Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Livermore Police Department - 12031(e) check W/weapons drawn

  1. #1
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Livermore Police Department - 12031(e) check W/weapons drawn

    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    And here in Pennsylvania I accompanied my wife as we visited the local BiLo supermarket, Box Seat Video and Nic's Tobacco Shop, all the time open carrying a loaded (8 JHPs in the magazine and 1 in the chamber) 9mm in my visible holster.

    No police showed up, nobody reacted, all was normal.

    I CCed for my oldest son's wedding last year, for my youngest son's wedding next year I've already been asked to OC.

    I most sincerely hope all those current federal lawsuits do some good in California.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    Just because the Cal statute strangely provides police the power to inspect gun load conditions in incorporated areas does not mean that the police must or even should do this.

    I think the statutory power of police to inspect guns like this should be challenged as a 4th amendment violation in federal court - makes no sense under our constitutinal traditions, abset reasonable suspicion, See Delaware v. Prouse (no stopiing drivers to check for driver's licenses abset reasonable suspicion of crime afoot) to allow p[olice the power to detain people like this.

    The best plaintiff might be somebody who is serially being checked by police even though the police have no RAS of any crime and the police already know the citizen by name and sight and know that they are not a prohibited person or have any history of carrying loaded - hmmm, who might that be??

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    The California Penal Code 12031(e)..., '(e)-Check'..., in my Opinion amounts to what I believe to be..., an Violation of The United States Constitution 4th Amendment which Guarentees:
    The Right of the People to be secure in their Persons..., and Effects, against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, shall NOT be Violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon Probable Cause, supported by Oath or a
    Affirmation, and particularly describing the..., things to be [searched].
    Last edited by aadvark; 09-18-2010 at 01:15 PM.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Better than the last check when there were two officers at low ready.

    Good bits from this encounter:
    1. Didn't ask for ID (but no need, they know him)
    2. Didn't search for serial number (again, there is no need)
    3. Didn't have firearm at low ready position
    4. Didn't ask him questions not relevant to the inspection

    Bad bits from this encounter:
    1. Drawn weapon for an "inspection"
    2. Stood around facing Walter in an aggressive fashion until he departed instead of going about their business. This clearly indicates that they view him as a threat of some sort.
    3. The fact that the inspection happened at all

    ETA: Since the officer states he was recording, somebody should CPRA the recording to see what they talked about after Walter left.
    Last edited by bigtoe416; 09-18-2010 at 02:47 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    Just because the Cal statute strangely provides police the power to inspect gun load conditions in incorporated areas does not mean that the police must or even should do this.

    I think the statutory power of police to inspect guns like this should be challenged as a 4th amendment violation in federal court - makes no sense under our constitutinal traditions, abset reasonable suspicion, See Delaware v. Prouse (no stopiing drivers to check for driver's licenses abset reasonable suspicion of crime afoot) to allow p[olice the power to detain people like this.

    The best plaintiff might be somebody who is serially being checked by police even though the police have no RAS of any crime and the police already know the citizen by name and sight and know that they are not a prohibited person or have any history of carrying loaded - hmmm, who might that be??
    It is most definitely a violation of one's 4A rights. That's why I call them e-VIOLATIONS, not e-checks. Here in the PRK the "right people" have stated they plan on challenging the law, but it's anyone's guess as to when this will occur. They initially stated a challenge was all but imminent prior to the McDonald ruling, but so far as I know they have yet to act. But I think its going to happen in about...wait for it...two weeks!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    After having watched the Video I became increasingly alarmed that the Officers approached Him in that manner.

    The Officers approached Him with their SideArms at LowReady..., which is an AGGRESIVE STANCE!
    Last edited by aadvark; 09-18-2010 at 03:30 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member JJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Contra Costa County, California, ,
    Posts
    213

    Harassment

    Plain and simple. They know who Walter is from previous e checks on him. They know he is a law abiding citizen. They know he is not a threat to their safety. I'm sure they heard about the all day open carry event taking place city wide in their city on this day. They just can't leave him alone. Nothing like being violated on Constitution Day.

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    After having watched the Video I became increasingly alarmed that the Officers approached Him in that manner.

    The Officers approached Him with their SideArms at LowReady..., which is an AGGRESIVE STANCE!
    I guess we should approach e-checks in the "low and ready" also.

    PC 12031 (j)

    (j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its assistance.
    In this instance, LEO with guns drawn are putting the OCer in immediate, grave danger. After all, we also need to go into these encounters with the same level of personal safety.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  10. #10
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958
    Cops respond with drawn weapons to 911 call of citizens OC unloaded hand gun - incredible. But then, it's in California.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    San Diego, California, United States
    Posts
    145
    I wonder if it would be appropriate to request that the officer holster his firearm in a situation such as this?

    Something along the lines of: "Officer, would you please holster your sidearm there.....you are performing an e-check, not serving a felony warrant."
    Last edited by Devilinbp; 09-19-2010 at 12:14 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member rotty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis Minnesota
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Devilinbp View Post
    I wonder if it would be appropriate to request that the officer holster his firearm in a situation such as this?

    Something along the lines of: "Officer, would you please holster your sidearm there.....you are performing an e-check, not serving a felony warrant."
    +1000
    - Knowledge is power and there IS strength in numbers -

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
    - Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    I guess we should approach e-checks in the "low and ready" also.


    In this instance, LEO with guns drawn are putting the OCer in immediate, grave danger. After all, we also need to go into these encounters with the same level of personal safety.
    Well ! Well ! Opps ? whos that ? "Im your huckleberry" ! Robin47

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    We are apparently not allowed to brandish a weapon, or aggressively posture ourselves in the same manner that Law Enfarcement is allowed to.

    If a citizen walked up to a cop with sidearm drawn, and demand that they be allowed to remove the officers sidearm for inspection, you'd have an arrested/dead citizen.

    Enforcement occurs under color of law, and it would seem the arbitrary reassessment of this individuals firearms load condition is nothing but harassment on behalf of the officers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  15. #15
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    It's anyone's guess for a reason. I'm not sure why you'd want or expect us to broadcast our tactics or specifics other than impatience.

    -Brandon

    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    It is most definitely a violation of one's 4A rights. That's why I call them e-VIOLATIONS, not e-checks. Here in the PRK the "right people" have stated they plan on challenging the law, but it's anyone's guess as to when this will occur. They initially stated a challenge was all but imminent prior to the McDonald ruling, but so far as I know they have yet to act. But I think its going to happen in about...wait for it...two weeks!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    "We must take the guns from the people to make the streets safe for the SS."
    A.Hitler

    The cops in the PDR have to be "aggressive" with law abiding citizens. They're too busy ******* themselves if a real threat shows up. Surprised the ******* behind the, polite, Sgt didn't shoot himself in the foot. He looks like he has an IQ in the upper 60s.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 09-20-2010 at 05:28 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    We are apparently not allowed to brandish a weapon, or aggressively posture ourselves in the same manner that Law Enfarcement is allowed to.

    If a citizen walked up to a cop with sidearm drawn, and demand that they be allowed to remove the officers sidearm for inspection, you'd have an arrested/dead citizen.

    Enforcement occurs under color of law, and it would seem the arbitrary reassessment of this individuals firearms load condition is nothing but harassment on behalf of the officers.
    Since the officers seem okay w/ weapons drawn, the next time they want to do a (e) check, I don't see them having a problem with the citizen drawing their weapon to demonstrate it's unloaded. Maybe racking the slide showing an empty chamber or simply by pulling the trigger.
    Last edited by merle; 09-20-2010 at 06:25 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    Since the officers seem okay w/ weapons drawn, the next time they want to do a (e) check, I don't see them having a problem with the citizen drawing their weapon to demonstrate it's unloaded. Maybe racking the slide showing an empty chamber or simply by pulling the trigger.
    I don't see them having a problem shooting you if you break leather with them at a low ready.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  19. #19
    Regular Member leoffensive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    309
    haha i loved how he asked if you needed anything else and you didnt reply and he said "ok" haha it was like there was a big a$$ middle finger being directed and poo being flung at him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    It really bothered me to see the police not leave afterward and essentially intimidate him into leaving. I was thinking too he might have stayed there and waited them out, but I'd be worried if there would be some obscure loitering law?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    I don't see them having a problem shooting you if you break leather with them at a low ready.
    I'm sorry, but officers are supposed to act better than citizens. They not only swore an oath to uphold the constitution, but go through rigorous training and mental screening. Being threatened, and threatening in return, a civilian who has done nothing but exercise a fundamental right (legally) makes their behavior even more deplorable.

    So you're okay with the police threatening citizens, but think homicide is justified when the same positions are reversed?

    Does "proning out" UOC'rs seem like a legitimate exercise?

    Do you believe police breaking leather to do a check w/o a reasonable suspicion a crime had, or will be committed is okay?

    It really does seem like you're okay with two standards, one for citizens and another for agents of the government.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    I'm sorry, but officers are supposed to act better than citizens. They not only swore an oath to uphold the constitution, but go through rigorous training and mental screening. Being threatened, and threatening in return, a civilian who has done nothing but exercise a fundamental right (legally) makes their behavior even more deplorable.

    So you're okay with the police threatening citizens, but think homicide is justified when the same positions are reversed?

    Does "proning out" UOC'rs seem like a legitimate exercise?

    Do you believe police breaking leather to do a check w/o a reasonable suspicion a crime had, or will be committed is okay?

    It really does seem like you're okay with two standards, one for citizens and another for agents of the government.
    I didn't say I was ok with anything in your post.
    All I said was, I think breaking leather when an LEO is watching at low ready is asking to get shot. I would let the LEO pull my weapon and check it and return it. I absolutly refuse to touch my weapon with LEO's around.
    Refusal of an (e) check gets you locked up and loss of gunrights for 10 yrs.

    I don't know of any UOC'ers that have been "proned out" but many have looked down an LEO's gun barrel.

    I'm not ok with any anti gun laws, but they are here and we have to live with them till they are changed. We are workin on it.
    Last edited by Gundude; 09-20-2010 at 11:41 PM.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  23. #23
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
    It's anyone's guess for a reason. I'm not sure why you'd want or expect us to broadcast our tactics or specifics other than impatience.

    -Brandon
    Tick-tock-tick-tock. Every day that goes by with rights violations going unanswered are rights lost. What you call impatient, I call a sense of urgency.
    Last edited by coolusername2007; 09-21-2010 at 03:49 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member JJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Contra Costa County, California, ,
    Posts
    213

    Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    I'm sorry, but officers are supposed to act better than citizens. They not only swore an oath to uphold the constitution, but go through rigorous training and mental screening. Being threatened, and threatening in return, a civilian who has done nothing but exercise a fundamental right (legally) makes their behavior even more deplorable.

    So you're okay with the police threatening citizens, but think homicide is justified when the same positions are reversed?

    Does "proning out" UOC'rs seem like a legitimate exercise?

    Do you believe police breaking leather to do a check w/o a reasonable suspicion a crime had, or will be committed is okay?

    It really does seem like you're okay with two standards, one for citizens and another for agents of the government.

    Fact: No one carrying a gun likes to be e checked or thinks it's ok

    Fact: You touch your gun while in the presence of an officer and you chance getting shot

    Fact: Gundude was just stating a fact when he said "I don't see them having a problem shooting you if you break leather with them at a low ready."

    Fact: If the above happened, it would more than likely be deemed justifiable

    Fact: If you touch your gun in the presence of an officer you're not very smart

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    So lets understand WHY we accept these as facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ View Post
    Fact: No one carrying a gun likes to be e checked or thinks it's ok
    Why? Common knowledge around here is it is believed unconstitutional and a violation of their 4A rights. Rights officers have sworn to uphold but obviously choose to ignore. Do we trust officers who willingly break their oaths?

    Fact: You touch your gun while in the presence of an officer and you chance getting shot
    Why? Are the officers terrified of being shot and would rather shoot a person doing nothing illegal? Is the potential "threat" so great as to inspire fear and a pre-emptive assault?

    If the answer is yes to the fear portion, then why shouldn't the people of CA fear any OC'r as the weapons *may* be loaded and *may* be used in the comission of a crime and they are justified in outlawing OC?

    You go to Starbucks and reach to adjust your gun. You get shot. That is not right. The same should not be right in the presence of a police officer.

    Open carry does not require a holster nor the gun maintained in a holster as one can openly carry a firearm simply by holding it.

    Fact: Gundude was just stating a fact when he said "I don't see them having a problem shooting you if you break leather with them at a low ready."
    And my response was to try and understand "why" he believed that.

    Fact: If the above happened, it would more than likely be deemed justifiable
    We have the same issue with the Costco shooting in Las Vegas. People are claiming the coroners inquest is not fair and the CCW carrier did nothing to incite the shooting. A shooting deemed justified does not mean the shooting is/was justified.

    Fact: If you touch your gun in the presence of an officer you're not very smart
    Why? You cannot envision any reason why you'd need to touch your gun in the presence of an officer?

    Again, I'll allude to the shooting at Costco. Witnesses are telling of conflicting commands by the officers on the scene ("freeze", "take your gun out and place it on the ground").

    Ultimately, are Californian's so afraid of being shot that they're willing to give up on fundamental rights?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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