Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 88

Thread: Using a metal cable to prevent LEO seizure during UOC

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Problem:

    Many express anger over LEO seizure of a firearm during an UOC Check. The apparent reason for the seizure is to:

    1) harass the OCer, and

    2)"run the numbers" of the handgun.

    The pattern seems to be disarm the UOCer for a "check", then keep the handgun, go to the police car and call in the serial number from the comfort of an air conditioned car while the UOCer is standing out in the sun for 15-30 minutes.

    Solution:

    Many older handguns have a ring at the end of the butt and many new handguns have a hole where a steel, aluminum or titanium cable could be used to tether the handgun toyour holster or belt.

    LEO tries to take your handgun for a visit to his vehicle and only gets 5 feet before his illegal seizure attempt is thwarted by the cable.

    :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

    (Sterile OC in this case would involve not having the key to your tether lock on your person, as well as not having ID) As in: Sorry officer I cannot unlock the handgun, I do not have a key on my person.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    haha! That is a great idea. I would love to see how that would play out in practice.

    How about it, my Western brothers? What do you think?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    Unfortunately the belt comes off.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Old Timer wrote:
    Unfortunately the belt comes off.
    But if the cable IS the belt......

    "Sorry officer, if I remove the cable, pants fall down.."
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    doesn't the Cali codes specifically say that an e check is the ONLY thing allowed? then running a check on the serial number should be a legitimate complaint, right?

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    doesn't the Cali codes specifically say that an e check is the ONLY thing allowed? then running a check on the serial number should be a legitimate complaint, right?
    If the serial number becomes visible during the check, then an officer is warranted to check it against a database of stolen (and registered) firearms.

  7. #7
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Right, but the officer is not warranted to take your firearm to perform the serial number check. If, for instance, they see the number and write it down, that's fine.

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    doesn't the Cali codes specifically say that an e check is the ONLY thing allowed? then running a check on the serial number should be a legitimate complaint, right?
    If the serial number becomes visible during the check, then an officer is warranted to check it against a database of stolen (and registered) firearms.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    Right, but the officer is not warranted to take your firearm to perform the serial number check. If, for instance, they see the number and write it down, that's fine.
    A way to solve this problem is to implant an RFID tag into a handgun. The RFID would have theserial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date.

    The police could have handheld readers to scoop up the data and transmit an inquiry to their favorite legal database(s).

    Such a system would be safer, more secure, more accurate and efficient.

    No one but the gun owner/carrier would have to touch the gun.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    doesn't the Cali codes specifically say that an e check is the ONLY thing allowed? then running a check on the serial number should be a legitimate complaint, right?
    If the serial number becomes visible during the check, then an officer is warranted to check it against a database of stolen (and registered) firearms.
    Yes the officer can run a serial number that he sees against a database, but he cannot detain you because there is no RAS. He can hold you now because he has seized your gun and you won't leave without it.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    doesn't the Cali codes specifically say that an e check is the ONLY thing allowed? then running a check on the serial number should be a legitimate complaint, right?
    If the serial number becomes visible during the check, then an officer is warranted to check it against a database of stolen (and registered) firearms.
    where is that in the law?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    demnogis wrote:
    Right, but the officer is not warranted to take your firearm to perform the serial number check. If, for instance, they see the number and write it down, that's fine.
    A way to solve this problem is to implant an RFID tag into a handgun. The RFID would have theserial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date.

    The police could have handheld readers to scoop up the data and transmit an inquiry to their favorite legal database(s).

    Such a system would be safer, more secure, more accurate and efficient.

    No one but the gun owner/carrier would have to touch the gun.
    Sometimes you are too funny Hank. Are you intentionally trying to stir up the tin foil hat people?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    A way to solve this problem is to implant an RFID tag into a handgun. The RFID would have theserial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date.

    The police could have handheld readers to scoop up the data and transmit an inquiry to their favorite legal database(s).

    Such a system would be safer, more secure, more accurate and efficient.

    No one but the gun owner/carrier would have to touch the gun.
    Thats actually a pretty good idea. lojack for your gun. the manufacturer would have to imbed the id transmitter into a crucial part that the gun wouldnt operate without. otherwise anyone who stolea gun would just take the transmitter out.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Old Timer wrote:
    Unfortunately the belt comes off.
    The cable could be the belt, or the cable could be directly attached to the pants.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Modesto, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote
    A way to solve this problem is to implant an RFID tag into a handgun. The RFID would have theserial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date.

    The police could have handheld readers to scoop up the data and transmit an inquiry to their favorite legal database(s).

    Such a system would be safer, more secure, more accurate and efficient.

    No one but the gun owner/carrier would have to touch the gun.
    Oh h*** no! I used to work for several global electronics companies and have done R&D with RFID chips. Believe it or not but an RFID chip can be energized and "read" acurrately from 100 feet away. This could be used to pick out an OC'er in a group even though the officer may now have even known there was a gun present. I would think that this would constitute and promote illegal searches for handguns without any provocation or reasonable cause.

    A safer system would be to train police officers on how to handle these situations and NOT escalate them. It seems most of the problems arise when LEO's blow the situation out of proportions.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    doesn't the Cali codes specifically say that an e check is the ONLY thing allowed? then running a check on the serial number should be a legitimate complaint, right?
    If the serial number becomes visible during the check, then an officer is warranted to check it against a database of stolen (and registered) firearms.
    where is that in the law?
    There isn't anything in the law that specifically says it, it does however fall into the "in plain view" category.

    Just like a cop can run the license plate on your car to see if you have any outstanding tickets, even if you are doing absolutely nothing wrong.

    So, of a cop does an e-check, and sees your serial number (in plain view), he can look at it, and then write down the information. He can then LATER run the number. What he isn't supposed to be able to do is keep you there for any longer than it takes to inspect your firearm. So, him taking the firearm and walking to the Squad Car, and sitting down and inputting your serial number, then waiting for a response, then coming back, then returning your firearm, EXCEEDS the legal authority granted by 12031(e) and violates your 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and siezure.

  16. #16
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    SomeGuyInCali wrote:
    HankT wrote
    A way to solve this problem is to implant an RFID tag into a handgun. The RFID would have theserial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date.

    The police could have handheld readers to scoop up the data and transmit an inquiry to their favorite legal database(s).

    Such a system would be safer, more secure, more accurate and efficient.

    No one but the gun owner/carrier would have to touch the gun.
    Oh h*** no! I used to work for several global electronics companies and have done R&D with RFID chips. Believe it or not but an RFID chip can be energized and "read" acurrately from 100 feet away. This could be used to pick out an OC'er in a group even though the officer may now have even known there was a gun present. I would think that this would constitute and promote illegal searches for handguns without any provocation or reasonable cause.
    What would be your basis for contending that such a case, for OC, would even be a search, much less an illegal search?

    Maybe for CC. But for OC? State your basis, sir.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Modesto, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    SomeGuyInCali wrote:
    HankT wrot
    What would be your basis for contending that such a case, for OC, would even be a search, much less an illegal search?

    Maybe for CC. But for OC? State your basis, sir.
    It could be used as a form of "drag net" to proactively track down OC'ers with out provocation.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    I have an even better idea. Get rid of the 12031(e) checks. Talk to your legislators. B**** about it. Get it changed. WE run this country, NOT the legislators and politicians. People need to stand up and be heard. If enough people tell the legislators that they want it changed, it will be changed.

  19. #19
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    SomeGuyInCali wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    What would be your basis for contending that such a case, for OC, would even be a search, much less an illegal search?

    Maybe for CC. But for OC? State your basis, sir.
    It could be used as a form of "drag net" to proactively track down OC'ers with out provocation.
    Is that your basis for contending it would be an illegal search? I don't see your concept of illegal search yet....

    Uhm, why wouldn't the cops just, uhm, look at the people to see if they had, uhm, an openly carried gun? Wouldn't that be easier for them?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    Or you could 'protect' the SN# with a small strip of black tape. Removal of the tape is definitely a 'search'.

    I'm just sayin'

    Carry on

  21. #21
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    demnogis wrote:
    Right, but the officer is not warranted to take your firearm to perform the serial number check. If, for instance, they see the number and write it down, that's fine.
    A way to solve this problem is to implant an RFID tag into a handgun. The RFID would have theserial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date.

    The police could have handheld readers to scoop up the data and transmit an inquiry to their favorite legal database(s).

    Such a system would be safer, more secure, more accurate and efficient.

    No one but the gun owner/carrier would have to touch the gun.
    You know Hank that some of those idiot gun haters in DC, Chicago and NYC read this site. If in the next year I read about a proposed law to use RFID to track firearms in those cities I am putting it all on you.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  22. #22
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    So, of a cop does an e-check, and sees your serial number (in plain view), he can look at it, and then write down the information. He can then LATER run the number. What he isn't supposed to be able to do is keep you there for any longer than it takes to inspect your firearm. So, him taking the firearm and walking to the Squad Car, and sitting down and inputting your serial number, then waiting for a response, then coming back, then returning your firearm, EXCEEDS the legal authority granted by 12031(e) and violates your 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and siezure.
    This is the beauty of HankT's Firearm ID (HFID) system. If the carried handgun has the HFID component, the LEO simply reads the information of the openly carried gun and bids the citizen a good day. The OCer immediately goes on his way, with no delay whatsoever. HFID will be much more accurate than writing down data on paper, then data entering it in a separate process. HFID is much faster, too.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Modesto, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Is that your basis for contending it would be an illegal search? I don't see your concept of illegal search yet....

    Uhm, why wouldn't the cops just, uhm, look at the people to see if they had, uhm, an openly carried gun? Wouldn't that be easier for them?
    Exactly and if a person is UOC and they are seated at a table and the firearm in not visible from the street they would be alerted to a gun in the immediate area. Just sounds like a bad idea. First this then every ID card would have one. Then they could do random ID checks on anyone walk by.

  24. #24
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    SomeGuyInCali wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Is that your basis for contending it would be an illegal search? I don't see your concept of illegal search yet....

    Uhm, why wouldn't the cops just, uhm, look at the people to see if they had, uhm, an openly carried gun? Wouldn't that be easier for them?
    ...Just sounds like a bad idea..
    Oh, that old saw....

    At least you could have come up with the traditional: "We've never done it this way before!" bleat.

    HankT's Firearm ID (HFID) would be a timesaver. And a hassle saver. The coppers would get their data. And the OCers would be on their way. To Wal-Mart or wherever...

    Win-Win!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    Old Timer wrote:
    Unfortunately the belt comes off.
    But if the cable IS the belt......

    "Sorry officer, if I remove the cable, pants fall down.."
    LOL! Okay! That would do it for me!

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •