PDA

View Full Version : So last night I talk to Azuza LEO about OLL


Unknownassailant
05-19-2006, 9:42 AM
Last night went on a ride along with a LEO from Azusa, real nice guy and been on the force for 25 years. I waited for the right time and I asked him about DOJ and if they sent any "memos" or if he was aware of the whole off listed lower thing. (You should of seen how big his eyes got when I said thousands of these receivers are now on the street, his trigger finger was prob itching) He said he has not seen any memo and basically said that if it looks like a duck, most officers are gonna think its a duck. So what he means is most officers are going to think OLL are assault weapons and its up to the "suspect" to prove to them its not. I even told him the legalities of the whole thing and he just shook his head and said "If I see one in a trunk of a car, and if its an AR-15 type weapon with no papers its going to be removed". :eek: Needless to say I let the issue die real quick and started talking about how his .40 cal MP5 w/ surefire foreend fires.

Azusa PD also got new G36's to use on the public. Great news for us.

GTKrockeTT
05-19-2006, 10:04 AM
one officer's OPINION, doesn't make it so.

glen avon
05-19-2006, 10:08 AM
statistically it is not very significant, but that's all the direct from the LEO we got right now. and, it sounds about right.

VeryCoolCat
05-19-2006, 10:09 AM
Thats how law suits are made, then the officer will blame the department and the department will go to the DOJ, then everyone in the DOJ will blame lockyer.

CowtownBallin
05-19-2006, 10:56 AM
I wish I had a G36, or even better, MG36

I need to stop playing Ghost Recon 2

Or do I? :D

CalNRA
05-19-2006, 11:02 AM
Thats how law suits are made, then the officer will blame the department and the department will go to the DOJ, then everyone in the DOJ will blame lockyer.

more likely the officer will be demoted and become a parking maid for the rest of his career.

Bling Bling 2.0
05-19-2006, 11:34 AM
I'm not surprised that he didn't know about the memo. Why would he? Unless it was specifically pushed by his commander, he's not going to be scouring the DOJ website waiting for memo's. And he gave you a typical cop answer. "uhhh, really don't know about the law, but I'm not going to take the chance that this is not an illegal rifle and bust you anyway."

It's his a** if you go out and commit a crime with your AW (like that happens). If he documents that he pulled you over on your way to go rob a bank, then he looks really bad.

Cops don't know the laws, and will usually pick over-enforcement vs. under-enforcement except when it comes to illegal immigrants and jay-walkers.

6172crew
05-19-2006, 11:50 AM
Thats the 3rd cop that Ive heard who hasnt seen a DOJ memo.;)

icormba
05-19-2006, 12:27 PM
one officer's OPINION, doesn't make it so.

Unfortunately that's the same opinion many officers have.

The best way to approach this is to do what many have said on this forum, have your papers with you. Not only that! You need to be the EXPERT! Show the officer you know what your talking about... present yourself in a calm professional manner. Pretend you are Bill with all the legal mumbo jumbo :)
Do NOT verbally attack the officer! Or talk "down" to him/her.

The biggest hurdle is to stop shaking after you get pulled over! well, for me anyway.

WokMaster1
05-19-2006, 12:51 PM
I'm surprised no one here has put together all the "legal papers" & offer them for sale yet.:rolleyes:

RRangel
05-19-2006, 1:06 PM
85 posts and you now feel the need to put this in the general firearms discussion? I also don't see why people want to feed ino the hysteria.

kenc9
05-19-2006, 1:26 PM
I asked my two doors down neighbor about what he has heard officially from the CHP Admin where he is a 12 year officer. They have not been told anything about AR/AK's at all.

He said most CHP's he works with that runs into suspected AW's they call in and describe the gun make/model if they can figure it out, and then they do whatever they get told to do with it.

He went on to say if someone breaks a law, drinking laws, fights or mouthy to officers or anything on a arrestable offense the guns are theirs and are impounded.

He said for all the impounded guns he has taken, every one of them looked and acted like loosers. He went on to say, he never has but if he took a normal evey day type of guys gun from him...something would had happened to give him no choice but to take the gun away, he said most of us deal with it like that.

-ken

shopkeep
05-19-2006, 1:31 PM
This is exactly why we need to keep getting more officers into the off-list club. Departments that confiscate an off-list rifle will have officers there who own them and say, "Hey what's that doing in evidence, it's just an off-list rifle."

chris
05-20-2006, 4:19 AM
putting a PDF file together has been suggested for all to use. but i doubt anyone here would charge someone for that. since this will good for all of us to have. it just shows the knowledge of police on the laws that are passed in this state or anywhere.

nice to see the police have G36's to use against us. what are they affraid of AW's are banned? oh wait the law is ineffective in the first place.

socalguns
05-20-2006, 4:51 AM
for f-s sake, don't let the damn cops look into your trunk

stator
05-20-2006, 6:56 AM
for f-s sake, don't let the damn cops look into your trunk

Exactly !

PLINK
05-20-2006, 9:53 AM
Most of us here I would assume are law abiding citizens. You even had to go through the background check to even get an OLL. Don't you have to get pulled over or have a reason to be stopped by an LEO? Or can they see the Black and Scary through the steel of my trunk. Don't give LEO's a reason to pull you over especially when you are transporting firearms. I don't know about you but when I am transporting firearms I treat the transport the same every time. Pistols locked in a case unloaded. Rifles locked in a case unloaded. Ammo stored separately. If LEO were to pop your trunk after you gave him/her permission the first thing he would see is a case. I know a case is not needed for non-AW rifles but I like how it protects the gun and could make a better first impression on an LEO if I was stopped.

Unknownassailant
05-20-2006, 10:09 AM
Most of us here I would assume are law abiding citizens. You even had to go through the background check to even get an OLL. Don't you have to get pulled over or have a reason to be stopped by an LEO? Or can they see the Black and Scary through the steel of my trunk. Don't give LEO's a reason to pull you over especially when you are transporting firearms. I don't know about you but when I am transporting firearms I treat the transport the same every time. Pistols locked in a case unloaded. Rifles locked in a case unloaded. Ammo stored separately. If LEO were to pop your trunk after you gave him/her permission the first thing he would see is a case. I know a case is not needed for non-AW rifles but I like how the protect the gun and could make a better first impression on an LEO if I was stopped.

+1

I'm not going to let what he said stop me but thats probably the best advice. Criminals typically don't store their guns legally in locked padded cases. If it ever came to them looking through my stuff and finding it, I'd just kindly explain to him the OLL craze and hopefully they'll just look at me as one of those law abiding gun enthusiast.

Jicko
05-20-2006, 1:45 PM
for f-s sake, don't let the damn cops look into your trunk

+1 +2 +3 ... + 1000

Never allow/agree on a volunteer "automobile search"....

LEO: "Can I look into your trunk?" <- by default... the answer should be NO!! (if they HAVE ANY BASIS, they won't even ask.....)

First thing you learn from hosting college-frat-house-parties, never allow LEO entry to your house.... if they have a warrant, they will just COME in...

LOL :D

ALTSEC972
05-20-2006, 2:21 PM
Shiot, I'm not so worried about them looking in my trunk...... I'm more concerned about them having a fit over my pindle mounted minigun on my roof!

Besides.... I doubt any officer realizes that there is a trunk under the bed of my truck.

6172crew
05-20-2006, 2:54 PM
+1 +2 +3 ... + 1000

Never allow/agree on a volunteer "automobile search"....

LEO: "Can I look into your trunk?" <- by default... the answer should be NO!! (if they HAVE ANY BASIS, they won't even ask.....)

First thing you learn from hosting college-frat-house-parties, never allow LEO entry to your house.... if they have a warrant, they will just COME in...

LOL :D

I was on a ride along a few months ago and had 2 calls for loud music, the first one we could hear folks saying "dopnt open the door, my buddy went around back found a open door and started rippin through the house with muddy boots, the first guy ghe came in contact with had a M9 pointed at him. Id say that if they had answred the door these guys would have told them to knock it off but instead they had every cop they could find giving tickets, and busting folks.

You dont want to piss off the popo.:o

Also most of these kids were under age, but the guys talking **** through the door were frat guys.:cool:

EBWhite
05-20-2006, 3:16 PM
I belive you have no choice if they see any gun related items, then can do a brief search of the car.

I always wonder about those people on cops, the ones with drugs- they allow the cops to search the car- why would they do that???

fairfaxjim
05-20-2006, 5:38 PM
I belive you have no choice if they see any gun related items, then can do a brief search of the car.

I always wonder about those people on cops, the ones with drugs- they allow the cops to search the car- why would they do that???

'Cause they're on DRUGS! AND, they make a very very stuipid mistake by thinking the LEO's are dumber than they are - do not sell these LEO guys on the street short, and DO NOT try to B.S. them - that WILL get you busted for something, anything, or nothing, but it will get you busted!

EBWhite
05-20-2006, 6:21 PM
'Cause they're on DRUGS! AND, they make a very very stuipid mistake by thinking the LEO's are dumber than they are - do not sell these LEO guys on the street short, and DO NOT try to B.S. them - that WILL get you busted for something, anything, or nothing, but it will get you busted!


In most cases they have probable cause to search the vehicle b/c of clear intoxication or they see drug paraphernalia in clear sight.

However, there have been many times where a person has been in a drug area and was pulled over for a broken light/minor violation. On camera they looked fine and the cop asked for a search and the person said ya sure I have noting to hide. Well, they should have said no since they went to jail anyways. Or I saw a few times where the cops saw a man pick up a prostitute and pulled the car over for a minor violation. Well, they asked to search with no proof of any crime committed and were allowed to search by permission and found some pot, etc.

nickj03b
05-20-2006, 6:29 PM
Vehicles are easier for police to get into. If police have probable cause to search the car they will, under the Belton rule. Most of the time people will say yes to a search because they think that if they say no the cop will think they are hiding something. Many people do not know what police can and cannot do regarding searches, thats why a good police officer can get consent searches 9 times out of 10.

EBWhite
05-20-2006, 8:11 PM
I do not know too much about the search laws since i've never read up on it too much. I'd like to know more, its google time...

hoffmang
05-20-2006, 8:53 PM
EB,

The short answer is, always be nice to the officer, but politely decline any searches that he wishes to complete. If he searches anyway, state politely that he is searching without consent.

6172crew
05-20-2006, 9:05 PM
My buddy always asks "You dont have anything in the car I should know about do you?" Hes just checking your reaction.

If you say "N-, no then he will push the issue, if you give him the "no sir" then he lets it go, at least that is what Ive seen from him.

EBWhite
05-20-2006, 9:26 PM
I found a good site with some info:


www.flexyourrights.org

Mssr. Eleganté
05-20-2006, 11:02 PM
My buddy always asks "You dont have anything in the car I should know about do you?" Hes just checking your reaction.

If you say "N-, no then he will push the issue, if you give him the "no sir" then he lets it go, at least that is what Ive seen from him.

Sounds like your buddy is looking to get sued by the NSA for profiling...

http://www.nsastutter.org/

Ford8N
05-21-2006, 6:55 AM
Be polite about it but always say no to a search. If you allow a search, you will have no defense about "probable cause".

11Z50
05-21-2006, 9:06 AM
You should always keep in mind the 4th and 5th ammendments to the US Constitution, which is the law of the land.

You do not have to submit to a warrantless search of your person, vehicle home, and belongings. If sufficient probable cause exists for a warrantless search, the Officer should also have sufficient probable cause to detain or arrest you. Then he doesn't need your consent. If an Officer asks you for permission to search, he does not have probable cause, and is on a "fishing expedition". Just say, politely, "no."

The common tactic used by cops is to ask a nebulous question like "Is there anything in your car that I should know about?" or the famous "Do you have any guns, bombs or hand grenades?" What is happening here is the cops are fishing for a spontaneous declaration. Don't say anything but "NO". If you get pulled over for speeding, and the cop asks you if there are any weapons in the vehicle, you don't have to say anything. Some say if you have a CCW and get stopped, you should immediately tell the cop you are armed. I disagree. I don't tell them anything. If your'e doing it right, ie carrying concealed, they will never know anyways.

Citzens have rights. The reason the cops (the executive branch) are monitored by the courts (the judicial branch) is to protect you, the citizen. Be smart, don't let them take advantage of you. Exercise your rights.

6172crew
05-21-2006, 9:12 AM
Sounds like your buddy is looking to get sued by the NSA for profiling...

http://www.nsastutter.org/

Dude I didnt see the link and thought you were talking about the National Security Agency.

I thought we had a loon loose on the board. LOL

nickj03b
05-21-2006, 11:22 AM
You should always keep in mind the 4th and 5th ammendments to the US Constitution, which is the law of the land.

You do not have to submit to a warrantless search of your person, vehicle home, and belongings. If sufficient probable cause exists for a warrantless search, the Officer should also have sufficient probable cause to detain or arrest you. Then he doesn't need your consent. If an Officer asks you for permission to search, he does not have probable cause, and is on a "fishing expedition". Just say, politely, "no."

Well detain and arrest are different. Incident to arrest the officer is allowed to search you and everything in arms reach(depending on location). When you are detained you are subject to a pat down if the officer believes you have a weapon or anything that could harm him. And yes officers often ask for consent even if they have probable cause. I understand people have rights and should make sure they know how to protect themselves but its annoying when people think they know more about the law than the police and like to give lectures on how smart they are and tell the police what they can or cant do.

hoffmang
05-21-2006, 4:57 PM
There are a couple of rules for encounters with an officer. First be polite. Second, no question has to be answered as long as you do it politely and don't seem to be evasive. Don't try to tell the cop how to do his job, but makes mental notes and write them down as soon as you have a good opportunity. Remember what you asked. If something bad happens, or even if you just want to fight the ticket - having notes about the time, weather, officer's statements and demeanor, all are useful to build your infraction case or for your lawyer if something more happened. Those notes make it more than just "he said, she said" - especially if you have witnesses with you.

Remember, you have no affirmative requirement to tell an officer the truth. An encounter with an officer is not sworn testimony and you have no obligation to incriminate yourself.

My favorite one of those is people who answer the question, "do you know how fast you were going?" Many will actually tell the officer the speed at which they were exceeding the limit. My answer is and will remain "Yes."

Nick5811
05-21-2006, 4:57 PM
You should always keep in mind the 4th and 5th ammendments to the US Constitution, which is the law of the land.

You do not have to submit to a warrantless search of your person, vehicle home, and belongings. If sufficient probable cause exists for a warrantless search, the Officer should also have sufficient probable cause to detain or arrest you. Then he doesn't need your consent. If an Officer asks you for permission to search, he does not have probable cause, and is on a "fishing expedition". Just say, politely, "no."

Well detain and arrest are different. Incident to arrest the officer is allowed to search you and everything in arms reach(depending on location). When you are detained you are subject to a pat down if the officer believes you have a weapon or anything that could harm him. And yes officers often ask for consent even if they have probable cause. I understand people have rights and should make sure they know how to protect themselves but its annoying when people think they know more about the law than the police and like to give lectures on how smart they are and tell the police what they can or cant do.

I would have to agree with the 'other' Nick. When you start to tell the police how to do their job or your interpretation of the law you fail 'the attitude test' and cause problems for yourself.

Cops have a little thing called 'discretion' and are legally allowed to operate within set guidelines...if you fail the attitude test you should expect to be called on your violations. If my intention was to pull you over and tell you to fix your brake light and continue on to the donut shop, I might change my mind when you say 'I don't have to let you see **** cop! I have rights! Go ahead and try to search my car and see what happens!'

Then when I 'arrest' you for resist/delay/obstruct a law officer or simple assault I can do a search 'incident to arrest' or an 'inventory search' when I impound your car for storage.

I'm not saying anyone should allow their rights to be violated, but I think it would be wise to cooperate with LEO personnel to avoid having problems.

Just because *you* don't think I have probable cause doesn't mean that I don't...and you hiring an attorney and threatening to sue me isn't going to stop me from 'detaining' you while performing a thorough search of the vehicle and it's contents.

(because it is an automobile being operated on public land; the supreme court has ruled your 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is far less than you would like to believe.)

Even that being the case, I will *always* refuse to allow a vehicle search as long as I have that option. I don't have anything to hide, I just don't want somebody messing up my car and making a big mess of my belongings. (The more trash is in *your* car, the less *I* want to dig through it...)

Also, on a lighter note, that NSA/stuttering thing was HILARIOUS!

and back to the topic at hand...I haven't seen or heard anything about 'the memo' besides on here, on my own...I am aware of the situation, and upon finding an 'off-list' that is in a grossly negligent and blatantly illegal configuration I would definately take it (i.e. pistol grip, empty or detachable mags, collapsable stock, etc...) Those people are obviously not intelligent enough to follow the law, and I think we all agree they are obviously not responsible enough to possess these kinds of items...

rorschach
05-21-2006, 5:16 PM
One must remember that although the Constitution is the law of the land, what YOU interpret as saying may be different from what case law as decided by the courts interprets.

Jicko
05-21-2006, 5:21 PM
I would have to agree with the 'other' Nick. When you start to tell the police how to do their job or your interpretation of the law you fail 'the attitude test' and cause problems for yourself.

Then when I 'arrest' you for resist/delay/obstruct a law officer or simple assault I can do a search 'incident to arrest' or an 'inventory search' when I impound your car for storage.

Are you a LEO?

Is "speeding" a probable cause for a vehicle search? (I personally don't think so)

I also don't think "refusing to consent to a warrantless search" means "obstruction to a LEO" AND will lead to an arrest....

kantstudien
05-21-2006, 5:45 PM
So, in other words, "probable cause" can always be found? :rolleyes:

Nick5811
05-21-2006, 8:05 PM
I'm just saying to choose your battles wisely. If you don't have anything to hide then politely refuse to the search...running your mouth will just cause you more hassle and delay you further.

Contrary to popular belief, the Police, the DOJ, and the other government agencies are not 'out to get you' (well, most of you...). If you're going to be afraid of someone being out to get you, watch out for women! Women are NOTORIOUS for being out to get you, especially at divorce time!:D

While speeding may not be grounds in and of itself to conduct a search, anything seen in the vehicle ('plain view doctrine') that appears to be contraband or evidence of criminal activity creates the 'exigent circumstances' neccesary to perform a warrantless search based on probable cause (the item seen in the car). If you want to be a ****, I'm sure the officer would look more closely at you than at someone who is compliant and cooperates with them.

I will say the criminal's worst enemy is himself. Countless people are stopped for some minor infraction (like defective equipment or failure to stop) and get busted for something much bigger upon their consent to search or when they come back with a warrant or suspended D/L.

Chill out people! The federale's aren't coming for you yet!:rolleyes:

artherd
05-21-2006, 10:59 PM
Remember, you have no affirmative requirement to tell an officer the truth. An encounter with an officer is not sworn testimony and you have no obligation to incriminate yourself.
Not true, just ask Martha Stewart about making false statements to officers in the course of an investigation.

artherd
05-21-2006, 11:08 PM
9 out of 10 times I find the best course of action with a LEO Encounter is, talk to them (in general but polite terms, without self-incriminating) like they are human beings. Because 9 times out of 10, they are!

That 10th time, well, you might as well ring up your solicitor then and there, you're going to need him because you're about to be rolled. Probally illegally.

I'm just saying to choose your battles wisely. If you don't have anything to hide then politely refuse to the search...running your mouth will just cause you more hassle and delay you further.

Contrary to popular belief, the Police, the DOJ, and the other government agencies are not 'out to get you' (well, most of you...).
Chuckles.
While speeding may not be grounds in and of itself to conduct a search, anything seen in the vehicle ('plain view doctrine') that appears to be contraband or evidence of criminal activity creates the 'exigent circumstances' neccesary to perform a warrantless search based on probable cause (the item seen in the car).

Sort of, it has to pass an OBJECTIVE (not subjective) Reasonable Person standard and be articulatable later in court. "I thought his sweater looked like a bong" ain't going to cut it. However "I saw 3 crack rocks on the passanger's floor" will.

You are correct in that there is somewhat less expectation of privicy in a mobile convayance, but you still may not search without at the least a Reasonable Suspicion standard of evidence of crime. Typically in a residence the standard is the higher standard of Probable Cause (typically...)

50 Freak
05-22-2006, 1:45 AM
Chill out people! The federale's aren't coming for you yet!

I don't think a person's want or need to preserve their privacy should consitute them being "paranoid". If I am pulled over for doing 36 in a 35 mile zone. The police officer has the right and duty to give me a ticket for speeding. But in no way am I ever going to consent to allow him to search my car because "I have nothing to hide.

MidnightSon117
05-22-2006, 3:23 AM
and back to the topic at hand...I haven't seen or heard anything about 'the memo' besides on here, on my own...I am aware of the situation, and upon finding an 'off-list' that is in a grossly negligent and blatantly illegal configuration I would definately take it (i.e. pistol grip, empty or detachable mags, collapsable stock, etc...) Those people are obviously not intelligent enough to follow the law, and I think we all agree they are obviously not responsible enough to possess these kinds of items...

I don't agree with the last part about not being intelligent enough, as well as the person not being not responsible enough to possess "these" kinds of items. Seems like more of an opinion to me, similar to what the anti-gun crowd preaches. It is breaking the law, but your opinion bothers me, because it sounds like you're jumping the gun and playing judge as well as executioner.

Would you say the opposite scenario holds true?

Like, the off-list lower was not illegally configured, so you let the person go, because the person was intelligent enough and responsible enough to keep the off-list lower legal. But then the person you let go commits a crime with the same weapon. Would you still have the opinion that the person is still intelligent enough and responsible enough to possess "these" kinds of items?

HillBilly
05-22-2006, 7:35 AM
huh? No disrespect to LEO's...their job is a PITA i'm sure, but I am more concerned about this:

Originally Posted by Nick5811
...I am aware of the situation, and upon finding an 'off-list' that is in a grossly negligent and blatantly illegal configuration I would definately take it (i.e. pistol grip, empty or detachable mags, collapsable stock, etc...) Those people are obviously not intelligent enough to follow the law, and I think we all agree they are obviously not responsible enough to possess these kinds of items...

It sounds to me as you are stating that you are prepared to follow the letter of the 2nd memo rather than the letter of the law. Just to clarify, if for some reason I agree to search (don't hold your breath) and you come upon my locked hard case, and inside find my OLL with a Pistol grip, collapsable stock, and a FIXED 10rd mag, I am in a blatently illegal configuration? Perhaps I have my preban mags in a seperated locked case on my way to AZ...I am not following the law intelligently?

Maybe I read it wrong...Please explain...

JWC6
05-22-2006, 7:36 AM
Ditto on my experience in a ride-along. LEO basically stated, if seen, then it will be taken into custody at the station for further clarification. And I live in a relatively conservative area of Orange County.

However, the people being stopped with clearly doing something wrong, speeding, driving erratically, parking and leaving from a known drug-infested hotel. None of the vehicles were searched though...

An interesting point: later on in the class, we had an opportunity to "observe" a SWAT member at the shooting range with a 6721 and ML2. Several other citizens of my class knew as much, if not more, than the officer...

adamsreeftank
05-22-2006, 8:53 AM
Not true, just ask Martha Stewart about making false statements to officers in the course of an investigation.

Wasn't she under oath when she made the false statements?

xrMike
05-22-2006, 8:57 AM
So, in other words, "probable cause" can always be found? :rolleyes:

No, more like: "Probable cause can be easily manufactured AFTER THE FACT."

All an officer has to say later, in court, is: "Subject became extremely nervous and fidgety when I asked him if there was any contraband in the car." Or, "Subject's eyes appeared to be dialated, indicating he was under the influence."

blacklisted
05-22-2006, 10:21 AM
Yes, I would like to know what he means as well.

huh? No disrespect to LEO's...their job is a PITA i'm sure, but I am more concerned about this:



It sounds to me as you are stating that you are prepared to follow the letter of the 2nd memo rather than the letter of the law. Just to clarify, if for some reason I agree to search (don't hold your breath) and you come upon my locked hard case, and inside find my OLL with a Pistol grip, collapsable stock, and a FIXED 10rd mag, I am in a blatently illegal configuration? Perhaps I have my preban mags in a seperated locked case on my way to AZ...I am not following the law intelligently?

Maybe I read it wrong...Please explain...

69Mach1
05-22-2006, 10:26 AM
Even if permission was given to search the car, does the LEO have the right to make you unlock your gun case to look inside?

bwiese
05-22-2006, 10:31 AM
Wasn't she under oath when she made the false statements?

She lied to FBI agents. That's a crime in & of itself without being under formal oath.

Never lie to a cop, at best if discovered you could be regarded as 'hindering investigation' or 'interfering with law enforcement duties'.

Just say nothing substantive to a cop other than offering him a polite hello or goodbye.

glen avon
05-22-2006, 1:20 PM
Even if permission was given to search the car, does the LEO have the right to make you unlock your gun case to look inside?

YES they have a statutory right to verify that it is unloaded.

hoffmang
05-22-2006, 1:30 PM
There is a relatively new Federal Law that makes it a crime to make a false statement during an investigation and not under oath. What this means is that if the IRS, SEC, BATFE, or anyone else calls you and even if you aren't under oath you need to politely explain that due to the Martha precedent you can't repsond unless your lawyer handles it - no matter how trivial it is.

If Federal Law Enforcement wants to be able to entrap folks during investigation the reaction shall be that they get no help during an investigation from anyone. Feel like getting Scooter Libby's legal bills?

Nick5811
05-23-2006, 1:19 AM
I don't agree with the last part about not being intelligent enough, as well as the person not being not responsible enough to possess "these" kinds of items. Seems like more of an opinion to me, similar to what the anti-gun crowd preaches. It is breaking the law, but your opinion bothers me, because it sounds like you're jumping the gun and playing judge as well as executioner.

Would you say the opposite scenario holds true?

Like, the off-list lower was not illegally configured, so you let the person go, because the person was intelligent enough and responsible enough to keep the off-list lower legal. But then the person you let go commits a crime with the same weapon. Would you still have the opinion that the person is still intelligent enough and responsible enough to possess "these" kinds of items?

No guys...I'm saying that if some dumbass is going to build a free-state offlist AR and claim that it is protected under harrot, he is going to lose it and go explain to the judge how his free-state off list is illegally configured...
I am planning to try the pistol-gripless type just to err on the side of caution...the media and DOJ would like nothing better than to make an example of LEO types I'm sure.

I fully believe that the pinned 10rd mag complies with current legislation and would *NEVER* try some BS like breaking welds or forcing something open/off to trump some sort of charges up and F*** somebody. I fully believe that the government should be afraid of the people, and I wish we all had the rights we deserve. I would bleed on the flag to make the stripes red, and I myself will not give up my guns without a fight. I think gun control and registration is the first step toward a confiscation and a second 'third reich' type oppression. I am fully on most of your sides, kind of like fight club...I'm just trying to give a little perspective on things and to help some of you stay 'under the radar' or off the grid...
There is nothing you or I can do to predict crime...I have no control over whether or not a person is allowed to pass the DOJ bg check and pick up his cali legal rifle after the 10 day wait. What he does with it afterwards is his business...I'm saying that if someone is going to be ignorant of the law and configure it illegally they deserve to have it taken from them. All of us here plan to configure ours in accordance with the law, we all agree on this point. I've been wanting one of these things ever since I first played Rainbow 6...probably like a lot of you guys out there too.

I'm just saying that if you're going to roll the dice, you better be prepared to roll snake eyes...

have a good day...and chill out. I'm not a big fan of the DOJ or any profiling cops or those a-holes that like to harrass people. Just realize that we all have a job to do, and people tend to make things harder for themselves by being half-informed and acting on beliefs.

gh429
05-23-2006, 12:42 PM
I fully believe that the pinned 10rd mag complies with current legislation...

I'm saying that if someone is going to be ignorant of the law and configure it illegally they deserve to have it taken from them.

I'm just saying that if you're going to roll the dice, you better be prepared to roll snake eyes...

have a good day...and chill out. I'm not a big fan of the DOJ or any profiling cops or those a-holes that like to harrass people. Just realize that we all have a job to do, and people tend to make things harder for themselves by being half-informed and acting on beliefs.

But you're missing one of the key points of Harrott. The point is that the law is so confusing that to take a person's legally owned rifle because of a different build is a violation of due process. Because it is my opinion that you have mis-interpreted the law and that a pined magazine is NOT legal per "capacity to accept". Does that mean you deserve to have your pinned mag rifle taken from you because you were ignorant, or rather mis-interpreted the law? I would hope that answer is "no".

Nick5811
05-23-2006, 6:10 PM
But you're missing one of the key points of Harrott. The point is that the law is so confusing that to take a person's legally owned rifle because of a different build is a violation of due process. Because it is my opinion that you have mis-interpreted the law and that a pined magazine is NOT legal per "capacity to accept". Does that mean you deserve to have your pinned mag rifle taken from you because you were ignorant, or rather mis-interpreted the law? I would hope that answer is "no".

"Capacity to accept" is the DOJ's non-sensical memo of propoganda which is causing a big cluster****. It is riddled with holes, and more importantly IS NOT THE LAW. Detachable magazines and pistol grips or flash hiders or forward pistol grips or flare launchers or collapsable stocks are statutory law.

That's why I wouldn't take one. The DOJ can say that the sky is green but that doesn't make it so. The DOJ has a process they have to go through in order to have their opinion be worth a damn. Until they do, I will not be confiscating OLL's unless they are CLEARLY violating a statute. I can't speak for everyone out there, but that's how I feel about it.

I think an officer of the law would rather take the weapon until it is determined legal and find out the weapon is legal than to let the person keep the weapon be wrong about it. Unfortunately in that case the rights of the many (society) outwiegh the rights of the few (gun owners).

Worst case as far as the officer goes is the rifle is sent to the lab and determined not to be an AW...you get your rifle back, sue the department and the department pays you off. The judge agrees with you and Bill's rebuttal to the Memo; the court raises the BS flag on the DOJ and we all end up with listed OLL's.

I don't see how this shows my mis-understanding of Harrot, I think the list is too vague, and I think the kasler list is an abomination that doesn't work. My opinion, but that and a box of rocks will get you a box of rocks...

Because of the confusion created by the memo, and the politics surrounding AW, charges, DA's, SO's, etc. I am *personally* staying away from the pinned mag thing.

And lastly, for those of you who think the 4th, 5th, and 14th ammendments are absolute and protect you from everything all the time, call up the ACLU and see what they have to say.

JeepRescueService14
05-24-2006, 11:29 PM
Ahh.. So mr. officer does not think californians are responsible enough to have detachable mag rifles? Them savage arizonians can have em tho. Animals!

blacklisted
05-25-2006, 12:57 AM
Actually, "capacity to accept" IS in the statute.

"A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:"

However, it is not defined. Common sense says that a pinned mag does not allow the gun to accept a detachable magazine.

If they do define "capacity to accept" (they probably wont), just go gripless. No need to permanently modify your lower.

And you are right, currently "capacity to accept" is BS, and should have no effect on us. Pinned mag rifles are still legal. I don't know why gh429 keeps claiming otherwise.

"Capacity to accept" is the DOJ's non-sensical memo of propoganda which is causing a big cluster****. It is riddled with holes, and more importantly IS NOT THE LAW. Detachable magazines and pistol grips or flash hiders or forward pistol grips or flare launchers or collapsable stocks are statutory law.

That's why I wouldn't take one. The DOJ can say that the sky is green but that doesn't make it so. The DOJ has a process they have to go through in order to have their opinion be worth a damn. Until they do, I will not be confiscating OLL's unless they are CLEARLY violating a statute. I can't speak for everyone out there, but that's how I feel about it.

I think an officer of the law would rather take the weapon until it is determined legal and find out the weapon is legal than to let the person keep the weapon be wrong about it. Unfortunately in that case the rights of the many (society) outwiegh the rights of the few (gun owners).

Worst case as far as the officer goes is the rifle is sent to the lab and determined not to be an AW...you get your rifle back, sue the department and the department pays you off. The judge agrees with you and Bill's rebuttal to the Memo; the court raises the BS flag on the DOJ and we all end up with listed OLL's.

I don't see how this shows my mis-understanding of Harrot, I think the list is too vague, and I think the kasler list is an abomination that doesn't work. My opinion, but that and a box of rocks will get you a box of rocks...

Because of the confusion created by the memo, and the politics surrounding AW, charges, DA's, SO's, etc. I am *personally* staying away from the pinned mag thing.

And lastly, for those of you who think the 4th, 5th, and 14th ammendments are absolute and protect you from everything all the time, call up the ACLU and see what they have to say.

Tzvia
05-25-2006, 7:24 AM
I can't see how a pinned-mag rifle has 'the capacity to accept'. My ARs will only hold one mag at at time, and with it pinned and requiring tools to remove, a second magazine will not fit without the use of tools. And that is the requirement here, does the mag require tools and time to remove. As long as that mag is pinned in there, the gun no longer has the capacity to accept. Only if I remove the upper and the pistol grip, would I unpin the mag, and at that point, it no longer has the evel features that make it the dreaded 'assault weapon'. Am I missing something here?

glen avon
05-25-2006, 7:34 AM
I can't see how a pinned-mag rifle has 'the capacity to accept'.

it is if the law says it is.

just like abortion is "choice" and not "birth control." I might disagree, but the law isn't too worried about my personal opinion.

Sledpusher
05-25-2006, 12:49 PM
If you want to be a ****, I'm sure the officer would look more closely at you than at someone who is compliant and cooperates with them.

I agree on this point. When contacting someone I use the Golden Rule and treat them the way I would want to be treated while still doing my job. As soon as someone goes against this and thus fails the ever so popular attitude test they now have nothing coming. Whatever "Spirit of the law" I was thinking about using went out the window with their remarks. The situation has become a "Letter of the law" issue.

From a personal standpoint (And I work with numerous officers who share my mentality on this) I stop a vehicle for moving violations or equipment violations in order to try and find the real criminals that are out there. I am not about harrassing the everyday citizen going about their business. If during the course of my stop the driver of the vehicle is in possession of a valid license, registration and insurance (Or if he/she forgot the license and knows the number and/or information on it) I will quickly get them back on their way with nothing more than a verbal warning as to the reason they were stopped to begin with.

On the other side of this if the person has a suspended license, lies about their name (which I will most certainly find out about with a quick records check on my computer), has illegal items in plain sight, or they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol, they will be looked at harder. Which means they will most likely be detained and their person and vehicle searched.

In reality who would want the headache of at the very minimum getting a ticket if it could have been avoided by just answering some questions respectfully. I get into this discussion with my father-in-law from time to time. He is of the mindset that you can ticket him or lecture him but you are not going to do both. I told him I agree with that and usually don't do both. His mistake is when the officer first contacts him he blurts out the statement, "Ticket me or lecture me!" That is about the time the officer get his information, leaves for a few minutes and returns with a citation. In reality had he just heard what the officer was going to say he probably would have been on the road much sooner and without a citation.

Summing all this up I do not agree with the treat every person like dirt mentality that some officers have but I am not going to allow someone I have lawfully detained sit and tell me my stop was invalid.

As for LEO's and the situation with the off list lowers...I am a member of the OLL club. My Department has not put out any official memo's regarding the lowers. I keep up to date on the current situation through the Cal-Guns Forum and continue to educate my fellow officers about the difference between listed and off-list lowers. I will not take a law abiding citizens guns without a clear (I might even venture to say SEVERE) violation of law. Never for a moving violation alone would I take your guns. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I also am for the reversal of California's AW ban. Let's make California a free state again!:D

artherd
05-25-2006, 10:48 PM
it is if the law says it is.

just like abortion is "choice" and not "birth control." I might disagree, but the law isn't too worried about my personal opinion.
DOJ is trying to double-fist the issue. You cannot effectively criminalize a "Capacity to accept a capacity to accept".

You also cannot criminalize a "Capacity to accept a detachable magazine, that then becomes a fixed magazine, which is no longer illegal."

artherd
05-25-2006, 10:57 PM
From a personal standpoint (And I work with numerous officers who share my mentality on this) I stop a vehicle for moving violations or equipment violations in order to try and find the real criminals that are out there. I am not about harrassing the everyday citizen going about their business.
Let me preface this by saying that I agree with everything else you said, and frankly the above is probally true in a practicality sense. (ie, that's really what you do, and that's how you do it, and it works.) I personally think you're one of the many "good ones" in law enforcement, so please don't take any of the following personally.



I have to point out that using Vehicle stops as a pretext to search for 'real criminals' in society very much IS harassing everyday citizens. The CVC is so litrered with violations, that many cops (I'm sure you've heard some) like to brag about how they can find PC on any car out there.

That's so legislated up, that it's NOT pc anymore!

Back in the days when you couldn't be stoped unless you had an arm hanging out of your truck, or blood on your trunk, PC was just that, PROBABLE CAUSE to belive that a CRIME had been committed.

A burnt out tail light, or tinted windows the wrong side of 3%, is NOT Probable Cause to belive that someone has been murdered, it's probable cause to belive that a tail light is out, or that some windows are tinted.

Erattic driving, throwing beer bottles out the car, or car filled with smoke however, IS probable cause to belive someone is DUI!

Jicko
05-26-2006, 12:28 AM
As for LEO's and the situation with the off list lowers...I am a member of the OLL club. My Department has not put out any official memo's regarding the lowers. I keep up to date on the current situation through the Cal-Guns Forum and continue to educate my fellow officers about the difference between listed and off-list lowers. I will not take a law abiding citizens guns without a clear (I might even venture to say SEVERE) violation of law. Never for a moving violation alone would I take your guns. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I also am for the reversal of California's AW ban. Let's make California a free state again!:D

A-men!

:D

Jicko
05-26-2006, 12:31 AM
Originally Posted by Tzvia
I can't see how a pinned-mag rifle has 'the capacity to accept'.

it is if the law says it is.

just like abortion is "choice" and not "birth control." I might disagree, but the law isn't too worried about my personal opinion.


The thing is.... the LAW DOES NOT say so.... it is only DOJ's opinion.... do you remember their "opinion" on a "CAT 4 AW" registration??? Where is that registration now!??? :rolleyes:

According to the Penal Code.... a magazine fixed in the lower receiver requiring a TOOL to remove is NOT a "detachable magazine".... and even if they want to use the "capacity to accept" wording... all they can say is... my rifle have the "capacity to accept" a "magazine"........ but NOT a "detachable magazine"..... since the moment the magazine is accepted(and fixed w/ a tool).... it is no longer "detachable".....

There have never been any wordings/definitions of "permenantly fixed" or "temporarily fixed"...

Sledpusher
05-26-2006, 12:34 AM
I personally think you're one of the many "good ones" in law enforcement, so please don't take any of the following personally.

I have to point out that using Vehicle stops as a pretext to search for 'real criminals' in society very much IS harassing everyday citizens. The CVC is so litrered with violations, that many cops (I'm sure you've heard some) like to brag about how they can find PC on any car out there.

That's so legislated up, that it's NOT pc anymore!

I don't take it personally and thank you for the compliment. I believe I am one of the good ones too. That said, I felt compelled to elaborate upon my "real criminal" statement.

You are right that the CVC is filled with many petty and obscure violations. If I were to stop a citizen for a petty offense (let's say window tint or a license plate light being out) and cite them for it I might be ridiculed by my peers for writing someone such a chicken $#!% ticket. I would also not be able to respect myself for causing someone else heartache over something so minor.

On the other hand, if I stopped someone for this same petty offense and during my license and registration check discovered the driver was an out of compliance 290 registrant or a wanted felon you would tell me I did a good job.

A lot of laws are over legislated and quite frankly ridiculous but they do have their place. To this end, I know these so called stops which may be considered as harrassing to some citizens are legitimate and legal uses of the law. These laws give law enforcement the tools needed to be effective in todays society...so long as the officer using them does so with good intentions.

glen avon
05-26-2006, 6:24 AM
Back in the days when you couldn't be stoped unless you had an arm hanging out of your truck, or blood on your trunk, PC was just that, PROBABLE CAUSE to belive that a CRIME had been committed.

or driving while black or mexican. the good ol' days weren't always so good.

A burnt out tail light, or tinted windows the wrong side of 3%, is NOT Probable Cause to belive that someone has been murdered, it's probable cause to belive that a tail light is out, or that some windows are tinted.

true enough, but it's simple enough to avoid, too.

as my age and appearance and rides have changed, so has my interaction with the po-lice. a long time ago in a galaxy far far away I used to look like a dirtbag. and the po-lice noticed. when I cleaned up they quit looking.

is it fair? who cares. it's so easy to avoid. clean up you act; keep your tags, license, and insurance up; dress to impress women with jobs and teeth; and keep your car clean and in operating condition per the law and you are all of a sudden invisible to the po-lice.

6172crew
05-26-2006, 7:03 AM
When I did my ride-along we looked for exp tags, beater type vehicles, and mouth breathers. We only pulled over guys with bad tags but ran plates of the rest.

DevLcL
05-26-2006, 10:28 AM
So, me, as Joe Citizen, I have to 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt' my innocence. Meanwhile, Jonny Law gets to arrest me, falsly, and steal my property any time he pleases just because hes too lazy to do the research.
Yup, beautiful california!

-Dev

artherd
05-26-2006, 1:31 PM
A lot of laws are over legislated and quite frankly ridiculous but they do have their place. To this end, I know these so called stops which may be considered as harrassing to some citizens are legitimate and legal uses of the law. These laws give law enforcement the tools needed to be effective in todays society...so long as the officer using them does so with good intentions.
I don't nessicarily disagree here at all (the more PC violations that are possible, the more you REALLY CAN catch ACTUAL CRIMINALS!).

I just don't think it's right that we now live in a society in which PC can be had on nearly anyone. It gives rise to the possability and practicality of profiling, harassment, and is a first step towards tyrrany. It's a good thing we have cops like you who understand the power they weild, and do so dilligently and fairly!

Here's an example, Take DUI checkpoints. Poppycock, even though they do catch several drunks.

If someone is opperating their car erratically, weaving, etc. FINE pull them over DRUNK OR NOT THEY NEED A TICKET, MAYBE JAIL! But searching everyone at a checkpoint? Before they actually commit a crime? Not kosher in my opinion.

Anyway, back to your regularily scheguled program.

PS: Glen, don't you know anything, being black on a friday night is only a misdomenor!

hoffmang
05-26-2006, 2:17 PM
6712 - Did your ride along officer run plates of cars he didn't pull over? There is SCOTUS precedent that shows that's a non starter. Its a 4th amendment violation.

artherd
05-26-2006, 3:09 PM
When I did my ride-along we looked for exp tags, beater type vehicles, and mouth breathers. We only pulled over guys with bad tags but ran plates of the rest.
Pretty darn sure that's a crime...