Carrying a Concealed Weapon While Living in a Storage Unit

jk, Thank you. I apologize for my mistake. I need to stop typing when I get really tired.

First of all thank you for your time, I would like to make a case for why this whole thing should be dismissed, please don't be offended if I test your statements.

I think it is clear to see that rules have been broken. Not sure, but I feel this contributes to a feeling that laws were broken, and if a crime was committed, she looks like a law breaker and is probably "guilty". I think it is easy to loose track of the importance of determining if the exact crime occurred as charged, or more importantly, if it can be proven. Just to be clear, I don't intend to help guilty people. But at the same time I believe people do not need to prove there innocents in this country.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mercy&Grace

---

The person that asked her to do this knew that he was breaking the law by asking her to do it and allowing her to stay in the storage unit. He didn't do it to help her out, he did it to help himself out and to not have to pay someone for doing the job.

---

Seems like you are saying he found a way to get her to do a job. I hope I'm not unreasonably twisting words here, but doing a job and being an employee seem quite similar to me. I'm not ready to say she is an employee. I don't want to argue on that point. I already understand it is easy to argue that she was not an employee. I am sure plenty of people could hammer me with countless points outlining how and why she was not an employee. I am sure some could site rules, or employment procedures that were not followed. I don't really need that. I got it, Those things were noted and contributed to her being arrested in the first place. I do think arguments could be made ether way to some degree though. I can see it would not be easy to convince this community that it was an employee employer relationship. In fact, think it would be easier to argue that she was not an employee on the surface.

My question, or contention is that the state would have a difficult time proving to me that an employee / employer relationship did not exist to some degree. Specificity I think the state would have a hard time explaining why she was paid with a paycheck at times, Why she was permitted to stay overnight. Why she was given free rent in exchange for helping. Why she was asked to cut off locks, why they told customers she was night security? Why she was doing jobs. Why they were Ok with her walking around with a gun? Why wasn't she charged with trespassing. Why did she say she was a security guard upon arrest? Was she in an abusive Employee/employer, Landlord /tenant relationship. And If she was not working for the business, Why didn't they call the police and kick her out for cuing off locks and working on the place?


I would weigh this against: Why wasn't she paid property? Why didn't she contact the labor board? Why would she work without seeing a regular paycheck? Why didn't she have workmans comp? Why were so many things undocumented?


I turned to the states website and the Feds to try to define Employee, The state and federal government define it differently at different times and under different circumstances. They mainly compare employee to contractor but they do attempt to define it.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/01/art1full.pdf

(Quote)
Today’s workplace includes a variety of
workers in contingent arrangements—independent
contractors, leased employees, temporary employees,
on-call workers, and more—perceived
to be a result of employers’ desire to reduce labor
costs and employees’ desire to increase their flexibility,
among other things..................


........But how does Federal law treat workers in contingent
and alternative work arrangements? That
is, are such workers viewed as employees who
are entitled to legal protections under Federal legislation?...........


..................The question “Is a worker an employee?” may
seem like a simple one to answer on its surface.
The dictionary definition of “employee” says
succinctly that an employee is “a person who
works for another in return for financial or other
compensation.”3 Under that definition, independent
contractors would appear to be employees.
However, the legal definition of “employee” is
concerned with more than the pay received by a
worker for services provided. Black’s Law Dictionary
defines “employee” as “a person in the
service of another under any contract of hire,
express or implied, oral or written, where the employer
has the power or right to control and direct
the employee in the material details of how
the work is to be performed.”4.....................

.....................Determining a worker’s status
The potential benefits to both employers and workers of the
proper characterization of the working relationship raises the
question, How is the legal determination made as to whether a
worker is an employee or an independent contractor? Generally,
the totality of the circumstances—that is, all the conditions
under which a person is working—governs the characterization
of that person as an employee or an independent
contractor; the label a company places on the worker has
no bearing on the matter. Again generally, a person is an employee
if the employer has the right to control the person’s
work process, whereas a worker is classified as an independent
contractor if the employer does not control the process,
but dictates only the end result or product of the work. Note
that the employer does not actually have to control the work
process: the mere ability of the employer to take control is
sufficient to create an employer-employee relationship.......................

It goes on for 11 pages explaining this topic.


The Labor Commissioner has this:

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_indep...contractor.htm

(Quote)
There is no set definition of the term "independent contractor" for all purposes, and the issue of whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor depends upon the particular area of law to be applied. For example, in a wage claim where employment status is an issue, DLSE will often use the five-prong economic realities test to decide the issue. However, in a separate matter before a different state agency with the same parties and same facts, and employment status again being an issue, that agency may be required to use a different test, for example, the "control test," which may result in a different determination. Thus, it is possible that the same individual will be considered an employee for purposes of one law and an independent contractor under another.


This is confusing enough to me, I think it is irrelevant what the employer chooses to labels her as it is irrelevant to the definition of an employee. Failure of an employer to verify employment would seem to invite major civil liability in this case though.


I hope you agree and can give me some pointers on which of my points hold water if any. I feel I'm the only one who doesn't think she is guilty, and that is scary to me. I'm a little scared of your potential backlash,,, so if you disagree please be nice (:

Thanks
and
good night.

She is/was not a Security Guard. The State Of California has requirements for Security Guards and based on what you have said here she doesn't meet those requirements. So she couldn't be employed as a Security Guard. If she wasn't employed as a Security Guard, what was she doing there ? She said she was their Security Guard, what evidence does she have of that ?


In a court of law, evidence is required. If she had not been armed and was saying that she was there as an employee, what proof does she have ? Does she have a copy of the checks she was paid with ? What proof does she have that she was asked to cut locks ? What proof does she have that customers were told that she was a night Ssecurity Guard ? Although cutting off locks and telling customers that she was a night Security Guard in no ways means that she is employed. What proof does she have that they owners were ok with her walking around with a gun ? Her being in an abusive employee/employer relationship has nothing to do with what she is charged with, but what proof is there if that ? There is no tenant/landlord relationship. Her saying what someone told her or what someone said to others is not evidence.

I commend you for trying to help your friend. But, I don't see how you're going to be of help to her trying to comprehend the laws as a layman. You aren't being objective, which is understandable. The only thing that you're going to accomplish with this is getting yourself and her worked up and upset. I would like to make a few suggestions. Try and help her find a permanet place to live. The homeless are given preference with government housing. Going to a shelter is the quickest way to do this. Although, you don't have to be living in a shelter to be considered homeless. If she has mental and/or physical problems, find some places that she can go for outpatient treatment. If she isn't able to work because of mental and/or physiclal conditions, help her apply for SSI or SSDI at your local Social Security Office.

If (when) she gets out, perhaps the storage unit owner could rent your friend a small apartment and give her a small salary in exchange for her (legally) guarding the premises overnights. That would be a win/win for both of them. The owner wouldn't have to pay anywhere near $6000 per month, and your friend would have a safe place to sleep. (during the day, as she'd be working at night.)

In the State of California, security guards must be licensed and must apply for that license from the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS).

Are you sure that she has been living in the storage space and thinking that she is working there as a Security Guard for over 20 years ? That is a very, very long time for something like this not to be caught.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mercy&Grace

---

Are you sure that she has been living in the storage space and thinking that she is working there as a Security Guard for over 20 years ? That is a very, very long time for something like this not to be caught.

---

Yes. I have known her since before she moved in. They agreed for her to stay in her unit overnight in exchange for her help with the property, and to make it easier for her to keep a watchful eye at night. One of her tasks was to report people who tried to stay without permission.

Quote:

---

Quoting toad

---

Yes, I'm sure, I have known her since before she moved in. One of her tasks was to report the people who tried to stay overnight. They agreed for her to stay in exchange for her help with the property, especially to keep a watchful eye at night.

---

Doesn't make her crime legal, nor does it mean that the property was also her residence for purposes of carrying concealed. Her "employment" and residence were both unlawful.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Doesn't make her crime legal, nor does it mean that the property was also her residence for purposes of carrying concealed. Her "employment" and residence were both unlawful.

---

First of all I was answering the question.

Second,
I think all crimes are by definition illegal?

I am unaware of any law or case law that stipulates that the employment or agent need to meet specific criteria such as w2, the state does recognize employment through verbal agreements.

When I read the law at: http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/ag...orms/hscsg.pdf it states:
"....any officer, employee or agent authorized for lawful purposes connected with the business may
have a loaded firearm......"

You may know more than me but, just reading that and knowing nothing more I don't see a crime. Storage unit business are a form of lawful business, working on storage unit property to improve or secure it is also lawful purpose, the fact that it was undocumented and not compliant with every law dose not seem to make the business or the purpose of the business unlawful to me. If the law said Lawfully employed that might be different, but it says "Employed for lawful purposes".

Seems to me if I authorize you, a former police officer as my agent to look over my property, You have the right to do it.

I appreciate your input but, I don't see your position sported in the actual text in the law. I'm not saying it is not there or that you are wrong, I'm Just saying I don't see it spelled out in the law.

What it "seems" to you does not make it lawful.

HERE is what the state has to prove (from the state of CA jury instructions):

The defendant is charged [in Count ] with unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm on (his/her) person [in violation of Penal Code section
25400(a)(2)].

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:
1. The defendant carried on (his/her) person a firearm capable of being concealed on the person;
2. The defendant knew that (he/she) was carrying a firearm;
AND
3. It was substantially concealed on the defendant’s person.

Let's see ... one, check ... two, check ... three, check.

Let's see ... defenses:

Belief she was in grave danger (PC 25600) ... nope.
Possessed on defendant's own residence, property, or place of business (PC 25605) ... nope.
Transporting the weapon between those places listed above (PC 25525) ... nope.
Involved in the production of a television show or movie (PC 25510) ... nope.
Peace officer or other duly authorized active duty or retired official permitted to carry a concealed firearm (PC 25450) ... nope.

So, being permitted to trespass and reside unlawfully does not magically transform those grounds into HER place of business. It is only the place that she was not kicked out of. Sorry. Quid pro quo - an illegal arrangement, at that - does not make it HER place of business.

Quite frankly, this is not going to turn into a huge deal. If he had possessed a pocket knife with the blade extended and in her pocket, or a screwdriver tucked concealed in her waistband she would be facing much more serious penalties than she will for carrying a loaded and concealed firearm. It is likely that a plea to probation, a fine, and perhaps a few days of jail time (maybe) is in her future. Fortunately for her she left the screwdriver in the storage unit.