My First LEO Encounter

imported post

Loneviking wrote:

Here's a question maybe one of you California residents can answer. I'm just over the hill in Nevada, and often travel in California. If I'm carrying a Cal. compliant weapon (A Sig P6), UOC, and I'm stopped for an E-Check...what happens when the weapon cannot be found on the DOJ list? In other words, there is no way that a Cal. LEO is going to be able to prove that the weapon is mine. I do have a CCW that lists that weapon as being authorized to carry, but the CCW is from Nevada. Any ideas on how this type of E-Check would go?

Click to expand...

If the officer is doing a 12031(e) check, he should not be running the serial number.

If he violates your 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and siezure, and does not find it in CA DOJ files, he would know, probably from your I.D., which by now he has illegally taken from you, that you aren't a CA resident, so your gun couldn't be in the DOJ files.

Nothing wrong with your gun not being in the files. The only time that comes into play is if you are carrying the gun concealed, it then allows them to up it from a misdemeanorto a felony violation of PC12025.

imported post

Most likely he'd see that it's not in the DOJ database (plenty of legal handguns are not) then check it against stolen property. If it's not stolen he'd return it to you. But if one refuses to comply with any illegal searches, the encounter shouldn't go that far.

imported post

Loneviking wrote:

Here's a question maybe one of you California residents can answer. I'm just over the hill in Nevada, and often travel in California. If I'm carrying a Cal. compliant weapon (A Sig P6), UOC, and I'm stopped for an E-Check...what happens when the weapon cannot be found on the DOJ list? In other words, there is no way that a Cal. LEO is going to be able to prove that the weapon is mine. I do have a CCW that lists that weapon as being authorized to carry, but the CCW is from Nevada. Any ideas on how this type of E-Check would go?

Click to expand...

Hi and welcome to the California side of the discussion!

A "true" 12031 "e" check is simply this:
1. Officer demands to inspect your UOC pistol.
2. You comply, but state that you do not consent to a search.
3. Officer inspects pistol/revolver, determines it is indeed unloaded.
4. Officer then returns your firearm to your holster or hands it to you.
5. You wish the officer a nice day and you go on about your business.

Normally, an "e" check does not include a DOJ records/serial number check. Some officers feel they are practicing due diligence, yet are actually performing an unwarranted search. If you allow them, then you are giving consent.

Some folks tape over their serial numbers. This does not "change, alter, remove or obliterate" the serial number stated in PC 12090, but removal of the tape is considered by many as a "search". Sorry, I cannot cite case law on this (anyone know? yes, Pullnshoot, I am looking your way).

You don't have to prove it is yours, they have to prove it isn't. If they run the serial number and it doesn't show up then they cannot say it is considered stolen.

If it gets sticky you then have to make a decision whether or not to identify yourself as a Nevada resident, but then you'd have to prove it with some form of ID.

Obviously you know that CA doesn't recognize your NV CCW. I don't think we reciprocate with anyone's CCW. :banghead:

Your example is another reason why 12031 is a poor law.

p.s.- I love it up in your neck of the woods. My folks live in Gardnerville!

imported post

Dang, were we all on the same wavelength, or what? I was slowly composing my reply while you other guys were beating me to it.

imported post

When giving answers concerning technical legal matters it is always best when all the answers are the same.

imported post

Candles come in many colors, and I sometimespolish my 1911 Coltwith black candle wax and sometimes forget to remove the excess wax which accumulates over thearea of the serial Number.

And the excess wax does not interfere withthe weapons funcitions and never preventsanyone fromchecking the weapon to see if it is loaded.

Think about it.

imported post

Loneviking wrote:

Here's a question maybe one of you California residents can answer. I'm just over the hill in Nevada, and often travel in California. If I'm carrying a Cal. compliant weapon (A Sig P6), UOC, and I'm stopped for an E-Check...what happens when the weapon cannot be found on the DOJ list? In other words, there is no way that a Cal. LEO is going to be able to prove that the weapon is mine. I do have a CCW that lists that weapon as being authorized to carry, but the CCW is from Nevada. Any ideas on how this type of E-Check would go?

Click to expand...

Not a problem. Firearms are not necessarily "registered". Since the early nineties they have been, but I own several that I bought in the eighties that are not. And of course, an out-of-state resident wouldn't be present in the database either.

imported post

nukechaser wrote:

Some folks tape over their serial numbers. This does not "change, alter, remove or obliterate" the serial number stated in PC 12090, but removal of the tape is considered by many as a "search". Sorry, I cannot cite case law on this (anyone know? yes, Pullnshoot, I am looking your way).

Click to expand...

Arizona v. Hicks is the case law.

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

Arizona v. Hicks is the case law.

Click to expand...

Bigtoe416, you da man! Thanks!

imported post

Army wrote:

No, there is no formal registration of firearms in California, other than DOJ named "assault weapons". Handgun serials are sent to DOJ at purchase (but not longuns) and are recorded.

Click to expand...

If that isn't "formal registration" please tell me what is.

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

nukechaser wrote:

Some folks tape over their serial numbers. This does not "change, alter, remove or obliterate" the serial number stated in PC 12090, but removal of the tape is considered by many as a "search". Sorry, I cannot cite case law on this (anyone know? yes, Pullnshoot, I am looking your way).

Click to expand...

Arizona v. Hicks is the case law.

Click to expand...

The problem is that California has a law specifically prohibiting covering a serial number.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/537e.html

PC 537e
(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:

Click to expand...

imported post

(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.

Click to expand...

Two things, 1. Could covering your SN while OCing be considered "customarily made or done as an established practice in the
ordinary and regular conduct of business"?
2. Would an accessory made by the manufacturer which covers the SN be legit?

imported post

bad_ace wrote:

(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.

Click to expand...

Two things, 1. Could covering your SN while OCing be considered "customarily made or done as an established practice in the
ordinary and regular conduct of business"?
2. Would an accessory made by the manufacturer which covers the SN be legit?

Click to expand...

Or better yet, how about finding a firearms manufacturer who will issue a specific authorization to cover the serial number . Would including a statement in the owner's manual suffice?

imported post

Woodchuck wrote:

Glad you had a good experience.

So if I understand this right, you can't carry a "loaded" firearm. If that's the case then I gotta ask, Whats the point? Might as well carry a 2lb rock that won't initiate any LEO encounters.

Click to expand...

A 2lb rock in the pocket might not initiate any LEO encounters. But general advice from LEOs and non-LEOs is if you carry something that has multiple uses, such as a D cell MagLite, pocketknife, multi-tool with a knife, etc...

Since they can be considered dangerous and/or deadly weapons, exercise your right to be silent and do not claim them as self-defense weapons - they are tools.

That 2 lb rock would have a dual purpose as a tool if it was a charcoal briquette. Rub some sticks together, heat up some food. LOL

Now with pepper spray, tasers, kubotans, these are all legal and only used as defensive weapons. Unless you season your food, jumpstart your battery, and fuse electronics, respectively.

imported post

Thank you, Nukechaser and the rest of you folks for your reply. That eases my mind a bit.

Nukechaser, Gardnerville is a nice little town. I work at the hospital there.

imported post

rpyne wrote:

The problem is that California has a law specifically prohibiting covering a serial number.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/537e.html

PC 537e
(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:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

But what does "covered" mean? My dictionary offers the following definition:

" to hide from sight or knowledge : conceal"

So, what if I have my handgun in the trunk for transport through a school zone? I doubt I could argue that method of "covering" the SN meets the exception found in PC537(c). (Note that this is a method of firearm concealment that is exempted from PC12025, and is recommended by the CHP and BOF for transport of firearms.)

I believe the court would have to interpret the statute less literally. It's obvious the legislative intent of PC537 is to make it a crime to permanently obliterate identifying marks.

"Covered" was probably included in the statute to apply to instances that didn't fall into the four other categories. For example, if one were to solder over the SN on their firearm, it would "cover" the SN, but would not necessarily "remove", "deface", "alter", or "destroy" it.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

rpyne wrote:

The problem is that California has a law specifically prohibiting covering a serial number.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/537e.html

PC 537e
(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:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

But what does "covered" mean? My dictionary offers the following definition:

" to hide from sight or knowledge : conceal"

So, what if I have my handgun in the trunk for transport through a school zone? I doubt I could argue that method of "covering" the SN meets the exception found in PC537(c). (Note that this is a method of firearm concealment that is exempted from PC12025, and is recommended by the CHP and BOF for transport of firearms.)

I believe the court would have to interpret the statute less literally. It's obvious the legislative intent of PC537 is to make it a crime to permanently obliterate identifying marks.

"Covered" was probably included in the statute to apply to instances that didn't fall into the four other categories. For example, if one were to solder over the SN on their firearm, it would "cover" the SN, but would not necessarily "remove", "deface", "alter", or "destroy" it.

Click to expand...

Yes, but as we have seen, California courts are as unpredictable as they come. The point was that many of us, in order to push the issue of 4th amendment violations, put a piece of tape over the serial number on our carry firearms. By doing so, it makes it unquestionable whether there is an illegal search committed when an officer removes the tape to run the SN.

There was a memo from a DA posted in another thread that refers officers to PC 537e as possible probable cause for an arrest of a gun owner.

imported post

rpyne wrote:

There was a memo from a DA posted in another thread that refers officers to PC 537e as possible probable cause for an arrest of a gun owner.

Click to expand...

Can you find that? I'd love to read it.

imported post

bad_ace wrote:

rpyne wrote:

There was a memo from a DA posted in another thread that refers officers to PC 537e as possible probable cause for an arrest of a gun owner.

Click to expand...

Can you find that? I'd love to read it.

Click to expand...

I found it, it is in this thread:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=23964&forum_id=12

The memo is available here:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/SD-DA-OC-Memo-2009-03.pdf

imported post

I believe we accept nevada as nevada accept ca s ccw