| Author | Post |
|---|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 10:41 am |
|
demnogis wrote: Update?
I'm sure we'll hear about it as soon as he gets a set date. I hope we'll get a decent show of support for Thesues. He's the tip of the spear, and deserves are respect and support (moral and financial).
Speaking of support, I believe Calguns Foundation is still taking donations on Thesues behalf. I believe these donations are tax-exempt, and on your request will be sent directly to Thesues' defense fund. (CGF is not directly supporting the case, but is kind enough to facilitate donations for us.)
Every little bit helps. $5 or $50; send it.
ETA: linkage http://www.calguns.net
Last edited on Wed Oct 28th, 2009 10:41 am by CA_Libertarian
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 12:20 am |
|
Trailed until Monday. Could start jury selection as early as that.
Not positive where the trial will be held. . . but as soon as we know I will tell you all.
For now they have introduced two motions to exclude. .
1. the "Private Property" signs
2. Any testimony by the police they didn't know about 626.9
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 12:55 am |
|
| Douchbags.
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 01:04 am |
|
Thundar wrote: Douchbags.
Officially sanctioned criminals.
|
MudCamper
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 02:45 am |
|
Theseus wrote: For now they have introduced two motions to exclude. .
1. the "Private Property" signs
2. Any testimony by the police they didn't know about 626.9
WTF. The 2 proofs that what you did was not a violation are excluded. How can they get away with this crap?
|
Sons of Liberty
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 05:31 am |
|
It's not a fair fight, when they 1) blindfold you and 2) tie your hands behind your back!
Shows you what type of low life scum hides behind the veil of city hall. Tyrants!
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 06:40 am |
|
As far as I am concerned, the state never has a valid justification for excluding anything.
@#$%ing scumbags.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 06:44 am |
|
Think you'll have standing to sue if you beat the charges?
If lawsuits can be frivolous, then what does that makes these charges? Ridiculous?
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 06:50 am |
|
MudCamper wrote: SNIP WTF. The 2 proofs that what you did was not a violation are excluded. How can they get away with this crap?
1. Motions to exclude, not rulings.
2. They would be violating roughly 800 years of common law tradition if they did:
For more than six hundred years --- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 --- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.
Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty” --- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government --- they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.
But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them [*6] to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them...(emphasis added by Citizen)
--Lysander Spooner, An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35
Last edited on Sat Oct 31st, 2009 06:50 am by Citizen
|
rpyne
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Provo, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 591 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 03:14 pm |
|
Sons of Liberty wrote: It's not a fair fight, when they 1) blindfold you and 2) tie your hands behind your back!
Shows you what type of low life scum hides behind the veil of city hall. Tyrants!
No surprise. When was the last time any court in America provided a fair hearing? Not in my memory.
|
mjones
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | SoCal, USA |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 06:12 pm |
|
Theseus wrote: Trailed until Monday. Could start jury selection as early as that.
Not positive where the trial will be held. . . but as soon as we know I will tell you all.
For now they have introduced two motions to exclude. .
1. the "Private Property" signs
2. Any testimony by the police they didn't know about 626.9
Be sure to let us know the details of when/where as quickly as you can. Let's be sure to get it up on CalGuns too.
#1 I see as completely relevant to the case as it shows that both you and the on scene LEOs should reasonably have known you were on private property.
#2 Personally I don't see how that testimony would particularly help you. All it would really do is make the officers 'look bad for not knowing the law' Maybe I'm missing something.
Best Wishes Theseus!!!!!!!!
|
oc4ever
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 06:08 am |
|
The law is so unevenly applied. If you have ever attended the Crossroads gun show at the Orange County fairgrounds in Costa Mesa? It is directly ACROSS THE STREET from a public (Davis)elementary school, 1068 Arlington Drive C.M.
We are talking 50 feet from the fairgrounds property, and about 200 feet from the actual building. There are thousands of people with handguns and ammo at that event 4-6 times a year, and nobody gets arrested. Talking about selective enforcement, there is no provision in the 626.9 law that allows gun shows (on public or private property)next to a school, yet the event continues.
The fairgrounds is owned by the State of California, so they are allowing their own dumb as@ law to be broken over and over. I would get your attorney to subpoena a official of the fairgrounds to show up in court. If not, there are literately thousands of witness to this event that you should be able to have testify.
|
mjones
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | SoCal, USA |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 05:03 pm |
|
oc4ever wrote: The law is so unevenly applied. If you have ever attended the Crossroads gun show at the Orange County fairgrounds in Costa Mesa? It is directly ACROSS THE STREET from a public (Davis)elementary school, 1068 Arlington Drive C.M.
We are talking 50 feet from the fairgrounds property, and about 200 feet from the actual building. There are thousands of people with handguns and ammo at that event 4-6 times a year, and nobody gets arrested. Talking about selective enforcement, there is no provision in the 626.9 law that allows gun shows (on public or private property)next to a school, yet the event continues.
The fairgrounds is owned by the State of California, so they are allowing their own dumb as@ law to be broken over and over. I would get your attorney to subpoena a official of the fairgrounds to show up in court. If not, there are literately thousands of witness to this event that you should be able to have testify.
If the OC fairgrounds are private property, that's all the exemption from 626.9 they need. There is no need for a special 'gun show exemption'
However, if it's owned by the county; and thus a public building, that makes it a PC 171b issue. Which there is a specific exemption for Gun Shows,
(7) (A) A person who, for the purpose of sale or trade, brings any
weapon that may otherwise be lawfully transferred, into a gun show
conducted pursuant to Sections 12071.1 and 12071.4.
(B) A person who, for purposes of an authorized public exhibition,
brings any weapon that may otherwise be lawfully possessed, into a
gun show conducted pursuant to Sections 12071.1 and 12071.4.
So, with this specfic venue, the crux of the problem might be an issue of "are 'public buildings' exempt from 626.9"?
Exemption 1 seems to fit,
(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
firearm is otherwise lawful.
|
bad_ace
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:05 am |
|
MudCamper wrote:
WTF. The 2 proofs that what you did was not a violation are excluded. How can they get away with this crap?
Please read Adventures in Legal Land by Marc Stevens. The Plaintiff (the "state") and the "Judge" are on the same team here. Fair trial my left foot. The judge would love to toss out anything he thinks would hurt his DA lawyer buddy.
Speaking of hurt, there is no victim here!
|
oc4ever
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:55 am |
|
The State of California owns the Orange County fairgrounds and the buildings on it. No if's and or buts. It is publicity owned property and is rented out to various private groups.That still makes it public property. Just because one law(CPC171) says you can have a gun show in a public building, does not make it legal next door to a school. Under 629.6 very few exemptions exist(mostly LEO's,security guards CCW holders and retired LEO's). 171 mentions no exemptions regarding 629.6, ie schools and public guns shows is NOT one of them; if the legislature wanted to add that exemption , they needed to spell it out in 626.9. They did clearly spell out private property in 626, without any conditions to public access on said property.
If you want to take MJONES position that CPC 171 applies to gun shows, then any day a gun show is in progress(even if hundreds of miles away) and you *know * about that show and are headed in that general direction or returning from that general direction, you could open carry through every school zone along your path. It would be kind of like a free open carry day....but I am not going to be the one testing that theory.
Basically the court can't have it both ways, and if the judge is going to have any resemblance to a fair hearing, he knows damn well that the clear wording of the section overrules his personal agenda. He will be overturned in a heartbeat, should he try to legislate more restrictive interpretations from the bench. The State also can't have it both ways, if they are going to continue, as they have for years, holding a gun show6 timess a year next door to an elementary school, then something has to give in the law, or thousands of show attendees every year that touch/handle any gun are instant felons.
Last edited on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 04:36 am by oc4ever
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 10:12 am |
|
They can and will have it both ways.
Private property is not private property for the meaning of 626.9 if it is open to the public and if it is my trial.
But rest assured. . . the trial is not dead in the water yet. Anyone of clean appearance and respectable stature interested in testifying about open carry? How you fear it will make you a target of the government for obeying the law?
That was certainly my fathers concern when he heard about me OC'ing. He isn't against it, but feared that the government powers would find some way to twist and bastardize something to get one of us. . . Make an example out of us. . . Keep the movement from growing.
At this point, even if I lose I am at least proud that I was able to make the example to my daughter. I can think of no better way to show her the dangers of even obeying the law when what you do is not the popular way, or against the way that the powers that be want it. I can also think of no better way to teach her the importance of standing for what you believe in, even when it is unpopular.
. . . Now I am rambling. . . Wish me luck guys. And although I am not a praying man. . . pray for me and my family.
Last edited on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 10:18 am by Theseus
|
chewy352
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:09 pm |
|
Well that was good rambling Theseus. I do wish you luck and if I were a praying man I'd pray for you.
Keep us posted on the location and trial dates. I'll try to make at least one of them but it's hard being a full time student.
|
AyatollahGondola
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:54 pm |
|
| I wish you not so much luck, but rather faith. Use wisdom and courage, along with your application of knowledge and research. All of those will serve you much better than luck, which has proven an unreliable partner for me.
|
mjones
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | SoCal, USA |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 08:34 pm |
|
oc4ever wrote:
If you want to take MJONES position that CPC 171 applies to gun shows, then any day a gun show is in progress(even if hundreds of miles away) and you *know * about that show and are headed in that general direction or returning from that general direction, you could open carry through every school zone along your path. It would be kind of like a free open carry day....but I am not going to be the one testing that theory.
I think you misunderstood me; 171b has an explicit exemption for gun shows...I listed it.
I postulated that 626.9 might have an exemption from the GFSZ which might apply to Gun Shows. I wouldn't exactly call it 'my' position, I just threw it out there for people to chew on. The theory that I threw out is for "Within...a place of business"
I think that clearly exempts the occupied dwellings for the purposes of doing business (irregardless of it explicitly being public property). I stand with you on your interpretation that the parking lot, etc would be prosecutable under 626.9 if the proper storage requirements are not met.
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 01:02 am |
|
It is official. Trial to start tomorrow. 11AM Department X, Alhambra Courthouse.
Jury selection tomorrow.
|
Current time is 12:28 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...   |
|
