Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: My first LEO encounter

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    My first encounter with a LEO while OCing. I spent an hour in bestbuy then went to the mall. I was at the mall for right around 10 minutes when the LEO stopped me. We then went to the security office where he removed my firearm. He didn't run the serial but he did run my DL# to see if I was a prohibited person. Total time in the security office was around 20 minutes. The officer who stopped me was very friendly and pro gun/CCW. He said he wishes every citizen was allowed to carry. I wish that was a majority opinion. It was a little time consuming but as said they were very polite. I did have to leave the mall due to their no weapon policy but was told I could come back in if I left my firearm in the car.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    Well, I'm sure it could've been worse....

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    Despite his friendliness, I'm fairly certain he has no right to run you or your handgun, only to confirm that it is unloaded.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Absolutely correct on that one. You have no legal obligation to provide I.D. if you are not suspected of committing a crime. His detention was illegal. He had no legal basis under California lawto check if you were a prohibited person. Just as a cop has no right to pull you over just to check if you have a license and insurance.

    I would submit a complaint to the officers precinct, IN WRITING.

    As long as we keep letting them walk over our rights, just because we don't want to be inconvenienced, the longer they will keep walking all over our rights.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    TheWarrior wrote:
    Well, I'm sure it could've been worse....
    It's sad that this is our measuring stick... kinda like the way we choose the politicians.

    We should be outraged at EVERY violation of our rights, no matter how much worse it could have been. Polite oppression is still oppression.

    Please get documentation of your stop from this department so that we can start building a case. The habitual, systematic deprivation of our rights must not go unanswered!
    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.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Although I would normally agree...doesn't California allow for a LEO to pull you over in your car to determine if you have valid insurance?

    I know that in VA they had a law that stated they could do so, and CA being the kind of state it is....I would not be surprised if they had such.

    Decoligny wrote:
    Absolutely correct on that one. You have no legal obligation to provide I.D. if you are not suspected of committing a crime. His detention was illegal. He had no legal basis under California lawto check if you were a prohibited person. Just as a cop has no right to pull you over just to check if you have a license and insurance.

    I would submit a complaint to the officers precinct, IN WRITING.

    As long as we keep letting them walk over our rights, just because we don't want to be inconvenienced, the longer they will keep walking all over our rights.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    Although I would normally agree...doesn't California allow for a LEO to pull you over in your car to determine if you have valid insurance?

    I know that in VA they had a law that stated they could do so, and CA being the kind of state it is....I would not be surprised if they had such.

    Decoligny wrote:
    Absolutely correct on that one. You have no legal obligation to provide I.D. if you are not suspected of committing a crime. His detention was illegal. He had no legal basis under California lawto check if you were a prohibited person. Just as a cop has no right to pull you over just to check if you have a license and insurance.

    I would submit a complaint to the officers precinct, IN WRITING.

    As long as we keep letting them walk over our rights, just because we don't want to be inconvenienced, the longer they will keep walking all over our rights.
    Not to my knowledge. I do believe however that they can and do use the "checkpoint" method for checking license, registration, and insurance. Since it has to be advertised in advance, they supposedly consider it "voluntary" due to the fact that you didn't decide to avoid driving in the area of the "advertised" checkpoint.

    But a cop cannot just decide to turn on his blue lights and pull you over just to see if you have a license and insurance.

    He can run your license PLATE, and if it comes back as lapsed registration then hecan pull you over and check license and insurance. Or he can say you were driving erratically, or failed to use a turn signal while changing lanes. Pretty easy to make up a simple reason for a stop.

    But back on topic. A cop has no legal justification for running an I.D. of a person when he doesn't have Reasonable Articulable Suspiscion that a crime has been commited, or is about to be commited. And LEGALLY carrying a firearm is NOT RAS that a crime is about to occur.





  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    When you are driving, you do have a statutory obligation to provide your permission slip. This is supposedly to establish that you're a competent driver. Of course, they use this to ID you. On foot, you have no obligation to carry ID, as there is no 'pedestrian license.'

    Carrying without your ID is often referred to 'sterile carry.' I do this whenever possible, but in modern society it's hard to get much done without driving somewhere or using a bank card that requires ID.

    If you're ever stopped outside of your vehicle, feel free to refuse to surrender your ID. Your only obligations are to provide your full name and residential address. If they take your wallet, make it loud and clear that you don't consent to the search/seizure.

    As always, have your recording device present and running.
    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.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    SNIP If you're ever stopped outside of your vehicle, feel free to refuse to surrender your ID. Your only obligations are to provide your full name and residential address. If they take your wallet, make it loud and clear that you don't consent to the search/seizure.

    As always, have your recording device present and running.
    Just a few clarifications requested, since I'm not a California resident.

    1. Are you required to give name and address even if the officer has no RAS for the stop? I was under the impression an LEO may only demand name and address if he has RAS, and only in states that have stop-and-identify statutes. Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court (?)

    2. In Decoligny's post above, it would seem that in CA, legally carrying a firearm is RAS. Is this true or just a typo?

    3. Cites help.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Typo on my part, fixed it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    TheWarrior wrote:
    Well, I'm sure it could've been worse....
    It's sad that this is our measuring stick... kinda like the way we choose the politicians.

    We should be outraged at EVERY violation of our rights, no matter how much worse it could have been. Polite oppression is still oppression.
    Agreed...of course I'm outraged. I just don't always show it...if I did...well...I'd never be smilin' in Cali.

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

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Just a few clarifications requested, since I'm not a California resident.

    1. Are you required to give name and address even if the officer has no RAS for the stop? I was under the impression an LEO may only demand name and address if he has RAS, and only in states that have stop-and-identify statutes. Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court (?)

    2. In Decoligny's post above, it would seem that in CA, legally carrying a firearm is RAS. Is this true or just a typo?

    3. Cites help.
    I've been searching for an hour for a citation, and I'm coming up blank. I remember researching this about a year ago. I think we even had a discussion on this forum... maybe someone else can help me out.

    IIRC, the court determined that you could not be arrested under the statute if you provide your full name and address. I think it was a CA court of appeals case, so it would only be binding on CA residents. Also, it only applies when the officer is investigating a crime or suspious activity.

    So, the real question is: does 12031(e) count as a Terry Stop? I think it does (though unconstitutionally so). The only defensible position for the proponents of this statute would be that carry a firearm is suspicious activity. So, it is presumed you are committing this crime until proven inoccent. So, 12031(e) checks could easily be consrued as criminal investigations of a sort that inokes the investigative rights granted by Terry v Ohio. (Otherwise, they would have no right to stop you at all.)

    So, I suspect that LEOs are within their current legal boundaries if they make a cursory pat-down for concealed weapons and require you to identify yourself.

    I apologize for failing to provide a citation. However, I'm about 90% sure I got the facts of the case right. (I even remember specific details, but nothing to help identify the case.) I'll look some more tomorrow if nobody jumps in to help me out.
    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
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Decoligny…

    I would check your facts before posting to a community bulletin! PC 12031(e) of the California Penal Code allows police officers to detain a person in possession of a firearm to determine if the firearm is loaded or unloaded. Therefore this is a legal and lawful detention. Failure to provide identification after being contacted by the police for a lawful detention can and probably will result in your arrest 148(a)(1) PC, delaying and obstructing.

    Furthermore in another of your post you mentioned the police use “Blue” lights to stop vehicles. This is incorrect as well. The blue and amber lights are for visibility. By law the police use a “red light” visible for 1000 feet to stop vehicles.

    Please refrain from making the rest of us look bad by posting bad information. The information you provide is read by many people who will be faced with criminal charges when contacted by LEO’s based on your inaccurate information. I would recommend reading the penal code, which can be found on the Internet, before attempting to state facts.



    Officers may rely upon §12031(e), which provides that:



    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 (California Penal Code, 2008)



    148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or

    obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical

    technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)

    of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to

    discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other

    punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding

    one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail

    not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment (California Penal Code, 2008)

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

    Post imported post

    Apallo,

    Welcome to the forums! We're always glad to see new faces here.

    I do think your first post is out of line. Decoligny was expressing his opinion... that's what the "I believe" at the beginning of the post means.

    And the fact that he mistook the color of the light you have to stop for is of little importance. It is my understanding that forward-facing blue lights cannot be put on anything but emergency vehicles. I also believe you have to pull over and yeild to any vehicle with forward facing blue lights.

    Decoligny is one of the major contributors for this state's forum. I don't agree with him 100% of the time, and he does get facts wrong at times. However, I don't think he makes any of us look bad by any stretch of the imagination. I think he is an asset to the forum and a patriot deserving of our respect.

    Even if he was a gibbering moron, I don't see how that refelcts on any of us... this is a public forum and anybody can claim to be an "open carry advocate" and then say stupid things.

    Again, welcome to the forums. I suggest you stay positive and keep your criticism polite and productive. Coming in and bashing the 'regulars' in your first post won't earn you any respect.
    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
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    In Deco's defense, IIRC only law enforcement uses blue lights. Emergency vehicles (fire, ambulance etc) use red, amber, and white strobe.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Another Drive by poster

    I occasionally make mistakes, and when I am corrected using actual Penal Code citation and Vehicle Code citation I am the first to admit that I was wrong. apollo hasn't shown me that I am wrong.


    apollo wrote:

    I would check your facts before posting to a community bulletin! PC 12031(e) of the California Penal Code allows police officers to detain a person in possession of a firearm to determine if the firearm is loaded or unloaded. Therefore this is a legal and lawful detention. Failure to provide identification after being contacted by the police for a lawful detention can and probably will result in your arrest 148(a)(1) PC, delaying and obstructing.
    As there is no legal requirement in California to always carry Identification papers with you, they would be hard pressed to arrest you for obstruction for failing to provide I.D.

    You will note, however,I did not say that you should notidentify yourself. That can be done by just simply providing your name and city of residence. When I opencarry, I do however carry one piece of Government issued I.D., my VA card. It has only my picture and my name on it,no other personal information atall on it.

    apollo wrote:

    Decoligny…

    Furthermore in another of your post you mentioned the police use “Blue” lights to stop vehicles. This is incorrect as well. The blue and amber lights are for visibility. By law the police use a “red light” visible for 1000 feet to stop vehicles.
    From my limited experience with being pulled over (twice in the past 15 years) the primary color that I have seen in my raerview is FLASHING BLUE. They do have amber lights as well. Red I cannot attest to.

    You say that BY LAW the police have to use "red lights" to stop vehicles, please provide the citation to exactly which part of THE LAW states that requirement.

    CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE

    25252. Every authorized emergency vehicle shall be equipped with at
    least one steady burning red warning lamp visible from at least
    1,000 feet to the front of the vehicle to be used as provided in this
    code.
    In addition, authorized emergency vehicles may display revolving,
    flashing, or steady red warning lights to the front, sides or rear of
    the vehicles.

    I see nowhere a requirement to use that red lamp to stop vehicles.

    CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE

    25258. (a) An authorized emergency vehicle operating under the
    conditions specified in Section 21055 may display a flashing white
    light from a gaseous discharge lamp designed and used for the purpose
    of controlling official traffic control signals.
    (b) An authorized emergency vehicle used by a peace officer, as
    defined in Section 830.1 of, subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), (e),
    (f), (g), or (i) of Section 830.2 of, subdivision (b) of Section
    830.31 of, subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 830.32 of, Section
    830.33 of, subdivision (a) of Section 830.36 of, subdivision (a) of
    Section 830.4 of, or Section 830.6 of, the Penal Code, in the
    performance of the peace officer's duties, may, in addition, display
    a steady or flashing blue warning light visible from the front,
    sides, or rear of the vehicle.
    (c) Except as provided in subdivision (a), a vehicle shall not be
    equipped with a device that emits any illumination or radiation that
    is designed or used for the purpose of controlling official traffic
    control signals.

    25259. (a) Any authorized emergency vehicle may display flashing
    amber warning lights to the front, sides, or rear.
    (b) A vehicle operated by a police or traffic officer while in the
    actual performance of his or her duties may display steady burning
    or flashing white lights to either side mounted above the roofline of
    the vehicle.
    (c) Any authorized emergency vehicle may display not more than two
    flashing white warning lights to the front mounted above the
    roofline of the vehicle and not more than two flashing white warning
    lights to the front mounted below the roofline of the vehicle.
    These
    lamps may be in addition to the flashing headlamps permitted under
    Section 25252.5.


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

    Post imported post

    Yes, apollo, welcome to the forums.

    I hope that you can be more productive on the forums before coming so confrontational against a respected member of the forums.

    And as you pointed out yourself, it is not a detention! It is merely an inspection. Only by not allowing an officer to to inspect gives them PC to arrest you for violation and then under the law inspect your weapon. You still can't be charged with 12031 if you are not loaded, even if you refuse to allow the inspection.

    (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.

    It has been established that pursuant to 12031(e) if the firearm is determined to be in compliance with 12031 (i.e. not loaded) the officer is to immediately return the firearm to the person and send them on their way. Open carrying of an unloaded pistol is not in of itself PC to search, detain, or arrest a person. This doesn't give them the authority to investigate anything, run the serial number on your gun, or even ask for proof of ID.

    apollo wrote:
    Decoligny…

    I would check your facts before posting to a community bulletin! PC 12031(e) of the California Penal Code allows police officers to detain a person in possession of a firearm to determine if the firearm is loaded or unloaded. Therefore this is a legal and lawful detention. Failure to provide identification after being contacted by the police for a lawful detention can and probably will result in your arrest 148(a)(1) PC, delaying and obstructing.

    Furthermore in another of your post you mentioned the police use “Blue” lights to stop vehicles. This is incorrect as well. The blue and amber lights are for visibility. By law the police use a “red light” visible for 1000 feet to stop vehicles.

    Please refrain from making the rest of us look bad by posting bad information. The information you provide is read by many people who will be faced with criminal charges when contacted by LEO’s based on your inaccurate information. I would recommend reading the penal code, which can be found on the Internet, before attempting to state facts.



    Officers may rely upon §12031(e), which provides that:



    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 (California Penal Code, 2008)



    148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or

    obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical

    technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)

    of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to

    discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other

    punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding

    one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail

    not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment (California Penal Code, 2008)

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    And as you pointed out yourself, it is not a detention! It is merely an inspection. Only by not allowing an officer to to inspect gives them PC to arrest you for violation and then under the law inspect your weapon.
    I disagree with this...

    A 12031(e) check is a detention. It is no different than any other Terry Stop.

    All the elements are there:
    • LEO suspects crime has occurred, or is about to occur. (12031e establishes that that the presence of a firearm is grounds for this suspicion)
    • LEO detains you to investigate suspected crime
    • LEO determines you did or did not commit a crime
    • Officer releases you or arrests you
    Interaction falls into three categories: voluntary, detention, or arrest. 12031(e), like all other Terry Stops, gives the suspect two choices: cooperate or face arrest. Coerced cooperation is not the same as voluntary cooperation. So, since 12031(e) is not voluntary, it must fall into one of the two latter categories.
    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.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Theseus wrote:
    And as you pointed out yourself, it is not a detention! It is merely an inspection. Only by not allowing an officer to to inspect gives them PC to arrest you for violation and then under the law inspect your weapon.
    I disagree with this...

    A 12031(e) check is a detention. It is no different than any other Terry Stop.

    All the elements are there:
    • LEO suspects crime has occurred, or is about to occur. (12031e establishes that that the presence of a firearm is grounds for this suspicion)
    • LEO detains you to investigate suspected crime
    • LEO determines you did or did not commit a crime
    • Officer releases you or arrests you
    Interaction falls into three categories: voluntary, detention, or arrest. 12031(e), like all other Terry Stops, gives the suspect two choices: cooperate or face arrest. Coerced cooperation is not the same as voluntary cooperation. So, since 12031(e) is not voluntary, it must fall into one of the two latter categories.
    Interesting point.

    I wonder, does that make game warden checks on shotgun plugs, hunting licenses, and fishing licenses detentions underTerry law? Or is there another legal rationale/theory?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

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

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I wonder, does that make game warden checks on shotgun plugs, hunting licenses, and fishing licenses detentions underTerry law? Or is there another legal rationale/theory?
    Like a driving permit, a hunting permit probably has certain requirments. I'm not familiar with hunting law at all, but I'd bet money it is similar to the CVC requirement that a driver submit to DUI tests.

    That's the problem with society considering these activities to be privileges granted by the state, as opposed to rights. Don't like state policy? Fine... just don't hunt or drive.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    33

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Your only obligations are to provide your full name and residential address.

    CA_Lib, can you point me to anywhere that says this? i've often wondered about what i'm required to do, but i haven't been able to find anything online that gives me the answer.

    Edit: after reading through the rest of the thread, i realized you couldn't find the case law. but if you happen to find it, please let me know.

  22. #22
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    California has no stop and ID statute out side of 40302a CVC for CVC violations or for accident reporting.

    A detention beyond the scope of a 12031e check is likely an unlawful detention (assuming 12031 et al is even constitutional for the sake of 12031 discussions).

    The California Peace Officer's Association attorney seems to agrees with us on this interpretation of 12031(e):




    Won't it be grand when we can look back and be shocked that something like 12031 would even exist. Here's a new years resolution. Lets bury 12031six feet under!!!







  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    Hi All,

    Citizen wanted to know, about the Terry law and the Fish & Game laws.

    I do have a little knowledge on F&G laws in California.

    The California Constitution Article 1 Section 25 saids you have the Absolute"RIGHT" to fish on the public lands in this state.

    It also saids"And NO LAW shall ever be passed making it a Crime for the people to enter upon the public landswithin this state for the purpose of fishing in any water

    containing fish that have been planted therein by the state; provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the differant species of fish may be taken". ( Thats seasons, and howmany of which ones you can catch).

    This original law was passed in 1879. Then in 1910 "A commitee was formed and the F&G was formed which by unelected officals now run the F&G. However F&G codes started in 1909 I believe and adopted in 1910. The first ones were F&G Code 89, and number 3 the third one saids any law prior to these codes will remain in effect. Which means the 1879 law, as stated above.

    It would seem all "Rights" are up for question, and the only one who rally knows are the Patriots and those who research the laws.

    As far as the Terry Law goes, I don't know about that, I need to look it up. I believe we are becoming a nation of "Papers Please". :shock:

    Robin47





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

    Post imported post

    Kolender v Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) is the case where the CA stop and identify law - PC 647(e) - was stuck down. However, I don't see in this case that they set a standard... it may be one of the cases that this case refers to. I remember reading a case somewhere where the court limited what sort of ID could be required.

    I'll do some more digging; IIRC it was a case in the 50s or 60s, and had something to do with a knife fight in a diner/cafe... or maybe I'm confusing another case... I'll keep looking.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    a huge +1 to that!!!

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    It's sad that this is our measuring stick... kinda like the way we choose the politicians.

    We should be outraged at EVERY violation of our rights, no matter how much worse it could have been. Polite oppression is still oppression.

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
  •