Being Charged with 626.9 Violation

Theseus · Dec 28, 2008

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.

rmodel65 · Dec 28, 2008

imported post

must watch, take it to heart

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

sudden valley gunner · Dec 28, 2008

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.

Theseus · Dec 28, 2008

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.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 28, 2008

imported post

That would be great sounds suspicious what they are doing. Hope it works out well keep us posted.

bigtoe416 · Dec 28, 2008

imported post

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

TheCiscoKid · Dec 28, 2008

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.

demnogis · Dec 29, 2008

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...

Decoligny · Dec 29, 2008

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.

marshaul · Dec 29, 2008

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.

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".

Theseus · Dec 29, 2008

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.

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".

CA_Libertarian · Dec 29, 2008

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 jackass tweaker/gang member screws the pooch for all of us. You know that'll happen in a hurry, too.

cato · Dec 31, 2008

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!!

ChickenFarmer · Dec 31, 2008

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?

CA_Libertarian · Dec 31, 2008

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.

ChickenFarmer · Dec 31, 2008

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!

cato · Dec 31, 2008

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.

BSProof · Jan 1, 2009

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.

Theseus · Jan 4, 2009

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.

moleculo · Jan 5, 2009

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.

Being Charged with 626.9 Violation

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

State Researcher

Newbie

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Newbie

New member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member