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 > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-14-2019, 5:03 PM
papa zulu papa zulu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Southern Cal
Posts: 58
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default prosecutions of AW possession at local gun ranges?

Have there been any prosecutions of otherwise law-abiding people because they were caught shooting unregistered "assault weapons" at local gun ranges?

It's a state law but enforcement would most often require local LE to arrest people at local ranges, etc. I don't see any news articles online describing such prosecutions.

I ask because, given how astoundingly little publicity there was about the new law prior to the state's 6/30/2018 deadline, and how little if any effort the state made to allow law-abiding AR15 owners to adhere to the new registration requirement, logic would suggest that a helluva lot of the folks shooting their feature-full ARs at the range nowadays probably didn't register them (because they didn't know about the registration rule in the first place.)

I sure didn't. I spent months off calguns and read my regular news sources daily, and yet 2018 came and went and I never once heard or read about the looming AW registration deadline. (I don't watch network TV). I can't believe the state is prosecuting folks who were simply ignorant of the change in law but maybe you all know better.

Last edited by papa zulu; 03-14-2019 at 5:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-14-2019, 5:43 PM
seal20's Avatar
seal20 seal20 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: (714)
Posts: 2,311
iTrader: 183 / 100%
Default

No. Not one. Ever.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-14-2019, 5:55 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 6,080
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa zulu View Post
I can't believe the state is prosecuting folks who were simply ignorant of the change in law
They’re not.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-14-2019, 6:17 PM
bergmen's Avatar
bergmen bergmen is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ukiah, California
Posts: 570
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Give Newsome time, I cannot believe it is not on his agenda.

Dan
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-14-2019, 6:56 PM
Jess B. Guy Jess B. Guy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 213
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Remember, it's usually up to the District Attorney of the county to follow through on prosecutions. Be nice to your DA. OR, ask him/her what their stance is on ignorance of the law.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-14-2019, 7:07 PM
ram78d10 ram78d10 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I heard a few months ago that they arrested some people at Angeles and Oaktree in the LA area. I don't know if it's true or not.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-14-2019, 7:36 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 6,080
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram78d10 View Post
I heard a few months ago that they arrested some people at Angeles and Oaktree in the LA area. I don't know if it's true or not.
Well, it’s on the internet now, so let the FUD-spreading begin!
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-14-2019, 9:21 PM
Shumba Shumba is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County
Posts: 359
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram78d10 View Post
I heard a few months ago that they arrested some people at Angeles and Oaktree in the LA area. I don't know if it's true or not.

Haven't heard about this happening, but who knows.


I go to Angeles periodically (was there last Saturday) and usually bring a RAW AR-15 with a standard magazine release button (no bullet button) and I only use (multiple) standard capacity 20 and 30 round magazines. I was 4 benches away from the RO's and nobody seemed to notice or care what I was shooting (as it should be).
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-14-2019, 9:30 PM
Strykeback Strykeback is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,457
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nearly all my local Leo and chp say carry everywhere no matter what due to where we live. Even though the sheriff doesnt issue. Now the rookies that grow ever younger....I doubt they will have the same stance as most millennials regard the nanny state as their baby sitter.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-14-2019, 9:33 PM
ohsmily ohsmily is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: El Dorado Hills (Sac area)
Posts: 8,020
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa zulu View Post
Have there been any prosecutions of otherwise law-abiding people because they were caught shooting unregistered "assault weapons" at local gun ranges?

It's a state law but enforcement would most often require local LE to arrest people at local ranges, etc. I don't see any news articles online describing such prosecutions.

I ask because, given how astoundingly little publicity there was about the new law prior to the state's 6/30/2018 deadline, and how little if any effort the state made to allow law-abiding AR15 owners to adhere to the new registration requirement, logic would suggest that a helluva lot of the folks shooting their feature-full ARs at the range nowadays probably didn't register them (because they didn't know about the registration rule in the first place.)

I sure didn't. I spent months off calguns and read my regular news sources daily, and yet 2018 came and went and I never once heard or read about the looming AW registration deadline. (I don't watch network TV). I can't believe the state is prosecuting folks who were simply ignorant of the change in law but maybe you all know better.
Yes. Though it wasn't a "range" per se but a popular public shooting area. Numerous other prosecutions where the person was arrested on several charges including the AW after cops responded to the home.
__________________
Expert firearms attorney: http://www.ajrlaw.net

Check out http://www.blitzkriegtactical.com. Support a good calgunner local to San Diego.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-14-2019, 10:33 PM
papa zulu papa zulu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Southern Cal
Posts: 58
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sounds like the bottom line is, if you go to a range and blend in and don‘t do anything stupid, no one is going to proactively inquire whether an AW is registered. That said, it’s not range officers that I’d worry about but state LEOs who, for whatever reason, want to make someone prove his AR is registered.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-14-2019, 10:50 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,791
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

In my experience, LEOs who actually voluntarily go to the range (instead of the ones that only go when forced to qualify) are pretty reasonable people that will mind their own business unless you get in their face.

Some may actually strike up a positive conversation about firearms and (gasp) 2A issues.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-14-2019, 11:05 PM
papa zulu papa zulu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Southern Cal
Posts: 58
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I‘m not a lawyer but I would also imagine that, given the number of legal challenges to the 2016 state law, the state may not be super eager to prosecute people on AW-possession charges. Because if the law is eventually struck down (given the current composition of SCOTUS, it‘s not out of the realm of possibility), those convictions would need to be vacated. At great embarrassment to the CADOJ.

Just a theory.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:26 AM
paddyraid's Avatar
paddyraid paddyraid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 178
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shumba View Post
Haven't heard about this happening, but who knows.


I go to Angeles periodically (was there last Saturday) and usually bring a RAW AR-15 with a standard magazine release button (no bullet button) and I only use (multiple) standard capacity 20 and 30 round magazines. I was 4 benches away from the RO's and nobody seemed to notice or care what I was shooting (as it should be).

Their website straight up states that their customer's compliance with the law as it relates to firearms is not their responsibility. That, in and of itself, is saying they can give 2 sh%*s about it.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-15-2019, 7:50 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,372
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa zulu View Post
Sounds like the bottom line is, if you go to a range and blend in and don‘t do anything stupid, no one is going to proactively inquire whether an AW is registered. That said, it’s not range officers that I’d worry about but state LEOs who, for whatever reason, want to make someone prove his AR is registered.
I've seen LE take an "AW" from a guy at LCFL. I think it was USFS and SB Sheriff. I don't recall that he was taken away.

That was years ago.

USFS does visit ranges on their land and check guns on occasion. I do not know how many, if any, prosecutions have been a result of those visits.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-15-2019, 8:11 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,965
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The average LEO at my local range isn't interested in enforcing squishy California gun laws. They are busy and don't want to change their day's routine by arresting someone at the range with "suspected" gun parts. Their commander would probably ask why they are doing this.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-15-2019, 8:11 AM
wilderness medic wilderness medic is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 473
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa zulu View Post
Sounds like the bottom line is, if you go to a range and blend in and don‘t do anything stupid, no one is going to proactively inquire whether an AW is registered. That said, it’s not range officers that I’d worry about but state LEOs who, for whatever reason, want to make someone prove his AR is registered.
Apparently you should also worry about your fellow gun owners. A couple of threads have been posted on here asking what they should do when they see someone at the range shooting a non compliant rifle
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-15-2019, 8:46 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,721
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilderness medic View Post
Apparently you should also worry about your fellow gun owners. A couple of threads have been posted on here asking what they should do when they see someone at the range shooting a non compliant rifle
What should we do? We should have their back. (And looky-loos and snoopy snoops should be afraid.)
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-15-2019, 8:57 AM
scotty99 scotty99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Newbury Park
Posts: 866
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I have a friend who is a very high ranking SoCal officer. His position is that normal folks don’t get arrested for ONLY firearms law violations. If a violation can enhance the penalty for another crime, so be it, but otherwise lawful but not in compliance (and not posing a danger or being an ***), you should be OK.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-15-2019, 9:28 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,820
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty99 View Post
I have a friend who is a very high ranking SoCal officer. His position is that normal folks don’t get arrested for ONLY firearms law violations. If a violation can enhance the penalty for another crime, so be it, but otherwise lawful but not in compliance (and not posing a danger or being an ***), you should be OK.
That has been my professional observation as well. I have had numerous clients arrested (or hospitalized) for other reasons. While the weapons ARE seized, they are rarely (if ever) actually charged.

And frankly, CA doesn't have to spend any time or money to eliminate the "contraband". Hi cap mags can't be made or imported anymore. Most "AW" sales and importation has stopped. When's the last time you saw a real Uzi or HK94? When's the last time you heard of a drive by with a MAC10? Time WILL erase a great many of the problems.

Last edited by CAL.BAR; 03-15-2019 at 9:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-15-2019, 9:37 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,713
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilderness medic View Post
Apparently you should also worry about your fellow gun owners. A couple of threads have been posted on here asking what they should do when they see someone at the range shooting a non compliant rifle
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
What should we do? We should have their back. (And looky-loos and snoopy snoops should be afraid.)
Anyone who decides to disregard a law like this does so at their peril. No amount of "snitches get stitches" and "MYOB" goofiness will help you.

I personally would never even wave at a cop over any firearm issue that didn't relate to my or mine safety.

That said, going to a public place to shoot so.ething you know to be illegal is a risk, and everyone needs to be aware that the risk is real.

Nobody needs legal trouble. Some may not care, zone may willingly be the test case.

This post is for the guys who go to a public place under the mistaken assumption that everyone HAS to be cool because we are all gun people.

Be careful.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-16-2019, 9:47 AM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Anyone who decides to disregard a law like this does so at their peril. No amount of "snitches get stitches" and "MYOB" goofiness will help you.

I personally would never even wave at a cop over any firearm issue that didn't relate to my or mine safety.

That said, going to a public place to shoot so.ething you know to be illegal is a risk, and everyone needs to be aware that the risk is real.

Nobody needs legal trouble. Some may not care, zone may willingly be the test case.

This post is for the guys who go to a public place under the mistaken assumption that everyone HAS to be cool because we are all gun people.

Be careful.
The reality is Amendment II is not controlling, that Article V has been de facto deleted from the US Constitution, and that Article VI Section 2 has been replaced by our ruling elite's caprice. Our ruling elite decides what's "legal".

There are no conditions in Amendment II. There is only one legal way to infringe upon Amendment II: amend the US Constitution consistent with Amendment V.

Allz ya need is 10% of the US population to accept lying propaganda as gospel, and the rest of America will swallow it. We know it as the 10% tipping point.

"...land of the free..." has morphed into a very cruel joke. We are not a free people. We are a ruled people. And We, the People have been conditioned to accept our own enslavement. We haven't been a constitutional republic since 1913.

Californians have been intimidated by force of law to avoid engaging in their constitutional rights while our ruling elite run cartels & RICO outfits with impunity: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ton-foundation

We need a too dumb to vote law.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-16-2019, 10:06 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,791
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
This post is for the guys who go to a public place under the mistaken assumption that everyone HAS to be cool because we are all gun people.

Be careful.
Of course. That plus the fact there are documented cases where the USFS has had jerks bust people for no other reason that the USFS has rabidly antigun employees (at least in CA).

Your average LEO at the range; no.

Should you go to a public range with your (possibly) illegal AW? Still probably not a great idea.

Standard cap mags? Maybe.

Bring your AW but forget to bring paperwork? Maybe.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-16-2019, 1:40 PM
Trriemferent's Avatar
Trriemferent Trriemferent is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,226
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Wasnt there a thread a while back where someone (customer/or range staff) call police on another customer. Cant remember the details but I remember reading about it
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-16-2019, 2:09 PM
Excommunicado's Avatar
Excommunicado Excommunicado is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 721
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

I haven't heard or read about any "Potato Farmer" lately.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-16-2019, 3:22 PM
lapriester lapriester is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cobb in N CA
Posts: 306
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilderness medic View Post
Apparently you should also worry about your fellow gun owners. A couple of threads have been posted on here asking what they should do when they see someone at the range shooting a non compliant rifle
Easy. Mind your own damn business.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-16-2019, 3:41 PM
Strykeback Strykeback is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,457
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excommunicado View Post
I haven't heard or read about any "Potato Farmer" lately.
He posted a little while back in the original thread. Was thrown out and was supposed to get everything back due to a DOJ tard reading a spreadsheet incorrectly. He was seeking out a team of attorneys to go after them now.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-16-2019, 5:17 PM
Excommunicado's Avatar
Excommunicado Excommunicado is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 721
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

An egg on the face, for both Gavin Newsom and Xavier Basura


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strykeback View Post
He posted a little while back in the original thread. Was thrown out and was supposed to get everything back due to a DOJ tard reading a spreadsheet incorrectly. He was seeking out a team of attorneys to go after them now.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-16-2019, 6:26 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,600
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Anyone who decides to disregard a law like this does so at their peril. No amount of "snitches get stitches" and "MYOB" goofiness will help you.
This is very true. I hear this goofiness from my high school students all the time. They are certain they can get away with anything, like bringing a gun to school to show off or for whatever reason, or to sell drugs, or fighting.

When caught they refuse to accept that another student ratted them out. The last two guns brought to school by students were discovered because a student slide a piece of paper under the door of the SRO with all the details. An administrator and the SRO went to collect the suspected student and the student was surprised that an administrator can search a student's backpack the same as a parent can.

When we have a fight on campus, we have a number of students who are more than willing to tell all. They come to the teacher and ask for a pass to the nurse because they feel sick and then they are smiling their guts. They have learned, their privacy is protected as a minor so the main players get called in and all of a sudden they are talking because the one who talks first just might get less of a consequence and avoid a trip with the SRO to juvenile hall.

Every student who engages in a fight, whether or not it is claimed self-defense usually gets the ride to juvenile hall. The district has decided to let the courts decide as it has cut down dramatically on lawsuits by parents.

What most students and parents claim is self-defense is actually mutual combat.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-16-2019, 7:14 PM
eta34's Avatar
eta34 eta34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,091
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

I can chime in from a LEO perspective. Most of the cops I know don’t understand current firearm laws. Heck, I’m here constantly and would triple check before I made any arrest for an illegal firearm.

Most of us don’t have time to go looking for this stuff. I’m certainly not going to a range to inspect weapons. Chances are, if someone is at a range, he or she is one of the good guys. I’m not worried about them.

Weapons arrests are fairly uncommon. In my experience, enemy almost always emerge because of other circumstances...drunks, domestic violence, drugs. Most of us don’t care what you keep in your home or your trunk.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-17-2019, 8:59 AM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,674
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilderness medic View Post
Apparently you should also worry about your fellow gun owners. A couple of threads have been posted on here asking what they should do when they see someone at the range shooting a non compliant rifle
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
What should we do? We should have their back. (And looky-loos and snoopy snoops should be afraid.)
I've seen it and don't say a word. Snitches in our midst have no place here especially in this state.


We already have gun owners who voted for Prop 63, Newsom and anti gun Democrats. We don't need to add anything else to this mess.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-17-2019, 10:47 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,010
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremiah12 View Post
[snip]
Every student who engages in a fight, whether or not it is claimed self-defense usually gets the ride to juvenile hall. The district has decided to let the courts decide as it has cut down dramatically on lawsuits by parents.

What most students and parents claim is self-defense is actually mutual combat.
Geez, juvy for a fight? No wonder kids are so weak these days. 20 years ago, nobody would've ever thought to sue the school over a fight between kids either, at least not where I grew up.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-17-2019, 10:52 AM
eta34's Avatar
eta34 eta34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,091
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

^Where are kids going to juvie for school fights? In LA County, this isn’t happening unless someone is seriously injured.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-17-2019, 12:46 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,600
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eta34 View Post
^Where are kids going to juvie for school fights? In LA County, this isn’t happening unless someone is seriously injured.
Stockton. The get the ride, get processed, and then cited and released to their parents.

The district does it that way in order to reduce the number of lawsuits by parents. They will file for you did not protect my child which the district has spend their legal resources on to fight or pay off. It costs no matter what so including the legal system the school does not have to provide consequences, the courts work it out and it goes on the student's record. The district gets a report back and files it with the student's school record.

Get caught with weed, same thing. We have many seniors that all of a sudden learn they are not eligible for federal financial aid for college. Juvie records are only sealed to the public. The Feds have full access to them. Universities and colleges have access to determine if they want to accept a student. If they accept a student with a fight on their record or other issues, they are open to lawsuits.

They will never the kid why they were denied entrance, just that you did not meet our standards or you were one of many qualified applicants we had to choose from and we could not accept them all. Sorry and good luck with your future.

The kid gets 10 rejection letters and has a fight or two on their school records or a caught possessing weed, it is likely that is the reason for rejection. It cuts down on potential liability and ensures the federal money keeps coming in.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-17-2019, 1:20 PM
wpod's Avatar
wpod wpod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,867
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Too bad so many aren't this OCD about traffic laws.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-17-2019, 1:59 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,600
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
Geez, juvy for a fight? No wonder kids are so weak these days. 20 years ago, nobody would've ever thought to sue the school over a fight between kids either, at least not where I grew up.
Parents do all the time. Why do you think the school gets involved when your kid gets in a fight off campus; Parent lawsuits and pressure on politicians to change the law.

If someone videos a student in a fight on a Saturday and it gets posted on social media and this is brought to the attention of the school, they have to investigate and follow through. My campus has 2200 students and 4 administrators. We should have 6 administrators but the district would rather pay our superintendent $300,000 a year and provide her 3 administrative assistants at $100,000 each than hire more site level administrators. Drop two of her administrative assistants and they could cover two assistant principals and the number of fights would decrease.

Fights are not like they used to be. It is not one on one and after a few minutes it is over. It becomes I am losing so I bring out my knife and start slashing the other kid. It is I got the other kid on the ground and now I will stop his head until I decide he has paid enough. We have had 4 students that I know of end up in the hospital in a coma because they were beaten to near death and only stopped when security was finally able to wade through the crowd of students that is actively blocking their access and pull the aggressor off. You look at the video and see the kid on the ground started it, so legally it is mutual combat. Parents of the kid in the hospital sue because we did not protect their kid. They get upset because when the lawyers get done they realize they have nothing to base their suit on, their kid started it and others blocked security and administration from getting to the combatants. Our security also has a full time SRO and a part time one on campus at such and after school. The kids will even jump the police.

So, the policy of all get arrested and to to juvie for whatever booking they go through and cited and released to their parents. The judge figures it out. It stops the majority of suits cold in their tracks. Parents cannot find an attorney willing to take a case because there is no case and they parents do not want to pay the fee upfront for a Civil suit that will take 5 years to get through our clogged court system. in a civil suit, they even have to pay the jurors their salary they would get if they were at work if they lose. The attorney wants all of this up front. My sister loved being on a jury for a civil case.

The only attorneys that take a case are ones that are confident they will win and recover all costs from the district, or who are bluffing and hope for a settlement. The district has learned to call the bluff because all of a sudden the case is dropped. The parents do not want to pay up front the cost to continue.

Last year I pulled a kid off of another student he had on the ground. He was twice her size and kicking her in the head. She was unconscious. Since I am only a teacher the district did not defend me when the parents filed suit against me. I did not harm their child or hurt him in anyway. Of course there were several students videotaping and sending out over snapchat and instagram.

I was supposed to call for security and administration and let them deal with it. It takes them about 5 minutes to get to my room. This kid had already hospitalized 3 students in the previous year. He is severally mentally ill but we have to keep in under the special ed. laws. I knew that and acted. I was not supposed to have that information and it was purposely withheld from me. I was told it by his previous special ed. teacher.

My union spent $150,000 to defend me from the civil and criminal charges. The district also invoked state law for state employees and claimed I was defiant for not following instructions from the principal to not intervene. That never happened but it was being used to fire me.

I came out with no criminal charges (the worst would have been a misdemeanor and the DA laughed when it came to his attention, he told me good job for protecting a student). The police were not my friend and questioned me for awhile. I said speak to my attorney and kept quiet for an hour. The principal was hoping I would leave because she was ready to write me up for defiance as she pulled me out of class, brought in a sub for the rest of the day, and directed me to answer the questions of the two detectives that were sent. The detectives got tired talking to a wall and left. I was warned in advance by a union attorney this could happen and not to walk out because doing so could cause me to be dismissed on the spot. I also was not obliged to answer their questions until they arranged for an attorney for me. The principal knew and was told by a district administrator to not follow through because he knew what the process was and did not want to waste time or spend money on a sub for me when I would not answer anything.

Then my attorney contacted me and I followed her directions to the letter. The police were contacted and told to speak to her and leave me out of it unless they had an arrest warrant. They did. The principal was told I would not answer any of her questions, even with my attorney present. She did all the talking. My other attorney then stepped in for the criminal charges and went to the DA as the parents were pushing for my arrest. He spoke with the DA then I was called in and told no charges would be filed, ever. I got that in writing and my attorney took it to my district and made it clear that I did not violate any state laws.

In the end, after a few months of back and fourth an agreement was signed, I was on probation for 90 days and could be dismissed without cause if I violated any part of the contract or State or Federal education law. I would never again physically intervene when students are fighting, I would do my legal duty and call for an administrator. I got the numbers to their personal cell phones they use when on campus.

The principal was to be the first responder to my room for any student altercation. If she were not on campus it would be the vice-principal.

I learned that if I do not intervene State law protects me and the district is required to legally defend me because if a civil suit goes against me they have to pay out as I am acting as directed by them as an employee.

I used to have no more than one fight in my room. Since this happened, I had 4 others last school year and 6 this school year. My students know I cannot intervene. Half started when a student outside of my class was let in by another student without my permission and mostly after I told them to not open the door, and then the student not in my class attacked another student in my class. Once it was 5 one one. I called the principal and waited outside as directed. I told the other students to leave the class, if they did, they were good, if they did not, I was no longer responsible for their injuries, I did what I was directed. When the principal came with security, they covered both doors, and did not let anyone out. Then more came and they went in to deal with the fight if it were still going on.

The combatants were removed and then all the students that stayed behind were identified and their parents called. They could be suspended for not leaving the scene of a fight. All the cell phones were confiscated and searched and of course there was video. Like it or not, administrators can search cell phones for video. If the student or parent do not give up the password, it goes to the police station and becomes part of the evidence. If they give it up, the video is transferred to an administrators hard drive and the phone returned. If the phone was confiscated, the judge in the case might release it in a year or two. The parents who have contracts are pissed, they still have to pay until they transfer it to a new phone.

Some of the kids just watching are suspended under the Ed. Code provision and the district policy of contributing to a fight by not leaving the scene when directed.

That is how a school goes from have few fights of no consequences to near riots in the parking lot that requires a police response or parents coming onto campus, going to the room which has a student they believed dissed their child and entering and beating the **** out of him or her.

Teachers are not allowed to break up fights and parents expect us to deal with all the social media drama that occurs outside of school. There is no loosing a fight, you stack the deck in your favor, you get your crew to back you up so if you start to loose, they jump in and beat the crap out of the enemy of their friend. Everything is fair game, knives, books, pipes, or whatever is at hand.

That is why I make it clear, the average high school is not safe. Tell your kid to fight back and he or she will all of a sudden have 20 or 30 kids beating his or her behind. Because your kid willingly engaged in the initial combat without backing down or GTFO at the first sign of trouble, your kid gets cited and suspended for fighting. The gangbangers and other jerks love to set other kids up for this. They spend a few days in juvie because their parole was revoked, and then are back in school with a new ankle bracelet to show off as a badge of honor. Mean time your kid is still lying in the hospital in a coma or recovering from broken bones and internal injuries.

The video of the whole thing is more than enough to protect the district, they did what they were legally required to do, no more and no less.

I had a student bring paper spray to school. It was on her keychain and given to her by her father. She was a junior and her dad told her she had to carry it at all times. It finally came to the attention of an administrator because so many young ladies carry their keys in hand through out the day and she did the same. I had warned her to leave the pepper spray at home and I called her dad about it.

She was expelled for bringing a dangerous item to school. She would not have been had dad kept his mouth shut but instead made it known that I had contacted him about it and claimed I never stated it was illegal. I had to pull out my record of the conversation and show I called and I wrote, daughter needs to leave pepper spray at home, she can face serious consequences including suspension and expulsion if she is caught with it.

He admitted I called him about it, it is in the student handbook and on the separate page all parents have to sign about what is contraband in school. If parents do not sign, their kid is held in the office until the parent comes up to sign it. If they do not sign it, then the administrator and another witness fill out a statement to that fact and it is legally acceptable even if the parent does not sign it. The video of the parent entering school is saved and the note is placed in the file as to why the parent came in.

So had he just said, my bad, I did not think clearly when I gave it to her, she would not have faced any disciplinary action. He would have been handed the pepper spray and warned the next time she showed up to school with it, she would be suspended or expelled.

She missed her senior year and had to do it with the County program for expelled students. No 4 year college for her, and that was where she was headed. She had to do two years minimum at the JC and hope the expulsion for pepper spray did not prevent a college from accepting her. It would have to be a private college. Because dad went ballistic, the case was turned over to the SRO and so she ended up with a juvie record.

This is why I am planning to leave this state. I can teach science in another state with fewer students, earn more money, and not deal with this BS. I cannot even protect my students from other students at school as it is right now.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-17-2019, 5:05 PM
EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
EXTREMEOPS1 EXTREMEOPS1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 294
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

You seem to have too much time on your hands
__________________
"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

- General George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-17-2019, 5:55 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,713
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
What should we do? We should have their back. (And looky-loos and snoopy snoops should be afraid.)
Afraid of what? Some guy drops a dime and the cops take some guy away, why would the guy who called be afraid?

Not me, my feelings are clear. Unless my safety is directly threatened, i dont care what you do.

We arent in the fifth grade. Firearms violations are serious. Break them at your own peril.

Im saying be careful.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-17-2019, 5:57 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,713
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
I've seen it and don't say a word. Snitches in our midst have no place here especially in this state.


We already have gun owners who voted for Prop 63, Newsom and anti gun Democrats. We don't need to add anything else to this mess.
Agree with the sentiment. The reality is, someone calls the cops, YOU have the problem, not them.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-17-2019, 7:14 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,791
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wpod View Post
Too bad so many aren't this OCD about traffic laws.
Depends which one.

Left lane camping should be a felony.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
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 2:42 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.