Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Latest LEA OC Memo

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Here's a copy of the latest LEA open carry training bulletin. This one is from the San Diego District Attorney's office:

    http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/car...mo-2009-03.pdf

    (Thanks Nathon & Gene!)

    And as always, there are links to this and all the other ones on http://www.californiaopencarry.org/

    This one is a bizarre mix of bad and good opinion.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    Sounds like all good opinion. The only bad opinion is the slight misquote of 171 in "public buildings" Should read certain specific named public buildings.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Any chance you can actually attach the .pdf in the post, like I did with my pamphlet?

    I have firewall issues here at work.

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

    Post imported post

    _Patriot wrote:
    Sounds like all good opinion. The only bad opinion is the slight misquote of 171 in "public buildings" Should read certain specific named public buildings.
    171b. (a) Any person who brings or possesses within any state or
    local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the
    public pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part
    1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of, or Article 9 (commencing with Section
    11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, the
    Government Code, any of the following is guilty of a public offense
    punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one
    year, or in the state prison:
    (1) Any firearm.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    _Patriot wrote:
    Sounds like all good opinion.
    Sorry but I vehemently disagree with that. It says the law is a gray area, and it's not. It talks about legislative measures being necessary to stop us. It talks about officer safety as though we are all a bunch of criminals. It encourages officers to draw their guns and detain us. It equates 12031(e) to a Terry Stop. I could go on.


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    I meant good opinion as far as a legal standpoint. Sorry, my legal background coming out.

    It actually discourages the use of drawing weapons to detain Open Carriers as it brings it into Terry area. It simply states that the decision is the officer's as he/she needs to go hime at the end of shift.

    And as far as the gray area, I agree it is not gray but they are correct that the only way to change it would be Legislative process which is why the more cooperative the better. The better the open carriers portray themselves, the less ammo the legislature has to ban this.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    It mentioned local ordinances and ignored state preemption.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    _Patriot wrote:
    It actually discourages the use of drawing weapons to detain Open Carriers as it brings it into Terry area.
    Hm. OK. To me it tried to write between the lines to help officers find a way to do this.

    _Patriot wrote:
    The better the open carriers portray themselves, the less ammo the legislature has to ban this.
    This is why many in the gun community dislike OC in general. They fear new legislation. The thing is, any new legislation that CA piles on top of what we've already got is so blatantly unconstitutional it will never stand up against Heller.


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    _Patriot wrote:
    It actually discourages the use of drawing weapons to detain Open Carriers as it brings it into Terry area.
    Hm. OK. To me it tried to write between the lines to help officers find a way to do this.

    _Patriot wrote:
    The better the open carriers portray themselves, the less ammo the legislature has to ban this.
    This is why many in the gun community dislike OC in general. They fear new legislation. The thing is, any new legislation that CA piles on top of what we've already got is so blatantly unconstitutional it will never stand up against Heller.
    Maybe I look at it different from a legal standpoint because once you are in Terry, you can't get back out. Once you are detained under Terry, there is certain things that cops can and can't do.

    I agree that some CA laws should be overturned and should from Heller, but we have all seen laws go against the Constitution over the years. Why further the argument with getting police against your cause.The better relationship you can have with Law Enforcement, the less the legislature will have to stand on to start a new law.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    _Patriot wrote:
    The better relationship you can have with Law Enforcement, the less the legislature will have to stand on to start a new law.
    I agree completely.


  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Any chance you can actually attach the .pdf in the post, like I did with my pamphlet?

    I have firewall issues here at work.
    Gene's site is off limits?



  12. #12
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    Any chance you can actually attach the .pdf in the post, like I did with my pamphlet?

    I have firewall issues here at work.
    Gene's site is off limits?

    The Gubbment is getting stricter and stricter on what sites you can access.

    I actually use this stuff for official business as I brief newcomers to the squadron on a variety of issues including gun ownership in California. So I have to be up to speed on all the latest information.

  13. #13
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    I just read the memo. I will send a copy to my local PD because, assuredly, they will feign ignorance.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    I just read the memo. I will send a copy to my local PD because, assuredly, they will feign ignorance.
    Do you know that there are 8 other LEA memos besides this one, many of them much better than this one?

  15. #15
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Yeah. Im not feeling warm and fuzzy with this one.

    1) The memo asserts that contact with an open carrier while conducting a 12031 (e) check or investigating illegal possession of a firearm makes this a "Terry" stop. Any search beyond the loaded check when no other articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime is about being commited or about to be commited is extralegal. The presence of a firearm does not indicate a crime is being commited. Take away the the legality of an(e) check and what you have is someone stopping you and rifling through your property because they 'think' that your are doing something wrong.

    2) The suggestion that these activities are a 'grey' area, necessitating legislative or judicial clarification. Existing law, while a maze of restrictions, is plain enough for mostlaymen to articulate. There is no need to seek out legal embelishment to clarify anything... unless you mean to prohibit an activity.

    3) The memo completely omits state pre-emption. Local ordinance is only enforcable as long as it does not affect general law. Local laws prohibiting possesion of an unloaded or locked up firearm interfere with existing general law, and therefore are void.

    Im still waiting for one of the memos to get it just right. Im not holding my breath.
    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

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    :?

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    As I read through this memo,I think itcontinues to foster a negative image of UOC'ers to the LEO who read it. How does this help? It doesn't. I would like to open carry without being looked upon and treated like I am doing something illegal or am likely to be the one who will keep an LEO from seeing his wife and kids again.There is a prejudice that is being perpetuated by the perspective of these types of memos.

    How about this for a memo...

    "Don't engage, don't detain, don't question a person who is solely open carrying, because open carrying is not a crime. Take the opportunity to educate the person who placed the call that it is not a crime to open carry and is protected by the second amendment. Let's concentrate on catching people who are actually breaking the law. Get out there and be safe!"
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    Did anyone catch the PC 537e stated at the bottom of the memo??

    Now we can't cover the SN??

    Code:
    (a) Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes
    of, conceals, or has in his or her possession any personal property
    from which the manufacturer's serial number, identification number,
    electronic serial number, or any other distinguishing number or
    identification mark has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or
    destroyed, is guilty of a public offense, punishable as follows:
    (1) If the value of the property does not exceed four hundred
    dollars ($400), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six
    months.
    (2) If the value of the property exceeds four hundred dollars
    ($400), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
    (3) If the property is an integrated computer chip or panel of a
    value of four hundred dollars ($400) or more, by imprisonment in the
    state prison for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years or by imprisonment in a
    county jail not exceeding one year.
    For purposes of this subdivision, "personal property" includes,
    but is not limited to, the following:
    (1) Any television, radio, recorder, phonograph, telephone, piano,
    or any other musical instrument or sound equipment.
    (2) Any washing machine, sewing machine, vacuum cleaner, or other
    household appliance or furnishings.
    (3) Any typewriter, adding machine, dictaphone, or any other
    office equipment or furnishings.
    (4) Any computer, printed circuit, integrated chip or panel, or
    other part of a computer.
    (5) Any tool or similar device, including any technical or
    scientific equipment.
    (6) Any bicycle, exercise equipment, or any other entertainment or
    recreational equipment.
    (7) Any electrical or mechanical equipment, contrivance, material,
    or piece of apparatus or equipment.
    (8) Any clock, watch, watch case, or watch movement.
    (9) Any vehicle or vessel, or any component part thereof.
    (b) When property described in subdivision (a) comes into the
    custody of a peace officer it shall become subject to the provision
    of Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 1407) of Title 10 of Part 2,
    relating to the disposal of stolen or embezzled property.  Property
    subject to this section shall be considered stolen or embezzled
    property for the purposes of that chapter, and prior to being
    disposed of, shall have an identification mark imbedded or engraved
    in, or permanently affixed to it.
    (c) This section does not apply to those cases or instances where
    any of the changes or alterations enumerated in subdivision (a) have
    been customarily made or done as an established practice in the
    ordinary and regular conduct of business, by the original
    manufacturer, or by his or her duly appointed direct representative,
    or under specific authorization from the original manufacturer.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    MudCamper wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    Any chance you can actually attach the .pdf in the post, like I did with my pamphlet?

    I have firewall issues here at work.
    Gene's site is off limits?

    The Gubbment is getting stricter and stricter on what sites you can access.

    I actually use this stuff for official business as I brief newcomers to the squadron on a variety of issues including gun ownership in California. So I have to be up to speed on all the latest information.
    When you say "squadron" I always think of Eddie Rickenbacher.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    As I read through this memo,I think itcontinues to foster a negative image of UOC'ers to the LEO who read it. How does this help? It doesn't. I would like to open carry without being looked upon and treated like I am doing something illegal or am likely to be the one who will keep an LEO from seeing his wife and kids again.There is a prejudice that is being perpetuated by the perspective of these types of memos.

    How about this for a memo...

    "Don't engage, don't detain, don't question a person who is solely open carrying, because open carrying is not a crime. Take the opportunity to educate the person who placed the call that it is not a crime to open carry and is protected by the second amendment. Let's concentrate on catching people who are actually breaking the law. Get out there and be safe!"

    I agree that it doesn't foster a good image, which is what I have been trying to tell everyone. The better relationship you can have with LE the better things will be for everyone. When people go off on this rant of "I refuse to show my ID, I refuse to talk to the cops, I will sue for silly, frivolous reasons" then this type of attitude is what you will get in return. The fact of reality is that in our day in age, Don't engage also get cops in trouble. Let's say they got a call of a man with a gun at a liquor store. They refused to respond and the store was robbed, the clerk shot. The city would lose millions. Then when they do respond and find out it is an open carrier, the open carrier gives them a ration of the good stuff with, "I'm gonna sue and I know my rights." I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to sue or excercise your rights but there are some in here that want to sue because the cop looked at them wrong. As I have said before, in order to foster good relations with LE, the more cooperative the better. If you put them on the defensive, they are just going to feel pushed and come out with memo's that sound like this and possibly attempt to enact new legislation.


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Antelope, California, USA
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    Here's one good thing that came out of it though:

    "The problem is that Nevada has a specific statute that essentially makes it a PC 148 if you don't identify yourself during a lawful detention. California does not have such a statute and there is case law (In re Gregory S. (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 764) which suggests that it is not a PC 148 to fail to identify oneself during an investigative stop. If you dedide that the situation demands a series of database checks to ensure the individual may legally carry this gun then you need to document the reasons for doing so making sure you describe your observations and conclusions."

    So, "sterile carry" is not resisting arrest or otherwise unlawful.


    ETA - Hmmm... they also listed PC 626.95 which (correct me if I'm wrong) is only a violation if you have already violated 417, 12031, or 12025. Again, it looks like it's made to leave certain key elements out. Wonder if that's on purpose.

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    While I think the DA had an overall somewhat unprofessional tone to his message, I think he is making a point of personal responsibility to the officers - something we haven't seen yet.

    Not the best we've seen, but I do like that the DA puts officers on notice that they will be expected to explain in detail their observations that led to any brandishing of their weapon, extended detentions, confiscation of property, etc.

    I'll chalk this one up as another step in the right direction.
    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.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    _Patriot wrote:
    The better relationship you can have with Law Enforcement, the less the legislature will have to stand on to start a new law.
    I agree completely.
    So am I. There had been a number oflegislationspassed due to "police lobby".

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    SIX OBSERVATIONS

    After reading the posted memo from the San Diego District Attorney I have 6 Extremely important observations on what the District Attorney has said andadmitted in his recent March memo:

    Observation #1

    It is very clear that this group of gun owners wishes to enjoy the full breadth of their Second Amendment rights
    and is more then willing to show how big their guns are in public.

    Comment: Individuals are exercising their rights and the District Attorney uses malicious and demeaning comments to describe what is happening. "HOW BIG THEIR GUNS ARE"

    Observation #2

    That website has law enforcement training and memorandums posted on it

    Comment: Ranking members of the Judicial System and law enforcement haveknown, should have known but certainly do knowthat the current California Penal Code Sections regarding firearmsare vague and ambiguous. Cearly an element necessary to succeed in any 1983 civil rights action against a public official and to overcome any soverien immunity claim that may bemade.

    Observation #3

    It is clear that there are many law enforcement opinions of what the status of the law is and how an officer should deal with these individuals.

    Comment: It is evident to the District Attorney that the laws regarding firearms may not currently be enforced on an equal basis from juristiction to juristiction or from officer to officer.

    Observation #4

    The law as it relates to dealing with individuals with a gun in a holster that ends up being unloaded is not clear at this time.

    Comment: If the law is definately to not clear to many trained and certified members of law enforcement. The training to achieve certifcation as a member of law enforcement in California may be a problem that needs to be addressed. It is without question that to achieve certification in law enforcement, every P.O.S.T graduate must know how to read, understand and implement the various sections of the Californa Penal Code in the performance of their
    duties.

    How can the judicial system expect untrained non certified citizens to possess criminal intent regarding any violation if the law enforcement community has problems understanding firearm laws?

    Observation #5

    What is clear is that it will take a legislative change or an appellate decision to clear up the questions below.

    Comment: The District Attorney should have immediately reported his observations and beliefs to the Attorney General for the State of California and requested direction and/or clarificationon how to proceed with any further enforcement or prosecutionsof firearm laws that are in his professional opinion vague and ambiguous.

    Observation #6

    The importance of documenting your contact and how it was conducted on every one of these types of incidents will be critical to establishing a thorough record in Court; whether in a Civil or a Criminal case.

    Comment: The District Attorney clearly acknowledges and states his belief that this issue may end up with individuals being arrested and subjected to the unnecessary costs of defending themselves against improper enforcement or having to seek a civil remedy by way of costly ligigation because the current laws are vague and ambiguous and possibly unconstitutional.






  25. #25
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    _Patriot wrote:
    ...The better relationship you can have with LE the better things will be for everyone. When people go off on this rant of "I refuse to show my ID, I refuse to talk to the cops, I will sue for silly, frivolous reasons" then this type of attitude is what you will get in return...
    "Silly, frivolous reasons" thatinstill atype of attitude in LEO that will get you in trouble:

    1. The right of free speech...

    2. The rightto freelyassemble in a peaceful manner...

    3. The right to freely petition the Government for a redress of grievances...

    4. The right to keep and bear arms...

    5. The rightto be secure inyour persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

    6. The right to notbecompelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself...

    7. The right to notbe deprivedof life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

    8.The right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...

    9.The rightto be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...

    10. The right to be confronted with the witnesses against you...

    11. The right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses inyour favor...

    12. The rightto have the Assistance of Counsel foryour defense...

    13. The right to not have Statelaws made or enforcedwhichabridge your privileges or immunitiesas citizens of the United States...

    14.The right to not bedeprived by the Stateof life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

    15. The right to not be denied by the State the equal protection of these laws.





    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

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
  •