The False Equivalence Between Cars and Guns


A comment today about one of the suggestions being made by advocates of more stringent control of guns in the United States.Let's Treat Guns Like Cars

Simply put, the idea is that we should license gun owners the same way we license drivers of motor vehicles and that we should register guns the same way we register vehicles. The argument in favor of this suggestion is, essentially, that since it is acceptable that we register vehicles and license drivers for public safety, it should acceptable to register guns and license gun owners for public safety.

The comparison between cars and guns, however, exemplifies two forms of classic logical fallacy, false equivalence and false analogy.

The reason, of course, is that … despite the way the argument is put in the gun context … we do NOT register all cars … nor do we require all drivers to have licenses.

What? “Of course we do”, you say.

No, we don’t.

What we actually do is to require registration of all vehicles that are to be operated on public roads or in publically-owned off-road venues. And what we actually do is to require anyone who wants to drive on a public road or in a publically-owned off-road venue to have a driver’s license.

On the other hand, if a vehicle is not going to be operated on public roads or in a publically-owned off-road venue and is to be driven only on the owner’s private property, it does not have to be registered. In California, this is called “Planned Non-Operation” or “PNO”, which is described in this DMV online publication:

California Department of Motor Vehicleshttps://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr01/

It says:

PNO means that the vehicle will not be driven, towed, stored, or parked on public roads or highways for the entire registration year.

Similarly, any person who does not intend to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway or in publically-owned off-road venue is not required to have a drivers license. Individuals in California who do not have drivers licenses MAY (but are not required to) obtain a California ID card.

See this California DMV online publication for the ID card requirements:

California Department of Motor Vehicleshttps://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/idinfo/idcard

It describes the ID card as follows:

DMV issues ID cards to persons of any age. The ID card looks like a driver license, but is used for identification purposes only. A regular ID card is valid for six years, and a senior citizen ID card is valid for 10 years. To qualify for a senior citizen ID card, you must be age 62 or older.

In short, cars and guns are not equivalent; car owners and gun owners are not equivalent; and the analogy between cars and guns in this regard is false.

A true equivalence between cars and guns would be that the state should require anyone who wants to carry a gun in public to have a license … and that any gun which is going to be carried in public has to be registered.

On the other hand, if a person is going to own a gun, but will keep it only at home or otherwise only on his private property, there should be no requirement to either register the gun or have a license to own it.

THAT would be consistent with the way we treat motor vehicles and their drivers.

———-

For an interesting and entertaining alternative view of this issue, see the post “We Need to Regulate Cars the Way We Regulate Guns” on Mike Z. Williamson’s blog “The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse”:

The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse header

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=227

This blog is interesting because it shows what we would have to do to buy cars if they were subject to all of the requirements already in place with respect to guns … and demonstrates quite clearly that the purchase and use of guns is already much more heavily-regulated than the purchase and operation of cars.

—–oooooOOOOOooooo—–

FLA 78

New California Criminal Laws for 2016


The California state legislature enacted 807 new laws during the 2015 legislative session. Several of them addressed criminal law issues which might be of interest, particularly to attorneys who practice criminal law.

 

NEW CRIMINAL LAWS

Photographing and video recording cops in public

Video recording of police officers by private citizens has become somewhat of a contentious issue for some cops. Officers have been known to order citizens to stop … or to have seized the recording device … or even to arrest the recording individual for interfering with the performance of police duties.

This year, the California legislature brought clarity to this situation, making it clear that such recording in a public place is not, in and of itself, a violation of the law.

To accomplish this, the legislature amended two Penal Code sections, 69 and 148. The former makes it a crime to deter or prevent an officer from performing his duties and the latter makes it a crime willfully resist, delay, or obstruct a peace officer in the performance of his duties.

Section 69 was amended to add subdivision (b), which provides:

“The fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording of an executive officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the photograph or making the recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a violation of subdivision (a).”

Section 148 was amended to add subdivision (g), which provides:

“The fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording of a public officer or peace officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the photograph or making the recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a violation of subdivision (a), nor does it constitute reasonable suspicion to detain the person or probable cause to arrest the person.”

Biking to the music with ear buds

California law previously prohibited wearing any headset that covered both ears while driving a vehicle or riding on a bicycle.  This year, the law — Vehicle Code section 27400 — was amended to, essentially, ban ear buds while driving or riding a bicycle.

With certain exceptions (such as persons operating authorized emergency vehicles and individuals wearing hearing aids), the law now provides:

 “A person operating a motor vehicle or bicycle may not wear a headset covering, earplugs in, or earphones covering, resting on, or inserted in, both ears.”

BB Guns in public

When I was a kid growing up on Long Island, I often carried my BB rifle or .22 caliber pellet gun around the neighborhood, plinking away with them. These days, of course, carrying around a realistic-looking BB gun can get you killed.

In any effort to reduce the likelihood of such a tragic event happening in California, several provisions of law relating to BB, pellet, paintball and airsoft guns were changed this year.

Penal Code section 20165 previously excluded all BB guns from the existing prohibition on “imitation firearms”. Under the new law, BB, pellet, paintball and airsoft guns are considered “imitation firearms” and therefore illegal unless they meet specified requirements, the full details of which are available here:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB199

Among the exceptions are the color requirements designed to make these recreational guns readily identifiable as non-lethal. New Penal Code section 16700, subdivision (b)(5), provides that these guns are not considered “imitation firearms” when they consist of:

“A device where the entire exterior surface of the device is white, bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright green, bright blue, bright pink, or bright purple, either singly or as the predominant color in combination with other colors in any pattern, or where the entire device is constructed of transparent or translucent materials which permits unmistakable observation of the device’s complete contents.”

Gun violence restraining orders

Numerous and substantial changes were made to the laws regarding gun violence restraining orders. The full details of the changes, which were enacted by Assembly Bill 1014, are here:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014

Major provisions of the bill authorize courts to:

Issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if the court finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another.

Issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another.

Issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a period of one year when there is clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another.

The new law authorizes the renewal of the order for additional one-year periods and permits the restrained person to request one hearing to terminate the order during the effective period of the initial order or each renewal period.

The new law requires courts, upon issuance of gun violence restraining orders, to order the restrained person to surrender to the local law enforcement agency all firearms and ammunition in his or her custody or control, or which he or she possesses or owns and requires the local law enforcement agency to retain custody of the firearm or firearms and ammunition for the duration of a gun violence restraining order.

To help protect individuals against false claims in applications for gun violence restraining orders, the new law makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to file a petition for an ex parte gun violence restraining order or a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and a hearing, knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass the person who is the subject of the requested order.

Finally, the new law also provides that a person who owns or possesses a firearm or ammunition with the knowledge that he or she is prohibited from doing so by a gun violence restraining order is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prohibited from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a 5-year period, commencing upon the expiration of the existing gun violence restraining order.

CCW on school grounds

The rules governing the carrying of licensed concealed weapons on or near school grounds (Penal Code sections 626.9 & 30310) were changed this year.

The changes allow the holder of a valid license to now carry a concealed firearm to carry a firearm in an area that is within 1,000 feet of, but not on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12.

On the other hand, the changes deleted the exemptions that previously allowed a person holding a valid license to carry a concealed firearm to bring or possess a firearm on the campus of a university or college and that previously allowed a person to carry ammunition or reloaded ammunition onto school grounds if the person is licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

The new law did create an additional authorization for a person to carry ammunition or reloaded ammunition onto school grounds if it is in a motor vehicle at all times and is within a locked container or within the locked trunk of the vehicle.

Transporting dope

The definition of “transporting” controlled substances within the meaning of Health & Safety Code sections 11360, 11379.5 and 11391 was changed to mean “to transport for sale”.

The changes to these code sections, which relate to the transportation of marijuana, pcp and psychedelic mushrooms, mean that a person who is transporting those substances for personal use, rather than for sale, can be charged only with possession of, rather than the more serious charge of transporting, the proscribed substances.

Custodial battery (alternative felony-misdemeanor)

Section 243.15 was added to the California Penal Code, providing that:

“Every person confined in, sentenced to, or serving a sentence in, a city or county jail, industrial farm, or industrial road camp in this state, who commits a battery upon the person of any individual who is not himself or herself a person confined or sentenced therein, is guilty of a public offense and is subject to punishment by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or in a county jail for not more than one year.”

Not that such a battery ever was a good idea, now the consequences of committing one are potentially even more severe.

Credit for time served against fines

The value of each day spent in jail and for which a defendant is entitled to credit against any imposed fine, was increased from $30 per day to $125 per day. (Penal Code section 1205)

Dismissal of traffic tickets

Want to get out of a traffic ticket? Well, the legislature added a new way this year. In the past, any citation or misdemeanor traffic offenses committed by a person sentenced to state prison could no longer be prosecuted.

Now, that restriction also applies to anyone sentenced to a county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h), which provides for so-called “realignment” county jail sentences.

So, if you have a citation or misdemeanor traffic offense pending and you get sentenced to county jail under section 1170, subdivision (h), as an alternative to being sent to prison, will be relieved of prosecution for those traffic offenses.

Felony traffic offenses are not affected by the change in the law and can still be prosecuted, even for individuals sentenced to prison or county jail under the realignment statute.

 

NEW LAWS RELATING TO THE PROSECUTION

AND DEFENSE OF CRIMINAL CASES

Immigration consequences

Penal Code sections 1016.2 & 1016.3 were added this year, addressing how both prosecutors and defense counsel deal with the immigration consequences of guilty pleas in criminal cases.

 The new laws require that defense counsel provide to their clients accurate and affirmative advice about the immigration consequences of any proposed disposition of the client’s case and that prosecutors, “in the interests of justice … shall consider the avoidance of adverse immigration consequences in the plea negotiation process as one factor in an effort to reach a just resolution”.

Thus, the lawyers on both sides of criminal cases involving individuals who may be subject to immigration consequences as a result of their prosecution must take those potential consequences into consideration as part of the plea bargaining process.

Presumably, this will also mean that courts will be inquiring of defendants entering guilty pleas whether or not their lawyers have advised them of the potential immigration consequences. One more thing for defense counsel to keep in mind.

Prosecutorial misconduct (withholding evidence)

And one more thing for prosecutors to keep in mind (though the ethical ones always have and will not be effected in any way by this change):

Section 1424.5 was added to the Penal Code … because of the significance of this provision, here it is in full:

Penal Code section 1424.5

“(a) (1) Upon receiving information that a prosecuting attorney may have deliberately and intentionally withheld relevant or material exculpatory evidence or information in violation of law, a court may make a finding, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that a violation occurred. If the court finds such a violation, the court shall inform the State Bar of California of that violation if the prosecuting attorney acted in bad faith and the impact of the withholding contributed to a guilty verdict, guilty or nolo contendere plea, or, if identified before conclusion of trial, seriously limited the ability of a defendant to present a defense.

“(2) A court may hold a hearing to consider whether a violation occurred pursuant to paragraph (1).

“(b) (1) If a court finds, pursuant to subdivision (a), that a violation occurred in bad faith, the court may disqualify an individual prosecuting attorney from a case.

“(2) Upon a determination by a court to disqualify an individual prosecuting attorney pursuant to paragraph (1), the defendant or his or her counsel may file and serve a notice of a motion pursuant to Section 1424 to disqualify the prosecuting attorney’s office if there is sufficient evidence that other employees of the prosecuting attorney’s office knowingly and in bad faith participated in or sanctioned the intentional withholding of the relevant or material exculpatory evidence or information and that withholding is part of a pattern and practice of violations.

“(c) This section does not limit the authority or discretion of, or any requirement placed upon, the court or other individuals to make reports to the State Bar of California regarding the same conduct, or otherwise limit other available legal authority, requirements, remedies, or actions.”

In a related provision, subdivision (a)(5) was added to Business & Professions Code section 6068.7, providing:

“(5) A violation described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 1424.5 of the Penal Code by a prosecuting attorney, if the court finds that the prosecuting attorney acted in bad faith and the impact of the violation contributed to a guilty verdict, guilty or nolo contendere plea, or, if identified before conclusion of trial, seriously limited the ability of a defendant to present a defense.”

These provisions add serious consequences to the withholding by prosecutors of relevant or material exculpatory evidence or information in any criminal case.

—–oooOOOooo—–

FLA 75

New California Laws Effective January 1, 2013


 

The California legislature passed some 800 new laws which become effective on January 1, 2013.

Some new criminal laws include:

AB 1432 adds Penal Code section 273j:  This law makes it a misdemeanor for a parent to fail to report within 24 hours that a minor child is missing or has died.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1432_bill_20120930_chaptered.html

AB 1527 adds Penal Code section 26400:  This law makes it a misdemeanor to carry an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun in any incorporated city or city & county (i.e., San Francisco).  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1501-1550/ab_1527_bill_20120928_chaptered.html

AB 2020 amends Vehicle Code section 23612 to provide for implied consent by any driver to submit to a breath or blood test if lawfully arrested for DUI.  This modifies existing law to delete the previously authorized alternative of submitting to a urine test.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2001-2050/ab_2020_bill_20120827_chaptered.html

SB 661 adds Penal Code section 594.37:  This law makes it a misdemeanor to picket, on public property, a funeral for a period of time starting one hour before the funeral starts and ending one hour after the funeral ends.  This law is designed primarily to track federal law protecting the privacy of military funerals.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_661_bill_20120917_chaptered.html

New laws on some subjects previously discussed here:

SB 1140 amends Family Code section 400 to provide that any priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination may decline to solemnize a same-sex marriage if doing so is contrary to the tenets of his or her faith.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1101-1150/sb_1140_bill_20120930_chaptered.html

AB 1536 amends Vehicle Code section 23123.5 to authorize texting while driving as long as the driver is using a hands-free, voice-activated electronic messaging device.  This bill modifies existing law which prohibits texting while driving.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1501-1550/ab_1536_bill_20120713_chaptered.html

Some other new laws of interest:

AB 1708 amends Vehicle Code section 16088 to allow drivers to provide proof of insurance upon request of a law enforcement officer by use of a mobile electronic device.  This is a modification of existing law, which requires drivers to provide documentary proof of insurance upon request of a law enforcement officer.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1701-1750/ab_1708_bill_20120907_chaptered.html

SB 1264 amends Penal Code section 11165.7 to add to the list of “mandated reporters” of suspected child abuse or neglect athletic coaches, assistant coaches and graduate assistants.  This change brings these individuals within the coverage of existing law, which makes it a misdemeanor for a mandated reporter to fail to report such suspected abuse or neglect.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1264_bill_20120924_chaptered.html

SB 1298 adds Vehicle Code section 38750:  This law authorizes the operation of “autonomous” vehicles (that is, vehicles which drive themselves, or more accurately, which are driven by a computer), as long as there is a licensed driver in the driver’s seat.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1298_bill_20120925_chaptered.html

California Red Light Cameras, Trial by Declaration & On Line Traffic School


Answering a question posed by Rob in a comment on my About Me page:

Could you help a guy from Boston with a question about CA red light cameras?

I asked him to provide more information, to which he responded:

Continue reading

Hands Free Cell Phone Dichotomy


Fines for violating the new hands free cell phone law in California are $20 for the first offense and $50 for any second and subsequent offenses. California Vehicle Code section 23123.

The fine schedule for violating the California high occupancy vehicle (carpool) lane is derived primarily from California Vehicle Code section 42001.11 (set forth in full below). A rather arcane application of that section and several other code sections results in a minimum fine of $271.

Continue reading

California Supreme Court agrees with …


… me … see my post on the anti-gay marriage initiative at:

https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/california-anti-gay-marriage-initiative/

… and, coincidentally, with proponents of the anti-gay marriage initiative.

Continue reading

The Cell Phone Debate “Rages” On


As mentioned in my previous post on the new California hands free cell phone law, there has been a raging debate over the use of cell phones while driving. I recently participated in a conversation on the subject on the website “Newsvine”, which conversation begins at:

http://dawn1.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/26/1613075-the-truth-about-driving-and-talking-on-the-cell

Continue reading

California Anti-Gay Marriage Initiative


Today I received the following email and inuiry from a fellow West Pointer, Ed Colchado, Class of ’76:

Jim,

What is your opinion of recently filed suits to bar the November initiative on the basis that the “measure would change the state’s Constitution so profoundly that it would amount to a revision. Under the law, the Constitution cannot be revised by initiative alone – a two-thirds legislative approval is also needed before the measure goes to the voters.”

Continue reading

Point-Counterpoint with Randy DeSoto


I have received an email from Randy DeSoto regarding his column on the California gay marriage case, to which I respond here:

Continue reading

Randy DeSoto Wrong on Gay Marriage


I received today an email with a link to an article by Randy DeSoto on the website The Conservative Voice. In this article, he discusses the recent California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. DeSoto’s “constitutional” analysis of the issues is, however, deficient in several significant respects:

Continue reading

Will California Gay Marriages be Legal in Other States?


A straight-forward reading of Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, would seem to indicate that the anwer to this question is an unequivocal yes.

It isn’t.

Continue reading

California Supreme Court: Yes on Gay Marriage


In the most important court decision upholding individual rights since the US Supremes struck down state prohibitions of interracial marriage, the California Supreme Court today banished California’s law against gay marriage.

Continue reading

Medical Marijuana in California


I was recently asked, “If I have a medical marijuana card in California, how much marijuana can I legally possess?”

The short answer according to the federal government, despite California’s liberalized medical marijuana law, is none. As simple as that short answer is, however, it doesn’t really answer the question.

Continue reading