Posted on 03/12/2021 5:41:12 AM PST by Red Badger
Chris Rock video...
"...noticed his window tints were too dark..
...likely sealed his fate. If his tint was 'too dark' then the car is unsafe to operate and would make it impoundable. Once impounded, they would have the authority to search the car. So, he was screwed either way. Moral of the story: Don't drive with tinted windows with a loaded handgun in a state that doesn't allow it.
> If you don’t give the LEOs permission to search your vehicle when they pull you over, they WILL immediately impound your vehicle ... <
I’ve never heard of that. Is it just a California thing? And what would their probable cause be in doing so? A cop cannot seize a person’s property unless he has good reason to do so. “Suspicion” alone is not enough.
That’s the way it’s supposed to work, anyway.
The guy could be Bill Gates, but that doesn’t change the existing precedent nor does it change the makeup of the current Court and its appetite to hear these kinds of cases.
About a decade ago, a man was arrested in a National Park for possessing a loaded handgun. That man challenged his arrest and conviction. The case was U.S. v. Masciandaro. The 4th Circuit heard the case and upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court refused to grant cert.
More recently (2019), the Court refused to hear on the merits New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, which was a case about NYC’s prohibition on transporting UNLOADED and LOCKED firearms in moving vehicles. Instead, the Court dismissed the case as moot.
If they won’t even hear a case about locked and unloaded firearms in cars - and they apparently won’t - then this kid doesn’t stand a chance. That’s just where the Jurisprudence is today and Barrett’s ascension to the Court almost certainly didn’t change that dynamic. After McDonald & Heller, the Court has shown ZERO appetite in hearing 2A cases, even the ones that are clearly unconstitutional.
It was my understanding as a former California resident and gun owner that the first offense was only a misdemeanor.
= = =
Depends if it was ‘registered’ or not.
Registered is misdemeanor.
He's from Los Angeles. It's quite possible to live in L.A. and commute to Tampa for work. I live in FL and commute to TN for work, many of my co-workers commute much further.
If he's smart though he'll spend enough time in Florida to claim it as his residence since they have no state income tax vs. California's which is one of the highest in the nation.
California is a communist state. Stay out of it.
More likely your #2. If the gun is in plain view then it is not concealed.
> If his tint was ‘too dark’ then the car is unsafe to operate and would make it impoundable. Once impounded, they would have the authority to search the car. <
Good point, and something I had not considered. Maybe that’s how they found Mickens’ gun.
Since WHEN do handguns need to be registered in CA?
It was my understanding that only so-called "assault weapons" required 'registration'. And new AWs cannot be brought into the State after a certain date and no registration is even possible.
Yep. His fault for going to LA
Since WHEN do handguns need to be registered in CA?
= = =
You are correct. Most everyone else is not.
Technically someone who moves into the state and brings firearms is called an occasional importer, and is supposed to register them with the state DOJ.
That wording is ‘register’. Similarly ‘register’ applies to “Assualt” weapons as defined back about 2000, and the new defn period of time, which has now closed. These were the only uses of ‘register’ that I could find when searching some time back.
Problem is that most people (and I was also guilty just now) call a firearm that is in the DOJ data base (due to state background check, DROS) ‘registered’. Cops do this too. The state database IS a de facto registration. They were only supposed to keep records for a short time, after a background check. But when I asked a DOJ rep. how long, “For the life of the gun.”
So the word ‘registered’ has come into common usage. I tried to resist, but it was too hard to explain each time (as I did above). Sometimes I say “In the DOJ database”.
Some guns purchased or obtained before these laws and regs came into being (1968 is one date of many), are not in the DOJ database, and do not have to be. But they are called ‘unregistered’ and that causes problems when used and/or transported certain ways, and when encountered by cops. Your carry gun must be in the database.
These guns when passed down, go into the system if done correctly. After about 1 1/2 generations, there will be no excuse for a person to have a gun not in the database.
Not a happy situation. This is how I understand things in CA. Does this help? Any question?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.