PDA

View Full Version : Gun activists kicked out of restaurant


hgreen
01-12-2011, 9:57 PM
An encounter with a rogue cop was picked up by the local news today, article here:
http://www.easyreadernews.com/2011/01/redondo-beach-news/open-carry

Examiner reporter Charles Nichols also posted a reply article:
http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/response-to-easy-reader-article-gun-activists-kicked-out-of-restaurant-1

My full story which I gave to the reporter prior to publishing and held off publishing until the reporter got theirs printed.

Full article with pictures and videos can be found here: http://www.southbayopencarry.org/

I wrote it so am copying the entire content sans pictures here for your reading pleasure.

On Saturday, January 8th, 12 members of South Bay Open Carry went to the Red Robin restaurant for lunch. Many of us had previously open carried at the very same mall at the CPK located right across the walk way from Red Robin without issue in the past. In fact, the staff at CPK welcomed us, saying that they were glad the good guys were there carrying, and took several pictures for us. Several SBOC members, including myself, have even open carried inside the mall shopping center and the Macys.

The conflict has arisen as a result of a rogue Redondo Beach PD officer who has repeatedly harassed law abiding citizens who choose to open carry and made threats of unconstitutional and illegal searches and seizures. Additionally, he most recently acted with mall security in ejecting 12 people affiliated with South Bay Open Carry as they were being seated at the Red Robin, despite no mall representative asking any of us to leave the premise. Why would they be literally grabbing the menus to have us follow and be seated if they did not want us there?

Last summer I had attorney Jason Davis provide all the south bay beach cities with legal documents and memos explaining what training police need and exactly how to handle open carry situations from a LEO perspective.
You are welcome to browse the letters.

Yet even with all the legal training information, this rogue officer, who on video claims he is the officer who gives that training, shows his complete lack of knowledge of the rights of CA citizens by threatening illegal searches and seizures. He further shows his ignorance when he calls “open carry”, “carry open”.

What is most disturbing is how the officer who’s supposed to be far more trained than the average civilian in firearms safety repeatedly points guns at people while he is performing the OPTIONAL “e-check”. Either officer Grimm knows FULL WELL that the guns are unloaded and is only doing this check to harass law abiding citizens, or he is utterly clueless and downright DANGEROUS by pointing what he suspects could be loaded weapons at now unarmed individuals.

Here are some previous articles and videos which highlight the issues:

1) Initial encounter with the rogue officer: http://www.southbayopencarry.org/2010/12/13/redondo-beach-e-check-learning-experience/
2) Encounter at the mall this last weekend: http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/mall-cops-ban-open-carry-at-redondo-beach-galleria
3) Videos of encounter at mall this last weekend:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=949712790825
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=949723559245

You should note that myself and many other members of South Bay Open Carry have open carried at this mall in the past months several times without incident. So there was absolutely no intention to cause controversy on the part of SBOC members, we were simply going to a place where we KNEW from past experience was ok with us open carrying to enjoy a lunch with family and friends. You can see the pictures of two of us open carrying at the mall from last month, with no problems from mall security or management.

The fact is that this officer is acting in a manner not consistent with his peers in the South Bay or even in the rest of CA. Police officers throughout CA have all but stopped performing the unconstitutional, OPTIONAL, PC 12031(e) check, except for this RBPD officer.

It is also interesting because in orange county at the Block shopping center on this very same weekend, an open carrier was stopped by mall security, when they called local PD, the PD simply said that it was legal and they would not respond. Similarly, at all our events held outside the city of Redondo Beach the police, if they even show up, only come to give me their contact info in case we have problems with OTHER people and do not perform the OPTIONAL e-check that this rogue RBPD officer persists in performing. Despite all of us being law abiding citizens with no criminal record, in full compliance with CA state law, meaning he has NO reasonable suspicion that we would be in violation of the law, he continues to harass us.

jtmkinsd
01-12-2011, 10:52 PM
Hmmmm...I see a smackdown coming in the future. :43:

Purple K
01-12-2011, 10:57 PM
And what, pray tell, did his superiors say upon seeing the video?

hgreen
01-12-2011, 11:05 PM
If anyone at the CGF would like to talk about this incident with me my email is harley@sboc.ca

Would be nice to put another W up on the CGF score board.

5 potential plaintiffs, video, audio...

socal-shooter
01-12-2011, 11:17 PM
seems they care more about disarming the public than fighting criminals

Anchors
01-12-2011, 11:56 PM
Lame. That is awesome about the block though haha.

Anchors
01-12-2011, 11:57 PM
seems they care more about disarming the public than fighting criminals

Careful with the word "they".
I don't think this officer's actions represent all of "them".
Lets not turn this thread into one of those. Please.

socal-shooter
01-13-2011, 12:07 AM
"they" meaning that particular agency

bozochu
01-13-2011, 3:36 AM
On the flip side, how "they" know that you are not a criminal? Just because you wear a T-shirt of open carry organiztion does mean you are a good guy? Since when can you visually clear a pistol with its slide forward and a magazine in the well? What are you going to do when some idiot wears that same silly T-shirt w/ a loaded gun and go to town Arizona style....you can bet things will change....and it would not be good for "you".

Funtimes
01-13-2011, 4:13 AM
Doesn't the establishment have to serve you with a written notice if they are kicking you out for trespassing? They do here in Hawaii.

RomanDad
01-13-2011, 7:05 AM
You left off the fact that the "mall cops" handed you a card they described as the "code of conduct" for the mall and asked you to leave?

1BigPea
01-13-2011, 7:32 AM
On the flip side, how "they" know that you are not a criminal? Just because you wear a T-shirt of open carry organiztion does mean you are a good guy? Since when can you visually clear a pistol with its slide forward and a magazine in the well? What are you going to do when some idiot wears that same silly T-shirt w/ a loaded gun and go to town Arizona style....you can bet things will change....and it would not be good for "you".

What's the point of this post?

It wouldn't be good for ANYONE!

Also, UOC is perfectly legal here in CA.

DemocracyEnaction
01-13-2011, 7:33 AM
This officer has a hard on for you guys. He explained it himself hes old and failing memory has caused him to forget the oath he took to uphold the law. What would those security gaurds do for anybody in that restraunt, They did't even have enough balls to ask you guys to leave. This officer is most likely a control freak and doesn't realize the futility of these E checks. The criminals carry loaded concealed weapons legal or not. I bet most cops realize that there is nothing they can do about your right to open carry and see that their efforts are better used elsewhere. Especially in these fiscal times when so many cops are being cut out of the budget. Keep giving this guy enough rope and he'll screw himself.

hgreen
01-13-2011, 7:45 AM
You left off the fact that the "mall cops" handed you a card they described as the "code of conduct" for the mall and asked you to leave?

They handed that to us after the cop already demanded we go outside, and even then, never said we had to leave. The mall security spoke almost no words at all.

Additionally, in a place generally open to the public like a mall, they can't just kick whomever they like out of the mall if no laws are violated. Even if one is in full violation of the code of conduct of the mall, does not mean a law is broken or grounds for expulsion.

Casual_Shooter
01-13-2011, 7:51 AM
Additionally, in a place generally open to the public like a mall, they can't just kick whomever they like out of the mall if no laws are violated. Even if one is in full violation of the code of conduct of the mall, does not mean a law is broken or grounds for expulsion.

Is this true? (Not arguing, just looking for clarification). I saw a video with a guy playing a saxophone in a mall and was asked to leave. The security said the mall was "private property".

hgreen
01-13-2011, 7:54 AM
Is this true? (Not arguing, just looking for clarification). I saw a video with a guy playing a saxophone in a mall and was asked to leave. The security said the mall was "private property".

Did you read the links I posted in the OP?


Fact – Under California law, to be lawfully arrested and convicted for trespass, one must actually interfere or obstruct the business. It does not matter that the Mall has a “Code of Conduct” on its website saying firearms are prohibited. That is insufficient grounds to constitute criminal trespass under California law and is a violation of the forty year old California Appellate Court case In re WALLACE , 3 Cal.3d 289 (1970).


http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/response-to-easy-reader-article-gun-activists-kicked-out-of-restaurant-1

The mall cops can ask anyone to leave (doesn't mean you have to comply), that's not illegal, what is illegal is a cop threatening arrest for not breaking the law.

OleCuss
01-13-2011, 7:58 AM
If the mall asks you not to carry, then it is impolite and boorish to do so anyway.

But if you've got a rogue cop I hope you get his butt kicked. Kinda curious as to whether you could get it addressed at the City Council?

hgreen
01-13-2011, 8:04 AM
If the mall asks you not to carry, then it is impolite and boorish to do so anyway.

But if you've got a rogue cop I hope you get his butt kicked. Kinda curious as to whether you could get it addressed at the City Council?

I completely agree. We were not there to make a controversial event. We had open carried here before without problem and there were no signs posted that said no firearms, so how would we know??

LHC30
01-13-2011, 8:10 AM
so, have you filed a citizen's complaint regarding the officer's "illegal" behavior with the Redondo PD? If so, what is the outcome?

OleCuss
01-13-2011, 8:16 AM
I completely agree. We were not there to make a controversial event. We had open carried here before without problem and there were no signs posted that said no firearms, so how would we know??

Good. I've generally been under the impression that you all do try to run polite and lawful events. I'm glad that continues.

dantodd
01-13-2011, 8:18 AM
The mall can toss anyone they want as long as you aren't being kicked out because of membership in a class protected by law.

Andy Taylor
01-13-2011, 8:28 AM
Doesn't the establishment have to serve you with a written notice if they are kicking you out for trespassing? They do here in Hawaii.

No only verbal. However writen helps if they later return and the property own wants to arrest, rather than give another oppertunity to leave first.

Andy Taylor
01-13-2011, 8:30 AM
"..he most recently acted with mall security in ejecting 12 people affiliated with South Bay Open Carry as they were being seated at the Red Robin, despite no mall representative asking any of us to leave the premise."

Mall security is the mall represenative.

Army
01-13-2011, 8:45 AM
Security people are agents of the owners, hence legally speak for the owners.

Flintlock Tom
01-13-2011, 8:50 AM
Did you read the links I posted in the OP?



http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/response-to-easy-reader-article-gun-activists-kicked-out-of-restaurant-1

The mall cops can ask anyone to leave (doesn't mean you have to comply), that's not illegal, what is illegal is a cop threatening arrest for not breaking the law.
I don't believe this is correct.
It has always been a precept of the California open carry movement that if asked to leave by the owner or his representative that we would comply. And, we have always been told that if we refuse to leave after being requested to do so we could be arrested for trespassing.
Also, placing the word "Fact:" before your opinion does not make it so.

hgreen
01-13-2011, 8:57 AM
Security people are agents of the owners, hence legally speak for the owners.

And if any of them had spoken to us, then that would be a different story. The only person verbally communicating that we were to leave was the LEO.

The recordings are all posted, you can hear for yourself.

mzimmers
01-13-2011, 9:32 AM
After watching all three videos, I think I understand better why some people here on CG are so opposed to open-carry groups.

Liberty1
01-13-2011, 9:58 AM
And if any of them had spoken to us, then that would be a different story. The only person verbally communicating that we were to leave was the LEO.

The recordings are all posted, you can hear for yourself.

Read 602 pc. An officer when requested by an owner/representative can act on their behalf and request people leave or be arrested.

Have you PRAR'd the call for service?

jdberger
01-13-2011, 10:04 AM
On the flip side, how "they" know that you are not a criminal? Just because you wear a T-shirt of open carry organiztion does mean you are a good guy? Since when can you visually clear a pistol with its slide forward and a magazine in the well? What are you going to do when some idiot wears that same silly T-shirt w/ a loaded gun and go to town Arizona style....you can bet things will change....and it would not be good for "you".

Karen Arntzen? Is that you?

Sorry, Chico. The way this society works is that people are presumed innocent.

Otherwise a cop could pull you over whenever he wanted, just because he didn't know if you had a drivers license or stolen car. You would be subject to random searches of your person, home and things - just to make sure that you're not up to something nefarious.

See where I'm going with this?

For the record, I'm not a fan of organized UOC. At this time I don't think it's helpful to our cause.

psssniper
01-13-2011, 10:26 AM
I don't see how the officer deserves the "rouge" title. In the first video he seems polite and acquiesces on many of your assertions, very non-typical of a "rouge" Your behavior I would characterize as resolute, which is a good thing, bordering on antagonistic, a not so good thing. "So if you guys have better things to do such as fighting crime you're able to just let us go on our way" Really? :rolleyes:

As far as UOC I am leaning to the CGF position. We have more important battles at the moment.

cadurand
01-13-2011, 10:30 AM
And if any of them had spoken to us, then that would be a different story. The only person verbally communicating that we were to leave was the LEO.

The recordings are all posted, you can hear for yourself.Have all of the gun "activitsts" seen in this video actually applied for a CCW?

bden
01-13-2011, 10:31 AM
Can we get a facepalm smily? I'm too tired of seeing this sort of UOC nonsense to burn the calories required to dig up a .gif.

hgreen
01-13-2011, 10:38 AM
I don't see how the officer deserves the "rouge" title. In the first video he seems polite and acquiesces on many of your assertions, very non-typical of a "rogue" Your behavior I would characterize as resolute, which is a good thing, bordering on antagonistic, a not so good thing. "So if you guys have better things to do such as fighting crime you're able to just let us go on our way" Really? :rolleyes:


What is most disturbing is how the officer who’s supposed to be far more trained than the average civilian in firearms safety repeatedly points guns at people while he is performing the OPTIONAL “e-check”. Either officer Grimm knows FULL WELL that the guns are unloaded and is only doing this check to harass law abiding citizens, or he is utterly clueless and downright DANGEROUS by pointing what he suspects could be loaded weapons at now unarmed individuals.

The fact that no other LEOs in the south bay have opted to perform e-checks, that I am aware of, makes his behavior not normal for a LEO based on the behavior and actions of his peers. Anyone would be a bit defensive if a LEO comes up and first thing he does is demand information and imply desire to perform actions which he is not authorized to have or perform.

Its interesting that in a gun rights/owner forum, no one seems to care about how unsafely the officer handles firearms.

RobG
01-13-2011, 10:39 AM
I do not uoc myself but I do find it less and less appealing. Its one thing to uoc because thats ones only method to carry. But, you cannot sit there and deny that these "meet ups" are anything more than a test to see what will or will not happen. And of course the first thing to do is post it on Youtube or similar for all the world to see. UOC is not the issue, its the methods in which you uoc that are.

Coded-Dude
01-13-2011, 10:42 AM
i thought i recognized that cop.....from the earlier video where he said he was the one that gave the training to his coworkers on the legalities UOC, but couldn't accurately remember the law himself. Then he proceeds to communicate with his superior via cell phone, instead of radio, to keep FOIA requests from showing what was really going on. hope this works out for you guys.

hgreen
01-13-2011, 10:44 AM
I do not uoc myself but I do find it less and less appealing. Its one thing to uoc because thats ones only method to carry. But, you cannot sit there and deny that these "meet ups" are anything more than a test to see what will or will not happen. And of course the first thing to do is post it on Youtube or similar for all the world to see. UOC is not the issue, its the methods in which you uoc that are.

Careful, your ignorance is showing...

The only time things get posted online is when there is a problem with the way LEOs behave.

I UOC every day, you don't see me posting videos every day... We hold large gatherings bi-monthly, you don't even see videos posted that often! That's because we are not out there to create controversy, we are there to live our lives normally while being able to defend ourselves in the best way we are legally allowed.

In every other city in the south bay that we've had an event (except for Redondo Beach where this officer works) the LEOs are always invited, they come, give me their contact cards and say have a nice day, call us if you get any nuts trying to harass you. If you want me to start posting all the non-controversial UOC events we have, I can, but its pretty boring.

Headly Jones
01-13-2011, 10:46 AM
After watching all three videos, I think I understand better why some people here on CG are so opposed to open-carry groups.

Can you explain why ?

Catechol
01-13-2011, 10:47 AM
What are you going to do when some idiot wears that same silly T-shirt w/ a loaded gun and go to town Arizona style....you can bet things will change....and it would not be good for "you".

Arizona style?!?! Excuse me?!?!

Check your history on how many recent (last 20-or-so years) mass public shooting have happened in my state versus your state -- my check shows just one in mine. The only reason this scumbag wasn't shot dead by an armed bystander is because this happened in Tucson, and Tucson is the California of Arizona.

RobG
01-13-2011, 10:57 AM
Careful, your ignorance is showing...

The only time things get posted online is when there is a problem with the way LEOs behave.

I UOC every day, you don't see me posting videos every day... We hold large gatherings bi-monthly, you don't even see videos posted that often! That's because we are not out there to create controversy, we are there to live our lives normally while being able to defend ourselves in the best way we are legally allowed.

In every other city in the south bay that we've had an event (except for Redondo Beach where this officer works) the LEOs are always invited, they come, give me their contact cards and say have a nice day, call us if you get any nuts trying to harass you. If you want me to start posting all the non-controversial UOC events we have, I can, but its pretty boring.

Ignorance? Interesting. What we are constantly bombarded with are videos of harrassment of uoc'ers by LE. Maybe you should post videos of events where there are no issues. That way is does not appear that the "meet ups" are anything more than publicity stunts in hopes of catching "rogue" officers.

SteveH
01-13-2011, 11:01 AM
They handed that to us after the cop already demanded we go outside, and even then, never said we had to leave. The mall security spoke almost no words at all.

Additionally, in a place generally open to the public like a mall, they can't just kick whomever they like out of the mall if no laws are violated. Even if one is in full violation of the code of conduct of the mall, does not mean a law is broken or grounds for expulsion.

Actually as an agent of the property owner security can kick you out for just about anything, or even no reason at all. As long as its not based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation they can refuse service to anyone.

hgreen
01-13-2011, 11:04 AM
Ignorance? Interesting. What we are constantly bombarded with are videos of harrassment of uoc'ers by LE. Maybe you should post videos of events where there are no issues. That way is does not appear that the "meet ups" are anything more than publicity stunts in hopes of catching "rogue" officers.

What's your email? I'll send you the full video every time I OC.

Patrick-2
01-13-2011, 11:07 AM
That's my old town. I lived in South Redondo. The people running the city there are pretty nice and the cops I had the pleasure of working with were always quite professional and helpful. Someone needs to say nice things about those guys.


And to that end... Here comes my perma-ban!!!

It sounds to me like a lot of hysteria and drama going on here. This took a decent opportunity to learn (on both sides) and turned into yet another "Us v. Them" scenario. And frankly, this is what really annoys me about OC "protesters" (not advocates): they are - to me - always looking to be victims.

Let me boil down what I see here:

- You go to the mall packing guns.

- Mall management doesn't want the drama; has a code that says "No guns" and would rather the local PD do it than themselves. Pretty passive-aggressive, but hey...that's America today and the cops gotta deal with it.

- Cop informs you. He does a check. You whine.

- Nothing "rogue" about this guy. It's not like you see people strapping guns all the time in RB (again...I lived there and know some of the local officials). He's doing what he thinks was right, even if he made some highly technical errors.

- You don't like the mall's rules about how they manage their property, so you give the square badgers a hard time. They make, what...about $9 an hour? And you expect them to represent policy for a billion dollar corporation?

Here's what should have happened:

- You OC at the mall.

- Mall management should have informed you of the policy and given you a chance to settle up and go home, then come back without your guns. They failed here. Oh well.

- Absent the mall doing this themselves, they called the PD.

- You cooperate with the PD. Plead the Fifth, do not consent...whatever. Just be cooperative and respectful.

- You do not harass the mall employees who really just want to keep their jobs in a tough economy and are scared anything they say/do near you will cause them to lose it.

- You take good notes (as you did), say thank you to all involved, and then politely engage the authorities after the fact to explain where you think things could have gone better.

- You avoid hysterics, accusatory statements and inflammatory statements like "Rogue Cop". Name calling. Really?

- You recognize that Artesia and Hawthorne is in the same patrol area as the mall. Coincidence you keep seeing the same LEO?

- You never threaten or hint at a lawsuit. You just sue. Only lawyers should play that game. As a side note, the second you bring up lawsuits you effectively shut down any chance at real communication with the Redondo PD. There goes the stated goal of "educating the public and the police about peaceful open carry". You just said they should be sued by you or others...why the hell would they work with you?

- You stop carrying guns at the mall. They told you. Now you know. So don't so it.


I'll end this post by saying I know I just said a lot of unpopular things. But they need to be said. OC "protesters" like to grab attention. They think everyone should know what they know. And they take offense if someone disagrees with them or - God forbid - gets one of the many details wrong in an encounter. They completely forget that this is new to everyone but them, and that other people don't sit planning "scenarios" on the internet and how the law says they should be handled. It is not routine. Don't expect everyone to treat it as such. Yet.

Even when the law might be on your side, you need to understand that even rapid societal change takes some amount of time. And it goes much more smoothly when everyone stays polite, respectful and maintains a sure sense of humility and grace. There is nothing graceful about anything I saw in that video, other than the cop putting up with a group looking to score points against "Them".

This type of behavior is going to hurt all gun owners everywhere. People will think of this drama when they think of people who want to carry a firearm for self defense. And guess where the Redondo PD will be when a legislator asks them to support an OC ban in CA? Congrats -- you just made us another enemy!

I am in full support of OC. Go for it. But be respectful and mindful. And most of all, take the supposed claims you make ("It's an educational exercise!") and live it. If you think others have made a mistake...be polite and respectful and work with them (again and again) after the fact. If it crosses a line, call a lawyer.

You run these events like they are some kind of final exam, and then throw accusations and threaten to sue when someone (anyone) does not score a perfect grade. Wow...that can only help the world become comfortable around you. Great plan!

Calling cops names because they just don't know all that you do about CA OC provisions and all the tangled web around it? Childish.

I'll take my ban now.

Patrick-2
01-13-2011, 11:14 AM
I suspect most people would be surprised that persons who are hired by government to enforce the law i.e., police officers, are also the ones the least knowledgeable in the law. This really shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Most law enforcement officers have a G.E.D., or high school diploma at most. Which is just as well given that police officer (and postal worker) exams are designed to weed out persons with higher I.Q.s. Police officers are not expected to question orders, their job is to follow orders.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Mall Cops ban Open Carry at Redondo Beach Galleria - Los Angeles LA | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/mall-cops-ban-open-carry-at-redondo-beach-galleria#ixzz1AwbvsYFx


Really?

Calling the cops idiots helps us condition LEOs to be nice to OC'ers how?

bden
01-13-2011, 11:16 AM
If anyone at the CGF would like to talk about this incident with me my email is harley@sboc.ca

Would be nice to put another W up on the CGF score board.

5 potential plaintiffs, video, audio...

:gene:

N6ATF
01-13-2011, 11:17 AM
What's your email? I'll send you the full video every time I OC.

Don't waste the bandwidth nor postage. Some people will just scream conspiracy :TFH: no matter what evidence you have. :rolleyes:

Really?

Calling the cops idiots helps us condition LEOs to be nice to OC'ers how?

It may be idiocy, it may be malice disguised as ignorance. How many times do you need to be told right from wrong, verbally and in writing, by the people you dis-serve, superior officers and department lawyers?

RobG
01-13-2011, 11:17 AM
What's your email? I'll send you the full video every time I OC.

As previously stated, its not uoc that is at issue, its the way in which it is often done. And there was no personal attack so you can drop the antagonistic attitude.

Lrchops
01-13-2011, 11:20 AM
If that Redondo Beach Sergeant is so concerned with safety, why is he not wearing body armor?

Those guys should be wearing T-shirts that say, "I'm Loaded"

Liberty1
01-13-2011, 11:39 AM
If anyone at the CGF would like to talk about this incident with me my email is harley@sboc.ca

Would be nice to put another W up on the CGF score board.

5 potential plaintiffs, video, audio...

Beyond the 'e' check 4th A issue what other violations do you believe occurred that would interest CGF?

I'm always happy to lobby and encourage CGF to assist OCers in general (they certainly don't need prodding based on past actions/support) but keep in mind 'e' is already in their crosshairs so anything 'new' would have to have additional elements to make it more interesting.

Also have all your UOCers applied for licenses? Doing so helps make any case not just a 4 th A issue but also a 2nd A issue.

And as a side note I don't see the officer doing anything wrong other then 'e'.

Uriah02
01-13-2011, 11:41 AM
I don't recall Heller or Mcdonlad to declare that we have a constitutional right to carry a weapon for self defense. The court cases were specific in their nature: Heller = 2A is individual right such that it is unconstitutional to ban handgun ownership, McDonald = It is unconstitutional to prohibit someone from having a handgun in their home.
While I still believe we have a long way to go to keep getting every little bit we can to clarify such a simple amendment, it does not portray us in any better light to claim that X case means Y especially when it doesn't.

edsel6502
01-13-2011, 11:43 AM
On the flip side, how "they" know that you are not a criminal? Just because you wear a T-shirt of open carry organiztion does mean you are a good guy? Since when can you visually clear a pistol with its slide forward and a magazine in the well? What are you going to do when some idiot wears that same silly T-shirt w/ a loaded gun and go to town Arizona style....you can bet things will change....and it would not be good for "you".

Same argument can be made for elderly people driving. You going to take away cars and licenses to people over a certain age?.

Just because they have a drivers license and access to a car does not mean that they are not a danger to other people when they get behind the wheel.

You will never know when they might plow into a crowd of people with a two ton vehicle.

I am not a fan of UOC, but all this what ifs is a bunch of hookum. ;)

N6ATF
01-13-2011, 11:47 AM
I don't recall Heller or Mcdonlad to declare that we have a constitutional right to carry a weapon for self defense. The court cases were specific in their nature: Heller = 2A is individual right such that it is unconstitutional to ban handgun ownership, McDonald = It is unconstitutional to prohibit someone from having a handgun in their home.
While I still believe we have a long way to go to keep getting every little bit we can to clarify such a simple amendment, it does not portray us in any better light to claim that X case means Y especially when it doesn't.

Actually SCOTUS already opined that 2A protects carry. Otherwise Alan Gura and other competent lawyers would not cite that in all their carry case briefings, the PDFs of which are reposted all over CGN and the internet.

longarmshortlegs
01-13-2011, 12:04 PM
Why not send this information about the incident (and UOC in general) to the actual restaurant corporate. Let them know that the mall security forced you out of their restaurant for no legitimate reason. Ask the restaurant corporate if their lease agreement includes allowing unsolicited and unwarranted "sweeps" by mall security, and includes mall security removing paying restaurant customers from the restaurant.

Patrick-2
01-13-2011, 12:13 PM
I don't recall Heller or Mcdonlad to declare that we have a constitutional right to carry a weapon for self defense. The court cases were specific in their nature: Heller = 2A is individual right such that it is unconstitutional to ban handgun ownership, McDonald = It is unconstitutional to prohibit someone from having a handgun in their home.
While I still believe we have a long way to go to keep getting every little bit we can to clarify such a simple amendment, it does not portray us in any better light to claim that X case means Y especially when it doesn't.

Smartly said.

The right may exist due its fundamental nature; but until it is recognized anything you can do in public is a gift from the legislature. That's the law and that is the Constitution.

Gura and company are arguing it exists and they want it recognized. Until that happens, it does not exist in law. We need to stop pretending it does, because it is a distraction from the real issues we have - namely, getting those rights recognized. UOC in California is a gift (or a short-sighted mistake) from the legislature. Nothing else protects you. The Constitution does not (yet) apply. It's one thing to use the law to the maximum extent, both for protection and for education. It is quite another to get hysterical about it and make enemies with it.

This is not the time for this kind of drama. When the right is recognized there will be a window of opportunity for all sides to engage, learn, and adapt. If that window closes and we still have problems...we redress with the courts. But right now the 'right' you have to UOC is not a right. It is a privilege of the state. Pissing on the people who must support us (eventually) is bad form. I'd really not rather have to deal with the stigma associated with "angry gun nuts" when I can legally carry in CA, all because of games like this. Like someone else said, the "mistakes" here are technical issues of a small nature. Yet the unforgiving world of the OC protester thinks it fine to call the officer "rogue" (aka: dirty), stupid and vengeful.

All I ask, as a fellow "gun nut", is that you step outside your little world for a minute and take a look at these actions and decide whether they will meet the desired goal of educating the public and LEOs in a polite, professional manner. Does this reaction make you and the rest of us look good?

Lrchops
01-13-2011, 12:20 PM
Same argument can be made for elderly people driving. You going to take away cars and licenses to people over a certain age?.

Just because they have a drivers license and access to a car does not mean that they are not a danger to other people when they get behind the wheel.

You will never know when they might plow into a crowd of people with a two ton vehicle.

I am not a fan of UOC, but all this what ifs is a bunch of hookum. ;)

You can't take away their cars! A driver license is a privilege not a right.

A legally registered assault weapon is your right, not a privilege.

"Owning a gun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician." Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper

tacticalcity
01-13-2011, 12:29 PM
Ignorance? Interesting. What we are constantly bombarded with are videos of harrassment of uoc'ers by LE. Maybe you should post videos of events where there are no issues. That way is does not appear that the "meet ups" are anything more than publicity stunts in hopes of catching "rogue" officers.

There was post last week where the police officer was great, funny even, and made a point of being pro 2A. He was professional and curtious during the encounter and was clear he just needed to make sure the firearm was unloaded and that the UOCer was mentally stable. Personally I thought the UOCer was kind of a jerk and clearly out to try and entrap the officer...but the officer could not have been cooler.

The problem with all the UOCers with the videos is they almost always have MASSIVE chips on their shoulders and that arrogance is obvious not only to the police officers but those watching the videos. If the UOCers in these videos were a little more people friendly and a little more charasmatic and not such complete jerks it would go along way towards helping their cause. I am extremely pro 2A, and I find myself feeling bad for the police officer 99% of the time. I should be on the UOCer side, but they force me into siding with the officer because of their bad attitudes. That is not a good sign. By being real jerks about this, they are actually hurting their cause.

Being right is not enough...especially if you are shoving your rightness down people's throats with battering ram. You have to add a little sugar for the medicine to go down. That is where so many of the UOCers have gone astray. They are simply too confrontational and approaching this with the wrong mindset.

Just my take on it.

bden
01-13-2011, 12:36 PM
Smartly said.

The right may exist due its fundamental nature; but until it is recognized anything you can do in public is a gift from the legislature. That's the law and that is the Constitution.

Gura and company are arguing it exists and they want it recognized. Until that happens, it does not exist in law. We need to stop pretending it does, because it is a distraction from the real issues we have - namely, getting those rights recognized. UOC in California is a gift (or a short-sighted mistake) from the legislature. Nothing else protects you. The Constitution does not (yet) apply. It's one thing to use the law to the maximum extent, both for protection and for education. It is quite another to get hysterical about it and make enemies with it.

This is not the time for this kind of drama. When the right is recognized there will be a window of opportunity for all sides to engage, learn, and adapt. If that window closes and we still have problems...we redress with the courts. But right now the 'right' you have to UOC is not a right. It is a privilege of the state. Pissing on the people who must support us (eventually) is bad form. I'd really not rather have to deal with the stigma associated with "angry gun nuts" when I can legally carry in CA, all because of games like this. Like someone else said, the "mistakes" here are technical issues of a small nature. Yet the unforgiving world of the OC protester thinks it fine to call the officer "rogue" (aka: dirty), stupid and vengeful.

All I ask, as a fellow "gun nut", is that you step outside your little world for a minute and take a look at these actions and decide whether they will meet the desired goal of educating the public and LEOs in a polite, professional manner. Does this reaction make you and the rest of us look good?

Very well said, and I agree fully. I appreciate OP's enthusiasm and interest, but we need to work through this together in a much different manner than simply making youtube headlines. None of us score a point when an OC'er makes a cop look like a chump to the 2nd amendment crowd because that same video is likely also used such that everyone else sees the OC'er as the buffoon (and frequently somewhat rightfully so).

N6ATF
01-13-2011, 12:39 PM
@tacticalcity and others placing blame upon the slaves instead of the masters.

Wouldn't you be a "jerk" if you and your fellow open carriers had your civil rights repeatedly violated? No, they should just take their medicine and put up with this crap over, and over, and over for years, despite, and sometimes because of, all the verbal and written training officers have received on the issue (part of which appears to include watch lists/photos of known law-abiding open carriers to target repeatedly). :rolleyes:

turbosbox
01-13-2011, 12:49 PM
The mall is not there for YOU. It is there as a private business to earn money by serving the masses who spend their money there.
So your group has fundamental misunderstandings. It is not public property to put on a show and get attention.
If the security, management or staff felt that you might cause a disturbance or loss of income they have every right to tell you to leave immediately. They don't have to give ANY reason. More and more places have no cell phone signs and can toss people for talking (on a phone). Politeness and manners earn the right to be on private property. Attitude and disturbance causes you to lose that right, and does damage to 2A rights for all of us.
I think the police and mallcops acted professionally. I would buy him a cup of coffee and thank him for putting up with your attitude.

Your group COULD HAVE went in first unarmed, and simply ASKED the security and restaurant if your actions would be ok and you would be welcomed or they prefer GUESTS don't do that. :rolleyes:
Or better yet don't go out seeking attention with a gun :mad:

RobG
01-13-2011, 1:01 PM
@tacticalcity and others placing blame upon the slaves instead of the masters.

Wouldn't you be a "jerk" if you and your fellow open carriers had your civil rights repeatedly violated? No, they should just take their medicine and put up with this crap over, and over, and over for years, despite all the verbal and written training officers have received on the issue (part of which appears to include watch lists/photos of known law-abiding open carriers to target repeatedly). :rolleyes:

Then why not sue? There is a ton of video evidence, it should be a slam dunk. Repeatedly posting these vids on pro gun forums does nothing to further the cause.

Foghlai
01-13-2011, 1:03 PM
Security people are agents of the owners, hence legally speak for the owners.

This

Read 602 pc. An officer when requested by an owner/representative can act on their behalf and request people leave or be arrested.


and this.

What they did appears legal.
A threat of an illegal search and seizure is not an illegal search and seizure.
The check is legal thus there was no illegal search or seizure there either.

While it might be annoying getting kicked off private property, that is one of the essential things about property, the ability to expel people you don't want on it.

I watched the videos and I find nothing illegal in the actions taken by the parties.

It's unfortunate but the mall is a business and has decided it is better for them financially to abide by a certain code of conduct. The management is bound to follow those rules just like the security officers. It's a job, not a personal opinion.

N6ATF
01-13-2011, 1:05 PM
Then why not sue? There is a ton of video evidence, it should be a slam dunk. Repeatedly posting these vids on pro gun forums does nothing to further the cause.

Two weeks.

Shenaniguns
01-13-2011, 1:08 PM
After watching all three videos, I think I understand better why some people here on CG are so opposed to open-carry groups.

I do not uoc myself but I do find it less and less appealing. Its one thing to uoc because thats ones only method to carry. But, you cannot sit there and deny that these "meet ups" are anything more than a test to see what will or will not happen. And of course the first thing to do is post it on Youtube or similar for all the world to see. UOC is not the issue, its the methods in which you uoc that are.


:iagree: X2

RobG
01-13-2011, 1:09 PM
Two weeks.

:twoweeks::D

maddoggie13
01-13-2011, 1:15 PM
I think we need few 100's of us show-up with our lawyers...

Liberty1
01-13-2011, 1:22 PM
I think we need few 100's of us show-up with our lawyers...

No we already have that covered.:gura: Now we are just waiting on the right case law.

Patrick-2
01-13-2011, 1:24 PM
I think we need few 100's of us show-up with our lawyers...

And demand access to private property with guns?

Or "test" every LEO you meet to see if they understand the nuances of arcane public code that people on this forum spend hours, days and weeks trying to parse and understand?

Did someone get hit with a stick? Did I miss a dog getting shot?

Just what will these lawyers do to an officer who clearly has good faith?

Nobody's rights were trampled. Really.

warbird
01-13-2011, 1:24 PM
Sounds like a lawsuit might be formalized against the "rogue" cop, the police department, the mall, and the security company if there is no written instruction to bar open carry and assuming the businesses are not objecting. As for "meet-ups" looking to provoke problems, usually the only way you know someone is impeding your rights is to exercise them from time to time to see if someone tries to prevent you from exercising your rights. I do not open carry but I like to see people do it just to keep everything honest.

z-bob
01-13-2011, 1:33 PM
I think it'll be more effective if you can get the restaurant owner to file the complaint against the police instead of the OC'ers. For harassing his customers and disturbing the peace.

violator22348
01-13-2011, 1:36 PM
Personally. I think anyone who carries UOC less than a week after Arizona (or for that matter, Long Beach in December)... is out of their mind.

You want to be on the 6 o'clock news with a white sheet over you, go for it.

quiet-wyatt
01-13-2011, 1:39 PM
The mall is not there for YOU. It is there as a private business to earn money by serving the masses who spend their money there.
So your group has fundamental misunderstandings. It is not public property to put on a show and get attention.
If the security, management or staff felt that you might cause a disturbance or loss of income they have every right to tell you to leave immediately. They don't have to give ANY reason.

This... The mall is private property - They can say who is allowed there and who isn't...

tacticalcity
01-13-2011, 1:57 PM
@tacticalcity and others placing blame upon the slaves instead of the masters.

Wouldn't you be a "jerk" if you and your fellow open carriers had your civil rights repeatedly violated? No, they should just take their medicine and put up with this crap over, and over, and over for years, despite, and sometimes because of, all the verbal and written training officers have received on the issue (part of which appears to include watch lists/photos of known law-abiding open carriers to target repeatedly). :rolleyes:

Well, no I would not. Especially if I am an "activist" like these guys are. This is not math class. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The point of their videos is supposed to be that they are ordinary law abiding citizens being harrassed by law enforcement.

However, a majority of the time the videos end up showing a jerk intentionally picking an argument with a poor police officer just trying to keep us safe. Which is the exact opposite of the video maker's intent.

This is a war for the hearts and minds of the middle. But when the guys behind the camera completely color their videos with their own jerky attitudes it ends up turning off not only the middle but the people who are or should I say were on their side.

The entire mindset and approach to this is just completely bass akwards. The end result is that these videos end up doing more to hurt the cause than help it. Gun owners end up looking like jerks and wackjobs instead of the rational, law abiding, decent human beings that we are.

If you guys turned me off to where I think you're mostly wackjobs...you are doing something seriously wrong. Because Websters Dictionary uses my name as a synonym for the phrase gun nut.

Don't get me wrong. I think it would be great if UOC were common place and everybody were aware of it. I am just not a fan of how the UOC activists are going about trying to make that happen. They are rapidly becoming just another annoying fringe group muddying the issue. The gun version of PETA. Which is truly a shame. It doesn't need to be that way. Their cause is just. Their methods however, are questionable at best.

Coded-Dude
01-13-2011, 2:01 PM
its the only possible choice of carry for some people.......

tacticalcity
01-13-2011, 2:15 PM
its the only possible choice of carry for some people.......

I have NO problem with UOC. I am all for it. I do have a problem with being a jerk to a police officer on camera hoping to create an incident where there is none. While not all the UOC videos are that way, more are than aren't. That is what I take issue with.

I also have a problem with posting a video of police officer online without blurring out his face. Say the guy goes under cover. Now there is a video of him online in uniform. You could get him killed. Most of my friends who are law enforcement specifically ask their friends and family not to display photos of them in uniform, or post photos of them and discuss the fact that they are law enforcement for this very reason. It is wrong of you to put their lives in jeopardy like that.

The mindset that law enforcement is the enemy is the problem here. Yes there are a lot of jerks in the world. Yes there are a lot of liberal anti-gunners in the world. But that does not mean that every police officer you encounter is going to be a jerky and antigunner. Most are very cool pro 2A guys just trying to do their jobs. Treat them with respect and they will do the same. Act like a jerk, and their guard goes up. It is human nature. Especially for a guy who knows full well he is putting his life on the line every time he puts on his uniform. If you behave like a jerk they are going to think something is wrong with you and you are threat. Because you are behaving as such. If however, you maintain a proper bearing then they will realize you are not a threat and treat you with the same amount of respect you are showing them. If you do that, and then the officer still acts like a jerk and harrasses you...then you proved your original point. But if you act like a complete jerk regardless of how the officer treats you then your original point completely gets lost. You have to maintain your bearing. And a lot of the UOC guys just aren't doing that. So it ends up looking like they are at fault, and in many cases they are.

Pig Rifle
01-13-2011, 2:48 PM
Personally. I think anyone who carries UOC less than a week after Arizona (or for that matter, Long Beach in December)... is out of their mind.

You want to be on the 6 o'clock news with a white sheet over you, go for it.

Please explain why you think the AZ shooting should stop us from carrying defensive weapons in CA?

Anchors
01-13-2011, 3:01 PM
Karen Arntzen? Is that you?

Sorry, Chico. The way this society works is that people are presumed innocent.

Otherwise a cop could pull you over whenever he wanted, just because he didn't know if you had a drivers license or stolen car. You would be subject to random searches of your person, home and things - just to make sure that you're not up to something nefarious.

See where I'm going with this?

For the record, I'm not a fan of organized UOC. At this time I don't think it's helpful to our cause.

Exactly.

Arizona style?!?! Excuse me?!?!

Check your history on how many recent (last 20-or-so years) mass public shooting have happened in my state versus your state -- my check shows just one in mine. The only reason this scumbag wasn't shot dead by an armed bystander is because this happened in Tucson, and Tucson is the California of Arizona.

I'm with you.
Who is this anti-gun person posting on here in disguise?
I feel way safer in Phoenix than I would even in Beverly Hills or Huntington Harbor.
I would venture to guess in Phoenix more people you see at the gas station, McDonalds, etc are CCW than you think. Probably like half.
I meet old people, old ladies, young women, all kinds of people there that carry.
The reason that happened in AZ is because that particular nut job lived in AZ and no one at the event happened to be carrying.
Had it gone down in Phoenix, I bet he would have gotten three shots off before someone at least tried to return fire.
And Arizona-style? Yeah that's cute considering way more shootings have happened in the ultra-restricted gun environment that is CA.

/Rant.

thomashoward
01-13-2011, 3:01 PM
After watching all three videos, I think I understand better why some people here on CG are so opposed to open-carry groups.Originally Posted by Lrchops View Post


If I saw the OC group, I would go in for a hamburger knowing it was the safest place in the Mall

Goldseeker
01-13-2011, 3:15 PM
So your group has fundamental misunderstandings. It is not public property to put on a show and get attention.


I take it you haven't read Pruneyard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center

Goldseeker
01-13-2011, 3:29 PM
The right may exist due its fundamental nature; but until it is recognized anything you can do in public is a gift from the legislature. That's the law and that is the Constitution.

...The Constitution does not (yet) apply.



Well, no - that is not the Constitution as written and adopted. It may well be the perverted and emasculated "constitution" that statists, politicians, and the lawyers guild have made it.

If your point is that the governments today do whatever they damn well feel like until it is resisted, fine. And that it will use force to impose unconstitutional laws, fine.

But your view is otherwise contrary to early SCOTUS statements as well as the Founding Fathers.

Liberty1
01-13-2011, 3:39 PM
I take it you haven't read Pruneyard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center

The question is was their meeting "expressive conduct"? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

Hopalong
01-13-2011, 4:17 PM
I don't have a problem with the sergeant.

I wouldn't call him rogue.

All that needs to be said regarding the e check is

"I do not consent, but I will not resist"

That said, more power to those open carry guys.

My view is, however, that a more powerful statement is made by saying less.

Gryff
01-13-2011, 4:30 PM
If anyone at the CGF would like to talk about this incident with me my email is harley@sboc.ca.

I believe that CGF won't touch UOC because they feel that it doesn't advance 2A in California at this time.

MasterYong
01-13-2011, 4:31 PM
Sorry, dude, but you lost me when you in one breath claimed that no mall representatives asked you to leave AND stated that security helped the "rogue officer."

Mall security tells you to go, you go. Cops tell mall security that someone's gotta go, then security is probably going to comply.

It's private property. Get a letter from the owner of the Red Robin stating it's OK for you to OC in their private establishment or your argument falls on my deaf ears.


Additionally, in a place generally open to the public like a mall, they can't just kick whomever they like out of the mall if no laws are violated. Even if one is in full violation of the code of conduct of the mall, does not mean a law is broken or grounds for expulsion.

You are SO OFF BASE here it's almost funny. It's private property, and security can kick you out for ANY reason. The mall is NOT public property, as you seem to think; it's a private business that happens to be open to the public.

I'd be even more afraid to live in a world where a private business doesn't have the right to expel a member of the public they don't want in their business, than in a world where I can't carry for personal protection. Freedom includes that business owner(s)' right to kick you out.

Why is it that so many of these "OC activists" seem to have a similar attitude: "we want to do it so we're doing it and no one else can say we can't because our rights trump EVERYONE ELSE'S!"

If you're going to have an "OC event" try going someplace that's ACTUALLY public. Then if the "rogue cop" actually violates your legal rights (instead of just hurting your feelings) you have a leg to stand on.

/rant off

ETA: I actually OC myself pretty regularly, I just have too much regard for the peace of mind of my fellow citizens to do it in a public place on any regular basis. I reserve OC for times I'm out in the country, where I'm less likely to freak out the hoplophobes and ruin their day.

creampuff
01-13-2011, 5:06 PM
One of the problems I have with the video, is the person behind the camera asking loaded questions to mall security - "Do you feel threatned by law abiding citizens carrying firearms for self defense?" And it wasn't asked just once but several times, when clearly they had no intent of answering the question. It is a loaded question - because by stating "law abiding" and "self defense", they can't just say yes we feel threatened. They can't say "no" because as agents of the mall they were asking you to leave the facility (indirectly). So how were they going to answer that question - which had no correct way of answering.

It is the same method that groups like PETA use. Loaded or rhetorical questions meant only for the purpose of embarassing the person being asked the question. Things like that put people on defensive, and doesn't serve to educate the public. I wish the UOC movement well, I just wished it would be done in a manner doesn't insult people who aren't aware of what the movement is about.

CitaDeL
01-13-2011, 5:08 PM
It's private property, and security can kick you out for ANY reason. The mall is NOT public property, as you seem to think; it's a private business that happens to be open to the public.


Private property isn't always private. Our compatriot Theseus can tell you, that even judges don't believe all private property is private.

Here, let me help you.

People v Strider (http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_case_law/2009/09/people-v-strider-no-b204571.html) Fenced in? Restricted access? Private property. Kick out whoever you like.

Pruneyard v Robins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins) Invite the public to enjoy your property? Deal with free speech on your private (but open to the public) property. Malls are the modern day market square. Thank California's Constitution.

As we are all aware, UOC is not a demonstration of the Second Amendment (that would require a functional firearm), but an exersize of FREE SPEECH.

turbosbox
01-13-2011, 5:33 PM
I take it you haven't read Pruneyard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center

I read the wiki you pointed to. Yes sometimes the walmarts and such have to put up with some nuts pandering something in front of them as "free speech", but what does that have to do with open carry? The issue is a gun, not speech. And the gun scaring off paying customers. So what did I miss?

Like some others have said, I support open carry in limited circumstances, but doing for attention and not discrete self protection I disagree with. Just like free speech, it can be abused causing more laws restricting it.

The question is was their meeting "expressive conduct"? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

Edit: thank you that was good reading:
...As for the restrictions on the stores in shopping centers, they were held to be reasonable because Costco had developed a strong factual record at trial which proved that hordes of unwanted solicitors had significantly interfered with its business operations – they had damaged its reputation, obstructed access to its stores, and traumatized Costco employees....
Justice Ming Chin, in his dissent joined by Justices Marvin Baxter and Carol Corrigan, expressed his sympathy with several of the most common critiques of the Pruneyard decision: "Pruneyard was wrong when decided. In the nearly three decades that have since elapsed, jurisdictions throughout the nation have overwhelmingly rejected it. We should no longer ignore this tide of history. The time has come for us to forthrightly overrule Pruneyard and rejoin the rest of the nation in this important area of the law. Private property should be treated as private property, not as a public free speech zone."

Liberty1
01-13-2011, 5:43 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=347348

Depends on the circumstances.

I believe that CGF won't touch UOC because they feel that it doesn't advance 2A in California at this time.

Shenaniguns
01-13-2011, 6:09 PM
This... The mall is private property - They can say who is allowed there and who isn't...

Exactly, even us with CCW's are required to leave if asked to do so on Private Property or risk Trespass or worse.

Shenaniguns
01-13-2011, 6:37 PM
Private property isn't always private. Our compatriot Theseus can tell you, that even judges don't believe all private property is private.

Here, let me help you.

People v Strider (http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_case_law/2009/09/people-v-strider-no-b204571.html) Fenced in? Restricted access? Private property. Kick out whoever you like.

Pruneyard v Robins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins) Invite the public to enjoy your property? Deal with free speech on your private (but open to the public) property. Malls are the modern day market square. Thank California's Constitution.

As we are all aware, UOC is not a demonstration of the Second Amendment (that would require a functional firearm), but an exersize of FREE SPEECH.



That seems like a stretch to me, though I'm willing to be proved wrong.

re: Pruneyard vs. Robins, how is this enforced?

http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-news-ardenmall1030,0,392269.story

SACRAMENTO —
You can buy them at Arden Fair Mall, you just can't wear them while you shop.

A new dress code states customers who want to shop at Arden Fair Mall can no longer enter stores if they are wearing hooded sweatshirts over their heads or saggy pants. It's a move some shoppers aren't taking well.

Please do not post whole articles - see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=363956 - even for articles from 2009!
// Librarian



Sorry about that, I forgot

-Shen

N6ATF
01-13-2011, 6:40 PM
a majority of the time the videos end up showing a jerk intentionally picking an argument with a poor police officer just trying to keep us safe.

Seriously, dude? The only thing poor about police officers who initiate civil rights violations under color of law is their honor, seeing as how they swore an oath to support and defend the supreme law of the land, which says they shall NOT infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and they shall NOT conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.

This is not a matter of two wrongs making a right. This is a normal psychological and physiological stress defense mechanism, conditioned by poor police into open carriers, every time they are held at gunpoint (Liberty1 can speak more to use of force issues) and repeatedly detained/arrested when they are known to be law-abiding.

The honorable, oath- and civil rights-compliant high road is for them to leave known law-abiding citizens the hell ALONE. And yet poor police take the low road, time and time again, as the initiating and overwhelmingly coercive, armed force. While criminals benefit from all the attention being placed on harassing the law-abiding and not them!

JimSar
01-13-2011, 9:11 PM
Just wondering, what will be the public reaction if a dozen or so bona fide gang bangers in full regalia decide to exercise their UOC rights inside a mall? By full regalia I mean tatoos, piercings, dragging pants, the works. Oh, and they're non-white?

Just curious.

Casual_Shooter
01-13-2011, 9:14 PM
Just wondering, what will be the public reaction if a dozen or so bona fide gang bangers in full regalia decide to exercise their UOC rights inside a mall? By full regalia I mean tatoos, piercings, dragging pants, the works. Oh, and they're non-white?

Just curious.

Considering the public reaction of white men dressed in khaki shorts and polo shirts is to call the cops, I would guess the same.

KylaGWolf
01-13-2011, 9:19 PM
They handed that to us after the cop already demanded we go outside, and even then, never said we had to leave. The mall security spoke almost no words at all.

Additionally, in a place generally open to the public like a mall, they can't just kick whomever they like out of the mall if no laws are violated. Even if one is in full violation of the code of conduct of the mall, does not mean a law is broken or grounds for expulsion.

You would be wrong they can ask you to leave without any reason at all other than they want you gone. It is private property and that is all they need. Oh and if it was a Westfield Mall that would explain a whole lot. Furthermore if they feel you violated their code of conduct at the mall then they have every right to ask you to leave. Nevermind the fact that gang- banger thugs and wanna be gang-bangers can run around most malls and nothing done to get them out. Third the mall security didn't have to speak with you first. They called the LEO because they felt the need even if it was a false fear. Did they say you were banned from the mall for good or only had to leave that day? And I am surprised that you were able to carry in the CPK since they are known for their anti open carry stance. I believe that was even stated on a thread long ago on here or was it OCDO I can't remember anymore.

Foghlai
01-13-2011, 10:48 PM
... police officers who initiate civil rights violations under color of law ... they shall NOT infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and they shall NOT conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.


What exactly was the infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in this situation?

What was the unreasonable search and seizure?

Liberty1
01-13-2011, 10:56 PM
What exactly was the infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in this situation?

What was the unreasonable search and seizure?

The infringement would be the threat of enforcing 12031 pc (hope they have their denials) and the seizure is doing the compliance 'e' check, seizing property/not being free to leave, looking for evidence of criminal activity absent a warrant, absent reasonable articulated suspicion to lawfully detain for investigation, and absent probable cause to arrest and search incident to that arrest.

chefjef
01-13-2011, 11:13 PM
If I saw the OC group, I would go in for a hamburger knowing it was the safest place in the Mall

oh? please see this:

"Owning a gun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician." Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper

Goldseeker
01-13-2011, 11:31 PM
Originally Posted by Lrchops

"Owning a gun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician." Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper


Maybe - but I have a much greater chance of hearing music from the guitar-toter than I do the guy eating a large can of beans...

adrenalinemedic
01-14-2011, 12:32 AM
One thing I note in all of this is how unwilling the (for lack of a better phrase) 'militant' UOCers are to even acknowledge the points of constructive criticism they are getting, much less taking advantage of that criticism.

"My way or the highway" is not the best attitude when you are a minority that, for better or worse, makes the majority uncomfortable on the best of days.

You can play by the book and stubborn, and lose. Or you can play by the book and smart, and win. Hint: guys like Gura are doing the latter. Care to check the scoreboard on 2A advancement between him and your average UOCer?

Liberty1
01-14-2011, 12:47 AM
Care to check the scoreboard on 2A advancement between him and your average UOCer?

Different scoreboards on different fields in different leagues. They are not comparable except in that the common man can effect change in the courts by getting arrested (not advisable unless your last name is Wolanyk and JD and Hoffmang are in the wings).

An LOCer with a license denial could go all the way. But the risk to the individual is great. What OC is really good for is normalizing gun carry quickly in states like VA,Ohio etc...where OC cannot be taken away easily (in fact it was a prosecution of a concealed carrier who brought about Ohio's protected open carry right.)

You can thank UOCers however for an exponential advancement of gun knowledge by CA's peace officers. I'd say your chances of being arrested for having your mags loaded on the way to the range is down significantly.

And as far as Harvy being a militant OCer, he has been very engaging in his dialogue with his local cops and quite successful respectivly on his local front. I just wish I could have convinced him and others to heed the legislative risks surrounding UOC at this time in CA history. This mall flap is about the only set back I'm aware of and I don't think he fully understands 602 PC. Now if he is going for a 'Pruneyard' angle, I would have hoped that the event would have been strategically planned a little better.

Funtimes
01-14-2011, 3:45 AM
Ignorance? Interesting. What we are constantly bombarded with are videos of harrassment of uoc'ers by LE. Maybe you should post videos of events where there are no issues. That way is does not appear that the "meet ups" are anything more than publicity stunts in hopes of catching "rogue" officers.

I personally attended one of the UOC meet up events, it was nothing more than dinner at a diner. No one was looking to cause trouble, everyone was cordial and happy!

Patrick-2
01-14-2011, 9:37 AM
A pro-OC story (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-washington-dc/federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns) about a guy picked up by the police. It has shades of this case, except an example of real obvious harassment.

And to prove it: the cops lost qualified immunity and the OC'er got $21,000 for the trouble.

Casual_Shooter
01-14-2011, 9:43 AM
A pro-OC story (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-washington-dc/federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns) about a guy picked up by the police. It has shades of this case, except an example of real obvious harassment.

And to prove it: the cops lost qualified immunity and the OC'er got $21,000 for the trouble.

Interesting photo at that link; the female in the photo is using an IWB holster and the caption reads "Open Carriers". I had no idea an IWB was considered OC'ing.

Liberty1
01-14-2011, 9:48 AM
A pro-OC story (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-washington-dc/federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns) about a guy picked up by the police. It has shades of this case, except an example of real obvious harassment.

And to prove it: the cops lost qualified immunity and the OC'er got $21,000 for the trouble.

But in that case they 'arrested' him by going hands on and seizing his firearm without advising him to leave or determining if he had been asked by management and refused to leave (a crime in most states).

This case doesn't seem to parallel what happened here unless there is some evidence the officer acted alone and not via a call for service or being hailed. With security on the tape it appears to be a request by management/or their agents.

Liberty1
01-14-2011, 9:52 AM
Interesting photo at that link; the female in the photo is using an IWB holster and the caption reads "Open Carriers". I had no idea an IWB was considered OC'ing.

Depends on the state. If it is readily recognizable as a firearm it is in plain view generally. But to avoid concealment laws a fully exposed holster would be recommended absent exemption from that states concealed laws.

That's an Oleg Volk photo, my favorite artist! http://www.a-human-right.com/

Foghlai
01-14-2011, 9:55 AM
The infringement would be the threat of enforcing 12031 pc (hope they have their denials)

and the seizure is doing the compliance 'e' check, seizing property/not being free to leave, looking for evidence of criminal activity absent a warrant, absent reasonable articulated suspicion to lawfully detain for investigation, and absent probable cause to arrest and search incident to that arrest.

Here are the relevant statutes
12031
(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

602
Except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (v),
subdivision (x), and Section 602.8, every person who willfully
commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a
misdemeanor:
(o) Refusing or failing to leave land, real property, or
structures belonging to or lawfully occupied by another and not open
to the general public, upon being requested to leave by (1) a peace
officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person
in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer
that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's
agent, or the person in lawful possession...

Under current California and Federal law neither of these relevant portions of the penal code have been held to be unconstitutional and as far as I know there are no plans to challenge either.

In fact ccw is the current carry option being challenged, and as long as that is going through the courts it seems counter-productive to challenge the loaded open carry option.

If the carriers in this situation were not complying with 602 then there would be probable cause to arrest, not just a reasonable suspicion.

opos
01-14-2011, 10:18 AM
Actually as an agent of the property owner security can kick you out for just about anything, or even no reason at all. As long as its not based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation they can refuse service to anyone.


No shoes, no shirt, no service! If the mall, pier, or center bans open carry and someone wants to open carry across that property to get to a store or cafe that allows open carry...the store or cafe should deal with the mall, center or pier and if they can convince the management then fine...if not they should move to a location that is convenient for open carry advocates to enjoy being there...it looks just a bit like "pushing the limits" to this older, Conservative, gun owning California citizen. We used to play a game on the farm called "slap the bull on the nose"....the bull usually won in the end so why just irritate to be irritating?

Liberty1
01-14-2011, 10:38 AM
Here are the relevant statutes
12031
(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

602
Except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (v),
subdivision (x), and Section 602.8, every person who willfully
commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a
misdemeanor:
(o) Refusing or failing to leave land, real property, or
structures belonging to or lawfully occupied by another and not open
to the general public, upon being requested to leave by (1) a peace
officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person
in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer
that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's
agent, or the person in lawful possession...

Under current California and Federal law neither of these relevant portions of the penal code have been held to be unconstitutional and as far as I know there are no plans to challenge either.

In fact ccw is the current carry option being challenged, and as long as that is going through the courts it seems counter-productive to challenge the loaded open carry option.

If the carriers in this situation were not complying with 602 then there would be probable cause to arrest, not just a reasonable suspicion.

A state statute nullifying the protections of the 4th A to look for evidence of criminal activity where no RAS exists to detain or PC to arrest, constitutional? JL vs Floridia, Terry vs Ohio...we'll see in the not too distant future...:43:

They were complient apparently, where is the suspicion of 602?

N6ATF
01-14-2011, 11:02 AM
The security guards folded a paper plane, wrote "please leave. -the management" on it, and tried to fly it at the law-abiding open carriers. They missed. So they called the cops to take the non-risk of notification.

cmaynes
01-14-2011, 11:28 AM
its a civil rights violation- The ACLU will surely leap to the defense, as they have in the past for the KKK.....

on a more serious note- letters from all the club members present should be sent to the City Council demanding action against the officer- they should also be sent to the CLEO. I would personally add your State and Federal representitives to the cc list.

turbosbox
01-14-2011, 11:39 AM
its a civil rights violation- The ACLU will surely leap to the defense, as they have in the past for the KKK.....

on a more serious note- letters from all the club members present should be sent to the City Council demanding action against the officer- they should also be sent to the CLEO. I would personally add your State and Federal representitives to the cc list.

Nice way to get all those people against open carry also if they weren't already. Sometimes I wonder if OC are the Brady campaigns best agents :confused:

tlash
01-14-2011, 1:05 PM
Edit: If you have a point try to make it without name calling or starting a flame fest. -6172crew

bozochu
01-15-2011, 12:46 AM
All this talk of UOC...I want to see a video of UOC in Crenshaw...if they don't have problems with PO PO, they will with local savages...there is a reason why UOC is a bad idea.

Liberty1
01-15-2011, 12:56 AM
All this talk of UOC...I want to see a video of UOC in Crenshaw...if they don't have problems with PO PO, they will with local savages...there is a reason why UOC is a bad idea.

Try People vs Strider- LOC in Compton baby!

tlash
01-15-2011, 8:09 AM
Edit: If you have a point try to make it without name calling or starting a flame fest. -6172crew

I was making a point, you just didn't like it. And no one was personally named or attacked. Is only the Second Amendment protected here? What about the First?

GrizzlyGuy
01-15-2011, 8:36 AM
I was making a point, you just didn't like it. And no one was personally named or attacked. Is only the Second Amendment protected here? What about the First?

Your 1st amendment right protected here? Please trust me on this: you don't want to go there (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=348413).

jpigeon
01-15-2011, 8:37 AM
So any 1 exercising their freedoms is an activist and needs to jailed by the government. Next time they should handcuff themselves to each other and sit in the middle of the street so the media statments can be more accurate...

jpigeon
01-15-2011, 8:39 AM
LOC in Bompton. When did that take place in the 60's

tlash
01-15-2011, 8:57 AM
Your 1st amendment right protected here? Please trust me on this: you don't want to go there (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=348413).
Yes, I DO want to go there. According to the forum owner on your link, "This is a private forum.
I own it, I set the rules, I allow access as I see fit.
(Gee, I sound like ogre when I put it that way..)

You do NOT have a first Amendment right in a private venue.
Civics 101."

Fair enough.

Yet the militant OCers enter private property knowingly violating the terms of use, then demand that their rights be protected. Hypocrisy. And it is due to egos whether admins wish to acknowledge it or not.

GillaFunk
01-15-2011, 4:20 PM
Usually I don't post on chit like this because...I just don't.

I would love to UOC. If I wasnt moving out of the country in the next few months I would apply for a CCW (even knowing full well it will be denied because my sheriff is Amish).

1) Yes, its dumb these officers were being so difficult about this issue

2) Clearly they are not informed, and it was piss poor for that 'training officer' to make the lackadaisical comments that he made about being old and short on memory (KNOWING FULL WELL HE WAS BEING RECORDED)

3) These guys are doing their job, so there is no need to be....cocky.. (lack of a better word, sorry) about the situation. Repeating over and over that they are not required to check your weapon more than 2x seemed excessive. I think I counted at least 3. You could have been more polite. I thought he was generally being....nice. Bass-hat mode was not on.

4) To me, once the officer on the radio informed the investigating officer of the situation, he basically should have just let you go. I would have asked to go as the impression I got was that you guys were just waiting around. You were not involved in a crime (as the officer indicated) and he wasn't checking your weapons, so you were being detained.

5) While one is being held up, I dont think they care about what you say, so just dont talk to them. Simply answer their questions, nothing more.

6) WHO GIVES A CHIT if you or you buddy had a knife in your pocket. WHY did the 2nd cop even ask (rolls eyes)

7) The way he went about checking your weapons was, in my mind, sub-standard, from the moment he reach for them. Not even a "I will inspect your weapon now".

8) Although excessive, I like the fact you guys record your interactions. Good or bad, they are good for training, for all parties.

If the investigating officer was more informed, he seemed like he could actually be a pretty cool guy.

Have a nice day, thanks for playing.

gunsmith
01-15-2011, 8:30 PM
Just wondering, what will be the public reaction if a dozen or so bona fide gang bangers in full regalia decide to exercise their UOC rights inside a mall? By full regalia I mean tatoos, piercings, dragging pants, the works. Oh, and they're non-white?

Just curious.


afaik gang members may not legally own a gun, let alone carry one




186.22 - California Penal Code Section 186.22 - California ...
Mar 8, 2010 ... (33) Carrying a loaded firearm in violation of Section 12031. (f) As used in this chapter, "criminal street gang" means any ongoing ...
law.onecle.com › California Lawyer › Penal Code - Cached - Similar

DirtNapKing
01-15-2011, 8:47 PM
If I saw the OC group, I would go in for a hamburger knowing it was the safest place in the MallNut cases use suicide by cops as an alternative. Who's to say some D-bag won't follow a UOC group to one of there fairytale coffee shop meetings and open up? Chances might be pretty darn good that a person could draw there CCW and defuse a situation while the UOC's are playing fumble nuts with there empty guns. Last place I want to be is in the cross fire of UOC protesters. I really would rather take my chances on my own. Better yet if I saw a group of UOC's I would vacate the vicinity and find another coffee shop or Red Robin. Let's play the odds, there might be 2 out of 31 UOCs properly trained to operate there firearms in a defensive scenario. That's 2 people that might not shoot you. That leaves 29 that could easily end your life because they want to play hamburger store cowboy. I was all for UOC until there Facebook group meeting photos and You Tube videos started to surface. It's just not something that will ever be accepted here and the UOC's know this. Organized UOC gatherings are going to be perceived as a protest and not educational services to the non carrying public.
:beatdeadhorse5:

Foghlai
01-15-2011, 9:21 PM
A state statute nullifying the protections of the 4th A to look for evidence of criminal activity where no RAS exists to detain or PC to arrest, constitutional? JL vs Floridia, Terry vs Ohio...we'll see in the not too distant future...:43:

They were complient apparently, where is the suspicion of 602?

4th amendment protects only against unreasonable searches and seizures. The state law makes the search reasonable so it can't actually nullify the protections of the 4th.

I see what you are saying, that simply having a firearm cannot create reasonable suspicion of the crime of carrying a loaded firearm. However, I don't see it getting overturned as long as ccw is still being challenged.

As to the second point, I qualified the statement that IF they failed to comply it would give probable cause for an arrest under 602. The threat to enforce 602 is not unreasonable while attempting to enforce the statute, as the officer clearly was doing.

the_quark
01-15-2011, 9:23 PM
However, I don't see it getting overturned as long as ccw is still being challenged.


I assure you, if a defendant is up on charges where the (e) check was the dispotive point that allowed probable cause to search him, it will come up, and the state will lose.

AIMSMALL
01-16-2011, 2:00 AM
The part where the guy helps the officer remove the gun from the holster so the officer could check the gun made me cringe. I would feel very uncomfortable removing my gun from the holster like that. Also, If the LEO can't get the gun out on his own then thats his problem, the citizen is not required to help the officer perform the check AFAIK and it seems pretty dangerous to do so. What do you guys think?

bozochu
01-16-2011, 2:12 AM
Try People vs Strider- LOC in Compton baby!

Cool...Strider still went to jail for the drugs...plus its regarding carrying a loaded firearm on the person's own property...like I said...I want to see a video of UOC event on Crenshaw....

Andy Taylor
01-16-2011, 2:09 PM
They handed that to us after the cop already demanded we go outside, and even then, never said we had to leave. The mall security spoke almost no words at all.

Additionally, in a place generally open to the public like a mall, they can't just kick whomever they like out of the mall if no laws are violated. Even if one is in full violation of the code of conduct of the mall, does not mean a law is broken or grounds for expulsion.


Yes they can. It is private property. As long as they are not kicking you out for being Black, Gay, Female, or any other protected status they are fully within their rights to do so.

Andy Taylor
01-16-2011, 2:12 PM
Did you read the links I posted in the OP?



http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/response-to-easy-reader-article-gun-activists-kicked-out-of-restaurant-1

The mall cops can ask anyone to leave (doesn't mean you have to comply), that's not illegal, what is illegal is a cop threatening arrest for not breaking the law.



Yes you do. If you don't, then you are commiting the crime of Tresspassing CPC 602(K)

Andy Taylor
01-16-2011, 2:58 PM
Nice way to get all those people against open carry also if they weren't already. Sometimes I wonder if OC are the Brady campaigns best agents :confused:


Just like Obama is the #1 gun salesman.

sandman21
01-16-2011, 3:39 PM
Yes you do. If you don't, then you are commiting the crime of Tresspassing CPC 602(K)
Wrong, 602 requires that actual damage or an actual obstruction or interference with the property's business. If they were in the common area of the mall they are protected, the LEO had no authority to remove them from the property so his order is unlawful. Wallace (http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-wallace-22815)

arsilva32
01-16-2011, 4:07 PM
where i used to go hunting, i used to carry my side arm with me into town, it was no big deal.now i get people that see it gasping, and holding there kids near to them like i'm some kind of monster.it makes me sick that people are so inbred by the media's anti gun views, that they equate guns and criminal as the same thing.its totally ridiculous! i'm all for these open carry groups,perhaps if more people were used to seeing guns carried by law abiding citizens, they would be less inclined to vote for anti gun legislation.

turbosbox
01-16-2011, 8:36 PM
Wrong, 602 requires that actual damage or an actual obstruction or interference with the property's business. If they were in the common area of the mall they are protected, the LEO had no authority to remove them from the property so his order is unlawful. Wallace (http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-wallace-22815)

I read it, it seems they wiggled out based on the LEO said they were obstructing, when really they were interfering.

Didn't it say they were charged with theft for re-entering the fair without paying?

Trying to stay unwanted on private property will get you arrested. Go ahead, I'll laugh. Make sure you take a video of yourself being arrested also for us. Also don't ask us for donations for your legal fees. Those are supposed to be going towards legitimate expenses to change current laws, not bail out some troublemakers.

faterikcartman
01-16-2011, 9:15 PM
After watching all three videos, I think I understand better why some people here on CG are so opposed to open-carry groups.

I'm one of them too.

sandman21
01-16-2011, 9:49 PM
I read it, it seems they wiggled out based on the LEO said they were obstructing, when really they were interfering.
Didn't it say they were charged with theft for re-entering the fair without paying?
The AG made both claims. Yes they were charged but that was reversed, since it was illegal to have them removed.
Trying to stay unwanted on private property will get you arrested. Go ahead, I'll laugh. Make sure you take a video of yourself being arrested also for us. Also don't ask us for donations for your legal fees. Those are supposed to be going towards legitimate expenses to change current laws, not bail out some troublemakers.
Laugh all you want but you are wrong. I guess as long as you can own a firearm, you don't need any other rights, right? :rolleyes: under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins)

I'm one of them too.
Hang on. I'm not asking people to hold back per se. I'm asking people to focus their behavior in a direction that reflects a matter of fact demeanor instead of an "in your face" demeanor.

In the past I'd asked folks to stand down for two reasons. 1. I was concerned about UOCers being accidentally shot by uneducated law enforcement. 2. At the time, we had no 2A applicable to state action. Those things have changed. Now, the timing is such that it is less likely that UOC will be banned before the ground rules change. However, that doesn't mean that there is no likelihood that 1934 can come up again and pass. Recall microstamping took three rounds to get passed.

What Bill and I are asking is that UOCers just stick with unloaded handguns for now and I'm adding a request about being low key. That's not a lot to ask.

-Gene

turbosbox
01-16-2011, 10:05 PM
The AG made both claims. Yes they were charged but that was reversed, since it was illegal to have them removed.

Laugh all you want but you are wrong. I guess as long as you can own a firearm, you don't need any other rights, right? :rolleyes: under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins)

No, I think the individuals right to be not interfered with on their own private property is a more important right than another individuals right to trespass and interfere on someone else' private property whenever and however they feel like doing. Some people don't respect other people and their rights to be left alone do they? Being solicited or otherwise bothered is your right, damn theirs :(

Edit: It seems like you are not so familiar with penal codes, have you read up on all of them? Your absolutely certain disorderly conduct or loitering or any of the other things are NA when you trespass?

Liberty1
01-17-2011, 4:56 AM
Wrong, 602 requires that actual damage or an actual obstruction or interference with the property's business. If they were in the common area of the mall they are protected, the LEO had no authority to remove them from the property so his order is unlawful. Wallace (http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-wallace-22815)

That is 602j I see 602o applied by businesses/security/PD all the time. Find me 'o' case law. I want to read about that

Andy Taylor
01-17-2011, 8:01 AM
Wrong, 602 requires that actual damage or an actual obstruction or interference with the property's business. If they were in the common area of the mall they are protected, the LEO had no authority to remove them from the property so his order is unlawful. Wallace (http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-wallace-22815)


No you are wrong.

Shenaniguns
01-17-2011, 8:08 AM
Wrong, 602 requires that actual damage or an actual obstruction or interference with the property's business. If they were in the common area of the mall they are protected, the LEO had no authority to remove them from the property so his order is unlawful. Wallace (http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-wallace-22815)


Incorrect! And this is why UOC may be moving a step backwards when they are not 100% sure on the laws they may encounter.

mzimmers
01-17-2011, 8:31 AM
Laugh all you want but you are wrong. I guess as long as you can own a firearm, you don't need any other rights, right? :rolleyes: under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins)

It's kind of hard to tell from your post, but I'm curious: do you care at all about the image of gun owners in the eyes of the general public?

How about we keep this simple:


don't go onto private property where you're not welcome.
if you violate #1, and the property manager calls the police to remove you, don't try to make the cops out to be the bad guys here.
if you insist on violating #2, don't resort to snarky remarks like, "you guys (the cops) could be out fighting crime or something."


This thread has done more to turn me anti organized UOC than any of the well reasoned, eloquently stated posts by other antis.

Shenaniguns
01-17-2011, 8:36 AM
It's kind of hard to tell from your post, but I'm curious: do you care at all about the image of gun owners in the eyes of the general public?

How about we keep this simple:


don't go onto private property where you're not welcome.
if you violate #1, and the property manager calls the police to remove you, don't try to make the cops out to be the bad guys here.
if you insist on violating #2, don't resort to snarky remarks like, "you guys (the cops) could be out fighting crime or something."


This thread has done more to turn me anti organized UOC than any of the well reasoned, eloquently stated posts by other antis.



Well said!

GrizzlyGuy
01-17-2011, 8:45 AM
Laugh all you want but you are wrong. I guess as long as you can own a firearm, you don't need any other rights, right? :rolleyes: under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins)

A reasonable restriction would include not permitting firearms on the premises unless carried by law enforcement. Read this from the article you linked to:

Since Golden Gateway, decisions by the intermediate Courts of Appeal have generally limited the scope of the Pruneyard rule to the actual facts of the original case. For example, starting in 1997, the parking lots of many Costco warehouse club stores in California became sites of conflict involving a large number of political activist groups who had gradually become aware of their rights under Pruneyard. In 1998, Costco's management imposed several restrictions, including a complete ban on soliciting at stand-alone stores, a rule that no group or person could use Costco premises for free speech more than 5 days out of any 30, and the complete exclusion of solicitors on the 34 busiest days of the year.

In 2002, these restrictions were upheld as reasonable by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, and the Supreme Court of California denied review.

AFAIK, no court has yet ruled that UOC is symbolic speech protected either by the CA constitution or by 1A in the federal constitution. That would make it even harder to claim that a mall or retail store owner's no-firearms rule violates Pruneyard.

Patrick-2
01-17-2011, 10:51 AM
The core right protected by the First Amendment does not require a firearm. You could exercise the speech easily through pamphlet distribution, signs, protests...the regular gamut.

PETA tried the tactic various ways: claim that some item (dead animals, blood, etc.) are all part of the speech. Fail. The core speech is not being restricted when a physical object is prohibited. See also: anti-abortion rallies. Some were pretty grotesque, from what I recall of the articles.

Another example with more press: flag burners. The act of "burning" is protected speech...but it can be restricted for safety reasons. Somewhat circular, for sure. So the act can be banned not because of its 'content' but because of its safety implication.

If you want to see a case that links free speech to actual 2A exercise, check the Ezell case from the SAF. They challenge Chicago's gun range ban partly on the fact at least one appeals court ruled that gun training was protected free speech. BUT...that was in response to a cop teaching a CCW class in his off hours - his department did not like it and sanctioned him. He fought it and won.

Claiming the right to carry arms on your person in public under 1A is not smart at this time. Because even under 'content neutral' standards, the state can easily win the argument that the handgun is not core to the right. You can still say your piece...without a piece.

Remember: you have no recognized right to carry arms in public anywhere in California or in the United States (federal recognition). None. Nowhere. Zero. Zip. Pretending otherwise does nothing. UOC is a gift of the state, and they can regulate it any way they want. Until we win some court cases, this is the way it works. Say it in your head: "Guns are not protected outside the home...guns are not protected outside the home..."

It will change someday. But for now, this is the rule.


And as others have said, behaving poorly in public does nothing to further our cause. You can bet events like this are going to be used against us in CA soon. I don't see UOC surviving much longer.

Foghlai
01-17-2011, 10:56 AM
I assure you, if a defendant is up on charges where the (e) check was the dispotive point that allowed probable cause to search him, it will come up, and the state will lose.

Sure, but that wasn't the issue here. The point of contention was the carriers being kicked out of the restaurant/mall grounds under cpc 602.

DirtNapKing
01-17-2011, 11:15 AM
It's kind of hard to tell from your post, but I'm curious: do you care at all about the image of gun owners in the eyes of the general public?

How about we keep this simple:


don't go onto private property where you're not welcome.
if you violate #1, and the property manager calls the police to remove you, don't try to make the cops out to be the bad guys here.
if you insist on violating #2, don't resort to snarky remarks like, "you guys (the cops) could be out fighting crime or something."


This thread has done more to turn me anti organized UOC than any of the well reasoned, eloquently stated posts by other antis.I'm right there with you! In recent months as items started to surface I began to change my views on UOC. The polo shirts, black small framed shades, body language, and hand posturing of UOC's in videos make them look like posers. Maybe boot licker would be spot on. In order to complete the ensemble they should all wear UOC badges on there dress belts. Hell they're already in a not so subtle way impersonating a LEO. I have since withdrew from making contact with UOC's or debating in favor of the cause. This thread here put the final nail in the coffin.

sandman21
01-17-2011, 2:29 PM
That is 602j I see 602o applied by businesses/security/PD all the time. Find me 'o' case law. I want to read about that
602o applies to areas not open to the public and for activities not protected, but there still needs to be intent to obstruct or interfere. If you could apply 602o when someone was not interfering then you could arrest petitioners, or Wallace at the fair, it would be a run around Wallace and Pruneyard. SD sheriffs suggests telling the parties to seek civil action, which is what the officer should have politely told them, not threaten arrest.


http://www.sdsheriff.net/legalupdates/docs/FirstAmendmentExpressiveActivity.pdf



It's kind of hard to tell from your post, but I'm curious: do you care at all about the image of gun owners in the eyes of the general public?
Clearly I don’t, because I corrected someone on trespassing laws.

How about we keep this simple:


don't go onto private property where you're not welcome.
if you violate #1, and the property manager calls the police to remove you, don't try to make the cops out to be the bad guys here.
if you insist on violating #2, don't resort to snarky remarks like, "you guys (the cops) could be out fighting crime or something."


This thread has done more to turn me anti organized UOC than any of the well reasoned, eloquently stated posts by other antis.

So,

They have had events at this establishment, so no reason to believe they could not again
Left when asked to leave
So they didn’t insist on violating #2


Why exactly do you not like them? They followed your outline. The restaurant seated them not exactly sure how they were not welcomed.

A reasonable restriction would include not permitting firearms on the premises unless carried by law enforcement. Read this from the article you linked to:


AFAIK, no court has yet ruled that UOC is symbolic speech protected either by the CA constitution or by 1A in the federal constitution. That would make it even harder to claim that a mall or retail store owner's no-firearms rule violates Pruneyard.

I was originally addressing the fact that people think a property owner can have you charged with 602 if they ask you to leave for any reason. 602 requires intent to obstruct or interfere with the business, the LEO can politely ask you to leave; however you can’t be charged with trespassing. 602 does not require that it be protected by the 1A only a protected right by CA or Fed. I am NOT arguing that they should, or that they are absolutely protected, but if I were the LEO I would have politely asked them to leave, since they were not interfering or obstructing the mall or restaurant. I am also not saying they should protest the place etc.. The LEO should have referred them to handle the issue civilly.

No, I think the individuals right to be not interfered with on their own private property is a more important right than another individuals right to trespass and interfere on someone else' private property whenever and however they feel like doing. Some people don't respect other people and their rights to be left alone do they? Being solicited or otherwise bothered is your right, damn theirs :(

Edit: It seems like you are not so familiar with penal codes, have you read up on all of them? Your absolutely certain disorderly conduct or loitering or any of the other things are NA when you trespass?

A mall seeks to be a center for people to mingle as a means to gain business; they are not seeking to be left alone, nor are the people who go to the mall. Not being bothered in public is your right, damn there 1A. :confused:
If you do not ever want to be bothered by others, shop online or go to a store not open to the public.

No, disorderly conduct/loitering does not apply here, they were going about lawful business. Also the restaurant seated them, doesn’t sound like they were not welcomed. Should be interesting what the call was about and who it was from.

No you are wrong.

Incorrect! And this is why UOC may be moving a step backwards when they are not 100% sure on the laws they may encounter.

No, Colonel Sanders, you're wrong

justin_5585
01-17-2011, 2:44 PM
Having just watched the video, I believe you UOC guys acted in an antagonistic manner, and both LEO's treated you with much more respect than you were due. Even if they don't HAVE to perform the E-Check, they are also within the law to do so, just as they don't HAVE to pull over a speeder everytime. Furthermore, if you plan to exercise this right, plan to deal with different treatment, it just comes with the territory (whether it be from business owners, the public, whomever). Personally, if you had talked down to me as you did the Sergeant, I would have excercised some of my rights, and you would have been put through a full field sobriety, etc. To me UOC is the same as burning a flag. Yes it's legal, but all it does is draw unwanted attention and give folks ammunition against the 2A.

turbosbox
01-17-2011, 4:35 PM
602o applies to areas not open to the public and for activities not protected, but there still needs to be intent to obstruct or interfere. If you could apply 602o when someone was not interfering then you could arrest petitioners, or Wallace at the fair, it would be a run around Wallace and Pruneyard. SD sheriffs suggests telling the parties to seek civil action, which is what the officer should have politely told them, not threaten arrest.


http://www.sdsheriff.net/legalupdates/docs/FirstAmendmentExpressiveActivity.pdf




Not exactly true, in context this deals with protected speech in protected areas. Basically like labor protests or petition signing done outside a big mall or walmart. This is not the same as being kicked out of a small business. The small business is neither a public forum nor quasi public forum. So they do deserve the right to be left alone from protesters interfering with their business. Even in the case of "free speech" which gun toting is not in that category either. Double fail.


No, disorderly conduct/loitering does not apply here, they were going about lawful business. Also the restaurant seated them, doesn’t sound like they were not welcomed. Should be interesting what the call was about and who it was from.

Wrong again, e.g. on loitering if a group gathers at a place which dissuades others from going there, they can be charged with loitering. Disorderly conduct can be tacked on to trespassing by refusing to leave, or being under the influence etc. So yes, they both can apply. Might have several misdemeanors and wobblers (can be reduced to an infraction or dismissed if you have the $$$$ lawyer) not only one charge.
Keep providing incorrect information and hurting 2a rights, your doing great so far. Wonder what else will be banned before the misguided are finished.


My response in bold

sandman21
01-17-2011, 7:24 PM
Not exactly true, in context this deals with protected speech in protected areas. Basically like labor protests or petition signing done outside a big mall or walmart. This is not the same as being kicked out of a small business. The small business is neither a public forum nor quasi public forum. So they do deserve the right to be left alone from protesters interfering with their business. Even in the case of "free speech" which gun toting is not in that category either. Double fail.
Why are you taking my post out of context? I was not referring to UOC in that post, funny what happens when you assume?, I was referring to someone's incorrect belief that you can be charged with 602(k) when asked to leave property, 602(k) requires that there be actual interference or obstruction to the business not simply annoying the business. Note I have not said a thing about UOC.
The first time I say anything about UOC is here responding to GrizzlyGuy:
I was originally addressing the fact that people think a property owner can have you charged with 602 if they ask you to leave for any reason. 602 requires intent to obstruct or interfere with the business, the LEO can politely ask you to leave; however you can’t be charged with trespassing. 602 does not require that it be protected by the 1A only a protected right by CA or Fed. I am NOT arguing that they should, or that they are absolutely protected, but if I were the LEO I would have politely asked them to leave, since they were not interfering or obstructing the mall or restaurant. I am also not saying they should protest the place etc.. The LEO should have referred them to handle the issue civilly.
The post he is referring to again says nothing about UOC, he assumed I was saying Pruneyard would protect UOC. I was only posting Pruneyard to show you an example of when unwanted people could not be removed. Going back to my original post there needs to actual interference or obstruction to be charged under 602(k), I posted the SD pdf in reference to Liberty1's question, not a defense for UOC. A shopping center in CA is considered public;
A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins)

Because of the public character of the shopping center, however, the impairment of [the owner's] interest must be largely theoretical. [The owner] has fully opened his [sic] property to the public.... [It] suffers no significant harm in the deprivation of absolute power to prohibit peaceful picketing upon property to which it has invited the entire public.... The Supreme Court of the United States in Marsh ... describes the diluted nature of a property right in premises opened to the public." (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16573135873877844159&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

Wrong again, e.g. on loitering if a group gathers at a place which dissuades others from going there, they can be charged with loitering. Disorderly conduct can be tacked on to trespassing by refusing to leave, or being under the influence etc. So yes, they both can apply. Might have several misdemeanors and wobblers (can be reduced to an infraction or dismissed if you have the $$$$ lawyer) not only one charge.
Keep providing incorrect information and hurting 2a rights, your doing great so far. Wonder what else will be banned before the misguided are finished.
"loiter" means to delay or linger without a lawful purpose for being on the property and for the purpose of committing a crime as opportunity may be discovered. ( http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/647.html)
Before you start saying people are giving out incorrect information, how about you start including references other than your opinion. Also can you provide any proof that I have hurt our 2A rights, no? Shocker.

thomashoward
01-17-2011, 7:31 PM
oh? please see this:"Owning a gun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician." Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper

Cute, but stupid statement, my reply still stands

turbosbox
01-17-2011, 8:40 PM
Why are you taking my post out of context? I was not referring to UOC in that post, funny what happens when you assume?, I was referring to someone's incorrect belief that you can be charged with 602(k) when asked to leave property, 602(k) requires that there be actual interference or obstruction to the business not simply annoying the business. Note I have not said a thing about UOC.
The first time I say anything about UOC is here responding to GrizzlyGuy:

The post he is referring to again says nothing about UOC, he assumed I was saying Pruneyard would protect UOC. I was only posting Pruneyard to show you an example of when unwanted people could not be removed. Going back to my original post there needs to actual interference or obstruction to be charged under 602(k), I posted the SD pdf in reference to Liberty1's question, not a defense for UOC. A shopping center in CA is considered public;
A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins)

Because of the public character of the shopping center, however, the impairment of [the owner's] interest must be largely theoretical. [The owner] has fully opened his [sic] property to the public.... [It] suffers no significant harm in the deprivation of absolute power to prohibit peaceful picketing upon property to which it has invited the entire public.... The Supreme Court of the United States in Marsh ... describes the diluted nature of a property right in premises opened to the public." (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16573135873877844159&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)


"loiter" means to delay or linger without a lawful purpose for being on the property and for the purpose of committing a crime as opportunity may be discovered. ( http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/647.html)
Before you start saying people are giving out incorrect information, how about you start including references other than your opinion. Also can you provide any proof that I have hurt our 2A rights, no? Shocker.
Well, I'll just reply to your last statement as the penal codes has been pointed out already, in writing and in practice. People were kicked out did you miss that part?
Proof that you are contributing to hurting 2a rights, well people see your and others poor attitude and don't support it. I am one of them. I hold leases to several shopping center properties in California and could most likely, and now am much more inclined to have those shopping centers posted "no guns". As well as I will now have much less tolerance for anyone UOC. In the past I'd let it slide even if it scared off a few customers. Not likely now.
What in your mixed up mind have you done to further 2a in California?

sandman21
01-17-2011, 9:09 PM
Well, I'll just reply to your last statement as the penal codes has been pointed out already, in writing and in practice. People were kicked out did you miss that part?
Proof that you are contributing to hurting 2a rights, well people see your and others poor attitude and don't support it. I am one of them. I hold leases to several shopping center properties in California and could most likely, and now am much more inclined to have those shopping centers posted "no guns". As well as I will now have much less tolerance for anyone UOC. In the past I'd let it slide even if it scared off a few customers. Not likely now.
What in your mixed up mind have you done to further 2a in California?
Shocker you refuse to contribute anything to the discussion or at least acknowledge that you took my post out of context. You're supposed to be an adult to what you want, ban CCW and UOC. That certainly is how you educate the public. So I can ask the same question to you. :rolleyes:

turbosbox
01-17-2011, 9:32 PM
Shocker you refuse to contribute anything to the discussion or at least acknowledge that you took my post out of context. You're supposed to be an adult to what you want, ban CCW and UOC. That certainly is how you educate the public. So I can ask the same question to you. :rolleyes:

Yes, you have educated the public on something, I'll have to agree with you there.