PDA

View Full Version : Are there documented cases of cops pulling guns on UOC folk?


1JimMarch
05-30-2009, 12:34 AM
I'd like to know if there are any such incidents, esp. where it can be proven from police reports, video or the like.

If so, I would think this would help break down the argument that UOC's existence means that Cali is obeying the dictate in Heller that at least some form of arms-bearing must be legal.

This is of course assuming incorporation and Nordyke survives.

JDay
05-30-2009, 12:40 AM
I believe there is a memo going around one department instructing officers to treat every UOC call as a felony stop.

MrClamperSir
05-30-2009, 12:54 AM
I believe there is a memo going around one department instructing officers to treat every UOC call as a felony stop.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/San-Diego-PD-TB-08-05-California-Open-Carry-Dec-2008.pdf

IV. TACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Officer safety is paramount and takes precedence over the apprehension of any subject. Good
judgment is the key to making a successful field contact with an “Open Carry” subject. If
possible, officers should assess the situation from a distance prior to making contact with the
subject. Isolating the subject is the optimal circumstance for contact. If necessary, officers
should request other units to assist. Contact and cover is the standard protocol for contacting
subjects in the field and should be employed in this circumstance as well. The contact officer
should give clear directions to the subject and advise the subject that they are going to inspect
his/her firearm to determine if it is loaded. The contact officer should tell the subject to put
his/her hands up above their head (away from the weapon) and to not move. The officers will
communicate which officer will retrieve the weapon from the subject. The subject’s actions and
behavior before and during the contact will determine the appropriate response by the officers.
Officers may opt to make a “low-key” contact or conduct a high risk pedestrian hot stop.
Officers should take into consideration bystanders, surroundings, location of contact and the
subject’s companions. Officers should continue their vigilance and assess if a greater or lesser
response is required.

Sorry about that I fixed the link.

Kid Stanislaus
05-30-2009, 6:06 AM
In other words the officer has the option of making a simple stop and check as allowed by they law or creating a full blown crisis, depending on how well he's currently getting along with his wife!!

ENTHUSIAST
05-30-2009, 6:23 AM
I think elsensei got guns pulled on him in Mission Beach (San Diego)...

I am sure PullNShoot will be by soon enough to clarify... that is the only one I can remember though.

RomanDad
05-30-2009, 7:57 AM
I'd like to know if there are any such incidents, esp. where it can be proven from police reports, video or the like.

If so, I would think this would help break down the argument that UOC's existence means that Cali is obeying the dictate in Heller that at least some form of arms-bearing must be legal.

This is of course assuming incorporation and Nordyke survives.But Heller went further than that.... Heller also required functionality.... The Court struck down the law that required that the gun be stored UNLOADED and LOCKED, as that made its use for self defense in the home impossible. (the lock took three seconds to defeat, and the Court recognized that as too long- no mention was made of how long it took to LOAD the gun after it was unlocked).

I would argue that in public, time is even MORE of an essence as there is no warning like breaking glass or a pounding door to let you know you are about to be a victim of crime, and an unloaded gun might as well be locked away. At home you have a few moments to, as Justice Roberts said, " turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses.... [you go unlock your gun... You load it...]" No such warning is available in public. One second you're walking down a street, the next you're being assaulted. You certainly dont have time to try to load a revolver under such conditions.


The Court reiterated that laws that require SAFE STORAGE to prevent accidents were LAWFUL, but that doesnt even seem to be an issue in public carry. Its not like a five year old is going to find your IWB while you are in line at mcdonalds, take it from you without your knowledge and harm himself or others with it.

1JimMarch
05-30-2009, 9:25 AM
The correct URL is:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/San-Diego-PD-TB-08-05-California-Open-Carry-Dec-2008.pdf

I had to use google search to find it.

That aside, yeah, this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for.

Y'all see the implications?

Again: ASSUMING incorporation survives, in brief terms here's the "logic chain" involved:

1) Heller says we have a right to bear arms. It also says concealed carry can be limited or even eliminated, but ONLY if open carry is illegal. See also the favorable citations to the footnote #9 cases, all six (or is it seven?) of which say that in plain language. It also defined "bear arms" as "having a gun readily available for self defense".

2) Exactly what the boundaries are on concealed carry "limitations" are unclear. This "discretionary" crap is due for a challenge, but it's not 100% a sure thing. (Damned close though.)

3) Meanwhile we have "open carry". California says "unloaded" and I'm told at least one state appellate court has said "that's good enough to cover Heller's mandate" (BS as RomanDad points out). BUT if that means we have to run risks to our lives due to cops pulling guns on us, that's a damned peculiar way to exercise a "personal civil right". NOTE: this issue applies whether we're talking loaded or unloaded open carry!!!

In other words, we end up with an argument that concealed carry puts us less at risk of getting shot by a cop. And a "training memo" like this one is absolutely perfect ammo for that argument.

If anybody can document what actually happened to Elsensei, that's be cool...

TatankaGap
05-30-2009, 9:47 AM
I believe there is a memo going around one department instructing officers to treat every UOC call as a felony stop.

I do not believe that such is true - there is no memo instructing police to treat EVERY UOC call as a felony stop. NO FUD.

TatankaGap
05-30-2009, 9:52 AM
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/car...y-Dec-2008.pdf


IV. TACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Officer safety is paramount and takes precedence over the apprehension of any subject. Good
judgment is the key to making a successful field contact with an “Open Carry” subject. If
possible, officers should assess the situation from a distance prior to making contact with the
subject. Isolating the subject is the optimal circumstance for contact. If necessary, officers
should request other units to assist. Contact and cover is the standard protocol for contacting
subjects in the field and should be employed in this circumstance as well. The contact officer
should give clear directions to the subject and advise the subject that they are going to inspect
his/her firearm to determine if it is loaded. The contact officer should tell the subject to put
his/her hands up above their head (away from the weapon) and to not move. The officers will
communicate which officer will retrieve the weapon from the subject. The subject’s actions and
behavior before and during the contact will determine the appropriate response by the officers.
Officers may opt to make a “low-key” contact or conduct a high risk pedestrian hot stop.
Officers should take into consideration bystanders, surroundings, location of contact and the
subject’s companions. Officers should continue their vigilance and assess if a greater or lesser
response is required.
__________________


All this says is what is currently true - that cops on the street have the discretion to treat a person UOC as either low-key or high risk depending on the person's conduct -

It says to apply the standard protocol unless the subject's conduct indicates otherwise -

There is nothing new in this - this is not some kind of EVIL MEMO that requires police to pull guns on UOCers or harass them -

But if you think you're going to go around UOC and not be subject to these protocols and if you act crazy or angry or don't respect the instructions of the police on the scene, you're going to get a hot pedestrian or even a 'felony' stop - who would expect anything else?

If you are properly presented, clear, articulate and cooperative in the (e) check, then there are no grounds for the police to intensify the situation -

jasilva
05-30-2009, 10:07 AM
All this says is what is currently true - that cops on the street have the discretion to treat a person UOC as either low-key or high risk depending on the person's conduct -

It says to apply the standard protocol unless the subject's conduct indicates otherwise -

There is nothing new in this - this is not some kind of EVIL MEMO that requires police to pull guns on UOCers or harass them -

But if you think you're going to go around UOC and not be subject to these protocols and if you act crazy or angry or don't respect the instructions of the police on the scene, you're going to get a hot pedestrian or even a 'felony' stop - who would expect anything else?

If you are properly presented, clear, articulate and cooperative in the (e) check, then there are no grounds for the police to intensify the situation -


I would expect something else. I expect that in a post Heller and Nordyke world the police will respect the 2a and leave me alone if I'm not committing a crime and NO, carrying a gun is not a crime we just have to get the courts to beat it into the thick heads of politicians and police who think they have some special intelligence that allows them to over ride the 2a.

RomanDad
05-30-2009, 10:16 AM
The correct URL is:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/San-Diego-PD-TB-08-05-California-Open-Carry-Dec-2008.pdf

I had to use google search to find it.

That aside, yeah, this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for.

Y'all see the implications?

Again: ASSUMING incorporation survives, in brief terms here's the "logic chain" involved:

1) Heller says we have a right to bear arms. It also says concealed carry can be limited or even eliminated, but ONLY if open carry is illegal. See also the favorable citations to the footnote #9 cases, all six (or is it seven?) of which say that in plain language. It also defined "bear arms" as "having a gun readily available for self defense".

2) Exactly what the boundaries are on concealed carry "limitations" are unclear. This "discretionary" crap is due for a challenge, but it's not 100% a sure thing. (Damned close though.)

3) Meanwhile we have "open carry". California says "unloaded" and I'm told at least one state appellate court has said "that's good enough to cover Heller's mandate" (BS as RomanDad points out). BUT if that means we have to run risks to our lives due to cops pulling guns on us, that's a damned peculiar way to exercise a "personal civil right". NOTE: this issue applies whether we're talking loaded or unloaded open carry!!!

In other words, we end up with an argument that concealed carry puts us less at risk of getting shot by a cop. And a "training memo" like this one is absolutely perfect ammo for that argument.

If anybody can document what actually happened to Elsensei, that's be cool...

One thing that we have to keep in mind is: The Court had before it a series of cases from the 1800s and early 1900s that specifically said CONCEALED carry was illegal. They used those cases to show that in those same states some other form of carry was legal and thus COMPLETE BANS are unlawful... So they tossed in the dicta that "BANS on the CONCEALED carry of firearms" are allowable- because that's what the previous case law said, .... Remember, nobody argued PUBLIC CARRY in Heller. However, when and if such a case does come before the Court, its clear that the 19th century bans on Concealed carry in preference for open carry are no longer applicable culturally. They are from a day and age when OPEN carry was not only accepted, in some places it was NORMAL. Concealed carry was the practice of criminals and the unscrupulous....

Now that has changed. The OPEN carry of firearms brings all sorts of added societal problems (i.e. calls to the police for 415, people getting scared and overreacting, etc.) that CONCEALED carry (which is now the NORMAL carry for people not in uniform- Plain Clothes police, Off duty police, and citizens in most of the states do it daily with no ill effect) dont present.

Also keep in mind. In all but TWO of those states that allow for the concealment of firearms, CONCEALED CARRY (without license) IS IN FACT BANNED, but in most of them there is an exception to that ban which is administered in a CONSTITUTIONALLY ACCEPTABLE manner (shall issue except for felons, the mentally ill, etc.) So Im not at all sure that when the Court says that "Bans on the concealed carry of firearms are Constitutional" that that means that a state can BAN the concealed carry of the firearm, and then allow SOME people to do it while preventing others from the same, based solely on subjective, and often arbitrary or capricious criteria.

California of course bans the BEARING of firearms publicly in ALL manners (open and concealed). I would characterize what we are allowed with unloaded carry as the mere allowance of "Transport" of firearms as they are not functional in that state... The ONLY exception to this ban is 12050 which allows for the licensing of both concealed AND open carrying of LOADED firearms, yet we all know the history of how that law has been applied to ordinary citizens.

AEC1
05-30-2009, 10:29 AM
If you are properly presented, clear, articulate and cooperative in the (e) check, then there are no grounds for the police to intensify the situation -

So what you are saying that as long as you fit the mold you wont have your rights attacked? does this mean I cant excercise two rights at one time? For instance I could not wear a pro Medical Marijuana shirt or anti Obama t-shirt and baggy pants? What if I wanted to attend a Tea bag rally. I am not free to excercise two rights at the same time. I can have freedom of speach, or right to bear arms but not both? I say put on gang banger clothes and carry a boom box playing DMX or whatever is new and cool.

This goes right back to the racist start of gun control, keep guns from poor blacks, well dressed white guys who talk nice get to excercise their rights!!!

BTW I am a white male in the military...

Roadrunner
05-30-2009, 10:45 AM
All this says is what is currently true - that cops on the street have the discretion to treat a person UOC as either low-key or high risk depending on the person's conduct -

It says to apply the standard protocol unless the subject's conduct indicates otherwise -

There is nothing new in this - this is not some kind of EVIL MEMO that requires police to pull guns on UOCers or harass them -

But if you think you're going to go around UOC and not be subject to these protocols and if you act crazy or angry or don't respect the instructions of the police on the scene, you're going to get a hot pedestrian or even a 'felony' stop - who would expect anything else?

If you are properly presented, clear, articulate and cooperative in the (e) check, then there are no grounds for the police to intensify the situation -

I think your point of view is the kind of mindset that got us to where we are today. Every gun law that is on the books and every procedure that has been ramrodded and made law or precedent has been done so under the cloak of "safety", whether it claims for the good of the public or the safety of police.

I think that it is prudent that police should be vigilant when dealing with a person, but just the same, I believe the law uses the term "reasonable and prudent" as a gauge to measure how a person responds to a given situation. Should we exempt police from from what is reasonable and prudent?

For a moment, lets revisit this memo that reads:

IV. TACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Officer safety is paramount (no argument there) and takes precedence over the apprehension of any subject. Good judgment is the key to making a successful field contact with an “Open Carry” subject. If possible, officers should assess the situation from a distance prior to making contact with the subject (why?). Isolating the subject is the optimal circumstance for contact (why?). If necessary, officers should request other units to assist (why and how many is considered enough?). Contact and cover is the standard protocol for contacting subjects in the field and should be employed in this circumstance as well (why? Do they always approach anyone who is conducting themselves in a lawful manner, like that?). The contact officer should give clear directions to the subject and advise the subject that they are going to inspect his/her firearm to determine if it is loaded. The contact officer should tell the subject to put his/her hands up above their head (away from the weapon) and to not move. The officers will communicate which officer will retrieve the weapon from the subject. The subject’s actions and behavior before and during the contact will determine the appropriate response by the officers. Officers may opt to make a “low-key” contact or conduct a high risk pedestrian hot stop.
Officers should take into consideration bystanders, surroundings, location of contact and the subject’s companions. Officers should continue their vigilance and assess if a greater or lesser response is required.

I won't go on with the questions, because the memo smacks of an obvious attempt to discourage open carry or be subject to treatment normally reserved for apprehending criminals.

bodger
05-30-2009, 10:57 AM
I think your point of view is the kind of mindset that got us to where we are today. Every gun law that is on the books and every procedure that has been ramrodded and made law or precedent has been done so under the cloak of "safety", whether it claims for the good of the public or the safety of police.

I think that it is prudent that police should be vigilant when dealing with a person, but just the same, I believe the law uses the term "reasonable and prudent" as a gauge to measure how a person responds to a given situation. Should we exempt police from from what is reasonable and prudent?

For a moment, lets revisit this memo that reads:



I won't go on with the questions, because the memo smacks of an obvious attempt to discourage open carry or be subject to treatment normally reserved for apprehending criminals.

The time when I want to open carry the most for SD is in the late evening when I'm walking my dogs.
I have done it a few times, but have since ceased. My dogs are friendly to people, but will react to perceived threats, such as a LEO shouting commands. I have concerns that the dogs won't let the officers approach to check my gun, and all hell will break loose. Either the dogs will get shot or I will or both.
Any way you cut it, if I'm exercising my legal right to UOC, and the cops see me when I'm out with my dogs, it's a bad scenario. And the cops I would encounter are going to be either LAPD or West Hollywood Sherrif.

I have asked his before, nobody had an opinion. Is it worth it to visit the local cop shop and tell them I intend to UOC lawfully and ask what type of response I could expect from an officer who saw me or responded to a panicked citizen 911 call?

Roadrunner
05-30-2009, 11:07 AM
The time when I want to open carry the most for SD is in the late evening when I'm walking my dogs.
I have done it a few times, but have since ceased. My dogs are friendly to people, but will react to perceived threats, such as a LEO shouting commands. I have concerns that the dogs won't let the officers approach to check my gun, and all hell will break loose. Either the dogs will get shot or I will or both.
Any way you cut it, if I'm exercising my legal right to UOC, and the cops see me when I'm out with my dogs, it's a bad scenario. And the cops I would encounter are going to be either LAPD or West Hollywood Sherrif.

I have asked his before, nobody had an opinion. Is it worth it to visit the local cop shop and tell them I intend to UOC lawfully and ask what type of response I could expect from an officer who saw me or responded to a panicked citizen 911 call?

I'm sure of what the response will be, I lived there longer than I would have liked. But calling and putting them on notice might be an interesting exercise in determining real time what is reasonable and prudent to police. I would also add that Bratton of LAPD thinks that it should be a felony for a citizen to carry a firearm in public and Baca of LASD thinks his deputies are all knowing and all seeing so there's no need for a citizen to carry a gun in their jurisdiction. I mention this to give you a heads up.

bodger
05-30-2009, 1:20 PM
I'm sure of what the response will be, I lived there longer than I would have liked. But calling and putting them on notice might be an interesting exercise in determining real time what is reasonable and prudent to police. I would also add that Bratton of LAPD thinks that it should be a felony for a citizen to carry a firearm in public and Baca of LASD thinks his deputies are all knowing and all seeing so there's no need for a citizen to carry a gun in their jurisdiction. I mention this to give you a heads up.

Thanks. Yes, I've seen both Baca and Bratton spew their bilious opinions about citizens and gun ownership. It's about as disgusting as anything one can witness from LEO.

I'm in Los Angeles, but right on the border with West Hollywood, so I see both entities often. Not often enough, apparently to solve the recent rash of armed robbery that is occurring around here, or burglaries.

UOC would make me an easy target for these guys and I don't want to lose my gun and/or find out that somehow the unloaded mag just hapened to be inserted into the gun by the time the cops got me back for booking.

I am on speaking terms with the Senior Lead Officer with the LAPD around here. I once assisted him in getting control of a stray dog that was dodging traffic. I might just ask him what the LAPD tells its officers to do in the case of citizen UOC, and see if he's willing to say.

I actually NEED to carry around here at night in my opinion. We're inundated with homeless people and drug users. Unsolved stabbing murder just last year one block away.
I don't want to get hurt. I want to be all nice in one piece when I move out of this slughole to ARIZONA!

Roadrunner
05-30-2009, 5:45 PM
Thanks. Yes, I've seen both Baca and Bratton spew their bilious opinions about citizens and gun ownership. It's about as disgusting as anything one can witness from LEO.

I'm in Los Angeles, but right on the border with West Hollywood, so I see both entities often. Not often enough, apparently to solve the recent rash of armed robbery that is occurring around here, or burglaries.

UOC would make me an easy target for these guys and I don't want to lose my gun and/or find out that somehow the unloaded mag just hapened to be inserted into the gun by the time the cops got me back for booking.

I am on speaking terms with the Senior Lead Officer with the LAPD around here. I once assisted him in getting control of a stray dog that was dodging traffic. I might just ask him what the LAPD tells its officers to do in the case of citizen UOC, and see if he's willing to say.

I actually NEED to carry around here at night in my opinion. We're inundated with homeless people and drug users. Unsolved stabbing murder just last year one block away.
I don't want to get hurt. I want to be all nice in one piece when I move out of this slughole to ARIZONA!

Yeah, it's incredible how pretty they make Hollywood sound, but those of us who have lived there for any period of time know just what kind of cesspool you are subjecting yourself to.

I had the occasion to go with friends to the Tragic Kingdom once and bought a park hopper ticket so that I could go into California Adventure and Disneyland. I just LMAO when I got to the Hollywood part. I think I ticked off security when I asked where the hookers, gangbangers, drug dealers, and homeless crazy people that limp and argue with their imaginary friends were kept. He at least didn't seem to have a real sense of humor about it.

DDT
05-30-2009, 6:17 PM
YI just LMAO when I got to the Hollywood part. I think I ticked off security when I asked where the hookers, gangbangers, drug dealers, and homeless crazy people that limp and argue with their imaginary friends were kept. He at least didn't seem to have a real sense of humor about it.

They used to be all over on Beach Blvd. I haven't been in a while but I suspect things haven't changed all that much

Roadrunner
05-30-2009, 6:45 PM
One thing that we have to keep in mind is: The Court had before it a series of cases from the 1800s and early 1900s that specifically said CONCEALED carry was illegal.

Having a somewhat rudimentary knowledge of the history of concealed carry, could I possibly say that what constituted concealed carry in the 19th and early 20th century varies greatly with the definition of contemporary concealed carry laws today? An example would be a cowboy wearing a duster and his six shooter on his hip. In the 18th century, would that be defined as a concealed firearm? And what about today? If a person were to wear a firearm in like manner with a duster and the outer garment covered his firearm, would he be arrested for violating the law?

I think before any definitive answer is given, we should address what the law viewed as concealed so that the progun side could cite precedence.

Sobriquet
05-30-2009, 8:32 PM
Having a somewhat rudimentary knowledge of the history of concealed carry, could I possibly say that what constituted concealed carry in the 19th and early 20th century varies greatly with the definition of contemporary concealed carry laws today? An example would be a cowboy wearing a duster and his six shooter on his hip. In the 18th century, would that be defined as a concealed firearm? And what about today? If a person were to wear a firearm in like manner with a duster and the outer garment covered his firearm, would he be arrested for violating the law?

I think before any definitive answer is given, we should address what the law viewed as concealed so that the progun side could cite precedence.

They had derringers and pepperboxes back then. I think concealed really means what we would call concealed.

I heard recently that concealed carry firearms laws weren't passed - period - until relatively late in our country's history. Post-civil war if I recall correctly, but don't hold me to that.

pullnshoot25
05-30-2009, 10:00 PM
I can confirm that guns were drawn on my brother, elsensei. However, my brother's case is the only one I have heard of where that happened and all those involved are in for a rude awakening.

Just my .02, but I don't think any felony hot stops will be occurring in San Diego. Those jokers know about OC and are very well versed in it, despite the fact that a few of them think that breaking some of the other laws is apparently OK (remedy on the way for that soon enough).

CARRY ON!

-N8

SJgunguy24
05-30-2009, 11:08 PM
The time when I want to open carry the most for SD is in the late evening when I'm walking my dogs.
I have done it a few times, but have since ceased. My dogs are friendly to people, but will react to perceived threats, such as a LEO shouting commands. I have concerns that the dogs won't let the officers approach to check my gun, and all hell will break loose. Either the dogs will get shot or I will or both.
Any way you cut it, if I'm exercising my legal right to UOC, and the cops see me when I'm out with my dogs, it's a bad scenario. And the cops I would encounter are going to be either LAPD or West Hollywood Sherrif.

I have asked his before, nobody had an opinion. Is it worth it to visit the local cop shop and tell them I intend to UOC lawfully and ask what type of response I could expect from an officer who saw me or responded to a panicked citizen 911 call?

Um....ahhhh.......I don't live down there but i'm sure you'll be treated like a "King":rolleyes:

I wouldn't do it around here(San Jose). With the attitude that I have been treated with, the all knowing S.J.P.D. thinks citizens are merely dogs and will be treated as such.

I was pulled out of my bed at gun point from a dead sleep and was told to open my safe if I knew what was good for me. I told them to go to hell and a Sargent was yelling at me. I had no idea why they were in my house (I was asleep) or what was going on. I was told to give them my combo or they would break into the safe. Normally I back LEO's 100% but this was over the line. If thats how they are going to treat me in my house......I can't imagine what would happen on the street.

1JimMarch
05-30-2009, 11:20 PM
Do you have a link to the details of the arrest, posted here or elsewhere?

N6ATF
05-30-2009, 11:26 PM
I was pulled out of my bed at gun point from a dead sleep and was told to open my safe if I knew what was good for me. I told them to go to hell and a Sargent was yelling at me. I had no idea why they were in my house (I was asleep) or what was going on. I was told to give them my combo or they would break into the safe. Normally I back LEO's 100% but this was over the line. If thats how they are going to treat me in my house......I can't imagine what would happen on the street.

Likely summary execution.

SJgunguy24
05-30-2009, 11:33 PM
Likely summary execution.

Yep, I wouldn't doubt that at all.

Liberty1
05-31-2009, 3:14 AM
Do you have a link to the details of the arrest, posted here or elsewhere?

Jim,

Have you checked out the documentation atcaliforniaopencarry.org (http://californiaopencarry.org) ?

Read the FAQ http://californiaopencarry.org/faq.html

and you'll see links to:

Personal accounts of police encounters:

bad_ace, flintlock tom, The Nomadd, Dessun, pullnshoot25 4, pullnshoot25 3, oilfieldtrash11, Mykal, Legend_AB, demnogis 2, pullnshoot25 2, demnogis 1, Roy, D53, Theseus 2, Theseus 1, pullnshoot25 1, CA_Libertarian, Prophet, 4thSeal, Hellrazor, ConditionThree

Cases which resulted in false arrest, with no charges filed:

giaking70, VigilanceOfFreedom, mpmsc, Lin, bobbarker


Here is an unusual case with no arrest, but Theseus was summoned through the mail and is being charged with 626.9 by a city DA.


The law enforcement community appear to be learning. See the following memos:

Sacramento Police Department Memo on Open Carry
Sacramento Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center Open Carry Bulletin
California Peace Officers Association Open Carry Memo
Los Angeles District Attorney Open Carry Memo
Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Open Carry Memo
San Diego Police Department Open Carry Bulletin
Orange County Sheriff's Department Open Carry Bulletin
Oceanside Police Department Open Carry Training Memo
San Diego District Attorney Open Carry Training Bulletin

and don't forget Pns25's Blog: http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/

press1280
05-31-2009, 5:09 AM
They had derringers and pepperboxes back then. I think concealed really means what we would call concealed.

I heard recently that concealed carry firearms laws weren't passed - period - until relatively late in our country's history. Post-civil war if I recall correctly, but don't hold me to that.
For the most part, yes. The South actually passed the concealed weapons laws first, and shortly after the Civil War to control freedmen. I think the 1920's is when CA, NY, and NJ started doing the same thing.

pullnshoot25
05-31-2009, 7:49 AM
My brother's story has not been posted yet, as a lawsuit is in progress.

PatriotnMore
05-31-2009, 8:14 AM
Most people 100% back cops, right up to the point they get their rights violated, then they see the other side of the story.


Um....ahhhh.......I don't live down there but i'm sure you'll be treated like a "King":rolleyes:

I wouldn't do it around here(San Jose). With the attitude that I have been treated with, the all knowing S.J.P.D. thinks citizens are merely dogs and will be treated as such.

I was pulled out of my bed at gun point from a dead sleep and was told to open my safe if I knew what was good for me. I told them to go to hell and a Sargent was yelling at me. I had no idea why they were in my house (I was asleep) or what was going on. I was told to give them my combo or they would break into the safe. Normally I back LEO's 100% but this was over the line. If thats how they are going to treat me in my house......I can't imagine what would happen on the street.

Z ME FLY
05-31-2009, 8:28 AM
Um....ahhhh.......I don't live down there but i'm sure you'll be treated like a "King":rolleyes:

I wouldn't do it around here(San Jose). With the attitude that I have been treated with, the all knowing S.J.P.D. thinks citizens are merely dogs and will be treated as such.

I was pulled out of my bed at gun point from a dead sleep and was told to open my safe if I knew what was good for me. I told them to go to hell and a Sargent was yelling at me. I had no idea why they were in my house (I was asleep) or what was going on. I was told to give them my combo or they would break into the safe. Normally I back LEO's 100% but this was over the line. If thats how they are going to treat me in my house......I can't imagine what would happen on the street.

REALLY? How did they get into your house?

bodger
05-31-2009, 11:44 AM
REALLY? How did they get into your house?

Interesting question, that.
Seems like a gaggle of lawmen with a 'No Knock" warrant would create a fair amount of noise before they got to your bed.

I'm going to ask the cops about this just to see if they blow me off or tell me it's illegal, or frisk me on the spot to see if I'm illegally CCW or what.

Maybe I'll take a recording device along just to make it interesting.

Part of this for me is the desire to assert my 2A rights. But a large part is the crime in the area and wanting to protect myself. I need to walk my dogs at night before I go to bed. It ain't safe around here after dark, period.

And ol' Sheriff Baca isn't going to be there when I need him, and he sure as hell isn't going to issue me a CCW anytime soon, even though I would easily get one in a shall issue state. Meaning I have a clean record.

CCWFacts
05-31-2009, 12:29 PM
They are from a day and age when OPEN carry was not only accepted, in some places it was NORMAL. Concealed carry was the practice of criminals and the unscrupulous....

Right, it has completely reversed. Back then, open carry was the honest man's way to carry a gun, and concealed was for criminals. It makes sense. Open carry means he is not hiding what he's capable of.

But society has changed and today it's the opposite. Open is now considered (by some) to be threatening, while concealed is "out of sight, out of mind".

I assume courts will take this social change into consideration when they finally do get around to having a CCW court case.

Hey that's what liberal legal thought is all about, right? Taking society's views into consideration as the fashions change?

SJgunguy24
05-31-2009, 12:30 PM
Most people 100% back cops, right up to the point they get their rights violated, then they see the other side of the story.
I still back the police because I know whats involved in their job. My aunt's a cop and so is my godfather. I had a cop when I was younger help keep me out of trouble. I lived in group homes for a few years, so yes I have seen things from both sides.



REALLY? How did they get into your house?
My mother has a broken back and the pain is too much for her to take. She was on the help line with Kaiser and said she was tired of hurting and they took it as a suicide risk. They called to police and I wake up to a flashlight and a gun in my face at 23:30 after i've been asleep for a couple hours. I get up at 4:30 for work.

These a**holes keep me up till 2am telling me they're getting into my safe. They never once stepped foot into my room execpt for pulling me out of bed. I closed my door when I walked out. I stared talking about my rights and they needed a warrant to get into my room. The house is my parents the room is mine and under state law will need a warrant. They got the short dick sargent out and brought a different sargent in.......He was nicer but I told him the same thing. The first sgt was yelling at me and asking what was with my attitude:eek:

Ahhhh well lemmie see here.......i'm sleeping.....I wake up to a gun in my face.......some guy I don't know is yelling at me..........What kind of attitude should I have?

I'm just glad I didn't hear them, If I did and I thought it was a home invasion..........well you all would've heard about it.

scrat
05-31-2009, 12:42 PM
wow what happened after that

bodger
05-31-2009, 1:15 PM
I still back the police because I know whats involved in their job. My aunt's a cop and so is my godfather. I had a cop when I was younger help keep me out of trouble. I lived in group homes for a few years, so yes I have seen things from both sides.




My mother has a broken back and the pain is too much for her to take. She was on the help line with Kaiser and said she was tired of hurting and they took it as a suicide risk. They called to police and I wake up to a flashlight and a gun in my face at 23:30 after i've been asleep for a couple hours. I get up at 4:30 for work.

These a**holes keep me up till 2am telling me they're getting into my safe. They never once stepped foot into my room execpt for pulling me out of bed. I closed my door when I walked out. I stared talking about my rights and they needed a warrant to get into my room. The house is my parents the room is mine and under state law will need a warrant. They got the short dick sargent out and brought a different sargent in.......He was nicer but I told him the same thing. The first sgt was yelling at me and asking what was with my attitude:eek:

Ahhhh well lemmie see here.......i'm sleeping.....I wake up to a gun in my face.......some guy I don't know is yelling at me..........What kind of attitude should I have?

I'm just glad I didn't hear them, If I did and I thought it was a home invasion..........well you all would've heard about it.

Those cops were way out of line. Investigating a possible suicide risk, they see a safe in your room and demand that it be opened for them to see what's inside? Without a warrant? And they persisted with tag team sargeants??

Sounds like a disciplinary action would have been well deserved against those cops.

I suppose if they had found guns in that safe, they would have figured they had just cause to confiscate?

Roadrunner
05-31-2009, 1:27 PM
They had derringers and pepperboxes back then. I think concealed really means what we would call concealed.

I heard recently that concealed carry firearms laws weren't passed - period - until relatively late in our country's history. Post-civil war if I recall correctly, but don't hold me to that.

Actually, the south was passing concealed carry laws 30 years + before the civil war. In fact, when southerners moved to California during the Gold Rush, they brought their concealed carry laws with them.

New York didn't actually get their first concealed carry law until the 1920's.

pullnshoot25
05-31-2009, 1:27 PM
I still back the police because I know whats involved in their job. My aunt's a cop and so is my godfather. I had a cop when I was younger help keep me out of trouble. I lived in group homes for a few years, so yes I have seen things from both sides.




My mother has a broken back and the pain is too much for her to take. She was on the help line with Kaiser and said she was tired of hurting and they took it as a suicide risk. They called to police and I wake up to a flashlight and a gun in my face at 23:30 after i've been asleep for a couple hours. I get up at 4:30 for work.

These a**holes keep me up till 2am telling me they're getting into my safe. They never once stepped foot into my room execpt for pulling me out of bed. I closed my door when I walked out. I stared talking about my rights and they needed a warrant to get into my room. The house is my parents the room is mine and under state law will need a warrant. They got the short dick sargent out and brought a different sargent in.......He was nicer but I told him the same thing. The first sgt was yelling at me and asking what was with my attitude:eek:

Ahhhh well lemmie see here.......i'm sleeping.....I wake up to a gun in my face.......some guy I don't know is yelling at me..........What kind of attitude should I have?

I'm just glad I didn't hear them, If I did and I thought it was a home invasion..........well you all would've heard about it.

That happened to be in El Cajon at my last detainment. When I left the scene the guy asked NoHammer, KylaGWolf and The Nomadd what my problem was. This is in response to me being livid for this officer justifying his breaking of the law, then trying to pull PC quotations over my eyes THEN denying me the IDs of the remaining officers.

It is always our problem, right?

nicki
05-31-2009, 1:40 PM
3) Meanwhile we have "open carry". California says "unloaded" and I'm told at least one state appellate court has said "that's good enough to cover Heller's mandate" (BS as RomanDad points out). BUT if that means we have to run risks to our lives due to cops pulling guns on us, that's a damned peculiar way to exercise a "personal civil right". NOTE: this issue applies whether we're talking loaded or unloaded open carry!!!




Seems to me if we have open loaded carry the Cops would have no reason to stop and inspect our guns.:rolleyes:

Of course if serialized ammo passes, that might be another story.:mad:

We should also look at the history of why we got a ban on loaded carry in the first place. We need to take a objective look at what the Black Panthers were really doing and why.

Perhaps their actions were justified.

The behavior of Law Enforcement towards non whites in the past wasn't pretty. Southern cops weren't the only ones who were racist.

Nicki

SJgunguy24
05-31-2009, 1:42 PM
That happened to be in El Cajon at my last detainment. When I left the scene the guy asked NoHammer, KylaGWolf and The Nomadd what my problem was. This is in response to me being livid for this officer justifying his breaking of the law, then trying to pull PC quotations over my eyes THEN denying me the IDs of the remaining officers.

It is always our problem, right?

Ya, I always wondered why they ask whats with the attitude. The other sgt in my case was way different. I asked him how he would feel if this happened to him? Remember i'm the guy who was woke up at gun point and have no idea why. When they took my Mom away the guy who wrote up the 5150 had just showed up. The dick sgt was...........nowhere to be found.

I'm just glad I didn't hear them, if I thought it was a home invasion..........I hate to think of that. I keep my vest, a 9mm and an AK at the ready.

Liberty1
05-31-2009, 3:59 PM
I assume courts will take this social change into consideration when they finally do get around to having a CCW court case.


Sounds like some of us are backing a "living constitution" model of Rights based on society's ever changing perceptions?

The dicta in Robertson v Baldwin of "laws which prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms do not offend the 2nd Amendment" is persuasive to me (and Eugine Volokh too - based on his UCLA 2nd A. Symposium - and I reserve the right to disagree with him on other issues ;)).

But hopefully the courts will find some level of the "Bear" Right where states have not fully prohibited CC as with CC licensing. We are still however in search of the "full" Right, what ever that is. And that standard will apply nation wide at some point in time.

And I think that basic standard will be recognized as it was in 1789 and 1868; times when at least unlicensed peaceful open loaded carry were generally available. I do however hope CC is recognized and available, through what ever process, as CC IS the preference more comfortable to a larger number of citizens with the least modern societal "hassle".

Right, it has completely reversed... Hey that's what liberal legal thought is all about, right? Taking society's views into consideration as the fashions change?

Do we really want to weaken or change the exising and settled understanding of our other Constitutional Rights with that kind of argument for Concealed Carry?

7x57
05-31-2009, 4:29 PM
However, when and if such a case does come before the Court, its clear that the 19th century bans on Concealed carry in preference for open carry are no longer applicable culturally. They are from a day and age when OPEN carry was not only accepted, in some places it was NORMAL. Concealed carry was the practice of criminals and the unscrupulous....

Now that has changed. The OPEN carry of firearms brings all sorts of added societal problems (i.e. calls to the police for 415, people getting scared and overreacting, etc.) that CONCEALED carry (which is now the NORMAL carry for people not in uniform- Plain Clothes police, Off duty police, and citizens in most of the states do it daily with no ill effect) dont present.


It would be disastrous to apply a "changing cultural norms" standard to Constitutional interpretation. The cultural norm these days would be to not allow the bearing of arms, period. In fact, the basis of the Living Constitution hermeneutic is to read current cultural norms (as interpreted by the elite, to be sure) into the Constitution.

Either we successfully defend an enduring meaning to the Constitution or we fail to defend the RKBA, period.

7x57

N6ATF
05-31-2009, 4:34 PM
That happened to be in El Cajon at my last detainment. When I left the scene the guy asked NoHammer, KylaGWolf and The Nomadd what my problem was. This is in response to me being livid for this officer justifying his breaking of the law, then trying to pull PC quotations over my eyes THEN denying me the IDs of the remaining officers.

It is always our problem, right?

Of course it is. This is the land of the slaves and the home of the cowardly. How dare you disagree with the government violating its own laws and be prepared to defend yourself! Just say "yess massa" to everything and you'll be fine.

Seems to me if we have open loaded carry the Cops would have no reason to stop and inspect our guns.:rolleyes:

Disorderly conduct (http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/39722082.html)!

KylaGWolf
05-31-2009, 7:40 PM
I know of one case down here in SD county that a gun was pulled on a UOC situation. But I also know that once it was determined what the situation was (called claimed brandishing) everything was cool.

TatankaGap Um I can say for a fact that UOC get harrased and the police cross the line. Witnessed it first hand and also now waiting to see what the IA investigation produces. I watched police over react on someone that did NOT respond angry and was complying completely. We were properly presented, and cooperative and the stop went way beyond an e check.

demnogis
06-01-2009, 10:58 AM
I've been stopped 4 times and only been drawn on "felony stop" style once. I haven't posted the particulars of the event just yet for a similar reason as pullnshoot25's brother.

1JimMarch
06-01-2009, 3:23 PM
Cool. See, there is NO such thing as a civil right that requires you to tolerate having guns pulled on you by cops.

And God help us if that's ever accepted.

Untamed1972
06-01-2009, 3:33 PM
Cool. See, there is NO such thing as a civil right that requires you to tolerate having guns pulled on you by cops.

And God help us if that's ever accepted.

This is just a problem I see continuing for a time here in CA, because recruits in CA have it grilled into them during the academy "Guns are bad, Person with gun = criminal, See gun...make sure officer goes home at night and screw the other guy, Person with gun gets detained till something can be found to charge them with even if it's just j-walking, guns bad, only COPs should have guns, blah, blah blah."

It will take time to change that mentality. Why do you think some Sheriff's require CCW holders to immediately tell a LEO they come into contact with that they are carrying? Because they know COPs in CA are trained and condition to draw down on anyone with a gun whether that person is doing anything suspicious or not.

demnogis
06-01-2009, 3:50 PM
Something I forgot to mention... Twice the LEOs involved used the (e) check as a fishing expedition.

pullnshoot25
06-01-2009, 3:58 PM
Something I forgot to mention... Twice the LEOs involved used the (e) check as a fishing expedition.

I am on time number three for that. Got two investigations pending. :)

bodger
06-01-2009, 4:12 PM
I plan to visit the West Hollywood Sheriff's station and the LAPD Wilshire Division and inquire as to the official police policy on UOC in these two jursidictions and see what, if anything, I am told. I plan to bring a recording device as well.
Maybe that's looking for trouble, but I have a definite need to carry a weapon in my neighborhood at night for purposes of defending myself against not just perceived threats, but the actual threat that right now exists from this robbery crew around here that has been hitting regularly. So far, nobody shot and killed, but there has been strong-arm violence against even those who have cooperated.

I'll post my results as they are available.
They can't arrest me for asking, right?

EDIT TO ADD: Sorry, noob question, what is (E) check?

demnogis
06-01-2009, 4:36 PM
An (e) check is the authority given to LEOs to perform a loaded check on all firearms (except those in your home or private property without a warrant). It's under § 12031 of the California Penal Code:

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

bodger
06-01-2009, 4:52 PM
An (e) check is the authority given to LEOs to perform a loaded check on all firearms (except those in your home or private property without a warrant). It's under § 12031 of the California Penal Code:

Thanks.

Vanguard
06-01-2009, 5:19 PM
All this says is what is currently true - that cops on the street have the discretion to treat a person UOC as either low-key or high risk depending on the person's conduct -

It says to apply the standard protocol unless the subject's conduct indicates otherwise -

There is nothing new in this - this is not some kind of EVIL MEMO that requires police to pull guns on UOCers or harass them -

But if you think you're going to go around UOC and not be subject to these protocols and if you act crazy or angry or don't respect the instructions of the police on the scene, you're going to get a hot pedestrian or even a 'felony' stop - who would expect anything else?

If you are properly presented, clear, articulate and cooperative in the (e) check, then there are no grounds for the police to intensify the situation -


Yeah, and a cop would NEVER "intensify the situation" because he was having a bad day or anything, right? That never happens, right? It must ALWAYS be the fault of the citizen, right? :rolleyes:

Untamed1972
06-01-2009, 5:57 PM
I plan to visit the West Hollywood Sheriff's station and the LAPD Wilshire Division and inquire as to the official police policy on UOC in these two jursidictions and see what, if anything, I am told. I plan to bring a recording device as well.
Maybe that's looking for trouble, but I have a definite need to carry a weapon in my neighborhood at night for purposes of defending myself against not just perceived threats, but the actual threat that right now exists from this robbery crew around here that has been hitting regularly. So far, nobody shot and killed, but there has been strong-arm violence against even those who have cooperated.

I'll post my results as they are available.
They can't arrest me for asking, right?

EDIT TO ADD: Sorry, noob question, what is (E) check?

I would suggest that if you don't know what the "e" check is that you do some more research and familiarize yourself with the applicable laws before you go sportin' around town with a gun on your hip.

If there is a strong arm robbery crew working your bad neighborhood I would also suggest that UOC might not be the best option for your defense. Just something to think about. Dealing with one assailant is bad enough....multiple attackers is even worse. Don't become a gun grab statistic.

bodger
06-01-2009, 6:16 PM
I would suggest that if you don't know what the "e" check is that you do some more research and familiarize yourself with the applicable laws before you go sportin' around town with a gun on your hip.

If there is a strong arm robbery crew working your bad neighborhood I would also suggest that UOC might not be the best option for your defense. Just something to think about. Dealing with one assailant is bad enough....multiple attackers is even worse. Don't become a gun grab statistic.

And I would suggest you read my post more thoroughly.

Apparently, you missed the point I made as to the purpose of going to the law enforcement entities and asking questions. To not only familiarize myself with the laws, but of equal importance, garner information as to what the local LEOs consider "the law" and how they would most likely react to UOC according to that official (or unofficial policy) position.

I didn't know what the "e" check was, so I asked on this forum and received an erudite response without an editorial and judgemental opinion tacked on.

Apparently you would prefer I conduct my research elsewhere?

And as to the advice about multiple attackers, you're right, it is something to think about. But isn't that a possibility any time?

If I were of the consideration that multiple attackers are a bad mix with UOC, then I suppose it would be logical to assume that one should never UOC because of the fact that multiple attackers are always a possibility and this could lead to gun grabbin'.

I acknowledged that the "e" question was noob.
I didn't say I was a firearm noob.

Rascal
06-01-2009, 6:37 PM
It would be disastrous to apply a "changing cultural norms" standard to Constitutional interpretation. The cultural norm these days would be to not allow the bearing of arms, period. In fact, the basis of the Living Constitution hermeneutic is to read current cultural norms (as interpreted by the elite, to be sure) into the Constitution.

Either we successfully defend an enduring meaning to the Constitution or we fail to defend the RKBA, period.

7x57

I absolutely agree with you. We should not apply "Living Constitutional" Traits to standard Constitutional interpretation. This will only lead to further erosion of interpretation. IMHO There is nothing wrong with open carry, and eventually people WILL get over it and it will again become the norm.

demnogis
06-02-2009, 11:06 AM
That is what we're working/hoping for, Rascal.