PDA

View Full Version : Status of OLL and LEOs


Cato
10-20-2007, 6:05 PM
Has LE become familiar enough with OLL builds to know that they are legal? Are guys at traffic stops with OLL builds being arrested and having AW charges brought up against them; OR, are the LE seeing the builds as non AWs and sending the guys on their way?

Budd
10-22-2007, 7:33 AM
I do not consent to a search.

MudCamper
10-22-2007, 10:39 AM
I do not consent to a search.

Actually, if the LEO sees your firearm, or you admit that you have one, you are required by CA law to let the officer inspect the weapon to be sure that it is unloaded, per PC 12031(e). If you do not you are subject to arrest.

Cato, as to your question, I'm sure it's a "your mileage will vary" situation.

hoffmang
10-22-2007, 10:42 AM
This is a YMMV situation, but there is a lot more awareness that not all AW like rifles are AWs in California as many LEO's have been purchasing them themselves. I'm not aware of any additional arrests based on traffic stop OLL situations since very early this year. I am aware that there have been a couple of traffic stops that have included brief inspection of an OLL that lead to speeding or whatever usual citation and the firearm owner being on his way.

-Gene

JALLEN
10-22-2007, 11:30 AM
Wait until the .22 rimfire conversions begin to appear, now that there is a source of apparently good quality 10 rnd. magazines. I can't help but think that those will be extremely popular, are perfectly legal, and pretty soon EBR type devices will be so commonplace that no one will bother about it.

eta34
10-22-2007, 11:33 AM
Actually, if the LEO sees your firearm, or you admit that you have one, you are required by CA law to let the officer inspect the weapon to be sure that it is unloaded, per PC 12031(e). If you do not you are subject to arrest.

Cato, as to your question, I'm sure it's a "your mileage will vary" situation.

And remember, if a LEO sees what he can articulate as a gun case, he can inspect that case and its contents without consent or warrant.

Wulf
10-23-2007, 8:48 AM
Actually, if the LEO sees your firearm, or you admit that you have one, you are required by CA law to let the officer inspect the weapon to be sure that it is unloaded, per PC 12031(e). If you do not you are subject to arrest.

Cato, as to your question, I'm sure it's a "your mileage will vary" situation.

The thing I've never been able to figure out about 12031 is where it allows a peace officer to do any investigation beyond inspecting the gun to see if its loaded or unloaded in the absence of some other probable cause that a crime has been committed.

It seems like when we hear reports of these things happing on the street, the Calguner admits to having a gun or three in the trunk, the LEO gets out the guns and clears them. But then they go on. They drag the guns over to the cruiser, run the numbers through the data bases, they call other cops over to the scene to caucus on whether or not the gun is legal, whether the high-caps are legal etc etc.

12031(e) seems like a really sketchy piece of law in that it assumes if you have a gun in your vicinity (even cased and locked), probable cause exists to believe you're violating the law regarding carrying a loaded firearm in public, and gives the LEO a blanket warrant to "search" the chamber of the gun. But isnt it the case with a warrant that as soon as you've reached the limits of what the warrant authorizes you have to stop at the risk of creating evidence you cant take to court? Running the numbers on the gun, or cycling the action to see if it had an auto sear, or something similar would seem to be a search beyond the scope of the implied warrant in 12031(e).

To draw an analogy, 12031(e) is like a law that allowed a leo who saw you had a performance enhancements in your car, to download the info on your GPS to see if you've been speeding. Depending on what the data shows, they may or may not write you up for speeding. But then in any case they go on, look at the places you've been going to see if they can link you with any other crimes, or drug houses, or whatever.

SteveH
10-28-2007, 11:03 AM
I believe most officers have still not heard of OLL builds or are even aware that lowers are available for sale again.

It would help educate the masses if more gun stores actually stocked AR pattern lowers.

Gator Monroe
10-30-2007, 11:55 AM
Wait until the .22 rimfire conversions begin to appear, now that there is a source of apparently good quality 10 rnd. magazines. I can't help but think that those will be extremely popular, are perfectly legal, and pretty soon EBR type devices will be so commonplace that no one will bother about it.

Ditto ! (WASR 22) (AK 98-T) (RPK- 22) (Carbon 15) ...:rolleyes:

Liberty1
10-30-2007, 1:06 PM
The thing I've never been able to figure out about 12031 is where it allows a peace officer to do any investigation beyond inspecting the gun to see if its loaded or unloaded in the absence of some other probable cause that a crime has been committed.

It doesn't. No other searches or further detention are allowed by 12031 unless for instance in the inspecting officer develops RS or PC during the encounter. 12031 (e) hopefully will be determined a violation of the 4th A., if ever challenged, and all of 12031 a 2nd A. violation in a post Heller USA.

California's gun owners need to get in the custom of knowing their rights, not consenting to searches while obeying orders (lawful or not - your choice), and making complaints when violations occur (al la VCDL style).

1911_sfca
11-26-2007, 6:06 PM
And remember, if a LEO sees what he can articulate as a gun case, he can inspect that case and its contents without consent or warrant.

Eta34.. could you post a citation to the case law that establishes this? I remember reading this on Calguns before (maybe posted by you), but I'm not familiar with the case that it comes from.

Thanks.

The thing I've never been able to figure out about 12031 is where it allows a peace officer to do any investigation beyond inspecting the gun to see if its loaded or unloaded in the absence of some other probable cause that a crime has been committed.

It seems like when we hear reports of these things happing on the street, the Calguner admits to having a gun or three in the trunk, the LEO gets out the guns and clears them. But then they go on. They drag the guns over to the cruiser, run the numbers through the data bases, they call other cops over to the scene to caucus on whether or not the gun is legal, whether the high-caps are legal etc etc.

12031 allows the officer to inspect the firearm to see whether it is loaded. If, during the course of the inspection, he develops further reasonable suspicion that the gun may be in an illegal configuration or is otherwise suspect, he can continue to investigate.

In terms of running it through an Automated Firearms System check for serial number, he should probably just write down the serial number rather than taking the gun with him to the cruiser. If he is inspecting it for its configuration, it's perfectly reasonable for him to take it over to the cruiser if he has reasonable, articulable facts that generate a suspicion that it may not be "kosher".

hoffmang
11-26-2007, 6:19 PM
The case law on this one is People v. DeLong (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 786 , 90 Cal.Rptr. 193. A link on Findlaw - http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/11/786.html

That case had an officer find Marijuana while doing a "loaded" check. It's a case that we really need to overturn over the long haul and I have a strategy to come at it from an oblique angle thanks to some permit over-reaching by the legislature.

-Gene

M. Sage
11-26-2007, 6:26 PM
Actually, if the LEO sees your firearm, or you admit that you have one, you are required by CA law to let the officer inspect the weapon to be sure that it is unloaded, per PC 12031(e). If you do not you are subject to arrest.

Cato, as to your question, I'm sure it's a "your mileage will vary" situation.

Arrest, but I don't see any penalty...

Oh, and thread moved.

1911_sfca
11-26-2007, 9:33 PM
The case law on this one is People v. DeLong (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 786 , 90 Cal.Rptr. 193. A link on Findlaw - http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/11/786.html

That case had an officer find Marijuana while doing a "loaded" check. It's a case that we really need to overturn over the long haul and I have a strategy to come at it from an oblique angle thanks to some permit over-reaching by the legislature.

-Gene

Thanks for this citation, Gene. I read the appellate decision you referenced.

However, it still does not answer my question. People v. DeLong only examines the issue of whether PC 171e and 12031(c) are unconstitutional (they are not). It says nothing with respect to probable cause and whether "if a LEO sees what he can articulate as a gun case, he can inspect that case and its contents without consent or warrant," the assertion I am curious about.

In People v. DeLong, there was very strong probable cause to believe that firearms were present in the car -- they were previously observed being handled in and around the car by a sheriff's deputy looking through binoculars. So this case law doesn't really address my question.

But thanks anyway it was a good read, and now I'm curious about your oblique strategy to overturn it. :-)

By the way, isn't that a typo in the second sentence of the decision? I think they meant H&S 11350, not 11530.

hoffmang
11-26-2007, 10:05 PM
1911,

People v. Green , 15 Cal.App.3d 766 gets us down the road to lowered PC:
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/15/766.html&search=11

People v. Kern (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 779 , 155 Cal.Rptr. 877 gets us a little further where there is clearly a gun and a case, but not clearly a gun case
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/93/779.html&search=11

People v. Zonver (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 , 183 Cal.Rptr. 214 - and here we lose the 4th Amendment... http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/132/supp1.html&search=11

The last case in that line doesn't have a gun case, but you can see where the courts were going all in all. If a cop can just B&E a car because he sees a firearm...

-Gene

1911_sfca
11-27-2007, 12:25 AM
Thanks for the cites. Good reading. I am all boned up on my 12031, and I am comfortable answering my own question now.

bwiese
11-27-2007, 8:47 AM
Hmm, sounds like I'm a prime case then ;)

Sometimes I use my Pelican 1750 (1720?) rifle case or my Starlight pistol case to carry non-gun stuff in (equipment, cabling etc.)

Bizcuits
11-27-2007, 9:32 AM
This is a YMMV situation, but there is a lot more awareness that not all AW like rifles are AWs in California as many LEO's have been purchasing them themselves. I'm not aware of any additional arrests based on traffic stop OLL situations since very early this year. I am aware that there have been a couple of traffic stops that have included brief inspection of an OLL that lead to speeding or whatever usual citation and the firearm owner being on his way.

-Gene

Do you know of any MMG incidents?

ChessRatz
11-27-2007, 9:47 AM
Has LE become familiar enough with OLL builds to know that they are legal? Are guys at traffic stops with OLL builds being arrested and having AW charges brought up against them; OR, are the LE seeing the builds as non AWs and sending the guys on their way?
Getting back to the original poster's question, just last night I had a conversation with an LEO family friend about OLL's. This was on my part just a simple question that I thought would enlighten him or myself about how OLL's are viewed by local LE. Well, it didn't go as smooth as I thought when he adamantly told me that any pistol grip on an OLL in his eyes would be considered an illegal assault weapon. He really didn't listen to me when I told him about the fixed mag configurations, etc. He wanted to know how current my information was because he was 100% certain that I would be arrested with anything that resembled an AR in my possession.

Well, I went to get my laptop to get him the information he asked about and he could not leave quick enough. By the time I had my laptop out and turned on, he was gone. I really didn't know what I was going to show him other than some of the posts I have read on CalGuns.net

So this leads me to a couple of thoughts...

First, it would seem that at least in this case, he didn't want to be shown that he might be wrong. Much less, back up his own position with real facts. Is this an isolated mentality? I would think not. So knowing that this mentality towards OLL's is real, it brought me to my second thought (question actually)...

...what would I show this guy to make it as simple as possible for him to at least consider the fact that he might be misinformed? If this LEO, who is at my house for some cake, would be that adamant about the wrong information, I would hate to run into this situation with him or any other LEO with the same mentality and my legal AR configured rifle. So what would you suggest? The simpler the better. Thanks

btw, the quote of the night by this LEO was this... "you guys are just bending the laws so that you can have assault weapons". I am no thug and I thought it sort of an insult for him to say that to me.

Crazed_SS
11-27-2007, 10:34 AM
Well, it didn't go as smooth as I thought when he adamantly told me that any pistol grip on an OLL in his eyes would be considered an illegal assault weapon. He really didn't listen to me when I told him about the fixed mag configurations, etc

This is why I dont have an offlist rifle. My cousin's fiance is Berkeley Police Officer. Told him about OLL stuff this Thanksgiving and pretty much got the same reponse you did. He looked as me as if I was trying to explain a legal way to sell crack. I can guarantee you these cops arent alone in their thinking. If we cant convince family members of this stuff, I wouldnt want to try and argue my case on the side of the road in cuffs with some LEO I just met.

btw, the quote of the night by this LEO was this... "you guys are just bending the laws so that you can have assault weapons". I am no thug and I thought it sort of an insult for him to say that to me.

I've heard something similar to this before. When I tell my friends at work (who are gun owners) about OLLs, they feel as though people are trying to get around the law. My one friend's argument is that the spirit of SB23, Robert-Roos, etc was to ban so-called "Assault Weapons" and that this whole OLL thing is people taking advantage of a loophole in order to get around the ban.

1911_sfca
11-27-2007, 10:36 AM
Hmm, sounds like I'm a prime case then ;)

Sometimes I use my Pelican 1750 (1720?) rifle case or my Starlight pistol case to carry non-gun stuff in (equipment, cabling etc.)

Don't worry Bill I'm not going to search your case. :cool:

In fact I have a Pelican 1520 sitting right next to me, with a Hasselblad camera inside of it.

My question to eta was how seeing something that "looks like a gun case" would comprise PC to search under 12031.

After reading the case law, it is clear to me: it isn't. There must be some additional information giving the officer PC to believe there is a gun inside a case, not just that it looks like a pistol case.

Now a plastic Kimber or Sig manufacturer's case.. would definitely raise my suspicion. But an unmarked Pelican 1720 with nothing else.. you are good. JMHO.

bwiese
11-27-2007, 10:37 AM
Crazed_SS,

Care to PM me with the contact info for these officer(s)?

It might save their home equity.

I'm betting within the year there will be a cop's head spinning with false arrest charges based on an off-list rifle arrest.

tyrist
11-27-2007, 10:41 AM
Officers generally only get legal changes in rollcall training. Usually they have to do with search authority and have several scenarios one where the search was good and another where it was not.

So unless a department issues a training notice the chances of them learning about off list legalities is small.

1911_sfca
11-27-2007, 10:44 AM
This is why I dont have an offlist rifle. My cousin's fiance is Berkeley Police Officer. Told him about OLL stuff this Thanksgiving and pretty much got the same reponse you did. He looked as me as if I was trying to explain a legal way to sell crack. I can guarantee you these cops arent alone in their thinking. If we cant convince family members of this stuff, I wouldnt want to try and argue my case on the side of the road in cuffs with some LEO I just met.

Agreed. LEOs I personally know who have OLLs are sometimes reticent to even talk about them in the department, just because they don't want to rock the boat. On the other hand, there are also crusty "old school" cops, who say, as long as you don't do anything wrong with your gun, I don't care what it looks like or what you screw onto it. It varies.

I have thought about doing an info session at my department to talk about firearms laws, but it can be such a complicated morass, I'm not sure I really want to take that on..



I've heard something similar to this before. When I tell my friends at work (who are gun owners) about OLLs, they feel as though people are trying to get around the law. My one friend's argument is that the spirit of SB23, Robert-Roos, etc was to ban so-called "Assault Weapons" and that this whole OLL thing is people taking advantage of a loophole in order to get around the ban.

Well let's be honest here... OLL's *are* a way to get around the spirit of the law by following the letter of it.

The courts basically said that the assault weapons laws were too complicated, so ordinary citizens shouldn't have to interpret which guns are AW's by a generalized "series" category; the AG should enumerated the guns by make and model. The AG failed to ever enumerate any makes and models, so we get to buy all the makes and models they never enumerated (but clearly would have, if they had).

If that's not an end run around the spirit of the law (albeit, completely legal), I don't know what is.. Let's at least be intellectually honest about it.

MudCamper
11-27-2007, 10:44 AM
I've heard something similar to this before. When I tell my friends at work (who are gun owners) about OLLs, they feel as though people are trying to get around the law. My one friend's argument is that the spirit of SB23, Robert-Roos, etc was to ban so-called "Assault Weapons" and that this whole OLL thing is people taking advantage of a loophole in order to get around the ban.

Exactly. We are trying to "get around the law". We are "taking advantage of a loophole". We are trying "to get around the ban".

We are trying to get around an unjust and poorly written law. And we are obeying all current laws while doing so. What's wrong with that?

hoffmang
11-27-2007, 3:11 PM
Do you know of any MMG incidents?

You know... I can't think of any Monsterman Grip related prosecutions or even arrests...

Bill? Am I forgetting anything?

-Gene

Wulf
11-27-2007, 4:44 PM
12031 allows the officer to inspect the firearm to see whether it is loaded. If, during the course of the inspection, he develops further reasonable suspicion that the gun may be in an illegal configuration or is otherwise suspect, he can continue to investigate.

In terms of running it through an Automated Firearms System check for serial number, he should probably just write down the serial number rather than taking the gun with him to the cruiser. If he is inspecting it for its configuration, it's perfectly reasonable for him to take it over to the cruiser if he has reasonable, articulable facts that generate a suspicion that it may not be "kosher".

Ok, so lets suppose as a thought experiment. You have a gun case with a inset clear window in centered over the breech of a rifle. The rifle placed in the case has a flag or some other means that clearly shows through the window that the gun is unloaded. A knowledgeable person might properly ID the receiver as an AR type, but could make no other inferences through the window about what features the gun may or may not have.

At a traffic stop...for something innocuous like a rolling stop lets say, an officer spots the rifle case and decides to exercise his 12031 authority to verify the firearms loaded condition which he can adequately accomplish through the window...completely hands off.

Does the mere presence of a firearm constitute probable cause to see if the gun is stolen by opening the case so that the serial number can be run? Does the mere presence of an AR type (a rare but legal type of gun) constitute probable cause to open the case and verify its features or AW registration status? I would say "no, PC doesnt exist" absent a LEO with an overactive imagination.

But if you look at most of the OLL problems there's been. The 12031 authority goes far beyond a chamber inspection to the point of a criminal prosecution that's nothing more than an investigation as to the legality of a rifle's configuration. 12031 is in effect, a stepping stone to allow law enforcement to leverage their imagination, or ignorance as the case my be, into a harassment of a law abiding gun owner.

How hard would it be to get a legislator to advance a mod to 12031, that would explicitly spell out the limits of a 12031 search. Basically say "chamber check only based on 12031, any further investigation would need to be based on PC articulated prior to the 12031 search". Effectively the 4th amendment breach that is 12031 would remain, but when an officer exercises 12031 authority the would create a fruit of the poisonous tree situation for any non loaded/unloaded violations or PC based on that search.

1911_sfca
11-27-2007, 5:43 PM
Ok, so lets suppose as a thought experiment. You have a gun case with a inset clear window in centered over the breech of a rifle. The rifle placed in the case has a flag or some other means that clearly shows through the window that the gun is unloaded. A knowledgeable person might properly ID the receiver as an AR type, but could make no other inferences through the window about what features the gun may or may not have.

OK, interesting thought experiment, I'll go with it.

I was not trained to determine whether a firearm is loaded by looking at it through a plastic window. 12031 gives me the right to inspect the firearm, and to do that, I would hold it in my hands and inspect different parts of it. There is more to a loaded gun than a round in the chamber.

At a traffic stop...for something innocuous like a rolling stop lets say, an officer spots the rifle case and decides to exercise his 12031 authority to verify the firearms loaded condition which he can adequately accomplish through the window...completely hands off.

Says who? It would be extremely simple for me to articulate to a judge why looking at part of the gun through a plastic window was insufficient, and I needed to remove the gun from the case.

Does the mere presence of a firearm constitute probable cause to see if the gun is stolen by opening the case so that the serial number can be run?

No. But reasonable suspicion could be developed by asking questions on further investigation, or by running the serial number you observed while inspecting the gun.

Does the mere presence of an AR type (a rare but legal type of gun) constitute probable cause to open the case and verify its features or AW registration status?

I don't know what an "AR type" of gun is, but I would be able to easily justify why I would need to open the case and take a look at the gun to investigate further. #1 would be to look at the markings on the gun to identify what it is, and whether it is prohibited by name.

I would say "no, PC doesnt exist" absent a LEO with an overactive imagination.

LEOs are trained to have active imaginations, and not trust everything they are told, and when their suspicions are piqued, they investigate further. That's how law enforcement works.

But if you look at most of the OLL problems there's been. The 12031 authority goes far beyond a chamber inspection to the point of a criminal prosecution that's nothing more than an investigation as to the legality of a rifle's configuration. 12031 is in effect, a stepping stone to allow law enforcement to leverage their imagination, or ignorance as the case my be, into a harassment of a law abiding gun owner.

If I pull you over because there is no license plate on the back of your car, and then when I get up to your driver's door, I see there is a temporary registration tag taped to your front window because you just bought the car from a dealer, I'm under no obligation to get back in my car and drive off. I can run out your license, make sure you have a registration and insurance, and well hey.. if the return comes back that you have a no bail warrant for murder, I am still allowed to arrest you and search you and your surroundings incident to arrest. And if I find a kilo of cocaine under your seat, it's not going to be thrown out at trial. Although the defense attorney will try, saying that I shouldn't have stopped you in the first place. But that's not the way it works.

It works the same way for firearms. An officer does have certain very strict limitations on what he can and can not do. But if he is doing a legal inspection, and comes across something on the gun or otherwise that raises his suspicion level, he may continue to investigate that, he doesn't have to say, "yup, it's unloaded. Here you go." and ignore the edge of the RPG launcher that was sticking out from underneath the gun case.

I hope that was somewhat illustrative.

How hard would it be to get a legislator to advance a mod to 12031, that would explicitly spell out the limits of a 12031 search.

It is not a search, it is an inspection. The officer is allowed to inspect the weapon to determine whether it is loaded.

Basically say "chamber check only based on 12031, any further investigation would need to be based on PC articulated prior to the 12031 search". Effectively the 4th amendment breach that is 12031 would remain, but when an officer exercises 12031 authority the would create a fruit of the poisonous tree situation for any non loaded/unloaded violations or PC based on that search.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. If the officer starts with a 12031 inspection, and develops further RS/PC based on what he sees/smells/hears/.., he does not have to desist, and the poisonous fruits doctrine does not apply.

MudCamper
11-27-2007, 9:44 PM
...what would I show this guy to make it as simple as possible for him to at least consider the fact that he might be misinformed?

This: http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaRifles.pdf

and this: http://www.calguns.net/copmemo2.pdf

I carry them in my rifle case.

artherd
11-28-2007, 1:03 AM
...what would I show this guy to make it as simple as possible for him to at least consider the fact that he might be misinformed? If this LEO, who is at my house for some cake, would be that adamant about the wrong information, I would hate to run into this situation with him or any other LEO with the same mentality and my legal AR configured rifle. So what would you suggest? The simpler the better. Thanks
See the post above mine for some good info.

Unfortunately, some people cannot be convinced by anything other than my legal foot up their ***. When he looses his house after (knowingly) falsely arresting me, maybe that will get thru. He probally thinks he is protected personally by his department, advise him to look up Title 42 USC Section 1983.

btw, the quote of the night by this LEO was this... "you guys are just bending the laws so that you can have assault weapons". I am no thug and I thought it sort of an insult for him to say that to me.
I have you beat, I was told much the same thing by head consul for the State of California, Department of Justice, Firearms Division.

I countered with "..Actually, Alison, what we are trying to do is own legal long-rifles while fully complying with California law, and if you have a problem with that, this conversation is over."

Ford8N
11-28-2007, 4:06 AM
Try and go on a ride along at your local police station.


And tell them to go to CalGuns and read about OLL'S!

M. Sage
11-28-2007, 5:42 AM
How would you like it if your gun was stolen and a cop stopped a car with the crooks who stole it.

... and? It's this kind of "logic" that gets us wonderful laws like the AW ban. Our rights are worth more than "well, it could happen."

How would you like it if you were driving to the range and your license plate light was out? You want to endure a search because of that? 12031 is like saying an officer has PC to inspect your bank records at will to make sure you're not embezzling. Just because a gun is present doesn't mean (safe handling aside) that it should be assumed that it's loaded. And I really resent the fact that this can be used for fishing. Talk about an end-run around your rights...

Also, upon finding a weapon, like a firearm, police can reasonably "run" the firearm to ensure that the detained person can legally possess a firearm. Again, it's called reasonable suspicion.

There we are again: assuming the worst and trading our liberty for false security. Is it reasonable to assume that a person that's got guns in cases on his back seat, hearing protection, and targets is going to go kill someone? Heck, no! What about if it's hunting gear in the car with the guns? "Reasonable" is being stretched out of shape these days.

They can run the firearm pursuant to a 496 P.C. investigation.

... because possessing a firearm is a sure sign that it's stolen?

They can examine the firearm to determine the firearm is legal per the penal code(assault weapon, high cap mags,etc.)

...and because it's reasonable to presume that any firearms are illegal and have illegal accessories. On the magazines, remember that nowhere is possession of a high-cap illegal. How would you convince an officer it was legal? How would the officer build evidence for an arrest that it's not legal? You can't and neither can an officer, outside of you saying "oh, yeah, I imported or manufactured this last week! Nice, huh?"

The cops are not the problem. They just enforce the laws.

Oh, absolutely. We need to get things like 12031 off the books, for sure. The sooner the better. The law is poorly-written and obviously is a way of sliding around Constitutional rights. However, good police work isn't assuming that the presence of guns equals the presence of crime, which is what 12031 searches amount to.

WolfMansDad
11-28-2007, 7:42 AM
Letís partner together as Americans. Read up on the law, get involved with government and get our freedoms back to the way they should be. Stop harping on the police that are out there fighting a loosing battle because we donít give them the support they need to win.

+1

Well said, goodfella. Thanks for your input!

bwiese
11-28-2007, 8:30 AM
How would you like it if your gun was stolen and a cop stopped a car with the crooks who stole it. Maybe they were on their way to rob some innocent folks with your gun(s). So this time they look at the gun, determine it's not loaded and leave. They don't check it for wants, don't confirm the ownership, just check to ensure it's unloaded and in a locked box and leave. Sounds like bad police work to me. I would hope that the police in my community are more thorough than that.

Poor poor poor argument.

Why should a gun be treated any differently from a toaster or TV or hedge trimmer & rivet guns?

Do we need license & reg & DROS system for hedge trimmers & rivet guns?

A significant fraction of cops are inefficient enough anyway, that to allow them 'special object treatment' for guns (as opposed to TVs or hedge trimmers or rivet guns) doesn't change the big picture - it results in far more hassling of honest folks than it ever catches in criminals.

MudCamper
11-28-2007, 8:35 AM
Reading jgoodfella1's post makes me sad. It does because he doesn't understand these statements:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

kmca
11-28-2007, 8:40 AM
Do you think the "misplaced anger" may be just a slight case of fear. I hear about people getting arrested because they have a legally configured OLL only to have the charges dropped. Is there no harm/no foul because the arresting officer doesn't know the law? Is that fair? What about the time spent in custody? The bail? The attorney's fees? It's been said that the LEO can't possibly know all the laws. I agree, however, if they are going to enforce a particular law, they should know it. We don't know if the LEO is one of the "arrest'em now and let the court sort it out" type so might it not be better not to even let them see the OLL?

ChessRatz
11-28-2007, 8:45 AM
This: http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaRifles.pdf

and this: http://www.calguns.net/copmemo2.pdf

I carry them in my rifle case.
Thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for.

Artherd, thanks for your comments as well.

I dont want to argue with him about this but if he is open to clearing things up for himself, I will hand him a printout. Honestly, I hope he does give this information the time it deserves. It would make him a better (more prepared) LEO and his position within the department would allow him to pass along the information. I hope this is not wishful thinking.

bwiese
11-28-2007, 8:51 AM
KMCA,
You are right. And I think the next cop that can't tell rimfire from centerfire and can't even take a cursory glance at 12276.1PC is going to have some interesting times.

bwiese
11-28-2007, 9:18 AM
Guns in respect to 496 P.C. investigations are not treated any differently from a television or other item with a serial number. They all go into stolen property systems. If your toaster is stolen..... if a cop runs a toasters serial number at a traffic stop and "voila" it's stolen.

OK, I'm driving two beater cars down the street each with a busted taillight.
One has a trunk full of locked, unloaded OLL rifles.
The other has 10 new toasters in the trunk. (substitute hedgetrimmers or rivet guns).

Doing this statewide, throughout the year, I will bet the toasters will get run for numbers at less than 2% of stops where the trunk is opened. As for the guns, well...


From an officer safety standpoint, in 2005 55 police officers were murdered in the line of duty in 53 separate incidents. 50 of the 55 officers killed in the line of duty were murdered with firearms. Most officers killed in the line of duty are killed with firearms at traffic stops.

Poor example, as that makes policing, on a per cop basis, a far safer job than a 7/11 night clerk or cab driver.

The loss numbers, total from all causes, are 100+/year and IIRC I think they hover around 120-140, can't remember exact #. The main difference btwn your 50+ number and my 120+ number is car accidents. Most of these accidents are not chases, "just driving". Also, some fair fraction of the above 50+ # are from shootings where the cop was shot with his own gun.

Given these low rates and overall job safety that's no excuse for rights violations of legit gunowners.

Just based on pure statistics, Do you think a police officer should be more concerned if he sees a gun or a toaster at a traffic stop. Do you really want to dispute fact with feeling?

Since I've reviewed those stats and added my comments above, I would think that if an officer doesn't like his guaranteed-defined-benefit pension with guaranteed medical and COLAs, then he can go get a private sector job like the rest of us.

We need lic/reg DROS to ensure that the mentally ill, convicted felons, and people with restraining orders such as domestic violence suspects don't purchase firearms. Do you feel that these people should be allowed to own guns? Is this your position?

No I don't. But the problem is that these systems always turn into rights violations and political control schemes.

And since CA has higher crime than states without these, it must not be doing the job, so why do something largely useless?

Your statement about rights vs responsibility cuts both ways with regards to cops' duties/behaviors. When a cop pops somebody for a 12280(a)/12276.1 violation for a rimfire gun cuz he can't read generic AW definition, then he needs to LOSE HIS JOB AND A CHUNK OF MONEY.

ChessRatz
11-28-2007, 9:36 AM
I think Bwiese is right. Its the LEO job to know this information just like I'm responsible to know what is involved in my line of work. Things change and when they do, I need to get my self up to date on what is current. Its a matter of responsibility which allows us to do our job to its fullest capacity.

hoffmang
11-28-2007, 9:50 AM
Do you know what happens to a public company CEO who doesn't know US GAAP and Securities Laws? He goes to jail.

I wonder why ignorance of the law is an excuse for a public employee? I sure wish it worked in the private sector.

-Gene

Glock22Fan
11-28-2007, 9:53 AM
Having done quite a bit of roleplaying with our local sheriffs, I'm well aware how easy it is for a deputy to get shot at a traffic stop. Playing a bad guy, I "killed" one deputy wannabe three times over before she gave up and moved on to the next scenario, nearly in tears. But this does not mean that officers have to get paranoid about gun owners in general.

I was in rural Utah recently. I described the California fear of guns to my friends who live there. They were amazed at the thought of a "Man with gun" call. They said I should try phoning their local station and reporting a "man with gun." They said that unless I was obviously reporting criminal use of such gun, I would be laughed at and told "So what?". They told me that if I visited their local grocery store enough, it wouldn't be long before I saw openly carried firearms and nobody would bat an eyelid.

If I was an officer, I would be concerned if I saw a gun laying near a driver's hand, or the hand was out of sight. But a gun inside a gun case? Come on, guys, why is that a threat to you? Even if loaded? And why is a gun in a guncase more likely to be stolen (and need its numbers run) than a toaster?

bwiese
11-28-2007, 10:35 AM
Why have we as Californians not addressed this. I lobbied for it in LA.

You guys want to get something together to submit to POST?

Unfortunately POST removed the chapter on CA AWs. Sources tell me it was "too hard" and took too much time to train in an already busy schedule.

This actually was mentioned in the Aug 16 DOJ hearing (and NRA submissions, I believe).

Crazed_SS
11-28-2007, 11:26 AM
Exactly. And what steps as taxpayers have we taken to ensure that our civil servants get this updated training as all LEO training standards are set by the state (P.O.S.T.) Our laws change every year. Evey year I have to learn something new with my job and I'm always sent to new training to keep up with my job changes.

Why have we as Californians not addressed this. I lobbied for it in LA.

You guys want to get something together to submit to POST?


Well Cops do get the Assault Weapons Identification Guide from the DOJ. They sell them at the local police store along with quick reference penal code guides, ticket templates, and all that stuff

Unfortunately the guide outdated and confusing. There's no mention of Harrott and anyone who read it would think the whole "series" thing still applies. The DOJ needs to update that guide. That way if a cop is confused about the legality of an offlist rifle, you wont have to argue with him.. just ask to see his AW identification guide and point out how the book says it's legal. Of course the DOJ would never update the stupid guide or send our any clarifying memos to LE, so the problems will continue.

I've had some experience with crap like this before. I think I mentioned that I'm into cars and during the whole sport compact import craze, cops were issuing tickets like crazy for modified exhaust. The thing is, exhaust modifications arent necessarily illegal. In fact, the vast majority of modifications are perfectly legal.

The CHP issued a memo explaining this and all of a sudden the number of people being ticketed for modified exhausts dropped..
http://www.pointhappy.com/cvcars/calregs.htm#glance
http://www.bikersrights.com/states/california/chp/chp98-100/chp98100.html

I think a memo like that concerning OLLs coming from a state LE agency would do wonders for firearms enthusiasts.

Wulf
11-28-2007, 11:46 AM
1911 and Jgood,

You guys are missing the point of my post.

12031 suspends a constitutional right....a very significant event.... for a very specific purpose....assuring that a gun is unloaded....based on a very malleable standard....the officers suspicion that a container may contain a firearm that could be loaded. Personally I think suspending a constitutional right based on the difference in threat to the public of a loaded cased weapon vs unloaded is not significant enough to rate this exemption, but that's an argument for another day.

The purpose of the "case with a window" example was to highlight the notion that 12031 searches routinely exceed the parameters of the law. Jgood said it himself, it would be "...bad police work.." to stop after the loaded/unloaded check. Since when is it bad police work to stay within the limits of the authority of the law?

If you have a warrant to search somebody's garage for a stolen Ford, do you run the VIN, check the tread wear, and look in the ash try for roaches on the Chevy that you find in the garage? Why dont you go and look under their bed just to be through. Why not go through their correspondence and audit their tax records while you're at it. Search warrants have limits. The limit of 12031 is the chamber.

The problem with 12031, is that its so ripe for abuse. Its a tribute to officer ethics that is not flagrantly abused (or perhaps most officers are just ignorant of the opportunity 12031 gives them). If an officer has PC that a crime, any crime, has been or is about to be commited they have all the legal tools then need to search for what they need to search for without 12031. If the officer has nothing, a "looks like a gun case" 12031 search should not be a backdoor to a fishing expedition for another gun related issue or any other issue. To prevent abuse of 12031, I think its reasonable to make the only charge that can flow from a 12031 search a loaded gun charge.

1911_sfca
11-28-2007, 2:59 PM
Unfortunately POST removed the chapter on CA AWs. Sources tell me it was "too hard" and took too much time to train in an already busy schedule.

This actually was mentioned in the Aug 16 DOJ hearing (and NRA submissions, I believe).

Yes, that was me who made the comment. :-) My firearms instructor also mentioned he was glad that POST had removed it because it was too complicated to teach...

Edit to add: I think Randi Rossi (? the guy sitting on the right hand side) was surprised to hear this, and replied to me during the hearing that he was going to look into this. Never heard anything else on it.

1911_sfca
11-28-2007, 3:06 PM
1911 and Jgood,

You guys are missing the point of my post.

12031 suspends a constitutional right....a very significant event.... for a very specific purpose....assuring that a gun is unloaded....based on a very malleable standard....the officers suspicion that a container may contain a firearm that could be loaded. Personally I think suspending a constitutional right based on the difference in threat to the public of a loaded cased weapon vs unloaded is not significant enough to rate this exemption, but that's an argument for another day.

No, I didn't miss your point, I get it. This is a point that needs to be brought up with the state legislature. They thought there was a rash of people carrying around loaded guns and fomenting violence in the mid '60s, so they enacted this law to allow LEOs to intervene before, and not after, the guns were used for violence.

If you feel that you can convince the legislature that this is no longer a problem, or the discretion is too broad, it can be dealt with there. Otherwise, you're beating a dead horse.

The purpose of the "case with a window" example was to highlight the notion that 12031 searches routinely exceed the parameters of the law. Jgood said it himself, it would be "...bad police work.." to stop after the loaded/unloaded check. Since when is it bad police work to stay within the limits of the authority of the law?

Your opinion here is different than that of the appeals courts who have looked at the issue. I don't know what else to tell you.

If you have a warrant to search somebody's garage for a stolen Ford, do you run the VIN, check the tread wear, and look in the ash try for roaches on the Chevy that you find in the garage? Why dont you go and look under their bed just to be through. Why not go through their correspondence and audit their tax records while you're at it. Search warrants have limits. The limit of 12031 is the chamber.

I don't really understand your analogy. Those situations are apples and oranges when I consider what, as a LEO, I have to do in each of them.


The problem with 12031, is that its so ripe for abuse.

I feel your pain, but I don't see the examples of flagrant abuse that should be so rampant. I am open to the idea that 12031 is a violation of the 4th amendment, but insofar as the courts have explained to my satisfaction through their decisions that it is NOT a violation, as a LEO, I have to abide by that decision. Of course officer discretion will always enter into a situation like this, but the outlines of fair play are pretty well established, to my mind.


Its a tribute to officer ethics that is not flagrantly abused (or perhaps most officers are just ignorant of the opportunity 12031 gives them). If an officer has PC that a crime, any crime, has been or is about to be commited they have all the legal tools then need to search for what they need to search for without 12031. If the officer has nothing, a "looks like a gun case" 12031 search should not be a backdoor to a fishing expedition for another gun related issue or any other issue. To prevent abuse of 12031, I think its reasonable to make the only charge that can flow from a 12031 search a loaded gun charge.

Again, I haven't heard of those abundance of situations where 12031 was used as a tool for a fishing expedition. If I wanted to go on one, I wouldn't be embarking with 12031, that's for sure.. it's far too limited.

You wanted to go on a thought experiment, and I went for the ride and reached certain conclusions. If you have other, more concrete cases you would like to discuss, let's do so (maybe in a separate thread).. But I think we have pretty thoroughly explored this issue for now.

bwiese
11-28-2007, 3:39 PM
Yes, that was me who made the comment. :-) My firearms instructor also mentioned he was glad that POST had removed it because it was too complicated to teach...

Sorry, I forgot it was you. I'm getting old, keeping track of names vs faces vs Calguns userIDs.

But it was a great point you made.

Edit to add: I think Randi Rossi (? the guy sitting on the right hand side) was surprised to hear this, and replied to me during the hearing that he was going to look into this. Never heard anything else on it.

That was Dale Ferranto, Asst. DOJ FD director. You might remember the 'Ferranto Commission' memos about updating the Kasler 'series' list in early 2006. I believe he's still there, serving out his time til 3% @ 50 kicks in.

DOJ BoF is populated by a lotta ex-narcs (BNE), that have burned down a bit and are on retirement cruise control.

In fact, as a Friend Of Calguns pointed out last week, undercover CA DOJ gun-related operations are most often run using DOJ BNE guys (including the failed Pomona sting back in Lockyer days). He said he'd seen quite a few real biker-looking types at gunshows and then see the same dudes shaved and in suit & tie up in Sacramento offices.

Iggy ain't that undercover and DOJ FD-now-BoF is small-budget/low staff count (except for clericals running DROS checks etc.) The narco guys have to do something between CAMP raids...

1911_sfca
11-28-2007, 3:53 PM
Sorry, I forgot it was you. I'm getting old, keeping track of names vs faces vs Calguns userIDs.

But it was a great point you made.



No prob, and thanks. For those who weren't there, my point was basically that as someone who is trained as a LEO, the proposed regulations would make it more difficult, not less, to understand what an assault weapon is and identify such in the field. Given that the rules were already so complicated that POST had removed assault weapons from the learning domain on guns, I would say things are too complicated to begin with.


That was Dale Ferranto, Asst. DOJ FD director.

Ah, yes.

You might remember the 'Ferranto Commission' memos about updating the Kasler 'series' list in early 2006. I believe he's still there, serving out his time til 3% @ 50 kicks in.

DOJ BoF is populated by a lotta ex-narcs (BNE), that have burned down a bit and are on retirement cruise control.

In fact, as a Friend Of Calguns pointed out last week, undercover CA DOJ gun-related operations are most often run using DOJ BNE guys (including the failed Pomona sting back in Lockyer days). He said he'd seen quite a few real biker-looking types at gunshows and then see the same dudes shaved and in suit & tie up in Sacramento offices.

Iggy ain't that undercover and DOJ FD-now-BoF is small-budget/low staff count (except for clericals running DROS checks etc.) The narco guys have to do something between CAMP raids...

Heheh. Amusing.

M. Sage
11-28-2007, 6:26 PM
You sound like me when I was fifteen.

First and foremost, you're right: you don't know me. Also, I don't recall putting any personal attacks in my response to your post, so I'll thank you to leave them out of yours. You sound really angry in your posts...

FYI: I'm 31, a mechanic who's seen a lot of crap (not people killed... yet), has lived in some really sketchy parts of town, I've known people killed and murdered, had occasional run-ins with gang members, and have family who are or were LE.

Nowhere in my post did I mention that cops are to blame. What did I say? I said that these laws are moronic and need to go. I also said that those laws are a blatant violation of our rights. Thankfully, I learned all about individual rights... from a cop who would be red-faced at hearing about laws like 12031.

Did I cry about a traffic stop? No. I've never cried about one, even when an officer was rude and unprofessional (came to the window shouting and cursing at me - the exhaust of the car I was driving was smoking, that's all).

Do I dislike the police going after criminals? Hell, no! Do I resent the thought of living in a police state, where my liberties have been traded off in ill-fated attempts at trying to apprehend those criminals? Hell, yes!

The defining difference between the good guys and the bad guys is that the good guys play by rules, they have morality. They will not resort to evil means to fight evil.

The problem with the loss of our freedoms we've experienced and you've acknowledged is the attitude of "well, it's for the greater good."

I have to walk away for a few minutes now, I'm so pissed I almost threw my headset.

hoffmang
11-28-2007, 7:56 PM
If you feel that you can convince the legislature that this is no longer a problem, or the discretion is too broad, it can be dealt with there. Otherwise, you're beating a dead horse.

Your opinion here is different than that of the appeals courts who have looked at the issue. I don't know what else to tell you.


Do note that the appeals courts in question were California State Courts and not Federal Courts. Add to that the coming change that courts will now have two fundamental rights at question when reviewing 12031, and I think things are going to change there absent the legislature.

-Gene

artherd
11-28-2007, 8:24 PM
Our laws change every year. Evey year I have to learn something new with my job
Me too, it's called living. In a world.
and I'm always sent to new training to keep up with my job changes.
Funny, I have to do it and pay for it all entirely on my own time and money.

And when I break a law, I am personally liable for every time I do so. You are (largely, except under Title 42 sec 1983) protected.
You guys want to get something together to submit to POST?
We have, the CLEO of this state is purposely obstruficating the issue.

artherd
11-28-2007, 8:25 PM
Do you know what happens to a public company CEO who doesn't know US GAAP and Securities Laws?
I kinda doubt he does :)

I do find it funny that we live in a world where the police are exempt from their own laws, where they have weapons who's possession we are not allowed. I don't like where that is headed.

Wulf
11-29-2007, 6:38 AM
Me too, it's called living. In a world.

Funny, I have to do it and pay for it all entirely on my own time and money.

Oh man, what a can of worms that is.

I used to work with some Federal guys as a private consultant. It made me crazy when they used to whine about having to go to "training" or a "conference" at some far flung destination.... at government expense on government time. In 15 years of doing that work I got exactly 2 days of company funded, company time professional development, and I had to beg for that and I ate the 30 miles of mileage it took to get there and I bought my own lunch.

It used to be that the private sector made enough more than the government sector that it made sense for private sector to pay their own way, but I dont see the discrepancy any more. I have a cop friend that makes well more than I do with less education and fewer years on the job; mostly because he makes time and half for the OT that I do for free or at straight time. If the public said to Peace Officers "you need 16 hours of professional development training on new laws every 2 years, that you get on your own time at your own expense, or you loose your authorization to come to work" they would be no worse off that a real estate agent or anybody else who needs a state license to do their job.

WolfMansDad
11-29-2007, 9:02 AM
I do find it funny that we live in a world where the police are exempt from their own laws, where they have weapons who's possession we are not allowed. I don't like where that is headed.

Me too, and that's why I'm involved in this whole OLL issue. It's one area in the struggle between the rights of the individual and the power of the government where I think we can make significant progress.