Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: 'E' Check Question

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    I went shooting out in Jacumba, CA last Saturday. I walked into the mini mart off the freeway to grab a cup of joe and a sandwich. When I was walking out a Border Patrol agent did a double take at the holster on my hip, but did say anything. Probably because I didn't have my gun holstered at the moment.

    My question is: Are Border Patrol agents allowed to carry out 'e' checks? In other words, are they peace officers?

    Mafera

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

    Post imported post

    There are mechanisims for them (all fed LE)to be considered as CApeace officersin the CA penal code (830 sections). They just have to jump through the hoops first. I would not refuse an 'e' check by them. Do not 'consent' (to preserve your 4th A rights) but do 'comply' politely if asked.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    There are mechanisims for them (all fed LE)to be considered as CApeace officersin the CA penal code (830 sections). They just have to jump through the hoops first. I would not refuse an 'e' check by them. Do not 'consent' (to preserve your 4th A rights) but do 'comply' politely if asked.
    I am normally in agreement with Cato. . but on this one, I believe we should be refusing 'e' checks anyway, but since most won't do that, I would at the least tell a Fed LE to pound sand. If they can't arrest and charge you for it they can't inspect. . . AND IANAL!

  4. #4
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    I am normally in agreement with Cato. . but on this one, I believe we should be refusing 'e' checks anyway, but since most won't do that, I would at the least tell a Fed LE to pound sand. If they can't arrest and charge you for it they can't inspect. . . AND IANAL!
    But you did stay at a holiday inn express last night...

    When asked in any tone but a polite "may I check/inspect your firearm?" it is proper to respond cordially with "I do not consent to any searches or seizures of myself or property, but I will not resist."
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    cato wrote:
    There are mechanisims for them (all fed LE)to be considered as CApeace officersin the CA penal code (830 sections). They just have to jump through the hoops first. I would not refuse an 'e' check by them. Do not 'consent' (to preserve your 4th A rights) but do 'comply' politely if asked.
    I am normally in agreement with Cato. . but on this one, I believe we should be refusing 'e' checks anyway, but since most won't do that, I would at the least tell a Fed LE to pound sand. If they can't arrest and charge you for it they can't inspect. . . AND IANAL!
    Cato is saying that if the Federal officers have done one of a few things which are listed in section 830, then they are considered peace officers and therefore can inspect. I believe the peace officer section says that Federal officers have powers of arrest no matter what though.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Theseus wrote:
    cato wrote:
    There are mechanisims for them (all fed LE)to be considered as CApeace officersin the CA penal code (830 sections). They just have to jump through the hoops first. I would not refuse an 'e' check by them. Do not 'consent' (to preserve your 4th A rights) but do 'comply' politely if asked.
    I am normally in agreement with Cato. . but on this one, I believe we should be refusing 'e' checks anyway, but since most won't do that, I would at the least tell a Fed LE to pound sand. If they can't arrest and charge you for it they can't inspect. . . AND IANAL!
    Cato is saying that if the Federal officers have done one of a few things which are listed in section 830, then they are considered peace officers and therefore can inspect. I believe the peace officer section says that Federal officers have powers of arrest no matter what though.
    I understand, but I would still make them pound sand. If they e check you and don't have the authority then you just found a case against a Federal agent.

    And how am I supposed to know if he has completed the requirements to become a CA approved LEO?

  7. #7
    Regular Member leoffensive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    hey man thanks for the invite!! syke

    haha i go shooting out there fairly often.

    i usually seek out a border patrol agent to make sure im not shooting in any agents direction as they are all over the place out there.

    the border patrol guys ive encountered while ive been out there have been really cool.(interesting coming from someone who looks like myself haha)



  8. #8
    Regular Member leoffensive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    Ca Patriot wrote:
    I remember watching some show that went along with real border patrol and customs agents. They had a scene where a lady pulls up to somecustoms officers in her car and she is drunk as hell. She complains about something and is yelling at them like a crazy drunk. She decides to leave. She gets back in her car to leave and the camera man says to the border patrol agent "are you going to stop and arrest her for DUI" ? The border patrol guy says they he cant since DUI is a state law and he has no authority to.
    being a highway worker i have talked to them before and the issue has come up and they do the same thing we do in caltrans.

    we call it in to CHP.

  9. #9
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    Theseus wrote:
    I am normally in agreement with Cato. . but on this one, I believe we should be refusing 'e' checks anyway, but since most won't do that, I would at the least tell a Fed LE to pound sand. If they can't arrest and charge you for it they can't inspect. . . AND IANAL!
    But you did stay at a holiday inn express last night...

    When asked in any tone but a polite "may I check/inspect your firearm?" it is proper to respond cordially with "I do not consent to any searches or seizures of myself or property, but I will not resist."
    How about just a good, old fashioned "No thank you. Have a nice day."

    Don't submit to requests. An e-check should always be upon a lawful order.


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

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    I'm assuming that since you're concerned about an e-check that you were back in town. If you were still out near the freeway around Jacumba you were probably in an unincorporated area where it is legal to go with loaded open carry. If that is the case then the e-check is off the table no matter the status of the LEO.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    flintlock tom wrote:
    I'm assuming that since you're concerned about an e-check that you were back in town. If you were still out near the freeway around Jacumba you were probably in an unincorporated area where it is legal to go with loaded open carry. If that is the case then the e-check is off the table no matter the status of the LEO.
    Jacumba isn't near anything but the Mexican border. A few yrs ago I delivered auto parts to the only mechanic there. It is near the San Diego/Imperial county line. I also lived in Boulevard, which isn't near anything either. It's claim to fame is "no one knows where it is" Bumper stickers said....."Where the hell is Boulevard"

    Edit:

    Wait....The Golden Acorn Casino is near Boulevard.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  12. #12
    Regular Member leoffensive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    flintlock tom wrote:
    I'm assuming that since you're concerned about an e-check that you were back in town. If you were still out near the freeway around Jacumba you were probably in an unincorporated area where it is legal to go with loaded open carry. If that is the case then the e-check is off the table no matter the status of the LEO.
    Jacumba isn't near anything but the Mexican border. A few yrs ago I delivered auto parts to the only mechanic there. It is near the San Diego/Imperial county line. I also lived in Boulevard, which isn't near anything either. It's claim to fame is "no one knows where it is" Bumper stickers said....."Where the hell is Boulevard"

    Edit:

    Wait....The Golden Acorn Casino is near Boulevard.
    dont forget la posta on the otherside of the 8

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Border Patrol are peace officers/police offices in almost all 50 states and in theory can enforce the law. I do know (and there is BP officer in OCDO) that USBP makes it very, very clear to their officers that they MAY NOT do anything regarding local law enforcement, unless its in the direct performance of their duty or they are preventing a serious crime.

    If a BP officer saw someone drunk driving, and knew it to be so, and did not arrest someone, they would most likely be dismissed and possibly charged if that person then killed somoene.

    As for the e-check, if they did it, they'd probably be suspended for interfering with the normal course of business of citizens.

  14. #14
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    I'm looking in my crystal ball and see "e" being dealt with soon. Don't be a criminal defendant in the mean time. capeech?

  15. #15
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    Good to know. The day CGF takes our e-violations head on, is the day I donate to them.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  16. #16
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    Good to know. The day CGF takes our e-violations head on, is the day I donate to them.

    We should all be donating now for all they have already done, are doing, and will be doing.


    CGF's Score Card

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    I think it is worthy to mention, that inmy friends' experience, and my own "don't **** with the border patrol".



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    I was stopped at a immigration checkpoint by the Salton sea on Hwy 86 in Imperial County last year. I had a German Citizen in the car. He had to find his passport, so they made us go to a secondary inspection area. A 12 gauge shotgun with attached full ammo sling was in the backseat of the(4 door) truck. They noticed, and asked if it was loaded. I told them it did not matter if it was or not, it is not a federal problem, and the officer walked away until my passenger got his passport from the back seat next to the shotgun and walked over and showed it to them. My passenger was a german police officer, so I guess they were not too worried. Not all LEO's are freaked out by guns, but I was surprised by the lack of officer safety. Guess we did not look like threats to the national security.

Posting Permissions

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