-
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.
-
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.
SAN FRANCISCO MEETUP, Presidio National Park (Feb. 27th 2010) 11am
- Thread starter Livermoron
- Start date
Livermoron
Regular Member
imported post
In the interest of getting the word out to all who read this thread, here is the info for the Saturday Meetup in SF.
Presidio of San Francisco National Park
UOC Meetup & Beach Cleanup
Baker Beach
11am
Parking lots near the beach off Bowley Street (near Lincoln Blvd)
The Park Rangers office is aware of our Beach Cleanup and they are grateful for our efforts. What a better way to help our community than to help keep our beautiful coastline clean and free of dangerous debris.
No anticipated LE issues, however, ALWAYS take the usual precautions :uhoh: if you will be UOC at this Beach Cleanup. Rain is a possibility, so also plan to dress accordingly with UOC legal compliance in mind.
PLEASE bring gloves & trash bags, and plan to haul out your full bags if possible when completed...
Stay out of ALL buildings. Those are considered off limits as they are "government buildings". Bring a backpack with a lunch and make a day of it folks!
Media may be in attendance, and the general public will be all around, so be the best ambassador you can be for UOC and firearm ownership in general.
I look forward to seeing you all there on Saturday. Feel free to PM me with any questions.
Carry On!
Livermoron
:monkey :celebrate
In the interest of getting the word out to all who read this thread, here is the info for the Saturday Meetup in SF.
Presidio of San Francisco National Park
UOC Meetup & Beach Cleanup
Baker Beach
11am
Parking lots near the beach off Bowley Street (near Lincoln Blvd)
The Park Rangers office is aware of our Beach Cleanup and they are grateful for our efforts.
What a better way to help our community than to help keep our beautiful coastline clean and free of dangerous debris.No anticipated LE issues, however, ALWAYS take the usual precautions :uhoh: if you will be UOC at this Beach Cleanup. Rain is a possibility, so also plan to dress accordingly with UOC legal compliance in mind.
PLEASE bring gloves & trash bags, and plan to haul out your full bags if possible when completed...
Stay out of ALL buildings. Those are considered off limits as they are "government buildings". Bring a backpack with a lunch and make a day of it folks!
Media may be in attendance, and the general public will be all around, so be the best ambassador you can be for UOC and firearm ownership in general.
I look forward to seeing you all there on Saturday. Feel free to PM me with any questions.
Carry On!
Livermoron
:monkey :celebrate
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Sounds good. Any idea how many we're going to have OC?
Sounds good. Any idea how many we're going to have OC?
camsoup
Regular Member
imported post
Livermoron wrote:
I have seem some NP's claim restrooms are off limits, and other do not list them has restricted. It seems that the National Park Service doesn't know a federal facility from a hole in its head, :celebrate
Have fun out there....wish the wife and I could make the drive down. We will be in Sacramento looking for a new vehicle.
Livermoron wrote:
Which must be posted at all public entrances by the parks department, per the wonderful new law.
I have seem some NP's claim restrooms are off limits, and other do not list them has restricted. It seems that the National Park Service doesn't know a federal facility from a hole in its head, :celebrate
Have fun out there....wish the wife and I could make the drive down. We will be in Sacramento looking for a new vehicle.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
See you all there!
See you all there!
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Last to leave, first to get home.
Well, I had fun guys. It was great meeting everyone. +1 to everyone who showed.
I just want to comment that the (e) checks performed by the Park Rangers were performed professionally, and without lecturing of any sort or veiled threats.
Those officers are a model which many LEOs over California ought to follow.
Last to leave, first to get home.
Well, I had fun guys. It was great meeting everyone. +1 to everyone who showed.
I just want to comment that the (e) checks performed by the Park Rangers were performed professionally, and without lecturing of any sort or veiled threats.
Those officers are a model which many LEOs over California ought to follow.
imported post
marshaul wrote:
They didn't even press the issue for some of us who were carrying empty, partially concealed holsters. I was stupidly picking up trash when they approached, and my jacket showed my entire holster. Another member successfully had them notice his concealed holster, but not bother him when he didn't say he was carrying.
The weather was great too. A tad windy, but no rain. There were a few reporters out, I'd say three? Jon said the count of UOCers was around 12, so a good turn out. We had a female carrier who carries all the time in the bay area, which I loved the idea of.
And on a semi-related note, styrofoam is now the bane of my existence.
marshaul wrote:
A big +1 to that. They claimed that they had a letter of authorization from the Police Chief granting them peace officer status. If that proves to be correct then they are definitely a model agency for other departments to strive to reach.
They didn't even press the issue for some of us who were carrying empty, partially concealed holsters. I was stupidly picking up trash when they approached, and my jacket showed my entire holster. Another member successfully had them notice his concealed holster, but not bother him when he didn't say he was carrying.
The weather was great too. A tad windy, but no rain. There were a few reporters out, I'd say three? Jon said the count of UOCers was around 12, so a good turn out. We had a female carrier who carries all the time in the bay area, which I loved the idea of.
And on a semi-related note, styrofoam is now the bane of my existence.
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
imported post
Something is fishy in the State of Denmark. I would be checking to see if those rangers were allowed to 12031. If not, they just violated Federal and State laws...
Something is fishy in the State of Denmark. I would be checking to see if those rangers were allowed to 12031. If not, they just violated Federal and State laws...
MudCamper
Founder's Club Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
Glad to hear the officers were professional and courteous.
Also, glad to see such relatively unbiased NY Times article.
marshaul wrote:
I wish I could have made it, but my daughter is starting school and we needed to attend a meeting for that purpose, otherwise I so would have been there.Last to leave, first to get home.
Well, I had fun guys. It was great meeting everyone. +1 to everyone who showed.
I just want to comment that the (e) checks performed by the Park Rangers were performed professionally, and without lecturing of any sort or veiled threats.
Those officers are a model which many LEOs over California ought to follow.
Glad to hear the officers were professional and courteous.
Also, glad to see such relatively unbiased NY Times article.
MudCamper
Founder's Club Member
imported post
pullnshoot25 wrote:
pullnshoot25 wrote:
See Bigtoe's post above about a letter from the police chief. And I had previeously received an email from Jason Wu, the SFFO Commander wherein he stated that his officers do fully qualify as CA peace officers per 830.8(b) PC.
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
imported post
MudCamper wrote:
I HATE 12031 with a seething, fiery passion. Just had to get that out there.
MudCamper wrote:
I was questioning the existence of the letter. Just me, but I would have been demanding to see the letter beforehand. However, it seems that that already happened.
I HATE 12031 with a seething, fiery passion. Just had to get that out there.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Well, the way it happened, bigtoe was asking if they were peace officers according the the CA penal code, and their response was essentially, "Yes, we do have peace officer status in accordance with state law due to an agreement with the chief of police".
Now, I believe they were at this point asked if they had that in writing (or could back it up), and the response was "Yes, we have the letter to that effect" or some such.
Now, the way it came across to me, they already knew about their status as peace officers under state law, and were able confidently and correctly respond when questioned about it. This indicates two likely possibilities:
1. They had read bigtoe's post and briefed accordingly.
2. They actually have such an agreement with the police chief, and it's significance its known to their officers, in which case the agreement almost certainly does exist in writing (such things are always in writing).
Well, the way it happened, bigtoe was asking if they were peace officers according the the CA penal code, and their response was essentially, "Yes, we do have peace officer status in accordance with state law due to an agreement with the chief of police".
Now, I believe they were at this point asked if they had that in writing (or could back it up), and the response was "Yes, we have the letter to that effect" or some such.
Now, the way it came across to me, they already knew about their status as peace officers under state law, and were able confidently and correctly respond when questioned about it. This indicates two likely possibilities:
1. They had read bigtoe's post and briefed accordingly.
2. They actually have such an agreement with the police chief, and it's significance its known to their officers, in which case the agreement almost certainly does exist in writing (such things are always in writing).
imported post
Yup, I asked them if they had the letter on them, and they didn't, but they said they did have a letter authorizing them to act as a peace officer. I wonder if this is a common thing for park police to get this letter, or if they specifically went and got it, or what.
I asked the sergeant how I could get a copy of the letter and he didn't exactly know, but he suggested I contact the solicitor's office?
Yup, I asked them if they had the letter on them, and they didn't, but they said they did have a letter authorizing them to act as a peace officer. I wonder if this is a common thing for park police to get this letter, or if they specifically went and got it, or what.
I asked the sergeant how I could get a copy of the letter and he didn't exactly know, but he suggested I contact the solicitor's office?
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
imported post
bigtoe416 wrote:
bigtoe416 wrote:
PRAR it.
ConditionThree
State Pioneer
imported post
pullnshoot25 wrote:
pullnshoot25 wrote:
Word.
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
imported post
bigtoe416 wrote:
bigtoe416 wrote:
Shoot me an email, I will send you what I have
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Well, considering how courteous and professional they were, I would personally suggest that time would be better spent A: dealing with cops who threaten and give lectures or B: challenging (e) checks themselves.
Honestly, as long as (e) checks remain law, this is what we're going to have to deal with. I'm not inclined to fuss with the departments that are actually civil and otherwise constitutional about it. Then again, I wasn't e-checked, so my say is worth what you paid for it.
If we fight what is the best we can hope to get while (e) remains law, then it's hard for us to have anything to point to with regards to what we'd like to see from LEOs.
Well, considering how courteous and professional they were, I would personally suggest that time would be better spent A: dealing with cops who threaten and give lectures or B: challenging (e) checks themselves.
Honestly, as long as (e) checks remain law, this is what we're going to have to deal with. I'm not inclined to fuss with the departments that are actually civil and otherwise constitutional about it. Then again, I wasn't e-checked, so my say is worth what you paid for it.
If we fight what is the best we can hope to get while (e) remains law, then it's hard for us to have anything to point to with regards to what we'd like to see from LEOs.