SAN FRANCISCO MEETUP, Presidio National Park (Feb. 27th 2010) 11am

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

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.

Courtesy does not cover up improper conduct.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Way to miss the point.

 

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Way to miss the point.

Jiminey Christmas.

If these officers abused their authority to conduct a voluntary weapons check, I think it is worth bringing to light. Unless there is some way that the State gov't gave the Federal Gov't some sort of dispensation for conducting the 12031 check, then I say that there is a big friggin issue. I don't care if they whispered sweet nothings into your ear while baking cookies, the fact remains is that their actions are potentially unlawful. We are talking about FEDERAL officers enforcing STATE laws against FEDERAL jurisprudence. I dont know about you, but I see that as a big issue. Going after unprofessional conduct while going after unconstitutional laws is not a bad thing. 12031 has quite a bit before it gets struck down and all the evidence we procure now may be of some use in the process.

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

LOL, as long as they f our incorporated constitutional rights and their cherished system's policies in the a while smiling and saying "sir" "ma'am" "please" and "thank you", it's fine!

:banghead:

 

[Livermoron]

imported post

Hi All!!!

History in the making for Bay Area Open Carry

Great day on Baker Beach in the Presidio of San Francisco National Park.

We had 21 participants (Black Jack!) and 12 UOC. There were at least 4 female participants in the fold.

Special thanks to all who attended and braved the giant Tsunami (a few medium waves) that hit the beach. I made the comment to one of the reporters that came out to walk and talk with us "...A Tsunami of Gun Rights Advocates at Baker Beach." Let's see what the headline turns out to be

We collected and hauled out 11 bags of trash (lots of Styrofoam). We interacted with several members of the public who were enjoying the sand and waves. Saw one naked guy at the north end of the beach. Watched the Coast Guard Helicopters orbit the area (Tsunami watch). Generally a great time in San Francisco.

A brief interaction with FLEO's on the beach. Nothing too obtrusive (under CA law :banghead.

Hope to see you all out again next time!

Carry On,

Livermoron

PS - the rain stopped nearly as soon as we arrived...

 

[marshaul]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

LOL, as long as they f our incorporated constitutional rights and their cherished system's policies in the a while smiling and saying "sir" "ma'am" "please" and "thank you", it's fine!

:banghead:

That's not even remotely what I said. Thanks for trying.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Way to miss the point.

Jiminey Christmas.

If these officers abused their authority to conduct a voluntary weapons check, I think it is worth bringing to light. Unless there is some way that the State gov't gave the Federal Gov't some sort of dispensation for conducting the 12031 check, then I say that there is a big friggin issue. I don't care if they whispered sweet nothings into your ear while baking cookies, the fact remains is that their actions are potentially unlawful. We are talking about FEDERAL officers enforcing STATE laws against FEDERAL jurisprudence. I dont know about you, but I see that as a big issue. Going after unprofessional conduct while going after unconstitutional laws is not a bad thing. 12031 has quite a bit before it gets struck down and all the evidence we procure now may be of some use in the process.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Nothing you say is "wrong", but as long as (e) remains law you're pissing into the wind.

Now, since Federal law depends on state law when it comes to guns in National parks, who actually has the power to enforce those state laws? What ought to happen when a Park Ranger discovers a violation thereof?

 

[chewy352]

imported post

I'm with Pullnshoot. Park Rangers are Federal employees. Therefor they can not infringe on the right to bear arms.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

chewy352 wrote:

I'm with Pullnshoot. Park Rangers are Federal employees. Therefor they can not infringe on the right to bear arms.

I commented before, federal LEOs must love CA, where the Constitution does not apply and they can violate the incorporated civil rights of gun owners at will.

 

[MudCamper]

imported post

chewy352 wrote:

I'm with Pullnshoot. Park Rangers are Federal employees. Therefor they can not infringe on the right to bear arms.

That's not true. PC 830.8(b) gives them the same authority as any CA peace officer to perform (e) checks. Our enemy here is PC 12031. Let's keep our eye on the ball.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

chewy352 wrote:

I'm with Pullnshoot. Park Rangers are Federal employees. Therefor they can not infringe on the right to bear arms.

Hmm, there is no infringement of that going on by Park Rangers performing (e) checks vs not performing (e) checks, which is the matter of discussion.

If there is infringement here, it is of the 4th amendment.

However, my point is not that (e) checks are justified. My point is that it's a waste of time driving down this avenue.

OK, so someone files a PRAR over that supposed letter from the chief. Let's explore the possibilities. Two possibilities: either it exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, it was a waste of time as the problem is once again nothing more than the existence of (e), which will have given those officers authority to make the checks, thanks to PC 830.8 (b) and that letter in accordance therewith.

If the letter turns out not to exist, then what? There are now two possibilities:

1. The matter is further pursued in Federal court.

2. The matter is not pursued. Nothing left to do but moan here on the forums.

Option 1 is a waste of time and money which would be better spent challenging (e) itself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody suspects (e) is remotely constitutional thanks to Terry. Thus, in order to fall it only needs to be challenged. Thus, it exists only because of a lack of wherewithal to challenge it. Why, then, would there all of a sudden be wherewithal to pursue this sub-issue? Also, why wouldn't the money and time, if they suddenly appeared, be better spent challenging (e)?

Option 2 is stupid because we already have enough to moan about here on the forums.

Now, if the issue is not whether or not the Park Rangers had permission to perform (e) checks in accordance with state law, but whether ANY Federal LEO ought to be violating Terry, then that letter is irrelevant and so would be the PRAR. You don't need a lack of such a letter for (e) to be in violation of Terry.

So, my argument is thus: challenge (e) as law, challenge the unconstitutional Terry searches by Federal LEOs, but fussing over that maybe-letter is just pissing into the wind. Whether that letter exists is almost completely irrelevant compared to the bigger issues in play.

Now, how you guys got "it's OK to violate rights as long as you bake cookies" from anything I have ever posted, including in this thread, is beyond me. That's not something I believe, something I would argue, or something that anyone but an idiot could construe from what I've said. I might point out I actually take offense from this. Don't expect any slack from me in the near future.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

chewy352 wrote:

I'm with Pullnshoot. Park Rangers are Federal employees. Therefor they can not infringe on the right to bear arms.

That's not true. PC 830.8(b) gives them the same authority as any CA peace officer to perform (e) checks. Our enemy here is PC 12031. Let's keep our eye on the ball.

This is incredibly hard to grasp for some folks tonight. Dunno why.

 

[chewy352]

imported post

I grasp it. I just don't know all the PCs and didn't know that one.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

That remark was really aimed at N6ATF and pullnshoot. You just got caught in the crossfire.

 

[chewy352]

imported post

hate it when that happens

 

[nerdyvirgin]

imported post

i thought the meetup went pretty well today, as far as echecks go i dont think it was all that bad , whether it was right or wrong, they were imo professional . they did the check and then moved on.

 

[bad_ace]

imported post

Thanks to everyone that showed up to the first, large open carry meet in San Francisco's history. Not since the Presidio was owned by the U.S. Army have there been that many armed people in one place!

It's true about the Federal Officers, it was the most polite and non judgmental violation of our rights in a long time So professionally done that an on looker, not knowing the intricacies of federal and state laws, would see my challenge of the 12031 (e) checks as "confrontational", "unnecessary", "rude", etc.

In the words of Dr. Leo Marvin, "Baby Steps"

More (high res) photos here http://www.opencarryradio.com/?p=557

 

[cato]

imported post

I would forward any "e" check info by feds to Gene at CGF (time, place, ranger names badge numbersetc... ) I think there might be an interesting twist available there for an "e" check challenge considering the feds did it this time in a national park.



artwork by oleg volk

 

[ConditionThree]

imported post

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/28/BAVJ1C8CE6.DTL

Gun rights activists take up arms at Baker Beach
Matthai Kuruvila, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, February 28, 2010

A roving band of men with guns spread across Baker Beach in San Francisco on Saturday. But most beachgoers didn't even notice, even with the weapons visibly holstered.

The men, after all, had come to pick up trash and, in the process, quietly preach their gospel.

"It's not just criminals who carry guns," Robert Montgomery, 39, of San Jose, explained. "And criminals are not going to 'open carry.' "

The men - and some women - are part of an ad hoc group trying to increase awareness of gun rights by visibly holstering them in public.

They've had more controversial events, such as at a Starbucks, which allows the open carrying of guns. But Saturday marked the first time they'd come to San Francisco.

They chose Baker Beach because it's part of the National Park system, where as of last week, it is legal to openly carry a handgun.

Rules on carrying guns
Jeff Dunhill, who wore a .40 caliber Walther P99 semiautomatic, said that society is safer with those who openly carry.

The question, said Dunhill, 37, of Walnut Creek, is that "when the criminal breaks the law, does the law-abiding citizen have the chance to defend himself?"

There are rules, of course, to how to openly carry a gun.

The guns must be unloaded, and the gun magazine must also be visibly holstered. It's not cumbersome for those who are experienced.

Jon Schwartz, 38, of Livermore said that he could unholster his .45 caliber Smith and Wesson M&P remove the empty magazine, put in a loaded magazine, get in a shooting stance and fire all within 2.1 seconds.

As they picked up trash, most beachgoers had no idea the men had weapons. But some said their clothes and their demeanor seemed out of place.

"They're not dressed to pick up trash," said Ashley Bahney, 27, of Oakland. "When they said, 'Hi,' I was pretty weirded out by that."

An argument that society is safer with guns is not convincing in a place where children are playing in the surf and picnicking, said Ludo Thomasson, 32, of San Francisco.

"I want them do the same thing in Oakland - and not Baker Beach, where people are walking their dogs," he said.

That's not the point, said Brad Huffman, 27, of Martinez, who had holstered onto his belt a 9mm Glock 17 RTF, two magazines, handcuffs and an iPhone.

They want to go to places that are part of their life, like a steakhouse or a coffee shop.

"We don't go looking for trouble," he said. "If we had a reason to go to Richmond, we would."

The only tension of the morning came when they met up with U.S. Park Police, who were warning beachgoers of the tsunami advisory.

"I respect your right to carry, but I do have to inspect your weapons," said Sgt. Todd Roth.

David Julian, 28, of Cupertino challenged Roth as to whether he had the right to do so. He took photographs and audio-recorded the inspection in case there was trouble.

Roth said the service had peace officer status granted by San Francisco and Marin county sheriffs, which gives them the legal right to inspect weapons. After Roth and two fellow officers left, Julian was still annoyed.

Police and sheriffs are encouraged to lie, Julian said, "if the ends justify the means."

Montgomery, the San Jose resident, wore a miniature video camera during the entire event, so that he, too, would have proof in case there were any incidents. His iPhone was recording audio at the same time.

'Rights to not be stopped'
Because he is heavily tattooed, has a goatee and dark skin and wore a black, hooded sweatshirt, Montgomery said he is often stopped by police.

"I have legal rights to not be stopped by police officers," he said.

While the law allows for inspecting weapons, gun rights advocates believe it is a violation of Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure.

Still, it was the sight of people with guns that took many by surprise on the beach.

Brad Lawrence came to Baker Beach on Saturday so he could take video of people bathing nude, which is common in the north section of the beach. But it was too cold for the bathers, and in their place, Lawrence saw the men with guns.

"I was shocked," said Lawrence, 37, who lives in the adjacent Sea Cliff neighborhood. "I'm afraid of guns."

It was a spectacle so unusual that it needed documenting.

"Until I show my neighbors and friends, they won't believe it," he said.

E-mail Matthai Kuruvila at mkuruvila@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/28/BAVJ1C8CE6.DTL

This article appeared on page C - 2 of the SanFranciscoChronicle

Good story. This event has effectively diffused some ofthe issues of carry at commercial locations and while some of the comments did reference firearms as genital enhancement, it was impossible to say that the trash clean up was about egos. Im jazzed that there was more female participation- its a shame they weren't interviewed. The lead sentence describes it asexclusively men though.The comments attached to the article also are conveying the point that if California reformed the laws regarding concealed weapons, that these demonstrations wouldnt be necessary.

I was amused that the best quote from the 'opposition' came from a fellow taking video at a nude beach. I think he is being universally condemned for his activies. Certianly there is greater stimga to filming nudity than to the carry and display of firearms- hopefully this irony is not lost on the antis.

Of note, the NP officer overstated his 'obligation'... He is not required to conduct an (e) check by California law.

This is a sucess which should be repeated or imitated.

 

[bigtoe416]

imported post

There have been quite a few open carry stories on sfgate in the past, but this is the first one where the number one comment isn't entirely anti. Hell, even the second comment isn't negative. Definitely throwing some of the naysayers for a loop with the community service. Well done everybody.