• 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.

Proposed California LE Policy

JohnD

New member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
7
Location
, ,
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.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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.
 

coolusername2007

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

JohnD

New member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
7
Location
, ,
imported post

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

JohnD

New member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
7
Location
, ,
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.
 

yelohamr

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

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
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?
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
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
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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.
 

yelohamr

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

coolusername2007

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

coolusername2007

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

camsoup

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
167
Location
Red Bluff, California, USA
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, :)
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
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 Negroes 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.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
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
 

dirtykoala

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
644
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.

[align=left]Recommended procedure for initial contact with
HOLSTERED HANDGUN subject that LACKS[/align]
[align=left]suspicious or threatening activity:[/align]

[align=left]·
Officer/Deputy to order subject to “keep hands off the gun” (but not order hands in air or[/align]
[align=left]subject prone so as to embarrass or humiliate). [/align]
[align=left]
pretty accurate[/align]
[align=left]·
Officer/Deputy may grasp and or draw service pistol, having draw advantage (but refrain from[/align]
[align=left]pointing at subject so as to cause undue fear), unless subjects hand(s) reach for gun. [/align]
[align=left]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.[/align]

[align=left]·
Respecting subject's right to: remain silent, decline voluntary consent to search, and or decline[/align]
presentation of identification.

sure, but this should have some citation for them. like the 5A, 4A, and PC 148.9
 

b1ack5mith

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
1,146
Location
Payson, Utah, USA
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....
 

yelohamr

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

JohnD

New member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
7
Location
, ,
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.
 
Top