PDA

View Full Version : How I carry my personal property is my right, isn't it?


Roadrunner
01-17-2010, 2:11 PM
I've been giving this some thought, and I did some searches in the CGN google spot but didn't find the answer, so I need to ask; after incorporation, how hard will it be for states to keep laws on the the books that regulate how firearms are carried on a person? When you consider that Alaska and Vermont have very little regulation regarding the carrying of firearms, and their violent crime per capita is much less than ours, how can California justify the existence of laws that regulate CCW? I will grant that these laws have existed for decades, but obviously they havn't done a thing to stop it, and all it does is allow the state to dictate to us how we use and carry our personal property.

bodger
01-17-2010, 2:26 PM
As I understand it, everything remains the same until challenged in the courts anyway.

Roadrunner
01-17-2010, 2:30 PM
As I understand it, everything remains the same until challenged in the courts anyway.

So, would it be appropriate to think that all CCW laws will be challenged after incorporation has been made? I find it highly illogical to suggest that carrying openly in a holster is somehow less dangerous to the public than CCW'ing.

Fjold
01-17-2010, 2:39 PM
Because "It's for the children".

DVLDOC
01-17-2010, 2:46 PM
^LOL

wildhawker
01-17-2010, 2:48 PM
Ok where to start...

Begin by searching Sykes and Palmer.

There are already lawsuits filed in numerous jurisdictions throughout the US (incl CA) which challenge the constitutionality of carry permit issuance as currently exists.

We'll very likely see that as long as the Legislature makes one manner available to all but prohibited persons others can be highly restricted or banned.

JDoe
01-17-2010, 2:53 PM
As I understand it, everything remains the same until challenged in the courts anyway.

So if a firearms law is challenged under the 2A and defendant (State, County, City, etc.) is defeated in court is there a good chance to recover attorney fees?

I am reminded of the pre-litigation demand letter (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=235138) that Michel & Associates, P.C. sent to the City of Richmond...

On behalf of its clients the NRA and CRPA, the law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. sent a pre-litigation demand letter to the City of Richmond, California and Richmond City Council members on Friday, October 23 damanding that the City's ordinance banning the possession of "high capacity" magazines be repealed.

By sending the letter before filing a lawsuit, the chances of recovering attorny fees if a lawsuit has to be filed are increased.

The letter notes that the city's ban of "large-capacity" (can hold over 10 rounds) magazines is ineffective, infringes on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and is preempted by state law.

Librarian
01-17-2010, 3:01 PM
So, would it be appropriate to think that all CCW laws will be challenged after incorporation has been made? I find it highly illogical to suggest that carrying openly in a holster is somehow less dangerous to the public than CCW'ing.

You are operating from a faulty premise: that any gun control law is motivated by an actual desire to improve public safety.

That just isn't the case in California.

Politicians here don't care about public safety, in any micro-sense; they feel that their re-elections are better for the public good, so doing things that get them re-elected benefits public safety in the macro-sense.

They are Our Betters. They Know What's Good For Us. Bitter clingers need not speak up.

JoGusto
01-17-2010, 3:26 PM
Many of the California LEOs I encounter just don't know the law, expect you to not question them when they are wrong, and have a really bad attitude about law abiding citizens who legally own and transport guns.

At least, that's been my experience (in big-city areas of California; I have no experience with the more rural LEO types, so they might be more well-informed, or nicer, or both).

The cop working the recent gun show didn't know that gun show attendees couldn't have both a gun and the ammo that fits it while strolling the aisles (PC 12071.4(g))... and insisted that gun and ammo must be transported separately in the car!

Ugh. When I disagreed with him on both counts, he ominously said "remember who puts on the handcuffs." I guess that makes him both a sore loser (he was wrong about the law) and a big bully. His ppint is well-taken, though: they have all the power, and you have basically none, even when you are right, and following every law scrupulously.

If you hired an electrician who had this level of knowledge of the electrical code, it would be considered "criminal negligence". Yet, these bozos can just throw you in the cruiser and let you struggle through the legal exoneration process and they don't give a damn about your rights, inconvenience, or expense -- at least, this one cop said as much to me.

And this is how they treat law-abiding citizens!

leelaw
01-17-2010, 3:27 PM
Concealed is concealed.

Just sayin...

Explain.

Roadrunner
01-17-2010, 4:49 PM
You are operating from a faulty premise: that any gun control law is motivated by an actual desire to improve public safety.

That just isn't the case in California.

Politicians here don't care about public safety, in any micro-sense; they feel that their re-elections are better for the public good, so doing things that get them re-elected benefits public safety in the macro-sense.

They are Our Betters. They Know What's Good For Us. Bitter clingers need not speak up.

I don't for one moment think that any law that is passed or even contrived has anything to do with public safety, however, that's what will be put out for public consumption. That's what I would also expect to hear when someone challenges these laws. It kind of falls into that same pile of catchall phrases like, "for the children", "national security", and "officer safety". I guess I'm just wondering how far we will be able to go after incorporation happens. As I've said before, I don't think about carrying a firearm here, because there has never been an incident occur in my town since I've been here, that would cause me to be that vigilant. There is however, reason to be concerned when I visit friends and family in Urbania. The bottom line is, I want to be able to carry whatever the police carry so that I can protect myself from harm the same as they do. If I think I need a collapsible baton to defend myself, I should be able to carry it. If I think I need pepper spray to protect myself, then under the second amendment, that is my right. And that should go right up the ladder to whatever personal weapon I choose to defend myself with if necessary.

I have no doubt some dumbass will make some dumbass comment, saying that I'm advocating people having hand grenades or explosives that fall outside the realm of personal protection and into military hardware. I think I personally have an answer for them. I believe that our police, be they military or civil could be the template that defines what would be considered personal protection. For example, unless military police are conducting a military operation, by the way, this covers all branches or the military, they only carry a side arm, rifle, or shotgun. In fact, every military policeman I ever saw, had these basic personal arms. The same goes for civil police. They carry a side arm, rifle, and/or shotgun. Of course there are the other items that are dangling off of their belts, but I don't recall any cop of any kind carrying hand grenades or better.

I'm kind of digressing a bit, but I think this defines exactly how I view this issue. The important thing is, how I carry it should be no ones business under the second amendment.

Mr.CRC
01-17-2010, 5:01 PM
Many of the California LEOs I encounter just don't know the law, expect you to not question them when they are wrong, and have a really bad attitude about law abiding citizens who legally own and transport guns.

At least, that's been my experience (in big-city areas of California; I have no experience with the more rural LEO types, so they might be more well-informed, or nicer, or both).

The cop working the recent gun show didn't know that gun show attendees couldn't have both a gun and the ammo that fits it while strolling the aisles (PC 12071.4(g))... and insisted that gun and ammo must be transported separately in the car!

Ugh. When I disagreed with him on both counts, he ominously said "remember who puts on the handcuffs." I guess that makes him both a sore loser (he was wrong about the law) and a big bully. His ppint is well-taken, though: they have all the power, and you have basically none, even when you are right, and following every law scrupulously.

If you hired an electrician who had this level of knowledge of the electrical code, it would be considered "criminal negligence". Yet, these bozos can just throw you in the cruiser and let you struggle through the legal exoneration process and they don't give a damn about your rights, inconvenience, or expense -- at least, this one cop said as much to me.

And this is how they treat law-abiding citizens!

There is no legal exoneration. Your arrest will go into a national database accessible to every potential employer forever, no matter the final disposition of your case. You can be blacklisted for life just because some government bully is incompetent and/or takes pleasure in ruining your life. Read this book by Dale C. Carson:

http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377/ref=pd_sim_b_4

Roadrunner
01-17-2010, 5:02 PM
Many of the California LEOs I encounter just don't know the law, expect you to not question them when they are wrong, and have a really bad attitude about law abiding citizens who legally own and transport guns.

At least, that's been my experience (in big-city areas of California; I have no experience with the more rural LEO types, so they might be more well-informed, or nicer, or both).

The cop working the recent gun show didn't know that gun show attendees couldn't have both a gun and the ammo that fits it while strolling the aisles (PC 12071.4(g))... and insisted that gun and ammo must be transported separately in the car!

Ugh. When I disagreed with him on both counts, he ominously said "remember who puts on the handcuffs." I guess that makes him both a sore loser (he was wrong about the law) and a big bully. His ppint is well-taken, though: they have all the power, and you have basically none, even when you are right, and following every law scrupulously.

If you hired an electrician who had this level of knowledge of the electrical code, it would be considered "criminal negligence". Yet, these bozos can just throw you in the cruiser and let you struggle through the legal exoneration process and they don't give a damn about your rights, inconvenience, or expense -- at least, this one cop said as much to me.

And this is how they treat law-abiding citizens!

Yes, I know, there are some bozo's with badges that are trying to get back at someone because they got picked on in elementary school. Everyone has at least one of those. Ultimately, police departments will have to send their cops through some remedial training to get deprogrammed to avoid civil rights suits.

radioman
01-17-2010, 8:06 PM
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

yellowfin
01-17-2010, 8:49 PM
Matters such as this are why I'm equally as much if not more so of a fan of gun rights being a means of beating the government back into its cage as I am for personal protection, equal rights, and American heritage.

sorensen440
01-17-2010, 8:51 PM
Concealed is concealed.

Just sayin...
As much as I like that argument I also want to add "until its not"

Librarian
01-17-2010, 9:10 PM
I don't for one moment think that any law that is passed or even contrived has anything to do with public safety, however, that's what will be put out for public consumption. That's what I would also expect to hear when someone challenges these laws. ...

Perhaps - but I think it would be refreshing, and ultimately useful, to stop dissembling, and stop accepting false-flag fig leaves. It's certainly the case that trying to convince CA legislators with facts regarding the content of their laws has been a losing strategy.

Roadrunner
01-17-2010, 9:44 PM
Perhaps - but I think it would be refreshing, and ultimately useful, to stop dissembling, and stop accepting false-flag fig leaves. It's certainly the case that trying to convince CA legislators with facts regarding the content of their laws has been a losing strategy.

Understood. In that regard, it would appear then, that since the soap box and ballot box have proved failures at this point, we perhaps only two choices left. The jury box and the bullet box.

hoffmang
01-18-2010, 12:06 AM
Understood. In that regard, it would appear then, that since the soap box and ballot box have proved failures at this point, we perhaps only two choices left. The jury box and the bullet box.

You need to loosen the tinfoil. We're winning on the soap box, the ballot box outside of California, and the "jury" box though we tend to just let the Federal judges rule in our favor.

The system is working. It took 40 years to lose these rights. Give us 4 to 6 years to get them back. Those years started in June of 2008...

-Gene

bodger
01-18-2010, 7:46 AM
Many of the California LEOs I encounter just don't know the law, expect you to not question them when they are wrong, and have a really bad attitude about law abiding citizens who legally own and transport guns.

At least, that's been my experience (in big-city areas of California; I have no experience with the more rural LEO types, so they might be more well-informed, or nicer, or both).

The cop working the recent gun show didn't know that gun show attendees couldn't have both a gun and the ammo that fits it while strolling the aisles (PC 12071.4(g))... and insisted that gun and ammo must be transported separately in the car!

Ugh. When I disagreed with him on both counts, he ominously said "remember who puts on the handcuffs." I guess that makes him both a sore loser (he was wrong about the law) and a big bully. His ppint is well-taken, though: they have all the power, and you have basically none, even when you are right, and following every law scrupulously.

If you hired an electrician who had this level of knowledge of the electrical code, it would be considered "criminal negligence". Yet, these bozos can just throw you in the cruiser and let you struggle through the legal exoneration process and they don't give a damn about your rights, inconvenience, or expense -- at least, this one cop said as much to me.

And this is how they treat law-abiding citizens!


Sad but true. I'm a general contractor. I am expected to know all applicable codes and building practices. If I fail an inspection conducted by a city inspector due to something being improperly built as a result of my ignorance, I have to pay the city for the subsequent inspections.

And I'm liable for mistakes if anything happens as a result of my mistakes. Protection against that, in the form of very costly general liability insurance, is the price I pay, and even that might not fully cover me.

Remember who puts on handcuffs indeed. That's like saying whoever has the biggest gun can make up their own laws.

vantec08
01-18-2010, 8:19 AM
You are operating from a faulty premise: that any gun control law is motivated by an actual desire to improve public safety.

That just isn't the case in California.

How true, Librarian. These gun laws are political solutions to a non-political situation, apples and oranges. I had an interesting discussion with a guy recently: I asked him what is the biggest threat to young men of his neighborhood and he said guns. I asked him where I could get one of these self-loading, self-aiming, self-firing, self-reloading, self-refiring guns. He just stared.
It is my sincere hope that thru consolidation and other tests these laws are seen for what they are - - a wimpy political effort to demonize inanimate objects so offenders will be less accountable.

Roadrunner
01-18-2010, 8:44 AM
How true, Librarian. These gun laws are political solutions to a non-political situation, apples and oranges. I had an interesting discussion with a guy recently: I asked him what is the biggest threat to young men of his neighborhood and he said guns. I asked him where I could get one of these self-loading, self-aiming, self-firing, self-reloading, self-refiring guns. He just stared.
It is my sincere hope that thru consolidation and other tests these laws are seen for what they are - - a wimpy political effort to demonize inanimate objects so offenders will be less accountable.

Actually, this could have been fun. I would have let him go on his tirade about how evil guns are and then ask him one simple question. I wonder what he would have said when I asked him how this "object of evil" is fired.

shooter777
01-18-2010, 9:26 AM
and then there is this BOZO/Traitor......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flfHZgT-SeI
his name is Cass Sunstein. He is a Harvard Law Prof. and Obama's Info and tech Czar.

PM9 Girl
01-18-2010, 9:28 AM
OK, I didn't know until I got on this site that I needed a permit to carry a gun!! But I'm not sure I understand all the details. If I notice a creep outside my house, I can stick my gun into my bag and then leave the bag in the car once I get where I'm going right?

I think most women would rather get in trouble for carrying a gun rather than get raped if they were worried about their situation.

Roadrunner
01-18-2010, 9:58 AM
OK, I didn't know until I got on this site that I needed a permit to carry a gun!! But I'm not sure I understand all the details. If I notice a creep outside my house, I can stick my gun into my bag and then leave the bag in the car once I get where I'm going right?

I think most women would rather get in trouble for carrying a gun rather than get raped if they were worried about their situation.

Here's they way I understand it, the lawyers and those in the know can tweak my response if I'm giving bad information.

If there is a "creep" outside of your house, I would suggest making sure your gun is close by and then calling the cops and waiting for them. In fact, I would suggest you leave only after the creep leaves or the cops come and remove the creep. As for your gun, from what I understand, it's only a misdemeanor if you get caught with your gun loaded and concealed in your purse or for that matter, any case that can't be locked. What sucks is, if you're caught, they will charge you with the concealed gun in your purse, charge you with the gun being loaded, and if your convicted, take your gun, attempt to take your right to own a gun away for 10 years, charge you a fine, possibly put you in jail for some amount of time that is a year or less, and then put you on probation for some amount of time.

In my opinion, if you want to have your gun with you when coming home, in case you have an unexpected visitor, I would suggest locking it in the trunk while away from home, and when you get home, load it up before going inside, unless you live in an apartment, in which case, you will have to wait until you actually get into your home.

California gun laws suck beyond belief, but that's what we have to work with.

383green
01-18-2010, 10:01 AM
OK, I didn't know until I got on this site that I needed a permit to carry a gun!! But I'm not sure I understand all the details.

I'm glad you got here and learned about that before you got into any trouble! Both the CA and federal laws about legal gun carry are fairly complicated, so I suggest that you continue reading up on them.

If I notice a creep outside my house, I can stick my gun into my bag and then leave the bag in the car once I get where I'm going right?

Sadly, it's neither that simple nor that sensible at this time. You would be subject to all of the laws regarding carrying and transporting a firearm. What you describe would be considered illegal concealed carry of a firearm. I'd suggest that you start by looking over these two sections of the frequently-asked questions (FAQ) document that various folks here are working on:

Carry Questions (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Carry_Questions)

Transport Questions (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Transportation_Questions)

If that doesn't clear things up for you, then please tell us why so we can improve it. The folks writing the document naturally read it from the point of view of somebody who already knows the answers, so constructive criticism from somebody learning this stuff for the first time will be very helpful.

I've also seen folks recommend a book titled something like "How to Own a Gun and Stay Out of Jail", though I haven't read it myself.

I think most women would rather get in trouble for carrying a gun rather than get raped if they were worried about their situation.

Let's make sure that neither of those awful things happen!

wildhawker
01-18-2010, 12:20 PM
A few things to note:

* It would be helpful to know the jurisdiction of SoCal in which you live for more relevant CCW application info.

* You may transport an unloaded firearm (no magazine in the firearm, adjacent/in the same container is OK, no cartridges in the cylinder for revolvers) in a locked case; there's no definition of locked case, so if it's secured/locked in such a manner that a 12 year old couldn't gain access then it probably meets the requirements.

Here are a couple of threads on Locked Unloaded Concealed Carry ("LUCC"):
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=235940
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=163061

* I don't and won't advocate illegal behavior, especially if a CCW could be procured where you live (some Sheriffs/Chief of PDs are better at issuance to normals folks than others); however, if my wife could not procure a CCW and believed her life was at risk (and the situation was unavoidable) then I'd prefer the risk of attorney's fees to seeing her in a hospital, or worse. Illegal CCW of a handgun *registered to you* is a misdemeanor (a felony otherwise).

* If you ever must file a restraining order against someone and reasonably believe you are in grave danger 12025.5. (a) provides for a limited exception to the CCW permit requirements.

OK, I didn't know until I got on this site that I needed a permit to carry a gun!! But I'm not sure I understand all the details. If I notice a creep outside my house, I can stick my gun into my bag and then leave the bag in the car once I get where I'm going right?

I think most women would rather get in trouble for carrying a gun rather than get raped if they were worried about their situation.