So it begins

[bigtoe416]

Couple of gents getting their rights violated in Alameda after they were LGOC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuXzuoHh2Zo

 

[Lawful Aim]

If they had given proper NOTICE to the officers and/or the department in advance and/or at the scene instead of consenting to the actions of the officers as they did, they could have put the department and the officers under obligation if they pursued the detainment and e-check.

 

[WCrawford]

If they had given proper NOTICE to the officers and/or the department in advance and/or at the scene instead of consenting to the actions of the officers as they did, they could have put the department and the officers under obligation if they pursued the detainment and e-check.

Proper notice???? Do you have to call and get permission from local California swine to go to worship services, too?

Sent from my M865 using Tapatalk

 

[ConditionThree]

Couple of gents getting their rights violated in Alameda after they were LGOC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuXzuoHh2Zo

They talk to damn much. Its like they never heard of the 5th.

 

[HKcarrier]

You guys both give too much credit to a uniform.

If a random person is approaching you with a weapon drawn you should take it as what it is, a threat of deadly violence. You should be able to quickly think if you have done anything that warrants you being arrested or attacked, and if not, you should respond accordingly. Just because a person has a job with a certain government agency, or has a blue or black set of clothes on with a shiny tin object near their heart doesn't mean they can threaten your life whenever they desire. They are citizens with no rights greater than yours. Could you do that to them and expect to be treated the way you suggest one act? No. Then they are your superior in a "free country".

I'll leave you with a quote which underlines the importance of the fourth amendment.


Wilson v. Indiana - Indiana Appeals - 2006

I don't equate "low ready" with assault with a club and discharge of a firearm. Sorry, it's just not the same. Now, if a cop points his gun at me, FOR NO REASON, then what you have said may start bouncing around in my head...

 

[oc4ever]

Lets get real here

I have to take up with the LEO's on this on. A guy walking around a suburban residential area with a rifle is way out of the ordinary. Do any of you see this on a regular basis , daily, monthly, or yearly....or ever? One officer covering the other one in a low ready position is reasonable considering the citizen has far superior firepower that will punch through both the police car and the officer's vest. The officers used restraint on the contact all considering we don't know if this was a called-in complaint of a MWAG call or they were just cruising down the street and saw him. I am not all on board with OC high power black rifles in crowded urban settings,other than as a group political protest. They can just do too much damage going through both cars and buildings over a large (kill zone) area. IMHO, I think if you really want to do the OC long gun thing, it should start out with shotguns or wood stock small rifles until all the LEO's and public get up to speed. If this guy would have LROC"ed in LAPD land, I can see a fatal shooting happening easily. As tragic as that could be, it will just give the legislature and LEO's another reason to push for further restrictions. Going to various Cities in the Inland Empire carrying around a Black long rifle is going to attract all sorts of LEO attention. If that is what he seeks, he will continue to get it. At some point maybe he will get tired of being a youtube star, threatening all the LEO's with lawsuits, and go back to having a normal life.Look at all of his 5 youtube videos , they have a reoccurring theme of confrontation. At some point one of the future contacts will probably not go well. I am a business owner, and would not want a OCer sitting in my business with a long rifle if it makes my other customers uncomfortable, and many Mom's would normally feel protective of their children, and family, and not want to come back to my business as long this guy is allowed .

 

[MilProGuy]

Why would you pull a gun on somebody walking down the street minding their own business?
I don't have the authority to do so. But if I were a LEO and saw a person walking down the street with a semiautomatic tactical rifle dangling around his neck, I certainly would have approached with due caution as backup to the primary officer, like the officer was doing until I could determine just exactly what was going on.

Would you do the same thing if the guy was OCing a handgun?
I am not a law enforcement officer, but if I were, no, if the person's weapon was holstered, I'd not draw my weapon.

The tactical rifle dangling around one's neck could be easily implemented if the bearer was out on a nefarious mission, intent to use his rifle to shed innocent blood and commit mayhem.

The officers had no way of knowing this man's intentions, so they took precautions. Until they stopped and approached the man, they had no way of knowing that this was some guy out on a mission to draw attention to himself. (He must have been neglected as a child.)

Should all of the people who decide to carry in that manner be stopped at gunpoint?
If they carry in the manner this guy was, yes. It's just plain stupid to carry an unloaded AR15 around your neck just to walk the dog. The guy got what he wanted: ATTENTION.

Where do you draw the line?
By using common sense. NOBODY openly carries an unloaded semiautomatic, tactical rifle for self defense purposes

By the way I don't think it is funny either. I think it is sad that this is what it has come to if you wish to defend yourself in CA.
This guy wasn't defending himself. His rifle was unloaded. He was just out showboating in front of his neighbors.

Of course, all the highlighted responses in red are merely one man's opinion.

It has been interesting for me to read the opinions of others so far.

 

[MilProGuy]

W.H.Y.?


The citizen was not breaking any laws, and was walking a frufru dog. WHY would YOU draw?

For the reasons I stated in my response to thebigsd.

 

[MilProGuy]

Are you active duty? No.

Do you remember your oath? Yes.

In fact, I am a published author, and in one of my books about my military service I included the oath of induction into the Armed Forces in the manuscript of the book.

 

[WCrawford]

"The mere presence of a gun is not reasonable suspicion of a crime."

Sent from my M865 using Tapatalk

 

[bigtoe416]

"The mere presence of a gun is not reasonable suspicion of a crime."

Exactly. The individuals that would draw their weapon to approach an individual who has a rifle are violating the man's right to be free from seizure. There has been no report that the man is going to commit a crime, there is no indication from viewing his behavior that he is committing a crime. So the police can, at best, approach him and demand to inspect the loaded condition of his firearms. But that didn't happen, he was detained without RAS.

Does anybody that would draw on this guy have a law citation that says carrying a rifle can constitute RAS if it is unusual?

 

[Cmdr_Haggis]

With inline replies to thebigsd

Why would you pull a gun on somebody walking down the street minding their own business?
I don't have the authority to do so. But if I were a LEO and saw a person walking down the street with a semiautomatic tactical rifle dangling around his neck, I certainly would have approached with due caution as backup to the primary officer, like the officer was doing until I could determine just exactly what was going on.

Would you do the same thing if the guy was OCing a handgun?
I am not a law enforcement officer, but if I were, no, if the person's weapon was holstered, I'd not draw my weapon.

The tactical rifle dangling around one's neck could be easily implemented if the bearer was out on a nefarious mission, intent to use his rifle to shed innocent blood and commit mayhem.

The officers had no way of knowing this man's intentions, so they took precautions. Until they stopped and approached the man, they had no way of knowing that this was some guy out on a mission to draw attention to himself. (He must have been neglected as a child.)

Should all of the people who decide to carry in that manner be stopped at gunpoint?
If they carry in the manner this guy was, yes. It's just plain stupid to carry an unloaded AR15 around your neck just to walk the dog. The guy got what he wanted: ATTENTION.

Where do you draw the line?
By using common sense. NOBODY openly carries an unloaded semiautomatic, tactical rifle for self defense purposes

By the way I don't think it is funny either. I think it is sad that this is what it has come to if you wish to defend yourself in CA.
This guy wasn't defending himself. His rifle was unloaded. He was just out showboating in front of his neighbors.

Of course, all the highlighted responses in red are merely one man's opinion.

It has been interesting for me to read the opinions of others so far.

If you wouldn't draw down on a citizen carrying a holstered handgun, why would you do so to a citizen carrying a slinged rifle?

You're making a point of saying "unloaded". In California, that's the deal dealt to its citizens. They cannot carry loaded. So their course of action is unloaded. Why shun them for carrying simply because they are forced to carry unloaded? Why, by your assertion that NOBODY carries an unloaded rifle for self-defense, do we allow the police to do so (they go to their trunk, pull out their rifle, and load it)? Why should the citizen be stripped of his right? Who you call a "showboat" many others would call a patriot, standing defiant to the overbearing bully which is government today.

As has been said before, the carrying of a gun (no matter the type) does not give reasonable suspicion. If these officers were concerned about "officer safety", would not the wise course of action be to call for backup? They approached this man simply because in California guns are "bad" and the cops are out to pull the right to carry from citizens. It was the honchos in power in the police forces that pushed for the repeal of UOC. Officer Snuffy was at low ready to assert the government's "authority" in a situation that did not warrant such heavy-handed tactics. The rifle was slung across the man's back... hardly a speed draw to carry out a "nefarious mission".

The road this country is on, and the one we are fighting to get off of, ends in absolute government authority over the "citizenry". States surrendered their sovereignty long ago and fostered the current United State of Nannyhood. Nanny Sam wants to be in charge and it's going to be a long, long row to hoe on the part of citizens to get their freedoms fully recognized for what they are ... ABSOLUTE. California's "leaders" are the tip of the sword that will run our rights through.

 

[Beretta9mm (army)]

lol, I can't call it a gun. That was beet out of me in basic. A gun is a play thing to me, a wepon is a tool and only has one purpus. About 6 mounths agon a E-4 tried to use the butstock of an M-16 as a bat to hit rocks, he is now an E-2. He learnd that was not the proper use of an M-16.

 

[MilProGuy]

If you wouldn't draw down on a citizen carrying a holstered handgun, why would you do so to a citizen carrying a slinged rifle?
For the reason I mentioned in my response to thebigsd.

You're making a point of saying "unloaded". In California, that's the deal dealt to its citizens. They cannot carry loaded. So their course of action is unloaded.

Why shun them for carrying simply because they are forced to carry unloaded? Because, in my neck of the woods we consider a man lacking some of his "marbles" who carries an unloaded gun around for self-defense purposes. (But, in all honesty, that's probably just a Mississippi redneck thing.)

Why, by your assertion that NOBODY carries an unloaded rifle for self-defense, do we allow the police to do so (they go to their trunk, pull out their rifle, and load it)? Because they have ammo in the vehicle to load their long guns with.

Why should the citizen be stripped of his right?
You're right.

Who you call a "showboat" many others would call a patriot, standing defiant to the overbearing bully which is government today.
I'm sure those who condone this man's conduct, in truth, do consider him to be a patriot.

As has been said before, the carrying of a gun (no matter the type) does not give reasonable suspicion. If these officers were concerned about "officer safety", would not the wise course of action be to call for backup? Yes.

The road this country is on, and the one we are fighting to get off of, ends in absolute government authority over the "citizenry". States surrendered their sovereignty long ago and fostered the current United State of Nannyhood. Nanny Sam wants to be in charge and it's going to be a long, long row to hoe on the part of citizens to get their freedoms fully recognized for what they are ... ABSOLUTE. California's "leaders" are the tip of the sword that will run our rights through.
A sobering prospect, for sure.

Thank you for your response to my post.

I respect the views you have shared and have attempted to answer the questions you posed to me to the best of my ability.

 

[Born2Lose]

Because, in my neck of the woods we consider a man lacking some of his "marbles" who carries an unloaded gun around for self-defense purposes. (But, in all honesty, that's probably just a Mississippi redneck thing.)

I'm sure you've seen the video posted a million times of the uoc'er at the range going from unloaded to firing on target in 2 seconds.
When the UOC ban goes into affect what are the other options?
Maybe you are already aware of this as well but as far as rifle is concerned the rifle must be unloaded..but that doesn't mean you can't have an empty mag in the well with a full mag coupled to it. With the same speed as a normal mag change you can be ready to fire. You still consider that to be a completely unrealistic form of self defense? I realize it wouldn't help much in a "back alley mugging" scenario but in a "wild shooting rampage" defense scenario do you see any value in it?

 

[bigtoe416]

Yet another Ontario LGOC video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ck97yvSCBA

Three Ontario PD cars, four open carriers.

 

[MilProGuy]

Yet another Ontario LGOC video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ck97yvSCBA

Three Ontario PD cars, four open carriers.

I watched the opening segment, but was amazed at the logic (or lack thereof) of four people carrying long guns slung about their necks who would stand outside a store at night, so I didn't even watch the remainder of it.

I figure watching paint dry on my canvas would make more sense than watching these guys make fools of themselves.

 

[Robin47]

Exactly. The individuals that would draw their weapon to approach an individual who has a rifle are violating the man's right to be free from seizure. There has been no report that the man is going to commit a crime, there is no indication from viewing his behavior that he is committing a crime. So the police can, at best, approach him and demand to inspect the loaded condition of his firearms. But that didn't happen, he was detained without RAS.

Does anybody that would draw on this guy have a law citation that says carrying a rifle can constitute RAS if it is unusual?

I have one that says NO, because its not even a legal law PC 12031e.
They in effect are enforcing a dead law from inception.
That's as soon as it was signed by a traitor to their oath of office.
Norton vs.Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442 /and

16 AM Jur 2d. Sec 177
late 2d Sec 256/ and

Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491/ and

Marbury vs. Madison . 5 US (Cranch) 137,174,176 (1803)

So the conclusion is the LEO's are enforcing a dead law.
However they can't make those decisions by them self's so they
just go along and do it, e-checks.

What we need is Sheriff's, like the one in Nye County, Nevada who are
Constitutional Sheriff's, and know who they are working for. "We The People".
Rather then a "Police Association, or union".

So when comes the time to vote for a Sheriff in your county, remember this
and find out if he is going to keep his Word and Oath of Office to We The People !

Robin47

 

[tombrewster421]

lol, I can't call it a gun. That was beet out of me in basic. A gun is a play thing to me, a wepon is a tool and only has one purpus. About 6 mounths agon a E-4 tried to use the butstock of an M-16 as a bat to hit rocks, he is now an E-2. He learnd that was not the proper use of an M-16.

Doesn't seem like he was too good with "muzzle awareness" if he was swinging an M16 like a bat.

 

[Save Our State]

Exactly. The individuals that would draw their weapon to approach an individual who has a rifle are violating the man's right to be free from seizure. There has been no report that the man is going to commit a crime, there is no indication from viewing his behavior that he is committing a crime. So the police can, at best, approach him and demand to inspect the loaded condition of his firearms. But that didn't happen, he was detained without RAS.

Does anybody that would draw on this guy have a law citation that says carrying a rifle can constitute RAS if it is unusual?

Depends on why they would be drawing the weapon. If it was to arrest, then maybe you're right; But if it was just to insure officer and bystander safety WHILE they approached and demanded inspection, then I doubt any court would find harm.