Flash: new internal UOC memo from Sacto Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center

[bwiese]

Looks like they think UOCers are terrorists. Appears I was wrong about memo contents (from prior rumor/guesswork) - they think UOCs are out to entrap - as opposed to insistence on a right and engaging in legal self protection via recorder.

It's quite notable how they use the term constitutional right in quotation marks - not to indicate exact quotation, but a reflection of the simple derision of people - those with a 'master' mindset wondering why people insist on their rights.

Any trivial errors/minor format changes are likely mine alone due to quick transcription and lack of OCR at hand. I did not want to post the fax image as that could reveal the fax machine used.

This memo has made it at least down to "upper SoCal" now.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center
sacrttac@sacsheriff.com * 916-808-8383 * FAX 916-874-6180

SUBJECT: Officer Safety/Situational Awareness - Open Carry Movement

DATE: 24 July 2008


Recently, emails have been circulating about the Open Carry movement and its members' attempts to
openly carry firearms in public places. The intent may be to have an officer arrest them or seize their
firearm so they can file a civil lawsuit against the officer. Because of the recent incidents in the
Sacramento RTTAC region and the likelihood that the incidents will continue, the following information
is being provided to law enforcement agencies for purposes of Officer Safety and Situational Awareness.

The Open Carry movement began in 2004 when the website, OpenCarry.org, was established by two gun
rights activists. The website not only serves as a legal resource but also as a social networking portal for
thousands of American gun owners. Based on a review of the website, it appears to be well visited with
many daily postings to several forum topics.

The Sacramento Police Department recently received a phone call from an individual inquiring about
carrying an unloaded handgun in public. Additional information was received indicating that members of
the group 'Open Carry' suggested going to a Sacramento restaurant wearing non-concealed pistols on
their belts in an attempt to lure police into arresting them while other members of the group secretly
videotape the incident. The video could then be used in a civil lawsuit against the officer.

In addition, there was an incident in Turlock earlier this month where officers responded to a citizen report
of an armed person in a park on a Saturday afternoon. Upon arrival, officers encountered an adult male
armed with a handgun carried in a belt holster. Employing customer officer safety practices, the person
was disarmed at gunpoint and detained. The handgun was found to be unloaded and properly registered.
The male adult possessed valid identification and declared that he was engaging in his "constitutional right"
to openly carry an unloaded firearm. Because the firearm was unloaded and not concealed, no criminal
violation occurred. Once the person was properly identified and the weapon checked for registration status,
the person was release.

The following Monday, an individual identifying himself as a co-founder of "OpenCarry.org" called the Turlock
Police Department and suggested that Turlock police officers required training on the 'right to carry firearms’'.
OpenCarry.org also posted a message from an individual, "CA_Libertarian", who claimed he was "illegally detained
and harassed" by Turlock police officers. The website posting suggested that the incident was being reviewed
by an attorney for the purposes of pursuing a civil rights violation action and that there was an audio tape
recording of the entire incident. In addition, the individual confronted and detained by officers was not a Turlock
resident and his posting related his experiences of openly carrying firearms throughout different communities.

Based on a review of their website, it appears that the Open Carry movement is spreading to this region. The
founders are based on the East Coast and much of the activity has been in that area, but recent activity in
the Central Valley and some of the forum postings indicate that law enforcement agencies in California may
experience an increase in the number of Open Carry encountersin their jurisdictions.

If you log on to their website www.opencarry.org (http://www.opencarry.org) and click on "Our Forum" at the top left, then scroll down
to "California", you will se that there are 7 pages of postings, all with a sizeable number of replies. Included
in the postings are the Turlock PD incident and the Sacramento PD incident (including the High Priority internal
memo) as well as meetings and "meet & greets" that have either taken place or are being planned throughout
California. All California Law Enforcement personnel should be aware of the following firearms laws in case they
are confronted with a subject openly carrying a firearm.


PC 12025(f), unloaded firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of section 12025.




PC 12025 only applies to concealable firearms, which are defined in PC
12001(a) as a pistol, revolver or firearm with a barrel ofless than 16 inches.
There is nothing prohibiting someone from carrying an unloaded, concealed
rifle or shotgun on their person or in their vehicle unless the barrel is less
than 16 inches.




PC 12031(g), A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this
section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in, or attached in any
manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber,
magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm. **Case law now states the
ammunition must be in a position from which it can be fired. (People v. Clark).




PC 12031(e), in order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the
purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine
any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any
public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area
of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a
firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation
of this section.




For questions concerning the information contained in this bulletin, contact the Sacramento
Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center at 888-884-8383 or 916-803-8383.


------------------------------------------------------------
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE

WARNING: This document contains confidential information. It is intended for law enforcement personnel only.
The information should not be released to the media or general public. Further discussion of this document
should be done on a need to know basis. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
use, review, dissemination, or copying of this document is strictly prohibited.

YEAHHHH, RIGHT. :)

[tombinghamthegreat]

Does this mean other PDs in CA are aware of this?

[saigon1965]

Terrorisnm or not - It's getting air time.

[moulton]

awesome :jump::hurray::38:
I'm surprised they didn't mention calguns

[PatriotnMore]

On one hand I see this as good because it informs LEO's. On the other hand, the fact it is coming from a Terrorist threat assesment department is disturbing.

[Hopi]

and so it begins.......

Some need to start considering the commitment to wholesale equal protection...

[bwiese]

PatriotNmore,

This is tip of iceberg. It seems certain agences may be reading Calguns in relation to CCW politics too.

[Ironchef]

Wee! Be nice if they'd actually read more of those posts and see that the objective is NOT to entrap, but to carry for:
1) self defense because CCWs are not possible
2) to feel like a free man with rights
3) to educate the public
4) to show that guns on hips are not as scary as they are on tv
5) to dissuade crime
6) to restore lost "gun culture"

...and I'm sure there's more reasons. But nooooo...it's all about "the terrorism" and suing the cops we apparently hate. Maybe they should read and notice that some people posting are probably cops, lawyers, soldiers, average joes, etc. This "Us vs. Them" crap is getting old.

By the way...has anyone called the phone number? Probably couldn't hurt if over the next few days they got a call now and then informing them that we (UOC participants) are actually not entrapping anyone, and thank them for considering the movement as being lawful and taking the necessary steps to bring officers up to speed on applicable law. Any sacramento Calgunners here?

[tombinghamthegreat]

On the other hand, the fact it is coming from a Terrorist threat assesment department is disturbing.

What are they going to trace IP address and show up at our houses?:TFH::TFH: Its sad that they treat people who follow the laws like terrorists. Isn't this something the CA BOF or DOJ should be sending, not some counter terrorist agency? :confused:

[odysseus]

Thanks for posting that document. It is very important we see how the public service reacts and educates (or not) their people.

.

[MudCamper]

Wow. Thanks for the find Bill. And congrats CA_Lib for becomeing "notorious"! ;)

[sorensen440]

great sounds like were all a bunch of terrorists now

[Rascal]

Maybe we should send a representative over there, to explain that we are just exercising our rights and not looking to entrap anyone.

[Satex]

Looks like they think UOCers are terrorists.

Every state has a "terrorism office" of some sort nowadays. It's a way for them to get federal dollars to pay for local services. I wouldn't be surprised if janitorial services are managed by the terrorism office too.

CA_Liberterian is famous! Kudos to him. The interesting point about these memos is that the motivation behind them isn't to educate LEOs of proper enforcement of the law, but rather - avoid litigation.

[leelaw]

PatriotNmore,

This is tip of iceberg. It seems certain agences may be reading Calguns in relation to CCW politics too.

I can verify seeing one agency that visited CGN, and printed out and distributed copies of the AW Flowchart :D

[bwiese]

great sounds like were all a bunch of terrorists now

You oughta've seen when Alison & crew sicked the NCTC (Nat'l Counterterrorism Training Center) on Calguns/Gunscal back in summer of 2006. We were seeing a lotta weird IPs that August.

[RomanDad]

PatriotNmore,

This is tip of iceberg. It seems certain agences may be reading Calguns in relation to CCW politics too.

Yep.

[MrTuffPaws]

Personally, I think this is great. The more exposure of LEOs to the actual law and lawful conduct are nothing by a win for us.

[sierratangofoxtrotunion]

I'm having flashbacks to that Sac SD memo from a couple months ago, they're so similar.

[Liberty1]

I'm having flashbacks to that Sac SD memo from a couple months ago, they're so similar.

they're close cousins

[motorhead]

should be required reading at every p.d. rollcall. might avoid some creative interpretations of the law by individual officers.

[Liberty1]

If you log on to their website www.opencarry.org (http://www.opencarry.org) and click on "Our Forum" at the top left, then scroll down
to "California", you will se that there are 7 pages of postings, all with a sizeable number of replies.

No mention of Calguns.net. What are we chump change? :D

[Paladin]

Sacramento Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center
sacrttac@sacsheriff.com * 916-808-8383 * FAX 916-874-6180

SUBJECT: Officer Safety/Situational Awareness - Open Carry Movement

DATE: 24 July 2008

***

Based on a review of their website, it appears that the Open Carry movement is spreading to this region. The
founders are based on the East Coast and much of the activity has been in that area, but recent activity in
the Central Valley and some of the forum postings indicate that law enforcement agencies in California may
experience an increase in the number of Open Carry encounters in their jurisdictions.

If you log on to their website www.opencarry.org (http://www.opencarry.org) and click on "Our Forum" at the top left, then scroll down
to "California", you will se that there are 7 pages of postings, all with a sizeable number of replies. Included
in the postings are the Turlock PD incident and the Sacramento PD incident (including the High Priority internal
memo) as well as meetings and "meet & greets" that have either taken place or are being planned throughout
California. All California Law Enforcement personnel should be aware of the following firearms laws in case they
are confronted with a subject openly carrying a firearm.

Actually, this is not as bad as I thought it would be. They even cited case law clarifying what "loaded" means. Sure, they attribute bad intentions to us (lawsuit hunting). But if it makes them paranoid and keeps them from mashing one of our faces into the sidewalk (or worse), I say let them be paranoid!

Once we get Heller incorporation, I hope things progress as they describe, but only w/loaded OC (LOC): LOC in the pro-gun areas of our state like the Central Valley for, let's say, the 1st four months after Nordyke. That will get some LE and media attention, both of which will inform/educate some LE agencies and LEOs throughout the state.

Next, in the 2nd four months, start doing LOC in the "swing" parts of our state. That will get more LE and media attention so that by the 3rd four months period of time, when we'll start doing LOC in the major urban anti areas, there won't be any CA LE agency or LEO who hasn't been informed of the law and everybody will be a lot safer doing LOC events in DiFi's, Pelosi's, and Boxer's hometowns. :D

Or they can capitulate and change our "May Issue" CCW law to "Shall Issue" before that final "storming of the Bastille," so that many of us will stand down.

"We can do this the easy way, or the hard way. Your choice." ;)

[ilbob]

We all know that people who go to court over deliberate violations of their civil rights are terrorists. Those guys are trying to destroy our way of life. :)

[ilbob]

PatriotNmore,

This is tip of iceberg. It seems certain agences may be reading Calguns in relation to CCW politics too.

you can bet your bottom dollar a lot of agencies read these kind of forums.

you have to remember "they" consider anyone who does not knuckle under and comply with their unconstitutional demands to be criminals at best.

during the clinton years the DOJ was actually paying a guy to run a militia oriented newsgroup.

[Harbinger]

That reminds me of the 1999 FBI 'Terrorist Flyer'

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg
(http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg)

Mike

[CCWFacts]

This concept of entrapment (ie, UOCers themselves call the police) is laughable. Reading on OC.o, none of them ever mention that concept, and most of them OC for months before having any police interactions.

I'm sure UOCers do it for many reasons, but some of them are doing it for one very simple and obvious reason: in Sacramento, LA, SD, etc, they can't possibly get CCWs, leaving UOC as a poor second choice.

If these anti-terrorists want to stop OC, and want to help prevent terrorism, they should pass out a memo saying, "please start issuing CCWs to all applicants who pass objective criteria, based on a GC of 'personal protection'".

[CCWFacts]

Next, in the 2nd six months, start doing LOC in the "swing" parts of our state. That will get more LE and media attention so that by the 3rd six months period of time, when we'll start doing LOC in the major urban anti areas, there won't be any CA LE agency or LEO who hasn't been informed of the law and everybody will be a lot safer doing LOC events in DiFi's, Pelosi's, and Boxer's hometowns.

Ha, why wait? As soon as there is solid case law that LOC is legal, and they can't use nonsense like school zones, I'll be LOCing in SF, Berkeley, and gun-free West Hollywood (http://www.weho.org/download/index.cfm/fuseaction/download/cid/1798/).

I especially like this concept of OC litter pickups.

And as soon as my location starts issuing, I will refrain from OCing.

[DedEye]

Ha, why wait? As soon as there is solid case law that LOC is legal, and they can't use nonsense like school zones, I'll be LOCing in SF, Berkeley, and gun-free West Hollywood (http://www.weho.org/download/index.cfm/fuseaction/download/cid/1798/).

I especially like this concept of OC litter pickups.

And as soon as my location starts issuing, I will refrain from OCing.

I like how that West Hollywood Agenda has 2R reaffirming individual civil liberties and Constitutional rights just before it calls for the area to be "gun free" :rolleyes:.

[Sutcliffe]

Open Carry violates no laws, preaches education on the right to civil liberties and we are lumped together with terrorists. Oh, well. The idea that their actions when responding to someone practicing legal open carry might be recorded and get out to the media seems to make them a little scared.
Did it really start on the East Coast? I kinda thought it was homegrown.

[CCWFacts]

I like how that West Hollywood Agenda has 2R reaffirming individual civil liberties and Constitutional rights just before it calls for the area to be "gun free" :rolleyes:.

All of these types of statements are going to come back to bite them, hard, in 1983 civil lawsuits one of these days, because they have it right there in writing, voted on by the city council, a statement about their intent and desire to violate their residents' civil rights. It's like if some city is harassing black people, and a black person sues, it might be hard to prove that there is a city policy of such harassment. But if the city council has, in writing, a statement that says, "we don't like black people and we want them out of our city", well, the lawsuit becomes a whole lot easier for the plaintiff and more painful for the city.

So I like these types of statements, especially when they are official and voted on.

[Liberty1]

I kinda thought it was homegrown.

It started in Virginia (http://www.vcdl.org/)

[Paladin]

Ha, why wait? As soon as there is solid case law that LOC is legal, and they can't use nonsense like school zones, I'll be LOCing in SF, Berkeley, and gun-free West Hollywood (http://www.weho.org/download/index.cfm/fuseaction/download/cid/1798/).There's the rub. Nordyke won't give us that, it will just incorporate Heller (as far as L/UOC is concerned). If you start LOC'ing immediately after Nordyke, you, like "Billy Jack," may earn the gratitude of all of us by having a federal case named after you. :p ;) :D

[RobG]

What a bunch of tools:rolleyes: They make it out like OC'ers are out to get the poor police but then list the PC's stating OC is legal. And from the Terrorist Threat Assessment Center :mad:

[nobody_special]

Ha, why wait? As soon as there is solid case law that LOC is legal, and they can't use nonsense like school zones, I'll be LOCing in SF, Berkeley, and gun-free West Hollywood.

Here's my suggestion... wait until LOC is clearly legal. Then, don't start in the central valley... start in places like San Francisco. It'll get more exposure.

And... don't do it alone. Look at what happened (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=121023) with the BP recently... this suggests to me that there may be benefit in numbers. I think it'd be safer to do a larger-scale (peaceful) OC protest, with plenty of video cameras and voice recorders. I suspect the police are more likely to harass or wrongfully detain/arrest one or two individuals.

[tyrist]

On one hand I see this as good because it informs LEO's. On the other hand, the fact it is coming from a Terrorist threat assesment department is disturbing.

Somtimes departments have more than one single function...or handle several issues which got lumped into one big department.

[bwiese]

And... don't do it alone. Look at what happened (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=121023) with the BP recently... this suggests to me that there may be benefit in numbers. I think it'd be safer to do a larger-scale (peaceful) OC protest, with plenty of video cameras and voice recorders. I suspect the police are more likely to harass or wrongfully detain/arrest one or two individuals.

There is some truth to that. Doing OLLs en masse stopped us from being picked off one by one.

[Ironchef]

So a UOC litter removal day in Contra Costa County anyone? We can start in Concord at Todos Santos park downtown! not alot of litter, but plenty of eyeballs and foot traffic..and a spaghetti factory for a nice celebratory dinner afterwards.

[chris]

any attempt to inform police of this and the legality of this activity is a plus.

[edward]

Sorry for not being more educated, but I keep hearing references to 'incorporated' being bandied about with reference to heller an OC'ing.

Could someone bring me up to speed on what this whole 'incorporation' thing is about? Is it some new statute that the state is going to have take effect in response to heller, or is it something else entirely?

Thanks

[bwiese]

Sorry for not being more educated, but I keep hearing references to 'incorporated' being bandied about with reference to heller an OC'ing.

Could someone bring me up to speed on what this whole 'incorporation' thing is about? Is it some new statute that the state is going to have take effect in response to heller, or is it something else entirely?

The 2nd/RKBA is not really an individual right in CA and does not apply to Californians (as well as residents of other states) until it's been 'incorporated' under the 14th amendment (as the 1st and some other amendments have). This is why the Heller case was fought in Washington, DC since DC is not a state and is just plain Fed-only area.

A good overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29)

Several upcoming post-Heller court cases give us a very good chance of getting incorporated - soon.

Once we have incorporation, the whole RKBA world changes, esp in CA. It doesn't give us everything we want at once, but much of Calif's BS gunlaws can be rolled back or restricted in scope, and agencies may settle quickly to give perception of some minimal level of control while we start accumulating nice toys.

[Patriot]

Sorry for not being more educated, but I keep hearing references to 'incorporated' being bandied about with reference to heller an OC'ing.

Could someone bring me up to speed on what this whole 'incorporation' thing is about? Is it some new statute that the state is going to have take effect in response to heller, or is it something else entirely?

Thanks

Incorporation in a nutshell, would be if the US Supreme Court used the 14th amendment to apply one or more provisions from the bill of rights to state government (originally they only applied to the federal government). Off the top of my head I believe the 1st and 4th amendments (along with parts of 5,6, and 8) have already been incorporated.

[Paladin]

deleted

[Theseus]

You know, maybe I missed something, but I don't see anywhere in here they call us terrorists. In fact, I think that it was simply suggesting to be aware of the situation.

Now, being issued by that department may not shine the best light on us.

[Blackwater OPS]

Wow. Thanks for the find Bill. And congrats CA_Lib for becomeing "notorious"! ;)
Yup, welcome to the club.

[edward]

The 2nd/RKBA is not really an individual right in CA and does not apply to Californians (as well as residents of other states) until it's been 'incorporated' under the 14th amendment (as the 1st and some other amendments have). This is why the Heller case was fought in Washington, DC since DC is not a state and is just plain Fed-only area.

A good overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

Several upcoming post-Heller court cases give us a very good chance of getting incorporated - soon.

Once we have incorporation, the whole RKBA world changes, esp in CA. It doesn't give us everything we want at once, but much of Calif's BS gunlaws can be rolled back or restricted in scope, and agencies may settle quickly to give perception of some minimal level of control while we start accumulating nice toys.



Incorporation in a nutshell, would be if the US Supreme Court used the 14th amendment to apply one or more provisions from the bill of rights to state government (originally they only applied to the federal government). Off the top of my head I believe the 1st and 4th amendments (along with parts of 5,6, and 8) have already been incorporated.

Thanks Bill & patriot, understand it perfectly now :)

[Liberty1]

It started in Virginia (http://www.vcdl.org/)

oops, and OHIO (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/search/node/defense+marches)

[CA_Libertarian]

[SIZE=3][SIZE=2]
It's quite notable how they use the term constitutional right in quotation marks - not to indicate exact quotation, but a reflection of the simple derision of people with a 'master' mindset wondering why people insist on their rights.

Actually, this may in fact be an exact quotation, as I did use that terminology. Or it may serve both purposes... who knows.

In any case, it was made obvious to me that the five officers present didn't respect the constitution, as they violated at least three of the rights guaranteed therein.

Thank you for posting this. I am actually glad to see that word is getting around, even if it portrays me as a guy just out for an easy lawsuit. At least they are disseminating information as to the statutes that actually apply. Education and deterrence will hopefully make these sorts of incidents a thing of the past.

[Liberty1]

Education and deterrence will hopefully make these sorts of incidents a thing of the past.

Wishful thinking sadly. But hopefully some day. The "price of liberty is eternal vigilance". Yours is only the beginning. Even in States with an established Right to Keep and Bear with strong State Supreme Court decisions, like in PA, OH, and VA, there have been abuses and false arrests of the peaceful law abiding citizenry. We've a long road ahead of us in CA even when the 2nd Amendment is ONCE AGAIN the law of the land and the natural human and honorable Right of Self-Defense and the Right to possession of those honorable tools restored .

But you've done a lot for one man to move the ball forward on our behalf. You and Condition Three and others at OCDO and CGN deserve the thanks and praise and SUPPORT of all of us here!!!

:79:

[SteveH]

I'm a professional Law Enforcement trainer. Although firearms law is not my area of expertise (DUI & Narcotics investigations) I have been taking the time to briefly discuss the open carry movement with my students, most of whom have been cops for close to 10-years.

I tell them that it appears many of the UOC people are political activists with the following goals.
1. Increase the presense of firearms in public places to dilute the MWG/911 automatic response.
2. Encourage the legilsature to "stop" UOC by passing shall issue CCW.
3. Last, a very small subset who are just looking for some good youtube video or a civil suit. I believe that this third group is a very small fringe group of the UOC movement and in fact damages the credibility of the first two i listed.

There are others who UOC not for political reasons, but for self defense. Believing that a couple seconds to load their gun is a better option than more common self defense methods such as trunk guns, chemical sprays, tasers, edged weapons or MMA.

Am i incorrect in this assesment?

Either way my students leave with the posibility in their minds that their next MWG call may be a political activist and not a gang banger or other street criminal. Hopefully they will think outside the box when they get that calls and not default to 12025/12031.

[CCWFacts]

I tell them that it appears many of the UOC people are political activists with the following goals.
1. Increase the presense of firearms in public places to dilute the MWG/911 automatic response.
2. Encourage the legilsature to "stop" UOC by passing shall issue CCW.
3. Last, a very small subset who are just looking for some good youtube video or a civil suit. I believe that this third group is a very small fringe group of the UOC movement and in fact damages the credibility of the first two i listed.

Am i incorrect in this assesment?

Your assessment sounds right to me, from my impression of reading posts etc and understanding what they're doing. I've never seen any forum post that indicates the person was eager for a civil suit. The fact is, UOC is not a good way to get rich, or even to make a living. If I myself ever do _OC in California, it will be for reason #2 above.

It seems to me the two dominant reasons are, as you said, either to normalize the exercise of the right, or because they're angry that there's no CCW option.

[CitaDeL]

I tell them that it appears many of the UOC people are political activists with the following goals.
1. Increase the presense of firearms in public places to dilute the MWG/911 automatic response.
2. Encourage the legilsature to "stop" UOC by passing shall issue CCW.
3. Last, a very small subset who are just looking for some good youtube video or a civil suit. I believe that this third group is a very small fringe group of the UOC movement and in fact damages the credibility of the first two i listed.

There are others who UOC not for political reasons, but for self defense. Believing that a couple seconds to load their gun is a better option than more common self defense methods such as trunk guns, chemical sprays, tasers, edged weapons or MMA.

Am i incorrect in this assesment?



Political activist? Yes.
Encouraging the legislature to stop UOC? No.

And I dont know of anyone who is looking for a lawsuit. Where is this fringe element, this subset of activists? No one I am aware of in the open carry movement here in California is looking for a lawsuit. By the same token none of us are shrinking from the prospect of litigation either- and you left out one of the reasons I think many of us carry.

Regular people own guns. With exposure and repetition will come tolerance. Carrying a visable sidearm can and will acclimate observers to the presence of firearms. Because guns have been hidden away for so long and vilified by the media, the police, and our legislature the act of carrying them has made them the target of bigotry the likes we havent seen since interacial marriage was taboo.

[CA_Libertarian]

+1 to CitaDel's post. I have yet to see or hear a single person express a desire to sue anybody. Overwhelmingly the desire expressed has been to be left alone while we go about our business.

I would say I fall into the first of SteveH's group. I want nothing to happen when I open carry. That's how it was for the first year I carried. I carried my firearm at least once a week during that time and it was uneventful. What happened to me was a knee-jerk reaction by the PD to a knee-jerk 911 call by a former LEO.

Even now, as dismayed as I am at what I went through, I am reluctant to pursue this legally. However, I feel obligated to follow through with it because (as the officers made abundantly clear) it will keep happening. The only way to stop it is to show there are consequences for such actions.

[SteveH]

Political activist? Yes.
Encouraging the legislature to stop UOC? No.

And I dont know of anyone who is looking for a lawsuit. Where is this fringe element, this subset of activists? No one I am aware of in the open carry movement here in California is looking for a lawsuit. By the same token none of us are shrinking from the prospect of litigation either- and you left out one of the reasons I think many of us carry.

Regular people own guns. With exposure and repetition will come tolerance. Carrying a visable sidearm can and will acclimate observers to the presence of firearms. Because guns have been hidden away for so long and vilified by the media, the police, and our legislature the act of carrying them has made them the target of bigotry the likes we havent seen since interacial marriage was taboo.

Thats reason #1 in my post.

[AJAX22]

How is it legal for them to run the registration on the gun?

There is no probable casue that it is stolen.

IIRC the law only allows them to inspect it to see if it is loaded.

[Liberty1]

I'm a professional Law Enforcement trainer.

Thank you for your part in bringing about a rational understanding between two groups which I believe would be (and in many ways are) natural allies but for the political environment and current laws.

I do however disagree with your number three motivation. I don't think that subset exists. Recording and law suits (there haven't been any yet) are only a reactionary defensive measures to the actual and potential misuse of the state police power by a small subset of police and is the same civil tactic which is used by any person or group wrongfully denied any Right by a false arrest or detention.

And by openly posting what is done (posting OC outings, recordings, etc...) we hope to encourage lawful action or non action (since what we're doing is NO CRIME), and therefore protect officers and departments against unnecessary suits or sadly the loss of careers or even prison time (in a worst case scenario).

We do recognize that LE has a difficult job at times and they often only deal with armed dangerous criminals and not generally the law abiding gun owner. But our liberty is also very precious to us and we will defend it with all necessary lawful civil means. We all hope that those tools are never necessary but governments immobility and occasional arrogance requires the firm hand of the judiciary to force change on occasion.

California LE will after 2nd Amendment incorporation be experiencing some swift and firm growing pains. When the time comes please help us all to make that change happen smoothly and with understanding to avoid any regrettable encounters.

Check out californiaopencarry.org (http://californiaopencarry.org) It very directly addresses the motivations, the why, and the how of this "movement" to restore respect for the 2nd Amendment in Ca.

And please pass out the brochures on the laws to your classes if you can. Or invite them to read and post here to reach a better understanding so that we do not become adversaries in civil procedures. Public/personal safety, understanding and obeying the laws (changing the bad ones), reductions in crime, and respect for our Constitution are the goals I see OCers and other self defense advocates (ccw and OLL too) working towards (IMO :)).

[SteveH]

Thank you for your part in bringing about a rational understanding between two groups which I believe would be (and in many ways are) natural allies but for the political environment and current laws.

I do however disagree with your number three motivation. I don't think that subset exists.

I think the comments posted on many of the east coast OC youtube videos are evidence that vocal minority does exist. Lots of fan boys who seem to rally around the controversy rather than the cause. But thats just my perception of the way many react to those videos. It may be unfair to even lump them in with the OC crowd as they may just be biased people latching on to this issue rather than people really involved with the issue.

[Liberty1]

I think the comments posted on many of the east coast OC youtube videos are evidence that vocal minority does exist. Lots of fan boys who seem to rally around the controversy rather than the cause..

LOL! Most youtube video comments (whatever the topic) are an indictment of the typist.

This is still the best news report I've seen on OC and it represents the "mainstream" wing of the OC "movement" and should, with professionalism and reason, be replicated in CA. IMO

ZmZic2VFGyI

[Paladin]

Thank you for your part in bringing about a rational understanding between two groups which I believe would be (and in many ways are) natural allies but for the political environment and current laws.

I do however disagree with your number three motivation. I don't think that subset exists. Recording and law suits (there haven't been any yet) are only a reactionary defensive measures to the actual and potential misuse of the state police power by a small subset of police and is the same civil tactic which is used by any person or group wrongfully denied any Right by a false arrest or detention.

And by openly posting what is done (posting OC outings, recordings, etc...) we hope to encourage lawful action or non action (since what we're doing is NO CRIME), and therefore protect officers and departments against unnecessary suits or sadly the loss of careers or even prison time (in a worst case scenario).

We do recognize that LE has a difficult job at times and they often only deal with armed dangerous criminals and not generally the law abiding gun owner. But our liberty is also very precious to us and we will defend it with all necessary lawful civil means. We all hope that those tools are never necessary but governments immobility and occasional arrogance requires the firm hand of the judiciary to force change on occasion.

California LE will after 2nd Amendment incorporation be experiencing some swift and firm growing pains. When the time comes please help us all to make that change happen smoothly and with understanding to avoid any regrettable encounters.

Check out californiaopencarry.org (http://californiaopencarry.org) It very directly addresses the motivations, the why, and the how of this "movement" to restore respect for the 2nd Amendment in Ca.

And please pass out the brochures on the laws to your classes if you can. Or invite them to read and post here to reach a better understanding so that we do not become adversaries in civil procedures. Public/personal safety, understanding and obeying the laws (changing the bad ones), reductions in crime, and respect for our Constitution are the goals I see OCers and other self defense advocates (ccw and OLL too) working towards (IMO :)).

:iagree:

Excellent post, Liberty1.

[Liberty1]

...the law only allows them to inspect it to see if it is loaded.

Correct. A detention for longer then a 12031e loaded check, absent other PC or RS for investigation or arrest, is likely a 4th A. violation and doesn't justify a serial number check in the AFS or a demand for ID (absent PC for a citation or arrest).

For that matter, 12031e, is a 4th and 5th A. violation as it requires one be detained absent any probable cause for a violation, requires the surrender, albeit temporarily, of private property without PC, and requires one to give evidence (without consent) against one self (if the firearm was unlawfully loaded).

All this is moot, as 12031 in it's entirety is a 2nd A. violation.

[MudCamper]

SteveH, thanks for spreading the word. Although I disagree with your last item, at least with the small OC crowd here in California, I think any sharing of information about OC with the LE community is a good thing.

Everyone else, wow, what a well thought out and civil discussion this thread is! Although I'm sure I just jinxed it. We'll probably all be banned and the thread will be locked by morning! ;)

[CA_Libertarian]

+1 to what Liberty1 said.

The very idea that anybody can somehow force an officer to violate their rights is beyond me. If they're going to do it they'll do it of their own free will. Being prepared for that sort of abuse of power is a far cry from entrapment.

Any public servant that violates the rights of their fellow man deserves a legal s#!%storm and a change of carreers. It is regrettable that it has to happen, but if they bring it upon themselves... so be it.

[avdrummerboy]

A lot of you seem to only want to OC until CCW laws are changed and then drop it like a hot potato. WHY?? You've got the movement and apparently there are memos going around to inform LEO's of the actions. Why give up on something we will have worked hard for?

[Mulay El Raisuli]

A lot of you seem to only want to OC until CCW laws are changed and then drop it like a hot potato. WHY?? You've got the movement and apparently there are memos going around to inform LEO's of the actions. Why give up on something we will have worked hard for?

I wonder about this also. Loaded open carry (LOC) is, to me, a worthy goal in & of itself. Once it is legal to do so, it is my intention to have heat on my hip anytime I'm dressed & out of the house. The social value of this is (IMHO) far too valuable to passed up.

First among those values is that the gun on the hip is regarded as a "sign of authority." To my way of thinking, this 'regard' has gone on for far too long. All the "authority" anyone *should* need to carry is that he is a citizen. For far too long, this has not been the law. But once we have the 2nd. FULLY re-implemented, it will be.

Another value to this? Someone here uses a quote by Robert Peel as their tagline:
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

Yes, someone carrying concealed can meet their duties. But, a citizen with visible heat on his hip is making a public statement to the effect that he is willing to protect the general public. It's signal to all miscreants (whether al qaeda or just a petty thug) that it isn't *just* the cops he has to worry about. A Free Man (or woman) is ready to put a stop to your crap.

There is value to both ideas.

The Raisuli

[ilbob]

1. Increase the presense of firearms in public places to dilute the MWG/911 automatic response.
2. Encourage the legilsature to "stop" UOC by passing shall issue CCW.
3. Last, a very small subset who are just looking for some good youtube video or a civil suit. I believe that this third group is a very small fringe group of the UOC movement and in fact damages the credibility of the first two i listed.

If there are people who practice UOC in group 3, they are probably the ones that will get things changed. Nothing matters to the powers that be so much as bad PR and having to spend money on law suits they are bound to lose.

I don't see any way that the few in group three damage the credibility of the others.

I only see LE's credibility being damaged because they continue to enforce a law that never existed.

[avdrummerboy]

I wonder about this also. Loaded open carry (LOC) is, to me, a worthy goal in & of itself. Once it is legal to do so, it is my intention to have heat on my hip anytime I'm dressed & out of the house. The social value of this is (IMHO) far too valuable to passed up.

First among those values is that the gun on the hip is regarded as a "sign of authority." To my way of thinking, this 'regard' has gone on for far too long. All the "authority" anyone *should* need to carry is that he is a citizen. For far too long, this has not been the law. But once we have the 2nd. FULLY re-implemented, it will be.

Another value to this? Someone here uses a quote by Robert Peel as their tagline:
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

Yes, someone carrying concealed can meet their duties. But, a citizen with visible heat on his hip is making a public statement to the effect that he is willing to protect the general public. It's signal to all miscreants (whether al qaeda or just a petty thug) that it isn't *just* the cops he has to worry about. A Free Man (or woman) is ready to put a stop to your crap.

There is value to both ideas.

The Raisuli


Wow couldn't have put it better myself. Yes if we get it so that we can LOC it needs to be done. Remember OCDO's motto, A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost. This is so true, hence the reason that we are ever so slowly becoming a police state.

[MudCamper]

A lot of you seem to only want to OC until CCW laws are changed and then drop it like a hot potato. WHY?? You've got the movement and apparently there are memos going around to inform LEO's of the actions. Why give up on something we will have worked hard for?

Assuming we had the right to legally do both, some would choose OC, some would choose CCW. It's a personal preference. I want both to be legal. There are times and places for both.

[Glock22Fan]

Assuming we had the right to legally do both, some would choose OC, some would choose CCW. It's a personal preference. I want both to be legal. There are times and places for both.

In Utah, with a Utah CCW, the choice is yours. Personally, I always carry concealed when I'm there. Just feels more comfortable not to be making waves. My friends there tell me that nobody would bat an eyelid if I did OC -- but I just don't see that many people doing it and I don't want to stand out.

[Ironchef]

3. Last, a very small subset who are just looking for some good youtube video or a civil suit. I believe that this third group is a very small fringe group of the UOC movement and in fact damages the credibility of the first two i listed.


Steve,
I know, I know, you "got the memo" already! lol I think what may be missing is a slight change in perception..between what you had suggested "a..subset who are looking for...a civil suit." and what has happened after an unlawful detention..like in the case of CA_Libertarian when he was detained, harassed, and violated considerably....wanting, "after the fact" to pursue them legally. I'm not recalling correctly what his intentions were after, but my point being that people may talk of a suit "afterwards" rather than intend from the beginning to entrap and make a buck.

And frankly, from some comments I've seen on the subject of why you bring a recording device, and buddy up with others, is for protection, in case of a false detention or worse. It's more of a CYA situation than an attack and destroy situation. I mean seriously, who wants to hassle with suing a city or it's officers who are often very protected, will cost you money, will get you an arrest on your record which even if removed can still cost you your job and bad public opinion "the town gun nut" etc.

Anyway, just my thoughts one properly defining the countermeasures UOCers take. If/when I OC, i'm only doing it with my family when going to a park where we've seen bad elements...so i keep my phone video camera at the ready and my wife..which isn't nearly as safe as doing a dinner party with a group. So I am category 4..the self defense OCer...and an activist in word only so far.

Assuming we had the right to legally do both, some would choose OC, some would choose CCW. It's a personal preference. I want both to be legal. There are times and places for both.

I know I would like both too. To be able to LOC in some places, and CCW in others is what I imagine it would be like in a world where the 2A is truly honored.

[ilbob]

A lot of you seem to only want to OC until CCW laws are changed and then drop it like a hot potato. WHY?? You've got the movement and apparently there are memos going around to inform LEO's of the actions. Why give up on something we will have worked hard for?
has anyone said they are willing give up OC? what they have said is they hope to use OC as a way of convincing CA to enact fair CC.

[Glock22Fan]

I don't ever recall anything said that suggested that recording was for the sake of sueing officers unless those officers, of their own volition, behaved illegally. As IronChief said, it (recording) always seems to be a CYA operation rather than an entrapment operation.

Indeed, any such recording would be totally useless unless the officers stepped outside the boundaries of the law. As the people practising OC usually arm themselves with leaflets describing the exact law and usually know exactly what they are talking about, I don't see where entrapment comes in. "Come on officer, what I'm doing is totally legal. Why don't you smack me around a little and make up some transparent reason to illegally arrest me?"

[Ironchef]

I don't ever recall anything said that suggested that recording was for the sake of sueing officers unless those officers, of their own volition, behaved illegally. As IronChief said, it (recording) always seems to be a CYA operation rather than an entrapment operation.

Indeed, any such recording would be totally useless unless the officers stepped outside the boundaries of the law. As the people practising OC usually arm themselves with leaflets describing the exact law and usually know exactly what they are talking about, I don't see where entrapment comes in. "Come on officer, what I'm doing is totally legal. Why don't you smack me around a little and make up some transparent reason to illegally arrest me?"

That and the fact that most OCers I've ever heard of have rehearsed, memorized, and carry backup documentation to support what they're doing and what they might have to do when confronted by an unlearned cop:
1) Calmly and without passion, cite relevent PC to the arresting/harassing officer
2) Respectfully correct the officer when rights are being violated
3) Give any arresting/harassing officer more than adequate opportunity to consider their choices by WARNING them fully of their unlawful detention/harassment/arrest, etc.

If entrapment were the goal, the OCer would be out hunting for a cop, have a friend make the MWG call, then the OCer would probably provoke the unlawful arrest by not being so professional, not so informitive, not so forgiving to said arresting officer, and definitely not giving the cop the chance to back out. A party trying to entrap a cop would not first notify the city of their intentions to lawfully carry (like they did in Sacramento), nor would the party talk with the restaurant management asking if it's ok to eat there while UOCing as I've seen done before.

[Decoligny]

You know, maybe I missed something, but I don't see anywhere in here they call us terrorists. In fact, I think that it was simply suggesting to be aware of the situation.

Now, being issued by that department may not shine the best light on us.

The was I see it, the Terrorist Threat Assessment Center was asked "Are these folks a threat?"

They replied, "They ain't doing nothing illegal!"

To me that inicates that they realize that we aren't out to harm anyone either physically or financially, but rather we just want to be left alone and we won't sit idly by if our rights are violated. We will however take any and all necessary LEGAL action to ensure that those who actually do violate our rights are punished to the fullest extent of the law, both criminal and civil.

[jacques]

This is a good read.

It is good they are educating their people. However the premise and attitude in that memo sucks. There should not even be an issue.

[Decoligny]

I'm a professional Law Enforcement trainer. Although firearms law is not my area of expertise (DUI & Narcotics investigations) I have been taking the time to briefly discuss the open carry movement with my students, most of whom have been cops for close to 10-years.

I tell them that it appears many of the UOC people are political activists with the following goals.
1. Increase the presense of firearms in public places to dilute the MWG/911 automatic response.
2. Encourage the legilsature to "stop" UOC by passing shall issue CCW.
3. Last, a very small subset who are just looking for some good youtube video or a civil suit. I believe that this third group is a very small fringe group of the UOC movement and in fact damages the credibility of the first two i listed.

There are others who UOC not for political reasons, but for self defense. Believing that a couple seconds to load their gun is a better option than more common self defense methods such as trunk guns, chemical sprays, tasers, edged weapons or MMA.

Am i incorrect in this assesment?

Either way my students leave with the posibility in their minds that their next MWG call may be a political activist and not a gang banger or other street criminal. Hopefully they will think outside the box when they get that calls and not default to 12025/12031.

#1 is absolutely correct.

#2 is correct for some, others among us are hoping to stop UOC by having the law changed to allow Loaded Open Carry. This is due to Heller case stating that Concealed Carry isn't a protected right. If the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and CCW isn't a right, that leaves open carry as the only constitutionally protected method of carry. Legislating that Open Carry must be unloaded is infringing upon the 2nd Amendment right. There are those of us who do not want to ask for/pay for Government "permission" to exercise our rights.
#3 is correct also, there are a very few on the fringe who only want to see themselves on the news, or on YouTube.

[Liberty1]

has anyone said they are willing give up OC...(for CC)

This subset of 2nd A. compromisers is actually very large. I'm a compromiser too, but only to the extent that I'll tolerate cc being minimally regulated.

I support 100% the Vermont Constitutional style of protections for ALL peaceful carry. While on the road there, I'll live with CC licenses as a stepping stone back to the full Natural Right.

Trade OC for CC? No! Never go back in the closet! Besides what to you do with long guns then? OC makes carry a NON issue over time and protects the Right better then a mere privilege which can be denied, revoked, or eliminated for instance by a simple personnel change like the one just occurred in the Orange County Sheriff office.

[Liberty1]

Maybe we should send a representative over there, to explain that we are just exercising our rights and not looking to entrap anyone.

Just post your DL for a house call and they be over to learn all about OC and to see your OLLs. :D

[Doheny]

If entrapment were the goal, the OCer would be out hunting for a cop, have a friend make the MWG call, then the OCer would probably provoke the unlawful arrest by not being so professional <snip>

Don't forget, by definition entrapment is something the police do. Non police officers can't "entrap".

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=entrapment&type=1


.

[Gray Peterson]

Here's my suggestion... wait until LOC is clearly legal. Then, don't start in the central valley... start in places like San Francisco. It'll get more exposure.

And... don't do it alone. Look at what happened (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=121023) with the BP recently... this suggests to me that there may be benefit in numbers. I think it'd be safer to do a larger-scale (peaceful) OC protest, with plenty of video cameras and voice recorders. I suspect the police are more likely to harass or wrongfully detain/arrest one or two individuals.

You're correct about that. Up here in Washington, we had an OC gather in Puyallup after a harassment incident where a gun was taken by the cops for "cooling off", after that happened and he got his gun back (he's going to sue the Puyallup PD for 42USC1983 violations for unlawful detention and theft of property), we OC'd there en masse. Puyallup certainly made an appearance, but nothing bad happened other than them surrounding them.

Either

A) They got the message from the supervisors that yes OC is legal, and not to harass, but to monitor (which is fine).

B) They're a bunch of cowards who won't take on a bunch of OC'ers who would likely be videorecording.

I'm hoping it's the first one. We have not had issues with PPD since, though. The Pierce County Sheriff's office on the other hand....

As for the comments about trading CCW for OC, and that OC will be dropped entirely once the shall-issue law passes, I argue the Delaware angle.

Delaware has a may-issue CCW law. With the exception of the City of Dover, the rest of the state you can open carry in. It used to be quite difficult to get a CCDW there from the Prothonotary's office. About a decade ago, someone pointed out to them that open carry was lawful and that some people would be forced to open carry in order to protect themselves, they started issuing licenses for personal protection. Granted, the process is long and arduous but once you make it through, you can get your license now.

The State Legislature technically doesn't need to do anything. Once PC 12031 and PC626.9 are struck down (any reading of case law on carrying and reading of the Heller decision will tell you that open carry is the "bearing arms" that is spoken of in the constitution), the Sheriffs will follow the Delaware example. They're starting issuing licenses, but they can't really replace PC12031, so some will always open carry. I will be among them. :)

[swhatb]

The 2nd/RKBA is not really an individual right in CA and does not apply to Californians (as well as residents of other states) until it's been 'incorporated' under the 14th amendment (as the 1st and some other amendments have). This is why the Heller case was fought in Washington, DC since DC is not a state and is just plain Fed-only area.

A good overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29)

Several upcoming post-Heller court cases give us a very good chance of getting incorporated - soon.

Once we have incorporation, the whole RKBA world changes, esp in CA. It doesn't give us everything we want at once, but much of Calif's BS gunlaws can be rolled back or restricted in scope, and agencies may settle quickly to give perception of some minimal level of control while we start accumulating nice toys.

good job bill!

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Wow couldn't have put it better myself. Yes if we get it so that we can LOC it needs to be done. Remember OCDO's motto, A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost. This is so true, hence the reason that we are ever so slowly becoming a police state.

Thank you!

Yes, reversing the 'police state' mentality is a worthy goal, but I was actually thinking of changing the minds of the Average Guy. Far too many Average Guys think the only people responsible for protecting the citizenry are the ones carrying badges. This not only fosters the 'Police State' thinking (because its regarded as a good), it hinders the thought expressed in the excellent words of Sir Robert.

Last week's sermon in my church was about Cain & Abel. The answer to the question posed by Cain (am I my brothers keeper?) is, yes, you are. We are all called to look out for each other. To stand by while someone else is killed (like in the infamous Kitty Genovese case) is actually a sin. While the parable of the Good Samaritan shows a guy doing much good, I can't help but think he'd have been a whole lot more useful if he showed up a little earlier & slew the robbers BEFORE the traveler got hurt in the first place.

But there's more. I read an excellent paper on the value of carrying arms. Not just to the practical value of preventing harm, but to actually raising the quality of one's ethics & thinking in general. The link is here:

http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-ethics.html

I can only aspire to be as bright as the guy who wrote this.

My hope then is that bringing back the 2nd won't just lower crime, etc. My hope is that the carriage of arms by the Average Guy will lead to a higher state of mental discipline & so will start a reversal of the generalized level of stupidity infesting this country. It isn't just a lack of crime that makes a country safe. Having a populace intelligent enough to preserve the freedoms they have is required also.

The Raisuli

[nick]

I wonder about this also. Loaded open carry (LOC) is, to me, a worthy goal in & of itself. Once it is legal to do so, it is my intention to have heat on my hip anytime I'm dressed & out of the house. The social value of this is (IMHO) far too valuable to passed up.

First among those values is that the gun on the hip is regarded as a "sign of authority." To my way of thinking, this 'regard' has gone on for far too long. All the "authority" anyone *should* need to carry is that he is a citizen. For far too long, this has not been the law. But once we have the 2nd. FULLY re-implemented, it will be.

Another value to this? Someone here uses a quote by Robert Peel as their tagline:
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

Yes, someone carrying concealed can meet their duties. But, a citizen with visible heat on his hip is making a public statement to the effect that he is willing to protect the general public. It's signal to all miscreants (whether al qaeda or just a petty thug) that it isn't *just* the cops he has to worry about. A Free Man (or woman) is ready to put a stop to your crap.

There is value to both ideas.

The Raisuli

I think this is a very good point. It's a pity we've lost that part of our culture, and I, for one, would like to see it restored.

[Paladin]

You're correct about that. Up here in Washington, we had an OC gather in Puyallup after a harassment incident where a gun was taken by the cops for "cooling off", after that happened and he got his gun back (he's going to sue the Puyallup PD for 42USC1983 violations for unlawful detention and theft of property), we OC'd there en masse. Puyallup certainly made an appearance, but nothing bad happened other than them surrounding them.Who surrounded whom? The OC'er surrounded the police or the police surrounded the OC'ers? The former would be foolish IMO, and the latter would be frightening. If the latter, I would hope that OC'ers from all around the state and maybe even the rest of the nation stage a mass OC in Puyallup and show that we, the citizens, outnumber the police, that they work for us, and that they had better never forget it! Otherwise they become nothing but a standing army in blue and/or tan uniforms and we've become a police state.

[Paladin]

A lot of you seem to only want to OC until CCW laws are changed and then drop it like a hot potato. WHY?? You've got the movement and apparently there are memos going around to inform LEO's of the actions. Why give up on something we will have worked hard for?

We're all individuals here so I can only speak for myself.

I'll only UOC in order to push for Shall Issue (VT Carry in my dreams). When it is legal, I may LOC when hiking, camping, backpacking, biking, or jogging or if it is really hot outside.

I have no intention of abandoning my RKBA, but I don't plan on regularly LOCing to make a political statement.

You do what you want.

That's what freedom is all about. ;)

[pnkssbtz]

Isn't the nature of this very memo dangerously close to a violation of US Code 18 § 241 thanks to the Heller Ruling?

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[Liberty1]

Isn't the nature of this very memo dangerously close to a violation of US Code 18 § 241 thanks to the Heller Ruling?

Some may not like that this came out of a "terrorism" center, but I think the "nature" of the memo was to keep LE from violating rights during a response to an activity that is new (reborn really) in Ca.

Keep in mind LE generally only deal with persons who are actually in unlawful possession of firearms, so this causes a conditioned response to all similarly natured calls even those where no crime is occurring. This memo does help us deal with that "conditioned response" by making LE aware of what the law allows (for now) and that we are out there exercising what is allowed by law.

and a little message for the "terrorism center":

There have been at least three false arrests and several false detentions this summer and NOBODY has sued LE (yet). It's not what we want to do unless forced to.

[JDay]

The 2nd/RKBA is not really an individual right in CA and does not apply to Californians (as well as residents of other states) until it's been 'incorporated' under the 14th amendment (as the 1st and some other amendments have). This is why the Heller case was fought in Washington, DC since DC is not a state and is just plain Fed-only area.

A good overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29)

Several upcoming post-Heller court cases give us a very good chance of getting incorporated - soon.

Once we have incorporation, the whole RKBA world changes, esp in CA. It doesn't give us everything we want at once, but much of Calif's BS gunlaws can be rolled back or restricted in scope, and agencies may settle quickly to give perception of some minimal level of control while we start accumulating nice toys.


I don't see why Heller needs to be incorporated. Article 3 Section 1 of the California Constitution clearly states "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.". Am I missing something here?

[ptoguy2002]

I don't see why Heller needs to be incorporated. Article 3 Section 1 of the California Constitution clearly states "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.". Am I missing something here?

14th amendment

[Liberty1]

I don't see why Heller needs to be incorporated. Article 3 Section 1 of the California Constitution clearly states "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.". Am I missing something here?

I agree but no case law exists that we know of other then a common sense reading of this gives us an interpretation in our favor. But the California Supreme Court gets to decide what that means.

That would be a long road starting from a trial court. We'll have incorporation in the whole 9th Circuit very soon (Months - crossing fingers emoticon MIA).

[Librarian]

I don't see why Heller needs to be incorporated. Article 3 Section 1 of the California Constitution clearly states "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.". Am I missing something here?
Possibly. According to the proceedings of the constitutional convention I read, the delegates (having just endured the Civil War and the politics immediately before and after) were not entirely convinced that 'the land' and 'California' were all that tightly connected. It's an extremely subtle point, and the records don't give a lot of detail; the convention format did not seem to encourage a lot of back-and-forth challenge/response, what-exactly-did-you-mean things on the record.

See also this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=99085

[hoffmang]

I think this thread should be revived only so that folks can see the original copy of this document:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/OC-LE-Bulletin-2008-07-24.pdf

-Gene