PDA

View Full Version : "Sir, do you have a gun?" -- if you're a CCW


Fish
01-08-2011, 5:21 PM
I've heard from multiple places that if you are carrying in accordance with a CCW license, and a peace officer asks you if you're carrying, you are legally obligated to answer truthfully and allow the officer to inspect your weapon.

Can anybody point me to the law that says this? I know about 12031(e), which allows police officers to inspect firearms to ensure compliance with 12031(a) -- in other words, to ensure that it is unloaded. But 12031(a) doesn't apply to a CCW licensee, which invalidates the purpose of a 12031(e) inspection.

Not that I'm recommending denying to an officer that you have a gun when you're actually carrying one - that sounds to me like an excellent way to get shot. I'm curious about the scenario in which a CCW licensee has a loaded pistol, say, locked in the trunk of their car (which requires a CCW to do legally). I'm curious if the CCW licensee has any legal obligation to answer questions like "Sir, do you have a gun in your car?", where presumably a non-licensee would not.

Citing a specific law (or case) is, of course, much more helpful than adding to the already significant amount of rumor and hearsay I've heard on the topic... :rolleyes:

... and no, I'm not in any trouble, this question is entirely hypothetical.

wildhawker
01-08-2011, 5:27 PM
"Heard from multiple places" generally means "uninformed BS".

That holds true here.

I've heard from multiple places that if you are carrying in accordance with a CCW license, and a peace officer asks you if you're carrying, you are legally obligated to answer truthfully and allow the officer to inspect your weapon.

Can anybody point me to the law that says this? I know about 12031(e), which allows police officers to inspect firearms to ensure compliance with 12031(a) -- in other words, to ensure that it is unloaded. But 12031(a) doesn't apply to a CCW licensee, which invalidates the purpose of a 12031(e) inspection.

Not that I'm recommending denying to an officer that you have a gun when you're actually carrying one - that sounds to me like an excellent way to get shot. I'm curious about the scenario in which a CCW licensee has a loaded pistol, say, locked in the trunk of their car (which requires a CCW to do legally). I'm curious if the CCW licensee has any legal obligation to answer questions like "Sir, do you have a gun in your car?", where presumably a non-licensee would not.

Citing a specific law (or case) is, of course, much more helpful than adding to the already significant amount of rumor and hearsay I've heard on the topic... :rolleyes:

... and no, I'm not in any trouble, this question is entirely hypothetical.

Window_Seat
01-08-2011, 5:36 PM
If I'm not mistaken, a CCW here in CA will specify (by the issuing authority) whether you are to reveal to the LEO if you are carrying. Correct me otherwise.

I'll just add that the (e) check (which you mention) is unconstitutional and should be challenged soon, but it's strongly recommended & advisable to cooperate with the (e) check so as not to become a "test case".

Erik.

wildhawker
01-08-2011, 5:42 PM
If I'm not mistaken, a CCW here in CA will specify (by the issuing authority) whether you are to reveal to the LEO if you are carrying. Correct me otherwise.

I'll just add that the (e) check (which you mention) is unconstitutional and should be challenged soon, but it's strongly recommended & advisable to cooperate with the (e) check so as not to become a "test case".

Erik.

From a few of our "love letters" to the Sheriffs:


"The license holder must immediately notify a peace officer with which the licensee comes into contact that the licensee is armed and has a license in their possession."

There is no statutory requirement that licensees must notify any peace office of their status as a license-holder. Further, such a requirement would constitute an unlawful requirement that one's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights be waived in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights. An issuing authority can advise that such disclosures are a “best practice” but that authority has no legal basis to create such a requirement.

"The Sheriff or his/her authorized designee may revoke a license if s/he is given reason to believe...License holder fails to comply with the requirements of the Penal Code or any rule, regulation or other applicable law that must be complied with in all particulars."

This section is overly broad and unconstitutionally vague. Further, the Sheriff's discretion goes only to restrictions printed on the license itself. See, §12050(a)(3)(b-c).

"License holder fails to carry license on his or her person at all times while carrying a concealed weapon, and/or fails to submit license and/or weapon for inspection on demand of a peace officer. (PC §12025)."

PC § 12050 makes no such demand and there is no penalty for not carrying a license on the person. Further, there is no statutory requirement that licensees must notify any peace office of their status as a license-holder, nor does statute require a license-holder to "submit license and/or weapon for inspection on demand of a peace officer". Such a requirement constitutes an unlawful requirement that one's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights be waived in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

-Brandon

taperxz
01-08-2011, 5:52 PM
Brandon, never met you before but you are freaking scary good!

Mstrty
01-08-2011, 6:03 PM
What about impeding and investigation? It there any other option, other than exercising the 5th.?

wildhawker
01-08-2011, 6:16 PM
Brandon, never met you before but you are freaking scary good!

Jason Davis and Gene Hoffman are extraordinary people who deserve much credit for our ongoing efforts to reform carry in California (including the above) - we, as a community and a cause, are lucky to have them.

RomanDad
01-08-2011, 6:16 PM
I specifically have to preemptively INFORM a LEO that I am carrying as a term of my license.

Has not happened yet.

wildhawker
01-08-2011, 6:16 PM
What about impeding and investigation? It there any other option, other than exercising the 5th.?

What investigation? The OP didn't indicate any crime.

nicki
01-08-2011, 6:22 PM
As a general rule of thumb, if I am carrying with a CCW permit and any LEO wants to engage me about something I am going to tell them that.

1. I am carrying and I have a permit

Generally speaking, if you have a CCW permit, the COP expects you to be carrying a LOADED gun, so there is no point in a e check.

How the cop reacts will depend on why he is interacting with you in the first place.

Cops for the most part are HUMAN beings who just want to get through their days with the least amount of drama. If you are respectful, they will probably just have a "whatever view" about you legally carrying a gun.

Cops instinctively read people's body language and habitually scan people's bodies for anything that would indicate a concealed weapon so if he figures out you are carrying that way, your interactons with him will be bad.

Nicki

taperxz
01-08-2011, 6:31 PM
Jason Davis and Gene Hoffman are extraordinary people who deserve much credit for our ongoing efforts to reform carry in California (including the above) - we, as a community and a cause, are lucky to have them.


Very much appreciate what you guys do! enjoy learning from you guys.

Mstrty
01-08-2011, 6:40 PM
What investigation? The OP didn't indicate any crime.

I've heard from multiple places that if you are carrying in accordance with a CCW license, and a peace officer asks you if you're carrying

That investigation.

OleCuss
01-08-2011, 6:48 PM
Being nosy is not investigating for purposes of law

Fish
01-08-2011, 6:50 PM
"Heard from multiple places" generally means "uninformed BS".
That holds true here.

Ahh. Thank you for the info. I suspected that was the case - but it was also entirely plausible that the requirement was hidden somewhere in that rat's nest of regulation and I just wasn't finding it.



I'll just add that the (e) check (which you mention) is unconstitutional and should be challenged soon, but it's strongly recommended & advisable to cooperate with the (e) check so as not to become a "test case".


Yeah, I was wondering about that, it sort of seemed as if the Legislature was wishing away the Fourth Amendment there. Looks like we have far more interesting Constitutional challenges on our plate, though, I'm not sure getting rid of the (e) check needs to be high on the list.


As a general rule of thumb, if I am carrying with a CCW permit and any LEO wants to engage me about something I am going to tell them that.
...
Cops instinctively read people's body language and habitually scan people's bodies for anything that would indicate a concealed weapon so if he figures out you are carrying that way, your interactons with him will be bad.


Trust me, I have no desire to end up staring down the barrel of a service pistol with a very nervous officer on the other end. That doesn't stop me from wanting to know where I stand legally. :cool:

Be safe out there...

wildhawker
01-08-2011, 6:53 PM
That investigation.

That's not an investigation of a crime.

Yeah, I was wondering about that, it sort of seemed as if the Legislature was wishing away the Fourth Amendment there. Looks like we have far more interesting Constitutional challenges on our plate, though, I'm not sure getting rid of the (e) check needs to be high on the list.

12031(e) is definitely on the radar.

Being composed, non-threatening, pleasant and cooperative != waiving 4A/5A.

FeuerFrei
01-08-2011, 6:54 PM
I think the CCW holder is quite all right to not notify an LEO unless the encounter is directly related to a crime investigation.
Otherwise CCW would have to run up to every LEO yelling I have a legally licensed gun on me and do you want to check it? :eek:
Most cops have to treat us all like whack-a-doos so they don't let there guard down.
Common sense goes a long way when carrying.
Don't print, don't tell every one you know that you carry. Only trusted friends, family.
Also; if you don't start any SH there won't be any IT.

Mstrty
01-08-2011, 7:42 PM
Not having to notify LEO's will sure make Christmas and family gatherings eaisier.

I chuckle at the thought of going "Merry Christmas Uncle ******, I have a gun, hows it going ******, I have a gun, Happy birthday ******I have a gun.

EBR Works
01-08-2011, 7:42 PM
Some may disagree, but if I am pulled over and I am carrying, I plan to hand my DL and CC permit to the officer upon initial contact. Personally, I feel that this is a courtesy to the officer to avoid drama. I just have not been stopped in the 18 months since getting the permit.

ccwtrainer
01-08-2011, 7:55 PM
I've heard from multiple places that if you are carrying in accordance with a CCW license, and a peace officer asks you if you're carrying, you are legally obligated to answer truthfully and allow the officer to inspect your weapon ...

There's nothing in the law that says you have to. Just like you mentioned, PC 12031(e) does not apply to CCW. It is listed on some permits that you are to disclose that you're carrying, if you're being detained by a peace officer. Regardless of the constitutionality of this "listed restriction", if it's printed on your permit, follow it and if it's not, you make the call at that moment.

wildhawker
01-08-2011, 8:02 PM
Can anyone cite the penalty, and legal basis thereof, for ignoring a condition requiring preemptive disclosure?

Mstrty
01-08-2011, 8:04 PM
Can anyone cite the penalty, and legal basis thereof, for ignoring a condition requiring preemptive disclosure?

are you insinuating i can ignore the "Not valid while consuming alcohol" condition on my permit?

Kid Stanislaus
01-08-2011, 8:04 PM
"Heard from multiple places" generally means "uninformed BS". That holds true here.

Yeah but Wildhawker, ya gotta understand, "uninformed BS" is FUN!!:D

wildhawker
01-08-2011, 8:10 PM
Bombmaster, I'm asking you to show me what the effect of doing so would be, and why.

Mstrty
01-08-2011, 8:10 PM
from the standard DOJ application.

While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee
shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:• Consume any alcoholic beverage.
• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.
• Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
• Refuse to show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon demand.
• Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties.
• Present himself/herself as a peace officer to any person unless he/she is, in fact, a peace officer as defined by California law.
• Unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.
• Carry a concealed weapon not listed on the permit.
• Carry a concealed weapon at times or circumstances other than those specified in the permit.

wouldnt failing to answer this question to the best of my ability be impedeing LEO performance of his/her duty's?

Bombmaster, I'm asking you to show me what the effect of doing so would be, and why.
Oh, ok Ill work on this and get back to you. I may be searching for a while :D

Cokebottle
01-08-2011, 8:31 PM
If I'm not mistaken, a CCW here in CA will specify (by the issuing authority) whether you are to reveal to the LEO if you are carrying. Correct me otherwise.

I'll just add that the (e) check (which you mention) is unconstitutional and should be challenged soon, but it's strongly recommended & advisable to cooperate with the (e) check so as not to become a "test case".

Erik.
(e) check is irrelevant when the person carrying the gun has a valid CCW and is not in a location where loaded firearms are prohibited (post office, gun show, etc...).

NoJoke
01-08-2011, 8:52 PM
How about the same inquiry from a non-LEO?
I was buying ammo at Walmart and walking out from the back of the store (from the sports section). As I'm walking someone blurts out "THAT GUY HAS A GUN"
I was shocked.
I didn't flinch or turn but just proceeded out the door.
I don't have a CA CCW nor did I have a gun.

What if I did have a CCW and other surrounding customers reacted with more enthusiasm to the crack-pots outburst?

wildhawker
01-08-2011, 9:13 PM
The DOJ application also makes a licensing authority commit a misdemeanor every time it's used.

The application itself has many flaws, including unenforceable underground regulations.

CapS
01-08-2011, 9:55 PM
Jason Davis and Gene Hoffman are extraordinary people who deserve much credit for our ongoing efforts to reform carry in California (including the above) - we, as a community and a cause, are lucky to have them.

And your tireless work on our behalf make you kinda special too, Wildhawker!

Cap

RomanDad
01-08-2011, 9:58 PM
Bombmaster, I'm asking you to show me what the effect of doing so would be, and why.

If the weapon wasnt LATER discovered it would be like any other white lie.... NONE.

If it were, in the case of not informing the officer upon the first contact, the issue could get very dangerous for starters. If, for example, I flash my concealed weapon while I go to reach for my registration, I have no doubt I will have the officers gun pointed at my head... And the first rule of gun handling is "always point your firearm in a safe direction." And although I definitely try to follow that rule, I'm a lot more concerned that OTHERS follow that rule with regard to MY HEAD. We all know, when guns get pointed at people, bad things can definitely happen.

After that little drama was concluded, assuming I still had concerns about things other than a feeding tubes and ventilators, I have no doubt the officer would notify my issuing authority (the Orange County Sheriff) who has already shown no remorse about revoking CCWs, even WITHOUT cause, and that I would lose my permit. I have no doubt that would be the case for violating ANY of her or the DOJs restrictions, whether it be notifying, places serving alcohol, etc... She has revoked for a LOT less.

wildhawker
01-08-2011, 10:14 PM
Again, composed and respectful dialog is generally a prudent way of addressing a peace officer. That said, not stating (preemptively) one is a CCW holder outside of a clear investigation of criminal activity should not mean you're drawn down on. Such use of force is excessive and probably itself criminal.

As far as revocation goes, I'm still perplexed that Hutchens wasn't challenged on her behavior. Soon it won't matter.

ETA: I'm sure you'd challenge a revocation without due process based on unenforceable conditions.

Shiboleth
01-09-2011, 1:36 AM
from the standard DOJ application.



wouldnt failing to answer this question to the best of my ability be impedeing LEO performance of his/her duty's?


Oh, ok Ill work on this and get back to you. I may be searching for a while :D

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the PC imply that the only legal restrictions must be printed on the permit itself, making all the conditions on the application inapplicable?

I just mean this on a legal front, of course this doesn't take into account a sheriff's fickle revocation.

wildhawker
01-09-2011, 1:52 AM
PC 12050(a)(3):

"(b)A license may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(c)Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued."

Mike Dicta
01-09-2011, 7:49 AM
As RomanDad said, Hutchens has revoked for a the most minor reasons. And the whole 'if it's not listed ON the license then it's not a valid restriction' argument may be true, but that doesn't make her, or any other sheriff so inclined, reluctant to revoke if they choose.

Yes, then you could appeal. And you'd lose. Then you could go to court. And you'd either win or lose.

This is really a side argument to the bigger issue of fixing 12050 in the state. I'm required to inform a LEO that I have a CCW by the 'Terms Of License' I agreed to when I was issued my CCW in OC. I'll do that until the risk of bad things happening to me should I not is resolved.

hawk1
01-09-2011, 8:34 AM
As a general rule of thumb, if I am carrying with a CCW permit and any LEO wants to engage me about something I am going to tell them that.

1. I am carrying and I have a permit

...

I would suggest you change that reply you are using. You may get a LEO that hears only the first part and then doesn't fully grasp the second part of your statement as he is now drawing down on you.

I have a permit and I am carrying now gives him the opportunity to fully comprehend what you are saying.

my .02 worth and what I do when I carry out of state.

AlexDD
01-09-2011, 10:39 AM
I would suggest you change that reply you are using. You may get a LEO that hears only the first part and then doesn't fully grasp the second part of your statement as he is now drawing down on you.

I have a permit and I am carrying now gives him the opportunity to fully comprehend what you are saying.

my .02 worth and what I do when I carry out of state.

Thanks for that common sense advice. It would seem to put the LEO more at ease ....

RomanDad
01-09-2011, 11:27 AM
Again, composed and respectful dialog is generally a prudent way of addressing a peace officer. That said, not stating (preemptively) one is a CCW holder outside of a clear investigation of criminal activity should not mean you're drawn down on. Such use of force is excessive and probably itself criminal.

As far as revocation goes, I'm still perplexed that Hutchens wasn't challenged on her behavior. Soon it won't matter.

ETA: I'm sure you'd challenge a revocation without due process based on unenforceable conditions.


Initially I was pretty shocked she wasnt challenged legally either... But having really delved into the matter, not so much.

Heres the deal- CCWs, even in the nightmare that is L.A. county are not unobtainable- They just COST more than the average person is willing (or able) to spend. There is at least anecdotal evidence that people who donate the maximum yearly campaign donation to Baca, can and do get CCWs in L.A. County, if thats what they want.

Well, if you're not willing to donate to the sheriff for what amounts to a sure thing, are you likely to hire an attorney for even more with less guaranteed results?

That is what was nice about the Carona policy. Average people could AFFORD what was previously a privilege for the wealthy. What has happened in OC is that those average people are now permit-less. They made as much noise as they could afford to, and that wasnt enough.

Cokebottle
01-09-2011, 11:46 AM
Thanks for that common sense advice. It would seem to put the LEO more at ease ....
Much, much better than jumping out of the car and yelling "I have a gun!" :willy_nilly::willy_nilly::willy_nilly:

wellerjohn
01-09-2011, 1:16 PM
Can anyone cite the penalty, and legal basis thereof, for ignoring a condition requiring preemptive disclosure?

My understanding is the sheriff in Kern County will pull your permit if your caught carrying and did not tell the officer about it first. He has the authority to issue and revoke it.

wildhawker
01-09-2011, 1:42 PM
My understanding is the sheriff in Kern County will pull your permit if your caught carrying and did not tell the officer about it first. He has the authority to issue and revoke it.

Can you tell me where he derives the authority to revoke a permit immediately and without due process (absent any firearm possession-prohibiting circumstances)?

Even if the requirement to preemptively notify LEOs of CCW status is printed on the permit, does such supersede your rights under the US Constitution?

the_quark
01-09-2011, 1:55 PM
I agree with Brandon that there's no real legal duty to inform the officer.

However, I do want to note some practical issues, especially in traffic stops (where you're most likely to encounter this issue):

1) We have reason to believe (and if some friendly LEO could confirm, that would be nifty) that a driver's license check will note that you have a 12050 license. I'd imagine if he sees this, he's going to come back to your car, ask you if you're carrying and be very annoyed at you that you haven't mentioned this.

2) In a non-traffic situation (say, at a restaurant), he may be responding to a call if you flashed someone. At which case, I believe (though would be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) , he could have PC to think you're violating the carry-concealed provisions, and your license is literally your "get out of jail free" card.

3) While it is true that the "not printed on your license" BS restrictions have no legal authority, given how discretionary permit issuance is right now, you do have to weigh the likelihood of getting your permit summarily yanked if you're caught violating the terms. As noted above, if this happens, it may be illegal on the part of the issuing agency, but you're looking at (at best) a long and costly fight. CGF might be able to help, but it's going to depend on the circumstances - I kinda doubt if you get pulled over drunk driving and blow a .14 that we're going to be falling all over ourselves to get you your license back after the Sheriff pulls it because you weren't following the "no drinking" requirement.

4) In many counties, right now, the 12050 license shows you're a member of the "good ol' boys'" network. Even if this isn't true, telling the officer you have one is like having one of those 10-99 Foundation license plate holders; from anecdotal evidence, you're likely to get told "don't do that again" versus being cited, etc., etc. Yes, it's completely ridiculous it works this way, but right now, it might be to your advantage to tell the officer about it.

I think the hard calculation is if you're violating the ostensible terms of the license in a way the officer is likely to notice. I'd think in that case you have little to lose by not telling him (also violating the terms on your application), but if he does find out, you're probably going to lose your license, and have an angry cop who knows you're armed on your hands. Given 1), above, it seems likely he'll find out if you're also giving him your driver's license. Bottom line is though that the consequence of it should be losing your license, not being charged for carrying without a license. If that happens, you should win that case - but, again, it's going to be unpleasant.

JB-Norcal
01-09-2011, 2:21 PM
I haven't been stopped in years, I can't remember what an LEO asks at a traffic stop.
Is it "how you doing tonight?", "license and registration please?"...
All I know is my window will be down 6 inches, dome light on, and hands at 10 & 2, waiting for a question to respond to. I just hope never to be stopped by a noob with an attitude or preconceived assumption of myself and vehicle.
For me my license, registration, POI, and permit come out together.

Cokebottle
01-09-2011, 2:30 PM
I haven't been stopped in years, I can't remember what an LEO asks at a traffic stop.
Is it "how you doing tonight?", "license and registration please?"...
All I know is my window will be down 6 inches, dome light on, and hands at 10 & 2, waiting for a question to respond to. I just hope never to be stopped by a noob with an attitude or preconceived assumption of myself and vehicle.
For me my license, registration, POI, and permit come out together.
Depending on the time of day and what city.

Lately it's been
"Where are you coming from?"
"Where are you going?"
"Have you ever been arrested?"
"What's with the xxxxx in the back?"
"Oh, you look like someone we're looking for, BTW, the reason we pulled you over is you have a burned out taillight. You're going to fix that and don't need a ticket, right?"

Bizcuits
01-09-2011, 4:06 PM
I haven't been stopped in years, I can't remember what an LEO asks at a traffic stop.

If they go by the book.

1) Greet you. (EX: Hello)
2) Identify themselves and their agency.
3) Give the reason for the stop.
4) Ask for justification for your action.
5) Ask for identification.
6) Ask for other information they may need or want.
7) Separate for their decision.
8) Deliver their decision.

For example:

You are stopped for going 70 in a 65.

- Officer: Hello, my name is Officer Bob with the California Highway Patrol. The reason I stopped you is, because you were traveling 70mph in a 65 zone. Is there a reason you were speeding?

- You answer.

- Officer: Where is your license and registration?

- You answer.

- Officer: May I see your license and registration?

- You provide such documents.

- Officer: Do you have any wants or warrants? Do you have any weapons in your possession? Do you have any narcotics?

- You answer, no sir.

- Officer: Returns to patrol car runs a check on you.

- Officer: Makes final decision to ticket you or not.

- Officer: Tickets you and wishes you to have a safe day.

SVT-40
01-09-2011, 4:40 PM
If they go by the book.

1) Greet you. (EX: Hello)
2) Identify themselves and their agency.
3) Give the reason for the stop.
4) Ask for justification for your action.
5) Ask for identification.
6) Ask for other information they may need or want.
7) Separate for their decision.
8) Deliver their decision.

For example:

You are stopped for going 70 in a 65.

- Officer: Hello, my name is Officer Bob with the California Highway Patrol. The reason I stopped you is, because you were traveling 70mph in a 65 zone. Is there a reason you were speeding?

- You answer.

- Officer: Where is your license and registration?

- You answer.

- Officer: May I see your license and registration?

- You provide such documents.

- Officer: Do you have any wants or warrants? Do you have any weapons in your possession? Do you have any narcotics?

- You answer, no sir.

- Officer: Returns to patrol car runs a check on you.

- Officer: Makes final decision to ticket you or not.

- Officer: Tickets you and wishes you to have a safe day.

Who's "Book" did you ever read, upon which you make your assertion???

sac550
01-09-2011, 4:45 PM
If the officer stops you for a Vehicle Code violation or while conducting a Vehicle Code investigation and you lie about having a gun you have committed a misdemeanor violation of 31 CVC.

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

the_quark
01-09-2011, 5:06 PM
If the officer stops you for a Vehicle Code violation or while conducting a Vehicle Code investigation and you lie about having a gun you have committed a misdemeanor violation of 31 CVC.

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

I don't think anyone's suggesting lying, the question is whether you should proactively notify.

The bottom line is that you don't actually have a legal requirement to proactively notify, but it's polite, and could anger the officer, and result in your losing your 12050 license, and in the worst case even being charged with carrying concealed and/or loaded and/or in a school zone without a license, but that you should be able to win acquittal on any such charges.

For the record, I would expect that in almost all circumstances I'd proactively notify an officer in a vehicle stop situation. But, that's my calculation of the net benefit to me, not because there's a legal obligation to do so.

wildhawker
01-09-2011, 5:21 PM
I don't think anyone's suggesting lying, the question is whether you should proactively notify.

The bottom line is that you don't actually have a legal requirement to proactively notify, but it's polite, and could anger the officer, and result in your losing your 12050 license, and in the worst case even being charged with carrying concealed and/or loaded and/or in a school zone without a license, but that you should be able to win acquittal on any such charges.

For the record, I would expect that in almost all circumstances I'd proactively notify an officer in a vehicle stop situation. But, that's my calculation of the net benefit to me, not because there's a legal obligation to do so.

Thank you, Brett, for articulating exactly what I had intended to covey - but failed to - in my previous posts.

Doheny
01-09-2011, 6:08 PM
Who's "Book" did you ever read, upon which you make your assertion???

http://mortystv.com/showcards/adam-12.jpg

wellerjohn
01-10-2011, 9:50 AM
Can you tell me where he derives the authority to revoke a permit immediately and without due process (absent any firearm possession-prohibiting circumstances)?

Even if the requirement to preemptively notify LEOs of CCW status is printed on the permit, does such supersede your rights under the US Constitution?

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 12050-12054




12050.b) A license may include any reasonable restrictions or
conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including
restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under
which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be
indicated on any license issued.


Guess you could argue the definition of "reasonable restrictions" and the consequences of not abiding it, but if they do revoke your permit that leaves you ....... without. I get what your after and agree, but as long and the restriction is on the license, I'll abide by it.

J.D.Allen
01-10-2011, 10:20 AM
Interesting question for CA...

In AZ when they were writing the constitutional carry legislation, they wanted the LE community to endorse it. So they made a compromise. Now, in AZ if an officer stops you for some other lawful reason, and asks if you have any weapons, it is written in the statute that you must tell him the truth. You must also surrender the weapon to him if he demands it, but only for the duration of the lawful detention.

Nothing that I'm aware of requires preemptively telling the officer that you are armed though...

wildhawker
01-10-2011, 11:22 AM
CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 12050-12054


12050.b) A license may include any reasonable restrictions or
conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including
restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under
which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be
indicated on any license issued.

Guess you could argue the definition of "reasonable restrictions" and the consequences of not abiding it, but if they do revoke your permit that leaves you ....... without. I get what your after and agree, but as long and the restriction is on the license, I'll abide by it.

Actually, reread what you snipped: "reasonable restrictions" and "conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted" != waiver of 4A/5A rights. Further, preemptive disclosure is not a "time, place, manner, [or] circumstance[]" unless you were to argue that a CCW is effectively a general warrant.

More, even Sheriffs are bound to respect due process of law. I think a case presenting clear facts of revocation without due process based on a) unprinted restrictions or conditions or b) a printed preemptive disclosure requirement would be an interesting take-on post-'bear'.

Under the current scheme of permitting, I think Brett's analysis is spot on. Under a constitutional scheme or permitting, I would consider disclosure to be a possible "best practice" for non-hostile questioning during routine encounters.


Interesting question for CA...

In AZ when they were writing the constitutional carry legislation, they wanted the LE community to endorse it. So they made a compromise. Now, in AZ if an officer stops you for some other lawful reason, and asks if you have any weapons, it is written in the statute that you must tell him the truth. You must also surrender the weapon to him if he demands it, but only for the duration of the lawful detention.

Nothing that I'm aware of requires preemptively telling the officer that you are armed though...

I think that provision of the law (note: I haven't read it myself, so I'm assuming your representation as fact) requiring disclosure could be challenged by someone with appropriate standing (e.g. refusal caused damages), but I'm inclined to believe that the SCOTUS would uphold the provision on surrender while being detained as it probably serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly-tailored. Since the police officer is armed, your right to self-defense is only limitedly affected, and the duration is only for that time in which the police have you detained (e.g., no seizure and confiscation).

J.D.Allen
01-10-2011, 12:32 PM
I think that provision of the law (note: I haven't read it myself, so I'm assuming your representation as fact) requiring disclosure could be challenged by someone with appropriate standing (e.g. refusal caused damages), but I'm inclined to believe that the SCOTUS would uphold the provision on surrender while being detained as it probably serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly-tailored. Since the police officer is armed, your right to self-defense is only limitedly affected, and the duration is only for that time in which the police have you detained (e.g., no seizure and confiscation).

Yeah, it's there, listed under misconduct involving weapons in the penal code. I don't recall exactly the code section just now, but I've read it.

It really isn't a big deal for me or anyone else I know. I can understand them not wanting any surprises, and the law says it's only to be held for the duration of a lawful stop. At least I can carry there. This requirement doesn't bother me.

mej16489
01-10-2011, 12:39 PM
If the officer stops you for a Vehicle Code violation or while conducting a Vehicle Code investigation and you lie about having a gun you have committed a misdemeanor violation of 31 CVC.

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

Firearms are discussed in the Penal Code, not the Vehicle Code.

tabrisnet
01-10-2011, 1:30 PM
Firearms are discussed in the Penal Code, not the Vehicle Code.

Irrelevant. That doesn't mean that they don't all interact.

Fish
01-10-2011, 1:59 PM
I don't think anyone's suggesting lying, the question is whether you should proactively notify.


Actually, I originally asked whether or not I have to truthfully answer the direct question. (Although the rest of the thread has been interesting as well.)


For the record, I would expect that in almost all circumstances I'd proactively notify an officer in a vehicle stop situation. But, that's my calculation of the net benefit to me, not because there's a legal obligation to do so.

Absolutely agreed, if I were carrying a firearm on my person I would certainly proactively notify as well. This is more about a situation when I'm doing something else that's only legal if I have a CCW, such as transporting a loaded pistol locked in the trunk of my car. It's clearly not a threat to the officer in any way, so I don't see that the courtesy notification is called for, but technically I am carrying a loaded weapon in accordance with my 12050 license.


If the officer stops you for a Vehicle Code violation or while conducting a Vehicle Code investigation and you lie about having a gun you have committed a misdemeanor violation of 31 CVC.

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

OK, so that's the first actual statute anyone's cited that might be germane to the topic. So a couple of questions about this.

1) It seems pretty clear that I can legally answer "Officer, there is nothing illegal in my car." However, if I do so I'd better have a bunch of time on my hands for the fun that will doubtless ensue, and I'd better be willing to risk getting my permit yanked when my issuing authority is notified about my uncooperative nature. (Yes, it kind of sucks that keeping my permit basically entails waiving my Fifth and Fourth amendment rights.)

2) Can I legally answer "Nope, no firearms in my car"? I still risk getting my permit yanked, of course -- *if* they check my car, which they're a lot less likely to do than than if I answer something like (1). But have I actually broken CVC 31 (or any other law, for that matter)? This might be a traffic stop, but there are no firearm restrictions in the CVC -- can an officer be "performing his duties under this section" when he's asking me about firearms? What's the penalty for breaking CVC 31? Where does it say that it's a misdemeanor? (Other CVC sections say things like "anyone who does X is guilty of a misdemeanor", but this one just says "no person shall...")


Here's my motivation for all this: I'm a fairly large fan of the Bill of Rights, all of them, and I dislike situations in which I might have little alternative but to consent to a search even though I have broken no law. However, I also consider myself a friend and ally of law enforcement, and have no desire to be other than cooperative, let alone to raise anyone's blood pressure unnecessarily. On the more practical side, I have a strong preference for not getting shot, as well as for keeping my CCW.

So, I'm trying to weigh the merits of standing on principle and refusing a search against being fully cooperative even when a search is clearly a fishing expedition. When I didn't have a CCW, it was simple, because I never carried a firearm concealed on my person and I didn't have a CCW to lose by standing on principle.

Now that I have a CCW, it's a bit more complicated. I've already decided that I will proactively notify an officer if I'm carrying on my person. I can think of this as a matter of courtesy if nothing else -- an officer risks their life every time they make a stop, and doesn't know me from Adam; I can see how they might appreciate a little heads-up that the fact that I've got a gun on me doesn't mean I'm going to try to kill them.

What I'm trying to think through in advance is the other possible circumstances in which I have to choose between being cooperative and asserting my civil rights. So... suppose I'm in the situation of a poster here a little while ago, who had a firearm in his trunk and was stopped at a checkpoint on the way to pick up a friend at LAX. Pre-CCW, I'd have had no problem with either (1) or (2), and my choice would probably have depended on how much spare time I had at that moment. Now, not so clear...

quiet-wyatt
01-10-2011, 2:15 PM
I'm a fairly large fan of the Bill of Rights, all of them, and I dislike situations in which I might have little alternative but to consent to a search even though I have broken no law.

But you ALWAYS have an alternative to consent to a search - You say NO!

As has been posted here in other areas, and in general by legal counsel, my understanding is to NEVER consent to ANY searches. You can do it in a polite, but firm, manner...

If the officer has a search warrant or probable cause, he's going to search with or without your permission. But without a warrant or probable cause, if you DO NOT give consent and he searches anyway, anything he finds cannot be used against you...

This is my understanding.

You never know when there MIGHT be something in your car that you DON'T KNOW about and DIDN'T put there yourself that would be illegal...

It's happened...

Fish
01-10-2011, 2:51 PM
But you ALWAYS have an alternative to consent to a search - You say NO!

... and get my CCW yanked. :(

That is, unless I want to spend a lot of time and money being a test case... which is actually an interesting thought, that's not a bad use of my time and money. Hmm, maybe I should go that way, given the opportunity. I'm a pretty good plaintiff, apart from being a straight white guy and therefore unable to score political sympathy points. And Butte County's a pretty darn good jurisdiction to be looking for a precedent for this sort of thing (for California, anyway).

Any opinions from the CGF attorney types about whether this kind of thing would be useful?

quiet-wyatt
01-10-2011, 3:05 PM
... and get my CCW yanked. :(

Why do you think you'd get your CCW yanked for not consenting to a search?

Search the forums here for "search" and "consent" - You'll find alot of info...

Fish
01-10-2011, 3:55 PM
Why do you think you'd get your CCW yanked for not consenting to a search?

Search the forums here for "search" and "consent" - You'll find alot of info...

There's plenty of info on this thread, even. AFAICT, it seems that three things are true:

1) Yanking your CCW for asserting your 4th amendment rights is unconstitutional.
2) Many sheriffs will yank your CCW for asserting your 4th amendment rights.
3) (1) does not prevent (2), unless you want (and can afford) to spend a lot of time in a courtroom.

wildhawker
01-10-2011, 4:20 PM
Fish, we remedy or litigate issues just like this one.

These cases are expensive- that's why CGF, SAF, and CRPAF exist.

SVT-40
01-10-2011, 5:31 PM
Now that I have a CCW, it's a bit more complicated. I've already decided that I will proactively notify an officer if I'm carrying on my person. I can think of this as a matter of courtesy if nothing else -- an officer risks their life every time they make a stop, and doesn't know me from Adam; I can see how they might appreciate a little heads-up that the fact that I've got a gun on me doesn't mean I'm going to try to kill them.

Thanks for being reasonable. LEO's really appreciate it when CCW'ers let them know they are armed. Because it preempts the situation where a gun is seen and the LEO has to guess if it's being legally carried.

In addition when one presents a CCW with a DL on a traffic stop it automatically tells the LEO that the person has a good background because he went through the steps to get the CCW. (Points in your favor):)

Having a CCW and legally carrying does not afford any additional probable cause for a vehicle search.

quiet-wyatt
01-10-2011, 7:55 PM
Having a CCW and legally carrying does not afford any additional probable cause for a vehicle search.

This...