PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Forest Service at Lytle Creek


WhatsTCP
01-30-2011, 8:40 PM
Went to the shooting range at Lytle Creek today and during one of the ceasefires there was a man in uniform with the U.S. Forest Service on his left shoulder testing all the bullet buttons on the AR 15's and checking for ten round magazines. This is the first time I've seen it happen. Have any of you had any experience with this?

Tacticool
01-30-2011, 8:51 PM
Last year a sheriff came by and walked all the tables checking for illegal rifles.

Timberwolf
01-30-2011, 10:00 PM
ATF is also doing spot checks

IntoForever
01-30-2011, 10:08 PM
Is that even legal? I know they don't really care about the constitution.

prob
01-30-2011, 10:13 PM
You'd think they'd have something better to do.

DirtNapKing
01-30-2011, 10:35 PM
I'm glad they are checking! The range is there thanks to the US Forestry and I welcome there involvement. Let's not get our 2A panties all in a bunch over an officer checking for cheaters. Remember when the constitution was written there were no ARs and Bullet Buttons. It's a law, deal with it or get rid of your black rifles and shoot something else.

bodger
01-30-2011, 10:47 PM
If it violates our constitutional rights for them to perform these "checks", then I am opposed to it.

DirtNapKing
01-30-2011, 10:56 PM
If it violates our constitutional rights for them to perform these "checks", then I am opposed to it.

If you have a legal gun then you should have nothing to worry about. Not to mention the Firing Line is on US Forest land and you are subject to check, no different if you were up the road a ways hunting and you are stopped by CFG.

Scratch705
01-31-2011, 12:40 AM
plain view, so they can check. now if it was locked up and out of view, then no.

jshoebot
01-31-2011, 1:00 AM
plain view, so they can check. now if it was locked up and out of view, then no.

Incorrect. Plain view = they can look, they cannot check or touch your rifle without permission. If you allow them to check it, then that's on you. You aren't REQUIRED to let them check. 4th and 5th Amendments.

If you have a legal gun then you should have nothing to worry about.

And if you have nothing illegal in your car, you have nothing to worry about if they want to search it. Or if they want to search your house with no warrant. If you have nothing to worry about then you won't mind if they check! :rolleyes:

SickofSoCal
01-31-2011, 1:06 AM
I'm glad they are checking! The range is there thanks to the US Forestry and I welcome there involvement. Let's not get our 2A panties all in a bunch over an officer checking for cheaters. Remember when the constitution was written there were no ARs and Bullet Buttons. It's a law, deal with it or get rid of your black rifles and shoot something else.

I am a little curious: do you believe in the 4th Amendment, a "slippery slope" version of it, or not at all?

You give an inch, they take a mile. I thought this was obvious by now.

bodger
01-31-2011, 9:08 AM
If you have a legal gun then you should have nothing to worry about. Not to mention the Firing Line is on US Forest land and you are subject to check, no different if you were up the road a ways hunting and you are stopped by CFG.


All my guns are legal, so that's not what I'm worried about. What I'm opposed to is any government employee overstepping the boundaries of my constitutional rights and calling it "the law" if in fact it isn't.

Where does it end?

Napalm Bulldog
01-31-2011, 9:51 AM
SOunds like they prey on our stupidity/ Lack of knowing the law from what I have read. I didnt know I did not have to let them check if they ask. My personal opinion, This kind of gun checking is like Attourneys chasing ambulances.

Timberwolf
01-31-2011, 10:12 AM
While I'm not going to debate the legalities suffice it to say that generally if on USFS property the USFS is charged with the duty to ensure that any weapons used on USFS property are complient with State and Federal laws applicable to that piece of property. The same goes with the concessionaire of the property.

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 11:33 AM
Incorrect. Plain view = they can look, they cannot check or touch your rifle without permission. If you allow them to check it, then that's on you. You aren't REQUIRED to let them check. 4th and 5th Amendments.



And if you have nothing illegal in your car, you have nothing to worry about if they want to search it. Or if they want to search your house with no warrant. If you have nothing to worry about then you won't mind if they check! :rolleyes:

We are talking about an open check on a firing line this has nothing to do with my home or vehicle.

45DAVID1
01-31-2011, 11:46 AM
Were they checking for 10 round magazines in a generic sense related to BB/magazine locked rifles or were they checking ALL magazines regardless of rifle features to verify they were 10 round only?

msand951
01-31-2011, 12:03 PM
They are doing the same thing in Bee Canyon. I was there this Sat. and Forestry showed up I had my mini14 and featureless Ar with my 30 rd mags. She was nice and was training another leo on OLLs. After she looked at my setup and mini 14. We talked about features and featureless build . She told me they have confiscated 6 rifles this month and just took one away from a guy on the other side of the canyon. She showed it to me and It was a oll LAR lower, muzzle flash , hand grip, and stock mag release no bullet button which was the first thing she was checking. I was happy that at least they know what to look for instead of myself having to school some of the leoS (Sheriff) that showed up last time and didnt know anything. Thanks Calguns. I wish that guy would have been a member here maybe he wouldnt be picking up a felony . Sucks

Fjold
01-31-2011, 12:06 PM
ATF is also doing spot checks

Why would ATF be concerned with a State law?

Ls1FALimpala
01-31-2011, 12:10 PM
i went on the 16th and as i was leaving around 2pm i seen the sheriffs roll up and start check everyone on the 1st firing lane. i seen the us foresty truck there too... my FAL and AK are legal but they love to check them closely...

bodger
01-31-2011, 12:11 PM
We are talking about an open check on a firing line this has nothing to do with my home or vehicle.

I think where I am confused is whether the check is legal or not, as it relates to the fourth amendment.

If the weapon is in plain sight, obviously they can look all they want. But if they actually want to handle the firearm to check it, is this an illegal search, and are you within your rights to tell them you don't consent?

Maybe if this thread were in the 2A forum, one of the legal eagles would clarify or opine.

WhatsTCP
01-31-2011, 12:29 PM
Were they checking for 10 round magazines in a generic sense related to BB/magazine locked rifles or were they checking ALL magazines regardless of rifle features to verify they were 10 round only?

they were only checking the magazines for the OLL, picking them up and fondling them and pressing the magazine release button to see if it would give.


I think where I am confused is whether the check is legal or not, as it relates to the fourth amendment.

If the weapon is in plain sight, obviously they can look all they want. But if they actually want to handle the firearm to check it, is this an illegal search, and are you within your rights to tell them you don't consent?

Maybe if this thread were in the 2A forum, one of the legal eagles would clarify or opine.

thats sort of what I was thinking...they can walk past it and even peer at it closely all they want but when he started picking up mags and pressing magazine release buttons it kind of made me sick in the stomach :(

ke6guj
01-31-2011, 1:16 PM
they were only checking the magazines for the OLL, picking them up and fondling them and pressing the magazine release button to see if it would give.

this was happening on a cold range with people down range setting up targets? Or was it done during the time when the RO checks to make sure that everyone is unloaded before he allows you downrnage. If it is the former, funny how we get yelled at if we linger too long next to the bench, or touch something on the bench during a cease-fire, but here we have people purposely manipulating firearms with people down range.

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 1:54 PM
they can walk past it and even peer at it closely all they want but when he started picking up mags and pressing magazine release buttons it kind of made me sick in the stomach :(

Really? Why are you getting sick to your stomach? You think the constitution should protect somebody from breaking the law? I welcome Forestry or CFG to check guns especially at the Firing Line. I know my rights but if somebody gets popped for a firearms violation I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. I'm pretty much over this 2A flag wavin crap whenever LEO shows up. It's as cheap as playing the race card. Know what you shoot and know the people you shoot with. If there is a question about features and you aren't getting a solid response leave the gun at home and shoot something else.

WhatsTCP
01-31-2011, 4:17 PM
this was happening on a cold range with people down range setting up targets? Or was it done during the time when the RO checks to make sure that everyone is unloaded before he allows you downrnage. If it is the former, funny how we get yelled at if we linger too long next to the bench, or touch something on the bench during a cease-fire, but here we have people purposely manipulating firearms with people down range.

nah it was when the ro checks to make sure firearms are unloaded




Really? Why are you getting sick to your stomach? You think the constitution should protect somebody from breaking the law? I welcome Forestry or CFG to check guns especially at the Firing Line. I know my rights but if somebody gets popped for a firearms violation I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. I'm pretty much over this 2A flag wavin crap whenever LEO shows up. It's as cheap as playing the race card. Know what you shoot and know the people you shoot with. If there is a question about features and you aren't getting a solid response leave the gun at home and shoot something else.

lol of course I don't think the constitution should protect somebody from breaking the law and I agree that I wouldn't feel sorry for anyone that violates a firearm law

However I can't help but feel that it wasn't quite right. A quick comparison in my eyes would be to a DUI checkpoint (which I believe are wrong)

Sniper3142
01-31-2011, 4:21 PM
Really? Why are you getting sick to your stomach? You think the constitution should protect somebody from breaking the law? I welcome Forestry or CFG to check guns especially at the Firing Line. I know my rights but if somebody gets popped for a firearms violation I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. I'm pretty much over this 2A flag wavin crap whenever LEO shows up. It's as cheap as playing the race card. Know what you shoot and know the people you shoot with. If there is a question about features and you aren't getting a solid response leave the gun at home and shoot something else.

I would have no problem with anyone LOOKING at my equipment.

But anyone trying to TOUCH IT without my permission is quite possibly violating of my rights. A funny uniform, badge, or hat does not give you the right to do anything you want; especially to my property. My property is just that... MY Property.

As long as they don't violate any laws or the Constitution, I have no problem with them ensuring compliance with current laws.

retired
01-31-2011, 4:51 PM
I am moving this thread to the 2nd Amendment forum in order to obtain some input from some of the CGF members and other members with 2nd Amendment expertise.

CSACANNONEER
01-31-2011, 4:57 PM
Is that even legal? I know they don't really care about the constitution.

If it violates our constitutional rights for them to perform these "checks", then I am opposed to it.

How could it violate anything? The USFS allows the range to operate on NF land. If you don't like the possibility of a check, shoot on your own property. It's their range so, it's their rules.

stix213
01-31-2011, 4:59 PM
Really? Why are you getting sick to your stomach? You think the constitution should protect somebody from breaking the law? I welcome Forestry or CFG to check guns especially at the Firing Line. I know my rights but if somebody gets popped for a firearms violation I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. I'm pretty much over this 2A flag wavin crap whenever LEO shows up. It's as cheap as playing the race card. Know what you shoot and know the people you shoot with. If there is a question about features and you aren't getting a solid response leave the gun at home and shoot something else.

Unless the officer had probable cause to believe you in fact had an illegally configured firearm, then I don't see how an officer can test your BB or verify 10 or less round mags without your consent. If they stood back and watch you drop mags without a tool, or watched you shoot 20 rounds straight out of a BB rifle without a reload, then they would have the probable cause to check the rifle but not until then.

They can't even do 12031(e) checks at a range because it was legal for you to have a loaded firearm, so they can't even use that as any pretext to touch your firearm.

And its not about using the constitution to protect anyone who has broken the law, as you put it. Its about how wrong it is for officers to physically search people's private property at will just to verify that they are in compliance with all laws without any reason to think they weren't already in compliance beforehand.

stix213
01-31-2011, 5:06 PM
How could it violate anything? The USFS allows the range to operate on NF land. If you don't like the possibility of a check, shoot on your own property. It's their range so, it's their rules.

So submitting to warrantless searches is part of the terms of use? Please show me where that is in the rules.

Does driving your car through USFS property open it up to any and all searches at any time for anything? Their roads so their rules right?

Quser.619
01-31-2011, 5:06 PM
Personally I wouldn't have an issue w/ any RO inspecting my AR. They do it already to make sure it's unloaded & by using the facilities, I agree to their terms. I'd get a little nervous having a LEO spot check it, especially w/o asking my permission or the chance of it being inspected w/o notification beforehand.

rodeoflyer
01-31-2011, 5:07 PM
How could it violate anything? The USFS allows the range to operate on NF land. If you don't like the possibility of a check, shoot on your own property. It's their range so, it's their rules.

I disagree with this. It's public land in the charge of public servants. My rights still apply.

Lookie, no touchy. Period.

devilinblack
01-31-2011, 5:14 PM
The problem is that it's not uncommon for the RO to touch and even clear guns for people that don't have a clue out there. The last time I was there the RO picked up some moron's pistol to clear it, since they couldn't follow directions, and pointed it right at himself while trying to work the action. I left.

Anyway, has anyone read the waiver you sign when you go there? Is it possible you give up some of your rights regarding privacy and a search when you go there?

uzigalil
01-31-2011, 5:25 PM
So if i follow the logic of the some of you here, every time a cop walks by you or your car you'll let them search you ?

Civilitant
01-31-2011, 5:27 PM
Really? Why are you getting sick to your stomach? You think the constitution should protect somebody from breaking the law? I welcome Forestry or CFG to check guns especially at the Firing Line. I know my rights but if somebody gets popped for a firearms violation I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. I'm pretty much over this 2A flag wavin crap whenever LEO shows up. It's as cheap as playing the race card. Know what you shoot and know the people you shoot with. If there is a question about features and you aren't getting a solid response leave the gun at home and shoot something else.


how about next time you go grocery shopping I stop you and perform a swab of your genitals. Just to make sure you are not a rapist.

its to protect people. if you are not a rapist, then you should have no objection to this.

according to your line of thought this should all be ok as long as I work for the grocery store right.

play the race card on that.

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 5:31 PM
I am a little curious: do you believe in the 4th Amendment, a "slippery slope" version of it, or not at all?

You give an inch, they take a mile. I thought this was obvious by now.
When it comes to shooting at a range open to the public I am 100% for LEO checking weapons for compliance. If you want to play the 4A card that's your right.

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 5:32 PM
how about next time you go grocery shopping I stop you and perform a swab of your genitals. Just to make sure you are not a rapist.

its to protect people. if you are not a rapist, then you should have no objection to this.

according to your line of thought this should all be ok as long as I work for the grocery store right.

play the race card on that.
The worst analogy ever!!!!!!!!!!!

Ron-Solo
01-31-2011, 5:34 PM
:popcorn:

Some people really have no clue what the 4th ammendment allows and doesn't. This range is operating on NF property on a conditional use permit. You agree to their terms when you go there to shoot. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

Plain view is not a search, and if a LE sees a rifle that might be configured illegally, then he has cause to investigate further and does not need your permission to handle the firearm. An "e" check has nothing to do with this situation. Interfere, and you just may get a new set of bracelets.

Civilitant
01-31-2011, 5:36 PM
The worst analogy ever!!!!!!!!!!!


I now see the light thank you for educating me.

I have been swung to agreeing with your opinion through your own excellent analogy.

SoCal Gunner
01-31-2011, 5:38 PM
All the feelings and hypotheticals aside, I'd like to hear some responses from our legal experts on this.

cmaynes
01-31-2011, 5:38 PM
the law is what it is-

you cannot have a typically configured AR/AK with hi-cap magazines, yet jackasses seem to be at the ranges with them pretty often- So often we hear about laws not being enforced, thus making them extraneous- here is a time when laws ARE being enforced, and now people are concerned about it- News flash- if you are street legal with your rifle- you have nothing to be concerned with. If you want to run your 30 round mags in your featured rifle- then go to Arizona or Nevada- its a pain in the ***, but it is the law for now- but getting bent out of shape because you get dinged rightfully on a violation is just sort of dumb.

DRH
01-31-2011, 5:41 PM
So if i follow the logic of the some of you here, every time a cop walks by you or your car you'll let them search you ?

They do it because they don't have anything to hide.:rolleyes: Some people don't get it.

The USFS has banned .50 BMG ammo at the range for fear of it hitting the freeway. We were also told if high capacity mags are used you better have your receipt present :confused:. The easiest solution is to not go to Lytle Creek.

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 5:42 PM
I now see the light thank you for educating me.

I have been swung to agreeing with your opinion through your own excellent analogy.
Your scenario was 100% off base and off reservation!

scarville
01-31-2011, 5:45 PM
When it comes to shooting at a range open to the public I am 100% for LEO checking weapons for compliance. If you want to play the 4A card that's your right.
Said the spider to the fly...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/It%27s_a_Trap.png

curtisfong
01-31-2011, 5:46 PM
Your scenario was 100% off base and off reservation!

Is winning an argument really this easy?

gun toting monkeyboy
01-31-2011, 5:48 PM
So what is the actual legal verdict on this? Not the chest pounding, WAGs and other assorted comments. Are they legally allowed to touch your firearm there without your permission? Yes or no?

stix213
01-31-2011, 5:53 PM
:popcorn:

Some people really have no clue what the 4th ammendment allows and doesn't. This range is operating on NF property on a conditional use permit. You agree to their terms when you go there to shoot. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

Plain view is not a search, and if a LE sees a rifle that might be configured illegally, then he has cause to investigate further and does not need your permission to handle the firearm. An "e" check has nothing to do with this situation. Interfere, and you just may get a new set of bracelets.

I said this earlier... so if you drive your car on NF property you should then be forced to allow a search of it too? Your car is in plain view and might have 10LB of marijuana hidden inside. I would think the warrantless searching of any and all vehicles on NF land could go a long way in stopping illegal MJ grows actually. This is just as reasonable as searching all plain view rifles to check for anything illegal they may contain.

Wherryj
01-31-2011, 5:54 PM
How could it violate anything? The USFS allows the range to operate on NF land. If you don't like the possibility of a check, shoot on your own property. It's their range so, it's their rules.

...although many could argue that the National Forest belongs to the people of the United States, not the government of the United States.

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 5:55 PM
I said this earlier... so if you drive your car on NF property you should then be forced to allow a search of it too? Your car is in plain view and might have 10LB of marijuana hidden inside. I would think the warrantless searching of any and all vehicles on NF land could go a long way in stopping illegal MJ grows actually. This is just as reasonable as searching all plain view rifles to check for anything illegal they may contain.

Gun on a bench in plain view vs weed hidden in a car? Two totally different scenarios that don't even compare!

CSACANNONEER
01-31-2011, 6:05 PM
the law is what it is-

you cannot have a typically configured AR/AK with hi-cap magazines, yet jackasses seem to be at the ranges with them pretty often- So often we hear about laws not being enforced, thus making them extraneous- here is a time when laws ARE being enforced, and now people are concerned about it- News flash- if you are street legal with your rifle- you have nothing to be concerned with. If you want to run your 30 round mags in your featured rifle- then go to Arizona or Nevada- its a pain in the ***, but it is the law for now- but getting bent out of shape because you get dinged rightfully on a violation is just sort of dumb.

You are not entirely correct here. California law does still allow for RAWs to use +10 round mags without maglocks.

...although many could argue that the National Forest belongs to the people of the United States, not the government of the United States.

Agreed but, as a society, "we" have founded certain agencies to oversee "our" forest. Those agencies have developed certain rules and regulations. Just because we don't always agree with those regulations doesn't mean that the agencies are wrong for enforcing them.

The bottom line is that we are not free to discharge firearms on all public properties. So, what makes enforcing laws on the public property of the NF any different than enforcing laws in a city park?

Civilitant
01-31-2011, 6:06 PM
Gun on a bench in plain view vs weed hidden in a car? Two totally different scenarios that don't even compare!

gun on a bench in plain view is undeniably evidence of a crime and undeniably probable cause for a search. we should institute this nationwide tonight.

end thread.

thank you dirt nap king for your support!


reading your opinions should lead to more dirt naps for us all.

Shiboleth
01-31-2011, 6:17 PM
While I'm not going to debate the legalities suffice it to say that generally if on USFS property the USFS is charged with the duty to ensure that any weapons used on USFS property are complient with State and Federal laws applicable to that piece of property. The same goes with the concessionaire of the property.

That they're charged with that duty doesn't provide probable cause.

Shiboleth
01-31-2011, 6:21 PM
Really? Why are you getting sick to your stomach? You think the constitution should protect somebody from breaking the law? I welcome Forestry or CFG to check guns especially at the Firing Line. I know my rights but if somebody gets popped for a firearms violation I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. I'm pretty much over this 2A flag wavin crap whenever LEO shows up. It's as cheap as playing the race card. Know what you shoot and know the people you shoot with. If there is a question about features and you aren't getting a solid response leave the gun at home and shoot something else.

This has nothing to do with whether or not someone is violating a law. The issue at hand is whether someone has a right to go fishing, to handle your property without your consent. I personally don't care about their desire to see firearms laws obeyed when it comes up against my rights not to have myself or my property searched without probable cause.

Shiboleth
01-31-2011, 6:24 PM
How could it violate anything? The USFS allows the range to operate on NF land. If you don't like the possibility of a check, shoot on your own property. It's their range so, it's their rules.

This is directly analogous to the UOC situations and private property. The owners of a place have the ability to request for you to leave, or else you face a trespassing charge. They have absolutely 0 right to be touching any of your property without probable cause, which they may in fact have from a plainview inspection but it doesn't sound like it.. Imagine if mall security or a restaurant owner decided to start checking people's guns when they were on their property. Wouldn't fly.

Shiboleth
01-31-2011, 6:28 PM
The problem is that it's not uncommon for the RO to touch and even clear guns for people that don't have a clue out there. The last time I was there the RO picked up some moron's pistol to clear it, since they couldn't follow directions, and pointed it right at himself while trying to work the action. I left.

Anyway, has anyone read the waiver you sign when you go there? Is it possible you give up some of your rights regarding privacy and a search when you go there?

Even if a form existed to allow a person to give up their fourth and fifth amendment rights in such a manner, said person would still be able to revoke that contract at will. He/she would then only be subject to expulsion from the property and maybe some civil issue from breach of contract. But no criminal charge, and no forced searches.

Shiboleth
01-31-2011, 6:34 PM
:popcorn:

Some people really have no clue what the 4th ammendment allows and doesn't. This range is operating on NF property on a conditional use permit. You agree to their terms when you go there to shoot. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

Plain view is not a search, and if a LE sees a rifle that might be configured illegally, then he has cause to investigate further and does not need your permission to handle the firearm. An "e" check has nothing to do with this situation. Interfere, and you just may get a new set of bracelets.

Hang on a sec...

What terms exactly might these be that require the unwilling allowing of a search of private property? If i am in violation of some policy regarding their conditional use permit or however they wish to operate their land, they may ask me to leave. Where would they find authority for a search?

If when you say, "if a LE sees a rifle that might be configured illegally, then he has cause to investigate further and does not need your permission to handle the firearm", you mean that a LE sees a rifle that he suspects, and has probable cause to believe, is illegal, not simply "might be", then sure. Otherwise, there's a pretty huge gulch between something that might be illegal or someone that might be committing a crime (like any person or any car you ever come across), and probable cause that a crime has been or is about to be committed.

BoxesOfLiberty
01-31-2011, 6:38 PM
:popcorn:

Some people really have no clue what the 4th ammendment allows and doesn't. This range is operating on NF property on a conditional use permit. You agree to their terms when you go there to shoot. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

Plain view is not a search, and if a LE sees a rifle that might be configured illegally, then he has cause to investigate further and does not need your permission to handle the firearm. An "e" check has nothing to do with this situation. Interfere, and you just may get a new set of bracelets.

I'm curious about the part in red. Are you saying that the mere presence of a rifle capable of being configured illegally constitutes probable cause to believe that the rifle has in fact been configured illegally?

Does the mere presence of a firearm that cannot be determined by its plainly visible characteristics to be illegal even constitute reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed? If so, is it only one particular crime, or would it be reasonable to suspect all manner of possible crimes and investigate them all?

I am genuinely curious about the thought process and legal justification behind this.


The wisdom of the bold portion is self-evident. While it might not be the ideal situation this is good and pragmatic advice. "Interfering" in any situation where a firearm is present is at least misdemeanor stupid (not to mention a clear-cut case of contempt of cop), and as they say "you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".

Shiboleth
01-31-2011, 6:38 PM
the law is what it is-

you cannot have a typically configured AR/AK with hi-cap magazines, yet jackasses seem to be at the ranges with them pretty often- So often we hear about laws not being enforced, thus making them extraneous- here is a time when laws ARE being enforced, and now people are concerned about it- News flash- if you are street legal with your rifle- you have nothing to be concerned with. If you want to run your 30 round mags in your featured rifle- then go to Arizona or Nevada- its a pain in the ***, but it is the law for now- but getting bent out of shape because you get dinged rightfully on a violation is just sort of dumb.

The resentment here is towards the idea that we may be searched without cause, not that we might be found out for something we've done wrong. I fully support aggressive LE action if/when probable cause exists, but don't go fishing imo. It's similar to the UOC people. I believe they are less upset about the fact that they can't carried loaded as they are about the constant (e) checks.

Shiboleth
01-31-2011, 6:43 PM
The bottom line is that we are not free to discharge firearms on all public properties. So, what makes enforcing laws on the public property of the NF any different than enforcing laws in a city park?

They may enforce the laws all day long, that's not at issue. The issue is whether one's location waives the 4a.

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 6:43 PM
gun on a bench in plain view is undeniably evidence of a crime and undeniably probable cause for a search. we should institute this nationwide tonight.

end thread.

thank you dirt nap king for your support!


reading your opinions should lead to more dirt naps for us all.
You are no where near Lytle Creek and I highly doubt you have been. How are you being affected by todays topic? Why don't you go fight another battle, you are to far right to see straight on this one! The fact that officers are there conducting these checks is great! I would rather shoot with folks that are willing to discharge legal equipment than the ones that are to dumb to know any better or the ones that want to play dumb when they get caught.

PsychGuy274
01-31-2011, 6:48 PM
This happened back in October I believe. My buddy was there that day, but he was on the shotgun range and didn't really know what was going on until he found a thread about it on Calguns.

If it were me I would absolutely refuse to let them touch anything that I owned. If they want to see me shoot it that bad they can stand behind me and watch ME do it, and that's only if I decided to keep shooting it.

If they don't like it then they can confiscate my firearms, arrest me, detain me, whatever...it'll only come back to bite them in the arse.

curtisfong
01-31-2011, 7:05 PM
I would rather ....

What you want the law to be has no bearing on what the law is.

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 7:10 PM
What you want the law to be has no bearing on what the law is.
Thank you Capt. Obvious! Can you call balls and strikes from your Lazy Boy to?

Sniper3142
01-31-2011, 7:16 PM
This has nothing to do with whether or not someone is violating a law. The issue at hand is whether someone has a right to go fishing, to handle your property without your consent. I personally don't care about their desire to see firearms laws obeyed when it comes up against my rights not to have myself or my property searched without probable cause.

+100!

My issue would be with the touching/searching of my property without my permission. Having it in plain sight does not suddenly not make it my property nor waive my rights.

If I have a case/bag/pack on the bench, they can't search it just because its in plain view.

Or better yet, if I have a radio scanner from Radio Shack sitting on the bench, just because its in plain view doesn't give anyone the right to check it for the ability to receive frequencies or communications that are illegal/banned.


If we apply DirtNapKings "logic" then the mere possibility that the scanner could be configured illegally gives a LEO the right to check its function to ensure legal compliance.

curtisfong
01-31-2011, 7:16 PM
Tell me then, what laws would have to be altered such that they match what you would like?

AdiosKali
01-31-2011, 7:27 PM
how about next time you go grocery shopping I stop you and perform a swab of your genitals. Just to make sure you are not a rapist.



Depends on what type of swab you were inclined to use:43:

Ford8N
01-31-2011, 7:30 PM
This happened back in October I believe. My buddy was there that day, but he was on the shotgun range and didn't really know what was going on until he found a thread about it on Calguns.

If it were me I would absolutely refuse to let them touch anything that I owned. If they want to see me shoot it that bad they can stand behind me and watch ME do it, and that's only if I decided to keep shooting it.

If they don't like it then they can confiscate my firearms, arrest me, detain me, whatever...it'll only come back to bite them in the arse.

No, it will not bother them in the least. They will not lose their job, pay check or pension. You will be the one bothered, even if you are in the right. It's just the way the law is in California.

They do it because they don't have anything to hide.:rolleyes: Some people don't get it.

The USFS has banned .50 BMG ammo at the range for fear of it hitting the freeway. We were also told if high capacity mags are used you better have your receipt present :confused:. The easiest solution is to not go to Lytle Creek.

Best advice. If you see The Man, immediately leave. Avoid the situation completely. Even though we might be legal, it's best to avoid the hassle. As gun owners in this particular state, we are all potential criminals, always. Just the way it is.

otalps
01-31-2011, 7:35 PM
There seem to be more and more quislings everyday on this site.

9mmlaw
01-31-2011, 7:40 PM
:popcorn:

Some people really have no clue what the 4th ammendment allows and doesn't. This range is operating on NF property on a conditional use permit. You agree to their terms when you go there to shoot. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

Plain view is not a search, and if a LE sees a rifle that might be configured illegally, then he has cause to investigate further and does not need your permission to handle the firearm. An "e" check has nothing to do with this situation. Interfere, and you just may get a new set of bracelets.

I completely disagree with you. The lack of a BB does not imply anything illegal about the weapon. It could be a registered assault weapon.

Every is seem to pull the "their range, their rules" card. Has anyone bothered to post their rules. I doubt they include a consent to allow LE to investigate your firearms and if it did, it is likely to be invalid.

hasserl
01-31-2011, 7:44 PM
You are no where near Lytle Creek and I highly doubt you have been. How are you being affected by todays topic? Why don't you go fight another battle, you are to far right to see straight on this one! The fact that officers are there conducting these checks is great! I would rather shoot with folks that are willing to discharge legal equipment than the ones that are to dumb to know any better or the ones that want to play dumb when they get caught.

The question is is the search legal, not if you personally like it or not.

JimWest
01-31-2011, 7:47 PM
This is a good thread. It makes me aware of another place I won't be going to shoot. Thanks guys! Have a great time wiping your feet on each other.

70extreme
01-31-2011, 7:48 PM
For what it is worth, the government has a program of covertly infiltrating boards like this for the express purpose of shaping public opinion. Research Cass Sunstein. This guy is Obobo's Information Czar. Dirt Nap dude is probably a gov't operative.

The "their range, their rules" does not fly either. They can not do anything they want to you because you agree to shoot on their facility. What if they wanted to strip search you? How about take your car?

Your rights NEVER go away.

scarville
01-31-2011, 8:13 PM
There seem to be more and more quislings everyday on this site.
Certainly does seem that way, doesn't it?

Falstaff
01-31-2011, 8:14 PM
So if i follow the logic of the some of you here, every time a cop walks by you or your car you'll let them search you ?
of course, he has "nothing to hide", hisrifles are "legal" :rolleyes:

Bruce
01-31-2011, 8:23 PM
So what would le federale do if some one was there with a RAW? AFAIK, Forestry doesn't have access to CLETS* in order check if said RAW is in fact registered.

* California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System

Echo_Sierra
01-31-2011, 8:26 PM
I'm glad they are checking! The range is there thanks to the US Forestry and I welcome there involvement. Let's not get our 2A panties all in a bunch over an officer checking for cheaters. Remember when the constitution was written there were no ARs and Bullet Buttons. It's a law, deal with it or get rid of your black rifles and shoot something else.

Are you done? Get off your condescending soap box now ok? Just because it's a law doesn't make it right.

PsychGuy274
01-31-2011, 8:27 PM
So what would le federale do if some one was there with a RAW? AFAIK, Forestry doesn't have access to CLETS* in order check if said RAW is in fact registered.

* California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System

They shouldn't unless they have received the CLETS training.

I think that it wouldn't matter anyways though. I think I remember reading somewhere that you can't shoot a RAW on NF land? Or maybe only specified parts?

If anyone knows about they I'd like to see a citation. Like I said, I think I vaguely remember reading it on Calguns some time ago. That might change the dynamic of this thread.

ke6guj
01-31-2011, 8:31 PM
it a licensed gun range, we can shoot RAWs there.

Zimz
01-31-2011, 8:34 PM
If someone was using 10/20 or 10/30 rd mags at the range with their BB equipped rifle, I could understand LE physically checking the magazines for compliance, since they give the appearance of being a 20 or 30 rounder, therefore giving reasonable suspicion of a violation. However I draw the line where someone is clearly using a 10 rd mag with a clearly visible bullet button. It's not hard at all to see without touching, and I would be pretty upset if someone handled my weapon without permission (aside from range staff to check unloaded).

The 4th amendment isn't something we should so easily let go of, even in the slightest.

M. D. Van Norman
01-31-2011, 8:38 PM
You think the constitution should protect somebody from breaking the law?

In fact, the Constitution does exactly this.

PsychGuy274
01-31-2011, 8:43 PM
it a licensed gun range, we can shoot RAWs there.

Wasn't someone talking about 'conditional' something or another earlier in this thread though. That might be one of the stipulations of shooting on NF land?

I'm not trying to argue by the way; I'm honestly curious.

jpigeon
01-31-2011, 8:44 PM
I said this earlier... so if you drive your car on NF property you should then be forced to allow a search of it too? Your car is in plain view and might have 10LB of marijuana hidden inside. I would think the warrantless searching of any and all vehicles on NF land could go a long way in stopping illegal MJ grows actually. This is just as reasonable as searching all plain view rifles to check for anything illegal they may contain.

I agree, looky only, unless probable cause is established. No ticky, no laundry.

jpigeon
01-31-2011, 8:49 PM
Gun on a bench in plain view vs weed hidden in a car? Two totally different scenarios that don't even compare!

Having a gun in plain view at the shooting range is not very uncommon. If they see someone dropping mags with no tools or blasting off more than 10 rds then go F with the dummies. Leave law abiding folks to their own business. Besides last time I checked the NF was funded by the people and for the people.

70extreme
01-31-2011, 9:09 PM
It is nice to know that most all the people on this board (with the exception of Dirtnapdude) have a healthy respect for their 4th amendment rights. Many good people died for the express purpose of securing those rights. It makes me sick to see a small group of people so eager to bootlick the government thugs.

I usually shoot at West End and I was planning to go to Lytle Creek this weekend. Not any more.

I would be interested to know if the officers asked to handle the guns first. If they did, it is similar to their approach they use at the so called border patrol checkpoints. They ask you questions about where you are going. Then, they ask to search your car. They count on the fact that most people do not know that they do not have to answer the questions nor do not have to allow a search of their car without probable cause.

It is not about "not having anything to hide". It is about respecting your God given rights and the effort that was spent by others to give them to you against a government that is not your friend.

hoffmang
01-31-2011, 9:16 PM
Law enforcement isn't allowed to troll a range. It is a violation of the 4A for them to seize your rifle - no matter how short - to inspect it absent probable cause to believe you've broken the law. That no arrests occurred the last time they did this means it is unreasonable to believe that an AR type rifle is probable cause to sieze...

Can someone please email me enough information to pass on to counsel to send a polite reminder letter?

-Gene

Phouty
01-31-2011, 9:18 PM
....... If they see someone dropping mags with no tools or blasting off more than 10 rds then go F with the dummies. Leave law abiding folks to their own business. Besides last time I checked the NF was funded by the people and for the people.

You didn't spend much time thinking of the sense of your post, did you?
It was already mentioned here, that blasting off more than 10 rounds and dropping the mags with no tools is not illegal! Think of owners (like myself) of legally registered AWs.
Otherwise people like you (?) fall in line with a view of the antis grouped around the Brady Bunch, that every person with a gun must be a criminal.

bodger
01-31-2011, 9:28 PM
Law enforcement isn't allowed to troll a range. It is a violation of the 4A for them to seize your rifle - no matter how short - to inspect it absent probable cause to believe you've broken the law. That no arrests occurred the last time they did this means it is unreasonable to believe that an AR type rifle is probable cause to sieze...

Can someone please email me enough information to pass on to counsel to send a polite reminder letter?

-Gene


Thank you.

The difference between listening to someone who actually knows the law, and those who don't but have opinions anyway, (including LEOs that chimed in here) is glaringly huge.

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 9:28 PM
It is nice to know that most all the people on this board (with the exception of Dirtnapdude) have a healthy respect for their 4th amendment rights. Many good people died for the express purpose of securing those rights. It makes me sick to see a small group of people so eager to bootlick the government thugs.

I usually shoot at West End and I was planning to go to Lytle Creek this weekend. Not any more.

I would be interested to know if the officers asked to handle the guns first. If they did, it is similar to their approach they use at the so called border patrol checkpoints. They ask you questions about where you are going. Then, they ask to search your car. They count on the fact that most people do not know that they do not have to answer the questions nor do not have to allow a search of their car without probable cause.

It is not about "not having anything to hide". It is about respecting your God given rights and the effort that was spent by others to give them to you against a government that is not your friend.
In 24 years that I have had a vehicle I have never even been asked by a LEO to search my car. If the scenario ever reared it's head of course my answer would be "NO". I guess I just take a little care not to get into situations that involve contact from LEO. But when it comes to being in the field and I consider shooting at Lytle Creek no differently from hunting. I would expect LEO to check guns. I would not be insulted or felt as if my rights were violated. Please keep up the name calling it just goes to show that it takes less effort in making your retorts seem more credible.


Law enforcement isn't allowed to troll a range. It is a violation of the 4A for them to seize your rifle - no matter how short - to inspect it absent probable cause to believe you've broken the law. That no arrests occurred the last time they did this means it is unreasonable to believe that an AR type rifle is probable cause to sieze...

Can someone please email me enough information to pass on to counsel to send a polite reminder letter?

-Gene
So is it a violation of my 4A rights to have CFG check my ammo, gun, tags, and hunting license while I am in the field?

AVgunGUY
01-31-2011, 9:35 PM
how about next time you go grocery shopping I stop you and perform a swab of your genitals. Just to make sure you are not a rapist.

:jump:

hahahaha - genital swab...

bodger
01-31-2011, 9:35 PM
How could it violate anything? The USFS allows the range to operate on NF land. If you don't like the possibility of a check, shoot on your own property. It's their range so, it's their rules.

Law enforcement isn't allowed to troll a range. It is a violation of the 4A for them to seize your rifle - no matter how short - to inspect it absent probable cause to believe you've broken the law. That no arrests occurred the last time they did this means it is unreasonable to believe that an AR type rifle is probable cause to sieze...


-Gene


Asked, and answered.

hoffmang
01-31-2011, 9:36 PM
DNK:

The exception you deleted is a longstanding historical exception that is often abused by DFG...

-Gene

70extreme
01-31-2011, 9:37 PM
Dirtdude, you may consider going to the range the same as hunting. But, you are wrong. It is people like you with no respect for yourself or the constitution that fuel the injustices we have this state. If you want to see the police state in action, drive the 8 FWY between El Centro and San Diego. Or, go hunting at Wister and drive back towards Palm Springs along the Salton Sea. Heck, I have a better idea. Fly commercially. They stick their hands IN your pants, feel your junk, or demand to radiate you with ionizing radiation simultaneously strip searching you without probable cause. The sheep put up with it.

Just admit you were wrong and you didn't consider the ramifications of your lazy attitude towards defending your rights. Here is the key point - THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING UNLESS WE RESIST (PEACEFULLY) THESE VIOLATIONS OF OUR LIBERTY.

See Hoffmang's post above.

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 9:41 PM
DNK:

The exception you deleted is a longstanding historical exception that is often abused by DFG...

-Gene
I was editing I don't think I deleted anything?

Dirtdude, you may consider going to the range the same as hunting. But, you are wrong. It is people like you with no respect for yourself or the constitution that fuel the injustices we have this state. If you want to see the police state in action, drive the 8 FWY between El Centro and San Diego. Or, go hunting at Wister and drive back towards Palm Springs along the Salton Sea. Heck, I have a better idea. Fly commercially. They stick their hands IN your pants, feel your junk, or demand to radiate you with ionizing radiation simultaneously strip searching you without probable cause. The sheep put up with it.

Just admit you were wrong and you didn't consider the ramifications of your lazy attitude towards defending your rights. Here is the key point - THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING UNLESS WE RESIST (PEACEFULLY) THESE VIOLATIONS OF OUR LIBERTY.

See Hoffmang's post above. You have zero knowledge of how I feel about or defend my rights. Because I think a gun laying on an open bench on USF land is ok to inspect does not make me the sheep. You think you can judge me over one view I lay into. From the way you have taken shots at me you are in no better shape to be making judgement calls. Trying to point out something Hoffmang is replying to, really? I can read about as well as you can toss out insults. My question was directed to him and I don't think he needs any help from you.

hoffmang
01-31-2011, 9:58 PM
I was editing I don't think I deleted anything?


I was posting as you were editing. Didn't at all to imply anything beyond the race condition.

DFG thinks they can force you to not carry a handgun for self defense even with a 12050 permit. Forget the 4A, they often have a hard time with California Penal Code...

-Gene

rodeoflyer
01-31-2011, 10:01 PM
Law enforcement isn't allowed to troll a range. It is a violation of the 4A for them to seize your rifle - no matter how short - to inspect it absent probable cause to believe you've broken the law. That no arrests occurred the last time they did this means it is unreasonable to believe that an AR type rifle is probable cause to sieze...

Can someone please email me enough information to pass on to counsel to send a polite reminder letter?

-Gene

Thank You, Gene.

Faded
01-31-2011, 10:12 PM
I am confused, in numerous post people mentioned if one was firing off more than 10 rounds than that would be probably cause. I don't understand that. Any preban "hi-cap" mag is legal. What does the round count have to do with it? I can understand not having a bullet button, but if you are at the range with a legal AR w/ bullet button using 30 round magazine how is that an issue?

Even if they find a 10+ mag I don't understand what they can do on that as well.

I am a bit confused on some of the posts.

PsychGuy274
01-31-2011, 10:15 PM
I am confused, in numerous post people mentioned if one was firing off more than 10 rounds than that would be probably cause. I don't understand that. Any preban "hi-cap" mag is legal. What does the round count have to do with it? I can understand not having a bullet button, but if you are at the range with a legal AR w/ bullet button using 30 round magazine how is that an issue?

Even if they find a 10+ mag I don't understand what they can do on that as well.

I am a bit confused on some of the posts.

It's illegal to run a magazine with more than 10 rounds in a rifle that has a bullet button.

By doing that you break the law you're trying to abide by, by having a bullet button. It's an 'assault weapon' thing, not a high-cap mag thing.

Faded
01-31-2011, 10:17 PM
It's illegal to run a magazine with more than 10 rounds in a rifle that has a bullet button.

By doing that you break the law you're trying to abide by, by having a bullet button. It's an 'assault weapon' thing, not a high-cap mag thing.

Oh gotcha - thanks for clearing that up. So is it fair to assume if you go featureless then it is legal?

PsychGuy274
01-31-2011, 10:19 PM
Oh gotcha - thanks for clearing that up. So is it fair to assume if you go featureless then it is legal?

Yes, if the rifle is 'featureless' then you can run whatever you want pretty much and also not have a bullet button on it.

PM720
01-31-2011, 10:21 PM
Remember when the constitution was written there were no ARs and Bullet Buttons.

I am not sure I understand your point here. When the Consitution was written there were no bolt, lever or pump actions either. No revolvers, no single shot cartridge firearms, pretty much all flintlock muzzle loaders. Using your logic, as the anti-gunners have tried in the past, could lead to ALL modern firearms being regulated. Wether YOU like it or not, black rifles ARE currently legal and any search of them should follow proper rules and procedures.

Scott

Secret
01-31-2011, 10:22 PM
Oh gotcha - thanks for clearing that up. So is it fair to assume if you go featureless then it is legal?

yea its legal if you owned the mags before the ban in 2000

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 10:30 PM
I am not sure I understand your point here. When the Consitution was written there were no bolt, lever or pump actions either. No revolvers, no single shot cartridge firearms, pretty much all flintlock muzzle loaders. Using your logic, as the anti-gunners have tried in the past, could lead to ALL modern firearms being regulated. Wether YOU like it or not, black rifles ARE currently legal and any search of them should follow proper rules and procedures.

Scott
My big beef when this started is with the fact that people want to cheat then duck and cover and throw up the 2A, 4A cards when they get pinched. People getting all bent out of shape about there rifle being checked at a USF range is what has me baffled as of today because I thought it was perfectly legal. I will consult with Hoffmang and another credible source on the matter since everybody just wants to jump on the bash wagon and make me out be somebody I am not.

Sniper3142
01-31-2011, 10:34 PM
I have no problems with folks who have broken the law getting caught. My gripe is with this assumption that LEO or Government officals can bend, break, or just ignore any law of right they feel is a hinderance to what they are trying to do at that time.

The Constitution wasn't just written to state the Rights of the People; it was also written to state the Limits on Government and its agents.

cindynles
01-31-2011, 10:37 PM
:popcorn:

Some people really have no clue what the 4th ammendment allows and doesn't. This range is operating on NF property on a conditional use permit. You agree to their terms when you go there to shoot. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

Plain view is not a search, and if a LE sees a rifle that might be configured illegally, then he has cause to investigate further and does not need your permission to handle the firearm. An "e" check has nothing to do with this situation. Interfere, and you just may get a new set of bracelets.

I hate to break it to you Ron, but I have several RAWs and I am not required to carry proof of registration with me. The fact that I am using them in compliance with all Federal and State law does NOT give you probable cause to seize my property for ANY length of time. You have no way of knowing if I am shooting a RAW or an illegally configured OLL. You may get away with the violation of my rights at the time (I will not consent, but I will not resist either) but afterwards you will be talking to your IA department after I file a complaint and your department will probably be having a nice conversation with the CalGuns legal team. That will look great on your next performance review.......

rodeoflyer
01-31-2011, 10:38 PM
My big beef when this started is with the fact that people want to cheat then duck and cover and throw up the 2A, 4A cards when they get pinched. People getting all bent out of shape about there rifle being checked at a USF range is what has me baffled as of today because I thought it was perfectly legal. I will consult with Hoffmang and another credible source on the matter since everybody just wants to jump on the bash wagon and make me out be somebody I am not.

That's what you should have done in the first place.

No, you made it pretty clear what you are and what you think of those that are better informed. ;)

otalps
01-31-2011, 10:41 PM
People getting all bent out of shape about there rifle being checked at a USF range is what has me baffled as of today because I thought it was perfectly legal. I will consult with Hoffmang and another credible source on the matter since everybody just wants to jump on the bash wagon and make me out be somebody I am not.

The bolded is probably the problem. Considering this:

You think the constitution should protect somebody from breaking the law? I welcome Forestry or CFG to check guns especially at the Firing Line. I know my rights but if somebody gets popped for a firearms violation I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. I'm pretty much over this 2A flag wavin crap whenever LEO shows up. It's as cheap as playing the race card. Know what you shoot and know the people you shoot with. If there is a question about features and you aren't getting a solid response leave the gun at home and shoot something else.

It's no wonder people are making you out to be something you claim not to be. If you can't understand the most basic reason that the Constitution exists well, what do you expect?

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 10:47 PM
The bolded is probably the problem. Considering this:



It's no wonder people are making you out to be something you claim not to be. If you can't understand the most basic reason that the Constitution exists well, what do you expect?
It's already been addressed and rectified. But if you want to drag this out I have a few more minutes.

jdberger
01-31-2011, 10:49 PM
Deleted 'cause it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

PsychGuy274
01-31-2011, 10:56 PM
yea its legal if you owned the mags before the ban in 2000

While that's true, there's also more to it, though.

Keep in mind that possession, use and purchase are not illegal. Only sale, importation and manufacture. ;)

Secret
01-31-2011, 10:58 PM
While that's true, there's also more to it, though.

Keep in mind that possession, use and purchase are not illegal. Only sale, importation and manufacture. ;)

I dont see how you can get any more though :O pm if you got the dlow :chris:

otalps
01-31-2011, 10:59 PM
It's already been addressed and rectified. But if you want to drag this out I have a few more minutes.

Not sure where it was rectified exactly but whatever. You seemed to wonder why people jumped on the "bash wagon" as you put it so I put in my 2 cents. You can drag it out as long as you want.

As rodeoflyer already said though:


No, you made it pretty clear what you are and what you think of those that are better informed. ;)

DirtNapKing
01-31-2011, 11:25 PM
Not sure where it was rectified exactly but whatever. You seemed to wonder why people jumped on the "bash wagon" as you put it so I put in my 2 cents. You can drag it out as long as you want.

As rodeoflyer already said though:
There was no wonder implied. I'm not going to back down on what I felt was right and I'm not going to roll over like the sheep that some have accused me of being. If people think I am wrong thats great but I owe nobody an apology for what I have posted. Nobody could come up with a solid answer until Hoffmang set the record straight. But like I said earlier it's been addressed. It's just as simple to sit back and calls balls and strikes from your lazy boy but you really didn't help bring anything to table nor did you have any good advice to lend. Instead you only added to the frustration by throwing in what you call your .02.

baz152
01-31-2011, 11:44 PM
The problem is, is that those "black" rifles could all be legal registered assault weapons. So if a shooter lays their rifle down, ejection port up the RO can verify that there is nothing in the chamber and there is no need to flip the rifle over and reveal the serial numbers or makers mark which on all AR's I know of are on the left side. So this being said there is no probable cause for a LEO to inspect the firearm.

If you think that it is okay for LEO's to check your firearms like this then you should leave your home and car unlocked for the police to check any time they like on the chance that there "may" be something illegal in there. Sorry but what those LEO's were doing is called a fishing expedition and it was a constitutional violation.

Shiboleth
02-01-2011, 12:07 AM
Nobody could come up with a solid answer until Hoffmang set the record straight. But like I said earlier it's been addressed. It's just as simple to sit back and calls balls and strikes from your lazy boy but you really didn't help bring anything to table nor did you have any good advice to lend. Instead you only added to the frustration by throwing in what you call your .02.

Um...Gene said basically the same thing i told you a page earlier. I'm not the authority source of information that Gene is, but don't say no one put forward the info.

MP301
02-01-2011, 12:10 AM
yea its legal if you owned the mags before the ban in 2000
No, it's legal period ..even if you got them yesterday.

owning or possessing and using them are not "actionable". Selling, lending, importing, giving and manufacturing are a no no though. The statute says nothing about possessing, etc.

Just thought you should know :D

eaglemike
02-01-2011, 12:16 AM
:popcorn:

Some people really have no clue what the 4th ammendment allows and doesn't. This range is operating on NF property on a conditional use permit. You agree to their terms when you go there to shoot. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

Plain view is not a search, and if a LE sees a rifle that might be configured illegally, then he has cause to investigate further and does not need your permission to handle the firearm. An "e" check has nothing to do with this situation. Interfere, and you just may get a new set of bracelets.
It would be courteous to ask - right?? Or is it SOP to walk up and just start handling.

BTW, I've seen far worse gun handling safety from LEO than from my circle of shooting. :)

ETA: Isn't it ironic that CGN and CGF have been far more effective at education about assault weapons laws than the DOJ or anyone else? Why shouldn't there be a public education program about this sort of thing? Or is it easier and simpler just to start troliing ranges.......

otalps
02-01-2011, 12:19 AM
There was no wonder implied.

So I misinterpreted what you wrote, sue me.



I'm not going to back down on what I felt was right and I'm not going to roll over like the sheep that some have accused me of being. If people think I am wrong thats great but I owe nobody an apology for what I have posted. Nobody could come up with a solid answer until Hoffmang set the record straight. But like I said earlier it's been addressed. It's just as simple to sit back and calls balls and strikes from your lazy boy but you really didn't help bring anything to table nor did you have any good advice to lend. Instead you only added to the frustration by throwing in what you call your .02.
[/QUOTE]

You sure sounded opinionated in your previous posts. But, you are correct.

I should never have thrown in my 2 cents. I should've left the thread with my original response of you being a quisling which still stands.

In your own words, and there is no misunderstanding here.

I'm glad they are checking! The range is there thanks to the US Forestry and I welcome there involvement. Let's not get our 2A panties all in a bunch over an officer checking for cheaters. Remember when the constitution was written there were no ARs and Bullet Buttons. It's a law, deal with it or get rid of your black rifles and shoot something else.

If you have a legal gun then you should have nothing to worry about. Not to mention the Firing Line is on US Forest land and you are subject to check, no different if you were up the road a ways hunting and you are stopped by CFG.

We are talking about an open check on a firing line this has nothing to do with my home or vehicle.

Really? Why are you getting sick to your stomach? You think the constitution should protect somebody from breaking the law? I welcome Forestry or CFG to check guns especially at the Firing Line. I know my rights but if somebody gets popped for a firearms violation I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. I'm pretty much over this 2A flag wavin crap whenever LEO shows up. It's as cheap as playing the race card. Know what you shoot and know the people you shoot with. If there is a question about features and you aren't getting a solid response leave the gun at home and shoot something else.

When it comes to shooting at a range open to the public I am 100% for LEO checking weapons for compliance. If you want to play the 4A card that's your right.

You are no where near Lytle Creek and I highly doubt you have been. How are you being affected by todays topic? Why don't you go fight another battle, you are to far right to see straight on this one! The fact that officers are there conducting these checks is great! I would rather shoot with folks that are willing to discharge legal equipment than the ones that are to dumb to know any better or the ones that want to play dumb when they get caught.

My big beef when this started is with the fact that people want to cheat then duck and cover and throw up the 2A, 4A cards when they get pinched. People getting all bent out of shape about there rifle being checked at a USF range is what has me baffled as of today because I thought it was perfectly legal. I will consult with Hoffmang and another credible source on the matter since everybody just wants to jump on the bash wagon and make me out be somebody I am not.

Yeah, you are.

aermotor
02-01-2011, 12:40 AM
This thread is filled with so many confusing and contradicting statements it hurts my head. Please make it stop.

bwiese
02-01-2011, 12:46 AM
Some people really have no clue what the 4th ammendment allows and doesn't. This range is operating on NF property on a conditional use permit. You agree to their terms when you go there to shoot. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

Plain view is not a search, and if a LE sees a rifle that might be configured illegally, then he has cause to investigate further and does not need your permission to handle the firearm. An "e" check has nothing to do with this situation. Interfere, and you just may get a new set of bracelets.

Correct.

You're a 'guest' at that area. A Fed LE cannot turn a blind eye to criminal conduct.

Why somebody thinks they can get away with illegal conduct just because there's a Fed badge on the uniform puzzles me.

The good news: this means the BulletButton etc. is fully accepted/known so lawful users should not be harrassed.

[Do also remember that hassling a lawful gunnie can be a nice Fed issue and moves outside state courts.]

Now, if the Feds are handling benched guns in spite of RO orders while shooters are downrange (I'd be surprised if ROs would not protest) checking their targets, that's a safety no-no and some *****in' & moanin' needs to move up the chain.

We should not be *****in' at this situation - fixing CA laws will fix this situation.

bwiese
02-01-2011, 12:49 AM
No, it's legal period ..even if you got them yesterday.

owning or possessing and using them are not "actionable". Selling, lending, importing, giving and manufacturing are a no no though. The statute says nothing about possessing, etc.

Just thought you should know :D


You're going out there on a bit of a limb.

Most people talk themselves into jail or have Cabela's transactions on their Visa.

DirtNapKing
02-01-2011, 12:50 AM
Yeah, you are.
Amazing, I typed all that? Thanks for wasting your time again compiling a majority of my text. You have proved nothing except for that fact that you are a bigger adam henry and just can't let it go. The questions that arose today have been answered by two highly qualified persons one of which is a member here and one of which who is not. So far you just want to stir the pot. Apparently that's all you are qualified at doing.

retired
02-01-2011, 1:08 AM
Well, that was an experiment that certainly went the wrong way. I was hoping Gene and Bill would have had the time to post shortly after I moved this from the Range/Meets/Shoots forum (page 2), but unfortunately that didn't occur.

I am sure their business kept them from replying until they did considering how busy they both are.

Instead of some expert opinions from the experts, this thread became one of trashing other's opinions, stating they don't like the law the way it is, even tho it is the law and all sorts of other things I don't want to even repeat.

I will be in contact with Gene and Bill and we'll see what develops from their input.