• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Suppose I put the Sheriff on notice?

S.E.WI

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
137
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, ,
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.
 

MrSigmaDot40

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
58
Location
, California, USA
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)
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

I suppose I could give it a shot. From the CA Penal Code §'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
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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.
 

MrSigmaDot40

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
58
Location
, California, USA
imported post

That's what i'm talking about guys!

I like the Sac memo idea too but also want to see what else we can come up with. Maybe we should add that Sac memo to whatever the final draft is. The Sac memo does cover a lot, what ther "specific" things should it have?
 
Top