PDA

View Full Version : san Diego Reader open carry article


dave1947
07-15-2009, 9:22 PM
The San Diego Reader article is on line to read at http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2009/jul/15/cover/ also there was a good show on the radio this evening on 600 am about 7pm on open carry and 2nd amendment rights

7x57
07-15-2009, 10:19 PM
Hmm. Aside from the contentious issue of whether any publicity is a good thing right now, that was a good article. I'm stunned that any reporter would care enough to try to cite the PC for the laws involved.

7x57

bigtoe416
07-15-2009, 10:25 PM
Nate's on the cover! Very nice sir, hopefully the rush of people to sign up on opencarry.org isn't what has caused it to be down all day.

Stan_Humphries
07-15-2009, 10:30 PM
Nice cover

bodger
07-15-2009, 10:36 PM
I especially liked reading that the cops were professional, knew the PC, and were just doing their job (illegal search notwithstanding) and getting on their way without hassle.

Turo
07-15-2009, 10:43 PM
I especially liked reading that the cops were professional, knew the PC, and were just doing their job (illegal search notwithstanding) and getting on their way without hassle.

Nate and his bro have done a great job of educating the police around there :)
If I could find a few buddies to UOC with me locally, I'd love to do it.

Werewolf1021
07-15-2009, 10:49 PM
Nate and his bro have done a great job of educating the police around there :)
If I could find a few buddies to UOC with me locally, I'd love to do it.

In SLO? Im down.

Shotgun Man
07-15-2009, 10:50 PM
Wow, what a terrific article. I think I remember when the author posted on calguns looking for sources to help her write it. Most here poo-pooed the idea, citing the media's inevitable condemnation of gun owners.

My only concern is that Di-Fi et al. will use this favorable article to outlaw UOC.

Turo
07-15-2009, 10:52 PM
Well, buddies and extra monies for legal fees ;)

Legasat
07-15-2009, 11:23 PM
That was a very fair article. Surprising from the Reader!

georound1
07-15-2009, 11:35 PM
Kudos to Nate and the author.

demnogis
07-15-2009, 11:43 PM
I'm actually surprised there was a neutral/positive article now published.

Kudos to Pullnshoot25!

CitaDeL
07-15-2009, 11:51 PM
Just finished reading the write up.

This is perhaps, the first report that I have read, that has not come from a gun culture periodical that has not attacked gun owners or gun ownership as a detestable or evil practice. I suppose the only way it could be better is if the article was taken to an even larger audience.

The side-effect of this report though will certainly be two fold. On one hand it has attracted the attention of more gun enthusiasts and potential open-carry practitioners- on the other, it will draw the distain of those who oppose the right to self-defense. The question then, is just how swift and effective will each side be in defending their stance on firearms.

The opposition wants to ban everything without having the appearance of being unreasonable... as evidenced by the legislation being considered to expand the school zone radius. We can also expect a redefinition of what a loaded firearm is. And the redefinition of private property. And the redefinition of brandishing. And the redefinition of any penal code that may interfere with the possession and carry of a firearm.

The post Heller and Nordyke California will provide some interesting topography for legislators to navigate- and I believe pushing legal carry advocacy could make legislators appear less and less reasonable in advancing their disarmament agenda.

If they elminate all the circumstances under which possession and carry is legal, giving no opportunity for the people to assert their second amendment perrogotive, they will ultimately arrive at the unforgivable infringement- making certain there will be a challenge to their usurpation.

Whatever the outcome, I am proud of the job Nate, Sam and Sean have done here.

7x57
07-15-2009, 11:56 PM
Rosa,

Your piece on the gun nuts is OK as a rough draft, but it has a long way to go before it's fit for publication. Here are some basic corrections to get your started, but of course much more will need to be done.

Cheer up. Someday you'll be a professional and reporting will come naturally to you.

-- The Editor


Your opening is weak. It doesn't convey the situation. You need to bring the reader's feelings into the story.

Itís was a beautiful day in Pacific Beach as until Nate approachesd the bronze pelican statue on the boardwalk. Heís slight and blond the image of the perfect Aryan superman, spectacled and clad in jeans and an army-green T-shirt bearing the image his beloved FŁhrer. He squints in the unaccustomed glare of daylight. The sunís so bright overhead that he is prompted to spray a fine mist of sunblock over his fair skin to stave off a burn His pallid, pasty skin indicates an aversion to the sun.

Iíve never met Nate before, but I know itís him (a) because Iíve seen his picture on a poster somewhere and (b) due to the handgun high-powered assault weapon that sits ready to spray bullets on a swastika-festooned holster against his hip. Iím about to get up from where Iím sitting and introduce myself when someone else beats me to the punch. A scraggly-looking beachgoer, a man of indeterminable age because he is so weather-beaten, concerned mother of four approaches.

ďWhatís that for, bro horrible thing doing near my children?Ē he she asks, pointing in the direction of Nateís gun, a Taurus Tracker .44 Magnum revolver murderous-looking weapon with a barrel the size of a sewer pipe.

Before Nate can answer, the man terrified mother of four continues.

ďThere are surfers at the beach looking to party My babies are playing innocently at the beach, and you show up with that? Thatís not right horrible. Love life! Be mellow Think of the children!Ē

That at least gives a little atmosphere for the reader. More tomorrow after my Revolutionary Cell Group meeting, but please try to carry on yourself in the same vein. I can't do all the work around here.


7x57

elSquid
07-16-2009, 12:00 AM
That was a solid article. The author did a nice job.

Thumbs up to PNS and crew as well!

-- Michael

pullnshoot25
07-16-2009, 12:00 AM
I was wondering why the 600 KOGO was talking about OC today, this MUST be why! WOO HOO!

I am so freaking stoked! Rosa did a good job on this article! YAY FOR NEUTRALITY AND POSITIVISM!

nick
07-16-2009, 12:07 AM
Does this mean we can't tease Nate now?

vrand
07-16-2009, 12:08 AM
Hmm. Aside from the contentious issue of whether any publicity is a good thing right now, that was a good article. I'm stunned that any reporter would care enough to try to cite the PC for the laws involved.

7x57

Common sense people.

quote:
"ďAnd we explained the program to them, and they said, 'You know, I bet this is the safest place in San Diego right now!í "

:thumbsup:

ivanimal
07-16-2009, 12:13 AM
"Itís not Mexico, guys, you canít pull that $%^&* off,Ē he shouts, over his shoulder.

Mexicans are not allowed gun ownership. People are moviegoers and not readers, or thinkers anymore, this just kills me.

N6ATF
07-16-2009, 12:45 AM
That was a very fair article. Surprising from the Reader!

Not at all, considering they would alienate, if not eliminate, at least 2 gun advertisers by having an anti-gun cover story.

P.S. FINALLY it went to print! Reading starts now.

ETA:
Later, he sends me a link to the FBI crime statistics from 2007 (the latest information available). They report some grim facts. In Vermont, which allows the concealed carrying of weapons without a permit, the violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants is 124.3, while in the District of Columbia, it’s 1413.3. Alaska, like Vermont, allows concealed carrying without a permit, and their number is 661.2. In California, it’s 522.6.

Odd that permitless Alaska is higher than CA, but I checked, that's not a misprint. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html

Good article, only mistake I saw was
I finish the clip, watching the holes that have appeared in the paper target I was aiming at.
Magazine!

bellson
07-16-2009, 12:46 AM
I especially liked reading that the cops were professional, knew the PC, and were just doing their job (illegal search notwithstanding) and getting on their way without hassle.

San Diego is a REAL NICE Place....

I do a lot of business with SDPD and SDSD. They are all about lawful, and free exercise of rights. Be respectful, and do not argue. The article outlines this very clearly: Are you requesting or demanding...

Put your arms out after making your non-compliance, non-resistance statement and follow their instructions. They do not want to screw with a citizen. That is my experience. I may be tainted due to my closer than normal association, but I am convinced that that City and County are top F$%#^ Notch!

bellson
07-16-2009, 12:49 AM
Just finished reading the write up.

This is perhaps, the first report that I have read, that has not come from a gun culture periodical that has not attacked gun owners or gun ownership as a detestable or evil practice. I suppose the only way it could be better is if the article was taken to an even larger audience.

The side-effect of this report though will certainly be two fold. On one hand it has attracted the attention of more gun enthusiasts and potential open-carry practitioners- on the other, it will draw the distain of those who oppose the right to self-defense. The question then, is just how swift and effective will each side be in defending their stance on firearms.

The opposition wants to ban everything without having the appearance of being unreasonable... as evidenced by the legislation being considered to expand the school zone radius. We can also expect a redefinition of what a loaded firearm is. And the redefinition of private property. And the redefinition of brandishing. And the redefinition of any penal code that may interfere with the possession and carry of a firearm.

The post Heller and Nordyke California will provide some interesting topography for legislators to navigate- and I believe pushing legal carry advocacy could make legislators appear less and less reasonable in advancing their disarmament agenda.

If they elminate all the circumstances under which possession and carry is legal, giving no opportunity for the people to assert their second amendment perrogotive, they will ultimately arrive at the unforgivable infringement- making certain there will be a challenge to their usurpation.

Whatever the outcome, I am proud of the job Nate, Sam and Sean have done here.

HUGE AND HAPPY BUMP!!!

elsensei
07-16-2009, 1:11 AM
Nate is a badass.

Digital_Boy
07-16-2009, 1:37 AM
Mexicans are not allowed gun ownership. People are moviegoers and not readers, or thinkers anymore, this just kills me.

And yet, go to any town in Mexico on the 5th of May, close your eyes and you'd think you were in Baghdad during the initial ground assault, due to all the Mexicans who have the means to get a gun squeezing off rounds in celebration.

ivanimal
07-16-2009, 1:40 AM
And yet, go to any town in Mexico on the 5th of May, close your eyes and you'd think you were in Baghdad during the initial ground assault, due to all the Mexicans who have the means to get a gun squeezing off rounds in celebration.

I dont know a single Mexican that does not own a gun, all of my relatives do. They keep them hidden till needed. Unless there is a holiday of course.:43:

ETA they don't celebrate cinco de Mayo, that's up here only.

M198
07-16-2009, 1:44 AM
Odd that permitless Alaska is higher than CA, but I checked, that's not a misprint. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html


Ever been to Alaska? I'd kill someone if I had to live there.

pullnshoot25
07-16-2009, 1:49 AM
Ever been to Alaska? I'd kill someone if I had to live there.

Dammit, I was hoping that was a misprint! Something must be skewed, gosh dammit!

Maestro Pistolero
07-16-2009, 2:27 AM
That was a very fair article. Surprising from the Reader!
Not really. They do have a fairly liberal readership, but their hallmark is controversy. For them to do a hit piece would be, well, boring and predictable.

aileron
07-16-2009, 6:27 AM
Does this mean we can't tease Nate now?

Are you kidding??? What would calguns be with out giving him a hard time. Tease away.

Nate... good going keep up the good work. :D

luchador768
07-16-2009, 6:39 AM
I was wondering why the 600 KOGO was talking about OC today, this MUST be why! WOO HOO!

I am so freaking stoked! Rosa did a good job on this article! YAY FOR NEUTRALITY AND POSITIVISM!

Good job Nate!! I was one of the people really worried about the the Reader turning it into a bash fest.

Midian
07-16-2009, 6:57 AM
Nice job Nate. Well done!

TKM
07-16-2009, 7:01 AM
Does this mean we can't tease Nate now?

Are you kidding? He's on the front page of the Reader hanging out by the showers.

Usually you have to go to the personal services ads in the back for a picture like that.

Just sayin'.




JK, Nate. Nice job.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-16-2009, 7:04 AM
Does this mean we can't tease Nate now?



Yup! That's what it means.

The Raisuli

JohnnyRooks
07-16-2009, 7:22 AM
good job Nate.

Decoligny
07-16-2009, 8:03 AM
Overall an exellent article. I have issue with only one statement in it, highlighted below.

The nuances of gun laws in California, I find, are difficult. For example, concealed carrying is not legal in San Diego (and all of California) without a permit — that much is abundantly clear — and neither is carrying a loaded gun. Having ammunition situated next to a firearm, however, does not amount to “loaded,” meaning that Nate, Sean, and Sam can carry full magazines on their belts.

This gives the impression that carry a loaded gun is illegal in all of California, when in fact it is legal to carry a loaded gun in areas of unincorporated territory where discharge of a firearm isn't illegal. (PC 12031)

pullnshoot25
07-16-2009, 8:06 AM
Overall an exellent article. I have issue with only one statement in it, highlighted below.

The nuances of gun laws in California, I find, are difficult. For example, concealed carrying is not legal in San Diego (and all of California) without a permit ó that much is abundantly clear ó and neither is carrying a loaded gun. Having ammunition situated next to a firearm, however, does not amount to ďloaded,Ē meaning that Nate, Sean, and Sam can carry full magazines on their belts.

This gives the impression that carry a loaded gun is illegal in all of California, when in fact it is legal to carry a loaded gun in areas of unincorporated territory where discharge of a firearm isn't illegal. (PC 12031)

She had a few small nuances. However, it ain't bad for a person that never shot, handled or carried a gun in her entire life. :)

Oh yeah, the teasing is cool, just FYI, my fellow Calgunners! I find it quite hilarious actually, hehe :)

tmuller
07-16-2009, 8:22 AM
Good article.....good work!!

.454
07-16-2009, 8:52 AM
Kudos to every participant in the interview and kudos to Rosa, she is a great gal and an honest journalist.
Now, why don't we have the same honest and impartial type of journalism practiced at LA/NY Times, CNN, CBS and the rest of the major media outlets?
Is it that hard for the big name newspaper editorialists and TV anchors to do a little research on this issue, leave their fears and personal bias aside and write objective articles based on real information, not anti-gun propaganda - like the one in the San Diego Reader?

motorhead
07-16-2009, 8:54 AM
well written and unbiased. author showed a genuine interest in the open carry movement rather than using it as a device for bad jokes. very professional! we appear to be making progress. well done all!

Old Timer
07-16-2009, 9:04 AM
Odd that permitless Alaska is higher than CA, but I checked, that's not a misprint. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.htmlSee if you can find data regarding the rates of alcholism in Alaska vice California. That might point you in the direction of a possible answer.

Curtis
07-16-2009, 9:20 AM
A very good article.

Did you notice the image attached to the article at this location?

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/rosa-jurjevics/

http://media.sdreader.com/img/news/tease/2009/07/15/cover_tease_t120.jpg?9d5d565ca25fc9e6b4f2ba6d79987 77c0ec629ed

pullnshoot25
07-16-2009, 9:33 AM
A very good article.

Did you notice the image attached to the article at this location?

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/rosa-jurjevics/

http://media.sdreader.com/img/news/tease/2009/07/15/cover_tease_t120.jpg?9d5d565ca25fc9e6b4f2ba6d79987 77c0ec629ed

That is from the 12031 check from the photoshoot, which was separate from the initial interview. Sort of a disconnect there but I am eager to see all the pictures in print!

MudCamper
07-16-2009, 9:43 AM
Great article. I think all the naysayers that told Nate he was a fool for doing this interview owe him an apology. His instincts told him that this woman was going to be fair, and she was, and he was right.

Kudos to all involved, Nate, Sean, Sam, and Tom! You guys really are gun community diplomats!

HunterJim
07-16-2009, 10:36 AM
Good deal Nate!

I am just on my way to OB for lunch and to pick up my Reader.

jim

gun toting monkeyboy
07-16-2009, 10:48 AM
Amazingly enough, you had a pretty good article in the Reader. The last time I dealt with them, they came into our childcare center to do an article on "daycare". It ended up being an anti-daycare hatchet job, complete with snide comments, titled "Mommys for Hire" or some such nonsense. The guy who wrote it was absolutely horrible. But they did publish several letters to the editor complaining about it in the next issue, so I will give them some credit for that. As for this article, I liked her writing. She wrote it as a human interest piece, in a positive manner. That is in stark contrast to the normal information-only or extremely negative stories that you normally get when it comes to guns. She actually tried to put a human face on the people she was talking about, instead of concentrating on the guns alone. There were no speculative statements about you guys being nut jobs, or having personal inadequacy issues. No jabs about right wing conspiracy theories. It was actually a good article. The statistics about guns and crime with Alaska was a bit misleading, as there are a great many socioeconomic factors up there that contribute to their higher crime rate. That gives the illusion that the statement about permitless carry doesn't actually help deter crime, and probably should have been left out of the article, as it only confuses things. Other than that, she did an awesome job. Kudos all around to those involved.

-Mb

nick
07-16-2009, 10:57 AM
Are you kidding? He's on the front page of the Reader hanging out by the showers.

Usually you have to go to the personal services ads in the back for a picture like that.

Just sayin'.




JK, Nate. Nice job.

That's actually a good point. What WAS he doing there and why is this the picture that got published? Is it some sort of warning? :confused:

pullnshoot25
07-16-2009, 12:04 PM
That's actually a good point. What WAS he doing there and why is this the picture that got published? Is it some sort of warning? :confused:

It was a posed photo. The photographer liked that area and took a photo there.

gun toting monkeyboy
07-16-2009, 1:58 PM
It was a posed photo. The photographer liked that area and took a photo there.

So he is the one that hangs out in the public rest roooms down there? ;)

Casual_Shooter
07-16-2009, 2:49 PM
Nat and Sam (and others),

I appreciate your intelligent responses and statements in that article. Goes a long way toward the good of the cause when those representing it are speaking factually and intelligently v.s. emotionally. :)

ENTHUSIAST
07-16-2009, 3:08 PM
Picked up a Reader late last night GREAT article Rosa and GREAT job N8 you are an ambassador for the 2A and an inspiration to us all.

Carry on.

-enthusiast

grammaton76
07-16-2009, 4:07 PM
Great article. I think all the naysayers that told Nate he was a fool for doing this interview owe him an apology. His instincts told him that this woman was going to be fair, and she was, and he was right.

Actually, the naysayers who advised caution were entirely in the right to do so. In case no one remembers, there WAS another journalist shopping for an interview who did NOT make the cut... that journalist is pretty well known for being anti-gun.

Rosa was granted an interview after a fairly extensive screening process - for one thing, had she not agreed to go to the range with us, she never would've been given access to begin with. :)

I'm pretty happy with how the article turned out though.

Kudos to all involved, Nate, Sean, Sam, and Tom! You guys really are gun community diplomats!

Thanks - I'm the Sean involved. Btw, the Tom at the end is our own Flintlock Tom.

CoinStar
07-16-2009, 4:32 PM
Now, why don't we have the same honest and impartial type of journalism practiced at LA/NY Times, CNN, CBS and the rest of the major media outlets?

The short answer is that you're comparing dissimilar venues for such articles in the first place. For one thing, the SD Reader isn't a mainstream media outlet. They don't buy and print AP articles and aren't a daily publication. Besides that, the magazine itself is essentially free unlike say the SDUT, or whatever.

The Reader almost exclusively features human interest stories (as cover stories, no less) too. That's what they "do".

DJ Skillz
07-16-2009, 4:52 PM
I've been off the forums for a while so I had no idea.. I came across the Reader sitting on the break room table at work today and flipped out.
The article was awesome! I was so happy to see no BS liberal bias! +1 for our team! :clap:

GuyW
07-16-2009, 5:21 PM
I do a lot of business with SDPD and SDSD. They are all about lawful, and free exercise of rights.

You live in a parallel universe....
.

7x57
07-16-2009, 5:21 PM
Rosa was granted an interview after a fairly extensive screening process - for one thing, had she not agreed to go to the range with us, she never would've been given access to begin with. :)

I'm pretty happy with how the article turned out though.


As one of the naysayers, I will go on record as saying that you did better than I would have bet and as well as could be imagined. Whatever the problems with publicity right now, that is as good as publicity can get.

I'd say we should all throw a party for Rosa, but I think that would violate her ethics rules. Or should.

7x57

elsensei
07-16-2009, 5:35 PM
Just send her an email thanking her for her professionalism and objectivity. Then invite her out for a shoot.

Flintlock Tom
07-16-2009, 5:37 PM
As one of the naysayers, I will go on record as saying that you did better than I would have bet and as well as could be imagined. Whatever the problems with publicity right now, that is as good as publicity can get.

I'd say we should all throw a party for Rosa, but I think that would violate her ethics rules. Or should.

7x57

Yup, but it wouldn't hurt to send her and her editor a complimentary e-mail.

7x57
07-16-2009, 5:52 PM
Just send her an email thanking her for her professionalism and objectivity. Then invite her out for a shoot.

Hmm. Actually, think about this: the specific problem with coverage of OC is simply staying off Sacramento's radar screen while we gather our forces to put real content into the Right to Bear. That would not apply to any other common issue (nor to that issue, when we're ready). So if she'll write fairly that way (and not the way I redacted it while playing her imaginary editor :chris:) I can't see any objection at all on other gun issues. I suspect she was only interested in OC because it's so unusual and controversial, but if she's interested in writing another article on some other topic then I can see trying to make sure she gets the information she wants.

Anyone know if she's done her thing, or if she has any taste for more gun stuff?

7x57

Lorenzo
07-16-2009, 10:44 PM
It can only be a good thing, since this will open the eyes of the average joe
who may not even understand what open carry means. Was very pleased
to see the article in the reader and found the video's to be very educational.
Been down that road before and completely understand; You must start
somewhere though, 3 thumbs up, even though I only have 2.

Lorenzo

JDay
07-17-2009, 12:27 AM
Odd that permitless Alaska is higher than CA, but I checked, that's not a misprint. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html

Good article, only mistake I saw was

Magazine!

Bar fights, not much to do in the winter.

ETA: There's also been a bad gang problem in Anchorage for about the last 5 years. - http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/jul/06/more-gangs-seen-anchorage-streets-police-say/


More gangs seen on Anchorage streets, police say

The Associated Press

Originally published Monday, July 6, 2009 at 10:35 a.m.
Updated Monday, July 6, 2009 at 12:43 p.m.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Anchorage police are counting more gangs on city streets, but there's debate over whether the increase is as sharp as it appears.

A recent tally identified more than 125 suspected gangs, an increase of 13 from a December count. The count documented 354 validated gang members and about 2,400 suspected associates, up from 1,000 total in December.

"We're just having a tremendous growth in gangs right now," Scott Lofthouse, the police gang intelligence officer, told the Anchorage Daily News. "The violent crime itself has gone down, way down. But what we're finding is that a larger percentage of the violent crime is being done by gang members."

But Police chief Rob Heun and Lt. Dave Parker said the surge may not be a surge at all. Rather, they believe police are doing a better job of counting. Several officers are now devoted to gathering intelligence on gangs.

"That's why you'll see enhancements in the numbers of validated gang members or gang suspects," Heun said. "We've developed a very good information-gathering system."

Whether real or not, the increase has authorities trying to prevent youths from joining gangs in the first place. There are nearly 20 police officers positioned in city high schools, working to deter gang activity there.

Lofthouse contends that many of the new gang members have arrived from the Lower 48 - some to escape trouble in their hometowns, others because of the recession that has people moving to Alaska for jobs, the Permanent Fund check or both.

A recent homicide victim, a 19-year-old man gunned down while sitting in an idling pickup, was a Rollin 60s Crip from Las Vegas until he moved to Anchorage and joined the 51-50 Crips, police said.

"They don't necessarily maintain the alliance with their out-of -state gang, although some of them may," Lofthouse said. "Sometimes what they'll do is they'll assimilate into a local gang up here that has the same affiliations."

.454
07-17-2009, 8:26 AM
The short answer is that you're comparing dissimilar venues for such articles in the first place. For one thing, the SD Reader isn't a mainstream media outlet. They don't buy and print AP articles and aren't a daily publication. Besides that, the magazine itself is essentially free unlike say the SDUT, or whatever.

The Reader almost exclusively features human interest stories (as cover stories, no less) too. That's what they "do".

Ah, I see. So because these are not similar venues, the reporters in the mainstream media have a free pass to distort, lie and project their own anti-gun bias when writing about guns and RKBA issues - like it recently happened with the ABC piece when they "demonstrated" how armed students in a classroom don't stand a chance if somebody shoots at them.
Got it, thanks for clearing that up for me.

elsensei
07-17-2009, 8:49 AM
Bar fights, not much to do in the winter.

ETA: There's also been a bad gang problem in Anchorage for about the last 5 years. - http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/jul/06/more-gangs-seen-anchorage-streets-police-say/

this is just why we need to ban all guns immediately! Did you read in the article about the 19 year old gang member gunned down? Another child sacrificed to gun violence. It's all so senseless! Who will protect these children if not us?

CoinStar
07-17-2009, 10:37 AM
Ah, I see. So because these are not similar venues, the reporters in the mainstream media have a free pass to distort, lie and project their own anti-gun bias when writing about guns and RKBA issues....

Ummm... I wasn't attempting to justify anything.

So your strawman aside, I was simply pointing out the differences between The Reader and actual newspapers in as non-judgmental of a tone as possible. I'll reiterate this fact with an example: The UT doesn't usually (ever) feature light-hearted cover stories about tweakers who collect scrap metal in the Chocolate Mountain bombing range (a favorite of mine from The Reader a number of years ago) and conversely, The Reader doesn't feature endless, daily articles regarding mundane events in the Whitehouse. They are two distinct styles of media.

But hey, what would I know? I've only read the thing for a couple decades now.

hvengel
07-17-2009, 2:20 PM
Bar fights, not much to do in the winter.

ETA: There's also been a bad gang problem in Anchorage for about the last 5 years. - http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/jul/06/more-gangs-seen-anchorage-streets-police-say/

Ak's demographics are also significantly different from California with a much higher proportion of Native Americans. Like many minorities homicide is a significant problem for this demographic group and this can cause the statistics to look worse than they are if demographics has not been taken into account.

pullnshoot25
07-18-2009, 8:29 PM
OK, so I JUST finally saw a physical copy of the SD Reader article and I will post it as soon as possible for you guys that don't get the Reader and whatnot.

Disturbing thing I noticed... In the upper left hand corner of the article, you will notice that in the picture, the cop 12031'ing me has his gun drawn. This confirms the initial reports that cops drew their weapons. However, since I didn't see the weapons being drawn I said that it didn't happen. I don't know if my feelings on this incident are misplaced or not but I am quite angry that the cop's gun was unholstered, if not drawn upon me, when I was acting in a peaceable and compliant manner and my back was turned to him. I watched this officer approach me from a distance and made no erratic movements and his gun was not drawn until I was turned away from him.

If anyone can validate his actions or my feelings on this matter, feel free to post away.

N6ATF
07-18-2009, 10:55 PM
Must have realized there was a camera present.

Why am I not surprised that it's part of their job to turn law-abiding citizens' photo-ops into FELONY HOT STOPS to sway public perception!

Hard to tell yet if it will backfire on them.

CoinStar
07-19-2009, 4:49 PM
If anyone can validate his actions or my feelings on this matter, feel free to post away.

If you can take comfort from anecdotes in the style of two wrongs making a right, you'll be "happy" to hear that I've had LE firearms trained on me for far, far less than what you were doing (i.e. situations where I wasn't at the least visibly armed as you were) and where the outcome wasn't so quickly resolved.


This sort of reaction is to be expected though since we are nowhere near the point that OC'ing is regarded as normal behavior around here.

JMO (you did ask).

slappomatt
07-19-2009, 5:13 PM
just got a few copies of the reader on friday on my way out of town on a camping trip. Just wanted to say good job guys! nice peice! lol

Liberty1
07-19-2009, 5:44 PM
PnS can you get me a hard copy (signed by Rosa too - I think she'll be famous someday) ?

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 12:10 AM
I don't know if my feelings on this incident are misplaced or not but I am quite angry that the cop's gun was unholstered, if not drawn upon me, when I was acting in a peaceable and compliant manner and my back was turned to him. I watched this officer approach me from a distance and made no erratic movements and his gun was not drawn until I was turned away from him.

If anyone can validate his actions or my feelings on this matter, feel free to post away.

Tell ya what... we'll do some practice 12031 checks with Airsoft or unloaded real guns next time you're here at my place. I am pretty sure that most folks with a holstered weapon (you know my rig, it's basically LEO) would not be able to reliably beat a loaded guy going hostile during 12031. If we find out what I think we'll find out, that cop is entirely justified in having his weapon drawn during a 12031 before he knows you're unloaded.

I figure it'd be 50/50. Just to make things even, we'll switch roles too in case anything changes.

Hey, maybe we should make it a video... the Reader thinks I look like a cop anyway. :)

nick
07-20-2009, 12:25 AM
Then they should change the holsters they use, and practice more.

I don't think drawing guns on someone just because he might potentially be a threat by the virtue of being armed and acting normal is any better than preemptively rear-ending a car during a traffic stop because it might potentially not stop.

I wonder how LEOs in states where open carry (and loaded, at that, UOC is more of a CA phenomenon. When they talk about open carry in other states, they talk about carrying loaded) is more routine manage to survive with all those openly armed people around. After all, over there they have to assume the guns are loaded.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 12:34 AM
Then they should change the holsters they use, and practice more.

You should try some practice scenarios yourself, if you think that this is a blanket solution.

I don't think drawing guns on someone just because he might potentially be a threat by the virtue of being armed and acting normal is any better than preemptively rear-ending a car during a traffic stop because it might potentially not stop.

I wonder how LEOs in states where open carry (and loaded, at that, UOC is more of a CA phenomenon. When they talk about open carry in other states, they talk about carrying loaded) is more routine manage to survive with all those openly armed people around. After all, over there they have to assume the guns are loaded.

Over there, they're loaded and they're completely in the clear to do so. I am pretty sure they don't bother with anything like 12031 checks because they don't need to. On the other hand, out here officers are expected to perform them, and they comply. Spare me the "they don't have to" stuff - they are expected to and it is not reasonable that they ignore that.

On a side note, my wife and I practiced pretty quick (locked open slide, empty magwell... grip mechanic stays the same).

Suffice it to say, were this "live" she would be dead due to not having a loaded gun out.

The most critical component is that the LEO has one arm out reaching for your gun, and your arms are not restrained. I've been 12031'ed where the LEO has had me lean into a wall (a bit safer), and had an LEO keep his hand over mine on the back of my head. Both of those actions provide better control and make it harder for you to pull out a loaded gun and shoot them. The simple route when the officer has done neither?

Pin the officer's hand to your gun, rotate to take 'em off balance with left elbow raised to catch them and push them further off balance, then draw as they fall loose and fire. I guarantee there wasn't enough time for my wife to have drawn a holstered weapon before I was ready to fire.

If you don't manage to pin their hand, you're in a race to unholster your weapon and fire. That isn't fun either. I wouldn't bother with "fair play" in a gunfight, and there's no reason for LEOs to do so either. Their job is to ensure that no shots are fired, and if there are any, that the perp doesn't get a chance to fire first (potentially endangering innocents).

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 1:52 AM
Tell ya what... we'll do some practice 12031 checks with Airsoft or unloaded real guns next time you're here at my place. I am pretty sure that most folks with a holstered weapon (you know my rig, it's basically LEO) would not be able to reliably beat a loaded guy going hostile during 12031. If we find out what I think we'll find out, that cop is entirely justified in having his weapon drawn during a 12031 before he knows you're unloaded.

I figure it'd be 50/50. Just to make things even, we'll switch roles too in case anything changes.

Hey, maybe we should make it a video... the Reader thinks I look like a cop anyway. :)

I watched him come from 30yds out and didn't make a move until he told me to move. Like Liberty1 said, there isn't a 417 exemption for cops. Unless there is RAS that I am not only armed but ALSO dangerous then a gun cannot be drawn, even if it is pointed at the ground. If I can't draw for no provocation, neither can he.

Maybe nothing will come of it. Still, I want to know.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 2:14 AM
I watched him come from 30yds out and didn't make a move until he told me to move. Like Liberty1 said, there isn't a 417 exemption for cops. Unless there is RAS that I am not only armed but ALSO dangerous then a gun cannot be drawn, even if it is pointed at the ground. If I can't draw for no provocation, neither can he.

Maybe nothing will come of it. Still, I want to know.

Looking at it as a flowchart of actions... evil-LOC guy could go:

"Ah, there's a cop, he's coming for me. Crap. Ok, I'll act natural and hope he skips the loaded check."
(Cop decides to do 12031)
"Err, he's going to perform a loaded check on me? Crap, I'm going to have to drop him or I'm going to jail."

(insert fancy Krav Maga moves here if you want to skip the very basic and probably-gonna-get-you-killed-anyway maneuver Texie and I worked out tonight)

I seriously doubt you would have any trouble getting the cop off on any kind of charges related to RAS. You have a gun. Therefore, he has a RAS that it may be loaded, because he hasn't checked.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 2:23 AM
Looking at it as a flowchart of actions... evil-LOC guy could go:

"Ah, there's a cop, he's coming for me. Crap. Ok, I'll act natural and hope he skips the loaded check."
(Cop decides to do 12031)
"Err, he's going to perform a loaded check on me? Crap, I'm going to have to drop him or I'm going to jail."

(insert fancy Krav Maga moves here if you want to skip the very basic and probably-gonna-get-you-killed-anyway maneuver Texie and I worked out tonight)

I seriously doubt you would have any trouble getting the cop off on any kind of charges related to RAS. You have a gun. Therefore, he has a RAS that it may be loaded, because he hasn't checked.

Possibly, but possessing a gun is not evidence that crime is afoot. Possessing a gun in a holster is not grounds for drawing on someone, whether or not it is loaded.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 2:38 AM
Possibly, but possessing a gun is not evidence that crime is afoot. Possessing a gun in a holster is not grounds for drawing on someone, whether or not it is loaded.

I would agree with you if the officer had drawn his weapon while or prior to approaching you.

However, as the practice exercise showed tonight, you've got an excellent chance of getting shot if you try to 12031 the wrong guy without removing your weapon first. I refuse to consider the officer in the wrong for refusing to put himself in a position that could've easily been suicidal.

That having been said, the "hands on the wall" approach probably would have been a lot safer for the officer and not necessitated drawing.

I guess my only issue with the officer having drawn, is that he failed to put you in a better position for the 12031 check. If he's going to 12031 you in the position he did, I think he pretty much has to draw unless he wishes to gamble on your good nature.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 10:44 AM
Possibly, but possessing a gun is not evidence that crime is afoot. Possessing a gun in a holster is not grounds for drawing on someone, whether or not it is loaded.

Forgot the case law on that, and my Google-fu is weak in the morning.

You have to remember that we live in a county where the DA will almost never prosecute cops, unless they're actually shooting in self-defense off-duty (http://www.760kfmb.com/Global/story.asp?S=10588831). Everything else is anarchy under the catch-all of officer safety.

He could have easily reached around the concrete wall (cover) and pulled it out while the 2nd officer made sure you kept your leg up and your hands behind your head. Considering he pointed your gun at your posterior to check if it was empty in violation of rules 1 and 2 (http://www.bobtuley.com/safety_rules.htm), he should keep his own holstered until retraining on firearms safety.

gravedigger
07-20-2009, 11:45 AM
You have a gun. Therefore, he has a RAS that it may be loaded, because he hasn't checked.

Well, considering that the SDPD was NOTIFIED that there would be a group of people on an OC exercise, and the general areas where we would be, I doubt that the officer, seeing Nate and the others NOT looking ANYTHING like "gangbangers", probably should have assumed the weapon was NOT loaded.

I see NO reason to draw in that situation.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 12:15 PM
Well, considering that the SDPD was NOTIFIED that there would be a group of people on an OC exercise, and the general areas where we would be, I doubt that the officer, seeing Nate and the others NOT looking ANYTHING like "gangbangers", probably should have assumed the weapon was NOT loaded.

I see NO reason to draw in that situation.

This was the San Diego Reader interview get-together, which I was personally there at - it was NOT one of the "group outings". I do not believe there was ANY police notification for this event.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 12:20 PM
Well, considering that the SDPD was NOTIFIED that there would be a group of people on an OC exercise, and the general areas where we would be, I doubt that the officer, seeing Nate and the others NOT looking ANYTHING like "gangbangers", probably should have assumed the weapon was NOT loaded.

I see NO reason to draw in that situation.

The reason is it's part of their job to turn law-abiding citizens' photo-ops into FELONY HOT STOPS to sway public perception!

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 12:55 PM
The reason is it's part of their job to turn law-abiding citizens' photo-ops into FELONY HOT STOPS to sway public perception!

Err, if his job were to turn it into a felony hot stop, then the LEO seriously under-performed.

No face on cement, no knee in the back, no dislocated shoulder, no cuts and scrapes... maybe that was the Kindergarten edition of a felony hot stop? :)

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 1:16 PM
Err, if his job were to turn it into a felony hot stop, then the LEO seriously under-performed.

No face on cement, no knee in the back, no dislocated shoulder, no cuts and scrapes... maybe that was the Kindergarten edition of a felony hot stop? :)

I didn't say a police brutality felony hot stop! LOL

The way I was taught,
Felony=There is PC that the subject has committed or RAS that he will commit a violent felony in the officer's presence, from various forms of life-endangering operation of a vehicle up to and including attempted murder of a peace officer
Hot=LEO gun(s) drawn
Stop=Making police-subject contact

My re-read of PC 12031 focuses on:

(G) In all cases other than those specified in subparagraphs (A)
to (F), inclusive, as a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

(7) A violation of this section which is punished by imprisonment
in a county jail not exceeding one year shall not constitute a
conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year for the purposes of determining federal firearms
eligibility under Section 922(g)(1) of Title 18 of the United States
Code.

If loaded, it would be a misdemeanor in Nate's case, since the department KNOWS he is clear under (A)-(F). So absent PC/RAS that he's about to commit a violent felony, the felony hot stop is unjustified. Misdemeanor hot stop/deadly force is wrong and should be prohibited by both department policy and case law.

KylaGWolf
07-20-2009, 1:17 PM
I would say more like preschool?

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 1:22 PM
If loaded, it would be a misdemeanor in Nate's case, since the department KNOWS he is clear under (A)-(F). So absent PC/RAS that he's about to commit a violent felony, the felony hot stop is unjustified. There is no misdemeanor hot stop.

The department may know.

The officer probably doesn't know Nathan personally, or have complete confidence that it's Nathan and not just some other guy open carrying a revolver on the Boardwalk.

I would consider it unreasonable to expect LEOs to recognize people if they haven't encountered them before personally, and only half reasonable to recognize them when they have encountered them, a few months back.

How many people does a cop see on a daily basis? I'd have a hard time remembering distinct individuals with that kind of tempo...

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 1:30 PM
The department may know.

The officer probably doesn't know Nathan personally, or have complete confidence that it's Nathan and not just some other guy open carrying a revolver on the Boardwalk.

I would consider it unreasonable to expect LEOs to recognize people if they haven't encountered them before personally, and only half reasonable to recognize them when they have encountered them, a few months back.

How many people does a cop see on a daily basis? I'd have a hard time remembering distinct individuals with that kind of tempo...

Dude, with as many times as I have been illegally searched and my ID seized, with as many times as Zimmerman hits refresh on my blog daily, with as many training handouts I have been included in... they know who I am.

How many guys are ghostly white, blonde AND pack a revolver in San Diego, especially at the boardwalk? JUST ONE!

Decoligny
07-20-2009, 1:30 PM
The department may know.

The officer probably doesn't know Nathan personally, or have complete confidence that it's Nathan and not just some other guy open carrying a revolver on the Boardwalk.

I would consider it unreasonable to expect LEOs to recognize people if they haven't encountered them before personally, and only half reasonable to recognize them when they have encountered them, a few months back.

How many people does a cop see on a daily basis? I'd have a hard time remembering distinct individuals with that kind of tempo...

Regardless of whether he was recognized or not, the ONLY reason for the stop was a 12031(e) check. Violation of 12031 is a misdemeanor. There is no such thing as a "misdemeanor hot stop", only a "felony hot stop".

For a "possible", not probable, misdemeanor, there is no need to clear leather on the part of any police officer. At the most, one of the other officers could have stood back with hand on the weapon. Actually pulling his weapon was out of line for the situation.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 1:31 PM
Dude, with as many times as I have been illegally searched and my ID seized, with as many times as Zimmerman hits refresh on my blog daily, with as many training handouts I have been included in... they know who I am.

How many guys are ghostly white, blonde AND pack a revolver in San Diego, especially at the boardwalk? JUST ONE!

You said it yourself, Zimmerman refreshes your blog daily, not the individual officers. She wants to learn strategy so that she can direct officers - the officers just want to do their jobs and eat their donuts.

I'm not sure that they have a picture of you up somewhere so that all the LEOs know you. Even if they do, they probably spend more time looking at the "10 most wanted" pictures anyway...

ETA: There are plenty of ghostly white, blonde guys in San Diego. And just because you're doing it most often, UOC is a larger and larger movement regularly. You won't be the only one forever.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 1:35 PM
Regardless of whether he was recognized or not, the ONLY reason for the stop was a 12031(e) check. Violation of 12031 is a misdemeanor. There is no such thing as a "misdemeanor hot stop", only a "felony hot stop".

For a "possible", not probable, misdemeanor, there is no need to clear leather on the part of any police officer. At the most, one of the other officers could have stood back with hand on the weapon. Actually pulling his weapon was out of line for the situation.

Where, in the photo, was the other officer? I only see one of them.

At any rate, there is no reason for an officer to subject himself to undue danger "just because". The fact remains, there's a 50/50 or so chance Nathan would have been physically able to shoot the officer when he reached for his weapon if Nathan had in fact gone aggressive on him. I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to take that chance for some blind "you should trust people" crap.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 1:42 PM
The department may know.

The officer probably doesn't know Nathan personally, or have complete confidence that it's Nathan and not just some other guy open carrying a revolver on the Boardwalk.

I would consider it unreasonable to expect LEOs to recognize people if they haven't encountered them before personally, and only half reasonable to recognize them when they have encountered them, a few months back.

How many people does a cop see on a daily basis? I'd have a hard time remembering distinct individuals with that kind of tempo...

By department, I meant every sworn officer within, considering the widespread knowledge and targeting of Nate. You'd have to be incompetent not to be aware of a co-figurehead of the pro-OC/anti-LEO corruption movement walking around San Diego.

If you watch COPS, you'll see as a whole, they have an above-average capacity for recalling previous subjects, even more than a few months back. This officer did not look like he rolled out of the academy yesterday. He had more than enough time to ID Nate on the approach, AND the fact that he was posing for pictures in a completely relaxed, non-threatening posture.

I've never met Nate, but I am absolutely certain I could pick him out of a crowd from the front, most likely from the side, probably from the back, and even blindfolded and just hearing his voice walking through a crowded bar, definitely.

I don't believe in benefit of the doubt or ignorance as an excuse for people with an elevated status within society. They have proven themselves to have above-average intelligence and skill by making it to their position.

Where, in the photo, was the other officer? I only see one of them.

At any rate, there is no reason for an officer to subject himself to undue danger "just because". The fact remains, there's a 50/50 or so chance Nathan would have been physically able to shoot the officer when he reached for his weapon if Nathan had in fact gone aggressive on him. I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to take that chance for some blind "you should trust people" crap.

RAS and PC are more than 50/50. "He might, he might not" completely ignores the circumstances every officer is required to be aware of when using, or preparing to use deadly force. If the claim is that the mortal fear instinct was engaged in this circumstance by only one of multiple officers, then mental health suspension is warranted.

Regardless of whether he was recognized or not, the ONLY reason for the stop was a 12031(e) check. Violation of 12031 is a misdemeanor.

Should clarify that it's a misdemeanor, absent subparagraphs A-F in PC 12031.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 2:05 PM
Where, in the photo, was the other officer? I only see one of them.

Separate post for this, because the picture will make it long:

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/pics_for_stuff.jpg?t=1248123323

Top left in the collage, in line with the light pole, with knees slightly bent (sitting/leaning on the barricade?)

It was just two officers at that stop, right?

Why was the misdemeanor hot stop officer clearing leather if his partner was relaxed enough to sit/lean while still surrounded by people with guns seconds later? (or before, but I'm pretty sure leg up was first)

Holding it the way he did would likely not be noticed or even criticized by other officers. The officer safety monolith should stop being used to justify just about anything, including felony (misdemeanor) hot stops against known, peaceful, non-threatening, submissively postured, citizens who aren't suspected of committing or about to commit felonies.

P.S. The bottom right picture has the other officer in line with the cylinder of the Tracker.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 2:09 PM
Separate post for this, because the picture will make it long:

(pic)

Top left in the collage, in line with the light pole, with knees slightly bent (sitting/leaning on the barricade?)

It was just two officers at that stop, right?

Ah, didn't see them. My understanding had been that it was a solo officer... and I'd looked at the pics and hadn't noticed the arm patch on the other officer there.

Why was the misdemeanor hot stop officer clearing leather if his partner was relaxed enough to sit/lean while still surrounded by people with guns seconds later?

TBH, at that time I think it was just Nathan - not sure. I know the LEOs were gone by the time I arrived. They probably wouldn't have been as laid back if Sam and I were there as well at that point.

Edit: Actually, I think his partner was engaging Nathan's brother Sam in conversation. Here's a pic of from that day - he went and changed his shirt though between the first part of the photo shoot and the second though, so although I know he wasn't wearing white at the point in the photograph, I am not sure if he was wearing the blue shirt he'd worn at to the interview with Rosa (which I think looks like the guy the partner is talking to):

http://cheapspeech.com/Pics/Events/OCSD_MissionBeach_20090605//l_dsc00492.jpg

Looking at his stance and belt buckle, I think that's Sam...

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 2:15 PM
TBH, at that time I think it was just Nathan - not sure. I know the LEOs were gone by the time I arrived. They probably wouldn't have been as laid back if Sam and I were there as well at that point.

There appears to be a male in a dark t-shirt talking to the other officer, blading the officer instead of the officer blading him for safety (officer's front is fully exposed). Either he was totally out to lunch, or he recognized that there was no threat, and MHS* was left to his own paranoid, or intentionally playing-to-the-camera devices.

*Misdemeanor Hot Stop, my new nickname for the officer with gun drawn.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 2:20 PM
There appears to be a male in a dark t-shirt talking to the other officer, blading the officer instead of the officer blading him for safety (officer's front is fully exposed). Either he was totally out to lunch, or he recognized that there was no threat, and MHS* was left to his own paranoid, or intentionally playing-to-the-camera devices.

*Misdemeanor Hot Stop, my new nickname for the officer with gun drawn.

If things happened as I suspect (check previous post, I think that was Sam now), I think Sam had already been 12031'ed, and this was Nathan's turn. At this point, it'd seem to me that they shouldn't turn their back on Sam either, as if Nathan were LOC and Sam were UOC and Nathan chose to flip out, Sam could've loaded and fired while they had their backs to him.

SDPD are getting 'tactically smarter' about how they do 626.9's though - they like to line folks up with their hands on their head for checks now, and not release anyone until after the whole group's been checked.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 2:29 PM
If things happened as I suspect (check previous post, I think that was Sam now), I think Sam had already been 12031'ed, and this was Nathan's turn. At this point, it'd seem to me that they shouldn't turn their back on Sam either, as if Nathan were LOC and Sam were UOC and Nathan chose to flip out, Sam could've loaded and fired while they had their backs to him.

SDPD are getting 'tactically smarter' about how they do 626.9's though - they like to line folks up with their hands on their head for checks now, and not release anyone until after the whole group's been checked.

Yeah, denim jeans, muscular arm, probably Sam. The cover officer however did the next worst thing to turning his back on Sam, he gave up his defensive stance by sitting or leaning on a half-wall where he could easily be dumped over the other side with a stiff punch, let Sam blade him instead of the other way around, and it appears his head is not even in a position where he could see Nate in the peripheral vision.

Like I said, either he was totally out to lunch, or he recognized that there was no threat.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 2:39 PM
Yeah, denim jeans, muscular arm, probably Sam. The cover officer however did the next worst thing to turning his back on Sam, he gave up his defensive stance by sitting or leaning on a half-wall where he could easily be dumped over the other side with a stiff punch, let Sam blade him instead of the other way around, and it appears his head is not even in a position where he could see Nate in the peripheral vision.

Like I said, either he was totally out to lunch, or he recognized that there was no threat.

YOu are correct, that is Sam.

Here is how it went down...

Cop car rolled up and two officers got out. While posing I let Sam know that two cops had rolled up and were walking towards us. My guy went wide on the sand, the other went on the sidewalk and engaged Sam. I basically said "HI" to him and we both got checked nearly simultaneously.

Again, there is literally NO justification for them drawing guns.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 2:53 PM
POS=Paranoid Officer Safety

Used as a justification for just about anything these days.

TitanCi
07-21-2009, 5:48 PM
just read the article. what's the purpose of asking LEO if "you're requesting or demanding"??? can someone elaborate?

GaryV
07-21-2009, 6:03 PM
just read the article. what's the purpose of asking LEO if "you're requesting or demanding"??? can someone elaborate?

You're not required to comply with a request.

EDGERUNNER
07-21-2009, 7:17 PM
You're not required to comply with a request.

It is best not to comply with any warrant-less searches under any circumstances.

EDGERUNNER
07-21-2009, 7:19 PM
So let me get this right?

You can open carry in a restaurant or bar where liquor is being served?

Cuz . . . I thought you could not conceal carry in those places even if you have a CCW?

Please explain.

GaryV
07-21-2009, 7:30 PM
It is best not to comply with any warrant-less searches under any circumstances.

It's best not to cooperate, but it's often not very bright to refuse to comply. Best to verbally protest, but comply, then sort it out later.

bodger
07-21-2009, 7:36 PM
It's best not to cooperate, but it's often not very bright to refuse to comply. Best to verbally protest, but comply, then sort it out later.

Yeah, I would imagine refusing to comply with an (e) check would turn bad for you pretty quick.

I think I might pass right out if I was UOCing and a cop drew down on me.

CREWDAD
07-21-2009, 10:16 PM
Could be! I just read the article today, and here I am! Wondering when to try it here in El Cajon, Ca. Maybe I'll ask my step-son who is an El Cajon Cop what he would do if he saw an open carry person?

Liberty1
07-21-2009, 10:31 PM
Welcome Crewdad!

You'll discover a wealth of info here. Enjoy but learn first. I would not recommend UOCing your calguns AK flat home built no serial number bullet button pistol just yet or even when you learn what all that means (just yet). ;)

Carry on!

N6ATF
07-21-2009, 10:32 PM
Could be! I just read the article today, and here I am! Wondering when to try it here in El Cajon, Ca. Maybe I'll ask my step-son who is an El Cajon Cop what he would do if he saw an open carry person?

Oh man, I can't wait to hear what he says. Will he show some parental- and self-respect, or spout the company line that amounts to "only police (and by extension, criminals too) should have guns"?

CREWDAD
07-21-2009, 10:33 PM
Great Artical! I live in East San Diego County, El Cajon. I'm wondering if there are any OC'ers out here? My step-son is an El Cajon Cop, I'm going to ask if he has seen any here, and the outcome, if he has not, what would he do, does he know the PC's for it? The next thing to be concerned about; Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor! She has stated in her past; " The second amendment does not apply to states and cities" She just might try to take away our 2nd Amendment rights! Keep both eyes on her people!

Casual_Shooter
07-22-2009, 9:20 AM
You're not required to comply with a request.

I noticed in the article that the officer never actually "demanded". He said, "I'll start with a request and then demand".

Nate was the only one who actually said, "As long as your demanding".

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 10:06 AM
I noticed in the article that the officer never actually "demanded". He said, "I'll start with a request and then demand".

Nate was the only one who actually said, "As long as your demanding".

TBH, the Reader left out my line.

I said my usual, "You have the right to perform a 12031(e) inspection, so feel free - but I don't consent to anything further." Paraphrased - it's rarely 100% the same wording but this is what I always communicate in response.

Decoligny
07-22-2009, 10:51 AM
So let me get this right?

1. You can open carry in a restaurant or bar where liquor is being served?

2. I thought you could not conceal carry in those places even if you have a CCW?

Please explain.

1. Since there is nothing in the Penal Code that makes it illegal, then it is by default a legal activity.

2. Here in California, the application for a License to Carry a Concealed Handgun has a section where it lists a bunch of places where you can't carry a concealed firearm. This list carries absolutely no weigh of law.
The Penal Code states that any restriction must be printed on the license itself.
So, technically, you could "legally" carry a concealed gun in a bar, if you have your permit. However, if you are caught, the probable consequences will be that the Sherrif would revoke your permit. They would however, have no legal recourse to charge you with any criminal offenses.

Liberty1
07-22-2009, 11:03 AM
They would however, have no legal recourse to charge you with any criminal offenses.

That is uncertain IMO. The prosecution would argue the license was not valid and a judge (anti) could agree with them and allow the case to proceed.

Decoligny
07-24-2009, 4:01 PM
Just stumbled upon something interesting from the past.

The San Diego District Attorney has already told the police in this training memo that ordering hands over head, and drawing a gun makes the 12031(e) stop a detention. That being said, they need RAS for a detention. Did they have RAS when they stopped you N8? I don't think so.

Quote from Robert Amador in D.A. Liaison Training Bulletin Vol 2, No. 2: "If this is going to be a detention e.g. guns drawn, commands to freeze, raise your hands etc. then you need to write in your report why you are doing this. As foolish as it seems to you to have to justify this, it will be the key to your success if this results in a prosecution or a civil suit."

Have you requested all the info on the stop? You need to see if the cop articulated his reasons for DETAINING you.


http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/SD-DA-OC-Memo-2009-03.pdf

dave1947
07-24-2009, 4:44 PM
Great point. I wonder what a FOIA request would turn up? I bet no report of the stop.

doc540
07-28-2009, 2:27 PM
I'm more amazed at a "fair and balanced" article from the READER than I am about guns being openly carried in LaLaLand.:eek:

Duuude, I'm stoked!!

Mulay El Raisuli
07-29-2009, 1:39 PM
I'm more amazed at a "fair and balanced" article from the READER than I am about guns being openly carried in LaLaLand.:eek:

Duuude, I'm stoked!!



I'm not just stoked as well. I see this as evidence that not only does UOC have value as an educational tool, but that the 'ground' is actually ready for the message to be spread.

The Raisuli

Untamed1972
08-10-2009, 9:29 AM
I just wanted to mention that I think the Reader article reached alot of people, especially of the more liberal types since they make up a large part of the Reader's readership.

I've have a couple of people that I know mention to me that they read the article and that is was interesting and informative and they learned some stuff they didn't know.

So again.....I give a :thumbsup: to those of you willing to strap up and take the heat from The Man to get the word out there.

pullnshoot25
08-10-2009, 9:37 AM
Very cool. Hopefully more people will join the sport and the fight.

I wonder how gun sales are at DGM since that article got published...

tube_ee
08-10-2009, 2:12 PM
I'm more amazed at a "fair and balanced" article from the READER than I am about guns being openly carried in LaLaLand.:eek:

Duuude, I'm stoked!!

The Reader is much more anti-downtown-establishment than it is conventional hippie-liberal. Hell, they hired Don Bauder, after the U/T fired him (at John Moores' request IIRC).

And given how terminally corrupt and crooked San Diego's downtown establishment actually is, you can do a lot worse in this town than to do the exact opposite of whatever the Mayor, City Council, and Union-Tribune say.

It turns out that we could have bought the Padres for 35 million fewer dollars than we paid to build them their new stadium.

They sold the NTC property (probably the most valuable piece of developable land in all of North America, if not the world) to Corky McMillan for a dollar.

Need I go on?

--Shannon

PS - Oh, and don't forget the number of gun shop and shooting range ads in the Reader. They know what side of the bread the butter's on.

KylaGWolf
08-10-2009, 10:21 PM
Shannon then they wonder why our city is broke. Deals like those would be a big part of it. And as long as the ones in charge are in nothing is going to change.

Crom
06-10-2010, 10:06 AM
Sorry I am almost a year late to the movement. The article was a great read. Thanks for posting it! :)