imported post
marshaul wrote:
I think it's funny when people show up here all of a sudden, behaving as though they are a fount of insight and knowledge, when in reality the topics have all been discussed at length and, of course, the conclusions do not always match your own. We're all here to learn. Do you think you are here to educate?
First of all, never once have I told anyone they are "wrong." That's been YOU at first response to my FIRST post to my latest post. Next I'm not "behaving" as anything. I'm sharing my experiences of, not only, researching and understanding the law, but also my experiences from actual litigation in the courts and my constant readings of decisional law. I'm not going to get into my history and background and blah, blah, blah. But, know this, it is extensive (and impressive if I do say so myself
) Something that I KNOW, unfortunately, is not of great supply here.
If it were, this topic wouldn't have had to have been discussed so much at length, because you would have done what was necessary as a "group" to get the issue addressed as needed. Although I'm pretty good, political issues (which this is) take more than a lone wolf, it takes a concerted unified effort.
A problem that most of us face is not substantive law, but "procedural" law. The law is what it is and it is soundly in place. Another problem is that there is an agenda, part of which is to keep everyone occupied running in circles and/or attacking one another while steadily making unauthorized changes that are contrary to the restrictions placed on those making the changes, while using ignorance as a blunt instrument on LEOs and the public alike.
If you're intimidated by the fact that you are hearing things that you didn't know or never thought about, or wish you had known, then that's okay, but get that chip off your shoulder, you'll get nowhere with that with me. In law there are only two places for emotions, the bedroom and the bathroom, so check yourself, you'll not get a rise out of me.
In addition to those here to "learn" we are also here to "share experiences" so that we have some kind of measuring stick (if you will), to guage the responses to what we learn or know and how it works on a expansive level.
Next, the mere fact that a lot of people are confused as to which end is up (so to speak) on this issue, is illustrative of my statements above, because if enough were just as savvy with court procedure as they are with this issue, all of us could just go into court on the issue and get the offending sections declared void under the "void for vagueness" doctrine. If the common man/woman can't read it with understanding enough to know how to guide his/her actions, the law is unenforceable as it subjects people to unreasonable actions at the hands of the enforcer. THAT's where donations should be going; into a collateral legal ATTACK as oppose to everyone's DEFENSE fund.
Lastly, and back to the topic at hand, I'll give you that having the weapon in a lockbox "may" be construed as concealed and "may" subject one to legal jeopardy, however where I focus attention is on "lawful purpose." Lawful purpose is anything not deemed "unlawful."
Is it unlawful to commit armed robbery? Yes, so I guess I'd better not be doing any of that.
Is it lawful for me to have interests dealings in my life, liberty or property? Yes it is, guess that qualifies as lawful purpose.
Who of us carries just to be doing it and out in the streets doing nothing? Most of us are usually running errands or have our "purposes" for doing so. As long as they are not criminal acts or tortious conduct, then I posit (arguably) that the lawful purpose requirement has been met.
But, here is also where my focus is given attention: Everyone seems not to take into account several factors when dealing with this issue. Probable cause, and the right to remain silent.
1. The requirements of probable cause.
If your carrying case is not in the shape of a firearm, who's going to know you have a firearm outside of you being an idiot and making it known. What FACTS (with an "s") would an LEO have to give reasonable suspicion to develop probable cause? NONE.
2. The right to remain silent should a officer have a HUNCH that that's what you have in the box.
There's no way for him to FACTUALLY
KNOW if he's never seen you before; if he didn't SEE YOU put it in there, etc. etc.
Only when it is K N O W N for a FACT do they have the right to demand an inspection.
I'm approached: "Hey, come here I want to talk to you!"
Me: "Hey, how are you? Uhh, I don't wish to talk to you am I free to leave?"
LEO: "I just want to talk with you, are you carrying a firearm in that box you're carrying?"
Me: "Officer, you really didn't answer my question. I really don't want to talk with you, am I free to leave?"
LEO: "No, not right now, (again) are you carrying . . . . "
Me: "Is this a criminal investigation?"
[ If yes]
" Am I the subject or the witness "
[ If witness]
" What am I believed to have witness? "
LEO: [ Whatever]
Me: "Well, as I stated I do not wish to speak with you, I wish to leave. Am I free to leave?"
[ If no, At that point I have just established an unlawful arrest I BECOME AND REMAIN SILENT FROM THAT POINT ON, and ANYTHING obtained from that point on I can move to suppress (if it is not refused for filing) for false arrest. There is no warrant (automatically unlawful in the eyes of the law), and no FACTS to articulate that he KNEW there was a firearm that " I " was carrying in that lock box.]
[ If I'm the subject I BECOME AND REMAIN SILENT FROM THAT POINT ON, and ANYTHING obtained from that point on I can move to suppress (if it is not refused for filing) for false arrest. There is no warrant (automatically unlawful in the eyes of the law), and no FACTS to articulate that he KNEW there was a firearm that " I " was carrying in that lock box.]
See, it's the totality of circumstances AND using the legal tools
we have available to us, just like they do. Among other things, everyone is focusing from a defensive position. The constitution is a "restriction" upon government, NOT a grant of right to the people.
Also, everyone's focusing on on or two or three sections when there is so much more that goes with this. The law is supposed to be read as a WHOLE, not a particular section of it. The law is only divided up according to subject matter for ease of location for reference.
So while you're getting bent around the axle about who's new and behaving like what, you're missing my point. Notwithstanding the other things that can be challenged, most of the municipalities and cities are not "duly incorporated" for me to come within the concealed carry prohibition. For example in a city near by me, they claim to be incorporated, but when asked for their incorporation documents, they hand me a referendum and approval by the board of supervisors for them to "be" incorporated, but they are not registered with the Sec. of State. I.e. they're NOT incorporated. So would I worry about concealed carry prohibitions? No.
Now I don't concealed carry even though I know this mind you, however, knowing this if I'm stopped (and maybe charged) by an overzealous LEO and ADA/DA, I'm not too concerned, because that whole charge and ALL it's elements are going to be challenged.
It's up to us to know the rules too so as to raise the objection to what's NOT been followed. There's an evidentiary rule that speaks to this: "An objection not raised is waived." So if you don't know it to raise it, guess what? Start packing because you're off to the grey bar hotel.
Don't misinterpret confidence gained from experience for arrogance and attitude from ignorance. You may miss out on the information. Learn if you're here to do so, but don't start attempting to bash because you're not experienced or knowledgable enough to hear what's actually being said.
