PDA

View Full Version : UOC in Santa Barbara


Californio
01-16-2011, 10:34 AM
Got this from the Police Blotter, local newspaper.

http://www.thedailysound.com/011311-SANTA-BARBARA-CRIME-BLOTTER

Jan. 8, 5:41 p.m: Authorities arrested a man for allegedly possessing a stolen weapon.

Police noticed that the man was carrying a gun in a holster inside the downtown Ralph’s parking lot. Police approached the man to determine whether the gun was loaded.

Authorities saw that the serial number was rubbed out.

Arrestee left this comment on the Blog

FROM THE ARRESTEE : 1/13/2011

UPON READING THE COMMENTS ON MY ARREST, I REALIZE HOW OFTEN PEOPLE JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS. I AM THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS ARRESTED ON JAN 8TH FOR VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE 12090(CHANGING, ALTERING OR OBLITERATING THE SERIAL NUMBER OF A FIREARM). I WAS ENGAGING IN WHAT IS KNOW AS OPEN CARRY, A LEGAL ACTION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA(AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT AN INDIVIDUAL BARRED FROM OWNING A FIREARM DUE TO PRIOR CONVICTIONS, DO NOT CARRY IN THE RESTRICTED AREAS OUTLINED IN THE PENAL CODE, AND CARRY OPENLY AND UNLOADED).

Read more at the above link

Spanky8601
01-16-2011, 10:41 AM
The man allegedly told authorities that he purposely removed the numbers so that law enforcement could not trace the weapon to him, authorities said.

The above was from the article. Darwin would be proud.

meaty-btz
01-16-2011, 10:52 AM
Thats hillarious, he wiped out his serial?? wow... idiot alert.

Shadowdrop
01-16-2011, 11:23 AM
He must not have had any electrical tape.

oldsmoboat
01-16-2011, 11:31 AM
He must not have had any electrical tape.
Good luck with that too.

CitaDeL
01-16-2011, 12:25 PM
Well, I can tell that he hasn't contacted 'the right people' as he posted details of his arrest on the story about him.

He claims the S/N was not obliterated or altered, but the only reason why the police would have hooked him up would then be that they took what he said to them as a confession. If it can ever be emphasized more, 'shut the 'eff' up' if you have a police encounter or are in legal peril.

Shadowdrop
01-16-2011, 12:30 PM
Good luck with that too.

It's still a 537(e) violation, but it looks much better than actually scratching out your serial...

M198
01-16-2011, 12:43 PM
Relevant parts below from the alleged arrestee. According to him he was illegally arrested.

I AM A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN WITH NO PRIORS, WAS NOT IN A RESTRICTED AREA AND WAS CARRYING IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE LAW. THE HANDGUN IS LEGALLY OWNED BY ME, AND IS NOT STOLEN. THE SERIAL NUMBER HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED OR OBLITERATED. I WAS ARRESTED BECAUSE THE NUMBER WAS NOT LEGIBLE, NOT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN REMOVED, ALTERED OR OBLITERATED IN ANY FORM. THE ENGRAVING IS STILL THERE, COMPLETELY INTACT AND I TRUST THE DA WILL REALIZE I WAS CARRYING LEGALLY AND HAVE NOT ALTERED THE NUMBER IN ANY MANNER. I AM A PROFESSIONAL PILOT WHO HAS PASSED DHS, TSA, AND SB COUNTY BACKGROUND CHECKS, A FAITHFUL HUSBAND, AND A TAXPAYER WHO WAS ONLY EXERCISING MY RIGHTS UNDER CALIFORINA STATE LAW.

N6ATF
01-16-2011, 12:54 PM
The man allegedly told authorities that he purposely removed the numbers so that law enforcement could not trace the weapon to him, authorities said.

The above was from the article. Darwin would be proud.

Authorities say a lot of things in order to put law-abiding gun owners away.

erratikmind
01-16-2011, 1:03 PM
The man allegedly told authorities that he purposely removed the numbers so that law enforcement could not trace the weapon to him, authorities said.

The above was from the article. Darwin would be proud.

:p . . . Just when I think that I have heard it all.

Burbur
01-16-2011, 3:07 PM
The article and the comment are in direct contradiction of each other, in many places. Sounds like possible false arrest to me.

As a taxpayer, I cringe that this guy might take a lot of money out of the general fund. As a gun owner, I hope he sues ever mother... well you know how that ends :cool:

scarville
01-16-2011, 3:08 PM
I've seen several S&W revolvers where the (laser engraved?) serial number under the yoke is partially obliterated. Possibly from cleaning. The "official" copy of the number on the butt but it is often covered by the grips.

CCWFacts
01-16-2011, 4:46 PM
I've seen several S&W revolvers where the (laser engraved?) serial number under the yoke is partially obliterated. Possibly from cleaning. The "official" copy of the number on the butt but it is often covered by the grips.

Ditto. I was helping a friend inventory some guns once and I kept wondering, "where the bleep are the serial numbers on these things", then I figured out I need to swing out the cylinder. These were older Colts of some kind I believe.

I would guess that many Santa Barbara cops may have never dealt with revolvers before.

A gun with a removed serial number is basically an affidavit of stoopid.

zinfull
01-16-2011, 5:51 PM
I have a S&W which has a different number inside the yoke than the actual serial number on which is on the bottom of the grip. The bottom is the offical location of the serial number but the combat grips cover the number.

jerry

uyoga
01-16-2011, 6:12 PM
We probably need to watch this arrest and see where it leads.

dantodd
01-16-2011, 9:10 PM
I would bet dollars to donuts that CGF has already reached out to the arrestee and pointed him toward Jason.

jr916
01-28-2011, 2:17 PM
So it is still illegal to put a small piece of electric tape over the serial number? What if you had a rational reason for doing so that was NOT intended to hide the serial # from authorities (say, to "keep my take-down pin from falling out as it's been getting loose")? Is there NO circumstance where it'd be legal for me to TEMPORARILY cover my serial #? I'm just thinking this b/c in the event of an (e) check, sometimes the officer will look at/check the serial # and run it because they claim it "came into view while they conducted the legal (e) check." Since they aren't allowed to search for the serial # unless they happen to come across it in the process of checking the weapon to ensure it's unloaded, wouldn't this small obstruction of the # make it unreasonable for the officer to say he saw it while performing the (e) check? (since he would've had to take off the tape and specifically search for the #, which he can't do w/o consent).

So is there any legal means to make a serial # less visible to LEOs so they don't try to pull that BS "I just happened to see it when doing the (e) check, so I'm gonna run it real quick in the computer" line? I rarely UOC and I only carry my pistol that's registered to me, however I'm just curious about the law and everyone's knowledge/experience.

Mstrty
01-28-2011, 2:30 PM
Answer my question. What legal ground did the autorities have to look for the SN in the first place? This guy has a great case against these yahoo cops.
12031(e) has no prevision for examining SN.

If it was just a check to see if unloaded, then to rotate the gun or scan its frame was outside the scope of their authority. Please site code that gives them this right.

IGOTDIRT4U
01-28-2011, 2:38 PM
Answer my question. What legal ground did the autorities have to look for the SN in the first place? This guy has a great case against these yahoo cops.
12031(e) has no prevision for examining SN.

If it was just a check to see if unloaded, then to rotate the gun or scan its frame was outside the scope of their authority. Please site code that gives them this right.

You are partially right. Overlooking that the "e" check is largely considered unconstitutional on this board, the cops performing the check can only do the check, nothing else. Any attempt to detain the person one millisecond beyond noting if the gun was loaded or not is unlawful. They can't even argue, "Well, as I was handing the gun back to him I looked for the SN and couldn't see it, so I became suspicious and started to look around the gun for it.". That doesn't fly.

The SN doesn't have to be in plain sight, as noted on some revolver models, etc., and to take the time to then try to locate one, puts the agency over the line.

In short, it's not a code, it's a violation of their civil rights.

Quser.619
01-28-2011, 2:52 PM
We'll if he's correct that they did in-fact try to run the serial numbers after an e-check & that was their only reason for stopping him, I'd imagine that the case will be dropped pretty soon. I hope he does press for false arrest & sues them though.

dantodd
01-28-2011, 3:10 PM
Answer my question. What legal ground did the autorities have to look for the SN in the first place? This guy has a great case against these yahoo cops.
12031(e) has no prevision for examining SN.


Unless and until someone actually files a case instead of just grandstanding in online forums the police will continue to run serial numbers when they do an (e) check.

It gets really old to hear people whining about stuff they aren't willing to do anything to change.

BoxesOfLiberty
01-28-2011, 4:57 PM
Thats hillarious, he wiped out his serial?? wow... idiot alert.

Whoah, easy! I realize this is the internet, but you jumped that conclusion faster than a neglected housewife.

It could be he was packing a S&W Model 19 or similar and the serial number was obscured by the wood grips.

It wouldn't be the first time a LEO that couldn't find a serial number assumed it had been obliterated. Nor would it be the first time that one ignored relevant evidence to make an arrest, especially if the attitude test was failed, or failing to do so would have been embarrassing.

BoxesOfLiberty
01-28-2011, 5:00 PM
The man allegedly told authorities that he purposely removed the numbers so that law enforcement could not trace the weapon to him, authorities said.

The above was from the article. Darwin would be proud.

The article also explicitly states he was arrested for possession of a stolen firearm.

Could a reporter with such high journalistic standards have possibly made more than one inaccurate assertion in the same article?

BoxesOfLiberty
01-28-2011, 5:01 PM
Authorities say a lot of things in order to put law-abiding gun owners away.

^ this

not to mention reporters mis-quote a lot of people for no particular reason

BoxesOfLiberty
01-28-2011, 5:06 PM
It's still a 537(e) violation, but it looks much better than actually scratching out your serial...

IMHO this is an obvious misinterpretation of the intent of 537(e). I don't think 537(e) was written with the intent of preventing me from mounting a light on my Glock (though I am sure there are some antis out there that would disagree).

gatdammit
01-28-2011, 6:02 PM
Answer my question. What legal ground did the autorities have to look for the SN in the first place? This guy has a great case against these yahoo cops.
12031(e) has no prevision for examining SN.

If it was just a check to see if unloaded, then to rotate the gun or scan its frame was outside the scope of their authority. Please site code that gives them this right.

Bingo... that's what I was thinking. Is the fact that they inspected the serial number even going to be admissible? Since he was being illegally detain anyways? Idiocy of the arrested notwithstanding.

choprzrul
01-28-2011, 6:09 PM
You UOC guys need to be carrying these:

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

The ONLY S/N on the frame is located under the grips.

Llama Comanche III. Get yours Here (http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=10145416)

.

##EDIT##

by the way, if you have a set of wood grips for the above, drop me a PM...

.

Ford8N
01-28-2011, 7:27 PM
^ this

not to mention reporters mis-quote a lot of people for no particular reason

Sometimes they misquote for a reason.

SickofSoCal
01-28-2011, 7:41 PM
One time a friend and I were harassed by CHP out in the middle of nowhere. My friend had an old rifle from the 1930's on him - it had no serial number. What then? Are you *blanked*?

The officer was a semi-reasonable chap, and didn't make a deal out of it. Didn't even say anything. But what if he had? Is it like being in a car that doesn't have an APB for being stolen? I have often wondered about that day ever since.

jr916
01-28-2011, 7:45 PM
They nearly always misquote for a reason, and use euphemisms like "Automatic weapons" for semi-auto pistols in every major publication, "weapons cache" for a family's gun safe, and probably dozens more I just can't think of, all to just push the masses of consumers a little further over to the anti- side. The gun/ammo & related industries really need to spend some money on more effective marketing at non-gun owners, so that their market niche (us) doesn't grow so small that laws will be passed that demolish their business sales. It just seems like their is SO much lobbying power for anti-gun ideology and not nearly as much (or as effective) on our side. What's the deal?

PS- To SickofSoCal: The cop couldn't have done anything. Rifles before 1968ish did not even have serial numbers (or weren't required to), and there is NO legal requirement to "register" it or get a serial # or anything like that. Long arms (rifles and shotguns) don't have to be registered to you at all. Only handguns are registered to you, but that's only when you purchase them nowadays in CA (if u bought ur pistol before they registered them at transaction time, you don't have to go register it now or anything). Besides, you both could have your buddy's rifle with a serial number that doesn't match up w/ either of you, or you could have a rifle that's pre-1968 that has no serial number: regardless, the cop can't check or run the numbers unless you're doing something else illegal (like transporting them loaded).

Example: I just got pulled over with 2 rifles in my trunk, 1 .22LR from the 60s w/o a serial # and a Mosin Nagant from 1933 with an old Russian serial #. As the officer inspected them to see if they were loaded (they weren't), I just told him "that one's pre-1968 so doesn't have a serial #, but was given to me by my father (whose father gave it to him); the other one's an old Russian rifle I recently bought that I even have the DROS for in my wallet to match the serial #". Of course, I didn't have to say that I had the DROS and could prove ownership, b/c I don't have to prove ownership, but I just said it to put the officer at ease. But you aren't required to register rifles/shotguns, and you DON'T have to own the firearm to transport/shoot it.

Anchors
01-28-2011, 8:40 PM
Well, I can tell that he hasn't contacted 'the right people' as he posted details of his arrest on the story about him.

He claims the S/N was not obliterated or altered, but the only reason why the police would have hooked him up would then be that they took what he said to them as a confession. If it can ever be emphasized more, 'shut the 'eff' up' if you have a police encounter or are in legal peril.

I'm with this guy!
Zip it. Talking isn't going to help you at all, even if it somehow doesn't hurt you.

SickofSoCal
01-28-2011, 9:12 PM
PS- To SickofSoCal: The cop couldn't have done anything. Rifles before 1968ish did not even have serial numbers (or weren't required to), and there is NO legal requirement to "register" it or get a serial # or anything like that. Long arms (rifles and shotguns) don't have to be registered to you at all. Only handguns are registered to you, but that's only when you purchase them nowadays in CA (if u bought ur pistol before they registered them at transaction time, you don't have to go register it now or anything). Besides, you both could have your buddy's rifle with a serial number that doesn't match up w/ either of you, or you could have a rifle that's pre-1968 that has no serial number: regardless, the cop can't check or run the numbers unless you're doing something else illegal (like transporting them loaded).

Thank you for addressing my post.

I have a question though.......why on earth aren't the Open Carry guys utilizing this? Why aren't at least a large chuck of them carrying old pistols or revolvers? This is what I would do. (btw, what's the year on registering handguns in Cali?)

I'd love to see the look on a LEO's face after his fishing exhibition turned up nothing with which to act macho and radio in a serial number.

Then again, knowing my luck I'd get one who doesn't know the law and I'd be led away in handcuffs to jail forever and ever, the savings in my bank account depleted forever too.

jr916
01-28-2011, 10:04 PM
That's the problem, whatever they say goes. Just because the cop couldn't read this guy's serial number (maybe because it WAS hidden b/c he had a certain revolver), he arrested him for a severe crime. You're really at the mercy of LEOs in most cases, unless you're video-taping, but even then...

Kid Stanislaus
01-28-2011, 10:28 PM
Unless and until someone actually files a case instead of just grandstanding in online forums the police will continue to run serial numbers when they do an (e) check.

Its just a matter of WHEN it happens and not IF it happens. ;)

Kid Stanislaus
01-28-2011, 10:40 PM
That's the problem, whatever they say goes. Just because the cop couldn't read this guy's serial number (maybe because it WAS hidden b/c he had a certain revolver), he arrested him for a severe crime. You're really at the mercy of LEOs in most cases, unless you're video-taping, but even then...

Yeah, but if you are just PATIENT enough, the city will give a nice fat paycheck for your trouble!:)

N6ATF
01-28-2011, 11:17 PM
Its just a matter of WHEN it happens and not IF it happens. ;)

http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/5042326/should-be-out-of-the-mideast-any-day-now.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Waiting-Skeleton

Ford8N
01-29-2011, 4:36 AM
That's the problem, whatever they say goes. Just because the cop couldn't read this guy's serial number (maybe because it WAS hidden b/c he had a certain revolver), he arrested him for a severe crime. You're really at the mercy of LEOs in most cases, unless you're video-taping, but even then...

Anything to do with firearms in California seems to be the issue with LEO's. They have been given the power with the California Penal Code by the rulers of this state and some really like it use it. They can take your legal firearm and tell you go to court if you want it back. Even though you are legal it will cost you time and big money to get back your property. That's one of the reasons I avoid shooting at a public range and mostly shoot up in the mountains off of 4x4 routes away from crowds. It's a shame but that's the way I feel in California. Unfortunately, the Arrestee in this case broke one of the unwritten rules of firearms etiquette in California, he drew the attention of LEO's. Right or wrong he will now have to spend considerable time and money to get his firearm back, if at all.

Yeah, but if you are just PATIENT enough, the city will give a nice fat paycheck for your trouble!:)

Could you give an example strictly involving firearms where a cash settlement occurred in California.

SickofSoCal
01-29-2011, 4:41 AM
Anything to do with firearms in California seems to be the issue with LEO's. They have been given the power with the California Penal Code by the rulers of this state and some really like it use it. They can take your legal firearm and tell you go to court if you want it back. Even though you are legal it will cost you time and big money to get back your property. That's one of the reasons I avoid shooting at a public range and mostly shoot up in the mountains off of 4x4 routes away from crowds. It's a shame but that's the way I feel in California. Unfortunately, the Arrestee in this case broke one of the unwritten rules of firearms etiquette in California, he drew the attention of LEO's. Right or wrong he will now have to spend considerable time and money to get his firearm back, if at all.



Could you give an example strictly involving firearms where a cash settlement occurred in California.

I'm just like you, I avoid crowds like the plague.

Jack L
01-29-2011, 5:56 AM
I may be a wimp but I carry a copy of my DROS either in my wallet or in my truck when I have my handguns with me. I don't want to go through any hassles if possible. At least I figure I have half a chance this way. I do not trust CA cops not to go crazy. I suspect a good many like to hassle anyone with a firearm.

Reading articles in CA papers, it appears it's a CA war on citizens with guns these days.

SickofSoCal
01-29-2011, 6:18 PM
I may be a wimp but I carry a copy of my DROS either in my wallet or in my truck when I have my handguns with me. I don't want to go through any hassles if possible. At least I figure I have half a chance this way. I do not trust CA cops not to go crazy. I suspect a good many like to hassle anyone with a firearm.

Reading articles in CA papers, it appears it's a CA war on citizens with guns these days.

It's interesting, Cali is one of the top states in the country for cop complaints. I had a link and map graphic somewhere. Darn.