Using a metal cable to prevent LEO seizure during UOC

[stuckinchico]

imported post

Glock sells aftermarket barrels and slides that dont come with serial numbers or ones that match your weapon I have a couple inbound, to add to it i found a way to put aluminum tape on my serial number on lower receiver where the officers can not remove with out breaking my weapon

 

[stuckinchico]

imported post

Any case that an officer stops you for your weapon should not win due to unlawful detention

 

[Sons of Liberty]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

If non-permanent "covering" of SNs is a crime, then every cop's holstered firearm is a violation.

Just one more thing they would get a brass pass on.

Hey, maybe youcould do a citizen's arrest on one and use him/her as a test case...I don't see any exemptions for LEO's. :what:

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

Sons of Liberty wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

If non-permanent "covering" of SNs is a crime, then every cop's holstered firearm is a violation.

Just one more thing they would get a brass pass on.

Hey, maybe you could do a citizen's arrest on one and use him/her as a test case...I don't see any exemptions for LEO's.  :what:

Citizen's arrest, then I'd have to hope another agency accepts the arrest, but there's no provision for citizen's prosecution (if that citizen is a criminal lawyer)...

 

[Sons of Liberty]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

If non-permanent "covering" of SNs is a crime, then every cop's holstered firearm is a violation.

Just one more thing they would get a brass pass on.

Hey, maybe youcould do a citizen's arrest on one and use him/her as a test case...I don't see any exemptions for LEO's. :what:

Citizen's arrest, then I'd have to hope another agency accepts the arrest, but there's no provision for citizen's prosecution (if that citizen is a criminal lawyer)...

Well, you could argue thata citizen's arrest is a basic right held prior to and at the forming of the Constitution and is protected by the 9th amendment. For a state to restrict a citizen's arrest to only felonies is an infringement on that basic right to detain a person in order to answer to the alleged crime, regardless of the severity of the crime.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

Sons of Liberty wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

If non-permanent "covering" of SNs is a crime, then every cop's holstered firearm is a violation.

Just one more thing they would get a brass pass on.

Hey, maybe you could do a citizen's arrest on one and use him/her as a test case...I don't see any exemptions for LEO's.  :what:

Citizen's arrest, then I'd have to hope another agency accepts the arrest, but there's no provision for citizen's prosecution (if that citizen is a criminal lawyer)...

Well, you could argue that a citizen's arrest is a basic right held prior to and at the forming of the Constitution and is protected by the 9th amendment. For a state to restrict a citizen's arrest to only felonies is an infringement on that basic right to detain a person in order to answer to the alleged crime, regardless of the severity of the crime.

I was referring to the law that makes it not a crime for a peace officer to refuse to accept a citizen's arrest:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_1801-1850/ab_1835_bill_20020915_chaptered.pdf

In other words, if you arrest a peace officer, and deliver them to another peace officer, they will almost certainly refuse to accept the arrest as there is no criminal penalty for letting a criminal hiding behind a badge go.

SEC. 2. Section 847 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
847. (a) A private person who has arrested another for the
commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take
the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a peace
officer.

So you should be going directly to an impartial superior court judge. Good luck to any citizen successfully prosecuting a criminal cop, let alone getting them in front of an impartial judge in the first place.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

imported post

Sons of Liberty wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

If non-permanent "covering" of SNs is a crime, then every cop's holstered firearm is a violation.

Just one more thing they would get a brass pass on.

Hey, maybe youcould do a citizen's arrest on one and use him/her as a test case...I don't see any exemptions for LEO's. :what:

Citizen's arrest, then I'd have to hope another agency accepts the arrest, but there's no provision for citizen's prosecution (if that citizen is a criminal lawyer)...

Well, you could argue thata citizen's arrest is a basic right held prior to and at the forming of the Constitution and is protected by the 9th amendment. For a state to restrict a citizen's arrest to only felonies is an infringement on that basic right to detain a person in order to answer to the alleged crime, regardless of the severity of the crime.

Wait a minute...California Penal Code says,

"837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it."

A public offense would include misdemeanors.

Any volunteers?

 

[Sons of Liberty]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

If non-permanent "covering" of SNs is a crime, then every cop's holstered firearm is a violation.

Just one more thing they would get a brass pass on.

Hey, maybe youcould do a citizen's arrest on one and use him/her as a test case...I don't see any exemptions for LEO's. :what:

Citizen's arrest, then I'd have to hope another agency accepts the arrest, but there's no provision for citizen's prosecution (if that citizen is a criminal lawyer)...

Well, you could argue thata citizen's arrest is a basic right held prior to and at the forming of the Constitution and is protected by the 9th amendment. For a state to restrict a citizen's arrest to only felonies is an infringement on that basic right to detain a person in order to answer to the alleged crime, regardless of the severity of the crime.

I was referring to the law that makes it not a crime for a peace officer to refuse to accept a citizen's arrest:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_1801-1850/ab_1835_bill_20020915_chaptered.pdf

In other words, if you arrest a peace officer, and deliver them to another peace officer, they will almost certainly refuse to accept the arrest as there is no criminal penalty for letting a criminal hiding behind a badge go.

SEC. 2. Section 847 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
847. (a) A private person who has arrested another for the
commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take
the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a peace
officer.

So you should be going directly to an impartial superior court judge. Good luck to any citizen successfully prosecuting a criminal cop, let alone getting them in front of an impartial judge in the first place.

I'm not as impassioned about this right as others, since I don't have the same immunities as LEO's.

 

[rpyne]

imported post

HankT wrote:

A way to solve this problem is to implant an RFID tag into a handgun. The RFID would have theserial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date.

The police could have handheld readers to scoop up the data and transmit an inquiry to their favorite legal database(s).

Such a system would be safer, more secure, more accurate and efficient.

No one but the gun owner/carrier would have to touch the gun.

No, this would not solve the problem, it would only make it easier for the police to perform an illegal search. Don't give the JBTs any ideas.

 

[rpyne]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Now, I'm not sure how easily they could pinpoint an RFID tag that is 600 feet away... but they would at least know it's there.

The technology exists to pinpoint it within inches.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

stuckinchico wrote:

...i found a way to put aluminum tape on my serial number on lower receiver where the officers can not remove with out breaking my weapon

This would be an example of a permanent "covering" of the SN, and is illegal. If the gun's value is over $400, it can be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

IMO, not worth becoming a felon.

IMO, the best course of action is to not cover the SN at all, and then file a federal suit for the rights violations under color of authority.

 

[stuckinchico]

imported post

Really Crap uhhh Time to undo dang it

 

[GoldCoaster]

imported post

The problem is RFID is not LEO only, anyone can get hold of it, we use it in our warehouses on the fork lifts.

So if I can get one and rig it up to read as I walk around and learn the tags of handguns what's to stop an educated criminal from doing the same thing. If you CC you supposedly have the element of surprise but if the BG walks by you and his handy dandy RFID pings you and see's you have a gun well not only don't you have the element of surprise but you're likely to be the surprised one.

RFID, it's the devils tool. :lol:

 

[HankT]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

HankT wrote:

This is the beauty of HankT's Firearm ID (HFID) system. If the carried handgun has the HFID component, the LEO simply reads the information of the openly carried gun and bids the citizen a good day. The OCer immediately goes on his way, with no delay whatsoever. HFID will be much more accurate than writing down data on paper, then data entering it in a separate process. HFID is much faster, too.

And what gives the LEO the right to access ANY of my personal information at all?

HankT's Firearm ID (HFID) system's RFID would not contain personal information. Just serial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date. The data would be coded on the chip at point of manufacture.

Besides eliminating hassles and time-consuming "numbers checking" by zealous LEOs (ahem, LEO 229), there would be several other uses for the gun ID/manufacturing data. Since it would be similar to a UPC system, a private gun buyer could have a portable reader too. And it could be used to check out a gun in a F2F buy, say, at a gun show. The savvy (and careful) buyer could bump the prospective private seller gun's data against a stolen file and even, eventually, against the Blue Book of Guns data or the SCSW.

Whoa, that would be sooooo much better than lugging thosefattomes around with me when I go to a gun show looking to buy....

 

[Decoligny]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

HankT wrote:

This is the beauty of HankT's Firearm ID (HFID) system. If the carried handgun has the HFID component, the LEO simply reads the information of the openly carried gun and bids the citizen a good day. The OCer immediately goes on his way, with no delay whatsoever. HFID will be much more accurate than writing down data on paper, then data entering it in a separate process. HFID is much faster, too.

And what gives the LEO the right to access ANY of my personal information at all?

HankT's Firearm ID (HFID) system's RFID would not contain personal information. Just serial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date. The data would be coded on the chip at point of manufacture.

Besides eliminating hassles and time-consuming "numbers checking" by zealous LEOs (ahem, LEO 229), there would be several other uses for the gun ID/manufacturing data. Since it would be similar to a UPC system, a private gun buyer could have a portable reader too. And it could be used to check out a gun in a F2F buy, say, at a gun show. The savvy (and careful) buyer could bump the prospective private seller gun's data against a stolen file and even, eventually, against the Blue Book of Guns data or the SCSW.

Whoa, that would be sooooo much better than lugging thosefattomes around with me when I go to a gun show looking to buy....

The gun is MINE.

Any information about said gun is MY INFORMATION.

The 4th Amendment guarantees me to be free from unreasonable search and siezure of my person and papers (information).

And since the CA DOJ has the serial number, make, model etc. already in their system, it is an automatic Identification system where they can just scan from a distance and see that "John Q. Smith" who lives at 234 Home Ave, Mytown, CA, is out and about carrying his firearm.

You may be comfortable having the Government scanning your personal information, but it ain't gonna happen to my firearm.

With this system it would also mean that the Government has a database of every single gun owned by every single gun owner.

Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and the DNC would be drooling at the prospect of being able to identify every single gun owner with the push of a button.

 

[rpyne]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

HankT wrote:

This is the beauty of HankT's Firearm ID (HFID) system. If the carried handgun has the HFID component, the LEO simply reads the information of the openly carried gun and bids the citizen a good day. The OCer immediately goes on his way, with no delay whatsoever. HFID will be much more accurate than writing down data on paper, then data entering it in a separate process. HFID is much faster, too.

And what gives the LEO the right to access ANY of my personal information at all?

HankT's Firearm ID (HFID) system's RFID would not contain personal information. Just serial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date. The data would be coded on the chip at point of manufacture.

Besides eliminating hassles and time-consuming "numbers checking" by zealous LEOs (ahem, LEO 229), there would be several other uses for the gun ID/manufacturing data. Since it would be similar to a UPC system, a private gun buyer could have a portable reader too. And it could be used to check out a gun in a F2F buy, say, at a gun show. The savvy (and careful) buyer could bump the prospective private seller gun's data against a stolen file and even, eventually, against the Blue Book of Guns data or the SCSW.

Whoa, that would be sooooo much better than lugging thosefattomes around with me when I go to a gun show looking to buy....

There are few pieces of information more personal than the details of the firearms I own.

With RFID, who needs gun registration? Unless you store your guns in a faraday cage, all they have to do is drive down the street with an RFID reader to come knocking on your door to collect your firearms.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

SNIP The gun is MINE.

Any information about said gun is MY INFORMATION.

The 4th Amendment guarantees me to be free from unreasonable search and siezure of my person and papers (information).

You touch on something I've been thinking about lately.

When rights are under discussion, I think some people may have a tendency to talk about rights as though they are some abstract concept disconnected from the person to whom they belong.

Courtcases sometimes discussrights in this way. For example, "Theappellant does nothave a 4th Amendmentright..."

Whatgets left out of the discussion too oftenin my estimation is thepersonal aspect. A violation of a right is actually a violation of the person himself. Rights cannot existwithout people.In this context rights are violations we should not have to endure. If we do endure aviolation, it is aviolation of our person.

The example just above would translate, "It is proper for police to violate appellant in the circumstances..." Or, "intrude" if you like.

Not all court cases are impersonal about it. Terry v Ohio talks about the indignity of being stopped and searched.

Pending further thought, I'm thinking that every violation, reduction, or refused recognition of a right is best framed as a violation of the person.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

HankT wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

HankT wrote:

This is the beauty of HankT's Firearm ID (HFID) system. If the carried handgun has the HFID component, the LEO simply reads the information of the openly carried gun and bids the citizen a good day. The OCer immediately goes on his way, with no delay whatsoever. HFID will be much more accurate than writing down data on paper, then data entering it in a separate process. HFID is much faster, too.

And what gives the LEO the right to access ANY of my personal information at all?

HankT's Firearm ID (HFID) system's RFID would not contain personal information. Just serial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date. The data would be coded on the chip at point of manufacture.

Besides eliminating hassles and time-consuming "numbers checking" by zealous LEOs (ahem, LEO 229), there would be several other uses for the gun ID/manufacturing data. Since it would be similar to a UPC system, a private gun buyer could have a portable reader too. And it could be used to check out a gun in a F2F buy, say, at a gun show. The savvy (and careful) buyer could bump the prospective private seller gun's data against a stolen file and even, eventually, against the Blue Book of Guns data or the SCSW.

Whoa, that would be sooooo much better than lugging thosefattomes around with me when I go to a gun show looking to buy....

The gun is MINE.

Any information about said gun is MY INFORMATION.

Any?

You own the manufacture date? The caliber data? The make, the model?

Did you get some kind of IP license with that gun?

Fascinating logic.



BTW, do you rip out the VIN from the front dashboard when you buy your vehicles? Jes' wondering.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

HankT wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

HankT wrote:

This is the beauty of HankT's Firearm ID (HFID) system. If the carried handgun has the HFID component, the LEO simply reads the information of the openly carried gun and bids the citizen a good day. The OCer immediately goes on his way, with no delay whatsoever.  HFID will be much more accurate than writing down data on paper, then data entering it in a separate process. HFID is much faster, too.

And what gives the LEO the right to access ANY of my personal information at all?

 

HankT's Firearm ID (HFID) system's RFID would not contain personal information. Just serial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date. The data would be coded on the chip at point of manufacture.

Besides eliminating hassles and time-consuming "numbers checking" by zealous LEOs (ahem, LEO 229), there would be several other uses for the gun ID/manufacturing data. Since it would be similar to a UPC system, a private gun buyer could have a portable reader too. And it could be used to check out a gun in a F2F buy, say, at a gun show. The savvy (and careful) buyer could bump the prospective private seller gun's data against a stolen file and even, eventually, against the Blue Book of Guns data or the SCSW. 

Whoa, that would be sooooo much better than lugging those fat tomes around with me when I go to a gun show looking to buy....

The gun is MINE.

Any information about said gun is MY INFORMATION.

Any?

You own the manufacture date? The caliber data? The make, the model?

Did you get some kind of IP license with that gun?

Fascinating logic.    

 

BTW, do you rip out the VIN from the front dashboard when you buy your vehicles? Jes' wondering. 

Some might say driving (and vehicle ownership) is a privilege, not a right.

 

[mjones]

imported post

rpyne wrote:

With RFID, who needs gun registration? Unless you store your guns in a faraday cage, all they have to do is drive down the street with an RFID reader to come knocking on your door to collect your firearms.

This actually happened to me Saturday morning.

My wife and I just bought and moved into a new house in an adjoiningcity. I get a knock on the door from a city code enforcer indicating that I need to pay fees for our two cats and any other pets we have in the hom.

Whether or not indoor only cats should be licensed is another issue, but I flat out asked how they hell they found out.

Anyhow...his response was that 'if your pets are chipped we can tell by driving down the street slowly.'

Grrrrrrrr...