Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Suppose I put the Sheriff on notice?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Franklin, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    In the interest of maintaining my "no surprises" approach to law enforcement, I am wondering if I should pen a letter to the San Diego Sheriff (William Kolender) factually stating my intention to UOC where it is legal, and offering the make, model and serial number of the gun I will carry (which is legally registered to me) the make, model and license number of the vehicle(s) I will be driving along with photo(s), and a general description of the clothes I will be wearing and a big 8x10 glossy photo of my smiling face during those times I am exercising my 2nd amendment right.

    The sheriff here contends that if one citizen knows the law, it is "deemed" that ALL citizens know the law. Therefore, if I inform the sheriff of my intent to OC legally during the course of my daily travels, ALL sheriff's deputies will be deemed to have been made aware of this fact.

    Then, when they get the call about a guy wearing a gun in a holster, and the sheriff asks for a description of the "suspect," they cannot walk into a court and claim that they had no previous knowledge of this, since a certified and notarized letter would be on file in their office.

    If they want to stop me to make sure it is unloaded, and that the serial number is correct, and yadda yadda, that is fine. I would not mind seeing the Sheriff's deputies do their jobs. How then, could they claim to respond to a call on the assumption that I have evil intentions?

    Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    gravedigger wrote:
    In the interest of maintaining my "no surprises" approach to law enforcement, I am wondering if I should pen a letter to the San Diego Sheriff (William Kolender) factually stating my intention to UOC where it is legal, and offering the make, model and serial number of the gun I will carry (which is legally registered to me) the make, model and license number of the vehicle(s) I will be driving along with photo(s), and a general description of the clothes I will be wearing and a big 8x10 glossy photo of my smiling face during those times I am exercising my 2nd amendment right.

    The sheriff here contends that if one citizen knows the law, it is "deemed" that ALL citizens know the law. Therefore, if I inform the sheriff of my intent to OC legally during the course of my daily travels, ALL sheriff's deputies will be deemed to have been made aware of this fact.

    Then, when they get the call about a guy wearing a gun in a holster, and the sheriff asks for a description of the "suspect," they cannot walk into a court and claim that they had no previous knowledge of this, since a certified and notarized letter would be on file in their office.

    If they want to stop me to make sure it is unloaded, and that the serial number is correct, and yadda yadda, that is fine. I would not mind seeing the Sheriff's deputies do their jobs. How then, could they claim to respond to a call on the assumption that I have evil intentions?

    Any thoughts?
    LE, like many other divisions of gov. work on their own understanding of the rules. The logic they use to supress and punish us does not work when used against them. I would not give them such information merely because then they could just sit and wait for you to mess up and pounce.

    Keep them guessing and don't make it easy.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Franklin, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Well, I agree with your assesment of LE tactics.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    gravedigger, In the event that you were ever arrested, I think that these kinds of "on notice" actions could help you win a civil case against the arresting officers.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Clovis California, , USA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    agreed, but they can also be used against you if they catch you in a technicality as well though. I would think it would be better to KNOW THE LAW like the sheriff says and if and when you do get pulled over or detained then give them the case law. Why give them all your information BEFORE you did anything wrong or anything they "assume" as wrong?

    I just find it sad that people have to go to these lengths to use a RIGHT they were given by birth and hope it does change real soon.

    Why not just give them "general" oc information and not the information ON YOU? If one knows the law then they all so why make yourself out to be the oc martyr in your city when you can send that same noterized letter as a "concerned LOCAL citizen" wanting to make sure the local pd understood the oc'ing laws and then forward that same letter to the local news media.

    A general "oc intent" letter from a concerned citizen would have more impact than a letter from the ONE guy who can be seen in this color pants, shirt, with this gun who lives here.

    Just my thoughts.

    MudCamper wrote:
    gravedigger, In the event that you were ever arrested, I think that these kinds of "on notice" actions could help you win a civil case against the arresting officers.

  6. #6
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Anything you send in can and WILL be used against you... I think you would be giving them ammunition. You're giving them "intent". That's almost like telling them you're a red light on the console, and to just watch you until you falter.

    Now, sending a certified letter to the sheriff showing the legalities of openly carrying, the sacramento memo etc... You would have documented proof that is was received and processed. Therefor in any incident involving such, you would have evidence showing they should have known better and you did make an effort to make it known and the blame rests on them.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Clovis California, , USA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    Exactly and THEN anytime there is an oc issue or someone illegally detained then YOU can happily come out and say, "well I sent them all of the laws regarding ocing here in _______ city and here is the proof that it was sent certified and that this station WAS notified of the current legal rights and decided to go AGAINST our rights and illegally arrest, detain, harrass or whatever this person".

    It really could help the overall city doing it that way and then it would also help ANYONE who oc's there versus a one person "I will oc here" notice. Imagine if they put that into law that made it so everyone who wants to oc needs to send in their own personal letter. I can see that being an idea they would like and would NOT be beneficial to us at all IF that got implimented.



    demnogis wrote:
    Anything you send in can and WILL be used against you... I think you would be giving them ammunition. You're giving them "intent". That's almost like telling them you're a red light on the console, and to just watch you until you falter.

    Now, sending a certified letter to the sheriff showing the legalities of openly carrying, the sacramento memo etc... You would have documented proof that is was received and processed. Therefor in any incident involving such, you would have evidence showing they should have known better and you did make an effort to make it known and the blame rests on them.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Franklin, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Yeah, you have good points. Still, I am sort of an in-your-face kind of guy when it comes to putting someone in their place. I would be completely respectful to the officers while simultaneously reminding them that "they" (The Sheriff's office) are well aware of me, and my decision to LEGALLY exercise my 2nd amendment rights while I move about the county as a free citizen. I'll give it some more thought. I am rather impatient when it comes to tolerating B.S. from liberals. I want to bring the whole thing to a boil and serve them their balls on a platter!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Clovis California, , USA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    and that is why I like America, we are all entitled to do what we damn well please

    gravedigger wrote:
    Yeah, you have good points. Still, I am sort of an in-your-face kind of guy when it comes to putting someone in their place. I would be completely respectful to the officers while simultaneously reminding them that "they" (The Sheriff's office) are well aware of me, and my decision to LEGALLY exercise my 2nd amendment rights while I move about the county as a free citizen. I'll give it some more thought. I am rather impatient when it comes to tolerating B.S. from liberals. I want to bring the whole thing to a boil and serve them their balls on a platter!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Would it not be easier to weara concealed firearm that is loaded. If you get caught and it is registered to you, you would only get a ticket for an infraction the first time. Why make a big ordeal over some right where you know some citizen will call police saying there is a man with a gun. Police have every right to detain you and even draw down on you until they determine what your intent is. Plus the caller may have seensomething they thought was suspicious. You can't blame police for investigating a call for service. Nor can you assume that a letter sent to LE ahead of time will keep you from getting called on. I like carrying a pistol as much as anyone but we have to be reasonable.

    PS. If you send a letter to the SD County Sheriff, it doesnt mean CHP will get it.

    Good Luck

    J

  11. #11
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    gk160 wrote:
    ...some citizen will call police saying there is a man with a gun. Police have every right to detain you and even draw down on you until they determine what your intent is. Plus the caller may have seensomething they thought was suspicious. You can't blame police for investigating a call for service.
    Welcome gk160! Check out those links. Police must obey the laws and case laws too.

    4th Amendment, "Terry" stops, and police procedure regarding "MWG" calls.

    "Know your rights" Flex your rights

    Some info on CAs guns laws: californiaopencarry.org

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    gk160 wrote:
    Would it not be easier to weara concealed firearm that is loaded. If you get caught and it is registered to you, you would only get a ticket for an infraction the first time. Why make a big ordeal over some right where you know some citizen will call police saying there is a man with a gun. Police have every right to detain you and even draw down on you until they determine what your intent is. Plus the caller may have seensomething they thought was suspicious. You can't blame police for investigating a call for service. Nor can you assume that a letter sent to LE ahead of time will keep you from getting called on. I like carrying a pistol as much as anyone but we have to be reasonable.

    PS. If you send a letter to the SD County Sheriff, it doesnt mean CHP will get it.

    Good Luck

    J
    You advise to break the law and then say that we need to be reasonable. I do not consider violating the law and risking one's right to possess firearms at all to be reasonable.





  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Franklin, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    gk160 wrote:
    Would it not be easier to weara concealed firearm that is loaded. If you get caught and it is registered to you, you would only get a ticket for an infraction the first time.
    I would get more than an infraction in CommieFornia. It would be a misdemeanor, and I would lose my firearm, and maybe even my right to OWN a firearm. CommieFornia is not like the United States of America. This is a bastion of LIBERALISM here!

    I am not interested in breaking any laws. I am interested in OBEYING laws, and helping LEOs to understand that I am obeying laws as I exercise my rights.

    gk160 wrote:

    PS. If you send a letter to the SD County Sheriff, it doesnt mean CHP will get it. "

    I would likewise notify the CHP, as well as all of the local police departments. I'd even consider putting a PUBLIC NOTICE in the newspaper! It is required for Ficticious Name Statements, so why wouldn't it be valid for such a notification to the various LE agencies?




  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Check out 12025(6)(A)(B) PC. I know the law is confusing. My point is that if you are an unconvicted citizen (No criminal record), the DA's Office most likely will not convict you. Part (A) is carrying the gun loaded and concealed. (B) is not being the registered owner. You have to be in violation of both sections to be convicted. I am not saying you wont encounter problems but the DA probably won't file charges of 12025 PC.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    gravedigger wrote:
    Yeah, you have good points. Still, I am sort of an in-your-face kind of guy when it comes to putting someone in their place. I would be completely respectful to the officers while simultaneously reminding them that "they" (The Sheriff's office) are well aware of me, and my decision to LEGALLY exercise my 2nd amendment rights while I move about the county as a free citizen. I'll give it some more thought. I am rather impatient when it comes to tolerating B.S. from liberals. I want to bring the whole thing to a boil and serve them their balls on a platter!



    The Constitution Comes Before Statutes, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations



    Article VI, U.S. Constitution
    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


    "...shall not be infringed." 2A is very clear as is Article VI of the U.S. Constitution but seems to have been forgotten. The sheriff takes an oath to support the U.S. constitution just like judges and legislators. The judges are making rulings that change the 2A. As an in-your-face kind of guy you could ask any involved why they don't honor their oath. Under the Civil Rights Act (code 42 (1983)) anyone that denies a right is liable for any injury caused by that denial. Maybe letters informing them of these facts could make them think twice about violating your rights. (It could cost them $$$$$$) An important key is to get people to understand that whatever right they cherish most could be the next one to go. "Incorporated"? What kind of BS is that?

    "I want to bring the whole thing to a boil and serve them their balls on a platter!" We the people would ifwe allhad the guts of our founders.



  16. #16
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    gk160 wrote:
    Check out 12025(6)(A)(B) PC. Part (A) is carrying the gun loaded and concealed. (B) is not being the registered owner. You have to be in violation of both sections to be convicted.
    Not true.

    That is just one of thethe criteria for a felony charge. Violate 12025(a) and expect to be prosecuted for the misdemeanor unless you can find an exemption in 12026.1a, 12026.2a, or 12027.

    DA's don't convict. They charge and prosecute. If it is a first time offense with no other crimes involved they will offer a decent deal most of the time. Expect some conditions on your probation.

    If one is carrying concealed for self defense I recommend using exemption 12026.1a to the letter.

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

    Post imported post

    I'm all for sending letters to police stations so you can later claim that they should have known. But identifying yourself and giving them information about you and your sidearm seems semi-detrimental. I'd much rather not talk to the police about anything, and I'd really rather not talk to the police about my guns and what I will be doing with them.

    Here's a video on why you should not talk to the police, it's pretty damn interesting: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02514885833865

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Good call. Where I live the DA only prosecutes for an infraction the firast time (100 dollar fine). The are a few outs depending on the jurisdiction.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    I'm all for sending letters to police stations so you can later claim that they should have known. But identifying yourself and giving them information about you and your sidearm seems semi-detrimental. I'd much rather not talk to the police about anything, and I'd really rather not talk to the police about my guns and what I will be doing with them.

    Here's a video on why you should not talk to the police, it's pretty damn interesting: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02514885833865
    A very good video that I hope all will watch. The police in my family have said the same thing but never explained the extremes that talking could be used. If you really want to worry then you might think about all of our posts and replies being stored for future use and this can be done in many ways without OC having anything to do with it.

    As for identifying yourself, maybe you could just be a concerned citizen that informs LE that they are bound to Article VI and could be liable for the denial of rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1983.

    I'm not sure that many understand why I have been using Article VI. I have been trying to point out that judges, legislators, states, etc. have been and are violating the supreme law of the land. "The Constitution Comes Before Statutes, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations". 2A is very clear, as is Article VI,so how do we end up with statutes, ordinances, rules andregulations that should neverhave been? We have to organize and remind people that we the people are the government and show how violations can affect them too.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    ventura county, California, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    I would advise against puting cops on notice and they will be at your house so if you do be prepared. On the other hand it "might" help or hurt you in a civil suit or a criminal suit.Cops might go out of their way to harass you for the illusion of public safety.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    awesomeness wrote:
    I would advise against puting cops on notice and they will be at your house so if you do be prepared. On the other hand it "might" help or hurt you in a civil suit or a criminal suit.Cops might go out of their way to harass you for the illusion of public safety.
    The notice is not that you will OC. The notice could be that in denying others their right to carry could makeLE liable for a violent assault against you. The police are never around when you need them but law-abiding citizens couldn't come to your aid because they didn't have the means to help you. Remember, The Supreme Court ruled that there is no duty to protect placed on any LEO. Why is there still crime after we are told that it should be left to LE? The crime rate should be zero if LE could do the job. This might even be done by someone that doesn't own a firearm.

    I'm sure there are many ways LE could be notified without facing repercussions.

    Discrimination is another because everyone can't afford security like the celebrities can.

    The best way I see is to become more organized instead of individuals having to step up and take the heat on their own.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    fresno-opencarry-now wrote:
    agreed, but they can also be used against you if they catch you in a technicality as well though. I would think it would be better to KNOW THE LAW like the sheriff says and if and when you do get pulled over or detained then give them the case law. Why give them all your information BEFORE you did anything wrong or anything they "assume" as wrong?

    I just find it sad that people have to go to these lengths to use a RIGHT they were given by birth and hope it does change real soon.

    Why not just give them "general" oc information and not the information ON YOU? If one knows the law then they all so why make yourself out to be the oc martyr in your city when you can send that same noterized letter as a "concerned LOCAL citizen" wanting to make sure the local pd understood the oc'ing laws and then forward that same letter to the local news media.

    A general "oc intent" letter from a concerned citizen would have more impact than a letter from the ONE guy who can be seen in this color pants, shirt, with this gun who lives here.

    Just my thoughts.

    MudCamper wrote:
    gravedigger, In the event that you were ever arrested, I think that these kinds of "on notice" actions could help you win a civil case against the arresting officers.

    Would anyone like to volunteer writing a general "U"OC CA LEO notification Letter? Then have it sticky' d in the California Section here for all to use. (Trust me you don't want me writing it)


  23. #23
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    I suppose I could give it a shot. From the CA Penal Code ยง's and other info we've amassed here, I'm sure a letter just stating the facts wouldn't be too difficult. Besides, I've got a LOT of free time at work lately... Off season hehehe
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  24. #24
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    It's quite easy actually.

    Just take the Sacramento PD internal memo, remove all the hokum about open carriers looking for a lawsuit, makes some tweeks and there's your letter.
    I wanted bring to yourattention that gun rightsadvocates Statewide may demonstrate lawful carry of exposed firearms.

    The following are some firearms laws that may apply ifyouencounter a subject wearing a pistol in a belt holster:

    PC 12025 (f), unloaded firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of section 12025.

    PC 12025 only applies to concealable firearms, which is defined in PC12001(a) as a pistol, revolver or firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches. There is nothing prohibiting someone from carrying an unloaded, concealed rifle or shotgun on their person or in their vehicle unless the barrel is less than 16 inches.

    PC 12031(g), A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm. **Case law now states the ammunition must be in a position from which is can be fired (People. v. Clark)

    PC 12031(e), in order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

    In "People v. Clark" (1996), the California Court of Appeal clarified that in order to be "loaded" a firearm must have ammunition "placed into a position from which it can be fired." It even went so far as to point out as an example of what is not loaded to include shells attached to a shotgun inside a buttstock shell carrier. ** There is a common misconception that merely possessing both a firearm and ammunition in close proximity legally equates to loaded. This mistake stems from several PC sections that do not apply to PC 12031. 12001(j) only applies to 12023 (carry with intent to commit a felony). 12025(b)(6)(A) is a sentence enhancement which only applies if one violates 12025 (carrying concealed).

    Scenario: a person is walking down the street with an unloaded pistol carried openly on their belt. There is a loaded magazine for the pistol located next to the pistol in a magazine pouch. You run the pistol through the automated firearm system and there is no dealer record of sale. ** NOT a violation of PC 12025 or PC 12031.

    Scenario: a person is walking down the street with a shotgun (18 inch barrel) under their coat. **NOT a 12025 violation.

    Scenario: a person walking down the street has a pistol worn openly on their belt with a loaded magazine inserted into the pistol, but no round in the chamber. You run the firearm and there is a dealer record of sale to the suspect. Suspect has no criminal history. **misdemeanor violation of PC 12031. Note: If there is no dealer record of sale for the firearm or the dealer record of sale is not in the suspect's name the charge can be elevated to a felony PC 12031(a)(2)(f).

    Remember that in any scenario PC 12031(e) gives you the authority to detain the person so you can inspect the firearm per PC 12031(e). Unless you develop additional probable cause, the length of the detention will be limited to the time required to inspect the firearm.

    ** With the exception of assault weapons, there is no law that requires a handgun or long gun to be registered with the California Department of Justice. The DOJ registration language found in PC 12025(b)(6) and 12031(a)(2)(f) is a sentencing enhancement if you already have a PC 12025 or PC 12031 violation

    Just a thought.

    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

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Franklin, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    That works as a general notice and it is good for starters, but I am interested in something more specific.

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
  •