Theseus 626.9 Case...The REAL DEAL!

[demnogis]

imported post

Class action suit against CA and 626.9 on grounds of 2A violation...

coolusername2007 wrote:

Theseus wrote:

I was never offered a deal as they believed, rightly, that if it had weapons conditions I would not accept.

There is strong evidence that they knew the only way to make me "go away" or stop "open carrying" was to take my guns. They apparently didn't decide to charge me in this case until there was another incident by me in Alhambra where they didn't get to detain me. They brought the charges because they wanted me to stop and didn't have any other way to get me to.

They may have won for the moment, but I know you'll prevail in the appeals process.  At which time we should be post 2A incorporation.  Wouldn't it be great to have a great big OC protest at the very spot they chose to persecute you?!  Alhambra we are coming!   ...to be continued

 

[oc4ever]

imported post

A City of Alhambra very public in your face meet up seems a reasonable possibility as a protest for the punitive actions taken against a member of this forum. Unfortunately, City hall and the police department are right next to a school.

By looking at the GFSZ map, it is almost impossible to drive down any main street in Alhambra without entering a GFSZ zone every few blocks. A damn hard place to OC with so many schools.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

imported post

The tyranny ofunaccountable judges and prosecutors. Rule the way they feel and let the appeals system sort things out.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

oc4ever wrote:

A City of Alhambra very public in your face meet up seems a reasonable possibility as a protest for the punitive actions taken against a member of this forum. Unfortunately, City hall and the police department are right next to a school.

By looking at the GFSZ map, it is almost impossible to drive down any main street in Alhambra without entering a GFSZ zone every few blocks. A damn hard place to OC with so many schools.

I figure 1 of two things.

1. Forget them, mass carry on private property and dare them to charge all of us. . .

2. Since they seem to suggest that I would have been in compliance in the parking lot with a locked case. . . We show up with our handguns in locked cases, go inside a business and then remove them and holster them. We are in compliance.

If they thought I was a problem I would hate to see what they did with a dozen or two people having a monthly meeting in Alhambra within 300 feet from a school.

 

[mjones]

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

They may have won for the moment, but I know you'll prevail in the appeals process. At which time we should be post 2A incorporation.Wouldn't it be great to have a great big OC protest at the very spot they chose to persecute you?! Alhambra we are coming! ...to be continued

I am so in for this!!!!

 

[Gundude]

imported post

mjones wrote:

coolusername2007 wrote:

They may have won for the moment, but I know you'll prevail in the appeals process. At which time we should be post 2A incorporation.Wouldn't it be great to have a great big OC protest at the very spot they chose to persecute you?! Alhambra we are coming! ...to be continued

I am so in for this!!!!

If this case was decided on the fact that a parking lot is public property and inside a business is private property, consider this.....

There is a business near me that is within the magic 1000' of a school. It's a indoor/outdoor restruant. If you are carrying inside while eating lunch, you are not in violation. Then I would assume if you are eating lunch on the patio area, you are in violation, as you are not inside the business.

The owner of the parking lot has total control of ingress and egress (sp?) the same as does the business owner. It is my understanding that public property is owned by the feds, states, counties, and municipalities. Private property is owned by a private enity.

I'm not a legal eagle.

 

[Edward Peruta]

imported post

When laws are vague and ambiguous and applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner by public officials who know,knew, or should have known, they are very often destined for the scrap heap with all the otherunconstitutional laws.

All the talk and all the what ifs are not going to change what is happening.

If there is an appeal and if the appeal is successful, then and only then will the problemsvanish.

I wish Theseus luck with his appeal.

This case did not recieve the main stream news coverage it deserved.

In my humble opinion, it will only be after the Chicago case is final that the main stream media will begin to seek and provide the proper coverage ofthese type cases.

Good luck Theseus

 

[demnogis]

imported post

Not in this state until the media-driven hoplophobia magically disappears.

Edward Peruta wrote:

In my humble opinion, it will only be after the Chicago case is final that the main stream media will begin to seek and provide the proper coverage ofthese type cases.

 

[inbox485]

imported post

According to Theseus there was not a lengthly legal discussion on the matter. His comment: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3502288&postcount=805
"All the DA really had to say was "the legislature couldn't have meant the exemption to protect an open carrier" and it was basically done."

Gundude wrote:

If this case was decided on the fact that a parking lot is public property and inside a business is private property, consider this.....

There is a business near me that is within the magic 1000' of a school. It's a indoor/outdoor restruant. If you are carrying inside while eating lunch, you are not in violation. Then I would assume if you are eating lunch on the patio area, you are in violation, as you are not inside the business.

The owner of the parking lot has total control of ingress and egress (sp?) the same as does the business owner. It is my understanding that public property is owned by the feds, states, counties, and municipalities. Private property is owned by a private enity.

I'm not a legal eagle.

This was settled in Tapia. The court settled on a "right to use to the exclusion of others" interpretation per CC654 to define "private property" for the purposes of 626.9.

Edward Peruta wrote:

When laws are vague and ambiguous and applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner by public officials who know, knew, or should have known, they are very often destined for the scrap heap with all the other unconstitutional laws.

This was also settled in Tapia. Since there were multiple definitions of "private property" and one of them in particular was consistent with the legislative intent (at least as the court saw it), the law is not unconstitutionally vague.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

So I have now put online, available to all, the documents I have in my case.

This includes some transcripts, police reports, motions to exclude/surpress. . . and photos of the incident location and the school. . . Hope you call can benefit from this.

http://claytonscott.info

 

[chewy352]

imported post

Thanks for posting the info but the link doesn't work.

Correction if you copy and paste it it works.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

http://claytonscott.info/e107/

The above link should work properly.

ETA: Actually, for some reason now the first link is working... kinda weird... might be a cache/cookie issue that requires loading the page twice.

Will edit my link in hopes it works the first time for others.

 

[Gundude]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

http://claytonscott.info/e107/

The above link should work properly.

ETA: Actually, for some reason now the first link is working... kinda weird... might be a cache/cookie issue that requires loading the page twice.

Will edit my link in hopes it works the first time for others.

Both links worked for me. I am using IE 8.0. It might be a browser issue.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

Good point. I'm on Firefox, and just found a software update for my browser... so maybe that was an issue.

Also, I'm running a BETA version of Windows 7, but I haven't had that cause any issues so far...

Sounds like people have access to the info on the website, which is all I was hoping for.

 

[Mike Hawk]

imported post

Hey Theseus, there's a thread going on on this board entitled "Guns for LESS the San Diego turn-in on Monday" that I want to make sure you see. Not sure it can help, but just maybe. It was mentioned that the event scheduled for Monday the 21st is to take place in a GFSZ. When asked, the SDPD is claiming that although they are aware that it is a GFSZ, they believe that they are exempted due to the private property exemption because it's on a Church parking lot. ........Not exactly a laundromat, I know, butthis sure stinks of double standard to me. :cuss:

 

[Theseus]

imported post

Mike Hunt wrote:

Hey Theseus, there's a thread going on on this board entitled "Guns for LESS the San Diego turn-in on Monday" that I want to make sure you see. Not sure it can help, but just maybe. It was mentioned that the event scheduled for Monday the 21st is to take place in a GFSZ. When asked, the SDPD is claiming that although they are aware that it is a GFSZ, they believe that they are exempted due to the private property exemption because it's on a Church parking lot. ........Not exactly a laundromat, I know, butthis sure stinks of double standard to me. :cuss:

Technically they are right.As it stands the ruling in my case is not precedent and a DA can still easily argue not to press charges based on the "private property" exemption.

The real deal now is to mention it to the San Diego County DA and get him to stop the Sheriff or support me. . . Anyone game to try that?

 

[chewy352]

imported post

Theseus,

I read everything that you posted but did not see the judges ruling on the motion to suppress the private property exemption. If i skipped over it could you please point it out to me. I am interested in what the judge had to say about it.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

chewy352 wrote:

Theseus,

I read everything that you posted but did not see the judges ruling on the motion to suppress the private property exemption. If i skipped over it could you please point it out to me. I am interested in what the judge had to say about it.

I don't have all the transcripts or filings right now. I am working with Bruce to get them. . . When I have them I will get them out there.

 

[chewy352]

imported post

Cool thanks. BTW good luck on your appeal. Once the case law is settled we'll have to go do some laundry. BTW nice pic

 

[Wheelie19]

imported post

Theseus,
I am horrified to hear about the outcome of your case. I became interested in the practice of OC and the philosophies surrounding it in early 2008 (though I've been an avid shooter and 2A supporter for 20+ yrs). I have been haunting OCDO since then and have, of course, been following your unfortunate journey. I've voraciously consumed relevant CA law, learned the "accepted" protocols that experienced OC'ers encourage, and have been standing-by with a "wait and see" approach as to if and when I will ever UOC myself. (w/others, of course). But it was not until checking-in this morning and reading about your current status, that I was finally motivated to register and submit this, my first post. You have my support, and I will be sending a donation to Calguns.net in your name by the close of business tomorrow. I think you're gonna end-up kicking butt all over CA's Draconian, arbitrary gun laws. Hang in there.......