PDA

View Full Version : How much mis-information did this BLM ranger spew to me?


tuncas
11-18-2012, 2:23 PM
I want to share an experience I had while camping and shooting at a BLM area near occotillo wells. Some things this ranger said I know is wrong, and some I believe/always assumed is wrong, but never actually verified so give me your input....

Encounter starts with me and friends sitting around a camp fire having beers after a day of shooting. A vehicle drives up to our camp and parks, leaving its headlights aimed right at us. Man gets out and approaches and I realize he is some form of law enforcement. Conversation begins:

Ranger: Hi, do you have any OHVs?
me: no
Ranger: Do you have any firearms?
friend: yea, but they are all safely locked up.
Ranger: Someone show them to me. only one, everyone else stay put cause there's only one of me and a lot of you. (three guys and three girls)
me: Ok they are in the whit silverado

we walk over, and I make all of my movements slowly cause it seems like he's really on edge. I pull out a case and show him a remington 870. He jots the serial down on a note pad.

Ranger: Is that all?
me: no there's more.

I grab my bag of pistols
As I pull each pistol out one by one...
me: this is a ruger .22
Ranger: thats cool
me: This is an old school colt revolver
me: Heres a beretta

Showing interest in my beretta 92
Ranger: Ok, I'm gonna go run these. Give me your license and give me a moment.
me: Did someone steal some guns around here or what?
Ranger: I'll tell you when I come back

So he comes back with my guns
Ranger: There's a lot of drug and gun running going on through this corridor.
Me: Oh
Ranger: You know two of your guns are not registered.
Me: Really? which ones?
Ranger: The beretta and the remington 870

Now the shotgun I know does not need to be registered, but even if it was, the reason it wouldn't show up as mine is because it was my friends and he was checking against my drivers license.

Ranger: I could seize these guns if I wanted, because they are not registered, but I'm not going to.
me: Well thanks, but I have a question. I didn't buy that gun long ago, and I bought it at a gunstore; Turners. Isn't it registered to me when I sign all the paper work to buy it and the store sends that to the DOJ?
Ranger: Nope
Me: Oh, so you have to register them separately after you buy them?
Ranger: Yes
me: Do I do that with the DOJ or the ATF?
Ranger: The DOJ owns the ATF so it doesn't matter.
me: I never knew that.
Ranger: Yea, I'm from texas. You guys have a lot of laws here in california and every gun needs to be registered. Like if you have an assault weapon here, you cant use 30 rd. mags.

Besides being confused at this point, I'm thanking god that for some reason he decided to quit asking for my guns after the bag of pistols, because I still had the m1 carbine, ar15, and saigas left to go and I couldn't imagine the grief he would give me for those.

The ranger leaves, and I begin to tell all my friends how wrong he was.

How messed up was this encounter?

shooter777
11-18-2012, 2:28 PM
sounds like a situation that would really piss me off...

Ubermcoupe
11-18-2012, 2:30 PM
...
Ranger: The DOJ owns the ATF so it doesn't matter.
me: I never knew that.
...

Did you clarify CA DOJ vs US Department of Justice? JW.

tuncas
11-18-2012, 2:30 PM
I was very pissed, but It was also one of those situations, where the ranger was really trying to flex his authority, and I'm sure anything but full compliance would have made the situation worse for myself.

5thgen4runner
11-18-2012, 2:30 PM
FUD spreading god I hate that!!!

tuncas
11-18-2012, 2:32 PM
No, I did not clarify, But when I said "I never knew that" I really was commenting on the part where he said I needed to do something more to register handguns beyond the paperwork to buy them.

Yugo
11-18-2012, 2:33 PM
I would have told him to pound sand, fallowed by call your super! unless he had a warrant.

ewarmour
11-18-2012, 2:39 PM
Ranger: Hi, do you have any OHVs?
me: no
Ranger: Do you have any firearms?
friend: I'm an idiot.

Don't answer questions. Don't consent to search.

Dreaded Claymore
11-18-2012, 2:55 PM
This ranger does not know the law, and overstepped his authority, big time.

You should go fill out this form (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/get-help/report-other-law-enforcement.html) on the CGF website. Check the box that says you're reporting a search, seizure, or arrest. CGF needs to know about this stuff.

FourLoko
11-18-2012, 2:57 PM
this again?

you should have left your guns where they were

::edit::

see here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=638032

filthy phil
11-18-2012, 3:06 PM
.
Ranger: Yea, I'm from texas...
glad he aint down here anymore
ftp

Librarian
11-18-2012, 3:14 PM
Showing interest in my beretta 92
Ranger: Ok, I'm gonna go run these. Give me your license and give me a moment.

As you were noticing, unless he has RAS - reasonably articulable suspicion - that you are committing or have committed a crime, running your serial numbers is not correct behavior.

me: Did someone steal some guns around here or what?
Ranger: I'll tell you when I come back

So he comes back with my guns
Ranger: There's a lot of drug and gun running going on through this corridor.
Me: Oh
Ranger: You know two of your guns are not registered.
Me: Really? which ones?
Ranger: The beretta and the remington 870

Now the shotgun I know does not need to be registered, but even if it was, the reason it wouldn't show up as mine is because it was my friends and he was checking against my drivers license.

Ranger: I could seize these guns if I wanted, because they are not registered, but I'm not going to.

He can't do it legally - as you note, long guns are not registered (until 2014), and handguns need NOT be registered, but they are entered into AFS via DROS if transfer was made in California.

He could, however Ruin Your Day.

me: Well thanks, but I have a question. I didn't buy that gun long ago, and I bought it at a gunstore; Turners. Isn't it registered to me when I sign all the paper work to buy it and the store sends that to the DOJ?
Ranger: Nope
Wrong.
Me: Oh, so you have to register them separately after you buy them?
Ranger: Yes


Yes, please do the report - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/get-help/report-other-law-enforcement.html

Detailed answers embedded in the quote.

tuncas
11-18-2012, 3:21 PM
Calguns report filed.

psssniper
11-18-2012, 3:21 PM
I had a talk with some BLM guys around a campfire out that a way once, one of them purported to be the head guy. The two henchmen spouted all kinds of crap, I argued and the head guy agreed with me. I told the henchmen basically that they were ignorant and needed to study up on the law.

Squid
11-18-2012, 3:37 PM
Not to Thread Jack, but "the govt" has been intentionally allowing "gun and drug running corridor" operation by foreigners on the southern border for exactly this reason....

to make regular Americans think it is OK to have LE doing more or less random 4th amend violations.

Then you get the "TSA effect" where they have to "treat everyone equally"

(Why do I get the feeling if he had any reason to suspect your party really were gun/drug runners and it was 'one of me and a lot of you' out in the woods he wouldn't have done anything but smile, wave and send you on your way.)




Ditto with illegal immigration and gangs in schools. I went to a HS that was at least 35% Mexican and when a single police officer was spotted on campus the entire school was bugging with wild rumors for 2 weeks. Now they have at least one full time actual cop w/gun etc every day all day.

gunsandrockets
11-18-2012, 3:49 PM
Enlighten me.

BLM is a Federal agency, right? So the BLM ranger is a Federal LEO.

What is the authority of a Federal LEO to enforce California state law? In particular the arbitrary, arcane, and unconstitutional anti-gun laws of California?

artoaster
11-18-2012, 3:56 PM
Ranger: Hi, do you have any OHVs?
me: no
Ranger: Do you have any firearms?
friend: yea, but they are all safely locked up.
Ranger: Someone show them to me. only one, everyone else stay put cause there's only one of me and a lot of you. (three guys and three girls)
me: No, they're locked up and secure. I do not have to consent to a search of them.

taperxz
11-18-2012, 4:04 PM
Enlighten me.

BLM is a Federal agency, right? So the BLM ranger is a Federal LEO.

What is the authority of a Federal LEO to enforce California state law? In particular the arbitrary, arcane, and unconstitutional anti-gun laws of California?

In CA, many are deputized into the county/counties they work in.

I don't really understand why people are so surprised that BLM officers don't know CA gun laws though. For what ever reason the agencies just seem to not care what their LEO's know or don't know. Its almost parallel to some of the "people" you see behind the wheel of a car and watch them drive. All you can say is, "WTF?"

ElvenSoul
11-18-2012, 4:07 PM
You dare challenge his authority?

cdtx2001
11-18-2012, 4:24 PM
Glad your situation ended well and no one went to jail or had their firearms taken. Also, hope you smacked the snot outta your friend for opening his big fat mouth.

I would have been very snippy with the ranger when he started spewing all that FUD.

jpscoot_21
11-18-2012, 4:54 PM
Squid, I went to a jr. High in the valley in SoCal that was atleast 35% white, and the exact same thing happened there.. go figure.

BKinzey
11-18-2012, 4:56 PM
Was his name "Cartman"?

tackdriver
11-18-2012, 5:00 PM
What hasnt been addressed is... Isnt it correct that IF he sees the gun(s) he can do the checking BUT if they are cased (not viewable) in the car he canNOT without your permission??
Anyone? Librarian??

taperxz
11-18-2012, 5:11 PM
What hasnt been addressed is... Isnt it correct that IF he sees the gun(s) he can do the checking BUT if they are cased (not viewable) in the car he canNOT without your permission??
Anyone? Librarian??

Once they told the LEO they had firearms in the vehicle, the LEO is allowed to do an "E" check.

Librarian
11-18-2012, 5:21 PM
Once they told the LEO they had firearms in the vehicle, the LEO is allowed to do an "E" check.

Yes, he could - but if the OP were in a place it was legal to have loaded guns, which apparently he was, I don't see the point of doing that.

PM720
11-18-2012, 5:27 PM
Are you allowed to lie to a BLM officer?

taperxz
11-18-2012, 5:30 PM
Yes, he could - but if the OP were in a place it was legal to have loaded guns, which apparently he was, I don't see the point of doing that.

I agree. It also depends on the restrictions in place for that area in regards to shooting. Guns in a vehicle at a bona fide shooting range or just out and about in a place that it legal to just shoot when ever and where ever you want.

It seems from reading different threads, many So Cal areas have far more restrictive BLM areas than we do up North.

taperxz
11-18-2012, 5:32 PM
Are you allowed to lie to a BLM officer?

No, he would be considered a federal agent. However you don't have to tell him anything either. Silence is not a crime.

JWHuey
11-18-2012, 5:50 PM
Since this was the OP's campsite, would loaded open carry or even loaded concealed carry have been legal? I am aware there are threads on this however I am asking about this specific situation /location?

anthonyca
11-18-2012, 5:56 PM
Are you allowed to lie to a BLM officer?

That is a good point. The are federal LEOs.

hoffmang
11-18-2012, 6:16 PM
No, he would be considered a federal agent. However you don't have to tell him anything either. Silence is not a crime.

Lying to a federal agent is the only crime Martha Stewart was ever convicted of.

-Gene

chiselchst
11-18-2012, 6:47 PM
So from a legal standpoint, one could remain silent not answering any questions, except providing their name (isn't that required by law?). No requirement to provide valid ID, or respond to questions?

If the person answered any questions incorrectly - technically they might have legal problems? Is this correct?

I wish I had to cajones to do that.. :o

taperxz
11-18-2012, 7:06 PM
So from a legal standpoint, one could remain silent not answering any questions, except providing their name (isn't that required by law?). No requirement to provide valid ID, or respond to questions?

If the person answered any questions incorrectly - technically they might have legal problems? Is this correct?

I wish I had to cajones to do that.. :o

When arrested "You have the right to remain silent". If you lie to a Fed in an investigation, you are committing a crime. If you are silent, you can't lie;)

In Martha Stewarts own words, SILENCE. "Its a good thing"

Dutch3
11-18-2012, 7:10 PM
Once they told the LEO they had firearms in the vehicle, the LEO is allowed to do an "E" check.

An "e" check does not permit running serial numbers. It is only a procedure to insure any firearms are unloaded and transported/carried legally.

huntercf
11-18-2012, 7:16 PM
Once they told the LEO they had firearms in the vehicle, the LEO is allowed to do an "E" check.

I thought an "E" check was only if you were "transporting". Sitting around a campfire doesn't sound like transporting to me.
Someone posted above what the conversation should have said ending with "NO, I don't give consent to search".
After reading the horror stories on here and other sites, my answer would pretty much be NO, if they have pc or rs or a warrant then they won't need to ask.

vantec08
11-18-2012, 7:18 PM
How much did he spew at you? Gallons. Acre-feet. 10 swimming pools. It seems to go with BLM people.

sandman21
11-18-2012, 7:20 PM
Yes, he could - but if the OP were in a place it was legal to have loaded guns, which apparently he was, I don't see the point of doing that.

No, he could not, since 25850 b), is limited to a search where having a loaded firearm is illegal. A search outside the limits of 25850 and People V. Delong (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/11/786.html) makes the search a violation of a person 4A rights under current caes law.

USMCM16A2
11-18-2012, 7:20 PM
Gents,



What do you say if your asked directly by the LEO "are there any firearms in the vehicle?". Do you just sit there quietly or directly answer the question?. Not being a smart mouth, just asking a question, I honestly do not know, thanks A2

chiselchst
11-18-2012, 7:27 PM
No, he could not, since 25850 b), is limited to a search where having a loaded firearm is illegal. A search outside the limits of 25850 and People V. Delong (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/11/786.html) makes the search a violation of a person 4A rights under current caes law.

THAT, what was I was looking for. Thanks!

Gents,

What do you say if your asked directly by the LEO "are there any firearms in the vehicle?". Do you just sit there quietly or directly answer the question?. Not being a smart mouth, just asking a question, I honestly do not know, thanks A2

I'm not Gene or Librarian, but that is a personal decision. But legally, one doesn't have to speak at all. There is not a "legal" answer to that question AFAIK...someone please correct me if that's not right.

Oceanbob
11-18-2012, 7:33 PM
1. If you were in such a dangerous Drug Running area, why only a one man car?

2. Sadly, if you had asserted your Rights, he would have called in some back-up and soon your camping weekend would be several armed Police/Government cars with a feeding frenzy of searches and handcuffs.

:(

taperxz
11-18-2012, 7:39 PM
No, he could not, since 25850 b), is limited to a search where having a loaded firearm is illegal. A search outside the limits of 25850 and People V. Delong (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/11/786.html) makes the search a violation of a person 4A rights under current caes law.

You might be right and you might be wrong, the OP has not said where this encounter took place. BLM seems to have many restrictions in So Cal. Were they in a designated campground? Is shooting prohibited in that designated area? To many variables not answered to say yes or no. You can certainly have a loaded firearm in your domicile! That could be limited to your tent though. Are the vehicles located "in the camp site"?

taperxz
11-18-2012, 7:45 PM
Once they told the LEO they had firearms in the vehicle, the LEO is allowed to do an "E" check.

An "e" check does not permit running serial numbers. It is only a procedure to insure any firearms are unloaded and transported/carried legally.

I don't believe i commented on that part of the OP. That is certainly illegal. An "e" check is simply to check if the firearm is loaded or not. DEPENDING ON where the OP was and what the restrictions are in that area is pertinent to the legality of the LEO inspecting the firearms.

EM2
11-18-2012, 7:48 PM
An "e" check does not permit running serial numbers. It is only a procedure to insure any firearms are unloaded and transported/carried legally.


Which is not an issue in a campsite (temporary legal residence) and while on land where the transport & discharge of a firearm is not regulated.

Therefor an "E" check should not be necessary nor required.

Am I missing something?

taperxz
11-18-2012, 7:56 PM
Which is not an issue in a campsite (temporary legal residence) and while on land where the transport & discharge of a firearm is not regulated.

Therefor an "E" check should not be necessary nor required.

Am I missing something?

YES you are! read most post above yours.

john67elco
11-18-2012, 8:18 PM
Do you have any weapons in the vehicle? I have no illegal weapons of any kind. What about legal ones? Why do you care about legal ones?

hornswaggled
11-18-2012, 8:25 PM
It's really sad that citizens now have to go through legal means to make LEOs do their f-ing jobs correctly.

Dutch3
11-18-2012, 8:27 PM
Which is not an issue in a campsite (temporary legal residence) and while on land where the transport & discharge of a firearm is not regulated.

Therefor an "E" check should not be necessary nor required.


That does make sense. No need for an "e" check under the circumstances of simply being in a campsite.

Librarian
11-18-2012, 8:32 PM
No, he could not, since 25850 b), is limited to a search where having a loaded firearm is illegal. A search outside the limits of 25850 and People V. Delong (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/11/786.html) makes the search a violation of a person 4A rights under current case law.

Let's see ... (b) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section,
peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm

carried by anyone on the person or in a vehicle

while in any public place or

on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.

Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

I'm going to bet the poorly trained among rangers may have somewhat of a more expansive idea of 'public place' than is meant in 28050, especially since we also have Encounter starts with me and friends sitting around a camp fire having beers after a day of shooting. A vehicle drives up to our camp and parks, which seems to invoke California Penal Code Section 26055

Nothing in Section 25850 shall prevent any person from
having a loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at the person's
place of residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.

In short, I am corrected; we already knew that the ranger in question appears to have made several mistakes, but as sandman21 points out, there was at least one I missed.

Dutch3
11-18-2012, 8:34 PM
It's really sad that citizens now have to go through legal means to make LEOs do their f-ing jobs correctly.

Seriously. Being subject to (illegal) interrogation, (illegal) searches and (illegal) records checks to avoid (illegal) arrest should be...illegal.

Oh, wait...it already is!

sandman21
11-18-2012, 8:49 PM
Let's see ...

I'm going to bet the poorly trained among rangers may have somewhat of a more expansive idea of 'public place' than is meant in 28050, especially since we also have which seems to invoke

In short, I am corrected; we already knew that the ranger in question appears to have made several mistakes, but as sandman21 points out, there was at least one I missed.

It truly is one of the worst laws we have. Right after getting shall issue it should be challenged.

gunsmith
11-18-2012, 8:57 PM
I open carry all yr long, I conceal in the winter due to coats and stuff so I have a LTC, in the late summer we are flooded with BLM Rangers due to burningman.

They never say anything but they really glare, you can tell that they hate OC.
I'm guessing they're told to keep their mouth shut because its perfectly legal here.

sparky1979
11-18-2012, 10:12 PM
Are you obligated to answer the question "do you have any firearms?"?

hoffmang
11-18-2012, 11:06 PM
Are you obligated to answer the question "do you have any firearms?"?

No. Your best bet is to socially engineer away from the question.

The current California law that allows abrogation of the Fourth Amendment to check firearms to see if they are loaded is wildly unconstitutional and subject already to challenge in a CGF case too.

-Gene

Ninety
11-18-2012, 11:52 PM
First off I think this is a very important encounter that needs some serious attention and not too much smart remarks... Ocotillo is real close to Glamis sand dunes and these exact things go on there at an alarming rate. Basically trespassing the way i understand it,,more on that later.

What hasnt been addressed is... Isnt it correct that IF he sees the gun(s) he can do the checking BUT if they are cased (not viewable) in the car he canNOT without your permission??
Anyone? Librarian??

Where is the law on this? I think Librarian answers this later.

Once they told the LEO they had firearms in the vehicle, the LEO is allowed to do an "E" check.

What exactly is an E Check . law?

Are you allowed to lie to a BLM officer?

NO!! From personal experience :TFH: It is a $100 fine MIP is only $50 expensive nite.

Since this was the OP's campsite, would loaded open carry or even loaded concealed carry have been legal? I am aware there are threads on this however I am asking about this specific situation /location?

I too would love to see a sticky regarding camping in desert/blm/national park and laws pertaining to what your campsite includes and the rights within.. I understand it to be that when camped that it is your domicile or current dwelling and such laws apply.. but i have no clue.

An "e" check does not permit running serial numbers. It is only a procedure to insure any firearms are unloaded and transported/carried legally.

if this is the case how do you stop the ball once it is in motion? I feel this to be a huge violation of your civil liberties and treating you like a criminal.

You might be right and you might be wrong, the OP has not said where this encounter took place. BLM seems to have many restrictions in So Cal. Were they in a designated campground? Is shooting prohibited in that designated area? To many variables not answered to say yes or no. You can certainly have a loaded firearm in your domicile! That could be limited to your tent though. Are the vehicles located "in the camp site"?

He did say where it took place ... ocotillo wells in so cal near salton sea... a popular off road area.. i guess guns are allowed there.. as they are not allowed in glamis...

Which is not an issue in a campsite (temporary legal residence) and while on land where the transport & discharge of a firearm is not regulated.

Therefor an "E" check should not be necessary nor required.

Am I missing something?

Let's see ...

I'm going to bet the poorly trained among rangers may have somewhat of a more expansive idea of 'public place' than is meant in 28050, especially since we also have which seems to invoke

In short, I am corrected; we already knew that the ranger in question appears to have made several mistakes, but as sandman21 points out, there was at least one I missed.

No. Your best bet is to socially engineer away from the question.

The current California law that allows abrogation of the Fourth Amendment to check firearms to see if they are loaded is wildly unconstitutional and subject already to challenge in a CGF case too.

-Gene

I think that there is a whole lot on this specific topic on the oll thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=80571 right there..

I know i missed a couple of things and sorry for the long post ... but this i feel is a huge issue .. one that i am a custom to dealing with on a weekend basis while out there.. I understand it to be legal for them to come into your camp if they see litter on the ground or any other illegal items.. camping passes are required ,, at least at glamis and must be displayed.. what i don't understand is how they have a right to come into your camp, your temp residence, ? I haven't searched but I have to believe that this would make a good sticky as far as camping on BLM land and your rights and how to go about them. The BLM rangers are from all over and The OP might have used that term loosely as the " BLM " Is usually LEOs from all over the state... not federal employees.

This encounter is very upsetting to me, b/c things like this has happened to me and I have seen LEOs bother , interogate, search nearby camps as well..

Seesm
11-19-2012, 12:02 AM
Wow he sounded down right not too bright.... Glad he didn't seize your guns and take your woman!! bahaha

Ninety
11-19-2012, 12:22 AM
Haha wish there was a " thumbs up thumbs down " option for individual posts... he was Lucky the LEO was from TX and not LA huh? complete BS its complete anarchy with the cops running the show.. complete disregard for civil rights.. but just like everything else .. they make a reason for PC and then find something and it all snow balls... Middle of the desert 50 miles from anything that has a pop over 5k

Ninety
11-19-2012, 12:25 AM
http://images.zaazu.com/img/rambo-rambo-john-gun-smiley-emoticon-000137-large.gif

this is what we deal with...

Ford8N
11-19-2012, 5:53 AM
1. If you were in such a dangerous Drug Running area, why only a one man car?

2. Sadly, if you had asserted your Rights, he would have called in some back-up and soon your camping weekend would be several armed Police/Government cars with a feeding frenzy of searches and handcuffs.

:(

^^^This is what would happen.

I always do my shooting where I can observe any Ranger approaching. In fact, I shoot where you need a 4x4 just to get to the spot. Never forget, any gun owner in California is treated like a potential criminal. It's the Law.

JimWest
11-19-2012, 6:29 AM
Sounds like this railroading of civil rights needs a serious, covert filming expose'. You guys were made to "squeal like a pig" Deliverance style as far as personal and legal disrespect.
So, if you ain't enjoying it set them up. But I didn't have any skin in the game so you can dismiss my comments.

tenpercentfirearms
11-19-2012, 6:49 AM
Gene has it correct. The best answer to "Do you have any firearms?" would be answering the question with a question. Also you and your friends should have had your phones out and been recording the entire conversation.

"What may we do for you this afternoon officer?"

Officer replies, "Answer my question!"

You, "Officer are we being detained?"

Officer, "No you are not." You reply, "Thank you officer, have a nice day."

Officer, "Are you going to answer my questions?" You, "No thank you officer, we have nothing left to say to you. Have a nice day."

If officer replies with, "Yes you are being detained" you reply with, "Officer we have nothing left to say to you until we speak with our lawyers. Are we still being detained?" If he says yes, say nothing else and if he wants to start searching things, clearly state your right to refuse searches.

If I was sitting around drinking beer by a camp fire, that would indicate I had nowhere to go and plenty of time to flex my rights. So he could try and detain us as long as he wants and bring in more officers, I would be willing to stay all night since that was my intent anyway.

tackdriver
11-19-2012, 8:00 AM
[QUOTE=hoffmang;9750124]No. Your best bet is to socially engineer away from the question.

I guess I got too much country boy in me, but I'm not sure what you mean by socially engineer? Does that mean giving an answer like "I have nothing illegal in my car... etc.?"

As is shown in this thread, there is MUCH confusion of what can and can't be done (more importantly what SHOULD be done) in this situation. I see now that what I thought was correct (ranger can only examine firearms that are in plain view) doesn't appear correct.

Do you suppose one of the legal minds on calguns can make a permanent thread (flow chart) like the ones we have for assault weapon definition and multi-cap mags? This issue comes up a lot and it sure would be nice to know that the info given is correct and not just someone's opinion.

thx

Mesa Tactical
11-19-2012, 8:08 AM
While he was busy writing down serial numbers, you should have been writing down a badge number.

tuncas
11-19-2012, 8:09 AM
I just want to clear a few things up.

The area I was in was not actually in ocotillo wells OHV park, it is very near to it, south of the main highway by the train tracks off split mountain road. Many people shoot here, but I like to be away from many people so I was probably a couple miles further south than where most of the shooters camp (by the trestles).

It most definitely was a BLM ranger because it said BLM on his tahoe. Until I walke up to the side of his vehicle later in the encounter, I thought he was a border patrol officer.

I really wished I had recorded it, but I was unprepared and phones were no where near us either in the cars or dead batteries because we had been there already a couple days. Next time though, I am going to be ready to record for sure. When its my and my friends words against LEO, and I don't have anything recording and no other witnesses because of the issolated area, I don't think it wise in the long run for myself, to try to be anything but completely cooperative with the LEO. My friends I was with are not comfortable or in the know enough to do it right anyway.

tuncas
11-19-2012, 8:09 AM
I can and have already began working on the friends though.

command_liner
11-19-2012, 1:31 PM
Are you allowed to lie to a BLM officer?

Lying to any federal official for any purpose at any time is a felony.


Not to thread jack, but how is it that our UN Ambassador is not up on felony
charges? She lied to lots of Congressmen. Looks like about 500 years
to life from where I sit.

SB61
11-19-2012, 2:18 PM
Is there some sort of legal encyclopedia where we can look this stuff up by subject?

Shiboleth
11-19-2012, 2:32 PM
An "e" check does not permit running serial numbers. It is only a procedure to insure any firearms are unloaded and transported/carried legally.

They are not allowed to search for serial numbers during the check, but if they come across them during the check there's nothing preventing them from recording them.

The Wingnut
11-19-2012, 2:52 PM
Repeat after me: 'There is nothing illegal in my possesion, sir.' 'I do not consent to unwarranted searches of my person or property.'

Be nice about it. Paraphrase it. Slather it with butter and sugar and feed it to them slowly. In the case of federal employees, make sure you're not lying.

Be polite, be friendly, be a brick wall.

taperxz
11-19-2012, 3:21 PM
Repeat after me: 'There is nothing illegal in my possesion, sir.' 'I do not consent to unwarranted searches of my person or property.'

Be nice about it. Paraphrase it. Slather it with butter and sugar and feed it to them slowly. In the case of federal employees, make sure you're not lying.

Be polite, be friendly, be a brick wall.

Why do you need to reiterate that there is nothing illegal in your possession?

It creates a heightened scrutiny. Whether you have illegal or legal stuff in your possession, you still do not need to consent to search. You also need to be careful in how you phrase an unwarranted search. If an LEO has probable cause, a warrant is not needed.

You don't need butter or sugar either. Just the constitution.

Make sure you are not lying? You either lie or don't lie. Silence is KING when a Fed is investigating. Clam up and if probing questions are asked that you can't articulate, its time for a lawyer.

stix213
11-19-2012, 4:31 PM
I guess I got too much country boy in me, but I'm not sure what you mean by socially engineer? Does that mean giving an answer like "I have nothing illegal in my car... etc.?"


Social engineering basically means use psychological manipulation. There are of course many ways to accomplish that and not a single "correct" way.

As mentioned above you could answer questions with questions or several other strategies.

Once I was driven up on by rangers at the NF while in the middle of shooting, so I couldn't play dumb about having any firearms since a few were in our hands. My own fault I guess cause one of them told me they came over because they thought we had some full autos (was having a bit of fun shooting the Saiga 12 emptying the mag before the first casing hit the ground).

Still I didn't want them going through all my guns, so when I was asked if this was all my guns (only about 1/3 were out at the time) I didn't answer the question and instead we hit them with a number of questions about what they do out here, what they usually find, if they find any MJ grows, etc. In the end they only looked at the ones that were out. That could be described as a bit of social engineering as well. I didn't lie, but I didn't divulge anymore information, and I changed the subject without them realizing I was avoiding the question on purpose. (everything was legit, but I didn't feel the need to get into a situation to explain my 80% AR pistol with no markings that was in its case still for example)

They did ask, "so these are all registered to you right?" and I responded that long guns aren't registered on sale in California. He seemed confused but I had been going over a number of details on my firearm legality with him so I'm guessing he thought I knew more than him or just that I seemed on the up and up enough to realize he didn't catch the usual person that doesn't have a clue.

If I had it to do over again I would have handled it exactly the same. Overall they were nice guys.

Librarian
11-19-2012, 4:36 PM
Is there some sort of legal encyclopedia where we can look this stuff up by subject?

PART of this is at the wiki - see link, below.

For example, Feds sometimes do not enforce state laws - unless cross-sworn as a state LEO; I believe it's the case that California-based US Forest Service Rangers are also sworn as state LEO, as someone already mentioned. You need to know that, to understand that the Ranger in question, on Federal land, might think he is enforcing state law at all.

Information on the state laws on 'loaded' and 'registration' is there. Information on the various jurisdictions and authorities of law enforcement is not there.

Danz la Nuit
11-19-2012, 4:37 PM
Why is it so hard for people to keep their mouth shut...

"I am not required to speak with you officer, this is my campsite, you are not invited, unless you would like to show me a warrant, please leave."

sandman21
11-19-2012, 4:40 PM
They are not allowed to search for serial numbers during the check, but if they come across them during the check there's nothing preventing them from recording them.

AZ v. Hicks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Hicks)] speaks to this, PC is required for evidence in plain view. Delong (see previous post) allows the "inspection" of the firearm to be sure it is not loaded, this places the "inspection" of the firearm outside of 4A protections. However, this "inspection" takes a matter of seconds to perform, extending the "inspection" by recording the serial numbers now makes the "inspection" a search, IMO. In order to see the serial numbers the firearm had to be moved, the number were not visible to the world, similar to moving a equipment to record serial numbers. Now saying the serial numbers to your partner is a grey area since you have not extended the search outside the bounds of Delong. So it's not so easy an answer.

12voltguy
11-19-2012, 4:46 PM
Social engineering basically means use psychological manipulation. There are of course many ways to accomplish that and not a single "correct" way.

As mentioned above you could answer questions with questions or several other strategies.

Once I was driven up on by rangers at the NF while in the middle of shooting, so I couldn't play dumb about having any firearms since a few were in our hands. My own fault I guess cause one of them told me they came over because they thought we had some full autos (was having a bit of fun shooting the Saiga 12 emptying the mag before the first casing hit the ground).

Still I didn't want them going through all my guns, so when I was asked if this was all my guns (only about 1/3 were out at the time) I didn't answer the question and instead we hit them with a number of questions about what they do out here, what they usually find, if they find any MJ grows, etc. In the end they only looked at the ones that were out. That could be described as a bit of social engineering as well. I didn't lie, but I didn't divulge anymore information, and I changed the subject without them realizing I was avoiding the question on purpose. (everything was legit, but I didn't feel the need to get into a situation to explain my 80% AR pistol with no markings that was in its case still for example)

They did ask, "so these are all registered to you right?" and I responded that long guns aren't registered on sale in California. He seemed confused but I had been going over a number of details on my firearm legality with him so I'm guessing he thought I knew more than him or just that I seemed on the up and up enough to realize he didn't catch the usual person that doesn't have a clue.

If I had it to do over again I would have handled it exactly the same. Overall they were nice guys.

respond with "do you have a fishing license
" :)

dieselpower
11-19-2012, 5:28 PM
No. Your best bet is to socially engineer away from the question.

The current California law that allows abrogation of the Fourth Amendment to check firearms to see if they are loaded is wildly unconstitutional and subject already to challenge in a CGF case too.

-Gene

Gene has it correct. The best answer to "Do you have any firearms?" would be answering the question with a question. Also you and your friends should have had your phones out and been recording the entire conversation.

"What may we do for you this afternoon officer?"

Officer replies, "Answer my question!"

You, "Officer are we being detained?"

Officer, "No you are not." You reply, "Thank you officer, have a nice day."

Officer, "Are you going to answer my questions?" You, "No thank you officer, we have nothing left to say to you. Have a nice day."

If officer replies with, "Yes you are being detained" you reply with, "Officer we have nothing left to say to you until we speak with our lawyers. Are we still being detained?" If he says yes, say nothing else and if he wants to start searching things, clearly state your right to refuse searches.

If I was sitting around drinking beer by a camp fire, that would indicate I had nowhere to go and plenty of time to flex my rights. So he could try and detain us as long as he wants and bring in more officers, I would be willing to stay all night since that was my intent anyway.

also remember he is a FEDERAL Officer and i believe...and please correct me if i am wrong...its a FELONY to lie or make deceiving statements to a federal officer investigating a possible crime.

chiselchst
11-19-2012, 6:32 PM
also remember he is a FEDERAL Officer and i believe...and please correct me if i am wrong...its a FELONY to lie or make deceiving statements to a federal officer investigating a possible crime.

What criteria (or PC) is required to categorize this situation as a "possible crime"? Due to firearms being present? :confused:

Isn't it illegal to lie to a Fed LEO anytime, and only illegal to lie to a Ca LEO IF they are conductiong an investigation?

JimWest
11-19-2012, 7:11 PM
Gene has it correct. The best answer to "Do you have any firearms?" would be answering the question with a question. Also you and your friends should have had your phones out and been recording the entire conversation.

"What may we do for you this afternoon officer?"

Officer replies, "Answer my question!"

You, "Officer are we being detained?"

Officer, "No you are not." You reply, "Thank you officer, have a nice day."

Officer, "Are you going to answer my questions?" You, "No thank you officer, we have nothing left to say to you. Have a nice day."

If officer replies with, "Yes you are being detained" you reply with, "Officer we have nothing left to say to you until we speak with our lawyers. Are we still being detained?" If he says yes, say nothing else and if he wants to start searching things, clearly state your right to refuse searches.

If I was sitting around drinking beer by a camp fire, that would indicate I had nowhere to go and plenty of time to flex my rights. So he could try and detain us as long as he wants and bring in more officers, I would be willing to stay all night since that was my intent anyway.

I like the basic approach of this method. And the YouTube video: Never talk to cops. Kind of the same thing. 'Course what I really wish happened is you went Jason Bourne and manipulated him like a limp puppet then stuffed him in the trunk of his car after administering a good wedgie. That's my definition of social engineering.

diginit
11-19-2012, 7:15 PM
This ranger is an idiot... He should go back to texas. Handguns do NOT have to be registered unless they were purchased before the registration law was enacted. Long guns need NO reg. This Ranger was Waaay outside his legal authority. Hope you got his badge #... I would report him to his superiors. By the way. There is NO law regarding alcohol with firearms either in ca. If it is legal to discharge. It doesn't matter if you are too drunk to stand up. Providing no one gets hurt, that is... This guy was just a jerk. Thinking you were gun running like in Texas...Now that he has seen Ca. Tell him to go home!

89burban
11-19-2012, 8:30 PM
Never, never, say "nothing illegal" in a sentence to a LEO. If you have to say this to LEO then you have said to much allready.

tenpercentfirearms
11-19-2012, 9:31 PM
Yeah I do not like the "I have no illegal firearms answer." It doesn't sound that intelligent to me and just will lead the officer to asking about your legal firearms. Which you are then going to have to lie or answer the question.

I even like a "Why would you ask officer?" more than " I have no illegal firearms in my possession."

Answer questions with questions or just invoke your right to remain silent and refer all further questions to your attorney.

johnny1290
11-19-2012, 10:05 PM
as a guy that went through a shakedown months back, I agree it would have ended badly.
I believe you only have the rights you can afford, and I couldn't afford to beat the case.

I've talked to guys that refused the search and won, but they went to jail and it cost a few grand to defeat.

^^^This is what would happen.

I always do my shooting where I can observe any Ranger approaching. In fact, I shoot where you need a 4x4 just to get to the spot. Never forget, any gun owner in California is treated like a potential criminal. It's the Law.

Drivedabizness
11-19-2012, 10:27 PM
also remember he is a FEDERAL Officer and i believe...and please correct me if i am wrong...its a FELONY to lie or make deceiving statements to a federal officer investigating a possible crime.

If it was that clearly an abbrogation the "bulldozer" would have delivered an injunction, damages, apologies and reparations long before now.

Exercise your rights and be ready to pay - for the forseeable future and then some

SonoftheRepublic
11-19-2012, 10:51 PM
I always do my shooting where I can observe any Ranger approaching. In fact, I shoot where you need a 4x4 just to get to the spot. Never forget, any gun owner in California is treated like a potential criminal. It's the Law.[/QUOTE]

^^^This is good advice^^^ . . .

Give yourself plenty of time, distance, and space so that you have plenty of warning to place everything out of sight, safely un-loaded and locked up, and with recording devices rolling before anyone drives up on you.

Also:
As far as I know, the safest thing to say to an officer when asked if I have any firearms is to respond (polite but firm): ď I am very sorry sir, but my attorney has advised me not to answer questions."

And if the officer continues to force the question, I would simply add: "I am sorry sir but I must invoke my fifth-amendment RIGHT to remain silent . . . (because anything I say - can and will be used against me in court)".

And . . . if asked for permission to search, I would respond - polite but firm - "I AM SORRY SIR BUT I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY TYPE OF SEARCH OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER."

Other than those comments, I would be recording everything and keep my mouth shut!

If we don't USE our rights, we'll LOOSE them.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-20-2012, 6:01 AM
Be polite, be friendly, be a brick wall.


QFT.


The Raisuli

alfred1222
11-20-2012, 7:39 AM
I also disagree with the "I have nothin illegal" comment. Whenever rangers show up, we always have a lot of time to pack up and crack open some beer.when they pull up, it's, yes sir, no sir, and "I refuse to answer sir, nor do I consent to any searches". I works for us

tenpercentfirearms
11-20-2012, 8:04 AM
Some of you need to watch these videos if you haven't already.

s4nQ_mFJV4I

and even

yqMjMPlXzdA

Meplat1
11-20-2012, 8:23 AM
Yes, he could - but if the OP were in a place it was legal to have loaded guns, which apparently he was, I don't see the point of doing that.

If authorized to enforce CA law and the long guns are in a vehicle he can check them, under the fish & game code, for loaded chambers even in areas where shooting is permitted.

JimWest
11-20-2012, 8:34 AM
If authorized to enforce CA law and the long guns are in a vehicle he can check them, under the fish & game code, for loaded chambers even in areas where shooting is permitted.

Do you have the code number or website I could check for that? Also, if guns are not visible in a vehicle, how can he be authorized to search for something he has no reason to suspect is present?

Wolverine
11-20-2012, 10:05 AM
Do you have the code number or website I could check for that? Also, if guns are not visible in a vehicle, how can he be authorized to search for something he has no reason to suspect is present?

He is thinking of California Fish & Game Code Section 2006.

Loaded Rifle or Shotgun in Vehicle

2006. (a) It is unlawful to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle or conveyance or its attachments which is standing on or along or is being driven on or along any public highway or other way open to the public.

(b) A rifle or shotgun shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in the firing chamber but not when the only cartridges or shells are in the magazine.

(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to peace officers or members of the Armed Forces of this state or the United States, while on duty or going to or returning from duty.

(Amended Sec. 28, Ch. 178, Stats. 2010. Effective January 1, 2012.)

I don't know if parked in a undeveloped campground qualifies as a "way open to the public"...probably does.

I think the OP's friend told the Ranger the rifles were in the vehicle.

EM2
11-20-2012, 12:21 PM
If authorized to enforce CA law and the long guns are in a vehicle he can check them, under the fish & game code, for loaded chambers even in areas where shooting is permitted.


To what end? For what purpose?
If loaded chamber is not illegal then why the need to check it?

Don't even try to claim "officer safety" because in the OP's situation there was no one near or in the vehicle so unless the officer believes that the firearm that MAY be loaded has the ability to get up and shoot him on it's own then there is no cause to check it.

Wolverine
11-20-2012, 1:13 PM
To what end? For what purpose?
If loaded chamber is not illegal then why the need to check it?

If the rifle/shotgun is (1) in a vehicle (2) with a loaded chamber and (3) the vehicle is "standing on or along...a way open to the public" then it is illegal even if in an area open to shooting and F&G Wardens at least will be pleased to cite you for violation of 2006 F&G.

paul0660
11-20-2012, 1:18 PM
I really do think the original post was hypothetical, unless "truncas" really did contact the foundation, as he claims.

sandman21
11-20-2012, 1:55 PM
The F&G code does not authorize the "inspection" of the rifle. The B-check has very specific requirements to bypass the 4A. We would need to check but CA PC doesn't consider the camp site public

robcoe
11-20-2012, 2:05 PM
I want to share an experience I had while camping and shooting at a BLM area near occotillo wells. Some things this ranger said I know is wrong, and some I believe/always assumed is wrong, but never actually verified so give me your input....

Encounter starts with me and friends sitting around a camp fire having beers after a day of shooting. A vehicle drives up to our camp and parks, leaving its headlights aimed right at us. Man gets out and approaches and I realize he is some form of law enforcement. Conversation begins:

Ranger: Hi, do you have any OHVs?
me: no
Ranger: Do you have any firearms?
friend: yea, but they are all safely locked up.
Ranger: Someone show them to me. only one, everyone else stay put cause there's only one of me and a lot of you. (three guys and three girls)
me: Ok they are in the whit silverado

we walk over, and I make all of my movements slowly cause it seems like he's really on edge. I pull out a case and show him a remington 870. He jots the serial down on a note pad.

Ranger: Is that all?
me: no there's more.

I grab my bag of pistols
As I pull each pistol out one by one...
me: this is a ruger .22
Ranger: thats cool
me: This is an old school colt revolver
me: Heres a beretta

Showing interest in my beretta 92
Ranger: Ok, I'm gonna go run these. Give me your license and give me a moment.
me: Did someone steal some guns around here or what?
Ranger: I'll tell you when I come back

So he comes back with my guns
Ranger: There's a lot of drug and gun running going on through this corridor.
Me: Oh
Ranger: You know two of your guns are not registered.
Me: Really? which ones?
Ranger: The beretta and the remington 870

Now the shotgun I know does not need to be registered, but even if it was, the reason it wouldn't show up as mine is because it was my friends and he was checking against my drivers license.

Ranger: I could seize these guns if I wanted, because they are not registered, but I'm not going to.
me: Well thanks, but I have a question. I didn't buy that gun long ago, and I bought it at a gunstore; Turners. Isn't it registered to me when I sign all the paper work to buy it and the store sends that to the DOJ?
Ranger: Nope
Me: Oh, so you have to register them separately after you buy them?
Ranger: Yes
me: Do I do that with the DOJ or the ATF?
Ranger: The DOJ owns the ATF so it doesn't matter.
me: I never knew that.
Ranger: Yea, I'm from texas. You guys have a lot of laws here in california and every gun needs to be registered. Like if you have an assault weapon here, you cant use 30 rd. mags.

Besides being confused at this point, I'm thanking god that for some reason he decided to quit asking for my guns after the bag of pistols, because I still had the m1 carbine, ar15, and saigas left to go and I couldn't imagine the grief he would give me for those.

The ranger leaves, and I begin to tell all my friends how wrong he was.

How messed up was this encounter?

I don't think their exists a scale big enough to weigh that amount of BS, probably best to go with volume in cubic meters as a measurement

winnre
11-20-2012, 2:13 PM
Nothing says he will not be able to get a warrant. He can say you look like Eric Rudolph. he can say your car appeared stolen. He can swear out whatever he wants to in order to get a warrant. maybe his twin brother is the judge. The point is that he can still get a warrant, and get his way. The warrant will only say the judge believes there is reasonable cause, it will not have the officer's statement on it, nor will that be readily available, and if it was, it is still a warrant you cannot get in the way of.

I don't like where this is going.

taperxz
11-20-2012, 2:20 PM
Fish & Game Codes only apply to those in the active sport take of game/non-game animals.

2006 Only applies if the warden sees you actively hunting, or the person being questioned admits to hunting. The wardens kinda stretch this rule during prime hunting seasons such as deer and duck where they feel its obvious you are in a hunting zone in season with a rifle driving slowly "looking around"

Meplat1
11-20-2012, 3:11 PM
If the rifle/shotgun is (1) in a vehicle (2) with a loaded chamber and (3) the vehicle is "standing on or along...a way open to the public" then it is illegal even if in an area open to shooting and F&G Wardens at least will be pleased to cite you for violation of 2006 F&G.

You are completely correct. And fish & Game will tell you that it is for safety. Note BTW that it does not apply to hand guns, only long guns.

I sure wish I hade checked to and found you had answered the question before I just spent an hour hunting it up! It's the Very last thing in the reg booklet!:o

sparky1979
11-20-2012, 3:44 PM
No. Your best bet is to socially engineer away from the question.

The current California law that allows abrogation of the Fourth Amendment to check firearms to see if they are loaded is wildly unconstitutional and subject already to challenge in a CGF case too.

-Gene

Thanks Gene!

sparky1979
11-20-2012, 3:54 PM
[QUOTE=hoffmang;9750124]No. Your best bet is to socially engineer away from the question.

I guess I got too much country boy in me, but I'm not sure what you mean by socially engineer? Does that mean giving an answer like "I have nothing illegal in my car... etc.?"

As is shown in this thread, there is MUCH confusion of what can and can't be done (more importantly what SHOULD be done) in this situation. I see now that what I thought was correct (ranger can only examine firearms that are in plain view) doesn't appear correct.

Do you suppose one of the legal minds on calguns can make a permanent thread (flow chart) like the ones we have for assault weapon definition and multi-cap mags? This issue comes up a lot and it sure would be nice to know that the info given is correct and not just someone's opinion.

thx

I agree with the flow chart idea. It would be nice to have one to print out and have on hand to give to a LEO and say "If you have any questions use this flow chart to answer them."

Ford8N
11-20-2012, 5:53 PM
It's really pathetic that in this state as gun owners we even have to justify our Constitutional rights.

MigNoche
11-20-2012, 6:06 PM
Seriously. Being subject to (illegal) interrogation, (illegal) searches and (illegal) records checks to avoid (illegal) arrest should be...illegal.

Oh, wait...it already is!

This is sig worthy material here!

MigNoche
11-20-2012, 6:13 PM
^^^This is what would happen.

I always do my shooting where I can observe any Ranger approaching. In fact, I shoot where you need a 4x4 just to get to the spot. Never forget, any gun owner in California is treated like a potential criminal. It's the Law.

I learned that trick after one sneaked up one me. Now I can see them long before they can see me. I even keep a 10ft x 10ft camo blind to cover my car. There is nothing more insulting to my freedom than being harassed, talked down to, and treated like a criminal while I am exercising my rights in the middle of the desert. BLM agent "Where do you work, where do you live, where did you go to school, I am going to need to run the serial #'s on your guns, I can shut this place down anytime I want" ....that's how it went during one encounter. They are drunk with "authority".

JTecalo
11-20-2012, 6:27 PM
mildly off topic but CGN or CGF could make some contribution money with a short printed downloadable course on this. Take CA law and Fed law and reference the PC cases.

I'd buy one to carry in my rifle case.

EM2
11-20-2012, 7:02 PM
If the rifle/shotgun is (1) in a vehicle (2) with a loaded chamber and (3) the vehicle is "standing on or along...a way open to the public" then it is illegal even if in an area open to shooting and F&G Wardens at least will be pleased to cite you for violation of 2006 F&G.



Of this I am aware, however I do not agree that it applies since we had established that the OP was in a campsite which should be considered his temporary residence.



The F&G code does not authorize the "inspection" of the rifle. The B-check has very specific requirements to bypass the 4A. We would need to check but CA PC doesn't consider the camp site public


^^^ this ^^^

JimWest
11-20-2012, 7:13 PM
Sorry if I'm getting lost on this guys because I don't shoot on BLM or other so-called federal land. But a BLM ranger is empowered under Dept of Fish & G?
Is there any such land as that where you must submit to the demand of an officer to open your vehicle and submit to a search? I say the Constitution is the guide and it trumps all authority on any land that you are not trespassing on as long as you do not incriminate yourself or speak. So you are going to see these uniformed persons puff up, intimidate and threaten. So what? Are they going to hit me? Burn me? Hold a knife to my throat? Had all that done already. No they are going to handcuff me and yell and make me late for my dental appointment. Sheesh! BFD.

LRShooter
11-20-2012, 7:14 PM
For those that file complaints.. Do they get anything more than laughed at by those that receive them? Seriously does anyone in law enforcement ever get in any sort of trouble for this stuff?

I don't think for one second they care anything about your "rights".

johnny1290
11-21-2012, 12:39 AM
I think it's laughable people debating how many angels can fit on the end of a pin.

This is America. Laws are made up on the spot with impunity, and you have no recourse without money, and little even then.


For those that file complaints.. Do they get anything more than laughed at by those that receive them? Seriously does anyone in law enforcement ever get in any sort of trouble for this stuff?

I don't think for one second they care anything about your "rights".

TeddyBallgame
11-21-2012, 6:14 AM
For those that file complaints.. Do they get anything more than laughed at by those that receive them? Seriously does anyone in law enforcement ever get in any sort of trouble for this stuff?

I don't think for one second they care anything about your "rights".I've always wondered that myself...may come down to the severity of the infraction, but, I would think that if it just the "war of words", don't expect too much

btw, maybe the guy doesn't know crap about the laws concerning everything with firearms, but, that doesn't necessarily mean he is a bad officer...maybe he just needs some refresher information about the laws...you gotta admit, they are pretty hard to keep up with here in California, I could see the confusion they can cause...afterall, other than the misinformation he fed ya, he pretty much went on his way...could have been worse

baileymyk
11-21-2012, 7:38 AM
This whole thread shows the reason why when a LEO asks if I have firearms I say "NO".

Galli1565
11-21-2012, 9:38 AM
Gene has it correct. The best answer to "Do you have any firearms?" would be answering the question with a question. Also you and your friends should have had your phones out and been recording the entire conversation.

"What may we do for you this afternoon officer?"

Officer replies, "Answer my question!"

You, "Officer are we being detained?"

Officer, "No you are not." You reply, "Thank you officer, have a nice day."

Officer, "Are you going to answer my questions?" You, "No thank you officer, we have nothing left to say to you. Have a nice day."

If officer replies with, "Yes you are being detained" you reply with, "Officer we have nothing left to say to you until we speak with our lawyers. Are we still being detained?" If he says yes, say nothing else and if he wants to start searching things, clearly state your right to refuse searches.

If I was sitting around drinking beer by a camp fire, that would indicate I had nowhere to go and plenty of time to flex my rights. So he could try and detain us as long as he wants and bring in more officers, I would be willing to stay all night since that was my intent anyway.

This. Respectfully FLEXING your 2nd/4th Amendment Rights. For everyone else I wouldn't be so fast to comment until you have been down to Glamis/OW when its going off...

Ninety
11-21-2012, 10:03 AM
This. Respectfully FLEXING your 2nd/4th Amendment Rights. For everyone else I wouldn't be so fast to comment until you have been down to Glamis/OW when its going off...



I completely agree.

sandman21
11-21-2012, 12:02 PM
I have been going for many years. What shouldn't people be allowed to comment on?

tackdriver
11-21-2012, 2:08 PM
Wouldnt this be great! I bet we could get enough donations to hire a lawyer to opine what proper procedure would be. But then, someone who knows how to work this site would need to get it started.

mildly off topic but CGN or CGF could make some contribution money with a short printed downloadable course on this. Take CA law and Fed law and reference the PC cases.

I'd buy one to carry in my rifle case.

baileymyk
11-21-2012, 2:14 PM
This weekend I was stopped by a Fish and Game cop while riding an ATV. He asked if I had firearms, and I simply said no. Then he told me I was camping in a preserve. (I was not) I told him I wasn't and he said that it was clearly marked read the signs. (There are no signs) I told him there are no signs there. He told me he was busy and walked away.(He was dealing with some hunters)

I am definitely no expert but this is what I do:

Don't leave spent casings around your campsite or firearms in view.
Avoid confrontation.
Don't offer information.
Leave promptly (if you're not at your campsite)

Police are smart. They use psychological tactics to intimidate or trick you. This includes lying and pretending that they know more than you think, so that you are afraid and therefore tempted to offer information.

The laws are interpreted by many agents in different ways so the best defense I think is to give them no suspicions that you have firearms in the first place.

I am grateful to our police, however remember that their job is to find a REASON to arrest YOU. Don't give them that.

Wiz-of-Awd
11-21-2012, 3:13 PM
Wouldnt this be great! I bet we could get enough donations to hire a lawyer to opine what proper procedure would be. But then, someone who knows how to work this site would need to get it started.

Don't we already have Brandon?

A.W.D.

Wiz-of-Awd
11-21-2012, 3:16 PM
This whole thread shows the reason why when a LEO asks if I have firearms I say "NO".

This could get tricky...

Lying about possessing firearms when asked by a LEO could setup a chain of events for him to do more than simply bothering you.

Best to be truthful, and respectfully decline his attempts to "check them out" or "see" them.

A.W.D.

artoaster
11-21-2012, 4:36 PM
These BLM guys might not be such d*cks if we shooters weren't so irresponsible with our trash when we shoot.

And, don't get upset with my comment unless you're the type that will leave your s*** all over creation. Then get upset all you want.

artoaster
11-21-2012, 4:37 PM
oops, accidental double post due to computer hiccup.

bob7122
11-21-2012, 4:59 PM
Are you allowed to lie to a BLM officer?

i BELIEVE a BLM officer is a federal agent. so no.

baileymyk
11-21-2012, 5:22 PM
Sure lying to cops is illegal. So is speeding on the highway, and thats a lot more obvious.

baileymyk
11-21-2012, 5:24 PM
It's also sometimes illegal to defend yourself against lobster attack.

baileymyk
11-21-2012, 5:26 PM
These BLM guys might not be such d*cks if we shooters weren't so irresponsible with our trash when we shoot.

And, don't get upset with my comment unless you're the type that will leave your s*** all over creation. Then get upset all you want.

I agree. It wrecks it for everyone. Where I go camping is somewhat remote and I still see gunshot holes in signs and trash left behind...

12voltguy
11-21-2012, 5:31 PM
Sure lying to cops is illegal. So is speeding on the highway, and thats a lot more obvious.

it's not unless they are investigating
you can lie to cops on a vehicle stop when they ask about guns, been said on here many times.
at least I have read that over & over

Dantedamean
11-21-2012, 5:33 PM
My head hurts after reading this thread
>. <

Wiz-of-Awd
11-21-2012, 5:52 PM
Sure lying to cops is illegal. So is speeding on the highway, and thats a lot more obvious.

...and plenty of people get busted and have to pay their way out of trouble - every single day.

A.W.D.

Meplat1
11-21-2012, 6:11 PM
Don't we already have Brandon?

A.W.D.

He is not a lawyer. He just sounds like one.

Meplat1
11-21-2012, 6:16 PM
Sure lying to cops is illegal. So is speeding on the highway, and thats a lot more obvious.

But it is not a fellony. Can you say Martha Stewart?

baileymyk
11-21-2012, 6:28 PM
This is an interesting thread, Thanks guys. So what type of crime is lying to LEO?

dieselpower
11-21-2012, 6:45 PM
This is an interesting thread, Thanks guys. So what type of crime is lying to LEO?

if you lie to a Federal Officer, its a felony

"Anticipatory obstruction of justice" has recently appeared on the horizon in cases such as US v. Wolff. That said, the operative section, 1519, passed in 2002, has thus far languished in quasi-obscurity. Titled “Destruction, Alteration or Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations and Bankruptcy,” the provision was passed under Section 802 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The text of the statute is relatively straightforward:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsified, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Aside from Section 1519’s 20-year maximum prison sentence (no small benefit to the government in big-dollar fraud loss cases such as Wolff), its primary appeal is that it uniquely removes certain key proof burdens from prosecutors’ collective shoulders.

Prosecutors charging violations of Section 1519 must still establish both of the following:

The accused knowingly directed the obstructive act to affect an issue or matter within the jurisdiction of any U.S. department or agency.
The accused acted at least “in relation to” or “in contemplation’” of such issue or matter.

Not on the list, however, is the requirement that prosecutors demonstrate to the finder of fact which specific “pending proceeding” the accused attempted to obstruct. That is a significant benefit to the government.[3]

tileguy
11-21-2012, 9:45 PM
reading all this makes me sick to my stomach ,that we have to be more cautious of law enforcement than we do of common criminals. why havent any LEOs spoken up about this thread. oh i know its only one bad one that does things like this, the rest of them are great. iam more afraid of stupid, unprofessional, ignorant, power hungry law enforcement than i am of anything else. its hard to protect yourself from someone that has all the power and all the money backing them.

gunman78
11-27-2012, 11:09 AM
A couple of issues here. BLM officers are cross-delegated in some areas which make them state officer certified as well. The guy posting said they were drinking so how reliable is his statement? Officers get called out to that area all the time because of the safety of OHV traffic blended with shooters. The OHV crowd often call in the shooters for shooting "automatic weapons." And like someone said before there are alot of circumstances here. How do you know that the officer was not called over there by someone from another camp? Im not defending either one but there is alot of illegal weaponry out there. I dont like california gun laws either but there was no action taken. I think if anything the officer may have made you feel like you were violated but it looks like he was trying to educate you (maybe not a good job, but nonetheless, officers are not usually trying to take in the people just having fun shooting.) Yes, a weapon may be seized if it is not registered. You told him you have weapons in your vehicle so he can look. I just shoot on my private property because the california gun laws suck.

Lostsheep
11-27-2012, 12:08 PM
A couple of issues here. BLM officers are cross-delegated in some areas which make them state officer certified as well. The guy posting said they were drinking so how reliable is his statement? Officers get called out to that area all the time because of the safety of OHV traffic blended with shooters. The OHV crowd often call in the shooters for shooting "automatic weapons." And like someone said before there are alot of circumstances here. How do you know that the officer was not called over there by someone from another camp? Im not defending either one but there is alot of illegal weaponry out there. I dont like california gun laws either but there was no action taken. I think if anything the officer may have made you feel like you were violated but it looks like he was trying to educate you (maybe not a good job, but nonetheless, officers are not usually trying to take in the people just having fun shooting.) Yes, a weapon may be seized if it is not registered. You told him you have weapons in your vehicle so he can look. I just shoot on my private property because the california gun laws suck.


huh? Care to back that up?

taperxz
11-27-2012, 6:18 PM
A couple of issues here. BLM officers are cross-delegated in some areas which make them state officer certified as well. The guy posting said they were drinking so how reliable is his statement? Officers get called out to that area all the time because of the safety of OHV traffic blended with shooters. The OHV crowd often call in the shooters for shooting "automatic weapons." And like someone said before there are alot of circumstances here. How do you know that the officer was not called over there by someone from another camp? Im not defending either one but there is alot of illegal weaponry out there. I dont like california gun laws either but there was no action taken. I think if anything the officer may have made you feel like you were violated but it looks like he was trying to educate you (maybe not a good job, but nonetheless, officers are not usually trying to take in the people just having fun shooting.) Yes, a weapon may be seized if it is not registered. You told him you have weapons in your vehicle so he can look. I just shoot on my private property because the california gun laws suck.

What you talking about Willis? Please tell me that last time YOU had a registered long arm that was not a CA AW.

vantec08
11-27-2012, 7:10 PM
reading all this makes me sick to my stomach ,that we have to be more cautious of law enforcement than we do of common criminals. why havent any LEOs spoken up about this thread. oh i know its only one bad one that does things like this, the rest of them are great. iam more afraid of stupid, unprofessional, ignorant, power hungry law enforcement than i am of anything else. its hard to protect yourself from someone that has all the power and all the money backing them.

I dont know about all that . . . . . I do know that the friendly beat cop isnt mr. friendly anymore.

sandman21
11-27-2012, 7:29 PM
A couple of issues here. BLM officers are cross-delegated in some areas which make them state officer certified as well. The guy posting said they were drinking so how reliable is his statement?
So?
Officers get called out to that area all the time because of the safety of OHV traffic blended with shooters.
This can be said of any public area where shooting is permitted. It also doesnít matter in this case.
The OHV crowd often call in the shooters for shooting "automatic weapons." And like someone said before there are alot of circumstances here. How do you know that the officer was not called over there by someone from another camp?
It does not matter if the officer was called by someone or not. The mere possession of firearms is not illegal and does not give PC.
Im not defending either one but there is alot of illegal weaponry out there.
Only if we donít read your whole post.
I dont like california gun laws either but there was no action taken.
There was action taken, the persons property was searched. The fact he didnít seize them for a non-crime does not make what the officer did ok.
I think if anything the officer may have made you feel like you were violated but it looks like he was trying to educate you (maybe not a good job, but nonetheless, officers are not usually trying to take in the people just having fun shooting.)
Itís only education if the officer is correct. When the officer is not correct itís FUD.
Yes, a weapon may be seized if it is not registered.
My rifle and shotgun are not registered. Homebuilt pistols do not need to be registered. Handguns bought before registration do not need to be registered. I can borrow a friends firearm then it wont be registered to me.
You told him you have weapons in your vehicle so he can look.
No he cannot as has been shown on the 3 pages before this.


These types of encounters are another example of what happens when you donít fully grasp firearms laws and allow LE to walk all over your rights. The OP could not even file a meaningful complaint since he allowed the officer access to his firearms, the officer can easily claim the OP gave him permission. While nothing happened this time, the LEO is going to continue to play loose with our rights and cause issues for someone else down the road.

Phouty
11-28-2012, 12:05 AM
I want to share an experience I had while camping and shooting at a BLM area near occotillo wells. Some things this ranger said I know is wrong, and some I believe/always assumed is wrong, but never actually verified so give me your input....

Encounter starts with me and friends sitting around a camp fire having beers after a day of shooting. A vehicle drives up to our camp and parks, leaving its headlights aimed right at us. Man gets out and approaches and I realize he is some form of law enforcement. Conversation begins:

Ranger: Hi, do you have any OHVs?
me: no
Ranger: Do you have any firearms?
friend: yea, but they are all safely locked up.
Ranger: Someone show them to me. only one, everyone else stay put cause there's only one of me and a lot of you. (three guys and three girls)
me: Ok they are in the whit silverado

we walk over, and I make all of my movements slowly cause it seems like he's really on edge. I pull out a case and show him a remington 870. He jots the serial down on a note pad.

Ranger: Is that all?
me: no there's more.

I grab my bag of pistols
As I pull each pistol out one by one...
me: this is a ruger .22
Ranger: thats cool
me: This is an old school colt revolver
me: Heres a beretta

Showing interest in my beretta 92
Ranger: Ok, I'm gonna go run these. Give me your license and give me a moment.
me: Did someone steal some guns around here or what?
Ranger: I'll tell you when I come back

So he comes back with my guns
Ranger: There's a lot of drug and gun running going on through this corridor.
Me: Oh
Ranger: You know two of your guns are not registered.
Me: Really? which ones?
Ranger: The beretta and the remington 870

Now the shotgun I know does not need to be registered, but even if it was, the reason it wouldn't show up as mine is because it was my friends and he was checking against my drivers license.

Ranger: I could seize these guns if I wanted, because they are not registered, but I'm not going to.
me: Well thanks, but I have a question. I didn't buy that gun long ago, and I bought it at a gunstore; Turners. Isn't it registered to me when I sign all the paper work to buy it and the store sends that to the DOJ?
Ranger: Nope
Me: Oh, so you have to register them separately after you buy them?
Ranger: Yes
me: Do I do that with the DOJ or the ATF?
Ranger: The DOJ owns the ATF so it doesn't matter.
me: I never knew that.
Ranger: Yea, I'm from texas. You guys have a lot of laws here in california and every gun needs to be registered. Like if you have an assault weapon here, you cant use 30 rd. mags.

Besides being confused at this point, I'm thanking god that for some reason he decided to quit asking for my guns after the bag of pistols, because I still had the m1 carbine, ar15, and saigas left to go and I couldn't imagine the grief he would give me for those.

The ranger leaves, and I begin to tell all my friends how wrong he was.

How messed up was this encounter?

What about showing ID in such situation? Would it be a violation of any laws if OP had refused to show his CDL to a federal LEO? (Or any other 'regular' LEO)?

Instead, could OP simply respond by verbally stating his name as means of identification?

Spelunker
11-28-2012, 9:01 AM
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson

This is the lawsuit that make the CA stop and ID statute illegal

tackdriver
11-28-2012, 11:39 AM
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson

This is the lawsuit that make the CA stop and ID statute illegal

Wow, reading all of the court opinions and laws about this can really spin ones head! The amazing (i.e.sad) thing is that, even the ACLU recommends that you show your i.d., because if you do not, "you still can be illegally arrested.."

So many opinions, so little knowlege, no wonder why I'm going bald.....

Ninety
11-28-2012, 12:13 PM
Ive been told on a few occasions that it is illegal not to have ID on you.. I will read the link in a bit. I have had them run my DL number , Social , address to verify when not in possession of my ID. I'm sure the argument is somewhere along the lines of it can't be afforded by everyone... Also.. you need to have ID to walk down the street but you don't need an ID to vote.:facepalm:

taperxz
11-28-2012, 12:34 PM
Ive been told on a few occasions that it is illegal not to have ID on you.. I will read the link in a bit. I have had them run my DL number , Social , address to verify when not in possession of my ID. I'm sure the argument is somewhere along the lines of it can't be afforded by everyone... Also.. you need to have ID to walk down the street but you don't need an ID to vote.:facepalm:

No one in this state is required to show ID in this state on a routine meet and greet by law enforcement in this state. If you are driving, you must provide your license on demand.

ar15robert
11-28-2012, 4:48 PM
Love the keyboard advice.Truth is law enforcement will do what they want when they want to wheter legal or not constitutional or not.
Now if you got the time and money then you can go and fight it to prove them wrong and if so they may get a wrist slap while you got your rifles taken for safe keeping,a ride to jail,a few court dates,etc all on your dime.

I dont know about all you but my funds are low and if missed a couple days of work that amount of money will hurt me.If cooperating will make it easier i will make it easier just to save in the long run.If i did have a problem i will go to the station after the fact to talk to a higher up.
We all saw the vids on the open carry rebels did any of them cops get disiplined or lose their jobs??

taperxz
11-28-2012, 4:51 PM
Love the keyboard advice.Truth is law enforcement will do what they want when they want to wheter legal or not constitutional or not.
Now if you got the time and money then you can go and fight it to prove them wrong and if so they may get a wrist slap while you got your rifles taken for safe keeping,a ride to jail,a few court dates,etc all on your dime.

I dont know about all you but my funds are low and if missed a couple days of work that amount of money will hurt me.If cooperating will make it easier i will make it easier just to save in the long run.If i did have a problem i will go to the station after the fact to talk to a higher up.
We all saw the vids on the open carry rebels did any of them cops get disiplined or lose their jobs??

Yep, and every woman has that ultimate price.

paul0660
11-28-2012, 5:11 PM
Two things, real world:

Whether I have something to hide or not, my responses are the same.

They can lie to me, I can't lie to them.

Pretty much mean stfu.