Theseus & LA UOC charges

[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?!?