1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Battered woman carrying firearm convicted

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Waitone, Jan 17, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails

    Battered woman carrying firearm convicted
    Wife in danger from husband busted after leaving pursed gun in market
    Posted: January 17, 2006
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

    A woman who had carried a gun in her purse to help protect her from her husband, who she believed was trying to kill her, has herself been turned into a criminal as California prosecutors convicted her of carrying a concealed firearm without a permit.

    The woman, whom San Francisco Chronicle columnist Joan Ryan calls "Rebecca" to protect her identity, was convinced her husband was determined to kill her. In 2001, she left him and went underground through the California Confidential Address Program, using a phony address in Sacramento, Calif.

    In telling Rebecca's story, Ryan says last summer there were signs the woman's husband had found her. Knowing the police couldn't protect her 24/7, Rebecca began carrying a handgun in a pouch in her purse. She had purchased the firearm after leaving her husband, waiting the required 10-day period and registering it legally.

    "Maybe [the gun] would save her from becoming one of the 1,300 people killed in the United States each year in domestic violence attacks," writes Ryan.

    In August, Rebecca stopped at an Albertsons supermarket in Half Moon Bay, Calif., on her way home and accidentally left her purse at the checkout counter. It held her loaded handgun.

    That's when prosecutors in California turned a woman in danger of her life into a criminal herself.

    Explains Ryan: "She was arrested for carrying a loaded gun and sentenced last month by a San Mateo County court to 10 days in jail and 18 months' probation. Her conviction means she can no longer possess a gun, and it might jeopardize her participation in the Confidential Address Program."

    Commented Rebecca: "I'm 55 years old. I've never committed a crime. I'm not a threat to anybody.''

    Rebecca believed she could carry a concealed weapon legally without a permit because of an exception in the law for anyone who "reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order.''

    While there was a restraining order against Rebecca's husband, it had expired in June; she had thought it was permanent.

    "The restraining order would have been enough to take it to a jury trial,'' Ben Lamarr, the lawyer who represented her in court, told the Chronicle. "It would have created a technical defense, but without that, she didn't have anything.''

    An appeal of the sentence allows her to work in jail during the day and sleep at home. Even so, it will cost her $20 per day plus an additional $60 fee, She also will lose 10 days' wages, the gas to drive from the county where she lives to the San Mateo County Jail and the $160 fine she already paid.

    Not only does the loss of her gun leave her more vulnerable to her husband, but prosecutors used her actual address on public records involved in the case, a mistake Ryan says they are trying to rectify.

    "I'm usually not in the business of trying to get anybody's gun back, but with this conviction, she couldn't have it even in her house anymore,'' attorney Myra Weiher, who is trying to get the conviction set aside, told the paper.

    "This is scary stuff she's facing (from her batterer). Guys like this don't behave in ways regular criminals do. They're stealth. They're all about terror.''

    Concludes Ryan: "Something's wrong when, in trying to keep herself alive, the terrorized woman becomes the criminal."
  2. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Colorado Springs
    You are a threat to the authority of the state ... that is a more serious crime than spousal murder.
  3. odysseus

    odysseus Member

    May 10, 2004
    US Citizen
    Yep - another great case for CCW all around. However she is just a regular tax paying citizen with no celebrity status or government position. Sad state of affairs, I hope it goes to jury trial and a jury exonerates here.

    Another example of how the system works to the benefit of people. Ugh...:barf:
  4. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Prosecutors endangering lives so that the authority of the State is preserved?

    Why I've never seen that!:D
  5. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Yeah, but keeping and bearing arms makes her a threat to the People's Republic of California, since after all, she might vote against representatives of the Democratic (sic) party.
  6. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Dec 24, 2002
    Forestburg, Texas
    I didn't see where the woman was ever said to have been battered. Sounds like they are hyping what might have happened, not what actually happened in regard to the husband. She was in fear, but there is no indication that the husband ever harmed her.

    This gives the impression the husband is a criminal, but from what is provided, there is no evidence he battered her, no evidence that he was out to get her, and no evidence that he had found her. This all seems to be her belief or opinion.

    You have to wonder what the "signs" were that he had found her. Obviously, she had not seen him, been approached by him, or attacked by him or she would have reported it. If wonder if the "signs" came via the help of a psychic.

    So let's see, she legally purchaed a gun for self protection with the intent of carrying it because of her fear of the husband.

    Then she was dumb enough to not check the law on what makes such carry legal.
    And so as a result, she was dumb enough to carry the gun without a license.

    She was dumb enough to leave the purse with the loaded gun at a grocery store.

    She was dumb enough not to fully read or keep track of the restraining order against her husband.
    So sure, she is dumb enough to get convicted.

    No, she was 55 years old and never convicted of a crime until her gun incident. PLus she is lying. She is a threat to somebody. The whole reason for her to carry a gun is to defend herself, which makes her a threat to those who would attack her.

    I have trouble with folks who claim ignorance of the law as a defense. For somebody supposedly living in fear for her life, she seemed to take a lot of shortcuts and failed to followup on critical matters and as a result she screwed up multiple times in knowing what was legal and then had an incidental screwup of leaving her purse behind with the gun.

    In the grand scheme, had she kept her restraining order current and been a responsible gun owner and not leave her purse at the store, we would be none the wiser.

    In just how much fear do you live when you don't even bother to keep track of where your self protection gun is located?
  7. Mark in California

    Mark in California Member

    May 15, 2004
    Eureka, CA
    The article leaves the impression she was convicted/plead guilty to a Felony. First time convictions of a CCW a violation is a misdemenanor as long as the weapon is regestered to you.
  8. tinner man

    tinner man Member

    Jan 16, 2006
    True her conviction is not a felony

    This is one of those, we have rules you shall abide by them.:neener:
    Sometimes it does not seem fair but then it isn't.:cuss:
  9. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Member

    Dec 28, 2002
    Salt Lake City, UT
    At best, an inaccurate story, at worse, deliberate manipulation of the facts:

    There's no basis for this headline in the body of the story. An expired restraining order doesn't indicate there was any battering and may well just have been a legal maneuver.

    I'd be willing to bet that it was a JURY that convicted her.

    No, that's when her own negligence turned her into a criminal. If she had exercised minimal responsibility we wouldn't be reading about this now.

    Again, if she had exercised enough responsibility to read the piece of paper, we wouldn't be reading about this now.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page