PDA

View Full Version : Misdemeanor in California - No gun ownership


Lrchops
01-21-2011, 9:28 AM
In California if you commit an assualt/battery and are convicted, you cannot own a firearm. This is another junk science law that is rediculous.

If you are out in public with your wife and children and say some punk on dope inappropriately touches your wife or kid and you take action to protect your family,,,,you may lose your right to ever own a firearm in the state.

Drunk in a bar harasses your wife or gropers her and you punch him in the face, you may lose your right to ever own a firearm in California.

If you get into a fight during a self defense situation and you are in the right,,,,and you get a crappy cop who can't see past the paperwork, then your screwed,,,especially if you get a District Attorney that is thirsty!

So the residents of San Francisco, Berkley, Davis, and other liberal cities in the state should beware!

Fiveohmike
01-21-2011, 9:33 AM
Source?

When I fill out paperwork it asks if I commited a felony not a misdemeanor.

taperxz
01-21-2011, 9:43 AM
In California if you commit an assualt/battery and are convicted, you cannot own a firearm. This is another junk science law that is rediculous.

If you are out in public with your wife and children and say some punk on dope inappropriately touches your wife or kid and you take action to protect your family,,,,you may lose your right to ever own a firearm in the state.

Drunk in a bar harasses your wife or gropers her and you punch him in the face, you may lose your right to ever own a firearm in California.

If you get into a fight during a self defense situation and you are in the right,,,,and you get a crappy cop who can't see past the paperwork, then your screwed,,,especially if you get a District Attorney that is thirsty!

So the residents of San Francisco, Berkley, Davis, and other liberal cities in the state should beware!

In those cases you mention, I don't see the need to punch anyone! You could just walk away from those situations.

If you are in bar? Well lets just say if you are in a bar you are probably drinking also! Is ANYONE really using good judgement while drinking in a bar:rolleyes:

Beelzy
01-21-2011, 9:56 AM
.........And you get sued in Civil Court by the guy for new dental work. ;)

meaty-btz
01-21-2011, 10:02 AM
Be good little victims and run away to tell the Mighty State that a bad man touched your kid and hope they actually DO something about it.

Self Defense is a Right. Anything less is uncivilized. No wonder the criminals in this state are so happy.

stix213
01-21-2011, 10:06 AM
Unless its a dv charge this sounds like fud to me

taperxz
01-21-2011, 10:19 AM
Be good little victims and run away to tell the Mighty State that a bad man touched your kid and hope they actually DO something about it.

Self Defense is a Right. Anything less is uncivilized. No wonder the criminals in this state are so happy.

No one is saying not defend yourself from someone trying to hurt you but the OP's situation can be avoided without putting yourself in a situation to get in trouble with the law. The confrontational line has to be drawn somewhere.

edwardm
01-21-2011, 10:22 AM
OP is probably referring to prohibiting misdemeanors under PC 12021(c).

Unless it's a DV misdemeanor, the prohibition is generally 10 years, not lifetime.

Unless its a dv charge this sounds like fud to me

JSilvoso
01-21-2011, 10:25 AM
Unless its a dv charge this sounds like fud to me


You are correct, unless it was DV most misdemeanors in California are only 10 year restrictions, this includes assault (PC 240) and/or battery (PC 242). (See Penal Code section 12021(c)(1)). There are some misdemeanors that are lifetime bans (see Cal pen 12021(a)(1)) but these mostly have to do with acts involving firearms. And, even as misdemenors, offenses listed in 12021.1 are lifetime bans but these are usually more violent offenses though ADW and Assault with great bodily injury are lifetime bans.

Most of the instances the OP is talking about (i.e. bar fights) should be handled with a PC 415 (disturbing the peace). A 415 as a misdemenor is not a prohibiting offense (unless it is a dv charge). And a 415 can also be pled to as an infraction.

All the more reason to have a competent attorney handle your case who also knows CA gun law.

M1A Rifleman
01-21-2011, 10:31 AM
This may be a TROLL, but to respond, its just like in School, it didn't matter who started it, both are hauled-in and sent home for fighting.

Punching someone based on the scenarios you mention SHOULD void your gun right, as there are other means to resolve the problem.

I guess the point of the law is to remove gun rights from the hot heads that want to throw punches during verbal altercations, and other silly problems. I have no problem with this.

wildhawker
01-21-2011, 10:34 AM
Once again M1A shows his disdain for the word "fundamental" and implications therefrom.

M1A Rifleman
01-21-2011, 10:46 AM
Once again M1A shows his disdain for the word "fundamental" and implications therefrom.

Yea, you and I have a "fundamental" difference of opinion.

The more odd opinions I read on this forum which I interpret to mean "guns for all", the more I'm pushed to join the Brady side and to help them.

jb7706
01-21-2011, 11:05 AM
Once again M1A shows his disdain for the word "fundamental" and implications therefrom.

Thank goodness for ignore lists.

MrClamperSir
01-21-2011, 11:10 AM
Yea, you and I have a "fundamental" difference of opinion.

The more odd opinions I read on this forum which I interpret to mean "guns for all", the more I'm pushed to join the Brady side and to help them.

WOW! Thatís an incredible statement.

"Odd opinions"? Defending ones self or loved ones is "odd'?:confused:

I've been in those situations when younger and would hate to think that could result in a loss of my rights. I would most definitely consider someone groping my wife or kids an assault and it will be met with reasonable force.

Lrchops
01-21-2011, 11:11 AM
In those cases you mention, I don't see the need to punch anyone! You could just walk away from those situations.

If you are in bar? Well lets just say if you are in a bar you are probably drinking also! Is ANYONE really using good judgement while drinking in a bar:rolleyes:

No, I agree with you,,,but my point is there may be a circumstance where you need to protect yourself and it results in a physical confrontation. If for any reason you are convicted of battery, you lose your right to own a firearm.

In no way am I advocating the provocation of a fight. A friend of mine was at dinner with his wife and kid and a intoxicated jerk started hitting on his wife. She asked the guy to leave her alone and he rubbed up against her boobs intentionally. Her husband warned the guy and advised the restraunt manager. The drunk guy again bothered his wife and grabbed her arm and pulled her towrads him against her will. My buddy stepped in and punched the drunk guy in the face and the fight was on. Long story short. Drunk guy was arrested and my buddy was charged with 240/242 PC. The charges were later dropped, but if the was prosecuted, he would have lost his right to own a firearm and had to turn in his guns to the authorities.

M1A Rifleman
01-21-2011, 11:16 AM
I would most definitely consider someone groping my wife or kids an assault and it will be met with reasonable force.

Your right on this and my comment was off here. I would also react as required.

odysseus
01-21-2011, 11:17 AM
This may be a TROLL, but to respond, its just like in School, it didn't matter who started it, both are hauled-in and sent home for fighting.

Punching someone based on the scenarios you mention SHOULD void your gun right, as there are other means to resolve the problem.

I guess the point of the law is to remove gun rights from the hot heads that want to throw punches during verbal altercations, and other silly problems. I have no problem with this.

<Head Slap>

Someone inappropriately touching your wife or a child (as in the hypothetical scenario given) is Assault. Sometimes talking to the perpetrator or walking away is not an option and you must use physical force to stop this physical attack, that is unless you live in a fantasy. It's NOT like "in school" for many innocent people whom are victimized.

The fact is a fundamental right to bear arms hangs in a perilous balance with the justice system.

Glock22Fan
01-21-2011, 11:30 AM
No, I agree with you,,,but my point is there may be a circumstance where you need to protect yourself and it results in a physical confrontation. If for any reason you are convicted of battery, you lose your right to own a firearm.

In no way am I advocating the provocation of a fight. A friend of mine was at dinner with his wife and kid and a intoxicated jerk started hitting on his wife. She asked the guy to leave her alone and he rubbed up against her boobs intentionally. Her husband warned the guy and advised the restraunt manager. The drunk guy again bothered his wife and grabbed her arm and pulled her towrads him against her will. My buddy stepped in and punched the drunk guy in the face and the fight was on. Long story short. Drunk guy was arrested and my buddy was charged with 240/242 PC. The charges were later dropped, but if the was prosecuted, he would have lost his right to own a firearm and had to turn in his guns to the authorities.

Seems completely reasonable to me. The responding officers handled the case without taking sides, and the D.A. reviewed the facts and decided your buddy was in the clear. And your buddy still has his gun rights. The system worked, didn't it?

Spartan
01-21-2011, 11:41 AM
Here's a thought, leave California, those laws you folks have out there are crazy.

My375hp302
01-21-2011, 11:50 AM
<Head Slap>

Someone inappropriately touching your wife or a child (as in the hypothetical scenario given) is Assault. Sometimes talking to the perpetrator or walking away is not an option and you must use physical force to stop this physical attack, that is unless you live in a fantasy. It's NOT like "in school" for many innocent people whom are victimized.

The fact is a fundamental right to bear arms hangs in a perilous balance with the justice system.

Lets define some things here since the FUD is getting thick...

Assault pen code 240 : An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. (An example would be a drunk guy taking a swing at you but missing IE no contact)

Battery pen code 242 : A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. (An example would be if the drunk guy swung on you and MADE contact.)

Now what the guy in the scenerio did was neither assault nor battery, because he made contact with the wife's breasts I would have charged it as sexual battery and because the guy pulled her over to him with his arm it could go felony sexaul battery.

Sexual battery (felony) pen code 243.4. (a) Any person who touches an intimate part of another person while that person is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, and if the touching is against the will of the person touched and is for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual
gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of sexual battery. A
violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail for not more than one year, and by a fine not exceeding
two thousand dollars ($2,000); or by imprisonment in the state prison
for two, three, or four years, and by a fine not exceeding ten
thousand dollars ($10,000).

Sexual battery (misd) pen code 243.4 (e) (1) Any person who touches an intimate part of another person, if the touching is against the will of the person touched, and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery, punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both
that fine and imprisonment.

In any case I would have fed that guy his teeth and if the DA wanted to charge 242 I'd take it to jury trial. Even in these days of moron jury's I'd like to see a DA that could piece together a jury that would convict you of defending your wife from a sexual predator.

xrMike
01-21-2011, 11:53 AM
If you are out in public with your wife and children and say some punk on dope inappropriately touches your wife or kid and you take action to protect your family,,,,you may lose your right to ever own a firearm in the state.

Drunk in a bar harasses your wife or gropers her and you punch him in the face, you may lose your right to ever own a firearm in California.

If you get into a fight during a self defense situation and you are in the right

I'm guessing less than 1% of all assault/battery cases involve situations like that, where the guy charged was righteous.

99% of the time, the guy charged is a dirtbag who can't control his temper.

So we should let the 99% of dirtbags own guns in order to not infringe on the rights of the 1%...

That is what you're saying, right?

I'd rather tell the 1% they need to find better lawyers who will get them off the charges.

SwissFluCase
01-21-2011, 12:16 PM
I have had a number of friends who are bikers tell me over the years...

If you win or survive the fight, leave the bar, club, or wherever you happen to be. The police tend to arrest whoever is left over, injured or not, no matter if they started it or not.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Patrick Aherne
01-21-2011, 12:30 PM
No, I agree with you,,,but my point is there may be a circumstance where you need to protect yourself and it results in a physical confrontation. If for any reason you are convicted of battery, you lose your right to own a firearm.

In no way am I advocating the provocation of a fight. A friend of mine was at dinner with his wife and kid and a intoxicated jerk started hitting on his wife. She asked the guy to leave her alone and he rubbed up against her boobs intentionally. Her husband warned the guy and advised the restraunt manager. The drunk guy again bothered his wife and grabbed her arm and pulled her towrads him against her will. My buddy stepped in and punched the drunk guy in the face and the fight was on. Long story short. Drunk guy was arrested and my buddy was charged with 240/242 PC. The charges were later dropped, but if the was prosecuted, he would have lost his right to own a firearm and had to turn in his guns to the authorities.

Your buddy should have called the cops, instead of the restaurant manager. The first person to call is usually listed as the reporting party, not the suspect in the police report.

Also, while California is a true man state, proving that you were just minding your own business can be a little difficult in a confusing bar scene, with drunk witnesses and "friends" adding to the picture.

Whenever I am out and about and drunken fools want to tango, I usually leave with haste because it is just not worth it. I've got nothing to prove and my manhood won't be crushed by walking away.

Lrchops
01-21-2011, 1:40 PM
Your buddy should have called the cops, instead of the restaurant manager. The first person to call is usually listed as the reporting party, not the suspect in the police report.

Also, while California is a true man state, proving that you were just minding your own business can be a little difficult in a confusing bar scene, with drunk witnesses and "friends" adding to the picture.

Whenever I am out and about and drunken fools want to tango, I usually leave with haste because it is just not worth it. I've got nothing to prove and my manhood won't be crushed by walking away.

I agree! There will be times where maybe an off duty cop or an honest good citizen may be negatively affected by this law. There are many scenarios, but my point is that we (the good folks) just have to be aware how this could impact your life if you get into a physical confrontation. There are jurisdictions where the Gov't (Cops and DA's) sometimes don't use the best judgement or common sense. Some jurisdictions are black/white with no grey area!

magsnubby
01-21-2011, 1:49 PM
Here's a thought, leave California, those laws you folks have out there are crazy.


Sure. If you pay my moving expenses, buy me a house, support me and my wife until we can retire i'll gladly move. Wait. You'll also need to buy my son and daughter houses. And my mom. And my oldest grand daughter. And support everyone until they all get jobs. So when can i expect the check? .

MudCamper
01-21-2011, 1:51 PM
While somebody who "gropes" your wife is certainly rude (and possibly guilty of some criminal offense - I don't know), responding to that with "a punch to the face" is an act of violence and it is a crime (battery), and you are now the one much more in the wrong.

While I do not agree with M1A that that should cause a loss of firearms rights, I do wholeheartedly agree it should be punished harshly under the law. A punch to the face could be interpreted as lethal force, in which case things could escalate to a very bad place very quickly.

Patrick Aherne
01-21-2011, 1:58 PM
Mudcamper, using force stop a felony sexual battery is legitimate self-defense. However, proving you acted in self defense may cost you thousands of dollars and some freedom.

MudCamper
01-21-2011, 1:59 PM
I do not think that "groping" is felony sexual battery. Let me go look it up...

ETA: PC 243.4. It's a misdemeanor, unless restrained (or other specific circumstances).

Don29palms
01-21-2011, 2:14 PM
Here's a thought, leave California, those laws you folks have out there are crazy.

It's a nice thought but I wish people would quit saying that. It is not a realistic solution to the problem. There are situations where people can't just leave California.

Steve_338LM
01-21-2011, 2:15 PM
Here's a thought, leave California, those laws you folks have out there are crazy.

Well, today it's clear, sunny and a mild 70F outside. I went for a nice dive this morning and am now relaxing with a cold beer out in the yard. It rarely ever gets below freezing here, and a hot day is the rare occasion when it gets warmer than 90F. I have a nice firearms collection in spite of the crazy laws, and many of these laws will likely go away in the future. As worked up as I can occasionally get about some of the laws passed here, they rarely impact my life, and in many cases can me circumvented. Things would be perfect if I could do something about the taxes and overpopulation.

Misdemeanor convictions that would result in a firearm ban are easily avoidable by exercising only reasonable force that is proportional to the threat, and if necessary, following JSilvoso's advice if charges are filed. In the few times where I have been required to use physical force, my actions have never been questioned by LE.

J.D.Allen
01-21-2011, 2:23 PM
I do not think that "groping" is felony sexual battery. Let me go look it up...

ETA: PC 243.4. It's a misdemeanor, unless restrained (or other specific circumstances).

Doesn't matter if it's a felony or not, if someone is assaulting your wife you have the right to defend her. Try to do it by talking first, but if that doesn't work it's time to bar the doors annie...

MudCamper
01-21-2011, 2:39 PM
Doesn't matter if it's a felony or not, if someone is assaulting your wife you have the right to defend her. Try to do it by talking first, but if that doesn't work it's time to bar the doors annie...

First, you are advocating using words, rather than violence. That's good. That's what a reasonable man would do (IMO). But then you go on to describe a completely different scenario than the OP's. We were talking about a single grope, not an unrelenting attack. Punching a man for touching his wife is a punishment, not a defense. (And the act of an insecurity.) Citizens are not legally authorized to punish. Only the courts are.

dantodd
01-21-2011, 2:55 PM
Man this thread is depressing.

Hogxtz
01-21-2011, 2:55 PM
If someone touches youe wife once and stops, you may not punch him. This would not be self defense as the offense has stopped. If the BG continues to try to touch again against your will than you have the right to use force to stop it.

SwissFluCase
01-21-2011, 3:04 PM
If someone touches youe wife once and stops, you may not punch him. This would not be self defense as the offense has stopped. If the BG continues to try to touch again against your will than you have the right to use force to stop it.

That is an "unfortunate" reality. If you command someone to back off and they do, it's over. Doesn't rule out pursuing criminal charges against the perp, or a civil suit.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

odysseus
01-21-2011, 3:11 PM
Lets define some things here since the FUD is getting thick.......<snip>

Wow... you needed to go that deep to make your authoritative point about assault and battery? My use was layman in common speak.

Yes, anyway you got the point though. It is not an issue to be taken lightly - the unwanted groping of a loved one, and the situation could move to your need to use physical force to stop which may well turn into hand to hand combat.

Again to reiterate, it places your Constitutional right to bear arms in peril, even though a firearm was never even in the picture. Perilously it is abused by DAs against gun owners.

Zak
01-21-2011, 3:15 PM
If someone touches youe wife once and stops, you may not punch him. This would not be self defense as the offense has stopped. If the BG continues to try to touch again against your will than you have the right to use force to stop it.

If someone touches my GF he's getting punched, self defense or not.

ocspeedracer
01-21-2011, 3:15 PM
2 more people added to my ignore list. If someone touches my kid or my wife they get hit, depending on the details of the circumstance.

rodeoflyer
01-21-2011, 3:23 PM
Yea, you and I have a "fundamental" difference of opinion.

The more odd opinions I read on this forum which I interpret to mean "guns for all", the more I'm pushed to join the Brady side and to help them.

Kindly leave the M1A by the door on your way out. :D

MudCamper
01-21-2011, 3:30 PM
If someone touches my GF he's getting punched, self defense or not.

2 more people added to my ignore list. If someone touches my kid or my wife they get hit

You are announcing that you are incapable of controlling your animal instincts of violence. Don't you see that you are just proving M1A's point? If you really feel this way, you need to grow up fast, before you end up in jail.

scarville
01-21-2011, 3:40 PM
Here's a thought, leave California, those laws you folks have out there are crazy.
You cannot win your rights back by ceding territory to the enemy without a fight.

Zak
01-21-2011, 3:41 PM
You are announcing that you are incapable of controlling your animal instincts of violence. Don't you see that you are just proving M1A's point? If you really feel this way, you need to grow up fast, before you end up in jail.

Call it "animal instincts of violence" if you will, I call it standing up for my woman. Some people can't be reasoned with, and obviously a man who just groped your wife is one of them.

Patrick Aherne
01-21-2011, 3:46 PM
Mudcamper, the OP said the wife was pulled towards wall and not let go, ergo, the elements for felony sexual battery if any sexual touching went on. The might also be false imprisonment. My point is that it might be legal to defend your wife, but it could also be expensive when it comes to legal fees, etc.

NightOwl
01-21-2011, 4:05 PM
I'm guessing less than 1% of all assault/battery cases involve situations like that, where the guy charged was righteous.

99% of the time, the guy charged is a dirtbag who can't control his temper.

So we should let the 99% of dirtbags own guns in order to not infringe on the rights of the 1%...

That is what you're saying, right?

I'd rather tell the 1% they need to find better lawyers who will get them off the charges.

That's what I'm saying. Ben Franklin agrees with me. William Blackstone puts the number at 10 to 1. God, according to the bible, puts it somewhere farther past Franklins ratio. The list goes on (have a read here if interested: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm )

You seem to side with tyranny, though only a little bit. Sucks to be that 1%, especially if they end up with a poor lawyer, or even just a lawyer having an off day (flu, migrane, whatever).

Rivers
01-21-2011, 4:12 PM
The more I read threads about lifetime ban on firearms for acts that really don't justify such a severe punishment, it brings me to think that this "political correctness" BS is way over the top. I mean, aside from the graphic nature of the punishment, how different is Lautenburg's amendment for lifetime bans than an 18 year old Iranian who steals an orange from a fruit vendor's stand? Their form of punishment isn't appropriate either: Off with the hand!

We should have a means to moderate the punishment to make it appropriate for the crime. Yes, some crimes do justify permanent firearm bans. But I think that for many crimes, that response is an overreaction caused by a guilty-driven need to be politically correct. And that is wrong.

M1A Rifleman
01-21-2011, 4:14 PM
Kindly leave the M1A by the door on your way out. :D

Guns for me, but not thee. :43:

MudCamper
01-21-2011, 4:51 PM
Mudcamper, the OP said the wife was pulled towards wall and not let go, ergo, the elements for felony sexual battery if any sexual touching went on. The might also be false imprisonment. My point is that it might be legal to defend your wife, but it could also be expensive when it comes to legal fees, etc.

OK. Somehow I missed his second post. I stand corrected. Yes in that case his actions seem justified.

Call it "animal instincts of violence" if you will, I call it standing up for my woman. Some people can't be reasoned with, and obviously a man who just groped your wife is one of them.

Given that the scenario is now that the guy is continuing the assault, I would agree. If it were a single "grope" and nothing more, then you'd be legally in the wrong.

wildhawker
01-21-2011, 5:01 PM
I'm sure your inability to reason and lack of respect for core civil liberties will be greatly appreciated by the Brady Campaign.

-Brandon

Yea, you and I have a "fundamental" difference of opinion.

The more odd opinions I read on this forum which I interpret to mean "guns for all", the more I'm pushed to join the Brady side and to help them.

resident-shooter
01-21-2011, 8:26 PM
bar shootouts ftw!

Uriah02
01-21-2011, 8:33 PM
Be good little victims and run away to tell the Mighty State that a bad man touched your kid and hope they actually DO something about it.

Self Defense is a Right. Anything less is uncivilized. No wonder the criminals in this state are so happy.

There's self defense and there getting in a fight over pride, distinguish the two.

MP301
01-21-2011, 10:05 PM
Here's a thought, leave California, those laws you folks have out there are crazy.

Good thing for you that a lot of us are sticking around to fight Ca's BS laws, cause you forget that the **** starts here a lot of times and ends up on your doorstep. You should be supporting us, not talking out of the side of your neck.... If we all just packed up and moved, the virus here would spread like wildfire...dont forget this.

Sgt5811
01-21-2011, 11:57 PM
@mudcamper,
I'm sorry that you were not raised here in the real world, however; the correct response to the OP's hypothetical scenario would be to promptly commence to ending the individuals evening out and send him on his way to the local apothecary or the neareat ER. If that doesn't turn out the intended way, CA penal code 197 identifies when homicide by any person is justified "when necessarily commited to apprehend any person for any felony commited." What's written on paper is what happened. Sad truth is, I'm sure my wife is an excellent victim and witness.

Grow up and stop letting the wolves treat you like a sheep!

fiddletown
01-22-2011, 12:25 AM
Bottom line is that our society frowns on one person intentionally hurting another. On the other hand, the law does recognize that there are times when intentionally hurting another is appropriate -- such as when necessary in justified self defense or defense of others.

So if you've intentionally hurt someone else, you will start off by becoming far more involved with the criminal justice system than you'd probably like to be. But then if it is established that your actions satisfied the applicable legal standards for justifying the use of force in self defense, you will be exonerated.

That's pretty much the way things work everywhere in this country, and it's been pretty much that way under the Common Law for several hundred years.

This really isn't anything new. This really isn't a California thing.

JDay
01-22-2011, 2:32 AM
In California if you commit an assualt/battery and are convicted, you cannot own a firearm. This is another junk science law that is rediculous.

At the most that will disqualify you for 10 years, unless it was domestic violence, they you're federally ****ed.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php

10. What are the restrictions on firearms possession?

Any person who has a conviction for any misdemeanor listed in Penal Code section 12021(c)(1) or for any felony, or is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, or has been held involuntarily as a danger to self or others pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 8103 is prohibited from buying, owning, or possessing firearms. Various other prohibitions exist for mental conditions, domestic restraining/protective orders, conditions of probation, and offenses committed as a juvenile.

PC Sections 12021 and 12021.1, Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 8100 - 8103)

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12021.html

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

Lrchops
01-22-2011, 5:35 AM
I have nothing to prove to anyone and do not wish to get into confrontations, but if someone provokes a confrontation to the point where I beleive they would harm my family, they do not even have to touch them before I will percieve a threat and take action. That is my 'ANIMAL INSTINCT' and I use that instinct for survival. If we fail to listen to that instinct (which is correct 99.9% of the time) and we give a second chance to the perpetrator of potential violent acts, that may be a fatal decision on our part.

NO ONE touches my wife or child inappropriately without suffering a consequence. END OF STORY! I also do not wait for the police arrive, because by that time it may be TOO LATE!!

PEOPLE must not rely on police or government to protect them. People must protect themselves and not be feeble or fall into a fetal position waiting for the police.

I always advise crime victims to do whatever is necessecary to protect themselves knowing the police response may be delayed. I advise my good citizen crime victims to purchase a firearm, know how to use a firearm, have a firearm ready for use, and keep the firearm properly secured.

Owning a gun does not make you armed anymore than owning a guitar makes you a musician. Lt. Col Jeff Cooper

Rob454
01-22-2011, 7:17 AM
This may be a TROLL, but to respond, its just like in School, it didn't matter who started it, both are hauled-in and sent home for fighting.

Punching someone based on the scenarios you mention SHOULD void your gun right, as there are other means to resolve the problem.

I guess the point of the law is to remove gun rights from the hot heads that want to throw punches during verbal altercations, and other silly problems. I have no problem with this.

BIG BIG difference between fighting on school grounds and having someone molest/grope your child or your wife.

Ok so let me go grope your wife body or child or get physical with you. Doesn't seem like you are willing to fight for your family. I guess you can sit there and say don't do that while I cop a feel of your wifes body or ( disgusting as it is to write this) your child. Im willing to bet my paycheck you will intervene. As a husband as a father you will intervene. if you dont then you probably shouldn't be a husband OR a father. your family should be the most important thin in your life. It is in mine and I will die defending them. And ANY cop that sits there and takes the other guys side probably doesn't deserve to even remotely be near the words to serve and protect.

Getting in a fight when someone is ASSAULTING your wife your child or yourself does not make you a agressor or a bad person. ( and someone that touches ( doesnt have to punch them just touch them) a person without their consent is as far as I know is called battery) There are times when a fight is a lot of posturing and you can back down from those say some drunk is loud and belligerent (Ive seen a few of those i would also since I know when its better to back down than to fight and the ONLY time I would back down is if its just a drunk/someone mouthing off. I just say consider the source) but if someone punches me or touches my family the line was crossed and backing down is no longer a option. I guess if defending my family against a real threat from another person makes me a hot head then Im a hothead:rolleyes: I'm not gonna go out looking for fights ( never have never will) but i will not let someone assault me or my family either.


There is absolutely no way on gods green earth I would ever let someone touch my family at least not as long as I am alive and can do something about it. Are you kidding me.






Yea, you and I have a "fundamental" difference of opinion.

The more odd opinions I read on this forum which I interpret to mean "guns for all", the more I'm pushed to join the Brady side and to help them.

Amazing

locosway
01-22-2011, 7:26 AM
Yea, you and I have a "fundamental" difference of opinion.

The more odd opinions I read on this forum which I interpret to mean "guns for all", the more I'm pushed to join the Brady side and to help them.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Oh, and while you're at it, make sure to buy a big tube of

https://www.cvs.com/CVSApp/images/fs/large/521232600.jpg

for when those Brady's have you bent over.

choprzrul
01-22-2011, 8:00 AM
I guess the point of the law is to remove gun rights speech rights from the hot heads that want to throw punches zingers during verbal altercations, and other silly problems. I have no problem with this.

So you would have no problem with a 10 year speaking/writing ban on someone who uses speech in a misdemeanorous way in a public place? Even if I am found guilty of yelling "FIRE" in a theater, my 1st amendment rights are not suspended for 10 years.

Fundamental rights are fundamental rights. In the theater example, I would still be able to exercise my 1A rights after a prison term, but I might be banned from theaters. If I get in a fight in a bar, I should be able to exercise my 2A rights after a prison term. My fundamental rights should only be separated when a person is under state control in jail/prison. When the dept is paid, a person rejoins society and should have the same rights as the rest of society. If they are not at a point where they can be trusted with their rights, then they need to remain in state control.

Heck, even jailed television evangelists are allowed their religious practices when in jail. Why? It is a fundamental right. Not saying inmates should have guns in jail, but the books should be wiped clean once a debt is paid.

.

choprzrul
01-22-2011, 8:05 AM
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Oh, and while you're at it, make sure to buy a big tube of

https://www.cvs.com/CVSApp/images/fs/large/521232600.jpg

for when those Brady's have you bent over.

Nonsense, welcome the opportunity to engage those with a different viewpoint. It is not my place to censor my fellow gun owner, but if the moderators want to take action on their forum it is their right. As long as M1A has a gun and is out shooting, there is hope for him.

I don't agree with M1A's positions, but I don't think he should be banned for stating them. He just has a different point of view on what it takes to separate someone from their fundamental rights.

.

supersonic
01-22-2011, 8:16 AM
I have had a number of friends who are bikers tell me over the years...

If you win or survive the fight, leave the bar, club, or wherever you happen to be. The police tend to arrest whoever is left over, injured or not, no matter if they started it or not.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

100% Agreed. In my younger ("hard knocks") days, after s**t went down & the fight was quite obviously over, I would always burn rubber as a rule. I remember many a "swift vehicular exit" and trying to drive with completely numb/busted-up knuckles. Once even with a broken right hand. It made steering & shifting interesting." Maybe that's what made me the good driver I am today!:p

scarville
01-22-2011, 8:31 AM
Yea, you and I have a "fundamental" difference of opinion.

The more odd opinions I read on this forum which I interpret to mean "guns for all", the more I'm pushed to join the Brady side and to help them.
Sorry to read that you feel that way but if you are serious then good luck. Amazon sells this (http://www.amazon.com/California-Exotic-Novelties-Llc-Anal/dp/B00172LYF0=) to help ease your transition:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31KyxS0KLbL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

MudCamper
01-22-2011, 8:50 AM
@mudcamper,
I'm sorry that you were not raised here in the real world, however; the correct response to the OP's hypothetical scenario would be to promptly commence to ending the individuals evening out and send him on his way to the local apothecary or the neareat ER. If that doesn't turn out the intended way, CA penal code 197 identifies when homicide by any person is justified "when necessarily commited to apprehend any person for any felony commited." What's written on paper is what happened. Sad truth is, I'm sure my wife is an excellent victim and witness.

Grow up and stop letting the wolves treat you like a sheep!

I guess just like I missed the OP's second post (redefining the scenario from a single grope to full fledged potential sexual battery), perhaps you also missed my response to that:

OK. Somehow I missed his second post. I stand corrected. Yes in that case his actions seem justified.

However, if you think I need to grow up because I know not to resort to violence over pride, well, you've got it quite backward my friend.

Ron-Solo
01-22-2011, 9:00 AM
In California if you commit an assualt/battery and are convicted, you cannot own a firearm. This is another junk science law that is rediculous.

If you are out in public with your wife and children and say some punk on dope inappropriately touches your wife or kid and you take action to protect your family,,,,you may lose your right to ever own a firearm in the state.

Drunk in a bar harasses your wife or gropers her and you punch him in the face, you may lose your right to ever own a firearm in California.

If you get into a fight during a self defense situation and you are in the right,,,,and you get a crappy cop who can't see past the paperwork, then your screwed,,,especially if you get a District Attorney that is thirsty!

So the residents of San Francisco, Berkley, Davis, and other liberal cities in the state should beware!


Sorry, but this is inaccurate.

Lrchops
01-22-2011, 9:10 AM
Sorry, but this is inaccurate.

It has been defined if you read the thread!!! It is accurate with some facts that have been attached by other members here. I only layed the foundation!

I also do not beleive M1A should be banned for expressing his opinion. Although I do not agree and his opinions to me are weak and unreasonable, he should still be allowed to express himself for debate!

supersonic
01-22-2011, 10:36 AM
Sorry to read that you feel that way but if you are serious then good luck. Amazon sells this (http://www.amazon.com/California-Exotic-Novelties-Llc-Anal/dp/B00172LYF0=) to help ease your transition:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31KyxS0KLbL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

And then, for that "minty-fresh" feeling afterward:

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb181/giftedgiver/SHINC1.jpg

Steve_338LM
01-22-2011, 11:05 AM
I'm feeling better about killing that guy for letting his dog poop on my lawn. For awhile I thought that maybe my actions were excessive. But clearly I was justified in defending my lawn's honor, if not in fact, saving the lives of several blades of grass.