Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Arcata PD Steals Openly Carried Rifle for Public Safety

  1. #1
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Arcata PD Steals Openly Carried Rifle for Public Safety

    http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2012/nov...lt-rifle-conf/


    During the evening officers located a male subject with an AR-15 assault rifle slung around his neck. The firearm had an unusable unloaded magazine in the weapon. He also had a loaded operable 10 round magazine in his pocket. The weapon was taken for public safety reasons.
    Lawfully owned and carried property taken for public safety. Arcata without question, has screwed the pooch on this, as this wasn't illegal- AB1527 will not be en force until January 1st.

    What hinks this up even more for them is that they decided to take his property and tell him it is a felony,... but then cut him loose without an arrest.

    The harm has already been done; the individual was deprived of his property and liberty, must return to the PD and submit a LEGR and fee to retrieve his property for no crime at all.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2012/nov...lt-rifle-conf/



    What hinks this up even more for them is that they decided to take his property and tell him it is a felony,... but then cut him loose without an arrest..
    How are they hinked up? They've taken his gun, and have provided a pathway for him to get it returned. It, stinks of course, but the PD is not going to be injured here.....as usual

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The allied agenicies.. from article

    Corrections:

    The AXIS agencies...

  4. #4
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    How are they hinked up? They've taken his gun, and have provided a pathway for him to get it returned. It, stinks of course, but the PD is not going to be injured here.....as usual
    Au contraire ...

    There are forces that were in motion hours after this event occured seeking to remedy the unlawful taking of property. The injury to the individual has already been done, being deprived of property for no crime, being deprived of the use of that property for an undetermined time period, and being inconvenienced with having to pay a fee and submit paperwork to get his property returned. The fact the police didnt arrest this fellow for any charge, let alone a felony, supports the argument that there was no cause to take his property.

    While the officers involved in this 4th amendment clusterf*ck won't be disciplined, the city and the department are on the hook for the wrongful seizure. There is a good chance that he will not only get his rifle back, but also win a settlement in addition to mandating training for the Arcata Police Department on both what constitutes a California 'assault weapon' and the fundamentals the forth amendment.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  5. #5
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Au contraire ...

    There are forces that were in motion hours after this event occured seeking to remedy the unlawful taking of property. The injury to the individual has already been done, being deprived of property for no crime, being deprived of the use of that property for an undetermined time period, and being inconvenienced with having to pay a fee and submit paperwork to get his property returned. The fact the police didnt arrest this fellow for any charge, let alone a felony, supports the argument that there was no cause to take his property.

    While the officers involved in this 4th amendment clusterf*ck won't be disciplined, the city and the department are on the hook for the wrongful seizure. There is a good chance that he will not only get his rifle back, but also win a settlement in addition to mandating training for the Arcata Police Department on both what constitutes a California 'assault weapon' and the fundamentals the forth amendment.
    We can ONLY hope, after we've done everything else to support him in his efforts to obtain redress for his grievances!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    "The weapon was taken for public safety reasons."

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

    These too often seem to boil down to the argument, "Well, what would the public say if he had shot someone and the police could have prevented it?" Which is just a roundabout way of saying the police stole the gun for political reasons--they didn't want any public criticism or public opinion flapping back at them. Sorry, too bad. The Bill of Rights is not subject to the political problems of police.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-03-2012 at 01:30 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, California, USA
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    i'll bet the open carrier didnt have any audio or video recording.
    Or he's smarter than most and hasn't posted it on the internet.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    We requested the releasable information via a records act request, and got a reply which stated there was no arrest, and therefore no report to supply us. Upon receiving that information, we followed up with another request, that asked for information in regards to the siezure of property, ie whatever administrative documents they file when property is received for...a non incident.... Surely they have an impound or property room where they log in such items.
    Shortly after, the administrative officer sent us another reply stating that she was wrong in telling us that there was no incident, but now she is informed that there is a criminal investigation underway, and is not required to release investigative records.
    Now this ...non-incident..... is starting to smell a bit. We're concerned that the law enforcement agency is not following the proper procedures, and that jurisdiction may not be safe for persons who expect the protections of the US constitution, the California Constitution, the Bill of rights, and that they are also mis-using the exemptions within the government code to evade the disclosure of public records as required by state law.
    The person at the point of this event has taken some refuge of sorts within the heirarchy at Calguns foundation, So he's covered. But the rest of California is still at risk, so we are going to push ahead a little more on this for our benefit.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    We requested the releasable information via a records act request, and got a reply which stated there was no arrest, and therefore no report to supply us. Upon receiving that information, we followed up with another request, that asked for information in regards to the siezure of property, ie whatever administrative documents they file when property is received for...a non incident.... Surely they have an impound or property room where they log in such items.
    Shortly after, the administrative officer sent us another reply stating that she was wrong in telling us that there was no incident, but now she is informed that there is a criminal investigation underway, and is not required to release investigative records.
    Now this ...non-incident..... is starting to smell a bit. We're concerned that the law enforcement agency is not following the proper procedures, and that jurisdiction may not be safe for persons who expect the protections of the US constitution, the California Constitution, the Bill of rights, and that they are also mis-using the exemptions within the government code to evade the disclosure of public records as required by state law.
    The person at the point of this event has taken some refuge of sorts within the heirarchy at Calguns foundation, So he's covered. But the rest of California is still at risk, so we are going to push ahead a little more on this for our benefit.
    They are correct on investigative records but they still have to produce the equivalent of a press release....

  10. #10
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    They are correct on investigative records but they still have to produce the equivalent of a press release....
    Yes, but they are trying to have it both ways. There's no incident, so there's no incident report. But there is a criminal investigation. ...into a non incident where property was siezed

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    Yes, but they are trying to have it both ways. There's no incident, so there's no incident report. But there is a criminal investigation. ...into a non incident where property was siezed
    They are just calling it something else ... that's why I don't ask for anything specific, just "all records related to X which may include, but are not exclusive to:


    In any event, it would still be restricted until the case is over...I understand your viewpoint and they look like idiots...

  12. #12
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    In any event, it would still be restricted until the case is over...
    maybe not. I'll just ask for something else

  13. #13
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    maybe not. I'll just ask for something else
    Sounds like it might be time to take the matter before a judge to compel production or show the judge in camera that there actually is an ongoing investigation.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lake Normanopolis, NC
    Posts
    119
    I've been following this, is there an update?

    -R

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2012/nov...lt-rifle-conf/




    Lawfully owned and carried property taken for public safety. Arcata without question, has screwed the pooch on this, as this wasn't illegal- AB1527 will not be en force until January 1st.

    What hinks this up even more for them is that they decided to take his property and tell him it is a felony,... but then cut him loose without an arrest.

    The harm has already been done; the individual was deprived of his property and liberty, must return to the PD and submit a LEGR and fee to retrieve his property for no crime at all.
    No guys - how many times do i have to explain this - when the government takes your property you have them in a tight spot - never sue for returnh of the guns or otehr property - sue just for violation of your due process rights under the 5th and 14th amendments and 42 USC 1983. See Ford v. Turner (DC Ct. of Appeals). Result will most likley be return of property and payment of attorney fees.

  16. #16
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    No guys - how many times do i have to explain this - when the government takes your property you have them in a tight spot - never sue for returnh of the guns or otehr property - sue just for violation of your due process rights under the 5th and 14th amendments and 42 USC 1983. See Ford v. Turner (DC Ct. of Appeals). Result will most likley be return of property and payment of attorney fees.
    Mike, I agree for the most part. But the injured party isnt going to get his firearm back unless he files the LEGR with the fee,.... unless that is part of the settlement. Should he simply do without his property until his case is addressed in Federal court?
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Au contraire ...

    There are forces that were in motion hours after this event occured seeking to remedy the unlawful taking of property. The injury to the individual has already been done, being deprived of property for no crime, being deprived of the use of that property for an undetermined time period, and being inconvenienced with having to pay a fee and submit paperwork to get his property returned. The fact the police didnt arrest this fellow for any charge, let alone a felony, supports the argument that there was no cause to take his property.

    While the officers involved in this 4th amendment clusterf*ck won't be disciplined, the city and the department are on the hook for the wrongful seizure. There is a good chance that he will not only get his rifle back, but also win a settlement in addition to mandating training for the Arcata Police Department on both what constitutes a California 'assault weapon' and the fundamentals the forth amendment.
    White House petition calls for trying Senator Feinstein for treason

    http://www.examiner.com/article/whit...in-for-treason


    I sign, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions


    http://www.nraila.org/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •