Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: far fetched idea

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    edit!
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    Subparagraph (b) appears to be the gotcha. Doesn't matter if it can or cannot - it's designed to. A chunk of pipe can do the same (can we say "zip gun"?), but the chunk of pipe in and of itself is not designed for that purpose.

    Of course, you may well be correct, but can you afford the attorney to prove it so?

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    Well, if I accidentally stumble into a school zone (i.e. turning the corner in an unfamiliar neighborhood and find that you're standing next to the playground of a school) I would probably field strip the barrel out of my gun and carry it separate until I was out of the zone.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    bad_ace wrote:
    Well, if I accidentally stumble into a school zone (i.e. turning the corner in an unfamiliar neighborhood and find that you're standing next to the playground of a school) I would probably field strip the barrel out of my gun and carry it separate until I was out of the zone.
    I have to disagree with this idea... you find yourself accidently in a school zone, and the solution is to unholster your weapon? I think that would just increase your chances of being reported as a MWAG.

    And removing the barrel doesn't make any difference under the law. The law doesn't require that the firearm be complete or operable. Even in the most favorable definitions found in 12000-12040, I believe the frame is considered a firearm, even if there's nothing attached to it. Worst case: an empty mag is a 'firearm'.

    IMO, the best option is to GTFO of the school zone ASAP. Keep your head up and eyes forward, and hope nobody calls 9-1-1.
    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.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    I was thinking more along the line of answering to a jury of your "peers". Yes getting the heck out of dodge would be the best choice.

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    [SNIP]Worst case: an empty mag is a 'firearm'.
    How can an empty mag be a 'firearm'? It does not meet the plain reading of the definition in PC12001(b):

    "(b) As used in this title, "firearm" means any device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion."

    An empty mag does not have a barrel and by itself is not designed to be used as a weapon.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    [SNIP]Worst case: an empty mag is a 'firearm'.
    How can an empty mag be a 'firearm'? It does not meet the plain reading of the definition in PC12001(b):

    "(b) As used in this title, "firearm" means any device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion."

    An empty mag does not have a barrel and by itself is not designed to be used as a weapon.
    See People v Hale. Sometimes the courts just make **** up.
    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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    [SNIP]Worst case: an empty mag is a 'firearm'.
    How can an empty mag be a 'firearm'? It does not meet the plain reading of the definition in PC12001(b):

    "(b) As used in this title, "firearm" means any device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion."

    An empty mag does not have a barrel and by itself is not designed to be used as a weapon.
    See People v Hale. Sometimes the courts just make @#$% up.
    I think you are stretching the wording in People v. Hale a little far. I am pretty sure that the decision in People v. Hale states that a concealed magazine, in the presence of an exposed firearm is the equivalent of a concealed firearm. I don't think it has ever been put forth that it meant that an empty magazine all by itself would even begin to be considered a firearm.

    From People v. Hale (1974)

    The facts known to the officer at the time of the search gave him reasonable cause to suspect Hale was committing a crime, viz. unlicensed carrying of a firearm concealed in a vehicle (Pen. Code, ? 12025). Only partial concealment of a firearm is required. (People v. Koehn, 25 Cal. App. 3d 799, 802 [102 Cal. Rptr. 102]; People v. Tarkington, 273 Cal. App. 2d 466, 469 [78 Cal. Rptr. 149]; People v. Linden, 185 Cal. App. 2d 752, 757 [8 Cal. Rptr. 640].) One portion of the automatic pistol, the housing and barrel, was visible, and it was reasonable for the officer to suspect concealment nearby of the remaining portion of the firearm, the automatic clip and ammunition. (See Green v. State (Okla.Crim.) 489 P.2d 768.) A firearm disassembled into two or more parts, can nevertheless constitute an operable weapon within the meaning of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law. (People v. Ekberg,94 Cal. App. 2d 613, 616-617 [211 P.2d 316]; see also, State v. Ware (Fla.App.) 253 So.2d 145.)

    "The carrying of concealed firearms is prohibited as a means of preventing physical harm to persons other than the offender." (People v. Jurado,25 Cal. App. 3d 1027, 1032 [102 Cal. Rptr. 498]. ) In our opinion concealment of an essential component of a visible weapon, when done in such a fashion as to make the weapon readily available for use as a firearm, presents a threat to public order comparable to concealment of the entire firearm and falls within the prohibition of section 12025.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    You are correct, but was Hale not a stretch of the definition in the first place? I don't think it's too far-fetched to believe the court may decide to stretch that definition even further.

    Maybe I'm overly cautious... but in the past I feel that's proven an asset more than a liability.
    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    You are correct, but was Hale not a stretch of the definition in the first place? I don't think it's too far-fetched to believe the court may decide to stretch that definition even further.

    Maybe I'm overly cautious... but in the past I feel that's proven an asset more than a liability.
    While I believe that the court did stretch on Hale, to give the court more than they ruled on is doing the oppositions job for them.

    I believe it is our job to know the law as written and interpreted by the courts, and act within it, and also to try to change the law.

    If we limit ourselves to acting within what we think the courts might possibly in the future legislate, then the courts and the anti-2A crowd don't have to do any work, because we have already done their work.

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

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    You are correct, but was Hale not a stretch of the definition in the first place? I don't think it's too far-fetched to believe the court may decide to stretch that definition even further.

    Maybe I'm overly cautious... but in the past I feel that's proven an asset more than a liability.
    While I believe that the court did stretch on Hale, to give the court more than they ruled on is doing the oppositions job for them.

    I believe it is our job to know the law as written and interpreted by the courts, and act within it, and also to try to change the law.

    If we limit ourselves to acting within what we think the courts might possibly in the future legislate, then the courts and the anti-2A crowd don't have to do any work, because we have already done their work.
    Here is the problem with that. . .

    The law says I am presumed to be aware of all law, legislative intent, case law, etc. I am supposed to know exactly the intent, purpose and legal meaning of the law. I am not obligated to know what the future of the law, case law etc.

    Regardless of this issue it comes down to the fact that the court no longer seems to observe this ideal.

    The DA in my case knew and admitted that the law, as it was written and understood, I did not break the law. His argument was that the law should have included me because that was the legislative intent of the law. So even if it exempts me and I did not break the law, the law was wrong, so the courts should make it right.

    This is what we are dealing with.

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

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    The DA in my case knew and admitted that the law, as it was written and understood, I did not break the law. His argument was that the law should have included me because that was the legislative intent of the law. So even if it exempts me and I did not break the law, the law was wrong, so the courts should make it right.
    I have found that this attitude of "making new law" is not uncommon among attorneys. In my college studies I took a course on "Constitutional Law". The professor was a practicing attorney, who bragged at how the judicial process 'made better law' than the legislature.

    We should not underestimate the corruption of the justice system, and those that choose to abuse the justice system for their own agendas.

    While I agree with Decoligny that we should press the limits of the law, I think we should also be aware that the limits may be undefined. I'm not advising that we all hide under a rock, but that we simply proceed cautiously.

    In the instant case, I simply suggest each person weigh the risk personally, and then decide what they're comfortable with.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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