Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-11-2018, 1:15 PM
mgw12's Avatar
mgw12 mgw12 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Southeast in the AV!
Posts: 247
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default CCW THREAT QUESTION

I live on almost 8 acres. I have a problem with a neighbor. We had words the other day and he in a unique confrontive and in my face manner informed/threatened that he was not on medication because if your on it you can’t have a ccw permit...I pretended I didn’t know what he was talking about and he said look it up! Fortunately I was recording the whole conversation because he is a volitile and vindictive man as is his wife. The question is is someone that has a ccw allowed to use that privilege as a threat!? Thank you
__________________
Gal 5:6b - Press On!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-11-2018, 2:55 PM
Rogue187 Rogue187 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Posts: 976
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

No.. individuals with CCW is usually taught to avoid confrontations. Depending on where you live and county it would best serve you if you contact the police/sheriff of the county you live in and file a report of threat and that suspect claims he has a CCW. That would start the process of him getting interviewed by those who gave him the permit to see if he is truly fit to possess one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-11-2018, 2:59 PM
Deedle Deedle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 1,025
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

His wife is a man? No wonder he's angry!
__________________
"No personal computer will ever have gigabytes of RAM" - Scott Nudds
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-11-2018, 3:02 PM
mr goodguy mr goodguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 198
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

bwahahahahahhahahahahahahhahaha omg!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-11-2018, 3:07 PM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,230
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue187 View Post
No.. individuals with CCW is usually taught to avoid confrontations. Depending on where you live and county it would best serve you if you contact the police/sheriff of the county you live in and file a report of threat and that suspect claims he has a CCW. That would start the process of him getting interviewed by those who gave him the permit to see if he is truly fit to possess one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep.
Using a CCW as a threat is asking for it to be revoked.
His behavior was opposite what is expected of a CCW holder.
And he TOLD you to look it up. You can say you did. LOL
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-11-2018, 5:14 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 4,490
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Do you know for sure that he has a CCW? I'm kind of thinking that the local agency has probably had prior contacts with him, and her if they are as volatile as you suggest they are. I just don't see this kind of behavior been kept to themselves for any amount of time.


Of course I would have had to ask what type of medication he's supposed to be on, but I do tend to be a bit of a wise azz.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-12-2018, 9:27 AM
mgw12's Avatar
mgw12 mgw12 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Southeast in the AV!
Posts: 247
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The whole medication thing is him telling me I need to take my Prozac which I AM NOT and never have taken any phychosis drugs- but he has brought that in our “discussions” several times. Then he leans in real close and says “you can’t get a ccw if your on meds, look it up!” He has harassed me ever since we moved in 3 years ago. Fortunately I recorded the whole thing. He really does seem whacked and full of angst towards me because I won’t be bullied on my own land.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-12-2018, 9:30 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,357
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Did you have permission to record and was that conversation confidential? If so you could be admitting to a wobbler; a crime chargeable as a misdemeanor or a felony. Se Penal Code Section 632.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-12-2018, 10:06 AM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 4,490
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Did you have permission to record and was that conversation confidential? If so you could be admitting to a wobbler; a crime chargeable as a misdemeanor or a felony. Se Penal Code Section 632.
Someone comes onto someone else's property uninvited, has zero expectation of privacy, especially if that person is coming onto the property in a confrontational manner. Even more so if the property owner really does not want to talk to him in the first place, as seems to be the case here. I'm covering my azz first and foremost if this guy is in any way shape or form unstable.

OP seriously consider an restraining order barring him, and her from any communication with you or your family member's. Document everything.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-12-2018, 10:28 AM
esy esy is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 763
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
Someone comes onto someone else's property uninvited, has zero expectation of privacy, especially if that person is coming onto the property in a confrontational manner. Even more so if the property owner really does not want to talk to him in the first place, as seems to be the case here. I'm covering my azz first and foremost if this guy is in any way shape or form unstable.

OP seriously consider an restraining order barring him, and her from any communication with you or your family member's. Document everything.
Unfortunately, the way the PC reads, I believe the person being recorded is still protected in CA’s two party consent rule. If I’m correct, video is allowed without consent and audio is not. A simple sign on the property or the house that audio/video is being recorded would/should solve the two party consent because it can be articulated that he person had appropriate knowledge and time to leave if they didn’t want to be recorded.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-12-2018, 11:44 AM
Yodaman Yodaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,292
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default CCW THREAT QUESTION

In regards to the recoding. All the current video recording cameras have audio recording feature because you are allowed to record audio on your own property it seems.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-12-2018, 12:40 PM
mgw12's Avatar
mgw12 mgw12 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Southeast in the AV!
Posts: 247
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I have signs all over my property that says video and audio recording on premise. He knew I was recording him and he did not say dont record in fact he took his phone out. I think he was so frustrated he didn’t even torn his phone on. I was working on my fence line installing a new fence AND instead of him driving past me he stopped his truck to get out and “start a confrontation”. I took him to court once to obtain a RO but I’m a kindhearted person and thought getting him that far would cause him to cease harrasing me and my family. The judge offered “arbitration” in which we are to walk away if we see the other. HE DOES THE OPPOSITE AND IN FACT CONFRONTS ME WHEN I GO OUTSIDE to work on my property. He and his wife seem so crazy that if I do file a RO it would juts piss them off more. It’s a bummer because I thought me NOT proceeding with the RO would cause him to see I was being kind when I could have taken him to the cleaners...he sees my kindness as weakness.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-12-2018, 5:20 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,357
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

1. It isn't even clear that this confrontation was on the OP's property, since he just posted that he was working on the fence line and the neighbor stopped his truck as he was driving past.

2. We doln't know that this part of OP's property is not considered a public place, and as ESY noted you can still have a confidential conversation even if you are on private property.

3. The fact that recording cameras have the ability to record conversations doesn't mean that anyone consents to such a recording.

4. Whether or not requesting a restraining order will only exacerbate the situation as OP mentions is a valid concern that he has to figure out. He may want to begin with talking with local law enforcement.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-12-2018, 5:37 PM
mooner760HD's Avatar
mooner760HD mooner760HD is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 302
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

If you are on your property then be armed and ignore him.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-12-2018, 7:24 PM
CSACANNONEER's Avatar
CSACANNONEER CSACANNONEER is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 43,069
iTrader: 130 / 100%
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Next time he speaks to you just tell him that you looked it up and found out that one can't have a CCW or even access to firearms or ammunition if he/she is subject to a restraining order and leave it at that. Don't threaten or even hint that your research is anything personal or anything other than academic. If he really has a CA LTC and wants to keep it, he will back off and never be confrontational with you again.
__________________
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun and Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor
California DOJ Certified Fingerprint Roller
Ventura County approved CCW Instructor
Utah CCW Instructor


Offering low cost multi state CCW, private basic shooting and reloading classes for calgunners.

CCW SAFE MEMBERSHIPS HERE

KM6WLV
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-16-2018, 2:57 PM
Rivers's Avatar
Rivers Rivers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Poway, CA
Posts: 1,409
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
Next time he speaks to you just tell him that you looked it up and found out that one can't have a CCW or even access to firearms or ammunition if he/she is subject to a restraining order and leave it at that. Don't threaten or even hint that your research is anything personal or anything other than academic. If he really has a CA LTC and wants to keep it, he will back off and never be confrontational with you again.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS!
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Basic Pistol Shooting
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-16-2018, 3:03 PM
priusron priusron is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 39
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

But that may backfire if he obtains a restraining order against the op.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-16-2018, 3:27 PM
Gryff's Avatar
Gryff Gryff is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Castro Valley, CA
Posts: 11,556
iTrader: 57 / 98%
Default

8 acres? Got a backhoe?
__________________
My friends and family disavow all knowledge of my existence, let alone my opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-16-2018, 6:13 PM
GizmoSD GizmoSD is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 73
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

OP...sounds like you were on your property. Was the other half on his own property? Sounds like the classic fence line argument. If he’s on his own private property, he can ccw whatever he wants, no permit required.

That being said, just call your local Sheriff’s non-emergency line. The internet won’t conduct an investigation, the Sheriff will.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-16-2018, 7:16 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 11,628
iTrader: 131 / 100%
Default

Call the local Sheriff CCW department, hand over the tape. My guess is that if he does have a CCW now, he wont for long.
__________________
.



"Texans always move them!"
General Robert E. Lee, May 6, 1864 - Battle of the Wilderness
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-04-2018, 8:08 PM
38Special's Avatar
38Special 38Special is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 826
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If you think the guy is a threat why didn't you proceed with the RO?
Did you tell the Court he supposedly has a CCW?
Did you ever mention gun ownership?
Why are you just now asking about getting his CCW revoked?

Something smells fishy to me.
__________________
Mrs 38Special
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-04-2018, 9:29 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,728
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

All,

There is a lot of bad information being circulated in this this thread. Here's a couple of key points to remember:

1) Recording of conversations - California is not a "One Party Consent State". It's not a "Two Party Consent State". It's not a (fill in any other number) consent state. California makes it illegal to record "Confidential Communications" as defined in the statute. A person choosing to record a conversation has two options to make it legal. They can obtain the consent of all parties to the conversation, or they can defeat the expectation that the conversation is "confidential." This second option removes any issue of "consent." The law does not distinguish between audio and video recording. Please refer to PC section 632.

2) Forget about using any recording made in violation in PC 632 to assist you in court. Such recordings are inadmissible in any court, or administrative hearing, except to prove that the recording was made. Please refer to PC section 631(c).

3) If you make such a recording, get ready to pay a lot of money - The maker of a recording in violation of PC 632 can be sued for the greater of $5,000 or three times any actual damages. It is not necessary to prove any damages to win the $5.000 award. In other words, prove the recording was made and get $5K. Please refer to PC section 637.2
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-05-2018, 1:30 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,319
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
All,

There is a lot of bad information being circulated in this this thread. Here's a couple of key points to remember:

1) Recording of conversations - California is not a "One Party Consent State". It's not a "Two Party Consent State". It's not a (fill in any other number) consent state. California makes it illegal to record "Confidential Communications" as defined in the statute. A person choosing to record a conversation has two options to make it legal. They can obtain the consent of all parties to the conversation, or they can defeat the expectation that the conversation is "confidential." This second option removes any issue of "consent." The law does not distinguish between audio and video recording. Please refer to PC section 632.

2) Forget about using any recording made in violation in PC 632 to assist you in court. Such recordings are inadmissible in any court, or administrative hearing, except to prove that the recording was made. Please refer to PC section 631(c).

3) If you make such a recording, get ready to pay a lot of money - The maker of a recording in violation of PC 632 can be sued for the greater of $5,000 or three times any actual damages. It is not necessary to prove any damages to win the $5.000 award. In other words, prove the recording was made and get $5K. Please refer to PC section 637.2
Rick, referring to the underlined above. Would not the aforementioned signage remove any expectation of any audio/video recording being "confidential"? And would the "Lack of Signage", even on private property, create an expectation of privacy/confidentiality?

Also, Since "suffered/injured/damaged" are all synonyms. That makes pc 632.7 637.2 just another vague self contradicting waste of ink.


Quote:
CA Penal Code § 637.2 (2017)

(a) Any person who has been injured by a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the person who committed the violation for the greater of the following amounts:

(1) Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation.

(2) Three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff.

(b) Any person may, in accordance with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bring an action to enjoin and restrain any violation of this chapter, and may in the same action seek damages as provided by subdivision (a).

(c) It is not a necessary prerequisite to an action pursuant to this section that the plaintiff has suffered, or be threatened with, actual damages.

(d) This section shall not be construed to affect Title 4 (commencing with Section 3425.1) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code.

Last edited by pacrat; 12-08-2018 at 7:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-05-2018, 12:32 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,728
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Rick, referring to the underlined above. Would not the aforementioned signage remove any expectation of any audio/video recording being "confidential"? And would the "Lack of Signage", even on private property, create an expectation of privacy/confidentiality?

Also, Since "suffered/injured/damaged" are all synonyms. That makes pc 632.7 just another vague self contradicting waste of ink.
IMHO (and remember that my opinion is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things), signage would defeat the expectation of confidentiality, so long as the signage was readily visible.

The plethora of superfluous language is pretty common in California law. At the operative level, it don't really change anything. At the technical level there often are some differences in the meaning of words and that's the reason for their inclusion. But it doesn't matter much here because the law specifically excludes a plaintiff from having to go down that road. All the plaintiff has to do is show that an illegal recording was made.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-05-2018, 1:18 PM
mgw12's Avatar
mgw12 mgw12 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Southeast in the AV!
Posts: 247
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I have in several places/entrances that video and audio recording is happening AND he had his phone out recording as well between a common road and the fence on my property. AND THE REASON I did not follow through with the RO is because I knew he would loose his right to bear arms and I did not want to take that away from him. I showed him MERCY and he stayed away for awhile but Haa aince engaged going against the order To turn and walk the other way when we see each other. He has been very aggressive on many levels and the most recent event is that I believe he has been shooting at my dogs(airsoft or B.B.)I cant prove it BUT my super smart border collie won’t go to that part of our front yard and both dogs no
Longer relieve themselves in that area either and now stay away from
Patrolling our yard! I live on acreage and my entire home is fenced so that dogs can’t gwt out ....bottom line the guy is an outright bully....I’m easygoing BUT will stand my ground when pushed and then constantly watched. He even has vandalized the new field fence, 5k worth that I put up by bending the wire. I confronted him about it and he tried to say I’m loosing it. He is one aggressive and sad person as is his cra cra wife.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-05-2018, 4:48 PM
NorCalBusa NorCalBusa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 130
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Sounds like if if one merely pulls their phone out and clearly manipulate the controls (hit Record)- the confidential expectation vanishes. Especially if the other party is foolish enough to say;

So how did you know he recorded you without permission?
I saw him take his phone out and start recording

D'oh! Next.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-07-2018, 6:32 AM
hmvan's Avatar
hmvan hmvan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 209
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
Document everything.

This.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-07-2018, 4:23 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,357
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalBusa View Post
Sounds like if if one merely pulls their phone out and clearly manipulate the controls (hit Record)- the confidential expectation vanishes. Especially if the other party is foolish enough to say;

So how did you know he recorded you without permission?
I saw him take his phone out and start recording

D'oh! Next.
The expectation of confidence may remain. The recording was arguably made only for the later review of the two of you should either need to be reminded of the event. The operative issue is if permission to record was given and whether there was any is a question of fact. Arguably, the person being recorded may have not objected because they did not know they had right not to permit the recording.

Last edited by Chewy65; 12-07-2018 at 4:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:18 PM
TrailerparkTrash's Avatar
TrailerparkTrash TrailerparkTrash is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Democratic People’s Republic of Gavin
Posts: 2,490
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
All,

There is a lot of bad information being circulated in this this thread. Here's a couple of key points to remember:

1) Recording of conversations - California is not a "One Party Consent State". It's not a "Two Party Consent State". It's not a (fill in any other number) consent state. California makes it illegal to record "Confidential Communications" as defined in the statute. A person choosing to record a conversation has two options to make it legal. They can obtain the consent of all parties to the conversation, or they can defeat the expectation that the conversation is "confidential." This second option removes any issue of "consent." The law does not distinguish between audio and video recording. Please refer to PC section 632.

2) Forget about using any recording made in violation in PC 632 to assist you in court. Such recordings are inadmissible in any court, or administrative hearing, except to prove that the recording was made. Please refer to PC section 631(c).

3) If you make such a recording, get ready to pay a lot of money - The maker of a recording in violation of PC 632 can be sued for the greater of $5,000 or three times any actual damages. It is not necessary to prove any damages to win the $5.000 award. In other words, prove the recording was made and get $5K. Please refer to PC section 637.2
632 does NOT pertain to one neighbor chipping at another neighbor, out in the front yard(s) and between property lines and such. Nor where any other person in a public place can possibly over hear and/or view the actions of said neighbor, like a sidewalk, public road, street etc....

In other words, if you’re outside and you film/record your neighbor getting in your face about something, there’s no expectation of privacy. None. So there’s no violation of 632. But if you invited your crazy neighbor inside your house with the door closed to have a one-on-one “Private” conversation, then there’s an issue with 632.

I might be wrong, but from how I read post #1, and without further information from the OP, I’m assuming the incident occurred outside of the two residents and probably within view of a public street, road, sidewalk etc. I doubt the OP would invite a crazy man into his house to discuss their Hatfield vs. McCoy situation.
__________________



-I hate being bipolar its awesome.

-Life member, NRA
-Trump’s SCOTUS: 2 / Dems: 0
-ΙΧΘΥΣ <><
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-08-2018, 12:24 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,728
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrailerparkTrash View Post
632 does NOT pertain to one neighbor chipping at another neighbor, out in the front yard(s) and between property lines and such. Nor where any other person in a public place can possibly over hear and/or view the actions of said neighbor, like a sidewalk, public road, street etc....

In other words, if you’re outside and you film/record your neighbor getting in your face about something, there’s no expectation of privacy. None. So there’s no violation of 632. But if you invited your crazy neighbor inside your house with the door closed to have a one-on-one “Private” conversation, then there’s an issue with 632.

I might be wrong, but from how I read post #1, and without further information from the OP, I’m assuming the incident occurred outside of the two residents and probably within view of a public street, road, sidewalk etc. I doubt the OP would invite a crazy man into his house to discuss their Hatfield vs. McCoy situation.
I can (almost) see your point, but can't agree that there would never could be an expectation of confidentiality simple because the combatants were outside. If this took place in a populated area, I'd agree with your assessment. If they were out in the boonies with no reason to expect that anyone was watching, then I think there would be an expectation of confidentiality.

But the best thing for the OP is to explode that expectation. He can do that simply by putting the other party on notice that they're being recorded.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-08-2018, 12:53 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,319
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
IMHO (and remember that my opinion is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things), signage would defeat the expectation of confidentiality, so long as the signage was readily visible.

The plethora of superfluous language is pretty common in California law. At the operative level, it don't really change anything. At the technical level there often are some differences in the meaning of words and that's the reason for their inclusion. But it doesn't matter much here because the law specifically excludes a plaintiff from having to go down that road. All the plaintiff has to do is show that an illegal recording was made.
Perhaps I didn't properly convey my meaning with the below quote.

Quote:
Also, Since "suffered/injured/damaged" are all synonyms. That makes pc 632.7 637.2 just another vague self contradicting waste of ink.
Sections [a] and [c] of 632.7 637.2 are direct contradictions of one another.


Quote:
(a) Any person who has been injured by a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the person who committed the violation for the greater of the following amounts:
Conveys the definite circumstance that an INJURY must have occurred for 632.7 to be "chargeable". Because "injured" and "committed" clearly denote past tense. And if there is NO injury committed, then there can by definition. Be no violation.

Quote:
(c) It is not a necessary prerequisite to an action pursuant to this section that the plaintiff has suffered, or be threatened with, actual damages.

Last edited by pacrat; 12-08-2018 at 7:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-08-2018, 1:25 AM
Highlander21 Highlander21 is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Call the local Sheriff CCW department, hand over the tape. My guess is that if he does have a CCW now, he wont for long.
This.

CCW's should not be threatening anyone with it during an argument.
__________________
I joined the CRPA as soon as I heard that the DOJ website broke as people were trying to register their firearms by the deadline. Terrible!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-08-2018, 1:27 AM
Highlander21 Highlander21 is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Btw, you should get a CCW now. And don't threaten him with it.
__________________
I joined the CRPA as soon as I heard that the DOJ website broke as people were trying to register their firearms by the deadline. Terrible!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-08-2018, 6:03 AM
TrailerparkTrash's Avatar
TrailerparkTrash TrailerparkTrash is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Democratic People’s Republic of Gavin
Posts: 2,490
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander21 View Post
Btw, you should get a CCW now. And don't threaten him with it.
Since the OP and his neighbor I assume live in the “AV,” (as indicated by the OP’s location on his post) I’m shocked the guy was even given a ccw. I actually don’t believe his (the jerk neighbor) claim.
__________________



-I hate being bipolar its awesome.

-Life member, NRA
-Trump’s SCOTUS: 2 / Dems: 0
-ΙΧΘΥΣ <><
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-08-2018, 6:23 AM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 5,890
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgw12 View Post
I live on almost 8 acres. I have a problem with a neighbor. We had words the other day and he in a unique confrontive and in my face manner informed/threatened that he was not on medication because if your on it you can’t have a ccw permit...I pretended I didn’t know what he was talking about and he said look it up! Fortunately I was recording the whole conversation because he is a volitile and vindictive man as is his wife. The question is is someone that has a ccw allowed to use that privilege as a threat!? Thank you
Is that really your question? I assume that your neighbor’s issuing agency is your local sheriff’s department. Call them up and ask.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh


Last edited by Mayor McRifle; 12-08-2018 at 6:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-08-2018, 6:38 AM
TrailerparkTrash's Avatar
TrailerparkTrash TrailerparkTrash is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Democratic People’s Republic of Gavin
Posts: 2,490
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
I can (almost) see your point, but can't agree that there would never could be an expectation of confidentiality simple because the combatants were outside.
It’s been ruled on countless times in the past. A public place is a public place with NO expectation of privacy, whether it is currently occupied by someone or not is irrelevant. There is NO expectation of privacy even within earshot from a public place.

For instance, two people are arguing inside a home where there is a limited expectation of privacy. However one of the occupants starts yelling out loud threatening to harm his/her roommate. Somebody standing out on the front sidewalk hears the screaming threats coming from inside the house and starts recording them. Again, there is no expectation of privacy now for the screaming people projecting their voices outside the enclosed home. The recording can go on and on from the sidewalk bystander. 632 doesn’t apply to this case.

Where 632 more aptly applies is recording one serepticiously and/or clandestinely. An office conversation, a private phone call, privacy within one’s home where the conversation volume is kept WITHIN the confines of the home, or inside a closed up vehicle with a one-on-one conversation etc... Or for instance, one neighbor trespassing onto another neighbor’s property to place a microphone up against the window of the house, in order to record the conversation taking place inside. Now that’s a violation of 632 and 602.

Likewise, two neighbors getting into an argument out on their respective front lawns of their respective homes for all the world to see, whether a third party is currently spectating or not doesn’t negate the fact that the incident is occurring within “public view.” So in that case, record away....


Just look at the amateur paparazzi folk that don’t have legit press pass credentials, yet record everything and everybody while standing in a public place and on a public sidewalk, or.... while on a private piece of property that is open to public access. As long as they’re in a public place, they can record whatever and whomever they want, as long as it’s within public view and until their batteries run dry. It happens all the time.

Heck, my concealed Ring doorbell camera alone has recorded many crazy incidents of my neighbors going off on each other directly across the street, while standing on their own front porch. ....it makes for great entertainment value for me and it’s all legal.
__________________



-I hate being bipolar its awesome.

-Life member, NRA
-Trump’s SCOTUS: 2 / Dems: 0
-ΙΧΘΥΣ <><
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-08-2018, 6:39 AM
Whiskey_Tango's Avatar
Whiskey_Tango Whiskey_Tango is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: PRK
Posts: 1,271
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Sorry for the sidetrack, but I gotta ask. Where do the "Two Party Consent" legalities land with regards to the video doorbells (Ring, etc.)?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-08-2018, 7:02 AM
FresnoRob's Avatar
FresnoRob FresnoRob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Fresno
Posts: 2,027
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskey_Tango View Post
Sorry for the sidetrack, but I gotta ask. Where do the "Two Party Consent" legalities land with regards to the video doorbells (Ring, etc.)?
Same question here. If Rick is correct everyone walking past my home could sue me because of my cameras.
__________________
“No Kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.”
- James Burgh
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-08-2018, 10:32 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,728
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrailerparkTrash View Post
It’s been ruled on countless times in the past.
Can you provide some case citations please. I'm sure you'll find quite a few holding no expectation where the area is public. I'm looking for you to provide one holding that there can be no expectation in any public area. There's a lot of difference there.

I've followed the law in this area fairly closely and don't see it having been established to that extreme.

Let's keep in mind that the landmark case on expectation of privacy, Katz v U.S. occurred in a public phone booth.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-08-2018, 4:35 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,319
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Rick,

TpT, Whiskey_Tango, and FresnoRob, all have valid points.

Ring Doorbells... dash cams... security cams on private property. CopBlock weenies...paparazzi...News Choppers, etc. And for that matter, LEOs with body and dash cams, would all be considered taking part in criminal activity, since it is so listed in the Ca PC according to your interpretation.

Katz v US, was considered an "unwarranted search" because Feds were eavesdropping using hidden listening devices to surveil a criminal suspect.

Really curious about your thoughts regarding the contradictions in the construction of pc 632.7 637.2?

Last edited by pacrat; 12-08-2018 at 7:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:00 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.