Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Oceanside UOC Stop

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    50

    Oceanside UOC Stop

    Ok I got stopped by the OPD today they were rolling deep with about 7 officers.
    Last edited by IYAOYAS; 01-19-2011 at 10:45 PM.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    50
    Finally got the video downloaded to here is the link
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RF7VQH0H_I
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    I thought you did fine. You had a recording device. Objected to the 12031(e) check. Objected to the search for the serial number. Asked if you did anything wrong. Refused to ID yourself. Asked for your property back. Asked for name and badge number. Asked if you were free to go.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  4. #4
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    +1

    Keep it up as long as it is legal to do so. Everyday we see more and more of our "RIGHTS" being taken from us.

    We are living in the early stages of a police state. The LEOs don't seem to have the sense they are being used by the far left anti-gunners.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    you did great.

    I think you did a great job. Too bad they stomped on your Constitutional rights along the way. Frankly a three minute detention without the LEO's showing any poor attitude is not bad. Maybe a call to the Oceanside PD brass might help them with training on the serial number issue. Hard to dispute your video.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Aliso Viejo, ,
    Posts
    146
    .12 sec he says he is doing he's job? lololololol Court of Appeals ruled in California JENNIFER LEE SOUZA vs CITY OF ANTIOCH that police offices have no statutory duty to do anything. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...beuxqg&cad=rja So what are these tyrants doing there?

    Oh here is another one: They don't even have to protect you from criminals! they think we are suckers...
    http://law.onecle.com/california/government/845.html
    Last edited by wolfeinstein; 01-18-2011 at 04:24 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Aliso Viejo, ,
    Posts
    146

    What Constitutional rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by oc4ever View Post
    I think you did a great job. Too bad they stomped on your Constitutional rights along the way. Frankly a three minute detention without the LEO's showing any poor attitude is not bad. Maybe a call to the Oceanside PD brass might help them with training on the serial number issue. Hard to dispute your video.
    http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64

    The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either ex- [*4] pressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfeinstein View Post
    http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64

    The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either ex- [*4] pressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64
    I think that I am now dumber for reading this. Maybe you could rewrite that in english for us ordinary folks.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Aliso Viejo, ,
    Posts
    146
    There is a link. You can read the whole thing.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    45
    Ok so I'll admit I didn't read the entire thing, but let's go ahead and adopt that line of thinking. Seeing as how the document sets up the government that is still in use today, everyday we continue to abide by the government in place is a furtherence of the original agreement and therefor all current parties are then legally bound by the agreements found within, i.e. The Bill of Rights. Also, comsidering pur entire legal system is based on the republican structure all laws must follow the hierachy Constitution- Federal- state- local, but this system is broken all the time in the USA by everyone when it suits them to do so, and has been all throughout the United States' history and it's a freaking shame!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Aliso Viejo, ,
    Posts
    146
    There is a nice debate about it in the law forum here on UOC http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...f-no-authority!!!!

  12. #12
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    To my brothers in blue,

    You need to go back to the squad room and review a few things (all Supreme Court 4th Amendment Cases);

    http://www.google.com/m/url?client=m...C2O89bsBg0iTBw

    Arizona vs HICKS - you can not manipulate an object (search) to find the serial number which you don't have the power to keep in your custody, even when it is in 'plain view'. You were obviously searching for the serial number; an activity which is not part of checking the chamber for a round - the only activity authorized by 12031(e) PC (the constitutionality of which is in doubt since it is a non-warrant search for criminal activity absent consent, an exception, or probable cause).


    http://www.google.com/m/url?client=m...qO0mmbViDgf6OA

    JL vs Floridia - there is no gun exception to the 4th Amendment.


    http://www.google.com/m/url?client=m...d1FwvC16uMulkQ

    Terry vs Ohio - A patdown is for officer safety during a legal detention for criminal investigation supported by reasonable articulated suspicion AND the officer has articulable belief that the person detained is both armed AND dangerous. If armed was synonymous with dangerous the Supreme Court would not have used the second descriptor.

    There was NO suspicion of criminal activity yet you prolonged this detention falsely imprisoning this man. You unlawfully searched that free American's property against his explicit instructions. You unlawfully put your hands on his body, an assault under color of law. And you say you were just doing your job? Ever hear of the Nuremburg defense? Shame on you bro.
    Last edited by cato; 01-20-2011 at 12:24 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    great job just a lil suggestion..... let them figure out how to unholster your weapon good training for the leos

    Not to bash google or anything here are those cases at FINDLAW i tried to post lexis nexus but you guy wont be able to see it with out an account

    Arizona v Hicks
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=480&invol=321

    JL v Florida
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=98-1993

    Terry v Ohio
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=392&invol=1
    Last edited by stuckinchico; 01-19-2011 at 09:21 PM. Reason: Lexis Nexis account links wouldnt post

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    To my brothers in blue,

    You need to go back to the squad room and review a few things (all Supreme Court 4th Amendment Cases);

    http://www.google.com/m/url?client=m...C2O89bsBg0iTBw

    Arizona vs HICKS - you can not manipulate an object (search) to find the serial number which you don't have the power to keep in your custody, even when it is in 'plain view'. You were obviously searching for the serial number; an activity which is not part of checking the chamber for a round - the only activity authorized by 12031(e) PC (the constitutionality of which is in doubt since it is an non-warrant search for criminal activity absent consent, an exception, or probable cause).


    http://www.google.com/m/url?client=m...qO0mmbViDgf6OA

    JL vs Floridia - there is no gun exception to the 4th Amendment.


    http://www.google.com/m/url?client=m...d1FwvC16uMulkQ

    Terry vs Ohio - A patdown is for officer safety during a legal detention for criminal investigation supported by reasonable articulated suspicion AND the officer has articulable belief that the person detained is both armed AND dangerous. If armed was synonymous with dangerous the Supreme Court would not have used the second descriptor.

    There was NO suspicion of criminal activity yet you prolonged this detention falsely imprisoning this man. You unlawfully searched that free American's property against his explicit instructions. You unlawfully put your hands on his body, an assault under color of law. And you say you were just doing your job? Ever hear of the Nuremburg defense? Shame on you bro.
    Excellent points, sir!
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    50
    Just an update: Today I went and talked to the supervisor at the OPD about the incident. The SGT. seemed like a really good guy and pro 2A I brought up the three issues that I had with the conduct of the officers involved i.e. Search of serial number, physically detained, and search of my person. We both agreed that this is a training issue that needed to be addressed with the junior officers, He said that he would bring these issues up with the DA and inform me of what they say. He said that the officer was new to the force and training would be implemented. I kinda wish that excuse worked with traffic tickets.
    Im sorry your honor I am a new driver I wasn't aware of all the little traffic ordinances.
    I informed him that as long as it is legal I will continue to UOC and when I feel my rights are violated I will comply with orders while verbally protesting and I will not physically resist his officers. He said he wished more people protested as peaceful as I did.
    In conclusion I think that the issues will be dealt with through the chain of cmd. I feel that we have all learned from the experience and the OPD and UOCer's are kinda on the same page. Still there is much work to do because the general public doesn't have this understanding and they will continue to call the Police on law abiding citizens exercising their rights openly which will continue to be a waste of the Police departments time and tax payer dollars. I think that officers should follow up with "concerned" citizens that call them on UOCers and explain to the citizen that it is perfectly legal for a person to UOC in california.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

  16. #16
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by IYAOYAS View Post
    Just an update: Today I went and talked to the supervisor at the OPD about the incident. The SGT. seemed like a really good guy and pro 2A I brought up the three issues that I had with the conduct of the officers involved i.e. Search of serial number, physically detained, and search of my person. We both agreed that this is a training issue that needed to be addressed with the junior officers, He said that he would bring these issues up with the DA and inform me of what they say. He said that the officer was new to the force and training would be implemented. I kinda wish that excuse worked with traffic tickets.
    Im sorry your honor I am a new driver I wasn't aware of all the little traffic ordinances.
    I informed him that as long as it is legal I will continue to UOC and when I feel my rights are violated I will comply with orders while verbally protesting and I will not physically resist his officers. He said he wished more people protested as peaceful as I did.
    In conclusion I think that the issues will be dealt with through the chain of cmd. I feel that we have all learned from the experience and the OPD and UOCer's are kinda on the same page. Still there is much work to do because the general public doesn't have this understanding and they will continue to call the Police on law abiding citizens exercising their rights openly which will continue to be a waste of the Police departments time and tax payer dollars. I think that officers should follow up with "concerned" citizens that call them on UOCers and explain to the citizen that it is perfectly legal for a person to UOC in california.
    I would recommend sending them something in writting via registered return receipt mail. Supervisors (Sgts) have a way of talking out of both sides of their mouths. They know how to talk to you, make you feel good so you don't file a formal complaint, and protect their men. I'm not saying make a formal complaint just put them on notice. It could help you in the future. Just send the sgt. an e-mail memorializing the conversation.

    Have you applied to SDSO and gotten a ccw denial for legal insurance?
    Last edited by cato; 01-20-2011 at 12:52 AM.

  17. #17
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    Excellent points, sir!
    Thank you. But my legal 'correctness' is not just limited to when we agree. I wish some here would recognize this in relation to applying for a ccw licenses (denials in many cases) to assist our carrier's defense should they ever be chaged with any gun crime in the future.

    I don't like it (licensing) but the jurisprudence leans in that direction especially in light of Heller being the only plaintiff to make to SCOTUS.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    To my brothers in blue,

    You need to go back to the squad room and review a few things (all Supreme Court 4th Amendment Cases);

    http://www.google.com/m/url?client=m...C2O89bsBg0iTBw

    Arizona vs HICKS - you can not manipulate an object (search) to find the serial number which you don't have the power to keep in your custody, even when it is in 'plain view'. You were obviously searching for the serial number; an activity which is not part of checking the chamber for a round - the only activity authorized by 12031(e) PC (the constitutionality of which is in doubt since it is a non-warrant search for criminal activity absent consent, an exception, or probable cause).


    http://www.google.com/m/url?client=m...qO0mmbViDgf6OA

    JL vs Floridia - there is no gun exception to the 4th Amendment.


    http://www.google.com/m/url?client=m...d1FwvC16uMulkQ

    Terry vs Ohio - A patdown is for officer safety during a legal detention for criminal investigation supported by reasonable articulated suspicion AND the officer has articulable belief that the person detained is both armed AND dangerous. If armed was synonymous with dangerous the Supreme Court would not have used the second descriptor.

    There was NO suspicion of criminal activity yet you prolonged this detention falsely imprisoning this man. You unlawfully searched that free American's property against his explicit instructions. You unlawfully put your hands on his body, an assault under color of law. And you say you were just doing your job? Ever hear of the Nuremburg defense? Shame on you bro.
    Good post Cato, but have you ever seen the movie "They Live" ?
    Check it out ! Alien to our Constitution & BoR Robin47

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    45
    I hope any follow up with "concerned citizens" is more than just simply sir/ma'am it's legal...

    I think many do not really have an issue with the legality of it, they take exception to its presence regardless due to ignorance on danger levels and actual existence of threat.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    I would recommend sending them something in writting via registered return receipt mail. Supervisors (Sgts) have a way of talking out of both sides of their mouths. They know how to talk to you, make you feel good so you don't file a formal complaint, and protect their men. I'm not saying make a formal complaint just put them on notice. It could help you in the future. Just send the sgt. an e-mail memorializing the conversation.

    Have you applied to SDSO and gotten a ccw denial for legal insurance?
    "Officer I applied for a CCW at Sheriff Gores licensing office, they told me I did not have good cause and would be unable to acquire a permit, they said I could fill out the paperwork and pay the fee but would definitley be denied. So UOC is my only other legal option."

    "Would you like to hear the digital recording of my conversation with the licensing clerk? I have it right here with a copy of Judge Gonzales ruling that Open Carry is my other legal alternative from Peruta v. San Diego."
    Last edited by Firemark; 01-22-2011 at 12:34 PM.
    New to OPEN CARRY? Click here first

    "Gun owners in California in 2011 are like black people in the south in 1955. If you don't understand that then your concepts of fighting for gun rights is just tilting at windmills." Gene Hoffman.

    "Why do you need to carry a gun?" ...Because it not a Bill of Needs, its a Bill of Rights!!

  21. #21
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by IYAOYAS View Post
    Just an update: Today I went and talked to the supervisor at the OPD about the incident. The SGT. seemed like a really good guy and pro 2A I brought up the three issues that I had with the conduct of the officers involved i.e. Search of serial number, physically detained, and search of my person. We both agreed that this is a training issue that needed to be addressed with the junior officers, He said that he would bring these issues up with the DA and inform me of what they say. He said that the officer was new to the force and training would be implemented. I kinda wish that excuse worked with traffic tickets.
    Im sorry your honor I am a new driver I wasn't aware of all the little traffic ordinances.
    I informed him that as long as it is legal I will continue to UOC and when I feel my rights are violated I will comply with orders while verbally protesting and I will not physically resist his officers. He said he wished more people protested as peaceful as I did.
    In conclusion I think that the issues will be dealt with through the chain of cmd. I feel that we have all learned from the experience and the OPD and UOCer's are kinda on the same page. Still there is much work to do because the general public doesn't have this understanding and they will continue to call the Police on law abiding citizens exercising their rights openly which will continue to be a waste of the Police departments time and tax payer dollars. I think that officers should follow up with "concerned" citizens that call them on UOCers and explain to the citizen that it is perfectly legal for a person to UOC in california.
    This should be a question asked of LE when they say to you "Someone called in a complaint about a MWAG".

    "Oh, well officer have you made contact with the reporting party yet? Id be more than happy to talk to them about the law, especially in your presence so they feel safe. Thats one of the reasons I choose to UOC is to educate the public and LE about the laws and our rights as citizens."

    Remember the MWAG complaint comment can be a verbal judo move to get you to comply, to relinquishing your 4A rights and consent to a voluntary encounter. Believe it or not that comment may just be a lie, LE has been known to lie to get compliance. The dispatcher should have relayed a description of not only you, the UOC'r, but the caller as well, and LEO are suppose to make contact with reporting parties to get information first hand about an incident so they can document it in their report. Remember LE can not charge you with a crime they themselves didnt see, they require a witness willing to place a citizens arrest and testify in court as to the crime you commited. When they show up, I bet many are hoping that they can just engage a UOC'r and catch them breaking the law somehow just for the simple fact your carrying a gun, and a witness statement isnt even necessary. But many LE agencies are starting to realizing that EVERY encounter now with UOC'rs is recorded and will be on youtube by the end of their shift, with most likely an official complaint letter or lawsuit coming very soon.

    I agree wholehartedly with Cato record all your correspondence with LE complaint or compliment emails or letters. Even face to face, in this civil rights struggle documentation and proof of lies and falsehoods will be critical in swaying public opinion.
    New to OPEN CARRY? Click here first

    "Gun owners in California in 2011 are like black people in the south in 1955. If you don't understand that then your concepts of fighting for gun rights is just tilting at windmills." Gene Hoffman.

    "Why do you need to carry a gun?" ...Because it not a Bill of Needs, its a Bill of Rights!!

  22. #22
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by IYAOYAS View Post
    Finally got the video downloaded to here is the link
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RF7VQH0H_I
    Coming late to this thread. Sorry you got e-violated. Good job during the encounter affirming and protecting your rights and identity and getting it all on tape. Question: did you inform or show the video to the supervisor?

    The sad thing about this is IMO the police departments in this state will not take the 4th seriously during 12031(e) violations until someone sues them and they lose big. Then and only then will they take their profession and their training on the issue much more seriously.

    Funny...because as I write this I realize they have already been sued and lost...that was El Sensei's case in San Diego (or maybe they settled don't remember off hand). But it appears now that more than one lawsuit is needed here.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    14
    The police are free to "ask" you to do anything. It's up to you on if you want to do it or not. they can ask for your name. You aren't required to give it unless your arrested.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeJ View Post
    The police are free to "ask" you to do anything. It's up to you on if you want to do it or not. they can ask for your name. You aren't required to give it unless your arrested.
    That's not entirely true of course. Didn't you say you have a degree in Administration of Justice in a different thread?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by MK View Post
    That's not entirely true of course. Didn't you say you have a degree in Administration of Justice in a different thread?
    Unless your cited or arrested your not required to provide your information. What is not correct about that? I'm not sure how it is in your state but that is now it is in California. Driving is different because a license is required. After being pulled over the driver is required to provide ID.

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
  •