-
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.
Livermore Police Department - 12031(e) check W/weapons drawn
- Thread starter ConditionThree
- Start date
Statkowski
Regular Member
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.
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.
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
Sad.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
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??
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??
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].
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:
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.
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:
coolusername2007
Regular Member
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!
JJ
Regular Member
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.
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.
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
Seriously, how can the police officers even live with themselves ? Dont any of the officers have any courage to tell their commanding officers that this isnt right ? Do they have any courage to stand up and say "NO, I WONT VIOLATE THIS MANS RIGHTS"
Are police officers just content with their paycheck and job security that they will engage in state sponsored civil rights violations and harrasment ?
This really reminds me of the south prior to the 60's where police just stood by and even participated in acts of terrorism and violations of human and civil rights.
Lawsuits need to be filed ASAP and the police officers themselves need to start showing some morality and courage and character.
Are police officers just content with their paycheck and job security that they will engage in state sponsored civil rights violations and harrasment ?
This really reminds me of the south prior to the 60's where police just stood by and even participated in acts of terrorism and violations of human and civil rights.
Lawsuits need to be filed ASAP and the police officers themselves need to start showing some morality and courage and character.
Sons of Liberty
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
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.
Devilinbp
Regular Member
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."
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:
rotty
Regular Member
+1000
Robin47
Regular Member
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" !
Robin47slowfiveoh
Regular Member
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.
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.
wildhawker
Regular Member
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
-Brandon
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!
Gunslinger
Regular Member
"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 dipshit behind the, polite, Sgt didn't shoot himself in the foot. He looks like he has an IQ in the upper 60s.
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 dipshit behind the, polite, Sgt didn't shoot himself in the foot. He looks like he has an IQ in the upper 60s.
Last edited:
merle
Regular Member
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:
Gundude
Regular Member
I don't see them having a problem shooting you if you break leather with them at a low ready.