Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: Being Charged with 626.9 Violation

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    I don't have a scanner at home, but I will use a fellows to post.

    I, today, received a letter from the LA District Attorney saying that I have had a complaint filed against me in their office for violation of 626.9(B) POSSESSION OF A FIREARM NEAR A SCHOOL.

    It tells me a time and date to appear to the clerk at the Alhambra Superior Court or a warrant will be issued for my arrest.

    It gives no case number or other information for which I am to go by.

    I am considering getting a lawyer, but at this time I can't think what for unless they can dig the information up and prevent me from being arrested.

    We all thought it might happen, that 626.9 would be the tool used by them to harass us and it seems that to be the case. At no time, to my knowledge have I violated 626.9 in any way which is why I feel this complaint to be bogus.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    489

    Post imported post

    must watch, take it to heart


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Do you live near a school? Private property is exempt form the ordinance? Maybe you drove by a school with a gun rack and someone ran you plates....really not enough info. Here in washington we can still drop off our kids ast school, and dont have to have it locked in a box. I hope all goes well for you tho. You should request all info relating to your case , where they got the info what officer made the call...etc...the more knowledgable you are the more able you are to fight this.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    At this time there is no case number, no arrest, and no idea when, where or under what supposed conditions this infraction occurred.

    It is simply the letter asking me to show up so they can charge me.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    That would be great sounds suspicious what they are doing. Hope it works out well keep us posted.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    WTF? I wasn't even aware a person could be called to court without a police officer arresting them.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    33

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    WTF? I wasn't even aware a person could be called to court without a police officer arresting them.
    my thought exactly. talk to a lawyer, theseus.

  8. #8
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Sounds a lot like a ticket I got, a very very long time ago for "running a stop sign".

    The ticket was issued "by complaint".

    Just receiving the ticket is considered an arrest. Was it an actual ticket, signed by an officer, or a notice to appear?

    I also agree, you should get a lawyer. So far the only people that would know you were close to a school are your friends, family, and neighbors.

    Yet another reason why we need to get these "school zone" or "sanitary zones" removed. They are always too subjective and can easily be construed that you're infringing for doing nothing.

    Possession on school grounds should be cause for violation, not in proximity thereof.

    The way the laws are setup, transferring a firearm from my house to my car (if I had one) could be a violation, since I reside within 1000' of a school zone.

    If you think these laws are bad... You should see the policies in place for most schools here. Even activities not related to school, not even at or around a school, can be punishable at school after the fact. Just look at the ramifications of myspace and facebook for students. But that's another issue altogether...
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    Sounds a lot like a ticket I got, a very very long time ago for "running a stop sign".

    The ticket was issued "by complaint".

    Just receiving the ticket is considered an arrest. Was it an actual ticket, signed by an officer, or a notice to appear?

    I also agree, you should get a lawyer. So far the only people that would know you were close to a school are your friends, family, and neighbors.

    Yet another reason why we need to get these "school zone" or "sanitary zones" removed. They are always too subjective and can easily be construed that you're infringing for doing nothing.

    Possession on school grounds should be cause for violation, not in proximity thereof.

    The way the laws are setup, transferring a firearm from my house to my car (if I had one) could be a violation, since I reside within 1000' of a school zone.

    If you think these laws are bad... You should see the policies in place for most schools here. Even activities not related to school, not even at or around a school, can be punishable at school after the fact. Just look at the ramifications of myspace and facebook for students. But that's another issue altogether...
    Only if your car (if you had one) was parked out on the street. If your hypothetical car was parked in your driveway, and you walked out of your house on your own property and went to your car, all the while carrying your gun, no problem. Even if the School is directly across the street fromyour house.

    CA PENAL CODE 626.9. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
    (b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written permission of the school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as
    specified in subdivision (f).
    (c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:
    (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.


  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    PC 626.9 is one of the most heinous pieces of legislation currently enforced in this state. I hope whoever is responsible has a miserable life. If I get fed up with California and am driven away, then 626.9 is solely responsible.

    I really think the only thing I hate at this point as much as 626.9 is Gavin Newsance.

    Edit: Hey, why don't you get Trutanich - Michel, LLP and see if you can challenge 626.9 post-Nordyke. I promise I'll donate all my 2nd amendment monies to you if you do. :P

    Heller decided that forcing guns to be locked or disassembled is tantamount to denial of the right to self-defense. It also indicated that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

    Thus, 626.9 is a violation of the presumable right to OC, as tantamount to a prohibition on the right to defense in basically any urban area in the entire state.

    Heller protects schools, but it says nothing about imaginary "school zones".

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    I can't comment too much on the case, but I have obtained representation, but because I am out of work I have to beg borrow and cry to get the remaining about of retainer. I am thinking about selling a car to raise the money.

    The powers are looking into if they want to support taking it all the way, but if I have to go it alone like it looks like I do....I am not prepared financially to do so.

    That is about all I am comfortable saying in regards to the case. I am not expecting anyone to pay for this but me, but if you are willing to help, I won't turn it down.

    marshaul wrote:
    PC 626.9 is one of the most heinous pieces of legislation currently enforced in this state. I hope whoever is responsible has a miserable life. If I get fed up with California and am driven away, then 626.9 is solely responsible.

    I really think the only thing I hate at this point as much as 626.9 is Gavin Newsance.

    Edit: Hey, why don't you get Trutanich - Michel, LLP and see if you can challenge 626.9 post-Nordyke. I promise I'll donate all my 2nd amendment monies to you if you do. :P

    Heller decided that forcing guns to be locked or disassembled is tantamount to denial of the right to self-defense. It also indicated that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

    Thus, 626.9 is a violation of the presumable right to OC, as tantamount to a prohibition on the right to defense in basically any urban area in the entire state.

    Heller protects schools, but it says nothing about imaginary "school zones".

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I can't promise anything yet, but in a month or so I'll know two important things:

    1) how much money the IRS will un-steal from me
    2) if my company will have a 'partial' bonus (we didn't hit our quotas, but they said they will 'try' to do something for us since we were on track before the economy began collapsing).

    So, in April I might have some spare money I could contribute.

    I really hope the 'right people' pick up your case. We need to get good law out of the courts before some ******* tweaker/gang member screws the pooch for all of us. You know that'll happen in a hurry, too.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  13. #13
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Theseus is in good hands . It appears that 626.9 is being misapplied (perhaps because the DA's officeis unfamiliar with this obscure law and the exemptions) and he has a very strong defense IMO. Very little information otherwise is available at this time and consider this post to be speculation only.

    We should all be standing by with whatever support he may need when and if it is asked for. More info will be available in the coming months. There are no charges at this time.

    Happy New Year All!! Be safe out there!!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    It seems this guy lives in SoCal...if we could find out when and where can we show up to give him some support? Not carrying certainly, but maybe a nice lunch/dinner afterwords UOC perhaps?

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    This might be a little 'tinfoil hat,' but what if the DA simply wanted to try to lure someone into voluntarily entering a public building just to see if that person would unwittingly violate 171 by bringing their firearm in with them. (When I went in to pick up my incident report at Turlock PD, the officer I spoke to seemed a little disappointed I was aware of 171).

    Or it could just be a scare tactic to dissuade our brother in arms.

    Or maybe the DA is that stupid that he wants to roll the dice and gamble away any chance of re-election.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    This might be a little 'tinfoil hat,' but what if the DA simply wanted to try to lure someone into voluntarily entering a public building just to see if that person would unwittingly violate 171 by bringing their firearm in with them. (When I went in to pick up my incident report at Turlock PD, the officer I spoke to seemed a little disappointed I was aware of 171).

    Or it could just be a scare tactic to dissuade our brother in arms.

    Or maybe the DA is that stupid that he wants to roll the dice and gamble away any chance of re-election.
    If anything I would bet that it is a combination of #2 & #3: scare tactic to dissuade our brother in arms by a stupid DA that wants to roll the dice and gamble away any chance of re-election!

    I am willing to bet that it was some newly elected one too!

  17. #17
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    This might be a little 'tinfoil hat,' but what if the DA simply wanted to try to lure someone into voluntarily entering a public building just to see if that person would unwittingly violate 171 by bringing their firearm in with them. (When I went in to pick up my incident report at Turlock PD, the officer I spoke to seemed a little disappointed I was aware of 171).

    Or it could just be a scare tactic to dissuade our brother in arms.

    Or maybe the DA is that stupid that he wants to roll the dice and gamble away any chance of re-election.
    Ya, take off the tin foil hat. It doesn't become you. I'm pretty sure the DA's officeis just looking to prosecute a gun case which was submitted by complaint (police report absent arrest). The DA's officeonly knows whatis written in the policereport and only has one side of the story at this point.

    I think it will be shown that this law is being misapplied along the same lines asa 12031 false arrestwhen the gun isactually unloaded.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, ,
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    If it were me, before I started retaining counsel, and selling personal property, I would be demanding to SEE the ACTUAL complaint. And it had better be

    1. SIGNED;
    2. signed UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY;
    3. signed UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY THE WITNESS(ES) AND INJURED PARTIES; and
    4. Accompanied WITH a SWORN AFFIDAVIT.

    If I hear anything other than "here's your true, correct and complete copy of the complaint against you," then I'm going to start looking for those making false reports and those helping and bring a REAL complaint.

    It has been my experience that complaints of the sort are usually deficient in some way.

    Of course this IS NOT legal advice, but what " I " would do in a like situation.



  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Because when the DA has already informed me of their intention to file and charge me, even to the point of setting a date I should just sit by and wait until I see their proof before I obtain representation?

    Interesting. . . I always thought it best to use a lawyer to handle legal issues...

    Nick the Sniper wrote:
    If it were me, before I started retaining counsel, and selling personal property, I would be demanding to SEE the ACTUAL complaint. And it had better be

    1. SIGNED;
    2. signed UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY;
    3. signed UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY THE WITNESS(ES) AND INJURED PARTIES; and
    4. Accompanied WITH a SWORN AFFIDAVIT.

    If I hear anything other than "here's your true, correct and complete copy of the complaint against you," then I'm going to start looking for those making false reports and those helping and bring a REAL complaint.

    It has been my experience that complaints of the sort are usually deficient in some way.

    Of course this IS NOT legal advice, but what " I " would do in a like situation.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    I personally know someone that had the same DA tactic pulled on them so they could file charges. I won't get into what the charges were for. He got a letter worded similarly, although in his case it didn't even say what the complaint was for (he had a suspicion already). When he got there, they informed him with what he was charged with and he spent a night in jail before he could make bail.

    This letter isn't a joke and they will charge you when you go down there. If you don't show, there will likely be a warrant for your arrest. Get a lawyer; make sure he goes with you. The DAdoesn't file charges unless they think they can win in court based on the evidence they already have. Perhaps you have been under observation for some time and didn't know it. Take a lawyer. Good luck and let us know what happens.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, ,
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    moleculo wrote:
    I personally know someone that had the same DA tactic pulled on them so they could file charges. I won't get into what the charges were for. He got a letter worded similarly, although in his case it didn't even say what the complaint was for (he had a suspicion already). When he got there, they informed him with what he was charged with and he spent a night in jail before he could make bail.

    This letter isn't a joke and they will charge you when you go down there. If you don't show, there will likely be a warrant for your arrest. Get a lawyer; make sure he goes with you. The DAdoesn't file charges unless they think they can win in court based on the evidence they already have. Perhaps you have been under observation for some time and didn't know it. Take a lawyer. Good luck and let us know what happens.
    I was in no way saying not to take it seriously, I'm saying make sure everything is procedurally correct. Although, I can't say what the issue was in your friend's situation, I do know that more often than not, something has been wrong and the arrest was false, and without the necessary "sworn & signed" complaint.

    Just because one gets arrested and locked up doesn't necessarily mean it is valid. And bail is for AFTER you've been incarcerated. Not before.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, ,
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    Because when the DA has already informed me of their intention to file and charge me, even to the point of setting a date I should just sit by and wait until I see their proof before I obtain representation?

    Interesting. . . I always thought it best to use a lawyer to handle legal issues...

    Nick the Sniper wrote:
    If it were me, before I started retaining counsel, and selling personal property, I would be demanding to SEE the ACTUAL complaint. And it had better be

    1. SIGNED;
    2. signed UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY;
    3. signed UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY THE WITNESS(ES) AND INJURED PARTIES; and
    4. Accompanied WITH a SWORN AFFIDAVIT.

    If I hear anything other than "here's your true, correct and complete copy of the complaint against you," then I'm going to start looking for those making false reports and those helping and bring a REAL complaint.

    It has been my experience that complaints of the sort are usually deficient in some way.

    Of course this IS NOT legal advice, but what " I " would do in a like situation.

    The call is entirely yours to make (of course), and maybe if you don't know anything about the legal system, maybe it would be best. I know of some people, including myself who have had very bad experiences with attorneys, from getting their retainers stolen, to inadequate representation.

    A lot of people are unaware that every attorney is apart of the judicial system (conflict of interest) and a lot of times they will just pick up where there fellow bar member wants (or the court), instead of putting up a vigorous defense. There are some excellent attorneys, but me personally, I wouldn't want to crap shoot and find out after its all said and done.

    Example: Someone I met got charged with felony commercial burglary (for actually squatting), and was refused to see the complaint by both the attorney representing this person, and the prosecuting attorney. Not until after they intimidated her into accepting a plea deal and community service (that must be paid for out this person's pocket), and after a lot of griping did this person get a copy of the complaint.

    All criminal complaints must be supported by a complaining (injured) party. The state and its employees do not constitute an injured party. The complaint had the LEO signing the complaint, but it wasn't under penalty of perjury, it wasn't his [the LEO] property, and there was no affidavit of probable cause (necessary).

    Again, if you know nothing about the legal system, then you may have to take your chances. The attorney is a mouth piece. An "agent" of "yours." Meaning you are supposed to know and instruct them as to what to do. Otherwise, it will be just that, a crap shoot. And hopefully you want get a hack. Good luck!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    And bail is for AFTER you've been incarcerated. Not before.

    Read what I wrote again. I didn't think I had to spell out every step of the arresting processing process on this forum. If he showed up at the DA office, they filed charges, and he spent a night in jail before making bail, that means they incarcerated him right after they filed charges and he saw the the judge in the morning. Duh.


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    Show up, but do not admit to anything.

    Yes they will likely arrest and book you. Prepare to make bail now.

    Get an attorney now... Call Chuck Michel from the ILA in Long Beach first thing Monday morning. They will want to getinvolved. They have to get involved on this one or they're worthless. Make sure that if you already have an attorney that they contact Chuck Michel and the ILA now!

    Is there anyone out there that has Chuck Michel's number?

    Give it to this guy please, right away!

    There is a chance that this will turn out to be a DA interview--if so... do not even admitt to owning a firearm even when asked. Just say, "I am invoking my 5th amendment right to remain silent." Nothing else.

    Do not give them a thing to work with!

    Also when you show up, wear a suit--look like a straight up citizen. The DA may drop the case if you look respectable--juries are less likely to convict regular citizens. You may get what is called a "DA Reject" on the spot.

    I will bet you that this is from one of your neighbors who saw you with a firearm in your home/apt or going to or from same with the same--it is a chicken @#$% complaint and if so you can sue them (the one who complained). In fact I would advise you so sue them for makinga false complaint should this be dropped.

    Get a copy of the complaint. In the meantime--very important.... move all your firearms, ammo, equipment, and anything related to firearms or hunting in another location outside of your home (storage faciltiy, friends guns safe, etc.). Do it quietly. Do it discretely. Do it now!

    You do not want anything to be used as evidence against youshould they show up with a warrant. Including recipts for fireams, etc. They will need physical evidence to convict you, along with the witnesses!

    Move it out and away now!

    The only thing you want in your house is an air-soft gun for them to find, of the type most likely you were seen with--put your thinking cap on now!

    Cover your bases!

    Also erase all gun stuff from your computer--and use an overwirte progam to put ones and zeroes where the files were.

    Cover all the bases--now.

    This is interesting. I live local to you and just keep me posted on what happens.

    Ask Mike about me--he'll vouch. If you need any help/advice let me know.

    T











  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Theseus,

    I'm sorry to hear about your troubles with this BS Law. I live 500 feet away from a middle school.

    Imagine how screwed I'd be if I tried to open carry in my own neighborhood. I hope for your sake and all of ours that this law is thrown out before you have to answer to it. Stick with the lawyer on this one is my humble advice.

    PS- I thought that if you were on your private property, 12025 and 12031 were not enforceable. But I recently read the case of a felon standing in his driveway with a concealed weapon. The judge issued instructions to the jury that if there was no physical barrier between public and private property 12031 could be applied. My point is, even if I OC in my front yard it sounds like I could fall vicitm to PC626.9!



    Great forum, see you all at Nordyke!

    Rob

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •