Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: UOCer stopped in E Palo Alto store and asked to leave

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...nclick_check=1


    A man apparently inspired by a news report on Open Carry gun activists...
    The man, who lives in Redwood City, later apologized to police and said "he didn't really think it out," Norris added.


    Another'darwin' GFSZ arrestee in the making...





    art work by Oleg Volk:

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I couldn't get the link to work not sure if it's me or the link.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    It's working for me.

    Here is the 'Paul Harvy'.



    News report inspires man to display gun in E. Palo Alto store

    By Jessica Bernstein-Wax


    Daily News Staff Writer


    A man apparently inspired by a news report on Open Carry gun activists strolled into an East Palo Alto supermarket with a handgun on his hip Wednesday and began shopping for groceries, police said.


    The store manager at Mi Pueblo Food Center in the Ravenswood 101 shopping complex alerted police after patrons became frightened, said East Palo Alto police Sgt. Roderick Norris.

    About four officers responded and found the man with an unloaded, holstered handgun on his hip and a loaded magazine in his pocket shopping in the store. Police determined he hadn't broken any laws, but the store manager asked him to leave, Norris said.

    "Each business has the prerogative not to serve anyone that they want," Norris said. "He's not part of any group or organization according to him. He just wanted to exercise his rights. I guess he ... saw on TV that it was legal to do so."

    The man, who lives in Redwood City, later apologized to police and said "he didn't really think it out," Norris added.

    Open Carry advocates have made headlines in recent weeks for displaying unloaded, holstered guns in public places around the Bay Area. The group has said it wants every state to legalize carrying loaded guns in public.

    California Penal Code bars carrying concealed weapons without a county-issued license but says it isn't a crime to openly display a firearm in a belt holster. However, it remains illegal for the gun to be loaded in most cases.

    "The concern for us is that you don't know what the mind set of this person is," Norris said. "You don't know if they're out there just expressing their right to do this or if they have something more sinister in mind."



    In a statement earlier this month, Lt. Ray Lunny of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office warned residents that officers have the authority to examine visible firearms to make sure they are unloaded.

    "Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation," Lunny said. "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.' "

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    I couldn't get the link to work not sure if it's me or the link.
    It's you.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rightĎs existence is all the reason he needs.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    This a repost.

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    onedavetoomany wrote:
    This a repost.
    The article was posted: 01/28/2010 03:00:00 AM PST

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    I couldn't get the link to work not sure if it's me or the link.
    It's you.
    I figured, been having connection problems lately.

    "mindset" that the new police catchphrase. I heard this personally from the Deputy Chief of Bellingham and several other police officers.

    I told them the first clue to my mindset is I am open carrying, most criminals hide their weapons.

    I also have found managers will use one complaint from a customer or outright lie about 'panicking customers' to push their own private agenda.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    123

    Post imported post

    "You don't know if they're out there just expressing their right to do this or if they have something more sinister in mind."


    Anyone wearing a gun must be up to no good. We should assume they are guilty until we interrogate them and maybe a little waterboarding to find out what their intentions are. Maybe we should flip a coin:

    HEADS: Something "sinister" in mind.
    TAILS: Exercising their right.












    .

  9. #9
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    In certain parts of Ca OC will be convictedby the court of generalpublic opinion -at this time. And the media ARE not our friends. Why some are trying to wage a public information campaign right now is beyond my strategic understanding.

    "Darwin" arrestees also do us a disservicein the public relations sphere. We really need to be operating from the protection of a court protected right before taking this "campaign" to the public. They deserve to have a clear and exercisable RKBA and not be put in jeopardy of loosing their Rights for not having "thought about it". People are going to hear the news stories, not hear about GFSZ, strap up and walk out the door.

    This individual, although not yet faced with 626.9,could bejust like the 74 y.o. GFSZ arrestee, facing a 10 year loss of rights in Ca. And the 74 yois still I think to this daynot taking advice from those who are trying to help his situation.



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

    Post imported post

    Rugerp345 wrote:
    "You don't know if they're out there just expressing their right to do this or if they have something more sinister in mind."
    Anyone wearing a gun must be up to no good. We should assume they are guilty until we interrogate them and maybe a little water boarding to find out what their intentions are. Maybe we should flip a coin:

    HEADS: Something "sinister" in mind.
    TAILS: Exercising their right.
    And until PC 12031 e is struck down, which authorizes inspection of firearms where the loaded ban is in effect, the state's agents will feel free to create conflict and a "dangerous situation" where none need exist absent normal RAS to detain for investigation.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Rugerp345 wrote:
    "You don't know if they're out there just expressing their right to do this or if they have something more sinister in mind."
    Anyone wearing a gun must be up to no good. We should assume they are guilty until we interrogate them and maybe a little water boarding to find out what their intentions are. Maybe we should flip a coin:

    HEADS: Something "sinister" in mind.
    TAILS: Exercising their right.
    And until PC 12031 e is struck down, which authorizes inspection of firearms where the loaded ban is in effect, the state's agents will feel free to create conflict and a "dangerous situation" where none need exist absent normal RAS to detain for investigation.
    Is E-check mandatory?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Thepeace officermay check...
    12031 (e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
    the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
    to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
    vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
    incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
    Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
    this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
    this section.

    This sub-section will fall to a federal court challenge in the not so distant future, a little birdie told me so...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Fremont, California, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    As cato pointed out, officers are "authorized" to do an (e)check. It is not mandatory for them to do so.

  14. #14
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Is E-check mandatory?
    Absolutely not.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    onedavetoomany wrote:
    This a repost.
    The article was posted: 01/28/2010 03:00:00 AM PST
    This was the original post

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/37255.html

    .... but this one has more comments now anyways

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Is E-check mandatory?
    Absolutely not.
    Cato wrote:

    Rugerp345 wrote:
    "You don't know if they're out there just expressing their right to do this or if they have something more sinister in mind."
    Anyone wearing a gun must be up to no good. We should assume they are guilty until we interrogate them and maybe a little water boarding to find out what their intentions are. Maybe we should flip a coin:

    HEADS: Something "sinister" in mind.
    TAILS: Exercising their right.
    And until PC 12031 e is struck down, which authorizes inspection of firearms where the loaded ban is in effect, the state's agents will feel free to create conflict and a "dangerous situation" where none need exist absent normal RAS to detain for investigation.
    This to me show the intent of officers who know it is legal, yet don't use discretion to just let you go if you are not engaged in any unlawful activity. And they create their own "dangerous" situation.

    The general public does not seem to be the problem in California. I don't think any major news that I have seen has been "bad press" or detrimental to the movement. It is the press releases, and interviews and actions of California LEO's that are causing the problem.


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...nclick_check=1


    A man apparently inspired by a news report on Open Carry gun activists...
    The man, who lives in Redwood City, later apologized to police and said "he didn't really think it out," Norris added.


    Another'darwin' GFSZ arrestee in the making...

    Yet another example of LEA over-reaction...this time to a man shopping for groceries. Let's not label him a 'darwin'...he didn't do anything wrong, didn't break the law, and I suspect in reality the only peoplehe "frightened" was the right people.

    As far as his quote, I suspect he didn't really know what to say to the media and/or LEO's (wholikelyintimidated him), andquite franklyhe shouldn't have to "really think about it"...he's exercising his rights.


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    "The concern for us is that you don't know what the mind set of this person is,"

    Well........judging from his actions, any reasonable person could tell that his intention was to buy some groceries. When someone is gong to rob a store they usually (I'd bet somewhere in the neighborhood of 99.99% of the time) don't openly carry their weapon and shop for groceries prior to committing a felony at said location. Just an observation. BTW that kind of fear-mongoring, slanted journalism really torques my lugnuts.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    For those not familiar with East Palo Alto, at one time it was the murder capitol of Ca. It's still a place I avoid at all costs. The vast majority of the population is people of "color" and most crimes committed there or in nearby towns are usually committed bybad guys from EPA. I think there is a large contingency of Pacific Islanders also. You don't want to mess with them. Most of the males arepoor, uneducated, and unemployed, andweight 250lbs and up. The EPA PD consistently have to call neighboring PD and CHP for mutual aid when things really go bad there.

    The sad thing about EPA is that affluent Palo Alto is rightnext door. Homes there run in the multi-millions, if you can find one.

    If I went shopping in EPA, especially in a Mexican-oriented super market, I'd OC also. Might even CC just for safety. Friday and Saturday nights are bad. I don't know anyone in their right mind that would venture into that war zone late on weekend nights.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    108

    Post imported post

    Hawaii FiveO wrote:
    For those not familiar with East Palo Alto, at one time it was the murder capitol of Ca.¬* It's still a place I avoid at all costs.¬* The vast majority of the population is people of "color" and most crimes committed there or in nearby towns are usually committed by¬*bad guys from EPA.¬* I think there is a large contingency of Pacific Islanders also.¬* You don't want to mess with them.¬* Most of the males are¬*poor, uneducated, and unemployed, and¬*weight 250lbs and up.¬* The EPA PD consistently have to call neighboring PD and CHP for mutual aid when things really go bad there.

    The sad thing about EPA is that affluent Palo Alto is right¬*next door.¬* Homes there run in the multi-millions, if you can find one.

    If I went shopping in EPA, especially in a Mexican-oriented super market, I'd OC also.¬* Might even CC just for safety.¬* Friday and Saturday nights are bad.¬* I don't know anyone in their right mind that would venture into that war zone late on weekend nights.

    ¬*
    It's not as bad as it used to be, but I still wouldn't hang around there at night.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    well said! great analogy

  22. #22
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Is EPA as bad as San Leandro?

    I hated that f-ing dump.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    EPA is crazy. I only go there if I need to get to the dumbarton bridge, or their new shopping center right off 101 with best buy, home depot, nordstrom rack...

    Growing up in palo alto, people I knew would often go to EPA for, hm, stuff. most would come back with a crazy story, some would come back shot, one guy I know got raped by a few guys for "being on their turf". I had a friend get shot in the head there, two shots were fired, the first one missed, second hit him in the head, they rulled it as a suicide. Epa still has dirt roads in areas, they have 0 banks, and I'm not sure if they have a high school or not yet. When I was in high school kids from EPA would come over to our PA schools, (rant, if you ask me, EPA is a different county than palo alto, they shouldn't be allowed in palo alto schools) BSGood news is that it can be cheap, I knew a guy who paid $300 a month to rent a 3BR house, this was in 2007. They also have cool guns, I was once offered a 9mm glock with a silencer and 2-30rnd mags for $700, criminals are so much better off than we are!
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Folsom, , USA
    Posts
    389

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    It's working for me.

    Here is the 'Paul Harvy'.





    "Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation," Lunny said. "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.' "
    Gee, isn't that dispatchers fault?

    A plumber doesnt recieve a "man with a plumbing issue" call and jumps forjoyassuming he has a $3000 plumbing project and get pissed at the customer when it turns out to be a $50 clog does he?

    Last time I checked the average human doesn't just call 911 and say "man with gun" and then hangs up.

    MWAG call dispatcher- so easy a cave man can do it.


  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    How correct. The 911 call on me was at least a 5 min. call were they kept reporting, "now he is walking past such and such". I guess a man exercising his legally protected method of carrying his firearm and drinking a hot Starbucks and walking down the road was still threat enough to be stopped at gun point to the head?

    It is because the cops want the confrontation!!!! They get off on it. There was a study years ago, I have no clue to where to look for the cites.

    It goes like this some attorneys were trying to argue that it wasn't criminals fault in the crimes they commit. They did scans and other tests and found out that their brains are wired a little different. So it really wasn't their fault, they didn't have a choice.

    Now here's the kicker, Police brains are wired the same way!!!!!

    So are firemen and other thrill seekers. Some even dubbed it the T-gene ( I think ) for Thrill. So it is up to people what they do it is the choices they make whether they use this T-gene for good or for evil.

    We would hope they use it to save someone from a fire, or rush in to save someone from a violent criminal. Which they do, when given the chance. The reality of the situation though is that this exciting job of being a police officer, is actually boring most of the time. Contrary to what news and officials would have us believe most officers are not constantly in danger. So when some see a chance to satisfy that T- addiction they jump on it regardless of what the 911 call is. Creating the andrenaline rush or dangerous situation they so crave.

    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •