San Mateo Sheriff Threatens Open Carriers

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.

Click to expand...

If you get a video link, please post. Thanks bad_ace.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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. :banghead:

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.

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".

imported post

I cant find a way to watch the broadcast live does anyone know how if possible

imported post

[align=left]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.[/align]

Click to expand...

That memo sounds a lot like a threat to me, in light of the knowledge that so many agencies are aware of and read this forum. Allow me to paraphrase that part I just quoted: "We won't train our dispatchers to ask pertinant questions regarding the activities of the armed individual to determine if it's a possible threat or possible law abiding citizen."

Rather than training dispatchers to determine what type of MWAG call they're responding to, they choose to endanger the lives of those who engage in a legal activity. I wonder if they're aware of anything beyond the fishbowl they live in, like states where people are legally armed (and loaded) and the police don't need to show up with a dozen officers plus helicopter to a call of "individual not breaking the law".

Yet people wonder why this state is broke.

imported post

I have not UOCed in San Mateo because of Munks corrupt department. I know someone who fights the SMSD regularly by defending people in court against the SMSD.This is an older, well educated, clean person. This person was pulled over by 6 deputies for a fabricated traffic violation and viola, cocain appeared in his car.

Here is an interesting piece of info about Munks:

www.broowaha.com/articles/1381/san-mateo-sheriff-massages-the-truth

imported post

dirtykoala wrote:

I have not UOCed in San Mateo because of Munks corrupt department. I know someone who fights the SMSD regularly by defending people in court against the SMSD.This is an older, well educated, clean person. This person was pulled over by 6 deputies for a fabricated traffic violation and viola, cocain appeared in his car.

Here is an interesting piece of info about Munks:

http://www.broowaha.com/articles/1381/san-mateo-sheriff-massages-the-truth

Click to expand...

If his wife bought the "I was just getting a massage" bit, I have a bridge for her to buy. She may already own the San Mateo bridge.

imported post

First video of tonight's CBS 5 News report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAbHYVCBJjo&feature=player_embedded

...waiting for higher quality version

imported post

High Quality Version.

http://opencarryradio.com/videos/011410_CBS_Open_Carry.m4v

imported post

I had no idea that I was "flaunting it". LOL.

imported post

:cuss: Okay, I am trying to understand the lack of logic in the San Mateo letter regarding UOC. In reading the letter I found myself saying, "then train your staff to ask questions and respond appropriately". It just seemed too obvious a response to the letter. Are they really serious?

This just seems like too big of a mistake to make (and then make public). The County Board of Supervisors should really look closely at replacing, or at least, re-educating the high ranking law enforcement personnel in their county. It could help...

UOC IS LEGAL FOLKS!!!

SAN MATEO - I believe a retraction of this silly letter is in order. Also required is some real life training for your staff. Treat people who do not break the law with courtesy and basic respect. You, in turn, will be afforded the same...

Everyone take care and, presently, watch your back in San Mateo County.

Carry On,

Livermoron

imported post

:? On CH5 tonight I also noticed that the producers chose to followup the UOC story with the Ft. Hood Shooting update story. They had to follow the lawful use of firearms story with LOOK AT THIS GUY WHO USED AN EVIL GUN TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS !!!

imported post

Livermoron wrote:

:? On CH5 tonight I also noticed that the producers chose to followup the UOC story with the Ft. Hood Shooting update story. They had to follow the lawful use of firearms story with LOOK AT THIS GUY WHO USED AN EVIL GUN TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS !!!

Click to expand...

Look at the stupid Army regulations that won't let the soldiers carry. It would have been over lots quicker, with a dead maniac. I've said this before, "911 would never have happened if some of the passenger were armed."

imported post

Can't you all see what is going on. UOC is being drawn out into an ambush (a legislative ambush). The over the top LAPD "incident", this "press release". All are calculated to make this an issue whichneeds a legislative fix. Anyone who UOCed during the last year has walked into this "ambush".

Go ahead and wear body armor and UOC in that county and get on the media. That is what they want.


But it looks like LOC died on 01-01-10 anyway...Texas here we come...:cuss:

To help preserve another future legal argument (plan B)to get LOC back UOCers should immediately stand down. But who's listening hereanyway...:uhoh:

imported post

Simply put, Lt. Looney it is not recommended to openly violate the People's rights.

imported post

1. Some body armor is concealable.
2. Next up on their agenda is banning LUCC. Remember, the 4A doesn't apply to law-abiding gun owners, so it is no big deal for them to do this.

imported post

cato wrote:

Can't you all see what is going on. UOC is being drawn out into an ambush (a legislative ambush). The over the top LAPD "incident", this "press release". All are calculated to make this an issue whichneeds a legislative fix. Anyone who UOCed during the last year has walked into this "ambush".

Go ahead and wear body armor and UOC in that county and get on the media. That is what they want.


But it looks like LOC died on 01-01-10 anyway...Texas here we come...:cuss:

To help preserve another future legal argument (plan B)to get LOC back UOCers should immediately stand down. But who's listening hereanyway...:uhoh:

Click to expand...

I agree! We should find more creative and effective ways to protest. I really do like the idea of open carrying bananas.

We get some open carry t-shirts, signs, bananas and banana holsters. We stand outside the police station and make a statement about the threat made by their department.

Let us answer, but not in the way they expect.

imported post


[align=left]CAUTION[/align]
[align=left]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 law enforcement 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.[/align]
[align=left]Respond in Kind means to retaliate in the same manner.[/align]
[align=left]So, if an OCer does the above, then the San Mateo Police will respond by:[/align]
[align=left]a. failing to comply with a law inforcement instruction[/align]
[align=left]b. moving in a way that could be construed as threatening[/align]
[align=left]:what:[/align]
[align=left]Sounds about right to me.[/align]