Run In With the Redlands PD

[Legend_AB]

Hey everyone, how’s it going?

I’ve been lurking around the board for a while now and OCing whenever I go out with my friend who also OC’s. We always carry brochures, training memos, and a recorder.

We’ve been OCing without a problem until yesterday when we had a little run-in with the Redlands PD.

We were at my little sister’s soccer team carwash in the Carl’s Jr parking lot right by the drive through, so there were a lot of people driving by besides whoever was getting their car washed.

My friend’s an amateur photographer and he was taking pictures for the team so we were there for about 35 min without any problems. A few people noticed we were carrying, but the only ones who said anything were a couple of teenage boys asking us if we were cops, undercover, security or something. We told them no, explained why we carry and handed them some brochures.

We were standing around with my two sisters and another friend, trying to decide where to go for lunch when a RPD cruiser slowly pulls into the lot. The cruiser stops when the officer notices my exposed XD magazines. The officer gets out, walks towards us, and this is how it went:

Friend: How you doing?
RPD: You guys have guns?
Friend: Yes sir.
RPD: Are you cops?
Me/Friend: No.
RPD: Who are you?
Me/Friend: Citizens.
RPD: OK, well I need you to sit down while we talk and keep your hands In front of you. You don’t have ammo with you do you?
Me/Friend: They’re unloaded open carry.
RPD: So what’s your business here?
Friend: We just got car washes and our family member is part of the car wash.
RPD: Do you have ID and all that?
Me/Friend: Yeah we have ID.
RPD: One at a time, give me your ID’s.
Me: We’re not required to give you our ID’s.
Friend: California does not have a stop and identify clause.
RPD: I understand that.
Me: The only thing you’re allowed to do is check to make sure that our weapons are unloaded.
RPD: I’ll do that, my partner is coming up here. I understand that law completely, the problem that we have is that a citizen complained, you know, and I have to do an investigation and be able to say that I spoke to you.
Me/Friend: Sure.
RPD: It’s just a matter of being polite, if you could tell me who you are, just to make sure you’re legitimate.
ME/Friend: We’ll tell you our names.
RPD: you understand where I’m coming from?
Friend: It’s your job, not a problem at all.
RPD: I don’t have a problem with guns and people having guns personally, you know what I’m saying, I’m all for it.
Me: If you demand to inspect our weapons we’ll comply.
Friend: We’ll comply with that.
RPD: We’re gonna do that and I understand where you guys are coming from too, you know
Me: can I give you a flyer that I have in my back pocket?
RPD: Sure.
Me: This is a flyer with all the laws on it.
RPD: Can I keep these?
Me: Sure.
Friend: In fact I have a couple of police memos for you too so you can show them to everyone.
RPD: I’ve probably seen them.
Friend: Sure, but you can keep them anyway.
RPD: What’s this carwash about?
Me: To raise money for my sisters soccer team to go to Europe this summer.
RPD: Oh, nice.

(A little over 2 min go by while he waits for his partner and reads the brochures.)

RPD: What’s your name sir?
Me/Friend: We tell him our names.
RPD: What’s your birth date?
Me/Friend: We tell him our birthdates.
RPD: Have either of you been arrested for any reason?
Me/Friend: No.
RPD: No?
Me/Friend: No.

(After calling our names in.)

RPD: So what’s uh, you guys trying to make a point or what are you doing?
Friend: Just going about our lawful business, that’s about it.
RPD: You guys part of a movement or something?
Me: We have a right to be armed and we’re exercising that right. There are a lot of crazy people out there and we’d like to have some protection
RPD: You guys try to get permits?
Friend: That’s next to impossible here in Kalifornia
Me: I don’t have the extra money that it costs to apply, and if you don’t have “good cause” you’re pretty much guaranteed to be denied.
Friend: They make it very difficult to get a CCW so our only option is to OC.

(A second cruiser pulls up.)

RPD1: These gentlemen are armed, their holsters are not, their magazines are not in the guns, I haven’t inspected the guns yet. They have, you know, literature on why it’s their legal right to carry the guns, stuff like that. They refuse to present their ID’s; I’m running the names that they gave me to make sure they’re not felons here. They’re willing for us to check their guns and everything like that, you know, they explained to me they have a legal right to carry their guns and I explained to them that we understand that and that’s fine. So let’s check the guns to make sure they’re not stolen and we’ll go from there.
RPD2: Perfect.
RPD1: Stay where you are and I’m going to get the weapons.
Friend: Sure, it’s a retention holster so you have to push the button on the side.

(At this point RPD1 takes our weapons to his patrol car and starts to run the serial numbers.)

RPD2: Is this the first time the cops talk to you about this?
Me: Yes sir.
RPD2: Really? Well it is Redlands.
Friend: It’s not a problem that you guys stopped us, you guys are supposed to do that.
RPD2: Yeah, well it does say we can stop and check.
Me: Just so that you’re aware you can stop and check but you’re not allowed to run our serial numbers.
Friend: Only the time it takes to check that our weapons are unloaded.
Me: Unless we’re detained or arrested.
Friend: Matter of fact he’s only supposed to check that they are unloaded. And he’s already had them for too long. And we’ve been detained for too long as well.
Me: We’re not breaking any laws. Are we under arrest or…?
RPD2: No.
Me: Are we being detained?
RPD2: Right now? Well you can’t get up and move around or anything, because you might be able to get your ammunition and shoot at us.:rolleyes:
Friend: So we’re being detained. We’re going about our lawful business.
RPD2: You’re not under arrest or anything.
Me: Can we continue about our lawful business?
RPD2: Right now no. There are a few issues we have to deal with. The courts are going to side with that one I’m sure. Are you getting your car washed?
Friend: We have family that’s doing the car wash.
RPD2: Have you guys carried before? And no one’s called on you?
Friend: Nope.
Me: We’ve carried all around Redlands and nobody’s cared.
RPD2: People must think you guys are cops.
Friend: Yeah we get a lot of the “you must be authorized” mentality.
RPD2: When I worked plain clothed it was exactly that. I don’t think people cared. But I didn’t carry it openly like that.
Friend: Has your partner there verified our guns are unloaded cause he’s had them for quite awhile.
RPD2: Are you worried about that?
Friend: Yeah I would like my property back if I could.
RPD2: Well as long as they’re not stolen you’ll get them back.
Friend: Yeah but you guys technically aren’t allowed to check for that.
RPD2: Are you ready to leave.
Friend: Actually I’m ready to go about my lawful business.
RPD2: Have you guys ever been arrested for anything before?
Me/Friend: Nope.
Friend: As a matter of fact I think we should stop talking because we don’t need to answer any more questions.
Me: Yeah we’re being detained right now.
Friend: Yup.
RPD2: I think these guys want to call some attention to themselves so they can get more people for the car wash.(Jokingly)
Friend: I think bikini’s will do that…not this.

(At this point my sister asks the cops if they need a car wash LOL!)

(RPD2 tries to had back our fliers.)

Friend: Actually you guys can keep those if you want.
RPD2: Well you know this was just brought up in a training session last month.
Me: Your partner wanted to hang on to those.
Friend: Oh yeah he did want to hang on to a couple of them. And we got plenty of copies of those so. So we’ll give you guys a few and...
RPD2: Well thank you.
Friend: Yeah you guys are welcome.

(At this point the LEO’s talk amongst themselves and the recorder can’t pick it up. But I remember hearing them mention something about a lawsuit.)

Friend: Now they’re just wasting our time.
Sister: Do you guys need a car wash?
RPD2: Oh yeah I do.
Sister: Come on its only five dollars.
Friend: They’ll put you to the front of the line.
Sister: Yes we will.(LOL)

(RPD2 ignores her.)

Friend: Well I guess not.
Friend to Sisters: See at this point, girls they’re just wasting our time chit-chatting amongst themselves because they’ve got nothing on us. And so they’d rather just waste our time and talk.

(This is about 15 minutes from when the first LEO pulled up.)

(RPD2 starts making personal phone calls on his cell phone while we are being detained. And my friend and I talk amongst ourselves. This goes on for about four minutes until RPD1 walks back over to us with our guns.)

RPD1: I’m not going to hand these back to you guys so I’m going to put them down right here.

(RPD1 puts our guns on the grass behind us.)

Me/Friend: Thank you very much.
RPD1: No problem.

(At this point they walk back to their cruisers to leave and as they do we pick back up our guns and check them and holster them.)

RPD2: Good luck Gentlemen.
Me/Friend: thank you.

Total time was about 20 min that they held us.

After reviewing the tape I pretty much know what we did wrong and what to do next time but this was our first LEO encounter so we were kinda nervous.
But could you more experienced guys still point out what could have been done better for those that don’t know.
And sorry for the long post

Thanks guys.

“Carry On”

[lorax3]

Great read! You two did very well on citing the applied laws, asking if you are being detained etc. You were correct in asserting that the 12031(e) check took too long, although I am not sure what to do in that situation if an officer tells you not to move.



-lorax

[sfpcservice]

Since you guys didn't get locked up and it went about as well as it could (except for running the guns serial #'s), I would consider it training for both sides. You guys sound like you knew your rights and stuck to your guns :-) through the event. If the cops ran the serials again in a future encounter I might consider something like a letter to the C.O.P. explaining why running the serials is improper and escalate as needed in future events (legally I mean).

Take my advice with a grain of salt, I've never open carried, but I do have expierience in dealing with other rights. I'm sure some calguns veterans will be along shortly with better advice.

[Dr Rockso]

Just curious if you had your SN# taped up like some folks on here were discussing to preclude them becoming visible (and thus ostensibly fair game) in the process of the 12031(e) check.

[tankerman]

Thanks for sharing that event.

[saigon1965]

Welcome OP - Glad things didn't elevate for you guys - Becareful out there -

[savageevo]

Great read, Im glad everything turn out great. I am glad u stood your ground. It seems you did everything u are suppose to do. I am sure the people that know will comment on the subject of being detain and holding your firearms way too long.
thanks for posting

[pullnshoot25]

FARKING WIN! This is one of the best interactions yet! AWESOME! I am seriously ready to CRAP myself out of excitement!

[Sniper3142]

Well done.

Great job at detailing what happened.

[CitaDeL]

Good encounter.

I believe the officers have exceeded their authority by auditing the serial numbers and the duration by which a 12031 (e) check could be conducted. Its somewhat onerous that they didnt return your property in the same manner in which they found it. By delaying the return of your property, Im sure that you felt that you were not being permitted to leave.

I dont think this encounter was one where the officers were going to rub your noses in it- it was a first for both you and them. Im pleased that these officers had already been trained in what to expect. This is a very very good trend.

Well done.

[andrewj]

Well done, well done indeed

[pullnshoot25]

Good encounter.

I believe the officers have exceeded their authority by auditing the serial numbers and the duration by which a 12031 (e) check could be conducted. Its somewhat onerous that they didnt return your property in the same manner in which they found it. By delaying the return of your property, Im sure that you felt that you were not being permitted to leave.

I dont think this encounter was one where the officers were going to rub your noses in it- it was a first for both you and them. Im pleased that these officers had already been trained in what to expect. This is a very very good trend.

Well done.

Good thing they had training but unfortunately they still failed. Not as epic as others, but still a fail. Make sure you file a PRA request and make sure you file a complaint.

[ANDREWMENDEZ]

La County sheriff Got a huge memo on this situation.. Does anyone have copy? It actually seemed almost pro open carry!

[Liberty1]

You two did perfect and stacked the deck in your favor for a solid win! There will be a learning curve for the PD and these officers did fine considering it was likely their first experience with this.


Thanks for taking the time to study and NOT becoming a "Darwin arrestee";).


OC buddy and friendly witnesses, check

tape recorder, check

brochures, check

knew the laws and your rights and how to articulate them politely, check

Good show!

[kar6man]

great job man. not to hijack the thread or anything but what are the open carry laws other than being unloaded? I've gotten my CCW but nothing concerned with OC was covered in the class? Is it the same restrictions as to CCW, pertaining to alcohol, fedral and state facilities?

[tyrist]

Good thing they had training but unfortunately they still failed. Not as epic as others, but still a fail. Make sure you file a PRA request and make sure you file a complaint.

complaint for what?

Police are required to respond to radio calls..this was not an observational contact. The fact a radio call was generated changes the scope of the encounter.

[N6ATF]

Respond, yes, not overstep their authority as permitted by law.

[knuckled]

Awesome first post, keep up the good work :thumbsup:

[Liberty1]

The fact a radio call was generated changes the scope of the encounter.

I strongly disagree. Specific articulable info. describing an observed misdemeanor or suspected felony from a named RP who can be contacted MAY give officers RS/PC to detain and investigate al la a "Terry Investigation". We LEOs do have discretion and can choose to do nothing or just observe to develope our own PC to act if the circumstances warrant.

We'll need to see what "crime" was articulated in the call for service which the officers may have been investigating.

A 12031 "e" loaded check doesn't allow for a prolonged warrant-less fishing expedition for unarticulated crimes. A call for service absent RS/PC is NO PC to do anything. In this case Ca. law allows for a loaded check but no further action was appropriate from what was related by the OP.

[Ravenslair]

Great job. Our rights have been incrementally taken from us. It will take some time to get all those rights back and understood by all parties. Keep up the good work. You were professional and courteous.

[Liberty1]

great job man. not to hijack the thread or anything but what are the open carry laws other than being unloaded? I've gotten my CCW but nothing concerned with OC was covered in the class? Is it the same restrictions as to CCW, pertaining to alcohol, fedral and state facilities?

californiaopencarry.orghttp://californiaopencarry.org

Since you have your 12050 License to Carry, I would recommend doing a lot of research into the OC/CCW carry issues in Ca. One member, several years ago, had his license revoked because his sheriff didn't like OC even thought it's legal. Now he OCs more often.

[tyrist]

I strongly disagree. Specific articulable info. describing an observed misdemeanor or suspected felony from a named RP who can be contacted MAY give officers RS/PC to detain and investigate al la a "Terry Investigation".

We'll need to see what "crime" was articulated in the call for service which the officers may have been investigating.

A 12031 "e" loaded check doesn't allow for a prolonged warrant-less fishing expedition for unarticulated crimes. A call for service absent RS/PC is NO PC to do anything. In this case Ca. law allows for a loaded check but no further action was appropriate from what was related by the OP.

Firearms are an exception to the observed misdemeanor rule. There are other exceptions firearms are just one. You are free to disagree but the fact a radio call was generated changes everything.

[rtlltj]

Nice job. One step in the many that will hopefully one day secure our rights.

[Liberty1]

Firearms are an exception to the observed misdemeanor rule. There are other exceptions firearms are just one. You are free to disagree but the fact a radio call was generated changes everything.

In the case of "firearm" misdemeanors and if a crime is articulated by the RP then yes I agree. So what misdemeanor did the caller observe or suspect? We don't know yet and I suspect it was just a MWG call which is NO crime and only a loaded check is authorized by CA law (for now;))

I don't believe they were investigating any articulated suspected crime; I suspect they were fishing for felon in possession or stolen firearm absent normal RS/PC to detain.

[tyrist]

In the case of "firearm" misdemeanors and if a crime is articulated by the RP then yes I agree. So what misdemeanor did the caller observe or suspect? We don't know yet and I suspect it was just a MWG call which is NO crime and only a loaded check is authorized by CA law (for now;))

I don't believe they were investigating any articulated suspected crime; I suspect they were fishing for felon in possession or stolen firearm absent normal RS/PC to detain.

Numerous violations could have occured at a man with a gun call. It's assumed there was a crime since a radio call was generated therefore the nature of the encounter is a crimminal investigation rather than just a loaded check. For all we know the gun was loaded prior to PD arrival....the radio call issue changes the very nature.

[Legend_AB]

Wow, thanks for all the quick replies and comments guys,

I guess this was a good first post!

:cheers2:

[elsensei]

Numerous violations could have occured at a man with a gun call. It's assumed there was a crime since a radio call was generated therefore the nature of the encounter is a crimminal investigation rather than just a loaded check. For all we know the gun was loaded prior to PD arrival....the radio call issue changes the very nature.

I have a hard time believing this. So if I see you pushing a kid in a stroller, I can make a "MWB" (Man With Baby) call to the police and if dispatch deigns to radio officers to investigate, (instead of sending a telegram or carrier pigeon) then that changes the "very nature" of the encounter to a criminal investigation?

That's bull-puckey, boy!

For all we know, the kid was stolen from the hospital nursery. For all we know, you'd earlier been putting cigarettes out on the sole of kid's foot. For all we know, kid just wrapped his third child-porn starring role.

You just can't tell. We gotta assume there was a crime!

[hobard]

Just curious if you had your SN# taped up like some folks on here were discussing to preclude them becoming visible (and thus ostensibly fair game) in the process of the 12031(e) check.

You are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one. During a 12031(e) check, the serial number comes into plain view and the cop has every right to run the serial number. If you cover the serial number, you are guilty of 537e PC.

537e. (a) Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes
of, conceals, or has in his or her possession any personal property
from which the manufacturer's serial number, identification number,
electronic serial number, or any other distinguishing number or
identification mark has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or
destroyed, is guilty of a public offense, punishable as follows:

[battleship]

Great read, these open carry encounters always have me riveted, sadly i was never equipped with a big pair of balls, to even consider trying it myself.

[Dr Rockso]

You are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one. During a 12031(e) check, the serial number comes into plain view and the cop has every right to run the serial number. If you cover the serial number, you are guilty of 537e PC.
Hmm, strange that nobody seemed to bring that up in the other thread. I'm not a UOCer so I haven't really looked into it that much.

[Quiet]

Good job. :thumbsup:

[pullnshoot25]

You are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one. During a 12031(e) check, the serial number comes into plain view and the cop has every right to run the serial number. If you cover the serial number, you are guilty of 537e PC.

Unless that trumps Arizona vs. Hicks, then it doesn't seem to apply. If it were illegal to obscure/cover a serial number, then we could not use Hogue grips on S&W revolvers, sidesaddles on shotguns or lights on Glocks. Heck, even our HOLSTERS cover the serial numbers.

The terms used in that section refer to permanent alterations as far as I can see. Liberty1 can better articulate this than I can.

[MP301]

You are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one. During a 12031(e) check, the serial number comes into plain view and the cop has every right to run the serial number. If you cover the serial number, you are guilty of 537e PC.

I was going to call foul on your post because I thought that the seriel number had to be permenantly defaced or altered... Good thing I checked the facts before flaming you or I would have to eat my words! Whew, that was close!

537e. (a) Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes
of, conceals, or has in his or her possession any personal property
from which the manufacturer's serial number, identification number,
electronic serial number, or any other distinguishing number or
identification mark has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or
destroyed, is guilty of a public offense.

[nick]

No holsters then?

[lorax3]

Unless that trumps Arizona vs. Hicks, then it doesn't seem to apply. If it were illegal to obscure/cover a serial number, then we could not use Hogue grips on S&W revolvers, sidesaddles on shotguns or lights on Glocks. Heck, even our HOLSTERS cover the serial numbers.

The terms used in that section refer to permanent alterations as far as I can see. Liberty1 can better articulate this than I can.

Hmmm, interesting point. Although in Arizona v. Hicks the serial number was not "covered" as least intentionally anyway. For instance in Arizona vs. Hicks the serial number on said stereo was, in my opinion, in a proper location which the serial number although not visible, it wasn't "covered" per se.

That is to say, there was nothing out of the ordinary trying to cover the serial number(The stereo was against the wall in a proper fashion). Similar logic is seen with the holster, as a holster or grips for that matter isn't acting for the primary purpose of concealment of the serial number.

I am trying to distinguish the difference between something not being visible, and the intention of concealing it. (Does that even make sense?)

In the instance with tape over the serial on a gun, well the tape is only serving the purpose of concealing that number, unlike for any other general holster.

537e. (a) Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes
of, conceals, or has in his or her possession any personal property
from which the manufacturer's serial number, identification number,
electronic serial number, or any other distinguishing number or
identification mark has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or
destroyed, is guilty of a public offense.

If an LEO ran your gun by remembering the serial during a 12031(e) check, and found you were a felon, would that differ in court from what happeneded in this case where the LEO ran the serial during an "extended" 12031(e)?

Hmmm. Just some food for thought.........

-lorax

[Seesm]

I call BS on that law... well not BS persay but it is opne to interpretation for sure... Is it covered with a peiece of paper taped over it? Yeah with the holster be covering it? Yeah only until they get to look at it... Are you trying to cover it I think that is what the law says...if it is part of a grip or stock I suspect that can be pulled off to look... But WTF do I know yet? :/

Btw

Why would they NOT hand your guns back to YOU...Seems silly. And from everything I have read on the subject matter you did all of it right, what do you think you did wrong? Thanks btw I wish I had the balls to do this... I hope to get a CCW soon in my county so we will see. Great job guys!!

[WARMACHINE]

I call BS on that law... well not BS persay but it is opne to interpretation for sure... Is it covered with a peiece of paper taped over it? Yeah with the holster be covering it? Yeah only until they get to look at it... Are you trying to cover it I think that is what the law says...if it is part of a grip or stock I suspect that can be pulled off to look... But WTF do I know yet? :/

Btw

Why would they NOT hand your guns back to YOU...Seems silly. And from everything I have read on the subject matter you did all of it right, what do you think you did wrong? Thanks btw I wish I had the balls to do this... I hope to get a CCW soon in my county so we will see. Great job guys!!

I am the "friend" in Legend's post. Thanks everyone for the kudo's.
Since this was our first encounter with LEO's we were trying to reflect the attitude of the LEO's. If they were nice, we were nice. If they had attitude we had attitude. That is why half way through the ordeal we started to be a little more demanding asking if we were being detained and if we were free to leave. We may not have done anything "wrong", but we could have definately done things better. For example, we answered too many questions. LEO's ask questions to get you to incriminate yourself (this is not always true, but it all to often is). And we didn't give a definate NO to searches. We should have said that we don't consent to any search of any kind, but we understand that they may believe PC12031 (e) gives them the power to check that our weapons are unloaded. And under duress of arrest, if ordered to due so we will comply. (these lines are taken from I believe Ca_Libertarian, but the author can correct me if I am wrong.).
Again everyone thanks for everything.

"Carry On"

[Liberty1]

The terms used in that section refer to permanent alterations as far as I can see. Liberty1 can better articulate this than I can.

Never read that one before so no opinion at this time. I would like to read any case law about that section. It is for general property and not just firearms.

I'm not opposed to the serial number being run only because it creates a record which proves the detention happened. But the OCer should be clear that they don't consent to the encounter or any searches (on tape) and if the officer prolongs the detention for a records search (ID or Serial #) as opposed to memorizing the serial number (ha, good luck), I do believe that is a 4th A. violation.

[Liberty1]

For all we know the gun was loaded prior to PD arrival....the radio call issue changes the very nature [of the call for service].

Can you cite to case law?

In your scenarios you lack articulated suspicion of any crime which would allow a detention beyond 12031"e" (accepting for discussion sake that "e" doesn't already violate the 4th A).

From the CPOA attorney opinion (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/CPOA-Client-Alert-12042008.pdf)

Field personnel should be made aware of the current state of the law as set forth above and cautioned that this is not behavior warranting arrest, but that they are legally entitled under §12031(e) to demand inspection of any such firearms in order to ascertain that the weapon is unloaded. If the firearm is unloaded, it should be returned and the subject released to go about his/her lawful business.


The fact somebody called the police and a dispatcher typed into a computer and sent you the info doesn't even meet the requirements of a Terry investigative stop to detain absent articulated suspicion. If there is articulated info concerning a crime the RP cannot be anonymous. See case law below.

Com'on we get bogus calls all the time and in my area. The Hispanics call about every black they see walking down their street (race out of place). So because a radio call is generated I must detain and investigate because who knows they may have committed a crime? No, I either just drive by and clear the call "check ok" or if I stop I make it consensual and low key. If I independently develope RS/PC then I can exercise my powers.

We don't even know 1) if the RP was anonymous or not or 2) if ANY crime was described by the caller as mere possession of a peacefully carried open firearm is still NO crime out side of school zones or other prohibited areas in CA.

US Supreme Court: Anonymous Calls and Reasonable Suspicion Standard
http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/anonymous-tips.shtml

[nick]

537e. (a) Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes
of, conceals, or has in his or her possession any personal property
from which the manufacturer's serial number, identification number,
electronic serial number, or any other distinguishing number or
identification mark has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or
destroyed, is guilty of a public offense.


There has to be more to it. This basically says that if a service tag from one of my servers peeled off (as they do every now and then as the glue on them dries up), fell on the floor, and got swept by the janitors, me being in possession of this server is a crime? Or if my cat scratches off the tag with the serial number on my toaster oven (as it has almost accomplished, give it another coupleof weeks), I'm committing a crime, since that toaster oven belongs to me and it'll have a "removed or altered" (heck, it's already altered it has claw marks on it) soon?

Basically, what that particular law tells me is that my property, every piece of it hat has some sort of serial number on it, must be kept in trackable condition, and that I'm obligated to submit it for tracking?

I really hope there's more to it.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, a crime is committed every single time you format a floppy or a hard drive.

[pullnshoot25]

There has to be more to it. This basically says that if a service tag from one of my servers peeled off (as they do every now and then as the glue on them dries up), fell on the floor, and got swept by the janitors, me being in possession of this server is a crime? Or if my cat scratches off the tag with the serial number on my toaster oven (as it has almost accomplished, give it another coupleof weeks), I'm committing a crime, since that toaster oven belongs to me and it'll have a "removed or altered" (heck, it's already altered it has claw marks on it) soon?

Basically, what that particular law tells me is that my property, every piece of it hat has some sort of serial number on it, must be kept in trackable condition, and that I'm obligated to submit it for tracking?

I really hope there's more to it.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, a crime is committed every single time you format a floppy or a hard drive.

HAHAHAA, that's funny. Does your cat see it's reflection?

[Decoligny]

There has to be more to it. This basically says that if a service tag from one of my servers peeled off (as they do every now and then as the glue on them dries up), fell on the floor, and got swept by the janitors, me being in possession of this server is a crime? Or if my cat scratches off the tag with the serial number on my toaster oven (as it has almost accomplished, give it another coupleof weeks), I'm committing a crime, since that toaster oven belongs to me and it'll have a "removed or altered" (heck, it's already altered it has claw marks on it) soon?

Basically, what that particular law tells me is that my property, every piece of it hat has some sort of serial number on it, must be kept in trackable condition, and that I'm obligated to submit it for tracking?

I really hope there's more to it.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, a crime is committed every single time you format a floppy or a hard drive.

For purposes of this subdivision, "personal property" includes,
but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Any television, radio, recorder, phonograph, telephone, piano, or any other musical instrument or sound equipment.
(2) Any washing machine, sewing machine, vacuum cleaner, or other household appliance or furnishings.
(3) Any typewriter, adding machine, dictaphone, or any other office equipment or furnishings.
(4) Any computer, printed circuit, integrated chip or panel, or other part of a computer.
(5) Any tool or similar device, including any technical or scientific equipment.
(6) Any bicycle, exercise equipment, or any other entertainment or recreational equipment.
(7) Any electrical or mechanical equipment, contrivance, material, or piece of apparatus or equipment.
(8) Any clock, watch, watch case, or watch movement.
(9) Any vehicle or vessel, or any component part thereof.

I don't see firearm specifically addressed above. However, it could possibly be put into the category of (5) Any tool or similar device.

[Liberty1]

For purposes of this subdivision, "personal property" includes,
but is not limited to, the following:

(5) Any tool or similar device, including any technical or scientific equipment.


I don't see firearm specifically addressed above. However, it could possibly be put into the category of (5) Any tool or similar device.

Well then I declare it unconstitutionally vague (as far a firearms are concerned).

good catch big-D

[nick]

HAHAHAA, that's funny. Does your cat see it's reflection?

Nah, apparently, it's just trying to put me in jail. It's kinda sad when your cat knows the laws better than you do.

[nick]

For purposes of this subdivision, "personal property" includes,
but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Any television, radio, recorder, phonograph, telephone, piano, or any other musical instrument or sound equipment.
(2) Any washing machine, sewing machine, vacuum cleaner, or other household appliance or furnishings.
(3) Any typewriter, adding machine, dictaphone, or any other office equipment or furnishings.
(4) Any computer, printed circuit, integrated chip or panel, or other part of a computer.
(5) Any tool or similar device, including any technical or scientific equipment.
(6) Any bicycle, exercise equipment, or any other entertainment or recreational equipment.
(7) Any electrical or mechanical equipment, contrivance, material, or piece of apparatus or equipment.
(8) Any clock, watch, watch case, or watch movement.
(9) Any vehicle or vessel, or any component part thereof.

I don't see firearm specifically addressed above. However, it could possibly be put into the category of (5) Any tool or similar device.

I wasn't referring specifically to firearms. And well, this is screwed up. I was hoping there'd be an elaboration basically stating something like, "but let's not take it too far so it it doesn't get ridiculous". So there is, after all, an elaboration, which states, "let's specifically make it as ridiculous as possible".

[pullnshoot25]

Nah, apparently, it's just trying to put me in jail. It's kinda sad when your cat knows the laws better than you do.

"Must...incarcerate...master...

[Decoligny]

I wasn't referring specifically to firearms. And well, this is screwed up. I was hoping there'd be an elaboration basically stating something like, "but let's not take it too far so it it doesn't get ridiculous". So there is, after all, an elaboration, which states, "let's specifically make it as ridiculous as possible".

Should have probably responded to Lorax3 instead of your post. It was him who was trying to apply 573e to guns.

[1BigPea]

Great job guys, you handled it well. I'm sure each encounter you have, if anymore...will be refined a bit. Overall it seemed like a rather good learning experience.

Nice work. :thumbsup:

[razorx]

I don't see firearm specifically addressed above. However, it could possibly be put into the category of (5) Any tool or similar device.

"Not limited to", so no express need for categorization.

[razorx]

EDIT: Now that I think of it, a crime is committed every single time you format a floppy or a hard drive.

Still good, the referenced subsection strongly infers a singular "number" that uniquely identifies that item from the manufacturer, so formatting will not affect that(not all identifying information).

However, it does seem that I need to review all owned items and suitably clean the serial numbers... What if I scratch one in the meantime? This could get complicated since I will need to take apart my computers since there are serial numbers for each part. I think I should be done in about a week.

Or not.

[Liberty1]

Hmm, strange that nobody seemed to bring that up in the other thread. I'm not a UOCer so I haven't really looked into it that much.

It took a new guy to bring it up after all the Penal Code book is huge (and I don't read it in the bath tub on my off time dispite what some here believe:)).

[Liberty1]

La County sheriff Got a huge memo on this situation.. Does anyone have copy? It actually seemed almost pro open carry!

Californiaopencarry.org (http://Californiaopencarry.org) has it posted under memos.

[Flintlock Tom]

Legend and "friend",
Terrific job!
For those who have not had an open carry encounter yet, it never goes the way you anticipate.
All of the clever and articulate responses that you've rehearsed disappear from your mind as soon as the officer asks a question differently than what you expect.
You guys held it together and carried the banner admirably. I'm proud to be on the same team.

[Liberty1]

Legend and "friend",
Terrific job!
For those who have not had an open carry encounter yet, it never goes the way you anticipate.
All of the clever and articulate responses that you've rehearsed disappear from your mind as soon as the officer asks a question differently than what you expect.
You guys held it together and carried the banner admirably. I'm proud to be on the same team.

It's an aquired skill for sure. All the highfallutin talk of asking "am I detained" or "I don't consent" or "no I won't give my name or ID" usually goes out the window the first time. :D

[N6ATF]

Unless you wear a shirt with those statements and a little box printed next to each of them that you point to. LOL

[pullnshoot25]

Unless you wear a shirt with those statements and a little box printed next to each of them that you point to. LOL

Dude, that is a GREAT idea!

[WARMACHINE]

It's an aquired skill for sure. All the highfallutin talk of asking "am I detained" or "I don't consent" or "no I won't give my name or ID" usually goes out the window the first time. :D

Legend_AB and I discuss what to say as much as how to shoot. We talk about scenarios and how to react to them pretty much every time we UOC. So even though this was our first time being stopped, it kinda felt like nothing new :D

But it is a very nervous situation because you never know what kind of LEO your going to get. He could be very knowledgable or he could be downright stupid, he could be in a good mood or a horrible mood. You just never know. So it is very essential that those who are going to UOC practice.

[Legend_AB]

Legend and "friend",
Terrific job!
For those who have not had an open carry encounter yet, it never goes the way you anticipate.
All of the clever and articulate responses that you've rehearsed disappear from your mind as soon as the officer asks a question differently than what you expect.
You guys held it together and carried the banner admirably. I'm proud to be on the same team.

Thanks for the words of encouragement Flintlock Tom!
It certainly helped that my friend WARMACHINE was there and that there were at least 30 other people nearby.
It could have gone a lot different if I would have been completely alone.

On that note, if anybody lives near by or in my general area and wants to get together for coffee or lunch, let me know. Who knows, maybe we can get our own big meet going for this area.

[B Strong]

Sounds to me like RPD needs a little tune up.

[Liberty1]

Sounds to me like RPD needs a little tune up.

RPD actually did very well and there is just some ironing out that needs to be done of the differences between a normal lawful detention for suspicion of a crime (what most cops are used to) and a 12031 "e" loaded check (which some had never heard of before the UOC encounters started about 1 1/2 years ago) which is a loaded inspection only.

[A-Ron]

Sounds to me like RPD needs a little tune up.

I can't imagine any encounter with CA LEO going any better, I was impressed with the report on RPD officers. Not perfect, but pretty good. Do you have more positive results from personal experiences? I need to read up on the law and excercise my rights. LAPD would love that.

[ltspongebob]

Sounds to me like RPD needs a little tune up.

I live in Redlands, and I will have to say that the RPD is not as bad as others I have encountered. I grew up in a large LEO family, both Parents and Cousins are LEO's and know what the laws are. I have a CCW, but I completely agree with Open Carry. Sounds to me like the RPD was just checking things out. Sure it took a little long but it appears they were not aggressive about it and now when they see you again they most likely will not bother you again, even if someone calls.

The job of the LEO is to keep the peace and enforce the laws, for some people in KA, Open Carry is breaking the peace, so the RPD is simply looking after them and you.

Bravo to both parties, the more peaceful exchanges like that the better educated we will all become.

[mike_schwartz@mail.com]

When you open carry, why not just keep the action open? It seems like a good idea because it would show they are unloaded so the LEOs would not have to handle the firearm and it seems like with the slide back, it is quicker in case you do need to load a magazine.

Just a thought. Anyone have an insight?


-Michael

[nick]

Because it's more dangerous? Not to mention collecting all the dirt.

[inmyownsummerami]

When you open carry, why not just keep the action open? It seems like a good idea because it would show they are unloaded so the LEOs would not have to handle the firearm and it seems like with the slide back, it is quicker in case you do need to load a magazine.

Just a thought. Anyone have an insight?


-Michael

With the action open, everybody would know that the firearm was unloaded, even the people that you carry the firearm to protect your self from.

[CitaDeL]

Because it's more dangerous? Not to mention collecting all the dirt.

And it ceases to maintain the illusion for the general public and the 'bad guys' that the weapon is loaded.

[Quiet]

Sounds to me like RPD needs a little tune up.

Redlands PD has gotten better in last 6 years.

I know the Redlands PD 17 years ago, back when they were disgruntled "good'ole boys" looking for trouble, would have had them on the ground at gun point at the start of the encounter.

[Blennidae]

RPD1: I’m not going to hand these back to you guys so I’m going to put them down right here.

(RPD1 puts our guns on the grass behind us.)

Me/Friend: Thank you very much.


Very interesting read, but I'm curious as to why he wouldnt just hand them back to you?

[Liberty1]

Very interesting read, but I'm curious as to why he wouldnt just hand them back to you?

The "tension" was raised a little by that point if you re-read the OP and placing the firearms on the grass behind them was a not so friendly hint. Some might say it was for "officer" safety but I don't by that. The first officer contacted them solo and then waited for back up while making small chat.

[tyrist]

I have a hard time believing this. So if I see you pushing a kid in a stroller, I can make a "MWB" (Man With Baby) call to the police and if dispatch deigns to radio officers to investigate, (instead of sending a telegram or carrier pigeon) then that changes the "very nature" of the encounter to a criminal investigation?

That's bull-puckey, boy!

For all we know, the kid was stolen from the hospital nursery. For all we know, you'd earlier been putting cigarettes out on the sole of kid's foot. For all we know, kid just wrapped his third child-porn starring role.

You just can't tell. We gotta assume there was a crime!

Would not come out as a man with a baby....would come out as possible kidnap suspect..so yes investigation. Nobody is going to generate a radio call because a guy is walking his kids down the street. If a citizen makes a complaint then yes there is the assumption a crime has taken place.

[Meplat]

Because it's more dangerous? Not to mention collecting all the dirt.


Why would it be more dangerous?

:confused:

[Liberty1]

Why would it be more dangerous?

:confused:

Because then it's visibly unloaded as opposed to not so obviously UOC.

[N6ATF]

You know what happens when you assume. Especially when no actual crime or even anything approaching a description of a crime was reported by the citizen.

[Piper]

Just curious, how many LE here have seen criminals standing in public with unloaded firearms conspicuously holster and visible? My guess would be NONE! Which would be the exact same number I observed when I was a cop. But hmm, I guess it would seem that this is just too obvious to be possible. So, instead of just making the contact and doing the obligatory 12031(e) check like what should have been done, the cops had to make a statement and put the OP and his friend on the curb, which is a traditional position of advantage when detaining a suspect until it can be determined by the cops exactly what all they can be charged with.

As for placing the guns on the grass, that was not an officer safety measure, it was a statement saying "I don't like you carrying a gun, but I can't do anything about".

This will probably be viewed as another cop bashing post by me, but you know what? I couldn't care less.

[N6ATF]

Grassing them is one step above throwing them in a puddle of mud. Remove the grass, all you're left with is wet dirt after a rain, watering, or car wash.

[SJgunguy24]

I've thought about UOCing, I was thinking if the slide is locked back than there is no reason for the officer to take your gun for a "unloaded check".

Open mag well, slide locked back.............thats very unloaded.

[Flintlock Tom]

When you open carry, why not just keep the action open? It seems like a good idea because it would show they are unloaded so the LEOs would not have to handle the firearm and it seems like with the slide back, it is quicker in case you do need to load a magazine.

Just a thought. Anyone have an insight?


-Michael

Hi, Mike,
With a closed action the bad guy has to assume it's loaded. I also carry an empty mag in the mag well for the same reason.

Also, the slide locked back just looks funky.:innocent:

[GuyW]

Grassing them is one step above throwing them in a puddle of mud. Remove the grass, all you're left with is wet dirt after a rain, watering, or car wash.

Well, at least they didn't scratch them up by putting them on pavement or concrete...

It may take a while for some LE to become "comfortable" enuff to just hand the gun back to a UOCer?

.

[Flintlock Tom]

When the San Diego PD checked mine he took it out of my holster and put it back in the holster. Why couldn't these guys do the same?

[Liberty1]

When the San Diego PD checked mine he took it out of my holster and put it back in the holster. Why couldn't these guys do the same?

SD impressed me quite a bit with their restraint and understanding the limitations of 12031"e". But I think Pullnshoot25 helped a little in that department.

[N6ATF]

Well, at least they didn't scratch them up by putting them on pavement or concrete...
.

If I had to choose between a puddle of mud and hard ground, I'd go with hard ground. I'm not carrying around a safe queen and I don't want to have to field or detail strip and be fully disarmed to clean the gun out after the (e) check. Though I have to wonder if total citizen disarmament is what some cops would prefer, considering the length of unlawful detentions.

[pullnshoot25]

Hi, Mike,
With a closed action the bad guy has to assume it's loaded. I also carry an empty mag in the mag well for the same reason.

Also, the slide locked back just looks funky.:innocent:

Hurts too if you sit funny (Just what I've heard as I have no personal experience, I am a wheelgunner!)

[vrand]

I strongly disagree. Specific articulable info. describing an observed misdemeanor or suspected felony from a named RP who can be contacted MAY give officers RS/PC to detain and investigate al la a "Terry Investigation". We LEOs do have discretion and can choose to do nothing or just observe to develope our own PC to act if the circumstances warrant.

We'll need to see what "crime" was articulated in the call for service which the officers may have been investigating.

A 12031 "e" loaded check doesn't allow for a prolonged warrant-less fishing expedition for unarticulated crimes. A call for service absent RS/PC is NO PC to do anything. In this case Ca. law allows for a loaded check but no further action was appropriate from what was related by the OP.

yep

[Liberty1]

Though I have to wonder if total citizen disarmament is what some cops would prefer, considering the length of unlawful detentions.

Some might prefer that. But really I think it boils down to the fact that police have been told and trained that THEY are responsible for everyones safety and truly feel that weight of the world on them. Plus you have everyone thanking you and holding you up as a shining example of their hope for a crime free world (well in some communities anyway;)).

So an officer feels he needs to do everything possible to make sure all is right within his sphere of influence. And that includes asking questions and gathering as much info as possible (ID and Serial # checks included calls to supervisors or on call DAs to see if OCers can be arrested etc...).

SCOTUS has explained that the police have no responsibility (or LIABILITY for a failure) to act to protect any individual. They are general deterrents and nothing more legally is required. This is not understood generally in LEA circles.

Once this is understood, I think many more will be willing to accept private persons possessing tools for self defense. It also doesn't help that CA is so isolated from the experiences of other states in regard to the non issue of OC and CC by non LEOs and the resulting reductions in violent crimes generally.

Once an agency gets slapped down by a USC 42 section 1983 suit for a 4th A. violation related to lawful gun carry or a 2nd A violation after incorporation, we'll begin to see more real changes in how things are handled.

[NuGunner]

you do know that within that time that they check the weapon if they can see the serial number it falls under plain sight. In that sense they're allowed to run it. They can't take the gun apart to get to it if lets say it's hidden by the slide, but if it's pretty much exposed . . . So lets say they check it's unloaded, make a mental note of the serial number and they decide to run it, it's fair game.

[Legend_AB]

you do know that within that time that they check the weapon if they can see the serial number it falls under plain sight. In that sense they're allowed to run it. They can't take the gun apart to get to it if lets say it's hidden by the slide, but if it's pretty much exposed . . . So lets say they check it's unloaded, make a mental note of the serial number and they decide to run it, it's fair game.

But they can't detain you for the sole purpose of running the SN.
When RPD was detaining us they seemed more interested in running the SN's of the guns than checking to see if they were unloaded.

[ke6guj]

It may take a while for some LE to become "comfortable" enuff to just hand the gun back to a UOCer?

.
Well, even in shall-issue states, there are many stories about CCW'ers pulled over and disarmed duing the traffic stop. At the end of the stop, options of return that have been mentioned have included the officer putting the gun and mag in the trunk or on the roof of the car, and instructing the CCW'er to wait until the officer left before retrieving the firearm. Sometimes it has been mentioned that the officer actually removed all the bullets from the magazine first and handed them back to the CCW'er. And on at least one occasion, I recall someone saying that the officer had kept the bullets (yes, it should be considered stealing).

[N6ATF]

But really I think it boils down to the fact that police have been told and trained that THEY are responsible for everyones safety and truly feel that weight of the world on them.

...

So an officer feels he needs to do everything possible to make sure all is right within his sphere of influence. And that includes asking questions and gathering as much info as possible (ID and Serial # checks included calls to supervisors or on call DAs to see if OCers can be arrested etc...)

If the weight is so unbearable that they feel the need to exceed the scope of their authority as permitted by law by leaps and bounds, they need to tender their resignations.

Otherwise the oath they swore means absolutely nothing.

[Liberty1]

If the weight is so unbearable that they feel the need to exceed the scope of their authority as permitted by law by leaps and bounds, they need to tender their resignations.

Otherwise the oath they swore means absolutely nothing.

I wouldn't say the "weight" is unbearable what I'm saying is that the perceived responsibility allows some to justify their aggression and extra legal activities for the "public good". I'm in no way condoning it just attempting to poorly articulate what might be some reasons for this attitude.

And Oaths should be readministered monthly IMO

[N6ATF]

Heh, I'd go one step further. You used to have to pledge allegiance to the flag every day in school...

[Liberty1]

I, Liberty1, do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God!

[USN CHIEF]

Great post. Seriously, it had me glued to the monitor. You and your friend did outstanding.

[Legend_AB]

Great post. Seriously, it had me glued to the monitor. You and your friend did outstanding.

Thanks USN CHIEF, I'm glad we were able to keep it together and score a win for OCing.:cool2:

[1BigPea]

But they can't detain you for the sole purpose of running the SN.
When RPD was detaining us they seemed more interested in running the SN's of the guns than checking to see if they were unloaded.

Quick question, not sure if you already mentioned it but I didn't see it in the thread. Did the RPD know you had a personal recorder and were recording the whole thing or did they not know?

Again, nice job guys.

[rrr70]

Great job guys!!!!!!!!!!:thumbsup:
I would love to UOC, but living in SF, people will faint on a streets if they see somebody walking around OCing. And 911 will overheat.

[Doggboy]

Great job guys!!!!!!!!!!:thumbsup:
I would love to UOC, but living in SF, people will faint on a streets if they see somebody walking around OCing. And 911 will overheat.


Just paint it pink, or rainbow and I will bet no one says a thing!! I'm kidding...but not really.

[WARMACHINE]

Quick question, not sure if you already mentioned it but I didn't see it in the thread. Did the RPD know you had a personal recorder and were recording the whole thing or did they not know?

Again, nice job guys.

Up till the point they took our guns they did not know. The recorder was in my pocket.

but once they had taken our guns I removed it from my pocket and set it on my lap, so I'm sure they saw it at that point.

[hvengel]

...
Friend: Actually you guys can keep those (edit for clarity- referring to UOC literature) if you want.
RPD2: Well you know this was just brought up in a training session last month.
...


This was interesting and I am some what surprised that no one else mentioned it here. These LE officers appear to have had at least some UOC training recently which indicates that the various memos about this are seeing fairly wide circulation. This is a good thing.

...
(At this point the LEO’s talk amongst themselves and the recorder can’t pick it up. But I remember hearing them mention something about a lawsuit.)
...


At least one of the LE UOC memos talks about lawsuits and I think this is the reason that UOC training is happening. The various LE units are afraid of lawsuits particularly at a time when their budgets are constrained. I also think that the OP and friend having UOC literature made LE even more lawsuit phobic during this encounter. This is also good but I would rather that they were following the rules because they respected our rights rather than because they are afraid of lawsuits. But having them stay in line because they are afraid of lawsuits is almost as good.

[ProlificARProspect]

Bravo good job, on both parties involved, LE and the OP. Carry on.

[Python2]

When you open carry, why not just keep the action open? It seems like a good idea because it would show they are unloaded so the LEOs would not have to handle the firearm and it seems like with the slide back, it is quicker in case you do need to load a magazine.

Just a thought. Anyone have an insight?


-Michael
You will look ridiculous walking around like that:D .....and how are you going to carry it in a holster with retention strap over it:confused:

[Liberty1]

You will look ridiculous walking around like that:D .....and how are you going to carry it in a holster with retention strap over it:confused:

That method works will in a Serpa (if you really want to have the slide locked back and I think one or two did at San Diego beach meet-up).

[pullnshoot25]

That method works will in a Serpa (if you really want to have the slide locked back and I think one or two did at San Diego beach meet-up).

I would recommend having the slide back in the group gatherings, not during normal day-to-day outings.

Fark, I really need to buy my brothers BHP. But then, that means I have to get a holster, magazines, feed yet ANOTHER gun... Oh hell, who am I kidding?

[bg]

I live not far from Redlands and grew up in Redlands. This just
made my day to NO extent. I would of given anything to watch
this. If you've never been to Redlands or I should say have
lived there then this post is meaningless. However those cops
were more than likely were pi**ed off seriously once they got
together thinking some citizens were exercising their rights
in THEIR little town. Thanks for some great laughs & I
mean it..:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[N6ATF]

That method works will in a Serpa (if you really want to have the slide locked back and I think one or two did at San Diego beach meet-up).

Serpa, Fobus, pretty much any open-top plastic holster.

[Decoligny]

And Oaths should be readministered monthly IMO

That is a sad commentary on the state of the world.

I took my first oath in 1982, and had to take it again every four years when I re-enlisted.

I thought it totally unnecessary as the validity of the oath that I swore the first time never wore off.

I was willing to lay down my life for the oath I swore, and my word was good enough the first time to last a lifetime.

[N6ATF]

Well, more of a commentary of the state of western culture, which is absent seppuku. Short of being in battle, westerners rarely ever choose death over dishonor.

[Quiet]

I live not far from Redlands and grew up in Redlands. This just
made my day to NO extent. I would of given anything to watch
this. If you've never been to Redlands or I should say have
lived there then this post is meaningless. However those cops
were more than likely pi**ed off seriously once they got
together thinking some citizens were exercising their rights
in THEIR little town. Thanks for some great laughs & I
mean it..:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I know what you mean.
I remember back in the late80s, when they called out their little "SWAT team" (which has been disbanded) to respond to a jaywalking incident that went into a verbal arguement with the LEO writing the jaywalking ticket.
I also remember when they went to a "tactical alert" calling up all their LEOs (in full riot gear) for an anti-war protest (1st Gulf War) at the high school. The LEOs couldn't wait to pound some teenagers with their shiny, never used riot equipment. I think they finally rolled out their mobile tactical command center for that.

But, in the defense of the Redlands PD, they have gotten much better in the last 5-6 years. When a new police chief came in and enacted some reforms forcing out some of the old timers and requiring mandatory college degrees for employment.

[Legend_AB]

I know what you mean.
I remember back in the late80s, when they called out their little "SWAT team" (which has been disbanded) to respond to a jaywalking incident that went into a verbal arguement with the LEO writing the jaywalking ticket.
I also remember when they went to a "tactical alert" calling up all their LEOs (in full riot gear) for an anti-war protest (1st Gulf War) at the high school. The LEOs couldn't wait to pound some teenagers with their shiny, never used riot equipment. I think they finally rolled out their mobile tactical command center for that.

But, in the defense of the Redlands PD, they have gotten much better in the last 5-6 years. When a new police chief came in and enacted some reforms forcing out some of the old timers and requiring mandatory college degrees for employment.

Ha! Yeah, I see that mobile command center every Thursday when they have the market night going on. It looks like an old converted school bus or something.

[spsellars]

(I'm sure I'll be called out for making a dupe, but I couldn't find it.)

So which CGer helped with this?

The guns hooked on their hips are a symbol of freedom and constitutional rights for some. To others, they represent a conundrum cloaked in fear and the unknown.

A national "Open Carry Movement" has landed in Redlands, bringing local attention to those who openly carry a firearm to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Other law enforcement officials in San Bernardino County say they are unaware of their officers encountering open carriers, but some are passing out pamphlets and briefing the rank-and-file members on how to handle them.

State law allows adults who are not prohibited by law to visibly carry an unloaded gun in public places, excluding school zones, government buildings, state and national parks and secured areas like airports.

Police are permitted only to ensure the weapon is not loaded. They cannot run the gun's serial number, ask for the carrier's identification or detain them.


There are no statistics about how many citizens openly carry weapons, but their reasons range from self-defense to getting the public accustomed to seeing guns on people other than cops and criminals.

"It becomes a message, not of intimidation, but that we're here and we have rights," said Mike Stollenwerk, a gun-rights activist and co-founder of Opencarry.org.

"People shouldn't treat people carrying guns openly any different than you would treat a person carrying their cell phone on a belt."

Law enforcement officials vehemently disagree, arguing that open carriers pose a potential danger and nuisance to police and could frighten residents.

"They are creating an environment that is exceeding dangerous for them, the officers and innocent bystanders," said Redlands Police Chief Jim Bueermann.

"I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Not only is it dangerous to carry a gun in this day and age, but that they would attempt to goad the officers into behavior that would then allow them to sue or put them in a position where someone could get hurt."

Yet, a 2006 FBI report finds that would-be cop killers "show signs of being armed that officers miss" and do not regularly use holsters, which is in direct contrast to the rules of open carry.

Gun-rights activists and at least one constitutional law expert said it is usually better if citizens openly carry their guns, although it may initially disturb Californians.

"Seeing people with firearms has an effect of terrorizing the community in some way," said UCLA School of Law professor Adam Winkler. "I don't think it necessarily should. There are plenty of people with guns that you can't see."

It's not just guns that open carriers have on hand.

They often keep a recorder and pamphlets explaining gun laws with them at all times, which is strongly encouraged by various open carry Web sites.

That was the case in a March 7 encounter in Redlands, which started when a passer-by called police to report seeing two men with guns in a Carl's Jr. parking lot.

An officer responded to the scene, where both men were hanging out at a fundraiser car wash for a local youth soccer team. Both men were in their mid-20s and had .40 caliber handguns slung on their hips in holsters, said city spokesman Carl Baker.

After the open carriers explained that they are carrying unloaded guns, they gave their names and birthdates to the officer.

Here's an excerpt from the exchange, which was recorded:

RPD: So what's uh, you guys trying to make a point or what are you doing?

Carrier 1: Just going about our lawful business, that's about it.

RPD: You guys part of a movement or something?

Carrier 2: We have a right to be armed and we're exercising that right. There are a lot of crazy people out there and we'd like to have some protection.

"Often we think about carrying firearms as a means of self defense but 'open carry' in California is really more about political protest," said Winkler.

It's unclear whether the Redlands officer was aware that he was being recorded during the exchange.

When the open carriers from the Redlands encounter ask how they did on the Californiaopencarry.org forum, some recommend filing a complaint because the officer allegedly detained them for 20 minutes while checking the serial numbers on the gun. They also suggested not sharing the recording with the Police Department.

No complaint had been filed by late Friday.

Stollenwerk said run-ins like that could possibly prompt lawsuits against police, who he said are only entitled to "say, 'Hey, I need to check your gun and make sure it's not loaded.'"

He acknowledged that open carriers usually record encounters with law enforcement as a "precaution."

After hearing that Redlands police had come across open carriers, watch commanders in several cities patrolled by the Sheriff's Department said they would again brief deputies on open carry laws.

Fontana police officials said they haven't yet seen open carriers, but they hope they don't because it could mean an increase in calls for service.

"If you start carrying a weapon around in the open, we're going to get called on it," said Fontana police Sgt. Jeff Decker. "And we don't have the option not to investigate."

Open carry is banned in six states: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina and New York.

Eleven states allow 'total carry,' which means residents can carry a loaded weapon in public.

But California's gun laws are still among the strictest, law experts say, and it's very difficult to get a concealed weapons permit.

Legislation passed on July 28, 1967, that Californians could not carry a loaded weapon in public, even openly. It was prompted after a group of Black Panthers led a protest march into the California Legislature fully armed in May 1967.

"I call it fraudulent 'open carry' because you can carry your gun but it can't be loaded. The whole purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet," Winkler said.

Source (http://www.insidesocal.com/news247/2009/03/local-views-clash-on-carrying.html)

[saigon1965]

Not a dupe - But those are members here - They told their story last week IIRC - Glad it made news -

[spsellars]

Not a dupe - But those are members here - They told their story last week IIRC - Glad it made news -

I remember the interaction being posted here, but couldn't remember the CGer that posted it.

I found it interesting that the writer included the "cannot run the serial number" verbiage (which I agree with), as it seems to run contrary to what the LA UOC memo stated IIRC.

[saigon1965]

I am trying to find that post -

[saigon1965]

Found it -

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161066&highlight=uoc+san+bernardino+car+wash

[spsellars]

Found it -

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161066&highlight=uoc+san+bernardino+car+wash

Thanks. Looks like he's on, hopefully he'll pop in and let us know if he helped with the story. (Just wondering if my local papers are watching the site, or if this was requested.)

[saigon1965]

You should pm and ask a mod to merge this with the original thread -

[N6ATF]

The original thread? 161066?

[saigon1965]

Another thread was merged with this one - spsselars started with his post of the news article above -

The original thread? 161066?

[spsellars]

The original thread? 161066?

This is after the merge. (Merging dragged the original over here in OT.) The OP found the article and posted about it in 2A.

[N6ATF]

Boo! This isn't OT! LOL

[Legend_AB]

I didn't realize this was posted already, but I only looked in the 2A forum.

I didn't request this article or help with it, just ran across it while at OCDO.

[532Fastback]

So what did you guys think you did wrong?

[bg]

Hey just an update..You've made the local news and see what
the Redlands Police Chief has to say about it. I've seen this
guy. He's about as anti as it gets. He grew up in Redlands.

For the orig poster, you might want a to get some things
straight with the Sun regarding what they've posted...>

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/local/Los_Angeles/San_Bernardino_Sun/SIG=11q6kv3uj/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbsun.com%2Fci_11913496%3Fsourc e%3Drss
Law enforcement officials vehemently disagree, arguing that open carriers pose a potential danger and
nuisance to police and could frighten residents.

"They are creating an environment that is exceeding dangerous for them, the officers and innocent bystanders," said Redlands Police Chief Jim Bueermann.

"I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Not only is it dangerous to carry a gun in this day and age, but that they would attempt to goad the officers into behavior that would then allow them to sue or put them in a position where someone could get hurt."
Now wait a minute..if the weapon is unloaded as it req by
law in order to exercise the right to open carry, how is someone
going to get hurt ? From what I've read here, "goading" is now
the term for exercising a right ?

[CSACANNONEER]

"I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Not only is it dangerous to carry a gun in this day and age."

I completely agree with him. HE should not be allowed to carry a gun in this day and age! To think that some law abiding citizens who are doing nothing illegally could have their rights violated by his department is just insane! No LEO would ever doing anything illegal just because he/she doesn't like what the citizen is doing or has not been properly trained by their department.

[CitaDeL]

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/local/Los_Angeles/San_Bernardino_Sun/SIG=11q6kv3uj/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbsun.com%2Fci_11913496%3Fsourc e%3Drss



http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_11913496

Comments section is open here.

[spectr17]

RPD's last claim to fame was the cougar on the loose a a year or two back. They ended up blasting some old biddie's fat house cat in the brush. Splattered Miss Muffums all over the hillside. :D

Our police chief is an idjit as evidenced by his comments about the car wash incident.

[Gunaria]

RPD's last claim to fame was the cougar on the loose a a year or two back. They ended up blasting some old biddie's fat house cat in the brush. Splattered Miss Muffums all over the hillside. :D

Our police chief is an idjit as evidenced by his comments about the car wash incident.

I remember that. After that didn't they get some brand new flash lights so that this would happen again?

[N6ATF]

Our police chief is an idjit as evidenced by his comments about the car wash incident.

Traitors who have utter contempt for the Constitution like this guy are not idiots. Some of them pretend to be in hopes that if they are ever prosecuted, their idiot act will get them off.

[bombadillo]

I am just being lazy, but did the OP by chance have a pdf or a copy of the Open carry flyer or anything regarding paperwork to LEO's around so that I can give some to the sheriffs office locally because they don't know what the deal is with open carry here.

[Gunaria]

I am just being lazy, but did the OP by chance have a pdf or a copy of the Open carry flyer or anything regarding paperwork to LEO's around so that I can give some to the sheriffs office locally because they don't know what the deal is with open carry here.

Yep, read the first post in this thread.

[bombadillo]

Awwww, FAIL! ......wait a minute, there's nothing there in the first post. YOU LIE

[saigon1965]

What are you talking about - It clearly was stated in the op regarding phamphlet -

[Decoligny]

Awwww, FAIL! ......wait a minute, there's nothing there in the first post. YOU LIE

CUT AND PASTE FROM FIRST POST:

Me: can I give you a flyer that I have in my back pocket?
RPD: Sure.
Me: This is a flyer with all the laws on it.
RPD: Can I keep these?
Me: Sure.
Friend: In fact I have a couple of police memos for you too so you can show them to everyone.
RPD: I’ve probably seen them.
Friend: Sure, but you can keep them anyway.

[bombadillo]

Gotcha, guess I should clarify that I was looking for one on PDF that could be linked here so that I could give our local PD and SO. I wasn't asking if he had one, I did read the entire thing, just didn't want to read 11 pages of banter to see whether he had posted a link to it or a copy of it here.

[Decoligny]

Gotcha, guess I should clarify that I was looking for one on PDF that could be linked here so that I could give our local PD and SO. I wasn't asking if he had one, I did read the entire thing, just didn't want to read 11 pages of banter to see whether he had posted a link to it or a copy of it here.

Well, then look on my sig line.

[ZRX61]

RPD's last claim to fame was the cougar on the loose a a year or two back. They ended up blasting some old biddie's fat house cat in the brush. Splattered Miss Muffums all over the hillside. :D
PMSL!

[bombadillo]

Well, then look on my sig line.

Shoot, I had my settings turned off to where sigs didn't come into the screen. It usually takes less time to load a page that way. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. :thumbsup:

[aileron]

More open carry news... I cant find the thread about this that was up not too long ago. But nice to see.

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_11913496


Local views clash on carrying guns in public
Stacia Glenn, Staff Writer
Posted: 03/14/2009 08:09:52 AM PDT

The guns hooked on their hips are a symbol of freedom and constitutional rights for some. To others, they represent a conundrum cloaked in fear and the unknown.

A national "Open Carry Movement" has landed in Redlands, bringing local attention to those who openly carry a firearm to exercise their second amendment rights.

Other law enforcement officials in San Bernardino County say they are unaware of their officers encountering open carriers, but some are passing out pamphlets and briefing the rank-and-file members on how to handle them.

State law allows adults who are not prohibited by law to visibly carry an unloaded gun in public places, excluding school zones, government buildings, state and national parks and secured areas like airports.

Police are permitted only to ensure the weapon is not loaded. They cannot run the gun's serial number, ask for the carrier's identification or detain them.

There are no statistics about how many citizens openly carry weapons, but their reasons range from self-defense to getting the public accustomed to seeing guns on people other than cops and criminals.

"It becomes a message, not of intimidation, but that we're here and we have rights," said Mike Stollenwerk, a gun rights activist and co-founder of Opencarry.org.

"People shouldn't treat people carrying guns openly any different than you would treat a person carrying their cell phone on a belt."

Law enforcement officials
Advertisement
vehemently disagree, arguing that open carriers pose a potential danger and nuisance to police and could frighten residents.

"They are creating an environment that is exceeding dangerous for them, the officers and innocent bystanders," said Redlands Police Chief Jim Bueermann.

"I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Not only is it dangerous to carry a gun in this day and age, but that they would attempt to goad the officers into behavior that would then allow them to sue or put them in a position where someone could get hurt."

Yet, a 2006 FBI report finds that would-be cop killers "show signs of being armed that officers miss" and do not regularly use holsters, which is in direct contrast to the rules of open carry.

Gun rights activists and at least one constitutional law expert said it is usually better if citizens openly carry their guns, although it may initially disturb Californians.

"Seeing people with firearms has an effect of terrorizing the community in some way," said UCLA School of Law professor Adam Winkler. "I don't think it necessary should. There are plenty of people with guns that you can't see."

It's not just guns that open carriers have on hand.

They often keep a recorder and pamphlets explaining gun laws with them at all times, which is strongly encouraged by various open carry Web sites.

That was the case in the March 7 encounter in Redlands, which started when a passer-by called police to report seeing two men with guns in a Carl's Jr. parking lot.

An officer responded to the scene, where both men were hanging out at a fundraiser car wash for a local youth soccer team. Both men were in their mid-20s and had .40 caliber handguns slung on their hips in holsters, said city spokesman Carl Baker.

After the open carriers explained that they are carrying unloaded guns, they gave their names and birthdates to the officer.

Here's an excerpt from the exchange, which was recorded:

RPD: So what's uh, you guys trying to make a point or what are you doing?

Carrier 1: Just going about our lawful business, that's about it.

RPD: You guys part of a movement or something?

Carrier 2: We have a right to be armed and we're exercising that right. There are a lot of crazy people out there and we'd like to have some protection.

"Often we think about carrying firearms as a means of self defense but `open carry' in California is really more about political protest," said Winkler.

It's unclear whether the Redlands' officer was aware that he was being recorded during the exchange.

When the open carriers from the Redlands encounter ask how they did on the Californiaopencarry.org forum, some recommend filing a complaint because the officer allegedly detained them for 20 minutes while checking the serial numbers on the gun. They also suggested not sharing the recording with the Police Department.

No complaint had been filed by late Friday.

Stollenwerk said run-ins like that could possibly prompt lawsuits against police, who he said are only entitled to "say `Hey, I need to check your gun and make sure it's not loaded."'

He acknowledged that open carriers usually record encounters with law enforcement as a "precaution."

After hearing that Redlands police had come across open carriers, watch commanders in several cities patrolled by the Sheriff's Department said they would again brief deputies on open carry laws.

Fontana police officials said they haven't yet seen open carriers, but they hope that they don't because it could mean an increase in calls for service.

"If you start carrying a weapon around in the open, we're going to get called on it," said Fontana police Sgt. Jeff Decker. "And we don't have the option not to investigate."

Open carry is banned in six states: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina and New York.

Eleven states allow `total carry,' which means residents can carry a loaded weapon in public.

But California's gun laws are still among the strictest, law experts say, and it's very difficult to get a concealed weapons permit.

Legislation passed on July 28, 1967 that Californians could not carry a loaded weapon in public, even openly. It was prompted after a group of Black Panthers led a protest march into the California Legislature fully armed in May 1967.

"I call it fraudulent `open carry' because you can carry your gun but it can't be loaded. The whole purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet," Winkler said.

Metro editor George Watson contributed to this report.

[indetrucks]

Interesting read

[fairfaxjim]

"It becomes a message, not of intimidation, but that we're here and we have rights," said Mike Stollenwerk, a gun rights activist and co-founder of Opencarry.org.

Law enforcement officials vehemently disagree, arguing that open carriers pose a potential danger and nuisance to police and could frighten residents.

"They are creating an environment that is exceeding dangerous for them, the officers and innocent bystanders," said Redlands Police Chief Jim Bueermann.

"I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Not only is it dangerous to carry a gun in this day and age, but that they would attempt to goad the officers into behavior that would then allow them to sue or put them in a position where someone could get hurt."

That folks is the basic problem ANY person in lawful posession of a firearm faces today! The majority of LE, particularly Chiefs, Admin, and commnd staff hold the view that civilians SHOULD NOT HAVE FIREARMS and now only pay lip service, and then only when necessary to any rights and laws that permit it. Their training for LEO's reflect and include this view. You will not normally get a respectful lawful response from LE when you have a firearm and they know about it. You are as bad or worse than a gang banger to them. Beware! Any contact with LE while in posession of a firearm, ANY, has a great potential to go badly.

[rabagley]

Any contact with LE while in posession of a firearm, ANY, has a great potential to go badly.

Fixed that for ya. Not that I avoid LEO's as friends and acquaintances, but the only LEO's I trust when they are working in an official capacity are the LEO's I already know.

Too many impossible to avoid laws, too much room for capricious interpretation, too risky by far. I don't open carry because I choose to minimize my encounters with any police. I wave at motorcycle cops from my motorcycle and that's pretty much it.

[1064chubbs]

:iagree:

[Barbarossa]

They are creating an environment that is exceeding dangerous for them, the officers and innocent bystanders," said Redlands Police Chief Jim Bueermann.

"I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Not only is it dangerous to carry a gun in this day and age, but that they would attempt to goad the officers into behavior that would then allow them to sue or put them in a position where someone could get hurt."

So where do we write to Police Chief Jim Bueermann?

My interpretation of this is that he feels, the second amendment to the constitution is outdated, and that he disapproves or people exercising their rights.

[MudCamper]

This article is much more pro-gun than the last one, or I suppose, the writer is.

[yellowfin]

They conveniently leave out the fact that UOC is simply a result of lack of accessible CC.

[Hopi]

Fontana police officials said they haven't yet seen open carriers, but they hope that they don't because it could mean an increase in calls for service.

"If you start carrying a weapon around in the open, we're going to get called on it," said Fontana police Sgt. Jeff Decker. "And we don't have the option not to investigate."

The investigation should end with the phone call report, simply "what crime is being committed?" should clear up any confusion.....

[andrewj]

Texas can't open carry?!?!

ETA:

This is my 500th post!!
Im a senior member now! Yay me!
:hurray::party::jump:

[bulgron]

Texas can't open carry?!?!

No, but they're trying very hard to change that.

[thatrogue]

Texas has very easily attainable CHL concealed handgun lic.

[yellowfin]

Texas has very easily attainable CHL concealed handgun lic.Not too "easy." You have to take a class you pay for and the license is around $140. Compared to a lot of places here sure it's considerably better, but it's not $40 and same day either. Of course, like most states it's shall issue.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

They conveniently leave out the fact that UOC is simply a result of lack of accessible CC.

I was going to say that it would have been nice if the writer of the article would have made mention that if CA would relax the CCW standard to good cause being self protection then the whole OC thing could go away in suburban areas.

[hoffmang]

What a strange position for Adam Winkler to take. He's usually quite anti-gun or am I confusing him with someone else?

Makes me wonder if he thinks UOC is good for his side...

-Gene

[7x57]

I was going to say that it would have been nice if the writer of the article would have made mention that if CA would relax the CCW standard to good cause being self protection then the whole OC thing could go away in suburban areas.

Well, is it clear that this is true? Some of our OC'ers *prefer* OC (loaded, of course). My suspicion is that after we win the shall-issue battle, and I hope we do, many people will be ready to fight for OC rights either because they wish to OC or as a "gun culture" initiative.

Mind, I'm not objecting to that, because I think legal LOC has good effects even for those who will never OC (for one thing, it eliminates several avenues of official harassment). But we shouldn't be saying things we don't expect to be true. It's the other side that makes "compromises" that are only a set-up for the next shot. We're better than they are.

7x57

[dfletcher]

"They are creating an environment that is exceeding dangerous for them, the officers and innocent bystanders," said Redlands Police Chief Jim Bueermann.

"I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Not only is it dangerous to carry a gun in this day and age, but that they would attempt to goad the officers into behavior that would then allow them to sue or put them in a position where someone could get hurt."

Nice to see that some LE's point of view hasn't changed much since the mid 60's. :no: So far as the Chief is concerned, it's still the fault of the fellows asserting their rights, not the fault of the authorities attempting to restrict those rights.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Well, is it clear that this is true? Some of our OC'ers *prefer* OC (loaded, of course). My suspicion is that after we win the shall-issue battle, and I hope we do, many people will be ready to fight for OC rights either because they wish to OC or as a "gun culture" initiative.

Mind, I'm not objecting to that, because I think legal LOC has good effects even for those who will never OC (for one thing, it eliminates several avenues of official harassment). But we shouldn't be saying things we don't expect to be true. It's the other side that makes "compromises" that are only a set-up for the next shot. We're better than they are.

7x57


I hear what you are saying. I think for clarities sake, let me express that my point more directly would be that more OC'rs would be likely to not carry open in suburban and city areas if they could CCW easily in those places, reserving OC for those areas where CCW is not the better option. Either way, it would be a wonderful result if CA would go shall issue for CCW and allow OC to go about freely as well. LOC? I don't see that being something CA will ever do. JMHO.

[N6ATF]

:dupe: http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2168799&postcount=109

[7x57]

I hear what you are saying. I think for clarities sake, let me express that my point more directly would be that more OC'rs would be likely to not carry open in suburban and city areas if they could CCW easily in those places, reserving OC for those areas where CCW is not the better option.


I agree, but now there's no point in telling that to non-gunnies because the message will be to just fight all attempts to liberalize carry.

As far as I'm concerned the rule is OC for speed and access for four-legged critters that can't change their behavior if they see your gun and CC for two-legged ones that will. But legal OC would ensure that I can't be harassed for not taking off my gun before I reached the invisible urban line, for exposing my concealed sidearm, for walking a gun from my house to my garage, and plenty of other oppressive things.

Besides, I don't *object* to OC. I hope you all will OC and draw fire while I decide to either surprise the attacker or get myself far away. OC'ers--taking the bullets on behalf of all of us. :D


Either way, it would be a wonderful result if CA would go shall issue for CCW and allow OC to go about freely as well. LOC? I don't see that being something CA will ever do. JMHO.

Then pay attention to Gene's arguments that if we go after CC first we may be able to get OC, but if we go after OC first we may never get CC in California.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned UOC is an activism move, and only exists in California so far as I know because of the precise nature of California law. For any other purpose if I can't carry loaded then my right to bear has been denied. For that matter, I don't believe the government is legally permitted opinions on how I should carry or to second-guess my decisions. If there is an incident the state can attempt to prove me negligent in court, but unless there is a concrete problem I don't believe it has the legal option to tell me how I carry.

And don't be too sure we can't get LOC in California. If a federal court agrees that we have an enforcable right to bear arms, then California has no choices in the matter. We *know* bearing meant loaded carry, because UOC with flintlocks is possibly the stupidest idea ever short of painting actual target circles all over your body.

7x57

[Riodog]

"because UOC with flintlocks is possibly the stupidest idea ever short of painting actual target circles all over your body."

Did you ever stop and think that UOC with any firearm is exactly what you just stated is the stupidest idea. You are making yourself a target for any banger or punk that wants a weapon at the moment. Unless you are carrying a large frame revolver with a 12 inch barrel that could be used as a club he'd just slice and dice you while you're poking your plastic playtoy at him going bang, bang, bang.
Rio

[N6ATF]

But legal OC would ensure that I can't be harassed for not taking off my gun before I reached the invisible urban line, for exposing my concealed sidearm, for walking a gun from my house to my garage, and plenty of other oppressive things.

Don't forget, you can be harassed by getting charged for disorderly conduct in your own yard (http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/39722082.html).

I fully expect the Wisconsin anti-Constitutional handbook to be adopted in CA just as the CA handgun roster was in DC.

Until we start revoking birthright citizenships and permanently banishing traitors, if not more punitive measures, they will continue to print the Constitution on toilet paper inbetween writing law after law after law we have to challenge. Because after all, it's not their money they are spending to defend their laws, it's ours.

[7x57]

"because UOC with flintlocks is possibly the stupidest idea ever short of painting actual target circles all over your body."

Did you ever stop and think that UOC with any firearm is exactly what you just stated is the stupidest idea.

While I agree with the general sentiment, technically it's not quite true. There are plenty of times when one has some warning that there is trouble--say, you're walking alone down a street and you see several punks step out ahead of you. Often there is plenty of time to draw and insert a mag. Or, as someone else said, you run away from the guy with the bat while loading. That's cold comfort if you are in a situation where that isn't true, it does offer an option you would otherwise not have. Whether it's a fair trade for being a bullet magnet is something that only an individual can decide. But if being a bullet magnet were the *only* consideration, then OC of any type would be pointless, loaded or not.

By contrast, there are very few situations where you'd be justified in loading your flintlock that it would be more than an ergonomically unsound club. But most important is to savor the mental picture of someone trying to emergency load a muzzleloader.

7x57

[GuyW]

"They are creating an environment that is exceeding dangerous for them, the officers and innocent bystanders," said Redlands Police Chief Jim Bueermann.

"I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Not only is it dangerous to carry a gun in this day and age, but that they would attempt to goad the officers into behavior that would then allow them to sue or put them in a position where someone could get hurt."

Nice to see that some LE's point of view hasn't changed much since the mid 60's. :no: So far as the Chief is concerned, it's still the fault of the fellows asserting their rights, not the fault of the authorities attempting to restrict those rights.


"An attorney for the police department says that civil rights marches in Selma AL are dangerous to the public, the people participating and to officers. Police think the group is trying to provoke officers and Klansmen. If this continues, there may be some unfortunate @$$-whippin' goin' on..."

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=163924&page=3

[Piper]

Law enforcement officials vehemently disagree, arguing that open carriers pose a potential danger and nuisance to police and could frighten residents.

"They are creating an environment that is exceeding dangerous for them, the officers and innocent bystanders," said Redlands Police Chief Jim Bueermann.

"I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Not only is it dangerous to carry a gun in this day and age, but that they would attempt to goad the officers into behavior that would then allow them to sue or put them in a position where someone could get hurt."



RPD: So what's uh, you guys trying to make a point or what are you doing?

Carrier 1: Just going about our lawful business, that's about it.

RPD: You guys part of a movement or something?

Carrier 2: We have a right to be armed and we're exercising that right. There are a lot of crazy people out there and we'd like to have some protection.




After hearing that Redlands police had come across open carriers, watch commanders in several cities patrolled by the Sheriff's Department said they would again brief deputies on open carry laws.

Fontana police officials said they haven't yet seen open carriers, but they hope that they don't because it could mean an increase in calls for service.

"If you start carrying a weapon around in the open, we're going to get called on it," said Fontana police Sgt. Jeff Decker. "And we don't have the option not to investigate."

So maybe I'm missing something here, but what part of these statements surprises you?

[Got Stuff?]

complaint for what?

Police are required to respond to radio calls..this was not an observational contact. The fact a radio call was generated changes the scope of the encounter.

+1.

Someone calling 911 with a report of a man with a gun is going to get some attention! I would consider 20 minutes reasonable to clear things up. Suspicious things get investigated no matter if it's a man with gun or possible drunk driving.

All in all, I think it went pretty well.

[eaglemike]

Any chance of someone asking the Chief if he and the department are personally willing to guarantee the safety of all people in the jurisdiction??


BTW, I'm willing to bet a $500 donation to CGF the reporter doesn't know about the court decisionns regarding this....

all the best,
Mike

[Got Stuff?]

With the action open, everybody would know that the firearm was unloaded, even the people that you carry the firearm to protect your self from.

As far as UOC goes, open carry in a manner that conceals or disguises the fact that the firearm is unloaded doesn't strike me as a wise decision.

UOC is what it is. If you are worried that people might notice that the gun is in fact unloaded then you shouldn't be UOC at all IMHO.

[GuyW]

Any chance of someone asking the Chief if he and the department are personally willing to guarantee the safety of all people in the jurisdiction??


BTW, I'm willing to bet a $500 donation to CGF the reporter doesn't know about the court decisions regarding this....

all the best,
Mike

Or CA Government Code section 845:

"Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to ... provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service”

.

[Piper]

complaint for what?

Police are required to respond to radio calls..this was not an observational contact. The fact a radio call was generated changes the scope of the encounter.

Required to respond, yes. Spend 20+ minutes treating a law abiding person as a felon, NEGATIVE! And then placing their firearms on the ground instead of handing the unloaded firearms back to him, FAIL! Of course it's no wonder that the subordinates of a hoplophobic C O P, acted like that. From the C O P's statements, I'm surprised they weren't proned out before they were approached.

[eaglemike]

Or CA Government Code section 845:

"Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to ... provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service”

.
Right - that and the court decisions. IMHO a logical and substantial reason for CCW. The problem as I see it - the general populace doesn't know about this acutal condition..... They are still attempting to rely on the government (it's employees and representatives) for protection. I'd be willing to risk some $$ that the reporter doesn't have this knowldege of the above code and related court decisions. I'd even be VERY surprised if the CLEO would acknowedge this to the reporter.

all the best,
Mike

[DDT]

I hear what you are saying. I think for clarities sake, let me express that my point more directly would be that more OC'rs would be likely to not carry open in suburban and city areas if they could CCW easily in those places, reserving OC for those areas where CCW is not the better option. Either way, it would be a wonderful result if CA would go shall issue for CCW and allow OC to go about freely as well. LOC? I don't see that being something CA will ever do. JMHO.

When do you see UOC a better option that Loaded CCW?

[Mulay El Raisuli]

What a strange position for Adam Winkler to take. He's usually quite anti-gun or am I confusing him with someone else?

Makes me wonder if he thinks UOC is good for his side...

-Gene


No, you have the right guy in mind. But it isn't UOC that's regarded as good for his side, its incorporation. There was another thread about this (my apologies, I can't recall which one exactly) pointing out where the ACLU types are jumping on our bandwagon. At least a little bit. The expressed theory is that now that the 2A has finally had the Big Question answered, there's no longer any value in fighting the FULL application of the Bill of Rights via the Privileges & Immunities route. I'm (no doubt) going to garble this a bit, but I hope I can say enough for you to find the thread.

As I understood the thread, the ACLU didn't want the full application (via P&I) of the BoR because that would, of course, allow guns to proliferate. They knew the value of P&I, but were willing to let that slide in order to keep guns from getting Const. protections. Now that that hope is gone, they're going to push hard for for P&I because it helps them achieve their other goals.

So, oddly, we're about to have the ACLU on our side. Not directly (of course), & not because they accept us (OF COURSE!!!), but because they know that a principle that applies to any part of the Constitution applies to ALL parts of the Constitution. Should make the next few years VERY interesting.

The Raisuli

[JDay]

Numerous violations could have occured at a man with a gun call. It's assumed there was a crime since a radio call was generated therefore the nature of the encounter is a crimminal investigation rather than just a loaded check. For all we know the gun was loaded prior to PD arrival....the radio call issue changes the very nature.

Think about it this way, you pull over a vehicle for speeding and spot a box of sudafed on the passengers seat. For all you know the driver is on the way back to his/her methlab to cook up some dope to sell to kids? Same reasoning here.

[Untamed1972]

As I've stated in other threads it would be interesting to know/hear from LEOs in states where open carry is legal and perhaps a little more common. Do they get alot of man with gun calls? If so, dothey respond to everyone? Or are the dispatchers trained to ask more questions as to whether it is a man with a gun doing something suspicious, or a man with a holstered pistol just walking down the street or doing his grocery shopping?