PDA

View Full Version : Open Carry Police Encounter (Video) - La Mesa


CitaDeL
02-11-2011, 1:53 PM
2Zku88JfQmk

wheels
02-11-2011, 2:20 PM
So if there was no magazine in the weapon it can't have one in the chamber? Logic fail. That's how people shoot "unloaded" weapons all the time....

Crom
02-11-2011, 2:22 PM
That's Cosmos coffee shop.

Rukus
02-11-2011, 2:32 PM
So if there was no magazine in the weapon it can't have one in the chamber? Logic fail. That's how people shoot "unloaded" weapons all the time....

I thought the exact same thing. Seems like it was handled well on all sides though.

ENVYGREEN
02-11-2011, 2:32 PM
exhausting

Zak
02-11-2011, 2:48 PM
Why not just leave the magazine well empty? It would be easier to inspect visually, and faster to load if SHTF.

modernchaos
02-11-2011, 2:59 PM
Why not just leave the magazine well empty? It would be easier to inspect visually, and faster to load if SHTF.

I have wondered this myself. As well as the purpose of carrying an unloaded firearm? Just to video tape the incident?

I love my rights, I love my guns, but sometimes this seems silly, lets walk down the steet with an unloaded weapon, waste some cops time, and mine, for what?

No disrespect either, I just wouldnt want the hassle, or the attention.. if I'm carrying it would be for SD, and carrying it UOC seems to defeat that purpose. And what other purpose is there for carrying a gun?

MudCamper
02-11-2011, 3:01 PM
Why not just leave the magazine well empty? It would be easier to inspect visually, and faster to load if SHTF.

There are several reasons, but one of the more significant is to avoid a People v Hale style 12025 violation.

And I have to say, IMO that cop was incredibly polite, and the UOCers in this case were really rude.

jl123
02-11-2011, 3:03 PM
I have wondered this myself. As well as the purpose of carrying an unloaded firearm? Just to video tape the incident?

I love my rights, I love my guns, but sometimes this seems silly, lets walk down the steet with an unloaded weapon, waste some cops time, and mine, for what?

No disrespect either, I just wouldnt want the hassle, or the attention.. if I'm carrying it would be for SD, and carrying it UOC seems to defeat that purpose. And what other purpose is there for carrying a gun?

They don't really have any other options do they? I'm sure they'd prefer not to be carrying unloaded firearms......or the police harassment for that matter.

modernchaos
02-11-2011, 3:09 PM
They don't really have any other options do they? I'm sure they'd prefer not to be carrying unloaded firearms......or the police harassment for that matter.

It depends, I guess. I am sure you are right about carrying it unloaded and the harassment.

As for other options, I can think of several. It depends on what your goal, and intentions are.

If I was worried about SD in front of that tough looking coffee house, I might opt for a hammer on a toolbelt though. Its always loaded, and would attract less attention. I am thinking SD is not there concern however.

N6ATF
02-11-2011, 3:11 PM
Damn, that's a few blocks away from where I used to live last year.

Tripper
02-11-2011, 3:17 PM
what was that, 10 cops. I know at least 5 in immediate vicinity, then I saw a few in the backgrounds.
What a waste of resources.
Yes, he was polite, the entire thing was simply not necessary

if there was any 'other' probable cause, I would agree with it more. but that was simply 'feel good' (or, i can so i will) for someone. (not necessarily that officer), probably policy and he had to.

Tripper

Civilitant
02-11-2011, 3:19 PM
why were there 6 cops there in the first place?

Decoligny
02-11-2011, 3:23 PM
It depends, I guess. I am sure you are right about carrying it unloaded and the harassment.

As for other options, I can think of several. It depends on what your goal, and intentions are.

If I was worried about SD in front of that tough looking coffee house, I might opt for a hammer on a toolbelt though. Its always loaded, and would attract less attention. I am thinking SD is not there concern however.

McDonalds in San Ysidro was a nice peaceful crowd until the crazy guy with the gun started killing people, a person UOCing could have possibly taken out the gunman.

Luby's in Waco, TX was a nice peaceful crowd until the crazy guy with a gun started killing people, one by one, walking slowly from table to table. Someone UOCing would have had more than ample time to load up and defend themselves.

In either of these cases, a hammer would not have been of much use at all.

barrym66
02-11-2011, 3:23 PM
why were there 6 cops there in the first place?

It appears that the PD made good use of the 'incident' as a training exercise...per one of the YouTube comments,

This was for all intent and purpose a training exercise for the La Mesa PD. The 9 officers were not dispatched to this call. When the officer waiting for us to arrive spotted one UOC'r he told dispatch he would be at scene checking an open carrier. ALL the other officers on duty, showed up to witness and see what it was about. and learn

MaceWindu
02-11-2011, 3:24 PM
I have wondered this myself. As well as the purpose of carrying an unloaded firearm? Just to video tape the incident?

I love my rights, I love my guns, but sometimes this seems silly, lets walk down the steet with an unloaded weapon, waste some cops time, and mine, for what? While video taping.

No disrespect either, I just wouldnt want the hassle, or the attention.. if I'm carrying it would be for SD

This...



And I have to say, IMO that cop was incredibly polite, and the UOCers in this case were really rude.

This is the problem. We are our OWN worst enemy with this type of UOC attitude. This Officer was extremely polite. ...SMH...

MW

Tripper
02-11-2011, 3:29 PM
Barry, thats really good to hear.

I'm glad it was used as a (real) training incident.

I'll retract my thought of wasted resources if that was used for training.

Good Job

Tripper

modernchaos
02-11-2011, 3:42 PM
McDonalds in San Ysidro was a nice peaceful crowd until the crazy guy with the gun started killing people, a person UOCing could have possibly taken out the gunman.

Luby's in Waco, TX was a nice peaceful crowd until the crazy guy with a gun started killing people, one by one, walking slowly from table to table. Someone UOCing would have had more than ample time to load up and defend themselves.

In either of these cases, a hammer would not have been of much use at all.

You, sir have never seen ME with a hammer then. Ill post a youtube video about it!!! :rolleyes:

OK, Im just messing around now. I said my thoughts on this, and would never speak againt carrying for SD.

Hammer OUT!!

barrym66
02-11-2011, 3:45 PM
Barry, thats really good to hear.

I'm glad it was used as a (real) training incident.

I'll retract my thought of wasted resources if that was used for training.

Good Job

Tripper

I just watched the whole video. I think the officers did a good job, polite but correct.

Personally I think the whole UOC thing is unhelpful to our 2A awareness activity (at this time), and many UOC'ers would be better served with a more friendly/positive attitude when it comes to police interaction.

Just my $.02. ;)

dantodd
02-11-2011, 3:55 PM
If I was worried about SD in front of that tough looking coffee house, I might opt for a hammer on a toolbelt though. Its always loaded, and would attract less attention. I am thinking SD is not there concern however.

Carrying a hammer for self defense is illegal in CA. Felony I believe.


Sent via tapatalk on my Samsung Vibrant.

BKinzey
02-11-2011, 3:58 PM
Where were the UOCers being rude? I really didn't see that. :confused:

erratikmind
02-11-2011, 4:07 PM
And I have to say, IMO that cop was incredibly polite, and the UOCers in this case were really rude.

I echo those comments. Stellar performance by the LEO in charge.

loose_electron
02-11-2011, 4:07 PM
Unloaded Open Carry - what is the constructive purpose in this?

I really don't see one. People exercising their rights to carry an unloaded weapon publicly?

What a lot of gun owners don't seem to understand that the 2A rights we have are a political exercise to protect, as well as a legal right.

On the political side, the UOC thing re-enforces a stereotype that will not help the image.

Charlton Heston was made a figurehead of the NRA for a reason. Represent the sport in a manner that was positive to the public, and did not evoke the "some gun nut" stereotype.

You want to be a cop? Go sign up, You want to be in the military, again, go sign up. Doing this sort of stuff in public just weakens the case for people who want to own and use guns for proper and legal purposes.

The net result of this kind of stuff is just going to make it more difficult in the public's view, and thats the group that needs to be kept informed and make decisions.

You want to promote gun rights? Offer to teach a course in firearms safety, teach the Boy Scouts how to shoot or something similar. This stuff is counterproductive.

sandman21
02-11-2011, 4:11 PM
Where were the UOCers being rude? I really didn't see that. :confused:

For some they didn't lick the cops boots enough. :rolleyes:

modernchaos
02-11-2011, 4:11 PM
Carrying a hammer for self defense is illegal in CA. Felony I believe.


Sent via tapatalk on my Samsung Vibrant.

I believe you are right, and I knew that when I posted. Was just a "light" observation, as an unloaded weapon is basically a hammer, just a less effective one.

And obviously I do not condone or suggest doing anything illegal or stupid for that matter.

GrizzlyGuy
02-11-2011, 4:12 PM
My my, there sure were an awful lot of armed people wearing blue costumes adorned with tin symbols of authority. Who checks their guns? ;)

southernsnowshoe
02-11-2011, 4:17 PM
About 7 miles from my house. Really proud of my fellow UOCer's . The cops did a good job as well, don't think I would have bothered asking for any business cards.

Swatter911
02-11-2011, 4:19 PM
Good fodder for a future AB144 hearing...for the antis.

MFortie
02-11-2011, 4:25 PM
DANG! I missed the fun!! I work around the corner from there. What time of day was that?

I thought the officer's were very professional. The guy in tan with the backpack sounded self righteous to me. The tone and body language shouted FU IMHO.

I am really on the fence here -- while exercising one's rights is admirable, I can't help seeing UOC as being needlessly confrontational.

SarcoBlaster
02-11-2011, 4:26 PM
Why the numerous officers? Because they don't know whether or not they're stopping a group of individuals who are about to hit the local stop and rob or just a group of attention-seeking whor... I mean, UOCers. It's easier to have officers break away from a call as opposed to adding more when/if the fecal matter hits the device with rapidly rotating blades.

The jackass in the hat and sunglasses whining about the officer's righ... excuse me, permission :rolleyes: to check his firearm is flapping his gums just to assure himself that his member is of adequate size. The officers wouldn't be doing their JOBS if they didn't check to ensure that the firearms were indeed unloaded (in areas where they must be unloaded, of course).

BKinzey
02-11-2011, 4:31 PM
...
Charlton Heston was made a figurehead of the NRA for a reason. Represent the sport in a manner that was positive to the public, and did not evoke the "some gun nut" stereotype.....

Generally that was the opinion of the NRA. If you look at his stance on Evil Black Rifles he wasn't that good of a figurehead. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you found statements by him to the effect that EBRs = "some gun nut."

As to his stance with the public look at how he was treated in "Bowling for Columbine." I wonder how much of the public thought he was "some gun nut" when he stated "From My Cold Dead Hands!"

N6ATF
02-11-2011, 4:39 PM
The officers wouldn't be doing their JOBS if they didn't check to ensure that the firearms were indeed unloaded (in areas where they must be unloaded, of course).

Actually since they swore to support and defend the supreme law of the land (COTUS), they weren't doing their jobs. Unless they had their fingers and toes crossed when they swore their oaths.

Chadster
02-11-2011, 4:39 PM
Why bother UOC ? Here is a good example. It took 31 seconds from first verbal threat to first punch. It takes me 3.1 seconds to load my gun while UOC.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Np60ixJBE&feature=related

jpigeon
02-11-2011, 5:04 PM
The LEO inspecting the guns seemed like a nice guy...

Diablo
02-11-2011, 5:15 PM
Well handled from both sides. I can't wait for the day when an inspection is not needed.

MasterrEugene
02-11-2011, 5:16 PM
The more people hop on board and open carry in a peaceful and organized manner, the more publicity the open carry movement gets. I personally think a lot of brownie points can be made from events like this, if done in an orderly fashion.

...the public gets educated, the police get educated, and i get edumacated :D

donny douchebag
02-11-2011, 5:25 PM
I can't wait for the day when an inspection is not needed.

That'll be next January...

kertong
02-11-2011, 5:25 PM
The LEO inspecting the guns seemed like a nice guy...

Agreed - the LEO did everything by the book, and was extremely polite.

On the other hand, I could see how some may view the UOCers' actions as being rude or confrontational. In the first minute or so, as the cameraman sat down and the officer told them to hang tight while the other officer finishes the checks - the "what's your name?" question shot out, and it sounded a little antagonistic to me. I know from LEOs that they are being told many people are using the officers' unfamiliarity with the carry laws to antagonize and sue them, and this kind of approach shows me why they might think that. They were being polite and doing things by the book, but they were treated like a mistake was assumed to be made.

After they were polite, checked your weapons (after being asked to return it 'the way it was'), returned it, and were walking away after wishing you guys all a good day, the UOCers still called out asking for names/business cards, etc.

I'm a bit on the fence about it all, but overall, I'm glad everything went so smoothly. :) Just my 2 cents!

aermotor
02-11-2011, 5:33 PM
Can't the UOC Movement chill out a bit in these days... we are making good progress and I don't see the point. IMO you aren't helping the cause. It's almost as if people are doing this to try and catch cops being a-holes. That's counter productive.

The cops handled it great.

Hunt
02-11-2011, 5:49 PM
Can't the UOC Movement chill out a bit in these days... we are making good progress and I don't see the point. IMO you aren't helping the cause. It's almost as if people are doing this to try and catch cops being a-holes. That's counter productive.

The cops handled it great.

I used to think like that, but when I consider how things are elsewhere I change my view. These attitudes I see are a good example of the State forming opinion. Stop and think for a moment how much of your opinion is shaped by the State.

Zak
02-11-2011, 5:54 PM
Why the numerous officers? Because they don't know whether or not they're stopping a group of individuals who are about to hit the local stop and rob or just a group of attention-seeking whor... I mean, UOCers. It's easier to have officers break away from a call as opposed to adding more when/if the fecal matter hits the device with rapidly rotating blades.

The jackass in the hat and sunglasses whining about the officer's righ... excuse me, permission :rolleyes: to check his firearm is flapping his gums just to assure himself that his member is of adequate size. The officers wouldn't be doing their JOBS if they didn't check to ensure that the firearms were indeed unloaded (in areas where they must be unloaded, of course).

I would imagine that there'd also be numerous officers because if someone was LOCing, they could eject their magazine when the officer isn't looking. Regardless, I don't think anyone would argue that we could be putting our LEOs to better use.

stix213
02-11-2011, 5:57 PM
The more people hop on board and open carry in a peaceful and organized manner, the more publicity the open carry movement gets. I personally think a lot of brownie points can be made from events like this, if done in an orderly fashion.

...the public gets educated, the police get educated, and i get edumacated :D

The more frightened soccer moms get while just trying to walk their kids to the toy store, and the more they contact their state reps to get these crazy gun nuts off the streets.

The problem is UOC isn't actually a right, it never has been and it never will be. It isn't protected by the 2A specifically, because the right to bear arms refers to functional arms, and a gun can't function without one in the pipe. If through the courts we get the right to LOC that can't be stopped from then on by the legislature, then fine these soccer moms will have to deal once they can no longer cry to their reps to stop gunnies. If we get our method of bearing arms in CA as CCW (which I expect, keeping LOC banned largely) then concealed will be the right we can utilize. All the UOC BS is like you are running down the street screaming "RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE" and claiming you have a right to free speech so its all good you can say what you want, why have a right if you don't use it? When the legislature can damn well ban exactly what you are doing, since it isn't a right at all or even close.

Its like you are all daring the state to ban UOC, like you don't even want it legal anymore. I just don't get it. For all you UOCers saying its a right, so why hide from my rights, just think about it for a second. Rights can't be taken away by a bill sent to the governors desk like UOC can. UOC can and will if you keep flaunting it in people's faces like its some loophole you are getting away with.

Steveo8
02-11-2011, 6:01 PM
Did anybody stop to think that the request for the names was to contact the CLEO to compliment the actions that were taken in a positive light rather then jumping on a negative UOC bandwagon? The OCers were as polite as the LEOs, stopped speaking when asked to, made a correction to what the LEO instructed when he was incorrect about the right to verify loaded status and requested that the LEO return his weapon back to the original start there by stopping any thing from occurring to the weapon in transition.

jtmkinsd
02-11-2011, 6:07 PM
I don't really dig the whole "I'm gonna teach the cops a lesson" vibe I got from the gentlemen who talked about where police powers come from...but it was a smooth process. Officer did an excellent job, lots of cops around...and I'll bet more people were nervous with that many cops around than the UOCers.

N6ATF
02-11-2011, 6:11 PM
ENOUGH with this "soccer moms" BS! That is a euphemism for members of the Brady Campaign for Victim Disarmament and Criminal Safety, who control CA.gov, PERIOD! Stop acting like it is possible to appease them and still be alive and have a single ounce of liberty! They want all law-abiding people to be disarmed, dead, in prison, or to leave their criminals' utopia!

The Shadow
02-11-2011, 6:40 PM
2Zku88JfQmk

Everyone was polite, but oh man there was a ton of fail on the contacting officers part.

1. Right ? No, it's not a right. He has the authority to inspect a firearm under 12031(e).

2. The authority to inspect a firearm does not make it mandatory for him to inspect a firearm. It's an option.

3. It's alleged that police are constantly whining, and I do mean whining, that UOCers are a drain on police resources, yet they are the ones that are tying up six units to respond to a location where everyone is doing something that is legal, and no one is causing trouble. So who's actually tying up police resources, hmmmm ?

4. Some of you guys already said it. They're checking firearms because there's a magazine in the well. Are they serious ? So I can chamber a round and just keep a magazine out and they won't check it ? FAIL!

I guess if you can't dazzle people with your brilliance, some people will resort to trying to baffle people with their B.S.

Nice try, but no doughnut for them.

supermario
02-11-2011, 7:04 PM
Where were the UOCers being rude? I really didn't see that. :confused:

I think the UO Carriers were simply stating their rights but It also comes off as kinda rude, especially by telling the police officer to put the gun back they way it was? That was being rude! I think they could have just said, go ahead and check my firearm, no problem? Im sure they Police officers are not there to bug the UO carry guys, there are just doing their job to make the "other " people feel comfortable. The more the Police officers run into guys that are carrying unloaded and the more rude they are, there gonna be rude back eventually. Im a private investigator and get approached by LEO once in a while and I AM ALWAYS VERY POLITE AND EASY GOING with them and they are always very cool with me and sometimes even apologize. Ive learned if your not rude or a smartass, they will not be rude and or bother you. Thats my opinion. Im sure these guys have their reasons for stating the law but I think that should be used with a police officer if he is asking for it, otherwise be polite and let them do their job.

Highoctaneman1
02-11-2011, 7:37 PM
I'd like to point out some fundamental differences I have. I am the first one in this video that gets 12031 (e) checked. I tried very hard to be polite while protecting my rights against unlawful searches of myself. Some background, I have been doing homework for about an hour before the cops rolled up on us and I really felt annoyed that they needed to take me away from my studies just to look at my property. I feel that I should not have to be bothered with this unloaded check I wasn't bothering anyone.

Unloaded Open Carry - what is the constructive purpose in this? To get a cup of coffee with some friends while showing my fellow citizens in my community that guns are not dangerous, criminals are the real danger.

I really don't see one. People exercising their rights to carry an unloaded weapon publicly?I have a right to defend myself, I have the right to bear arms so I choose to defend myself with my firearm. This is my god given right, a right that is specifically protected by the constitution.

What a lot of gun owners don't seem to understand that the 2A rights we have are a political exercise to protect, as well as a legal right. no they are rights that every free man is born with.

On the political side, the UOC thing re-enforces a stereotype that will not help the image. This is your opinion that I feel is wrong.

Charlton Heston was made a figurehead of the NRA for a reason. Represent the sport in a manner that was positive to the public, and did not evoke the "some gun nut" stereotype. Unfortunately we aren't born with the right to go hunting with guns, we have the right to bear arms.

You want to be a cop? Go sign up, You want to be in the military, again, go sign up. I did thanks, Had a lot of powerful experiences that have shaped how I look at the world. I also swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution. Doing this sort of stuff in public just weakens the case for people who want to own and use guns for proper and legal purposes. Their is nothing improper or illegal about Open Carry.

The net result of this kind of stuff is just going to make it more difficult in the public's view, and thats the group that needs to be kept informed and make decisions. That hasn't been my experience when I OC, quite the opposite the public is more informed and as the community becomes aware that gun are not dangerous, criminals are I believe that helps the cause of regaining our lost gun rights.

You want to promote gun rights? Offer to teach a course in firearms safety, teach the Boy Scouts how to shoot or something similar. This stuff is counterproductive. I am active with my local boy scout troop, I inform everyone I know about the proper use and handling of firearms. I use my experiences gained from the Marine Corps to better inform my family and the community I live in. I take OC very seriously and believe it's a step in the right direction for California and all freedom loving Americans. I truly believe an armed and educated populous leads to a safe and prosperous society.

Highoctaneman1
02-11-2011, 8:04 PM
I think the UO Carriers were simply stating their rights but It also comes off as kinda rude, especially by telling the police officer to put the gun back they way it was? That was being rude! I think they could have just said, go ahead and check my firearm, no problem? Im sure they Police officers are not there to bug the UO carry guys, there are just doing their job to make the "other " people feel comfortable. The more the Police officers run into guys that are carrying unloaded and the more rude they are, there gonna be rude back eventually. Im a private investigator and get approached by LEO once in a while and I AM ALWAYS VERY POLITE AND EASY GOING with them and they are always very cool with me and sometimes even apologize. Ive learned if your not rude or a smartass, they will not be rude and or bother you. Thats my opinion. Im sure these guys have their reasons for stating the law but I think that should be used with a police officer if he is asking for it, otherwise be polite and let them do their job.
Ok lets take a look at your argument. You say we were being rude, the example you gave was that he asked to have his firearm returned to him as it was found. Let me give you the real reason why he said this. It was not to be rude it was because when the officer checked my firearm ( I was the first one to be checked in this video) he handed the magazine to me. Now I have to reach for my firearm and re insert my magazine, this can be used against me as brandishing in court. OR! I could even have been seen by another cop that didn't know what was going on, If he saw me reaching toward my firearm what do you think he would do? Theirs a good chance I can get shot and they could easily use the defense that they were only trying to protect a fellow officers safety.

So yes from your perspective it looks like he is being rude, but put your self in his shoes and he is just trying not to get shot.

UOC is not a joke I take it very seriously and I would appreciate it if you gave your comments the same attention to detail that I give UOC.

command_liner
02-11-2011, 8:17 PM
The officers wouldn't be doing their JOBS if they didn't check to ensure that the firearms were indeed unloaded (in areas where they must be unloaded, of course).

Sorry, that pegs the BS meter. The officers have no requirement to do anything.
There are dozens and dozens of detailed court rulings on this point. Here
in California police only have to
1) process CCW applications
2) respond to domestic violence incidents in process
Other than that, it is perfectly legal, proper, and expected that police sit
around and eat donuts.

The State has no duty, no charter, and no right to inspect the tools that
the people use to exercise their rights.

Before you think about going wild with those ignorant cop-bashing comments,
I have been a volunteer down at my local PD for the last decade and a half.
Based on rather extensive experience, I conclude the local cops are not
knowledgeable when it comes to firearms laws, or what their duty really is.

southernsnowshoe
02-11-2011, 8:42 PM
Why not just leave the magazine well empty? It would be easier to inspect visually, and faster to load if SHTF.

I have thought about this and done it both ways. I decieded to keep a dry mag in the well to keep dust and dirt out of the action.

mlatino
02-11-2011, 9:24 PM
Did anybody stop to think that the request for the names was to contact the CLEO to compliment the actions that were taken in a positive light rather then jumping on a negative UOC bandwagon? The OCers were as polite as the LEOs, stopped speaking when asked to, made a correction to what the LEO instructed when he was incorrect about the right to verify loaded status and requested that the LEO return his weapon back to the original start there by stopping any thing from occurring to the weapon in transition.

I wonder how many citizens demand dentification and/or a badge number from these LEO's in an effort to "send a nice letter to the CLEO." Get real, there's 1 point to UOC, Bring a camera and try to catch cops slipping. I feel as though it is more counter-productive to be doing this and posting videos of the encounters EVERY SINGLE DAY. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and by all means I'm not saying I'm right - but seriously, I think it's getting OLD.

Chadster
02-11-2011, 9:54 PM
The reason why OC'rs bring cameras is because cops lie and innocent people end up in jail and their lives ruined.

Don29palms
02-11-2011, 10:04 PM
After watching that video in my opinion the LEOs acted professionally and were polite. It seems the citzens were expecting some sort of confrontation that wasn't going to happen. The LEO told the citizens he wasn't searching their persons and only wanted to verify that the weapons were unloaded. The LEOs did their job as they were supposed to and could have done so quicker if they weren't being argued with. There have been some very bad experiences with LEOs and UOCers so I understand the need for videos and recordings. In this particular case sending a positive letter to these officers command would be good. The LEOs did the right thing in a positive way. Just my opinion and observations of the video.

Chadster
02-11-2011, 10:08 PM
Send a letter for doing a good job in violating their 4th amend rights ? Yeah, good thinking.

Don29palms
02-11-2011, 10:12 PM
Send a letter for doing a good job in violating their 4th amend rights ? Yeah, good thinking.

Explain to me how their 4A rights were violated.

Lrchops
02-11-2011, 10:19 PM
I cringe at these videos! I would not want anyone touching my firearm unless I gave them permission. As a cop, I would not push the issue and would not inspect an open carry firearm unless I felt the person presented some type of threat. These guys did not appear to present any type of threat.

sandman21
02-11-2011, 10:42 PM
Explain to me how their 4A rights were violated.
Was there reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio), no? Then detaining and searching is a violation of the 4A. There is no exception for firearms in the 4A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.)

CharAznable
02-11-2011, 10:44 PM
So, after watching this I will say that yes the cops were polite and the UOCers were not the worst I've seen in terms of being rude. However, the amount of time they were detained seemed to me to be excessive and at that point I don't see how they were not under arrest.

If I were in that position I think I would politely say: "I will not resist while you exercise your option to violate my rights." The 3 important things to tell the LEOs I think is that a) the check is optional, b) it's unconstitutional, and c) even given b I will not take any action that will give you an excuse to arrest me. But I would want to make it clear that he can't fall back on duty - the cop is choosing to commit an unconstitutional act (in my opinion). No matter how polite he is that makes him a less than good guy.

Patriot Man
02-11-2011, 10:55 PM
There are several reasons, but one of the more significant is to avoid a People v Hale style 12025 violation.

And I have to say, IMO that cop was incredibly polite, and the UOCers in this case were really rude.

I completely agree!! Especially the big guy with the tan shirt asking for the officers' names. Those cops were super nice and of course everytime someone UOC's someone is going to call because I would suspect most people have no clue this is legal and it is fairly atypical to see people UOC. I would have thanked the cops for being polite, myself.

SID45
02-11-2011, 11:14 PM
Of coarse the Leo handled it well! They would not like another lawsuit. Anyway the UOC are the soverign and the cops are the civil servants.

SarcoBlaster
02-12-2011, 1:28 AM
Sorry, that pegs the BS meter. The officers have no requirement to do anything.
There are dozens and dozens of detailed court rulings on this point. Here
in California police only have to
1) process CCW applications
2) respond to domestic violence incidents in process
Other than that, it is perfectly legal, proper, and expected that police sit
around and eat donuts.

The State has no duty, no charter, and no right to inspect the tools that
the people use to exercise their rights.

Before you think about going wild with those ignorant cop-bashing comments,
I have been a volunteer down at my local PD for the last decade and a half.
Based on rather extensive experience, I conclude the local cops are not
knowledgeable when it comes to firearms laws, or what their duty really is.
Let me clarify since you very obviously missed the point. I simply stated that they wouldn't be doing their jobs; not "they're mandated by law to check those weapons and ensure they're unloaded." HUGE difference. In this case, I believe it was reasonable for the officer to investigate further based on the fact that the firearms had magazines in their magazine wells.

What would you expect that officer (or the others who were also present) to do if they saw someone drifting left and right while driving? Continue on their merry way without making the traffic stop in order to look for any signs of intoxication?

oldsmoboat
02-12-2011, 5:28 AM
Was there reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio), no? Then detaining and searching is a violation of the 4A. There is no exception for firearms in the 4A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.)

<--- Interested in Don29palms 's response to this comment.

locosway
02-12-2011, 6:21 AM
You want to be a cop? Go sign up, You want to be in the military, again, go sign up. Doing this sort of stuff in public just weakens the case for people who want to own and use guns for proper and legal purposes.

Are you suggesting that only cops or military personnel should carry openly?

As far as I know, what these people are doing is legal, and if we can't do what's legal for fear of backlash, then do we really have rights?

This is like someone telling MLK to not speak because he might upset someone and they could pass more laws. I'm really getting tired of all the snide remarks from people who don't agree 100% with all 2A activities. You don't have to like something to understand it's legal and well within ones rights to do.

locosway
02-12-2011, 6:23 AM
Let me clarify since you very obviously missed the point. I simply stated that they wouldn't be doing their jobs; not "they're mandated by law to check those weapons and ensure they're unloaded." HUGE difference. In this case, I believe it was reasonable for the officer to investigate further based on the fact that the firearms had magazines in their magazine wells.

What would you expect that officer (or the others who were also present) to do if they saw someone drifting left and right while driving? Continue on their merry way without making the traffic stop in order to look for any signs of intoxication?

Actually they're NOT mandated by law to check the firearms to see if they're unloaded. They have the permission to do so if they feel the need, however this is by no means mandatory. In fact, officers have no mandate to act on most situations. Legally, they're absolved of any wrong doing if they fail to act. They might lose their job for not fulfilling their duty, but that's it.

Hopalong
02-12-2011, 6:27 AM
I have wondered this myself. As well as the purpose of carrying an unloaded firearm? Just to video tape the incident?

I love my rights, I love my guns, but sometimes this seems silly, lets walk down the steet with an unloaded weapon, waste some cops time, and mine, for what?

No disrespect either, I just wouldnt want the hassle, or the attention.. if I'm carrying it would be for SD, and carrying it UOC seems to defeat that purpose. And what other purpose is there for carrying a gun?
First, let me say that this is something that I personally would not do.

Like the previous poster, I don't want the hassle or the attention, however

My view is that this is a political statement, and this is America

So more power to them

The self defense issue is secondary, if at all.

As far as who's time gets wasted and how much time gets wasted

That's up to the PD.

jpigeon
02-12-2011, 6:35 AM
Can't the UOC Movement chill out a bit in these days... we are making good progress and I don't see the point. IMO you aren't helping the cause. It's almost as if people are doing this to try and catch cops being a-holes. That's counter productive.

The cops handled it great.

Beware of the dark progressive side. Do not let the state brainwash you...

the big ravioli
02-12-2011, 7:15 AM
I would love to hop on this Open Carry wagon but if you tried this in San Jose. The cops would have you hog tied and your face in the pavment before you could state your name... Also if your seen in some parts of town with a firearm on your side. YOUR A COP & U MIGHT GET SHOT AT... The bad guys don't run UOC.

command_liner
02-12-2011, 7:31 AM
What would you expect that officer (or the others who were also present) to do if they saw someone drifting left and right while driving? Continue on their merry way without making the traffic stop in order to look for any signs of intoxication?

You continue to miss the point and misstate the requirements, duty and
expectations of police officers.

There is no evidence of a crime being committed with UOC. None. No RAS.
And the action of the police is clearly unconstitutional in the bigger picture.

Where there is clear evidence of a crime, or RAS, or where people are in
an enhancement zone specified by the courts, I expect police to act.

For example, all of the coastal cities in California are within the 100 mile
special enhancement ("rights free") zone where BP and its designees can
pick up illegal aliens and process them for deportation. If the police wanted
to be productive and even just do their jobs, there would be mass
deportations throughout coastal California. The CHP, county sheriffs, local
PDs, school PDs, airport PDs, and every other LE agency would make at
least a million arrests a week acting on good RAS.

This never happens. An the illegal aliens are very clearly breaking the
law! Why pick on peaceful, non-violent US Citizens not breaking the law?
Why spend police resources suppressing the exercise of fundamental,
enumerated rights? What interest does the State have in pursuing this
line of action?

modernchaos
02-12-2011, 8:09 AM
Well, this is the first time I have taken part in a conversation on this forum. Lots of good points have been made, some validating my opinion, some opposing. I just hope this activity doesnt hurt the community as a whole, as I defintely enjoy my 2a rights.

I can clearly see all sides of this, I would like to be able to carry openly, without the fuss though. All we can do I guess is support all the players, and hope they conduct themselves in a fashion that makes us all look good.

And as for the guys in the video being rude. I see that, they come across as being a little rude, but not as rude as I would be if I was in there shoes, I do not like being harassed at all and would have been much more opinionated. lol. But thats why I do not UOC, I know better. So being as you can only expect to have these interactions from the man while UOCing, guys you should just force smiles, and be a little happier!!! Just dont smile TOO much, then they might think you're a psycho or something?

More of my .02.

The Electrician
02-12-2011, 8:38 AM
There are several reasons, but one of the more significant is to avoid a People v Hale style 12025 violation.

And I have to say, IMO that cop was incredibly polite, and the UOCers in this case were really rude.

I would agree!

The Shadow
02-12-2011, 8:42 AM
Let me clarify since you very obviously missed the point. I simply stated that they wouldn't be doing their jobs; not "they're mandated by law to check those weapons and ensure they're unloaded." HUGE difference. In this case, I believe it was reasonable for the officer to investigate further based on the fact that the firearms had magazines in their magazine wells.

What would you expect that officer (or the others who were also present) to do if they saw someone drifting left and right while driving? Continue on their merry way without making the traffic stop in order to look for any signs of intoxication?

Not a good comparison.

1. Carrying a firearm is legal, a constitutional right, and is not jeopardizing public safety. Cops doing an e check, to make sure you're not doing anything illegal is permissible under 12031e but not constitutional.

2. A person who is drifting left and right while driving is not operating their vehicle safely and is jeopardizing public safety. Because driving is not a right and there is a risk to public safety, the police should stop the offending vehicle and investigate.

Don29palms
02-12-2011, 9:24 AM
Was there reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio), no? Then detaining and searching is a violation of the 4A. There is no exception for firearms in the 4A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.)

They didn't detain or search anyone. The LEOs followed the law and verified that the firearms were not loaded and that was it. They didn't ask for anyones ID and they didn't go any further than that. If the citizens would not have argued with them it would have went smoother and faster.

If people want to UOC that's fine with me. They are going to have to follow just like everyone else and if a cop think that a gun might be loaded he can ask to verify that it is not. They did their job and they did their job correctly. They were professional and polite. If other LEOs acted as well then there wouldn't be a problem at all ever with UOC. Again it seems to me that the citizen were expecting a different outcome that didn't happen.

sandman21
02-12-2011, 9:51 AM
They didn't detain or search anyone. The LEOs followed the law and verified that the firearms were not loaded and that was it. They didn't ask for anyones ID and they didn't go any further than that. If the citizens would not have argued with them it would have went smoother and faster.

If people want to UOC that's fine with me. They are going to have to follow just like everyone else and if a cop think that a gun might be loaded he can ask to verify that it is not. They did their job and they did their job correctly. They were professional and polite. If other LEOs acted as well then there wouldn't be a problem at all ever with UOC. Again it seems to me that the citizen were expecting a different outcome that didn't happen.
The officer orders the UOCer's to be seated, they are seized A person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave, and as long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person's liberty or privacy as would require some particularized and objective justification. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZS.html), now there needs to be specific and articulable facts ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio) a hunch that the weapon might be loaded is not sufficient to detain someone and search the weapon. A state statue cannot give RAS, CA can't write a law allowing a LEO to search your vehicle because transporting narcotics is illegal. So while they might be following the law, they are violating the UOCer's 4A rights.

homerm14
02-12-2011, 9:51 AM
3. It's alleged that police are constantly whining, and I do mean whining, that UOCers are a drain on police resources, yet they are the ones that are tying up six units to respond to a location where everyone is doing something that is legal, and no one is causing trouble. So who's actually tying up police resources, hmmmm ?

Where are all of these whining officers at? I've never heard one. Not one and I work for a large department. I've also never heard that UOCers are a drain on police resources, and who cares how many officers show up. It's not uncommon for officers to show up on another officer's call in case they need assistance. If they don't and something else is going on they leave. As far as who is actually tying up police resources that varies, but go for a ride along in your area and you will figure it out relatively quickly.

Nice try, but no doughnut for them.[/QUOTE]

I'm done with whining about your whining, can I please have my doughnut now?

FeuerFrei
02-12-2011, 9:52 AM
Looks like a good public education exercise to me.
Cops learned how to handle UOC citizens.
On-lookers learned that citizens carrying pistols are not criminals.
I'd like to see someday that these incidents will go completely unnoticed.
Citizens that know the law and their rights!
Priceless.

Wolverine
02-12-2011, 10:29 AM
They didn't detain or search anyone. The LEOs followed the law and verified that the firearms were not loaded and that was it. They didn't ask for anyones ID and they didn't go any further than that. If the citizens would not have argued with them it would have went smoother and faster.

If people want to UOC that's fine with me. They are going to have to follow just like everyone else and if a cop think that a gun might be loaded he can ask to verify that it is not. They did their job and they did their job correctly. They were professional and polite. If other LEOs acted as well then there wouldn't be a problem at all ever with UOC. Again it seems to me that the citizen were expecting a different outcome that didn't happen.

I don't know how you can say the UOCers were not detained and searched. Do you believe that they could just get up and walk away? Did not the officer search their personal property for live rounds?

CalBear
02-12-2011, 10:32 AM
Pretty calmly handled by both sides, but still frustrating to watch.

One thing I've never understood about UOC checks: since it would add that much time to pop a mag in from your belt holster and chamber a round, why even bother checking? I know if you're attacked that extra time could get you killed, but seriously if a person wanted to start slaughtering everyone (cause criminals always UOC :rolleyes:) it would only take them an extra second or two.

So why even bother checking that the guns are unloaded? It seems to me the only reason to check would be 1) to bother the carriers, and 2) to catch them in a "gotcha" situation, where they accidentally left a loaded mag in. Either way, other than wasting resources, it seems to have zero effect.

loose_electron
02-12-2011, 10:34 AM
Don't work in public relations, go into politics or deal with the subtle nature of human perception. As I said before, this is a political process, and in my opinion, doesn't serve a positive purpose.

You made people around you uncomfortable with your presence, and what you had with you. Net result is you lost possible supporters in the realm of public opinion.

Those people will support politicians who will work against your interests in this area.

I'd like to point out some fundamental differences I have. I am the first one in this video that gets 12031 (e) checked. I tried very hard to be polite while protecting my rights against unlawful searches of myself. Some background, I have been doing homework for about an hour before the cops rolled up on us and I really felt annoyed that they needed to take me away from my studies just to look at my property. I feel that I should not have to be bothered with this unloaded check I wasn't bothering anyone.

I am active with my local boy scout troop, I inform everyone I know about the proper use and handling of firearms. I use my experiences gained from the Marine Corps to better inform my family and the community I live in. I take OC very seriously and believe it's a step in the right direction for California and all freedom loving Americans. I truly believe an armed and educated populous leads to a safe and prosperous society.

U2BassAce
02-12-2011, 10:42 AM
There are several reasons, but one of the more significant is to avoid a People v Hale style 12025 violation.

And I have to say, IMO that cop was incredibly polite, and the UOCers in this case were really rude.

IMO That is the way I saw it too.

Don29palms
02-12-2011, 10:43 AM
Bottom line is that if you UOC you are going to get unnecessary attention from LEOs and you will get your guns checked. Why hasn't 12031 been challenged as unconstitutional? Until that law is changed you have no leg to stand on.

Wolverine
02-12-2011, 1:18 PM
The constitutionality of the 12031(e) check has been examined by the California Court of Appeals in People v. DeLong (1970). The court acknowledged that the e-check involved a search and seizure but concluded that it was reasonable under the 4th amendment. Part of the court’s reasoning was that the e-check is even less intrusive than even a simple Terry stop. Unlike some of the other e-checks that have been documented the e-check here would probably pass muster under DeLong.

Whether this could be successfully challenged in federal court I don’t know. The court in DeLong believed that the Supreme Court authorized states to exceed the limits of Terry in certain circumstances and so they did.

Porterhouse
02-12-2011, 1:37 PM
So if there was no magazine in the weapon it can't have one in the chamber? Logic fail. That's how people shoot "unloaded" weapons all the time....
Right.

When I shoot in competition here in California we all keep a "Barney mag." Insert Barney mag into pistol, jack a round into the chamber, drop Barney mag (with round is still in chamber) and replace with a fully loaded 10 round mag.

Porterhouse
02-12-2011, 1:58 PM
I think the UOCers do it by and large because they crave attention. They like the attention their guns generate from others. They like staring in the own little home movies. They enjoy confronting LEOs. It's all pleasurable to them.

Ever notice that those filmed as UOCers all too often appear to be the sort that probably shouldn't be carrying a gun? At the very least I wish more of them had better people skills.

CitaDeL
02-12-2011, 3:02 PM
I think the UOCers do it by and large because they crave attention. They like the attention their guns generate from others. They like staring in the own little home movies. They enjoy confronting LEOs. It's all pleasurable to them.

Ever notice that those filmed as UOCers all too often appear to be the sort that probably shouldn't be carrying a gun? At the very least I wish more of them had better people skills.

I believe you are misinterpreting what you are seeing, or reading into the circumstances portions of your own bias.

By and large, the videos that get posted are taken during circumstances involving a police encounter. Any others wouldnt get any play time, because there is nothing to see- It would be like posting a video of someone walking with a mobile phone clipped to their belt. There is no drama and nothing that anyone can learn anything about. Most open carry is drama free in California, despite baseless assertions that it will always result in some LEO intervention.

The video is taken for the express purpose of either collecting evidence in the event someone is falsely arrested, detained, searched without consent, or is subjected to some form of abuse, or to help others learn what is or isnt appropriate during an encounter. It is not for the purposes of stroking anyone's egos.

Many, if not all of those who open carry would be happy to conceal if LTC was available to them, so the assertion that all open carry practitioners are 'attention whores' seems to relieve non-issuing Sheriff's of any culpability in the advent of organized protest.

As far as people skills are concerned; I doubt that the first time you had a face-to-face encounter with a police officer that you told him "no" or told them that you were asserting your right to remain silent. If you have developed these people skills, perhaps you can shed a little light on how you would tell police that you do not consent to a search and that you will not be answering any questions without counsel present.

sandman21
02-12-2011, 3:22 PM
The constitutionality of the 12031(e) check has been examined by the California Court of Appeals in People v. DeLong (1970). The court acknowledged that the e-check involved a search and seizure but concluded that it was reasonable under the 4th amendment. Part of the court’s reasoning was that the e-check is even less intrusive than even a simple Terry stop. Unlike some of the other e-checks that have been documented the e-check here would probably pass muster under DeLong.

Whether this could be successfully challenged in federal court I don’t know. The court in DeLong believed that the Supreme Court authorized states to exceed the limits of Terry in certain circumstances and so they did.

Thats where FLORIDA v. J.L. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0529_0266_ZS.html) "The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing."

hayman
02-12-2011, 3:26 PM
Can't the UOC Movement chill out a bit in these days... we are making good progress and I don't see the point. IMO you aren't helping the cause. It's almost as if people are doing this to try and catch cops being a-holes. That's counter productive.

The cops handled it great.

Ditto what Zach said........

JeepFreak
02-12-2011, 3:49 PM
Where are all of these whining officers at? I've never heard one. Not one and I work for a large department. I've ?

Does anybody open carry within your jurisdiction? I don't know the answer, but if it is "no" then that would certainly explain why you hadn't heard that.
Billy

JeepFreak
02-12-2011, 3:49 PM
Pretty calmly handled by both sides, but still frustrating to watch.

One thing I've never understood about UOC checks: since it would add that much time to pop a mag in from your belt holster and chamber a round, why even bother checking? I know if you're attacked that extra time could get you killed, but seriously if a person wanted to start slaughtering everyone (cause criminals always UOC :rolleyes:) it would only take them an extra second or two.

So why even bother checking that the guns are unloaded? It seems to me the only reason to check would be 1) to bother the carriers, and 2) to catch them in a "gotcha" situation, where they accidentally left a loaded mag in. Either way, other than wasting resources, it seems to have zero effect.

I've always wondered the same thing. Hopefully somebody has a theory.
Billy

MontClaire
02-12-2011, 3:50 PM
pure harrassement. like they dont have anything better to do. next time they pull in radio cars one by one to intimidate, have your boys start pulling up as well in numbers and walk around closing the o-ring on them.

Mad Scotsman
02-12-2011, 3:51 PM
I'd like to point out some fundamental differences I have. I am the first one in this video that gets 12031 (e) checked. I tried very hard to be polite while protecting my rights against unlawful searches of myself. Some background, I have been doing homework for about an hour before the cops rolled up on us and I really felt annoyed that they needed to take me away from my studies just to look at my property. I feel that I should not have to be bothered with this unloaded check I wasn't bothering anyone.

I am active with my local boy scout troop, I inform everyone I know about the proper use and handling of firearms. I use my experiences gained from the Marine Corps to better inform my family and the community I live in. I take OC very seriously and believe it's a step in the right direction for California and all freedom loving Americans. I truly believe an armed and educated populous leads to a safe and prosperous society.

Then why was this introduced?
AB 144: Open Carry Ban (Portantino) 2011
If it's a "right" how can they take it away? This is the result of UOC. IMO.

JeepFreak
02-12-2011, 3:53 PM
Also, I was just thinking... if I wanted to open carry, say at night, while walking my dog around my neighborhood... I could definitely see the benefit to bringing attention to UOC in scenarios similar to the one video taped. I would rather meet the cops in broad daylight with bystanders and friends gathered around than late at night, one on one.. and I would rather my neighbors read about UOC in the paper a few times before they see me walking past their house at 10pm with a gun on my hip.

I'm not saying that's what anybody else's motivation is... just my thoughts.

Billy

loose_electron
02-12-2011, 3:58 PM
I'm really getting tired of all the snide remarks from people who don't agree 100% with all 2A activities. You don't have to like something to understand it's legal and well within ones rights to do.

If you want to wave around the constitution,
lets start with the 1st amendment - I got a right to
express my opinion.

If I want to be in a situation where I got to agree
100% with anything, then I will move to North Korea.

The concept of something being legal or not has got nothing to do with this.

As I said before, its a political process.
If you alienate the world enough, they are not
going to support you anymore.
(Been watching Egypt lately?)

In the extreme case, 2A rights can be
totally rescinded. However I don't expect any
constitutional amendments in the near future.
The NRA is looking out for your legal/political
rights there, no matter what stupid things
you do along the way.

The political process of making people
comfortable with firearms doesn't mean
forcing them into uncomfortable situations.
Look at the states that have very liberal
firearms laws, a large portion of the state
population either owns, or has been exposed
to guns, and its "no big deal" - they are
comfortable with the topic, and thus little
or no political actions (stricter gun laws)
are the result.

I suspect that pretty much every UOC
situation in a densly populated area,
results in a panic 911 call from somebody
to the police. You "exercise your rights"
but lose supporters in the process.

In case you are wondering, I am a strong
advocate of CCW being more available and
easier to get.

If I am on base at Camp Pendleton, what's
getting carried there, nobody even pays attention,
If I am in a hunting environment, no big deal,
open carry in Arizona, doesn't phase me.

Walking down Rodeo Drive in LA, or the financial
district in SFO, in a UOC situation is going to
alienate a lot of people.

Net result - You win the battle but are slowly
losing the war. Stop waving 2A rights in
peoples faces, and start thinking about how
your actions affect people around you.

If you had more supporters in the state,
you wouldn't be slowly getting put into a
legal restrictions box. (10 round max, bullet
buttons, the CA safe list, etc, etc, etc)

You want to build support and understanding,
and then you won't have a need to hide behind
a pile of lawyers to "protect your rights" because
then the general population is on your side.

homerm14
02-12-2011, 4:03 PM
Does anybody open carry within your jurisdiction? I don't know the answer, but if it is "no" then that would certainly explain why you hadn't heard that.
Billy

People have, and no one seems to care. I don't know every cop out there, but I do know lots (from my area and others) and still have'nt heard anyone whine. Or for that matter even care much.

Flying_clutchman
02-12-2011, 5:38 PM
Is that preschool, that is on the next corner over from where that coffee shop is, more than 1000 feet away?

Flying_clutchman
02-12-2011, 5:43 PM
Is that preschool, that is on the next corner over from where that coffee shop is, more than 1000 feet away?

Its actually a preschool.

SickofSoCal
02-12-2011, 5:47 PM
why were there 6 cops there in the first place?

That's a good question.


P.S. I think there was more than 6.

SickofSoCal
02-12-2011, 5:51 PM
ENOUGH with this "soccer moms" BS! That is a euphemism for members of the Brady Campaign for Victim Disarmament and Criminal Safety, who control CA.gov, PERIOD! Stop acting like it is possible to appease them and still be alive and have a single ounce of liberty! They want all law-abiding people to be disarmed, dead, in prison, or to leave their criminals' utopia!

^^ THIS.

JimSar
02-12-2011, 6:29 PM
Walking down Rodeo Drive in LA, or the financial
district in SFO, in a UOC situation is going to
alienate a lot of people.


Or it can end very badly if your UOC group is composed of young black men wearing hoodies and loose pants.

southernsnowshoe
02-12-2011, 7:21 PM
Damn, three whole pages so far and none of the elitists chiming in to call
UOCer's a bunch of knuckle draggers, maybe we are growing on them.;)

pc_load_letter
02-12-2011, 7:25 PM
I chatted with the guy in the blue cap today at the Del Mar gun show. I told him he made gun owners look bad and he maintained he just wanted to educate officers. When I told him the cops had better things to do, he had no answer. He says the cops (Sheriffs) in Santee support his cause. He said PB cops know him by name.

Overall, he maintained it was about educating cops and the public about UOCers. Whatever, I thought to myself.

PCLL

Chadster
02-12-2011, 7:25 PM
Or it can end very badly if your UOC group is composed of young black men wearing hoodies and loose pants.

wont ever happen.

JimSar
02-12-2011, 7:44 PM
wont ever happen.

Why not?

jtmkinsd
02-12-2011, 7:50 PM
Or it can end very badly if your UOC group is composed of young black men wearing hoodies and loose pants.

Didn't know there was a dress code to exercise one's rights.

I'm not even going to bother with the race thing. :rolleyes:

Porterhouse
02-12-2011, 10:02 PM
I'll stand by what I posted.

I believe you are misinterpreting what you are seeing, or reading into the circumstances portions of your own bias.

By and large, the videos that get posted are taken during circumstances involving a police encounter. Any others wouldnt get any play time, because there is nothing to see- It would be like posting a video of someone walking with a mobile phone clipped to their belt. There is no drama and nothing that anyone can learn anything about. Most open carry is drama free in California, despite baseless assertions that it will always result in some LEO intervention.

The video is taken for the express purpose of either collecting evidence in the event someone is falsely arrested, detained, searched without consent, or is subjected to some form of abuse, or to help others learn what is or isnt appropriate during an encounter. It is not for the purposes of stroking anyone's egos.

Many, if not all of those who open carry would be happy to conceal if LTC was available to them, so the assertion that all open carry practitioners are 'attention whores' seems to relieve non-issuing Sheriff's of any culpability in the advent of organized protest.

As far as people skills are concerned; I doubt that the first time you had a face-to-face encounter with a police officer that you told him "no" or told them that you were asserting your right to remain silent. If you have developed these people skills, perhaps you can shed a little light on how you would tell police that you do not consent to a search and that you will not be answering any questions without counsel present.

N6ATF
02-13-2011, 12:24 AM
Then why was this introduced?
AB 144: Open Carry Ban (Portantino) 2011
If it's a "right" how can they take it away? This is the result of UOC. IMO.

See my sig. Or if you have sigs hidden, short version: because law-abiding people dare to have arms for self-defense in this developing criminals' utopia.
Even if all UOCers stopped tomorrow, our criminal .gov would not stop its primary mission: legislating away our civil rights.

I chatted with the guy in the blue cap today at the Del Mar gun show.
...
When I told him the cops had better things to do, he had no answer.

Because you made no sense. If the cops had better things to do (like deterring and investigating mala in se crimes with actual victims), then they would have done them. Instead, the best thing they could figure to do was train on how to detain and search people without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion or Probable Cause, violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Veggie
02-13-2011, 12:35 AM
I love my rights, I love my guns, but sometimes this seems silly, lets walk down the steet with an unloaded weapon, waste some cops time, and mine, for what?

Police are wasting their own time. They are not required by law to check. They only have the option to.

oldsmoboat
02-13-2011, 5:52 AM
See my sig. Or if you have sigs hidden, short version: because law-abiding people dare to have arms for self-defense in this developing criminals' utopia.
Even if all UOCers stopped tomorrow, our criminal .gov would not stop its primary mission: legislating away our civil rights.



Because you made no sense. If the cops had better things to do (like deterring and investigating mala in se crimes with actual victims), then they would have done them. Instead, the best thing they could figure to do was train on how to detain and search people without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion or Probable Cause, violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
And it's safer for them to contact law abiding citizens than it is criminals.

Flying_clutchman
02-13-2011, 6:27 AM
My bad, actually its a school that has grades 6 through 12.

Anyone? I am very curious about this

JeepFreak
02-13-2011, 7:23 AM
Anyone? I am very curious about this

Is it the one labeled "A"? If so, it looks close http://www.slicky.net/smilies/dunno.gif
http://goo.gl/maps/e99i

EDIT: If it is, Google says 885' as the crow flies.

Billy

Civilitant
02-13-2011, 7:50 AM
I can't believe this is such a hot topic on CG... how about we just outlaw people carrying guns? would you haters be happy then?

someone show me a situation where a person who was OC'ing was attacked by criminals... the only problems OC'ers have to my knowledge is with cops harassing.


wow just wow. read a book people. then take a nap. when you feel better get up and slap yourself.. then go thank someone else who has fought for your freedom and tell them how glad you are to not be a slave... and that you don't have to fight for it yourself.

you haters on this thread should be spanked like a bunch of snotty little kids.


and yes those OC'ers were within 1k feet of a school - if the cops weren't so nervous and focused on harassing folks they MIGHT have noticed.... shows you what they really have on their minds. just wanted a confrontation. nice one.

looks like cops are turning to sheep now too. mindless going through the motions. great ... I remember when a guy went into the 24 hr fitness on la mesa blvd and shot the place up killing quite a few people his ex girl , himself, employees ... but ya nothing happens in La Mesa you should OC to protect yourself from right?


haters: F. U.

Rossi357
02-13-2011, 8:25 AM
and yes those OC'ers were within 1k feet of a school

That is the school admin offices. There are no students there.

Civilitant
02-13-2011, 8:32 AM
That is the school admin offices. There are no students there.


I stand corrected.

my attitude is unchanged regarding the nervousness and confrontation.. especially the black cop speaking so officially about his "rights as a cop in the state of CA"

sheesh. FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL. make a song out of it.

if you are going around harassing folks who aren't causing you or anyone else any harm, and looking for an argument you might want to read up on your side of the argument first and stop freakin embarrassing yourself. actually why the hell is there an argument to be had in the first place? no laws broken... no trouble caused... I counted 7 cops on the clock getting paid for their CHIOCE to basically take a break from real work. nice. get me a job like that.

automatic paycheck... overtime... paid breaks... company car... company gun... benefits... above the law.... media support.... pull off any kind of inside job you like..... confiscate property ... where does it stop?


how about this - someone of wisdom here enlighten me as to how the community was protected and or served by this encounter.......


and I'll show you a curve ball with a lot of spin on it.

loose_electron
02-13-2011, 8:52 AM
haters: F. U.

Thats the exact type of "us against them" which serves to erode public opinion.

I suspect enough UOC incidents will result in legislation and laws where you will no longer be able to UOC.

I would rather build public support, get the magazine limits removed, get the "CA safe roster" tossed out, get more liberal CCW rules in place.

That requires peer pressure and public acceptance.

You get that and you are not hiding in subtle nature of
the CA Penal Code, and constantly consulting with lawyers.

You alienate the world around you and the world turns against you. Goodbye 2A, or it gets so wrapped up in red tape its pretty worthless.

Ever thought of trying to build support instead of alienating the world?

707electrician
02-13-2011, 8:54 AM
Then why was this introduced?
AB 144: Open Carry Ban (Portantino) 2011
If it's a "right" how can they take it away? This is the result of UOC. IMO.

You say this like CA hasn't tried to take away any of our other rights

MFortie
02-13-2011, 9:04 AM
Is it the one labeled "A"? If so, it looks close http://www.slicky.net/smilies/dunno.gif
http://goo.gl/maps/e99i

EDIT: If it is, Google says 885' as the crow flies.

Billy

Umm, no. It's not 'A'. It's 'E'. There is a preschool/kindergarten at the Church. And it's closer than 'A'.

So, one of the UOC'rs stated he wants to 'educate' the police? At least he isn't spouting the 'self defense' drivel! Mind you, I have no qualm about self defense and fully support one's right. Just seems to me if someone was REALLY concerned about self defense, they'd CCW and KEEP IT CONCEALED! Since the 4th protects against unreasonable search and seizure and they are "law-abiding" citizens (ignoring the illegal CCW for the moment), they should have no concern over carrying!

I'm not advocating illegal carry, only disputing the 'self defense' claim that so many UOC'rs seem to rally around. That said, I also support their right to do what they will (legally).

I don't support the method. I think it sends the 'shoot-em-up cowboy' message to the general public, and the general public is who votes. I also expect CCW to gain a foothold in California and UOC becomes a moot point (except for those who desire the notoriety.)

I guess those UOC'rs are lucky the La Mesa police didn't decide to 'educate' them about GFSZ's...;)

Flying_clutchman
02-13-2011, 9:09 AM
Umm, no. It's not 'A'. It's 'E'. There is a preschool/kindergarten at the Church. And it's closer than 'A'.

So, one of the UOC'rs stated he wants to 'educate' the police? At least he isn't spouting the 'self defense' drivel! Mind you, I have no qualm about self defense and fully support one's right. Just seems to me if someone was REALLY concerned about self defense, they'd CCW and KEEP IT CONCEALED! Since the 4th protects against unreasonable search and seizure and they are "law-abiding" citizens (ignoring the illegal CCW for the moment), they should have no concern over carrying!

I'm not advocating illegal carry, only disputing the 'self defense' claim that so many UOC'rs seem to rally around. That said, I also support their right to do what they will (legally).

I don't support the method. I think it sends the 'shoot-em-up cowboy' message to the general public, and the general public is who votes. I also expect CCW to gain a foothold in California and UOC becomes a moot point (except for those who desire the notoriety.)

I guess those UOC'rs are lucky the La Mesa police didn't decide to 'educate' them about GFSZ's...;)

The one I was referring to is marked D on the map. They have a playground and classrooms there. I live nearby and know the area like the back of my hand. I spent many thursdays on La Mesa Boulevard for the summer car shows. It shows 466 feet by google maps.

707electrician
02-13-2011, 9:10 AM
]Bottom line is that if you UOC you are going to get unnecessary attention from LEOs and you will get your guns checked. [/B]Why hasn't 12031 been challenged as unconstitutional? Until that law is changed you have no leg to stand on.

You are absolutely right "unnecessary attention". It is not necessary for these LEO's to perform these checks but they do it because they "can".

It amazes me that all you guys who claim to "love your 2A rights" act like you want UOC banned. I agree that some UOCers can be over the top and might benefit from toning it down a bit but all they are really doing is exercising their rights and trying to do so without being bothered everywhere they go.

In this particular video it may seem like the UOCers are being rude but how would you feel if you were constantly being stopped everywhere there is a cop while you are going about your business? Especially for these UOCers that are well known by LEOs yet still get stopped, I am sure it can get pretty annoying

modernchaos
02-13-2011, 9:12 AM
I stand corrected.



how about this - someone of wisdom here enlighten me as to how the community was protected and or served by this encounter.......


and I'll show you a curve ball with a lot of spin on it.


Well less coffee and donuts eaten by these guys, more for the community?? :rolleyes:

I guess I am just not that wise.

MFortie
02-13-2011, 9:14 AM
The one I was referring to is marked D on the map. They have a playground and classrooms there. I live nearby and know the area like the back of my hand. I spent many thursdays on La Mesa Boulevard for the summer car shows. It shows 466 feet by google maps.

Me too. I swear it was an 'E' when I looked at the map! :o

I work between A & D and also know the area quite well...

707electrician
02-13-2011, 9:15 AM
Just seems to me if someone was REALLY concerned about self defense, they'd CCW and KEEP IT CONCEALED! Since the 4th protects against unreasonable search and seizure and they are "law-abiding" citizens (ignoring the illegal CCW for the moment), they should have no concern over carrying!

I'm not advocating illegal carry, only disputing the 'self defense' claim that so many UOC'rs seem to rally around. That said, I also support their right to do what they will (legally).

This is the stupidest thing I have heard yet. Why would I illegally carry a firearm and risk going to jail and losing my gun rights altogether when there is a legal way to carry a firearm without needing an unobtainable permit?

MFortie
02-13-2011, 9:17 AM
You are absolutely right "unnecessary attention". It is not necessary for these LEO's to perform these checks but they do it because they "can".

It amazes me that all you guys who claim to "love your 2A rights" act like you want UOC banned. I agree that some UOCers can be over the top and might benefit from toning it down a bit but all they are really doing is exercising their rights and trying to do so without being bothered everywhere they go.

In this particular video it may seem like the UOCers are being rude but how would you feel if you were constantly being stopped everywhere there is a cop while you are going about your business? Especially for these UOCers that are well known by LEOs yet still get stopped, I am sure it can get pretty annoying

Nope. Don't want to ban UOC. Also don't want to stand out; I prefer a more low key approach to life. Which is why I would prefer concealed over open.

CitaDeL
02-13-2011, 9:21 AM
So, one of the UOC'rs stated he wants to 'educate' the police? At least he isn't spouting the 'self defense' drivel! Mind you, I have no qualm about self defense and fully support one's right. Just seems to me if someone was REALLY concerned about self defense, they'd CCW and KEEP IT CONCEALED! Since the 4th protects against unreasonable search and seizure and they are "law-abiding" citizens (ignoring the illegal CCW for the moment), they should have no concern over carrying!

I'm not advocating illegal carry, only disputing the 'self defense' claim that so many UOC'rs seem to rally around. That said, I also support their right to do what they will (legally).

The two bolded statements are incongruous. You cannot reconcile the two as they are polar opposites without an allowance.

CCW is carrying a concealed weapon and is by your own admission, illegal without a license to do so. It sounds like you would be more supportive if they did actually break the law so long as the wild west 'cowboys' never allowed their pistols see the light of day.

Since you claim that self-defense (and by association, the 2nd Amendment) is not really a factor in open carry, and you are clearly offended by people visibly armed, then it sounds like what you really have a problem with is the 1st Amendment.

We don't have to like what people say or how they say it- but we should be fighting for their right to do so, in the same way we would expect others to defend us in our liberty.

707electrician
02-13-2011, 9:28 AM
Nope. Don't want to ban UOC. Also don't want to stand out; I prefer a more low key approach to life. Which is why I would prefer concealed over open.

I respect that you don't want to stand out and would rather CCW. Maybe where you live it is easy for you to get a CCW permit, or you don't mind carrying concealed illegally. I, too, would prefer to carry concealed but I don't have that option. Heck, I am too scared to even try to open carry because of the lack of education about the subject in the LEO community so I respect both those fighting for CCW AND those that are out there trying to make UOC more common place.

MFortie
02-13-2011, 9:32 AM
This is the stupidest thing I have heard yet. Why would I illegally carry a firearm and risk going to jail and losing my gun rights altogether when there is a legal way to carry a firearm without needing an unobtainable permit?

Excuse me, oh holier-than-thou! The reason would be called SELF DEFENSE.

I bet you never spit on the sidewalk or broke the speed limit either... And don't prattle about 'degrees' of illegal acts either (misdemeanor vs. felony, etc.) -- you either walk the walk or you don't.

And, if you really want to go there, carrying a firearm can be accomplished (legally) in more ways than CCW or UOC if you're that concerned for your safety.

MFortie
02-13-2011, 9:37 AM
The two bolded statements are incongruous. You cannot reconcile the two as they are polar opposites without an allowance.

CCW is carrying a concealed weapon and is by your own admission, illegal without a license to do so. It sounds like you would be more supportive if they did actually break the law so long as the wild west 'cowboys' never allowed their pistols see the light of day.

Since you claim that self-defense (and by association, the 2nd Amendment) is not really a factor in open carry, and you are clearly offended by people visibly armed, then it sounds like what you really have a problem with is the 1st Amendment.

We don't have to like what people say or how they say it- but we should be fighting for their right to do so, in the same way we would expect others to defend us in our liberty.

Agreed. The concepts are polar opposites. Hence each individual must make his own choice.

And nope, UOC doesn't 'offend' me -- I'm actually quite amused by it and would love to witness firsthand some of the LEO encounters (as a bystander.)

And I DO support everyone's right to do or say as they wish. I personally don't think UOC furthers the CCW cause one bit though. Which should be the main focus, IMHO. Your mileage may vary...

MFortie
02-13-2011, 9:47 AM
I respect that you don't want to stand out and would rather CCW. Maybe where you live it is easy for you to get a CCW permit, or you don't mind carrying concealed illegally. I, too, would prefer to carry concealed but I don't have that option. Heck, I am too scared to even try to open carry because of the lack of education about the subject in the LEO community so I respect both those fighting for CCW AND those that are out there trying to make UOC more common place.

I don't carry illegally and it's highly uncommon to obtain a CCW in San Diego. And I admit, that I too fear the open carry repercussions.

It's part of my upbringing; I don't live in Arizona where open carry is common. I see someone with a gun and I instinctively presume, a) he's a cop, b) he's up to something, and not necessarily good. C) UOC, barely even registers.

I'm reminded of a Sci Fi book I read as a kid (can't remember the book for the life of me), where people were put on a planet as an exercise to survive. One of the characters asked if they were going to be allowed weapons, and the reply was something to the effect of if you have a weapon, you're going strut about the planet as though you are the baddest thing on it -- until something badder comes along and eats your lunch. If you don't have a weapon, you'll be a hell of lot more careful in how you conduct yourself and travel about.

(Major paraphrasing there...)

N6ATF
02-13-2011, 9:56 AM
I'm reminded of a Sci Fi book I read as a kid (can't remember the book for the life of me), where people were put on a planet as an exercise to survive. One of the characters asked if they were going to be allowed weapons, and the reply was something to the effect of if you have a weapon, you're going strut about the planet as though you are the baddest thing on it -- until something badder comes along and eats your lunch. If you don't have a weapon, you'll be a hell of lot more careful in how you conduct yourself and travel about.

Ah yes, because being disarmed will absolutely protect you from the unfairness of the system of life. Large predatory animals, large predatory governments run by and for criminals...

MFortie
02-13-2011, 10:07 AM
Ah yes, because being disarmed will absolutely protect you from the unfairness of the system of life. Large predatory animals, large predatory governments run by and for criminals...

I think you missed the point...

thefinger
02-13-2011, 10:59 AM
I think that these "UOC police encounter" videos show just how "nanny-state" cops are trained to be nowadays. I have the pleasure of knowing many cops, ranging in age from 20 to 60 years old. I can tell you this: older cops generally do not have an "us vs. them" mentality that comes along with the ego of the modern cop.

As for the older cops I know, they are part of the community. They truly believe that the reason you are a cop is to "protect and serve". They aren't interested in wasting anyone's time with stupid e-checks or other nonsense like that. It serves only to waste everyone's time and degrade the relationship between police and the community. If I showed this video to my older cops friends, they would be pissed off. Why would the cops in the video choose to waste THEIR OWN TIME to hassle these guys?

As for the younger cops, they generally have the "us vs. them" mentality. They feel that they are in an elite class that has the right to hassle anyone they want as long as they can come up with some BS probable cause to justify it after the fact. It is totally EGO with these guys. Just check out the first cop in the video: "We're gonna do this OUR WAY guys."

We need to stop training our cops to have this mindset.

wheels
02-13-2011, 11:14 AM
As for the older cops I know, they are part of the community. They truly believe that the reason you are a cop is to "protect and serve". They aren't interested in wasting anyone's time with stupid e-checks or other nonsense like that. It serves only to waste everyone's time and degrade the relationship between police and the community. If I showed this video to my older cops friends, they would be pissed off. Why would the cops in the video choose to waste THEIR OWN TIME to hassle these guys?


I really doubt most departments have a choice, I imagine they must "e" anyone carrying. I feel for the officer who gets caught on video not "e" checking when the CLEO says it must be done.


As for the younger cops, they generally have the "us vs. them" mentality. They feel that they are in an elite class that has the right to hassle anyone they want as long as they can come up with some BS probable cause to justify it after the fact. It is totally EGO with these guys. Just check out the first cop in the video: "We're gonna do this OUR WAY guys."

We need to stop training our cops to have this mindset.

My instinct tells me that they are doing this to control the situation as best possible, probably also the reason for the number of officers.

It would be interesting to see how they would handle more arrivals and other separate groups coming and going, as in how long would they stay on scene "e" checking

Volksgrenadier
02-13-2011, 11:19 AM
For some they didn't lick the cops boots enough. :rolleyes:

WIN :)

Volksgrenadier
02-13-2011, 11:19 AM
My my, there sure were an awful lot of armed people wearing blue costumes adorned with tin symbols of authority. Who checks their guns? ;)

Truth

oldsmoboat
02-13-2011, 12:14 PM
...

It would be interesting to see how they would handle more arrivals and other separate groups coming and going, as in how long would they stay on scene "e" checking
That's would be humorous to watch. Get 100 people to open carry and stage them.
Send a couple people in, cops start echecking, send in 4 more, then 4 more then,....

southernsnowshoe
02-13-2011, 1:32 PM
I can't believe this is such a hot topic on CG... how about we just outlaw people carrying guns? would you haters be happy then?

someone show me a situation where a person who was OC'ing was attacked by criminals... the only problems OC'ers have to my knowledge is with cops harassing.


wow just wow. read a book people. then take a nap. when you feel better get up and slap yourself.. then go thank someone else who has fought for your freedom and tell them how glad you are to not be a slave... and that you don't have to fight for it yourself.

you haters on this thread should be spanked like a bunch of snotty little kids.


and yes those OC'ers were within 1k feet of a school - if the cops weren't so nervous and focused on harassing folks they MIGHT have noticed.... shows you what they really have on their minds. just wanted a confrontation. nice one.

looks like cops are turning to sheep now too. mindless going through the motions. great ... I remember when a guy went into the 24 hr fitness on la mesa blvd and shot the place up killing quite a few people his ex girl , himself, employees ... but ya nothing happens in La Mesa you should OC to protect yourself from right?


haters: F. U.

I totally agree. If you come on a 2nd amendment pro-gun website and talk **** about somebody carrying their guns, then that makes you a traitor, plan and simple.
Also, that shooting you speak of was at the 24 hour fitness in El Cajon, on arnele. It was 1993, I worked out there, and was there the previous day. By the grace of god that was my off day. One person in that gym carrying a gun, one person out of the 30 that were there, could have made all of the difference. I talked to one of the trainers after, he said the guy walked through the front door with a remington 870 in full view, maybe that would have been enough warning for someone to load a gun, at least they would have had a chance to defend themselves.

loose_electron
02-13-2011, 1:48 PM
I totally agree. If you come on a 2nd amendment pro-gun website and talk **** about somebody carrying their guns, then that makes you a traitor, plan and simple.


Wow, then a lot of us are going to jail.

So your 2A rights are more important than everyone's first amendment rights?

Problem is, if you have nothing but "us against them" mentality, you are never going to build support and consensus.

Without support and consensus, you are going to lose the legal battle. That includes loss of the 2A, although for right now, whats happening is a slow wrapping of red tape around it instead.

If everyone in this state was comfortable with guns, you would have the political support for more liberal laws. Make friends and influence people to get what you want, rather than forcing your opinion on people.

Pinto
02-13-2011, 3:48 PM
....I'm reminded of a Sci Fi book I read as a kid (can't remember the book for the life of me), where people were put on a planet as an exercise to survive...

Ooooooh .... Heinlein "Tunnel In The Sky" .... oldie but goodie ... think I'll see if I can find a Kindle version ...

Sorry to threadjack: I'll now return you to your UOC bashing ....

southernsnowshoe
02-13-2011, 3:59 PM
Wow, then a lot of us are going to jail.

So your 2A rights are more important than everyone's first amendment rights?

Problem is, if you have nothing but "us against them" mentality, you are never going to build support and consensus.

Without support and consensus, you are going to lose the legal battle. That includes loss of the 2A, although for right now, whats happening is a slow wrapping of red tape around it instead.

If everyone in this state was comfortable with guns, you would have the political support for more liberal laws. Make friends and influence people to get what you want, rather than forcing your opinion on people.

Your 2nd amendment rights are the only thing ensuring your 1st amendment rights, along with every other right.
If people with your mindset were the mainstream in the colonies circa 1775, we would still be singing god save the queen, and still be being exploited for the benefit of people with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. Hmmmmm......that sure sounds like the folks currently running California and Washington D.C.
Look man, I would fight for your 1st amendment rights as hard as I would fight for my own, the tragic part is while you would be on the sidelines, me and the rest of the people ready to take the fight to the enemy, would bear the brunt of the battle, and then the dead weight, the traitors, would get to benefit as much as everyone else.

loose_electron
02-13-2011, 4:08 PM
Your 2nd amendment rights are the only thing ensuring your 1st amendment rights, along with every other right.
If people with your mindset were the mainstream in the colonies circa 1775, we would still be singing god save the queen, and still be being exploited for the benefit of people with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. Hmmmmm......that sure sounds like the folks currently running California and Washington D.C.
Look man, I would fight for your 1st amendment rights as hard as I would fight for my own, the tragic part is while you would be on the sidelines, me and the rest of the people ready to take the fight to the enemy, would bear the brunt of the battle, and then the dead weight, the traitors, would get to benefit as much as everyone else.

Glad to see that you are such an authority on what I am, where I have been and what I have done.

Have a nice day!

N6ATF
02-13-2011, 4:23 PM
I really doubt most departments have a choice, I imagine they must "e" anyone carrying. I feel for the officer who gets caught on video not "e" checking when the CLEO says it must be done.

Inside info from a retired LEO: CLEOs and the "brass" do not have the authority to order their officers to do illegal things (like violate civil rights, 18 USC 241 & 242) and punish them if they do not. All police and sheriffs in CA are POST certified at the same basic level - it is not the military with a binding command structure. Anything masquerading as an order is actually only a suggestion, and if that suggestion is in clear defiance of the civil rights enumerated in COTUS (that pesky supreme law of the land all LEOs swore to support and defend), LEOs are morally and ethically obligated to reject it.

Those who want to violate civil rights will, those who don't, won't. If any officer were to be terminated for being 100% good, they would have an awesome lawsuit. No department wants to be sued for firing its own who refuse to be criminals.

cowboy777
02-13-2011, 4:27 PM
The unloaded open carriers are really starting to get arrogant. I understand its your right and police do tend to violate rights daily just through intimidation and people not aware of there full rights. With that said that officer was very respectable and did not come close to violating anyones rights all he asked was to inspect the firearms for being loaded thats it which is his duty if its reported and these arrogant asses go on about what they do and don't consent to.
I know that not all cops do there job correctly but that officer handled the situation well how about if he shows up at your job and tells you what to do.

CitaDeL
02-13-2011, 4:56 PM
The unloaded open carriers are really starting to get arrogant. I understand its your right and police do tend to violate rights daily just through intimidation and people not aware of there full rights. With that said that officer was very respectable and did not come close to violating anyones rights all he asked was to inspect the firearms for being loaded thats it which is his duty if its reported and these arrogant asses go on about what they do and don't consent to.
I know that not all cops do there job correctly but that officer handled the situation well how about if he shows up at your job and tells you what to do.

What do you mean 'starting' to get arrogant?

The arrogance started the moment they decided to purchase a firearm with the intention of using it if they needed it. The fact that they have the audacity to follow through by strapping it on and telling police that they do not intend to cow to every demand and imposition are only symptomatic of this arrogance you describe.

MFortie
02-13-2011, 5:00 PM
Ooooooh .... Heinlein "Tunnel In The Sky" .... oldie but goodie ... think I'll see if I can find a Kindle version ...

Sorry to threadjack: I'll now return you to your UOC bashing ....

THANK YOU! I thought it was Heinlein -- went through most of his books in high school...

MFortie
02-13-2011, 5:10 PM
Since the folks in the vid didn't do their homework very well (school 500' away), I can just see the headlines:

"FIVE MEN ARRESTED IN LA MESA; GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONE VIOLATED!"

That would REALLY further the cause... :rolleyes:

EDIT: Ya know, I think we're all getting too wrapped up in our own opinions. We really aren't on opposite sides and I don't think anyone is really "hating"; some of us have different opinions and priorities than others and that's OK.

Pinto
02-13-2011, 5:10 PM
THANK YOU! I thought it was Heinlein -- went through most of his books in high school...


You're welcome - however poor RAH must be spinning in his grave seeing you use him to denigrate those who display his ideals of individual liberty and self-reliance.

titankeith
02-13-2011, 5:10 PM
The unloaded open carriers are really starting to get arrogant. I understand its your right and police do tend to violate rights daily just through intimidation and people not aware of there full rights. With that said that officer was very respectable and did not come close to violating anyones rights all he asked was to inspect the firearms for being loaded thats it which is his duty if its reported and these arrogant asses go on about what they do and don't consent to.
I know that not all cops do there job correctly but that officer handled the situation well how about if he shows up at your job and tells you what to do.

I didn't find them the least bit arrogant...I found them KNOWLEGEABLE about their 2A rights and confident in these rights, and I applaud them for not being outraged that the LEOS needed to surround them like they were bad guys. It is a RIGHT to have firearms, not a privlidge and I'm tired of everyone forgetting that, and appeasing LEO's like they are doing us a favor for being polite? They are public servants, not masters, period, and part of their job is always being professional under any condition, and if they can"t, they face civil and legal liability. I have nothing but respect for good cops, and I know several, but the badge can easily seduce them into abusing power, especially with the uneducated public....it's why we have so many obtusive laws in the first place, because of the uneducated public sheep.
This video shows that perhaps LEO's aren't recieving enough training on the rights of the individual.

The Shadow
02-13-2011, 5:16 PM
The unloaded open carriers are really starting to get arrogant. I understand its your right and police do tend to violate rights daily just through intimidation and people not aware of there full rights. With that said that officer was very respectable and did not come close to violating anyones rights all he asked was to inspect the firearms for being loaded thats it which is his duty if its reported and these arrogant asses go on about what they do and don't consent to.
I know that not all cops do there job correctly but that officer handled the situation well how about if he shows up at your job and tells you what to do.

I don't understand your indignation toward the UOCers. If a law enforcement officer suddenly showed up at your front door and asked politely and respectfully to inspect your firearms, just to make sure that none of them are assault weapons, would you comply, because gee, they're just doing their jobs ? I think it's the same thing. The only difference is, that they don't have the authority to check them and arrest you if you fail to cooperate...yet.

12031 is a misguided attempt at gun control, and was made law at a time when we didn't have a track record of increased crime with the banning of, or at least the heavy restriction of firearms. Now, not only do we know that less guns does equate to more violence, we know that more guns does reduce crime or at least keeps it status quo.

I don't think that those UOCers were arrogant, but I do think they were drawing a line in the sand, and let the officers present, know that they know where the line is and to not step over it. There's nothing wrong with asserting your rights. God knows, law enforcement assert their authority, in some cases, when they have no authority.

12031(e) gives law enforcement the authority and is optional, not mandated by law. So I wish that those who are opposed to UOC, just lighten up a bit. After all, they are the ones that have pressed numerous law enforcement agencies to learn where their authority is in regards to UOCers.

MFortie
02-13-2011, 5:43 PM
You're welcome - however poor RAH must be spinning in his grave seeing you use him to denigrate those who display his ideals of individual liberty and self-reliance.

Denigrate? And how did I disparage RAH's ideals of individual liberty and self reliance? I don't agree with the methods but completely support the individual's rights.

Tell me, if you can, what's the difference between violating the GFSZ and carrying concealed illegally?

JeepFreak
02-13-2011, 5:51 PM
It is a RIGHT to have firearms, not a privlidge and I'm tired of everyone forgetting that, and appeasing LEO's like they are doing us a favor for being polite? They are public servants, not masters, period, and part of their job is always being professional under any condition, and if they can"t, they face civil and legal liability.

When is the last time anything but an internet flame war happened when a cop was rude to a law abiding tax payer? :confused:
Billy

JeepFreak
02-13-2011, 6:02 PM
Tell me, if you can, what's the difference between violating the GFSZ and carrying concealed illegally?

Equal rights? One could live a few miles in any direction and be in a county that allows them to concealed carry, but the "Gun Free Zone" applies to everyone in the state?

Also, it's a lot harder to accidentally carry concealed. "Gun Free Zones" are nearly impossible to avoid - which will hopefully lead to their demise.

Billy

cowboy777
02-13-2011, 6:40 PM
I didn't find them the least bit arrogant...I found them KNOWLEGEABLE about their 2A rights and confident in these rights, and I applaud them for not being outraged that the LEOS needed to surround them like they were bad guys. It is a RIGHT to have firearms, not a privlidge and I'm tired of everyone forgetting that, and appeasing LEO's like they are doing us a favor for being polite? They are public servants, not masters, period, and part of their job is always being professional under any condition, and if they can"t, they face civil and legal liability. I have nothing but respect for good cops, and I know several, but the badge can easily seduce them into abusing power, especially with the uneducated public....it's why we have so many obtusive laws in the first place, because of the uneducated public sheep.
This video shows that perhaps LEO's aren't recieving enough training on the rights of the individual.


It is your right to own a firearm but the law requires leo's to respond when called about people carrying guns and they are allowed by law to inspect to make sure its unloaded. I don't agree with it but it is the law so the UOC'ers are gonna have to deal with it. The police are there to serve us and the people that get so worked up by the sight of a gun. Do you really think those LEO's want to be there dealing with those jackasses no but they had too. Also with these UOC events being more frequently most agencies are aware how to deal with the situation. If that cop was being a dick and over stepping his jurisdiction by all means stand up for your rights. They could of showed a little more respect toward those LEOs.

cowboy777
02-13-2011, 6:45 PM
I don't understand your indignation toward the UOCers. If a law enforcement officer suddenly showed up at your front door and asked politely and respectfully to inspect your firearms, just to make sure that none of them are assault weapons, would you comply, because gee, they're just doing their jobs ? I think it's the same thing. The only difference is, that they don't have the authority to check them and arrest you if you fail to cooperate...yet.

12031 is a misguided attempt at gun control, and was made law at a time when we didn't have a track record of increased crime with the banning of, or at least the heavy restriction of firearms. Now, not only do we know that less guns does equate to more violence, we know that more guns does reduce crime or at least keeps it status quo.

I don't think that those UOCers were arrogant, but I do think they were drawing a line in the sand, and let the officers present, know that they know where the line is and to not step over it. There's nothing wrong with asserting your rights. God knows, law enforcement assert their authority, in some cases, when they have no authority.

12031(e) gives law enforcement the authority and is optional, not mandated by law. So I wish that those who are opposed to UOC, just lighten up a bit. After all, they are the ones that have pressed numerous law enforcement agencies to learn where their authority is in regards to UOCers.

Thats retarded no where does a cop have the right to knock on my door and ask to inspect my property and then I also have the right to deny the search. The law gives leo's the right to inspect the gun if carried in public weather you like it or not. Two totally different scenarios. All I'm saying is show respect where respect is given.

SickofSoCal
02-13-2011, 6:55 PM
The unloaded open carriers are really starting to get arrogant. I understand its your right and police do tend to violate rights daily just through intimidation and people not aware of there full rights. With that said that officer was very respectable and did not come close to violating anyones rights all he asked was to inspect the firearms for being loaded thats it which is his duty if its reported and these arrogant asses go on about what they do and don't consent to.
I know that not all cops do there job correctly but that officer handled the situation well how about if he shows up at your job and tells you what to do.

lol.....wut?

southernsnowshoe
02-13-2011, 6:55 PM
It is your right to own a firearm but the law requires leo's to respond when called about people carrying guns and they are allowed by law to inspect to make sure its unloaded. I don't agree with it but it is the law so the UOC'ers are gonna have to deal with it. The police are there to serve us and the people that get so worked up by the sight of a gun. Do you really think those LEO's want to be there dealing with those jackasses no but they had too. Also with these UOC events being more frequently most agencies are aware how to deal with the situation. If that cop was being a dick and over stepping his jurisdiction by all means stand up for your rights. They could of showed a little more respect toward those LEOs.

You bring up a good point, they don't dispatch LEO's to certain calls based on their political beliefs, could be that officer that has to approach you is an NRA member, a vet, loves his freedom as much as you do. It might cause him a good deal of discomfort knowing he has to perform his duty, which is to ask a fellow citizen for his piece, knowing that this citizen has done nothing wrong.

SickofSoCal
02-13-2011, 7:02 PM
You want to know the truth? Train the 9/11 call takers.

"man with gun" O ya? What's he doing with it? Wildly waving it around? Pointing it at people?

Rossi357
02-13-2011, 7:04 PM
[QUOTE=MFortie;5809602]Since the folks in the vid didn't do their homework very well (school 500' away), I can just see the headlines:

"FIVE MEN ARRESTED IN LA MESA; GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONE VIOLATED!"

That would REALLY further the cause... :rolleyes:QUOTE]

They did their homework very well. That was not a GFSZ. It's the school admin office, not a K-12 school. :rolleyes:

Civilitant
02-13-2011, 7:06 PM
Since the folks in the vid didn't do their homework very well (school 500' away), I can just see the headlines:

"FIVE MEN ARRESTED IN LA MESA; GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONE VIOLATED!"

That would REALLY further the cause... :rolleyes:

EDIT: Ya know, I think we're all getting too wrapped up in our own opinions. We really aren't on opposite sides and I don't think anyone is really "hating"; some of us have different opinions and priorities than others and that's OK.


please show me the school within 500 ft.

this has been discussed already. fyi read more - type less - please for the good of us all.

The Shadow
02-13-2011, 7:08 PM
Thats retarded no where does a cop have the right to knock on my door and ask to inspect my property and then I also have the right to deny the search. The law gives leo's the right to inspect the gun if carried in public weather you like it or not. Two totally different scenarios. All I'm saying is show respect where respect is given.

Show me a law that prohibits someone from knocking on your front door. If your yard and access to your front door is inhibited by a fence and a gate, that's one thing. But if your front door is accessible from the street, it's not trespassing until you order them off of your property. Are you going to order the police off of your property ?

So now that we've established that there's no law prohibiting a person from knocking on your door unless you tell them that they're trespassing, please tell me what law prohibits law enforcement from asking to see your firearms.

The whole trick to police searching without a warrant is consensual search. If they can solicit your cooperation, either by directly asking or by subterfuge, they will do it. Now notice, that I said, "God knows, law enforcement assert their authority, in some cases, when they have no authority." That simply means that they will make a person believe that they have the authority. It's up to you to prove that you gave them permission under duress.

The point I'm making is, you're showing disdain for UOCers, who, because of an ill conceived law, are forced to relinquish their lawful property to law enforcement simply to establish they are not breaking the law. What's even more outrageous is the fact that if a person refuses, they can forcibly arrest a person for a law they haven't broken. Now what other law allows that ? Can you be arrested for having an assault weapon if you don't allow police to inspect your weapons in your home ? Both are a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments. And that's what makes them the same thing.

Civilitant
02-13-2011, 7:13 PM
Thats retarded no where does a cop have the right to knock on my door and ask to inspect my property and then I also have the right to deny the search. The law gives leo's the right to inspect the gun if carried in public weather you like it or not. Two totally different scenarios. All I'm saying is show respect where respect is given.



I have highlighted in bold the most important pert of your own statement. This is where you are mistaken. please continue to educate yourself at which time it may be appropriate to update your opinion.

READ more TYPE less.

the law does not give the right .... geeeezzzus kkrrriiiiist. you make me want to puke... but my laptop is too nice, if you were here i would do us all a favor and puke on yours.

The Shadow
02-13-2011, 7:13 PM
It is your right to own a firearm but the law requires leo's to respond when called about people carrying guns and they are allowed by law to inspect to make sure its unloaded. I don't agree with it but it is the law so the UOC'ers are gonna have to deal with it. The police are there to serve us and the people that get so worked up by the sight of a gun. Do you really think those LEO's want to be there dealing with those jackasses no but they had too. Also with these UOC events being more frequently most agencies are aware how to deal with the situation. If that cop was being a dick and over stepping his jurisdiction by all means stand up for your rights. They could of showed a little more respect toward those LEOs.

Show me where it says the police are required by law to respond to a person lawfully carrying a firearm in a manner prescribed by law. Again, 12031(e) gives them the authority, it doesn't mandate that they check a firearm.

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

The the statement in bold, is permissive and therefore optional, not mandatory.

Civilitant
02-13-2011, 7:17 PM
What do you mean 'starting' to get arrogant?

The arrogance started the moment they decided to purchase a firearm with the intention of using it if they needed it. The fact that they have the audacity to follow through by strapping it on and telling police that they do not intend to cow to every demand and imposition are only symptomatic of this arrogance you describe.



genius. I am way to negative, but when I grow up I want to be as cool as CitaDel.

JRob
02-13-2011, 7:18 PM
It is your right to own a firearm but the law requires leo's to respond when called about people carrying guns and they are allowed by law to inspect to make sure its unloaded.

I doubt you can post any such law that *requires* them to do anything (except make a domestic violence arrest).

Flying_clutchman
02-13-2011, 7:20 PM
[QUOTE=MFortie;5809602]Since the folks in the vid didn't do their homework very well (school 500' away), I can just see the headlines:

"FIVE MEN ARRESTED IN LA MESA; GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONE VIOLATED!"

That would REALLY further the cause... :rolleyes:QUOTE]

They did their homework very well. That was not a GFSZ. It's the school admin office, not a K-12 school. :rolleyes:

http://lamesaumc.com/childrenscenter.php

They have preschool through 3rd grade.

Bulleh
02-13-2011, 7:21 PM
Personally, I think the officer doing the gun inspections was extremely professional. Everything was by the book and he was polite. The guy in tan was a little too passive-aggressive, but I understand that you guys are doing your best to defend our rights and trying educate LEO & civilians with these outings. Thanks for sharing the footage.

cowboy777
02-13-2011, 7:30 PM
Show me a law that prohibits someone from knocking on your front door. If your yard and access to your front door is inhibited by a fence and a gate, that's one thing. But if your front door is accessible from the street, it's not trespassing until you order them off of your property. Are you going to order the police off of your property ?

So now that we've established that there's no law prohibiting a person from knocking on your door unless you tell them that they're trespassing, please tell me what law prohibits law enforcement from asking to see your firearms.

The whole trick to police searching without a warrant is consensual search. If they can solicit your cooperation, either by directly asking or by subterfuge, they will do it. Now notice, that I said, "God knows, law enforcement assert their authority, in some cases, when they have no authority." That simply means that they will make a person believe that they have the authority. It's up to you to prove that you gave them permission under duress.

The point I'm making is, you're showing disdain for UOCers, who, because of an ill conceived law, are forced to relinquish their lawful property to law enforcement simply to establish they are not breaking the law. What's even more outrageous is the fact that if a person refuses, they can forcibly arrest a person for a law they haven't broken. Now what other law allows that ? Can you be arrested for having an assault weapon if you don't allow police to inspect your weapons in your home ? Both are a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments. And that's what makes them the same thing.

They can knock on my door all they want and it is in my right to deny them and turn them away. UOC'ers don't have that right based on current law. It just the way it is for now. Again that leo was respectful and within his jurisdiction and never seemed to come close to overstepping it.
I don't choose to uoc thats my choice at first I thought this group served a purpose, it was showing a society frightened by guns that its legal and nothing wrong with a guy arming himself as he walks his dog or gets a cup of coffe, etc. I also thought they were doing a good job informing ignorant leo's of there rights and the law and standing up for it. But as the uoc movement is unfolding more and more most agencies have been informed the legal way to deal with these situations and still they act like jerks when uncalled for. At one point the uoc will be dealt with legislatively I would hate to see another infringement on our 2a rights. When law makers ask law enforcement agencies how you feel about uoc would you rather hear "they are great law abiding citizens who choose to protect themselves and are respectful and we support them in there decision", or "there another group of guys trying to prove a point tying up our leo's from other possible emergencies going on." I know what Lee Baca and Charlie Beck would say. Lets not make it unanimous across the board.

The Shadow
02-13-2011, 8:10 PM
They can knock on my door all they want and it is in my right to deny them and turn them away.

Based on your suggestion that they are just doing their job, would you turn them away ?

UOC'ers don't have that right based on current law. It just the way it is for now.

Don't you think that's wrong ?

Again that leo was respectful and within his jurisdiction and never seemed to come close to overstepping it.

I'm not arguing that. But I don't believe that the UOCers were arrogant.

I don't choose to uoc thats my choice at first I thought this group served a purpose, it was showing a society frightened by guns that its legal and nothing wrong with a guy arming himself as he walks his dog or gets a cup of coffe, etc. I also thought they were doing a good job informing ignorant leo's of there rights and the law and standing up for it. But as the uoc movement is unfolding more and more most agencies have been informed the legal way to deal with these situations and still they act like jerks when uncalled for.

Please give me an example, because I don't see it in this video clip.

At one point the uoc will be dealt with legislatively I would hate to see another infringement on our 2a rights.

There's no difference if UOC ceases due to people willingly refraining from doing it, or UOC ceases due to another draconian law. According to the federal judge in San Diego, since UOC was allowed by law, LOC and CCW could be regulated and even prohibted, because she felt that UOC fulfilled that provision of the second amendment that gives us the right to bear arms. So I think that if UOC is ever prohibited by law, that will infringe on the bearing of arms, according to at least one federal judge in California.

When law makers ask law enforcement agencies how you feel about uoc would you rather hear "they are great law abiding citizens who choose to protect themselves and are respectful and we support them in there decision", or "there another group of guys trying to prove a point tying up our leo's from other possible emergencies going on." I know what Lee Baca and Charlie Beck would say. Lets not make it unanimous across the board.

Well, based on what I've read, there are still a number of law enforcement managers that are willing to put their name to a piece of paper that says gun laws in California are still too permissive. Funny thing is, you will never see law enforcement managers names like those who are releasing their grip on the second amendment. And that's the problem. The minority of law enforcement managers are being presented as speaking for the entire law enforcement community. But in reality, they are a minority who happen to be in the urban an suburban areas of California.

Right now there is an adversarial game of chess going on between the progunners and the antigunners. The progunners are presenting factual information while the antigunners present propaganda and disinformation. Fortunately, we are winning in both the courts of law and public opinion.

JeepFreak
02-13-2011, 8:17 PM
http://lamesaumc.com/childrenscenter.php

They have preschool through 3rd grade.

That's 2000' away, as the crow flies, according to Google.
Billy

JeepFreak
02-13-2011, 8:31 PM
When law makers ask law enforcement agencies...

http://www.slicky.net/smilies/rofl.gif http://www.slicky.net/smilies/rofl.gif http://www.slicky.net/smilies/rofl.gif http://www.slicky.net/smilies/rofl.gif http://www.slicky.net/smilies/rofl.gif



























I'm sorry, what were you saying?
Billy

FrankG
02-13-2011, 8:35 PM
I see all these people UOC at like coffee shops and such in what appears to be a pretty safe areas. Why not do some good and go to crime riden areas to make a statement. Like in Oakland at 73rd and Macarthur Blvd.

morfeeis
02-13-2011, 8:51 PM
+1
i see UOC doing nothing to help, i think it will hurt RTKABA more then anything. It wont be long till we see this on the news and some housewife with a hair up her *** starts asking about the children and how to keep them safe from the big bad cowboys walking down main street with guns on hip.

U2BassAce
02-13-2011, 9:01 PM
The unloaded open carriers are really starting to get arrogant. I understand its your right and police do tend to violate rights daily just through intimidation and people not aware of there full rights. With that said that officer was very respectable and did not come close to violating anyones rights all he asked was to inspect the firearms for being loaded thats it which is his duty if its reported and these arrogant asses go on about what they do and don't consent to.
I know that not all cops do there job correctly but that officer handled the situation well how about if he shows up at your job and tells you what to do.

Yeah I agree. Don't blame the Cops for doing their job. Blame whoever called in the MWG complaint. Then again, how does the alert citizen know if the gun was loaded or not? (I don't agree with the law, but it is what it is at this point)

N6ATF
02-13-2011, 11:32 PM
the law requires leo's to respond when called about people carrying guns and they are allowed by law to inspect to make sure its unloaded.
... Do you really think those LEO's want to be there dealing with those jackasses no but they had too.

:icon_bs:

Thats retarded no where does a cop have the right to knock on my door and ask to inspect my property and then I also have the right to deny the search. The law gives leo's the right to inspect the gun if carried in public weather you like it or not. Two totally different scenarios. All I'm saying is show respect where respect is given.

COTUS denies LEOs the "right" to detain and search people absent reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause. Yet some break their oaths to support and defend COTUS and violate the enumerated civil rights therein, anyway. You really think once the victim disarmers pass another of their perpetual civil gun rights-violating laws authorizing searches of all our houses without warrants, RAS or PC just as 12031(e) authorizes the same in public, these same civil rights violating LEOs will not pop champagne and then start kicking doors down? :rolleyes:

You bring up a good point, they don't dispatch LEO's to certain calls based on their political beliefs, could be that officer that has to approach you is an NRA member, a vet, loves his freedom as much as you do. It might cause him a good deal of discomfort knowing he has to perform his duty, which is to ask a fellow citizen for his piece, knowing that this citizen has done nothing wrong.

No officer HAS to approach anyone, then violate their civil rights. Those who do suffer zero discomfort, as violating civil rights is something they know they can do with impunity.

I see all these people UOC at like coffee shops and such in what appears to be a pretty safe areas. Why not do some good and go to crime riden areas to make a statement. Like in Oakland at 73rd and Macarthur Blvd.

You don't go somewhere with a gun that you wouldn't go without one.

Civilitant
02-13-2011, 11:49 PM
[QUOTE=Rossi357;5810376]

http://lamesaumc.com/childrenscenter.php

They have preschool through 3rd grade.


FAIL.

Civilitant
02-13-2011, 11:51 PM
+1
i see UOC doing nothing to help, i think it will hurt RTKABA more then anything. It wont be long till we see this on the news and some housewife with a hair up her *** starts asking about the children and how to keep them safe from the big bad cowboys walking down main street with guns on hip.

BRADY FUD.


FAIL.

N6ATF
02-14-2011, 12:13 AM
[QUOTE=Flying_clutchman;5810481]


FAIL.

Care to explain? It looks like it would qualify to have civil gun rights violated under PC 626.9. :mad:

IncVoid
02-14-2011, 1:03 AM
Sorry but this is a rant.

I watched the video and got mad when he was "informing the officer" before the officer had finished what he had to say.

Getting pushed around by an officer is one thing. But this guy spoke politely, he might as well have been giving the guy a medal for uoc'ing, he was so nice.

Legal or not, rights or not, permissions or not. The uoc'er was kind of a d***.



Uoc'er being a d*** to the wrong people. Run ins with law enforcement have to trickle up the paper trail to be heard. Otherwise your just convincing another voter(the officer) to vote for or against something and call his representatives with first hand experience.
Or people passing by or clicking on youtube that uoc'ers are being "mean" to law enforcement. Most episodes of cops, the criminals are d**** to leo. How are "people" to watch this and see different? I'm brought up on "cop shows" that show "criminals". Every now and then they let people go on camera. haha.

Correcting the officer of his permissions/rights "granted/authorized" by penal code, can wait until after you're in the back of the car, or you are "free to go".

You don't go somewhere with a gun that you wouldn't go without one
I like that! I'm not going through an area of town that I wouldn't go without a gun.

Avoid situations. Doesn't mean stop going out in public. If you do that your just going to end up scared of the food delivery people knocking on your door.

But...Unwanted attention.
I'm scared of "what if...", most people don't want open carry.

I'm sure a lot of easily persuaded people think that aks/ar-15's are banned(no matter what the list says), or open carry is legal, perhaps they will be "awakened" to the fact and say...I don't like it, and call their rep. But easily persuaded people probably don't call their reps anyway.

Flying_clutchman
02-14-2011, 5:10 AM
That's 2000' away, as the crow flies, according to Google.
Billy



According to google maps directions, its 407 feet.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

MFortie
02-14-2011, 6:50 AM
please show me the school within 500 ft.

this has been discussed already. fyi read more - type less - please for the good of us all.

If you look back at some of the previous posts you'll find a link to a Google map. The map has push pins showing Cosmo's and other surrounding locations. Cosmo's is 'A' on the map; the school is 'D'.

The school is a private school (nursery/kindergarten) at the church on the corner of Spring & Lemon (the church occupies the whole Palm/Lemon/Spring corner). That's one block over from Cosmo's and closer than the district offices across Spring.

The GFSZA of '95 states 'public, private & parochial' schools. I suppose if the La Mesa PD had wanted to, they could've made an arrest and let the courts sort it out. I'm not an attorney nor a LEO, so I could be mistaken...

EDIT: Guess I should've finished reading the thread; the school location has already been established...

JeepFreak
02-14-2011, 7:11 AM
According to google maps directions, its 407 feet.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
(Your link didn't work for me. I think you have to click the "link" button in the top right hand corner of the actual map.)
From 4690 Palm Ave to 8278 La Mesa Blvd?
http://i53.tinypic.com/sqmg7p.png
Billy http://www.slicky.net/smilies/dunno.gif

JeepFreak
02-14-2011, 7:23 AM
According to google maps directions, its 407 feet.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

(Your link didn't work for me. I think you have to click the "link" button in the top right hand corner of the actual map.)
From 4690 Palm Ave to 8278 La Mesa Blvd?
http://i53.tinypic.com/sqmg7p.png
Billy http://www.slicky.net/smilies/dunno.gif

If you look back at some of the previous posts you'll find a link to a Google map. The map has push pins showing Cosmo's and other surrounding locations. Cosmo's is 'A' on the map; the school is 'D'. THIS MAP: http://maps.google.com/maps?near=8278+La+Mesa+Boulevard,+La+Mesa,+CA+9194 2-5257+(Cosmos+Coffee+Cafe)&geocode=CeOY2iBjAaFcFfrz8wEd12wG-SEEB5mRYIuhYQ&q=school&f=l&gl=us&hl=en&sll=32.766148,-117.018975&sspn=0.005224,0.006126&ie=UTF8&hq=school&hnear=&t=h&z=16

The school is a private school (nursery/kindergarten) at the church on the corner of Spring & Lemon (the church occupies the whole Palm/Lemon/Spring corner). That's one block over from Cosmo's and closer than the district offices across Spring.

The GFSZA of '95 states 'public, private & parochial' schools. I suppose if the La Mesa PD had wanted to, they could've made an arrest and let the courts sort it out. I'm not an attorney nor a LEO, so I could be mistaken...

EDIT: Guess I should've finished reading the thread; the school location has already been established...

If you were talking about "D" as well (Flying Clutchman), then you're probably right, it's much more like 400'... I just used the "location address" in the link that was posted.
Billy

MossbergMan
02-14-2011, 8:32 AM
You people have given me a monster headache. UOC w/o any kind of information to hand out or display is a disaster in the making. The law abiding and lawless look an awful lot alike. Unless you are part of an ORGANIZED demonstration the cop on the street MUST assume (for his or her own safety) that you're intentions are unknown. Sure La Mesa is a low key area and the people were dressed well, but that is no reason to let your guard down. The cops were polite and reasonable. The guns had magazines inserted, thus P/C existed to investigate for violation of 12031 (loaded gun in public). Just as P/C exists to pull you over when you exceed the speed limit or contact you when you disturb the peace and they get a complaint. If they suspect you have a LOADED gun in public the law authorizes them to check it, period, and that's all that happened in the video. More cops are on our side (pro-2A) than you may think, so shut the F-up and let them do their job. If you carry unloaded with a magazine in your piece then expect to get disarmed for inspection. AFTER the inspection, then debate your constitutional rights, but don't debate/argue during the contact because EVERYBODY has a bad day at work and you don't want be on the receiving end of it for being a smart-***. Save the constitutional debates for city council meetings.

Civilitant, I can cite two incidents where OC loaded people were attacked and disarmed in San Diego (San Diego Trolley security officers). One, just robbed of his gun, the other shot and robbed of his gun. So, understand UOC's the real bad guys are not concerned with your UL guns and they know they are unloaded because they can see them. Sadly you will not see theirs, because they carry unlawfully concealed.

So, UOC, make your statements, but do so in an organized manner with information to hand out to the sheeple. Fact sheets, condensed constitutional law, state law. Don't just walk among us with your gun exposed, the scare'd cats are just not there yet.
You know...Nye County NV. allows LOADED open carry :-) So if you see a gun in NV. you just figure it's loaded, because only a fool would carry a $500-$1200 rock in open.
That's my $.25 worth....now I have to get some Advil.

J.D.Allen
02-14-2011, 8:54 AM
Well handled from both sides. I can't wait for the day when an inspection is not needed.

That day is now. An inspection is not needed. The unconstitutional statute ALLOWS them to do an e-check. It does not mandate them to do it. IMHO when the officers decide to perform an e-check, especially so many of them, they decided to NOT handle the situation well.

southernsnowshoe
02-14-2011, 9:09 AM
That day is now. An inspection is not needed. The unconstitutional statute ALLOWS them to do an e-check. It does not mandate them to do it. IMHO when the officers decide to perform an e-check, especially so many of them, they decided to NOT handle the situation well.



So, if I understand you correctly you are saying if a MWG call is dispatched, the officer is under no obligation to verify the weapon is unloaded?

titankeith
02-14-2011, 9:11 AM
It is your right to own a firearm but the law requires leo's to respond when called about people carrying guns and they are allowed by law to inspect to make sure its unloaded. I don't agree with it but it is the law so the UOC'ers are gonna have to deal with it. The police are there to serve us and the people that get so worked up by the sight of a gun. Do you really think those LEO's want to be there dealing with those jackasses no but they had too. Also with these UOC events being more frequently most agencies are aware how to deal with the situation. If that cop was being a dick and over stepping his jurisdiction by all means stand up for your rights. They could of showed a little more respect toward those LEOs.

I watched the video a couple of times, and again, I see at no time were the UOCers disrespectful. They complied, but stated they do not consent. They wanted info on the officers detaining them. They were as professional as the LEO's were...perhaps it's that LEO's expect either total belligerance, or total asskissing? they did neither, but I see no disrespect at all.
Oh, and I'm sure the cops knew they were being recorded,so of course they were on there best behavior...again, I'm pro LEO and I'm NEVER beligerant to cops, buyt I don"t kiss their asses like they are my master either, and yes, if they violate my 4th amendment, you better believe I'm not going to let it go.

sandman21
02-14-2011, 9:30 AM
12031e violates the 4A, it creates RAS where there is none. Its like if CA passed a law that allowed a LEO to inspect any vehicle because transporting narcotics is illegal, I can't for the life of me understand why people are fine with it. A MWAG call to does describe illegal activity. But hey only the bad guys need the 4A.

N6ATF
02-14-2011, 9:39 AM
So, if I understand you correctly you are saying if a MWG call is dispatched, the officer is under no obligation to verify the weapon is unloaded?

No, no, NO! Officers must be mindless automatons, not look for RAS or PC of a violent crime, and violate civil rights, period! :rolleyes:

southernsnowshoe
02-14-2011, 10:57 AM
No, no, NO! Officers must be mindless automatons, not look for RAS or PC of a violent crime, and violate civil rights, period! :rolleyes:




I am no LEO, I just figured as screwed up as the rest our laws are, that
they would have some type of mandate to ensure the gun was unloaded.

sandman21
02-14-2011, 11:03 AM
Yes it is 12031e

N6ATF
02-14-2011, 11:25 AM
12031(e): facially, intentionally unconstitutional "mandate" maliciously used as an "excuse" by civil rights-violating oath breakers.

The Shadow
02-14-2011, 11:26 AM
Yes it is 12031e

12031(e) does not mandate that law enforcement check firearms, it only authorizes them to check. It does however mandate that people, who are not peace officers or persons exempt from 12031, submit to a check of their firearms when ordered to do so by a peace officer.

Grakken
02-14-2011, 12:08 PM
You people have given me a monster headache. UOC w/o any kind of information to hand out or display is a disaster in the making. The law abiding and lawless look an awful lot alike. Unless you are part of an ORGANIZED demonstration the cop on the street MUST assume (for his or her own safety) that you're intentions are unknown. Sure La Mesa is a low key area and the people were dressed well, but that is no reason to let your guard down. The cops were polite and reasonable. The guns had magazines inserted, thus P/C existed to investigate for violation of 12031 (loaded gun in public). Just as P/C exists to pull you over when you exceed the speed limit or contact you when you disturb the peace and they get a complaint. If they suspect you have a LOADED gun in public the law authorizes them to check it, period, and that's all that happened in the video. More cops are on our side (pro-2A) than you may think, so shut the F-up and let them do their job. If you carry unloaded with a magazine in your piece then expect to get disarmed for inspection. AFTER the inspection, then debate your constitutional rights, but don't debate/argue during the contact because EVERYBODY has a bad day at work and you don't want be on the receiving end of it for being a smart-***. Save the constitutional debates for city council meetings.

Civilitant, I can cite two incidents where OC loaded people were attacked and disarmed in San Diego (San Diego Trolley security officers). One, just robbed of his gun, the other shot and robbed of his gun. So, understand UOC's the real bad guys are not concerned with your UL guns and they know they are unloaded because they can see them. Sadly you will not see theirs, because they carry unlawfully concealed.

So, UOC, make your statements, but do so in an organized manner with information to hand out to the sheeple. Fact sheets, condensed constitutional law, state law. Don't just walk among us with your gun exposed, the scare'd cats are just not there yet.
You know...Nye County NV. allows LOADED open carry :-) So if you see a gun in NV. you just figure it's loaded, because only a fool would carry a $500-$1200 rock in open.
That's my $.25 worth....now I have to get some Advil.

This.

cmaynes
02-14-2011, 12:28 PM
why dont we see people doing this where there is a tangible threat- like in Logan Heights or down on 54th St south of 94?

sheesh. La Mesa is not a dangerous place....

outkast353
02-14-2011, 12:31 PM
basically we don't have the right to open carry. In law we do but in practice? not really

dantodd
02-14-2011, 12:34 PM
UOC w/o any kind of information to hand out or display is a disaster in the making. The law abiding and lawless look an awful lot alike.

Just out of curiosity can you point to any examples of "lawless" in Ca who "look an awful lot" like a UOCer? You know, openly carrying a firearm in a holster and not threatening people.

Sent via tapatalk on my Samsung Vibrant.

Grakken
02-14-2011, 12:47 PM
Just out of curiosity can you point to any examples of "lawless" in Ca who "look an awful lot" like a UOCer? You know, openly carrying a firearm in a holster and not threatening people.

Sent via tapatalk on my Samsung Vibrant.


Not speaking for him but I think he meant you cant really tell a bad guy from good just by appearance...whether they openly carry or not. Thats how I took it.

N6ATF
02-14-2011, 12:56 PM
why dont we see people doing this where there is a tangible threat- like in Logan Heights or down on 54th St south of 94?

sheesh. La Mesa is not a dangerous place....

Yes, it is. I lived a few blocks from downtown LM. It may not be south central, but it's far from utopia.

basically we don't have the right to open carry. In law we do but in practice? not really

Yep.

Not speaking for him but I think he meant you cant really tell a bad guy from good just by appearance...whether they openly carry or not. Thats how I took it.

Actually if that person is not wearing a badge, you can absolutely tell they are not a bad guy. Criminals don't open carry because they could be swarmed by cops like UOCers are.

J.D.Allen
02-14-2011, 12:58 PM
So, if I understand you correctly you are saying if a MWG call is dispatched, the officer is under no obligation to verify the weapon is unloaded?

Your question shows a lack of understanding of the laws regarding this issue. Yes. That is precisely what I am telling you.

cmaynes
02-14-2011, 1:58 PM
Yes, it is. I lived a few blocks from downtown LM. It may not be south central, but it's far from utopia.



Yep.



Actually if that person is not wearing a badge, you can absolutely tell they are not a bad guy. Criminals don't open carry because they could be swarmed by cops like UOCers are.

I lived there for about 22 years- My Father in Law still lives there about a 1/4 of a mile from where this happened- It is not THAT dangerous- Lemon Grove is Dangerous- El Cajon is dangerous- La Mesa dow near University is dangerous- La Mesa Downtown- 200 yards from the Police Station and in the middle of the day is no more dangerous than Rodeo Drive.

UOC is a fools province- it gives every advantage to a talented bad guy and leaves you having to defend an unwise choice every second another citizen sees you. Having a concealed knife is probably a better weapon-

the goal should be absolute - CCW- loaded CCW of the Shall Issue flavor-

Every distraction from that is a step in the wrong direction- If someone wants to show off their *****in' gun great- but lets not use that as a consolation prize to actually be able to really defend ourselves.

N6ATF
02-14-2011, 2:18 PM
I lived there for about 22 years- My Father in Law still lives there about a 1/4 of a mile from where this happened- It is not THAT dangerous- Lemon Grove is Dangerous- El Cajon is dangerous- La Mesa dow near University is dangerous- La Mesa Downtown- 200 yards from the Police Station and in the middle of the day is no more dangerous than Rodeo Drive.

Tell that to the banks/credit unions that have been robbed and shot up near the police station because the whole area is a victim disarmament school zone. Since the cop shop wasn't enough of a deterrent, it seems like a gun shop opening up across the street from one of them has been.

Skter505
02-14-2011, 2:28 PM
I lived a 1/4 mile from that location as well and heard gunshots on numerous occasions. La Mesa and Rodeo drive? Please.... IMHO UOC is pointless. Scares more people. More harm than good. Also cosmos seems like a strange place to UOC unless you want the cops to come. The customers arent exactly the people your gonna sway, and a guarantee your gonna get the cops to come.

cmaynes
02-14-2011, 2:58 PM
Tell that to the banks/credit unions that have been robbed and shot up near the police station because the whole area is a victim disarmament school zone. Since the cop shop wasn't enough of a deterrent, it seems like a gun shop opening up across the street from one of them has been.

bad things happen- the idea that there is even going to be a CCW or even UOC person in the midst of that sort of thing is statistically unlikely. (Look at the Giffords event- in a VERY Permissive CCW state) If the Police Station isnt going provide a reasonable deterrent- nothing short of real CCW is either.

And remember, we even had some of the 9-11 hijackers work right down the street from there....

A gunshop is also not going to provide any sort of deterrent. though are you thinking of Bullseye Computers? because that is almost a mile away down towards Jackson Drive....so It is effectively not in the downtown district-

N6ATF
02-14-2011, 3:15 PM
The Giffords shooting was <500 feet from a high school, or across the street, as Adam Winkler put it, triggering the Fed GFSZ. Without a permit (which many may be fooled into not getting in AZ because of Constitutional Carry conflicting with the Commerce Clause abuse), carry would have been illegal there.

The gun shop appears to not be hurting, as there have been no more bank robberies or shootings.

I'm not sure how you think invisible guns will be a deterrent to criminals without x-ray vision or psychic powers, but hey, it's a free country. Or not.

cmaynes
02-14-2011, 3:28 PM
The Giffords shooting was <500 feet from a high school, or across the street, as Adam Winkler put it, triggering the Fed GFSZ. Without a permit (which many may be fooled into not getting in AZ because of Constitutional Carry conflicting with the Commerce Clause abuse), carry would have been illegal there.

The gun shop appears to not be hurting, as there have been no more bank robberies or shootings.

I'm not sure how you think invisible guns will be a deterrent to criminals without x-ray vision or psychic powers, but hey, it's a free country. Or not.

there was one person carrying at the Giffords shooting who was not an LEO- he was not arrested or otherwise charged (as far as I have heard) so I am not exactly sure how that would have worked out-

is the gun shop you are thinking of the one I mentioned? because there are no Banks anywhere near it.

And as far as "invisible" guns go- yes they absolutely would hae a much greater effect over openly seen ones- because it doesnt advertise threats to the criminal. Ask a cop if he would prefer OC over CCW when he is in street clothes- I know I would much prefer not advertising my capabilities.

N6ATF
02-14-2011, 3:43 PM
there was one person carrying at the Giffords shooting who was not an LEO- he was not arrested or otherwise charged (as far as I have heard) so I am not exactly sure how that would have worked out-

If it was the guy that ran from the store to the scene when he heard the shots, or even if not, I'm not sure if they were permitted.

is the gun shop you are thinking of the one I mentioned? because there are no Banks anywhere near it.

You sure you lived in La Mesa for 22 years? USE Credit Union. Bank/credit union are used interchangeably.

And as far as "invisible" guns go- yes they absolutely would hae a much greater effect over openly seen ones- because it doesnt advertise threats to the criminal. Ask a cop if he would prefer OC over CCW when he is in street clothes- I know I would much prefer not advertising my capabilities.

Well I'm pretty sure the statistics prove otherwise, the anecdotal and police evidence certainly do. "Civilian" open carriers rarely have crimes committed in their presence (as long as the criminal doesn't fail to look for sheepdogs), because except for the suicidally insane, most criminals don't want to die. CCWers compared to OCers per capita have to draw far more often to get criminals to stop. And since you shouldn't be drawing from concealment unless you're ready to shoot to stop a threat, that means a higher body count because the criminals thought you were the sheeple.

I have no desire to trick criminals into thinking I'm a sheep so I can shoot them. Morally, ethically, legally, financially.

cmaynes
02-14-2011, 4:01 PM
If it was the guy that ran from the store to the scene when he heard the shots, or even if not, I'm not sure if they were permitted.



You sure you lived in La Mesa for 22 years? USE Credit Union. Bank/credit union are used interchangeably.



Well I'm pretty sure the statistics prove otherwise, the anecdotal and police evidence certainly do. "Civilian" open carriers rarely have crimes committed in their presence (as long as the criminal doesn't fail to look for sheepdogs), because except for the suicidally insane, most criminals don't want to die. CCWers compared to OCers per capita have to draw far more often to get criminals to stop. And since you shouldn't be drawing from concealment unless you're ready to shoot to stop a threat, that means a higher body count because the criminals thought you were the sheeple.

I have no desire to trick criminals into thinking I'm a sheep so I can shoot them. Morally, ethically, legally, financially.

Yes I did live there actually- I went to Lemon Avenue Elementary, La Mesa Junior High, Grossmont High School, Grossmont College and SDSU as well- I have not lived in town for 17 years though- but am down at least a dozen times a year- my father in law live on Porter Hill Drive behind the Park.

The USE Credit Union is still almost a mile from the downtown location of the video too.

as to the stats on Open Carriers being involved in crimes as victims- I would frankly be surprised if there were any real stats on that- crime that doesnt happen is impossible to report- on the flip side, I have yet to hear of many cases (I have actually heard of no cases) where a UOC person had an impact on preventing a crime- Since most UOC'ers who get attention are doing it in areas of relatively little threat, I cannot see how a meaningful data poll could be considered for that- And to even begin to imply that a CCW is somehow "looking" for a fight- is frankly bizarre and entirely absurd. You might reflect on that- because it is exactly the argument that the anti-gun folks are leveling at the gun community in general. As to drawing from concealment or otherwise- outside the one way range- it is only done when lethal force is demanded- and for no other reason. Otherwise it is brandishing, which is illegal, and outside the idea of self defense.

N6ATF
02-14-2011, 4:12 PM
Open Carry is visible, armed deterrence, a way to look to avoid a fight, with 99.9% of criminals who have a self-preservation instinct and no desire to get in a firefight in which they will lose if they get struck even once in a semi-critical area (doctors having to report all GSWs).

I'm not sure how you can define invisible, appearing-to-be-unarmed non-deterrence, avoiding a fight. It may avoid a "fight" with the police over what your civil rights are and that they should not be violated, but if you're CCWing legally (with a permit), you've already ceded your 1A, 2A, 14A, 4A, and 5A. At great expense, no less.

/unsubscribe

cmaynes
02-14-2011, 4:31 PM
Open Carry is visible, armed deterrence, a way to look to avoid a fight, with 99.9% of criminals who have a self-preservation instinct and no desire to get in a firefight in which they will lose if they get struck even once in a semi-critical area (doctors having to report all GSWs).

I'm not sure how you can define invisible, appearing-to-be-unarmed non-deterrence, avoiding a fight. It may avoid a "fight" with the police over what your civil rights are and that they should not be violated, but if you're CCWing legally (with a permit), you've already ceded your 1A, 2A, 14A, 4A, and 5A. At great expense, no less.

/unsubscribe

your logic is absolutely astounding.

Bruce
02-14-2011, 6:52 PM
So, if I understand you correctly you are saying if a MWG call is dispatched, the officer is under no obligation to verify the weapon is unloaded?

LEO's aren't even obligated to determine if it's a real gun. Get argumentative with them and make any move for your weapon and they'll most likely shoot you dead.