• 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.

Using a metal cable to prevent LEO seizure during UOC

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.
 

SomeGuyInCali

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
111
Location
Modesto, CA, California, USA
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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!
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
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.."

Body piercing.

Watch COPS and tell me LEOs don't love it when suspects' underwear is showing. Many times the suspect will have more decency and attempt to pull up his pants before they do, with no contraband present.

jrwalker wrote:
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.

Might as well be screaming at a hurricane to get it to stop destroying good peoples' lives. That's about all they seem interested in doing anyway.
:banghead:
 

Decoligny

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

HankT wrote:
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.
And what gives the LEO the right to access ANY of my personal information at all?

The 4th Amendment says that I hav a right to be secure in my papers and my person from any unreasonable search and seizure.

If I have NOT committed any crime, then the officer has no legal justification to get ANY information from me at all.

First they will want me to chip my gun, then it will chip my drivers license so that they can build detectors into overpasses to search for "illegal drivers".

Isn't this a sort of proving your innocence because you are guilty until we find out otherwise?

If they ever chip my gun, I will put it in the microwave for about 5 seconds and the chip will "malfunction".
 

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
imported post

HankT wrote:
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.
You think so? It doesn't matter how the LEo gets the info, the main thing for them is to intimidate you far enough so you will have second thoughts about carrying your firearm.

My 0.02.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

I really think HankT was joking. At least, I hope he was.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

What if you could just get a subpoena and attach it to the other end of the cable.

To be served on "Any Police Officer in Unlawful Possession of the Gun at the other end of this Cable."

Or, just get a metal plate, business card size, and engrave itwith the contact info of the local ACLU. Add a line just above it. "In case of unlawful firearm seizure, call: "

No!! A metal plate that says:

[align=center]In the event of unlawful police seizure of firearm, contact[/align]
[align=center]Capt. John Doe, Commander[/align]
[align=center]Internal Affairs Division[/align]
[align=center]Your Town Police Department[/align]


:D
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Thundar 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.
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.
Tell me, where does it say the officer can seize personal property without RAS? The 4th Amendment seems to say the opposite.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

SomeGuyInCali wrote:
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.
I did some research on RFID about a year ago. I found that the newest technology at that time could be read reliably from 600 feet (much further if the RFID tag had it's own power supply to boost the signal).

Now, I'm not sure how easily they could pinpoint an RFID tag that is 600 feet away... but they would at least know it's there.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
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?
What is (questionably) legal and what unscrupulous officers attempt are two different things.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Thundar 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.
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.
Tell me, where does it say the officer can seize personal property without RAS? The 4th Amendment seems to say the opposite.
CA Libertarian, I agree. It doesn't say that they can, and that is what I thought the beef was. Officer says e-check, then seizes the weapon, takes it to his car and does a serial # check. Meanwhile you are standing out in the hot sun.

Use a cable toretain your firearm. It is the peace officer that is doing baaaad things by seizing your firearm without RAS.
 

enemigo209

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

if you watch the series of videos on you tube labeled 12031 he places aluminum tape over the SN to obscure it the officer then would need a warrant, probable cause to remove it
 

Decoligny

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

enemigo209 wrote:
if you watch the series of videos on you tube labeled 12031 he places aluminum tape over the SN to obscure it the officer then would need a warrant, probable cause to remove it

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:
(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.
 

enemigo209

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

Decoligny wrote:
enemigo209 wrote:
if you watch the series of videos on you tube labeled 12031 he places aluminum tape over the SN to obscure it the officer then would need a warrant, probable cause to remove it

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:
(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 just read that in another thread thank you for clarifying that for us
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Decoligny wrote:
enemigo209 wrote:
if you watch the series of videos on you tube labeled 12031 he places aluminum tape over the SN to obscure it the officer then would need a warrant, probable cause to remove it

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:
(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 wouldn't want to be the test case, but I'm willing to bet a conviction based on non-permanent "covering" of the SN would not hold up on appeal.

I believe the legislative intent is pretty obvious here: they're trying to prevent the possession and sale of stolen goods.

For example, my holster covers the SN on my firearm. Is that illegal? I don't think Sig uses holsters to cover the SNs on their guns as a ordinary and regular conduct of business. And I don't have specific authorization from them...

If non-permanent "covering" of SNs is a crime, then every cop's holstered firearm is a violation.
 
Top