California Penal Code section 417

[Fusilier]

California Penal Code section 417 states:
(a) (1) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the
presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon
whatsoever, other than a firearm, in a rude, angry, or threatening
manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a deadly weapon other
than a firearm in any fight or quarrel is guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30
days.
Under PC 417(a)(1) a person is guilty of a misdemeanor if they
draw or exhibit any deadly weapon (knife, bat, machete, switch-blade,
broken bottle, crowbar, etc.) that is not a firearm in a rude,
angry or threatening manner. The individual is also guilty of a
misdemeanor if they unlawfully use a deadly weapon (except a
firearm) in any fight or quarrel.
The punishment for this is a minimum of 30 days in county jail.

[Fusilier]

Now, what they don't really tell you is, that even after probation, you are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm for TEN YEARS. Somehow they get to suspend your 2nd amendment rights for an additional 7 years.

[E Pluribus Unum]

California Penal Code section 417 states:
(a) (1) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the
presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon
whatsoever, other than a firearm, in a rude, angry, or threatening
manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a deadly weapon other
than a firearm in any fight or quarrel is guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30
days.
Under PC 417(a)(1) a person is guilty of a misdemeanor if they
draw or exhibit any deadly weapon (knife, bat, machete, switch-blade,
broken bottle, crowbar, etc.) that is not a firearm in a rude,
angry or threatening manner. The individual is also guilty of a
misdemeanor if they unlawfully use a deadly weapon (except a
firearm) in any fight or quarrel.
The punishment for this is a minimum of 30 days in county jail.

This is what makes me think.... where is the exception for law enforcement?

There is none.

So.. each and every time a LEO presents his firearm in a threatening manner without being able to articulate that someone's life is in danger, he is in fact, technically, committing a misdemeanor.

[Fusilier]

I think that the punishment is disproportionate and that they use this as an excuse to slowly phase out the 2nd Amendment.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws carry guns.

[stomper4x4]

417(a)(1) excludes firearms, there is your exemption

[shy 7th]

California Penal Code section 417 states:
(a) (1) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the
presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon
whatsoever, other than a firearm, in a rude, angry, or threatening
manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a deadly weapon other
than a firearm in any fight or quarrel is guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30
days.

"exhibits...in a rude...manner"

Judging by the threads on this forum many grumpy gunstore owners/managers are guilty of this.

[E Pluribus Unum]

417(a)(1) excludes firearms, there is your exemption

Keep reading:

California Penal Code 417:

(2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of
any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or
unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any
manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel is
punishable as follows:
(A) If the violation occurs in a public place and the firearm is a
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person, by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than three
months and not more than one year, by a fine not to exceed one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(B) In all cases other than that set forth in subparagraph (A), a
misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less
than three months.

[stix213]

I don't see the problem with this law. Self-defense is specifically exempted. I'm not sure making it legal to threaten people with knives or guns when you aren't defending yourself is such a good idea.... Am I missing something?

[Fusilier]

For offenders: does the then year ban on owning a firearm only take place in CA?

[CSACANNONEER]

So, every LEO walking in a riot line with a baton, pepper spray, etc. is a criminal????

[stix213]

Now, what they don't really tell you is, that even after probation, you are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm for TEN YEARS. Somehow they get to suspend your 2nd amendment rights for an additional 7 years.

I don't think any misdemeanor crimes should include a firearms prohibition. That said, I do think threatening someone with a weapon is one of the misdemeanor crimes that makes the most sense.

Now its not that they "don't really tell you" since it is in the penal code that that is the punishment. They tell you that's the punishment as much as they tell you the punishment for any crime, by putting it in the PC. If you went with a crappy lawyer that doesn't know what he is doing, well that's between you and him.

[E Pluribus Unum]

that's what reports are for

So, now are we talking about "creative report writing"?

There are many occasions where officers present their firearms without the presence of a weapon.

We covered use of force very extensively in the several firearms courses I've taken. I was told by a couple instructors that threat of bodily harm is not enough; if a criminal wants to engage in a fist fight, that is not sufficient cause to present a firearm, as that would be brandishing. Only after the fight turns for the worse and there is a risk for great bodily harm, or death, can the firearm be presented.

In your opinion, is this correct?

[E Pluribus Unum]

I don't see the problem with this law. Self-defense is specifically exempted. I'm not sure making it legal to threaten people with knives or guns when you aren't defending yourself is such a good idea.... Am I missing something?

There have been several cases of charges filed for brandishing in what would rationally be a "self defense" scenario. In my last CCW class, we learned of a woman land owner that came out into her yard holding a BB gun to dissuade the neighbor from trespassing on her land and making good a threat of bodily harm. She was tried, and convicted, of brandishing.

If ANYTHING could be categorized as "self defense", displaying a gun to stop someone from entering your property to batter you would be it.

[Fusilier]

[QUOTE=
If ANYTHING could be categorized as "self defense", displaying a gun to stop someone from entering your property to batter you would be it.[/QUOTE]


Displaying a firearm, and brandishing are distinctly different actions- especially on your own property.

[conanobrennan]

So, now are we talking about "creative report writing"?

There are many occasions where officers present their firearms without the presence of a weapon.

If they had no reason to present their weapon and cannot rationalize why they did by the time they're putting it in the report, do you think they'll be a cop very long?

We covered use of force very extensively in the several firearms courses I've taken. I was told by a couple instructors that threat of bodily harm is not enough; if a criminal wants to engage in a fist fight, that is not sufficient cause to present a firearm, as that would be brandishing. Only after the fight turns for the worse and there is a risk for great bodily harm, or death, can the firearm be presented.

In your opinion, is this correct?

yes. I'm sorry if i present a viewpoint that is often in the minority on here but up until the point where you can accurately rationalize that threat and your reason for menacingly displaying the weapon you are guilty of a crime.

you can only match levels of force. not escalate. brandishing a gun in a fist fight is escalation.