Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Flash: new internal UOC memo from Sacto Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Hi folks,

    'Bwiese' from Calguns here, stopping by with some UOC info just in.

    We have a new UOC memo from Sacto RTTAC. The Calguns thread is:
    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=121589

    ...with init post duped here for folks' convenience:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Looks like they think UOCers are terrorists. Appears I was wrong about memo contents (from prior rumor/guesswork) - they think UOCs are out to entrap - as opposed to insistence on a right and engaging in legal self protection via recorder.

    It's quite notable how they use the term constitutional right in quotation marks - not to indicate exact quotation, but a reflection of the simple derision of people with a 'master' mindset wondering why people insist on their rights.

    Any trivial errors/minor format changes are likely mine alone due to quick transcription and lack of OCR at hand. I did not want to post the fax image as that could reveal the fax machine used.

    This memo has made it at least down to "upper SoCal" now.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sacramento Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center

    sacrttac@sacsheriff.com * 916-808-8383 * FAX 916-874-6180

    SUBJECT: Officer Safety/Situational Awareness - Open Carry Movement

    DATE: 24 July 2008


    Recently, emails have been circulating about the Open Carry movement and its members' attempts to
    openly carry firearms in public places. The intent may be to have an officer arrest them or seize their
    firearm so they can file a civil lawsuit against the officer. Because of the recent incidents in the
    Sacramento RTTAC region and the likelihood that the incidents will continue, the following information
    is being provided to law enforcement agencies for purposes of Officer Safety and Situational Awareness.


    The Open Carry movement began in 2004 when the website, OpenCarry.org, was established by two gun
    rights activists. The website not only serves as a legal resource but also as a social networking portal for
    thousands of American gun owners. Based on a review of the website, it appears to be well visited with
    many daily postings to several forum topics.


    The Sacramento Police Department recently received a phone call from an individual inquiring about
    carrying an unloaded handgun in public. Additional information was received indicating that members of
    the group 'Open Carry' suggested going to a Sacramento restaurant wearing non-concealed pistols on
    their belts in an attempt to lure police into arresting them while other members of the group secretly
    videotape the incident. The video could then be used in a civil lawsuit against the officer.

    In addition, there was an incident in Turlock earlier this month where officers responded to a citizen report
    of an armed person in a park on a Saturday afternoon. Upon arrival, officers encountered an adult male
    armed with a handgun carried in a belt holster. Employing customary officer safety practices, the person
    was disarmed at gunpoint and detained. The handgun was found to be unloaded and properly registered.
    The male adult possessed valid identification and declared that he was engaging in his "constitutional right"
    to openly carry an unloaded firearm. Because the firearm was unloaded and not concealed, no criminal
    violation occurred. Once the person was properly identified and the weapon checked for registration status,
    the person was released.


    The following Monday, an individual identifying himself as a co-founder of "OpenCarry.org" called the Turlock
    Police Department and suggested that Turlock police officers required training on the 'right to carry firearms’'.
    OpenCarry.org also posted a message from an individual, "CA_Libertarian", who claimed he was "illegally detained
    and harassed" by Turlock police officers. The website posting suggested that the incident was being reviewed
    by an attorney for the purposes of pursuing a civil rights violation action and that there was an audio tape
    recording of the entire incident. In addition, the individual confronted and detained by officers was not a Turlock
    resident and his posting related his experiences of openly carrying firearms throughout different communities.


    Based on a review of their website, it appears that the Open Carry movement is spreading to this region. The
    founders are based on the East Coast and much of the activity has been in that area, but recent activity in
    the Central Valley and some of the forum postings indicate that law enforcement agencies in California may
    experience an increase in the number of Open Carry encountersin their jurisdictions.


    If you log on to their website http://www.opencarry.org and click on "Our Forum" at the top left, then scroll down
    to "California", you will se that there are 7 pages of postings, all with a sizeable number of replies. Included
    in the postings are the Turlock PD incident and the Sacramento PD incident (including the High Priority internal
    memo) as well as meetings and "meet & greets" that have either taken place or are being planned throughout
    California. All California Law Enforcement personnel should be aware of the following firearms laws in case they
    are confronted with a subject openly carrying a firearm.
    • 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 are defined in PC
      12001(a) as a pistol, revolver or firearm with a barrel ofless 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 it 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.


    For questions concerning the information contained in this bulletin, contact the Sacramento
    Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center at 888-884-8383 or 916-803-8383.



    ------------------------------------------------------------
    LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE

    WARNING: This document contains confidential information. It is intended for law enforcement personnel only.
    The information should not be released to the media or general public. Further discussion of this document
    should be done on a need to know basis. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
    use, review, dissemination, or copying of this document is strictly prohibited.

    YEAHHHH, RIGHT.






    __________________

    Bill Wiese
    San Jose, CA

    No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
    to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
    ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
    employer. No
    posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
    legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

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

    Post imported post

    This is very good news. The more memos we see going out, the more we can trust that our public servants will be aware of our rights. More importantly, they will be aware of the statutes they are to enforce.

    I don't like that we continue to be painted as lawsuit seekers, but if that's what it takes to get these guys to respect our rights, then so be it. I want every cop worried that (s)he'll be dragged through IA and sued if (s)he violates my rights. Too bad some of them actually need this motivation to deter such actions.

    Of course, it is troublesome that this memo is put out by a "terrorism threat assessment" dept. Maybe it has to do with the fact I was reading Senator Ron Paul's book titled The Revolution. It's a sad waste of our tax dollars if they're actually wasting their resources keeping tabs on this group.

    ETA: Bill, thanks for posting this. It is truly reassuring to see that the squeaky wheels may be getting the grease after all.
    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    Wow. 28 months in a combat zone, fighting for the freedom of the USA.............

    And now I'm a terrorist, because I wish only to follow the US Constitution, and the laws of California.

    Hey Sacramento, you couldn't have it more wrong.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    Army wrote:
    Wow. 28 months in a combat zone, fighting for the freedom of the USA.............

    And now I'm a terrorist, because I wish only to follow the US Constitution, and the laws of California.

    Hey Sacramento, you couldn't have it more wrong.
    It's a local county Sheriff's Dept. "Assessment Center". They're probably just another gov. agency is search of a reason to exist and get Fed. money for the dept. Don't take it personally, it's just mo-money for them (um... taxes from you).





  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Concord, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    247

    Post imported post

    Terrorists huh. I don't know how you people stand it in Cali.

    There's always the Free State Project if you get tired of it. http://freestateproject.org/

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    "We will stand and FIGHT!!!" -King Leonidas "300"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    bwiese wrote:
    Looks like they think UOCers are terrorists.
    I think Bill was playing with words considering the source of the memo.

    I'm glad, provided that one can get past the law suitentrapment rumor, that some state wide info. on the correct interpretation of 12031g and People v Clark is getting seen by local agencies.

    And it's not entrapment if the cop would have violated that person's rights anyway. If they think they might be on video, and it causes them to act reasonably, then it's all for the better for everyone involved.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    :what:SON OF AH BBB****#$@%&@$:what:



    I was just about to post this, I didn't know if it was on here or not yet. as soon as I saw "Turlock" I was like OOO %!@#$ I know who that is.... But then My socks got knowcked off as I read on and saw him named, WOW! I knew they were watching but WOW:what:

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    I have a question...


    is ocing unloaded LEGAL in the whole state of california??



  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Hiredgun30 wrote:
    I have a question...


    is ocing unloaded LEGAL in the whole state of california??

    Firearms are prohibited within 1,000' of K-12 schools, on school grounds of ALL schools, in all public buildings, and in state parks... (I think I'm missing one of the prohibited places... someone help me out.)

    So no, the state is a patchwork of prohibited zones.
    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.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    No one has answered yet. . . I did not see anywhere in there they actually called us terrorists...

    Besides, don't we have to be creating "terror" to be "terrorists"? I mean, most people completely ignore me when I am out unless I engage them.

    But I can see...One of my neighbors is scared to knock on my door and tell me when I have been too loud because I have guns. ..

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    No one has answered yet. . . I did not see anywhere in there they actually called us terrorists...

    Besides, don't we have to be creating "terror" to be "terrorists"? I mean, most people completely ignore me when I am out unless I engage them.

    But I can see...One of my neighbors is scared to knock on my door and tell me when I have been too loud because I have guns. ..
    The fact that the source of the memo is the "regional terrorism threat assessment center" implies that this is somehow terrorism related.

    Let's say you are LE and have never heard of the open carry movement. The first time you ever hear about it is on a memo with "Terrorism" in the letterhead. What are you likely to think? The answer: "someone thinks these guys might be domestic terrorists."

    It is obvious to you and me that we're not terrorists, but most people in CA (LE included) are still brainwashed to think that guns are bad.
    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.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    I contacted the allegedly issuing office yesterday to ask them to confirm it's authenticity and to point out that the memo is a bit odd and fails to note that loaded open carry is lawfull generlaly in unincorporated parts of California.

    They said they would get back to me.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    They said they would get back to me.
    I'm sure they will... maybe they just want to make sure you're not a terrorist threat before they answer your questions...
    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.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Can the site sue them for lible for insinuating that we are a terrorist group? Just a thought.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    Can the site sue them for lible for insinuating that we are a terrorist group? Just a thought.
    Even if they came right out and said "anybody that open carries is a terrorist" it would be nearly impossible. Mostly because this is an 'internal' memo. IIRC, one of the requirements of libel is that it be a publicly distributed document.

    In any case, I don't think they insinuated that at all. I think they just failed to realize that the letterhead may mislead the average LEO. I don't see any reason to think this was intentional... just typical bureaucratic incompetence.
    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.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    I thought the same thing, just thought it might be worth discussing...Figure someone else might ask the same thing.

  18. #18
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    So whomever leaked this... probably out of a job?
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    So whomever leaked this... probably out of a job?
    If the person's identity is ever discovered... maybe. Bwiese indicated he got it from a 3rd party, and is keeping that person anonymous. They certainly won't be able to legally compel Bwiese to reveal his source.

    I doubt they'll ever know who 'leaked' the memo, and I even have my doubts that anybody cares enough to investigate it. It's not like there's any new information here over what was already seen in the leaked Sac PD memo.
    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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Herndon, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    336

    Post imported post

    bwiese wrote:
    Hi folks,

    Any trivial errors/minor format changes are likely mine alone due to quick transcription and lack of OCR at hand. I did not want to post the fax image as that could reveal the fax machine used.
    So this was completely retyped, and not scanned or cut/pasted? I'm curious because I saw a couple of misused/mispelled words and thought they might be deliberate. I wouldn't put it past an agency like this to leak a memo with different errors on each in order to set a "Canary Trap" to find where the internal leak is.

    Of course, I could just be paranoid...hang on, someone is knocking at the do.....<carrier lost>.....

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    There are multiple sources for this "leak".



  22. #22
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    bwiese wrote:
    Hi folks,

    Any trivial errors/minor format changes are likely mine alone due to quick transcription and lack of OCR at hand. I did not want to post the fax image as that could reveal the fax machine used.
    Could have just used white out on the fax used. It should only be on the edge.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    You apparently are not aware of the ability of modern forensics to discern a particular fax or copy machine.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post


    rodbender wrote:
    could have just used white out on the fax used. It should only be on the edge.
    longwatch wrote:
    You apparently are not aware of the ability of modern forensics to discern a particular fax or copy machine.

    Longwatchis correct, copy machines, fax machines and laser & inkjet printers all leave unique identifying marks. Scanners probably have their own perturbations too between different devices. Most are unintentional due to machine-to-machine variance or wear; some is intentional (embeeded masked data in output of quality inkjet printers).


    Bill Wiese
    San Jose CA




  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    bwiese wrote:
    "Any trivial errors/minor format changes are likely mine
    alone due to quick transcription and lack of OCR at hand.
    I did not want to post the fax image as that could reveal
    the fax machine used


    Reddknight wrote:
    So this was completely retyped, and not scanned or cut/pasted? I'm curious because I saw a couple of misused/mispelled words and thought they might be deliberate. I wouldn't put it past an agency like this to leak a memo with different errors on each in order to set a "Canary Trap" to find where the internal leak is.
    Yes, I typed it from a secondary or (likely) tertiary fax to me. I apologize for trivial errors; I was typing quickly so a misspelling/typo is entirely likely due to be mine. (I'm better at spelling/typing when I'm writing my own text rather than parrotting someone else's.) Also, for speed of releasing the memo (i.e., fast typing) I included a couple of abbreviations (PD instead of Police Department, etc.) used repeatedly. I may well have mixed use of single & double quotation marks too. Formatting was also lost because I obviously can't match the page layout/font/spacing in a forum posting.

    And yes, 'canary traps' using variant phrasings/spellings/grammatical errors would be possible. Given that I knew of this memo's existence and prior dissemination and rough approximate content for several weeks beforehand - and given OC had been on the radar in very recent past,- I figured that wasn't the case and that this was an advisory statement mostly in the form of "um, this is weird, our pseudoauthority is being challenged, but we don't wanna get sued."



    Bill Wiese
    San Jose CA



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
  •