Improvement on CA CCW firearms

[THE Gimper]

From two previous threads (you guys need to do a little research).

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

Okay here's my question. Your at home, you whip out your blaster and light him/her up with the laser. You don't end up shooting him. WAS THAT SELF-DEFENSE?

417.25. (a) Every person who, except in self-defense, aims or
points a laser scope, as defined in subdivision (b), or a laser
pointer, as defined in subdivision (c), at another person in a
threatening manner with the specific intent to cause a reasonable
person fear of bodily harm is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail for up to 30 days. For purposes of
this section, the laser scope need not be attached to a firearm.
(b) As used in this section, "laser scope" means a portable
battery-powered device capable of being attached to a firearm and
capable of projecting a laser light on objects at a distance.
(c) As used in this section, "laser pointer" means any hand held
laser beam device or demonstration laser product that emits a single
point of light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation that
is visible to the human eye.

Could you be arrested, charged and convicted?

JD, don't answer this!!!!!!

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

No Laser in Orange County. Period! It is a county by county choice.

The logic that is being used is. If you point a laser gun at somebody and you do not shoot them you violate PC417.25

"417.25. (a) Every person who, except in self-defense, aims or
points a laser scope, as defined in subdivision (b), or a laser
pointer, as defined in subdivision (c), at another person in a
threatening manner with the specific intent to cause a reasonable
person fear of bodily harm is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail for up to 30 days. For purposes of
this section, the laser scope need not be attached to a firearm.
(b) As used in this section, "laser scope" means a portable
battery-powered device capable of being attached to a firearm and
capable of projecting a laser light on objects at a distance.
(c) As used in this section, "laser pointer" means any hand held
laser beam device or demonstration laser product that emits a single
point of light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation that
is visible to the human eye."

[sholling]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

From two previous threads (you guys need to do a little research).

If you're pointing your weapon at someone other than in self defense then you have bigger problems than the laser.

[rycerz]

Originally Posted by sholling

She's the sheriff now so she owns that rule. The fact that the rule exists makes her a twit.

Ummm sure... ok......

Only if you're having a shootout in the fog.

Only in fog? What about dust? There is way much more to this. Anyways, laser is not the solution but more often then not it's a crutch.

Anything that makes a first round hit more likely is a plus. Especially when LE shootings have a hit rate of between 14 and 40% depending on the agency. But that's beside the point for a civilian. If a civilian misses and hit's an innocent a lawyer is going to ask "would you have missed with a laser?" and "Why didn't you have a laser sighting system? If the answers are "no" and "the sheriff said no lasers" then the taxpayers are on the hook. It's the rule that puts the taxpayers on the hook because it's so blatantly irresponsible. That makes her a twit in my book.

Your logic..... is... flawed..... Lasers wont make LE shoot better. Lack of a laser due to policy wont put the city/county on the hook for a missed round, etc.....

[rycerz]

Originally Posted by Fjold

A laser doesn't work that way. Are you thinking about a gun mounted flashlight?

Nope, I'm thinking of a laser. You can follow laser beam back to its source more often then you'd imagine.

[sholling]

Originally Posted by rycerz

Only in fog? What about dust? There is way much more to this. Anyways, laser is not the solution but more often then not it's a crutch.

For a civilian it's like the choice to carry a weapon. A personal decision and not properly the purview of a bureaucrat.

Your logic..... is... flawed..... Lasers wont make LE shoot better. Lack of a laser due to policy wont put the city/county on the hook for a missed round, etc.....

I thought we were discussing civilian CCW carry? In that case it could. It shows negligence for denying an additional aiming aid that may have prevented the victim from becoming a victim. .

[rycerz]

Originally Posted by sholling

I thought we were discussing civilian CCW carry? In that case it could. It shows negligence for denying an additional aiming aid that may have prevented the victim from becoming a victim. .

Yeah, but you mentioned that LE has hit ratebetween 14 and 40% so that's the reason behind my first sentence. SEcond sentece talks about the lawsuit in case of a miss and lack of laser.

[sholling]

Originally Posted by rycerz

Yeah, but you mentioned that LE has hit ratebetween 14 and 40% so that's the reason behind my first sentence. SEcond sentece talks about the lawsuit in case of a miss and lack of laser.

The first illustrates how often misses happen in a high stress situation.

The second point really has to do with if plaintiff's shyster can get a civilian shooter to say that he wanted a laser ensure hits but that the sheriff said no. If so any shyster worth his salt is going to smell deep pockets.

[rycerz]

Originally Posted by sholling

The first illustrates how often misses happen in a high stress situation.

Try lack of training.

The second point really has to do with if plaintiff's shyster can get a civilian shooter to say that he wanted a laser ensure hits but that the sheriff said no. If so any shyster worth his salt is going to smell deep pockets.

Show me a case where the city/county/issuing agency is on the hook...... Anyways, shyster will smell not deep pocket but rather old socks

[paul0660]

I didn't understand most of this thread (especially the cut and pasted stuff, which were neither argument nor explanation).

Call the leo, get an opinion, then get it in writing. Until then, carried by six judged by twelve rules.

[Justaguy]

Originally Posted by sholling

It shows what an ignorant twit the sheriff is. If anyone is hit by a missed shot she assumes responsibility.

That's quite a bold statement (public agency employee is responsible for actions of a citizen they issued a permit/license to).
Care to back that statement up with some evidence?

I'm not trying to be confrontational but I think you are 100% wrong on this.

[Keith92555]

Originally Posted by sholling

It shows what an ignorant twit the sheriff is. If anyone is hit by a missed shot she assumes responsibility.

Originally Posted by Justaguy

That's quite a bold statement (public agency employee is responsible for actions of a citizen they issued a permit/license to).
Care to back that statement up with some evidence?

I'm not trying to be confrontational but I think you are 100% wrong on this.

+1. Gotta go with Justaguy here. I don't think ANYONE on this site wants to even TRY that road. The instant you start trying to put the blame on the sheriff for the errs of the licensee, your permit will evaporate like a raindrop hitting hot lava. Just practice more with the iron sights and hit what you aim at.

[sholling]

Originally Posted by Keith92555

+1. Gotta go with Justaguy here. I don't think ANYONE on this site wants to even TRY that road. The instant you start trying to put the blame on the sheriff for the errs of the licensee, your permit will evaporate like a raindrop hitting hot lava. Just practice more with the iron sights and hit what you aim at.

I don't live in the OC anymore but that doesn't change the fact that she's being a twit. I also didn't suggest that a permit holder sue her. I'm simply suggesting that she's leaving the county open for a lawsuit should a permit holder miss and strike an innocent bystander after being denied the use of a laser. Justaguy has a thing against lasers and that's his right. It seems like there are some at OCSD with a thing against lasers to. The fact that they are so widely used in both LE and civilian self defense and the sheriff denied access to a tool that might have prevented an accident creates room for a cause of action by an innocent bystander. The same cause of action that he or she would have if the sheriff required that you wear blindfolds while carrying. She may have that power but it doesn't absolve her of responsibility if a bystander gets hit due to you defending yourself while blindfolded. If you've lived in California long you know there will be at least one lawyer looking to cash in.

[rycerz]

Originally Posted by sholling

I don't live in the OC anymore but that doesn't change the fact that she's being a twit.

Not necessarily disagreeing with that statement BUT make sure you go after her for the right reasons otherwise you sound like you're just foaming at the mouth which then takes away weight from all the valid reasons that folks go after her.

I also didn't suggest that a permit holder sue her. I'm simply suggesting that she's leaving the county open for a lawsuit should a permit holder miss and strike an innocent bystander after being denied the use of a laser.

Oh I understood you just fine EXCEPT that arguing that in court... would not hold water. A lawyer might throw it out ther eas smoke screen but it wont work.

Justaguy has a thing against lasers and that's his right. It seems like there are some at OCSD with a thing against lasers to. The fact that they are so widely used in both LE and civilian self defense and the sheriff denied access to a tool that might have prevented an accident creates room for a cause of action by an innocent bystander.

As far as I know lasers are used on rifles. I don't recall of the top of my head any agency that uses lasers on handguns.

The same cause of action that he or she would have if the sheriff required that you wear blindfolds while carrying. She may have that power but it doesn't absolve her of responsibility if a bystander gets hit due to you defending yourself while blindfolded. If you've lived in California long you know there will be at least one lawyer looking to cash in.

Ok, now you're reaching. While it might be argued that a laser could be a benefit saying that without one you're like with a blindfold makes we wanna say: unload the handgun, put it down and walk away from it.

[sholling]

Originally Posted by rycerz

As far as I know lasers are used on rifles. I don't recall of the top of my head any agency that uses lasers on handguns.

Feel free to contact Crimson Trace for a list of agencies that authorize their use. They didn't just come into existence yesterday. CT has been around a long time.

Law Enforcement professionals and military personnel were the first to understand and embrace the advantages of Crimson Trace Lasergrips. In fact, we’ve worked closely with these entities since our beginning back in 1992, along with the nation’s top tactical instructors.

It makes sense, because it’s their job to protect, serve and defend. Police departments far and wide have certified our products for use in the field. U.S. Military and NATO forces are now fully authorized to use Crimson Trace Lasergrips in theatres of conflict.

Hit Ratio for Officers Using laser gripsOne of the first things we learned from our friends in Law Enforcement is that officers in actual gunfights hit their intended targets at a rate of 90% using Lasergrips. Compare this to an average of less than 30% for agencies not equipped with our products. The conclusion? If more good guys used Lasergrips, there would be far fewer bad guys.

Ok, now you're reaching. While it might be argued that a laser could be a benefit saying that without one you're like with a blindfold makes we wanna say: unload the handgun, put it down and walk away from it.

It's a matter of opinion. You see it how you see it and I see it how I see it. We disagree and may as well agree to disagree.

[Justaguy]

Originally Posted by sholling

Justaguy has a thing against lasers and that's his right.

While it might be "my right", it's not something I've ever said and my actions certainly don't support that statement:
1. I don't live in Orange County
2. My J-Frame sports a laser grip.

Originally Posted by sholling

I don't live in the OC anymore but that doesn't change the fact that she's being a twit.

We do agree that the appointed Sheriff of Orange County is a twit.

What we disagree on is the concept that a government employee is somehow liable for the actions of an individual who has been granted a permit or license. Apply the same logic to any other sort of license, say, a contractors license. You can't sue the State of California for a licensed contractor screwing up. You can sue the contractor but not the State.
Can you give an example where this has happened? I don't believe you can.

If I were at my office, I would be able to cite the specific law or case that proves the point.....