Arrested and jailed. pc12280b. Poss of AW. Today case dismissed. Did I win? [Archive]

swimmingpoolguy

11-13-2006, 07:27 PM

On Oct 9th a "high risk car stop" was made and I was arrested and placed in jail. The SJPD charged me(6 hours later) with p.c. 12280(b), possession of an assualt weapon. (It was an ar-15 rifle with a prince 50 mag lock). A glock 23 was also with me and taken. As was the ammo. I was coming back from Metcalf range which was closed that day.

TODAY ALL CHARGES WERE DISMISSED! I should feel happy and I definately am happy at not going back to jail, but here is the problem;

I am now looked at like a criminal in my neighborhood, was told by an officer I am lucky I was not shot, spent time in jail, spent alot of cash defending myself, had my rifle magazine removed by the police range officer with a MALLET! (it is in the report), have to spend 23 more dollars to get the weapons back, spent many days in court room time, many days looking and talking with lawyers, had my business stall for two days because no one could find me in the jail system to bail me out.

I guess I won? I think I should feel like I did at least. I do know this though" The site here was the most helpful resource I had". I was googling trying to figure out what happend the night I was bailed out of jail and stumbled on people talking about a rumor that was actually true. It was me! So thanks for the advice, it helped. I will post tommorrow in detail what happend so others may read it and avoid it in the future. thanks again calguns!
Darren/SPG

69Mach1

11-13-2006, 07:30 PM

That it freakin great. Congratulations. Now who do we sue?
What reason did they give you about dropping the charges?
I'm so glad for you.

FatKatMatt

11-13-2006, 07:31 PM

Sorry this happened to you, makes me want to stay away from OLL's. Very good to hear they dismissed your case, hope you can get your weapons back.

thmpr

11-13-2006, 07:32 PM

Congrats!!! Please provide us the details.........:D

SemiAutoSam

11-13-2006, 07:34 PM

It would be great for the WIN situation if you could post what the court had to say on this matter.

A record of the proceedings should be available to you as well as anyone else If you don't mind posting the case # and what court system it was handled in?

You are filing charges with your local DA'S office aren't you ? against the Department and officer that arrested you.

I and I'm sure the rest of the calguns membership are glad this came out in your favor.

But you might seriously consider going after the dept and officer for false arrest. and file for the $ it took for you to fight this case as well.

NSR500

11-13-2006, 07:35 PM

Congrats on getting the charges dropped. I hope you get all your stuff back 100%. Hopefully he did not mallet your receiver...

MisterDudeManGuy

11-13-2006, 07:36 PM

Dude - it sounds like you ended up with more points than they did at the end of the game. I'd call that a victory. It appears to buttress the viewpoint that the laws are simply unenforcable because they are poorly written (unconstitutional?) and the regulations the DOJ promulgates to support the laws are *purposely* confusing.

The fact that you can regain your weapons sounds like they were in the wrong for making the arrest - although you don't say why it was a "high risk stop".

The one thing I think I'd fight for is to have them expunge any record of the incident. I don't know what could or would be on your record at this point, but anything is too much. You broke no laws and you obeyed the regulations.

Joe

11-13-2006, 07:39 PM

This is great news. Let us know of any more details that come in.

xenophobe

11-13-2006, 07:51 PM

I'm glad they dropped the charges! I spent a considerable amount of time talking to your lawyer's investigator, the NRA and the detective on the case about the laws and regulations, as you know.

I'm sorry about the police terrorizing you in your neighborhood and hope everything in your personal life works out for the best.

69Mach1

11-13-2006, 07:54 PM

Can you now let us know how it all started, in detail? Was it really a DOJ agent that initiated it? What dept. are we talking about?

Richie Rich

11-13-2006, 07:55 PM

Glad to hear it. Hopefully the details of this will be distributed to other LEOs so that they don't make this mistake again..

I would lodge a formal complaint, but I would not blame you if you just wanted to get on with your life?

Keeping your rifle? (If it is still intact).

Guess you should make sure that the rifle has a magazine secured in it before you pick it up. Would suck if they arrested you again as you walked out with your recovered property..

morepoop4u

11-13-2006, 07:59 PM

what part of sj did you get stopped so I can avoid that area.

Tzvia

11-13-2006, 08:03 PM

WOO HOO that's awesome news! So they had to use a mallet to remove the magazine? The jerks. They could not put 2+2 together to figure out that if it took a mallet to remove the mag that maybe you fixed it as per the law? I'm beyond speachless. People like that should not wear a badge.

And I am so happy for you!:D :D :D :D

And I agree with the other posters above, NO QUARTER. Is there a legal fund? I'm game.

MonsterMan

11-13-2006, 08:04 PM

what part of sj did you get stopped so I can avoid that area.

It's probably the safest area to be in now. They likely won't make that mistake again. The are better informed now as to what the laws are now that this all happened.

It's kinda like lightning striking. It stuck and it isn't likely to strike again. Especially if he goes after them to get his money back he spent in court costs and all of that stuff.

They will think twice before making the next arrest.

MM

pacificcoast

11-13-2006, 08:04 PM

i wonder if youll get your rifle back with the magazine fixed in place, or with an open magazine well. :confused:

Mr.RoDiN

11-13-2006, 08:04 PM

can We Just Sue These Bastards Already?

metalhead357

11-13-2006, 08:18 PM

ABSOLUTELY a win IMO. May not feel like it; and that precisely how they'd like you to.

But look at this way; while you certainly unintenitonally "took one for the team" you just made it so that THERE IS ONE LESS DA ON THOSE DOJ LETTERS SAYING THERE"S 58 LOCAL DA"S WILLING TO PROSECUTE. Looks like we're down to 57....and shrinking.

Please post the details, and if the gun is damaged upon return....Sue, Sue, Sue away................

bu-bye

11-13-2006, 08:29 PM

We need more detail. Who was the judge? Who was your lawyer? What was the case number?

This information would be great to have incase someone else on this board goes through the same thing.

Congrats on OUR victory. I'm sorry that you had to be one of the first.

maschronic

11-13-2006, 08:35 PM

i'm glad that everything worked out fine too!!!! it is a victory for all of us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thmpr

11-13-2006, 08:36 PM

This would be a great data set for the cause! Need to submit this to the DOJ before the November 17th deadline.:D

maschronic

11-13-2006, 08:41 PM

This would be a great data set for the cause! Need to submit this to the DOJ before the November 17th deadline.:D

i totally agree!!!

C.G.

11-13-2006, 08:44 PM

Excellent news! I am not a rich man, but if you PM me with your address I'll send you a little bit of cash to help out with the lawyer fees.:)

TonyNorCal

11-13-2006, 08:46 PM

I am glad it worked out and the justice system chose to ultimately do the right thing.

However, I am sure it was a stressful situation (to say the least) and I'd imagine it wasn't much fun.

If possible, can you offer more detail? What lead to the initial high risk stop?

Again, glad it worked out and good thing it's behind you now.

thmpr

11-13-2006, 08:49 PM

Excellent news! I am not a rich man, but if you PM me with your address I'll send you a little bit of cash to help out with the lawyer fees.:)

We all should give a small donation for the cause....

hoffmang

11-13-2006, 08:51 PM

Also, I'd like to step in here and vouch for the reality of SPG's case. I leave it to him to disclose the details, but it happened and I (not having to deal with his fallout) think its a win for OLL.

If his OLL was an AW, charges would not have been dropped.

SPG: There would be some real value to having a case to refer to in a letter opposing the magazine regulations as your Prince-50 is relative proof that the law says your gun is not an AW.

-Gene

thedrickel

11-13-2006, 08:54 PM

Don't accept the rifle if they don't fix the mag back the way it was!! Bring another prince50 kit and mag with you in case they destroyed both with the mallet :eek:

Pthfndr

11-13-2006, 08:56 PM

Make a copy of the report that says the PD had to use a hammer to remove the mag. That would clearly qualify as a permanently fixed mag. Then send it certified / registered mail to the DOJ comments address.

metalhead357

11-13-2006, 09:00 PM

damon1272

11-13-2006, 09:16 PM

WokMaster1

11-13-2006, 09:18 PM

This is definitely the best news in a while. Glad to hear that it turned out the way that it did. if you need some help with the legal fees, let us know.:) Am really dying to hear the details.....

Steyr_223

11-13-2006, 09:22 PM

Thanks SPG! I can feel good getting a Prince50 now..

Great job!

tiki

11-13-2006, 09:24 PM

damon1272

11-13-2006, 09:25 PM

Tiki,
I think you may have it right.:D

tiki

11-13-2006, 09:28 PM

Tiki,
I think you may have it right.:D

And you know what? If that is the case, it says a lot about what they think is the strength of thier case.

Whatever reason for the drop, somebody looked at the firearm and the law and decided it was a no go. So, whether it was the DA who didn't want to pursue or the DOJ, or whoever, it does appear that the legal opinion of the person making that call agrees with us.

Mirage

11-13-2006, 09:34 PM

Dont Tread on Me

11-13-2006, 09:36 PM

Sorry to hear about your trouble at the hands of the SJPD.

Can I ask why they stopped you and how they got to search your car?

damon1272

11-13-2006, 09:37 PM

Well, I would agree with other members on this board that if SPG would like to pursue this issue as I think that he should that we can pool our resources and gather some cash. In other words, put our money where our mouth is. I think right now it depends on SPG but if he is willing to go forward on the matter I think everyone should support him in his efforts. I like other will donate if that is the direction SPG would like to go.

tiki

11-13-2006, 09:46 PM

PIRATE14

11-13-2006, 09:47 PM

Smells like Victory to me...............:eek:

CalNRA

11-13-2006, 09:47 PM

well first of all congrats on staying out of prison.

and, if you do decide to pursue a legal action against the dept for damaging and tempering with your rifle, Iwill gladly donate to the fund, heck I ain't even got a 223 rifle but it's well worth the effort for all of us. You have ventured into essentially unchartered territory and emerged an innocent man(don't worry about the neighbors, for most people the very mentioning of owning guns makes us guilty of something).

Once again congrats and keep us updated.

artherd

11-13-2006, 09:54 PM

Darren, congratulations on your Victory (wtih a cappitol 'V'!). If you need any assistance with legal fees please let me know.

MisterDudeManGuy

11-13-2006, 10:02 PM

I may be wrong, but I look at the dropping of charges as two possibilities.
1) Someone actually looked at the law and realized that the mallet is a tool and that the way you had it configured was not illegal and taking it to court would be a waste. I would say that is good for the OLL situation.

2) Someone from DOJ may have stepped in and had it dropped. If this went to court and the court found it to not be an assault weapon, you now would have a court deciding on the law and making the OLL officially legal. You would have a court saying that the Prince 50 is legal. That would certainly kill the DOJs position in the proposed rule changes that the law is being misconstrued. :)

I don't know. What do you guys think?

IMHO, #2 is spot on. By dropping charges, the question of legality of the stop doesn't really come into question, and legality of the Prince50 remains untried. No decision is just that - no decision. They could have chosen to drop charges for LOTS of reasons, many of the possibilities have nothing to do with AW regs. However, getting his freedom and property back from the brink is a victory. Don't take the damaged property out of the substation without restoring it to a legal configuration!

IMHO, the vague nature of the regs serves to confuse both us and LEO's. And the LEO gets a pass just as well as SPG does - an honest mistake, dontchaknow. It could be argued that it was a wrongful or malicious stop, but eventually that will just be a swearing match, and the LEO will win that match unless there is a record of malfeasance on the part of the officer.

Not saying it's right, just saying.

madjack956

11-13-2006, 10:03 PM

Congratulations SPG ! Glad to hear things went your way...Now to get your property back and enjoy the hell out of it..

hoffmang

11-13-2006, 10:06 PM

SPG,

If I had a pool, my business would be yours. Does your company do more than just pools?

And I'm also in to help repay your already spent legal fees.

-Gene

USMC_2651_E5

11-13-2006, 10:10 PM

The DOJ is responsible for this whole mess.
If they would have just approved the fixed mag kit as meeting the definition of fixed magazine (which it clearly does) instead of messing around with the fraudulant clarification scheme, this wouldn't have happened.
The police officer is correct, someone could get shot.
Their clarification game is a danger to the people they serve.
No Quarter

+1...With the information I have read (disclaimer as I may be misinformed) I agree that the officer was probably just acting on his best intentions and did what he thought he was supposed to.

I truely think that the problem is with the DOJ and their failure to clearly convey legislator's intent with AW laws. If the officer was better informed, this whole thing probably never would have happened. DOJ is to blame.

I am sorry for what you went through and believe that your battle will help our entire effort.

DJMAN

11-13-2006, 10:11 PM

Congratulations:D Count me In for legal fees:D Dont be shy now. Take the money:)

M. Sage

11-13-2006, 10:13 PM

Congrats on avoiding prison and on getting your guns back! Hopefully, they didn't damage the AR too much when they POUNDED that mag out.

Might wanna tell the department that Officer Mallot is guilty of creating an illegal assault weapon...

jaymz

11-13-2006, 10:13 PM

Congradulations I guess. I know how it feels to be a target of the local pd. Ya you won but you lost too. you will now be on the radar. Your best defense at this time is to go after them with the same vengence that they went after you. It really sucks in all reality. Now do you really trust your local pd? You shouldn't. Luckly Xenophobe and other were there to help. You were a test case that worked out. Please go after the bastards that would violate your second ammendmant rights and many other right that were violated in jepordizing your life by making an unnessisary hot stop. Many a cop has suffered from felony stupid when it comes to intracting with the public. Look at the girl shot in San Berdo sleeping in her broken down car. Not to get down on all cops but having been a target for things that I did not commit has really given me a juandiced veiw of the justice system. I am sure This poor bastard feels the same way right now. Congrats on not being procecuted and losing your life.:(

I'm relativley new here, and don't want to stir the pot, but the comment above about many cops suffering from felony stupid and bringing up an INACCURATE description of a years old RIVERSIDE shooting just burns me up!
I can't comment on SPG's case 'cause I don't know the details, maybe the cops got some bad info from somewhere, maybe they were having a bad day..Most of us don't know. But I do know cops deal with "felony stupid" people everyday. And the VAST majority of the time, when a person gets arrested, they are A:Guilty or B: Victim of a law so poorly written, that the LEO's don't know if a crime has been commited & would rather let the lawyers figure it out than risk letting a possible criminal roam the streets. Sorry guys. Again, I don't want to stir the pot but I had to vent. Congrats SPG for your tremendous victory.....even though it seems that you are still a bit overwhelmed to enjoy it.

pacificamark

11-13-2006, 10:15 PM

SPG, I realize you are probably celebrating right now, but when you do come back could you please add a lot more information on exactly what happened so the rest of us can learn from your experience?

Congrats!

mattmcg

11-13-2006, 10:48 PM

Congrats on your win! It looks like the DOJ wasn't up for the fight and saw this as a losing proposition (which it definitely seems to be). This may also result in additional education for those LEOs that encounter a fixed-mag AR.

DsF_Saint

11-13-2006, 10:52 PM

Are you aware it is common practice to drop charges to allow more time to prepare a case. That way they are not bound by time constraints. You still may have to go to court for this.

Unless of course, it was dropped for another legal reason

I truly think an attorney should be able to win a case.. but a lot of DAs in this state may see it another way...

None the less, good luck..

jumbopanda

11-13-2006, 10:53 PM

Glad you got out of it, hopefully you won't run into any more JBTs in the future :)

BLFD1

11-13-2006, 10:57 PM

CONGRATS!!!

It's really a drag that you had to go through all that, but it looks like you held on and won your case! SWEET!

PLEASE let us know what the details are so we can build our case. Things like this should never happen again. The laws need to be clarified.

I echo one of the other posts when I say "57 DA's to go" and Santa Clara County DA at that!... that's a good one to have.

Again, congratulations, count me in on the fund.

1hotshooter

11-13-2006, 11:14 PM

Hip Hip Hoorey!!!

That's Great News!!

:D

damon1272

11-13-2006, 11:20 PM

I'm relativley new here, and don't want to stir the pot, but the comment above about many cops suffering from felony stupid and bringing up an INACCURATE description of a years old RIVERSIDE shooting just burns me up!
I can't comment on SPG's case 'cause I don't know the details, maybe the cops got some bad info from somewhere, maybe they were having a bad day..Most of us don't know. But I do know cops deal with "felony stupid" people everyday. And the VAST majority of the time, when a person gets arrested, they are A:Guilty or B: Victim of a law so poorly written, that the LEO's don't know if a crime has been commited & would rather let the lawyers figure it out than risk letting a possible criminal roam the streets.

This was just an example of a felony stupid case on the side of the police. There are many others that come to mind also. I am not trying to paint all police as fools. I have friends that are cops, and many more of the people cops deal with are of the felony stupid kind. That said I have been "privlaged" to be on the recieveing end of heavy handed tactics and this , according to the facts, is a case of heavy handed tactics. Plain fact. If the law is poorly written then why the hot stop? Would it just be smarter to engage the person at a safer time and place? It is not like he robbed a bank and kill three people. Sorry I just think it is an overreaction by the local pd, not out to offend but just my opinion.

kantstudien

11-13-2006, 11:37 PM

Don't pick up your rifle from the PD, it is a trap! It now has evil features and an open magwell, so they are just waiting for you to receive it so they can arrest you again! :eek:

Joe

11-13-2006, 11:46 PM

Don't pick up your rifle from the PD, it is a trap! It now has evil features and an open magwell, so they are just waiting for you to receive it so they can arrest you again! :eek:

wow, with the mag pounded out it would be a felony wouldn't it.

PLINK

11-13-2006, 11:55 PM

wow, with the mag pounded out it would be a felony wouldn't it.

He would just have to bring some tools with him and take it apart. Remove the upper, take off the tele stock if it had one and remove the PG. I would probably do this, especially if the mag/ mag lock is damaged.

M14Gunman

11-14-2006, 12:06 AM

This is why even if you are innocent of any crime... do not offer any information to the police. Many times you know the laws better then they do. Do not answer any questions without a lawyer present. We must all act like criminals, especially if we are not....

xenophobe

11-14-2006, 12:12 AM

From reading the original "rumor" thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=40675&highlight=spg) as it went down, I gathered that a DOJ agent was the whistleblower that called in the local PD and caused the "high risk takedown". As I recall, SwimmingPoolGuy was targetted because the DOJ agent observed him in a gun store and called in the police.

:rolleyes: That is so far removed from what actually happened... Please keep your storytelling to bedtime stories and you should be ok.

That link you posted is a different situation and location altogether and has no bearing to this discussion other than the fact they're both OLL related, but that's where the similarities end....

swimmingpoolguy

11-14-2006, 12:19 AM

The officers had reason to think I had an AK-47 with me, that as the reason for the stop. They actually arrested me as I pulled into my driveway. I was just about to be put up on an amber alert to increase the search radius, but the range was closed and I went back.

I will post the details tommorrow.

adamsreeftank

11-14-2006, 12:37 AM

Thanks for posting the information SPG, and congratulations.

It sounds like you have been put through a lot of unneccesary pain and suffering. I would talk to your lawyer about suing for damages. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think false imprisonment, emotional distress and destruction of property would all be possibilities. I would also include the DOJ in any suit. Of course, if you just wanted to move on with your life, I could understand that also.

PLINK

11-14-2006, 12:54 AM

The officers had reason to think I had an AK-47 with me, that as the reason for the stop.

This worries me because there are many Calguners doing CA legal OLL AK builds. I would really hate to see this situation happen to someone else.

Dont Tread on Me

11-14-2006, 06:56 AM

I was just about to be put up on an amber alert to increase the search radius

Wow, so amber alerts are for gun owners and child abductors!

I hope you get time to post more today. What gave them reason to belive that you had a AK 47? I can only imagine a neighbor saw you loading up for the range.

an officer I am lucky I was not shot, spent time in jail, spent alot of cash defending myself, had my rifle magazine removed by the police range officer with a MALLET!

I think his tyring to tell you that his fellow public servants are so stupid they are likely to shoot law abiding citizens and the range officer is not smart enough to look at a mag lock and figure out the tool or actually only has one tool - a mallet.

Fjold

11-14-2006, 06:59 AM

Great news! Congratualations sir.

, was told by an officer I am lucky I was not shot, spent time in jail, spent alot of cash defending myself, had my rifle magazine removed by the police range officer with a MALLET!

That's what's called a scare tactic. They're trying to scare you to out of taking any action against them.

(it is in the report), have to spend 23 more dollars to get the weapons back,

Darren/SPG

Since they are going to give you your firearm back there must be no question about it's legality. They're not using that "holding it as part of an investigation" excuse.

metalhead357

11-14-2006, 07:26 AM

Man, I would show up to pick up the gun with my lawyer, a mag lock kit and a video camera rolling- leave no doubt that you're serious about getting back your legal firearm and leaving with it in legal configuration. PS~ Dont forget a gun case with lock just to show proper handling & storage;) Might bring a couple friends too as support and as witnessess.

(and No, this aint legal advice.....)

Bimmerworld

11-14-2006, 08:04 AM

was told by an officer I am lucky I was not shot

Hearing stuff like this makes me sick. That officer should be ashamed of himself and stripped of his badge.

Jicko

11-14-2006, 08:16 AM

Post your details, the case number, your lawyer's name etc.... and where we can send money..... to help you re-coup some $$ back...

AND... to start a case against the arresting officers, the PD, and DOJ....

I think we need to make this the TEST CASE, and we would need to make a big PR deal about it(news and media).... and then to send this reference to all PDs and DAs in this state....

6172crew

11-14-2006, 08:33 AM

SPG, Sounds like you have done everything right so far. Do you plan on putting in a claim for the lawyer fees to the city? I know they would be paying me for a new rifle if mine was damaged by a hammer.

Well at least SJ is a safe OLL city now that you have cleared the path for others.

Semper Fi

proraptor

11-14-2006, 08:44 AM

Wow this is great news! So did the court rule that the locked mag AR was legal?

gunluvver

11-14-2006, 09:05 AM

I can hardly wait until tomorrow to see the whole story posted! SPG, you took one for the team, unintended, and the team is here to help you any way we can. It's not over by a long shot. I think it will depend on what you choose to do. If you forgive and forget, I think the perpetrators will probably leave you alone and hunt down some other poor fool. If you fight, DOJ will probably pull out all stops to make you guilty of something. But then we, your team, will pull out all stops. The only dog I have in this fight, since I am no longer a resident of Kali, is the rights of my son and grandsons. With the political climate as it is right now after the election, many other states, if not the whole country, is going to face attempts to instill the same restrictive laws they have in Kali. As I said in the original thread on this subject, we can show them NO QUARTER! The fight must go on, the wrongs perpetrated on you must be pursued until they are forced to loosen their unlawful grip on the law-abiding.
THANK YOU, SPG!
To all other concerned citizens, it is now time to join The Team. We all have something to lose, so make a choice now on what you are willing to lose! All law-abiding shooters need to know about this, so post something at the ranges, talk to your fellow shooters and tell them joining CalGuns is a requirement to protect their rights, and when the time is right, CONTRIBUTE!

ARRRR-15

11-14-2006, 09:12 AM

Glad to hear everthing worked out. I'm getting my OLL's as soon as possible.

You guys talked about clearing a path for OLL's. This means having them cleared/legal or known pretty much, correct?

Would it be a good idea to make an oppointment with an officer and bring your OLL(receiver only, not the whole gun) with the mag lock in and ask if it is legal? Maybe get it in writing. Do you think they would go for this? My father is a police officer I told him about the OLL's of course he thought is was a cool idea, but he had never heard of them before. Now I bet if he comes across one, he'll think twice before throwing on the cuffs. A lot of cops don't know about the Oll's, so I think that a lot of us will be arrested in the future. Of course probably released later, but you'll still go in. They have no other choice in this situation, if they haven't heard of OLL's.

JesseXXX

11-14-2006, 09:16 AM

Count me in for some kind of fund...... this totally sucks.... m'kay!! When they pulled you over...did the cops act like Reno 911....:D

gose

11-14-2006, 09:27 AM

I'd be more than happy to chip in as well...

shooterx10

11-14-2006, 09:43 AM

Congrats SPG! Thank God that he sent an angel (or several) to watch over you! This kinda reminds me of the Apostle Peter in prison and his escape (Acts 12), without the drama. ;)

I wonder how extensive the damage was (if any) to your receiver if the cops tried to remove the fixed mag with a mallet? They didn't have an allen wrench kit in their patrol car? Perhaps this will show how tough the Prince50 mag kit really is! :D

If you need funds to cover your two days loss of income, for legal proceedings to recover your property, etc., please let me know, I'll paypal the money over to you and pay the 3% fee.

gunluvver

11-14-2006, 09:49 AM

If you need funds to cover your two days loss of income, for legal proceedings to recover your property, etc., please let me know, I'll paypal the money over to you and pay the 3% fee.

:) TEAM MEMBER SUPREME!:) Way to go, shooterx10! SPG, The Team is behind you!

Ragweed

11-14-2006, 09:59 AM

Congratulations on your victory!:D

I cannot donate cash right now but I can give you a brand new c products 10 round mag so you can pick up you rifle.

How do you approach the pick up? I am assuming that the gun does not have a mag at this point. Can any of the experts elaborate on this?

rkt88edmo

11-14-2006, 10:08 AM

Good news, can't wait to hear the details.

etruscan

11-14-2006, 10:23 AM

wowsers! i only pop in here every now and then so when i saw this....jeeze. glad things worked out as best as possible. sixer, twelver, 30 pack...let me know man.

bu-bye

11-14-2006, 10:24 AM

How do you approach the pick up? I am assuming that the gun does not have a mag at this point. Can any of the experts elaborate on this?

If it does not have a mag in and lock in place I would NOT touch it, take pictures or video and jump on the phone with the DOJ to report an Illegal manufacture of an AW by the San Jose PD. I'm half hoping they do have the mag removed. they need to be taught a leason in gun laws. We are right and they are wrong and nothing sounds better then a big front page story with SJPD with a big "WFT" look on their face as the feds rip through that department.

fun2none

11-14-2006, 10:40 AM

Don't pick up your rifle from the PD, it is a trap! It now has evil features and an open magwell, so they are just waiting for you to receive it so they can arrest you again! :eek:

If the original Prince50 maglock device was not damaged during the magazine removal procedure, the magazine catch would still be locked in place, and the rifle would not have the "capacity to accept" a detachable magazine. In other words, the Prince50 maglock installed in an open magazine well would inhibit the use of detachable magazines (or any magazine for that matter).

rorschach

11-14-2006, 10:52 AM

If the original Prince50 maglock device was not damaged during the magazine removal procedure, the magazine catch would still be locked in place, and the rifle would not have the "capacity to accept" a detachable magazine. In other words, the Prince50 maglock installed in an open magazine well would inhibit the use of detachable magazines (or any magazine for that matter).

Oooh, thats a bigtime judgement call. SPG is lucky as it is, why push the envelope further??

bwiese

11-14-2006, 10:54 AM

I did leave a msg w/SPG's lawyer about appropriate ways to (or not to) pick up the firearm in question.

If there were any legal question about gun they'd've kept the gun.

A mallet is a tool, and it apparently took time to remove the mag. Sounds pretty CCR 5469-compliant to me!

BTW I do not think the DOJ had *anything* to do with this case. The DA's office has its own crime lab, though.

I think this case will have some other side effects in a week or so.

Good job to Darrin for not backing down. Now he just has to square things with his family...

PanzerAce

11-14-2006, 10:56 AM

Good job to Darrin for not backing down. Now he just has to square things with his family...

whoa, I think I must have missed something here. How does his family enter into this case?

fun2none

11-14-2006, 11:13 AM

Oooh, thats a bigtime judgement call. SPG is lucky as it is, why push the envelope further??

You are correct. It's better to be safe than sorry. Knowing these guys, they might use mallet method to install a detachable magazine just to prove the rifle can accept one.;)

Dump1567

11-14-2006, 11:49 AM

FreedomIsNotFree

11-14-2006, 12:00 PM

whoa, I think I must have missed something here. How does his family enter into this case?

I think the fact that this occurred in his driveway is a concern for him and his family. If his family was home he was treated like a criminal in front of them....at the very least I'm sure the Fam was worried about how all of this was going to work out. Felony charges dont come lightly nor should they be treated as such. Police officers performing a high risk stop in front of your house is not going to be forgotten easily.

ibbryn

11-14-2006, 12:03 PM

SPG, be sure to post info so people can send you beer/lawyer money.

Sorry you went through that. Coulda been any of us!

capitol

11-14-2006, 12:05 PM

I think this case will have some other side effects in a week or so.

Anything you can share???

Ryan HBC

11-14-2006, 12:06 PM

I think it is hilarious that we are fighting over the right to own a neutered, fixed mag, Off-list AR-15 type rifle. Being able to own a neutered AR is a win in this state? For F***’s sake, this is pathetic! How did we let this happen???

Imagine someone in a free state reading this thread, who has fully functional high cap AR’s and AK’s all over the place. What a laugh they would have.

WeThePeople

11-14-2006, 12:19 PM

If all you have is a mallet (hammer), the whole world looks like a nail.

I'm glad everything worked out for you. You could see how the system can really wear you down if the charges had been filed. Unlike some, I don't see where LEO did you wrong. With limited details, here's how I see what happened from LEO's point of view.

Radio call of a man with a gun matching your vehicle and description.

High risk car stop on man with a gun.

Rifle matching description of AW as outline in the DOJ AW guide and handgun recovered.

Arrested and booked for Felony Poss. of AW.

Report written and sent to DA's office.

Magazine removed by dept. armor or property room tech. in accordance with dept. polices (these aren't always experts in firearms).

Lack of evidence to file and prove AW charges.

Charges never filed.

Case Dismissed.

Now there may be more details than this, but I really don't see where anyone did anything wrong. Keep in mind that most cops are not gun people and hardly know what guns in their holster much less frequent Calguns and are up to date on the whole OLL situation.

If there's anyone to blame, it's the DOJ for not clarifying this information with the LEO Agencies in this State. They know what's going on with the OLL thing and should be sending out briefing memos.:mad:

If SPG had a fishing pole instead of a gun, would someone call the police? Would the police stop him and do a high-risk stop? Why the paranoia over a gun? This is not an AW problem, this is a gun-perception problem. Mere possession of a gun, without any accompanying illegal activity, should not trigger a high-risk response.

Yes, the rest of the story should be interesting.

krim

11-14-2006, 12:20 PM

bu-bye

11-14-2006, 12:41 PM

For F***’s sake, this is pathetic! How did we let this happen???

I don't know, Ask the people who voted for Clinton:mad:

Clodbuster

11-14-2006, 12:52 PM

Well, that is a most comforting thought.
At least when I go to a McDonald's, the burger flipper knows how to flip burgers. :rolleyes:

Clod

Keep in mind that most cops are not gun people and hardly know what guns in their holster much less frequent Calguns and are up to date on the whole OLL situation.

Clodbuster

11-14-2006, 12:56 PM

You assume the government learns from their past mistakes. This will probably be kept and buired at the district where it happened unless more noise is made.

Clod

Well at least SJ is a safe OLL city now that you have cleared the path for others.

Semper Fi

Thundercleese

11-14-2006, 12:58 PM

The news that I've heard today is bittersweet. Yes, it's good that SPG's out and can get his firearms back and that the charges have been dropped... It's also disheartening that it's something like this happened in the first place.

What ever happened to 'Innocent until proven guilty'? It sounds like SPG was treated like a criminal (and his firearms as if they were illegal) from the start.

SPG, let us know if you (or anyone else for SPG) will be setting up a donation system or the such, I would love to help the cause.

jnojr

11-14-2006, 01:00 PM

So... being arrested for something that isn't a crime, spending time in jail, having to spend money, and maybe getting your property back (if at all) damaged is a victory???

Unfortunately, there is no "victory" to be had here. Even if you find a good attorney who would take this caase on contingency and sue the crap out of SJPD (and manage to win), they'll continue to do this. The judgement won't come out of their pockets... it comes out of ours, 'cause it's all tax money. Nobody is going to get fired or disciplined.

I hope you can sue, but I have a feeling that isn't going to happen. They got to beat up on you for free, and all you can do is hope they don't do it again.

bwiese

11-14-2006, 01:01 PM

Well, that is a most comforting thought.
At least when I go to a McDonald's, the burger flipper knows how to flip burgers. :rolleyes:
Clod

Yes, and it's well known that quite a few PDs - esp metro PDs - select entrants on the basis of lower to average IQ. I think the feeling is that cops that are too smart will get bored and leave, increasing turnover costs.

They don't call it an IQ test, of course - it's something like "personnel adaptability score" or some such other name.

Remember the bald Mensa guy that went on Jay Leno? The one that was rejected for being a cop in CT simply and solely because he was too smart? It's couched in different terminology in depts across the country but the concept still holds.

[And when you run into a sharper cop, he's often a lateral transfer and/or with military experience that allowed him to bypass some entry requirements. Invariably, the sharper cops I've talked to have been ex-mil. They seem to be a bit less uptight and able to project force appropriately without "attitude".]

Bottom line: you should not rely on most cops being able to understand other than the simplest legal situations. Given the above, they're almost guaranteed to be genetically incapable of dealing with complex issues. And - given their typical educational level and writing abilities - you should not rely on their written expressions to be accurate in describing crime scenes and arrest background. In a sense, these guys do the defense a service by allowing numerous areas for challenge...

jnojr

11-14-2006, 01:05 PM

If it does not have a mag in and lock in place I would NOT touch it, take pictures or video and jump on the phone with the DOJ to report an Illegal manufacture of an AW by the San Jose PD. I'm half hoping they do have the mag removed. they need to be taught a leason in gun laws.

Do you honestly expect DOJ to follow the letter of the law when it's applied to a PD?

making that call would result in the "illegal assault weapon" being seized for destruction, and SPG probably being arrested (again!), because... well, there's an "illegal assault weapon" and nobody else to pin it on, so why not? He can sit in jail a little longer, and maybe this case will be dropped, too, but who cares either way since there's no penalty for them doing whatever they want?

This thread is a perfect argument of why it's time to get the eff out of California. The fact that an innocent man manages to not be convicted of a felony for following the law is a big deal and considered a "victory" by many here shows that this state is beyond redemption.

Smokeybehr

11-14-2006, 01:18 PM

<legal advice>
Bring your lawyer when you pick up the weapons.

Make sure all of your paperwork is in order.

If the magazine has been removed from the magwell, note it on the form that you sign from the property officer.
Make sure that you take pictures of the weapon from both sides, and top and bottom before you take it out of the property room.

Separate the upper and the lower, and take pictures of the lower from the top to document any damage to the lower parts, or the lower itself.

If the magazine is removed, remove the pistol grip and movable stock, if it has one.

Separate the lower from the parts, and put it in a separate, locked container. DO NOT put the pistol grip, magazine, ammo, or anything else in with it.

When you get it home, completely disassemble it into its component parts, or take it to a competent gunsmith. If there are any internal parts that have been damaged, take pictures of them with a new part side-by-side, and save the damaged part. Replace any damaged parts, reassemble the rifle into its previous LEGAL configuration, and hand everything over to your lawyer for the damages suit that you are going to file.
</legal advice>

Bill W, et al., correct me if I'm wrong on anything.

grammaton76

11-14-2006, 01:39 PM

If the mag is damaged, I would specifically ask the OFFICER to remove the pistol grip (bring a screwdriver) and any other offending features (bring armorer's wrench if you have a collapsible stock).

Or, simply bring the spare mag + mag lock in and ask the officer to install it.

Make sure that YOUR hands do not touch it until it's in a California-legal configuration. Period. Not even to take off parts.

I would also inquire if you can ask if the departmental armorer can be on hand at your pickup time, in order to have someone (presumably) competent handling it.

Wulf

11-14-2006, 01:41 PM

Keep in mind that most cops are not gun people and hardly know what guns in their holster much less frequent Calguns and are up to date on the whole OLL situation.

You know, we need to stop allowing that dog to hunt. The way that the laws in this society are being configured, where cops get national reprocity, get to buy and register AW's, get high caps, get exempted from the safe gun laws, storage laws, school zone laws, have the right to disarm you for safety, get credibility on issues of gun legislation, etc., they have been clearly set apart as meriting unusual trust and having unusual expertiese on the issue. Allowing them to deny being "special" when it suits they just doesnt fly. I'm very pro Law Enforcment, but if a cop cant make an AR safe without a hammer he's got no business carrying one on the job, or handling one in the course of his duties. If it was a bomb would he defuse it with a mallet or would he call the bomb squad. Same thing with AW laws. If you dont understand them well enough to tell a fixed mag OLL from an illegal unregistered AW, you should decline to make the collar or call for a someone who does have the expertiese. Any lower standard of conduct ammounts to bad judgement, harrasment, and a fundimental disrespect for the authority with which you have been entrusted.

Prince50

11-14-2006, 01:57 PM

WOW! Sorry you had to be the test case, but glad the DA could read the law as written.

I agree that you should have a new Prince50 Kit with you when you go to pick up your guns. I will send you one and a mag catch free of charge to replace the one they most likely butchered getting it apart.

Also, give me some idea as to the fees involved, and I'll help where I can. Wish I was the NRA, but no dice.

Thanks for the report. a full detail would be fantastic if you have the time.

PM Me please with an address to send parts.

Darin

Fjold

11-14-2006, 01:58 PM

Now there may be more details than this, but I really don't see where anyone did anything wrong. Keep in mind that most cops are not gun people and hardly know what guns in their holster much less frequent Calguns and are up to date on the whole OLL situation.

I respectively disagree. I am obligated to know and follow the letter of the law in everything that I do. It is not too much to ask (if not demand) that the enforcers of the law do the same.

I don't accept that the laws are too confusing and change too often as I am always obligated to obey them. We've been taught our whole lives that ignorance of the law is no excuse so it is not unreasonable for the government representatives to operate to that same standard.

Dump1567

11-14-2006, 02:06 PM

The way that the laws in this society are being configured, where cops get national reprocity, get to buy and register AW's, get high caps, get exempted from the safe gun laws, storage laws, school zone laws, have the right to disarm you for safety, get credibility on issues of gun legislation, etc.,

Some of these things apply to any citizen outside of CA.:rolleyes:

I think it's are elected officials we need to look at. Have you skimmed through the CA guns laws recently? It's enough to make you want to throw-up.

I respectively disagree. I am obligated to know and follow the letter of the law in everything that I do. It is not too much to ask (if not demand) that the enforcers of the law do the same.

I don't accept that the laws are too confusing and change too often as I am always obligated to obey them. We've been taught our whole lives that ignorance of the law is no excuse so it is not unreasonable for the government representatives to operate to that same standard.

Your up to date on the 700 to 1,000 new laws that are passed every year? I can't tell you how many people were driving in the rain this morning without their head lights on.

Where did our freedom go?

megavolt121

11-14-2006, 02:28 PM

I respectively disagree. I am obligated to know and follow the letter of the law in everything that I do. It is not too much to ask (if not demand) that the enforcers of the law do the same.

I don't accept that the laws are too confusing and change too often as I am always obligated to obey them. We've been taught our whole lives that ignorance of the law is no excuse so it is not unreasonable for the government representatives to operate to that same standard.

So are you saying that you know EVERY law and you are up to date on every one of them? According to you a cop has to have every law memorized which is just ridiculous.

Sure, what happened to SPG is a shame but from a cop's perspective he followed procedures. It's not up to him to determine if the gun is legal or not. He just files his report and leaves the mess of determining legality up to the DA.

Say it wasn't SPG and it was some criminal that had intentions of unpinning the mag 10 minutes later and robbing a bank, wouldn't you be happy the cop did something in that case? What happened is unfortunate. The only positive aspect is that we've determined now that the Santa Clara DA won't prosecute a fixed mag config. To you and me, this is a victory, but not necessarily for SPG since he now has to deal with the aftermath. Its easy for us to all say we'll send you money, but how do you help explain this to his neighbors, family etc?

bwiese

11-14-2006, 02:39 PM

So are you saying that you know EVERY law and you are up to date on every one of them? According to you a cop has to have every law memorized which is just ridiculous.

If we are operating withing a given field of endeavor, we are expected to know the law, and furthermore (generally) "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

If we're expected to know it at the peril of being charged with it, then cops should be held to equal standard.

Sure, what happened to SPG is a shame but from a cop's perspective he followed procedures. It's not up to him to determine if the gun is legal or not. He just files his report and leaves the mess of determining legality up to the DA.

This simple statement shows the whole problem with LEO culture. By this very statement, you've essentially said cops can randomly arrest folk and someone else can sort things out. That's a travesty.

I'll bet you there's detectable cocaine residue on the larger cash bills in your wallet. You could well be arrested for simple possession - there's really no minimum amount. By your standards, that's fine.

Say it wasn't SPG and it was some criminal that had intentions of unpinning the mag 10 minutes later and robbing a bank, wouldn't you be happy the cop did something in that case?

Irrelevant. In the report to PD there was no apparent worry about criminal intent or possible criminal action.

And yes, I'd rather live with a few bank robberies than live in a society where pension-fat cops take wild-arsed guesses at the law.

... we've determined now that the Santa Clara DA won't prosecute a fixed mag config. To you and me, this is a victory,

Not necessarily... it's indeed a good sign esp when SPG gets his mangled rifle back. But lack of clarity about cops manufacturing an assault weapon could have entered into the fray. Or, (I do not know) the defense may have found that the cops involved may have had questionable records that wouldn't hold up in a jury trial. Cases can be dropped for a lot of reasons, but getting the gun back is a good sign.

There is another AW-related case in San Jose area that is CLEARLY legal without any regulatory handwaving (i.e., no evil features. and also off-list), but a very antigun ADA is holding things up and has either not read Harrott, or is ignoring it. For various reasons this is held up in pretrial, I expect it to go away eventually, but that shows you what can happen.

but not necessarily for SPG since he now has to deal with the aftermath. Its easy for us to all say we'll send you money, but how do you help explain this to his neighbors, family etc?

Why should he have to explain anything? He's innocent.

I'd wear this like a badge of honor: "Stupid cops arrested me for something perfectly legal, I know the gun laws better than they do." Enough of these incidences might even be useful in as resurrected Prop 75 campaign...

There is ZERO shame in being arrested and not convicted: "battle scars".

I hope SPG's family kicks in $$ for his defense, since apparently some members were the triggering thing for this whole matter...

Joe

11-14-2006, 02:51 PM

I hope SPG's family kicks in $$ for his defense, since apparently some members were the triggering thing for this whole matter...

Really? How do you know this?

Whitesmoke

11-14-2006, 03:16 PM

Say it wasn't SPG and it was some criminal that had intentions of unpinning the mag 10 minutes later and robbing a bank, wouldn't you be happy the cop did something in that case?

ahh....a criminal would never of had the mag pinned in the first place.

Also...so you think the cops should come and pull someone over everytime someone is seen putting their guns in the car to go to the range? Guns are not illegal....would you have the same opinion if it was a bolt action .22?

Whitesmoke

11-14-2006, 03:31 PM

Radio call of a man with a gun matching your vehicle and description.

Since when is it illegal to carry a gun to your car and put it in your trunk?

Magazine removed by dept. armor or property room tech. in accordance with dept. polices (these aren't always experts in firearms).
A dept Armorer isn't an expert in firearms? :cool: Also...I havn't seen any PD's that don't have AR-15's.....thats like a police officer that carrys a Glock not knowing how to field strip a Glock.

If there's anyone to blame, it's the DOJ for not clarifying this information with the LEO Agencies in this State. They know what's going on with the OLL thing and should be sending out briefing memos.:mad:

I do 100% agree with that statement though....

Fjold

11-14-2006, 03:35 PM

Your up to date on the 700 to 1,000 new laws that are passed every year? I can't tell you how many people were driving in the rain this morning without their head lights on.

Where did our freedom go?

It doesn't matter how many laws are passed every year I am responsible for obeying them. And it should be up to the professionals to know the laws thoroughly enough to enforce them correctly.

If the officer was unsure of what he was doing after he gets someone stopped and calls up for clarification then the responsibilty flows uphill. If after that it turns out that your department is wrong and someone is arrested by mistake they shouldn't be "told by an officer I am lucky I was not shot, spent time in jail, spent alot of cash defending myself,". Instead the local PD should be apologizing to him for the false arrest and training their officers in the correct laws to insure that another innocent citizens isn't put in the same predicament.

rorschach

11-14-2006, 03:36 PM

thats like a police officer that carrys a Glock not knowing how to field strip a Glock.

I don't know man, back when I was a Chippie, there were some real dummys that would get confused trying to clean the cobwebs out of their 4006's.

Whitesmoke

11-14-2006, 03:48 PM

I don't know man, back when I was a Chippie, there were some real dummys that would get confused trying to clean the cobwebs out of their 4006's.

lol...thats really sad. :eek:

bwiese

11-14-2006, 03:52 PM

Really? How do you know this?

Because I know some of the details. And it had nothing to do with DV.

If you've seen the orig posts a coupla weeks ago you might have seen what triggered this. Otherwise, I'll let SPG comment if he cares to or just leave it at that.

Whitesmoke

11-14-2006, 03:57 PM

It doesn't matter how many laws are passed every year I am responsible for obeying them. And it should be up to the professionals to know the laws thoroughly enough to enforce them correctly.

If the officer was unsure of what he was doing after he gets someone stopped and calls up for clarification then the responsibilty flows uphill. If after that it turns out that your department is wrong and someone is arrested by mistake they shouldn't be "told by an officer I am lucky I was not shot, spent time in jail, spent alot of cash defending myself,". Instead the local PD should be apologizing to him for the false arrest and training their officers in the correct laws to insure that another innocent citizens isn't put in the same predicament.

IMHO....a law that isn't obvious to everyone (if an officer isn't sure if something is illegal or not)....is a law that isn't worth enforcing. I'm not anti-LE, I have lots of LE friends and family.....and I know for a fact that they are selective about enforcing laws depending on the situation. If it's a murder....always. If it's something questionable...maybe.

Tell me that you have written every ticket possible and enforced every law when given the chance....I know no LEO has, they use their judgment.

megavolt121

11-14-2006, 04:03 PM

If we are operating withing a given field of endeavor, we are expected to know the law, and furthermore (generally) "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

If we're expected to know it at the peril of being charged with it, then cops should be held to equal standard.

I wasn't clear before. I meant I don't expect them to know every detail about every law. If the "qualified" LEOs had to spend time memorizing every detail, we're worse off with them confusing issues.

This simple statement shows the whole problem with LEO culture. By this very statement, you've essentially said cops can randomly arrest folk and someone else can sort things out. That's a travesty.

I'll bet you there's detectable cocaine residue on the larger cash bills in your wallet. You could well be arrested for simple possession - there's really no minimum amount. By your standards, that's fine.

I'm not saying its fine. Its just what seems to have happened.

Not necessarily... it's indeed a good sign esp when SPG gets his mangled rifle back. But lack of clarity about cops manufacturing an assault weapon could have entered into the fray. Or, (I do not know) the defense may have found that the cops involved may have had questionable records that wouldn't hold up in a jury trial. Cases can be dropped for a lot of reasons, but getting the gun back is a good sign.

There is another AW-related case in San Jose area that is CLEARLY legal without any regulatory handwaving (i.e., no evil features. and also off-list), but a very antigun ADA is holding things up and has either not read Harrott, or is ignoring it. For various reasons this is held up in pretrial, I expect it to go away eventually, but that shows you what can happen.

Care to comment about this other case?

Why should he have to explain anything? He's innocent.

I'd wear this like a badge of honor: "Stupid cops arrested me for something perfectly legal, I know the gun laws better than they do." Enough of these incidences might even be useful in as resurrected Prop 75 campaign...

There is ZERO shame in being arrested and not convicted: "battle scars".

I hope SPG's family kicks in $$ for his defense, since apparently some members were the triggering thing for this whole matter...

I fully agree with you on this matter, but unfortunatly not everyone sees it this way. For those who aren't educated in gun laws they don't see it the way we would. Hell they might just remember the fact he was arressted. Its amazing how many people don't realize that being arressted doesn't automatically mean guilty/you did something wrong.

What's prop 75?

chunger

11-14-2006, 04:08 PM

Whoa. . . glad to hear SPG is doing well.

I certainly hope solid grounds are found to press charges against the perpitrators of this mess. I'll keep watching this thread intently and rooting for SPG.

bwiese

11-14-2006, 04:18 PM

Care to comment about this other case?

Not yet, it's pending. There's a bit of 'coloration' to the case, but some "Name" lawyers are on it ;) It will go away. Other non-gun charges were dropped, the ADA is holding onto the gun charge in desparation...

hat's prop 75?

Prop 75 was an attack on use of public employee union's use of funds for campaigns. If Prop 75 had succeeded, the next step would've been to go after their huge, undeserved lifetime pension benefits.

Dump1567

11-14-2006, 04:30 PM

I don't know man, back when I was a Chippie, there were some real dummys that would get confused trying to clean the cobwebs out of their 4006's.

Kinda like the off-duty officer that came into my dealers shop and had his Glock 26 guide rod assembled in reverse.

Some of you sure do expect a lot out of a High School grad. (or GED).;)

And yes believe it or not, I've seen so called Firearms Experts testify in court that knew less about guns than some of your average posters here.

bu-bye

11-14-2006, 05:30 PM

Kinda like the off-duty officer that came into my dealers shop and had his Glock 26 guide rod assembled in reverse.

Some of you sure do expect a lot out of a High School grad. (or GED).;)

And yes believe it or not, I've seen so called Firearms Experts testify in court that knew less about guns than some of your average posters here.

Very true. As long as someone knows more then the judge and jury they are an "expert".:rolleyes:

I have met so many cops and so-called experts that really dont know jack. they know a tad more then the avg bear but nothing to write home about.

As far as LEO knowing the law....I feel they should know the law through and through or don't make the arrest . If they don't know what the law is then call it in. There should be no excuse for not knowing the law that we are expected to know. LEO's should not receive a "get out of jail free" card just because they didn't know the law. If you or me didn't know the law we would be in jail for the next 20 years. There is no OOPS for either side. If the SJPD made an arrest and was wrong they should be punished just as we would be if we broke the law. I'm not the kind of guy that likes to sue, infact I think 99.999% of all cases are BS but this one I would have to push for. PD's, DOJ, DA's need to know that we know our stuff and if you mess with our rights you are going to get bit back. These days they think they can walk all over us. They have forgotten just who they work for. I say we take this thing to trial. My wallet is ready to help the cause.

Whitesmoke

11-14-2006, 05:34 PM

....If Prop 75 had succeeded, the next step would've been to go after their huge, undeserved lifetime pension benefits.

As a local government employee...if they get rid of the good retirements...nobody worth anything (and I realize many of them are lacking anyways...lol) will consider a government job. I just was just offered a position with a private company (I'm a Resident Engineer/Project Manager for a municipality) making 40% more money to start and still has a decent retirement...but not as good as my current retirement. The only reason I've stayed this long is the retirement.

added....and the stability of a government job.

bwiese

11-14-2006, 05:46 PM

radioactivelego

11-14-2006, 05:55 PM

Yup. **** this state. Time to start looking at apartments in Phoenix.

M. Sage

11-14-2006, 06:19 PM

I'm glad everything worked out for you. You could see how the system can really wear you down if the charges had been filed. Unlike some, I don't see where LEO did you wrong. With limited details, here's how I see what happened from LEO's point of view.

Radio call of a man with a gun matching your vehicle and description.

High risk car stop on man with a gun.

Rifle matching description of AW as outline in the DOJ AW guide and handgun recovered.

Arrested and booked for Felony Poss. of AW.

Report written and sent to DA's office.

Magazine removed by dept. armor or property room tech. in accordance with dept. polices (these aren't always experts in firearms).

Lack of evidence to file and prove AW charges.

Charges never filed.

Case Dismissed.

So, the next time I'm putting a rifle into the Miata for a trip to the range, if I'm either sliding my cased Mosin behind my seats or my un-cased, scoped .22 into the trunk (a 91/30 won't fit in a Miata trunk, no way no how, not even disassembled, and my .22's hard case won't fit either, but at least the rifle fits), if a neighbor sees me with either a rifle behind my seats and calls 911 and says just that (omitting the case), or that I've got a "sniper rifle" in my trunk ready to shoot (or both), and the cops do a "high-risk" and poke their guns in my face, I'm not supposed to get pissed at how stupid they're being? That, in fact, they're not being dumb for over-reacting?

@ SPG: I think you should print up a short version of what happened, something like "The police arrested me thinking my LEGAL rifle was illegal, but all charges have been dropped," and pass it around the neighborhood. Rumors grow and spread VERY fast around things like this, believe me. Someone, somewhere in that neighborhood is probably saying it was a dozen miniguns and ten pounds of coke.

Ok, maybe not, but you can bet it's gained a lot of stupidity as it's travelled.

Sgt Raven

11-14-2006, 06:30 PM

As a local government employee...if they get rid of the good retirements...nobody worth anything (and I realize many of them are lacking anyways...lol) will consider a government job. I just was just offered a position with a private company (I'm a Resident Engineer/Project Manager for a municipality) making 40% more money to start and still has a decent retirement...but not as good as my current retirement. The only reason I've stayed this long is the retirement.

added....and the stability of a government job.

If its all about money and bennies, why would anyone serve for 20+ years in the military? Maybe a .Gov job should be about Duty, Honor, Country!

wilit

11-14-2006, 06:45 PM

Glad to see you don't have to spend anymore time in jail for following the letter of the law.

If anyone is putting together a fund to help offset the financial burden the City of San Jose has put you though, I'd be more than willing to make a donation.

sniper_jay

11-14-2006, 07:10 PM

can't expect the cops to know all the laws. not even judges nor lawyers can claim to know all the laws. as far as i know, cops only need the probable cause to arrest, which can simply be defined as a set of facts that would cause a person of ordinary care and prudence to believe the person being detained (requirement for detention is different than this) has committed a crime. 5 months ago, i would've taken one look at my OLL, prince50 kit bearing M4, and believed it was an assault rifle. obviously the cops thought the rifle was an assault weapon. they're not all rifle experts as some of you folks.
as far as dismissing the case, many cases get dismissed because the method by which the evidence was seized, especially during traffic stops, can be challenged 'cause the issue can be whether or not the officers had the right to go in the trunk, or other compartments not within driver's arms reach. for instance, if they find illegal rifles from the trunk during a simple traffic stop, and the officers cannot articulate as to why they reasonably felt the need to go in the trunk, none of the seized evidence can be submitted in court regardless of whether or not the rifles were in fact, legal. (remember our constitutional rights to privacy? search & seizure is a beautiful thing in getting cases thrown out..)
non-verifiable, anonymous 911 calls from a payphone would not give the officers the right (reasonable suspicion) to detain/search suspects, thanks to a court case set several years ago.
i totally agree that we're all acting within the law when maintaining our magazine fix kits installed on our AR's but the case dismissal might not necessarily imply that the court recognizes our rifles as lawful.
just playing the devil's advocate here.. :D
how da heck did those poor bastards use a mallet to remove the mag?? can't we somehow obtain a copy of the arrest report?? since it should be available to the general public..

Whitesmoke

11-14-2006, 07:21 PM

If its all about money and bennies, why would anyone serve for 20+ years in the military? Maybe a .Gov job should be about Duty, Honor, Country!

True...but I served my time in the Military. Also....at least when I was in the military (8 years) we had something to be proud of (and got the respect people like yourselves. But being in construction...there isn't a whole lot of Honor or Country involved. I do feel a sense of Duty and pride in what I do....but it's not exactly the same thing.

Also...I run muti-million dollar projects...and I'm usually the lowest paid man on the job. So it's not all about money....

MisterDudeManGuy

11-14-2006, 07:23 PM

...but the case dismissal might not necessarily imply that the court recognizes our rifles as lawful...

Yep... There really doesn't appear to have been a test of the law or the regs. It appears, for all intents and purposes, to have been a rain-out.

AJAX22

11-14-2006, 07:52 PM

I'm a little confused, was your case dismissed with prejeduce or without?

scobun

11-14-2006, 08:59 PM

It seems as if this is just begging for a civil suit of some kind against the SJPD. Is there any possibility that this will happen?

Wulf

11-14-2006, 09:02 PM

can't expect the cops to know all the laws. not even judges nor lawyers can claim to know all the laws.

You're absolutely correct, but your statement only highlights the problem of a society with as many and as complex laws as we have. Nobody, not the cops, not the judges, not the lawyers, not ever the law makers, are expected to know all the laws. But for the person who's having the law enforced against them "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Perhaps what we really need, even more than a definitive 2nd opinion, is a constitutional amendment that says that ignorance of the law IS an excuse in the case of laws which are not succinctly written and widely desimanated.

wutzu

11-14-2006, 09:13 PM

You're absolutely correct, but your statement only highlights the problem of a society with as many and as complex laws as we have. Nobody, not the cops, not the judges, not the lawyers, not ever the law makers, are expected to know all the laws. But for the person who's having the law enforced against them "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Perhaps what we really need, even more than a definitive 2nd opinion, is a constitutional amendment that says that ignorance of the law IS an excuse in the case of laws which are not succinctly written and widely desimanated.

Wulf for the win!

zenthemighty

11-14-2006, 09:14 PM

can't expect the cops to know all the laws.

That's the biggest crock of BS I've heard. I know that if I use the lack of knowledge regarding the law as my defense, I'll end up as bubba's biotch in some state pen somewhere.

Anyone who believes what sniper_jay says, and believes that its all right, needs to turn their citizen status in and resume life as a peasant working their lord's land.

Paratus et Vigilans

11-14-2006, 09:15 PM

Perhaps what we really need, even more than a definitive 2nd opinion, is a constitutional amendment that says that ignorance of the law IS an excuse in the case of laws which are not succinctly written and widely desimanated.

No need for a constitutional amendment here - the fact that 58 DA's and the DOJ can't tell you what is and what is not an AW means the law is, or the regs are, unconstitutionally vague in its/their application. The trouble is, someone may need to go all the way through the meatgrinder of the criminal justice system in order to have that determination made by an appellate court, unless the law gets challenged in a declaratory relief action. This OLL debacle is the perfect example of the need for the courts to construe the law and declare its construction for all, so that neither the public nor the enforcers of the law need to guess what is and what is not an AW.

Gene, if you're out there tonight, has the Michel (sp?) firm considered this tack?

troyPhD

11-14-2006, 09:49 PM

Following this story. SPG, if there is a fund set up to help you out with finances I'll be there with my wallet.

hoffmang

11-14-2006, 09:54 PM

Paratus,

There is an interesting case that goes to trial early next year that was one of the 58 versus the DOJ on just this issue. Michel is plaintiff counsel.

If the Rulemaking goes certain directions, briefing the vague issues could also be a free swing that may or may not bear fruit.

-Gene

RANGER295

11-14-2006, 10:33 PM

In response to the people that do not think that the PD was out of line/that it is impossible to know all of the laws: While it is impossible to know all of the laws, we are still held to them. If I am driving in the rain without my headlights and I do not know that is a new law, to bad I still get a ticket. If we are held to those standards I feel we should hold our LEO’s to the same standards. Maybe we should start going after them for selectively enforcing the law (which is illegal) when they overlook stuff.

A dept Armorer isn't an expert in firearms? :cool: Also...I havn't seen any PD's that don't have AR-15's.....thats like a police officer that carrys a Glock not knowing how to field strip a Glock.
The mother of a girl that I went out with for a short time was a sheriff captain. She did not really know what her issue weapon was but thought it was a Sig model 40. It tuned out to be a P229 in .40 caliber. I also found out after a shooting trip that she came along on that she did not know how to field strip it or clean it. It does not get much simpler than a Sig when it comes to field stripping. So in short this doesn’t surprise me. Over the weekend I ran into ivanimal and shared a fixed mag idea I had with him. I think I made a comment something along the lines of “I would pay admission to see an evidence tech try to figure out how to get the mag out.” I guess the Prince50 is enough to throw them through a loop. You don’t need something as advanced as my idea.

I think that if we can find some way to make this our test case by further legal action, and assuming SPG is willing, we should put a fund together to fight this and settle the issue for now. I am not currently in a position to contribute much but I am sure I could pinch a bit off for the cause. Not wanting to risk being in SPG’s shoes are exactly why my OLL’s are sitting in my safe resembling paperweights.

While it is perfectly legal to carry unloaded long guns around in a vehicle, unfortunately we live in a society with a hysterical fear of weapons. This is largely due to the anti-gun lobby and the liberal media which work hand in hand. I think it is wise to maintain as low a profile as possible. When I do build up my OLL’s I plan to transport them in locked boxes the same way hand guns and registered AW’s must be carried. If for no other reason to keep them out of sight. I try not to flash my firearms around when I am loading/unloading them and carry them out of sight. I do not own a vehicle with a trunk but keep them out of sight by covering them with a blanket or something like that. I think that a lot of problems can be avoided by taking the initiative and playing heads up.

arguy15

11-14-2006, 10:42 PM

Fact is that the DOJ has not updated there AW I.D. guide for years. All the paper pushing DAs rely on that to I.D. AW.

I had a Police Officer try to say that my M1a was an AW because it had an open mag and a thing at the end of the barrel (he just pointed to it.) He said if you have both of those it is illegal and he can't give it back to me. After some explaining and anger he gave it back.

We know the law here for the most part. This crap is way too hard for the average Joe. Just look at the ignorant questions newbees ask all the time.

Teletiger7

11-14-2006, 10:59 PM

Hi guys,
Just wanted to say that I've been reading thise thread with much interest. I feel lucky to have found this forum. Like everybody said, it's unfortunate that in this case the people who are supposed to uphold the law sometimes don't even know the law. I just hope that this incident will make everyone more informed. Unfortunately, seems the only way to motivate education and correct action is to sue.

Clodbuster

11-15-2006, 12:43 AM

Clodbuster

11-15-2006, 12:50 AM

Better that your dealer fixed the gun before the Police dept. sues Glock for a bad design...

Clod

Kinda like the off-duty officer that came into my dealers shop and had his Glock 26 guide rod assembled in reverse.

Some of you sure do expect a lot out of a High School grad. (or GED).;)

And yes believe it or not, I've seen so called Firearms Experts testify in court that knew less about guns than some of your average posters here.

Clodbuster

11-15-2006, 01:38 AM

I took a USPS exam a few years back for computer technician. Lower position than what I have, but at the time, was sick of the high tech rat race and wanted a cozy gov. job w/ pension.

Finished before everyone else and thought it was pretty easy. Weird that they asked some simple transistor circuit questions that were out of the sphere of the position. The examiner told me that I should be getting a score in a few weeks. I was surprised that the letter I received said I did not qualify for the position. I called to get my score, and they said they were unable to give it to me. Thinking now, that I should have answered some of those exam questions incorrectly. :rolleyes:

Clod

Yes, and it's well known that quite a few PDs - esp metro PDs - select entrants on the basis of lower to average IQ. I think the feeling is that cops that are too smart will get bored and leave, increasing turnover costs.

They don't call it an IQ test, of course - it's something like "personnel adaptability score" or some such other name.

Remember the bald Mensa guy that went on Jay Leno? The one that was rejected for being a cop in CT simply and solely because he was too smart? It's couched in different terminology in depts across the country but the concept still holds.

[And when you run into a sharper cop, he's often a lateral transfer and/or with military experience that allowed him to bypass some entry requirements. Invariably, the sharper cops I've talked to have been ex-mil. They seem to be a bit less uptight and able to project force appropriately without "attitude".]

Bottom line: you should not rely on most cops being able to understand other than the simplest legal situations. Given the above, they're almost guaranteed to be genetically incapable of dealing with complex issues. And - given their typical educational level and writing abilities - you should not rely on their written expressions to be accurate in describing crime scenes and arrest background. In a sense, these guys do the defense a service by allowing numerous areas for challenge...

M. Sage

11-15-2006, 02:11 AM

While it is perfectly legal to carry unloaded long guns around in a vehicle, unfortunately we live in a society with a hysterical fear of weapons. This is largely due to the anti-gun lobby and the liberal media which work hand in hand. I think it is wise to maintain as low a profile as possible. When I do build up my OLL’s I plan to transport them in locked boxes the same way hand guns and registered AW’s must be carried. If for no other reason to keep them out of sight. I try not to flash my firearms around when I am loading/unloading them and carry them out of sight. I do not own a vehicle with a trunk but keep them out of sight by covering them with a blanket or something like that. I think that a lot of problems can be avoided by taking the initiative and playing heads up.

That's all fine and good, but I refuse to act the leper that the anti crowd depicts me as. I know what can happen, and it makes me mad that it can, and I'll probably be MORE mad if it does, but hiding the fact that I own guns seems like an admission that they're right, and I'm wrong.

swimmingpoolguy

11-15-2006, 08:42 AM

In april I moved backed in to my parents house because I had just started a business and sold my property. I was going to live there until Dec 06.

Oct 9th I loaded up to go "sight" in my new rifle and glock 23. Purchaseed the guns in Aug and had not had time to shoot them. Both guns still have never been fired.

Last thing I loaded was the rifle. I had it under a sweatshirt. My mom and I had a minor little disagreement 15 minutes earlier, and my dad followed me out to my truck.

he saw the rifle and was and was saying he was going to call the police. I laughed and said for what, go ahead.

I had gone to Tahoe for vacation the week before and also had an xbox 360 that I just purchased. My parents did not know this and thought I was kookoo. I came home and went right into my room to play xbox.

So my Dad called 911, and said ak-47 and 9mmm glock. Asked if the gun was legal? Somehow by the time I returned home the police had it as a loaded ak-47,. They also with out permission made calls from my cell phone, searched my room , and used my computer. Before I returned both my parents had tried to ask them to put away the shotguns they were carrying.

I had my bolt and ammo in nylon bag in the bed of the truck, the charging handle in a locked box in the bed. The rifle was cracked open in the cab, and the glock was locked up on the floor. All officers told me it was transported fine

swimmingpoolguy

11-15-2006, 08:50 AM

swimmingpoolguy

11-15-2006, 08:53 AM

As soon as I got to the car I called the gun shop, and said hey what is the deal. They said that the investigating officer had come in with pictures of the mag out. They asked me if I was the one who removed. I said no way the cops must have.

I go to 2 court dates, we finally get the report. They removed it with a mallet at the range.

On the 3rd pre trial court date nov 13th, the DA dismissed alll charges as insufficient evidence.

6172crew

11-15-2006, 08:55 AM

Could you tell us more about the charges and why they dropped them? What about the rumor of the SJPD taking the magazine out with a hammer etc. Could you post the Police report without your contact info etc?

swimmingpoolguy

11-15-2006, 08:55 AM

Myt lawyer is Emily Wang. She would have more info than I with respect to the motions, and talks with the DA. She was helped by jason davis/chuck michel. Thanks to all three of them.

RANGER295

11-15-2006, 09:06 AM

That's all fine and good, but I refuse to act the leper that the anti crowd depicts me as. I know what can happen, and it makes me mad that it can, and I'll probably be MORE mad if it does, but hiding the fact that I own guns seems like an admission that they're right, and I'm wrong.
I do not hide the fact that I am a gun owner. I have NRA, CRPA, and 2nd amendment bumper stickers on my truck. Pretty much everyone that knows me would probably classify me as a gun nut. I just don’t see the need to walk out to the car with exposed weapons hanging on my shoulder from slings with .50cal ammo cans in my hands. I don’t pull my truck into the garage close the door and load it. I just try to keep stuff in cases as much as possible. If someone is watching me they still know that I am loading guns into my truck, they just don’t know what kind. Plus I think that seeing the cases spooks some people less than seeing the firearm itself. It is not uncommon for me to take 20 weapons when I go to the range. Covering them up is primarily so that if I get pulled over they will not be as noticeable and maybe I wont have to go through the added headache and so that if I stop for a burger or something on the way home and someone looks through the back window they aren’t a target for a break in. I do not see this as hiding or admitting anything, just not flaunting it and going out of my way to draw extra attention to the situation.

P.S. I am sorry you had to go through all of the SPG. You have my deepest empathy.

Spawn_X

11-15-2006, 09:17 AM

SPG, You need new parents

To me this doesn't seem as anything relevant to the OLL thing or something that we would be interested in. Sounds like a big family drama and no case for DA

:confused:

zenthemighty

11-15-2006, 09:20 AM

Congrats on beating the case and congrats on making sure everything was legal and kosher.

I won't say anything about your parents, as that is between you and them. I can say that I'm sorry this whole thing happened.

RicLee

11-15-2006, 09:28 AM

SPG, You need new parents

To me this doesn't seem as anything relevant to the OLL thing or something that we would be interested in. Sounds like a big family drama and no case for DA

:confused:

Wrong, I think it does very much have to do with the OLL thing. how it came about is another story, the police should have not arrested him for a firearms that is legally configured according to the law.

adamsreeftank

11-15-2006, 09:30 AM

SPG, thanks for filling in some of the details. It sounds like it must have been a prety traumatic experience. Nice of your parents to ask the cops to put their shotguns away.

I think the question everyone wants answered is whether you got your gun back and what condition it was in.

swimmingpoolguy

11-15-2006, 09:34 AM

Not really drama here. In fact both my parents went through a practical gun course with an NRA instructor.

The police I feel did what they had to up to the point of me handcuffed. After that it was their ignorance of the laws that landed me here.

It took them 6 to 7 hours to even find the pc 12280...It was frustrating trying to explain the law and what it was , and not one of them would listen.

It had everything to do with an OLL, that is what the charge was, and what I went to jail for

swimmingpoolguy

11-15-2006, 09:36 AM

I mailed in my paper work to the DOJ.....Suppose to take a month I think.

Skawrpion

11-15-2006, 09:38 AM

I mailed in my paper work to the DOJ.....Suppose to take a month I think.

What for? registration or to get your firearms back?
I hope you're somehow going to try to get your lost wages, time spent in court, bail money, and whatever you're entitled to back from the system that failed you.

jnojr

11-15-2006, 09:41 AM

can't expect the cops to know all the laws. not even judges nor lawyers can claim to know all the laws.

Then how the f*&$ am I supposed to know them?!?!?!

jnojr

11-15-2006, 09:42 AM

Paratus,

There is an interesting case that goes to trial early next year that was one of the 58 versus the DOJ on just this issue. Michel is plaintiff counsel.

Hunt v. Lockyer?

adamsreeftank

11-15-2006, 09:45 AM

I mailed in my paper work to the DOJ.....Suppose to take a month I think.

That would be very interesting.

As far as I know, there is only one person who has ever had their OLL returned by the authorities. There are still 80 or 90 of us who got our OLL's "confiscated" nearly a year ago with no hope in sight of having them returned.

If they do return it, please take the advice already given and don't accept it in an illegal condition. You might ask for photos to determine if there was any damage done it it by the PD.

Smokeybehr

11-15-2006, 09:45 AM

Pretty much figured that out when the police's AW expert goes on TV saying there is no difference between an SKS and a fully automatic AK47.

Then again, maybe there might not be a difference after both have been sledgehammered by the Dept's highly skilled amourer.

Clod

That b-i-itch Nancy Grace on CNN kept screaming "Machine Gun, Machine Gun" over an AK-pattern rifle used by a suspect in a stand-off in Florida the other day. It pissed me off so much that I was screaming at my mom to change the channel, because I couldn't stand any more of her ignorant drivel.

There needs to be a concerted effort on the part of gun owners to change the portrayal of our kind as decent, law-abiding people that care for our community and do everything possible to combat crime. Instead, the media will continue to portray us as blood thirsty killers, just waiting for the opportunity to slaughter innocent children and leave their bullet-ridden bodies in pools of blood on the streets.

MisterDudeManGuy

11-15-2006, 09:54 AM

That b-i-itch Nancy Grace on CNN kept screaming "Machine Gun, Machine Gun" over an AK-pattern rifle used by a suspect in a stand-off in Florida the other day. It pissed me off so much that I was screaming at my mom to change the channel, because I couldn't stand any more of her ignorant drivel.

There needs to be a concerted effort on the part of gun owners to change the portrayal of our kind as decent, law-abiding people that care for our community and do everything possible to combat crime. Instead, the media will continue to portray us as blood thirsty killers, just waiting for the opportunity to slaughter innocent children and leave their bullet-ridden bodies in pools of blood on the streets.

Take a friend to the range. Try to listen to those who appear to be on the fence or sympathetic to the cause. The way towards your goal is through education of the ignorant. The more people see that reasonable, law-abiding, responsible people enjoy the shooting sports, the more they will question the extremist rhetoric.

hoffmang

11-15-2006, 10:25 AM

jnojr - Yes, the case I was mentioning is Hunt v. Lockyer. Last time I checked the docket, it was set for trial in mid January.

-Gene

Charliegone

11-15-2006, 10:33 AM

Take a friend to the range. Try to listen to those who appear to be on the fence or sympathetic to the cause. The way towards your goal is through education of the ignorant. The more people see that reasonable, law-abiding, responsible people enjoy the shooting sports, the more they will question the extremist rhetoric.

Exactly, lets make more friends than enemies. In the long run it will be better for all of us law abiding gun owners. If we start name calling, it will do nothing, but fuel their (negative) assumptions of gun owners.

Grakken

11-15-2006, 10:45 AM

SPG, Have you thought of going to the police station where they took you to and letting them know how big of a mistake they made. Maybe ask them why they didnt even bother to listen to you? I doubt anyone of the LEO's who busted you are even aware you are free and they need to brush up on the laws in which they enforce. I would go inside and demand a apology from a supervisor and I would make a scene (not being threatening or anything like that).

For those of you who think that cops cant possibly know all the laws I agree but than ignorance should be an excuse for us too. It needs to go both ways. If a Police officer is in a situation where he/she does not know the law, THEY SHOULD CALL FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES!!!! CASE CLOSED.

off topic:I have nothing against cops but I will NEVER rely on them for my family's frontline protection. Thats my job.

Jicko

11-15-2006, 11:07 AM

SPG, You need new parents

To me this doesn't seem as anything relevant to the OLL thing or something that we would be interested in. Sounds like a big family drama and no case for DA

:confused:

doesn't seem as anything relevant to the OLL thing <- what!?

His main charge was "possession of AW"..... but what he had, was an OLL w/ fixed magazine, hence... NOT AN AW! That's why that charge was dropped by the DA.

xenophobe

11-15-2006, 11:09 AM

As far as I know, there is only one person who has ever had their OLL returned by the authorities. There are still 80 or 90 of us who got our OLL's "confiscated" nearly a year ago with no hope in sight of having them returned.

Several non-group buy off list receivers confiscated by DOJ from Milpitas were returned. The group-buy stuff is being held pending completion of some investigation.

MisterDudeManGuy

11-15-2006, 11:29 AM

For those of you who think that cops cant possibly know all the laws I agree but than ignorance should be an excuse for us too. It needs to go both ways. If a Police officer is in a situation where he/she does not know the law, THEY SHOULD CALL FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES!!!! CASE CLOSED.

My brother's an LEO (out of state), and his spin on it is that if he doesn't know the law, he gets the call from above BEFORE taking someone in. He can and does detain in the field while that call is made, but if he is not sure, he MUST get good information before taking a suspect in. Otherwise, he risks violating the civil rights of the suspect by making a bad/unlwful arrest and he faces negative repercussions from his employer. LEO's are responsible for how they choose to handle themselves in the field. Officers that make bad arrests are bad officers - and waste taxpayer resources.

The police cannot go fishing and simply throw back the ones that don't pass muster. That sort of law enforcement flies in the face of all that we hold dear about our nation and way of life. It's probably illegal, although I am no lawyer.

kick Z tail out

11-15-2006, 11:47 AM

With parents like that, who needs enemies? :rolleyes:

SPC: Sorry to hear you were pulled through the mud kicking and screaming. My hat's off to you for fighting one of our early battles. Sue the crap out of the department.

JPglee1

11-15-2006, 11:55 AM

If you need funds to cover your two days loss of income, for legal proceedings to recover your property, etc., please let me know, I'll paypal the money over to you and pay the 3% fee.

Ditto man, I got $$$ on it

J

JPglee1

11-15-2006, 12:01 PM

It took them 6 to 7 hours to even find the pc 12280...It was frustrating trying to explain the law and what it was , and not one of them would listen.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

Memorize that link, EVERY california law on the books is searchable there.

I find it interesting that the OLL thing is kinda similar to medical marijuana law recognition problems that California is having... Most of the LEOs in the state have no clue that both OLLs and Medical MJ are legal under state law and they have a general "Hook N Book" attitude about both situations, ya know...

Ive heard many stories of legal compliant medical patients being detained and losing their meds but no charges filed cuz the cops were clearly in the wrong, but this is the first such case Ive heard about the same situation occuring regarding an OLL firearm....

Weird how all that works.

J

Smokeybehr

11-15-2006, 12:05 PM

An Amber alert was being sent out as I drove up to my house. As I pulled into the drwy I was taken into custody. I then stood causually talking with an officer for 45 mins while they took pics and searched. They came and said the glock is registered, the rifle is not and you need a card/paper to have it. I tried to explain it to them, as I did for the next 8 hours, but they would not listen. I was put in a car and taken to Jail. While at my house one officer asked how the mag comes out. I again tried to explain that they should not take it out, that is the key evidence. Again they did not pay much attention. I was in the processing place for at least 4 hours while they tried to find the code. Twice i had asked what is going on and the officer said we are trying to figure it out. Then he came in and read me rights, and said pc 12280 b. I tried to plead with him and they refused to listen.

I then went to jail and the phones where I was were not working. So I spent 2 days there until I finally got to a working phone and made my call. I was 2 hours later of 25,000 bail.

What I'm gathering from this is that it took them 12 hours to come up with the statute that you were charged under. IMHO, they should not have had either you or the weapon in question "in custody" unless they knew excatly what to charge you with. It's like detaining you longer than necessary for a traffic stop waiting for a drug dog or search warrant. I'd seriously talk to a civil rights lawyer about this. I'm sure that Chuck Michel might know of someone that can help you out with this.

Did you mention Kasler and Harriott when you were talking to the cops? Those are critical cases that they should have some understanding of, instead of blindly drinking the "ARs are bad, mmm'k" kool-aid.

Spawn_X

11-15-2006, 12:23 PM

doesn't seem as anything relevant to the OLL thing <- what!?

His main charge was "possession of AW"..... but what he had, was an OLL w/ fixed magazine, hence... NOT AN AW! That's why that charge was dropped by the DA.

The DOJ was not involved. There was no court/trial where it was proven that an OLL with fixed mag is not an AW. Just a guy who's parents tried to screw over by calling the cops with a bogus "AK47 AW" posession which obviously wasn't true and case dismissed

Hey, I'm just expressing my opinion just like the next guy. I know most disagree, but I'm waiting for something more solid with the whole OLL thing

Clodbuster

11-15-2006, 12:57 PM

This is Kalifornia....we do things differently here. Wild wild west style :cool:

Clod

My brother's an LEO (out of state), and his spin on it is that if he doesn't know the law, he gets the call from above BEFORE taking someone in. He can and does detain in the field while that call is made, but if he is not sure, he MUST get good information before taking a suspect in. Otherwise, he risks violating the civil rights of the suspect by making a bad/unlwful arrest and he faces negative repercussions from his employer. LEO's are responsible for how they choose to handle themselves in the field. Officers that make bad arrests are bad officers - and waste taxpayer resources.

The police cannot go fishing and simply throw back the ones that don't pass muster. That sort of law enforcement flies in the face of all that we hold dear about our nation and way of life. It's probably illegal, although I am no lawyer.

MrLogan

11-15-2006, 02:39 PM

With parents like that, who needs enemies? :rolleyes:

Yeah, I don't get it. SPG. Why exactly did your parents call the cops? :confused:

MisterDudeManGuy

11-15-2006, 02:43 PM

This is Kalifornia....we do things differently here. Wild wild west style :cool:

Clod

Yeah, true. It's so much more liberal out here than back in Kansas (where bro and family are), but out here people also more willing to let the state tell them what to do and take away their right to make their own choices - which seems like a juxtaposition. Free spirits willing to be subjugated? Wha..? The laws we have in Kalifornistan are a reflection of the majority of voters, IMHO, and that is SAD. Wait till the amnesty comes and we'll really see how it goes.

Back in Kansas, there is more of an attitude of self-responsibility. Out here, no way. A killer walks more often than not out here. He's a victim of society and gun availability. Drunk drivers are victims of their addiction. The police-state tactics that get applied out here are an overreaction to ill-informed laws and policies that just aren't working. So what do they do? Do it more. Yeah, that'll work.

The wrong approach remains wrong no matter how hard it is done.

morepoop4u

11-15-2006, 03:41 PM

So do you think the SJPD is still ignorant about the OLL situation?

Cpl_Peters

11-15-2006, 03:48 PM

If its all about money and bennies, why would anyone serve for 20+ years in the military? Maybe a .Gov job should be about Duty, Honor, Country!

my thoughts exactly :)

FreedomIsNotFree

11-15-2006, 03:54 PM

Hello!!! $25,000 Bail means he lost out on $2500 to the bondsman unless he put up the whole $25,000 himself. That is no small chunk of change.

As far as the arrest goes...I would be suing the City/Police Department and I would also name the arresting officer by name in a lawsuit. Of course this lawsuit would be a civil matter, but I guarantee you the Department and City would take notice when their wallets are about to be drained.

Dont give me this crap about the officer cant be expected to know all the laws....bs.....ignorance of the law is NO excuse....it applies to law enforcement as well as civilians. The Police do have some protection as long as they are acting in good faith, but you cant tell me they were with all the information on OLL's that is now available. Departments should be educating their officers on the status of OLL's. I can understand him being detained until they got an experts opinion, but to arrest him is a sure violation of his Constitutional Rights.

I wish this had happened to me....I dont have a lot to lose and I love to fight the righteous fight.

"It is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong."

MisterDudeManGuy

11-15-2006, 03:58 PM

furryrabbit

11-15-2006, 04:37 PM

So do you think the SJPD is still ignorant about the OLL situation?

You know I asked a couple SJPD units hanging out at starbucks about OLL and was told that any AR's are illegal unless they are registered. I don't think the message has gotten through.

morepoop4u

11-15-2006, 04:51 PM

Teletiger7

11-15-2006, 05:01 PM

Nothing will change unless these kinds of illegal seizures leads to lose of money for the City/state. They only speak one language: $$$$$$."

MisterDudeManGuy

11-15-2006, 05:05 PM

I could use the cash - where is this Starbucks...? :D

guns_and_labs

11-15-2006, 05:06 PM

Yes, and it's well known that quite a few PDs - esp metro PDs - select entrants on the basis of lower to average IQ. I think the feeling is that cops that are too smart will get bored and leave, increasing turnover costs.

They don't call it an IQ test, of course - it's something like "personnel adaptability score" or some such other name.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I have too many relatives and friends who are counterexamples to that statement. Smart kids, I watched them graduate near the top of the class from good colleges, decide on law enforcement as their entry to the workforce, and get accepted enthusiastically by metro PD's like Oakland, Sacramento, and SF (well, than family wonders about the intelligence of that last one).

I asked one of them (at a metro PD) about OLL's, though. The answers were informative. He knew that AR15's were AW's, and required registration. He had heard there was some issue around lookalikes that were not technically AW's, but had to have certain features to make them legal. He had not gotten any departmental training on what the features were. When asked what he would do, if he responded to a call about an "assault weapon" or the like, he said he would secure the scene, ask for guidance from above, and, if no guidance was forthcoming, arrest the individual and let the DA figure it out.

Sounds like it's a training and information issue. I don't believe it's an intelligence issue.

bwiese

11-15-2006, 05:23 PM

Sorry, I don't buy it. I have too many relatives and friends who are counterexamples to that statement. Smart kids, I watched them graduate near the top of the class from good colleges, decide on law enforcement as their entry to the workforce, and get accepted enthusiastically by metro PD's like Oakland, Sacramento, and SF (well, than family wonders about the intelligence of that last one).

Whether or not you buy it doesn't make it false. Many depts do have this selection criteria, it's just not called an IQ test. When the scores (or their equivalents) start getting up in the 130s or 140s - or even high 120s - folks become less "suitable". This has made the news multiple times over the last decade.

As I said, not all depts have this, and some of these selection criteria are not relevant for lateral transfers, or those coming in from military.

One other reason this is done - besides the perception that really bright folks would get bored with police work and thus increase turnover - is to skew the scores downward so "disadvantaged" applicants don't look so bad, and can be weighted/ compensated by a subjective "interview" score that can take up some slack.

BTW many, many folks graduate from college with IQs in the 100s. "College graduate" does not necessarily mean smart, esp w/today's dumbed down curricula. It's pretty easy to get a history, sociology, journalism or non-quant biz degree without a whole lot of deep thought, be dumber than nine chickens, and still get A grades.

guns_and_labs

11-15-2006, 05:38 PM

BTW many, many folks graduate from college with IQs in the 100s. "College graduate" does not necessarily mean smart, esp w/today's dumbed down curricula. It's pretty easy to get a history, sociology, journalism or non-quant biz degree without a whole lot of deep thought, be dumber than nine chickens, and still get A grades.
At Stanford? Or Yale? Those are two of my sample.

And are you sure that you can prove a direct and definitive inverse correlation between measured IQ and adaptability, or "suitability" as you have referenced -- two very different concepts in psychology?

And your reference to "This has made the news multiple times over the last decade."... Is this the same news media that reports Glocks as "plastic guns" that "evade x-ray machines"? Or that refer to any semi-automatic rifle as an "assault weapon"? I've yet to read of a metro PD that claims acceptance criteria that, "We take 'em dumb. The dumber the better. Then they stay their 20."

bu-bye

11-15-2006, 05:46 PM

BTW many, many folks graduate from college with IQs in the 100s. "College graduate" does not necessarily mean smart, esp w/today's dumbed down curricula. It's pretty easy to get a history, sociology, journalism or non-quant biz degree without a whole lot of deep thought, be dumber than nine chickens, and still get A grades.

A big +1. More college does not mean you are smarter it just mean you know how to read whats in the books and can do it for many years on end. I know people with PHD's and Masters that are dumb as posts when it comes to the real world. Anyone can study a book and know all of it contents. A person who thinks for them self is much wiser then an 8 year college grad who barfs up text book writings.

MisterDudeManGuy

11-15-2006, 05:47 PM

At Stanford? Or Yale? Those are two of my sample.

And are you sure that you can prove a direct and definitive inverse correlation between measured IQ and adaptability, or "suitability" as you have referenced -- two very different concepts in psychology?

And your reference to "This has made the news multiple times over the last decade."... Is this the same news media that reports Glocks as "plastic guns" that "evade x-ray machines"? Or that refer to any semi-automatic rifle as an "assault weapon"? I've yet to read of a metro PD that claims acceptance criteria that, "We take 'em dumb. The dumber the better. Then they stay their 20."

IMHO, you both have a point. BTW, I don't think he's talking about YOUR kids, so try not to take it personally.

I have personally managed college grads that are exactly as he says - from 'name brand' schools, no less.

megavolt121

11-15-2006, 05:52 PM

You know I asked a couple SJPD units hanging out at starbucks about OLL and was told that any AR's are illegal unless they are registered. I don't think the message has gotten through.

That doesn't suprise me at all. Of all the PDs I have had interaction with, SJPD is by far the WORST. I seriously think it will be a long time before they know what they are talking about. Just keep in mind that you don't join the PD to carry a gun all day. As such, most of them aren't as up to date on gunlaws as we are. I doubt they have to deal with firearm violations as much as they do drug violations.

In the three months I have lived in this city, I have witnessed more traffic violations from SJPD cars than I have of idiots on the road.(One incident almost caused an accident. I called in and reported that.) One of my buddies is a dispatcher for SC county. He constantly tells me stories about the BS that SJPD pulls.

bwiese

11-15-2006, 05:55 PM

At Stanford? Or Yale? Those are two of my sample.

If they're Stanford or Yale graduates, they're throwing away an incredible social network to go out & be flatfoots... which probably means they're dumb enough to be cops. Or, their majors were in some abstruse unmarketable liberal arts program that sends most of its output to grad school or Starbucks or NYC's taxicab fleet.

And are you sure that you can prove a direct and definitive inverse correlation between measured IQ and adaptability, or "suitability" as you have referenced -- two very different concepts in psychology?

I didn't say High IQ = low suitability: that's what many depts are, de facto, doing. They don't call it an IQ score, but many depts' measures of suitability have a "smarter = worse" factor.

And your reference to "This has made the news multiple times over the last decade."... Is this the same news media that reports Glocks as "plastic guns"/...

There were several "you gotta be kidding..." reports and interviews. The most notable was a guy that even got onto Jay Leno (the bald dude from CT) and, IIRC, 60 minutes or Nightline. Really sharp, well-spoken, always wanted to be a cop (gawd knows why). Rejected, publicly, for high IQ. The chief was talking about turnover, etc. I gather another dept finally hired him and found him to be a catch.

I've yet to read of a metro PD that claims acceptance criteria that, "We take 'em dumb. The dumber the better. Then they stay their 20."

C'mon, now, you know they'd never say that. Hell, their own brass might not even know it themselves, being of the same ilk. The dept may have an outside consultant design some of the testing and skew it to capture the appropriate population of "disadvantaged"/affirmitive action entrants.

swimmingpoolguy

11-15-2006, 06:20 PM

To Logan:

My father called the cops because he thought it was an illegal gun. And he had observed me for two weeks going right to my room.(i had just purchased Madden @007 and a new xbox 360) ...Both my parents have since taken a gun class with me and all is ok now. I was pretty pissed for a while.

As far as cops knowing the laws. I would not expect them to know every law, BUT i SURE AS HECK NOW HOPE THEY ONLY ENFORCE LAWS THEY KNOW.

Once you are in the system you are done. Guilty or innocent it costs money and time. The part that made me the most disgusted with the system was sending 20 bucks to the DOJ and filling out their "return guns sheet" . That 20 bucks bugged me the most. So I do nothing, go to jail, go court, spend a money and time, and then after I am found innocent . In fact more of they made a mistake. I still had to send 20 bucks.,.,..

I feel like charlie brown trying to kick the football Lucy is holding.....Good grief

Jicko

11-15-2006, 06:31 PM

The DOJ was not involved. There was no court/trial where it was proven that an OLL with fixed mag is not an AW. Just a guy who's parents tried to screw over by calling the cops with a bogus "AK47 AW" posession which obviously wasn't true and case dismissed

Hey, I'm just expressing my opinion just like the next guy. I know most disagree, but I'm waiting for something more solid with the whole OLL thing

But NOW, we got all the basis for filing a lawsuit against the arresting officer, and the department for "wrongful" arrest.... they probably will claim that they were "confused" regarding the "weapon" whether it IS an AW or it IS NOT. All those will be good for the community.

6172crew

11-15-2006, 06:37 PM

SPG, you can get your $20 back. I had a motorcycle stolen and when the man found it they towed it without calling me.

Cost me $300 to get my bike back and I didnt do anything wrong.

I asked about it and a lady gave me place to write and I received my dough back in a month or so. Keep receipts and you should get every cent back from SJPD/The city of SJ.

swimmingpoolguy

11-15-2006, 06:39 PM

Here is the case number cc645607 you asked for bill.

And the paper says dismissal MDA (motion by district attorney) then IDE .

swimmingpoolguy

11-15-2006, 06:50 PM

I also found that many or most officers in SJ do not know what an OLL is. That it is legal to have. I found that shocking. I personally went to SJPD's info window and requested an SOP on the rendering of that rifle safe. I was told to contact the range master and was given a number. Then I called him and he said he was not going to tell me, go back and get it from the Info window. I went back and the officer disappeared for 15 minutes, and his supervisor showed up. We went outside and he said to write the chief of police for the info. I have written 3 so far and not recieved a response. Since i have to get permits at city hall for pools I will stopping by the Chiefs office regularly until he answers my simple question. I do not even care if there is no SOP , I just want to make sure that one is there and correct. The weapon should be cracked in half to render it safe. Lucky for me I never even shot the rifle and the report stated the mallet being used.

Charliegone

11-15-2006, 07:02 PM

guns_and_labs

11-15-2006, 07:08 PM

If they're Stanford or Yale graduates, they're throwing away an incredible social network to go out & be flatfoots... which probably means they're dumb enough to be cops. Or, their majors were in some abstruse unmarketable liberal arts program that sends most of its output to grad school or Starbucks or NYC's taxicab fleet..
I didn't mean to imply they STAYED cops. Those two are now quite happily ADA's with street credentials, and potentially a nice political career ahead of them.

There were several "you gotta be kidding..." reports and interviews. The most notable was a guy that even got onto Jay Leno (the bald dude from CT) and, IIRC, 60 minutes or Nightline. Really sharp, well-spoken, always wanted to be a cop (gawd knows why). Rejected, publicly, for high IQ. The chief was talking about turnover, etc. I gather another dept finally hired him and found him to be a catch.
I saw the episode. I thought he was an *****. I'd have tried to find an excuse to not hire him. Also, just as you can be honor roll and still be dumb as a rock (not my kids, of course), you also can be MENSA and not employable. Trust me on that one. ;)

C'mon, now, you know they'd never say that. Hell, their own brass might not even know it themselves, being of the same ilk. The dept may have an outside consultant design some of the testing and skew it to capture the appropriate population of "disadvantaged"/affirmitive action entrants.
Now you're getting into more credible territory. I can believe all sorts of AA abuse.

ARRRR-15

11-15-2006, 08:12 PM

My father called the cops because he thought it was an illegal gun.

What if it was illegal? Does he know that you could have gome to jail for 6+ years.:eek:

dwtt

11-15-2006, 08:23 PM

I also found that many or most officers in SJ do not know what an OLL is. That it is legal to have. I found that shocking. I personally went to SJPD's info window and requested an SOP on the rendering of that rifle safe. I was told to contact the range master and was given a number. Then I called him and he said he was not going to tell me, go back and get it from the Info window. I went back and the officer disappeared for 15 minutes, and his supervisor showed up. We went outside and he said to write the chief of police for the info. I have written 3 so far and not recieved a response. Since i have to get permits at city hall for pools I will stopping by the Chiefs office regularly until he answers my simple question.
Write to them one more time, but mail it registered mail, with a delivery return receipt. That gets gov types motivated to respond.

jnojr

11-15-2006, 08:23 PM

SPG - Have you spoken to an attorney? Your situation does seem like a perfect lawsuit over SB23 and the resultant mess.

Please please please call Chuck Michel, Bruce Colodny, or another strong firearms attorny to get their take on this situation and the possibility of maybe a Federal civil rights violation lawsuit.

Spawn_X

11-15-2006, 09:00 PM

But NOW, we got all the basis for filing a lawsuit against the arresting officer, and the department for "wrongful" arrest.... they probably will claim that they were "confused" regarding the "weapon" whether it IS an AW or it IS NOT. All those will be good for the community.

I don't think this will go anywhere as the case was dismissed. I also don't think SPG is going to pursue this in court further, sounds like he's just glad its over and doesn't want to touch it again

What if it was illegal? Does he know that you could have gome to jail for 6+ years.:eek:

Father calling the cops in this situation is just wrong on many levels.. :rolleyes:

Sorry, this still sounds like some family feud drama to me. But its an opinion of just one individual on the internet

Cobrarlc

11-15-2006, 09:07 PM

SPG,
I am sure glad that the charges have been dismissed. Let's hope that our governing officials see that there is a need for clairification of the firearm laws in California.

xenophobe

11-15-2006, 09:45 PM

Perhaps the police don't know and won't know for a while, but I bet Santa Clara County DA's office knows more about this situation than they would like, and will not be prosecuting people from now on... Especially if Saiga guy gets dismissed as well.

Charliegone

11-15-2006, 09:47 PM

Have you noticed this has gotten at least 17,000 views!!! Wow! That must be a record!:D

gose

11-15-2006, 09:50 PM

Have you noticed this has gotten at least 17,000 views!!! Wow! That must be a record!:D

There are a lot of people working for the DOJ ;)

Joe

11-15-2006, 09:53 PM

Have you noticed this has gotten at least 17,000 views!!! Wow! That must be a record!:D

The "Lets see your .223 California Legal Self Loading Rifle!" thread has 146,254 views. Thats a hell of a lot of views

Richard

11-15-2006, 10:21 PM

So what were your lawyers opinions on the OLL.....that is, were they confident that things would go well for you if it went before the judge?

Did your attorneys meet with the DA's to discuss the OLL rulings?

Or did this whole drama just fizzle out before your attorneys can meet with them?

BTW, glad to hear your in the clear.

tiki

11-15-2006, 11:06 PM

FreedomIsNotFree

11-16-2006, 12:02 AM

I'm not sure how much of the "story" I believe. I find the circumstances leading up to the confrontation with the police to be suspect, but it really is not relevant to the issue at hand....which is how the police reacted to the OLL.

I really wish this had happened to me...I mean that with all sincerity. And I would not settle out of court for a large sum of cash...I would take it to trial and see what 12 jurors had to say....its the only way to make case law....settling any lawsuit about OLL's out of court helps nobody, but the lawyers.

WokMaster1

11-16-2006, 12:23 AM

Have you noticed this has gotten at least 17,000 views!!! Wow! That must be a record!:D

I'm sorry. I only access this thread 15,000 times for updates. :D

Jicko

11-16-2006, 12:38 AM

FreedomIsNotFree

11-16-2006, 12:48 AM

U can either go into a PD with a cased OLL and ask them?

Or... u can call the cops on yourself.... see if they come and do the same to you....

Are you kidding me.....haha....with my luck they would come over and ticket me for expired car registration and forget all about my OLL call.....:D

m1aowner

11-16-2006, 01:33 AM

I may have missed this information in a previous post, but how did the CA DOJ end up with your rifle? I thought this was a Santa Clara County situation?

Mssr. Eleganté

11-16-2006, 01:57 AM

I may have missed this information in a previous post, but how did the CA DOJ end up with your rifle? I thought this was a Santa Clara County situation?

I believe his rifle is still being held by local law enforcement. But he needs to file the LEGR form with CalDOJ before local law enforcement will release the rifle to him. That's just the way it works.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/legrinfo.php

On January 1, 2005, the Law Enforcement Gun Release (LEGR) process became effective with the addition of Penal Code (PC) section 12021.3. This process requires any person who claims title to any firearm that is in the custody or control of a court or law enforcement agency and who wishes to have the firearm returned to submit a LEGR Application form for a determination by the Department of Justice (DOJ) as to whether he or she is eligible to possess a firearm.

tiki

11-16-2006, 06:40 AM

I believe his rifle is still being held by local law enforcement. But he needs to file the LEGR form with CalDOJ before local law enforcement will release the rifle to him. That's just the way it works.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/legrinfo.php

How does the whole "nuisance firearm" nonsence play into this after the 1st? What is deemed a nuisance firearm?

6172crew

11-16-2006, 06:45 AM

How does the whole "nuisance firearm" nonsence play into this after the 1st? What is deemed a nuisance firearm?

Good point, more vague laws for folks to figure out.

metalhead357

11-16-2006, 07:53 AM

Good point, more vague laws for folks to figure out.

And loose lawfully owned, legally configured and rightously Ok private property:rolleyes:

paradox

11-16-2006, 09:27 AM

Did you mention Kasler and Harriott when you were talking to the cops? Those are critical cases that they should have some understanding of, instead of blindly drinking the "ARs are bad, mmm'k" kool-aid.

If they have a hard time finding the actual written law, there is no way in hell they will even think of looking at case law.

fairfaxjim

11-16-2006, 10:58 AM

Father calling the cops in this situation is just wrong on many levels.. :rolleyes:

Sorry, this still sounds like some family feud drama to me. But its an opinion of just one individual on the internet

Family feud or whatever, it definitely is a big mistake. There are a lot of people out there who would call LE to "help" in a situation where they thought it would be in their child's best interest to not have a firearm at that point in time. Unfortunately, most of them have no clue what the results of getting involved with LE on a firearms issue of any sort could be. They think they are helping, and they have a misguided belief that LE will come to "help." IMHO, if you think you need help and your only resource is 911, you would be better served bending over and kissing your *** goodbye than going for the 911! If a firearm is involved, kiss your *** twice for good luck.

Most LE personnel really don't want the civillian population to have firearms, and they have been taught that it is a them vs. us issue by the top brass. Very few Dept. Chiefs (at least in Kali) are supportive of civillian firearm ownership. The more scared they can make you about owning a firearem, the fewer of them there will be to confront out there. These laws aren't confusing by accident, they are designed that way. Why else would you have to prove to the DOJ that it is legal for you to have a firearm that you just legally purchased, simply because the SJPD just illegally took it from you.

bwiese

11-16-2006, 11:05 AM

How does the whole "nuisance firearm" nonsence play into this after the 1st? What is deemed a nuisance firearm?

After the 1st, 2728 allows AW bust to be alternatively resolved by seizure/loss of gun, a small fine ($300ish area IIRC) and a nuiscance charge.

Do note 2728 does not in any way invalidate 12280(a) or (b). But it does provide an alternative method of case resolution. It costs big $$ for arrest & felony trial so this allows a county/DA office to lower costs, get some income, and to politically claim a "gun bust" and that they "got a gun off the streets".

Busted dude walks without a felony or misdemeanor and can buy more guns and ammo.

bwiese

11-16-2006, 11:07 AM

I'm not sure how much of the "story" I believe. I find the circumstances leading up to the confrontation with the police to be suspect

Believe WTF you want.

This did happen, it happened the way SPG recounted it, and I and a couple of others here have the broad details from multiple sources. I also spoke with his attorney.

Racefiend

11-16-2006, 11:08 AM

It might not be a bad idea to get all the information about your case, write a well written account of what happened (maybe have your lawyer write it) and send it to the attorney handling the Hunt v Lockyer case. This could be something they could use as more ammunition to help get SB23 taken off of the books.

xenophobe

11-16-2006, 11:12 AM

I'm not sure how much of the "story" I believe. I find the circumstances leading up to the confrontation with the police to be suspect, but it really is not relevant to the issue at hand....which is how the police reacted to the OLL.

He told you exactly what happened. He told me exactly what happened right after he was released on bail. It reads exactly like that on the police report. Perhaps if you were an upstanding citizen yourself, you wouldn't be so skeptical of others. :rolleyes:

I really wish this had happened to me...I mean that with all sincerity.

Yes, you wish you were arrested in front of your house by a tactical response team, throw in jail and then charged with felony possession of an assault weapon.

You're either stupid or crazy. Or perhaps a mix of both. Time to start taking your meds again.

Teletiger7

11-16-2006, 11:13 AM

Definitely sounds like family drama involved. Unfortunately, your dad decided to go straight to the police, thinking that they would know what they were doing(mistake). Cops can't be expected to be smarter, more just, more knowledgable, than your average joe sixpack. They're more worried about their supervisors firing them than they are about knowing the specific laws and your lawful rights in this situation. They have been trained to think any civilian with a gun is dangerous. They have been trained to disregard the 2nd ammendment of the US constitution. I guess your dad didn't realize that if they sent you to jail on false arrest and somehow convicted you on false charges you would end up in a very bad place, where very bad things happen for a very long time and never come back the same.

mattmcg

11-16-2006, 11:21 AM

Well guys, I don't know about you but this would do me in for further participation within my family. I come from a mid-west farming family and the credo has always been family law over legislated law. At no point EVER would a family member willingly turn over another family member to the police under any circumstance. Breaching this credo would thereby relegate family law to an untrusted executive/judicial group without mercy or regard for the individual. A group of strangers will never work to rehabilitate or care for the individual, rather just move to institutionalize........ Obviously a little communication here between family members may have resulted in this activity not happening (as nothing wrong was committed) but this reads as a true breakdown of family values. Sorry SPG, you sound like a great guy but this is just the way I see it...........

In other words, I would have gotten a big ***-kicking (whether physical or verbal) but at no point would I spend any jail time threatening my future employment (having a criminal record), health (bubba's prison friend), or financial stability (lawyer/court fees).

SPG, I'm glad you are emerging rather unscathed from this event. It could have been much worse, that's for sure. But at the end of this, I'd be out-the-door and on my way to my own life (without my parents in the picture).

Craziness.....................

JPglee1

11-16-2006, 11:35 AM

To Logan:

My father called the cops because he thought it was an illegal gun.

Holy **** dude.... Not to be disrespectful, but that SUCKS!!

If I was a dad and my son had an AR15, well first we'd fondle it for a minute, but I would call an attorney and have HIM deal with the LEO, not call the cops on my kid :eek:

If that happened to me Jun 18th and Dec 25th would suddenly become forgotten days :cool: :p

I'm glad everything turned out OK for you in the end. Let us know when/if you get your hardware back OK.

JP

JALLEN

11-16-2006, 11:37 AM

I believe his rifle is still being held by local law enforcement. But he needs to file the LEGR form with CalDOJ before local law enforcement will release the rifle to him. That's just the way it works.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/legrinfo.php

Thanks for bringing that up. I didn't know that.

One of my pistols was stolen, and recovered, and is being held for DNA testing and court procedures, the possessors in jail. I can file the form now and be ready when they finally get done with it, instead of having to wait another 30 days.

Apeman88

11-16-2006, 12:05 PM

SPG,

I don't doubt what happened but why did you sit in jail for 2 days... I mean... your parents knew exactly where you were and they should be able to get you out pretty fast or at least try.

Also... aren't you legally obligated to "ONE" phone call? This may be more grounds for a suit.

Apeman

swimmingpoolguy

11-16-2006, 12:09 PM

That is the truth. Once the police become involved you are just rollin' the dice....

Here is my dads last quote in his wriiten report,

"In retrospect I would never call the police again-I'm not sure they can act as anything but police."

The problem was I was living with two uneducated( weapons) people. I have gone through classes with them and would never again live with anyone who was not "gun educated". That I have learned and will never do again.

swimmingpoolguy

11-16-2006, 12:16 PM

apeman ''''

They were looking for me as well as my buddy. The system could not find me. The 7 phones on the wall that I was suppose to be able to use from 10 am to 8 pm did not work . It was hit or miss, I looked like a kookoo going from phone to phone for hours. Fianlly got out a call and it cut out. Then I finally got another call through and gave my wristband numbers.

If you go to Jail get the numbers they give you first. As well they can hold you for 72 hours I was told without seeing a Lawyer or judge. I was told that by the Jail guards. I also filled out an inmate request form that sat in the box and was still in the box when I left.

I called the jail I/A after being released and was told that it was the phone companies problem. She then hung up.

Patriot

11-16-2006, 12:36 PM

I called the jail I/A after being released and was told that it was the phone companies problem. She then hung up.

Seems to me that if you're entitled to a phone call, it's their ******* problem. Doubt the law says, "as long as the landlines are in working order." :rolleyes:

wutzu

11-16-2006, 12:58 PM

Glad you're alright, and hopefully you've forgiven your parents.

I wouldn't

PIRATE14

11-16-2006, 12:59 PM

FreedomIsNotFree

11-16-2006, 06:13 PM

Okay someone calls the Police via 911 and reports that their son has an illegal loaded AK-47 and has been acting strange for the last few weeks..............

HHHMMM let me see how will the police respond????

At least they didn't shoot first and ask questions later......they could have.

What's been going on in the media in the last few weeks.....school girls gettin gunned down.

Police will charge in and subdue YOU.....if they perceive you as a threat to public safety.....period. No one will fault them there.

Whether or not the your OLL is legal is of little concern to them at the time........under these circumstances, you'd be going jail.

Since we live in a country of laws.......once it's all settled out, case dismissed. Wrongful arrest....not going to happen.

Don't kid yourself people.

Just stick to the facts and know the laws......we are ahead so far.

I dont know if its just me or what, but lately some of the comments in support of the Police, in terms of when, and the legality of the use of serious/deadly force, has become ridiculous. I support the Police 1000% and have law enforcement officers in my family, but they are NOT above the law.

At least they didn't shoot first and ask questions later......they could have.

Are you insane? The police cant just shoot first and ask questions later. What type of country do you want to live in where the police can justifiably shoot first and ask questions later? Not America...that is for sure. Why dont you move to Cuba or China....I'm sure you would fit in nicely.

And for your information the police are protected as long as they are acting in good faith, in terms of making an arrest. The arresting officer could have consulted with an expert, in fact his duty was to consult with an expert, PRIOR to making the arrest. He could have easily detained the individual until he got a clear response from superior officers.

SPG has a great case for civil court. I'm sure Attorney's would line up to take this case to a jury. Remember that in civil court the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence.....which could be as close as 51% to 49%. The Police should know the law....ignorance is no excuse.

grammaton76

11-16-2006, 06:18 PM

Are you insane? The police cant just shoot first and ask questions later. What type of country do you want to live in where the police can justifiably shoot first and ask questions later? Not America...that is for sure. Why dont you move to Cuba or China....I'm sure you would fit in nicely.

I don't think he's saying that the police would've been RIGHT to do so, or would've even been justified.

Simply, that they COULD have done so, if they were that worked up in a state of paranoia thanks to SPG's dad.

FreedomIsNotFree

11-16-2006, 06:25 PM

I don't think he's saying that the police would've been RIGHT to do so, or would've even been justified.

Simply, that they COULD have done so, if they were that worked up in a state of paranoia thanks to SPG's dad.

Hey, maybe you are right....I didn't read it that way and by the context of the rest of the post I dont see how it can be taken any other way, but who knows....

"They could have" if they wanted to go to prison for the rest of their lives for murder.....I guess anything is possible.

tiki

11-16-2006, 07:14 PM

After the 1st, 2728 allows AW bust to be alternatively resolved by seizure/loss of gun, a small fine ($300ish area IIRC) and a nuiscance charge.

Do note 2728 does not in any way invalidate 12280(a) or (b). But it does provide an alternative method of case resolution. It costs big $$ for arrest & felony trial so this allows a county/DA office to lower costs, get some income, and to politically claim a "gun bust" and that they "got a gun off the streets".

Busted dude walks without a felony or misdemeanor and can buy more guns and ammo.

Yes, but what constitutes a nuiscance? It still has to be in violation of 12280(a) or (b) for that, right? They just can't yank a Prince 50 config and call it a nuiscance. It has to be an illegal AW, right?

Ragweed

11-16-2006, 07:45 PM

Just a thought here but If SPG looks to get hired at a new job and one the requirements is to get a background check done wouldn't the arrest show up on his record?

If so, shouldn't he move forward with a factual finding of innocence to clear him record?

hoffmang

11-16-2006, 08:29 PM

Arrests where charges are dropped tend to not be recorded.

-Gene

M. Sage

11-16-2006, 08:49 PM

Yes, but what constitutes a nuiscance? It still has to be in violation of 12280(a) or (b) for that, right? They just can't yank a Prince 50 config and call it a nuiscance. It has to be an illegal AW, right?

The way I read it was that if you get busted for "AW" posession, they can EITHER charge you with a felony, OR can opt to have your weapon declared a public nuisance, you get a fine and your gun gets wrecked. I think they would still have to prove it's an "AW," though.

I just want to say: We probably aught to lay off SPG's dad. The guy made a mistake. A lot of people don't realize that the police aren't like in Mayberry where they just solve problems without any real conflict or usually even arrests. A lot of us still labor under the impression that preserving law and order is best done sometimes by being a nice guy and talking things through instead of sacking people off to jail (I'm one of 'em.)

SPG seems to have forgiven and moved on. I'm with him. His dad's acts were made in ignorance.

Ignorance: when someone honestly doesn't know and had no reason to have known.

Stupidity: when someone either knew better or should have. (If I run out into traffic without looking and get hit, that's stupid.)

SPG's father's acts = ignorance.

SJPD's acts = stupidity.

Apostolos

11-16-2006, 09:28 PM

His dad called the cops on him, got him arrested, AND let him sit in jail for two days. :eek:

Time to move out and maybe visit the folks on holidays.

Blessings,
David

PIRATE14

11-16-2006, 10:06 PM

Hey, maybe you are right....I didn't read it that way and by the context of the rest of the post I dont see how it can be taken any other way, but who knows....

"They could have" if they wanted to go to prison for the rest of their lives for murder.....I guess anything is possible.

Could have not should have......big difference. There are tons of incidents where to much force is used, lucky he wasn't holding the weapon. I don't condone these actions.

Fixed mags are legal according to the law but you won't get the state FD experts to tell anyone it is......so it's up to the 58 DAs to decide, not the police on the streets. If you plead your case on the streets and they let you go.......great. If not, we're off to DAs office for them to decide whether or not your case is worth taking to court.

Unless you get a super crazy DA, they'll kick it loose.

heyjak

11-16-2006, 10:16 PM

You know, we need to stop allowing that dog to hunt. The way that the laws in this society are being configured, where cops get national reprocity, get to buy and register AW's, get high caps, get exempted from the safe gun laws, storage laws, school zone laws, have the right to disarm you for safety, get credibility on issues of gun legislation, etc., they have been clearly set apart as meriting unusual trust and having unusual expertiese on the issue. Allowing them to deny being "special" when it suits they just doesnt fly. I'm very pro Law Enforcment, but if a cop cant make an AR safe without a hammer he's got no business carrying one on the job, or handling one in the course of his duties. If it was a bomb would he defuse it with a mallet or would he call the bomb squad. Same thing with AW laws. If you dont understand them well enough to tell a fixed mag OLL from an illegal unregistered AW, you should decline to make the collar or call for a someone who does have the expertiese. Any lower standard of conduct ammounts to bad judgement, harrasment, and a fundimental disrespect for the authority with which you have been entrusted.
So True, So True!

Cardinal Sin

11-16-2006, 10:26 PM

After reading all this, all I have to say is WOW:eek:

I mean, to have your parents call the cops on their own son . . man thats some serious issues to deal with. I think that is flat out screwed up . .but, I dont know SPG's family situation so I can judge on that.

As for the "Fuzz", (hahah I just had to type that since I heard it in a movie the other day:p ), giving him a hard time . . . it is obvious that ignorance of current issues played a large role in that OLL situation. This is a prime example of why the Cal DOJ needs to stop diddling around and take an official, clear, and simple, (Read: Plain mother#$%^ing english), stance. Since they already, in writing no less, stated the legality of the OLL's

If SPG were up to it, he could make a civil case and with the proper backing/reps, could force the Cal DOJ's Hand with this . . . just a thought.

Good luck with the family and legal issues SPG, whatever the outcome.

heyjak

11-16-2006, 10:28 PM

It's not up to him to determine if the gun is legal or not.

What? If the cop didn't KNOW, he had no reason to stop him in the first place!

Say it wasn't SPG and it was some criminal that had intentions of unpinning the mag 10 minutes later and robbing a bank, wouldn't you be happy the cop did something in that case?

Ridiculous! You can't arrest someone on what you perceive are their "intentions".

No flames here, just trying to be realistic. :D (I do see your point/s)

This whole incident pi**es me off! :mad: Should not have happened, etc.

artherd

11-16-2006, 10:39 PM

Hey, maybe you are right....I didn't read it that way and by the context of the rest of the post I dont see how it can be taken any other way, but who knows....

"They could have" if they wanted to go to prison for the rest of their lives for murder.....I guess anything is possible.

I know PIRATE14 personally, he's being pendemic on the sad state of affairs in this country right now, not endorsing said behavior.

SPG, I am not sure what your father excepected the police to act like other than police? He should have come to you first, hired an attorney second, gotten you counsuling if he thought something was really wrong and #1 and #2 failed. Calling the cops on family is not even on the radar. Dad would be paying my lawyer fees right now, plus buying me 6 new ARs! :D

MisterDudeManGuy

11-17-2006, 12:19 AM

Say it wasn't SPG and it was some criminal that had intentions of unpinning the mag 10 minutes later and robbing a bank, wouldn't you be happy the cop did something in that case?

I'm a bit late, so I missed this (above)...

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! This is what the anti's want you to think - that law enforcement is your protection from the evils of the world and that they should go beyond their legal bounds on the off-chance that they might net a bad guy. Because, after all, we should be helpless and only cops (and criminals) should have guns.

The truth is that 90% of law enforcement work is forensic in nature. This means that they arrive AFTER something happened and then spend time to figure out who did it, where they are, and go arrest them.

The correct answer to what you offer above is this: Sometimes people in a free society make bad decisions and that sometimes causes bad things to happen to other people. Part of the price of freedom is that uncertainty. We have the responsibility to protect ourselves and the police have the responsibility of bringing to justice those who would seek to violate our rights.

The police do not accomplish this noble goal by violating OUR rights on the off chance that we might be contemplating committing some unlawful act. Maybe. That's just wrong thinking. :eek:

And come on - do you really think a person who is going to rob a bank is going to wait to get there to unpin their mag - as if the weapon wouldn't be fully automatic with a drum mag anyway. Geez. :rolleyes:

M. Sage

11-17-2006, 12:38 AM

The truth is that 90% of law enforcement work is forensic in nature. This means that they arrive AFTER something happened and then spend time to figure out who did it, where they are, and go arrest them.

+1 to all that, especially this part.

You guys realize that the police (and the rest of the government, for that matter) have absolutely ZERO legal obligation to protect you? There's laws on the books, and a stack of court descisions saying so.

I bet 90+% of the people out there think that if you call the cops, they have to come protect you. Example? California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

MisterDudeManGuy

11-17-2006, 07:29 AM

You guys realize that the police (and the rest of the government, for that matter) have absolutely ZERO legal obligation to protect you? There's laws on the books, and a stack of court descisions saying so.

I bet 90+% of the people out there think that if you call the cops, they have to come protect you.[/url]

It's funny, but the misconception does run very deep in our society. A line I like to use is "the only thing that keeps our society together is politeness". I get weird looks initially, but it's true. There is not enough law enforcement in the whole world to keep everyone in line. It is our own individual behavior that keep this whole mess together.

Unfortunately for the anti's, when people realize this on a large scale it will cause people to stop the 2A infringement madness. When you realize that it is indeed only politeness keeping things together, and the police are not there to protect you (but rather are primarily there to sift the remains), THEN the right to keep and bears arms sells itself.

Not many, but SOME of the anti's already know this. Their agenda is about oppression. And the fact that they are not polite when it somes to the rights of the people. You should fear a government that fears your right to keep and bear arms.