Proposed California LE Policy

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)...

Click to expand...

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).

imported post

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

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.

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.”

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.

imported post

OK. I've got a proposal (Maybe a ballot measure?):

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The state of California hereby recognizes the intent of the second amendment to the United States Constitution to guarantee all citizens of the United States of America the right to keep and bear arms.
(a)Neither the state legislature, nor any state agency, nor any county or city legislative body or agency shall make or enforce any law, regulation or policy effectively preventing any citizen of the state of California who has not been convicted of a felony, nor convicted of a misdemeanor where sentencing restricts possession of firearms, from openly exercising their right to possess, carry, or otherwise bear a loaded firearm in public.
(b)Every Law enforcement agency within the state of California with the authority to grant permits to carry a concealed weapon shall heretofore be required to issue said permit pursuant to California Penal Code section 12050. The wording of California Penal Code 12050 shall be immediately changed as follows: the text "that good cause exists for the issuance" shall hereby be changed to "that no reasonable and documented cause exists to deny issuance".
(c)This amendment shall supersede any part of existing code which which it conflicts, to include sections 12031 and 626.9.


I'm no lawyer, and I sure as hell ain't no politician, but I'd like to see something like this pass.

imported post

John,

If I am going to be carrying my Fire Arm out in the open.. I wouldn't be carrying the one that hasbeen stolen or the serial number filed off!Myhandgun is legal.. because i'ma "Law Abiding Citizen"... with Rights!

imported post

dirtykoala wrote:

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

Click to expand...

stfu
you toojpierce

imported post

dirtykoala wrote:

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.”

Click to expand...

stfu
you too jpierce

imported post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUEeTAwxGjo&feature=user

imported post

:cuss:i want more rights, not less. holstered is non threat.:celebrate

imported post

:what:i like what the other guy or gal said about right violation...