PDA

View Full Version : Was at Lytle Creek today, forest svc/rangers/whoever came/inspected rifles-2 busted!


DisgruntledReaper
02-04-2012, 8:18 PM
Hey guys, just a REMINDER-MAKE SURE YOUR GUNS AND YOUR FRIENDS" ARE COMPLIANT!!!!!!:eek::eek::facepalm::facepalm:

Went to Lytle Creek today to check function and sight in a couple FAL's and at one point 2 Sherrif/BLM/Rangers showed up -basically whoever has jurisdiction or controls the area.

They proceeded to go down the line inspecting the rifles and got 2 people.....

1st guy- had AR -typical M4gery w eotech,tele-stock,etc and -i did not SEE what kind of BB he had- but I guess in shooting it had loosened or backed off, something so even though it LOOKED fine, they were able to drop the mag with the finger...no tool.... SO they basically gave him a stiff warning-but they officers were pretty cool- the apparent senior guy 'strongly suggested' he borrow a screwdriver and tighten it up ASAP and put a drop of loctite on it to avoid it happening. The senior officer told him they WOULD take it next time....

They go down the range and find 3 guys with AR's 2 fine, 1 NOT--guy came in from Arizona for his BIL funeral(other 2 guys were there for funeral also-1 from hawaii and one from Kali) . They guy from AZ brought his AR... no BB installed and I THINK ( I did not evesdrop too much) his lower was Colt/Armalite/BM or something else that they nailed him for 2 FELONIES....WTFH.... they took pics of rifle, ran the make and ser-why, no use,not registered, from AZ...... He was over talking to the officers so I dont know much more, I dont even know if they arrested him ...I THINK they escorted the 3 guys off the range and from there who knows....

They DID see my L1A1, I told them the mag is fixed... the main guy says 'show me' sooo I went up and depressed the mag release-it still move some- but the mag is fixed, wont come out. He says need a tool? I say.. 'nope it is pinned or there is a wedge or spacer,only way to get it out is to REMOVE the BHO,Mag release..basically some dismantling is needed.. he nodded and said 'really?, ok thank's' .. He did mention 'nice looking rifle you have' I said 'thank's.


ANYWAY.... they are out there checking.... glad my 1 fal with the gripwrap was in the car--has a MB and normal mag release so I can use 20's and is LEGALLY CONFIGURED....but I could see it now-they yank and pull at the gripwrap-it somehow comes off and they hassle me...

just make sure anyone who goes with you has their stuff correct and also 'proper mag useage'- no 30's in the BB rifle:facepalm:

67Roadster
02-04-2012, 8:37 PM
I was told that a Plainfield M1 Carbine was a no no in CA...anyone know if that is true?

HowardW56
02-04-2012, 8:41 PM
I was told that a Plainfield M1 Carbine was a no no in CA...anyone know if that is true?

It's a M-1 carbine, does it have a standard stock, or a pistol grip stock?

diggersdarling
02-04-2012, 8:43 PM
Geeeeeeez.....

I don't think one has to submit to a rifle inspection like that...

Joe
02-04-2012, 8:48 PM
Sucks. I hate everything about that story.

GrizzlyGuy
02-04-2012, 8:52 PM
They DID see my L1A1, I told them the mag is fixed... the main guy says 'show me' sooo I went up and depressed the mag release-it still move some- but the mag is fixed, wont come out. He says need a tool? I say.. 'nope it is pinned or there is a wedge or spacer,only way to get it out is to REMOVE the BHO,Mag release..basically some dismantling is needed.. he nodded and said 'really?, ok thank's' .. He did mention 'nice looking rifle you have' I said 'thank's.

Why on earth did you cooperate with these guys? They don't get to inspect firearms whenever they want to.

manuelcardenas77
02-04-2012, 8:53 PM
Play stupid games... Bla Bla u guys no the rest...

manuelcardenas77
02-04-2012, 8:53 PM
*know*

IrishJoe3
02-04-2012, 9:01 PM
1st guy- had AR -typical M4gery w eotech,tele-stock,etc and -i did not SEE what kind of BB he had- but I guess in shooting it had loosened or backed off, something so even though it LOOKED fine, they were able to drop the mag with the finger...no tool.... SO they basically gave him a stiff warning-but they officers were pretty cool- the apparent senior guy 'strongly suggested' he borrow a screwdriver and tighten it up ASAP and put a drop of loctite on it to avoid it happening. The senior officer told him they WOULD take it next time....
:

WAIT WAIT WAIT.....So you're telling me that several Ca LEOs while on duty encountered what was clearly an assault rifle, and despite the fact of the blatant felony nothing happened? No one went to jail? No weapons confiscated? No one proned out?

Crazy....California coppers must be getting soft....

67Roadster
02-04-2012, 9:02 PM
It's a M-1 carbine, does it have a standard stock, or a pistol grip stock?

It has a regular m1 carbine stock.

SuperSet
02-04-2012, 9:05 PM
Given all the history there, why do you still visit Lytle Creek?

Mr Wizard
02-04-2012, 9:06 PM
All my firearms are compliant, but that BS is why I stopped going to LCFL. It's BLM land for me now.

microwaveguy
02-04-2012, 9:06 PM
I was told that a Plainfield M1 Carbine was a no no in CA...anyone know if that is true?

M1 Carbines are fine ....... paratroop folding stock is not.
Not unless you come up with a custom configuration like pinning the stock.

Helpful_Cub
02-04-2012, 9:12 PM
WAIT WAIT WAIT.....So you're telling me that several Ca LEOs while on duty encountered what was clearly an assault rifle, and despite the fact of the blatant felony nothing happened? No one went to jail? No weapons confiscated? No one proned out?

Crazy....California coppers must be getting soft....

BLM officers actually work for the Federal Government. But yes, it is refreshing that they are trying to not make felons out of people trying to follow the law.

FourLoko
02-04-2012, 9:14 PM
no magazine checks for "permanence?"

that's all I worry about

PsychGuy274
02-04-2012, 9:16 PM
I had an officer ask if he could try and drop a mag from my AR at Lytle Creek once.

My answer: "No."

Then he said, okay let me see you drop it then.

My answer: "No."

I just packed up and left from there.

Liberty1
02-04-2012, 9:19 PM
It's good that apparently no arrests were made. But why warn 'next time' an arrest will be made? It's a bad felony hook this time but it's a good one next? Dumb bad laws should never be enforced by good LE.

wildhawker
02-04-2012, 9:19 PM
Why on earth did you cooperate with these guys? They don't get to inspect firearms whenever they want to.

This!!

-Brandon

HowardW56
02-04-2012, 9:21 PM
It has a regular m1 carbine stock.

Then it is just a semi-auto rifle.... No big deal....

cindynles
02-04-2012, 9:30 PM
Geeeeeeez.....

I don't think one has to submit to a rifle inspection like that...

Why on earth did you cooperate with these guys? They don't get to inspect firearms whenever they want to.

All my firearms are compliant, but that BS is why I stopped going to LCFL. It's BLM land for me now.

If they are like the Rangers at Bee Canyon they don't care if you cooperate/consent, they are going to inspect your rifle no matter what the law says. Keep a video camera in your range bag.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=393368

CSACANNONEER
02-04-2012, 10:18 PM
I wonder what they would do if they came across a legally configured featureless rifle with +10 round mags or, even better, a RAW?

Brandon04GT
02-04-2012, 10:19 PM
I always thought that adjustable bullet buttons were bad ideas...

ElvenSoul
02-04-2012, 10:22 PM
I always thought that adjustable bullet buttons were bad ideas...

+1 Getting mighty close to the line.

12voltguy
02-04-2012, 10:38 PM
I always thought that adjustable bullet buttons were bad ideas...

BS
they don't just turn out 3-4 full turns
that guy had it adjusted out & just played dumb when caught.:facepalm:

DisgruntledReaper
02-04-2012, 10:45 PM
To answer some questions--

1- They came by when there was a cease fire and we all have to stay off the concrete and no handling of firearms PERIOD, no handling of AMMO PERIOD -that includes to/from cars,etc... The RO's go by and check to make sure-or try- to make sure all rifles are according to the effed up laws.. ie they WILL tell you to put it away because they DONT want crap like this to happen.. matter of fact 1 Ro was sorry he did not catch the guy from out of state, the 3 guys came like 2 minute before the cease fire and hurredly put out their stuff 'to beat the bell' and 1 got missed. The RO was bummed it happened.

I guess if all of us would have bum rushed the concrete and stood in front of our stuff we could have prevented it(?) or start other stuff.....

And not much you can do when you are all milling about and being kept off the concrete away from your stuff.... things probably would have played out different if they started just saying 'we are taking all these in' then I think stuff would have gone down....

Anyway I had nothing to worry about I had seen them -the trucks- before, they usually just did a turn and burn, never saw them do this before. If they would have started in I would have told them they are not qualified to determine what is and is not an AW according to the law and my rifle was legal.

I actually did not catch if the Officers were FED or State- I assumed STATE since the hassle ensued.... I WILL say ,even though I DONT know if the out of state guy was arrested or he and friends were escorted/told to leave.... they were there 1 minute, gone the next..and of the 3 guys - 1 was Coast Guard, 1 was Kali EMT, the AZ-busted- guy was EMT and the one who's BIL died/was here for funeral... I dont know if any 'professional courtesy' was extended or not. All I know is I saw no proning,no handcuffs, no tazers, etc..... FWIW it was apparent that at least the one officer was trying NOT to bust people for flow chart oops... but I guess the AZ guy had a number of things... maybe a dreaded bayo lug or who knows.....

2- Reason I go to LC- it is the only place within like 100+ miles where I can go test my rewelds like Bren and MG42,etc where I ask for place far away , tell them I will be sandbagging the firearm, tying a string and 'remote firing'... I dont want a 'kaboom' to affect others. Also I have had some ' firing malfunctions' due to jacked up ammo, component issues and the Ro's have not gone all paranoid.
Last time I was at Burro, was on a private range and had effin rounds buzz OVER the BERM-- WTFH! Angeles?- PLEASE, what a bunch of DOUCHES over there..... Rahaugges? -Really-$30 for 2 HOURS IF YOU CAN GET A SPOT on the rifle or pistol range and with having like 8 crushed next to each other spots in pillbox like comfort...
I have found out that I need to go all the way PAST BARSTOW to 'legally' shoot rifles or go out to like Indio, past palm springs........ sooo experts WTFE am I supposed to go?? I checked BLM and it shows SHOTGUN ONLY in every other place I can locate..you guys going to BLM land better recheck your locations.

Anyway I was just trying remind people.. I have heard they are doing 'sneak attacks ' like this at Burro also...

I truly believe the State is trying to shutdown ALL ranges in the Forests otherwise if NATIONAL forest then FED laws should govern and NOT state but we all know this BS argument of overlapping laws...

So take my posts for what you want.....

wildhawker
02-04-2012, 11:08 PM
I have never seen a numerical definition of "reasonable suspicion"

And, I think, we never will. Accordingly, I won't speculate on the value or appropriateness of possible numerical definitions of RS. However, let me ask you this: what comes first in your analysis, the value of total alleged unlawful configurations as might be stipulated in an officer's citation(s) [the chicken(s)] or the search(s) and seizure(s) of a group of individuals who are lawfully shooting their firearms and not otherwise exhibiting any unlawful behavior or doing any unlawful acts [the egg(s)]?

Any inspection of the firing line without going to seizing property (and likely detaining the 'suspects'] would probably indicate that the shooters were <gasp> shooting firearms.

-Brandon

Intimid8tor
02-04-2012, 11:13 PM
BS
they don't just turn out 3-4 full turns
that guy had it adjusted out & just played dumb when caught.:facepalm:

I actually have one that does on my 9mm AR. It's the one that is screwed into the KNS pins. A little loctite keeps it engaged. I prefer the other one that has a built in spring and can be unlocked.

wildhawker
02-04-2012, 11:18 PM
I always thought that adjustable bullet buttons were bad ideas...

They are.

-Brandon

diggersdarling
02-04-2012, 11:20 PM
If the guns are on the line when the range is cold and no one is to be touching them, then the cops shouldn't be fingering the guns then, right?

This makes me want to get an AR engraved with all kinds of Colt stuff on it, just to see what happens.

5thgen4runner
02-04-2012, 11:25 PM
If the guns are on the line when the range is cold and no one is to be touching them, then the cops shouldn't be fingering the guns then, right?

This makes me want to get an AR engraved with all kinds of Colt stuff on it, just to see what happens.


.........

repubconserv
02-04-2012, 11:30 PM
If the guns are on the line when the range is cold and no one is to be touching them, then the cops shouldn't be fingering the guns then, right?

This makes me want to get an AR engraved with all kinds of Colt stuff on it, just to see what happens.

You are also not supposed to have guns on a k-12 campus, but I drive by Hemet high everyday and see mr Sheriff there with his sidearm. Point is, certain rules do not apply to cops, whether it is in the law, or just cops getting away with it because of their badge (not bashing cops, so do not take it that way).

As to marking your AR with Colt stuffs... more than likely you will end up a few thousand dollars poorer... and just might even go to prison for a while.

diggersdarling
02-04-2012, 11:47 PM
You are also not supposed to have guns on a k-12 campus, but I drive by Hemet high everyday and see mr Sheriff there with his sidearm. Point is, certain rules do not apply to cops, whether it is in the law, or just cops getting away with it because of their badge (not bashing cops, so do not take it that way).

As to marking your AR with Colt stuffs... more than likely you will end up a few thousand dollars poorer... and just might even go to prison for a while.

Unless these guys consented to the search, those cops shouldn't have been anywhere near the guns. Unless they charge me with a crime, arrest and then seize my property, they sure as hell aren't going to be looking at my guns. I am not cozy with the men in blue so no offense taken either.

I think you're wrong about the second part but crazier things have happened.

I guess the best thing to do is carry a voice recorder around wherever you go. I never leave home without mine.

dantodd
02-05-2012, 6:55 AM
Unless these guys consented to the search, those cops shouldn't have been anywhere near the guns. Unless they charge me with a crime, arrest and then seize my property, they sure as hell aren't going to be looking at my guns. I am not cozy with the men in blue so no offense taken either.

In plain sight doctrine applies to a visual inspection here. If they choose to physically touch the gun they need permission or RS. Sadly, CA laws define AW in such a way that an officer could come up with RS that fits most courts' definition quite easily.

CTallerico
02-05-2012, 7:02 AM
Your papers pleazzzze...

wildhawker
02-05-2012, 7:09 AM
In plain sight doctrine applies to a visual inspection here. If they choose to physically touch the gun they need permission or RS. Sadly, CA laws define AW in such a way that an officer could come up with RS that fits most courts' definition quite easily.

Sounds to me that the AWB is so vague and ambiguous that LE might find any semi-auto, centerfire rifle to be cause for RAS...

-Brandon

cdtx2001
02-05-2012, 7:26 AM
Looks like the LEOs went on a fishing trip and some took the bait, including the OP.

Never consent to any search.

What gives the LEOs the right to inspect firearms at a shooting range? An "E" check is invalid since no one is transporting a firearm, they are at a range with loaded weapons.

tenpercentfirearms
02-05-2012, 7:32 AM
Wouldn't the officers standing back watching you shoot and releasing a featured rifle magazine without the use of a tool be RS or even PC to investigate? Sure it turns out to be a RAW, but the cop has to inspect it. Plain sight rule.

That is why I keep my crap legal and even then, I never shoot anywhere near anyone really. However, if the BLM showed up, I would probably be friendly with them depending on my mood. I might try and flex my rights if they wanted to take the conversation beyond Geocaching or my gun shop (assuming he didn't get an instant woody when he sees the can attached to the end of the rifle/handgun).

dantodd
02-05-2012, 7:47 AM
Sounds to me that the AWB is so vague and ambiguous that LE might find any semi-auto, centerfire rifle to be cause for RAS...

-Brandon

It certainly does.

SanPedroShooter
02-05-2012, 7:49 AM
**** this state.

dantodd
02-05-2012, 7:49 AM
Wouldn't the officers standing back watching you shoot and releasing a featured rifle magazine without the use of a tool be RS or even PC to investigate? Sure it turns out to be a RAW, but the cop has to inspect it. Plain sight rule.

I was more than old enough to buy a gun and register it in 2000. I don't believe seeing me drop a mag at a range is RAS that I am committing a felony.

diggersdarling
02-05-2012, 8:05 AM
Wouldn't the officers standing back watching you shoot and releasing a featured rifle magazine without the use of a tool be RS or even PC to investigate? Sure it turns out to be a RAW, but the cop has to inspect it. Plain sight rule.

That is why I keep my crap legal and even then, I never shoot anywhere near anyone really. However, if the BLM showed up, I would probably be friendly with them depending on my mood. I might try and flex my rights if they wanted to take the conversation beyond Geocaching or my gun shop (assuming he didn't get an instant woody when he sees the can attached to the end of the rifle/handgun).

The whole "has to inspect thing" sounds really fishy.

mallard
02-05-2012, 8:41 AM
i hear stories like that all the time but have never been involved, so for awhile i wasn't really sure to what extent these events are actually occuring, but now i know.

vantec08
02-05-2012, 8:46 AM
Have had similar dealings with BLM rangers in the high desert. Refused his inspection "request" - he returned the next morning with backup. Its about enforcing political interests using (or misusing) authority. Sorry LEOs, you arent my "friend" anymore. I realize it isnt necessarily by your choice, just the way it is.

DemocracyEnaction
02-05-2012, 9:05 AM
Have had similar dealings with BLM rangers in the high desert. Refused his inspection "request" - he returned the next morning with backup. Its about enforcing political interests using (or misusing) authority. Sorry LEOs, you arent my "friend" anymore. I realize it isnt necessarily by your choice, just the way it is.

Commie Enforcers. Sounds extreme but it's becoming true.

SuperSet
02-05-2012, 9:20 AM
If you choose to shoot there, you know the risks. Ironically, Lytle Creek is right next to West End Gun Club where you can shoot to your hearts content without being bothered. Think about a membership there.

tenpercentfirearms
02-05-2012, 9:21 AM
I was more than old enough to buy a gun and register it in 2000. I don't believe seeing me drop a mag at a range is RAS that I am committing a felony.

It is reasonable suspicion that it needs to be a RAW. The other option is to watch you put it in an unlocked case and throw it in your truck then pull you over for possible illegal transportation of a RAW.

I mean there are a lot of ways the LEO can skin the Calgunner here if they want to spend the time and effort doing it correctly.

I am not saying you shouldn't stand up for your rights and refuse a search, but at the same time, the plain view rule from shooting in public might really limit your defense of such searches if they actually observe you doing things that look illegal. Yes, refuse, but don't be surprised if the search holds up in court. SO DO NOT DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL SO YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT A SEARCH HOLDING UP!

Calplinker
02-05-2012, 9:25 AM
If you choose to shoot there, you know the risks. Ironically, Lytle Creek is right next to West End Gun Club where you can shoot to your hearts content without being bothered. Think about a membership there.

This. I used to shoot at Lytle before joining WEGC. Very nice to be at a private range where only members are allowed. No one inspects anything or cares what you do as long as you obey the club rules.

cindynles
02-05-2012, 9:40 AM
Wouldn't the officers standing back watching you shoot and releasing a featured rifle magazine without the use of a tool be RS or even PC to investigate? Sure it turns out to be a RAW, but the cop has to inspect it. Plain sight rule.

The problem I have had (several times now) is that I own and shoot RAWs. The LEOs assume that they are illegal when they see me shooting them (even though there are hundreds of thousands of legal RAWs in CA). There is no requirement that I carry a copy of my letter from Bill Lockyer to prove my RAWs are legal, but every time I run into one of these overzealous LEOs its either show me your papers or go to jail. I really don't want to be a test case for a false arrest suit.

OleCuss
02-05-2012, 9:46 AM
It is reasonable suspicion that it needs to be a RAW. The other option is to watch you put it in an unlocked case and throw it in your truck then pull you over for possible illegal transportation of a RAW.

I mean there are a lot of ways the LEO can skin the Calgunner here if they want to spend the time and effort doing it correctly.

I am not saying you shouldn't stand up for your rights and refuse a search, but at the same time, the plain view rule from shooting in public might really limit your defense of such searches if they actually observe you doing things that look illegal. Yes, refuse, but don't be surprised if the search holds up in court. SO DO NOT DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL SO YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT A SEARCH HOLDING UP!

I agree that the best thing is not to do anything illegal.

But I find it bizarre that doing things which are perfectly legal would be reasonable suspicion.

I am old enough to have legally purchased a RAW. And, in fact, I did. I also got a bunch of 30 round magazines.

So why should it be kosher for an LEO to wander around and decide to harass me because I've got a Dalphon AR-15 with an evil feature or two and 30 round magazines?

And yes, most people figure I'm about a decade younger than I am so you could have an LEO decide that I'm not old enough to have a RAW?

Reasonable suspicion should require that I actually do something suspicious rather than legally using my legally owned (and fully registered) RAW along with my legally owned and used GTRMs.

tenpercentfirearms
02-05-2012, 9:49 AM
The problem I have had (several times now) is that I own and shoot RAWs. The LEOs assume that they are illegal when they see me shooting them (even though there are hundreds of thousands of legal RAWs in CA). There is no requirement that I carry a copy of my letter from Bill Lockyer to prove my RAWs are legal, but every time I run into one of these overzealous LEOs its either show me your papers or go to jail. I really don't want to be a test case for a false arrest suit.

So the question is what to do about it? We can complain on here they don't have RS to inspect your rifles, but that doesn't do much good. We could try an have the law changed legislatively, but that isn't going to happen. We are trying to litigate it, but that takes time.

So how do you make sure you aren't inconvenienced anymore than you are? You might want to start filing complaints every time they do this. You might also want to carry your paperwork with you just in case. Again, I am not sure the officer is out of line given the laws in this state in investigating a possible AW violation. Clearly anyone who thinks the officers are out of line, need be ready to do something about it other than just complain about it on Calguns. That isn't a specific challenge to any specific person, but just the reality of the situation.

Know how to play the game folks.

But I find it bizarre that doing things which are perfectly legal would be reasonable suspicion.It is a byproduct of our draconian gun laws in this state. It has created a criminal class of citizens that can appear the exact same as a law-abiding class of citizens. I am not agreeing with it and clearly we should have the liberty not to worry about any of this. However, we don't and that sets up the RS that officers can use to "harass" citizens that would never even get a second glance in free America.

Plus this is really a limited situation. Most cops at most ranges don't care. And as we even saw in this example, the officers used some leeway in giving a warning to a man they could have arrested.

So what I would get out of this is understand how LEO could use RS to inspect your firearms while out in public. Never assume because we argue about this on the Internet you can run around with illegal firearms and try and challenge a search. Stay legit and then flex your rights and push back a little when you know you have nothing to lose.

cindynles
02-05-2012, 10:01 AM
So the question is what to do about it? We can complain on here they don't have RS to inspect your rifles, but that doesn't do much good. We could try an have the law changed legislatively, but that isn't going to happen. We are trying to litigate it, but that takes time.

So how do you make sure you aren't inconvenienced anymore than you are? You might want to start filing complaints every time they do this. You might also want to carry your paperwork with you just in case. Again, I am not sure the officer is out of line given the laws in this state in investigating a possible AW violation. Clearly anyone who thinks the officers are out of line, need be ready to do something about it other than just complain about it on Calguns. That isn't a specific challenge to any specific person, but just the reality of the situation.

Know how to play the game folks.

I have and I do. The USFS does not care. Their attitude is since nothing was seized, no harm - no foul. I tell everyone to carry a video camera in their range bag now.

Oaklander has started a database tracking the Ranger/USFS abuse (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=418190) and he has also reported that the officals just don't care. Maybe its time to start taking the case to our rep in congress?

diggersdarling
02-05-2012, 10:06 AM
Commie Enforcers. Sounds extreme but it's becoming true.

Right-O

451040
02-05-2012, 10:13 AM
I wonder what they would do if they came across a legally configured featureless rifle with +10 round mags or, even better, a RAW?

They (check-in dude as well as the ROs) told me that the USFS ranger doesn't allow +10 mags in anything other than a RAW ... pistols included! :facepalm: You have to show your RAW reg paperwork at check-in and the RO will check the paperwork against the RAW.

Regulus
02-05-2012, 10:13 AM
I'm going to go against the majority in this thread and say that the outcome of the OP was a positive one. Weather or not these LEO's had a legal right to do what they did was completely irrelevant at the time. As dantodd suggested, LEO's develop the skills to work RS or PC in a way that will work most of the time. It sounds like several people were facing some pretty bad juju from violating some very bad laws, but got their "one for free".

Some years ago, the guy with the loose BB would have been hooked without question, and the state would be the proud owner of several AR's. They may get the charges dropped and get their firearms back, but at what expensene (BWO anyone)? The fact that these LEO's displayed good judgement (albeit outside their authority) by allowing the first guy to tighten up his BB and discretely chasing off (and probably releasing) the out of staters, IS a positive. Blast the LEO's involved (and/or my opinion) all you want, but it sounds to me that this was handled appropriately and several people at LC were very fortunate these were the LEO's they encountered.

Know the laws, abide by the laws, and do your best not to win stupid prizes.

sandman21
02-05-2012, 10:21 AM
held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Hicks)

Maybe one day gun owners in CA will actually treat the 2A like its a civil right.

ke6guj
02-05-2012, 10:23 AM
They go down the range and find 3 guys with AR's 2 fine, 1 NOT--guy came in from Arizona for his BIL funeral(other 2 guys were there for funeral also-1 from hawaii and one from Kali) . They guy from AZ brought his AR... no BB installed and I THINK ( I did not evesdrop too much) his lower was Colt/Armalite/BM or something else that they nailed him for 2 FELONIES....WTFH.... they took pics of rifle, ran the make and ser-why, no use,not registered, from AZ...... He was over talking to the officers so I dont know much more, I dont even know if they arrested him ...I THINK they escorted the 3 guys off the range and from there who knows....
why not run it if it appears to be an unregistered AW. who knows, it might come back as a RAW. Its called CYA. Think about it. If I had registered an AR as a RAW back in the day and then moved to AZ. Then, I come back to CA to visit and play dumb with the officer and don't tell him that it is a RAW. What would happen if he arrested me for having an UnRAW? When that AW was actually registered and he was too lazy to check the registration status of the firearm before he arrested me, took me downtown, booked me, etc.

amd64
02-05-2012, 11:06 AM
2- Reason I go to LC- it is the only place within like 100+ miles where I can go test my rewelds like Bren and MG42,etc where I ask for place far away , tell them I will be sandbagging the firearm, tying a string and 'remote firing'... I dont want a 'kaboom' to affect others. Also I have had some ' firing malfunctions' due to jacked up ammo, component issues and the Ro's have not gone all paranoid.
Last time I was at Burro, was on a private range and had effin rounds buzz OVER the BERM-- WTFH! Angeles?- PLEASE, what a bunch of DOUCHES over there..... Rahaugges? -Really-$30 for 2 HOURS IF YOU CAN GET A SPOT on the rifle or pistol range and with having like 8 crushed next to each other spots in pillbox like comfort...
I have found out that I need to go all the way PAST BARSTOW to 'legally' shoot rifles or go out to like Indio, past palm springs........ sooo experts WTFE am I supposed to go?? I checked BLM and it shows SHOTGUN ONLY in every other place I can locate..you guys going to BLM land better recheck your locations.



I'm sure you could find a private range within 100 miles.

Temecula-Rainbow is just one of them.

Private ranges with a good membership screening process is the way to go...

Connor P Price
02-05-2012, 11:21 AM
I had an officer ask if he could try and drop a mag from my AR at Lytle Creek once.

My answer: "No."

Then he said, okay let me see you drop it then.

My answer: "No."

I just packed up and left from there.

Everyone should have done this!!! You don't give up your 4th amendment rights when you go to the range!

383green
02-05-2012, 3:27 PM
They (check-in dude as well as the ROs) told me that the USFS ranger doesn't allow +10 mags in anything other than a RAW ... pistols included!


That sounds to me like an underground regulation on the USFS ranger's part.

Steelplate45
02-05-2012, 10:07 PM
in plain view, he is allowed to check or inquire on it's legality.


Why on earth did you cooperate with these guys? They don't get to inspect firearms whenever they want to.

wildhawker
02-05-2012, 10:16 PM
You're making this affirmative statement on behalf of law enforcement everywhere?

It's silly and certainly not the sort of thoughtful post that I've come to expect from you.

-Brandon

Disagree. A Browning BAR Safari or Benelli R1 would definitely not be suspect of being an AW. Matter-of-fact, most cops would probably not even suspect that these two rifles are semi-automatic, because they are completely missing the "evil" part of EBR.

One of the issues with the vagueness of the AWB is that people (like me) deliberately configure rifles to be as close as possible to banned, while staying a hair's width on the legal side of the fence. If you look at some of my M4gery with your glasses off, it isn't easy to determine that they are legal (unless you see that one of them is configured for .22LR, and the other has a BB where the mag release should have been). The AWB is vague, because the bulk of the weapons that are in common use (in California and elsewhere) are extremely similar: OLL-based rifles in California, ARs in the rest of the US. If the bulk of the semi-auto rifles were Zumbo-style hunting rifles (the heavily engraved BAR with Walnut all over and a big scope on top is the classic example) on one side, and RobArms XCRs on the other side, the AWB would not be vague in most cases.

dantodd
02-05-2012, 10:24 PM
in plain view, he is allowed to check or inquire on it's legality.

That is not what the plain sight doctrine means.

wildhawker
02-05-2012, 10:24 PM
I know. That's both good and bad. But it is the natural outcome of a legal system that is heavily based on juries, judges, and precedent, rather than on black-letter law.

I think the next twenty years of 2A/4A jurisprudence will be interesting on a number of levels.

If we consider this incident in isolation, we naturally have to worry about the circular reasoning: Lacking a track record, I defined "reasonable" ex post facto: lots of EBRs are configured illegally implies that presence of an EBR is a reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct, but that RS was needed to even determine whether the EBR was configured illegally.

What is "lots"? Certainly the no. prosecutions vs. sales estimates would argue against any reasonable definition of "lots".

Now I suspect that these officers make the rounds quite frequently. What if this is a common occurrence? Say every time the visit the firing line, one in three EBRs are AWs (commonly through the sin of omission rather than of commission, but illegal nonetheless). Now the presence of an EBR is RS, because the totality of the circumstances, and the experience of the officer indicates the likelihood of a crime.

But were the guns seized? To determine AW status usually requires just a careful inspection of what is in plain view, perhaps involving turning the rifle over (if its sitting on the right side, and the BB vs. mag button isn't visible). And on a shooting range, the shooter implicitly give permission to the RO to visually inspect the guns and turn them over, to verify they're all clear (before allowing folks ahead of the firing line). I don't think questions of seizure and PC (rather than RS) even come up, until the officer takes the gun away and detains the owner. At that point, observations (like lack of BB or prancing pony engraving) are sufficient for PC.

We're getting into facts-land here. I'm sure there are some possible circumstances where 4A would not be implicated, but in this case I'm not sure that I would agree that giving the RO permission to ensure the bolt is open and the chamber clear is necessarily a general waiver.

-Brandon

Meplat
02-05-2012, 11:04 PM
All my firearms are compliant, but that BS is why I stopped going to LCFL. It's BLM land for me now.

BLM wannabes are the worst!:rolleyes:

Meplat
02-05-2012, 11:11 PM
It's good that apparently no arrests were made. But why warn 'next time' an arrest will be made? It's a bad felony hook this time but it's a good one next? Dumb bad laws should never be enforced by good LE.

Apparently this particular one was not enforced this particular time. The warning may have been an attempt to get the guy to be more careful in case he runs into a ***** next time.

wildhawker
02-05-2012, 11:26 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment at all.

No hurry to reply ... I'm turning in for the night.

My point is that you're wrong, on this. Innocent people are being hooked up for all sorts of non-AW guns, including wood-stocked guns that look like they came out of grampa's safe.

There is nothing logical or rational about the AWB (either of them).

-Brandon

ja308
02-06-2012, 12:39 AM
I have personally witnessed LEO's checking sn# at Burro Cyn SP and at Lytle creek. further I have seen road blocks coming down the road from BCSP.

Angeles is one of the best public ranges in USA. I have never witnessed nor heard of any LEO, checking anyone or any firearm at that facility. It could have happened ,but I have no knowledge of it . On a few occasions ,I actually shot with LEOs who were off duty and just enjoying themselves .

As for them( angles range personal) being douches ,they are very intolerant of dangerous gun handling .ie sweeping other patrons, going to the shooting bench during cease fire etc. I see this happening with folks who are not used to public ranges .

I do agree that these folks from AZ and the other instances mentioned were very lucky the LEOs gave them a wake up call! Those LEOs may have prevented such as what happened to Dan Dingman or Mr Olsen and countless others who have seen prison over gun laws.

locosway
02-06-2012, 12:55 AM
What gets me is the RAW deal. A LEO sees someone with a rifle that appears to be an AW. Instead of assuming they're innocent, with a RAW, they figure it must be illegal and an AW under CA law.

As for plain sight, a LEO can't walk up and start inspecting your property. While at a range or other legal place to possess and discharge a firearm, they would be hard pressed to find a (legal) reason to walk down the line and inspect each firearm for compliance.

If everyone would just tell them no, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

One78Shovel
02-06-2012, 4:03 AM
Interesting there were no reports of post ban use of 10+ magazines there? Folks are sucking up those 30 round rebuild kits like hot cakes.

-178S

NiteQwill
02-06-2012, 4:48 AM
Only in CA do you get "lega firearm check" at the range. Idiotic and worthless. I can't believe CA has come to this lunacy...

OleCuss
02-06-2012, 5:17 AM
Right. The legal RAW is the one that really gets me.

Legally, I can have all kinds of evil features on my RAW and use 30 round magazines. I'm also not legally required to bring papers on the items I brought to the range.

The only difference between my legal use of my AR-15 and a felony is the piece of paper I am not legally required to have with me.

So if I were at the range and behaving in an absolutely legal fashion I would be presumed to be felonious?

Can someone explain to me how it would be reasonably suspicious for me to be using a firearm which I legally own in a legal fashion for its intended purpose? In fact, given the way that the law is written such that I can't use it anywhere but at the range - it would be suspicious to use the perfectly legal firearm in its only legally permissible fashion?

taperxz
02-06-2012, 6:47 AM
Right. The legal RAW is the one that really gets me.

Legally, I can have all kinds of evil features on my RAW and use 30 round magazines. I'm also not legally required to bring papers on the items I brought to the range.

The only difference between my legal use of my AR-15 and a felony is the piece of paper I am not legally required to have with me.

So if I were at the range and behaving in an absolutely legal fashion I would be presumed to be felonious?

Can someone explain to me how it would be reasonably suspicious for me to be using a firearm which I legally own in a legal fashion for its intended purpose? In fact, given the way that the law is written such that I can't use it anywhere but at the range - it would be suspicious to use the perfectly legal firearm in its only legally permissible fashion?
So true, your one of the few, the fortunate, the presumed felonious.

mag360
02-06-2012, 8:15 AM
it is reasonable that the gun IS an RAW, it is UNreasonable that they need to perform a search to find out what the status of it is. If I was robbing someone with it, that is an appropriate time to find out if it was or wasn't an RAW.

GrizzlyGuy
02-06-2012, 8:30 AM
in plain view, he is allowed to check or inquire on it's legality.

They can look but they can't move or handle the item to facilitate their "check". Read the SCOTUS case (Arizona v. Hicks) that Sandman linked to above.

bwiese
02-06-2012, 8:32 AM
I see, wasn't aware of that. I had thought (based on the regular reports on reads here) that the problems occurred in EBR territory, right at the boundary (for example over the presence or absence of a BB, the crucial but tiny difference between a flash hider and a muzzle brake, and the illegal use of a >10 magazine in a fixed-mag rifle). If the enforcement mistakes happen all over the spectrum, then my argument becomes baseless. Thanks for the correction.

Chainsaw,
On a very related but separate matter, we've had folks hooked up for plain-Big5-available Mossberg 500 "Cruiser" pistol grip shotguns being regarded as SBSes.

CHS
02-06-2012, 9:07 AM
To answer some questions--

1- They came by when there was a cease fire and we all have to stay off the concrete and no handling of firearms PERIOD, no handling of AMMO PERIOD

This is why I usually throw a blanket over my guns during cease-fires or whenever I'm not shooting.

The RO's want to inspect the guns to make sure they are loaded? Fine.

LEO's want to inspect the guns for the hell of it? Nope!

bomb_on_bus
02-06-2012, 9:41 AM
I guess being from out of state you have to make sure ahead of time to be CA compliant. From what things sounded like the guy from AZ was told to leave and take his gun with him.

One thing I dont understand is if the other guys he was with were compliant and knew the laws then they should have clued their AZ friend in on the laws and advised him to leave his gun back in AZ to save any possible headaches.

Also it is always best to just follow the laws and if something does happen where you get busted and are completely compliant then thats when you get ahold of someone CGF and get someone in your corner that knows the laws etc.

Shrubmaster
02-06-2012, 9:57 AM
WAIT WAIT WAIT.....So you're telling me that several Ca LEOs while on duty encountered what was clearly an assault rifle, and despite the fact of the blatant felony nothing happened? No one went to jail? No weapons confiscated? No one proned out?

Crazy....California coppers must be getting soft....

I was at my local gun shop the other when four DOJ agents came in to get mags and such. They were saying if ole jerry gets his way, they'll be forced to stop going after real criminals and have to start investigating your everyday joe with an ak.

It was nice to hear from guys in the field that understand our positions and scary as hell that jerry wants to turn them into gun grabbers.
I'm just saying, I think in many ways our LEOs are being forced to focus on crap that they could care less about.

spiderpigs
02-06-2012, 9:59 AM
One thing I dont understand is if the other guys he was with were compliant and knew the laws then they should have clued their AZ friend in on the laws and advised him to leave his gun back in AZ to save any possible headaches.


The general public doesnt think like this. They think like this

AZ citizen = AZ laws Apply. They relate it to generally everything else on the planet. AZ may have different vehicle code laws, if a AZ car is in California its not getting ticketed for things like "tint" if its just visiting.

They also dont think gun laws are that different from state to state. It could have simply been a case of "lets go shooting." and nobody really looked at what the out of state person brought with them because rationally, it shouldnt matter. We are all "citizens of the USA" and "equal under the law". Why would he have something illegal?

CAL.BAR
02-06-2012, 10:03 AM
I had an officer ask if he could try and drop a mag from my AR at Lytle Creek once.

My answer: "No."

Then he said, okay let me see you drop it then.

My answer: "No."

I just packed up and left from there.

WOW - you showed him! You got to drive all the way out there, pay for how much in gas, pay how much to shoot and then you got to drive all the way home w/o shooting. Next, you should rent a boat and a pole and putter up and down the coast and troll for F&G officers!

383green
02-06-2012, 10:04 AM
This is why I usually throw a blanket over my guns during cease-fires or whenever I'm not shooting.

The RO's want to inspect the guns to make sure they are loaded? Fine.

LEO's want to inspect the guns for the hell of it? Nope!

Interesting. Do the ROs ever give you grief about the blanket?

OleCuss
02-06-2012, 10:12 AM
I was at my local gun shop the other when four DOJ agents came in to get mags and such. They were saying if ole jerry gets his way, they'll be forced to stop going after real criminals and have to start investigating your everyday joe with an ak.

It was nice to hear from guys in the field that understand our positions and scary as hell that jerry wants to turn them into gun grabbers.
I'm just saying, I think in many ways our LEOs are being forced to focus on crap that they could care less about.

I appreciate this post. It helps to illustrate that a bunch of LEOs are not fully on board with the anti-civil rights crowd.

I'm not sure, however, that they properly identified Jerry as the root of the evil. But I don't hear what they do, so they could be right.

Mesa Tactical
02-06-2012, 10:24 AM
I was at my local gun shop the other when four DOJ agents came in to get mags and such. They were saying if ole jerry gets his way, they'll be forced to stop going after real criminals and have to start investigating your everyday joe with an ak.


I wonder why he didn't do that when he was, you know, their boss.

winnre
02-06-2012, 10:29 AM
Can they inspect without cause or do they need a warrant if permission is not given?

notme92069
02-06-2012, 11:33 AM
This!!

-Brandon

Brandon,

My understanding is that Lytle Creek is on public land. If the rifles are in plain sight on public property is a warrant required?

From their website

"Welcome to the Lytle Creek Range ... We are a professionally managed shooting range located in the San Bernardino National Forest, north of the 15 freeway, near the Cajon Pass. We strive to provide your family with a safe, legal and fun place to shoot."

Am I incorrect about them being on public land?

CHS
02-06-2012, 11:46 AM
Interesting. Do the ROs ever give you grief about the blanket?

I've never been given grief before. Sometimes the RO's are especially nice and they'll ask me to walk over and lift the blanket for them since they don't want to touch my firearms.

I do it mostly to keep the sun off them, so they stay cool to the touch, and to reduce some of the dirt that gets all over them when it's windy.

But no, never gotten any grief. They'll either just peek under the blanket to make sure the firearms are unloaded, or like I said, they'll ask me to do it for them.

wikioutdoor
02-06-2012, 12:15 PM
Let me be the voice of reason here - if your guns are not of a legal configuration fix them. If you don't like inspections shoot the BLM where it will be less.

If a cop asks to see your weapon don't argue with him, hand it over. Most cops are alot better when you comply and admit if there is an issue. Challenging there ego especially when there is more than one of them is the fastest way to be arrested and have your guns seized.

If you want to make a point go through all kinds of hassle and can afford a good lawyer and time. Great, give them the finger if it floats your boat. But I have never seen an officer ask for permission, get denied and not arrest the person.

Having discourse with an officer and denying them access is two different things.

All of the past stories have ended in arrests so it's nice to see the cops handing out warnings, hopefully those people will get the message.

cindynles
02-06-2012, 12:20 PM
This is why I usually throw a blanket over my guns during cease-fires or whenever I'm not shooting.

The RO's want to inspect the guns to make sure they are loaded? Fine.

LEO's want to inspect the guns for the hell of it? Nope!

In my experience the Rangers just flip over the blanket and look anyway. See this video at 4:58

n4hyEnDCTCA

winnre
02-06-2012, 12:26 PM
Then set the guns on an edge so they "fall down" when the blanket is pulled. Then sue for repairs.

blazeaglory
02-06-2012, 12:29 PM
Its funny that LEO uses the way a rifle "looks" as RS. I mean a featureless rifle can do the same damage as a EBR.

Its the laws that are stupid. I mean, who in the hell bases a law on the way a rifle looks..lol

CHS
02-06-2012, 12:30 PM
In my experience the Rangers just flip over the blanket and look anyway. See this video at 4:58


I've watched that video in the past (can't re-watch it right now), and from my recollection most of those guys just let that woman check their guns.

blazeaglory
02-06-2012, 12:36 PM
I've watched that video in the past (can't re-watch it right now), and from my recollection most of those guys just let that woman check their guns.

So how can you stop them? Just say no? Then what if they dont listen?

Ive tried that before and they dont listen

freonr22
02-06-2012, 12:40 PM
Let me be the voice of reason here - if your guns are not of a legal configuration fix them. If you don't like inspections shoot the BLM where it will be less.

If a cop asks to see your weapon don't argue with him, hand it over. Most cops are alot better when you comply and admit if there is an issue. Challenging there ego especially when there is more than one of them is the fastest way to be arrested and have your guns seized.

If you want to make a point go through all kinds of hassle and can afford a good lawyer and time. Great, give them the finger if it floats your boat. But I have never seen an officer ask for permission, get denied and not arrest the person.

Having discourse with an officer and denying them access is two different things.

All of the past stories have ended in arrests so it's nice to see the cops handing out warnings, hopefully those people will get the message.


Wow!

CHS
02-06-2012, 12:43 PM
So how can you stop them? Just say no? Then what if they dont listen?

Ive tried that before and they dont listen

If they want to violate your rights, then there is no way to actually stop them (well, without resorting to extreme measures). However, that also doesn't mean that you do NOTHING at all.

Document document document. Make sure your protestations are documented. And do everything you can to prevent the encounter to begin with. That's why I use a blanket (well, and the other reasons mentioned).

sandman21
02-06-2012, 1:08 PM
Can they inspect without cause or do they need a warrant if permission is not given?


Brandon,

My understanding is that Lytle Creek is on public land. If the rifles are in plain sight on public property is a warrant required?

From their website

"Welcome to the Lytle Creek Range ... We are a professionally managed shooting range located in the San Bernardino National Forest, north of the 15 freeway, near the Cajon Pass. We strive to provide your family with a safe, legal and fun place to shoot."

Am I incorrect about them being on public land?

A warrant is not needed, a LEO needs PC to seize items (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Hicks). They need to comply with Horton v. California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California). I personally donít see how an AR-15 can be immediately apparent as contraband, however if they can be there, they can access the item and they have PC itís contraband they can pick it up and inspect. They can ask you if they can look at it, giving them permission avoids all the issues of PC, thatís why they ask.

Here is a recommendation for people who still want to shoot at Lytle Creek-
At the cease fire, after you have cleared your weapons, put them back into your vehicle. The USFS (not BLM) Ranger will get bored walking the line with no scary black rifles to check out for compliance. If you know a probing is coming there is no need to bend over for it.

That would be impossible. People donít really believe that gun rights are civil rights.

notme92069
02-06-2012, 1:30 PM
A warrant is not needed, a LEO needs PC to seize items (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Hicks). They need to comply with Horton v. California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California). I personally donít see how an AR-15 can be immediately apparent as contraband, however if they can be there, they can access the item and they have PC itís contraband they can pick it up and inspect. They can ask you if they can look at it, giving them permission avoids all the issues of PC, thatís why they ask.



That would be impossible. People donít really believe that gun rights are civil rights.

OK, thanks. Great explanation. The incriminating character of the object must be ďimmediately apparent.Ē That is why they ask to see the weapon. I learn something every day.

cindynles
02-06-2012, 1:38 PM
If they want to violate your rights, then there is no way to actually stop them (well, without resorting to extreme measures). However, that also doesn't mean that you do NOTHING at all.

Document document document. Make sure your protestations are documented. And do everything you can to prevent the encounter to begin with. That's why I use a blanket (well, and the other reasons mentioned).

You are 100% right on this point. This is why I always have a video camera in my range bag and I tell all of my friends that they should carry one also. If you didn't get it on video, it happened the way the Ranger says it did.

It sucks that we have gotten to the point that we have to record every encounter with a LEO, and I feel like a total d-bag when recording, but this is the way of the world for CA gun owners today.

Meplat
02-06-2012, 4:29 PM
They (check-in dude as well as the ROs) told me that the USFS ranger doesn't allow +10 mags in anything other than a RAW ... pistols included! :facepalm: You have to show your RAW reg paperwork at check-in and the RO will check the paperwork against the RAW.

Every magazine fed semi-auto rifle out there is not an AR clone. There is no law against sticking a 20 rnd mag. in the bottom of my Mini-14 M1-A or any number of other rifles. How can one LEO declare himself king of the hill and prohibit such?

NoJoke
02-06-2012, 4:30 PM
You are 100% right on this point. This is why I always have a video camera in my range bag and I tell all of my friends that they should carry one also. If you didn't get it on video, it happened the way the Ranger says it did..

So, what do you do when you are told to turn off the camera?

Kerplow
02-06-2012, 4:48 PM
So, what do you do when you are told to turn off the camera?

let it roll... :shrug:

POLICESTATE
02-06-2012, 4:52 PM
Play stupid games... Bla Bla u guys no the rest...

Allow me.

"California's government plays stupid games, we win the stupid prizes."

ja308
02-06-2012, 4:59 PM
I wonder why he didn't do that when he was, you know, their boss.

Is it possibil JB had plans to run for governor?

wildhawker
02-06-2012, 5:02 PM
I wonder why he didn't do that when he was, you know, their boss.

Exactly.

-Brandon

aermotor
02-06-2012, 5:20 PM
This is why the CA AWB needs to go the F away. People from out of state coming to CA and getting instant felonies.

sandman21
02-06-2012, 5:59 PM
OK, thanks. Great explanation. The incriminating character of the object must be ďimmediately apparent.Ē That is why they ask to see the weapon. I learn something every day.

They ask because it's CYA, no PC needed if you consent to a search, no need to worry about whether the rifle is "immediately apparent" if you consent to them inspecting it.

Meplat
02-06-2012, 9:29 PM
I wonder why he didn't do that when he was, you know, their boss.

Iím no Brown fan but I think out Marxist whack-job AG is the bigger problem.

Lc17smp
02-06-2012, 11:53 PM
Many men died to establish our freedoms. These days we just make fun of those trying to exercise them.



WOW - you showed him! You got to drive all the way out there, pay for how much in gas, pay how much to shoot and then you got to drive all the way home w/o shooting. Next, you should rent a boat and a pole and putter up and down the coast and troll for F&G officers!

arsilva32
02-07-2012, 1:10 AM
wow what a gun ho b**ch! she was really trying hard to find something illegal.i hate cops like her, on a big power trip loving the laws that she is exempt from.if i was in her position of having to patrol that area, i would have just walked through there talked to a few shooters about there cool guns and as long as no laws were very obviously being broken, i would have just walked away without having to be a inspection nazi .

451040
02-07-2012, 2:30 AM
Every magazine fed semi-auto rifle out there is not an AR clone.

True and apparently irrelevant to the USFS ranger. The ROs stated that I cannot even use +10 round magazines in my pistols. :rolleyes:

There is no law against sticking a 20 rnd mag. in the bottom of my Mini-14 M1-A or any number of other rifles.

After letting loose 25 rounds (CMI rebuild) from my M1A, the RO stopped and asked "how many rounds is that magazine?". When I informed him of the capacity he said "Uh-uh! You can't use those magazines. No more than 10 rounds!" He was actually trying to tell me that it was law. After arguing that there was no such law and talking to the boss-dude I found out that it is merely the word of the USFS ranger and nothing else. :rolleyes:

How can one LEO declare himself king of the hill and prohibit such?

Law enforcement by make-it-up-as-I-go-along fiat.

TwoAsoapbox
02-07-2012, 6:52 AM
I always thought that adjustable bullet buttons were bad ideas...

+1 Getting mighty close to the line.
Agreed. Why take a chance. Same feelings about "featureless."

It really sucks that we have to play this game because of our terrible state laws. Lets all keep fighting to change the laws, and in the mean time not do anything to hurt our cause or get our guns confiscated and/or land ourselves in jail.

EOD Guy
02-08-2012, 7:04 AM
I was told that a Plainfield M1 Carbine was a no no in CA...anyone know if that is true?

Thr Plainfield M1 Carbine was specifically listed on the first "assault weapon" list. It was removed a few months after the list came out. I still have my registration letter from that time but I can't remember what year it was. I'll take a look at the letter when I get home.

Mesa Tactical
02-08-2012, 7:45 AM
Iím no Brown fan but I think out Marxist whack-job AG is the bigger problem.

As a one-time USFS volunteer ranger, I'm alarmed and slightly outraged that the chronically underfunded and understaffed Forest Service is wasting time enforcing California gun laws. That's the Sheriff's job. USFS should keep their nose out of it and stick to managing the forests.

SWalt
02-08-2012, 9:17 AM
My buddy went to LC one time and the LEO's showed up, don't remember which agency, but they asked someone about a 30 rd mag. Before the guy could say anything, the guy next to him "said its mine, i let him look at it" and flip the LEO his credentials. The guy was a LEO just helping out a fellow gun owner. I guess the answer to the problem is, "always carry a LEO every where you shoot"

mdimeo
02-08-2012, 10:20 AM
My buddy went to LC one time and the LEO's showed up, don't remember which agency, but they asked someone about a 30 rd mag. Before the guy could say anything, the guy next to him "said its mine, i let him look at it" and flip the LEO his credentials. The guy was a LEO just helping out a fellow gun owner. I guess the answer to the problem is, "always carry a LEO every where you shoot"

Carry a gun because a cop's too heavy. Then carry a cop because the guns are too scary. Then carry a CGF card just in case :)

SWalt
02-08-2012, 10:23 AM
I wonder why he didn't do that when he was, you know, their boss.

I believe its because who ever is governor, sets the tone for his administration. If your priority is to leave law abiding gun owners alone and go after other things, the AG will go along with it. They pick and choose which laws to emphasize. Just the same as a CEO and a BOD of a company directs the direction of that company. Arnold was governor at the time, so different administration, different emphasis.

wildhawker
02-08-2012, 11:32 AM
I believe its because who ever is governor, sets the tone for his administration. If your priority is to leave law abiding gun owners alone and go after other things, the AG will go along with it. They pick and choose which laws to emphasize. Just the same as a CEO and a BOD of a company directs the direction of that company. Arnold was governor at the time, so different administration, different emphasis.

What?!

The AG is a separately-elected constitutional officer of the state. The AG isn't the governor's appointed staffer.

You have no idea what you're talking about, or who you're talking about, or even why we're talking about it.

-Brandon

Sniper3142
02-08-2012, 12:25 PM
So, what do you do when you are told to turn off the camera?

As someone already said, you continue to film everything.

If this is happening out in Public, then there is No Expectation of Privacy and filming is totally LEGAL.

Cops might not like it but I DON'T CARE about what a cop likes. The LAW says its legal nd I can film any interaction with Agents of the State.

As for letting anyone inspect my firearm without my permission...
does Lytle Creek allow cases up on the line? If they do then the answer is simple. Put the rifle inside the case during the ceasefire and Lock It.

SWalt
02-08-2012, 11:07 PM
What?!

The AG is a separately-elected constitutional officer of the state. The AG isn't the governor's appointed staffer.

You have no idea what you're talking about, or who you're talking about, or even why we're talking about it.

-Brandon

wow......that was a little bit insulting.

should i be my usual sarcastic self or take the high road. i chose....

pardon me, did i jump into your conversation? my bad, i couldn't help over hearing.......

Apparently you are under the misconception that the AG, head of DOJ, is the elected head of a 4th branch of government here in our great state of CA. The DOJ, I assure you, is under the Executive Branch which the Governor is the Chief Executive. The main reason the AG is elected and not appointed is, the CA constitution was set up so the Governor couldn't appoint his chosen political lacky and to give the AG a "certain air of separation", unlike our current US AG, Mr Holder, who is appointed and promptly goes about doing the Chief Executive, Obama, bidding. Is the CA AG completely independent? NO Does she have to work with the governor? YES, the CA AG is under the auspices of the Executive Branch. If the Governor and the AG are on the same page politically they won't work very well together and institute new policies and procedures that conform to current law to meet a shared political end? HOG WASH! Do you think they would give a green light, share intelligence, have a very cozy relationship and readily back other agencies of a non domestic kind to further their agenda? YES Politics 101, sorry, gave up believing in unicorns a long time ago.

"They were saying if ole jerry gets his way, they'll be forced to stop going after real criminals and have to start investigating your everyday joe with an ak."

Now if i misunderstood that "ole jerry" was a former AG, completely mistaken about the entire post/forum or if I was out of line, please pardon me

signed respectfully

a%#hole

wildhawker
02-08-2012, 11:37 PM
:rolleyes:

-Brandon


wow......that was a little bit insulting.

should i be my usual sarcastic self or take the high road. i chose....

pardon me, did i jump into your conversation? my bad, i couldn't help over hearing.......

Apparently you are under the misconception that the AG, head of DOJ, is the elected head of a 4th branch of government here in our great state of CA. The DOJ, I assure you, is under the Executive Branch which the Governor is the Chief Executive. The main reason the AG is elected and not appointed is, the CA constitution was set up so the Governor couldn't appoint his chosen political lacky and to give the AG a "certain air of separation", unlike our current US AG, Mr Holder, who is appointed and promptly goes about doing the Chief Executive, Obama, bidding. Is the CA AG completely independent? NO Does she have to work with the governor? YES, the CA AG is under the auspices of the Executive Branch. If the Governor and the AG are on the same page politically they won't work very well together and institute new policies and procedures that conform to current law to meet a shared political end? HOG WASH! Do you think they would give a green light, share intelligence, have a very cozy relationship and readily back other agencies of a non domestic kind to further their agenda? YES Politics 101, sorry, gave up believing in unicorns a long time ago.

"They were saying if ole jerry gets his way, they'll be forced to stop going after real criminals and have to start investigating your everyday joe with an ak."

Now if i misunderstood that "ole jerry" was a former AG, completely mistaken about the entire post/forum or if I was out of line, please pardon me

signed respectfully

a%#hole

vantec08
02-08-2012, 11:48 PM
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/feb/07/motorist-kicked-henderson-police-officer-set-recei/

dont forget your insulin.

451040
02-09-2012, 3:27 AM
Carry a gun because a cop's too heavy. Then carry a cop because the guns are too scary. Then carry a CGF card just in case :)


http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac284/451040/1.gif

ptoguy2002
02-09-2012, 7:32 AM
Umm....ok....
.
.
.
So kinda back on topic: Does the Forest Service have access to AFS? If I took a RAW to Lytle Creek, and they don't have access to California's AFS, I would think that is asking for trouble based on what I am reading here?
And along those lines, I'd really hate to get into a situation where they ask for an ID and I politely decline to show ID and the situation degrades from there.
A question for the experts (not the make believe politicos): How should one handle a Forest Service guy, who probably can't get AFS up there anyway, who thinks your RAW is illegal?

cindynles
02-09-2012, 8:25 AM
Umm....ok....
.
.
.
So kinda back on topic: Does the Forest Service have access to AFS? If I took a RAW to Lytle Creek, and they don't have access to California's AFS, I would think that is asking for trouble based on what I am reading here?
And along those lines, I'd really hate to get into a situation where they ask for an ID and I politely decline to show ID and the situation degrades from there.
A question for the experts (not the make believe politicos): How should one handle a Forest Service guy, who probably can't get AFS up there anyway, who thinks your RAW is illegal?

Carry a copy of your letter in your bag. It sucks, its not required, but its alot easier than trying to get your RAW back after it is seized.

ptoguy2002
02-09-2012, 8:44 AM
Carry a copy of your letter in your bag. It sucks, its not required, but its alot easier than trying to get your RAW back after it is seized.
1. As you mentioned, it isn't required. Neither is showing my ID, which would end up needing to be handed over along with the letter.
2. For somebody who doesn't know the law, or wants to be difficult, a letter isn't going to do much.

cindynles
02-09-2012, 9:05 AM
1. As you mentioned, it isn't required. Neither is showing my ID, which would end up needing to be handed over along with the letter.
2. For somebody who doesn't know the law, or wants to be difficult, a letter isn't going to do much.

Probably, but if you get hooked up after presenting a true copy of an CA AW Registration letter, you are going to have a very, very, very strong case for false arrest and most likely peirce qualified immunity.

ar15robert
02-09-2012, 9:42 AM
Carry a copy of your letter in your bag. It sucks, its not required, but its alot easier than trying to get your RAW back after it is seized.

I made a copy of my letter put into a bag and threw it in the stock compartment on my Ar.

Way easier than carrying in a rifle case or in my truck.At least this way its always with the firearm.

Meplat
02-13-2012, 3:09 AM
The DOJ, I assure you, is under the Executive Branch which the Governor is the Chief Executive. Is the CA AG completely independent? NO Does she have to work with the governor? YES,

So why is it that when the Governor, on years when we do not have a timely budget, tells the elected Treasurer of CA. to not issue pay checks to state employees the Treasurer tells the Governor to go pound sand!

JB is personally modestly pro gun, but he is not going to fall on any swards for it. He will not veto any bills for us that cost him political capitol. But he did file amicus briefs with SCOTUS supporting our side in Heller. He did not have to do that; I think it is a real stretch to think he did it because Arnold told him to. Under Brown as attorney general we may have had draconian gun laws in CA. but enforcement was less than vigorous. Now we have an independently elected, rabidly anit-gun SF Marxist and if enforcement becomes more intense you think Brown is the problem? Not logical.

Meplat
02-13-2012, 3:21 AM
Umm....ok....
.
.
.
How should one handle a Forest Service guy, who probably can't get AFS up there anyway, who thinks your RAW is illegal?

The day I got my Reg. letter I made several copies. One has been rolled up and carried in the hollow pistol grip of my RAW ever sense. Ya, ya, I know, there is nothing that says I have to do this. But then there is nothing that says I have to look both ways when approaching a green light either.

Ford8N
02-13-2012, 9:17 AM
Its funny that LEO uses the way a rifle "looks" as RS. I mean a featureless rifle can do the same damage as a EBR.

Its the laws that are stupid. I mean, who in the hell bases a law on the way a rifle looks..lol

"30505. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the
proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the
health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state. The
Legislature has restricted the assault weapons specified in Section
30510 based upon finding that each firearm has such a high rate of
fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate
sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the
danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings. It is the
intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place
restrictions on the use of assault weapons and to establish a
registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and
possession. It is not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this
chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are
primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or
other legitimate sports or recreational activities."

The people who the majority elect, that's who. Your Rulers.




If they want to violate your rights, then there is no way to actually stop them (well, without resorting to extreme measures). However, that also doesn't mean that you do NOTHING at all.

Document document document. Make sure your protestations are documented. And do everything you can to prevent the encounter to begin with. That's why I use a blanket (well, and the other reasons mentioned).

That is why I find it necessary to shoot in places away from the Man, in California. Just the way it is in CA.

You are 100% right on this point. This is why I always have a video camera in my range bag and I tell all of my friends that they should carry one also. If you didn't get it on video, it happened the way the Ranger says it did.

It sucks that we have gotten to the point that we have to record every encounter with a LEO, and I feel like a total d-bag when recording, but this is the way of the world for CA gun owners today.

YES ^^^

Probably, but if you get hooked up after presenting a true copy of an CA AW Registration letter, you are going to have a very, very, very strong case for false arrest and most likely peirce qualified immunity.

And absolutely nothing will happen to any LEO that does that. Yet the law abiding gun owner gets a lot of grief and will have to pony up a bunch of money and personal time for legal defense. It's really a California thing.

lhecker51
02-13-2012, 1:21 PM
I have found out that I need to go all the way PAST BARSTOW to 'legally' shoot rifles or go out to like Indio, past palm springs........ sooo experts WTFE am I supposed to go?? I checked BLM and it shows SHOTGUN ONLY in every other place I can locate..you guys going to BLM land better recheck your locations.
So take my posts for what you want.....

I go south of Barstow. Just about 6.5 miles north of Silver Lakes near the Lockheed Martin facility. That area is ok for rifle and has no restrictions. Others have set up permanent target stands mounted in poured concrete. Lot of trash though. I pack my trash out along with a bit of others. It still works out to 60 miles from the casa. I do all of my holster drills and rapid fire out there. I do wish there were closer areas though.

The quickest way to get BLM land restricted is to trash it. Please pack your garbage out.

lhecker51
02-13-2012, 1:27 PM
"30505. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the
proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the
health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state. The
Legislature has restricted the assault weapons specified in Section
30510 based upon finding that each firearm has such a high rate of
fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate
sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the
danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings. It is the
intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place
restrictions on the use of assault weapons and to establish a
registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and
possession. It is not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this
chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are
primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or
other legitimate sports or recreational activities."

The people who the majority elect, that's who. Your Rulers.






That is why I find it necessary to shoot in places away from the Man, in California. Just the way it is in CA.



YES ^^^



And absolutely nothing will happen to any LEO that does that. Yet the law abiding gun owner gets a lot of grief and will have to pony up a bunch of money and personal time for legal defense. It's really a California thing.

Exactly. A politician will do ANYTHING to get elected or to remain elected. For the most part politicians on both side would sell their daughters into prostitution if it got them elected. Yep. I am cynical. Given the results and impact of our state government, who wouldn't be?

ARtistinCA
02-13-2012, 1:29 PM
It's good that apparently no arrests were made. But why warn 'next time' an arrest will be made? It's a bad felony hook this time but it's a good one next? Dumb bad laws should never be enforced by good LE.

Intent. They officers probably beleived the owner did not have the intent of violating the law.

winnre
02-13-2012, 2:49 PM
You know the agricultural stop coming back from Vegas? Surprised they don't ask about hicaps or other firearms.

HBrebel
02-13-2012, 3:08 PM
I had an officer ask if he could try and drop a mag from my AR at Lytle Creek once.

My answer: "No."

Then he said, okay let me see you drop it then.

My answer: "No."

I just packed up and left from there.

great response. People tend to forget that we are not subjects and are not to be randomly molested by the state muscle. Fight back, don't roll over and let them mess with you.

SWalt
02-13-2012, 6:47 PM
So why is it that when the Governor, on years when we do not have a timely budget, tells the elected Treasurer of CA. to not issue pay checks to state employees the Treasurer tells the Governor to go pound sand!

JB is personally modestly pro gun, but he is not going to fall on any swards for it. He will not veto any bills for us that cost him political capitol. But he did file amicus briefs with SCOTUS supporting our side in Heller. He did not have to do that; I think it is a real stretch to think he did it because Arnold told him to. Under Brown as attorney general we may have had draconian gun laws in CA. but enforcement was less than vigorous. Now we have an independently elected, rabidly anit-gun SF Marxist and if enforcement becomes more intense you think Brown is the problem? Not logical.

And the Controller lost in court eventually and Arnolds plan was implemented. Arnold ordered it, Chiang refused using what was in his arsenal, laws which he thought didn't allow the governor to do what he ordered.

I heard that about JB too, hes pro gun. But I seriously doubt it. Just look at UOC, he signed the bill making it illegal. If he was even modestly pro gun he could have sought political cover easily by saying something along the lines of "in times of natural disaster or civil unrest, this bill would deny honest law abiding citizens their rights by making it illegal for them to openly protect themselves, family, property and business' and allow any LEO to confiscate and arrest anyone using a handgun for protection in time of crisis. I hereby veto this bill". He didn't and a right was taken away.

Politicians play games, whats new here? No one is just a rubber stamp. Anyways.....arguing about this is off topic. done