Latest LEA OC Memo

prcE6 · Apr 4, 2009

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.

CA_Libertarian · Apr 4, 2009

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.

KS_to_CA · Apr 4, 2009

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.

Click to expand...

I agree completely.

So am I. There had been a number oflegislationspassed due to "police lobby".

Edward Peruta · Apr 4, 2009

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.

Sons of Liberty · Apr 4, 2009

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.

:banghead:

Theseus · Apr 5, 2009

imported post

I too agree that we tried and have given them (LEA's) a chance to correct themselves and they have not. They are choosing to be confrontational and as a response I will be as well.

Tactics change based on the situation. I cooperated twice and will not cooperate again. It is time they learn from their mistakes. It is time we hold the police, the DA's, the AG and the DOJ responsible for their action/inaction.

Citizen · Apr 5, 2009

imported post

Theseus wrote:

I too agree that we tried and have given them (LEA's) a chance to correct themselves and they have not. They are choosing to be confrontational and as a response I will be as well.

Tactics change based on the situation. I cooperated twice and will not cooperate again. It is time they learn from their mistakes. It is time we hold the police, the DA's, the AG and the DOJ responsible for their action/inaction.

You are more patient than I. Not a criticism, a segue.

Ifcertain police are not quickly becoming compliant, its practically guaranteed that OC is not the first subject where they chose to act illegally, disregard the law, stretch things, throw their weight around, etc.

The issue isn't OC alone. Its that OC has uncovered in certain police deeper problems not tolerable in a free republic.

The example I usually use is the OCer who is illegally detained only for lawful carry of a firearm. Its a fair bet that it isn't the first time that cop illegally detained someone.

In that police resistance highlights a practically guaranteed pre-existing unacceptable condition, I'm all for hammering hard early.

TipsyMcStagger · Apr 5, 2009

imported post

disgusting

Citizen · Apr 5, 2009

imported post

akmisrmaadi wrote:

disgusting

Are you talking about the training bulletin or the post immediately before yours?

TipsyMcStagger · Apr 5, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

akmisrmaadi wrote:

disgusting

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the training bulletin or the post immediately before yours?

the bulletin

Frosty_In_CA · Apr 6, 2009

imported post

Sons of Liberty wrote

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!"

Here here! :celebrate

+10

I am taking all of the pertinent info On UOC and having a discussion with two of my friends whom are LEO's (with two different departments. One in LA county the other in OC). Both of whom share my love of the constitution, and freedom. I will keep you posted

N6ATF · Jul 23, 2009

imported post

Sons of Liberty wrote:

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!"

The temperature in hell would have to drop quite a few degrees for that! LOL

A much shorter version would be:
"Remember your sworn oath, and follow the U.S. Constitution above all conflicting state and local laws, as it is the supreme law of the land!"

stuckinchico · Jul 24, 2009

imported post

Problem is that the dispatchers are not asking the right questions a guy robbing a liquor store aint going to be carrying openly how retarded is that... plus cops aint going to have time to respond anyway

N6ATF · Jul 24, 2009

imported post

If the caller fails to articulate anything other than paranoia, the dispatcher should repeat the H2G2 line "Don't panic" until the law-abiding citizen has left the area with no crime occurring.

stuckinchico · Jul 24, 2009

imported post

Theseus wrote:

I too agree that we tried and have given them (LEA's) a chance to correct themselves and they have not. They are choosing to be confrontational and as a response I will be as well.

Tactics change based on the situation. I cooperated twice and will not cooperate again. It is time they learn from their mistakes. It is time we hold the police, the DA's, the AG and the DOJ responsible for their action/inaction.

I completely agree. After complying over 6 times, and them not correcting themselves, I will no longer o their job for them. They still seem to have the mentality of beat up anything that moves and let the courts handle it... I know Im not violating any laws, so Theres not much more that i Can do. I ve tried being courteous and helpful Just to get stomped down again and again, even as far as emptying everything out of my pockets and I mean everything including a condom i had in my pocket.

Come on now enough is enough. I behave myself, and they dont??? I thought they were suppose to be held to a higher standard. What standard are they being held to?? I have a pitbull that is better behaved and has better manners off leash than they do!!!

Im going into law enforcement and Id be embarrassed to call half of them brothers

KS_to_CA · Jul 25, 2009

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

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!"

Click to expand...

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.

But when is "enough is enough"? When is too much intimidation and harrassement. Your position is my position too, but keeping an open mind and learning what others went through, seeing the pattern, it seems like it's going to get worse for us OCers before it gets better. Question is "WHEN".

cato · Jul 27, 2009

imported post

Sons of Liberty wrote:

I would like to open carry without being looked upon and treated like I am doing something illegal

That will happen within a few years (hopefully shorter)of getting "bear" court protected.

Bull Frog · Jul 29, 2009

imported post

The mention of a covered serial number in PC 537e bothers me; Pachmyr (sp?) grips cover the serial numbers on my three S & W wheel guns. :uhoh:

Thundar · Jul 29, 2009

imported post

camsoup wrote:

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]

To quote the district attorney it is a grey area. Often custom grips will cover a serial number if it is in the butt of a gun. See if those Hogue grips do it for you.

Latest LEA OC Memo

prcE6

New member

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher

KS_to_CA

Regular Member

Edward Peruta

Regular Member

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Theseus

Founder's Club Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

TipsyMcStagger

Banned

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

TipsyMcStagger

Banned

Frosty_In_CA

Regular Member

N6ATF

Banned

stuckinchico

Regular Member

N6ATF

Banned

stuckinchico

Regular Member

KS_to_CA

Regular Member

cato

Newbie

Bull Frog

Regular Member

Thundar

Regular Member