CCW THREAT QUESTION

[Rivers]

Next time he speaks to you just tell him that you looked it up and found out that one can't have a CCW or even access to firearms or ammunition if he/she is subject to a restraining order and leave it at that. Don't threaten or even hint that your research is anything personal or anything other than academic. If he really has a CA LTC and wants to keep it, he will back off and never be confrontational with you again.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS!

[priusron]

But that may backfire if he obtains a restraining order against the op.

[Gryff]

8 acres? Got a backhoe?

[GizmoSD]

[SkyHawk]

Call the local Sheriff CCW department, hand over the tape. My guess is that if he does have a CCW now, he wont for long.

[38Special]

If you think the guy is a threat why didn't you proceed with the RO?
Did you tell the Court he supposedly has a CCW?
Did you ever mention gun ownership?
Why are you just now asking about getting his CCW revoked?

Something smells fishy to me.

[RickD427]

All,

There is a lot of bad information being circulated in this this thread. Here's a couple of key points to remember:

1) Recording of conversations - California is not a "One Party Consent State". It's not a "Two Party Consent State". It's not a (fill in any other number) consent state. California makes it illegal to record "Confidential Communications" as defined in the statute. A person choosing to record a conversation has two options to make it legal. They can obtain the consent of all parties to the conversation, or they can defeat the expectation that the conversation is "confidential." This second option removes any issue of "consent." The law does not distinguish between audio and video recording. Please refer to PC section 632.

2) Forget about using any recording made in violation in PC 632 to assist you in court. Such recordings are inadmissible in any court, or administrative hearing, except to prove that the recording was made. Please refer to PC section 631(c).

3) If you make such a recording, get ready to pay a lot of money - The maker of a recording in violation of PC 632 can be sued for the greater of $5,000 or three times any actual damages. It is not necessary to prove any damages to win the $5.000 award. In other words, prove the recording was made and get $5K. Please refer to PC section 637.2

[pacrat]

All,

There is a lot of bad information being circulated in this this thread. Here's a couple of key points to remember:

1) Recording of conversations - California is not a "One Party Consent State". It's not a "Two Party Consent State". It's not a (fill in any other number) consent state. California makes it illegal to record "Confidential Communications" as defined in the statute. A person choosing to record a conversation has two options to make it legal. They can obtain the consent of all parties to the conversation, or they can defeat the expectation that the conversation is "confidential." This second option removes any issue of "consent." The law does not distinguish between audio and video recording. Please refer to PC section 632.

2) Forget about using any recording made in violation in PC 632 to assist you in court. Such recordings are inadmissible in any court, or administrative hearing, except to prove that the recording was made. Please refer to PC section 631(c).

3) If you make such a recording, get ready to pay a lot of money - The maker of a recording in violation of PC 632 can be sued for the greater of $5,000 or three times any actual damages. It is not necessary to prove any damages to win the $5.000 award. In other words, prove the recording was made and get $5K. Please refer to PC section 637.2

Rick, referring to the underlined above. Would not the aforementioned signage remove any expectation of any audio/video recording being "confidential"? And would the "Lack of Signage", even on private property, create an expectation of privacy/confidentiality?

Also, Since "suffered/injured/damaged" are all synonyms. That makes pc 632.7 637.2 just another vague self contradicting waste of ink.

(a) Any person who has been injured by a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the person who committed the violation for the greater of the following amounts:

(1) Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation.

(2) Three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff.

(b) Any person may, in accordance with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bring an action to enjoin and restrain any violation of this chapter, and may in the same action seek damages as provided by subdivision (a).

(c) It is not a necessary prerequisite to an action pursuant to this section that the plaintiff has suffered, or be threatened with, actual damages.

(d) This section shall not be construed to affect Title 4 (commencing with Section 3425.1) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code.

[RickD427]

Rick, referring to the underlined above. Would not the aforementioned signage remove any expectation of any audio/video recording being "confidential"? And would the "Lack of Signage", even on private property, create an expectation of privacy/confidentiality?

Also, Since "suffered/injured/damaged" are all synonyms. That makes pc 632.7 just another vague self contradicting waste of ink.

IMHO (and remember that my opinion is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things), signage would defeat the expectation of confidentiality, so long as the signage was readily visible.

The plethora of superfluous language is pretty common in California law. At the operative level, it don't really change anything. At the technical level there often are some differences in the meaning of words and that's the reason for their inclusion. But it doesn't matter much here because the law specifically excludes a plaintiff from having to go down that road. All the plaintiff has to do is show that an illegal recording was made.

[mgw12]

[NorCalBusa]

Sounds like if if one merely pulls their phone out and clearly manipulate the controls (hit Record)- the confidential expectation vanishes. Especially if the other party is foolish enough to say;

So how did you know he recorded you without permission?
I saw him take his phone out and start recording

D'oh! Next.

[hmvan]

Document everything.

This.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chewy65]

Sounds like if if one merely pulls their phone out and clearly manipulate the controls (hit Record)- the confidential expectation vanishes. Especially if the other party is foolish enough to say;

So how did you know he recorded you without permission?
I saw him take his phone out and start recording

D'oh! Next.

The expectation of confidence may remain. The recording was arguably made only for the later review of the two of you should either need to be reminded of the event. The operative issue is if permission to record was given and whether there was any is a question of fact. Arguably, the person being recorded may have not objected because they did not know they had right not to permit the recording.

[TrailerparkTrash]

All,

There is a lot of bad information being circulated in this this thread. Here's a couple of key points to remember:

1) Recording of conversations - California is not a "One Party Consent State". It's not a "Two Party Consent State". It's not a (fill in any other number) consent state. California makes it illegal to record "Confidential Communications" as defined in the statute. A person choosing to record a conversation has two options to make it legal. They can obtain the consent of all parties to the conversation, or they can defeat the expectation that the conversation is "confidential." This second option removes any issue of "consent." The law does not distinguish between audio and video recording. Please refer to PC section 632.

2) Forget about using any recording made in violation in PC 632 to assist you in court. Such recordings are inadmissible in any court, or administrative hearing, except to prove that the recording was made. Please refer to PC section 631(c).

3) If you make such a recording, get ready to pay a lot of money - The maker of a recording in violation of PC 632 can be sued for the greater of $5,000 or three times any actual damages. It is not necessary to prove any damages to win the $5.000 award. In other words, prove the recording was made and get $5K. Please refer to PC section 637.2

[RickD427]

I can (almost) see your point, but can't agree that there would never could be an expectation of confidentiality simple because the combatants were outside. If this took place in a populated area, I'd agree with your assessment. If they were out in the boonies with no reason to expect that anyone was watching, then I think there would be an expectation of confidentiality.

But the best thing for the OP is to explode that expectation. He can do that simply by putting the other party on notice that they're being recorded.