Home

Login Form



Who's Online

We have 18 guests and 1 member online
 
What has CGF done for me lately? PDF Print E-mail
Written by Kevin Thomason   
Saturday, 26 December 2009 22:19
We're approaching the end of the year and I wanted to take a moment to look back at what CGF has done. For some who don't have the context, I wanted to have a place to point them to understand what it is that CGF is. With that, here is CGF's scorecard so far. I've broken it down into the things that the group that would become CGF did before starting the Foundation and then take it on through what we've completed and what we're still up to. Note that there are a few complete cases that are wins that I don't mention because we haven't had a chance to make them public.

CGF's ScoreCard

Pre CGF (2007-2008)
ARs and AKs are legal in California: http://bit.ly/4u0M6g
Invention of the Bullet Button: http://bit.ly/4xEo6E
DOJ BoF Regulations are Underground Regulations: http://bit.ly/57MbNq
Return of the Milpitas Lowers: http://bit.ly/5ebd96

CGF Success (2008-Present)
Defend Bright Spot Pawn from AW charges: http://bit.ly/7FC20j
Defend John Contos from AW charges: http://bit.ly/4wQDpv
Defend UOC Marine in Oceanside: http://bit.ly/8o6nE5
Defend Large-Capacity Magazine charge.
Gut DC's adoption of California's Handgun Roster: http://bit.ly/8JhGZa
Defend Don Anderson against AW charges: http://bit.ly/6L0Ykb
Defend OCSD AR seizure: http://bit.ly/7xHFgT
Defend Shotgun is not concealable upon the person: http://bit.ly/5GZjav
Assist Theseus fundraising: http://bit.ly/5IAWq4
Assist LA Airport AW case fundraising: http://bit.ly/6erDF9
File an Amicus in McDonald supporting P or I Incorporation: http://bit.ly/4ZFNJX
Assisted in defeating San Mateo County LCAV ordinances: http://bit.ly/5Ourca

CGF Projects Underway:
Peña - Handgun Roster is Unconstitutional: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid
Sykes - License to carry must be shall issue: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...s_v._McGinness

Coming:
AB-962 Challenge
2 Undisclosed cases already filed.
2 more pre-McDonald cases coming.


If we don't have a link or don't disclose, I can promise you that there is a reason

Remember that Freedom is not Free. You can donate here.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and oh what a 2010 we have planned!

-Gene

Click here to donate to CGF:
GUNPAL:

PAYPAL:
-Ben Cannon, Treasurer, CGF.
Last Updated on Saturday, 26 December 2009 22:31
 
Just in Time for Christmas . . . Yet Another Win for The Calguns Foundation! PDF Print E-mail
Written by Kevin Thomason   
Saturday, 26 December 2009 22:24
12/23/2009

In September 2009, the CGF received an urgent call from a young man who was arrested by Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department deputies in the Long Beach area for violation of Penal Code section 12025 (a) – i.e., carrying a concealed pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in his vehicle.

However, there were two major problems with this arrest:

First, the Department of Justice website states: Nonconcealable firearms (rifles and shotguns) are not generally covered within the provisions of California Penal Code section 12025 and therefore are not required to be transported in a locked container. (See http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/travel.php).

And, second, the firearms prohibited from being concealed according to Penal Code section 12025 are defined as handguns under California law:
As used in this title, the term "handgun" means any "pistol," "revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person." (PC 12001(a)(2).)
According to the police report, the 19 year-old Cal State University Long Beach college student, and two of his friends were in a Long Beach industrial area late at night performing experiments with legal compressed air devices.

When they were done for the night and leaving the area, they were pulled over by multiple Los Angeles Sheriff’s units, who ordered them out of the student’s pickup truck at gun point, cuffed them, and searched the truck. The deputies then told the student that they were responding to a “shots fired” complaint and asked him if he had a firearm in the vehicle.

He informed the LASD deputies that he had a shotgun in the cab, a Mossberg 500, which was unloaded and under the seat. He had no ammunition and informed the deputies as much. The deputies then asked him how many rounds he had fired through it that night, the student explained that caller must have heard the noise from the experiments, showed the deputy the legal device used in the experiments, and informed them that he and his friends were not firing the shotgun.

The bottom line is that the LASD took him to the station, with the shotgun, held him until morning, cited him for concealed carry with a court date in Compton and released him on his own recognizance. They kept the shotgun as “evidence.”

Upon contacting The Calguns Foundation, Inc. and explaining the situation, the CGF Board unanimously agreed to fund the student’s criminal defense and retained Jason Davis of Davis & Associates to represent him.

At the initial arraignment, Mr. Davis contacted the Deputy District Attorney and explained that Penal Code section 12025 does not apply to long guns (such as shotguns) . . . unless they are “short barreled.”

The Deputy District Attorney seized upon the fact that the language does not clearly eliminate application to shotguns.

And in addition, the District Attorney informed Mr. Davis that they would add another count of 12025 for possession of the “compressed air” device if Mr. Davis persisted in attempting to defend this case.

Mr. Davis not only persisted but informed the District Attorney’s office that they were not only wrong on the shotgun, but wrong on the “compressed air device” as well.

A “compressed air” device simply cannot be deemed a firearm under Penal Code section 12001, which requires a device to expel a projectile through an explosion or other form of combustion. Mr. Davis advised the District Attorney’s office to take another careful look at the charges and reconsider dismissing the complaint.

The arraignment was then postponed, and no additional counts were brought.

At the second arraignment date, Mr. Davis provided the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office with hundreds of pages of information in support of the common sense position that the terms “handgun,” “pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person” simply do not include shotguns. Mr. Davis even included a copy of the entire “dangerous weapons law” with each and every occurrence of the terms “handgun,” “pistol,” “revolver,” and “other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person,” highlighted in yellow so as to demonstrate the absurdity of the position that a standard shotguns is the same as a “handgun,”

This crazy position would require shotguns to be placed on the list of handguns deemed not unsafe and require a handgun safety certificate for the purchase of shotguns.

At this point the matter was escalated to a higher level Deputy District Attorney, presumably one who is not pre-programmed to think all firearms and the persons possessing them are bad. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The first words out of the new Deputy District Attorney’s mouth were, “Do you want your client to be prosecuted with a felony?”

Clearly, this comment was a threat aimed at Mr. Davis’ challenge to the DA’s position. At this point, Mr. Davis continued to challenge the merits of their case and explained the documents that he provided to them. The arraignment was continued again to allow the Deputy District Attorney to digest the information provided.

Last Friday, at the third arraignment date, the Deputy District Attorney took the position that the law is not clear and may well include long guns – but stated that they could not proceed on the facts.

At that time, Mr. Davis made his motion to the court to dismiss the Complaint prior to arraignment and the Court granted that motion. Case dismissed!

Now Mr. Davis and the client are working on getting his firearm returned. CGF will keep you updated as to those results!

-Kevin.

Click here to donate to CGF:
GUNPAL:

PAYPAL:
-Ben Cannon, Treasurer, CGF.
 
CGF at Work: AR-15 Returned to Owner, No Charges Filed! PDF Print E-mail
Written by Kevin Thomason   
Friday, 18 December 2009 10:42
Here is a great post from “Stan” – a Calguns.net member who had an AR-15 wrongly seized by the Orange County Sherriff’s Department. Working with the CGF and CGF attorneys, Stan was able to get his AR-15 back, and avoid prosecution. To read the original thread, click over to http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=250919.

Stories like this are why we do what we do!

Hey everyone - this story is a little long but I feel its best that way. This is the EPIC SAGA of Orange County Sheriff's Deputy J. Finley, a reserve SWAT officer, seizing my AR-15 and how I was helped getting it back.

At 16:40 on 11-3-09, I was driving my car down Santa Margarita Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita. A black police interceptor nearly hit my right front corner while he was changing lanes, and then braked hard and got behind me at the left turn light. I immediately got off my cell phone at that point. The police interceptor turned on its flashing lights, and I pulled over on a side street. I was then contacted by Deputy J. Finley of OCSD's Rancho Santa Margarita Police Services. He's a reserve S.W.A.T. officer and was in a black unmarked car.

From the very beginning of the stop, at 16:45, Finley was rude, suspicious, and seemed to be almost angry with me. I'm 20 years old, and have long hair. He asked me if there was any "guns, drugs, knives" etc in the car, to which i flatly responded "There is nothing illegal in the car sir." He then claimed to smell marijuana (this was quite obviously a lie), and pointed out a sandwich bag (yes, a sandwich bag) on my floor. I showed him it was empty, and smelled like FOOD (imagine that!) but at this point he had made up his mind.

Finley ordered my passenger and I to step out of the vehicle. At this point due to the fact that I am on informal probation for a misdemeanor, backup came and a search of my car commenced. When Finley made his way to the trunk, I informed him that I had my rifle in a range bag, unloaded in the trunk. He removed my rifle, a Stag Arms lower with a flat top upper and 10/30 pmag magazine locked in with a BULLET BUTTON. It was like someone had just rained guns and drugs from the great impound locker in the sky. Finley continued to search the car, finding my incomplete AK-47 build, some bulk 7.62 ammunition, and other random junk. Every time he found another gun related item, he would hold it up and look at me like I had killed his sister, cat, and broken his bicycle. He continued hassling me about where I got the bullets and what was I doing with "all this stuff". He set the rifle down on the trunk of his car during the search, and left the muzzle pointed straight at me. Since childhood, I was trained to treat all guns as loaded, and being in that position put me into a state of extreme panic and anxiety. I was treated like a second class citizen at best, but more just plain like a criminal.

I attempted to explain to Deputy Finley the legal definition of fixed magazine, and how my bullet button only allowed the magazine to be removed with a tool, which met the DOJ's and law's standards. In hindsight I should have had a more snarky remark for him removing the magazine with something on his belt loop. Finley repeatedly yelled in my face, and at one point slammed his voice recorder violently on the trunk of his car, shouting that "EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS BEING ****ING RECORDED". He also claimed that legislation had been passed outlawing bullet buttons, and that he knew this because two of his cases were what made that happen. He then told me a bullet is not a tool, and that I was in possession of an assault weapon. I was given a receipt for my rifle, ammunition, and magazines, and charged with no crime. Finley also gave me false information about how I could contest the seizure, told me that I absolutely would never be getting back my rifle, and that I would be receiving a call within a week or so regarding criminal charges.

Immediately after the whole fiasco, I went to OC Armory and spoke with Mike Penhall, the owner. This is where I have gone for all my OLL needs, and with good reason. Mike was extremely helpful, and directed me to contact Bill Wiese and / or Gene Hoffman at the Calguns Foundation. Already having been a member of calguns.net forums since April of 2008, I pm'd Gene and Bill, who got back in contact with me within a few hours. Bill then had one of the foundation's lawyers, Jason Davis, give me a call that very evening. I was thoroughly impressed, within a couple hours of my initial contact I was already speaking to an attorney. Jason was really awesome, he was articulate and seemed to know exactly what needed to be done. I went from freaked out and upset, to confident and calm.

Other than answering questions here and there, I was relieved of the issue at that point. Jason was constantly in contact by both e-mail and phone. He spoke with Mike at OC Armory, made calls to various divisions of OCSD, and even talked to Deputy Finley. The conversation with Finley was humorous from what I heard of it, and I was really amazed at how Mr. Davis handled the matter. I can only imagine the amount of time spent on my case, getting the run around on an issue that never should have happened. I would have been totally lost, and probably would never have received my rifle back if it were not for the help I received.

I had to submit the Law Enforcement Gun Release (LEGR) application to the DOJ, which cost me $20 or so, and after several weeks I got a letter back verifying that I was not a prohibited person. This morning I went to the property room of the OCSD in Santa Ana and was reunited with my beautiful tool. Unfortunately, their policy is not to return ammunition with the rifle, and since it was 25 rounds, I decided that it was going to be too costly to take the time to come get it another time.

I do not know the details, but my understanding is that OCSD did not have a policy on OLLs / bullet buttons, and my rifle was supposedly the first one of its kind that they seized. I believe they have decided to use the AW Flowchart, and I think that because of my case, and the help I was so graciously given, people in Orange County with bullet buttons may just be a little better off now.

What I really was awed by was how CGF and Jason Davis handled the whole matter. I'm a paralegal and studying law, and lawyers do not come cheap, nor is their work easy. The fact that the foundation supported my case and provided me with counsel, without having ever met me was really great. It goes to show that the money people donate really does go to a good cause. Jason is an asset to our community both as an attorney, and a fellow gun owner, and CGF makes it possible for people like me to be aided by people like Jason when the gun grabbers attack.

Last Updated on Friday, 18 December 2009 10:47
 
«StartPrev123456NextEnd»

Page 1 of 6