm.

The last two require positive ID. If the LEO can articulate why there is reasonable suspicion (not to you but to his Sgt/Lt) then they have the authority to verify your ID.

Oh, off topic but congrats on providing cites to support your arguments. Very few people bother to do that. I still maintain you're wrong but it's refreshing to see. :)

Cokebottle
11-19-2009, 9:08 PM
It is equal to the idea that the police can stop you on the street and demand ID because you are smoking a cigarette.
Unless you are in Calabasas, where outdoor smoking is illegal.

Theseus
11-19-2009, 9:17 PM
Unless you are in Calabasas, where outdoor smoking is illegal.

At which time I don't have to present photo ID, but identify myself.

ryang
11-20-2009, 9:03 AM
Seizing ID without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion is a classic 4A violation in a state where the "must show ID" clause was struck down by SCOTUS.
Gene, I said nothing about seizing ID, or other scenarios. To be clear on this, I am strictly talking about how not providing ID (physical or verbal) to LEO when UOCing can, in some counties, result in a trip to jail for a LifeScan. Also if you are stupid enough to provide false ID (even verbally) that can result in a misdeanor arrest.

In all but #1 they are fishing for evidence, not solving or investigating a crime.
Please define "fishing for evidence" in a way that includes #2-4 but excludes #1. It seems to me like checking if a gun is loaded is also "fishing for evidence".

It is equal to the idea that the police can stop you on the street and demand ID because you are smoking a cigarette. A ridiculous notion and one that they are sure to lose.
Not in cities that have a munincipal ordinance against public smoking.

At which time I don't have to present photo ID, but identify myself.
As I have mentioned, many people know at least their sibling's stats. It's the LEO's discretion whether they accept verbal ID at face value or want harder evidence. Regardless, what started all of this was this:

This is why it is of the utmost importance that anyone UOCing not carry any form of identification on themselves. You have absolutely nothing to gain by identifying yourself (either by choice or by force) and potentially a lot to lose if you do. Don't even give them your first name.

and my response stating that "advice" to not even give your first name could land you in trouble. I have given scenarios where LEO require ID to prove you can legally own/posess a pistol, along with the justification for it. Take it for what you will. If anyone's willing to be a test case for this that's their choice, but hopefully they will have made an informed decision rather than blithely accept cmth's word as gospel.

Theseus
11-20-2009, 10:21 AM
Gene, I said nothing about seizing ID, or other scenarios. To be clear on this, I am strictly talking about how not providing ID (physical or verbal) to LEO when UOCing can, in some counties, result in a trip to jail for a LifeScan. Also if you are stupid enough to provide false ID (even verbally) that can result in a misdeanor arrest.


Please define "fishing for evidence" in a way that includes #2-4 but excludes #1. It seems to me like checking if a gun is loaded is also "fishing for evidence".

Not in cities that have a munincipal ordinance against public smoking.

As I have mentioned, many people know at least their sibling's stats. It's the LEO's discretion whether they accept verbal ID at face value or want harder evidence. Regardless, what started all of this was this:



and my response stating that "advice" to not even give your first name could land you in trouble. I have given scenarios where LEO require ID to prove you can legally own/posess a pistol, along with the justification for it. Take it for what you will. If anyone's willing to be a test case for this that's their choice, but hopefully they will have made an informed decision rather than blithely accept cmth's word as gospel.

Mere presence of a weapon is not proof that a crime has been or will be committed. There are many more millions of properly legal and registered guns than there are illegal guns, what RS do they have that the one I have is illegal? None.

They are not investigating a crime they believe to have committed, they are trying to find evidence of a crime that might have been committed. They seize your person and property without a warrant, without any proof that you have, are, or will be committing a crime.

They can't simply stop you on the street to make sure the cell phone you are talking on is not stolen, can they? I am pretty sure they can't, yet possession of a stolen phone is still illegal. Yes, they still need RS that the phone you are talking on is stolen. No different than a firearm. What is the difference? They get away with their illegal act because it has to do with firearms. It is the protection that goes quietly in the night and I am sick and tired of it.

When open carrying always sterile carry. Let them give you a hard time or arrest you for not providing ID. Let them bring you in to "identify you" and see what happens when they have no PC because you committed no crime. That is why we have our voice recorders or video camera's. I say let us start being the thorns in their side they want us to be.

Even when threatened by the fact that we might record them to sue them they still are content to break the law, so why not give them the reward they apparently seek.

Bitter? Yeah. I am. A prime example of what happens when the police don't care about the law and forcibly remove your ID without PC that any crime has been committed.

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 10:45 AM
ryang,

Ca has no "stop and ID" statute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes). If you have RS for a Terry investigative stop, not rising to the level of PC to actually arrest, under what CA authority are you going to demand, under penalty of arrest, someone ID themselves? 148 isn't going to cut it. You can not force someone to talk to you, which would then be a clear 5th Amendment issue, absent compliance with SCOTUS' "Hiibel" dictates that a statute requires one to identify themselves and only then after "Terry" is satisfied. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada)

NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

snip...The Nevada Supreme Court had held that the Nevada statute required only that the suspect divulge his name; presumably, he could do so without handing over any documents whatsoever. As long as the suspect tells the officer his name, he has satisfied the dictates of the Nevada stop-and-identify law...

California has had no such finding for 148 PC.

If you have PC 836 to arrest a UOCer then go ahead, but if not, livescan at your own risk. Qualified immunity in regards to 4th A violations is weaker by the day.

GrizzlyGuy
11-20-2009, 11:10 AM
Ca has no "stop and ID" statute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes). If you have RS for a Terry investigative stop, not rising to the level of PC to actually arrest, under what CA authority are you going to demand, under penalty of arrest, someone ID themselves?

There is no stop-and-ID state statute, but there may be a county ordinance that requires you to ID in such a case. For example, from the Nevada county code (https://docs.co.nevada.ca.us/dsweb/Get/Document-3940/GEN.CODE-VII%60Misdemeanors.pdf):

"Any person lawfully detained by a peace officer for investigatory questioning shall, upon request of a peace officer, produce identification sufficient to indicate his name and date of birth or place of residence. A verbal or written statement of name and birthdate or residence address shall constitute sufficient identification."

Glock22Fan
11-20-2009, 11:32 AM
There is no stop-and-ID state statute, but there may be a county ordinance that requires you to ID in such a case. For example, from the Nevada county code (https://docs.co.nevada.ca.us/dsweb/Get/Document-3940/GEN.CODE-VII%60Misdemeanors.pdf):

"Any person lawfully detained by a peace officer for investigatory questioning shall, upon request of a peace officer, produce identification sufficient to indicate his name and date of birth or place of residence. A verbal or written statement of name and birthdate or residence address shall constitute sufficient identification."

And what constitutes "lawfully detained for investigatory questioning." Seems to me that there has to be some suspicion of a crime before someone can be lawfully detained.

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 11:47 AM
And what constitutes "lawfully detained for investigatory questioning." Seems to me that there has to be some suspicion of a crime before someone can be lawfully detained.

That would be the "Terry" standard.

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 11:55 AM
For example, from the Nevada county code (https://docs.co.nevada.ca.us/dsweb/Get/Document-3940/GEN.CODE-VII%60Misdemeanors.pdf):

Looks like that satisfies Hiibel. Time to search the Municodes....:(

But in relation to gun possession, RS must still exist to prolong a People v DeLong inspection to even get to the "demand ID" question.

inbox485
11-20-2009, 11:57 AM
I don't write it, I only report it.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:i9k9bDmYgjgJ:info.sen.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/asm/ab_2601-2650/ab_2609_cfa_19980609_220217_sen_comm.html+%22peopl e+v+anaim%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5CPLS%5C1996%5C19960716_0005.ca.htm/qx

I'd imagine that between Heller and the ruling that the SF public housing couldn't prohibit handguns in public housing would overturn that ruling.

inbox485
11-20-2009, 12:00 PM
Looks like that satisfies Hiibel. Time to search the Municodes....:(

But in relation to gun possession, RS must still exist to prolong a People v DeLong inspection to even get to the "demand ID" question.

Even per that code, you have to be lawfully detained for interrogatory questioning. An (e) check is an inspection not an interrogation.

Glock22Fan
11-20-2009, 12:06 PM
That would be the "Terry" standard.

I agree. But how would you (or anyone) apply the Terry standard to someone who appeared to be innocent of any crime except that he or she is carrying an openly displayed firearm that might be loaded?

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 12:13 PM
I'd imagine that between Heller and the ruling that the SF public housing couldn't prohibit handguns in public housing would overturn that ruling.

SF public housing case became a settlement not a ruling.

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 12:15 PM
I agree. But how would you (or anyone) apply the Terry standard to someone who appeared to be innocent of any crime except that he or she is carrying an openly displayed firearm that might be loaded?

This is where the Sunnyvale memo (http://www.opencarryradio.com/documents/Sunnyvale_California_Memo_18_Sep_09.pdf)gets it right and where I suspect Ryang parts company with our opinion.

Glock22Fan
11-20-2009, 12:45 PM
This is where the Sunnyvale memo (http://www.opencarryradio.com/documents/Sunnyvale_California_Memo_18_Sep_09.pdf)gets it right and where I suspect Ryang parts company with our opinion.

That's the exact point that I am trying to make. Whether in Nevada county or not, saying that you need to prove ID because you are a suspicious character because you carry a firearm that might be loaded (but isn't) is not cause for a Terry stop once the firearm is proven to be unloaded.

Therefore there is no Terry stop criteria for an ID search.

GrizzlyGuy
11-20-2009, 12:54 PM
That's the exact point that I am trying to make. Whether in Nevada county or not, saying that you need to prove ID because you are a suspicious character because you carry a firearm that might be loaded (but isn't) is not cause for a Terry stop once the firearm is proven to be unloaded.

Therefore there is no Terry stop criteria for an ID search.

That's true, but the LEO may believe you are a suspicious character based on info that you are not aware of (ex: you just happen to fit the description of a burglar they are looking for). That would provide them RAS for a legal detainment and investigatory questioning. If you refused to ID yourself, even verbally as our ordinance allows, that would give them grounds for an arrest.
IIRC, they are required to have RAS, but not required to tell you what it is (although I'd certainly ask).

Theseus
11-20-2009, 1:13 PM
That's true, but the LEO may believe you are a suspicious character based on info that you are not aware of (ex: you just happen to fit the description of a burglar they are looking for). That would provide them RAS for a legal detainment and investigatory questioning. If you refused to ID yourself, even verbally as our ordinance allows, that would give them grounds for an arrest.
IIRC, they are required to have RAS, but not required to tell you what it is (although I'd certainly ask).

I guess I am confused. It seems to me that what you are saying is that they can arrest you for not identifying yourself when asked as part of an investigation even though they never informed you that you were part us such an official investigation and you have the right not to incriminate yourself?

That is just fine. Take me downtown and I will let my lawyer handle it at this point. This kind of situation can get bad very quickly and you might just find yourself digging a bigger hole by complying.

I had a friend that did that very thing. Was questioned about where he was going/coming to/from. Apparently someone was slashing tires in the neighborhood and since he was a mechanic he had tools that could have done it. Wrong place. . . wrong time. . . cooperated innocently. . . arrested.

Glock22Fan
11-20-2009, 1:15 PM
That's true, but the LEO may believe you are a suspicious character based on info that you are not aware of (ex: you just happen to fit the description of a burglar they are looking for). That would provide them RAS for a legal detainment and investigatory questioning. If you refused to ID yourself, even verbally as our ordinance allows, that would give them grounds for an arrest.
IIRC, they are required to have RAS, but not required to tell you what it is (although I'd certainly ask).

Since when can they legally detain you while withholding the grounds on which they have detained you? Sounds kafkaesque to me.
What happened to the "Am I being detained and, if so, on what grounds?" and the lawyer's speech, so often seen on TV, "Are you arresting my client or can we go?"

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 1:18 PM
It's the "when you are not suspected of breaking any laws" that's the rub.
Here's how this can go down:
LEO sees someone UOC. They can do the following:
1. Check the firearm to verify it is unloaded.
2. Note the serial number and request dispatch check if it's stolen.
3. Verify you are of age to carry a firearm.
4. Verify you are not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm.

The last two require positive ID. If the LEO can articulate why there is reasonable suspicion (not to you but to his Sgt/Lt) then they have the authority to verify your ID.

Absent proper RS, specific and articulable facts and inferences and not a mere hunch, your 2, 3, & 4 violate the 4th A (#1 has been discussed at length elsewhere). If you have proper RS for 3,&4 it appears even Hiibel, properly applied, would not allow a demand of ID as a 5th A. violation since revealing that info. might complete the elements of a crime and therefore incriminate oneself.

Hiibel: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada)

Furthermore, the officer’s request that Hiibel identify himself did not implicate Hiibel’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. There was no “articulated real and appreciable fear that [Hiibel’s] name would be used to incriminate him, or that it ‘would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute’ him.” Because Hiibel’s name was not an incriminating piece of evidence, he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to disclose it.

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 1:25 PM
Since when can they legally detain you while withholding the grounds on which they have detained you? Sounds kafkaesque to me.
What happened to the "Am I being detained and, if so, on what grounds?" and the lawyer's speech, so often seen on TV, "Are you arresting my client or can we go?"

There is no requirement for you to be told why you are being detained - this could interfere with the investigation process/questioning. Only when arrested or shortly thereafter must you be told why (PC 841). (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=833-851.90)

greg36f
11-20-2009, 1:27 PM
Since when can they legally detain you while withholding the grounds on which they have detained you? Sounds kafkaesque to me.
What happened to the "Am I being detained and, if so, on what grounds?" and the lawyer's speech, so often seen on TV, "Are you arresting my client or can we go?"


They do have to tell you why you are being arrested, the question is WHEN they tell you....As long as they can legally arrests you, they are good to go........There may be reasons that they want to share as little as possible with you at the time of arrest.....protect witnesses, prompt a spontaneous statement....ect...

GrizzlyGuy
11-20-2009, 2:21 PM
I guess I am confused. It seems to me that what you are saying is that they can arrest you for not identifying yourself when asked as part of an investigation even though they never informed you that you were part us such an official investigation and you have the right not to incriminate yourself?

No, I'm saying that they may detain you based on some unspecified RAS, tell you that they are doing an investigation without disclosing their RAS, and if you then don't provide ID upon request (here in my county with it's must-ID-during-investigatory-questioning ordinance)... they would have grounds to arrest you. Even if they don't tell you the RAS or reason for the detainment/questioning.

It sucks, but LEOs don't have to advise you of your Miranda 5A rights, or tell you what their RAS is, unless and until they arrest you.

Here's an even odder quirk: in this example, you are being arrested for failing to identify yourself. What was their RAS and probable cause for that? That you didn't identify yourself. Who cares what the original RAS for the detainment was, it doesn't matter any more. At least not until trial when your lawyer might argue that the original detainment wasn't justified in the first place. :mad:

Theseus
11-20-2009, 2:27 PM
No, I'm saying that they may detain you based on some unspecified RAS, tell you that they are doing an investigation without disclosing their RAS, and if you then don't provide ID upon request (here in my county with it's must-ID-during-investigatory-questioning ordinance)... they would have grounds to arrest you. Even if they don't tell you the RAS or reason for the detainment/questioning.

It sucks, but LEOs don't have to advise you of your Miranda 5A rights, or tell you what their RAS is, unless and until they arrest you.

Here's an even odder quirk: in this example, you are being arrested for failing to identify yourself. What was their RAS and probable cause for that? That you didn't identify yourself. Who cares what the original RAS for the detainment was, it doesn't matter any more. At least not until trial when your lawyer might argue that the original detainment wasn't justified in the first place. :mad:

At which point refusing to identify myself will only help me. Cops are allowed to lie to me when conducting an investigation so they could be lying about the fact that this is an official investigation, in which case I can't trust what they say.

SteveH
11-21-2009, 4:29 PM
This sucks. First Phil now Theouses. When are we going to start winning some cases? Even our "wins" have to frequently resulted in the surrender or destruction of OLLs in order to get charges dropped.

Since the conviction triggers a 10-year firearms ownership ban could you perhaps move out of state? Does Arizona or Nevada have a simular law?

bigcalidave
11-21-2009, 5:11 PM
Did you know the sky was blue?

technique
11-21-2009, 5:12 PM
I've wondered about this myself.
If not a felon, and convicted of a misdemeanor in CA that precludes firearms ownership for ten years, can you move to another state and buy/own a firearm?

Not really...you still fill out a 4473 and the check is an instant background on a national level.

I don't know for sure...but more than likely not.

But Other states are FTF transactions....so the above only applies to buying from an FFL. You had just not be caught in a FTF sting or in possession and being a prohibited person.

technique
11-21-2009, 5:22 PM
No, it only violated state law, since it's a non violent misdemeanor it doesn't violate any federal laws for him to own firearms. Now if his probation has the restrictions against firearms written in it, that may be a problem no matter where he goes.

You may be correct about state law!

Interesting tid bit of info someone told me the other day..
I have a long time buddy who was convicted of a felony in the state of Ca.
He served 5 years in prison nearly 10 years ago...

He says that in Alaska, even if you are a felon...if you have not committed a crime in 10 years of that conviction...you are eligible to own a gun again.

Don't know if thats true....but he's moving there:)

snobord99
11-21-2009, 6:48 PM
Not really...you still fill out a 4473 and the check is an instant background on a national level.

I don't know for sure...but more than likely not.

But Other states are FTF transactions....so the above only applies to buying from an FFL. You had just not be caught in a FTF sting or in possession and being a prohibited person.

So...what you're saying is...it's not illegal if you don't get caught? :confused:

technique
11-21-2009, 7:00 PM
So...what you're saying is...it's not illegal if you don't get caught? :confused:

No...when I said "the above only applies", meant the underlined portion of my statement.

Meaning you may, or may not be denied for something you did in another state.
However, you don't have to undergo background during a FTF transaction so while technically you could be a prohibited person it wouldn't stop you from buying a gun FTF....Though that would be illegal.


I guess rereading it, it did sound funny....but for clarity, I didn't mean for it to come off as such. Definitely didn't intend for it to come off as advocating an illegal transaction.

A prohibited person can still by a gun FTF....its still not legal though.

bigcalidave
11-21-2009, 9:50 PM
If the following is federal code, 18,922 how can someone in alaska posses a gun. Note, there is no federal provision for "10 year prohibition" that's CA law, pc12021. Theseus, you going to AZ ??

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

technique
11-21-2009, 9:58 PM
I'll pick his brain a bit next time I talk to him...See where exactly he read that and see if I can get to the bottom of it.

snobord99
11-22-2009, 12:03 AM
If the following is federal code, 18,922 how can someone in alaska posses a gun. Note, there is no federal provision for "10 year prohibition" that's CA law, pc12021. Theseus, you going to AZ ??

It doesn't matter. He's probably He is screwed everywhere.

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

SteveH
11-22-2009, 8:07 AM
Deleated

AWD265
11-26-2009, 4:23 PM
A question that may have already been asked - I haven't read all fifteen pages of this thread - so please forgive me if it has.

My question is: If a person lives next to a school - obviously within 1000 feet - he or she is entitled by law to be on their own property with a loaded firearm (legal of course) and to carry open or concealed etc.

What does the law say about when they leave their property and go to the gun range with their weapon. As they drive out of their gate and onto the road, they will be within 1000 feet of a school. I don't know if there is an exception to the 1000 ft law that covers this.

MindBuilder
11-26-2009, 4:34 PM
If you're on a public street and you're within 1000 feet of a school, then you have to have your guns locked up. There is no exception for people leaving their homes within the zone.'

Of course the 2nd Amendment is the law and the 2nd Amendment says you can carry a loaded gun within a school zone regardless of any lower level laws. But the government will often break the law and throw you in jail for it anyway. And even worse, apparently no law enforcement officers will carry out their oath to defend the constitution and protect you from the other lawbreaking government officials.

Liberty1
11-27-2009, 9:29 AM
My question is: If a person lives next to a school - obviously within 1000 feet - he or she is entitled by law to be on their own property with a loaded firearm (legal of course) and to carry open or concealed etc.

What does the law say about when they leave their property and go to the gun range with their weapon. As they drive out of their gate and onto the road, they will be within 1000 feet of a school. I don't know if there is an exception to the 1000 ft law that covers this.

Read Penal Code 626.9, 12031, 12025, 12026, 12026.1a, and 12026.2a and 12027.

Based on our best guess;), IF your property is fenced (People v Strider) and not open to the public, and possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful, and based on Theseus' Judge's rulings, my opinion is that you could on your own property carry in the manner you described.

To leave your property you'll need to carry/transport it unloaded in a locked fully enclosed secure container or locked trunk of a vehicle from your property until outside of the victim disarmament zone (school zone;)) or until the case is carried within a business, such as the firing range.

Longarms, under CA law not Fed SZ, that are not AWs, are exempt from being locked IF they are being "transported" in a vehicle. The penal code and courts might not consider that exemption if longarms are being "carried" so I would recommend if you need to handle/"carry" longarms that they also be in a locked case unloaded while within the victim zone.

ChuckBooty
12-02-2009, 8:31 AM
Let me give you the bare facts as I understand them.

1. Theseus drove to a laundromat with an unloaded handgun registered to him in a locked container.

2. Theseus opened the locked container in the parking lot of said laundromat and holstered the unloaded firearm.

3. Theseus proceeded to do some laundry and also at times sat on a bench outside of the strip mall laundromat on the sidewalk next to the facility, but not on the "public" sidewalk. The sidewalk in front of the strip mall did abut the public sidewalk.

4. Theseus had done some due diligence about school zones and did not believe he was in a school zone. He also had assumed he was on private property so to the extent he was aware that he might be in a school zone, he thought the private property exemption applied.

5. Officers responded to a man with a gun call.

6. When the officers responded Theseus was sitting on the bench outside the laundromat but inside the parking lot area in an area marked "private property" by the little inset signs.

7. The officers did a 12031(e) check and demanded and received identification. Theseus was co-operative. The officers contacted dispatch to ask a bunch of questions of whether he was actually breaking any laws. The school zone issue came up but dispatch and the supervisor dispatch was talking to didn't think the school zone was an issue. The officer returned his firearm to him after about 20 minutes of questioning and left him there with his gun at the laundromat.

8. A couple of months later a DA sent a summons for a violating 626.9.

9. In pre-trial motions, the judge denied a motion that the lot was "private property" or that Theseus had no knowledge of a GFSZ.

Those are the facts as best I know them.

-Gene

I don't understand how a judge can simply elect to ignore a part of the PC that an accused is being tried for. If you're being tried for PC XYZ. And PC XYZ states that if a person a, b, c, and d, then they are guilty of violating PC XYZ....how can a judge just say that we'll ignore c and d and go ahead and convict this person of violating this PC? :confused:

Glock22Fan
12-02-2009, 8:40 AM
I don't understand how a judge can simply elect to ignore a part of the PC that an accused is being tried for. If you're being tried for PC XYZ. And PC XYZ states that if a person a, b, c, and d, then they are guilty of violating PC XYZ....how can a judge just say that we'll ignore c and d and go ahead and convict this person of violating this PC? :confused:

Welcome to the Democratic "Judiciary as activists" world.

tintguy
12-02-2009, 10:32 AM
It's like getting divorced and losing custody of your children with no visitation.

I feel and know you pain. I'm in the very same boat. Hang in there and good luck.

Jicko
12-02-2009, 10:48 AM
One detail everyone is missing is that his identification was unlawfully obtained from him. He declined to provide identification, which is his right in California, and without permission the officer seized his wallet from his pants pocket and unlawfully searched his wallet and retrieved his driver license. This information was barred from the criminal trial and the jury never knew it. This alone will assure his conviction is overturned.

Had he not been identified there never would have been a charge or a trial. This is why it is of the utmost importance that anyone UOCing not carry any form of identification on themselves. You have absolutely nothing to gain by identifying yourself (either by choice or by force) and potentially a lot to lose if you do. Don't even give them your first name. By "cooperating" you could be signing your own death warrant, so to speak.

No ID? Will that become a PC for detention until they figure out who you are? (ie. for illegal immigrants cases..... not that the PD enforces that...)

bodger
12-02-2009, 11:45 AM
No ID? Will that become a PC for detention until they figure out who you are? (ie. for illegal immigrants cases..... not that the PD enforces that...)


Check out "Special Order 40" from LAPD.

http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/102965

Court Decision Means LAPD’s Special Order 40 Stands
Wednesday, June 17, 2009


Read an editorial by ACLU/SC Legal Director Mark Rosenbaum and staff attorney Peter Bibring about this issue.
LOS ANGELES, Calif. – A three-judge panel today upheld the Los Angeles Police Department’s use of Special Order 40 – a decades old policy prohibiting officers from using immigration status to initiate investigations. The decision by the California Court of Appeals strikes a balance between immigrants’ rights to equal protection and officers’ duty to protect communities.

The panel affirmed a lower court’s determination that Special Order 40 is constitutionally sound, and sided with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which fought the lifting of the policy on behalf of community groups representing domestic violence victims and day laborers. The case arose out of Los Angeles’ resident Harold Sturgeon’s 2006 lawsuit to stop the city from spending money on enforcing Special Order 40.

Special Order 40 was adopted in 1979 by then-LAPD Chief Daryl Gates as a way to encourage immigrants to cooperate with police and build community trust. Police chiefs and experts throughout the country agree that local enforcement of federal immigration law is neither consistent with police authority under federal law nor does it foster trust among immigrant communities.

The following statement can be attributed to Belinda Escobosa Helzer, ACLU/SC staff attorney.

“Immigrants in Los Angeles no longer have to worry that they will be forced to choose between personal safety and their future. The court understands, as does the LAPD, that stripping away Special Order 40 would have not only violated the law but been a grave mistake in a city with such deep immigrant roots. With Special Order 40 securely intact, beat cops can continue to build strong trust with community members, residents can report crimes without fear of being deported, and Los Angeles – with all its diversity - will be a safer place. I hope this will be the final chapter in what has frankly been a misguided challenge to a sound policy.”

Mitch
12-02-2009, 11:56 AM
I don't understand how a judge can simply elect to ignore a part of the PC that an accused is being tried for. If you're being tried for PC XYZ. And PC XYZ states that if a person a, b, c, and d, then they are guilty of violating PC XYZ....how can a judge just say that we'll ignore c and d and go ahead and convict this person of violating this PC? :confused:

He can't.

I suspect the judge had in mind legal precedents that suggest public areas, like parking lots, on private property are no longer regarded as private areas with expectations of privacy and other legal concepts.

nick
12-02-2009, 12:19 PM
I don't understand how a judge can simply elect to ignore a part of the PC that an accused is being tried for. If you're being tried for PC XYZ. And PC XYZ states that if a person a, b, c, and d, then they are guilty of violating PC XYZ....how can a judge just say that we'll ignore c and d and go ahead and convict this person of violating this PC? :confused:

Meaning, you assume that judges are necessarily honest people with some integrity? Make sure not to try that asusmption in CA (or anywhere else, for that matter), you'll get screwed.

inbox485
12-02-2009, 2:44 PM
Welcome to 148 PC. Enjoy your stay.

PC 148 doesn't apply if the officer is outside the scope of his duty. If an officer tells you to shoot an innocent person and you tell him what you think of his breeding, are you in violation of PC 148? I'd think not.

snobord99
12-02-2009, 6:07 PM
He can't.

I suspect the judge had in mind legal precedents that suggest public areas, like parking lots, on private property are no longer regarded as private areas with expectations of privacy and other legal concepts.

This.

Theseus
12-04-2009, 8:49 AM
Let me give you the bare facts as I understand them.

9. In pre-trial motions, the judge denied a motion that the lot was "private property" or that Theseus had no knowledge of a GFSZ.

Those are the facts as best I know them.

-Gene

Here is what happened in regards to this.

1.Defense and prosecution entered into a stipulation that the property was "private property and open to the public" so that we didn't need to drag the property owner back to say the same thing.

2. Prosecution filed a motion to suppress "any private property defense" because the property was open to the public, and that whether it was "private property" was a "question of law and not of fact".

3. Judge approved the prosecutions motion.

4. Prosecution then filed another motion seeking to exclude the stipulation in #1.

5. Judge approved the motion and said basically that since he ruled it was not private property that it wasn't, so that I could not even use that as a defense as to how I could have had a "mistake of fact" as to whether I was subject to 626.9.

I have explained before I believe what the judge did wrong here. . . but it doesn't matter now. Now I have to appeal and prove that his rulings were counter jurisprudence and that they deprived me the right to a meaningful defense.

bigcalidave
12-04-2009, 10:34 AM
What a *****!

anhero
12-04-2009, 11:02 AM
so, by the judge's ruling, what would constitute a private property not open to the public? business or otherwise

my yard is private, but has no fences to prevent anyone from walking on the grass. short of putting an 8' fence with Constantine wire on top to prevent people from walking through, any other conventional fences really doesn't prevent anyone.

inbox485
12-04-2009, 11:12 AM
so, by the judge's ruling, what would constitute a private property not open to the public? business or otherwise

my yard is private, but has no fences to prevent anyone from walking on the grass. short of putting an 8' fence with Constantine wire on top to prevent people from walking through, any other conventional fences really doesn't prevent anyone.

IIRC the term used was barrier to public entry. It need not be impervious. An example would be a gate or fence around the yard. Or for a business, a gated parking lot that required passing a security check point.

Glock22Fan
12-04-2009, 11:30 AM
This is where it gets uncertain, and, AFAIK, still not properly defined in law.

Does my garage become a public place if I hold a Garage Sale?
If so, is it a public place just during the sale, or is it now a public place forever?
What if I don't hold garage sales, but I'm in the practice of leaving my garage doors open most of the day, even though I've gone back to the back of the house?
What if I leave my front door open and unattended to get some ventilation and fresh air: Is my house now a public place?

I agree with Theseus. The law says "Private property" is excepted. It does not say "Private property that is not a public place" is excepted. As Theseus observes, if terms are used one way in some legislation, then they should be used the same way in all legislation. Therefore all private propery is excepted, whether it is a public place or not. Activist judiciary? Pah!

inbox485
12-04-2009, 12:58 PM
Public place just means there is no barrier against entry by the public. I've never seen any indication that the barrier has to be physical.

This is where it gets uncertain, and, AFAIK, still not properly defined in law.

Does my garage become a public place if I hold a Garage Sale?

You could argue that you were simply granting entry as people arrived, but I would say yes.

If so, is it a public place just during the sale, or is it now a public place forever?

Just during the period it was open to public entry.

What if I don't hold garage sales, but I'm in the practice of leaving my garage doors open most of the day, even though I've gone back to the back of the house?
What if I leave my front door open and unattended to get some ventilation and fresh air: Is my house now a public place?

I would argue that crossing your threshold would not be reasonable for a member of the general public. That would be different than walking through your un-gated front yard up to your door.

I agree with Theseus. The law says "Private property" is excepted. It does not say "Private property that is not a public place" is excepted. As Theseus observes, if terms are used one way in some legislation, then they should be used the same way in all legislation. Therefore all private propery is excepted, whether it is a public place or not. Activist judiciary? Pah!

The only case law for private property not being private property for the purposes of 626.9 applies to public easements (sidewalks) through private property. The justification is that the easement makes the property more public than private. That would not apply to an entirely private parking lot.

Glock22Fan
12-04-2009, 1:10 PM
Public place just means there is no barrier against entry by the public. I've never seen any indication that the barrier has to be physical.



The only case law for private property not being private property for the purposes of 626.9 applies to public easements (sidewalks) through private property. The justification is that the easement makes the property more public than private. That would not apply to an entirely private parking lot.

Inbox:

I wasn't really asking anything but hypothetical questions, to illustrate that the law, as interpreted by Theseus's judge, is not properly defined in case law.

I also believe that there has been some case law that suggests that private property is not a public place if there is some sort of "challenge." However, that isn't properly defined either.

Because I live hundreds of yards off the beaten track, and visitors are almost always greeted by me (thanks to warnings from my dogs), I feel that that is challenge enough. I don't know of any actual law or case that proves that this belief is justified.

Cokebottle
12-04-2009, 1:37 PM
Public place just means there is no barrier against entry by the public. I've never seen any indication that the barrier has to be physical.

The only case law for private property not being private property for the purposes of 626.9 applies to public easements (sidewalks) through private property. The justification is that the easement makes the property more public than private. That would not apply to an entirely private parking lot.
The problem with the prosecution is the wording of the law (as are so many problems).
626.9 does not mention "public place"... it specifically exempts private property and places of business and places of residence.
This leaves the only legal location for arrest and prosecution as "public property".... not "public place".

If the authors had intended not to exempt a private sidewalk "open to the public", then they would have worded the statute similarly to drunk-in-public laws, which in fact specify "public place" defined as public or private property that is open to the general public.
Even if the wording of the law were to allow for a public easement to be included in the non-exempted areas, it would still not automatically include any sidewalk in, say, a strip mall, where the purpose of the sidewalk is to service the businesses, as opposed to a sidewalk passing through a business or residential complex and through an opening in a fence at the rear of the property that is the only reasonable path from "Street A" to "Street B" on foot.

putput
12-04-2009, 1:57 PM
Hmmm... I suppose then that according to this judge that it's not trespassing if there's no barrier?

bodger
12-04-2009, 2:55 PM
Sounds to me like this prosecutor and this judge made up their own definitions
on matters pertinent not only to Theseus' defense, but justice itself.

Resulting in a fairly blurred line as to who the "criminal(s)" really are in this case.

inbox485
12-04-2009, 3:10 PM
The problem with the prosecution is the wording of the law (as are so many problems).
626.9 does not mention "public place"... it specifically exempts private property and places of business and places of residence.
This leaves the only legal location for arrest and prosecution as "public property".... not "public place".

If the authors had intended not to exempt a private sidewalk "open to the public", then they would have worded the statute similarly to drunk-in-public laws, which in fact specify "public place" defined as public or private property that is open to the general public.
Even if the wording of the law were to allow for a public easement to be included in the non-exempted areas, it would still not automatically include any sidewalk in, say, a strip mall, where the purpose of the sidewalk is to service the businesses, as opposed to a sidewalk passing through a business or residential complex and through an opening in a fence at the rear of the property that is the only reasonable path from "Street A" to "Street B" on foot.

I agree with you 100%. I was responding to another post about what the judge may have been thinking was or wasn't private property. While I agree that the sidewalk bit is bad law, their reasoning wasn't that the sidewalk was merely open to the public but that there was an easement for public use making it more public property you technically own than private property accessible by the public. Again, I'm not agreeing with the opinion, just paraphrasing.

inbox485
12-04-2009, 3:16 PM
Inbox:

I wasn't really asking anything but hypothetical questions, to illustrate that the law, as interpreted by Theseus's judge, is not properly defined in case law.

I also believe that there has been some case law that suggests that private property is not a public place if there is some sort of "challenge." However, that isn't properly defined either.

Because I live hundreds of yards off the beaten track, and visitors are almost always greeted by me (thanks to warnings from my dogs), I feel that that is challenge enough. I don't know of any actual law or case that proves that this belief is justified.

After reading some opinions on public place, it seems that any challenge physical or otherwise that would make it unreasonable for a prudent person to think it was okay to proceed makes it no longer a public place. One case (I don't recall which) specifically cited large breed dogs as a factor for not being a public place.

Glock22Fan
12-04-2009, 3:35 PM
After reading some opinions on public place, it seems that any challenge physical or otherwise that would make it unreasonable for a prudent person to think it was okay to proceed makes it no longer a public place. One case (I don't recall which) specifically cited large breed dogs as a factor for not being a public place.

That would be my take. My dogs weigh between 90 and 135 lbs, so I guess they are all large breed :D. Loud too. Even with the dogs out of sight, I have to assure some visitors it is safe to open their car doors.

I'm usually out the front door to greet visitors before their wheels stop moving. Sometimes before they even come into sight.

Sometimes, of course, I'm not home (not often). But when I'm not home, I can't be carrying a firearm in my front yard, of course. It can't be that the challenge has to be 24x7x365, or just a gate would be no good unless you could prove that it was always locked.

snobord99
12-04-2009, 6:30 PM
I agree with you 100%. I was responding to another post about what the judge may have been thinking was or wasn't private property. While I agree that the sidewalk bit is bad law, their reasoning wasn't that the sidewalk was merely open to the public but that there was an easement for public use making it more public property you technically own than private property accessible by the public. Again, I'm not agreeing with the opinion, just paraphrasing.

But this paraphrasing is too simple to understand what the case stood for. You have to look beyond the fact that they said it didn't qualify as private property. You also have to consider why they said that.

Cases of first impression often look at why prior cases came out the way they did, not just what they ultimately decided.

snobord99
12-04-2009, 6:31 PM
After reading some opinions on public place, it seems that any challenge physical or otherwise that would make it unreasonable for a prudent person to think it was okay to proceed makes it no longer a public place. One case (I don't recall which) specifically cited large breed dogs as a factor for not being a public place.

But the relevant opinions should deal with "private property" not "public place."

RANash
02-13-2010, 5:51 PM
I just made a donation to Theuses' defense fund. Not a big amount, but more later, hopefully. I really don't know if UOC advances our 2A cause or not, but it's our right to carry and even legal, so to have fascists try to punish a guy for doing it just isn't something I can ignore.

Riodog
02-14-2010, 1:08 AM
I just made a donation to Theuses' defense fund. Not a big amount, but more later, hopefully. I really don't know if UOC advances our 2A cause or not, but it's our right to carry and even legal, so to have fascists try to punish a guy for doing it just isn't something I can ignore.

Did I miss something? Who told you that?
Rio

RANash
02-15-2010, 10:39 AM
It's our right to carry because it's a God-given right, affirmed and protected by the Bill of Rights. It's "even legal" to do UOC in California, subject to certain restrictions, by California law. The case against Theuses seems to be prosecutorial and judicial prejudice against the rights of the people. Of course, maybe I'm missing something...

Question: Just how do you embed quotes from other posts into these?

bwiese
02-15-2010, 10:42 AM
Umm, let's rephrase that a tad..


It's our right to carry because it's a God-given preexisting natural human right, affirmed and protected by the Bill of Rights.

JDoe
02-15-2010, 11:00 AM
Question: Just how do you embed quotes from other posts into these?

Click on the "quote" button lower right hand corner of the post you want to quote.

To quote multiple posts click on the button immediately to the right of the "quote" button.

inbox485
02-15-2010, 11:08 AM
Click on the "quote" button lower right hand corner of the post you want to quote.

To quote multiple posts click on the button immediately to the right of the "quote" button.

I think you have to rack up a certain post count before the quote features activate.

7x57
02-15-2010, 11:18 AM
Umm, let's rephrase that a tad..

I'm quite tempted to make you justify the existence of those rights, because you cannot, but I guess I'm not up to that kind of discussion today.

One of the things that bothers me is the inability of the post-classical secularists to rationally defend crucial concepts that could still be defended by classical thinkers, secular or not. I'm almost happier that they generally kick and scream rather than accept the clear logic, because down that road lies either despair or acceptance of some version of social darwinism.

7x57

Merle
02-15-2010, 11:31 AM
One of the things that bothers me is the inability of the post-classical secularists to rationally defend crucial concepts that could still be defended by classical thinkers, secular or not. I'm almost happier that they generally kick and scream rather than accept the clear logic, because down that road lies either despair or acceptance of some version of social darwinism.

7x57

You reminded me of when I studied Philosophy at SJSU under the dept. Chair. We would have excellent discussions on various matters and a clear, rational, communication style would help people see the various points of view. Opinions would not necessarily change, but people were able to discuss a lot more effectively and learn a bit from the process.

Not much to add to the conversation, except the language being used caused a fond flashback to my college days. For which I thank you :)

RANash
02-19-2010, 5:03 PM
It's off-topic, but pre-existing natural human rights come, I believe, from God. However, those rights are pre-existing natural human rights, are affirmed and protected by the Bill of Rights, and we shouldn't allow politicians to rob us of them.

Thanks to all of you for schooling me on the quotes, and on other topics in general.

Skidmark
02-19-2010, 5:21 PM
Umm, let's rephrase that a tad..

Thank you, imaginary entities have no place in discussions of constitutional and human rights.

Off-topic, but has anyone else noticed the thread title has Theseus's name wrong? Can it not be fixed?

GuyW
02-19-2010, 7:14 PM
Thank you, imaginary entities have no place in discussions of constitutional and human rights.



Yes they do.
.

curtisfong
02-19-2010, 9:24 PM
Great. Here we go. FSM vs Jesus. Sigh.

Ironchef
03-03-2010, 7:54 AM
I think it's safe to say, religious or not, that when one speaks of "god-given rights" it implies that just by being born, one inherits such rights. And yes, the writers of the bill of rights were considering god in their dealings and law making so it is relevant today as it was then.

7x57
03-03-2010, 8:11 AM
You reminded me of when I studied Philosophy at SJSU under the dept. Chair. We would have excellent discussions on various matters and a clear, rational, communication style would help people see the various points of view. Opinions would not necessarily change, but people were able to discuss a lot more effectively and learn a bit from the process.

Not much to add to the conversation, except the language being used caused a fond flashback to my college days. For which I thank you :)

I missed this. But you're very welcome. :D

7x57

7x57
03-03-2010, 8:12 AM
Yes they do.
.

Hush. You're interfering with the ever-popular program of attempting to re-write history so the Proles don't even know what it was.

We've always been secular, and we've always been at war with Eastasia. :rolleyes:

7x57

MudCamper
03-03-2010, 8:53 AM
OK, Theseus.

Theseus
03-03-2010, 10:05 AM
Can we please not distract from the important issues in this thread by getting into a theological debate?

GoodEyeSniper
03-03-2010, 10:19 AM
If only we could have had one calgunner on the jury bench :(

FastFinger
03-03-2010, 11:10 AM
If only we could have had one calgunner on the jury bench :(

As long as we're wishing, let's go for a full 12. Heck, make it a baker's dozen and let's hope for a Calgunner in the back up chair also!

This is why I always respond to jury summons. Of course once I hear I'm "auditioning" for yet another drunk driving case I'm not as eager to be picked, and I never have been.

dantodd
03-03-2010, 11:17 AM
As long as we're wishing, let's go for a full 12. Heck, make it a baker's dozen and let's hope for a Calgunner in the back up chair also!

This is why I always respond to jury summons. Of course once I hear I'm "auditioning" for yet another drunk driving case I'm not as eager to be picked, and I never have been.

Funny, just got my summons in the mail yesterday. Never been picked or even had to go in. I have a lifetime exemption if I choose to use it but fortunately this time around I will not have to. Most likely I will make my call and be told to not bother showing up.

GrizzlyGuy
03-03-2010, 11:45 AM
As long as we're wishing, let's go for a full 12. Heck, make it a baker's dozen and let's hope for a Calgunner in the back up chair also!

This is why I always respond to jury summons. Of course once I hear I'm "auditioning" for yet another drunk driving case I'm not as eager to be picked, and I never have been.

Yup, jury duty is important, especially for us pro-2A types who have seen one of our own be unfairly persecuted and convicted. From FIJA.org: Jury Protection for Second Amendment (http://fija.org/download/34/)

Cokebottle
03-03-2010, 5:13 PM
Something tells me that Calguns, Opencarry, and maybe CalCCW were mentioned either on the jury questionnaire or in peremptory challenges.

inbox485
03-04-2010, 1:39 PM
One big trick is to call the actual jury room after you get your summons, tell the receptionist you've always wanted to actually serve on a jury and ask when a good day to come in would be. If there is an upcoming case requiring a large jury pool (the good cases usually do) they will tell you and be more than happy to have you there even if it is not your "assigned" day.

magsnubs
03-04-2010, 2:26 PM
I think it's safe to state that our rights derive from a power greater than man himself, whether that is god, destiny, fate, the universe, etc.

I hate to second guess and armchair quarterback and all, but it seem's like private v. public is a weak argument here. I used to get busted for driving without a license (when I was younger and even MORE rebellious!) in parking lots, and it was made clear to me that any place where the general public (or even an indiscriminant subsection of) is allowed to enter, it's considered public for purposes of prosecuting poor saps for goofy little laws (albiet with sometimes huge consequences).

It seems to me the better stance would have been that, given the officers ambivalence about his breaking the law, it was not reasonable to expect him to know the legality of his actions. If the cops said he was within the law, then he should be held to a much LOWER standard as to knowing the laws. If the statute is so vague as to not be readily apparent to cops on the scene, even with them discussing it with the station via radio, and the charges were only brought later, after a DA researched it, then that law is unconstitutionally vague, IMO!

Ca Patriot
03-04-2010, 5:37 PM
Jury nullification. Its legal. Try it sometime.

inbox485
03-04-2010, 6:09 PM
I think it's safe to state that our rights derive from a power greater than man himself, whether that is god, destiny, fate, the universe, etc.

I hate to second guess and armchair quarterback and all, but it seem's like private v. public is a weak argument here. I used to get busted for driving without a license (when I was younger and even MORE rebellious!) in parking lots, and it was made clear to me that any place where the general public (or even an indiscriminant subsection of) is allowed to enter, it's considered public for purposes of prosecuting poor saps for goofy little laws (albiet with sometimes huge consequences).

It seems to me the better stance would have been that, given the officers ambivalence about his breaking the law, it was not reasonable to expect him to know the legality of his actions. If the cops said he was within the law, then he should be held to a much LOWER standard as to knowing the laws. If the statute is so vague as to not be readily apparent to cops on the scene, even with them discussing it with the station via radio, and the charges were only brought later, after a DA researched it, then that law is unconstitutionally vague, IMO!

Sounds like you have a lot of reading to do.

Aleksandr Mravinsky
03-04-2010, 6:35 PM
Sounds like you have a lot of reading to do.

Speaking of which, could somebody sumarise the past 190 posts?

Cokebottle
03-04-2010, 6:56 PM
One big trick is to call the actual jury room after you get your summons, tell the receptionist you've always wanted to actually serve on a jury and ask when a good day to come in would be. If there is an upcoming case requiring a large jury pool (the good cases usually do) they will tell you and be more than happy to have you there even if it is not your "assigned" day.
Hmm... I should do that.
For the last 10 years, every time I've received a summons, I've called for confirm after 6pm the night before and been excused at that point, except for once when I called back at 8am, then 10am, and was excused then.

The problem is, by doing it that way, you haven't reported so you legally haven't served... they can send another summons any time.. and I normally get them every 6 months.
If you actually report, you're done for a year.

Cokebottle
03-04-2010, 7:00 PM
Speaking of which, could somebody sumarise the past 190 posts?
Theseus was unloaded-open-carrying while sitting on a bench on private property within 1000ft of a school that he was not aware was there.
The DA and judge threw out the "reasonably should have known" argument.
The DA and judge redefined "private property" as "property not open to the public", thereby depriving Theseus of any available defense strategy.

He was convicted under misdemeanor 626.9 and is now prohibited from owning guns for 10 years.

Aleksandr Mravinsky
03-04-2010, 8:02 PM
Theseus was unloaded-open-carrying while sitting on a bench on private property within 1000ft of a school that he was not aware was there.
The DA and judge threw out the "reasonably should have known" argument.
The DA and judge redefined "private property" as "property not open to the public", thereby depriving Theseus of any available defense strategy.

He was convicted under misdemeanor 626.9 and is now prohibited from owning guns for 10 years.

That sucks. I knew about the first bit, just not how it turned out. Any possibility for an appeal? If not, then can't we challenge CPK and Peet's Coffee on their prohibition of UOC on their property? If it isn't private property, then it is public property. If it is public property, then it should be subject to state laws, right?

Cokebottle
03-04-2010, 9:20 PM
That sucks. I knew about the first bit, just not how it turned out. Any possibility for an appeal? If not, then can't we challenge CPK and Peet's Coffee on their prohibition of UOC on their property? If it isn't private property, then it is public property. If it is public property, then it should be subject to state laws, right?
Two separate issues.
Property owners are within their rights to forbid possession of guns on their property.
We are within our rights to take our business elsewhere.

I agree. If it is not private property it is public property, as in owned by the public.
The problem is, statutes such as "drunk in public" reference "public place", which includes not only public property, but also private property that is freely open to the public. In this case, the DA and judge agreed that "private property" within the frame of 626.9 was defined as "not a public place"... they made two stretches to reach the ruling.

Yes, it is being appealed.

jazman
03-04-2010, 9:22 PM
Theseus was unloaded-open-carrying while sitting on a bench on private property within 1000ft of a school that he was not aware was there.
The DA and judge threw out the "reasonably should have known" argument.
The DA and judge redefined "private property" as "property not open to the public", thereby depriving Theseus of any available defense strategy.

He was convicted under misdemeanor 626.9 and is now prohibited from owning guns for 10 years.

And along with losing his gun rights it cost him (and his supporters) about $40,000.00, so as has been suggested by many in the past it would be a good idea to have about that much if one wants to UOC. Just in case.

gbp
03-05-2010, 2:46 AM
Can we please not distract from the important issues in this thread by getting into a theological debate?

when i read the original post i actually gave it less than a page before deviation and speculation sent in

inbox485
03-05-2010, 7:04 AM
That sucks. I knew about the first bit, just not how it turned out. Any possibility for an appeal? If not, then can't we challenge CPK and Peet's Coffee on their prohibition of UOC on their property? If it isn't private property, then it is public property. If it is public property, then it should be subject to state laws, right?

Success on appeal is very likely IMO but that is if Theseus continues to pursue it. It would be easier to skip state The irony is that his appeal my be able to include McDonald and overturn 626.9 altogether rather than start a lawsuit from scratch. That could make it the first non-direct impact of the ruling AFAIK.

Theseus
03-05-2010, 10:51 AM
Success on appeal is very likely IMO but that is if Theseus continues to pursue it. It would be easier to skip state The irony is that his appeal my be able to include McDonald and overturn 626.9 altogether rather than start a lawsuit from scratch. That could make it the first non-direct impact of the ruling AFAIK.
Don't forget 12031!

inbox485
03-05-2010, 12:08 PM
Don't forget 12031!

I don't know what the timing is on your appeal, but if your hearing is shortly after the opinion is issued, and you are able to incorporate it, you might beat any lawsuit against 12031, or the other cases that are pending the McDonald opinion.

Speaking of which, how are things going? We haven't heard much in the way of updates. My specific curiosities at the moment are:

- Do you still have outstanding legal debts to your trial lawyer or did he take a settlement?
- Are you pursuing your appeal pro per or with a lawyer?
- Are you planning to remain in CA?

bodger
03-05-2010, 12:52 PM
I don't know what the timing is on your appeal, but if your hearing is shortly after the opinion is issued, and you are able to incorporate it, you might beat any lawsuit against 12031, or the other cases that are pending the McDonald opinion.

Speaking of which, how are things going? We haven't heard much in the way of updates. My specific curiosities at the moment are:

- Do you still have outstanding legal debts to your trial lawyer or did he take a settlement?
- Are you pursuing your appeal pro per or with a lawyer?
- Are you planning to remain in CA?


And if you did decide to move Theseus, are there any restrictions on gun ownership if you moved to another state?