My first experience with an LOE and my scary assault rifle (in the mountains)

I had an interesting Memorial weekend. For the first time ever since the assault weapon ban, I had LOE check my pre-ban registered AR-15 to see if it was actually a registered assault rifle as I claimed. The interesting part of this uncomfortable experience was the interviewing officer did not know enough about assault weapons laws. As I do many times a year, I take my carbine AR out for a few hours of shooting at a popular spot behind White Pines Lake in Arnold Ca. Not long after a few shots fired, a National Forrest Ranger pulls up and wants to see my rifle. I immediately explained that it was registered with the DOJ as a pre-ban assault rifle. The officer then began looking for a magazine release button lock (bullet button) and noticed that it didn’t have one installed, then noticed my 20 and 30 round mags. This was when I explained that my gun as a registered pre-ban gun didn’t fall under the requirements of post-ban California legal “assault rifle”. Since I didn’t have a copy of my “letter of registration” from Bill Lockyer, the officer ran the serial numbers as well as demanded my ID to “make sure I am who I say I am and that I’m the owner of the gun”. Since the officer didn’t understand the laws around registered assault rifles and the “evil features” that can be used, this officer asked for “confirmation” from the dispatch office on my claim that I’m allowed to have high cap mags, a collapsible stock, hand grip and an unlocked magazine button. Well, after about 45 minutes of standing around, it was determined that I was who I said I was, that the gun is in fact a registered assault rifle and that I have bit knowledge when it comes to California gun laws, especially when it comes to me and my pre-ban rifle. So, right after an unsolicited lecture on LOEs and their authorization around this topic, my rifle was handed over to me and was told to have a nice day. That’s when I handed this officer one of my California Open Carry fliers and said “you have a nice day”. All in all, it ended with handshakes and we both went on our ways. .

The next time, if so desired you may let them know that you charge $______ per minute/hour/incident for your time and ask if they wish to proceed. Have a NOTICE prepared ahead of time to hand to them that indicates; All Rights Reserved, No Consent to being detained, fee schedule and any other lawful demands. Carry a receipt book and write up a bill on the spot. If they laugh or don't accept it, mail it to them as one would be mailing a follow up NOTICE anyway stating that they have a a certain number of days to pay or the amount increases. Sound familiar? Equality under the law is paramount. Mail may be sent to them at their office. Amounts up to $7500 may be pursued in small claims court (Neither party may not be represented by an attorney), higher amounts in State or Federal court. Since they are acting in their official capacity they can also be billed through their Risk Management department through which they are bonded. If enough claims are made one loses their bond and can no longer be employed with that agency and most likely ever again in a position requiring bonding.
There is a process in which one may make a claim against another and secure a judgment without an attorney.

^^^
Wow great idea. GREAT IDEA. Would be fun to do if you had a couple buddies the LEO had to also "check". If he checks one and finds the legality and doesn't check the others, then you have reason to allege profiling. If he checks them all then you, being with them (same car?) can get triple time.

Make the ticket book look official, get recorders going, video your giving him the ticket and if he throws it down, charge him with littering (can't citizen's arrest, I don't think, but send it in to the guy's IAD).

Oaklander 'Kevin' is addressing this Ca wide issue (unlawful detentions, harassment of shooters, and lack of knowledge on Ca PC). Please see this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=418190

Report form: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dEttTGMtNnA3UTdUVnBEZF9ja2RnZEE6MQ#gid=0

Kevin is a CGF board member and an attorney. I know him personally. Please cooperate with him on your encounter so he can work to end these Fed LE 'contacts' for legal activities.

cato said:

Oaklander 'Kevin' is addressing this Ca wide issue (unlawful detentions, harassment of shooters, and lack of knowledge on Ca PC). Please see this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=418190

Report form: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dEttTGMtNnA3UTdUVnBEZF9ja2RnZEE6MQ#gid=0

Kevin is a CGF board member and an attorney. I know him personally. Please cooperate with him on your encounter so he can work to end these Fed LE 'contacts' for legal activities.

Click to expand...

QFT.

It is wiser to fight this with a group that has proven to get results where they are needed, rather than experiment with a vague and untried laymen's legal theory.

Please be sure to use the links provided by Cato so that the CalGuns Foundation is made aware of the situation.

On a side note; that LEO likely committed a crime:

12288.5. (a) No peace officer or dispatcher shall broadcast over a
police radio that an individual has registered, or has obtained a
permit to possess, an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle pursuant to
this chapter, unless there exists a reason to believe in good faith
that one of the following conditions exist:
(1) The individual has engaged, or may be engaged, in criminal
conduct.
(2) The police are responding to a call in which the person
allegedly committing a criminal violation may gain access to the
assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle.
(3) The victim, witness, or person who reported the alleged
criminal violation may be using the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle
to hold the person allegedly committing the criminal violation or may
be using the weapon in defense of himself, herself, or other
persons.
(b) This section shall not prohibit a peace officer or dispatcher
from broadcasting over a police radio that an individual has not
registered, or has not obtained a permit to possess, an assault
weapon or .50 BMG rifle pursuant to this chapter.
(c) This section does not limit the transmission of an assault
weapon or a .50 BMG rifle ownership status via law enforcement
computers or any other medium that is legally accessible only to
peace officers or other authorized personnel.

Damno02,

Please contact Oaklander on Calguns. I have read the thread on Calguns that was posted by CATO. Oaklander is doing good work. He may want your information.

markm

markm said:

Damno02,

Please contact Oaklander on Calguns. I have read the thread on Calguns that was posted by CATO. Oaklander is doing good work. He may want your information.

markm

Click to expand...

MARKM - I did some time ago. I supplied all the information that occurred that day. Time, date even map locations...the only thing I didn't have was the officers name, but that could be found if needed. Thanks!