"Sir, do you have any weapons in the vehicle"?

Frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Just curious. By what criteria do you judge someone to possibly have an "ego problem?" And could you list some characteristics shared by people who have ego problems?

Click to expand...

Frankie, when someone esteems himself as more than what he actually is, he has an ego problem. Most of us have ego problems. Most of us keep them within tolerable limits, by working in the free market and therefore having a monetary incentive to treat others respectfully or be fired. We should all have the internal determination to treat everyone well and respectfully, but there are days when I'm sure we've all said, "If I were independently wealthy, I'd explain the reality of an attitude or situation to this person, and while it may be moral to do so, it is unwise, insofar as I may lose my job because those in power do not respect justice and courtesy so much as they respect the bottom line."

I have every right to subdue a violent criminal, and every other human has the same right. Policemen get away with tasering a non-threatening driver, and are put on administrative leave. If I broke into a house to stop a crime in progress, I would be hailed as a hero. If I got the wrong house and killed an old lady, I would be raked over the coals and sued for everything I have. If officers from the NYPD did this, not to stop an immediate threat to life, limb or property, but while searching for intoxicating chemicals, they would walk away without repercussions. And they did. Incidents of a much lower intensity happen all the time. Cops have no more rights than you or I, believe it or not. They have more power than you and I, granted. But no more rights. We are all equal.

Police are quite liberated from this bond that the free market shares. Many, indeed, remain as honorable as they can based on their own interior virtue. Many more that should be fired are incapable of restraining their behavior, and get away with treating people like garbage.

We're all human beings, created in the image and likeness of God. Some people consider themselves made more in the image and likeness of God than others, yet try to divorce the "wise and good" aspects from the "powerful" aspect. Some people lack earthly checks to this pride.

-Sans Authoritas

I've been around a while. I'm familiar with human nature. I've seen raw, naked violence unleashed, and I've seen what circumstances precipitate its unleashing. Part of it is the gradual acceptance of "minor inconveniences." Until they stop being minor and gradual at all.

Click to expand...

Huh, huh. He said "nekkid" <snicker>

I do suggest to some of you who may promote asking questions such as "Am I free to go, officer, or are you detaining me?"

Click to expand...

The best thing about hearing this is the guys look of stupor and change of demeanor when the answer is "No, you are not free to go. Yes, I am detaining you."

Sans Authoritas, I'm not sure how long you've been around, or what your life experience is, but your posts seem to indicate a general presumption that every cop performing traffic stops is (1) interested in dragging out the encounter until he/she finds something of substance to charge you with and (2) in your words, is playing "games."

Click to expand...

+1

The best thing about hearing this is the guys look of stupor and change of demeanor when the answer is "No, you are not free to go. Yes, I am detaining you."

Click to expand...

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that question was an invitation for you to do something illegal, and if you detain them without any specific articulable reason, you've just created a bigger problem for yourself than for the person being detained.

I do suggest to some of you who may promote asking questions such as "Am I free to go, officer, or are you detaining me?"

Click to expand...

Coyotehitman wrote:

The best thing about hearing this is the guys look of stupor and change of demeanor when the answer is "No, you are not free to go. Yes, I am detaining you."

Click to expand...

Why is it so great, Coyotehitman? Why do you enjoy seeing the look of stupor and a change in demeanor on the face of someone over whom you have power?

As for me, my lot and fate are in hands far more wise, provident and strong than yours.

-Sans Authoritas

I see no reason for your condescension and rudeness, Old Dog.

Click to expand...

My apologies, Sans Authoritas, I'd not intended to be rude; I do see how you could construe my remarks as condescending, and I freely admit that was intended -- just as certainly as some your remarks seemed intentionally condescending, particularly your little pseudo-philosophical comment on those in positions of power ...

've been around a while. I'm familiar with human nature. I've seen raw, naked violence unleashed, and I've seen what circumstances precipitate its unleashing.

Click to expand...

As have I.

Part of it is the gradual acceptance of "minor inconveniences." Until they stop being minor and gradual at all.

Click to expand...

We began by merely discussing how best to answer a simple question. Life is all about "minor inconveniences", many of which, often regrettably, evolve into "necessary evils." First the automobile, thence traffic enforcement. Not every aspect of living in a society of laws is a reflection of loss of liberty. Gradual acceptance of minor inconveniences also is not a sign of the pending arrival of the 4th Reich or the coming of a Stalinist-style regime in the USA.

I see no benefit to offering more information than is necessary to anyone, be it a cop, or someone without a badge.

Click to expand...

Some do, some do not. Almost every series of social interactions leads to judgement calls. How you act during a traffic stop is your call, and that's all I was trying to say ...

I have personally talked to a LEO and in a law passed in last September it is LEGAL to have a handgun in your car while driving. They made the car or the car that is under control by you an extension of your house. The firearm must be concealed and not in sight. If a office stops you inform him that you do have a weapon in your car. The worst that could happen is they take away the gun but all you have to do is pick it up at the main station.

leo's should stay away from making policy - otherwise they move away from 'protect and serve' into directing those they supposedly 'serve'

Old Dog,

How many officers, 100 years ago, would have allowed themselves to conduct checkpoints for people who may have weapons with barrels under 18''? It was not immoral then to have such weapons, then, nor is it immoral to have such weapons now. Human nature has not changed, though the legislation has. Now, how many officers would participate in such a checkpoint now?

How many police officers would have conducted raids on people's houses in 1840 for people having alcohol? How many did in the 1920's?

How many are now conducting raids for other intoxicating chemicals?

I don't think any officers would have dreamed of having checkpoints for people who were driving with a BAC of a certain level in the 1940's. The people would have rioted in the streets. But today... people meekly accept such indignities. They think it's "fine," and don't see where the precedent is going to lead.

It all started as minor inconveniences, and people refused to stand up to them. When people are pushovers, they get walked on. I'm done getting walked on. When non-violent students get tasered on college campuses for speaking out of turn, and people stand around doing nothing, and even approve of such behavior, I take issue. And it's not just with the thugs who tackled and tasered him. I take issue with the sheep who stood by, who don't realize that nothing that man did merited such a violent reaction. And we all stand by as similar events, albeit less intense, happen every day.

Everyone agrees that "police brutality" is wrong. But how do you define "an offense" and "brutality?" Abuses and brutalities start small. If you don't pull an oak out when it is a sapling, you'll have to expend a lot of energy to chop it down when it is full-grown. I'm trying to pull some logic weeds out of people's brains, and I'm trying to chop away at some logical trees that prevent people from seeing the sunlight.

-Sans Authoritas

Yes. Yes I do officer.

I'm trying to think back to all the times I've ever been stopped; I don't think the officer has *ever* asked me if I have any weapons. It just seems like an inane question.

Actualy in CA you just admitted to felony possession of a Billy Probably another good reason I don't live in that socialist state.

ever since i got my chl, it's 50% chance the officer asks if i'm carrying. and it really isn't a big deal for me. i'm guessing that you are carrying without a chl.

A proper and honest answer to such questions is a simple " I have no contraband or other illegal items in this vehicle". This should answer the officers question. If you are required to inform regarding CCW then do so. But do not volunteer any more information than is needed to satisfy the law. If he persists he is then engaging in a "fishing expedition" and anything you say from that point on is likely to be construed as PC to search. The advice to ask " am I under arrest" and if not to say " am I free to leave" is good advice. Do not stray form it, if told you are not free to leave assume you are under arrest and act accordingly.

Again if asked to get out of the vehicle roll up the windows, lock and close the door as you exit the vehicle. If asked why you did this state simply that action is an ingrained habit. Make the officer ask you for permission to search the vehicle. Do not give him the opportunity to do so without asking first. The vast majority will back down and stop pressing you once they realize you know your rights. The minority that will persist don't care about your rights and will do what they want. All you can do about this type is after action lawsuits. Above all else keep your mouth shut whenever possible. Prisons are full of people who talked themselves into the handcuffs.

So some old guy actually believes in "protect and serve" because he hands out tickets and is constantly searching for murderers? Hope he's not taking any overtime money from the public coffers when he's called to an accident at the end of shift, or partake of the retirement benefits, or enjoyments of 2 amendment, ... he's in it to enforce the rules and regulations that someone else deemed "bad", not of any morally driven sense of altruism, and because he gets paid.

if I were pulled over with lawfully owned and stored guns in my car, what is the best way to reply to the LEO if he asks if I have any weapons in the car?

Click to expand...

Reply honestly.

Should my response change if he says "illegal weapons" or "weapons"?

Click to expand...

Not one iota. Why make an issue of semantics and risk sounding like a smart-a.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that question was an invitation for you to do something illegal, and if you detain them without any specific articulable reason, you've just created a bigger problem for yourself than for the person being detained.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I do not know what IANAL is (not up to date on all the achronyms in use today). You can pretty much look at it this way: If you have been stopped, you are not free to go, you have been detained. In addition, investigative detention is completely permissable. No LE in the world is going to be frightened by someone inquiring about whether you are detaining them. If a professional LEO has begun to question you about other things and is beginning to press you for answers, rest assured he/she already has the authority to take the action necessary to maintain the direction of the contact and is not merely fishing.

My post:

The best thing about hearing this is the guys look of stupor and change of demeanor when the answer is "No, you are not free to go. Yes, I am detaining you."

Click to expand...

Sans Authoritas interpretation of my post:

Why is it so great, Coyotehitman? Why do you enjoy seeing the look of stupor and a change in demeanor on the face of someone over whom you have power?

Click to expand...

I wont respond to your interpretation of my post. For those who read my post and took it at face value, and wonder why it is the "best thing," I provide this response:

The best thing about contact (Especially one in which you intended to end on a positive note) with someone who is difficult, argumentative, sarcastic, overly assertive, confrontational, condescending, obstinate, impolite, belligerent, cocky, testy, or who could otherwise be construed as attempting to create friction through discourse, action, or inaction, by a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer, during the course of a lawful contact (lawful is determined by legislators, not by what some individual thinks is lawful, and that is not open for debate with me), is the point in which they realize they are not calling the shots/are not the big man/have taken the rope you handed them, tied a noose, placed it around their neck, and hung themselves with it/tripped over a certain body part/crossed the line you drew in the sand/opened their mouth and inserted their foot, and ultimately get what is coming to them.

In contrast, the best thing about having contact with the other 99.99% of the population, who I label as reasonable and normal everyday citizens, is the feeling I get by helping them, providing guidance, being a role model, and doing my part to better society--which is, coincidentally, a common goal for that part of the population.

To Mr. Authoritas:

I disagree with nearly every post I have read from you. I have found some amusing, some peculiar, some distasteful, and others reasonable. I see us at opposite ends of the spectrum. Regardless of my opinions, though, I have found a positive use for your posts. Specifically, they provide me with insight into how a certain portion of the population thinks, and with that, I can better communicate with these people and better control the direction my contact takes with them. For this, I extend my gratitude.

All of this is based on the premise that the driver needs to "prove" to the officer that he is not a threat. This is fundamentally wrong, and a fine example of "guilty until proven innocent".

Rummaging around in your glovebox or stepping out of your car may not be the smartest moves in todays political environment, but they are quite natural for the average citizen, and cops need to realize this.

What's next, a booklet for all Americans entitled "How to Act When The Police Stop You"? Sorry, but people are people, and they are going to do natural things. It's not the public that needs educated, it's the police. If they are unwilling to accept the risk of the job, and insist on the right to execute citizens for a "furtive move", they shouldn't be cops.

Harpo

Quote:
I do suggest to some of you who may promote asking questions such as "Am I free to go, officer, or are you detaining me?"

The best thing about hearing this is the guys look of stupor and change of demeanor when the answer is "No, you are not free to go. Yes, I am detaining you."


Quote:
Sans Authoritas, I'm not sure how long you've been around, or what your life experience is, but your posts seem to indicate a general presumption that every cop performing traffic stops is (1) interested in dragging out the encounter until he/she finds something of substance to charge you with and (2) in your words, is playing "games."

+1

Click to expand...

I distinctly remember a video that made the rounds of the internet where an officer in Missouri took that attitude with a young man who just happened to be in a position to document and publicize said officers "quesionably legal actions" during said stop. Said officer lost his job and hopefully will be held civilly liable in the future for his actions.

Cops need to remember one basic fact. CITIZENS HAVE RIGHTS. These rights are not impediments to them that must be circumvented and abused to reach the goal of adding to the body count in the hoosegow. When officers forget that basic fundamental premise they create havoc on the populace and in these days of minitaturized electronics expose themselves to civil and legal liability.

Thank god for hidden cameras....modern electronics has opened up a whole new world of abuse that was talked about by citizens but is only just now being believed because corroboration is now available.

I distinctly remember a video that made the rounds of the internet where an officer in Missouri took that attitude with a young man who just happened to be in a position to document and publicize said officers "quesionably legal actions" during said stop. Said officer lost his job and hopefully will be held civilly liable in the future for his actions.

Click to expand...

Nobody recommended "questionable legal actions." Also consider this. What the average keyboard attorney calls questionable is actually very legal. Most cameras record every time the switch box is in use; every stop is recorded and everything I do within 150' of my car, even if I am out of camera range, is audiotaped in digital clarity. I consider a camera my best friend, whether yours or mine. I have seen a perps home video surveillance tape seized and used to convict him of resisting arrest. That same tape cleared the officers of any wrongdoing. Most of the time, knowing they are being recorded keeps the bad guy and the officer on their best behavior, prevents a negative contact, and alleviates frivolous complaints. Did I mention that I love video cameras. Only bad cops, and I won't negate the fact that there are some out there, and bad guys worry about cameras.

PS--XRAYBOY Could you please PM me that video link or post it. I use the really good examples and the really bad examples to train young recruits and I do not think I am familiar with the one you are referring to.

How to Act When The Police Stop You

Click to expand...

My last dept. had a CR brochure titled, "What to do when the police stop you."

accept the risk of the job

Click to expand...

Certain risks are inherent and accepted, others are mitigated by asserting authority, understanding that seems to be difficult for some.

I don't expect anyone who has never rolled up and investigated a car load of gangbangers at 3AM in a dark public park to understand risk. Ride along with a big city department on a weekend midnight shift 3-4 times. It should be enlightening.

Zoogster:

Actualy in CA you just admitted to felony possession of a Billy by admiting a use you keep those items for is as a weapon. A blunt object weapon, such as a baseball bat or crowbar is an illegal billy under CA law if intended for use as a weapon. Kept for other purposes they are legal, but you just showed you consider them weapons.

So by being smart you would have just admited to a felony and given not only probable cause, but reason for arrest by an irritated officer.

Click to expand...

Rats. And I rely on Internet gun forums for all my legal advice. All my political, economic, and social advice too.

I consider a camera my best friend, whether yours or mine.

Click to expand...

Seems that the camera was the best friend of the kid thexrayboy used as an example, and the enemy of the cop.

Too bad many police and legislators don't hold the same views that you do when they pass and/or enforce laws that prosecute citizens who record police, in public, as they are doing their job...

Too bad many police and legislators don't hold the same views that you do when they pass and/or enforce laws that prosecute citizens who record police, in public, as they are doing their job...

Click to expand...

I am not familiar with these laws, could you enlighten me? What state has laws prohibiting the taping of a public servant in the performance of an official duty providing you are not hindering his ability to complete such duty (i.e. undercover operation, stakeout, etc.)?

Robert Hairless

Rats. And I rely on Internet gun forums for all my legal advice. All my political, economic, and social advice too.

Click to expand...

Check out this ruling which I thought you might enjoy, brought up in response to a guy challenging the vagueness of CA penal code 12020.
A guy was charged with having a bicycle chain with a lock on it as in possession of a slungshot, and the court affirmed it was indeed an illegal slungshot.
In thier ruling they cite previous definitions and case law, including that used in People v. Grubb:

Here we consider whether a bicycle lock on a chain may be a “slungshot” within the scope of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law. (Pen. Code, § 12000 et seq.) We conclude that it may be, if the evidence proves the defendant carried it as a weapon.

The San Mateo County District Attorney charged Johnny Ralph Fannin with possessing a slungshot, in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a). Fannin stipulated to a court trial based on the preliminary hearing transcript. The court found him guilty, and sentenced him to 16 months in prison. Fannin appeals, contending the term “slungshot” is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, both on its face and as applied to him. He also contends the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence.

Greg Oglesby, a Daly City police officer, testified that he approached Fannin at a bus stop around 5:30 in the morning. Oglesby had seen Fannin at the same stop a couple of hours earlier. Fannin said he was waiting for a bus. Oglesby explained that bus service did not begin until 6:00 a.m. Oglesby asked Fannin if he had anything illegal in his possession. Fannin said no, and consented to a search. In Fannin’s jacket pocket, Oglesby found a two-foot length of metal chain, with a heavy padlock attached to one end. Oglesby recognized this item as a slungshot, which Oglesby characterized as “a device, heavy object, usually a padlock that is attached to some type of device that allows [it] to be whipped, commonly a handkerchief, or in this case a chain.”

Fannin told Oglesby the lock and chain were for his bicycle, which was at home. He did not have the key to the lock, which was also at home. At this point, Oglesby read Fannin his Miranda rights. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.) He then asked Fannin why he was carrying the lock and chain. Fannin said he had it for self-defense; someone had tried to “punk” him the day before, and due to a previous head injury he was particularly vulnerable to blows to the head.

Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(1) prohibits the possession of “any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag.” Fannin contends “slungshot” is an archaic term that is no longer commonly known, and therefore the statute fails to meet the due process requirement of providing reasonable notice of what it prohibits. We disagree. Criminal statutes must be sufficiently definite to give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, and to give the police guidelines definite enough to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. However, “n analyzing whether a statute is sufficiently definite to pass constitutional muster, we look not only at the language of the statute but also to legislative history and California decisions construing the statute.” (People v. Bamba (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1120; People v. Heitzman (1994) 9 Cal.4th 189, 199.)

California case law provides a clear definition of “slungshot.” In People v. Williams (1929) 100 Cal.App. 149 (Williams), the court adopted the following dictionary definition: “a small mass of metal or stone fixed on a flexible handle, strap or the like, used as a weapon.”1 The slungshot possessed by Williams was “a flat steel wrench about six inches in length and weighing approximately five ounces,” with “a looped leather strap about twelve inches long so contrived by means of wire and leather thongs as to allow the wrench to be placed in a pocket at one end, while the end forming the loop could be slipped over the wrist of the user and held in the hand.” (Id. at p. 151.)

In People v. Mulherin (1934) 140 Cal.App. 212 (Mulherin), the weapon in question was made of fifty-six one-inch metal washers, strung on rawhide thongs knotted to hold the washers together and form a seven and a half-inch handle that could be looped around the wrist. Mulherin was convicted of possessing a blackjack, but the court noted that the weapon more closely fit the Williams definition of a slungshot. Nevertheless, the court held the weapon qualified as a kind of blackjack. (Mulherin, supra, at pp. 213-214.) The court observed that blackjacks, slungshots, billys, sandclubs, and sandbags could all be properly described by the term “sap.” “The use of language as applied to these weapons, all of the same class, is rather indefinite. It is significant that the legislature did not prohibit possession of a black-jack as such, a slung-shot, as such, a billy, as such . . . as it might have done, but instead, and very likely with appreciation of the difficulties of nomenclature, forbade ownership of any instrument or weapon ‘of the kind’, as commonly known. The purpose undoubtedly was to outlaw instruments which are ordinarily used ‘for criminal and improper purposes, [citations], and so we have in this act ‘a partial inventory of the arsenal of the “public enemy”, the “gangster” ’ [citation], and a prohibition against owning anything ‘of the kind’.” (Id. at p. 215.)


The definition of “slungshot” applied in Williams and Mulherin is sufficiently specific to pass constitutional muster. However, Fannin contends this case is different from Williams and Mulherin because his chain and padlock was not specially designed or modified for use as a weapon. He claims it would be unconstitutional to read the statute so broadly as to encompass such an ordinary useful object; otherwise, any student carrying a bicycle chain and lock would be subject to arrest and prosecution at the whim of the police. A similar claim was rejected in People v. Grubb (1965) 63 Cal.2d 614 (Grubb). Grubb was charged with possession of a “billy” after the police found a baseball bat in his car, with a few inches of the handle broken off. He argued that Penal Code section 12020 is unconstitutionally vague because no one can know whether an ordinary object might fall within the scope of the statute merely because it might be used as a weapon. (Grubb, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 616, 619-620.)

Reasoning that the constitutionality of a statute designed to protect the public from dangerous weapons must be sustained if possible, our Supreme Court found the general terms of the statutory ban against weapons to be reasonably certain in light of their legislative purpose: “The Legislature here sought to outlaw the classic instruments of violence and their homemade equivalents; the Legislature sought likewise to outlaw possession of the sometimes-useful object when the attendant circumstances, including the time, place, destination of the possessor, the alteration of the object from standard form, and other relevant facts indicated that the possessor would use the object for a dangerous, not harmless, purpose. [Fn. omitted.] [Citation.]

“Thus we hold that the statute embraces instruments other than those specially created or manufactured for criminal purposes; it specifically includes those objects ‘of the kind commonly known as a billy.’ (Pen. Code, § 12020; italics added.) The concomitant circumstances may well proclaim the danger of even the innocent-appearing utensil. The Legislature thus decrees as criminal the possession of ordinarily harmless objects when the circumstances of possession demonstrate an immediate atmosphere of danger. Accordingly the statute would encompass the possession of a table leg, in one sense an obviously useful item, when it is detached from the table and carried at night in a ‘tough’ neighborhood to the scene of a riot. On the other hand the section would not penalize the Little Leaguer at bat in a baseball game.

“Applying this test to the instant case, we find the possession of the altered baseball bat, taped at the smaller end, heavier at the unbroken end, carried about in the car, obviously usable as a ‘billy,’ clearly not transported for the purpose of playing baseball, violates the statute.

“We recognize that the presence of suspicious circumstances attendant to possession of the proscribed object does not forge an ironclad case against defendant. He may be able to demonstrate an innocent usage of the object but the burden falls upon him to do so.” (Grubb, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 620-621.) The Grubb court continued its discussion in a footnote at this point, as follows: “The prosecution need not show the intent of the possessor to use an instrument in a violent manner. [Citation.] A defendant, on the other hand, may justify his possession of an instrument found under suspicious circumstances by proof of his intent to use it in accordance with its ordinary legitimate design.” (Grubb, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 621-622, and fn. 9.)

Grubb has been read to mean that “where the object may have a legitimate and lawful use, . . . there [must] be evidence tending to show that, at the time and place of the alleged illegal possession, the possessor contemplated the unlawful and not the lawful use.” (People v. Deane (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 82, 89; 2 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against Public Peace and Welfare, § 161, pp. 682-684; see CALJIC No. 12.42 (1998 Rev.), defining “deadly weapon,” and incorporating Grubb’s listing of “attendant circumstances” indicating intended use of an innocent object “as a weapon should the circumstances require.”) There is some tension, however, between this reading and the Grubb court’s statement in a footnote that “[t]he prosecution need not show the intent of the possessor to use an instrument in a violent manner.” (Grubb, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 621-622, fn. 9, citing People v. McKinney (1935) 9 Cal.App.2d 523, 525, a case involving possession of a “sap” that was not described in the opinion.)

We believe the tension must be resolved as follows. Intent to use a weapon is not an element of the crime of weapon possession. “Proof of possession alone is sufficient.” (People v. McKinney, supra, 9 Cal.App.2d at p. 525.) However, if the object is not a weapon per se, but an instrument with ordinary innocent uses, the prosecution must prove that the object was possessed as a weapon. The only way to meet that burden is by evidence “indicat[ing] that the possessor would use the object for a dangerous, not harmless, purpose.” (Grubb, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 620-621, italics added.) The evidence may be circumstantial, and may be rebutted by the defendant with evidence of “innocent usage.” (Id. at p. 621.) The prosecution may not, however, merely show that the defendant had a table leg in his car while driving through a dangerous neighborhood, and require him to prove that he did not carry it as a weapon. Such a rule would turn the presumption of innocence on its head. Intended use is not an element of weapon possession, but the prosecution always bears the burden of proving that the defendant possessed a weapon. This interpretation of Grubb puts to rest the constitutional challenges raised by Fannin.

Stating a use of it is as a weapon, or that one may use it for self defense meets this definition and proves that someone possesses it as a weapon in compliance with this case law! Basicly stating it is a weapon shows it is possessed for that purpose, and is proof of illegal possession, meaning one can at that time, especialy with such a statement obviously recorded and documented by the dash cam place someone under arrest for felony possession of a billy for such an item.
Basicly the ruling states anything can be considered an illegal billy, or sap of some sort. However if the item is a normal everyday object the prosecutor must prove intent to use it as a weapon. If it is not a normal object the burden of proof is on the individual to prove they had it for a legitimate use which in this example is a table leg. Mentioning the item is a weapon though is proof that one acknowledges they view it as a weapon. So if asked if you have weapons, and you said yes you have a baseball bat, that shows you consider it a weapon, clearly prosecutable as a billy.

So most things can get someone charged with illegal felony possession of a sap, slungshot or billy if they say a use for them is self defense, as a weapon, etc when asked why they have it or why they carry it even if it is a normal item, like a big keychain, chain with padlock, tire iron etc..

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121

http://www.wirenh.com/News/News_-_general/Rochester_man_arrested_for_wiretapping_200705162095.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/120607Wiretapping.htm

http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2006/181206Camera.htm

Stories are all over the place, many also have been discussed on THR since I've been on. Mostly they are related to 'wiretap' laws. If THR search were better, I'd suggest you try it and you can find some discussion regarding it.

Had some connection trouble, further words in that ruling:


Our analysis is consistent with our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322 (Rubalcava), a prosecution for possession of a concealed “dirk or dagger” under Penal Code section 12020. The applicable statutory definition of these terms referred merely to capability of use as a weapon: “a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death.” (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (c)(24); Rubalcava, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 327-328.) The court noted that this definition is unambiguous, and requires no intent to use a concealed instrument as a stabbing weapon. (Id. at pp. 328.) Furthermore, legislative history reflected an express purpose not to make intended unlawful use an element of the offense, even though the Legislature recognized that innocent possession of many legal instruments would be criminalized. (Id. at pp. 328-331.) The court rejected Rubalcava’s constitutional challenges, finding the statutory definition of “dirk or dagger” neither vague nor unconstitutionally overbroad. (Id. at pp. 332-333.)

The Rubalcava court expressed concern over the wisdom of criminalizing a “wide range of otherwise innocent conduct,” such as taking a recently purchased steak knife home from the store or carrying a kitchen knife to a potluck dinner. (Rubalcava, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 331, 333.) Nevertheless, leaving the wisdom of the statute for the Legislature to reconsider, the court concluded that proof of intent to use an object as a stabbing instrument is not required for a conviction, nor should the jury be instructed on intended use of a “dirk or dagger” under CALJIC No. 12.42. (Id. at pp. 333-334.)

Like the Rubalcava court, we accept the Legislature’s determination to criminalize possession of a broad range of “instruments and weapons.” However, the Legislature has treated dirks and daggers differently than slungshots. Penal Code section 12020 does not proscribe possession of any object “capable of ready use” as a slungshot. Nor does any legislative history reflect a desire to broadly prohibit the possession of heavy objects affixed to flexible handles regardless of the possessor’s purpose. The statute proscribes possessing “any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a . . . slungshot” (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)), and the judicially adopted definition specifies that a slungshot is a device “used as a weapon” (Williams, supra, 100 Cal.App. at p. 151). Therefore, when the prosecution contends an ordinary object like a bicycle lock is a kind of slungshot, it must prove the defendant possessed the object as a slungshot. On the other hand, when the defendant is charged with possessing a slungshot like the rawhide and metal device described in Mulherin, which had no conceivable innocent function, proof of mere possession is sufficient. (Mulherin, supra, 140 Cal.App. at pp. 213-214; People v. McKinney, supra, 9 Cal.App.2d at pp. 524-525.)

Fannin told Officer Oglesby that he carried the chain and padlock for self-defense. That statement identified the bicycle lock as a weapon, and brought it within the class of objects prohibited by Penal Code section 12020. Like Grubb, who told the police he carried the bat for self-defense and had hit people with it in the past, Fannin with his own words placed the instrument in his possession “precisely into the statutory design.” (Grubb, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 618.) Unlike Grubb, however, Fannin concedes the admissibility of the statements he made to the police. (See id. at pp. 616-617, and fn. 1.) Fannin’s admission was evidence sufficient to support his conviction.

Fannin’s admission distinguishes this case from People v. Golden (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 769, another prosecution for possession of a weapon consisting of an object with a legitimate use. Golden was charged with possessing a dangerous weapon after the police found in his car a torpedo-shaped weight about 10 inches long, attached to several short lengths of rope. At trial before the court, Golden testified he had found this object and put it in his car without knowing what it was. An expert witness identified it as a standard “monkey fist,” a device attached by sailors to the end of a line to facilitate throwing the line to a dock. (Id. at pp. 770-771.) The Court of Appeal summarily reversed Golden’s conviction, noting the Legislature has not made it illegal to possess a “monkey fist,” “nor is a ‘monkey fist’ commonly known as a black-jack, slungshot, billy, sand-club, sandbag or metal knuckle. Hence it is clear that there is a total absence of any evidence to sustain defendant’s conviction . . . .” (Id. at p. 771.) Golden, unlike Fannin, did not admit that he was carrying the otherwise innocent object for use as a “slungshot” if he had to defend himself.

To sum up, a slungshot is a striking weapon consisting of a heavy weight attached to a flexible handle. An ordinary object such as a bicycle lock configured like Fannin’s, with the lock attached to one end of a chain, may be a slungshot. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant possessed such an object as a weapon. The prosecution may meet that burden with circumstantial evidence, or with the defendant’s statements explaining why he carried the object. On the other hand, the defendant may present evidence that he possessed the object innocently, for the purposes served by its legitimate design instead of those proscribed by Penal Code section 12020.


This same case law applies to all saps as defined in this ruling, billies included, which include any innocent object which is considered a weapon by the person possessing it.

Thank you

Case info from www.courtinfo.ca.gov

If asked if you have any weapons, and you say "yes", that implies you consider them a weapon, and turns a harmless item into a felony object in the state of CA. Obviously this would not apply to firearms or other weapons legaly allowed as a weapon (very few), but for anything else even normal blunt items, or anything on a strap or flail of any kind (like keychains, a purse etc) it does as demonstrated by case law and Supreme Court (of CA) decision. They then become a form of illegal felony sap. Notice the law is even more broad on anything which "can readily be used as a stabbing instrument". Anything pointed or sharp is automaticly an illegal dirk or dagger by this same ruling, no intent need be proven. That means the burden of proof for possesion of something like a screwdriver, ice pick or similar item would be placed on the defendent to prove an innocent purpose rather than the prosecutor under CA Supreme Court decision essentialy making it guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.