• 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.

'E' Check Question

RMafera

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
34
Location
San Diego, California, USA
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
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
imported post

I am not an attorney but I am guessing they DO NOT have the right or authority. They are federal agents and thus only authorized to deal with federal law.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
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!
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
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."
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
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?
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
imported post

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.
 

leoffensive

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
309
Location
San Diego, California, USA
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)
 

leoffensive

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
309
Location
San Diego, California, USA
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.
 

coolusername2007

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

flintlock tom

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
405
Location
San Diego, California, USA
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.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
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.
 

leoffensive

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
309
Location
San Diego, California, USA
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
 

Pace

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

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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? :cool:
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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
 

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
imported post

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

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
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.
 
Top