• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OC In Modesto, CA

_Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
27
Location
, ,
imported post

I think you both owe each other a better apology than that.

Name calling and getting all upset over this is silly. So she is not a Sgt. She is still a representative of the Dept. If she is going to quote the law or give an opinion she needs to make sure she is correct. As this is a complicated issue even for attorneys and full time cops, I think it may be a little out of the league of a clerk, no offense intended.

As far a Ca-Lib goes, I think you were a little harsh in your choice of words considering you were mistaken on who she was. I also think from some of the conversations that we have had that you would have your facts straight. Maybe this mistake illustrates how a cop can make a mistake on the streets regarding what they can and can't do. I think we all need to work together a little more to insure our rights are intact and we educate all involved, Cops, Lawyers, citizens, etc... Name calling and this type of attitude just cause undue rifts between all.
 

Disintelligentsia

New member
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
4
Location
, ,
imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:
OK, let me step in before I go to bed to correct you.

Police have the AUTHORITY but not the OBLIGATION to conduct a 12031 check. What they CANNOT DO is take the gun to their car and run a serial number check. IF they happen to MEMORIZE the serial number during the perfunctory unloaded check and then run it AFTER handing the weapon back to the owner then that is OK.

Here is a letter I wrote to the local PD on that.

. . . The tape over the serial number is not a crime and the mere "hunch" that the person bearing the weapon may be a criminal or have a stolen weapon is not relevant.
. . .

. . . it would be a 4th amendment violation to remove tape or accessories from a firearm to uncover and run a serial number.

-----------

There you have it.
I wish to correct one problem that I've seen more than once here. In order to avoid the illegal behavior advocated by the LA District Atty's memo re open carry, some members have advocated covering the firearm's serial number with tape so the serial number would not be "in plain sight" and the officer would have to "conduct a search" by removing the tape to find the serial number. I don't think this would be an impediment. The problem with this is that under California law, putting tape over the serial number is likely against the law:

Penal Code section 537e states that:
Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes of, conceals, or has in his or her possession any personal property from which the manufacturer's serial number, identification number, electronic serial number, or any other distinguishing number or identification mark has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed, is guilty of a public offense, punishable as follows:
(1) If the value of the property does not exceed four hundred dollars ($400), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months.
(2) If the value of the property exceeds four hundred dollars ($400), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.

Clearly the statue is MEANT to apply to stolen property, BUT the way it is written it would directly be a violation of the statute to cover the serial number with tape. If anything, covering the serial with tape would probably amount to reasonable suspicion or perhaps probably cause to remove the tape and inspect/search the serial number to see if it was stolen property.

The better argument regarding running the serial number is that, given the way firearm inspection statute is written, it would amount to an unlawful detention and seizure to keep the gun long enough to write the serial down, particularly if they kept it long enough to run a search. The extra time you were detained would be unlawful and would constitute grounds for a suppression motion if you were charged in connection with the gun.

The LA DA's argument that it's OK to run the serial number because it is "in plain sight" is specious because that legal doctrine only applies to evidence of a crime that is "in plain sight". Clearly, a serial number, by itself without the aid of a computerized search, does not evidence a crime. But given the way some LEOs and DAs operate, it more along the lines of "do the search, we'll justify it later if something turns up."

Cheers// ==UserScript== // @name MultiPopup Main Functions File // @namespace http://www.hesido.com // @version 2.09 // @date 2005-08-18 // @author Emrah BASKAYA // @description Tooltip Replacement: Replaces Browser Default Tooltips with CSS stylable ones and allows you to customize the information displayed in it and the delay for tooltips. // @include * // ==/UserScript== // Licence Information: /* MultiPopup V2.09 Main Functions File Tooltip Replacement Script Emrah BASKAYA (hesido - www.hesido.com) Detailed info can be found at: http://www.hesido.com You cannot use this code for commercial purposes without permission of the author. You are not allowed to earn money from this script or any work that is derived from this script. Free to use for non-commercial purposes. A link to www.hesido.com is most welcome, in a page on your site, if you are using it for your website. For other usage options, please contact the author. Uses some DOM fallback methods as seen on www.quirksmode.org Code for embedding CSS by D.I.Z. */ if (window.addEventListener) window.addEventListener('load', multipopupMain, false); else if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent('onload', multipopupMain); function multipopupMain(){ if (!document.createElement || !document.getElementsByTagName || !document.getElementById || document.getElementsByTagName("head").length == 0) return; var allowRemotePrefs = true; //Needs to be true to be able to run modules, external preferences and skin //making this false will almost make Multipopup impenetratable. // Total Suppression if (allowRemotePrefs && typeof(mpUSRJS) != "undefined" && mpUSRJS.doNotRun) return; // Self Supression if (window.MPwinTriggersActive) return; // Prerunmodules execution if (allowRemotePrefs && typeof(mpUSRJS) != "undefined" && typeof(mpUSRJS.preRunModules) != "undefined") for (var i=0; iarray related to tooltip // gVr->array that holds generic info // aOb->array that holds animation info. var pcR = new Array(), gVr = new Array(), aOb = new Array(), mPu = new Array(); setMPPreferences(); mPu.divIds = ['mpopupc','mpoptop','mpopfill1','mpopbod','mpopfill2','mpopfill3','mpopfill4','mpopbot','mpopfill5','mpopdbl','mpopdblprnt','bmtest']; mPu.styleObId = "mpopupstyleobjectid" mPu.revEvals = new Array(null,'"rect("+(clipYTarget-aOb.clipY)+"px, "+(clipXTarget+aOb.clipX)+"px, "+(clipYTarget+aOb.clipY)+"px, "+(clipYTarget-aOb.clipY)+"px)"','"rect(0px, "+(aOb.clipX*2)+"px, "+(clipYTarget*2)+"px, 0px)"','"rect(0px, "+(aOb.clipX*2)+"px, "+(aOb.clipY*2)+"px, 0px)"'); mPu.defDesc = "",pcR.hvrdObj = null,aOb.objMovd = null,aOb.clipStep = 0,aOb.warpStep = 0; aOb.popActv = false,aOb.objMovd = false,gVr.activeDelay = mPu.popupDelay; pcR.actOffsetX = mPu.xOfst, pcR.actOffsetY = mPu.yOfst; aOb.revInt = new Array(),aOb.prevs = new Array(); // Auto Primary Suppress gVr.suppress = (typeof(mpUSRJS) != "undefined" && mpUSRJS.suppress && mPu.allowSuppress) ? true : false; // deb = document.getElementById('debug'); // debb = 0; mPu.setPopups = function() { if (mPu.revStyle == 0 || mPu.clipSteps == 0) {gVr.desInstRev = true; mPu.clipSteps = 0} else {gVr.desInstRev = false;} gVr.instRev = gVr.desInstRev; var attList = new Array(), attid = new Array(), patternFound; if (mPu.useFirefoxForceWrap) eval('var forcewrapreg = /([^\\s\\&\\/\\-]{'+mPu.forceBreakAt+'})/g'); else eval('var forcewrapreg = /([^\\s\\/\\-]{'+mPu.forceBreakAt+'})/g'); // eval('var forcewrapreg = /([^\\s\\&\\/-]{'+mPu.forceBreakAt+'})/g'); //Opera var forcewrapreplace = '$1'+mPu.brokenSign; var zerowidthspacereg = /([\&\/-])/g var zerowidthreplacer = '​$1' for (var i=0; idiv {' +' padding:0 !important; margin: 0 !important; border-width: 0 !important;}' +'#mpopbod>div>div {' +' position:relative;' +' padding:1px !important; margin: 0 !important; border-width: 0 !important;}' +'#mpopbod>div>div>div { margin:0 !important; word-wrap: break-word;}' +'#mpopdbl { max-width: 320px !important; margin: 0 !important; padding: 0 1px !important; word-wrap: break-word;}' +'#bmtest { top: 0; left: 0; position: absolute; border-width: 0 !important; margin: 0 !important; }' +'span.mpop_cl, span.mpop_al {' +' font-weight: bold; background-color: #1F2C2F; color: #EAE9DA; font-style: italic;' +' font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 90%; padding: 0 0.6em 0 0.3em; margin-right: 0.3em;}' +'span.mpop_al {background-color: red}' +'span.mpopbrspan {color: red;}' ; //not for modification. mPu.minimumReqPrefsV = 2002; if (allowRemotePrefs && mPu.setMPPrefsExternal && mPu.minimumReqPrefsV
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Disintelligentsia wrote:
I wish to correct one problem that I've seen more than once here. In order to avoid the illegal behavior advocated by the LA District Atty's memo re open carry, some members have advocated covering the firearm's serial number with tape so the serial number would not be "in plain sight" and the officer would have to "conduct a search" by removing the tape to find the serial number. I don't think this would be an impediment. The problem with this is that under California law, putting tape over the serial number is likely against the law:

Penal Code section 537e states that:
Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes of, conceals, or has in his or her possession any personal property from which the manufacturer's serial number, identification number, electronic serial number, or any other distinguishing number or identification mark has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed, is guilty of a public offense, punishable as follows:
(1) If the value of the property does not exceed four hundred dollars ($400), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months.
(2) If the value of the property exceeds four hundred dollars ($400), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.

Clearly the statue is MEANT to apply to stolen property, BUT the way it is written it would directly be a violation of the statute to cover the serial number with tape. If anything, covering the serial with tape would probably amount to reasonable suspicion or perhaps probably cause to remove the tape and inspect/search the serial number to see if it was stolen property.

The better argument regarding running the serial number is that, given the way firearm inspection statute is written, it would amount to an unlawful detention and seizure to keep the gun long enough to write the serial down, particularly if they kept it long enough to run a search. The extra time you were detained would be unlawful and would constitute grounds for a suppression motion if you were charged in connection with the gun.

The LA DA's argument that it's OK to run the serial number because it is "in plain sight" is specious because that legal doctrine only applies to evidence of a crime that is "in plain sight". Clearly, a serial number, by itself without the aid of a computerized search, does not evidence a crime. But given the way some LEOs and DAs operate, it more along the lines of "do the search, we'll justify it later if something turns up."
As you interpret it, any intentional covering of the SN is illegal, right? My holster covers the SN on my gun. Do you think that will hold up in court?

In fact, I bet that every cops' holster covers the SN on their gun, and I don't see an exemption for LE... man the IA guys are gonna be busy when they figure this one out...
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

I don't think the law applies to firearms manufactured with the serial number originally under the hand grip or in a place not outwardly visible. It states knowingly removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed. You did not knowingly do this if the firearm was manufactured with the serial number out of normal view.

CA_Libertarian wrote:
As you interpret it, any intentional covering of the SN is illegal, right? My holster covers the SN on my gun. Do you think that will hold up in court?

In fact, I bet that every cops' holster covers the SN on their gun, and I don't see an exemption for LE... man the IA guys are gonna be busy when they figure this one out...
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
imported post

Disintelligentsia wrote:
The problem with this is that under California law, putting tape over the serial number is likely against the law:

Penal Code section 537e states that:
Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes of, conceals, or has in his or her possession any personal property from which the manufacturer's serial number, identification number, electronic serial number, or any other distinguishing number or identification mark has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed, is guilty of a public offense, punishable as follows:
(1) If the value of the property does not exceed four hundred dollars ($400), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months.
(2) If the value of the property exceeds four hundred dollars ($400), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.

Clearly the statue is MEANT to apply to stolen property, BUT the way it is written it would directly be a violation of the statute to cover the serial number with tape.
I agree that this is clearly meant to apply to stolen property. However, I do not believe that you could conclude that the use of tape is a violation, even with a superficial reading of the code. Clearly, the words "removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed" have the meaning topermanently obscure the property's distinguishing number. The remedy in paragraph (b) reads:

"(b) When property described in subdivision (a) comes into the custody of a peace officer it shall become subject to the provision of Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 1407) of Title 10 of Part 2, relating to the disposal of stolen or embezzled property. Property subject to this section shall be considered stolen or embezzled property for the purposes of that chapter, and prior to being disposed of, shall have an identification mark imbedded or engraved in, or permanently affixed to it."

I do not think that tape has the permanent effects described by the other terms used. "Covered" is used in context with the surrounding words [removed, defaced, altered, destroyed] and the remedy of (b) [imbed, engrave, permanently affix] as permanently covered. If tape was contemplated as meeting the meaning of "covered" as used in paragraph (a), then paragraph (b) would describe simply removing the tape.

It does not seem reasonable thatLEO would suspect that a person who stole a gun would try topermanently obscurethe gun's distinguishing number by putting a piece of tape over it. Therefore, tape over a gun's serial number could not be reasonable suspicion of stolen property.

It is what it is... a citizen's desirefor his right to be free of unreasonable searches of his effects. Just an opinion.
 
Top