• 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.

San Mateo Sheriff Threatens Open Carriers

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
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.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
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.
 

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
imported post


[align=left]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.[/align]
[align=left]I want to see an "e" check of a muzzleloader. [/align]
 

Citizen

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

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
imported post

yelohamr wrote:


[align=left]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.[/align]

[align=left]I want to see an "e" check of a muzzleloader. [/align]
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.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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. :banghead:



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.:uhoh:
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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. :banghead:
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.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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


[align=left]Sections: [/align]
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.


[align=left]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.
[/align]

[align=left](Ord. 4146, 12/17/02)[/align]
 

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
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.


 

wewd

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
664
Location
Oregon
imported post

Citizen wrote:
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.

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.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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).
 

Citizen

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

tekshogun

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
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
 
Top