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



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."

Quoted: 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.

What else really needs to be said?  She is a criminal.  She broke the law.  She was convicted.  She needs to be punished.

I don't see the problem?

California law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, and I believe California only issues carry permits to actors.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. What else really needs to be said?  She is a criminal.  She broke the law.  She was convicted.  She needs to be punished. I don't see the problem? California law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, and I believe California only issues carry permits to actors.

I hope that is sarcasm

It sucks that she got caught    

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6


FUCK Kal-Com

Quoted: 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 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. She carried a gun 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. She was convinced her husband was trying to kill her.  Is there any proof of this?  Were aliens trying to kill her, too? 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. Signs?  "Rebecca lives here"? "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. We all know [cough, cough] that people are more likely to be killed with their own gun.  So, she was in fact increasing her chances of being killed. 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. She left a loaded handgun unattended in public where children could find it? That's when prosecutors in California turned a woman in danger of her life into a criminal herself. She broke the law.  She is a criminal. 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." She is a criminal.  Criminals do not deserve special protection.  Criminals are forbidden from owning firearms.  She had better not hook up with some guy who owns a firearm, either. Commented Rebecca: "I'm 55 years old. I've never committed a crime. I'm not a threat to anybody.'' Miss Rebecca, you did commit a crime.  You carried a firearm without a permit.  And then you left it unattended in public. 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. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. "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.'' She didn't have anything to defend herself with because she broke the law. 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. She got off easy. What is she bitching about? 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 thought she was no longer entitled to a fake address.  And we all know [cough, cough] that you are more likely to be killed with your own gun.......  blah blah blah "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. Guns are evil.  Unless they suit my purpose.   "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.'' Regular criminals?  Like your client? Concludes Ryan: "Something's wrong when, in trying to keep herself alive, the terrorized woman becomes the criminal."

I get so sick of this shit.  Rebecca may be caught up in a bad situation.  But, I absolutely f'in guarantee you that the same liberal cock-suckers who want to ban all guns want to fight tooth and nail to get this woman her gun back, because she needs it to protect herself from some evil male.  The same cock sucking law makers who made it illegal in the first place.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. What else really needs to be said?  She is a criminal.  She broke the law.  She was convicted.  She needs to be punished. I don't see the problem? California law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, and I believe California only issues carry permits to actors. I hope that is sarcasm

Yes.  It is sarcasm.  

It just really pisses me off.  California passed these f'ed up laws.  Now that someone is enforcing the laws on the books, it is suddenly wrong?  No.  It was wrong to begin with.

I feel nothing but sympathy for Rebecca.  But, if there is a law on the books, it should be enforced or taken off the books.  Stupid liberals need to learn there are consequences to their actions.  If they want to prohibit people from defending themselves, then that includes battered women and little old ladies, too.

i really wish people would start suing the state when they get mugged or raped or whatever in states where they are not able to pack anymore.

It just shows you that what "the law" is and what "the right thing" is can be miles apart.

I always have to laugh at people who say "the law is the law" and "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

"The law" has been used to punish the innocent since time began and has anyone here ever read all the "laws" that pertain to them?

It is impossible to know the law.

Quoted: Quoted: 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 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. She carried a gun 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. She was convinced her husband was trying to kill her.  Is there any proof of this?  Were aliens trying to kill her, too? 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. Signs?  "Rebecca lives here"? "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. We all know [cough, cough] that people are more likely to be killed with their own gun.  So, she was in fact increasing her chances of being killed. 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. She left a loaded handgun unattended in public where children could find it? That's when prosecutors in California turned a woman in danger of her life into a criminal herself. She broke the law.  She is a criminal. 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." She is a criminal.  Criminals do not deserve special protection.  Criminals are forbidden from owning firearms.  She had better not hook up with some guy who owns a firearm, either. Commented Rebecca: "I'm 55 years old. I've never committed a crime. I'm not a threat to anybody.'' Miss Rebecca, you did commit a crime.  You carried a firearm without a permit.  And then you left it unattended in public. 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. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. "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.'' She didn't have anything to defend herself with because she broke the law. 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. She got off easy. What is she bitching about? 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 thought she was no longer entitled to a fake address.  And we all know [cough, cough] that you are more likely to be killed with your own gun.......  blah blah blah "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. Guns are evil.  Unless they suit my purpose.   "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.'' Regular criminals?  Like your client? Concludes Ryan: "Something's wrong when, in trying to keep herself alive, the terrorized woman becomes the criminal." I get so sick of this shit.  Rebecca may be caught up in a bad situation.  But, I absolutely f'in guarantee you that the same liberal cock-suckers who want to ban all guns want to fight tooth and nail to get this woman her gun back, because she needs it to protect herself from some evil male.  The same cock sucking law makers who made it illegal in the first place.

I agree that she broke the law, but the damn law should have extigent circumstances for people in her situation.  Better yet, it shouldn't exist at all.  If you really believe the antis will step up to her defense, you need an intravenous dose of what we like to call reality.  Anti is anti, and their agenda is ZERO guns, not guns for some.  Conversely, they'll be the ones pushing for the maximum penalty saying that she should have just called the police and let them deal with it, not carrying a gun and trying "to take the law in her own hands."  

Don't fool yourself.  Yes, she should have known the laws and obeyed them in the eyes of some people.  I am willing to bet she knew the law and broke it anyway because it is a stupid law that makes victims - of which she chose not to be a statistic of.  I wouldn't say I applaud her, but I can damn well see where she is coming from.

Quoted: i really wish people would start suing the state idiot lawmakers and politicians who ban guns and CC when they get mugged or raped or whatever in states where they are not able to pack anymore.

Fixed that for ya, bro.  

Battered wimminz???


and to think all these years I've been eating mine plain.

(I don't believe I was the first one to get that old joke in...)

yeah, but its only a misdameanor meaning she'll never be able to get a ccw in ANY state...

What is it that people (and Cali law makers) don't get about the enumerated rights in the Constitution?  The first two are "free expression" and "keep and BEAR arms."  Yet somehow they think it is OK to prosecute this woman for carrying a pistol because a state law made hundreds of years later?

G  

Quoted: i really wish people would start suing the state when they get mugged or raped or whatever in states where they are not able to pack anymore.

You damn well better believe if something happens to me I fully plan on doing just that. It pisses me off to no end I cant protect my LIFE, and yet I'm required BY LAW to have insurance protecting my fucking CAR.

I'm sorry State of Kansas, I value my LIFE more then my CAR.

If something happens tome or my wife, you can bet your bottom dollar I will hold the State accountable and do everything I can to get a court case.

Fortunately, I dont think I have much to worry about in the big city of Gardner, Ks.

Quoted: i really wish people would start suing the state when they get mugged or raped or whatever in states where they are not able to pack anymore.

You can't.  The state has absolutely no obligation to protect you or your property.  In fact, they can stand there while you are killed and watch the criminal run away, and nothing can be done.  Isan't it wonderful.

Quoted: i really wish people would start suing the state when they get mugged or raped or whatever in states where they are not able to pack anymore.

Pretty simple really, she should call the PD every time she leaves her home and request a police escort. Every time she hears a noise, call police, call the cops day & night and when they get tired of her, call her legislator and tell them that the cops aren't doing their job.

Cali. needs a Suzanna Gratia Hupp.