Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: San Diego pays Open Carry Advocate $35,000 plus pays his legal fees.

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

    Thumbs up San Diego pays Open Carry Advocate $35,000 plus pays his legal fees.

    WAY TO GO SAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    FROM CALGUNS.NET

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=347348

    SAN DIEGO PAYS $35,000, AGREES TO FINDING OF FACTUAL INNOCENCE FOR IMPROPER “UNLOADED OPEN CARRY” ARREST

    San Carlos CA (September 29, 2010) - The City of San Diego will pay $35,000 to gun rights activist Samuel Wolanyk for his improper arrest. The San Diego Police Department also granted Mr. Wolanyk’s petition for a Finding of Factual Innocence, admitting no reasonable cause for his arrest existed.

    The lawsuit – financially supported by The Calguns Foundation, Inc., and brought by attorney Jason Davis of Davis & Associates – sought to ensure San Diego properly trains its officers to deal with law-abiding gun owners.

    “We do not encourage Unloaded Open Carrying of firearms in urban areas at this time,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “But we believe the civil rights of gun owners must be defended to the utmost.”

    Nearly two years ago, “open carry” activist Wolanyk wound up looking down the barrels of two police handguns when San Diego Police officers Jody Kinsley and Troy White responded to a call of a man wearing a kilt, with a holstered gun, in San Diego’s Mission Beach area. The officers immediately exited their vehicles on arrival at the location, drew their firearms, and ordered Mr. Wolanyk to the ground.

    The officers quickly determined the firearm was unloaded, had no magazine in it, with no round in the chamber, and was thus in full compliance with California law. The firearm was unloaded even though Mr. Wolanyk did separately possess loaded magazines carried in an additional pouch attached to his belt (a completely lawful activity).

    Until that day, these officers had never heard of the burgeoning Unloaded Open Carry movement, in which persons entitled to possess firearms exercise their right to lawfully carry unloaded, holstered handguns (though some onerous geographic limitations do apply). One other key legal restriction on open carry in California law also exists: people must give up their Fourth Amendment rights and submit to law enforcement examination of the firearm to determine if it’s loaded. In Wolanyk’s case, however, the officers weren’t performing a loaded firearm examination; in the officers’ minds, they were responding to a “man with a gun” call and acting accordingly.

    After San Diego Police Sergeant David Kries arrived at the scene, Mr. Wolanyk had hoped the officers’ errors would be competently rectified and he would then be free to go. But Sgt. Kries showed he too didn’t understand California’s complex gun laws, and arrested Mr. Wolanyk for carrying a “loaded” firearm – in direct conflict with both prior case law (People v. Clark) and common sense, which requires ammunition to be in a position from which it can be fired in order for a firearm to be considered loaded. Mr. Wolanyk was taken to San Diego Police headquarters, where it was determined that he violated no law. Two hours later, Wolanyk was back at Mission Beach with Officer Kinsley handing him back his firearm and ammunition. Neither an apology nor an explanation of why the Department hadn’t properly trained their officers was provided.

    “If they’d just apologized and said that they would look into training their officers on how to deal with law-abiding gun owners, I would not have felt compelled to file my lawsuit,” said Mr. Wolanyk. “It’s really about public safety for everyone, including those lawfully carrying firearms.”

    Now, not only has San Diego paid Mr. Wolanyk for their actions, but they have since supplemented their training as well.

    The rise of the Unloaded Open Carry movement in San Diego and Wolanyk’s arrest caught the attention of California Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, whose proposed “fix” to police training deficiencies was instead to draft a bill taking away the ability to “UOC”. Saldaña’s proposed “Open Carry” ban failed passage this legislative term, but is nearly certain to reemerge this next term.

    As long as Unloaded Open Carry activities are lawful, San Diego Police Officers and other law enforcement agencies will have to respect the civil rights of these law-abiding citizens.


    * * * * * *

    Contact:
    Gene Hoffman
    650-275-1015
    hoffmang@calgunsfoundation.org
    Last edited by Decoligny; 09-29-2010 at 12:42 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    hoora!!!

    man this is nice!!!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  3. #3
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    The tide is turning in CA for the restoration of our rights. Awesome win here.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710
    I want all the CalGuns Foundation haters to take notice of the fact that CGF took on this case. They have been fighting it for some time, while at the same time many here have been publicly attacking them, stating that they do not support UOC.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    California 'Double-Speak' of-the-day: '... We [CalGuns] support you Right to Keep and Bear Arms, BUT not really to Bear them while in Urban Areas.'

  6. #6
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
    I want all the CalGuns Foundation haters to take notice of the fact that CGF took on this case. They have been fighting it for some time, while at the same time many here have been publicly attacking them, stating that they do not support UOC.
    There is a HUGE difference between the CGF as a legal entity and the "calgunners" that frequent the forums.

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    I'm hoping that Mike Hunt has something similar going on. Congrats Sam.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    56

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204
    Good work Sam, and CGF. Yehey from all of us, and for all of us.

    Lawsuits make people honest, including the police. It seems that people only listen when there is money involved, so maybe this is the way to go.

    $35,000. Do I smell an openly carried fully customized sidearm? Or is that an AR? Either way, dont forget the "thanks SDPD" sticker to go with it!

    Now can we sue Lori?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    But Sgt. Kries showed he too didn’t understand California’s complex gun laws, and arrested Mr. Wolanyk
    That's not an arrest, that's kidnapping. Please file a criminal complaint (not an internal complaint) for PC 207 (a).

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    A few more of these and police departments all across California will be bowing down to gun rights.

    We need a sucsessful lawsuit on federal civil rights violations though to REALLY put a nail in the coffin of the anti-constitutional tyrants. McDonald gives us that path now.
    (No offense, CAPatriot)

    Arrrrrrghhhh. This was not a 2nd Amendment issue. It was a 4th Amendment (search and seizure) issue. The guy was arrested without legal authority. The guy was arrested without probable cause. The cops made it up.

    I'm happy for the win. Yet, for me it is tinged with disappointment. Yes, the cops get trained on 12031. That's a good thing.

    An even better thing would be to slam them even harder for arresting someone without first finding out for sure that what he was doing was illegal. It doesn't matter whether it was about a gun, flying a kite while singing a Mary Poppins tune, or what. The core issue is willingness to arrest, or even detain without knowing to a cold dead moral certainty that the activity is illegal.

    It is this make-it-up-as-we-go-along, we're-the-law, mentality that needs to be corrected even more. If that alone were corrected, everything else would disappear. Instead of illegal detentions and false arrests, we'd be getting reports from OCers of nearby cops being seen frantically thumbing through statute books, the cops frequently glancing up from the pages to keep an eye on the OCer.

    I do understand certain cops will be a little more careful to think twice. "Oh, jeez. I dunno if this is actually illegal. Better check, first." But, I can still see a whole zone of detention and harassment--for everybody, not just OCers--still left in place.

    Another point. It would have tended to close the door on Saldana's "fix" for police deficiencies by banning UOC. It occurs to me, though, that it is not too late to hammer Saldana for wanting to leave in place the 4A-violation mentality that led to the arrest. A good little press campaign nailing the 4A angles thoroughly has got to hurt. And, it might even shut her up if she avoids UOC in order to avoid the 4A criticism.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    deleted dumb comment that failed to distinguish something. Of course, I noticed the distinction only after I hit "send".
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-29-2010 at 10:25 PM.

  13. #13
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
    I want all the CalGuns Foundation haters to take notice of the fact that CGF took on this case. They have been fighting it for some time, while at the same time many here have been publicly attacking them, stating that they do not support UOC.
    I think its also important to remember that the Calguns Foundation cannot afford to intervene in every case where gun rights are violated. This means they need our regular and continuous support in order to help plantiffs in a position to change gun rights in California. I will be making a donation this Friday after I get paid.

    Sam's case is significant as it stipulates that the department now must include training on how to interact with armed citizens. This lays a foundation for safer encounters between gun owners who carry concealed or openly and police officers. With any luck, this could be the beginning of new standards and policies statewide.
    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

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    THAT happens to everyone, lol

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    I think its also important to remember that the Calguns Foundation cannot afford to intervene in every case where gun rights are violated.
    Arrrrrgh! Aaaaaaaaaaaaugh!!

    His gun rights weren't violated. The deprivation of the right to keep and bear arms was only incidental to the arrest. They gave the gun back. Yes, a suspicion of guns started it. But, what let it occur was a refusal to respect his 4A rights. An attitude that probably started long before the incident, and was sufficiently widespread that of three cops present, none stepped in to prevent the arrest.

    His 4th Amendment rights were violated. This from Terry vs Ohio, quoting Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.

    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

    No right more sacred. More carefully guarded. Free from all restraint. Free from all interference. Unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

    Yes, a suspicion of guns or gun owners started it. But, what let it occur was a refusal to respect his 4A rights. An attitude that probably started long before the incident, and was sufficiently widespread that of three cops present, none stepped in to prevent the arrest.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-29-2010 at 10:57 PM.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Iopencarry View Post
    THAT happens to everyone, lol
    Thank you for the kind words.

  17. #17
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Arrrrrgh! Aaaaaaaaaaaaugh!!

    His gun rights weren't violated.
    Yes, but CGF probably isnt going to defend a 4A incident unless it is somehow related to or affect the right to keep and bear arms in California. I know the distinction you are trying to make, but CGF is not a 4A defense group.
    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

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    This is a 4A, 42 USC section 1983 issue; not a 2A gun rights issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    (No offense, CAPatriot)

    Arrrrrrghhhh. This was not a 2nd Amendment issue. It was a 4th Amendment (search and seizure) issue. The guy was arrested without legal authority. The guy was arrested without probable cause. The cops made it up.

    I'm happy for the win. Yet, for me it is tinged with disappointment. Yes, the cops get trained on 12031. That's a good thing.

    An even better thing would be to slam them even harder for arresting someone without first finding out for sure that what he was doing was illegal. It doesn't matter whether it was about a gun, flying a kite while singing a Mary Poppins tune, or what. The core issue is willingness to arrest, or even detain without knowing to a cold dead moral certainty that the activity is illegal.

    It is this make-it-up-as-we-go-along, we're-the-law, mentality that needs to be corrected even more. If that alone were corrected, everything else would disappear. Instead of illegal detentions and false arrests, we'd be getting reports from OCers of nearby cops being seen frantically thumbing through statute books, the cops frequently glancing up from the pages to keep an eye on the OCer.

    I do understand certain cops will be a little more careful to think twice. "Oh, jeez. I dunno if this is actually illegal. Better check, first." But, I can still see a whole zone of detention and harassment--for everybody, not just OCers--still left in place.

    Another point. It would have tended to close the door on Saldana's "fix" for police deficiencies by banning UOC. It occurs to me, though, that it is not too late to hammer Saldana for wanting to leave in place the 4A-violation mentality that led to the arrest. A good little press campaign nailing the 4A angles thoroughly has got to hurt. And, it might even shut her up if she avoids UOC in order to avoid the 4A criticism.
    Hey Citizen,

    Your opinion is ABSOLUTELY correct. OC around the nation, and UOC in KA has revealed a systemic training and psychologicl problem with our police officers and their leaders.

    American police institutions, with some very good exceptions, have been corrupted by people who do not respect creator granted and constitutionally guaranteed rights, especially 4A.

    There seems to be no respect for SCOTUS case law.

    OC has brought, what inner city people have known for years to a different cross section of society, which is that the police don't give a damn about civil rights (many police departments, not all).

    In Kalifornia, if police followed codified law, OCers would be holding 1A rallies without fear of persecution and kidnapping by those who are supposed to help protect their 1A right to peacably assemble.

    Citizen, please keep pounding this point.

    markm

  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Instead of illegal detentions and false arrests, we'd be getting reports from OCers of nearby cops being seen frantically thumbing through statute books, the cops frequently glancing up from the pages to keep an eye on the OCer.
    Love it. This is really the end goal. It's this combination of having guns be a non-issue and having rights be so highly regarded that nobody would dare infringe upon them unless absolutely sure that they are within the set guidelines to do so.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    Fantastic news sam

    Bravo Zulu Sam hope this will make the training of LEO's high on the chief's priority list. If not they can standby for the next impending lawsuit I'm sure . Great job !!!!!
    "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

    - General George S. Patton, Jr.

  21. #21
    Regular Member RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    Congrats Sam! And a big thank you to you and your bro for those great videos on 12031 and all you do!

  22. #22
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355
    Congratulations on the win, we need more of those!

    “We do not encourage Unloaded Open Carrying of firearms in urban areas at this time,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation.
    My question for the above quote is, Why Not?

    -MH
    $2 Bill - Calling Card of the 2A Movement
    If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
    Seriously, who is John Galt?
    Vires et honestas

  23. #23
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Good news! This press release should be forwarded to every Sheriff and CLEO in the state!

    On a side note I admit I was unaware that CGF was financially supporting this case. I also admit that I did not even know this case was even going on. My hat is off to CGF for their efforts and victory in this case, and my hat is off to Sam who is a true patriot. Carry on!

  24. #24
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by March Hare View Post
    Congratulations on the win, we need more of those!



    My question for the above quote is, Why Not?

    -MH
    Long story short (In two parts):

    1) UOC initially was resulting in false arrests (two years ago about the time of Sam's arrest). Many can be read at californiaopencarry.org. This was at a time when CGF was just forming. Convincing those depts & DAs that UOC was no crime (people v clark) took time & $$$ away from offensive legal action. Also OCers were/are vulnerable to conviction of the CA 1000' GFSZ law (two casualties so far ).

    2) OC is a great tactic for social exposure when your tactic can not be legislated away like it is in States with open carry jurisprudence. CA and Federal jurisprudence, the only protection CA gun owners have, doesn't exist yet for us in a state with a ban happy legislature. UOC has insighted a UOC ban bill which did not pass this year only because two DEMS. were too sick to come to work. It will be back next year and will be a tooth and nail fight.

    UOC can not change public opinion fast enough to make a change in the legislature before the Nov. elections. As you can see UOC has it benifits and liabilities. Pushing it now, when loaded carry is the right, risks a ban that would take years & $$$$$$$ to overturn. Ca may end up with a concealed right like TX/FL (OC prohibited) and that would be a shame (I hate CC personally as it has no deterent factor and makes draw difficult).
    Last edited by cato; 10-03-2010 at 03:07 AM.

  25. #25
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    Good news! This press release should be forwarded to every Sheriff and CLEO in the state!

    On a side note I admit I was unaware that CGF was financially supporting this case. I also admit that I did not even know this case was even going on. My hat is off to CGF for their efforts and victory in this case, and my hat is off to Sam who is a true patriot. Carry on!
    They have their eye on an end game which includes LOC AND CC. Playing chess means not revealing your plan. Believing in CGFs goals and strategy does not require blind faith only a look at their track record. When they ask us to hold off on large press getting UOC events there is a strategic reason aimed at keeping OC legal until we get it protected. Loosing it now could mean forever. Depending on how 2nd A jurisprudence shakes out, we may only be left with a 1st A. protection for exposure and that is not a certainty.
    Last edited by cato; 10-02-2010 at 03:44 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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