Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 11-06-2012, 7:10 AM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

He had a right to be secure in his personal effects and PC that is needed to sieze the weapon. From the information we have the rifle was not an AW. Where is there blind devotion in this case? If additional facts come to light then people will re-evaluate there position. That's how thought and reason work. You don't start with, I don't agree with a behavior therefore anything that happens to that person is ok.


So we should be able to carry a firearm for protection where things get out of control? Would you be fine if he was CC? We have two forms of carry UOC and the other which the vast majority can't get. So how is carry by the only means possible stupid and irresponsible? And no your example still does not apply

Last edited by sandman21; 11-06-2012 at 7:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 11-06-2012, 7:42 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,167
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I cannot argue this on a constitutional level. You will win and you are right. I am simply saying (possibly playing devils advocate and possibly because the question should be asked) that at what point do we say that someone did something so stupid, so ignorant, so irresponsible that we say enough is enough….I mean he had a loaded magazine in his pocket at a party where stuff gets out of control and people drink.

My earlier analogy was weak, but it kind of applies a little……If you have a green light and you see a speeding bus coming, would you pull out in just because you had “the right of way”….?

I am just asking, are there any limits to our support, because I think this one may be getting close to that edge,,,,
Thanks, this is what I needed to hear today.

Your example of the right of way is a little weak too, because it is dependent upon bad action of the bus driver. I think the question you want answered is Bill's hypothetical of driving around with a dead hooker in your trunk, whether you would still be legally okay.

And I would say (and am sure you will think I am out of my mind) that if someone was pulled over driving around with a dead hooker in the trunk, (or 10 kilos of cocaine, or a duffle bag full of robbery loot.) that the legally configured semi-automatic rifle in plain view in the back seat is not searchable beyond conducting a 12031 loaded inspection and certainly not seizable absent evidence of any other crime.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 11-06-2012, 7:42 AM
YubaRiver YubaRiver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: polaris
Posts: 861
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I cannot argue this on a constitutional level. You will win and you are right. I am simply saying (possibly playing devils advocate and possibly because the question should be asked) that at what point do we say that someone did something so stupid, so ignorant, so irresponsible that we say enough is enough….I mean he had a loaded magazine in his pocket at a party where stuff gets out of control and people drink.

My earlier analogy was weak, but it kind of applies a little……If you have a green light and you see a speeding bus coming, would you pull out in just because you had “the right of way”….?

I am just asking, are there any limits to our support, because I think this one may be getting close to that edge,,,,
You are looking to limit the rights of the wrong person. If the police are to
control someone for public safety, it should be the bus IE the out of control
party people. If the gun holder was drunk or high, threatening etc. he too
should be dealt with, but it sounds not to be the case.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 11-06-2012, 10:25 AM
pepsi2451 pepsi2451 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Del Norte County
Posts: 1,568
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I am simply saying (possibly playing devils advocate and possibly because the question should be asked) that at what point do we say that someone did something so stupid, so ignorant, so irresponsible that we say enough is enough….I mean he had a loaded magazine in his pocket at a party where stuff gets out of control and people drink.
What is so stupid, ignorant and irresponsible about having a loaded mag at a party? I bet the cops that took his rifles had loaded mags, in fact I bet they had loaded guns at the same party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I am just asking, are there any limits to our support, because I think this one may be getting close to that edge,,,,
How is it getting close to the edge? From what I understand there is no reason to think he broke any laws. If you don't support people exercising their 2A rights in accordance with the law, how can you say you support the 2A?
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 11-06-2012, 10:35 AM
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 2,224
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepsi2451 View Post
What is so stupid, ignorant and irresponsible about having a loaded mag at a party? I bet the cops that took his rifles had loaded mags, in fact I bet they had loaded guns at the same party.
One could argue this, from the NRA Gun Safety Rules:

"Never use alcohol or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting.
Alcohol, as well as any other substance likely to impair normal mental or physical bodily functions, must not be used before or while handling or shooting guns.
"

As well, I'm sure the cops you refer to weren't there to "party."

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
In the end, time and irony always win.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 11-06-2012, 10:50 AM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That's clearly not what he was talking. However, if you tried to use the argument anyone using cold syrup, antibiotics, doctor prescribed pain meds, etc. cannot carry or have access to a firearm. Nothing we have so far shows the person was impaired while carrying a firearm, which is not a crime.

So the continues to be derailed from the topic of the violation of someone's 4A rights. Deflect and minimize.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 11-06-2012, 10:54 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
One could argue this, from the NRA Gun Safety Rules:

"Never use alcohol or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting.
Alcohol, as well as any other substance likely to impair normal mental or physical bodily functions, must not be used before or while handling or shooting guns.
"

As well, I'm sure the cops you refer to weren't there to "party."

A.W.D.
Neither was the subject and victim of the unlawful seizure under the influence, according to the data.

Can everyone stop arguing hypotheticals and assumptions and get back to the facts?

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 11-06-2012, 11:16 AM
Squid Squid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Los Altos, just north of San Jose
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can't quote law but IIRC cops have pretty broad powers to do stuff "for public safety" if they deem it necessary or just a "good idea", and that would include stuff like seizing weapons in a crowded situation where violence was common.

I think that is why signs at political events and protests are always put on soft cardboard tubes, and why you don't see people carrying swords and axes at those events, or guns.

What is "brandishing"? Is that holding gun is "firing position"(pretty much anything but slung on back)?


Yes, there is a big and scary (and non-Constitutional) group of "police powers" that can be enacted for "public safety", and are ripe for mis-use.

When the cops shut down a road (supposedly due to snow) and order all cars to drive somewhere, they don't need any court order to basically put you under their total control.

Decades ago there was some "Road House" type nightclub that opened somewhere in the valley around Bakersfield. Story was owner didn't make the expected donations to Police Benevolent Fund, and strangely for a few weekend nights in a row of his "grand opening" the local cops found reason to block the road leading to his fairly isolated establishment....so he fairly quickly and quietly went broke. There aren't any hard and fast regs on what allows the cops to close a road to traffic, or how long it takes to clear a fender bender or crate of spilled tomatoes.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 11-06-2012, 11:21 AM
pepsi2451 pepsi2451 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Del Norte County
Posts: 1,568
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
One could argue this, from the NRA Gun Safety Rules:

"Never use alcohol or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting.
Alcohol, as well as any other substance likely to impair normal mental or physical bodily functions, must not be used before or while handling or shooting guns.
"

As well, I'm sure the cops you refer to weren't there to "party."

A.W.D.
Just because someone is at a party doesn't necessarily mean they are drinking, some people don't drink, or maybe he was a designated driver.

If I go to a party and I know I'm not going to be drinking I'm probably going to be armed, does that make me stupid, ignorant and irresponsible? I wouldn't take a rifle but I don't see anything wrong with someone else carrying one, except that they would likely be hassled by LEO.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 11-06-2012, 11:58 AM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Neither was the subject and victim of the unlawful seizure under the influence, according to the data.

Can everyone stop arguing hypotheticals and assumptions and get back to the facts?

-Brandon


Yeah, the guy was a moron and his actions due us no good.

Is there any point where we will take common sense into consideration when it comes to a "right". Any right really?

I mean, Cal Guns basicly told the open carry rifle guys that they were on their own right?

Were they doing anything illegal? Or were their actions so stupid and bad for gun owners that most people here were willing to withdraw their support?
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 11-06-2012, 1:14 PM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squid View Post
What is "brandishing"? Is that holding gun is "firing position"(pretty much anything but slung on back)?
The CA Penal Code says:

417. (a) (2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel is punishable as follows:

(A) If the violation occurs in a public place and the firearm is a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than three months and not more than one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(B) In all cases other than that set forth in subparagraph (A), a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than three months.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 11-06-2012, 1:17 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Yeah, the guy was a moron and his actions due us no good.
That's not quite true. A number of agencies are now going to deal with issues (e.g. training on seizures, firearms, "assault weapons") they would not have otherwise. In other words, consider this an opportunity to make lemonade for everyone from this single innocent gun owner's lemons.

Quote:
Is there any point where we will take common sense into consideration when it comes to a "right". Any right really?
Of course there is. I suggest you read "The Constitutional Amendment Process" and, as you might find useful, U.S. Supreme Court decisions on Constitutional law matters (I'd suggest newest to oldest).

Quote:
I mean, Cal Guns basicly told the open carry rifle guys that they were on their own right?
We wanted to discourage the practice because we honestly thought someone was going to get seriously hurt (e.g. shot/killed). Thankfully, however, that never happened while California's short-lived open carry movement was active; however, we did defend/back a number of open carry participants, most of them quietly. (We were the only organization to help them, btw.)

Quote:
Were they doing anything illegal? Or were their actions so stupid and bad for gun owners that most people here were willing to withdraw their support?
It's arguable that the politicization of their events and media-seeking nature of some of the participants gave the politicians cover to pass the laws they did. However, I've never taken a Hotline call/email from an open carry participant who was arrested or had property taken and told them, "Sorry, you're just an open carry moron."

CGF's operational structure itself is a check against the viewpoint tyranny of the gun owner majority; one of the benefits of this is that we can choose to protect the innocent gun owner who needs help that you might not. The downside is that some might choose to not support our efforts financially due to some decision or statement of ours.

We think doing the right thing is worth the risk.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 11-06-2012, 1:40 PM
Powerkraut's Avatar
Powerkraut Powerkraut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 367
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I cannot argue this on a constitutional level. You will win and you are right. I am simply saying (possibly playing devils advocate and possibly because the question should be asked) that at what point do we say that someone did something so stupid, so ignorant, so irresponsible that we say enough is enough….I mean he had a loaded magazine in his pocket at a party where stuff gets out of control and people drink.

My earlier analogy was weak, but it kind of applies a little……If you have a green light and you see a speeding bus coming, would you pull out in just because you had “the right of way”….?

I am just asking, are there any limits to our support, because I think this one may be getting close to that edge,,,,
Just because you think something is stupid or irresponsible doesn't make it illegal. These unwritten "common sense" restrictions that people have on their head are the first step down a slippery slope. There are many legal things that people do that don't seem like a good idea to me. There are probably quite a few legal things that I do that don't make sense to others (smoking come to mind). That doesn't mean that we should be crying for legislation.

It starts with people who take their firearms in public getting persecuted, then it moves to people who own EBRs, then "sniper" (hunting) rifles, etc. Bottom line is that if this man had done the same thing in most parts of the US no LEO would have thought twice about it. We need to crush this problem in it's infancy if we are ever to see reasonable gun rights in CA.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 11-06-2012, 1:44 PM
Powerkraut's Avatar
Powerkraut Powerkraut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 367
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Yeah, the guy was a moron and his actions due us no good.

Is there any point where we will take common sense into consideration when it comes to a "right". Any right really?

I mean, Cal Guns basicly told the open carry rifle guys that they were on their own right?

Were they doing anything illegal? Or were their actions so stupid and bad for gun owners that most people here were willing to withdraw their support?
Guess who else like to use the phrase "common sense".

Common sense changes depending on people's experiences and environments, it is a poor basis for laws because it's inherently subjective and laws should be objective.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 11-06-2012, 2:06 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,167
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Yeah, the guy was a moron and his actions due us no good.

Is there any point where we will take common sense into consideration when it comes to a "right". Any right really?

I mean, Cal Guns basicly told the open carry rifle guys that they were on their own right?

Were they doing anything illegal? Or were their actions so stupid and bad for gun owners that most people here were willing to withdraw their support?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
That's not quite true. A number of agencies are now going to deal with issues (e.g. training on seizures, firearms, "assault weapons") they would not have otherwise. In other words, consider this an opportunity to make lemonade for everyone from this single innocent gun owner's lemons.



Of course there is. I suggest you read "The Constitutional Amendment Process" and, as you might find useful, U.S. Supreme Court decisions on Constitutional law matters (I'd suggest newest to oldest).



We wanted to discourage the practice because we honestly thought someone was going to get seriously hurt (e.g. shot/killed). Thankfully, however, that never happened while California's short-lived open carry movement was active; however, we did defend/back a number of open carry participants, most of them quietly. (We were the only organization to help them, btw.)



It's arguable that the politicization of their events and media-seeking nature of some of the participants gave the politicians cover to pass the laws they did. However, I've never taken a Hotline call/email from an open carry participant who was arrested or had property taken and told them, "Sorry, you're just an open carry moron."

CGF's operational structure itself is a check against the viewpoint tyranny of the gun owner majority; one of the benefits of this is that we can choose to protect the innocent gun owner who needs help that you might not. The downside is that some might choose to not support our efforts financially due to some decision or statement of ours.

We think doing the right thing is worth the risk.

-Brandon
[Insert GIF of man applauding here.]

So, we finally get to the meat of the issue that is bothering greg36f. He believes open carry is boneheaded stupid and should be punished by withholding legal remedies to protect the person's rights.

I am pleased that greg36f's misapprehension about the CGF's position on the topic has been affirmatively disputed. And disproven by the support of a rifle open carrier.

Regardless of your views on various subcategories of firearms rights, this is proof positive that the CGF is the big tent to put our support- both efforts and money- to win our liberty back in California.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 11-06-2012, 2:33 PM
Nor Cal Scot's Avatar
Nor Cal Scot Nor Cal Scot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Paradise, CA
Posts: 1,205
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
I'm sure you're forgetting the stone shaped like the City of San Diego or the one shaped like the City of Calexico. Arcata is a smaller 'stone' that is more easily moved with fewer resources and I am sure they can be as generous as the other stones.

If we collect enough of these stones, what we will have is an inpenetrable wall built up around the remnants of the second amendment in California.
Well Said. Very well said. I couldn't agree more. Nor Cal still has hope.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 11-06-2012, 3:25 PM
spalterego spalterego is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 79
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Don't think of it in terms of helping out this guy, who I agree doesn't sound very smart. Think of it as holding the police accountable.

No matter how dumb and idiotic this guy may have been, do you want police to have the power to make illegal arrests on the basis of the argument "I know what he did wasn't against the law but it was stupid."

In essence you will be giving police carte blanche to abuse anybody who is doing something unpopular. In this case it was carrying around a firearm in questionable but not illegal circumstances.

Regardless of my agreeing with you that this wasn't a smart thing to do, I don't want the police to believe that they can abuse gun owners rights b/c gun ownership may be unpopular or marginalized in some places.

If we allow that to happen we have lost all sense of a civil society in which the police and government serve the people.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 11-06-2012, 3:56 PM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you all for the informative and civil responses. Despite what some people seem to think, I am not Anti anything. While I did think that open carry was silly, I was a strong advocate for the right to do so. I get it, Calif. laws suck and someone needs to draw attention to that. Rifle carry; now that I do think is just wrong all around.

For the record, my questions never really were about his "right" to carry the rifle; I admitted that he did have the right to do so, I just think that it was about the stupidest thing I had ever heard of and I was curious if there was s a line (if any) that Cal Guns or gun owners collectively would draw. It's not the worst question in the world and I do think it deserves some thought and discussion.

After all, we as a community did approach that line in our responses (collectively and as an organization) to the open rifle carry. If I remember correctly, those discussions got pretty heated even among the supporters of normal “open carry”.

I try not o be “troll like”, but sometimes I do think that questions need to be asked. Sometimes we do get a bit herd like around here and that is not good for either the forum or the gun community at large. I NEVER just throw something out there for the fun of it or to JUST stir the pot. I try to only raise points that I BELIEVE have some validity.

Last edited by greg36f; 11-06-2012 at 3:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 11-06-2012, 4:23 PM
gidddy169 gidddy169 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Eureka
Posts: 207
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Interested to see how this plays out. I try not to go to Arcata much these days.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 11-06-2012, 4:26 PM
Upstanding Black Citizen Upstanding Black Citizen is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's what I think about this whole situation:

Being in the middle of catching up from a 100 point difference =/= winning. We're catching up amazingly fast, but that's not the same as winning. If our momentum continues at it's current pace, after a decade or two, THEN I'll say that we're winning.

Gun owners lost a lot on the 1934 NFA act. We also lost massively on the 1968 GCA. We lost our right to make and buy new machine guns in 1986. On a Federal level we lost the right to own AWs in 1994, albeit temporarily. Now in California we have a permanent AWB and mag restrictions along with a safe handgun roster and a carry ban in the works. Throw in gun free school zones, anti gun news reports 24/7, and public schools indoctrinating everyone against guns, and the score is like 100 to 1. The race for presidency is between two evils, and the lesser one doesn't know how to open his mouth without offending someone half the time.

We won Heller, but it was as narrow as it was powerful:All the court explicitly reaffirmed was that all eligible people have the right to posses one loaded, unlocked handgun in the home for traditionally lawful purposes such as self defense without needing to be in a militia. Although they say "in common use", the courts have yet to define that. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

There was Mc Donald, which was a solid victory.

The FOPA had some really good stuff in it, aside from the MG ban.

Lots of CC laws are being passed around the country.

Most of America is OK with people owning guns, even with spree killings going on.

We found workarounds and loopholes to take the bite out of some bad laws. Not quite a victory, but we're cutting our losses I guess.

We still have far to go. Until people can accept that the 2A was about fighting tyranny and invading armies with the military-grade weapons you had at home, we're not getting most of our rights back.
===============
That guy was wronged. But he's not really in a position to do much about it. The Law has the upper hand in the court of public opinion. Now, if it was an equally valuable piece of jewelry or something, public outcry would be all over the place.

Last edited by Upstanding Black Citizen; 11-06-2012 at 4:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 11-09-2012, 8:26 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

An update. From http://www.arcataeye.com/2012/11/hal...ovember-7-2012.



-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 11-09-2012, 8:32 AM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
tenuous at best? Good luck with that defense officer. It might survive locally, but it ain't gonna save your butt in higher court. What's ridiculous was the fool that identifies himself as a secret service or whatever, giving the cop a real reason to arrest him, and the cops going with an infringing one instead.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 11-09-2012, 8:37 AM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

"His conduct wasn't necessarily a technical violation of any code ror existing law, but common sense had to prevail."

I am pretty sure he didn't clear that comment with the Arcata PD PR officer, or their legal counsel.
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 11-09-2012, 8:53 AM
Fortunesfool223's Avatar
Fortunesfool223 Fortunesfool223 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sacramento Area
Posts: 68
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesa Tactical View Post
"His conduct wasn't necessarily a technical violation of any code ror existing law, but common sense had to prevail."

I am pretty sure he didn't clear that comment with the Arcata PD PR officer, or their legal counsel.
Yep, that comment will come back around and hurt in court. It may even be what convinces the City's legal council to not let this get to court.

Admittedly, i havent read the whole thread so sorry if this is a repeat, but what is the Federal approval for release back to the owner that the Police chief talks of?
__________________
Good night, Louis Slungpue, wherever you are!
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 11-09-2012, 9:03 AM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortunesfool223 View Post
Yep, that comment will come back around and hurt in court. It may even be what convinces the City's legal council to not let this get to court.

Admittedly, i havent read the whole thread so sorry if this is a repeat, but what is the Federal approval for release back to the owner that the Police chief talks of?
It's been mentioned a couple times in the thread, but it's not Federal: http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/legrinfo
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 11-09-2012, 9:06 AM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 135 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortunesfool223 View Post
Yep, that comment will come back around and hurt in court. It may even be what convinces the City's legal council to not let this get to court.

Admittedly, i havent read the whole thread so sorry if this is a repeat, but what is the Federal approval for release back to the owner that the Police chief talks of?
NICS background check, probably. It's often hard to tell what our best legal minds are thinking. Probably, he's just throwing the "Federal" word around talking about LEGR. LEGR does involve a NICS check, right?
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


WTB: Saiga .223 bolt; HK G3 bolt; Chinese AK pistol grips; milled AK cut receiver pieces and stubs.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 11-09-2012, 9:15 AM
boxcab boxcab is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 50
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
tenuous at best? Good luck with that defense officer. It might survive locally, but it ain't gonna save your butt in higher court. What's ridiculous was the fool that identifies himself as a secret service or whatever, giving the cop a real reason to arrest him, and the cops going with an infringing one instead.
He was talking about his costume was a secret service or whatever. From the article it appears that two men dressed in charater and used an AR as a prop. Not something I would consider doing so close to the CO shootings, but not illegal.

Following with interest...
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 11-09-2012, 9:15 AM
boxcab boxcab is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 50
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
tenuous at best? Good luck with that defense officer. It might survive locally, but it ain't gonna save your butt in higher court. What's ridiculous was the fool that identifies himself as a secret service or whatever, giving the cop a real reason to arrest him, and the cops going with an infringing one instead.
He was talking about his costume was a secret service or whatever. From the article it appears that two men dressed in charactor and used an AR as a prop. Not something I would consider doing so close to the CO shootings, but not illegal.

Following with interest...
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 11-09-2012, 9:32 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,167
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
The 'Eye' shrunk back from properly describing the Calguns Foundation as the can of whoop *** for when you need to sue every motherf***er in the room, but they did get the general description right.

I find it perplexing that Chapman has decided to double down explaining to the media his justification for confiscating lawfully owned property for what he admits is not 'a technical violation of any code or existing law'. That statement there, you almost cannot put a price on. Like I said, almost... (I think going rate might be somewhere in the mid $30K range and a remedial class on the 4th amendment.).

Chapman's best course of action would have been to STFU. Apparently counsel neglected to advise him.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 11-09-2012, 10:08 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesa Tactical View Post
"His conduct wasn't necessarily a technical violation of any code ror existing law, but common sense had to prevail."

I am pretty sure he didn't clear that comment with the Arcata PD PR officer, or their legal counsel.
I'm thinking you're right.

We'll find out soon.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 11-09-2012, 10:08 AM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
The 'Eye' shrunk back from properly describing the Calguns Foundation as the can of whoop *** for when you need to sue every motherf***er in the room, but they did get the general description right.

I find it perplexing that Chapman has decided to double down explaining to the media his justification for confiscating lawfully owned property for what he admits is not 'a technical violation of any code or existing law'. That statement there, you almost cannot put a price on. Like I said, almost... (I think going rate might be somewhere in the mid $30K range and a remedial class on the 4th amendment.).

Chapman's best course of action would have been to STFU. Apparently counsel neglected to advise him.

Good luck getting that number past a jury. You know, a group of people that are expected to make a reasonable decision based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances. There may not be enough ALL OR NOTHING, MY WAY or the highway or “reasonable will NEVER factor into a second amendment decision” Cal Guns members in that pool…

I mean; the guy has to have a loaded magazine and real body armor real body armor for a costume? Was it a prop or a tool to defend himself? Against what? The Green Lantern and Honey BooBoo two costumes over?

Supporting this guy either as a group or as an individual just makes you look radical and foolish and turns the public against you and your cause. There go those gun nut jobs again!!!

Support this guy and you become lumped in with the whale chasers, PETA nut jobs and Westborough Baptist church nuts…..Yeah, they have a “right”, but they are so far out there that they erode support for the idea / cause in general.

I know that I am beating a dead horse but the news story brought up a few new points.....
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 11-09-2012, 10:12 AM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Good luck getting that number past a jury.
It probably won't go to a jury. Read this.
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 11-09-2012, 10:19 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Good luck getting that number past a jury. You know, a group of people that are expected to make a reasonable decision based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances. There may not be enough ALL OR NOTHING, MY WAY or the highway or “reasonable will NEVER factor into a second amendment decision” Cal Guns members in that pool…
Why do you think it would it go to a jury? And why do you think an adverse decision would not be appealed?

Quote:
I mean; the guy has to have a loaded magazine and real body armor real body armor for a costume? Was it a prop or a tool to defend himself? Against what? The Green Lantern and Honey BooBoo two costumes over?
Irrelevant. Was the conduct unlawful or not?

Quote:
Supporting this guy either as a group or as an individual just makes you look radical and foolish and turns the public against you and your cause. There go those gun nut jobs again!!!
The intent, here, is to educate law enforcement. We don't always get to pick the vehicle. You take the opportunities you can to do the most good possible.

Quote:
Support this guy and you become lumped in with the whale chasers, PETA nut jobs and Westborough Baptist church nuts…..Yeah, they have a “right”, but they are so far out there that they erode support for the idea / cause in general.
I guess you should lump me in with those, then, too.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 11-09-2012, 10:24 AM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcab View Post
He was talking about his costume was a secret service or whatever. From the article it appears that two men dressed in charactor and used an AR as a prop. Not something I would consider doing so close to the CO shootings, but not illegal.

Following with interest...
Still would have been a better reason to cite. The cop would have stood a better chance explaining to the court that he represented himself as some sort of law enforcement than a totally and known unlawful seizure. "Yes, your honor, his dress was fake, but his gun and ammo were real, and he said so"

that's neither here, nor there anyway. The illegal siezxure must be defended. You don't have to see it as supporting the person who had it siezed.
By the by, I am fairly bold in activism, but that's not an action I would have taken. Hasn't been all that many years since a guy in a cop uniform was shot to death at a party by some real cops. It's a real stretch to find even wobbly benefit for all that co-mingling of goals. What was his goal anyway?
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 11-09-2012, 10:28 AM
Fellblade Fellblade is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 138
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"His contact wasn't necessarily a technical violation of any code or existing law, but common sense had to prevail."
I'm pretty sure there are people all over the country who are doing illegal things in their houses. With this line of logic, the police should just go door to door and search everyone's residence... you know, because its common sense. Nevermind that pesky Constitution, it always gets in the way.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 11-09-2012, 10:57 AM
markhu's Avatar
markhu markhu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Apparently cops aren't required to be educated in legal details. I was amazed to have a cop question the legality of an AR when he caught a glimpse of it in the trunk of a car AT A CLUB FIRING RANGE. I humored him by saying that California allowed them with a bullet-button and 10-round magazine, but was further amazed at his response indicating he was unfamiliar with those regulations.
__________________
--MarkHu

IC+XC=NIKA
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 11-09-2012, 11:04 AM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A quick question for those of you that are so offended by my "reasonable" argument.

If my argument is so unreasonable and wrong headed, then why are the terms "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" and "what a reasonable officer with the same tenure and experience do" so enshrined in case law and our courts?

Our laws laws are all about being 'reasonable". I'm sure that if you Googled "reasonable / case law", you would not get through all the hits in your life time.

I'm just saying that looking at this from a reasonable perspective is not so out of the box or "unreasonable".
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 11-09-2012, 11:12 AM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I'm just saying that looking at this from a reasonable perspective is not so out of the box or "unreasonable".
Everyone disagrees with you and it doesn't look like you are going to change any minds.

Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.

Did you read that link I posted? Someone won a cool $20K from the City of San Diego for precisely the behavior described in the OP.
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 11-09-2012, 11:19 AM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markhu View Post
Apparently cops aren't required to be educated in legal details. I was amazed to have a cop question the legality of an AR when he caught a glimpse of it in the trunk of a car AT A CLUB FIRING RANGE. I humored him by saying that California allowed them with a bullet-button and 10-round magazine, but was further amazed at his response indicating he was unfamiliar with those regulations.
It's possibly because in my experience, most LEO's don't give a crap about you and your guns. They don't want to take your guns away and they don't spend all their spare time studying gun laws and looking for loop holes to screw you. Take that how you want, but most cops are pro gun, pro citizens defending themselves and really do support and love the constitution.

I know of officers who have found loaded guns on people, found gun that people were not supposed to have and any and all sorts of violations and they gave the guns back or turned the contact into an educational one.

MOST Leo's don't want to take guns from you!!! Most Leo's think guns are cool and love to talk about them. Why do you think that there are so many Leo's here on Cal Guns? Why is there enough of them to have their own forum?

Sometimes I think that some people here on Cal Guns love / need to stir the pot in order to gather support or gain influence.

We see that all the time with other groups that need a common enemy to thrive, whether the enemy be "whitey" the "Jew’s", "black helicopters" or “the police”.

I’m not saying that vigilance is not warranted or that some wariness is not warranted or that the majority of Cal Guns members feel that way, I’m just saying that it’s something to think about.

Rant off....
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 11-09-2012, 11:31 AM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesa Tactical View Post
Everyone disagrees with you and it doesn't look like you are going to change any minds.

Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.

Did you read that link I posted? Someone won a cool $20K from the City of San Diego for precisely the behavior described in the OP.

Mesa, are you saying that I should not post my opinion just because "everyone disagrees with me"? Is the point of this forum for everyone to, "get in line and tell each other how right we are"? That would be pretty boring.

I may not be the most articulate, educated or smartest person here, but I (arrogantly I guess) feel that my opinion has some value. I put what I think out there for the rest to see. Possibly someone may say, “well he’s 90 percent wrong, but he does have a small point” or even, “dang, I never thought of it that way”. I am not here to convert you, I have been here since 2009 and I have learned that most of us are not going to change our minds.

I have my say, I am respectful (most of the time) as possible and I move on with my life after the thread is finished.

That being said, I have learned stuff here and even though I disagree with some of the posters here, I respect their opinions and I enjoy hearing / seeing other perspectives. Except of course that Clarence Boddecker guy……he has almost cost me a couple of computer screens..……Oh, and Pullnshoot…….That guy…..never mind.

Until I am banned, I am going to keep it up. Sometimes we will agree with each other, sometimes we won’t. Mostly not, but that's ok.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:34 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.