Oakland Armed Robbery

[D.A.V.I.D.]

Such BS, cant even legally protect yourself there.

[Gio]

OP sorry to hear this happened to you and your family. Hope they catch these scum bags and that you get your pistols back sooner than later without them being used in crime/s.

conceal carry of an unloaded registered handgun = 1 misdemeanor (also includes 5 year probation, which you can not legally own/possess firearms/ammo)
conceal carry of a loaded registered handgun = 2 misdemeanors (also includes 5 year probation, which you can not legally own/possess firearms/ammo)
conceal carry of an unloaded unregistered handgun = 1 felony
conceal carry of a loaded unregistered handgun = 2 felonies

Seems like the law is only encouraging bad people to carry guns since they don't care what happens if they are caught with a firearm loaded or unloaded, registered or non-registered. I really do hate how the law abiding people of CA have to pay for the carelessness of criminals who can pretty do whatever it is they want to do.

[Steve_In_29]

Personally if I get robbed 2x, I will
a. get copies of both police reports,
b. Optain a recent copy of my FBI background check,
c. make copies of other states CCW I have (if applicable),
d. copies of all certificates from firearm related classes that I have taken.
e. 3 years tax return (if applicable)
f. a comprehensive written letter to the Sheriff.

I will then try to schedule an appointment with the big wig Sheriff himself, and secretly record the conversation.
if he chooses not to issue me a CCW, then I will be more than happy to seek Media help where appropriate.

IIRC this is a crime in CA so it won't help your case.

[Rosebud22]

Here it is in a nut shell. The perps know damm well (almost) no one in Oakland can get a CCW. Therefore had no concern robbing the OP in BROAD DAY LIGHT.
Legally drop a few in self defense and the problem will go away.
But, alas, we live in Calif, and all these robbers are just misunderstood youths.

[cdtx2001]

OP, glad you are OK and only out a little (although very valuable) property.

I know Alameda county is a no go for CCW issuance and that truly sucks for being able to defend yourself.

Have you given it a thought to go to the media? I know they are not necessarily our friends, but any chance they get to shame a sheriff they usually jump on.

Present it lime this: You legally own guns, are not a criminal and so forth. You've applied for a CCW after you were robbed the first time and were denied. You carry your firearms legally (unloaded in locked cases) and were robbed again and unable to defend yourself. Sheriff is to blame for your losses.

Just a thought.

[NYT]

like people don't get robbed in san Francisco or palo alto ?

palo alto has a fraction of the crime oakland does. i will concede that sf is now almost worse than oakland in some areas as far as city policing of bad areas. opd still has a presence in these areas (10 minutes out) but sfpd just stays away for both their safety and political reasons. opd will still shoot to kill luckily.

sf is just getting worse, whereas oakland has always been in the dumpster.

[Germz]

Sorry to hear about your incident OP..

[Bluesman]

This story needs to be on the news.

If more people heard how these restrictions are causing more "guns on the street" maybe more people would push for carry rights in this jacked up state.

OP, sorry the ****y laws in this state cost you your property and almost your life.

[Falstaff]

I used to rent an office/wherehouse space on Mandela Parkway, I would NEVER be unarmed in that area regardless of inane, unconstitutional laws- hell I even saw a homeless shopping cart guy pull a revolver on someone there.

Molto, what do you think would have happened if you had been carrying ?
Do you think they'd have backed off?

I can tell you this, I'm intimately aware of an incident in that vicinity and the mere presentation of a sidearm changed the mind of a dark complected individual intent upon assaulting someone with a tire iron....

[Best sale]

^^^ Go ask for a CCW permit and commit a crime while doing it. Then seek the media's help to let the whole world know that you just committed a crime.

Uhhhh, me don't think that's gonna go far with the permit thingy. That would be a very bad sale.

Yeap, I Understand. Just as Peruta's idea was considered a NO NO back in the days.

Sorry, secretly recording and exposing an unconstitutional Sheriff, that is denying me, my constitutional right is no crime in my book. (if I happened to be in OP shoe.)
As they say, to each his own. It is up to you as an individual to decide what the value of your life is, and to what extend you want to be violated.

He actually will be helping me by suing me for the recording....that way the media can go to party on the case.
And to crown it all, secretly recording a conversation with a public official is not like stealing, rape,robbery or committing a murder.

Note. above is no legal advice, just the thinking of a man that will, with time put Kalifornia in his rear view.
Stay safe folks

[bonusweb]

Sorry this happened to you. I've been beaten (to the point of unconsciousness) and robbed (after being unconscious) before, so I know what it's like.



Quite frankly you were a victim not because you lacked a gun (plenty of people carrying guns have been victimized - including cops), but because of task fixation (about to unlock car/load) and a lack of awareness.

Sorry to be rough, but when you think about it, you'll realize that actually having a gun in your pants wouldn't have prevented anything. Look at the situation:



focused on the car when 3 guys came up to you. If that guy really had a gun (the ifs will bother you for a long time, try not to dwell on it), think you could've escaped injury? While you breaking loose from the guy who grabbed you and presenting your gun? Maybe.

If I may:

http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavi.../dp/B0036Z9U2A - This book sort of tells you about your body's intuitive/reasoning system and how it can pick up on subtle indicators of some bad sh*t about to happen.

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Per.../dp/B005SP8WMA - And this book teaches you how to be more observant so you can regconize more danger symbols.

I will bet those criminals didn't beam in Star-Trek style. You might've been able to see them before you got to your car... Maybe. Read Gavin's book. You may remember those little things you saw that tipped you off to potential danger (then ignored) - I know I did, when I thought back to the encounter I experienced.

For anyone that thinks this is not possible, check out these glasses that read your unconscious mind for threats your conscious mind does not see.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/DARPA-Star-Wars-Binoculars-51963.shtml

"Cognitive Technology Threat Warning System", DARPA refers to the concept using the "Luke's Binoculars" code name.

Apparently, DARPA's fixed goal is to create a pair of goggles that can see for miles, day or night (rain or snow, Irak or Afganistan). Due to the "far sight" upgrade, the soldiers will see huge portions of combat terrain and will easily locate and kill the enemy. The binoculars would tap right into the brain and will use EEG to monitor brain activity, picking up sensed threats and will quickly alert soldiers about potential dangers. And here's the best part: given that a soldier's brain (uuh) picks up on patterns faster than the conscious mind realizes, he can react more promptly. The device is also supposed to allow soldiers to operate better in the present military operations, where easy to be confused enemies may be dispersed and hidden in urban areas.

DARPA wants to develop a soldier-portable digital imaging threat queuing system capable of effective detection ranges of 1-10 km against dismounts and vehicles while simultaneously surveying a 120-degree or greater field of view (FOV).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiedrummond/2012/09/18/darpa-threat-recognition/

http://archive.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2007/05/binoculars

That prefrontal cortex, he explains, allows the brain to pick up patterns quickly, but it also exercises a powerful impulse control, inhibiting false alarms. EEG would essentially allow the binoculars to bypass this inhibitory reaction and signal the wearer to a potential threat. In other words, like Spiderman's "spider sense," a soldier could be alerted to danger that his or her brain had sensed, but not yet had time to process.

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/darpa-lukes-binoculars-a-go.2496/

The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has tapped Northrop Grumman to develop binoculars that will tap the subconscious mind. The Cognitive Technology Threat Warning System program, informally called "Luke's Binoculars," combines advanced optics with electro-encephalogram electrodes that can, DARPA believes, be used to alert the wearer to a threat before the conscious mind has processed the information.

[Steve_In_29]

Yeap, I Understand. Just as Peruta's idea was considered a NO NO back in the days.

Sorry, secretly recording and exposing an unconstitutional Sheriff, that is denying me, my constitutional right is no crime in my book. (if I happened to be in OP shoe.)
As they say, to each his own. It is up to you as an individual to decide what the value of your life is, and to what extend you want to be violated.

He actually will be helping me by suing me for the recording....that way the media can go to party on the case.
And to crown it all, secretly recording a conversation with a public official is not like stealing, rape,robbery or committing a murder.

Note. above is no legal advice, just the thinking of a man that will, with time put Kalifornia in his rear view.
Stay safe folks

All well and good BUT until you write the laws it is STILL a crime in CA and makes your attempt at a CCW moot.

It's not like everyone doesn't ALREADY know these Sheriffs are denying CCWs so you aren't exposing anything there Geraldo.

On edit: As far as the OP's robbery, it showed EXTREMELY poor situational awareness on his party's side, when in a KNOWN to be bad area three people allowed others to get the drop on them.

[glockman19]

conceal carry of an unloaded registered handgun = 1 misdemeanor (also includes 5 year probation, which you can not legally own/possess firearms/ammo)
conceal carry of a loaded registered handgun = 2 misdemeanors (also includes 5 year probation, which you can not legally own/possess firearms/ammo)
conceal carry of an unloaded unregistered handgun = 1 felony
conceal carry of a loaded unregistered handgun = 2 felonies

There are exemptions:
Section 25525.
(a) Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, the transportation of a firearm by any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 29900) of Division 9 of this title, or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, directly between any of the following places:
(1) The person's place of residence.
(2) The person's place of business.
(3) Private property owned or lawfully possessed by the person.
(b) Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, the transportation of a firearm by a person listed in subdivision (a) when going directly from the place where that person lawfully received that firearm to that person's place of residence or place of business or to private property owned or lawfully possessed by that person.

Section 25590.
Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, the transportation of a firearm by a person if done directly between any of the places set forth below:
(a) A place where the person may carry that firearm pursuant to an exemption from the prohibition set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 25400.
(b) A place where that person may carry that firearm pursuant to an exemption from the prohibition set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 25850, or a place where the prohibition set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 25850 does not apply.
(c) A place where that person may carry a firearm pursuant to an exemption from the prohibition set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 26350, or a place where the prohibition set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 26350 does not apply.

Section 25600.
(a) A violation of Section 25400 is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that person is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person who has been found to pose a threat to the life or safety of the person who possesses the firearm. This section may not apply when the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person's life or safety. It is not the intent of the Legislature to limit, restrict, or narrow the application of current statutory or judicial authority to apply this or other justifications to a defendant charged with violating Section 25400 or committing another similar offense.
(b) Upon trial for violating Section 25400, the trier of fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief that the defendant was in grave danger.
Section 25605.

I would interpret this as exempting one from carrying concealed directly between business and home, both places exempt from conceal Carey laws.
There is also another that exempts one while waiting for law enforcement.
It appears the level of scrutiny here is "if one had reasonable believed their life were in grave danger."
If I were the OP I would have reasonable fear that my life were in grave danger. And could articulate that with multiple past experience as example.

[Librarian]

There are exemptions:
Section 25525.
...
I would interpret this as exempting one from carrying concealed directly between business and home, both places exempt from conceal Carey laws.

There is also another that exempts one while waiting for law enforcement.
It appears the level of scrutiny here is "if one had reasonable believed their life were in grave danger."
If I were the OP I would have reasonable fear that my life were in grave danger. And could articulate that with multiple past experience as example.

You omitted that to use the exemption,

25505.

In order for a firearm to be exempted under this article, while being transported to or from a place, the firearm shall be unloaded and kept in a locked container, and the course of travel shall include only those deviations between authorized locations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

and

25610.


(a) Section 25400 shall not be construed to prohibit any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm, from transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the following applies to the firearm:

(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle’s trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle.

(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm, the firearm is contained within a locked container.

(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with the provisions listed in Section 16580.

Some folks think that's better than nothing, but seems it would not have been especially useful in the OP's situation.

[bonusweb]

All this and there are things called knifes.