PDA

View Full Version : UOC Event in Orange County, Sheriff checking registration


locosway
01-14-2011, 10:32 PM
http://m.ocregister.com/news/group-284245-guns-lake.html

LAKE FOREST – Expect to see a group of people carrying unloaded firearms in front of The Orchard shopping center on Sunday.

The group of about 10 is expected to be in front of the Corner Bakery from noon to 3 p.m. They will be passing out information about Second Amendment rights to educate the public about the legality of guns, sheriff's Deputy Richard Nelson said. The group called Lake Forest Police Services to inform them about the weekend plans.

"If they do it legally with their guns exposed – it's not against the law," Nelson said. "We will respond to any and all calls for service if residents have a concern. We will also make sure all the guns are properly registered. We expect them to be peaceful and law abiding citizens."

Last May a group led by Bob Serrao held a similar campaign at Towne Center in Foothill Ranch.

"We want to revive the American tradition of open carry and to exercise our Second Amendment rights to own and carry arms," Serrao, of Irvine, said at the time. "It's a way to educate people ... to help them retrust guns."

HondaMasterTech
01-14-2011, 10:38 PM
Maek Shoore yeur pehpers ahre ein oordeir!

wildhawker
01-14-2011, 10:38 PM
...and if they're not [registered]?

Nice that they articulated their plan to violate the Fourth before the event.

AndrewMendez
01-14-2011, 10:42 PM
Ouch...smells like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Can't wait for the video's of people going about their business, and cops hassling them about whether or not their guns are registered. I really hope this was just a "feel good" tactic by PD, and that they didn't infact admit to something illegal.

HondaMasterTech
01-14-2011, 10:48 PM
There is nothing illegal about them memorizing your serial number while doing an un-loaded check then running to their data base to check your guns registration. Notice how they didn't say, "make sure the guns are registered to the person carrying them".

locosway
01-14-2011, 10:49 PM
There is nothing illegal about them memorizing your serial number while doing an un-loaded check then running to their data base to check your guns registration. Notice how they didn't say, "make sure the guns are registered to the person carrying them".

I have a 1911 that's not registered, so what if I carried that?

NSR500
01-14-2011, 10:49 PM
Lawsuit :43:

Liberty1
01-14-2011, 10:50 PM
http://m.ocregister.com/news/group-284245-guns-lake.html

Oh, you could have so much fun with this. Go borrow an unregistered pre '96? '92? lawfully purchased handgun. Or bring shotguns...? Don't forget the sling.

wildhawker
01-14-2011, 10:52 PM
There is nothing illegal about them memorizing your serial number while doing an un-loaded check then running to their data base to check your guns registration. Notice how they didn't say, "make sure the guns are registered to the person carrying them".

You're incorrect. The very practice of (e) checks is unconstitutional, and therefore an unlawful policy.

Oh, you could have so much fun with this. Go borrow an unregistered pre '96? '92? lawfully purchased handgun. Or bring shotguns...? Don't forget the sling.

^ this.

HondaMasterTech
01-14-2011, 10:53 PM
I have a 1911 that's not registered, so what if I carried that?

They'd laugh because it isn't a Glock.

jpigeon
01-14-2011, 10:53 PM
I thought they could'nt check to see who the firearm is registered to. It's suppose to be an unloaded check...

Neuvik
01-14-2011, 10:54 PM
Aww, if I was there I'd totally bring a dragoon, and watch the frustration as they try to see who its registered to.

That sherrif sure sounds like a crooked critter, hope he wises up, or goes away.

locosway
01-14-2011, 10:55 PM
I thought they could'nt check to see who the firearm is registered to. It's suppose to be an unloaded check...

If the serial comes into their view and they memorize it, they may run it to see if it's stolen. Other than that, they can't search for it, and the only reason they're able to get close enough to see it in plain view is from the unconstitutional "e" check.

locosway
01-14-2011, 10:55 PM
Man, I don't UOC, but I'm soooo ready to go strap on my 1911 with my US GI holster just to mess with them...

HondaMasterTech
01-14-2011, 10:56 PM
You're incorrect. The very practice of (e) checks is unconstitutional, and therefore an unlawful policy.



^ this.

The constitutionality of laws doesn't matter until those laws are struck down for being unconstitutional.

Liberty1
01-14-2011, 10:59 PM
The constitutionality of laws doesn't matter until those laws are struck down for being unconstitutional.

Standby to standby!:43:

wildhawker
01-14-2011, 11:00 PM
The constitutionality of laws doesn't matter until those laws are struck down for being unconstitutional.

It does, indeed, matter, when those sworn to uphold the Constitution ignore it for their convenience. Something like this may very well prompt a challenge, and the OCSO just said that they ignore the Fourth until a Federal judge tells them otherwise. Sounds like an exhibit to me.

HondaMasterTech
01-14-2011, 11:11 PM
It does, indeed, matter, when those sworn to uphold the Constitution ignore it for their convenience. Something like this may very well prompt a challenge, and the OCSO just said that they ignore the Fourth until a Federal judge tells them otherwise. Sounds like an exhibit to me.

Want in one hand and so on and so forth. I just hope that the "other hand" is placed beneath a constipated hole because "want" is so much better.

locosway
01-14-2011, 11:33 PM
It does indeed look very close to the school. Measuring the distance on google maps shows that if they go the Eastern edge of the shopping center they'll violate the GFSZ. Hopefully they researched this and stay near the Corner Bakery as they stated.

RickD427
01-15-2011, 12:32 AM
You're incorrect. The very practice of (e) checks is unconstitutional, and therefore an unlawful policy.



^ this.

Wildhawker,

Can you please cite any published opinion that has held the 12031(e) check to be unconstitutional?

wildhawker
01-15-2011, 12:44 AM
Wildhawker,

Can you please cite any published opinion that has held the 12031(e) check to be unconstitutional?

Of course you're asking for a decision that doesn't exist [yet]. Can you find me any decisions which would indicate that an (e) check (or analogue) would not be considered an unlawful search? You'll, of course, agree that lawful activity is not PC to stop and search, wouldn't you?

tozan
01-15-2011, 1:04 AM
When are we going to strike at the Registration thing too. That is so unfair that most handguns may not actually be registered (I think that is good) Yet new people have to register them.... (I think that is very bad)

NotEnufGarage
01-15-2011, 5:42 AM
Oh, you could have so much fun with this. Go borrow an unregistered pre '96? '92? lawfully purchased handgun. Or bring shotguns...? Don't forget the sling.

I think it's pre 1998, but can one of the legal beagles verify that for us?

CitaDeL
01-15-2011, 6:39 AM
Standby to standby!:43:

Standing by!


Hysterical- So if the Sheriff announces that they will be violating the 4th Amendment and then goes and then violates it while being videotaped and audio recorded, that would be like extra 'bad' for them wouldn't it?

devilinblack
01-15-2011, 7:28 AM
Don't some revolvers have the serial number under the grip? I know this was discussed at some point. That would seem to be the perfect UOC gun if you really want to irritate them.

ImPo
01-15-2011, 8:06 AM
I believe you can cover your serial number as long as the modification isn't permanent such as a small piece of electrical tape. For the Officer to access your covered serial number would infact be a direct violation of your 4th, unless you GIVE them PC.

jpigeon
01-15-2011, 8:11 AM
Standby to standby!:43:

Lets get ready to get ready...

GrizzlyGuy
01-15-2011, 8:12 AM
I believe you can cover your serial number as long as the modification isn't permanent such as a small piece of electrical tape. For the Officer to access your covered serial number would infact be a direct violation of your 4th, unless you GIVE them PC.

Covering the serial number with tape is not a good idea (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5609810#post5609810) and may even be illegal (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5607872#post5607872).

Lone_Gunman
01-15-2011, 8:15 AM
I really want to CCW at an OC event. Or maybe announce a CCW event somewhere. I know it defeats the purpose of CCW ot annonuce it but it would be a cool outreach.

El Gato
01-15-2011, 8:29 AM
...and if they're not [registered]?

Nice that they articulated their plan to violate the Fourth before the event.

The collective intelligence of Police administrators underwhelms me....

Some can be brilliant...
and then the brilliant can have their IQ's sucked dry by those promoted to their highest level of incompetence...

or perhaps I am cynical...after 24 years as a public servant...

El Gato
01-15-2011, 8:31 AM
Of course you're asking for a decision that doesn't exist [yet]. Can you find me any decisions which would indicate that an (e) check (or analogue) would not be considered an unlawful search? You'll, of course, agree that lawful activity is not PC to stop and search, wouldn't you?

or perhaps an unlawful detention...

My attorney charges by the minute officer...:D

ImPo
01-15-2011, 8:37 AM
Covering the serial number with tape is not a good idea (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5609810#post5609810) and may even be illegal (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5607872#post5607872).

I stand corrected. Penal code 537e.
Crazy how I've seen fellow UOCers doing this without issue, even during an e check the officer didn't mention it.

+1 to the memory bank.

HowardW56
01-15-2011, 8:59 AM
I am not an open carry fan, but I would hope that everyone who has an older revolver where the serial number in concealed under the grips, carries those guns...

The Shadow
01-15-2011, 9:10 AM
Aww, if I was there I'd totally bring a dragoon, and watch the frustration as they try to see who its registered to.

That sherrif sure sounds like a crooked critter, hope he wises up, or goes away.

I'd go one better and put powder and bullet in the cylinder but leave the cap off, and then shove it in my waist band. According to the penal code, it's not considered a firearm if it was made prior to 1898 or a replica thereof, and not loaded. According to the penal code, a black powder revolver has to have powder, bullet and cap to be considered loaded.

That could be fun.

Dutch3
01-15-2011, 9:50 AM
According to the penal code, a black powder revolver has to have powder, bullet and cap to be considered loaded.

That could be fun.

I expect the "fun" would include being detained and probably arrested. I'm sure they would eventually find someone with sufficient reading comprehension to determine it is actually legal, but it doesn't sound like a fun way to spend a day to me.

-D

The Shadow
01-15-2011, 9:52 AM
I expect the "fun" would include being detained and probably arrested. I'm sure they would eventually find someone with sufficient reading comprehension to determine it is actually legal, but it doesn't sound like a fun way to spend a day to me.

-D

Ah, but think about the tsunami that could be generated in that department when the unlawful arrest suit is filed. Spending a day in the can isn't all that bad; inconvenient, yes, but not bad.

I might also add that since it's not a firearm, the paperwork to get it back does not need to be filed, just as no DROS needs to be done when buying one.

EDIT: I personally like this one for a pre 20th century revolver. Ironically, it's a police revolver.

http://www.time-slice.com/mohave.gambler/favorites/Remington/Rem_pocket_pistol/MVC-426S.JPG

Dutch3
01-15-2011, 10:09 AM
Ah, but think about the tsunami that could be generated in that department when the unlawful arrest suit is filed. Spending a day in the can isn't all that bad; inconvenient, yes, but not bad.

I might also add that since it's not a firearm, the paperwork to get it back does not need to be filed, just as no DROS needs to be done when buying one.


I suppose if I had cash for bail money and a lawyer and nothing better to do...

It would likely take longer for them to figure out they could just hand it back to you than it did to determine it wasn't "loaded" in the first place.

I like the "police" Remingtons as well. I am thinking about picking one up to complement my 1858 .44.

-D

choprzrul
01-15-2011, 10:09 AM
Don't some revolvers have the serial number under the grip? I know this was discussed at some point. That would seem to be the perfect UOC gun if you really want to irritate them.

I have a Llama Commanche III .357 that has the serial number under the grip. Perfect for these types of operations.

.

choprzrul
01-15-2011, 10:11 AM
How long until we start seeing 'Ambulance Chaser' lawyers showing up at these types of events? I am actually surprised that none have done it yet???

.

Liberty1
01-15-2011, 10:35 AM
...and then shove it in my waist band. According to the penal code, it's not considered a firearm if it was made prior to 1898...

That could be fun.

For the purposes of purchase and registration yes. But 626.9, 12031 & 12025 do apply. A felony 626.9 or 12025 would not be fun.

Librarian
01-15-2011, 10:50 AM
I think it's pre 1998, but can one of the legal beagles verify that for us?

Pre-1991 for firearms in California then and not transferred since; pre-1998 for firearms moved here by people moving from out of state.

See the Wiki article on registration: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Firearms_registration

Cokebottle
01-15-2011, 10:52 AM
There is nothing illegal about them memorizing your serial number while doing an un-loaded check then running to their data base to check your guns registration. Notice how they didn't say, "make sure the guns are registered to the person carrying them".
There is no legal requirement that handguns be registered in the State of California unless they were involved in a transfer after registration was required.

CSACANNONEER
01-15-2011, 10:55 AM
I have a Llama Commanche III .357 that has the serial number under the grip. Perfect for these types of operations.

.

That's a start but, I'd like to see how they would handle a homebuilt handgun without any identfying marks or registration.

RickD427
01-15-2011, 11:19 AM
Of course you're asking for a decision that doesn't exist [yet]. Can you find me any decisions which would indicate that an (e) check (or analogue) would not be considered an unlawful search? You'll, of course, agree that lawful activity is not PC to stop and search, wouldn't you?

Wildhawker,

Please check out U.S. v Brady (819 F. 2d 884). It’s a Ninth Circuit case that upheld the application of section 12031(e) to a search that ultimately led to the conviction of the defendant. The Brady opinion also references several other state court decisions that let to its’ conclusion “the prevailing view is that the police may inspect a firearm which they know is in a vehicle, regardless of whether they have probable cause to believe that it is loaded.” The Brady opinion also dismissed the reasoning of one California court that held officers must have probable cause to believe that a firearm is loaded before 12031(e) would be triggered.

I do agree with you that lawful activity does not provide “Probable Cause” for officers to conduct a search.

But it’s also important to remember that not all searches have their basis in “Probable Cause.” The Fourth Amendment requires that all searches be reasonable and it requires that warrants be supported by probable cause. It does not require probable cause for all searches, nor does it require a warrant for all searches.

A search conducted under 12031(e) is not based on “Probable Cause” – The Brady decision makes that point clear. There’s a rapidly growing body of law governing “Special Needs” searches (like the TSA inspection checkpoints, DUI checkpoints, and the agriculture checkpoints at our state borders). These searches are deemed “reasonable” for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment because of the public safety issues concerned, and the searches are limited by that objective, even though no “Probable Cause” exists.

Librarian
01-15-2011, 12:07 PM
Alternatively, Triviz derived authority for the search from California Penal Code Sec. 12031(e). Section 12031 prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle in a public place, and subsection (e) authorizes the police to examine a firearm to determine whether it is loaded. Some California courts have held that the police must have probable cause to believe that a firearm is loaded before they may inspect it. See, e.g., People v. Kern, 93 Cal.App.3d 779, 782-83, 155 Cal.Rptr. 877, 879 (1979). However, the prevailing view is that the police may inspect a firearm which they know is in a vehicle, regardless of whether they have probable cause to believe that it is loaded. People v. Azevedo, 161 Cal.App.3d 235, 244, 207 Cal.Rptr. 270, 275-76 (1984) (following People v. Zonver, 132 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 183 Cal.Rptr. 214 (1982)); People v. Greer, 110 Cal.App.3d 235, 238-39, 167 Cal.Rptr. 762, 764 (1980); People v. DeLong, 11 Cal.App.3d 786, 791, 90 Cal.Rptr. 193, 195-96 (1970). http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/819/819.F2d.884.86-5305.html

No time now to see if there is anything post-1987; thanks for the cite, RickD427.

N6ATF
01-15-2011, 12:17 PM
...and if they're not [registered]?

Nice that they articulated their plan to violate the Fourth before the event.

Too late for a TRO?

sandman21
01-15-2011, 2:01 PM
Wildhawker,

Please check out U.S. v Brady (819 F. 2d 884). It’s a Ninth Circuit case that upheld the application of section 12031(e) to a search that ultimately led to the conviction of the defendant. The Brady opinion also references several other state court decisions that let to its’ conclusion “the prevailing view is that the police may inspect a firearm which they know is in a vehicle, regardless of whether they have probable cause to believe that it is loaded.” The Brady opinion also dismissed the reasoning of one California court that held officers must have probable cause to believe that a firearm is loaded before 12031(e) would be triggered.

I do agree with you that lawful activity does not provide “Probable Cause” for officers to conduct a search.
A search conducted under 12031(e) is not based on “Probable Cause” – The Brady decision makes that point clear. There’s a rapidly growing body of law governing “Special Needs” searches (like the TSA inspection checkpoints, DUI checkpoints, and the agriculture checkpoints at our state borders). These searches are deemed “reasonable” for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment because of the public safety issues concerned, and the searches are limited by that objective, even though no “Probable Cause” exists.
The law you are looking for is People v. Delong (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9198776167281524603&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), which still fails Terry v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio) and Florida v. J.L. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.)

Nice little write up about stops posted by Liberty1. Chief’s Counsel: Responding to Gun Possession Reports (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=65109)

I still can't believe people think that an e-check is constitutional, if the SCOTUS wanted an exceptions for firearms it could have made one. How does a gun rights advocate count to 10? 1,2,......,10

The Shadow
01-15-2011, 2:05 PM
For the purposes of purchase and registration yes. But 626.9, 12031 & 12025 do apply. A felony 626.9 or 12025 would not be fun.

Oh, no kidding. Well that sucks. So it's selective. No surprise there.

EWILKE
01-15-2011, 5:47 PM
UOC is happening more often. I'm not sure if this is the right time to be doing this.Out of sight out of mind comes to mind right now.

mycrstuff
01-15-2011, 6:25 PM
If you really want to drive the authorities nuts buy a new pistol that has a loaded chamber indicator. Find a holster that when the pistol is in it has the loaded chamber indicator visible. If the police want to check your gun to see if it is loaded point to the loaded chamber indicator and refuse to unholster your pistol. If they give you a hassle show them a copy of the California safe handgun laws showing the requirement for the loaded chamber indicator. Then tell them that you pistol meets the STATE MANDATED safety requirements and that they can tell that it is unloaded without them touching your pistol. That should really piss them off.

N6ATF
01-15-2011, 6:27 PM
They'll just claim you could have tampered with it, short of a chamber clear flag.

The Shadow
01-15-2011, 6:44 PM
If you really want to drive the authorities nuts buy a new pistol that has a loaded chamber indicator. Find a holster that when the pistol is in it has the loaded chamber indicator visible. If the police want to check your gun to see if it is loaded point to the loaded chamber indicator and refuse to unholster your pistol. If they give you a hassle show them a copy of the California safe handgun laws showing the requirement for the loaded chamber indicator. Then tell them that you pistol meets the STATE MANDATED safety requirements and that they can tell that it is unloaded without them touching your pistol. That should really piss them off.

On an XD, realistically you have two chamber indicators. however, the firing pin indicator will give a false representation that a round is in it if you don't pull the trigger after removing ammunition from the gun.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:07 AM
Well - at the corner bakery. Two guys showed up with guns. Nobody seemed to care.

Couple if journalists who are asking questions.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:08 AM
TV crew now here.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:10 AM
Oh - somebody is leaving - but I think it's because they are done with lunch.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:19 AM
A guy named Robert is leading - he now has a small crowd and is giving a very good public information discussion.

Fjold
01-16-2011, 11:21 AM
I stand corrected. Penal code 537e.
Crazy how I've seen fellow UOCers doing this without issue, even during an e check the officer didn't mention it.

+1 to the memory bank.

That's one of the big problems with the UOC movement, too many people involved don't know the law.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:27 AM
Crowd of protectors now on other side of street.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:28 AM
Can't edit from phone - meant protesters.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:30 AM
Police just showed up.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:31 AM
Two cars.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:32 AM
I think the corner bakery guy called because the register lady kept taking pictures with the bakery in te back.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:33 AM
Yep - hahaha - the policy were called because the corner bakery want people to not take picture or video of the bakery.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:37 AM
First guy is being detained - he was searched and they are runnin the serial numbers.

the_quark
01-16-2011, 11:40 AM
First guy is being detained - he was searched and they are runnin the serial numbers.

I am curious what the legal authority to run the serial numbers is. Law says they can check to see if it's unloaded - once they've done that, they have absolutely no probable cause for anything.

Unfortunately, it's probably difficult to challenge this unless they actually detain someone for having a stolen weapon.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:45 AM
Second guy - detaine, e checked, searched, running gun.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:51 AM
Abc news has now arrived. Second guy is still being detained.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 11:55 AM
When I wasn't paying attention two more Leo cars showed up - now four

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 12:02 PM
Now it's a three ring circus. Between the media and police

meaty-btz
01-16-2011, 12:06 PM
SO, do we have video evidence of the 4th Violations? Today could cost them a ton of money.

Also, this is where UOCers perhaps shows the weakness of the movement. Individual desensitization by carry is vulnerable to violations due to it being a lone individual easy to single out and attack. The group movements turn into media events and three ring circuses between the Protestors (who invited them?), the Media, and the Police.

This is also essentially teh same as the BPP LOC Carry when the police would show up to Civil Rights Protests, etc. Three Ring Circus.

Dutch3
01-16-2011, 12:07 PM
Thank you for the onsite commentary, AVgunGUY.

I was wondering how this was going to play out today.

-D

CitaDeL
01-16-2011, 12:13 PM
:useless:

I hope we also have solid video and audio recording of the searches. Perhaps it will be captured by news media as well.

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 12:24 PM
I'll post what I got when I get home - video that is - all the UPC guys had video.

Shadowdrop
01-16-2011, 12:28 PM
Cursory searches should not have been performed. Subjects should not have been detained beyond the weapon condition check. If the serial comes into plain view during the (e) check, they are allowed to run the number, however; they technically shouldn't be detaining them during this time. 12031(e) is very clear about the extent of this detention and it should not continue past the weapon check.

The OCSD training memo instructs their deputies to over-step their boundaries in the exact fashion that AVgunGuy is describing. It also states that the person must identify themselves to the officers. I hope these guys are documenting their encounters thoroughly...

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 1:03 PM
OK - video to come as soon as i get it transfered.

I showed up about 11:50 with my son to have lunch - Saw the UOC guys in the parking lot as we rolled up. There were three, all professionally dressed and generally good representatives of the community. Absolutely nothing happened at noon when they sat down to start the afternoon - it was the usual seen at the Corner Bakery - shoppers, parents, kids, etc. Nobody gave the three guys and their party much notice.

About 12:10 the Register showed up with video bloggers and a reporter. They sat with the UOC group as the lead guy (Robert - IMO, not self proclaimed) went through the movement and the rules. The reporters took good notes. During this time the Anti protest started across the street. The OC Sheriff showed up about 12:20 or so - not in any real hurry, no drama. In fact, as i mentioned above, there was a little commotion between the news agencies and the Corner Bakery because the Bakery didn't want any video or pictures taken on the property - when the policy showed up, the first one to talk with them was the Bakery manager who was not concerned about the UOC, but didn't want video or pics - kind of says a lot.

Once the OCSO decided they were ready, they approached the group and asked who was involved and everyone gave them a bit of a blank look, which was funny. The deputy then went around to do a visual count of who was carrying and who wasn't. There were three total.

The officer then explained that he would be checking the gun and make sure no laws were broken (he was addressing one of the three guys - they weren't sitting at the same table). The guy then (and I think he was new to the process) went to draw his guy to show that it wasn't loaded. The deputy didn't over reach - just asked him to leave it in the holster and step behind the police car. He did.

Once behind the police car, the depute removed the gun, checked to make sure it wasn't loaded and handed it to a second deputy. The first deputy then had the guy put his hand behind his back so that he could hold them in that position while he did a pat down of the guy. The second deputy then wrote down the serial number to the gun on a pad of paper. The second deputy handed the guy to a third deputy while he went to another car to run the serial number. From my vantage point it looked like the first deputy was explaining what was happening to the UOC guy - The first UOC guy didn't seem to say much. Again, he didn't look as experienced in the process.

The second deputy then returned, took the gun from the third deputy, who in turn handed to the first deputy. The first deputy then re-holstered the gun and let the UOC guy return to the table.

The second UOC guy (Robert) went through the same process, but it looked like he was doing more protesting regarding the search and the serial number check.

The third guy followed the same way.

The two more experienced UOC guys had video that they started prior to sitting down. I'm not sure that anyone from a news agency got enough footage of the detainments because they lasted about 10 to 12 minutes each. They were more interested in getting action type footage. Obviously the two UOC guys had full video - and Robert appeared to have his video in his hand so that when he was being searched and detained he maintained the officers in the camera - so video and audio - not just the audio.

As a side note, as all this is happening, there are moms, with their kids, and everyone else under the sun heading in and out of the Bakery for lunch - most of whom slowed only to ask what was going on and then gave a shrug and continued - nobody was have anxiety over the fact that three guys with guns were having lunch.

I'll have some video here in a minute... Some warnings on the video - my son is 8 and he insisted on being the camera guy - so there are some fingers here and there in the video. What I didn't get was any video of the detentions or the length (my bad - first UOC event and wasn't ready). I did speak with Robert though and let him know that I had heard about the event on Calguns - so I'm guessing he'll check this out and perhaps post his video here.

thrillhouse700
01-16-2011, 1:11 PM
HAHA the anti protesters looked like they were all from leisure world!!!

I didn't see anyone I recognized, plenty of police and abc 7 news van though. Honestly, it didn't look as if any local shoppers or diners were in the slightest amount of worry. I take that as a good sign. From what I saw the anti's were a small crowd.

wildhawker
01-16-2011, 1:12 PM
I'm going to predict that we see 12031(e) checks become longer in duration over the next few months, especially in those larger/well-funded jurisdictions with a real Sacto presence.

The longer the stops, the more they can waive the "UOC wastes LE time" flag.

CitaDeL
01-16-2011, 1:25 PM
I'm going to predict that we see 12031(e) checks become longer in duration over the next few months, especially in those larger/well-funded jurisdictions with a real Sacto presence.

The longer the stops, the more they can waive the "UOC wastes LE time" flag.

How is that going to resonate juxtaposed against multiple violations of the Forth Amendment?


The 12031(e) inspection is not mandated, but discretionary.
Taking the added time to Terry stop and frisk each armed person is over reaching the 4A.
Then digging further, having ascertained the weapons were carried in compliance to 12031, they search for serial numbers to run for registration, stolen, etc.

If it can be communicated effectively that UOC takes up too much of their valued time- Im sure it can be equally effective to expose that their time was spent violating people's rights where no crime had been commited.

Librarian
01-16-2011, 1:29 PM
I'm going to predict that we see 12031(e) checks become longer in duration over the next few months, especially in those larger/well-funded jurisdictions with a real Sacto presence.

The longer the stops, the more they can waive the "UOC wastes LE time" flag.

So, what we need is video where LEO does it quickly and efficiently, so we can point out it need not take much time at all, and we wonder why some places can't get it right, or why some jurisdictions choose to expend scarce resources on a non-issue.

CitaDeL
01-16-2011, 1:32 PM
So, what we need is video where LEO does it quickly and efficiently, so we can point out it need not take much time at all, and we wonder why some places can't get it right, or why some jurisdictions choose to expend scarce resources on a non-issue.

We already have that video...Actually, a few of them. Most of the videos are under 3 minutes. The one the runs over, the officer checks more than one firearm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7H3oOiYn7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFzH5Oe-YL4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQDJdurpUsA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3mF7opZ_sI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxP9yaEcNm0

wildhawker
01-16-2011, 1:33 PM
How is that going to resonate juxtaposed against multiple violations of the Forth Amendment?


The 12031(e) inspection is not mandated, but discretionary.
Taking the added time to Terry stop and frisk each armed person is over reaching the 4A.
Then digging further, having ascertained the weapons were carried in compliance to 12031, they search for serial numbers to run for registration, stolen, etc.

If it can be communicated effectively that UOC takes up too much of their valued time- Im sure it can be equally effective to expose that their time was spent violating people's rights where no crime had been commited.

I think, and I am sure you'd agree, that concern for civil rights is not the priority of law enforcement. The problem is that most people, and nearly all legislators, will side with the violators on this issue.

So, what we need is video where LEO does it quickly and efficiently, so we can point out it need not take much time at all, and we wonder why some places can't get it right, or why some jurisdictions choose to expend scarce resources on a non-issue.

As CitaDel said, it's out there. The practical problem is - it doesn't matter (except to us).

$P-Ritch$
01-16-2011, 1:34 PM
So, what we need is video where LEO does it quickly and efficiently, so we can point out it need not take much time at all, and we wonder why some places can't get it right, or why some jurisdictions choose to expend scarce resources on a non-issue.

There was a video a few months back posted on by an UOC'er that seemed to take less than 90 secs.

Pretty much the cop asked if he was one of those open carry guys and if the gun was loaded. The UOC'er responded that it was not. The cop took the pistol from the holster, checked it, then reholstered it. After that he wished the UOC'er a good night and left.

I just wish I could remember the name of the guy that posted it.

oldsmoboat
01-16-2011, 1:42 PM
There was a video a few months back posted on by an UOC'er that seemed to take less than 90 secs.

Pretty much the cop asked if he was one of those open carry guys and if the gun was loaded. The UOC'er responded that it was not. The cop took the pistol from the holster, checked it, then reholstered it. After that he wished the UOC'er a good night and left.

I just wish I could remember the name of the guy that posted it.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=367110

You Tube link:
http://www.youtube.com/v/ZFzH5Oe-YL4

sandman21
01-16-2011, 2:08 PM
2 in around 3:00
r3mF7opZ_sI

1:15
NQDJdurpUsA&NR=1

1:52
XxP9yaEcNm0&feature=related

N6ATF
01-16-2011, 2:29 PM
There was a video a few months back posted on by an UOC'er that seemed to take less than 90 secs.

Pretty much the cop asked if he was one of those open carry guys and if the gun was loaded. The UOC'er responded that it was not. The cop took the pistol from the holster, checked it, then reholstered it. After that he wished the UOC'er a good night and left.

I just wish I could remember the name of the guy that posted it.

Even better was the one where the cop asked if it was loaded, the UOCer said no, the cop said have a nice day and left. No civil rights violation, barely any time spent at all!

Librarian
01-16-2011, 2:54 PM
I think, and I am sure you'd agree, that concern for civil rights is not the priority of law enforcement. The problem is that most people, and nearly all legislators, will side with the violators on this issue.



As CitaDel said, it's out there. The practical problem is - it doesn't matter (except to us).

Any way we can make it matter? Failing a friendly media outlet, I don't see how we can run counter-propaganda.

'XYZ department handles open carriers thoroughly in less than two minutes - why does it take ABC department ten?'

'XYZ department follows California law and checks what is allowed; why does ABC department exceed their authority?'

('propaganda', BTW, is the generic for 'information intended to persuade'; I know it has some negative connotations.)

wildhawker
01-16-2011, 3:02 PM
Well, to bifurcate the question:

"Is there any way to make it matter [to someone]"?

Yes, I think that most of our community would share in our concern of the (e) checks. Some, even here, think it 'serves [them] right', so we'll likely not achieve critical mass (leading to any sort of effective grassroots action).

"Is there any way to make it matter [to the public or legislators]"?

Yes and no. I think that a Federal court ruling that (e) checks are unconstitutional will create some awareness and a more sympathetic public. Legislators will probably ignore it and, I'd predict, attempt to pass a law requiring some sort of preemptive disclosure and waiver of 4A with respect to all carry of firearms (I assume, also, that UOC will be banned this cycle).

Sgt Raven
01-16-2011, 4:06 PM
There is nothing illegal about them memorizing your serial number while doing an un-loaded check then running to their data base to check your guns registration. Notice how they didn't say, "make sure the guns are registered to the person carrying them".

Why would the nice police officer need to take the TRL1 light off my Glock to see if the pistol is unloaded? :confused:

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 4:10 PM
OK

Before all the comments -

a) The Video was shot by son (8 years old)
b) I obviously have no idea how to edit this thing
c) It took me several hours to figure out how to get it from my phone, to my computer to somewhere on the internet and then linked to here.

HERE IS THE VIDEO (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4500509/UOC.mov)

If someone wants to "fix" it, I have it set up so that it can be downloaded (I think) - I'm not sure how long this link works either - so if someone wants to move please feel free. I'll work on my video skills for next time...:D

thrillhouse700
01-16-2011, 4:13 PM
No way to swing it right side up?

Dutch3
01-16-2011, 5:53 PM
Coverage of the event from the OC Register:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/people-284334-gun-guns.html

NightOwl
01-16-2011, 5:57 PM
A brief quote from the article:
Lake Forest Councilwoman Marcia Rudolph showed up after protestors had moved away from restaurant.
"I came to support the Corner Bakery for allowing them to be here," she said, handing Cowdell a copy of the Constitution. "I spent my money and saw they wimped out. We have to support the Constitution. From my perspective Open Carry people are as dangerous as Tea Partiers. This is a free country."


That's some quality politician ya all have down there. :rolleyes:

Cokebottle
01-16-2011, 6:02 PM
I spent my money and saw they wimped out. We have to support the Constitution. From my perspective Open Carry people are as dangerous as Tea Partiers
I'm not quite sure how to read this.

It seems that she's in our 2A camp, but that is a dangerous soundbyte to put out there.

mustang454
01-16-2011, 6:06 PM
There is nothing illegal about them memorizing your serial number while doing an un-loaded check then running to their data base to check your guns registration. Notice how they didn't say, "make sure the guns are registered to the person carrying them".

Why not cover your serial number up before hand?

HondaMasterTech
01-16-2011, 6:13 PM
Why would the nice police officer need to take the TRL1 light off my Glock to see if the pistol is unloaded? :confused:

The officer wouldn't need to remove your light from the pistol. The officer would look at the barrel or slide instead.

CitaDeL
01-16-2011, 6:20 PM
I'm not quite sure how to read this.

It seems that she's in our 2A camp, but that is a dangerous soundbyte to put out there.

Samuel Adams was pretty dangerous in his day... But I wouldnt have it any other way- else we would be sipping tea in the afternoon, governed by a monarch across the ocean and speaking English. (Well, it would still be different...)

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 6:29 PM
No way to swing it right side up?

I'm sure there is - i'm even sure that I have the computer and software to do it - but i can't figure it out - after a couple hours i've given up. Next time i know to hold the iphone landscape.... :confused:

AVgunGUY
01-16-2011, 7:00 PM
Coverage of the event from the OC Register:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/people-284334-gun-guns.html

If you follow the link and then go to the bottom there is a section to link to the other photos for the article. There is one where you can see the guy being detained, hands behind his back as the officer is giving a pat down.

dantodd
01-16-2011, 7:38 PM
As CitaDel said, it's out there. The practical problem is - it doesn't matter (except to us).

And frankly, it doesn't even REALLY matter to us. None of the people who have had their 4A rights violated have really cared enough to do anything about it. Further, once the UOC ban passes this session which is absolutely going to happen, and as emergency legislation, 12031(e) becomes moot.

locosway
01-16-2011, 7:44 PM
I'm not quite sure how to read this.

It seems that she's in our 2A camp, but that is a dangerous soundbyte to put out there.

I have no idea what she means by that either... Is she saying that OC is harmless, like the tea partiers... or is it very dangerous to the government and politicians and that's why the state is trying to ban it?

$P-Ritch$
01-16-2011, 7:56 PM
I have no idea what she means by that either... Is she saying that OC is harmless, like the tea partiers... or is it very dangerous to the government and politicians and that's why the state is trying to ban it?


I read it as the goverment should beware because the people aren't going to take it anymore.

Then she also seemed annoyed that the bakery did not want to be associated with a "pro-constitution" group. This, after she bought a muffin or whatever as a sign of support to the business.

locosway
01-16-2011, 7:57 PM
I just saw the video... I think that the protesters and the LEO's "hanging out" made the situation seem like there was a dead body somewhere. I can't blame the Bakery for asking people to leave.

If the LEO's just took off after they found no evidence of a crime there wouldn't be any issues with them staying there all day.

glbtrottr
01-16-2011, 10:38 PM
* Robert, the gentleman running the event, wasn't as aware of Calguns. He will be joining the forum, he said.

* Originally, a2 UOC'ers showed up. We observed from a distance, intentionally. A Sheriff's car drove by, and kept on going. It wasn't until nearly 45 minutes later that 4 marked units showed up.

* While the UOC'ers were peacebly hanging out, several reporters descended upon them; a blogger, various people from OC register, and eyewitness news. The commotion was caused or precipitated by the Brady bunch as well as the media. It was really the media that caused the disruption, approaching nearly every patron in the neighborhood to get their reactive opinion.

* The media also opted to interview CHILDREN and write their name on the record. It was not until one of the parents, a UOC'er, specifically asked the reporter to move the kid's name from the record.

* While the UOC'ers were sitting down, having paid for their meals, the Brady protesters kept swarming, like sharks in the water, with hateful stares and ludicrous signs. One man in his 70's, looking frightened, held up a sign that said "Alcohol and Open carry don't mix". Interestingly, I don't believe that Corner Bakery sold alcohol, and I failed to see the relevance. The rest of the protesters kept on harrassing the management of Corner Bakery; this is what prompted the call to Corner Bakery and Mall management.

* The Corner Bakery manager came out and spoke to the group, specifically stating that Corner Bakery had a very strict "No Media in the Premises" policy. Unfortunately, none of the media cared - Eyewitness News kept flashing their camera at everyone involved - really very annoying.

* After the Sheriff showed up, a couple of ladies showed up to be in the middle of it all; one was specifically asked by the Police to move away so they could conduct their 12031 e-checks; she ignored them and kept hovering.

* The Brady Bunchers were asked to move off premises as they were being disruptive; eventually, the UOC'ers were also asked to move off the premises.

* The Sheriff's didn't just happen to respond to a call; The main gentleman who originally responded stated that he's the Deputy in charge of protests, coordination, and public matters.

* The same Sheriff, along with the Sergeant who showed up, specifically stated that all of the UOC'ers would not only be subjected to 12031 e-checks, but also stated that all of the serial numbers would be run to ensure that none of the guns were "stolen".

* After being detained, each of the UOC'ers specifically had their wrists pinned in place; it was most certainly a detention. It appeared each of the UOC'ers had a "talking to" or was lectured by the contingent of 5 Sheriff's deputies.

* Ellie Santini, a Brady Buncher wearing her Brady shirt, kept talking about "hate" - but sadly the only vitriol, drama, contempt and condemnation came from the Brady Bunch whose virtually entire group was drawn from the ranks of Leisure World...save for a couple of their kids in their 50's and 60's who were there to support their parents.

We have video from a different angle - I doubt Calguns or anyone else would pursue any 4th amendment violations.

CharAznable
01-16-2011, 10:53 PM
While, like many here, I am not a fan of the UOC folks I do hope that these blatantly illegal detentions earn the department a legal and financial *****slap that will take them a long tome to recover from.

N6ATF
01-16-2011, 10:56 PM
OK

Before all the comments -

a) The Video was shot by son (8 years old)
b) I obviously have no idea how to edit this thing
c) It took me several hours to figure out how to get it from my phone, to my computer to somewhere on the internet and then linked to here.

HERE IS THE VIDEO (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4500509/UOC.mov)

If someone wants to "fix" it, I have it set up so that it can be downloaded (I think) - I'm not sure how long this link works either - so if someone wants to move please feel free. I'll work on my video skills for next time...:D

Fixed video. Rotating it removed the audio, but it seemed like just crowd noise anyway.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16538039/UOC_fixed.mov

locosway
01-16-2011, 10:56 PM
While, like many here, I am not a fan of the UOC folks I do hope that these blatantly illegal detentions earn the department a legal and financial *****slap that will take them a long tome to recover from.

You mean you aren't a fan of UOC. The people are just people.

CharAznable
01-16-2011, 11:07 PM
You mean you aren't a fan of UOC. The people are just people.

I meant what I said. The folks who UOC are choosing to do something which I feel isn't in the best interests of the goal of restoring 2A rights in California. I'm not a fan of their actions and thus not a fan of theirs.

But that doesn't make what happened right by any means.

Liberty1
01-17-2011, 3:16 AM
Nice of the S.O. to violate the CVC during a non-emergency responce; parking on a crosswalk, parking in an intersection, parking in a red zone...they probably have a policy against that. Oh and the 4 th Amendment...what's that...wonder if the ran a Rollex just to see if was stolen...

CavTrooper
01-17-2011, 5:33 AM
So, who filing the lawsuit?

locosway
01-17-2011, 5:35 AM
Nice of the S.O. to violate the CVC during a non-emergency responce; parking on a crosswalk, parking in an intersection, parking in a red zone...they probably have a policy against that. Oh and the 4 th Amendment...what's that...wonder if the ran a Rollex just to see if was stolen...

CVC doesn't apply to emergency vehicles, and apparently OR is the only state in the union were citizens can issue a citation to a LEO for violating the VC.

choprzrul
01-17-2011, 6:13 AM
I think, and I am sure you'd agree, that concern for civil rights is not the priority of law enforcement.

This would change rapidly if their pension funds were subject to forfeiture to the person who's civil rights are violated.

Again, the Llama Comanche III has its serial number under the grips:

http://www.cowanauctions.com/itemImages/tee1229.jpg

dantodd
01-17-2011, 6:59 AM
So, who filing the lawsuit?

If history is any indication.....

IGOTDIRT4U
01-17-2011, 9:07 AM
...and if they're not [registered]?

Nice that they articulated their plan to violate the Fourth before the event.

So, they are going to use the ruse of an "e" check to further violate rights? Are they really advertising this?

N6ATF
01-17-2011, 9:20 AM
I think if you go to an event where the police have announced in advance that they will violate your rights, you have consented to such violations, and have no standing to sue. :rolleyes:

IGOTDIRT4U
01-17-2011, 9:37 AM
Thank you for the onsite commentary, AVgunGUY.

I was wondering how this conspiracywas going to play out today.

-D

Had to add...

Andy Taylor
01-17-2011, 10:31 AM
Covering the serial number with tape is not a good idea (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5609810#post5609810) and may even be illegal (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5607872#post5607872).


How can that be illegal when, for decades, S&W routinely covered the SN on many revolvers with the grips?

GrizzlyGuy
01-17-2011, 10:36 AM
How can that be illegal when, for decades, S&W routinely covered the SN on many revolvers with the grips?

Because that is exempted in the law (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/537e.html):

(d) This section does not apply to those cases or instances where
any of the changes or alterations enumerated in subdivision (a) have
been customarily made or done as an established practice in the
ordinary and regular conduct of business, by the original
manufacturer, or by his or her duly appointed direct representative,
or under specific authorization from the original manufacturer.

Placing a piece of tape over the serial number is not exempted.