• 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.

Latest LEA OC Memo

_Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
27
Location
, ,
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.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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.
 

_Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
27
Location
, ,
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.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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.
 

_Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
27
Location
, ,
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.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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?
 

ConditionThree

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

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
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!"
 

camsoup

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
167
Location
Red Bluff, California, USA
imported post

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

Now we can't cover the SN?? :banghead:

Code:
[i](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.[/i]
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
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.
 

_Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
27
Location
, ,
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.
 
Top