• 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.

Arcata PD Steals Openly Carried Rifle for Public Safety

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2012/nov/1/another-arcata-halloween-annals-assault-rifle-conf/


During the evening officers located a male subject with an AR-15 assault rifle slung around his neck. The firearm had an unusable unloaded magazine in the weapon. He also had a loaded operable 10 round magazine in his pocket. The weapon was taken for public safety reasons.

Lawfully owned and carried property taken for public safety. Arcata without question, has screwed the pooch on this, as this wasn't illegal- AB1527 will not be en force until January 1st.

What hinks this up even more for them is that they decided to take his property and tell him it is a felony,... but then cut him loose without an arrest.

The harm has already been done; the individual was deprived of his property and liberty, must return to the PD and submit a LEGR and fee to retrieve his property for no crime at all.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
How are they hinked up? They've taken his gun, and have provided a pathway for him to get it returned. It, stinks of course, but the PD is not going to be injured here.....as usual

Au contraire ...

There are forces that were in motion hours after this event occured seeking to remedy the unlawful taking of property. The injury to the individual has already been done, being deprived of property for no crime, being deprived of the use of that property for an undetermined time period, and being inconvenienced with having to pay a fee and submit paperwork to get his property returned. The fact the police didnt arrest this fellow for any charge, let alone a felony, supports the argument that there was no cause to take his property.

While the officers involved in this 4th amendment clusterf*ck won't be disciplined, the city and the department are on the hook for the wrongful seizure. There is a good chance that he will not only get his rifle back, but also win a settlement in addition to mandating training for the Arcata Police Department on both what constitutes a California 'assault weapon' and the fundamentals the forth amendment.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Au contraire ...

There are forces that were in motion hours after this event occured seeking to remedy the unlawful taking of property. The injury to the individual has already been done, being deprived of property for no crime, being deprived of the use of that property for an undetermined time period, and being inconvenienced with having to pay a fee and submit paperwork to get his property returned. The fact the police didnt arrest this fellow for any charge, let alone a felony, supports the argument that there was no cause to take his property.

While the officers involved in this 4th amendment clusterf*ck won't be disciplined, the city and the department are on the hook for the wrongful seizure. There is a good chance that he will not only get his rifle back, but also win a settlement in addition to mandating training for the Arcata Police Department on both what constitutes a California 'assault weapon' and the fundamentals the forth amendment.

We can ONLY hope, after we've done everything else to support him in his efforts to obtain redress for his grievances!
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
"The weapon was taken for public safety reasons."

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

These too often seem to boil down to the argument, "Well, what would the public say if he had shot someone and the police could have prevented it?" Which is just a roundabout way of saying the police stole the gun for political reasons--they didn't want any public criticism or public opinion flapping back at them. Sorry, too bad. The Bill of Rights is not subject to the political problems of police.
 
Last edited:

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
We requested the releasable information via a records act request, and got a reply which stated there was no arrest, and therefore no report to supply us. Upon receiving that information, we followed up with another request, that asked for information in regards to the siezure of property, ie whatever administrative documents they file when property is received for...a non incident.... Surely they have an impound or property room where they log in such items.
Shortly after, the administrative officer sent us another reply stating that she was wrong in telling us that there was no incident, but now she is informed that there is a criminal investigation underway, and is not required to release investigative records.
Now this ...non-incident..... is starting to smell a bit. We're concerned that the law enforcement agency is not following the proper procedures, and that jurisdiction may not be safe for persons who expect the protections of the US constitution, the California Constitution, the Bill of rights, and that they are also mis-using the exemptions within the government code to evade the disclosure of public records as required by state law.
The person at the point of this event has taken some refuge of sorts within the heirarchy at Calguns foundation, So he's covered. But the rest of California is still at risk, so we are going to push ahead a little more on this for our benefit.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
We requested the releasable information via a records act request, and got a reply which stated there was no arrest, and therefore no report to supply us. Upon receiving that information, we followed up with another request, that asked for information in regards to the siezure of property, ie whatever administrative documents they file when property is received for...a non incident.... Surely they have an impound or property room where they log in such items.
Shortly after, the administrative officer sent us another reply stating that she was wrong in telling us that there was no incident, but now she is informed that there is a criminal investigation underway, and is not required to release investigative records.
Now this ...non-incident..... is starting to smell a bit. We're concerned that the law enforcement agency is not following the proper procedures, and that jurisdiction may not be safe for persons who expect the protections of the US constitution, the California Constitution, the Bill of rights, and that they are also mis-using the exemptions within the government code to evade the disclosure of public records as required by state law.
The person at the point of this event has taken some refuge of sorts within the heirarchy at Calguns foundation, So he's covered. But the rest of California is still at risk, so we are going to push ahead a little more on this for our benefit.

They are correct on investigative records but they still have to produce the equivalent of a press release....
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
They are correct on investigative records but they still have to produce the equivalent of a press release....

Yes, but they are trying to have it both ways. There's no incident, so there's no incident report. But there is a criminal investigation. ...into a non incident where property was siezed
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Yes, but they are trying to have it both ways. There's no incident, so there's no incident report. But there is a criminal investigation. ...into a non incident where property was siezed

They are just calling it something else ... that's why I don't ask for anything specific, just "all records related to X which may include, but are not exclusive to:


In any event, it would still be restricted until the case is over...I understand your viewpoint and they look like idiots...
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2012/nov/1/another-arcata-halloween-annals-assault-rifle-conf/




Lawfully owned and carried property taken for public safety. Arcata without question, has screwed the pooch on this, as this wasn't illegal- AB1527 will not be en force until January 1st.

What hinks this up even more for them is that they decided to take his property and tell him it is a felony,... but then cut him loose without an arrest.

The harm has already been done; the individual was deprived of his property and liberty, must return to the PD and submit a LEGR and fee to retrieve his property for no crime at all.

No guys - how many times do i have to explain this - when the government takes your property you have them in a tight spot - never sue for returnh of the guns or otehr property - sue just for violation of your due process rights under the 5th and 14th amendments and 42 USC 1983. See Ford v. Turner (DC Ct. of Appeals). Result will most likley be return of property and payment of attorney fees.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
No guys - how many times do i have to explain this - when the government takes your property you have them in a tight spot - never sue for returnh of the guns or otehr property - sue just for violation of your due process rights under the 5th and 14th amendments and 42 USC 1983. See Ford v. Turner (DC Ct. of Appeals). Result will most likley be return of property and payment of attorney fees.

Mike, I agree for the most part. But the injured party isnt going to get his firearm back unless he files the LEGR with the fee,.... unless that is part of the settlement. Should he simply do without his property until his case is addressed in Federal court?
 

range rat

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
334
Location
Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
Au contraire ...

There are forces that were in motion hours after this event occured seeking to remedy the unlawful taking of property. The injury to the individual has already been done, being deprived of property for no crime, being deprived of the use of that property for an undetermined time period, and being inconvenienced with having to pay a fee and submit paperwork to get his property returned. The fact the police didnt arrest this fellow for any charge, let alone a felony, supports the argument that there was no cause to take his property.

While the officers involved in this 4th amendment clusterf*ck won't be disciplined, the city and the department are on the hook for the wrongful seizure. There is a good chance that he will not only get his rifle back, but also win a settlement in addition to mandating training for the Arcata Police Department on both what constitutes a California 'assault weapon' and the fundamentals the forth amendment.

White House petition calls for trying Senator Feinstein for treason

http://www.examiner.com/article/white-house-petition-calls-for-trying-senator-feinstein-for-treason


I sign, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions


http://www.nraila.org/
 
Top