Theseus
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Ok, so there have been a lot of questions asked about my case. Some people know what is going on and what it is about, and others don't. I am here to set the story straight.
Ok, so there have been a lot of questions asked about my case. Some people know what is going on and what it is about, and others don't. I am here to set the story straight.
- I was never arrested. The police are claiming (in court) that the reason they didn't arrest me is not because they didn't think I was within a zone (as I recall one officer actually saying "how far is it?" and even asked me about "laws pertaining to ammunition and schools".) but that they did not know 626.9 existed and therefore that I might have been breaking the law. This "white" lie by the officers prevents me from using the "if the cops didn't know, how could I have" defense.
- For the record, I did not know there was a school there or that it was within 1000 feet. Regardless of what else, this is still a required element of the crime which has to be pruven by the DA. He can't prove knowledge because there was none.
- I was in fact located on private property. It was not a public sidewalk subject to an easement. The focus of this case is not when I was IN the laundry mat, because I was exempt "within a business".
- This case is about open carry because they seem to suggest that if it was in a locked case they would not have any further to go. The locked case exemption does not restrict it to private property. I am allowed to walk the grounds of the school if the gun is locked in a container.
- This case is about trying to expand 626.9. The legislature is trying to expand the physical distance, this court is trying to expand the governments intrusioninto private property rights.
- My detainment further the authority of 12031(e), which was testified by the officers only took a moment, was likely an illegal detainment.
- The demanding of ID, although fruit of the poisonous tree due to the illegal detainment will be allowed because you can't throw out an ID once it is in play.
- Although the detainment was likely illegal, there is no evidence to throw out since you can't throw out ID and the actual crime was the officers seeing the firearm, which happened before the 12031(e) check.
- Private property is exempt from 626.9, but by allowing private property "open to the public" to be exempt aggravates the law and is contrary to the legislative intent of the law. It was ruled then, that although I was on private property, that I can not use a private property exemption defense because the private property was "open to the public".
- If ID is obtained illegally, and is the only means the officers have of identifying you and later charging you with a crime, you can do nothing about it. In fact, it seems that in my case the officers would likely had to go back to the dispatch log to recover my DL#, as the officers testified that since after the interaction they didn't believe a crime to have existed the investigation was over and destroyed the field identification cards and all other information.
- Interpreting the "private property" exemption to not protect private property "open to the public" means two things.
- The DA is suggesting that, when in a school zone I am to take the locked container with the handgun inside the business and remove it from its case when inside of the business. My suspicion is that the intention here is to cause more concern to the public and thus making us lose more public support.
- That the law is even more aggravated by this "open to the public" concept than it was prior to. As noted in the recent meeting at Bass Pro Shops, part of the southern parking lot is located within 1000' of a school. If one measured properly, the difference between being guilty of 626.9 and not could be the difference of merely parking one more space to the north. This means that the parking lot that was originally FULLY exempt is now not. It also means that law enforcement is able to utilize even more arbitrary discretion than it was previously allowed by the more narrow interpretation.