PDA

View Full Version : man charged with AW possession...


RP1911
03-30-2011, 6:17 PM
http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2011/03/sacramento-da-w-5.html

Saigon1965
03-30-2011, 6:21 PM
AR-10 too - Nice -

PsychGuy274
03-30-2011, 6:21 PM
Wow, charged for a felony due to the writing on the side of a receiver...

stix213
03-30-2011, 6:39 PM
Sounds like these might be listed AW's and not by feature. Oops

Shotgun Man
03-30-2011, 6:43 PM
What difference does that make? If anything, I'd rather defend against a listed AR case than a feature case.

Quser.619
03-30-2011, 6:45 PM
Just couldn't let a man defend himself

626Tony
03-30-2011, 6:49 PM
ArmaLite AR-10 rifle and a Colt .223 rifle both are a no-no too bad

626Tony
03-30-2011, 6:50 PM
Just couldn't let a man defend himself

Agreed!

stix213
03-30-2011, 6:54 PM
What difference does that make? If anything, I'd rather defend against a listed AR case than a feature case.

The difference being that these stories often involve a screw up when its a feature case. A listed AR case is far more straight forward, and hard for even an uninformed LEO to get wrong.

I'd personally like to see a listed AR case where the rifle is either featureless or BB configured. It would be interesting to see that one fought all the way through court, even though it likely wouldn't get us as a whole anywhere (I'd just like to hear the state's argument as to why the writing on the side of a rifle is so important someone should be charged with a felony, when if it said something else you could buy it as is down the street).

jtmkinsd
03-30-2011, 6:54 PM
What difference does that make? If anything, I'd rather defend against a listed AR case than a feature case.

Arguing a listed receiver is like arguing the speed limit...it's posted, you know it, and you broke it.

stix213
03-30-2011, 6:57 PM
Arguing a listed receiver is like arguing the speed limit...it's posted, you know it, and you broke it.

Well..... Its more like if the sign says "1988 - 1999 Honda with VIN beginning with XXX - 35 MPH, All other Honda 65 MPH" and you get pulled over going 55.

desertdweller
03-30-2011, 6:59 PM
This might be a case to fight against the definition of AW, depending on what exactly made it one. If it was just a "list" item, should make for some interesting arguments. I'm guessing he didn't have a bullet button or had regular capacity magazines though.

Definitely a case to follow.

eville
03-30-2011, 7:03 PM
read the comments... we need to do a better job of educating the public. One comment was basically " i thought these silly laws sunsetted years ago. "

fd15k
03-30-2011, 7:03 PM
This might be a case to fight against the definition of AW, depending on what exactly made it one. If it was just a "list" item, should make for some interesting arguments. I'm guessing he didn't have a bullet button or had regular capacity magazines though.

Definitely a case to follow.

Indeed, maybe that's what we've been waiting for :)

stix213
03-30-2011, 7:10 PM
This might be a case to fight against the definition of AW, depending on what exactly made it one. If it was just a "list" item, should make for some interesting arguments. I'm guessing he didn't have a bullet button or had regular capacity magazines though.

Definitely a case to follow.

With questionable circumstances revolving around a homicide possibly using the AW's, this guy isn't exactly the best choice to base our fight against the AW ban on. How about we put our eggs in the basket of someone who didn't just kill a man over a hotel room break in? It will undoubtedly color the debate in court.

SHTFplz
03-30-2011, 7:21 PM
Is there somewhere where we can read a more detailed report? Or do we have to wait for the court hearing?

nick
03-30-2011, 7:21 PM
I guess they weren't RAWs. Or were they? I wonder if CGF is aware of this case.

nick
03-30-2011, 7:23 PM
Arguing a listed receiver is like arguing the speed limit...it's posted, you know it, and you broke it.

Unless you bought it way back when, the laws changed, and you don't actually know it. Which, judging by how many old-timers come to Calguns asking questions about the new (to them) AW laws, isn't all that uncommon.

SHTFplz
03-30-2011, 7:25 PM
With questionable circumstances revolving around a homicide possibly using the AW's, this guy isn't exactly the best choice to base our fight against the AW ban on. How about we put our eggs in the basket of someone who didn't just kill a man over a hotel room break in? It will undoubtedly color the debate in court.

I agree.

nick
03-30-2011, 7:27 PM
With questionable circumstances revolving around a homicide possibly using the AW's, this guy isn't exactly the best choice to base our fight against the AW ban on. How about we put our eggs in the basket of someone who didn't just kill a man over a hotel room break in? It will undoubtedly color the debate in court.

Umm, a hotel room break-in isn't a small matter, you know. You don't know what the person breaking into your room has in mind, all you know is that it's likely no good.

How is it different from breaking into your home again?

bjl333
03-30-2011, 7:27 PM
This could have the makings of a landmark case!! :popcorn:

Good Luck to Mr Walker ...

Mstrty
03-30-2011, 7:40 PM
CGF is aware of this case. I can't really say much more at this point. I would urge people to not publicly "speculate" too much about any facts in this case.

Without knowing more, I can say that, in general - cases which involve potential tertiary issues can be somewhat problematic.

Wish I could say more - but I've been seeing "a lack of discretion" on the forums recently. We need to ALWAYS remember that everyone now reads CGN!!!

This is good - but makes basically everything we say - very public. . .

:)

I will use descretion. Post deleted

jtmkinsd
03-30-2011, 7:41 PM
Unless you bought it way back when, the laws changed, and you don't actually know it. Which, judging by how many old-timers come to Calguns asking questions about the new (to them) AW laws, isn't all that uncommon.

And that argument always comes back to "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

I understand the premise there may be some who still don't know of the registration....but that isn't a valid defense.

oaklander
03-30-2011, 7:43 PM
CGF is aware of this case. I can't really say much more at this point. I would urge people to not publicly "speculate" too much about any facts in this case.

Without knowing more, I can say that, in general - cases which involve potential tertiary issues can be somewhat problematic.

Wish I could say more - but I've been seeing "a lack of discretion" on the forums recently. We need to ALWAYS remember that everyone now reads CGN!!!

This is good - but makes basically everything we say - very public. . .

:)

Shotgun Man
03-30-2011, 7:46 PM
And that argument always comes back to "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

I understand the premise there may be some who still don't know of the registration....but that isn't a valid defense.

Yeah, it is. You are charged with knowing possession of a listed AW.

If you don't know that you have a Colt Armalite AR-15, that is a valid legal defense.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, true. If you knowingly possess a Colt AR15 and are merely ignorant of the fact that the law prohibits your possession of the item, you are guilty.

However if you are unaware of the contraband nature of the possessed item-- here the talismanic words of Colt and Armalite-- you lack the required general intent to possess the illegal words typed on the side of the receiver.

Andy Taylor
03-30-2011, 7:46 PM
Deleted my post do to Oaklander's reminder. He posted as I was typing.

I will simply wish Mr Walker the best.

ulv
03-30-2011, 7:48 PM
Well..... Its more like if the sign says "1988 - 1999 Honda with VIN beginning with XXX - 35 MPH, All other Honda 65 MPH" and you get pulled over going 55.

I lol'd

c20rj
03-30-2011, 7:57 PM
And that argument always comes back to "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

I understand the premise there may be some who still don't know of the registration....but that isn't a valid defense. Unless he has the original receipt right? If he has the original receipt showing him as the the purchaser, B4 the 2000 "registration period" cant he only be charged with a misdemeanor?

atomicwedgy
03-30-2011, 8:00 PM
not to mention, he was asked to "snitch" on others regarding drugs etc. Sounds like he may have been participating in less than legal practices already. Did it say which firearm he used to defend himself in his hotel room?

again, assumptions based from a news article. grain of sand. so on

fd15k
03-30-2011, 8:10 PM
And that argument always comes back to "ignorance of the law by average citizens is no excuse"


There you go. Rich, connected, and even government itself aren't subjected.

Munk
03-30-2011, 8:15 PM
Can a First Amendment defense be leveled against the "Lists" of evil rifles?

The only thing that differentiates them from a non-listed item is words and pictures.

This man is being charged because he had the wrong words written on the side of a piece of metal.

FourTenJaeger
03-30-2011, 8:30 PM
Whats an ''Assault Weapon law"? :p

Shotgun Man
03-30-2011, 8:36 PM
Whats an ''Assault Weapon law"? :p

What? What's so funny?

I don't get it.:confused:

stix213
03-30-2011, 8:38 PM
Umm, a hotel room break-in isn't a small matter, you know. You don't know what the person breaking into your room has in mind, all you know is that it's likely no good.

How is it different from breaking into your home again?

You aren't automatically allowed to shoot a person breaking into your hotel room anymore than your home. I'm sure you can imagine break-ins followed by a shooting that could be either beneficial or a hindrance to an overthrow the AW ban case. Due to Oaklander's comment above, I won't speculate further.

cdtx2001
03-30-2011, 8:44 PM
And that argument always comes back to "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
.

That, I feel is a bunch of BS. There are so many laws on the books right now it is IMPOSSIBLE for the average person to know them all, let alone follow them all.

There's a TON of people that are amazed to know that it is illegal to sell a gun without going through an FFL in this state.

As for the original AW issue, this should be interesting. Now that there are a couple million ARs in this state, how does this guy's AR differ from any other now? Simply because there's some words on the side doesn't make it any less or more evil than any other AR out there.

It's time for the failed AW ban in this state to go to the crapper where it belongs.


"Originally Posted by jtmkinsd View Post
Arguing a listed receiver is like arguing the speed limit...it's posted, you know it, and you broke it."

Well..... Its more like if the sign says "1988 - 1999 Honda with VIN beginning with XXX - 35 MPH, All other Honda 65 MPH" and you get pulled over going 55.

And don't forget if the car is silver it's further restricted to 25, but blue, red, or green ones can go 70

Peter.Steele
03-30-2011, 8:49 PM
This might be a case to fight against the definition of AW, depending on what exactly made it one. If it was just a "list" item, should make for some interesting arguments. I'm guessing he didn't have a bullet button or had regular capacity magazines though.

Definitely a case to follow.



But it could also very easily backfire.

Don't forget that originally there was a series ban. Listed items plus anything functionally identical thereto. So, if you come back to court and say 'hey look - why is the Colt AR-15 banned when the Doublestar S.T.A.R.-15, Stag Model XXX, Spike's XXX, BCM Model Whatever, etc., are not banned and they're exactly the same thing with a different rollmark ... '

I'm sure you can see where this is going ...

lavgrunt
03-30-2011, 8:53 PM
HMMMMMM.........I get the impression this IS not the kind of case and suspect we want to hang our 'gun rights' on..............We should avoid this one like the plague.........

Mr. Walker got what he deserved and I'm glad he got rolled up and his guns seized, before he did something to make all gun owners look bad.............

fd15k
03-30-2011, 9:00 PM
But it could also very easily backfire.

Don't forget that originally there was a series ban. Listed items plus anything functionally identical thereto. So, if you come back to court and say 'hey look - why is the Colt AR-15 banned when the Doublestar S.T.A.R.-15, Stag Model XXX, Spike's XXX, BCM Model Whatever, etc., are not banned and they're exactly the same thing with a different rollmark ... '

I'm sure you can see where this is going ...

Yeah, imagine them banning "My Garage XXX", "Friend's Garage XXX", etc :D

fd15k
03-30-2011, 9:02 PM
HMMMMMM.........I get the impression this IS not the kind of case and suspect we want to hang our 'gun rights' on..............We should avoid this one like the plague.........

Mr. Walker got what deserved and I'm glad he got rolled up and his guns seized, before he did something to make all gun owners look bad.............

Maybe not. But the suspect has a will of his own, regardless of how we might feel about it. He will likely pursue 2A in his defense, and has a good chance of screwing the situation even further, unless qualified lawyers handle the situation.

FourTenJaeger
03-30-2011, 9:04 PM
What? What's so funny?

I don't get it.:confused:

I am quoting the foolishness of CA's Assault weapons ban and list. What we know in Arizona, California sees as deadly assault weapons. However this situation itself is not laughable, But a good case for abolishing the AW Ban in California.

10001110101
03-30-2011, 9:08 PM
HMMMMMM.........I get the impression this IS not the kind of case and suspect we want to hang our 'gun rights' on..............We should avoid this one like the plague.........

Mr. Walker got what deserved and I'm glad he got rolled up and his guns seized, before he did something to make all gun owners look bad.............

Sometimes "we" really are our own worst enemy.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? :confused:

bwiese
03-30-2011, 11:40 PM
May make sense if we can make contact his defender.

AB2728 would be appropriate.

hornswaggled
03-31-2011, 12:03 AM
You aren't automatically allowed to shoot a person breaking into your hotel room anymore than your home. I'm sure you can imagine break-ins followed by a shooting that could be either beneficial or a hindrance to an overthrow the AW ban case. Due to Oaklander's comment above, I won't speculate further.

Sorry I know I'm new here, and not an attorney, but I am going to differ with your first sentence based on the "presumption of reasonable belief" CPC:

California Penal Code 198.5
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

jtmkinsd
03-31-2011, 12:48 AM
Unless he has the original receipt right? If he has the original receipt showing him as the the purchaser, B4 the 2000 "registration period" cant he only be charged with a misdemeanor?

Simple possession of a pre-ban, unregistered assault weapon, that you didn't import into the state after the ban under CA PC 12280 is a misdemeanor (fine not to exceed $1000 and up to a year in jail). The receipt really has no bearing anymore as it was one of the conditions one could satisfy to qualify for a lesser charge of a $500 fine for possession, but only in the 1 year after registration closed.

nick
03-31-2011, 2:24 PM
And that argument always comes back to "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

I understand the premise there may be some who still don't know of the registration....but that isn't a valid defense.

Yes, it's not an argument that would work in court. However, I was addressing a specific point of yours:

Arguing a listed receiver is like arguing the speed limit...it's posted, you know it, and you broke it.

bigcalidave
03-31-2011, 2:40 PM
Sorry I know I'm new here, and not an attorney, but I am going to differ with your first sentence based on the "presumption of reasonable belief" CPC:

California Penal Code 198.5
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.


Exactly. Also, since they have dropped the manslaughter/homicide case to pursue the AW charges, there really isn't any reason to involve that part. He won't be tried for the shooting, he will be dealing with an AW charge. One that may really be a nice case to fix the issues with our laws. How many of us have AR10 or AR15 clones?? Yes, it's just a few letters causing the majority of our problems.

Flopper
03-31-2011, 3:19 PM
Sorry I know I'm new here, and not an attorney, but I am going to differ with your first sentence based on the "presumption of reasonable belief" CPC:

California Penal Code 198.5
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

Amazing how the guy with 6 posts knows more than the guy with 3000+

Maybe said "veteran" should read more and post less.

Veggie
03-31-2011, 3:24 PM
Why did he let them search his room?

Librarian
03-31-2011, 3:25 PM
Amazing how the guy with 6 posts knows more than the guy with 3000+

Maybe said "veteran" should read more and post less.

Hey, it happens. We've had a couple of really good members join in the last 6 months or so. Their post count isn't always high, but the quality has been excellent.

Judge/Book/Cover thing.

ColViper
03-31-2011, 3:34 PM
I like the person (complete sarcasam) who in the comments section who siad that all they needed was a bullet button etc. to be legal.

I replied to the post and reccomended that before the previous poster starts to quote CA p.c. that maybe he should learn it and refer people to: http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf rather than make stuff up. . . .


People like that give "Evil Rifle" owners like me a bad name. . .
His handle was "ToolTastic" I think. . . if it wasn't, it should be.

cmichini
03-31-2011, 3:42 PM
The Walker guy sounds like a fool for jumping into the middle of a fight in a hotel. If there's an altercation, unless you're initially directly involved, call the front desk and have them get the morons to shut the hell up. Of course arm up in case they decide to douche it out with the rest of the floor.

Jumping into the hallway to either be John Wayne or Henry Kissinger is foolhardy and likely to result in what happened, one of the miscreants focusing on him and forcing him into an unsavory situation (fear of life, forced to shoot). Plus, if you've got contraband it's probably not wise to actively insert yourself into a situation that will likely result in lots of LEO's crawling around like an anthill.

Judgement, logic and strategic thinking ---- FAIL.

bigcalidave
03-31-2011, 3:51 PM
Hey, it happens. We've had a couple of really good members join in the last 6 months or so. Their post count isn't always high, but the quality has been excellent.

Judge/Book/Cover thing.

Especially since the new members PC quote was accurate. I wish we could see a little more patience and respect from the members who have been here long enough to know better.

sandman21
03-31-2011, 4:02 PM
Amazing how the guy with 6 posts knows more than the guy with 3000+

Maybe said "veteran" should read more and post less.

CPC 198.5 is not a automatic pass for shooting someone entering anywhere. So the poster was not wrong.

When these do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm, as they could not if defendant apprehended only a misdemeanor assault, there is no cause for the exaction of a human life."......However, in view of the wide scope of burglary under Penal Code section 459, as compared with the common law definition of that offense, in our opinion it cannot be said that under all circumstances burglary under section 459 constitutes a forcible and atrocious crime (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4905950755229562562&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholar)

RP1911
03-31-2011, 4:18 PM
I can see how this can play out if the rifles were DROS-ed. :)

beauregard
03-31-2011, 4:21 PM
Arguing a listed receiver is like arguing the speed limit...it's posted, you know it, and you broke it.

Agreed.


I had to get rid of my coveted Colt AR15.

nick
03-31-2011, 5:52 PM
Why did he let them search his room?

I don't think he had much of a choice after the shooting :)

Ford8N
03-31-2011, 6:08 PM
Wish I could say more - but I've been seeing "a lack of discretion" on the forums recently. We need to ALWAYS remember that everyone now reads CGN!!!

This is good - but makes basically everything we say - very public. . .

:)


Very good point to remember.

:seeya:

Socal Armament
03-31-2011, 7:53 PM
I'd personally like to see a listed AR case where the rifle is either featureless or BB configured. It would be interesting to see that one fought all the way through court, even though it likely wouldn't get us as a whole anywhere (I'd just like to hear the state's argument as to why the writing on the side of a rifle is so important someone should be charged with a felony, when if it said something else you could buy it as is down the street).

Can a First Amendment defense be leveled against the "Lists" of evil rifles?

The only thing that differentiates them from a non-listed item is words and pictures.

This man is being charged because he had the wrong words written on the side of a piece of metal.

Sorry I have to emphasize these points, it just seems like common sense. I cant believe we pay them to make and enforce laws like this. Why do we still have the List after the AW by feature laws?

Librarian
03-31-2011, 8:08 PM
Sorry I have to emphasize these points, it just seems like common sense. I cant believe we pay them to make and enforce laws like this. Why do we still have the List after the AW by feature laws?

Because

the law has not been repealed,
there was no standing to file suit against it until McDonald last summer,
other suits are needed to lay further groundwork, and
while those are running or in preparation, other things are being challenged.


See the Wiki - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present

pgg
04-03-2011, 11:42 AM
ArmaLite AR-10 rifle and a Colt .223 rifle both are a no-no too bad

I had to get rid of my coveted Colt AR15.

Meanwhile, I moved to the state in 2009 and MAWP'd two Armalite AR10s and one Colt AR15. Shot one of the AR10s yesterday.

Glad as I am for the loophole that let me keep my un-neutered, un-relowered guns, it's just wrong that some animals are more equal than others. I'm still at the mercy of the DOJ policy-tweakers. This year, they renewed my permit. Next year, who knows?

The whole AW ban needs to go, now.



... and then we can get to work on CA's ban of everything NFA.

gunsmith
04-03-2011, 2:59 PM
You aren't automatically allowed to shoot a person breaking into your hotel room anymore than your home. I'm sure you can imagine break-ins followed by a shooting that could be either beneficial or a hindrance to an overthrow the AW ban case. Due to Oaklander's comment above, I won't speculate further.


even in San Francisco people have shot people breaking into their homes, you are allowed to shoot people breaking into your home.

jnojr
04-03-2011, 3:17 PM
Prosecutors declined to pursue charges related to the homicide because they didn't believe they could prove any charges beyond a reasonable doubt, said spokeswoman Shelly Orio.

It wasn't, "He was attacked, he was justified in defending himself". It's, "We just don't think we can convict him."

I wouldn't want to be living in that jurisdiction. Sounds like they'd be happy to barbecue him.

Uriah02
04-03-2011, 3:22 PM
even in San Francisco people have shot people breaking into their homes, you are allowed to shoot people breaking into your home.
Must
1. Reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed, seriously injured, or unlawfully touched,
2. Believe that immediate force is necessary to prevent that danger, and
3. Use no more force than necessary to defend against that danger.

This isn't Texas.

Combo
04-03-2011, 3:48 PM
California Penal Code Section 198.5 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/198.5.html)

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.




Must
1. Reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed, seriously injured, or unlawfully touched,
2. Believe that immediate force is necessary to prevent that danger, and
3. Use no more force than necessary to defend against that danger.

This isn't Texas.

Tweak338
04-03-2011, 4:39 PM
I can see how this can play out if the rifles were DROS-ed. :)
Would be interesting indeed.

RP1911
04-03-2011, 5:13 PM
Would be interesting indeed.

Someone is paying attention.

jamesob
04-03-2011, 5:15 PM
with a good lawyer i bet he can beat the case.

Tweak338
04-03-2011, 5:17 PM
Someone is paying attention.
I lurk in the shadows of 2A section

Aleksandr Mravinsky
04-03-2011, 8:28 PM
Just a few questions to satiate my idle curiosity;

Do we have the same rights to consent or not consent to a search of a hotel room we are staying in as we do our home or car?

If one were to take an 80% receiver and make it to the same specifications as an on-list receiver, including markings, would it then become an on-list receiver? What if they had the same markings and then added a little extra? What if they added a little extra to a receiver that was an actual on-list receiver? Would there be anyway for the prosecution in any of these cases prove that the receiver is or is not an on-list receiver?

Peter.Steele
04-03-2011, 9:07 PM
Just a few questions to satiate my idle curiosity;

Do we have the same rights to consent or not consent to a search of a hotel room we are staying in as we do our home or car?

Yes. You have the same expectation of privacy, and the same rights under the 4th Amendment, in a hotel room that you would have in your own home or in your car. There is a lot of established case law on the subject.



If one were to take an 80% receiver and make it to the same specifications as an on-list receiver, including markings, would it then become an on-list receiver? What if they had the same markings and then added a little extra? What if they added a little extra to a receiver that was an actual on-list receiver? Would there be anyway for the prosecution in any of these cases prove that the receiver is or is not an on-list receiver?



This would be an incredibly stupid idea.

The fact that the rollmark is present on the weapon creates a very strong presumption that the weapon is in fact what the rollmark proclaims it to be, and creates a prima facie case for posession of an assault weapon. It would be up to you to, in presenting your defense, create reasonable doubt that the weapon was what it appeared to be.

You'll have one hell of a time creating reasonable doubt about this, btw. You may have heard the saying 'if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and leaves duck **** all over the place ...'


(Oh, and if you did manage to create reasonable doubt about the nature of the firearm as an assault weapon, then you might still be liable for charges based around counterfeit commercial products.)

tyrist
04-03-2011, 9:56 PM
Well after reading this article I went and looked at the property on google maps and judging by the green puddle of water in the pool and the over all appearance of the property I am going to guess it's a known drug/prostitution/convicted felon hang out hotel.

Probably a bunch of issues and Calguns won't touch it.

RP1911
04-03-2011, 10:24 PM
Well after reading this article I went and looked at the property on google maps and judging by the green puddle of water in the pool and the over all appearance of the property I am going to guess it's a known drug/prostitution/convicted felon hang out hotel.

Probably a bunch of issues and Calguns won't touch it.


It used to be a good spot and was the overflow for the Radison back in the late 80's, early 90's.

MrClamperSir
04-03-2011, 10:50 PM
With questionable circumstances revolving around a homicide possibly using the AW's, this guy isn't exactly the best choice to base our fight against the AW ban on. How about we put our eggs in the basket of someone who didn't just kill a man over a hotel room break in? It will undoubtedly color the debate in court.

A jury convicted Harvey Lee Clark (People V. Clark) of possession of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded, operable firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Ernesto Miranda (Miranda warning/Miranda rights) was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20 to 30 years' imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.