• 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

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.:lol:
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
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?
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 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?

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.
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
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.
 

HankT

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

Thundar

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

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
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?
 

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.
Sometimes you are too funny Hank. Are you intentionally trying to stir up the tin foil hat people?
 

poothrowingape

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
210
Location
fresno, California, USA
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.
 

SomeGuyInCali

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

Decoligny

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

HankT

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

jrwalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
61
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
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.
 

HankT

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