-
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.
-
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.
Orange County Register - Video report on Tustin open carry pamphleteers & dinner
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
imported post
Do you have a mailing list of these events? I understood the one in Tustin to be on the 9th (Mother's Day) ... based on the application for a permit and notice to the PD; but when I sat down there for a coffee to observe, all I saw was the Tustin PD come by to check.
Then I heard it happened a week later and I missed it.
I am very interested to observe the process and interaction with law enforcement.
I just noticed one scedhuled for this weekend in Lake Forest, so I'll get a chance to check it out, but was wondering if there was an easy way to be notified.
Thanks.
Rich
Do you have a mailing list of these events? I understood the one in Tustin to be on the 9th (Mother's Day) ... based on the application for a permit and notice to the PD; but when I sat down there for a coffee to observe, all I saw was the Tustin PD come by to check.
Then I heard it happened a week later and I missed it.
I am very interested to observe the process and interaction with law enforcement.
I just noticed one scedhuled for this weekend in Lake Forest, so I'll get a chance to check it out, but was wondering if there was an easy way to be notified.
Thanks.
Rich
A ECNALG
Regular Member
imported post
mecujo wrote:
No mailing list. Nor have we been posting here in advance of events. Just trying to keep the group events small (3-7 carriers) for the time being, so we are not announcing here in advance. However, we are making a practice of in-person announcements before city councils and their respective law enforcement agency representatives. The response from LE has thus far been neutral to positive and appreciative.
Another Orange County city group UOC awareness promotion event is tentatively scheduled for sometime in June, but I am not at liberty to reveal at this time over the forum, sorry.
I will try to keep you in mind, Rich, as our numbers firm up, so that our desired3-7 carrying-member group size may be met. What is your city of residence, if I may ask?
BTW, the May 9 scheduling was postponed due to the reporter's last-minute request.
The video of Tustin PD performing 12031(e) will hopefully be posted shortly. Apologies in advance for what may be poor audio quality.
mecujo wrote:
No mailing list. Nor have we been posting here in advance of events. Just trying to keep the group events small (3-7 carriers) for the time being, so we are not announcing here in advance. However, we are making a practice of in-person announcements before city councils and their respective law enforcement agency representatives. The response from LE has thus far been neutral to positive and appreciative.
Another Orange County city group UOC awareness promotion event is tentatively scheduled for sometime in June, but I am not at liberty to reveal at this time over the forum, sorry.
I will try to keep you in mind, Rich, as our numbers firm up, so that our desired3-7 carrying-member group size may be met. What is your city of residence, if I may ask?
BTW, the May 9 scheduling was postponed due to the reporter's last-minute request.
The video of Tustin PD performing 12031(e) will hopefully be posted shortly. Apologies in advance for what may be poor audio quality.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Consider non-confrontational family friendly settings - private property with fence would be good too - police cannot demand to do load checks on property guarded or fenced in per People v. Strider for details.
Consider non-confrontational family friendly settings - private property with fence would be good too - police cannot demand to do load checks on property guarded or fenced in per People v. Strider for details.
devildoc5
Regular Member
imported post
just out of curiosity if you look at the video at 0:10 is it just me or does that guy have an orange tipped pistol??????:what:
just out of curiosity if you look at the video at 0:10 is it just me or does that guy have an orange tipped pistol??????:what:
A ECNALG
Regular Member
imported post
devildoc5 wrote:
No, it's an orange tipped plastic toy gun.
And yes, he has been thoroughly raked over the coals for showing up with a toy gun.
devildoc5 wrote:
No, it's an orange tipped plastic toy gun.
And yes, he has been thoroughly raked over the coals for showing up with a toy gun.
devildoc5
Regular Member
imported post
A ECNALG wrote:
A ECNALG wrote:
yeah that is kinda what I was getting at...
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
Clarifying here -- the citation of People v. Strider says that police cannot demand to do load checks on property guarded by a fence or locked door. I can't find a reference in the opinion which states that a place guarded is off-limits for peace officers to conduct load checks. I'm assuming your post just had a typo.
A ECNALG
Regular Member
imported post
bigtoe416 wrote:
Is this what you are looking for?
At issue was not whether the officer was lawfully authorized to conduct an e-check, but whether Strider was unlawfully carrying a firearm in a public place:
bigtoe416 wrote:
"Here, in contrast to these cases, the key issue is not whether Deputy Bates‟s observation of the gun through the fence constituted a search. Clearly, it did not; Strider and the gun were in plain view through the fence, and Bates was on a public street, at a lawful vantage point. (See, e.g., People v. Chavez, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1501.) That fact, however, does not justify the detention. The detention was lawful only if Bates had a reasonable, articulable suspicion Strider was involved in criminal activity. (Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 123; In re Manuel G., supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 821.) Bates could not have reasonably suspected Strider unlawfully had a gun on his person while in a public place unless the yard was a public place. Thus, jurisprudence related to the plain view doctrine and the legality of officers‟ entry onto the curtilage is inapposite."
Is this what you are looking for?
At issue was not whether the officer was lawfully authorized to conduct an e-check, but whether Strider was unlawfully carrying a firearm in a public place:
"The People's theory as to why the deputies‟ actions were constitutionally permissible runs as follows. As discussed in more detail post, section 12031 prohibits most persons from carrying a loaded firearm "while in any public place." (§ 12031, subd. (a)(1).) The People contend that the fenced yard where Bates observed Strider constituted a public place for purposes of the statute."
12031(e) follows from 12031(a)(1) so that an officer mayverify loaded or unloaded status. And since (e) follows from (a)(1), it must also follow that (e) applies only when carrying in "a public place."