UOC Blood Drive in Temecula?

imported post

ChuckBooty wrote:

coolusername2007 wrote:

ChuckBooty wrote:

So an LEO showed up at Faith Armory today and told Nate (the owner) that if he didn't WANT any UOC'ers that he could make them leave, since he was on private property. Strange, huh? Do LEO's routinely monitor this site? I imagine they do.

Click to expand...

Not surprised at all. You betcha they are watching this site, LEOs, prosecutors, DAs, and who knows who else. Besides Faith has many LEO customers, and since he agreed to display the educational brochure I createdand pc brochure I'm not surprised some are commenting. Did this LEO come in specifically for this purpose, or was he/she just another customer?

Click to expand...

He showed up, in uniform, SPECIFICALLY because of this thread. They said he was nice and all, but just telling them that if they don't want UOC'ers they don't have to have them. Basically UOC is not a RIGHT on private property.

Click to expand...

So, he's basically not a supporter of open carry, plain & simple. I mean, why else would he actually make a trip to the shop to tell them that they can boot us out, if they don't want us there. What a moron. Like most business owners aren't already aware of that fact. I just wonder what their reply was when he told them that. Were I a business owner and he walked into my business, I would have informed him that A) I already know it's private property, and B) I whole-heartedly support open carry, and welcome them into my business, and C) Don't you have REAL criminals to be worrying about? Probably would be a Kodak moment to see the look on his face at that point.

imported post

I would like to know the answer to these two questions:

Are thereany exemption in the law that allow OFF DUTY members of law enforcement to open or conceal carry firearms anywhere they please?

Can a private business or land owner prohibit OFF DUTY police officers from carrying firearms in their estabishments or on their property?

If there are none, I know what I would have said.

Suggested signs:

"IF YOU ARE NOT AN ON DUTY MEMBER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, YOU MAY NOT ENTER WHILE CARRYING A FIREARM."


Now we all know that a sign like that would result in some type of police raction or retaliation, delayed police response to a call for assistance or NO police protection.

imported post

Edward Peruta wrote:

I would like to know the answer to these two questions:

Are thereany exemption in the law that allow OFF DUTY members of law enforcement to open or conceal carry firearms anywhere they please?

Can a private business or land owner prohibit OFF DUTY police officers from carrying firearms in their estabishments or on their property?

If there are none, I know what I would have said.

Click to expand...

As I understand it, yes there is. Not open carry, but pretty much all the LEOS I'm acquainted with are permitted to conceal carry when off duty.

As far as private business? They can prohibit anyone they want, if they don't want weapons on their property. Of course, if someone LEO or otherwise is concealed carrying, the business owner's not going to know they have the weapon, unless it's printing. Also, I believe that if you don't want weapons in your business, you probably could prohibit an on-duty officer from being there as well. Obviously if they're in the midst of performing their duties as in investigating a crime, that wouldn't apply. Plus won't make you popular with the LEOS.

Again, this is my understanding of the topic, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

imported post

ChuckBooty wrote:

He showed up, in uniform, SPECIFICALLY because of this thread. They said he was nice and all, but just telling them that if they don't want UOC'ers they don't have to have them. Basically UOC is not a RIGHT on private property.

Click to expand...

Wow, doesn't he have anything better to do with his time?

imported post

OK, let's try to get this thread back on track...

I will be the point of contact for all the UOC'ers. Let's start the ROLL CALL.Please either post here or send me a PM.Thanks.

I would like to know how many are planning on attending this event.

All are welcome to attend whether giving blood or not and whether UOC'ing or not. We will be handing out brochures, talking with the general public about UOC, and there may be reporters present.


Event Details:

December 23, 2009

9:30am to 3pm

In front of the National Guard Recruiting office (Temecula)

https://www.givelife.org/index.cfm?group=op&expand=664447&zc=92590

imported post

As far as off duty LEO and CCW is concerned, all private property rules apply. For example, many amusement parks prohibit firearms and that includes LEO. I usually choose not visit a place where I cannot carry.

I hope to lesson some of the tension between LE and OC buy posting a brief commentary regarding the usual encounter with LE and OC. If all goes well I'll have it up in a day or two. The goal is to provide information, not a biased opinion.

Again, please continue to be frank on this site. All of you have very good points and most of you are very well educated on the topic. This group has brought up several great points and several LEOs have been properly informed as a result. I know of at least two specific occasions recently where OC people were not harassed on my watch due to the information I have gained from here and from my own secondary research into the topic.

And to clarify, I am very 2a friendly.

imported post

I'll be there cool. Hopefully with the family.

imported post

ChuckBooty wrote:

coolusername2007 wrote:

ChuckBooty wrote:

So an LEO showed up at Faith Armory today and told Nate (the owner) that if he didn't WANT any UOC'ers that he could make them leave, since he was on private property. Strange, huh? Do LEO's routinely monitor this site? I imagine they do.

Click to expand...

Not surprised at all.  You betcha they are watching this site, LEOs, prosecutors, DAs, and who knows who else.  Besides Faith has many LEO customers, and since he agreed to display the educational brochure I created and pc brochure I'm not surprised some are commenting.  Did this LEO come in specifically for this purpose, or was he/she just another customer?

Click to expand...

He showed up, in uniform, SPECIFICALLY because of this thread. They said he was nice and all, but just telling them that if they don't want UOC'ers they don't have to have them. Basically UOC is not a RIGHT on private property.

Click to expand...

Just for that, I will be packing more than just a pistol if I come up to the blood drive.

Friggin cops. Can we say "BIG NOSES" and "NOT ENOUGH TO DO" in one breath?

imported post

ChuckBooty wrote:

I don't think it is [a 171b "public building"]. I'm the Recruiter who works there and sometimes CCW there...

Click to expand...

Are you federal employee? And no state/local employees regularly work in the building? If so, then it should be OK

Also, I'm assuming there is no federal law against carrying in your building... I know the post office is off limits, but I've heard some other federal buildings are no-go (but no reliable source).

If anybody plans on attending while carrying, please do some research and make sure it's not illegal to enter this building while carrying.

imported post

ready on the left...ready on the right wrote:

...I hope to lesson some of the tension between LE and OC buy posting a brief commentary regarding the usual encounter with LE and OC. If all goes well I'll have it up in a day or two. The goal is to provide information, not a biased opinion...

Click to expand...

Welcome, and thanks for your contributions here. I think all of us would like to see less tension and less "us versus them" attitude from BOTH sides.

I hope more officers are willing to be open-minded and share their thoughts here. If nothing else, it's encouraging for us to see more officers showing they respect our rights. For some of us, it's easy to forget not all cops are the bad apples we dealt with last week.

I'll use myself for example... Who knows how many times a cop noticed me carrying (I spent a lot of time next to the university, and often walked past the driveway where the public safety office was located, so I'm sure CSU PD saw me a lot), and simply chose not to bother me? Of course, it's easy to remember the 5 cops that violated my rights and falsified a police report to cover their asses from criminal/civil liability.

It might even be a good idea to approach and talk to every person you see carrying. Just let it be voluntary - most of us look forward to getting information out and discussing the topic. I still discourage any sort of seizure of the person or property (see Terry v Ohio), including 12031(e) checks. Just see it as an opportunity to counteract some of the damage done by the bad apples, and a chance to remind us not to believe the stereotype that cops are anti-2A and anti-4A.

It may also be a learning experience for the officer. Not only on the issue of open carry, but for them to see that we're not trying to bait them or entrap them. (Even if one were gunning for litigation, I think it would be to change the law, not make money - e.g. Ed Peruta with his CCW issues.)

Like the vast majority of LEOs, we're just trying to make our world a better, safer place for our families to live in. The sooner both sides realize how much we have in common, the sooner we can get around to focusing our collective efforts on the our common enemies. Let's make life harder for the criminal "dirt bags", rather than wasting our energy fighting each other.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

ChuckBooty wrote:

I don't think it is [a 171b "public building"]. I'm the Recruiter who works there and sometimes CCW there...

Click to expand...

Are you federal employee? And no state/local employees regularly work in the building? If so, then it should be OK

Also, I'm assuming there is no federal law against carrying in your building... I know the post office is off limits, but I've heard some other federal buildings are no-go (but no reliable source).

If anybody plans on attending while carrying, please do some research and make sure it's not illegal to enter this building while carrying.

Click to expand...

The Recruiter Office is either a state or a federal facility.

If it is a state facility it is covered under PC 171b.

If it is a federal facility it is covered under U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Paragraph 930.
§930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law; (2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
(g) As used in this section: (1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties. (2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21/2 inches in length. (3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

To me is looks like UOC for personal defense falls into the category of other lawful purposes.

imported post

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! The military is part of the federal gov. There is a federal employee in the building. There will be an off duty LEO there. (professional witness) Something doesn't smell very good here. I was thinking about showing up for this one. I will keep myself and my 10 ft pole athome.

imported post

Gundude wrote:

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! The military is part of the federal gov. There is a federal employee in the building. There will be an off duty LEO there. (professional witness) Something doesn't smell very good here. I was thinking about showing up for this one. I will keep myself and my 10 ft pole athome.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think that the California Army National Guard is only a part of the federal government if actually called to active duty by the federal government. If not called up by the feds, then I think it is a state leased office building.

That is why I also put down that 171b applying.

imported post

Gundude wrote:

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! The military is part of the federal gov. There is a federal employee in the building. There will be an off duty LEO there. (professional witness) Something doesn't smell very good here. I was thinking about showing up for this one. I will keep myself and my 10 ft pole athome.

Click to expand...

You can be at the location, you just can't enter the blood trailer. Unless they make the surrounding area federal property (like what is done with the president) then all is just peachy.

Also, CA NG are NOT federal employees unless called to service by the feds, as Decoligny has written.

imported post

The office is NOT government property. The NG is RENTING the space from a PRIVATE owner. Much like military using their BAH to rent an apartment. Just because it's being PAID for with government funds does not mean it becomes a government building. It's a store-front recruiting office.

And there will be a Blood Mobile OUTSIDE the office. So no worries...unless the Red Cross doesn't want you to enter with your firearm. I'll speak with the point of contact and get back to you guys on that.

Oh...CoolUserName...THANK YOU for taking the lead on this. I'm at a military school until the 18th so I will have limited contact here. I'll try to communicate with you as best I can.

imported post

ChuckBooty wrote:

The office is NOT government property. The NG is RENTING the space from a PRIVATE owner. Much like military using their BAH to rent an apartment. Just because it's being PAID for with government funds does not mean it becomes a government building. It's a store-front recruiting office.

And there will be a Blood Mobile OUTSIDE the office. So no worries...unless the Red Cross doesn't want you to enter with your firearm. I'll speak with the point of contact and get back to you guys on that.

Oh...CoolUserName...THANK YOU for taking the lead on this. I'm at a military school until the 18th so I will have limited contact here. I'll try to communicate with you as best I can.

Click to expand...

You might want to post the statutes for the definition and let us chew on it a bit.

According to the State definition of a government building, ownership of the facility is irrelevant.

171b... (c) As used in this section, "state or local public building"
means a building that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) It is a building or part of a building owned or leased by the
state or local government, if state or local public employees are
regularly present for the purposes of performing their official
duties. A state or local public building includes, but is not limited
to, a building that contains a courtroom.
(2) It is not a building or facility, or a part thereof, that is
referred to in Section 171c, 171d, 626.9, 626.95, or 626.10 of this
code, or in Section 18544 of the Elections Code.
(3) It is a building not regularly used, and not intended to be
used, by state or local employees as a place of residence.

imported post

mjones wrote:

You might want to post the statutes for the definition and let us chew on it a bit.

According to the State definition of a government building, ownership of the facility is irrelevant.

171b... (c) As used in this section, "state or local public building"
means a building that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) It is a building or part of a building owned or leased by the
state or local government, if state or local public employees are
regularly present for the purposes of performing their official
duties. A state or local public building includes, but is not limited
to, a building that contains a courtroom.
(2) It is not a building or facility, or a part thereof, that is
referred to in Section 171c, 171d, 626.9, 626.95, or 626.10 of this
code, or in Section 18544 of the Elections Code.
(3) It is a building not regularly used, and not intended to be
used, by state or local employees as a place of residence.

Click to expand...

Good to know information but moot for this event. There will be no need to enter the building. The event will be held outside in the parking lot. More than likely there will be a couple of tables and maybe some chairs (you might want to bring your own though).

Again, if you are planning on attending this event, please let me know either in a PM or post here. So far only a couple have stated they will be coming. I know this is close to Christmas but its a really good oppurtunity to put open carry in a positive light.

imported post

mjones wrote:

ChuckBooty wrote:

The office is NOT government property. The NG is RENTING the space from a PRIVATE owner. Much like military using their BAH to rent an apartment. Just because it's being PAID for with government funds does not mean it becomes a government building. It's a store-front recruiting office.

And there will be a Blood Mobile OUTSIDE the office. So no worries...unless the Red Cross doesn't want you to enter with your firearm. I'll speak with the point of contact and get back to you guys on that.

Oh...CoolUserName...THANK YOU for taking the lead on this. I'm at a military school until the 18th so I will have limited contact here. I'll try to communicate with you as best I can.

Click to expand...

You might want to post the statutes for the definition and let us chew on it a bit.

According to the State definition of a government building, ownership of the facility is irrelevant.

171b... (c) As used in this section, "state or local public building"
means a building that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) It is a building or part of a building owned or leased by the
state or local government, if state or local public employees are
regularly present for the purposes of performing their official
duties. A state or local public building includes, but is not limited
to, a building that contains a courtroom.
(2) It is not a building or facility, or a part thereof, that is
referred to in Section 171c, 171d, 626.9, 626.95, or 626.10 of this
code, or in Section 18544 of the Elections Code.
(3) It is a building not regularly used, and not intended to be
used, by state or local employees as a place of residence.

Click to expand...

hm...you may be right here. Although one COULD argue that since the state is only renting one unit in a large building that this wouldn't apply here. But CoolUserName is right, there's no reason to enter the building anyways. I WAS going to set up the cookie and juice area inside the lobby but I'll set up an extra table outside for the UOC'ers. Thanks!

imported post

ChuckBooty wrote:

mjones wrote:

ChuckBooty wrote:

Click to expand...

The office is NOT government property. The NG is RENTING the space from a PRIVATE owner. Much like military using their BAH to rent an apartment. Just because it's being PAID for with government funds does not mean it becomes a government building. It's a store-front recruiting office.

And there will be a Blood Mobile OUTSIDE the office. So no worries...unless the Red Cross doesn't want you to enter with your firearm. I'll speak with the point of contact and get back to you guys on that.

Oh...CoolUserName...THANK YOU for taking the lead on this. I'm at a military school until the 18th so I will have limited contact here. I'll try to communicate with you as best I can.

Click to expand...

You might want to post the statutes for the definition and let us chew on it a bit.

According to the State definition of a government building, ownership of the facility is irrelevant.

171b... (c) As used in this section, "state or local public building"
means a building that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) It is a building or part of a building owned or leased by the
state or local government, if state or local public employees are
regularly present for the purposes of performing their official
duties. A state or local public building includes, but is not limited
to, a building that contains a courtroom.

Click to expand...

(2) It is not a building or facility, or a part thereof, that is
referred to in Section 171c, 171d, 626.9, 626.95, or 626.10 of this
code, or in Section 18544 of the Elections Code.

Click to expand...

(3) It is a building not regularly used, and not intended to be
used, by state or local employees as a place of residence.

Click to expand...

hm...you may be right here. Although one COULD argue that since the state is only renting one unit in a large building that this wouldn't apply here. But CoolUserName is right, there's no reason to enter the building anyways. I WAS going to set up the cookie and juice area inside the lobby but I'll set up an extra table outside for the UOC'ers. Thanks!

Click to expand...

You COULD argue that, but the arguement would have absolutely nothing to back it up.

Even a single office in a large office buildingbeing rented by the state ="part of a building" "leased by the state or local government" = "state or local public building".

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

OK, let's try to get this thread back on track...

I will be the point of contact for all the UOC'ers. Let's start the ROLL CALL.Please either post here or send me a PM.Thanks.

I would like to know how many are planning on attending this event.

All are welcome to attend whether giving blood or not and whether UOC'ing or not. We will be handing out brochures, talking with the general public about UOC, and there may be reporters present.


Event Details:

December 23, 2009

9:30am to 3pm

In front of the National Guard Recruiting office (Temecula)

https://www.givelife.org/index.cfm?group=op&expand=664447&zc=92590

Click to expand...

Reminder of the upcoming blood drive event. Please let me know if you're planning on attending.