PDA

View Full Version : California Police Union Legal opinion on Open Carry


CalCop
09-01-2011, 6:19 PM
While the tone of the below opinion is unfortunate (it seems to display disdain toward the actions of law-abiding gun owners) it is informative of the current attitude and understanding of Law Enforcement personnel.

Part 1

"OPEN CARRY" - ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY "POINT OF VIEW"

Our purpose, indeed our sole raison d'etre as a law firm, is to provide the most accurate, timely legal counsel possible to our law enforcement clients, and to do so with the public safety mission of our clients ever at the forefront of our minds and hearts.

We fully understand and appreciate the importance and urgency attached by our officers and deputies to seeing a person walking down a city street with a gun in plain view.

We understand and we empathize with the sense of incongruity experienced by our officers and deputies that this conduct is permitted under the law, and that the only action expressly permitted our officers and deputies by the Legislature is to check to see if the gun is loaded.

Indeed, the 21 years I spent as an officer with LAPD, working the streets in some of the most dangerous areas of the City, having been shot at on more than one occasion, gives me, personally, an even greater sense of concern on the part of the officers confronted by a person carrying a gun.

And we furthermore understand and embrace the notion that reasonable minds not only can, but do, differ on this important issue.

Nonetheless, we are taken aback by the "attack" lodged by the Alameda County District Attorney, in its recent "Point Of View" ("POV") bulletin, upon our firm and our advice as expressed in our August 23, 2011, Client Alert bulletin, entitled "Open Carry - Issue Arises Again." It is thus that we feel compelled to respond to the points made in the DA's bulletin.

"A California District Attorney"

The POV article works from the incorrect assumption that our Client Alert was in response to, and directed against, the Spring 2010 POV.1

First, the district attorney bulletin to which our Alert referred was not Alameda County; frankly, we've never seen the Spring 2010 POV article and didn't know it existed until now.

Secondly, we purposefully did not identify the district attorney's office to which we referred in our Alert, as we intended only to offer a counterpoint legal analysis, not to trigger an ad hominem exchange. That remains our purpose.

Thirdly, we noted in our August 2011 Alert that, while we disagreed with the opinion of that unnamed district attorney, our disagreement was respectful. We extend now that same courtesy by stating that we respectfully disagree with the understanding of the Alameda County District Attorney's Office of both the law and of our Client Alert.

Officer Safety

The most disturbing element of the POV article is where the anonymous writer states "The firm also disagrees with our view that officers who detain a person for openly carrying a firearm may take reasonable officer-safety precautions."2

Once again, we were not aware of, and therefore were not writing in response to, the Spring 2010 POV. We have no idea what views were expressed by this District Attorney in that earlier POV article.

But, far more importantly, the implication that this firm does not care about officer safety, and has supposedly opined that officers cannot take "reasonable officer-safety precautions," is not only wrong, it is offensive.

It ignores my law enforcement experience, as noted above, and the fact that, in addition to my experience, several of our associates have also served as law enforcement officers, both full time and/or as reserves.

We not only understand officer safety concerns, but have personal histories of stepping in harm's way doing the job of a police officer.

To suggest, therefore, that this firm generally, and I personally, are unconcerned for officer safety is uncalled for and shows a complete lack of knowledge of who were are and what we do.

Furthermore, a reading of our Alerts on this issue, in both December 2008 and August 2011, fails to reveal a single word where officer safety is even discussed, let alone an expression of disagreement with anyone on the issue of officer safety. They were not intended to be operational bulletins.

The Alerts were responding to specific legal issues posed to our firm by officers and deputies around the state. Those issues involved the authority to detain persons for a period of time necessary to "run" the person and/or the firearm; and, whether a person engaged in "open carry" could be required to identify themselves to officers or deputies.

Of course officers approaching an armed individual, including an apparent "open carry" subject, must take reasonable officer-safety measures in effecting the examination to determine ". . . whether or not the firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, ..." 3 We never did, and we never would, say otherwise.

"Open Carry"is Lawful Conduct

Lawyers, police officers and sheriff's deputies, and even district attorneys, don't make the law; the Legislature makes the law.

In 1968, our state Legislature acted to amend Penal Code §12031 from its prior form, which permitted "open carry" of a loadedgun in public, to now allow "open carry" of an unloadedfirearm in public. Thus, it is only a crime to carry a loadedfirearm in a public place or in a vehicle, etc.

It is therefore lawful conduct for a person to engage in "open carry" of an unloaded firearm in public.

It is an established rule of statutory construction that if the Legislature wants a statute to say a particular thing, it knows how to do so .4 If the Legislature had intended that "open carry" of an unloaded firearm be treated. as criminal conduct, it had the ability in 1968 - indeed, it still has the ability at any time - to say so. However, the Legislature chose to only go so far as to make criminal the "open carry" of a loadedfirearm.

Disagreement with that legislative decision is certainly understandable. But wishing it were otherwise, or finding it to be socially anomalous or incongruous, does not alter the fact that this is what the Legislature decided to do.

As such it is lawful conduct for a person, not otherwise legally disabled from possessing a firearm,5 to engage in "open carry." The POV even makes the observation that, "It is true, of course, that virtually all of the people who are openly carrying firearms 'for the purpose of demonstrating their Second Amendment right are law-abiding people."6

Therefore, and while there are issues of genuine safety concern in this area, we think that any analysis of these issues must be taken in the context that a person engaged in "open carry" of an unloaded firearm is not violating the law.

Authority to Detain

The Fourth Amendment permits the Government to stop and briefly detain a suspect, on less than probable cause to believe that a crime has been oris being committed, and/or to investigate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has engaged in or is about to engage in criminal activity.7

"Reasonable suspicion consists of 'a sufficiently high probability that criminal conduct is occurring to make the intrusion on the individual's privacy interest reasonable.'"8

The California Legislature provided, in subdivision (e) of §12031 that:

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

If one were to split technical hairs, one might observe that the Legislature did not say that an officer could detaina person for the purpose of making this "examination" of the firearm. However, it can be reasonably concluded that officers may stop and detain an "open carry" subject for the purpose of effectuating the examination expressly allowed by §12031(e).

But once the firearm is examined as allowed by statute, and has been found to be unloaded, what is the basis for further detention; what more is there to make a reasonable officer entertain a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot?

Note also that the legislation makes no mention of requiring subjects to produce identification, nor to detain them long enough to "run" them.

The POV cites to the case of Schubert v. City of Springfield,9 for the proposition that an officer simply seeing a person in public with a gun constitutes reasonable suspicion sufficient to warrant a Terry detention. 10

In Schubert, an officer observed a local attorney walking toward the courthouse and observed a firearm beneath the attorney's unbuttoned suit coat. The officer proceeded to make a Terry detention of this individual on the grounds that this constituted reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The officer cited - and the Court appeared to credit -- the fact that the attorney was walking toward a courthouse as evidence of criminal activity, and that in the officer's experience most people in Springfield did not have permits to carry guns.

But note that, unlike California, Massachusetts does not have a statute permitting "open carry" of a firearm in public. To the contrary, and irrespective of whether the firearm carried by Attorney Schubert was loaded or unloaded, carrying it constituted a crime under Massachusetts law unless Schubert had a permit to carry a firearm in public. 11

And, as noted by the officer in Schubert, most people in Springfield, Massachusetts, do not have gun permits, whereas - and as noted by the POV - most people engaged in "open carry" under California law are law abiding people.

We question therefore, how an officer can reach the conclusion that he or she has reasonable suspicion - meaning "'a sufficiently high probability that criminal conduct is occurring," as in Yuknavich, supra - when observing a person doing something which, on its face, is permitted under California law.

CalCop
09-01-2011, 6:19 PM
Part 2

Duration of Detention

The POV discusses some seeming distinction between "permissive" and "mandatory" statutes, apparently concluding that since §12031 "permits" inspection of the firearm that it therefore naturally follows that officers can extend the period of detention to check identity and run the person or the firearm through government data bases.12

Yet it is well established that "[t]he length and scope of detention must be justified by the circumstances authorizing its initiation."13 In a case where an officer had obtained sufficient information to issue a citation (the purpose of the original detention), a continued detention without probable cause to arrest for a crime, was held to be unreasonable. 14

It would seem to logically follow that if we can only detain for the period of time necessary to fulfill a lawful purpose, once that lawful purpose is fulfilled our authority to detain lapses, unless additional information exists which provides us with greater, new or different reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Of course, if officers or deputies are presented with specific and articulable facts which give them reasonable suspicion of a crime, they can detain long enough to investigate that suspicion. That an "open carry" subject could present an officer or deputy with reasonable suspicion to detain beyond the mere examination of the gun should be obvious. But this does not mean that the fact alone of "open carry" inherently provides that reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Obviously, there are circumstances which might well present an officer with reasonable suspicion to detain beyond the time necessary to examine the load status of the firearm. If the officers or deputies are presented with such facts, we all would want and expect them to follow those leads to a logical conclusion. And the law very clearly allows them to do so.

But, in our opinion, what the law does not allow officers to do is to detain an "open carry" subject beyond the time necessary to examine load status, unless there are additional facts presenting the officer or deputy with the reasonable suspicion required to justify further detention.

An officer can, of course, always ask the subject if he or she minds remaining for additional time, and if the subject voluntarily acquiesces then well and good. We simply question whether an "open carry" subject determined to have an unloaded firearm can be made to remain.

Checking Identity

The POV cites to People v. Rios 15 for the proposition that where there is a right to detain there is also a right to obtain an individual's identification."16

Even if true, the reasoning would be that the "right to detain" is a condition precedent to "a right to obtain an individual's identification." Note, therefore, that Rios involved an investigation of criminal activity, for which there was a "right to detain," and not of lawful conduct such as "open carry."

But it must also be observed that the Court in Rios, supra, cited to People v. Solomon 17 and to Yuen v. Municipal Court 18 for this right to demand identification where there is a right to detain. Closer examination reveals that the Courts in Solomon and Yuen were dealing with the application of then-Penal Code §647(e), which required an individual lawfully detained to identify himself or herself.

That statute existed in California law when Solomon was decided in 1973 and Yuen was decided in 1975. That statute still, in. fact, existed when Rios was decided in 1983. And what both Solomon and Yuen - as relied upon by Rios - held, was that §647(e) was a constitutional exercise of authority by the state Legislature.

But in 2007, the Legislature acted to remove former subdivision (e) of §647 in favor of the current (e), which now pertains to lodging in a structure or vehicle.

Thus, and unlike in Hiibel v. Nevada 19 relied upon in the POV 20,'' California no longer has a statute which requires lawfully detained persons to identify themselves to the police.

Of course, if the "open carry" is observed in the course of stopping someone for a Vehicle Code offense, the requirement of Vehicle Code § 40302(a) for presentation by the traffic violator of a drivers license or other satisfactory form of identification would still apply.

But a person walking down the street is not required to present identification, and with the removal of the former subdivision (e) from Penal Code §647, it is at best questionable whether a person stopped by the police has to identify themselves. This is particularly so, we think, where the person is stopped for facially lawful conduct as in "open carry" and the firearm is determined to be unloaded.

An officer can, of course, ask for subjects to identify themselves, either verbally or by presenting identifying documents. And if the person voluntarily acquiesces, then all is well and good.

We simply question whether a person can be forced the threat by further detention or by arrest to be identified?

Checking Firearm Serial Number

The POV states that we said officers "must not look at the gun's serial number as this would constitute an unlawful search."21

Nowhere in our Alert did we state that looking at a serial number in plain view would constitute an unlawful search. That was not said, nor do we believe that such a meaning could reasonably be taken from that Alert.

We addressed in that Alert what we felt was inappropriate reliance by that other district attorney on the holding in Arizona v. Hicks 22 regarding the "plain view" doctrine. We then stated that if an officer saw the serial number in plain view while examining the load status of the firearm, and read it aloud to a fellow officer, it was questionable whether there would exist cause to continue the detention for the period of time necessary to run the serial number through data bases.

Our concern was, therefore, and as stated throughout, for the period of detention and not for the legality of an officer casting his or her eyes upon a weapon serial number when that number was otherwise lawfully in view.

We simply question the authority for an officer to search into hidden places for the serial number (beneath a pistol grip or gun stock, etc.) without the subject's consent, and/or to make the person remain while the officer checks the serial number through data bases.

Conclusion

"Open carry" is an important issue of legitimate concern to us all. How officers and deputies respond to "open carry" situations deserves careful consideration of and training in how to do so in a manner consonant with, first and foremost, the safety of our officers and deputies; but also with sensible management of liability exposure.

Our firm has been actively involved in the development of proposed legislation to address this growing concern. It is also possible for the state legislature to enact a law which would require one who is openly carrying an unloaded weapon to provide identification, and to allow time for the officer to verify that the person is not prohibited from possessing a weapon. That action, however, rests with the legislature.

As with any issue, as stated above, reasonable minds can always disagree. It is, however, incumbent upon all of us who serve public safety to express, address and, if possible, resolve differing points of view through mutual respect and civil discourse based on thoughtful and informed consideration of our own views and those of others.

You are encouraged to consult with your designated legal counsel for further advice on this or any other matter.

1 [POV, pg. 1, 1st ¶]
2 [POV, pg. 2, 2nd to last ¶]
3 Penal Code §12031(e)
4 California Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, (1995) 11 Cal. 4th 342, 349.
5 Felons, persons subject to certain restraining orders, etc.
6 [POV, pg. 1 3`d full ¶]
7 Terry v. Ohio, (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 21-22
8 United States v. Yuknavich, (11th Cir, 2005) 419 F.3d 1302, 1311 (quoting United States v. Knights, (2001) 534 U.S. 112, 121.
9 POV, pg. 2, 3rd full ¶
10 (1st Cir, 2009) 589 F.3d 496
11 [See Annotated Laws of Massachusetts (ALM) (GL ch. 269, § 10 (2011)]
12 [POV, pg. 1, 4"' ¶]
13 See Terry, 392 U.S. at 16, 19
14 United States v. Luckett, (9th Cir. 1973) 484 F.2d 89, 90-91.
15 (1983) 140 Cal. App. 3d 616, 621
16 [PO(1973) 33 Cal. App. 3d 429, 435¬ 436)V, pg. 2-3, 6th' ¶]
17 (1973) 33 Cal. App. 3d 429, 435-436
18 (1975) 52 Cal. App. 3d 351)
19 (2004) 542 U.S. 177)
20 [POV, pg.3, 1st full ¶]
21 [POV, pg. 3, 2nd
22 (1987) 480 U.S. 321, 324)

Librarian
09-01-2011, 7:29 PM
"California Police Union" - which union/organization?

That sounds pretty rational to me.

CitaDeL
09-01-2011, 7:41 PM
Our firm has been actively involved in the development of proposed legislation to address this growing concern. It is also possible for the state legislature to enact a law which would require one who is openly carrying an unloaded weapon to provide identification, and to allow time for the officer to verify that the person is not prohibited from possessing a weapon. That action, however, rests with the legislature.

Here is your sign.

paul0660
09-01-2011, 7:45 PM
That was long. Or would have been if I read it. Synopsis in a dozen words?

Liberty1
09-01-2011, 7:51 PM
What America did these attorneys and former cops grow up in? Not mine obviously. But I'll give them two thumbs up for correct interpretation of current law and case law as it stands today. But I would urge them to prepare CA cops to rejoin America once 'Carry' is restored to the CA republic (as well as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) by SCOTUS. :)

killmime1234
09-01-2011, 7:55 PM
Wow. It's worded as if the writer expects all cops to want to be able to detain a person as long as is legally possible as well as extract as much information about their detainee as is legally possible. I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. It makes all cops sound like they are looking for any excuse to "nail" someone for "anything."

Most of the cops I've met would probably chuckle after reading this.

Liberty1
09-01-2011, 7:58 PM
That was long. Or would have been if I read it. Synopsis in a dozen words?

Alameda DA opines legally questionable OC stop tactics and accues a law firm of calling them out claiming the firm said the DA's opinion is bull **it. Firm says we did not consider your erroneous (BS) opinion in our opinion. But now that you mention it your opinion is BS.

And then they make a plea for all JBTs to unite behind Rights suppressing legislation.

To the attorney former cop author I would say this: Who do you think was shooting at you on patrol? Criminals who disregard the weapons laws and prey hundreds of thousands of times more fequently on our states disarmed citizens then on officers. Who needs a sidearm more or at least equally as others statistical?

choprzrul
09-01-2011, 8:02 PM
Jackwagons.....

.

SanPedroShooter
09-01-2011, 8:08 PM
I was going to write something snarky and probably anti LEO, but forget it (this state almost begs for us vs. them comparisons). Eventually police brass and their lawyers will have to wake up to the fact that California is indeed part of the US, and citizens carrying firearms is the new normal.

All in all the memo seems to grudgly agree that UOC is legal, damnit, and we better get our act together, or at least get on the same page.

Liberty1
09-01-2011, 8:21 PM
... citizens carrying firearms is the new OLD normal...

Fixed it :)

sandman21
09-01-2011, 8:23 PM
Wow. It's worded as if the writer expects all cops to want to be able to detain a person as long as is legally possible as well as extract as much information about their detainee as is legally possible. I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. It makes all cops sound like they are looking for any excuse to "nail" someone for "anything."

Most of the cops I've met would probably chuckle after reading this.

Thats basically what the Spring 2010 POV says; one little gem from the POV.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that Second Amendment rights are “not unlimited,”2 which apparently means that all of the California statutes pertaining to handgun control are constitutional and, therefore, enforceable.3 (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/spring2010.pdf)

Tripper
09-01-2011, 8:25 PM
Wow. It's worded as if the writer expects all cops to want to be able to detain a person as long as is legally possible as well as extract as much information about their detainee as is legally possible. I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. It makes all cops sound like they are looking for any excuse to "nail" someone for "anything."

Most of the cops I've met would probably chuckle after reading this.


I'm sorry, but, I've asked a number of cops, what would they do in relation to observing someone 'open carrying'
there were a number of them, which was actually the majority, that said.
"you would be cuffed and in my back seat until i ascertained who you are, who the gun belonged to, and if you could have it", and in the case of asking a single cop where there were more present, they all nodded in agreement to the statement.

not bashing or anything remotely close, actual questions and actual answers from actual cops.

i will say, the responses, vary, very little with counties, LA though is quite bold and most adamant with that type of response. Santa Clara is the same, while there are only a couple of counties that suggest checking the firearm might not even be done.

Meplat
09-01-2011, 9:08 PM
Cops and lawyers live in different realities. However there seems to be at least a modicum of communication. Is that a good thing? :confused:Wow. It's worded as if the writer expects all cops to want to be able to detain a person as long as is legally possible as well as extract as much information about their detainee as is legally possible. I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. It makes all cops sound like they are looking for any excuse to "nail" someone for "anything."

Most of the cops I've met would probably chuckle after reading this.

choprzrul
09-01-2011, 9:18 PM
Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights


Those who willingly oppress civil rights are........




.......jackwagons

.

SanPedroShooter
09-02-2011, 5:38 AM
Fixed it :)

ha ha, excuse me, new to me.

non sequitur
09-02-2011, 6:23 AM
Basically, it's a legal pissing contest between Martin Mayer's people at Jones & Mayer and the Alameda County DA's Office.

Martin Mayer's "Open Carry" Client Alert:

http://www.jones-mayer.com/clientalerts/ca2621082311.html


Alameda County DA POV article:

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/OPEN_CARRY.pdf

Stay safe!

Spelunker
09-02-2011, 6:58 AM
Those officers would have a sh** fit if they ran into me and my unlicensed, unregistered, unserialized AR pistol. I dont think they would have any idea what to do.

CHECK SERIAL NUMBER:
Officers who have temporarily seized a handgun may ordinarily examine the weapon to determine whether the serial number is in plain view. If so, it would
seem they could briefly prolong the detention to determine whether the weapon had been stolen. And, if the serial number is not in plain view, they should nevertheless be able to closely examine the weapon (i.e. “search” it) to locate the serial number for the purpose of running the serial number, and determining whether the detainee is carrying a weapon with an obliterated serial number in violation of Penal Code §§ 537e or 12094(a).

Now my question is would they try to say that I obliterated the serial number and then try to take me in?

The Shadow
09-02-2011, 7:22 AM
It's off topic, but this is part of the groups that would side against the constitution.

http://www.jones-mayer.com/images/home-off_13.jpg

Jones & Mayer will be filing an amicus curiae brief from the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the California Police Chiefs’ Association, and the California Peace Officers’ Association, in the Peruta case, supporting San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore’s authority to determine what constitutes “good cause” for the issuance of a CCW.

Uxi
09-02-2011, 7:32 AM
Recently, the office of a California district attorney published a training bulletin on the issue of open carry. The D.A. advanced the argument that officers confronted with a plain open carry situation – i.e., no suspicion of a criminal offense – can detain the person openly carrying a firearm, not only for the time necessary to determine the load status of the firearm, but also for such time as reasonably necessary to run the person for any history which would preclude possession of a firearm, as well as to run the firearm to determine if it is stolen.

Wait, which DA did this?

BigDogatPlay
09-02-2011, 5:06 PM
The article in the OP reads like it came straight out of Lexipol and Bruce Praet.

Ford8N
09-02-2011, 5:32 PM
I have to ask, why are cops so afraid of law abiding citizens...with guns?

vantec08
09-02-2011, 5:41 PM
I have to ask, why are cops so afraid of law abiding citizens...with guns?

Because LEOs serve and represent politicians and political interests which, at present, are anti-gun and gunowners.

craneman
09-02-2011, 5:45 PM
I have to ask, why are cops so afraid of law abiding citizens...with guns?

It seems as if the denser the population, the more afraid they are of guns in any scenario, good or bad. Even us non-threatening law abiding CITIZENS.

WASR10
09-02-2011, 5:48 PM
A proper open carry check by LEOs in Santa Clara. The whole cuffed in the cruiser thing seems more of a power trip than SOP to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxP9yaEcNm0

sandman21
09-02-2011, 6:10 PM
A proper open carry check by LEOs in Santa Clara. The whole cuffed in the cruiser thing seems more of a power trip than SOP to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxP9yaEcNm0

Here is how it should be done........

mv3kGffHHaU

WASR10
09-02-2011, 6:15 PM
Here is how it should be done........

mv3kGffHHaU

That's beautiful, right there.

SanPedroShooter
09-02-2011, 7:07 PM
It seems like some police advocates, in their efforts to "secure the scene", I cant remember the exact verbiage from the POST style class I took years ago, would be more than happy to be the only people with access to arms.

Fortunately it doesnt work that way in a free country. Could it make their jobs safer...? Or satisfy their often expressed first priority of officer safety and "getting home at night"...?

I am reminded of the deputy COP during Katrina, ""No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons."

It might be just as helpful to fit everyone with a GPS tracker, or install cameras on every street corner.

Our freedoms can be abused by criminals on both sides of the law, and it works both ways. What makes us as citizens safe, may be seen as a threat by police, and being harassed and disarmed can make the police seem like a threat to citizens.

I think lines need to be drawn. Criminals on one side as the enemies of peace and freedom, and everyone else on the other, armed citizens, police and otherwise.

This conflating citizen gun owners and their lawfully possessed and carried firearms with criminals and the guns they use to cause harm and mayhem has got to stop. It only benefits our common enemys. Their will always be some tension between police and citizens, as their should be. We are free people. The police arent super heros standing guard over a flock helpless sheep. And every good American is a bit of anti-authoritarian at heart, we were raised on it.

Reading stuff like this just depresses me for some reason. More so because we are talking about unloaded guns... Do they have this problem in other states?

Tundy
09-02-2011, 7:12 PM
I'm sorry, but, I've asked a number of cops, what would they do in relation to observing someone 'open carrying'
there were a number of them, which was actually the majority, that said.
"you would be cuffed and in my back seat until i ascertained who you are, who the gun belonged to, and if you could have it", and in the case of asking a single cop where there were more present, they all nodded in agreement to the statement.

not bashing or anything remotely close, actual questions and actual answers from actual cops.

i will say, the responses, vary, very little with counties, LA though is quite bold and most adamant with that type of response. Santa Clara is the same, while there are only a couple of counties that suggest checking the firearm might not even be done.

The cops you spoke to need some serious training or your simply stirring the pot. I'd say your stirring the pot given the agencies you listed. "Open Carry" is nothing new - it has been a topic of training for well over two years for modern LEO agencies (LASO/ LAPD). You may get some rookies to say something like that during an oral board but most Cops in California are up to speed this simply because agencies don't want to get sued.

Here's the deal. Cops can stop someone to inspect a weapon who is carrying an exposed (non- concealed). They are simply allowed to ensure the weapon is not loaded (and not illegal to possess). Once the weapon is determined to be unloaded (legal), they no longer have a reason to detain you. They can, however, ask you for ID , your shoe size, your favorite football team, or your prediction of the weather - basically have a conversation with you (you dont have to sit and talk with him/her). You simple need to ask if your being detained (they should say no) and you simply walk away. They can ask you a million questions - it's a free country and we ALL enjoy the freedom of speech. On the same note, we also enjoy the right to remain silent too!

Cops can not run the serial number even if it is covered with tape. I've argued this point (refer to 537(e)) of the penal code - which clearly states it is illegal to cover a serial number. I would consider taping your serial numbers as "covering". Many "Open Carry" folks are covering the serial number simply to establish a reason file suit. I hope this changes so in fact a cop can determine if a serial number actually exists vs. being filed off.

My view is simply this. Most Cops love guns and respect the right (law abiding citizens) to bear arms - they are in the same boat as you. They simply have a job to do and sadly, many Open Carry folks are simply testing Cops to establish law suits. Cops don't want to be sued - they want to put bad guys away. If you aren't a bad guy, you probably wont be jailed.

So, exercise your right to Open Carry all you want. But please take the time to let your local law enforcement know what your doing and where at to prevent lawsuits - and more importantly, God forbid, YOU GETTING SHOT AND KILLED FOR NO REASON by a rookie.

We have several groups that conduct open carry activities in Riverside County and call dispatch when they are exercising their right (Starbucks is popular). The cops may do a drive by to ensure the safety of everyone but most of them are educated enough to know they can only ensure the weapon is unloaded - then they go on about our business of catching criminals.

Check out Youtube. You'll see an Oceanside cop (former marine) deal with an open carry subject (another former marine). The cop pretty much makes the open carry subject look (probably feel) like a complete moron...

SanPedroShooter
09-02-2011, 7:26 PM
I understand that police are under no obligation to do e-checks. Also I find the idea of calling the police to warn them that I may be exercising my right to bear arms repugnant.

For the record, I dont care to carry an unloaded gun in plain sight.

robcoe
09-02-2011, 7:52 PM
I have to ask, why are cops so afraid of law abiding citizens...with guns?

Because many of them(not all, but way to many) forget that they are citizens as well.

sandman21
09-02-2011, 8:01 PM
The cops you spoke to need some serious training or your simply stirring the pot. I'd say your stirring the pot given the agencies you listed. "Open Carry" is nothing new - it has been a topic of training for well over two years for modern LEO agencies (LASO/ LAPD). You may get some rookies to say something like that during an oral board but most Cops in California are up to speed this simply because agencies don't want to get sued.
Yet LA tries to enforce laws not on the books LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE DISMISSES FALSE CHARGES (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=433671)
Or the recent issue in Upland, Livermore, the list can go on.
Here's the deal. Cops can stop someone to inspect a weapon who is carrying an exposed (non- concealed). They are simply allowed to ensure the weapon is not loaded (and not illegal to possess). Once the weapon is determined to be unloaded (legal), they no longer have a reason to detain you. They can, however, ask you for ID , your shoe size, your favorite football team, or your prediction of the weather - basically have a conversation with you (you dont have to sit and talk with him/her). You simple need to ask if your being detained (they should say no) and you simply walk away. They can ask you a million questions - it's a free country and we ALL enjoy the freedom of speech. On the same note, we also enjoy the right to remain silent too!
Where do you get justification for this?
Cops can not run the serial number even if it is covered with tape. I've argued this point (refer to 537(e)) of the penal code - which clearly states it is illegal to cover a serial number. I would consider taping your serial numbers as "covering". Many "Open Carry" folks are covering the serial number simply to establish a reason file suit. I hope this changes so in fact a cop can determine if a serial number actually exists vs. being filed off.
I am assuming that you meant cops can run, 12031e and Delong allow for the inspection of the firearm to check the load status, detaining someone longer than required to check the load status would require justification. "Many"? I know of only a couple and when told they were breaking the law they stopped. I agree we should let LEO's determine if serial have been removed from anything in 537(e), you know your watch, cell phone, or computer. :facepalm:

My view is simply this. Most Cops love guns and respect the right (law abiding citizens) to bear arms - they are in the same boat as you. They simply have a job to do and sadly, many Open Carry folks are simply testing Cops to establish law suits. Cops don't want to be sued - they want to put bad guys away. If you aren't a bad guy, you probably wont be jailed.
Again "many" there has been what three lawsuits out of all the UOC encounters, hardly trying to turn out lawsuits against LEO's

epilepticninja
09-02-2011, 8:13 PM
The CA Police Union should go to Arizona. The cops there deal with people open loaded carrying, CCW'ing, etc., all the time. They don't seem to have to issue statements about it.

SanPedroShooter
09-02-2011, 8:29 PM
That is a very good point. They have big Metro cities in Arizona right? Crime? Illegals? Every problem that every CA metro has?

As usual, California is different...

Manic Moran
09-02-2011, 8:36 PM
That was long. Or would have been if I read it. Synopsis in a dozen words?

Shortest version: "You don't like people carrying guns. We don't like people carrying guns. But whether we like it or not, until it gets changed it's their legal right to do so under the laws passed by the legislature, so you can't hold them any longer than it takes to check it's unloaded."

NTM

The Shadow
09-02-2011, 9:14 PM
The cops you spoke to need some serious training or your simply stirring the pot. I'd say your stirring the pot given the agencies you listed. "Open Carry" is nothing new - it has been a topic of training for well over two years for modern LEO agencies (LASO/ LAPD). You may get some rookies to say something like that during an oral board but most Cops in California are up to speed this simply because agencies don't want to get sued.

Here's the deal. Cops can stop someone to inspect a weapon who is carrying an exposed (non- concealed). They are simply allowed to ensure the weapon is not loaded (and not illegal to possess). Once the weapon is determined to be unloaded (legal), they no longer have a reason to detain you. They can, however, ask you for ID , your shoe size, your favorite football team, or your prediction of the weather - basically have a conversation with you (you dont have to sit and talk with him/her). You simple need to ask if your being detained (they should say no) and you simply walk away. They can ask you a million questions - it's a free country and we ALL enjoy the freedom of speech. On the same note, we also enjoy the right to remain silent too!

Cops can not run the serial number even if it is covered with tape. I've argued this point (refer to 537(e)) of the penal code - which clearly states it is illegal to cover a serial number. I would consider taping your serial numbers as "covering". Many "Open Carry" folks are covering the serial number simply to establish a reason file suit. I hope this changes so in fact a cop can determine if a serial number actually exists vs. being filed off.

My view is simply this. Most Cops love guns and respect the right (law abiding citizens) to bear arms - they are in the same boat as you. They simply have a job to do and sadly, many Open Carry folks are simply testing Cops to establish law suits. Cops don't want to be sued - they want to put bad guys away. If you aren't a bad guy, you probably wont be jailed.

So, exercise your right to Open Carry all you want. But please take the time to let your local law enforcement know what your doing and where at to prevent lawsuits - and more importantly, God forbid, YOU GETTING SHOT AND KILLED FOR NO REASON by a rookie.

We have several groups that conduct open carry activities in Riverside County and call dispatch when they are exercising their right (Starbucks is popular). The cops may do a drive by to ensure the safety of everyone but most of them are educated enough to know they can only ensure the weapon is unloaded - then they go on about our business of catching criminals.

Check out Youtube. You'll see an Oceanside cop (former marine) deal with an open carry subject (another former marine). The cop pretty much makes the open carry subject look (probably feel) like a complete moron...

Check out You Tube. You'll see Upland cops treating two open carriers like felons.

The Shadow
09-02-2011, 9:23 PM
The CA Police Union should go to Arizona. The cops there deal with people open loaded carrying, CCW'ing, etc., all the time. They don't seem to have to issue statements about it.

That is a very good point. They have big Metro cities in Arizona right? Crime? Illegals? Every problem that every CA metro has?

As usual, California is different...

Washington State, Indiana, and Vermont are way ahead of the pack. I got an LTC in Washington 34 years ago, it cost me $15.00, and I waited 30 days to get it. For "Good Cause", the people at the Pierce County Sheriff's Office told me to simply list "Sports and Protection" as my reason for wanting the permit. A background was done to make sure I wasn't a prohibited person, and they took my finger prints. The application was two pages, and all I had to do was list my address, give my name, and date of birth. Now that's real Shall Issue.

Meplat
09-02-2011, 10:03 PM
I thought you had to serialize a home built pistol.

Those officers would have a sh** fit if they ran into me and my unlicensed, unregistered, unserialized AR pistol. I dont think they would have any idea what to do.



Now my question is would they try to say that I obliterated the serial number and then try to take me in?

Meplat
09-02-2011, 10:08 PM
They must recruit the BLM wannabes from urban areas then.It seems as if the denser the population, the more afraid they are of guns in any scenario, good or bad. Even us non-threatening law abiding CITIZENS.

SVT-40
09-02-2011, 10:10 PM
"OPEN CARRY" - ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY "POINT OF VIEW"


This has nothing to do with "Police unions".

The OP artfully lies and blames the information on some unnamed "police union" when in fact the information is from the ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE.


Shame on you for your smear tactics. Talk about a "us against them" mentality.

But I guess it's okay to lie and smear about police officers.



While the tone of the below opinion is unfortunate (it seems to display disdain toward the actions of law-abiding gun owners) it is informative of the current attitude and understanding of Law Enforcement personnel.

So you lump ALL law enforcement together..... Nice you should be ashamed of yourself.

The tone of your post is unfortunate. You do display disdain towards the actions of law abiding police officers.... It's informative of your attitude.

Meplat
09-02-2011, 10:59 PM
The cops you spoke to need some serious training or your simply stirring the pot. I'd say your stirring the pot given the agencies you listed. "Open Carry" is nothing new - it has been a topic of training for well over two years for modern LEO agencies (LASO/ LAPD). You may get some rookies to say something like that during an oral board but most Cops in California are up to speed this simply because agencies don't want to get sued.

Well as you say later in this post we all have freedom of speech. Maybe these cops knew better. But this was not an oral board, this was John Q. Public asking a question. They may have thought that an aggressive stance suited their purposes at the time. What they say and what they know they would actually do may be two different things. If there stance deterred someone, so that they would not have to deal with him later under dicey circumstances, so much the better. If the inquirer was a nervous Nelly citizen, the response might be reassuring.

Here's the deal. Cops can stop someone to inspect a weapon who is carrying an exposed (non- concealed). They are simply allowed to ensure the weapon is not loaded (and not illegal to possess). Once the weapon is determined to be unloaded (legal), they no longer have a reason to detain you. They can, however, ask you for ID , your shoe size, your favorite football team, or your prediction of the weather - basically have a conversation with you (you dont have to sit and talk with him/her). You simple need to ask if your being detained (they should say no) and you simply walk away. They can ask you a million questions - it's a free country and we ALL enjoy the freedom of speech. On the same note, we also enjoy the right to remain silent too!

Cops can not run the serial number even if it is covered with tape. I've argued this point (refer to 537(e)) of the penal code - which clearly states it is illegal to cover a serial number. I would consider taping your serial numbers as "covering". Many "Open Carry" folks are covering the serial number simply to establish a reason file suit. I hope this changes so in fact a cop can determine if a serial number actually exists vs. being filed off.

Open carriers looking for lawsuits, is as big a myth as all cops being anti gun. I understand the paranoia on both sides. A cop has to make a bunch of decisions every day that could get him and his department sued. But I challenge you or anyone else reading this to pony up the evidence that this is true. If it is there should be a heap of pending lawsuits. Can you direct us to them?

My view is simply this. Most Cops love guns and respect the right (law abiding citizens) to bear arms - they are in the same boat as you. They simply have a job to do and sadly, many Open Carry folks are simply testing Cops to establish law suits. Cops don't want to be sued - they want to put bad guys away. If you aren't a bad guy, you probably wont be jailed.

I feel better already. Don’t you?:rolleyes:

So, exercise your right to Open Carry all you want. But please take the time to let your local law enforcement know what your doing and where at to prevent lawsuits - and more importantly, God forbid, YOU GETTING SHOT AND KILLED FOR NO REASON by a rookie.

If this is actually a likely possibility then, damn straight, someone needs more training. I personally think that most cops are levelheaded enough that this won’t happen, unless someone makes a real bonehead move.

We have several groups that conduct open carry activities in Riverside County and call dispatch when they are exercising their right (Starbucks is popular). The cops may do a drive by to ensure the safety of everyone but most of them are educated enough to know they can only ensure the weapon is unloaded - then they go on about our business of catching criminals.

Check out Youtube. You'll see an Oceanside cop (former marine) deal with an open carry subject (another former marine). The cop pretty much makes the open carry subject look (probably feel) like a complete moron...

BTW: Welcome to the forum.;)

Meplat
09-02-2011, 11:08 PM
That is a very good point. They have big Metro cities in Arizona right? Crime? Illegals? Every problem that every CA metro has?

As usual, California is different...

Yes! They have Illegal’s running out their ^$$. And drug gangs abducting their people :rolleyes:

CABilly
09-03-2011, 3:36 AM
"OPEN CARRY" - ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY "POINT OF VIEW"


This has nothing to do with "Police unions".

The OP artfully lies and blames the information on some unnamed "police union" when in fact the information is from the ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE.


Shame on you for your smear tactics. Talk about a "us against them" mentality.

But I guess it's okay to lie and smear about police officers.





So you lump ALL law enforcement together..... Nice you should be ashamed of yourself.

The tone of your post is unfortunate. You do display disdain towards the actions of law abiding police officers.... It's informative of your attitude.


:facepalm:

Go back and read past the first few paragraphs of the OP.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-03-2011, 5:28 AM
Those officers would have a sh** fit if they ran into me and my unlicensed, unregistered, unserialized AR pistol. I dont think they would have any idea what to do.



Now my question is would they try to say that I obliterated the serial number and then try to take me in?


I would think that to be just about guaranteed.


The Raisuli

donw
09-03-2011, 8:06 AM
it would seem to me that the LE should check make sure the pistol is unloaded and all laws pertaining thereof are met satisfactorily and tell the person "Have a nice day".

Uxi
09-03-2011, 8:24 AM
That is a very good point. They have big Metro cities in Arizona right? Crime? Illegals? Every problem that every CA metro has?

As usual, California is different...

Unfortunately not entirely. It was in Arizona that an over-militarized SWAT got away with murdering Jose Guerena...

vantec08
09-03-2011, 9:47 AM
A proper open carry check by LEOs in Santa Clara. The whole cuffed in the cruiser thing seems more of a power trip than SOP to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxP9yaEcNm0

Yes. Wielding authority takes precedence over the 2nd amendment.