• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

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

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
WAY TO GO SAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FROM CALGUNS.NET

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.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:

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
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.'
 

hgreen

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
470
Location
Centreville, VA
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.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
I'm hoping that Mike Hunt has something similar going on. Congrats Sam.
 

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
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?
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
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.
 

Yard Sale

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
708
Location
Northern Nevada, ,
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).
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
deleted dumb comment that failed to distinguish something. Of course, I noticed the distinction only after I hit "send".
 
Last edited:

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
This is a 4A, 42 USC section 1983 issue; not a 2A gun rights issue.

(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
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 
Top