Question Legal Asking for someone else (no it’s not me). How bad can it get for them?

[grandpapeepap]

They always issue two plates for these cars...just one gets put on the car in the back, though.

oof, its like going 5 over and rolling a stop. mostly going to get ignored

 

[Dvrjon]

5200.
(a) When two license plates are issued by the department for use upon a vehicle, they shall be attached to the vehicle for which they were issued, one in the front and the other in the rear.

(b) When only one license plate is issued for use upon a vehicle, it shall be attached to the rear thereof, unless the license plate is issued for use upon a truck tractor, in which case the license plate shall be displayed in accordance with Section 4850.5.

That cite is only relevant when coupled with the earlier Article 7 provisions requiring issuance of two plates.

Please see: CVC 4850, Operative 1/1/87.

​

VEHICLE CODE - VEH​

DIVISION 3. REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES AND CERTIFICATES OF TITLE [4000 - 9808]​

( Division 3 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )​

CHAPTER 1. Original and Renewal of Registration; Issuance of Certificates of Title [4000 - 5506]​

( Chapter 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )​

ARTICLE 7. License Plates [4850 - 4854]​

( Article 7 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )​

4850.
(a) The department, upon registering a vehicle, shall issue to the owner two partially or fully reflectorized license plates or devices for a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, and one partially or fully reflectorized license plate or device for all other vehicles required to be registered under this code. The plates or devices shall identify the vehicles for which they are issued for the period of their validity.

What wouldn’t get two plates? Trailers; Motorcycles (above) truck tractors, etc.

4850.5. ​

(a) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 4850 and Section 5200, the department, upon registering a truck tractor, shall issue to the owner one suitable license plate or other device which identifies the vehicle for which it is issued and for the period of its validity. The license plate or other device shall be attached to the front of the vehicle.

So, the default is two plates per vehicle to be displayed both front and rear, unless excepted from the provisions.

 

[grandpapeepap]

That cite is only relevant when coupled with the earlier Article 7 provisions requiring issuance of two plates.

Please see: CVC 4850, Operative 1/1/87.

What wouldn’t get two plates? Trailers; Motorcycles (above) and truck tractors:

So, clearly, the issue is whether or not it makes sense for two plates (you can’t see the back of the tractor or the front of the trailer and there is little real estate on the front of a MC for a plate). All other vehicles get two plates and the plates must be displayed.

fire up the drill and drill some holes into that front bumper for the plate.

 

[Dvrjon]

fire up the drill and drill some holes into that front bumper for the plate.

If it wasn’t an issue, there wouldn’t be a Cottage industry to monetize it.

 

[2muchsoysauce4allthisrice]

yes, somewhat frequently. or even irl people will do that

Oh wow, thanks for letting me know that; didn’t know that, thanks. Something I’ll probably take notice now.

 

[Hit Factor]

No it’s not me. It’s a newer co worker I just met. Surprised you were quick to assume/accuse it was me.

Come on, you’re not fooling anyone. Your “new co-worker friend” could have just asked Google AI for the answer instead of randomly confiding in someone they just met at work.

I am curious, though, how this “new co-worker that you just met” ended up getting his gun inspected by the police and cross-checked against the guns listed on his permit. I’ve never heard of that happening to any CCW holder during a routine traffic stop. There’s more to this story than you’re telling us, right?

 

[grandpapeepap]

If it wasn’t an issue, there wouldn’t be a Cottage industry to monetize it.

cottage industry, new phrase added to my lexicon. Much thanks

 

[2muchsoysauce4allthisrice]

Come on, you’re not fooling anyone. Your “new co-worker friend” could have just asked Google AI for the answer instead of randomly confiding in someone they just met at work.

I am curious, though, how this “new co-worker that you just met” ended up getting his gun inspected by the police and cross-checked against the guns listed on his permit. I’ve never heard of that happening to any CCW holder during a routine traffic stop. There’s more to this story than you’re telling us, right?

Not everyone refers to AI for a quick generated general summary from quick information gathering.

Someone else referred them over to me to talk to me about it since they knew I take interest in firearms. They were a newer guy. And obviously knowledge to think Glocks would be eventually absolutely unattainable because of the bill against cruciform triggers (not even through ppt), not know that off roster is attainable via ppt, and what’s available to civilians to legally own is only limited to what’s on the roster.

Pulled over for minor traffic stop; something to do with a license plate. Let them know they were a ccw permit holder and currently carrying.

Out of all 5 of your warnings attached to your account; none of them have been by me. Any reports your name has been involved with; I tend to look the other way.

I have other things to tend do; but this story does not involve me.

 

[thawolf]

How bad can this get? Will it result in permit revocation?

Guy was pulled over with ccw permit, carrying a firearm that was not on the permit (yet). He had already filled out an application for weapons modification, he did not go into qualify with it yet, and was not issued new replacement permit with new firearm on there. He claims he was not aware of needing to re-qualify; and was completely unaware. He thought filing out the DOJ form for weapons modification was good enough.

Leo that pulled him over for the minor stop, confiscated, and wrote him a ticket. I’m guessing the officer actually checked his firearm then if it got tot the point of cross referencing with what was listed on his permit.

I told him this looks very bad on your part; and the best he can do is try to get the charge dropped.

You think he might get his permit revoked even if he discloses to his IA? I noticed in the policy it doesn’t state anything about disclosing Leo contact. But in SB2, it is stated; correct?

You think the Leo already contacted his IA?

Can this result in prohibition of owning firearms?

Re: How bad can it get? ---- sit down for this one.

First — I feel for him, and I hate being the one writing this to a fellow 2A guy. Don't hate the messenger. Here's the straight version with the good news included, because there's real good news.

The charge: Almost certainly a misdemeanor, not a felony. The main felony trigger (§ 25400(c)(6)) requires that he not be the gun's registered owner — but he is (he had to be to file the BOF 4502 amendment). That knocks out felony exposure, which means no lifetime state ban (§ 29800) and no lifetime federal ban (§ 922(g)(1)). Realistic ceiling is misdemeanor § 25400(c)(7): up to a year county, $1,000.

The permit: Gone, functionally 100%. Revocation under § 26195(b)(1) is mandatory once he breaches an IA condition (carrying an unlisted gun is the breach), and disclosing to the IA doesn't save it. Best he can do is push for a voluntary surrender instead of "revoked for cause" — same result, but cleaner paperwork for reapplying later.

Duty to inform — correcting the thread: SB 2 did not create a statewide duty to tell an officer you're carrying. That only applies if his IA wrote it into his license conditions. What SB 2 did add is a duty to notify the IA of any arrest or charge after the fact — so he should assume the IA already knows or soon will, and self-report (through his lawyer).

Can he lose the right to own guns? Yes — a misdemeanor § 25400 conviction triggers a 10-year prohibition under § 29805. This is the real threat, bigger than the permit. But it only attaches if there's a conviction.

The good news — diversion: § 25400 is eligible for PC § 1001.95 judicial diversion. If he completes it, the case is dismissed, there's no conviction, and § 29805 never triggers — his ownership rights stay intact. During the program he may have a temporary no-possession condition, and the permit's still gone, but he keeps his guns and can reapply for a permit later with a "diverted and dismissed" story instead of a conviction. That's a night-and-day better hand.

His mitigation is strong: clean record, lawful owner, amendment paperwork already filed (shows good faith), cited and released instead of booked. Those are exactly the facts that get a judge to grant diversion.

Bottom line: Best realistic case — loses the permit, keeps his guns, no conviction, reapply down the road. Worst on this track — misdemeanor, 10-year ownership prohibition, but no lifetime ban. The gap between those is entirely about getting a California firearms attorney now and aiming straight at diversion. Tell him to lawyer up this week and not say a word to the IA, DA, or investigators until he does.

He got the survivable version of a bad day. There's a real, achievable path to landing on his feet with his gun rights intact. Call a gun rights lawyer right away.

 

[2muchsoysauce4allthisrice]

Re: How bad can it get? ---- sit down for this one.

First — I feel for him, and I hate being the one writing this to a fellow 2A guy. Don't hate the messenger. Here's the straight version with the good news included, because there's real good news.

The charge: Almost certainly a misdemeanor, not a felony. The main felony trigger (§ 25400(c)(6)) requires that he not be the gun's registered owner — but he is (he had to be to file the BOF 4502 amendment). That knocks out felony exposure, which means no lifetime state ban (§ 29800) and no lifetime federal ban (§ 922(g)(1)). Realistic ceiling is misdemeanor § 25400(c)(7): up to a year county, $1,000.

The permit: Gone, functionally 100%. Revocation under § 26195(b)(1) is mandatory once he breaches an IA condition (carrying an unlisted gun is the breach), and disclosing to the IA doesn't save it. Best he can do is push for a voluntary surrender instead of "revoked for cause" — same result, but cleaner paperwork for reapplying later.

Duty to inform — correcting the thread: SB 2 did not create a statewide duty to tell an officer you're carrying. That only applies if his IA wrote it into his license conditions. What SB 2 did add is a duty to notify the IA of any arrest or charge after the fact — so he should assume the IA already knows or soon will, and self-report (through his lawyer).

Can he lose the right to own guns? Yes — a misdemeanor § 25400 conviction triggers a 10-year prohibition under § 29805. This is the real threat, bigger than the permit. But it only attaches if there's a conviction.

The good news — diversion: § 25400 is eligible for PC § 1001.95 judicial diversion. If he completes it, the case is dismissed, there's no conviction, and § 29805 never triggers — his ownership rights stay intact. During the program he may have a temporary no-possession condition, and the permit's still gone, but he keeps his guns and can reapply for a permit later with a "diverted and dismissed" story instead of a conviction. That's a night-and-day better hand.

His mitigation is strong: clean record, lawful owner, amendment paperwork already filed (shows good faith), cited and released instead of booked. Those are exactly the facts that get a judge to grant diversion.

Bottom line: Best realistic case — loses the permit, keeps his guns, no conviction, reapply down the road. Worst on this track — misdemeanor, 10-year ownership prohibition, but no lifetime ban. The gap between those is entirely about getting a California firearms attorney now and aiming straight at diversion. Tell him to lawyer up this week and not say a word to the IA, DA, or investigators until he does.

He got the survivable version of a bad day. There's a real, achievable path to landing on his feet with his gun rights intact. Call a gun rights lawyer right away.

I recommended to lawyer up, pay an attorney whose specialty involves 2A. Response was; “that’s not happening”. Probably because of costs….

So, what if he can’t afford a lawyer or legal representation?

 

[GeeQ87]

I mean a mid 90s 8 series is pretty sweet and rare, it’s entirely possible he just described you and your car to a buddy recently and the buddy ran into you by chance, weirder synchronicities have happened.

WWI started because Franz Ferdinand’s motorcade diverted down a random city street after a failed grenade attack that made everyone scatter, the lead driver made a wrong turn and then stalled the car backing up, and Franz’ would-be assassin happened to be standing right there on that side street and ran up and shot him in the neck.

So y’know, ’s weird.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

That cite is only relevant when coupled with the earlier Article 7 provisions requiring issuance of two plates.

Please see: CVC 4850, Operative 1/1/87.

What wouldn’t get two plates? Trailers; Motorcycles (above) truck tractors, etc.

So, the default is two plates per vehicle to be displayed both front and rear, unless excepted from the provisions.

For some reason I thought it started in the 80s or 90s because I've had a lot of vehicles older than that that didn't even have holes for a front plate and everyone always said "it's old it doesn't need one." but apparently it's been since 1959...

 

[grandpapeepap]

I recommended to lawyer up, pay an attorney whose specialty involves 2A. Response was; “that’s not happening”. Probably because of costs….

So, what if he can’t afford a lawyer or legal representation?

suggest he starts dating a lawyer?

 

[Deleted member 16735]

suggest he starts dating a lawyer?

how many lawyers want to date an "adult" baby?

 

[Dvrjon]

I recommended to lawyer up, pay an attorney whose specialty involves 2A. Response was; “that’s not happening”. Probably because of costs….

So, what if he can’t afford a lawyer or legal representation?

Go Fund Me account; open your wallet, etc.

First rule of rescue (even though you want to): Sometimes, you can’t save them all. But, never become the second victim.

Be supportive, but move on. You can’t make him do anything he will not do.

Best you can do is outline pros/cons; remind him he’s dealing with professionals in this field and he’s an amateur. Give him the reference for decent attorneys (if we knew where he is, generally, we could provide references). Often first consultation is free, then he knows what he’s up against.

 

[grandpapeepap]

how many lawyers want to date an "adult" baby?

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I recommended to lawyer up, pay an attorney whose specialty involves 2A. Response was; “that’s not happening”. Probably because of costs….

So, what if he can’t afford a lawyer or legal representation?

he will get a court appointed lawyer for whatever the case is for the carrying a loaded weapon, if he requests one. But there's no court case for a ccw permit. He sounds like we would all be better off if he wasn't carrying a gun honestly.

 

[Dvrjon]

he will get a court appointed lawyer for whatever the case is for the carrying a loaded weapon, if he requests one. But there's no court case for a ccw permit. He sounds like we would all be better off if he wasn't carrying a gun honestly.

With all due respect, that seems a bit harsh and certainly doesn’t move the discussion forward.

And for the record, “court appointed” lawyers still cost money. Just because the court appoints them doesn’t mean they are free. Even $80/hr (2022 rates) racks up fast.

For example: https://www.imperial.courts.ca.gov/...atement-fees-court-appointed-counsel-2022.pdf

 

[Deleted member 16735]

With all due respect, that seems a bit harsh and certainly doesn’t move the discussion forward.

And for the record, “court appointed” lawyers still cost money. Just because the court appoints them doesn’t mean they are free. Even $80/hr (2022 rates) racks up fast.

For example: https://www.imperial.courts.ca.gov/...atement-fees-court-appointed-counsel-2022.pdf

I mean, I'm completely serious. Why should anyone hold this guys hand to keep his ccw? If he can't figure out even the most basic rules and refuses to hire someone who knows the rules he simply isn't fit for it. I don't want people like that to be carrying.

Anyway, having used a court appointed lawyer several times when I was young, they talk to you for about 30 seconds before the judge calls you up and then represent you for another couple of minutes in front of the judge, and if you are actually poor they waive the fees. And these were cases a bit more serious than what's being discussed here, I may or may not have lost my ability to own a firearm for ten years

 

[Gawernator]

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/Firearms-Prohibited-Categories.pdf

Fking crazy how far they went with bans

Illegal possession of an assault weapon, if convicted on or after January 1, 2026. (Cal. Penal Code § 30605.)