PDA

View Full Version : Orange County Sheriff's Deputy Arrests 3


joebrock
04-13-2007, 8:52 AM
There is a picuture in the LA Times Orange County Edition 4/13 with a deputy holding a "military-style rifle". It was a traffic stop - 3 were arrested, 3 "military-style rifles" were seized, and "a large box labeled ammunition was part of the cache." The car was pulled over at gun point on Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach. There is no other information. Does anyone know anything about this?

Surveyor
04-13-2007, 8:59 AM
Link?

tgriffin
04-13-2007, 10:01 AM
I think this is old, I remember Bill talking about an incident similar to this.

bwiese
04-13-2007, 10:03 AM
No this seems to be new.

Can't tell if this is legit OLL stuff, or unreg'd full AWs, etc.

Rem1492
04-13-2007, 10:19 AM
hmmm, an AR, a secure rifle case, and a box of ammunition labeled............ AMMUNITION.

Sounds like a definite illegal and surreptitious hit job was gonna go down in broad daylight on PCH and these brave cops prevented it.

bwiese
04-13-2007, 10:22 AM
Someone got a linky to actual article?

6172crew
04-13-2007, 10:24 AM
Be funny if it was 3 Carbon15s or a few evil Fab10s.:p

[best soccer mom voice]:eek: Im glad they got those evil machine guns off the streets[/bestsoccermonvoice]

Biff...
04-13-2007, 10:25 AM
doesn't seem to show anything on the La times website.

joebrock
04-13-2007, 10:29 AM
The photo was in today's April 13 paper and it said is occured yesterday. I looked on the Orange County Sheriff web site in the arrest log and it does'nt list the charges under each arrest.

6172crew
04-13-2007, 10:32 AM
I posted this thread over at AR15.com asking a cop in the area if he can help us out with more details.

toolman9000
04-13-2007, 11:28 AM
Here is everything about this in the Times:

---
Section: California Metro; Part B; Metro Desk
Publication title: Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Apr 13, 2007. pg. B.3
Source type: Newspaper
ISSN: 04583035
Text Word Count 62


Abstract (Document Summary)

An Orange County sheriff's deputy inspects one of at least three military-style rifles seized Thursday after deputies...
Full Text (62 words)
(Copyright (c) 2007 Los Angeles Times)

Caption text only.
[Illustration]
Caption: PHOTO: An Orange County sheriff's deputy inspects one of at least three military-style rifles seized Thursday after deputies pulled over a car at gunpoint on Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach. Three men in the car were arrested, and a large box labeled ammunition was part of the cache, deputies said.; PHOTOGRAPHER: Allen J. Schaben Los Angeles Times
---

Fjold
04-13-2007, 11:51 AM
Does the picture show just a buffer tube and no buttsock?

MonsterMan
04-13-2007, 12:03 PM
It looks to me like just the buffer tube. :eek:

Cpl_Peters
04-13-2007, 12:58 PM
thats not the best picture, I'm sure there is a butt stock

luvtolean
04-13-2007, 1:10 PM
thats not the best picture, I'm sure there is a butt stock

Not if they were trying to make the weapon as short as possible. That thing looks tiny in the cop's hand.

ybz
04-13-2007, 1:13 PM
Not if they were trying to make the weapon as short as possible. That thing looks tiny in the cop's hand.

big cop maybe???

The SoCal Gunner
04-13-2007, 1:20 PM
Sounds suspicious. Pulling them over at gunpoint? Doesn't sound like a normal traffic stop. Could be that they were reported by someone or they did something stupid. Need to find more details.

thomye
04-13-2007, 1:21 PM
if that cop isn't careful, that thing will accidently go off. With those exploding armor pearcing bullets (the big ones), someone could get really hurt; maybe even lose an eye.

JPglee1
04-13-2007, 1:30 PM
Not if they were trying to make the weapon as short as possible. That thing looks tiny in the cop's hand.

An M4 is the same length with no stock on it, as it is the stock fully collapsed. Makes no sense to remove the stock unless someone was intending it to be a pistol (and then it would have a sub-16" barrel)

Maybe the stock was taken off to make it fit in the case or something?

J

Surveyor
04-13-2007, 1:36 PM
I wonder if someone thought that removing the sliding buttstock would make it SB-23 compliant?

Maybe they forgot about the FH?

The SoCal Gunner
04-13-2007, 1:39 PM
I think the size of the rifle is distorted by the angle it is being held at. Makes it seem smaller. The pistol grip does look to have an extreme angle to me. Can't make out what kind it is.

rkt88edmo
04-13-2007, 2:05 PM
It looks stockless to me, the thing hanging down that looks like a PG might be an evidence tag. The angle of the front sight and the light grey pistol grip looking thing are different, but should be the same.

Jicko
04-13-2007, 2:06 PM
Can be an ACE Ultra lite Stock

http://riflestocks.com/catalog/images/ARUL.jpg

http://riflestocks.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=75_77&products_id=192

zenthemighty
04-13-2007, 2:12 PM
Or the pistol grip for that mater.

Surveyor
04-13-2007, 2:23 PM
Or the pistol grip for that mater.

Oh yeah, that too :o .

Cpl_Peters
04-13-2007, 2:26 PM
OK i know the person this happened to he just called my friend enchantor from jail. He is actually a member here with a decent post count. I need all the smart legal mind people to PM me so I can get him your info and to see if this is the test case we are looking for. Not sure how willing he will be to fight or just plee it out. I am going to be out and about trying to figure out what i can do from him but i will check my PMs tonight. When I saw it was in HB in the article i had a bad feeling it might be my friend (i recognized the rifle case) Looks like a case of an un educated LEO from what He told Enchantor. Won't say anymore on the public forum.

luvtolean
04-13-2007, 2:28 PM
Yikes. Keep us posted.

I do recommend this person's handle not be revealed.

Surveyor
04-13-2007, 2:30 PM
Yikes. Keep us posted.

I do recommend this person's handle not be revealed.


Agreed, lest any of their own comments be used against them.

Cpl_Peters
04-13-2007, 2:34 PM
Yea, i don't plan on revealling it but it might come out later I'm sure. I dont know what he is being held for yet or how much bail will be iff any or if they will even file charges. They might be " oh shi**** " themselves reading sb23 and might let them go.....but it is HB and all us socal guys know what HBPD is like. Apparently the arresting officer was saying it didnt matter if the mag was fixed or not in any way it was still an illegal weapon.

I feel bad, I was the one that told him about OLLs in the first place.....this is really getting my blood boiling.

luvtolean
04-13-2007, 2:36 PM
Yea, i don't plan on revieling it but it might come out later I'm sure.

If it's a simple OLL case...after the legalities are covered, and he gets his gun(s) back, absolutely.

Cobrarlc
04-13-2007, 2:47 PM
Subscribing to this thread

Rem1492
04-13-2007, 2:53 PM
Wow here we go again. Poor guys. Bad cops.

50 Freak
04-13-2007, 2:57 PM
Man that sucks....That's the problem with building up OLL...it's completely legal, but the majority of LE's (who are not as knowledgeable as the ones on this board) all think anything black, AK or AR is illegal. They figure to bust someone, get their pic in the paper and let the local DA figure it out.

Nevermind the poor smuck that now has to spend money and time to fight something that was not illegal in the first place.

This is why my OLL's are sitting as receivers in my safe.

If it wasn't for family friends and my roots here, I'd leave this state in a heartbeat.

Cpl_Peters
04-13-2007, 2:58 PM
Yes it was an OLL but it appears there is more to the story than that. Just found out some additional info....doesnt look good. :(

eta34
04-13-2007, 3:02 PM
OK, let's not jump to conclusions just yet. None of us have the facts yet, so let's hold on. I am not jumping on either side until I know what is going on. It is possible that my fellow LEO messed up, and it is possible that the citizen had an illegal weapon. Once we find out one way or the other, feel free to jump all over the deputy (bad arrest) or the state (for stupid gun laws).

If I were running the show, any of these lowers, OLL or otherwise would be legal.

Crazed_SS
04-13-2007, 3:05 PM
Yea, i don't plan on revealling it but it might come out later I'm sure. I dont know what he is being held for yet or how much bail will be iff any or if they will even file charges. They might be " oh shi**** " themselves reading sb23 and might let them go.....but it is HB and all us socal guys know what HBPD is like. Apparently the arresting officer was saying it didnt matter if the mag was fixed or not in any way it was still an illegal weapon.

I feel bad, I was the one that told him about OLLs in the first place.....this is really getting my blood boiling.

Sigh.. this is precisely why I havent built up an OLL. It's too much of a crapshoot. The average cop isnt gonna always know the nuances of CA gun laws. To him, AR-15 = AW. Doesnt matter if it's a Stag, has no grip, uses a bullet-button, whatever. There's the law and then there's the way things are. The only way this will change is if someone in authority sends out a memo to LE Agencies explaining OLLs.

Im into cars and for awhile cops were pulling over everyone with a modified exhaust and saying that it's illegal to modify your exhaust. That simply isnt the case, but the cops kept citing people for it. The CHP sent out a memo to agencies basically saying, "STOP PULLING PEOPLE OVER FOR THIS" ... Since that memo, there has been a lot less harassment of automotive enthusiasts.

mdhpper
04-13-2007, 3:55 PM
Maybe the cop removed it?

A324
04-13-2007, 4:15 PM
Seems logical, to remove the mag that is. I've yet to see an episode of Cops where the leo's didn't remove magazines from siezed or found weapons. It's just an added level of security knowing the weapon is unloaded.

Hanniballs
04-13-2007, 4:21 PM
subscribed.

69Mach1
04-13-2007, 6:04 PM
Damn. Here it goes again. Please keep us posted.

biff
04-13-2007, 6:10 PM
Sounds like it could go either way as far as being an OLL case.

TacFan
04-13-2007, 6:21 PM
Please keep us updated. Thanks

G17GUY
04-13-2007, 8:48 PM
:confused:

Muzz
04-13-2007, 9:31 PM
Is this happening WAY too often or are we all just finely tuned in with all these ears to the ground? Hope they didn't screw up.

6172crew
04-13-2007, 10:17 PM
http://www.tmllp.com/

Tell that guy to keep his trap shut and to call these guys asap.

Semper Fidelis

Racefiend
04-13-2007, 10:21 PM
does not having a but stock bring an AR under the legal length limit?

Cpl_Peters
04-13-2007, 10:27 PM
does not having a but stock bring an AR under the legal length limit?


that all depends on the upper length. The reason you will see most butt stocks removed though is to be in compliace with sb23 no telscoping stock portion.

6172crew
04-13-2007, 10:33 PM
that all depends on the upper length. The reason you will see most butt stocks removed though is to be in compliace with sb23 no telscoping stock portion.


Like the CPL said; if you have a box of AR15 parts it doesnt make it a AR15....so if a guy was to take apart his upper and lower then it wouldnt be a AR15, but you should try to take it a step further and remove grip or fix mag or whatever will keep them from just putting the upper and lower together and showing it on the news.

Spicy McHaggis
04-13-2007, 10:34 PM
This got me to thinking, since this was a felony stop I wonder if it was initiated that way from the start or just went bad after initial contact. If they had all of the rifles in the cases, the police wouldn't have known about it unless they told the police. So if it was initiated from the start, someone had to have reported them. Also really strange that OCSD made the arrests. This is nowhere near any of their contracted patrol areas. He must have went out of his way to make this stop. Not that they can't make the arrests, but it just sounds fishy to me.

If this was just a regular stop, then they may have told the deputy they had rifles in the car. That's PC to search, which probably lead to this turning into a felony stop.

A buddy of mine was arrested a long time ago when his soon-to-be exwife called the police on him. He had a whole safe full of legal, registered "assault weapons" and other C&R weapons. She reported him, they kicked in his door, took all of his weapons, and he went to jail. Eventually all charges were dropped since everything was legal, but the police had his weapons for almost three months before he could get them back.

proraptor
04-14-2007, 7:00 AM
Damn dude....That really sucks....Eric and monte called and told me and my jaw hit the floor....

I hope everything works its out.....Let me know if there is anything I can do

Richie Rich
04-14-2007, 7:06 AM
All I can say is best of luck to you.

The article makes it sound like the police took down some guys on the way to a drive by shooting or something, not a couple of guys going shooting at a range.

Still amazes me how something that is perfectly legal in one state can be a felony in another.

I understand the law is the law, but when laws create criminals rather then punish those who are actually up to no good, then something in the system is badly broken.

Keep us updated if you can, listen to your lawyer when it comes to not revealing any details that could hurt your defense.

RR

ghost
04-14-2007, 7:34 AM
thats my case guys. that was me and my friends. but i've been warned not to release any real critical information that hasn't already been made available, because it might jeapordize the case. all i can do is provide facts from a 3rd person perspective without admitting guilt or innocence.


on the way back from burro canyon, vehicle was pulled over for cracked windshield. officer was notified of firearms in the car. by the time it was over, 2 OLL builds confiscated, 1 OLL, and ammunition of unknown quantity. hearing/arraignment on monday


that's all at this time guys. everyone say a prayer for us

i hope everything works out for you guys.i cant believe that there are law abiding citizens still getting harassed for "OLL`s".another day in kali:(

JGarrison
04-14-2007, 7:53 AM
Bro if they were legit OLL's, and not illegal setups, let us know. I would have no prob pitching in to help. Have you been in touch with Bwiese?

6172crew
04-14-2007, 8:16 AM
sir,
ive been advised NOT to get into too much detail..., i dont want to piss off the admins and disrespect them in this fashion. liabilities and all that.

these charges are about as ridiculous as it gets. i really wish i could give out the details


i promise you guys once i get the chance to, i will tell you all what happened when the time is appropriate. it's a twisted wreck of confusion

Sometimes things arent as bad as they seem, give the NRA lawyers a call you will feel better.:)

proraptor
04-14-2007, 8:27 AM
Seriously though mischief (dont want to say your real name) let me know if there is anything I can do

LECTRIKHED
04-14-2007, 8:36 AM
I think it should be arranged for the admin to to delete all posts made by the suspect in this case, and his user info. That way, it cannot be used against him. This would probably be a good policy for all users.

As people have pointed out, this may not be such a great idea. Should consult with an attorney first.

CSACANNONEER
04-14-2007, 8:56 AM
Does this have to do with the memo to all OC LE?

Attention all LE:

It has come to our attention that there is a new and growing problem in OC. It is called the OLL craze. We really don't know much about OLL. Just that it must be some kind of new narcotic. It appears to be legal and one must go through a federally licenced dispensory to obtain one or more OLLs. We have contacted every other state in the country and none of them have heard of OLL, yet. So, this problem is still local although, our sources inform us that it is a growing craze.

Apparently, there is an underground gang working in Orange County to promote the use of OLLs. We have dubed this new gang "The Ugly Sweater Gang." Not much is known about this new gang other than they have had previous encounters with LE in Orange County and were able to avoid conviction. They can be identied by there affinity to ugly sweaters, beer and loud music. This gang needs to be stopped! If you encounter any known members or associates, assume them to be armed and dangerous, approach with extreme caution. Do a felony stop or call SWAT! Feel free to arrest them for any reason that you can fabricate and confinscate any of their legally owned personal property under the guise of national security.

Thank You,

Your freinds in government: DF, BB, SB and the rest.

CSACANNONEER
04-14-2007, 9:01 AM
I think it should be arranged for the admin to to delete all posts made by the suspect in this case, and his user info. That way, it cannot be used against him. This would probably be a good policy for all users.

I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on TV. Although, I think this could be a good idea, it could also be a bad idea depending on the information found in his previous posts. Also, this could be construed as "tampering/destroying with evidence." Right?

6172crew
04-14-2007, 9:02 AM
If anything needs to be edited from others quoting our freind I will be happy to help just PM me for my phone number.

BLKTALN
04-14-2007, 9:03 AM
Does this have to do with the memo to all OC LE?

Attention all LE:

It has come to our attention that there is a new and growing problem in OC. It is called the OLL craze. We really don't know much about OLL. Just that it must be some kind of new narcotic. It appears to be legal and one must go through a federally licenced dispensory to obtain one or more OLLs. We have contacted every other state in the country and none of them have heard of OLL, yet. So, this problem is still local although, our sources inform us that it is a growing craze.

Apparently, there is an underground gang working in Orange County to promote the use of OLLs. We have dubed this new gang "The Ugly Sweater Gang." Not much is known about this new gang other than they have had previous encounters with LE in Orange County and were able to avoid conviction. They can be identied by there affinity to ugly sweaters, beer and loud music. This gang needs to be stopped! If you encounter any known members or associates, assume them to be armed and dangerous, approach with extreme caution. Do a felony stop or call SWAT! Feel free to arrest them for any reason that you can fabricate and confinscate any of their legally owned personal property under the guise of national security.

Thank You,

Your freinds in government: DF, BB, SB and the rest.

wow... :(

6172crew
04-14-2007, 9:07 AM
wow... :(:rolleyes: That was a joke.

6172crew
04-14-2007, 9:15 AM
i have already talked to admins about this. as long as im not admitting guilt or wrongdoing to anything, theres not really any leverage to get off my posts here. and if other people can post their bad OLL experiences in similar fashion, i think im entitled to the same exact right.


A Ventura County Deputy is staying the weekend with us and we were talking about what had happened, AR15fan over at Ar15.com seems to think they knew about the OLLs before pulling you over and it was a "felony stop" which my buddy said they might have used the winsheild in case they werent 100% the vehicle was the one they were looking for.

We also talked about teh buttstock being removed and he didnt think it was apart enough for it not to be a AW but if the upper and lower were apart then they wouldnt be able to get anyone on AW charges.

The discussion between us was just BSing and talking about what was likely to happen if he pulled someone over, he also said he thought the rifle must have been in plain view and not in a trunk which is why my wifes M3 gets taken to the range and not my 4 door truck.

Im not looking for a response, Im just talking here.

A324
04-14-2007, 9:31 AM
We also talked about teh buttstock being removed and he didnt think it was apart enough for it not to be a AW but if the upper and lower were apart then they wouldnt be able to get anyone on AW charges.

.

Hmm...interesting. So as an added level of security when transporting your OLL would be to separate the upper from the lower. Simple enough to do and would certainly complicate the whole determination process at the field level.

hoffmang
04-14-2007, 9:37 AM
Having your upper off during transport would add a layer of legal protection.

Bill and I are in touch with Mischief. As its a weekend it may take a little time getting the Right People spooled up, but that is the plan.

-Gene

veeklog
04-14-2007, 9:46 AM
sir,
ive been advised NOT to get into too much detail..., i dont want to piss off the admins and disrespect them in this fashion. liabilities and all that.

these charges are about as ridiculous as it gets. i really wish i could give out the details


i promise you guys once i get the chance to, i will tell you all what happened when the time is appropriate. it's a twisted wreck of confusion


Bro:

Keep you mouth shut at this point; I know people want details, but they should not come from you. Excercise your Constitutional rights here and only talk to your attorney. If I could give everyone on this board the best legal advice ever, the minute a cop pulls out a Miranda Card and after he/she reads you your rights, the first thing out of your mouths should be "I want to talk to an attorney!" Don't protest, don't try to explain, because it is only going to make it worse; plus everything you say will be put into a report!!

As for a bit of personal info, I grew up in HB until the age of 25, when I came to San Diego for work. So I do know how cops were in that town (haven't been there in nine years though)

gn3hz3ku1*
04-14-2007, 9:49 AM
good luck

threadcrapper
04-14-2007, 9:53 AM
Ade's has OLL rifles on display for sale. Like 3-5 and I think so does Ammo Brothers. I have seen Police in Ade's and didn't even look at the OLL's and I've even seen them at gunshows in Costa Mesa and the Sheriff's were there with many other law enforcement agencies. How can this happen if the rifles are legal?

Super_tactical
04-14-2007, 9:56 AM
The best of luck to you.

I'm so sick of this state. Candy @ss OC Sheriff's deputies...wtf.

Ever notice how they're replacing the good cops with many new recruits that are scarred of guns and don't understand the constitution or anything our country was founded on.

I'm moving.

hoffmang
04-14-2007, 10:02 AM
HK,

It is not wise to jump to conclusions about the state of the rifles or the intent of the rifle owner.

-Gene

brownie168
04-14-2007, 10:06 AM
Wishing you the very best of luck.

Willing to help if you needed it.

SkyMag68
04-14-2007, 10:21 AM
relax guys everything its not as bad as it look..you too MISCHIEF..;)

SemiAutoSam
04-14-2007, 10:31 AM
Here is the link to the story. It looks like the LA TIMES is a very greedy newspaper as they expect to be paid to view this news story.

IF anyone has access to this information maybe they could post it here.



http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1253891601.html?dids=1253891601:1253891601&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+13%2C+2007&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=B.3&desc=Not+your+basic+traffic+stop

The pic of a LAOC Deputy looking at a firearm of some type in a open firearms case.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3324&d=1176484323

HK fan
04-14-2007, 10:33 AM
HK,

It is not wise to jump to conclusions about the state of the rifles or the intent of the rifle owner.

-Gene

I am not trying to, I want to support people who are being violated. And I know he cannot give out any details for his own legal security.

SC_00_05
04-14-2007, 10:48 AM
Mischeif-Good luck with this. Even in the "worst case scenario", I certainly hope the best part of AB2728 can apply.

xenophobe
04-14-2007, 10:59 AM
Every range Ive been to has had OLL in compliance with the law, except there is no way to know if the rifles you are lookingh at are owned by LE and are legal.

I've seen more than several... Probably half the times I've been to a range I've seen at least one off-list rifle that would not be Ca compliant...

James R.
04-14-2007, 11:02 AM
It's not the charge of the police to know every law forwards and backwards, rather they're to have general knowledge of what is legal and illegal knowing some things, i.e. typical violations for certain and using their instincts for everything else. When they feel a law may have been broken they will often hold you and/or confiscate your stuff until such time someone more learned can render a more authoritative (read informed) opinion on the matter.

Several people have been arrested and then later released. Put through the gears of our legal system and ultimately exonerated for what Buford T. Justice felt was potentially criminal weapons possession.



Regards,

James R.

hoffmang
04-14-2007, 11:06 AM
James,

I believe that your speculation matches my loose understanding better than other speculation.

-Gene

MrTuffPaws
04-14-2007, 11:08 AM
Mischief, good luck. Fight the good fight. I'll do all I can to help out if need be, as I am sure many here would.

MrTuffPaws
04-14-2007, 11:10 AM
Oh man, what is really sad is not that some people got busted for OLLs, but the number of posters here stating that the risk of being in compliance with the law by having a legally configured OLL is a risk too great. Sad times we live in.

James R.
04-14-2007, 11:18 AM
James,

I believe that your speculation matches my loose understanding better than other speculation.

-Gene

:-( I think I best call my Friend Eric and make sure he's not one of the 3 involved here. I know he likes Burro and he frequents HB...

Regards,

James R.

E Pluribus Unum
04-14-2007, 11:50 AM
It's not the charge of the police to know every law forwards and backwards, rather they're to have general knowledge of what is legal and illegal knowing some things, i.e. typical violations for certain and using their instincts for everything else.

Bullsnit

Have you ever been arrested before? It is not fun. They take you downtown in whatever you are wearing at the time (even if its boxers and sandals) and stick you in a cold room with 20 other criminals for 12 hours minimum with no sleep and no food.

We have the right NOT to have our freedom wrongfully taken even for a short period of time.

It happens most with domestic violence calls; if someone calls the cops in a domestic dispute SOMEONE is going to jail regardless of evidence or statements. This kind of arrest them now, ask questions later is a fundamental violation of the rights of the accused.

Police should not be allowed to arrest somone unless they have probable cause that a crime has been committed. This does not mean that if a police officer is ignorant to the law he can just arrest whomever he wants until a competant person has time to tell him what the law is. Police officers are paid well; they should be expected to know the basics. The OLL thing has been around for over a year now; there is no excuse for ignorance at this point.

Assuming the rifle is in compliance; this man's constitutional rights have been STOMPED on; the government has NO right to cease personal property unless it is illegal; not in CASE its illegal.

rkt88edmo
04-14-2007, 11:53 AM
STOP ASKING HIM HOW HIS RIFLE WAS CONFIGURED

MrTuffPaws
04-14-2007, 11:54 AM
Bullsnit

Assuming the rifle is in compliance; this man's constitutional rights have been STOMPED on; the government has NO right to cease personal property unless it is illegal; not in CASE its illegal.

ha ha.....cough cough...war on drugs.....cough.....

Illegal search and seizure is defined by law. If the law states that it is legal to take your toilet paper from your home if you are pulled over for a speeding ticket, then it is perfectly legal.

eta34
04-14-2007, 11:57 AM
As a LEO, I believe that we should know the law. I certainly don't know every single law by heart. However, if I don't know whether something is legal or not, I certainly find out before I arrest someone. However, there is so much misinformation fed to police officers throughout this state it is no wonder we are confused about the law.

Regarding the probable cause issue...uh, that is what we do. We don't just take people to jail without probable cause or evidence. We don't simply take one party in domestic violence situations just because...state law mandates that the primary aggressor (if an assault/battery has actually taken place) go to jail.

James R.
04-14-2007, 11:57 AM
Bullsnit

Have you ever been arrested before? It is not fun. They take you downtown in whatever you are wearing at the time (even if its boxers and sandals) and stick you in a cold room with 20 other criminals for 12 hours minimum with no sleep and no food.

We have the right NOT to have our freedom wrongfully taken even for a short period of time.

It happens most with domestic violence calls; if someone calls the cops in a domestic dispute SOMEONE is going to jail regardless of evidence or statements. This kind of arrest them now, ask questions later is a fundamental violation of the rights of the accused.

Police should not be allowed to arrest somone unless they have probable cause that a crime has been committed. This does not mean that if a police officer is ignorant to the law he can just arrest whomever he wants until a competant person has time to tell him what the law is. Police officers are paid well; they should be expected to know the basics. The OLL thing has been around for over a year now; there is no excuse for ignorance at this point.

Assuming the rifle is in compliance; this man's constitutional rights have been STOMPED on; the government has NO right to cease personal property unless it is illegal; not in CASE its illegal.

LOL simmer down, I didn't say I condone it...I'm just saying how this crap goes down. This is the pattern they've been following with OLL arrests for months now. Each person who goes thru this BS is in essence a martyr for the cause if you will.

As for your question, yeah I've been arrested but I was released on the spot on my own recognizance for what was IMHO a non crime, 602(L) trespassing. I was a minor...I've managed to stay on the right side of the law in my adult life thus far save for the occasional speeding ticket and a near misdemeanor VC violation (speed contest) which I got my lawyer to turn into a basic speeding ticket w/o any criminal component, i.e. plead down to an infraction with a donation to victim witness fund.

Regards,

James R.

Richie Rich
04-14-2007, 11:59 AM
I see lots of non compliant rifles at the ranges that I frequent.

Most seem to be owned by people who are .mil (who can legally have them in Ca with a military AW permit)

Still others are owned by LEOs (got to fondle a beautiful LMT rifle that belonged to a guy with a badge).

Others are registered AWs.

I have not seen anyone obviously break the law.

Yet now I am scared to take my 100% ca compliant rifles out for their maiden shoot (one fixed mag, one featureless).

This whole thing makes me sick.... When did this stop being the USA, land of the free and home of the brave ???

I swear, I think there is going to be a second "shot heard round the world" very soon.

We all joke about "we are all going to jail" on here. But having had a brush with the law in my younger (and much dumber) days, I can say firsthand, the system is no place you ever want to be.

Nevermind the money lost in property and legal fees. It is the doors that get slammed shut when you have been deemed a criminal.

You lose rights, you face legal discrimination when looking for a job, you risk alienation from friends and family, you lose trust.

FWIW, my brush with the law was a juvie issue , not a felony and is long since behind me, but even then, it had its concequences.

hoffmang
04-14-2007, 11:59 AM
Mischief can not comment on how his rifle is configured until he speaks to counsel. Counsel is going to tell him not to comment publicly on it until after resolution of the case.

Sorry you don't like it but that's the way it works.

-Gene

bwiese
04-14-2007, 12:00 PM
Mischeif

Check your PMs. I have contact info for you for lawyer that got last OC OLL case dismissed.

Bill

E Pluribus Unum
04-14-2007, 12:20 PM
Regarding the probable cause issue...uh, that is what we do. We don't just take people to jail without probable cause or evidence. We don't simply take one party in domestic violence situations just because...state law mandates that the primary aggressor (if an assault/battery has actually taken place) go to jail.

What was the probable cause in this case assuming the rifle was a fixed-mag config? This is different than a criminal getting away on a technicality; no law was broken and a man was wrongfully arrested.

Regarding domestic violence: Depends on jurisdiction. In many jurisdictions people go to jail on domestic violence charges without any evidence whatsoever. A woman calls the cops and says hubby hit them; cops come out and without any physical evidence guy goes to jail.

A local LEO was in the process of divorcing his wife. Crazy batch called the cops and said he hit her. BPD comes out and without any evidence whatsoever they take him (a sherrif deputy) to jail. They put him administrative leave pending trial. No charges were ever filed but he still got put through the rigors on nothing more than a lie by a psycho wife.

E Pluribus Unum
04-14-2007, 12:27 PM
sir,
ive been advised NOT to get into too much detail..., i dont want to piss off the admins and disrespect them in this fashion. liabilities and all that.

these charges are about as ridiculous as it gets. i really wish i could give out the details


i promise you guys once i get the chance to, i will tell you all what happened when the time is appropriate. it's a twisted wreck of confusion

Speaking from experience.....

I am not sure how legally-minded you are. If it is truely stupid charges you might think about using the Public Pretender's office.

I would say most of the time the Public Defender's office is nothing more than a plea bargain broker; any real defence is usually purchased. In this case it might be beneficial to at least speak with a PD and try to get it dismissed on the public's dime.

JesseXXX
04-14-2007, 12:36 PM
Okay... maybe we should have a sticky that tells you how to "Legally" Configure" a OLL, both styles pinned or non-pinned configs.....

This sucks, seriously... so now.... would it be wise to go to-and-from the range with the upper and lower seperated....?

Where are these "stops" happening...? Burro....Lytle Creek....?

Lastly...am I legal....? StagM4 Flatop (with TA31 Acog) with bullet button release...?

Matt C
04-14-2007, 12:41 PM
Look, I'm not going to comment on how mischief had his AR configured, period. That said, those here who are blaming the OCSO or assuming the the rifle was configured in ANY way, need to remember what happens you ***-u-me things...

As a LEO, I believe that we should know the law. I certainly don't know every single law by heart. However, if I don't know whether something is legal or not, I certainly find out before I arrest someone.

Amen brother. This is why I have such an extreme position on officers who actually attempt arrests when they don't know the law involved. There is no excuse for it.

wewex
04-14-2007, 1:05 PM
WOW!!! I can't believe this === Mischief === all i can say is GOOD LUCK and remember you got our support!!!

eta34
04-14-2007, 1:09 PM
What was the probable cause in this case assuming the rifle was a fixed-mag config? This is different than a criminal getting away on a technicality; no law was broken and a man was wrongfully arrested.

Regarding domestic violence: Depends on jurisdiction. In many jurisdictions people go to jail on domestic violence charges without any evidence whatsoever. A woman calls the cops and says hubby hit them; cops come out and without any physical evidence guy goes to jail.

A local LEO was in the process of divorcing his wife. Crazy batch called the cops and said he hit her. BPD comes out and without any evidence whatsoever they take him (a sherrif deputy) to jail. They put him administrative leave pending trial. No charges were ever filed but he still got put through the rigors on nothing more than a lie by a psycho wife.


Well, I am certainly not defending these guys if the OLL was compliant and carried legally. My point is that based on our academy training and the few updates we get regarding firearms, these deputies thought that "mischief" was in possession of an illegal assault weapon. That was their probable cause. It was certainly based on misinformation and not knowing the law. As an LEO, I can speak with 100% certainty that most departments are not aware of the OLL legalities. I would not know anything about OLL if it wasn't for this site. I do not use this as an excuse; it is simply the reality. We as a community must educate the police departments to avoid this in the future.

Regarding the domestic violence situation, you can thank OJ Simpson and LEO's for not taking enforcement action when it was appropriate. It used to be that when a man smacked a woman around, the cop would tell them to knock it off and go in separate rooms for the night. Same thing happened to Nicole Simpson. She along with many other women were killed or badly beaten. Now cops are afraid to incur this type of liablity when they enter a domestic violence scene...law has essentially mandated that if one party states that the other assaulted them, we MUST arrest. Again, I am not defending this, just stating the reality.

It sickens me to see innocent people go to jail in OLL cases. I can't speak for this case in particular, as I don't know the configuration (I AM NOT ASKING FOR IT....DON'T SAY IT). To me, the bottom line is this: whether we like it or not, whether we think it is our job or not, we need to educate the police/DA's on this issue. We can complain (rightfully so) that LEOs should know the law regarding this. The fact is, they (we) don't. So, we can either draw a line in the sand and go to jail repeatedly or try to make the situation better.

E Pluribus Unum
04-14-2007, 2:41 PM
Well, I am certainly not defending these guys if the OLL was compliant and carried legally. My point is that based on our academy training and the few updates we get regarding firearms, these deputies thought that "mischief" was in possession of an illegal assault weapon. That was their probable cause. It was certainly based on misinformation and not knowing the law. As an LEO, I can speak with 100% certainty that most departments are not aware of the OLL legalities. I would not know anything about OLL if it wasn't for this site. I do not use this as an excuse; it is simply the reality. We as a community must educate the police departments to avoid this in the future.

Regarding the domestic violence situation, you can thank OJ Simpson and LEO's for not taking enforcement action when it was appropriate. It used to be that when a man smacked a woman around, the cop would tell them to knock it off and go in separate rooms for the night. Same thing happened to Nicole Simpson. She along with many other women were killed or badly beaten. Now cops are afraid to incur this type of liablity when they enter a domestic violence scene...law has essentially mandated that if one party states that the other assaulted them, we MUST arrest. Again, I am not defending this, just stating the reality.

It sickens me to see innocent people go to jail in OLL cases. I can't speak for this case in particular, as I don't know the configuration (I AM NOT ASKING FOR IT....DON'T SAY IT). To me, the bottom line is this: whether we like it or not, whether we think it is our job or not, we need to educate the police/DA's on this issue. We can complain (rightfully so) that LEOs should know the law regarding this. The fact is, they (we) don't. So, we can either draw a line in the sand and go to jail repeatedly or try to make the situation better.

I am well aware of the situation and the legal precedent behind it; that does not justify it in any way.

The reason law enforcement changed procedure is because they were sued. If more and more people sued for malicious prosecution maybe it would change.

If I were put on a jury where a man was wrongfully arrested for something that was perfectly legal and he sued the police department for damages I would vote in his favor.

Matt C
04-14-2007, 2:55 PM
My point is that based on our academy training and the few updates we get regarding firearms, these deputies thought that "mischief" was in possession of an illegal assault weapon. That was their probable cause. It was certainly based on misinformation and not knowing the law.eta34 that is total BS. If I think wearing a purple shirt on tuesday is illegal, that is NOT Probable Cause for an arrest. My misunderstanding of the law is not PC, ever. If I arrest someone for wearing that purple shirt on Tuesday (assuming it's not illegal), and I find dope on him while conducting a search incident to arrest, the dope cannot be admitted as evidence, because I had no PC for an arrest! If I think a mosin nagant, or a legally configured OLL, is an AW, that is NOT PC for an arrest, or a search. Why? Because PC cannot exist when there is no crime. If there is no statue(whoch has not been overturned judicially) which makes an act illegal, my resonable belief that a person has commited that act is not PC for anything, even if I believe that act to be illegal. There is just me, being an idiot, who needs to find another job.

And I will tell you something, any person wearing a badge who tries some BS like that with me, well he can explain his "misunderstanding" of the law because of poor training to a magistrate.

WokMaster1
04-14-2007, 2:58 PM
I am well aware of the situation and the legal precedent behind it; that does not justify it in any way.

The reason law enforcement changed procedure is because they were sued. If more and more people sued for malicious prosecution maybe it would change.

If I were put on a jury where a man was wrongfully arrested for something that was perfectly legal and he sued the police department for damages I would vote in his favor.

Amen to that! I'm all for educating the LEOs but as there are A LOT of Good officers, there are also A LOT of arrogant, "Who are you to tell me what to do?" LEOs as well.

A lot of people here are not in favor of writing letters to the CLEOs of their area & I understand why. Sheriffs & Chiefs like Baca, etc are just not going to even give us the time of the day. It would be nice if the more pro-gun counties/cities CLEO would stand up & say that OLLs are legal. That would really throw a wrench into the anti OLLs wheel.

Harrott vs Kings County happened in Sacramento. Would it be a good idea to try & get a respond from the county sheriff & Sac PD chief about their stand on this issue quoting the case?

mark3lb
04-14-2007, 3:01 PM
There's a lot of pants with loads in them today from this situation. Nobody wants to enter Calguns to ready about someone getting busted, let alone in La Tiempo ( The LA Times). The reason this thread is so large, is because it's clearly of great interest to those of you with OLL rifes.
Because right now, everyone is worried that OLL rifles are illegal for just being OLL.
Anyway, we're pulling for you and hope you're fully cleared in this matter and you guy your rifles back.

Matt C
04-14-2007, 3:04 PM
There's a lot of pants with loads in them today from this situation. Nobody wants to enter Calguns to ready about someone getting busted, let alone in La Tiempo ( The LA Times). The reason this thread is so large, is because it's clearly of great interest to those of you with OLL rifes.
Because right now, everyone is worried that OLL rifles are illegal for just being OLL.
Anyway, we're pulling for you and hope you're fully cleared in this matter and you guy your rifles back.

No one wants to go into details for good reason, but lets just say that there is nothing about this case that should make a totally legit OLL owner particularly concerned.

mark3lb
04-14-2007, 3:05 PM
Thank you Blackwater, I'm sure those with OLL rifles that are 100% within the law feel much better.

E Pluribus Unum
04-14-2007, 3:19 PM
eta34 that is total BS. If I think wearing a purple shirt on tuesday is illegal, that is NOT Probable Cause for an arrest. My misunderstanding of the law is not PC, ever. If I arrest someone for wearing that purple shirt on Tuesday (assuming it's not illegal), and I find dope on him while conducting a search incident to arrest, the dope cannot be admitted as evidence, because I had no PC for an arrest! If I think a mosin nagant, or a legally configured OLL, is an AW, that is NOT PC for an arrest, or a search. Why? Because PC cannot exist when there is no crime. If there is no statue(whoch has not been overturned judicially) which makes an act illegal, my resonable belief that a person has commited that act is not PC for anything, even if I believe that act to be illegal. There is just me, being an idiot, who needs to find another job.

And I will tell you something, any person wearing a badge who tries some BS like that with me, well he can explain his "misunderstanding" of the law because of poor training to a magistrate.

Here is the question:

Is a peace officer arresting someone for something that is perfectly legal a "lawful arrest"?

If the answer to that question is "No" then as a civilian I have every right to resist any unlawful arrest; regardless of who is affecting that arrest.

99.99% of society is willing to accept getting arrested and sorting it out later. What happens when an officer finds a redneck idealist dieing of cancer with nothing to lose?

I am of firm belief that any citizen has the right to resist a wrongful detainment even if and especially if that is being perpetrated by a sworn LEO. They are considered "expert witnesses" in court so a little more is expected from them than the average Joe. If a LEO is arresting someone they better make DAMNED sure that the perpetrator has violated the law otherwise that officer is a tyrant and an enemy of liberty. I am not willing to take the life of another over principal; some people are.

Matt C
04-14-2007, 3:33 PM
Here is the question:

Is a peace officer arresting someone for something that is perfectly legal a "lawful arrest"?


No. Excluding a DV situation an ARREST may only be made when:
(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence.

(2) The person arrested has committed a felony [also a public offense], although not in
the officer's presence.
(3) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony, in fact,
has been committed.


NOTE: This does not preclude an officer from making a DETENTION, which is generally limited to 15 minutes or so. (but not always) If he actually states you are under arrest though, it's not a detention. I would ask before I let anyone cuff me.


If the answer to that question is "No" then as a civilian I have every right to resist any unlawful arrest; regardless of who is affecting that arrest.


There is not really any such thing as an"unlawful arrest". If it's an arrest, than it's legit, if someone is trying to arrest for something that is not a crime, he is not arresting you. He may be; falsely imprisoning you, assaulting you, battering you, kidnapping you, ect. You have the right to use force to resist such things.

Boomer1961
04-14-2007, 4:00 PM
I say get a lawyer quickly as this is a great investment for you right now.

If yours was an incorrect or questionable setup then plead out using your lawyer to negotiate and you will probably get a misdemeanor/time served/fine/community service/probation which you can look at as a cheap lesson learned and allow you to preserve your voting and gun rights as well as the most important of all-your FREEDOM.

If you decide to fight this and yours is questionable then you do all of us a disservice as it hurts us all. You should also expect some jail time if they offered you a deal before hand and you did not accept it if and when you loose in the end.

If your understanding and your lawyers understanding is that your were kosher and on the up and up then I will leave it to your conscious on what to do as fighting something like this can be very painful.
-You get recognition from the neighbors as being a gun nut.

-The wife gets upset about all the time and money being spent on this instead of her and the kids.

-You will find it hard to focus on the great things in life as you will constantly be thinking about this for every moment of your time, every day, until this is settled.

-Expect to feel depression and with it loss of energy, easy to anger, feeling of impending doom, etc.

-Expect to have paranoia about everything especially when it comes to LE and you will do stupid things like panic when you see the police officer and then accidentally run through the red light because you were focused on him or maybe you slammed on the breaks as a reflex and some guy plows into the back of you. Also I will guarantee that you will now be better than the best Military Radar at picking helicopters out of the sky and swear that they are all LE looking to get you or someone else in a similar position as you.

-Expect to have your bank account depleted. Your lawyer-depending on who you will retain-will typically ask for between $2500-$10,000 just to start this process and that will only include your initial interview and follow up interview with your lawyer, maybe two phone calls to the arresting officer, one sit down meeting with the arresting officer/agency, and the first court appearance. Some lawyers will ask for more money before the first court appearance but all will ask for more once formal charges are done during arraignment. This is where you can save allot of time and money by pleading out with a best deal as quickly as possible as that initial retainer usually only covers 10-12 hours of lawyer time max, expect $250-$500 per hour after that.

-Expect the wife and you to start fighting allot about your guns, all of them, and nagging you 50 times a day to get rid of them, all of them. If you do go that route then how about hooking up a buddy with a good deal. I will promise you visitation rights for at least 5 years so you can see your gun grow up with new accessories added, a fresh finish, and how it gets along with other guns at the range.

I can go on and on but all of us Internet lawyers here will agree
-Don't say anything-anywhere-except as directed by your lawyer. I have seen postings at forums used as a tool by the prosecutor/LE agents to intimidate you, threaten you, and in one instance used in a jury trial.

-Retain a lawyer as quickly as possible but DEFINITELY DO devote a fair bit of time getting references as this is not a patio that you kick yourself because it was either to expensive or just was not what you wanted. The cost of a lawyer is all over the board and can easily be 5 or even 10 to one on the lowest versus highest cost one. Also experience really helps and a lawyer with a good reputation as being hard to beat in court, known locally by LE, known as someone that everyone can work with, experienced in firearms law, etc. can make a big difference from one that just takes your $2500 and meets you once then pleads you out quickly so he can move on with his next case.

Maybe it is a good idea to recommend that anyone with these OLL things that they should put together a $10,000 contingency fund to pay for bail and a lawyer if and when the SHTF stuff happens.

Also if after talking to your lawyer and its deemed a workable case and LE insists on going through with it then please do have your lawyer prepare a statement you can post here so that we can make our $50-$100 donation. This will not come close to paying the full bill but if say 100 members donate $100 then that will be $10,000 to help pay the lawyer fee which will probably be in the $25,000 ++++ range.

Oh, now for the small print, as they say I am not a lawyer, nor do play one on TV, but it is hard not to want to try to be one when I hear of stuff like this especially when its used by LE and the media to further prove their preconceived notions about what should be the law versus what the law actually is.

Man stuff like this just makes me ramble on and on because it makes me angry so I apologize for this.

Good luck to you and we will all say a prayer.:D

eta34
04-14-2007, 4:15 PM
Feel free to reread my post. I never condoned what has happened in the legally configured OLL cases. None of us except for mischief knows if he was legally configured. Please reread where I explained that the reason they may have arrested mischief is because they did not know the law. I never excused them from knowing the law. Like I said earlier, if I don't know if something is legal or not, I will certainly find out before I arrest somebody.

Your purple shirt example is not exactly applicable. It is not even close to what has happened here. What is the difference between an OLL and a listed lower? I am not a gunsmith, but to my eye, there is no structural or physical difference, save the markings of the manufacturer. So, since these deputies learned in the academy that M-16s and AR-15s are illegal, and they were never trained about the OLL phenomenon, they thought they were taking an illegal gun off of the street. To them a Stag lower and a Colt lower are one and the same. Remember, just because we carry guns doesn't make us experts.

Now, before you jump to conclusions and try to flame me again, please listen. There is no excuse if they took a man to jail for possession of a legally configured OLL. NO EXCUSE. My explanation above was not an excuse for these officers. I feel that if our departments aren't teaching us the laws, then we need to find a way to stay current. If mischief or any other citizen is arrested while possessing a legally configured OLL, I hope he/she sues and wins big money. This will definitely get law enforcement to pay attention, since money is often a great motivator.

It again brings me to this point: we (yes, I consider myself part of this community, even if some of you hate LEOs) have to educate the police. Of course there are those who know it all (just as there are in any profession) and refuse to learn anything from some "regular citizen." Most of us would gladly listen to you.

The fact is this...the government, the DOJ, and the police organizations are not educated on this issue. None of the weekly training videos we watch have been devoted to this. My supervisors and I who subscribe to legal updates have never heard of the OLL thing. My knowledge is SOLELY based on this website and the like. Again, not an excuse. The government and police agencies must do a better job in educating its officers, in this area and many others. If not, arrests like this will continue. I don't like it, and I certainly won't be the one making these arrests, but the reality is that it will continue.

It really is up to us.



eta34 that is total BS. If I think wearing a purple shirt on tuesday is illegal, that is NOT Probable Cause for an arrest. My misunderstanding of the law is not PC, ever. If I arrest someone for wearing that purple shirt on Tuesday (assuming it's not illegal), and I find dope on him while conducting a search incident to arrest, the dope cannot be admitted as evidence, because I had no PC for an arrest! If I think a mosin nagant, or a legally configured OLL, is an AW, that is NOT PC for an arrest, or a search. Why? Because PC cannot exist when there is no crime. If there is no statue(whoch has not been overturned judicially) which makes an act illegal, my resonable belief that a person has commited that act is not PC for anything, even if I believe that act to be illegal. There is just me, being an idiot, who needs to find another job.

And I will tell you something, any person wearing a badge who tries some BS like that with me, well he can explain his "misunderstanding" of the law because of poor training to a magistrate.

SemiAutoSam
04-14-2007, 4:24 PM
Have you ever heard the expression Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I feel that it is applicable in this instance to any LEO's that arrest or Harass any Law Abiding Citizen when HE/SHE does not know the law relating to OLL's.

And I would hope that it would be possible to sue civilly to the fullest extent of law any LEO that arrests any civilian without due cause.

Note: lack of knowledge on the part of the LEO is not due cause. You will note that the LEO's Have the same Resources if not more to learn about California Firearms law then the layman.

Feel free to reread my post. I never condoned what has happened in the legally configured OLL cases. None of us except for mischief knows if he was legally configured. Please reread where I explained that the reason they may have arrested mischief is because they did not know the law. I never excused them from knowing the law. Like I said earlier, if I don't know if something is legal or not, I will certainly find out before I arrest somebody.

Your purple shirt example is not exactly applicable. It is not even close to what has happened here. What is the difference between an OLL and a listed lower? I am not a gunsmith, but to my eye, there is no structural or physical difference, save the markings of the manufacturer. So, since these deputies learned in the academy that M-16s and AR-15s are illegal, and they were never trained about the OLL phenomenon, they thought they were taking an illegal gun off of the street. To them a Stag lower and a Colt lower are one and the same. Remember, just because we carry guns doesn't make us experts.

Now, before you jump to conclusions and try to flame me again, please listen. There is no excuse if they took a man to jail for possession of a legally configured OLL. NO EXCUSE. My explanation above was not an excuse for these officers. I feel that if our departments aren't teaching us the laws, then we need to find a way to stay current. If mischief or any other citizen is arrested while possessing a legally configured OLL, I hope he/she sues and wins big money. This will definitely get law enforcement to pay attention, since money is often a great motivator.

It again brings me to this point: we (yes, I consider myself part of this community, even if some of you hate LEOs) have to educate the police. Of course there are those who know it all (just as there are in any profession) and refuse to learn anything from some "regular citizen." Most of us would gladly listen to you.

The fact is this...the government, the DOJ, and the police organizations are not educated on this issue. None of the weekly training videos we watch have been devoted to this. My supervisors and I who subscribe to legal updates have never heard of the OLL thing. My knowledge is SOLELY based on this website and the like. Again, not an excuse. The government and police agencies must do a better job in educating its officers, in this area and many others. If not, arrests like this will continue. I don't like it, and I certainly won't be the one making these arrests, but the reality is that it will continue.

It really is up to us.

eta34
04-14-2007, 4:25 PM
Oh, one last thing. Consult an attorney. Don't use our "expertise" as guidance. I wish you the best as this would have never happened in free America.

eta34
04-14-2007, 4:27 PM
I guess I should emphasize one more time, I do not believe ignorance is an excuse. Ignorance abounds in law enforcement, so we must do our part to correct it. It shouldn't be the citizens job to do this, but we can either educate them (us) or continue to be arrested for legal weapons. Make a choice.

Technical Ted
04-14-2007, 4:31 PM
Four lines sum up what most of the posters in this thread have contributed:
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

MrTuffPaws
04-14-2007, 4:31 PM
....

Yet now I am scared to take my 100% ca compliant rifles out for their maiden shoot (one fixed mag, one featureless).

This whole thing makes me sick.... When did this stop being the USA, land of the free and home of the brave ???

....



Maybe when some started being afraid of exercising their rights, even when they follow the law. ;)

E Pluribus Unum
04-14-2007, 4:34 PM
Now, before you jump to conclusions and try to flame me again, please listen. There is no excuse if they took a man to jail for possession of a legally configured OLL. NO EXCUSE. My explanation above was not an excuse for these officers. I feel that if our departments aren't teaching us the laws, then we need to find a way to stay current. If mischief or any other citizen is arrested while possessing a legally configured OLL, I hope he/she sues and wins big money. This will definitely get law enforcement to pay attention, since money is often a great motivator.

99% of society would choose to let the unlawful detainment happen, and then sue.

What of the person that decided to resist with force? Though it may not be a good idea, its technically legal.

Scenario:
The cop is just doing his job and he thinks its a lawful order. We both know what would happen to anyone who resists a lawful order (actual or perceived) of a peace officer. It would get physical very quickly; if the officer started to lose the physical battle he would present his firearm; if he did that then the citizen would have probable cause to believe his life was in danger and would have every right to present his firearm and defend his own life.

While the example above is an extreme, it would be technically legal. What happens to him? My point is, as a law enforcement officer you better be willing to risk your life on whether your arrest is legal or not. Any armed resistance to unlawful detainment would be legal if you are wrong. With this kind of thing on the line it should be reasonable to assume that any self respecting LEO charged with enforceing the law would have through his own research, come across the OLL situation and been well-versed. After all it has been over a year now.

Matt C
04-14-2007, 4:40 PM
ets34, if I misread what you said I apologise. I sort of see your point, there is a AW law, and if a peace officer has reason to believe someone broke it, they could have PC for an arrest. But if based on their statements at the scene, they made the arrest based on a faulty understanding of the law, and the only PC they had was a reasonable belief that someone broke a law that did not in fact exist, they had no PC. Thus any evidence uncovered subsequent to the arrest that should never should have happened, could not be used in court. There was no PC.

eta34
04-14-2007, 4:45 PM
Believe me blackwater, we are on the same side. Unlike most of my colleagues, I wouldn't be upset if I pulled over a car and saw an AR sitting on the back seat. I would probably ask him about it like a kid in a candy store.

I just understand from this side of the pond how we think and what we are taught. I don't agree with it, but I believe it will only change when the departments start losing money.

Matt C
04-14-2007, 4:46 PM
The cop is just doing his job and he thinks its a lawful order. We both know what would happen to anyone who resists a lawful order (actual or perceived) of a peace officer. It would get physical very quickly; if the officer started to lose the physical battle he would present his firearm; if he did that then the citizen would have probable cause to believe his life was in danger and would have every right to present his firearm and defend his own life.

While this is true, think about the results. Say you manage you kill the officer before he kills you. Ok. Now he has backup coming, and they are probably going to shoot first when they see their dead buddy. Say you manage to survive and get to a courtroom somehow. What is your proof that the story unfolded like you say it did? Now, instead of fighting BS gun charges with a solid case, you are fighting BS murder charges with no real defense. Or I guess you could stay on the run forever.

That said, my statement stands. I will not be "arrested" for breaking a law that does not exist except in the mind an LEO. Just know what you are getting into. And carry a tape recorder.

Californio
04-14-2007, 5:18 PM
Feel free to reread my post. I never condoned what has happened in the legally configured OLL cases. None of us except for mischief knows if he was legally configured. Please reread where I explained that the reason they may have arrested mischief is because they did not know the law. I never excused them from knowing the law. Like I said earlier, if I don't know if something is legal or not, I will certainly find out before I arrest somebody.

Your purple shirt example is not exactly applicable. It is not even close to what has happened here. What is the difference between an OLL and a listed lower? I am not a gunsmith, but to my eye, there is no structural or physical difference, save the markings of the manufacturer. So, since these deputies learned in the academy that M-16s and AR-15s are illegal, and they were never trained about the OLL phenomenon, they thought they were taking an illegal gun off of the street. To them a Stag lower and a Colt lower are one and the same. Remember, just because we carry guns doesn't make us experts.

Now, before you jump to conclusions and try to flame me again, please listen. There is no excuse if they took a man to jail for possession of a legally configured OLL. NO EXCUSE. My explanation above was not an excuse for these officers. I feel that if our departments aren't teaching us the laws, then we need to find a way to stay current. If mischief or any other citizen is arrested while possessing a legally configured OLL, I hope he/she sues and wins big money. This will definitely get law enforcement to pay attention, since money is often a great motivator.

It again brings me to this point: we (yes, I consider myself part of this community, even if some of you hate LEOs) have to educate the police. Of course there are those who know it all (just as there are in any profession) and refuse to learn anything from some "regular citizen." Most of us would gladly listen to you.

The fact is this...the government, the DOJ, and the police organizations are not educated on this issue. None of the weekly training videos we watch have been devoted to this. My supervisors and I who subscribe to legal updates have never heard of the OLL thing. My knowledge is SOLELY based on this website and the like. Again, not an excuse. The government and police agencies must do a better job in educating its officers, in this area and many others. If not, arrests like this will continue. I don't like it, and I certainly won't be the one making these arrests, but the reality is that it will continue.

It really is up to us.


The public is burdened by a Legislature that passed a bad law with holes in it, those holes magnified over time and the “People” exploited the holes and went around the original intent of the law. The activist DOJ knows today the AW law could not be passed so they result to intimidation to enforce the original intent of the AW law. Intent is not enough for legal basis, this occurs in more areas than just firearms. Many laws are now intent laws than actual judicial laws across this land. Police are put in a real pickle with these “Depends what IS, Is laws”. The position the Police find themselves in is precisely why the current law attempting to regulate AW’s is not good and should be repealed.

In my opinion any Lawyer working for a Government Agency that willfully preys on the People with intent laws should be “Disbarred”, they are the criminals and have violated the Public Trust as lawyers as well as professional ethics. We as “Free Men” have the right to expect only clearly understood, Constitutional Laws be on the books.

Just how are the Police going to be properly informed when their Superiors, DOJ, lie to them. Government Agencies are supposed to be politically impartial, not activists. The Executive and Legislative branches are supposed to be the one to play politics.

What the anti-Federalists feared most has come home to roost.

I think your asking way to much of the Police, if you think that an Officer is responsible for knowing which AR15 is legal and which one is not, they all have similar characteristics and their bosses are lying to them in order enforce the intent of a law that is a joke.

Your anger should be directed towards those elected, Legislature for passing such a piece of Crap and the Attorney General for allowing employees to promulgate activist agendas against “The People”.

eta34, Thanks for your Service.

ask80
04-14-2007, 5:56 PM
99% of society would choose to let the unlawful detainment happen, and then sue.

What of the person that decided to resist with force? Though it may not be a good idea, its technically legal.

Scenario:
The cop is just doing his job and he thinks its a lawful order. We both know what would happen to anyone who resists a lawful order (actual or perceived) of a peace officer. It would get physical very quickly; if the officer started to lose the physical battle he would present his firearm; if he did that then the citizen would have probable cause to believe his life was in danger and would have every right to present his firearm and defend his own life.

While the example above is an extreme, it would be technically legal.

i don't know how that would be legal.. a person's detained and given a lawful order by a peace officer. the person resists. officer uses physical force. person resists. officer is losing the fight and fears for his life. officer presents firearm.. so now the citizen has PC to use self defense and kill the officer? hmm.. then the citizen can be expected to be sentenced to the death penalty for murder of a peace officer. no jury is going to buy the citizen's story of self-defense because the citizen refused to obey an order.

Kruzr
04-14-2007, 6:08 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why an OC Sheriff's Deputy made a traffic stop in Huntington Beach. I've lived here for over 30 years now and can't recall ever seeing an OC Sheriff make a traffic stop in the city.

Kestryll
04-14-2007, 7:23 PM
Okay, enough questions and speculations about the configuration.
One last time so everyone can see it and understand it.

HE CAN NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONFIGURATION OR IT'S LEGALITY AT THIS TIME.
ATTEMPTS TO END YOUR CURIOUSITY COULD COULD HURT HIS CASE NO MATTER WHAT THE CONFIGURATION WAS.

Let's stay focused on the matter at hand and not turn this in to a rant about how the laws suck, we have plenty of threads about that.

To M, contact me via PM if you need any posts or threads edited or removed or if you want to alter you screen name to something more benign, presentation is everything.

Again, let's stop with the speculations, at best blind guessing confuses the issue, at worst it can be very harmful.

ask80
04-14-2007, 7:47 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why an OC Sheriff's Deputy made a traffic stop in Huntington Beach. I've lived here for over 30 years now and can't recall ever seeing an OC Sheriff make a traffic stop in the city.

well HB is in orange county. and under pc 830.1 OC deputies (and most CA peace officer) authority extends to any place in the state. my friends tell me that police officers and deputies can't give tickets on the freeway because only CHP can and it's "chp territory" .. i just laugh...

and plus i believe this was a felony car stop.. guns drawn,etc... so it's not uncommon to have multi agencies respond to assist.

Kruzr
04-14-2007, 8:19 PM
and plus i believe this was a felony car stop.. guns drawn,etc... so it's not uncommon to have multi agencies respond to assist.

A cracked windshield is a fine and fix-it ticket.

Rob454
04-14-2007, 8:43 PM
Dude I really really am pulling for you. I dont have any of the Oll rifles ak or ar or anything liek that. Im not against those kinds of weapons and I dont think that they should only be owned/used by the military or LE. I think what happend to you is unfair and I really hope you pull through this. The LE community NEEDS to KNOW the rules and laws. I personally could care less how your rifle was configured. And since when is a cracked windshield a reason to search a vehicle? I jsut dont see why the cop went and searched your vehicle. I can tell you that the very few times I got pulled over I set a small tape recorder on the dash. I make it a point to turn it on and then let the officer know that he is being recorded. ive seen the biggest baddest cops turn to really really nice cops when I do that. I refuse to be intimidated by a guy with a badge. im not rude or discourteous in any way. i jsut simply want to make sure that they dont think they can push me around because Im jsut a civilian. I got enough of that when I was younger. I do think LE is a good thing and they have my outmost respect because they do deal with a lot of scum and dregs of society, but I cant stand to be pushed around by some snot nosed 24 year old kid with a gun a badge and a attitude.

All that being said I really really hope it all turns out well.


To all you other guys. Instead of trying to milk the guy for info he CANNOT give you why dont you offer to help him out with his legal fees. Hell if every guy on this board sends him 10$ he will have some $$ to fight this thing
7700 members and 2700 active members. hell if even half of the active members send in some $$ he will still have a few grand to fight this and its probably gonna take more.hey guys maybe send him the $$ you would of spent to buy that extra box of ammo for next weeks shoot.

hey bud I dont know you but if you send me your address I can make sure i send you some $$ to fight this. I was gonna buy another 100 rounds of .45 ammo but Im gonna send it to you ( not the ammo but the $$:D )

PM me or send me your address at my email.
ss454454@socal.rr.com

veeklog
04-14-2007, 8:44 PM
Feel free to reread my post. I never condoned what has happened in the legally configured OLL cases. None of us except for mischief knows if he was legally configured. Please reread where I explained that the reason they may have arrested mischief is because they did not know the law. I never excused them from knowing the law. Like I said earlier, if I don't know if something is legal or not, I will certainly find out before I arrest somebody.

Your purple shirt example is not exactly applicable. It is not even close to what has happened here. What is the difference between an OLL and a listed lower? I am not a gunsmith, but to my eye, there is no structural or physical difference, save the markings of the manufacturer. So, since these deputies learned in the academy that M-16s and AR-15s are illegal, and they were never trained about the OLL phenomenon, they thought they were taking an illegal gun off of the street. To them a Stag lower and a Colt lower are one and the same. Remember, just because we carry guns doesn't make us experts.

Now, before you jump to conclusions and try to flame me again, please listen. There is no excuse if they took a man to jail for possession of a legally configured OLL. NO EXCUSE. My explanation above was not an excuse for these officers. I feel that if our departments aren't teaching us the laws, then we need to find a way to stay current. If mischief or any other citizen is arrested while possessing a legally configured OLL, I hope he/she sues and wins big money. This will definitely get law enforcement to pay attention, since money is often a great motivator.

It again brings me to this point: we (yes, I consider myself part of this community, even if some of you hate LEOs) have to educate the police. Of course there are those who know it all (just as there are in any profession) and refuse to learn anything from some "regular citizen." Most of us would gladly listen to you.

The fact is this...the government, the DOJ, and the police organizations are not educated on this issue. None of the weekly training videos we watch have been devoted to this. My supervisors and I who subscribe to legal updates have never heard of the OLL thing. My knowledge is SOLELY based on this website and the like. Again, not an excuse. The government and police agencies must do a better job in educating its officers, in this area and many others. If not, arrests like this will continue. I don't like it, and I certainly won't be the one making these arrests, but the reality is that it will continue.

It really is up to us.

As a LEO myself for the past nine years, I can say that you are right about no one telling us about OLL's. It was just my luck that I happened upon this site and learned about OLL's. Now, a lot of LEO's at work have made and built up OLL's, so they know about OLL's.

Last summer we did several search warrants, and a Bushmaster Carbon 15 toploader was seized as an assault weapon. Needless to say the LEO's that seized it thought it was a AW, and charged the defendant with possession of a AW. Later the charges were dismissed and the weapon given back to the defendant. The LEO's who seized the rifle DIDn't know because we are not eduacated.

The DOJ needs to issue a OLL bulletin to be read at roll calls and posted on the hot sheet at musters throughout the state.Will the DOJ ever do that? Hell no!! It is not in their best interest to do that because they don't want tp admit their mistake. Just another set of politicians that leave us holding the bag!!

ask80
04-14-2007, 8:56 PM
yes a cracked windshield is a fix it ticket..

A cracked windshield is a fine and fix-it ticket.

I don't know the exact details, but I'm going by what the first poster said.

There is a picuture in the LA Times Orange County Edition 4/13 with a deputy holding a "military-style rifle". It was a traffic stop - 3 were arrested, 3 "military-style rifles" were seized, and "a large box labeled ammunition was part of the cache." The car was pulled over at gun point on Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach.

SemiAutoSam
04-14-2007, 8:58 PM
Here is the link again to the times article

If someone wants to thats not as cheap as me they can get the article and post it here.


Here is the link to the story. It looks like the LA TIMES is a very greedy newspaper as they expect to be paid to view this news story.

IF anyone has access to this information maybe they could post it here.



http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1253891601.html?dids=1253891601:1253891601&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+13%2C+2007&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=B.3&desc=Not+your+basic+traffic+stop

The pic of a LAOC Deputy looking at a firearm of some type in a open firearms case.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3324&d=1176484323

Matt C
04-14-2007, 9:01 PM
The guns did not come out until one of the occupants (not the OLL owner) decided to inform the officer that guns were in the car (when asked, due to his sig arms hat). There was whole thread about this, if you want guns pointed at you and your car searched, go ahead and tell the cops that pull you over for an equipment violation that you have guns. If not...

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. USE IT.

SemiAutoSam
04-14-2007, 9:05 PM
Sounds like a good reason not to wear firearms paraphernalia when you have firearms in possession.



The guns did not come out until one of the occupants (not the OLL owner) decided to inform the officer that guns were in the car (when asked, due to his sig arms hat). There was whole thread about this, if you want guns pointed at you and your car searched, go ahead and tell the cops that pull you over for an equipment violation that you have guns. If not...

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. USE IT.

Scraping NRA Sticker off rear window of my 4x4 Chevy.

Matt C
04-14-2007, 9:06 PM
Sounds like a good reason not to wear firearms paraphernalia when you have firearms in possession.

I agree. The NRA sticker is not a real great idea either IMO.

SemiAutoSam
04-14-2007, 9:12 PM
One of these days Ill tell you about the time I was arrested by LASO when in the Angeles National Forest just outside a shooting area.

It was 20 years ago And Ive been a FFL and SOT since then needless to say it was very costly but they didn't nail with me with anything that stuck so hard I didn't keep my firearms rights.

tell me about it. I guess i should start wearing a suit & tie when I go shooting/Have legal firearms in my possession :\

E Pluribus Unum
04-14-2007, 9:14 PM
i don't know how that would be legal.. a person's detained and given a lawful order by a peace officer. the person resists. officer uses physical force. person resists. officer is losing the fight and fears for his life. officer presents firearm.. so now the citizen has PC to use self defense and kill the officer? hmm.. then the citizen can be expected to be sentenced to the death penalty for murder of a peace officer. no jury is going to buy the citizen's story of self-defense because the citizen refused to obey an order.

My argument is one in theory. No one should take it to that extreme but my point is if the citizen could establish what happened with video or taped recordings it would be legal in theory.

i don't know how that would be legal.. a person's detained and given a lawful order by a peace officer.

Thats the point; if the arrest is illegal than it is not a lawful order.

An officer does not have supreme power. Honestly in theory they have only slightly more "power" than a regular bystander. A peace officer only needs probable cause that a felony has occured in order to make an arrest where a citizen has to witness it.

In this case no law has been broken and only because of the officer's ignorance is he trying to arrest him. This is not a lawful order despite what the officer thinks and in theory the citizen would have a right to resist.

thomye
04-14-2007, 9:46 PM
tell me about it. I guess i should start wearing a suit & tie when I go shooting/Have legal firearms in my posession :\

i do. the french cuffs finish the look and keep LEO's off my back. The only problem, the other shooters usually use me as a target.

Fate
04-14-2007, 10:16 PM
i do. the french cuffs finish the look and keep LEO's off my back. The only problem, the other shooters usually use me as a target.
You just need to get one of those "male stripper suits" that look normal, but can be removed in .5 seconds with one flick of the wrist.

Go from Bond to Bubba! Haha.

Rem1492
04-14-2007, 10:37 PM
Scraping NRA Sticker off rear window of my 4x4 Chevy.

Adding a Brady Bunch anti-gun sticker to my car now.

We have the same problem around base, if you have a USAA sticker on your car (insurance) it basically says HIT ME I have a high liability.

I sure hate that, I have read several threads here that the cop gets set off by a T-shirt or a cap and it keys him in. I guess it would be the same if the dudes had a maijuana leaf hat on.

Still, this is AMERICA and as in Lord of War, "thank god suspicion alone does not constitute illegal activity"



.........unless its CA :)

ask80
04-14-2007, 11:26 PM
i wonder if i should put my CRPA sticker on my car... j/p
i would never put any NRA or gun stuff on my car... don't want neighbors or anyone else to see my car parked on my driveway and figure that i have guns at home.

Mr.RoDiN
04-15-2007, 12:00 AM
Let me know where to send the check. Im serious, PM me dude you got my support!

hoozaru
04-15-2007, 12:34 AM
Best of luck to you guys!

bbbppc
04-15-2007, 1:34 AM
[QUOTE=James R.;573306]It's not the charge of the police to know every law forwards and backwards, rather they're to have general knowledge of what is legal and illegal knowing some things, i.e. typical violations for certain and using their instincts for everything else. When they feel a law may have been broken they will often hold you and/or confiscate your stuff until such time someone more learned can render a more authoritative (read informed) opinion on the matter.

As a plain ol citizen. I'm expected to know the law "ignorance is no excuse". If they aren't sure they shouldn't be busting me. If I went before a judge and said I didn't know I was breaking the law but I was using my instincts, that sure as hell wouldn't fly.

.50DE
04-15-2007, 3:06 AM
"As a plain ol citizen. I'm expected to know the law "ignorance is no excuse". If they aren't sure they shouldn't be busting me. If I went before a judge and said I didn't know I was breaking the law but I was using my instincts, that sure as hell wouldn't fly"

Your not kidding man, you know as well as I do they would nail us to the wall. As far as LEO's go, these days it feels like they are citizens and we are subjects.

Rob454
04-15-2007, 6:36 AM
Ok since cops can use the Well Im not sure if its legal or illegal but Im gonna arrest you until someone else figures it out.
Worngful arrest and incarceration. i would sue the departament to no end. Are you kidding me. what ticks me off is if we as citizens are not allowed to use ignorance is no excuse but LE is. Bro once you get past this BS I woudl sue to OCSD for all you can. Sometimes i think the ONLY way anyone learns anything is by hitting them in the pocketbook
Rob

iamp
04-15-2007, 6:46 AM
Originally Posted by eta34
Now, before you jump to conclusions and try to flame me again, please listen. There is no excuse if they took a man to jail for possession of a legally configured OLL. NO EXCUSE. My explanation above was not an excuse for these officers. I feel that if our departments aren't teaching us the laws, then we need to find a way to stay current. If mischief or any other citizen is arrested while possessing a legally configured OLL, I hope he/she sues and wins big money. This will definitely get law enforcement to pay attention, since money is often a great motivator.


read this article http://bakersfield.typepad.com/talk_of_the_town/2006/05/was_justice_ser.html

6172crew
04-15-2007, 7:29 AM
read this article http://bakersfield.typepad.com/talk_of_the_town/2006/05/was_justice_ser.html[/QUOTE]


Not much of a article.:confused:

Sailormilan2
04-15-2007, 7:39 AM
Several years ago, about 2 months before the CA Assault Weapons law kicked in, one of the Kern County Depuies assigned to a desert Substation received a report of some shooters. When he got there, he confiscated 2 AWs and some hi cap mags.:eek:
Unfortunately, one AW(I believe they were all AR style) was already registered, one wasn't registered, but the owner had 2 months to do the registration, and hi cap mags are not illegal to posses.:o
So, he had to give all of it back. One of the Deputy DAs for Kern then had to give a class to the Sheriff's Office regarding the gun laws.

Jicko
04-15-2007, 8:02 AM
The guns did not come out until one of the occupants (not the OLL owner) decided to inform the officer that guns were in the car (when asked, due to his sig arms hat). There was whole thread about this, if you want guns pointed at you and your car searched, go ahead and tell the cops that pull you over for an equipment violation that you have guns. If not...

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. USE IT.

You KNOW that this is the case or is that your speculation again? :p

Jicko
04-15-2007, 8:31 AM
Couple of thoughts:

1) Adding a "Say NO to Guns!" bumper sticker to your car may help...... I'm NOT anti-guns.... it is just a reminder to myself that, when being asked by an LEO about guns possession in the car.... "Say NO!!!!"

2) I had been religious transporting my CA-legal ARs with their uppers and lowers separated. My "trunk" is so small that some of my uppers won't fit, so I have to put them in my blackhawk "tactical" bag.... so that bag will be in plain view if there is a traffic stop or anything.... yet I only put my "uppers" in that bag.... and when asked... I will strongly say to the LEO that "There is NO firearm in that bag; and there is NOTHING illegal in my car." .....also, worse come to worse, they can take my "lowers" for "investigation".... but they can't/shouldn't take my "non-firearms" properties(ie. my uppers)

3) If you don't think you can get away with your "speeding ticket" at your next traffic stop... you can just "not say a word" to the LEO... you can briefly notify everyone in your car "not to say a word"... and then you can notify the LEO that you are "exercising your rights to remain silent".... and he shouldn't be asking you anything anymore... and if he does... remain silent...

4) Build, shoot, possess your CA-ARs *only* in CA-legal configuration AT ALL TIME (Builder: remember the "Mag Button" thread?)... and you shouldn't have a problem... [I think the FAQ have enough info for you to say legal].... we shouldn't have to be paranoid even if LEOs are ill-informed... the bottom-line is:
- rifles w/ fixed-mag(sport conv, p50, bullet-buttons are all following the law by the words) w/ 10rounds only with all evil features are LEGAL
- grip-less(MMG, SRB, trimmed grip) rifles without evil features are LEGAL, no pistol grips or any other evil features... it is NOT an AW....
- possessing of non-listed series receivers is backed by a letter from the CA-DOJ (I carry that, together with the *list* & AW ID guide too)

mark3lb
04-15-2007, 8:42 AM
This story and situation should be a reminder to all OLL owners to go above and beyond to keep you OLL legal. There should be nothing grey area about your build. OLL rifles are not illegal, until someone adds or changes something to make them that way. Be prepared at all times when transporting your OLL to be pulled over or your home to be searched. Never add or have anything illegal on the rifles, even in the privacy of your own home.

A324
04-15-2007, 8:52 AM
Couple of thoughts:

- possessing of non-listed series receivers is backed by a letter from the CA-DOJ (I carry that, together with the *list* & AW ID guide too)

In regards to the letter from the DOJ regarding legality of non-listed receivers, anyone have the link or a copy of that document for those of us who do not have it?

FireControlman
04-15-2007, 8:59 AM
can someone post a linky to the above three references

Jicko
04-15-2007, 9:01 AM
The "biwese to leo memo" should have everything...
http://www.calguns.net/copmemo2.pdf

This *new* letter is great! (anyone have one that is in a better resolution?)
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2555&d=1169924330

If a firearm is not listed in Category 1 or 2 continue to Category 3 assault weapons. Category 3 assault weapons are defined by the generic characteristics on the firearm, as listed pursuant to PC 12276.1.

If a firearm that does not comply with any of the above listed Penal Code definitions would not be considered an assault weapon.

(I also printed PC 12276.1 to keep with me in my AR bag...)

SemiAutoSam
04-15-2007, 9:13 AM
IMHO the lack of the receivers being on the Roberti Roos or Kasler list is the only thing that is required to make them Legal.
RR
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.htm

Kasler
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf

Regs
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf


Gene may have something on his website from AM or IC but its not like the safe handgun list where anything that is not on that list is not importable.



In regards to the letter from the DOJ regarding legality of non-listed receivers, anyone have the link or a copy of that document for those of us who do not have it?

Yankee Clipper
04-15-2007, 10:21 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why an OC Sheriff's Deputy made a traffic stop in Huntington Beach. I've lived here for over 30 years now and can't recall ever seeing an OC Sheriff make a traffic stop in the city.

I agree. Maybe followed from another jurisdiction?

Wulf
04-15-2007, 10:36 AM
The "biwese to leo memo" should have everything...
http://www.calguns.net/copmemo2.pdf

This *new* letter is great! (anyone have one that is in a better resolution?)
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2555&d=1169924330



(I also printed PC 12276.1 to keep with me in my AR bag...)

It would be nice to see Bill's memo updated with the current sales estimates and more discussion of gripless build guns. Including the DOJ "yellow line" photos would be helpful too. In April 2006 there weren't very many gripless options but they're certainly out there now with the Monsterman and U-15 on the scene. Might also be appropriate to discuss the flashhider vs brake issue.

When I get around to building my OLLs they'll a copy of that memo laying over the gun every time I close the case and put it in the car.

Crazed_SS
04-15-2007, 10:41 AM
This story and situation should be a reminder to all OLL owners to go above and beyond to keep you OLL legal. There should be nothing grey area about your build. OLL rifles are not illegal, until someone adds or changes something to make them that way. Be prepared at all times when transporting your OLL to be pulled over or your home to be searched. Never add or have anything illegal on the rifles, even in the privacy of your own home.

Dude, the entire thing is gray. A cop sees an AR-15 looking rifle and the first thing he's gonna think is, "OMG, DEADLY MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT WEAPON.. FELONY STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!ONE!Eleven!!!!!!!" .. With the fixed magazine, it's probaby gonna make him flip out more because he's gonna assume it's loaded. We're at the mercy of LE knowledge right now. They need to update the AW idenditifcation guide or something.

fairfaxjim
04-15-2007, 11:29 AM
We're at the mercy of LE knowledge right now. They need to update the AW idenditifcation guide or something.

It's way worse than gray, we are at the mercy of the DOJ misinformation campaign. Don't forget, the DOJ BOF is the state agency tasked with being the LEADERS in providing information. From the DOJ BOF website:

"The Bureau of Firearms serves the people of California through education, regulation, and enforcement actions regarding the manufacture, sales, ownership, safety training, and transfer of firearms. Bureau of Firearms staff will be leaders in providing firearms expertise and information to law enforcement, legislators, and the general public in a comprehensive program to promote legitimate and responsible firearms possession and use by California residents." (Bold/Italics added)

In their LEADERSHIP role, they have stated, more than once, in writing, that OLL's with fixed magazines that are not PERMANENTLY FIXED are illegal. This is to further a political agenda that has nothing to do with their stated purpose. It creates a "poisoned" environment from the top. Many law enforcement agencies are headed by people who also have a them vs. us attitude when it comes to citizens posessing firearms, who are eager to embrace the DOJ BOF agenda. It suits their needs. When this misinformation and biased attitude flows down from the top, how is the street level LEO going to get the information required to sort out an inherently confusing situtation? Simple answer - they aren't. Arrest, confiscate, and let the brass and DA sort it out. In simple terms, S**T rolls downhill, and the patrol officers aren't going to stand still and be the bottom of the hill, that is the suspect's job.

6172crew
04-15-2007, 12:08 PM
Dude, the entire thing is gray. A cop sees an AR-15 looking rifle and the first thing he's gonna think is, "OMG, DEADLY MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT WEAPON.. FELONY STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!ONE!Eleven!!!!!!!" .. With the fixed magazine, it's probaby gonna make him flip out more because he's gonna assume it's loaded. We're at the mercy of LE knowledge right now. They need to update the AW idenditifcation guide or something.

Im sure there are some cops who think like that but I bet the cops I know and the ones who post on this board dont think that way. I agree the LE as a whole dont have the facts but if the upper and lower were broken down and a copy of Bill's memo was in a case along with the lower Im sure things would have worked differently.

Are the cops going to act differently to each stop depending on what info is at hand and how the OLL owner is acting, dressed, spoken, old, young, etc, etc? I think so. Im second guessing what happened to Mischief but Im willing to bet there was many ways this thing could have ended up and in this case I think it ended out a bad deal but you will have to be willing to take that chance as a firearm owner and even more of a chance as a OLL owner.

If you go to IPSC practice in Richmond the first thing they tell you is no camo shirts or pants and the reason is they dont want anyone who doesnt know what they are talking about spreading wrong info about the sport and its players. Same holds true with anyone going to the range, you shouldnt have a Sig shirt on unless your ok with the fact the man might ask you where you just came from and could he look to make sure your firearms are unloaded...no matter what firearms you have this can happen.


Remember there is no constructive posession of a assault weapon in this state so like others have stated, make sure you dont have one and you will be fine. remember to ask for the SGT or LT if the guy isnt having any of Bills letter. Ive been in Mischief's shoes and we had to learn the hard way.

In the end O.C. sheriff gave our rifles back including a SKS with a detachable mag (we didnt even know it was a no-go back then)AR Colt sporter and half a dozen other rifles/shotguns.

Fjold
04-15-2007, 12:15 PM
Dude, the entire thing is gray. A cop sees an AR-15 looking rifle and the first thing he's gonna think is, "OMG, DEADLY MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT WEAPON.. FELONY STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!ONE!Eleven!!!!!!!" .. With the fixed magazine, it's probaby gonna make him flip out more because he's gonna assume it's loaded. We're at the mercy of LE knowledge right now. They need to update the AW idenditifcation guide or something.


Leave the upper and the lower seperated and he can see that it's unloaded, plus it doesn't look like a gun.

Matt C
04-15-2007, 12:17 PM
You KNOW that this is the case or is that your speculation again? :p

It's what the person arrested stated.

Charliegone
04-15-2007, 12:33 PM
What we need is the f-n doj to do their f-n job and educate the LEO's on this. It's because of them most LEO's are oblivious to the OLL's. WTF do they write letters anyways if the LEO isn't aware of the situation?:mad:

6172crew
04-15-2007, 12:44 PM
Here is the CPC

(b) Any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in this chapter, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison. However, a first violation of these provisions is punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) if the person was found in possession of no more than two firearms in compliance with subdivision (c) of Section 12285 and the person meets all of the following conditions:

(1) The person proves that he or she lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or 12276.5.

(2) The person has not previously been convicted of a violation of this section.

(3) The person was found to be in possession of the assault weapon within one year following the end of the one-year registration period established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 12285.

(4) The person relinquished the firearm pursuant to Section 12288, in which case the assault weapon shall be destroyed pursuant to Section 12028.

bwiese
04-15-2007, 1:03 PM
I wish we'd all stop trying to dig this guy further into the hole with assumptions - incorrect or otherwise - about various matters. We weren't there, period.

Let's let proper people handle it. The folks that think they know something aren't being helpful talking about it.

ask80
04-15-2007, 1:32 PM
exactly what the above said... we weren't there so we don't know jack...

A324
04-15-2007, 1:42 PM
Wow! Over 12,050 views since 2 days ago.

Technical Ted
04-15-2007, 1:42 PM
I wish we'd all stop trying to dig this guy further into the hole with assumptions - incorrect or otherwise - about various matters. We weren't there, period.
You know the old saying:"When in trouble, or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

chevy_dude
04-15-2007, 3:39 PM
Good luck brother! And to think about 10 years ago Clinton took a bribe from China and illegally imported thousands of AWs without rebute.
This makes me wounder how that dude who manned f/a mgs got away with the whole never in commerse deal... makes me sick when you can buy a gun and be arrested for it.

UP with HOPE and down with DOPE!

chevy_dude
04-15-2007, 3:41 PM
hey it wasn't HB cops right?

chevy_dude
04-15-2007, 3:47 PM
damn im sorry dude, I hate that feeling... Been pulled over by probably every HB cop before, and probably half the CHP LOL.... Well Good luck Bro and I will say a prayer for you.

6172crew
04-15-2007, 3:49 PM
it was cops from all over. some HBPD,some NBPD,some under cover and some others. the actual officers who pulled us over had green uniforms and the car looked sorta like a CHP unit

I was going to make a donut shop joke but didnt seem to be the right time.

Hope all is well, Im sure things look a little better than yesterday. :)

chevy_dude
04-15-2007, 3:55 PM
I do know that if you are pulled over in HB, every cop on the beat is there to include the ghetto bird. Its a sickening feeling all that tax money and all its attention is on you. Im pretty sure because HB is so quiet that they have nothing better to do then offer "back up". Keep your head up dude you never know where they may have messed somthing up!

psssniper
04-15-2007, 4:41 PM
I wish we'd all stop trying to dig this guy further into the hole with assumptions - incorrect or otherwise - about various matters. We weren't there, period.

Let's let proper people handle it. The folks that think they know something aren't being helpful talking about it.
__________________
-----------------------
Bill Wiese
San Jose


Exactly my thoughts Bill, the people involved should not post or say anything on the board or to gossipy friends and the rest of us should let it rest. If we are needed financially, put the word out through Bill or Gene, otherwise lets all just STFU

JALLEN
04-15-2007, 5:11 PM
As Will Durant was fond of saying, "Nothing is frequently a good thing to do, and always a clever thing to say."

Kestryll
04-15-2007, 5:47 PM
And given those words of wisdom I'd say it best to leave this topic alone at least until M has a chance to speak with counsel on Monday. Almost nothing guessed at or said here is likely to be helpful and the rest could be detrimental.

We can revisit this once M talks to a Lawyer and finds out just what is prudent to say and what is best left out of the public eye. Until then let's just say M is in our hopes and prayers and leaver it for now.


ETA: M I'm PM'ing you as well on another topic.

futureExpat
05-03-2008, 5:56 PM
IMHO the lack of the receivers being on the Roberti Roos or Kasler list is the only thing that is required to make them Legal.
RR
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.htm

Kasler
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf

Regs
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf


Gene may have something on his website from AM or IC but its not like the safe handgun list where anything that is not on that list is not importable.


first link

under article 1. general provisions

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a) All of the following specified rifles:
(1) All AK series including, but not limited to, the models identified as follows:


All Ak sereies??????

this mean my buddies lancaster AK is a AW?

then in SAS 2nd link its a list of specific ak's

SO WHICH IS IT?

I thought one would just need the calguns id flow chart but i would like to be more specific an have copy of the law

triaged
05-03-2008, 6:05 PM
first link

under article 1. general provisions

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a) All of the following specified rifles:
(1) All AK series including, but not limited to, the models identified as follows:


All Ak sereies??????

this mean my buddies lancaster AK is a AW?

then in SAS 2nd link its a list of specific ak's

SO WHICH IS IT?

I thought one would just need the calguns id flow chart but i would like to be more specific an have copy of the lawRemember those checks/balances from civics class???

Try this specifically #4 Harrott.
http://www.calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm

LAK Supply
05-03-2008, 6:09 PM
Anybody else having problems viewing pages 18 and 19 in this thread?


Edit.... nevermind..... they went away when I posted this. WTF?

triaged
05-03-2008, 6:16 PM
I was...but this is 18. Maybe some people posted and then deleted their threads after realizing how old this thread is...?

mecam
05-03-2008, 6:21 PM
Is this still an ongoing case or what?

Matt C
05-03-2008, 6:33 PM
Is this still an ongoing case or what?

No.

marklbucla
05-03-2008, 7:07 PM
So what happened?

LAK Supply
05-03-2008, 7:13 PM
So what happened?

That's what I was looking for...... :confused:

Diablo
05-03-2008, 7:32 PM
It was reopened in response to post # 7 on this thread...:rolleyes:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=99369

gspam1
05-03-2008, 10:23 PM
This story and situation should be a reminder to all OLL owners to go above and beyond to keep you OLL legal. There should be nothing grey area about your build. OLL rifles are not illegal, until someone adds or changes something to make them that way. Be prepared at all times when transporting your OLL to be pulled over or your home to be searched. Never add or have anything illegal on the rifles, even in the privacy of your own home.

What does this mean? If you have an OLL with a Bullet Button for example, what otherwise legal accessory could you add that makes it illegal?

Linh
05-03-2008, 11:16 PM
What does this mean? If you have an OLL with a Bullet Button for example, what otherwise legal accessory could you add that makes it illegal?

A magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

SteveH
05-03-2008, 11:31 PM
Holy necropost.

SteveH
05-03-2008, 11:36 PM
This story and situation should be a reminder to all OLL owners to go above and beyond to keep you OLL legal.


And your car properly maintained and your drivers license current.

retired
05-04-2008, 12:27 AM
I know this is off topic, but I'll make it short.
A324, how come you are using a pic of my cousin in your avatar.:D

Quake0
05-04-2008, 1:08 AM
No.

So what happen with the case?

artherd
05-04-2008, 1:18 AM
hrmph, I thought this was a do-over.

mecam
05-04-2008, 5:13 AM
Were these illegally configured OLL? If so, then we can leave it at that.

RedDawn
05-04-2008, 8:24 AM
Tag for more info

Matt C
05-04-2008, 4:07 PM
So what happen with the case?

I'll let the OP give out any details as he sees fit.

Creeping Incrementalism
05-04-2008, 6:13 PM
I'll let the OP give out any details as he sees fit.

I hope he does. I am interested.

Sniper3142
05-04-2008, 8:02 PM
Every time I read about an arrest for a LEGAL firearm it pisses me off.

I have several registered AWs and I plan on taking them to the range within the next few months.

And I pity the fool that is unlucky enough to get on my bad side.
:mad:

A badge and a gun does not make anyone above the law. And they don't make them supermen either. Honest mistakes are one thing but there seems to be a unified effort to intimidate gun owners.

And no human being has intimidated me since I was 12 years old and fired my first gun.

retired
05-04-2008, 10:31 PM
And I pity the fool that is unlucky enough to get on my bad side.


A badge and a gun does not make anyone above the law. And they don't make them supermen either. Honest mistakes are one thing but there seems to be a unified effort to intimidate gun owners.

And no human being has intimidated me since I was 12 years old and fired my first gun.

Wow. Just for the sake of argument, what do you intend to do if an officer stops you for some traffic violation, discovers your registered AWs and being ignorant of the law (which I don't condone of course), gets on your bad side. I ask that especially since no human being has intimidated you since you were 12.:D

Just wondering and as has been said by others; these posts are read by those from the DOJ, police/sheriff agencies and probably the ATF. You might want to take it down a notch.

As I stated, I don't condone a leo doing what he shouldn't be doing because of ignorance of the law. Putting innocent people thru the disaster of incarceration and the expense to clear themselves when they did nothing wrong is completely wrong. I spent a lot of time working in custody, both at the beginning of my career as a new deputy and a sgt. at the end. I know I disliked being in that place, but that was my choice and I was able to go home. It can't even compare to someone, like a few of the members here, who have spent time there incarcerated when they should not have been.

GenLee
05-05-2008, 7:11 AM
Any new news guy's?

Fjold
05-05-2008, 7:24 AM
And given those words of wisdom I'd say it best to leave this topic alone at least until M has a chance to speak with counsel on Monday. Almost nothing guessed at or said here is likely to be helpful and the rest could be detrimental.

We can revisit this once M talks to a Lawyer and finds out just what is prudent to say and what is best left out of the public eye. Until then let's just say M is in our hopes and prayers and leaver it for now.


ETA: M I'm PM'ing you as well on another topic.

At Kes' recommendation above, everyone stopped all traffic on this thread.

Was there ever an update on details and outcome posted?

AKman
05-05-2008, 7:24 AM
Wow. Just for the sake of argument, what do you intend to do if an officer stops you for some traffic violation, discovers your registered AWs and being ignorant of the law (which I don't condone of course), gets on your bad side.

If its a registered AW, I would simply smile and show him a copy of my love letter from Bill Lockyer. If he continues to push the issue, I'll remind him of how much money I'll make if he continues to violate my civil rights. Unlike OLL, the laws regarding registered AW's is quite clear. Ignorance of the law is no excuse (at least that's what they tell us serfs). Any knucklehead can file a claim against a city/county to get their attention (I filed a $20MM claim a couple of years ago over an easement issue). Sometimes its the only way to get anything done at City Hall.

thomasanelson
05-05-2008, 2:32 PM
It's not the charge of the police to know every law forwards and backwards, rather they're to have general knowledge of what is legal and illegal knowing some things, i.e. typical violations for certain and using their instincts for everything else. When they feel a law may have been broken they will often hold you and/or confiscate your stuff until such time someone more learned can render a more authoritative (read informed) opinion on the matter.

Several people have been arrested and then later released. Put through the gears of our legal system and ultimately exonerated for what Buford T. Justice felt was potentially criminal weapons possession.



Regards,

James R.


"It's not the charge of the police to know every law forwards and backwards". I hear this all the time and from/about prosecutors as well. BS, we as citizens "must" know all laws, backwards and forwards, as ignorance of the law is not an excuse for braking the law. The very least is for the people charged with enforcing the law (L.E.) to know the law. Ignorance should not be an excuse....at least in a "so call free society". I expect it in places like China or Russia, but not the U.S. .....even Kalifornia.

Liberty1
05-05-2008, 3:57 PM
A cracked windshield is a fine and fix-it ticket.

A normal cracked windshield is very week PC for even a traffic stop. I don't have the case law but the crack(s) really need to be severe enough to impair the driver's vision, example; a large "spider" crack which would occur from a larger object hitting the windscreen.

That said, it bears repeating, when contacted by the police and firearms are concealed from plain view (hopefully lawfully) don't volunteer info and if asked if firearms are on board the answer is always, "there is nothing illegal in the vehicle and no consent for a search is given respectfully". Carry a TAPE RECORDER! If the leo doesn't know there are firearms he cannot insist on a 12031e check absent other verifiable info or PC. That said, always follow orders but do not consent to searches.

(PS - I'm working some new hours and won't be around here much this summer)

Sniper3142
05-05-2008, 4:11 PM
"It's not the charge of the police to know every law forwards and backwards". I hear this all the time and from/about prosecutors as well. BS, we as citizens "must" know all laws, backwards and forwards, as ignorance of the law is not an excuse for braking the law. The very least is for the people charged with enforcing the law (L.E.) to know the law. Ignorance should not be an excuse....at least in a "so call free society". I expect it in places like China or Russia, but not the U.S. .....even Kalifornia.

+100!

Isn't it funny when their own words are used against them.

:)

retired
05-05-2008, 11:13 PM
AKman, I appreciate your response, but I really wanted to hear from Sniper since he made the original post. I'm still curious to read his reply.

Sniper3142
05-06-2008, 5:00 AM
AKman, I appreciate your response, but I really wanted to hear from Sniper since he made the original post. I'm still curious to read his reply.

Simple answer.

I'll do whatever I need to do to protect my person, my rights, and my property... within the law and prudent sense.

Clear enough for ya officer?

Ballistic043
05-06-2008, 6:00 AM
hi guys,


its nice to see the thread has picked up nicely.

Some of you might remember me from a year ago. I was under a different username, "Mischief" and was infact, the primary party involved in this incident. at the advise of kestryll, hoffman and lawyers alike, i was asked to not post ANYTHING regarding the case until a resolution has been made. and this thread was since locked.

so obviously, here i am and had the thread re opened by request. i figured it was necessary to let people know that there are those of us who have been down the dark road and that it does exist. as it stands, i am not entirely sure i want to sit here and write a book about what happened. there was alot that transpired that day and alot to tell. i am right now too tired for that, so until then lets keep this on an Ask to know basis.

i will, however, go over a few basic things people seem to have been bringing up alot.

1. Contrary to what might have been said, heard, or rumored; ALL OLL's INVOLVED WERE LEGAL. 100 percent. Bullet button build 1, prince50 build 2. incomplete lower 3. fake cans and 10 round magazines and mag locks from the get-go.

2. the 'said' reason for pull over was no seatbelt/cracked windshield. although only the latter was true.

3.pulled over on PCH/warner ave in Huntington Beach.

4. arresting agencies include OCSD, HBPD, SBPD.

5. the rifle in the picture had the stock removed specifically for one reason and one reason only. so it would fit in the damn rifle case. it had nothing to do with making it SB23 compliant or anything else like that. it was simply a convenience factor.

6. case agreement almost reached; rifles to be surrendered in agreement with DA to drop the charges. from what the attorneys (trutanich) made clear, is that the DA was looking for a "test case" On BB's and prince50 mag locks. and we were being looked at as candidates for that case. obviously this is why we wanted to just come to some kind of settlement instead. its much eaiser to surrender 3k worth of rifles, than pay 20k + legal fees ALL to prove your rifles were legal in the first place. plus, once you are under indictment, you cant buy or posess any new guns. so as you can see, i do not have the financial means or incentive to draw this out, and become a martyr in some court room. i have already lost enough sleep and time because of this ordeal. i would have already been enlisted had it not been for this.

so for now things are quieting down and as some of you already know. im back to shootin and plinkin. i actually haven't even used a private range since the day we got arrested. so to celebrate good tidings, i have recently reserved a range at burro in july. if anyone wants to come and have some fun you are more than welcome (pm for details only). although i do not advise you to drive with any cracks in your windshield, bring all the OLL's you want.

GenLee
05-06-2008, 6:17 AM
8TS65KJ, Thank you for this update on your situation, I am sorry for your loss.

mecam
05-06-2008, 6:25 AM
Since you were the "test case" in that county, are they now aware of the legallity of OLLs? Sorry for your loss, but definitely cheaper than trying to get them back.

Mute
05-06-2008, 6:41 AM
Sorry to hear. Hope everything gets back to normal for you real soon.

Ballistic043
05-06-2008, 8:29 AM
Since you were the "test case" in that county, are they now aware of the legallity of OLLs? Sorry for your loss, but definitely cheaper than trying to get them back.


we were a likely test case. nothing was set in stone, which is a good thing..


with over 30 cops on the scene, knowledge shouldnt have been the issue. most of the younger cops were decent and respectable; and didn't really care either way.

but the older cops insisted on arrest. "these are the same rifles we use and they are illegal for you to have! do you see this flash suppressor! this is illegal... this stock.. illegal".

they werent havin it. they just wanted to do the arrest and let the DA work it. multiple times i hear the phrase "Let the DA Take care of the legalities we're just here to arrest" which pretty much made me feel helpless; as if it doesnt even matter if your rifles are legal. because your still going to take the steps to prove it.

motorhead
05-06-2008, 8:54 AM
so oc da is planning on targeting mag locks?

PatriotnMore
05-06-2008, 9:10 AM
we were a likely test case. nothing was set in stone, which is a good thing..


with over 30 cops on the scene, knowledge shouldnt have been the issue. most of the younger cops were decent and respectable; and didn't really care either way.

but the older cops insisted on arrest. "these are the same rifles we use and they are illegal for you to have! do you see this flash suppressor! this is illegal... this stock.. illegal".

they werent havin it. they just wanted to do the arrest and let the DA work it. multiple times i hear the phrase "Let the DA Take care of the legalities we're just here to arrest" which pretty much made me feel helpless; as if it doesnt even matter if your rifles are legal. because your still going to take the steps to prove it.


First, let me say I am sorry you have had to go through all this.

I am curious to know if you have contacted the NRA to solicit their help, and have them provide counsel on your behalf?

Ballistic043
05-06-2008, 9:38 AM
thanks for your condolences. the biggest hurt is losing the rifles.

i was reccomended to go through trutanich. so i did

i think they are NRA lawyers

mecam
05-06-2008, 9:46 AM
What could one expect to pay on legal fees even when forfeiting the rifles?

Ballistic043
05-06-2008, 9:54 AM
well, i can only speak for trutanich as they are the only lawyers i have ever dealt with in my life.

But for them a standard retainer fee for this situation is 10k

if anyone cares to know, the bail was 20k

WolfMansDad
05-06-2008, 10:00 AM
Congratulations on your win. Under the old system (prior to AB2728 going into effect in, iirc, Jan. 07), you would have lost the rifles and become a felon. Under the current system, you merely lose the rifles. This is a big improvement, to be sure, but it's still not justice. We must not rest until these stupid AW laws are struck down.

im back to shootin and plinkin.

8TS65KJ, I presume you have replaced what they took from you by now?

PatriotnMore
05-06-2008, 10:09 AM
well, i can only speak for trutanich as they are the only lawyers i have ever dealt with in my life.

But for them a standard retainer fee for this situation is 10k

if anyone cares to know, the bail was 20k

You see, here is a classic example of how the Judicial system of today is designed to make justice a commodity for those who can afford it.

Your bail in my opinion is/was excessive, and the lawyer asking for a 10k retainer is in equally complicity.

2,000.00 to get out of jail, and 10k for representation, no wonder people give up, they don't have the means to make a go of it. And Justice for all...... we need to amend this line in the Pledge of Allegiance, to now say, and justice for those who can afford it.

mecam
05-06-2008, 10:38 AM
What are the chances a public defender getting you off the hook with OLL issues? Can't you educate him or give him the AW flowchart and have him translate that into lawyer language?

JALLEN
05-06-2008, 11:31 AM
You see, here is a classic example of how the Judicial system of today is designed to make justice a commodity for those who can afford it.

Your bail in my opinion is/was excessive, and the lawyer asking for a 10k retainer is in equally complicity.

2,000.00 to get out of jail, and 10k for representation, no wonder people give up, they don't have the means to make a go of it. And Justice for all...... we need to amend this line in the Pledge of Allegiance, to now say, and justice for those who can afford it.

You can find cheaper lawyers, in fact you can have one for free if you want. Your complaint should not be over this, but with the fact they these otherwise law-biding citizens were hassled in the first place.

Handling these cases takes a highly educated, experienced professional with proven sound judgment many, many hours of careful fact finding, patient and skilled negotiations with sometimes equally highly educated and experienced pros who do not want to give in to you, and believe they will not have to, at first. These people need not make your problems their problems for the kind of pittance you probably think reasonable. These settlements short of trial only come about only because you have convinced the other side of the weaknesses of their positions, which they are extremely loath to believe. This is not easy work that just anyone can do, believe me.

If these fellows were able to resolve these charges for $10,000, that is in fact very cheap. I believe BWO's bill ran upwards of $40,000 all said and done. Eventually, the DAs will tire of spending the man hours for so little accomplishment, and refuse cases where the weapons are in fact compliant. Until then, it cannot be made easy for them. Each case has to be litigated forcefully and negotiated skillfully so the DA doesn't get the impression that these cases are easy winners.

mecam
05-06-2008, 11:38 AM
I think it's gotten better now. Just look at BSP's case. Charges were dropped in a couple of months and rifles were returned.

PatriotnMore
05-06-2008, 12:32 PM
You can find cheaper lawyers, in fact you can have one for free if you want. Your complaint should not be over this, but with the fact they these otherwise law-biding citizens were hassled in the first place.

Handling these cases takes a highly educated, experienced professional with proven sound judgment many, many hours of careful fact finding, patient and skilled negotiations with sometimes equally highly educated and experienced pros who do not want to give in to you, and believe they will not have to, at first. These people need not make your problems their problems for the kind of pittance you probably think reasonable. These settlements short of trial only come about only because you have convinced the other side of the weaknesses of their positions, which they are extremely loath to believe. This is not easy work that just anyone can do, believe me.

If these fellows were able to resolve these charges for $10,000, that is in fact very cheap. I believe BWO's bill ran upwards of $40,000 all said and done. Eventually, the DAs will tire of spending the man hours for so little accomplishment, and refuse cases where the weapons are in fact compliant. Until then, it cannot be made easy for them. Each case has to be litigated forcefully and negotiated skillfully so the DA doesn't get the impression that these cases are easy winners.


Your point has been taken, although not agreed with.

I fail to see in your post where you have shown that justice is not being sold like a commodity? In fact you supported it with this statement "These people need not make your problems their problems for the kind of pittance you probably think reasonable."

Justice is not a commodity, it is a right.

I would also add, that Lawyers who believe and support the Constitution, should make these types of problems their problems, as your and my rights are being taken away, and the cost will be much higher then in just dollars and cents later.

In addition, Why should he have to prove at such a high cost what has already been legally established, provided the accused was within the law?
The accused is either compliant, or they are not.

retired
05-06-2008, 4:49 PM
8TS65KJ, I'm sorry you lost your rifles, but glad they at least dropped the charges.

It is definitely a shame the matter transpired the way it did in the first place and you were put thru what you were put thru.

I'll do whatever I need to do to protect my person, my rights, and my property... within the law and prudent sense.

Clear enough for ya officer?

First of all Sniper, your prior statement didn't include, "...within the law and prudent sense" and to me didn't sound as if you were going to handle it that way. It is nice that you have elaborated a bit.

Second, I'm not an officer, that is why I go by "retired.";) Clear enough?

Third, the clarity between the your second and first post is night and day.

Richie Rich
05-06-2008, 5:08 PM
hi guys,


6. case agreement finally reached; rifles surrendered for forfeiture in agreement with DA to drop the charges. from what the attorneys (trutanich) made clear, is that the DA was looking for a "test case" On BB's and prince50 mag locks. and we were being looked at as candidates for that case. obviously this is why we wanted to just come to some kind of settlement instead. its much eaiser to surrender 3k worth of rifles, than pay 20k legal fees ALL to prove your rifles were legal in the first place. plus, once you are under indictment, you cant buy or posess any new guns. so as you can see, i do not have the financial means or incentive to draw this out, and become a martyr in some court room. i have already lost enough sleep and time because of this ordeal. i would have already been enlisted had it not been for this.



First off, I am glad that you had a pretty positive outcome to this messed up situation. Also, thank you for deciding to serve our country.

Second, the quoted part keeps happening and WILL continue to happen just about every time. While it is great that no one has been convicted for being in posession of a legally configured firearm, the vast majority have ended with the weapon being surrendered for destruction in exchange for the case going away. That sounds like a conviction (in a roundabout way) to me. A $3,000+ fine (cost of the firearms lost) for being caught with something that is legal.

I understand and respect the personal decision that both you and Matt made in the situation you were in. I cannot honestly say what I would do if faced with the decision that you had to make. But we as a community need to be ready to come out with all guns blazing (in a manner of speaking) to back someone who has the inclination to stand up and fight when a case comes to this point.

hoffmang
05-06-2008, 7:09 PM
Gents,

I can't be 100% sure that it was this case yet, but know that The Calguns Foundation was behind the scenes on this one.

-Gen

FREDMDRMER
05-06-2008, 9:34 PM
Dude!

Sorry to state the obvious but, It absolutely sucks we have to be happy and settle for this crap.

Nothing illegal but you have to prove it.....!!!!!! (American rights only apply to those who do not own guns?)-...more of the obvious.

Really puts a damper on the good feelings left after the BSP news.

Are the lawyers ready to go all the way with someone willing to be the "martyr"

and we were being looked at as candidates for that case. obviously this is why we wanted to just come to some kind of settlement instead.

Tying to figure out the statement above. Is the reluctancy due to the $ alone or is a test case something not good for the fight as a whole. Could the wrong judge, at the wrong time, screw the progress that has been made?

marklbucla
05-07-2008, 5:42 AM
Really puts a damper on the good feelings left after the BSP news.

But didn't this happen before BSP? I wonder what the general attitude is nowadays that OLLs are becoming more mainstream in CA or if the risk of being arrested and getting jacked is still as high.

Ballistic043
05-07-2008, 6:43 AM
Tying to figure out the statement above. Is the reluctancy due to the $ alone or is a test case something not good for the fight as a whole. Could the wrong judge, at the wrong time, screw the progress that has been made?



look, dont get me wrong. i'd love to take them on, but it takes sacrifices. money, time, sleep. it will give you anxiety, you will lose your gun rights temporarily, and so many other things. in matts case, he also sat in jail. so its not something i am prepared to do, no matter how bad i would like to do it.

as far as the lawyers feelings about it; they are confident, but not very enthusiastic about it, they would rather avoid a test case.

Yankee Clipper
05-07-2008, 8:43 AM
This whole scenario hit too close to home literally. But were all thinking the same thing: why should we have to surrender any firearm when they are obviously legal? I had to sit back and think; would I be willing to fight this in court?
For the principle an obvious yes, but at what cost? After the arrest the monetary cost would hopefully be born by Cal Guns members chipping in to cover some of the cost and maybe the NRA and other as yet unknown benefactors. My financial well being, however, would still be on the hook. Legal representation would be done by the obvious firm: when your freedom and your principles are on the line it would be stupid to go cheap. I probably could spend the time it takes in the court room, in depositions, attorney/client meeting etc. That block of time, for planning purposes, should be at least a year and a half (to short?). And the legal battle, in my mind, cannot end in defeat, only a win is possible. But even with all the above, and no time in jail (I should be so lucky), the one thing I dont think I could give up is not shooting for that long. Its like giving up one principle for another.

BigBamBoo
05-07-2008, 9:40 AM
...............

retired
05-07-2008, 2:25 PM
Good post Stan. Being a former le, I had to smile at the quoted statement below::D

Every hear of profiling? Well you LEO out there know what I am talking about. It is a known fact that drug dealers drive certain type of cars and "look" a certain way.
You have 100lbs. of coke in your trunk that you need to move from LA to Washington. So you load up your 1977 Cutlass that is lowered, has a burned out tail light, you and your hommies have your hats pulled low and sideways, and your speeding. Hello!!! Pull me over....please.

Andruski
05-07-2008, 2:47 PM
I understand Stan's point above, and mostly agree with it.

But OLL's and California compliant AR's are brought into this state every day legally. The DOJ knows it and I would think most Law Enforcement agencies now know it. It's legal!

Yet these guys basically had $3000 taken from them. For what? For possessing the same items that are legally being bought and sold here every day. It's just not right.

Budd
05-07-2008, 3:00 PM
.

4. arresting agencies include OCSD, HBPD, SBPD.


Can you tell me the officers names in SBPD?

PatriotnMore
05-07-2008, 3:37 PM
look, dont get me wrong. i'd love to take them on, but it takes sacrifices. money, time, sleep. it will give you anxiety, you will lose your gun rights temporarily, and so many other things.

I am sorry, this is the proverbial thorn in my side. We are operating under a lie within the judicial system, we are told we are innocent until proven guilty, but treated as guilty until proven innocent.

If the judicial system operated as they claim, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove your guilt.

If you were compliant in accordance with the CA. DOJ AW description of lawful possession, your AR's should have been returned to you, you should have been released with NO bail set, until such time as the D.A. can prove you were not compliant.

If you were not compliant, that is a whole different beast. At that time, the burden is on you to show that you were compliant in the court of law with a Jury of your peers.

I just love when I see those here who would justify the opposite. I can't wait to see you before a Judge and have your civil rights violated.
It is either legal, or it is not!!!
If, there is a grey area of the law, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ballistic043
05-07-2008, 3:42 PM
Can you tell me the officers names in SBPD?

i have no idea. i just knew they were on the scene

BigBamBoo
05-07-2008, 3:43 PM
.................

ProlificARProspect
05-07-2008, 4:16 PM
Just my 2 cents.....This is my opinion and no way against you 8TS65KJ...

This is a reality check for all of us we are still in battle we are in the FRONTLINE in this battle against our rights. We know what we are doing is 100% legal, our Kalifornia Goverment knows we have legal firearms(OLL), and they still have the right to arrest you and make prove what you did is legal? Thats a good strategy doing that requires deep pockets, heart, conviction and a stop to your daily life, to stand up to our Goverment which has endless amount of money and time provided by our tax dollars. Who can stand up to the DOJ and the DA's? We can we need to provide support in any way we can when our fellow Brother gets into trouble for following the law. We need to analyse, improvise, and execute each situation together. This can be me or you being prosecuted....This is the FRONTLINE and there is no retreat in our line...

FREDMDRMER
05-07-2008, 4:25 PM
8TS65KJ

I wasnt trying to challenge your decision with my first post. Just wanted to find out what the lawyers perspective was and even if going all the way is good for the cause.

If I was in your shoes, no doubt I would be forced to do the same thing, for all the same reasons. I am glad for you that charges were dropped, but it's a blow for the cause that the guns were not given back. (I was hoping the good vibes from BSP were going to last a little longer.)

LAK Supply
05-07-2008, 5:29 PM
I'm glad you're not in jail, but man... what a crock. They arrest you for legal weapons and then send you through a prohibitive justice system where, for financial reasons, you're forced to let them steal your property as part of them stopping the strongarm attempt.

This statement right here is half of what's wrong with our "legal system" today:

"these are the same rifles we use and they are illegal for you to have! do you see this flash suppressor! this is illegal... this stock.. illegal".:mad:

pnkssbtz
05-07-2008, 5:58 PM
Moral of the story:

Ignorance of the law is an excuse, depending on which side of the law you are on.

Andruski
05-07-2008, 5:58 PM
Hi Andruski.

Yeah...it sucks. But remember. Not all LEO are into guns. The only contact they have with them is at work. My friends son is becoming a LEO and he is totaly anti-gun. He was raised in a pro-gun household where his dad would take him shooting and hunting.

And remember this also...most of the problems seem to be coming from younger LEO. Heck...they were in their early teens when the AW ban was put in place. So again....to them they grew up in a world where AW are "bad".

So as it was pointed out...they go by what they were told at the academy. And all "AW" look like AW... OLL or otherwise to them.

I think it will work out in the end. But it has to trickle down to the street level.

Till then....just go into it knowing what COULD happen to you if you get stopped with one. Its not right....and LEO should be required to know the laws. If ignorence of the law applies to "us"...it should to "them" also....but in the real world things do not always work that way.

Take care,Stan

Hi Stan,
I agree with everything you said here.

I would add one thing though. Even if an LEO is anti-gun, it does not relieve him or her of their duty to abide by the law. As an extreme example, an LEO may be anti-abortion. That does not mean he or she could arrest someone for having an abortion. They have to perform their duties according to applicable laws. If you can't work by this principle, you should not be an LEO.

Thats a good point about the new police officers being raised during the AW ban. I have known several LE's over the years. They have mentioned how "rookies" (their words) get overly excited about such situations.

Andruski
05-07-2008, 6:05 PM
I am sorry, this is the proverbial thorn in my side. We are operating under a lie within the judicial system, we are told we are innocent until proven guilty, but treated as guilty until proven innocent.

If the judicial system operated as they claim, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove your guilt.

If you were compliant in accordance with the CA. DOJ AW description of lawful possession, your AR's should have been returned to you, you should have been released with NO bail set, until such time as the D.A. can prove you were not compliant.

If you were not compliant, that is a whole different beast. At that time, the burden is on you to show that you were compliant in the court of law with a Jury of your peers.

I just love when I see those here who would justify the opposite. I can't wait to see you before a Judge and have your civil rights violated.
It is either legal, or it is not!!!
If, there is a grey area of the law, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PatriotnMore, Excellent :iagree:

BigBamBoo
05-07-2008, 6:41 PM
,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Andruski
05-07-2008, 6:53 PM
Copy, we're tracking ;)

Crazed_SS
05-07-2008, 9:05 PM
This is kind of a tangent, but I was wondering what happens to all the cool accessories and doodads on OLL rifles that are surrendered in these types of cases. If you had a $1k ACOG or something like that on the rifle, do you get that stuff back, or do they just take the whole thing?

Sniper3142
05-07-2008, 9:28 PM
Well 2 wrongs DO NOT make a right Stan.

Ignorance of the Law is NO EXCUSE.

How many times have we heard this from LE folks?!?

The system is broken when cops and DAs are able to steal somones property thru threats, indimidation, and force. And that is exactly what they did.

:mad:

I'm curious... if they don't play by the rules, why should we?!?

;)

Ballistic043
05-08-2008, 6:13 AM
This is kind of a tangent, but I was wondering what happens to all the cool accessories and doodads on OLL rifles that are surrendered in these types of cases. If you had a $1k ACOG or something like that on the rifle, do you get that stuff back, or do they just take the whole thing?

the same thought had crossed my mind. it would have been nice to get some of the accessories back. like many people on the board, i had a substancial amount of money invested into the rifles. but when your rifle is taken, its taken with anything attached to it. you'd have to somehow get them to relinquish command of the parts after investigation but before destruction of the rifle (after you reach your forfeiture agreement) and i wouldn't even hold my breath on that.

it sure makes you think twice about putting on a new aimpoint doesn't it? i think the only way to avoid this is to to disengage the expensive accessories before transporting to/from the range.

BigBamBoo
05-08-2008, 7:28 AM
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

pnkssbtz
05-08-2008, 3:40 PM
Another thing that seems to be overlooked here. They were breaking the law. A infraction but still breaking the law by driving with a broken windshild.

If you are going to talk about law....make sure your in the right...100% in the right.

If they did not have a broken windshield they probably would not have been stopped. And we would not be talking about all this.
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this.

The windshield law is a safety issue, not a criminal issue. And is subjective to the actual scope of the crack in the windshield.


Further I cannot agree with the mindset that once you are found guilty of violating a minor infraction that is not criminal in nature, all of the rest of your rights are forfeit. Because that is what happened here.


The point of police is not to scrutinize everyone under a microscope and try and find microscopic flaws and then punish the hell out of them.

BigBamBoo
05-08-2008, 4:54 PM
,,,,,,,,,,

pnkssbtz
05-08-2008, 5:32 PM
Hi pnkssbtz.

I agree with you. I do...but you seem to miss my point. And that being do not give LEO reason to mess with you.

You can...and will get stopped for a broken/cracked windshield. Once your stopped...ANYTHING can happen from there.

I think I read that someone in the car/truck told the cops they had guns. Full stop....now the LEO is gonna ask what kind of gun? And the rest is now history.
But that is not exactly what happened here. In this instance, the police acted in ignorance of the law and made judgments on the law that were incorrect and conjecture on their part. This isn't Judge Dredd and they aren't "street judges".

They should only be making arrests for things they know are illegal. Hence my comments on ignorance of the law.

This situation, if I were a LEO, would be like me arresting everyone that I deemed unsavory that I saw on the street and then throwing them in jail until I can figure out a charge that would stick, whether or not those individuals actually committed any crimes.


PatriotnMore said it so eloquently:
I am sorry, this is the proverbial thorn in my side. We are operating under a lie within the judicial system, we are told we are innocent until proven guilty, but treated as guilty until proven innocent.

If the judicial system operated as they claim, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove your guilt.

If you were compliant in accordance with the CA. DOJ AW description of lawful possession, your AR's should have been returned to you, you should have been released with NO bail set, until such time as the D.A. can prove you were not compliant.

If you were not compliant, that is a whole different beast. At that time, the burden is on you to show that you were compliant in the court of law with a Jury of your peers.

I just love when I see those here who would justify the opposite. I can't wait to see you before a Judge and have your civil rights violated.
It is either legal, or it is not!!!
If, there is a grey area of the law, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is where the LEO's broke pact with the constitution. In my opinion, every LEO involved whom encouraged and facilitated this incident should be removed from duty and fired for violating their oath the constitution.


A buddy of mine always waits to the last day to renew his car reg. So once a year he is driving around with what looks like expired tags. And guess what? He ALWAYS gets stopped once or twice a year for that?

And he is ALWAYS *****ing about it. Simple fix...pay a month before hand...and end of problem.

See....he was not breaking a law. His registartion was paid,etc. BUT...to a cop behind him it was expired.

Same thing with a busted windshield. You will/can be stopped for it.
I'm sorry, but your story of your buddy doesn't mean that the LEO's should have the right to dismantle the car and confiscate it after a non-moving infaction, because some criminal could of touched it, looked at it, sat on it or even driven it once, without any actual evidence of any of those things being done.