PDA

View Full Version : another What IF I get pulled over w/firearm


evidens83
07-13-2009, 7:32 AM
I know I know dont drive like an idiot, follow the speed limit, and follow all driving rules and you shouldn't get pulled over in the first place :rolleyes: But lets just say I did. When the LEO asks I say I dont have any weapons in my vehicle. And for whatever reason he claims probable cause and does a search anyways. He finds my OLL or handgun and cuffs me for lying to him. Most people here say dont tell the LEO but why lie to him if its my legal right. What ramifications will I get into for lying? What he doesnt know wont hurt him but if he's an *** or had a bad day and performs a search-and-seizure wouldn't I get ***** for "obstructing" justice?

Turo
07-13-2009, 7:45 AM
I know I know dont drive like an idiot, follow the speed limit, and follow all driving rules and you shouldn't get pulled over in the first place :rolleyes: But lets just say I did. When the LEO asks I say I dont have any weapons in my vehicle. And for whatever reason he claims probable cause and does a search anyways. He finds my OLL or handgun and cuffs me for lying to him. Most people here say dont tell the LEO but why lie to him if its my legal right. What ramifications will I get into for lying? What he doesnt know wont hurt him but if he's an *** or had a bad day and performs a search-and-seizure wouldn't I get ***** for "obstructing" justice?

If a LEO ask if you have any weapons in the vehicle, SHUT UP! You have that 5th amendment thing, and you have the right not to say anything. Yeah, it'll piss him off, but at least in court he won't be able to say "well he told me there was/wasn't weapons in the car!"

Lying to an officer is illegal, but not saying anything when he asks isn't lying.

evidens83
07-13-2009, 7:52 AM
But with me shut up and not speaking, that would definately piss off the LEO and give him PC to search wouldn't it??? My plan, if ever pulled over and questioned, is to answer with "No I dont have any illegal weapons in my vehicle". But is the LEO asking about illegal weapons or weapons in general? Because I can see anything in my car as a weapon from my pens to my cigarette lighter thingmajigg to my folding pocket knife.

Merc1138
07-13-2009, 7:56 AM
Your pen is a writing implement, the cigarette lighter is a lighter, and your folding pocket knife is a tool(the pen and lighter are tools as well).

Army
07-13-2009, 7:59 AM
"There are no illegal items in my vehicle, Sir".

H2o Buffalo
07-13-2009, 8:02 AM
Also, remember that he can lie to you and threaten as much as he likes for any reason without consequence. If he wants to search he will, so don't make it easy, remember your rights. Know the laws.

"Tis' better to let him think you a fool, than to open your mouth...and leave him no doubt."

;) H2o Buffalo

MasterYong
07-13-2009, 8:06 AM
"There are no illegal items in my vehicle, Sir".

THAT'S the one!

Any cop ever asks me if I have any weapons, so long as I honestly don't have anything illegal on me (which I don't see why I would) then I would say the same thing:

"I don't have anything illegal on my person."

"There is nothing illegal in my vehicle."

"She said she was 18."

Ya know- whatever suits the particular situation. No need to lie.

:p

nicoroshi
07-13-2009, 8:11 AM
If a LEO ask if you have any weapons in the vehicle, SHUT UP! You have that 5th amendment thing, and you have the right not to say anything. Yeah, it'll piss him off, but at least in court he won't be able to say "well he told me there was/wasn't weapons in the car!"

Lying to an officer is illegal, but not saying anything when he asks isn't lying.

Hmmmm, I think pissing him off would not be such a good idea. That in my experience is opening a can of worms with LEO. They think you're hiding something hence probable cause.
I travel with my rifles in a locked case (even though I don't have to).
I have no problem telling them that there is 'my rifle' in that case, and I am on my way to a designated shooting area with it. I also have no problem telling them that there is nothing illegal in my truck (if asked....normally they ask if there is anything in the truck that "they should know about").
Personally I would try to avoid getting pulled over in the first place (follow speed limit, good tags on license plate, all lights working, etc).
If I do get pulled over though I would do my best to not piss him/her off, and although answer all questions don't go into detail (i.e. 'my rifle' in the locked case but not mention it's an AR or AK OLL rifle).

evidens83
07-13-2009, 8:12 AM
"She said she was 18."

:p

Hahaha lol

evidens83
07-13-2009, 8:15 AM
So back to my original quandry, what legal ramifications will get into for "lying" to the LEO?

andrewj
07-13-2009, 8:17 AM
Why lie? Just don't answer or say "I have nothing illegal in my vehicular module".

bombadillo
07-13-2009, 8:28 AM
Seriously, don't lie in the first place, either be silent, and know your rights or get ready for the lube. In all reality though, watch "Flex Your Rights" on youtube because its got some great material.

shark92651
07-13-2009, 8:51 AM
Refusing to speak to a cop does NOT provide him PC to search. I agree that not answering his specific question and instead stating "I have nothing illegal in my car" is the best response as it will at least seem as if you are attempting to cooperate with him. If he presses the question again, repeat it or ignore that question and wait for the next one. Or better yet, ask him if you are "being detained", and if not, ask if you are "free to go".

reidnez
07-13-2009, 8:52 AM
Don't lie to the cops, but also don't volunteer any information. Be polite, but answer questions as briefly as possible. The magic words are, "No officer, I will not consent to a search." It doesn't matter if you have anything or not, you are standing up for your rights and that is everyone's duty. Most of the time, when they ask to search you it is because they *know* they don't have probable cause, at least not to the extent that it would stand up in court (a search later deemed to be illegal will usually invalidate any evidence recovered). He/she might give you some grief about it, or even threaten you if they are really unprofessional, but it will most likely end there.

If the officer decides he has probable cause, do not protest or resist in any way--you can clear it up in court. If he decides your OLL, or anything else is illegal, you might politely try to explain why it isn't; carry a copy of the Sac P.D. memo if you really like to be prepared. Most likely you're not going to influence his/her decision--when in doubt, an officer is going to confiscate/arrest. Don't worry, it will be cleared up in court.

send it
07-13-2009, 9:11 AM
nico,

here is what you have to remember, the cop is just the issuer of the complaint not the judge or the ultimate enforcer of the law. And not all the cops understand every single law. this is why you exercise your 5th admendment rights and if the cop gets pissed then so be it. When your file hits the judges table it will not say in a side note the the suspect was an arrogant *** throw the book at him.

never talk to the cops. never be rude just know your laws and be on the right side of the law or be prepared to face the consequences for your actions

X-NewYawker
07-13-2009, 9:29 AM
I want some of the LEOS on this site to respond to this.
He asks if I have any weapons in the car and I refuse to answer -- or say "there's nothing illegal in my car" (which was NOT the question) whether that gives you text book PC or not -- doesn't that throw gas on the fire?

If your guns are all legal (or at least compliant), why not say "Yeah. I have guns in the trunk, I'm on my way back from shooting, and here's my laminated copy of the flow chart or my AW registration?"

Knowing the law and not being a dick are not always the same t hing. I have had contacts with LEO where I was reasonable, and they were reasonable back. Part of the disturbing subtext of this thread if that our OLL must be "hidden" from LEPO. If they really are "legaL" as you guys keep saying over and over, whats the big deal?

joelogic
07-13-2009, 9:37 AM
I have been pulled over alot and have a lot of cop friends. If you are pulled over for a moving violation in the Bay Area, the cops are pretty smart about not asking that question. They will ask that question if, when they run your plates and they get any hits.

trevorcarpenter
07-13-2009, 9:38 AM
Section 148 of the California Penal Code states:

"148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any...peace officer...in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment...shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment."

The point? You could easily be charged with this, for lying to a peace officer. Is it right? Not sure. Could it happen to you? Yes.

Then you're faced with your vehicle being towed. Your firearm(s) being confiscated, etc. Yeah, you'll more than likely be cited and released, possibly on the street, but most likely from the jail. The heartache just from having to collect all your property makes it not worth it.

I'd lean on the side of, "I have no illegal weapons or firearms, sir."

aermotor
07-13-2009, 9:46 AM
You don't want to even deal with any of that is why.

Lancear15
07-13-2009, 10:01 AM
I want some of the LEOS on this site to respond to this.
He asks if I have any weapons in the car and I refuse to answer -- or say "there's nothing illegal in my car" (which was NOT the question) whether that gives you text book PC or not -- doesn't that throw gas on the fire?

If your guns are all legal (or at least compliant), why not say "Yeah. I have guns in the trunk, I'm on my way back from shooting, and here's my laminated copy of the flow chart or my AW registration?"

Knowing the law and not being a dick are not always the same t hing. I have had contacts with LEO where I was reasonable, and they were reasonable back. Part of the disturbing subtext of this thread if that our OLL must be "hidden" from LEPO. If they really are "legaL" as you guys keep saying over and over, whats the big deal?

You still question the legality of properly configured OLL's? Surprising considering the number of posts you have.

fonionrings
07-13-2009, 10:09 AM
I don't see how he's questioning the legality of properly configured OLL's..

IrishJoe3
07-13-2009, 10:09 AM
I want some of the LEOS on this site to respond to this.
He asks if I have any weapons in the car and I refuse to answer -- or say "there's nothing illegal in my car" (which was NOT the question) whether that gives you text book PC or not -- doesn't that throw gas on the fire?
?

The paranoia on this site is amusing and frustrating, and there sure is a lot of FUD going around in the 2A section. I'm a full time LEO. On stops I virtually never ask if there are firearms in the car. Why? Because the only people that will honestly answer that question are the John Q. Public that don't break the law, and I could care less about their firearms. You think the gang bangers will say "yeah, I have two stolen glocks under my seat and an AK-47 in the trunk". :rolleyes: Yeah, no.

If I see a gun case in the vehicle, sure I might ask questions. I'd ask questions for the same reason I'm a member of this site, built a CalLegal AR-15 and that I window shop at gun stores; I like talking shop.

On a stop if you monotone "I-have-nothing-illegal-am-I-being-detained?" over and over, I'd probably raise my eyebrow, think you're a *****, and move on with my day. I'm just doing the job you pay me to do, jeesh.

And the cop haters out there....please don't flame me. And to you I'll probably always be an evil jackbooted thug out to get you an who takes pleasure in crushing your rights. :rolleyes:

fonionrings
07-13-2009, 10:14 AM
Out of curiosity, if you are pulled over by an officer and asked if you have a firearm in the vehicle, and assuming you answer yes, can the officer ask you to show him the firearm? And by "ask," I mean more like order you.

k1dude
07-13-2009, 10:14 AM
The paranoia on this site is amusing and frustrating, and there sure is a lot of FUD going around in the 2A section. I'm a full time LEO. On stops I virtually never ask if there are firearms in the car. Why? Because the only people that will honestly answer that question are the John Q. Public that don't break the law, and I could care less about their firearms. You think the gang bangers will say "yeah, I have two stolen glocks under my seat and an AK-47 in the trunk". :rolleyes: Yeah, no.

If I see a gun case in the vehicle, sure I might ask questions. I'd ask questions for the same reason I'm a member of this site, built a CalLegal AR-15 and that I window shop at gun stores; I like talking shop.

On a stop if you monotone "I-have-nothing-illegal-am-I-being-detained?" over and over, I'd probably raise my eyebrow, think you're a *****, and move on with my day. I'm just doing the job you pay me to do, jeesh.

And the cop haters out there....please don't flame me. And to you I'll probably always be an evil jackbooted thug out to get you an who takes pleasure in crushing your rights. :rolleyes:

It would be nice if all LEO's were like you. Unfortunately, most of us have also run into the 'other kind' of LEO. It's 'that kind' of LEO that we fear. I suspect that's the reason for this thread.

chsk9
07-13-2009, 10:18 AM
So back to my original quandry, what legal ramifications will get into for "lying" to the LEO?

30 lashes with a wet noodle :eek:

evidens83
07-13-2009, 10:26 AM
It would be nice if all LEO's were like you. Unfortunately, most of us have also run into the 'other kind' of LEO. It's 'that kind' of LEO that we fear. I suspect that's the reason for this thread.

This. Not being paranoid, just being cautious and I dont wanna make the wrong statement and cause problems if ever I'm asked. Especially with me into OLLs to the uninformed LEO that will open another can-of-worms by itself.

MasterYong
07-13-2009, 10:29 AM
I want some of the LEOS on this site to respond to this.
He asks if I have any weapons in the car and I refuse to answer -- or say "there's nothing illegal in my car" (which was NOT the question) whether that gives you text book PC or not -- doesn't that throw gas on the fire?

If your guns are all legal (or at least compliant), why not say "Yeah. I have guns in the trunk, I'm on my way back from shooting, and here's my laminated copy of the flow chart or my AW registration?"

Knowing the law and not being a dick are not always the same t hing. I have had contacts with LEO where I was reasonable, and they were reasonable back. Part of the disturbing subtext of this thread if that our OLL must be "hidden" from LEPO. If they really are "legaL" as you guys keep saying over and over, whats the big deal?

I'd hide all my guns, no matter what, when transporting.

If a cop in CA sees a gun case, he can search said case. Searching that case is already specious at best, and unconstitutional at worst. If I tell him I have guns, I'm 99% sure he can search the cases the same way that he can if he can see the case.

Anytime you consent to the search of your property, you're consenting to a law that violates your constitutional rights.

Just not my cup of tea. If you want to tell every LEO you see that you have guns that's cool- it's just not for me.

rugit
07-13-2009, 10:30 AM
Lying to an officer is illegal, but not saying anything when he asks isn't lying.

Wrong.

Lying to a federal agent is illegal, but a regular cop... lie all you want. you never took an oath to tell the truth when he pulled you over. Im not saying the best thing to do would be to lie but it is one of your options.

So back to my original quandry, what legal ramifications will get into for "lying" to the LEO?

none at all. he might just get mad if he finds out you are lying.

IrishJoe3
07-13-2009, 10:32 AM
It would be nice if all LEO's were like you. Unfortunately, most of us have also run into the 'other kind' of LEO. It's 'that kind' of LEO that we fear. I suspect that's the reason for this thread.

Unfortunately, there are people like that in every profession. Based on my experience, (working with LEOs as an LEO, every day, and with multiple agencies), the "other kind" of LEOs are very few and far between. They just do a good job give the rest of us a bad name. Couple that with A LOT of "I heard that my friend's brother in law...." stories that are FAR from complete. Between those two factors, people think we're the devil.

With that in mind, as someone already said (and is spot on), LEOs are not judge or jury. We simply take enforcement action when we have reasonable belief a crime has been committed. We document evidence. A jury of your peers reviews the evidence and the circumstance, and they decide if you are guilty or not. We perfect? Heck no! But between 40,000 to 50,000 vehicle code sections, nearly as many penal code sections, plus health and safety codes, fish and game codes, welfare and institution codes (to name a very few), we do the best we can.

Plus, we don't have some flawless divine interpretation of the codes. Just look at the 2A section, if the PC was clear and simple, that section would be a whole lot less active.

IrishJoe3
07-13-2009, 10:34 AM
Wrong.

Lying to a federal agent is illegal, but a regular cop... lie all you want. you never took an oath to tell the truth when he pulled you over. Im not saying the best thing to do would be to lie but it is one of your options.

Wrong.

31 VC
"No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information
to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the
provisions of this code when such person knows that the information
is false."

It is a misdemeanor.

Besides, it my job to know when something is not right. If I know you're lying or have a pretty strong feeling that you're lying, I'll be a whole lot more critical, because most people lie to cover something up. It may or may not be PC to a search, but you'd better believe I'll be asking a whole lot more questions and doing a lot more investigation. Why? Thats my job.


Oh, and a thought. Few people a good liars. Most of you, I'll wager, are decent people who generally do not lie. People tend to have a natural aversion to lying. And I can frequently tell when someone is lying based on their uncontrollable outward indicators.

BlackDrop50
07-13-2009, 10:37 AM
On a stop if you monotone "I-have-nothing-illegal-am-I-being-detained?" over and over, I'd probably raise my eyebrow, think you're a *****, and move on with my day. I'm just doing the job you pay me to do, jeesh.



LOL, I got a visual image in my head of that happening and laughed so hard my girlfriend looked at me funny. Not about you but the robot act.

Lancear15
07-13-2009, 10:37 AM
I don't see how he's questioning the legality of properly configured OLL's..

Part of the disturbing subtext of this thread if that our OLL must be "hidden" from LEPO. If they really are "legaL" as you guys keep saying over and over, whats the big deal?

If they really are "legaL" as you guys keep saying over and over

That sentence doesn't strike you as something an anti would say? Especially the quotes around LEGAL and calling us YOU GUYS. I guess I'm just crazy.

JamesY
07-13-2009, 10:38 AM
To the LEOs out there, if one had a registered assault weapon (RAW), does that show up when you run someone's ID?

Brutish
07-13-2009, 10:39 AM
Out of curiosity, if you are pulled over by an officer and asked if you have a firearm in the vehicle, and assuming you answer yes, can the officer ask you to show him the firearm? And by "ask," I mean more like order you.

Yes. That is the whole point of why you don't tell him you have guns in the car. If you say "yes" he can do a 12031 search to ensure they are unloaded and he will check if they are transported properly.

Don't give them cause to search you.

IrishJoe3
07-13-2009, 10:42 AM
...

lorax3
07-13-2009, 10:43 AM
Out of curiosity, if you are pulled over by an officer and asked if you have a firearm in the vehicle, and assuming you answer yes, can the officer ask you to show him the firearm? And by "ask," I mean more like order you.

Yup.

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

WeekendWarrior
07-13-2009, 10:49 AM
Dude just keep everything locked up properly and out of view and he will not be suspicous unless you are rocking one of those "California AR-15: Mag Locked N Loaded" shirts! Dont lie, but dont show your cards either. And dont incisuate anything that could give him probable cause like is he has asks if you have any weapons in the car, and you respond, "I dont have any Illegal weapons" thats suggests you do have weapons in the car. I like the line "I dont have anything illegal on my person or in my vehicle" line.

omgwtfbbq
07-13-2009, 11:02 AM
I've posed a similar question to some LEO friends, and according to them, at least in this area (Yuba/Sutter counties of California) if an LEO asks to search your vehicle, and you don't want to raise suspicion by saying, "no" there is the option of consenting to a plain view search rather than a full vehicle search. If you are transporting a firearm that is hidden from sight, then the plain sight search may be the way to go.

Additionally, as many others have said, you can say no to consenting to a search. If the LEO truly doesn't have the PC to conduct the search, then hopefully he/she is smart enough not to do without your consent.

On an anecdotal note, when I was younger my father and I were pulled over on the way to the shooting range. There were guns, in cases mind you, in the bed of my father's truck, the LEO simply asked to see the firearms and perform a 12031 inspection, to which my father consented. The LEO conducted the inspection and sent us on our way with a warning for my father's noisy exhaust system. If you use good firearm transportation judgment, then consenting to the 12031 really isn't that big of a deal. Hell, most of the cops around here (granted it's a rural area) are gun nuts and just want to gawk at what you have and chat a bit. In summary, use good judgment, and now your area.

TwitchALot
07-13-2009, 11:12 AM
The LEO conducted the inspection and sent us on our way with a warning for my father's noisy exhaust system. If you use good firearm transportation judgment, then consenting to the 12031 really isn't that big of a deal. Hell, most of the cops around here (granted it's a rural area) are gun nuts and just want to gawk at what you have and chat a bit. In summary, use good judgment, and now your area.

Please note that NOT consenting to a 12031 check IS a big deal.

crazy
07-13-2009, 11:18 AM
If you use good firearm transportation judgment, then consenting to the 12031 really isn't that big of a deal. Hell, most of the cops around here (granted it's a rural area) are gun nuts and just want to gawk at what you have and chat a bit. In summary, use good judgment, and now your area.

You don't have a choice as to LEO checking your weapons to see if they are unloaded. Refusal will get you arrested. Read the last part.



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



If your rifle is on the back seat or in a case and they see it, they can ask you to inspect it to make sure it's unloaded. The question is, if asked, do you have to tell?

Merc1138
07-13-2009, 11:23 AM
You don't have a choice as to LEO checking your weapons to see if they are unloaded. Refusal will get you arrested. Read the last part.


He didn't say anything about choosing to say no. Saying yes is not a big deal so long as you're properly transporting your firearms. Reading comprehension is fun.

It's like saying that submitting to a brethalyzer is not a big deal if you aren't drunk.

MasterYong
07-13-2009, 11:31 AM
Huh. I got an email notification stating that IrishJoe had said:

"---Quote (Originally by MasterYong)---
....If a cop in CA sees a gun case, he can search said case. ......
---End Quote---
See, this is the FUD I'm talking about. There are a *_LOT_* of armchair lawyers on this site who don't have a clue, or are only partially correct. And everyone else who came here to get answers take it as gospel. No wonder you people are freaked out.

MasterYong, not attacking you, but please prove that to me."

I don't know where your post went. Presumably you edited it when you realized that you are flat-out wrong.

Are you the one in the thread that earlier said you were an LEO?

If a cop can see a case, he can search it. It's a fact it and it's been discussed AT LENGTH on this forum.

I don't know the PC and I don't have to- it's a fact. Granted, the LWO can't search the REST of your vehicle but if he sees a gun case he can do a 12031 check, WHICH IS SEARCHING THE CASE. Even if there IS NOT a gun in the case he can still check if it is in fact a gun case.

Sheesh.

pullnshoot25
07-13-2009, 11:37 AM
Huh. I got an email notification stating that IrishJoe had said:

"---Quote (Originally by MasterYong)---
....If a cop in CA sees a gun case, he can search said case. ......
---End Quote---
See, this is the FUD I'm talking about. There are a *_LOT_* of armchair lawyers on this site who don't have a clue, or are only partially correct. And everyone else who came here to get answers take it as gospel. No wonder you people are freaked out.

MasterYong, not attacking you, but please prove that to me."

I don't know where your post went. Presumably you edited it when you realized that you are flat-out wrong.

Are you the one in the thread that earlier said you were an LEO?

If a cop can see a case, he can search it. It's a fact it and it's been discussed AT LENGTH on this forum.

I don't know the PC and I don't have to- it's a fact. Granted, the LWO can't search the REST of your vehicle but if he sees a gun case he can do a 12031 check, WHICH IS SEARCHING THE CASE. Even if there IS NOT a gun in the case he can still check if it is in fact a gun case.

Sheesh.

Got threads? Case law? Official statements?

I am going to have to try this. Of course, that might mean another internal affairs investigation...

crazy
07-13-2009, 11:43 AM
He didn't say anything about choosing to say no. Saying yes is not a big deal so long as you're properly transporting your firearms. Reading comprehension is fun.

It's like saying that submitting to a brethalyzer is not a big deal if you aren't drunk.

Gee, maybe I'm not as smart as you. When I read it's no big deal, to me that implies that he has a choice.

MasterYong
07-13-2009, 11:46 AM
Got threads? Case law? Official statements?

I am going to have to try this. Of course, that might mean another internal affairs investigation...

Your THIS close to getting a stalker PNS.

I always love your posts.

Still, I know I've seen the memos and such on searching a gun case on CalGuns, and it was yet another thread with everyone and his mother accusing everyone else of making another dupe thread LOL.

I need to stop posting about the laws altogether, because even when you're right, you're wrong. (In CA)

IrishJoe3
07-13-2009, 12:00 PM
Huh. I got an email notification stating that IrishJoe had said:



I don't know where your post went. Presumably you edited it when you realized that you are flat-out wrong..


Yup. Posted that, didn't sound right, looked it up and saw that I was incorrect. Needless to say I don't do 12031 searches. Actually I can't even remember when I saw gun cases in a vehicle on a stop.


Are you the one in the thread that earlier said you were an LEO?
..

Yup.



[/QUOTE]

Merc1138
07-13-2009, 12:05 PM
Gee, maybe I'm not as smart as you. When I read it's no big deal, to me that implies that he has a choice.

He said it was no big deal to consent to it, and yes you do have a choice, consent or get arrested, one of those choices not being a big deal.

Fjold
07-13-2009, 12:13 PM
Yup. Posted that, didn't sound right, looked it up and saw that I was incorrect. Needless to say I don't do 12031 searches. Actually I can't even remember when I saw gun cases in a vehicle on a stop.


Yup.




Look in the back seat of my truck almost every weekend.

But I have to tell you that I'm armed if you pull me over anyway.

pullnshoot25
07-13-2009, 1:07 PM
Look in the back seat of my truck almost every weekend.

But I have to tell you that I'm armed if you pull me over anyway.

California is a no-tell state.

Like I tell everyone... DON'T TALK TO COPS!

No personal affront to the cops here on CGN, I am sure at least most of you are decent human beings intent on upholding your oath. However, a great majority of cops are not entirely honest.

IrishJoe3
07-13-2009, 1:26 PM
Look in the back seat of my truck almost every weekend.

But I have to tell you that I'm armed if you pull me over anyway.


LOL guess you drive like a civilized person and I haven't had the need to talk to you! :p

stix213
07-13-2009, 1:42 PM
Sorry to troll here a bit, but I found this entire thread hilarious when thinking about my situation.... where if I get pulled over in my little Prius the only thing hiding my guns is the clay thrower on top of the Mossberg printed box... on top of the other two rifle cases on the back seat... which stack up to the car windows. I think with me a LEO would skip right to the 12031 request instead of wasting time asking me if there are any guns in the car.

"No officer, I launch the flowers I keep in the Mossberg box in the 'flower thrower" there... no firearms here... No officer I have no idea what the word 'Winchester' even means, let alone '12ga', and have no idea why I have so many small boxes with those words printed on them... 7.62x39 you say? Don't even know what you are getting at, but am I being detained or am I free to go?" - Think that'll work? Or should I just say "Yes I have a few legal firearms in the car, obviously, and I am just returning from a bit of clay and rifle target practice."

Although I have found that cops only pull over a Prius when they have a damn good reason.

gemini1
07-13-2009, 2:25 PM
Question to those in the know. I went shooting yesterday with a friend. I had my pistol and empty mags in a messenger bag with a small padlock, my friend has his in a funny pak. Now his bag is not locked but the pistol was cocked open and he had this chain like lock (like a bike chain lock only smaller) inside the magwell and out of the ejection port. Our ammos were just in a plastic bag that we carried separately.

Is my friend in compliance with the law in transporting firearms? he said the gun store where he got his ammo told him to do just that, and he should be okay.

lorax3
07-13-2009, 2:30 PM
Again, being a 'nice guy' might not always work if you run into a cop who is not familiar with the OLL situation. Or a cop who thinks long guns are registered and wonders why they do not show up when your name is run. Or a cop who thinks ammo and firearms must be in separate containers. Or things longarms must be locked up, or cannot be 'concealed'.


If a cop really was in a really bad mood he could try to bring you in on the federal school zone charge should you be in an applicable area when pulled over. 18 USC 922(q) (This applies to ALL firearms, not just handguns like 626.9 PC)

It would be better to remain silent, I would not answer anything unless the LEO threatened me with some sort of 148 PC violation. Then again I always keep a voice recorder in my car.

I have nothing but respect for the concept of policing, although not all police officers know all the laws.

stix213
07-13-2009, 2:32 PM
Question to those in the know. I went shooting yesterday with a friend. I had my pistol and empty mags in a messenger bag with a small padlock, my friend has his in a funny pak. Now his bag is not locked but the pistol was cocked open and he had this chain like lock (like a bike chain lock only smaller) inside the magwell and out of the ejection port. Our ammos were just in a plastic bag that we carried separately.

Is my friend in compliance with the law in transporting firearms? he said the gun store where he got his ammo told him to do just that, and he should be okay.

They need to be stored in a "locked container" which I don't believe a fanny pack counts as. I believe his gun store gave him bad information. Although if you have a locking trunk on your car, just throw them in there as that counts.

Here is a relevant link from the state attorney general on this exact topic:
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/travel.php

lorax3
07-13-2009, 2:37 PM
Now his bag is not locked but the pistol was cocked open and he had this chain like lock (like a bike chain lock only smaller) inside the magwell and out of the ejection port. Our ammos were just in a plastic bag that we carried separately.


If a pistol is concealed it must be in a 'secure and locked container' 12025 PC. Having a cable lock through his gun DOES NOT make it a secure locked container. Having a cable lock is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. You would need to lock up the bag the pistol was in and make it, 'secure'.

Sniper3142
07-13-2009, 4:04 PM
Okay...

First thing:

Telling a LEO "there is nothing illegal in my vehicle" is perfectly acceptable and is NOT lying! It is legal and a proper response.

Second Thing:

PISSING OFF a LEO does not give him/her Probable Cause to do anything!

They may not like it but that doesn't give them PC to search your vehicle or remove Your Rights. And I never worry about pissing off civil servants. ;)

Steve O
07-13-2009, 4:44 PM
I have been pulled over alot and have a lot of cop friends. If you are pulled over for a moving violation in the Bay Area, the cops are pretty smart about not asking that question. They will ask that question if, when they run your plates and they get any hits.

Thats how it is around here. They don't ask me the question often. Probably because they see by my appearance that I'm not a criminal type, and figure why ask the question, and waist time.

So back to my original quandry, what legal ramifications will get into for "lying" to the LEO?

Unless you have 2.5lbs of meth, twos pistols and 30k cash. around here, nothing!
That's what they are looking for. Simply forgetting that you have a unloaded rifle in your trunk...if they find it, is not illegal. I forget all kinds of stuff.
And for those of you who say the forgetting part wont work. I tell you it already has. I forgot about one of my rifles in the trunk for 4 months. Then it happened.

B Strong
07-13-2009, 5:01 PM
So back to my original quandry, what legal ramifications will get into for "lying" to the LEO?

You've been given the correct answer(s)

"There is nothing illegal in my vehicle."

Or

"Am I being detained? If not am I free to leave?"

It almost sounds as if you're set on lying to the LEO rather than standing on your constitutional rights and making no inciminating statements.

If you're set on lying, there are a couple of charges they could throw at you, namely interfering with a investigation or obstruction of justice.

Don't worry about the constitutional answers causing you trouble. If the officer is for some reason hell-bent on arresting you, neither answer quoted above will help him, when lying certainly can.

Steve O
07-13-2009, 5:08 PM
I don't see how he's questioning the legality of properly configured OLL's..

I take it as he's just a honest law abiding guy, who doesn't want to do anything he is not required to do, and risk getting a misinformed LEO hassle him...make him sit on the cold sidewalk...take up his time...have his fellow community neighbors see him embarrassing detained as they drive by and see evil back rifles on the hood!...and then possibly risk having his legal items confiscated...then have to spend money and file paperwork to get them back 6 months later...and on top of all that.....actually get arrested for not committing a crime, then as the charges get drooped and everyone from the cop him self, to the chef, and DA apologize...you still has a arrest on your record.

Now you have to pay an attorney to expunge your arrest record, (because every time you get pulled over in the future a previous arrest for "weapons violations" come up...
But the choice on how you answer the question, is a personal choice...

Yes. That is the whole point of why you don't tell him you have guns in the car. If you say "yes" he can do a 12031 search to ensure they are unloaded and he will check if they are transported properly.

Don't give them cause to search you.

I have had many experiences with LEO. I tell you one experience, not the same one I was referring to above. I went shooting with a friend. One rifle one pistol. After shooting we were in a hurry to eat! I asked my experienced friend, "did you clear the rifle for transport" he said yes, put it in the case, and put in in my trunk. We ate, then later in the night I drove home. This was all stupid and I was young, i know i know. Well I got pulled over because I had a tail light out. Cop was cool, so was I. He asked me if I "had any weapons in the vehicle" I just lied and said "No sir. just came form dinner." I seriously had to take a dump! ..and knew the officer just wanted to be on his way too. The guy didn't even issue me a fix-it ticket, or go back to the car and run my license, real cool guy.

Well when I got home. The next day I went to clean the rifle. I pulled the charging handle and out comes a round! Right from the chamber with the hammer already cocked!!!!!!!! I for sure would have been at least cited of not arrested, and had my rifle confiscated if I had said "Yes sir, just came form shooting!"

I was so glad I lied.

xibunkrlilkidsx
07-13-2009, 5:10 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6wXkI4t7nuc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6wXkI4t7nuc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

evidens83
07-13-2009, 5:35 PM
You've been given the correct answer(s)

"There is nothing illegal in my vehicle."

Or

"Am I being detained? If not am I free to leave?"

It almost sounds as if you're set on lying to the LEO rather than standing on your constitutional rights and making no inciminating statements.

If you're set on lying, there are a couple of charges they could throw at you, namely interfering with a investigation or obstruction of justice.

Don't worry about the constitutional answers causing you trouble. If the officer is for some reason hell-bent on arresting you, neither answer quoted above will help him, when lying certainly can.

I've never lied to a LEO fyi and definately not set for that route. I just feel I'm more of a target because of my age(26) and my numerous tattoos that I would be more subject to a PC then your average Joe Schmoe. I have a cystal clear record so I should have nothing to worry about but I'm not up to date with what I can and should disclose to a LEO when asked. I guess I need to get to reading and studying my rights :TFH:

X-NewYawker
07-13-2009, 5:38 PM
If they really are "legaL" as you guys keep saying over and over

That sentence doesn't strike you as something an anti would say? Especially the quotes around LEGAL and calling us YOU GUYS. I guess I'm just crazy.

You all missed the point of that sentence -- this whole site is based on an iron clad belief that OLL are legal and okay -- so why so many people saying "don't tell the cops nuthin'" like you're HIDING something. You don't have to HIDE anything that's LEGAL -- it's irony -- it's the "you guys" who act like the OLL is something to hide or worry about.

Frankly, I have, over the years, in many different states been pulled over (or been in a buddy's car) coming back from hunting/shooting, in some very anti-gun states like NY and NJ -- and we VOLUNTEERED that we had guns in the trunk, opened the trunk and showed we were transporting them safely -- because -- Ready?

We are law abiding citizens. We were following the rules. Nothing to be afraid of -- and in fact, if a LEO then gave us ****, brought us in, we would have a better case that we were not acting like *****s or criminals.

I have to stop using irony and sarcasm on this site.

BTW, there are 58 District Attorneys in the State of California. AG Jerry Brown (our next Governor?) has instructed them that whether they choose to charge OLL guns as AWs is up to their individual discretion. In rural parts of the state you'll get "that's cool -- I love that Surefire M900" from your LEO, and in other cases (LA City,m for eg.,) it may be "hands against the hood."

As long as everything WE are doing with our guns is compliant, at the end of the day all will be well.

lorax3
07-13-2009, 5:40 PM
I need to get to reading and studying my rights :TFH:

Absolutely. There is a collection of videos on youtube that deal will what to say when you are pulled over. The acting is a bit corny, but the messages learned are extremely valuable.

These videos are a great place to start!

BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA)

lorax3
07-13-2009, 5:47 PM
As long as everything WE are doing with our guns is compliant, at the end of the day all will be well.

That may be true, but the day is long my friend. Reiterating what I said perviously, not all cops are up on the OLL situation. You may be okay, 'at the end of the day', but I would prefer not to sit on the sidewalk handcuffed for a few hours while the car is searched or my property is taken until someone gets a word of my detention higher up on the food chain that knows about OLL's.

There have been those who have gotten their OLL's taken away, and have yet to get them back. This has happened with SDPD - an otherwise AW friendly PD.

I am happy to hear all your LEO encounters have been positive when you volunteer your information about guns, although it will only take one negative encounter to quickly change someone's attitude toward volunteering possibly incriminating evidence.

evidens83
07-13-2009, 5:47 PM
Thanks for the vid lorax3! Dammmnn 45mins?! Maybe later then I got to get back to work..

Steve O
07-13-2009, 5:48 PM
Yup. Posted that, didn't sound right, looked it up and saw that I was incorrect. Needless to say I don't do 12031 searches. Actually I can't even remember when I saw gun cases in a vehicle on a stop.

Yup.


IrishJoe. No offense, but that's why I just don't cooperate with LEO, and sometimes to protect my self I may lie. You seem like a nice guy, and I do have respect for LEO. I can only imagine the burden of having to know the many complicated VC and PC laws, but you made an honest mistake, just as MANY officers do.

And the problem is that when an officer makes a honest mistake, and even thought he may apologize, it is still logged in to the computer as an arrest! And even though no charges will be filed for the mistake, the arrest is still on record!

lorax3
07-13-2009, 5:48 PM
Thanks for the vid lorax3! Dammmnn 45mins?! Maybe later then I got to get back to work..

Yeah, they are broken up into different scenario's. So when you have some time you can watch one, and save the rest for another day. (getting pulled over, walking down the street, and home searches IIRC)

Steve O
07-13-2009, 5:54 PM
You all missed the point of that sentence -- this whole site is based on an iron clad belief that OLL are legal and okay -- so why so many people saying "don't tell the cops nuthin'" like you're HIDING something. You don't have to HIDE anything that's LEGAL --

Tell that to my friend who was arrested for having a legal high cap mag in a Ruger 10-22. Judge order the property returned. Officer apologized. But he had to pay $1500 to have the arrest expunged form his record!

Now he has to sue the department for the $1500.

You don't have to hide anything that is legal.
But sometimes its best too. Or it can cost.

X-NewYawker
07-13-2009, 6:01 PM
Tell that to my friend who was arrested for having a legal high cap mag in a Ruger 10-22. Judge order the property returned. Officer apologized. But he had to pay $1500 to have the arrest expunged form his record!

Now he has to sue the department for the $1500.

You don't have to hide anything that is legal.
But sometimes its best too. Or it can cost.

No offense, but that story is completely worthless without the details. Without knowing the circumstances, how do we know that the seizure at the time was not (at least to the LEO) seemingly proper. Having a high cap mag in a 22 and ended up arrested makes me believe that there is a LITTLE MORE to what happened that day.

TwitchALot
07-13-2009, 6:39 PM
You all missed the point of that sentence -- this whole site is based on an iron clad belief that OLL are legal and okay -- so why so many people saying "don't tell the cops nuthin'" like you're HIDING something. You don't have to HIDE anything that's LEGAL -- it's irony -- it's the "you guys" who act like the OLL is something to hide or worry about.

They are legal. But I'll choose to exercise my right from unreasonable searches and seizures anyway, because quite frankly, I don't like anyone searching through my stuff, cop or not. And I'd rather face the hassle of an upset cop than the hassle of me paying thousands of dollars to prove that I wasn't breaking the law because of ignorance, malice, or any other reason.

We are law abiding citizens. We were following the rules. Nothing to be afraid of -- and in fact, if a LEO then gave us ****, brought us in, we would have a better case that we were not acting like *****s or criminals.

Yeah I'd rather not have a case in the first place, since lawyers cost money. On the other hand, exercising my rights will not hurt me, and it may prevent that situation in the first place. What's the DA going to do, argue that your remaining silent or refusing to consent to a search is proof or even the slightest evidence of your guilt? That won't turn out so well if that's all he has. Of course, it won't turn out so well for you either even if you're found innocent, unless thousands of dollars is just chump change to you.

The bottom line is that you can be in FULL compliance with the law and get still get screwed. So even if you don't mind random strangers digging through your stuff, it's best to exercise your rights to the fullest extent.

Unless of course, you think having to pay thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to prove that you were in fact, in compliance with the law, falls under the category of, "all will be well." Hell, take a look at Theseus's case if Steve's case isn't compelling. And for the record, it doesn't look like, even if money magically appears out of thin air to pay for all of Theseus's legal fees, that, "all will be well" for our fellow Calgunner. Not by a longshot.

TwitchALot
07-13-2009, 6:43 PM
I can only imagine the burden of having to know the many complicated VC and PC laws, but you made an honest mistake, just as MANY officers do.


You can only imagine? Are you an LEO? Because last time I checked, we (myself included), as ordinary citizens, have the burden of having to know the many complicated laws, because for us, ignorance of the law is no defense. It is, on the other hand, a defense for LEO's, and they do not have to know the law. Honest mistakes cost us when we make them, as normal citizens. Honest mistakes cost us when LEO's make them.

2new
07-13-2009, 6:56 PM
This is what I was told from a VERY well respected instructor/LEO, if you are asked if you have any weapons in the vehicle the only answer is NO. If you tell him I don't have any illegal items in my vehicle, you just raised a red flag. LEO's might not know anything about OLL's but they know what your last statement implies. Remember, the more time they spend with you, the fewer calls they will have to deal with. Right or wrong, if they don't like your attitude, odds are they WILL find a reason to give you a ticket. Keep your firearms and the dead hookers in the trunk, out of sight out of mind.

nosmatt
07-13-2009, 7:39 PM
damn!

I lived in socal for 15 years (Downey High grad), and have been pulled over at least 20+ times, and cited about 20% of the time. i hada lead foot...and always had fast cars.

i had LEO ask to search my car exactly twice. both times i was under 18, and acting a fool.

since that time, and the many years i have lived here, a LEO has NEVER asked me if i had any weapons, or asked to search my vehicle.

you are all paranoid it seems. well, at least some of you.

X-NewYawker
07-13-2009, 8:29 PM
Who told you we were paranoid? Who was it?!!




:)

ChrisDM
07-13-2009, 8:41 PM
Wow, there sure are a lot of you with the mentality like you've got something to hide. Criminals lie to and dodge cop's questions, not mature law abiding citizens. I'm not a criminal, so I would have no problem telling him I have "weapons in the car" if he asks. I own them, they are stored safely and legally for legitimate transport.

J-cat
07-13-2009, 8:56 PM
You can only imagine? Are you an LEO? Because last time I checked, we (myself included), as ordinary citizens, have the burden of having to know the many complicated laws, because for us, ignorance of the law is no defense. It is, on the other hand, a defense for LEO's, and they do not have to know the law. Honest mistakes cost us when we make them, as normal citizens. Honest mistakes cost us when LEO's make them.

LEO's know all about bullet buttons. What honest mistake are you worried about exactly?

1911su16b870
07-13-2009, 9:15 PM
[flame suit on...:82:]

Be respectful, be calm and tell the LEO the truth. Do not lie to LEOs.

evidens83
07-13-2009, 9:44 PM
This is what I was told from a VERY well respected instructor/LEO, if you are asked if you have any weapons in the vehicle the only answer is NO. If you tell him I don't have any illegal items in my vehicle, you just raised a red flag. LEO's might not know anything about OLL's but they know what your last statement implies. Remember, the more time they spend with you, the fewer calls they will have to deal with. Right or wrong, if they don't like your attitude, odds are they WILL find a reason to give you a ticket. Keep your firearms and the dead hookers in the trunk, out of sight out of mind.

So your instructer/LEO is telling you to lie pretty much :confused: If your only answer is NO and he finds PC, your instructer's advice just screwed you into obstructing justice or whatnot. But I do get what he's saying though. It does raise a red flag when you just say you dont have any illegal weapons. Raises the flag to me at least even though I know my OLL is legit.

J-cat
07-13-2009, 9:52 PM
In order to obstruct a LEO, you have to lie about something material to a criminal investigation. Lying about immaterial things will not get you arrested. For example, if a LEO asks you about how many girls you pleasured, and you reply 3000, it won't land you in jail because it has nothing to do with his investigation concerning your speeding. Not that you should lie. It's against the bible, afterall.

God Bless The Mauser
07-13-2009, 9:56 PM
Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you :D

pullnshoot25
07-13-2009, 10:04 PM
OK, this does it. Seriously, I am sometimes AMAZED that I am associated with some of you people. How do you expect to defend your 2nd amendment rights when you are so willing to abort your 4th and 5th amendment rights?

What part of DON'T TALK TO COPS don't some of you fully comprehend? What part of "anything you say CAN and WILL be USED AGAINST YOU" haven't you fully come to terms with? What part of YOU ARE A GUN OWNER AND THE STATE DOESN'T LIKE YOU haven't you fully absorbed through your thick skulls yet?

Cops are NOT there to be your friend, they are there to arrest you. Remember that!

TwitchALot
07-13-2009, 10:10 PM
LEO's know all about bullet buttons. What honest mistake are you worried about exactly?

Do they? Do all of them know that you don't need a bullet button just because you have features like a collapsible stock, conspicuous pistol grip beneath the action, or your choice on your OLL?

Oh and by the way, it doesn't have to be an honest mistake that gets you in trouble...

pullnshoot25
07-13-2009, 11:16 PM
LEO's know all about bullet buttons. What honest mistake are you worried about exactly?

LEOs still think that having ammo next to a gun is loaded. What makes you think they give a rat's *** about bullet buttons?

Merc1138
07-13-2009, 11:19 PM
LEO's know all about bullet buttons. What honest mistake are you worried about exactly?

LOL, this is a load of bull. And even some of the ones that DO know about BB's will want to confiscate your rifle regardless because they think of it as some loophole and it's still their duty to get the evil guns off the street away from law abiding citizens, even if it's only temporary and you can get it back 5 months later they'll just say "oops, my bad" because they can.

Do you tell the cop when you're pulled over everything you may have done that's legal yet might pique his interest? NO. Keep your mouth shut, the contents of your vehicle are no one else's business but your own.

technique
07-14-2009, 12:15 AM
Cops are NOT there to be your friend, they are there to arrest you. Remember that!

And if they appear friendly its only because they are trying to get you to incriminate your self.:)

Merc1138
07-14-2009, 1:06 AM
And if they appear friendly its only because they are trying to get you to incriminate your self.:)

There is the off chance they're having a good day, but I have run into a few who can't fake friendliness at all. Regardless, you should still keep your mouth shut.

pullnshoot25
07-14-2009, 1:33 AM
And if they appear friendly its only because they are trying to get you to incriminate your self.:)

Spoken by the man whose avatar is of the "Undercover Brother" ;)

HAHA!

Steve O
07-14-2009, 2:10 AM
Wow, there sure are a lot of you with the mentality like you've got something to hide. Criminals lie to and dodge cop's questions, not mature law abiding citizens. I'm not a criminal, so I would have no problem telling him I have "weapons in the car" if he asks. I own them, they are stored safely and legally for legitimate transport.

I cant believe you just said that anyone who is looking to protect their rights, is a criminal... That's an interesting statement, especially given how we at CG have a legal forum, and many times members of this board have had your attitude and said the very same thing, only to be trumped up on BS charges and at a cost of CG foundation! Perhaps you should read the "Current Legal Cases" sub forum and see for your self how many of us law abiding "criminals" get charged with a crime they did not commit!

Here. let me do the work for you.
I just went to the legal cases sub forum, and the first post.

Looks like this poor guy is going to louse his BB legal rifle, because of some gun garbing desk clerk!
So it appears that us law abiding citizens do have something to hide!

SDPD gun desk won't give back my gun - CLOSURE
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=201098

"It would cost a small fortune to try to get my gun back"

^^ So was this guy a criminal?
Or was he the victim of a "We don't care about your rights" police department??

yellowreef
07-14-2009, 2:31 AM
Let me start with full disclosure, I'm a LEO. The only time I will ask about weapons in the vehicle is when I pull over a car whose multiple occupants look like they just got picked up from County jail, my spider sense tingles, and I suddenly feel vulnerable. Before anyone goes off about profiling, trust me, it's not about being young, wearing your pants around your ankles, or having tattoos. Doing this job you get pretty good at recognizing felons and bangers. I could give two craps about a law-abiding citizen having weapons in the car, as long as they don't get pointed at me.

Please spare me the "you're one of the ones that understand" crap. The unreasonable LEOs that would arrest their own mother are very few and far between, they just get talked about more. When is the last time you heard about the nice cop that gave someone a break? But I bet you heard of the bastard that gave so and so a ticket for nothing, right? Don't judge a whole profession by the few. I bet you that for every guy that had a gun seized, there were several other encounters that resulted in "Have a nice day".

On to the "Don't say a word!" crowd. Have you done something wrong? Do you have a dead body in the trunk? Did you just rob a bank? "Don't say a word"? Really? I am all for people excercising their rights, but please be reasonable. I have a job to do too. Answer a question or two and be on your way. If I suspect there might be something afoot, and you start pulling the "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" crap, you are going to waste both of our times. Please understand that those are tactics also used by criminals, and the LEO might not be able to tell the difference here.

Having a polite conversation, without saying anything "incriminating" (I still don't know what you would incriminate yourself with being a law-abiding citizen) is not that hard. I have done it myself many many times (I don't feel the need to ID myself as a LEO when contacted while off-duty.) I have never had a problem with such an encounter, and as a matter of fact I have never been asked about weapons in the car.

Please understand what I'm saying. Excercise your rights, don't answer a certain question if you don't want to, even refuse consent if you want to, just don't be a knucklehead about it. There is a happy medium that doesn't involve "Not saying a word without my attorney present", and/or going on a rant about your rights being abused.

ChrisDM
07-14-2009, 12:51 PM
I cant believe you just said that anyone who is looking to protect their rights, is a criminal... That's an interesting statement, especially given how we at CG have a legal forum, and many times members of this board have had your attitude and said the very same thing, only to be trumped up on BS charges and at a cost of CG foundation! Perhaps you should read the "Current Legal Cases" sub forum and see for your self how many of us law abiding "criminals" get charged with a crime they did not commit!

Here. let me do the work for you.
I just went to the legal cases sub forum, and the first post.

Looks like this poor guy is going to louse his BB legal rifle, because of some gun garbing desk clerk!
So it appears that us law abiding citizens do have something to hide!

SDPD gun desk won't give back my gun - CLOSURE
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=201098

"It would cost a small fortune to try to get my gun back"

^^ So was this guy a criminal?
Or was he the victim of a "We don't care about your rights" police department??

That guy "FORGOT" his minor aged son was on probation and gave him his rifle to take a photo with him holding it to show off to his friends! You can debate technicalities all day long on this, but I'll defer to common sense. Some of us have it, and some don't...

Steve O
07-14-2009, 2:01 PM
Common sense or not. Is the guy a criminal? If so why did they grab his guns and not charge him with a crime?

Because if they did, the judge would toss the case out, and order the PD to give him his rifle back!
That's why there not charging him. So instead they are trying to wrongfully keep his legal rifle, in hopes that he won't have the funds to fight!

And this is how some LEA's work. They don't win in court, but they win on the streets. Grabbing guns saving lives....or so that's how they think! So until we have a day when we as law abiding citizens don't have to worry about wrongful arrest, or confiscation, I will continue to assume that I have to protect my rights. So you talk about common sense...My common sense tells me that it's not a good idea to ever tell an officer that I "have legal weapons in my vehicle" and have the attitude that as long as I'm legal I will never have any problems!

But like I said, how you deal with the situation is a personal decision...But please do reframe form calling us criminals because we have the need to protect our rights...

Untamed1972
07-14-2009, 2:06 PM
If you feel you must say something to the officer, answer his questions with questions.

Officer: "Do you have any weapons in the car?"

"Did you stop me to check for weapons officer?"

Officer: "No, I stopped you for speeding/rolling the stop sign/turned w/o signaling. So do yuo have any weapons in the car?"

"Did you stop me to inquire about the contents of my vehicle officer?"

Officer: "No, I just want to know for my own safety."

"Am I doing something that's making you uncomfortable officer?"

Officer: "No."

"Am I free to go?"

Officer: "No, you're being detained while I write you a citation."

"Ok. Please let me know when you're finished and I'm free to go."

Tweak338
07-14-2009, 2:10 PM
"There is nothing illegal, or illegally stored in this vehicle sir/ma'am"

eighteenninetytwo
07-14-2009, 2:18 PM
If you start pulling the "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" crap, you are going to waste both of our times. Please understand that those are tactics also used by criminals, and the LEO might not be able to tell the difference here.


I agree on this - criminal element are well trained on what to say in the event of being pulled over. If you use the same phrases which are, lets face it, deisgned to let the cops know that "we know our rights" then we'll probably be treated like criminals until proven otherwise. Keep a smile on your face and be friendly.

IsaacGlass
07-14-2009, 2:23 PM
So your instructer/LEO is telling you to lie pretty much :confused: If your only answer is NO and he finds PC, your instructer's advice just screwed you into obstructing justice or whatnot. But I do get what he's saying though. It does raise a red flag when you just say you dont have any illegal weapons. Raises the flag to me at least even though I know my OLL is legit.

I ask a few LEO and including a NYPD LEO just for curios reasons, and they all pretty much said the samething. It all depends on the subject, how they look and act and especially if they had a pass criminal history or not. However, note that my NYPD friend had this to say, If someone in NY gave me that answer, I would cuff them and then tell them I didnt ask if you had anything illegal in the car, and if you knew how to do my job why are you in handcuffs. Spoken like a true New Yorker.:smilielol5:

Untamed1972
07-14-2009, 2:26 PM
If you start pulling the "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" crap, you are going to waste both of our times. Please understand that those are tactics also used by criminals, and the LEO might not be able to tell the difference here.


I agree on this - criminal element are well trained on what to say in the event of being pulled over. If you use the same phrases which are, lets face it, deisgned to let the cops know that "we know our rights" then we'll probably be treated like criminals until proven otherwise. Keep a smile on your face and be friendly.

Yes....saying nothing is best....but not always easy to do. So if you MUST flap your gums.....ask questions that divulge no information whatsoever.

gunn
07-14-2009, 2:32 PM
....ask questions that divulge no information whatsoever.

Do you mean like <grabbing AK pistol from the backseat> "Is this illegal, officer"? j/k

In all seriousness, have any of you ever been asked if there were weapons in the car during a routine traffic stop?

Of the last few times I've been pulled over in CA, it's more like "here's your ticket. Have a nice day."

-g

Untamed1972
07-14-2009, 2:42 PM
Do you mean like <grabbing AK pistol from the backseat> "Is this illegal, officer"? j/k

In all seriousness, have any of you ever been asked if there were weapons in the car during a routine traffic stop?

Of the last few times I've been pulled over in CA, it's more like "here's your ticket. Have a nice day."

-g

No...but then again I haven't been pulled over in like 18yrs either. But when I did....they never asked that.

usmcchet9296
07-14-2009, 2:49 PM
When my sons mother left me she moved back to "her people" in a bad area of town where someone like me (an evil whitey) is not very common. It was at that time I started carrying a 1911A1 which was cumbersome to say the least. Eventually I got a Beretta Tomcat 32 and i could carry it on my person and/or in my car. I know its illegal but being the stereotypical former military person I am paranoid at the worst untrusting of the government at best. I have been pulled over twice (not ticketed BTW) while having a Condition 3 weapon in my car and have never been asked if I had a weapon in my car. Having LEO friends I know this is not a typical question to most people so i figure Ill gamble. Rule of thumb ............... dont have NRA or other pro-gun bumper stickers on you vehicle...........LEO's key in on that and dont look like a thug or drive some HOOPTY, gang banger, hangin with the homies 22 inch rimmed vehicle. Is it a lie to say I dont have a weapon in my car, then be searched and have it found? ............. I guess .... I forgot I had it Your Honor would be my responce.... and let the chips fall where they may. If you arent like me and only have guns in your car when going to and from the range chill out and stop being so paranoid ....what are the odds of you getting pulled over?..... Dont speed, follow the road rules, dont drive a car that stands out, and if pulled over dont have your weapons on plain sight ...... the LEO will not have a reason to ask so dont worry.

To IrishJoe
Im not a LEO hater but I remember once carpooling with my brother and there was a LEO pulled up next to us and I saluted him respectfully yet he pulled my brother over for not wearing his seat belt. I have always thought that was crappy. I know my brother was wrong but he could have given him a warning.... In fact I told him that I saluted you with respect yet you ticketed my brother...I then asked him if he ever served since I was mad...he said no...so I told him that now I understood why he ticketed my brother... only some non-serving sh1thead like him wouldnt know that a salute is a sign of respect.

usmcchet9296
07-14-2009, 2:59 PM
Cops are NOT there to be your friend, they are there to arrest you. Remember that!

Last time I looked on the side of there cars it said something like "To protect and Serve"

Gawd and some people think I'm paranoid

IsaacGlass
07-14-2009, 3:02 PM
Common sense or not. Is the guy a criminal? If so why did they grab his guns and not charge him with a crime?

Because if they did, the judge would toss the case out, and order the PD to give him his rifle back!
That's why there not charging him. So instead they are trying to wrongfully keep his legal rifle, in hopes that he won't have the funds to fight!

And this is how some LEA's work. They don't win in court, but they win on the streets. Grabbing guns saving lives....or so that's how they think! So until we have a day when we as law abiding citizens don't have to worry about wrongful arrest, or confiscation, I will continue to assume that I have to protect my rights. So you talk about common sense...My common sense tells me that it's not a good idea to ever tell an officer that I "have legal weapons in my vehicle" and have the attitude that as long as I'm legal I will never have any problems!

But like I said, how you deal with the situation is a personal decision...But please do reframe form calling us criminals because we have the need to protect our rights...

Criminal, No. A dumb parent (father) Yes! Maybe that's why LEO secured his guns or at least until he could prove he is a responsible person.
As for why they are picking on this one rifle, I dont know, but I would like to read his case file rather hearing this second handed.

Is there such a thing as Reverse FUD?

Sheepdog1968
07-14-2009, 3:15 PM
Back in 1990 when I was 22, I came home for Christmas. One night, my brother, two friends and I went shooting late at night in Milpitas - Targetmasters I think. We took my dad's old station wagon and we had it full of unloaded and in the open (the way you were allowed/supposed to do it back then) pistols, rifles, and shotguns. It was either 11 pm or midnight when we were driving back. It had been storming earlier and it was windy. My dad's old station wagon didn't steer well. Given how late it was and since I was swirving in my lane a bit, CHP pulled me over. Everyone but me thought that was funny. Looking back, it was kind of funny to their reaction when their flashlights shined on all of the weapons. Nothing was illegal mind you but I figured this was going to require a visit to the station. They did not draw their guns. I was asked to step outside of the vehicle and the other CHP kept an eye on my friends. I answered the questions honetstly (where was I comming from, what were we doing, what had I been shooting at, had I drank or taken any drugs, etc). He then told me about the swerving and to be careful. From pullover to being back on the road lasted about 10 minutes. I was surprised at how easily it turned out. So I am inclined to say don't worry about it.

I've been pulled over a few times in my life and never once have they asked about my trunk or what has been in the car.

My adivce is keep everything in the trunk and then locked in another case, do not have anything loaded, including side sadles. Don't dress like a punk. Keep the car clean inside and out. If I was asked, I am inclined to say as one of the earlier posters said "I don't have anything illegal in the vechicle officer." My uncle has been pulled over and at times asked and he has had firearms legally stored in the trunk. They've asked, he's been honest. They've looked to confirm and all turned out fine. I would be o.k. with taking that approach as well.

Sheepdog1968
07-14-2009, 3:21 PM
It's ultimately up to a district attorney to bring up charges. If you haven't done anything wrong then you are likely going to be just fine. Yes, I am sure there have been people have had some BS horror stories but you should be fine.

nico,

here is what you have to remember, the cop is just the issuer of the complaint not the judge or the ultimate enforcer of the law. And not all the cops understand every single law. this is why you exercise your 5th admendment rights and if the cop gets pissed then so be it. When your file hits the judges table it will not say in a side note the the suspect was an arrogant *** throw the book at him.

never talk to the cops. never be rude just know your laws and be on the right side of the law or be prepared to face the consequences for your actions

Steve O
07-14-2009, 4:34 PM
It's ultimately up to a district attorney to bring up charges. If you haven't done anything wrong then you are likely going to be just fine. Yes, I am sure there have been people have had some BS horror stories but you should be fine.

Yes. I understand that. But you don't get it...It's the COP that will ARREST you. Then your booked, on record for the arrest! And even if the DA doesn't press charges, meaning they let you walk.

THE ARREST IS STILL ON YOUR RECORD! And that means each time in the future when your pulled over they handle you very different when it says you were arrested for "weapons violations" especially if it says "Possession of illegal assault weapon" meaning your perfectly legal BB OLL!

And then its up to you to hire a lawyer to have your arrest record expunged. and even then sometimes the arrest still shows up. I know this. This inst about going to jail. This is about how to avoid having your property taken, you time wasted, and the forever arrest on your record, (unless you have the money!) even thought there were no charges!

AND THIS HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CRIMINALS, AND WHO DON'T COMMIT ANY CRIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sniper3142
07-14-2009, 5:03 PM
Yes. I understand that. But you don't get it...It's the COP that will ARREST you. Then your booked, on record for the arrest! And even if the DA doesn't press charges, meaning they let you walk.

THE ARREST IS STILL ON YOUR RECORD! And that means each time in the future when your pulled over they handle you very different when it says you were arrested for "weapons violations" especially if it says "Possession of illegal assault weapon" meaning your perfectly legal BB OLL!

And then its up to you to hire a lawyer to have your arrest record expunged. and even then sometimes the arrest still shows up. I know this. This inst about going to jail. This is about how to avoid having your property taken, you time wasted, and the forever arrest on your record, (unless you have the money!) even thought there were no charges!

AND THIS HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CRIMINALS, AND WHO DON'T COMMIT ANY CRIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And he speaks from EXPERIENCE!!!

:mad:

And all those who keep saying things like "if you're not a criminal... blah, blah"; you are either a LEA/LEO member or supporter who thinks the system or the people who make it up are perfect.

They are not and neither are they necessarily on our side.

They think guns in the hands of civilians is a BAD thing (or at least the higher ups and political circles do). They do not TRUST us to be Armed Citizens and would us rather be Unarmed Subjects. Anything they can do to remove a firearm from civilian ownership is a good thing in their minds. Why do you think it is SO HARD to get a firearm returned, even after all legal matters have been decided!?!? They make it hard and expensive in the hope that at least some people will just give up and never reclaim their legally owned firearm.

ChrisDM
07-14-2009, 5:39 PM
Common sense or not. Is the guy a criminal? If so why did they grab his guns and not charge him with a crime?

Because if they did, the judge would toss the case out, and order the PD to give him his rifle back!
That's why there not charging him. So instead they are trying to wrongfully keep his legal rifle, in hopes that he won't have the funds to fight!

And this is how some LEA's work. They don't win in court, but they win on the streets. Grabbing guns saving lives....or so that's how they think! So until we have a day when we as law abiding citizens don't have to worry about wrongful arrest, or confiscation, I will continue to assume that I have to protect my rights. So you talk about common sense...My common sense tells me that it's not a good idea to ever tell an officer that I "have legal weapons in my vehicle" and have the attitude that as long as I'm legal I will never have any problems!

But like I said, how you deal with the situation is a personal decision...But please do reframe form calling us criminals because we have the need to protect our rights...

The practical reason for not "protecting your rights" by being uncooperative with a LEO is that they often (and rightly so) go by the old, "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck..." I have a feeling that some of you guys, after acting like a criminal in this scenario, will still be surprised and offended when you get treated like one! You won't give the LEO the benefit of the doubt, but you expect him to give it to you...

Steve O
07-14-2009, 5:59 PM
The practical reason for not "protecting your rights" by being uncooperative with a LEO is that they often (and rightly so) go by the old, "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck..." I have a feeling that some of you guys, after acting like a criminal in this scenario, will still be surprised and offended when you get treated like one! You won't give the LEO the benefit of the doubt, but you expect him to give it to you...

lol. I have no idea what your talking about...you keep going off subject.
Me... I drive a BMW M5. I ware a collared shirt. I live in Marin. I own a small business that makes big money.

Still think I look like/am some dumb criminal??

I do agree that profiling does happen, and it does work. Profiling gets tweaker trash off the streets. I hardly get pulled over, and haven't received a MV in over 5 years.
BUT your assumption that LEO only messes with those who "walk like a duck, and talk like a duck" is silly.

Sailormilan2
07-14-2009, 6:10 PM
Wrong.

31 VC
"No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information
to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the
provisions of this code when such person knows that the information
is false."

It is a misdemeanor.

Besides, it my job to know when something is not right. If I know you're lying or have a pretty strong feeling that you're lying, I'll be a whole lot more critical, because most people lie to cover something up. It may or may not be PC to a search, but you'd better believe I'll be asking a whole lot more questions and doing a lot more investigation. Why? Thats my job.


Oh, and a thought. Few people a good liars. Most of you, I'll wager, are decent people who generally do not lie. People tend to have a natural aversion to lying. And I can frequently tell when someone is lying based on their uncontrollable outward indicators.

In all my years as a Peace Officer(26 years, including 15 in the courts with 7 of those in Traffic Court), there were very few people charged with VC31. Those that were charged with VC31 usually had dealings with the DMV which resulted in the charges.
Most people were charged with PC 148.9 (giving false identification to a Peace Officer), or PC148(delaying).

Flying Bones
07-14-2009, 6:26 PM
In all my years of being pulled over telling the truth about the reason I was pulled over, "yes officer I was doing 92 mph, it was stupid" has gotten me more forgiveness than anything else I've ever tried. And to follow I've never been questioned about my vehicle or it's contents.

Maybe its just a different world up here in the real NOR CAL.

omgwtfbbq
07-14-2009, 6:32 PM
I've never lied to a LEO fyi and definately not set for that route. I just feel I'm more of a target because of my age(26) and my numerous tattoos that I would be more subject to a PC then your average Joe Schmoe. I have a cystal clear record so I should have nothing to worry about but I'm not up to date with what I can and should disclose to a LEO when asked. I guess I need to get to reading and studying my rights :TFH:

I myself am young, 21, and brandish a fair number of tattoos. I also live in a rural area with a high drug felony rate (lots of meth-heads) it's safe have been pulled over many time in my driving career, but I've received no more than a parking violation. If you are respectful, polite, you understand your rights and you abide by the law, profiling, in the rare cases that it occurs, can usually be easy defused. At least this is my experience.

Sniper3142
07-14-2009, 7:21 PM
..." I have a feeling that some of you guys, after acting like a criminal in this scenario...

And just WHAT in what Steve O said is CRIMINAL (in action or fact)?!?

Just because someone STANDS UP for THEIR RIGHTS and doesn't bow or bend to the will of a LEO, IS NOT CRIMINAL!

:mad:

- Telling a LEO that you have NOTHING ILLEGAL is NOT CRIMINAL.
- Telling a LEO that they DO NOT have your permission to search a vehicle IS NOT CRIMINAL.
- Refusing to let the LEO go on a fishing expedition by giving him/her the MINIMAL amount of information LEGALLY REQUIRED is NOT CRIMINAL.

You seem to think anyone who doesn't jump and ask "how high" when a LEO tells them to is somehow a bad guy of some sort.

You are wrong.

We are citizens... not sheep!

If you, any LEO, or anyone else has a problem with Citizens who know and stand up for THEIR RIGHTS; I strongly suggest a different line of work.

locosway
07-14-2009, 7:37 PM
I've been pulled over a lot when I was under 21 because I always had a fast car. I had spent many nights sitting on a curb in the cold while some LEO tossed my car looking for something I didn't have. I now know that saying they CAN NOT search my car does not give them PC.

Anyway, here's a scenario that I'd like clarification on...

You're driving and have a rifle/handgun in a locked container (obviously a gun case) and during a traffic stop the LEO sees the case. When he asks what's in it you say nothing. So, he's mad now and has a good idea there's a gun in it. However, being that it's locked he can't order you to open it, correct?

Short of a warrant for a search there's nothing they can do even if they take you out of the car, correct?

On a side note. Has anyone been compensated for having their rights violated, or do they just get an apology letter from IA like pullnshoot25?

ChrisDM
07-14-2009, 8:27 PM
And just WHAT in what Steve O said is CRIMINAL (in action or fact)?!?

We are citizens... not sheep!



I didn't say it was criminal, I said that some of these responses (skating around the question etc) imply guilt and make it more difficult for everybody involved. And talk about acting like a sheep... Cowering to a direct and simple question? Man up if you've got nothing to hide, act like a sheep if you do.

Hayashi Killian
07-14-2009, 9:00 PM
I've been pulled over a lot when I was under 21 because I always had a fast car. I had spent many nights sitting on a curb in the cold while some LEO tossed my car looking for something I didn't have. I now know that saying they CAN NOT search my car does not give them PC.

Anyway, here's a scenario that I'd like clarification on...

You're driving and have a rifle/handgun in a locked container (obviously a gun case) and during a traffic stop the LEO sees the case. When he asks what's in it you say nothing. So, he's mad now and has a good idea there's a gun in it. However, being that it's locked he can't order you to open it, correct?

Short of a warrant for a search there's nothing they can do even if they take you out of the car, correct?

On a side note. Has anyone been compensated for having their rights violated, or do they just get an apology letter from IA like pullnshoot25?

Don't tell the officer 'nothing', just either ask him if you're legally required to answer that question, or say something generic and noncommittal like "personal affairs" or "nothing illegal". If you say 'nothing' that's technically a lie, and at best can end up with you sitting on the curb for 20 minutes, worst case is being prosecuted for a crime.

Unless he can actually see the weapon and can verbally explain what his probable cause is, you ask him: "Is this a request or an order?" If he says order, have him explain his probable cause. If it's a request, it's up to you to allow or decline, but be careful about allowing requests.

They need either a warrant, probable cause, or you need to be arrested already. Once you've been arrested (NOT detained), you no longer have the right against unlawful search and seizure to anything on your person (including your car).

I consented to an illegal search in high school in my freshman year. After my mom *****ed them out royally for it, all they did was say 'sorry' rather than try to even compensate for the damaged reputation or emotional damage they caused to me (and my friends, who were also targeted).

locosway
07-14-2009, 9:04 PM
Ok, so the case is a $500 polymer with a combination and I won't give out the combo or open it. Assuming I'm under arrest, or they're doing an illegal search, there really is nothing they can do to get into that case, right?

I don't look the part, and I don't commit crimes, however it would only take one cop to "detain" me long enough for a drug dog to bark at my car (unwarranted) for them to have PC.

So, I don't give them consent or open the case. Do they break into it eventually? Do they pay for the case if I've commited no crime?

This is the same reason my laptop has encryption...

yellowreef
07-14-2009, 9:13 PM
And just WHAT in what Steve O said is CRIMINAL (in action or fact)?!?

Just because someone STANDS UP for THEIR RIGHTS and doesn't bow or bend to the will of a LEO, IS NOT CRIMINAL!

:mad:

- Telling a LEO that you have NOTHING ILLEGAL is NOT CRIMINAL.
- Telling a LEO that they DO NOT have your permission to search a vehicle IS NOT CRIMINAL.
- Refusing to let the LEO go on a fishing expedition by giving him/her the MINIMAL amount of information LEGALLY REQUIRED is NOT CRIMINAL.

You seem to think anyone who doesn't jump and ask "how high" when a LEO tells them to is somehow a bad guy of some sort.

You are wrong.

We are citizens... not sheep!

If you, any LEO, or anyone else has a problem with Citizens who know and stand up for THEIR RIGHTS; I strongly suggest a different line of work.

You are very right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with exercising your rights and I encourage you to do so. However, I think you are missing the point that is being made and getting your undies in a bunch about it.

I'll explain it another way. A LEO can detain you on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a number of facts that can be articulated (not a hunch) which through his training and experience make him believe there is something illegal going on. The detention can last as long as it takes for the LEO to actively and dilligently either confirm or dispell his suspicion. Now, he asks you a question which could very well dispell the suspicion in two seconds and the stop would be over...

You decide to put on your roadside lawyer suit and start the "Am I free to go?" stuff. Yes, it is true you are not necesarily 100% confirming suspicion in a concrete manner, but you are not dispelling it either. As a matter of fact, if the officer had five articulable facts before you decided to trust your freedom to YouTube, answering in an evasive manner can make six, answering a question that hasn't been asked ("There is nothing illegal in the car officer") can be seven, getting nervous about the line of questioning (no one has nerves of steel and police encounters are not common for most people) can be eight... Now, what is the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause? An officer would need more articulable facts for PC than for RS. See where this is going? You do more to confirm suspicion in the officer's mind than to dispell it when you act like that.

As a matter of fact, I was laughing today after stopping an AZ resident remembering this thread. I couldn't make this up if I wanted to. Went something like this...

Me: "Blah blah pulled you over, blah blah... Sir do you have any cocaine in this vehicle?"
Driver: "No"
- Any meth?
- No
- Any heroin?
- No
- Any amount of Marijuana that I would need both my hands to hold?
- No
- A couple of hundred thousand in cash?
- No
- A million?
- No
- Anthrax?
- No
- Nuclear bombs?
- No
- Grenades, rocket launchers?
- No
- Any weapons?
- I have my gun (in a heavy Tucson accent while pointing at a small backpack on the passenger seat.)
- Just your personal gun, or 10 crates of machine guns you are planning on smuggling out of the country?
- Just my personal gun.
- Ok, just don't pull it out and you'll be on your way in a few minutes.

Now, that guy went on his way within a minute or two. Certain things had aroused my suspicions, but after talking to the guy it went away. Here is the kicker though, I am not getting into how or why but I had probable cause to search independent of my line of questioning. Had this guy decided to not answer my questions, and my suspicions hadn't been dispelled, I would have absolutely searched the vehicle. No doubt I would have found the gun, and who knows if this AZ resident even thought about unloading the thing when he crossed the state line. See where I'm going? It's not a Jedi mind trick, it's common sense. The moment my suspicion was dispelled, the type of gun and whether it was unloaded or not became a "don't ask, don't tell" issue in my mind. I was satisfied that my original suspicion of contraband was no longer an issue.

All I am saying is that a little polite conversation goes a LONG way during a traffic stop. There is no need to act like the Gestapo has come for the people you are hiding in your basement. I am not going to sit here and advice you on what to say or not say, or which rights to exercise or not exercise. My piece of advice is don't be a pain in the butt to the officer, and you are much more likely to be ok.

locosway
07-14-2009, 9:18 PM
You are very right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with exercising your rights and I encourage you to do so. However, I think you are missing the point that is being made and getting your undies in a bunch about it.

I'll explain it another way. A LEO can detain you on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a number of facts that can be articulated (not a hunch) which through his training and experience make him believe there is something illegal going on. The detention can last as long as it takes for the LEO to actively and dilligently either confirm or dispell his suspicion. Now, he asks you a question which could very well dispell the suspicion in two seconds and the stop would be over...

You decide to put on your roadside lawyer suit and start the "Am I free to go?" stuff. Yes, it is true you are not necesarily 100% confirming suspicion in a concrete manner, but you are not dispelling it either. As a matter of fact, if the officer had five articulable facts before you decided to trust your freedom to YouTube, answering in an evasive manner can make six, answering a question that hasn't been asked ("There is nothing illegal in the car officer") can be seven, getting nervous about the line of questioning (no one has nerves of steel and police encounters are not common for most people) can be eight... Now, what is the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause? An officer would need more articulable facts for PC than for RS. See where this is going? You do more to confirm suspicion in the officer's mind than to dispell it when you act like that.

As a matter of fact, I was laughing today after stopping an AZ resident remembering this thread. I couldn't make this up if I wanted to. Went something like this...

Me: "Blah blah pulled you over, blah blah... Sir do you have any cocaine in this vehicle?"
Driver: "No"
- Any meth?
- No
- Any heroin?
- No
- Any amount of Marijuana that I would need both my hands to hold?
- No
- A couple of hundred thousand in cash?
- No
- A million?
- No
- Anthrax?
- No
- Nuclear bombs?
- No
- Grenades, rocket launchers?
- No
- Any weapons?
- I have my gun (in a heavy Tucson accent while pointing at a small backpack on the passenger seat.)
- Just your personal gun, or 10 crates of machine guns you are planning on smuggling out of the country?
- Just my personal gun.
- Ok, just don't pull it out and you'll be on your way in a few minutes.

Now, that guy went on his way within a minute or two. Certain things had aroused my suspicions, but after talking to the guy it went away. Here is the kicker though, I am not getting into how or why but I had probable cause to search independent of my line of questioning. Had this guy decided to not answer my questions, and my suspicions hadn't been dispelled, I would have absolutely searched the vehicle. No doubt I would have found the gun, and who knows if this AZ resident even thought about unloading the thing when he crossed the state line. See where I'm going? It's not a Jedi mind trick, it's common sense. The moment my suspicion was dispelled, the type of gun and whether it was unloaded or not became a "don't ask, don't tell" issue in my mind. I was satisfied that my original suspicion of contraband was no longer an issue.

All I am saying is that a little polite conversation goes a LONG way during a traffic stop. I am not going to sit here and advice you on what to say or not say, or which rights to exercise or not exercise. My piece of advice is don't be a pain in the butt to the officer, and you are much more likely to be ok.

I've been drawn down upon for lesser... Usually mentioning I have a knife when asked if there's any weapons in the car invokes some kind of fear in the officer. I guess I need to start thinking tools, not weapons for what I carry.

yellowreef
07-14-2009, 9:24 PM
I've been drawn down upon for lesser... Usually mentioning I have a knife when asked if there's any weapons in the car invokes some kind of fear in the officer. I guess I need to start thinking tools, not weapons for what I carry.

You must be a scary looking dude ;) Like I said in my first post, there are all kinds LEOs out there but the majority are normal folks, and understand normal folks just like you and me.

BlackReef
07-14-2009, 9:42 PM
OK, this does it. Seriously, I am sometimes AMAZED that I am associated with some of you people. How do you expect to defend your 2nd amendment rights when you are so willing to abort your 4th and 5th amendment rights?

What part of DON'T TALK TO COPS don't some of you fully comprehend? What part of "anything you say CAN and WILL be USED AGAINST YOU" haven't you fully come to terms with? What part of YOU ARE A GUN OWNER AND THE STATE DOESN'T LIKE YOU haven't you fully absorbed through your thick skulls yet?

Cops are NOT there to be your friend, they are there to arrest you. Remember that!

Ok - Im on the same page as you. I understand that it is foolish to NOT plead the Fifth.

But what about simple traffic stops? Will the officer become suspicious if when he asks you why you were speeding, and you reply with "I respectfully plead the Fifth" to him...?

In my experience, if you are polite and keep you words to a minimum, its probably going to be a smooth traffic stop.

I agree that pleading the Fifth is the best thing to do - but how should it be handled with stuff like Traffic Stops?

Thanks

locosway
07-14-2009, 9:47 PM
I guess it depends on the circumstances. If I'm stopped with no guns in the car, then I'll simple answer no. If I do have guns, to avoid being pulled out and have my car searched I'm going to stay quiet.

It just comes down to my experience with cops making me sit on the curb while they remove everything from my vehicle and then leave it there.

If it wasn't such a hassle with them then I'd be more polite in letting them know.

Young Version
07-14-2009, 9:56 PM
In my three encounters with the police, being polite has gotten me no slack at all. In fact, I have respectfully asked questions and have been responded to with serious attitude. I'm a young guy (as my name implies), but I have always cooperated with the officer. What's the incentive to comply when I'm treated like scum anyway?

However, I refuse to give up my rights for the sake of cooperation. I could wax political for pages, but doing so would certainly make me an unpopular member.

Greg-Dawg
07-14-2009, 10:34 PM
http://www.students.stedwards.edu/jschanz/dafif.jpg

yellowreef
07-14-2009, 11:59 PM
So much for civil discussion of a topic...

Steve O
07-15-2009, 12:09 AM
Wow, there sure are a lot of you with the mentality like you've got something to hide. Criminals lie to and dodge cop's questions, not mature law abiding citizens. I'm not a criminal, so I would have no problem telling him I have "weapons in the car" if he asks. I own them, they are stored safely and legally for legitimate transport.


I didn't say it was criminal, I said that some of these responses (skating around the question etc) imply guilt and make it more difficult for everybody involved.

No you said. Criminal. in fact you said "Criminals lie to and dodge cop's questions."

In most cases this can be true. But I have outlined a few situations here, where non criminals were arrested, and have to pay attorneys fees to get their property and reputation back. And that is just wrong! But all your doing at this point is trying to back step, and make smart *** comments. So I'll take that as a major YOU LOUSE!

Merc1138
07-15-2009, 12:11 AM
So much for civil discussion of a topic...

You stated the problem yourself right here:

You must be a scary looking dude ;) Like I said in my first post, there are all kinds LEOs out there but the majority are normal folks, and understand normal folks just like you and me.


No one wants to get stopped by that 1 out of 10, 1 out of 100, or even 1 out of 1000 cop that's had a bad day and wants to be a douchebag and end up causing a ton of trouble to a law abiding citizen. It has happened and still does happen. And even if nothing ends up happening to the person who got stopped, still no one wants to be stuck sitting on the curb waiting until that 1 bad apple cop decides to send them on their way.

locosway
07-15-2009, 12:16 AM
You stated the problem yourself right here:




No one wants to get stopped by that 1 out of 10, 1 out of 100, or even 1 out of 1000 cop that's had a bad day and wants to be a douchebag and end up causing a ton of trouble to a law abiding citizen. It has happened and still does happen. And even if nothing ends up happening to the person who got stopped, still no one wants to be stuck sitting on the curb waiting until that 1 bad apple cop decides to send them on their way.

Yeah, don't we know it...

All it takes is one person that's having a bad day to really inconvenience a law abiding citizen or even cause them legal trouble and money wasted.

I haven't been stopped in a while now (getting older (28, lol)) however if I ever did (I still like seeing what my cars can do from time to time), I'd have a whole different attitude towards the situation. Whether or not I'm out of there 5 minutes quicker by answering all of the LEO's questions is irrelevant to me. What really matters is I never stack a case against myself for any reason.

Hayashi Killian
07-15-2009, 12:38 AM
pullnshoot25: Another way I like to look at it is -- the only person who can defend your rights is you. If a lawyer has to defend your rights, it's gone too far already.

In fact, Imma make that my sig.

B Strong
07-15-2009, 5:49 AM
I have a friend of mine that was pulled over on the way to the San Jose gunshow, many years back.

Fully vested adult (40+ years of age) pulled for a missing registration sticker - missing, because evidently (since he was currently reg'd) the sticker had been stolen.

The converstation went something like this:

Where are you going?

SJ gunshow.

Do you have any guns in the vehicle?

Yes, a rifle in the trunk.

Can I inspect it to make sure it's unloaded?

Of course.

My friend opens trunk, rifle (SMLE) is in case, officer looks at the rifle.

Do you have your receipt for this rifle?

No, It's a Curio and Relic, I've had it for X (I can't remember how many years the guy I had the rifle, but it was something like 10-20 years) years.

Well sir, because you can't prove this rifle is your legal property, I have to confiscate it...

The only reqason he got that rifle back is that I had a family member in SCSO who contacted SJPD and got the rifle released.

Trusting your well being to the kindness of strangers isn't the best course of action, imo.

Be polite, answer general questions. If things start to go into detail, clam up.

Fjold
07-15-2009, 6:07 AM
Question for the LEO's:

I see it mentioned all the time that LEOs will key in on the NRA or pro-gun bumper stickers to ask you about weapons in the car.

Why? If you are looking for criminals, how many of these are NRA members or publicize that they support gun rights.

Justintoxicated
07-15-2009, 6:25 AM
Wrong.

31 VC
"No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information
to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the
provisions of this code when such person knows that the information
is false."

It is a misdemeanor.

Besides, it my job to know when something is not right. If I know you're lying or have a pretty strong feeling that you're lying, I'll be a whole lot more critical, because most people lie to cover something up. It may or may not be PC to a search, but you'd better believe I'll be asking a whole lot more questions and doing a lot more investigation. Why? Thats my job.


Oh, and a thought. Few people a good liars. Most of you, I'll wager, are decent people who generally do not lie. People tend to have a natural aversion to lying. And I can frequently tell when someone is lying based on their uncontrollable outward indicators.

My Problem is that when transporting my rifles, the case is always in plain visible sight. I cannot hide a gun case in either of my vehicles (Geo Metro, and Nissan Titan). It's easy to say to hide things, but what about when you can't? Sometimes I commute to SanDiego to my Parents place in the metro with CA-Compliant AR15's in a locked gun case. I'm always scared about getting pulled over and having to explain things etc. There is no way to hide the case, it barley fits in the car! Would covering it with a blanket be good enough?

The case of course is a locked container, what if I don't have the key?

1911su16b870
07-15-2009, 10:12 AM
The day you need a cop...is the day he'll be your friend.

1911su16b870
07-15-2009, 10:14 AM
Question for the LEO's:

I see it mentioned all the time that LEOs will key in on the NRA or pro-gun bumper stickers to ask you about weapons in the car.

Why? If you are looking for criminals, how many of these are NRA members or publicize that they support gun rights.

The dialing in on NRA-gun stickers for t-stop/pc scrutiny is not done in my experience.

IrishJoe3
07-15-2009, 11:18 AM
Question for the LEO's:

I see it mentioned all the time that LEOs will key in on the NRA or pro-gun bumper stickers to ask you about weapons in the car.

Why? If you are looking for criminals, how many of these are NRA members or publicize that they support gun rights.

Mentioned by who? I've never heard of that ever being done. As I already said, I couldn't care less.

IrishJoe3
07-15-2009, 11:35 AM
To IrishJoe
Im not a LEO hater but I remember once carpooling with my brother and there was a LEO pulled up next to us and I saluted him respectfully yet he pulled my brother over for not wearing his seat belt. I have always thought that was crappy. I know my brother was wrong but he could have given him a warning.... In fact I told him that I saluted you with respect yet you ticketed my brother...I then asked him if he ever served since I was mad...he said no...so I told him that now I understood why he ticketed my brother... only some non-serving sh1thead like him wouldnt know that a salute is a sign of respect.


Howdy,

I appreciate your respect for the job. In fact, I can be having the worst day at work ever, and one person coming up to me and saying "Thanks for what you do" will make my day.

On the flip side, there's no free pass. And I don't think the general public, (who I work for), want me playing favorites. I am a US Army vet, and I cite military personal. I was not present for the situation you describe, but for me I have a no tolerance policy concerning seatbelts. I'm tired of seeing people killed for not wearing seatbelts. I can not tell you how many fatal vehicle accidents I've been to, how many people would be alive if they wore their seatbelt. I've had people die as I give them CPR, I've see scenes that are too gruesome for RedAsphalt. John Q Public may not see seatbelts as a big deal, for me, its personal. The violator may not (and usually isn't) appreciative of the cite, but for me I may have saved your life, (because next time he's tempted to drive w/o his belt, my ticket will hopefully make him thing twice).


so I told him that now I understood why he ticketed my brother... only some non-serving sh1thead like him wouldnt know that a salute is a sign of respect.


Honestly, pretty typical. I'm doing my job, violator is sweet as honey and gushes about "how much I respect you guys, thanks for what you do" etc etc. When I return with a cite (what I do), its "MF this, that, I'm taking you to court you POS, I hope your family gets killed" etc etc. Yeah, people wonder why cops are jaded and thinks most people are insincere and shallow.


Anyway, I got way off thread topic there....sorry.

;)

usmcchet9296
07-15-2009, 12:04 PM
Howdy,

I appreciate your respect for the job. In fact, I can be having the worst day at work ever, and one person coming up to me and saying "Thanks for what you do" will make my day.

On the flip side, there's no free pass. And I don't think the general public, (who I work for), want me playing favorites. I am a US Army vet, and I cite military personal. I was not present for the situation you describe, but for me I have a no tolerance policy concerning seatbelts. I'm tired of seeing people killed for not wearing seatbelts. I can not tell you how many fatal vehicle accidents I've been to, how many people would be alive if they wore their seatbelt. I've had people die as I give them CPR, I've see scenes that are too gruesome for RedAsphalt. John Q Public may not see seatbelts as a big deal, for me, its personal. The violator may not (and usually isn't) appreciative of the cite, but for me I may have saved your life, (because next time he's tempted to drive w/o his belt, my ticket will hopefully make him thing twice).





Honestly, pretty typical. I'm doing my job, violator is sweet as honey and gushes about "how much I respect you guys, thanks for what you do" etc etc. When I return with a cite (what I do), its "MF this, that, I'm taking you to court you POS, I hope your family gets killed" etc etc. Yeah, people wonder why cops are jaded and thinks most people are insincere and shallow.


Anyway, I got way off thread topic there....sorry.

;)


Irish dont take me wrong I was wearing my seatbelt and I didnt expect a service mans discount it was more his attitude that pissed me off. Yeah my brother was wrong but under the circumstances he could have been cool, said hey thats for the salute but your brother wasnt wearing his seatbelts, etc, anything but he came across as smug and arrogant which to me was a bunch of crap.

LesGrossman41510
07-15-2009, 12:07 PM
THAT'S the one!


"She said she was 18."

Ya know- whatever suits the particular situation. No need to lie.

:p

hahaha.


No officer i dont have a tied up midget in my trunk.

IrishJoe3
07-15-2009, 1:30 PM
Irish dont take me wrong I was wearing my seatbelt and I didnt expect a service mans discount it was more his attitude that pissed me off. Yeah my brother was wrong but under the circumstances he could have been cool, said hey thats for the salute but your brother wasnt wearing his seatbelts, etc, anything but he came across as smug and arrogant which to me was a bunch of crap.

Personally, I do my best to be polite and professional on the job, regardless of the violator or situation. I know I'm not perfect and I'm sure I have had days where the service or professionalism has slipped. I'm not about to defend unprofessional conduct on the part of any of my coworkers, but I know every working professional has had "one of those days".

Electric Factory
07-15-2009, 5:55 PM
Yellowreef,
I've been following this thread and particularly your and other LEO contributions to it. First, you sound like a REALLY reasonable guy, in fact if I knew that every single time I drove my car and saw a PD cruiser in my rear view mirror that it was you- or for that matter any LEO posting here, believe me I'd have no problem whatsoever with roadside stops to or from the range, answering questions with full disclosure etc.

The very fact that you're here speaks volumes- about your general gun savvy, about your interest in the shooting sports, about your open mindedness, even while executing your job as a LEO. I'll go out on a limb and say that most if not all of us here have no problem with you as an individual LEO. Again, by everything you've posted you are JUST the guy I want pulling me over if I HAVE to be pulled over.

But dude, we both know that many if not most of your brothers are not particularly gun savvy, are not particularly informed about gun laws, the shooting sports etc and so are not inclined to be nearly as enlightened as you are.
And those are the LEO's that inspire this and so many similar threads and anti-cop sentiment. And inspire the advice to stay quiet, lie about firearms and generally be made to feel like a criminal and under attack by an unfair system, one that you [ as LEO] represent.

Here's a suggestion; as a cool CalGuns member who also happens to be in law enforcement, how about making it your personal misssion to enlighten every single officer in your division that you come into contact with. About CalGuns, about the cool shooters you've come into contact with, hell about AR's, about firearms ?

Just this would seem to me a good step toward educating LE about our mutual passion, and in so doing make that potential traffic stop with LEO who isn't you less infused with paranoia for us and aprehension for you.
Just a thought, by all means let me know if you ever shoot at Angeles Range, am an RO there and would enjoy shooting with you and chewing the fat some time.

yellowreef
07-15-2009, 5:56 PM
POLICE OFFICERS ARE AGENTS OF THE STATE. THERE ARE NOT THERE TO HELP YOU, THEY ARE THERE TO HARM YOU.
Police officers are there to harm the innocent public? Really?

I know it will never happen. However, I wish all LEOs could take a very publicly announced vacation for just one day. One day where everyone knows there will be no LEOs out there. I guarantee that people who think like you, and manage to survive the carnage, would think differently. You obviously haven't the faintest clue what you are being protected from by the very people you demonize.
REMEMBER, ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU, NOT USED TO VINDICATE YOU, IN A COURT OF LAW!

Yup, true. Thats why we advise people of that upon arrest. It doesn't preclude polite conversation, and it is not a license to be a curmudgeon when contacted by police.

Merc1138
07-15-2009, 6:02 PM
Yup, true. Thats why we advise people of that upon arrest. It doesn't preclude polite conversation, and it is not a license to be a curmudgeon when contacted by police.

No one is saying not to respond to smalltalk. There's a big difference between

"How 'bout that local sports team that won lastnight?"

And

"Do you have any drugs or weapons on your person or in the vehicle? Do you mind if I take a look in the trunk?"

One of those lines I will respond to, the other I will not, do I really need to specify which one we've been talking about in this thread?

Kestryll
07-15-2009, 6:09 PM
That's two that couldn't debate at higher then the Jr. High School level, are we going for three?

yellowreef
07-15-2009, 6:15 PM
Yellowreef,
I've been following this thread and particularly your and other LEO contributions to it. First, you sound like a REALLY reasonable guy, in fact if I knew that every single time I drove my car and saw a PD cruiser in my rear view mirror that it was you- or for that matter any LEO posting here, believe me I'd have no problem whatsoever with roadside stops to or from the range, answering questions with full disclosure etc.
The very fact that you're here speaks volumes- about your general gun savvy, about your interest in the shooting sports, about your open mindedness, even while executing your job as a LEO. I'll go out on a limb and say that most if not all of us here have no problem with you as an individual LEO. Again, by everything you've posted you are JUST the guy I want pulling me over if I HAVE to be pulled over.
But dude, we both know that many if not most of your brothers are not particularly gun savvy, are not particularly informed about gun laws, the shooting sports etc and so are not inclined to be nearly as enlightened as you are.
And those are the LEO's that inspire this and so many similar threads and anti-cop sentiment.
Here's a suggestion; as a cool CalGuns member who also happens to be in law enforcement, how about making it your personal misssion to enlighten every single officer in your division that you come into contact with. About CalGuns, about the cool shooters you've come into contact with, hell about AR's, about firearms ?
Just this would seem to me a good step toward educating LE about our mutual passion, and in so doing make that potential traffic stop with LEO who isn't you less infused with paranoia for us and aprehension for you.
Just a thought, by all means let me know if you ever shoot at Angeles Range, am an RO there and would enjoy shooting with you and chewing the fat some time.

As a matter of fact, all the guys I work with have been given the OLL lecture. And, since I work out in the sticks I don't realy know any LEO out there that's not used to dealing with people having guns in the car. It's normal, lots of open air shooting areas, lots of large ranches, and lots of hunting.

I do understand where people are coming from. Trust me, I too am careful where and how my OLL rifles are out in the open for others to see. However, I take personal offense to a blanket statement such as "Police officers are there to harm you." Why? Because I never once went to work and thought, "Ok let me go harm some people." The intent is the total opposite.

When SHTF and everyone runs away, who runs straight at the danger? The guy that thinks cops are there to harm him? Nope, that guy is running away as fast as he can. I have known many good guys, and a couple of personal friends, that have given their lives protecting their community and their country. For some idiot to sit there in the safety they helped provide for him, and accuse them of having been out to harm the general public is unconscionable.

I was just trying to provide a different perspective, but I see it's no use.

yellowreef
07-15-2009, 6:28 PM
No one is saying not to respond to smalltalk. There's a big difference between

"How 'bout that local sports team that won lastnight?"

And

"Do you have any drugs or weapons on your person or in the vehicle? Do you mind if I take a look in the trunk?"

One of those lines I will respond to, the other I will not, do I really need to specify which one we've been talking about in this thread?

Yup, and that is why I have been saying that this is true. I have also said that you are perfectly entitled to excercising your rights, up to and including refusing consent. Just excercise them politely, and try as best you can without giving your rights up to be helpful and cooperative. My point is that IF you make a big production out of it (The I-know-no-other-words-except "Am I free to go?" crowd), you might be adding fuel to the fire instead of taking heat away. In this, as in other aspects of life, BE INFORMED and always use your common sense and better judgement.

IrishJoe3
07-15-2009, 6:40 PM
As a matter of fact, all the guys I work with have been given the OLL lecture. .

Ditto for my department; had the OLL training as well as the UOC training.

chsk9
07-15-2009, 6:41 PM
If you feel you must say something to the officer, answer his questions with questions.

Officer: "Do you have any weapons in the car?"

"Did you stop me to check for weapons officer?"

Officer: "No, I stopped you for speeding/rolling the stop sign/turned w/o signaling. So do yuo have any weapons in the car?"

"Did you stop me to inquire about the contents of my vehicle officer?"

Officer: "No, I just want to know for my own safety."

"Am I doing something that's making you uncomfortable officer?"

Officer: "No."

"Am I free to go?"

Officer: "No, you're being detained while I write you a citation."

"Ok. Please let me know when you're finished and I'm free to go."

LOL... yeah lot's of luck with that

SP1200
07-15-2009, 6:54 PM
That's two that couldn't debate at higher then the Jr. High School level, are we going for three?


So then why is it that only one guy was banned?
You ban the guy than defends himself, but not the guy who started it?

No offense, but I would be irate if someone called me a criminal drug dealer.

Merc1138
07-15-2009, 6:56 PM
Yup, and that is why I have been saying that this is true. I have also said that you are perfectly entitled to excercising your rights, up to and including refusing consent. Just excercise them politely, and try as best you can without giving your rights up to be helpful and cooperative. My point is that IF you make a big production out of it (The I-know-no-other-words-except "Am I free to go?" crowd), you might be adding fuel to the fire instead of taking heat away. In this, as in other aspects of life, BE INFORMED and always use your common sense and better judgement.

I really don't think anyone was serious about

"Do you know why I stopped you?"
"you can't search my car, am I free to go yet?"

Regardless of how adamant they were about it, it seems they've all been referring to questions involving giving up information you don't want to or have to give up.

edit: In fact, I'll give you an example of one conversation I had with an officer that was trying to be a douche while his (I can't remember the name of his job title, C.A.P. or something for training? plain clothes in a ballcap with a seal on it riding passenger) buddy laughed at the officer's attempted douchery

This was pulling into my apartment complex and 100 feet from my door at about 8pm on my way home on a bicycle.

flashes the lights

"Pull the bike over" on the pa

So I get off the bicycle, put the kickstand down, officer gets out of the car

"What do you think you're doing?"
"Riding home"
"Where did you come from?"
"Friend's house a couple blocks over"
"What were you doing there?"
"Hanging out"
"Let me see your ID SLOWLY, SLOWLY I SAID SLOW"(any slower and it would have taken me a full minute to pull my wallet out)
"ok... here you go"
"Do you have any knives weapons drugs or anything else like that on you?"
"Nope"

He then calls it in, nothing comes back, his buddy is now leaning against the outside of his car

"So do you know why I stopped you?"
"Nope, pretty sure I used a hand signal for that turn"
"Your headlight"
"Doh, forgot about that"
"Yeah, well do you know what kind of trouble that could cause?"
"Actually yeah, I did forget to check that there were batteries in it before I left and it was light outside"
"Well you look like you were up to something"
"Excuse me?"
"You heard me, why are you riding around in a bicycle at night?"
"Well like I said, I was hanging out when it was still light out, but I didn't drive my car because someone hit it and ran in a parking lot 2 days ago and my suspension is shot to the point where driving it is a severe hazard and it's going to the shop at 8am tomorrow morning, so I borrowed my roommates bike and it turns out he had dead batteries in the headlight"

At this point his buddy who has had his face in his palm for the last minute or so waves him over to the car
"You had better stay put"
"I don't plan on going anywhere"

They have a huddle at the car, mostly the guy in the baseball cap doing the talking

After a moment the officer comes back, hands me my driver's license back and tells me to put batteries in the light and sends me on my way, which wasn't very far, so I can see he's getting another talking to from the other gentleman.

What his problem was? I don't know. Did he have a valid reason to stop me? Sure did, won't deny that. But at the same time I saw at least 4 cars not signal on a turn when I did on a bicycle, at least 1 rolling thought a right on red, yet he picked the dark skinned guy with an afro riding a bike wearing not so spiffy clothes in an ok neighborhood to stop and hassle. If I were to guess, he was trying to impress his buddy hoping he'd nail me for something worthwhile on a whim. Sure, I was courteous but it was none of his business exactly where I was, what I had been doing, what was in my pockets, what I was going to do at home, what was inside my home etc. What his buddy told him I have no idea and probably never will, but I can start making some guesses based on the situation and what happened immediately after.

J-cat
07-15-2009, 8:15 PM
LOL, this is a load of bull. And even some of the ones that DO know about BB's will want to confiscate your rifle regardless because they think of it as some loophole and it's still their duty to get the evil guns off the street away from law abiding citizens, even if it's only temporary and you can get it back 5 months later they'll just say "oops, my bad" because they can.

Do you tell the cop when you're pulled over everything you may have done that's legal yet might pique his interest? NO. Keep your mouth shut, the contents of your vehicle are no one else's business but your own.

So sue them.

You run your mouth about how evil cops are, but are unwilling to do anything about it.

Have they taken anything from you?

J-cat
07-15-2009, 8:18 PM
Tell that to my friend who was arrested for having a legal high cap mag in a Ruger 10-22. Judge order the property returned. Officer apologized. But he had to pay $1500 to have the arrest expunged form his record!

Now he has to sue the department for the $1500.

You don't have to hide anything that is legal.
But sometimes its best too. Or it can cost.

No. He has to sue the department for $150000 for false arrest. I wish somebody would arrest me like that.

Merc1138
07-15-2009, 8:21 PM
So sue them.

You run your mouth about how evil cops are, but are unwilling to do anything about it.

Have they taken anything from you?

Wow dude, you've totally missed the point. The idea is to NOT get them taken away in the first place.

Yes, you could sue them and get them back, BUT

Lawyers are not free
Lawsuits can end up taking up a ton of time in court(dunno about you, but I have a job that I need to be at most of the day)
Lawsuits can end up taking time, and you still might not get your firearms back for months.

Who in their right mind wants to put up with that? Yes, there's people on this forum that have had firearms confiscated and have eventually gotten them back. Yes the CGF can help, but that still doesn't change how much time you spent getting your property back, and how long it took to get back.

In fact, I even mentioned the problem with this in the post of mine that you quoted. Just because you can eventually make it right at some point down the road, doesn't mean it's not going to be an exhausting pain in the ***(because it most likely will be).

Merc1138
07-15-2009, 8:25 PM
No. He has to sue the department for $150000 for false arrest. I wish somebody would arrest me like that.

You don't have to be arrested for the cop to decide to confiscate your property, even if they wrongly did it.

And even if you DID get arrested wrongly, let me run this scenario past you.

Arrested on a Thursday, Friday is a holiday, now you get out Monday. That's a waste of 5 days of my life.

I'm also not sure where you get this $150,000 figure from, but there's legal fees you get to pay, the time you've missed from work being stuck in jail and then dealing with the BS afterwards, then getting the arrest expunged from your record afterward, TAXES, the list just goes on and on.

I dunno what you do for hobbies, or a living, or whether or not you have family, it is definitely not worth MY time to try and hope I win some lawsuit lottery.

J-cat
07-15-2009, 8:34 PM
Wow dude, you've totally missed the point. The idea is to NOT get them taken away in the first place.

Yes, you could sue them and get them back, BUT

Lawyers are not free
Lawsuits can end up taking up a ton of time in court(dunno about you, but I have a job that I need to be at most of the day)
Lawsuits can end up taking time, and you still might not get your firearms back for months.

Who in their right mind wants to put up with that? Yes, there's people on this forum that have had firearms confiscated and have eventually gotten them back. Yes the CGF can help, but that still doesn't change how much time you spent getting your property back, and how long it took to get back.

In fact, I even mentioned the problem with this in the post of mine that you quoted. Just because you can eventually make it right at some point down the road, doesn't mean it's not going to be an exhausting pain in the ***(because it most likely will be).

Do you live in a utopia?

J-cat
07-15-2009, 8:36 PM
You don't have to be arrested for the cop to decide to confiscate your property, even if they wrongly did it.

And even if you DID get arrested wrongly, let me run this scenario past you.

Arrested on a Thursday, Friday is a holiday, now you get out Monday. That's a waste of 5 days of my life.

I'm also not sure where you get this $150,000 figure from, but there's legal fees you get to pay, the time you've missed from work being stuck in jail and then dealing with the BS afterwards, then getting the arrest expunged from your record afterward, TAXES, the list just goes on and on.

I dunno what you do for hobbies, or a living, or whether or not you have family, it is definitely not worth MY time to try and hope I win some lawsuit lottery.

That's what I've been told a false arrest is worth, was worth 10 years ago, prolly alot more nowadays. Yes, it is a waste of your time. But lawsuits result in policy changes, moreso than *****ing on the internet.

Merc1138
07-15-2009, 9:24 PM
Ok, you go get yourself falsely arrested and deal with a headache for a few months, the rest of us will continue on with our normal lives. If you really think that's somehow going to win against the anti gun liberals, go right on ahead, I won't stop you. I bet everyone else that's been hassled over the scenarios we've been discussing, been arrested, and had property confiscated to get returned months later are just as cheerful as you are for "taking one for the team".

By the way, why you are griping on the internet about others griping on the internet since it accomplishes nothing(I'm assuming you used a 5 letter word starting with a B, griping makes a good substitute here)?

locosway
07-15-2009, 9:36 PM
As a matter of fact, all the guys I work with have been given the OLL lecture. And, since I work out in the sticks I don't realy know any LEO out there that's not used to dealing with people having guns in the car. It's normal, lots of open air shooting areas, lots of large ranches, and lots of hunting.

I do understand where people are coming from. Trust me, I too am careful where and how my OLL rifles are out in the open for others to see. However, I take personal offense to a blanket statement such as "Police officers are there to harm you." Why? Because I never once went to work and thought, "Ok let me go harm some people." The intent is the total opposite.

When SHTF and everyone runs away, who runs straight at the danger? The guy that thinks cops are there to harm him? Nope, that guy is running away as fast as he can. I have known many good guys, and a couple of personal friends, that have given their lives protecting their community and their country. For some idiot to sit there in the safety they helped provide for him, and accuse them of having been out to harm the general public is unconscionable.

I was just trying to provide a different perspective, but I see it's no use.

I don't think Pullnshoot25 means you go to work with the intent on causing undue duress for law abiding citizens. I think his sentiment comes from the fact that most LEO's think guns = criminals, or that someone who has a gun is most likely doing something illegal such as carrying it loaded, or having something illegal. So, with that mind set, they're going to seem like they're out to arrest you, and in all reality with them in that state of mind, they really are out to arrest you.

Everyone knows the police is needed, and we all know what happens when they take a break (LA Riots). However being disgruntled towards police does not mean we want them gone. Their job is needed and a vital part of society. We simply want a little more accountability for their actions.

J-cat
07-15-2009, 9:41 PM
Ok, you go get yourself falsely arrested and deal with a headache for a few months, the rest of us will continue on with our normal lives. If you really think that's somehow going to win against the anti gun liberals, go right on ahead, I won't stop you. I bet everyone else that's been hassled over the scenarios we've been discussing, been arrested, and had property confiscated to get returned months later are just as cheerful as you are for "taking one for the team".

By the way, why you are griping on the internet about others griping on the internet since it accomplishes nothing(I'm assuming you used a 5 letter word starting with a B, griping makes a good substitute here)?

To stop them from griping on the internet.

Do you know who would be willing to falsely arrest me?

Merc1138
07-15-2009, 9:46 PM
To stop them from griping on the internet.

Do you know who would be willing to falsely arrest me?

I dunno, find a cop on the street and tell him you've got guns in your trunk. Might find someone willing to give you the hassle you're looking for.

And griping on the internet to stop people from griping on the internet, in a discussion no one made you read or continue to read or post in... nice logic there. Next time I need to know whether or not a conversation I'm having in a forum is ok and not griping, I'll be sure to ask for your input.

J-cat
07-15-2009, 9:58 PM
Yes, this is very productive. Much more than a lawsuit. All the police chiefs are reading calguns right now, as we're griping. They're thinking, "Damn, maybe we should stop f-ing with those calguns members?"

locosway
07-15-2009, 10:06 PM
Yes, this is very productive. Much more than a lawsuit. All the police chiefs are reading calguns right now, as we're griping. They're thinking, "Damn, maybe we should stop f-ing with those calguns members?"

:cool2:

Merc1138
07-15-2009, 10:34 PM
Yes, this is very productive. Much more than a lawsuit. All the police chiefs are reading calguns right now, as we're griping. They're thinking, "Damn, maybe we should stop f-ing with those calguns members?"

Are you going to continue trolling this thread, or let us get back to our discussion with some of the LEOs on this board? We don't care if you don't like the discussion, if you don't like it, stop reading it.

Hayashi Killian
07-15-2009, 11:08 PM
I don't think Pullnshoot25 means you go to work with the intent on causing undue duress for law abiding citizens. I think his sentiment comes from the fact that most LEO's think guns = criminals, or that someone who has a gun is most likely doing something illegal such as carrying it loaded, or having something illegal. So, with that mind set, they're going to seem like they're out to arrest you, and in all reality with them in that state of mind, they really are out to arrest you.

Everyone knows the police is needed, and we all know what happens when they take a break (LA Riots). However being disgruntled towards police does not mean we want them gone. Their job is needed and a vital part of society. We simply want a little more accountability for their actions.
Agreed, +100.

I want to state that I have no problem with police, I'm not one of those people that carries the "f the pigs" banner. I've had my unpleasant run-ins with LEOs as I've described before, and I've had pleasant ones before (if Officer Washington from the SD Sheriff's Office reads this, you rock!).

However the power and immunity that LEOs wield makes them able to act without impunity, and with no fear of repercussions in their job, some of them can act out freely. There are those, like our very own IrishJoe3 and yellowreef who treat it as a job and are courteous and know the laws, but with the current set-up that LEOs have, they are not required to know them.

Honestly? I believe if LEOs were required to have more accountability, knowledge, education, and maybe even have some more of the power they wield stripped away, a lot of this behavior would go away or greatly diminish.

TwitchALot
07-15-2009, 11:34 PM
I know it will never happen. However, I wish all LEOs could take a very publicly announced vacation for just one day. One day where everyone knows there will be no LEOs out there. I guarantee that people who think like you, and manage to survive the carnage, would think differently. You obviously haven't the faintest clue what you are being protected from by the very people you demonize.[/SIZE]

I don't know, you can only hand out so many IOU's...

RolinThundr
07-16-2009, 12:04 AM
It would be nice if all LEO's were like you. Unfortunately, most of us have also run into the 'other kind' of LEO. It's 'that kind' of LEO that we fear. I suspect that's the reason for this thread.

It seems that LEOs respond to firearms differently depending on the attitude of the state. My wife and I were pulled over back in my home state and when the officer found out I had a handgun in the car he had me step out, patted me down, had me step away, he retrieved the gun from the glove box, rendered it safe, and took it back to his patrol car and ran it, along with my wife's license (one of the rate times she speeds). He was polite and professional the entire time and explained exactly what he was doing as he was doing it. He let my wife off with a warning and returned my gun to me without hesitation.

k1dude
07-16-2009, 12:05 AM
I don't know, you can only hand out so many IOU's...

LOL! Yellowreef may get his wish. Have you seen the budget? Yoikes!

bellson
07-16-2009, 12:10 AM
The paranoia on this site is amusing and frustrating, and there sure is a lot of FUD going around in the 2A section. I'm a full time LEO. On stops I virtually never ask if there are firearms in the car. Why? Because the only people that will honestly answer that question are the John Q. Public that don't break the law, and I could care less about their firearms. You think the gang bangers will say "yeah, I have two stolen glocks under my seat and an AK-47 in the trunk". :rolleyes: Yeah, no.

If I see a gun case in the vehicle, sure I might ask questions. I'd ask questions for the same reason I'm a member of this site, built a CalLegal AR-15 and that I window shop at gun stores; I like talking shop.

On a stop if you monotone "I-have-nothing-illegal-am-I-being-detained?" over and over, I'd probably raise my eyebrow, think you're a *****, and move on with my day. I'm just doing the job you pay me to do, jeesh.

And the cop haters out there....please don't flame me. And to you I'll probably always be an evil jackbooted thug out to get you an who takes pleasure in crushing your rights. :rolleyes:

Hi Joe,

I for one, and I think I have many like me here; do not think that all cops are jackbooted thugs. I used to be a cop back in the late '80s. The issue is that not all cops are reasonable, and there are a number of cops who don't really care about the letter or intent of the law. They enforce what they think is the law. I am as squeaky clean as you can get....I have run into both kinds of cop. In any case, I am always honest. I always comply. and I always take care to keep any interaction calm. But: I am always careful to not just blow my rights out the window. Some cops are cool, others are not. They are just people, like me.

I agree that there are those who really do not like authority figures, cops being chief among that group. I feel sorry for them mostly.

Thank you for your service. Please stay cool and reasonable. There are those among the citizens you protect and serve who appreciate what you do.

IrishJoe3
07-16-2009, 4:50 AM
. In any case, I am always honest. I always comply. and I always take care to keep any interaction calm. But: I am always careful to not just blow my rights out the window.

.

And that is exactly where you want to be.

.


Thank you for your service. Please stay cool and reasonable. There are those among the citizens you protect and serve who appreciate what you do.


Thanks, I appreciate it!

Have a good one...

IJ

Justintoxicated
07-16-2009, 6:58 AM
My Problem is that when transporting my rifles, the case is always in plain visible sight. I cannot hide a gun case in either of my vehicles (Geo Metro, and Nissan Titan). It's easy to say to hide things, but what about when you can't? Sometimes I commute to SanDiego to my Parents place in the metro with CA-Compliant AR15's in a locked gun case. I'm always scared about getting pulled over and having to explain things etc. There is no way to hide the case, it barley fits in the car! Would covering it with a blanket be good enough?

The case of course is a locked container, what if I don't have the key?

Anyone? If the case is visible, hen keeping my mouth shut isn't really a factor...

J-cat
07-16-2009, 7:10 AM
Are you going to continue trolling this thread, or let us get back to our discussion with some of the LEOs on this board? We don't care if you don't like the discussion, if you don't like it, stop reading it.

I offered a more productive alternative to your bitc*ing. You call that trolling. I guess you are the king of the internet. No one can argue with you.

Merc1138
07-16-2009, 7:25 AM
Anyone? If the case is visible, hen keeping my mouth shut isn't really a factor...

Get a discreet case that doesn't look like it's made for a longgun or say "mossberg" across the side or something.

golem
07-16-2009, 7:38 AM
yeah a discreet case is probalby a good idea. And take off the Remington shirt ;)

Justintoxicated
07-16-2009, 8:47 AM
Get a discreet case that doesn't look like it's made for a longgun or say "mossberg" across the side or something.

It's a locked pelican 1750, it can hold both my AR-15's and a 45 pistol.

locosway
07-16-2009, 8:56 AM
Well, even if the case is in the open. From what I understand if they ask you if you have any guns you can just ask them if you're obligated to answer that question and then remain quiet on that subject. Might not get you out of a ticket, but they can't go through your car looking for guns just because there's a plastic case in the car.

Merc1138
07-16-2009, 10:12 AM
You could have anything in that case from guns, to camera equipment, scientific data collection instruments. It's plenty discreet.

yellowreef
07-17-2009, 1:59 PM
I don't think Pullnshoot25 means you go to work with the intent on causing undue duress for law abiding citizens. I think his sentiment comes from the fact that most LEO's think guns = criminals, or that someone who has a gun is most likely doing something illegal such as carrying it loaded, or having something illegal. So, with that mind set, they're going to seem like they're out to arrest you, and in all reality with them in that state of mind, they really are out to arrest you.

Everyone knows the police is needed, and we all know what happens when they take a break (LA Riots). However being disgruntled towards police does not mean we want them gone. Their job is needed and a vital part of society. We simply want a little more accountability for their actions.

I know that this is the sentiment of most in here. However, Pullnshoot made it very very clear that he thinks differently. I'm sure that IF he wanted to clarify he would have done so. In fact he couldn't have been clearer in that last post in big bold letters.

luchador768
07-17-2009, 4:01 PM
I have been pulled over with guns in the car and have used the "nothing illegal" response, and have informed the officers that I have a firearm in the car as well. Both times I had the same result, i got my citation, and was on my way. This was before the OLL movement, and I have not been stopped with my OLL rifles. Coming back from Southbay Rod and Gun, with my OLL's I always tell the BP that I have guns in the truck and have never had an issue. I was taught to always respect the police and comply with their requests, remaining silent, while legal and your right, always seems to attract negative attention.

IrishJoe3
07-17-2009, 9:40 PM
I have been pulled over with guns in the car and have used the "nothing illegal" response, and have informed the officers that I have a firearm in the car as well. Both times I had the same result, i got my citation, and was on my way. This was before the OLL movement, and I have not been stopped with my OLL rifles. Coming back from Southbay Rod and Gun, with my OLL's I always tell the BP that I have guns in the truck and have never had an issue. I was taught to always respect the police and comply with their requests, remaining silent, while legal and your right, always seems to attract negative attention.

You sir, are a wise man, and described the vast majority of traffic stops

pullnshoot25
07-18-2009, 12:54 AM
As a matter of fact, all the guys I work with have been given the OLL lecture. And, since I work out in the sticks I don't realy know any LEO out there that's not used to dealing with people having guns in the car. It's normal, lots of open air shooting areas, lots of large ranches, and lots of hunting.

I do understand where people are coming from. Trust me, I too am careful where and how my OLL rifles are out in the open for others to see. However, I take personal offense to a blanket statement such as "Police officers are there to harm you." Why? Because I never once went to work and thought, "Ok let me go harm some people." The intent is the total opposite.

When SHTF and everyone runs away, who runs straight at the danger? The guy that thinks cops are there to harm him? Nope, that guy is running away as fast as he can. I have known many good guys, and a couple of personal friends, that have given their lives protecting their community and their country. For some idiot to sit there in the safety they helped provide for him, and accuse them of having been out to harm the general public is unconscionable.

I was just trying to provide a different perspective, but I see it's no use.

It is not so much intent as it is the function of your job.

Your job, as an LEO (or an agent of the state), is to arrest people and bring them to justice in the name of the state. Whether you are right or not in making said arrest can be determined at a variety of places prior to a courtroom, if not in the courtroom itself. This causes a lot of undue stress to a citizen such as myself, particularly if no crime has been committed (and especially since LEOs have "qualified immunity"). Since we can see that cops are there to arrest people and a lot of harm comes from such an arrest, I think it is safe to say that, in an A+B=C fashion, that cops are NOT there to "help", they are there to "harm".

I, as a citizen, have made it my sworn job and duty NOT to be arrested. I follow (most) of the laws, no matter how frivolous, stupid, asinine, arbitrary, capricious, nonsensical, backwards and otherwise LAME they may be and being a law-abiding citizen, I would like to not be hassled or arrested. As such, I will do everything in my power to prevent such an arrest and therefore harm to my person, psyche and effects by exercising my God-given and Constitutionally-enforced rights to the best of my ability.

My description of cops, again, lies not on their individual personality traits, but on the characteristics of the job.

Justintoxicated: You can carry your rifle in your truck, unloaded, concealed or openly. Throw it in the back, throw a blanket over it and you are good to go. No see? No talk? No problem!

pullnshoot25
07-18-2009, 12:59 AM
Police officers are there to harm the innocent public? Really?

I know it will never happen. However, I wish all LEOs could take a very publicly announced vacation for just one day. One day where everyone knows there will be no LEOs out there. I guarantee that people who think like you, and manage to survive the carnage, would think differently. You obviously haven't the faintest clue what you are being protected from by the very people you demonize.


Yup, true. Thats why we advise people of that upon arrest. It doesn't preclude polite conversation, and it is not a license to be a curmudgeon when contacted by police.


Police have no obligation to protect the lives of citizens.

Polite conversation in a traffic stop or any sort of stop is on a gut feeling basis. Outside of a stop, it should be fine. However, within a stop, it is, in my eyes, for extracting further information that can be used against you in a court of law.

yellowreef
07-19-2009, 12:39 PM
Police have no obligation to protect the lives of citizens.

Nice way to skirt the issue. True, there is no obligation. That doesn't mean that when there is a mall shooting or school shooting the police doesn't respond because "there is no obligation". Guess what? The people that are in there getting shot at are citizens, and very happy when the police arrive.

Look, you are anti-police, and that's alright. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and free speech. Just don't pretend that you're not. It is pretty evident by your postings and videos.

cjskalka
07-19-2009, 12:47 PM
Would it not be easier to simply separate your upper from lower while transporting your ar. Since technically at that point you are not transporting a firearm? Assuming of course you only have with you the one or many separated ar's. Then you can tell any officer without lying that you don't have any weapons in your vehicle?

Fjold
07-19-2009, 1:10 PM
Would it not be easier to simply separate your upper from lower while transporting your ar. Since technically at that point you are not transporting a firearm? Assuming of course you only have with you the one or many separated ar's. Then you can tell any officer without lying that you don't have any weapons in your vehicle?


The lower receiver (AR style OLL) is a firearm whether it is attached to anything else or not.

yellowreef
07-19-2009, 1:27 PM
It is not so much intent as it is the function of your job.

Your job, as an LEO (or an agent of the state), is to arrest people and bring them to justice in the name of the state. Whether you are right or not in making said arrest can be determined at a variety of places prior to a courtroom, if not in the courtroom itself. This causes a lot of undue stress to a citizen such as myself, particularly if no crime has been committed (and especially since LEOs have "qualified immunity"). Since we can see that cops are there to arrest people and a lot of harm comes from such an arrest, I think it is safe to say that, in an A+B=C fashion, that cops are NOT there to "help", they are there to "harm".

I, as a citizen, have made it my sworn job and duty NOT to be arrested. I follow (most) of the laws, no matter how frivolous, stupid, asinine, arbitrary, capricious, nonsensical, backwards and otherwise LAME they may be and being a law-abiding citizen, I would like to not be hassled or arrested. As such, I will do everything in my power to prevent such an arrest and therefore harm to my person, psyche and effects by exercising my God-given and Constitutionally-enforced rights to the best of my ability.

My description of cops, again, lies not on their individual personality traits, but on the characteristics of the job.

Justintoxicated: You can carry your rifle in your truck, unloaded, concealed or openly. Throw it in the back, throw a blanket over it and you are good to go. No see? No talk? No problem!

Hmmm, nice 3+1=6 math. The police are there in the broadest of terms to preserve order. In order to do so, people who break the law (not just any people as you would have us believe), and by doing so break the order society has deemed necessary, get arrested. By arresting these people who break the laws, society (which you are a part of) as a whole benefits.

Now, you might argue that certain actions taken by police are "not right". Or that you as an individual do not like a certain law or procedure. However, those laws and procedures are set forth by the people through their elected representatives. No matter what you would like to believe, police officers don't make stuff up as they go, they follow the law and training that has in a very broad sense been set by society.

So, the people elect their representatives who then come up with rules on how society should live. The police enforces that by arresting people that don't want to live by the rules, to keep them away from people that do, therefore benefiting the law-abiding citizen. This is where the flaw in your argument comes in. I submit to you that police are not out there to arrest "people", they are out there to arrest "people that break the law" or criminals.

Let's address the obvious rebuttal before it comes. Are mistakes made? Yes. Are officers human? Yes. Do innocent people get arrested? Yes. Does every officer have all the training they should have? No. The system, having been made and run by humans has flaws. This does not mean that officers are out there to arrest you, if you are a law-abiding citizen, which I'm sure you are.

I'd also like to address the "agents of the state" terminology. What is "the state" in the U.S.? Last I checked this is a democracy for the people by the people, so the state is run by whomever we elect to be there. So technically, agents of the state are our agents as the people, are they not? When someone you voted for gets elected and things go your way, things are great. When it goes the other way, we want nothing to do with "the state".

Look, if it were up to me anyone could own/carry whatever gun they chose to. Unfortunately, it is not up to me, or you, and we have to abide by society's rules. Cops didn't make those rules, our elected officials did. Whether you voted for them or not, they were voted in by a majority of the people in our system. That's just the way it works. I know it must be frustrating to go on your open carry crusade and be contacted by officers every time, even though what you are doing is legal by the letter of the law. However, those officers are not really your enemy, they are just trying to maintain the "environment" that society through our elected officials has deemed acceptable.

Whether we like it or not, most people in CA freak out when they see someone open carrying. Those people are part of society too. Heck, I've had people freak out with me open carrying in plain clothes even though my badge/handcuffs ect. were visible. Do you and me consider those people ignorant for freaking out? Yes. That doesn't make them any less part of our society, and doesn't take away their vote/opinion on what they deem acceptable. As a matter of fact, I was at an AK build recently full of calgunners where someone caught a glimpse of my concealed weapon. That person, a pro-gun guy, calgunner, and ak builder, hurried over to inform the homeowner with a lot of concern that someone was carrying a gun. If that's the reaction from one of us, what do you think the reaction from a typical soccer mom would be?

You can be anti-police all you want, but the truth is they are just scapegoats for the majority of the people having made a bad decision on election day many years ago. They are also scapegoats for what the majority of our society deems acceptable right now, whether you want to accept it or not. Keep the rethoric coming, I love a good debate.

cjskalka
07-19-2009, 3:28 PM
The lower receiver (AR style OLL) is a firearm whether it is attached to anything else or not.

Ok yes thats true, I had over looked that. Once the upper reciever is removed it is no longer a centerfire rifle though, correct? At that point whether it has a fixed or removable mag doesn't matter, correct? So to be on the safe side and avoid having any BB legality questions come in to play, wouldn't separating the lower from upper be the end all be all making your gun pieces legal from all standpoints (assuming OLL)?

yellowreef
07-19-2009, 4:46 PM
Ok yes thats true, I had over looked that. Once the upper reciever is removed it is no longer a centerfire rifle though, correct? At that point whether it has a fixed or removable mag doesn't matter, correct? So to be on the safe side and avoid having any BB legality questions come in to play, wouldn't separating the lower from upper be the end all be all making your gun pieces legal from all standpoints (assuming OLL)?

There is still the whole contructive possession thing. If you have both upper and lower it's the same as having the whole rifle.

Also, not an expert but as I uderstand it regardless of whether you have the upper or not, the lower does have to be correctly configured. Correctly configured would mean no "evil" features such as the pistol grip, if it has a detachable mag.

chsk9
07-19-2009, 5:02 PM
I'd also like to address the "agents of the state" terminology. What is "the state" in the U.S.? Last I checked this is a democracy for the people by the people, so the state is run by whomever we elect to be there. .

I agree with your points of view- but I did want to point out: We live in a Democratic Republic, NOT a Democracy (or we once did...)

yellowreef
07-19-2009, 6:51 PM
I agree with your points of view- but I did want to point out: We live in a Democratic Republic, NOT a Democracy (or we once did...)

True, but that's a whole different can of worms :p

J-cat
07-19-2009, 7:01 PM
I agree with your points of view- but I did want to point out: We live in a Democratic Republic, NOT a Democracy (or we once did...)

CA is closer to a democracy than any other state.

BTW, I got pulled over about a hour ago for an invalid reason (illegal detention). The cop was cool, I was cool, he did not ask if I had any guns (although I had two), and he sent me on my way without a ticket. I guess business is slow on Sunday.

TwitchALot
07-20-2009, 11:25 AM
Last I checked this is a democracy for the people by the people, so the state is run by whomever we elect to be there.

When was the last time you checked? The United States is NOT a democracy and never has been. Oops. Too late.

There is still the whole contructive possession thing. If you have both upper and lower it's the same as having the whole rifle.

Constructive possession of an AW under California law? Where is that?

Also, not an expert but as I uderstand it regardless of whether you have the upper or not, the lower does have to be correctly configured. Correctly configured would mean no "evil" features such as the pistol grip, if it has a detachable mag.

An assault weapon has several characteristics, and a required one is a semi-automatic centerfire rifle. Since a lower is not a rifle, even without a BB and evil features (pistol grip/stock), you're fine, so long as you do not put the centerfire upper on it.

yellowreef
07-20-2009, 1:02 PM
When was the last time you checked? The United States is NOT a democracy and never has been. Oops. Too late.

Main Entry:de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation:\di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology:Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date:1576
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

I know. Democratic Republic is the "key word", but we still fall under the definition of democracy even though it's not direct due to the electoral college system. And... "Oops. Too late" what? Is this a middle school lunch room debate?

Constructive possession of an AW under California law? Where is that?

An assault weapon has several characteristics, and a required one is a semi-automatic centerfire rifle. Since a lower is not a rifle, even without a BB and evil features (pistol grip/stock), you're fine, so long as you do not put the centerfire upper on it.

Like I said, not an expert. However, this thread is about police encounters. I still think that if you are found to have both upper and lower in your vehicle, and putting them together would make an illegally configured weapon, you would be in trouble. In the meantime I will stick to what I know and refrain from answering OLL questions.

Now, let me get this out of the way. I am human and do make mistakes. If your intent is to pick apart everything I say, and find the smallest mistake so you can throw it in my face, you will be there all day. If you don't like my point of view, then debate my point of view with your point of view, rather than picking apart all my posts looking for mistakes. I will say I'm wrong when I'm wrong, and apologize for any mistaken information I might have given. However, I would much rather debate issues of substance and not definitions easily found in the dictionary.

lorax3
07-20-2009, 1:08 PM
Twitch you are correct. There is no constructive possession of CA AW's. It would be an issue if you had an upper less than 16 inches (even if disassembled from the lower) as federal SBR constructive possession would kick in.

TwitchALot
07-20-2009, 1:46 PM
Main Entry:de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation:\di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology:Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date:1576
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

I know. Democratic Republic is the "key word", but we still fall under the definition of democracy even though it's not direct due to the electoral college system.

Even if we ignored the absence of Republic, all of your bolded points are rather questionable, especially today.

And... "Oops. Too late" what? Is this a middle school lunch room debate?

Middle school lunch room debate? Care to describe that before I answer your question?

Like I said, not an expert. However, this thread is about police encounters. I still think that if you are found to have both upper and lower in your vehicle, and putting them together would make an illegally configured weapon, you would be in trouble. In the meantime I will stick to what I know and refrain from answering OLL questions.

What the thread is about is rather irrelevant to the point I was making. Your statement was incorrect, and as a police officer (IIRC), I'd hate to see a law-abiding citizen get into any trouble whatsoever because you think that there is constructive possession for AW's under California law.

Now, let me get this out of the way. I am human and do make mistakes. If your intent is to pick apart everything I say, and find the smallest mistake so you can throw it in my face, you will be there all day. If you don't like my point of view, then debate my point of view with your point of view, rather than picking apart all my posts looking for mistakes. I will say I'm wrong when I'm wrong, and apologize for any mistaken information I might have given. However, I would much rather debate issues of substance and not definitions easily found in the dictionary.

Those little details are the points us non-LEO's have to watch out for. To the letter. Because while you do not necessarily need to know the law, people like me do, because for us, ignorance is not a defense. Every "small" mistake on your end can end up being a pretty damn big cluster**** on our end for that reason, so yes, your "smallest mistakes," ESPECIALLY those concerning the laws that you enforce as an LEO, DO matter to normal citizens like me.

.....

Thanks for adding that. Federal laws concerning MG's, SBR's, AOW's, etc always apply regardless of what state you're in, of course. But since it's not CA specific, and it is federal law, I didn't bother to mention it.

yellowreef
07-21-2009, 11:56 AM
Even if we ignored the absence of Republic, all of your bolded points are rather questionable, especially today.

My point is that, Republic or not, we do meet the definition of democracy. If you want to question it, then so be it. You can argue semantics all you want, but we have heralded democracy as a cornerstone in this country for many many years, and even talk quite often about bringing democracy to other countries. So call it democratic republic, call it plain republic, call it whatever you want, we live in a society (and country) that treasures the principles of democracy as one of our core values.

Middle school lunch room debate? Care to describe that before I answer your question?

I sure do. I was merely trying to convey that I found your "Oops. Too late" comment rather childish.

What the thread is about is rather irrelevant to the point I was making. Your statement was incorrect, and as a police officer (IIRC), I'd hate to see a law-abiding citizen get into any trouble whatsoever because you think that there is constructive possession for AW's under California law.

Ok, since you seem hell bent in picking apart every word I say, I will explain further. Constructive possession is a legal term (theory). It applies to a whole host of things that have nothing to do with firearms, and to certain federal firearms laws. While there might not be an actual statute penalizing constructive possession of XYZ firearm under CA law, it is certainly a theory that an ambitious prosecutor might decide to pursue and build case law on for charging with "regular" AW possession. What I should have said (my real point if you will), is that it might not be a good idea to run around with an upper and lower inside your car that when put together, would make an illegally configured firearm. I stand by the thought that it is not a good idea to do so. If you want to advise people to run around with illegally configured firearms broken down into upper and lower, then you are certainly entitled to do so.

Those little details are the points us non-LEO's have to watch out for. To the letter. Because while you do not necessarily need to know the law, people like me do, because for us, ignorance is not a defense. Every "small" mistake on your end can end up being a pretty damn big cluster**** on our end for that reason, so yes, your "smallest mistakes," ESPECIALLY those concerning the laws that you enforce as an LEO, DO matter to normal citizens like me.

This is very true, and the courts in the Harrot decision (in not necessarily these words) recognized that not everyone (LEOs and prosecutors) can be an expert when it comes these matters (yes, I know, it was about series). My hat off to you for being more of an expert than me.

All that being said, I think you have me confused with someone that would waste two seconds of a law abiding citizen's time with this crap. I haven't yet, and don't think I ever will. So, if that is the reason you are trying so hard to pick apart every word I say, rest assured you have the wrong person. If on the other hand you are on the anti-police-no-matter-what bandwagon, then there's not much I can do but try to explain my points the best way I can.

TwitchALot
07-21-2009, 3:05 PM
My point is that, Republic or not, we do meet the definition of democracy. If you want to question it, then so be it. You can argue semantics all you want, but we have heralded democracy as a cornerstone in this country for many many years, and even talk quite often about bringing democracy to other countries. So call it democratic republic, call it plain republic, call it whatever you want, we live in a society (and country) that treasures the principles of democracy as one of our core values.

Heh. Spreading the love, right? There's what we say, and there's what we do. And what we do isn't spreading democracy, I'll tell you that much.

I sure do. I was merely trying to convey that I found your "Oops. Too late" comment rather childish.

Ah, so you were calling my remark childish, and simultaneously ask for clarification because you didn't understand it? If you didn't understand it, fine, go ahead and ask for clarification. Don't you think it's rather childish to lash out at something you don't even understand?

That's why I asked for clarification before telling you my remark had to do with the fact that chsk9 already made the point I did, so my comment was a little late (although I let it stand in my edit).

Ok, since you seem hell bent in picking apart every word I say, I will explain further. Constructive possession is a legal term (theory). It applies to a whole host of things that have nothing to do with firearms, and to certain federal firearms laws. While there might not be an actual statute penalizing constructive possession of XYZ firearm under CA law, it is certainly a theory that an ambitious prosecutor might decide to pursue and build case law on for charging with "regular" AW possession.

Hell, there are theories for everything. There's a theory that unfriendly, anti-gun, DA's will go after you and make your life a living hell even if you're obeying the law to the letter (see "Theseus"). But abusing power is so standard that there's no real merit to arguing that power can, and is, sometimes abused for personal reasons. We all know that, or we should. An ambitious prosecutor might decide to pursue and build case law via charging people with manufacturing/importing high capacity magazines (and might make the same arguments made in the Theseus case, mind you). Should all of the law-abiding citizens who have them in this state toss those out, or otherwise not use them in a legal manner?

What I should have said (my real point if you will), is that it might not be a good idea to run around with an upper and lower inside your car that when put together, would make an illegally configured firearm. I stand by the thought that it is not a good idea to do so. If you want to advise people to run around with illegally configured firearms broken down into upper and lower, then you are certainly entitled to do so.

It "might" not be a good idea to have high capacity magazines such that they can be seen by other people, even if used in a perfectly legal manner, such as with a featureless OLL. But it is legal, and it is just as legal as having your upper and lower (no BB with features) separated into two parts. It is NOT an illegal configuration, as you said again, because it is not a rifle and there is no constructive possession for CA AW's.

Could some DA concoct charges to make your life a living hell? Absolutely. But he could also do so with a number of other charges. Magazines. PC 148. Disturbing the peace. On and on.

Here's another good, more personal (for me), example: Loaded magazines in the same, locked, container as an unloaded handgun.

This is very true, and the courts in the Harrot decision (in not necessarily these words) recognized that not everyone (LEOs and prosecutors) can be an expert when it comes these matters (yes, I know, it was about series). My hat off to you for being more of an expert than me.

That wouldn't save me if I broke a law in ignorance. Ignorance is not a defense for me, and false charges, or false arrests, or anything of that manner, is much more painful for me than it is for the person charging or arresting me. And that's a serious problem.

All that being said, I think you have me confused with someone that would waste two seconds of a law abiding citizen's time with this crap. I haven't yet, and don't think I ever will. So, if that is the reason you are trying so hard to pick apart every word I say, rest assured you have the wrong person. If on the other hand you are on the anti-police-no-matter-what bandwagon, then there's not much I can do but try to explain my points the best way I can.

Do you/would you not enforce the laws pertaining to AW's if the issue comes up?

What if you run into a citizen who has his OLL in such a matter out in open view in his car and he's not violating any other laws (save for maybe the speeding you stopped him for)? If you see that upper separated from the lower, which has features and no BB, what would you do? What would your colleagues do? The extent to which LEO's know the laws (firearms law, in this case) matters to me. It matters to other law-abiding gun owners. Because every "small" mistake you make is a stressful and time-consuming situation for us. Enthusiast probably knows what I'm talking about. I'm sure other people here do too. And it wasn't just two seconds of their lives that they wasted attempting to demonstrate that they were in fact, in compliance with the law. For some of those people, it probably cost money, too.

So, while this conversation about what constitutes an assault weapon in California may not have any "substance" to you as someone in the LE community, I can assure it has substance for me and a few other people who are not so endeared by this state.

Afterburnt
07-21-2009, 3:15 PM
tell em "it's not mine I am just holding it for someone" LOL

yellowreef
07-21-2009, 8:03 PM
Heh. Spreading the love, right? There's what we say, and there's what we do. And what we do isn't spreading democracy, I'll tell you that much.

I agree with you. However, merely talking definitions here, I stand by my earlier posts.

Ah, so you were calling my remark childish, and simultaneously ask for clarification because you didn't understand it? If you didn't understand it, fine, go ahead and ask for clarification. Don't you think it's rather childish to lash out at something you don't even understand?

That's why I asked for clarification before telling you my remark had to do with the fact that chsk9 already made the point I did, so my comment was a little late (although I let it stand in my edit).

Fair enough, I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

Hell, there are theories for everything. There's a theory that unfriendly, anti-gun, DA's will go after you and make your life a living hell even if you're obeying the law to the letter (see "Theseus"). But abusing power is so standard that there's no real merit to arguing that power can, and is, sometimes abused for personal reasons. We all know that, or we should. An ambitious prosecutor might decide to pursue and build case law via charging people with manufacturing/importing high capacity magazines (and might make the same arguments made in the Theseus case, mind you). Should all of the law-abiding citizens who have them in this state toss those out, or otherwise not use them in a legal manner?

It "might" not be a good idea to have high capacity magazines such that they can be seen by other people, even if used in a perfectly legal manner, such as with a featureless OLL. But it is legal, and it is just as legal as having your upper and lower (no BB with features) separated into two parts. It is NOT an illegal configuration, as you said again, because it is not a rifle and there is no constructive possession for CA AW's.

Could some DA concoct charges to make your life a living hell? Absolutely. But he could also do so with a number of other charges. Magazines. PC 148. Disturbing the peace. On and on.

Here's another good, more personal (for me), example: Loaded magazines in the same, locked, container as an unloaded handgun.

Let me try this again. There is legal, and then there is smart. The two not always meet. This is the point of contention among a lot of people. Just because you can legally do something, doesn't mean that it is a good idea. I legally carry several weapons in an unmarked vehicle every day. Government owned, completely legal for me to possess and use weapons. If I were to place a submachine gun above the dashboard of my vehicle where everyone could see it, it would be a very bad idea (and I'm not talking about blowing my cover). You might say "But it's legal!!" Tell that to the countless soccer moms who will throw a fit, go diving for cover and call 911 anytime they see me coming. I also guarantee you that I would get stopped by cops every so often as long as I kept the weapon there. Would I get released right away? Yes, but it would be a hassle. Since I don't want any of those hassles, I keep it hidden. This would be just one example of legal but bad idea.

Do you/would you not enforce the laws pertaining to AW's if the issue comes up?

What if you run into a citizen who has his OLL in such a matter out in open view in his car and he's not violating any other laws (save for maybe the speeding you stopped him for)? If you see that upper separated from the lower, which has features and no BB, what would you do? What would your colleagues do? The extent to which LEO's know the laws (firearms law, in this case) matters to me. It matters to other law-abiding gun owners. Because every "small" mistake you make is a stressful and time-consuming situation for us. Enthusiast probably knows what I'm talking about. I'm sure other people here do too. And it wasn't just two seconds of their lives that they wasted attempting to demonstrate that they were in fact, in compliance with the law. For some of those people, it probably cost money, too.

You know, I can't say for sure what I would do. It would probably involve digging a bit further, and a lecture as to what is smart and what is not smart. So you got me there, this one would be more than two seconds before releasing the person.

So, while this conversation about what constitutes an assault weapon in California may not have any "substance" to you as someone in the LE community, I can assure it has substance for me and a few other people who are not so endeared by this state.

Ah, very typical. Now that we are actually talking substance, you turn my words around to make it seem that I don't want to talk about the real issues. Actually, you are trying to make it seem like I deem these issues unimportant because I don't care about what happens to "regular" people. Not so. I am actually glad to be discussing the subtance of this thread now, and not just dictionary definitions or political theories. Keep it coming.

Riodog
07-21-2009, 8:31 PM
I'm not going to waste my time reading this entire bunch of giberish but last I heard is that lying to an officer is not a crime unless it's a federal matter. Correct me if I'm wrong but failing to respond is NOT lying.
Rio

IrishJoe3
07-21-2009, 9:04 PM
lying to an officer is not a crime unless it's a federal matter.

Wrong (see 31 CVC for starters)

Correct me if I'm wrong but failing to respond is NOT lying.


Correct, but hands 10 and 2, eyes front and refusing to speak will probably prolong the contact and will put you under a microscope that you probably weren't under before.

IrishJoe3
07-21-2009, 9:08 PM
[QUOTE=yellowreef;2806137].....[QUOTE]


Yellowreef.....give it up. Accept that you're a jack booted thug, and "agent of the state" who preys on innocent people and are intent on depriving them of their fundamental rights.

:cool:

chsk9
07-21-2009, 11:30 PM
:popcorn:

TwitchALot
07-22-2009, 2:22 PM
I agree with you. However, merely talking definitions here, I stand by my earlier posts.

What about the definition of an "assault weapon"?

Let me try this again. There is legal, and then there is smart. The two not always meet. This is the point of contention among a lot of people. Just because you can legally do something, doesn't mean that it is a good idea. I legally carry several weapons in an unmarked vehicle every day. Government owned, completely legal for me to possess and use weapons. If I were to place a submachine gun above the dashboard of my vehicle where everyone could see it, it would be a very bad idea (and I'm not talking about blowing my cover). You might say "But it's legal!!" Tell that to the countless soccer moms who will throw a fit, go diving for cover and call 911 anytime they see me coming. I also guarantee you that I would get stopped by cops every so often as long as I kept the weapon there. Would I get released right away? Yes, but it would be a hassle. Since I don't want any of those hassles, I keep it hidden. This would be just one example of legal but bad idea.

Of course there is a difference between legal and smart. But the job of LEO's is not to hassle people because what they're doing might not be smart in the eyes of that officer- their job is to deal with people because what they're doing is illegal.

If you see me buy something and put my wallet in my back pocket, walk out to my car, and drive off, are you going to follow me, hit your sirens, and pull me over and lecture me about how it's not smart to put my wallet there because it's easier to pick pocket? Are you going to hassle me if I'm doing something that's not necessarily smart, but perfectly legal?

If you wouldn't do it there, or you wouldn't offer your advice about what's smart when the law isn't being broken, why would you hassle someone over a legal firearm being stored/transported in a legal fashion (ie. when the law is not being broken)? If someone is open carrying, for example, and some soccer mom calls, are you going to hassle and lecture the open carrier beyond the 12031 check? Ask him why he's carrying a gun and tell him it's not the wild west etc etc etc? Or would you just 12031 him to ensure the weapon is loaded and wish him upon his merry way?

You know, I can't say for sure what I would do. It would probably involve digging a bit further, and a lecture as to what is smart and what is not smart. So you got me there, this one would be more than two seconds before releasing the person.

And your colleagues? Several hours of detention perhaps, as has happened to at least one calgunner here, with others experiencing less time-consuming hassles with LE?

Ah, very typical. Now that we are actually talking substance, you turn my words around to make it seem that I don't want to talk about the real issues. Actually, you are trying to make it seem like I deem these issues unimportant because I don't care about what happens to "regular" people. Not so. I am actually glad to be discussing the subtance of this thread now, and not just dictionary definitions or political theories. Keep it coming.

I didn't turn your words around at all. We're discussing the definition of an assault weapon, which you can clearly read in the law. Yet you still haven't admitted that the scenario described earlier would be a case of a FULLY LEGAL configuration that doesn't warrant any hassling whatsoever. You, "still think that if you are found to have both upper and lower in your vehicle, and putting them together would make an illegally configured weapon, you would be in trouble. In the meantime I will stick to what I know and refrain from answering OLL questions." But what you "know" is incorrect under California law, and because you are in a position to make the lives of law-abiding citizens difficult (and undoubtedly have friends/colleagues in the same position), I think I should do my best to ensure it doesn't happen because there's a misunderstanding on your part.

The definition of an assault weapon is clearly stated under California law. Because a receiver is NOT a rifle, a lower receiver separated from its upper, even without a bullet button and having evil features, is NOT an assault weapon under the law. Furthermore, because there is no constructive possession under CA law for assault weapons, the fact that a centerfire upper and non-bullet buttoned lower with evil features is under the possession of the same person, or is in the same place, is irrelevant.

This is a matter of definitions clearly stated under California law, so if definitions aren't matters of substance to you, as you've said earlier, then logically, this isn't a matter of substance to you, and I stand by the statement I made earlier.

cjskalka
07-22-2009, 5:18 PM
Is this outdated then? (Taken from the AR/AK Memo on the homepage).
"Does “Constructive Possession” Apply to Separated Assault Weapon Parts?
If the receiver portion of a firearm is not specifically named by make and model on the various state lists
of assault weapons, and does not have key PC 12276.1 characteristic features assembled, it is not an
assault weapon. A letter 12 from the DOJ to a firearms attorney indicates “constructive possession” concepts do not apply to 12276.1 assault weapon “characteristic features” components. Moreover, in a similar vein, text on a
Q&A page on the DOJ Firearms Division website indicates removal of appropriate 12276.1 features from
an already registered assault weapon not banned by specific make and model indeed allows such a firearm to be treated as a regular long arm, with their less-stringent transportation, storage and service/repair issues.
Nevertheless, it’d be wise to keep parts widely separated and locked away from each other – for example,
assume you possess an off-list AR-type rifle configured without a pistol grip and no other characteristic
features, thus allowing it to legally be used with detachable magazines. It would not be wise to have a
pistol grip in immediate vicinity of the rifle since that possibly might be “tempting bait” for a DA. "

yellowreef
07-23-2009, 2:35 AM
Yellowreef.....give it up. Accept that you're a jack booted thug, and "agent of the state" who preys on innocent people and are intent on depriving them of their fundamental rights.

:cool:

Yup, but I also enjoy these debates, and learn a whole lot from them ;)

yellowreef
07-23-2009, 2:39 AM
Is this outdated then? (Taken from the AR/AK Memo on the homepage).

It is not outdated, and it is exactly my point. Read the last sentence starting with "It would not be wise..."

However, since I agree with it then it must obviously be wrong and some kind of conspiracy to deprive whoever reads it of their rights...

yellowreef
07-23-2009, 3:25 AM
What about the definition of an "assault weapon"?

What about it? This is the first time you mention the definition of assault weapon. The definition that was going back and forth was democracy.

Of course there is a difference between legal and smart. But the job of LEO's is not to hassle people because what they're doing might not be smart in the eyes of that officer- their job is to deal with people because what they're doing is illegal.

Very true. But also see below...

If you see me buy something and put my wallet in my back pocket, walk out to my car, and drive off, are you going to follow me, hit your sirens, and pull me over and lecture me about how it's not smart to put my wallet there because it's easier to pick pocket? Are you going to hassle me if I'm doing something that's not necessarily smart, but perfectly legal?

Nope.

If you wouldn't do it there, or you wouldn't offer your advice about what's smart when the law isn't being broken, why would you hassle someone over a legal firearm being stored/transported in a legal fashion (ie. when the law is not being broken)? If someone is open carrying, for example, and some soccer mom calls, are you going to hassle and lecture the open carrier beyond the 12031 check? Ask him why he's carrying a gun and tell him it's not the wild west etc etc etc? Or would you just 12031 him to ensure the weapon is loaded and wish him upon his merry way?

Knowing myself, I probably would make some sort of comment as to how stupid (tactically speaking) it is to open carry. I would probably then go on a tirade on how I wish we had shall-issue CCWs in this state. Then I might complain about soccer moms over-reacting to guns. So you got me there, I would open my mouth and have a conversation.

And your colleagues? Several hours of detention perhaps, as has happened to at least one calgunner here, with others experiencing less time-consuming hassles with LE?

You know, I wish I had control over what every single LEO does but I don't. I wish I could tell you what every single one of them would do in a certain situation, but I don't know that either. We are all human, and as such unpredictable. What do you expect from me here? To tell you that a lot of cops know nothing about gun laws? True, and we all know it. To tell you that mistakes are made and that people suffer from those? True, and we all know it. It's been said, hashed and re-hashed. Unfortunately I have no control over that outside of my small sphere of influence. I feel sorry that other calgunners were hassled over nothing, but I have no say over that. I truly have no idea what you expect from me with those questions.

I didn't turn your words around at all. We're discussing the definition of an assault weapon, which you can clearly read in the law.

Now we are apparently. Up until now I thought we were discussing a scenario.

Yet you still haven't admitted that the scenario described earlier would be a case of a FULLY LEGAL configuration that doesn't warrant any hassling whatsoever.

I haven't admitted that because you have failed to make a 100% convincing argument to me. Am I just supposed to take your word for it? You keep saying the definition, the definition, but you haven't even bothered to post it here. Don't worry, I'll post it below. Trust me, unlike you I will admit when I'm wrong as I have proven in earlier posts. Just make a good argument with the supporting proof.

You, "still think that if you are found to have both upper and lower in your vehicle, and putting them together would make an illegally configured weapon, you would be in trouble. In the meantime I will stick to what I know and refrain from answering OLL questions." But what you "know" is incorrect under California law, and because you are in a position to make the lives of law-abiding citizens difficult (and undoubtedly have friends/colleagues in the same position), I think I should do my best to ensure it doesn't happen because there's a misunderstanding on your part.

The definition of an assault weapon is clearly stated under California law. Because a receiver is NOT a rifle, a lower receiver separated from its upper, even without a bullet button and having evil features, is NOT an assault weapon under the law. Furthermore, because there is no constructive possession under CA law for assault weapons, the fact that a centerfire upper and non-bullet buttoned lower with evil features is under the possession of the same person, or is in the same place, is irrelevant.

This is a matter of definitions clearly stated under California law, so if definitions aren't matters of substance to you, as you've said earlier, then logically, this isn't a matter of substance to you, and I stand by the statement I made earlier.

You are hilarious. Again, just in case... when I spoke of definitions not being of substance to the thread, I was clearly referring to the definition of democracy which you seemed hell bent on grilling me about. Actually, I believe my exact quote was "definitions easily found in the dictionary" or something to that effect, since I had posted a Merriam-Webster definition.

Obviously the definition of an assault weapon is relevant and of substance to this thread, and I'd be happy to discuss it. So now that hopefully that is clarified, you can stop making it seem like I don't want to discuss assault weapons.

Now, you are correct in that assault weapon is defined in the law.

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Penal Code section 12276, “assault weapon” shall also mean the following:
Rifles
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of
the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

Now, you assertion is that the lower by itself is not a centerfire rifle, and therefore is immune to being classified as an assault weapon. I find that to be a good argument, but you haven't fully driven it home. Can you please direct me to the definition of rifle within the law, or to where it says that a lower receiver is not considered the rifle for these purposes?

TwitchALot
07-23-2009, 9:08 AM
What about it? This is the first time you mention the definition of assault weapon. The definition that was going back and forth was democracy.

We were discussing a situation regarding an assault weapon, whose outcome depends entirely upon the definition of an assault weapon.

Knowing myself, I probably would make some sort of comment as to how stupid (tactically speaking) it is to open carry.

I'm not terribly interested in debating the pros AND cons of open carry, but I'll say this much- CCW has cons too. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, and it should be up to the individual to decide which carry method suits him best.

I would probably then go on a tirade on how I wish we had shall-issue CCWs in this state. Then I might complain about soccer moms over-reacting to guns. So you got me there, I would open my mouth and have a conversation.

Which is unnecessary, and not your job. If I'm interested in having a conversation with an on duty LEO, I'll start one. However, a conversation does not involve me being lectured during a stop about what might be wise or unwise or what my business is (presuming that I'm not in violation of the law). If you want to talk about that stuff, do it off duty. Lights and sirens for a lecture on wisdom is unwelcome, AFAIC.

By the way- why would you open your mouth here but not in the other case, exactly?

You know, I wish I had control over what every single LEO does but I don't. I wish I could tell you what every single one of them would do in a certain situation, but I don't know that either. We are all human, and as such unpredictable. What do you expect from me here? To tell you that a lot of cops know nothing about gun laws? True, and we all know it. To tell you that mistakes are made and that people suffer from those? True, and we all know it. It's been said, hashed and re-hashed. Unfortunately I have no control over that outside of my small sphere of influence. I feel sorry that other calgunners were hassled over nothing, but I have no say over that. I truly have no idea what you expect from me with those questions.

I don't want you to speak for other LEO's. I want you to speak TO other LEO's about what's really legal and what's not so that the knowledge you take from here can hopefully save a law-abiding citizen a lot of trouble down the road.

Now we are apparently. Up until now I thought we were discussing a scenario.

We were. One entirely dependent upon a definition.

I haven't admitted that because you have failed to make a 100% convincing argument to me. Am I just supposed to take your word for it? You keep saying the definition, the definition, but you haven't even bothered to post it here. Don't worry, I'll post it below.

I didn't think it'd be all that difficult, so I will post it for you further below.

Trust me, unlike you I will admit when I'm wrong as I have proven in earlier posts. Just make a good argument with the supporting proof.

Yet another baseless conclusion/insult. I'm more than happy to admit I'm wrong... if I'm wrong. Can you point out a single statement here from me that is incorrect?

You are hilarious. Again, just in case... when I spoke of definitions not being of substance to the thread, I was clearly referring to the definition of democracy which you seemed hell bent on grilling me about. Actually, I believe my exact quote was "definitions easily found in the dictionary" or something to that effect, since I had posted a Merriam-Webster definition.

Some definitions are important, some aren't? I presume the definition of a rifle is in the dictionary, but I digress. Of course, it is possible for our incompetent legislature to twist the definition of a rifle so much so that a receiver itself is a rifle, so I'll post that below, again.

Bottom line- the devil is in the details. And there's no reason for me to be careful with some definitions and not others.

Obviously the definition of an assault weapon is relevant and of substance to this thread, and I'd be happy to discuss it. So now that hopefully that is clarified, you can stop making it seem like I don't want to discuss assault weapons.

Now, you are correct in that assault weapon is defined in the law.

Now, you assertion is that the lower by itself is not a centerfire rifle, and therefore is immune to being classified as an assault weapon. I find that to be a good argument, but you haven't fully driven it home. Can you please direct me to the definition of rifle within the law, or to where it says that a lower receiver is not considered the rifle for these purposes?

Certainly.

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php

See 12020.20. It's the second "20." Why they do that, I don't know, but in case you get lost, here it is:

"(20) As used in this section, a "rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger."

Of course, since a lower receiver by itself was not designed (etc) to use the energy of an explosive, and it certainly wasn't designed to have a bore, let alone a rifled one, it, by itself, is not a rifle. An upper by itself has no trigger, so it too cannot be a rifle under this definition. An upper and a lower together, however, conveniently fits this definition (yes, assuming it's not an AR pistol, etc etc etc). However, as I previously stated, since there is no constructive possession for CA AW's, having them separately would be legal, even if the lower has features and no BB.


Now, could an anti-gun DA go after you for that? Absolutely. Would he have a case? Maybe- you never know (again, see Theseus). But the DA alone can't cause hell for a law-abiding citizen. In order to press charges, individuals allegedly in violation of the law must be identified as doing such. And guess who's on the front lines doing that?

You guessed it. LEO's. We often talk about aggressive, anti-gun, DA's and judges here when it comes to the law. But we often tend to forget that it's the LEO's, and their knowledge (or lack thereof), judgment, and personal biases that will get you in front of a DA in the first place. If, as an LEO, you see loaded magazines in the same container as an unloaded firearm, could you send the guy up to a DA for a possible 12031 violation? Absolutely. Is that citizen going to have to pay to prove that he is not in fact, in violation of PC 12031? Most likely. What does doing so cost you? Not very much at all (and an anti-gun cop might even have a good time). What does it cost the law-abiding citizen who has to prove his innocence? Time, money, emotional distress, more?

The bottom line is that LEO's charged with enforcing the laws play an important role with respect to the fate of citizens under our legal system. And it is in OUR interest as normal citizens (but not necessarily yours as an LEO) for LEO's to know the laws, and know them well. Which is precisely why I've spent this much time trying to educate you about AW laws. Because maybe, in doing so, I might save some people a lot of trouble, because you can, and hopefully will, convey this information to your fellow LEO's. Of course, I could have this long conversation on the street with that particular LEO if it ever happens to me. But something tells me things will work out better if LEO's hear it from you in some briefing room than from me out on the street. ;)

For more fun, see this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=203921).

KidPluto
07-23-2009, 11:58 AM
I can certainly appreciate this thread, especially since an LEO is involved in the discussion. Yellowreef, you genuinely sound like one of the good guys. But Twitch does have a point. The general perception is that there are more not-so-good guys than there are good. I know that if I get pulled over with an OLL in my trunk, I'd be pooping bricks regardless of whether a cop asks to see it or not or whether the cop understands the laws or not. I'm very respectful during encounters and don't ever look to start a provocation. But not knowing if I will be in handcuffs by the end of an encounter because this particular LEO is uninformed will be nerve-wracking to some, me included. The sad truth is that I don't have faith that every cop will know even the basics of laws concerning firearms.

I once asked an LEO at a range about firearm transportation. She said that I should never have ammo in the same case as the gun nor should I transport it in any other situation except to and from the range. I thought it was gospel back then until I found this site. It's not pleasant knowing there's a possibility of getting arrested during an encounter because a cop doesn't know the laws. If more did, then the perception might slowly swing the opposite direction...

ChrisDM
07-23-2009, 12:27 PM
Which is unnecessary, and not your job. If I'm interested in having a conversation with an on duty LEO, I'll start one. However, a conversation does not involve me being lectured during a stop about what might be wise or unwise or what my business is.

Its not yellowreef's job to be paricipating here either, but we all benefit from his participation, even you (perhaps especially you). I for one enjoy having discussions with LEOs on the topic, whether or not they have their uniform on is irrelavent to me. I appreciate them (and yellowreef) taking the time("unnecessary time" as you put it), to help us to better understand the arm of the law and their challenges with enforcing it. And apparently you do too, or you wouldn't be spending so much of your time on this tread.

The way I look at the original topic (ar we still on the original topic?) is that cops don't come to my office and try to make my job harder so why would I do that to them?

TwitchALot
07-23-2009, 1:23 PM
Its not yellowreef's job to be paricipating here either, but we all benefit from his participation, even you (perhaps especially you). I for one enjoy having discussions with LEOs on the topic, whether or not they have their uniform on is irrelavent to me. I appreciate them (and yellowreef) taking the time("unnecessary time" as you put it), to help us to better understand the arm of the law and their challenges with enforcing it. And apparently you do too, or you wouldn't be spending so much of your time on this tread.

What yellowreef does on his own time is his business. If he weren't here, I wouldn't bang at his door to teach him about OLL's or otherwise harass him to inform him of the law.

When he's on duty, however, I don't expect, nor do I want, to be receiving lectures on the side of the road because he, or another LEO, feels that what I am doing is "unwise" unless he does so consistently and fairly (ie. he does so when he sees someone doing something "unwise," EVEN IF IT'S NOT FIREARMS RELATED). And I'd expect the question, "am I free to go" replied with, "yes" every time if this is the case and if I'm not in violation of the law.

It can be appropriate to offer advice in some cases, but I don't think it's appropriate for an LEO to pull someone over just to offer "words of wisdom." If I'm not in violation of the law, please don't hassle me. A quick, "I'd be a little more discrete with that in case you run into an officer that doesn't know the law" might be appropriate in some cases, but that's quite enough.

yellowreef
07-24-2009, 4:56 AM
We were discussing a situation regarding an assault weapon, whose outcome depends entirely upon the definition of an assault weapon.

Very well then, let's discuss that definition.

I'm not terribly interested in debating the pros AND cons of open carry, but I'll say this much- CCW has cons too. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, and it should be up to the individual to decide which carry method suits him best.

I agree that it is up to the individual. That doesn't preclude me from having an opinion :cool:

Which is unnecessary, and not your job. If I'm interested in having a conversation with an on duty LEO, I'll start one. However, a conversation does not involve me being lectured during a stop about what might be wise or unwise or what my business is (presuming that I'm not in violation of the law). If you want to talk about that stuff, do it off duty. Lights and sirens for a lecture on wisdom is unwelcome, AFAIC.

By the way- why would you open your mouth here but not in the other case, exactly?

Simple. There is no approach whatsoever in the other scenario. I could mail you a post card or something but we aren't even talking in the first place. In the second scenario we are already talking. I have a very slow dispatcher. While the checks are run I usually like having conversations with people, makes time go faster. By the way, those were just examples, I could also comment on last night's game or whatever else. In summary, just so we are clear, I don't start or prolong the detention because I want to have a conversation or "lecture" anyone.

I don't want you to speak for other LEO's. I want you to speak TO other LEO's about what's really legal and what's not so that the knowledge you take from here can hopefully save a law-abiding citizen a lot of trouble down the road.

That's why I said earlier that I have spoken to the guys that work with me about OLLs and BBs.

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php

See 12020.20. It's the second "20." Why they do that, I don't know, but in case you get lost, here it is:

"(20) As used in this section, a "rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger."

Of course, since a lower receiver by itself was not designed (etc) to use the energy of an explosive, and it certainly wasn't designed to have a bore, let alone a rifled one, it, by itself, is not a rifle. An upper by itself has no trigger, so it too cannot be a rifle under this definition. An upper and a lower together, however, conveniently fits this definition (yes, assuming it's not an AR pistol, etc etc etc). However, as I previously stated, since there is no constructive possession for CA AW's, having them separately would be legal, even if the lower has features and no BB.

Ok, absent any other section or case law that might conflict, you have proven your argument.

Now, could an anti-gun DA go after you for that? Absolutely. Would he have a case? Maybe- you never know (again, see Theseus). But the DA alone can't cause hell for a law-abiding citizen. In order to press charges, individuals allegedly in violation of the law must be identified as doing such. And guess who's on the front lines doing that?

You guessed it. LEO's. We often talk about aggressive, anti-gun, DA's and judges here when it comes to the law. But we often tend to forget that it's the LEO's, and their knowledge (or lack thereof), judgment, and personal biases that will get you in front of a DA in the first place. If, as an LEO, you see loaded magazines in the same container as an unloaded firearm, could you send the guy up to a DA for a possible 12031 violation? Absolutely. Is that citizen going to have to pay to prove that he is not in fact, in violation of PC 12031? Most likely. What does doing so cost you? Not very much at all (and an anti-gun cop might even have a good time). What does it cost the law-abiding citizen who has to prove his innocence? Time, money, emotional distress, more?

The bottom line is that LEO's charged with enforcing the laws play an important role with respect to the fate of citizens under our legal system. And it is in OUR interest as normal citizens (but not necessarily yours as an LEO) for LEO's to know the laws, and know them well. Which is precisely why I've spent this much time trying to educate you about AW laws. Because maybe, in doing so, I might save some people a lot of trouble, because you can, and hopefully will, convey this information to your fellow LEO's. Of course, I could have this long conversation on the street with that particular LEO if it ever happens to me. But something tells me things will work out better if LEO's hear it from you in some briefing room than from me out on the street. ;)

For more fun, see this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=203921).

Ok, now this is the deal. The argument you proved here (rifle with AW characteristics being carried in a vehicle separated into upper and lower) might be good for court. But your intention and mine is to keep fellow calgunners from getting that far into trouble. As you have said there is great cost, monetary and otherwise, to going through the legal battle.

As has been stated before, many officers are not entirely familiar with AW laws. So, this might seem contradictory with saying you have a good argument, but I still believe that carrying those two pieces would get you in trouble legal or not. Not talking winning in court here, simply that the chance of getting arrested and having to prove you did nothing wrong would be high in a police encounter. Just my humble opinion, whether it is right or not, whether it is fair or not, if I were a betting man I would bet the odds of getting in trouble.

Think about it for a second. If that one threw me for a loop, being a calgunner myself, and somewhat familiar with all the FAQs and such as an OLL AR/AK builder, imagine an officer that has none of that familiarity. So, I am leaving the scenario at very likely legal by the letter of the law, but very unadvisable and a good way to get in trouble. By the way, I am familiar with that other thread, and that is three notches up in the unadvisable scale.

Now, plenty of other guys come on here and give advice. Carry this memo, carry that letter, this other flowchart, don't do this, carry stuff this way ect. There is no legal requirement to do most of that stuff but people still heed the advice because it's the "smart thing to do just in case". That's all I ask here. People want to know how not to get in trouble in police encounters, all I can do is offer some advice. You know AW laws better than me, but trust me when I tell you that I know police encounters better than you. If you want to rant and rave that my advice or opinion is not consistent with the law, and that doing the contrary is totally legal, then so be it. I am simply offering my best opinion as to what would/wouldn't get you in trouble based on my experience.

yellowreef
07-24-2009, 4:59 AM
It can be appropriate to offer advice in some cases, but I don't think it's appropriate for an LEO to pull someone over just to offer "words of wisdom."

This was already addressed but just in case. In the scenario you provided no one got pulled over just for advice or a lecture. In my answers I never stated that I would do such a thing. That would be illegal. I don't know where you are getting this from.

J-cat
07-24-2009, 7:33 AM
Now, you assertion is that the lower by itself is not a centerfire rifle, and therefore is immune to being classified as an assault weapon. I find that to be a good argument, but you haven't fully driven it home. Can you please direct me to the definition of rifle within the law, or to where it says that a lower receiver is not considered the rifle for these purposes?

There is no such animal as "for these purposes." The Penal Code is silent with respect to that issue. Further, there is a legal doctrine that states where an ambiguity in the statute exists, said ambiguity shall be resolved in favor of the defendant in any criminal proceeding.

A lower receiver that can accept both rimfire and centerfire uppers cannot be said to be a "centerfire" rifle if it does not have a centerfire upper installed.

TwitchALot
07-24-2009, 9:26 AM
Simple. There is no approach whatsoever in the other scenario. I could mail you a post card or something but we aren't even talking in the first place. In the second scenario we are already talking. I have a very slow dispatcher. While the checks are run I usually like having conversations with people, makes time go faster. By the way, those were just examples, I could also comment on last night's game or whatever else. In summary, just so we are clear, I don't start or prolong the detention because I want to have a conversation or "lecture" anyone.

If you were inclined to offer some words of wisdom, I can't imagine it'd be that hard. More on that below.

That's why I said earlier that I have spoken to the guys that work with me about OLLs and BBs.

Well now you have something new to take back.

Ok, now this is the deal. The argument you proved here (rifle with AW characteristics being carried in a vehicle separated into upper and lower) might be good for court. But your intention and mine is to keep fellow calgunners from getting that far into trouble. As you have said there is great cost, monetary and otherwise, to going through the legal battle.

As has been stated before, many officers are not entirely familiar with AW laws. So, this might seem contradictory with saying you have a good argument, but I still believe that carrying those two pieces would get you in trouble legal or not. Not talking winning in court here, simply that the chance of getting arrested and having to prove you did nothing wrong would be high in a police encounter. Just my humble opinion, whether it is right or not, whether it is fair or not, if I were a betting man I would bet the odds of getting in trouble.

Think about it for a second. If that one threw me for a loop, being a calgunner myself, and somewhat familiar with all the FAQs and such as an OLL AR/AK builder, imagine an officer that has none of that familiarity. So, I am leaving the scenario at very likely legal by the letter of the law, but very unadvisable and a good way to get in trouble. By the way, I am familiar with that other thread, and that is three notches up in the unadvisable scale.

Now, plenty of other guys come on here and give advice. Carry this memo, carry that letter, this other flowchart, don't do this, carry stuff this way ect. There is no legal requirement to do most of that stuff but people still heed the advice because it's the "smart thing to do just in case". That's all I ask here. People want to know how not to get in trouble in police encounters, all I can do is offer some advice. You know AW laws better than me, but trust me when I tell you that I know police encounters better than you. If you want to rant and rave that my advice or opinion is not consistent with the law, and that doing the contrary is totally legal, then so be it. I am simply offering my best opinion as to what would/wouldn't get you in trouble based on my experience.

There is no question that possessing and using firearms is risky business here, even if you are fully within the law, and that has never been in question. My point was not to tell people this was a good idea, nor have I said anything to that effect. My point was to educate you and other LEO's about the legalities of OLL's so that maybe it'll save someone some trouble down the line. Yes, this is legal. No, it MAY not be a good idea, but then, I could say that of owning firearms in general in this state.

This was already addressed but just in case. In the scenario you provided no one got pulled over just for advice or a lecture. In my answers I never stated that I would do such a thing. That would be illegal. I don't know where you are getting this from.

Oh come on. Failure to signal? If an LEO wants to pull someone over, all they have to do is follow them for a little bit, and I can pretty much guarantee you that the driver WILL make a mistake. Not saying you do this, but if you really wanted to, it wouldn't be all that difficult.

cjskalka
07-24-2009, 11:24 AM
When I travel with my OLL ar, I just seperate upper while leaving the bullet button configuration intact just to be safe as well. This way if it was assembled by putting the upper back on, it would still be legal (BB). Just another way of covering my ***.

Northern Lights
07-24-2009, 4:28 PM
Now, plenty of other guys come on here and give advice. Carry this memo, carry that letter, this other flowchart, don't do this, carry stuff this way ect.

Why do you recommend not carrying these documents? Should you carry proof of ownership of the OLL?

-Thanks for the advice!

yellowreef
07-25-2009, 11:35 AM
Why do you recommend not carrying these documents? Should you carry proof of ownership of the OLL?

-Thanks for the advice!

Read my post again. I never said or implied that I don't reccomend it. As a matter of fact, I don't think there is any harm in it. All I am saying is that my advice is in par with that type of advice. Highly reccomended although no legal requierement to do so.

yellowreef
07-25-2009, 11:40 AM
Oh come on. Failure to signal? If an LEO wants to pull someone over, all they have to do is follow them for a little bit, and I can pretty much guarantee you that the driver WILL make a mistake. Not saying you do this, but if you really wanted to, it wouldn't be all that difficult.

Wow, pretext stop just to lecture someone. I'm glad you're not a cop. Then again you don't have the training and experience on the legalities of such a stop, only the anti-cop hype some people spout.

yellowreef
07-25-2009, 12:00 PM
There is no such animal as "for these purposes." The Penal Code is silent with respect to that issue. Further, there is a legal doctrine that states where an ambiguity in the statute exists, said ambiguity shall be resolved in favor of the defendant in any criminal proceeding.

A lower receiver that can accept both rimfire and centerfire uppers cannot be said to be a "centerfire" rifle if it does not have a centerfire upper installed.

That's alright. Take the words "for these purposes" out of my sentence then. The sentence still holds the same meaning. I am familiar with ambiguity, but the section of the law hadn't been posted to see if it was ambiguous or not. That's all I was asking for. No need to get your undies in a bunch.

As far as the lower receiver goes, who says it "cannot be said" to be a centerfire? My OLL is marked 5.56, do you know any 5.56 round to be rimfire? As with my previous post, you make a nice argument but it still has holes. Could you please post the relevant sections of the law?

TwitchALot
07-25-2009, 12:09 PM
Wow, pretext stop just to lecture someone. I'm glad you're not a cop. Then again you don't have the training and experience on the legalities of such a stop, only the anti-cop hype some people spout.

Speeding. Easy. As I said- if you WANT to pull someone over, you can. It is NOT hard for a driver to break the law that gives you justification to pull them over, if you so desired. Am I wrong with respect to the legality of you pulling someone over for speeding or failing to signal, or are you just trying to defend yourself? If you're trying to defend yourself, why?

Because as I also said "[I'm] Not saying you do this," and if it weren't obvious, I hardly said I'd do the same, which you might have been able to figure out based on my attitude about unnecessary and unwanted lectures.

Chill out.

But for the record, what I do know is the the "legalities" don't apply to me like they apply to you. "Legal mistakes" for example. So if you want to dispel those evil myths about "the anti-cop hype some people spout," for me, explain why ignorance is not a defense for me, but it is for. Explain why there are so many legal exemptions for officers, but not for other citizens like me. Explain the vast power gradient (even in a court of justice) between those who obey, and those who enforce, the law.

I don't like the reality or facts of the situation by any stretch of the imagination. But that doesn't make me a cop basher, or anti-cop. When exactly did I disrespect or insult you or other officers? Did I make any incorrect or false statements about you or other officers or otherwise diminish what you do? When did I jump to conclusions and accuse you of making immature statements before knowing the facts?

As far as the lower receiver goes, who says it "cannot be said" to be a centerfire? My OLL is marked 5.56, do you know any 5.56 round to be rimfire? As with my previous post, you make a nice argument but it still has holes. Could you please post the relevant sections of the law?

You can say it. I can say a lower receiver is an atomic bomb. That doesn't make it true. Your OLL may be marked 5.56, but what if I put a .22 upper on it? Is it centerfire, because it's marked 5.56? Also, I know this statement wasn't directed to me, but what sections of the law are you looking for?

TurboS600
07-25-2009, 12:46 PM
On an anecdotal note, when I was younger my father and I were pulled over on the way to the shooting range. There were guns, in cases mind you, in the bed of my father's truck, the LEO simply asked to see the firearms and perform a 12031 inspection, to which my father consented. The LEO conducted the inspection and sent us on our way with a warning for my father's noisy exhaust system. If you use good firearm transportation judgment, then consenting to the 12031 really isn't that big of a deal. Hell, most of the cops around here (granted it's a rural area) are gun nuts and just want to gawk at what you have and chat a bit. In summary, use good judgment, and now your area.

I have to go with those who are saying not to volunteer ANY information. I had a situation similar to omgwtfbbq when I was 18 that didn't turn out as well.

My father had told me to ALWAYS be straight with LEO when there are weapons in the vehicle. He taught me about weapons safety and transportation. One of the things he said was that if I were pulled over and there were weapons in the vehicle, keep hands at 10 and 2, everyone else's hands on the dash, tell the LEO that there are weapons in the vehicle and consent to 12031 checks. The caveat here is that you must make sure that all transported weapons are properly stored before you fire up the car.

Well there were 3 of us hunting that day and one of my buddies didn't clear his shotgun properly at the end of the hunt. When the LEO approached, I did as Pops told me and gave consent. Next thing I know, I'm cuffed to my buddy who failed to properly clear his weapon and hauled off to the local jail. I should have checked EVERYONE'S weapon as they put them into my car. Valuable lesson learned while I was still young and stupid.

Gotta say, I have since reviewed MY OWN POLICY for LEO contacts and will not volunteer any information when pulled over. I also make sure now that all guns are transported properly so that if they do find PC, I will be clean as a whistle.

YMMV

yellowreef
07-26-2009, 2:20 AM
Speeding. Easy. As I said- if you WANT to pull someone over, you can. It is NOT hard for a driver to break the law that gives you justification to pull them over, if you so desired. Am I wrong with respect to the legality of you pulling someone over for speeding or failing to signal, or are you just trying to defend yourself? If you're trying to defend yourself, why?

Because as I also said "[I'm] Not saying you do this," and if it weren't obvious, I hardly said I'd do the same, which you might have been able to figure out based on my attitude about unnecessary and unwanted lectures.

I'm not trying to defend myself, I don't do that period. What I am telling you is that pulling over for a minor violation for the sole purpose of lecturing someone is not kosher. There are pretext stops on a minor violation when you suspect bigger criminal activity, and that has been upheld by the courts. But pretext stops just to lecture is a good way to get in trouble.

Chill out.

I am very calm, thanks.

But for the record, what I do know is the the "legalities" don't apply to me like they apply to you. "Legal mistakes" for example. So if you want to dispel those evil myths about "the anti-cop hype some people spout," for me, explain why ignorance is not a defense for me, but it is for. Explain why there are so many legal exemptions for officers, but not for other citizens like me. Explain the vast power gradient (even in a court of justice) between those who obey, and those who enforce, the law.

The answer is simple, when acting in their official capacity, officers are the government. The government will protect itself. That's where all the qualified inmunity and sovereign inmunity stuff comes from. The federal government or state governments for example under sovereign inmunity can decide they don't want you suing them, and not allow (consent to) a law suit.

In a more practical sense, would you take a very dangerous job where you are paid crap, and approximately 30 situations per day could very easily get you sued for everything you have and/or land you in jail? Enough of both happen nowadays even with qualified inmunity in place. I don't even want to imagine what would happen without it.

Our system isn't perfect, but it IS a lot better than most when it comes to checks and balances. It's pretty easy, if the cop messes up your case usually gets thrown out of court

I don't like the reality or facts of the situation by any stretch of the imagination. But that doesn't make me a cop basher, or anti-cop. When exactly did I disrespect or insult you or other officers? Did I make any incorrect or false statements about you or other officers or otherwise diminish what you do?

I didn't see you jumping down the throat of anyone else who posted on here. You also seem to think we just go around harrasing people for no reason. If I got the wrong impression then I'm sorry, but that's the vibe I got from you.

When did I jump to conclusions and accuse you of making immature statements before knowing the facts?

I already apologized for that. Do you feel the need to hear it again?

You can say it. I can say a lower receiver is an atomic bomb. That doesn't make it true. Your OLL may be marked 5.56, but what if I put a .22 upper on it? Is it centerfire, because it's marked 5.56? Also, I know this statement wasn't directed to me, but what sections of the law are you looking for?

I can attach wheels to a lower, that doesn't make it a skateboard. Your original argument is that a lower didn't meet the definition of a rifle and therefore it couldn't be improperly configured and deemed an AW. This argument is kind of along the same lines, but it brings in the whole centerfire/rimfire discussion.

So, your two questions "Your OLL may be marked 5.56, but what if I put a .22 upper on it? Is it centerfire, because it's marked 5.56?" is exactly what I am asking. I'm not trying to be funny, I'm just looking for further clarification just like you had done earlier with your argument. I mean, there's all kinds of conversion kits for all kinds of weapons. Find me a popular weapon platform and I will most likely be able to find a .22lr conversion kit for it. Just because there is a conversion kit out there, or a dedicated .22 upper that a couple of companies make, does that mean that a 5.56 lower ceases to be a centerfire lower (by itself with nothing attached)? I know it's kinda moot because you already established it's not a rifle, so it can't be a centerfire rifle or rimfire rifle for that matter, but it's still an interesting twist.

jello2594
07-26-2009, 7:40 AM
I edited a short video from "Cops" that shows exactly what happens when you get pulled over with a handgun and don't know how to act...

This is it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEDf-1lgCPA)

k1dude
07-26-2009, 8:47 AM
I edited a short video from "Cops" that shows exactly what happens when you get pulled over with a handgun and don't know how to act...

This is it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEDf-1lgCPA)

Man, if that driver really was borrowing a vehicle and had no idea the gun was in there, I REALLY feel for him. Yikes.

locosway
07-26-2009, 10:31 AM
I think people don't understand that they CAN say no to a search. Most people are brought up being told to be courteous to LEO's and to let them do their thing. I didn't know I could say no to a search until I was in my 20's.

Merc1138
07-26-2009, 3:01 PM
I edited a short video from "Cops" that shows exactly what happens when you get pulled over with a handgun and don't know how to act...

This is it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEDf-1lgCPA)

And that right there was a citizen who was acting polite and courteous, and just got screwed.

Was the cop being an ***? No, the cop was doing his job and now it's up to a judge to decide that guy's fate.

Here's the thing, the judge may very well find him innocent. BUT, even if he is found innocent, now he's going to at least be spending the night in jail(maybe longer till it goes to court), he may have had a job he now has to take time off from to deal with this, or maybe he can't watch his kids?

And locosway hit the nail on the head. Everyone from ages 0-18 has it pounded into their heads by almost everyone else, that they have to do exactly what the police and other authority tells them. I mean, if I had known I could have kept my mouth shut to authority figures when I was a kid, I'd have gotten away with so much more stuff.

yellowreef
07-26-2009, 3:14 PM
Holy crap, if you guys think that was an upstanding citizen with no idea that the gun was there, I have a bridge to sell you. On another note, I have said it like three times already, excercise your rights if you feel the need to do so, up to and including refusing consent.

locosway
07-26-2009, 3:17 PM
I don't think the question was whether or not he knew the gun was there. It's more of a, he didn't know he could refuse a search. If he had known the gun was there, why consent to a search? I see it all the time on cops, people consenting to searches when they have 500lbs. of cocaine under their seats...

yellowreef
07-26-2009, 3:20 PM
I don't think the question was whether or not he knew the gun was there. It's more of a, he didn't know he could refuse a search. If he had known the gun was there, why consent to a search? I see it all the time on cops, people consenting to searches when they have 500lbs. of cocaine under their seats...

Sure. Because there is a slight chance that after consenting the cop will just let them go. Some cops ask the question just to see the reaction when in fact they already know they're not going to search. Players in the drug game know this. There's also a chance that the officer will miss the stash dutring the search. They are afraid that by saying no the officer will call for a dog and then it's over.

locosway
07-26-2009, 3:22 PM
Sure. Because there is a slight chance that after consenting the cop will just let them go. Some cops ask the question just to see the reaction when in fact they already know they're not going to search. Players in the drug game know this.

Every time I consented to a search I would spend 30 mins sitting on a curb while they tossed my car/truck. Most of the time they would take things out and then just leave it on the curb. Never cited for "modified exhaust" as they claimed was the reason for being pulled over. In my experience if a cop is asking for something it's because he wants to do it, not to see if you're bluffing.

yellowreef
07-26-2009, 3:35 PM
Every time I consented to a search I would spend 30 mins sitting on a curb while they tossed my car/truck. Most of the time they would take things out and then just leave it on the curb. Never cited for "modified exhaust" as they claimed was the reason for being pulled over. In my experience if a cop is asking for something it's because he wants to do it, not to see if you're bluffing.

It's probably hard to fathom for you, and hard for me to explain since you are likely a law-abiding citizen. I actually added the k-9 bit there after the initial post for a bit more clarification. For people in the drug business, saying no is 100% for sure doom, while saying yes gives a chance even if slight that the stash won't be found. Tactics vary greatly from department to department and even from individual officer to individual officer. Trust me on this one, there are officers who will ask the question and not search in the end. You don't search to get lucky, you search because you really believe there is going to be something there. No one including cops likes wasting their time and/or working for nothing. If a cop believes there isn't going to be anything there he/she won't bother searching.

Now from previous posts where you said you have also been drawn down on, I am guessing you might live in a bad neighborhood?

locosway
07-26-2009, 3:50 PM
The one time I was roughed up by the cops at gun point was in Anaheim. My best friend (who was female) had an abusive boyfriend. He knew we were looking for him and by time we found him (at her house) the cops were waiting for me. They had me and my friend exit the car, proned us out, searched us and the car, and called my mom (I was 18). During this whole thing I was kicked among other things. When I asked them why they were detaining me they said there was a report I had a gun.

Well, I did have guns, but they were at home in a safe. Apparently her boyfriend called the cops to get use harassed and out of his way. After the cops were done with their "investigation" I told them that her boyfriend had a black Beretta 92 with no grips that was stolen in his car (which was the truth). I pointed at his car which had custom plates of his initials. They asked him if it was his car and he said "No". They said they can't search it and that was that.

All in all the encounter was unpleasant, yet I understand why they did what they did (minus the roughness since I was 18). What I never did understand is why they didn't check out his car? They didn't even run the plates to see if it was his or not. It's not like I didn't give them detailed information. I told them the make, model, location, and nuances of the gun.

yellowreef
07-26-2009, 4:10 PM
Well, living in a bad part of town and having friends that associate with the wrong crowd can get you in more unpleasant encounters. Don't take this as endorsing/condemning any of the encounters you have had, I am just stating facts.

For the discussion here, I have had in mind mind more of a going to/coming from the range with an OLL in the vehicle type scenario.

locosway
07-26-2009, 4:12 PM
Well, living in a bad part of town and having friends that associate with the wrong crowd can get you in more unpleasant encounters. Don't take this as endorsing/condemning any of the encounters you have had, I am just stating facts.

For the discussion here, I have had in mind mind more of a going to/coming from the range with an OLL in the vehicle type scenario.

I still wouldn't mention I have a gun in the car... Now that I'm LUCC in my truck, I really would never say anything about what's in there. I just don't want the hassle for following the law.

yellowreef
07-26-2009, 5:12 PM
I still wouldn't mention I have a gun in the car... Now that I'm LUCC in my truck, I really would never say anything about what's in there. I just don't want the hassle for following the law.

Not familiar with the LUCC acronym, but like I said before, you are perfectly within your rights to mention or not mention what's in your car.

locosway
07-26-2009, 5:16 PM
Not familiar with the LUCC acronym, but like I said before, you are perfectly within your rights to mention or not mention what's in your car.

Locked Unloaded Concealed Carry. I've basically been trucking around my pistol in a locked container.

TwitchALot
07-26-2009, 11:04 PM
I'm not trying to defend myself, I don't do that period. What I am telling you is that pulling over for a minor violation for the sole purpose of lecturing someone is not kosher. There are pretext stops on a minor violation when you suspect bigger criminal activity, and that has been upheld by the courts. But pretext stops just to lecture is a good way to get in trouble.

How would you get in trouble? You say he was speeding, you pulled him over for doing so, and that's that. Short of admitting you pulled the guy over just so you could give him a lecture (and maybe a few other select reasons), it'd be awfully hard to get in trouble for it (presuming that the guy was speeding or violating some other law, of course). It might not be kosher, but there isn't much to stop an LEO from doing so, if he so desired.

I am very calm, thanks.

I was referring less to your calmness and more to you being upset. Or that's what, "I'm glad you're not a cop. Then again you don't have the training and experience on the legalities of such a stop, only the anti-cop hype some people spout" sounded like.

The answer is simple, when acting in their official capacity, officers are the government. The government will protect itself. That's where all the qualified inmunity and sovereign inmunity stuff comes from. The federal government or state governments for example under sovereign inmunity can decide they don't want you suing them, and not allow (consent to) a law suit.

In a more practical sense, would you take a very dangerous job where you are paid crap, and approximately 30 situations per day could very easily get you sued for everything you have and/or land you in jail? Enough of both happen nowadays even with qualified inmunity in place. I don't even want to imagine what would happen without it.

Oh come on, this isn't about self-protection. I'm not talking about officers doing something they should be doing and someone looking to make a buck suing officers every day of the week (which probably would happen).

I'm talking about why, when you make a grievous error that costs someone, maybe even their life, you pretty much get a free pass, and if you're terribly unlucky, only one free pass. On the other hand, if I make a mistake, I get no break whatsoever. I go to jail, because ignorance is not an excuse for me, and mistakes are absolutely unacceptable in a court of law for me. And if, heaven forbid, I make a mistake that costs someone their life (say, a round misses and hits a bystander in a lawful, defensive, situation), I can kiss my life goodbye. Hell, that may happen even if I DON'T hit any innocent bystanders. I'll be spending some time in cuffs (and who knows, I may spend the whole night in cuffs, if not more) and generally be having a lousy day.

I'm talking about why you can buy an "unsafe" handgun, and I can't. Why on Earth would we want police officers using or having "unsafe" handguns, anyway? CCW? A host of other laws from which LEO's are specifically exempt from?

And in a court of law? I'll be damned if my word is on par with yours.

All "anti-cop hype," right?

Our system isn't perfect, but it IS a lot better than most when it comes to checks and balances. It's pretty easy, if the cop messes up your case usually gets thrown out of court.

Yeah, except I'm out a "few" thousand dollars, a lot of time, and peace of mind with no compensation whatsoever. Chump change.

I didn't see you jumping down the throat of anyone else who posted on here.

Did anyone else in a position to arrest citizens and cause them a lot of grief post inaccurate information about OLL's that could get other people falsely arrested? Hell, did anyone else, regardless of who they are or what their profession is, make a grievous error about the law that could get someone in trouble? If so, feel free to point it out to me if it wasn't addressed, and if I'm knowledgable enough on the matter, I'll address it.

In fact, when did I jump down your throat?

You also seem to think we just go around harrasing people for no reason. If I got the wrong impression then I'm sorry, but that's the vibe I got from you.

When did I say that? When did I imply most LEO's do this on a daily basis (or often)?

I already apologized for that. Do you feel the need to hear it again?

I "feel the need" to discourage you from making more false accusations about me or my statements again, particularly since you were wrong the first time and seem to insist on keeping up the trend.

So, your two questions "Your OLL may be marked 5.56, but what if I put a .22 upper on it? Is it centerfire, because it's marked 5.56?" is exactly what I am asking. I'm not trying to be funny, I'm just looking for further clarification just like you had done earlier with your argument. I mean, there's all kinds of conversion kits for all kinds of weapons. Find me a popular weapon platform and I will most likely be able to find a .22lr conversion kit for it. Just because there is a conversion kit out there, or a dedicated .22 upper that a couple of companies make, does that mean that a 5.56 lower ceases to be a centerfire lower (by itself with nothing attached)? I know it's kinda moot because you already established it's not a rifle, so it can't be a centerfire rifle or rimfire rifle for that matter, but it's still an interesting twist.

How your lower is marked is irrelevant (unless you scrape off the serial number or something). The status of your firearm is what's relevant. Just because your firearm COULD be something else if modified doesn't mean it IS. Your complete AR with features COULD have a standard magazine release instead of a BB. Is it an assault weapon because it could have a detachable magazine? Of course not. Now if your complete AR had features and no BB (and isn't a registered AW), it would be an illegal AW.

There is no such thing as a centerfire lower. A lower does not have a caliber, because the caliber of a weapon is not determined by the writing on the lower. If I were have a complete AR (5.56 upper) with features and no BB, but my lower was marked .22 LR, I'd be in possession of an illegal assault weapon. Why? Because it satisfies the criteria of an AW, writing notwithstanding. The writing doesn't matter. If I had the same configuration but had "this rifle has a bullet button on it" written on the lower, it'd still be an illegal assault weapon. The writing is irrelevant- only the actual status of the firearm matters.

yellowreef
07-30-2009, 5:42 PM
Oh come on, this isn't about self-protection. I'm not talking about officers doing something they should be doing and someone looking to make a buck suing officers every day of the week (which probably would happen).

I'm talking about why, when you make a grievous error that costs someone, maybe even their life, you pretty much get a free pass, and if you're terribly unlucky, only one free pass. On the other hand, if I make a mistake, I get no break whatsoever. I go to jail, because ignorance is not an excuse for me, and mistakes are absolutely unacceptable in a court of law for me. And if, heaven forbid, I make a mistake that costs someone their life (say, a round misses and hits a bystander in a lawful, defensive, situation), I can kiss my life goodbye. Hell, that may happen even if I DON'T hit any innocent bystanders. I'll be spending some time in cuffs (and who knows, I may spend the whole night in cuffs, if not more) and generally be having a lousy day.

I'm talking about why you can buy an "unsafe" handgun, and I can't. Why on Earth would we want police officers using or having "unsafe" handguns, anyway? CCW? A host of other laws from which LEO's are specifically exempt from?

And in a court of law? I'll be damned if my word is on par with yours.

All "anti-cop hype," right?

Well, all I can say is read the national news. Cops around the country are going to jail and loosing their job every other day for making mistakes. Heck there's cops getting in trouble every week for simply doing their job.

As far as why we get to buy guns off the roster, I don't know, I didn't make the law. Why we can CCW and other people can't? I don't know, I didn't make the law. I support "shall issue" CCW laws. Seems to me you are somehow mad at cops because laws that were made and passed by other people "favor" them.

In a court of law, unfortunately, a cop's word doesn't hold as much weight as it used to. Hence the implementation in some departments of video/audio recording, written consent forms ect. Heck, even in departments that don't implement this, officers are buying their own recording devices out of their pocket (for self-protection mainly). I know you don't see it from your perspective, and I know that no matter what I say you are going to sit there and say it's not so. Sadly it is.

With this, I will stop replying and let you have the last word. It seems obvious now that whereas I will concede to certain points due to your knowledge of the law, you will never concede to any points due to my knowledge in law enforcement encounters and the law enforcement profession. I really don't wish to spend the next ten years replying on this thread getting every word I say turned around to mean something different and thrown back at me, on top of getting berated for things I have no control over.

Believe it or not, when it comes to CA gun laws being stupid, you are preaching to the choir. I wish you the best of luck in any police encounters you might have, and hopefully some of the things I said will help you in some way.

locosway
07-30-2009, 5:48 PM
I believe the laws with cop exemptions get passed because without LE support they would otherwise fail. No one wants to take away from LE, so we exempt them and take away from the normal citizen.

toopercentmlk
07-30-2009, 5:59 PM
On a stop if you monotone "I-have-nothing-illegal-am-I-being-detained?" over and over, I'd probably raise my eyebrow, think you're a *****, and move on with my day. I'm just doing the job you pay me to do, jeesh.

LOL, I got a visual image in my head of that happening and laughed so hard my girlfriend looked at me funny. Not about you but the robot act.
I imagined a guy saying it like in Dumb and Dumber when Jim Carrey says "I-LIKE-YOU-A-LOT."

Also, on a more serious note I can't stand seeing posts saying stuff like "NEVER TALK TO COPS!" Regardless of the purpose, I refuse to take the same course of action as a criminal. Just KISS, KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID! and know your rights.

TwitchALot
08-02-2009, 10:29 PM
Well, all I can say is read the national news. Cops around the country are going to jail and loosing their job every other day for making mistakes. Heck there's cops getting in trouble every week for simply doing their job.

Try not to exaggerate, please. Officers do sometimes appear in big news headlines, but cops around the country going to jail and losing their job every other day for making mistakes? How many, exactly, and do you have proof? And how many more just get a warning (if that) while the citizen gets screwed?

As far as why we get to buy guns off the roster, I don't know, I didn't make the law. Why we can CCW and other people can't? I don't know, I didn't make the law. I support "shall issue" CCW laws. Seems to me you are somehow mad at cops because laws that were made and passed by other people "favor" them.

I'm not "mad" at officers, except for the ones that supported these laws because they got an exemption from them (among others). HOWEVER, pointing these laws out and the facts of the situation is NOT cop-bashing, AFAIC.

But, you seem to think it is. After all, you accused me of not only potentially being a bad officer if I ever became one, but also of essentially spewing anti-cop hype with respect to the law. So where's that anti-cop hype yellowreef? Or is the "anti-cop hype" I spewed actually the truth, and the reality of situation we face today? And if so, is that cop bashing to you?

In a court of law, unfortunately, a cop's word doesn't hold as much weight as it used to. Hence the implementation in some departments of video/audio recording, written consent forms ect. Heck, even in departments that don't implement this, officers are buying their own recording devices out of their pocket (for self-protection mainly). I know you don't see it from your perspective, and I know that no matter what I say you are going to sit there and say it's not so. Sadly it is.

Not as much weight as it used to. So what? Even if that's true, your word still holds more weight than mine. If it's just me vs you in a court, who do you think the jury is going to side with implicitly? Who has more credibility, even though we really should be on equal ground?

Now I'm not holding you responsible for that, but don't try to tell me this is all anti-cop hype and that I'd somehow be a bad officer. Unless of course, you can back it up. I'm still waiting for that one.

With this, I will stop replying and let you have the last word. It seems obvious now that whereas I will concede to certain points due to your knowledge of the law, you will never concede to any points due to my knowledge in law enforcement encounters and the law enforcement profession. I really don't wish to spend the next ten years replying on this thread getting every word I say turned around to mean something different and thrown back at me, on top of getting berated for things I have no control over.

I won't concede to anything that doesn't deserve conceding to. Can you back up the accusations you made, one implying I'd be a bad cop, and another that all I'm spewing is anti-cop hype, or not? Can you point out where I made your statements mean something they didn't mean?

If you want me to concede points, you'll have to do better than making even more false accusations about me or my statements.


Believe it or not, when it comes to CA gun laws being stupid, you are preaching to the choir. I wish you the best of luck in any police encounters you might have, and hopefully some of the things I said will help you in some way.

Hopefully, you and your colleagues will take something away from this thread.

chsk9
08-02-2009, 10:36 PM
After the cops were done with their "investigation" I told them that her boyfriend had a black Beretta 92 with no grips that was stolen in his car (which was the truth). I pointed at his car which had custom plates of his initials. They asked him if it was his car and he said "No". They said they can't search it and that was that.


And they didn't run the plate / registration ? :confused: