PDA

View Full Version : What if UOC and LEO can't work holster?


locosway
01-10-2011, 9:28 PM
What if you're ordered to comply with a 12031(e) and the LEO can't figure out your uber retention holster. What happens then?

I understand they are not required to perform the check, it's more of a compulsory thing. So, they could just walk away in frustration, but that's not what I see happening...

Anyone know what would/could happen?

BigDogatPlay
01-10-2011, 9:37 PM
Sir, with your weak side hand, please unfasten your belt so that I can slide your holster off..... once the holster is off, I'm pretty sure I could figure it out.

But that's just me.

locosway
01-10-2011, 9:39 PM
Sir, with your weak side hand, please unfasten your belt so that I can slide your holster off..... once the holster is off, I'm pretty sure I could figure it out.

But that's just me.

What's a reasonable amount of time to spend on this encounter?

If you remove the firearm from the person, i.e. remove the belt, and you still can't remove the firearm from the holster for w/e reasons, now what?

ZombieTactics
01-10-2011, 9:43 PM
It's an interesting hypothetical. For the sake of a reality check, could you provide at least ONE example of a holster which might reasonably present this kind of difficulty?

BigDogatPlay
01-10-2011, 9:44 PM
I think you're starting to reach. Show me a holster that I can't get a gun out of, and I'll show you a holster you shouldn't be carrying. Do you have an example of such a holster? Bearing in mind that I carried up to level 3 retention holsters over the years and I've not met one I couldn't figure out yet.

Reasonable is the amount of time it takes to do an (e) check, verify unloaded, return the firearm and thank you for your cooperation.

locosway
01-10-2011, 9:45 PM
It's an interesting hypothetical. For the sake of a reality check, could you provide at least ONE example of a holster which might reasonably present this kind of difficulty?

A Kydex that was rigged to not release without tools.

This is hypothetical and I don't even UOC, but what it you setup your holster knowing you would be forced to do an "e" check, so that the weapon could not be removed?

BigDogatPlay
01-10-2011, 9:57 PM
Physically impossible to remove the firearm from the holster... right. That's going to work well if it's needed for personal defense all of a sudden. To me that condition takes it out of the hypothetical and into the impractical and moots the entire discussion.

:)

That said, either hand me the tool to open the holster so I can do an (e) check or I'll force it open to do the (e) check... your choice.

locosway
01-10-2011, 9:59 PM
Physically impossible to remove the firearm from the holster... right. That's going to work well if it's needed for personal defense all of a sudden. To me that condition takes it out of the hypothetical and into the impractical and moots the entire discussion.

:)

If someone wanted to make a point, why would this be hard to imagine? I could see someone doing this just to mess with the cops who're trying to "e" check.

Sure, it's not likely, but it's entirely possible.

PsychGuy274
01-10-2011, 10:00 PM
Technically - if they can't work it, then too bad for them.

Realistically - you're going to have one heck of a head ache to deal with. At that point you can 1) give up your 4th & 5th Amendment rights and verbally explain how to work the holster or 2) be quite on principle and let them struggle with it.

However, as was posted above, I have a hard time believing that an officer wouldn't be able to figure out how to work it within a reasonable amount of time.

BigDogatPlay
01-10-2011, 10:01 PM
I edited my post above while you were posting. I think the last sentence pretty much covers it.

And if one is simply trying to mess with the nice officers one runs the risk of the nice officer messing back.

locosway
01-10-2011, 10:06 PM
Tripper, so if they didn't randomly pull over cars and search for drugs people might take advantage of the law? So this is a good reason for random drug checks on vehicles?

Tripper
01-10-2011, 10:09 PM
I'm suggesting that I do understand they might have the 'cuz they can' attitude in order to establish that.
I'm not on the other hand saying that it is actually why they do it, or that all have the same attitude.
Just an observation of sorts, and a plausible reasoning behind it.

Tripper
01-10-2011, 10:13 PM
On that note, I dont think 'cuz they can' is right. I do think they should need some other probable cause for contact in the first place, with the check being incidental.

Matt C
01-10-2011, 10:30 PM
lulz?

alex00
01-10-2011, 10:31 PM
Locosway, I don't have much to add to BigDog's post, he pretty much summed up the way I would go about it. My only addition would be that if I could not perform the e-check because the holster was defective or intentionally incapable of releasing the gun, I may have to hold the gun for safe keeping until an expert could examine the holster and rifle handgun combo. That would, in my case, be a last resort if you couldn't or wouldn't explain the proper way to remove the gun.

EDIT: Must have been tired, I typed rifle when I meant handgun.

while i say this, keep in mind you are 'checking to see if loaded' so the presumption is that it 'is' loaded. (not to mention a few highly regarded rules of firearms safety), otherwise, if you did not suspect it to be loaded, why would you even bother,
So, as a LEO, you would have them remove a holster, (doesn't really matter which hand), and now your going to 'fiddle' with it, to see if its loaded.
hmm, lots of stupid things come to mind here.
1. its not loaded, LEO drops it while trying to 'figure it out', now my glock and holster are scratched/dented/damaged no telling how, my 'retention' holster was quite expensive now mind you. else you might have 'figured it out without me removing it' (who is liable for that)
2. it IS loaded, and LEO shoots self.
3. either way LEO looks really stupid, just because that LEO just 'had' to do a check 'cuz he could'

Oh, that 'damaged no telling how' from earlier; I later took it to range, it fires out of battery, blows up in my hands, ouch, now someone has a serious problem, I'm pretty sure I'll figure that out.

it irks me, but to a certain degree, I do see that ultimately the LEO needs to establish, that they will check on occasion or the law would be taken advantage of. Its another of those times LEO should use some common sense, or experience, observation skills and training, to establish if this person is really a threat.

Tripper, to answer your questions;
1. Aside from the inherent unsafe concerns of dropping a loaded firearm, if I did, and it was damaged, my agency would compensate you for the damage. It is upon you to have the firearm inspected before putting it back in service. If you dropped it yourself, would you make sure it was safe before firing? Same thing applies if I drop it.

2. If I drop the gun and shoot myself, I'm in a world of hurt. You may or not be held liable if there was proof that the gun or holster were somehow modified to create an unsafe condition. IANAL, so YMMV.

3. In your eyes, I may look stupid, but that's not really my concern. I'm concerned with my, your and the public's safety. If I do something to get egg on my face, I deserve to look stupid. If I do something because someone intentionally set me up, my looking stupid is debatable.

Just like any of the other Penal or Vehicle codes out there, the e-check is a tool in my toolbox. I don't pull over every speeder I see, and don't think I need to check every UOC-ers weapon. I somewhat agree with your application of training, common sense and experience to the situation. However, LEOs vary in their level of experience, training, and common sense. I may see things my partners don't and vice versa. We can't always tell what a person's intentions are based on a 30 second introductory interaction. I will sometimes err on the side of caution as long as the law and my policy support my actions.

GrizzlyGuy
01-10-2011, 10:32 PM
I don't know, but it's too bad Allen Funt isn't with us anymore. This would make a great prank for Candid Camera.

locosway
01-10-2011, 10:36 PM
Locosway, I don't have much to add to BigDog's post, he pretty much summed up the way I would go about it. My only addition would be that if I could not perform the e-check because the holster was defective or intentionally incapable of releasing the gun, I may have to hold the gun for safe keeping until an expert could examine the holster and rifle combo. That would, in my case, be a last resort if you couldn't or wouldn't explain the proper way to remove the gun.

And what would be the reason for property seizure?

Also, would the person be released without providing ID, or would they be detained/arrested until the weapon was cleared?

SVT-40
01-10-2011, 11:01 PM
If someone wanted to make a point, why would this be hard to imagine? I could see someone doing this just to mess with the cops who're trying to "e" check.

Sure, it's not likely, but it's entirely possible.

Simple solution just seize the holster and weapon until it can be verified as unloaded. Remember there is no time limit to a "E" check, however it must be "reasonable" so if someone purposely modified a holster so the firearm could not be removed. It would not be unreasonable to hold the firearm until it could be verified.

One cannot manufacture a "emergency" then claim to be a victim of said situation.

Play stupid games get treated as stupid.

If that were to have happened to me I would not have felt "messed with" in the least. I would of just laughed at the fool who caused his own grief.:D


And what would be the reason for property seizure?

Also, would the person be released without providing ID, or would they be detained/arrested until the weapon was cleared?


Seized to complete the "E" check.

If they did not want to give ID it would be impossible to give them a receipt for the pistol.

Same situation after the pistol had later been removed from the holster and verified as unloaded.

LEO's could not release the property until the owner could be verified as the true owner . Maybe even until the owner obtained a LEGR.

It really would be more fruitful to look for ways to foster better relations between LEO's and gun owners than trying to manufacture situations so you can "mess with LEO's".

Acting as you have stated would be acting in such as way to build walls and foster a "us against them" attitude" which many here are always bemoaning.

alex00
01-10-2011, 11:02 PM
And what would be the reason for property seizure?

Also, would the person be released without providing ID, or would they be detained/arrested until the weapon was cleared?

Since we are talking hypotheticals here; I would document that I couldn't determine if the gun was loaded or unloaded, per PC 12031e. Without having the proper tools or knowledge in the field to properly inspect the weapon, I would submit it for testing with my department's firearms experts. These are not people in the field, so the gun would need to go to the office.

As far as being detained or arrested, I personally wouldn't arrest in this situation. The PC to arrest on 12031e is a refusal to allow inspection. You haven't refused inspection but I am unable to complete it. I would simply identify you and submit for a warrant later if the gun was found to be loaded. After all, we are just talking about a misdemeanor, that would normally result in me issuing a citation. You would need to provide identification, if nothing more than to get your firearm back. I'd really be on the fence about arresting you if you refused to ID yourself. At this point I can't prove you've committed an offense, so refusal to ID becomes a difficult issue. On one hand, I am investigating a possible crime (loaded weapon), on the other hand, I haven't met the elements to arrest for loaded weapon.

BKinzey
01-10-2011, 11:31 PM
What if when the officer is removing your gun for the e-check your holster suddenly shatters into 1,000 pieces. Now you don't have a holster and could be charged with brandishing if the officer returns your firearm:eek:

What if you can imagine a situation that has very little probability. Will people continue to bandy about opinions when there really isn't an answer?

The Shadow
01-11-2011, 12:16 AM
I think you're starting to reach. Show me a holster that I can't get a gun out of, and I'll show you a holster you shouldn't be carrying. Do you have an example of such a holster? Bearing in mind that I carried up to level 3 retention holsters over the years and I've not met one I couldn't figure out yet.

Reasonable is the amount of time it takes to do an (e) check, verify unloaded, return the firearm and thank you for your cooperation.

I actually own two high retention holsters that are nearly impossible to get a gun out of unless you know how to remove the gun. In fact the instruction booklet specifically says not to use these holsters until you have practiced with them and know how to use them.

Tripper
01-11-2011, 6:55 AM
Wow, seriously, you say that you would seize, cuz u couldn't figure it out, and then u comment on the us against them attitude, wow, sounds more like it's you wouldnt figure it out just do you would have a reason to seize it. Then you justify it as ensuring the 'people' are safe. I'm really concerned here

Tripper
01-11-2011, 6:57 AM
I'm on a phone here, so hopefully I didn't just blend a couple comments and think they were made by the same person, yah that must b it

locosway
01-11-2011, 7:13 AM
I actually own two high retention holsters that are nearly impossible to get a gun out of unless you know how to remove the gun. In fact the instruction booklet specifically says not to use these holsters until you have practiced with them and know how to use them.

When my friend was doing skip tracing he had a high retention holster and it was nuts! You actually had to twist the firearm and pull it back and out to remove it.

Hopalong
01-11-2011, 7:48 AM
If a guy is going to go out of his way to make a situation more difficult than it needs to be

Then he is more than likely to get his wish.

Be careful what you wish for, especially since different people have different definitions for "difficult"

Nobody likes a punk.

Plus , I don't see how this kind of thing helps the UOC cause.

locosway
01-11-2011, 7:54 AM
It's purely hypothetical, so there's no need to get anyones panties in a bunch. Sure, it's an @$$ thing to do, but it's not illegal that I know of.

I was just wondering what would come of it if someone wanted to do this. Yes, it won't help UOC, but it could start making officers spend less time wondering about someone walking around who's NOT breaking the law.

Andy Taylor
01-11-2011, 7:56 AM
It's an interesting hypothetical. For the sake of a reality check, could you provide at least ONE example of a holster which might reasonably present this kind of difficulty?


A young cop and an old style break front revolver holster.

It happened to a co-worker of mine. Cop refused to listen to him when he tried to tell her how the holster worked. He was taken to the ground. He was arrested for resisting an officer. Yes the encounter was on video, but there was no audio. Charges were dropped by the DA. He was LOC with a guard card and exposed firearm permit. However his jacket covered his security uniform. this was in either 1999 or 2000.

N6ATF
01-11-2011, 11:28 AM
Bullet button ring holster? RFID ring holster?

Smokeybehr
01-11-2011, 11:59 AM
When my friend was doing skip tracing he had a high retention holster and it was nuts! You actually had to twist the firearm and pull it back and out to remove it.

I had a Level 3 holster like that, where you had to slightly twist and rock the gun forward as you were drawing it out of the holster. It became a completely natural draw as you developed the muscle memory from practice. It's the Serpa and other holsters that require you to push a button before drawing that are a PITA to use.

N6ATF
01-11-2011, 12:32 PM
The SERPA does not require "pushing" a button. Pushing is a forward movement. The SERPA mechanism is pressed laterally, as the finger slides over it naturally during the draw.

Uriah02
01-11-2011, 1:02 PM
A Kydex that was rigged to not release without tools.

This is hypothetical and I don't even UOC, but what it you setup your holster knowing you would be forced to do an "e" check, so that the weapon could not be removed?

You're shooting high into the level of hypothetical with this, who would seriously use a holster than locks the weapon in place without a tool!?

OleCuss
01-11-2011, 1:43 PM
What if you're ordered to comply with a 12031(e) and the LEO can't figure out your uber retention holster. What happens then?

I understand they are not required to perform the check, it's more of a compulsory thing. So, they could just walk away in frustration, but that's not what I see happening...

Anyone know what would/could happen?

The answer is here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/11/MNOB1H6P2G.DTL

The police stripped Gao Zhisheng bare and pummeled him with handguns in holsters. For two days and nights, they took turns beating him and did things he refused to describe. When all three officers tired, they bound his arms and legs with plastic bags and threw him to the floor until they caught their breath to resume the abuse.

locosway
01-11-2011, 2:06 PM
I had a Level 3 holster like that, where you had to slightly twist and rock the gun forward as you were drawing it out of the holster. It became a completely natural draw as you developed the muscle memory from practice. It's the Serpa and other holsters that require you to push a button before drawing that are a PITA to use.

I really like my SERPA for casual and competition use, it's practical and when used properly is completely safe.

SVT-40
01-11-2011, 2:55 PM
Wow, seriously, you say that you would seize, cuz u couldn't figure it out, and then u comment on the us against them attitude, wow, sounds more like it's you wouldnt figure it out just do you would have a reason to seize it. Then you justify it as ensuring the 'people' are safe. I'm really concerned here

I guess you failed to read the post where the OP mused about intentionally locking the firearm in the holster so it could not be removed........

My comments were a response to that.

Flintlock Tom
01-11-2011, 2:55 PM
I use a Serpa Blackhawk and have only been e-checked twice. Both times I've had to show the officer how to get the firearm out. I just point at the "button" to "push."

Gryff
01-11-2011, 3:42 PM
Locosway, I don't have much to add to BigDog's post, he pretty much summed up the way I would go about it. My only addition would be that if I could not perform the e-check because the holster was defective or intentionally incapable of releasing the gun, I may have to hold the gun for safe keeping until an expert could examine the holster and rifle combo. That would, in my case, be a last resort if you couldn't or wouldn't explain the proper way to remove the gun.

That is what crossed my mind as to what the LEO might do. And they would get my applause as they drove away with your gun/holster.

Yes, we should expect LEOs obey the letter of the law when they perform these checks, but that is not permission to act like a dick and create a situation that is intended to frustrate or embarass the LEO.

AJAX22
01-11-2011, 4:25 PM
I have a 'safety speed' holster that could be problamatic for an officer.

.... You have to put your hand on the butt of the revolver, then reach down with your index finger and press a button next to the trigger.

The clamshell holster is spring loaded, so it flies open, fully releasing the pistol and leaving you with a pistol in your hand and your finger on the trigger.

BigDogatPlay
01-11-2011, 5:16 PM
I have a 'safety speed' holster that could be problamatic for an officer.

.... You have to put your hand on the butt of the revolver, then reach down with your index finger and press a button next to the trigger.

The clamshell holster is spring loaded, so it flies open, fully releasing the pistol and leaving you with a pistol in your hand and your finger on the trigger.

I'm very familiar with those. They were still considered somewhat "state of the art" when I was first getting into the business.... so yes, I AM old. I also have a vintage example that looks just like the photo below in my collection of old LEO leather.

:D

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2048/img5280cropjc5.jpg

FWIW.... I carried Safariland 070 level 3 for a long time. That is one of the more complicated retention holsters I know of personally and requires considerable practice to use smoothly and reliably. It's hard to imagine any readily available holster with many more tricks than that. But if there is one, I'd be willing to wager I could figure it out given a few minutes.

command_liner
01-11-2011, 5:24 PM
Two points from my 1995-ish holster design:
1) Why do we expect that a holster has only a single method or mode to release a
firearm? Why not make a holster specifically designed to be easy to unload for
(e) check and also secure in normal use.

2) Expand from 1). Make a holster which always loads rounds when draw in
the non-(e)-check mode. I have two different designs for this task. Normal
mode always gives the carrier a loaded weapon on draw. But when holstered
the weapon is not loaded and is (e) compliant. I can make these here in
my garage based on my 1995 design.

3) Think ADA + 14th A + Pena. What good is UOC for a man born with
a single arm? Does exercise of rights under the 2nd A require a man to
be born with 2 arms? If not, then 1-armed men must be able to carry loaded.
But there can be no special class of people when it comes to fundamental,
enumerated civil rights. If 1-armed men can carry loaded, then so can
2-armed men. (An presumable 3- and 4-armed men.)

AJAX22
01-11-2011, 5:33 PM
I'm very familiar with those. They were still considered somewhat "state of the art" when I was first getting into the business.... so yes, I AM old. I also have a vintage example that looks just like the photo below in my collection of old LEO leather.

:D



You are officially the 3rd person (including myself) I've ever heard of owning one of those...

Its a small but exclusive club ;)

alex00
01-11-2011, 5:36 PM
Two points from my 1995-ish holster design:
1) Why do we expect that a holster has only a single method or mode to release a
firearm? Why not make a holster specifically designed to be easy to unload for
(e) check and also secure in normal use.

2) Expand from 1). Make a holster which always loads rounds when draw in
the non-(e)-check mode. I have two different designs for this task. Normal
mode always gives the carrier a loaded weapon on draw. But when holstered
the weapon is not loaded and is (e) compliant. I can make these here in
my garage based on my 1995 design.

3) Think ADA + 14th A + Pena. What good is UOC for a man born with
a single arm? Does exercise of rights under the 2nd A require a man to
be born with 2 arms? If not, then 1-armed men must be able to carry loaded.
But there can be no special class of people when it comes to fundamental,
enumerated civil rights. If 1-armed men can carry loaded, then so can
2-armed men. (An presumable 3- and 4-armed men.)

Assuming you could make the holster practical, what is to stop me from intentionally or accidentally drawing the holster in the 'loaded' mode when I was performing the e-check? It wouldn't prove much if the gun was unloaded in the holster, but loaded when I pull it out. I would now be performing an e-check on a loaded gun. Whether intentional or not, the officer would be in a position to arrest the wearer. I'm not saying I would manufacture evidence to make an arrest, just playing Devil's Advocate.

command_liner
01-11-2011, 5:43 PM
Nothing prevents a PO from loading a weapon during an (e) check as it is.
If an incompetent or bull-headed PO insists on loading the weapon during an
(e) check, well, the PO is brandishing.

A key point will to establish legal notice that the holster design does what
it is supposed to: permit unloaded (e) checks.

Expect that the holster will have at least one built-in recording device.

alex00
01-11-2011, 7:01 PM
Nothing prevents a PO from loading a weapon during an (e) check as it is.
If an incompetent or bull-headed PO insists on loading the weapon during an
(e) check, well, the PO is brandishing.

A key point will to establish legal notice that the holster design does what
it is supposed to: permit unloaded (e) checks.

Expect that the holster will have at least one built-in recording device.

The big distinction now is that for an officer to load the weapon, he has to remove the magazines or ammo from the wearer and actively load the gun. Your holster design, with two options for removal, could lead an officer to choose the wrong method, and load the weapon. If they have never seen the holster before, and the wearer is remaining silent, it sounds like a 50-50 shot the officer will remove a loaded weapon from the holster. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just throwing some ideas at you. If the holster could be made practical, I think it would be a cool idea.

As far as brandishing, no, it wouldn't necessarily be brandishing when the officer removed the gun from the holster. Loaded isn't even a component of brandishing.

BigDogatPlay
01-11-2011, 7:14 PM
Nothing prevents a PO from loading a weapon during an (e) check as it is.
If an incompetent or bull-headed PO insists on loading the weapon during an
(e) check, well, the PO is brandishing.

Not unless the weapon is displayed in a rude, angry or threatening manner or unlawfully uses it in a fight. Read PC 417.

grammaton76
01-11-2011, 7:20 PM
My Serpa (btw, it's named after its inventor, Michael Serpa - there is no need to capitalize it all as if it were an acronym) level 3 holster has confused multiple SDPD officers. I've had to talk 'em through releasing it.

N6ATF
01-11-2011, 9:20 PM
Oops! /CMD-S

hgreen
01-11-2011, 10:12 PM
However, as was posted above, I have a hard time believing that an officer wouldn't be able to figure out how to work it within a reasonable amount of time.

Let me introduce you to Redondo Beach PDs finest star: Sgt. Grimm. He enjoys spending his free time harassing UOCers in the South Bay of Los Angeles and getting rewards of ice-cream after he's done.

You may have seen him first show up here:
http://www.southbayopencarry.org/2010/12/13/redondo-beach-e-check-learning-experience/

Then less than a month later he's back at it... and at 1:15 into this video he shows that yes, it is possible to stump an officer with a COTS holster:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=949712790825

The UOCer was kind enough to inform Sgt. Grimm on how to operate this standard holster.

Desert Dude
01-12-2011, 7:57 AM
You are officially the 3rd person (including myself) I've ever heard of owning one of those...

Its a small but exclusive club ;)

The maker was Hoyt, and I carried one back in the 70's. S&W mod 29 6 1/2.

BigDogatPlay
01-12-2011, 10:54 AM
The maker was Hoyt, and I carried one back in the 70's. S&W mod 29 6 1/2.

Hoyt made breakfront holsters, not true clamshells. Safety Speed made the clamshell. I have a number of Hoyts in different patterns in my collection, and carried them myself back in the day. None of them do this.....

http://www.fototime.com/C55CDB7B282A52C/standard.jpg

:)

gun toting monkeyboy
01-12-2011, 11:35 AM
We had this happen at the last UOC scavenger hunt. The young female officer decided to do an e check on one of the other people in our group. He had some sort of high retention holster, and she had difficulty figuring it out. We were all standing back, and several people were video taping it. She ended up getting flustered, and just popping the mag out of the gun (still in the holster) and checking that. She called it good, and we were all allowed to go on our way. It was humorous, to say the least. Pullnshoot25 probably still has a copy of it somewhere.

ChibiPaw
01-12-2011, 12:42 PM
stepping back just a moment.
If the LEO couldnt figure out how to release the pistol, shouldnt the holster now be classified as a locked container?
there is no definition of what exactly is locked other than enclosed. But to what extent? Its certainly (usually) not operable. One can argue this is a matter of perspective.
In this case, against the inspector, not against the owner.

AJAX22
01-12-2011, 12:46 PM
It would be very possible to modify the safety speed holster design to incorporate a small fingerprint scanner, a relay and a solinoid instead of a button.

THAT would be a locked container ;)

And you'd still be able to draw/fire faster than a standard service holster.

ChibiPaw
01-12-2011, 12:47 PM
It would be very possible to modify the safety speed holster design to incorporate a small fingerprint scanner, a relay and a solinoid instead of a button.

THAT would be a locked container ;)

And you'd still be able to draw/fire faster than a standard service holster.

I'm filing a patent right now as we speak.

luckystrike
01-12-2011, 3:13 PM
I remember reading about a UOC group in a starbucks in longbeach, cop couldnt figureout how to get a pistol out of a serpa...

choprzrul
01-12-2011, 3:29 PM
"Locked Container" in CA has to fully enclose the gun I thought???

Regardless of "Locked Container" definition, if you lock a gun in a holster so that it requires a key for removal, and the holster is secured to your belt, and your belt uses a locking buckle, would LE need a search warrant to gain access to the gun? They can't seize the gun/holster/belt without seizing you also, and I am not too sure about the legality of seizing a whole person.

Just the random wondering of my mind on a Wednesday afternoon...
.

N6ATF
01-12-2011, 3:57 PM
Civil rights chastity belt. DON'T VIOLATE ME!

AJAX22
01-12-2011, 4:34 PM
I'm filing a patent right now as we speak.

If you really are, let me know.

My holster is in storage in CA and you can borrow it if you need dimensions/mechanics.

OleCuss
01-12-2011, 5:17 PM
Just in case he really is planning to make/market the thing. I'd advise against trying.

Fingerprint scanners (in my somewhat limited experience) are neither sufficiently reliable nor fast enough to where I'd even consider getting a holster which relied upon one.

Plus, there would be bulk and weight to incorporating the scanner and power sources as well as a latching (or similar) mechanism.

Nice idea but I wouldn't go there.

jr916
01-12-2011, 9:04 PM
Not only are fingerprint scanners unreliable, but in CA a handgun transport container must be "fully enclosed" and locked with a key, padlock, combination lock, etc etc, so I don't think a holster with lock/scanner would work unless you somehow fully enclosed the gun with the holster, and even then I doubt it'd go over well and would result in at least a few arrests/citations.

Lrchops
01-13-2011, 11:27 AM
Poor cops always getting thrown into the middle of all the crap! Law Enforcement needs to educate the complainants on these calls and advise them that it is not illegal to open carry. Law Enfrocement is also required to respond and check because there is no real way of knowing what the individuals motives are.

I bet if you dressed up as a period correct cowboy and had a rig on, no one would check!

gunsmith
01-13-2011, 6:17 PM
they get frustrated with retention holsters, its happened to me in Reno.
As a cab driver I had a few confrontations with miscreants and had to clear leather, cops want to secure gun after I call them and yanked me around trying to get my holstered gun. couldn't find the release button ... I guess they were kind of amped up or something

SJgunguy24
01-13-2011, 7:33 PM
I had an encounter with ACSO deputies. I confronted a couple of gang bangers who were on our private property and my girl called 911. When the LEO's showed up I told them I was armed and they proceded to disarm me, or at least tried. My girl said it looked like the deputy was trying to rape me.

He's got me pinned against his car, my hands behind my head, fingers interlocked, legs spread, his crotch against my arse, and he's trying to rip my gun from my holster. I kept telling him to rock the gun back and he just yelled at me to shut up.......after it was all said and done I was cuffed in the back of the car. They took my gun for "safe keeping".

Those guys called the shop I bought my gun from and told them that I said they sold me high cap mags. The deputy told me my mags were illegal and it was illegal to possess HP ammo. I made 1 phone call, I got my gun, mags, and ammo back, and that guy was transferred. The report....dissappered.

Never got dinner for the dry hump either.

alex00
01-13-2011, 7:40 PM
"Locked Container" in CA has to fully enclose the gun I thought???

Regardless of "Locked Container" definition, if you lock a gun in a holster so that it requires a key for removal, and the holster is secured to your belt, and your belt uses a locking buckle, would LE need a search warrant to gain access to the gun? They can't seize the gun/holster/belt without seizing you also, and I am not too sure about the legality of seizing a whole person.

Just the random wondering of my mind on a Wednesday afternoon...
.

I'm not trying to be the 'I'll seize every holster and gun combo I see' cop on the board, just trying to answer your question. If it was a completely enclosed container, and I can't see the gun inside, there would be no reason for me to conduct the e-check (my personal opinions about the e-check aside). If it was a locked container, but part of the gun was exposed, you would be subject to having an e-check conducted. If it's locked, and I can't check the gun, I refer you to my original reply to Locosway. Sadly, for the law abiding UOCer, I think the LEO would be within the law by cutting the belt if it the belt was locked on your body. A search warrant wouldn't be needed because the provisions of the e-check are what they are.

Again, this is all hypothetical, worst case scenario stuff. I'm not trying to convey the message that I think the e-check is constitutional, or that I agree with seizing firearms from otherwise law abiding UOCers.

Sgt Raven
01-13-2011, 8:31 PM
Not only are fingerprint scanners unreliable, but in CA a handgun transport container must be "fully enclosed" and locked with a key, padlock, combination lock, etc etc, so I don't think a holster with lock/scanner would work unless you somehow fully enclosed the gun with the holster, and even then I doubt it'd go over well and would result in at least a few arrests/citations.

A flap holster with a lock built into the flap. :p

yelohamr
01-13-2011, 9:06 PM
Make your own retention holster. I did.

http://jewelryart.org/PDF/Retention_holster.pdf


I had my neighbor try to take the gun out of the holster, while I was wearing it. He couldn't, until I told him how.
This holster has no moving parts.

gatdammit
01-13-2011, 9:58 PM
It's an interesting hypothetical. For the sake of a reality check, could you provide at least ONE example of a holster which might reasonably present this kind of difficulty?

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=949712790825

It happened... hahaha.. video above at about 1:20...

Woops dupe answer... didn't see that someone else posted the same above.