PDA

View Full Version : Unloaded Open Carry in San Francisco


gcvt
11-02-2008, 1:24 AM
Why have I never read anything regarding UOC in San Francisco? I've read almost every thread on the subject of UOC, I've searched extensively, but nothing. I can only assume it's legal here just like everywhere else in the state, assuming you follow the rules regarding schools, post offices, etc. Are there ordinances I don't know about?

What's the low down? I'm tempted to walk up to a SFPD LEO and ask what he/she would think if they saw someone UOC'ing in the city.

Thoughts?

battleship
11-02-2008, 1:52 AM
Danger Wil Robinson. not in that city.

Librarian
11-02-2008, 1:52 AM
Given what laws and politicians San Francisco residents vote for, one can confidently expect a highly negative and very expensive to defend reaction from The Authorities. Better to get a body of results elsewhere so your lawyer can slap them down more efficiently.

CitaDeL
11-02-2008, 1:49 AM
It has been suggested that it can be done and should be done in conjunction with a gay pride parade here (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/17169.html).

I am not a banner waving supporter of 'gay pride', but I do recognize that if a fundamental right is denied to the least of us, it is denied to all of us. I believe that anyone- a gay man or woman included- is afforded the protection of the second amendment for self defense.

This is probably one of the better opportunities at walking down the street openly armed in San Fransisco. The would certainly be media coverage and this could expose the hypocrisy of the left-- they would have to openly deny that self-defense was not a 'gay' right or accept firearms as a necessary tool to that self-defense. And further, this could be the foot in the door for the advancement of firearms in an anti-gun community.

gotgunz
11-02-2008, 2:14 AM
Topic marked for future post.


This is like a train wreck; you know it's going to be bad but you can't help but to watch.

BillCA
11-02-2008, 7:00 AM
See:
SF Muni Code
ARTICLE 9: SEC. 617. PROHIBITION AGAINST POSSESSION OR SALE OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION ON PROPERTY CONTROLLED BY THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=14140&sid=5

(1) City and County Property.

(a) As used in this section, the term "City property" means real property, including any buildings thereon, owned or leased by the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter "City"), and in the City's possession or in the possession of a public or private entity under contract with the City to perform a public purpose including but not limited to the following property: recreational and park property including but not limited to Golden Gate Park, the San Francisco zoo, Hilltop Park and San Francisco's parks and playgrounds, plazas including but not limited to United Nations Plaza and Hallidie Plaza, community centers such as Ella Hill Hutch Community Center, and property of the Department of Recreations and Parks, the Port, and the Public Utilities Commission.


The term "City property" does not include any "local public building" as defined in Penal Code Section 171b(c), where the state regulates possession of firearms pursuant to Penal Code Section 171b.


The term "City property" also does not include the public right-of-way owned by the City and County of San Francisco including any area across, along, on, over, upon, and within the dedicated public alleys, boulevards, courts, lanes, roads, sidewalks, streets, and ways within the City or any property owned by the City that is outside the territorial limits of the City and County of San Francisco.

The gotcha here is that the city of SF leases a number of buildings and also makes certain city properties available to public-service businesses. Some of the businesses are on city controlled property, but you can't tell easily.

mikehaas
11-02-2008, 8:12 AM
Don't do it.

megavolt121
11-02-2008, 9:07 AM
Because Iggy works for SFPD.

Look what he did to a poor defenseless desk. Imagine how he'd overract seeing a peron with a gun!

thedrickel
11-02-2008, 10:35 AM
There have to be some areas along the water south of the Bay Bridge that aren't w/in 1000ft of a school . . . ?

CSACANNONEER
11-02-2008, 10:46 AM
Go to Berkley instead.

I know someone who was detained for three hours by SFPD for towing a frontloading cannon down 19th Ave. If that's not UOC, I don't know what is. BTW, at the time, SFPD could not find any law preventing him from towing a privately owned artillary piece through the city. I bet someone wrote one right after that.

CitaDeL
11-02-2008, 11:12 AM
See:
SF Muni Code
ARTICLE 9: SEC. 617. PROHIBITION AGAINST POSSESSION OR SALE OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION ON PROPERTY CONTROLLED BY THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=14140&sid=5

(1) City and County Property.

(a) As used in this section, the term "City property" means real property, including any buildings thereon, owned or leased by the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter "City"), and in the City's possession or in the possession of a public or private entity under contract with the City to perform a public purpose including but not limited to the following property: recreational and park property including but not limited to Golden Gate Park, the San Francisco zoo, Hilltop Park and San Francisco's parks and playgrounds, plazas including but not limited to United Nations Plaza and Hallidie Plaza, community centers such as Ella Hill Hutch Community Center, and property of the Department of Recreations and Parks, the Port, and the Public Utilities Commission.


The term "City property" does not include any "local public building" as defined in Penal Code Section 171b(c), where the state regulates possession of firearms pursuant to Penal Code Section 171b.


The term "City property" also does not include the public right-of-way owned by the City and County of San Francisco including any area across, along, on, over, upon, and within the dedicated public alleys, boulevards, courts, lanes, roads, sidewalks, streets, and ways within the City or any property owned by the City that is outside the territorial limits of the City and County of San Francisco.

The gotcha here is that the city of SF leases a number of buildings and also makes certain city properties available to public-service businesses. Some of the businesses are on city controlled property, but you can't tell easily.

Like most ordinances there are exclusions, as seen here;

(3) Military or civil organizations carrying unloaded weapons while parading or when going to and from their organizational meetings when authorized to carry a concealed weapon under Penal Code Section 12027(d).

There is another problem for SF with this ordinance: they forgot to exempt those who are licensed to carry a firearm under 12050. Should they prosecute a licensee for possessing a firearm on SF property while legally concealed carrying under this ordinance could land them in court for violating state preemption.

Max-the-Silent
11-02-2008, 1:06 PM
It's been an unwritten policy of SFPD to "take every gun off the street" that they encounter.

I know of two incidents, but they were both CC, not OC.

The first involved an officer from our department that moved to another state upon retirement - he holds his retirement creds and a CCL from the state he resides in.

He found himself stopping in SF (while carrying) for gas on his way to the south bay, and found himself at gun point from an SFPD officer - the officer was at the station where he stopped,m observed his piece when he got out his wallet, and proceeded to draw down on him out of reflex. It took a while to sort things out, and the kiddie cop who initiated the contact was a little put out that he didn't nab Dillinger.

The second involved a civilian that I know that has a Ca. CWP that was out to dinner w/ his wife in the city, and evidently somebody saw his piece and called the cops - Why somebody would look at a well-dressed guy, 50ish, out to dinner with the wife and think "Criminal!" is beyond me, but there you go.

SFPD did the full felony roll-out on him as they exited the restaurant, and all hands were pissed at the guy for having the balls to be caught carrying in their fair city while in possession of a CWP - he got put fully through the ringer before they released him.

Moral of the story - if you're carrying in S.F., even with full legal authority, don't let the natives see your piece.

You shouldn't even consider OC up there.

thedrickel
11-02-2008, 1:16 PM
It's been an unwritten policy of SFPD to "take every gun off the street" that they encounter.

I know of two incidents, but they were both CC, not OC.

The first involved an officer from our department that moved to another state upon retirement - he holds his retirement creds and a CCL from the state he resides in.

He found himself stopping in SF (while carrying) for gas on his way to the south bay, and found himself at gun point from an SFPD officer - the officer was at the station where he stopped,m observed his piece when he got out his wallet, and proceeded to draw down on him out of reflex. It took a while to sort things out, and the kiddie cop who initiated the contact was a little put out that he didn't nab Dillinger.

The second involved a civilian that I know that has a Ca. CWP that was out to dinner w/ his wife in the city, and evidently somebody saw his piece and called the cops - Why somebody would look at a well-dressed guy, 50ish, out to dinner with the wife and think "Criminal!" is beyond me, but there you go.

SFPD did the full felony roll-out on him as they exited the restaurant, and all hands were pissed at the guy for having the balls to be caught carrying in their fair city while in possession of a CWP - he got put fully through the ringer before they released him.

Moral of the story - if you're carrying in S.F., even with full legal authority, don't let the natives see your piece.

You shouldn't even consider OC up there.

That is exactly why we need to do it. SFPD needs an education that they are not above the law.

homerm14
11-02-2008, 1:31 PM
That is exactly why we need to do it. SFPD needs an education that they are not above the law.

What does this have to do with the SFPD being above the law? By the way the uneducated SFPD has been informed regarding open carry at all district stations. Sometimes people need to think before they type.

bwiese
11-02-2008, 1:55 PM
What does this have to do with the SFPD being above the law? By the way the uneducated SFPD has been informed regarding open carry at all district stations. Sometimes people need to think before they type.

1) Not all cops read all memos. Many cops can't read too well anyway.

2) Be prepared for drama, grief, expenses.

3) Nordyke isn't in yet so "interesting situations" aren't really relevant yet.

4) UOCers that wish to press forward in spite of warnings may best be part of politically powerful subgroups/minorities.

journeyman
11-02-2008, 2:05 PM
It's been an unwritten policy of SFPD to "take every gun off the street" that they encounter.

I know of two incidents, but they were both CC, not OC.

The first involved an officer from our department that moved to another state upon retirement - he holds his retirement creds and a CCL from the state he resides in.

He found himself stopping in SF (while carrying) for gas on his way to the south bay, and found himself at gun point from an SFPD officer - the officer was at the station where he stopped,m observed his piece when he got out his wallet, and proceeded to draw down on him out of reflex. It took a while to sort things out, and the kiddie cop who initiated the contact was a little put out that he didn't nab Dillinger.

The second involved a civilian that I know that has a Ca. CWP that was out to dinner w/ his wife in the city, and evidently somebody saw his piece and called the cops - Why somebody would look at a well-dressed guy, 50ish, out to dinner with the wife and think "Criminal!" is beyond me, but there you go.

SFPD did the full felony roll-out on him as they exited the restaurant, and all hands were pissed at the guy for having the balls to be caught carrying in their fair city while in possession of a CWP - he got put fully through the ringer before they released him.

Moral of the story - if you're carrying in S.F., even with full legal authority, don't let the natives see your piece.

You shouldn't even consider OC up there.

I know its probably rhetorical but some jagoff people get off on causing other people grief

homerm14
11-02-2008, 2:15 PM
1) Not all cops read all memos. Many cops can't read too well anyway.

2) Be prepared for drama, grief, expenses.

3) Nordyke isn't in yet so "interesting situations" aren't really relevant yet.

4) UOCers that wish to press forward in spite of warnings may best be part of politically powerful subgroups/minorities.

I can't read at all. I dictate to my helper monkey who types for me. That's why I had my lieutenant read the memo out loud to the whole watch so we could all understand it.

mikehaas
11-02-2008, 2:22 PM
What goal do you hope to achieve by "OC-ing"?

Librarian
11-02-2008, 2:36 PM
I can't read at all. I dictate to my helper monkey who types for me. That's why I had my lieutenant read the memo out loud to the whole watch so we could all understand it.

That sounds like it was a good idea. What was the reaction of the audience?

homerm14
11-02-2008, 2:51 PM
That sounds like it was a good idea. What was the reaction of the audience?

Believe it or not most cops were totally indifferent. Most (that I work with) are just fine with law abiding citizens being armed. Remember just because SF is a liberal city with liberal polititans does not mean the police department is as well. Besides I am far too busy dealing with illegal weapons to worry about legal ones. The only concern we as LEO's have is the fact that so many people want to sue us for every thing. It seems to be a reoccurring theme with people concerning open carry. They just can't wait for someone to screw up so they can sue. On that premise alone I don't like the theory of open carry because I can't stand sue happy people.

MudCamper
11-02-2008, 3:11 PM
What goal do you hope to achieve by "OC-ing"?



Why Open Carry?

There are many reasons to Open Carry, and often the discussion becomes a philosophical debate betwteen the merits of Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry. However, in California these discussions are moot, since California is not a Shall-Issue CCW state, and most residents cannot get a concealed carry permit.

Therefore, in California, there are three main reasons to Open Carry:


For those choosing to carry a firearm for self-defense, it is the only legal means available.
As a form of legal civil protest of unconstitutional firearms laws and CCW issuance policies.
As a form of firearms community diplomacy, to dispel the myth that only cops and criminals carry guns, and to help reintroduce the general public and the law enforcement community to the reality that ordinary peaceful law-abiding citizens possess, use, and carry firearms.


Additional universal reasons to Open Carry:


To exercise one's right.
As a visible deterrent to crime.
OC is often more comfortable than CC, and offers more ready access.


However, if one chooses to OC in SF he had better be willing to accept the consequences, which may include false arrest for 12031 and/or 12025, and possibly unknown local ordinances that will stick, and will cost you many tens of thousands of dollars to appeal. If you have the money and want the fight, by all means, proceed. Otherwise, exercise extreme caution. IMO the best way to introduce OC to SF is via a large group walk (including but not limited to the Pick Pistols idea) after incorporation.

CitaDeL
11-02-2008, 3:50 PM
Believe it or not most cops were totally indifferent. Most (that I work with) are just fine with law abiding citizens being armed. Remember just because SF is a liberal city with liberal polititans does not mean the police department is as well. Besides I am far too busy dealing with illegal weapons to worry about legal ones. The only concern we as LEO's have is the fact that so many people want to sue us for every thing. It seems to be a reoccurring theme with people concerning open carry. They just can't wait for someone to screw up so they can sue. On that premise alone I don't like the theory of open carry because can't stand sue happy people.

Yeah, that's why we do it. We enjoy forking over tens of thousands of dollars to attorneys to litigate against illegitimate actions by law enforcement, in a state where the courts do not generally favor gun owners.

This sounds a little like the Sacramento memo in that open carry is believed to be bait for the establishment of legal standing so the carrier can sue. This conclusion is erroneous- If the notion that we were out for a lawsuit had a kernel of truth in it, there would be news of a suit already. To date, there is no pending lawsuit.

Open carry advocates are advancing the normalization of lawful armed self-defense without litigation. In spite of the one sticking point in the Sacramento memo, it has confirmed what we knew and spread the word that unloaded open carry is a lawful practice throughout the state of California. None of the open carriers thumbed their nose at Sac PD. No suit caused them to issue the memo. We had our open carry dinner in peace and none of the 7 armed individuals instigated anything that would bait a law enforcement officer into inadvertently violating our rights.

On another angle- would you really begrudge Dick Heller and company for taking DC to court? Or is litigation acceptable against the District and not law enforcement? If law enforcement is doing what they are supposed to, and protecting the rights of the lawful, why would a lawsuit be a concern?

Again- the advocacy of exposed carry is not about obtaining a settlement, but to assert our rights and educate the public. Yes, it is about being seen. Yes, it is arrogant to exercise your rights. Yes, it is controversial... but only two years ago, people were oblivious to what was possible. Only two years ago gun advocates were saying it was impossible, that anyone attempting it would be proned out in a felony stop, or worse shot for their trouble. The object was to prove all that wrong... not to sue.

gotgunz
11-02-2008, 3:57 PM
"I hear the train a comin'"

nicki
11-02-2008, 4:10 PM
We don't need Martyrs, please don't carry yet, we are sooooo close on getting Incorporation, it would create uneeded legal headaches.

I believe we need to go on offense, and San Fran is ground zero. Still, we need tobe smart about it.

Guys, we are not talking about doing things are the pace of a geriatric turtle, things are going well right now.

Regardless of who wins tuesday, we will be stronger. All tuesday will do is determine our strategies.

Now, a open carry march with a few hundred of us marching down the middle of the annual Gay Pride pararde under a "Pink Pistol " banner would be the way to get the attention we want.

Let's say this would add diversity to "Gavin Newsome's Day".

I realize some of you have issues and just can't/won't participate and I respect that.

Done right, it could turn into a national story since news stories are lacking on weekends..

I'm the San Jose Pink Pistol Coordinator and this is something I would coordinate with the San Fran chapter.

Those of you who don't want your faces sen can always were "masks"



Nicki

Liberty1
11-02-2008, 4:27 PM
Those of you who don't want your faces sen can always were "masks"



Nicki

Then make sure you're not carrying a gun. I forget the PC section....masks + firearm = prohibited in CA.

serkerone
11-02-2008, 4:49 PM
:smilielol5: wearing a mask and having a firearm with you at the same time is just askin for trouble

nicki
11-02-2008, 5:41 PM
Perhaps we need to be creative.

Have those who want to conceal who they are wear knit hats and dark sunglasses.

The parade is in JUne, so we have plenty of time to plan. This would definitely be a "in your face" action against the "Progressive elite" of San Fran.

It is not a march for those who want to be "non offensive".

I would expect that there woule be some in San Fran who would attackhe march. That is why it would be important to have the who march video taped from beginning to end.

Such a march will require alot of cordination. There are alot of implications and certain things I will not post in a public forum.

Nicki

homerm14
11-02-2008, 6:17 PM
Yeah, that's why we do it. We enjoy forking over tens of thousands of dollars to attorneys to litigate against illegitimate actions by law enforcement, in a state where the courts do not generally favor gun owners.

This sounds a little like the Sacramento memo in that open carry is believed to be bait for the establishment of legal standing so the carrier can sue. This conclusion is erroneous- If the notion that we were out for a lawsuit had a kernel of truth in it, there would be news of a suit already. To date, there is no pending lawsuit.

Open carry advocates are advancing the normalization of lawful armed self-defense without litigation. In spite of the one sticking point in the Sacramento memo, it has confirmed what we knew and spread the word that unloaded open carry is a lawful practice throughout the state of California. None of the open carriers thumbed their nose at Sac PD. No suit caused them to issue the memo. We had our open carry dinner in peace and none of the 7 armed individuals instigated anything that would bait a law enforcement officer into inadvertently violating our rights.

On another angle- would you really begrudge Dick Heller and company for taking DC to court? Or is litigation acceptable against the District and not law enforcement? If law enforcement is doing what they are supposed to, and protecting the rights of the lawful, why would a lawsuit be a concern?

Again- the advocacy of exposed carry is not about obtaining a settlement, but to assert our rights and educate the public. Yes, it is about being seen. Yes, it is arrogant to exercise your rights. Yes, it is controversial... but only two years ago, people were oblivious to what was possible. Only two years ago gun advocates were saying it was impossible, that anyone attempting it would be proned out in a felony stop, or worse shot for their trouble. The object was to prove all that wrong... not to sue.

I'm glad to see that you can speak for everyone that is involved in open carry. Again I am not opposed to people asserting their rights and educating people, just not thrilled with the way some people go about doing things.
By the way lawsuits are always a concern. I have been sued many times(never lost) for doing my job lawfully. It does'nt take much to file a lawsuit and go fishing for cash. It aint a lot of fun trying to explain to a lender why you are named in a lawsuit.

Coffee
11-02-2008, 6:26 PM
By the way lawsuits are always a concern. I have been sued many times(never lost) for doing my job lawfully. It does'nt take much to file a lawsuit and go fishing for cash. It aint a lot of fun trying to explain to a lender why you are named in a lawsuit.

A pending lawsuit shows up in a credit report?

1911_sfca
11-02-2008, 6:27 PM
:lurk5:

homerm14
11-02-2008, 6:47 PM
A pending lawsuit shows up in a credit report?

It does when the lender asks you if you are involved in any lawsuits.

bwiese
11-02-2008, 6:54 PM
It seems to be a reoccurring theme with people concerning open carry. They just can't wait for someone to screw up so they can sue. On that premise alone I don't like the theory of open carry because I can't stand sue happy people.

Suing is the only way an agency can be made to change behavior. Sometimes that behavior change occurs faster when the individual officers are wary because their qualified immunity may be pierced.

Traditionally, most folks that sue for rights violations sue such that the *agency* has to pay out due to 'deep pockets' and are not interested in smaller payout from an individual cop.

Gunnies may see differently: (say) $75K paid out by an errant cop is far, far more valuable than (say) $350K paid out by the city's funds (where they can keep going to the taxpayer trough with impunity).

I believe future gun rights litigation may well involve going after individual officers themselves - not to seek large $$ but to make the errant officer feel financial pain. In tight budgetary times, I believe a dept may be willing to sever itself from the officer's conduct and admit officer responsibility if claims against the city/county itself are dropped.

The next time a cop pops someone for a 22LR AK Trainer as an AW without reading the PC, that cop is gonna have an interesting time with his home equity. The "arrest and let the DA sort it out" ain't gonna fly anymore.

I do note that the various "UOC memos" issued by Sacto PD and the Regional Antiterrorism-what-not-org have a hidden undertext less of departmental regulation than an "oops, let's not get caught" frame of mind. There seemed to be a tenor of fear/panic in these documents much akin to that in Alison's increasingly strident unsigned/undated memos concerning "off-list" rifles/receiver in early 2006.

Right now OC doesn't buy that much. Post-Nordyke/incorporation it may - with significant drama & expense to some individuals - and could lead to more rational CCW policies esp if an open carrier that was popped had applied - and was denied - a CCW (and even moreso if the CCW app was similar to the apps of ones that were issued).


It aint a lot of fun trying to explain to a lender why you are named in a lawsuit.

My very point. The moment the point of pain is exceeded we'll have favorable results.

I'd like to see an environment created where any CA LEO sees an obvious good guy with firearms that he walks carefully because he knows he might be sued.

CitaDeL
11-02-2008, 6:59 PM
I'm glad to see that you can speak for everyone that is involved in open carry. Again I am not opposed to people asserting their rights and educating people, just not thrilled with the way some people go about doing things.
By the way lawsuits are always a concern. I have been sued many times(never lost) for doing my job lawfully. It does'nt take much to file a lawsuit and go fishing for cash. It aint a lot of fun trying to explain to a lender why you are named in a lawsuit.

I speak for everyone in the open carry community in the same way you speak for everyone in the law enforcement community. By representing our perspectives in a public forum and profess to be supporters of the 2nd, we should be careful about painting one another with a rather broad brush.

Given the choice I'd rather keep my encounters with law enforcement limited to brief field interviews. Im almost certain this is how most of our contingent would like it- however, there is a time and a place for a legal fight and it may involve an open carrier. Please dont hold it against us if one of us has a legitimate reason to have their rights vindicated in court.

homerm14
11-02-2008, 7:37 PM
I speak for everyone in the open carry community in the same way you speak for everyone in the law enforcement community. By representing our perspectives in a public forum and profess to be supporters of the 2nd, we should be careful about painting one another with a rather broad brush.

Given the choice I'd rather keep my encounters with law enforcement limited to brief field interviews. Im almost certain this is how most of our contingent would like it- however, there is a time and a place for a legal fight and it may involve an open carrier. Please dont hold it against us if one of us has a legitimate reason to have their rights vindicated in court.

I am only speaking for myself and what I have personally heard and seen. Again I am all for law abiding people being able to carry firearms(although unleaded does'nt do much good). However I am sick and tiered of everyone threatening to sue. Almost every person I arrest thinks the know the law, their rights, and threatens to sue. By the way I don't hold it against any one who is trying to protect their rights.

homerm14
11-02-2008, 7:45 PM
Suing is the only way an agency can be made to change behavior. Sometimes that behavior change occurs faster when the individual officers are wary because their qualified immunity may be pierced.

Traditionally, most folks that sue for rights violations sue such that the *agency* has to pay out due to 'deep pockets' and are not interested in smaller payout from an individual cop.

Gunnies may see differently: (say) $75K paid out by an errant cop is far, far more valuable than (say) $350K paid out by the city's funds (where they can keep going to the taxpayer trough with impunity).

I believe future gun rights litigation may well involve going after individual officers themselves - not to seek large $$ but to make the errant officer feel financial pain. In tight budgetary times, I believe a dept may be willing to sever itself from the officer's conduct and admit officer responsibility if claims against the city/county itself are dropped.

The next time a cop pops someone for a 22LR AK Trainer as an AW without reading the PC, that cop is gonna have an interesting time with his home equity. The "arrest and let the DA sort it out" ain't gonna fly anymore.

I do note that the various "UOC memos" issued by Sacto PD and the Regional Antiterrorism-what-not-org have a hidden undertext less of departmental regulation than an "oops, let's not get caught" frame of mind. There seemed to be a tenor of fear/panic in these documents much akin to that in Alison's increasingly strident unsigned/undated memos concerning "off-list" rifles/receiver in early 2006.

Right now OC doesn't buy that much. Post-Nordyke/incorporation it may - with significant drama & expense to some individuals - and could lead to more rational CCW policies esp if an open carrier that was popped had applied - and was denied - a CCW (and even moreso if the CCW app was similar to the apps of ones that were issued).



My very point. The moment the point of pain is exceeded we'll have favorable results.

I'd like to see an environment created where any CA LEO sees an obvious good guy with firearms that he walks carefully because he knows he might be sued.

Ok, so the point is to sue someone, gotcha. What exactly is an obvious good guy. Profile and be timid, gotcha. I want to know what city the cops have nothing better to do that harass gun owners (so I can move there for some peace and quiet.) I'm personally not too concerned, I happen to be fairly familiar with firearms law in California. I'm more concerned with the us against them mentality (on both sides) that never works out well.

bwiese
11-02-2008, 7:58 PM
Ok, so the point is to sue someone, gotcha. What exactly is an obvious good guy. Profile and be timid, gotcha. I want to know what city the cops have nothing better to do that harass gun owners (so I can move there for some peace and quiet.) I'm personally not too concerned, I happen to be fairly familiar with firearms law in California. I'm more concerned with the us against them mentality (on both sides) that never works out well.

I wish it'd stop too.

But until cops understand CA AW laws and other gun laws the adversarial situation will continue. When people have to pay thousands to defend against a noncrime, the first line of the fight needs to be against the LEOs that made the bad arrests in the first place (a la my 22LR AK trainer example).

Until the day arrives that CA cops in metro areas treat guns like toasters & coffee pots the fight needs to continue. Tons of reports that cops hassle legit folks with legit firearms *locked & unloaded* and make them go thru the 10th degree - including running the gun to see if it's stolen even when no crime is alleged. (The law allows inspection for unloaded status.) I'm all for finding stolen guns as long as equal priority is given to stolen computers and TV sets and toasters.

If someone drive around SF all day with a Rem 700 pickup in a gunrack in my truck without cop intervening/traffic stop/vehicle microinspection, that will be a good day.

Bottom line, your dept has a fair antigun bent in some of the ranks, many cops do not know the gun laws and I can't comment further for some obvious reasons.

homerm14
11-02-2008, 8:23 PM
I wish it'd stop too.

But until cops understand CA AW laws and other gun laws the adversarial situation will continue. When people have to pay thousands to defend against a noncrime, the first line of the fight needs to be against the LEOs that made the bad arrests in the first place (a la my 22LR AK trainer example).

Until the day arrives that CA cops in metro areas treat guns like toasters & coffee pots the fight needs to continue. Tons of reports that cops hassle legit folks with legit firearms *locked & unloaded* and make them go thru the 10th degree - including running the gun to see if it's stolen even when no crime is alleged. (The law allows inspection for unloaded status.) I'm all for finding stolen guns as long as equal priority is given to stolen computers and TV sets and toasters.

If someone drive around SF all day with a Rem 700 pickup in a gunrack in my truck without cop intervening/traffic stop/vehicle microinspection, that will be a good day.

Bottom line, your dept has a fair antigun bent in some of the ranks, many cops do not know the gun laws and I can't comment further for some obvious reasons.

While I do agree with you on some points, I disagree regarding the stolen guns verse tv's,toasters,and computers which to my knowledge are very rarely used to commit violent crimes. I also feel instead of chastising police officers for attempting to enforce poorly written at best laws. We should be more concerned with getting rid of the ridiculous laws then neither side has to worry.

MudCamper
11-02-2008, 8:26 PM
I'm glad to see that you can speak for everyone that is involved in open carry. Again I am not opposed to people asserting their rights and educating people, just not thrilled with the way some people go about doing things.
By the way lawsuits are always a concern. I have been sued many times(never lost) for doing my job lawfully. It does'nt take much to file a lawsuit and go fishing for cash. It aint a lot of fun trying to explain to a lender why you are named in a lawsuit.

OCers are not fishing for cash. We just want our inalienable rights back. And please cite specific examples of those cases of OC that were so offensive to you. I have indexed every publicly known OC v LEO encounter in recent years here (http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html#prepare). If you are privy to more examples, please share.

Ok, so the point is to sue someone, gotcha. What exactly is an obvious good guy. Profile and be timid, gotcha. I want to know what city the cops have nothing better to do that harass gun owners (so I can move there for some peace and quiet.) I'm personally not too concerned, I happen to be fairly familiar with firearms law in California. I'm more concerned with the us against them mentality (on both sides) that never works out well.

The point is not to sue, not for most at this point, but Bill does make a good argument for it, and perhaps that should be the goal given the current climate. It seems to be working for BillyJack with CCW.

And good for you if you are LEO and you know the gun laws. In that regard you are far from the norm. If you do really believe in 2A rights, help us out by spreading your knowledge with fellow LEOs.

homerm14
11-02-2008, 9:03 PM
OCers are not fishing for cash. We just want our inalienable rights back. And please cite specific examples of those cases of OC that were so offensive to you. I have indexed every publicly known OC v LEO encounter in recent years here (http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html#prepare). If you are privy to more examples, please share.



The point is not to sue, not for most at this point, but Bill does make a good argument for it, and perhaps that should be the goal given the current climate. It seems to be working for BillyJack with CCW.

And good for you if you are LEO and you know the gun laws. In that regard you are far from the norm. If you do really believe in 2A rights, help us out by spreading your knowledge with fellow LEOs.

I'm not suggesting that OCers are looking for money. I just hate hearing the threat of law suit as the ultimate course of action. I have no specific cases to cite and I think it would be fairly difficult to win base on the fact that all an LEO need do is show he or she had a reasonable cause to belive a crime had occurred and as a result an arrest or detention was made. I have no problem enlightening fellow LEO's regarding gun laws (specifically assault weapons laws) to keep then as well as everyone else out of trouble based on a poorly written stupid law. As far as OCers go I would prefer if California would just honor the shall issue and give law abiding citizens concealed carry permits.

MudCamper
11-02-2008, 10:55 PM
...all an LEO need do is show he or she had a reasonable cause to belive a crime had occurred and as a result an arrest or detention was made.

And we have arrived at the crux of the problem. We have a class of people, who can violate the rights of other people, only because the latter one chose to exercize a natural right. That is wrong and it must be corrected.

homerm14
11-02-2008, 11:02 PM
And we have arrived at the crux of the problem. We have a class of people, who can violate the rights of other people, only because the latter one chose to exercize a natural right. That is wrong and it must be corrected.

I disagree, I think the crux of the problem is the fact that peoples rights have been violated by excessive gun laws. As far as a "class of people" I also disagree. I am in the same class just have a certain job. Again, do away with stupid laws and there will be no problem.

mikehaas
11-03-2008, 6:11 AM
>there are three main reasons to Open Carry:

That's not what I asked, but I especially love this answer...

>For those choosing to carry a firearm for self-defense, it is the only legal means available.

Self-defense? AN UNLOADED GUN? I know you are serious, but this underscores how little critical thinking, and A LOT OF EMOTION, is prompting the OC movement (and is a bad idea.)

What I asked was "WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACHIEVE BY OC-ING?" The question hasn't been answered.

What is the goal? The prize?

See, I understand why people visit calguns and join NRA. I see the reasons NRA does what it does. I understand why NRA's Members' Councils volunteers meet each month. I understand why people pay attention to their lawmakers, lobby their lawmakers, vote, distribute information, post on forums, ask questions and answer them. I understand the goals of all of those activities and how they move us closer to it.

But NRA does not advocate open carry, certainly not as a political statement. That's "Black Panther" thinking, and when they organized their armed march on Sacramento years ago, it damaged gun-rights in California by an immeasurable degree. If OC moved us toward a reasonable goal, NRA certainly would incorporate it into their arsenal.

So when you strap on your empty gun to strut around town, what is your goal?

To feel good?

nobody_special
11-03-2008, 7:53 AM
I just hate hearing the threat of law suit as the ultimate course of action.
What other course of action is there? Given California's political climate, lobbying efforts are not going to get the bad laws repealed. Civil-rights lawsuits are the only effective means available.
As far as OCers go I would prefer if California would just honor the shall issue and give law abiding citizens concealed carry permits.
That would be nice, but I suggest you come to terms with OC, because after Nordyke incorporates the 2nd, OC will be protected. There is a very solid argument that the right to bear is also part of the 2nd, and as such no permit may be required. Requiring a concealed carry permit for any form of bearing arms would be an undue burden on a fundamental right.
. As far as a "class of people" I also disagree. I am in the same class just have a certain job.
LEO's are a different class, because many of the restrictions that apply to ordinary citizens do not apply to LEO, even in their private capacity.

yellowfin
11-03-2008, 9:12 AM
I seem to recall someone from SF declaring "It's going to happen whether you like it or not..." Apparently such does not extend to OC.

nick
11-03-2008, 9:47 AM
>there are three main reasons to Open Carry:

That's not what I asked, but I especially love this answer...

>For those choosing to carry a firearm for self-defense, it is the only legal means available.

Self-defense? AN UNLOADED GUN? I know you are serious, but this underscores how little critical thinking, and A LOT OF EMOTION, is prompting the OC movement (and is a bad idea.)

What I asked was "WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACHIEVE BY OC-ING?" The question hasn't been answered.

What is the goal? The prize?

See, I understand why people visit calguns and join NRA. I see the reasons NRA does what it does. I understand why NRA's Members' Councils volunteers meet each month. I understand why people pay attention to their lawmakers, lobby their lawmakers, vote, distribute information, post on forums, ask questions and answer them. I understand the goals of all of those activities and how they move us closer to it.

But NRA does not advocate open carry, certainly not as a political statement. That's "Black Panther" thinking, and when they organized their armed march on Sacramento years ago, it damaged gun-rights in California by an immeasurable degree. If OC moved us toward a reasonable goal, NRA certainly would incorporate it into their arsenal.

So when you strap on your empty gun to strut around town, what is your goal?

To feel good?

Umm, you're missing something. It's unloaded, but the ammo is in the mag pouch on your belt, or a speedloader in your pocket. Which is a whole lot better than nothing.

The NRA is a useful organization, and it's great that it exists. However, they have to compromise a whole lot. The problem is, compromises only work with reasonable people on the other side, and CA government, as well as many local governments here, ceased to be reasonable where guns are concerned a long time ago.

homerm14
11-03-2008, 10:15 AM
What other course of action is there? Given California's political climate, lobbying efforts are not going to get the bad laws repealed. Civil-rights lawsuits are the only effective means available.

That would be nice, but I suggest you come to terms with OC, because after Nordyke incorporates the 2nd, OC will be protected. There is a very solid argument that the right to bear is also part of the 2nd, and as such no permit may be required. Requiring a concealed carry permit for any form of bearing arms would be an undue burden on a fundamental right.

LEO's are a different class, because many of the restrictions that apply to ordinary citizens do not apply to LEO, even in their private capacity.

I suppose the other course of action would be to eliminate unjust laws. As far as coming to terms with OC I could care less, feel free to carry a loaded firearm as often as you want. I does not bother me in the least, but I am not the one you have to convince I am all for it. I am tiered of takeing reports from people that were prayed upon and should be able to defend themselves. I have always been a firm believer in the armed society is a polite society. I still disagree regarding class, I am not a different class of people, I do a job. If other people have given me certain exemptions that is on them not me. It does'nt make me think I am any better than anyone else.

jb7706
11-03-2008, 11:01 AM
I suppose the other course of action would be to eliminate unjust laws.

Yes, that would solve many things.

I still disagree regarding class, I am not a different class of people, I do a job. If other people have given me certain exemptions that is on them not me. It does'nt make me think I am any better than anyone else.

With all respect, your personal opinion or feelings on weather you are in a special class are not really relevant. Your status is not a matter of feeling, you are treated differently under the law. True you didn't write the laws that put you in a different class but you are there nonetheless. When you have the legal authority to defend yourself and your family while not on duty with a concealed weapon pretty much anywhere in the country (The Community Protection Act and The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) using arms and magazines that are not available to the general public in California (you are exempt from the approved firearms roster and it is possible for you to get an "assault weapon" permit) you are in a special class. After you retire you may keep your CCW and your AW because you were LEO. There is nothing (that I am aware of) that says you have to have any other good cause, and you shouldn't have to show it.

I live in an area that is frequently visited by the Sheriffs helicopter. I can expect to have LEO respond to a call in about in hour if at all. A home invasion took place across the street from me, it took 40 minutes for help to arrive. I am totally on my own if anyone intends harm to me or my family. I often work in rough areas late at night due to my job. I know I have no chance of getting a CCW because I live in Sac County. The very same tools you can use anytime would put me and others in prison for a very long time.

I appreciate your point of view that you are no one special, but it changes nothing. Under the law your very status as LEO puts you in a special, protected class, especially in California.

homerm14
11-03-2008, 11:34 AM
Yes, that would solve many things.



With all respect, your personal opinion or feelings on weather you are in a special class are not really relevant. Your status is not a matter of feeling, you are treated differently under the law. True you didn't write the laws that put you in a different class but you are there nonetheless. When you have the legal authority to defend yourself and your family while not on duty with a concealed weapon pretty much anywhere in the country (The Community Protection Act and The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) using arms and magazines that are not available to the general public in California (you are exempt from the approved firearms roster and it is possible for you to get an "assault weapon" permit) you are in a special class. After you retire you may keep your CCW and your AW because you were LEO. There is nothing (that I am aware of) that says you have to have any other good cause, and you shouldn't have to show it.

I live in an area that is frequently visited by the Sheriffs helicopter. I can expect to have LEO respond to a call in about in hour if at all. A home invasion took place across the street from me, it took 40 minutes for help to arrive. I am totally on my own if anyone intends harm to me or my family. I often work in rough areas late at night due to my job. I know I have no chance of getting a CCW because I live in Sac County. The very same tools you can use anytime would put me and others in prison for a very long time.

I appreciate your point of view that you are no one special, but it changes nothing. Under the law your very status as LEO puts you in a special, protected class, especially in California.

I see your point, but I did not make it that way. Again I agree you should have the right (just like I do) to protect yourself. I know my personal feelings change nothing. I hope sometime in the near future things will change. By the way my department is not so liberal regarding assault weapons, everything I own was registered in 2000 just like everyone else.

nobody_special
11-03-2008, 11:50 AM
I suppose the other course of action would be to eliminate unjust laws.
That'd be nice, I'm all for it... but this is what I was referring to when I talked about lobbying efforts in the current political climate. The only way these unjust laws will be eliminated (or rendered unenforceable) is through legal action... lawsuits.

swhatb
11-03-2008, 12:04 PM
:lurk5:

homerm14
11-03-2008, 12:06 PM
That'd be nice, I'm all for it... but this is what I was referring to when I talked about lobbying efforts in the current political climate. The only way these unjust laws will be eliminated (or rendered unenforceable) is through legal action... lawsuits.

Sure, but why kill the messenger? I'm all for it, but do you really think anyone (other than other cops) cares what happens to a cop? Lots of people say they do but to sue a cop personally does not sound like the best course of action to me. I like to conceder myself a better friend than enemy, but it's hard to convince other cops about unjust laws when they are constantly bombarded with threats. Just my 2 cents.

Meplat
11-03-2008, 12:21 PM
And what did the memo say? What is SFPD policy?





I can't read at all. I dictate to my helper monkey who types for me. That's why I had my lieutenant read the memo out loud to the whole watch so we could all understand it.

homerm14
11-03-2008, 12:30 PM
And what did the memo say? What is SFPD policy?

The memo in question was the one generated from Sacramento. It has been discussed here before and is'nt all that favorable to gun owners. Luckily I work with some intelligent folks who don't buy into the states crap. We as a department have no policy regarding the subject. Remember SF is very liberal, but our polititans are very quick to say what they think the people want to hear. The police dept. is usually stuck in the middle, and blamed for anything that goes wrong.

Meplat
11-03-2008, 12:32 PM
Masks are unlawful, a fact that seems to have been missed buy just about everyone including SWAT officers. And I thought you had to be gay to march?






We don't need Martyrs, please don't carry yet, we are sooooo close on getting Incorporation, it would create uneeded legal headaches.

I believe we need to go on offense, and San Fran is ground zero. Still, we need tobe smart about it.

Guys, we are not talking about doing things are the pace of a geriatric turtle, things are going well right now.

Regardless of who wins tuesday, we will be stronger. All tuesday will do is determine our strategies.

Now, a open carry march with a few hundred of us marching down the middle of the annual Gay Pride pararde under a "Pink Pistol " banner would be the way to get the attention we want.

Let's say this would add diversity to "Gavin Newsome's Day".

I realize some of you have issues and just can't/won't participate and I respect that.

Done right, it could turn into a national story since news stories are lacking on weekends..

I'm the San Jose Pink Pistol Coordinator and this is something I would coordinate with the San Fran chapter.

Those of you who don't want your faces sen can always were "masks"



Nicki

nobody_special
11-03-2008, 12:36 PM
Sure, but why kill the messenger? I'm all for it, but do you really think anyone (other than other cops) cares what happens to a cop? Lots of people say they do but to sue a cop personally does not sound like the best course of action to me. I like to conceder myself a better friend than enemy, but it's hard to convince other cops about unjust laws when they are constantly bombarded with threats. Just my 2 cents.
An LEO who arrests someone for UOC is not a "messenger." This isn't about killing the messenger, it's about upholding civil rights. Such lawsuits will eventually cause enforcement to change.

Meplat
11-03-2008, 12:43 PM
I hear ya, but lawful gun owners are a whole different demographic from your average Friscan. You are infested with treehugging socialists for whom litigation is a way of life.


I'm glad to see that you can speak for everyone that is involved in open carry. Again I am not opposed to people asserting their rights and educating people, just not thrilled with the way some people go about doing things.
By the way lawsuits are always a concern. I have been sued many times(never lost) for doing my job lawfully. It does'nt take much to file a lawsuit and go fishing for cash. It aint a lot of fun trying to explain to a lender why you are named in a lawsuit.

homerm14
11-03-2008, 12:53 PM
An LEO who arrests someone for UOC is not a "messenger." This isn't about killing the messenger, it's about upholding civil rights. Such lawsuits will eventually cause enforcement to change.

If an officer arrests someone for something that is legal than you are correct. If civil rights are the issue why are we do we care about gay marriage? I agree that people have the right to defend themselves and again I'm ok with OC. As far as I'm concerned you should be able to carry a loaded firearm. Politics is an evil beast, but I still have a hard time seeing suing cops as the answer. I hazard to guess most politicans could care less if a cop gets sued. I understand that politicians do listen to cops (due to the fact that they sometimes need their endorsements) I think they are far more likely to react if they are in the hot seat.

homerm14
11-03-2008, 12:54 PM
I hear ya, but lawful gun owners are a whole different demographic from your average Friscan. You are infested with treehugging socialists for whom litigation is a way of life.

True that, but I think you would be surprised how many gun owners there are in SF.

MudCamper
11-03-2008, 1:05 PM
>there are three main reasons to Open Carry:

That's not what I asked, but I especially love this answer...

>For those choosing to carry a firearm for self-defense, it is the only legal means available.

Self-defense? AN UNLOADED GUN? I know you are serious, but this underscores how little critical thinking, and A LOT OF EMOTION, is prompting the OC movement (and is a bad idea.)


Mike, insulting me by stating that I have little critical thinking is not only incorrect, it is hypocracy. You are using emotional charged and insulting statements. That's not critical thinking.

In answer to the unloaded gun comment: An unloaded gun with a loaded mag 2 seconds away from making the gun loaded is a much better form of self defense than one's bare hands. Perhaps you should read the CaliforniaOpenCarry.org FAQ (http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html).


What I asked was "WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACHIEVE BY OC-ING?" The question hasn't been answered.

What is the goal? The prize?

So when you strap on your empty gun to strut around town, what is your goal?

To feel good?

I already answered that question. You just refuse to see it. And I think the reason that you do so is you feel threatened, and you are reacting emotionally. You fear that the actions of OCers will result in more/worse gun control legislation that will effect you personally, so you lash out against it. This was a common response from most gun owners just a year or so ago. But slowly, the OC movement is already achieving one of it's goals, to educate and to gain acceptance. This is already apparent in the online gun community. And the two known interdepartmental police memos, clearly stating 12031 has been modified by People v Clark, are further illustrations of the valuable education the OC movement has achieved.

Meplat
11-03-2008, 1:09 PM
Never done it, don't have to and don't intend to. However, although it is not the optimum situation, it takes less than a heartbeat to slap a mag into an auto pistol and it is better than not having a gun at all.

I am a life member of NRA and could easily be a Benefactor (or whatever the highest degree of membership is called now) but I would rather give to the ILA than stroke my own ego. However, the great NRA:notworthy: is not the be all and end all of 2A rights. Its history is littered and strewn with sellouts and blunders. Just because NRA is not pushing it does not mean it's a bad idea.:rolleyes:





>there are three main reasons to Open Carry:

That's not what I asked, but I especially love this answer...

>For those choosing to carry a firearm for self-defense, it is the only legal means available.

Self-defense? AN UNLOADED GUN? I know you are serious, but this underscores how little critical thinking, and A LOT OF EMOTION, is prompting the OC movement (and is a bad idea.)

What I asked was "WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACHIEVE BY OC-ING?" The question hasn't been answered.

What is the goal? The prize?

See, I understand why people visit calguns and join NRA. I see the reasons NRA does what it does. I understand why NRA's Members' Councils volunteers meet each month. I understand why people pay attention to their lawmakers, lobby their lawmakers, vote, distribute information, post on forums, ask questions and answer them. I understand the goals of all of those activities and how they move us closer to it.

But NRA does not advocate open carry, certainly not as a political statement. That's "Black Panther" thinking, and when they organized their armed march on Sacramento years ago, it damaged gun-rights in California by an immeasurable degree. If OC moved us toward a reasonable goal, NRA certainly would incorporate it into their arsenal.

So when you strap on your empty gun to strut around town, what is your goal?

To feel good?

rivviepop
11-03-2008, 1:17 PM
I've seen one mention so far only, but there's a map online that someone made (I think it was a Calgunner?) that overlaps all the school zones in SF - the problem is that in the most travelled areas you just can't get outside 1000ft. Remember that all the colleges count (Academy of Art, etc.) that have minor little classroom campuses; from what I understand they are also included in a school zone count. Where I'm sitting right now at work I could throw a rock and hit an AoA campus.

I know for a fact that in the path of all my daily travels - to include stepping out my front door onto the sidewalk as there's two K-12s within a block - I'll never make it beyond 1000ft of a school zone. Given this restriction in the law it's just darned near impossible to legally UOC if you wanted to (and I'm sure this was no accident by the lawmakers).

Meplat
11-03-2008, 1:21 PM
Thanks for the answer. I have a CCW and I try very hard not to be "made", but in your (of course unofficial) opinion what could I expect if I were in SF and someone didn't like the bulge under my shirt.:eek:


The memo in question was the one generated from Sacramento. It has been discussed here before and is'nt all that favorable to gun owners. Luckily I work with some intelligent folks who don't buy into the states crap. We as a department have no policy regarding the subject. Remember SF is very liberal, but our polititans are very quick to say what they think the people want to hear. The police dept. is usually stuck in the middle, and blamed for anything that goes wrong.

nick
11-03-2008, 2:01 PM
If an officer arrests someone for something that is legal than you are correct. If civil rights are the issue why are we do we care about gay marriage? I agree that people have the right to defend themselves and again I'm ok with OC. As far as I'm concerned you should be able to carry a loaded firearm. Politics is an evil beast, but I still have a hard time seeing suing cops as the answer. I hazard to guess most politicans could care less if a cop gets sued. I understand that politicians do listen to cops (due to the fact that they sometimes need their endorsements) I think they are far more likely to react if they are in the hot seat.

It's not about politicians, but about cops arresting people for something they shouldn't be arresting them for. Politicians are a whole other thing, and lawsuits don't affect them as much, since they use taxpayer money for defense, anyway. However, if a cop is faced with personal liability for arresting or harassing someone for lawful open carry, wouldn't this enable other cops to read up on the relevant laws, and generally decide not to harass people in such cases? That was the point made, I believe.

nick
11-03-2008, 2:23 PM
Yep, pretty much like no gunstores within 5 miles from a school proposed by one of the candidates :)

I've seen one mention so far only, but there's a map online that someone made (I think it was a Calgunner?) that overlaps all the school zones in SF - the problem is that in the most travelled areas you just can't get outside 1000ft. Remember that all the colleges count (Academy of Art, etc.) that have minor little classroom campuses; from what I understand they are also included in a school zone count. Where I'm sitting right now at work I could throw a rock and hit an AoA campus.

I know for a fact that in the path of all my daily travels - to include stepping out my front door onto the sidewalk as there's two K-12s within a block - I'll never make it beyond 1000ft of a school zone. Given this restriction in the law it's just darned near impossible to legally UOC if you wanted to (and I'm sure this was no accident by the lawmakers).

Decoligny
11-03-2008, 3:19 PM
I'm not suggesting that OCers are looking for money. I just hate hearing the threat of law suit as the ultimate course of action. I have no specific cases to cite and I think it would be fairly difficult to win base on the fact that all an LEO need do is show he or she had a reasonable cause to belive a crime had occurred and as a result an arrest or detention was made. I have no problem enlightening fellow LEO's regarding gun laws (specifically assault weapons laws) to keep then as well as everyone else out of trouble based on a poorly written stupid law. As far as OCers go I would prefer if California would just honor the shall issue and give law abiding citizens concealed carry permits.

Which is why everyone OC'ing needs to carry a voice recorder at a minimum. When that rare lying LOE says he had RAS that a crime had been committed, just to get out of a lawsuit for violating someone rights, he has absolutely nothing to base his fictitious/perjurous statements on.

homerm14
11-04-2008, 1:14 AM
Thanks for the answer. I have a CCW and I try very hard not to be "made", but in your (of course unofficial) opinion what could I expect if I were in SF and someone didn't like the bulge under my shirt.:eek:

Probably to have a gun pointed at you until every thing was squared away. That all depends on the officer and the call of course. However if you are'nt flashing any thing I doubt anyone would even notice or call. I carry a gun almost every day and have never had any problems. Most people are'nt that observant.

homerm14
11-04-2008, 1:20 AM
It's not about politicians, but about cops arresting people for something they shouldn't be arresting them for. Politicians are a whole other thing, and lawsuits don't affect them as much, since they use taxpayer money for defense, anyway. However, if a cop is faced with personal liability for arresting or harassing someone for lawful open carry, wouldn't this enable other cops to read up on the relevant laws, and generally decide not to harass people in such cases? That was the point made, I believe.

Um, cops don't pay out of pocket either. The city does unless it is a gross negligent violation of policy. Which I doubt this would be considered. I would have a hard time believing any one would get a SGT. to approve an arrest since there is no charge. A detention is more probable and as far as harassment that is subjective.

homerm14
11-04-2008, 1:24 AM
Which is why everyone OC'ing needs to carry a voice recorder at a minimum. When that rare lying LOE says he had RAS that a crime had been committed, just to get out of a lawsuit for violating someone rights, he has absolutely nothing to base his fictitious/perjurous statements on.

I doubt that would be all that helpful since the cop (if unfamiliar with the law) would probably think he or she had reasonable suspicion. In any event I know lots of cops who carry their own recorder as defense to false allocations.

homerm14
11-04-2008, 1:44 AM
I think what this all boils down to is knowledge. I know people expect every cop to know every single law on the books. That is never going to happen. I personally know gun laws because I am interested in that topic. I also know a lot of other more often used penal codes, municipal codes, vehicle codes, park codes, and health and safety codes. But no where near all of them. Lawyers specialize and so do cops. If I don't know I look it up or ask some one who does. Also remember in California law enforcment has changed drastically in the last five years. The old guard is retiring all over the state. Which means lots of new just know the minimum cops. I know I'm an FTO and train lots of them. It takes years for a cop to learn the job. I work in a very violent city and make lots of felony and gun related arrest. Some officers in smaller jurisdictions may not get the same exposure. CHP does DUI's I do not very often. I can find lots of dope arrests, robbery arrests and homicide arrests. I deal with lots of guns. 99.9% of them are illegally possessed by not so nice people. I'll take my chances of upsetting a lawful gun owner as opposed to being shot (and yes I have been shot at more times than I care to remember and have been in gun fights). I don't want to upset anyone and I belive the cause is a good one. I just have a hard time defending people to my fellow officers when all they hear is negative. I'm done with my rant and will end it with this: I am on your side please realize not every cop is out to get you. I will also continue to educate officers that do not understand many of the states stupid gun laws.

Whiskey_Sauer
11-04-2008, 8:45 AM
I would have a hard time believing any one would get a SGT. to approve an arrest since there is no charge. A detention is more probable and as far as harassment that is subjective.

This is true. The most likely outcome is detention by the officer while everything checks out. Assuming everything does, arrest is unlikely, and prosecution is just not going to happen.

Coffee
11-04-2008, 10:09 AM
I think what this all boils down to is knowledge. I know people expect every cop to know every single law on the books. That is never going to happen. I personally know gun laws because I am interested in that topic.

I enjoy reading your posts and I'm learning. Thanks.

You seem to be a very patient person.

Liberty1
11-04-2008, 10:23 AM
My thoughts on NRA:
They are trying to keep together a VERY broad coalition of 2A/shooting sports/Hunting/LEO training, etc... associated interests. I think they'll come around in light of Heller and other cases which will strengthen "bear". I liken NRA to the old man who is still wearing the last decade's fashions. This leaves the "trendy and new" fashions to be worked out by groups faster and more flexible like VCDL, OCDO, CGF, Georgia Carry, etc... and on line co-ordination within CG.net, THR, with NRA then able to use their strength when and where we successful breach the enemy's main line.

Mike's comment appear hostile but it just clarifies to me that a different message may be needed to reach some on our side concerning the exercise of the Right, which the courts tend to be leaning towards protecting (CC is not protected :( yet :)).

Liberty1
11-04-2008, 10:30 AM
Police need to KNOW what the elements of the crime are before letting the judge sort it out. If we are enforcing laws with which we are not familiar or fully trained, then we need to consider non-enforcement or taking the extra time during the detention period to be sure we do right by the detained and our Oaths of office. If we don't, we and the dept. deserve to be spanked.

nick
11-04-2008, 10:39 AM
Spanking a police officer, that does sound like something coming out of SF :)

homerm14
11-04-2008, 11:10 AM
Police need to KNOW what the elements of the crime are before letting the judge sort it out. If we are enforcing laws with which we are not familiar or full trained, then we need to consider non-enforcement or taking the extra time during the detention period to be sure we do right by the detained and our Oaths of office. If we don't, we and the dept. deserve to be spanked.

Absolutely!

bwiese
11-04-2008, 11:31 AM
Um, cops don't pay out of pocket either.
The city does unless it is a gross negligent violation of policy.

That's assuming that the plaintiff wants the deepest-pocketed defendant and sues both together.

Ultimately the financial interests of the city and the errant cop are separable.

It's entirely possible that gunnie's counsel suing for results (and not total $) could negotiate with the city to drop suit against city only, with acknowledgement that city had no guilt because the officer refused to check the PC before completing the arrest, with the cop left to hang in the wind.

homerm14
11-04-2008, 11:46 AM
That's assuming that the plaintiff wants the deepest-pocketed defendant and sues both together.

Ultimately the financial interests of the city and the errant cop are separable.

It's entirely possible that gunnie's counsel suing for results (and not total $) could negotiate with the city to drop suit against city only, with acknowledgement that city had no guilt because the officer refused to check the PC before completing the arrest, with the cop left to hang in the wind.

That is a possibility, however more likely it would be cited as a training issue which has more to do with the department than an individual officer. If it were considered a case of gross negligence on the officers part. I happen to work with a large department with a strong POA that would still probably represent the officer. I also have a hard time believing any officer (I know) would risk their job for such an issue.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-04-2008, 11:53 AM
That is a possibility, however more likely it would be cited as a training issue which has more to do with the department than an individual officer. If it were considered a case of gross negligence on the officers part. I happen to work with a large department with a strong POA that would still probably represent the officer. I also have a hard time believing any officer (I know) would risk their job for such an issue.

That's where sending legal notice serves a purpose. If a department ignores legal notice and continues to arrest or detain people where no support in the law exists, Federal 1983 lawsuits will certainly make them take notice. A department has a duty to train their officers to the law...if they fail, they can be held liable in civil court.

homerm14
11-04-2008, 12:25 PM
That's where sending legal notice serves a purpose. If a department ignores legal notice and continues to arrest or detain people where no support in the law exists, Federal 1983 lawsuits will certainly make them take notice. A department has a duty to train their officers to the law...if they fail, they can be held liable in civil court.

Sure, why not. Wait for a questionable arrest, roll the dice and see what happens.

MudCamper
11-04-2008, 12:42 PM
Sure, why not. Wait for a questionable arrest, roll the dice and see what happens.

We're not "waiting for an arrest". Homer, I think I can speak for all Open Carriers when I say this. We do NOT want to get arrested, and we do NOT want to sue anyone. But unfortunately it may sometimes be necessary, as it is a citizen's only legal recourse against a false arrest, police negligence, and/or abuse of power.

homerm14
11-04-2008, 12:51 PM
We're not "waiting for an arrest". Homer, I think I can speak for all Open Carriers when I say this. We do NOT want to get arrested, and we do NOT want to sue anyone. But unfortunately it may sometimes be necessary, as it is a citizen's only legal recourse against a false arrest, police negligence, and/or abuse of power.

I'm sure most people do not want to be arrested. I'm not sure every is on the same page though. I may be incorrect, but some of what I have heard indicates some people my not be in agreement with you. I sometimes get the impression that some people have the I dare you stance. Thats all, and again I may be incorrect. i guess I'll just have to wait and see.

gcvt
11-11-2008, 11:35 PM
I was talking to a buddy of mine tonight. His girlfriend came home the other night and said she saw someone openly carrying a gun here in San Francisco...near downtown in a shopping center. Sounds like it was not a big deal, no one was freaking out, no police action that she saw, etc.

Neither of them know anything about guns so he was asking me about the legality of this and I explained it to him in great detail.

So.....which one of you was it?! :D

Liberty1
11-12-2008, 8:03 AM
...someone openly carrying a gun here in San Francisco...near downtown in a shopping center. Sounds like it was not a big deal, no one was freaking out, no police action...

So the usual non reactions to exposed carry continue. :)

How was the individual dressed? Business attire or shorts, t-shirt, and flip-flops and a dew-rag?

Chances are it wasn't one of us (yet) but rather a P.I., private security, detective with badge not displayed on belt (some wear ID cards on shirt - not usually though), bounty hunter, etc...

Here is an UOC episode in Alameda County by a visitor from Pennsylvania http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/8580.html (this was months ago)

So I had my first experience with California open carry today...suffice it to say I ended up in handcuffs. Unfortunately it was partially my fault.

I arrived into Oakland Airport and found out that the people I was meeting had their flight delayed. I had about 8 hours to kill so instead of sitting there at the airport like a lump I decided to check out San Fran.

I didnt want to lug my luggage around so I checked it into a little check in shop at the airport, holstered my sidearm unloaded and made my way to the BART airport shuttle. Unfortunately I discovered that it only takes exact change so without thinking I headed back into the airport to break a $20.

The Alameda Sherriff's dept. was there to greet me and had me in cuffs pretty quickly. The funny thing was that when they came up they asked if I had a firearm on me, I looked down to my hip and said Yes. The main LEO asked what I was doing and I told him that it was my understanding that Open carry was legal in the state of CA. To which he replied that i was dead wrong and that this wasnt Nevada, Arizona or Texas. I refrained from correcting him that Texas doesn not permit open carry.

Anyhow they take me back to their office and start asking some questions, main stuff, did i have ID, where I was from etc. I told them my id was in my pocket, they took it out ALONG with my pamphlet about Open Carry in CA that I printed from this site along with the 2 page flyer that someone else had posted from here. Now this, along with my choice of sidearm, impressed them. They looked over the pamphlet and we started shootin the breeze a bit, army talk, weapon selection etc.

Apparently carrying a concealed firearm is a misdemeanor but carrying a concealed butterfly knife is a felony. But I digress, they told me that I was correct that OC is legal in California though they said I would have problems trying to excercise that right in SF. Apparently when I walked back into the airport I committed a misdemeanor myself by not having my sidearm in my gun case (L1 - WRONG - THAT IS NOT A CRIME UNDER STATE PC) but they agreed that it was just a misunderstanding and didn't charge me with anything. They were so impressed by the pamphlet that they asked if they could borrow it to make copies(their copier was down at that moment) I said sure and they said it would be with my luggage when I returned.

All in all i think it was a enlightening experience all around. I learned to pay better attention to where I am going and the sherriffs learned something new about the legality of Open carry in California.

Prophet - Winning the hearts and minds of LEO's since 2008!

Great work on that pamphlet by the way.

gcvt
11-12-2008, 12:28 PM
According to what she told my friend, it was just a normal looking male in his mid-20's in casual clothing. Not a thug, not a businessman, not a security guard, etc. I gotta admit, I was pretty surprised when he told me about this....pleasantly surprised.

Manic Moran
11-12-2008, 9:49 PM
Here is an UOC episode in Alameda County by a visitor from Pennsylvania

<snip>

Apparently when I walked back into the airport I committed a misdemeanor myself by not having my sidearm in my gun case (L1 - WRONG - THAT IS NOT A CRIME UNDER STATE PC)

There is a slight error in that assessment. Though it is true that the State PC does not prohibit it, Oakland Airport is run by Port of Oakland, and though currently law enforcement operations are run by ACSO, they are in OPD's jurisdiction. Oakland Municipal Code makes carriage of a firearm a misdemeanor.

9.36.020 Carrying dangerous weapon.

It is unlawful for any person to carry upon his or her person or to have in his or her possession or under his or her control any dangerous weapon;

I returned to work at the airport a couple of months ago and chatted with a couple the deputies about OC. They don't recommend it, as it'll likely still result in a felony stop in the short term, but acknowledge the legality in the county.

NTM

Liberty1
11-12-2008, 10:35 PM
Oakland Municipal Code makes carriage of a firearm a misdemeanor.

? This section is not dealing with firearms.

Oakland Muni Code http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/oakland/

9.36.010 Dangerous weapon defined.

As used in this article, “dangerous weapon” means and includes, but is not limited to:
A. Any knife having a blade three inches or more in length, or any snap-blade or spring-blade knife regardless of the length of the blade;
B. Any ice pick or similar sharp stabbing tool;
C. Any straight edge razor or any razor blade fitted to a handle;
D. Any cutting, stabbing or bludgeoning weapon or device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm;
E. Any dirk or dagger or bludgeon. (Prior code 2 7.01)

9.36.020 Carrying dangerous weapon.

It is unlawful for any person to carry upon his or her person or to have in his or her possession or under his or her control any dangerous weapon; provided that it shall be a defense to any prosecution for a violation of this section if, at the time of the alleged violation, the instrument or device alleged to be a dangerous weapon was in good faith carried upon the person of the accused or was in good faith in his or her possession or control for use in his or her lawful occupation or employment or for the purpose of lawful recreation; and provided, further, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the commission of any act which is made a public offense by any law of this state. (Prior code 2 7.02)

And further down it then goes into Firearms:

Article II (kind of ironic) Firearms and Weapons Violence Prevention

9.36.050 Title.

This article shall be known as the firearms and weapons violence prevention ordinance. (Prior code 2 11.01)...

and none of the sections in "Firearms" deals with a possession prohibition (except for minors), just discharge and "small" hand gun sales prohibition etc....

Manic Moran
11-13-2008, 9:43 PM
I sit corrected. Let me have another gander.

Is it possible that Port of Oakland is a County-owned, not a City-owned enterprise? (Even though within Oakland limits) The County Code would cover it then.

NTM

Theseus
11-14-2008, 2:43 PM
Since there don't seem to be many OC'ers speaking up here I will as well.

I was detained and illegally searched by my local PD. I will not be suing them, but I will be communicating with them about the improper procedure and the illegality of their actions.

Now, having known that I made the complaint and that they have been informed, if I or anyone else in Alhambra are further illegally searched and our serials ran I will then suggest that the LEO knew the PC and chose to ignore it with intent and that they should and are recommended to sue.

I suggest a settlement would include a reasonable amount of budget be dedicated to training in regards to the appropriate PC and case law and a reasonable amount to compensate the lawyer.

As for why I OC? Because I can't trust anyone else to protect and defend my family and I don't intend to show up to such a fight without the proper tools. Although I would prefer LOC, I will take UOC wherever I can and suggest that with the right weapon, rig, and tactics I will be prepared to handle a situation. I won't be as prepared as if I were LOC, but prepared.

I also do it second to protection for the activism and education. I will never apply for a CCW, even if it was shall issue in CA UNLESS it didn't cost me any time or money and then I would still OC. Why? Because I believe it would be very uncomfortable to hide my 5" XD 40 in my pants and because you can't make a statement if people don't see the instrument used to make that statement.