Some think LEO acted appropriately

Jay · Jul 26, 2011

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-Sa...lice-officer-response-to-open-carry-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??

skidmark · Jul 26, 2011

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.

peter nap · Jul 26, 2011

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

stay safe.

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

RetiredOC · Jul 26, 2011

Jay said:
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-Sa...lice-officer-response-to-open-carry-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.

Jay · Jul 26, 2011

skidmark said:
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.

peter nap · Jul 26, 2011

Jay said:
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.

hunter45 · Jul 26, 2011

peter nap said:
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.

skidmark · Jul 26, 2011

Jay said:
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.

va_tazdad · Jul 27, 2011

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!

JoeSparky · Jul 27, 2011

skidmark said:
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.

Citizen · Jul 27, 2011

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.

Neplusultra · Jul 27, 2011

Schlitz said:
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?

architect · Jul 27, 2011

va_tazdad said:
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

wylde007 · Jul 27, 2011

skidmark said:
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?

RetiredOC · Jul 27, 2011

Neplusultra said:
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." :banghead:

We must continue to promote the constitution as it is written. There is no picking and choosing.

tcmech · Jul 27, 2011

Citizen said:
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.

45acpForMe · Jul 28, 2011

tcmech said:
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?

oldbanger · Jul 28, 2011

skidmark said:
...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/memos/SPD_oc_memo.pdf

KBCraig · Jul 28, 2011

Citizen said:
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.

JosephMingle · Jul 30, 2011

Citizen said:
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.

KBCraig said:
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.

Some think LEO acted appropriately

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Accomplished Advocate

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Centurion

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member