Articles Posted in Assault with Deadly Weapon

Published on:

Often, people who are charged with brandishing a deadly weapon in Ventura wonder whether or not to hire a private attorney or get the public defender. Your best option is to always hire a private attorney. For example, a private criminal defense attorney at Wallin & Klarich will treat your case with real sincerity and attention while a public defender is usually too busy to call or speak with you in person. Additionally, not only will our criminal defense lawyers be available to meet with you, but we will also provide the support and guidance that your family members and loved ones need during this difficult time. There is simply no substitute for the devotion of our attorneys at Wallin & Klarich.

In California, brandishing a deadly weapon in a rude, angry or threatening manner is a crime. Specifically, Penal Code section 417 prohibits your from drawing or exhibiting, in the presence of another person, a deadly weapon or to use a deadly weapon in a fight. Brandishing a weapon in Ventura is a serious misdemeanor crime as you can be punished by imprisonment in county jail for a minimum of 30 days.

In order to convict you of brandishing a deadly weapon or firearm in Ventura, the prosecution must prove the following:
1. The defendant drew or exhibited a deadly weapon or a firearm in the presence of someone else;
2. The defendant did so in a rude, angry, or threatening manner; AND 3. The defendant did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else.

When charged with brandishing a weapon in Ventura, it is important that you contact an experienced Ventura criminal defense attorney at Wallin & Klarich. By doing so, the attorney can raise a number of defenses to fight your criminal charge. For example, one such defense is self defense. If you were not the initial aggressor and you were merely defending yourself from an attack using a weapon, then you can not be convicted of this crime.

If you or a loved one is charged with brandishing a weapon in Ventura, it is imperative that you contact an experienced Ventura criminal defense attorney at Wallin & Klarich. For over 30 years, we have represented many people charged with brandishing a weapon or firearm in Ventura. Most often, our experienced criminal defense attorneys can get your charges reduced or have your case entirely dismissed. Unlike the public defender, the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can be reached any time.

We will get through this together. Call us at 888-280-6839 to learn more or visit us at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Published on:

On June 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided McDonald v. City of Chicago, a closely watched case that recognized that states cannot infringe a person’s right to own a firearm for self-defense in his home. The Court ruled that a law totally banning handgun possession in the city of Chicago was unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Second Amendment states that “[a] well-regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Guns rights groups such as the NRA had argued that the Second Amendment protected the individual right of a person to possess a firearm. Gun control activists maintained that the right described referred to the state militia’s right to have firearms for the purpose of defending the state against the federal government.

Prior to two years ago, the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment aligned with the gun control side of the argument. In 2008, however, the Court decided D.C. v. Heller, a decision that recognized that a person had an individual right to own a firearm and that the federal government could not infringe upon that right.

Through a doctrine of constitutional law called incorporation based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Court in McDonald recognized that state and local governments also could not infringe on that right.

So what does this mean for current gun laws?

We know that a total firearm ban is unconstitutional, but what about other laws? Many laws limit when or where you can possess a gun, but McDonald casts a shadow on their constitutionality. What about possessing a gun in a public place, like near a school or in a stadium or an airport? What about possessing a gun in your car?

What about if a city bans live ammunition but permits the sale of only rubber bullets that can be fired from standard firearms?

The Court did describe some of the limits of the Second Amendment and asserted that most existing gun restriction laws would be constitutional. For example, the Court explicitly stated that current laws banning gun ownership for felons are valid. But under the reasoning of McDonald, don’t felons have a right to self-defense in their own homes too?

The only thing certain after McDonald v. Chicago is that a flood of litigation will follow to determine which gun restrictions laws are constitutionally valid. If a person is convicted under a gun control law that is later held unconstitutional, his conviction may be overturned.

Under California Penal Code section 12020(a)(1), selling or possessing several different types of weapons or bullets can be either a misdemeanor or a felony. Some of the banned weapons include undetectable firearms, firearms that are not readily apparent to be firearms, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns. All of these weapons could conceivably be used for self-defense in one’s home, so it’s not certain if every part of the statute will survive a constitutional challenge. Still, Penal Code section 12022(a)(1) and other California gun states remain the law and have not been explicitly invalidated by McDonald.

If you or someone you know has been accused of a weapons crime, you will need an experienced attorney who is knowledgeable about the dynamic changes occurring in criminal and constitutional law. At Wallin & Klarich, we have over 30 years experience in defending clients from gun possession charges and protecting their constitutional rights. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Published on:

NPR reported that a former emergency room doctor was convicted of six felony counts in an incident involving a car which was allegedly used as a weapon.

The news story said that the incident started when the doctor, while driving his car, got a little too close for comfort with a couple of cyclists who were apparently hogging the road. The doctor and the cyclists exchanged words, and the doctor went around the cyclists and suddenly slammed on his brakes. One of the cyclists couldn’t stop and slammed into the back of the car. The cyclist was severely injured and the doctor was arrested.

The doctor now faces up to 10 years in prison and also faces losing his driver’s license for the rest of his life because the weapon purportedly used was a car.

Have you or a loved one been accused of assault with a deadly weapon involving a motor vehicle? Assault with a deadly weapon in California is considered a serious or violent felony and could mean possible time in prison as well as a lifetime suspension of your driver’s license. It is important to contact an experienced attorney to represent your interests and your rights in court.

At Wallin and Klarich, our attorneys have successfully represented many clients in this situation. Our attorneys will work to ensure that the facts of your case are heard. Many defendants can avoid prison time and held on to their driving privileges. Call us at 888-280-6839 or fill out our consultation form online at www.wklaw.com for a free evaluation of your case. We will be there when you call.

About Wallin & Klarich

Wallin & Klarich was established in 1981. Over the past 32 years, our law firm has helped tens of thousands of families in their time of legal need. Regardless of whether our clients faced criminal or DUI charges, the loss of their driving privilege, or wanted to clean up their criminal record, we have been there to help them.