[bodger]

Originally Posted by mmartin

trust me, it's already happening in some areas.
BTDT. twice.
megan

I've been lucky, although I make every effort possible to always be in compliance with CA gun laws and all local ordinances.

But I just got my first EBR two years ago. It's legal, Raddlock, 10/30 mag, etc.
Using it at the range makes me feel like I'm back in basic training where everything had to be done by the numbers or your butt was in a sling. And I don't mean weapons safety. I mean the Mickey Mouse crap kindergarten rules that have been imposed on us.
Top-loading is about as relevant as how you fold your socks or the space between the hangers in your locker.

I'm sending more money to Theseus today. This situation in CA has to get better, it's out of control. Incorporation had damn well better come to pass.

[GrizzlyGuy]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

Dont get me wrong, I am hugely disappointed with the outcome. Any thinking reasonable person adhering to the text of the law could not convict Theseus. But find me one thinking, reasonable person out of 12 people in California. (Unfortunately, I believe that ratio is more like 1 in 20.)

It would be really-really interesting to read the transcript from the trial. I suspect that the jurors weren't provided the actual text of the law, but were instead provided with the judge's interpretation of the law. That would include his absolutely flawed and activist interpretation of "private property". Given the judge's bad definition, and the undisputed fact that he was in the laundromat, the jurors would have decided that the 'not on private property' condition was met.

Given that, it is still hard to fathom how they couldn't have given him more slack on the 'know or reasonably should have known' aspect. They were apparently presented with many possible routes that Theseus could have taken to reach the laundromat, many of which gave no indication that a school was nearby. How in the heck did that not provide enough reasonable doubt to acquit?!?

The transcript would also show whether or not his activism and forum posts were made known to the jury. If so, those could have helped convince them (wrongly) that he knew or reasonably should have known about the school zone. Not that it would change anything, but at least we might all learn something from this travesty of justice.

[ponderosa]

Predicted or not, it is still total B.S.

Come on appeal! Kick some and take names later. Fingers crossed.

[bodger]

Originally Posted by GrizzlyGuy

It would be really-really interesting to read the transcript from the trial. I suspect that the jurors weren't provided the actual text of the law, but were instead provided with the judge's interpretation of the law. That would include his absolutely flawed and activist interpretation of "private property". Given the judge's bad definition, and the undisputed fact that he was in the laundromat, the jurors would have decided that the 'not on private property' condition was met.

Given that, it is still hard to fathom how they couldn't have given him more slack on the 'know or reasonably should have known' aspect. They were apparently presented with many possible routes that Theseus could have taken to reach the laundromat, many of which gave no indication that a school was nearby. How in the heck did that not provide enough reasonable doubt to acquit?!?

The transcript would also show whether or not his activism and forum posts were made known to the jury. If so, those could have helped convince them (wrongly) that he knew or reasonably should have known about the school zone. Not that it would change anything, but at least we might all learn something from this travesty of justice.

My guess is that this "known or reasonably known" aspect is rendered moot and probably never has or never will be a decent defense. Although it is obviously one of the most important facts to consider, as it seems to me it determines the validity of the violation.

He had a gun near a school. He's evil and so is his gun. Forget the law, forget his rights, forget his lack of bad intent or that he could not reasonably ascertain that a school was close by and he was on private property anyway.

Think of the children. Who weren't in school at the time of the "violation" anyway.

Makes me want to regurgitate. That D.A. should be disbarred and the judge impeached. But that won't happen, because for the most part in this state, if you ram a hot poker up a gunny's arse, you're acting in the best interests of the citizenry. Even if it violates the gunny's Constitutional rights.

Sorry for the rant, but this has me pissed. I put my money where my mouth is, however. I'm sendiing in a donation to Theseus' legal fund today. As I did last week.

[GrizzlyGuy]

Originally Posted by bodger

Sorry for the rant, but this has me pissed. I put my money where my mouth is, however. I'm sendiing in a donation to Theseus' legal fund today. As I did last week.

Good point. Donation #2 from me is on its way, conf# 8RA0371767216215D.

[Maestro Pistolero]

I feel the way everyone hear feels about this. Could someone please explain, though, if he WAS within the school zone, let's say IF he knew it, how is the conviction BS? (aside from the blatant unconstitutionality of the law in the first place)

Donation inbound.

[bodger]

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

I feel the way everyone hear feels about this. Could someone please explain, though, if he WAS within the school zone, let's say IF he knew it, how is the conviction BS? (aside from the blatant unconstitutionality of the law in the first place)

Donation inbound.

Better minds than mine will come along to offer explanation I'm sure. But I think the issue was proving that he should have reasonably known that there was a school within 1000', even though the cops did not.

And whether or not the area where he was stopped and checked was private property.

I'm confused as well, however.

[GrizzlyGuy]

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

I feel the way everyone hear feels about this. Could someone please explain, though, if he WAS within the school zone, let's say IF he knew it, how is the conviction BS? (aside from the blatant unconstitutionality of the law in the first place)

The law (626.9) includes an exemption for private property, and Theseus was on private property (a privately owned laundromat):

"Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
under any of the following circumstances...Within a place of residence or place of business on private
property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
firearm is otherwise lawful."

The judge improperly decided to redefine "private property" to mean something like 'private property that is not open to the public'. That decision of his completely changed the meaning of the law, thereby putting Theseus's lawful act into the might-not-be-lawful category (depending on the 'know or reasonably should know' provision).

[nobody_special]

This kind of abuse makes it rather difficult to respect the law or the judicial system.

[hoffmang]

However, this is one of the outcomes that others and I had been warning of. The state courts are actively hostile to gun owners in California.

-Gene

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

However, this is one of the outcomes that others and I had been warning of. The state courts are actively hostile to gun owners in California.

-Gene

For some time now we have expected this outcome, but needed to fight hard to make a good record for a stronger case at appeal. For my part I am quite confident that we have done so.

[dustoff31]

Originally Posted by Theseus

For some time now we have expected this outcome, but needed to fight hard to make a good record for a stronger case at appeal. For my part I am quite confident that we have done so.

Sorry to hear of the verdict. But I must agree with Gene and others in that CA courts are actively hostile to gunnies. Without giving away any strategy, what leads you to believe you will get a different outcome on appeal to the same system?

If you were appealling to the 9th circut, then I might be a little more hopeful.

[Southwest Chuck]

Originally Posted by Theseus

Just a quick note. My appeal will be handled by a court appointed attorney. At this point the defense fund will pay my outstanding bill with Bruce.

As much as we can get that filled the better. He worked hard on this case even if you think he might have not done something right. He wasn't the only one in charge of making a decision. . . I was there too. trust me when I say that Bruce did good by me.

As for the judge and DA, I believe that they both truly did what they believed to be their job. The judge made what I believe to be by him, proper legal decisions. It does no one any good to call them names or berate them personally.

What we can do is help make this good case law that is enforceable against judges like mine so that this won't happen to anyone else.

Also, on another note. . . I won't be able to post any of the transcripts and such until at least sentencing.

From the "Money Bomb" thread, Post #58 : http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...62#post3328062

[artherd]

The California Courts just convicted an innocent man, with a good defense, because he is a gun owner.

I cannot imagine a more convincing case that CA Courts are not the place to fight firearms issues.

GL on appeal.

[Theseus]

Well, if I could have chosen the venue it would have been no venue at all. . .

[kcbrown]

So I take it that all ranges, firearms shops, etc., are beyond 1000' from any school's boundaries?

Because if not, this ruling would obviously have the effect of shutting down those businesses, since it's clear that the law in question is being interpreted as having no exemptions except for LEOs (that is, this ruling makes the written exemptions completely worthless).

Right?

[artherd]

Originally Posted by Theseus

Well, if I could have chosen the venue it would have been no venue at all. . .

Hang in there. The purpose of the Appeals courts is to deal with lower courts who think they can wipe their rears with the law.

[KylaGWolf]

The keyword is reasonable. What you and I may think is reasonable is totally different than what someone else may think is reasonable. Now if the jury is stacked with those that are anti-gun what they think is reasonable is going to be different than if were the same jury stacked with those that are pro 2A.

Theseus I am sorry your lost the case. How soon will you be filing the appeal? Before or after sentencing?

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

So I take it that all ranges, firearms shops, etc., are beyond 1000' from any school's boundaries?

Because if not, this ruling would obviously have the effect of shutting down those businesses, since it's clear that the law in question is being interpreted as having no exemptions except for LEOs (that is, this ruling makes the written exemptions completely worthless).

Right?

My guess is that the judge determined Overturf applied to the parking lot and therefore Theseus wasn't able to claim the private property exemption.

I suspect this will be part of the appeal.

[GrizzlyGuy]

Originally Posted by dantodd

My guess is that the judge determined Overturf applied to the parking lot and therefore Theseus wasn't able to claim the private property exemption.

I suspect this will be part of the appeal.

People v. Tapia will likely also enter into the appeal:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

The appellate court upheld a 626.9 conviction against Tapia who was on the public sidewalk (weakening "private property" a bit within the context of 626.9). However, the appellate court didn't fully interpret/define "private property" because it didn't need to, since Tapia didn't meet the 'and the possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful' part of the exemption.

The dicta in Tapia could help Theseus since they interpreted the legislative intent as being "to further the safety of students at and on their way to and from school". Students have no need to enter laundromats on their way to school, so extending 'publicly accessible private property' to laundromats in Theseus's case, as they did to the public sidewalk in Tapia's case, would serve no purpose.

I think it's interesting to note that unlike 12031, 626.9 doesn't provide an exemption for carrying a firearm in situations where people or property are in grave danger, or to use in the process of making or attempting to make a lawful arrest. It's only exemption in that regard is for cases when a restraining order exists. There may or may not be some additional basis for appeal in that dichotomy(?).

Also, a laundromat is not only "private property" but is also a "place of business". 626.6 excludes both:

"Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm...Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
firearm is otherwise lawful."

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/626.9.html

ETA: This from Tapia would also seem relevant:

"The void-for-vagueness doctrine “requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. [Citations.]” (Kolender v. Lawson (1983) 461 U.S. 352, 357.) "

Since a laundromat is both private property and a place of business, why on earth would an average person think that that firearm possession in such a place is illegal when it meets TWO DIFFERENT exemptions from 626.9?!?

[Maestro Pistolero]

"Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm...Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
firearm is otherwise lawful."

Based on any reading of this by someone with an IQ above room temperature, Theseus should have NEVER had to go to court. The first judge up the line with any integrity whatsoever, ought to grant summary judgment and toss this POS out.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Hopefully the judgment of conviction will be stayed until after the appeal.

[demnogis]

Grizzlyguy... Further back in the thread pre-trial updates were posted. There was a motion to suppress those exemptions and the judge ran with it. They did this to direct a jury into the "reasonably known or should have known" catch of 626.9 which they had a strong feeling they could get a conviction from.

I gather the judge's instructions to the jury went something like "due to the abundance of schools and given the fact that Theseus is a resident and 'knows' the area, he more than likely knew there was a school there even if the officers didn't."

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by demnogis

I gather the judge's instructions to the jury went something like "due to the abundance of schools and given the fact that Theseus is a resident and 'knows' the area, he more than likely knew there was a school there even if the officers didn't."

That is the only problem I see with the defense, however, it still does not negate the fact that he was on private property, and that is the key issue.
If "private property open to the public" is not private property within the definition of 626.9, then there can be no gun shops, pawn shops, or sporting goods stores within 1000ft of the schools.

It does depend on how close he lives to the laundry though. I know where 5 or 6 schools are that are within a mile or so of my residence.
I have no clue where the various elementary and intermediate schools are outside of my extremely localized area, and I've lived here for over 15 years. Not having kids of school age anymore, it's simply not something that interests me to know. When we moved here, we had a daughter who was a freshman in high school, but we did not select the home based on the proximity or reputation of the schools... in fact, the school that she was assigned to is about three times as far as the nearest school.

[GrizzlyGuy]

Originally Posted by demnogis

Grizzlyguy... Further back in the thread pre-trial updates were posted. There was a motion to suppress those exemptions and the judge ran with it. They did this to direct a jury into the "reasonably known or should have known" catch of 626.9 which they had a strong feeling they could get a conviction from.

I gather the judge's instructions to the jury went something like "due to the abundance of schools and given the fact that Theseus is a resident and 'knows' the area, he more than likely knew there was a school there even if the officers didn't."

Thanks, and I wonder if the DA also introduced some of his posts into evidence to show that he is a knowledgeable activist so as to further convince the jury on 'know or reasonably should know'? I understand that Theseus can't comment, and it will be interesting to read the transcript once it is available.

FYI, CA has a large document containing standard, recommended jury instructions for judges. Unfortunately, it doesn't have one listed for 626.9, so the judge is free to say whatever he wishes to say:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/cri...yinstructions/

[bodger]

It seems as if the private property issue is the main factor.

Theseus either was or wasn't on private property.

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

So I take it that all ranges, firearms shops, etc., are beyond 1000' from any school's boundaries?

Mesa Tactical's first office was literally across the street from a school.

We never worried about it because our reading of the statute suggested we were exempted because it was our business.

[eaglemike]

I find it very troubling that anyone would have a private citizen to have more knowledge than the police. They often have electronic mapping services in the car, right? On a tangent, I also find it troubling that the "civilians" are not allowed the excuse of not knowing the law, while the police do not have the same conditions.... I'm not bashing, just think there should not be a double standard - unless the people charged with and swearing an oath to uphold the law are held to a higher standard. This of course includes the judiciary.

all the best,
Mike

[bodger]

Originally Posted by eaglemike

I find it very troubling that anyone would have a private citizen to have more knowledge than the police. They often have electronic mapping services in the car, right? On a tangent, I also find it troubling that the "civilians" are not allowed the excuse of not knowing the law, while the police do not have the same conditions.... I'm not bashing, just think there should not be a double standard - unless the people charged with and swearing an oath to uphold the law are held to a higher standard. This of course includes the judiciary.

all the best,
Mike

Yep. It seems like the private property issue and the reasonable knowledge aspect of this law should have been enough reasonable doubt for a jury.

I don't know diddly about the law, but this reeks of a greased rail to a conviction.

I've always felt that the GFSZ was nothing more than a Catch-22 to prevent UOC in urbania anyway. This seems to confirm that suspicion.

Sure, you can do it, but not as a viable means for consistent SD because the damn school zones are a mine field.

Frankly, you'd have a better chance of not getting arrested if you concealed and went about your business, CCW permit or not.

[boxbro]

Originally Posted by bodger

It seems as if the private property issue is the main factor.

Theseus either was or wasn't on private property.

Would it be legal for the business owner to be armed ?
I would think that's partly because it's private property.
I don't see how the judge ruled it's not private property.
The only words that I can think of to explain this is Kangaroo Court.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by boxbro

Would it be legal for the business owner to be armed ?
I would think that's partly because it's private property.
I don't see how the judge ruled it's not private property.
The only words that I can think of to explain this is Kangaroo Court.

That is exactly the dilemma.
The judge/DA "defined" for the jury that private property that is open to the public is not private property within the definition of 626.9.
As I mentioned before, this means that there can be no gun shops or pawn shops that deal with guns within 1000ft of a school zone.

In Theseus's case, I have a strong feeling that had he been inside of the laundromat, the DA would not have filed charges, but he was on a private sidewalk just outside the door, which abuts a public sidewalk.
It is probably the judge's intent to (legislate from the bench) that, rather than "private open to the public" he means "outdoors"... as the intent of the GFSZ is to prevent a "sniper" situation (however, a number of "sniper" situations have involved the shooter being on their own personal property or even inside of their home). The problem with that is, the judge and DA's interpretation and wording have created a situation where it may be legal to UOC walking into a store, but not to move to the rear portion.


Now, in the case of the business owner (or his employees with his permission), it is legal to CCW while inside the business. There is an exemption to the GFSZ law that allows legal CCW within the limits, but it appears to only exempt CCW permit holders... which would be expected because private property is exempt from the law as written.

This judge/DA has really opened a can of worms that puts their interpretation of 626.9 in conflict with a number of other laws.

[inbox485]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

That is exactly the dilemma.
The judge/DA "defined" for the jury that private property that is open to the public is not private property within the definition of 626.9.
As I mentioned before, this means that there can be no gun shops or pawn shops that deal with guns within 1000ft of a school zone.

In Theseus's case, I have a strong feeling that had he been inside of the laundromat, the DA would not have filed charges, but he was on a private sidewalk just outside the door, which abuts a public sidewalk.
It is probably the judge's intent to (legislate from the bench) that, rather than "private open to the public" he means "outdoors"... as the intent of the GFSZ is to prevent a "sniper" situation (however, a number of "sniper" situations have involved the shooter being on their own personal property or even inside of their home). The problem with that is, the judge and DA's interpretation and wording have created a situation where it may be legal to UOC walking into a store, but not to move to the rear portion.


Now, in the case of the business owner (or his employees with his permission), it is legal to CCW while inside the business. There is an exemption to the GFSZ law that allows legal CCW within the limits, but it appears to only exempt CCW permit holders... which would be expected because private property is exempt from the law as written.

This judge/DA has really opened a can of worms that puts their interpretation of 626.9 in conflict with a number of other laws.

The judge ruled that the PARKING LOT is not private property within the meaning of 626.9. With few exceptions, gun shops and ranges demand that your guns be locked up as a condition of entry making them already more restrictive than the law.

[demnogis]

The judge's interpretation of such is wrong. Why is it then upon entering most parking lots and shopping centers there are big signs stating that you are now on private property, and a list of rules apply...

Originally Posted by inbox485

The judge ruled that the PARKING LOT is not private property within the meaning of 626.9. With few exceptions, gun shops and ranges demand that your guns be locked up as a condition of entry making them already more restrictive than the law.

[bodger]

Originally Posted by demnogis

The judge's interpretation of such is wrong. Why is it then upon entering most parking lots and shopping centers there are big signs stating that you are now on private property, and a list of rules apply...

I was always confused by that. I used to see various solicitors outside of a Ralph's Market. The Ralph's company had posted a sign that stated they could not force these solicitors (questionable "charity" donations being asked for) to leave, but informed their customers via signage that the donations being asked for were not sponsored by or having anything to do with Ralph's.

I thought if it was your property, open to the public but privately owned, you could boot anybody off of it as you saw fit.

What happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"...?

In any case, Theseus was on private property, there's no crime. How can a judge change the description of private property?

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by bodger

I was always confused by that. I used to see various solicitors outside of a Ralph's Market. The Ralph's company had posted a sign that stated they could not force these solicitors (questionable "charity" donations being asked for) to leave, but informed their customers via signage that the donations being asked for were not sponsored by or having anything to do with Ralph's.

I think it's more a matter of convenience, lack of resolve on the part of management, or the desire to avoid negative PR.

When I was a kid selling candies for the school, I was always getting kicked out from in front of K-Mart, Vons, etc....

I always did better door to door anyways, but when my parents went shopping, I'd take my box of candy and stand outside until they were done.

[CSDGuy]

Originally Posted by bodger

I was always confused by that. I used to see various solicitors outside of a Ralph's Market. The Ralph's company had posted a sign that stated they could not force these solicitors (questionable "charity" donations being asked for) to leave, but informed their customers via signage that the donations being asked for were not sponsored by or having anything to do with Ralph's.

I thought if it was your property, open to the public but privately owned, you could boot anybody off of it as you saw fit.

What happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"...?

In any case, Theseus was on private property, there's no crime. How can a judge change the description of private property?

Many times, Ralph's (or any other store) that has a parking lot doesn't actually own the parking lot, they're either just tenants or they just own the building they're located in. The management of the mall/lot/whatever would have to be the ones to determine that those people aren't allowed on the property... In other words, I can't kick your guests out of your yard because I don't like them standing next to mine.

The property manager might not want to boot protesters simply because of PR reasons...

[bodger]

That sounds right.

Sometimes I forget what a nation of pussies we are surrounded by.

It's not politically correct to boot illegal fruit vendors off the street corners either. Just ask the LAPD.

[bondmid003]

Sorry to hear this brother, best of luck the rest of the way

[Maestro Pistolero]

It's either private property, or it isn't. The law can't have it both ways.

[Theseus]

Keep in mind folks there is a large difference in the law between "public place" and "private property".

The reason the judge was able to put a definition to private property that doesn't jive with it otherwise is because 626.9 does not define private property.

To my understanding judges are to answer questions of law, the jury questions of fact. The judge is supposed to, if necessary, define private property which was a question of law the DA had. The jury is supposed to determine if the property in question was in fact private or not.

Allowing a judge to answer a question of fact and/or a jury answer a question of law is wrong and against well established jurisprudence.