Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Some think LEO acted appropriately

  1. #1
    Regular Member Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    307

    Some think LEO acted appropriately

    This is a video clip of an OC'er being stopped by a LEO in Oceanside California. Now I know this is the Virginia forum however I felt that it could be applied anywhere so I am posting if I was incorrect in this assumption I apologize ahead of time.

    http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...arry-activist/



    Watch the video and read the article by this editor do you think he is "anti"

    My personal opinion the officer was "not" justified in this detainment just because the party was carrying does not justify the officer removing and checking his gun. For those of you that do not know California currently allows OC as long as the firearm is empty.

    What are your thoughts??
    "Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again"

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Without even bothering to click the link - CA law allows for administrative checks to assure that the handgun is in fact unloaded (nothing in the chamber/cylinder) and if of bottom-feeder design no magazine inserted. The law also allows for calling in the serial number to verify compliance with CA handgun registration.

    So, what's your beef, again?

    If you don't like CA law, don't move there.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post

    If you don't like CA law, don't move there.

    stay safe.
    AND.....
    Don't encourage them to move HERE!

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay View Post
    This is a video clip of an OC'er being stopped by a LEO in Oceanside California. Now I know this is the Virginia forum however I felt that it could be applied anywhere so I am posting if I was incorrect in this assumption I apologize ahead of time.

    http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...arry-activist/



    Watch the video and read the article by this editor do you think he is "anti"

    My personal opinion the officer was "not" justified in this detainment just because the party was carrying does not justify the officer removing and checking his gun. For those of you that do not know California currently allows OC as long as the firearm is empty.

    What are your thoughts??
    He acted inappropriately.

    The 4th Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Being that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and you cannot enact laws that contradict it and this officer enforced something unconstitutional on a citizen excercising a right specifically protected by the constitution. Fire him, I say.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Without even bothering to click the link - CA law allows for administrative checks to assure that the handgun is in fact unloaded (nothing in the chamber/cylinder) and if of bottom-feeder design no magazine inserted. The law also allows for calling in the serial number to verify compliance with CA handgun registration.

    So, what's your beef, again?

    If you don't like CA law, don't move there.

    stay safe.
    I would never move there first off and I really have no beef. I guess what I am trying to get at is say something like this happened to me here in Virginia. I know that OC of a firearm loaded is permissible in the commonwealth, but would a law enforcement officer be correct in his actions here in Virginia.
    "Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again"

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay View Post
    I would never move there first off and I really have no beef. I guess what I am trying to get at is say something like this happened to me here in Virginia. I know that OC of a firearm loaded is permissible in the commonwealth, but would a law enforcement officer be correct in his actions here in Virginia.
    I know you wouldn't Jay and to be honest, you deserve a better answer.

    I think you recently moved to Va. The Gun laws here aren't what they are because of the climate, it's because of the work of gun owners. Long before VCDL was conceived, gun owners here have fought for better laws and holding LEA accountable for their actions. The fight is far from over....in fact, I'm not sure it's even started.

    Many of us concentrate on Virginia. That's where we live and will die. Personally, I don't give a rats rump what happens in California. They made their bed, they can deal with the bedbugs.

    We have members that want to save the world...that's their business but dealing with other states problems won't do anything for Va.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    Posts
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    AND.....
    Don't encourage them to move HERE!

    +1

    I work with a guy from LA. We occasionally talk about guns, and politics in general. It's scary how messed up their logic is.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay View Post
    I would never move there first off and I really have no beef. I guess what I am trying to get at is say something like this happened to me here in Virginia. I know that OC of a firearm loaded is permissible in the commonwealth, but would a law enforcement officer be correct in his actions here in Virginia.
    OK, now that I know where you are coming from with your question, I'll give you an answer you deserve:

    Unless the cop is so new they have not yet attended the academy and had the first lessons in The Law, firearms, and Not Being Completely Stupid, the odds of that happening are pretty slim. There are a few possible exceptions, but those involve stops for reasons other than you just peacefully and lawfully OCing. Mostly (but not always) those exceptions will fall into what's considered a Terry Stop (go search and learn).

    Otherwise, you can suggest that the cop has no authotity to stop you and state that you will be on your merry way. Should the cop decide to disagree with you, discretion and advice you usually pay an attorney for say to argue the matter in the courts and not on the side of the road.

    As Peter Nap has indicated, Virginians have a habit of objecting to the infringement of their freedoms, and of banding together to try and prevent that from happening. One of the best organizations for addressing that is VCDL www.vcdl.org which you are encouraged to join. They may not do all things for all gun owners, but they are the best at what they do. More members means more possibilities to influence their decisions on what else to take on.

    stay safe.
    Last edited by skidmark; 07-26-2011 at 05:38 PM. Reason: typos
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    We need cops like this in Virginia

    The Officer acted properly in accordance with Californicate law. Here in Virginia, I would have a problem with being stopped and "inspected" like that.

    The Officer was at all times professional, polite and able to deal with the situation, unlike many here.

    I fail to see the logic of carrying an unloaded gun. Where I grew up, they call that a club.

    Thank God I live in Virginia!

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Without even bothering to click the link - CA law allows for administrative checks to assure that the handgun is in fact unloaded (nothing in the chamber/cylinder) and if of bottom-feeder design no magazine inserted. The law also allows for calling in the serial number to verify compliance with CA handgun registration.

    So, what's your beef, again?

    If you don't like CA law, don't move there.

    stay safe.
    I do not believe that the 12031(e) unloaded check that California LEOs are authorized to conduct says anything about authorizing an unwarranted seizure and search of serial number.

    The check while unconstitutional in my opinion should take no more that 30 sec. or less especially with some newer arms that have loaded chamber indicators so the firearm may not even need to be removed from the holster to determine that it is unloaded! depending upon the holster design.
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 07-27-2011 at 01:14 AM.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I have some problems with 12031(e) checks.

    First, of course, is the violation of probable cause and particularized suspicion.

    At the root, though, of the (e)-check is the assumption by the legislature that merely exercising the right to self-defense deserves suspicion.

    And, no matter how "professional" a cop is in conducting an (e)-check, he is basically saying he agrees with this suspicion. Also, I don't recall there being anything in the statute 12031(e) requiring or compelling an LEO to actually detain and check every OCer he sees or encounters. Since he can have no way to know or even suspect the law is violated, an (e)-check is literally nothing more than a fishing expedition. Or, an administrative exercise in discouraging violations by making it known that cops regularly check.

    Cops could single-handedly nullify 12031(e) by getting very sloppy and accidentally-on purpose omit to perform (e)-checks. Just ignore the OCers unless something more is present. But, no. They reveal their agreement by performing the checks.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    He acted inappropriately.

    The 4th Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Being that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and you cannot enact laws that contradict it and this officer enforced something unconstitutional on a citizen excercising a right specifically protected by the constitution. Fire him, I say.
    Exactly, why is it that no one sees this??? "Unreasonable" must mean "without good reason". To search a person who has a gun to check to make sure they are following the (unconstitutional) law is "without good reason" since it is a suspicion based on prejudice.

    Am I the only one who can see this? Why isn't someone suing the bastards?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by va_tazdad View Post
    I fail to see the logic of carrying an unloaded gun. Where I grew up, they call that a club.
    Please let's give our CA brethren a break. In most jurisdictions they are denied their right to CC and LOC by administrative fiat, it is either UOC or letting the wolves rule. I've seen some CA guys load up PDQ.

    Thank God I live in Virginia!
    +1

  14. #14
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Unless the cop is so new they have not yet attended the academy and had the first lessons in The Law, firearms, and Not Being Completely Stupid, the odds of that happening are pretty slim.
    Were you able to type that with a straight face?
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Neplusultra View Post
    Exactly, why is it that no one sees this??? "Unreasonable" must mean "without good reason". To search a person who has a gun to check to make sure they are following the (unconstitutional) law is "without good reason" since it is a suspicion based on prejudice.

    Am I the only one who can see this? Why isn't someone suing the bastards?
    I walked into work today and someone who knows I am a OC advocate was like "hey man I saw a video you'd love! For once you won't think this is a bad cop." I described this video here and he was surprised to see that I did not agree with the officer's actions. This guy is a huge freedom/constitution/etc etc advocate, but thinks the 4th Amendment has some sort of exception for firearms due to "officer safety."

    We must continue to promote the constitution as it is written. There is no picking and choosing.
    Last edited by Schlitz; 07-27-2011 at 05:07 PM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  16. #16
    Regular Member tcmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I have some problems with 12031(e) checks.

    First, of course, is the violation of probable cause and particularized suspicion.

    At the root, though, of the (e)-check is the assumption by the legislature that merely exercising the right to self-defense deserves suspicion.

    And, no matter how "professional" a cop is in conducting an (e)-check, he is basically saying he agrees with this suspicion. Also, I don't recall there being anything in the statute 12031(e) requiring or compelling an LEO to actually detain and check every OCer he sees or encounters. Since he can have no way to know or even suspect the law is violated, an (e)-check is literally nothing more than a fishing expedition. Or, an administrative exercise in discouraging violations by making it known that cops regularly check.

    Cops could single-handedly nullify 12031(e) by getting very sloppy and accidentally-on purpose omit to perform (e)-checks. Just ignore the OCers unless something more is present. But, no. They reveal their agreement by performing the checks.
    Citizen phrases this much more eloquently than I could. I agree with him 100%. I feel that this is a direct violation of the 4th amendment rights of the open carrier. I also believe that dui checkpoints are a violation of the 4th amendment, but the there are certain courts with judges appointed by a foreigner who disagree with me.
    If Obama is the answer; how stupid was the question?

  17. #17
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by tcmech View Post
    Citizen phrases this much more eloquently than I could. I agree with him 100%. I feel that this is a direct violation of the 4th amendment rights of the open carrier. I also believe that dui checkpoints are a violation of the 4th amendment, but the there are certain courts with judges appointed by a foreigner who disagree with me.
    Dat, der is funny! But it also makes me want to cry.

    Do we need to incorporate the 4th amendment? The constitution is a pretty simple document why is it so easily ignored?

  18. #18
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    ...and if of bottom-feeder design no magazine inserted...
    I believe it is common practice in CA to have an empty magazine inserted in the firearm when open carrying.

    PC 12031(g), A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm. **Case law now states the ammunition must be in a position from which is can be fired (People. v. Clark)

    A loaded magazine can be carried on the belt.

    ** There is a common misconception that merely possessing both a firearm and ammunition in close proximity legally equates to loaded. This mistake stems from several PC sections that do not apply to PC 12031. 12001(j) only applies to 12023 (carry with intent to commit a felony). 12025(b)(6)(A) is a sentence enhancement which only applies if one violates 12025 (carrying concealed).

    http://www.californiaopencarry.org/m...PD_oc_memo.pdf

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I have some problems with 12031(e) checks.

    First, of course, is the violation of probable cause and particularized suspicion.

    At the root, though, of the (e)-check is the assumption by the legislature that merely exercising the right to self-defense deserves suspicion.

    And, no matter how "professional" a cop is in conducting an (e)-check, he is basically saying he agrees with this suspicion. Also, I don't recall there being anything in the statute 12031(e) requiring or compelling an LEO to actually detain and check every OCer he sees or encounters. Since he can have no way to know or even suspect the law is violated, an (e)-check is literally nothing more than a fishing expedition. Or, an administrative exercise in discouraging violations by making it known that cops regularly check.

    Cops could single-handedly nullify 12031(e) by getting very sloppy and accidentally-on purpose omit to perform (e)-checks. Just ignore the OCers unless something more is present. But, no. They reveal their agreement by performing the checks.
    This, a thousand times over.

    I don't care if you're in VA, CA, or somewhere in between, this stop, and the law that authorizes it, run contrary to the 4th Amendment.

    I guess the gun rights community, OC advocates in particular, are so accustomed to being beaten over the head with excessive displays of "authority", that it's nice to see an encounter that doesn't involve yelling, profanity, handcuffs or threats.

    True enough, it was a pleasant violation of the citizen's rights. The officer was friendly and polite while he exceeded his authority.

    Let's boil down the encounter: the officer made a stop he was authorized, but not required, to make (to ensure the gun was unloaded). The officer was in complete domination of the citizen at all times, through verbal skills and presence of personality. The officer was agressive -- not violently nor in a threatening way, but he rushed upon the citizen suddenly and took complete control. The citizen was quite mellow and compliant -- not that he should resist loudly or confrontationally, but he gave the officer anything he asked for, even when he didn't have to; the officer was inside the citizen's OODA loop before the citizen even knew he was there. (I suspect a less deferential response would have changed the tenor of the conversation, to the point that this wouldn't be touted as a "great encounter".) The officer had exactly one legal authority in this encounter (constitutionally circumspect, but legal): to ensure the handgun was unloaded. He had no authority to demand ID, but he did so and received it. He had no authority to check the gun for registration. He had no authority to run the citizen's information through law enforcement databases.

    If we accept this as a "good encounter", even in California, we have set the bar laughably low. "Better than Canton" is not the proper standard; "ignored, absent probable cause or RAS of a particularized crime" should be the standard for LE encounters nationwide.
    Last edited by KBCraig; 07-28-2011 at 11:43 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Yorktown VA
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I have some problems with 12031(e) checks.

    First, of course, is the violation of probable cause and particularized suspicion.

    At the root, though, of the (e)-check is the assumption by the legislature that merely exercising the right to self-defense deserves suspicion.

    And, no matter how "professional" a cop is in conducting an (e)-check, he is basically saying he agrees with this suspicion. Also, I don't recall there being anything in the statute 12031(e) requiring or compelling an LEO to actually detain and check every OCer he sees or encounters. Since he can have no way to know or even suspect the law is violated, an (e)-check is literally nothing more than a fishing expedition. Or, an administrative exercise in discouraging violations by making it known that cops regularly check.

    Cops could single-handedly nullify 12031(e) by getting very sloppy and accidentally-on purpose omit to perform (e)-checks. Just ignore the OCers unless something more is present. But, no. They reveal their agreement by performing the checks.
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    This, a thousand times over.

    I don't care if you're in VA, CA, or somewhere in between, this stop, and the law that authorizes it, run contrary to the 4th Amendment.

    I guess the gun rights community, OC advocates in particular, are so accustomed to being beaten over the head with excessive displays of "authority", that it's nice to see an encounter that doesn't involve yelling, profanity, handcuffs or threats.

    True enough, it was a pleasant violation of the citizen's rights. The officer was friendly and polite while he exceeded his authority.

    Let's boil down the encounter: the officer made a stop he was authorized, but not required, to make (to ensure the gun was unloaded). The officer was in complete domination of the citizen at all times, through verbal skills and presence of personality. The officer was agressive -- not violently nor in a threatening way, but he rushed upon the citizen suddenly and took complete control. The citizen was quite mellow and compliant -- not that he should resist loudly or confrontationally, but he gave the officer anything he asked for, even when he didn't have to; the officer was inside the citizen's OODA loop before the citizen even knew he was there. (I suspect a less deferential response would have changed the tenor of the conversation, to the point that this wouldn't be touted as a "great encounter".) The officer had exactly one legal authority in this encounter (constitutionally circumspect, but legal): to ensure the handgun was unloaded. He had no authority to demand ID, but he did so and received it. He had no authority to check the gun for registration. He had no authority to run the citizen's information through law enforcement databases.

    If we accept this as a "good encounter", even in California, we have set the bar laughably low. "Better than Canton" is not the proper standard; "ignored, absent probable cause or RAS of a particularized crime" should be the standard for LE encounters nationwide.

    Excellent examples of why I routinely read posts on this forum. Well stated and thoroughly useful opinions.

    Thank you.

  21. #21
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Without even bothering to click the link - CA law allows for administrative checks to assure that the handgun is in fact unloaded (nothing in the chamber/cylinder) and if of bottom-feeder design no magazine inserted. The law also allows for calling in the serial number to verify compliance with CA handgun registration.

    So, what's your beef, again?

    If you don't like CA law, don't move there.

    stay safe.
    i too have a tendency to over look posts that are from different parts of the nation. with the thought that there was nothing i could do about it, and if that was the way the natives wanted it so be it. but, we should pay attention for a few reasons
    1. we need to know how bad it could be and/or how bad it could get
    2. for some reason we could be in that country. knowing what the attitude is will help, weather or not they follow the law
    3. an injustice any where is an injustice to all
    4 probably redundant. an evil allowed to exist, can and will spread and infect others
    Last edited by papa bear; 07-30-2011 at 12:25 PM.
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  22. #22
    Regular Member paramedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Waycross, GA
    Posts
    118

    " He had no authority to demand ID, but he did so and received it."

    This is incorrect, watch the video again, the OCer, even told the officer, that he was not going to tell him his last name

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715
    As the officer was attempting to rack the slide, didn't it seem to you that the muzzle was covering the traffic on the road and any people on the other side??? Perhaps he should be cited for careless handling of a firearm.

  24. #24
    Regular Member tcmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by oldbanger View Post
    I believe it is common practice in CA to have an empty magazine inserted in the firearm when open carrying.

    PC 12031(g), A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm. **Case law now states the ammunition must be in a position from which is can be fired (People. v. Clark)

    A loaded magazine can be carried on the belt.

    ** There is a common misconception that merely possessing both a firearm and ammunition in close proximity legally equates to loaded. This mistake stems from several PC sections that do not apply to PC 12031. 12001(j) only applies to 12023 (carry with intent to commit a felony). 12025(b)(6)(A) is a sentence enhancement which only applies if one violates 12025 (carrying concealed).

    http://www.californiaopencarry.org/m...PD_oc_memo.pdf
    I see no value for inserting an empty magazine to be ejected before I can load a full magazine in the gun, and rack the slide. I would almost think if I could find a holster which would allow me to carry the gun with the slide locked open that would be preferable. Less time spent in loading when I need the weapon. Less time spent with my rights being violated by the police of the PRK.
    If Obama is the answer; how stupid was the question?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •