PDA

View Full Version : USFS LEO Harrasment


GillaFunk
03-24-2013, 8:30 PM
over the past 4 months I have had 2-3 interactions with USFS LEO's who have been informing both myself and other shooters using designated shooting area with felony arrest and or confiscation of high capacity magazines. One shooter did have his property confiscated. No receipt was given, and the whole situation did not feel legit.

This last incident cued me to investigate and print out the info on the DOJ website regarding the law. over the weekend I had 2 more interactions with one officer in Mendicino county who again made reference to arrest/confiscation. I provided him with the the information, which he insisted I was misinformed and in the wrong. He then had me go through my vehicle to show him the Bullet buttoned AR I had cased and secured in my truck along with mags that went along with the rifle.

I am wondering if it would now be appropriate to contact CG legal and see if they can provide support or contact the agency and provide clarification to eliminate future harrasment and illegal confiscation.

Suggestions?

EDIT

I will be contacting CG directly. I won't be posting or responding to this thread until I hear back from them. Thanks.

paul0660
03-24-2013, 8:37 PM
Names, badge numbers?

4 interactions would be 3 more than I have had in 40 years, btw.

GillaFunk
03-24-2013, 8:44 PM
Understandable. Keep in mind, my non-discript truck has a shell, only one rifle is out at a time, I have a table set up with shooting bags spotting scope, and I have a chronograph out in use, I'm clean cut former military in well dressed attire, and use 'Sir'.

I don't look like a redneck or a hoodlum.

I have names, but not posting that info.

paul0660
03-24-2013, 8:46 PM
So ask CGF, since they will probably want more than a cool story.

luckystrike
03-24-2013, 8:48 PM
One incident is just a contact, a 2nd contact made by the same LEO in one weekend sounds like you are getting harassed. I would brush off 1 contact, I live in a smaller town with only 6 different deputies, when I had a truck that stuckout like a sore thumb once in awhile they would pull me over (one of my license plate lights out) just to see who I was, once they checked my name I would never get pulled over by that guy again.

bwiese
03-24-2013, 8:50 PM
So ask CGF, since they will probably want more than a cool story.

Yeah.

We need time/date and officer/ranger names and a decent description of the situation. [In the past sometimes people don't tell us the whole story and there are other 'color' issues restraining us.]

We can't just have a lawyer call someone, "Hey, some of youse guys a coupla months ago somewhere did something wrong with some magazines."

Can't really ***** about things if you don't bother taking data to help things get fixed..

GillaFunk
03-24-2013, 9:00 PM
roger that.

Bill, I'll draft up an IR and PM it over to you. I honestly just wasn't sure whom I should contact. I'm also in contact with a fellow Cg shooter who is also
DFG and see how this turns out.

Thanks gents

bwiese
03-24-2013, 9:05 PM
roger that.

Bill, I'll draft up an IR and PM it over to you. I honestly just wasn't sure whom I should contact. I'm also in contact with a fellow Cg shooter who is also
DFG and see how this turns out.

Thanks gents

Please tell us first, privately, before you compromise the situation by talking to a DFGer (leak etc.) regardless of CG membership. Also, DFG has nothing really to do with USFS per se.

The real interest here is when Fed employees act illegally/ unconstitutionally on state matters they don't understand - we get to go to Fed court easily ;-)

paul0660
03-24-2013, 9:06 PM
who not whom.

HOGLEG
03-24-2013, 9:10 PM
Hopefully you were not using those high capacity magazines in bullet button rifle. That is a felony.

Sometimes it's easier just to use a 10 round magazine even if you are in the right. It beats the heck out of getting arrested and having to lawyer up just to prove that you are right.

You don't need to answer this post.

Doheny
03-24-2013, 9:19 PM
who not whom.

Either or, neither nor...

GillaFunk
03-24-2013, 9:22 PM
Paul, thanks for your input.

I'll be contacting Bill about this.

in the mean time, I am looking to set up a range clean-up in partnership with the Close nit group of CG guys in my area along with the USFS through the officer I interacted with today. if anything comes to fruition in the next 6 weeks I PM you to see if you would like to participate.

thanks Gents.

sakosf
03-24-2013, 9:23 PM
Is this more a CA thing being harassed UFS LEOs ? I know somebody from work who once or twice a year goes shooting on some BLM land a number of miles outside of Reno and he & his shooting buddy have never had a problem.

penguin0123
03-24-2013, 9:23 PM
One shooter did have his property confiscated. No receipt was given, and the whole situation did not feel legit.

"... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

paul0660
03-24-2013, 9:25 PM
"... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"


I am curious what you think due process means.

SilverTauron
03-25-2013, 12:33 AM
My understanding of CA law is that while possessing a high capacity magazine is NOT a crime or arrest-able offense in and of itself, the peace officer IS empowered to "confiscate" the 10+ round magazine for destruction as a 'public nuisance' without compensation or enumerated cause.

dwtt
03-25-2013, 2:32 AM
My understanding of CA law is that while possessing a high capacity magazine is NOT a crime or arrest-able offense in and of itself, the peace officer IS empowered to "confiscate" the 10+ round magazine for destruction as a 'public nuisance' without compensation or enumerated cause.

your understanding is wrong.

JimWest
03-25-2013, 6:18 AM
This just incredible. One of the reasons I don't shoot on these lands. But, certainly anyone that does should unload the video camera from the vehicle before the firearms. Good luck with gettin this set right, Gilla.

SilverTauron
03-25-2013, 6:42 AM
your understanding is wrong.

Courtesy MudCamper, from a different thread.


18010. (a) The Attorney General, district attorney, or city
attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of,
importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale,
giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a
nuisance under any of the following provisions:

(20) Section 32390, relating to a large-capacity magazine.

kalimus
03-25-2013, 6:43 AM
your understanding is wrong.

Which part is wrong?

penguin0123
03-25-2013, 7:01 AM
I am curious what you think due process means.

It is my understanding that the due process clause is four parts:

Procedural due process
Substantive due process
prohibition against vague laws
incorporation of Bill of Rights


I would argue that the first part is violated with confiscation and no receipt. Even a traffic citation is really an arrest followed by a release on own recognizance with the promise to appear in court (if you want to go to traffic school, you need to go before a judge; paying the fine is to enter a guilty plea). If the Man takes anything from you (be it life, liberty, or property), they need to arrest you, charge you with something, and you have a right to trial. If the person whose property is confiscated (as mentioned in the post) was indeed charged with something, then the magazines become evidence. By not giving a receipt, I am inclined to believe the chain of custody is broken and inadmissible.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but let me know if my concepts are wrong.

SilverTauron
03-25-2013, 7:06 AM
It is my understanding that the due process clause is four parts:

Procedural due process
Substantive due process
prohibition against vague laws
incorporation of Bill of Rights


I would argue that the first part is violated with confiscation and no receipt. Even a traffic citation is really an arrest followed by a release on own recognizance with the promise to appear in court (if you want to go to traffic school, you need to go before a judge; paying the fine is to enter a guilty plea). If the Man takes anything from you (be it life, liberty, or property), they need to arrest you, charge you with something, and you have a right to trial. If the person whose property is confiscated (as mentioned in the post) was indeed charged with something, then the magazines become evidence. By not giving a receipt, I am inclined to believe the chain of custody is broken and inadmissible.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but let me know if my concepts are wrong.

How hilarious. This poor soul still thinks we live in a free country.

Renaissance Redneck
03-25-2013, 7:28 AM
Hmmm, interesting. I approached a USFS lawperson this fall and asked specifically about shooting. They said I could shoot anywhere out in the woods (with exceptions around campsites, of course) as long as I was safe, cleaned up after myself (almost impossible to find all the ejected brass from a Mini14!!!), and didn't drive where I wasn't supposed to. They didn't discuss prohibited firearms or equipment at all. They didn't seem too concerned about me at the time (I even had some standard capacity magazines with me).

Just my 2-cents.

donw
03-25-2013, 7:46 AM
one must keep in mind: you are always wrong, even when you are right...:(

in the end, KNOWING your rights, may NOT matter...:(

EM2
03-25-2013, 7:53 AM
"... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"


I am curious what you think due process means.



due process (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due%20process)


1: a course of formal proceedings (as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles —called also procedural due process


2: a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual —called also substantive due process

*Due process requires that evidence not be admitted when it is obtained through illegal methods.





Paul,
Is there a reason you are arguing this point?

Those whose standard cap mags are confiscated without receipt are in fact deprived of due process.

paul0660
03-25-2013, 7:59 AM
Paul,
Is there a reason you are arguing this point?

Those whose standard cap mags are confiscated without receipt are in fact deprived of due process.

I haven't started to argue, I was wondering what some people's concept of due process is.

It is apparent that laws passed by our elected officials that allow confiscation of nuisances provide due process, no matter how literal one chooses to be, because it is happening. It might be a perfect issue for a lawsuit and a trip to SCOTUS, I don't know.

I don't like it, but I leave the standard caps at home.

artoaster
03-25-2013, 8:14 AM
All shooters on public lands should carry video and audio devices (smartphones or small digital audio recorders) and use them if contacted by authorities regarding these issues.

Recording the interaction is your right. Do not consent to seaches of your vehicle or equipment bags.

Also, be the type of shooter who does not litter or destroy anything you are not willing to haul out. This means tv's and computers and other sh*t.

stonefly-2
03-25-2013, 8:14 AM
Names, badge numbers?

4 interactions would be 3 more than I have had in 40 years, btw.



the forest service leo's at least in my area (el dorado) is a relatively new developement (2-3 years now). these are not forest rangers. many of the old logging roads that have been open for over 100 years are now closed now and there is a high presence of the sort of officers that one would think could not easily get hired in a lot of places. iv'e only heard second hand about the stops but one involved my buddy and his young son on a quad with holsters on and pistols stowed in the trunk unloaded. they were searched and questioned as to where the pistols came from and how long he had owned them.

RickD427
03-25-2013, 8:27 AM
your understanding is wrong.

Sir,

Post #20 provided a citation to Penal Code section 18010(a) which allows prosecuting authorities to file civil actions to seize large capacity magazines.

Here is the text of 18010(b). This section better applies to LEOs and does allow for the seizure and summary destruction without having to file a court action.

"(b) These weapons shall be subject to confiscation and summary
destruction whenever found within the state." (with the same reference to large capacity magazines.)

The above posts make some good arguments about whether this law meets the requirements of "Due Process." My personal opinion is that is does not. But that is a battle that has not yet been fought and the winner not yet known.

For the present, Penal Code section 18010 still stands.

penguin0123
03-25-2013, 8:37 AM
It is apparent that laws passed by our elected officials that allow confiscation of nuisances provide due process, no matter how literal one chooses to be, because it is happening. It might be a perfect issue for a lawsuit and a trip to SCOTUS, I don't know.

I don't like it, but I leave the standard caps at home.

I believe due process = your day in court. If the LEO confiscate on the spot with no recourse (no receipt to prove this happened leaves you nowhere to go), then you have the enforcement branch acting as judiciary. Not to mention you were effectively deprived of counsel.

When SCOTUS let 7th circuit decision stand on the Illinois Eavesdropping Act (ACLU v Alvarez), it all but affirmed the right of citizens to record LEO (when they are performing their public duties) as being protected by 1A. Don't let any LEO tell you otherwise. If they forcably separate you and your recording device, it just adds fat to the fire.




How hilarious. This poor soul still thinks we live in a free country.
I feel your pain. But I refuse to believe the "last best hope on Earth" has indeed sunk this low.

paul0660
03-25-2013, 8:43 AM
I believe due process = your day in court.

I believe stuff that isn't true, also.

Fate
03-25-2013, 8:51 AM
USFS...not surprising. This is the same department that continues to sell "Adventure Passes" at $5/day to park on public land and write tickets for noncompliance even though the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they could do neither. (BTW, those tickets aren't enforceable, so just ignore the signs and throw away the "tickets". They can't come after you like the DOT can for unpaid parking tickets.)

Untamed1972
03-25-2013, 8:58 AM
USFS...not surprising. This is the same department that continues to sell "Adventure Passes" at $5/day to park on public land and write tickets for noncompliance even though the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they could do neither. (BTW, those tickets aren't enforceable, so just ignore the signs and throw away the "tickets". They can't come after you like the DOT can for unpaid parking tickets.)

I was wondering about that and why the passes are still being sold.

They must figure if people are uniformed enough to keep buying them they will keep selling them.

penguin0123
03-25-2013, 9:04 AM
USFS...not surprising. This is the same department that continues to sell "Adventure Passes" at $5/day to park on public land and write tickets for noncompliance even though the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they could do neither. (BTW, those tickets aren't enforceable, so just ignore the signs and throw away the "tickets". They can't come after you like the DOT can for unpaid parking tickets.)

Pray tell. I'm not too much of an outdoorsy person, so I'm not familiar with this. What is this "Adventure Pass" you speak of? The park admission fee at national parks?

paul0660
03-25-2013, 9:08 AM
Pray tell. I'm not too much of an outdoorsy person, so I'm not familiar with this. What is this "Adventure Pass" you speak of? The park admission fee at national parks?

It is a Socal parking permit.

The Angelinos are easily cowed.

anthonyca
03-25-2013, 9:30 AM
the forest service leo's at least in my area (el dorado) is a relatively new developement (2-3 years now). these are not forest rangers. many of the old logging roads that have been open for over 100 years are now closed now and there is a high presence of the sort of officers that one would think could not easily get hired in a lot of places. iv'e only heard second hand about the stops but one involved my buddy and his young son on a quad with holsters on and pistols stowed in the trunk unloaded. they were searched and questioned as to where the pistols came from and how long he had owned them.

I noticed this also. I was shocked at the concentration of LEOs, Rangers and other government employees we ran into in the El Dorado national forest. One was very nice and helpful, the rest made us feel like subjects and it was not a pleasant experience. It was so bad that a couple of friends vowed to never go back.I guess they are accomplishing their goal.

451040
03-25-2013, 9:47 AM
Courtesy MudCamper, from a different thread.


18010. (a) The Attorney General, district attorney, or city
attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of,
importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale,
giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a
nuisance under any of the following provisions:

(20) Section 32390, relating to a large-capacity magazine.

Sir,

Post #20 provided a citation to Penal Code section 18010(a) which allows prosecuting authorities to file civil actions to seize large capacity magazines.

Here is the text of 18010(b). This section better applies to LEOs and does allow for the seizure and summary destruction without having to file a court action.

"(b) These weapons shall be subject to confiscation and summary
destruction whenever found within the state." (with the same reference to large capacity magazines.)

The above posts make some good arguments about whether this law meets the requirements of "Due Process." My personal opinion is that is does not. But that is a battle that has not yet been fought and the winner not yet known.

For the present, Penal Code section 18010 still stands.


From a previous post by Brandon aka wildhawker:

I was advised at CCW class to NOT carry mags over ten rounds, even if you have legal ones that are larger. Why? Because of this.

YES it is illegal. But....
YES you will get arrested;
YES you can lose your CCW;
YES you may get cleared in court, but
YES it will cost you time, money, and heartache to do it.

What complete and utter garbage information. Tell whoever told you that to call Jason Davis and that CGF will pick up the tab for their education just so they stop spreading nonsense at their classes.

Are you guys suing the state over the 10+ round magazine summary destruction as a nuisance law? Seems like this would be the better route to go instead of suing individual cities.

http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/pen/part-6/32310-32390/32390/

You're misreading the PC like City of Los Angeles is:

32390. Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section
32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any large-capacity magazine is a
nuisance and is subject to Section 18010.

However:

16005. Nothing in the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 is
intended to substantively change the law relating to deadly weapons.
The act is intended to be entirely nonsubstantive in effect. Every
provision of this part, of Title 2 (commencing with Section 12001) of
Part 4, and every other provision of this act, including, without
limitation, every cross-reference in every provision of the act,
shall be interpreted consistent with the nonsubstantive intent of the
act.



I won't discuss strategy here beyond reiterating what we told Los Angeles at its public hearing:

The people have a fundamental right to keep and bear firearms for self-defense, including those in common use which use magazines having a capacity of greater than 10 rounds.

Any outright ban on the possession of magazines is a violation of the Second Amendment.

If Los Angeles passes any outright ban on the possession of magazines within its jurisdiction, The Calguns Foundation and Cal-FFL will, along with taxpaying residents of LA, sue the City for civil rights violations in federal court and take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

We will absolutely not accept LA scapegoating tens of thousands of law abiding gun owners and retailers in Los Angeles, and countless travelers and visitors, for the evil and insane acts of a few criminals.

-Brandon

Decoligny
03-25-2013, 11:10 AM
USFS...not surprising. This is the same department that continues to sell "Adventure Passes" at $5/day to park on public land and write tickets for noncompliance even though the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they could do neither. (BTW, those tickets aren't enforceable, so just ignore the signs and throw away the "tickets". They can't come after you like the DOT can for unpaid parking tickets.)

The case in question deals with people who do not use the "amenities" set up by the government.

If you pull over and have a picnic in the woods, and pee against a tree, no fee.

If you pull over and have a picnic using a government provided picnic table, and then use the government provided bathroom, you are subject to a fee.

Only those who don't use any amenities can park their car, hike in the woods, camp in undeveloped areas, etc., can legally do so without paying a fee.

stonefly-2
03-25-2013, 11:45 AM
I noticed this also. I was shocked at the concentration of LEOs, Rangers and other government employees we ran into in the El Dorado national forest. One was very nice and helpful, the rest made us feel like subjects and it was not a pleasant experience. It was so bad that a couple of friends vowed to never go back.I guess they are accomplishing their goal.

google "kenny marcus el dorado" i guess this has been going on for longer than the 2-3 years i thought. lots on his act here on calguns also.

k1dude
03-25-2013, 12:28 PM
The case in question deals with people who do not use the "amenities" set up by the government.

If you pull over and have a picnic in the woods, and pee against a tree, no fee.

If you pull over and have a picnic using a government provided picnic table, and then use the government provided bathroom, you are subject to a fee.

Only those who don't use any amenities can park their car, hike in the woods, camp in undeveloped areas, etc., can legally do so without paying a fee.

Is this statewide? At National Forests only? Or at state parks and recreation areas as well? And how do you get by the gate guard charging a fee to enter and park?

Wolverine
03-25-2013, 12:41 PM
Is this statewide? At National Forests only? Or at state parks and recreation areas as well? And how do you get by the gate guard charging a fee to enter and park?

Certain National Forests. No gates or gate guards just signs along the road (or a ticket under your windshield wiper).

Hoooper
03-25-2013, 12:54 PM
I pay the adventure fee every time I get a check from my employer, no need for extra

Ford8N
03-25-2013, 3:52 PM
Sir,

Post #20 provided a citation to Penal Code section 18010(a) which allows prosecuting authorities to file civil actions to seize large capacity magazines.

Here is the text of 18010(b). This section better applies to LEOs and does allow for the seizure and summary destruction without having to file a court action.

"(b) These weapons shall be subject to confiscation and summary
destruction whenever found within the state." (with the same reference to large capacity magazines.)

The above posts make some good arguments about whether this law meets the requirements of "Due Process." My personal opinion is that is does not. But that is a battle that has not yet been fought and the winner not yet known.

For the present, Penal Code section 18010 still stands.

This^^^

That is why it's best to ALWAYS avoid shooting someplace where you could run into the Man. Until "scary black rifles" are legal in California, avoid the Man. From the top to the very bottom, California Government is against it's serfs owning firearms. And apparently, Federal Law Enforcement of the USFS is helping to enforce California AW laws.

sl0re10
03-25-2013, 6:53 PM
My understanding of CA law is that while possessing a high capacity magazine is NOT a crime or arrest-able offense in and of itself, the peace officer IS empowered to "confiscate" the 10+ round magazine for destruction as a 'public nuisance' without compensation or enumerated cause.

I don't know anyone other than they think that is true.

TRICKSTER
03-25-2013, 7:05 PM
You bet they are. I make it a point to avoid ALL LEOs wherever I can. I'm sick of the us vs them attitude that many of them have. All you have to do is go to officer.com forum area to see what many there think of the average citizen. I read a statement at that site from one LEO that there are 2 kinds of citizens: those that have committed a crime and those that will. When many of them agreed...:facepalm:

Anyway, I digress...I've also read at that site that many of them have already stated that if it came down to having to confiscate weapons from citizens they would refuse to do so and that it would be time to find a new employer. That was nice to hear....hopefully it's not lip service.

SB

I'm sure some LEOs feel the same way when they see some of the anti-LEO post on this forum along with some of the :TFH:ery that goes on.
Judging an entire group of people based on the actions of a few rarely gives you an accurate picture.

DEF23
03-25-2013, 7:21 PM
I'd like to know exactly WHERE in the Mendocino National Forest are you having these contacts at ???

I am up in North Eastern Mendocino and we know all of our local USFS LEO people pretty darn well. I am also friends with most all of the other local LEO's as well (DFG, MCSO, RVTP, ect.).

Thus far, all of our local LEO have been pretty informed and even when not up to date on current issues, they are still fairly supportive of citizens firearms rights.

In fact, in my neck of the woods --- it is pretty much standard that on the first 911 call to your house, they will ask you if you have a gun. If you say, NO --- they will tell you right then and there that you better go get one......LOL !!!

So, it's kinda surprising to hear this sort of tone being taken with you, sir.

Also, you gotta remember that with no hunting season in effect right now, if you are from out of town and cruising around in the hills (espeically in any sort of truck with a camper on it) --- it's kinda assumed by everyone (around here anyways) that you are either looking to poach someones deer or you are a pot grower looking for a new spot.

Especially, in Northern Mendocino National Forest. This place is a war zone for almost 6-to-9 months a year, past few years.

TheMan
03-25-2013, 7:23 PM
The real interest here is when Fed employees act illegally/ unconstitutionally on state matters they don't understand

I'm guessing there would be zero interest in going after them in a matter not related to guns?

I had my run in with them, beat their charges because they didn't understand what they were charging me with. But I don't like the fact that the USFS is even enforcing state law. There is no accountability for their actions at the state level, no overseeing state agency. And while a local sheriff might require 1000 hours of training on a state law, the federal agencies are required to have 0 hours training on state law to enforce it. The only state requirement on training is a 40 hour class covering basics of arrest, and 24 hours of firearm training. This combination of no training and no oversight seems like a recipe for abuse.

Mesa Defense
03-25-2013, 8:43 PM
Sir,

Post #20 provided a citation to Penal Code section 18010(a) which allows prosecuting authorities to file civil actions to seize large capacity magazines.

Here is the text of 18010(b). This section better applies to LEOs and does allow for the seizure and summary destruction without having to file a court action.

"(b) These weapons shall be subject to confiscation and summary
destruction whenever found within the state." (with the same reference to large capacity magazines.)

The above posts make some good arguments about whether this law meets the requirements of "Due Process." My personal opinion is that is does not. But that is a battle that has not yet been fought and the winner not yet known.

For the present, Penal Code section 18010 still stands.



Wow, so you have a pistol since 1996 and the related standard capacity mags and it can be confiscated for some reason, legally?

What about RAW's with your legal standard capacity mags? How could those be confiscated for mere possession?

RickD427
03-25-2013, 8:56 PM
Wow, so you have a pistol since 1996 and the related standard capacity mags and it can be confiscated for some reason, legally?

What about RAW's with your legal standard capacity mags? How could those be confiscated for mere possession?

Mesa,

The short answer is "Yes" because that's what the law currently provides for. We've had a lot of discussion about the state of the law in other threads. The balance of the argument is that the law probaby would not pass legal muster, but as my post observes, that's a battle that hasn't been fought yet.

At present, the law is still on books and it says what it says.

Mesa Defense
03-25-2013, 9:50 PM
Mesa,

The short answer is "Yes" because that's what the law currently provides for. We've had a lot of discussion about the state of the law in other threads. The balance of the argument is that the law probaby would not pass legal muster, but as my post observes, that's a battle that hasn't been fought yet.

At present, the law is still on books and it says what it says.

Thanks RickD427,

Honestly had no idea. Learned something new. Interesting.

dirty_530
03-26-2013, 8:51 AM
google "kenny marcus el dorado" i guess this has been going on for longer than the 2-3 years i thought. lots on his act here on calguns also.

First off this guy is 100% spot on about the "officer" mentioned above I have personally seen this guy show up to my station and brag about/show off the guns he has confiscated. Hell, he wrote a ticket to a kid for backing his quad off a trailer and his tire hit the pavement. It really bums me out to work for the same agency as this guy that being said there are some really personable good LEO's on the El Dorado as well. Like I have said on here a few times before, be very very careful when shooting any where on the El Dorado (Ice House, Rob's Hut, Hell Hole, Uncle Tom's, Union Valley, Pack Saddle Pass ect) The mentioned officer is like the wind he's every where!! :oji: Its not just shooting either, he'll run your green sticker, chain saw, lantern, wood spliter, tent, anything he can to write you a ticket even if it doesn't stick. Don't believe me, search his name on pirate4x4.com theres close to 40 pages on there just about him.

paul0660
03-26-2013, 3:00 PM
So, it's kinda surprising to hear this sort of tone being taken with you, sir.

I agree. The last two sheriffs have admitted that they cannot protect everyone in the middle of nowhere, and shall issue is the way it is here.

Librarian
03-26-2013, 4:24 PM
Gentle members, this thread started with some particulars.

Some of you have generalized from this behavior to all cops.

That is unacceptable. Knock it off.

sl0re10
03-26-2013, 5:34 PM
I'm sure some LEOs feel the same way when they see some of the anti-LEO post on this forum along with some of the :TFH:ery that goes on.
Judging an entire group of people based on the actions of a few rarely gives you an accurate picture.

Well; they better figure out where the truth actually is in the issue and act on it. My response to this kind of stuff is to push to have their budget cut. Fewer of them; less harassment....

sl0re10
03-26-2013, 5:39 PM
First off this guy is 100% spot on about the "officer" mentioned above I have personally seen this guy show up to my station and brag about/show off the guns he has confiscated. Hell, he wrote a ticket to a kid for backing his quad off a trailer and his tire hit the pavement. It really bums me out to work for the same agency as this guy that being said there are some really personable good LEO's on the El Dorado as well. Like I have said on here a few times before, be very very careful when shooting any where on the El Dorado (Ice House, Rob's Hut, Hell Hole, Uncle Tom's, Union Valley, Pack Saddle Pass ect) The mentioned officer is like the wind he's every where!! :oji: Its not just shooting either, he'll run your green sticker, chain saw, lantern, wood spliter, tent, anything he can to write you a ticket even if it doesn't stick. Don't believe me, search his name on pirate4x4.com theres close to 40 pages on there just about him.

Yeah, mr flammable hot dog buns. I think I'll be this guy for halloween. Dress up like the guy in shorts from Reno 911 and write people lame a*s tickets all night while trying to confiscate their stuff.

Also; see my message above. Even if there are good people in the department it will be the response of the public to people like him. We pay for the parks so we can use them. Not to hire Leos trying to get us to never visit them. If thats what they're going to do....

stonefly-2
03-26-2013, 6:23 PM
Gentle members, this thread started with some particulars.

Some of you have generalized from this behavior to all cops.

That is unacceptable. Knock it off.



i'll take my share of the blame on this and i would like to say maybe it's odd but i kinda appreciate contact with law enforcement in the woods. whether f & g or whoever. i don't "treat" them with respect, i actually do respect them. they carry guns, work in the woods and are working in my best interest. how cool is that? it's just automatic to yield to their authority, they are peace officers and generally all business with maybe a little chit chat when business is concluded. on the other hand being abused by anyone particularly someone that's held to such a higher standard (though no one is perfect) makes me think crazy stuff. same old story... one bad apple. i know the rest of you guys don't hear it enough so thanks for what you do.

dirty_530
03-26-2013, 7:26 PM
Yeah, mr flammable hot dog buns. I think I'll be this guy for halloween. Dress up like the guy in shorts from Reno 911 and write people lame a*s tickets all night while trying to confiscate their stuff.

Also; see my message above. Even if there are good people in the department it will be the response of the public to people like him. We pay for the parks so we can use them. Not to hire Leos trying to get us to never visit them. If thats what they're going to do....

So you're going to dress like a giant douche then?

0nTarg3t
03-26-2013, 9:11 PM
government sponsored theft !! +10 mags are just a tester,when they see that they can get away with it, guns will be next on the public nuisance list. how would you like all your rifles and mags confiscated with no receipt given? don't say they cant take guns with no receipt given,they can't do this and they are. just complete BS, they are only a public nuisance when they are in the hands of civilians.when the same mag is in the hands of leo's, they magically turn from a nuisance into a device for public safety.what a bunch ****en garbage. this needs to be stopped before it gets out of hand

TRICKSTER
03-26-2013, 9:28 PM
Well; they better figure out where the truth actually is in the issue and act on it. My response to this kind of stuff is to push to have their budget cut. Fewer of them; less harassment....

May I suggest........
http://www.universalclass.com/i/course/reading-comprehension-101.htm

paul0660
03-26-2013, 9:35 PM
he'll run your green sticker, chain saw, lantern, wood spliter, tent, anything he can to write you a ticket even if it doesn't stick.

What tickets can be written for that stuff?

GillaFunk
03-26-2013, 11:33 PM
gentlemen,
I started this post in search of guidance regarding personal experiences I had with 2 LEO's in a certain area of the state.

I am in the process of drafting an IR to BWise. In the mean time this thread has grown to 2 pages, a lot has been geared towards slandering LEO's in general. We all have and are free to our opinions, but as I have specifically left much detail vague, you do not have the complete story and are passing judgement preemptivley.

This type of behavior and comments need to be taken elsewhere. thank you.

Once Bill has my IR, further guidance will follow. in the mean time, go clean your firearms or watch some RedTube. Wayyy too much tension in this thread.

paul0660
03-26-2013, 11:38 PM
It's preemptively, and get Bill's name right, especially if it happened.

DEF23
03-27-2013, 6:46 AM
I agree with your second post Gilla. I have nothing for OR against these guys one way or the other.

I just want to know the location (approximate) so that we can be aware of the area to stay away until some of the mess is sorted out.

And since some of us here live in Mendocino County, sharing some of that info would be helpful to those of us who are most like to have a contact such as you have had.

So, thanks for the help........or not...........whatever............

GillaFunk
03-27-2013, 7:08 AM
So ask CGF, since they will probably want more than a cool story.

who not whom.

It's preemptively, and get Bill's name right, especially if it happened.


Alright Paul0660; I don't know what your dammed problem is, you don't know a thing about me but your attitude and undending criticism is wholely unappreciated and rude.

Feel free to go ahead and tone down your rhetoric one notch, or just shuffle along down the street.

sakosf
03-27-2013, 11:22 AM
Any recommendations of a NF or BLM area to shoot (north or east of SF Bay area < 200 miles) where there have not been a lot of reports of shooters being hassled? I would be shooting some center fire, bolt action war relics.

Hoooper
03-27-2013, 11:56 AM
Alright Paul0660; I don't know what your dammed problem is, you don't know a thing about me but your attitude and undending criticism is wholely unappreciated and rude.

Feel free to go ahead and tone down your rhetoric one notch, or just shuffle along down the street.

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm218/timbenj/Funnies/serious-cat-joker2.png

dirty_530
03-27-2013, 12:06 PM
What tickets can be written for that stuff?

The quad tire touching the highway, yes. The green sticker, yes if your spark arrestor isn't there, samething with the wood splitter. The other ones I was just being dramatic :D. I am not an LEO, so I only really know the ohv stuff and the stuff that pretains to fire prevention.

Bainter1212
03-27-2013, 1:28 PM
Had a bad run-in with USFS LEO Ken Marcus myself. I was legal and charges were eventually dropped. Still waiting to get my gun back.....

If you run into this guy, repeat after me; "I'm not doing anything illegal. I do not consent to a search". This guy seems real nice but he will nail you for having a fingernail too long or jaywalking across an old dirt logging road.

Be safe out there.

John J
03-27-2013, 3:13 PM
will you PM me particulars? I have something to say also.

Had a bad run-in with USFS LEO Ken Marcus myself. I was legal and charges were eventually dropped. Still waiting to get my gun back.....

If you run into this guy, repeat after me; "I'm not doing anything illegal. I do not consent to a search". This guy seems real nice but he will nail you for having a fingernail too long or jaywalking across an old dirt logging road.

Be safe out there.

MudCamper
03-27-2013, 3:18 PM
gentlemen,
I started this post in search of guidance regarding personal experiences I had with 2 LEO's in a certain area of the state.

will you PM me particulars? I have something to say also.

Yes. Could you PM me the names also or at least the area this took place. I have a large group with a LOT of guns going up to MNF soon, and would like to avoid trouble if possible.

stonefly-2
03-27-2013, 3:18 PM
Had a bad run-in with USFS LEO Ken Marcus myself. I was legal and charges were eventually dropped. Still waiting to get my gun back.....

If you run into this guy, repeat after me; "I'm not doing anything illegal. I do not consent to a search". This guy seems real nice but he will nail you for having a fingernail too long or jaywalking across an old dirt logging road.

Be safe out there.



you might say the federal government is for a fact confiscating legal firearms.

bergmen
03-27-2013, 3:32 PM
Any recommendations of a NF or BLM area to shoot (north or east of SF Bay area < 200 miles) where there have not been a lot of reports of shooters being hassled? I would be shooting some center fire, bolt action war relics.

There is Cow Mountain North and there is a shooting range at Boggs Mountain south of Clear Lake. Look them up on-line and get info there.

Dan

mud99
03-27-2013, 5:01 PM
This^^^

That is why it's best to ALWAYS avoid shooting someplace where you could run into the Man. Until "scary black rifles" are legal in California, avoid the Man. From the top to the very bottom, California Government is against it's serfs owning firearms. And apparently, Federal Law Enforcement of the USFS is helping to enforce California AW laws.

Don't lump all of USFS into the same bucket, I have had very positive interactions with USFS in the Tahoe NF. Have received a few warnings over the years for doing things I probably shouldn't be doing...

I spent a few years in the Mendocino county area, and LEO there are high strung. I think it's all the drug crap that goes on. I recently had a run in up there with BLM (not gun related) and it was not friendly, I would not want to get into an argument with them over an OLL or a legally owned +10 magazine, I doubt it would end well.

mud99
03-27-2013, 5:22 PM
The quad tire touching the highway, yes. The green sticker, yes if your spark arrestor isn't there, samething with the wood splitter. The other ones I was just being dramatic :D. I am not an LEO, so I only really know the ohv stuff and the stuff that pretains to fire prevention.

This is why when you are on a dirt bike or quad you never look back and never make eye contact with the guys on the side of trail waiving their hands. If you think you see LEO, WFO before anyone can flag you down. Run your stickers pointed inwards, and each time you get new stickers stack them haphazardly with the old ones so they can't figure it out from a distance.

When you ride back to the parking area you always do a loop before parking to make sure they aren't waiting to check your stickers.

Never double back on the same trail, always loop out.

Once you are in the parking area, leave your bike a few cars away. Never admit the bike is yours or that you have been riding it. Never offer paperwork, never offer your license, make them guess at who owns what, who has been riding what, etc.

It's funny watching them try and figure out what is going on with a bike while you watch them from afar.

Mr.1904
03-27-2013, 5:31 PM
I haven't really sensed a whole lot of negativity or generalization of LEOs being all bad. More towards specific LEOs and instances.

It's like the lottery with any LE interaction. Sometimes you win, others you lose.

And the whole "Using a 'hi-cap' mag is a felony" thing is wrong. Just like having a loaded mag next to an empty gun is having a loaded weapon. Depends on the LEO. Some are informed, most are not.

DEF23
03-27-2013, 6:34 PM
Yes. Could you PM me the names also or at least the area this took place. I have a large group with a LOT of guns going up to MNF soon, and would like to avoid trouble if possible.

If I could get a PM of the same info from someone as well. I live only a few miles from MNF and might need to know this info in advance later on.

Ford8N
03-28-2013, 5:22 AM
Don't lump all of USFS into the same bucket, I have had very positive interactions with USFS in the Tahoe NF. Have received a few warnings over the years for doing things I probably shouldn't be doing...

I spent a few years in the Mendocino county area, and LEO there are high strung. I think it's all the drug crap that goes on. I recently had a run in up there with BLM (not gun related) and it was not friendly, I would not want to get into an argument with them over an OLL or a legally owned +10 magazine, I doubt it would end well.

I used to work for the USFS years ago. There were many patriots working there.:43:

But just as a general rule, pick your shooting spot so you can see anyone approaching.


This is why when you are on a dirt bike or quad you never look back and never make eye contact with the guys on the side of trail waiving their hands. If you think you see LEO, WFO before anyone can flag you down. Run your stickers pointed inwards, and each time you get new stickers stack them haphazardly with the old ones so they can't figure it out from a distance.

When you ride back to the parking area you always do a loop before parking to make sure they aren't waiting to check your stickers.

Never double back on the same trail, always loop out.

Once you are in the parking area, leave your bike a few cars away. Never admit the bike is yours or that you have been riding it. Never offer paperwork, never offer your license, make them guess at who owns what, who has been riding what, etc.

It's funny watching them try and figure out what is going on with a bike while you watch them from afar.

Thx, Good advice!

JimWest
03-28-2013, 8:25 AM
I don't understand why, in the age of cell phone videos, this LEO (Ken) interaction hasn't been recorded yet. Might I suggest that the minute an official is spotted, the recording begins. Just do it!

Bainter1212
03-28-2013, 8:32 AM
I agree above post.

BTW, Ken Marcus preys on people generally in El Dorado NF. Specifically, in the Placerville and Pollock Pines areas, also I hear he loves patrolling the Mormon Emigrant Trail rd.

dirty_530
03-28-2013, 10:48 PM
He LOVES patrolling Mormon Emigrant Trail, mostly because of all the hunters and all the shooting spots. Also be aware that he will go out to Pack Saddle Pass as well. He will also sit in the parking lot of the USFS fire station just past the turn off for MET.

jeffrice6
03-29-2013, 12:36 AM
Ken Marcus preys on people generally in El Dorado NF. Specifically, in the Placerville and Pollock Pines areas, also I hear he loves patrolling the Mormon Emigrant Trail rd.

How does this jerk-off still have a job..... I pray CGF goes after this cat (and those like him) tooth & nail, and if possible, sue him personally!!! If we can hit him & his superiors in their wallets, they might just reconsider their tactics....

Anyway, give um hell CGF!!!

DEF23
03-29-2013, 6:07 AM
Wow, how did this all of a sudden turn into a Ken Marcus, El Dorado county and LEO bashing thread.............???

To the OP and the other interested posters of the subject matter at hand:

If you guys get any more info on the MNF issues, please shoot me a PM. I'd really like to stay informed about the situation out there.

Thanks.

stonefly-2
03-29-2013, 6:46 AM
from your post about already being friends with all the leo's in that area one would think you already know more than any of us so.......good luck with that.

sl0re10
03-29-2013, 10:28 AM
May I suggest........
http://www.universalclass.com/i/course/reading-comprehension-101.htm

I could say the same to someone else here....

sl0re10
03-29-2013, 10:38 AM
Wow, how did this all of a sudden turn into a Ken Marcus (1), El Dorado county(2) and LEO (3) bashing thread............???

Thanks.

Huh? How did it turn into what? Pick one.

Just seems like #1 to me... :)

8696steve
03-31-2013, 11:53 AM
There are bad apples everywhere, although I have met many LEO's in the Mendocino, and havent had any issues. In fact they have all been rather cordial and accommodating. These guys have enough to deal with, do a google search on marijuana in the Mendocino National Forest. I read in the newspaper a few weeks ago that a grower ran from and fought one of the LEO's up there.

sfpcservice
03-31-2013, 12:37 PM
Aren't these Federal LEO's only able to enforce state laws because the Sheriff of that county has "deputized" them under one of the 83x.xx PC sections? Much like the US Park Police doing the "E" checks on Baker Beach in San Francisco...

My point is, if there is no relief from these Federal LEO's through the Federal complaint process, what about the Foundation taking multiple credible reports of such behavior directly to that Sheriff and requesting that Federal Officer or Agency be "de-deputized" and unable to enforce State Law? At the very least the Sheriff could call a meeting with the other agency and say "look dude...."

Maybe worth a shot.

Southwest Chuck
03-31-2013, 12:52 PM
Aren't these Federal LEO's only able to enforce state laws because the Sheriff of that county has "deputized" them under one of the 83x.xx PC sections? Much like the US Park Police doing the "E" checks on Baker Beach in San Francisco...

My point is, if there is no relief from these Federal LEO's through the Federal complaint process, what about the Foundation taking multiple credible reports of such behavior directly to that Sheriff and requesting that Federal Officer or Agency be "de-deputized" and unable to enforce State Law? At the very least the Sheriff could call a meeting with the other agency and say "look dude...."

Maybe worth a shot.

I kind of like this idea. Put pressure on the local Sheriff (elected official) to do something about it.

RickD427
03-31-2013, 1:56 PM
Aren't these Federal LEO's only able to enforce state laws because the Sheriff of that county has "deputized" them under one of the 83x.xx PC sections? Much like the US Park Police doing the "E" checks on Baker Beach in San Francisco...

My point is, if there is no relief from these Federal LEO's through the Federal complaint process, what about the Foundation taking multiple credible reports of such behavior directly to that Sheriff and requesting that Federal Officer or Agency be "de-deputized" and unable to enforce State Law? At the very least the Sheriff could call a meeting with the other agency and say "look dude...."

Maybe worth a shot.

There are two different methods by which Federal LEO's may enforce state laws:

1) Penal Code 830.8 provides some mechanisms for federal officers to be empowered to enforce state laws. Those mechanisms are rather confusing and you really need to read the section, a couple of times, to get it. It only appears that Sheriffs can restrict the authority of BLM officers only.

2) Federal officers can also enforce state laws under the terms of the Assimilative Crimes Act (refer to 18 USC 13). The unique thing about this act is that the state law violations are actually enforced as federal violations. There is no mechanism for state officials to restrict its application.

John J
03-31-2013, 1:57 PM
Kenny is registered on Pirate4x4 and I assume here. He reads the boards.

MountainMike
03-31-2013, 2:36 PM
Kenny is registered on Pirate4x4 and I assume here. He reads the boards.

If that is the case then he would have read enough here to understand that his actions are not withing the scope of his office and further actions are a flagrant disregard to that fact.

Furthermore, if the LEO of that area are inundated with cartel pot farmers why are they bothering the guys out shooting for the day?

sfpcservice
03-31-2013, 3:56 PM
Furthermore, if the LEO of that area are inundated with cartel pot farmers why are they bothering the guys out shooting for the day?

Unlike lawful shooters just out to have a little fun, cartel pot farmers shoot back. It's the old Federal employee thought process of "I can do my job.... or I can have a cup of coffee; either way I get paid the same". I know, I used to work for the Feds. Much easier and safer to hassle us than real bad guys; and it produces a paper tiger....

John J
03-31-2013, 4:34 PM
Has been documented writting tickets for the most trivial of reasons. He is fond of using the no license plate bulb, burnt tail light, no front plate as probable cause to pull citizens over and give them the once over.

If you consent to a search it is game on for Kenny and you will be cited and or arrested for anything he sees as illegal. Your coperation means nothing. Your guns will be confiscated if there is anything amiss.

There was an editorial in the Democrat advising people not to recreate here because of Kenny.

There is no middle ground, spirit of the law with Kenny. He writes tickets and is out of control.

If that is the case then he would have read enough here to understand that his actions are not withing the scope of his office and further actions are a flagrant disregard to that fact.

Furthermore, if the LEO of that area are inundated with cartel pot farmers why are they bothering the guys out shooting for the day?

stonefly-2
03-31-2013, 5:39 PM
If that is the case then he would have read enough here to understand that his actions are not withing the scope of his office and further actions are a flagrant disregard to that fact.

Furthermore, if the LEO of that area are inundated with cartel pot farmers why are they bothering the guys out shooting for the day?

these are two different areas of national forest. mnf has pot, the eldorado has kenny.

dirty_530
04-01-2013, 10:47 AM
Has been documented writting tickets for the most trivial of reasons. He is fond of using the no license plate bulb, burnt tail light, no front plate as probable cause to pull citizens over and give them the once over.

If you consent to a search it is game on for Kenny and you will be cited and or arrested for anything he sees as illegal. Your coperation means nothing. Your guns will be confiscated if there is anything amiss.

There was an editorial in the Democrat advising people not to recreate here because of Kenny.

There is no middle ground, spirit of the law with Kenny. He writes tickets and is out of control.





YYYYUUUUUPPPPP!!!! He speaks the truth^

TheMan
05-28-2013, 10:15 PM
I kind of like this idea. Put pressure on the local Sheriff (elected official) to do something about it.

Good luck in bringing the local sheriff to do something about it. It MIGHT work, but don't hold your breath.

I found a little more interesting background on the complaint process with the USDA FS. Apparently there has been a long running problem with complaints. And they are generally not documented or responded to.

This congressional hearing from 1993 shows how long the issue has been going on. It also gives a few ideas for where to push forward with complaints, in order to get more of a response.

https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/105h/49653.pdf

MontClaire
05-28-2013, 10:31 PM
How hilarious. This poor soul still thinks we live in a free country.

:smilielol5: Dude, where is my country? Gone in 2008......

jimh
05-29-2013, 12:04 AM
someone needs to get this guy on video, id pitch in for a PI. Let him violate some civil rights on video... Once it goes viral he is toast...

jeffrice6
05-29-2013, 1:00 AM
:smilielol5: Dude, where is my country? Gone in 2008......

Ya.... It was gone well before that chief!

oldsmoboat
05-29-2013, 8:54 AM
...
There was an editorial in the Democrat advising people not to recreate here because of Kenny..l.
Link?

donw
05-29-2013, 9:51 AM
USFS...not surprising. This is the same department that continues to sell "Adventure Passes" at $5/day to park on public land and write tickets for noncompliance even though the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they could do neither. (BTW, those tickets aren't enforceable, so just ignore the signs and throw away the "tickets". They can't come after you like the DOT can for unpaid parking tickets.)

i find it unbelievable that they would have a "Ticketing" policy they could not enforce.

i refused to pay a 'penalty' of $10.00 on a overdue water bill to the city of san diego, a number of years ago. i feel i had a legimate reason for being "late" and they could not prove otherwise; as a result:

it was filed against my credit report

i got a letter threatening to garnish my wages, levy my bank account(s) and even put a lein on my property

they attempted to deduct it from my state income tax return.

mind you...this was to collect a $10.00 (TEN) dollar late fee...

the state WILL come after you with a vengeance for ANY thing they think you owe them...including liens on property, garnishing wages, levy bank accounts.

i have been locked in a battle with the state of california for FOURTEEN YEARS over whether or not i own a piece of property they have tried to tax us on...i even had the governor intercede. we have a mountain of documentation PROVING we sold the property that includes court orders

it's absolutely incredible at how truly inefficient our governments REALLY ARE.

it's also very disturbing at how incredibly efficient, brutal, merciless, lack of caring or understanding they demonstrate, when it comes to collecting fines, penalties or fees.

the only way you can 'win' in the long run, is to make them expend more to collect than what you pay.

send it_hit
05-29-2013, 11:11 AM
USFS...not surprising. This is the same department that continues to sell "Adventure Passes" at $5/day to park on public land and write tickets for noncompliance even though the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they could do neither. (BTW, those tickets aren't enforceable, so just ignore the signs and throw away the "tickets". They can't come after you like the DOT can for unpaid parking tickets.)

do you have a citation for that? There's a possibility I'll be moving up north near some NF in the next few years... Didn't know a circuit court ruled their tickets aren't enforceable.

freebug
05-29-2013, 8:47 PM
The only way to get action is to post their names and badge numbers for all to see. By not providing it, you provide these fools a means of continuing their actions (illegal).

Of course, we the citizens of California should cut their budget by say - 85%?

jor-el
06-24-2013, 7:09 PM
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/06/21/el-dorado-county-sheriff-strips-forest-service-of-state-law-enforcement-power/

Looks like someone has been listening. Curious if being de-deputized will stop Mr. Marcus. Can you write a ticket w/o law enforcement powers? Can a citizen confiscate anything from another citizen w/o LEO powers?

Movin&Shakin
06-24-2013, 7:26 PM
I am in for the PI lets do this

debbied123
06-25-2013, 5:59 PM
I would be very careful about throwing away any citations written by USFS LEOs, even if it is for something stupid like collecting firewood, or walking a dog without a leash. Federal citations get processed by the Central Violations Bureau, and those that are not taken care of are processed by the District Courts. Arrest warrants are issued by the magistrate judge and given to the US Marshals. Sometimes a Notice before Arrest is mailed out to the violator informing them of the consequences of not taking care of the citation.

Meplat
06-25-2013, 9:14 PM
You know; this guy as harassed enough people, I wonder if they could bring a class action against him.

If you have been harassed
by this officer

Call the law firm of

Dewie, Ceatum, & How

1-800-555-1212

:D

thebronze
06-25-2013, 11:43 PM
who not whom.

Before you lecture others on proper grammar, you should probably brush up on yours.

Whom is proper grammar, douche.

sl0re10
06-26-2013, 6:07 AM
My understanding of CA law is that while possessing a high capacity magazine is NOT a crime or arrest-able offense in and of itself, the peace officer IS empowered to "confiscate" the 10+ round magazine for destruction as a 'public nuisance' without compensation or enumerated cause.

In lieu of prosecution. I know it is not a crime with a penalty; but to confiscate it you had break an actual rule of some kind.

If your legally entitled to have it / not doing anything wrong... I can't find anything in the penal code that says they can take it as a public nuisance.

sl0re10
06-26-2013, 6:18 AM
Courtesy MudCamper, from a different thread.


18010. (a) The Attorney General, district attorney, or city
attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of,
importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale,
giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a
nuisance under any of the following provisions:

(20) Section 32390, relating to a large-capacity magazine.

'bring an action'. Sounds one on one. Like the AG, DA, or CA (but not an LEO) have to bring an action on you for your high cap mag. They probably have to prove a point... re: start a court case... as part of the action. Over their opinion you did something illegal to start an action over. They are then empowered to drop the case against you and destroy your mag if you want to take their offer.

CPRAFAN
06-26-2013, 6:33 AM
If you are being hassled illegally, get a cheap videocam and tape your encounters - visit www.carlosmiller.com for info on how to keep it legal and post the video. Videocams should keep them honest and treating you respectfully.

one must keep in mind: you are always wrong, even when you are right...:(

in the end, KNOWING your rights, may NOT matter...:(

SilverTauron
06-26-2013, 6:59 AM
In lieu of prosecution. I know it is not a crime with a penalty; but to confiscate it you had break an actual rule of some kind.

If your legally entitled to have it / not doing anything wrong... I can't find anything in the penal code that says they can take it as a public nuisance.

The problem is that "high cap mags" are classified as a public nuisance under an illegal and BS ruling. Because it hasn't been challenged in court yet, the law stands despite its 4th and 2nd Amendment violations. Because of the "public nuisance" catch-all, if a cop sees a 11 round or larger mag they can take it on the spot without any crime or violation required for probable cause.

cindynles
06-26-2013, 8:00 AM
The only way to get action is to post their names and badge numbers for all to see. By not providing it, you provide these fools a means of continuing their actions (illegal).

Of course, we the citizens of California should cut their budget by say - 85%?

If you are being hassled illegally, get a cheap videocam and tape your encounters - visit www.carlosmiller.com for info on how to keep it legal and post the video. Videocams should keep them honest and treating you respectfully.

Bee Canyon in Southern California
Officer Shelley D. Murrell
Badge # 1967
n4hyEnDCTCA

RickD427
06-26-2013, 8:55 AM
'bring an action'. Sounds one on one. Like the AG, DA, or CA (but not an LEO) have to bring an action on you for your high cap mag. They probably have to prove a point... re: start a court case... as part of the action. Over their opinion you did something illegal to start an action over. They are then empowered to drop the case against you and destroy your mag if you want to take their offer.

SliverTauron probably shouda quoted Penal Code setion 18010(b) instead. That section allws for the summary destruction of large capacity magazines. There is no need to file a court action. There is no requirement that the magazines be illegally possessed for them to be destroyed. The section probably would not withstand a legal challenge, but it hasn't been challenged yet and still stands.

Here's the full text of the law:

"18010. (a) The Attorney General, district attorney, or city
attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of,
importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale,
giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a
nuisance under any of the following provisions:
(1) Section 19290, relating to metal handgrenades.
(2) Section 20390, relating to an air gauge knife.
(3) Section 20490, relating to a belt buckle knife.
(4) Section 20590, relating to a cane sword.
(5) Section 20690, relating to a lipstick case knife.
(6) Section 20790, relating to a shobi-zue.
(7) Section 20990, relating to a writing pen knife.
(8) Section 21190, relating to a ballistic knife.
(9) Section 21890, relating to metal knuckles.
(10) Section 22090, relating to a nunchaku.
(11) Section 22290, relating to a leaded cane or an instrument or
weapon of the kind commonly known as a billy, blackjack, sandbag,
sandclub, sap, or slungshot.
(12) Section 22490, relating to a shuriken.
(13) Section 24390, relating to a camouflaging firearm container.
(14) Section 24490, relating to a cane gun.
(15) Section 24590, relating to a firearm not immediately
recognizable as a firearm.
(16) Section 24690, relating to an undetectable firearm.
(17) Section 24790, relating to a wallet gun.
(18) Section 30290, relating to flechette dart ammunition and to a
bullet with an explosive agent.
(19) Section 31590, relating to an unconventional pistol.
(20) Section 32390, relating to a large-capacity magazine.
(21) Section 32990, relating to a multiburst trigger activator.
(22) Section 33290, relating to a short-barreled rifle or a
short-barreled shotgun.
(23) Section 33690, relating to a zip gun.
(b) These weapons shall be subject to confiscation and summary
destruction whenever found within the state.
(c) These weapons shall be destroyed in the same manner described
in Section 18005, except that upon the certification of a judge or of
the district attorney that the ends of justice will be served
thereby, the weapon shall be preserved until the necessity for its
use ceases."

osis32
06-26-2013, 9:10 AM
Im not quite sure what Im watching but she was definitely looking for a problem.

sl0re10
06-26-2013, 10:12 AM
SliverTauron probably shouda quoted Penal Code setion 18010(b) instead. That section allws for the summary destruction of large capacity magazines. There is no need to file a court action. There is no requirement that the magazines be illegally possessed for them to be destroyed. The section probably would not withstand a legal challenge, but it hasn't been challenged yet and still stands.

Here's the full text of the law:

"18010. (a) The Attorney General, district attorney, or city
attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of,
importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale,
giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a
nuisance under any of the following provisions:
(1) Section 19290, relating to metal handgrenades.
(2) Section 20390, relating to an air gauge knife.
(3) Section 20490, relating to a belt buckle knife.
(4) Section 20590, relating to a cane sword.
(5) Section 20690, relating to a lipstick case knife.
(6) Section 20790, relating to a shobi-zue.
(7) Section 20990, relating to a writing pen knife.
(8) Section 21190, relating to a ballistic knife.
(9) Section 21890, relating to metal knuckles.
(10) Section 22090, relating to a nunchaku.
(11) Section 22290, relating to a leaded cane or an instrument or
weapon of the kind commonly known as a billy, blackjack, sandbag,
sandclub, sap, or slungshot.
(12) Section 22490, relating to a shuriken.
(13) Section 24390, relating to a camouflaging firearm container.
(14) Section 24490, relating to a cane gun.
(15) Section 24590, relating to a firearm not immediately
recognizable as a firearm.
(16) Section 24690, relating to an undetectable firearm.
(17) Section 24790, relating to a wallet gun.
(18) Section 30290, relating to flechette dart ammunition and to a
bullet with an explosive agent.
(19) Section 31590, relating to an unconventional pistol.
(20) Section 32390, relating to a large-capacity magazine.
(21) Section 32990, relating to a multiburst trigger activator.
(22) Section 33290, relating to a short-barreled rifle or a
short-barreled shotgun.
(23) Section 33690, relating to a zip gun.
(b) These weapons shall be subject to confiscation and summary
destruction whenever found within the state.
(c) These weapons shall be destroyed in the same manner described
in Section 18005, except that upon the certification of a judge or of
the district attorney that the ends of justice will be served
thereby, the weapon shall be preserved until the necessity for its
use ceases."

Law is like a computer programming language. All this said is loop back to these other sections in these instances.

18010. (a) The Attorney General, district attorney, or city
attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of,
importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale,
giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a
nuisance under any of the following provisions

Still has the "bring an action" part and "under" means GOTO in basic. You have to goto "Section 32390" to see if it is a public nuisance.. 32390 then lists exemptions for 18010 under 32400. 32400 has all the leo exemptions and 32420 for pre 2000 non leo owners.

If they don't want to admit 32420 exempts us from 18010; can they show us their exemption from 18010?

curtisfong
06-26-2013, 11:52 AM
Law is like a computer programming language.

Unfortunately, unlike a computer language, a degree is required to be able to definitively parse legalese, even though it is (cosmetically) similar to English.

Computer languages, however, are so precise that an inanimate object can be designed to parse them.

RickD427
06-26-2013, 3:54 PM
Law is like a computer programming language. All this said is loop back to these other sections in these instances.



Still has the "bring an action" part and "under" means GOTO in basic. You have to goto "Section 32390" to see if it is a public nuisance.. 32390 then lists exemptions for 18010 under 32400. 32400 has all the leo exemptions and 32420 for pre 2000 non leo owners.

If they don't want to admit 32420 exempts us from 18010; can they show us their exemption from 18010?

Sir,

Your analogy of law to computer programming has its faults. They're not the same. "Bring and action" is simply not the same as "GOTO", even if there are a lot of similarities. Penal Code section 18010 contains three paragraphs that do separate things. Paragraph (a) allows designated official to bring legal action to enjoin.... and then provides a listing of 23 different things that are deemed to be "Nuisances." Paragraph "b" provides that those 23 things are subject to "consfiscation and summary destruction." The word "summary" would indicated that no court proceeding is needed as if the officials were acting under paragraph (a). Paragraph "c" defines the manner of destruction.

You are quite correct that section 32390 defines several exemptions from the 23 articles being deemed as "Nuisances." It applies the content of sections 17700-17745 and 32400-32450 to determine what is exempted. IMHO, you have incorrectly parsed out the content of what you believe to be a lawfully possessed prior to 2000 magazine. You cite section 32450 as being the exemption, but it does not so provide. Section 32450 exempts a person from the penalty of section 32310 if they import into the state a magazine that they lawfully possessed in the state prior to that date. Section 32310 provides a felony penalty for importation. It provides no penalty for possession. Since there is no penalty for possession, there is no exemption from the non-existent penalty offered by section 32450. Please give it a close read - you missed something. It doesn't give a broad exemption for magazines possessed prior to 2000. It only addresses the re-importation of those magazines,

Confused yet? CurtisFong was right on point in Posting #117. This all really defies common sense. There should be a clear exemption for lawfully possessed magazines prior to 2000, but why isn't there? When the weapons laws were re-codified two years ago, the content of most sections did not change, they were primarily just re-numbered. The "Nuisance" provision was added, but it "borrowed" the list of exemptions from previously existing law. Since there was (and still is) no law against possession of a large-capacity magazine, there was no need for an exemption.

This really appears to be an error in the re-codification. We've had some lengthy debate in other threads over how the error may have occurred, but when you parse the words of the statute out, it says what is says, not what it ought to say.

sl0re10
06-26-2013, 4:17 PM
Sir,

Your analogy of law to computer programming has its faults. They're not the same. "Bring and action" is simply not the same as "GOTO"

Sure... thats why I didn't say it.

Penal Code section 18010 contains three paragraphs that do separate things. Paragraph (a) allows designated official to bring legal action to enjoin.... and then provides a listing of 23 different things that are deemed to be "Nuisances." Paragraph "b" provides that those 23 things are subject to "consfiscation and summary destruction." The word "summary" would indicated that no court proceeding is needed as if the officials were acting under paragraph (a). Paragraph "c" defines the manner of destruction.

You are quite correct that section 32390 defines several exemptions from the 23 articles being deemed as "Nuisances." It applies the content of sections 17700-17745 and 32400-32450 to determine what is exempted. IMHO, you have incorrectly parsed out the content of what you believe to be a lawfully possessed prior to 2000 magazine. You cite section 32450 as being the exemption, but it does not so provide.

Didn't say that either. I said 32420.

Section 32450 exempts a person from the penalty of section 32310 if they import into the state a magazine that they lawfully possessed in the state prior to that date. Section 32310 provides a felony penalty for importation. It provides no penalty for possession. Since there is no penalty for possession, there is no exemption from the non-existent penalty offered by section 32450. Please give it a close read - you missed something. It doesn't give a broad exemption for magazines possessed prior to 2000. It only addresses the re-importation of those magazines

If section 32400 only covers importation / reimportation then:
1) Why can LEOs have 10+ round mags? They can't hold this same section (any part of the 32400 section) up as a reason if we can't.
2) If I take it out of state and back in is it now legal again. Does it refortify it's legalness? (re: shows the absurdity of their argument). Its like the hair club backwards. I'm not just the owner; I'm the importer...
3) 18010 only says [for high cap mags] its an nuisance if there is a issue under 32310 which in turn says 'except as provided under 32400....any large-capacity magazine is a nuisance and is subject to Section 18010'.
3b) Here knowing the process (which I don't) would help. So; if you have two laws or PCs in conflict how do you pick between them (since we were told we were grandfathered in another section)? What is the normal way to remove items from the penal code if they've been superseded (was that done here)? What role does the legislative branch's deliberations and stated intentions play in the court's interpretation (did lawmakers say this change was to ban ownership of 30 round mags for citizens grandfathered under another section? If a couple did; did more disagree with that view who voted for it)?


Confused yet?

Yep... but just because there might be one bad precedent doesn't mean a gun lawyer shouldn't try this a few more times... it sounds like a confusing drafting error and not a PC change to take away pre 2000 owned mags...

covingtonhouse
06-26-2013, 4:47 PM
Bee Canyon in Southern California
Officer Shelley D. Murrell
Badge # 1967
n4hyEnDCTCA

Looks an awful lot like what happened to a group of us out at Panoche Hills BLM. Looking for non-CA compliant firearms. Except we had a 7 yr old with us and the BLM ranger came out with his AR at ready carry. Totally unnecessary in my view, but then I wasn't in his shoes. Had some fun moving him around our set-up by invading his personal space for about a half hour. Totally killed the mood for further shooting that day though.

SickofSoCal
06-26-2013, 5:50 PM
who not whom.


^ You've got to be kidding me. The education system has failed, yet again. :facepalm:


I'll bet if someone here used the word "affray" in a sentence, you'd chide them for that too.

RickD427
06-26-2013, 6:15 PM
Sure... thats why I didn't say it.



Didn't say that either. I said 32420.



If section 32400 only covers importation / reimportation then:
1) Why can LEOs have 10+ round mags? They can't hold this same section (any part of the 32400 section) up as a reason if we can't.
2) If I take it out of state and back in is it now legal again. Does it refortify it's legalness? (re: shows the absurdity of their argument).
3) 18010 only says [for high cap mags] its an nuisance if there is a issue under 32310 which in turn says 'except as provided under 32400....any large-capacity magazine is anuisance and is subject to Section 18010'.




Yep... but just because there might be one bad precedent doesn't mean a gun lawyer shouldn't try this a few more times...

Sir,

Re: Your first point - Here's an exact quote from your posting: ""bring an action" part and "under" means GOTO in basic." This sure sounds, through the use of the word "means" that you're considering them as the same.

Re: Your second point. I stand corrected. You did cite section 32420. I also responded with the content of 32420 although I incorrectly identified 32450. This stuff is confusing. To continue on your computer analogy, I "flowcharted" the various sections in the code and their relationship to each other (it took two pages) and I incorrectly cited the section. More on the content of this section below.

Re: Your third point, you asked three questions. Here's my cut at a response:
1) Why can LEOs have 10+ round mags? They can't hold this same section (any part of the 32400 section) up as a reason if we can't. - It may also be the case that large capacity magazines are also a "Nuisance" if possessed by LEOs. I don't see a clear exemption for them either. My point is that the current law is kinda irrational in its content, this just adds to that conclusion.
2) If I take it out of state and back in is it now legal again. Does it refortify it's legalness? (re: shows the absurdity of their argument). - Nope, that won't do a thing. Your magazine, remains completely legal, but it's still a nuisance. The effect of section 32420 is that you cannot be prosecuted for re-importing your magazine back into the state if you legally possessed it in California prior to 2000. (Yes, I understand and agree the law, in its current form is absurd, but its still the law.)
3) 18010 only says [for high cap mags] its an nuisance if there is a issue under 32310 which in turn says 'except as provided under 32400....any large-capacity magazine is anuisance and is subject to Section 18010'. - I think you're slight off on this one. Section 18010 defines large-capacity magazines as "Nuisances" unless they fall under the provisions of section 32390. Section 32390, in turn, refers to the exemptions contained in sections17700-17745 or 32400-32450. When you search all of the exemptions, you'll find none that govern simple possession of large capacity magazines prior to 2000.

Again, this whole issue really appears to be some sloppy management of the weapon law re-codification. I really cannot see (even for our folks in Sacramento) anyone deliberately writing law in this manner. I also cannot see any reasonable LEO taking action to seize "Nuisance" magazines absent some criminal intent, but then, please look at the subject matter of this thread.

JohnnyG
06-27-2013, 11:30 AM
Unfortunately, unlike a computer language, a degree is required to be able to definitively parse legalese, even though it is (cosmetically) similar to English.

Computer languages, however, are so precise that an inanimate object can be designed to parse them.

And even more unfortunately, a degree (or even a brain for that matter) is NOT required to write/legislate this non-sense.

Arreaux
06-28-2013, 10:10 AM
Just saw this last night....

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/06/27/el-dorado-sheriffs-fight-with-feds-likely-over-residents-carrying-guns/

Hah! Notice which site was shown....:D

Bainter1212
06-28-2013, 12:00 PM
Yeeeesssss!!!! Sheriiff D'Agostini revoked the USFS authority to enforce state laws in El Dorado county!!! I know exactly why too.....K. M. And his Nazi persecution of everyone and anyone. The SacBee this morning ran the article, I can't find a link on my phone though.

SpaceMan
07-01-2013, 12:50 PM
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/06/27/el-dorado-sheriffs-fight-with-feds-likely-over-residents-carrying-guns/

Arreaux beat me to it. I just saw this this morning and noticed CGN layout! A little research brought me here.

skibuff
07-01-2013, 6:42 PM
Yeeeesssss!!!! Sheriiff D'Agostini revoked the USFS authority to enforce state laws in El Dorado county!!! I know exactly why too.....K. M. And his Nazi persecution of everyone and anyone. The SacBee this morning ran the article, I can't find a link on my phone though.


My neighbor in Pollockpines works for the Eldo Sheriffs Department told me Sunday about it. Sheriiff D'Agostini sent a letter to all Employees regarding it. I'm interested in seeing what the letter said but I'm stuck in Sac for a while.

It's funny if google KM he is famous on jeeper forums also.

He's been fair and cool with me.