• 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.

Letter to KPIX-TV Re: 1-14-10 Open Carry News Story

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Straight Shooter,

Glad to hear you're here to stay. Like I said, you just need thick skin and an open mind. We can undo some of the statist brainwashing you've endured!

You wouldn't be the first cop to discover the true meaning of liberty.


To everybody else:

Try to break him in gently! If our goal is to persuade and spread the message of liberty, we need to be better teachers. For some, liberty is a NEW concept that takes some time to digest and assimilate.
 

Rusty

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
121
Location
San Jose, California, USA
imported post

A question, and a quick point.

In regards to Gundude (I swear I was not going to talk about him again..Opp’s) not answering any questions, that would lead us to a reasonable suspicion (enough for a misdemeanor) to bring him in until he is ready to tell LEO’s what I had just mentioned.

Reasonable suspicion of what? I thought you needed probable cause to arrest someone.

Lets say, that you get a MWAG call on me, and I am legally open carrying, not doing anything threatening, just sitting there reading a book or something.

I assume the conversation would go something like
LEO: Excuse me, can I talk to you real quick over here?

Me: [Calmly walks over] How can I help you officer?

LEO: We just got a complaint about a man with a gun, and I see that you are carrying a firearm, I need to check to make sure it is not loaded.

Me: Sir, I do not consent to any searches of my person or effects. I understand that you are authorized to check my weapon to ensure that it is in compliance with 12031, and if you are ordering me to submit to a check pursuant to that section of the penal code, I will of course comply, however I do not feel comfortable drawing my firearm in your presence, so I ask that you do it.

LEO: [un-holsters my weapon and checks to see if it is loaded].

then in all likelihood

LEO: Can I see some ID?

Me: At this time I am going to invoke my 5th amendment right against self incrimination. I do not feel comfortable answering any questions without legal advice. Am I free to go?

LEO: I need to make sure you are not a prohibited person, a felon or something, that is why I need to see some ID.

Me: Am I free to go, or am I being detained, and if I am being detained, what law do you suspect that I have violated?

Now, I must ask you. What suspicion do you have to "bring me in" until I am ready to "tell LEO’s that I am exercising my rights granted to me under the law?"

Bearing arms is my right, my inalienable right. I have no obligation, or desire for that matter, to inform you or anyone else why I feel like carrying a firearm in a legal manner.

*Edited for grammar errors.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Straight Shooter,

I know you had a lot to reply to, but I think your reply to my post missed my main point.

Do you think it's OK to treat gun owners differently in Sacramento, CA than they are allowed to be treated in Phoenix, AZ or Manchester, NH? In those states an officer would be risking unemployment, civil action, and possibly criminal action if he were to do some things I've seen CA cops get away with. Do cops in those states get extra hazard pay for putting the rights of their subjects before their safety? Or is it maybe that states like CA have mutated cultures that allow truly unjust actions under the guise of "officer safety"?

[As for your taking offense to my use of the term "irrational fear", I hope you realize that I am not talking about all fears you may experience. I'm sure many of those are rational. I have been in situations like the one you describe; been shot at twice, held at knife-point once, and almost stabbed another time. In only one of those 4 incidents did I see it coming. I can't say I've walked in your shoes, as I've never done your job. But I can empathize with the fact that crazy shit happens when you least expect it.

However, fearing the mere presence of a firearm is NOT rational, especially an exposed firearm. The FBI has done a study that shows that people who shoot cops NEVER wear their firearms in exposed holsters. Article here: http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=62 - I hope that this knowledge helps you realize that there is no rational reason to fear a person wearing an exposed firearm, thus dispelling any irrational fear.]
 

Gundude

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

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Straight Shooter,

Glad to hear you're here to stay. Like I said, you just need thick skin and an open mind. We can undo some of the statist brainwashing you've endured!

You wouldn't be the first cop to discover the true meaning of liberty.


To everybody else:

Try to break him in gently! If our goal is to persuade and spread the message of liberty, we need to be better teachers. For some, liberty is a NEW concept that takes some time to digest and assimilate.
I certainly hope Bubba breaks me in gently. I suspect that asking for dinner and a movie first is out of the question. I could hope for an "I love you" first, or at best, a "reach around".
 

SouthBayr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
108
Location
San Jose, California, USA
imported post

Wow!!!

I guess my right to remain silent is null and void in what ever city you work in. If I don't answer your questions you will take me in??

You should be ashamed of yourself and relinquish your badge immediately.

I usually don't get involved in all the back and forth, but that just irked me.
 

AyatollahGondola

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
328
Location
Sacramento, California, USA
imported post

straight shooter wrote:
Finally I would like to ask everyone on this forum, does the OC movement have a chairman or someone who can speak on everyone’s behalf. You seem like a well-organized group. If you don’t have a chairperson, I think you should address that.


That's where the wishes of the little people usually goes down the tubes. The Indians probably heard that from the cavalry.;)
 

Rusty

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
121
Location
San Jose, California, USA
imported post

Finally I would like to ask everyone on this forum, does the OC movement have a chairman or someone who can speak on everyone’s behalf. You seem like a well-organized group. If you don’t have a chairperson, I think you should address that.

This is an unorganized group. I like it that way. We are just citizens who share a common interest.
 

yelohamr

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

Has anyone gotten the feeling this thread is being played? Remember all the emails within Sunnvale DPS and with other departments, comparing notes on how to get the D.A. to file on an UOCer for not showing I.D.? They admit to checking out this forum for intelligence purposes, why not have someone participate in the discussions directly. Even posting lenghty posts with correct spelling and grammar and God forbid...PARAGRAPHS.:D
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:
Of course we can not possibly ask for you to stop 12031e checking us. Any one in this forum who asks for that is being unreasonable. Imagine if an OC'er strolled by a LEO who decided not to 12031e check, and that same OC'er pulled his gun and shot someone right after. A crapstorm would come down on that department from media everywhere instantly. Headline "Cop had chance to stop murderer but didn't". Of course 12031e does not make society safer or would it stop a murder, BUT, the media would assume that since there was this law, it should have been exersized. All the blame would be on the Department.

Saying that, many OC'ers would appreciate a swift 12031e check(a legal infringement on that persons 4th yet necessary in protecting the department), with no questioning of that person until that said person is notified he may leave.

Sorry Streetbikerr6, this cannot go unchallenged. I completely disagree with your sentiments on 12031(e) checks. I can and am asking, even demanding,for all e-checks to stop. And no that is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is an illegal search and seizure of my property without RAS that a crime is afoot, even if my property is a weapon. Even CGF is working on striking down 12031(e).

By your logic, all the open carriers across the countryare societal and law enforcement liabilities, not law abiding citizens exercising their freedom and2A rights. And I most certainly would not appreciate a swift e-check, or any e-check. Period.

Many on this forum cannot wait to get e-checked, I guess to get past that first encounter. And there is somewhat of a badge of honor effect that goes with it here in the forum. Something along the lines of "hey I just got my e-cherry popped." Like that's a good thing. What ever. Let me be clear...an e-check is not a badge of honor, its a scar of tyranny!!! My goal is to be the last UOC'er standing withoutbeing e-checked. My hope is that LOC would be legal before I ever get violated. AndI will do everything in my power to avoid an e-check.

Remember the NorCal UOC'ers who met up with the cops in the parking lot to get e-violated. I puked when I saw that video. The thought of voluntarily meeting LEO's before a UOC event to get violated is sad, disgusting, and definitely not reasonable.

Oh, and I couldn't care less about any media storm crap. Your example isn't valid, as any criminal bent on causing mayhem will do whatever their going to do. I'm tired of surrendering my rights because someone else is a criminal. It's time everybody started realizing that and start changing your mindset.
 

demnogis

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

Straight shooter, welcome to OCDO. I very much hope that you live up to the higher standard that your public service profession demands of you. Your interest in the Natural Right of open carry is appreciated.

To everyone else, there isn't much of a discussion in regards to LEAs respecting actions properly working in conjunction with 2A rights until it is re-incorporated. I would suggest revisiting said discussions after that point.

Why? "Officer safety" and "public safety" trump our unrecognised right in PRK.
 

Palecon

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
169
Location
Los Angeles, California, USA
imported post

S-shooter:

Please purchase copy of Sheriff Mack's pamphlet "The proper roll of law enforcement"

As OC'ers we should all make purchase of a hand full of these and give them to all LEO's we come in contact with. I have Mack's contact info somewhere and can post it or PM it to interested parties, or hey use the computer, you'll get a hit or two.

Mack was on with Judge Nap's Freedom-Watch net program I think back in November. Check the archives.

-p
 

Gundude

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

yelohamr wrote:
Has anyone gotten the feeling this thread is being played? Remember all the emails within Sunnvale DPS and with other departments, comparing notes on how to get the D.A. to file on an UOCer for not showing I.D.? They admit to checking out this forum for intelligence purposes, why not have someone participate in the discussions directly. Even posting lenghty posts with correct spelling and grammar and God forbid...PARAGRAPHS.:D
Does this mean I don't get to meet Bubba? :cry:
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
Of course we can not possibly ask for you to stop 12031e checking us. Any one in this forum who asks for that is being unreasonable. Imagine if an OC'er strolled by a LEO who decided not to 12031e check, and that same OC'er pulled his gun and shot someone right after. A crapstorm would come down on that department from media everywhere instantly. Headline "Cop had chance to stop murderer but didn't". Of course 12031e does not make society safer or would it stop a murder, BUT, the media would assume that since there was this law, it should have been exersized. All the blame would be on the Department.

Saying that, many OC'ers would appreciate a swift 12031e check(a legal infringement on that persons 4th yet necessary in protecting the department), with no questioning of that person until that said person is notified he may leave.

Sorry Streetbikerr6, this cannot go unchallenged. I completely disagree with your sentiments on 12031(e) checks. I can and am asking, even demanding,for all e-checks to stop. And no that is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is an illegal search and seizure of my property without RAS that a crime is afoot, even if my property is a weapon. Even CGF is working on striking down 12031(e).

By your logic, all the open carriers across the countryare societal and law enforcement liabilities, not law abiding citizens exercising their freedom and2A rights. And I most certainly would not appreciate a swift e-check, or any e-check. Period.

Many on this forum cannot wait to get e-checked, I guess to get past that first encounter. And there is somewhat of a badge of honor effect that goes with it here in the forum. Something along the lines of "hey I just got my e-cherry popped." Like that's a good thing. What ever. Let me be clear...an e-check is not a badge of honor, its a scar of tyranny!!! My goal is to be the last UOC'er standing withoutbeing e-checked. My hope is that LOC would be legal before I ever get violated. AndI will do everything in my power to avoid an e-check.

Remember the NorCal UOC'ers who met up with the cops in the parking lot to get e-violated. I puked when I saw that video. The thought of voluntarily meeting LEO's before a UOC event to get violated is sad, disgusting, and definitely not reasonable.

Oh, and I couldn't care less about any media storm crap. Your example isn't valid, as any criminal bent on causing mayhem will do whatever their going to do. I'm tired of surrendering my rights because someone else is a criminal. It's time everybody started realizing that and start changing your mindset.
Hell to the yes.
 

bad_ace

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
327
Location
Cupertino, California, USA
imported post

straight shooter wrote:
We may ask more questions like “Why do you want to OC?” and all you should have to say is that you are exercising your rights granted to you under the law, that’s it. In regards to Gundude (I swear I was not going to talk about him again..Opp’s) not answering any questions, that would lead us to a reasonable suspicion (enough for a misdemeanor) to bring him in until he is ready to tell LEO’s what I had just mentioned. People who don’t answer LEO’s questions often have something to hide, and again we are just doing our jobs by investigating a possible commission of a crime.

Straight Shooter, (Welcome) How does this scenario play out for the deaf and mute among us? Would you be willing to drag a mute person in for questioning? If not then I'm calling your bluff that you'd bring me in just because I won't answer your questions :) And other officers don't, I have lots of video and audio proof of me not answering questions without being "brought in"
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

straight shooter wrote:
Livermoron,

I think your letter to KPIX was great! I am a police officer...

Livermoron's letter was on target.

straight shooter, you raise many excellent points and address many of the concerns of us law-abiding citizens. I appreciate your continued participation on the forum, and look forward to your future posts!

I and others will, however, from time to time, address one or more of your points in a manner addressing, first and foremost, a more complete understanding of all laws, federal, state, county, and local, and second, some common sense approaches to areas either not specifically covered under the law, or where their coverage is sketchy, misleading, or in otherwise need of repair.

It's not about dragging people back to some hypothetical "center" or "middle ground," but rather, back towards the very wise roots upon which our country was founded, and the countless corroborations of those ideas throughout our country's history.

Cheers!

- Since9
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

straight shooter wrote:
Open carry while not as many hoops to jump through, can and one day may lead to a tragedy that could have been prevented by having a weapon concealed and not in plane view of the public. In an urban environment some people see firearms and just freak out.
This disturbs me greatly, as it indicates aclear and grosslack of proper education of all citizens, dispatchers, and law enforcement officialsas to the rights and responsibilities of all other citizens. The responsibility for this rests with all agencies, including all levels of law enforcement, media, and education, both public and private.

In ninth grade, during my high school civics class, I learned something very wrong. The teacher said (paraphrased) "Guns are bad. The sooner we get rid of guns the sooner we'll all be better off."

In eleventh grade, during my high school American history class, I learned something very different: "It is both the right as well as the responsibility of all citizens to be a participatory element in the peacekeeping activities of our society, each to whatever degree they're willing to shoulder. For something, that's merely calling the police to report a crime.For others, that means exercising Constitutional freedoms such as the right to keep and bear arms. Still others, that means joining a local, country, state, or federal law-enforcement agency, or even of joining themilitary."

I know now, after having served both here and abroad in the U.S. Military is that those efforts are the reason we pay$2.50 at the pump instead of $6.25, as do most other nations.

If people are "freaking out" at the sight of law-abiding citizens who are abiding by the law, I would argue those who are "freaking out" are either mentally unstable, uneducated, improperly educated, or are simply trying to push their own anti-gun agenda contrary to the local/county/state/country in which they live.

Let's keep things in perspective, if we can, please.

I propose we employ appropriate measures to ensure dispatchers ask clarifying questions of the caller which differentiate between lawful carry and suspicious behavior indicative of a crime or intent to commit a crime. "Is he or shebrandishing the weapon? Is he breaking through a window? Or is he shopping for underwear at Wal-Mart?"

The simple act of openly carrying a firearm commensurate with local, county, state, and federal law should NEVER be grounds for entertaining calls from the "freaked out" crowd beyond that of discerning lawful from lawful activity and endeavoring to educate the caller that open carry is legal in most states, including California (via unarmed open carry). And at that, it should only result in a response if the individual in question is engaged in an activity indicative of either a crime or intent to commit a crime. OC of a firearm is legal. It is therefore, in and of itself, not grounds for argument of a crime or intent to commit a crime.

Preferrably, this should happen at the properly trained dispatcher stage, and should never result in wasted taxpayer dollars with an LEO response to each and every call consisting of nothing more than MWAG (man with a gun).

It's legal for me to water my lawn. It's legal for me to carry a firearm. Why should one call to the dispatcher, barring any additional information, result in a several hundred-dollar taxpayer response while the other is ignored?

Seriously, people - garden tools are deadly weapons! So are kitchen knives, coffee cups, pencils, pens, hands, feet, blunt objects...

The ONLY time we observe responses to such calls are when people are brandishing (key word, here) them in a threatening manner, or are actually using them to commit mayhem and harmful injury, or if they are otherwise using the weapons in an unlawful manner, such as shooting at ducks with a handgun.

Open carry is NOT "brandishing." Concealed carry is not "brandishing."

It's LONG past due that California and other police departments drop their ridiculous policies, some of which continue to violate federal, state, county, and local law, and start recognizing that we live in a great country!

Well, it's late, and I'm tired. Good evening, all.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Do cops in those states get extra hazard pay for putting the rights of their subjects before their safety?
Well, I would argue those actions are the gross result of poor citizen/dispatcher/LEO education with the respect to law-abiding UOC/OC/CC.

We're not the bad guys! Get a clue...
 

yelohamr

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

Gundude wrote:
yelohamr wrote:
Has anyone gotten the feeling this thread is being played? Remember all the emails within Sunnvale DPS and with other departments, comparing notes on how to get the D.A. to file on an UOCer for not showing I.D.? They admit to checking out this forum for intelligence purposes, why not have someone participate in the discussions directly. Even posting lenghty posts with correct spelling and grammar and God forbid...PARAGRAPHS.:D
Does this mean I don't get to meet Bubba? :cry:

Next time, UOC nekkid and you might.:D

(Naked = no clothes Nekkid = no clothes and you're up to something)
 

Nopal

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
90
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

StraightShooter,

Though I haven't been here for long, here isa brief observation of mine:

We are a group that is not easy to lead. The typical forum member is intelligent, headstrong, and fiercely loyal toits principles. What brings us all together is not leadership or structure, but the dedication to a common cause.

The easiest way to lead isthrough emotion, but this group prefers reason. When it comes to constitutional issues, instead of sheepfollowing a shepperd, you'll find that we are a convention of shepperds. If your intentions are honorable, you'll fit right in. If, however, your intention is to scatter the flockI'm sure you'll find that there isn't a flock to scatter.

(Note: Any religious undertone that this post may haveis merely coincidental).
 
Top