PDA

View Full Version : rifle in plain view = reason to believe a crime has been committed?


Pages : [1] 2

pepsi2451
02-12-2012, 12:29 PM
So I was reading this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=531369

It started out about how cops would treat someone with a loaded gun but then someone posted about how they had done a felony stop because someone had reported seeing a gun in a vehicle, it turned out to be a camera tripod.

This surprised me so I asked if he had any reason to believe a crime had been committed and I gave an example of how I sometimes transport my rifles to the range. Then I started getting replies like "If I see a weapon in plain sight and within the reach of the vehicle's driver or any passenger in the vehicle, you are going to be held a gun point and removed from the vehicle by way of a "felony traffic stop"." or "And you will be detained at gun point, at least by me and every member of my department."

I was surprised that LEO on a pro gun forum like calguns feel this way. Then biochembruin posted:

The legality of a "felony" stop is no different than any other detention. An officer needs reasonable suspicion to detain someone. Keep in mind, reasonable suspicion is a very low legal justification, and can take into account an officer's training, and his/her on the job experience. Also, even if an activity has a potential legal explanation, but the officer still has reasonable suspicion, the officer is not required to discount the suspicion simply because of a possible legal explanation. In fact, that's the whole point of the detention, to determine what is occurring.

The "felony" stop is really a misnomer, since a felony doesn't have to have occurred or even be suspected. In reality, it is a high risk stop, and is simply a tactic which is dictated by policy, not law. As long as the officer is following department policy when choosing to use a high risk stop, and as long as the officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop, then the officer is clear to conduct the high risk stop.

Is that true? Can I be removed from my car and held at gunpoint for doing absolutely nothing other then transporting my firearms in a legal manner?

I hope this thread doesn't end up in cop bashing, I just want to get some other opinions about what was said in that thread.

Fot
02-12-2012, 12:31 PM
Don't you transpost your guns in gun cases?

pepsi2451
02-12-2012, 12:40 PM
Don't you transpost your guns in gun cases?

Sometimes, but sometimes I just throw a couple rifles in the backseat. I do most of my shooting in the woods where its legal to shoot as soon as I step out of my truck. There are no school zones between my house and my usual shooting spot.

SanPedroShooter
02-12-2012, 12:46 PM
Make your will.

HBrebel
02-12-2012, 12:51 PM
This seems to be where we are headed. Cops doing whatever the mood suits them whenever they want. Used to be a warming sight to see a cop around once in a while, but now that they have become a second military and a tool for the oppressors, almost every citizen feels fear or nervousness around cops, why would this be? Have we done something wrong to them? It seems like they are allowed to use advanced weapons and tech in the face of their supposed advanced 'criminals', yet we are slowly being disarmed and forced to fight with rocks and sticks. hmmm

ptoguy2002
02-12-2012, 12:52 PM
If the police know or suspect that you have a firearm within reach when they pull you over, it is not unreasonable (IMHO) for officer safety to dictate that you step out of the vehicle first. At gunpoint would be an extension of that argument, but it is a slippery slope. Next you'll be getting bean bagged or tazed up front in the name of officer safety.
Whatever the suspicion is, legit or not, you can avoid that with a case, or beach towel, or the fast food wrappers from yesterday in your car covering up the rifle.
I've always wanted to roll with a gun rack in the back window.
ETA: forgot about Fed GFSZ, you should have them in cases anyway.

sandman21
02-12-2012, 12:55 PM
Yes, you will be removed from the presence of firearm for officer safety. I suggest you transport any firearms in a hard case, locked if required.

Rossi357
02-12-2012, 12:57 PM
Sometimes, but sometimes I just throw a couple rifles in the backseat. I do most of my shooting in the woods where its legal to shoot as soon as I step out of my truck. There are no school zones between my house and my usual shooting spot.

Long guns are exempt from the GFSZ.

pepsi2451
02-12-2012, 1:03 PM
Make your will.

?

If the police know or suspect that you have a firearm within reach when they pull you over, it is not unreasable (IMHO) for officer safety to dictate that you step out of the vehicle first. At gunpoint would be an extension of that argument, but it is a slippery slope. Next you'll be getting bean bagged or tazed up front in the name of officer safety.
Whatever the suspicion is, legit or not, you can avoid that with a case, or beach towel, or the fast food wrappers from yesterday in your car covering up the rifle.

What if the only reason they are stopping you is because you have a firearm?

I'm not really worried about this happening to me, I'm just curious. The cops around here seem pretty laid back, I have been stopped with rifles and they didn't seem to care.

I've always wanted to roll with a gun rack in the back window.
Everyone around here had those when I was growing up.

pepsi2451
02-12-2012, 1:05 PM
Long guns are exempt from the GFSZ.

I thought they were exempt from the state gfsz but not the fed gfsz.

marinero
02-12-2012, 1:06 PM
Long guns are exempt from the GFSZ.

This is only true with respect to California law. Federal law requires them to be in a locked case in school zones.

repubconserv
02-12-2012, 1:15 PM
Long guns are exempt from the GFSZ.

Cali law. not Federal. you still have to follow fed law.

sandman21
02-12-2012, 1:15 PM
How do they know you have a firearm? If the LEO knows you have a firearm he can perform an e-check to ensure the firearm is not loaded. If he sees the firearm or you tell him you have a firearm in the car. A LEO seeing a hard rifle case is not enough for him to seize the case and open it, a soft rifle case probably enough. Best course of action is to keep to firearms out of sight and don't say you have any.

We are talking local police not fed. so CA law is what we are concerned about.

Pat Riot
02-12-2012, 1:31 PM
This probably applies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._JL read it, it's short.

I had a cop tell me that SCOTUS ruled there was a 4th ammendment exemption for firearms... I told him to check out JL vs Florida

BassNut
02-12-2012, 2:12 PM
So, Are you saying that this may get someones attention??????

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa177/BassNuts/Guns.jpg

Joewy
02-12-2012, 2:17 PM
So, Are you saying that this may get someones attention??????

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa177/BassNuts/Guns.jpg

Looks like the front seat of most of the cars in the local High School parking lot....

sandman21
02-12-2012, 2:24 PM
Florida v. JL does not apply, a LEO is going to be able to remove you from the presence of the firearm during a traffic stop, see Pennsylvania v. Mimms.

Badmusic
02-12-2012, 2:29 PM
Is that true? Can I be removed from my car and held at gunpoint for doing absolutely nothing other then transporting my firearms in a legal manner?

You can be stopped and held at gunpoint for even less. Say... driving the same make model and year vehicle in the neighborhood as a bank robber escaped in, ...or even less, say ...looking like the aforementioned bank robber while walking through the neighborhood... or even less...well the list goes on. Officer safety is paramount, ...and why shouldn't it be?

oldsmoboat
02-12-2012, 2:31 PM
This is only true with respect to California law. Federal law requires them to be in a locked case in school zones.
Can you quote that law?

InGrAM
02-12-2012, 2:33 PM
Cali law. not Federal. you still have to follow fed law.

But look at how CA fallows Fed drug laws. MJ in particular :rolleyes:

I am just being a smart ***, lol.

tuolumnejim
02-12-2012, 2:36 PM
You can be stopped and held at gunpoint for even less. Say... driving the same make model and year vehicle in the neighborhood as a bank robber escaped in, ...or even less, say ...looking like the aforementioned bank robber while walking through the neighborhood... or even less...well the list goes on. Officer safety is paramount, ...and why shouldn't it be?

That would be because it's a BS excuse that endangers the public at large.

dieselpower
02-12-2012, 2:42 PM
This seems to be where we are headed. Cops doing whatever the mood suits them whenever they want. Used to be a warming sight to see a cop around once in a while, but now that they have become a second military and a tool for the oppressors, almost every citizen feels fear or nervousness around cops, why would this be? Have we done something wrong to them? It seems like they are allowed to use advanced weapons and tech in the face of their supposed advanced 'criminals', yet we are slowly being disarmed and forced to fight with rocks and sticks. hmmm

I needed to QFT & Bold this. When the average joe has to fear LEO...something has gone wrong. I understand LEO have to fear the average joe, since at any given time the average joe could be the guy trying to kill him. The problem then becomes we (the average joe) must now fear the LEO who is looking for a reason to bust a skull in. The fact I have an unloaded rifle next to me is more than enough reason in CA to bash my skull in..or at least thats what many people will say outside of the 2nd A arena.

I know several people who would say, the idiot had a gun next to him, of course the cop was justified in beating him into submission.

I am not saying all LEO would. I am not saying any LEO would...I am saying many average joes wouldn't care if they did....and thats why I am scared of LEO encounters. I am guilty until they feel otherwise. I am guilty of violent crimes even when no crime has been committed in the eyes of the peers who will judge the LEO.

To the OP. An officer needs to do what he / she has to do, to make sure he / she kisses his kids before bedtime EVERY night. If that means treating you harsh or badly...sorry man, thats how it is.

On the same note.... you MUST treat every LEO encounter as if the LEO infront of you are looking to murder someone AND /or bust you for any reason possible. That means answer with one of two things. "I understand" or "I choose not to answer that without a lawyer present."... and hope to God someone is video taping the encounter.

CSACANNONEER
02-12-2012, 2:49 PM
Can you quote that law?

Yes, I can. Can you?

pepsi2451
02-12-2012, 2:56 PM
You can be stopped and held at gunpoint for even less. Say... driving the same make model and year vehicle in the neighborhood as a bank robber escaped in, ...or even less, say ...looking like the aforementioned bank robber while walking through the neighborhood... or even less...well the list goes on. Officer safety is paramount, ...and why shouldn't it be?

I wouldn't have a problem with an officer stopping me in that case since he would have reasonable suspicion I robbed a bank. Robbing banks is illegal.

Since having a rifle is legal, I don't see how a rifle all by itself is reason enough to think a crime has been committed.

oldsmoboat
02-12-2012, 2:56 PM
Yes, I can. Can you?
Do you have multiple personalities or just multiple accounts here? Or both?

nick
02-12-2012, 3:09 PM
So, Are you saying that this may get someones attention??????

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa177/BassNuts/Guns.jpg

Nah, they all look sporting.

Librarian
02-12-2012, 3:12 PM
Can you quote that law?

Surely you jest.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Gun_Free_School_Zones

18 USC 922 (q) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html)

CSACANNONEER
02-12-2012, 3:14 PM
Do you have multiple personalities or just multiple accounts here? Or both?
I don't have time to use another account here. Besides, Kes wouldn't merge my post count if I did.As far as multiple pesonalities go, nope, I only have one. I'm always an azzh.... Anyway, google is your friend. It on;y took me a second to find this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990). If I dug a little further, I know I could find the entire text.

sandman21
02-12-2012, 3:15 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with an officer stopping me in that case since he would have reasonable suspicion I robbed a bank. Robbing banks is illegal.

Since having a rifle is legal, I don't see how a rifle all by itself is reason enough to think a crime has been committed.

Removing you from the car has nothing to do with a crime, it has to do with officer safety. They can ask you to step out to minimize the risk to themselves, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, that is not to say that a LEO can stop you for simply having a firearm. The context of the interaction matters, traffic stop with visible firearm going to be removed from the presence of the threat.

Mssr. Eleganté
02-12-2012, 3:22 PM
Surely you jest.

http://pdxretro.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/leslie-nielsen-airplane.jpg

choprzrul
02-12-2012, 3:29 PM
You all do realize that you are discussing the reasonable-ness of an agent of the government forcibly separating you from exercising your civil rights with a drawn and loaded firearm pointed at you???

"Oh, I see that you are a law abiding citizen minding your own business today, but you have a firearm in your presence; so I am going to point my gun at you and start yelling."

Sorry, IMHO, officer safety < legal exercise of civil rights by law abiding citizens.

Don't like that equation? Find a job where you don't have to trample all over someone's civil rights in the name of safety.

Too many people have fought & died since 1775 securing my freedoms. I owe it to each and every one of them to not let my civil rights slip away.

.

bigcalidave
02-12-2012, 3:37 PM
It's so funny how different the encounters are in California vs other states.

Here "do you have a gun on you" "yes I have a license to carry" = pulled out of the car at gunpoint and held for an hour till they figure it out.

Other states "do you have a gun on you" "yes I have a license to carry" = "cool".

Lives_In_Fresno
02-12-2012, 3:41 PM
?

What if the only reason they are stopping you is because you have a firearm?



I don't know what you really want to hear or why you ask....

How is it that they know you have a firearm? Either someone saw you with it, or you waved it around.

yes, you can be stopped if you wave around a gun.

nick
02-12-2012, 3:57 PM
I don't know what you really want to hear or why you ask....

How is it that they know you have a firearm? Either someone saw you with it, or you waved it around.

yes, you can be stopped if you wave around a gun.

Per OP, he was talking about having rifles on the back seat of his car. That's not waving them, and no crime is being committed. In fact, it's an activity that's supposed to be protected by the Bill of Rights, contrary to the current sorry state of rights around here.

nick
02-12-2012, 3:58 PM
You all do realize that you are discussing the reasonable-ness of an agent of the government forcibly separating you from exercising your civil rights with a drawn and loaded firearm pointed at you???

"Oh, I see that you are a law abiding citizen minding your own business today, but you have a firearm in your presence; so I am going to point my gun at you and start yelling."

Sorry, IMHO, officer safety < legal exercise of civil rights by law abiding citizens.

Don't like that equation? Find a job where you don't have to trample all over someone's civil rights in the name of safety.

Too many people have fought & died since 1775 securing my freedoms. I owe it to each and every one of them to not let my civil rights slip away.

.

I can only wish more people saw it that way.

SilverTauron
02-12-2012, 4:52 PM
Tragic as well as deplorable. Your law enforcement community has some issues in need of resolution.

Last time I got stopped for a traffic violation, I had a loaded weapon on my person.

Did I get 'proned out'? Nope. Was I treated like a felon and ordered out of the vehicle with my hands raised and my knees on the pavement? Absolutely not. Was I disarmed and cuffed until my profile and background was run? Absolutely not.

When I got stopped on I90 in South Dakota, the officer asked for my drivers license and proof of insurance, he went to his vehicle, 15 minutes later he came back and gave my IDs to me and stated that I should have a front plate. I thanked the officer for his time, he wished me safe travels and said to drive safely.

I was stopped , he ran my ID and record, he gave back my ID and materials, and both the LEO and myself left the encounter quite safely and courteously.

And to think , I HAD A LOADED WEAPON ON MY PERSON!

Now I understand that law enforcement has an insanely tough job. They daily have to deal with the possibility of being shot and killed in a random act of violence and see the underbelly of human society on a frequent basis. But 'officer safety' is not a license to cancel out the Bill of Rights.

By comparison, in Free America cops and citizens have chats by the roadside about the merits of guns and weapons. Last time I met a LEO me and him got into a friendly chat about Glocks vs 1911's.

Joewy
02-12-2012, 5:05 PM
Tragic as well as deplorable. Your law enforcement community has some issues in need of resolution.

Last time I got stopped for a traffic violation, I had a loaded weapon on my person.

Did I get 'proned out'? Nope. Was I treated like a felon and ordered out of the vehicle with my hands raised and my knees on the pavement? Absolutely not. Was I disarmed and cuffed until my profile and background was run? Absolutely not.

When I got stopped on I90 in South Dakota, the officer asked for my drivers license and proof of insurance, he went to his vehicle, 15 minutes later he came back and gave my IDs to me and stated that I should have a front plate. I thanked the officer for his time, he wished me safe travels and said to drive safely.

I was stopped , he ran my ID and record, he gave back my ID and materials, and both the LEO and myself left the encounter quite safely and courteously.

And to think , I HAD A LOADED WEAPON ON MY PERSON!

Now I understand that law enforcement has an insanely tough job. They daily have to deal with the possibility of being shot and killed in a random act of violence and see the underbelly of human society on a frequent basis. But 'officer safety' is not a license to cancel out the Bill of Rights.

By comparison, in Free America cops and citizens have chats by the roadside about the merits of guns and weapons. Last time I met a LEO me and him got into a friendly chat about Glocks vs 1911's.

Exactly. :D

Last time I got stopped there were 5 other guys with rifles in their laps, Mags in their pouches, a handgun or 2 strapped on.
The Trooper proceeded to chew out the driver because he passed another car stupidly. All the while the guy was wearing 2 hand guns and had his rifle within easy reach.
Then he left without issuing a ticket.

ubet
02-12-2012, 5:10 PM
You all do realize that you are discussing the reasonable-ness of an agent of the government forcibly separating you from exercising your civil rights with a drawn and loaded firearm pointed at you???

"Oh, I see that you are a law abiding citizen minding your own business today, but you have a firearm in your presence; so I am going to point my gun at you and start yelling."

Sorry, IMHO, officer safety < legal exercise of civil rights by law abiding citizens.

Don't like that equation? Find a job where you don't have to trample all over someone's civil rights in the name of safety.

Too many people have fought & died since 1775 securing my freedoms. I owe it to each and every one of them to not let my civil rights slip away.

.

+1million!

I know said officer wants to get home to his wife at night; but so do I! If they cant respect my rights, because they think THEIR safety trumps my god given civil rights, I am sorry, but they can take THAT AND SHOVE IT UP THEIR @$$! My rights to go in this country where I please without papers and armed is more important to me than ANYONES safety. If they want to live a safe life they shouldnt have become a cop.

email
02-12-2012, 5:11 PM
I've been pulled out of my car at gunpoint because some a hole didn't like that I was speeding and added "with a gun" when he reported me.

taperxz
02-12-2012, 5:11 PM
FWIW

I have been pulled over a couple times (CHP & LCSO) with long guns either on the passenger seat or in the back seat. Not once was it questioned or asked about the loaded/unloaded status of the weapons. But i also have a REALLYY innocent face :D

M1NM
02-12-2012, 5:28 PM
Too many people have fought & died since 1775 securing my freedoms. I owe it to each and every one of them to not let my civil rights slip away.

April 19, 1775 was the day we really started to fight back. The Boston Massacre was on March 5, 1770, in which British Army soldiers killed five civilian men.

CSACANNONEER
02-12-2012, 5:30 PM
By comparison, in Free America cops and citizens have chats by the roadside about the merits of guns and weapons. Last time I met a LEO me and him got into a friendly chat about Glocks vs 1911's.

Hell, less than 10 years ago, IN CALIFORNIA, I ended up exchanging handguns with a uniformed CHP officer. It was his BUG and he unloaded it first. I popped the crossbox on my truck, checked mine, pulled the slide off, walked over and handed it to him right there on the side of a public road. So, not all LEOs in CA are scared of civilians with firearms.

curtisfong
02-12-2012, 5:35 PM
Officer safety is paramount, ...and why shouldn't it be?

Where in the bill of rights does it say they are null and void the minute somebody claims "officer safety"?

cmichini
02-12-2012, 5:58 PM
You can be stopped and held at gunpoint for even less. Say... driving the same make model and year vehicle in the neighborhood as a bank robber escaped in, ...or even less, say ...looking like the aforementioned bank robber while walking through the neighborhood... or even less...well the list goes on. Officer safety is paramount, ...and why shouldn't it be?

How do you battle the koolaid addled 'officer safety' statement?:facepalm:

753X0
02-12-2012, 6:12 PM
Officer safety is paramount, ...and why shouldn't it be?
Why shouldn't it be? Because it ISN'T. My rights are paramount. If an officer is too paranoid to do the job without walking all over the constitution, he doesn't automagically get a free pass by uttering the magic words, "officer safety", even though it usually works in the courts.

Badmusic
02-12-2012, 6:16 PM
How do you battle the koolaid addled 'officer safety' statement?

Spoken like a citizen who thinks cops are not citizens.

curtisfong
02-12-2012, 6:19 PM
Spoken like a citizen who thinks cops are not citizens.

So "citizen safety" renders the bill of rights impotent?

Badmusic
02-12-2012, 6:21 PM
So "citizen safety" renders the bill of rights impotent?

Believe it or not, a cops rights to life are superior to your right to brandish a gun.

753X0
02-12-2012, 6:23 PM
Believe it or not, a cops rights to life are superior to your right to brandish a gun.

To believe, or not believe....NOT.
You, BTW added the Alinsky-esque "brandish".
Weak.

jonzer77
02-12-2012, 6:25 PM
Believe it or not, a cops rights to life are superior to your right to brandish a gun.

Who said anything about "brandish"? Do you even know what that word means? Brandish and having a rifle in your backseat are two entirely different things my friend.

curtisfong
02-12-2012, 6:26 PM
Believe it or not, a cops rights to life are superior to your right to brandish a gun.

Brandishing is already illegal, and has nothing to do with "right to life".

Anyway, I thought you said cops are citizens. They have rights citizens don't? I didn't realize there was a separate Bill of Rights.

Badmusic
02-12-2012, 6:30 PM
Brandishing is already illegal, and has nothing to do with "right to life".

Anyway, I thought you said cops are citizens. They have rights citizens don't? I didn't realize there was a separate Bill of Rights.

I see you haven't studied law. Sign here and have a nice day.

jonzer77
02-12-2012, 6:32 PM
I see you haven't studied law. Sign here and have a nice day.

I surely hope your just trolling around.

curtisfong
02-12-2012, 6:33 PM
I see you haven't studied law. Sign here and have a nice day.

Which law school taught you to post in blue?

bigcalidave
02-12-2012, 6:33 PM
Believe it or not, a cops rights to life are superior to your right to brandish a gun.

I'd love to hear what you think Brandish means....

taperxz
02-12-2012, 6:38 PM
I see you haven't studied law. Sign here and have a nice day.

Perhaps you have and failed. My right to life and protection of, is not diminished by the mere presence of law enforcement.

jonzer77
02-12-2012, 6:40 PM
bran·dish (brndsh)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.
n.
A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.

Just in case you forgot :)

robcoe
02-12-2012, 6:44 PM
Believe it or not, a cops rights to life are superior to your right to brandish a gun.

Posessing and brandishing are not the same thing, in the situation described in this thread the cop would be the one brandishing(pointing or waiving threateningly) a weapon.

An officers right to life does not trump the rights of everyone else to live, pointing a gun at someone is a life and death situation. If an officer is so paranoid that any time he sees a rifle that is not being brandished, just sitting in a car, he feels he needs to hold that person at gunpoint that officer is a danger to the public and needs to find a different career before he kills someone. Asking the person to step out of the car is reasionable, but pulling a gun on them is way over the line.

now, if the person was brandishing the weapon, that would be a different situation.

Jason P
02-12-2012, 6:45 PM
I'd love to hear what you think Brandish means....

I think he thinks brandish = shove it up your Brady-hole

Anyways, this topic weighs on me daily. All these carry cases aside, loss in November and a couple of SCOTUS appointments later we will have to submit our arms in total or initiate a coup. If you think it takes a long time to get cases kicked up and get cert, wait till the liberal 9th fires up the express lane and the new liberal SCOTUS hears Heller v2.0 four months later and issues an opinion at the end of the week.

I personally will not be surrendering my arms... period.

Kid Stanislaus
02-12-2012, 6:47 PM
Sometimes, but sometimes I just throw a couple rifles in the backseat. I do most of my shooting in the woods where its legal to shoot as soon as I step out of my truck. There are no school zones between my house and my usual shooting spot.

You need to change the way you transport long guns.:rolleyes:

taperxz
02-12-2012, 6:49 PM
You need to change the way you transport long guns.:rolleyes:

Why? (no sarcasm intended)

Some parts of this state are "gun friendly" You just gotta know how things are where you live. NOTE: the OP's location;)

SilverTauron
02-12-2012, 6:52 PM
Ironic that a society which has such extensive firearm regulation is so hazardous to lawmen that they must assume anyone with a firearm is a threat to their lives.

Here a man can buy an AR15 with an adjustable stock & 30 round magazine, carry it in plain sight as he walks to his vehicle, and if he's stopped for a taillight violation the only question he'll be asked by law enforcement about his rifle will be the price and how she shoots.

It speaks to the real world consequences of socialist progressive policy compared to traditional America when lawmen in the 'progressive' states must kit up like the U.S. Army walking a patrol in south Basra, Iraq.

taperxz
02-12-2012, 6:57 PM
Ironic that a society which has such extensive firearm regulation is so hazardous to lawmen that they must assume anyone with a firearm is a threat to their lives.

Here a man can buy an AR15 with an adjustable stock & 30 round magazine, carry it in plain sight as he walks to his vehicle, and if he's stopped for a taillight violation the only question he'll be asked by law enforcement about his rifle will be the price and how she shoots.

It speaks to the real world consequences of socialist progressive policy compared to traditional America when lawmen in the 'progressive' states must kit up like the U.S. Army walking a patrol in south Basra, Iraq.

Not really. You mostly hear from posters that live in urban areas here. CA is a big RURAL state. Most of the rural areas are a little easier to enjoy your rights.

The city progressives, not so much.

Arondos
02-12-2012, 7:01 PM
OK so if we go with simply having a weapon presents a safety hazard.

LEO's the last I checked are citizens, civilians, and not military whether they like the label or not. Hmm let's run with this logic for a moment.

Would it not be reasonable of me as Joe average citizen to think that every LEO with a weapon is a safety hazard and presents a threat to my safety?

Since LEO's are a a civilian, citizen with a weapon and present a safety hazard by their own standards.

Tyson
02-12-2012, 7:04 PM
This is only true with respect to California law. Federal law requires them to be in a locked case in school zones.

WHOA whoa! back the truck up! you mean to tell me with respect to Fed law long guns around school zones long guns need to be in a locked container ??

This is news to me, I probably barley live 1000 ft from a school.

robcoe
02-12-2012, 7:07 PM
WHOA whoa! back the truck up! you mean to tell me with respect to Fed law long guns around school zones long guns need to be in a locked container ??

This is news to me, I probably barley live 1000 ft from a school.

Yes, they do.

Dont worry though, come January 2013 all long guns will have to be transported in locked containers at all times thanks to a few open carry fanatics.

taperxz
02-12-2012, 7:07 PM
WHOA whoa! back the truck up! you mean to tell me with respect to Fed law long guns around school zones long guns need to be in a locked container ??

This is news to me, I probably barley live 1000 ft from a school.

Thats a fact! Or simply locked up.

CSACANNONEER
02-12-2012, 7:08 PM
WHOA whoa! back the truck up! you mean to tell me with respect to Fed law long guns around school zones long guns need to be in a locked container ??

This is news to me, I probably barley live 1000 ft from a school.

It's a pretty new thing. It's only been this way for 22 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

taperxz
02-12-2012, 7:12 PM
:rofl2:


It's a pretty new thing. It's only been this way for 22 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

choprzrul
02-12-2012, 7:32 PM
Remember, the legitimate government authority issued orders to seize the citizen's weapons and those orders' implementation was initiated on the morning of April 19th, 1775. Citizens banded together to resist gun control, resist against the most powerful superpower's standing army. Those men stood up that day and gave their lives so that I could enjoy the benefits of living with my freedom. That freedom includes my civil rights, amongst which is my right to Keep and Bear arm for the purpose of Self Defense.

Now, what do you suppose dear old Samuel Whitmore would think of today's boys in blue acting like his era's redcoats? How many citizens in the 1770s had a redcoat's musket stuck in their face? I'm betting that they didn't like it any better than we do when LEO comes unglued at the sight of one of us exercising our civil rights. May I have 1/10th of the tenacity that Samuel Whitmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Whittemore) did if our day of reckoning comes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c5/Samuel_Whittemore_Monument.jpg/220px-Samuel_Whittemore_Monument.jpg

diggersdarling
02-12-2012, 8:06 PM
That would be because it's a BS excuse that endangers the public at large.

Damn right.

Sent from my TracFone

scarville
02-12-2012, 8:38 PM
May I have 1/10th of the tenacity that Samuel Whitmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Whittemore) did if our day of reckoning comes:
Off topic but...

I read the Wikipedia entry on him. That guy's life must have been nailed to his spine.

pepsi2451
02-12-2012, 8:55 PM
This probably applies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._JL read it, it's short.

I had a cop tell me that SCOTUS ruled there was a 4th ammendment exemption for firearms... I told him to check out JL vs Florida

Florida v. JL does not apply, a LEO is going to be able to remove you from the presence of the firearm during a traffic stop, see Pennsylvania v. Mimms.

Thanks I got kinda busy today but I will read those.

I don't know what you really want to hear or why you ask....

How is it that they know you have a firearm? Either someone saw you with it, or you waved it around.

yes, you can be stopped if you wave around a gun.

Well in the original example the officer gave in that thread, he said he stopped someone because they got a report that they had a gun and it turned out to be a camera tripod, so I guess you don't have to be waving a gun around to be stopped.

curtisfong
02-12-2012, 9:59 PM
he said he stopped someone because they got a report that they had a gun and it turned out to be a camera tripod

But he was BRANDISHING a tripod, which he had no right to do :rollseyes:

choprzrul
02-12-2012, 10:15 PM
Off topic but...

I read the Wikipedia entry on him. That guy's life must have been nailed to his spine.


Men like him stood the line over the centuries and fought & died for my freedom and rights. Every time an agent of the government tramples upon someone's civil rights, it is a severe disrespect of the blood that has been shed securing those civil rights.

Any time an agent of the government is found guilty of violating civil rights, I have no problem awarding their entire pension & benefits package to the victim along with their house, car, and any other valuables. It's value pales in comparison to the price that has been paid over the centuries.

.

Hoop
02-12-2012, 10:42 PM
So, not all LEOs in CA are scared of civilians with firearms.

Depends how old you are and what you look like. The ones I've met have almost always been very nice and polite...the not-so-polite ones get remembered though.

ap3572001
02-12-2012, 10:45 PM
Let me say one thing. If I stop someone and see a rifle or shotgun on the front seat, I will take FULL control of the situation ....... REALLY fast.

jonzer77
02-12-2012, 10:59 PM
Let me say one thing. If I stop someone and see a rifle or shotgun on the front seat, I will take FULL control of the situation ....... REALLY fast.

Like asking them how it shoots?!?

dantodd
02-12-2012, 11:02 PM
Let me say one thing. If I stop someone and see a rifle or shotgun on the front seat, I will take FULL control of the situation ....... REALLY fast.

If that means asking the person to step out of the vehicle and keep his/her hands away from the weapon I have no problem. If it means proning them out after they are no longer near the weapon, cuffing and stuffing until you are done going over their car with a fine tooth comb you are no friend to the 2A or any number of other civil rights.

ap3572001
02-12-2012, 11:09 PM
Get them out of the car. Make the scene is safe for me and my partner.

jonzer77
02-12-2012, 11:14 PM
Get them out of the car. Make the scene is safe for me and my partner.

I have no issues with that.

Meplat
02-12-2012, 11:30 PM
Yes, I can. Can you?

Best answer I have seen in a while!:43:

Meplat
02-12-2012, 11:43 PM
Glocks vs 1911's.

There is no such thing as a friendly chat about that subject!:oji:

Meplat
02-12-2012, 11:59 PM
I see you haven't studied law. Sign here and have a nice day.

If one wants to change minds, posts that are coherent and cohesive have the best chance.

Shiboleth
02-13-2012, 2:52 AM
Let me say one thing. If I stop someone and see a rifle or shotgun on the front seat, I will take FULL control of the situation ....... REALLY fast.

Control is all well and good, what gets our britches all tangled is the manner in which that control is achieved. If an officer's spidey sense is tingling, then guns out and at low ready may be justified. But once a person exits the vehicle and there is distance between them and the weapon, absent some probable cause, there exists zero justification for guns to remain deployed, much less still trained on the person, dropping them to their knees or proning them and cuffing.

Officer safety gets used as a catchall to allow behavior that far and away surpasses that needed to actually ensure the officer's safety.

Lives_In_Fresno
02-13-2012, 6:42 AM
Per OP, he was talking about having rifles on the back seat of his car. That's not waving them, and no crime is being committed. In fact, it's an activity that's supposed to be protected by the Bill of Rights, contrary to the current sorry state of rights around here.

but, he said he was pulled over BECAUSE of the rifle...How the heck did the officer supposedly do that?

the hypothetical is flawed.

Badmusic
02-13-2012, 6:57 AM
Did anyone read the quote by biochembruin posted by the OP? All your talk about rights are meaningless untill you understand that no rights are superior to anyone else's rights. If the cop knows you have a gun, and doesn't know you from Adam, he is perfectly, reasonably, legally within his rights to conduct a "felony" stop.

Meplat, if that is true, then why don't you post one?

taperxz
02-13-2012, 7:43 AM
Did anyone read the quote by biochembruin posted by the OP? All your talk about rights are meaningless untill you understand that no rights are superior to anyone else's rights. If the cop knows you have a gun, and doesn't know you from Adam, he is perfectly, reasonably, legally within his rights to conduct a "felony" stop.

Meplat, if that is true, then why don't you post one?

What does someone knowing someone from Adam, have to do with the price of rice in china in regards to the law?

Your logic meter is way out of whack

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 8:07 AM
Did anyone read the quote by biochembruin posted by the OP? All your talk about rights are meaningless untill you understand that no rights are superior to anyone else's rights. If the cop knows you have a gun, and doesn't know you from Adam, he is perfectly, reasonably, legally within his rights to conduct a "felony" stop.

Meplat, if that is true, then why don't you post one?

+1 on that!
When I encounter someone with a firearm while performing my duties, I will make sure that MY RIGHT to come home that night is not violated.

If its someone with a gun AND an attitude and their words and actions make me feel unsafe, I WILL take ALL measures to feel safe as soon as possible.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRAINED TO DO.

spiderpigs
02-13-2012, 8:09 AM
Officer safety is paramount, ...and why shouldn't it be?

Because Cops are trigger happy and their lives worth no more than any other citizens. They really should stop randomly pointing guns at people.

taperxz
02-13-2012, 8:09 AM
+1 on that!
When I encounter someone with a firearm while performing my duties, I will make sure that MY RIGHT to come home that night is not violated.

Who is going to protect me from you?

EDIT: Thank you for the edit and last paragraph. That is a lot more reasonable.

choprzrul
02-13-2012, 8:18 AM
It is quite obvious that some have lost track of exactly who they were hired to ptotect and serve.

One could make a very valid argument that religion has killed more people over several millenia than than citizens killing a policeman. So, by LE logic, shouldn't they be proning out anyone they observe with a bible or a koran? I mean really, they COULD get attacked in the name of God by a law abiding citizen that they don't know.....

Those pesky civil rights just keep getting in the way of doing good police work. When can we just get rid of them? The subjects would be much easier to control...

.

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 8:20 AM
[QUOTE=taperxz;8028652]Who is going to protect me from you?[/QUOTE

Good common sense.
It goes a long was.

Had to go on a "man with a gun" call about a year ago .

Guy was loading rifles in His SUV ( no cases).

Nice guy. (Nice rifles too:) We talked . I FELT safe.

The other call (recently) had to do with an SKS in the back seat and A LOT of attitude. It did not go like the first one......

VaderSpade
02-13-2012, 8:49 AM
About 30 years ago gold was nearly $900.00 an ounce ($2,700.00 in today’s dollars). I was dredging for gold in Clear Creek and averaging 2 ounces a day. I was heading to the corner store after a pretty good day when I was pulled over for a taillight violation.

This was in the country and I always had a gun with me. A week earlier an elderly couple was killed one county over for the contents of their gold dredge. I ran my dredge nozzle from below the water surface. More times than I can count I would come to the surface to find someone standing over the dredge. Mostly they were just curious people wanting to check things out, but I knew anyone could have the drop on me if they were up to no good.

While dredging I kept a pistol tucked in a camouflaged hat hidden in the bushes on the shore. I had a plan to back away from any confrontation tell the perp to take whatever he wants and protect myself IF necessary.

This day I had 3 ounces of gold cleaned up but still in my open gold pan on the front seat when I was pulled over. Things started out friendly and I exited my truck, we had a short friendly conversation about what I was up to. I moved away and put the officers between me and my truck so they would not feel threatened when I told them there was a gun on the front seat.

They came unglued; I was thrown to the ground, a cocked gun placed against my head while a knee was ground into my back. I only had cutoffs on and this was a graveled roadside. I was held in that position by one officer while the other went through my truck. I was then hand cuffed told I was under arrest and placed in the back seat of the cruiser.

We talked about what they were going to do with my gold. We talked about what hard work gold mining is. We talked about the couple that was killed last week. We talked about the right to keep and bear arms. I quoted George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson.

Not wanting to take responsibility for my gold they did a cite and release. They kept my gun. When I went to court the judge just shook his head dropped the charges apologized and ordered my gun returned stating he would not be in my situation without a gun.

You may say all’s well that ends well but you didn’t have a cocked gun pushed into your head with great force, and a scared officers finger against the trigger.
Even while this was happening I could not help thinking what would happen if I were my brother? My younger brother has a learning disability and like a frightened animal he would go nuts if you tried to restrain him. I’m quite sure he would have ended up dead.

Guns belong with all that is good. The mere presents of firearms detours evil. The pistol and well as the rifle are equally indispensable.

tuolumnejim
02-13-2012, 8:53 AM
It's so funny how different the encounters are in California vs other states.

Here "do you have a gun on you" "yes I have a license to carry" = pulled out of the car at gunpoint and held for an hour till they figure it out.

Other states "do you have a gun on you" "yes I have a license to carry" = "cool".

Way to true and yes it does sicken me.

curtisfong
02-13-2012, 10:05 AM
+1 on that!
When I encounter someone with a firearm while performing my duties, I will make sure that MY RIGHT to come home that night is not violated.

In California, but not in free states? Are your rights to come home more expansive than my rights to come home? Can I (as a citizen) stop a cop (also a citizen) who is openly carrying a gun because it is my right? Again, not legislatively, not legally, but my RIGHT?


If its someone with a gun AND an attitude and their words and actions make me feel unsafe, I WILL take ALL measures to feel safe as soon as possible.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRAINED TO DO.

What is it about gun owners that makes you feel unsafe? Again, is this a California thing? Have to talked to cops in free states?

curtisfong
02-13-2012, 10:09 AM
All your talk about rights are meaningless untill you understand that no rights are superior to anyone else's rights.

In which case I can stop a cop who is carrying?

Especially if i "don't know him from Adam" LOL?

HBrebel
02-13-2012, 10:16 AM
You all do realize that you are discussing the reasonable-ness of an agent of the government forcibly separating you from exercising your civil rights with a drawn and loaded firearm pointed at you???

"Oh, I see that you are a law abiding citizen minding your own business today, but you have a firearm in your presence; so I am going to point my gun at you and start yelling."

Sorry, IMHO, officer safety < legal exercise of civil rights by law abiding citizens.

Don't like that equation? Find a job where you don't have to trample all over someone's civil rights in the name of safety.

Too many people have fought & died since 1775 securing my freedoms. I owe it to each and every one of them to not let my civil rights slip away.

.
I am with you on this. I don't hate cops, most of them are somewhat human but they are just a tool for government. A gun that the government can point at me and say 'shut up' or 'stop filming me' or 'that gun looks scary, lets take it into custody'. The police today is too much like that standing army that our forefathers fought so hard to get rid of.

scarville
02-13-2012, 10:22 AM
I think he thinks brandish = shove it up your Brady-hole

Anyways, this topic weighs on me daily. All these carry cases aside, loss in November and a couple of SCOTUS appointments later we will have to submit our arms in total or initiate a coup. If you think it takes a long time to get cases kicked up and get cert, wait till the liberal 9th fires up the express lane and the new liberal SCOTUS hears Heller v2.0 four months later and issues an opinion at the end of the week.
It may be true that California gun owners will give up their gun with no more resistance than a threat to sue them in court. OTOH they may collectively surprise me and resist. I really don't know yet. However, the whole country is not California. If (or when) the feds decide that they want to start confiscating guns they had better consider those crazy dudes that call themselves "three percenters".

curtisfong
02-13-2012, 10:23 AM
You all do realize that you are discussing the reasonable-ness of an agent of the government forcibly separating you from exercising your civil rights with a drawn and loaded firearm pointed at you???


"Brandishing" a loaded firearm, even?

vantec08
02-13-2012, 10:28 AM
Would it that a laptop PC laying on the seat elicit the same response - given the same non-threaning nature of the circumstances of the stop?

DVSmith
02-13-2012, 10:36 AM
Tragic as well as deplorable. Your law enforcement community has some issues in need of resolution.

Last time I got stopped for a traffic violation, I had a loaded weapon on my person.

Did I get 'proned out'? Nope. Was I treated like a felon and ordered out of the vehicle with my hands raised and my knees on the pavement? Absolutely not. Was I disarmed and cuffed until my profile and background was run? Absolutely not.

When I got stopped on I90 in South Dakota, the officer asked for my drivers license and proof of insurance, he went to his vehicle, 15 minutes later he came back and gave my IDs to me and stated that I should have a front plate. I thanked the officer for his time, he wished me safe travels and said to drive safely.

I was stopped , he ran my ID and record, he gave back my ID and materials, and both the LEO and myself left the encounter quite safely and courteously.

And to think , I HAD A LOADED WEAPON ON MY PERSON!

Now I understand that law enforcement has an insanely tough job. They daily have to deal with the possibility of being shot and killed in a random act of violence and see the underbelly of human society on a frequent basis. But 'officer safety' is not a license to cancel out the Bill of Rights.

By comparison, in Free America cops and citizens have chats by the roadside about the merits of guns and weapons. Last time I met a LEO me and him got into a friendly chat about Glocks vs 1911's.

Let's just stipulate that South Dakota is a far different world than South Central Los Angeles. LEO response to the same situation in those two VERY different environments should be based on expectation of dangerous activity, don't you think?

The Wingnut
02-13-2012, 10:39 AM
So, Are you saying that this may get someones attention??????

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa177/BassNuts/Guns.jpg

It got my attention! Nice A-5!

Super Spy
02-13-2012, 11:00 AM
Yes, you will be removed from the presence of firearm for officer safety. I suggest you transport any firearms in a hard case, locked if required.

This is the attitude I have a problem with. Treating law abiding citizens as a threat. When I read the Bill of Rights the 1st and 2nd amendment suggest that I should be able to Mexican carry a Glock in my pants anytime I want. LE policy for officer safety trumping individual rights is so much BS. I wouldn't ever Mexican carry a Glock, I wouldn't want to blow my junk off, it'd be in a paddle holster. My point is treating a law abiding citizen like a felon is complete BS. I think the officer and the department should be civilly liable for defamation of character for placing someone in cuffs without legal justification. What if you're sitting on the side of the road in cuffs in front of a police car and a client drove by and saw you? Bye bye client and income.

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 11:03 AM
Lets relax for second....

Anyone here who is (or was) an LEO will know that HOW You come in contact with a person with gun(s), WHERE, WHY, WHO the person is or appears to be,their reaction to the encounter, type of guns etc. will make a BIG difference on how the officers will act.

DO You blame them?????

taperxz
02-13-2012, 11:09 AM
Lets relax for second....

Anyone here who is (or was) an LEO will know that HOW You come in contact with a person with gun(s), WHERE, WHY, WHO the person is or appears to be,their reaction to the encounter, type of guns etc. will make a BIG difference on how the officers will act.

DO You blame them?????

Yes i do! Why is it that CA LE have CA attitude? There is a difference you know! Not in all areas of CA but ya i blame your training and the fact that you take on the attitude of YOU(being LE not personally) and Other LE first and the citizens and their rights second or maybe 3rd??

taperxz
02-13-2012, 11:10 AM
AND NO I'M NOT COP BASHING

We were asked a question by a LEO!!!!

lhecker51
02-13-2012, 11:11 AM
You all do realize that you are discussing the reasonable-ness of an agent of the government forcibly separating you from exercising your civil rights with a drawn and loaded firearm pointed at you???

"Oh, I see that you are a law abiding citizen minding your own business today, but you have a firearm in your presence; so I am going to point my gun at you and start yelling."

Sorry, IMHO, officer safety < legal exercise of civil rights by law abiding citizens.

Don't like that equation? Find a job where you don't have to trample all over someone's civil rights in the name of safety.

Too many people have fought & died since 1775 securing my freedoms. I owe it to each and every one of them to not let my civil rights slip away.

.

+1million and one more.

Very well put. Police are armed for their own safety, not yours.

pepsi2451
02-13-2012, 11:12 AM
but, he said he was pulled over BECAUSE of the rifle...How the heck did the officer supposedly do that?

the hypothetical is flawed.

Like I said when I replied to you in post #73, in the thread I was talking about someone said "Everyone has cell phone and can easily call 911 and tell the dispatcher the driver has a gun (its happened a lot) - a felony stop shall occur and guaranteed the face will be on the pavement. Case in point, someone called 911, and the reportee thought she saw a rifle. We located the vehicle, did a felony stop and searched the vehicle. It turned out it was a tripod for the guys video camera."

Unless he was waving the tripod around and pretending it was a gun (the officer didn't say he was), I would say you can get pulled over just for having something that looks like a gun.

Notorious also posted about a call he got about a man with a rifle by an elementary school, it turned out to be some pvc pipes. So I would say you can easily be reported without brandishing.

Did anyone read the quote by biochembruin posted by the OP? All your talk about rights are meaningless untill you understand that no rights are superior to anyone else's rights. If the cop knows you have a gun, and doesn't know you from Adam, he is perfectly, reasonably, legally within his rights to conduct a "felony" stop.

What gives him that right?

+1 on that!
When I encounter someone with a firearm while performing my duties, I will make sure that MY RIGHT to come home that night is not violated.

If its someone with a gun AND an attitude and their words and actions make me feel unsafe, I WILL take ALL measures to feel safe as soon as possible.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRAINED TO DO.

Where do you get the right to work as and LEO and always be safe? I don't see it in the constitution but it must be in there if it trumps my civil rights.

When you took your oath was it to uphold the constitution as long as you felt safe?

curtisfong
02-13-2012, 11:15 AM
Let's just stipulate that South Dakota is a far different world than South Central Los Angeles. LEO response to the same situation in those two VERY different environments should be based on expectation of dangerous activity, don't you think?

Until concealed carry becomes common in LA? Then what? The "different" world in your head is a false construct; a result of unconstitutional legislation against bearing arms.

pepsi2451
02-13-2012, 11:17 AM
Lets relax for second....

Anyone here who is (or was) an LEO will know that HOW You come in contact with a person with gun(s), WHERE, WHY, WHO the person is or appears to be,their reaction to the encounter, type of guns etc. will make a BIG difference on how the officers will act.

DO You blame them?????

Well the other thread had a lot of quotes like "Everyone has cell phone and can easily call 911 and tell the dispatcher the driver has a gun (its happened a lot) - a felony stop shall occur and guaranteed the face will be on the pavement." or "And you will be detained at gun point, at least by me and every member of my department." Bold added by me.

That makes it seem like it is policy to treat anyone with a gun like a criminal. I don't see how anyone could ever think that was constitutional.

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 11:22 AM
......You are on patrol . 0130 hrs dispatcher makes You aware or a robbery near by . 0150 hrs a drive by . One victim rushed to the hospital...

Coffee would feel really good now. As You are driving , You notice a car making a right hand turn in front of You. Going a little fast with headlights off.

You pull them over. As You approach the vehicle from the passenger side .(Thats what most of us do now) , You notice a lever action rifle resting against a passenger seat.....
The driver is reluctant to follow Your instructions.......



Are You going to discuss civil rights with Him?

pepsi2451
02-13-2012, 11:24 AM
Let's just stipulate that South Dakota is a far different world than South Central Los Angeles. LEO response to the same situation in those two VERY different environments should be based on expectation of dangerous activity, don't you think?

What makes the environments so different? I'm assuming that its because in one place its common for law abiding citizens to carry firearms in the open and one place its not. How can that ever change? Law abiding citizens can't start carrying guns in the open without worrying about being detained at gun point. They can't try to get the law changed, because its not against the law.

curtisfong
02-13-2012, 11:26 AM
Are You going to discuss civil rights with Him?

Why? Is discussing his civil rights with him the only way you can be convinced to not violate them?

Also, are you in a free state?

pepsi2451
02-13-2012, 11:31 AM
......You are on patrol . 0130 hrs dispatcher makes You aware or a robbery near by . 0150 hrs a drive by . One victim rushed to the hospital...

Coffee would feel really good now. As You are driving , You notice a car making a right hand turn in front of You. Going a little fast with headlights off.

You pull them over. As You approach the vehicle from the passenger side .(Thats what most of us do now) , You notice a lever action rifle resting against a passenger seat.....
The driver is reluctant to follow Your instructions.......



Are You going to discuss civil rights with Him?

You are on patrol, dispatcher informs you of a report of a rifle in someones back seat at the gas station.

You find the car leaving the gas station and pull them over (for what I don't know)

When you get up to the car (unless you already forced him out at gunpoint) you see 3 rifles on the front seat, a shooting bag and some targets in the back seat, and some target stands in the back of the pickup.

The driver is calm and polite but doesn't understand why you pulled him over.

Are you going to prone him out at gun point?


I'm not saying cops should never detain an armed suspect at gunpoint. I'm saying it shouldn't be policy to automatically treat everyone with a gun near them like a criminal.

lhecker51
02-13-2012, 11:33 AM
....Officer safety is paramount, ...and why shouldn't it be?

Here is why officer safety is not paramount:

If I as an active duty combat soldier have been told that non-combatant safety is paramount, then why should I as a US citizen not expect the same from law enforcement?

The fact that local LE policy is used to justify the high-risk stop is not a defensible argument if the policy is flawed. It is these types of policies that get citizens wrongfully killed. Case in point is where LEO's are told by an informant that a person is dealing drugs out of their home and gives the LEO the wrong address and they go in with a guns drawn ending with the innocent occupant dead due to his reaction to what he thought was a break in. We all have read the news in these cases and can agree that this is not acceptable. A rifle being present in a vehicle is not PC for a high risk stop as no visible crime has been committed, IN MY OPINION.

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 11:36 AM
You are on patrol, dispatcher informs you of a report of a rifle in someones back seat at the gas station.

You find the car leaving the gas station and pull them over (for what I don't know)

When you get up to the car (unless you already forced him out at gunpoint) you see 3 rifles on the front seat, a shooting bag and some targets in the back seat, and some target stands in the back of the pickup.

The driver is calm and polite but doesn't understand why you pulled him over.

Are you going to prone him out at gun point?


I'm not saying cops should never detain an armed suspect at gunpoint. I'm saying it shouldn't be policy to automatically treat everyone with a gun near them like a criminal.

We would likely talk about His rifles.:)

taperxz
02-13-2012, 11:46 AM
......You are on patrol . 0130 hrs dispatcher makes You aware or a robbery near by . 0150 hrs a drive by . One victim rushed to the hospital...

Coffee would feel really good now. As You are driving , You notice a car making a right hand turn in front of You. Going a little fast with headlights off.

You pull them over. As You approach the vehicle from the passenger side .(Thats what most of us do now) , You notice a lever action rifle resting against a passenger seat.....
The driver is reluctant to follow Your instructions.......



Are You going to discuss civil rights with Him?

Understand.

We would likely talk about His rifles.:)

Fair enough, so you profile. Which i'm not against, but does the state allow you to do that?

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 12:06 PM
Understand.



Fair enough, so you profile. Which i'm not against, but does the state allow you to do that?

Not profile. Just use my brain. State allows it.

Are You an LEO?

You CAN NOT HANDLE EVERY CALL/ENCOUNTER THE SAME WAY.

taperxz
02-13-2012, 12:15 PM
Not profile. Just use my brain. State allows it.

Are You an LEO?

You CAN NOT HANDLE EVERY CALL/ENCOUNTER THE SAME WAY.

Understand and NO! I am not an LEO!

I do have A LOT of friends that are. While i AM all for people using their brains i also question their ability to use them in certain situations. (just like anyone you come in contact with at work or in general)

You may very well be good at judging a situation. Other LEO may not be and because of that, the average gun owner has to take a certain "view"

We have certainly seen LE screw up a few encounters with firearms over the years now, agreed?

FWIW, LE i know, i would say a handful would be like you and evaluate with reason. Some of them i wouldn't trust (their people skills) for a minor traffic violation.

Wolverine
02-13-2012, 12:28 PM
......You are on patrol . 0130 hrs dispatcher makes You aware or a robbery near by . 0150 hrs a drive by . One victim rushed to the hospital...

Coffee would feel really good now. As You are driving , You notice a car making a right hand turn in front of You. Going a little fast with headlights off.

You pull them over. As You approach the vehicle from the passenger side .(Thats what most of us do now) , You notice a lever action rifle resting against a passenger seat.....
The driver is reluctant to follow Your instructions.......



Are You going to discuss civil rights with Him?

No, I'd tell him that his lights are off...you are free to go...have a nice evening. For most people telling them their lights are off is sufficient, so I wouldn't feel the need to remind them that they need to have operating headlights to drive at night.

Reallybigrhino
02-13-2012, 12:30 PM
Which i'm not against, but does the state allow you to do that?

Yes, they are specifically trained to do that.

HBrebel
02-13-2012, 12:40 PM
Because Cops are trigger happy and their lives worth no more than any other citizens. They really should stop randomly pointing guns at people. 'their lives are worth no more than any other citizens' what is so hard to understand about that? If I am in fear of what some gun happy cop might do to me, I am obligated to protect myself from harm yes? My family deserves to have me come home safe as well right?

MBW
02-13-2012, 12:54 PM
+1 on that!
When I encounter someone with a firearm while performing my duties, I will make sure that MY RIGHT to come home that night is not violated.

If its someone with a gun AND an attitude and their words and actions make me feel unsafe, I WILL take ALL measures to feel safe as soon as possible.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRAINED TO DO.:facepalm:

Thanks for validating all my fears about police officers. People trained to think their life is more important than anything else. GET A NEW LINE OF WORK IF THATS WHAT YOU WANT. It almost seems the point of the police force is to protect the police force. What ever happened to protect and serve? And what really sickens me is that as a Marine in Iraq we were watched over and scrutinized after violent situations 10x more than police officers are in America. Shoot some kid in the back as a cop, get paid to retire, shoot some kid in the back in Iraq, welcome to the 5 o clock news and every blood thirsty liberal in America.

Yugo
02-13-2012, 1:04 PM
I have been pulled out of the car at gun point by like 10 cops in san diego cause some libtard thought I cut him off....I did not have any guns, in fact this was many years before I even owned guns. The point is that it all depends on the situation and there is nothing JOE SHMOE can do about it but to take it and smile. I dont hate LEO's but some of them should never have been employed IMHO.

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 1:13 PM
Let me put at another way.
You can not create a generic situation here.
Quick example.

The call I was talking about earlier involved a man in an affluent residential area putting rifles in His SUV.

As I approached Him He said Hi to me and asked me if anything was wrong.

I told Him why I was there.
He told me that He did not have enough rifle cases and was taking them to the show to put them on His friends table.
I asked Him for an ID. ( He did live at that location )
I called dispatcher and made it a final CODE 4
Talked guns for few minutes and told Him to few fun at the show.

My actions were based on MANY factors. I will be the one deciding how I will handle my next "man with a gun" call.

I will make the scene safe for all involved.
If someone will not be happy with my actions , they will have their rights to have my name and a star number.

curtisfong
02-13-2012, 1:18 PM
You can not create a generic situation here.


Agreed.

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 1:32 PM
No one I work with will order people on the ground at a gunpoint just because they a rifle in the car.

taperxz
02-13-2012, 1:40 PM
Let me put at another way.
You can not create a generic situation here.
Quick example.

The call I was talking about earlier involved a man in an affluent residential area putting rifles in His SUV.

As I approached Him He said Hi to me and asked me if anything was wrong.

I told Him why I was there.
He told me that He did not have enough rifle cases and was taking them to the show to put them on His friends table.
I asked Him for an ID. ( He did live at that location )
I called dispatcher and made it a final CODE 4
Talked guns for few minutes and told Him to few fun at the show.

My actions were based on MANY factors. I will be the one deciding how I will handle my next "man with a gun" call.

I will make the scene safe for all involved.
If someone will not be happy with my actions , they will have their rights to have my name and a star number.

A Star??? thats a hint guys? :)

BassNut
02-13-2012, 1:44 PM
It got my attention! Nice A-5!

Thanks, I own 3 of them. Only 1 is a Belgium though. That one was stolen about 20 years ago and the local LEO office called my Mom about 2 years ago and said they had recovered it. It was still in excellent condition like whoever stole it, never shot it.

Did you see that Browning is bringing the A-5 Back?! I am going to have to go get one. They look Bad Arse.

Reallybigrhino
02-13-2012, 1:47 PM
ap3572001, I got a scenario can you give your thoughts?
Pretend you are driving along a dirt road 20 minutes away from town and you see someone on a four wheeler with a shotgun. How will you handle that situation? thanks.

A-J
02-13-2012, 1:54 PM
Without speaking to any single person's views, I will say that transporting a firearm IN CA in any manner other than that proscribed in the law will draw variable responses from LEOs. There are any number of factors that influence the interaction, and each situation will be different.

Whether or not you agree with the law as it is written is not relevant to the discussion for the simple fact that you (and me for that matter) are required to comply with the law. Until or unless we win the 2A fight, that is the situation. I'm all for loosening / removing restrictions on legal gun owners, but that day has not yet arrived.

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 1:57 PM
ap3572001, I got a scenario can you give your thoughts?
Pretend you are driving along a dirt road 20 minutes away from town and you see someone on a four wheeler with a shotgun. How will you handle that situation? thanks.

Ok. HOW did I see the shotgun? Any ducks in the back of the truck? Is this the first time I ever see a guy with shotgun in that area?

lhecker51
02-13-2012, 1:59 PM
Let me put at another way.
You can not create a generic situation here.
Quick example.

The call I was talking about earlier involved a man in an affluent residential area putting rifles in His SUV.

As I approached Him He said Hi to me and asked me if anything was wrong.

I told Him why I was there.
He told me that He did not have enough rifle cases and was taking them to the show to put them on His friends table.
I asked Him for an ID. ( He did live at that location )
I called dispatcher and made it a final CODE 4
Talked guns for few minutes and told Him to few fun at the show.

My actions were based on MANY factors. I will be the one deciding how I will handle my next "man with a gun" call.

I will make the scene safe for all involved.
If someone will not be happy with my actions , they will have their rights to have my name and a star number.

I respect the dangerous occupation you are in and hope for your continued safety.

If I am not breaking the law regarding firearms and you begin to question me, I will not answer your questions without consulting an attorney. There are jurisdictions in this state that have very aggressive DA's that will create a case where none existed. Any lawyer on this forum disagree with my refusal top answer questions without an attorney present if I am not breaking the law, charged or not?

I see you are from the East Bay. I lived in Pleasant Hill and was moving into temporary corporate housing when a neighbor called the police and stated I was moving military assault weapons into my home. The truth is that I was moving several cased handguns, hunting rifles, and several military ammo cans of my brass that I reload. The police showed up and attempted to question me when I informed them I would be happy to answer questions in the presence of my attorney. To make a long story short, they asked to see all of my firearms and I refused. I then asked if I am under arrest and if they were finished as I saw no reason for further questioning without my attorney. They then informed me that I had sixty days to register my handguns. At 4:00 am the next day they executed an armed (guns drawn) search warrant on my home and found nothing illegal. This was all based on a nosy neighbor's outright lie that I had military style "Assault Rifles" loaded with "clips" and that they were afraid for the safety of their children. I was never arrested or charged. See what nice neighbors can do?

Reallybigrhino
02-13-2012, 1:59 PM
Ok. HOW did I see the shotgun?

Lets say hes steering with his right hand and holding the shotgun on his lap with his left hand. You can see the barrel sticking out.

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 2:02 PM
Lets say hes steering with his right hand and holding the shotgun on his lap with his left hand. You can see the barrel sticking out.

He will be stopped and QUICKLY separated from His firearm.

And we will take it from there.

His behaviour few other factors will dictate what will happen next.

Reallybigrhino
02-13-2012, 2:06 PM
He will be stopped and QUICKLY separated from His firearm.

And we will take it from there.

His behaviour few other factors will dictate what will happen next.

That's good to know, thanks. I asked this because I have a ranch and in order to enter inside the ranch (from the house) is to use a public dirt road for about 400 yards. The whole ranch is fenced in because of the horses/cows.

pepsi2451
02-13-2012, 2:11 PM
Without speaking to any single person's views, I will say that transporting a firearm IN CA in any manner other than that proscribed in the law will draw variable responses from LEOs. There are any number of factors that influence the interaction, and each situation will be different.

Whether or not you agree with the law as it is written is not relevant to the discussion for the simple fact that you (and me for that matter) are required to comply with the law. Until or unless we win the 2A fight, that is the situation. I'm all for loosening / removing restrictions on legal gun owners, but that day has not yet arrived.

My questions were about cops detaining people who are following the law. There is no law that says your rifles can't be in the open when you transport them.

Lives_In_Fresno
02-13-2012, 2:14 PM
No one I work with will order people on the ground at a gunpoint just because they a rifle in the car.


Same here...but then again, none of the people I work with are LEO's....

greybeard
02-13-2012, 2:29 PM
Because Cops are trigger happy and their lives worth no more than any other citizens. They really should stop randomly pointing guns at people.
They are not worth any less either.
Not a LEO

jwb28
02-13-2012, 2:46 PM
I respect the dangerous occupation you are in and hope for your continued safety.

If I am not breaking the law regarding firearms and you begin to question me, I will not answer your questions without consulting an attorney. There are jurisdictions in this state that have very aggressive DA's that will create a case where none existed. Any lawyer on this forum disagree with my refusal top answer questions without an attorney present if I am not breaking the law, charged or not?

I see you are from the East Bay. I lived in Pleasant Hill and was moving into temporary corporate housing when a neighbor called the police and stated I was moving military assault weapons into my home. The truth is that I was moving several cased handguns, hunting rifles, and several military ammo cans of my brass that I reload. The police showed up and attempted to question me when I informed them I would be happy to answer questions in the presence of my attorney. To make a long story short, they asked to see all of my firearms and I refused. I then asked if I am under arrest and if they were finished as I saw no reason for further questioning without my attorney. They then informed me that I had sixty days to register my handguns. At 4:00 am the next day they executed an armed (guns drawn) search warrant on my home and found nothing illegal. This was all based on a nosy neighbor's outright lie that I had military style "Assault Rifles" loaded with "clips" and that they were afraid for the safety of their children. I was never arrested or charged. See what nice neighbors can do?

I know I live with a rather simplistic view of life, but why in a situation like this can't filing a false police report be brought against "nice neighbors"
People call up say what they want and you get a weapons drawn search? What if the searchee happens to be cleaning a rifle at the time?
Neighbor puts everyone's life at risk. Cops and those the warrant is executed on.

nick
02-13-2012, 3:06 PM
I know I live with a rather simplistic view of life, but why in a situation like this can't filing a false police report be brought against "nice neighbors"
People call up say what they want and you get a weapons drawn search? What if the searchee happens to be cleaning a rifle at the time?
Neighbor puts everyone's life at risk. Cops and those the warrant is executed on.

This, in my opinion, is something that doesn't happen nearly often enough. After all, we do occasionally prosecute people for prank 911 calls.

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 3:10 PM
That's good to know, thanks. I asked this because I have a ranch and in order to enter inside the ranch (from the house) is to use a public dirt road for about 400 yards. The whole ranch is fenced in because of the horses/cows.

Every sitaution is different. Not just with firearms.

Meplat
02-13-2012, 3:50 PM
Did anyone read the quote by biochembruin posted by the OP? All your talk about rights are meaningless untill you understand that no rights are superior to anyone else's rights. If the cop knows you have a gun, and doesn't know you from Adam, he is perfectly, reasonably, legally within his rights to conduct a "felony" stop.

Meplat, if that is true, then why don't you post one?

Well, I could point out that it is not the responsibility of the erudite to cater to the linguistically challenged. But then your reply indicates that you clearly understood that post.

On another subject; I think that it would be the right thing for you to make it clear you are not a LEO so that our real LEOs are not tarred with your brush.

Jason P
02-13-2012, 4:03 PM
Well, I could point out that it is not the responsibility of the erudite to cater to the linguistically challenged. But then your reply indicates that you clearly understood that post.

On another subject; I think that it would be the right thing for you to make it clear you are not a LEO so that our real LEOs are not tarred with your brush.

LOL and agreed.

kaligaran
02-13-2012, 4:18 PM
You guys are making me nervous.
I have had a LTC in my previous states for over 11 years. Never had any problems with cops or any issues like that.
My CA LTC will be here in a couple of weeks. The posts here make it sound that if I ever have a traffic stop, the cops will want to detain me and search my car (a 5 minute traffic stop just turned to an hour?)! Hopefully the previous posts are just examples.

Let me start by saying, I've had all positive experiences with cops, no issues. I also am pretty low-key.
If a cop sees a gun in my car during a traffic stop (let's say I'm transporting my rifle in the frontseat legally unloaded), asking me to exit the vehicle and watching me like a hawk while I do so is fine by me. I understand.
Drawing their weapons on me and telling me to get out of the car now puts my life at risk by a twitchy finger. Whereas their life was not in immediate danger. I was not being aggressive adn doing nothing illegal (except for whatever I may have been stopped for... speeding... broken taillight... etc).
Getting pulled over by the cops always makes me nervous (I've been pulled over only a couple of times in my life). I assume that a cop might think I have something to hide because of this?

weezil_boi
02-13-2012, 5:42 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with an officer stopping me in that case since he would have reasonable suspicion I robbed a bank. Robbing banks is illegal.

Since having a rifle is legal, I don't see how a rifle all by itself is reason enough to think a crime has been committed.

Im printing this out... its going in my book of most commen sensed quotes.

well said sir!

scarville
02-13-2012, 6:06 PM
I know I live with a rather simplistic view of life, but why in a situation like this can't filing a false police report be brought against "nice neighbors"
People call up say what they want and you get a weapons drawn search? What if the searchee happens to be cleaning a rifle at the time?
Neighbor puts everyone's life at risk. Cops and those the warrant is executed on.
This is California. The complaint gave them the legal mumbo jumbo to get a warrant and they got to teach an uppity gun owner a lesson. Why would a DA want to prosecute the upstanding citizen who did his duty to the State?

It's for the children.

Jack L
02-13-2012, 6:07 PM
Removing you from the car has nothing to do with a crime, it has to do with officer safety. They can ask you to step out to minimize the risk to themselves, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, that is not to say that a LEO can stop you for simply having a firearm. The context of the interaction matters, traffic stop with visible firearm going to be removed from the presence of the threat.



This is reasonable. If you are driving with an exposed rifle expect it if stopped by an officer. As long as the LEO treats you with respect while he checks you and the firearm out I don't have an issue with it. After all I am paying them to fight crime which means dealing with a number of crazy desperados. This is CA POST training from what I understand.

sandman21
02-13-2012, 6:08 PM
He will be stopped and QUICKLY separated from His firearm.

And we will take it from there.

His behaviour few other factors will dictate what will happen next.

RAS for the stop? Outside of preforming an e-check, the presence of the firearm does not give you RAS, see Florida v. JL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.)

This is reasonable. If you are driving with an exposed rifle expect it if stopped by an officer. As long as the LEO treats you with respect while he checks you and the firearm out I don't have an issue with it. After all I am paying them to fight crime which means dealing with a number of crazy desperados. This is CA POST training from what I understand.

I firmly believe an e-check to be a 4A violation, however, that would be the only reason a LEO could stop you. Transporting a firearm legally is not RAS of a crime, depending on other information.

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 10:58 PM
Presense of a firearm gives me all reasons I need to make the scene safe .

Connor P Price
02-13-2012, 11:12 PM
Presense of a firearm gives me all reasons I need to make the scene safe .

Presence of a firearm does not by itself suggest that a scene is unsafe.

repubconserv
02-13-2012, 11:24 PM
Presense of a firearm gives me all reasons I need to make the scene safe .

No it does not. Just as someone speaking, would not give you reason to interrupt him to tell him you wont stand for hate speech.

Or someone praying would not give you reason to interrupt him to tell him you wont stand for terrorist activity.

Whether I have a guns or not, the 2nd and 4th amendments gives you all the reasons you need to stay the hell out of my business.

Now if I went in to a bank with guns drawn... then you can make the scene safe Deputy Fife.

Jason P
02-13-2012, 11:32 PM
Presense of a firearm gives me all reasons I need to make the scene safe .

The only thing a firearm proves is that you are at the scene of at least one person exercising their God given rights. The fact that you seem so hell bent on "making the scene safe" tells me that you picked the wrong job. A friend of mine just graduated the academy back in NC last year.

We were discussing this exact topic, and he said something similar to what you are saying here. I asked him what happens when someone has a smart mouth. He said, "Nothing as long as he doesn't get physical."

I said, "What if he refuses to allow you to search his car or answer your questions?" He said, "That's his right. I'll hold someone for a warrant or a supervisor if I'm getting a bad vibe, but mostly I'd just call that being smart."

I said, "So why then does the gun make you feel like you have to violate his rights on any level because of your fear or insecurities?"

He said, "I don't know, better to be safe than sorry I guess."

But liberty cannot be maintained with "better safe than sorry". Liberty is paramount above all things government, so long as that liberty does not endanger or violate others or their property. Your interest in getting home safe is probably better served by you getting a job as an accountant.

My father was a deputy, I have a few friends who are LEO's. My younger days as a liberal who believed in holistic living (pre-sobriety) and the Cartoon Network led to a lot of interactions with LEO's. I have been impressed with some, not so much with most.

Not that I'm against law enforcement, or even you. But I am against weakness in positions of governmental authority. Timid, insecure police and idealistic socialists in the White House are not that different to me. If you (not YOU necessarily, but LEO's in general) knew how to do your job, and truly accepted the risk of doing it, then a man with a gun would not bother you.

That is the price we all must pay for living in America. We get to embrace our own liberty, but in a truly free society such as this we have to respect that others are free as well...

sawchain
02-13-2012, 11:47 PM
I've been sitting here thinking about how an officer in the OP's hypothetical might be held accountable for his actions. A brief searched turned up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_imprisonment):

In Enright v. Groves, a woman sued a police officer for false imprisonment after being arrested for not leashing her dog. The plaintiff was in her car when she was approached by the officer, and when she was asked to produce her driver's license and failed to do so, she was arrested. She won her claim, despite having lost the case of not leashing her dog. The court reasoned that the officer did not have proper legal authority in arresting her, because he arrested her for not producing her driver's license (which itself was not a crime) as opposed to the dog leash violation.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_imprisonment

Update: The link from that page to the definition of imprisonment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment) defines it as:

Imprisonment is no other thing than the restraint of a man's liberty, whether it be in the open field, or in the stocks, or in the cage in the streets or in a man's own house, as well as in the common gaols; and in all the places the party so restrained is said to be a prisoner so long as he hath not his liberty freely to go at all times to all places whither he will without bail or mainprise or otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment

ap3572001
02-13-2012, 11:47 PM
Sorry but for the last 20 years I have been making sure that me and person I am working with come home after the shift is over. When we get there WE decide whats safe and what is not. Officer safety is taught from day one.

Jason P
02-13-2012, 11:54 PM
When we get there WE decide whats safe and what is not.

FAIL! YOU decide whether someone's liberty deserves to be their's?! Well I'm sure glad the folks in your jurisdiction have their own little totalitarian patroling the streets with his Solomon suit on:rolleyes:

dantodd
02-13-2012, 11:56 PM
Sorry but for the last 20 years I have been making sure that me and person I am working with come home after the shift is over. When we get there WE decide whats safe and what is not. Officer safety is taught from day one.

I hope no one ever thinks your gun is a threat to their safety. It might end poorly for both of you. Maybe some day you will that've such fear of a armed populace.

sawchain
02-14-2012, 12:02 AM
Sorry but for the last 20 years I have been making sure that me and person I am working with come home after the shift is over. When we get there WE decide whats safe and what is not. Officer safety is taught from day one.

Have you ever shot anyone?

ap3572001
02-14-2012, 12:08 AM
You see, as a very young man, I spend about 3 years (total) in places far away where You watch Your back 24/7 . I came home alive. Helped few others to do the same. Gun or no gun, we make it safe and we talk.

Connor P Price
02-14-2012, 12:08 AM
Sorry but for almost last 20 years I have been making sure that me and person I am working with come home after the shift is over. When we get there WE decide whats safe and what is not. Officer safety is taught from day one.

There is nothing wrong with officer safety, in fact its a good thing. There is a bit of a problem with officer safety being used as an excuse for rights violations and for putting the general public's safety in danger. I have 3 LEO's in my family and its quite important to me that they all make it home safely after their shifts. I would expect that any one of them are perfectly capable of assessing a situation and acting accordingly.

The problem with "officer safety" as it seems to be applied by some (not most) officers is that they don't care much about anyone else's safety but their own, and they sometimes seem to think that their irrational fear of law abiding gun owners justifies a violation of someones rights. The mere presence of a firearm does not give RAS or probable cause for an unwarranted search or detainment. The current California Penal Code specifically allows for an unconstitutional search in that situation so I wont necessarily fault an individual officer who conducts a check, but the law is clearly a 4th amendment violation. Furthermore there are those officers, albeit few and far between who think its appropriate to point their gun at somebody only because they have a firearm. They use "officer safety" as an excuse, but don't seem to mind putting a law abiding citizens safety at risk. This is unacceptable conduct and I'd really like to see qualified immunity pierced in such a situation and the officer arrested for ADW, or at the very least brandishing if its determined that the individual had done nothing wrong and was exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. It's never acceptable to point a firearm at somebody who poses no threat.

(ap3572001- My comments are not directed at you and I don't mean to imply that you would act in a way that I'd disapprove of in a given situation. Your post simply was a convenient segway into the clear difference between the good and evil of "officer safety" as applied in certain circumstances.)

GNE
02-14-2012, 12:11 AM
On my honor,
I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution
my community and the agency I serve.

I don't see officer safety being paramount in that oath. What exactly do police officers swear to uphold?

ap3572001
02-14-2012, 12:12 AM
Have you ever shot anyone?

Why? Why would You ask this?

repubconserv
02-14-2012, 12:13 AM
Sorry but for almost last 20 years I have been making sure that me and person I am working with come home after the shift is over. When we get WE decide whats safe and what is not. Officer safety is taught from day one.

I am assuming they do not teach the actual law/constitution? If they did you would know that guns=/= criminal behavior.

Your priorities are totally whacked out for a LEO. If you said that "public safety" was why you made every scene with a gun safe... I could see a possibly good (misguided) reason to do so. You really don't care about public safety or upholding the law though, you care about numero uno.... and your fellow officer.

It is this kind of selfish attitude, illogical reasoning, and blatant disregard for constitutional rights that has so many people disliking or hating cops.

I know that you are probably one of the better cops out there (hopefully), and I know I won't change your mind arguing on the inet. So, I wish you the best, and will pray for your safety.

ap3572001
02-14-2012, 12:25 AM
I am assuming they do not teach the actual law/constitution? If they did you would know that guns=/= criminal behavior.

Your priorities are totally whacked out for a LEO. If you said that "public safety" was why you made every scene with a gun safe... I could see a possibly good (misguided) reason to do so. You really don't care about public safety or upholding the law though, you care about numero uno.... and your fellow officer.

It is this kind of selfish attitude, illogical reasoning, and blatant disregard for constitutional rights that has so many people disliking or hating cops.
Have You ever lost a friend who went on call and got shot by an armed idiot? Ever seen a teenager shot several times ? YOU BET I WILL MAKE IT SAFE! every time I feel I need to. And by the way, I am NOT only talking about firearms.

repubconserv
02-14-2012, 12:41 AM
Have You ever lost a friend who went on call and got shot by an armed idiot? Ever seen a teenager shot several times ? YOU BET I WILL MAKE IT SAFE! every time I feel I need to. And by the way, I am NOT only talking about firearms.

I am truly sorry for your traumatic losses and experiences. But When you signed up for your job, you should have known it comes with the territory. It is totally irrational to "make a scene safe", when there is no problem to begin with. You think it is your "experience" telling you to do to do something, when it is actually paranoia telling you to do it. It would be like secret service tackling every person who reached inside their pocket while in the presence of the POTUS. I view it as totally irrational to take me out of my car (wasting my valuable time) because I am legally transporting my shotgun in my front seat.

I will say it once again, your badge does not trump constitutional rights, nor does your safety, nor do your experiences.

PS, GNE had a great point, perhaps explain to us how you so easily ignore 2/3s of that oath?

Cylarz
02-14-2012, 1:51 AM
Where in the bill of rights does it say they are null and void the minute somebody claims "officer safety"?

I think my favorite are the ones who think the phrase "probable cause" are some magic words that make the 4th Amendment just go away....that it gives them the right to search my person or vehicle without a warrant. I had a cop go through my car once after uttering this term. Though I doubted his logic, I complied in the hope that he'd let me go after failing to find any contraband. I was right.

The guy who had his house gone through by gun-wielding officers at 4AM was indeed the victim of nosy neighbors living in a liberal area of the state...and overzealous police officers apparently accustomed to dealing with the hardened thugs who frequently inhabit urban areas. That said, he probably would have been better-off simply complying with the request of the first officer to make contact with him, the one who asked to see the guns. Had he done that, they would have been able to determine there was no threat and the rest of that would not have happened. When he refused, the police assumed the worst, fearing they would meet armed resistance...and so returned in great numbers, armed to the teeth. (The fact that they bothered to get a warrant first, tells me that they wanted to have their I's dotted and T's crossed, as my dad used to say. )

Purists, feel free to criticize this reasoning if you like. I know that some will see this as "rolling over" and give the police the latitude to push the envelope a little further and a little further...but sometimes simply answering their questions (especially if you really do have nothing to hide) can end the encounter more quickly and more positively, than insisting on asserting yourself or giving them the runaround.

I will add that California police officers, collectively, seem to have a HUGE attitude problem. It troubled me greatly that so many local police departments last year came out in favor of the open carry ban that just went into effect, ostensibly in the name of "officer safety." The question I wanted answered: Why do law officers in other states seem to have no trouble dealing with the sight of a citizen carrying openly, or in assessing the situation without putting his life, the citizen's life, and other citizens' lives at risk in some high-stress encounter? I don't see cops in Utah or Mississippi or Florida clamoring for an open-carry ban or reporting such problems. Are California police officers less competent than their counterparts in other states?

That said, I ALWAYS transport my weapons in the trunk of my vehicle or back of my pickup in hard sided cases. Handguns I place in a hard sided case, secure with a padlock, AND put in the trunk. It's more than having my bases covered as far as compliance with the law...it is common sense. The fewer people that know I am transporting weapons, the better...whether that be gun-phobic fellow citizens, paranoid cops, or criminals who want to steal them. My only area of concern is who might get "upset" at the sight of me loading or unloading the weapons into my trunk while I am in my driveway, while headed to or returning from the shooting range.

cmichini
02-14-2012, 5:47 AM
You guys are making me nervous.
I have had a LTC in my previous states for over 11 years. Never had any problems with cops or any issues like that.
My CA LTC will be here in a couple of weeks. The posts here make it sound that if I ever have a traffic stop, the cops will want to detain me and search my car (a 5 minute traffic stop just turned to an hour?)! Hopefully the previous posts are just examples.

Let me start by saying, I've had all positive experiences with cops, no issues. I also am pretty low-key.
If a cop sees a gun in my car during a traffic stop (let's say I'm transporting my rifle in the frontseat legally unloaded), asking me to exit the vehicle and watching me like a hawk while I do so is fine by me. I understand.
Drawing their weapons on me and telling me to get out of the car now puts my life at risk by a twitchy finger. Whereas their life was not in immediate danger. I was not being aggressive adn doing nothing illegal (except for whatever I may have been stopped for... speeding... broken taillight... etc).
Getting pulled over by the cops always makes me nervous (I've been pulled over only a couple of times in my life). I assume that a cop might think I have something to hide because of this?

Your first mistake is to assume you're in America. Remember you're in California.
Big difference.

VaderSpade
02-14-2012, 5:55 AM
Presense of a firearm gives me all reasons I need to make the scene safe .

The presents of the gun MAKES the scene safe move on!!!

Guns belong with all that is good. The mere presents of firearms detours evil. The pistol and well as the rifle are equally indispensable.

VaderSpade
02-14-2012, 6:22 AM
In the world I grew up in EVERY pickup had a gun rack, and there was ALWAYS a rifle in that rack.
Has the world gotten better as those rifles were forced out of sight????

Rock6.3
02-14-2012, 7:12 AM
In the world I grew up in EVERY pickup had a gun rack, and there was ALWAYS a rifle in that rack.
Has the world gotten better as those rifles were forced out of sight????

Thank you for reminding us that normal used to include rifles and shotguns in truck rear windows.

I'll add that this was also normal at the high school when I was a youth, and I'm not that darned old! :oji:

Wrangler John
02-14-2012, 7:22 AM
Well, this thread is up to five pages now. So far we have heard a great deal of chest thumping and stallion-like territory marking with little piles of manure, and the always popular testosterone induced bravado. Yet the obvious solution mentioned early on remains disregarded. It is simple:

When transporting any firearm, place it in a locked case, then place the case in the trunk if driving an automobile, or under a tonneau cover, in a toolbox or behind the seat, in a pickup truck. If I were driving my little hatch back with no trunk, the case would be in the back deck covered with a blue tarp, blanket or other innocent items. For the catechumens out there that are going to ask the juvenile question; "What if I am peddling my bicycle or driving my motorcycle?" Well, don't do that - rent a car or stay home, or plan on being stopped.

My practice is to place all firearms in locked cases, under a hard secure tonneau cover, completely out of reach and sight. My concern is for security of the firearms against theft when stopping for meals or fuel. This also applies to the Oheler 35P chronograph as it is packaged in a rifle case. Even though it is emblazoned with a large "Oehler Research" decal, It could still be mistaken for a rifle. Out of sight out of mind.

I have no NRA or other decals or bumper stickers that attract attention, or make inflammatory statements. Plain vanilla, non threatening, all the way. Live your life anonymously, without provocation and no one's the wiser. We all have the right to be stupid, wisdom is optional and always elusive.

LARRYPIRRONE1
02-14-2012, 7:31 AM
put yourself in the shoes of an LEO. I say never flaunt our guns. Keep them out of sight or in a case and never loaded in a front seat. Its not an unreasonable thing to ask and elevates US above the lunitic fringe. You have to be part of the solution and not part of the problem by being responsible. Preserving the 2nd amendment requires squeeky clean conduct.

scarville
02-14-2012, 7:42 AM
I agree that staying under the radar is a good strategy. It doesn't advance the liberty of those around me but I am not convinced they want to be free. Remember the reality in this state. If occifer ap3572001 above were to put one of you in cuffs and you tragically died in custody, most Californians wouldn't care. More than few would dance in your blood.

vantec08
02-14-2012, 7:45 AM
Sorry but for the last 20 years I have been making sure that me and person I am working with come home after the shift is over. When we get there WE decide whats safe and what is not. Officer safety is taught from day one.

I understand. Do YOU understand we have the same need and desire for personal safety?

choprzrul
02-14-2012, 7:50 AM
The most reasonable thing would be to have shall issue LTC at a minimum or the much preferred constitutional carry.

How many Arizona LEO officers are reporting problems with armed law abiding citizens? What are the Pheonix numbers for crime and LE officers getting shot compared to the average CA large city? Such data presented to our LE agencies could help our positions.

How would a founding father react to being proned out upon sight of his flintlock? Suppose the 2A would read differently had those men known that we would be facing their red coats equivelent?

2A: "The people shall be armed at times & places as they see fit and in a manner they personally deem necessary" I kinda think that this is what they meant to say and if they knew what the landscape looks like know, is what they would have written. Absent is any mention of concern for the safety for any agent of the government.

.

SanPedroShooter
02-14-2012, 8:01 AM
Is this a big issue for police outside the wire? Are police in California special? I just wonder if they have same problem in large urban gun firendly states, texas or florida for instance?

I wonder how a state enforcer from urban california would fare in a free state? Would they be super paranoid? If all their peers were saying, 'calm down, everyone carries guns around here' I wonder if they would eventually change their minds?

taperxz
02-14-2012, 8:09 AM
CA post academies and their attitude towards officer safety, allow and encourage officers to take on the attitude and policies about guns in this state.

No reason to jump on individual LEOs for taking action the way they were taught in their training.

vantec08
02-14-2012, 8:24 AM
CA post academies and their attitude towards officer safety, allow and encourage officers to take on the attitude and policies about guns in this state.

No reason to jump on individual LEOs for taking action the way they were taught in their training.

. . . . which coincides with the current crop of political correctness. Indeed.

ap3572001
02-14-2012, 8:52 AM
I think if CA was a true SHALL ISSUE STATE we would not have conversations like this .

Agree?

vantec08
02-14-2012, 8:54 AM
I asked first.

YubaRiver
02-14-2012, 8:59 AM
For the catechumens out there that are going to ask the juvenile question; "What if I am peddling my bicycle or driving my motorcycle?" Well, don't do that - rent a car or stay home, or plan on being stopped.



Trolling?

So now we have to drive an auto to bear firearms? Anything else is lacking
in wisdom?

Juveniles like to get to hunting spots too. It may be a bike is they way they do it.

ubet
02-14-2012, 9:01 AM
For those of you with a ccw, why not just put your rifle on your permit too? WHen I got mine, my Sheriff told me I could put rifles on there too, although they would have to be unloaded when I left the vehicle, but could drive around with one in the chamber.

HBrebel
02-14-2012, 9:10 AM
It may be true that California gun owners will give up their gun with no more resistance than a threat to sue them in court. OTOH they may collectively surprise me and resist. I really don't know yet. However, the whole country is not California. If (or when) the feds decide that they want to start confiscating guns they had better consider those crazy dudes that call themselves "three percenters".

they had better just call in sick or take a vacation at that time cuz' I foresee a VERY long day if confiscation is ever attempted. It does not need to be like this, cops should be made to study a bit more about local laws and be more accepting of the fact that there are millions of responsible gun owners in this country. Criminals are not concerned with pistol grip laws and 'assault clip' capacity. I understand that cops need to be cautious, but come on, If I have several rifles in my car, in cases, Do I deserve to be treated as a lethal threat right away? The job is to uphold the law and protect the community, not to harass and threaten innocent gun owners.

HBrebel
02-14-2012, 9:12 AM
Your first mistake is to assume you're in America. Remember you're in California.
Big difference.

Kalifornistan

Joewy
02-14-2012, 9:21 AM
they had better just call in sick or take a vacation at that time cuz' I foresee a VERY long day if confiscation is ever attempted. It does not need to be like this, cops should be made to study a bit more about local laws and be more accepting of the fact that there are millions of responsible gun owners in this country. Criminals are not concerned with pistol grip laws and 'assault clip' capacity. I understand that cops need to be cautious, but come on, If I have several rifles in my car, in cases, Do I deserve to be treated as a lethal threat right away? The job is to uphold the law and protect the community, not to harass and threaten innocent gun owners.

For the most part individual LEO's, especially older ones are great guys.
However the training they have been receiving for the past 10-20 years has instilled a state of fear in them. This is not something that they did to themselves but rather a politicaly initiated and driven objective. The only way to correct it is politically.

Jason P
02-14-2012, 9:33 AM
Are California police officers less competent than their counterparts in other states?


LOL, seems to be where the evidence is leading me. That and our incredibly stupid lawmakers.

Jason P
02-14-2012, 9:34 AM
I think if CA was a true SHALL ISSUE STATE we would not have conversations like this .

Agree?

AMEN to SHALL ISSUE. My civil rights being more important than officer safety will always be an issue.

Jason P
02-14-2012, 9:45 AM
put yourself in the shoes of an LEO. I say never flaunt our guns. Keep them out of sight or in a case and never loaded in a front seat. Its not an unreasonable thing to ask and elevates US above the lunitic fringe. You have to be part of the solution and not part of the problem by being responsible. Preserving the 2nd amendment requires squeeky clean conduct.

It's not about flaunting. This screams "FAIL!!!" Keeping and bearing is a right endowed by our creator. Having a loaded firearm in the seat next to you is how we are legally supposed to carry in a vehicle in NC if no CCW. Guess what, when a cop sees your gun sitting there you don't get jackbooted or body cavity searched or tackled by a NFL wannabe or anything.

If you look suspicious, they may ask you if it's yours or if it's loaded, but most times if you don't grab it they don't even mention it. I wonder how the hillbilly cops back home even in big cities like Charlotte can handle something so simple as respecting one's rights, and the super sophisticated machine that is California fails so miserably... Oh wait, progressivism.

And BTW, preserving the 2nd amendment does not require squeaky clean conduct. It requires a free man keeping and bearing arms, PERIOD.

sepiid
02-14-2012, 10:16 AM
Here in TX i am amazed there wasnt a giant shoot out over the weekend!
i went to a local Gun Show. i saw people with AR/AK variants slung over there shoulders walking to and from the show all day long. shotguns and pistols were just as visible.

in side the show was another story all together. people walking around with guns and signs saying for sale cash only etc...

if this ever happened in CA there would be a swat response no doubt.

however, i walked out with a new AR over my shoulder and the wife had a nice Pink camo ar15-22 over hers on our way out of the show and we walked by 2 cops on foot and there was one in a car driving by.

the two on foot said they were nice and asked what the entrance fee was. i asked where they were headed and they were going to the corvette show next door! one asked how much for my AR and if i would sell it to him.

they werent scared or fearing for officer safety just because we had guns.

CA has a lot to learn from other states and i am glad i no longer have to deal with the CA laws or the insane 10% income tax

Uxi
02-14-2012, 10:28 AM
The other call (recently) had to do with an SKS in the back seat and A LOT of attitude. It did not go like the first one......

So bad attitude is all it takes to surrender civil rights?

robcoe
02-14-2012, 10:38 AM
I dont think this paranoia around guns is systemic to all cops. I think most of it is from LEO's who start or spend most of their career in citys. The last time I had an encounter with a LEO(Tulare county sheriff) when I had guns with me it was no problem.

I was out at a shooting range on a family friends property and aparently one of the neighbors(we have a lot of LA and SF people moving out there) called the police because someone was shooting. The sheriff comes out and asks the owner whats going on(I heard this part after we were done for the day) and gets directions out to the range. He comes up to us(3 guys, with loaded guns activly shooting at targets), gun NOT drawn, hand NOT on his gun, NOT yelling like an idiot(he actually waited until my buddy was done with his magazine to even announce he was there), asks us a couple of questions to make sure we are the people he was told would be here, declines an offer to shoot a couple of targets and then he left.

If you listen to some of the people who posted in this thread he should have come up gun drawn ordered us to drop the guns(he never even asked us to put them down), cuffed us and maybe tazered us in the name of "officer safety", then let us go only after he "made the scene safe".

Maybe it should be a requirement that all LEO's start their career out in the sticks, might teach them how to deal with people with guns without acting like ***holes.

kaligaran
02-14-2012, 10:38 AM
Is this a big issue for police outside the wire? Are police in California special? I just wonder if they have same problem in large urban gun firendly states, texas or florida for instance?


I spent 25 years in TN and 7 in FL before moving here last October.

I have had an LTC in both states for 11 years (since I was 21). I have had only positive experiences with LEOs. Upon giving them my LTC when getting pulled over they calmly asked where the firearm was, I responded and that was it.
I was up front about my firearm and they were not concerned, although a little surprised to see a girl with blue hair and a lip ring tell them my loaded 9mm was in my waistband.

Zimz
02-14-2012, 10:45 AM
Where do you get the right to work as and LEO and always be safe? I don't see it in the constitution but it must be in there if it trumps my civil rights.

When you took your oath was it to uphold the constitution as long as you felt safe?


^ This

Uxi
02-14-2012, 10:58 AM
I dont think this paranoia around guns is systemic to all cops. I think most of it is from LEO's who start or spend most of their career in citys.

<snip>

Maybe it should be a requirement that all LEO's start their career out in the sticks, might teach them how to deal with people with guns without acting like ***holes.

I think you're right. It all comes back to the training and culture. Noone would reasonably deny concerns for officer safety but when it comes down to it, it's a dangerous job and officer safety should not be a greater concern than citizen safety, which are equally important as core civil rights. LEO are citizens, of course, and citizen safety and civil rights should be in balance with each other, neither more important.

Bad attitude should get a bad attitude in return, but not by itself lead to getting proned out.

repubconserv
02-14-2012, 11:03 AM
put yourself in the shoes of an LEO. I say never flaunt our guns. Keep them out of sight or in a case and never loaded in a front seat. Its not an unreasonable thing to ask and elevates US above the lunitic fringe. You have to be part of the solution and not part of the problem by being responsible. Preserving the 2nd amendment requires squeeky clean conduct.

Cops have loaded guns riding with them... in fact last cop I saw has what looked like an AR and a 12 gauge next to him. I am going to assume he had them loaded. Why would he do that? is he a :TFH: lunatic? Absolutely not. he has them readily available in case bad skit goes down. So why should a lowly commoner be any different? What makes a "normal" person a fringe lunatic when he has a gun (even unloaded) in his front seat?

Carrying an unloaded shotgun or rifle in your front seat (assuming outside GFSZ) is completely 100% totally legal. In other words... "squeeky [sic] clean."

I have no problem with cops being cautious, in fact I hope they are always alert and can handle any bad situation that arises. Many make a situation out of nothing though, so I do have a problem with them making fools of themselves when I am doing nothing wrong.

Connor P Price
02-14-2012, 11:05 AM
So bad attitude is all it takes to surrender civil rights?

Some people seem to think so. Strange thing is, those same people tend to think that making a statement like "I don't consent to any searches of my person or property" suggests that one has a bad attitude. Taking that to its logical conclusion anyone who asserts their rights automatically must surrender their rights. Fun right?

(Again, I believe this only to be the case in a very small minority in the LE community.)

ap3572001
02-14-2012, 11:26 AM
So bad attitude is all it takes to surrender civil rights?

Driving around with an SKS next to You and when being NICELY asked to step out of the car ,starting to to argue with BOTH officers and not doing what they want You to do can turn really bad.

If You are holding a firearm and an officer asks You to put it down slowly till He will figure out whats going on , I would not advise to do anything different than what He told You to do.

I hope it helps.

PS. Almost ALL my encounters involving law abiding citizens with a firearms were very positive. Even made some friends:)

pepsi2451
02-14-2012, 12:05 PM
Well, this thread is up to five pages now. So far we have heard a great deal of chest thumping and stallion-like territory marking with little piles of manure, and the always popular testosterone induced bravado. Yet the obvious solution mentioned early on remains disregarded. It is simple:

When transporting any firearm, place it in a locked case, then place the case in the trunk if driving an automobile, or under a tonneau cover, in a toolbox or behind the seat, in a pickup truck. If I were driving my little hatch back with no trunk, the case would be in the back deck covered with a blue tarp, blanket or other innocent items. For the catechumens out there that are going to ask the juvenile question; "What if I am peddling my bicycle or driving my motorcycle?" Well, don't do that - rent a car or stay home, or plan on being stopped.

So your obvious solution is to give up more of our rights? People should stop doing something that is perfectly legal and protected under the constitution because some cops decide they don't like it?

My practice is to place all firearms in locked cases, under a hard secure tonneau cover, completely out of reach and sight. My concern is for security of the firearms against theft when stopping for meals or fuel. This also applies to the Oheler 35P chronograph as it is packaged in a rifle case. Even though it is emblazoned with a large "Oehler Research" decal, It could still be mistaken for a rifle. Out of sight out of mind.

So because you feel that is the best way to transport your firearms you think you know whats best for everyone?

I have no NRA or other decals or bumper stickers that attract attention, or make inflammatory statements. Plain vanilla, non threatening, all the way. Live your life anonymously, without provocation and no one's the wiser. We all have the right to be stupid, wisdom is optional and always elusive.

So you don't have NRA stickers, would you be ok with a cop pulling someone over just because they had an NRA sticker or is the 1A more important then the 2A?

put yourself in the shoes of an LEO. I say never flaunt our guns. Keep them out of sight or in a case and never loaded in a front seat. Its not an unreasonable thing to ask and elevates US above the lunitic fringe. You have to be part of the solution and not part of the problem by being responsible. Preserving the 2nd amendment requires squeeky clean conduct.

I have been transporting my rifles in the open all my life. Growing up everyone had a gun rack in their window. Does this make everyone in my town part of the "lunitic fringe"?

You may think asking someone to give up their civil rights or be detained at gun point is reasonable but I don't.

I think if CA was a true SHALL ISSUE STATE we would not have conversations like this .

Agree?

Only if that would somehow make cops not detain me at gun point for legally transporting my rifle. I have a CCW and I don't see what difference it would make in this case. I still wouldn't be happy if I was detained at gun point on my way to go shooting.

For those of you with a ccw, why not just put your rifle on your permit too? WHen I got mine, my Sheriff told me I could put rifles on there too, although they would have to be unloaded when I left the vehicle, but could drive around with one in the chamber.

I didn't think you could put a rifle on a CCW, I thought it had to be capable of being concealed on your person or something. Even if you could, that may allow it to be loaded but you still couldn't have it in the open without risking a cop pointing a loaded gun at you.

sandman21
02-14-2012, 1:25 PM
Presense of a firearm gives me all reasons I need to make the scene safe .

Not an answer to the questions I asked. You have no RAS that a crime has, is being, or will be committed; you have no reason to detain the person. The only thing you can do is perform an e-check; outside of that you have zero reason to detain them further.

Go look up Florida v. JL, cant detain for the report of a firearm, State v Casad in Washington, or United States District Judge Bruce D. Black (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-washington-dc/federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns)

I think if CA was a true SHALL ISSUE STATE we would not have conversations like this .

Agree?

Nope we would still be having these conversions, see Washington, New Mexico, Wisconsin.

Uxi
02-14-2012, 1:26 PM
Driving around with an SKS next to You and when being NICELY asked to step out of the car ,starting to to argue with BOTH officers and not doing what they want You to do can turn really bad.


Of course. That has nothing and should have nothing to do with a weapon there, though (unless he foolishly reaches for it).


If You are holding a firearm and an officer asks You to put it down slowly till He will figure out whats going on , I would not advise to do anything different than what He told You to do.


Sure that sounds reasonable. Maybe it was the way you worded it, but I had visions of you proning out the guy for refusing to being argumentative. Just seems like there could be some intermediary step before drawing weapons.



PS. Almost ALL my encounters involving law abiding citizens with a firearms were very positive. Even made some friends:)

I believe you. I don't mean to be overly adversarial with you specifically. I think the training and mindset could use some alteration though. Maybe regular transfers to rural areas is needed, too. But even the urban citizens should retain their right to keep and bear arms and not be treated as a hardened gang banger just because they're armed (not saying you do that, just as a matter of principle).

Uxi
02-14-2012, 1:31 PM
Some people seem to think so. Strange thing is, those same people tend to think that making a statement like "I don't consent to any searches of my person or property" suggests that one has a bad attitude. Taking that to its logical conclusion anyone who asserts their rights automatically must surrender their rights. Fun right?

I perfectly understand how some people can be aholes. Even in making an ordinary statement of non-consent. Hell especially so. I just don't think being an ahole should be enough to get one self proned out at gunpoint. Maybe an arm bar or night stick to the abdomen or something. :chris: Hell night stick coming out should sober up most people. But the gun automatically escalates the situation to lethal levels that are beyond appropriate for dealing with someone who's just an ahole

Connor P Price
02-14-2012, 1:42 PM
I perfectly understand how some people can be aholes. Even in making an ordinary statement of non-consent. Hell especially so. I just don't think being an ahole should be enough to get one self proned out at gunpoint. Maybe an arm bar or night stick to the abdomen or something. :chris: Hell night stick coming out should sober up most people. But the gun automatically escalates the situation to lethal levels that are beyond appropriate for dealing with someone who's just an ahole

Being an "ahole" as you put it is not justification for any threat or display of violence. Free speech applies to jerks to. If somebody is a jerk to me I don't get to threaten them with violence by displaying a weapon, nor may I give them an arm bar or night stick to the stomach. There's no reason this should be different for police. Violence is never an appropriate response to rudeness.

aklover_91
02-14-2012, 1:45 PM
I perfectly understand how some people can be aholes. Even in making an ordinary statement of non-consent. Hell especially so. I just don't think being an ahole should be enough to get one self proned out at gunpoint. Maybe an arm bar or night stick to the abdomen or something. :chris: Hell night stick coming out should sober up most people. But the gun automatically escalates the situation to lethal levels that are beyond appropriate for dealing with someone who's just an ahole
ANY threat of force is a threat of lethal force. It doesn't take much for things to go off the rails or for a lucky hit to cause much more damage than was intended.

SFgiants105
02-14-2012, 2:01 PM
Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but if an LEO asks me if I have any weapons in the car, and I have it in a case in my backseat (no room in trunk), he does not have the right to search me right?

If I tell him it's legal, but he says he wants to check it to verify, I am not obligated to let him see it, right? Could I just say, "go get a warrant" and leave it at that?

SilverTauron
02-14-2012, 2:04 PM
Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but if an LEO asks me if I have any weapons in the car, and I have it in a case in my backseat (no room in trunk), he does not have the right to search me right?

If I tell him it's legal, but he says he wants to check it to verify, I am not obligated to let him see it, right? Could I just say, "go get a warrant" and leave it at that?

Not quite. As far as I understand Cali law there is a Penal Code provision that authorizes an officer to check if a firearm is unloaded-I believe it is a 401E check?

camsoup
02-14-2012, 2:11 PM
You can be stopped and held at gunpoint for even less. Say... driving the same make model and year vehicle in the neighborhood as a bank robber escaped in, ...or even less, say ...looking like the aforementioned bank robber while walking through the neighborhood... or even less...well the list goes on. Officer safety is paramount, ...and why shouldn't it be?

Shouldn't we as citizens have just as much right for our safety as an officer??

What about citizen safety? What makes an officer have anymore right to safety than anyone else???

jwkincal
02-14-2012, 2:11 PM
SilverTauron is correct... usually folks just call it an "e check" but the sight of a weapon itself is justification for the LEO to perform an "e check" to confirm that the weapon is not loaded in compliance with the law in question (not sure of the actual code reference since it was all just renumbered a few weeks back)

SFgiants105
02-14-2012, 2:36 PM
hmmm. So what does that have to do with the legality of a search? Because I know that if you don't give them permission to enter a vehicle, they cannot search it. Of course, an officer is not going to let you get the gun out for them to check it.

I don't think you can say, "Well, when you open my car you can only look at the gun and not search anything else." I have had this happen to me before. I had a guitar in the back seat, and I was so eager to have them let me go that I said, "ok go ahead and check, I don't have a gun in there." What they ended up doing was going through my entire car and searching everything. Needless to say, I was pretty pissed that it went down like that. It seems that if they ask you what's in the case, you have a right to say "none of your business." Am I wrong about this? Besides, if they end up getting a warrant (which they won't go through the trouble of doing), I would be in the clear anyway.

Hate to pull the race card here, but for those of you who don't know what it's like to not be white in the U.S., I have definitely been messed with by cops for basically no reason. I was pulled over on my bicycle in San Ramon (when I was in high school) and the cops started asking me if I was "that guy who sells vacuum cleaners" to which I responded "yeah, I have three dirt devils on me right now." They told me curfew was at 10pm, and if I knew what time it was. I said "9:30?" and he replied "9:36." It was basically a Super Trooper moment.

jwkincal
02-14-2012, 2:42 PM
...which pretty much forms the basis of the "always keep it in the trunk" school of thought. If they see it, they can e-check it. Since they aren't going to let you pass it to them, you have just given them free access to your vehicle, essentially complying to an arbitrary search.

bandook
02-14-2012, 2:49 PM
Shouldn't we as citizens have just as much right for our safety as an officer??

What about citizen safety? What makes an officer have anymore right to safety than anyone else???

We do and the officer doesn't have any more right to safety than you.

But consider this... a traffic stop is more dangerous to the officer than to you. If you get stopped, you can safely assume that the officer isn't going to walk up to your window and simply shoot you in the face.

Can the officer safely make that assumption? No.

So, give them a break and don't make this into a drama. Understand your environment and that cops in rural Lake county (or South Dakota) will probably respond differently to a firearm on your back seat than those in Oakland or South Central LA. Their environmental experience is just different.

For those people talking about hoping somebody has a camera - guess what, the cop's car probably has that camera rolling - but how is that going to help you or your family if you get yourself killed on a misunderstanding. (google officers cleared fatal shooting hose nozzle). Even if your family gets a settlement due to improper use of force (unlikely) what kind of consolation is that?

So, take the few extra seconds to put the gun in the trunk of your car.

SWalt
02-14-2012, 3:57 PM
Damn this is a long thread! Both LEOs and citizens have duties to each other. Getting proned out, weapons pointed in, treated like a dirt bag for acting reasonable and complying with an LEO should never happen and its not reasonable. Asked to step out of the car, quick search, secure the weapon are reasonable in my view. Complying with the LEOs directions. It saves both you and the LEO time, hassle and trouble (it should anyway, I hope!). My point isn't an argument about 2nd or 4th amendment right now, its about the situation when it occurs. We all want to go home at the end of the day. I don't think its unreasonable to expect a LEO to want a safe situation when they have to deal with very real dirt bags every single day. Lots of officers never make it home for 1 error in judgement. Few of us encounter life or death situations in a moments notice, so cut them a little bit of slack. Not saying we should have our rights trampled, but just be reasonable when stopped.

sandman21
02-14-2012, 5:00 PM
Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but if an LEO asks me if I have any weapons in the car, and I have it in a case in my backseat (no room in trunk), he does not have the right to search me right?

If I tell him it's legal, but he says he wants to check it to verify, I am not obligated to let him see it, right? Could I just say, "go get a warrant" and leave it at that?

If it’s a hard case they cant assume there is a firearm in it, they might be able to assume it contains a firearm. If the LEO knows there is a firearm in the car, he can check it per 2580(b). If you tell him you have a firearm and do not let him inspect you can be arrested.

Not quite. As far as I understand Cali law there is a Penal Code provision that authorizes an officer to check if a firearm is unloaded-I believe it is a 401E check?
An e-check was a check of the firearm based on 12031(e) its now 25850(b), so a b-check would be correct. Lol


hmmm. So what does that have to do with the legality of a search? Because I know that if you don't give them permission to enter a vehicle, they cannot search it. Of course, an officer is not going to let you get the gun out for them to check it.

Not true, they need PC to search or RAS to do a limited search for weapons, all without your permission.


I don't think you can say, "Well, when you open my car you can only look at the gun and not search anything else." I have had this happen to me before. I had a guitar in the back seat, and I was so eager to have them let me go that I said, "ok go ahead and check, I don't have a gun in there." What they ended up doing was going through my entire car and searching everything. Needless to say, I was pretty pissed that it went down like that. It seems that if they ask you what's in the case, you have a right to say "none of your business." Am I wrong about this? Besides, if they end up getting a warrant (which they won't go through the trouble of doing), I would be in the clear anyway.

You can, not the best option. For example, you have a locked hard case containing your pistol next to you. A LEO asks what’s in it, you can refuse to answer invoking your 4 and 5A rights, lie if its not part of a criminal investigation, or tell him the pistol is in the case.

SilverTauron
02-14-2012, 5:03 PM
Back to the topic at hand the highways of South Dakota are plenty dangerous to Law Enforcement.In many ways an LAPD officer in South Central has it better.
I-90 is a cross country corridor ,so this state gets traffic from smugglers big and small running their loads of illicit money or drugs across the country through here.
A South Dakota state trooper who pulls a car over for a busted taillight at 3AM in the wide expanse of nowhere in this state faces the following dilemmas:

-No timely medical aid is available, if the lead flies and he's injured the nearest Trauma Center is a 30 minute medivac flight away;if he's unlucky he or she will need to wait for an ambulance to drive to his location and then drive BACK to the hospital. Not a good thing when the nearest town is 50 miles away.

-Backup is similarly nonexistent. Sure, there are other state troopers on duty, but when the "Officer Needs Assistance" call goes out the other LEOs will have to bust a U and haul serious donkey across flyover country to render assistance. At 100 MPH a 50 mile distance still takes 30 minutes to cover,during which time the backup is praying the good guy isn't in the weeds bleeding to death while the crook is making a getaway.

-Speaking of crooks, its not 1959 anymore. Drug Cartels send drugs and money overland quite frequently these days, and I-90 connects a lot of cities together in the Midwest. A South Dakota state trooper has at least an equal threat to his safety as many California lawmen, including ones working South Central LA. At least the LAPD can call for fast backup and get priority medical assistance should things go fubar.


If a lawman gets into a gunfight out here he's on his own.There is no SWAT unit that can show up and bail him out if things get sticky , so if anything a rural lawman has a *greater* need to get spooky about his safety than any city cop. If you worked a patrol 12 hours a day alone where you don't have backup and the next car you pull over could be a cartel Hitman or fugitive gang member laying low I can understand taking some liberties to ensure your safety.

Yet they don't operate that way at all.Out here the Constitution comes first, and everyone ironically benefits more for it.Fancy that.

scarville
02-14-2012, 5:23 PM
...which pretty much forms the basis of the "always keep it in the trunk" school of thought. If they see it, they can e-check it. Since they aren't going to let you pass it to them, you have just given them free access to your vehicle, essentially complying to an arbitrary search.
That last is one reason I keep my handguns in a locked, nondescript case when transporting them. Rifles are cased and stowed behind the seat under a jacket and/or flannel shirt. I don't do this because I think it is the right thing but because I don't see any benefit taking a chance I'm going to run into some cop whose hero is Daniel Harless.

SFgiants105
02-14-2012, 5:29 PM
You can, not the best option. For example, you have a locked hard case containing your pistol next to you. A LEO asks what’s in it, you can refuse to answer invoking your 4 and 5A rights, lie if its not part of a criminal investigation, or tell him the pistol is in the case.

Thanks, Sandman. That basically answers my question.

cortayack
02-14-2012, 5:40 PM
Well, I do have the experience of being asked to step out my car during a day time traffic stop by a CHP officer....I do believe it was related to me being a gun owner. There was no guns in my car...But after he called backup and I was asked to step out, The officer started to question me! I was asked about my registered guns and where I keep them! Which I told him "that's not your business". He then tries to enter my car without consent! But my car was locked! LEO then asked me to hand over my keys which I told him "My keys are in my front pocket and I don't consent to a search! Well, I was threaten to give in but I didn't....I was arrested and my car was searched! I was later charged with a 148! I fought it in court with my lawyer and the very last day before trial, the DA dropped all charges and I pleaded no contest to a traffic ticket (seat belt)! The judge even said "WOW, its been long time since I did traffic court" this being criminal court....What a waste of time on the tax payer's dime!

Leo's do know if you are a registered gun owner when they pull you over. Just be aware....

taperxz
02-14-2012, 6:20 PM
Not quite. As far as I understand Cali law there is a Penal Code provision that authorizes an officer to check if a firearm is unloaded-I believe it is a 401E check?

Only if you tell them a weapon is in the locked case. You don't have to tell them or open the case.

SilverTauron
02-14-2012, 6:28 PM
Only if you tell them a weapon is in the locked case. You don't have to tell them or open the case.

As the "bipod confused with a rifle" example illustrates,a cop in your area will assume there's a gun in the case and demand an inspection accordingly.

"Sir, ill need to see that case to perform a 401E check".

Now you are in a bind. Either you hand over the case, or the cop has probable cause to "detain you" and forcibly search the box with you in bracelets on the curb. Judging by the nature of your courts, said officer is fairly safe from any consequences via a court.

taperxz
02-14-2012, 7:22 PM
As the "bipod confused with a rifle" example illustrates,a cop in your area will assume there's a gun in the case and demand an inspection accordingly.

"Sir, ill need to see that case to perform a 401E check".

Now you are in a bind. Either you hand over the case, or the cop has probable cause to "detain you" and forcibly search the box with you in bracelets on the curb. Judging by the nature of your courts, said officer is fairly safe from any consequences via a court.

Nope, and there's case law on this but I'm on an iPad and it's a PIA to reference it here. A locked case is just that. He can't assume there is a gun in it. You would have to tell him or he would need other PC to get into your stuff.

If a cop has PC he's not going to ask you.

sandman21
02-14-2012, 8:53 PM
Nope, and there's case law on this but I'm on an iPad and it's a PIA to reference it here. A locked case is just that. He can't assume there is a gun in it. You would have to tell him or he would need other PC to get into your stuff.

If a cop has PC he's not going to ask you.

Not a locked case but that a hard case.

We hold that the district court erred in finding that the
case in dispute is identifiable as a gun case based on its outward
appearance alone, and in applying the “single-purpose
container” exception to uphold the warrantless search of the
case. (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1369451.html)

wayneinFL
02-14-2012, 10:32 PM
Let's just stipulate that South Dakota is a far different world than South Central Los Angeles. LEO response to the same situation in those two VERY different environments should be based on expectation of dangerous activity, don't you think?

If I were pulled over in Liberty City or Overtown (as close as we would get to a FL version of south central LA) I don't think an officer would have a second thought about it. I've been pulled over several times in South Florida, in good neighborhoods and bad, and I've never had an officer express any kind of concern. Every once in a while someone gets a nervous cop, but it's rare.

For the cops who are worried about encountering people with firearms, what do game wardens do in CA? People aren't hunting with slingshots. I'm pretty sure these guys aren't exactly calling SWAT every time they encounter someone with a gun.

Cylarz
02-14-2012, 11:14 PM
Here in TX i am amazed there wasnt a giant shoot out over the weekend!
i went to a local Gun Show. i saw people with AR/AK variants slung over there shoulders walking to and from the show all day long. shotguns and pistols were just as visible.

in side the show was another story all together. people walking around with guns and signs saying for sale cash only etc...

if this ever happened in CA there would be a swat response no doubt.



Nonsense. The scene you describe happens dozens of times per year in California. I've been to many gun shows and never seen SWAT show up. Each show is, however, patrolled by regular sheriff's deputies and/or city police as a deterrent to theft, fights, or illegal weapons sales.

The guns themselves are a bit watered-down compared to what is available in many other states, but that's not what you were driving at, I think.

Cylarz
02-14-2012, 11:25 PM
So your obvious solution is to give up more of our rights? People should stop doing something that is perfectly legal and protected under the constitution because some cops decide they don't like it?


I think we can all agree that overzealous law enforcement is a serious problem in need of reform.


So because you feel that is the best way to transport your firearms you think you know whats best for everyone?


I don't get that from his post at all, and his suggestions are reasonable. The problem isn't just rogue cops; it's thieves, too.


So you don't have NRA stickers, would you be ok with a cop pulling someone over just because they had an NRA sticker or is the 1A more important then the 2A?


He was merely advising to avoid drawing attention to oneself while carrying weapons or marking his vehicle with too many pro-2A emblems. That can be a red flag to cops.


I have been transporting my rifles in the open all my life. Growing up everyone had a gun rack in their window. Does this make everyone in my town part of the "lunitic fringe"?


Of course it doesn't, but that's not the kind of world we live in anymore. At the very least, not in urban areas in California. You will save yourself a lot of gray hairs if you just accept that the culture here is different than in other parts of the country and/or historically. The police are not immune from that influence. That doesn't mean we can't fight to change people's minds, and I think we're making some progress on that.

Driving around with a rifle rack invites a smash and grab, frankly. Even my hunter safety instructor advised against it. He also said that it encourages what he called "anti-hunter sentiment" among the public.



You may think asking someone to give up their civil rights or be detained at gun point is reasonable but I don't.


I think anyone on on this thread would agree that is excessive, assuming the suspect hasn't done anything to invite such aggression.


Only if that would somehow make cops not detain me at gun point for legally transporting my rifle. I have a CCW and I don't see what difference it would make in this case. I still wouldn't be happy if I was detained at gun point on my way to go shooting.


Once again, nobody here is defending that.


I didn't think you could put a rifle on a CCW, I thought it had to be capable of being concealed on your person or something. Even if you could, that may allow it to be loaded but you still couldn't have it in the open without risking a cop pointing a loaded gun at you.

Neither did I. You learn something every day apparently.

If a cop points his gun at me for walking around with an unloaded rifle on my shoulder, he and his department are going to answer for it in a court of law. It's not illegal to do that, so the cop will probably think twice about acting so rashly in the first place. If he wants to inspect my rifle, the consensus here seems to be that he's within his rights to do so.

I think my biggest concern is attempting to transport my weapons in good faith (as in, using common sense and attempting to secure them during transport in a manner that ensures a basic level of compliance with state or federal law) and finding myself in a bunch of trouble anyway because I failed to dot an I or cross a T somewhere - "Putting the rifle behind the seat of a 2-door pickup isn't enough - it has to be cased AND in the truck bed", "this has to have a cable lock on it", some crap like that that I overlooked or some rule that went into effect only recently, or some other petty excuse the cop thinks of to cite and/or arrest me.

I don't particularly enjoy having my time wasted during a traffic stop or my car searched, even if I don't have anything to hide. I am still not entirely clear on what questions I am REQUIRED to answer under the law, and which ones the cop simply asks because he's trying to get me to admit to something or other. Being asked if I am transporting weapons and responding "I decline to answer without my attorney present" is as good as saying "yes," because the cop is going to reason that if I don't have any, I'm going to simply say no.

Cylarz
02-14-2012, 11:37 PM
For the cops who are worried about encountering people with firearms, what do game wardens do in CA? People aren't hunting with slingshots. I'm pretty sure these guys aren't exactly calling SWAT every time they encounter someone with a gun.

That is an EXCELLENT point, and the weapon the warden wants to inspect is more likely to be loaded, to boot.

taperxz
02-15-2012, 12:01 AM
Not a locked case but that a hard case.

We hold that the district court erred in finding that the
case in dispute is identifiable as a gun case based on its outward
appearance alone, and in applying the “single-purpose
container” exception to uphold the warrantless search of the
case. (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1369451.html)


LE can not assume any case has a weapon in it! Not for probable cause. hard case or soft case has nothing to do with it.

sawchain
02-15-2012, 12:26 AM
Nonsense. The scene you describe happens dozens of times per year in California. I've been to many gun shows and never seen SWAT show up. Each show is, however, patrolled by regular sheriff's deputies and/or city police as a deterrent to theft, fights, or illegal weapons sales.

The guns themselves are a bit watered-down compared to what is available in many other states, but that's not what you were driving at, I think.

Check your sarcasm detector. It's busted.

Cylarz
02-15-2012, 1:05 AM
Check your sarcasm detector. It's busted.

Apparently.

Either that or I got caught up in the spirit of an entire thread's worth of comments complaining about overzealous CA police officers, and thought the guy was serious.

Wrangler John
02-15-2012, 4:18 AM
Trolling?

So now we have to drive an auto to bear firearms? Anything else is lacking
in wisdom?

Juveniles like to get to hunting spots too. It may be a bike is they way they do it.

Congratulations, you win our coveted imaginary catechumen of the month award, including the specially marked bicycle parking spot.

No, you don't have to drive an auto to bear firearms, and that's not what I wrote. What I wrote is that if you ride a bike or motorcycle, prepare to be stopped and questioned by police.

Time was when I could, and did at age 15, strap an uncased Lee Enfield rifle to the handlebars of my old Schwinn Stingray and no one would pay any me any mind. Even took barreled rifle actions to high school shop to do a bit of machining. Now fast forward to today. How far would you expect any minor, or adult for that matter, in the same circumstance to go before being stopped by police? Would the juvenile ever arrive at a chosen hunting spot or firing range with an uncased rifle strapped to the handlebars? How about a cased rifle? Could the parent(s) expect a visit from CPS after retrieving junior from the police station or juvenile detention facility? How much time and money would it take to retrieve the firearm?

Wisdom is anticipating the negative impact of a behavior in a real world situation, and acting accordingly.

scarville
02-15-2012, 4:21 AM
He was merely advising to avoid drawing attention to oneself while carrying weapons or marking his vehicle with too many pro-2A emblems. That can be a red flag to cops.
Sad but true. Remember this from last year?

http://investigativevoice.com/images/stories/baltimorepolciedecalwarning.jpg

A related article:
http://www.ammoland.com/2011/06/06/baltimore-police-issue-2nd-amendment-decal-warning/

Joewy
02-15-2012, 6:12 AM
We do and the officer doesn't have any more right to safety than you.

But consider this... a traffic stop is more dangerous to the officer than to you. If you get stopped, you can safely assume that the officer isn't going to walk up to your window and simply shoot you in the face.

Can the officer safely make that assumption? No.

So, give them a break and don't make this into a drama. Understand your environment and that cops in rural Lake county (or South Dakota) will probably respond differently to a firearm on your back seat than those in Oakland or South Central LA. Their environmental experience is just different.

For those people talking about hoping somebody has a camera - guess what, the cop's car probably has that camera rolling - but how is that going to help you or your family if you get yourself killed on a misunderstanding. (google officers cleared fatal shooting hose nozzle). Even if your family gets a settlement due to improper use of force (unlikely) what kind of consolation is that?

So, take the few extra seconds to put the gun in the trunk of your car.


How do you know that?
I would be willing to bet that more drivers and passengers are killed and or injured every year than cops at traffic stops. Way more.

YubaRiver
02-15-2012, 8:59 AM
Congratulations, you win our coveted imaginary catechumen of the month award, including the specially marked bicycle parking spot.

No, you don't have to drive an auto to bear firearms, and that's not what I wrote. What I wrote is that if you ride a bike or motorcycle, prepare to be stopped and questioned by police.

Time was when I could, and did at age 15, strap an uncased Lee Enfield rifle to the handlebars of my old Schwinn Stingray and no one would pay any me any mind. Even took barreled rifle actions to high school shop to do a bit of machining. Now fast forward to today. How far would you expect any minor, or adult for that matter, in the same circumstance to go before being stopped by police? Would the juvenile ever arrive at a chosen hunting spot or firing range with an uncased rifle strapped to the handlebars? How about a cased rifle? Could the parent(s) expect a visit from CPS after retrieving junior from the police station or juvenile detention facility? How much time and money would it take to retrieve the firearm?

Wisdom is anticipating the negative impact of a behavior in a real world situation, and acting accordingly.

Smart ankle,

I do ride my bike when hunting and going to the range. Never been stopped with it slung over my shoulder. You should be telling the cops where you live
to check their behavior.

HBrebel
02-15-2012, 9:54 AM
:facepalm:

Thanks for validating all my fears about police officers. People trained to think their life is more important than anything else. GET A NEW LINE OF WORK IF THATS WHAT YOU WANT. It almost seems the point of the police force is to protect the police force. What ever happened to protect and serve? And what really sickens me is that as a Marine in Iraq we were watched over and scrutinized after violent situations 10x more than police officers are in America. Shoot some kid in the back as a cop, get paid to retire, shoot some kid in the back in Iraq, welcome to the 5 o clock news and every blood thirsty liberal in America.

you are on the right track. The original point of a police force was to have a civilian organization to uphold the law and protect citizens from crime, thus voiding the need for a standing army. Now what we have are constant patrols in areas that are pretty safe and no patrols in bad spots like lynwood, watts, long beach etc. cops avoid these 'hoods' because dudes are scary there. They hassle guys like me instead because it's safe and can possibly generate some citation $$. And then, if god forbid, the peasants rise and choose to occupy a bank or some other institution which they see as committing a criminal act against the people, we get a standing army which will not hesitate to injur some to scare off the rest.

HBrebel
02-15-2012, 9:59 AM
Presence of a firearm does not by itself suggest that a scene is unsafe.

+1000000

HBrebel
02-15-2012, 10:00 AM
No it does not. Just as someone speaking, would not give you reason to interrupt him to tell him you wont stand for hate speech.

Or someone praying would not give you reason to interrupt him to tell him you wont stand for terrorist activity.

Whether I have a guns or not, the 2nd and 4th amendments gives you all the reasons you need to stay the hell out of my business.

Now if I went in to a bank with guns drawn... then you can make the scene safe Deputy Fife.

these are the words of a free thinking man. Not the words of a loyal subject to the bully state

MXRider
02-15-2012, 10:04 AM
It's so funny how different the encounters are in California vs other states.

Here "do you have a gun on you" "yes I have a license to carry" = pulled out of the car at gunpoint and held for an hour till they figure it out.

Other states "do you have a gun on you" "yes I have a license to carry" = "cool".

QFT! I miss VA.

HBrebel
02-15-2012, 10:09 AM
Shouldn't we as citizens have just as much right for our safety as an officer??

What about citizen safety? What makes an officer have anymore right to safety than anyone else???

we do. It's just that there is an illusion that we must be submissive to all state authority. My personal liberty, rights as a citizen of this country, and my personal safety are paramount.

ap3572001
02-15-2012, 10:14 AM
Ok. Enough . :)

This was the original question that started this :

Rifle in plain view = reason to believe a crime has been committed?
The answer is NO.

A simple NO.

Next question ?

pepsi2451
02-15-2012, 12:10 PM
I think we can all agree that overzealous law enforcement is a serious problem in need of reform.



I don't get that from his post at all, and his suggestions are reasonable. The problem isn't just rogue cops; it's thieves, too.



He was merely advising to avoid drawing attention to oneself while carrying weapons or marking his vehicle with too many pro-2A emblems. That can be a red flag to cops.

I took his post a little different because of this part:

Well, this thread is up to five pages now. So far we have heard a great deal of chest thumping and stallion-like territory marking with little piles of manure, and the always popular testosterone induced bravado. Yet the obvious solution mentioned early on remains disregarded. It is simple:

To me that sound like he is dismissing everyones concerns about their rights as "chest thumping and stallion-like territory marking with little piles of manure, and the always popular testosterone induced bravado" His obvious solution might stop people from being detained but it won't do anything to help us keep our rights. When the police try to enforce laws that don't exist I don't think going along with it is necessarily the right solution.

Of course it doesn't, but that's not the kind of world we live in anymore. At the very least, not in urban areas in California. You will save yourself a lot of gray hairs if you just accept that the culture here is different than in other parts of the country and/or historically. The police are not immune from that influence. That doesn't mean we can't fight to change people's minds, and I think we're making some progress on that.

What changed? The law didn't. It seems cops just decided they didn't want people to have guns anymore. You say the police aren't immune from that influence but isn't that why we have the constitution?

Driving around with a rifle rack invites a smash and grab, frankly. Even my hunter safety instructor advised against it. He also said that it encourages what he called "anti-hunter sentiment" among the public.

No one is saying you can't cover your rifle up, just that there is no law saying you have to. I wouldn't leave a rifle in my truck all day unattended. I only have it in there when I'm on my way to the range. If I stop at a gas station or something I park where I can see my truck through the window. The thread wasn't really about the best way to transport a rifle, it was more about cops detaining people at gun point who had broken no laws.

I think anyone on on this thread would agree that is excessive, assuming the suspect hasn't done anything to invite such aggression.

I must have read his post differently then you, especially the part that said "Its not an unreasonable thing to ask and elevates US above the lunitic fringe." I don't think telling people how to transport their weapons without any law to back you up is reasonable. He says "ask" but if you don't do it you could be detained at gun point.

Once again, nobody here is defending that.

My point was, I don't see how a CCW would make any difference in this situation.

If a cop points his gun at me for walking around with an unloaded rifle on my shoulder, he and his department are going to answer for it in a court of law. It's not illegal to do that, so the cop will probably think twice about acting so rashly in the first place. If he wants to inspect my rifle, the consensus here seems to be that he's within his rights to do so.

You should take a look at the thread in the LEO section. While I have never been detained at gun point, SOME cops on here wont think twice about proning you out at gun point.

I think my biggest concern is attempting to transport my weapons in good faith (as in, using common sense and attempting to secure them during transport in a manner that ensures a basic level of compliance with state or federal law) and finding myself in a bunch of trouble anyway because I failed to dot an I or cross a T somewhere - "Putting the rifle behind the seat of a 2-door pickup isn't enough - it has to be cased AND in the truck bed", "this has to have a cable lock on it", some crap like that that I overlooked or some rule that went into effect only recently, or some other petty excuse the cop thinks of to cite and/or arrest me.

My biggest concern is transporting my rifles legally and coming across a cop who doesn't know the law or simply doesn't car about it.

pepsi2451
02-15-2012, 12:11 PM
Congratulations, you win our coveted imaginary catechumen of the month award, including the specially marked bicycle parking spot.

No, you don't have to drive an auto to bear firearms, and that's not what I wrote. What I wrote is that if you ride a bike or motorcycle, prepare to be stopped and questioned by police.

Time was when I could, and did at age 15, strap an uncased Lee Enfield rifle to the handlebars of my old Schwinn Stingray and no one would pay any me any mind. Even took barreled rifle actions to high school shop to do a bit of machining. Now fast forward to today. How far would you expect any minor, or adult for that matter, in the same circumstance to go before being stopped by police? Would the juvenile ever arrive at a chosen hunting spot or firing range with an uncased rifle strapped to the handlebars? How about a cased rifle? Could the parent(s) expect a visit from CPS after retrieving junior from the police station or juvenile detention facility? How much time and money would it take to retrieve the firearm?

Wisdom is anticipating the negative impact of a behavior in a real world situation, and acting accordingly.

You don't think kids should be able to do that today? The laws are the same, it seems to be the cops that are different.

pepsi2451
02-15-2012, 12:14 PM
Ok. Enough . :)

This was the original question that started this :

Rifle in plain view = reason to believe a crime has been committed?
The answer is NO.

A simple NO.

Next question ?

I guess my next questions would be, why do so many cops even here on calguns think it is reason to believe a crime has been committed? Why don't the other cops on here tell them they are wrong? What can we do to make cops stop treating us like criminals?

ap3572001
02-15-2012, 1:14 PM
I guess my next questions would be, why do so many cops even here on calguns think it is reason to believe a crime has been committed? Why don't the other cops on here tell them they are wrong? What can we do to make cops stop treating us like criminals?

Answer: No . The presence of a firearm by itself is not a reason to believe that something is wrong.
When a LE officer makes contact with ANYONE , the presents of a firearms will raise many questions.

LE Officers are TOLD to separate a person that they make contact with from any firearm ( or any weapon),.

This has nothing to do with civil rights.

Its taught in the academy all over the US.

It will NOT change.

Many factors will effect officers reaction to a firearm.

I can not go over all of them .

If I have a call and when I get there I see a firearm or a weapon that can hurt me. Or someone that is too close to me and I think they can or may want to hurt me or my partner.

I will do WHATEVER I DECIDE I need to do to make the situation safe until I know what I am dealing with .

If someone thinks that we in anyway offended them, they have RIGHTS to make a complaint.

This is the best I can I do.

PS. I know and go to the range with plenty of gun owners and I do not treat them like criminals.

bwiese
02-15-2012, 1:23 PM
Answer: No . The presence of a firearm by itself is not a reason to believe that something is wrong. When a LE officer makes contact with ANYONE , the presents of a firearms will raise many questions.

LE Officers are TOLD to separate a person that they make contact with from any firearm ( or any weapon),.

This has nothing to do with civil rights.

Its taught in the academy all over the US.

It will NOT change.


Bull. More copthink.

Please contrast Arizona, NV and many other state's positions vs. CA's.

Many other states' officers are far more comfortable with normal citizens with arms, given an otherwise calm situation.

Hell, I've been stopped in NV (Reno/Sparks outskirts) with guns for minor traffic thin, had an HK USP in the seat gap, 3 ARs behind the truck seat. Mild query, nice conversation, no ticket (reminded to do full stop before right turn on a red light).

WHAT ACADEMIES TEACH OFTEN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LAW, and when a few cops start losing their homes once we can penetrate qualified immunity, the real fun starts.

Remember, CGF has collected $$$ from CA depts for civil rights violations and false arrests for legal gun carry. You can sign up for this too, sonny.


I will do WHATEVER I DECIDE I need to do to make the situation safe until I know what I am dealing with .

If someone thinks that we in anyway offended them, they have RIGHTS to make a complaint.


Um, you mean lawsuit.

Officer safety is relatively irrelevant... if you don't like your job, go out and get a new one. I doubt you have the skills to make in the private sector what you make as an SF cop.

It's interesting you show up here on CG, ask all sorts of questions on gun laws, then threaten to hassle noncriminals for compliance with law.

ap3572001
02-15-2012, 1:29 PM
Bull. More copthink.

Please contrast Arizona, NV and many other state's positions vs. CA's.

Many other states' officers are far more comfortable with normal citizens with arms, given an otherwise calm situation.

Hell, I've been stopped in NV (Reno/Sparks outskirts) with guns for minor traffic thin, had an HK USP in the seat gap, 3 ARs behind the truck seat. Mild query, nice conversation, no ticket (reminded to do full stop before right turn on a red light).

WHAT ACADEMIES TEACH OFTEN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LAW, and when a few cops start losing their homes once we can penetrate qualified immunity, the real fun starts.

Remember, CGF has collected $$$ from CA depts for civil rights violations and false arrests for legal gun carry. You can sign up for this too, sonny.



Um, you mean lawsuit.

Officer safety is relatively irrelevant... if you don't like your job, go out and get a new one. I doubt you have the skills to make in the private sector what you make as an SF cop.

It's interesting you show up here on CG, ask all sorts of questions on gun laws, then threaten to hassle noncriminals for compliance with law.

If You took YOur time to read what I wrote You would have a clue what I am talking about.

Did You read it ?

bwiese
02-15-2012, 1:32 PM
If You took YOur time to read what I wrote You would have a clue what I am talking about.

Did You read it ?

Yes, and I still smell cop-think.

pepsi2451
02-15-2012, 1:33 PM
Answer: No . The presence of a firearm by itself is not a reason to believe that something is wrong.
When a LE officer makes contact with ANYONE , the presents of a firearms will raise many questions.

LE Officers are TOLD to separate a person that they make contact with from any firearm ( or any weapon),.

This has nothing to do with civil rights.

Its taught in the academy all over the US.

It will NOT change.

Many factors will effect officers reaction to a firearm.

I can not go over all of them .

If I have a call and when I get there I see a firearm or a weapon that can hurt me. Or someone that is too close to me and I think they can or may want to hurt me or my partner.

I will do WHATEVER I DECIDE I need to do to make the situation safe until I know what I am dealing with .

If someone thinks that we in anyway offended them, they have RIGHTS to make a complaint.

This is the best I can I do.

PS. I know and go to the range with plenty of gun owners and I do not treat them like criminals.

Do you always separate them even if you don't have any reason to believe a crime has occurred? Do you prone them out at gun point? If you can answer no to these questions I have no problem with what you do.

I guess all the LEO I have come in contact with when I had a rifle with me were trained different. None of them separated me from my firearms and none of them pointed a gun at me.

ap3572001
02-15-2012, 1:38 PM
Yes, and I still smell cop-think.

Yes . Cop-think, because I saw what happens when mistakes are made.

Again, please understand , next time I separate someone from their gun (or guns) they DO have a full right to make a complaint.

If I was wrong, I will pay for my actions.

If officers DO NOT DO what they are taught and told they will not have a job.

SilverTauron
02-15-2012, 1:38 PM
Answer: No . The presence of a firearm by itself is not a reason to believe that something is wrong.
When a LE officer makes contact with ANYONE , the presents of a firearms will raise many questions.

LE Officers are TOLD to separate a person that they make contact with from any firearm ( or any weapon),.

This has nothing to do with civil rights.

Its taught in the academy all over the US.

It will NOT change.

Many factors will effect officers reaction to a firearm.

I can not go over all of them .

If I have a call and when I get there I see a firearm or a weapon that can hurt me. Or someone that is too close to me and I think they can or may want to hurt me or my partner.

I will do WHATEVER I DECIDE I need to do to make the situation safe until I know what I am dealing with .

I find it so unfortunate that you & your trainers have decided to violate the Constitution as a matter of policy.Every day you put on the badge and uniform you are upholding an oath to the citizens of your district and the Constitution of the United States.Your superiors may not care, but that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to uphold that oath to the best of your ability. That does not encompass proning out anyone with a firearm in your sight.





If someone thinks that we in anyway offended them, they have RIGHTS to make a complaint.

This is the best I can I do.

The problem is that your superiors have decided to pay lip service to the U.S. Constitution and the rights codified therein. What will happen when a citizen calls the department to complain because you proned them out on the street on account of the citizen having a rifle in the vehicle?

Will the department actually pull you and your partner aside to discuss why you infringed on their rights, or will the boss read off a line of bureaucratic bull about respecting the community and public image before asking for your signature? Doubtlessly once that signature is rendered and the file cabinet is shut you'll crack jokes about how stupid someone has to be to quote the Constitution of all things during a traffic stop because hey, don't these clowns know guns are a dangerous threat to the community ?


I don't post this to offend you, and if that's not how your department does things I invite you to correct me. But law enforcement nationwide does not factually disarm every person they encounter with a weapon. Ive been the guy with a loaded weapon on a traffic stop and I wasn't 'proned out' like a felon because my holstered Ruger posed a peripheral threat.The first warning any of us have that someone means us harm is when they attempt an attack.That goes for Law Enforcement, Military, or Aunt Sally with her .22 derringer.

ap3572001
02-15-2012, 1:40 PM
Do you always separate them even if you don't have any reason to believe a crime has occurred? Do you prone them out at gun point? If you can answer no to these questions I have no problem with what you do.

I guess all the LEO I have come in contact with when I had a rifle with me were trained different. None of them separated me from my firearms and none of them pointed a gun at me.

The reason for contact makes a very big difference.

PS. I dont prone people out everytime there is a gun around

ZombieTactics
02-15-2012, 1:57 PM
+1 on that!
When I encounter someone with a firearm while performing my duties, I will make sure that MY RIGHT to come home that night is not violated.

Some of us would like the same consideration from those who actually take an OATH to protect our rights. The mere presence of a firearm is no sign of criminal activity. Absent an actual threat, you have no more legitimate right to hold down on me ... just because you see me with a gun ... than I do you. Is YOUR safety special, and the rest of us just "little people"?

Now, I've heard this all before. You are going to start yammering on about how that gun makes you feel unsafe because some cop somewhere got shot by some criminal. Am I any less in my rights to feel unsafe in the presence of YOUR gun ... after all, there are plenty of instances where some cop shot someone without genuine cause. Fear is a slippery slope, and it slips both ways.

If its someone with a gun AND an attitude and their words and actions make me feel unsafe, I WILL take ALL measures to feel safe as soon as possible.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRAINED TO DO. So when I am doing nothing wrong, and you get an attitude, and actually draw down on me without any legitimate cause other than "oooh I see a gun" ... what should MY reaction be? Is my only right as a citizen to comply? Have I no right to guarantee MY safety as much as you ... especially since (of the two of us) you are the one who has taken an oath to uphold and protect MY rights?

Your "cop 'tude' is evident, but sadly you appear to represent what most of us legitimately fear: a bad cop with no respect for the rights of the very citizens he is charged with protecting. I am grateful to have seldom encountered your ilk, and I am sickened each time I do. Such an attitude is an insult to everyone who wears the uniform. At the very least please learn to spew such crap in German ... it's more authentic sounding that way.

And let's be clear: this is not cop-bashing. It's simply noting that you bash the reputation of those with whom you serve by the nature of your comments. Thank God that the vast majority of LEO are not so thuggish in their inclinations.