CA Protecting the Criminals, again!

imported post

State high court to consider body-armor law
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, March 10, 2010






(03-10) 18:00 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court said Wednesday it will hear a prosecution appeal of a ruling throwing out a state law that bans anyone who has been convicted of a violent felony from owning body armor.




The unanimous order was a victory for Attorney General Jerry Brown, who had asked the court to take up the case, and for San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón, who had urged Brown to appeal.

The law, passed in 1998, was intended to protect police against flak-jacketed criminals such as Lee Boutwell, who fatally shot San Francisco Officer James Guelff in November 1994 and wounded another officer before being killed in a shootout. Congress passed a similar federal law in 2002.

The state law makes it a crime, punishable by up to three years in prison, for felons with violent offenses on their record to possess or wear body armor. State regulations define body armor as apparel that provides "ballistic resistance to the penetration of the test ammunition" for certain types of guns, a standard also used to certify armor for police.

A state appeals court in Los Angeles ruled in December that the law was unconstitutional because its terms were so vague that the average person wouldn't know when he or she was violating it.

Even someone who owns an item that was sold as a bulletproof vest can't tell, without testing or expert advice, whether it fits the law's definition of body armor, the Second District Court of Appeal said in a 2-1 ruling, which overturned a Los Angeles man's conviction and prison sentence.

The dissenting justice said a violent felon who possesses armor that appears to be bullet-resistant is on notice that it may be illegal, even if the owner doesn't know the technical specifications.

Gascón immediately denounced the ruling and called on Brown to appeal it. The attorney general usually appeals lower-court decisions that strike down state laws and did so in this case.

"Allowing criminals and gang members to arm themselves with body armor makes no sense, and I'm confident the Supreme Court will reverse this wrong-headed decision," Brown said Wednesday.

The justices have not set a hearing date.

The case is People vs. Saleem, S179660.


Read more: [url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/10/BAHH1CE0GP.DTL#ixzz0hpf5K8Zs[/url]

imported post

You don't think an ex-criminal has a right to self preservation?

imported post

"Allowing criminals and gang members to arm themselves with body armor makes no sense, and I'm confident the Supreme Court will reverse this wrong-headed decision," Brown said Wednesday

Body armor is considered "arms"??? If you do the crime and do the time, you should be able to use some sort of protection just as law abiding citizens can. Just another "feel good" law.

imported post

I believe if the law allowed you to be back on the street then the law should allow you to protect yourself.

imported post

Can one be more passive and anti violence? Just wearing a material that is resistant to ballistic fragments and knife stabs is considered taking up "arms"!?

If that's the case I know one open carrier here who's apparel could be considered having concealed "arms" on them in public. (bullet proof vest under shirt). I hate "feel good laws"

imported post

Ca Patriot wrote:

I believe if the law allowed you to be back on the street then the law should allow you to protect yourself.

Click to expand...

Ahhhhh a slippery slope there if I ever saw one. Would you then sir, advocate that said persons, having paid their debt to society, also be allowed the ability to keep and bear arms?

While it may be controversial, I for one believe that if you have served your time, including parole, then your right to keep and bear, as a citizen of this country, should also be restored. To do otherwise is a violation of the inalienable rights recognized (not granted by) our Constitution.

On the other hand, I also believe that our violent criminals need to be kept locked away, for societies safety, much more than they are.

imported post

i say if they paid their dues then give them back their rights.

imported post

Cole Younger, and many other "Outlaws" got their gun rights back after leaving prison. Why should it be differant today ?

This law about 'Felons" not getting their voting rights or gun rights back after serving their time in prison. That law was only for the distric of columbia Washington DC.

So why is it being pushed all over the country ? When in each state we are suppost to be solveign .

"Guns or no Guns" evil people will find ways of killing other reguardless, you can't regulate morality, and thats exactly what all these gun laws are about.

It only hurts the law abiding citizens.:exclaim: Robin47

imported post

^Hurts law abiding citizens?

There is the school of thought that says, once you've paid your debt to society you should be able to get on with your life guns and body armor included.

There is also the school of thought that says recidivism is to be anticipated.

Makes it hard to know which way to swing sometimes.

imported post

I've said it before and I don't mind saying it again. If you're convicted of a violent crime (while armed with a gun) then I don't have much sympathy for you and I really don't care if your gun rights are taken away.

Here's the thing, 2A is about arms, so I have no problem telling someone that they have lost their gun rights...time to go buy a knife or something other type of arm.

Body armor is just being stupid though, what else can you expect from fear mongering politicians.

imported post

The body armor thing really makes no sense. All it says to me is that if you're an ex felon, you will probably need to be shot someday, and cops shouldn't have to struggle when doing so.

imported post

Trying to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns is one thing, but trying to restrict body armor is just ridiculous. Building a gun is not terribly difficult, but requires some amount of skill and knowledge. What some people don't seem to understand is that body armor is not magic, it's simply something that most bullets can't go through. Bullets aren't magic either. A few pounds of steel plate will protect you better than kevlar, and will be thinner and therefore more concealable than kevlar or ceramic. The only tradeoff is loss of some flexibility(compared to kevlar), and a little extra weight.

Anybody see a problem with banning steel?

imported post

We-the-People wrote:

Ca Patriot wrote:

I believe if the law allowed you to be back on the street then the law should allow you to protect yourself.

Click to expand...

Ahhhhh a slippery slope there if I ever saw one. Would you then sir, advocate that said persons, having paid their debt to society, also be allowed the ability to keep and bear arms?

While it may be controversial, I for one believe that if you have served your time, including parole, then your right to keep and bear, as a citizen of this country, should also be restored. To do otherwise is a violation of the inalienable rights recognized (not granted by) our Constitution.

On the other hand, I also believe that our violent criminals need to be kept locked away, for societies safety, much more than they are.

Click to expand...

BINGO!!!!!!

imported post

2 words: Head shots

imported post

"Head shots" are great for the movies but have little value in real life.

First, the head is a much smaller target than "Center Mass". While you may be able to punch a tight group at 15 yards on the range, that little piece of paper isn't moving, isn't human, and isn't a threat. You are also highly unlikely to be breathing hard with adrenaline coursing throguh your body (some training actually does include this aspect hence the "unlikely). You most likely won't be standing comfortably and making planned shots. It is more likely that you will be in reactionary mode, in a major hurry, and not very accurate.

Second, a head shot or shots, particularly after having advocated them on an internet forum (and they WILL dig up every post you ever made) will be portrayed as a desire to kill the BG rather than simply stop the threat. Most (perhaps all?) states allow only that use of force necessary to stop the threat. While your use of deadly force may have been totally justified, KNOW that if you are facing a jury, the prosecutor is going to be portraying you as an evil, murderous, bastard and the head shot is just one more piece of the story he's going to tell the jury.

Third, juries, unfortunately, are most often madeup of people with a hidden agenda or two stupid to get themselves booted. If it's the latter, hope that the agenda is pro self defense. If it's the latter, cross your fingers.

It's not right, the facts of the case should be limited to "were you threatened sufficiently to justify use of deadly force"....If yes, END OF STORY NO TRIAL. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works out sometimes.

imported post

We-the-People wrote:

"Head shots" are great for the movies but have little value in real life.

First, the head is a much smaller target than "Center Mass". While you may be able to punch a tight group at 15 yards on the range, that little piece of paper isn't moving, isn't human, and isn't a threat. You are also highly unlikely to be breathing hard with adrenaline coursing throguh your body (some training actually does include this aspect hence the "unlikely). You most likely won't be standing comfortably and making planned shots. It is more likely that you will be in reactionary mode, in a major hurry, and not very accurate.

Second, a head shot or shots, particularly after having advocated them on an internet forum (and they WILL dig up every post you ever made) will be portrayed as a desire to kill the BG rather than simply stop the threat. Most (perhaps all?) states allow only that use of force necessary to stop the threat. While your use of deadly force may have been totally justified, KNOW that if you are facing a jury, the prosecutor is going to be portraying you as an evil, murderous, bastard and the head shot is just one more piece of the story he's going to tell the jury.

Third, juries, unfortunately, are most often madeup of people with a hidden agenda or two stupid to get themselves booted. If it's the latter, hope that the agenda is pro self defense. If it's the latter, cross your fingers.

It's not right, the facts of the case should be limited to "were you threatened sufficiently to justify use of deadly force"....If yes, END OF STORY NO TRIAL. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works out sometimes.

Click to expand...

Head shots aren't that hard...if you've been trained to do it. I have. Ever hear of "surgical shooting"?

When I know that center mass shots are having little effect. Head shots may be the only way to stop the threat.

Measure (sort of) your head with your thumbs and forefingers, hold that "measurement" and move down to your chest. The size of a head shot is almost as big as a center mass shot. The only difference is shot placement.

If I couldn't do it, I wouldn't have posted it.

Class dismissed.

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

I've said it before and I don't mind saying it again. If you're convicted of a violent crime (while armed with a gun) then I don't have much sympathy for you and I really don't care if your gun rights are taken away.

Here's the thing, 2A is about arms, so I have no problem telling someone that they have lost their gun rights...time to go buy a knife or something other type of arm.

Body armor is just being stupid though, what else can you expect from fear mongering politicians.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Everyone as a free person deserves the right to protect themselves. If they aren't a free person then they still have the right, but not the tools. When they are released and given their freedom they are given the power to have the tools.

To me if our full right to keep and bear arms along with the right to effective self-defense were legal and respected the career of violent criminals would be short-lived and all this talk would be mute.

imported post

I hope this law goes down for 'unconstitutional vagueness". It would serve the legislature right.

If a felon is committing a crime there are plenty of laws that can be enforced. And then throw the book at'em!

imported post

See, Cato, this is why I like you.

Despite your profession, you still use "crime" to mean "malum in se offense".

Otherwise, the prohibition against body armor would count.

If only every LEO thought that way...