Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: leo encounter documentation form?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    what do you guys think about having a form to request LEOs to read,¬*fill out and sign prior to (e) checks? i think something like this could keep LEOs safe from law suits, and us safe from rights violations (beyond 12031[e])

    example:

    ¬*

    I, (officers name), representing (department name) will be performing a weapons inspection in accordance with P.C. 12031 (e). I assume all responsibility for the weapon in question while the weapon is in my possession. I understand that 12031(e) is merely an inspection of the firearm to ensure that the person in possession of the firearm is acting within the means of P.C. 12031. I further understand that any conversation or searches beyond P.C.12031 (e) are strictly voluntary unless reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS)¬*has been established,¬*detainment further than¬*12031(e) is not¬*warranted.¬*I understand that the legal possession of a firearm, including but not limited to "open carry" does not establish RAS. I understand that because "open carry" does not establish RAS, identification, while I can request it, does not have to be provided to me.

    Print

    Sign

    Date
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    Good idea but good luck getting one to fill it out.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    In your dreams!

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    Why would a cop want to fill that out?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    Even if he looked at it then said "shove this up you small horse", he would know the guidelines.

    This thought came up because I'm getting a kimber soon, if a cop drops my $1600 gun, I'm gonna be pretty mad.
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    This thought came up because I'm getting a kimber soon, if a cop drops my $1600 gun, I'm gonna be pretty mad.
    One does not carry a $1600 anything unless he can afford to have it seized, much less ding-ed.

    If you use it in genuine self-defense, odds are good the police will seize it as evidence until you are no-billed by the grand jury.

    Ever been to a gun store and asked why the shotgun behind the counter is loaded. The first answer is to repel boarders. The second answer is because the store employees don't want their personal guns seized as evidence if they shoot back at a robber.

    Why risk having some ham-handed klutz with a badge drop a nice gun during an (e)check? Especially since (e)checks areexpressly authorized, thusbypassing the need foreven reasonable suspicion by the cops. (E)checks seemto this non-resident to havean even higher likelihood than a detention.

    Carry something beat-up but reliable'swhat I always say.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    what do you guys think about having a form to request LEOs to read,fill out and sign prior to (e) checks?
    Cops is only interested in receiving one document from you--your ID.

    They seem to have an allergy to accepting other papers. I've seen them turn down offered documents with hostility and no thanks.

    But, you could always say, "Excuse me officer, but I just need to get some routineinformation for my report"reading the questions aloud, and writing downhis answers. When he says "no", you just reply, "Well, if you are doing nothing wrong, why do you object to answering a few questions?"
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    All that form is going to do is make a bad situation worse by trying to make a LEO sign/agree to anything under your terms. Most street cops can't do much of anything without asking their supervisors permission; much less sign any kind of legal document holding them or the city liable for a action they take. That form is a pipe dream.

    A recorder serves the same purpose, and you have no duty to inform the LEO it is running if in a public location, giving the OC'er some advantage if a violation of rights or property damage occurs.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    meh, i guess you guys are right.

    carry on...
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    DirtyKoala, I say go for it! It's YOUR detainment/inspection, have fun with it if you want. If an officer seems put off by the request he can opt to not stop you next time, his choice.

    If these statists want to waist my time then I have no problem waisting theirs or at a minimum trip them up and get them off their game

    I may try this the next time I'm 'e' checked (may be awhile, I've just gotten waves lately and I know others in San Jose are experiencing the same).

    I'm queuing something up to say to them like "You're not admitting guilt by signing this, you're only acknowledging that you're received it"

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    bad_ace wrote:
    SNIP I'm queuing something up to say to them like "You're not admitting guilt by signing this, you're only acknowledging that you're received it"
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    ...if a cop drops my $1600 gun, I'm gonna be pretty mad.
    Made me pretty sad when the cops molested my 2-week old Sig P220 (~$1200 gun) for an hour and then returned it with a gouge in the finish.

    But now, it's like a battle scar... I've grown fond of it and it's a conversation-starter at the range.
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    dirtykoala wrote:
    This thought came up because I'm getting a kimber soon, if a cop drops my $1600 gun, I'm gonna be pretty mad.
    One does not carry a $1600 anything unless he can afford to have it seized, much less ding-ed.

    If you use it in genuine self-defense, odds are good the police will seize it as evidence until you are no-billed by the grand jury.

    Ever been to a gun store and asked why the shotgun behind the counter is loaded. The first answer is to repel boarders. The second answer is because the store employees don't want their personal guns seized as evidence if they shoot back at a robber.

    Why risk having some ham-handed klutz with a badge drop a nice gun during an (e)check? Especially since (e)checks areexpressly authorized, thusbypassing the need foreven reasonable suspicion by the cops. (E)checks seemto this non-resident to havean even higher likelihood than a detention.

    Carry something beat-up but reliable'swhat I always say.
    That's a ridiculous thought, and amazingly the first time I've heard such "logic". What are the chances of you EVER having to discharge your weapon in self defense? Most of us will go through our entire life without even coming close to it...thank God! I have $1000+ on my belt every day I walk out of the house and I'm not what you call "well-off". If I ever do use it to defend myself, loosing my $1000 gun rig will be the last thing on my mind....minimizing emotional impact on my family and getting them the care they need will be foremost on my thoughts. I can always replace the gun eventually, no matter what I spent or how poor I am.

    Worrying a cop is going to damage my gun during a check: legitimate concern. Worried that I'm gonna loose my gun after I use it? Who cares?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post



    9 days left!

    If the intent of the 10 day wait is so that you can't buy a gun and go shoot someone, shouldn't you be exempt if you already own a gun?
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  15. #15
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    9 days left!

    If the intent of the 10 day wait is so that you can't buy a gun and go shoot someone, shouldn't you be exempt if you already own a gun?
    You know, I have never thought about that! But, you have a great point!
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    I printed out a form that said something to the effect of, "I, sworn CA law enforcement officer, prevented Yard Sale from entering this courthouse on this day and time, after having been shown his summons to appear." (This was at a courthouse that required illegal 4A searches of persons entering.) Of course it wasn't signed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    what do you guys think about having a form to request LEOs to read,fill out and sign prior to (e) checks? i think something like this could keep LEOs safe from law suits, and us safe from rights violations (beyond 12031[e])

    example:



    I, (officers name), representing (department name) will be performing a weapons inspection in accordance with P.C. 12031 (e). I assume all responsibility for the weapon in question while the weapon is in my possession. I understand that 12031(e) is merely an inspection of the firearm to ensure that the person in possession of the firearm is acting within the means of P.C. 12031. I further understand that any conversation or searches beyond P.C.12031 (e) are strictly voluntary unless reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS)has been established,detainment further than12031(e) is notwarranted.I understand that the legal possession of a firearm, including but not limited to "open carry" does not establish RAS. I understand that because "open carry" does not establish RAS, identification, while I can request it, does not have to be provided to me.

    Print

    Sign

    Date
    HAH !!!!

Posting Permissions

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