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

MasterYong · #1 11-02-2012, 7:39 AM

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?

Chu · #2 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 · #3 11-02-2012, 7:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu

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 · #4 11-02-2012, 8:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterYong

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 · #5 11-02-2012, 8:09 AM

That guy is not too bright.

CitaDeL · #6 11-02-2012, 9:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu

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

That guy is not too bright.

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

Chu · #7 11-02-2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

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.

five.five-six · #8 11-04-2012, 9:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu

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.

Unless he just happened to have filed for a CoE from CADOJ about 6 weeks earlier, that is a lie.

wildhawker · #9 11-02-2012, 8:35 AM

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

-Brandon

*paul0660* · #10 11-02-2012, 9:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker

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.

donny douchebag · #11 11-02-2012, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul0660

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 · #12 11-02-2012, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donny

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

CitaDeL · #13 11-02-2012, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donny

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul0660

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.

WolfmanJak · #14 11-03-2012, 7:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

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.

This

greg36f · #15 11-05-2012, 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

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.

Getting back on track....

I think that this is where we as a community can fail ourselves. Leaping to the support of someone who's judgment is so flawed, their actions are so stupid and the decisions they make are so selfish that they don't deserve our support.

People here all the time jump on any LEO who says "let the facts come out" or "give him the benefit of the doubt" when a LEO does something, but think nothing of leaping to this guys support.

How is that much different?

I mean, supporting the really stupid actions of this guy just because he is a gun owner is like supporting someone who goes running into a cross walk when they just know that traffic is too close to stop. Hey, they had the “right of way”, right! Nothing they did could be considered wrong right…I mean…They had the right away,,,,screw common sense, screw good judgment….THEY HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY…They could do no wrong!!!

Blind loyalty is not always a good thing.

wildhawker · #16 11-02-2012, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul0660

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

teh.killer.of.zombies · #17 11-02-2012, 8:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker

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

-Brandon

Nice!!

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Lugiahua · #18 11-02-2012, 8:39 AM

ah, felony of what? legally carry a rifle?

miztic · #19 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 · #20 11-02-2012, 9:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miztic

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

POLICESTATE · #21 11-02-2012, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker

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.

wildhawker · #22 11-02-2012, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by POLICESTATE

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

huntercf · #23 11-02-2012, 8:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker

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

Can he report it stolen?

Hopefully it gets cleared up real quick.

Bhobbs · #24 11-05-2012, 6:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miztic

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?

And that overzealous cop needs to be corrected to make sure they never make that mistake again.

Maestro Pistolero · #25 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.

POLICESTATE · #26 11-02-2012, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

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 · #27 11-02-2012, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

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

*Meplat1* · #28 11-02-2012, 2:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker

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.

wildhawker · #29 11-02-2012, 3:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meplat1

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

*Meplat1* · #30 11-02-2012, 5:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker

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

Could such an arrangement somehow result in a conspiracy charge?

bohoki · #31 11-02-2012, 3:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker

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

-Brandon

they can un-take it they were just borrowing it

wildhawker · #32 11-02-2012, 3:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bohoki

they can un-take it they were just borrowing it

Nope. It was a seizure. Their own press release confirms it.

California Penal Code Section 33800 states:

Quote:

(a) When a firearm is taken into custody by a law enforcement officer, the officer shall issue the person who possessed the firearm a receipt describing the firearm, and listing any serial number or other identification on the firearm.
(b) The receipt shall indicate where the firearm may be recovered, any applicable time limit for recovery, and the date after which the owner or possessor may recover the firearm pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 33850).

Section 33850:

Quote:

Any person who claims title to any firearm that is in the custody or control of a court or law enforcement agency and who wishes to have the firearm returned shall make application for a determination by the Department of Justice as to whether the applicant is eligible to possess a firearm.

Section 33855:

Quote:

No law enforcement agency or court that has taken custody of any firearm may return the firearm to any individual unless the following requirements are satisfied [].

Sgt Raven · #33 11-02-2012, 5:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Nope. It was a seizure. Their own press release confirms it.

California Penal Code Section 33800 states:

Section 33850:

Section 33855:

I understand this, but how many times has someone been told they're under arrest, then been told later they were only detained.

Wojtek · #34 11-03-2012, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker

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

-Brandon

No need to demand when LEAs are so proficient at doing it themselves.

Breaking the law, that is.

postal · #35 11-02-2012, 10:33 AM

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

Keep us informed please.

And thanks for all you do.

Drivedabizness · #36 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.