Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 87

Thread: How long will Californians Tolerate This?

  1. #1
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470

    How long will Californians Tolerate This?

    Upland PD should be absolutely ASHAMED! Harassing disabled marines who open carry.

    How long will people in CA tolerate this behavior before they stand up and challenge PC12031?
    http://californiarighttocarry.org/docs/Donate.html

    http://bit.ly/mTbgr6

    http://bit.ly/r1eMYL
    Last edited by hgreen; 07-14-2011 at 10:37 PM.

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    I have reviewed the video and believe that the officers overstepped their authority. The detention exceeded the duration to conduct a 12031(e) inspection. By searching the serial numbers without any probable cause, I believe they violated the 4th amendment. The officer also violated the 1st amendment by forcefully deactivating the video camera against the detainees wishes. It is unclear as to whether or not the officers drew their weapons- but if they did, this would be a misuse of force.

    There is no doubt that there should be a complaint made, but not before the detainees have consulted an attorney and a PRA for all the pertinent records has been filed, and the requested records have been reviewed.

    How long must Californians endure this treatment? About as long as it takes to educate each and every peace officer under a badge- this means utilizing a strategy that is not harmful to the overall cause and seeking legal help that is capable of delivering results. This includes not getting into a shouting match with a detaining officer. And this means that every open carrier must be the public face of the movement- an ambassador who can show everyone their diplomacy and calm, reasoned demeanor. While the actions of the officers are inexcusable, I find it difficult to be completely supportive of the open carriers from the video, because he failed to de-escalate the confrontation by exercising the 5th amendment and simply collect evidence that legal counsel can use to slap the police department silly.

    I also do not support the funding of legal remedies whose time has not yet ripened and particularly by unproven attorners who are keen on forging ahead without consideration of the greater game plan.
    Last edited by ConditionThree; 07-14-2011 at 11:16 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

  3. #3
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    I listenend and watch the video several times. So monday morning quarterbacking aside, this is a case where LE and the UOC'rs each had an agenda. It appears the officers wanted to prove they were in charge and that they were going to make the citizens submit. They knew about "open carry games" by their own words, they apparently had a bias towards this activity. The yelling and raising there voices when the UOC'rs asked a question shows that the officers were the instigators of the elevated tension. When all the facts and records are in, odds are this will be a successful legal case for the citizens.

    For education...In instances like this when officers are very high strung, and very nervous, and have a point to prove, being in any way resistant or argumentitive inflames the situation even more and doesnt help strengthen your law abiding citizens case. It actually fuels their bravado and encourages them to continue and fight because they have a "worthy" opponent. And cops are taught to always "control" the situation no matter what, dont let your detainee take control of the call. And these officers already have their idea that they are right and UOC is wrong and they are going to prove it, so they wont allow themselves to lose the argument.

    Best thing you can do as a UOC advocate with this type of LEO types....Dont let them goad you into engaging them in an argument, they will imply you are stupid, childish, ignorant, immature, wrong. Just dont respond, dont play their game, dont take on the role of a potential criminal which is what they want you to become, by arguing with them getting upset and shouting. catch them calling you names and berating you on tape and just dont respond. If you do they will just brow beat you more for your response.

    Can only imagine what the officer said after he turned off the UOC'rs recorder, then see how his demeanor and interactions change when he is recording the incident himself.

    The best way to handle officers like this is not to answer their questions, not participate in their argument, play your game and your strategy, dont raise your voice, comply with directions, and use your wealth of researched info to control the incident. Remind them by way of quoted supreme court cases what is and isnt legal.
    -police have no requirement to provide for your safety
    -simply carrying a firearm is not probbale cause of a crime
    -have them voice their "reasonable articuable suspicion"
    -California is not a stop and ID state

    Remember, you dont win the battle their at the scene, you are not going to change them at scene, your battle is with the city and senior LE officers that supervise and control these officers and the people who will view your youtube video and either support you. (or blast you for all your errors and things you could have handled it better.)
    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!!

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    <SNIP>
    I also do not support the funding of legal remedies whose time has not yet ripened and particularly by unproven attorners who are keen on forging ahead without consideration of the greater game plan.
    <SARCASM ON>Maybe we should wait for LEO to shoot an OCer.<SARCASM OFF>

    It's time. The time is ripe.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  5. #5
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    <SARCASM ON>Maybe we should wait for LEO to shoot an OCer.<SARCASM OFF>

    It's time. The time is ripe.
    Since you are asserting that you have unfettered right to keep and bear arms in California, can we assume that you open carry a loaded firearm where-ever you wish? Do you stroll by the neighborhood school? Do you collect your mail at the post office? Do you enjoy reading among the stacks at your local public library? How about feeding the birds in a California State park?

    If you arent doing any of those things, why not? You claim you have the right to a loaded gun- why, then are you not armed in a school zone, or on postal property or in a public building or on State park property?

    It is still illegal in all those places to have a handgun whether or not it is loaded-- even having a license to carry doesnt exempt you from many of the prohibitions of possession- So, in order to make it matter, we must have a universally accepted and well fleshed out right to carry in California, before we attack issues like the prohibition of loaded guns. If we gain loaded carry, but the possession statutes remain, the expansion of those areas where weapons are prohibited will not just increase legislatively, but by the imposition of prohibitions by private property owners.

    Let's establish the right first, and work on the rest after.
    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

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    <SNIP>Let's establish the right first, and work on the rest after.
    You make absolutely no sense. You have been CGF brainwashed or perhaps madness has set in.

    Here's the better plan. Open carry is 2A carry. Fight for 2A carry not government permission slips. Open carry is the low hanging fruit. Pick it before it rots!
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  7. #7
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138
    I couldn't make it through Part 2. I had to exit the video midway through because of the videographer's rude, obnoxious and near-hysterical behaviour. I hope it got better.

    Certainly, tensions can elevate in even the most brief and superficial of 12031(e), but talking over and aggressive verbal sparring with LEO does not demonstrate how "right" someone is...it just makes them ultimately look foolish.

    I truly hope that these videos are not the product of an experienced UOCer, for it certainly looked just the opposite.

    This certainly demonstrated the wisdom in having and unarmed videographer in tow.

  8. #8
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    Maybe we should wait for LEO to shoot an OCer.It's time. The time is ripe.
    Agreed.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  9. #9
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    My comments below in bolded blue.

    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Since you are asserting that you have unfettered right to keep and bear arms in California, can we assume that you open carry a loaded firearm where-ever you wish? Do you stroll by the neighborhood school? Do you collect your mail at the post office? Do you enjoy reading among the stacks at your local public library? How about feeding the birds in a California State park? C3, why do you play the same asinine game as some of the "right people" such as Gene with this lame, useless argument? This entrapment line of questioning is what is expected on CGN boards, not here. Do you not think it is way past time to challenge 12031(e)? Because I certainly do. This draconian law must go, and the sooner the better!

    If you arent doing any of those things, why not? You claim you have the right to a loaded gun- why, then are you not armed in a school zone, or on postal property or in a public building or on State park property? We all have the right to a loaded gun. And I know you know that. The question is not why aren't we LOC'ing, the real question is where are the pro-2A legal eagles and organizations who should be chomping at the bit to defend our rights?! Instead they rather continue down the road of permits and permissions rather than constitutional carry. To say it cannot be done in CA, or anywhere else for that matter, is a defeatist's claim.

    It is still illegal in all those places to have a handgun whether or not it is loaded-- even having a license to carry doesnt exempt you from many of the prohibitions of possession- So, in order to make it matter, we must have a universally accepted and well fleshed out right to carry in California, before we attack issues like the prohibition of loaded guns. If we gain loaded carry, but the possession statutes remain, the expansion of those areas where weapons are prohibited will not just increase legislatively, but by the imposition of prohibitions by private property owners. Private property owners will always have the right to say "Not here", as they should. As for the expansion of possession statutes, I hope you don't think those will decrease because pro-2A organizations fight for CCW permits first, because that won't ever happen. The only difference being conceal carry allows us to ignore their signs and carry anyway because they wouldn't know it anyway. And again, this isn't about LOC, its about ending the police's power to violate our 4A rights under 12031(e).

    Let's establish the right first, and work on the rest after. The right is established, 235 years ago and reaffirmed twice within the past 2-3 years with the bonus of being fully incorporated to the states.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  10. #10
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by A ECNALG View Post
    I couldn't make it through Part 2. I had to exit the video midway through because of the videographer's rude, obnoxious and near-hysterical behaviour. I hope it got better.

    Certainly, tensions can elevate in even the most brief and superficial of 12031(e), but talking over and aggressive verbal sparring with LEO does not demonstrate how "right" someone is...it just makes them ultimately look foolish.

    I truly hope that these videos are not the product of an experienced UOCer, for it certainly looked just the opposite.

    This certainly demonstrated the wisdom in having and unarmed videographer in tow.
    I agree the UOC'er could have handled himself better. But a part of me is actually kind of glad he took the tyrants to task with their usurpations of his rights and lawful activities; albeit a superior legalese verbal judo would have served him better. To me the first video demonstrated the need for password protections and/or locks on your recording equipment to prevent the tyrants from turning them off so easily!
    Last edited by coolusername2007; 07-15-2011 at 03:29 AM.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by A ECNALG View Post
    I couldn't make it through Part 2. I had to exit the video midway through because of the videographer's rude, obnoxious and near-hysterical behaviour. I hope it got better.
    You have to be aware, Part 2 only started when Black Shirt was released from his handcuffs (which is how he re-started the recorder). He was free to go, and no longer detained, except that he was waiting for the return of his gun and magazines.

    Part 1 shows nothing but polite and compliant behavior by the OC crew (contrasted to the barking orders and handcuffs used by Team Blue). This was a very stressful situation, and Black Shirt naturally had an adrenaline dump; when the handcuffs were removed from his wrists, they were released from his tongue as well, and he engaged in some justified consensual dialogue with Officer Duran.

    This case popped up on my radar thanks to a post by a First Amendment blogger, Carlos Miller: http://www.pixiq.com/article/man-vid...-carrying-guns

    The comments there are mostly good (they're overwhelmingly good on his Facebook page). One guy admits early on that he "enjoys playing the devil's advocate", which is an up-front way of admitting he's trolling the comments to provoke outrage.
    Last edited by KBCraig; 07-15-2011 at 04:33 AM.

  12. #12
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    If the right to keep and bear arms is fully affirmed in California, then why is legal possession limited to the following conditions?

    Only unloaded in a fully enclosed, secure, locked case.
    Only on private property that you control.
    Only under the exemptions provided by a license to carry, which is impossible or very difficult to obtain and revocable upon demand.
    Only in areas and under conditions that the state regulates- unloaded, and far far away from schools.


    No one has addressed why they wont assert their second amendment rights in spite of the unconsitutional laws- The reality is that no such right exists in the face of an anti-gun legislature, an anti-gun executive, and an anti-gun judiciary... it is further hampered by anti-gun police which will do everything they can to help DA's ensure a conviction.

    If we do not secure the right to carry it before everything else, then the legislature will use existing law to moot the benefit of being able to carry a loaded firearm around, by expanding the areas where firearms are generally prohibited.

    We have already seen this attempted with the expansion of the gun free school zones from 1000 feet to 1500 feet. What good is it to challenge 12031 if you are confronted with a 1500 foot school zone? The legislature could also add other 'sensitive' locations to the gun free zones, like hospitals, churches, parks, playgrounds, day cares, and police stations. Loaded wont mean much if you cant go outdoors.

    My point is that if you achieve a victory with a right to carry- things like 12031 and 626.9 will fall later. They cannot come first, because they will be simply replaced with other restrictions that get us more of what we have right now.
    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

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Interesting exchange. A few things come to mind. This was NOT a so called "e" check. It was under the tyrant mantra: "Officer safety." The thug cops were throwing their weight around to make sure the subjects of the PDR remembered that is all they are. The process could have been done in an informal, polite manner. The Stormtroopers chose not to do so. (They weren't wearing hats, so the poster couldn't get a shot of the attractive Death's Head emblems...the SS armbands evidently are only on their long sleeved shirts.) The thug cops lied through their teeth from start to finish. durant says he was a "combat veteran." I bet. He was probably a security guard for the latrine at Ft. Hood. He "doesn't believe in government transparency." The crowning comment of a thug working for tyrants in a Slave State. "The people are all frightened..." it must have been 'for the children.' What crap from these ********.

    That being said, the poster/videographer should have kept his mouth shut 80% of the time. Arguing with a dimwit like duran is a waste of time. Make the case that you do not consent to being detained without due process of law and do not consent to a search of your person or property. Ask if this is an e-check and state you do not consent to have the sn run--which of course they can do if they "observe" it anyway. Checking to see if you are a bad guy is not within the purview of kalifornia's idiot subjugation laws. If the weapon is unloaded, officer safety goes out the window. The only way they can continue the detainment is covered by Terry and King. They were thugs, the poster was foolish to play along with their BS, "respect my authoritie!" arrogance, and the PDR of Kalifornia is a shithole, 3rd world country.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  14. #14
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    If the right to keep and bear arms is fully affirmed in California, then why is legal possession limited to the following conditions?

    Only unloaded in a fully enclosed, secure, locked case.
    Only on private property that you control.
    Only under the exemptions provided by a license to carry, which is impossible or very difficult to obtain and revocable upon demand.
    Only in areas and under conditions that the state regulates- unloaded, and far far away from schools.


    No one has addressed why they wont assert their second amendment rights in spite of the unconsitutional laws- The reality is that no such right exists in the face of an anti-gun legislature, an anti-gun executive, and an anti-gun judiciary... it is further hampered by anti-gun police which will do everything they can to help DA's ensure a conviction.

    If we do not secure the right to carry it before everything else, then the legislature will use existing law to moot the benefit of being able to carry a loaded firearm around, by expanding the areas where firearms are generally prohibited.

    We have already seen this attempted with the expansion of the gun free school zones from 1000 feet to 1500 feet. What good is it to challenge 12031 if you are confronted with a 1500 foot school zone? The legislature could also add other 'sensitive' locations to the gun free zones, like hospitals, churches, parks, playgrounds, day cares, and police stations. Loaded wont mean much if you cant go outdoors.

    My point is that if you achieve a victory with a right to carry- things like 12031 and 626.9 will fall later. They cannot come first, because they will be simply replaced with other restrictions that get us more of what we have right now.
    M O N E Y!!! That's why the masses won't assert their 2A rights. Few have the financial resources of folks like Ed Peruta. The fight is not an economical one which is why folks like me aren't taking to the streets LOC'ing. I firmly and fully believe we have the right, but since the 2A (and other rights) organizations have made it crystal clear they won't defend you, you will lose. You'll lose not because you don't have the right, but because as you stated the cards are stacked against you with all the anti's in the (in)justice system coupled with uninformed public jurors.

    As for the tyrant law makers in Sacramento, they will continue to introduce the same anti-gun, anti-ammo laws that they've been doing for years. Do you really think it matters to them that you attacked their unconstitutional laws in some arbitrary order? Because it doesn't. Take AB962, it lost huge, and yet it's back along with half a dozen new anti laws. And once 12031(e) is taken down, it will be back faster than it went away. The point is just because the tyrants make unconstitutional laws doesn't mean you don't have the right. The difference is who has the most resources for defending or destroying individual liberties. Right now its all about money, money, money money.

    That's why I support Jeff Stone's plan for secession. Sacramento could care less, they are on an extreme leftist, socialist road and have shown no signs whatsoever of actually representing their constituents in a respectful manner. I say its way past time to institute new government.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  15. #15
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    1000 feet from all these "sensitive areas" are about to be challanged in Chicago

    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    If the right to keep and bear arms is fully affirmed in California, then why is legal possession limited to the following conditions?

    Only unloaded in a fully enclosed, secure, locked case.
    Only on private property that you control.
    Only under the exemptions provided by a license to carry, which is impossible or very difficult to obtain and revocable upon demand.
    Only in areas and under conditions that the state regulates- unloaded, and far far away from schools.


    No one has addressed why they wont assert their second amendment rights in spite of the unconsitutional laws- The reality is that no such right exists in the face of an anti-gun legislature, an anti-gun executive, and an anti-gun judiciary... it is further hampered by anti-gun police which will do everything they can to help DA's ensure a conviction.

    If we do not secure the right to carry it before everything else, then the legislature will use existing law to moot the benefit of being able to carry a loaded firearm around, by expanding the areas where firearms are generally prohibited.

    We have already seen this attempted with the expansion of the gun free school zones from 1000 feet to 1500 feet. What good is it to challenge 12031 if you are confronted with a 1500 foot school zone? The legislature could also add other 'sensitive' locations to the gun free zones, like hospitals, churches, parks, playgrounds, day cares, and police stations. Loaded wont mean much if you cant go outdoors.

    My point is that if you achieve a victory with a right to carry- things like 12031 and 626.9 will fall later. They cannot come first, because they will be simply replaced with other restrictions that get us more of what we have right now.



    We have already seen this attempted with the expansion of the gun free school zones from 1000 feet to 1500 feet. What good is it to challenge 12031 if you are confronted with a 1500 foot school zone? The legislature could also add other 'sensitive' locations to the gun free zones, like hospitals, churches, parks, playgrounds, day cares, and police stations. Loaded wont mean much if you cant go outdoors.


    This is about to be challanged in Chicago.

  16. #16
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Upland must have a surplus out of which to pay Jason's fees. Have these victims of 4th A. violations called Mr. Davis.

  17. #17
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    My comments below in bolded blue.
    12031 e PC IS being challenged by CGF and the officer is being sued for personal damages: Richards v Harris

  18. #18
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    ... when the handcuffs were removed from his wrists, they were released from his tongue as well, and he engaged in some justified consensual dialogue with Officer Duran....
    "Consensual dialog" ? Is that how you perceived it ? I heard nothing but two people speaking over and past each other. That was no dialog. I have engaged in dialogs with LEOs during detainments, and had been able to do so in a civil manner designed to get the LEO to justify his/her actions and provide statutory authority. And I have done this surrounded by LEOs; physically restrained; and even while handcuffed. As have so many others.

    Officer safety will always be their fallback position. Gotta get used to it.

    I just fail to see how venting one's frustrations at a "not around here, you don't" sort of cop is in any way productive.

    As the vast majority of people who frequent this board have come to realize, when it comes to LEO contacts, you have to be prepared to roll with the punches....and get everything recorded.

  19. #19
    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
    12031 e PC IS being challenged by CGF and the officer is being sued for personal damages: Richards v Harris
    I read through the complaint. Good for CGF for including 12031e!

    With that being said, wouldn't it be better to attack the constitutionality of 12031a?

    Since 12031e is written and been interpreted as an inspection requirement of 12031a (People v. DeLong) and if you don't attack the constitutionality of 12031a, this court will probably just view 12031e as a reasonable inspection requirement. I don't see anything new here.

    However, if 12031a was declared unconstitutional, a weapons inspection is obviously illegal. It seems to me that knocking down 12031a is the key.

    What am I missing?
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  20. #20
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Also I noticed that in the Richards v. Harris complaint that what CGF argues for in the second claim for relief that mentions 12031e is "to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment", but not to be free from unreasonable searches. There is a big difference. We are confronted first and often with the issue of searches; not seizures. So, Richards v. Harris seems to not directly address the issue in this aspect also.

    Finally, fighting this issue of inspections (searches) has been addressed in United States v. Biswell. Here the SCOTUS found warrantless inspections were needed for effective enforcement of the law. I think challenging 12031e without addressing 12031a is going to be a difficult road. But more power to you if you feel you can pull that one off!
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  21. #21
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    12031 e PC IS being challenged by CGF and the officer is being sued for personal damages: Richards v Harris
    Thanks for the reminder Cato, I am aware of the 12031(e) challenge by CGF. But like others I too feel it does not go far enough, 12031 in its entirety needs to be taken down.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  22. #22
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Not attacking 12031 head on might have something to do with reading SCOTUS tea leaves and playing the safe litigation cards to insure as many wins early in the contest. Why did only one of the plaintiffs in Parker v DC, Dick Heller, have standing to sue for his rights? Hint: he applied for a permit and was denied. The exemption available to us from 12031/626.9 is with a 12050 license. I'm not happy with that but that's them thar tea leaves wispern at us...There is a path to take down 12031 but that comes further on in this chess match. I want 12031/626.9/12025 dead and buried! Don't mistake my goal.

  23. #23
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    I don't believe Biswell is analogous. FFL in his place of business, with prior knowledge that inspections happen pursuant to a business license, during business hours...vs...private person on private business, carrying for self defense, multi-jurisdictional stops in random places at random times, and post Heller/McDonald too?

  24. #24
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Love the assault that likely takes place right before the camera is turned off. Terry pat down without any reason for thinking the two men were dangerous. Put loaded magazine in individuals pocket, thus concealing it, violating 12025 under People v. Hale. Fourth amendment violations galore. I'd be upset too.

  25. #25
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    Also I noticed that in the Richards v. Harris complaint that what CGF argues for in the second claim for relief that mentions 12031e is "to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment", but not to be free from unreasonable searches. There is a big difference. We are confronted first and often with the issue of searches; not seizures. So, Richards v. Harris seems to not directly address the issue in this aspect also.
    If they can't seize you or your property how do they accomplish the search?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •