PDA

View Full Version : 12031 clarification


locosway
07-30-2009, 6:54 AM
I was just browsing AB 1363 and noticed this text:

(5) (A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a)
of Section 836, a peace officer may make an arrest without a warrant:

(i) When the person arrested has violated this section, although
not in the officer's presence.
(ii) Whenever the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the
person to be arrested has violated this section, whether or not this
section has, in fact, been violated.


Is it just me, or does this give a LEO unlimited authority when dealing with a person with a firearm? Could anyone explain this to me, because how I'm reading it seems to be that a LEO could hook anyone up just "because", which I'm hoping isn't the case.

M. Sage
07-30-2009, 8:31 AM
No, you're right. It even "gives" them the ability to conduct a no-PC search.

Roadrunner
07-30-2009, 8:45 AM
I was just browsing AB 1363 and noticed this text:

(5) (A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a)
of Section 836, a peace officer may make an arrest without a warrant:

(i) When the person arrested has violated this section, although
not in the officer's presence.
(ii) Whenever the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the
person to be arrested has violated this section, whether or not this
section has, in fact, been violated.


Is it just me, or does this give a LEO unlimited authority when dealing with a person with a firearm? Could anyone explain this to me, because how I'm reading it seems to be that a LEO could hook anyone up just "because", which I'm hoping isn't the case.

This bill is an absolut violation of the 4th amendment and we need to activly oppose it. I would urge everyone to follow this link (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm) and leave a comment in opposition to AB1363 and also flood their emails and tie up their phone lines in opposition.

Decoligny
07-30-2009, 9:13 AM
I was just browsing AB 1363 and noticed this text:

(5) (A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a)
of Section 836, a peace officer may make an arrest without a warrant:

(i) When the person arrested has violated this section, although
not in the officer's presence.
(ii) Whenever the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the
person to be arrested has violated this section, whether or not this
section has, in fact, been violated.


Is it just me, or does this give a LEO unlimited authority when dealing with a person with a firearm? Could anyone explain this to me, because how I'm reading it seems to be that a LEO could hook anyone up just "because", which I'm hoping isn't the case.

http://images8.cafepress.com/product/21600648v1_350x350_Front.jpg

If you read 12031 that is the exact language that is currently in the law.

From a line by line review of the current language in 12031 and AB 1363, the only thing this bill does is change

"pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"

to this

"pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person (handgun)"

It also adds this paragraph to 12031:

SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

That is it.
1. They simply add the word handgun to "clarify" the terminology of "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
2. They don't want to pay the County, City, or School district for any reason due to the change.

locosway
07-30-2009, 9:16 AM
So basically as it stands LEO's have a free ticket to do as they please with a person if they posses a firearm?