| Author | Post |
|---|
nukechaser
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 05:09 pm |
|
AyatollahGondola wrote:
You could be charged with any one of many code violations that an officer felt that the circumstances dictated. Even disturbing the peace.
That's odd, I read on my local PD's website that an officer's peace cannot be disturbed and that someone other than the officer would have to sign a complaint. The reference to PC 415 on Elk Grove PD's site can be found at: http://www.elkgrovepd.org/more/faq-quality-life.asp#q07
I believe Rancho Cordova PD says the same?
|
AyatollahGondola
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 05:25 pm |
|
nukechaser wrote: AyatollahGondola wrote:
You could be charged with any one of many code violations that an officer felt that the circumstances dictated. Even disturbing the peace.
That's odd, I read on my local PD's website that an officer's peace cannot be disturbed and that someone other than the officer would have to sign a complaint. The reference to PC 415 on Elk Grove PD's site can be found at: http://www.elkgrovepd.org/more/faq-quality-life.asp#q07
I believe Rancho Cordova PD says the same?
The police usually respond because of a complaint. With all the anti-gun people is California, who's to say someone wouldn't sign a complaint? I wasn't predicting that charge by the way. Just giving an example. Another one would be that someone charging they were threatened by your actions. You know; "So you felt threatened by the man with the gun as he neared you ma'am?"
Not every cop wants to arrest you for a gun violation, so give them reason not to.
|
Sons of Liberty
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:19 am |
|
AyatollahGondola wrote: Sons of Liberty wrote: AyatollahGondola wrote: I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me.
No, the code doesn't say you have to articulate your lawful purpose. You'd be doing that to a judge or jury. If you're articulating to either of those, you've pretty much spent 2K or more already.
I'm keeping the money in my wallet and telling the cops what they need to hear to get both of us back on our merry ways
Let's just say I was arrested because I was carrying my unloaded legally configured shotgun around in my truck. I am a law-abiding citizen and have not been involved in criminal activity. And I refused to answer questions invoking my 5th amendment right.
(Cite: U.S. Constitution "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...")
What would I be charged with?
How could a judge compel me to testify against myself?
You could be charged with any one of many code violations that an officer felt that the circumstances dictated. Even disturbing the peace. You could remain silent before the police, and the judge or jury, however they would then make up their minds on your charges with the evidence presented by witnesses and the prosecutor. The way I see a judge or jury, they cannot say you had a lawful purpose if you don't declare one.
I invoke my 5th amendment rights on this thread! 
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1607 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:14 am |
|
Too much fud in this thread to even begin to address it all nothing to see here folks move along move along 
To begin with shotguns are probably the legally safest firearms to possess under CA law. It goes get a little ambiguous in school zones however if one is on foot (unloaded in cars being transported are more clearly OK).
Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:17 am by cato
|
NightOwl
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 374 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:50 am |
|
AyatollahGondola wrote: Sons of Liberty wrote: AyatollahGondola wrote: I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me.
No, the code doesn't say you have to articulate your lawful purpose. You'd be doing that to a judge or jury. If you're articulating to either of those, you've pretty much spent 2K or more already.
I'm keeping the money in my wallet and telling the cops what they need to hear to get both of us back on our merry ways
Let's just say I was arrested because I was carrying my unloaded legally configured shotgun around in my truck. I am a law-abiding citizen and have not been involved in criminal activity. And I refused to answer questions invoking my 5th amendment right.
(Cite: U.S. Constitution "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...")
What would I be charged with?
How could a judge compel me to testify against myself?
You could be charged with any one of many code violations that an officer felt that the circumstances dictated. Even disturbing the peace. You could remain silent before the police, and the judge or jury, however they would then make up their minds on your charges with the evidence presented by witnesses and the prosecutor. The way I see a judge or jury, they cannot say you had a lawful purpose if you don't declare one.
What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If they can't prove you were up to an unlawful purpose, despite suspicions, shouldn't that result in a not guilty verdict? I'm not sure that having an unloaded firearm would satisfy the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. They should have to PROVE that you have an unlawful purpose.
Except that it's california. I guess you have a point, but everywhere else it wouldn't convict, I don't think.
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 12:09 pm |
|
AyatollahGondola wrote: I have OC'd my shotgun several times around here. I will be doing it again. But keep in mind you must be transporting your firearm for a lawful purpose. Just driving around with it with no purpose at the ready may bring you mounds of grief in the way of defense atty fees.
officer: Where are you going?
You: To (or from) my business
or
You: To a friends house who is going to look at my shotgun
or
You: North
Asking for trouble would be:
Officer: Where are you going?
You: nowhere in particular
or
You: to baskin robbins for ice cream
Better Solution:
Officer Where are you going?
Me: Am I being detained?
Officer: No - Walk away
or
Officer: Yes - Give up nothing and remain silent. It can only be used against you.
Live Free or Die,
Thundar
PS: Long Gun Open Carry (LGOC) RULES! I guess it has to be ULGOC in Kali.
|
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Reno, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 897 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 02:41 am |
|
Would there be anything illegal about a pump-action shotgun in this configuration without a butt stock in California, given that it has a barrel length greater than 18 inches to get it out of the "unconventional pistol" category?
Last edited on Mon Aug 10th, 2009 02:43 am by Felid`Maximus
|
AyatollahGondola
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 04:37 am |
|
| If I remember correctly, the pistol grip makes it illegal now even if the barrel is 18" or over
|
wewd
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 05:13 am |
|
Shotguns cannot be shorter than 26" overall and rifles no shorter than 30" overall in California. That includes folding/telescoping stocks in their shortest position.
Pistol grip doesn't matter on a pump gun. It only matters on semiauto shotguns, where you cannot have both a folding/telescoping stock AND a pistol grip on the gun (think like the SPAS-12 or Benelli M4). Either feature alone is fine though. But that's only on semiautos, not pumps. As long as the gun came from the factory with the pistol grip installed and is longer than 26" it's perfectly legal here.
|
Current time is 08:51 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
