OC In Modesto, CA

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.

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.

Click to expand...

just calm down.
and by the way they dont have the right to ID the person.....

imported post

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

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.

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

imported post

That's fine about the support thing but you wont get the support you need to get the point across if you keep fabricating info. Infingemnet? So a cop who is following the penal code which gives the right to check the weapon is infringement. Hmmmm! still sounds like luring too me. It's like a politician who goes out and a gets the support of people he might not agree with and wins the election. You are not going to get the support by alienating certain groups such as police. Dont you think they have enough policies and procedure that they have to follow in order not to infringe on your rights. You have obviously never had to deal with the crazy's on the street. You can never be too sure these days and if it were'nt for the police on the street there would be alot moreinnocent people killed by people carrying guns around. I dont think that is any of the OC people but the cop that stops you does not know you from Adam and in most cases are just trying to do their job and keep people safe. I am not defending all police there are still bad cops out there and they need to be dealt with on a case to case basis not by saying all of them need to be retrained.

imported post

Hammerhand, I will never back down and I call it like I see it. I sometimes type out of emotion because I will forget what I want to say if I dont. Maybe I should proof read a little more.

About the apology. I will not apologize for someone not doing the research before they mis quote something. Sorry! that just is not me. Also I cannot stand when someone automatically makes a statement like,"YOU WILL BE TREATED GUILTY BEFORE INNOCENT."

In my opinion that is trying to start an argument before you make a point. Not good debating material. Debate by getting the point across without sounding like you are automatically slamming the police.

Like I said before I know Gail and I do not believe she would say something like that especially since she works at the desk just outside the chiefs office. I will ask her when I see her again and will update from her mouth wether she said that or not.

If she did I will back down and apologize.

How did the space thing work, was it easier?

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.

Click to expand...

You're the flat-out liar if you are going to try to say you were doing no more than "correcting" me "on who she is." You were "calling BS" on my entire story. You found one minor inconsistency in my facts and decided to say I am "flat out lying" instead of investigating enough to determine it may have been a simple error.

You're entitled to your opinion, but when every single post you make here is calling someone a liar or otherwise flaming them. I can safely assume you would only be such an asshole on purpose, though I suppose it's possible you don't realize you're an asshole... In any case, your every interaction on this board has epitomized the definition of "trolling." Not a single one of your posts so far has been anything more than trolling. This is why I call you a troll.


Rant aside, time for a correction:

I have reviewed my e-mails with Gail Smith, and I see that I made a mistake. Nowhere did she say she was a Sgt, and I can't figure out why I would think she was. I stand corrected. I unintentionally gave incorrect information about her rank/position in the PD. I apologize if this caused confusion or inconvenience for anybody. In any case, I don't think the rank was important (and was only included to identify the source).

However, as she was responding to a public inquiry on the department's official website, as she was the one authorized by the department to respond to my question, and as she was relaying information about official procedure from the city attorney and as a representative of the PD... her statements are equally meaningful IMO. If she wasn't qualified to answer my questions, then I'm sure she would have said so and referred me to the right person.

imported post

Ca Lib, Ok, since you fixed the mistake then I apologize for at leastcalling you a liar. Not the rest of the quote though......I still dont believe Gail would say something like that. Like I said in my other post I will ask her.

I will however continue to debate you and everyone else if I see what appears to be embeleshment.

Can you answer the question of why it appears everyone just wants to hammer law enforcement instead of fighting the issue. Police are local government you are not going to get far by not fighting national governemnt.

And on top of that the right to carry a firearm is still in place so what is the fight really about. Is it about the few cops that might not completely understand. I have not seen any arrests just people being detained and in some cases probably for too long.

The gun can be checked and a conversation can tell if the guy carrying the gun is a nut or not then the encounter can be over. Is this what the argument is?

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.

Click to expand...

I would rather walk alone than open carry with someone who advises us to lay back and enjoy being raped. Because that's what it is. It is our freedom being forcefully taken from us. It is our RIGHTS being violated as blatantly as any victim of rape.

As far as whether the person is a nut, who draws the line as to when and where these stops to "see if he is a nut" occur? Should the cop be able to stop anyone walking from the gun shop to their car to run another background check to make sure they haven't gone off thier rocker since the DOJ ran their background? How about checking people at random at the range? They all have guns, and they could be a nutcase practicing for his shooting spree.

imported post

To the OP, welcome! UOC is alive and well in Modesto. Read all the info and the Penal Code, then come up to Sac for our litter pickup. Also, there have been UOC meets in the valley in the past too.

Oh, and don't get too discouraged by the epic thread-jack that happened here. Sometimes people are too lazy to start their own thread when they want to talk about a completely different topic.:quirky

imported post

lovenme wrote:

Like I said before I know Gail and I do not believe she would say something like that especially since she works at the desk just outside the chiefs office. I will ask her when I see her again and will update from her mouth wether she said that or not.

If she did I will back down and apologize.

How did the space thing work, was it easier?

Click to expand...

Thanks for spacing, it's much easier on the eyes.

You seem to think I was asserting that she expressed her opinion. In no way did I say or imply Gail was giving me her personal opinion. I asked for department policy, and she gave me the answer that it would be assumed that the gun was loaded until proven otherwise. Logically, this means they are assuming I'm violating 12031 (assumption of guilt of a crime) until confirmed otherwise (proven innocent). I don't think it gets much clearer than that.

For your convenience, here's a copy/past of our correspondence. Read it from the bottom up, as my e-mail quotes the original message at the bottom of the reply. The only changes I made were to omit Gail's and my e-mail addresses so they're not added to spam mailing lists.

=============================================================

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:01:57 AM Toavid Tapley <email address omitted>

Gail,

I understand the need to exercise caution for the safety of the officers involved. However, there should be an expectation to be treated with the respect due any law abiding citizen. I hope it is not the department's policy to treat law-abiding citizens like criminals; to presume guilt until innocence is proven.

In a recent FBI report on assaults on police officers the FBI found that almost 100% of the firearms used were obtained illegally. The report further states that offenders "eschew holsters" and carry concealed to avoid detection. Please refer to Force Science News for more information on the FBI report. The officers can rest assured that the "bad guys" will not be carrying their firearms openly in holsters. Thus, anyone openly carrying is probably a law-abiding citizen.

I hope that you will pass this information along for distribution within the police department. I have had extensive interaction with officers from the Modesto PD in the past, and have been impressed with the level of service and professionalism. It encourages me to trust I will continue to see this continue while exercising this nearly forgotten right.

Thank you again for your assistance. Please express my commendation to your supervisor, and keep up the good work.

Regards,
~David Tapley


----- Original Message ----
From: Gail Smith <email address omitted>
To: David Tapley <email address omitted>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:01:57 AM
Subject: RE: Question

DIV { MARGIN:0px;} [align=left]Although carrying an unloaded firearm in plain view is not a violation of Penal Code, a police officer responding will consider the firearm as loaded until confirmed otherwise. [/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left] [/align] [align=left]From: David Tapley [email address omitted]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:19 PM
To: Gail Smith
Subject: Re: Question

[/align] Gail,

I'm disappointed that the city attorney's office is not interested in assisting us in defining the law. I think I understand why they wish to avoid the issue.

How does the police department interpret the law? For purposes of enforcing the law uniformly across the department, I expect there would be some common procedure in place. If there is no common procedure, perhaps there should be. What should one expect the police departments response to be when openly carrying an unloaded firearm.

I'm not asking for legal advice, I'm just asking what to expect.

I would like to thank you again for your assistance on this matter.

Regards,
~David Tapley

----- Original Message ----
From: Gail Smith <email address omitted>
To: David Tapley <email address omitted>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 11:39:01 AM
Subject: RE: Question

DIV { MARGIN:0px;} [align=left]
Actually, they just got back to me last thing Friday. They stated that they were not able to assist me and that you shouldconsult with private counsel as to the meaning of the ordinance. [/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left]Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance.[/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left] [/align] [align=left]From: David Tapley [email address omitted]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:34 AM
To: Gail Smith
Subject: Re: Question

[/align] Gail,

I just wanted to check in to see if the city attorney has responded yet. I look forward to receiving their response. I appreciate you forwarding my question to them.

Regards,
~David Tapley

----- Original Message ----
From: Gail Smith <email address omitted>
To: David Tapley <email address omitted>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:57:35 PM
Subject: RE: Question

DIV { MARGIN:0px;} [align=left]Let me check on that MMC question for you. I'll let you know as soon as our City Attorney lets me know! [/align]
From: David Tapley [email address omitted]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:41 PM
To: Gail Smith
Subject: Re: Question

I intend to comply with CA PC sections 12025 and 12031. I currently carry my firearm in a belt holster, with no ammunition or attached to the firearm. I would have a loaded magazine in a belt holster, separate from the firearm.

----- Original Message ----
From: Gail Smith <email address omitted>
To: David Tapley <email address omitted>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:35:14 PM
Subject: RE: Question

DIV { MARGIN:0px;} [align=left]Before I can answer your question, I need a little clarification. What exactly are you thinking of doing? When you say carrying an unloaded weapon, do you mean in your car? In your pocket? And where would the bullets be? I just want to be sure that my answer can address your concerns. [/align]
From: David Tapley [email address omitted]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:46 AM
To: Gail Smith
Subject: Re: Question

Gail,

Thank you for your response.

CA PC 12020 enumerates objects that the State of California considers to be dangerous weapons. However, 4-2.03.1(a) is vague in saying, "shall mean and include, but is not limited to..." Your reply seems to imply that 4-2.03.1(a) does include unloaded firearms in the definition of 'dangerous weapons.' If this is the case, could you direct me to a clearer definition of what objects are included as 'dangerous weapons?' Or is this sort of thing open to interpretation by police and the courts?

In case I misinterpreted your response, I apologize. I just want to make sure I'm not going to be violating any laws while carrying my (unloaded) firearm in Modesto.

~David

----- Original Message ----
From: Gail Smith <email address omitted>
To: email address omitted
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:27:25 AM
Subject: RE: Question

UNKNOWN { FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;} UNKNOWN { FONT-FAMILY:Verdana;} UNKNOWN { FONT-FAMILY:Monotype Corsiva;} UNKNOWN { FONT-FAMILYerpetua;} UNKNOWN { MARGIN:1in 1.25in;} P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE:12pt;MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";} LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE:12pt;MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";} DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE:12pt;MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";} A:link { COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} A:visited { COLORurple;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLORurple;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} P { FONT-SIZE:12pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0in;MARGIN-RIGHT:0in;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";} SPAN.EmailStyle17 { FONT-WEIGHT:normal;COLOR:navy;FONT-STYLE:normal;FONT-FAMILY:Verdana;TEXT-DECORATION:none;} DIV.Section1 { } [align=left][/align] [align=left]4-2.03.1 of the municipal code covers dangerous weapons, stating (a) Definition. As used in this section “dangerous weapon” shall mean and include, but is not limited to:
(1) Any knife having a blade three inches or more in length, or any snap-blade or spring-blade knife regardless of the length of the blade;
(2) Any ice pick or similar sharp stabbing tool;
(3) Any straight-edge razor or any razor blade fitted to a handle;
(4) Any cutting, stabbing or bludgeoning weapon or device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm; or
(5) Any dirk or dagger or bludgeon.
(b) Carrying Dangerous Weapon. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry upon his person or to have in his possession or under his control any dangerous weapon; provided that it shall be a defense to any prosecution for a violation of this section, if, at the time of the alleged violation, the instrument or device alleged to be a dangerous weapon was in good faith carried upon the person of the accused or was in good faith in his possession or control for use in his lawful occupation or employment or for the purpose of lawful recreation; and provided, further, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the commission of any act which is made a public offense by any law of this State.
(c) Disorderly Conduct. It shall be unlawful for any person who has upon his person or in his possession or control any dangerous weapon to engage in any fight or participate in any rough or disorderly conduct upon any public place or way or upon the premises of another. .[/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left]4-1.1114 covers firearms specifically, stating (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to fire or discharge any pistol, gun, rifle, firearm, cannon, anvil loaded with powder, bow, air gun or any other device whereby shot, bullets or other dangerous missiles are discharged or projected, within the City of Modesto. Provided, however, that any person may, in or upon his own premises, shoot dangerous animals where necessary for the protection of life or property. And further provided, that cannon or anvils may be discharged pursuant to the written permission of the Chief of Police.
(b) Provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall prohibit or prevent maintaining, operating and/or carrying on a pistol and/or rifle range where firing devices and cartridges are of a character and caliber approved by the Chief of Police and for which a permit has been issued pursuant to the provisions of this article.[/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left]If you need a concealed weapons permit, you would have to apply here at the Police Department. There is a detailed application that must be filled out, a $100 fee, prints and a background check. I have included a copy of our general order showing what conditions must be met in order to qualify for a CCW here in the City of Modesto. The "Good Cause" information is particularly important. And, of course, you have to live within the city limits of Modesto.[/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left]Feel free to ask for me if you decide to come in to get the application. We are on the 2nd floor in Investigations. [/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left][/align] Tapley, David
external customer
phone number omitted
email address omitted

I am interested in carrying a firearm within the City of Modesto . I'm aware of the state laws regarding concealed & loaded firearms (CA PC 12025 & 12031) and the School Zone law (626.9), among others.

My concern is if there are any additional local restrictions on firearms. A search through the municipal code rendered nothing about carrying a firearm.

Can you verify there are no additional prohibitions?

Thank you in advance.
=============================================================


Hope this helps in your search for the truth.

imported post

PRC-E6 wrote:

To the OP, welcome! UOC is alive and well in Modesto. Read all the info and the Penal Code, then come up to Sac for our litter pickup. Also, there have been UOC meets in the valley in the past too.

Oh, and don't get too discouraged by the epic thread-jack that happened here. Sometimes people are too lazy to start their own thread when they want to talk about a completely different topic.:quirky

Click to expand...

Necro thread jacking, at that. The OP was April 2008. I've PM'd the poster without success... really a shame since I could use someone local for the buddy system.

imported post

Ca Lib, the comment that they will consider the gun loaded is by no means saying you are going to be considered guilty of committing a crime which is how you worded it.

What she said is completely correct because the officer does not know you from Adam and that is a officer safety issue.

If you stated her quote word for word then it would have made more sense. It seemed as if you were going to be criminalized right from the start with how you stated it.That is what I do not agree with.

I would have never said anything from the start if you had put her actual quote in. I am attempting to have a normal debate with you so all the other people who are going to disagree with me I encourage you to go back and read the quotes and make up your own mind.

imported post

lovenme wrote:

Can you answer the question of why it appears everyone just wants to hammer law enforcement instead of fighting the issue. Police are local government you are not going to get far by not fighting national governemnt.

Click to expand...

We're generally getting hammered by LE. In all except the most recent interaction in SD - which was by express invitation of the organizer - the LEOs involved step beyond the authority granted them by the state. This is what we are hammering. I'm all for cops doing their job, so long as they stay within the boundaries of the law. To say we're not going to get anywhere with a local "fight" is naive, I think, when it is in fact local PD policies or rogue LEOs deciding to violate rights. We do also have to fight at the state and federal levels, but these are all seperate fronts - none of which should be ignored.

And on top of that the right to carry a firearm is still in place so what is the fight really about. Is it about the few cops that might not completely understand... I have not seen any arrests just people being detained and in some cases probably for too long.

Click to expand...

The "right to carry a firearm" is NOT still in place. I can't carry 90% of the places I want to because of 626.9 (school zones). I can't carry loaded in 99% of the places I want to go because of 12031 (loaded weapons prohibition). I can't carry concealed when it's raining because of 12025 (concealed weapons ban). In CA, the carrying of firearms is about as regulated as it can get, short of an outright ban.

...I have not seen any arrests just people being detained and in some cases probably for too long...

Click to expand...

There have been arrests, though in most cases the arrests were reversed or charges dropped. Right now Thesues is facing mailicious prosecution for allegedly violating 626.9 - despite having a clear exemption from the statute. Another man is pending charges under a local ordinance after having charges dropped by the DA.

Even among those not ending in arrest, nearly every encounter has resulted in abuse of police powers to detain/arrest. In some cases, the LEOs violated rights and then outright lied and falsified reports to cover it up. These bad apples - including some LEOs, DAs, CAs, and the legislature at large - are the ones we're trying to hammer, not LEOs in general.

The gun can be checked and a conversation can tell if the guy carrying the gun is a nut or not then the encounter can be over. Is this what the argument is?

Click to expand...

There's two arguments, at least IMO.

1) LEOs need to not overstep the authority granted by the state.

2) 12031(e) - that's the part that allows the detention/check - is unconstitutional, and should not be used to circumvent the requirements set forth by the US Supreme Court in Terry v Ohio. The blame here falls on the legislature to a great extent. However, each officer takes an oath to protect our constitutional rights, and is personally responsible for their actions, despite orders from higher up (the Nuremburg Defense is no excuse).

I'm all for investigating behavior that would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity is afoot. Hoplophobia is irrational (not reasonable), so simply fearing the person may commit a crime is not a valid argument. If the officer has reasonable suspicion criminal activity is afoot, he has the authority to investigate. This is true without 12031(e). 12031(e) is a tool for harassing people that don't meet the standards required by Terry v Ohio, and is clearly unconstitutional.

imported post

lovenme wrote:

Ca Lib, the comment that they will consider the gun loaded is by no means saying you are going to be considered guilty of committing a crime which is how you worded it.

What she said is completely correct because the officer does not know you from Adam and that is a officer safety issue.

Click to expand...

Officers should always approach any person cautiously if they think criminal activity is afoot. However, possession of a firearm is not illegal.

Assuming a firearm is loaded in CA means presuming the possessor is violating PC12031. That's a direct presumption of guilt, lacking any evidence whatsoever that the crime has been committed.

The idea Gail conveyed on behalf of the department is equivalent to: "it will be assumed that people wearing a coats are concealing weapons until proven otherwise."

Read Terry v Ohio... the US Supreme Court drew very clear lines on the topic of police rights to detain people. They used very powerful language when describing our right to be secure in our persons and to be free from warrantless/unreasonable searches.

imported post

I guess we can agree to disagree. This argument could go on forever. There are too many variables when dealing with people on the street. I for one agree with the cops thought of going home to their family because that next guy they deal with could be the one they get into a shoot out with.

Again, they dont know you and in this day and age I believe they should approach you as if the gun is loaded, I know I would.

They will continue to do so and will always win that fight in court so long as they do not arrest you for any crime pertaining to the gun.

Too many nuts on the street and they get ahold of guns. The comment someone made about stopping someone who just left a gun shop is stupid. The criminals dont typically get guns the right way.

I was told of a story the other night about a call the police received and responded to. A known 5150 who was carrying a shotgun around saying there is someone outside her window when there was nobody there. After arriving on scene and disarming the 5150 they also found a 30-06 that she had out and ready to fire.

Just another reason to have the laws in place to check those firearms when people are walking around with them on their hip. This world is too crazy not to assume the worst which is how you stay safe.


Look what happened in Oakland. 4 cops dead then pitsburgh a couple days later 3 more cops gunned down. Obviously not by OC people but just goes to show that the things they deal with is more that you or I will probably ever see.

imported post

lovenme wrote:

There are too many variables when dealing with people on the street. I for one agree with the cops thought of going home to their family because that next guy they deal with could be the one they get into a shoot out with.

Again, they dont know you and in this day and age I believe they should approach you as if the gun is loaded, I know I would.

Click to expand...

This is nothing new, and the people in the profession of law enforcement knew this before they signed up. If they are too afraid of death to do their job then maybe they need a new line of work.

It has nothing to do with "this day and age." Law enforcement always has been and always will be dangerous. The only thing new to "this day and age" is that it is becoming culturally acceptable to value a paycheck more than the rights of your fellow man.

Again, officer safety is NOT a valid argument for circumventing an oath to protect the US Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.

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.

Click to expand...

Hey everybody, there are some well informed leaders of this movement who've asked us NOT to UOC untill Nordyke is resolved. Can't we just sum up the wherewhithal to be a LITTLE BIT PATIENT? We can hang together on this thing or we can hang separately, the choice is yours.

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!!

Click to expand...

Oh, how easy it is to call somebody else a liar without going to far as to check out the pertinent facts. Did you really mean it when you said "Bye!!" God I hope so! I get the impression that you are, in fact, a flat foot and you seem to get your knickers in a twist quite easily.