Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: OC In Modesto, CA

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    I am seriously considering starting to OC in light of all the information I have found here recently. I live in Modesto and am just wondering if anyone has attempted OC in this town. Has anyone made contact with any Modesto LEOs or talked to anyone at the police station? I am on the verge of doing this but don't want to be thrown to the ground and shipped off to county, lol.

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

    Post imported post

    mdjsd6850 wrote:
    I am seriously considering starting to OC in light of all the information I have found here recently. I live in Modesto and am just wondering if anyone has attempted OC in this town. Has anyone made contact with any Modesto LEOs or talked to anyone at the police station? I am on the verge of doing this but don't want to be thrown to the ground and shipped off to county, lol.
    Yes, Ca_Libertarian has open carried in both Modesto and Turlock. No one I am aware of has had an encounter with Modesto PD.
    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

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    I saw that he was doing it in Turlock, I just was not sure if he had done it in Modesto.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    mdjsd6850 wrote:
    I saw that he was doing it in Turlock, I just was not sure if he had done it in Modesto.
    Yes, I have open carried in Modesto a couple times. I OC'd into the Smart & Final by the mall a couple weeks ago. Before that I OC'd into Barnwood Arms to use their range. I also carry when I do yard work and when driving through town to go to Turlock. (I don't think I posted about that... I don't generally write about it unless I actually go somewhere public.)

    When I first started getting interested in open carry, I spoke to Sgt Smith at MPD. She wouldn't commit to any interpretation of the law, but did warn me that I'll be treated as guilty until proven innocent. (Obviously not her words, but that's the essence of what she said.)

    Here's a link to the thread where I posted our discussion (scroll down about 2/3 of the first page for the e-mail correspondance with Sgt Smith):

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...mp;forum_id=12

    If you're serious about open carry, please just do as much research as you can stomach. Check out our Open Carry Flyer to get you started, but actually look up the penal code yourself. Remember, it's your ass on the line; do some fact checking.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Who is Sgt. Smith. I know all the Sgts. who work in modesto and I do not know a Sgt. Smith. Interesting how you say "she" stated you will be guilty until proven innocent. Amazing too me that you cant be positive for one second that maybe Modesto Pd would not be open to this if it was done. You people cant work on getting your fight out without hammering L/E. Try a different approach and maybe people will listen more.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    lovenme wrote:
    Who is Sgt. Smith. I know all the Sgts. who work in modesto and I do not know a Sgt. Smith. Interesting how you say "she" stated you will be guilty until proven innocent. Amazing too me that you cant be positive for one second that maybe Modesto Pd would not be open to this if it was done. You people cant work on getting your fight out without hammering L/E. Try a different approach and maybe people will listen more.
    Dude, who peed in your Cheerios this morning? Are you the Paris Hilton of the LEO world or something? Crikey dude, calm down.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    I can't sit back and listen to people out right lie. This is a BS story and I am going to call it out. Again, get your story out without bashing L/E. Nobody pissed in my cereal. I don't care who you are just stop telling lies. Tell the story like it really happened if it happened at all without the BS. Bunch of idiots trying to look important. If you have a problem with that, I really don't care. Bye!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    lovenme wrote:
    I can't sit back and listen to people out right lie. This is a BS story and I am going to call it out. Again, get your story out without bashing L/E. Nobody pissed in my cereal. I don't care who you are just stop telling lies. Tell the story like it really happened if it happened at all without the BS. Bunch of idiots trying to look important. If you have a problem with that, I really don't care. Bye!!
    OK, so throw up a roster of all your butt buddies down at the station and prove him wrong. Until then, quit acting like a little girl and throwing stupid hissy fits, temper tantrums or whatever you folks down at Weenie Hut Juniors call them these days.

    Fudge.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Woodland, California, USA
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    lovenme wrote:
    Who is Sgt. Smith. I know all the Sgts. who work in modesto and I do not know a Sgt. Smith. Interesting how you say "she" stated you will be guilty until proven innocent. Amazing too me that you cant be positive for one second that maybe Modesto Pd would not be open to this if it was done. You people cant work on getting your fight out without hammering L/E. Try a different approach and maybe people will listen more.
    first of all, CA_Libertarian posted her full name. He stated thats what it SOUNDED like and that was NOT her actual words. She never stated that "you will be guilty until proven innocent."

    SECOND. WE DO NOT HAMMER LE.
    we point out mistakes, and we also compliment them. look up what happened to me, look at what I did.

    We appreciate LE very much, there are even LEOs very very active on our forum. We don't go looking for a fight, but if an LEO comes to us looking to infringe upon our rights, we will be prepared to fight back in the judicial system. We are just looking to not be treated like criminals for exercising our RIGHT and obeying the laws this state has put in place.

    Before you come into the forum and start bashing us, please sit back a read a little bit more than a bad LE encounter a member of this forum has had and don't make assumptions that we do not like LEOs. Especially don't accuse us of being LE bashers because we are not.

    We are just patriots, fighting for our cause, fighting for our rights, and that is all.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Well, I have read most of the postings and even the ones that have had what they refer to as good contacts have been in some way saying that the LEO did not have any right to search the firearm at all. Section 13031(A) states that the gun can be examined to see if it is unloaded. Instead, nobody that I have seen was sayingLEO did thier job, just stated they should have never have been stopped. This day and age I dont see how anyone could say they should have never been stopped. Tell your OC people to stop putting up stuff like that and I will support what you are doing.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Woodland, California, USA
    Posts
    155

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    lovenme wrote:
    Well, I have read most of the postings and even the ones that have had what they refer to as good contacts have been in some way saying that the LEO did not have any right to search the firearm at all. Section 13031(A) states that the gun can be examined to see if it is unloaded. Instead, nobody that I have seen was sayingLEO did thier job, just stated they should have never have been stopped. This day and age I dont see how anyone could say they should have never been stopped. Tell your OC people to stop putting up stuff like that and I will support what you are doing.
    OK, let me step in before I go to bed to correct you.

    Police have the AUTHORITY but not the OBLIGATION to conduct a 12031 check. What they CANNOT DO is take the gun to their car and run a serial number check. IF they happen to MEMORIZE the serial number during the perfunctory unloaded check and then run it AFTER handing the weapon back to the owner then that is OK.

    Here is a letter I wrote to the local PD on that.


    Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987). In Hicks, an officer entered an apartment under exigent circumstances to try to find and stop a person who was firing gunshots from inside the apartment. Once inside,the officer saw very expensive stereo equipment in what was otherwise a squalid apartment.[highlight= rgb(255, 255, 255);] [/highlight]Suspecting that the equipment was stolen, [highlight= rgb(153, 153, 255);]the officer picked up the equipment to see the serial numbers so he could run the numbers for hits with known stolen property.[/highlight] In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the Court held that moving the equipment to reveal the serial numbers was a search:
    It matters not that the search uncovered nothing of any great personal value to respondent - serial numbers rather than (what might conceivably have been hidden behind or under the equipment) letters or photographs. A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable.
    Now, I have highlighted two very important statements, both of which are relevant do the discussions that you and I have had today.

    1) Just because something is "unusual" does not give the police a right to conduct a warrantless search of theperson, their house, their papers or effects (altered 4th Amendment). As Scalia said in her opinon, "a search is a search."

    To better define the term "search", one need look no further than the dictionary.

    To look at or examine (a person, object, etc.) carefully in order to find something concealed

    2) Notice that the officer physically lifted and removed equipment to gather evidence, all without a search warrant, so that the equipment could be checked in their database. Again, just because the evidence is not visible or is "unusually" obstructed does not mean that removal of said obstruction is justified.


    Now, to look at Terry vs. Ohio

    While the 12031 check gives CA peace officers the power but not the obligation to conduct a 12031(e) check on people carrying a firearm, the scope of the (questionably illegal) "search" is to check if the weapon is unloaded or not. If the weapon is LOADED, then an arrest and thereby a further search can be conducted, since clear and articulable suspicion can be provided. However, if unloaded, the individual must be released to go about his business. The tape over the serial number is not a crime and the mere "hunch" that the person bearing the weapon may be a criminal or have a stolen weapon is not relevant.

    Simple “‘good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.’ ... If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be ‘secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ only in the discretion of the police.” - Beck v. Ohio

    Now, you might be wondering... is the bearing of arms a crime? NOPE! There is also no "gun exclusion" to Terry, meaning that just because a gun is present does not mean that a crime has been or is going to be committed. See Florida v. J.L..

    Putting everything together, one can see that carrying a gun is not an indication that a crime has been committed and that it would be a 4th amendment violation to remove tape or accessories from a firearm to uncover and run a serial number.

    -----------

    There you have it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    lovenme wrote:
    Well, I have read most of the postings and even the ones that have had what they refer to as good contacts have been in some way saying that the LEO did not have any right to search the firearm at all. Section 13031(A) states that the gun can be examined to see if it is unloaded. Instead, nobody that I have seen was sayingLEO did thier job, just stated they should have never have been stopped. This day and age I dont see how anyone could say they should have never been stopped. Tell your OC people to stop putting up stuff like that and I will support what you are doing.
    Do you have a license to talk? To practice what religion you practice? Do you think cops should be allowed to stop you wherever they want to check if you have your Speech or Religion card?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Woodland, California, USA
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    Do you have a license to talk? To practice what religion you practice? Do you think cops should be allowed to stop you wherever they want to check if you have your Speech or Religion card?
    nice point..

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Sgt. Castro, Crawford, Tait, VanDiemen, Ridenour, Bettis, Key, Stewart, Hinkley, Gundlach, Heller, Steele, Armendariz, Owen, Grogan, Helton, Chamberlain, Paine, Plante, Raymer, Applegate, Tyler, Buehler......

    I know I missed a couple but hmmmmmm!! still no Smith.

    You can log onto Modestopd.com and see the Sgt. list yourself. Not my butt buddies but if someone isnot telling the truththey need to be called out on it. If you are trying to spread a message then tell the truth and people other than the people with closed eyes might back you.

    :celebrate

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Woodland, California, USA
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    lovenme wrote:
    Sgt. Castro, Crawford, Tait, VanDiemen, Ridenour, Bettis, Key, Stewart, Hinkley, Gundlach, Heller, Steele, Armendariz, Owen, Grogan, Helton, Chamberlain, Paine, Plante, Raymer, Applegate, Tyler, Buehler......

    I know I missed a couple but hmmmmmm!! still no Smith.

    You can log onto Modestopd.com and see the Sgt. list yourself. Not my butt buddies but if someone isnot telling the truththey need to be called out on it. If you are trying to spread a message then tell the truth and people other than the people with closed eyes might back you.

    :celebrate
    http://www.volunteermatch.org/search/org29401.jsp
    ummmm......she works in the "Office of the Chief" currently.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    What time is it? Apology time!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Maybe an employee by the name of Smith still not a Sgt like what was said. I only looked at the Sgt roster. And I believe the people who work in the chiefs office are posice clerks (citizen employees) which do not work on the street and do not know the law so dont quote what they tell you.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Hahahahaha, I just looked at your link. I know Gail she is a police clerk which means she isa citizen employee. She is not even a cop. Gail is a nice lady but you cannot quote what she said about how you will be treated by the police on the street. I dont even think she has been on a ridealong. Try again!!!

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    lovenme wrote:
    Sgt. Castro, Crawford, Tait, VanDiemen, Ridenour, Bettis, Key, Stewart, Hinkley, Gundlach, Heller, Steele, Armendariz, Owen, Grogan, Helton, Chamberlain, Paine, Plante, Raymer, Applegate, Tyler, Buehler......

    I know I missed a couple but hmmmmmm!! still no Smith.

    You can log onto Modestopd.com and see the Sgt. list yourself. Not my butt buddies but if someone isnot telling the truththey need to be called out on it. If you are trying to spread a message then tell the truth and people other than the people with closed eyes might back you.

    :celebrate
    It was Sgt Gail Smith of Modesto PD, and I believe she said she was in the Investigations Unit. Keep in mind that e-mail correspondance was in July/August 2007. I got in contact with her through the PD website; she was the one that responded to the online inquiry form. I haven't corresponded with Gail since 2007. It's possible she has been promoted, demoted, or is no longer with the PD. Maybe she got married and change her last name... who knows?

    This thread was from April of 2008, so I can understand that you might have thought this was a current conversation, however you're still way out of line here. If instead of blasting me and calling me a liar, you had clicked to the other thread I linked in my reply last year, and read down to page 2, you would see I posted that in August of 2007, and I pretty much copy/pasted the text of her e-mail replies to me.

    Since you so aptly sundered aside of the premise of respect and politeness, I won't pretend I like or respect you... at least until you're willing to act civilly, admit you acted hastily and foolishly, and apologize.

    I'm actually somewhat amused at how you far you put your foot into your mouth, considering how far your head is up your ass. In the future, you might want to do your homework before blasting an established member. Everything we do here is peer-reviewed. And while I welcome honest questions and constructive criticism, you seem to just be bent on stirring @#$% up. Normally I don't respond to trolls, but I'm feeling froggy today.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Like I said I know Gail and no she has not remarried and yes she still works at the department. I have spoken with her face to face not on e-mail so I know what I am talking about. She has never been a cop. If that is what it said on here-mail to you then it was a typo. I did not call your story false I am correcting you on who she is. And if it was on the e-mail then I can understand why you would think that which is fine. I am saying to not quote something from someone who is not a cop on how youi will be treated by the police on the street. Interesting how if someone disagrees with any of what is said on here then they must be a troll. So does that mean nobody can have an opinion on what you are saying unless it is only to agree with you. Like I said before check your facts when you quote someone and maybe people like me who agree with the message you are trying to spread will support you. I can not honestly support someone when I know they are flat out lying. I have read alot of threads on here and so far it is rare when I read something about you guys actually go out and talk about your movement. I know there are events and stuff where that does happen but most of the threads on here is about how a cop detained you and violated your rights. Then the response is "OH, YOU SHOULD SEEK OUT DAMAGES." So rediculous. This is not the late 1800's. I wonder how any of you would feel in this day and age if a cop just drove by a guy walking down the street with a gun on his hip and did not stop. Then the guy walks into a McDonalds and kills everybody which included yours and my family. The reason they need to stop and check the gun is not just to see if it is being carried legal but also to make sure the person carrying it is not a nut who is looking to kill people. Believe it or not things have changed for the worse with people on the street. Get over it and spread the message without saying that cops should not be stopping you and I will carry open by your side. I just understand why they stop you when you are out cause I would too. If someone (a cop) steps out of line then that needs to be dealt with at their department not by coming on here and saying they need to be sued. If you want to stop with that kind of nonsense then we can have a debate about carrying a weapon open unloaded and what you would do if some crack head or gangbanger decided he is going to rob you for your weapon...since it is unloaded.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Woodland, California, USA
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    lovenme wrote:
    Like I said I know Gail and no she has not remarried and yes she still works at the department. I have spoken with her face to face not on e-mail so I know what I am talking about. She has never been a cop. If that is what it said on here-mail to you then it was a typo. I did not call your story false I am correcting you on who she is. And if it was on the e-mail then I can understand why you would think that which is fine. I am saying to not quote something from someone who is not a cop on how youi will be treated by the police on the street. Interesting how if someone disagrees with any of what is said on here then they must be a troll. So does that mean nobody can have an opinion on what you are saying unless it is only to agree with you. Like I said before check your facts when you quote someone and maybe people like me who agree with the message you are trying to spread will support you. I can not honestly support someone when I know they are flat out lying. I have read alot of threads on here and so far it is rare when I read something about you guys actually go out and talk about your movement. I know there are events and stuff where that does happen but most of the threads on here is about how a cop detained you and violated your rights. Then the response is "OH, YOU SHOULD SEEK OUT DAMAGES." So rediculous. This is not the late 1800's. I wonder how any of you would feel in this day and age if a cop just drove by a guy walking down the street with a gun on his hip and did not stop. Then the guy walks into a McDonalds and kills everybody which included yours and my family. The reason they need to stop and check the gun is not just to see if it is being carried legal but also to make sure the person carrying it is not a nut who is looking to kill people. Believe it or not things have changed for the worse with people on the street. Get over it and spread the message without saying that cops should not be stopping you and I will carry open by your side. I just understand why they stop you when you are out cause I would too. If someone (a cop) steps out of line then that needs to be dealt with at their department not by coming on here and saying they need to be sued. If you want to stop with that kind of nonsense then we can have a debate about carrying a weapon open unloaded and what you would do if some crack head or gangbanger decided he is going to rob you for your weapon...since it is unloaded.
    just calm down.
    and by the way they dont have the right to ID the person.....

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    hahahaha, I am always calm and who does'nt have the right to id. Do you mean the police department?

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Your opinion that the 2nd and 4th Amendments to the US Constitution should no longer apply due to "changing times" is the problem, not us who respect and would enjoy the protections the US Constitution is supposed to ensure.

    You assert that every person possessing a gun in public should be presumed guilty of criminal activity, despite any evidence. I'd rather everybody be left alone. If they come in and try to shoot me/my family we would return fire... if only we weren't deprived of our 2nd Amendment rights. Further infringements of rights is not the solution to a problem caused directly by infringements upon rights.

    The unlawful actions of officers is wrong, and needs to be corrected. Our only lawful recourse is to use the courts to stop these wrongs from continuing to happen. You say we need to just lie down and let the cops do what you think is acceptable infringements upon my rights. You keep going on about how you could support us, if only we'd stop expecting to be treated as equal human beings.

    I say, we don't need people like you on "our" side.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Orangevale, California, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    lovenme, I love your attitude man. When you come in a room you come in swinging. This may get you into trouble now and then but it seems you are not afraid of a little battle.

    But, I would like to see you take this battle up properly. State your point and justify your answers but don't squirm out from under an apology by when its due by calling it a misunderstanding or typo..




    P.S. Use a little spacing to make your posts easier to read. Thanks

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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