Concealed carry without ccw

[Tunken boto]

Say for example if one of the employees at that mass shooting in san bernardino had a concealed weapon without a permit and had used it on the two terrorists and prevented additional fatalities, do you think that employee would be charged with a crime? Or would he be considered a hero?

[Garv]

Say for example if one of the employees at that mass shooting in san bernardino had a concealed weapon without a permit and had used it on the two terrorists and prevented additional fatalities, do you think that employee would be charged with a crime? Or would he be considered a hero?

Both.

What if a bystander was shot by the employee?

[glockman19]

Say for example if one of the employees at that mass shooting in san bernardino had a concealed weapon without a permit and had used it on the two terrorists and prevented additional fatalities, do you think that employee would be charged with a crime? Or would he be considered a hero?

He/she would be charged with 1 misdemeanor for the concealed firearm and 1 misdemeanor for it being loaded. Possibly a felony based on other factors.

[stix213]

If the terrorists were shot early enough so there would have been no mass shooting, charges would have been filed easily as not much would have been in the media. If the terrorists were stopped after 10 or so deaths then we have a national publicized hero making it harder to politically file charges because of the popular backlash (district attorneys are elected politicians). If the carrier attempts to stop the terrorists but kills an innocent, expect charges
If the carrier attempts to stop the terrorists but fails, expect charges. If the carrier is discovered to be carrying because people in the area of the shooting are often searched even if having nothing to do with the shooting, expect charges. If the carrier attempts to stop the shooting but is stopped by police, expect charges.

My opinion

[RickD427]

Say for example if one of the employees at that mass shooting in san bernardino had a concealed weapon without a permit and had used it on the two terrorists and prevented additional fatalities, do you think that employee would be charged with a crime? Or would he be considered a hero?

These things are very much "outcome dependent." If an unlicensed CCW carrier did the things that you described, and it all turned out well, I'd be very surprised to see a D.A. file charges. That would be political suicide. Did I mention that all 58 D.A's, as well as the A.G. are all elected positions?

If the intervention turned out poorly, then I would expect to see charges filed.

If the weapon were registered to the defendant in AFS, and no other aggravating conditions were present, then the CCW charge and the Carrying Loaded charges would be misdemeanors.

If the weapon were unregistered then both charges would be felonies.

[Untamed1972]

I brought this up in a similar thread, but tell me what you think:

Current CA law allows for one to have a loaded gun in public in response to an immediate threat until such time as LE arrives on the scene. You're also allowed the use of deadly force when in fear your life or GBI.

So under both of those provisions having a loaded gun at the time a threat presents itself is no longer a crime. Using the gun against the threat would also not be a crime.

BUT....follow me on this....by the time LE arrives your gun will also not be concealed anymore, therefore no crime is being committed in the presence of the officers either, as having the loaded gun became legal as soon as the threat appeared.

So....what crime was actually committed? LE in CA cannot arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in their presence. Most they can do is write it up in their report and see if the DA wants to pursue it assuming their is sufficient evidence to support the charge.

This would definitely be a time when undocumented-CCWer would want to invoke the 5th, zip their lip an lawyer up lest you find yourself admitting you were carrying without a permit.

ETA: It would seem to me the only time that charge could apply is if you're caught while just walking around or during a traffic stop, etc, and nothing else is going on. But once a threat presents itself you're legally entitled to have the loaded gun and use it, and no crime is being committed. Your thoughts?

[RickD427]

I brought this up in a similar thread, but tell me what you think:

Current CA law allows for one to have a loaded gun in public in response to an immediate threat until such time as LE arrives on the scene. You're also allowed the use of deadly force when in fear your life or GBI.

So under both of those provisions having a loaded gun at the time a threat presents itself is no longer a crime. Using the gun against the threat would also not be a crime.

BUT....follow me on this....by the time LE arrives your gun will also not be concealed anymore, therefore no crime is being committed in the presence of the officers either, as having the loaded gun became legal as soon as the threat appeared.

So....what crime was actually committed? LE in CA cannot arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in their presence. Most they can do is write it up in their report and see if the DA wants to pursue it assuming their is sufficient evidence to support the charge.

This would definitely be a time when undocumented-CCWer would want to invoke the 5th, zip their lip an lawyer up lest you find yourself admitting you were carrying without a permit.

ETA: It would seem to me the only time that charge could apply is if you're caught while just walking around or during a traffic stop, etc, and nothing else is going on. But once a threat presents itself you're legally entitled to have the loaded gun and use it, and no crime is being committed. Your thoughts?

Untamed,

You've got a fairly good analysis, but please consider these points:

Penal Code section 26045 provides you the ability to lawfully carry a loaded firearm after a threat presents itself and before the arrival of law enforcement assistance. There is nothing in there that allows for loaded carry in anticipation of a threat. There is also no application of this section after officers arrive.

You correctly observe that LE officers generally cannot make an immediate arrest for a misdemeanor that was not committed in their presence (there's also a ton of exceptions to this rule, but none really relevant here). But that's very different from suggesting that the crime did not occur simply because the officer could not make an immediate arrest. It's quite common to present such cases to the D.A. for filing, and then obtain an arrest warrant, or send an arraignment letter to the defendant.

[Swampcrip]

Interesting first post. Are you writing an essay on gun control?

[IVC]

So....what crime was actually committed? LE in CA cannot arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in their presence. Most they can do is write it up in their report and see if the DA wants to pursue it assuming their is sufficient evidence to support the charge.

Not sure why you'd think that whether it was done in their presence carries any weight.

It comes down to what can be proven. If you indeed don't talk and let the police and DA build a case against you, they might have a bit harder time proving that you carried concealed at any time. Especially if a gun case magically appears at the shooting scene and you don't say anything about how it ended up there. However, most of these places have cameras so DA can build a case with enough circumstantial evidence.

[Untamed1972]

Not sure why you'd think that whether it was done in their presence carries any weight.

It comes down to what can be proven. If you indeed don't talk and let the police and DA build a case against you, they might have a bit harder time proving that you carried concealed at any time. Especially if a gun case magically appears at the shooting scene and you don't say anything about how it ended up there. However, most of these places have cameras so DA can build a case with enough circumstantial evidence.

I addressed that....at least on the issue of arrest. "Stale misdemeanor rule" precludes an officer from making an arrest (with certain exceptions, like DV or DUI for example) if the act was not committed in his presence. But as I stated, they could write it up and submit it to the DA if there was enough other evidence.

But I think the loaded gun in public charge gets pretty murky once a threat actually presents itself....because at that point its legal for you to have it. So are they going to say "one second before that you were committing a crime"?

[Untamed1972]

Untamed,

You've got a fairly good analysis, but please consider these points:

Penal Code section 26045 provides you the ability to lawfully carry a loaded firearm after a threat presents itself and before the arrival of law enforcement assistance. There is nothing in there that allows for loaded carry in anticipation of a threat. There is also no application of this section after officers arrive.

You correctly observe that LE officers generally cannot make an immediate arrest for a misdemeanor that was not committed in their presence (there's also a ton of exceptions to this rule, but none really relevant here). But that's very different from suggesting that the crime did not occur simply because the officer could not make an immediate arrest. It's quite common to present such cases to the D.A. for filing, and then obtain an arrest warrant, or send an arraignment letter to the defendant.

I realize that. I'm merely stating that at the moment a threat presents itself, you're actually no longer violating the law by having the loaded gun. And once the gun is drawn to address that threat, it's also no longer concealed. It's just interesting to think how the difference of one second takes you from violating the law to being completely legal.

[RickD427]

I realize that. I'm merely stating that at the moment a threat presents itself, you're actually no longer violating the law by having the loaded gun. And once the gun is drawn to address that threat, it's also no longer concealed. It's just interesting to think how the difference of one second takes you from violating the law to being completely legal.

Yup, your analysis is still pretty good here. That "one second" pretty much changes everything.

It's also important how much is dependent on the outcome (e.g. the element of chance). If you're a hero and save the day, the D.A. most likely will not file any charges, even though they could do so. On the other hand, if it goes sideways, then plan on charges being filed and that fact that "your weapon didn't magically appear out of nowhere" to be a mainstay in the argument that unlawfully possessed a concealed weapon.

[IVC]

I addressed that....at least on the issue of arrest.

Ok, I see it now. However, arrest would be the least of your problem.

[Tunken boto]

Wow this is getting really interesting.

@swampcrip
No im not writing an essay, im just curious with what other members think.

[Tunken boto]

So if we did end up with a GOP president, would he have the authority to speed up the 9th circuits decision? Or better yet, arm the whole nation?