Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Proposed California LE Policy

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Proposed policy for California law enforcement that would be constitutionally fair to law abiding citizens bearing unloaded firearms and yet meet law enforcement's safety concerns. Please send this to your Sheriffs and Police Chiefs...


    See UPDATED attached .pdf

    I should note that I am not a lawyer.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    OK John...its time to wake up! Your dreaming hard! Wake up John its time for school!

  3. #3
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post


    "and verify serial number."

    And just where the hell do they get the statutory authority to verify the serial number?

    E-checks are bad enough, but giving them persmission to run the serial number is laying your fourth and fifth amendment rights in the gutter.

  4. #4
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    Yeah, JohnD, this proposal is no good. What you fail to understand is that 12031(e) checks are unconstitutional and a clear violation of one's 4A rights. It's only a matter of time before this is challenged by the right people.

    Also, your letter infers the lie thatguns in the hands of the law abiding are to be feared, and that something must be done about it. And that in itself is fear mongering. The truth is there is no safer place than being near an armed law abiding citizen.


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

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    We may not agree with it but California law requires a visible serial number on firearms with some exceptions.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    We need to be reasonable under the current conditions, this is not LAW only POLICY until we get our laws changed in Cali.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    JohnD wrote:
    We may not agree with it but California law requires a visible serial number on firearms with some exceptions.
    I hope my S&W is an exception. The serial number is covered by anything mounted on the rail.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    JohnD wrote:
    Proposed policy for California law enforcement that would be constitutionally fair to law abiding citizens bearing unloaded firearms and yet meet law enforcement's safety concerns. Please send this to your Sheriffs and Police Chiefs...


    See UPDATED attached .pdf
    John, what you write in your post, and what you write in the .pdf contradict each other.
    This proposal of policy is not constitutionally fair, nor does it in anyway keep law enforcement officers safe from non-threatening, law abiding citizens.

    Are you serious? Or just looking for a reaction?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    There are two points here:

    1) The entire procedure is unconstitutional.
    2) That being said, we need to work with police to do thing sin the mean time in a way that helps everyone. Police are not our enemy, the lack of a constitutional law in California is the enemy.

    I'm tired of people making the police to be the enemy, because it's not true -- they are doing what they have often been taugth to, and lets bring them onto our side. The few bad cops out there, let them wall by the wayside and bring the good ones over.

    JohnD wrote:
    Proposed policy for California law enforcement that would be constitutionally fair to law abiding citizens bearing unloaded firearms and yet meet law enforcement's safety concerns. Please send this to your Sheriffs and Police Chiefs...


    See UPDATED attached .pdf

  10. #10
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    While it may be technically illegal to hide a serial number, that does NOT give the police the right to run the serial number on every gun they do an e-check on.

    If you have a firearm that can take an "accessory" that obscuresthe serial number from view, I highly encourage you to get and use that accessory.

    The ONLY reason a LEO would run the serial number it to verify that the firearm isn't stolen. By doing this, the LEO isinvestigating you for, at a minimum, the crime of receiving stolen property. This criminal investigation is being conducted without any reasonable articulable suspiscion that you have actually commited that crime. Thus you are being treated as a defacto criminal. This is unacceptable behavior on the part of the LEO.

    This is why, if at all possible legally, you should not have the serial number visible.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    There's a laser sight on the rail. I don't carry the tool with me, so the serial # stays covered. Since the number is not altered or defaced, I'm not going to worry about it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    JohnD wrote:
    We may not agree with it but California law requires a visible serial number on firearms with some exceptions.
    There is no law that says you cannot coverthe serial number on your own personal property. Most simply choose not to because of a consumer product PC which is intended for sale of goods so one can verify an item isn't stolen, such as a pawn shop.

    Besides, running a serial number is not permitted under 12031(e) as that amounts to a search, not a mereunloaded conditioninspection.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  13. #13
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    JohnD wrote:
    We need to be reasonable under the current conditions, this is not LAW only POLICY until we get our laws changed in Cali.
    Reasonable means not beingstopped, detained, harassed, 4A violated, 12031(e) violated, lectured, and finally be let go after being put on public display in our communities for nothing other than exercising our right to self defense, our right to life, our right to freely travel, and our right to carry our lawful personal property.

    Oh, and the last time I was out walking with my son, I don't recall being stopped, detained, harassed, or violated as a possible kidnapper. Go figure.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    JohnD wrote:
    We need to be reasonable under the current conditions, this is not LAW only POLICY until we get our laws changed in Cali.
    Reasonable means not beingstopped, detained, harassed, 4A violated, 12031(e) violated, lectured, and finally be let go after being put on public display in our communities for nothing other than exercising our right to self defense, our right to life, our right to freely travel, and our right to carry our lawful personal property.

    Oh, and the last time I was out walking with my son, I don't recall being stopped, detained, harassed, or violated as a possible kidnapper. Go figure.
    +1

    The last time I walked across a store parking lot with my groceries I wasn't stopped and asked to produce a receipt, to make sure I hadn't stolen them...go figure,

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    JohnD wrote:
    We need to be reasonable under the current conditions, this is not LAW only POLICY until we get our laws changed in Cali.
    Reasonable means not beingstopped, detained, harassed, 4A violated, 12031(e) violated, lectured, and finally be let go after being put on public display in our communities for nothing other than exercising our right to self defense, our right to life, our right to freely travel, and our right to carry our lawful personal property.
    +1

    Terry v Ohio has already established what is "reasonable" for the purposes of police powers to "stop and frisk" or further investigate criminal activity. IMO it is an affront to liberty to expect us to give any more power to LE than they already have.

    And "current conditions" are no excuse to ignore the US Constitution. (Refer to the treatment of African Americanes for most of our nation's history.) Wrong is wrong no matter what time of day it is, no matter what time of year it is.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  16. #16
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    how about a plan that says,,,, observe the open carrier to confirm that no laws are being broken...
    then if the LEO feels like saying hi,,, he can go say hi,,,
    in the absence of any CRIME,, the LEO will say, by see ya have a nice day.
    if the LEO is still feeling talky, they might say something nice, like neat gun!
    some times an LEO might say, nice weather were having, huh!
    this should not be concidered a complete list of LEO interaction,, other phrases are also appropriate.
    for instance i like to talk about ducks,,,, he could ask if you if you like ducks.
    he could ask you if your gun is unloaded,,, you would not be required to answer!
    after all there is no reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, or that you are about to commit a crime,,,
    that clearly shows that it is only a consensual visit, and you are not required to cooperate in any way.
    after the lawfully open carrying citizen has enjoyed as much of the visit as he wants, he will just walk away as if the LEO was nobody inparticular, and be on his merry way!
    a very polite open carryer will support the credo , that an armed society is a polite society,,, so before leaving he should say by by now, you have a nice day

    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    i dont get it...

    this seems to be working backwards. as said before, a 12031 (e) check is a violation of constitutional rights (the 4th one), serial number verification is against Arizona V. Hicks.

    instead of saying "Officer/Deputy to order subject to “keep hands off the gun” (but not order hands in air or subject prone so as to embarrass or humiliate)." it should be clear that at the point an officer orders a subject to put their hands in the air, interlace them behind their head, lay on the ground... the LEO is performing an illegal detainment. ill say it now and again, 12031 (e) is not a detainment, it is only to be used for inspection of the weapon to determine of detainment is reasonable. (i.e. loaded magazine in mag well)

    i thought it was pretty fair durring my Sept detainment with Sunnyvale PD that on initial contact they said only to keep my hands where they could see them, and not make any weird movements.

    maybe this could read something like "the contacting officer may request that the subject not reach toward the region of the weapon, and keep their hands in plain view. an order for the subject to put their hands in the air, prone out, get on their knees, etc. is an unlawful detainment, seeing as how initial contact is not based on reasonable articulable suspicion"

    instead of "Officer/Deputy may take control of gun to determine if loaded and verify serial number. All firearms laws apply." it should say something more about how a 12031(e) check is not a detainment, it is a violation of the 4a, and it is just a current CA law that allows theexamineation of a weapon to verrify that it is unloaded. in order to detain someone LEO needs RAS, an openly carried handgun is not RAS. if the leo performs a 12031 (e) check and finds the gun to be loaded, RAS is established and investigation, and detainment and/or arrest begins. it should also mention Arizona v. Hicks, LEO can non record the serial number, if they see it come into plain view while performing an (e) check and they memorize it, they can call it in. it would be very hard for anyone to memorize a serial number while performing an (e) check. the physical part of the the e check (drawing the gun from the subject, racking the slide, and closing it) should take about 3-5 seconds. LEO can not maintain control of the firearm for any reason, including calling in the serial number beyond the (e) check.

    maybe it could say "Under current CA law, an officer may breach thier oath to defend the constitution if they so choose, and violate a persons 4th amendment right. The officer has the choice to search and/or seize a firearm without reasonable articulable suspicion to verify that it is unloaded" and then you can explain relevant amedments and current CA law.

    Recommended procedure for initial contact with
    HOLSTERED HANDGUN subject that LACKS

    suspicious or threatening activity:

    ·
    Officer/Deputy to order subject to “keep hands off the gun” (but not order hands in air or

    subject prone so as to embarrass or humiliate).

    pretty accurate

    ·
    Officer/Deputy may grasp and or draw service pistol, having draw advantage (but refrain from

    pointing at subject so as to cause undue fear), unless subjects hand(s) reach for gun.

    no, they really shouldnt have their guns out when dealing with a law abiding citizen. i would be ok with them having their gun out, ifwe could also haveours loaded and in the same position that they do. with LEO out there that think like Rod Tuason, it is dangerous to allow cops to have their guns out when we dont have a fighting chance against a cop set to kill us.

    ·
    Respecting subject's right to: remain silent, decline voluntary consent to search, and or decline

    presentation of identification.

    sure, but this should have some citation for them. like the 5A, 4A, and PC 148.9
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Payson, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,146

    Post imported post

    JohnD wrote:
    We may not agree with it but California law requires a visible serial number on firearms with some exceptions.
    Okay, I am an out of stater. When I carry in CA, (or ANYWHERE for that matter) the serial number is not linked to me in ANY way at all. How would this benefit anything/anyone at all? Yes it needs to be there by law, butwhy should it be "RUN" through a system? It would verify NOTHING at all.

    I do not think that you are on the same page as all of us here....

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    JohnD wrote:
    Proposed policy for California law enforcement that would be constitutionally fair to law abiding citizens bearing unloaded firearms and yet meet law enforcement's safety concerns. Please send this to your Sheriffs and Police Chiefs...


    See UPDATED attached .pdf
    TROLL

    He tried the same thing at CGN.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Thanks for pointing that out, my PX4 Storm is the same under the rail. I should note though, the law states regarding serial # "visible" and not "altered". Running without just cause could constitute unlawful detention or be privacy violation. Running it for stolen? I don't know. I am not a lawyer.

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    ...12031 (e) is not a detainment, it is only to be used for inspection of the weapon to determine of detainment is reasonable. (i.e. loaded magazine in mag well)...

    To be clear, this is the current law of the land in CA only, and only until it is challenged properly. 12031(e) is obviously considered a "detention" under Terry and its progeny. It is a seizure of the person any time you're not free to go, even if just for 1 minute.

    The "examination" is also obviously a "search" under Terry and its progeny. I think it's also abundantly clear and obvious that such a search is an unreasonable one when viewed in light of the US Supreme Court's opinions.

    The CA Supreme Court erred in it's interpretation of 12031(e), and the appelant's counsel did a poor job, IMO, at presenting a thorough argument against 12031(e).

    FWIW, I think this case lends validity to CGF's fears about open carry at this time. Without proper representation, it's easy to create bad case law that will take decades to fix. 12031(e) should have been ruled unconstitutional, and we'd not be worried about "e" checks at all. This means LE wouldn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to investigatory stops.

    In essence, some incompetant attorney can screw the pooch for all of us.

    This is why I'm abiding by the stand-down (for the most part).
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    School? you don't make sense, already have an Associate Degree in Administration of Justice.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Thanks to all of you for your comments, I was not expecting such a reaction; mostly like the comment by 1245ADefender- I wish that could be the policy.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    I think that this is also a good policy:
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Yes, a better word to use is "inspection" (it's more specific in purpose) as dirtykoala mentions, rather than "take control of gun" I will make the change to clarify that.


Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •