Concealed carry without ccw

[LeadFarmer74]

No legislative and judicial branches are separated for a reason.

[Gryff]

It's my understanding that there is a point of law that says that an action is not illegal if it is proved to be necessary for self-defense. The rapper Dolla was shot to death in 2009 by a guy illegally carrying in California (he did have a CCW for another state). He was able to demonstrate that the rapper had been a threat to his safety, and was acquitted of the charges.

[heidad01]

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?

That all sounds good, legal and logical, but this ain't Texas. No matter how many lives saved, and no harm done to any one but the scum bags, He will be charged if he is not smart enough to just disappear and save the story for his grand children. Best he can pray to the holly Mary for and wish is a suspended sentence. Once it hits the news, every one is solely concerned with protecting their own derrier and scrambles to find some PC to prosecute the guy. No mercy for the guy who risks his life for others. I guess the wisdom is that people should not take the law into their own hands. They should just stand there and get shot until the LE arrives, do their SOP and come in to pick up the bodies an hour and a half after all is cool to go in.

[Doheny]

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

I think a lot of people are concerned for their safety and finding their way to gun stores and gun sites. We should encourage them with facts and straight talk, not discourage them.

[tonyxcom]

This happened in a gun free zone and there was a licensed carrier there. I haven't heard, but I don't think he was charged right?

[heidad01]

Both.

What if a bystander was shot by the employee?

Really?? That is easy to question until you are sitting in a conference room and see a guy walk in and starts spraying the far side with 5.56 rounds. In that moment, your hope and best chances would be if some one from the good side starts shooting back at the perp and you certainly would not be questioning what you did.

What is the difference between:

a: the bystander shot by a CCW holder (or not) who is shooting in defense of his own life and others'.
and
b: the bystander shot by LEO/swat team coming in shooting in defense of their lives and others'.

Neither one of us wants to be that bystander but there is No Difference. Many tens of times more bystanders and hostages get shot by LEO than by an immidiate response of a CCW carrier (or not) taking action against the perps.

[email]

Jury nullification?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[tonyxcom]

Could "transfer of intent" apply?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MudCamper]

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?

You're referring to PC 26045 (a) and (c). Yes, you could carry your loaded firearm when in "immediate, grave danger".

The tricky part is how did you legally get to that point? This is how: You can LUC (locked unloaded carry) in a gun case or briefcase. So just have a locking case with/near you. You unlocked it, retrieved your firearm and loaded it, when the danger started.

[Malibugym]

President Trump would pardon him minutes after his inauguration.

[MarikinaMan]

The term that applies here is "prosecutorial discretion".

Most DAs will have the discretion to file charges or not, depending on judgement, political pressure, the situation and how anti-gun the DA/Mayor/FBI OIC is. Just look at all the illegals who get the benefit of our current open door catch and release system.

There ain't no law without the rule of law.

[heidad01]

Jury nullification?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Agreed. Not sure how the law applies now, but that should be the case regardless of who accidentally shot a bystander when shooting in defense of their's and other's life.
It is also a not so valid argument against people being armed and defending themselves.

[email]

Agreed. Not sure how the law applies now, but that should be the case regardless of who accidentally shot a bystander when shooting in defense of their's and other's life.
It is also a not so valid argument against people being armed and defending themselves.

I thought jury nullification is when the jury stands up for justice and does not follow application of (perceived ) unjust laws.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Jeepergeo]

There could easily have been many fewer dead, and thus this illegal act of carrying would have been viewed as adding to the death toll. There would be speculation that the two terrorists were just "misguided young adults" and could have been taken alive and redeemed in the prison system or in a half way house in your neighborhood. The armed citizen would be jailed, his/her family questioned, home searched, background scoured...oh, a parking ticket in 1987 leading to this unexplainable fetish interest in 2A rights coupled with dozens of range trips and a "stockpile" of over 1000/rounds of killer ammo for his collection of "Glock revolvers, Glock rifles, Glock pistols, and Glock knives."

The DA would would smell a case to catapult him to Kamala's job and would likely have jumped all over this and prosecuted the "false hero."

Guys, don't do it. If you must carry, go through the steps and do it right and get your permit and save yourself a lot of grief.

[Aidenpeacemaker]

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.

True but can be reduced. . Ask me how I know