Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 90

Thread: San Mateo Sheriff Threatens Open Carriers

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    The San Mateo County Sheriff issued the following press release this afternoon. Note the "Caution" section at the bottom.

    January 14, 2010 - Unloaded Open Carry

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    It is recommened that all San Mateo Police officers wear Depends, to avoid theembaressment of wetting their pants. It is also noted that we shouldn't do something that is perfectly legal. It's a good thing I have my hip waders on, cuz it's getting deep here.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  3. #3
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Well, out of the 11 published memos on the legalities of open carry, I would file this as "weak suck". It cites 12025, 12031, 626.9 and throws out a threat just short of, "comply or expect injury or death'. No mention of the limitation of the search surrounding an (e) check, no citation ofapplicable case law, nodiscussion of the limitations on exercising force against those conducting themselves lawfully.

    Instead of educating, it appears theSheriff is attempting to maintain a status quo by disincentivising exposed arms with physical force and harassment.




    ETA: Just for kicks and giggles, I went to the San Mateo County's website to look around. While they seem to offer LiveScan services, there is no information on where or how to apply to the Sheriff fora license to carry.

    And in reviewing a "CCW" website, it appears that San Mateo County has a no-issuance policy towards ordinary people. So, in essense, they won't issue LTC/CCW, and the official policy is apparently to use whatever force they feel is necessary to discourage exposed carry-

    If it were June and not January, I would be walking into the San Mateo Sheriff's office to request an application for a LTC as outlined in 12050 and if denied, inform them that they are leaving me no other option than to carry exposed. The ultimatum is simply this; issue LTC or adjust policy to respond appropriately to those lawfully armed.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    He cites 12025 without including the (f) belt holster exception.

    He cites 12031 without including Clark.

    So he is un-educating his target audience. Is it his officers? Or open carriers?

    And then the last paragraph: If the audience is his officers, he's giving them license to not only violate open carrier's rights, but almost encouraging violence. If his audience are open carriers, this is a threat.

    ETA: This sheriff needs to be informed of the danger that he is creating with this press release. He needs to rethink this.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    It's time for a large meet up in San Mateo, complete with helo's, ambulances and 30 or 40 LEO's. Don't forget the vids. The may be needed for a wrongful death suit.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post


    Penal Code Section 12031 ...A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge orshell, consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm; except that a muzzleloader firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

    I want to see an "e" check of a muzzleloader.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    yelohamr wrote:
    SNIP I want to see an "e" check of a muzzleloader.
    You just drop the ramrod into the barrel. If it bounces soundly, its unloaded. If it doesn't bounce or bounces as though something absorbed most of the bounce, its loaded.

    Someblackpowder enthusiastsjust put a mark on the ramrod for "empty" to save the bouncing.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    I know that. I just want to see a LEO figure it out.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    yelohamr wrote:


    Penal Code Section 12031 ...A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge orshell, consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm; except that a muzzleloader firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.


    I want to see an "e" check of a muzzleloader.
    The LEO should look down the barrel and pull the trigger. If they don't hear anything, two things may have happened. It's not loaded or you're dead.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  10. #10
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    It's time for a large meet up in San Mateo, complete with helo's, ambulances and 30 or 40 LEO's. Don't forget the vids. The may be needed for a wrongful death suit.

    Yes keep pushing an OC ban before we have any tools at all to stop one. Read the recentPeruta v San Diego motion to dismiss. States will likely get to determine the method of carry. Get an OC ban now and you'll likely never see OC for pistols in this state again (outside of a range or gun show) unless 'License to Carry' licensing and feesget shot down in the next decade (yes it might take that long if ever).

    Keep raising your political profile and that is what we'll get. Come on guys don't be reactionary to thisSheriff's BS,think strategically and know when and how to fight smart.



    Here is to "crossed fingers" that SCOTUS finds OC the "National unlicensed Right" based on that being the most common method of unregulated carry (28 states) and Robinson v Baldwin.


  11. #11
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Gundude wrote:
    It's time for a large meet up in San Mateo, complete with helo's, ambulances and 30 or 40 LEO's. Don't forget the vids. The may be needed for a wrongful death suit.
    Yes keep pushing an OC ban before we have any tools at all to stop one. Read the recentPeruta v San Diego motion to dismiss. States will likely get to determine the method of carry. Get an OC ban now and you'll likely never see OC for pistols in this state again (outside of a range or gun show) unless 'License to Carry' licensing and feesget shot down in the next decade (yes it might take that long if ever).

    Keep raising your political profile and that is what we'll get. Come on guys don't be reactionary to thisSheriff's BS,think strategically and know when and how to fight smart.
    I agree with Cato on this. While the Sheriff seems to want to throw down a gauntlet, we would do well not to be so eager to take it up. We will challenge this, just not YET.

    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Maybe I missed it but I don't see the Sheriff's noting of the exception for conceal carry permit holders to conceal loaded guns generally, and in school zones, and to open cary unloaded guns in school zones.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    And I see this county has a generalized dischrge ban for unincorporated areas, so i guess no unlicensed loaded open carry, but what about the County ban on possession ofguns on County property even simply land (bnot in buildings?

    I though such local gun carry bans were preempted by state constituional field preemption?

    --

    Chapter 3.53 - FIREARMS ON COUNTY PROPERTY


    Sections:

    3.53.010 - Possession of firearms on County property prohibited.

    3.53.020 - Definitions.

    3.53.030 - Exceptions.


    3.53.010 - Possession of 3.53.020 - Definitions.


    For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:

    (a)
    County Property. As used in this section, the term County property means real property, including any buildings thereon, owned or leased by the County of San Mateo (hereinafter "County"), and in the County's possession, or in the possession of a public or private entity under contract with the County to perform a public purpose, including but not limited to real property owned or leased by the County in the unincorporated and incorporated portions of the County, and the San Mateo County Expo Center in the City of San Mateo, but does not include any "local public building" as defined in Penal Code Section 171b(c), where the State regulated possession of 3.53.030 - Exceptions.


    This section does not apply to the following:

    (a)
    A peace officer as defined in Title 3, Part 2, Chapter 4.5 of the California Penal Code (sections 830 et seq.);

    (b)
    A guard or messenger of a financial institution, a guard of a contract carrier operating an armored vehicle, a licensed private investigator, patrol operator, or alarm company operator, or uniformed security guard as these occupations are defined in Penal Code section 12031(d) and who holds a valid certificate issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs under Penal Code section 12033, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment;

    (c)
    A person holding a valid license to carry a [highlight= #f0e68c]firearm issued pursuant to Penal Code section 12050;

    (d)
    An authorized participant in a motion picture, television, video, dance, or theatrical production or event, when the participant lawfully uses the [highlight= #f0e68c]firearm as part of that production or event, provided that when such [highlight= #f0e68c]firearm is not in the actual possession of the authorized participant, it is secured to prevent unauthorized use;

    (e)
    A person lawfully transporting [highlight= #f0e68c]firearms or ammunition in a motor vehicle on County roads;

    (f)
    A person lawfully using the target range operated by the San Mateo County Sheriff;

    (g)
    A federal criminal investigator or law enforcement officer; or

    (h)
    A member of the military forces of the State of California or of the United States.


    (Ord. 4146, 12/17/02)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    Does anyone know if the sheriff's original draft was in crayon or did he dictate it to someone who knew what the big words meant?

    For once I agree with cato. (did I really say that?)

    If the sheriff wants bluster about UOC, let him. He'll be seen for the fool he is.


    "CAUTION

    Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation. When police are called to a “man with a gun” call they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed. Officers may have no idea that these people are simply “exercising their rights.” Consequently, the lawenforcement response is one of “hypervigilant urgency” in order to protect the public from an armed threat. Should the gun carrying person fail to comply with a law enforcement instruction or move in a way that could be construed as threatening, the police are forced to respond in kind for their own protection. It’s well and good in hindsight to say the gun carrier was simply “exercising their rights” but the result could be deadly. Simply put, it is not recommended to openly carry firearms."

    Where is the media outrage? An elected official is threateningcitizens for commiting a legal act...in so many words.



  15. #15
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    yelohamr wrote:
    SNIP I want to see an "e" check of a muzzleloader.Â*
    You just drop the ramrod into the barrel.Â* If it bounces soundly, its unloaded.Â* If it doesn't bounce or bounces as though something absorbed most of the bounce, its loaded.
    In your scenario, the firearm is not necessarily loaded under the definition provided in PC 12031. It's only loaded if there is a powder charge and projectile in the chamber/cylinder *and* it is capped or primed.

    ...except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.
    Both conditions must be met for the firearm to be loaded. It would not be a violation of the law to openly carry a cap and ball revolver with powder and ball in all of the chambers as long as percussion caps were not fitted to any of the nipples on the cylinder, or to carry a flintlock musket with powder and shot in the chamber but no priming charge in the flashpan.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    And I see this county has a generalized dischrge ban for unincorporated areas, so i guess no unlicensed loaded open carry, but what about the County ban on possession ofguns on County property even simply land (not in buildings?

    I though such local gun carry bans were preempted by state constituional field preemption?
    Hmm, I guess I can answer my own question: No - the Cal. S. Ct. appears to have answered this state law preemption question as to local gun possession bans on property belonging to a locality:

    "The dissent contends that Penal Code sections 12031, 12050, and 12051 conflict with the Ordinance, apparently based on the presumption that these and other state statutes preempt the field of gun possession to such an extent that they impliedly prohibit counties from regulating gun possession on their own property. As explained more fully in Great Western, however, the Legislature has not indicated an intent to so broadly preempt the field of gun regulation. (See also Pen. Code, § 12050, subd. (b) [gun licensing subject to reasonable local time, place, and manner restrictions].)" Nordyke v. King, 27 Cal. 4th 875, 883, n.1(Cal. 2002).

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    yelohamr wrote:
    "CAUTION

    Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation. When police are called to a “man with a gun” call they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed. Officers may have no idea that these people are simply “exercising their rights.” Consequently, the lawenforcement response is one of “hypervigilant urgency” in order to protect the public from an armed threat. Should the gun carrying person fail to comply with a law enforcement instruction or move in a way that could be construed as threatening, the police are forced to respond in kind for their own protection. It’s well and good in hindsight to say the gun carrier was simply “exercising their rights” but the result could be deadly. Simply put, it is not recommended to openly carry firearms."

    Where is the media outrage? An elected official is threateningcitizens for commiting a legal act...in so many words.
    This is cop-speak for "suspend thinkingand assume the worst." It is an excuse, a specious justification for not stopping to consider that nothing in the report is illegal or even necessarily dangerous.

    It isat its heart a fancy sounding way toexcusefalling for alarmism.

    It should be openly ridiculed.

    "Hahahahahahaha! The sheriff is actually trying to excuse his officers buying into an alarming report and becoming alarmed themselves like any other limp-wristed panty-waist, rather than evaluating the reportfor legality and danger like cool professionals. Oooooo. Tough cops they got in that department.Maybe they should move over and letGirl Scouts respond to these calls. Ooooooo. Hahahahahahahaha!"


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Jeeze, are those LEA's in California insane?

    That is a rhetorical question.

    This Sheriff is akin to the wild-west Sheriff's I grew up watching in movies. No guns, else we'll arrest you, beat you, or probably shoot you down like dog.

    Sounds like this guy was on Gene Hackman's side in Unforgiven

  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    I was asked to respond to this Press Release from San Mateo Sheriffs Dept.

    You may see me tonight on CBS Channel 5.

  20. #20
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    Who's carrying in and around San Mateo? I acknowledge that they may not be on OCDO or Calguns.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    bad_ace wrote:
    I was asked to respond to this Press Release from San Mateo Sheriffs Dept.

    You may see me tonight on CBS Channel 5.
    If you get a video link, please post. Thanks bad_ace.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    Well, out of the 11 published memos on the legalities of open carry, I would file this as "weak suck". It cites 12025, 12031, 626.9 and throws out a threat just short of, "comply or expect injury or death'. No mention of the limitation of the search surrounding an (e) check, no citation ofapplicable case law, nodiscussion of the limitations on exercising force against those conducting themselves lawfully.

    Instead of educating, it appears theSheriff is attempting to maintain a status quo by disincentivising exposed arms with physical force and harassment.




    ETA: Just for kicks and giggles, I went to the San Mateo County's website to look around. While they seem to offer LiveScan services, there is no information on where or how to apply to the Sheriff fora license to carry.

    And in reviewing a "CCW" website, it appears that San Mateo County has a no-issuance policy towards ordinary people. So, in essense, they won't issue LTC/CCW, and the official policy is apparently to use whatever force they feel is necessary to discourage exposed carry-

    If it were June and not January, I would be walking into the San Mateo Sheriff's office to request an application for a LTC as outlined in 12050 and if denied, inform them that they are leaving me no other option than to carry exposed. The ultimatum is simply this; issue LTC or adjust policy to respond appropriately to those lawfully armed.
    Being as I'm an avid poker player, I would call his bluff and raise him all in. To coin a poker phrase, "he is drawing dead" He can show up, violate everyones 4th amendment, but in the end he will have to fold his losing hand.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Post imported post

    onedavetoomany wrote:
    The San Mateo County Sheriff issued the following press release this afternoon. Note the "Caution" section at the bottom.

    January 14, 2010 - Unloaded Open Carry
    Hmm... I'd never actually send this, but if I ever did, it'd look something like this:

    Dear Lt. Lunny:

    I hereby invite you to the wonderful State of Colorado, which not only enjoys a crime rate far below that of your state, but in which people are allowed to Open Carry, and armed, at that.

    Before arriving, however, I strongly recommend you leave your badge and weapon in California, though, as your "hypervigilent urgency" would prove to be a "potentially very dangerous situation" should you react without thought by drawing on any one of our fine, moral, and law-abiding citizens who carry, not as an "ostensible 'exercise of constitutional rights,'" but as a means of defending self, others, and property against those who would unlawfully attempt to deprive them of such.

    In the meantime, perhaps retraining is in order, so that your officers are more capable of distinguishing those law-abiding citizens who openly carry a firearm from the law-breakers who usually, and illegally, carry concealed.

    On second thought, I hereby withdraw my invitation, as I believe your presence in this state may merely prove to be a "potentially dangerous practice ... ostensibly an 'exercise of [your] constitutional rights'" to cross state lines.

    Sincerely, etc.

    Seriously: If that department is that hair-triggered to react to an open carry situation, then I recommend it retrain both its members and its citizens as to the state laws, that than attempt to dissuade law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves in accordance with the law.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    The press release is a nice rant , except for one major point.

    BG's hide their guns concealed. They are not going to be sitting in open public enjoying a beverage at a cafe. A little common sense is in order. If a LEO can not figure this situation out as he approaches it, he should be removed form active duty and sent to the department shrink.

    Go ask any LEO if they have EVER have gone to a MWAG call where the person wearing the gun openly on a holster unloaded (walking the dog,eating lunch or drinking coffee)ended up being a violent criminal? Of course not. LEO"s are trained to ramp up force as needed, and also ramp down force when not needed. The exercise of discretion in the reasonable use of force is the true sign a well trained LEO.

    Obviously, San Mateo can not trust there own poor training of their officers to exercise that good judgment, and they are warning the public about it!. In a round about way the memo says we might use excessive force and shoot first, then ask questions later. Pretty sad.


  25. #25
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    It sounds like we should wear some body armour when open carrying in San Mateo. Just to minimize the impact of "hypervigilant urgency".
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

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
  •