PDA

View Full Version : Carrying concealed w/o a permit


Sam1978
10-09-2011, 9:08 PM
I am a resident in a California county that refuses(only if you are lucky or know someone will you be issued) to issue CCW's to law abiding citizens that are legally allowed to own a firearm. This limits people w/o a permit to open carry. Not the most desirable way to carry in my opinion. That being said, let me present someone out there who has legal knowledge, with a quick hypothetical situation.
Say a person(who HAS a CCW) is confronted by a group of criminals one night while walking down the street and these thugs threaten this person with great physical harm and/or death with a knife or baseball bats, and the victim genuinely feels his/her life is in imminent danger. Under the self defense laws, that victim is not req'd to retreat and can stand their ground and use lethal force if confronted w/ a lethal threat. Lets say that person presents their firearm and shoots in defense. Here is the question: how would a citizen who does NOT have a CCW be treated under the law differently given the same situation? I understand that they could be charged with carrying a firearm w/o a permit, but just because they did not have a permit doesn't mean that they had any less right to use lethal force if it was absolutely necessary-correct?
Any enlightenment on this would be appreciated!

PsychGuy274
10-09-2011, 9:18 PM
Violation of 12025 PC and 12031 PC

Librarian
10-09-2011, 9:20 PM
A 'good shoot' is a 'good shoot' no matter the LTC status of the shooter.

In either case, the shooter can expect to be arrested and investigated.

paul0660
10-09-2011, 9:23 PM
I am a resident in a California county that refuses(only if you are lucky or know someone will you be issued) to issue CCW's to law abiding citizens that are legally allowed to own a firearm. This limits people w/o a permit to open carry. Not the most desirable way to carry in my opinion. That being said, let me present someone out there who has legal knowledge, with a quick hypothetical situation.
Say a person(who HAS a CCW) is confronted by a group of criminals one night while walking down the street and these thugs threaten this person with great physical harm and/or death with a knife or baseball bats, and the victim genuinely feels his/her life is in imminent danger. Under the self defense laws, that victim is not req'd to retreat and can stand their ground and use lethal force if confronted w/ a lethal threat. Lets say that person presents their firearm and shoots in defense. Here is the question: how would a citizen who does NOT have a CCW be treated under the law differently given the same situation? I understand that they could be charged with carrying a firearm w/o a permit, but just because they did not have a permit doesn't mean that they had any less right to use lethal force if it was absolutely necessary-correct?
Any enlightenment on this would be appreciated!

You have it right, but when any issue goes to a jury, things can get funky.

There is a school of thought that it would be better to illegally carry AFTER being denied for a LTC, having made the effort, and still feeling the need.

POLICESTATE
10-09-2011, 9:27 PM
Something else you need to think about.

What if.

What if you are stopped by a LEO at night while you are out walking the dog or about other normal business. They tell you they'd like to ask you a few questions and that you resemble a suspect they are looking for. Then they proceed to search you for weapons for officer safety.

12025 and 12031 arrest.

Or what if someone sees your weapon print or a glimpse and freaks out and calls 911?

12025 and 13021 arrest.

I would be patient like the rest of us. Being unable to carry my weapon around has forced me to learn the most basic form of self defense: avoiding areas, people and situations where the need for a weapon would be necessary in the first place. And that is a good skill to have LTC or not.

The fight you avoid is the fight you don't lose.

creekside
10-09-2011, 9:30 PM
Say a person(who HAS a CCW) is confronted by a group of criminals one night while walking down the street and these thugs threaten this person with great physical harm and/or death with a knife or baseball bats, and the victim genuinely feels his/her life is in imminent danger. Under the self defense laws, that victim is not req'd to retreat and can stand their ground and use lethal force if confronted w/ a lethal threat. Lets say that person presents their firearm and shoots in defense. Here is the question: how would a citizen who does NOT have a CCW be treated under the law differently given the same situation? I understand that they could be charged with carrying a firearm w/o a permit, but just because they did not have a permit doesn't mean that they had any less right to use lethal force if it was absolutely necessary-correct?

Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. I'd encourage you to consult the California Criminal Jury Instructions, especially self defense (long, large PDF (www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf)). If I were on the jury, I'd be really wondering whether the 'defender' was looking for a fight by illegally carrying a firearm. Whether or not the defender attempted to retreat or decline the fight would be of interest to me as a juror also.

The police are going to treat the situations differently -- the holder of a CCW (also known as a License to Carry) is more likely to be seen as a law-abiding person, especially if they are the ones who called the police, etc. There has been a lot of discussion on past threads for what one should do in the aftermath of a defensive shooting... search for it.

There is also a concept called the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule and the felony-murder rule. If someone dies as the result of a misdemeanor, the crime is manslaughter. If someone dies as the result of a felony, the crime is murder.

Smart people on this board have said that no one should illegally carry a concealed and/or loaded handgun unless they have applied for a License to Carry (LTC) and been denied. So go do that.

A person with no prior criminal history commits two misdemeanors if they carry a concealed, loaded handgun registered in their name. Conviction means a ten year loss of gun rights. It goes downhill from there if the handgun is not theirs, they are already a prohibited person, they are committing other crimes, and/or a variety of other minor factors.

I have heard from attorneys that the cost of defending a handgun shooting is about $10,000 per shot fired. If you can think of a safer, cheaper way to save your life, such as not hanging out in the wrong neighborhood, with the wrong people, at the wrong time, you might want to consider that cheaper, safer approach instead.

DiscoBayJoe
10-09-2011, 9:32 PM
It's a good thing you had time to unlock and load your weapon as you were being threatened. That was a close one.

Crom
10-09-2011, 9:39 PM
Get a LTC denial on your record first before you CCW. It cost some money, but it's worth it. It will help insulate you in court if it ever came to that. Remember concealed means concealed.

I also recommend reading the Cal Crim instructions, so you know exactly how the system works.

Paul S
10-09-2011, 10:12 PM
You would be ill advised to do so.

zhyla
10-09-2011, 10:23 PM
Get a LTC denial on your record first before you CCW. It cost some money, but it's worth it. It will help insulate you in court if it ever came to that.

Now hang on there... just because you're denied a LTC does NOT mean you can CCW w/o a LTC. There's been some recommendations on this board to apply for a LTC before UOCing because if you get into trouble while UOCing you have the fact that you're just trying to exercise the only legal option available. That's entirely different than CCWing w/o LTC.

In fact, the fact that you applied and were denied makes things worse in my mind. It proves you 1) were fully aware of the LTC requirement and 2) were vetted by the proper authority and found unsuitable for a LTC. This makes you a poor test case for pushing shall-issue requirements (in my un-legal opinion), so don't expect CGF to be able to save you.

One other thing to keep in mind is that even in our future shall-issue utopia, some people will get denied for either good reason or reasons that are a bit of a stretch but stand up in court. Breaking the law isn't the answer.

paul0660
10-09-2011, 10:25 PM
Now hang on there... just because you're denied a LTC does NOT mean you can CCW w/o a LTC. There's been some recommendations on this board to apply for a LTC before UOCing because if you get into trouble while UOCing you have the fact that you're just trying to exercise the only legal option available. That's entirely different than CCWing w/o LTC.

In fact, the fact that you applied and were denied makes things worse in my mind. It proves you 1) were fully aware of the LTC requirement and 2) were vetted by the proper authority and found unsuitable for a LTC. This makes you a poor test case for pushing shall-issue requirements (in my un-legal opinion), so don't expect CGF to be able to save you.

One other thing to keep in mind is that even in our future shall-issue utopia, some people will get denied for either good reason or reasons that are a bit of a stretch but stand up in court. Breaking the law isn't the answer.

And that is the other school of thought, perfectly expressed.

Don29palms
10-09-2011, 10:26 PM
If I were on the jury, I'd be really wondering whether the 'defender' was looking for a fight by illegally carrying a firearm. Whether or not the defender attempted to retreat or decline the fight would be of interest to me as a juror also.

That's the kind of BS reasoning that helps keep this a May Issue state. Law abiding citizens should not have to get permission to exercise a right. If you have to get permission it is no longer a right. It is a privilege granted to you by the government. Come on!

nukechaser
10-09-2011, 10:30 PM
Interesting question...

... and welcome to Cal Guns!

Don29palms
10-09-2011, 10:31 PM
Now hang on there... just because you're denied a LTC does NOT mean you can CCW w/o a LTC. There's been some recommendations on this board to apply for a LTC before UOCing because if you get into trouble while UOCing you have the fact that you're just trying to exercise the only legal option available. That's entirely different than CCWing w/o LTC.

In fact, the fact that you applied and were denied makes things worse in my mind. It proves you 1) were fully aware of the LTC requirement and 2) were vetted by the proper authority and found unsuitable for a LTC. This makes you a poor test case for pushing shall-issue requirements (in my un-legal opinion), so don't expect CGF to be able to save you.

One other thing to keep in mind is that even in our future shall-issue utopia, some people will get denied for either good reason or reasons that are a bit of a stretch but stand up in court. Breaking the law isn't the answer.

So what you are saying is that as law abiding citizens we have the privilege to keep and bare arms and not the right to keep and bare arms.

You don't need permission to exercise a right. If you have to get permission it is a privilege.

paul0660
10-09-2011, 10:33 PM
[QUOTE=creekside;7293801]If I were on the jury, I'd be really wondering whether the 'defender' was looking for a fight by illegally carrying a firearm. Whether or not the defender attempted to retreat or decline the fight would be of interest to me as a juror also.[QUOTE]

That's the kind of BS reasoning that helps keep this a May Issue state. Law abiding citizens should not have to get permission to exercise a right. If you have to get permission it is no longer a right. It is a privilege granted to you by the government. Come on!

Where does it say in the 2A that one has to be law abiding to exercise the right? Are there some laws that are ok to not abide by, and others not?

You take a very literal few of the right but don't allow for any wiggle room, which is exactly what jurors get to decide about. It could be simple, it isn't.

creekside
10-09-2011, 10:39 PM
Law abiding citizens should not have to get permission to exercise a right. If you have to get permission it is no longer a right. It is a privilege granted to you by the government. Come on!

I don't disagree with the last three sentences you've said.

That's the kind of BS reasoning that helps keep this a May Issue state.

I choose to follow the law, even though I disagree with it, at some risk to my life. I'm going to be curious why our hypothetical defendant decided the same question the opposite way. Was he at greater risk? Braver? More attached to his civil liberties? Less worried about losing all gun rights?

As someone who's invested considerable energy in protecting my RKBA rights, including marching with the Pink Pistols, I'm curious why you think any of this is "B.S. reasoning."

If I am going to be asked to decide who is at fault because someone is dead, I'm going to weigh all the factors ... and yes, whether someone was breaking the law by being armed is going to be a factor in that decision. Not the only factor, and not necessarily a major factor, but it's going to color my perceptions -- and I think it's going to be far more cut-and-dried for the vast majority of other people. Just my 0.02 unless I'm on your jury.

Don29palms
10-09-2011, 10:54 PM
The victim must have felt he needed to carry a gun for self defense and obviously he was right. The fact that creekside is presuming the victim is looking for a fight just because he is exercising his Constitutional rights is wrong. The fact that the victim is being already judged because he didn't try to run away like a coward and exercised his Constitutional right to defend himself is wrong. The fact that the cops weren't their to protect him...... I'll have to stop right there because the cops have no obligation to protect anyone.

These unconstitutional infringements on our right have been accepted and in essence have taken away people's ability to take responsibilty for themselves. If the politicians want to do something about public safety they should quit taking away people's rights and ability to protect themselves. They should also keep criminals behind bars where they belong.

Tacobandit
10-09-2011, 11:29 PM
Here is your best option to combat the LTC laws here,
get one of these,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Concealment-Gun-Holster-Nylon-Vertical-Fanny-Pack-L-/170692615751?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27be129e47
comes on different sizes,
then one of these,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/TSA-Combination-Locks-2-PK-Red-Lewis-N-Clark-/220871262088?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item336cf3ff88
carry it unloaded locked with the combo 1 number away so it is easy unlock, it fits nicely under a shirt and I have never had anyone say anything about it, keep a few extra mags with you. If you get hinked up and you think something will go sideways then unlock the lock and unzip as discretely as you can, if you need to use it try and get to cover so you can load it, I can load up in about 3 or 4 seconds, yes it sucks to have to do this but it is a good way to carry and not land yourself in jail.

fiddletown
10-10-2011, 2:10 AM
There's the case of Bernie Goetz, the 1984 Subway Vigilante. He defended himself with an unlicensed handgun in a New York subway from some armed robbers. He was tried for various assault related crimes and the weapons charge. He was acquitted of the assaults (the jury found his use of force to be justified self defense); but he was convicted and went to jail on the weapons charge (and he was hammered in a subsequent civil suit).

Big Dad
10-10-2011, 7:18 AM
Here is your best option to combat the LTC laws here,
get one of these,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Concealment-Gun-Holster-Nylon-Vertical-Fanny-Pack-L-/170692615751?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27be129e47
comes on different sizes,
then one of these,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/TSA-Combination-Locks-2-PK-Red-Lewis-N-Clark-/220871262088?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item336cf3ff88
carry it unloaded locked with the combo 1 number away so it is easy unlock, it fits nicely under a shirt and I have never had anyone say anything about it, keep a few extra mags with you. If you get hinked up and you think something will go sideways then unlock the lock and unzip as discretely as you can, if you need to use it try and get to cover so you can load it, I can load up in about 3 or 4 seconds, yes it sucks to have to do this but it is a good way to carry and not land yourself in jail.

How is this legal. Is it not still concealed?

Tacobandit
10-10-2011, 7:31 AM
How is this legal. Is it not still concealed?

Doesnt matter, its no longer carrying a firearm its transporting an unloaded firearm, perfectly legal. As soon as it is locked and unloaded it is exempt from the carry laws.

Trailboss60
10-10-2011, 8:26 AM
I am a resident in a California county that refuses(only if you are lucky or know someone will you be issued) to issue CCW's to law abiding citizens that are legally allowed to own a firearm.

I feel for you bro...I used to live in San Benito county..that sucks.


I would be patient like the rest of us. Being unable to carry my weapon around has forced me to learn the most basic form of self defense: avoiding areas, people and situations where the need for a weapon would be necessary in the first place. And that is a good skill to have LTC or not.

The fight you avoid is the fight you don't lose.

It isn't always that easy....situational awareness is always a main component of my approach to personal security, but sometimes regardless of how diligent you are, you can find yourself in the middle of a wolf pack.

I live in Phoenix and traveled to Palm springs to assist my disabled brother on a cross country flight, since we had to leave early, we got a hotel room near the Ontario airport in a nice hotel. My brother got a nasty migraine and he realized that he had forgot to pack his Excedrin, so I headed to the convenience store after midnight. The parking lot was empty, after I made the purchase and left the store, three surly looking males quickly came towards me, I had to present my weapon and they quickly realized that they picked the wrong target. I got the hell out of there, because there were cameras covering the lot, and I didn't know if the clerk saw what was going on or call the cops, I wasn't sure if these scumbags would say that "The guy from Arizona drew on us"...either way I would get screwed by California's legal system, and the local DA would probably want to make an example of an out of stater carrying in his town.

Had I not chosen to carry that night, I am convinced that at the very least I would have been robbed, worse case gutted like a fish and left for the CSI team....


If this happens again, sis in law will be meeting me in Quartzite and we will fly from Phoenix.

sandwich
10-10-2011, 8:31 AM
How is this legal. Is it not still concealed?

See also: http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/RefLegalCaLUCC

Crom
10-10-2011, 9:33 AM
Now hang on there... just because you're denied a LTC does NOT mean you can CCW w/o a LTC. There's been some recommendations on this board to apply for a LTC before UOCing because if you get into trouble while UOCing you have the fact that you're just trying to exercise the only legal option available. That's entirely different than CCWing w/o LTC.

In fact, the fact that you applied and were denied makes things worse in my mind. It proves you 1) were fully aware of the LTC requirement and 2) were vetted by the proper authority and found unsuitable for a LTC. This makes you a poor test case for pushing shall-issue requirements (in my un-legal opinion), so don't expect CGF to be able to save you.

One other thing to keep in mind is that even in our future shall-issue utopia, some people will get denied for either good reason or reasons that are a bit of a stretch but stand up in court. Breaking the law isn't the answer.

We believe differently.



The denial shows that a lawful man attempted to comply with the unjust law as it was written. Money was taken from the applicant, a DOJ background check was performed [and passed], the applicant took the 8 hour safety training course [and passed], shot with the sheriff's deputies at the safety range [and passed]. In every respect the applicant passed. They were however denied the right to carry because of the sheriff's uncontrolled discretion. [Fear alone does not rise to the Sheriff's standard necessary satisfy "good cause".] Do you see the harm?
I believe that loaded carry in some form is protected conduct at the core of the 2A right. California's preference for carry is concealed and loaded.
There are two kinds of laws; just and unjust. It's my personal belief that the discretionary system is unjust. There are those individuals that make a personal choice to carry in defiance of the unjust law and presumably must accept all personal responsibility for it.


Now a word about unjust laws... I think it's best to quote Martin Luther King Jr. on this subject.

"How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.


http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

todd2968
10-10-2011, 9:45 AM
Realistically if that situation would arise, you would have to flee after defending yourself. The ones you shot would probably cry victim and you would be considered the criminal.
It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

ccmc
10-10-2011, 10:29 AM
This is kind of the scenario in the Williams case in Maryland where SCOTUS just refused cert. I hadn't seen the video of the final appeal to the MD court until today, and the MD justices, while not addressing the discretionary nature of the MD permitting system did seem interested in the fact that Williams never applied for a permit. Something else I learned from that video was that he was carrying a loaded handgun in his pocket, not in a backpack like so many have posted in Williams v Maryland thread. He found the backpack on the bus and was looking through it when the cop drove by.

viet4lifeOC
10-10-2011, 11:07 AM
I would be patient like the rest of us. Being unable to carry my weapon around has forced me to learn the most basic form of self defense: avoiding areas, people and situations where the need for a weapon would be necessary in the first place. And that is a good skill to have LTC or not.

The fight you avoid is the fight you don't lose.

At this point in CA....this is what I would also advise.

Vir Insanus
10-10-2011, 1:24 PM
Ok based on what you guys have been saying and what the original poster posted, I believe if this happened and a court case was to ensue; it would posses more than enough constitutional grounds to be appealed if not taken by the supreme court. Then it would become interesting, hell we might even get rid of a large amount of gun laws. Hypothetically speaking of course. :)

Crom
10-10-2011, 1:42 PM
Ok based on what you guys have been saying and what the original poster posted, I believe if this happened and a court case was to ensue; it would posses more than enough constitutional grounds to be appealed if not taken by the supreme court. Then it would become interesting, hell we might even get rid of a large amount of gun laws. Hypothetically speaking of course. :)

It's not that easy. The constitutionality of our very burdensome CA gun laws are tested all the time by looser criminals in the criminal justice system. Rarely do they succeed.



The Court notes that section 12031 has been challenged and upheld following Heller. See People v. Flores, 169 Cal. App. 4th 568, 576-77 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (holding “section 12031 does not burden the core Second Amendment right announced in Heller – the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home – to any significant degree”).

The fact is that anyone who chooses to carry w/o permit must accept the penalties if caught which most likely involve confiscation of gun and jail time--but not always. Carrying w/o permit is a misdemeanor if the gun is registered to the person. The arresting LEO has discretion to arrest or to disarm the person and send them away with a warning. If it is a felony [carrying a concealed unregistered handgun, or reg'd to someone else], the LEO has no choice but to arrest.

To be clear, I'm not advocating that individuals carry against the law, but if you do, you owe it to yourself and your family to understand exactly what the consequences are.

IrishPirate
10-10-2011, 1:50 PM
That's the kind of BS reasoning that helps keep this a May Issue state. Law abiding citizens should not have to get permission to exercise a right. If you have to get permission it is no longer a right. It is a privilege granted to you by the government. Come on!

this +10000

justified shooting is justified shooting, no matter if you have a CCW license or not. the question is whether they will charge you with CCW w/o a license.
THIS IS WHY YOU NEVER TALK TO COPS!!!!!!
let your lawyer make them explain how they know for sure you were CCW w/o license. If you don't tell them you were carrying illegally, then they have to prove it, and there are legal ways to carry w/o a permit. If they can't prove you weren't UOCing, then you'll likely get off the weapons charge. But it all hinges on you NOT talking to the cops!!!!!!!


it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6......BUT IT'S BEST TO STFU WHEN COPS ASK YOU QUESTIONS!!!

ls2monaro
10-10-2011, 5:15 PM
Yes it is a gamble to carry without a license, I know of a guy who has carried his 1911 cocked and locked for 30+ years. He drives a 1992 GMC truck and hasn't been pulled over in over 10 years but he his also well versed in CA law. Whatever personal decision you choose, research it thoroughly and don't post anything questionable such as your original post.

To answer your question, the investigating officer has the discretion not to charge you for the firearm violations if you are cooperative, not a dirtbag, and legitimately acted in self defense. However, you will be SOL when the civil lawsuit comes from the dirtbag's family but at least you will still be alive to tell the story.

themandylion
10-10-2011, 5:57 PM
If cops refused to enforce unconstitutional "laws," we wouldn't have to ask such questions.

So, who is to blame, those who rule as tyrants, or those who do their bidding?

Flopper
10-10-2011, 10:19 PM
If cops refused to enforce unconstitutional "laws," we wouldn't have to ask such questions.

So, who is to blame, those who rule as tyrants, or those who do their bidding?

Well, "I was simply following orders!" was no defense at Nuremburg.

warbird
10-11-2011, 1:04 AM
I think you could solve this in the ballot box and by letters to your county sheriff. If a sheriff is looking at thousands of letters from county citzens politely telling him that they are voting against him for restricting CCW permits from county citzens and the political parties are given the same warning on their candidates and you make it come true in the ballot booth then things will change. Scott Jones got into the Sacramento Sheriff's office because he made a public promise and now he is living up to it. He violates it and on next ballot I think the citizens will reject him. The big issue was would he honor his promise and keep his word. The man is smart and he knows most of his county (1 million plus population) is not going to be beating a path to his door but they are going to feel safer even if it is an illusion. Open carry was never a big issue in Sacramento and nobody freaked out if they did see someone doing it because I assume the cops usually used discretion. Use the ballot box and organize against those that restrict your rights no matter what they do in other area. A person who will restrict your rights will take everything you own and make you a slave.

fairfaxjim
10-11-2011, 6:35 AM
this +10000

justified shooting is justified shooting, no matter if you have a CCW license or not. the question is whether they will charge you with CCW w/o a license.
THIS IS WHY YOU NEVER TALK TO COPS!!!!!!
let your lawyer make them explain how they know for sure you were CCW w/o license. If you don't tell them you were carrying illegally, then they have to prove it, and there are legal ways to carry w/o a permit. If they can't prove you weren't UOCing, then you'll likely get off the weapons charge. But it all hinges on you NOT talking to the cops!!!!!!!

This is so essential to surviving ANY police interaction/detention/arrest!

it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6......BUT IT'S BEST TO STFU WHEN COPS ASK YOU QUESTIONS!!!

Be careful with this one - you definitely don't want to end up being carried by 6, but if you have ever spent any time in jury deliberations, you also want to avoid putting yourself in a position to be judged by 12 chosen randomly from the collections of fruits, nuts, wackjobs, and a lot of other things I can't mention without being banned, available for jury duty in the marvelous State of California!

NeuTag
10-11-2011, 7:18 AM
I am a resident in a California county that refuses(only if you are lucky or know someone will you be issued) to issue CCW's to law abiding citizens that are legally allowed to own a firearm. This limits people w/o a permit to open carry. Not the most desirable way to carry in my opinion. That being said, let me present someone out there who has legal knowledge, with a quick hypothetical situation.
Say a person(who HAS a CCW) is confronted by a group of criminals one night while walking down the street and these thugs threaten this person with great physical harm and/or death with a knife or baseball bats, and the victim genuinely feels his/her life is in imminent danger. Under the self defense laws, that victim is not req'd to retreat and can stand their ground and use lethal force if confronted w/ a lethal threat. Lets say that person presents their firearm and shoots in defense. Here is the question: how would a citizen who does NOT have a CCW be treated under the law differently given the same situation? I understand that they could be charged with carrying a firearm w/o a permit, but just because they did not have a permit doesn't mean that they had any less right to use lethal force if it was absolutely necessary-correct?
Any enlightenment on this would be appreciated!

I have known many people over the decades that do this. I have never done it as I don't own a pistol. My milsurp rifles are too personal to me to have them in the car. I do respect your right. I will support it. An Italian cousin of my ex-wife did carry and still does carry..without harm to the public...this is for thirty years now. About time laws reflect the common man. And not make him a criminal.

AGGRO
10-11-2011, 7:42 AM
[QUOTE=Tacobandit;7294402]Here is your best option to combat the LTC laws here,
get one of these,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Concealment-Gun-Holster-Nylon-Vertical-Fanny-Pack-L-/170692615751?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27be129e47
comes on different sizes,
then one of these,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/TSA-Combination-Locks-2-PK-Red-Lewis-N-Clark-/220871262088?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item336cf3ff88
carry it unloaded locked with the combo 1 number away so it is easy unlock, it fits nicely under a shirt and I have never had anyone say anything about it, keep a few extra mags with you. If you get hinked up and you think something will go sideways then unlock the lock and unzip as discretely as you can, if you need to use it try and get to cover so you can load it, I can load up in about 3 or 4 seconds, yes it sucks to have to do this but it is a good way to carry and not land yourself in jail.[/QUO
Is a soft case legal, like a fanny pack? So long as it's locked? Also, isn't there restrictions on the type of locks?

negolien
10-11-2011, 7:43 AM
Now hang on there... just because you're denied a LTC does NOT mean you can CCW w/o a LTC. There's been some recommendations on this board to apply for a LTC before UOCing because if you get into trouble while UOCing you have the fact that you're just trying to exercise the only legal option available. That's entirely different than CCWing w/o LTC.

In fact, the fact that you applied and were denied makes things worse in my mind. It proves you 1) were fully aware of the LTC requirement and 2) were vetted by the proper authority and found unsuitable for a LTC. This makes you a poor test case for pushing shall-issue requirements (in my un-legal opinion), so don't expect CGF to be able to save you.

One other thing to keep in mind is that even in our future shall-issue utopia, some people will get denied for either good reason or reasons that are a bit of a stretch but stand up in court. Breaking the law isn't the answer.

Well said my friend I have seen some retarded advice in this here thread :facepalm:.

ja308
10-11-2011, 7:44 AM
Kinda nice, a govt guarentee ,that thugs will not be injured in the course of their activities-- whoo hoo -lets hear it for the democratic party

OHW
10-11-2011, 8:01 AM
"It's a good thing you had time to unlock and load your weapon as you were being threatened. That was a close one."

Close but not quite. You will be the next to make Bernard Goetz mistake. Still be at the scene to answer questions or be a hero . Somthing I learn from the criminals helps in the OP , run like the wind, vanish in the shadows. Live free.