Legal advise

[Beprepared]

Hello folks,

So I have these two friends, friend A and friend B. Friend A plans a trip to Kalifornia for a wedding. Friend B says " hey can I order a Cane Sword delivered to your house, and you bring it to me?" Friend A knows this is not entirely legal in Kalifornias perspective but says "sure." On friend A s last day in town he delivers said Cane Sword to Friend B. On Friend B s way home he gets stopped by PD for broken taillight. For some reason they have cause to search vehicle. PD finds said illegal concealed sword, and makes arrest. Friend B spend a night in jail. Friend A gets a call from 3 other friends along with Friend B on his drive back to Colorado.

Friend B in official statement, states it was a gift from named Friend A. It is, I'm sure in Friend B s best interest to state it was a gift. Friend B asks everyone present, including Friend A to write deposition stating Friend A gifted to Friend B.

Friend A s question, would Kalifornia have any reason to fine, prosecute, or put Friend A s name on a list preventing him from legally purchasing firearms or passing a background check in the future?

Serious responses please.
I'm sure Friend A will appreciate any good advise.
[Stooge]

[Colorado Luckydog]

Just have friends A,B,C, and D buy fucking Rainbow stickers and be done with it.

[glock56534]

I don't know what the exact details of the state or local law regarding the legality of possession and ownership of cane swords in the State of California, but Friend A could have subjected himself to criminal liability, regardless of whether it was gifted of sold to Friend B from Friend A.

First of all, Friend B purchased the sword and had it shipped to Friend A's house. Friend A then transported the sword to California to deliver to Friend B. There was no gift given, therefore Friend B has committed perjury by lying in an official statement.

Second, Friend A could be held liable as a co-conspirator to the crime. Since Friend A agreed to deliver the sword to Friend B knowing that it was illegal, then Friend A can be held fully liable for whatever crime Friend B is charged with and for the conspiracy.

Basically, Friend B could seriously be screwing Friend A over by including any statements implicating Friend A. What Friend B should do is take the shit that he got himself into like a man and don't try to exculpate himself by putting the blame on others. By making statements to the police implicating Friend A, he puts both himself and Friend A in a worse position.

Please remember, this is just what could possibly happen, not what is going to happen. It all depends on how the prosecutor wants to prosecute the case.

Just my $0.02...

[denvernative321]

Hello folks,

So I have these two friends, friend A and friend B. Friend A plans a trip to Kalifornia for a wedding. Friend B says " hey can I order a Cane Sword delivered to your house, and you bring it to me?" Friend A knows this is not entirely legal in Kalifornias perspective but says "sure." On friend A s last day in town he delivers said Cane Sword to Friend B. On Friend B s way home he gets stopped by PD for broken taillight. For some reason they have cause to search vehicle. PD finds said illegal concealed sword, and makes arrest. Friend B spend a night in jail. Friend A gets a call from 3 other friends along with Friend B on his drive back to Colorado.

Friend B in official statement, states it was a gift from named Friend A. It is, I'm sure in Friend B s best interest to state it was a gift. Friend B asks everyone present, including Friend A to write deposition stating Friend A gifted to Friend B.

Friend A s question, would Kalifornia have any reason to fine, prosecute, or put Friend A s name on a list preventing him from legally purchasing firearms or passing a background check in the future?

Serious responses please.
I'm sure Friend A will appreciate any good advise.
[Stooge]


HUH????

[Graves]

What difference does it make if it was a gift?? Sounds like friend B dicked friend A by bringing him into it. If friend A was smart he'd wash his hands of it entirely - not the best thing for a friend to do but sometimes...well, most of the time really; CYA is priority #1.

[Great-Kazoo]

deny everything, admit nothing.

the guy from co should deny he did anything regarding sale and or gift. If it is to late for that. attorney, attorney, attorney.

If he is already back in CO screw them. CA will never extradite him, nor will CO make the effort to detain him .

the CO guy should fu$%^&*k the guy in CA anally, since that's what he did to him by giving him up to LE's

[TS12000]

Friend A should deny he even knows friend B. Man up and don't throw people who did you a favor under the bus.

[Wulf202]

Friend A should deny he even knows friend B. Man up and don't throw people who did you a favor under the bus.

This plus lawyers

[TFOGGER]

Nuke Commiefornia from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.....

[BigBear]

"Friend B" ain't no friend. Tell A to run.

[cowboykjohnson]

Friend A should drive back to California and punch friend B in the face for throwing him under the bus... then tell the cops he thought it was shipped to his house by accident and he just brought it to friend B because his name was on it.

[Jumpstart]

A say nothing, B should start demanding his property back and causing the DA or assistant DA headaches.

[SA Friday]

Your CO friend should have never agreed to the purchase in the first place, and should have never agreed to take it to your CA friend.

Both should have never said anything about it, but invoke their right to silence and request representation by an attorney. Your CO friend should take this stance still.

If CA files a warrant for his arrest in the matter, it will probably stop him from purchasing a firearm. If CA doesn't file a warrant, then he is fine. Extradition will depend on a few factors, CA's desire to prosecute and spend money to retrieve him is the biggest.

As to proving all of this, it depends on how deep CA want's to investigate the issue and how much your retard of a CA friend talked. If he gave up where he bought it in his statement, then they can prove the straw purchase throught the digital records from the internet purchase records from the company. If he didn't divulge where he bought it (or gave the site implying his friend bought it) then it might be difficult to determine where the purchase was made and retrieve the evidence required to press charges. I suspect if the the local PD has to dig like a Mo-Fo to get the purchase evidence, they won't bother with your CO friend. If it's easy for them to get the purchase evidence, your CO friend might have a problem, and your CA friend is going to get hammered with additional charges.

[OgenRwot]

Cali "friend" is a douche bag for giving up Colorado friend to the cops on the matter. Deny deny deny.

[ColoEnthusiast]

Your CO friend should have never agreed to the purchase in the first place, and should have never agreed to take it to your CA friend.

Both should have never said anything about it, but invoke their right to silence and request representation by an attorney. Your CO friend should take this stance still.

Agreed.

[van7559]

Damn too many a's and b's, and c's etc. My fawking bwain hurtz! LOL

[Mtn.man]

I'm not a lawyer,,, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once in Santa Monica.....

[XJ]

Friend A knows this is not entirely legal in Kalifornias perspective but says "sure."

So you knew better, and did it anyway?

[Bang]



Oh, and I really laughed when it turned out that the tiger belonged to Mike Tyson.

[Elhuero]

So you knew better, and did it anyway?

[Bang]



Oh, and I really laughed when it turned out that the tiger belonged to Mike Tyson.


and if Doug was killed by crystal meth tweakers, we're shit out of luck.

[Beprepared]

Thanks Gents,
Friend A decided to seek legal counsel.