Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   AR-15 Seized by Police for "Public Safety" reasons (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=638963)

MasterYong 11-02-2012 7:39 AM

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

During the evening, officers also located a man with an AR-15 assault rifle slung around his neck, according to a press release. The man had an unusable, unloaded magazine in the weapon and a loaded, operable 10-round magazine in his pocket. The weapon was taken for public safety reasons, officials said.
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

Chu 11-02-2012 7:50 AM

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.

MasterYong 11-02-2012 7:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu (Post 9639558)
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.

21SF 11-02-2012 8:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterYong (Post 9639585)
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

skyscraper 11-02-2012 8:09 AM

That guy is not too bright.

wildhawker 11-02-2012 8:35 AM

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

-Brandon

teh.killer.of.zombies 11-02-2012 8:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker (Post 9639806)
I've been on this. News when I can share some.

-Brandon

Nice!!

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Lugiahua 11-02-2012 8:39 AM

ah, felony of what? legally carry a rifle?

miztic 11-02-2012 8:53 AM

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?

wildhawker 11-02-2012 9:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miztic (Post 9639885)
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

paul0660 11-02-2012 9:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker (Post 9639806)
I've been on this. News when I can share some.

-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.

CitaDeL 11-02-2012 9:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu (Post 9639558)
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.

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper (Post 9639668)
That guy is not too bright.

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

POLICESTATE 11-02-2012 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker (Post 9640159)
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

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.

Chu 11-02-2012 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CitaDeL (Post 9640219)
Have you advised your friend to seek the assistance of the Calguns Foundation?



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.

Maestro Pistolero 11-02-2012 10:06 AM

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

wildhawker 11-02-2012 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by POLICESTATE (Post 9640242)
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 suspect that this event is going to be public and painful enough that APD will be exercising an abundance of caution.

-Brandon

POLICESTATE 11-02-2012 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero (Post 9640282)
If it's that clear, demand (verbally) they bypass the LEGR or face a lawsuit. The result would be interesting.

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

wildhawker 11-02-2012 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero (Post 9640282)
If it's that clear, demand (verbally) they bypass the LEGR or face a lawsuit. The result would be interesting.

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

-Brandon

postal 11-02-2012 10:33 AM

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

Keep us informed please.

And thanks for all you do.

Drivedabizness 11-02-2012 10:34 AM

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.

rplusplus 11-02-2012 10:37 AM

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

wildhawker 11-02-2012 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rplusplus (Post 9640472)
<----I is not familiar with what LEGR stands for... Please enlighten.

See: http://bit.ly/YffH5r

-Brandon

CitaDeL 11-02-2012 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rplusplus (Post 9640472)
<----I is not familiar with what LEGR stands for... Please enlighten.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/legrinfo

rplusplus 11-02-2012 10:42 AM

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

EDIT: That crap is Draconian BS!

donny douchebag 11-02-2012 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul0660 (Post 9640208)
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.

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

wildhawker 11-02-2012 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donny (Post 9640523)
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

wildhawker 11-02-2012 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul0660 (Post 9640208)
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.

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

CitaDeL 11-02-2012 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donny (Post 9640523)
This. And until I found out contribution cash would be staying at home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul0660 (Post 9640208)
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.


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.

rplusplus 11-02-2012 10:58 AM

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.

email 11-02-2012 2:15 PM

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.

berto 11-02-2012 2:28 PM

Even knuckleheads have rights.

J.D.Allen 11-02-2012 2:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rplusplus (Post 9640588)
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.

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

J.D.Allen 11-02-2012 2:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by email (Post 9641789)
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.

You are kidding, right?

skyscraper 11-02-2012 2:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CitaDeL (Post 9640219)
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?

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.

Meplat1 11-02-2012 2:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rplusplus (Post 9640507)
My Google Fu was broken when I google'd I got nothing Legal or Gun related. Thanks Brandon.

EDIT: That crap is Draconian BS!

An apt description of CA law.:D

deadcoyote 11-02-2012 2:54 PM

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.

Meplat1 11-02-2012 2:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker (Post 9640378)
You can't demand a law enforcement agency break the law to avoid a lawsuit.

-Brandon

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

5thgen4runner 11-02-2012 3:16 PM

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

CitaDeL 11-02-2012 3:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadcoyote (Post 9642041)
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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meplat1 (Post 9642065)
Why not? I would think you could ‘demand’ anything you want; getting it is another story.

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'.

wildhawker 11-02-2012 3:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meplat1 (Post 9642065)
Why not? I would think you could ‘demand’ anything you want; getting it is another story.

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


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.