PDA

View Full Version : CGF to the rescue? Staged "gunfight" w/UOC rifle -> 14 y.o arrested


Paladin
06-13-2011, 7:01 PM
An Oakland middle school sponsored staged "gunfight" for an anti-violence video causes someone call LE and report a real gunfight. LE respond and give misdemeanor citations of contributing to the delinquency of a minor to 2 adult staff members overseeing the videotaping and LE arrest the 14 y.o. who brought an unloaded rifle.

I just wanted to bring this to CGF's/CGN's attention.

The below from: http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_18266414?source=rss

Two Oakland school district employees identified by authorities as Robert Dousa and Maria Delrefugio Sanchez were issued misdemeanor citations of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. A 14-year-old student at United for Success Academy student who was accused of bringing the rifle was arrested on a weapons charge.

. . .

Staging such a fight in a public park is so dangerous that even if school staff had told police about the campaign beforehand, Joshi said, "They wouldn't have gotten a permit to do that."

Troy Flint, a spokesman for the Oakland school district, said the two employees have been placed on administrative leave.

morfeeis
06-13-2011, 7:08 PM
it just adds credit to statements that you have to be crazy to be an anti gun supporter in CA, those involved better be thankful no one got killed.

MrClamperSir
06-13-2011, 7:08 PM
Staging such a fight in a public park is so dangerous that even if school staff had told police about the campaign beforehand, Joshi said, "They wouldn't have gotten a permit to do that."

Who issues permits for staged fights?

Ridiculous!:rolleyes:

OleCuss
06-13-2011, 7:17 PM
Who issues permits for staged fights?

Ridiculous!:rolleyes:

But isn't that the point? If government does not permit it, either because it is what they consider to be an undesirable activity or simply because they've not anticipated the need, you are not allowed to engage in that activity.

All our rights are actually privileges and they flow from the benevolence of our government.




I think I just made myself a little sick. . . But that is the way much of government and our populace views things.

MrClamperSir
06-13-2011, 7:23 PM
But isn't that the point? If government does not permit it, either because it is what they consider to be an undesirable activity or simply because they've not anticipated the need, you are not allowed to engage in that activity.

All our rights are actually privileges and they flow from the benevolence of our government.




I think I just made myself a little sick. . . But that is the way much of government and our populace views things.

Agreed

Saigon1965
06-13-2011, 7:24 PM
Oh man - Hope the outcome will be best for the 14 YO -

pointedstick
06-13-2011, 7:27 PM
But isn't that the point? If government does not permit it, either because it is what they consider to be an undesirable activity or simply because they've not anticipated the need, you are not allowed to engage in that activity.

All our rights are actually privileges and they flow from the benevolence of our government.




I think I just made myself a little sick. . . But that is the way much of government and our populace views things.


Now you've got it. It's just like how nobody really owns propertyÖ we rent it from the government. When you look at the world in terms of the government owning everything and everybody, suddenly the restrictions start to make sense! How can they say what I can do with my own property!?! Simple, it's not actually yours at all!

In this case, it's clear-cut since the event took place on property that the government explicitly says it owns. But if this had happened on somebody's front lawn, the result would have been no different.

We are not actually fighting against overreaching government regulation, we're fighting for the right to dispose of our bodies and possessions as we see fitórights that are currently denied to us.

Window_Seat
06-13-2011, 7:31 PM
Staging such a fight in a public park is so dangerous that even if school staff had told police about the campaign beforehand, Joshi said, "They wouldn't have gotten a permit to do that."Who issues permits for staged fights?

Ridiculous!:rolleyes:

They could have gone to a production coordinator and done this thing right. Hollywood does it all the time (that is, getting the right permitting and advising of LEOs what "stunts" they are pulling).

Erik.

Patrick Aherne
06-13-2011, 7:43 PM
Really? Who here doesn't think those two "teachers" didn't place the children in danger?

tankarian
06-13-2011, 7:52 PM
They could have gone to a production coordinator and done this thing right. Hollywood does it all the time (that is, getting the right permitting and advising of LEOs what "stunts" they are pulling).

Erik.

+1, you need a permit to film on city property and advise the authorities if gun props are used.
To their defense, they probably didn't knew a permit was required but then again, ignorance is not a very good defense.
Still, I don't think the gun charges will stand since the guns were unloaded and empty - unless they were in a school proximity.

SJgunguy24
06-13-2011, 8:07 PM
I wonder if the police will hook up the kids parents (assuming his parents own it) because a crime was committed with a minor in possession of that gun. I belive thats a felony, no questions asked, your done.

MrClamperSir
06-13-2011, 8:39 PM
They could have gone to a production coordinator and done this thing right. Hollywood does it all the time (that is, getting the right permitting and advising of LEOs what "stunts" they are pulling).

Erik.

Fart noise with a thumbs down!

That sounds pretty dumb if someone is working on a school project.

SJgunguy24
06-13-2011, 9:08 PM
They could have gone to a production coordinator and done this thing right. Hollywood does it all the time (that is, getting the right permitting and advising of LEOs what "stunts" they are pulling).

Erik.

Ahh yes, and the city that thinks it's own citizens shouldn't have a gun for protection is more then willing to let some Hollywood film crew shoot the place up and let the streets run red with blood , all in the name of art.....OK fake blood but there is a huge stink of hypocrisy

Stonewalker
06-13-2011, 10:22 PM
Wow what a strange situation. Perhaps strangest of all, is it doesn't appear they broke any laws. I'm very curious to know what violations of the PC with which they were charged.

bigcalidave
06-13-2011, 10:25 PM
Who cares! All that nonsense doesn't matter. They were making a film and got arrested??? That's a big 1st Amendment violation!!! Were any specific laws broken? An educational film, supervised by teachers, people arrested... BS!

Decoligny
06-13-2011, 10:30 PM
Who issues permits for staged fights?

Ridiculous!:rolleyes:

They do it all the time. How do you think movies get made? If a film maker is making a movie that has a scene in a park where there is a gun fight, they get a permit to film the scene.

Just because the film maker happens to not be a bigtime Hollywood movie producer should't make it any more difficult to get a filming permit.

I don't care if the film is pro-gun or anti, the first amendment still applies.

dantodd
06-13-2011, 10:32 PM
Glad they weren't making an anti-domestic violence film. They might have needed to slap someone around a little, just for the video. As far as I am concerned the adults can rot. I do feel for the 14 year old though. Hopefully there was some documented communication between his/her parents and school staff so it is clear the kid had no intention of breaking any laws and was told by a government official that it was acceptable.

Hunt
06-13-2011, 10:32 PM
why didn't the cops use their discretion and just tell them to go home?

bigcalidave
06-13-2011, 10:40 PM
why didn't the cops use their discretion and just tell them to go home?

hahahaha....

Aleksandr Mravinsky
06-13-2011, 10:44 PM
Still, I don't think the gun charges will stand since the guns were unloaded and empty - unless they were in a school proximity.

Wouldn't it be considered brandishing regardless of whether the rifle was loaded or not? I mean, for a brandishing charge, does it matter whether the "victim" is voluntarily being brandished against (if that makes sense)?

Also, isn't it illegal for a minor to be in possession of a long gun without the written consent or presence of his or her parent?

And is there an age for OCing a long gun? I have no idea, but I would assume there is (but we know what happens when one assumes).

Patrick Aherne
06-13-2011, 10:48 PM
The PC is child endangerment, 273a.

madjack956
06-13-2011, 10:56 PM
Wow! Im glad the cops were not around when I was in Boy Scouts 45 years ago. Me and my so-called irresponsible scout masters would have been in big trouble when they were giving me instruction on how to use an axe, and (god forbid) make fire. I could have missed my whole life if caught. Id just be getting out about now.

Hunt
06-13-2011, 11:05 PM
If I was a cop and was called to this situation and found out the 14 year old was being directed by adults I would never hurt the kids future, Iwould give him a big lecture and send him on his way. Once I realized it was a film directed by the adults I would have told them to pack it in, get the permit, and the next time they won't be so lucky to get a warning. I guess the gov't is hurting so much for money they have these cops pushed to the max to cite everyone everywhere, otherwise they probably get some kind of reprimand.

BKinzey
06-13-2011, 11:07 PM
They needed a permit. With a permit the proper call are made to inform others what is going on.

If you are going to stage a fake gun fight you probably want the police to know about your activity. If you are going to stage a fake fist fight you probably want the police to know.

Film permits are on somewhat of a sliding scale, so a school project would be less than a commercial project.

I will say though the moment they mention using firearms, even movie props, the local permit office would probably have some requirement to have local police there and the cost would exceed what this project could have afforded. Maybe they could have gotten some sort of waiver or something.

I am surprised that it wouldn't occur to a school, which needs all sorts of paperwork to do anything with students, that just showing up to a city park to do a school project would be just fine.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

mlevans66
06-13-2011, 11:09 PM
But isn't that the point? If government does not permit it, either because it is what they consider to be an undesirable activity or simply because they've not anticipated the need, you are not allowed to engage in that activity.

All our rights are actually privileges and they flow from the benevolence of our government.

I think I just made myself a little sick. . . But that is the way much of government and our populace views things.

Well said!

cdtx2001
06-14-2011, 7:22 AM
But isn't that the point? If government does not permit it, either because it is what they consider to be an undesirable activity or simply because they've not anticipated the need, you are not allowed to engage in that activity.

All our rights are actually privileges and they flow from the benevolence of our government.




I think I just made myself a little sick. . . But that is the way much of government and our populace views things.

And to exercise that right/privilege, first you must pay a fee/ransom to the benevolent gubbament and beg their permission to do so.


As for the movie makers... If this was a school project, why couldn't they have filmed it at the school? I believe firearms are allowed if they have permission from the principle. They could have done it on a Sunday or something.

CHS
06-14-2011, 7:44 AM
Sounds like a major 1A violation to me.

gun toting monkeyboy
06-14-2011, 8:02 AM
Would you guys get over yourselves. Please? "Boo-hoo, they want me to get a permit to exercise my 1st amendment rights. Boo-hoo." Showing up at a park and waving a gun around is on the same level as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. The courts have ruled that the 1st amendment is NOT without limits many, many times. This is not some political speech being shut down by The Man. They have a permiting process for these kinds of events for exactly this reason. So that the cops don't show up and blow some poor actor away. And for public safety. And so that the cops/firefighters/emergency crews don't show up and waste their time and tax payer money responding to passers-by's calls about aliens invading downtown and eating buses full of nuns and kittens. Just because you want to do something doesn't mean that you get to. And just because you think you should be allowed to film yourself naked in a public park, while advocating for your right to marry farm animals doesn't mean that the rest of society has to allow it. Freedom of speech does not mean that all other laws cease to apply to you. You may even be able to get a permit to allow you to film your animal husbandry political views in that public park. Assuming you actually bother to follow the correct proceedures... So please stop whining about what amounts to basically nothing. You totally missed the whole point of this story. You had a minor, under the direction of the school system, coerced into commiting a felony. THAT is the key to the story. Not the red herring of permits.

DEPUTYBILL
06-14-2011, 8:14 AM
Would you guys get over yourselves. Please? "Boo-hoo, they want me to get a permit to exercise my 1st amendment rights. Boo-hoo." Showing up at a park and waving a gun around is on the same level as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. The courts have ruled that the 1st amendment is NOT without limits many, many times. This is not some political speech being shut down by The Man. They have a permiting process for these kinds of events for exactly this reason. So that the cops don't show up and blow some poor actor away. And for public safety. And so that the cops/firefighters/emergency crews don't show up and waste their time and tax payer money responding to passers-by's calls about aliens invading downtown and eating buses full of nuns and kittens. Just because you want to do something doesn't mean that you get to. And just because you think you should be allowed to film yourself naked in a public park, while advocating for your right to marry farm animals doesn't mean that the rest of society has to allow it. Freedom of speech does not mean that all other laws cease to apply to you. You may even be able to get a permit to allow you to film your animal husbandry political views in that public park. Assuming you actually bother to follow the correct proceedures... So please stop whining about what amounts to basically nothing. You totally missed the whole point of this story. You had a minor, under the direction of the school system, coerced into commiting a felony. THAT is the key to the story. Not the red herring of permits.

^this^

Maestro Pistolero
06-14-2011, 9:13 AM
gun toting monkeyboy, you make some good points. HOWEVER, once the officers became aware that this was a school-sanctioned, supervised event for the purposes of an anti-violence video, any substantial perception of danger should have vanished.

The officers then had an opportunity to exercise discretion, taking in the totality of the circumstance which they did NOT do in the course of arresting the 14 year old actor. Very bad judgment, IMO. But not unexpected in Oakland.

MountainMike
06-14-2011, 9:23 AM
gun toting monkeyboy, you make some good points. HOWEVER, once the officers became aware that this was a school-sanctioned, supervised event for the purposes of an anti-violence video, any substantial perception of danger should have vanished.

The officers then had an opportunity to exercise discretion, taking in the totality of the circumstance which they did NOT do in the course of arresting the 14 year old actor. Very bad judgment, IMO. But not unexpected in Oakland.
It is my understanding that police officers may exercise discretion with regards to infractions and non-violent misdemeanors but felonies are mandatory arrests.

Patrick Aherne
06-14-2011, 9:52 AM
They were staging what looked like a gunfight. Can any of you comprehend how many folks were endangered by this behavior? I would bet 10-15 units rolled to this. Most of the people on this forum would be screaming bloody murder if one of the responding units t-boned a minivan while enroute.

What if the kid with the rifle had pointed it at the first cop on scene? All of the Internet commandos would decry the number of shots, tactics used, etc. And, a kid would still be dead or injured because two adults didn't have the good sense God gave a goat.

Who was the Good Idea Fairy that said, "Hey, let's go to an area where there are gunfights all the time and run around with realistic-looking replicas and stage a gunfight, but let's not tell anyone!"

SJgunguy24
06-14-2011, 9:54 AM
It is my understanding that police officers may exercise discretion with regards to infractions and non-violent misdemeanors but felonies are mandatory arrests.

Really? Even when they are at police ranges with their buddies using 30 round mags in mag lock equipped firearms?

dantodd
06-14-2011, 9:55 AM
It is my understanding that police officers may exercise discretion with regards to infractions and non-violent misdemeanors but felonies are mandatory arrests.

Was the kid charged with a felony? I'm pretty sure that brandishing (CPC 417) is a misdemeanor.

JimSar
06-14-2011, 10:18 AM
Really? Who here doesn't think those two "teachers" didn't place the children in danger?

A man was shot and killed by Vallejo police last December while filming an "anti violence" video in a class project. Yes, not informing the police in advance places the actors in danger. http://ibvallejo.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1167&Itemid=1

About a month before this incident a Philippine militiaman (Barangay Tanod) shot and killed an actor filming a drive-by shooting scene for a British production in Cebu, Philippines. He thought it was a real drive by.
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=626174&publicationSubCategoryId=107

Maestro Pistolero
06-14-2011, 10:22 AM
What was the felony?

gun toting monkeyboy
06-14-2011, 11:17 AM
gun toting monkeyboy, you make some good points. HOWEVER, once the officers became aware that this was a school-sanctioned, supervised event for the purposes of an anti-violence video, any substantial perception of danger should have vanished.

The officers then had an opportunity to exercise discretion, taking in the totality of the circumstance which they did NOT do in the course of arresting the 14 year old actor. Very bad judgment, IMO. But not unexpected in Oakland.

I agree. The cops in this situation were tools, based on what was written. Or at least they appear to be. But we don't know the whole story. What if they were dealing with a couple of screaming adults going on about the 1st amendment? Or the gun was real, and taken from the kid's house without his parent's permission? Or any of a dozen other things that would trigger an arrest of the minor? We don't have all the facts. I wouldn't think that the police would haul Junior off to jail while leaving the 2 rocket surgeons who talked him into doing it for school with a slap on the wrist. But I wasn't there. Regardless, I think the kids parent's should sue the @$$ off the people who put their kid in this situation.

-Mb

Wherryj
06-14-2011, 11:43 AM
But isn't that the point? If government does not permit it, either because it is what they consider to be an undesirable activity or simply because they've not anticipated the need, you are not allowed to engage in that activity.

All our rights are actually privileges and they flow from the benevolence of our government.




I think I just made myself a little sick. . . But that is the way much of government and our populace views things.

The idea is that we the people are supposed to PERMIT the government's actions, not the other way around.

Wherryj
06-14-2011, 11:48 AM
They were staging what looked like a gunfight. Can any of you comprehend how many folks were endangered by this behavior? I would bet 10-15 units rolled to this. Most of the people on this forum would be screaming bloody murder if one of the responding units t-boned a minivan while enroute.

What if the kid with the rifle had pointed it at the first cop on scene? All of the Internet commandos would decry the number of shots, tactics used, etc. And, a kid would still be dead or injured because two adults didn't have the good sense God gave a goat.

Who was the Good Idea Fairy that said, "Hey, let's go to an area where there are gunfights all the time and run around with realistic-looking replicas and stage a gunfight, but let's not tell anyone!"

Perhaps no one received the memo, but the Good Idea Fairy is on sabbatical.

raycm2
06-14-2011, 11:57 AM
You had a minor, under the direction of the school system, coerced into commiting a felony. THAT is the key to the story. Not the red herring of permits.
Also missed: Two adults thought the behavior was acceptable probably because they have been told over and over - by people that they trust - that Guns and Gun People are so dangerous that any means to oppose them is proper, whether illegal/unconstitutional or not.

I would blame the hysteria produced by Brady, MAIG, LCAV, et.al. as well as the two idiot adults.

TRICKSTER
06-14-2011, 12:00 PM
Once again we see a big rush to judgement without all the facts being known. :rolleyes:

dantodd
06-14-2011, 2:53 PM
They were staging what looked like a gunfight. Can any of you comprehend how many folks were endangered by this behavior? I would bet 10-15 units rolled to this. Most of the people on this forum would be screaming bloody murder if one of the responding units t-boned a minivan while enroute.

What if the kid with the rifle had pointed it at the first cop on scene? All of the Internet commandos would decry the number of shots, tactics used, etc. And, a kid would still be dead or injured because two adults didn't have the good sense God gave a goat.

Who was the Good Idea Fairy that said, "Hey, let's go to an area where there are gunfights all the time and run around with realistic-looking replicas and stage a gunfight, but let's not tell anyone!"

That's an awful lot of assumptions, and not very nice ones about your fellow forum members, for one post.

Patrick Aherne
06-14-2011, 2:58 PM
Dantodd, not everyone on the forum would do that, but many would.

MasterYong
06-14-2011, 3:16 PM
I don't understand the problem here.

Sounds like the 14 year old was guilty of brandishing.

Running around a park with a real rifle pretending to be an active shooter when it's illegal in this state to do so with a fake gun?

Not sure I have much sympathy.

Parents shouldn't have allowed it to happen, and the teachers shouldn't have allowed it to happen. The student should have known better too.

When they make movies, they have permits and it's obvious a movie is being made. There is no real danger to the public.

Here, there was a serious danger to the public because the police (at least for a moment) thought the gunfight was real. If they had fired shots, who knows who could have been hurt?

I'm all for UOC, but this was not UOC. This was brandishing. UOC is CARRYING, not going "PEW PEW PEW" and pointing the gun at people to make a friggin' video.

Just as crazy as the anti's are, sometimes I think the pro-2A crowd goes a bit far too in defending people that get popped by the law for gun-related crimes. These people crossed the line, IMHO. It sounds like they got off easy, really.

ETA: you just don't go around waiving guns at people, real or fake. You never know: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=113971&page=1

MasterYong
06-14-2011, 3:20 PM
Wow! Im glad the cops were not around when I was in Boy Scouts 45 years ago. Me and my so-called irresponsible scout masters would have been in big trouble when they were giving me instruction on how to use an axe, and (god forbid) make fire. I could have missed my whole life if caught. Id just be getting out about now.

I was in the Boy Scouts.

Not once did we point rifles at each other or stage a fake shootout.

You trolling? Or did your comment just not come out the way you intended?

bigcalidave
06-14-2011, 3:31 PM
Its just NOT brandishing. That's the big problem. Since when is what amounts to a filmed airsoft game a crime??

Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon whatsoever, other than a firearm, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a deadly weapon other than a firearm in any fight or quarrel is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30 days.

greybeard
06-14-2011, 3:46 PM
It is my understanding the rifle was real. You think the adults checked it to make sure it was unloaded? I doubt they know it was real. I hold the adults at fault here.

oddjob
06-14-2011, 3:47 PM
Good thing an off-duty officer (any agency) or a ccw holder wasn't in the park.

wash
06-14-2011, 4:00 PM
My uncles used to run around in fields shooting rabbits for dinner

They lived in a somewhat suburban area.

That wasn't a crime, but people were used to it and knew that kids would take small game to put food on the table.

In Oakland, having kids run around with guns in a field is pretty normal, they just call it a gang war.

The people involved were really dumb and should have expected a response. You can't expect the police to use discretion either, probably half of the guns they recover on the street are crime guns, they probably have orders to ceise any gun they find if the can make any charge stick.

I don't think CGF should protect stupid people with guns. Some cases force their hand because that give us all something to lose.

In this case, I see a ~real crime and the outcome really doesn't effect us.

If CGF went in and in some way changed the outcome of the case, the antis could say CGF wants to arm children, with a jr. gang banger and an AK around every corner.

It was right when a gun rights organization stepped in to help that kid who got expelled for leaving his gun in his truck parked off campus after a morning hunt. There was no crime there, just lawful activity and a kid getting expelled for a mis-application of a zero tolerance gun policy.

The only plus I can see is that this can bolster our argument that California gun laws are unconstitutionally vague. The fact that you can get arrested for a gun crime while attempting to film an anti-violence video supports that argument pretty well.

CitaDeL
06-14-2011, 4:20 PM
I don't think CGF should protect stupid people with guns.

I think the CGF is perfectly cabable of determining who they will protect, and how to vet gun cases... Some of the cases they may support will be for 'stupid' people violating unjust laws.

Kukuforguns
06-14-2011, 6:13 PM
Let's see, what's the first rule of gun safety?

One of the weapons was real

I will assume that during the course of the staged gun fight (based in no small part on the fact that it was reported as a gun fight to the police) that the gun was actually pointed at one of the actors. I would have assumed we could all agree that this is criminally stupid. There is a reason movie productions use replicas and not real guns (see Brandon Lee for what can happen when this rule is violated).

Moreover, as has already been pointed out, incidents like this have ended badly on prior occasions. In this case, the police reacted with "weapons drawn" to the park. This means that loaded guns were facing a real gun held by a student actor. Moreover, this was a foreseeable reaction by the police. Hell, we repeatedly are made aware here on CalGuns that police react with weapons drawn to holstered open carry. Again, I would have thought we could all agree that this is a very dangerous situation.

I could care less if any actual laws were violated . . . this was an epic fail of common sense by all school employees who were aware of the incident.

DEPUTYBILL
06-14-2011, 8:40 PM
Just read in the news that a person was killed in Stockton,Ca. The suspect fled on foot after shooting the victim in the head with a bullet from a RIFLE! Guess that was not a anti-gun violence movie being made.

CitaDeL
06-14-2011, 9:05 PM
Just read in the news that a person was killed in Stockton,Ca. The suspect fled on foot after shooting the victim in the head with a bullet from a RIFLE! Guess that was not a anti-gun violence movie being made.

Nope. I guess not. In the instance you describe there is a crime commited that actually has a victim. That's a little different than proximity to school issues and poor judgement/supervision.

dantodd
06-15-2011, 1:25 AM
Just read in the news that a person was killed in Stockton,Ca. The suspect fled on foot after shooting the victim in the head with a bullet from a RIFLE! Guess that was not a anti-gun violence movie being made.

I just watched a TV show where a guy shot a deer with a RIFLE. I guess that was not an anti-gun violence movie being made either.

What was your point again?

tenpercentfirearms
06-15-2011, 6:51 AM
Sorry, but running around in a city park with a real rifle staging a gun fight is a really bad idea. Doing it without proper permits is also a bad idea.

You have a right to open carry (for now), but this wasn't open carrying. Now I am assuming, based on the limited information in the article, a staged gun fight would include pointing firearms at each other. This would be a violation of the four rules of gun safety and in no way a responsible way of open carrying.

I know many of you probably don't trust the police, but I am going to trust them on this one. If they were writing those citations and getting crazy on this operation, it is probably because someone came awfully close to getting shot.

If some of you want to make this a poster child of your gun rights fight, go for it. I won't be participating.

Here is a good example of a gun case the responsible gun owners of CA should and did support. http://www.ammoland.com/2011/02/16/shocking-video-on-behalf-of-expelled-duck-hunting-high-school-student/

eville
06-15-2011, 8:54 AM
Take it with a grain of salt but on the news they reported it as a sawed off shotgun that the kid bought on the street the night before. Lots of FAIL in this story.

bwiese
06-15-2011, 9:47 AM
Per KTVU news last night, one of the youths appears to have wielded an SBS (short bbl'd shortgun) that he confessed was purchased "on the street".

Multiple chain-reaction FAIL.

wash
06-15-2011, 9:48 AM
I think the CGF is perfectly cabable of determining who they will protect, and how to vet gun cases... Some of the cases they may support will be for 'stupid' people violating unjust laws.
Stating a personal opinion is a lot different than telling CGF what to do. They wouldn't listen to me any way (if our conclusions match, they are still formed separately).

Like I said, CGF will have to support some cases of stupid people with gun crimes because some times those cases give everyone a lot to lose.

This one sounds like trying to fish an apple out of a cesspool. Unless the reports a missing some critical details and we are not hearing the right story, it sounds like a crime was committed and the people arrested and charged are guilty.

CGF should not be spending time and money to try and overturn a brandishing law. Those laws protect the unarmed from intimidation and are ~necessary in my opinion.

What else could CGF fight for here?

I will admit I'm prejudiced here, I don't like stupid people with guns because they make us all look bad, especially when they break the law.

sandman21
06-15-2011, 9:58 AM
Here is a good example of a gun case the responsible gun owners of CA should and did support. http://www.ammoland.com/2011/02/16/shocking-video-on-behalf-of-expelled-duck-hunting-high-school-student/

Why should I support that case? The kid brought a gun within 1000 feet of a school violating the law. The school decided to punish him based on there zero tolerance policy regarding guns, the parents should have raised there child better and taught him to not violate the law or school policy. If you donít like the schoolís policy go to another one or change it. :rolleyes:

CitaDeL
06-15-2011, 10:46 AM
Why should I support that case? The kid brought a gun within 1000 feet of a school violating the law. The school decided to punish him based on there zero tolerance policy regarding guns, the parents should have raised there child better and taught him to not violate the law or school policy. If you donít like the schoolís policy go to another one or change it. :rolleyes:

Ugh... please tell me that the smilely indicates you're being sarcastic. If not.. with 'friends' like these...:(

berto
06-15-2011, 10:54 AM
Per KTVU news last night, one of the youths appears to have wielded an SBS (short bbl'd shortgun) that he confessed was purchased "on the street".

Multiple chain-reaction FAIL.

The Comical story today calls it a ".22-caliber sawed-off shotgun".

No joke.


Cinema veritť:An anti-gang movie project by students at United for Success middle school in Oakland's Fruitvale neighborhood ended with the suspensions of two violence "intervention specialists" working with the district and the arrest of an eighth-grader for allegedly possessing a sawed-off shotgun.
It all began Saturday when about half a dozen students and their two advisers were shooting what was billed as an anti-gang movie at Union Point Park on the Oakland Estuary.
As part of the plot, the youths were to brandish guns.
Passers-by, however, called the cops, who showed up and confiscated all the props, including what turned out to be a very real - but unloaded - .22-caliber sawed-off shotgun.
As for how the two adult advisers managed to miss the real gun?
"Obviously, it wasn't very well thought out," school district spokesman Troy Flint said.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/14/BA661JTO52.DTL#ixzz1PN9QdLaM

BKinzey
06-15-2011, 11:15 AM
I seriously doubt this is what they meant but:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/955044463/Guns/Shotguns/Savage-Shotguns/22_caliber_over_a_410_Savage_model_24.htm

sandman21
06-15-2011, 11:16 AM
Ugh... please tell me that the smilely indicates you're being sarcastic. If not.. with 'friends' like these...:(

Rights are only about supporting what you do or believe in, anything else should be criminal. :rolleyes:

wash
06-15-2011, 11:42 AM
Why should I support that case? The kid brought a gun within 1000 feet of a school violating the law. The school decided to punish him based on there zero tolerance policy regarding guns, the parents should have raised there child better and taught him to not violate the law or school policy. If you donít like the schoolís policy go to another one or change it. :rolleyes:
Was the federal government prosecuting him?

If not, he was not violating the California Gun Free School Zone law.

There was no crime, only mis-application of a zero tolerance policy.

I think CRPA and NRA backed his case and I'm glad they did it.

School is a place for education. One valuable lesson is there is s right way and a wrong way to be a gun owner. When you do everything right but get expelled, that sends the wrong message but one that our schools are pleased to send.

When you get arrested for an illegal NFA item that you bought on the street, that sends the right message; that criminal activity has consequences.

sandman21
06-15-2011, 12:03 PM
Was the federal government prosecuting him?

If not, he was not violating the California Gun Free School Zone law.

There was no crime, only mis-application of a zero tolerance policy.

I think CRPA and NRA backed his case and I'm glad they did it.

School is a place for education. One valuable lesson is there is s right way and a wrong way to be a gun owner. When you do everything right but get expelled, that sends the wrong message but one that our schools are pleased to send.

When you get arrested for an illegal NFA item that you bought on the street, that sends the right message; that criminal activity has consequences.

Never said CA did I? The shotguns were not locked per federal law, he broke the law, I cant and wont support criminals. :rolleyes:

wash
06-15-2011, 12:08 PM
The federal GFSZ law has already been thrown out once and it's not being enforced, I don't count that as a crime.

He deserved our full support because he was doing the right thing, only a violation of his fourth amendment rights allowed this to happen.

sandman21
06-15-2011, 12:26 PM
The federal GFSZ law has already been thrown out once and it's not being enforced, I don't count that as a crime.

He deserved our full support because he was doing the right thing, only a violation of his fourth amendment rights allowed this to happen.

The fact that it is not enforced does not change the fact that he was a criminal, only those things I agree with should be protected, everything else should be illegal, thatís what rights are all about. :rolleyes:

CSACANNONEER
06-15-2011, 12:37 PM
I wonder if the police will hook up the kids parents (assuming his parents own it) because a crime was committed with a minor in possession of that gun. I belive thats a felony, no questions asked, your done.

No, if you properly secure your firearms and a minor uses a cutting toarch to cut through your safe, stole them and committed other crimes, you would not have committed a felony.

The Comical story today calls it a ".22-caliber sawed-off shotgun".

No joke.

I hope not. If someone destroyed my .22lr shotgun, I'd cry. Yes, I really have a .22lr smoothbored Remington 121. Research Rougtledge and see what I'm talking about. There have also been shotguns made in 9mm Flobert and a few other interesting calibers too.

wash
06-15-2011, 12:44 PM
I've got a Remington 41P Target master. It is a single shot bolt action .22.

When I was researching it, I found that Remington also sold a smooth bore model (shotgun) and I think it might have been sold before the NFA was passed. There are probably hundreds of legal (tax stamped) .22 short barrel shotguns in the country.

greasemonkey
06-15-2011, 12:52 PM
Who issues permits for staged fights?

Ridiculous!:rolleyes:

The police do, of course. They're responsible for granting you permission to do anything within the City Limits...duh :rolleyes:

CitaDeL
06-15-2011, 2:40 PM
Why should I support that case? The kid brought a gun within 1000 feet of a school violating the law. The school decided to punish him based on there zero tolerance policy regarding guns, the parents should have raised there child better and taught him to not violate the law or school policy. If you donít like the schoolís policy go to another one or change it. :rolleyes:

Rights are only about supporting what you do or believe in, anything else should be criminal. :rolleyes:

Never said CA did I? The shotguns were not locked per federal law, he broke the law, I cant and wont support criminals. :rolleyes:

The fact that it is not enforced does not change the fact that he was a criminal, only those things I agree with should be protected, everything else should be illegal, thatís what rights are all about. :rolleyes:

Im throwing a penalty flag on the play- Gratuituous use of smilies, 15 yard penalty, first down. Nevermind the fact that I disagree with you, but no one can tell if you're being serious when you toss in a smiley on every post in the thread.

bigcalidave
06-15-2011, 2:46 PM
WTF is a .22 shotgun? Yes it was a bad idea, but if they are fishing for SOME gun charge to hold him on, that's an even worse idea. Was he really in violation of the GFSZ? People will do stupid things, but we can't throw stones at them all. The last thing I want to see is a kid prosecuted on a gun charge for making a movie, which is what this comes down to. That's a problem with 1A and 2A. We should be on the kids side. Does everyone expect a kid to make the right decision? Many people here don't understand the gun laws in this state, so holding a child to that level is pretty hard to do.

wash
06-15-2011, 2:53 PM
As I've said above, .22 shotguns are very real.

I believe they were marketed as garden guns so that house wives could use snake shot on pests in the garden.

It's just about the silliest NFA gun I can imagine but I'm sure short barreled versions exist.

Falconis
06-15-2011, 3:24 PM
WTF is a .22 shotgun? Yes it was a bad idea, but if they are fishing for SOME gun charge to hold him on, that's an even worse idea. Was he really in violation of the GFSZ? People will do stupid things, but we can't throw stones at them all. The last thing I want to see is a kid prosecuted on a gun charge for making a movie, which is what this comes down to. That's a problem with 1A and 2A. We should be on the kids side. Does everyone expect a kid to make the right decision? Many people here don't understand the gun laws in this state, so holding a child to that level is pretty hard to do.

This is dependent on a lot of factors. How old is the kid, what is his understanding of what he did. how mature is he, how much did he push to bring the rifle. Was it a GFSZ?

I will agree the teachers should be charged with whatever they were charged with. Doing what they did under the circumstances and neighborhood they did it in is extremely irresponsible.

Lead-Thrower
06-15-2011, 6:12 PM
...for public safety.

Sounds all too familiar... :rolleyes:

chiselchst
06-15-2011, 6:43 PM
Any adults present, or whom were aware of this FAIL and didn't stop it, should be cited for having their heads up thier arses...

The kid lectured and slapped on the wrist. Then made to attend 2A classes :D

CSACANNONEER
06-15-2011, 6:54 PM
As I've said above, .22 shotguns are very real.

I believe they were marketed as garden guns so that house wives could use snake shot on pests in the garden.

It's just about the silliest NFA gun I can imagine but I'm sure short barreled versions exist.

My Rem 121 Routledge came from Gene Autry's estate. I beleive that most .22 smoothbore marketed in the states were geared towards the sport of Routledge (a form of indoor trap shooting) and not as garden guns. I have seen many garden guns from Europe in 9mm Flobert and other larger rimfire cartridges but, I've never happened across a .22lr garden gun. However, I have not spent any time researching garden guns and only a limited amount of time trying to find out more about Routledge.

CHS
06-15-2011, 7:18 PM
My Rem 121 Routledge came from Gene Autry's estate. I beleive that most .22 smoothbore marketed in the states were geared towards the sport of Routledge (a form of indoor trap shooting) and not as garden guns. I have seen many garden guns from Europe in 9mm Flobert and other larger rimfire cartridges but, I've never happened across a .22lr garden gun. However, I have not spent any time researching garden guns and only a limited amount of time trying to find out more about Routledge.

My buddy in England keeps a Taurus Judge at AT HOME because it qualifies as a "garden gun" over there :)

tenpercentfirearms
06-15-2011, 11:28 PM
Never said CA did I? The shotguns were not locked per federal law, he broke the law, I cant and wont support criminals. :rolleyes:

That is your choice. As more facts come out in this case, it gets worse. Sorry, but kids running around in the park with guns staging a shoot out lack serious judgement. Adults who supervise this also lack judgement. If the kids and adults were walking through the park open carrying, that would be different. They weren't.

Gary Tudesko had his firearms locked inside his vehicle. Even if he broke the 1000 foot rule because his guns weren't in a lock container, that would be one worth fighting for.

Running around the park pretending to shoot at each other with an unregistered NFA weapon...no.

gun toting monkeyboy
06-20-2011, 1:12 PM
Sounds all too familiar... :rolleyes:

wow. Really? Anything done in the name of public safety is obviously bad, and a secret conspiracy to take away your freedoms? Again, get over yourself. There are times when some people really, really need to get out of their mom's basement and interact with real people. And maybe spend a bit less time cruising online looking for conspiracies. Otherwise you end up stressing that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids through the fluoride added to drinking water.:TFH:


Seriously, this has nothing to do with taking away your rights. It has to do with people not getting shot while doing exactly what these morons were doing. Running around in a public park, pointing guns. Public does not mean it belongs to you, and you get to do whatever you want to do there. It means it belongs to everybody. And that everybody, or in this case, the majority, as determined by the laws and ordinences passed by local officials as elected by everybody, gets to determine the rules for the use of their public places. Just because you have a wild hair up your posterior over whether or not The Man should be able to tell you what to do doesn't matter. You don't get to say "Well I don't like that law, and I am not going to follow it." Part of living in society means there are laws, and if you don't follow them, there are reprocussions. Running around causing a public disturbance and setting up a situation where people are likely to be injured or killed doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights. If you can find it in there, go ahead and post it, and I'll apologize for doubting you. But getting a permit to do an non-protected activity in a public place seems more like common sense to me. Hopefully you don't think common sense is attempting to take away your rights as well...

-Mb