Are "weaponized" flashlights legal to carry concealed in CA?

[pullnshoot25]

I live in california and I EDC a mini maglite right next to my ka-bar openly on my belt. I have heard lots of hearsay about billy clubs / kubaton laws regarding flashlights. While I don't carry either for defensive purposes, But if my blade were rendered useless in some situation and I was not carrying on private property. I would use anything and everything at my reach to defend myself until I felt safe, regardless of anything besides my own personal safety.

Regarding lethal force statues, I believe dead men tell no tales.

If indeed you did have to use it in lethal force, read up here about that. Plan your defenses. Protect yourself.

Dead men tell plenty of tales. You just can't ylhear then.

 

[Grapeshot]

Dead men tell plenty of tales. You just can't ylhear then.

+1

 

[BigfootJohnson]

Regarding lethal force statues, I believe dead men tell no tales.

I took a CCW class a couple years ago and the SWAT Officer who runs the school even told us basically the same thing in regards to legal defense::

"Your chances are much better when there's only one-side to the story."

 

[marshaul]

I took a CCW class a couple years ago and the SWAT Officer who runs the school even told us basically the same thing in regards to legal defense::

"Your chances are much better when there's only one-side to the story."

That sounds like a cop. ******* pig.



It's called a voice (or, even better, video) recorder. Get one. Use them, people.

Then you don't have to be, as a matter of fact (whether provable or not), guilty of murder in the event your assailant doesn't die in the process of being stopped. You can have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Born2Lose]

Very practical, You can clip it to your purse. :lol:

And if i want to go tacticool i can put a little tiara on her and it acts like a strike bezel.

 

[BigfootJohnson]

That sounds like a cop. ******* pigs.

I don't understand why you had to go there. Not all officers are bad though some may become blinded/drunk with the power trip. This officer is teaching the class to help us defend ourselves personally and somewhat legally. If you kill the guy in defense of your life, you're not then somehow legally on the hook for liability to his caused injuries in a civil suit. On the other hand.. we don't need the perp living comfortably in jail on our dime, either.


I see your edit... and of course that makes sense, too. I gotcha.

 

[marshaul]

I don't understand why you had to go there. Not all officers are bad though some may become blinded/drunk with the power trip. This officer is teaching the class to help us defend ourselves personally and somewhat legally. If you kill the guy in defense of your life, you're not then somehow legally on the hook for liability to his caused injuries in a civil suit. On the other hand.. we don't need the perp living comfortably in jail on our dime, either.


I see your edit... and of course that makes sense, too. I gotcha.

I edited my post to reflect that my disgust wasn't directed at all cops.

I wasn't in that class, so I don't know exactly in what context that remark was made.

But I don't believe folks should intentionally murder a stopped but alive assailant, nor do I believe police should advocate such behavior internally or externally.

As for "pig", well, I admit I'm judging without knowing the "totality of circumstance", but there have been far too many cops who kill someone because it was convenient and simply lie their way out of it, no questions asked. Let's just say I hope this guy wasn't one of them.

 

[realityfatality]

I edited my post to reflect that my disgust wasn't directed at all cops.

I wasn't in that class, so I don't know exactly in what context that remark was made.

But I don't believe folks should intentionally murder a stopped but alive assailant, nor do I believe police should advocate such behavior internally or externally.

As for "pig", well, I admit I'm judging without knowing the "totality of circumstance", but there have been far too many cops who kill someone because it was convenient and simply lie their way out of it, no questions asked. Let's just say I hope this guy wasn't one of them.

I agree, however you must weigh out your options carefully and expect the unexpected.

Just because a person stopped attacking you and ran away doesn't mean he was regretful for assaulting you, for all you know he could be going home to get his friends, or even a gun. If someone attacks someone else for absolutely no defensive reason, especially if he believes the person to be unarmed, he/she is a coward and doesn't deserve to live.

 

[Grapeshot]

I agree, however you must weigh out your options carefully and expect the unexpected.

Just because a person stopped attacking you and ran away doesn't mean he was regretful for assaulting you, for all you know he could be going home to get his friends, or even a gun. If someone attacks someone else for absolutely no defensive reason, especially if he believes the person to be unarmed, he/she is a coward and doesn't deserve to live.

I do not and will not consider the use of deadly force because someone is regretful or not, nor for what I do not know. It is not for me to determine whether or not he/she deserves to live.

My only deciding factor is to provide the means/action to stop the threat against myself or my loved ones. The other party sets the stage - I only respond as I am forced to by those circumstances.

 

[realityfatality]

I do not and will not consider the use of deadly force because someone is regretful or not, nor for what I do not know. It is not for me to determine whether or not he/she deserves to live.

My only deciding factor is to provide the means/action to stop the threat against myself or my loved ones. The other party sets the stage - I only respond as I am forced to by those circumstances.

Now you're bringing up ones personal assesment of a threat. Perception is in the eyes of who sees it and nobody else.

 

[Grapeshot]

I do not and will not consider the use of deadly force because someone is regretful or not, nor for what I do not know. It is not for me to determine whether or not he/she deserves to live.

My only deciding factor is to provide the means/action to stop the threat against myself or my loved ones. The other party sets the stage - I only respond as I am forced to by those circumstances.

Now you're bringing up ones personal assesment of a threat. Perception is in the eyes of who sees it and nobody else.

Not at all. What would a "reasonable and prudent person have done" and case law go far beyond one's own personal assessment. Granted that only you can make such decisions for yourself, but others will judge you.

As for me, I will be a defender not an executioner - that is the reality.

 

[realityfatality]

Not at all. What would a "reasonable and prudent person have done" and case law go far beyond one's own personal assessment. Granted that only you can make such decisions for yourself, but others will judge you.

As for me, I will be a defender not an executioner - that is the reality.

I will do what I have to do. I've been in a self defense situation before. I have used a lethal tool with a lethal outcome. In that quick second it takes you to decide how to "counter" the other person has already made a second move.

I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

 

[Grapeshot]

Not at all. What would a "reasonable and prudent person have done" and case law go far beyond one's own personal assessment. Granted that only you can make such decisions for yourself, but others will judge you.

As for me, I will be a defender not an executioner - that is the reality.

I will do what I have to do. I've been in a self defense situation before. I have used a lethal tool with a lethal outcome. In that quick second it takes you to decide how to "counter" the other person has already made a second move.

I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

The aspect being discussed was NOT whether one could or should use lethal force to defend oneself. The point being made by one poster was that "dead men tell no tales - this was supported by a few in defending shooting a fleeing attacker and similar. It is that position that I cannot and will not endorse; hence my comment that "I will be a defender, not an executioner." Hopefully we are on the same page here.

 

[ryanburbridge]

I have used a lethal tool with a lethal outcome.

Did a flashlight help?



"If squirt guns are outlawed, only outlaw squirts will have guns!"

James Taranto

 

[realityfatality]

The aspect being discussed was NOT whether one could or should use lethal force to defend oneself. The point being made by one poster was that "dead men tell no tales - this was supported by a few in defending shooting a fleeing attacker and similar. It is that position that I cannot and will not endorse; hence my comment that "I will be a defender, not an executioner." Hopefully we are on the same page here.

I'm not saying shoot someone in the back at 20ft when they are running away, but when presented with the choice of lethal or non-lethal defense at a very split second, your best option
Is to the double tap, if availible.

What would you do if someone sued you for shooting them in the leg after they tried to rape your wife?

Did a flashlight help?



"If squirt guns are outlawed, only outlaw squirts will have guns!"

James Taranto

It was the only thing that saved me. Middle of the night in the local canyons looking for firewood and a squater jumped out of the bushes with an unloaded .357 lever action rifle to protect his "crop" - I won't fill you in on the details but he left a blood trail the swat team found all the way to where he was.

If the flashlight didn't illuminate him soon as he jumped out at me, and that rifle were loaded I might have been in a load of trouble.

 

[swinokur]

Surefires are made in OC. Does that answer the original question?. Would CA allow the manufacture of an weapon that would be illegal to possess?

 

[marshaul]

Would CA allow the manufacture of an weapon that would be illegal to possess?

Yes?

And the question wasn't possession, it was carrying.

 

[swinokur]

Yes?

And the question wasn't possession, it was carrying.

Why would CA allow a device that you could possess but not carry? As paranoid as they are, it would seem they would not even give you the opportunity to do either.

But it is the land of fruits and nuts, so who knows.

 

[marshaul]

Why would CA allow a device that you could possess but not carry?

Switchblades over 2" and balisongs come to mind.

Why? Because it's stupid to ban possession of these things?

A better question would be, "why ban carrying?".

 

[BigfootJohnson]

The aspect being discussed was NOT whether one could or should use lethal force to defend oneself. The point being made by one poster was that "dead men tell no tales - this was supported by a few in defending shooting a fleeing attacker and similar. It is that position that I cannot and will not endorse; hence my comment that "I will be a defender, not an executioner." Hopefully we are on the same page here.

Just because this is referring to myself... I was one of "the few".
I'm on the same page with you as well.
I definitely know better than to continue on after the threat is no longer a threat, legally. I don't need to end-up in jail for excessive force or then it would actually be on its way to manslaughter. BUT, if defense is required and reasonable force in that defense is a gun... empty the clip. We only need one-side to the story in that case.