PDA

View Full Version : 1st time carry a misdemeanor?


nona
11-24-2007, 4:57 PM
This applies to the less CCW-friendly counties...

As I understand it, concealed carry of my own pistol is not a felony for the first offense. Does anyone have any experience with this?

bwiese
11-24-2007, 5:00 PM
Generally so, esp if there's no other aggravating factors (assault, brandishing, drugs, etc.).

The gun must be DROS'd to you: if not, that can be an escalating factor toward felony charges.

[The above statements are in no way to be construed as a recommendation for illegal unpapered CCW.]

Even w/1st time misdemeanor violation and clean prior record - depending on judge, there could be road crew or public service work in addition to fine.
A conviction will result in loss of gun.

CSDGuy
11-24-2007, 5:16 PM
Second Conviction would be a Felony, even IF the gun was DROS'd to you

Experimentalist
11-24-2007, 7:00 PM
As I understand it, such a misdemeanor would render you unable to obtain CCWs in other states (e.g. Utah).

Besides, with the Supreme Court hearing Heller, perhaps in a few years the laws will become more supportive of CCWs across the Nation. (I know, I can dream... :balloon:) Everyone's situation is unique, but speaking for myself it seems a bad idea to risk messing up my future.

CalNRA
11-24-2007, 7:04 PM
remember, many job applications contain a question like

"have you ever been convicted of a crime involving a firearm".

then you be doomed.:(

bwiese
11-24-2007, 7:10 PM
remember, many job applications contain a question like

"have you ever been convicted of a crime involving a firearm".

then you be doomed.:(

Most job applications don't specify 'firearm', just 'crime'.

Except for certain political/gov't jobs, an expungement allows you to answer "No".

Solidmch
11-24-2007, 10:30 PM
You dont want to do this. Many DAs will try to get you to plead to a lesser charge in exchange for you to not be able to own a gun for ten years. They will pile on charges even if the evidence does not support a conviction. Going to trial is ugly. The DA will stack a anti gun jury against you. In several counties you might have 1 guy who is pro gun for every 150 potential jurors. Remember this. The truth has nothing to do with it. It would be a smear campaign. Many sleepless nights.

This is simply my opinion.

artthestampede
11-24-2007, 11:10 PM
You should weigh the risks vs. potential dangers or threats.

Would it be worth it to get charged with a misdemeanor if illegal CCW might save you from death or injury?



Disclaimer: Don't listen to me. :rolleyes:

metalhead357
11-25-2007, 1:05 AM
this came up on another thread just today....might wanna reconsider that it *might* only be a misdomeaner....sounds like they threw multiple charges at this guy

Edit...
Sorry...this post:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=848611&postcount=26

budllight906
11-25-2007, 1:30 AM
a friend of mine got caught doing this a few years ago... it was a misdomeaner but he lost his gun, had to pay a pretty hefty fine and was on probation for 2 years... probation = not owning any firearms

bwiese
11-25-2007, 1:43 AM
The probation firearms prohibition may be negotiated away.

Dude probably had a schmuck lawyer or case was costing him too much.

CitaDeL
11-25-2007, 6:48 AM
This applies to the less CCW-friendly counties...

As I understand it, concealed carry of my own pistol is not a felony for the first offense. Does anyone have any experience with this?

Everyone so far has been correct.

The only way to lawfully carry a handgun in California without a license to carry concealed is to carry it openly in a belt holster and in an unloaded condition under most circumstances.

So you have three lawful choices- Carry it openly, carry with a license to carry concealed or leave it at home.

Waingro
11-25-2007, 7:16 AM
Everyone so far has been correct.

The only way to lawfully carry a handgun in California without a license to carry concealed is to carry it openly in a belt holster and in an unloaded condition under most circumstances.

So you have three lawful choices- Carry it openly, carry with a license to carry concealed or leave it at home.

So you can have a big loaded gun hanging off your hip? Wow. Did not know that.

What consists of "open carry" - 100% of the gun showing?

Flip side: Wouldn't it be real easy for anyone to say "that guy was waving his gun around everywhere"! Then you get in trouble for brandishing.

Rob P.
11-25-2007, 8:41 AM
So you can have a big loaded gun hanging off your hip? Wow. Did not know that.
NO!!!

What consists of "open carry" - 100% of the gun showing?
Unloaded firearms carried openly in a belt holster are "not concealed".


Flip side: Wouldn't it be real easy for anyone to say "that guy was waving his gun around everywhere"! Then you get in trouble for brandishing.
This is a risk. You will also be subject to PC12031 "unloaded check" and search without a warrant. You WILL see a lot of police officers on a daily basis and not all of them will be nice to you. You will also likely see the inside of a jail cell or holding area while they scratch their heads (and asses) and try and find something to arrest & charge you with.


IF you are going to open carry you should memorize the laws, be aware of the risks, and know where you are at all times in relation to schools, incorporated areas, and other restricted places. You should also carry a voice activated recorder on your person when doing this.

These are at a MINIMUM. You can and should do more to prevent your arrest on some firearm allegation.

artthestampede
11-25-2007, 11:18 AM
I am not very familiar with concealed carry, but wouldn't it be really hard to get caught if you are doing it right? I'm not trying to justify anything, but unless you do something that gets the attention from the police, they have no right to pat you down and look for concealed weapons right?

CitaDeL
11-25-2007, 11:38 AM
So you can have a big loaded gun hanging off your hip? Wow. Did not know that.

What consists of "open carry" - 100% of the gun showing?

Flip side: Wouldn't it be real easy for anyone to say "that guy was waving his gun around everywhere"! Then you get in trouble for brandishing.

You may not carry a loaded firearm in incorporated areas or in prohibited areas in unincorporated territory. This means you cannot carry a loaded weapon inside city limits. (PC12031)

Open carry is carrying a firearm and all of its parts (Magazines included People v. Hale (1974)) unconcealed. A firearm carried openly in a belt holster is not considered concealed (PC12025 (f)).

Brandishing (PC417) requires certain elements to be a completed crime. A firearm would have to be exhibited in a rude, angry, or threatening manner. If someone did report you waving your gun around when in fact you did not, the reporting party would be guilty of filing a false police report. It is possible someone could lie, but there would be consequences should witnesess or other evidence be examined, and expose the false report.

You may not carry within 1000 feet of a school or on school grounds unless the school has given you written permission or the handgun is unloaded and locked in a secure case while traveling through a school zone. (PC626.9)

You may not carry in a National Park, a State Park, or a Post Office. Public buildings and meetings that are required to be open to the public are also off limits while armed.(PC171b)

And as was pointed out, PC12031 allows a peace officer to inspect a firearm in order to determine whether or not it is loaded. Provided you are not in a location where possession is prohibited (Post Office, public building, school, etc) and you do not have a criminal record, you would only will be detained briefly.

Rob P.
11-25-2007, 11:41 AM
I am not very familiar with concealed carry, but wouldn't it be really hard to get caught if you are doing it right? I'm not trying to justify anything, but unless you do something that gets the attention from the police, they have no right to pat you down and look for concealed weapons right?

Read Terry v. Ohio

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1

artthestampede
11-25-2007, 12:09 PM
Read Terry v. Ohio

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1

Right, so these men were acting very suspiciously. So if one were not to act like they will be robbing a corner store I see little danger in getting a pat down.

Hey, is this how the term "Terry stop" was coined?

Stanze
11-25-2007, 12:28 PM
I don't need a permit for for free speech, why should I need one for the right to keep and bear arms? *!@#$ politicians and their !@#$ laws*

That said, getting a CCW is impossible for most folks. That didn't stop this gentleman from being a man and defending his life.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060201/news_7m1salcido.html

What good is playing nice for future benefits when you're effing DEAD?

Have any of you ever been in a situation where you said to yourself, "If I live through this, I'm never leaving the house unarmed ever again?"

Cops never leave home without their gun, why can't Joe Citizen also have that right?

CitaDeL
11-25-2007, 2:26 PM
Cops never leave home without their gun, why can't Joe Citizen also have that right?

We do have that right.

It is because we are told, even by well-meaning 'firearms proponents', that we cannot or should not excersize this right- that excersizing this right is not necessary while we are under the protection of peace officers- that by excersizing this right we might frighten or offend others- that by excersizing this right we may be hassled or arrested by police ignorant of the law or hostile to the rights of the people.

The reality is, if you do not claim ownership of this right by excersizing it, you surrender it in silent submission to opposition who sacrifice nothing to disarm you. You give them tacit approval for others to usurp your personal responsibility.

krby
11-25-2007, 2:39 PM
Hey, is this how the term "Terry stop" was coined?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

Piper
11-25-2007, 2:46 PM
We do have that right.

It is because we are told, even by well-meaning 'firearms proponents', that we cannot or should not excersize this right- that excersizing this right is not necessary while we are under the protection of peace officers- that by excersizing this right we might frighten or offend others- that by excersizing this right we may be hassled or arrested by police ignorant of the law or hostile to the rights of the people.

The reality is, if you do not claim ownership of this right by excersizing it, you surrender it in silent submission to opposition who sacrifice nothing to disarm you. You give them tacit approval for others to usurp your personal responsibility.

While I agree with you that we do have the right, our free excercise of that right has been unconsitiutionally suspended. The problem is, particularly in this state, we are still being influenced by the '60's and the era of "free love" and the idealistic 60's types like Feinstein. And lest we forget, the Hollywood elitists are also using their influence to bear down on our freedoms. So while I have no problem claiming ownership and accept the responsibility, the powers that be have made their unconstitutional laws and so long as we allow it, we are bound by them.

The best analogy I can use is the the wicked witch of the west and those that she controls to do her bidding. They don't like her but they are too frightened to do anything but what she orders them to do. So the flying monkeys and castle guards will continue to be the iron fist of the witch until a Dorothy comes along and dispatches the witch once and for all.

artthestampede
11-25-2007, 3:48 PM
The best analogy I can use is the the wicked witch of the west and those that she controls to do her bidding. They don't like her but they are too frightened to do anything but what she orders them to do. So the flying monkeys and castle guards will continue to be the iron fist of the witch until a Dorothy comes along and dispatches the witch once and for all.

LOL that is the best analogy you could come up with? The wizard of OZ. I don't know why that is so funny. :smilielol5:

Piper
11-25-2007, 4:09 PM
LOL that is the best analogy you could come up with? The wizard of OZ. I don't know why that is so funny. :smilielol5:

Well at least you had a good laugh. The characters in the wizard of OZ have always been used in political allegories. So why I should be any different?

artthestampede
11-25-2007, 10:36 PM
Well at least you had a good laugh. The characters in the wizard of OZ have always been used in political allegories. So why I should be any different?

I didnt mean any disrespect. Just thought that it was random. :D

Piper
11-26-2007, 8:46 AM
I didnt mean any disrespect. Just thought that it was random. :D

No offense taken. I guess interpretation could be misunderstood, hopefully I got my point across.