AR-15 Seized by Police for "Public Safety" reasons
 

Article

I don't know anything else about this event, except to say that the scene on the Arcata Plaza on Halloween has become outright dangerous and criminal (more of a riot than a party). Anyone carrying there, legally or not, made a very poor judgement call.

Most people around here know about bullet buttons, and ALL of the cops know about them. While the article does not state one way or the other if the rifle was legal, it sounds like the owner had his property confiscated and was not actually arrested, which smells funny to me. This feels like an illegal seizure, but the Untimely Sub-Standard is well known around here for very porr reporting. Unfortunately the article doesn't name the individual, so it's hard for me to track him down and ask (small town) but maybe it's in an LEA press release, I haven't checked.

Knowing enough to have an unloaded magazine in the rifle says to me that the owner may have been practicing Open Carry. I'd be a bit surprised if someone involved in the Open Carry movement would have been so stupid as to carry an unregistered AW instead of a BB-equipped and legally-owned AR-15. IIRC, OC of long arms isn't prohibited until next year, yes?

Just wanted to share on CalGuns. Life's been crazy and it's been a while since I've posted, so maybe this isn't even the right forum anymore. If so, mods, feel free to move it of course. :) BBs are still legit, right? :o

I happened to talk to this individual that night. It was definitely a BB equipped rifle.

He was told they were charging him with a felony, but did not arrest him. He was also informed he could pick up the rifle the next day.

This reeks of illegal seizure.

Wow.

OK. So, we have at least anecdotal evidence at this point that the rifle was likely configured legally.

Also, good to see another Humboldt resident on the forum. There always seems to be very few of us.

Yeah you should be busy growing pot, get to it! lol j/k

That guy is not too bright.

I've been on this. News when I can share some.

-Brandon

Nice!!

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

ah, felony of what? legally carry a rifle?

If they are giving him his gun back and he wasn't arrested, sounds like an overzealous cop who found out after the fact that the guy was in fact legal?

Not quite, and you're assuming they are just giving him his gun back. Not only was it nearly certainly an unconstitutional seizure of lawfully-possessed property, but they cannot give the gun back without the gun owner spending money on a LEGR and travelling to the PD property room to retrive the firearms, as well as suffering loss of use for the time period beginning with the taking and ending when it is returned.

-Brandon

This is a great way to support 2A or a waste of time helping out a nimrod who should know better. Knowing the difference would be telling.

Have you advised your friend to seek the assistance of the Calguns Foundation?


Who? The subject who had his property stolen or the officer responsible for taking lawfully owned property?

Legally they cannot but they can still do it anyway. Wouldn't be the first time we've seen government and even law enforcement bend/ignore/break the law.

I don't personally know him. He came through my checkout line while I was at work. I didn't think about Calguns until after he had already left.

If it's that clear, demand (verbally) they bypass the LEGR or face a lawsuit. The result would be interesting.

I suspect that this event is going to be public and painful enough that APD will be exercising an abundance of caution.

-Brandon

That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

You can't demand a law enforcement agency break the law to avoid a lawsuit.

-Brandon

Brandon is gonna give an ***WHOOPIN!!!!

Keep us informed please.

And thanks for all you do.

I know it probably might not make much sense financially on a this-case-only basis, but wouldn't a lawsuit followed by a consent decree help outright prevent this kind of event in that City, and discourage it in other venues going forward? Perhaps to include mandated discipline of officers who go off the reservation in this way.

<----I is not familiar with what LEGR stands for... Please enlighten.

See: http://bit.ly/YffH5r

-Brandon

My Google Fu was broken when I google'd I got nothing Legal or Gun related. Thanks Brandon.

EDIT: That crap is Draconian BS!

This. And until I found out contribution cash would be staying at home.

If the guy wasn't drinking or doing anything unlawful (my sources say that he wasn't) - which we won't be able to confirm until we research the matter - then he was an innocent gun owner that got screwed. We can help him get his gun back and in any case make sure the cops are properly trained so as to [hopefully] avoid another such incident in the future - what's the downside here?

-Brandon

Should know what better?

I wouldn't carry an AR in public on Halloween myself, but if the guy's innocent then the guy's innocent and his lawfully-possessed property was unconstitutionally seized. That's the bottom line. Not helping him would be tantamount to the wood stock guys not standing with the OLL crowd.

-Brandon

You either support the right to own and carry a legally configured rifle or you do not-

If rights were predicated upon the use of flawless judgement, we would either not exercise them in the abundance of caution or abandon those with whom we disagree. That is where we as gunowners are being used against each other. Ante up or anti up. You decide.

People aren't making the correlation.

They think... "I wouldn't go outin public with an AR on my back" is the same as doing something illegal. The cop violated the persons 2A right just as if a cop stopped them and asked to see thier legal CCW and then walked away with thier "Concealed" gun.

Wrong is wrong. And now this lawful gun owner is going to have to be burdened to get what is legally his back.

That I say is BS.

Conversely, if he had started shooting people, the police would be blamed for not taking it.

Freedom vs Security

I say let em all have guns.

Even knuckleheads have rights.

This. Why oh why on earth can some people not figure out that stupid does not, and should not, equal illegal?

You are kidding, right?

Guy with gun. And I respect your stance on open carrying so I'd rather just leave it at that, and disagree on this example.

An apt description of CA law.:D

Hey, there's plenty of Humboldt folks on here. While I know nothing of this incident, you have to be an idiot to bring an AR to the Arcata plaza on halloween.

Why not? I would think you could ‘demand’ anything you want; getting it is another story.

I want to log on to CG one day and See a thread titled "Cop seized for public safety".

I see. So given the history of violence at this location you wouldnt want anyone but police or military armed there?

It is more beneficial to demand that the police follow the law than to establish precedent that they can avoid litigation by handing over wrongfully seized property with a pat on the back and a 'sorry for the trouble'.

It's borderline unethical for an attorney and ludicrous for any serious person or organization to demand that a law enforcement agency do something illegal (let alone to avoid litigation).

-Brandon