imported post
There are a variety of exceptions to the proposed 12037 section which grants some people to have the right to UOC while others cannot (Animal Farm anyone?). One of these exceptions is for current and retired police officers, another exception is for people granted permission to do so by a school superintendent while in a school zone.
Lets run through a hypothetical scenario where AB 1934 is law...
I'm unloaded open carrying in San Francisco when a police officer approaches me to investigate why I am open carrying. He asks me why I am carrying a firearm and I choose to remain silent. Does he has RAS detain me at this point? I would say he doesn't. He can ask me for identification, but I cannot be compelled to produce any. He can ask if I am a police officer or if I have the superintendent's permission to be carrying, but I cannot be compelled to answer. Let's say he performs a 12031(e) check to see if I'm carrying loaded or not, and he sees that I am UOCing. What can he do that gives him a case against me?
He cannot arrest me since openly carrying a weapon isn't patently unlawful in California (a la Ubiles). If he illegally runs the firearm's serial number he gains only the name of the owner, and not necessarily my name. If I am carrying sterile carry (which I always do), then he cannot illegally search me for my identification. Even if he gets my ID, that doesn't help him determine if I am an exception to 12037.
Lets say he arrests me for violating 12037. Even during the trial I am innocent until proven guilty (in theory at least). Can they prove that I am subject to 12037? They might be able to. But can they prove that the police officer had PC to arrest? I don't believe so. The arresting officer would have to determine my identity and determine if I was subject to 12037 in a short time period. As long as I was sterile carrying, the first task would be impossible to accomplish.
If I am illegally arrested without PC, I believe all evidence gathered from the arrest is inadmissible in court, and the prosecutor has no case. If the preceding statement isn't true though, then 12037 would have teeth providing that a system exists which could determine if a person was in the list of exceptions or was not.
Thoughts?
There are a variety of exceptions to the proposed 12037 section which grants some people to have the right to UOC while others cannot (Animal Farm anyone?). One of these exceptions is for current and retired police officers, another exception is for people granted permission to do so by a school superintendent while in a school zone.
Lets run through a hypothetical scenario where AB 1934 is law...
I'm unloaded open carrying in San Francisco when a police officer approaches me to investigate why I am open carrying. He asks me why I am carrying a firearm and I choose to remain silent. Does he has RAS detain me at this point? I would say he doesn't. He can ask me for identification, but I cannot be compelled to produce any. He can ask if I am a police officer or if I have the superintendent's permission to be carrying, but I cannot be compelled to answer. Let's say he performs a 12031(e) check to see if I'm carrying loaded or not, and he sees that I am UOCing. What can he do that gives him a case against me?
He cannot arrest me since openly carrying a weapon isn't patently unlawful in California (a la Ubiles). If he illegally runs the firearm's serial number he gains only the name of the owner, and not necessarily my name. If I am carrying sterile carry (which I always do), then he cannot illegally search me for my identification. Even if he gets my ID, that doesn't help him determine if I am an exception to 12037.
Lets say he arrests me for violating 12037. Even during the trial I am innocent until proven guilty (in theory at least). Can they prove that I am subject to 12037? They might be able to. But can they prove that the police officer had PC to arrest? I don't believe so. The arresting officer would have to determine my identity and determine if I was subject to 12037 in a short time period. As long as I was sterile carrying, the first task would be impossible to accomplish.
If I am illegally arrested without PC, I believe all evidence gathered from the arrest is inadmissible in court, and the prosecutor has no case. If the preceding statement isn't true though, then 12037 would have teeth providing that a system exists which could determine if a person was in the list of exceptions or was not.
Thoughts?