PDA

View Full Version : Open Carry Police Encounter (Video) - Long Beach


CitaDeL
01-17-2011, 6:23 AM
KomV8JDw6WY
vvpyGL6I9rY

xr650r
01-17-2011, 6:42 AM
wow. No food for you, citizen.

vantec08
01-17-2011, 6:51 AM
Its doesnt make a particle of difference when/where it was purchased, anything more than that is registration pure and simple. Its a cold serial being carried legally. End of talk. The establishment can do what they want - - the bureaucrats cant.

DemocracyEnaction
01-17-2011, 7:09 AM
Keep at em man. I cant believe the guy checking your ID said you have to show your id then a couple mins later said you don't have to. This spews rights violation all over it and did they really need all those cops. What a waste of money. Fight the good fight man and pm me when you put up more videos.

BiggSean
01-17-2011, 7:40 AM
My favorite part:

"What's that around your neck?"

"It's a camera"

"Oh, ok"

Pat Riot
01-17-2011, 8:18 AM
What is the name of the restaurant?

GrizzlyGuy
01-17-2011, 8:43 AM
Wow, several officers need a whole bunch of training on what our state's laws actually are, and a refresher course on the 4th amendment. I assume that the person will be filing a complaint or at least making the CLEO aware of this problem in his or her agency?

Coded-Dude
01-17-2011, 8:57 AM
law abiding citizen gets harassed by the cops and then booted from a restaurant for "scaring the patrons and staff." don't go back there.

Civilitant
01-17-2011, 9:02 AM
NICE.

I love it when you are speaking, correctly informing a LEO of the laws he has sworn an oath to , and he interrupts you with a harsh and finite " I DON'T CARE."

thats a warm fuzzy every time.

BayAreaShooter
01-17-2011, 9:23 AM
That just pissed me off.

Headly Jones
01-17-2011, 9:27 AM
Dude, you wussed out by giving them your ID.

FAIL !!!!

Casual_Shooter
01-17-2011, 9:29 AM
What is the name of the restaurant?

The opening credits of the first video say "Long Beach Yard House".

Got Stuff?
01-17-2011, 9:34 AM
I actually liked going to that place in L.B.

Looks like I will not be going there anymore and asking others to do the same.

tacticalcity
01-17-2011, 9:37 AM
Well, at least in this video neither side was copping an attitude. The combative nature of a lot of the UOCers hurts the cause. The messed up part is that the manager kicked him out.

gobler
01-17-2011, 9:37 AM
Please identify the restaurant. (saw the last post) I wish to avoid there paranoia. :mad:

Apocalypsenerd
01-17-2011, 9:50 AM
Is that a lawsuit in the making? Seems like the cops are breaking a couple constitutional protections.

bodger
01-17-2011, 9:55 AM
"You had a gun on you, we're uncomfortable".


I wouldn't give that dump a dime in business.

FERGUSON
01-17-2011, 9:57 AM
IT THE YARD HOUSE IN LB

FERGUSON
01-17-2011, 10:19 AM
FIRST OF ALL I WOULD CHECK INTO POLICIES OF THE RESTAURANT I WAS GOING TO EAT AT BEFORE I HEAD OUT ESPECIALLY RESTAURANTS THAT ARE FAMOUS FOR SERVNG ALCOHOL. SECOND YOU SCREWED UP BY TALKING TO THEM! I SUPPORT OPEN CARRY, CCW'S, CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY BUT COME ON WHY WOULD YOU NOT LOOK INTO THE AREA YOUR GONNA BE IN???

Pat Riot
01-17-2011, 10:24 AM
YARD HOUSE HOME OFFICE
7700 Irvine Center Drive Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: 1-800-336-5336 | Fax: 1-949-727-0831 REAL ESTATE New Restaurant Development
RealEstate@Yardhouse.com MUSIC Submit Playlist Suggestions
Music@Yardhouse.com

* EXECUTIVE TEAM
* Harald Herrmann, President and CEO
* Carlito Jocson, Corporate Executive Chef
* Craig Carlyle, Executive Vice President, Operations

* Steele Platt, Chairman and Founder
* Jeff Uttz, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
* Jennifer Weerheim, Vice President, Marketing
* Phil Crawford, Chief Information Officer




Just sayin....

Window_Seat
01-17-2011, 10:26 AM
"Feel free to come back anytime"... "Probably not"... :laugh:

Long Beach PD was already "educated" on this issue, were they not? Is a letter to the PD in order?

As far as not going back, if all of us are going to stop patronizing restaurants because they don't allow guns, we will likely never see the inside of any restaurant again.

Clearly, this is not going to help with our "carry" & "bear" rights once they are afforded by a Federal Court.

If I carry, it's not to make a statement, it's to make a place safer in order to make me & my family members/friends safer, but I would rather the establishment not know about it. Now they know, and want to put a stop to it. U/LOC isn't helping in those matters much... Sorry, that might be just my personal opinion, but it becomes fact when the signs go up as a direct result...

Erik.

CitaDeL
01-17-2011, 10:38 AM
FIRST OF ALL I WOULD CHECK INTO POLICIES OF THE RESTAURANT I WAS GOING TO EAT AT BEFORE I HEAD OUT ESPECIALLY RESTAURANTS THAT ARE FAMOUS FOR SERVNG ALCOHOL. SECOND YOU SCREWED UP BY TALKING TO THEM! I SUPPORT OPEN CARRY, CCW'S, CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY BUT COME ON WHY WOULD YOU NOT LOOK INTO THE AREA YOUR GONNA BE IN???

Oh. So you believe one should investigate as to whether or not a business permits the use of mobile phones in their establishment? Carrying and using a mobile phone is perfectly legal, and some places of business prohibit that.

And what difference does it make whether or not an establishment serves alcohol or not? There is no state prohibition in California that criminalizes the possession of firearms in a business that serves or sells alcohol. Furthermore, there is no law prohibiting consumption of alcohol while in possession of a firearm.

I do not believe it is prudent or wise to partake of adult beverages while carrying or using firearms, but good judgement should not be legislated.

I also believe that asking what a businesses' policy regarding firearms is, is asking for a denial that could instigate a rules that affect not just open carriers, but those who are licensed to carry concealed. If you conceal carry would you ask the business owner if it were okay? Or would you pay them no mind and carry concealed anyway? I would wager that you wouldnt be so concerned with the desires of the business if you felt you could be discrete. If so, it makes you a hypocrit for suggesting that open carriers investigate whether they may carry, while you as a CCW holder would not.

(Incidentally, I am not the person in the video- only passing on what I have found.)

Coded-Dude
01-17-2011, 10:42 AM
Don't take this as a personal attack on anybody here, but I think that those with CCW's are afforded an ability to protect themselves as they see fit: LCC or UOC

Many people want their concealed carry permit, but cannot get it(sometimes for reasons that are currently our of their control). Just because someone UOC's doesn't mean they are making a statement(instead of securing themselves and their loved ones). Obviously there are dimwits that just want attention or an easy lawsuit(with anything there will be those that try and take advantage of a situation), and while that may sometimes hurt our cause...i don't think it is a valid reason to turn your nose to anybody that open carry's.

So far virtually every thread that even comes close to referencing UOC seems to contain several posts referring to how bad it is bad and how much it hurts the 2A cause.

Are we not giving more ammo to the anti's by doing this? They are reading these threads and will use this against us; "Even many gun owners think UOC is bad for Cali.....read these posts from this popular California gun forum/community"

just sayin.

The Shadow
01-17-2011, 10:54 AM
Who here is familiar with the Fraternal Order of Police ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/FratPolice.jpg

FOPs have bars in them, and law enforcement, who are members of their local FOP, and their guests go to those bars and not concern themselves with drinking while carrying. I would also add that unless a department makes a specific policy that prohibits drinking while armed, I'm not familiar with any law in any state that would prohibit law enforcement from drinking while armed. So, how are law enforcement different from the run of the mill citizen, other than the fact that they have a badge and ID that somehow seems to give them magical powers beyond those of mere mortals ?

EDIT: Notice that it say Jus, Fidus, Libertatum, which means "Law is a safeguard of freedom."

N6ATF
01-17-2011, 10:54 AM
Dude, you wussed out by giving them your ID.

FAIL !!!!

I think you have to give your ID if you want to sue. Otherwise there's no record that they ever met you. Cops who don't want to be sued would be well-advised not to ask for ID or keep any record of their civil rights violations.

Coded-Dude
01-17-2011, 11:00 AM
cop stated he wasn't going anywhere until ID is provided. It probably would have resulted in an arrest in which ID would have then be provided and a bigger lawsuit would be underway. I understand the OP trying to oblige the cops, but they were on an illegal fishing exercise. He was detained and searched with no PC.

Got Stuff?
01-17-2011, 1:55 PM
I've seen this idea that if a potential violation of some crime *could* occur, that the police then have the right to ensure it isn't (and violate your 4th amendment rights in the process).

Example: You are UOCing. If you were a felon that would be illegal, therefore the cops think they have the right to force you to give them ID and make sure you aren't.

Why is it that cops think they have the right to do so?

Another example would be driving down the road, and you get pulled over because you might not have a license, and that would be illegal. Well that stop isn't legal, now is it? Why the double standard with UOC?

What about drivers license (or DUI) "check points"?

Headly Jones
01-17-2011, 2:20 PM
Actually you dont have to produce a drivers license at DUI checkpoints. You still retain your 4th and 5th Amend rights even when stopped at a checkpoint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIupHbRTpb8

turbosbox
01-17-2011, 2:51 PM
Actually you dont have to produce a drivers license at DUI checkpoints. You still retain your 4th and 5th Amend rights even when stopped at a checkpoint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIupHbRTpb8

Yeah, great legal advice, this video proves it is completely legal to not cooperate with DUI checkpoints, in fact you don't have to even slow down, just give them the single digit peace sign and drive past :43:

The video was a letdown, at the end he says he will turn around and go through again after he was let off with a warning he would be arrested next time, and he says he turns around to go through the second time, but doesn't. Don't waste your time watching much of the 2 part series, it's boring.

Headly Jones
01-17-2011, 3:14 PM
Yes you do have to slow down. You have to stop as well. Thats all the supreme court requires of you though.

Personally I dont recommend doing what the guy in the video does unless you are very well knowledgable on the law, disciplined and willing to get arrested.

Got Stuff?
01-17-2011, 4:32 PM
Thanks for the video CitaDel!

Great info to be made public.

safewaysecurity
01-17-2011, 5:27 PM
Wow those cops are idiots... that guy should also keep his mouth shut. I wish those cops ran into Pullnshoot25, boy would that have been fun!

NiteQwill
01-17-2011, 5:35 PM
lol, fail.

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 5:49 PM
I don't see any rights violation. The LEO's are allowed to conduct an e-check. Looks like they did. They asked him for ID. He did not consent. They told him to provide it either directly or with a lie. LEO's can lie. He gave up his ID and then sang like a bird to all their questions.
Worst part was when he asked if he could still eat at a place that called the cops on him.

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 6:10 PM
Did you forget this? :rolleyes:

The e-check is a rights violation. Coercing someone to provide ID absent RAS or PC is a rights violation. Except when they're used to disenfranchise law-abiding gun owners from exercising any semblance of their 2A rights, then they're perfectly fine and dandy. :rolleyes:

My bad. I should have made it to read law violation instead of rights violation.
The only thing I see a legal issue with is the serial # check.

As far as rights are concerned it is very unfortunate that CA is still decades behind almost all the other states in many areas.

gidddy169
01-17-2011, 6:23 PM
Nice video but I thought it was illegal to record a conversation unless both parties knew they were being recorded in CA? Clearly one of the cops asked eventually, what was around your neck and didn't seem to phased but just saying.

sawchain
01-17-2011, 6:31 PM
The proper way to protest is to get arrested, then sue. The improper way to protest is to talk your way out of getting arrested. After all, if you're in the situation specifically to protest, but talk your way out, what have you acheived?

I can't help but think a UOC protest is going to end badly. When the right ignorant protester hooks up with the right ignorant LEO, someone's gonna get hurt and all law abiding citizens will have their rights further infringed.

Don't get me wrong. I am opposed to all violations of our rights. But, if you're out to protest, know the law, have your attorney on retainer, and be prepared to go to jail. Or are you going to sue for mere inconvenience?

CitaDeL
01-17-2011, 6:55 PM
Nice video but I thought it was illegal to record a conversation unless both parties knew they were being recorded in CA? Clearly one of the cops asked eventually, what was around your neck and didn't seem to phased but just saying.

The two party consent only applies for conversations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. In public, with a public official isnt private. See PC 632.

J.D.Allen
01-17-2011, 7:02 PM
As far as not going back, if all of us are going to stop patronizing restaurants because they don't allow guns, we will likely never see the inside of any restaurant again.

Clearly, this is not going to help with our "carry" & "bear" rights once they are afforded by a Federal Court.

If I carry, it's not to make a statement, it's to make a place safer in order to make me & my family members/friends safer, but I would rather the establishment not know about it. Now they know, and want to put a stop to it. U/LOC isn't helping in those matters much... Sorry, that might be just my personal opinion, but it becomes fact when the signs go up as a direct result...

Erik.

Wrong. The way to normalize OC is to do it and let eveyone see how nothing bad happens as a result. Many of the same business chains that are in CA are also in other states where OC is common and have no problem with OC'ers. Why? Because they're used to it and they know the OC'ers don't cause problems. Personally, I have stopped UOC'ing in CA because of GFSZ's. But when a lot of people here start OC'ing you will see the resistance gradually fade... In AZ I LOC in Starbucks, Walmart, Barnes & Noble, grocery stores chains that have stores in CA, and many restaurants (that don't serve alcohol) And have never been asked to leave a single time.

NorCalDustin
01-17-2011, 7:20 PM
I don't see any rights violation. The LEO's are allowed to conduct an e-check. Looks like they did. They asked him for ID. He did not consent. They told him to provide it either directly or with a lie. LEO's can lie. He gave up his ID and then sang like a bird to all their questions.
Worst part was when he asked if he could still eat at a place that called the cops on him.
Thats what he should do. It shows people, "Hey, it's all legal... Now finish your meal and leave me alone."

Though, I probably would not have asked and just assumed it was fine for me to still eat there. Had they asked me to leave, then fine.



The proper way to protest is to get arrested, then sue. The improper way to protest is to talk your way out of getting arrested. After all, if you're in the situation specifically to protest, but talk your way out, what have you acheived?

I can't help but think a UOC protest is going to end badly. When the right ignorant protester hooks up with the right ignorant LEO, someone's gonna get hurt and all law abiding citizens will have their rights further infringed.

Don't get me wrong. I am opposed to all violations of our rights. But, if you're out to protest, know the law, have your attorney on retainer, and be prepared to go to jail. Or are you going to sue for mere inconvenience?People still seem to think that everyone who OC's is protesting... That is not always the case.

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 7:37 PM
Thats what he should do. It shows people, "Hey, it's all legal... Now finish your meal and leave me alone."

Though, I probably would not have asked and just assumed it was fine for me to still eat there. Had they asked me to leave, then fine.



People still seem to think that everyone who OC's is protesting... That is not always the case.

I can't disagree with your point as it is very valid. I just saw his actions as fail when he went from standing up for his rights to rolling over at fear of arrest. Once that happened he really did not represent someone that was advocating UOC, rather someone that was stirring up trouble and got none.
I was not there so it's easy to say what I would have done after the fact. I would have just made a polite announcement that what I was doing was legal but out of respect to those concerned about it I would leave.

I do think he was protesting or at the minimum advocating for UOC as he started to ramble on about pending complaints in other cities. I took that as an implied threat to the LEO's.

jshoebot
01-17-2011, 7:43 PM
I'm kinda curious... Why did he keep answering all the questions? Why not just remain silent so they'll leave you alone? I agree with a poster earlier in this thread that said don't try to talk your way out. If they want to arrest you, they're going to. Don't help them by answering questions.

Funtimes
01-17-2011, 8:06 PM
I would have just asked the lady for a menu.

CitaDeL
01-17-2011, 8:15 PM
I'm kinda curious... Why did he keep answering all the questions? Why not just remain silent so they'll leave you alone? I agree with a poster earlier in this thread that said don't try to talk your way out. If they want to arrest you, they're going to. Don't help them by answering questions.

Its very difficult, even counter to our nature, to cease talking- particularly when we are confronted with an authority figure and the possibility of being punished.

You can tell someone to behave a certain way, but that warning evaporates when the adrenaline starts flowing. This takes practice and no one gets it exactly right the first time- which is why I recommend roleplaying with someone if you intend on doing solo UOC.

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 8:25 PM
I would be interested to see if he shot video before LEOs arrived. I want to know what his body language was like and what kind of interactions he had.

I know CA is very anti-gun but there must be plain clothed LEO's that sit down at restaurants. I'm not saying he has to pretend to be one but if he was dressed halfway decent I don't see how anyone would even notice a firearm and if they did they should assume he was LEO since commoners can't carry in most CAians minds.

Even out here OC is not very popular but when I do OC I have never been questioned about it. There are times my friends don't even notice I am OCing until they have been walking with me for awhile. Who looks at other guys waistbands?

Just from looking at the video it looks like he is seated where there is a huge line of sight on the holster. I don't know if he was seated by the host there but if he was then the restaurant should have stopped him up front in accordance with their "policy". My guess is he purposely sat in a spot where he can be the center of attention and he got exactly that.

Spooled Up
01-17-2011, 8:38 PM
Glad I stumbled on this thread. At night my wife and I like to take the kids on a walk (them usually in the stroller). I have always thought it would be better for us if I had my gun on me just in case. So open carry sounds like the correct way to do it. My question is where do I legally have the magazine, and can the rounds be in the magazine?

Falstaff
01-17-2011, 8:49 PM
I think if yer gonna do this, you need to go all in, and that means you DO NOT answer their questions and you do NOt give them ID. Have the courage of your convictions and enjoy the money you'll get when they break the law.

You do NOT have to produce ID unless they have PC to believe you may have been involved in a crime. OC'ing is not a crime. (yet...)

J.D.Allen
01-17-2011, 8:50 PM
Glad I stumbled on this thread. At night my wife and I like to take the kids on a walk (them usually in the stroller). I have always thought it would be better for us if I had my gun on me just in case. So open carry sounds like the correct way to do it. My question is where do I legally have the magazine, and can the rounds be in the magazine?

Don't even think about doing this until you have thouroughly researched it. There are way too many pitfalls to do it off the cuff. PM pullnshoot25 or elsensei or firemark to get headed in the right direction.

Falstaff
01-17-2011, 8:52 PM
Glad I stumbled on this thread. At night my wife and I like to take the kids on a walk (them usually in the stroller). I have always thought it would be better for us if I had my gun on me just in case. So open carry sounds like the correct way to do it. My question is where do I legally have the magazine, and can the rounds be in the magazine?

You can have the magazines loaded and on your pistol belt. Check out the opencarry.org website and fully educate yourself before proceeding, I am contemplating OC'ing myself soon. Make sure you don't walk through any GFSZ (Gun free school zone) if you go within 1000' of any school while OC'ing that's a crime.

CitaDeL
01-17-2011, 8:52 PM
Glad I stumbled on this thread. At night my wife and I like to take the kids on a walk (them usually in the stroller). I have always thought it would be better for us if I had my gun on me just in case. So open carry sounds like the correct way to do it. My question is where do I legally have the magazine, and can the rounds be in the magazine?

I would suggest reading up more on it at opencarry.org and californiaopencarry.org-

The quick and dirty-

Magazines with ammunition inside are lawful to possess, but due to some bad case law, its advisable to carry them openly in the same manner as you would with your firearm. Your firearm, presuming that you are in an incorporated area or a discharge prohibited area would need to be unloaded. You may not carry with in 1000 feet of a school.

DirtNapKing
01-17-2011, 9:04 PM
The two party consent only applies for conversations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. In public, with a public official isnt private. See PC 632.
Are you the OCer being detained in the video?

Spooled Up
01-17-2011, 9:05 PM
I will look more into this before ever doing it, I appreciate the info. I would only do this at night when I am walking with the family. Wouldn't want all the other issues you get when open carrying. We don't walk past any schools, but if it was at night time would the 1k' law still apply?

J.D.Allen
01-17-2011, 9:18 PM
I will look more into this before ever doing it, I appreciate the info. I would only do this at night when I am walking with the family. Wouldn't want all the other issues you get when open carrying. We don't walk past any schools, but if it was at night time would the 1k' law still apply?

Yes. The school doesn't even have to be in session. Like, even in summer when school is out. It's still a no-no. And it isn't just linear distance like on the same street. There could be a private school blocks away that you don't even know about. If you set foot within 1000 ft. of ANY PART of its property, you are in trouble.

J.D.Allen
01-17-2011, 9:21 PM
I will look more into this before ever doing it, I appreciate the info. I would only do this at night when I am walking with the family. Wouldn't want all the other issues you get when open carrying. We don't walk past any schools, but if it was at night time would the 1k' law still apply?

I suggest you read this thread for starters.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=385318

thrasherfox
01-17-2011, 9:22 PM
That just pissed me off.

Yeah, pissed me off also.

I am thinking I am starting to understand why some of the UOC guys are immediately combative.

If you don't take control of the situation immediately it looks like the police (well some anyway) will just run all over you.

I just hope my CCW goes through, because if it doesn't I will be UOC. tired of being denied my rights in California.

Spooled Up
01-17-2011, 9:24 PM
Great info, thanks. Watching this video now also... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_oWJhrgGZI&feature=related

Sorry I hi jacked your thread, I will start another one if I have anymore questions. :)

CitaDeL
01-18-2011, 6:23 AM
Are you the OCer being detained in the video?

No, I am not.

non sequitur
01-18-2011, 7:12 AM
This client alert was issued in December 2008 to those Southern California LE Agencies that retain the Fullerton, CA law firm of Jones & Mayer. I'm not sure if Long Beach PD is included in the Jones & Mayer client list. Nevertheless, the CA Police Chiefs Association usually takes the Jones & Mayer legal advice as gospel and I would imagine Long Beach PD's Chief of Police is a member of the the CA Police Chief's Association.

http://www.jones-mayer.com/clientalerts/ca2322120208.htm

"Field personnel should be made aware of the current state of the law as set forth above and cautioned that this is not behavior warranting arrest, but that they are legally entitled under 12031(e) to demand inspection of any such firearms in order to ascertain that the weapon is unloaded. If the firearm is unloaded, it should be returned and the subject released to go about his/her lawful business. Of course, if the firearm is loaded – as defined above – then an arrest is appropriate. Any refusal to allow inspection of the firearm constitutes cause for immediate arrest for a violation of 12031."

It appears in the video the officers ran the weapon's serial number, conducted a Terry frisk for weapons and ran a wants/warrants check on the UOC'er. PC 12031(e) dooesn't authorize peace officers to do these

At the very least, the UOC'er should pursue a citizen's complaint against the Long Beach PD officers:

http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=20888

Coded-Dude
01-18-2011, 7:19 AM
Yeah, pissed me off also.

I am thinking I am starting to understand why some of the UOC guys are immediately combative.

If you don't take control of the situation immediately it looks like the police (well some anyway) will just run all over you.

I just hope my CCW goes through, because if it doesn't I will be UOC. tired of being denied my rights in California.


this is absolutely correct, but many pro 2a people think it hinders the cause of gun rights.

CitaDeL
01-18-2011, 9:20 AM
this is absolutely correct, but many pro 2a people think it hinders the cause of gun rights.

Pick one and only one:


The right to free speech and peacable assembly.
The right to keep and bear arms.
The right to be secure in your person, papers, and effects from warrantless seizures.


You see, the problem is that all of these apply in these circumstances- and if you protect only one and not the others you will have them wrested from you in a compromise of your principles.

CalBear
01-18-2011, 9:59 AM
I'm so tired of seeing LEOs pulling the same old "just making sure you're not doing anything illegal" routine. Neither CPC, nor USC give them the right to perform a stop and ID check on someone merely carrying a firearm to make sure they aren't a felon. CPC only allows the officer to check that the weapon is unloaded. Further detention, serial search, forced ID, etc. constitutes illegal search & seizure and illegal detention.

At the end of the day, what do they accomplish by doing this, other than satisfying the unconstitutional desires of some of the locals? These OC stops waste a huge amount of resources and frequently end in civil suits being filed against the city and/or PD. So the guy got hassled by the cops and booted from the restaurant, simply so the people feel better. I'd never go to that restaurant.

J.D.Allen
01-18-2011, 10:13 AM
I'm so tired of seeing LEOs pulling the same old "just making sure you're not doing anything illegal" routine. Neither CPC, nor USC give them the right to perform a stop and ID check on someone merely carrying a firearm to make sure they aren't a felon. CPC only allows the officer to check that the weapon is unloaded. Further detention, serial search, forced ID, etc. constitutes illegal search & seizure and illegal detention.

At the end of the day, what do they accomplish by doing this, other than satisfying the unconstitutional desires of some of the locals? These OC stops waste a huge amount of resources and frequently end in civil suits being filed against the city and/or PD. So the guy got hassled by the cops and booted from the restaurant, simply so the people feel better. I'd never go to that restaurant.


I would venture to say that this legislating according to the "feelings" of the masses instead of logic is why CA is as messed up as it is right now. Seriously, how many areas of our law are influenced by what makes people feel good about things, without real regard to the actual consequences?

N6ATF
01-18-2011, 10:15 AM
These OC stops waste a huge amount of resources and frequently end in civil suits being filed against the city and/or PD.

Not frequently enough. They should be filed at least 1x/week.

This victim disarmament on behalf of criminal safety needs to be burned to the ground.

tacticalcity
01-18-2011, 10:21 AM
I'm kinda curious... Why did he keep answering all the questions? Why not just remain silent so they'll leave you alone? I agree with a poster earlier in this thread that said don't try to talk your way out. If they want to arrest you, they're going to. Don't help them by answering questions.

You couldn't be more wrong. Sitting there in silence is a guarenteed trip to either lockup or rubber room. It makes him look not just guilty, but mentally unstable. And frankly, it would be both well earned and well deserved. Just starring at a cop and being completely unresponsive makes you look like a threat to yourself and others.

The difference between harmless questions meant to make sure you are not a danger to yourself and others and incriminating questions designed to trick you into hanging yourself are pretty obvious. Answer the former, and don't answer the latter.

The only point in the video that had me concerned was the "registration" part, and the gun owner answered it completely wrong. If you are gonna do this sort of thing, you need to have your ducks in a row. And knowing that handguns get registerred when you buy/DROS them in California is one of those ducks. You need to know all the laws pertaining to your situation, not just the one you are trying shove in the police officer's face.

tacticalcity
01-18-2011, 10:38 AM
I'm so tired of seeing LEOs pulling the same old "just making sure you're not doing anything illegal" routine. Neither CPC, nor USC give them the right to perform a stop and ID check on someone merely carrying a firearm to make sure they aren't a felon. CPC only allows the officer to check that the weapon is unloaded. Further detention, serial search, forced ID, etc. constitutes illegal search & seizure and illegal detention.

At the end of the day, what do they accomplish by doing this, other than satisfying the unconstitutional desires of some of the locals? These OC stops waste a huge amount of resources and frequently end in civil suits being filed against the city and/or PD. So the guy got hassled by the cops and booted from the restaurant, simply so the people feel better. I'd never go to that restaurant.

Legally you are correct. But you are completely off base about the rest of it because of your bias.

What they accomplish is they get some face time with you to make sure you are a normal citizen and not mentally unstable. While that raises some civil liberty concerns, it does also seem like a reasonable thing for a police officer to do since UOC is extremely unusual.

Your argument is like saying, "I am so upset with people starring at me when I go the mall wearing a giant big bird costume. I wish they would stop doing that." As if a dude wearing a giant big bird costume is something they should be accustomed to. Over time, if you do it everyday, the locals will get used to you. But people seeing you for the first time are still gonna stare.

While legal, UOC is not something people are accustomed to or aware of. It is extremely off putting the first time you see it even if you are pro 2A. It not a normal everyday thing. For most of those officers, if not all of them, it was the first time they had seen it. So it is no wonder they are a little unsure of how to handle it.

Yes law enforcement should know how to deal with every single thing they encounter regarding the law. But that simply is not realistic. There are too many laws out there for one person to know them all and know how to respond to them all. So they set general policy and guidelines on to handle a wide variety of encounters and follow those. It is not like they want to harass you or have anything personally invested in stopping UOC. They honestly are just trying to do their jobs, and are doing what they were trained to do. If that training is incorrect, it is not the fault of the individual officer.

Until UOC becomes an everyday occurance for them, some patience and understanding on your part is going to be required. You can get as mad as you want at the individual offers for asking for your ID, but the rest of us are going to think you're nuts for blaming the cops and not their bosses. Raise hell with their department, the city, and the DOJ. But making the individual officer out to be the bad guy like so many of these videos try to do just makes the UOC guys look like a bunch of jerks and nut jobs. It hurts the cause. Because the premise is that those evil police officers are trying to supress the rights of the people. That simply is not true. It is the politicians who are trying to supress your rights. The beat cop just wants to keep himself and the public safe from harm and go home to his wife and kids.

When it comes down to it you are focusing your frustration on the wrong people. Blame the AG and the DOJ for not setting well established guidelines and training materials on the subject that follow the letter of the law. Blame their departments for not training them properly. Don't blame the beat cop who is encountering UOC for the first time and is just trying to make sure you are not a danger to yourself and others. He is only doing what he was taught to do.

Spooled Up
01-18-2011, 10:44 AM
I was thinking there is no harm to show them the gun is not loaded and giving them my ID if they ask :confused:

Coded-Dude
01-18-2011, 10:48 AM
there SHOULDN'T be any harm, but as many have found out, that is not always the case.

tonb
01-18-2011, 2:48 PM
Legally you are correct. But you are completely off base about the rest of it because of your bias.

What they accomplish is they get some face time with you to make sure you are a normal citizen and not mentally unstable. While that raises some civil liberty concerns, it does also seem like a reasonable thing for a police officer to do since UOC is extremely unusual.

Your argument is like saying, "I am so upset with people starring at me when I go the mall wearing a giant big bird costume. I wish they would stop doing that." As if a dude wearing a giant big bird costume is something they should be accustomed to. Over time, if you do it everyday, the locals will get used to you. But people seeing you for the first time are still gonna stare.

While legal, UOC is not something people are accustomed to or aware of. It is extremely off putting the first time you see it even if you are pro 2A. It not a normal everyday thing. For most of those officers, if not all of them, it was the first time they had seen it. So it is no wonder they are a little unsure of how to handle it.

Yes law enforcement should know how to deal with every single thing they encounter regarding the law. But that simply is not realistic. There are too many laws out there for one person to know them all and know how to respond to them all. So they set general policy and guidelines on to handle a wide variety of encounters and follow those. It is not like they want to harass you or have anything personally invested in stopping UOC. They honestly are just trying to do their jobs, and are doing what they were trained to do. If that training is incorrect, it is not the fault of the individual officer.

Until UOC becomes an everyday occurance for them, some patience and understanding on your part is going to be required. You can get as mad as you want at the individual offers for asking for your ID, but the rest of us are going to think you're nuts for blaming the cops and not their bosses. Raise hell with their department, the city, and the DOJ. But making the individual officer out to be the bad guy like so many of these videos try to do just makes the UOC guys look like a bunch of jerks and nut jobs. It hurts the cause. Because the premise is that those evil police officers are trying to supress the rights of the people. That simply is not true. It is the politicians who are trying to supress your rights. The beat cop just wants to keep himself and the public safe from harm and go home to his wife and kids.

When it comes down to it you are focusing your frustration on the wrong people. Blame the AG and the DOJ for not setting well established guidelines and training materials on the subject that follow the letter of the law. Blame their departments for not training them properly. Don't blame the beat cop who is encountering UOC for the first time and is just trying to make sure you are not a danger to yourself and others. He is only doing what he was taught to do.

I wish there was some sort of comment upvote system because I'd have upvoted this one. It is clear, rational and relevant. Too often there are too many reactions like "f' them" or the "cops are keeping you down" or other such nonsense. Yes they may not be fully aware of how to handle a situation, but like you said, they're just trying to keep the peace.

I get that the attempt with open carry is to make people more accustomed to it, but personally I feel carrying an unloaded firearm in a zany state like CA is akin to painting a big red target right on my back.

GrizzlyGuy
01-18-2011, 4:02 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. Sitting there in silence is a guarenteed trip to either lockup or rubber room. It makes him look not just guilty, but mentally unstable. And frankly, it would be both well earned and well deserved. Just starring at a cop and being completely unresponsive makes you look like a threat to yourself and others.

The difference between harmless questions meant to make sure you are not a danger to yourself and others and incriminating questions designed to trick you into hanging yourself are pretty obvious. Answer the former, and don't answer the latter.

The only point in the video that had me concerned was the "registration" part, and the gun owner answered it completely wrong. If you are gonna do this sort of thing, you need to have your ducks in a row. And knowing that handguns get registerred when you buy/DROS them in California is one of those ducks. You need to know all the laws pertaining to your situation, not just the one you are trying shove in the police officer's face.

You weren't concerned by the officer's "You're not mentally ill?" question at 2:36 in video 1? Would you consider that to be a harmless question?

Before you answer, here are some stats (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml):

An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older about one in four adults suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year

Or (http://bipolar.about.com/b/2010/11/19/survey-20-of-americans-have-mental-illness.htm):

20% of Americans Have Mental Illness

Only a teeny-tiny fraction of those people are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms (rightly so). If you happen to be in that 20-26.2% set and you aren't prohibited, that's a tough question to answer, basically a lose-lose situation:

1) You tell the truth and end up in the rubber room.
2) You lie to the cop (I have a moral problem with lying to anyone, but maybe others don't).

I was stunned at how well he answered the question ("I have no disability that would disallow me from carrying a firearm"), but most members of the 20-26.2% set would only make things worse by trying to answer it. That's especially true in our post-Tucson world where LEOs might start to think that 'mentally ill' = 'homicidal maniac', and especially true in CA where a 5150 loses a person their firearm rights for 5 years, with barely any due process.

The 5th amendment is there for a reason, and politely and respectfully exercising it is never a bad idea. Make statements or pose your own questions, don't answer theirs. LEOs play this game daily, have played it for years, and trying to outwit and outsmart them (e.g., deducing why they are asking any particular question to determine harmless vs. incriminating) won't end well for a lot of people.

Flex Your Rights (http://flexyourrights.org/).

tileguy
01-18-2011, 5:04 PM
in the town i live in, plain clothes cops carry on their hip in sight not always a badge showing while eating lunch and no one says anything, so why is it so bad for a regular person to do it, unloaded of course? i cant figure out why LEOs have to get such a hard on about it and act like total jack---es instead of just doing their lawful job. its their job to know the law and there is no excuse for all the BS that went on in the videos.

Casual_Shooter
01-18-2011, 5:07 PM
Just come out with a UOC "badge" and no one will look twice.

Got Stuff?
01-18-2011, 5:08 PM
Just saw AB144.

Wow! Looks like we're on the right track.........or maybe not :(