PDA

View Full Version : Highway patrol vs O.L.L.


Pages : [1] 2

Lou
12-31-2007, 6:52 PM
Well it finally happened,to me anyways. Going from my old fab 10 i was very excited to finish my first OLL build. Me and my cousin decided to go out and sight our rifles at a nearby river bottom where it's legal to shoot. We decided to sight my cousins .17 hmr first and all went well. Then it came time for mine. I have a 16" bushmaster upper with a freefloated handguard built on a doublestar lower with the bullet button. On top was a new millett tactical 4.5x16x50. After making sure it was on paper at 100yds i moved back to 200yds. A few shots later i was within an inch if the bullseye. As my cousin was down the river changing the target i caught movement to the left of me in the bushes. 3 CHP officers with their ar-15s drawn on me. I could see one of them saying something but since i had hearing protection on i could'nt hear a word he was saying. When i finally got them off he was yelling " i said put your hands up, move away from the rifle and get on the ground". The one officer yelling was ticked while the other two were pretty calm. I mentioned that my cousin was down the river so there would'nt be any suprises. One officer went to get him while the ticked one dealt with me. After getting my I.D. and checking me for weapons he went for my rifle. Now is when i start hoping everything iv'e read on these lowers is valid. i watch this officer push the magzine release button with all his might to release the mag and nothing happens i feel a sense of relief until he starts cussing and getting even more ticked. Then i realise he has never dealt with an OLL. and i may be in for a bad day. As he chambered and extracted every round I explained to him what i had. He then wanted to know how i loaded it if the magazine dont come out and i explained that i crack it open. or use a tool to take the magazine out . The other officer finaly shows up with my cousin and both had a smile on their face. As they waited for dispatch to radio back with our info he started on my magazine. You know he has a 20 round magazine in here? I start to tell him it's a 10 round, but he interupts me and says i know the difference between a 10 round and a 20 round magazine. Look i have a thirty round in mine. I finish telling him that it was a 10 round max in a 20 round case. Finally our info came back clear and he asked his partners what they should do. The other officers said it was legal to shoot there but it would be best to pack it up for the day. WE reply with a yes sir and start gathering our stuff. The one officer then tells me "leave your rifle where it is until you get your stuff loaded then come back and pick it up. All in all we got out of there o.k. At first i thought that might be the end of the black rifle for me. I feel as long as you stay within the law and just explain what you have without dictating the laws to an officer you will be fine. I dont blame him for being on edge. Heck i would hate to be up against one of these rifles, but i think he could have assessed the situation a little better like the other officers did. So guys dont be affraid to build your rifle just do it within the laws guidline. If you do get approached by an officer. Look at it from his point of view first before you start demanding your rights.

Matt C
12-31-2007, 6:56 PM
Only we can have those! No fair!

AJAX22
12-31-2007, 7:01 PM
If its legal to shoot there, then you shouldn't have to leave.

Them telling you that you were done for the day is a prime example of SPS (small penis syndrome)

Ech0Sierra
12-31-2007, 7:09 PM
I think that their department rifles are off limits to modifications and he was jealous... Anyway, good job handling it calmly and assertivvely, that was close! I think that if I was in that situation, I would have wound up with some 5.56 M855 in my upper torso. I'm notoriously deaf in earmuffs.

Diablo
12-31-2007, 7:09 PM
Good that everything turned out OK. Too bad that some officers leave a bad impression when you meet them. I said some officers, not all....

SemiAutoSam
12-31-2007, 7:23 PM
I had a friend that I use to shoot with when I lived in the LA area and he had this saying with regard to the LEO's and Government types that didn't like Law Abiding citizens to own Firearms in general.

His saying was Justice = Just Us. as in Firearms ownership is only for the LEO's and those that supposedly enforce the "LAW".

With regard to the "LAW" I have pretty much always been of the opinion that if there is no victim IE no injured party there is no crime.

And with that the premise that a majority of the so called LAW'S are merely to line the coffers of Government and to control the population not to protect the population.

Only we can have those! No fair!

kermit315
12-31-2007, 7:26 PM
where did this happen at? just curious.

Fjold
12-31-2007, 7:37 PM
Well handled by you.

The next OLL owners will have a much easier time with all three of those officers because of what you did.


Bravo-Zulu!

:hurray:

SnWnMe
12-31-2007, 7:58 PM
If I were LE and I see a guy who is obviously plinking I think I will have sense enough to conclude that no crime is being committed and I should not waste public funds going after some hick shooting a rifle for pleasure when there are far more criminals deserving to be brought to justice.

eta34
12-31-2007, 8:03 PM
Did they ask or tell you to leave?

SnWnMe
12-31-2007, 8:06 PM
Yeah they told em to pack it up for the day according to the OP.

After the LE verified that it was legal to shoot there :rolleyes:

This is where our taxes go.

Ech0Sierra
12-31-2007, 8:07 PM
I'd rather see them assaulting a crackhouse or meth lab than harassing an innocent sport shooter with those TAXPAYER-FUNDED AR15s. I want to see my sales tax help society, not annoy CalGuns members.

4 Brigada
12-31-2007, 8:14 PM
3 CHP officers with their ar-15s drawn on me

When i finally got them off he was yelling " i said put your hands up, move away from the rifle and get on the ground".

Get on the ground? exactly how? That CHP officer was definetly sufffering from a dose of SPS (small penis syndrome).

SnWnMe
12-31-2007, 8:16 PM
Too much Rainbow 6.

Ech0Sierra
12-31-2007, 8:20 PM
Wannabe SWAT? Maybe played a liittle too much Cowboys and Indians as a kid?
SPS? Authority issues?

FEDUPWBS
12-31-2007, 8:24 PM
Funny how "the law" doesnt know the law. Shouldnt AAA/CHP be out harrassing people about tinted windows and important stuff like that? WTF are they doing in a river bed?

Bizcuits
12-31-2007, 8:30 PM
Funny how "the law" doesnt know the law. Shouldnt AAA/CHP be out harrassing people about tinted windows and important stuff like that? WTF are they doing in a river bed?

Depending on where the OP is located, CHP does help, assist and take the place of patrol men in some cities / counties. Such as Oakland.

WokMaster1
12-31-2007, 8:33 PM
Tag for more info.. location, etc.:D

Ech0Sierra
12-31-2007, 8:42 PM
This is my best guess.
911: 911 Emergency
Scared Hippie: THERE'S 2 MEN WITH A FULL-AUTO MILITARY SNIPER RIFLE IN THE RIVERBED!
911: I'm sending some units your way.
Scared Hippie: THEY'RE SHOOTING SOMEONE!
911: Who?
Scared Hippie: I'm not sure, but they're shooting at something.
911: Attention all units, we have a 12031 possible 187 in progress.

Maddog5150
12-31-2007, 8:49 PM
your lucky one of them didnt tackle you through some furniture and break your hip. I do believe there is a video of CHP doing that to someone who had a firearm in a non threatening manner :D

fast318
12-31-2007, 8:51 PM
I think I just might do a "Hello Kitty" themed AR just to avoid situations like this.

Diablo
12-31-2007, 8:52 PM
Shouldnt AAA/CHP be out harrassing people about tinted windows and important stuff like that? WTF are they doing in a river bed?


Funny s**T..

:rofl2:

USN CHIEF
12-31-2007, 8:54 PM
Funny how "the law" doesnt know the law. Shouldnt AAA/CHP be out harrassing people about tinted windows and important stuff like that? WTF are they doing in a river bed?

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN part 2:eek:

Matt C
12-31-2007, 8:57 PM
I think I just might do a "Hello Kitty" themed AR just to avoid situations like this.

I bet that pink rifle would have saved me a lot of trouble. I was LOL imagining them showing THAT on the news and saying I was a terrorist.:D

WokMaster1
12-31-2007, 9:13 PM
I bet that pink rifle would have saved me a lot of trouble. I was LOL imagining them showing THAT on the news and saying I was a terrorist.:D

Have you thought about asking those reporters who called you that out for a casual non sexual lunch?:p

Mac
12-31-2007, 9:16 PM
....

Scarecrow Repair
12-31-2007, 9:19 PM
With regard to the "LAW" I have pretty much always been of the opinion that if there is no victim IE no injured party there is no crime.

Aye, there's the rub. How do you define "injury"? A simple definition is easily extended. Start with threatening to hit somebody -- no injury? Well, how about taking a swing at somebody and intentionally missing by a inch. No injury. How about threatening to shoot somebody? How about taking a gun out and aiming it but not actually shooting? How about shooting but intentionally missing? Does that last crime involve only possible hearing damage?

See, no injury, no crime. And if there is no crime, are you entitled to swing back or shoot back (or first)?

This gets extended into an injury because the threat gave you good cause to think you might be injured.

Then the nanny staters extend this into mere possession of a gun. Loading up your car for a trip to the range? Oooh, that's scary! I was worried for my kids' sake! It could have gone off by accident!

There is no clear difference between harmless threat and actual damage. When you move the most obvious non-injury threats, like shooting to miss, into the category of injury and crime, then the next most obvious non-injury threats come to the fore, like brandishing a loadedgun, then just carrying, then mere possession.

I have no idea what the solution is. It's not as easy as telling the nanny staters to get a grip. It's just human nature. Deal with the big problems and the smaller problems suddenly look bigger. The better something is, the more the small imperfections stand out. There simply is not clear cut difference between actual injury and threat of injury. I'd hate to think that aiming a loaded gun would not be considered a crime, but where is the injury?

Steyr_223
12-31-2007, 9:22 PM
Wow. Interesting 1st post ever..Welcome to the forum..Is that you Iggy?

:)

Matt C
12-31-2007, 9:22 PM
He did define it. There has to be a victim. If I "almost" hit someone, there is still a victim (that someone). I'm not sure that should be much more than an infraction unless there is an underlying crime like extortion, but still there is a victim. If I just own something, who is the victim?

valleyrat
12-31-2007, 9:37 PM
This is my best guess.
911: 911 Emergency
Scared Hippie: THERE'S 2 MEN WITH A FULL-AUTO MILITARY SNIPER RIFLE IN THE RIVERBED!
911: I'm sending some units your way.
Scared Hippie: THEY'RE SHOOTING SOMEONE!
911: Who?
Scared Hippie: I'm not sure, but they're shooting at something.
911: Attention all units, we have a 12031 possible 187 in progress.

:rofl2:

heyjak
12-31-2007, 9:57 PM
Calif. Highway Patrol = "AAA with a gun"

Sad, but true. Ever since the State Police & CHP were "joined". The professionalism & quality has gone downhill.
Remember the "Chiefs Syndrome"?:chris:

pieeater
12-31-2007, 10:04 PM
You've been around since the Fab 10 days and this is your first post?

hawk81
12-31-2007, 11:22 PM
Only in California will you hear some B.S. like this.:)

oaklander
12-31-2007, 11:33 PM
Shizzle!

I wonder what they would have done if they saw me shooting one of my (California legal) AKs?

They were probably just jealous because your rifle was nicer than theirs!!!

:D

Soldier415
12-31-2007, 11:33 PM
I'm from the government and I'm here to help

DANGERCLOSE
12-31-2007, 11:48 PM
i thought that chp was limited to using mini 14s due to the ar being considered to 'militaristic in the publics eye'.

daveyclimber
01-01-2008, 12:16 AM
CHP currently is issued National Guard surplus M-16 as I recall from news clips. This happened after the shootout with the bank robbers that were wearing body armor

ar15barrels
01-01-2008, 1:03 AM
Shouldnt AAA/CHP be out harrassing people about tinted windows and important stuff like that?
WTF are they doing in a river bed?

That's what I was wondering...
Perhaps the OP was too close to the road if the CHP could actually hear them shooting.
What's the state law say on distance you have to be from a public highway?
Seems that the CHP (what's the middle letter stand for?) ought to be working the "H"...

retired
01-01-2008, 2:16 AM
What's the state law say on distance you have to be from a public highway?
Seems that the CHP (what's the middle letter stand for?) ought to be working the "H"...

Calif. Vehicle Section 360:

"Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

Without another post by the OP, there is no way of knowing how close to the road they were, but the CHP could have jurisdiction whether it be the Highway that many may think is referring to a fwy. or just a street.

Also, generally speaking, within the state of Ca., the CHP handle all traffic/traffic accidents in unincorporated county areas. They can also handle crime. So, contrary to what some of the public believe (I'm not saying anyone here does), the CHP can become involved in traffic/crime situations on incidents in areas described in 360vc.

Also, police officers and deputies can cite on the fwys., even tho I sometimes had people tell me I couldn't. I didn't go looking for it, but there were fwys. in my area that we had to drive on to get from one area to another. If I saw a flagrant violation, I'd cite.

As far as the officer's confronting the OP with their rifles, what would you have them do; leave their rifles in their cars, walk down thier with a cup of coffee in one hand and a donut in another and just begin chit chatting with the OP who has an unknown type weapon with him.

Whether or not they received a call about someone shooting, with what may have appeared to be to the caller, an assault weapon or they regularly check that area out because there may have been problems in the past with some shooters (which of course we don't know, so this is conjecture); does nothing to negate the fact they need to practice officer safety methods to ensure they go home at the end of their shift (sorry for the long sentence). I don't know that I would have put him on the ground since there were three of us, but I definitely would have had him put his weapon on the ground and had him back up to check the weapon out. Once it was determined legal, I would have told them to have a nice day shooting and left.

Just because it is a legal shooting range, doesn't mean the shooters are legal. Lytle Creek in the old days and Pigeon Pass off of Hwy 39 in the Azusa mtns. are just two areas that come to mind where gangbangers used to go to shoot their full autos AKs/ARs. I was working the latter when it was closed overnight whe a public works guy got shot after he had driven by about a 1/4 mile.

I'm not addressing the one officer who, per the OP, was yelling and appeared angry with him, I'm merely addressing those who thought the officers shouldn't have approached him similarly armed.

For a moment, put yourself in their shoes, their mindset and what limited info they had and think how you would have approached the OP.

The OP is to be commended for his demeanor and overall handling of the situation, including advising them there was another downrange.

Lou
01-01-2008, 7:29 AM
Sorry for not checking in guys, new years plans. There is a river bed off of HWY 152 between red top and Dos palos (cenral cali) that is a popular shooting area. There is brass all over the place from .17 to 30.06. We also ride quads in the area so we set up in a position where we had a sand hill backdrop to ensure our bullets would bury, and good visibility in all directions. We also got there at the crack of dawn before most people are out. It's hard to say why CHP showed up. If nearby ranchers heard the shots, or if we were spotted from the highway by someone who didnt know the area. Yeah i've been around since the fab 10. In fact it's still sitting in my safe. I never really liked it so i didnt shoot it much. It was'nt til rescently that i got wind of O.L.L.s and started researching them. All seemed like it was on the up and up so i built one. My first time out with it to sight it in and this happens. I'll tell you when i was sitting there i did'nt want anything to do with this gun anymore. It took a while for me to re-focus and realize that i had nothing to worry about...gun wise. I looked at my gun in pieces. Scope (legal), upper- no bayonete lug no flash hider (target crown) no tactical rails (free-floated) no problem, butt-stock -ace skeleton (i'm good), total length 34" (sweet), Lower- bullet button installed and officer could not release it (oh yeah). My only concern was the empty mag i had and the full one in my pocket (10 rounders of course). I really was trying to avoid the reload issue. Even though my rifle did'nt have some of the features listed above i shouldnt have worried if it did. As long as it was'nt shorter than 30" and my mags were only ten rounds, and i had a mag lock device, i was good. I'm just glad they did'nt come up when i was reloading and my mag well was empty. I may have froze and not got the magazine in. Now i know to be aware when loading a mag. Have your fresh one ready and do it quickly. It would also be good practice to look around first. I think the one officer that was cool headed asked us to pack it up for the day in order to just get us out of there. The ticked officer was looking for something to get us on.
I know this was my first post, but i have been around here often picking you brains. I do think this encounter would encourage others that might be a little leary on building this type of rifle to go ahead and do it. Just learn what you can from this site. It has all the answers. Lastly i would like to thank all the members of this site for all your information. It's been a great guide on my build and has kept it legal.

SnWnMe
01-01-2008, 8:05 AM
Calif. Vehicle Section 360:



Without another post by the OP, there is no way of knowing how close to the road they were, but the CHP could have jurisdiction whether it be the Highway that many may think is referring to a fwy. or just a street.

Also, generally speaking, within the state of Ca., the CHP handle all traffic/traffic accidents in unincorporated county areas. They can also handle crime. So, contrary to what some of the public believe (I'm not saying anyone here does), the CHP can become involved in traffic/crime situations on incidents in areas described in 360vc.

Also, police officers and deputies can cite on the fwys., even tho I sometimes had people tell me I couldn't. I didn't go looking for it, but there were fwys. in my area that we had to drive on to get from one area to another. If I saw a flagrant violation, I'd cite.

As far as the officer's confronting the OP with their rifles, what would you have them do; leave their rifles in their cars, walk down thier with a cup of coffee in one hand and a donut in another and just begin chit chatting with the OP who has an unknown type weapon with him.

Whether or not they received a call about someone shooting, with what may have appeared to be to the caller, an assault weapon or they regularly check that area out because there may have been problems in the past with some shooters (which of course we don't know, so this is conjecture); does nothing to negate the fact they need to practice officer safety methods to ensure they go home at the end of their shift (sorry for the long sentence). I don't know that I would have put him on the ground since there were three of us, but I definitely would have had him put his weapon on the ground and had him back up to check the weapon out. Once it was determined legal, I would have told them to have a nice day shooting and left.

Just because it is a legal shooting range, doesn't mean the shooters are legal. Lytle Creek in the old days and Pigeon Pass off of Hwy 39 in the Azusa mtns. are just two areas that come to mind where gangbangers used to go to shoot their full autos AKs/ARs. I was working the latter when it was closed overnight whe a public works guy got shot after he had driven by about a 1/4 mile.

I'm not addressing the one officer who, per the OP, was yelling and appeared angry with him, I'm merely addressing those who thought the officers shouldn't have approached him similarly armed.

For a moment, put yourself in their shoes, their mindset and what limited info they had and think how you would have approached the OP.

The OP is to be commended for his demeanor and overall handling of the situation, including advising them there was another downrange.

I think that for most of us, the main chafing point is the officer who appeared angry with Lou. Waaay too much Rainbow 6 drama over a non crime.

ViPER395
01-01-2008, 8:33 AM
You know what irritates me about this situation, and many others i've read that are similar.. It's that after responding to the LEO in a non-threatening manner, respectfully, and in intelligible non-thugged English, they continue to treat you like dirt, abusing you, your firearms, their power, and treating you like a common thug even after all is given the ok.

It should be like this:

"Sir, your record came back clean. My colleagues and I are in agreement that this weapon is not in violation and shooting here is not prohibited nor unsafe. Have a nice day."

See my sig vvv

SnWnMe
01-01-2008, 9:38 AM
Ppl in positions of authority don't like it when they turn out to be wrong.

radioactivelego
01-01-2008, 10:00 AM
Heck i would hate to be up against one of these rifles, but i think he could have assessed the situation a little better like the other officers did.Uh, you were up against one of those rifles; you had three pointed at you.

The question is were any of the three actually good shots with them? :p

MudCamper
01-01-2008, 10:09 AM
... i watch this officer push the magzine release button with all his might to release the mag and nothing happens i feel a sense of relief until he starts cussing and getting even more ticked. Then i realise he has never dealt with an OLL. and i may be in for a bad day. As he chambered and extracted every round I explained to him what i had. He then wanted to know how i loaded it if the magazine dont come out and i explained that i crack it open. or use a tool to take the magazine out ...

This again reenforces to me the need for a document, laminated, and physically attached to the rifle with a lanyard, something like this:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=825129&postcount=10

So illiterate LEO are forced to look at it.

Rob P.
01-01-2008, 10:24 AM
You know what irritates me about this situation, and many others i've read that are similar.. It's that after responding to the LEO in a non-threatening manner, respectfully, and in intelligible non-thugged English, they continue to treat you like dirt, abusing you, your firearms, their power, and treating you like a common thug even after all is given the ok.

It should be like this:

"Sir, your record came back clean. My colleagues and I are in agreement that this weapon is not in violation and shooting here is not prohibited nor unsafe. Have a nice day."

See my sig vvv

The problem is that LEO only know a few STATUTES and aren't positive of the wording of what they DO remember. They don't know "the law" and aren't interested in learning it. If they were, they'd be lawyers instead of LEO.

This creates problems because LEO are there to enforce "the law" and not just a few barely remembered statutes. Because most LEO only enFORCE the laws they don't react well in situations like this and tend to use excessive force and command. They do this to "control" the situation. And, while this may be necessary in some circumstances it is NOT ALWAYS necessary. When/where is dependent upon the specific circumstances of the specific incident. No blanket rule will be sufficient to cover everything or every situation.

In other words, LEO must THINK THEN REACT and that's hard for most of them to do. Especially when pumped up with adrenaline.

The OP did well. I would have refused to "leave my weapons" while I loaded my gear. I would have explicitly stated that I would wait until the officers left to retrieve them but I would not leave my firearms unattended. But that's just me and my contrariness.

tyrist
01-01-2008, 10:46 AM
If three highway patrol officers showed up then it was most likely a radio call that was generated. Police Officers don't screw around with people who are armed. If you have a gun and they have to deal with you, be prepared to be proned out and hand cuffed. Too many Officers have died even to people who legally possessed firearms and just got upset about a ticket.

Boomer1961
01-01-2008, 10:51 AM
I am still curious on who the original complaintant was???

For LE to get so worked up, and to have them stage three CHP officers who pulled out the firepower, one would think it was called in like something posted before.

I think I would have demanded that LE contact the complaintant and explain to them the rules because calls in like that could get someone killed.

I vote that we make New York the official gun free state then shipp all the gun grabbers to that state where they can feel safe with no guns in the state (right!) then vote New York ourt of the USA. This then would be where I would also put this complaintant.:D

MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!

:party: :jump:

:jump: :party:

SemiAutoSam
01-01-2008, 10:59 AM
As I stated here.


We cant expect those that have chosen a career in law enforcement to actually know the law they are enforcing now can we.:rolleyes:

Although I would like to see LEO's actually learn the law that they think they are enforcing.

IMO if they don't know and understand the law they have no business attempting to enforce it.


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=824052&postcount=4

The problem is that LEO only know a few STATUTES and aren't positive of the wording of what they DO remember. They don't know "the law" and aren't interested in learning it. If they were, they'd be lawyers instead of LEO.

This creates problems because LEO are there to enforce "the law" and not just a few barely remembered statutes. Because most LEO only enforce the laws they don't react well in situations like this and tend to use excessive force and command. They do this to "control" the situation. And, while this may be necessary in some circumstances it is NOT ALWAYS necessary. When/where is dependent upon the specific circumstances of the specific incident. No blanket rule will be sufficient to cover everything or every situation.

In other words, LEO must THINK THEN REACT and that's hard for most of them to do. Especially when pumped up with adrenaline.

The OP did well. I would have refused to "leave my weapons" while I loaded my gear. I would have explicitly stated that I would wait until the officers left to retrieve them but I would not leave my firearms unattended. But that's just me and my contrariness.

ViPER395
01-01-2008, 10:59 AM
I vote that we make New York the official gun free state then shipp all the gun grabbers to that state where they can feel safe with no guns in the state (right!) then vote New York ourt of the USA. .

The UN building can be the new national capital of New York!

tyrist
01-01-2008, 11:01 AM
They did not take him to jail so they must have known the Law. They are allowed to investigate which is what they did. You should also realize not every law is written well and they are so many to know the details in and out would require a team of lawyers and some time to study and research. Unfortunately Officers do not have either when they are doing field investigations.

ViPER395
01-01-2008, 11:09 AM
They did not take him to jail so they must have known the Law. They are allowed to investigate which is what they did. You should also realize not every law is written well and they are so many to know the details in and out would require a team of lawyers and some time to study and research. Unfortunately Officers do not have either when they are doing field investigations.

IMHO I think all peace officers should be updated constantly on firearm laws. They are ever-changing I know; but most of us here can keep up with them for free, they should be able to keep up with them when it is their job to enforce them. Especially in such a gun-grabby state like CA where all legal firearm owners are subject to this harassment.

Lou
01-01-2008, 11:21 AM
Thanks for the link mudcamper that's a great piece of documentation to have handy. I will be carring it from now on. Most believe that it is their right to carry their rifle without having to proove it being legal. I agree, but with the little effort it takes to have documentation handy may be the difference in walking away from a situation or going downtown for a few hours to clear things up. As Rob P. mentioned most officers are still not yet familiar with the laws concerning O.L.L.s , magazine locks, and monsterman grips, but i think if we state the guidlines without accusing them of not knowing the law we'll be better off. I know there are now three more officers that are familiar with this type of firearm, and will know what to look for with their next similar call. Maby they'll go easier the next time around.

brianm767
01-01-2008, 11:22 AM
I think the only reason the patrol men would have acted in such a manner is they were responding to a report, most likely a call about a guy with a gun, close to a highway or road, even though I believe you only have to be 500Ft from a road, some one could have driven by and thought some one was sniping at the road.

But then again if if that was the case, the patrol men would have told the shooter they were investigating a report of ?????

Or it's possible the officers were just checking it out on their own, but I cant see why they would draw down on some one with the AR's? I've had different LEO's stop to see what I was doing before when I was shooting in the national forest, never once did they draw down on me, infact the last time I was shooting my Pre ban registered AK and two deputies came up and asked if they could see my rifle, I said sure I'll show you mine if you show me yours, they laughed, they were just curious as to the gun, which I complied and showed them the rifle along with the copy of the proof of registration as an assault weapon I carry with me when ever I go shooting.

Need more info, what was their probable cause for drawing on you?

smle-man
01-01-2008, 11:38 AM
Just because there are empty casings scattered everywhere doesn't mean it is a legal shooting area, just one that people shoot in. Someone who lives in the area may have called it in. Living in another state back many years there was a similar shooting area in a river bed. Seemed like a great place to shoot except that the ricochets and 'overs' were dropping into a farmer's field about a mile or so away and making his life miserable. Law enforcement finally closed the area down by showing up pretty much each time people showed up to shoot. They were a lot more laid back though. When it happened to me and my buddies the officers discussed why we couldn't shoot there and then talked about our firearms (we had an M1A and AR15 SP1) and took some shots through them themeselves. Their comment was that since we had already started shooting a few more rounds wouldn't hurt anything.

jess
01-01-2008, 11:40 AM
Yet another reason the DOJ should clarify their position on OLL's and send a notice to LEO's on this position. If the DA's still treat it as illegal then the LEO's will.

robitrocks
01-01-2008, 12:07 PM
If three highway patrol officers showed up then it was most likely a radio call that was generated. Police Officers don't screw around with people who are armed. If you have a gun and they have to deal with you, be prepared to be proned out and hand cuffed. Too many Officers have died even to people who legally possessed firearms and just got upset about a ticket.

True. We don't know how the call came out on the radio. It could have totally come out like


911: 911 Emergency
Scared Hippie: THERE'S 2 MEN WITH A FULL-AUTO MILITARY SNIPER RIFLE IN THE RIVERBED!
911: I'm sending some units your way.
Scared Hippie: THEY'RE SHOOTING SOMEONE!
911: Who?
Scared Hippie: I'm not sure, but they're shooting at something.
Radio Dispatcher: Attention all units, we have a 12031 possible 187 in progress.
Obviously, the mad CHP had SPS, but CHPies don't have to regularly take out their M16s and it's probably a traumatic experience. :p Those EBRs!

Ford8N
01-01-2008, 12:41 PM
Yet another reason the DOJ should clarify their position on OLL's and send a notice to LEO's on this position. If the DA's still treat it as illegal then the LEO's will.


Just what I was going to say. I thought there was something afoot to inform all the LEO/DA in the state about the OLL's. I guess it still hasn't happened. We need publicity, and lots of it.

Wulf
01-01-2008, 12:44 PM
what about the rest of the penal code. have you seen that book.it would be impossible to have them learn everything in that book.not to mention the vehicle code book.firearms is just one section we study it all the time and we still don't know all of it

I keep waiting for some court or jury to get a bug up its butt and just decide they're not going to convict on anything that's too dam complicated. If the law is too complicated for a cop and a DA, being professionals paid hansomly to do this work, to know pretty much off the top of their head, it should be obvious that its too complicated a standard to hold the people at large too. Seems like that ought to be a founding principal in the law. Right up there with innocent till proven guilty, right to confront your accusers, ..... right to not be responsible complying with laws so poorly written or so complex that even the law writers and law enforcers cant easily understand them.

How about I get to throw them in jail, and drain their savings paying lawyers if they make a silly error about something I'm supposed to be an expert in but none the less mistaken about because it really is unclear and confusing.

zinfull
01-01-2008, 12:52 PM
Things happen for odd reasons. The worst part is that the officer was yelling at some one with ear protection on and getting pissed for non response. That is what scares me. Time to invest in some electronic muffs.

Jerry

ivanimal
01-01-2008, 1:00 PM
I keep waiting for some court or jury to get a bug up its butt and just decide they're not going to convict on anything that's too dam complicated. If the law is too complicated for a cop and a DA, being professionals paid hansomly to do this work, to know pretty much off the top of their head, it should be obvious that its too complicated a standard to hold the people at large too. Seems like that ought to be a founding principal in the law. Right up there with innocent till proven guilty, right to confront your accusers, ..... right to not be responsible complying with laws so poorly written or so complex that even the law writers and law enforcers cant easily understand them.

How about I get to throw them in jail, and drain their savings paying lawyers if they make a silly error about something I'm supposed to be an expert in but none the less mistaken about because it really is unclear and confusing.

Well said.

BillCA
01-01-2008, 1:05 PM
IMHO I think all peace officers should be updated constantly on firearm laws. They are ever-changing I know; but most of us here can keep up with them for free, they should be able to keep up with them when it is their job to enforce them. Especially in such a gun-grabby state like CA where all legal firearm owners are subject to this harassment.



We cant expect those that have chosen a career in law enforcement to actually know the law they are enforcing now can we.


Which laws are you talking about Sam? C'mon, there are 29 different codes (Penal code, Vehicle Code, B&P, W&I, Health & Safety, Business Code, Evidence code...) in California alone. Not all of them apply in daily living and/or law enforcement, but of the ones any LEO uses there are literally thousands of laws with their own specific terminologies.

Viper - This is one reason why most cops will carry a complete CVC book, a penal code book and proabably a book on the commonly-used Welfare & Institutions and Health & Safety codes. One company, in the 70's, made a handy "pocket book" that synopsized PC sections so that cops could quickly determine if they had all the required elements of a crime. Lots of us had those and they became dog-eared in no time.

Best thing to do in a situation like this is to remain calm, assure the officers that you will comply and be relatively upbeat and friendly. The OP did pretty well here. If one or more officers had insisted it was an illegal rifle, then the proper thing to do is say something like "If one of you has a penal code, let's compare it to what the law says. I think it'll save us all a bunch of time."

Remember, cops cannot be "experts" in every facet of all of the laws. They know some laws very well because they use 'em every day. Other laws they know fairly well and some they have to look up to make sure they can make a case. (example: What's the minimum height for headlights on a car? Or the maximum candlepower for auxlliary lights?)

Because cops may only learn certain laws after needing to enforce them, YOU can make a big difference with your attitude and comments. If you say something like I know these gun laws aren't really clear and they get kinda technical, but let me show you what I learned from DOJ and BOF you might be able to educate them in a friendly manner.

If you are successful, even if the cops were a bit surly, remember to thank them for their patience and ask them to let their fellow officers know what they've learned. It could save someone else (or the cops) from a lot of unnecessary headaches.

Harbinger
01-01-2008, 1:06 PM
All I have to say is... Bullet Button FOR THE WIN.

I would pay handsomely to see the look on the officer's face while trying to push the BB sleeve to release the mag. ;)

Mike

Matt C
01-01-2008, 1:09 PM
Heheh, yeah, "Well how do you load it then?!?!?!?"


All I have to say is... Bullet Button FOR THE WIN.

I would pay handsomely to see the look on the officer's face while trying to push the BB sleeve to release the mag. ;)

Mike

Wulf
01-01-2008, 2:01 PM
Which laws are you talking about Sam? C'mon, there are 29 different codes (Penal code, Vehicle Code, B&P, W&I, Health & Safety, Business Code, Evidence code...) in California alone. Not all of them apply in daily living and/or law enforcement, but of the ones any LEO uses there are literally thousands of laws with their own specific terminologies.

Viper - This is one reason why most cops will carry a complete CVC book, a penal code book and proabably a book on the commonly-used Welfare & Institutions and Health & Safety codes. One company, in the 70's, made a handy "pocket book" that synopsized PC sections so that cops could quickly determine if they had all the required elements of a crime. Lots of us had those and they became dog-eared in no time.

Perhaps we'd have a better justice system if cops were disbarred from keeping and using these references. Enforce the law you know; if its not important enough to know, its not important enough to bother somebody about. That would make it pretty simple for legislators......write a law that's intuitive, real, and simple enough for the cops to internalize and know, or dont expect any enforcement to happen. Matt's case points out the problem of a justice system that specializes in monday morning quarterbacking our actions against an incomprehensible standard. Its like with a defensive use of force where you have moments to decide how and when to defend your life and the justice system has all the time in the world to evaluate the appropriateness of your action.

tenpercentfirearms
01-01-2008, 2:19 PM
This is why I say always have an extended take down pin in your Bullet Button builds. I have no plans of telling that officer that that is a Bullet Button. I am simply going to call it a fixed magazine device and when he asks how you load it, I tell him you shotgun it open using this extended take down pin. At no point in time am I going to say, "oh and you can use a tool".

The bad news is if you get caught by a CHP out of the Buttonwillow office, they are going to know you are leaving out the information about the Bullet Button. They very well might say, "Well that appears to be a Bullet Button." Then you just reply, "So when was the last time you were in Ten Percent Firearms." They might force you to give up some of your ammo and shoot a few rounds with you. :D

M5police
01-01-2008, 2:31 PM
You should have called and talk to the SGT on duty at the CHP office closest to you to let him/ her know whats up and how it could have been better handled by more legal training for the officers involved and possibly other ones to avoid confrontation in the future. A list of offices are on www.chp.ca.gov web page.

Most CHPs are pretty cool. Some are not nice but there are those in any depts.

I was pulled over for speeding through 58 in Bakersfield, CA. The officer saw I was on a road trip and told me to slow down after he saw my ccw and license. Then we chatted some more about guns before he walked away and wished me a good trip back to the bay.

magsnubby
01-01-2008, 3:16 PM
...showed them the rifle along with the copy of the proof of registration as an assault weapon I carry with me when ever I go shooting.

I do that also. It's in a manila envelope taped to the bottom of the gun case underneath the foam.

I'm in the process of building a sporter out of a Yugo SKS and doing the 922(r) compliance thing. I'll do the same thing with the paper work for the 922(r) parts on it (I know everyone says "Show me where someone has ever been convicted of a 922(r) violation". I don't want to point to myself and say "I do").

SemiAutoSam
01-01-2008, 3:30 PM
This is real simple.
LEO's Can enforce just the laws that they have taken the time to educate themselves on.

If they cant take the time to learn about a specific area of law then they don't have the right to enforce law in that area.

Remember the phrase that the courts and Law Enforcement uses on us.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

We are always told that when we say gee officer or Gee Judge I didn't know about that law.

How are they any different in that respect ?
If they are trying to enforce a law that they do know have knowledge on or understanding and arrest one of us law abiding firearms owners then we should have the right to make them accountable for the injury that they brought upon us.

IE the cops that arrested Matt should be financially liable for the time he spent behind bars and the cost it took him to defend himself.


Which laws are you talking about Sam? C'mon, there are 29 different codes (Penal code, Vehicle Code, B&P, W&I, Health & Safety, Business Code, Evidence code...) in California alone. Not all of them apply in daily living and/or law enforcement, but of the ones any LEO uses there are literally thousands of laws with their own specific terminologies.



Remember, cops cannot be "experts" in every facet of all of the laws. They know some laws very well because they use 'em every day. Other laws they know fairly well and some they have to look up to make sure they can make a case. (example: What's the minimum height for headlights on a car? Or the maximum candlepower for auxiliary lights?)

Because cops may only learn certain laws after needing to enforce them, YOU can make a big difference with your attitude and comments. If you say something like I know these gun laws aren't really clear and they get kinda technical, but let me show you what I learned from DOJ and BOF you might be able to educate them in a friendly manner.

If you are successful, even if the cops were a bit surly, remember to thank them for their patience and ask them to let their fellow officers know what they've learned. It could save someone else (or the cops) from a lot of unnecessary headaches.

retired
01-01-2008, 3:52 PM
I think that for most of us, the main chafing point is the officer who appeared angry with Lou. Waaay too much Rainbow 6 drama over a non crime.

SnWnMe, I agree with you, that is why I said how I probably would have handled it by telling him to have a nice day shooting and left. I did forget to say I would have called my desk and advised it was ok in case they got any more calls about it.

But, since I never would have been a CHP officer in the first place, I wouldn't have even been there.:D. I'm joking as I had some friends that were; as a matter of fact, one was murdered on his motorcycle in Industry a few years ago.:( I didn't want to write tickets and accident reports all day.

SemiAutoSam, I believe this would be an appropriate response to your comment: :banghead:

BillCA's answer was right on.

Lou
01-01-2008, 4:38 PM
So what would be your response when they ask you how you load your firearm if you cant remove your magazine? If you say you break it open to load then how would you explain why you have an extra loaded magazine?

SnWnMe
01-01-2008, 5:40 PM
Your mags cannot be swapped out without the use of a special tool.

And having loaded magazines isn't illegal.

Sgt Raven
01-01-2008, 6:32 PM
SnWnMe, I agree with you, that is why I said how I probably would have handled it by telling him to have a nice day shooting and left. I did forget to say I would have called my desk and advised it was ok in case they got any more calls about it.

But, since I never would have been a CHP officer in the first place, I wouldn't have even been there.:D. I'm joking as I had some friends that were; as a matter of fact, one was murdered on his motorcycle in Industry a few years ago.:( I didn't want to write tickets and accident reports all day.

SemiAutoSam, I believe this would be an appropriate response to your comment: :banghead:

BillCA's answer was right on.

retired and BillCA as a big rig driver I've had to have officers look up VC4001.(e) many times when they wanted to write me a ticket that should go to the Company I worked for. Most DOT cops know this section, but not all beat cops do. ;)

virulosity
01-01-2008, 7:33 PM
Maybe its just me but I think there is something wrong with protocall that allows for three people to point loaded "ASSAULT WEAPONS" at you when they have no evidence that you committed a crime. What if one of them tripped on a rock and dumped a full magazine of .223 in to you? What if you heard yelling and quickly turned around with a gun in your hand pointed in their direction? This is just asking for something bad to happen.

WokMaster1
01-01-2008, 7:39 PM
[QUOTE=Boomer1961;911643]I am still curious on who the original complaintant was???

For LE to get so worked up, and to have them stage three CHP officers who pulled out the firepower, one would think it was called in like something posted before.

I think I would have demanded that LE contact the complaintant and explain to them the rules because calls in like that could get someone killed.

I vote that we make New York the official gun free state then shipp all the gun grabbers to that state where they can feel safe with no guns in the state (right!) then vote New York ourt of the USA. This then would be where I would also put this complaintant.:D

keep it New York City only. The other parts of New York, upstate & western New York is a totally different animal altogether. Besides my wife has property there.:D

hoffmang
01-01-2008, 7:47 PM
Why do beat cops enforce CARB?

-Gene

WokMaster1
01-01-2008, 7:50 PM
This is real simple.
LEO's Can enforce just the laws that they have taken the time to educate themselves on.

If they cant take the time to learn about a specific area of law then they don't have the right to enforce law in that area.

Remember the phrase that the courts and Law Enforcement uses on us.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

We are always told that when we say gee officer or Gee Judge I didn't know about that law.

How are they any different in that respect ?
If they are trying to enforce a law that they do know have knowledge on or understanding and arrest one of us law abiding firearms owners then we should have the right to make them accountable for the injury that they brought upon us.

IE the cops that arrested Matt should be financially liable for the time he spent behind bars and the cost it took him to defend himself.

Sam, you know we have been talking about a lawsuit to financially "hurt" individual officers or agents since the beginning. What's the deal? Is it for real or are we just waiting for the "ripe" time? BWO is the perfect example & so is AJJAX. Well??

bluestaterebel
01-01-2008, 8:02 PM
Sam, you know we have been talking about a lawsuit to financially "hurt" individual officers or agents since the beginning. What's the deal? Is it for real or are we just waiting for the "ripe" time? BWO is the perfect example & so is AJJAX. Well??

why stop there? why dont you take your olls and take them to a firing line? have fun "hurting individual officers"

PIRATE14
01-01-2008, 8:14 PM
I keep waiting for some court or jury to get a bug up its butt and just decide they're not going to convict on anything that's too dam complicated. If the law is too complicated for a cop and a DA, being professionals paid hansomly to do this work, to know pretty much off the top of their head, it should be obvious that its too complicated a standard to hold the people at large too. Seems like that ought to be a founding principal in the law. Right up there with innocent till proven guilty, right to confront your accusers, ..... right to not be responsible complying with laws so poorly written or so complex that even the law writers and law enforcers cant easily understand them.

How about I get to throw them in jail, and drain their savings paying lawyers if they make a silly error about something I'm supposed to be an expert in but none the less mistaken about because it really is unclear and confusing.

This was alread y done once.....this is why you can buy your OLL...TODAY....

PIRATE14
01-01-2008, 8:16 PM
Remember, cops cannot be "experts" in every facet of all of the laws. They know some laws very well because they use 'em every day. Other laws they know fairly well and some they have to look up to make sure they can make a case. (example: What's the minimum height for headlights on a car? Or the maximum candlepower for auxlliary lights?)

Because cops may only learn certain laws after needing to enforce them, YOU can make a big difference with your attitude and comments. If you say something like I know these gun laws aren't really clear and they get kinda technical, but let me show you what I learned from DOJ and BOF you might be able to educate them in a friendly manner.

If you are successful, even if the cops were a bit surly, remember to thank them for their patience and ask them to let their fellow officers know what they've learned. It could save someone else (or the cops) from a lot of unnecessary headaches.

VERY WISE......hot heads....take note.....:chris:

SemiAutoSam
01-01-2008, 9:01 PM
I'm of the opinion that hitting them in their wallet is the only way to get their attention. And to make them understand that our rifles are legal according to law.

But I don't have standing I have not been injured by any of these rogue Officers or agencies.

I Don't take my Firearms out to public ranges as I have my own place to shoot on my land. See pics below.

Yes the fenceline is mined with Vietnam vintage seismic sensors and tripwire triggered 12 gauge blanks to notify of intrusion.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/100_2274.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/10KTankDistant.jpg




Sam, you know we have been talking about a lawsuit to financially "hurt" individual officers or agents since the beginning. What's the deal? Is it for real or are we just waiting for the "ripe" time? BWO is the perfect example & so is AJJAX. Well??

kermit315
01-01-2008, 9:07 PM
nice piece of land SAS.

tacticalcity
01-01-2008, 9:22 PM
It's sad, but politics have prevented the word on OLLs being legal from proliferating to every department. The Attorney General and DOJ are partially afraid that if word gets out the people currently in power will not get reelected because their base would be upset that they did not find a way to stop it. They are partially afraid that if they spread the word more people will build them. They think if they ignore the problem they keep the "damage" to a minimum. Blaming individual officers for the policies of the California Department of Justice does you no good. They are as much a victim of the the political process as you are. If you want someone to blame, blame the Attorney General's office. Through the use of internal department memos they have muddied the waters to the point that very few people know what is and is not legal.

I do hope you're kidding about the sensors and 12ga blanks. Those darn deer and raccoons will keep you up at night. ;-)

My father's vineyard looked very similar to your land when he first bought it. Now it is covered with vines. Man was that a lot of work!

chico.cm
01-01-2008, 9:23 PM
IMHO I think all peace officers should be updated constantly on firearm laws. They are ever-changing I know; but most of us here can keep up with them for free, they should be able to keep up with them when it is their job to enforce them. Especially in such a gun-grabby state like CA where all legal firearm owners are subject to this harassment.

Interesting thought Viper.
When I held an active securities registration, I was required to be abreast of every miniscule change as it pertained to both the law, and the industry at large. Sure, it was alot to read everyday, but the industry and my employer demanded it of me.
I have a close friend who is an Accountant. Talk about keeping up with changes?! :eek:
I cannot not imagine that there are so many changes in the criminal code each day that it would be unreasonable to expect the same of officers.

Wulf
01-01-2008, 9:59 PM
The Attorney General and DOJ are partially afraid that if word gets out the people currently in power will not get reelected because their base would be upset that they did not find a way to stop it.

I was really surprised Brown didn't shovel the OLL cow pie and the other BOF droppings out of the stall early on when it would have been obvious that Lockyear was the one that dropped them, and when Lockyear would have had a full term for the voters to forget about it.

bluestaterebel
01-01-2008, 10:01 PM
Interesting thought Viper.
When I held an active securities registration, I was required to be abreast of every miniscule change as it pertained to both the law, and the industry at large. Sure, it was alot to read everyday, but the industry and my employer demanded it of me.
I have a close friend who is an Accountant. Talk about keeping up with changes?! :eek:
I cannot not imagine that there are so many changes in the criminal code each day that it would be unreasonable to expect the same of officers.

accountants also have big books to look in when they are not sure;)

PonchoTA
01-01-2008, 10:04 PM
If your rifle is built in accordance with the law that states you can have removable magazines as long as they require a tool to detach them, and you have legal 10-round magazines, what difference does it make how long it takes to load the gun, or whether or not the gun is loaded at the time of interest?
As long as the BB or P50 operates correctly, and everything is done within the limits of the law, then why would you be worried?
???

kermit315
01-01-2008, 10:12 PM
probably because of those fine officers that say "the law is what I say it is, and this is illegal".

sure, you could win in court, but it is a long and costly fight to get that far, ask BWO

Sgt Raven
01-01-2008, 10:18 PM
Interesting thought Viper.
When I held an active securities registration, I was required to be abreast of every miniscule change as it pertained to both the law, and the industry at large. Sure, it was alot to read everyday, but the industry and my employer demanded it of me.
I have a close friend who is an Accountant. Talk about keeping up with changes?! :eek:
I cannot not imagine that there are so many changes in the criminal code each day that it would be unreasonable to expect the same of officers.
accountants also have big books to look in when they are not sure;)

And so do the police, have big books to look in when they're not sure. :rolleyes:

daves100
01-01-2008, 10:21 PM
You can print out the CA DOJ firearm law book and keep it with your guns

Matt C
01-01-2008, 10:31 PM
You can print out the CA DOJ firearm law book and keep it with your guns

Good idea. Never know when you might need some toilet paper at the range.

ETA: Post number 1776! :jump::party::punk::clap:

tyrist
01-01-2008, 10:43 PM
Officers will beable to be more up to date on every legal code when they don't waste hours writing the exact same information 5 times on a single report. You must realise that the rediculous amont of red tape expands everywhere in government.

To arrest 3 felons can take over 12 hours of work. Thank you beauracracy.

robitrocks
01-01-2008, 11:08 PM
I think I would have demanded that LE contact the complaintant and explain to them the rules because calls in like that could get someone killed.

:iagree:

11Z50
01-01-2008, 11:19 PM
Call the officer's watch commander and complain. You did get his name, right? You have the right to make a citizen's complaint and it must be dealt with. If an officer pointed a weapon at you and used profanity, and you didn't get arrested, I guarantee his supervisor will be talking with that officer. PM me for more............................

ghettoshecky
01-01-2008, 11:36 PM
I really hate police officers who are d***. sure I've met respectful ones, but I always seem to meet a lot of SPS officers. Always yelling at you, won't let you say a word and treating you like you ran over his dog. I mean over what? Over a traffic violation or law abiding citizen doing some outdoor rec. To me they are a bunch of lazy fatasses (o yeah the SPS officers I've met have been a little too long out of academy) who probably get grumpy because you took them away from their donuts and government paid cell phone time.

DrjonesUSA
01-02-2008, 12:01 AM
CHP currently is issued National Guard surplus M-16 as I recall from news clips. This happened after the shootout with the bank robbers that were wearing body armor


Oh, for the love of everything holy, I hope to God they are NOT!

I can't seriously believe that even our communist state would throw a fully-automatic rifle inside EVERY CHP cruiser.

I can't believe they would do that. That is extremely dangerous as the average officer does NOT have enough training to properly wield a full-auto weapon.

They *have* to be AR-15s.....can anyone confirm or deny this, please?

ar15barrels
01-02-2008, 12:23 AM
I can't seriously believe that even our communist state would throw a fully-automatic rifle inside EVERY CHP cruiser.

I can't believe they would do that. That is extremely dangerous as the average officer does NOT have enough training to properly wield a full-auto weapon.

They *have* to be AR-15s.....can anyone confirm or deny this, please?

I can tell you from my personal experience that the LAPD $1 M16's that I have seen had the selector changed out to safe/semi only.
The rest of the full-auto parts were all there, but the gun would not run full-auto as issued.

Ech0Sierra
01-02-2008, 12:29 AM
HAHA, the brass knocked out the giggle switch. I wouldn't want Joe Cop trying to dump 30 rounds at a felon in a shopping mall on full auto.

bluestaterebel
01-02-2008, 12:34 AM
Oh, for the love of everything holy, I hope to God they are NOT!

I can't seriously believe that even our communist state would throw a fully-automatic rifle inside EVERY CHP cruiser.

I can't believe they would do that. That is extremely dangerous as the average officer does NOT have enough training to properly wield a full-auto weapon.

They *have* to be AR-15s.....can anyone confirm or deny this, please?

dont know about chp but lapd has colt m16's no they are no longer full auto, but if they were im sure they would have the proper training, not to worry. extremely dangerous? i was shooting full auto in the army when i was 17 years old, lots of teenagers were

DrjonesUSA
01-02-2008, 12:42 AM
dont know about chp but lapd has colt m16's no they are no longer full auto, but if they were im sure they would have the proper training, not to worry. extremely dangerous? i was shooting full auto in the army when i was 17 years old, lots of teenagers were


Yeah, but Army guys aren't pointing your fully automatic rifles at innocent American civilians.

CSDGuy
01-02-2008, 12:53 AM
Yeah, but Army guys aren't pointing your fully automatic rifles at innocent American civilians.
No, they point their Full Auto rifles at innocent civilians all over the world - until they determine that those same innocent civilians aren't out to kill them. Yet they still maintain good fire control discipline. Even those same 17-18 year olds that just got sent out on their first "real" patrol...

Sounds like you think that most LEOs have a poor fire discipline problem and you'd feel much, much safer having a semi auto pistol or rifle pointed at you by them because FA weapons are so much more dangerous...

bluestaterebel
01-02-2008, 12:56 AM
Yeah, but Army guys aren't pointing your fully automatic rifles at innocent American civilians.

alot of army guys are now leos, i'm sure they were not pointing their rifles beacuse they thought they were guilty of something. as stated in this thread they were conducting an investigation of people that happened to be armed. the fact that they were innocent civilians out plinking is hindsight. the problem with what happpened is that leos dont take the time to explain things. idont know why that is. i try to explain as much as i can even to excons and parolees in southcentral.

Ford8N
01-02-2008, 5:26 AM
It's sad, but politics have prevented the word on OLLs being legal from proliferating to every department. The Attorney General and DOJ are partially afraid that if word gets out the people currently in power will not get reelected because their base would be upset that they did not find a way to stop it. They are partially afraid that if they spread the word more people will build them. They think if they ignore the problem they keep the "damage" to a minimum. Blaming individual officers for the policies of the California Department of Justice does you no good. They are as much a victim of the the political process as you are. If you want someone to blame, blame the Attorney General's office. Through the use of internal department memos they have muddied the waters to the point that very few people know what is and is not legal.



This is what I'm thinking also. The DOJ doesn't want the average joe shooter or citizen to know about OLL's. And I am quite shocked at the amount of shooters I run into that know nothing about OLL to this day. Or CalGuns! I think everyone that has an OLL should at least say "go to CalGuns and read" to any question about their OLL. There should be one of those banners you put on fences at every gun show in this state with this sites address. The more shooters that get into this movement, or at least know about it, the more pressure will come to bear on the DOJ. The DOJ doesn't want this information out in the public eye, that's for sure. This would be a simple way for the average guy to help get your OLL un-nuetered. And help with LEO contacts. The more they know, the better things will work out.

ghostwong
01-02-2008, 8:02 AM
They are Vietnam era Colt M16. The selector has been blocked off from going "full auto". From what I understand military surplus. So if you don't want the department issused Colt. Apply for the magic letter stating you are authorized for a new AR-15, Colt or Bushmaster.
They are also having problems with one of the duty rifles the officers can purchase. Let's say it's not the Colt nor the Bushmaster.


dont know about chp but lapd has colt m16's no they are no longer full auto, but if they were im sure they would have the proper training, not to worry. extremely dangerous? i was shooting full auto in the army when i was 17 years old, lots of teenagers were

DigglerD
01-02-2008, 10:03 AM
Calif. Highway Patrol = "AAA with a gun"

That would be a step up in the San Jose area. Usually CHP will look the other way when you're broke down... seen it countless times. They only stop when you're broke down if you leave the car to get help... they tag it and then jam.

Whether or not they received a call about someone shooting, with what may have appeared to be to the caller, an assault weapon or they regularly check that area out because there may have been problems in the past with some shooters (which of course we don't know, so this is conjecture); does nothing to negate the fact they need to practice officer safety methods to ensure they go home at the end of their shift (sorry for the long sentence).

I guess... however I don't think your choice of a dangerous profession should hinder my right to legally participate in recreational activities without being threatened and having multiple weapons pointed at me.

Innocent until proven guilty? Only starts in the courtroom I guess...

You know what irritates me about this situation, and many others i've read that are similar.. It's that after responding to the LEO in a non-threatening manner, respectfully, and in intelligible non-thugged English, they continue to treat you like dirt, abusing you, your firearms, their power, and treating you like a common thug even after all is given the ok.

It should be like this:

"Sir, your record came back clean. My colleagues and I are in agreement that this weapon is not in violation and shooting here is not prohibited nor unsafe. Have a nice day."

Add to this the notion of a "civil servant" I think most LEOs have lost sight of this. I have met many nice ones who are professional even when citing but I have met just as many who would rather flex their authority simply because they can. Attn LEOs... you are not the military, rather your are civil servants here to serve (directions, cats out of trees, arbitrate, etc) and occasionally kick *** or cite when needed not the other way around.

If three highway patrol officers showed up then it was most likely a radio call that was generated. Police Officers don't screw around with people who are armed. If you have a gun and they have to deal with you, be prepared to be proned out and hand cuffed. Too many Officers have died even to people who legally possessed firearms and just got upset about a ticket.

Again... I don't think your choice of a dangerous profession should hinder my right to legally participate in recreational activities without being threatened and having multiple weapons pointed at me.

Much like the statute against tinted windows. If it makes an officer unsafe, let that .00025% (the officers) of the population deal with it rather than tell me what I can do with my car.

IMHO I think all peace officers should be updated constantly on firearm laws. They are ever-changing I know; but most of us here can keep up with them for free, they should be able to keep up with them when it is their job to enforce them. Especially in such a gun-grabby state like CA where all legal firearm owners are subject to this harassment.

LEOs deal with many more things more regularly than firearm offenses. This is an unreasonable demand. It truly is a problem, but the real solution is in simplifying the 5 million codes they have to enforce. Only we can't do that because simplifying the codes would leave too many loop-holes for attorneys to toss cases in court.

You should have called and talk to the SGT on duty at the CHP office closest to you to let him/ her know whats up and how it could have been better handled by more legal training for the officers involved and possibly other ones to avoid confrontation in the future. A list of offices are on www.chp.ca.gov web page.

I often wonder how effective this really is... everyone is pissed they got a ticket and I can only assume there are a TON of baseless complaints. How are these weeded out from the real complaints? The LEOs word is taken on face 99.99% of the time in court, why would it be any different back at the station?

Best thing to do in a situation like this is to remain calm, assure the officers that you will comply and be relatively upbeat and friendly. The OP did pretty well here. If one or more officers had insisted it was an illegal rifle, then the proper thing to do is say something like "If one of you has a penal code, let's compare it to what the law says. I think it'll save us all a bunch of time."

...

Because cops may only learn certain laws after needing to enforce them, YOU can make a big difference with your attitude and comments. If you say something like I know these gun laws aren't really clear and they get kinda technical, but let me show you what I learned from DOJ and BOF you might be able to educate them in a friendly manner.

Ummm... no. Cops don't like to be educated, proven wrong and lectured by "perps" which is exactly what we all are in a situation like this. They already drew down, have the adrenaline running and think they've got "the big bust". "Of course" you are going to tell them why they are wrong, this happens every single stop for them, as such, the conversation is usually over before it's started.

virulosity
01-02-2008, 10:45 AM
dont know about chp but lapd has colt m16's no they are no longer full auto, but if they were im sure they would have the proper training, not to worry. extremely dangerous? i was shooting full auto in the army when i was 17 years old, lots of teenagers were

I would think their proper training would include basic firearms safety such as "do not point a loaded firearm at what you do not intend to destroy". Even if they had the special weapons training (which I am confident that CHP do not) people still make mistakes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU

"You see kids. Accidents Happen."

1911_sfca
01-02-2008, 11:39 AM
Heheh, yeah, "Well how do you load it then?!?!?!?"

Duh... everyone knows that those EBRs with pistol grips enable you to spray from the hip without reloading.

ar15barrels
01-02-2008, 11:52 AM
Duh... everyone knows that those EBRs with pistol grips enable you to spray from the hip without reloading.

We recently had a rifle stage at my local 3gun match where you shoot from the hip.
IPSC target is at roughly 10yds.
Start position is port arms.
Upon the beep, lower the rifle to your hip and commence firing at the target.
Problem here is that at 10yds, you can't see 0.224" holes in a cardboard target.
The solution is to spill a few rounds off the side of the target to get your alignment, then "walk" back to the a-zone and try to stay there.
I used the 40 round mag and only got 11 in the "A" zone. :(

A laser sight would have been excellent for this stage.

bluestaterebel
01-02-2008, 1:30 PM
I would think their proper training would include basic firearms safety such as "do not point a loaded firearm at what you do not intend to destroy". Even if they had the special weapons training (which I am confident that CHP do not) people still make mistakes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU

"You see kids. Accidents Happen."

proper le training involves pointing loaded firearms at people when the situation warrants it. mistakes do happen unfortunately.

virulosity
01-02-2008, 2:14 PM
proper le training involves pointing loaded firearms at people when the situation warrants it. mistakes do happen unfortunately.

I guess that is my point. I don't think this situation warranted it. I can see the other point of view that LEO have to be careful when encountering people who they have no knowledge of with firearms. I don't know what the solution is but I think the way that this situation was handled rides the border of unacceptable. If there was the perception of imminent danger high enough to warrant what happened, then 3 CHPs may not have been an appropriate response. This isn't something that just happened sporadically in front of these officers, they were called there. Maybe it was an issue of lack of information from the emergency caller, I don't know what was said.

lazuris
01-02-2008, 2:30 PM
Wow i'm totaly turned off by the attitude here of some of the Anti-LEO folks. No one was busted, nothing was siezed, no one hurt. Seems to me that everything was fine. So what they told them to leave. I would as well. Better to be safe than shot by some dumb arse. This board wines about taking legal rifles, yet when the LEO's follow the law and respond positively to an OLL we complain about them kicking the guys out. This ain't AZ or UT i'd say this is better than nothing.

ar15barrels
01-02-2008, 2:45 PM
This ain't AZ or UT i'd say this is better than nothing.

We SHOULD be as free as AZ or UT, but we are not and that does not bother YOU?
I think that's the difference we see here. ;)

!@#$
01-02-2008, 2:47 PM
Wow i'm totaly turned off by the attitude here of some of the Anti-LEO folks. No one was busted, nothing was siezed, no one hurt. Seems to me that everything was fine. So what they told them to leave. I would as well. Better to be safe than shot by some dumb arse. This board wines about taking legal rifles, yet when the LEO's follow the law and respond positively to an OLL we complain about them kicking the guys out. This ain't AZ or UT i'd say this is better than nothing.

so i guess i can point my loaded rifle at you as long as i let you go and don't take your gun?:rolleyes:


you would be fine with that right?


there was no reason for anyone to point a firearm at another person in that situation.

Matt C
01-02-2008, 2:50 PM
I can see this one from both sides, I'm not sure how it can be avoided.

One the one hand you have people lawfully shooting legal guns, and they should not get others pointing guns at them.

On the other hand, you might have gang members/criminals out there doing illegal stuff, which would totally justify what the CHP did.

In the end, I say no harm no foul.

!@#$
01-02-2008, 2:58 PM
I can see this one from both sides, I'm not sure how it can be avoided.

One the one hand you have people lawfully shooting legal guns, and they should not get others pointing guns at them.

On the other hand, you might have gang members/criminals out there doing illegal stuff, which would totally justify what the CHP did.

In the end, I say no harm no foul.

so what happened to you is OK too because you might have had illegal weapons?

Gunsrruss
01-02-2008, 3:04 PM
Sometimes common sense is not a player in the average person, but it should be. The CHP doesn't live in the bushes to harrass people. There was a reason three of them showed up, and carrying duty weapons. If I had been told to call it a day, you bet your bunns my bunns whould have been on the street pronto. No telling what has been going down in that area. There would be no reason to argue the point either. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir:) All with a smile:cool:

Cpl. Haas
01-02-2008, 3:07 PM
so what happened to you is OK too because you might have had illegal weapons?

BWO was arrested, charged, and had to fight his way through the judicial system to get his guns back and walk away a free man... the OP did not.

I really can't see how both these incidences compare. :confused:

BLACKWATER
01-02-2008, 3:33 PM
Any cop on the job should know better. Those guys were probably on the job for not every long. Cops that have been around know that any 911 calls can turn out to be what they seem. Hell look around the freeways...."Dial 911 and Report Drunk Drivers" well lets see...you cut someone off and that driver decides to jam you up for fun and dial 911 and report a drunk driver swerving around on the freeway waving a firearm at passing calls. What do you think would happen? That guy would be eating pavement and his car would be flipped upside down and he would be treated as a criminal. CHPs would not say may I in that case and a normal joe would be subject to harsh treatment by cops for no reason.

Mac
01-02-2008, 5:42 PM
....

tyrist
01-02-2008, 5:51 PM
The incident I am sure was generated from a radio call. They were asked to leave so the officers would not keep getting called repeatedly to the same location. It happens all the time. Although usually they should just state somebody is complaining and ask if you could leave the area. Most people would so as not to offend the neighbors.

virulosity
01-02-2008, 6:44 PM
I didn't mean to come off sounding anti LEO. I have several friends and family in law enforcement. At the end of the day everything turned out ok and I guess that is whats important. The possibilities for what could have easily happened are much much worse.

DigglerD
01-02-2008, 7:16 PM
No telling what has been going down in that area. There would be no reason to argue the point either. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir:) All with a smile:cool:

So this all trumps your legal right to shoot in that area? Me thinks not. I'm not worrying about what could have happened as more action by the LEO would have been improper as well. We are so afraid of the law that we will "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir:) All with a smile" even when they have no legal right to tell us to do so.

Matt C
01-02-2008, 7:58 PM
so what happened to you is OK too because you might have had illegal weapons?

:rolleyes:

Boomer1961
01-02-2008, 9:00 PM
Ya know it could have been worse.....

The officers could have had GLOCKS pointed at you.:eek:

Though ya do not hear about it much now I remember a few years back when there was a rash of accidental LE shooting of civilians and the new training to stop this was keep your finger off the trigger until you shoot, oh what a concept.

Now I am thinking that the ear and eye protection was a dead give away that you were up to no good. We all know by the lack of innocent people getting killed during gang shootings indicating their great marksmanship that the baby gangsters must be going out to the dessert to practice their marksmanship, and of course they will want to protect their eyes and hearing for when they are old.

The three times I have had Cops come down on me during target shooting were like night and day. Twice when they came up on me they were in a defensive posture, their weapons were not withdrawn or pointed at me and I was not required to hit the dirt nor was I handcuffed. I was simply told that someone was complaining so they had to respond and would appreciate it if I moved on so there would not be more complaining.

The other time did involve a multi-agency response with weapons drawn and being pointed at me and being forced at gun point to hit the snow face first and being handcuffed and then being searched/patted down looking in my pockets, looking thoroughly through all my gear, going back to the car and having the car tossed, taking over an hour for searching, and then taking my guns when I was released saying they needed to investigate them to determine if they were stolen/altered/illegal and if I did anything wrong and it took like 9+ months to get them released back to me with lots of drama.

There is no reason to come down on a recreational shooter with guns drawn. If an LE can not tell the difference between a recreational shooter (safety glasses and ear muffs) and a potential bad guy then they are too stupid to be LE and should be demoted to Wal Mart security guard.

Having experienced both the right way and wrong way for LE to make contact I can say it is a real violation having LE point guns and handcuff you then toss your ***** when you have done nothing wrong. Also if you go looking for a gun fight you will find one more often than if you did not go looking for one. Being out in the woods and pointing your firearm at some one is a good way to get shot and making contact this way is a provocation and escalation that is not warranted.

First tell the LE to make contact with the complainant and have them tell that no crime was committed and all was perfectly legal. The person who has decided to claim this property as their own personal use for gun free activities is violating the law by encroaching on public property and dictating what use will be allowed. They will continue to do so until they are told to stop, preferably by LE. They should also be reminded of the seriousness of making a call to LE in such a manner that provokes LE into making such a response as it can get someone killed.

Second make a complaint to the agency about the worse offending officer. The message will be loud and clear when you also point out you had no complaints about the other officers and also point out that you felt your life was threatened and that this officer is way too jumpy/easily agitated and probably not suited for this profession. He might even end up getting a letter in his file, which is important if we civilians are trying to document and get an officer off the street who can not control his emotions and gets to jazzed up when firearms are involved. Those are the kind that shoot first then ask questions.

Third, check with LE responsible for that area to see if shooting is legal and see if they can send you something in writing then return every chance you get and shoot at that location some more. It seems that early morning may have been part of what provoked the complainant. Be sure to follow all the rules (firing from roads, firing from vehicle, carrying loaded weapons in vehicle, shooting near a waterway, etc). Tell all your friends to go shooting there as well, and often. If you have an idea who the complainant was then go as close as you legally/safely can to their location and do your shooting there. If you know someone with a 50 cal then bring that and shoot that as well. What we are trying to do is de-sensitize the anti-gun complainant from one of shear horror of you owning and shooting guns (which almost got you killed as rule number one is never point your gun at something you do not want to shoot as there can be accidents even from highly trained professionals) to one of just simple anger at an annoyance that is no longer seen as threatening but instead of simple nuisance.

Unfortunately with LE being trained to treat every legal owner of firearms as a life threatening adversary justifying use of deadly force during all contact with such, is just part of the anti-gunners campaign against gun ownership.

My owning or possessing or using a firearm lawfully should not give a license to LE to threaten my life. Of course if real criminal activity is suspected then it is a totally different situation, but owning and possessing and lawfully discharging a firearm in a safe manner is not criminal activity. Also I should not be presumed to be guilty of other unlawful or unsafe behaviour simply because I am a firearms owner. If an LE does not know what areas are legal to shoot at in the area he patrols then he should be immediately pulled from the field duty until he can learn such as he is a threat to public safety until he does since he will be approaching all these target shooters/hunters with guns pointed at them when he makes contact.

No doubt if there was an accidental discharge or escalation and someone was shotthat drugs would have been found in your vehicle and the newspapers would have said something about international drug dealing terrorist practicing with there high power-semi-automatic-illegal assault weapon-sniper rifle-machine gun-100 round magazine feed-powerful enough to shoot down 400 passenger airlines from over a mile-etc, etc. being stopped by LE. We have just recently seen this with those fellows bitten by the tigers (the victims) being portrayed as bad guys in having teased the tiger, fabricated evidence that they jumped over the fence, fabricated evidence that there were sticks and stones thrown throughout the tiger pen, and so on to shift burden of blame to the victims.

I am not allowed to point my firearms at LE or anyone else, LE should not be allowed to point their firearm at me when they have no reason to believe I broke any law. I believe the majority of LE would not do this and from my other two times where LE made contact with me while target shooting showed me that the majority probably feel this way.

An agitated gun grabber complainant and a jumpy over excitable Barney Fife LE with a gun is a recipe to these types of dangerous encounters.

bluestaterebel
01-02-2008, 9:20 PM
Ya know it could have been worse.....

The officers could have had GLOCKS pointed at you.:eek:

Though ya do not hear about it much now I remember a few years back when there was a rash of accidental LE shooting of civilians and the new training to stop this was keep your finger off the trigger until you shoot, oh what a concept.

Now I am thinking that the ear and eye protection was a dead give away that you were up to no good. We all know by the lack of innocent people getting killed during gang shootings indicating their great marksmanship that the baby gangsters must be going out to the dessert to practice their marksmanship, and of course they will want to protect their eyes and hearing for when they are old.

The three times I have had Cops come down on me during target shooting were like night and day. Twice when they came up on me they were in a defensive posture, their weapons were not withdrawn or pointed at me and I was not required to hit the dirt nor was I handcuffed. I was simply told that someone was complaining so they had to respond and would appreciate it if I moved on so there would not be more complaining.

The other time did involve a multi-agency response with weapons drawn and being pointed at me and being forced at gun point to hit the snow face first and being handcuffed and then being searched/patted down looking in my pockets, looking thoroughly through all my gear, going back to the car and having the car tossed, taking over an hour for searching, and then taking my guns when I was released saying they needed to investigate them to determine if they were stolen/altered/illegal and if I did anything wrong and it took like 9+ months to get them released back to me with lots of drama.

There is no reason to come down on a recreational shooter with guns drawn. If an LE can not tell the difference between a recreational shooter (safety glasses and ear muffs) and a potential bad guy then they are too stupid to be LE and should be demoted to Wal Mart security guard.

Having experienced both the right way and wrong way for LE to make contact I can say it is a real violation having LE point guns and handcuff you then toss your ***** when you have done nothing wrong. Also if you go looking for a gun fight you will find one more often than if you did not go looking for one. Being out in the woods and pointing your firearm at some one is a good way to get shot and making contact this way is a provocation and escalation that is not warranted.

First tell the LE to make contact with the complainant and have them tell that no crime was committed and all was perfectly legal. The person who has decided to claim this property as their own personal use for gun free activities is violating the law by encroaching on public property and dictating what use will be allowed. They will continue to do so until they are told to stop, preferably by LE. They should also be reminded of the seriousness of making a call to LE in such a manner that provokes LE into making such a response as it can get someone killed.

Second make a complaint to the agency about the worse offending officer. The message will be loud and clear when you also point out you had no complaints about the other officers and also point out that you felt your life was threatened and that this officer is way too jumpy/easily agitated and probably not suited for this profession. He might even end up getting a letter in his file, which is important if we civilians are trying to document and get an officer off the street who can not control his emotions and gets to jazzed up when firearms are involved. Those are the kind that shoot first then ask questions.

Third, check with LE responsible for that area to see if shooting is legal and see if they can send you something in writing then return every chance you get and shoot at that location some more. It seems that early morning may have been part of what provoked the complainant. Be sure to follow all the rules (firing from roads, firing from vehicle, carrying loaded weapons in vehicle, shooting near a waterway, etc). Tell all your friends to go shooting there as well, and often. If you have an idea who the complainant was then go as close as you legally/safely can to their location and do your shooting there. If you know someone with a 50 cal then bring that and shoot that as well. What we are trying to do is de-sensitize the anti-gun complainant from one of shear horror of you owning and shooting guns (which almost got you killed as rule number one is never point your gun at something you do not want to shoot as there can be accidents even from highly trained professionals) to one of just simple anger at an annoyance that is no longer seen as threatening but instead of simple nuisance.

Unfortunately with LE being trained to treat every legal owner of firearms as a life threatening adversary justifying use of deadly force during all contact with such, is just part of the anti-gunners campaign against gun ownership.

My owning or possessing or using a firearm lawfully should not give a license to LE to threaten my life. Of course if real criminal activity is suspected then it is a totally different situation, but owning and possessing and lawfully discharging a firearm in a safe manner is not criminal activity. Also I should not be presumed to be guilty of other unlawful or unsafe behaviour simply because I am a firearms owner. If an LE does not know what areas are legal to shoot at in the area he patrols then he should be immediately pulled from the field duty until he can learn such as he is a threat to public safety until he does since he will be approaching all these target shooters/hunters with guns pointed at them when he makes contact.

No doubt if there was an accidental discharge or escalation and someone was shotthat drugs would have been found in your vehicle and the newspapers would have said something about international drug dealing terrorist practicing with there high power-semi-automatic-illegal assault weapon-sniper rifle-machine gun-100 round magazine feed-powerful enough to shoot down 400 passenger airlines from over a mile-etc, etc. being stopped by LE. We have just recently seen this with those fellows bitten by the tigers (the victims) being portrayed as bad guys in having teased the tiger, fabricated evidence that they jumped over the fence, fabricated evidence that there were sticks and stones thrown throughout the tiger pen, and so on to shift burden of blame to the victims.

I am not allowed to point my firearms at LE or anyone else, LE should not be allowed to point their firearm at me when they have no reason to believe I broke any law. I believe the majority of LE would not do this and from my other two times where LE made contact with me while target shooting showed me that the majority probably feel this way.

An agitated gun grabber complainant and a jumpy over excitable Barney Fife LE with a gun is a recipe to these types of dangerous encounters.

you should become a police officer and make a difference:)

Gunsrruss
01-02-2008, 9:21 PM
Ya know it could have been worse.....

The officers could have had GLOCKS pointed at you.:eek:

Though ya do not hear about it much now I remember a few years back when there was a rash of accidental LE shooting of civilians and the new training to stop this was keep your finger off the trigger until you shoot, oh what a concept.

Now I am thinking that the ear and eye protection was a dead give away that you were up to no good. We all know by the lack of innocent people getting killed during gang shootings indicating their great marksmanship that the baby gangsters must be going out to the dessert to practice their marksmanship, and of course they will want to protect their eyes and hearing for when they are old.

The three times I have had Cops come down on me during target shooting were like night and day. Twice when they came up on me they were in a defensive posture, their weapons were not withdrawn or pointed at me and I was not required to hit the dirt nor was I handcuffed. I was simply told that someone was complaining so they had to respond and would appreciate it if I moved on so there would not be more complaining.

The other time did involve a multi-agency response with weapons drawn and being pointed at me and being forced at gun point to hit the snow face first and being handcuffed and then being searched/patted down looking in my pockets, looking thoroughly through all my gear, going back to the car and having the car tossed, taking over an hour for searching, and then taking my guns when I was released saying they needed to investigate them to determine if they were stolen/altered/illegal and if I did anything wrong and it took like 9+ months to get them released back to me with lots of drama.

There is no reason to come down on a recreational shooter with guns drawn. If an LE can not tell the difference between a recreational shooter (safety glasses and ear muffs) and a potential bad guy then they are too stupid to be LE and should be demoted to Wal Mart security guard.

Having experienced both the right way and wrong way for LE to make contact I can say it is a real violation having LE point guns and handcuff you then toss your ***** when you have done nothing wrong. Also if you go looking for a gun fight you will find one more often than if you did not go looking for one. Being out in the woods and pointing your firearm at some one is a good way to get shot and making contact this way is a provocation and escalation that is not warranted.

First tell the LE to make contact with the complainant and have them tell that no crime was committed and all was perfectly legal. The person who has decided to claim this property as their own personal use for gun free activities is violating the law by encroaching on public property and dictating what use will be allowed. They will continue to do so until they are told to stop, preferably by LE. They should also be reminded of the seriousness of making a call to LE in such a manner that provokes LE into making such a response as it can get someone killed.

Second make a complaint to the agency about the worse offending officer. The message will be loud and clear when you also point out you had no complaints about the other officers and also point out that you felt your life was threatened and that this officer is way too jumpy/easily agitated and probably not suited for this profession. He might even end up getting a letter in his file, which is important if we civilians are trying to document and get an officer off the street who can not control his emotions and gets to jazzed up when firearms are involved. Those are the kind that shoot first then ask questions.

Third, check with LE responsible for that area to see if shooting is legal and see if they can send you something in writing then return every chance you get and shoot at that location some more. It seems that early morning may have been part of what provoked the complainant. Be sure to follow all the rules (firing from roads, firing from vehicle, carrying loaded weapons in vehicle, shooting near a waterway, etc). Tell all your friends to go shooting there as well, and often. If you have an idea who the complainant was then go as close as you legally/safely can to their location and do your shooting there. If you know someone with a 50 cal then bring that and shoot that as well. What we are trying to do is de-sensitize the anti-gun complainant from one of shear horror of you owning and shooting guns (which almost got you killed as rule number one is never point your gun at something you do not want to shoot as there can be accidents even from highly trained professionals) to one of just simple anger at an annoyance that is no longer seen as threatening but instead of simple nuisance.

Unfortunately with LE being trained to treat every legal owner of firearms as a life threatening adversary justifying use of deadly force during all contact with such, is just part of the anti-gunners campaign against gun ownership.

My owning or possessing or using a firearm lawfully should not give a license to LE to threaten my life. Of course if real criminal activity is suspected then it is a totally different situation, but owning and possessing and lawfully discharging a firearm in a safe manner is not criminal activity. Also I should not be presumed to be guilty of other unlawful or unsafe behaviour simply because I am a firearms owner. If an LE does not know what areas are legal to shoot at in the area he patrols then he should be immediately pulled from the field duty until he can learn such as he is a threat to public safety until he does since he will be approaching all these target shooters/hunters with guns pointed at them when he makes contact.

No doubt if there was an accidental discharge or escalation and someone was shotthat drugs would have been found in your vehicle and the newspapers would have said something about international drug dealing terrorist practicing with there high power-semi-automatic-illegal assault weapon-sniper rifle-machine gun-100 round magazine feed-powerful enough to shoot down 400 passenger airlines from over a mile-etc, etc. being stopped by LE. We have just recently seen this with those fellows bitten by the tigers (the victims) being portrayed as bad guys in having teased the tiger, fabricated evidence that they jumped over the fence, fabricated evidence that there were sticks and stones thrown throughout the tiger pen, and so on to shift burden of blame to the victims.

I am not allowed to point my firearms at LE or anyone else, LE should not be allowed to point their firearm at me when they have no reason to believe I broke any law. I believe the majority of LE would not do this and from my other two times where LE made contact with me while target shooting showed me that the majority probably feel this way.

An agitated gun grabber complainant and a jumpy over excitable Barney Fife LE with a gun is a recipe to these types of dangerous encounters.


They are always full of what your rights are and what the other guy can and can't do. Common sense rules. If your in a stickey situation then get your butt out of it as best you can. The last thing you need is a police officer filling out a report that says you went for your gun ( end of story ):eek:

Clodbuster
01-03-2008, 12:24 AM
Like this???

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_7831276

18rounds for a butcher knife. I wonder how many for a OLL.

Clod

Ya know it could have been worse.....

The officers could have had GLOCKS pointed at you.:eek:

retired
01-03-2008, 1:05 AM
So what is the problem. She was 6' away with a butcher knife and charging, were they supposed to ask her to drop it or fire one shot and see if it worked.

Leos are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped. Since one officer was below and one above and time was apparently of some consequence, they probably didn't have time to set up a plan as who was to do the shooting.

I would surmise the one being charged was justifiably in fear of his and the guy's life. The leo at the bottom was probably concerned about their lives also. Dangerous crossfire situation, but you do what you have to do to stop the threat. Who knows, she may have been stopped by the 4th shot; would you be willing to stand there and wait and see if it worked. I would have shot until she stopped or dropped.

Oh, by the way, leos are not trained to shoot knives out of hands; that only happens in the movies and tv.

Have you ever heard of the 21' rule. Google it, you might learn something.

Interesting choice for your name Clod.

Sgt Raven
01-03-2008, 1:18 AM
Have you ever heard of the 21' rule. Google it, you might learn something.

Interesting choice for your name Clod.

Or Google, The Tueller Drill.

bluestaterebel
01-03-2008, 1:52 AM
Like this???

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_7831276

18rounds for a butcher knife. I wonder how many for a OLL.

Clod

it's 2 rounds for a knife, 3 for a handgun and 4 for a rifle. those officers defintiely exceeded their alotted rounds.:43:

Clodbuster
01-03-2008, 2:16 AM
1 shot, 2 shot, 3 shot...maybe another 2 for good measure.........yeah, till they stop twitching...cus they're dead and that's the surefire way to know for sure that they no longer pose a threat. Also helps reduce the already crowded court system from handling yet another domestic violence case. Saw this thinking in the Judge Dredd movie, BTW.

Or maybe with both blasting away, the force of the impact from both sides kept her up. Or maybe after the tenth round, she was already dead, and the "movement" was from the impact of the rounds continuing to enter the body. I saw that in many zombie movies, BTW.

I am glad there are people out there that think 18 +P rounds into a human body is not excessive. I guess I am a clod... :eek:

Clod


So what is the problem. She was 6' away with a butcher knife and charging, were they supposed to ask her to drop it or fire one shot and see if it worked.

Leos are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped. Since one officer was below and one above and time was apparently of some consequence, they probably didn't have time to set up a plan as who was to do the shooting.

I would surmise the one being charged was justifiably in fear of his and the guy's life. The leo at the bottom was probably concerned about their lives also. Dangerous crossfire situation, but you do what you have to do to stop the threat. Who knows, she may have been stopped by the 4th shot; would you be willing to stand there and wait and see if it worked. I would have shot until she stopped or dropped.

Oh, by the way, leos are not trained to shoot knives out of hands; that only happens in the movies and tv.

Have you ever heard of the 21' rule. Google it, you might learn something.

Interesting choice for your name Clod.

bluestaterebel
01-03-2008, 2:40 AM
1 shot, 2 shot, 3 shot...maybe another 2 for good measure.........yeah, till they stop twitching...cus they're dead and that's the surefire way to know for sure that they no longer pose a threat. Also helps reduce the already crowded court system from handling yet another domestic violence case. Saw this thinking in the Judge Dredd movie, BTW.

Or maybe with both blasting away, the force of the impact from both sides kept her up. Or maybe after the tenth round, she was already dead, and the "movement" was from the impact of the rounds continuing to enter the body. I saw that in many zombie movies, BTW.

I am glad there are people out there that think 18 +P rounds into a human body is not excessive. I guess I am a clod... :eek:

Clod
there really is no predesignated amount of rounds for any situation. these officer involved shootings are not like shooting at paper targets. im pretty sure that when these officers got the call the last thing they could imagine is that they would end up shooting and killing a 57 year old woman.

yeah they shot 9 rounds each but how many of those rounds actually hit her? you can agree and might be the first to point out that cops are lousy shots right?now imagine the situation as the woman passes one of the officers with the knife.

now he is shooting at a moving target going up the stairs. the partner is shooting at a moving target coming up the stairs. i dont care how good of a shot you are, those are not ideal shooting conditions, keep in mind that all of this happened in a matter of seconds.

its not like they inserted their earplugs, put on their shooting glasses and waited for the range officer for the green light. btw there are many leos that are great shots.:)

Sgt Raven
01-03-2008, 8:05 AM
I remember hearing about a case back east where a well trained LEO was attacked in a hallway by 2 persons. He gave each 2 COM as trained, and when they didn't go down, he performed a failure drill and gave each a EOP shot. After the fact the Coroner found the 2 COM shots would have been fatal. The DA charged him with murder, saying the head shots showed he executed them. It was shown at trial that it all happened so fast that the dead people’s bodies hadn’t had time to react to the COM shots, and the shooter did as he had been trained because he didn’t know if they were wearing body armor.

M1A Rifleman
01-03-2008, 8:30 AM
Sorry for not checking in guys, new years plans. There is a river bed off of HWY 152 between red top and Dos palos (cenral cali) that is a popular shooting area. There is brass all over the place from .17 to 30.06. We also ride quads in the area so we set up in a position where we had a sand hill backdrop to ensure our bullets would bury, and good visibility in all directions. We also got there at the crack of dawn before most people are out. It's hard to say why CHP showed up. If nearby ranchers heard the shots, or if we were spotted from the highway by someone who didnt know the area. Yeah i've been around since the fab 10. In fact it's still sitting in my safe. I never really liked it so i didnt shoot it much. It was'nt til rescently that i got wind of O.L.L.s and started researching them. All seemed like it was on the up and up so i built one. My first time out with it to sight it in and this happens. I'll tell you when i was sitting there i did'nt want anything to do with this gun anymore. It took a while for me to re-focus and realize that i had nothing to worry about...gun wise. I looked at my gun in pieces. Scope (legal), upper- no bayonete lug no flash hider (target crown) no tactical rails (free-floated) no problem, butt-stock -ace skeleton (i'm good), total length 34" (sweet), Lower- bullet button installed and officer could not release it (oh yeah). My only concern was the empty mag i had and the full one in my pocket (10 rounders of course). I really was trying to avoid the reload issue. Even though my rifle did'nt have some of the features listed above i shouldnt have worried if it did. As long as it was'nt shorter than 30" and my mags were only ten rounds, and i had a mag lock device, i was good. I'm just glad they did'nt come up when i was reloading and my mag well was empty. I may have froze and not got the magazine in. Now i know to be aware when loading a mag. Have your fresh one ready and do it quickly. It would also be good practice to look around first. I think the one officer that was cool headed asked us to pack it up for the day in order to just get us out of there. The ticked officer was looking for something to get us on.
I know this was my first post, but i have been around here often picking you brains. I do think this encounter would encourage others that might be a little leary on building this type of rifle to go ahead and do it. Just learn what you can from this site. It has all the answers. Lastly i would like to thank all the members of this site for all your information. It's been a great guide on my build and has kept it legal.

The main problem is where you were. It sounds like it is not in a BLM area. The location maybe County, State, or private lands - and it would not be legal to shoot/tresspass upon unless you have the OK from the owner. This is why CHP responded - also sounds too close to the roadway. If this has been a popular area for riding and shooting I suspect the local LEO's will continue to show up and chase people off. I'd say your lucky.

Sniper3142
01-03-2008, 8:48 AM
Wow i'm totaly turned off by the attitude here of some of the Anti-LEO folks. No one was busted, nothing was siezed, no one hurt. Seems to me that everything was fine. So what they told them to leave. I would as well. Better to be safe than shot by some dumb arse. This board wines about taking legal rifles, yet when the LEO's follow the law and respond positively to an OLL we complain about them kicking the guys out. This ain't AZ or UT i'd say this is better than nothing.

What part of IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE do you not understand?!?

If you are required to enforce the laws of the land, you damn well better KNOW THE LAWS OF THE LAND!

Just because in this instance no one was arrested and no property was illegally seized doesn't make it right!

A badge and a gun doesn't make everything you say legal or right. LE are and should be held to a higher standard.

ar15barrels
01-03-2008, 8:48 AM
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_7831276

Sounds like the two officers did their job to me. ;)

Oh, and that was suicide by cop.
You don't grab a kitchen knife and run upstairs when you know the cops are still there unless you have a deathwish.
She got what she wanted.

AJAX22
01-03-2008, 10:05 AM
I'm not one to second guess the number of shots fired in any situation.

Its like getting your butt kicked in a bar fight, you might not know how many of them it will take, but you know how many they're going to use ;)

DigglerD
01-03-2008, 11:09 AM
Like this???

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_7831276

18rounds for a butcher knife. I wonder how many for a OLL.

Clod

This story doesn't apply to this situation...

Further, if someone is running at me with a butcher knife, I'm shooting until she is on the ground and not moving, to me my life is more important than hers and that's the way it is. Then again, maybe I watch too many zombie movies where people get up after 20 or so shots...

Clodbuster
01-03-2008, 12:47 PM
This situation is close but the difference is that fortunately it turned out well for all parties.

Obviously I was not there, but from the original post, sounds like this situation could have turned out bad within the span of another few seconds:
--
3 CHP officers with their ar-15s drawn on me. "I could see one of them saying something but since i had hearing protection on i could'nt hear a word he was saying. When i finally got them off he was yelling " i said put your hands up, move away from the rifle and get on the ground". The one officer yelling was ticked...
--

I have no qualms with LE or J.Q Public using firearms to protect against threats, but really, when you are blasting away as fast as you can, you don't give the threat any opportunity to collapse or surrender (even if it is for a fraction of a second to determine if the "fight" is taken out of him/her). It does take time for someone to keel over or go down on their knees to beg for the shooting to stop... This process is not instantaneous. It's an execution and something I personally don't subscribe to. LE's job is to bring criminals TO JUSTICE, not distribute it. I've probably seen too many Judge Dredd re-runs, and when I see things like this happen, the image of Stallone saying "Court is Adjourned" runs through my mind every time.

Don't want to stray from the thread any further, so this is all I have to say on this matter.

Clod

This story doesn't apply to this situation...

Further, if someone is running at me with a butcher knife, I'm shooting until she is on the ground and not moving, to me my life is more important than hers and that's the way it is. Then again, maybe I watch too many zombie movies where people get up after 20 or so shots...

DigglerD
01-03-2008, 12:53 PM
This situation is close but the difference is that fortunately it turned out well for all parties.

Guess I missed the part where the OP mentioned he charged the officers wielding a weapon...

jc_stecker
01-03-2008, 1:33 PM
You're a pretty lucky guy to have 3 CHP officers show up to your impromptu range session. I couldn't even get 1 to show up when I was a victim of a hit-n-run on the 405. :rolleyes:

bluestaterebel
01-03-2008, 4:51 PM
What part of IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE do you not understand?!?

If you are required to enforce the laws of the land, you damn well better KNOW THE LAWS OF THE LAND!

Just because in this instance no one was arrested and no property was illegally seized doesn't make it right!

A badge and a gun doesn't make everything you say legal or right. LE are and should be held to a higher standard.

as far if it was a legal place to shoot ie... blm, private property, close to the road. etc...is still somewhat unclear. it appears that the chp was called in for some reason. if this was such a common area to shoot, why would the neighbors call the police? chp observed what appeared to be california aw....upon verifying that the weapon had a fixed magazine w/10 rounds and no laws were broken, they left. that is enforcing the law.

Ford8N
01-03-2008, 4:58 PM
You're a pretty lucky guy to have 3 CHP officers show up to your impromptu range session. I couldn't even get 1 to show up when I was a victim of a hit-n-run on the 405. :rolleyes:

There is no glory in taking a hit-n-run report, so you can file an insurance claim. A big bad AW gun bust, you make the television news and get to spout FUD to the sheep. Fifteen minutes of fame, your hero for the day, save babies, ect., ya know... :p

Sniper3142
01-03-2008, 5:14 PM
as far if it was a legal place to shoot ie... blm, private property, close to the road. etc...is still somewhat unclear. it appears that the chp was called in for some reason. if this was such a common area to shoot, why would the neighbors call the police? chp observed what appeared to be california aw....upon verifying that the weapon had a fixed magazine w/10 rounds and no laws were broken, they left. that is enforcing the law.

I agree.

From the limited information we currently have, I say most of the actions taken by the CHP were proper.

bluestaterebel
01-03-2008, 5:19 PM
I agree.

From the limited information we currently have, I say most of the actions taken by the CHP were proper.

you are my friend sir:)

Lou
01-03-2008, 5:22 PM
yeah all was legal. The rifle was legaly built with the bullet button, 10 round fixed mad, and over 30". The calm LEO mentioned before we left that it was a legal area to shoot. My cousin mentioned that the (calm) LEO that went for him was cool and even mentioned that he shot the same type of rifle he had. He was a sportsman shooter which is why when the other officer asked what they wanted to do he quickly replied to pack it up for the day. I think he just asked us to leave to get us out of that situation before the other officer started digging for more. The only thing i think would have brought them there was being spotted in the riverbed from the highway.

ar15barrels
01-03-2008, 5:33 PM
The only thing i think would have brought them there was being spotted in the riverbed from the highway.

So are you going to shoot there anymore?
At least get yourselves parked out-of-view from the highway. ;)

Sig226
01-03-2008, 6:14 PM
The only issue here was when the OP was told to leave.

I can understand the officers *asking* them to leave due to the "cranky old woman" who doesn't want to hear loud pops in the morning. However, the OP was well within his rights to inform the office that he did not wish to leave the area.

In that case, the officer should have apologized for the inconvenience, request both shooters to leave their weapons as is until he leaves, and said have a nice day.

Now that would have been a proper "investigation" of this call.


Now, to have an officer admit he is wrong (in the field), and apologize.... LOL, not in my neighborhood.

bluestaterebel
01-03-2008, 6:25 PM
The only issue here was when the OP was told to leave.

I can understand the officers *asking* them to leave due to the "cranky old woman" who doesn't want to hear loud pops in the morning. However, the OP was well within his rights to inform the office that he did not wish to leave the area.

In that case, the officer should have apologized for the inconvenience, request both shooters to leave their weapons as is until he leaves, and said have a nice day.

Now that would have been a proper "investigation" of this call.


Now, to have an officer admit he is wrong (in the field), and apologize.... LOL, not in my neighborhood.

in this situation where would he admit that he was wrong and then apolgize?

retired
01-03-2008, 6:36 PM
I guess I am a clod.

You said it Clod, not I.;)

BTW, I think it only works in tv and the movies that constant firing into the body will keep it from falling, but it sounds good doesn't it.:D

I wondered what how you would have reacted if she was running up the steps toward you with her butcher knife. Put her husband in front to protect you; after all, she was angry at him, not you, right.:rolleyes::D

akjunkie
01-03-2008, 6:42 PM
3 CHP officers drew down on you with Their AR15s becuz you were shooting your OLLs in a designated shooting area?

so what happens when people with registered AWs go shooting in the same area? CHP gonna draw down on you again?

i've gone shooting with 30, 40, 75 and 120rd Drums at Public Designated shooting ranges and never had any LEOs draw down on me.. worst case is they ask for my AW paperwork.

sounds like BS to me.

GuyW
01-03-2008, 6:57 PM
I'm surprised that no one has suggested the _possibility_ that the most abrasive of these 3 Chippies might have also spent some time down in New Orleans....

DigglerD
01-04-2008, 11:14 AM
I'm surprised that no one has suggested the _possibility_ that the most abrasive of these 3 Chippies might have also spent some time down in New Orleans....

Why would that matter?

DrjonesUSA
01-04-2008, 11:21 AM
Why would that matter?


Because several members of the California Highway Patrol traded their tan or navy uniforms for black stormtrooper outfits and confiscated guns from law-abiding American citizens in NO.

Click this link and watch a group of burly Chippers tackle, disarm and forcibly remove a frail, elderly woman from her home in New Orleans: http://pun.org/josh/archives/Patricia%20Konie%20Gun%20Confiscation.wmv

Lon Moer
01-04-2008, 11:30 AM
I think he just asked us to leave to get us out of that situation before the other officer started digging for more. The only thing i think would have brought them there was being spotted in the riverbed from the highway.
While there were several 'issue's' with the CHP and their response (I would've probably been shot in this particular scenario), it appears you were damn lucky that it was actually CHP/leo's in the first place. With your apparent lack of situational awareness that allowed them to get that close to you, you're very lucky that it wasn't some gangbanger/hoods that could have taken your guns/money/vehicle and left you dead in the riverbed.

Lou
01-04-2008, 3:48 PM
While there were several 'issue's' with the CHP and their response (I would've probably been shot in this particular scenario), it appears you were damn lucky that it was actually CHP/leo's in the first place. With your apparent lack of situational awareness that allowed them to get that close to you, you're very lucky that it wasn't some gangbanger/hoods that could have taken your guns/money/vehicle and left you dead in the riverbed.

So your saying that CHP could not sneak up on you while you had hearing protection on and you were looking down range through binoculars. My "situational awareness" is fine. You are right though, we were lucky it was'nt a bunch of thugs trying to rip us off, but then that could happen to anyone almost anywhere.

ViPER395
01-04-2008, 3:52 PM
So your saying that CHP could not sneak up on you while you had hearing protection on and you were looking down range through binoculars. My "situational awareness" is fine. You are right though, we were lucky it was'nt a bunch of thugs trying to rip us off, but then that could happen to anyone almost anywhere.

& i'll bet the LEOs would be far away while it was. Possibly harassing some other legal firearm owner.

BB63Squid
01-04-2008, 4:40 PM
Considering where you were plinking I think I know the CHP that had his panties in a bind over your weapon and him not being able to release the mag.

To be honest, if it is the same guy I know, I am not surprised by your assessment and description of him.

Just think of the laughs that could be had if there was footage (video) of him being owned by the BB. Push that up on Youtube...hahahahaha!

ar15barrels
01-04-2008, 8:02 PM
With your apparent lack of situational awareness that allowed them to get that close to you, you're very lucky that it wasn't some gangbanger/hoods that could have taken your guns/money/vehicle and left you dead in the riverbed.

That's why I wear electronic earmuffs.
You can actually hear better with them on than with them off.
You hear people walking behind you well before they think you hear them.

pnkssbtz
01-04-2008, 8:29 PM
Why do beat cops enforce CARB?

-Gene

Revenue generation.

Boomer1961
01-04-2008, 10:20 PM
Since firearms were withdrawn and pointed at civilians a report should have been written.

As the pointee at the end of the pointer go to the CHP office in that area and ask for the report.

I think they charge a modest fee of like $25 or something.

LE does not have the right to point guns at people just because.

They violated policy if there was no suspected criminal activity.

You were shooting legally or not, if you were on the up and up I would be very interested to see what they put in the report for justification for pointing firearms at you.

I have been at he end of a multi-agency response while target shooting and I can tell you it is a real violation having these jerks feel it is routine to point there guns at you.

Having a bunch of LE barney fifes crawling about in the woods and sneaking up on you while you are target shooting and wearing ear protection and keeping your eyes on your target is shear lunacy.

At least I felt vindication when the Federal circuit court judge admonished the US Forrest service. Unfortunately none of the stupid officers involved was not in court and some poor ol' Forrest ranger supervisor who was not involved took the brunt of the judges stern lecturing that was on par with judge cranky old lady judy.

Figure out if you were legal then file a complaint against the officers. I think the biggest problem with LE in this country is they don't think for themselves and just get their marching orders and say yes sir and out they go rounding up little old ladies, shooting anyone they see armed in NO, pointing guns at anyone that has his own gun, and rounding up all the jews because their boss told them to. The LE are being used as a tool to disarm America and discourage ownership, possession, use,...etc... of all firearms.

Get the report then scan it in to the computer and post it here.

There is always a chance that you were shooting illegally and you "GOT A BREAK" from CHP and "protesting to much". If you were in violation of the law like shooting close to a road or on private land or such then all of this is moot other than the ****ty comment that the one officer told you.

.......and also you would have wasted allot of our time......

I am concerned though that you do not know for certain (you have not said such) that you were target shooting legally. We expect LE to know the rules, we all should not be hypocrites and not expect that we should be held to the same standard. Having allot of brass on ground from other is not enough to tell me it is a legal place to shoot, but is enough for me to say maybe this is a good place to shoot so let me research this and make certain.

Get the report and post it here so we can see and properly judge this situation.

Take care now!

tyrist
01-04-2008, 10:38 PM
No report is needed for pointing guns at people, just the reasonable expectation the encounter could escalate to the use of deadly force. The expectation was there since they "suspects" were infact armed.

Matt C
01-04-2008, 10:52 PM
No report is needed for pointing guns at people, just the reasonable expectation the encounter could escalate to the use of deadly force. The expectation was there since they "suspects" were infact armed.

In my experience one has to file a report whenever force is used. Pointing gun = force

ar15barrels
01-04-2008, 11:01 PM
In my experience one has to file a report whenever force is used.

But does that always happen in the real world?
LEO's just love writing reports...

JagerTroop
01-04-2008, 11:47 PM
what about the rest of the penal code. have you seen that book.it would be impossible to have them learn everything in that book.not to mention the vehicle code book.firearms is just one section we study it all the time and we still don't know all of it

This is the weakest excuse I've ever heard. If the LEO in question is not up to the task, then don't take the job! Can you imagine if doctors and lawyers had this attitude?..." Have you seen those law books/medical books? They're HUGE, and there's just too many of them. You want me to read them ALL?!"

It's scary when someone who has control of my life/freedom is uneducated. You think just because you pass the physical and weapons certification, you're ready to hit the streets? Ridiculous. I'm a taxpayer... taxpayers pay your salary... so as your employer, I say, "learn the d@mn laws, or clean out your locker!"

Ech0Sierra
01-04-2008, 11:50 PM
Most doctors refer to "specialists" since no decent human being can learn every single medical fact in existence. My Physician mostly deals with... Blood Tests, Flu, Shots, and other common things. He needs a specialist when faced with an arcane, rare, disease. Also, how many Jack-of-All Law Lawyers do you see,:rant:

JagerTroop
01-04-2008, 11:54 PM
well then, according to your statement, the CHP should have refered to a specialist.

*edit* Also, most docs and lawyers know the basics. Like identifying a situation of which they aren't familiar, and when to consult with a specialist. The chp must know that OLLs exist.

bluestaterebel
01-05-2008, 1:27 AM
:nopity:This is the weakest excuse I've ever heard. If the LEO in question is not up to the task, then don't take the job! Can you imagine if doctors and lawyers had this attitude?..." Have you seen those law books/medical books? They're HUGE, and there's just too many of them. You want me to read them ALL?!"

It's scary when someone who has control of my life/freedom is uneducated. You think just because you pass the physical and weapons certification, you're ready to hit the streets? Ridiculous. I'm a taxpayer... taxpayers pay your salary... so as your employer, I say, "learn the d@mn laws, or clean out your locker!"

JagerTroop
01-05-2008, 1:45 AM
that's fine. call me a crybaby. You must be one of the douchebags to which I'm refering :)

rorschach
01-05-2008, 2:10 AM
And thus the namecalling begineth....IBTL:p

JagerTroop
01-05-2008, 2:15 AM
LOL... But he started it

Sgt Raven
01-05-2008, 3:12 AM
K a couple of peps here need the 'my little pony treatment'. ;) :p

eta34
01-05-2008, 6:50 AM
Shocking...this has turned into name calling. I can't believe it.

Now, regarding the "use of force" and report requirement. I understand the concept, but it doesn't exist in my experience. Although pointing a firearm at someone is a significant use of force, if there are not shots fired or nobody is injured, there would be no report (at least in the agencies I have worked for).

Again, I repeat the OLL knowledge argument that I have made dozens of times on this forum. I agree that ignorance is no excuse. However, how do you blame the average patrolman for ignorance in this area. There is nothing in our training discussing OLL's. We get no legal updates from DOJ or any of the major training agencies. I only learned about OLL's from this website. I try to educate my fellow officers.

We need to blame DOJ for this. They are responsible for training the average LEO. They have failed miserably.

And again, as I have said dozens of times on this forum. We can complain all we want about the illegal OLL arrests. We need to take some responsibility in educating LEO's on this issue. Despite what a few members here think, most LEO's are open to discussing issues. Much like anyone else, we don't want to be lectured; the average motorist doesn't want a lecture about speed laws. We ask the same courtesy.

WE have to help make the change.

Max-the-Silent
01-05-2008, 9:01 AM
Glad to hear it worked out w/o legal entangelments.

Lot's of agencies have been given the word from the top to be aware of possible "terrorist" training in rural areas, and this type of thing can happen anywhere today, even in "free" states.

Going back many years, if you're out in an approved shooting area you could expect to be approached by LE (not with drawn weapons though) and chatted up, just to see what's up - badging them at the beginning solves many problems, but when NFA is/was involved sometimes you have to do a little educational presentation.

The issue of the officer cutting you off when you attemted to explain your mag. is a common mistake by some officers. They're so accustomed to being lied to that they don't listen to anything from a civilian that contradicts what they "know" - Eventually the officer in question learns to listen, hopefully...Listening can solve a lot of potential problems.

Matt C
01-05-2008, 10:57 AM
that's fine. call me a crybaby. You must be one of the douchebags to which I'm refering :)

:ban:

ar15barrels
01-05-2008, 11:53 AM
well then, according to your statement, the CHP should have refered to a specialist.

Correct.
DOJ BOF are the specialists in this case.

Also, most docs and lawyers know the basics. Like identifying a situation of which they aren't familiar, and when to consult with a specialist. The chp must know that OLLs exist.

If the CHP officer (or even a BOF agent) knew all the laws as written, he would NOT necessarily know that OLL's exist.
Please show me where OLL's are specifically covered in the law? ;)

They fall under that part where "if it's not specifically prohibited, it's legal"

DigglerD
01-05-2008, 12:12 PM
Again, I repeat the OLL knowledge argument that I have made dozens of times on this forum. I agree that ignorance is no excuse. However, how do you blame the average patrolman for ignorance in this area. There is nothing in our training discussing OLL's. We get no legal updates from DOJ or any of the major training agencies. I only learned about OLL's from this website. I try to educate my fellow officers.

I agree... the OLL is a loophole in the law. Legislators didn't intend to ban assault type weapons unless you build it yourself and modify the mag release. Smart folks here read between the lines and came up with a solution. Do you really think they want to "codify" this by spreading literature?

Despite what a few members here think, most LEO's are open to discussing issues. Much like anyone else, we don't want to be lectured; the average motorist doesn't want a lecture about speed laws. We ask the same courtesy.

The problem is most LEO's assume anything coming out of the motorists mouth is a "lecture". The LEO knows what they pulled them over for and knows there will be some excuse and doesn't want to hear it. Furthermore, they tend to think it's funny to tie up your time if you are so bold as to "lecture" them.

The issue of the officer cutting you off when you attemted to explain your mag. is a common mistake by some officers. They're so accustomed to being lied to that they don't listen to anything from a civilian that contradicts what they "know"

This should be lesson #1 in the LEO training manual, "you don't know everything". Lesson #2, when you "assume" I am a liar, you make an *** out of "u" and "me". I don't care about "accustomed" because I am not the other motorists you have pulled over and they are not me.

retired
01-05-2008, 3:15 PM
rounding up all the jews because their boss told them to

Uh Boomer, I think this happened in another country awhile back and involved the military also IIRC. Are you attempting to compare the leo of this country, Ca. specifically, to the Nazis.:rolleyes:

I never noticed any of the deputies I worked with or the other agencies I came in contact with, rounding up Jews.

I guess since I was in le and I'm Jewish, I should have rounded up myself, huh.:rolleyes::D

Might want to relax a little; might lower your bp.

SoCalDep
01-05-2008, 5:42 PM
Man...I read like four pages of this stuff, skipped a bit, and my head hurts too much to read the whole thing, thus my less-than complete analysis of this thread...

First... I would recommend that everyone go look at a Penal Code book. Not an abridged one, the whole thing.

It's big. And boring. Contradictory, confusing, lawyerspeak, full of regulatory provisions, revisions, felonies, misdemeanors, wobblers, loopholes, and fluff. Out of it we get our laws, Cops (like me) get our statutory authority to do stuff like arrest people and run around with loaded guns and stuff. Out of it we are all told what we must do, must not do, and what we can do.

It is humanly impossible for anyone to fully understand all laws. The expectation that these officers be fully knowledgeable with a certain aspect of law (OLL's) that are rarely encountered is in my oppinion unreasonable. That does not mean they have a big OK to violate rights in the name of "oops I didn't know", but before we go accusing them of doing that, I think we are WAY to uninformed to come to any sort of educated conclusion about what this incident really was...

First, why did CHP end up there...Was it a call from a citizen? What did they say was going on? How many calls were received?

Second, what past history of the area might cause the officers to be cautious, such as past instances of gangsters, crooks, etc. shooting in the area that we may be unaware...

Third, and most importantly, how do we as society expect law enforcement to react to possibly threatening instances? We have seen the videos of officers loosing their lives during lethal confrontations. We say "Why did he do that? Why did he hesitate? Why was he not more cautious...or take more control...or maintain a position of advantage?" then we turn and criticize officers for being cautious and attempting to maintain control.

Again, I don't know enough about this situation to make a firm judgement. The officer may have been a jerk. They exist. To me, however, it seems more that the officer was dealing with a potentially threatening incident and was attempting to make it safe. partly by unloading the firearm...I'm sure he was familiar with AR15's and without experience with OLL's simply became frustrated he could not make the firearm safe.

As for telling the OP to leave the area. I withold judgement on that one too...If it was done simply to "flex LEO muscle" then it was stupid and wrong. If it was done because they received 6 calls from people in the area concerned about the "potential child killer with a gun" they may have been trying to save both him and them trouble with additional calls (possibly involving more confused officers or another agency where things could turn out worse) or he may have been in an area where shooting was prohibited due to weather (we are in a high fire danger area), proximity to houses, roads, or statute. Many counties and cities have restrictions/prohibitions regarding target shooting at anything other than an established range, with the exception of hunting.

In short, this whole mess of a debate is being conducted with a minimum of information, which really makes the whole thing somewhat pointless, at least in my oppinion, other than the argument that the one officer continued to act like a jerk after the situation calmed down. Everything else is too vague to be able to really tell what happened.

Lastly, I own an OLL, and I am more familiar with firearm laws than probably most. My partners know that and frequently ask me for advice. I've saved several people from going to jail and having to work out the issues "after the fact" and thus many deputies from making a booboo due to the complicated laws. Recently someone was almost arrested for having a .22 configured in violation of SB23 provisions (actually 12080 per 12276pc sections...) but the deputy called me and I was able to tell him that rimfires do not fall under the provisions of 12276...This is an issue of training and the fact that these laws are not "user-friendly", even to cops. And this is where we all need to work together (Gun rights advocates, both LE and non-LE) to educate, train make things better.

Comparing these CHP officers to a few guys in New Orleans is like comparing Three soldiers in Iraq to the few Abu Graib idiots. It's not an intellectually honest argument and does nothing to solve the problem. In fact, it only helps alienate the sides, making civilians hate cops, and making cops feel like there's no support from civilians, thus creating that "thin blue line, Us vs. Them" mentality.

Anyway, that's just what I think...

ar15barrels
01-05-2008, 5:59 PM
Lastly, I own an OLL, and I am more familiar with firearm laws than probably most. My partners know that and frequently ask me for advice. I've saved several people from going to jail and having to work out the issues "after the fact" and thus many deputies from making a booboo due to the complicated laws. Recently someone was almost arrested for having a .22 configured in violation of SB23 provisions (actually 12080 per 12076pc sections...) but the deputy called me and I was able to tell him that rimfires do not fall under the provisions of 12076...This is an issue of training and the fact that these laws are not "user-friendly", even to cops. And this is where we all need to work together (Gun rights advocates, both LE and non-LE) to educate, train make things better.

In your opinion, as a professional law enforcement officer, what would be a good path for Calguns to help educate officers.

Could a simplified AW/OLL summary card be printed up and mailed to individual departments?
Would a simple one-two page document even get distributed to officers if it were not sent through legal paths like BOF?
I'm looking for some kind of way to get average beat-cops a better understanding that won't simply get ignored because it's "unofficial"...

ar15barrels
01-05-2008, 6:01 PM
Lastly, I own an OLL, and I am more familiar with firearm laws than probably most. My partners know that and frequently ask me for advice. I've saved several people from going to jail and having to work out the issues "after the fact" and thus many deputies from making a booboo due to the complicated laws. Recently someone was almost arrested for having a .22 configured in violation of SB23 provisions (actually 12080 per 12076pc sections...) but the deputy called me and I was able to tell him that rimfires do not fall under the provisions of 12076...This is an issue of training and the fact that these laws are not "user-friendly", even to cops. And this is where we all need to work together (Gun rights advocates, both LE and non-LE) to educate, train make things better.

In your opinion, as a professional law enforcement officer, what would be a good path for Calguns to help educate officers.

Could a simplified AW/OLL summary card be printed up and mailed to individual departments?
Would a simple one-two page document even get distributed to officers if it were not sent through legal paths like BOF?
I'm looking for some kind of way to get average beat-cops a better understanding that won't simply get ignored because it's "unofficial"...
Could we get a group of officers together to help produce the card and lend their blessing to it?
Would that help it get taken seriously?
Is there a certain size card that could be laminated so that it would actually get carried on-duty?

SoCalDep
01-05-2008, 6:26 PM
That's actually an excellent idea!

I thought about printing up a little assault weapon cheater but never did it...

The best way to go is a single 8.5 x 11 page at least as far as my station is concerned. Most deputies have a "Brain Book" or "cheater" where they put all their training information, "how to" info, etc. and most of it is regular photocopies.

The main benefit from my perspective would be an "English version" of what makes something an assault weapon. (ie: if it doesn't fit this, it isn't an assault weapon...) Then list some examples of commonly misinterpreted assault weapons, and list the applicable sections. That way, if we come across a firearm that is an assault weapon, we know what to charge. If not, we don't make an error.

Your concern is probably the biggest stumbling block. I doubt most departments, especially those run by people whose name rhymes with "caca" and in liberal cities would endorse material written by the "gun lobby", especially when DOJ doesn't provide much of anything. If DOJ doesn't bless it, I doubt it would be accepted as official. Of course, my oppinion is that word-of-mouth works best anyway.

And another little tidbit. I know the leadership for most CA LE agencies is pretty liberal, and that leads many to believe that the institution is inherently liberal. Anecdotal encounters with uninformed, ignorant, and flat-out-bad officers can reinforce that perception. I will say though, that as someone who was a gun owner before I became a cop I am very impressed with the pro-gun attitude of most of my partners. I've been in briefings where the Sgt's have given big lectures essentially saying that we need to be more reasonable when dealing with people and not take people to jail everytime they break a stupid law trying to do something good...to use descretion...and this was in reference to a gun issue. I know most people don't see it, but at the grunt-level, and most of the time, we do our best to work with the good guys.

JagerTroop
01-05-2008, 11:23 PM
:ban:


Nice. You want me banned? I guess you don't beleive in the... what's it called?... oh yeah, THE CONSTITUTION! Ammendment #1... freedom of speech. I don't get to have an opinion?

Listen, I am not an unreasonable man. I'm sorry if I offended some people on here. A little name calling isn't going to end the world.

My point is this: LEOs are/should be held to a higher standard than your average citizen. If Joe Blow is pulled over for speeding, failure to signal, or illegal U turn, and tells the cop, "I didn't know that was illegal." he is told that ignorance of the law is no excuse. We, as citizens, are expected to know the laws of our society. If we are uninformed, misinformed, or just plain unaware that the law exists, we are not exempt from fault. LEOs should be held to, at least, the same standards. I play by the rules, and expect everyone else to play by the rules as well(at least the 'self proclaimed law abiding people').
Come on LEOs, don't just be mindless drones. Educate yourselves. Lead by example. I have zero(in this situation) problem with the CHPs responding as they did, with weapons drawn. But once it is determined that there is no threat, be civil. We aren't all criminals. Once this is established, lighten up. We're not all out to get you.

I appologize to any Calguns member whom I've offended. I love and respect this site, as well as the wealth of knowledge that is shared.

Eli

ar15barrels
01-05-2008, 11:33 PM
I guess you don't beleive in the... what's it called?... oh yeah, THE CONSTITUTION!
Ammendment #1... freedom of speech. I don't get to have an opinion?

Nice try, maybe the race card would work better.

The freedom of speach on forums is not constitutionally protected.
Forums are privately run and the admins can throw you out just as if you were standing in a store.
A store owner can't duct-tape your mouth to stop you from speaking, but he can kick you out the door so he doesn't hear you anymore. ;)

JagerTroop
01-05-2008, 11:52 PM
I am well aware that not all laws and/or rights apply to the private sector, but I hear a lot of talk on here about our "freedoms". Have I caused such a stir, that I need to be silenced? Do you truly feel threatened? I didn't think so... we're just having a conversation. Mods... checks my posts. I'm not a trouble starter, I just have a strong opinion on this subject matter.

Regarding the race card, I'm a middle class white male. How much pull does the race card have? I've got a snowballs chance in hell, playing THAT one.:)

Matt C
01-05-2008, 11:54 PM
It's nice to have a civil adult conversation without name calling. Also, you broke the clearly posted rules which is disrespectful the person that hosts this site. It has NOTHING to do with the constitution.

ar15barrels
01-05-2008, 11:58 PM
Have I caused such a stir, that I need to be silenced?
No.
Regarding the race card, I'm a middle class white male.

You live in California, therefore you ARE a minority. ;)

Sgt Raven
01-06-2008, 12:00 AM
Nice try, maybe the race card would work better.

The freedom of speach on forums is not constitutionally protected.
Forums are privately run and the admins can throw you out just as if you were standing in a store.
A store owner can't duct-tape your mouth to stop you from speaking, but he can kick you out the door so he doesn't hear you anymore. ;)


Thanks for saving me the time to type that. :p

DigglerD
01-06-2008, 12:06 AM
Thanks for saving me the time to type that. :p

Humbug... freedom of speech is not protected here but one would assume that this is a place (more so than others and regardless of law) where the principal would be held pretty high.

ar15barrels
01-06-2008, 12:11 AM
Humbug... freedom of speech is not protected here but one would assume that this is a place
(more so than others and regardless of law) where the principal would be held pretty high.

The forum rules are held in higher regard. ;)

heyjak
01-06-2008, 12:13 AM
Man...I read like four pages of this stuff, skipped a bit, and my head hurts too much to read the whole thing, thus my less-than complete analysis of this thread...

First... I would recommend that everyone go look at a Penal Code book. Not an abridged one, the whole thing.

It's big. And boring. Contradictory, confusing, lawyerspeak, full of regulatory provisions, revisions, felonies, misdemeanors, wobblers, loopholes, and fluff. Out of it we get our laws, Cops (like me) get our statutory authority to do stuff like arrest people and run around with loaded guns and stuff. Out of it we are all told what we must do, must not do, and what we can do.

It is humanly impossible for anyone to fully understand all laws. The expectation that these officers be fully knowledgeable with a certain aspect of law (OLL's) that are rarely encountered is in my oppinion unreasonable. That does not mean they have a big OK to violate rights in the name of "oops I didn't know", but before we go accusing them of doing that, I think we are WAY to uninformed to come to any sort of educated conclusion about what this incident really was...

First, why did CHP end up there...Was it a call from a citizen? What did they say was going on? How many calls were received?

Second, what past history of the area might cause the officers to be cautious, such as past instances of gangsters, crooks, etc. shooting in the area that we may be unaware...

Third, and most importantly, how do we as society expect law enforcement to react to possibly threatening instances? We have seen the videos of officers loosing their lives during lethal confrontations. We say "Why did he do that? Why did he hesitate? Why was he not more cautious...or take more control...or maintain a position of advantage?" then we turn and criticize officers for being cautious and attempting to maintain control.

Again, I don't know enough about this situation to make a firm judgement. The officer may have been a jerk. They exist. To me, however, it seems more that the officer was dealing with a potentially threatening incident and was attempting to make it safe. partly by unloading the firearm...I'm sure he was familiar with AR15's and without experience with OLL's simply became frustrated he could not make the firearm safe.

As for telling the OP to leave the area. I withold judgement on that one too...If it was done simply to "flex LEO muscle" then it was stupid and wrong. If it was done because they received 6 calls from people in the area concerned about the "potential child killer with a gun" they may have been trying to save both him and them trouble with additional calls (possibly involving more confused officers or another agency where things could turn out worse) or he may have been in an area where shooting was prohibited due to weather (we are in a high fire danger area), proximity to houses, roads, or statute. Many counties and cities have restrictions/prohibitions regarding target shooting at anything other than an established range, with the exception of hunting.

In short, this whole mess of a debate is being conducted with a minimum of information, which really makes the whole thing somewhat pointless, at least in my oppinion, other than the argument that the one officer continued to act like a jerk after the situation calmed down. Everything else is too vague to be able to really tell what happened.

Lastly, I own an OLL, and I am more familiar with firearm laws than probably most. My partners know that and frequently ask me for advice. I've saved several people from going to jail and having to work out the issues "after the fact" and thus many deputies from making a booboo due to the complicated laws. Recently someone was almost arrested for having a .22 configured in violation of SB23 provisions (actually 12080 per 12276pc sections...) but the deputy called me and I was able to tell him that rimfires do not fall under the provisions of 12276...This is an issue of training and the fact that these laws are not "user-friendly", even to cops. And this is where we all need to work together (Gun rights advocates, both LE and non-LE) to educate, train make things better.

Comparing these CHP officers to a few guys in New Orleans is like comparing Three soldiers in Iraq to the few Abu Graib idiots. It's not an intellectually honest argument and does nothing to solve the problem. In fact, it only helps alienate the sides, making civilians hate cops, and making cops feel like there's no support from civilians, thus creating that "thin blue line, Us vs. Them" mentality.

Anyway, that's just what I think...

Thank you for sharing this. Your perspective seems reasonable and well thought-out. Hopefully others will read this and understand.

JagerTroop
01-06-2008, 12:15 AM
It's nice to have a civil adult conversation without name calling. Also, you broke the clearly posted rules which is disrespectful the person that hosts this site. It has NOTHING to do with the constitution.

So according to the rules:
:7::nopity::65::stupid::94::18: these are all "polite"?

calling people stupid, cutting their face off, and shooting them are all part of "...a discussion group to share ideas and info in a polite and friendly enviroment..."

Matt C
01-06-2008, 12:16 AM
So according to the rules:
:7::nopity::65::stupid::94::18: these are all "polite"?

calling people stupid, cutting their face off, and shooting them are all part of "...a discussion group to share ideas and info in a polite and friendly enviroment..."

It's all in the context brother.

JagerTroop
01-06-2008, 12:18 AM
It's all in the context brother.

as was my comment.

E Pluribus Unum
01-06-2008, 12:33 AM
As far as the officer's confronting the OP with their rifles, what would you have them do; leave their rifles in their cars, walk down thier with a cup of coffee in one hand and a donut in another and just begin chit chatting with the OP who has an unknown type weapon with him.
.

Game warden's do this ALL of the time. They cite and arrest hunters armed with rifles when all they carry is a handgun. You never hear of game warden's being killed.

Its crazy; county sherriff pulls you over with a gun in the car, no big deal... game warden pulls you over with a loaded magazine in the gun and the gun on your lap, again, no big deal. You simply have a gun in the car and CHP/local PD are doing a felony stop on your butt....

I could never figure that out.

bluestaterebel
01-06-2008, 12:46 AM
In your opinion, as a professional law enforcement officer, what would be a good path for Calguns to help educate officers.

this has been my mission since i have been on this forum. the ideas you state may help but what i have been saying on this forum is that there probably is at least one leo from every large agency in california and many others form smaller depts on calguns. these are the guys that can have the most impact. especially by building their own oll and turning other leos to build and own an "ar15" which they previously thought were illegal to own.

the problem i see is that many members here complain about the us against them mentality that leos may have but then help to further that mentality.

i know that each and every one of you have a leo horror story but the point here is to change things right? there are probably alot of leos on this site who are still in the closet. mainly because cops are paranoid and this site does seem to be anti-leo at times.

i guess what i'm trying to say is lets be friends andwork together.:D

JagerTroop
01-06-2008, 12:53 AM
i guess what i'm trying to say is lets be friends andwork together.:D

I agree. I know this is not in reference to my posts, but, it still applies :D
Goodnight all.

Eli

bluestaterebel
01-06-2008, 1:00 AM
I agree. I know this is not in reference to my posts, but, it still applies :D
Goodnight all.

Eli

with that i apologize for using the :nopity: smiley. :)

DigglerD
01-06-2008, 1:05 AM
this has been my mission since i have been on this forum. the ideas you state may help but what i have been saying on this forum is that there probably is at least one leo from every large agency in california and many others form smaller depts on calguns. these are the guys that can have the most impact. especially by building their own oll and turning other leos to build and own an "ar15" which they previously thought were illegal to own.

the problem i see is that many members here complain about the us against them mentality that leos may have but then help to further that mentality.

i know that each and every one of you have a leo horror story but the point here is to change things right? there are probably alot of leos on this site who are still in the closet. mainly because cops are paranoid and this site does seem to be anti-leo at times.

i guess what i'm trying to say is lets be friends andwork together.:D

I'm all for this... but you have to realize the LEO's have all the power and threaten others just by their presence.

The average citizen does not see a LEO as a person employed by the community to serve and protect... rather they are seen as those who hide under overpasses to babysit and harass.

How do we change this? Talking to a LEO in a normal setting is usually ok and non-nerve racking. However you still want to be nice and not preachy because they may pull you over some day... Talking to them while they are doing what makes them offensive is "no beuno" for clear reasons. So here's what I'm saying... I am a lifelong law-abiding citizen and I feel somewhat extorted into being nice when their focus is not on busting me for something and I feel even more extorted into shutting the hell up when it is. This is not just my feeling but everyone I know so LEO's must be doing something to put this vibe off but there is no real incentive to correct it on either side.

My car got broken into for the third time last year and there was over $3000 in theft and damage. I called the station and they told me tough luck, go online, file a report and then call insurance. They wouldn't even come out to look. However, the next day they towed the car for being parked in the same location on the street for more than 72 hours. I had to kill a day of pay and then dish out another $500 in city and tow fees to get my busted car back. How is that supposed to make us feel? Served and protected?

I know we all have stories and code enforcers are different than patrolmen from detectives and so on... but it surely isn't helping the LEO image.

The system has been reworked and is more interested in revenue generation (traffic stops) than actual crime and helping citizens. Change needs to happen but those empowered need to even know there is a problem and how can that ever happen if they are in a system that doesn't want that change.


Either way, I'm all ears. What should I do?

ar15barrels
01-06-2008, 1:12 AM
My car got broken into for the third time last year and there was over $3000 in theft and damage. I called the station and they told me tough luck, go online, file a report and then call insurance. They wouldn't even come out to look. However, the next day they towed the car for being parked in the same location on the street for more than 72 hours. I had to kill a day of pay and then dish out another $500 in city and tow fees to get my busted car back. How is that supposed to make us feel? Served and protected?

Sounds like you got served...

bluestaterebel
01-06-2008, 2:23 AM
I'm all for this... but you have to realize the LEO's have all the power and threaten others just by their presence.

The average citizen does not see a LEO as a person employed by the community to serve and protect... rather they are seen as those who hide under overpasses to babysit and harass.

How do we change this? Talking to a LEO in a normal setting is usually ok and non-nerve racking. However you still want to be nice and not preachy because they may pull you over some day... Talking to them while they are doing what makes them offensive is "no beuno" for clear reasons. So here's what I'm saying... I am a lifelong law-abiding citizen and I feel somewhat extorted into being nice when their focus is not on busting me for something and I feel even more extorted into shutting the hell up when it is. This is not just my feeling but everyone I know so LEO's must be doing something to put this vibe off but there is no real incentive to correct it on either side.

My car got broken into for the third time last year and there was over $3000 in theft and damage. I called the station and they told me tough luck, go online, file a report and then call insurance. They wouldn't even come out to look. However, the next day they towed the car for being parked in the same location on the street for more than 72 hours. I had to kill a day of pay and then dish out another $500 in city and tow fees to get my busted car back. How is that supposed to make us feel? Served and protected?

I know we all have stories and code enforcers are different than patrolmen from detectives and so on... but it surely isn't helping the LEO image.

The system has been reworked and is more interested in revenue generation (traffic stops) than actual crime and helping citizens. Change needs to happen but those empowered need to even know there is a problem and how can that ever happen if they are in a system that doesn't want that change.


Either way, I'm all ears. What should I do?

well, one leo at a time. icant talk about other depts but there has been a push for kindler and gentler policing. you see we have to turn the switch from talking to an a**hole one minute to normal person the next. sometimes we cant tell between them or cant turn the switch back. we get lied to everyday and have heard almost every excuse. not trying to make you feel sorry for us just giving some insight.

i feel your pain about your car theft. i have never had it happen to me but i can imagine the feeling. i have had patrol cars vandalized while handling calls. the problem is that there is nothing we can do, not even for our own cars. i have handled phone calls for your type of (car theft/vadalism) situation. the caller is usually pissed off because of their loss (understandably) and is letting off steam on the leo who answers their call.

the leo who answers the call, who joined le to help people, is pissed because he knows he cant help and that the caller is s.o.l. and there is nothing he can do but complete a report which can only help for insurance purposes. then the caller who is an avid fan of csi miami thinks if only they cared they can solve this crime. then the caller hates the police.

then the next time the leo is on patrol he promises himself that he will be on the lookout for car thieves. he turns the corner on a dark street and sees a shadowy figure near a car door appearing to be breaking in. he shines his spotlight on him in order to catch the thief in the act only to see that the guys has keys in his hand, its his car. the guy gets pissed at the gestapo police and thinks that he cant even get in his own car without getting "harrassed" and getting the light shined on his face like a criminal. he goes on an online forum and tell his firends that he was harrased for no go reason and was breaking no laws. his buddies, who have horror stories of their own tell him he should make a complaint, this is not right! he goes to the station and makes a complaint. the leo thinks, this is what i get for trying to be proactive and prevent crime? a complaint? thats the last time i will be proactive. smile and wave. :rant:

as far as the leos who "hide" just to give tickets. well first off, i hate writing tickets. there are leos who like it and leos whos whole job is to do that. like motorcops, at least in my dept. i always thought why would they want to do that? writing ticktets all day. then i come to realize that i like it when i am driving and i can (for the most part) safely drive through a green light without having to worry about cross traffic. then i am glad that someone does it cause i hate it. you see if we didnt have traffic enforcement it would be a dangerous place to drive. have you ever driven in tijuana? its a necessary evil which sucks to be on the losing side.

back on topic, i doubt that i will ever see an oll in the area where i work (who knows), but if there is a rural area where you legally and commonly shoot, it would probably help to ask on this forum if there is a leo form there or if anyone knows a leo from there. get that leo on board, help him build an oll and in turn he will spread the word. this is what wes from 10% has done in his area. little by little:gunsmilie:

Max-the-Silent
01-06-2008, 10:19 AM
Game warden's do this ALL of the time. They cite and arrest hunters armed with rifles when all they carry is a handgun. You never hear of game warden's being killed.

Its crazy; county sherriff pulls you over with a gun in the car, no big deal... game warden pulls you over with a loaded magazine in the gun and the gun on your lap, again, no big deal. You simply have a gun in the car and CHP/local PD are doing a felony stop on your butt....

I could never figure that out.

Not so, do a web search. GW's in many areas have had to go to long guns because of the threats they face.

Matt C
01-06-2008, 10:44 AM
Not so, do a web search. GW's in many areas have had to go to long guns because of the threats they face.

It's true, MJ growers like to hide in places where game wardens work, and they are generally well armed.

fal_762x51
01-06-2008, 11:01 AM
The wardens up he are armed with the standard 870, but haul around a M1A in the center console. The Sheriffs Drug Task Force is armed as well, but with AR15s. I have more respect for the wardens; they need to know all California PCs and USDA (Forest Service) codes. The ones I know up here, plus two in Idaho, are some of the brightest LEOs I know. If you know the jokes about Humboldt County, it really is a dangerous place for them to work.

The Highway Patrol guy probably just got off of road flare detail (AKA flare b****) and finally got to patrol, he needed something big.

DigglerD
01-06-2008, 12:00 PM
well, one leo at a time. icant talk about other depts but there has been a push for kindler and gentler policing. you see we have to turn the switch from talking to an a**hole one minute to normal person the next. sometimes we cant tell between them or cant turn the switch back. we get lied to everyday and have heard almost every excuse. not trying to make you feel sorry for us just giving some insight.

Pension, good pay, special home loans and many other perks... it's not because the job is easy. It may be hard, but it's no excuse.

as far as the leos who "hide" just to give tickets. well first off, i hate writing tickets. there are leos who like it and leos whos whole job is to do that. like motorcops, at least in my dept. i always thought why would they want to do that? writing ticktets all day. then i come to realize that i like it when i am driving and i can (for the most part) safely drive through a green light without having to worry about cross traffic. then i am glad that someone does it cause i hate it. you see if we didnt have traffic enforcement it would be a dangerous place to drive. have you ever driven in tijuana? its a necessary evil which sucks to be on the losing side.


Good story (I snipped it) and it makes good sense in a comical way. However, most of LE that citizens see consists of pull overs and traffic tickets, you know, the stuff they do to ordinary (usually law abiding) citizens that are late to a mtg or something (I know, no excuse) but when when it comes to actual criminals, not 50 in a 45 types, but actual muggers, and thieves... we get the "can't help you". I immediately start to think, why don't you pull the gazillion cops babysitting on the streets and have them go after real criminals...

Either way, it can go on forever, question remains... what do we do?

Max-the-Silent
01-06-2008, 12:42 PM
Now that we have established that Diggler has a case of the red *** over LEO's, can we get back to the topic?

The individual that was approached by the CHP's wasn't arrested, his rifle wasn't confiscated, and other than bruised feelings, no animals were harmed in the production.

I built an OLL just to familarize our officers with the subject matter.

Hopefully they pay attenion when the thing gets handed around in class.

If you're a civlian in possession of an OLL, you can't expect any officer to know from a distance that you're in compliance. You have to expect that in this climate, in this state, you will find yourself being interviwed at some point if you're out in a public setting firing your weapon.

Hopefully the LEO that you encounter will be well informed - if not, you have to be prepared to defend yourself in a court of law - in this case, the officers in question seemed to have acted reasonably (to me) given the circumstances. They didn't know anything about the poster other than the fact that he was armed and firing a weapon (that in their experience) was of questionable legality.

The end result was in the poster's favor. He's not a test case.

If you're going to have an OLL weapon, do yourself a favor and make sure that you're firing the weapon in an approved area, and have every bit of paperwork available to you to back up the fact that you're in compliance with the law, and that you legally own the firearm in question. It may not absolutley defend you against ignorance, but to most officers that I know, having a stack of documentation goes a long way in demonstrating that you're legit.

DigglerD
01-06-2008, 12:51 PM
Now that we have established that Diggler has a case of the red *** over LEO's, can we get back to the topic?


I am on topic... you just don't want to discuss the larger issue... follow the progression:

legal gunners drawn on > LEO plays Rambo while other LEOs chill out > gunners found to be legal but told to leave anyway > why do LEOs feel the need to do this > LEOs think civis lie > civis think LEOs are over-reactive know it all > how do we (civilians) bridge the gap with LEOs > civis act nicer > LEOs try to help fight crime w/o the babysit complex...

If the OP has given us a true account of what happened then most here think (1) the draw down was inappropriate (2) LEOs don't know it all (3) LEOs can't possibly know it all and (3) LEOs need to be more receptive in their position of power.

And I'm still trying to figure out how to bridge that gap...

Max-the-Silent
01-06-2008, 1:02 PM
I am on topic... you just don't want to discuss the larger issue... follow the progression:

legal gunners drawn on > LEO plays Rambo while other LEOs chill out > gunners found to be legal but told to leave anyway > why do LEOs feel the need to do this > LEOs think civis lie > civis think LEOs are over-reactive know it all > how do we (civilians) bridge the gap with LEOs > civis act nicer > LEOs try to help fight crime w/o the babysit complex...

If the OP has given us a true account of what happened then most here think (1) the draw down was inappropriate (2) LEOs don't know it all (3) LEOs can't possibly know it all and (3) LEOs need to be more receptive in their position of power. And I'm still trying to figure out how to bridge that gap...

Most posters may feel that way, I don't pretend to know.

Most posters don't confront armed individuals on any regular basis.

It's SOP to approach an armed subject with your weapon drawn and ready.

You are not expected or required to approach empty handed and wait for the situation to develop.

That's why I've made OLL's a part of our training.

Sgt Raven
01-06-2008, 1:24 PM
Most posters may feel that way, I don't pretend to know.

Most posters don't confront armed individuals on any regular basis.

It's SOP to approach an armed subject with your weapon drawn and ready.

You are not expected or required to approach empty handed and wait for the situation to develop.

That's why I've made OLL's a part of our training.

Most likely I'd have approached them with my long gun at low ready and my trigger finger indexed on the frame. With out us being there we don't know how they were holding their firearms. To someone down range the low ready might look like I was pointing it at them, when I wasn't. ;)

E Pluribus Unum
01-06-2008, 1:28 PM
Not so, do a web search. GW's in many areas have had to go to long guns because of the threats they face.

Whatever....

95% of all the people that are stopped by the game warden's are armed and have rounds physically in the weapon. There is no need for a beat cop to do felony stop treatment when there is a hunting rifle in the car.

11Z50
01-06-2008, 1:32 PM
While the CHP officers in this case were justified in approaching the scene with weapons at the ready, once the situation was code-4, ie no threat apparent, they should have immediately de-escalated the situation. There was no need to treat the shooter-citizen as they did. It seems Rambo-cop was over-reacting while the other two officers were trying to calm things down.

In any event, were it me, I'd be at the CHP station asking to file a citizen's complaint. Believe me, cops catch some major flak for incidents like this if a citizen does file a complaint. If an officer gets too many complaints, he or she won't be wearing a badge for long.

532Fastback
01-06-2008, 1:48 PM
A week or so ago in the police blotters for my area i saw someone called in to report semi-auto fire down at Greenhorn Creek then 2 hours later CHP pulled 2 cars over coming out of the creek and arrested someone on "Suspicion" of having an AW. When i just now saw this post i thought maybe you were from around here but i guess not. I'd like to know what rifle that person had that got arrested and if it was really an AW or a cal legal gun.

bluestaterebel
01-06-2008, 2:04 PM
In any event, were it me, I'd be at the CHP station asking to file a citizen's complaint. Believe me, cops catch some major flak for incidents like this if a citizen does file a complaint. If an officer gets too many complaints, he or she won't be wearing a badge for long.

is that why you no longer wear one?

11Z50
01-06-2008, 4:14 PM
No, I found a better job.......but yes, I had my share of IA's.

Jeez, LEO's are so sensitive to the truth nowadays! :(

Cops are not sacred and when they screw up they should be dealt with like everybody else. All I hear about is how tough it is out there, and how the thin blue line is stretched so thin. Yet you hear about Iggy's antics and the attempted railroading of Blackwater Ops. I was a cop for 7 years, I happen to have several close friends who are either retired or active LEOs, and I work with many different agencies on a regular basis, local, State, and Federal. 99% are great folks, normal people who do their jobs and go home. There is, however, that 1% who think a badge gives them the right to violate the rights of others. These rogue cops are just as much criminals as those out on the streets they are supposed to protect us from. In this case, if what the OP stated is fact, the CHP Officer had no right to abuse the citizen the way he did. Any cop that thinks it's cool to treat citizens like that is in fact part of that 1%.

There are alot of tougher jobs out there. Try running a Hummer up and down an MSR dodging IED's for a year or so.

prob
01-06-2008, 5:37 PM
When they told you that it would be a good idea to pack it in for the day, you should have told them to take a flying leap. I don't know why it is that people who are not breaking the law feel the need to kowtow to law enforcement. Screw them. Remember this at all times: Law enforcement personnel are not your friends and do not ever be misled into thinking they are. If they were friendly to gun owners, and if they really cared about how they are perceived, they certainly would not have approached you the way they did in a LEGAL shooting area.

ColdSteel
01-06-2008, 7:06 PM
When they told you that it would be a good idea to pack it in for the day, you should have told them to take a flying leap. I don't know why it is that people who are not breaking the law feel the need to kowtow to law enforcement. Screw them. Remember this at all times: Law enforcement personnel are not your friends and do not ever be misled into thinking they are.

You're F'n high. Mere citizens don't argue with cops (Well, I don't.). They've got nickel plated bracelets and a ton of buddies that will kick your butt just one short command away on the radio. Not to worry, those guys will ask questions later.
Granted, not all cops abuse their power, but I'd rather not test them. I just file complaints if need be.

11Z50
01-06-2008, 7:20 PM
You're F'n high. Mere citizens don't argue with cops (Well, I don't.). They've got nickel plated bracelets and a ton of buddies that will kick your butt just one short command away on the radio. Not to worry, those guys will ask questions later.
Granted, not all cops abuse their power, but I'd rather not test them. I just file complaints if need be.

Yes, Coldsteel, but it's about time people started calling arrogant bastages hiding behind a badge on such behavior. You're right, comply at the scene but by all means file a complaint later.

Max-the-Silent
01-06-2008, 8:06 PM
Whatever....

95% of all the people that are stopped by the game warden's are armed and have rounds physically in the weapon. There is no need for a beat cop to do felony stop treatment when there is a hunting rifle in the car.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-game-warden_N.htm


Crime seeps into game wardens' turfs

By Jeff DeLong, USA TODAY
A Texas game warden for nearly five years, Justin Hurst was patrolling on his 34th birthday last March 17 when he got a call that a colleague was pursuing a suspected poacher.

Hurst responded and was killed by the bullets of an assault rifle. James Freeman of Wharton County, Texas, faces murder charges in connection with the killing.

The tragedy is an example of a disturbing national trend, say wildlife officials in Texas, California, Nevada, New York and Arkansas. A job many people associate with checking fishing licenses and deer tags increasingly involves dealing with armed criminals, drug labs — and violence.

No national statistics on assaults against game wardens are available, said Marion Hoffman, president of the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association. But Hoffman, a New York environmental conservation officer, said wardens increasingly are finding themselves responding to crimes more often associated with urban police officers.

The dangers of the job were demonstrated again north of Oroville, Calif., on Oct. 8, when Game Warden Joshua Brennan shot and killed 39-year-old Bartyn Pitts after Pitts opened fire on him with a shotgun, Butte County District Attorney Michael Ramsey said.

The shooting occurred after Brennan, who was citing Pitts for an illegal fire, discovered Pitts was wanted on a felony warrant in Hawaii for distribution of methamphetamine, said Ramsey, who declared the shooting a justified homicide.

"Our wardens are often out alone … dealing with some very dangerous characters," said Steve Martarano, spokesman for the California Department of Fish and Game.

There was another example on Nov. 3. Arkansas Wildlife Officer Matt Flowers was wounded during a gunbattle with a suspected poacher at a park in North Little Rock, said Keith Stephens, spokesman for the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Flowers, 29, was shot in the chest but was protected from serious injury by body armor, Stephens said. Flowers returned fire and wounded Phillip Kelley, 36, who faces attempted murder charges.

In Arkansas, wardens patrolling remote areas are more frequently coming across methamphetamine labs and the dangers that come with them, Stephens said.

"You never know what you're going to walk up on," Stephens said. "They'll be out walking in the most remote areas they could think of and they will find where someone's been cooking (meth)."

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger awarded medals of valor on Dec. 6 to two game wardens, John Nores and Adam Kavanagh, for risking their lives to save fellow warden Kyle Kroll, who was shot during an ambush on Aug. 5, 2005, as he assisted sheriff's deputies on a marijuana farm raid in Northern California, Martarano said.

In Nevada, where solitary wardens must sometimes patrol up to 10,000 square miles of remote terrain, an increasing number of the people they encounter are armed with assault weapons as opposed to conventional hunting firearms, said Warden Randy Lusetti of the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

"I have seen in the last several years a difference in the type of people we contact," Lusetti said. "I've had a number of situations where I thought things could have gone in a bad way."

Dave Patula, 58, a Nevada warden for 29 years, agrees.

"We've been very fortunate in this state we haven't had an officer shot," he said.

DeLong reports for the RenoGazette-Journal

11Z50
01-06-2008, 8:37 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-game-warden_N.htm


Crime seeps into game wardens' turfs

By Jeff DeLong, USA TODAY
A Texas game warden for nearly five years, Justin Hurst was patrolling on his 34th birthday last March 17 when he got a call that a colleague was pursuing a suspected poacher.

Hurst responded and was killed by the bullets of an assault rifle. James Freeman of Wharton County, Texas, faces murder charges in connection with the killing.

The tragedy is an example of a disturbing national trend, say wildlife officials in Texas, California, Nevada, New York and Arkansas. A job many people associate with checking fishing licenses and deer tags increasingly involves dealing with armed criminals, drug labs — and violence.

No national statistics on assaults against game wardens are available, said Marion Hoffman, president of the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association. But Hoffman, a New York environmental conservation officer, said wardens increasingly are finding themselves responding to crimes more often associated with urban police officers.

The dangers of the job were demonstrated again north of Oroville, Calif., on Oct. 8, when Game Warden Joshua Brennan shot and killed 39-year-old Bartyn Pitts after Pitts opened fire on him with a shotgun, Butte County District Attorney Michael Ramsey said.

The shooting occurred after Brennan, who was citing Pitts for an illegal fire, discovered Pitts was wanted on a felony warrant in Hawaii for distribution of methamphetamine, said Ramsey, who declared the shooting a justified homicide.

"Our wardens are often out alone … dealing with some very dangerous characters," said Steve Martarano, spokesman for the California Department of Fish and Game.

There was another example on Nov. 3. Arkansas Wildlife Officer Matt Flowers was wounded during a gunbattle with a suspected poacher at a park in North Little Rock, said Keith Stephens, spokesman for the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Flowers, 29, was shot in the chest but was protected from serious injury by body armor, Stephens said. Flowers returned fire and wounded Phillip Kelley, 36, who faces attempted murder charges.

In Arkansas, wardens patrolling remote areas are more frequently coming across methamphetamine labs and the dangers that come with them, Stephens said.

"You never know what you're going to walk up on," Stephens said. "They'll be out walking in the most remote areas they could think of and they will find where someone's been cooking (meth)."

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger awarded medals of valor on Dec. 6 to two game wardens, John Nores and Adam Kavanagh, for risking their lives to save fellow warden Kyle Kroll, who was shot during an ambush on Aug. 5, 2005, as he assisted sheriff's deputies on a marijuana farm raid in Northern California, Martarano said.

In Nevada, where solitary wardens must sometimes patrol up to 10,000 square miles of remote terrain, an increasing number of the people they encounter are armed with assault weapons as opposed to conventional hunting firearms, said Warden Randy Lusetti of the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

"I have seen in the last several years a difference in the type of people we contact," Lusetti said. "I've had a number of situations where I thought things could have gone in a bad way."

Dave Patula, 58, a Nevada warden for 29 years, agrees.

"We've been very fortunate in this state we haven't had an officer shot," he said.

DeLong reports for the RenoGazette-Journal

Okay, It's dangerous out there.....no new information here. Still doesn't justify jacking up an innocent shooter minding his own business.

prob
01-06-2008, 9:21 PM
You're F'n high. Mere citizens don't argue with cops (Well, I don't.). They've got nickel plated bracelets and a ton of buddies that will kick your butt just one short command away on the radio. Not to worry, those guys will ask questions later.
Granted, not all cops abuse their power, but I'd rather not test them. I just file complaints if need be.

Actually, just because you might allow yourself to be used as a doormat doesn't mean that I'm "F'n high". If I happen to be involved in a legal activity in a legal place, I most certainly will not move along just because some pompous *** thinks it would be a good idea so he doesn't have to see me and be reminded of what an idiot he was for the unnecessary and uncalled for abuse he exhibited earlier. It's just that sort of unquestioned abuse of power that gives LEOs the perception that they're better than the general populace.

BillCA
01-07-2008, 6:05 AM
Okay, It's dangerous out there.....no new information here. Still doesn't justify jacking up an innocent shooter minding his own business.

No? I beg to differ.

If 85% of a GW's contacts with someone carrying a military-style rifle turn out to involve illegal activities and/or felony warrants, how will you determine if that AR-15 or SKS shooter is "an innocent shooter"? What visual elements will tell you he's Mr. Good Guy? Zero.

Add to it that you're alone, almost no prospects of back-up in some areas and perhaps your radio won't work in that terrain. You will want to control the situation until you see what you have. That means being firm about controlling their movements, what they have access to, and making sure you keep alert for any possible problems.

One thing is stressed in LEO training - it's very easy to die. One mistake, one momentary lapse of attention can allow a criminal to kill you. And dying is permanent. When weapons are involved, it sharply increases the need for tight control until the situation is safe.

Max-the-Silent
01-07-2008, 6:16 AM
Okay, It's dangerous out there.....no new information here. Still doesn't justify jacking up an innocent shooter minding his own business.

How do you visually determine that a shooter is "innocent?"

How does one determine that a weapon is "legal" without a hands-on examination?

11Z50
01-07-2008, 8:31 AM
Simple. Observe the shooter without contacting him unless illegal activities are observed. Here's the real problem I have with your post: "How does one determine that a weapon is "legal" without a hands-on examination?" You are saying that the mere act of shooting constitutes probable cause, and all weapons are assumed to be illegal until proven otherwise. I guess LE should inspect every weapon every time someone is shooting no? Why would an LEO have a reason to contact a shooter who is not violating the law? That's the whole question here. If an officer received a dispatch to investigate "semi-auto firing" which is in itself not illegal, It would seem to me that the LEO could simply check the area, listen for gunfire, and observe the shooter for a few minutes. If nothing illegal is observed, no need to contact the shooter.

If an illegal activity is observed, then by all means call out the cavalry and go contact the suspect, fully armed and prepared. Does a shooter being in possession of an OLL constitute probable cause to believe a crime is being committed? Apparently so, in your view.

In this case, as the OP stated, he was in a legal shooting spot, and there were no illegal activities going on. What reason did the CHP have to contact the shooter? Did he base his actions on observing an AW? If that's the case any person who possesses an OLL also possesses built-in probable cause to be harassed by LE.

Max-the-Silent
01-07-2008, 8:43 AM
Simple. Observe the shooter without contacting him unless illegal activities are observed. Here's the real problem I have with your post: "How does one determine that a weapon is "legal" without a hands-on examination?" I guess LE should inspect every weapon every time someone is shooting no? Why would an LEO have a reason to contact a shooter who is not violating the law? That's the whole question here. If an officer received a dispatch to investigate "semi-auto firing" which is in itself not illegal, It would seem to me that the LEO could simply check the area, listen for gunfire, and observe the shooter for a few minutes. If nothing illegal is observed, no need to contact the shooter.

If an illegal activity is observed, then by all means call out the cavalry and go contact the suspect, fully armed and prepared.

In this case, as the OP stated, he was in a legal shooting spot, and there were no illegal activities going on. What reason did the CHP have to contact the shooter? Did he base his actions on observing an AW? If that's the case any person who possesses an OLL also possesses built-in probable cause to be harassed by LE.

Not harrassed, but certainly approached and interviewed under certain circumstances.

I stated it in one of my posts above. In today's climate wrt firearms in general and AW's in particular, you shouldn't be surprised if you're contacted by LE if you're out in a public area with a OLL piece or a registered AW.

If you're in the act of shooting your weapon in a non-RO controlled facility, you too might find yourself approached by LE with weapons at the ready.

11Z50
01-07-2008, 9:09 AM
Not harrassed, but certainly approached and interviewed under certain circumstances.

I stated it in one of my posts above. In today's climate wrt firearms in general and AW's in particular, you shouldn't be surprised if you're contacted by LE if you're out in a public area with a OLL piece or a registered AW.

If you're in the act of shooting your weapon in a non-RO controlled facility, you too might find yourself approached by LE with weapons at the ready.

Once again, the LEO BS Flag goes up. So the act of lawfully shooting in a public place, without a Range Officer is a crime? Everybody shooting in a legal shooting spot is subject to being proned out, and has no 4th amendment rights? I'm sorry officer, but this JBT attitude is precisely the kind of us v citizen environment created by the 1% of LE. People have rights and a badge doesn't give you a ticket to violate those rights.

DigglerD
01-07-2008, 9:40 AM
No? I beg to differ.

If 85% of a GW's contacts with someone carrying a military-style rifle turn out to involve illegal activities and/or felony warrants, how will you determine if that AR-15 or SKS shooter is "an innocent shooter"? What visual elements will tell you he's Mr. Good Guy? Zero.

Add to it that you're alone, almost no prospects of back-up in some areas and perhaps your radio won't work in that terrain. You will want to control the situation until you see what you have. That means being firm about controlling their movements, what they have access to, and making sure you keep alert for any possible problems.

One thing is stressed in LEO training - it's very easy to die. One mistake, one momentary lapse of attention can allow a criminal to kill you. And dying is permanent. When weapons are involved, it sharply increases the need for tight control until the situation is safe.

Like I said many times in this and other threads... great pay, great bennies, a pension... it's not all for nothing. The job is tough, yes they may die but in exchange they get a chance to help the community, the benefits and power. This is much more than those over there in the sand get so save it.

The presumption of innocence AKA being innocent until proven guilty.

It states that no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court.

I guess this applies to all but the enforcement branch of the law. Even those who acknowledge that the OP may have been fully legal still think the guilty until innocent is the way to go... anyone seeing a disconnect here?

11Z50
01-07-2008, 10:00 AM
I was a Deputy Sheriff in a very rural area. Quite often, I would see citizens shooting in legal spots, where I would shoot when off-duty. I might stop by just to say hello, but unless I observed something illegal there was no probable cause to contact the shooter, or for that matter any other citizen minding their own business. But, that was in the 80's and LEOs were different then. Sure, officers got assaulted and even killed from time to time, but we were trained in the academy to respect the rights of citizens and to not be badge-heavy.

It appears there is a whole generation of LEOs nowadays that believe having a badge gives them the right to do whatever they feel like doing, to include pointing guns at and abusing citizens who are not breaking the law.

I'm sorry, but it's not that bad out there, and certainly not worse than it was when I was a cop. If an LEO has to defend himself, I say do so by all means. But the notion that a citizen lawfully shooting in public is a threat, and justifies such a dramatic response as having guns pointed at him is total BS. This JBT mentality causes situations to spin out of control. I used to think cops were always right, and would not arrest someone unless there was a lawful reason. I know that now to not be the case.

GuyW
01-07-2008, 11:39 AM
...Comparing these CHP officers to a few guys in New Orleans is like comparing Three soldiers in Iraq to the few Abu Graib idiots. It's not an intellectually honest argument and does nothing to solve the problem. In fact, it only helps alienate the sides, making civilians hate cops, and making cops feel like there's no support from civilians, thus creating that "thin blue line, Us vs. Them" mentality.


As the guy who inserted N.O. into this, I'd rather that such NOT be used to create MORE us-vs-them mentality here.

If a CA peace officer visits here, I'd much rather he/she remain and engage in the debate without bashing on either side...as running off folks that may be open to pro-gun education is counter-productive.

That said, N.O. is evidence that there _may_ already be a serious us-vs-them mentality in the CHP among SOME individuals. I'll not broad-brush them all with NO tho...

GuyW
01-07-2008, 11:41 AM
In your opinion, as a professional law enforcement officer, what would be a good path for Calguns to help educate officers.

Talking about stuff I dunno about here, but ASLET _might_ be an organization which would have credibility in disseminating simple OLL legal info...

ar15barrels
01-07-2008, 12:51 PM
Talking about stuff I dunno about here, but ASLET _might_ be an organization which would have credibility in disseminating simple OLL legal info...

link please?

E Pluribus Unum
01-07-2008, 1:14 PM
Here is an interesting point:

Do private citizens have the same right to self preservation as LEOS?

Do LEOs have to SEE 99% of misdemeanor offenses in order to arrest on those misdemeanors?

Do private citizens ALSO have a right to arrest for misdemeanors committed in their presence?

Does every man in a designated shooting area have the right to the presumption of innocence?

If you answered yes to all of those questions then why does a LEO have any more right to point his guns at me than I do? If I go out to a place where people are shooting why can't I point my rifles at them until I decide it is safe? Everyone knows if you shoot a cop the penalty is worse and they have other cops shortly behind them; they have more support than a private citizen.

This example is extreme but it serves my point; I am taught range safety; a gun is supposed to be pointed in a safe direction at all times to protect against accidental discharge. In an adrenaline situation anything can happen and that officer is putting my life at increased risk by pointing a loaded firearm at me when I am in a legal shooting place.

Statistics show that at distances less than 3 yards a knife is 300% more likely to kill than a gun and is more easily concealed. Only about 15% of anyone shot with a handgun actually dies; It’s not like Iraq where every 30 people have a pipe bomb.

There is another interesting point; If I am in a legal place, legally shooting, there is no PC for an arrest so how can the mere possession of a firearm allow the officer to draw down on you? Approach you and inspect the weapon, sure... but to "detain" you for questioning with guns drawn... I see no PC for that.

ar15barrels
01-07-2008, 2:21 PM
Do private citizens have the same right to self preservation as LEOS?

If you answered yes to all of those questions then why does a LEO have any more right to point his guns at me than I do?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to point your rifle back at the LEO while he's pointing at you that the report will state that you fired first and he defended himself. ;)

He will even be able to pick-up the brass that you left on the ground earlier as evidence supporting his case and it will match your rifle. :eek:

E Pluribus Unum
01-07-2008, 2:37 PM
I'm pretty sure that if you were to point your rifle back at the LEO while he's pointing at you that the report will state that you fired first and he defended himself. ;)

He will even be able to pick-up the brass that you left on the ground earlier as evidence supporting his case and it will match your rifle. :eek:

You missed the point. I was not saying that I could point my rifles BACK at him.

My point was that officers have no more right to self preservation as I do so if they come up and witness lawful activity they have no authority to point their rifles at people any more than I do.

If I come up on a group of shooters I am not going to point my guns at them pending my warm and fuzzy feeling that they are OK.

Officers are subject to all of the laws that citizens are. If they have witnessed no crime or suspicious behavior, then pointing a gun at someone is brandishing a firearm in my arrogant opinion.

ar15barrels
01-07-2008, 2:39 PM
You missed the point. I was not saying that I could point my rifles BACK at him.

My point was that officers have no more right to self preservation as I do so if they come up and witness lawful activity they have no authority to point their rifles at people any more than I do.

I completely understand that your point was that he should NOT have been pointing his rifle at me to begin with.

I was simply making a joke about what would happen if you were so bold as to give him a taste of his own medecine. ;)

E Pluribus Unum
01-07-2008, 2:46 PM
I completely understand that your point was that he should NOT have been pointing his rifle at me to begin with.

I was simply making a joke about what would happen if you were so bold as to give him a taste of his own medecine. ;)

I have no doubt it would turn out that way... I would never point my rifle back at someone else. That is one thing that training has taught me. In a self defense situation, you keep that gun holstered until shortly before the bullet is on course and down range.

Think of this as well; people have dressed up as police to victimize others; if I am in a lawful condition the mere posession of a badge does not mean that the person is law enforcement. I should not have to give up my ability to defend myself because someone SAYS he's a cop. Now, if a law is being broken that is different; law-abiding citizens have a right to not be hassled and or detained to DETERMINE if a crime is being committed. That is opinion of course.

Mac
01-07-2008, 3:15 PM
man, what a long thread. So did the OP say the
officers were pointing AT him or in the general direction?

To me it seems sort of hard to yell at someone (who is wearing ear protection) for them to put down the weapon if he (LEO) has a proper shouldered weapon, cheek weld, and eye behind the aperture. So maybe it was just in the general direction of the OP? Since he would have to lose the cheek weld and lift his head to yell out. Who knows where the barrel is relative to the OP after that.

E Pluribus Unum
01-07-2008, 3:26 PM
man, what a long thread. So did the OP say the
officers were pointing AT him or in the general direction?

To me it seems sort of hard to yell at someone (who is wearing ear protection) for them to put down the weapon if he (LEO) has a proper shouldered weapon, cheek weld, and eye behind the aperture. So maybe it was just in the general direction of the OP? Since he would have to lose the cheek weld and lift his head to yell out. Who knows where the barrel is relative to the OP after that.

Its a cheek weld... not a jaw weld.... especially on the AR one can quite easily keep a bead on a target and yell... thats part of the training actually.

11Z50
01-07-2008, 3:38 PM
The real question here is why did the officer contact the shooter in the first place? Why was it necessary to contact the shooter?

Even if the Officer(s) were dispatched, what are they investigating? A report of someone legally shooting? Let's say the Officer self-initiated the contact. (As in he was driving down the road and heard shots) If he did not hear full-auto firing, there is nothing happening that is against the law. Let's say he is just curious, so he stops, and sees a subject shooting a rifle that looks like an AW. While it might be an unreg'd AW, is that sufficient reason to contact the subject? Maybe, but maybe not. Let's say he decides to make the contact to check the weapon.

Why was there a need to dismount and go charging down to the shooter? Seems to me it'd been safer to sit and observe for awhile, take up a good safe position, and either hit the siren a bit, or even get on the PA system to get the shooter's attention. He can see the shooter, since he saw the possible AW, no? He could have simply requested the shooter to cease firing, put the gun down, and walk to his location.

If he was so worried about his safety, the Officer should not have left cover (his patrol unit) and exposed himself unnecessarily. The Officers actually attacked the shooter's position, potentially startling him and causing him to think he was being threatened by unknown assailants.

Mac
01-07-2008, 3:43 PM
,,,,

E Pluribus Unum
01-07-2008, 3:47 PM
The real question here is why did the officer contact the shooter in the first place? Why was it necessary to contact the shooter?

I agree

He can see the shooter, since he saw the possible AW, no? He could have simply requested the shooter to cease firing, put the gun down, and walk to his location.

Why? If he has observed no crime why should the officer have the authority to command him to put his lawful weapon down and cease a lawful activity? The officer should have done recon until he saw an illegal act. Before that time he had no legal reason to contact him other than to talk to him, in which case the officer approaches the shooter calmly and collectively and RESPECTFULLY.


If he was so worried about his safety, the Officer should not have left cover (his patrol unit) and exposed himself unnecessarily. The Officers actually attacked the shooter's position, potentially startling him and causing him to think he was being threatened by unknown assailants.

That is a good point; had the officers been legitimately concerned with their safety they would have handled it differently. Sounds as if the primary officer had SPS.

ViPER395
01-07-2008, 3:55 PM
Remember the OP stated that 3 LEOs approached his position with weapons shouldered... CHP don't just ride around three to a car. Obviously two or more units responded or were called to assist the initial unit on-scene.

larryb
01-07-2008, 3:59 PM
Its a cheek weld... not a jaw weld.... especially on the AR one can quite easily keep a bead on a target and yell... thats part of the training actually.

Majority of tactical training dictates you will have your weapon at a low ready or contact ready when approaching a suspect. The whole reason behind that theory is to keep the front of the weapon low enough to see the suspects hands. It does you absolutely no good to hold a bead centermass if the suspect has hands down by his side where you can not see them while you are holding a bead centermass, you must foucus on the hands, not the face, center mass, etc. The hands is what will kill you. If the suspect points a gun at the officer in a threatening manner, more than likley that officer will engage the suspect. Usually the person with the fastest OODA wins the fight.

Mac
01-07-2008, 4:16 PM
....

larryb
01-07-2008, 4:36 PM
So if they were following their training. the weapon was most likely not pointing directly at the OP. No? Need the OP to clarify that! Which may change some hostile views.


Maybe, maybe not, depends on the distance and location of the hands. I would assume one officer issued verbal commands while the other two covered the suspects from a tactical advantage at a position of cover or concealment. The closer you get the further the barrel goes down if the hands are down by the sides. If the hands are up by the chest you can raise barrel slightly. It only takes a split second to go from low ready or contact ready to engage the suspect if needed.

larryb
01-07-2008, 4:50 PM
I read some of these replies and wow.

Keep in mind three officers reported to the affected area meaning there must have been some sort of complaint or an officer heard the shooting and felt he needed back up just in case of a SHTF scenario.

Keep in mind LEO have families just like everyone else and want to survive their shift so they can see their families at the end of the day. Their primary concern is officer safety.

If one officer had casually approached them and was shot you would be calling him a dumb *** for not using safer tactics. Its a no win situation.

If the shooters were off duty LE and this happened you would be laughing your butts off and there would be no complaints, and yes it does happen. :)

SoCalDep
01-07-2008, 4:56 PM
It seems to me that most of the posts in this thread related to this incident are based off of a lack of knowledge regarding the concepts of reasonable suspicion, and even more disturbing, a complete lack of information regarding the facts of this incident. Many of the posters here champion "innocent until proven guilty" and that the officers should not have reacted without "observing something illegal" ie: incontrovertable evidence of wrongdoing, accusing the officers of acting rash, aggressive, and assuming guilt. Yet they make the same assumptions and agressive, rash behavior for which they berate the officers.

I will state again that we do not know enough about this incident to make adequate judgement as to what happened. We have one story from one person which is his perception of events and may not be accurate, regardless of the portions of the incident which he does not know. I'm not saying he's lying but different people have different perceptions of events.

I find it sad that several posters have used the argument that "your job isn't as hard as XYZ and you get benefits and stuff so you shouldn't complain".

What? So because I have benefits and a badge I'm expected to just take a bullet because I might make someone feel bad for a moment? I'll tell you all something. I've pointed my gun at LOTS of people. Many of them had just hurt people, robbed people, had guns, knives, fought with me and my partners, etc. I know several deputies who have been shot at. Since I've been employed by my department there have been several deputies who were killed by gunfire trying to help people or just doing their jobs. One who was shot with a .223 rifle, ambushed as he investigated a simple tresspassing call. The suspect put his brain in a bucket and dragged his body a quarter mile until the car broke down. I know that though the murder rate went down this year in many California cities, the number of officers killed on duty was the highest this year since the 80's. I guess that we get benefits though, and that POWER you think is so great.

I find it funny that the anti-LEO bias is so blatant though most average cops are probably a gun owners best friend. They probably vote like you, own guns like you, and are pretty simpathetic to your view.

E Pluribus Unum
01-07-2008, 5:09 PM
I find it funny that the anti-LEO bias is so blatant though most average cops are probably a gun owners best friend. They probably vote like you, own guns like you, and are pretty simpathetic to your view.

Show me.... It depends on agency. County Sheriff, yes... Local PD... depends on the city... CHP... completely oblivious to anything outside the VC.

Try being arrested for something that is legal, and spending thousands on a lawyer... then when you ask to sue to recoup your cost you are told the "mistake of law" provision which basically means the cop can be ignorant and arrest you and all he has to do is articulate that he THOUGHT that’s what the law said.

So, I paid $2000 for a single CHP officer to learn that licensed hunters can carry concealed without a permit while coming from a hunt.

You go through the humiliation of being arrested, getting your car impounded and your guns ceased, treated like a criminal and having guns pointed at your head in the middle of BFE because the officer's are ignorant and see how LEO friendly you become.

I judge each officer individually for his actions; I have several friends that are cops and my brother is in the academy so I know more than average police officers are decent people. You cannot however discount the ignorant ones that victimize the innocent even if accidentally.

ar15barrels
01-07-2008, 5:25 PM
Remember the OP stated that 3 LEOs approached his position with weapons shouldered... CHP don't just ride around three to a car. Obviously two or more units responded or were called to assist the initial unit on-scene.

I got that from post number one, but appearantly some people did not.
This was either a radio call, or one officer called in backup before they attempted to apprehend the perps.

For all we know, this was a multi-agency call with snipers in the bushes in case it went down wrong. :rolleyes:
A good sniper would have never been noticed. ;)

E Pluribus Unum
01-07-2008, 5:30 PM
I got that from post number one, but appearantly some people did not.
This was either a radio call, or one officer called in backup before they attempted to apprehend the perps.

For all we know, this was a multi-agency call with snipers in the bushes in case it went down wrong. :rolleyes:
A good sniper would have never been noticed. ;)

BINGO... Thank you... this verifies my theory. Not every call has "perps". Perpetrators are those that perpetrate crimes; no crime=no perps. Lawful citizens exercising their RIGHTS and your right as a leo to feel warm and fuzzy does NOT supersede his rights to engage in lawful activities on public land.

You as law enforcement have two choices; watch from a distance until a crime is committed, or risk it and approach them without weapons drawn.

ar15barrels
01-07-2008, 5:42 PM
Not every call has "perps".

If there's no perps, why the backup?

Citizens
Suspects
Perps

It's all the same depending on your viewpoint.
The first just don't like being treated like the last two. ;)