PDA

View Full Version : Latest UOC LEA Memo


MudCamper
10-22-2009, 11:07 AM
This one out of Sunnyvale.

http://www.opencarryradio.com/documents/Sunnyvale_California_Memo_18_Sep_09.pdf

Thanks, bad_ace, for uncovering this!

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=33126&forum_id=12

Quite a reasonable memo IMO. The author appears to be fairly pro-RKBA.

ilbob
10-22-2009, 11:22 AM
Got to give the deputy chief credit for being honest and upfront about the situation, and insisting the department abide by the law and constitution.

You cannot ask for a whole lot more than that from any LEA.

wash
10-22-2009, 11:23 AM
I'm glad to see that the officer who wrote the memo understands the issues.

I just don't like the fact that they are going to run the serial #.

KylaGWolf
10-22-2009, 11:23 AM
Mudcamper after reading the first page of the memo I am not so sure he is on the side of UOC or not. While yes most of the memo seems to address problems that a lot of other departments seem to have regarding UOC. I found a couple of his statements to be a bit of a red flag. The comment about UOC members wanting to confront leos is a bit wrong but then again when I UOC it is not my intention to have any kind of interaction with LEO. To me a successful day of UOC is when I have NO contact with an LEO. Then again maybe because I am a disabled female I am not the typical UOCer either. :)

I do like the fact that the memo addresses the E checks. Although you and I both know that if they do an E check they are going to run the serial number since it is then in plain view. Which in and of itself is bothersome. I wonder if you ask them to do the 12031e check in front of you so you can assure they do not go hunting for the serial number in that check if they would find it offensive or not. I also like the fact that he too wants to have any encounter recorded by their officer.

MudCamper
10-22-2009, 11:26 AM
KylaGWolf, yes it's not perfect, but it's a HUGE improvement over all the other OC memos. The fact that he states it's our right, and that they swore an oath to defend the Constitution speaks volumes.

KylaGWolf
10-22-2009, 11:26 AM
I'm glad to see that the officer who wrote the memo understands the issues.

I just don't like the fact that they are going to run the serial #.

I noticed that too. Which is part of the reason I think that maybe this memo may not be as friendly as it mostly appears. I know on my gun the serial number is really easy to see if you look at the gun since it is on the stainless steel part and in black so it stands out. Not to mention that an officer is more than likely going to look that gun over real well during a check and can use the it was in plain sight line when it comes to running the number.

KylaGWolf
10-22-2009, 11:28 AM
KylaGWolf, yes it's not perfect, but it's a HUGE improvement over all the other OC memos. The fact that he states it's our right, and that they swore an oath to defend the Constitution speaks volumes.


Yeah I will give it that :). Now here is hopes that the rank and file do the same.

bwiese
10-22-2009, 11:37 AM
I don't care if he's pro- or anti-... he has created a useful memo that properly outlines the matter and delineates the responses.

Now the PD can't say they're not "informed".

The sense of 'tolerant aggravation' may be a motivator for improved CCW issueance.

woodey
10-22-2009, 11:38 AM
So is OK or not to put tape over your serial #? Reading this it appears illegal

JDoe
10-22-2009, 11:42 AM
Wow, that is a good memo! Thanks MudCamper!

The part I don't understand is (page 1, paragraph 1) where the author states, "...this is a constitutional right.." Is he talking about the 2A or is there some other part of the Constitution that applies?

Another interesting tid bit I never thought of is (page 1, paragraph 2) where he states, "In fact the Constitution says they can and we all swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and that is the bottom line." How does the Constitution apply to UOC? He isn't talking about the 2A is he?

My initial impression is that this memo is the beginning of adjusting LE practice for when the 2A is incorporated against the states in 2010?

chuckles48
10-22-2009, 11:50 AM
Guys? Look at the beginning of para 2. "To be very frank, I do not like the fact people can carry an unloaded gun in a holster in plain view in public."

He doesn't like it, but he _will_ respect the law, and the constitution. Don't think you can ask for anything more than that.

And yes, I wish TC would be as straightforward.

KylaGWolf
10-22-2009, 11:50 AM
I don't care if he's pro- or anti-... he has created a useful memo that properly outlines the matter and delineates the responses.

Now the PD can't say they're not "informed".

The sense of 'tolerant aggravation' may be a motivator for improved CCW issueance.

Oh good point :).

KylaGWolf
10-22-2009, 11:51 AM
So is OK or not to put tape over your serial #? Reading this it appears illegal


Yes if you cover your serial number then you have broken a law.

MudCamper
10-22-2009, 11:55 AM
Yes if you cover your serial number then you have broken a law.

Many will disagree with you here. It's been discussed a lot over on OCDO but I do not have an informed opinion on it.

Although reading the PC 537e(a) and 12090 citations makes it pretty clear that it is illegal IMO. ETA and I'm wrong. See Decoligny's post below.

ETA here's a lengthy discussion about this: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=23185&forum_id=12&highlight=serial+number

Maestro Pistolero
10-22-2009, 12:02 PM
Despite all of my legitimate concerns over LOC, memos like this make any assertion that the movement is not achieving it's goals absurd.

dustoff31
10-22-2009, 12:02 PM
Got to give the deputy chief credit for being honest and upfront about the situation, and insisting the department abide by the law and constitution.

You cannot ask for a whole lot more than that from any LEA.


Yes. And if he does this, it really doesn't matter whether he is personally pro or anti-gun.

MudCamper
10-22-2009, 12:11 PM
Despite all of my legitimate concerns over LOC, memos like this make any assertion that the movement is not achieving it's goals absurd.

Biting my tongue! Biting my tongue!

But seriously, while I do not necessarily agree with the CGF request to stand down on UOC in urban areas at this time, I do respect it. Their concern is more about new/bad legislation pre-re-incorporation.

But this is the kind of progress (educating LE) that UOC can achieve. This again reminds me of the fact that if nothing else, just educating LE about People v Clark was worth it, not to mention all the other gems in this memo.

MudCamper
10-22-2009, 12:30 PM
Wow, that is a good memo! Thanks MudCamper!

Thanks go to bad_ace over on OCDO (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/). He did the PRAR request that uncovered this.

dfletcher
10-22-2009, 12:37 PM
I always used to get Sunnyvale and Sunnydale a bit mixed up, but now I can remember a little better. Unloaded open carry = Sunnyvale, loaded concealed carry (and a little gunplay) = Sunnydale.

pullnshoot25
10-22-2009, 12:45 PM
Good friggin memo, the best I have seen yet. I find it funny that cops have had over 30 years to figure this out (both weapons carry and the whole "stop and ID" thing) and it still needs to be drilled in. Crikey.

Room for improvement: Writing that the check is NON-OBLIGATORY and ultimately UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Perhaps quoting Dudley and Ubiles would be appropriate. Can't say you uphold the Constitution while breaking it.

It is funny they say that it is a constitutional right to UOC, when the right is for LOC and no such right exists here (at least just yet)

Oh well, there is always the NEXT police department to finally come around to actually enforcing the law, right?

wash
10-22-2009, 12:55 PM
I noticed that bit about constitutional.

It made me think about when we actually get incorporation. LOC may be declared a constitutionally protected right. Then they won't have anything to check in their e-stop or whatever. They won't have cause to say more than "hello" to you.

The writer might be more friendly than it sounds, just adding the serial # check so that he doesn't sound like a "gun nut" at work...

MP301
10-22-2009, 1:23 PM
I think that if I had to guess, the author has to be a cautious pro-gun. The constitutional statement says to me that the author thinks that having/possessing/carrying guns is a 2a issue. Sure, there were a few twinges in his statements, but im sure he didnt want to look like a sell out to his anti-gun brethren. He could have easily made the memo in a less friendly way.

In any case, like Bwiese said. How he personally feels is not as important as what his accomplished by this memo. Its a good thing...

Decoligny
10-22-2009, 1:27 PM
Yes if you cover your serial number then you have broken a law.

I am going to write to BeeMiller Inc, who made my Hi-Point, explaining the Open Carry movement. I will try to get a letter giving me "specific authorization" to cover the serial number with a piece of electrical tape. This will allow me to be exempt from 537(e).

537e. (a) Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes of, conceals, or has in his or her possession any personal property from which the manufacturer's serial number, identification number, electronic serial number, or any other distinguishing number or identification mark has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed, is guilty of a public offense, punishable as follows:
(1) If the value of the property does not exceed four hundred dollars ($400), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months.
(2) If the value of the property exceeds four hundred dollars ($400), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
(3) If the property is an integrated computer chip or panel of a value of four hundred dollars ($400) or more, by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
For purposes of this subdivision, "personal property" includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Any television, radio, recorder, phonograph, telephone, piano, or any other musical instrument or sound equipment.
(2) Any washing machine, sewing machine, vacuum cleaner, or other household appliance or furnishings.
(3) Any typewriter, adding machine, dictaphone, or any other office equipment or furnishings.
(4) Any computer, printed circuit, integrated chip or panel, or other part of a computer.
(5) Any tool or similar device, including any technical or scientific equipment.
(6) Any bicycle, exercise equipment, or any other entertainment or recreational equipment.
(7) Any electrical or mechanical equipment, contrivance, material, or piece of apparatus or equipment.
(8) Any clock, watch, watch case, or watch movement.
(9) Any vehicle or vessel, or any component part thereof.
(b) When property described in subdivision (a) comes into the custody of a peace officer it shall become subject to the provision of Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 1407) of Title 10 of Part 2, relating to the disposal of stolen or embezzled property. Property subject to this section shall be considered stolen or embezzled property for the purposes of that chapter, and prior to being disposed of, shall have an identification mark imbedded or engraved in, or permanently affixed to it.
(c) This section does not apply to those cases or instances where any of the changes or alterations enumerated in subdivision (a) have been customarily made or done as an established practice in the ordinary and regular conduct of business, by the original manufacturer, or by his or her duly appointed direct representative, or under specific authorization from the original manufacturer.


The memo is also WRONG when it says "PC 12090 Tampering with marks on firearms. It is illegal to possess a firearm in which the serial number has been altered, COVERED, or obliterated. (FEL)

Nowhere is 12090 do you see the term "covered". You do see the following terms used:
Changes
Alters
Removes
Obliterates

The one thing all these terms have in common is that they are all permanent attempts to keep the firearm from being identified.

Taping Over the serial number does not change the number.
Taping Over the serial number does not alter the number.
Taping Over the serial number does not remove the number.
Taping Over the serial number does not obliterate the number.

12090. Any person who changes, alters, removes or obliterates the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice on any pistol, revolver, or any other firearm, without first having secured written permission from the department to make such change, alteration or removal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.

Whiskey_Sauer
10-22-2009, 1:40 PM
Would someone please explain to me, in a non-inflammatory or rhetorical manner, why there is such resistance to allowing a LEO to do a serial number check on a weapon?

Save/spare me the constitutional/4th Amendment argument standing alone. I'm asking what's the practical effect that concerns you all?

putput
10-22-2009, 1:41 PM
Sweet, page 3, the J Drive of Justice! :D

jdberger
10-22-2009, 1:43 PM
I seem to recall that some aftermarket revolver grips "cover" the serial number on guns with the number stamped on the heel of the grip.

MudCamper
10-22-2009, 1:44 PM
Would someone please explain to me, in a non-inflammatory or rhetorical manner, why there is such resistance to allowing a LEO to do a serial number check on a weapon?

Save/spare me the constitutional/4th Amendment argument standing alone. I'm asking what's the practical effect that concerns you all?

It's mostly a 4A issue. Seriously. Some of us don't like to have any of our rights violated, no matter how insignificant. Also, like the ID issue, it could land you in Theseus' situation, facing criminal charges (BS unconstitutional charges, but costly non-the-less).

I seem to recall that some aftermarket revolver grips "cover" the serial number on guns with the number stamped on the heel of the grip.

Yes. See Decoligny's post.

Dr Rockso
10-22-2009, 1:47 PM
Would someone please explain to me, in a non-inflammatory or rhetorical manner, why there is such resistance to allowing a LEO to do a serial number check on a weapon?

Save/spare me the constitutional/4th Amendment argument standing alone. I'm asking what's the practical effect that concerns you all?
The only argument I can think of from a practical standpoint (aside from the legitimate 4th amendment claims) is that sometimes SN databases are screwed up. I have heard of a couple cases where people have been arrested for supposedly possessing stolen guns, and upon further investigation it has been a typo in the database or an identical serial number of a different manufacturer.

DTOM CA!
10-22-2009, 1:51 PM
This is the item I do not like in this memo "The Citizens Perceive themselves as law abiding people exercising their rights." Perceive my *****. Why does it seem that it is always an us versus them with the police.

Decoligny
10-22-2009, 1:52 PM
Would someone please explain to me, in a non-inflammatory or rhetorical manner, why there is such resistance to allowing a LEO to do a serial number check on a weapon?

Save/spare me the constitutional/4th Amendment argument standing alone. I'm asking what's the practical effect that concerns you all?

The practical effect can be seen in a case like Theseus's.

He had his ID taken without permission or probably cause so it is only a close analogy but here goes.

Let's say you are on private property, the parking lot of a laundrymat.
Let's say that the laundrymat is within 1,000 feet of a school, but you are exempt from 626.9 because you are on private property and you walked there entering the parking lot from the side farthest from the school (over 1,000 feet from the school).
You are carrying without ID.
The LEO performs an e-check and then runs your serial number. There is now a record of an e-check being done on your firearm in the system.
The LEO a few days later reads 626.9 and realizes that you may have been within 1,000.
The LEO goes back and measure and sure enough 878 feet from school property.
The LEO reviews the log and sees that you, Mr. XXXXXX who lives at 123 MyHouse Lane was the registered owner of the handgun.
The LEO drives to 123 MyHouse Lane, rings your doorbell and you answer.
The LEO tells you that you are under arrest for violating PC 626.9.
You have to put out over $10,000 in lawyers fees to try to keep you butt out of Prison.

The police have no need to know any information about a law abiding citizen.

Sgt Raven
10-22-2009, 1:54 PM
Many will disagree with you here. It's been discussed a lot over on OCDO but I do not have an informed opinion on it.

Although reading the PC 537e(a) and 12090 citations makes it pretty clear that it is illegal IMO.

ETA here's a lengthy discussion about this: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=23185&forum_id=12&highlight=serial+number

Take a pistol like my G23 with a M3 light mounted, the light covers the SN, but why would they need to remove the light during an 'E' check? :confused:

pullnshoot25
10-22-2009, 1:54 PM
Would someone please explain to me, in a non-inflammatory or rhetorical manner, why there is such resistance to allowing a LEO to do a serial number check on a weapon?

Save/spare me the constitutional/4th Amendment argument standing alone. I'm asking what's the practical effect that concerns you all?

Decoligny gave a good response.

My response: I am not legally required to do so, I am not helping cops to screw me over and this is not Germany.

wash
10-22-2009, 1:54 PM
Would someone please explain to me, in a non-inflammatory or rhetorical manner, why there is such resistance to allowing a LEO to do a serial number check on a weapon?

Save/spare me the constitutional/4th Amendment argument standing alone. I'm asking what's the practical effect that concerns you all?
If they run the serial # the check takes longer.

Also, what do they expect to find?

Could it be your name and address?

Wait a minute, I thought they couldn't demand ID...

Whiskey_Sauer
10-22-2009, 1:57 PM
It's mostly a 4A issue. Seriously. Some of us don't like to have any of our rights violated, no matter how insignificant. Also, like the ID issue, it could land you in Theseus' situation, facing criminal charges (BS unconstitutional charges, but costly non-the-less).

If your only argument is that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to your serial number, I think it's a weak one. My humble suggestion is that you not spend time and energy thinking of or devising ways to hinder law enforcement, but embrace it as a reasonable byproduct of lawful UOC.

wash
10-22-2009, 2:01 PM
I would be very tempted to find some sort of 80% frame to finish for a UOC gun.

No registration and 100% legal if not concealed.

Whiskey_Sauer
10-22-2009, 2:03 PM
Why does it seem that it is always an us versus them with the police.

This is the funniest, and perhaps most ironic thing I've ever seen written on one of these UOC/OC threads.

Whiskey_Sauer
10-22-2009, 2:06 PM
The practical effect can be seen in a case like Theseus's.

He had his ID taken without permission or probably cause so it is only a close analogy but here goes.

Let's say you are on private property, the parking lot of a laundrymat.
Let's say that the laundrymat is within 1,000 feet of a school, but you are exempt from 626.9 because you are on private property and you walked there entering the parking lot from the side farthest from the school (over 1,000 feet from the school).
You are carrying without ID.
The LEO performs an e-check and then runs your serial number. There is now a record of an e-check being done on your firearm in the system.
The LEO a few days later reads 626.9 and realizes that you may have been within 1,000.
The LEO goes back and measure and sure enough 878 feet from school property.
The LEO reviews the log and sees that you, Mr. XXXXXX who lives at 123 MyHouse Lane was the registered owner of the handgun.
The LEO drives to 123 MyHouse Lane, rings your doorbell and you answer.
The LEO tells you that you are under arrest for violating PC 626.9.
You have to put out over $10,000 in lawyers fees to try to keep you butt out of Prison.

The police have no need to know any information about a law abiding citizen.

Ok, I respect that answer.

The tradeoff, of course, is that occasionally a serial number check will presumably come up with either a stolen weapon or a prohibited person. I will concede, however, that that is unlikely to happen in an unloaded open carry context, or of course, within your movement.

MudCamper
10-22-2009, 2:11 PM
If your only argument is that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to your serial number, I think it's a weak one. My humble suggestion is that you not spend time and energy thinking of or devising ways to hinder law enforcement, but embrace it as a reasonable byproduct of lawful UOC.

Look pal, I'm not the one advocating taping up serial numbers. Save your bad attitude for somebody else. Plus, did you READ Decoligny's post? That happened to Theseus!

JDoe
10-22-2009, 2:13 PM
This is the item I do not like in this memo "The Citizens Perceive themselves as law abiding people exercising their rights." Perceive my *****. Why does it seem that it is always an us versus them with the police.

I think this is a good thing because it portrays UOCers as NOT having a guilty mind.

Whiskey_Sauer
10-22-2009, 2:14 PM
Look pal, I'm not the one advocating taping up serial numbers.

Didn't mean to lump you in with others who seem to be leaning in that direction, sorry.

MudCamper
10-22-2009, 2:17 PM
Didn't mean to lump you in with others who seem to be leaning in that direction, sorry.

I was just attempting to answer your question. Plus, although I am not "one of them", I understand and respect those that want to tape up their serial numbers. A serial number on a firearm is another form of ID. There are some pretty compelling arguments as to why it's a bad idea to show cops your ID. Please don't come into this otherwise civil thread and start insulting people's views.

woodsman
10-22-2009, 2:24 PM
Wow and from Sunnyvale. Not bad..

wash
10-22-2009, 2:53 PM
I'm leery of taping over serial #'s but I will go to some lengths to make sure the cops get nothing by running the serial #.

I would recommend that anyone with a legal unregistered pistol should use that if they UOC (after the right people give us the OK).

pnkssbtz
10-22-2009, 2:55 PM
Mark Stivers, Deputy Police Chief, seems to be uninformed about Kolender vs. Lawson.

To quote from the memo:

3) Once the firearm is determined to be unloaded, there is no further law enforcement action called for.
a. While Hibel v Sixth Judicial District allows for a demand for I.D., this case was in Nevada which has a "Stop and I.D." statute. California has no requirement for I.D., so the question of identifying someone is not clear. The Santa Clara District Attorney position is not to detain or arrest for failure to provide I.D.

First, I'd like to say, how polite of him and the DA's position to not detain or arrest for failure to provide I.D.. Too bad it's not within his or the DA's f***ing discretion to even have the leeway to make such a position.

Kolender V. Lawson. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=461&invol=352)

A California statute requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer. The California Court of Appeal has construed the statute to require a person to provide "credible and reliable" identification when requested by a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 . The California court has defined "credible and reliable" identification as "carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself." Appellee, who had been arrested and convicted under the statute, brought an action in Federal District Court challenging the statute's constitutionality. The District Court held the statute unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. Pp. 355-361.

Some highlights from the case:

"An individual, whom police may think is suspicious but do not have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, is entitled to continue to walk the public streets "only at the whim of any police officer" who happens to stop that individual under 647(e)." ~ Justice O'Connor

"I join the Court's opinion; it demonstrates convincingly that the California statute at issue in this case, Cal. Penal Code Ann. 647(e) (West 1970), as interpreted by California courts, is unconstitutionally vague. Even if the defect identified by the Court were cured, however, I would hold that this statute violates the Fourth Amendment." ~ Justice Brennan

"We have held that the intrusiveness of even these brief stops for purposes of questioning is sufficient to render them "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 16 ." ~ Justice Brennan

"California cannot abridge this constitutional rule by making it a crime to refuse to answer police questions during a [461 U.S. 352, 367] Terry encounter, any more than it could abridge the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by making it a crime to refuse to answer police questions once a suspect has been taken into custody." ~ Justice Brennan

KylaGWolf
10-22-2009, 3:12 PM
If your only argument is that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to your serial number, I think it's a weak one. My humble suggestion is that you not spend time and energy thinking of or devising ways to hinder law enforcement, but embrace it as a reasonable byproduct of lawful UOC.

OK here is an example. I got stopped during an UOC incident. I wasn't even UOC my gun was in a locked container. They not only ran my SN once but twice and my ID. And while yes I did nothing wrong my information is now in a database that I was stopped. No big deal you say it could be if I ever go for a job that requires a security clearance. No I am no paranoid I have seen clearances get blown for things like this and other stupid things that on the surface look like no big deal. I have no desire to hinder any LEO...I actually think the LEOs have a damn hard job to do and most are great at their job. Unfortunately its the few that have no regard for my 4A rights (which were broken and even the department agreed that they were violated). Personally I would rather work with LEO to make 2A rights be without hassle for either side.

nicki
10-22-2009, 3:37 PM
Maybe we could spread this to the rest of the police, then create a map for Santa Clara county with all no carry zones circled.

Perhaps a meeting with the county DA may be in order.

I still believe we should stand down on UOC till after we get incorporation, but getting the ball rolling now will save unneeded grieve for both sides.

Nicki

Decoligny
10-22-2009, 3:49 PM
Maybe we could spread this to the rest of the police, then create a map for Santa Clara county with all no carry zones circled.

Perhaps a meeting with the county DA may be in order.

I still believe we should stand down on UOC till after we get incorporation, but getting the ball rolling now will save unneeded grieve for both sides.

Nicki

And if perchance you accidentally enter one of the "no carry zones" and have the map on you, your defense about "knows, or should reasonably know, that you were in a school zone" goes the way of the dinosaur. EXTINCT.

Any information that you carry with you can and will be used against you.

wash
10-22-2009, 3:50 PM
Maps are bad, it can hurt people that accidentally wander in to a school zone.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-23-2009, 7:31 AM
I always used to get Sunnyvale and Sunnydale a bit mixed up, but now I can remember a little better. Unloaded open carry = Sunnyvale, loaded concealed carry (and a little gunplay) = Sunnydale.


Which leads me to thoughts of Riverdale.

Do you think we'll ever see Betty & Veronica packin' heat?

The Raisuli

GrizzlyGuy
10-23-2009, 8:01 AM
Would someone please explain to me, in a non-inflammatory or rhetorical manner, why there is such resistance to allowing a LEO to do a serial number check on a weapon?

Save/spare me the constitutional/4th Amendment argument standing alone. I'm asking what's the practical effect that concerns you all?

The handgun may not be registered, or it may be registered to someone else (i.e., you borrowed it). If a LEO wanted to charge you with 12025 concealed carry (e.g., claiming your shirt came untucked and partially concealed it or whatever) a sentence enhancement applies since the handgun isn't registered to YOU and you have ammo in your possession. That's per 12025(b)(6).

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12025.html

If they arrested you first, it would be moot, as they would then be able to "search" for the number and run it. But giving them an additional reason to be suspicious in the first place (ex: so that they watch your shirt-tucking more closely) isn't desirable.

Meplat
10-24-2009, 1:00 AM
Would someone please explain to me, in a non-inflammatory or rhetorical manner, why there is such resistance to allowing a LEO to do a serial number check on a weapon?

Save/spare me the constitutional/4th Amendment argument standing alone. I'm asking what's the practical effect that concerns you all?

Practical effect? erosion of rights. :43:

Meplat
10-24-2009, 1:21 AM
If your only argument is that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to your serial number, I think it's a weak one. My humble suggestion is that you not spend time and energy thinking of or devising ways to hinder law enforcement, but embrace it as a reasonable byproduct of lawful UOC.

:rofl2::rofl2:

Meplat
10-24-2009, 1:28 AM
I would be very tempted to find some sort of 80% frame to finish for a UOC gun.

No registration and 100% legal if not concealed.

I got one. A 1911, not very reliable do to the fact I didn't do my part well. But it would drive them nuts. Never thought about that. :43:

bad_ace
10-25-2009, 2:32 AM
Thanks go to bad_ace over on OCDO (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/). He did the PRAR request that uncovered this.

Thanks MudCamper for cross posting this on CalGuns. I wish I had the time to keep up with the rapid fire posts here on calguns.net :)

Progress is underway, this week I've had 2 LEOs just wave (facing my strong side) instead of 'e' checking.

wash
10-25-2009, 4:54 PM
It's my opinion and shared by many others that UOC is not a good idea until we have a decision on second amendment incorporation through McDonald vs. Chicago.

That will be some time next summer. There might be slight delays after that because of pending lawsuits that are waiting on the McDonald vs. Chicago ruling also.

Please help our cause and do not UOC until we know that it will not hurt us.

dantodd
10-25-2009, 5:39 PM
Thanks MudCamper for cross posting this on CalGuns. I wish I had the time to keep up with the rapid fire posts here on calguns.net :)

Progress is underway, this week I've had 2 LEOs just wave (facing my strong side) instead of 'e' checking.

I assume this was in Sunnyvale?

DrjonesUSA
10-26-2009, 11:39 AM
How do these findings and the law on UNLOADED open carry apply to rifles?





.

Librarian
10-26-2009, 6:59 PM
How do these findings and the law on UNLOADED open carry apply to rifles?


Rifles are, by definition, not concealable. It isn't possible to violate 12025 by carrying a rifle (that hasn't been illegally modified to be too short). If you want to carry an unloaded M1A under your raincoat, you won't usually be violating any laws, any more than if you sling it over your shoulder.

That's even legal, according to CA law, in school zones - but it's ILLEGAL according to FEDERAL GFSZ law.