Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: How to use the 12031 'E' check to help the cause of open carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445

    How to use the 12031 'E' check to help the cause of open carry

    I wanted to start this string to get a conversation going about ideas and experiences regarding an 'E' check. Specifically during large events like community fairs where LE is present in larger numbers and the crowds are present in large numbers.

    It seems to me that since many of us all know that the 'E' check is not only illegal and down right stupid, I believe many citizens, who witness an 'E' check done for the very first time, at an event can see this too. I think this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate 2A rights to a large audience and concurrently show and discuss with any citizens who ask, how not only our 2A rights are being violated but 4th and 14th as well.

    Many people are very ardent about being stoic and confrontational and resistant to LE 'E' checks. But I think within the sense and framework of a large community gathering, allowing it to play thru and show to all those watching that UOC citizens can be and are respectful, compliant citizens, and LE are acting like jack booted and gestapo thugs, actually can serve our cause and enlighten many more people about our dwindling American rights.
    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!!

  2. #2
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    I wanted to start this string to get a conversation going about ideas and experiences regarding an 'E' check. Specifically during large events like community fairs where LE is present in larger numbers and the crowds are present in large numbers.

    It seems to me that since many of us all know that the 'E' check is not only illegal and down right stupid, I believe many citizens, who witness an 'E' check done for the very first time, at an event can see this too. I think this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate 2A rights to a large audience and concurrently show and discuss with any citizens who ask, how not only our 2A rights are being violated but 4th and 14th as well.

    Many people are very ardent about being stoic and confrontational and resistant to LE 'E' checks. But I think within the sense and framework of a large community gathering, allowing it to play thru and show to all those watching that UOC citizens can be and are respectful, compliant citizens, and LE are acting like jack booted and gestapo thugs, actually can serve our cause and enlighten many more people about our dwindling American rights.
    The only thing the e-violation accomplishes is sending the message of "do what he's doing, and you can expect the same." Of course most people want nothing to do with being surrounded by the law. So the e-violation is extremely effective in preventing open carry in this state. That's why we need to stop the e-violations. Then and only then will more people open carry. Besides that, many who would open carry choose not to because the unloaded requirement is viewed as useless or even more dangerous than not carrying at all.

    Regardless, once 12031e is gone and LOC is restored, open carry will still be rare, especially in CA.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  3. #3
    Regular Member DooFster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Nellis AFB, Nevada
    Posts
    445
    Regardless, once 12031e is gone and LOC is restored, open carry will still be rare, especially in CA.
    Then how would it still be rare if we can actually LOC instead of UOC? Please forgive me for being extremely contradictory. I'm just looking to get a better understanding of what you mean...
    IT is better to have a gun on you and NOT need it, than to need a gun and NOT have it on you...

  4. #4
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    The only thing the e-violation accomplishes is sending the message of "do what he's doing, and you can expect the same." Of course most people want nothing to do with being surrounded by the law. So the e-violation is extremely effective in preventing open carry in this state. That's why we need to stop the e-violations. Then and only then will more people open carry. Besides that, many who would open carry choose not to because the unloaded requirement is viewed as useless or even more dangerous than not carrying at all.

    Regardless, once 12031e is gone and LOC is restored, open carry will still be rare, especially in CA.
    Well im not sure if that is the ONLY thing..

    You need to be careful with saying that phrase, the antis use it and people believe it---"the ONLY thing a gun is used for is to shoot and kill another human being". We know that is not true, the firearms most powerful use is as a visual deterent.
    I have seen some of the sheeple, who are almost awake, see an E check and it wakes them up to the reality that US citizens rights are being trampled. Then they want to know more and get involved. They come up afterwards and ask us questions. The remaining sheeple may not understand what they are seeing at least the first time they see it. But they see ordinary citizens with guns NOT get arrested by LE and they wonder why.

    Right now LE does not care about the politics, especially the patrol officers who have to do the 'E' check, they just do it because that is what their training bulletin said to do, they are not thinking they are just following orders, they see the weapon in the holster and like Pavlovs' dog the bell goes off and they start salivating, but they are not seeing it like we see it. Thats why so many dont even listen to us when we discuss the issue with them, they just want to do the E check now, and get the hell out of there cause they know they will be on youtube and quite possibly sued for a civil rights violation.

    If tomorrow E checks magically vanished and we could LOC, nothing in the minds of the sleeping California people will change, It would be like transporting a bi-racial husband and wife into 1950's middle America, there is no time or opportunity to ease people into changing their thought process. Sheeple will still be scared and frightend because there has not been any sort of "wade into the water" effect. People hate change, especially fast change. a schism would be created, shops and stores would put up "no guns allowed" signs, communtiy groups would try and find some means to get another unconstitutional law passed to thwart 2A rights.

    Just because we win the court battle and get our rights back does not mean we win the people. If you can not remember the 101st airborne and the Little Rock 9 think about it. Segregation was declared unconstitutional, schools could no longer be 1 color only, and look how readily it was accpeted with open arms by the people (sarcasm).
    Some of the most powerful images from that time were Americans being beat with night sticks, having dogs set on them by LE, and high power water hoses. That is what happend when the govt said "this is now illegal", do you think something similar would happen when LOC was suddenly legal?? There would be a tremendous backlash by the sleeping anti sheeple. Maybe not water cannon or night stick beatings but a definite backlash.

    This is the danger of "winning" a Scotus case that says magcally over night "they can carry now" Look how much Chicago's illicit govt is fighting the change. Even D.C and NY are actively fighting any pro 2A change. Think about the "Law of Unintended Consequences"I believe to stop the E check violation is to have more of them, more people need to see responsible citizens being harrassed for exercising a Constitutional right, that is whats going to piss people off and affect a change. Plus LE is going to get tired of checking if its a daily occurence, same people, more of them, always carrying.

    The problem I see is that there are good ways and bad ways to handle LE when they do an E check. The good way, the MLK way, the Ghandi way, the non violent resistance movement way is to let them do the E check in front of large groups of people and let the people see non violent resistance to illicit acitvity by the state..

    The not so good way is to be actively resistant, obstinate, confrontational. When the people see that they dont empathize with us they just see an armed "criminal" being handled by LE. (this by the way is what the media wants desperately to catch for the evening news, and the Brady bunch as well).

    I have noticed that during community events where LE has for-knowledge of UOC occuring they opt to just avoid us. Not knowing if there are 5 or 50 of us attending they know it would be a PR nightmare to try and stop and check all of us. This works for our cause, the stupidity and pointlesness of Mass 'E' checks on the evening news HELPS our cause. Especially if the UOC'rs are acting MLK like.
    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!!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    I know many people may disagree, but I believe we need to draw the E check from LE ESPECIALLY in large community events with lots of public attending and watching.

    WE need to have UOC members in a support role with video capability not carrying handguns who look just like John Q public, who just happend to have a video recorder and get video. Work the crowd and get others to engage conversation with the UOC'rs.

    We need to show up at community events un announced so LE does not make a plan to down size our political statement. If their is no game plan on account of LE supervisors then E checks happen the way we want and serve OUR purpose.

    We need to travel in small groups independently, not one large mass of armed people, that sends the wrong message. By spreading out there appears, to most untrained eyes, there are way more of us then there are. Prevents corraling all of us together and attempting one large E check which helps out the anti's cause, many multiple checks is silly and looks like being picked on and profiled, that works for our cause.

    UOC'rs with their families, spouse and children present sends a huge and powerful message.

    These are just some of the things I have seen while carrying, and the effect it can and does have on people.
    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!!

  6. #6
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    I know many people may disagree, but I believe we need to draw the E check from LE ESPECIALLY in large community events with lots of public attending and watching.

    WE need to have UOC members in a support role with video capability not carrying handguns who look just like John Q public, who just happend to have a video recorder and get video. Work the crowd and get others to engage conversation with the UOC'rs.

    We need to show up at community events un announced so LE does not make a plan to down size our political statement. If their is no game plan on account of LE supervisors then E checks happen the way we want and serve OUR purpose.

    We need to travel in small groups independently, not one large mass of armed people, that sends the wrong message. By spreading out there appears, to most untrained eyes, there are way more of us then there are. Prevents corraling all of us together and attempting one large E check which helps out the anti's cause, many multiple checks is silly and looks like being picked on and profiled, that works for our cause.

    UOC'rs with their families, spouse and children present sends a huge and powerful message.


    These are just some of the things I have seen while carrying, and the effect it can and does have on people.
    This sounds eerily familiar. I wonder where I might have read this before?
    Last edited by ConditionThree; 06-01-2011 at 07:09 PM.
    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

  7. #7
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    I know many people may disagree, but I believe we need to draw the E check from LE ESPECIALLY in large community events with lots of public attending and watching.
    I think we should applaud departments and officers who do not e-check. Doing e-checks shows you do not trust the UOCer and are attempting to make a criminal case against them.

    Some people might be smart and realize the injustice of e-checks, but most have no clue and will think UOC="Call Cops" since that's the only time I saw UOC was when cops were surrounding.

    But in the event of e-checks then this ->
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    WE need to have UOC members in a support role with video capability not carrying handguns who look just like John Q public, who just happend to have a video recorder and get video. Work the crowd and get others to engage conversation with the UOC'rs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    We need to show up at community events un announced so LE does not make a plan to down size our political statement. If their is no game plan on account of LE supervisors then E checks happen the way we want and serve OUR purpose.
    Not sure I'm 100% on this one, its good for most things, but that's not to say large media events are bad. The Pasadena event went very well except for the dinner reservation debacle. The police knew months in advance when and where we'd be and did ZERO e-checks. Large UOC group != e-checks

    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    We need to travel in small groups independently, not one large mass of armed people, that sends the wrong message. By spreading out there appears, to most untrained eyes, there are way more of us then there are. Prevents corraling all of us together and attempting one large E check which helps out the anti's cause, many multiple checks is silly and looks like being picked on and profiled, that works for our cause.
    Again, depends on the purpose of the event. Not all large gatherings have resulted in e-checks and negative media (take last years Manhattan Hometown Fair or this years Pasadena rally).

    What we should be doing is EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US get out and OC DAILY. If we only do it at UOC "events" then it will never be normal. The UOC "events" are to help noobies come into the fold and learn face-to-face from veterans, not to be the only time one OCs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    UOC'rs with their families, spouse and children present sends a huge and powerful message.
    Totally agree, I know many spouses (not just wives) who are not 100% on the OC bandwagon, but you have to make a strong effort and concessions to get them to come out with you to the events, they don't have to OC, just their presence near you is a good thing!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by hgreen View Post
    I think we should applaud departments and officers who do not e-check. Doing e-checks shows you do not trust the UOCer and are attempting to make a criminal case against them.

    Some people might be smart and realize the injustice of e-checks, but most have no clue and will think UOC="Call Cops" since that's the only time I saw UOC was when cops were surrounding.
    Yes Harley, but in the specific context of groups of people UOC'ing at a community event presents several opportunities that a public 'E' check serves us.
    -First their will be a larger than normal force of security and uniformed officers present which means the likelyhood of LE encounter and subsequent 'E' check is a certainty.
    -Second all the community events I have been to have an inordiante amount of political booths for espousing some platform, in fact I believe all community fairs are now pretty much places where political action commitees set up shop to reach the widest swathe of people.
    -Third in the political THEATER of the community event simply carrying a firearm does not in my opinion change many people minds about 2A rights. Many people, if they see the firearm, dismiss you as LE or refuse to accept or deal with it and move on, only those who have some pre knowledge about gun rights will electively engage in conversation or ask questions about it.
    -Fourth I think many people do have a clue, and although they may be too afraid or intimidated to approach or say anything to a UOC'r directly, they will inform LE and will want to see the issue handled by them. When nothing happens, the UOC'r is allowed to continue on their merry way, we have shown that LE is ok (even reluctantly) with us being there. That is the perfect opportunity to engage the public and use the political theater to our advantage.

    Harley I disagree with you, LE do 'E' checks because thats what they were trained to do!! AND LE must always control a situation, its part of their DNA and training, they must do something. It is rare to have a LE person who understands civil rights and leaves the people alone (Sheriff Andy Taylor) but all to often we have way to many (Barney Fifes) out there who are nervous in the service and have no clue what they are doing and just do what they are told. They respond to a complaint "MWAG" ,they show up, check the weapon, make everything safe, and then continue on. Almost all of them never just ask "is it unloaded" and they walk away not realizing that nothing has changed in the 2 minutes that just transpired we are still UOC'ing and have handguns readily accessible and easily loadable.

    People need to remember that there are thousands and thousands of LE in CA many have had "some" training or a bulletin about open carry, many have not or were asleep during it. This occured probably more than 2 years ago now, only a very few have had to deal with it firsthand, so the odds are your next 'E' check is going to be done by someone who got a 5 minute briefing, that was written poorly and incorrectly, 2 years ago and now has to "handle" the situation. I guarantee you they will not remember much if anything from that training, so they are going to muddle thru it the best they can using there fall back maneuver "control the situation, make the subject submissive" A UOC'r proudly and vocally standing up for their rights, even arguing with LE, from LE's point of view and listening sounds like a criminal trying to manipulate and command the situation.

    Patrol officers are the foot soldiers in all this they just do what they are told, senior political aspiring lieutenants, captains and chiefs give the marching orders and they are always looking towards "How do I avoid bad press and liability, how do I make my mayor and city council happy" They set the policy, thats why no 'E' checks are done at large community events withpre warning of large numbers of UOC'rs present, it is a well thought out plan. Do not give them any power or attention and UOC will eventually fade away.
    The image of a LEO putting a weapon back into the holster of a citizen at a community event and allowed to go on their way is not what they want the TV media to show.

    And just to be fair Harley, in a one on one situation with just a UOC'r and 1 officer detaining and 'E' checking sure that is the best time to confront the unconstitutionality and stupidity of 'E"checks and unloadedness. The Officer is not in a position to have to save face or perform in front of the public political theater.
    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!!

  9. #9
    Activist Member Joshua Costa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    80
    Great debate! Let me interject some of my own view points.

    My experiences open carrying have fallen into two distinct categories: medium to large gatherings of UOC'ers in high traffic public places, and then just me alone running errands and generally just living my life. The purpose of each of these situation is vastly different from the other.

    In a public gathering,(If the officers want to violate my 4th Amendment rights and be help responsible) I encourage E checks. I place myself in locations that make me more visible. For me it's almost more of a 1st Amendment protest than a 2nd Amendment one.

    When I am UOC alone my mind is racing 100 miles an hour. I'm completely focused on my surroundings. I avoid confrontations, and I really believe I have an ability to affect the outcome of a bad situation if one were to appear. That makes me act much more responsible and a lot of my Marine Corps training kicks in. I am super careful of who is around me. I don't want an officer pulling me aside causing a big fuss every time I walk into Target to by a gallon of milk.

    A large public event is political theater. Picking up some milk at Target is very different and I feel they should be treated as such.
    Last edited by Joshua Costa; 06-01-2011 at 10:23 PM.
    "I do not love the sword for its gleam, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory; I love only what they protect."
    — J.R.R. Tolkien

  10. #10
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by DooFster View Post
    Then how would it still be rare if we can actually LOC instead of UOC? Please forgive me for being extremely contradictory. I'm just looking to get a better understanding of what you mean...
    What I mean is in the general sense of the total population, even pro-2A population. LOC is not the preferred method of carry. The reality is that the majority of those who would carry if they could, would choose concealed carry if that was an option.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  11. #11
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    What I mean is in the general sense of the total population, even pro-2A population. LOC is not the preferred method of carry. The reality is that the majority of those who would carry if they could, would choose concealed carry if that was an option.
    But why would they choose that? It wasnt to long ago that the idea of concealing a firearm was thought of as being nefarious and criminal and downright evil in this country.

    Why is it now the preferred method?
    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!!

  12. #12
    Regular Member ~*'Phoenix'*~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    538
    Because the NRA convinced the politicians that CC is what everyone REALLY wanted, and nobody'd see it and nobody'd get scared ?
    Honestly, I'd rather UOC than CC just because CC keeps it out-of-sight, out-of-mind for the sheeple, and I'd rather be more at-risk and make them wake up, then feel a little safer and let this idiotic gunz-is-bad charade endure any longer. And it's uncomfortable, and cannot be comfortably and reliably kept concealed during any normal work or physical activity. CC is for waddling through the grocery store with a shirt down to your knees, not for hiking, jogging, working, doing anything that requires physical movement.
    Of course, I will be loaded OCing as soon as I'm somewhere that doesn't ban it. Floriduh isn't a whole lot better than Kommiefornia. Sure we got shall-issue CC, but even unloaded OC is banned, even for long guns, even just from your apartment to your car (if you live in an apartment even with a CC license, you literally cannot legally move a rifle form your apartment to your trunk, even unloaded and in plain sight, or fully encased, unless you're going to/from a range, hunting or fishing).
    Last edited by ~*'Phoenix'*~; 06-02-2011 at 03:06 PM.
    American Government 101:
    The Executive branch's job is to provide celebrity figureheads for the pandering populace.
    The Legislative branch's job is to progressively destroy our freedoms for the "safety" of "We the Sheeple."
    The Judicial branch's job is to look like they're defending our freedoms against the abuses of the Legislative branch, only by token gestures that do not interfere is this pivotal process, but enough to deceive "We the People" into a false sense of security.

  13. #13
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    But why would they choose that? It wasnt to long ago that the idea of concealing a firearm was thought of as being nefarious and criminal and downright evil in this country.

    Why is it now the preferred method?
    Don't ask me, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe its their wives, or their work, or their clergy, or their advocacy group, or ??? I'm just stating the current societal realities.

    I am of the belief that open carry is the second amendment, therefore I choose open carry, but I also would enjoy the constitutional carry (open or concealed) when in certain situations.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    I wanted to start this string to get a conversation going about ideas and experiences regarding an 'E' check. Specifically during large events like community fairs where LE is present in larger numbers and the crowds are present in large numbers.

    It seems to me that since many of us all know that the 'E' check is not only illegal and down right stupid, I believe many citizens, who witness an 'E' check done for the very first time, at an event can see this too. I think this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate 2A rights to a large audience and concurrently show and discuss with any citizens who ask, how not only our 2A rights are being violated but 4th and 14th as well.

    Many people are very ardent about being stoic and confrontational and resistant to LE 'E' checks. But I think within the sense and framework of a large community gathering, allowing it to play thru and show to all those watching that UOC citizens can be and are respectful, compliant citizens, and LE are acting like jack booted and gestapo thugs, actually can serve our cause and enlighten many more people about our dwindling American rights.
    I can't understand why there's never been a court case dealing with the 12031-e,
    as a violation of our 4th and 14th-A ?
    Why no Federal court cases for the LE who preformed that violation.

    First they broke their oath to their God if they have one, & to We the People of California, to protect our rights
    2A, under the BOR.
    That being said, that making them an "Impostor in their office" and also committing a fraud for taking the
    public's money under false pretenses.
    Haven't there ever been any 12031-e violations to go to Federal court ?
    " I was just doing my job", doesn't cut it !

    Robin47

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I think there was a state court that said it is only a minor inconvience, so they let it stand.
    No citation
    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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    If tomorrow E checks magically vanished and we could LOC, nothing in the minds of the sleeping California people will change, It would be like transporting a bi-racial husband and wife into 1950's middle America, there is no time or opportunity to ease people into changing their thought process.

    Just because we win the court battle and get our rights back does not mean we win the people. If you can not remember the 101st airborne and the Little Rock 9 think about it. Segregation was declared unconstitutional, schools could no longer be 1 color only, and look how readily it was accpeted with open arms by the people (sarcasm).
    While it may be true that the Brady's and others like them would be able to convince some store owners to put up "no guns" signs, I absolutely disagree with the concept and argument that today's 2A rights fight has anything in common with the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. Like it or not, black rights were not part of "Americana" from the beginning, obviously there was a long history of just the opposite, and (unfortunately) that took time to overcome. However, gun rights are an integral part of Americana. Guns are as American as apple pie. And the fight to get back to where we once were won't be anything like the civil rights movement.

    Now I'm not saying that there won't be resistance...from the state. But you won't see the kind of resistance, and blood shed, and non-sense from the general public that occurred during the civil rights era. Our 2A rights today is a fight against modern government tyranny, not societal persecution and oppression that existed for generations. To me, the two aren't anything close to being analogous, not to mention not being entirely respectful and deferential to the civil rights leaders and what they were fighting against.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    I think there was a state court that said it is only a minor inconvience, so they let it stand.
    No citation
    Yeah but State Courts, and Inferior courts, and only an Appeals Court could make the right decision.
    Take what Kavsieverding said on a post above.
    I looked up and read some U.S. court cases, and looks like Title 18 USC 241 & 242, work for us the
    "Free People" !

    Robin47 !

  18. #18
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    I can't understand why there's never been a court case dealing with the 12031-e,
    as a violation of our 4th and 14th-A ?
    Why no Federal court cases for the LE who preformed that violation.
    See People vs DeLong, People vs Kern, People vs Greer, etc...

    Its been upheld many times that a simple e-check is not an unreasonable search or seizure, its a simple 'inspection'

    However, there have also been many dissenting views written by some judges. Ultimately the right plaintiff with the right jurisdiction will get 12031(e) killed.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    So I really want to hear some strategies and brainstorming to take this tool LE uses and turn it against them and make it work for us. Like Sun Tzu and many martial arts redirecting the force back upon them and using it to our advantage.
    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!!

  20. #20
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    972
    Well it appears that even those in LE and Prosecutors don't believe much of it is right.

    Originally Posted by (removed to remain anonymous)
    "I cannot believe that any sensible person involved in law enforcement would advocate that Law Enforcement Officers not be allowed to determine if a person openly carrying a firearm is legally qualified to do so."
    Did I ever say that an officer can't stop and talk to a person who is open-carrying? Request ID? Ask questions? As long as there's no detention, this is perfectly acceptable police-work. However, the line is crossed when an officer detains a person without reasonable suspicion. The bottom line is that in many places, the mere possession of a gun isn't a crime, and isn't reasonable suspicion enough for a detention for a weapons violation any more than a person with a child in hand can be detained for suspicion of kidnapping.

    "And in at least one other thread, California DA's were quoted authorizing the Officers in their jurisdictions to make such determinative stops. Are those DAs wrong?"

    Yes, they are wrong. The presence of 12031(e) -- a law which allows a LEO to determine if an openly-carried firearm is loaded or not -- is de facto proof that a specific statute authorizing a detention -- absent reasonable suspicion -- is needed when confronting an open-carrier. In all truth, 12031(e) is probably unconstitutional on its face, since it creates a 4th amendment exception, and only courts -- not the legislature -- can do this.

    "And if you cannot develop the cases the Cops bring to you, perhaps you should be re-thinking your career."

    I win convictions in more than 90% of cases I try, and I love nothing more than good, solid, competent police work. I think it's a thing of beauty when the work from the street all the way through the courts runs the way it should, and I can put some psychopath away for 25 to life, but we don't need to violate peoples' rights in order to secure convictions, and we shouldn't. I don't try cases that are built on civil rights violations, even if I think I can win. I don't reward criminal behavior, and that's exactly what this type of bad police work is.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  21. #21
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    For those who haven't heard, CGF recently sued CA to have 12031 e struck as a violation of the 4 th A.

    See page 11:

    http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/bri...2011-05-20.pdf
    Last edited by cato; 06-09-2011 at 11:52 AM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Yup, am aware. Very good stuff. 12031(e)'s days are numbered. But...

    The PRK legislature will ban unloaded open carry (AB144). Governor Moonbeam will sign it. 12031(e) will fall.

    (sarcasm on) Hip hip horray. (sarcasm off)

    I don't foresee any injunctive/declaratory relief lawsuits being filed against AB144 by any of the right people. It would hurt their CCW ambitions way too much. Here's to hoping I'm wrong though.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    Yup, am aware. Very good stuff. 12031(e)'s days are numbered. But...

    The PRK legislature will ban unloaded open carry (AB144). Governor Moonbeam will sign it. 12031(e) will fall.

    (sarcasm on) Hip hip horray. (sarcasm off)

    I don't foresee any injunctive/declaratory relief lawsuits being filed against AB144 by any of the right people. It would hurt their CCW ambitions way too much. Here's to hoping I'm wrong though.
    If AB144 is talking of UOC rather then LOC then we should be able to OC- Loaded, as AB 144 is only about
    Unloaded open carry.
    And 12031-e would be gone ! Robin47

  24. #24
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    If AB144 is talking of UOC rather then LOC then we should be able to OC- Loaded, as AB 144 is only about
    Unloaded open carry.
    And 12031-e would be gone ! Robin47
    No, AB144 does NOT nullify PC 12031 which makes carrying a loaded firearm a crime in an incorporated city, or in a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.

    12031(e) is the teeth for 12031(a). Without AB144, and with 12031(e) gone, one would be able to carry loaded, albeit illegally, but the police would not have the authority to inspect the weapon, there would have to be reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed to conduct a search and seizure of the weapon.

    Theoretically, if one could effectively reserve, protect and assert their rights from a 4A violation, then they could carry loaded and get away with it, but that is playing with fire. A police officer, under oath, could simply say you were acting suspicious, lay out some offending "narrative" and boom...your guilty. But all of this is academic because that's not what's going on here.

    AB144 covers the "unloaded loophole" (to use the tyrants language) effectively making it so that simply carrying any handgun in public a crime, regardless of whether loaded or unloaded.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  25. #25
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    AB144, if it were to be enacted, may not be clearly unconstitutional from a 1A perspective. What is the 2A argument?

    The Leg has been listening to everyone's comments on the flaws of 1934 and made a pretty good run at a bulletproof (at least for now) bill to ban UOC. LOC has been dead ~2 years.

    Can we please get off the "we're only interested in CCW" shtick? If there were to be a viable method of challenging AB144, we'll be looking at it. It's continually disappointing when the only org that helps California open carriers in court is kicked in the knee by open carry proponents.

    -Brandon

    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    Yup, am aware. Very good stuff. 12031(e)'s days are numbered. But...

    The PRK legislature will ban unloaded open carry (AB144). Governor Moonbeam will sign it. 12031(e) will fall.

    (sarcasm on) Hip hip horray. (sarcasm off)

    I don't foresee any injunctive/declaratory relief lawsuits being filed against AB144 by any of the right people. It would hurt their CCW ambitions way too much. Here's to hoping I'm wrong though.
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

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
  •