Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: AP - California handgun ban will result in long gun carry in public places

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    AP - California handgun ban will result in long gun carry in public places

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...AbL_story.html

    SNIP

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A new ban signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown prohibiting the open carry of handguns in public could lead to an unintended proliferation of rifles and other long guns in public if gun enthusiasts continue to fight for their Second Amendment rights.

    Brown signed AB144 by state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena Monday morning. The bill will make it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded handgun in public or in vehicles. Violators could face up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect Jan 1.

    . . .

    The ban may push gun activists into openly carrying rifles in protest of the handgun ban, National Rifle Association civil rights attorney C.D. Michel said.

    “You’re not going to stop people from having these demonstrations,” he said.

    . . .

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    Absolutely as it will become our only defense

    OMG just think of the terror on the unarmed citizens of California when we all roll out with our only defensive weapons of shotguns and rifles ....they thought handguns were a curse ......they haven't seen anything yet Saldana, Portantino and the Brady campaigners will be screaming in the streets ....as we sling our weapons over our shoulders during our weekly shopping sprees .....far more scary looking than a handgun in a holster.
    Last edited by EXTREMEOPS1; 10-11-2011 at 01:22 AM.
    "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

    - General George S. Patton, Jr.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Jerry2197's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by EXTREMEOPS1 View Post
    OMG just think of the terror on the unarmed citizens of California when we all roll out with our only defensive weapons of shotguns and rifles ....they thought handguns were a curse ......they haven't seen anything yet Saldana, Portantino and the Brady campaigners will be screaming in the streets ....as we sling our weapons over our shoulders during our weekly shopping sprees .....far more scary looking than a handgun in a holster.



    I know I think they are going to even more scared when they someone with a shot gun on their back or a hunting rifle.

    This is so sad to think that removing hand guns from law abiding citizen's is going to make thing's (safer).

  4. #4
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Urban flight

    We here in NV applaud this bold move by Gov Moonbeam. We figure it a real advantage to those of us here in the Silver State. First we expect migration of patriots from there to here, a good thing, and the movement of our thugs from here to CA where the pickins’ is easier, an even better thing. Maybe the ultra liberal, wet your pants CA expatriates that came here in the boom years will move back to the state with a bear on its flag and we can get rid of that bad influence as well. We are just hoping that this happens before they catch on that Nevada with all its firearms is a far safer place to live and those that support such nonsense will want to move here too and bring it here with them as always seem to happen.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  5. #5
    Regular Member skyisfalling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    birch bay , washington
    Posts
    140
    On the Nose,.....Big Guy

  6. #6
    Regular Member skyisfalling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    birch bay , washington
    Posts
    140
    LGOC today in Washington State. Just to support 'ya all.
    Solidarity.

  7. #7
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    No, it wont...and it shouldn't.

    If you think for a moment that after the crap OCers had to put up with while carrying unloaded, HOLSTERED handguns was bad, and that the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia will stand for rifles and shotguns across those same peoples backs, your delusional.

    They will simply outlaw that next, and in the meantime you will see long-gun OCers proned out on the streets, arrested, and have lots of very expensive guns confiscated, all in the name of public safety.

    And worst yet, the state will win.

    The only option California activists have now are lawsuits with the hope that either the anti OC laws, or the 'may issue' CC laws are ruled unconstitutional.
    Or better yet, both.

    Transitioning into long-gun carry in a state like Kaliforna will only get the "gun activist" label downgraded to extremist, or worst yet, terrorist.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    56
    um, arrested for what exactly?

  9. #9
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by elsensei View Post
    um, arrested for what exactly?
    Use your imagination. You can be sure the prosecutors will.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Yorktown VA
    Posts
    110
    I feel for you folks. I fled California many years ago. My parents, both natives retired there and after a few more years decided they couldn't stay any longer and moved to Oregon.

    Best of luck getting things turned around there.
    Last edited by JosephMingle; 10-14-2011 at 04:30 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    We here in NV applaud this bold move by Gov Moonbeam. We figure it a real advantage to those of us here in the Silver State. First we expect migration of patriots from there to here, a good thing, and the movement of our thugs from here to CA where the pickins’ is easier, an even better thing. Maybe the ultra liberal, wet your pants CA expatriates that came here in the boom years will move back to the state with a bear on its flag and we can get rid of that bad influence as well. We are just hoping that this happens before they catch on that Nevada with all its firearms is a far safer place to live and those that support such nonsense will want to move here too and bring it here with them as always seem to happen.

    TBG
    Yeah TBG,

    You might get us to team up with you, on your fight to get Clark county to drop that registration scam
    there and follow the state law.

    YES ! I'm looking Robin47

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    california
    Posts
    1
    I am new to this all and it seems like when everything is getting kicked off its all about to end for the moment. Seems kinda silly to me, Law Enforcement is quoted as pushing for these new laws for officer safety. But if I were to be an officer myself I don't know if I would feel safer. Like everyone is saying people will still carry long guns. If I was an officer equipped with a handgun and a level 2 vest I would feel better facing a handgun I think if their greatest fears are realized (Rogue Lone Wolf crazy open carry nutjob) that starts firing into a crowd of kids and puppies. If that were to happen you now have a situation where the lone wolf can engage you at greater distance with tighter groups with a weapon that can deliver more cop killing kinetic energy that your level 2 body armor is not designed to stop. Why do they now feel safer ? This also does nothing to stem the tide of illegal weapons falling into the hands of criminals and renders the average honest Law Abiding citizen with absolutely no means to protect themselves. I also have serious reservations concerning the other laws passed as far as requiring long gun records to be kept on file. Always makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the Government knows which doors to come knocking at if they so choose to declare Martial Law. Nice to know we live in a state that puts officers feelings above our basic human rights to defend ourselves.


    It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.
    Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Franklin, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    221
    I left COMMIEfornia in May, and I'm not looking back. I can open carry, and my CCW is on the way in this Shall-Issue state of Kentucky! I run into people nearly every day who open carry without incident and I haven't met a man YET who doesn't have his CCW. Ummm... That is LOADED Open Carry, not that CommieFornia sissy unloaded 'feel good' nonsense you poor patriots are forced to endure!

    I honestly think CA gun owners SHOULD carry rifles, shotguns and those "evil black rifles" that scare the bejeebies out of panty-waist leftist socialist liberals. At the same time, get your money together and BYPASS the communist media and buy TV commercials that explain WHY you are doing it, and WHY the liberal's fear of handguns, long guns and the 2nd Amendment is so ridiculous!

    Put your MONEY into PAID 30-second spots that inform the citizens of CA. of all of the things we all know:

    Armed citizens DO NOT translate into "Wild West Shootouts in the Streets"

    A law abiding citizen really CAN carry a gun into a school zone without becoming a mindless zombie powerless to resist the will of the weapon itself.

    When seconds count ....

    and ALL of that! Stop relying on the wimpy politicians and the far LEFT media. They are NOT in your court. BUY television spots and radio commercials and get your message out! Stop trying to change the minds of Feinstein and Boxer and Pulosi. Start working on changing the minds of the people who vote them into office!
    Last edited by gravedigger; 12-08-2011 at 01:35 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Brent View Post
    I am new to this all and it seems like when everything is getting kicked off its all about to end for the moment. Seems kinda silly to me, Law Enforcement is quoted as pushing for these new laws for officer safety. But if I were to be an officer myself I don't know if I would feel safer. Like everyone is saying people will still carry long guns. If I was an officer equipped with a handgun and a level 2 vest I would feel better facing a handgun I think if their greatest fears are realized (Rogue Lone Wolf crazy open carry nutjob) that starts firing into a crowd of kids and puppies. If that were to happen you now have a situation where the lone wolf can engage you at greater distance with tighter groups with a weapon that can deliver more cop killing kinetic energy that your level 2 body armor is not designed to stop. Why do they now feel safer ? This also does nothing to stem the tide of illegal weapons falling into the hands of criminals and renders the average honest Law Abiding citizen with absolutely no means to protect themselves. I also have serious reservations concerning the other laws passed as far as requiring long gun records to be kept on file. Always makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the Government knows which doors to come knocking at if they so choose to declare Martial Law. Nice to know we live in a state that puts officers feelings above our basic human rights to defend ourselves.


    It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.
    Thomas Jefferson
    Welcome to the forum, Brent!

    Looks like you "jumped in with both feet"!
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  15. #15
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Brent View Post
    I am new to this all and it seems like when everything is getting kicked off its all about to end for the moment. Seems kinda silly to me, Law Enforcement is quoted as pushing for these new laws for officer safety. But if I were to be an officer myself I don't know if I would feel safer. Like everyone is saying people will still carry long guns. If I was an officer equipped with a handgun and a level 2 vest I would feel better facing a handgun I think if their greatest fears are realized (Rogue Lone Wolf crazy open carry nutjob) that starts firing into a crowd of kids and puppies. If that were to happen you now have a situation where the lone wolf can engage you at greater distance with tighter groups with a weapon that can deliver more cop killing kinetic energy that your level 2 body armor is not designed to stop. Why do they now feel safer ? This also does nothing to stem the tide of illegal weapons falling into the hands of criminals and renders the average honest Law Abiding citizen with absolutely no means to protect themselves. I also have serious reservations concerning the other laws passed as far as requiring long gun records to be kept on file. Always makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the Government knows which doors to come knocking at if they so choose to declare Martial Law. Nice to know we live in a state that puts officers feelings above our basic human rights to defend ourselves.


    It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.
    Thomas Jefferson

    brent- that's an illogical statement....the citizens abiding by the law, and OCing an unloaded handgun are NOT the criminals who are shooting at the cops. so, when they start OCing rifles and other long guns, they STILL will NOT be shooting at the police.

    see where i'm going with this....?
    Last edited by hammer6; 12-08-2011 at 12:23 PM. Reason: spelling
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    You Californians are hardcore.

    While the entire state (in the governmental sense) is completely off its rocker, the people that live there have to be some of the most ingenius people I know.

    The state and its politicians keep tightening the noose of laws tighter and tighter, and the people just keep coming up with new and improved ways to keep on breathing.

    KEEP UP THE FIGHT CALIFORNIANS!

    I absolutely love the fact that the government is trying it's damnedest to screw the people out of their freedom, and the people keep coming up with the most wonderful ways of turning those attempts to screw them into backfiring. The fact is: California is piling laws upon laws that have been piled on previous laws that were already on top of other laws while adding more laws....

    .....and having them shoved right back in their face by folks who pay so close attention that the folks who are supposed to be screwed by those laws end up more familiar, more knowledgeable, and have a better understanding of those laws that the idiots who are throwing them out there with indiscriminate abandon.

    California OC'ers are obviously well prepared for B.S. I think the state is completely missing an unintended consequence of their shenanigans. Don't you think that haphazardly tossing new laws around like candy is subtly "training" California OC'ers how to become extremely proficient at dealing with B.S.?

    You know that, after making the fools look stupid for not banning long gun OC, they're only going to ban that next.

    I have many ideas about how to foil that idiocy. But rather than offer those suggestions, I'll just save them until they do ban long gun OC. No sense in offering any anti reading this a window into any loopholes.

    Best of luck to you California. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

  17. #17
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138
    By now, the majority have read those law enforcement memoranda and training bulletins, wherein gun owners who participate in handgun open carry public events have been accused of attempting to "provoke" a police response. Such events have obviously caused much indigestion in law enforcement circles.

    Will long gun open carry public events result in such a high degree of acid reflux that LGOC will also be banned ? The evidence would suggest so.

    But what would really cause law enforcement to s**t little green apples would be an announced event, media invited, where only two people show up openly carrying unloaded long guns, but seven to ten are carrying locked (or lockable) cases of various dimensions and construction.

    Is there a handgun in that case?

    Or is it a soldering gun?

    Or binoculars?

    Or FRS/GMRS radios?

    Without either consent, probable cause or a warrant, guess the officer or deputy will never know.

    Of course, we can probably expect yet another memorandum to be issued, with this one speculating that lockable case carriers are attempting to "provoke" a police response.

    Ah, California.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    Our federal and state governments were all instituted by constitutional adoption/ratification.

    Such instituted governments are by their very nature predatory beasts, thus the adopted constitutions serve as cages intended to confine the predatory propensities of governments.

    A predatory beast will persist in its attempts to defeat the cage - constantly probing for weaknesses in order to expand the boundaries of its confinement.

    The state and federal courts- themselves part of the beast's anatomy - only serve to conceal the effort to escape the confines of the cage.

    When the beast has escaped the confines of its cage the people must be the final judges of "constitutionality".

  19. #19
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Brent View Post
    I am new to this all and it seems like when everything is getting kicked off its all about to end for the moment. Seems kinda silly to me, Law Enforcement is quoted as pushing for these new laws for officer safety. But if I were to be an officer myself I don't know if I would feel safer. Like everyone is saying people will still carry long guns. If I was an officer equipped with a handgun and a level 2 vest I would feel better facing a handgun I think if their greatest fears are realized (Rogue Lone Wolf crazy open carry nutjob) that starts firing into a crowd of kids and puppies. If that were to happen you now have a situation where the lone wolf can engage you at greater distance with tighter groups with a weapon that can deliver more cop killing kinetic energy that your level 2 body armor is not designed to stop. Why do they now feel safer ? This also does nothing to stem the tide of illegal weapons falling into the hands of criminals and renders the average honest Law Abiding citizen with absolutely no means to protect themselves. I also have serious reservations concerning the other laws passed as far as requiring long gun records to be kept on file. Always makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the Government knows which doors to come knocking at if they so choose to declare Martial Law. Nice to know we live in a state that puts officers feelings above our basic human rights to defend ourselves.


    It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.
    Thomas Jefferson
    Why carry a .308?.....



    Better vest penetration! (not anti-cop, just anti vest.)
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  20. #20
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by A ECNALG View Post
    By now, the majority have read those law enforcement memoranda and training bulletins, wherein gun owners who participate in handgun open carry public events have been accused of attempting to "provoke" a police response. Such events have obviously caused much indigestion in law enforcement circles.

    Will long gun open carry public events result in such a high degree of acid reflux that LGOC will also be banned ? The evidence would suggest so.

    But what would really cause law enforcement to s**t little green apples would be an announced event, media invited, where only two people show up openly carrying unloaded long guns, but seven to ten are carrying locked (or lockable) cases of various dimensions and construction.

    Is there a handgun in that case?

    Or is it a soldering gun?

    Or binoculars?

    Or FRS/GMRS radios?

    Without either consent, probable cause or a warrant, guess the officer or deputy will never know.

    Of course, we can probably expect yet another memorandum to be issued, with this one speculating that lockable case carriers are attempting to "provoke" a police response.

    Ah, California.
    This is an excellent idea!

    Folks who OC seem to be a little apprehensive about bringing a 12013 suit. I wonder: how would a person stopped and searched for "officer safety" when they aren't even in posession of a firearm come out in a lawsuit? If, say, one or two folks carried an obvious UOC firearm, and 15 others carried a cell phone in a covered holster of some sort, how would a lawsuit for illegal search and siezure pan out? They don't have to show probable cause for a search of your firearm, but what if you didn't even have a firearm? Wouldn't that be illegal search and seizure? 12031 only applies to searches of firearms, correct?

    The argument would be that they would be searching for "officer safety" because they reasonably thought you were in posession of a firearm, but....

    ...carrying a firearm isn't against the law, in and of itself, right? How would they argue that their 12031 check of your firearm isn't unconstitutional when you don't even posess a firearm? (In a nutshell: Are 12031 checks constitutional for people who don't carry firearms?)

  21. #21
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    This is an excellent idea!

    Folks who OC seem to be a little apprehensive about bringing a 12013 suit. I wonder: how would a person stopped and searched for "officer safety" when they aren't even in posession of a firearm come out in a lawsuit? If, say, one or two folks carried an obvious UOC firearm, and 15 others carried a cell phone in a covered holster of some sort, how would a lawsuit for illegal search and siezure pan out? They don't have to show probable cause for a search of your firearm, but what if you didn't even have a firearm? Wouldn't that be illegal search and seizure? 12031 only applies to searches of firearms, correct?

    The argument would be that they would be searching for "officer safety" because they reasonably thought you were in posession of a firearm, but....

    ...carrying a firearm isn't against the law, in and of itself, right? How would they argue that their 12031 check of your firearm isn't unconstitutional when you don't even posess a firearm? (In a nutshell: Are 12031 checks constitutional for people who don't carry firearms?)
    12031e authorizes the "inspection" of a firearm for ammunition, not the "search" of, or for, a firearm. Regardless, LE will routinely exceed their authority under 12031e and "search" the UOC firearm in an effort to locate the serial number. Once in their hands, the serial number invariably will (will be MADE TO, that is) come into plain view, thus allowing them claim Plain View Doctrine. Oh, yeah, "departmental policy" and "training" and "officer safety" are also cited as justification.

    Even after temporarily relieving the individual of the UOC firearm, a Terry pat-down for additional firearms often occurs. Though "true" RAS of criminality is required for this pat-down, the LEO will claim that the UOC firearm gives rise to RAS that another fireams may be concealed upon the detainee. But again, its all about officer safety.

    While a LEO may likely part a locked case from its owner (who is carrying neither openly nor concealed) on the grounds that the case itself could be used as a weapon (officer safety), the question is whether proximity of the carrier of an unmarked, locked case to carriers of UOC firearms gives rise to probable cause, which requires known facts and circumstances. Probable cause is a greater standard than reasonable articulable suspicion. And much greater than a mear hunch. 12031e does not authorize the inspection of the contents of a case, locked or unlocked, for a firearm.

    In California, carrying a loaded firearm, openly or concealed without a permit is illegal (in most situations). Also, carrying an unloaded firearm concealed without a permit is illegal. Beginning 1-1-12, carrying an unloaded handgun openly (some exeptions apply) will be illegal.

  22. #22
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by A ECNALG View Post
    Also, carrying an unloaded firearm concealed without a permit is illegal.
    There is a laundry list of exceptions so that a firearm may be legally concealed without a permit. See PCs 12026, 12026.1, 12026.2, 12027, 12027.1.

  23. #23
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by mjones View Post
    There is a laundry list of exceptions so that a firearm may be legally concealed without a permit. See PCs 12026, 12026.1, 12026.2, 12027, 12027.1.
    Exceptions noted.

    However, these provisions deal primarily with either the transportation (not carrying on one's person) of firearms, or the carrying of a firearm on one's person on that person's residence, property or business. Even 12026.1 (b) only references firearms "capable" of being concealed:


    The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the
    otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver,
    or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in
    accordance with this chapter.


    These exceptions, at least as I understand them, are not really relevent to the preceding discussion, and were therefore not raised.

    Or did I miss something.

    It's been known to happen.
    Last edited by A ECNALG; 12-15-2011 at 02:17 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by A ECNALG View Post
    12031e authorizes the "inspection" of a firearm for ammunition, not the "search" of, or for, a firearm.
    What firearm?

    Quote Originally Posted by A ECNALG View Post
    Regardless, LE will routinely exceed their authority under 12031e and "search" the UOC firearm in an effort to locate the serial number.
    ...again: What firearm?

    Quote Originally Posted by A ECNALG View Post
    Once in their hands, the serial number invariably will (will be MADE TO, that is) come into plain view, thus allowing them claim Plain View Doctrine.
    Serial number of what? My underwear?

    Quote Originally Posted by A ECNALG View Post
    Even after temporarily relieving the individual of the UOC firearm,...
    Once again: What firearm?


    Quote Originally Posted by A ECNALG View Post
    While a LEO may likely part a locked case from its owner (who is carrying neither openly nor concealed) on the grounds that the case itself could be used as a weapon (officer safety), the question is whether proximity of the carrier of an unmarked, locked case to carriers of UOC firearms gives rise to probable cause, which requires known facts and circumstances. Probable cause is a greater standard than reasonable articulable suspicion. And much greater than a mear hunch. 12031e does not authorize the inspection of the contents of a case, locked or unlocked, for a firearm.
    Ahhhhh! Now we're getting somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by A ECNALG View Post
    12031e does not authorize the inspection of the contents of a case, locked or unlocked, for a firearm.
    This answers my question! Thank you.

    Now that we've settled this....

    Since someone may be carrying a flap holster containing a cell phone in the proximity of someone openly carrying.....

    Wouldn't it be likely that the police would order this person to open their flap holster so that they may perform a 12031e check? Yet, we've already established that it does not authorize the inspection of a case, right? Therefore, wouldn't this serve to highlight the unconstitutionality of 12031e? As a matter of fact, you have stated that searching containers is held to a much higher standard than 12031e. After all, the carrying of a concealed firearm is not against the law (with a permit, of course) so how can the search be justified under "probable cause" in the first place?

    If an officer stopped a person and did require them to open their holster, they would probably use the excuse of performing a 12031e check as a reason to do so. But since we have already established that this is an ineffective excuse, the officer can only fall back on having "probable cause" to perform a full on search of the container.

    Once again: Probable cause for what? If the person had a ccw, it would be legal to have a concealed firearm. Therefore, creating "probable cause" to search them for something that would be perfectly legal with a permit is out the window for an excuse, as well.

    It is all moot in the first place. There is no firearm. It isn't illegal to carry a cell-phone. However, performig a shake-down in order to examine a firearm (12031e) that doesn't exist, is.

    The only thing an officer could state in court is that he was examining the container to establish if it contained a firearm "for officer safety". But, we've already established that the presence of a firearm is not sole grounds for a Terry stop, right? Isn't the officer required to establish reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed in order to affect this?

    The only suspicion he could claim of a violation of the law is carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.

    But you've already recorded him searching you under the irrellevant 12031e excuse.

    The ONLY way I can see that a successful 1983 lawsuit could be avoided is ONLY if he asked for a valid ccw permit before searching you.

    Now, you don't need one because you aren't carrying a concealed weapon. However, lack of one would give him justification for searching your "cell phone case" for a concealed firearm.

    ...if he asked for your ccw permit first.

    (You did have your recorder running, correct?)

    Now, the question becomes: If a person does have a CCW permit, can he be searched in order to disarm him "for officer safety"? If there is no firearm, and it is perfectly legal for him to have one anyway (presence of a ccw) what "probable cause" can the officer give that a crime has been committed?

    So we end up with:

    Searching in order to perform a 12031e when a firearm is not present: Civil rights violation.
    Searching for a concealed firearm on someone with a valid CCW without having probable cause that a crime has been committed: Civil Rights Violation.

    The only way an officer can avoid a Civil Rights violation is if he asks a person to see his valid CCW permit and is refused [i]before[i/] searching any container. This gives him a reasonable suspicion that the crime of carrying a concealed firearm without a permit has been and is being committed.

    If he asks and is shown a valid CCW, what crime is he searching your for?
    If he doesn't ask and searches you, once again: What crime is he searching you for?

    All you've got is a cell phone.

    Am I on track with this, or way, way, overthinking things?

  25. #25
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by A ECNALG View Post
    Or did I miss something.
    Locked Unloaded Concealed Carry (LUCC) is a viable option for some level of self defense - in my personal opinion, more viable the longgun carry for self defense. Most of us here in CA carry out our day to day activities traveling to/from/in a vehicle. So, its not an all-encompassing option, but certainly worth noting.

    LUCC Info

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
  •