PDA

View Full Version : Questions on packing without a license in CA


linuxgunner
04-08-2006, 5:06 PM
(Note to mods: If this whole topic is verbotten on this board, please accept my apology, and close / delete this thread.)

Some of us are lucky enough to have a sheriff who issues permits "for the cause of self defense". Some of us are not so lucky. I have a friend who, alas, lives in a major urban area of California and knows that he can't possibly get a permit under the current sheriff, so he has not even bothered to apply.

I advised him that it's only a misdemeanor to carry without a permit. He's someone who drives cautiously, has a clean record, rarely gets pulled over, never has any other law enforcement contact, looks and is conservative and law-abiding, etc. So his chance of getting found out seems very small.

What are the real experiences of people who have carried without a permit? Does it ever get found out? How do cops react? How do one handle being in a routine traffic stop if one is carrying without a permit? Inform the officer, "Officer, I'm sorry to admit that I'm packing without a permit, I will not move until you instruct me", or just keep quiet about it?

Because it's a misdemeanor (AFAIK) they have broad discretion of what they do: they can let it go, they can confiscate the gun and let the issue drop, or they could haul the guy in, charge him, and perhaps convict him of a misdemeanor. What's the reality here? I know that in Mexico, permits are impossible to obtain, but a lot of Mexicans carry, and when they are found, the cops take the gun and that's it. That's really not such a bad situation; ordinary law-abiding people should not have any reason to be searched, so it should be a very rare event. I've heard the same thing happens here in CA: it's a waste of everyone's time to prosecute a misdemeanor like that, so they just take the gun and say "don't do it again." Is this true?

I know that Seecamp makes an uber-concealable California-edition pistol. Presumably a lot of Californians are buying this, and they couldn't all have permits, and they sure aren't using it for IPSC, right?

hitnrun
04-08-2006, 5:18 PM
Dude, WHAT! You can't be serious about this...

It's actually AT LEAST Two Misdemeanors if you carry the weapon LOADED.

PC 12025

(a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when
he or she does any of the following:
(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her
control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he
or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.
(b) Carrying a concealed firearm in violation of this section is
punishable, as follows:
(1) Where the person previously has been convicted of any felony,
or of any crime made punishable by this chapter, as a felony.
(2) Where the firearm is stolen and the person knew or had
reasonable cause to believe that it was stolen, as a felony.
(3) Where the person is an active participant in a criminal street
gang, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 186.22, under the
Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (Chapter 11
(commencing with Section 186.20) of Title 7 of Part 1), as a felony.....

......(7) In all cases other than those specified in paragraphs (1) to
(6), inclusive, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one
year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
both that imprisonment and fine.

PC 12031

(a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when
he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a
prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
(2) Carrying a loaded firearm in violation of this section is
punishable, as follows:
(A) Where the person previously has been convicted of any felony,
or of any crime made punishable by this chapter, as a felony.
(B) Where the firearm is stolen and the person knew or had
reasonable cause to believe that it was stolen, as a felony.
(C) Where the person is an active participant in a criminal street
gang, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 186.22, under the
Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (Chapter 11
(commencing with Section 186.20) of Title 7 of Part 1), as a felony.....

......G) In all cases other than those specified in subparagraphs (A)
to (F), inclusive, as a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

To answer your question...If I pulled you or him over and you were found to be carrying illegaly, you will get pulled around by the hair just like any other *****bird I deal with. Trust me, his life can't be in such a danger that he has to violate the law to protect himself. He needs to move if breaking the law is his only remaining option.

Nak
04-08-2006, 5:24 PM
Agreed, not even a subject up for debate.

Granted, I think we should all be able to carry, with a few requirements, however, the law is the LAW.

Mssr. Eleganté
04-08-2006, 5:32 PM
I advised him that it's only a misdemeanor to carry without a permit.

Make sure you tell him that the handgun needs to be registered to him. Getting caught illegally packing a hangun that's registered to you is a misdemeanor the first time. Getting caught illegally packing a handgun not registered to you can be a felony, even if the handgun is legally yours.

How do one handle being in a routine traffic stop if one is carrying without a permit? Inform the officer, "Officer, I'm sorry to admit that I'm packing without a permit, I will not move until you instruct me", or just keep quiet about it?

I'd keep quiet about it. I've been pulled over three times but never searched. I've been a passenger in a car that was pulled over and the driver was arrested and taken away. They didn't search me though. If the cop is just going to give you a traffic ticket or a warning, why tell him about the gun? If you think he is about to pull you out of the car and frisk you, then you can tell him about the gun.

it's a waste of everyone's time to prosecute a misdemeanor like that, so they just take the gun and say "don't do it again." Is this true?

Somebody posted a link here a while back that showed all of the firearms arrests and case dispositions for one police station in San Francisco over a certain time period. There were a bunch of cases where the charges were just dropped, including felon in possession of a stolen firearm. WTF? That's probably not standard in the rest of California though. And they probably only give breaks like that to carreer criminals.

shopkeep
04-08-2006, 5:39 PM
This is the PRK, they will nail him and prosecute him on as many charges as possible. Expect a whole wide array of trumped up charges and a plea bargin offer. Even if he does get away with only a misdemeanor you can rest assured that a condition will be NO WEAPONS, not to mention he certainly won't be allowed to purchase any new guns for a LONG time.

50BMGBOB
04-08-2006, 5:40 PM
Also, don't carry a pocket knife or you don't qualife as a misdermeanor. Not only that, I think most LEO would arrest you under a felony and then let the DA plea bargin it to a misdermeanor.

self edited: After looking up the referance I can not find the law to back up my statement. Please disreguard.

Jicko
04-08-2006, 6:11 PM
Also, don't carry a pocket knife or you don't qualife as a misdermeanor. Not only that, I think most LEO would arrest you under a felony and then let the DA plea bargin it to a misdermeanor.

What's the basis for the felony, may I ask?

grammaton76
04-08-2006, 6:24 PM
I would point out that it's totally not worth it for casual day to day use. On a VERY RARE basis I've been known to carefully break it, but there are a few things you can do to make it a little less serious (not by much - but bear in mind that extra precaution may also get the LEO to take it into consideration and only make it a warning).

1. No loaded mag in the weapon. Unloaded mag goes in the weapon (it can be ejected, you don't want lint getting into the weapon). Practice drawing, loading, and chambering in exactly this scenario at the range. When I started practicing this, I discovered just how ridiculously long it takes to do so, but I'm down to at least half the time it used to take me. Still not good, but at least it reduces it to one potential misdemeanor instead of two.

2. If you're driving, don't wear it!!!!!!!!!!! Especially if it's at night and they decide for any reason to try a field sobriety test, they're likely to see it. This is what center consoles or the space under your seat are for. Plus, there's a feeling that if you've got a loaded weapon on you when you're driving, you're just geared up for some kind of road rage thing.

Now, I'm sure there are a lot of things I haven't listed, which would be important for other scenarios.

I've only had a few scenarios where I've felt the need to have a weapon around; two were vehicular (Tookie execution; all talk and no action, and the immigration protests which I feared would escalate into riots). Both of those scenarios were vehiclular only, nothing on me. Last scenario is when I have to go drop something off at the post office box at my trailer park; we occasionally have drug dealers using the guest parking lot for drops, so I keep my Sig on me and adhere to point #1 all the way.

I wouldn't even THINK about everyday carry without a permit - the chances of getting caught sooner or later are just way too high.

linuxgunner
04-08-2006, 6:48 PM
I'd keep quiet about it. I've been pulled over three times but never searched. I've been a passenger in a car that was pulled over and the driver was arrested and taken away. They didn't search me though. If the cop is just going to give you a traffic ticket or a warning, why tell him about the gun? If you think he is about to pull you out of the car and frisk you, then you can tell him about the gun.

That sounds reasonable. I thought about it some more: If one voluntarily says, "I have a gun", that seems like the right thing to do (supporting officer peace-of-mind), BUT then there can't be any challenge to the search that happens otherwise; the evidence is good because it was volunteered. If one keeps one's mouth shut, they still need probable cause to get the evidence.

Somebody posted a link here a while back that showed all of the firearms arrests and case dispositions for one police station in San Francisco over a certain time period. There were a bunch of cases where the charges were just dropped, including felon in possession of a stolen firearm. WTF? That's probably not standard in the rest of California though. And they probably only give breaks like that to carreer criminals.

That's what I'm thinking. I read news reports all the time about convicted criminals getting picked up with a gun on them, no charges. WTF!!! Do criminals have some secret CCW permit I don't know about? AFAIK criminals aren't even allowed to touch a gun, or have control over a gun. Also, I know that, for example, in SF they are letting some MURDERERS go, or are copping to easy plea bargains because they don't have the resources to fully prosecute. Maybe minor issues like a guy with a clean record who happens to have simple packing-without-CCW is too small of an issue to invest a lot of resources in?

To answer your question...If I pulled you or him over and you were found to be carrying illegaly, you will get pulled around by the hair just like any other ******* I deal with. Trust me, his life can't be in such a danger that he has to violate the law to protect himself. He needs to move if breaking the law is his only remaining option.

Which is what I would expect. It's your job to do that, and that's the right thing to do. I guess one would have to look at how often one interacts with law enforcement, and how concealed / concealable the gun is. I mean, take a look at this:

http://seecamp.com/AkerSharkFlat_small1.jpg

The only way you could determine that that isn't a wallet is with a metal detector.

Just to be clear on this: I mean no disrespect for law enforcement in this. It's the fault of the voters that our sheriff isn't issuing. Police officers have to do their jobs and protect their own safety, and if they feel they need to take a harsh reaction to someone found packing without a permit, then they need to do that. What happens next is out of their hands, though. It's in the hands of a prosecutor, who has a full file of rapes, murders, robberies, etc to deal with, and he has to choose the cases that give the most "bang for the buck".

One thing is true: if a prosecutor sees a case where he knows the defendant is going to fight vigorously, he thinks seriously about whether it's worth it. On a small misdemeanor charge like this, is it worth the resources? From what I can, they don't even put much effort to prosecute convicted criminals possessing firearms, and that's a serious felony.

blkA4alb
04-08-2006, 6:54 PM
i cant even begin to comprehend how you and him can think that this is ok, its not. i would never even think about carrying without a permit, its hardly worth it. i can think of maybe ONE situation where i would carry without a permit, and thats any kind of shtf. never in daily routine, its not worth possibly and probably losing my gun rights.



EDIT:

You better believe I'll edit your posts if you want to make personal attacks. One strike. You only get two.

blkA4alb
04-08-2006, 6:58 PM
If one keeps one's mouth shut, they still need probable cause to get the evidence.
no, at any time the cop can ask you to step out of the vehicle and pat you down. they are able to do that for their safety and do NOT have to have probable cause to pat you down in a traffic stop.

EDIT: feel free to correct me anyone if im wrong about that.

Mr. Ed
04-08-2006, 7:04 PM
Do what you have to do to protect yourself and your family, but don't carry a gun away from your home or other private property that you own. You can get arrested for it. How are you going to protect anybody when you're sitting in jail? I know the law sucks, and I don't agree with it, but I follow it.

courteousgavin
04-08-2006, 7:24 PM
you are a fool.

That's a bit harsh. His friend seems to be weighing the odds of getting into a situation where he needs a gun against the odds of getting patted down by a police officer. Let's say somebody has been mugged once, chased by gang members once, and threatened by insane homeless people twice over a 10 year period. Over that same ten year period, if fact over their entire 38 years of life, they have never ever been patted down by a police officer.

I've weighed those odds and decided not to carry. But if somebody chose the other option I wouldn't call them a fool. I know a guy who carries without a permit every second he's outside of his home. Some people just never come into contact with police, so telling them they might get caught seems improbable to them. I could call him a fool and he could call me a coward.

The right to self defense is God given. For the less religious of you out their, the right to self defense is the first law of nature. Some people just won't give up that right, even if it is against California law. Some people won't move to the back of the bus or let the King of England push them around, even if it means breaking the law.

RRangel
04-08-2006, 7:31 PM
We need to be civil. It is possible to discuss things without throwing around the insults.

Nak
04-08-2006, 7:47 PM
How in the hell is a pocket knife a felony? Concealing a large blade is a felony, but a fold open knife is not.

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:

(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses...any ballistic knife...any nunchaku...any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken [ed: "throwing star"]...any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag. [Ed. Note: this is the paragraph covering "what you cannot own at all" - some of it is downright weird. Plastic/ceramic knives that can go through a metal detector are also banned somewhere in PC12020.]

(4) Carries concealed upon his or her person any dirk or dagger.

(24) As used in this section, a "dirk" or "dagger" means a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death. A nonlocking folding knife, a folding knife that is not prohibited by Section 653k, or a pocketknife is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death only if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position.

25(d) Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this section.

653k: Every person who possesses in the passenger's or driver's area of any motor vehicle in any public place or place open to the public, carries upon his or her person, and every person who sells, offers for sale, exposes for sale, loans, transfers, or gives to any other person a switchblade knife having a blade two or more inches in length is guilty of a misdemeanor.

More explained by a lawyer... (http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/knifelaw.html#SECTION%20ONE)

Nak
04-08-2006, 7:51 PM
no, at any time the cop can ask you to step out of the vehicle and pat you down. they are able to do that for their safety and do NOT have to have probable cause to pat you down in a traffic stop.

EDIT: feel free to correct me anyone if im wrong about that.

I was pulling parking break stops in front of the bars a year or so ago, didn't see the officer in the patrol car behind me. He hit the lights, pulled me over, said he smelled alcohol on my breath (which isn't true, I don't drink), asked me to get out of the car. The lady in the passenger was screaming, "DONT GET OUT! DONT GET OUT! HE WILL SHOOT YOU!"

SO ANYWAY, I walk on over, he's waiting by his car, we both stand in the middle of the road talking about what happened, he says he does that in his wifes car all the time, had a chuckle and left.

Now that was weird, somewhat related, somewhat of a tangent, but a cool officer none-the-less.

blkA4alb
04-08-2006, 8:06 PM
I was pulling parking break stops in front of the bars a year or so ago, didn't see the officer in the patrol car behind me. He hit the lights, pulled me over, said he smelled alcohol on my breath (which isn't true, I don't drink), asked me to get out of the car. The lady in the passenger was screaming, "DONT GET OUT! DONT GET OUT! HE WILL SHOOT YOU!"

SO ANYWAY, I walk on over, he's waiting by his car, we both stand in the middle of the road talking about what happened, he says he does that in his wifes car all the time, had a chuckle and left.

Now that was weird, somewhat related, somewhat of a tangent, but a cool officer none-the-less.
well thats pretty cool:D, but im not saying every cop WILL pat you down. but they can, thats all.

blkA4alb
04-08-2006, 8:07 PM
We need to be civil. It is possible to discuss things without throwing around the insults.
yes, sorry.:) ill edit it.

EDIT: nevermind, you already saved me the trouble:o

blacklisted
04-08-2006, 8:10 PM
What about carrying an unloaded gun openly in a belt holster? I've always wondered about that.

blkA4alb
04-08-2006, 8:14 PM
What about carrying an unloaded gun openly in a belt holster? I've always wondered about that.
i know your allowed to openly carry a rifle unloaded, but is it the same for pistols?

linuxgunner
04-08-2006, 8:17 PM
His friend seems to be weighing the odds of getting into a situation where he needs a gun against the odds of getting patted down by a police officer. Let's say somebody has been mugged once, chased by gang members once, and threatened by insane homeless people twice over a 10 year period. Over that same ten year period, if fact over their entire 38 years of life, they have never ever been patted down by a police officer.

I've weighed those odds and decided not to carry. But if somebody chose the other option I wouldn't call them a fool. I know a guy who carries without a permit every second he's outside of his home. Some people just never come into contact with police, so telling them they might get caught seems improbable to them. I could call him a fool and he could call me a coward.


Exactly. This particular situation is more of a dangerous stalker situation (but not quite enough hard goods to get help from the System, and not enough hard cash to get a permit from the Sheriff). Let's see, he's never in his life been searched or patted down, he gets pulled over once a decade at most, there just aren't many opportunities for LE interaction. And yet there is a real and serious danger. It's just a question of weighing the odds.

Again, the fact that Seecamp has a California edition shows that a lot more people are packing here than have permits.

One of the reasons I wish we would get better sheriffs and better issuance policies is for our officers' safety. It would be better for everyone to get all the people who pack to get permits so they can disclose that immediately if they ever get pulled over, etc.

firejoe
04-08-2006, 8:20 PM
The problem is not CARRYING, it's USING. You can carry it all you want and probably no one will know about it. But, what happens when you have to USE it in your "self-defense"? How do you explain how you happen to have a loaded firearm on your person? Just more food for thought.

As a former Police Officer in San Diego County, I agree that most Law Enforcement Officers agree with armed self-defense for citizens, but they have a job to do and the law to uphold and they don't have much leeway.

Just food for thought...

Nak
04-08-2006, 8:22 PM
I think you can carry an unloaded firearm, however, you cannot have any ammunition in your posession. It's like having a car with no fuel.

It's frowned upon by most.

blacklisted
04-08-2006, 8:23 PM
An interesting thing I saw on ARFCOM was carrying black powder guns. Are they even considered guns? :D

Some, like the Ruger Old Army have centerfire conversion kits (.45LC)...

:eek:

creampuff
04-08-2006, 8:32 PM
It is ironic that a collapsible baton is a felony in CA, but concealed carry of a firearm is a misdemeanor

linuxgunner
04-08-2006, 8:32 PM
The problem is not CARRYING, it's USING. You can carry it all you want and probably no one will know about it. But, what happens when you have to USE it in your "self-defense"? How do you explain how you happen to have a loaded firearm on your person? Just more food for thought.

It's better to be in that position than to not be able to explain.

As a former Police Officer in San Diego County, I agree that most Law Enforcement Officers agree with armed self-defense for citizens, but they have a job to do and the law to uphold and they don't have much leeway.

And as a non-LEO citizen... I fully understand and respect that. It's your job to enforce the laws and protect your own safety. It's the prosecutor's job (and the judge's and the jury's) to decide what to do (if anything) about violations.

As for blackpowder: That isn't a loophole at all. I'm pretty sure that blackpowder guns, antiques, even airguns, etc are all treated the same as firearms under the law with regard to carrying.

JAFGO
04-08-2006, 8:39 PM
What happens next is out of their hands, though. It's in the hands of a prosecutor, who has a full file of rapes, murders, robberies, etc to deal with, and he has to choose the cases that give the most "bang for the buck".

One thing is true: if a prosecutor sees a case where he knows the defendant is going to fight vigorously, he thinks seriously about whether it's worth it. On a small misdemeanor charge like this, is it worth the resources? From what I can, they don't even put much effort to prosecute convicted criminals possessing firearms, and that's a serious felony.

True enough. Big city / county prosecutors often will not pursue charges if they don't feel they have the upper hand in winning a case. The time and resources just aren't there for frivolity.

Just don't count on yourself as being one of the lucky ones. There are still a few guys named Murphy that work in the DA's Office.

I seem to remember a loophole in the law about being able to carry concealed legally if your life is in eminent danger, but I am sure it would still be very difficult to defend. There aren't many scenarios that I can imagine where the danger couldn't be avoided if you have previous knowledge of the potential danger - and there goes your defense out the window.

linuxgunner
04-08-2006, 8:50 PM
I seem to remember a loophole in the law about being able to carry concealed legally if your life is in eminent danger, but I am sure it would still be very difficult to defend. There aren't many scenarios that I can imagine where the danger couldn't be avoided if you have previous knowledge of the potential danger - and there goes your defense out the window.

Under US law there is a defense of necessity. I don't know how it works. It's a rare plea, but it can apply in any situation.

I know someone in LA who was found to be carrying without a permit. He didn't have enough "goods" to get a permit from Sheriff Baca, but he vigorously defended himself, he showed that his life was threatened, etc, and guess what, they dropped the charges AND gave him his gun back!

Prosecutors have real jobs and real work to do. There's nothing in it for them to work on misdemeanor cases that they are likely to lose, especially against people with clean records.

11Z50
04-08-2006, 8:53 PM
..If I pulled you or him over and you were found to be carrying illegaly, you will get pulled around by the hair just like any other *****bird I deal with.

I'd like to know what agency you work for officer. If you are pulling citizens (aka *****birds) around by the hair you are not long in the business. Violating civil rights is a serious offense. Assault under the color of authority ring a bell? If you catch a citizen carrying illegally and he or she does not offer any resistance or threat of injury to you, Officer, you best mind your manners and take them into custody in a very nice fashion.

Heavy handed cops don't last long. Pulling *****birds around by the hair will get your Azz fired quick.

blacklisted
04-08-2006, 8:56 PM
Trust me, his life can't be in such a danger that he has to violate the law to protect himself.

That's right, because the police are always there to protect us. When all guns are banned, people will still say that. :rolleyes:

11Z50
04-08-2006, 9:17 PM
Indeed, Blacklisted. Based on my own personal experience, if you have to defend yourself using deadly force, the CCW question is not an issue. The only real question is were you justified in using deadly force. I have seen many cases where a citizen used deadly force, was justified, and that was the end of that. End of story. He gets his gun back and goes on his merry way. As it should be.

swift
04-08-2006, 10:08 PM
Is there a way to get a ccw by paying a fee, for example, a donation to the mayor's re-election fund? I spoke with some people who had good reason to be given a ccw (carrying lots of money, jewels) and were denied, so it seems unlikely I could get one through the normal route. What I'm looking for is a legal way to get a ccw that is valid in the city of San Diego. I can't quit my job to work in a gun store and I'd rather not join the civilian assistants to the police to try to get a ccw.

When I lived in a shall-issue state, this was so easy...

hdcd
04-08-2006, 10:26 PM
First off I don't do this and most likely would not. But I've often wondered about this scenario..

No ccw, you carry a loaded weapon in your suv's center console. You don't drink, no drugs, no traffic tickets in the past 15 years. No tats or rings. You look like an upstanding person who actually has a job.

You get pulled over, officer gives you a ticket for speeding, you don't tell him you have a weapon. You politely answer "no" if they ask to look in your glove box.

What are the laws in CA now as far as probable cause to search your vehicle?

The big gotcha I see is if you were ever involved in some traffic altercation where they had to tow your vehicle or take you off in an ambulance.

jmgray
04-08-2006, 10:51 PM
What about carrying an unloaded gun openly in a belt holster? I've always wondered about that.

That is illegal. If any part of the gun is covered it is considered concealed. If you have a clear holster, and an unloaded gun, well then i dunno know...

I would also be worried about the brandishing charge-
even though you may not be flashing the gun in a threatening manner, it is a default he may choose to use.

grammaton76
04-08-2006, 11:03 PM
That is illegal. If any part of the gun is covered it is considered concealed. If you have a clear holster, and an unloaded gun, well then i dunno know...

I would also be worried about the brandishing charge-
even though you may not be flashing the gun in a threatening manner, it is a default he may choose to use.

Ok - two points here. I do believe that a holster is not considered concealment if it leaves the handle exposed, but I could be wrong.

Other point - I do not believe you can be charged for brandishment if the gun isn't in your hands and hasn't left the holster. The charge they CAN cite you with is, I believe, creating a public disturbance (only needs ONE upset soccer mom to make it valid).

jmgray
04-08-2006, 11:04 PM
I'd like to know what agency you work for officer. If you are pulling citizens (aka *****birds) around by the hair you are not long in the business. Violating civil rights is a serious offense. Assault under the color of authority ring a bell? If you catch a citizen carrying illegally and he or she does not offer any resistance or threat of injury to you, Officer, you best mind your manners and take them into custody in a very nice fashion.

Heavy handed cops don't last long. Pulling *****birds around by the hair will get your Azz fired quick.


The "hair pull takedown" is an approved technique by most depts. If you are carrying an conceled weapon w/o a permit you are breaking the law and putting the cop's life in danger. The fact the you have that weapon on you is the "threat of injury" that may justify use of force.

jmgray
04-08-2006, 11:06 PM
Other point - I do not believe you can be charged for brandishment if the gun isn't in your hands and hasn't left the holster. The charge they CAN cite you with is, I believe, creating a public disturbance (only needs ONE upset soccer mom to make it valid).

I agree brandishing would be a BS charge, but it would be the likey one used if the cop wanted to arrest.

11Z50
04-08-2006, 11:28 PM
The "hair pull takedown" is an approved technique by most depts. If you are carrying an conceled weapon w/o a permit you are breaking the law and putting the cop's life in danger. The fact the you have that weapon on you is the "threat of injury" that may justify use of force.


Okay, boy-o. Do that at your own risk. If you have a MISDEMEANOR crime going down WITH NO RESISTANCE and you use excessive force, you will loose your all-powerful badge and peace officer status. How in the hell are you putting a cop's life in danger by merely CARRYING a weapon? It's a long way from a threat. If that's the case, all the other cops should be kicking each other's azzes in the squad room! I am sick and tired of hearing about how tough the cops have it. They are duly compensated, and then some.

As for the "hair takedown" and other nonsense, it is all excessive force and you know it. Back in the day I preferred the "kick in the nuts takedown". Go snivel elsewhere about how tough you have it. Cops like you are the reason there are federal courts. Have a nice day.

50 Freak
04-08-2006, 11:30 PM
Originally Posted by hitnrun
Trust me, his life can't be in such a danger that he has to violate the law to protect himself.

That's a pretty dumb statement. You don't know what he does. Maybe he's a taxi driver or a convience store clerk....their jobs are ranked up their with LE's as the US's most dangerous jobs. You don't have to be a LE to "live a life of danger".

What about all the tens of thousand of unarmed citizens that are killed every year in the US. The only thing that they did wrong was be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I actually was caught carrying a loaded pistol. LE's asked me why I was carrying one, told him I usually don't but since the LA riots was going on, I carried a small pistol to protect myself as I worked late in downtown LA. He took the pistol and checked it into the police station. Told me he was claiming he found it unloaded and in the trunk and was just checking it in and if I wanted it, to claim it at the police station.

That's an officer's discrection. And old LE friend explained to me the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Spirit of the law allows more officer discrection as it relies on the individual officers assessment of the situation and give him the choice to choose how he's going to handle it. The Letter of the law take the choice away from the officer completely.

The old timers seem to believe the spirit of the law and the new generation LE's follow the letter of the law.

50 Freak
04-08-2006, 11:38 PM
The "hair pull takedown" is an approved technique by most depts. If you are carrying an conceled weapon w/o a permit you are breaking the law and putting the cop's life in danger. The fact the you have that weapon on you is the "threat of injury" that may justify use of force.

That may work on the crack ho's in the ghetto. But try doing that to Joe Blow business man in an affluent neighborhood and your department is going to buried under a massive lawsuit and you will be out of a freaking job.

And since when is carrying a pistol putting a cop's life in danger. I seem to hear more news stories of cops accidently shooting civilians than civilians accidently shooting cops.

Jon
04-09-2006, 12:39 AM
The old timers seem to believe the spirit of the law and the new generation LE's follow the letter of the law.

You know, you're not the first person that I've heard that from (including LEO's). Interesting. . .

Pappy91W
04-09-2006, 1:05 AM
Dude, WHAT! You can't be serious about this...

It's actually AT LEAST Two Misdemeanors if you carry the weapon LOADED.



To answer your question...If I pulled you or him over and you were found to be carrying illegaly, you will get pulled around by the hair just like any other *****bird I deal with. Trust me, his life can't be in such a danger that he has to violate the law to protect himself. He needs to move if breaking the law is his only remaining option.

And people wonder WHY I don't like cops? SEE ABOVE...

So, tell me, why do YOU carry a gun? What makes YOU so special that YOU are privy to saving your own "BACON" (Pun with mal intent fully intended) and "Joe Citizen" isn't?

I'm going to be a semi goodboy here and NOT outright violate the rules, but, HitnRun, you can just go lick a toilet bowl... Believe me, I'm being NICE here and NOT for YOUR benefit.

I like how hitnRun calls the citizens he pulls over "*****birds". I sincerely hope some citizen cracks his dome on the street for being a 1st rate twit and I get to see it on the news. JUSTICE!!! I'll laugh my butt off, I promise! I'll celebrate with BEER! Sorry, but loudmouth punks with badges get no respect from me, ever and I don't shed a tear when I hear about one getting his butt kicked by everyday joes. HitnRun is DIRT, I tell you, if he is in fact a real cop. More likely he's a security guard and wants us to THINK he's a cop. And if he IS a cop, He slipped through the cracks in the selection process as the shrink missed discovering then he probably got his butt kicked on a weekly basis as a kid and got tired of getting punked, put on a badge and gun to get even with society for emasculating him. Either way, he'll NEVER be one of the cool kids, he'll always be what he is, bankrupt of masculinity without tin..

Sorry Mods, there was NO WAY I was going to let this guy slide. If I deserve a spankin' for speaking my mind, I'll understand, but I'll have had the chance to go down having had something to say about a first class jerk. NOW, down to the thread, hijack over.

Carrying without CCW permit, like life, entails risk. Those that don't, have their own valid reasons for not doing so, especially with "Johnny Law" like the pairless wonder above, having the opinion of an armed citizenry that currently have, now, there are a FEW (The last of the GOOD COPS) cops that are ALL for the public at large being armed, but, rest assured, this is FEW. Remember, this is California, NOT Arizona where they have pretty much ALWAYS been armed with a firearm in some manner, be it exposed or concealed. Cops here fall to pieces at the notion of ANYONE other than aanother cop having a gun. So, there is THAT factor, IMHO, the only feasible reason to NOT carry without a CCW license, and even then, they act nuts about civvies having CCWs. Remember, this state has NO sense of it's-self

Now, carrying W/O a CCW permit because you feel the need to protect yourself, I CANT argue with that. Flip on the news, watch the news on TV, there are MANY real bad people out there and don't give two turds about easing up on you if you submit to them or beg for your life, the fact that they are trying to rob, rape, stab, tonk says that they already don't care about your life, your person, whatever and you take your chances with a low survivability rate in depending on "their good nature" to NOT kill you. California, packed with ANTI-GUNNERS are ANTI-SELF DEFENSE, and THIS makes them FOOD for crooks, and... CROOKS here KNOW that, thus why the potential danger is very real. Crooks don't attack at dawn, they keep NO schedule, they honor NO "time out", and there is NO safe place, they come into your home, in the day time, or at night, bend you to their will which often leads to your death, they rush you in your car as you open the door in a grocery store parking lot, they run up to your car door while you're stopped at a light, they grab you while you go to work, go home from work, they wait for you everywhere, they don't wear signs that say "CROOK" so you know to look out for them, hence, the complete unpredictability of violent crime or to whom it will happen, when it will happen or where it will happen. The fact is that the police CANT protect you, they are a purely AFTER THE FACT organization. They can't effect an arrest on a crook until he does something against the law, and that is a BIG IF that they even catch 'em.

Get caught by a crook in a violent crime without a gun, the risk is death.

Get caught carrying a gun, and it is very probable some punk with a badge will hook you up which in all probability will cost you time, money and jail.

Get caught in a violent crime with a gun, you have a higher chance of living through it, pretty good odds really, not a guarantee, but, your will to survive dictates MUCH of that, not all, but much. In the end, a cop MAY or MAY NOT, hook you up, but, it's a legal gamble. It can be argued that "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6".

To the reader, it's YOUR choice. Both prospects SUCK in California, one sucks alot less with a fighting chance of seeing tomorrow, even if it IS in a jail cell. Just remember that JAIL SUCKS too. There is risk either way. I do think that if (As if) California adoped Arizona's gun laws, in th first 6 months, shooting deaths would go WAY UP, with the HUGE majority of the dead being crooks and all the sudden, our prisons and jail wouldn't suffer from over crowding. we'd watch robbery and rape go down significantly. Kinda hard to rape a chick when she's jamming a hollow point into your skull.

For those carrying "less than leathal" such as OC, your depending on a spray can full of a condiment that in other uses, makes a taco or burrito even tastier. I guess you'll be praying that your attacker doesn't like spicy food.

blacklisted
04-09-2006, 1:14 AM
Pappy91W, I agree with you, but your post will probably be edited away soon.


Also, IBTL!

Pappy91W
04-09-2006, 1:31 AM
Pappy91W, I agree with you, but your post will probably be edited away soon.


Also, IBTL!


Well, I'll understand if the staff does, they gotta keep peace around here, however, they had to know that guys post would solicit harsh responses, I'm thinkin' they may have edited/deleted HIS post before the rest of us had seen it, then, well, things wouldn't have gone down the hill from there.

MrEd
04-09-2006, 4:32 AM
pulling hair of the sh**bird is an aproved policy ?
If the person is resisting arrest maybe but this is not the case , he is only carrying and in no way posing a threat . The second you pull his hair you have used Excessive Force . Can you see the headlines ? Police Officer Assaults citizen , you my friend are a lawsuit waiting to happen , if you like your job as a police officer then I would advise you to ratchet down the violence . The badge is not a licence to do things how you want , go beyond necessary force and you betray all those carrying abadge and all those that have carried a badge . Remember , you SERVE and protect .

10K2HVN
04-09-2006, 5:21 AM
Remember , you SERVE and protect .
Not to be nitpicky or try to back anyone up, because Im feelin the same way Pappy91W does; but its "Protect and Serve" - and I dont think its the kinda "serve" as in 'serving the peoples/citizens needs,' but closer to 'serving the law' or 'serving the law to the people/citizens,' or even "you got served," in a legal sense (not the movie)...

Jedi
04-09-2006, 8:24 AM
Ok, it's been a while since I went through the POST academy... close to 12 years now. Since my career path took me a different direction, I have not kept up with all the new training and techniques. So take my commentary with as much value as you like. Disclaimer over.

I can't seem to remember, in ACT or felony stop training EVERY being taught that it was necessary to yank a "*****bag" out of a car by their hair. In fact, I would say that this would be counter-productive, as you are going hands on with someone that you KNOW is armed. If the person does mean you harm at that point, you launch into a hands-on fight for your life. Conversly, if you draw your weapon, verbally command the subject (not *****bag) to exit the vehicle and perform a felony prone, you would have the advantage at every moment... you are further in your OODA loop than they are and you are in control of the situation. Of course the need for a felony prone is not really necessary if the subject is cooperative and does not appear to pose a threat. Immediately grabbing them, by their hair or shirt or what ever, is an unnecessary escalation of force and would, I'm sure, result in an IA investigation at the very least.

If it is your the SOP in your department to grab "*****bags" by their hair and drag them out of the vehicle, then all I can say is "good luck with that one". Just remember that CA has a higher standard for peace officers than most states and that the officers should expect to be held to that standard, department policy or not.

Now, on to the question of carrying a concealed firearm without a license. I suggest that your friend make MANY police reports about incidents with the would be stalker. Even better would be one that includes a specific threat of injury or death. Once the paper trail is in place, get to a court and find a judge who will sign a restraining order. That in place, your friend can legally carry, under PC 12025.5, when they believe they may be in danger.

Other than that, it comes down to weighing the sides of the issue. While I would never advocate that someone should break the law, each person can decide if the potential for loss of life out weighs the potential loss of lively hood associated with a criminal charge.

Up to you...

CWatson
04-09-2006, 9:04 AM
Dude, WHAT! You can't be serious about this...

It's actually AT LEAST Two Misdemeanors if you carry the weapon LOADED.



To answer your question...If I pulled you or him over and you were found to be carrying illegaly, you will get pulled around by the hair just like any other *****bird I deal with. Trust me, his life can't be in such a danger that he has to violate the law to protect himself. He needs to move if breaking the law is his only remaining option.

First I doubt you are a real LEO, you sound more like a rent a cop at a mall. If somehow you did get through the academy you will not be on the job long. I know few "*****birds" who would let you do that,good thing there are dash cams.

Back to are regular scheduled question,

My sister in law was stopped by the LAPD right after the LA riots and she was carrying. Her gun was seized and she never got it back, she was not charged with anything.

A customer of mine is a Marine who got back from Iraq about six months ago. He was by his own admission driving like a fool and was pulled over by the CHP. He had a Beretta in the counsol and informed the officer. He was arrest and had to be bailed out the next A.M. He has had to retain a lawyer and has spent 5k already. The lawyer thinks the case will be dropped but I doubt it.

CWatson

jmgray
04-09-2006, 9:28 AM
I did not mean to say that pulling a person out of the car by the hair was SOP.
If you read Hitnruns comment again, he did not say pull 'em out of the car by the hair.

My comment was there are times when pulling someone down to the ground for
compliance is legit, and if it is done by the hair - that by its self is not considered abuse.

11Z50 seemed incredulous that a situation might get rough if one was caught packing w/o CCW.

Fine, but you do realize even if you find a cool headed cop that treats you real nice on a misdemeanor arrest, you may be going to jail for a couple of months?

Da_shotcaller
04-09-2006, 10:37 AM
(Note to mods: If this whole topic is verbotten on this board, please accept my apology, and close / delete this thread.)

Some of us are lucky enough to have a sheriff who issues permits "for the cause of self defense". Some of us are not so lucky. I have a friend who, alas, lives in a major urban area of California and knows that he can't possibly get a permit under the current sheriff, so he has not even bothered to apply.

I advised him that it's only a misdemeanor to carry without a permit. He's someone who drives cautiously, has a clean record, rarely gets pulled over, never has any other law enforcement contact, looks and is conservative and law-abiding, etc. So his chance of getting found out seems very small.

What are the real experiences of people who have carried without a permit? Does it ever get found out? How do cops react? How do one handle being in a routine traffic stop if one is carrying without a permit? Inform the officer, "Officer, I'm sorry to admit that I'm packing without a permit, I will not move until you instruct me", or just keep quiet about it?

Because it's a misdemeanor (AFAIK) they have broad discretion of what they do: they can let it go, they can confiscate the gun and let the issue drop, or they could haul the guy in, charge him, and perhaps convict him of a misdemeanor. What's the reality here?

First of all what would be his reason fro wanting to carry a concealed weapon? If he never applied for one the best advise you can give him is to apply. If he don't get approved then that's it end of story.

As far as it's only a misdeamenor. Well do you really want him to take that chances. We are talking about a misdemeanor involving a gun so 99.9% of the time your friend will end up in jail. If the DA wants to drop the charges that's fine but he will still end up spending time in jail before the DA can drop that charges.

There is also few other scenario that can happen.

1. Your friend got pulled over for some reason. The officer asked him if he got a weapon.
a. Your friend lied of course and the officer believes him and let him go end of story.
b. Your friend lied and the officer sense he is lying and ask him to step out of the vehicle and found the gun concealed. Guess what he's going to jail.
c. Your friend lied and the officer sense he is lying and ask him to step out of the vehicle and during the cursory search found a weapon hiden in your friends waistband. Chances are your friend will be on the ground so fast that he won't even know what happened. Of course the officer will be using a Department approved takedown.
d. It gets worst. Your friend lied and the officer sense he is lying and ask him to step out of the vehicle. Your friend stepped out of the vehicle and suddenly panic. Your friend suddenly ended up having a Sudden Brain Fart Syndrome and decided to pull the gun from his waistband with the intention of giving it to the officer. But since he was under the SBF syndrome he forgot to let the officer know his real intention before he tried to pull the gun.
Officer saw the motion and the gun and then BANG. Oh don't worry your friend lives and ended up in jail. Wait a minute is that still a misdemeanor or is it a felony now.:eek:

2. Your friend got pulled over. The officer asked if he got a weapon and your friend said yes.
a. Veteran Cop: Do you have a CCW permit for that weapon?
Friend: No i don't. Conclusion he was asked to step off the vehicle and was arrested.
b. Rookie Cop (still on his FTO) let say only few weeks on the streets. Heard the word "GUN" adrenaline start kicking in decided to draw his duty weapon and started to put your friend on a felony car stop procedure. This actually happened to one of my coworker a few years ago. He actually ended up prone on the ground after he told them that he's a carrying his sidearm with him.

Bottom line is this. There's too much risk involve in carrying a concealed weapon without permit. If you're a true friend than i would tell your friend to consider other options of self defense if he can get a permit to carry a firearm.

linuxgunner
04-09-2006, 11:33 AM
Well there are a few simple, universal rules for dealing with police officers:


Never evade a stop; pull over as soon as possible
Never physically resist
Never lie. You can choose to not answer a question, but don't lie.
Never threaten, or make any sudden motion which could be threatening.
Never consent to a search; always respond clearly, "no, I do not consent to a search."
If you get arrested, keep your mouth shut, and ask to speak to a lawyer. Have a lawyer pre-selected.


All of the above apply while carrying illegally.

One thing I have noticed in this thread: a few police officers, notably HitNRun, have talked about how aggressive, even violent they would be in that situation. That's great, but if I, a non-violent, non-resisting, complying person got roughed up to that extent, I certainly have lawyer friends who would go to town with that. That sure wouldn't help the officer in getting a conviction. I would apply my six rules above at all times.

One other thing I have noticed is a lack of any stories about dispositions or outcomes of packing w/o a CCW that were felonies or otherwise bad outcomes. I rephrase my question: Does anyone here know anyone who carried without a permit, and was otherwise law-abiding, and ended up in real trouble for it? Do any LEOs here know of any cases where they found an otherwise law-abiding person packing without a permit, and that person had a serious outcome in the end? "Serious outcome" means felony conviction, jail time, etc.

Pappy91W
04-09-2006, 12:35 PM
First of all what would be his reason fro wanting to carry a concealed weapon? If he never applied for one the best advise you can give him is to apply. If he don't get approved then that's it end of story.

As far as it's only a misdeamenor. Well do you really want him to take that chances. We are talking about a misdemeanor involving a gun so 99.9% of the time your friend will end up in jail. If the DA wants to drop the charges that's fine but he will still end up spending time in jail before the DA can drop that charges.

There is also few other scenario that can happen.

1. Your friend got pulled over for some reason. The officer asked him if he got a weapon.
a. Your friend lied of course and the officer believes him and let him go end of story.
b. Your friend lied and the officer sense he is lying and ask him to step out of the vehicle and found the gun concealed. Guess what he's going to jail.
c. Your friend lied and the officer sense he is lying and ask him to step out of the vehicle and during the cursory search found a weapon hiden in your friends waistband. Chances are your friend will be on the ground so fast that he won't even know what happened. Of course the officer will be using a Department approved takedown.
d. It gets worst. Your friend lied and the officer sense he is lying and ask him to step out of the vehicle. Your friend stepped out of the vehicle and suddenly panic. Your friend suddenly ended up having a Sudden Brain Fart Syndrome and decided to pull the gun from his waistband with the intention of giving it to the officer. But since he was under the SBF syndrome he forgot to let the officer know his real intention before he tried to pull the gun.
Officer saw the motion and the gun and then BANG. Oh don't worry your friend lives and ended up in jail. Wait a minute is that still a misdemeanor or is it a felony now.:eek:

2. Your friend got pulled over. The officer asked if he got a weapon and your friend said yes.
a. Veteran Cop: Do you have a CCW permit for that weapon?
Friend: No i don't. Conclusion he was asked to step off the vehicle and was arrested.
b. Rookie Cop (still on his FTO) let say only few weeks on the streets. Heard the word "GUN" adrenaline start kicking in decided to draw his duty weapon and started to put your friend on a felony car stop procedure. This actually happened to one of my coworker a few years ago. He actually ended up prone on the ground after he told them that he's a carrying his sidearm with him.

Bottom line is this. There's too much risk involve in carrying a concealed weapon without permit. If you're a true friend than i would tell your friend to consider other options of self defense if he can get a permit to carry a firearm.


Hmm.... FOOD...

Crazed_SS
04-09-2006, 1:25 PM
The problem is not CARRYING, it's USING. You can carry it all you want and probably no one will know about it. But, what happens when you have to USE it in your "self-defense"? How do you explain how you happen to have a loaded firearm on your person? Just more food for thought.

As a former Police Officer in San Diego County, I agree that most Law Enforcement Officers agree with armed self-defense for citizens, but they have a job to do and the law to uphold and they don't have much leeway.

Just food for thought...

Check out this story.. happened in San Diego awhile back..
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060201-9999-7m1salcido.html

The shooting death of 37-year-old Steve Salcido after a confrontation in November over a cigarette in the Gaslamp Quarter has been ruled justifiable homicide, San Diego police said yesterday.

The man arrested in connection with the case will be prosecuted on a charge of carrying a concealed gun without a permit, homicide Lt. Kevin Rooney said.


So the guy defends his life, but he'll probably lose his gun rights now.. CA is looney tunes!

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 1:52 PM
The old timers seem to believe the spirit of the law and the new generation LE's follow the letter of the law.
Oh BS.

Penal Code 4. One of the first things they teach you.

Now, having said that, I have arrested people for carrying without a CCW (nice, normal people), and I would do it again.

There are something that just don't leave much wiggle room.

This is one.

blacklisted
04-09-2006, 2:08 PM
Would you confiscate guns if given the order (if, for example: a new law passes, banning all handguns)?

Oh BS.

Penal Code 4. One of the first things they teach you.

Now, having said that, I have arrested people for carrying without a CCW (nice, normal people), and I would do it again.

There are something that just don't leave much wiggle room.

This is one.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 2:10 PM
Would you confiscate guns if given the order (if, for example: a new law passes, banning all handguns)?
Yup.

Can you tell me why I shouldn't?

blacklisted
04-09-2006, 2:13 PM
Yup.

Can you tell me why I shouldn't?

Thanks for being honest.

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office, and that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God."

I understand that the law is the law, but there is a limit, and that limit is the constitution.

You may disagree, but you will be on the wrong side when the time comes.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-09-2006, 2:14 PM
What do you guys think of the CA CHP Officers that confiscated guns in louisianna after Katrina?

I was ashamed.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 2:19 PM
Thanks for being honest.

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office, and that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God."

I understand that the law is the law, but there is a limit, and that limit is the constitution.
And I understand that.

But you and I both know:

a) The second amendment has been proven time after time after time to not grant complete, unfettered gun ownership.

b) By the time it gets to the cops, it will have already seen SCOTUS, and they will have made the decision.

There isn't a court in the country that would not issue a temporary injunction on the seizures until the case made it through the courts. They err on the side of where the greater constitutional damage would be should the new law fail.

So when I say yes, I would, I know that by the time the order came down, I would be upholding the constitution.

blacklisted
04-09-2006, 2:21 PM
I'm not talking about something federal, I'm talking about state issues (or local, such as San Fransisco's handgun ban). I should have clarified that.

And I understand that.

But you and I both know:

a) The second amendment has been proven time after time after time to not grant complete, unfettered gun ownership.

b) By the time it gets to the cops, it will have already seen SCOTUS, and they will have made the decision.

There isn't a court in the country that would not issue a temporary injunction on the seizures until the case made it through the courts. They err on the side of where the greater constitutional damage would be should the new law fail.

So when I say yes, I would, I know that by the time the order came down, I would be upholding the constitution.

50BMGBOB
04-09-2006, 2:32 PM
Sense I was off line most of last night, I calrify what I said. If you carry with no CCW and you also have a pocket knife. Then you don't qualify for the misdermeanor. I don't have the refferance in front of me but I will look it up and post it latter tonite. Also like was said earlier. the weapon must be registered to you. While, depending on your age is it legal to own handguns that weren't required to be registered to you. If you carry it, then you could be charged with a felony instead of a misdermeanor.

self edited: After looking up the referance I can not find the law to back up my statement. Please disreguard.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 2:42 PM
I'm not talking about something federal, I'm talking about state issues (or local, such as San Fransisco's handgun ban). I should have clarified that.
I knew what you meant.

But look at the ban as it sits now.

No one will enforce it until it makes it's rounds through the courts. They are, as of now, erring on the side of the citizens rights.

blacklisted
04-09-2006, 2:48 PM
I knew what you meant.

But look at the ban as it sits now.

No one will enforce it until it makes it's rounds through the courts. They are, as of now, erring on the side of the citizens rights.

Thankfully.

However, if there were no gun rights organization, I suspect that there would have been little or no opposition.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 2:52 PM
Thankfully.

However, if there were no gun rights organization, I suspect that there would have been little or no opposition.
All in all, I see things working as they're suppose to.

You say it's a good thing we have gun rights groups, and I agree. Power, even if it's power of the people shouldn't be left unchecked.

But then again, this is why we need the ACLU also. ;)

linuxgunner
04-09-2006, 3:43 PM
Check out this story.. happened in San Diego awhile back..
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060201-9999-7m1salcido.html

The man arrested in connection with the case will be prosecuted on a charge of carrying a concealed gun without a permit, homicide Lt. Kevin Rooney said.

So the guy defends his life, but he'll probably lose his gun rights now.. CA is looney tunes!

That's not clear at all from the article. No one on this thread has pointed me to a felony that's associated with carrying concealed without a permit (and no other circumstances, like being a gang member, etc). I know other states have felonies for that, but not in CA AFAIK. And so this guy could well be charged with a misdemeanor and if he has bad legal help he might even go to the county jail for a few months, but a misdemeanor won't disable him of his firearms rights, and even if it did, at least he's still alive, which he might not be if he hadn't had a gun.

Also reading this story made me wonder what else is left out. That's not typical to have a knife/gun fight start like that in an area like the lamplighter district.

SC_00_05
04-09-2006, 3:52 PM
Oh BS.

Penal Code 4. One of the first things they teach you.

Now, having said that, I have arrested people for carrying without a CCW (nice, normal people), and I would do it again.

There are something that just don't leave much wiggle room.

This is one.
Thank you very much officer for so diligently protecting us from "nice, normal people" instead of arresting actual criminals. It also warms my heart that you'd be willing, even gleeful from the sound of it, to confiscate guns if they are banned. Pathetic.

ligamentum flavum
04-09-2006, 4:13 PM
Yup.

Can you tell me why I shouldn't?

Perhaps you can start right now with the felons who are in possession of firearms as we speak.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 4:22 PM
Thank you very much officer for so diligently protecting us from "nice, normal people" instead of arresting actual criminals. It also warms my heart that you'd be willing, even gleeful from the sound of it, to confiscate guns if they are banned. Pathetic.
Nice.

You know what I don't get?

You guys sit here and talk, day after day after day about how there shouldn't be laws that penalize the law abiding citizen as far as their gun ownership goes. Law abiding citizens aren't the problem, it's the criminals.

Well I have news for you. Someone who carries a gun without a permit is a criminal. They have the mindset that the laws shouldn't apply to them, and that makes them dangerous.

We have laws because of irresponsible people, and these idiots who carry without a license are only making things worse.

Be pissed at the law breakers for you losing your rights.

*gets off the soapbox*

BTW, it's "former" officer to you. Injured and retired.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 4:23 PM
Perhaps you can start right now with the felons who are in possession of firearms as we speak.
G Gordon Liddy has his wife by his guns, and she chooses to keep them on his side of the bed.

Is he who you mean? ;)

Pappy91W
04-09-2006, 4:53 PM
Yup.

Can you tell me why I shouldn't?

Again, yet another reason I don't like cops.

I could give you TONS of reasons on WHY NOT, but I doubt you'd get it.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 4:56 PM
Again, yet another reason I don't like cops.

I could give you TONS of reasons on WHY NOT, but I doubt you'd get it.
lol

I'm sure cops lose a lot of sleep over you not liking them.

So go ahead. Tell me why, if SCOTUS says to go ahead and do it, why local cops shouldn't?

Describe your reasoning for anarchy.

linuxgunner
04-09-2006, 4:56 PM
You guys sit here and talk, day after day after day about how there shouldn't be laws that penalize the law abiding citizen as far as their gun ownership goes. Law abiding citizens aren't the problem, it's the criminals.

Well I have news for you. Someone who carries a gun without a permit is a criminal. They have the mindset that the laws shouldn't apply to them, and that makes them dangerous.

We have laws because of irresponsible people, and these idiots who carry without a license are only making things worse.

Be pissed at the law breakers for you losing your rights.


You seem to be saying that we earn our rights by complying with unjust laws. Is that correct?

Anyway, I have seen some of the LEOs on this thread talk a lot about arresting people who pack without a permit. I can't argue with that; that's how the law works. Officers have discretion, which means they can decide to arrest or not, depending on anything really. My question still stands: What are the dispositions of these arrests? My guess is that most of them result in no charges, at least in cases where the law-breaker had no other problems (clean record, no drugs found, etc) and he had a lawyer and otherwise did things intelligently. Can you provide any information on that? Can you remember a case of a nice normal person, packing without a permit, gets arrested, has no other problems (not a gang member, no drugs, etc), acts correctly during the arrest (no resistance, keeps his mouth shut), gets a lawyer, and then ends up with some serious legal consequences?

I know that if I step over into Nevada and I pack without a permit I'm in real felony trouble. But tell me about California, real world dispositions.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 5:02 PM
You seem to be saying that we earn our rights by complying with unjust laws. Is that correct?
Just and unjust is an issue for the courts and the voters. You have the ability to change any law there is, and the constitution if you want.

Choosing the easy way out and ignoring the law is just lazy.

Anyway, I have seen some of the LEOs on this thread talk a lot about arresting people who pack without a permit. I can't argue with that; that's how the law works. Officers have discretion, which means they can decide to arrest or not, depending on anything really.

Not quite true.

Say I stop at a car in a parking lot, and there is a drunk guy inside sleeping it off. I just let it go, and the guy wakes up 15 minutes later, "feels" okay, and proceeds to kill someone in his drunken haze.

I'm in deep doo doo.

Same goes for concealed carry. I let it go, and the guy robs a store.

Do you have any idea how many "normal" people commit crimes?

You seem normal to you. To me, I have no clue.

Nak
04-09-2006, 5:04 PM
a) The second amendment has been proven time after time after time to not grant complete, unfettered gun ownership.


I'm not going to question your service, however, you have got to be kidding me man.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Do I need to go ahead and explain what infiringe means?

Nak
04-09-2006, 5:06 PM
Just and unjust is an issue for the courts and the voters. You have the ability to change any law there is, and the constitution if you want.

Choosing the easy way out and ignoring the law is just lazy.



Not quite true.

Say I stop at a car in a parking lot, and there is a drunk guy inside sleeping it off. I just let it go, and the guy wakes up 15 minutes later, "feels" okay, and proceeds to kill someone in his drunken haze.

I'm in deep doo doo.

Same goes for concealed carry. I let it go, and the guy robs a store.

Do you have any idea how many "normal" people commit crimes?

You seem normal to you. To me, I have no clue.


Agreed on that point, how do you know if that person who is packing without a permit isn't off to go rob a bank? Even if Grandma Jones is packing heat, you don't know if she's not going to turn around and shoot you when you walk back to your patrol car.

Not only that, everything is on tape now, you will hear everything on the mics as well.

I wouldn't want to have to answer to the COC if the **** hits the fan.

rkt88edmo
04-09-2006, 5:07 PM
How I found Freedom in an Un-Free World by Harry Browne

11Z50
04-09-2006, 5:11 PM
In some areas, carrying without a CCW is simply reality. If you feel you must, do it smart. If you get pulled over for a traffic violation, I wouldn't tell the cop squat about having a weapon in the vehicle. Really, it's none of his business. If you feel the need, and are feeling stupid, you can tell the cop you have a gun, and he will almost certainly arrest you.

I am not gving advice here, but I do know several people, due to an abyssmal CCW policy where they live, who carry in a briefcase, handbag, or other innocuous container. Really, as long as the piece is in a container, not in view, and out of arm's reach the cop will be hard pressed to get PC to search your car on a routine stop. If he asked you if you are armed, I wouldn't admit to anything. Prisons are full of people who cooperated with LE.

If you choose to pack without a CCW, do it smart. Don't pack on your person, don't wear a holster. If you don't have a piece on your person, you are not armed and there is no threat to the cops. If you have a gun in the car and it's not readily accessable, and hidden away, unless youv'e done something stupid to draw the attention of the cops, they have no reason to search your vehicle.

As for the yanking the *****bird out by the hair comment, that is completely uncalled for. Truly the remarks of a rookie.

linuxgunner
04-09-2006, 5:11 PM
Not quite true.

Say I stop at a car in a parking lot, and there is a drunk guy inside sleeping it off. I just let it go, and the guy wakes up 15 minutes later, "feels" okay, and proceeds to kill someone in his drunken haze.

I'm in deep doo doo.

Same goes for concealed carry. I let it go, and the guy robs a store.

Do you have any idea how many "normal" people commit crimes?

You seem normal to you. To me, I have no clue.

As I said, you have discretion. I have known people who seem perfectly normal, even after an hour conversation, and yet who are absolute psychos who should never see the outside of a cage. I'm not at all arguing that you shouldn't arrest someone packing without a permit. It's up to you, and as you said, you could get in a lot of trouble if you let it go, but you won't get in trouble if you make the arrest. No arguments there. If I were in your position I would probably do the same thing.

My concern is more with what happens AFTER the arrest. The arrest is unpleasant and a hassle, but it has no long-term consequences by itself. I'm interested in what the long-term effects are, if any. Those are decided first by a prosecutor, who looks at the file and says to himself, "is this worth my time?" That's what I'm curious about.

Hey I started this thread, and here I'll come out and say it: I agree with LEOs who arrest people for packing with a permit. It's reasonable for them to make an arrest and then let the prosecutor, courts, etc sort it out. John Hinkley Jr had a clean record (arrested, but no convictions). If an officer had stopped him, and arrested him for packing w/o a permit, it could have saved some life-threatening injuries. I'm not arguing with your discretion, or saying it's wrong to make those arrests. Anyway, what was that person doing that got him into contact with law enforcement? What was he doing that got himself searched?

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 5:14 PM
I'm not going to question your service, however, you have got to be kidding me man.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Do I need to go ahead and explain what infiringe means?
And yet. . .it is.

Note ALL of the AW conversations on this board.

You cannot own anything you want. I personally wish you could, but you can't.

If we could, I'd have an FAL today.

SC_00_05
04-09-2006, 5:15 PM
Nice.

You know what I don't get?

You guys sit here and talk, day after day after day about how there shouldn't be laws that penalize the law abiding citizen as far as their gun ownership goes. Law abiding citizens aren't the problem, it's the criminals.

Well I have news for you. Someone who carries a gun without a permit is a criminal. They have the mindset that the laws shouldn't apply to them, and that makes them dangerous.

We have laws because of irresponsible people, and these idiots who carry without a license are only making things worse.

Be pissed at the law breakers for you losing your rights.

*gets off the soapbox*

BTW, it's "former" officer to you. Injured and retired.
Sorry but that's pretty laughable. How exactly are people who carry without a license "making things worse", whatever that means. I suppose in states like Vermont and Alaska where a permit is not needed, crime is rampant with all those idiots running around armed. I assume you also believe the citizens who don't turn in their handguns in SF are also criminals. The average tax payer has much more to fear from cops that think like you do than a responsibly armed citizen that you call a criminal.

I'm sorry to hear that you were injured but I am grateful that you will not be confiscating any legally acquired firearms in any official capacity in the future.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 5:20 PM
Sorry but that's pretty laughable. How exactly are people who carry without a license "making things worse", whatever that means. I suppose in states like Vermont and Alaska where a permit is not needed, crime is rampant with all those idiots running around armed. I assume you also believe the citizens who don't turn in their handguns in SF are also criminals. The average tax payer has much more to fear from cops that think like you do than a responsibly armed citizen that you call a criminal.

I'm sorry to hear that you were injured but I am grateful that you will not be confiscating any legally acquired firearms in any official capacity in the future.
*sigh*

In a state where a permit is not required, then people aren't choosing to be a criminal, are they?

Here it is again:

When people chose to violate the law and carry without a permit, they have made a choice that says laws don't necessarily mater to them if they have a good enough reason, in their mind, to break them.

This makes them dangerous.

Don't like the laws? You live in a great country. Go change them.

11Z50
04-09-2006, 5:31 PM
*sigh x2*
Officers are not exempt from the law either. Those who choose to "yank *****birds by the hair" can find themselves in a very special place in the prison system. How about the freak cop that shot the seviceman in San Bernadino? He was a real piece of work. Probably the same academy my pal hit-n-run went to. Daddy's a Police Cheif too! There are lying, cheating, and brutal cops out there that cross the line often. They victimize citizens and ignore the US Constitution. Fortunately, they are the exception to the rule, but they are indeed out there.

As for CPC section 4, the "promotion of justice" includes not arresting someone who technically violates a law but did no harm to anyone. This would certainly include an honest citizen who carries a weapon for self defense in an area where the Sheriff does not issue CCW permits. The Sheriff ought to be in jail for failing to protect his citizens each time one is assaulted and is defenseless.

SC_00_05
04-09-2006, 5:32 PM
*sigh*

In a state where a permit is not required, then people aren't choosing to be a criminal, are they?

Here it is again:

When people chose to violate the law and carry without a permit, they have made a choice that says laws don't necessarily mater to them if they have a good enough reason, in their mind, to break them.

This makes them dangerous.

Don't like the laws? You live in a great country. Go change them.
Yes, I realize that to you, the almighty law must always be followed no matter what. Have you never broken a law in your entire life? Speeding, jaywalking, etc. Because if you have, according to you, you have chosen to become a criminal. Are you aware that oral sex is illegal in some states? There sure are a lot of criminals out there!

By the way, you never answered how people carrying without permits were "making things worse".

linuxgunner
04-09-2006, 5:33 PM
When people chose to violate the law and carry without a permit, they have made a choice that says laws don't necessarily mater to them if they have a good enough reason, in their mind, to break them.

This makes them dangerous.


Major Miner's logic:


This person has chosen to disregard a serious law just because he doesn't agree with it
What will this person do if he doesn't agree with me, as I'm interacting with him, arresting him, etc? Will he decide to go with his own views on this, or will he choose to work within the legal process to come to a resolution?
If he does choose to go with his own views, just like he has with packing without a permit, he's a danger to me and everyone else.


I can't argue with that logic. It's not up to a policeman to determine guilt OR innocence. That's the job of later parts of the system. It is intolerable for a police officer to punish someone, for exmaple by beating him up, because his role is not to determine guilt or punishments. Likewise it is not his role to decide that someone is innocent. That's a job for prosecutors and courts.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 5:34 PM
Yes, I realize that to you, the almighty law must always be followed no matter what. Have you never broken a law in your entire life? Speeding, jaywalking, etc. Because if you have, according to you, you have chosen to become a criminal. Are you aware that oral sex is illegal in some states? There sure are a lot of criminals out there!

By the way, you never answered how people carrying without permits were "making things worse".
Yes. . .I did.

Reading is your friend.

SC_00_05
04-09-2006, 5:37 PM
Major Miner's logic:


This person has chosen to disregard a serious law just because he doesn't agree with it
What will this person do if he doesn't agree with me, as I'm interacting with him, arresting him, etc? Will he decide to go with his own views on this, or will he choose to work within the legal process to come to a resolution?
If he does choose to go with his own views, just like he has with packing without a permit, he's a danger to me and everyone else.


I can't argue with that logic. It's not up to a policeman to determine guilt OR innocence. That's the job of later parts of the system. It is intolerable for a police officer to punish someone, for exmaple by beating him up, because his role is not to determine guilt or punishments. Likewise it is not his role to decide that someone is innocent. That's a job for prosecutors and courts.
I understand what you mean but I stop trying to figure out someone's logic the second they say that they would have no problem coming into your home and taking away your guns if they are told to.

Pappy91W
04-09-2006, 5:40 PM
lol

I'm sure cops lose a lot of sleep over you not liking them.

So go ahead. Tell me why, if SCOTUS says to go ahead and do it, why local cops shouldn't?

Describe your reasoning for anarchy.

Well, I'm glad you find it funny, for that simply aligns yourself right up there with that other toilet fish, earlier in the thread.

Why? for ONE, how about BECAUSE IT'S JUST WRONG. Brainiac.. It's not anarchy, it's your second ammendment right, but an SS trooper such as yourself wouldn't get that. In the mid 40s, there were some other clowns with YOUR frame of mind that tried the excuse "I was just following orders", it didn't work out for them.

SC_00_05
04-09-2006, 5:45 PM
Yes. . .I did.

Reading is your friend.
Umm, nowhere have you explained what exactly these people are "making worse". Also, you neglected to answer if you have ever broken a law in your life? I would hate to find out you're one of those criminals you keep mentioning.

11Z50
04-09-2006, 5:46 PM
I know some retired and ex-cops that think nobody but the cops should be armed. They base their argument on the notion that guns are dangerous, and somebody might get hurt. If someone robs you, just submit and give the money up. Somebody breaks into your house, just cooperate and let him get away. That's what the cops are for...... BS!

Well, chances are the cops will write a report, and that's about it. I have the inherant right to protect myself and my family, and I will use it. I will not just "roll over" and take it. Citizens have the right to self defense, even in the PRK!

Pappy91W
04-09-2006, 5:51 PM
Most of the people on this board are law abiding to a fault, and anyone who doesn't have the guts to stand up against an unjust law is a coward, contributing to the steady erosion of everything that made this country great. I am truly ashamed to see so many pro gun people so scared about losing their precious gun rights they don't even have the courage to exercise them.

P.S. it's ridiculous to see so many people who are afraid to lose their gun rights, how can you lose an inalienable right? Does anyone even know what and "inalienable right" means anymore?

Brother, you said it ALL!!!

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 5:53 PM
I know some retired and ex-cops that think nobody but the cops should be armed. They base their argument on the notion that guns are dangerous, and somebody might get hurt. If someone robs you, just submit and give the money up. Somebody breaks into your house, just cooperate and let him get away. That's what the cops are for...... BS!

Well, chances are the cops will write a report, and that's about it. I have the inherant right to protect myself and my family, and I will use it. I will not just "roll over" and take it. Citizens have the right to self defense, even in the PRK!
I actually think CA should be a "shall issue" state.

Go figure.

Pappy91W
04-09-2006, 5:53 PM
I actually think CA should be a "shall issue" state.

Go figure.

Holy cow! You actually said something I agree with. Ok, I can work with this.

SC_00_05
04-09-2006, 5:54 PM
Most of the people on this board are law abiding to a fault, and anyone who doesn't have the guts to stand up against an unjust law is a coward, contributing to the steady erosion of everything that made this country great. I am truly ashamed to see so many pro gun people so scared about losing their precious gun rights they don't even have the courage to exercise them.

P.S. it's ridiculous to see so many people who are afraid to lose their gun rights, how can you lose an inalienable right? Does anyone even know what and "inalienable right" means anymore?
Very well said. It's pretty sad when people on a gun board, of all places, admonishes someone for daring to exercise his rights.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 5:55 PM
Well, I'm glad you find it funny, for that simply aligns yourself right up there with that other toilet fish, earlier in the thread.

Why? for ONE, how about BECAUSE IT'S JUST WRONG. Brainiac.. It's not anarchy, it's your second ammendment right, but an SS trooper such as yourself wouldn't get that. In the mid 40s, there were some other clowns with YOUR frame of mind that tried the excuse "I was just following orders", it didn't work out for them.
When you calm down and can talk without name calling, we can talk somemore. ;)

Crazed_SS
04-09-2006, 5:57 PM
So when is everyone gonna start unpinning their mags and shooting their off-list lowers at the local range? After all, it's our right.. no?

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 5:57 PM
Okay.

Let me try this one.

Do you think, in this country, you have a current right to own any gun you want to (or for that matter say anything you want to), without question?

blacklisted
04-09-2006, 6:00 PM
So when is everyone gonna start unpinning their mags and shooting their off-list lowers at the local range? After all, it's our right.. no?

Risk vs. Reward...

I'm content with the fact that the mag could be unpinned in a few minutes or less...

For target shooting, pinned mags are only an inconvencience. It's simply not worth it to unpin the magazine and risk charges so you can shoot paper better. For defense, the pinned mag is a nightmare. For a situation where you or your family's life is in danger and you need the guns, the law does not matter. If civil order breaks down, the law does not matter.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 6:00 PM
Yep, it is our right. And that's why I'm already doing it. I haven't pinned any of my mags, and I never will.
lol

Read: All my guns are registered AW's

spitkiss
04-09-2006, 6:01 PM
Don't like the laws? You live in a great country. Go change them.

Do you not live in the same country? Do you like the laws? AFAIK, we're all supposed to be on the same side? or am I missing something? I think you mean to say "The laws suck. WE live in a great country. So LET'S change them."

RIGHT?

Pappy91W
04-09-2006, 6:04 PM
When you calm down and can talk without name calling, we can talk somemore. ;)


Kiss kiss and here's a big bear hug.

blacklisted
04-09-2006, 6:07 PM
The problem is, people won't defy the law unless they have nothing left to lose. That or they don't know what's going on.

To most people, gun owners not following gun laws = crazies, criminals, burn down their house and shoot their dogs.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/gand2.jpg

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 6:08 PM
Bzzzt. Nice try but... Wrong.

BTW, did it ever occur to anyone here that the best way to change a law is to openly defy it? Did anyone here ever learn anything from history class in high school?
Yeah. And these were in places where people didn't have the ability to effect change in their society.

We can.

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 6:09 PM
Kiss kiss and here's a big bear hug.
*hug* ;)

*added space to meet min character length*

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 6:10 PM
The problem is, people won't defy the law unless they have nothing left to lose. That or they don't know what's going on.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/gand2.jpg
Why does anyone in modern day America need to defy the law to change it?

blacklisted
04-09-2006, 6:10 PM
Yeah. And these were in places where people didn't have the ability to effect change in their society.

We can.

I hate to keep this pointless discussion going, but they didn't have the ability to change their society because they were unarmed, or under an oppresive government (not inconceivable, even here).

Major Miner II
04-09-2006, 6:12 PM
I hate to keep this pointless discussion going, but they didn't have the ability to change their society because they were unarmed, or under an oppresive government (not inconceivable, even here).
lol

s'ok. I'm done. I need to go eat dinner and move my gun cabinet.

11Z50
04-09-2006, 6:15 PM
Wooo hooh! That's the old CalGuns I remember...sprited discussions! A pleasant distraction from all the "lower" drama.

Pappy91W
04-09-2006, 6:16 PM
Really? I don't see anything changing for the better, all I see are things getting worse. CA gun laws are worse today than they've ever been. So if you're saying you have the ability to change your society, you're either:

1) not trying/don't care

or

2) wrong

so, which is it?

That's going to leave a mark!!

MrEd
04-09-2006, 6:18 PM
A criminal by definition is someone refusing to follow the law , carrying concealed without a permit puts you in that category . The Cop does not have the luxury to make a distinction at that point . Let's remember that it was YOUR choice to break the law in the first place .
Defying the law openly ? Sure , how many of us are ready to serve time for that defiance ? Now someone explain to me why we in America should choose the path of disobedience when we have so many other tools at our disposal . We can sue , we can Lobby , we can get elected . In our History we find that all those that chose to openly defy the system have spent time in the Correctional System .

As to Major Miner 2 admitting he would seize handguns if said handguns are banned , I understand where he is coming from , for one it is his JOB . Now before someone jumps all over me , I understand it , Inever said I liked it .
Defiance is good if you have a major lottery win and have an army of lawyers behind you , in all rebellions it is the small fishes that get eaten first .

11Z50
04-09-2006, 6:44 PM
[QUOTE=MrEd]
As to Major Miner 2 admitting he would seize handguns if said handguns are banned , I understand where he is coming from , for one it is his JOB .[QUOTE]

There were some blokes in Germany that copped the same plea in Nuremburg in 1945. (just doing my job) They all wound up either facing a firing squad or swinging from a US hemp rope.

If you are involved in an act that you know to be wrong, but do it anyways because someone else told you to, there is no defense. Cops that enforce laws they know to be contrary to the US Constitution violate federal law.

Mr. Ed
04-09-2006, 7:29 PM
I may not be LEO, but I understand where they come from and I support them. I also agree with Major Miner 2. We may not agree with the law, but we should abide by them until the time comes when the law is changed to our liking. I used to work in Washington DC for a senator, and the beautiful thing about our country is that we have the ability to change the laws. So let's do it and stop bashing cops. They truly have a tough job. They enforce the laws we like and the laws we don't. And for all you cop haters on the board, just realize that when something goes wrong...the first people we call are the cops. After you defend yourself, by shooting the would-be robber, the first person you call are the police. if you have a trespasser, and after you shoot him, you call the cops. When a domestic terrorist strikes your city, you call the cops. So let's be supportive of them.

Furthermore, if our 2nd Amendment rights shall not be infringed....then why can't we buy fully auto guns?

linuxgunner
04-09-2006, 7:45 PM
Sometimes massive disobedience of a bad law is the best way to change it. In this particular case (packing w/o a permit) it may be a good way to go, because, as far as I know, it's a misdemeanor, so the consequences are not that big (so long as there are no other factors). If many people started doing it, they would prosecute even fewer of them for what is already a minor offense.

One factor we have working for us is that the country has passed a "tipping point" on CCW. At least 40 states are shall-issue, nearly-shall-issue, or on their way soon. California is one of the last stragglers. If it's normal everywhere else in the country, that fact does normalize it to some extent here, even if it isn't yet legal here.

Another factor is the Internet, and discussion groups like this. Ten years ago people in CA didn't know about other states' experiences or policies on this subject. Now we know and we're asking our sheriffs hard questions about it.

(On the MG issue: The RKBA shall not be infringed and we do have the right to own machineguns, but I really don't need a machinegun, and the consequences of breaking that law are so huge, that it's not worth it for me, so I don't do it. For those who have the courage and/or foolishness to disobey this bad law, I respect what they are doing but I couldn't accept the consequences for myself.)

50BMGBOB
04-09-2006, 8:23 PM
Just a note to let people know that I couldn't find the referance to back up my statement about not carrying a pocket knife and a handgun so I retract that statement and edited my earlier post to disreguard them. Sorry if it caused any confusion.
Bob

MrEd
04-09-2006, 9:49 PM
Comparing a Cop to the likes of Goering is a huge stretch , If it comes down to the cop having to follow his orders to seize the handgun then every single gun owner has failed to do their part . Bans should be challenged way before any enforcement action is taken .
Now to obeying an order that they KNOW is illegal , funny thing with that statement is , the cops can only come and seize your weapon if the Law has been changed and was upheld against all challenges in court . THEN it is the LAW and therefore LEGAL . We should not look to the Police to solve our problems , we have to hold ourselves accountable for them , if we do want laws to be changed then it is up to US the citizen to make it happen by using every LEGAL mean at our disposal . Imagine the power of your money put in a good campaign , imagine the power of your voice put into lobbying .
If you start carrying without a licence you have become part of the problem and give the ANTI's actually more ammo to ban us from owning what we want then you are actually defying the law . And then I would stay away from making comparisons with Germany in the 30's unless you are very well acquainted with that time period .

11Z50
04-09-2006, 9:57 PM
And then I would stay away from making comparisons with Germany in the 30's unless you are very well acquainted with that time period .

Oh, by the way Mr. Eddie, I not only know about the Germany of the 30's, but the 40's as well. It appears that you missed the mark. The Nuremburg trials happened after the end of WW2, circa 1945 and later.

PS: I have had a CCW for over 10 years. I would stay away from making comparisons if you don't have one.

Cheers,
11Z

hitnrun
04-09-2006, 10:00 PM
I'd like to know what agency you work for officer. If you are pulling citizens (aka *****birds) around by the hair you are not long in the business. Violating civil rights is a serious offense. Assault under the color of authority ring a bell? If you catch a citizen carrying illegally and he or she does not offer any resistance or threat of injury to you, Officer, you best mind your manners and take them into custody in a very nice fashion.

Heavy handed cops don't last long. Pulling *****birds around by the hair will get your Azz fired quick.


lol...:rolleyes:

hitnrun
04-09-2006, 10:18 PM
I did not mean to say that pulling a person out of the car by the hair was SOP.
If you read Hitnruns comment again, he did not say pull 'em out of the car by the hair.

My comment was there are times when pulling someone down to the ground for
compliance is legit, and if it is done by the hair - that by its self is not considered abuse.

11Z50 seemed incredulous that a situation might get rough if one was caught packing w/o CCW.

Fine, but you do realize even if you find a cool headed cop that treats you real nice on a misdemeanor arrest, you may be going to jail for a couple of months?


Thanks for understanding.


For everyone that had trouble following along...

LOL! I leave for two days and come back to the most contorted interpretation of my post!! WTF? Some people here are NUTS! There IS a difference between figurative and literal speech...I promise. Apparently, it is more difficult to discern which of the two is which when you are typing on the internet...

TO ALL WHO COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT WITHOUT EXPLANATION:

I can hairpull people all day long if that is what the situation calls for. I don't do it if I don't have to, but try to realize that in my earlier post, I was being figurative. HOWEVER, I can think of several occasions in my 4 years on the street where a SIMPLE MISDEMEANOR (as someone called it) ended up in a more than just a hairpull takedown.

If I contact someone for an infraction (ie. traffic stop) and they politely tell me that they are illegally carrying a firearm in their waistband, I most likely wouldn't hairpull them through the window (though I may want to, right guys?:rolleyes: ) I would just tell them to keep there hands in sight til another unit arrived.

If I contacted someone that was rude and/or irrational and they told me they were illegally packing, then I may be a little bit more demanding of them. I may take physical control at that point.

If I contact someone who is yelling at me and keeps putting his/her hands in a compromising position I may escalate the force so that I remain in control at all times...that is whether or not I see a gun. At this point, I might even get to pull someones hair!! Afterall, that's what keeps me coming to work everyday.

Some people here need to relax...and use more tinfoil! Just because someone wears a suit in an affluent neighborhood, doesn't mean my department is getting burried under a lawsuit when I follow procedure. The same applies for the opposite. I do my job regardless of who it is I am contacting. I may base some of the decisions that are determined by discretion on things like attitude, criminal history, etc. But by no means do clothing or neighborhoods affect my job performance. That was silly and whoever said that obviously watches too much tv.

FCinCA
04-09-2006, 10:25 PM
Get a fishing license, put a fishing rod in your car and tell em your going fishing.

PC 12025 shall does not apply to or affect the lawful transportation or possession of a firearm under specific circumstances, including, but not limited to,...

* Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from such hunting or fishing expeditions.


Got this one from a Fish and Game cop.

;)

11Z50
04-09-2006, 10:27 PM
... my 4 years on the street ...

Oh.....a seasoned veteran eh? Now I'm LOL! I was "on the street" when you were a baby. Lighten up a bit. It might hurt your back when you tote that big ol' badge around. County JBT eh? I would be careful about making such cocky "figurative" statements.

And BTW, only an idiot would tell you he's packing when you stop him for a traffic violation. Even if he had a CCW, sounds like you'd over-react and get physical.

hitnrun
04-09-2006, 10:35 PM
And people wonder WHY I don't like cops? SEE ABOVE...

So, tell me, why do YOU carry a gun? What makes YOU so special that YOU are privy to saving your own "BACON" (Pun with mal intent fully intended) and "Joe Citizen" isn't?

I'm going to be a semi goodboy here and NOT outright violate the rules, but, HitnRun, you can just go lick a toilet bowl... Believe me, I'm being NICE here and NOT for YOUR benefit.

I like how hitnRun calls the citizens he pulls over "*****birds". I sincerely hope some citizen cracks his dome on the street for being a 1st rate twit and I get to see it on the news. JUSTICE!!! I'll laugh my butt off, I promise! I'll celebrate with BEER! Sorry, but loudmouth punks with badges get no respect from me, ever and I don't shed a tear when I hear about one getting his butt kicked by everyday joes. HitnRun is DIRT, I tell you, if he is in fact a real cop. More likely he's a security guard and wants us to THINK he's a cop. And if he IS a cop, He slipped through the cracks in the selection process as the shrink missed discovering then he probably got his butt kicked on a weekly basis as a kid and got tired of getting punked, put on a badge and gun to get even with society for emasculating him. Either way, he'll NEVER be one of the cool kids, he'll always be what he is, bankrupt of masculinity without tin..

Sorry Mods, there was NO WAY I was going to let this guy slide. If I deserve a spankin' for speaking my mind, I'll understand, but I'll have had the chance to go down having had something to say about a first class jerk. NOW, down to the thread, hijack over.

Jeez, never heard that before.:rolleyes:

I can understand your feelings though, a lot of the people that I have arrested were like minded.

Just remember, that most likely someday, you or someone you know or love will call 911, and one of us toilet licking dirtbags that were picked on in junior high will come to bail your/there butt out. We won't hold a grudge and we won't let your ignorance and bias affect the way that we do our job.

MrEd
04-09-2006, 10:44 PM
The Nuerenberg Trial were held in 1945 for crimes commited between 1933 and 1945 , You have a CCW since ten years ? BIG DEAL . In my lin eof work a CCW is not even a factor , I never got pulled over in the sandbox by anyone to ask for my CCW , chances are he would see the business end of my Sig 551 . And before you go all bent out of shape about the German Regime in those years , how many of your Family Members did the Regime at the time killed ? I lost 14 in Auschwitz and 2 on D - Day , I Visited Auschwitz and due to my upbringing in Europe had extensive History Lessons about that time period . And before you go and ask about the Sig 551 , I own property in a European Country where I keep all my fun guns at .

11Z50
04-09-2006, 10:52 PM
Mr. Ed, I had peeps in WW2 and I've been to the sandbox too. I guess your'e all sour grapes 'cause you 'aint got a CCW....too bad. Better hope you don't get pulled over by Mr. JBT aka hitnrun! He'll pull your hair! Other than that, your point was???

hitnrun
04-09-2006, 10:56 PM
Oh.....a seasoned veteran eh? Now I'm LOL! I was "on the street" when you were a baby. Lighten up a bit. It might hurt your back when you tote that big ol' badge around.

I have an uber big back, yo!

County JBT eh? I would be careful about making such cocky "figurative" statements.

You're right, not everyone is smart enough to figure that out...I should be more square!

And BTW, only an idiot would tell you he's packing when you stop him for a traffic violation.

You never dealt with idiots in all that time way back when?

Even if he had a CCW, sounds like you'd over-react and get physical.

Well, it's a good thing that it only SOUNDS like it then. I guess I would probably lose my job soon if I ever do something so silly and egregious. I guess I should go ahead and clean out my locker now...afterall it SOUNDS like I'm doomed.

MrEd
04-09-2006, 10:58 PM
Living in SF tell me what are the chances I would have a CCW here ? I have one for FL and one in Europe , you think that would show Mister Henessy something ? NOPE . The problem of living in Liberal HQ is the part where you will not get a CCW PERIOD . Thank god I don't stay long enough at any given time to get the SF Virus and become a Liberal .

Hey 11Z , don't you miss all the fun toys you can have in the Sandbox ?

11Z50
04-09-2006, 10:58 PM
remember, that most likely someday, you or someone you know or love will call 911, and one of us toilet licking dirtbags that were picked on in junior high will come to bail your/there butt out. We won't hold a grudge and we won't let your ignorance and bias affect the way that we do our job.

That's if they show up before you have post-mortem lividity.

11Z50
04-09-2006, 11:04 PM
Living in SF tell me what are the chances I would have a CCW here ? I have one for FL and one in Europe , you think that would show Mister Henessy something ? NOPE . The problem of living in Liberal HQ is the part where you will not get a CCW PERIOD . Thank god I don't stay long enough at any given time to get the SF Virus and become a Liberal .

Hey 11Z , don't you miss all the fun toys you can have in the Sandbox ?

Peace, bro! I miss nothing about OIF other than the guys I served with. It was nice to pack my M4, and later an SA-80 around the desert. At one point I even had a personal SAW gunner. (That was nice) The toys were certainly there! Certainly, I feel for you having to live in the Gay Bay. I have business there often, and there are some nice peeps there. (Mechandy and Family and I have shared some great times in Lafayette) This brings up the original question here. What if some poor citizen in SF feels the need to protect himself? He either carries outside the law or is shiz outa luck, I guess.

Jarhead4
04-09-2006, 11:15 PM
The Second Amendment is based on the Natural Law of self-defense. I don’t think anyone will deny a persons right to defend themselves. However, the state has put restrictions on the means that you can defend yourself. In the view of the state the only means that you have to defend yourself in public is to use your fist or pepper spray. (If you talk to guards at the state penitentiary, it doesn’t always work!!!)

Why shouldn’t a person be able to carry a gun, or a knife to defend themselves? As long as they only use it to defend themselves or others from physical harm, who cares if they are caring? What I find odd is that it is a misdemeanor to have a concealed gun, but a felony to have a concealed knife, or a baton. All a baton is a 22-inch long stick. I mean you can have a long flashlight, but you can’t have it to defend yourself. What is wrong with saying, “I have it to defend myself.”

My understanding why knives, batons, and saps are illegal is because that was what union busters used in the 1930’s to break up strikes. It was a bad law then, and it is still a bad law know. And when I say knives, I mean Dirk and Daggers. What is a Dirk or Dagger, it depends on what your intent on using a knife is for. Anything with a sharp point can be considered a Dirk or Dagger.

Another thing, why are Nunchakus illegal, because of Bruce Lee!! They look scary!! Does this sound familiar?

Ok, I’ll get off my soapbox. I just wanted to add my two cents.

Semper Fi!!

grammaton76
04-09-2006, 11:54 PM
My understanding is that the nunchaku bans and such were due to asian gangs becoming an issue in the LA area and such, during the 80s.

Jarhead4
04-10-2006, 12:25 AM
So why should the rest of the state suffer? They should have worked on the problem, Asian Gangs, and not a tool. A Nunchaku, or in English a flail, is a farm tool. It was used to beat your wheat. (Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink!) Since weapons were outlawed, the common people had to use the tools at hand to defend themselves. Sound familiar. So what the ban is really doing is banning ancient farm tools. Tools that were around before our country was. Tools that our founding fathers did have in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Also, I think they were banned in the mid or late 70's.

I know, bad attitude!!!


My understanding is that the nunchaku bans and such were due to asian gangs becoming an issue in the LA area and such, during the 80s.

Da_shotcaller
04-10-2006, 9:13 AM
Wow this is a lenghty post. I see a lot of people in here don't like cops. That's ok i understand. But as someone who work as a LEO I wouldn't encourage someone to break any law. Just like a parent who wouldn't encourage their own kid to do something that is wrong.

A lot of people hate us because we enforce the law. The law that we don't even make. The LAW that majority of the people believe is right and just. We don't enforce this LAW to the law abiding citizen but we enforce this LAW to the people who breaks them.

Some of you would say "Then why don't you go after those criminals." The truth is we do go after them. The sad part it's not as easy as you think. Criminals have the same RIGHTS that you and I are entitled to. Same RIGHTS that we can't violate just because they are criminals. You guys just don't know how frustrating it is to arrest these criminals and see them on the street again after few days. Why are they on the street again? Well because they got the money to pay for their high profile lawyers. Because the DA dropped the charges because they believe they don't have enough to get a conviction. Because they made a plea bargain to get a lesser charges.

Well this is just some of the things that LEO have to deal with. Not to mention getiing cursed by someone because i gave him a traffic ticket. Getting punched, kicked, spat on by some drunk driver or someone who resisted arrest. Rendering first aid to someone who's involved in a major traffic accident. This are just some of the things that LEO deals with on a day to day basis. Even though i know that by the end of the day im still the most hated person by some of you. I'll still go home with a smile knowing i did something right that day. And I'll wake up with a smile in my face knowing that i have to do it again.

For all you guys who hate LEO keep on hating. That's what motivate us for doing our job because we know someday we'll be given an opportunity to save your life and maybe then you'll chage the way you view a LEO. We can't change all of you at the same time but we'll do our best to change you guys one person at a time.

Oh by the way if you guys can spare some of your precious time why don't you check out the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial www.nleomf.com. Just check it out and see how some of this LEO that you hate lived their life.

Da_shotcaller
04-10-2006, 9:39 AM
And people wonder WHY I don't like cops? SEE ABOVE...

So, tell me, why do YOU carry a gun? What makes YOU so special that YOU are privy to saving your own "BACON" (Pun with mal intent fully intended) and "Joe Citizen" isn't?

First of all not all cops are bad. But just like any other profession there are bad apples out there.

Now to answer your question why do cops carry gun? What makes us so special?

Cops are not special at all. If we are special you guys won't hate us right. We carry this guns because we're this huge responsibility in our shoulder. And no it's not to save our own "Bacon" but to save someone elses life. If i just want to save my own "bacon" then I'll just get another high paying job and get a CCW permit. That would be easier atleast I don't have a responsibility to save someone elses life.

Part of this huge responsibility is going inside a building knowing that there is an active shooter inside so we can save some innocent people that's inside the building. We go inside this building with total disregard for our own safety. Things like Columbine HS in Colorado, 101 California in the bay area.
A responsibility like trying to stop a bank robber armed with a fully automatic AW with just a pistol so innocent people won't get hurt.

To make it simple we carry this guns so we can go to places where most people won't go so we can save someone else life.

bwiese
04-10-2006, 9:49 AM
I'm really tired of seeing cops feel like they can "defend" their actions, something they feel the need to do, most likely because even they know their actions are wrong. Just because something is the law, doesn't make it right.... {snip}

I'd rather die than live the rest of my life knowing I owe it to a JBT.

You said it, my brudda....

And unfotunately one way or another you still do 'owe' it - those cushy 90+% retire-at-55 pension plans, COLA-indexed, plus free medical will be reaching into your pocket for the rest of your life. Not only do they help restrain your rights - for profit - but you're taxed til the end of days to do so: it's a compounded grievance.

Recent Prop 75 campaign ads shoulda showcased a bunch of rogue cops and prison guards, outlined their pension benefits & lush retirement medical coverage, and then asked, "How's your 401K doing?" or "How will you pay for your medical care when you retire: why does a state employee have more right to good health than you do?"

Running Prop 75 and 77 (redistricting) together may have been a tactical - nay, strategic - mistake. Each one should've been run in a separate year so max focus, promotion, funding and attention for each could be realized.

When people start thinking about their pockets, they vote right - think of Prop 13 in 1977(78?).

Given demographics, in a decade or so we'll be seeing a majority of retired people with truly fixed income (a chunk of money in tax-deferred account with no guaranteed interest rate or defined payout) paying for an increasing number state employees, esp cops/fire, with guaranteed-to-increase pension obligations. More and more "pothole money" will be shifted to these cushy pensions - combined with the amounts wasted on schools educating the ineducable, the state will sink deeper into the mire.

Da_shotcaller
04-10-2006, 9:50 AM
I'm really tired of seeing cops feel like they can "defend" their actions, something they feel the need to do, most likely because even they know their actions are wrong. Just because something is the law, doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make you right for enforcing it. There are hundreds of examples of cops making the world a terrible place by enforcing unfair, evil laws; slavery, concentration camps, death squads, etc. Time to stop regurgitating the LEO training/brainwashing tapes they made you watch, time to start THINKING..

Can you tell me some of the unfair and evil law that exist in the US now that LEO are enforcing? Last time i checked there's no slavery, concentration camp, death squad that exist here in the US. Maybe you stop living your life in the past and realize that your in a different timezone.

bwiese
04-10-2006, 10:26 AM
Can you tell me some of the unfair and evil law that exist in the US now that LEO are enforcing? Last time i checked there's no slavery, concentration camp, death squad that exist here in the US. Maybe you stop living your life in the past and realize that your in a different timezone.

OK... some obviously easy ones

Gun control. Committing no crime with a gun but having an unauthorized type of gun or transporting it without permit = crime which cops enforce. If the cop were truly progun he'd let any violations by nonviolent/nonfelon folks slide. As it is, he chooses to make a profit (his job) off of gun control. If he were a moral individual, he would resign and take an honest job instead of doing this. [People like DOJ's Iggy, etc. are the penultimate extreme example of this, but there are less-defined shades too.]


Taxation (anything over a nominal amount = fractional slavery). Try not to pay it (income or property tax), and try to continue retain your property. Carried to the ultimate limit, you will be killed.


Eminent domain seizures - try to retain your property or use it after it's been condemned and see who shoots/kills you if you try to retain it or use it for its intended purpose. (Remember Carl Drega, anyone? He disagreed with an Army Corps of Engineers environmental assesment that restricted his land usage, which killed his retirement plans, and at least was brave enough to fight as he had nothing further to lose.)


Drug wars - (NB - I am not a druggie nor do I associate with them.) People possessing chemicals for personal use are jailed and assets forfeited when it's no business of anyone else's. Law enforcement in these areas in fact CREATES the crime they're supposedly trying to prevent, because gov't employees don't understand free-market principles - how could they, as socialist state employees?


Stupidity - 'no-knock' raids on wrong addresses by incompetent cops lead to deaths of perfectly innocent citizens.

blacklisted
04-10-2006, 10:32 AM
Thanks for coming up with that so that I wouldn't have to. :D

OK... some obviously easy ones

Gun control. Committing no crime with a gun but having an unauthorized type of gun or transporting it without permit = crime which cops enforce. If the cop were truly progun he'd let any violations by nonviolent/nonfelon folks slide. As it is, he chooses to make a profit (his job) off of gun control. If he were a moral individual, he would resign and take an honest job instead of doing this. [People like DOJ's Iggy, etc. are the penultimate extreme example of this, but there are less-defined shades too.]


Taxation (anything over a nominal amount = fractional slavery). Try not to pay it (income or property tax), and try to continue retain your property. Carried to the ultimate limit, you will be killed.


Eminent domain seizures - try to retain your property or use it after it's been condemned and see who shoots/kills you if you try to retain it or use it for its intended purpose. (Remember Carl Drega, anyone? He disagreed with an Army Corps of Engineers environmental assesment that restricted his land usage, which killed his retirement plans, and at least was brave enough to fight as he had nothing further to lose.)


Drug wars - (NB - I am not a druggie nor do I associate with them.) People possessing chemicals for personal use are jailed and assets forfeited when it's no business of anyone else's. Law enforcement in these areas in fact CREATES the crime they're supposedly trying to prevent, because gov't employees don't understand free-market principles - how could they, as socialist state employees?


Stupidity - 'no-knock' raids on wrong addresses by incompetent cops lead to deaths of perfectly innocent citizens.

linuxgunner
04-10-2006, 10:48 AM
But as someone who work as a LEO I wouldn't encourage someone to break any law. Just like a parent who wouldn't encourage their own kid to do something that is wrong.

That's the whole attitude problem right there. Cops aren't my parents (neither of my parents are in law enforcement). Parents are people who love us and (when we're young) force us to do some things that we don't want to do. Cops don't love us. Cops are citizens just like us. They have signed on for a special role of helping protect those of us who can't protect themselves. That's it. That role is to be honored and respected because they are placing their lives in danger every day to do this.

In some other countries (corrupt 3rd world countries) the police DO have special powers and are leaders and do have the authority to tell people what to do for reasons such as personal power and profit.

I'm lucky that that isn't the country I live in and I'm glad that most cops don't think that way.

I regard cops as my equals, who should be respected for the special form of service they have chosen.

DrjonesUSA
04-10-2006, 11:50 AM
SOOOOOOOOO much misinformation in this post that I have to set it straight:




1. No loaded mag in the weapon. Unloaded mag goes in the weapon (it can be ejected, you don't want lint getting into the weapon). Practice drawing, loading, and chambering in exactly this scenario at the range. When I started practicing this, I discovered just how ridiculously long it takes to do so, but I'm down to at least half the time it used to take me. Still not good, but at least it reduces it to one potential misdemeanor instead of two.

I'm about 99% sure that the way CA law is written, if you have both a pistol AND a loaded magazine in your posession, you posess a loaded weapon.

It doesn't matter if the mag is in the gun or not, if they are both in your posession and not locked separately in your trunk, you are carrying a loaded weapon under CA law.



2. If you're driving, don't wear it!!!!!!!!!!! Especially if it's at night and they decide for any reason to try a field sobriety test, they're likely to see it. This is what center consoles or the space under your seat are for. Plus, there's a feeling that if you've got a loaded weapon on you when you're driving, you're just geared up for some kind of road rage thing.

See my post above.

Posession of a loaded weapon is posession of a loaded weapon, whether you are carrying it or if it is in your glovebox.

Unless you have a CCW, the gun has to be unloaded and locked in your trunk under CA law.

linuxgunner
04-10-2006, 11:56 AM
SOOOOOOOOO much misinformation in this post that I have to set it straight:

I'm about 99% sure that the way CA law is written, if you have both a pistol AND a loaded magazine in your posession, you posess a loaded weapon.

It doesn't matter if the mag is in the gun or not, if they are both in your posession and not locked separately in your trunk, you are carrying a loaded weapon under CA law.

Posession of a loaded weapon is posession of a loaded weapon, whether you are carrying it or if it is in your glovebox.

Unless you have a CCW, the gun has to be unloaded and locked in your trunk under CA law.

I believe you are correct in all of this. Loaded mag and unloaded gun at the same time is the same as a loaded gun. If you were super-man you could have a locked case in one pocket (?) and a handful of ammo in the other, open the locked case, load the mag (or revolver) and get into action. Does a speed-loader count as a mag? I would guess not, so this might actually be practical. It is possible to load a revolver with a speed-loader in less than a second. I know in IL, there's a loophole that lets people carry an unloaded gun + loaded mag, and some people are doing that.

I wouldn't try any of this in CA. If you're going to pack illegally, might as well load it. Even if it is just barely technically legal to carry an uloaded revolver in a hard case + a speed loader, you'll go through the same arrest and same legal bills, so might as well get an "invisible" auto instead of some weird-looking revolver case.

DrjonesUSA
04-10-2006, 12:05 PM
What about carrying an unloaded gun openly in a belt holster? I've always wondered about that.


You'd probably be charged with disturbing the peace or some other such BS. You'd almost definitely get arrested for SOMETHING.

Further, you'd better not have a loaded magazine or even a single cartridge on you, or it's carrying a loaded weapon without a permit.

DrjonesUSA
04-10-2006, 12:08 PM
I believe you are correct in all of this. Loaded mag and unloaded gun at the same time is the same as a loaded gun. If you were super-man you could have a locked case in one pocket (?) and a handful of ammo in the other, open the locked case, load the mag (or revolver) and get into action. Does a speed-loader count as a mag? I would guess not, so this might actually be practical. It is possible to load a revolver with a speed-loader in less than a second. I know in IL, there's a loophole that lets people carry an unloaded gun + loaded mag, and some people are doing that.




I'm pretty sure that a loaded mag is to semi as a speedloader is to revolver. I highly doubt there would be an exemption for revolvers & speedloaders.

Further, I'm pretty sure that you'd still get busted even if you had your loaded mag in a locked case. I think the most important point is whether or not it is on your person; locked vs. unlocked doesn't matter, I believe.

DrjonesUSA
04-10-2006, 12:10 PM
To respond to the initial post:


Some thoughts of mine:

- To the first responder to this thread, people like you give cops a bad name. Your response to finding an otherwise law-abiding American citizen who is carrying a firearm for his personal protection is to "pull around by the hair just like any other *****bird I deal with."

How dare you. How dare you and shame on you.


- You have to weigh the situation for yourself. If you happen to live in a particularly bad part of town, is it beyond your means to move? For those of you fooling yourselves into believing you live in a "safe" part of town, know that crime can and does happen anywhere and everywhere. Yes, certain areas are more or less safe than others, but no place is crime-free.

- Do you feel a need to ask for permission in order to defend your life?

- Understand that, even in states with lax CCW laws, you could literally walk around with a pistol openly carried on your hip and the vast majority of people would not notice.

It pretty much goes without saying that the vast majority of people won't even notice that slight lump under your shirt, and even if they did, in their mind it is a palm pilot, cell phone, blackberry, etc. etc.

Because, you know, only cops carry guns. Any non-LEO who carries a gun is, as a nice LEO on here put it, just a "*****bird". :rolleyes:

blacklisted
04-10-2006, 12:13 PM
(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell, consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.


Penal Code 12031: http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12031.html

Show me where it says that a firearm is loaded if the ammunition is not in a locked container.

What you are thinking of is the provision that if you are commiting a felony, and have ammunition and a firearm in possesssion, it is considered carrying a loaded weapon.

For the purposes of Penal Code section 12023 (commission or attempted commission of a
felony while armed with a loaded firearm), a firearm is deemed loaded when both the
firearm and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from the firearm are
in the immediate possession of the same person.

SOOOOOOOOO much misinformation in this post that I have to set it straight:





I'm about 99% sure that the way CA law is written, if you have both a pistol AND a loaded magazine in your posession, you posess a loaded weapon.

It doesn't matter if the mag is in the gun or not, if they are both in your posession and not locked separately in your trunk, you are carrying a loaded weapon under CA law.





See my post above.

Posession of a loaded weapon is posession of a loaded weapon, whether you are carrying it or if it is in your glovebox.

Unless you have a CCW, the gun has to be unloaded and locked in your trunk under CA law.

Jarhead4
04-10-2006, 12:23 PM
I keep seeing this wrong information. You can have a fully loaded magazine and a gun with each other. It is not considered loaded until the ammo is attached to the gun. You could have a loaded magazine in the Magazine well, and the gun would still not be loaded as longs as it is not attached. But if you do that, you better have a very good Lawyer!!!! But it has been done!!!

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

(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

MrEd
04-10-2006, 12:38 PM
Uhm the handgun doesn't HAVE to be carried in the trunk of the car , it must be carried in a locked box yes , glove compartment does not represent a locked box , trunk does represent a locked box , but you cna have it in a locked box on yur back seat if you so wish , I do not have a trunk per say and I don;t have an issue there . And I asked three different LEO officers , from City all the way to feds .

Glasshat
04-10-2006, 12:52 PM
The real problem with laws regarding gun control, taxation, eminent domain, drugs, and no-knock raids is that besides being unreasonable in general they are enforced only against the easiest targets, meaning otherwise law abiding citizens.
Most crimes are never solved because the perp is either an untouchable career criminal friend of some government offical, or a career criminal who knows how to play the system. The easiest guy to arrest is the one who buys something dumb at an out of state gun show and uses it at a public range or doesn't include some cash on his tax return for a side job. He will go down easy and the .gov can score another "Crime Solved".

It's seems like laws are written and enforced based on how easy it is to arrest and convict someone rather than how good the law and its enforcement is for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

MrEd
04-10-2006, 1:00 PM
I just realized something , I can not carry concealed without a licence and go fo rthe Twinkie defense . OMG :eek: ;) :D

DrjonesUSA
04-10-2006, 1:09 PM
It's seems like laws are written and enforced based on how easy it is to arrest and convict someone rather than how good the law and its enforcement is for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


You hit the nail on the head.

When there aren't enough criminals, the government will create them. Write enough laws and you can make anyone a criminal.

There isn't a soul alive in America who hasn't broken some law, either intentionally or not.

50 Freak
04-10-2006, 1:28 PM
Doesn't anyone here in the US find it a little troubling that among all the nations in the world, the US is the one with the largest percentage of it's citizens in jail?

Seems like America isn't such the "land of the free" anymore.

Glasshat
04-10-2006, 2:29 PM
Put drug abusers in state hospitals, send illegal aliens back to their homeland, execute everyone on death row, and then see if the USA has the largest prison population in the world!

ligamentum flavum
04-10-2006, 2:39 PM
I believe you are correct in all of this. Loaded mag and unloaded gun at the same time is the same as a loaded gun. If you were super-man you could have a locked case in one pocket (?) and a handful of ammo in the other, open the locked case, load the mag (or revolver) and get into action. Does a speed-loader count as a mag? I would guess not, so this might actually be practical. It is possible to load a revolver with a speed-loader in less than a second. I know in IL, there's a loophole that lets people carry an unloaded gun + loaded mag, and some people are doing that.

I wouldn't try any of this in CA. If you're going to pack illegally, might as well load it. Even if it is just barely technically legal to carry an uloaded revolver in a hard case + a speed loader, you'll go through the same arrest and same legal bills, so might as well get an "invisible" auto instead of some weird-looking revolver case.

since a revolver cannot function with a speedloader in place, i believe a speedloader is not the same as a magazine. therefore, a speedloader loaded with ammo is technically okay.

linuxgunner
04-10-2006, 2:47 PM
since a revolver cannot function with a speedloader in place, i believe a speedloader is not the same as a magazine. therefore, a speedloader loaded with ammo is technically okay.

Interesting technicality (and good point), won't make any difference to the police officer who is handling it.

I say again, there's a Seecamp California Edition. Must be a lot more people here who pack than who have permits. The Seecamp is pretty much invsibile. You can't tell it from a wallet, not without a metal detector.

Da_shotcaller
04-10-2006, 2:47 PM
OK... some obviously easy ones

Gun control. Committing no crime with a gun but having an unauthorized type of gun or transporting it without permit = crime which cops enforce. If the cop were truly progun he'd let any violations by nonviolent/nonfelon folks slide. As it is, he chooses to make a profit (his job) off of gun control. If he were a moral individual, he would resign and take an honest job instead of doing this. [People like DOJ's Iggy, etc. are the penultimate extreme example of this, but there are less-defined shades too.]


Taxation (anything over a nominal amount = fractional slavery). Try not to pay it (income or property tax), and try to continue retain your property. Carried to the ultimate limit, you will be killed.


Eminent domain seizures - try to retain your property or use it after it's been condemned and see who shoots/kills you if you try to retain it or use it for its intended purpose. (Remember Carl Drega, anyone? He disagreed with an Army Corps of Engineers environmental assesment that restricted his land usage, which killed his retirement plans, and at least was brave enough to fight as he had nothing further to lose.)


Drug wars - (NB - I am not a druggie nor do I associate with them.) People possessing chemicals for personal use are jailed and assets forfeited when it's no business of anyone else's. Law enforcement in these areas in fact CREATES the crime they're supposedly trying to prevent, because gov't employees don't understand free-market principles - how could they, as socialist state employees?


Stupidity - 'no-knock' raids on wrong addresses by incompetent cops lead to deaths of perfectly innocent citizens.

Bwiese I read a lot of your posting and most of the time I agree with what you are saying. But there's always an exception and this is one of it. That's fine with me if you hate me for doing my job. You're not the first one and definately you're not gonna be the last one.

Gun control: Ok let see if i get this right. You don't want a cop to enforce the law and be a progun and let someone go who committed a crime of illegally transporting an illegal type of firearm. So this mean you wouldn't hold me accountable if let say i let this nonviolent/non felon who illegally transported an illegal gun who suddenly decide to go to a school your kid goes to and suddenly open fire on a bunch of innocent kid. Wow that's reasonable right. Besides who would know that i stop him earlier and i got a chance to prevent this from happening, no one except me. And even if someone find out about it i can always use the defense that "Well as a peace officer i decided to use my discreation and use the Spirit of the Law." Wow I bet a lot of parents who's mourning for the lost of their love ones will be happy to hear that. You guys complain that yu need to carry a firearm so you can protect yourself because cops are not around. But then again when we enforce the law the way it should be to prevent a crime, you guys still complain that we shouldn't do that.

Taxation Cops are not excempt from paying taxes. Taxes are what our government use to pay for the repair of let say freeway, education, etc. And as far as enforcing the law on this one maybe you should call and voice your complaint to your local IRS Agent.

Eminent domain siezure I don't think a cop will shoot you for trying to retain your property that been condemn. Unless you force a cop on a deadly force situation.

Drug wars This is another that all i can say is wow. What a great reasoning. Manufacturing an illegal drugs for personal use that would be a great defense for those drug dealer. A REASONABLE person should understand the dangers associated with drugs. Illegal drugs which constitute with a lot of crime committed in the community. But wait this is just for personal use so LEO should even bother. A robber who shot and killed a store clerk so he can get some money to support his drug use but "it just for personal use." Here's another one a nonviolent/non felon colege student/businessman who raped and killed someone else daughter/mother while he's under the influence of drug but "officer it's just for personal use." A nonviolent truck driver under the influence of "just his personal use" drugs who collided with a car or a newlywed on their way to their honeymoon. This thing happened and will continue to happen as long as we got people like you that believes this is acceptable. War against drugs you bet you. We might be losing this one right now but eventually we will win.

blacklisted
04-10-2006, 2:59 PM
Drugs are manufactured illegaly because there is no legal manufacture.

Sort of like "moonshining" during the prohibition. That's not very common anymore. :D

If drugs were legal, manufacture could be regulated by the FDA. Non-licensed manufacturing for other than personal use (sort of like alcohol) could be fined or puninshed as necessary.

The inconsistency of drugs that is responsible for most overdoses and strange reactions is mostly due to poor manufacturing. This would do away with that.

Drugs are dangerous, if abused. Prescription drugs are not immune to this. The so-called "War on Drugs" does little to cut supply of drugs. People just ignore the stupid laws anyway. After all, who is the government to tell you what you can and can't do to yourself in your own home?

Our crime rates are high BECAUSE OF THE WAR ON DRUGS. Look at the prohibition for an example. Alcohol was and is a drug, and the prohibition created and underground of crime based upon getting this illegal drug. The same is true for other drugs that are illegal today. Organized drug cartels and dealers are responsible for most of the crime related to drugs. Legalize drugs, and you do away with a majority of these people. The addicts that kill people for drug money...the only way to deal with that is to do away with their reason for doing drugs in the first place. Drug addicts are weak people. Alcohol and tobacco (nicotine) kill far more people than other drugs. Do you not consider Alcohol and Nicotine to be danergerous drugs if abused?

I have the right to put whatever chemicals in my body that I want. I don't care what the law says. The commerce of these substances can be controlled, but not my consumption. To me it is incredibly STUPID that certain plants can't be grown in this country, and certain chemicals can't be consumed. This is not a free society, and will not be until such stupid laws are removed.

One thing should be clarified: I believe that people should be able to ingest whatever they want IN THEIR HOME or on private property. It would still be illegal to be intoxicated in public, or while driving.

Your implication that only illegal drugs cause people to commit car accidents and murder is LAUGHABLE.

Here is my response:
ETHYL ALCOHOL

Perfecly legal, perfectly deadly if abused.

Please give it a thought.

Kids are indoctrinated in schools today to hate the substance, not the weak minded people that become addicted to drugs. The government doesn't want to face the truth that inner-city urban people are responsible for most of this nation's "drug problems". They'd rather go after these "evil substances" and go after a problem they can't fix instead of admit that there is nothing they can do.


Drug wars This is another that all i can say is wow. What a great reasoning. Manufacturing an illegal drugs for personal use that would be a great defense for those drug dealer. A REASONABLE person should understand the dangers associated with drugs. Illegal drugs which constitute with a lot of crime committed in the community. But wait this is just for personal use so LEO should even bother. A robber who shot and killed a store clerk so he can get some money to support his drug use but "it just for personal use." Here's another one a nonviolent/non felon colege student/businessman who raped and killed someone else daughter/mother while he's under the influence of drug but "officer it's just for personal use." A nonviolent truck driver under the influence of "just his personal use" drugs who collided with a car or a newlywed on their way to their honeymoon. This thing happened and will continue to happen as long as we got people like you that believes this is acceptable. War against drugs you bet you. We might be losing this one right now but eventually we will win.

Da_shotcaller
04-10-2006, 3:20 PM
Drugs are manufactured illegaly because there is no legal manufacture.

If drugs were legal, manufacture could be regulated by the FDA. Non-licensed manufacturing for other than personal use (sort of like alcohol) could be fined or puninshed as necessary.

The inconsistency of drugs that is responsible for most overdoses and strange reactions is mostly due to poor manufacturing. This would do away with that.

Drugs are dangerous, if abused. Prescription drugs are not immune to this.

Our crime rates are high BECAUSE OF THE WAR ON DRUGS. Look at the prohibition for an example. Alchol was and is a drug, and the prohibition created and underground of crime based upon getting this illegal drug. The same is true for other drugs that are illegal today. Organized drug cartels and dealers are responsible for most of the crime related to drugs. Legalize drugs, and you do away with a majority of these people. The addicts that kill people for drug money...the only way to deal with that is to do away with their reason for doing drugs in the first place. Alcohol and tobacco (nicotine) kill far more people than other drugs. Do you not consider Alcohol and Nicotine to be danergerous drugs if abused?

I have the right to put whatever chemicals in my body that I want. I don't care what the law says. The commerce of these substances can be controlled, but not my consumption. To me it is incredibly STUPID that certain plants can't be grown in this country, and certain chemicals can't be consumed. This is not a free society, and will not be until such stupid laws are removed.

Your implication that only illegal drugs cause car accidents and murder is LAUGHABLE.

ETHYL ALCOHOL

Perfecly legal, perfectly deadly if abused.

Ok so cocaine, meth, cat, and other drugs should be approved and be regulated by the FDA. Ok maybe we should petition our lawmaker and see what they say. Maybe we should also give all of this for free once it's legalize that way people who commit crime to support their drug habit avoid committing crime.

As far as cause of car accident and murder im not implying that it's cause only by illegal drugs I am merely sighting an example the things that can be related with drugs. And in most cases it's not the user who really get affected but the family of those innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

chickenfried
04-10-2006, 3:32 PM
Cool!!! To rid society of robbery, rape, murder, and reckless driving all we have to do is get people to stop taking illegal drugs!

A robber who shot and killed a store clerk so he can get some money to support his drug use but "it just for personal use." Here's another one a nonviolent/non felon colege student/businessman who raped and killed someone else daughter/mother while he's under the influence of drug but "officer it's just for personal use." A nonviolent truck driver under the influence of "just his personal use" drugs who collided with a car or a newlywed on their way to their honeymoon. This thing happened and will continue to happen as long as we got people like you that believes this is acceptable. War against drugs you bet you. We might be losing this one right now but eventually we will win.

blacklisted
04-10-2006, 3:42 PM
Plenty of drugs just as addictive, if not more addictive than these are approved and regulated by the FDA. Many of these are given to children with "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder". Think adderall, dexedrine, etc.

Synthetic Opiates are also common.

Obviously a lot of tragic car accidents are associated with drug use. A lot of innocent people are killed. My point is that a majority of these are caused by Ethyl Alcohol, a legal drug. If a family member of mine was killed by a drunk driver, I would not campaign for alcohol to be banned. Just like if a family member was shot, I would not campaign to ban these "evil weapons".

I don't cops are doing much to fight illegal drug use. They are going after the big guys, but not effectively attacking the source of the problem. Telling kids that drugs are bad doesn't really do much other than make them think they are "cool" somehow. Trust me, if I could have spoken to the police in high school, I could have easily got rid of 90% of the drugs going into the school. Although I'm not a drug user, I had to experience people smoking weed on the bus on the way home, blowing smoke in my face, etc. I had a kid rolling a blunt in class just 2 desks over while the teacher was lecturing. In his backpack was 1/8 ounce of Marijuana. A kid on the bus had 1/4 ounce. I saw what looked like a crack deal (a black kid passing some small objects wrapped in baloons to someone). There was a police officer on campus. An aquaintance of mine purchased about 50 dollars worth of marijuana, VERY EASILY. A girl in one of my classes came to class on ecstacy, and she showed me a bag with weed and some various pills in it along with paraphenelia. Another guy in the same class smoked a joint before the final, gave in his stoned social state handed me some cannabis seeds. Nothing could be done. The War on Drugs had no effect on the drugs on campus, nor will it ever. They don't care that it's illegal.

Ok so cocaine, meth, cat, and other drugs should be approved and be regulated by the FDA. Ok maybe we should petition our lawmaker and see what they say. Maybe we should also give all of this for free once it's legalize that way people who commit crime to support their drug habit avoid committing crime.

As far as cause of car accident and murder im not implying that it's cause only by illegal drugs I am merely sighting an example the things that can be related with drugs. And in most cases it's not the user who really get affected but the family of those innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

j2ws2000
04-10-2006, 4:54 PM
The chances of needing a handgun in a defensive situation are very real.

However about 99.999999999999999% of your life, you wont need one. A good percentage of the times you will, you'll probably have some inclination that you will (i.e. going on a hike, running out in the middle of the night, buying a car (those loans can get nasty)).

I say don't carry at all unless you legally can. Not that I don't value a person's life over a law, but obviously because of the needless rammifcations if you do get caught in a totally peaceful situaton.

Carry a knife, a young man armed with a knife at 10-15 feet can be as deadly as a handgun (handguns are underpowered). I'd be happier with a handgun, but knives can provide enough base protection.

Right now I carry two...not because I'm a mall ninja, but because S&W just sent me a free one and I don't have the heart to retire my other, and I can't decide between the two sometimes.

Carry a knife and fight for your right to carry a gun.

jmgray
04-10-2006, 5:40 PM
Right now I carry two...not because I'm a mall ninja, but because S&W just sent me a free one and I don't have the heart to retire my other, and I can't decide between the two sometimes.


Awesome bro, i always get jealous when i hear someone got a free gun. Its like xmas in the middle of the year!

trinity9
04-10-2006, 9:09 PM
Dude, WHAT! You can't be serious about this...

It's actually AT LEAST Two Misdemeanors if you carry the weapon LOADED.



To answer your question...If I pulled you or him over and you were found to be carrying illegaly, you will get pulled around by the hair just like any other *****bird I deal with. Trust me, his life can't be in such a danger that he has to violate the law to protect himself. He needs to move if breaking the law is his only remaining option.


This reply is striking in a number of ways.

What is it that you do for a living that you pull *****birds around by the hair? Work for corrections or law enforcement?

Secondly, where is it that you live and work that you feel perfectly safe? I went to two funerals last weekend, one for a friend killed in a random shooting in a good neighborhood (in Elk Grove as he left a local Chilis.) Would you consider that his life was in danger? Should he have stayed home?

Thirdly, moving may not be an option. I own businesses in difficult neighborhoods-- moving and surrendering my livelihood is an impossiblity. I'd risk the misdemeanor and trust the judgement of the police instead of the criminals.

You strike me as someone at the other end of the spectrum from myself. Fair enough, but I would hope for an opportunity to defend myself and my family in the unlikely event that it be necessary, not wait for the police to show up and secure the scene.

Trinity

trinity9
04-10-2006, 10:02 PM
And I understand that.

But you and I both know:

a) The second amendment has been proven time after time after time to not grant complete, unfettered gun ownership.



True, if they meant that, they would have written, "shall not be infringed" or something like that.

Oh... nevermind.

Trinity

artherd
04-10-2006, 11:06 PM
To answer your unasked question, if I ran across a cop while I was illegally (or legally) carrying, I'd just cap him in the head as he got out of the squad car. Use a frangible round so there are no ballistics. I'm speaking only figureatively of course...

See, figurative language is HILARIOUS!

To answer your question...If I pulled you or him over and you were found to be carrying illegaly, you will get pulled around by the hair just like any other *****bird I deal with. Trust me, his life can't be in such a danger that he has to violate the law to protect himself. He needs to move if breaking the law is his only remaining option.

artherd
04-10-2006, 11:16 PM
Gun control: Ok let see if i get this right. You don't want a cop to enforce the law and be a progun and let someone go who committed a crime of illegally transporting an illegal type of firearm. So this mean you wouldn't hold me accountable if let say i let this nonviolent/non felon who illegally transported an illegal gun who suddenly decide to go to a school your kid goes to and suddenly open fire on a bunch of innocent kid.

Maybe we should make murder illegal? Oh wait... :rolleyes:

Wow that's reasonable right. Besides who would know that i stop him earlier and i got a chance to prevent this from happening, no one except me. And even if someone find out about it i can always use the defense that "Well as a peace officer i decided to use my discreation and use the Spirit of the Law." Wow I bet a lot of parents who's mourning for the lost of their love ones will be happy to hear that. You guys complain that yu need to carry a firearm so you can protect yourself because cops are not around. But then again when we enforce the law the way it should be to prevent a crime, you guys still complain that we shouldn't do that.
Yeah, all of those school shootings in Vermont and Alaska are getting tiresome (VT and AK are of course no-permit full concealed carry states. Anyone who can own an gun can pack it loaded with nothing more than a t-shirt on his back.)


Taxation Cops are not excempt from paying taxes. Taxes are what our government use to pay for the repair of let say freeway, education, etc. And as far as enforcing the law on this one maybe you should call and voice your complaint to your local IRS Agent.
The ammendment under which the Feds collect taxes was never propely ratified. It is illegal, yet enforced (IRS spent $5mil on GUNS alone last year... to enforce illegal law... the IRS! Feel safer?

Eminent domain siezure I don't think a cop will shoot you for trying to retain your property that been condemn. Unless you force a cop on a deadly force situation.
Will he enforce the will of the state at gunpoint (or assault me and forcibly remove me?) from a perfectly fine building that the state wants? BET ON IT. He's already escelated the situation to deadly force levels at that point, any respondant would be acting in self defense to a gun pulled.

Drug wars This is another that all i can say is wow. What a great reasoning. Manufacturing an illegal drugs for personal use that would be a great defense for those drug dealer. A REASONABLE person should understand the dangers associated with drugs. Illegal drugs which constitute with a lot of crime committed in the community. But wait this is just for personal use so LEO should even bother. A robber who shot and killed a store clerk so he can get some money to support his drug use but "it just for personal use." Here's another one a nonviolent/non felon colege student/businessman who raped and killed someone else daughter/mother while he's under the influence of drug but "officer it's just for personal use." A nonviolent truck driver under the influence of "just his personal use" drugs who collided with a car or a newlywed on their way to their honeymoon. This thing happened and will continue to happen as long as we got people like you that believes this is acceptable. War against drugs you bet you. We might be losing this one right now but eventually we will win.

You are so far off here it's absolutely tragic. We tried prohibition once, for all the reasons you listed. We wanted bliss, we got Al Cappone, and dirty cops performing contract killings in one of the nation's most violent times.

Nicotene is more addictive than Heroin (which actually makes a great cure for the common cold.)

Marijuna isn't even addictive, wheras alcohol most certinly is, yet it's legal.

Fact: the governmental agencies THAT EXIST TO REGULATE the drugs would be disbanded should said drugs be legalized. Think they want their Citations reposessed? Guess again.

ligamentum flavum
04-10-2006, 11:23 PM
To answer your unasked question, if I ran across a cop while I was illegally (or legally) carrying, I'd just cap him in the head as he got out of the squad car. Use a frangible round so there are no ballistics. I'm speaking only figureatively of course...

See, figurative language is HILARIOUS!

LOL! Kinda mean but hilarious.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-10-2006, 11:27 PM
Drug wars This is another that all i can say is wow. What a great reasoning. Manufacturing an illegal drugs for personal use that would be a great defense for those drug dealer. A REASONABLE person should understand the dangers associated with drugs. Illegal drugs which constitute with a lot of crime committed in the community. But wait this is just for personal use so LEO should even bother. A robber who shot and killed a store clerk so he can get some money to support his drug use but "it just for personal use." Here's another one a nonviolent/non felon colege student/businessman who raped and killed someone else daughter/mother while he's under the influence of drug but "officer it's just for personal use." A nonviolent truck driver under the influence of "just his personal use" drugs who collided with a car or a newlywed on their way to their honeymoon. This thing happened and will continue to happen as long as we got people like you that believes this is acceptable. War against drugs you bet you. We might be losing this one right now but eventually we will win.



Yeah...all of those Prop 215 patients have been ruining the state when they LEGALLY manufactur marijuana. Do you show them the same respect for the law......even though your personal opinion appears to be other? If you were to come across a guy with 8 ounces of dried marijuana and a legal recommendation would you treat him any different?

A reasonable person would see that its the illegality that makes the crime...not the action itself.

KimoBBZ
04-11-2006, 12:12 AM
Uhm the handgun doesn't HAVE to be carried in the trunk of the car , it must be carried in a locked box yes , glove compartment does not represent a locked box , trunk does represent a locked box , but you cna have it in a locked box on yur back seat if you so wish , I do not have a trunk per say and I don;t have an issue there . And I asked three different LEO officers , from City all the way to feds .

"California Penal Code section 12025 does not prevent a citizen of the United States over 18 years of age who is not within any of the classes excepted from firearm possession and who resides or is temporarily in California from transporting by motor vehicle any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container.

The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment. For more information, refer to California Penal Code Section 12026.1. "

In the vehicle: an unloaded pistol in a Mossberg Pistol Safe bolted to the floorboard, loaded mags in the center console.

Out & about: Sturdy but slim & stylish backpack that has 3 seperate compartments, in one is an unloaded pistol - the compartment is secured by a TSA approved combo lock (pretty small, 3-digit). In another are 2 loaded mags and E2D flashlight. 3rd (main) compartment is for the task at hand: laptop if heading to/from work, video camera, diapers & wipes if out with my 1 year old.

YES... it's pushing the limits of the law. But, (sometimes begrudgingly) most LEO I've asked (including brother-in-law) agree on legality. For me it's a compromise... I won't have a weapon "to draw" in an instant, but I do have options if I am aware of my surroundings enough to see a situation develop and can't avoid conflict.

10K2HVN
04-11-2006, 1:00 AM
In the vehicle: an unloaded pistol in a Mossberg Pistol Safe bolted to the floorboard, loaded mags in the center console.

Out & about: Sturdy but slim & stylish backpack that has 3 seperate compartments, in one is an unloaded pistol - the compartment is secured by a TSA approved combo lock (pretty small, 3-digit). In another are 2 loaded mags and E2D flashlight. 3rd (main) compartment is for the task at hand: laptop if heading to/from work, video camera, diapers & wipes if out with my 1 year old.

YES... it's pushing the limits of the law. But, (sometimes begrudgingly) most LEO I've asked (including brother-in-law) agree on legality. For me it's a compromise... I won't have a weapon "to draw" in an instant, but I do have options if I am aware of my surroundings enough to see a situation develop and can't avoid conflict.
I think the problem with this is the loaded magazine is still considered a loaded gun. (right?)

Ive thought of this idea while driving down the streets of downtown LA; Why not have a revolver (in a locked case) with the ability to accept moon clips. According to the assault weapon laws, ammo clips are not considered "detachable *magazines*"; therefore, the ammo shouldnt be considered loaded in a magazine. From what I gather, moon clips are pretty fast to load...

EDIT: Here it is; http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.htm

12031. (a)(1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
.
.
.
(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell, consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

^keep those clips unattached to the firearm! ;)

KimoBBZ
04-11-2006, 6:00 AM
I think the problem with this is the loaded magazine is still considered a loaded gun. (right?)


In both cases illustrated above, the pistols are UNLOADED and kept in a locked container - seperate from the loaded magazines, yet readily accessible.

Pouchey
04-11-2006, 11:39 AM
Much of this is still a bit of a mystery to me, but why would someone lock up a mag with ammo in it? Is there some sort of regulation on the storage and handling of ammo and/or magazines?

Maybe there is . . . heck I don't know.

I thought the firearm (actually part thereof) was the regulated entity. For instance could you not walk down the street with a .223 upper over your shoulder? (not withstanding public nucance etc)

Pouchey
04-11-2006, 11:40 AM
hmmmm . . . maybe reading is my friend.

blacklisted
04-11-2006, 11:43 AM
I don't know of ANY laws that say a loaded magazine is considered a firearm. I suspect that is bull ****.

Did nobody read my previous post?

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12031.html

(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell, consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

For the purposes of Penal Code section 12023 (commission or attempted commission of a
felony while armed with a loaded firearm), a firearm is deemed loaded when both the
firearm and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from the firearm are
in the immediate possession of the same person.

Unless the magazine is attached to the firearm (or a round is chambered), or unless you are commiting a felony, the gun is unloaded.

linuxgunner
04-11-2006, 11:51 AM
I don't know of ANY laws that say a loaded magazine is considered a firearm. I suspect that is bull ****.

Unless the magazine is attached to the firearm (or a round is chambered), or unless you are commiting a felony, the gun is unloaded.

That sure is what it sounds like from reading the law, but everyone I talked to said, "you can't have an unloaded firearm and a separate loaded mag, or else it is considered a loaded firearm." But from reading that code, that's BS. That implies that "Illinois carry" is legal in California. "Illinois carry" is where you carry the unloaded gun in something that qualifies as a hard locked container, and you carry a loaded mag not attached to the gun, and when you need access you just put the mag in and rack it. It can be done very quickly with practice.

Maybe someone should make a California/Illinois carry "holster" that qualifies as a locked case. Maybe if people start doing that that might get Sheriffs to rethink their CCW policies.

blacklisted
04-11-2006, 11:58 AM
More of the laws:

(a) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, from transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the following applies to the firearm:

(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than the utility or glove compartment.

(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm, the firearm is contained within a locked container.

(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with this chapter.

(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device.

blacklisted
04-11-2006, 12:02 PM
I don't think that would work at all. Keeping the gun in a locked box in your vehicle with a magazine stored seperately may be pushing it a bit (at least to most cops), but carrying on your person would not work.


(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm, the firearm is contained within a locked container.

I suspect that if they wanted to get you, an officer would say you were commiting a felony (thus, the gun would be loaded since you had the magazine and a gun on your person). Isn't CCW a wobbler?

That sure is what it sounds like from reading the law, but everyone I talked to said, "you can't have an unloaded firearm and a separate loaded mag, or else it is considered a loaded firearm." But from reading that code, that's BS. That implies that "Illinois carry" is legal in California. "Illinois carry" is where you carry the unloaded gun in something that qualifies as a hard locked container, and you carry a loaded mag not attached to the gun, and when you need access you just put the mag in and rack it. It can be done very quickly with practice.

Maybe someone should make a California/Illinois carry "holster" that qualifies as a locked case. Maybe if people start doing that that might get Sheriffs to rethink their CCW policies.

linuxgunner
04-11-2006, 12:25 PM
Isn't CCW a wobbler?

There has been a lot of screaming and yelling on this thread about the horrible things that will happen to someone who is found to be packing without a permit, ranging from being pulled out of a car by the hair to going to jail, etc, but no one has yet been able to show me that packing w/o a license is anything more than a misdemeanor. It is NOT a wobbler. If I'm wrong on this someone please show me how it could be a felony. I'm assuming that there are no other factors present (not a gang member, yada yada yada).

Someone, please show me that packing without a permit is a felony or a wobbler.

Being arrested is unpleasant, but not the end of the world. Dealing with a misdemeanor charge is unpleasant and costs some money, but it's not the end of the world. Getting a felony conviction, on the other hand, IS almost the end of the world because it ends a person's job prospects, firearm ownership rights, etc. So felony vs. misdemeanor is a big gap. Any sane person who does risk analysis on packing without a permit would concede that, if a misdemeanor is the worst that can happen, it may be worth it, but if a felony is on the table, it is NOT worth it period. So what's the deal?

This is what packing.org has to say:

California law has a gray area, a de facto quasi-right-to-carry. The state law provides that carrying a concealed weapon (including a knife or blackjack) is a FELONY, however, a clear exception exists. If you are carrying a gun (not a knife!) AND it was legally purchased AND it is registered to you AND you are not a gang member (yes, there is a statutory definition of gang member) AND it is your first such arrest, then concealed carry is a misdemeanor. A typical fine is $200.

Is that right or are they on drugs? Just doing a risk analysis, if you have any reason to think your life may really be in danger (a stalker situation, etc), then risking a $200 fine and confiscation of the gun is a no-brainer decision, right? $200 is how much dinner costs in LA at a nice restaurant. And that won't even happen unless there's some reason for a search, and most of us never get searched in our entire lifetimes. I mean, hey, $200 is less than the cost of a permit in most counties here! And a permit needs to be renewed!

461
04-11-2006, 1:03 PM
Linux- while I refuse to weigh in on this topic as right or wrong, I notice you keep saying "It's only a Misdemeanor" as if that is no big deal. A misdemeanor in California can lead to up to a year in jail, and to most folks a year of their life in such a facility is indeed a big deal. Now I agree a fine is a slap on the wrist to most people, but when you look at giving up a year of your life then you're talking about a real big deal.

DrjonesUSA
04-11-2006, 1:06 PM
Linux- while I refuse to weigh in on this topic as right or wrong, I notice you keep saying "It's only a Misdemeanor" as if that is no big deal. A misdemeanor in California can lead to up to a year in jail, and to most folks a year of their life in such a facility is indeed a big deal. Now I agree a fine is a slap on the wrist to most people, but when you look at giving up a year of your life then you're talking about a real big deal.



Right, but how LIKELY is it that a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record will serve any time at all for misdemeanor carrying without a permit?

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but I'd say it is quite unlikely.

Does anyone have a way of looking up incidents in which people were busted for carrying without a permit and seeing what punishment they got?

461
04-11-2006, 1:10 PM
After having spent a year on isolated duty in the military I'm not willing to take the risk. Jail could only be worse.

DrjonesUSA
04-11-2006, 1:11 PM
After having spent a year on isolated duty in the military I'm not willing to take the risk. Jail could only be worse.


What is "isolated duty" and how does one get it?

Thanks for your service!

blacklisted
04-11-2006, 1:21 PM
What is "isolated duty" and how does one get it?

Thanks for your service!


I would imagine it would be something like being stationed in Alaska or some other place in the arctic in some kind of missle defense system. :eek:

461
04-11-2006, 1:25 PM
Isolated duty can mean different things in different services, but for me it was 23 guys at a transmitter site 85 miles north of Nome, Alaska with supplies brought in by plane once every three weeks. No road, no other people, no internet, very expensive phone time... One year of my life I'll never get back. It was a offered to me instead of a tour aboard ship out of Boston for three years. I felt at the time my family would be better off for one year without me in a place they loved versus three years mostly without me in a place they'd hate. Kind of like taking one for the team, but I fear they suffered worse than me.

linuxgunner
04-11-2006, 1:25 PM
Right, but how LIKELY is it that a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record will serve any time at all for misdemeanor carrying without a permit?


Yeah, unless I'm totally out of touch, my understanding is that cases like this are 99.9% likely to result in probation and/or community service or similar. For me personally, I have no complaints about community service, and I live such a straight life that probation wouldn't make any difference to me. Let's see, I'm probably 0.1% likely to be searched in any given year and if I am searched and the prosecutor is really really bored that day and I have a terrible lawyer and he goes forward with it I have a 0.1% chance of seeing the inside of a jail for it... 0.1% times 0.1% = one in a million chance of seeing the inside of a prison, substantially lower than the murder rate in the US (or anywhere really). Ok, my 0.1% may be a little bit optimistic, but the math isn't much different if it's 1% or whatever.

I know that one of the major problems the LA county sheriff is having is they don't have nearly enough jail capacity or jail budget. The last thing they want is to take beds away from violent, dangerous felons so they can lock up people with minor non-violent first-offense misdemeanors.

The other factor is, the more people pack without a permit, the safer it is for all those who do it, due to this lack of resources.

Again, ALL this logic changes if a felony is on the table.

461
04-11-2006, 1:42 PM
Just wanted to be sure you were aware of the jail time possibility. As for me, I have a little black cloud that follows me around making sure that if a punishment is to be handed out that I get the most I'm entitled to. :)

MrEd
04-11-2006, 2:23 PM
except if you are in SF , if you are carrying without a licence in SF then our wonderful ( sarcastic ) DA Kamala Harris will throw the book at you .
She will not ask for the death penalty for a cop killer mind you . No she prefers to send you for a year in the big house .

Chaingun
04-11-2006, 2:43 PM
I would imagine it would be something like being stationed in Alaska or some other place in the arctic in some kind of missle defense system. :eek:

I've heard of a Marine guarding a nuke site, which is not much fun.

trinity9
04-11-2006, 7:23 PM
Right, but how LIKELY is it that a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record will serve any time at all for misdemeanor carrying without a permit?

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but I'd say it is quite unlikely.

Does anyone have a way of looking up incidents in which people were busted for carrying without a permit and seeing what punishment they got?

Any thought that it wouldn't often happen because no one wants it to turn into a second amendment issue with the opportunity to weaken the Republik's anti-gun legislation?

Perhaps the folks at the DOJ are aware of the House of cards they have built with regard to infringing the 2nd?

Wishful thinking?

Trinity

linuxgunner
04-11-2006, 7:27 PM
Any thought that it wouldn't often happen because no one wants it to turn into a second amendment issue with the opportunity to weaken the Republik's anti-gun legislation?

Perhaps the folks at the DOJ are aware of the House of cards they have built with regard to infringing the 2nd?

Wishful thinking?


Wishful thinking, definitely. In a state with a strong RKBA statement in the constitution, there MIGHT be a state constitutional defense, but not in CA, that's clear.

The reasons are all to do with resources. There are a whole bunch of crimes (up to and including murders) that don't get properly investigated or properly prosecuted, simply because of lack of resources. On the scale of things, does a prosecutor want to invest, say, $1mil in a full jury trial for some guy with a clean record who is packing, knowing that the most setence he could possibly get would be one year in county, at a time when they don't even have enough jail space for serious violent criminals?

The whole thing is a waste of time. Prosecutors are politicians. The big numbers for them are murder convictions and the like. Misdemeanor convictions don't get them elected. In fact in a case like this, if the public has sympathy for the defendant (say, a woman who was raped and now carries for her own defense, but was denied a permit by Sheriff Baca) that really would not help a prosecutor.

I have had the idea of "Rosa Parks" style CCW reform in CA. If enough people start carrying, there won't be much they can do about it, short of begging for some legislative fix.

Take a look at this headline: "Budget cuts are setting convicts free; In L.A. County, 47,000 prisoners were released early last year." From: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0421/p01s01-usju.html . That does not look good for the Sheriff. Why on earth would a prosecutor go to the trouble of getting a county jail sentence for someone with no record when he knows the guy isn't even going to serve a fraction of it because they don't have enough jail space?

We can win CCW in CA just because the system is running out of money.

Librarian
04-11-2006, 7:30 PM
Does anyone have a way of looking up incidents in which people were busted for carrying without a permit and seeing what punishment they got?Ask the DOJ.

Look up the PC section, write them an email asking them how many prosecutions were initiated under that section, how many convictions. Use this form: contact (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/contact.htm) or this one for special requests (http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/spereq.htm) from the statistics section. In my experience, they answer.

schizrade2
04-11-2006, 7:39 PM
To answer your question...If I pulled you or him over and you were found to be carrying illegaly, you will get pulled around by the hair just like any other *****bird I deal with. Trust me, his life can't be in such a danger that he has to violate the law to protect himself. He needs to move if breaking the law is his only remaining option.

You are the problem here, I see.

booknut
04-16-2006, 5:19 PM
To Linuxgunner:

I have had the experience of carrying a non-permit concealed handgun in the state of California.

At no time did I ever fear being stopped by law enforcement.
At no time did I ever fear being found out by law enforcement and possibly working my way through the legal system.

Here's why:

I was instrumental in getting a tweaker busted. He and those who lived with him were deep in the midst of illegal drug activity.
I was not the only neighbor who kept an eye on these folks and passed info on to the police, but my tip was what got the drug task force involved.
I have no connection with this guy other than being a neighbor.
He rented the place.

as a side note;
I'm not against using mind-altering substances in a safe place/manner (my wife likes to have a glass of sherry or wine every now-and-then, although I do not drink alcohol or use other non-prescribed drugs myself... not since my early 20's that is :D ).
What had me concerned and fearing for the lives of my child, wife, self and other innocent persons in the area, was their behavior.

Not to mention the connection to assaults and murder.

When I discovered evidence that they were up to something illegal, I went to the police department.

I like having law enforcement available to the public. The vst majority of my life, I have had very pleasant experiences with LEO's, including the BATF back in the 80's. I do not like all cops though. I've worked with some that turned out to be drug addicts, bullies, etc.
I have several who I consider to be friends.

So back to the story, I requested my name not be brought up in this unless they needed me to testify at trial.

The tweakers got busted and hauled off.

I asked one officer about my family's danger. He brushed it off saying the suspect wouldn't do anything.
I was not convinced.
I did not have a CCW, but I felt the lives of my family were in danger from any one of this guy's friends or someone he might hire for revenge if he even suspected I was the one who turned him in.

Reading the California Penal Code, I understand that if a person is in immediate threat of being harmed/killed they can carry a concealable firearm.
Of course there's more than just that and I advise anyone here to read the code themselves.
It also mentions seeking a restraining order, for example.

After the one criminal served his two years, I happened to meet him at my place of work. He made a remark that I took as a veiled threat. Perhaps he wanted to see if he could shake me up. I feel I handled the situation well enough not to give him any reason to suspect me.

After that, I went to the police department and inquired about a restraining order. I already knew that RO's are only good for legal protection not physical protection.
The officer I spoke to informed me that after I submitted my request for an RO, at some point, the person I named would be given the opportunity to challenge it. Basically giving up my name and the reason for the RO, which is what I've been trying to avoid these several years now.

So, I fell back upon the exception NOT a "Loophole" that I could carry if I felt my life was in immediate danger.
I did and do feel that way.

I am in the process of obtaining a CCW for the state of California.
I have two permits from other states already for several years now.

I have been around LEO's many times while carrying my defensive firearm, yet I honestly was not sweating bullets or nervous about it at all.

I firmly believe I am within the scope of the law and what I am doing is right... the protection of my family and self from great bodily harm or death. That belief is what keeps me comfortable when armed.
I have trained in several schools, read many books, watched training films, etc. so that I am as careful as possible concerning my firearms.

I have been ready since the first time I put on my weapon, to face the legal system if I ever had the misfortune to find myself in such a dangerous position that I had to draw and fire the gun.

I've owned guns for a long time. I never carried a concealed gun before, but this situation plus a personal family experience convinced me that carrying was the right thing to do. I also believe that I have been following the law and so, have not been carrying in an illegl manner.

There may be some argument about the wording, "immediate fear of death", or however it is worded. I have certainly felt that at any time when I was on the streets of my community, I was in immediate fear of death by this individual or his friends/family.

linuxgunner
04-16-2006, 11:13 PM
Booknut,

Thanks for the post. My friend is in a similar situation... had a bad interaction with a bad person and now has reason to fear for his safety and his family's safety, but nothing like the level of proof he would need to get the sheriff to issue. Oh well, I think that prosecutors and even police officers have a lot better ways to spend their time and limited resources than to make an issue of that kind of thing. I have yet to see ANYONE post some suggestion that these cases are more than misdemeanors, or they are prosecuted vigorously, or they are prosecuted to any extent at all. I have seen LEOs in this thread say "yeah I would arrest someone if I found out", and that's understandable, but what I care about is not the hassle of an arrest, but the possible dispositions in the end, and no one on this thread has said anything negative about that.

I asked one officer about my family's danger. He brushed it off saying the suspect wouldn't do anything.

Yeah some people said the same thing to my friend, and that's easy for someone to say who isn't in the "line of fire" as it were. A lot of people could brush off a one-in-ten chance, but for me, if I'm facing a one-in-ten chance of a serious assault, that's way too high of a risk.

bountyhunter
04-17-2006, 1:24 PM
no, at any time the cop can ask you to step out of the vehicle and pat you down. they are able to do that for their safety and do NOT have to have probable cause to pat you down in a traffic stop.

EDIT: feel free to correct me anyone if im wrong about that. I think you're right, but it doesn't matter: anytime a cop needs "probable cause" for a search they will roll you out and search and later claim they smelled something (odor of marijuana or alcohol) for the PC and then investigated it.

PVRB
04-17-2006, 7:25 PM
For a very long time I was doing real estate-related work in the inner cities (Watts, Compton, South Central, East L.A.). The first week I packed out of fear of the unknown. Then I started thinking about the fact that the odds were more likely that it could get stolen from my car, it could be used against me, I could get busted by The Man, etc. I realized my paranoia wasn't worth it and stopped packing a gun, started packing pepper spray, and a good attitude and good judgement. That was ten yrs. ago. Ten yrs. of helping banks get their foreclosed properties vacated and sold. Ten yrs. of dealing with people in bad areas under difficult circumstances who have lost their homes for one reason or another. Ten yrs. of meeting with the sherriffs at enforced evictions. And I'm still alive, never been assulted in any way physically or verbally. I guess what I'm trying to say is that using good judgement and a good attitude will get a white boy alot farther in "tough" areas than being a scared white boy with a gun.

gh429
04-17-2006, 7:56 PM
It totally depends on the cop, it's pretty much like a traffic ticket. If you look, talk, and smell like a law abiding citizen that has a reason (be it a good one or a not so good one - just not a terrible one) I would say it's 50/50 you would be let go on a warning. You are however, playing with dice if you decide to travel with a loaded firearm.

I know of two cases that were dismissed, one after the owner presented a hunting license, one who was asked by the judge to get one. Both these owners were travelling with a loaded firearm in the passenger compartment. I know of two other cases where the DA refused to bring charges. I actually don't know of anyone successfully prosecuted for these charges, but I do know one person spent a substantial sum for his lawyer.

So if you're willing to run the risk, then do it, if not then don't do it - just be aware of the risks / odds whatever your decision may be. :)

booknut
04-17-2006, 9:40 PM
I can appreciate the comments of PVRB.

To add to my story;

My oldest sister had a daughter who's husband got abusive when he drank.
He was a soldier in the Army at Ft.Bliss, Tx.
While still living there, I had the chance to go searching for him after one of his shoving matches with my Niece.
I try to be a reasonable guy, so by the time I found him, I cooled off enough to give him a stern warning NEVER to do that again! The exact exchange is personal, but it was a very serious exchange.

I moved to Alaska and he wound up getting in trouble again, this time threatening the MP's when they responded to my Neice's call for help at their on-post housing.

Eventually, Greg (the murderer's name) was finally ordered to remain on post (by now they had him out at McGregor Range, several miles out of El Paso, Tx.) and NOT go to his mother-in-law's home where his pregnant wife and son were staying.

He bought a gun on a Friday, and by Sunday he had shot two people dead, one horse dead, one horse seriously wounded, and put two families (not counting his) in substantial pain over the loss of a loved one. One victim was my sister... his mother-in-law. The other was a family friend and new father to a 1-month old girl.

This is another case where paper orders and verbal orders/warnings do nothing to physically safeguard people. All the assurances and denials by friends and family about whether an individual is 'dangerous' turn out to be completely wrong (Greg was very polite and a pleasant person to be with when he was not drinking - although I was never around him when he drank - and his assurances of never harming my niece again turned out to be false. I feel that I allowed myself to believe Greg would turn around and be a better man).

Too many people bet their lives, or the lives of loved ones on the false belief that, "It would never happen to me".
My wife and her family are not gun people, by a long shot.
When I've explained that my personal defensive firearm is one more tool I have for the one time I may need it, I have been scoffed at.
1- We lock our doors at night. Why? FEAR
2- We wear seatbelts, helmets, purchase insurance for the slim chance that we might need them. Why? Okay, you got me there... The state requires it. BUT, there are people who would do these things on their own because it would "make them feel safer".
3- As a general rule, Americans are fine with the concept of using a firearm to kill a criminal... in certain situations, of course. BUT, we only want LEO's to have them. (this is a gross generalization, I hope you know).

I will carry with or without a 'permit' any time I honestly feel my life or the lives of my family or other innocent people may be in danger.
We could say that since we don't know when or who might be killed, I should carry ALL the time. I don't.

When I do carry, I don't swagger around thinking about how 'kewl' I'll look whipping out my "40 caliber Glock". I am very mindful of where I am, who's around me, what my avenue of escape might be, where's the nearest 'safe place', etc.

I agree that most people in America will never witness a violent crime nor be a victim of a violent crime.
I am aware of the fact, though, that crime may very well pick me whether or not I want to participate.

HELP! I CAN'T QUIT TYPING... THE WORDS WON'T STOP! :eek:

saki302
04-18-2006, 1:49 AM
A very good friend of mine is a Police Officer. He told me unless you are on probation, or are obviously doing something shady, they have no right to search your vehicle. If they ask for permission, say NO! (well, I'd say my good LE friend told me to say no!). If they search anyways, the evidence is inadmissible in court. "hmm, do I smell pot" will not work for them either, unless there really is pot residue in the vehicle (then you have other problems to deal with!).

Honestly, if you look like a good guy, and act respectful, your chances of getting searched are very very low.

And if you're REALLY paranoid, buy yourself an air-taser. My friend told me they work better on perps than his Glock because they know he WILL use it on them. Taser out, Sh%$t talking stops- INSTANTLY :D
He hasn't even had to fire his yet- they all know exactly what it is, and what it does.

-Dave

PVRB
04-18-2006, 8:04 AM
My God that is a horrible story, made worse by the fact that wasn't a random act. I feel for those who lost thier loved ones.

There is always an exception, and I concur that I too have and would continue to carry under the realistic fears of harm to me or my family (like when one of my tenants decided to go 5150).

Let's hope that all the "Greg's" of the world get whats coming to them BEFORE their inner bomb go off.

...I will carry with or without a 'permit' any time I honestly feel my life or the lives of my family or other innocent people may be in danger.
We could say that since we don't know when or who might be killed, I should carry ALL the time. I don't...

slo5oh
04-18-2006, 12:43 PM
Get a fishing license, put a fishing rod in your car and tell em your going fishing.

PC 12025 shall does not apply to or affect the lawful transportation or possession of a firearm under specific circumstances, including, but not limited to,...

* Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from such hunting or fishing expeditions.


Got this one from a Fish and Game cop.

;)

You're a genius,
I found the exact wording:
Section 12027. Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following: (shortened)
...
(a) police
(b) gun dealers, manufacturers, etc.
(c) army, navy, air force, marines on duty or for events
(d) military or civil for parades
(e) private guards
*** I like this one too ***
(f) Members of any club or organization organized for the purpose
of practicing shooting at targets upon established target ranges,
whether public or private, while the members are using pistols,
revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the
person upon the target ranges, or transporting these firearms
unloaded when going to and from the ranges.
...

(g) Licensed hunters or fishermen carrying pistols, revolvers, or
other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person while
engaged in hunting or fishing, or transporting those firearms
unloaded when going to or returning from the hunting or fishing
expedition.

(h) licensed common carrier (?)
(i) retired federal officers with sheriffs ok
(j) those with a CCW

So by the letter of the law it looks like a hunters or fishermen license negates all of 12025. 12026 is the bit about "locked containers" that also negates 12025. If I were a lawyer I'd tell everyone that can't get a CCW to get a fishing or hunting license and if you get pulled over, if you get questioned and if the firearm was found simply state that you were going or coming from hunting or fishing. Shouldn't be hard to say you were coming from fishing. Smart.... FCinCA, looks like your fish and game bud gave you some GREAT advice. I wouldn't expect any old LEO to know or expect this so you better keep the law printed and in your glove box. :)
Here's the entire 12020 to 12040 sections:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=39075414015+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

odysseus
04-19-2006, 12:12 AM
Good thread. Some good comments here. Regarding the topic, I would never advise to regularly carry illegally. However we are all humans and if there was some imminent threat to life, then it's about a human-right to defend yourself and your loved ones. LE can't help you in most situations, just cleanup afterwards and maybe catch the bad guy. I hope no one ever finds themselves in that kind of situation.

I think so much I read here goes to show how Californians need to step up and fight for shall issue CCW laws. That's where we all need to put our energies. Cali gun owners are a strange crowd. Most of us fear being "out'ed" as gun owners among our so called "progressive" neighbors. How else can we explain the mass amount of legally owned firearms (millions) and such uber-control laws on the books? Where is this silent majority? Do they know what is happening? We need to vote, vote, and get the word out and educate.

However saying that, today I saw a bumper sticker next to the "Kerry 2004" sticker on a Subaru that said "Ban all guns, because then only bad guys will accidently shoot children". I won't go into the B.S. and blatent stupid manipulation that is, but hope that it tells you how far gone the "gun fearing" liberal is, alla S.F.'s attempt at confiscation of handguns. It will be a fight against all the forces and money of leftist groups and organizations like the teacher unions.

I know many LE here are pro-gun, heck your on the board (that's a good thing). However I think the divide is happening more with the RKBA community with LE departments when you see many officers and their union reps supporting anti-gun legislation and smiling for photo op's at the gun for (fill in blank) tents.

VeryCoolCat
04-19-2006, 12:54 AM
Whats the state that gives 1 year of prison per bullet loaded in a firearm??? :D :D

jdberger
04-19-2006, 1:09 AM
What ever happened to cops refusing to enforce a law because it was wrong?
Segregation
Deportation
Confiscation

Wrong.

Playing the "what if" game is a non-starter.

What if the guy you don't pull over for not signalling has the President in his trunk?

What if the house you drive by with the open window has a rapist inside?

Things are not wrong, should not be illegal just because the criminal can misuse them. Hammers, pens, baseball bats, kitchen knives, guns.

It is the intent of the criminal, not the inanimate object they carry.

stealthmode
04-19-2006, 1:15 AM
wow 21 pages thats a long thread.

PIRATE14
04-19-2006, 10:56 AM
The "hair pull takedown" is an approved technique by most depts. If you are carrying an conceled weapon w/o a permit you are breaking the law and putting the cop's life in danger. The fact the you have that weapon on you is the "threat of injury" that may justify use of force.

I always think the opposite....when around cops their weapons are the threat of injury.....:D

sned45
04-19-2006, 2:04 PM
I will say that you will be arrested if packing. I konw a couple police officers and have asked them this very question and they all say and have arrested anyone they find packing with out a permit.

one of my friends pulled over an off duty secerity guard who was packing and when the guard reached for something he saw a gun in the holster next thing the guard saw was a Glock pointed at his head.

bountyhunter
04-19-2006, 2:08 PM
I think so much I read here goes to show how Californians need to step up and fight for shall issue CCW laws. That's where we all need to put our energies.

OK, now all you need to do is tell us how we are supposed to do that when the clear majority of californians:

1) Don't like guns

2) Don't want people to own guns

3) Keep electing dipwads like Dianne feinswine who are absolutely anit-gun, ant-carry, anti-ammo, and anti anybody owning a gun (except for her, of course).

last time I checked, we were stuck with democracy here.... and that means if 50.0001% of the people vote for the wrong thing, it still becomes law..... or senator, or president as the case may be.

DrjonesUSA
04-19-2006, 2:12 PM
last time I checked, we were stuck with democracy here.... and that means if 50.0001% of the people vote for the wrong thing, it still becomes law..... or senator, or president as the case may be.


Technically we are a Constitutional Republic, but the point is moot since the Constitution isn't worth the parchment it's written on anymore. :(

bountyhunter
04-19-2006, 2:18 PM
Technically we are a Constitutional Republic, but the point is moot since the Constitution isn't worth the parchment it's written on anymore. :(
The problem in kali is called the ballot initiative. Any idiot can round up the signatures to get a proposition on the ballot, and then 50.000001% of the voters turn it into law.

Even if we somehow got the legislature to enact sane gun laws, the voters would throw them out at the next election with ballot legislation (like Ahnolde tried when he couldn't bully the legislators).

50 Freak
04-19-2006, 2:25 PM
The problem in kali is called the ballot initiative. Any idiot can round up the signatures to get a proposition on the ballot, and then 50.000001% of the voters turn it into law.


Wonder if a few california "idiots" from all the gun boards got together and did a massive signature roundup for a ballot initiative. Could we get a one for making CA a shall issue state. May not pass the first time but then we'll name it something cool like "the anti-terrorist, immigration protection, two cheerleaders in every house state intitiative. We can't lose.

I will be my last dollar if that happens, the crime rates here will come down.

An armed society is a polite society.

DrjonesUSA
04-19-2006, 2:26 PM
The problem in kali is called the ballot initiative. Any idiot can round up the signatures to get a proposition on the ballot, and then 50.000001% of the voters turn it into law.

Even if we somehow got the legislature to enact sane gun laws, the voters would throw them out at the next election with ballot legislation (like Ahnolde tried when he couldn't bully the legislators).


You make a good point, but I'd say that a lot of good propositions have been passed, and a lot of bad laws have been turned around by good propositions.

187 passed, but was later defeated by the ACommunistLU.

I don't think that an anti-gun proposition would even make it on the ballot, due mostly to sheer apathy.

People don't get off their butts to go vote against guns.

DrjonesUSA
04-19-2006, 2:27 PM
Wonder if a few california "idiots" from all the gun boards got together and did a massive ballot initiative. Could we get a state wide one for making CA a shall issue state.

I will be my last dollar if that happens, the crime rates here will come down.

An armed society is a polite society.


We already tried to get one to add a RKBA provision to the State Constitution but it crashed.

I understand that efforts are still underway for next year though!

50 Freak
04-19-2006, 2:29 PM
Probably because we named it wrong. Or maybe overshot in our goals.

Aim small, miss small.

odysseus
04-19-2006, 9:43 PM
OK, now all you need to do is tell us how we are supposed to do that when the clear majority of californians:

1) Don't like guns

2) Don't want people to own guns

3) Keep electing dipwads like Dianne feinswine who are absolutely anit-gun, ant-carry, anti-ammo, and anti anybody owning a gun (except for her, of course).

last time I checked, we were stuck with democracy here.... and that means if 50.0001% of the people vote for the wrong thing, it still becomes law..... or senator, or president as the case may be.

I feel your pain. ;)