Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Open Carry on my Property?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    yet another carrying question. This one not specifically covered in that nice, helpful FAQ.

    I know that I can carry whatever inside of my house and that I can UOC outdoors but the rub is that all of my property is within 1000' of a school. I'm not planning on doing yardwork armed but more specifically, can I carry my gun to my car (in the driveway) then put it inside of its case or doI need to do that indoors?




  2. #2
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Max Entropy wrote:
    yet another carrying question. This one not specifically covered in that nice, helpful FAQ.

    I know that I can carry whatever inside of my house and that I can UOC outdoors but the rub is that all of my property is within 1000' of a school. I'm not planning on doing yardwork armed but more specifically, can I carry my gun to my car (in the driveway) then put it inside of its case or doI need to do that indoors?


    PC 626.9 states: (c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
    under any of the following circumstances:
    (1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful.


    Thus, it is perfectly legal to open carry your firearm on your own property.

    I am not a lawyer, and nothing posted here should be considered legal advice.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Technically, you can, but beware...

    § 626.9.Possession of firearm in school zone or on grounds of public or private university or college; Exceptions(a)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.(b)Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written permission of the school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as specified in subdivision (f).(c)Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:(1)Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful.(2)When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.

    Illustrative casesDefendant was properly convicted of possession of a firearm within a school zone where at least part of the parked car in which defendant, armed with a handgun, was sitting was located within 1,000 feet of a school. People v. Mejia (1999, Cal App 4th Dist) 72 Cal App 4th 1269, 85 Cal Rptr 2d 690, 1999 Cal App LEXIS 577, review denied (1999, Cal) 1999 Cal LEXIS 6403.Even though defendant resided in his camper, the camper was not a residence within the meaning of Pen C § 626.9(c)(1); the gun was found behind the sofa in the living area of the camper and therefore, the exception of Pen C § 626.9(c)(2) did not apply either. People v. Anson (2002, Cal App 4th Dist) 105 Cal App 4th 22, 129 Cal Rptr 2d 124, 2002 Cal App LEXIS 5282, review denied (2003, Cal) 2003 Cal LEXIS 2052.Where defendant possessed a firearm on a sidewalk that was within 1,000 feet of a high school, it was irrelevant whether an easement for a public way existed because the sidewalk was not private property within the meaning of the Pen C § 626.9(c)(1) exception to the possession offense. People v. Tapia (2005, Cal App 2d Dist) 129 Cal App 4th 1153, 29 Cal Rptr 3d 158, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 873, review denied (2005, Cal) 2005 Cal LEXIS 9991.Where defendant possessed a firearm on a sidewalk that was within 1,000 feet of a high school, the application of Pen C § 626.9 was not unconstitutionally vague because any property interest owned by defendant's father in the sidewalk was not of a sort that a reasonable citizen would understand to be private; hence, a defense that the sidewalk was private property was not viable, and the trial court did not infringe defendant's right to present a defense under § 626.9(c)(1) by excluding evidence of a claimed easement. People v. Tapia (2005, Cal App 2d Dist) 129 Cal App 4th 1153, 29 Cal Rptr 3d 158, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 873, review denied (2005, Cal) 2005 Cal LEXIS 9991.Where defendant possessed a firearm on a sidewalk that was within 1,000 feet of a high school, in violation of Pen C § 626.9, an instructional error was harmless because the sidewalk was not private property within the meaning of § 626.9 as a matter of law and because defendant, having violated Pen C § 12031(a)(1) by carrying a firearm in a public place, was not entitled to claim the exception of Pen C § 626.9(c)(1) for lawful possession on private property. People v. Tapia (2005, Cal App 2d Dist) 129 Cal App 4th 1153, 29 Cal Rptr 3d 158, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 873, review denied (2005, Cal) 2005 Cal LEXIS 9991.

    Once you hit thesidewalk, it's open season on you.





  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    Wow, you guys are on it.

    Thanks, I'm trying to consider all of the posibilities of something going wrong.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    Only carry outside, inside a FENCED yard. No fence is considered public access, regardless who owns the property.

    Public access area carry will violate 629.9

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Ca Patriot wrote:
    I have a story.

    About 5 years ago a friend of mine was linked by the police to a theft of an expensivemountain bike in Big Bear. The way he was linked was because he and 3 other guys were in Big Bear for a mountain biking race. They rented a hotel room. Sometime during the night a bike was stolen from a different room and a witness reported the bike being taken to my friends room number.

    My friend had already left the hotel by the time the police were called. Apparently it was one of the other 2 guys who took the bike. My friend had no knowledge of it.

    Anyway, the police tracked my friend down a few weeks later at his home in Carlsbad and asked if they could come out to his house and talk to him. He said sure.

    The police showed up and my friend answered the door with his loaded .45 in a holster on his hip. The police told him they wouldnt interview him if he had the handgun on him. He said he was willing to put it away if the police put their handguns in their car. The police called in 15 CARS for backup and my friend was detained and arreste.

    No charges were filed and he was released the next day.

    The police called him again 3 days later and asked him to come into the dept for an interview and he said no, but that the police were welcome to come to his house for an interview.

    Jist of the story, the police dont like it when you have a gun on your own property.

    Is it legal ? Yes. Will they arrest you anyway ? Maybe.
    Your friend was an idiot. One of those guys that do stuff just because they can. There was no point other than to push buttons. What, was he feeling threatened in his own home? Did he think that the police were going to attack him? He caused a lot of grief for all involved (I would have just walked away rather than call in 15 cars, but that is another matter) and he gained or proved what? Did he think that the police were going to interview a potential theft suspect while he was armed?

    Stupid stuff like that makes all gun rights advocates look bad. Grow up and pick your battles like an adult, not like a petulant child.

  7. #7
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    greg36ff wrote:
    Your friend was an idiot. One of those guys that do stuff just because they can. There was no point other than to push buttons. What, was he feeling threatened in his own home? Did he think that the police were going to attack him? He caused a lot of grief for all involved (I would have just walked away rather than call in 15 cars, but that is another matter) and he gained or proved what? Did he think that the police were going to interview a potential theft suspect while he was armed?

    Stupid stuff like that makes all gun rights advocates look bad. Grow up and pick your battles like an adult, not like a petulant child.
    Maybe the guy wasn't a gun rights activist, but a liberty/property rights activist? I do think the majority of gun rights activists make themselves look foolish much of the time, that much we are agreed. If only it were such a simple issue as "gun" rights. Perhaps he wanted a more polite and uncoercive conversation with the police. It's very easy to be intimidated when you are the only one in the room who isn't armed. Why should the government have a monopoly on force?

    A property owner has the right to allow or deny anyone access to their property under their own terms, except for officials possessing a lawful warrant. The cops didn't like that he was armed in his own home. What was their reason? Nobody knows. He wasn't breaking any law, and it is his prerogative to be armed in his own home. I would not let anyone I didn't know into my home with a weapon, and that includes the police.

    He offered a compromise which they really didn't like and they acted like thugs. True, he could have exercised his right not to speak to them, but that is neither here nor there. He was willing to be cooperative. If instead he had told them to beat feet back the way they came, then they might have really taken offence, and ... (fill in the blank)
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    greg36ff wrote:
    Your friend was an idiot. One of those guys that do stuff just because they can. There was no point other than to push buttons. What, was he feeling threatened in his own home? Did he think that the police were going to attack him? He caused a lot of grief for all involved (I would have just walked away rather than call in 15 cars, but that is another matter) and he gained or proved what? Did he think that the police were going to interview a potential theft suspect while he was armed?

    Stupid stuff like that makes all gun rights advocates look bad. Grow up and pick your battles like an adult, not like a petulant child.
    Maybe the guy wasn't a gun rights activist, but a liberty/property rights activist? I do think the majority of gun rights activists make themselves look foolish much of the time, that much we are agreed. If only it were such a simple issue as "gun" rights. Perhaps he wanted a more polite and uncoercive conversation with the police. It's very easy to be intimidated when you are the only one in the room who isn't armed. Why should the government have a monopoly on force?

    A property owner has the right to allow or deny anyone access to their property under their own terms, except for officials possessing a lawful warrant. The cops didn't like that he was armed in his own home. What was their reason? Nobody knows. He wasn't breaking any law, and it is his prerogative to be armed in his own home. I would not let anyone I didn't know into my home with a weapon, and that includes the police.

    He offered a compromise which they really didn't like and they acted like thugs. True, he could have exercised his right not to speak to them, but that is neither here nor there. He was willing to be cooperative. If instead he had told them to beat feet back the way they came, then they might have really taken offence, and ... (fill in the blank)
    I think WEWD is on the right track. CA Patriot's freind has a serious civil suit complete withcash for the taking if you ask me. It is legal to LCC in your house and it is legal to LOC in your house. Why didn't the cops conduct the interview at the front door? Because they were on a Phishing expedition and they wanted to search the house for visible signs of PC or RAS.

    The cops acted like petulant little kids.

    Coppers, if you don't have a warrant, you aint com'inin my house! If you haul my ass out of my house, because I have a gun, and you don't have PC, I am suing your asses and I am going to work to get your qualified immunity dropped. I want your spouse towrite the check to me!

    I don't believe in getting even, only getting ahead when it comes to BofR issues.

    markm




  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    greg36ff wrote:
    Your friend was an idiot. One of those guys that do stuff just because they can. There was no point other than to push buttons. What, was he feeling threatened in his own home? Did he think that the police were going to attack him? He caused a lot of grief for all involved (I would have just walked away rather than call in 15 cars, but that is another matter) and he gained or proved what? Did he think that the police were going to interview a potential theft suspect while he was armed?

    Stupid stuff like that makes all gun rights advocates look bad. Grow up and pick your battles like an adult, not like a petulant child.
    Maybe the guy wasn't a gun rights activist, but a liberty/property rights activist? I do think the majority of gun rights activists make themselves look foolish much of the time, that much we are agreed. If only it were such a simple issue as "gun" rights. Perhaps he wanted a more polite and uncoercive conversation with the police. It's very easy to be intimidated when you are the only one in the room who isn't armed. Why should the government have a monopoly on force?

    A property owner has the right to allow or deny anyone access to their property under their own terms, except for officials possessing a lawful warrant. The cops didn't like that he was armed in his own home. What was their reason? Nobody knows. He wasn't breaking any law, and it is his prerogative to be armed in his own home. I would not let anyone I didn't know into my home with a weapon, and that includes the police.

    He offered a compromise which they really didn't like and they acted like thugs. True, he could have exercised his right not to speak to them, but that is neither here nor there. He was willing to be cooperative. If instead he had told them to beat feet back the way they came, then they might have really taken offence, and ... (fill in the blank)
    You are right; I probably jumped the gun on assuming that he was a gun rights activist.

    If 15 cops showed up and he was arrested, then both sides did something stupid. We rarely hear the whole, true story though, so it is hard to know who messed up more.

    I just think that just because you can do something, does not mean that you should.

    We can carry a gun inside our own home. We can say pretty much what we want inside our home. We can open our front door as fast as we want. That does not mean that when the cops come to the door, it's a great idea to swing it open, yell that you hate cops while holding a rifle (I am not saying that this is what happened).

    The cops should have just left and this guy should have just told the cops ahead of time that he did not want to talk to them.

    Save everyone the trouble.



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    Max Entropy wrote:
    yet another carrying question. This one not specifically covered in that nice, helpful FAQ.

    I know that I can carry whatever inside of my house and that I can UOC outdoors but the rub is that all of my property is within 1000' of a school. I'm not planning on doing yardwork armed but more specifically, can I carry my gun to my car (in the driveway) then put it inside of its case or doI need to do that indoors?
    If not fenced, put your guns in the locked case indoor first before stepping outside.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
    ...
    The cops acted like petulant little kids.

    markm
    And why the government's upper hands is allowing this to happened so many times

  12. #12
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Ca Patriot wrote:
    I have a story. ...
    That's one damn good story! Next time the PD comes to my door and wants to come inside my home I will tell them the same thing. "If you want me to disarm, you must do the same thing." Or they can talk to me through the bolted screen door.

    However, I have met PD outside my house multiple times when I called them. Different circumstances.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    See People v Thesues

    (OK, I doubt the CA court system actually used his screen name, so the above case may not exist.)

    Private property is specifically exempted, but the cops, DA, judge, and jury didn't care.
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    See People v Thesues

    (OK, I doubt the CA court system actually used his screen name, so the above case may not exist.)

    Private property is specifically exempted, but the cops, DA, judge, and jury didn't care.
    I think it might have been a different case if it had been his own property.

    But no guarantee.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Wc wrote:
    Max Entropy wrote:
    yet another carrying question. This one not specifically covered in that nice, helpful FAQ.

    I know that I can carry whatever inside of my house and that I can UOC outdoors but the rub is that all of my property is within 1000' of a school. I'm not planning on doing yardwork armed but more specifically, can I carry my gun to my car (in the driveway) then put it inside of its case or doI need to do that indoors?
    If not fenced, put your guns in the locked case indoor first before stepping outside.

    Now the you mention it, I do recall a case on LA County where the conviction for violation of PC 626 stood because the defendant was not in a fenced yard, and the court of appeals held that without a fence,THE FRONT YARD WAS A PUBLIC PLACE.

    Judges do that because they want to look like they are tough on crime.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Nick Justice wrote:
    Wc wrote:
    Max Entropy wrote:
    yet another carrying question. This one not specifically covered in that nice, helpful FAQ.

    I know that I can carry whatever inside of my house and that I can UOC outdoors but the rub is that all of my property is within 1000' of a school. I'm not planning on doing yardwork armed but more specifically, can I carry my gun to my car (in the driveway) then put it inside of its case or doI need to do that indoors?
    If not fenced, put your guns in the locked case indoor first before stepping outside.

    Now the you mention it, I do recall a case on LA County where the conviction for violation of PC 626 stood because the defendant was not in a fenced yard, and the court of appeals held that without a fence,THE FRONT YARD WAS A PUBLIC PLACE.

    Judges do that because they want to look like they are tough on crime.
    Be careful with the wording, though!

    626.9clearly exempts people on private property. As is clear from case law, private property (e.g. an unfenced yard) can be a public place. However, it is still private property.The judge in Thesues' case decided that the private property exemption is actually a "private place" exemption... which is clearly a decision NOT supported by statute or case law. The judge essentially changed the definitions in order to secure a conviction.

    Thesues' case is a harsh reminder that we can't trust the "checks and balances" in our system. The idiot legislature wrote a bad law. The cops made it worse by making an arrest that pretty clearly doesn't fit any crime. The DA - who also clearly has motives other than justice at heart - found it fit to prosecute the case. The activist judge deprived him of a fair trial by preventing certain defenses from being prevented. The jury -perhapsas muchof a victimas anything else - then sheepishly allowed tyranny and injustice to prevail.

    The exemption that should have vindicated Thesues is as clear as the exemption we all enjoy behind the locked doors of our homes.

    The question is, how will the cops/DAs/judges decide to bend the law next? Will they declare that "in public view" is close enough? Maybe even your fenced yard won't be safe next? Where will the redrawing of the lines stop?

    [/rant]
    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.

  17. #17
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    DONE bent the law til the law got broke

  18. #18
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Thesues' case is a harsh reminder that we can't trust the "checks and balances" in our system. The idiot legislature wrote a bad law. The cops made it worse by making an arrest that pretty clearly doesn't fit any crime. The DA - who also clearly has motives other than justice at heart - found it fit to prosecute the case. The activist judge deprived him of a fair trial by preventing certain defenses from being prevented. The jury -perhapsas muchof a victimas anything else - then sheepishly allowed tyranny and injustice to prevail.
    If I remember corectly, Thesues was never actually arrested by a LEO. I think he was directly charged by the DA's office via their incident reports.

    Maybe I'm nitpciking, but at least this time 'the cops' got it right...

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Thesues' case is a harsh reminder that we can't trust the "checks and balances" in our system. The idiot legislature wrote a bad law. The cops made it worse by making an arrest that pretty clearly doesn't fit any crime. The DA - who also clearly has motives other than justice at heart - found it fit to prosecute the case. The activist judge deprived him of a fair trial by preventing certain defenses from being prevented. The jury -perhapsas muchof a victimas anything else - then sheepishly allowed tyranny and injustice to prevail.
    If I remember corectly, Thesues was never actually arrested by a LEO. I think he was directly charged by the DA's office via their incident reports.

    Maybe I'm nitpciking, but at least this time 'the cops' got it right...
    I stand corrected. They did NOT arrest him.

    However, they far from got it right. They did detain him without RAS. They unreasonably searched his person in order to get his ID. They performed an "e check" (which any honest cop wouldn't do without true RAS).

    I think it's pretty clear they abused their power, leading to the collection of information that lead to a conviction.
    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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    mjones wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Thesues' case is a harsh reminder that we can't trust the "checks and balances" in our system. The idiot legislature wrote a bad law. The cops made it worse by making an arrest that pretty clearly doesn't fit any crime. The DA - who also clearly has motives other than justice at heart - found it fit to prosecute the case. The activist judge deprived him of a fair trial by preventing certain defenses from being prevented. The jury -*perhaps*as much*of a victim*as anything else - then sheepishly allowed tyranny and injustice to prevail.
    If I remember corectly, Thesues was never actually arrested by a LEO. I think he was directly charged by the DA's office via their incident reports.

    Maybe I'm nitpciking, but at least this time 'the cops' got it right...
    I stand corrected. They did NOT arrest him.

    However, they far from got it right. They did detain him without RAS. They unreasonably searched his person in order to get his ID. They performed an "e check" (which any honest cop wouldn't do without true RAS).

    I think it's pretty clear they abused their power, leading to the collection of information that lead to a conviction.
    I too stand corrected...they got it partially right

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    mjones wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Thesues' case is a harsh reminder that we can't trust the "checks and balances" in our system. The idiot legislature wrote a bad law. The cops made it worse by making an arrest that pretty clearly doesn't fit any crime. The DA - who also clearly has motives other than justice at heart - found it fit to prosecute the case. The activist judge deprived him of a fair trial by preventing certain defenses from being prevented. The jury -perhapsas muchof a victimas anything else - then sheepishly allowed tyranny and injustice to prevail.
    If I remember corectly, Thesues was never actually arrested by a LEO. I think he was directly charged by the DA's office via their incident reports.

    Maybe I'm nitpciking, but at least this time 'the cops' got it right...
    I stand corrected. They did NOT arrest him.

    However, they far from got it right. They did detain him without RAS. They unreasonably searched his person in order to get his ID. They performed an "e check" (which any honest cop wouldn't do without true RAS).

    I think it's pretty clear they abused their power, leading to the collection of information that lead to a conviction.
    So, it is your logic/facts are often flawed, correct:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

  22. #22
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420

    Post imported post

    Wc wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    mjones wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Thesues' case is a harsh reminder that we can't trust the "checks and balances" in our system. The idiot legislature wrote a bad law. The cops made it worse by making an arrest that pretty clearly doesn't fit any crime. The DA - who also clearly has motives other than justice at heart - found it fit to prosecute the case. The activist judge deprived him of a fair trial by preventing certain defenses from being prevented. The jury -perhapsas muchof a victimas anything else - then sheepishly allowed tyranny and injustice to prevail.
    If I remember corectly, Thesues was never actually arrested by a LEO. I think he was directly charged by the DA's office via their incident reports.

    Maybe I'm nitpciking, but at least this time 'the cops' got it right...
    I stand corrected. They did NOT arrest him.

    However, they far from got it right. They did detain him without RAS. They unreasonably searched his person in order to get his ID. They performed an "e check" (which any honest cop wouldn't do without true RAS).

    I think it's pretty clear they abused their power, leading to the collection of information that lead to a conviction.
    So, it is your logic/facts are often flawed, correct:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate
    More jibberish from WC. Does anyone know what he's talking about ?

Posting Permissions

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