Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #521  
Old 02-27-2017, 11:20 AM
antiques2 antiques2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: in the country
Posts: 116
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have been given a ticket for the above discussion. IT was a error to admit I had the gun.-say what the above quotes are saying that you have nothing illegal in the car. MAKE them get a search warrant. They will lie about how they charge you "and" write it up AND I can't get a CCarry now-maybe because of this and it was 25 years ago. I live in El Dorado county by the way.
Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 01-14-2018, 4:40 PM
jhansman jhansman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Realizing that this thread is a year old and has been tossed around pretty well, I found myself wondering if any of the new laws in CA applied to this topic. Today, my wife took my car for a quick (<5 mi., if that matters) trip to the store. I did not know she was taking it, and she did not know my guns were in the trunk for tomorrow's range session. If you are driving a car that contains unloaded, legally stored weapons and are pulled over, what is your responsibility as an uniformed driver? How well would "Umm, gee officer, those belong to my husband and I didn't even know they were in there" play if the cops chose to conduct a search (as highly unlikely as that is)? I think it would come down to the individual officer as to how things would proceed. This mistake on my part won't happen again, but folks, we are at the mercy of the police when stopped. Ostensibly, they are bound to follow the law (as are we), but remember that your civil rights come into play after the arrest, in court. You can argue them all day by the roadside, but each LEO has a certain amount of discretion they can exercise. Just sayin'...
Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 01-14-2018, 5:18 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

You are under no responsibility, as an uninformed driver, or as a knowing driver, to disclose that you have weapons in the vehicle.

You can't disclose something that you don't know, but this DOES reinforce the common thread of never consenting to a search.

"I have nothing illegal in the vehicle"
Really? Were your windows partially down when you were parked on that hot day last week? What about those two hood rats that were standing by your car when you got back? Do you know for an absolute fact that one of them didn't panic when he saw you walking toward them and drop a baggie of drugs into your back seat?
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 01-15-2018, 5:19 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhansman View Post
Realizing that this thread is a year old and has been tossed around pretty well, I found myself wondering if any of the new laws in CA applied to this topic.
Statutes regarding transportation of firearms within and outside of vehicles have not changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhansman View Post
Today, my wife took my car for a quick (<5 mi., if that matters) trip to the store. I did not know she was taking it, and she did not know my guns were in the trunk for tomorrow's range session.
Community property; community use. She has her own keys or direct access to yours. The problem here is not some hypothetical rogue cop who ostensibly is supposed to follow the law. The problem here is, you didn't show your wife the common courtesy of letting her know you are storing guns and ammo in the trunk. If you had, the concerns you expressed go away.

Now, flowers and candy for the wife, along with an apology and a promise that you won't again put her at such risk.
Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 01-21-2018, 9:23 PM
2nd amendment believer 2nd amendment believer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This may be a mute point after 11 pages of replies, however, a couple years ago I was riding shotgun with my GF driving her VW on our way down 395 to Bishop from Nevada County. A county Mounty pulled up along side and refused to pass. The turn around came up and he started to slow as if to take the u-turn. Suddenly he thought better of it and sped up and got back behind us and followed for about a mile, presumably while running our plates for priors, etc, (which we have none), then lit us up. He said our license plate was missing from the front. VW GTIs never shipped with a place to affix one and so it came that way, and when the plates arrived, one was never applied to the front. He also stated that a brake light was out. I carry spare bulbs, and so I claimed that I would fix it real quick while they waited so no ticket was needed. He then asked for license, registration and insurance. I found the paperwork in the glove box, except the insurance papers were from last year, and the new ones buried somewhere in the same glove box and I continued to search. He then asked if we would mind if he searched the car.

My GF asked why he needed to do that to which he had no answer. She looked at me and I shook my head out of principle. He then asked why we would not allow him to search the vehicle, and I replied for her that he we were on our way to work a festival and that we had no time for messing about for no reason, and that we know that he needed either a warrent or probable cause of some kind of illegal activity and that we all knew he had neither. He could clearly see that I have a police style Motorola radio in my hand and I then got on it and told the 2 trucks that were now passing me that we were being pulled over and illegally being searched. They pulled off to the side and were going to wait. The 2 leos could clearly see that we ahd 2 24' box trucks and witnesses. I told them to drive on in case something illegal happens, thereby separating our "party" and perhaps casting some kind of reasonable doubt about the contents of the trucks, and dividing their attention between us and the departing trucks. It confused them.

The one offending leo then took our paperwork to the patrol SUV and proceeded to verify our info, and then presumably, try to get a warrant, unsuccessfully, due toe the 30 minutes we waited. He then returned to the vehicle and tried one more time to get permission at which time I clearly stated that he absolutely did NOT have permission to search the vehicle. He then proceeded to write us up for the tail light, and refused to let me replace the bulb there on the side while he waited to clear it, cited us for the license plate missing from the front, and then cited us for not having proof of insurance. My GF said we did have it in the glove box AND that it was online and he could call it in and he would have the proof enough that we are insured. He refused to check and refused to let us continue and the violations written on the citations read whatever number of the vehicle code followed by the letter "C" which means that a court appearance is needed to clear the citations, which is to say that we had to drive all the way back to Lee Vining to go to court.

Now the good part: We contacted a local LEO, a highway patrol. He clarified the part about the "C" designation, and then also informed us that highway interdiction is how these little tax revenue deficient counties prey upon anybody passing through and are searching for drugs and primarily weed in order to confiscate property to auction off for bolstering the coffers. We dealt with the citations without having to go to Lee Vining by getting them signed off locally and sending a complaint letter to the court along with the corrected citations and a request for a response in writing if this was not sufficient, and a detailed complaint about the offending officer. We then, as per my lawyer's advise, filed a written complaint with the District attorney and with the County Sherrif's office that this leo worked for. He was given time off without pay while this was investigated and BOTH officers in the vehicle were eventually terminated. So, you DO have rights, and you DO have the power to thwart illegal efforts of over zealous law enforcement hell bent on relieving you of your property and liberty...for money, and best of all, you have power enough to financially impact them severely in the negative!

ALWAYS file a written complaint with the DA and the department which they work for as at a minimum, they get no raise that next 6 months if they have ONE complaint. If they have many, it may be their undoing.
Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 01-21-2018, 9:56 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,246
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd amendment believer View Post
This may be a mute point after 11 pages of replies, however, a couple years ago I was riding shotgun with my GF driving her VW on our way down 395 to Bishop from Nevada County. A county Mounty pulled up along side and refused to pass. The turn around came up and he started to slow as if to take the u-turn. Suddenly he thought better of it and sped up and got back behind us and followed for about a mile, presumably while running our plates for priors, etc, (which we have none), then lit us up. He said our license plate was missing from the front. VW GTIs never shipped with a place to affix one and so it came that way, and when the plates arrived, one was never applied to the front. He also stated that a brake light was out. I carry spare bulbs, and so I claimed that I would fix it real quick while they waited so no ticket was needed. He then asked for license, registration and insurance. I found the paperwork in the glove box, except the insurance papers were from last year, and the new ones buried somewhere in the same glove box and I continued to search. He then asked if we would mind if he searched the car.

My GF asked why he needed to do that to which he had no answer. She looked at me and I shook my head out of principle. He then asked why we would not allow him to search the vehicle, and I replied for her that he we were on our way to work a festival and that we had no time for messing about for no reason, and that we know that he needed either a warrent or probable cause of some kind of illegal activity and that we all knew he had neither. He could clearly see that I have a police style Motorola radio in my hand and I then got on it and told the 2 trucks that were now passing me that we were being pulled over and illegally being searched. They pulled off to the side and were going to wait. The 2 leos could clearly see that we ahd 2 24' box trucks and witnesses. I told them to drive on in case something illegal happens, thereby separating our "party" and perhaps casting some kind of reasonable doubt about the contents of the trucks, and dividing their attention between us and the departing trucks. It confused them.

The one offending leo then took our paperwork to the patrol SUV and proceeded to verify our info, and then presumably, try to get a warrant, unsuccessfully, due toe the 30 minutes we waited. He then returned to the vehicle and tried one more time to get permission at which time I clearly stated that he absolutely did NOT have permission to search the vehicle. He then proceeded to write us up for the tail light, and refused to let me replace the bulb there on the side while he waited to clear it, cited us for the license plate missing from the front, and then cited us for not having proof of insurance. My GF said we did have it in the glove box AND that it was online and he could call it in and he would have the proof enough that we are insured. He refused to check and refused to let us continue and the violations written on the citations read whatever number of the vehicle code followed by the letter "C" which means that a court appearance is needed to clear the citations, which is to say that we had to drive all the way back to Lee Vining to go to court.

Now the good part: We contacted a local LEO, a highway patrol. He clarified the part about the "C" designation, and then also informed us that highway interdiction is how these little tax revenue deficient counties prey upon anybody passing through and are searching for drugs and primarily weed in order to confiscate property to auction off for bolstering the coffers. We dealt with the citations without having to go to Lee Vining by getting them signed off locally and sending a complaint letter to the court along with the corrected citations and a request for a response in writing if this was not sufficient, and a detailed complaint about the offending officer. We then, as per my lawyer's advise, filed a written complaint with the District attorney and with the County Sherrif's office that this leo worked for. He was given time off without pay while this was investigated and BOTH officers in the vehicle were eventually terminated. So, you DO have rights, and you DO have the power to thwart illegal efforts of over zealous law enforcement hell bent on relieving you of your property and liberty...for money, and best of all, you have power enough to financially impact them severely in the negative!

ALWAYS file a written complaint with the DA and the department which they work for as at a minimum, they get no raise that next 6 months if they have ONE complaint. If they have many, it may be their undoing.
There are several things wrong with your posting that really require correction, and just a few things that you actually got right.

As to what you got right:

1) Search Authority - When an officer asks for consent to search, that's a voluntary search authority. You are free to deny consent and that means either no search, or the officer must find another source of legal standing.

2) Summary Repair - If you had the ability to quickly make a repair, a professional officer should allow that to occur. The objective here is highway safety and that goal is better met if you drive away from the stop with a functional taillight. The officer hasn't violated anything by writing the citation. It's just not the best solution.

Here's what you got wrong:

1) Front license plate - All vehicles sold in California are required to be fitted for a front license plate. If your GTI was lawfully sold in California, it had the fitting for a front plate. If you bought the vehicle elsewhere and registered it in California, it was your responsibility to fit the front plate prior to being stopped.

2) Search warrants - There are very few circumstances where a search warrant is required to search a vehicle. A search warrant requires "Probable Cause", but then if an officer possesses "Probable Cause", they may lawfully search the vehicle without need of a warrant (refer to U.S. v Ross).

3) Proof of Insurance - The law requires you to provide the proof of insurance "upon demand." Offering the possibility that you may provide such proof after a search of your vehicle is not "upon demand." California law does allow you to provide proof of insurance using a mobile electronic device (like a cell phone or tablet), but the responsibility is placed upon you to do the "providing", it's not the responsibility of the officer to do the "seeking." (refer to Vehicle Code section 16028(a)).

4) Complaints - It's certainly your right to make a complaint if you feel aggrieved by an officer's actions. But a existence of a complaint is not going to prevent them from receiving a pay raise, or any other benefit, for the next six months. Basing any sanction on the existence of a complaint, or any number of complaints, violates the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Sanctions can only be imposed upon findings of wrongdoing, and the sanction must be proportional to the substantiated finding of wrongdoing. (Refer to Government Code section 3304 and Skelley v State Personnel Board).
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 01-22-2018, 8:43 AM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,525
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd amendment believer View Post
This may be a mute point after 11 pages of replies, however, a couple years ago I was riding shotgun with my GF driving her VW on our way down 395 to Bishop from Nevada County. A county Mounty pulled up along side and refused to pass. The turn around came up and he started to slow as if to take the u-turn. Suddenly he thought better of it and sped up and got back behind us and followed for about a mile, presumably while running our plates for priors, etc, (which we have none), then lit us up. He said our license plate was missing from the front. VW GTIs never shipped with a place to affix one and so it came that way, and when the plates arrived, one was never applied to the front. He also stated that a brake light was out. I carry spare bulbs, and so I claimed that I would fix it real quick while they waited so no ticket was needed. He then asked for license, registration and insurance. I found the paperwork in the glove box, except the insurance papers were from last year, and the new ones buried somewhere in the same glove box and I continued to search. He then asked if we would mind if he searched the car.

My GF asked why he needed to do that to which he had no answer. She looked at me and I shook my head out of principle. He then asked why we would not allow him to search the vehicle, and I replied for her that he we were on our way to work a festival and that we had no time for messing about for no reason, and that we know that he needed either a warrent or probable cause of some kind of illegal activity and that we all knew he had neither. He could clearly see that I have a police style Motorola radio in my hand and I then got on it and told the 2 trucks that were now passing me that we were being pulled over and illegally being searched. They pulled off to the side and were going to wait. The 2 leos could clearly see that we ahd 2 24' box trucks and witnesses. I told them to drive on in case something illegal happens, thereby separating our "party" and perhaps casting some kind of reasonable doubt about the contents of the trucks, and dividing their attention between us and the departing trucks. It confused them.

The one offending leo then took our paperwork to the patrol SUV and proceeded to verify our info, and then presumably, try to get a warrant, unsuccessfully, due toe the 30 minutes we waited. He then returned to the vehicle and tried one more time to get permission at which time I clearly stated that he absolutely did NOT have permission to search the vehicle. He then proceeded to write us up for the tail light, and refused to let me replace the bulb there on the side while he waited to clear it, cited us for the license plate missing from the front, and then cited us for not having proof of insurance. My GF said we did have it in the glove box AND that it was online and he could call it in and he would have the proof enough that we are insured. He refused to check and refused to let us continue and the violations written on the citations read whatever number of the vehicle code followed by the letter "C" which means that a court appearance is needed to clear the citations, which is to say that we had to drive all the way back to Lee Vining to go to court.

Now the good part: We contacted a local LEO, a highway patrol. He clarified the part about the "C" designation, and then also informed us that highway interdiction is how these little tax revenue deficient counties prey upon anybody passing through and are searching for drugs and primarily weed in order to confiscate property to auction off for bolstering the coffers. We dealt with the citations without having to go to Lee Vining by getting them signed off locally and sending a complaint letter to the court along with the corrected citations and a request for a response in writing if this was not sufficient, and a detailed complaint about the offending officer. We then, as per my lawyer's advise, filed a written complaint with the District attorney and with the County Sherrif's office that this leo worked for. He was given time off without pay while this was investigated and BOTH officers in the vehicle were eventually terminated. So, you DO have rights, and you DO have the power to thwart illegal efforts of over zealous law enforcement hell bent on relieving you of your property and liberty...for money, and best of all, you have power enough to financially impact them severely in the negative!

ALWAYS file a written complaint with the DA and the department which they work for as at a minimum, they get no raise that next 6 months if they have ONE complaint. If they have many, it may be their undoing.
So what was the "complaint" about specifically?

The stop was clearly legal. You admitted to not having a front license plate...

There was no search of the vehicle, and the driver received a citation for the three violations...... End of story.

If you were detained for 30 minutes why didn't you look for and find the proof of insurance your GF said was in the glove box? 30 minutes is certainly enough time to find a simple piece of paper?

Your fantasy story about:

" He was given time off without pay while this was investigated and BOTH officers in the vehicle were eventually terminated."

Is simply a fantasy. The law does not allow Peace officers to be suspended without pay after a simple citizens complaint.

Additionally it is also against the law for the an agency to release the "consequences" of any citizens complaint to the public. Even to the person making the complaint.

All that will be released is whether the complaint was "Sustained" "Unfounded" or "Exonerated". Nothing more.

Nice fantasy story....
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #528  
Old 09-05-2018, 8:36 AM
Mark C. Friedman Mark C. Friedman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default In California, would it be wise to carry a rifle in a hard-sided lockable rifle case

The question comes up:
"Do I have the enclose my unloaded rifle, in a hard-sided rifle case, with a means to lock he case, when transporting my unloaded rifle?"

Looking at CA Penal Code, Section 26405(c)
"When the firearm is either in a locked container or encased....."

Looking at that CA Penal Code Section, which is an exemption regarding carrying "firearms," (not a handgun), in an automobile, is a bit murky. The word "encased," is problematic.

"Encased" like in the manufacturer's shipping box? It is assumed the rifle has a cable lock secured and it is unloaded. Would a "gun sock" work to "enclose" the rifle?

A rookie police officer, not familiar with this exemption for the "gun sock" might cause a problem on the side of the road.

I conclude with the following advice, in California, ALWAYS carry ANY firearm in a lockable, hard-sided case!
What do you think?
Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 09-05-2018, 8:50 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark C. Friedman View Post
The question comes up:
"Do I have the enclose my unloaded rifle, in a hard-sided rifle case, with a means to lock he case, when transporting my unloaded rifle?"

Looking at CA Penal Code, Section 26405(c)
"When the firearm is either in a locked container or encased....."

Looking at that CA Penal Code Section, which is an exemption regarding carrying "firearms," (not a handgun), in an automobile, is a bit murky. The word "encased," is problematic.

"Encased" like in the manufacturer's shipping box? It is assumed the rifle has a cable lock secured and it is unloaded. Would a "gun sock" work to "enclose" the rifle?

A rookie police officer, not familiar with this exemption for the "gun sock" might cause a problem on the side of the road.

I conclude with the following advice, in California, ALWAYS carry ANY firearm in a lockable, hard-sided case!
What do you think?
No”gunsock” exemption. I think your “murkiness” is personal, not legal. CA PC 16505 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180SB1100)
Quote:
For purposes of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 26400) of Division 5 of Title 4, a firearm is “encased” when that firearm is enclosed in a case that is expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm and that is completely zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened with no part of that firearm exposed.
CCW guns need not be carried in a lockable case.

Welcome to CalGuns.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 09-05-2018 at 9:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #530  
Old 09-08-2018, 12:29 PM
Sniper3142's Avatar
Sniper3142 Sniper3142 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tustin, CA
Posts: 2,531
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark C. Friedman View Post
I conclude with the following advice, in California, ALWAYS carry ANY firearm in a lockable, hard-sided case!
What do you think?
There is no requirement that the case be a hard-sided one.

There are several soft cases that can also be locked and would meet the legal requirements for transport of an unloaded rifle.

And BTW, having a cable lock thru the action is meaningless regarding transportation laws & requirements.
__________________
Internet Talk is Cheap

Man Up, Show Up, or Shut the @#$! Up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C74HgbjSCLM
Reply With Quote
  #531  
Old 09-23-2018, 7:55 AM
gsuburban gsuburban is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
For only the guns listed on your CCW.
Almost sure that a CCW only has one weapon listed/dedicated to CC. In CA anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #532  
Old 09-23-2018, 9:44 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,067
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gsuburban View Post
Almost sure that a CCW only has one weapon listed/dedicated to CC. In CA anyway.
Depends on the issuing agency - some allow many to be listed.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #533  
Old 09-23-2018, 9:46 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gsuburban View Post
Almost sure that a CCW only has one weapon listed/dedicated to CC. In CA anyway.
There's no statutory min or max, so it is left to the IA. Some limit to only three, as that's the number of slots on the license.



Others approve more and list them on the reverse.

Also, please see page 5 of the state application, which provides three slots but also allows additional pages for more guns: https://www.sjpd.org/pdf_forms/bof_4...ion_112012.pdf
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 0D769F5A-66B0-4F25-9C72-D57DF2A92392.jpg (17.5 KB, 1161 views)
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 09-23-2018 at 10:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #534  
Old 12-16-2018, 11:11 PM
johncage johncage is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 8
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've been pulled over several times for minor traffic violations, never have they inquired if I had anything illegal or weapons in my vehicle. I think they would only do that if they suspected that you had something, or they saw something.
Reply With Quote
  #535  
Old 01-02-2019, 2:37 AM
CharlesV CharlesV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: So Cal, Riverside County, Corona
Posts: 625
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
No”gunsock” exemption. I think your “murkiness” is personal, not legal. CA PC 16505 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180SB1100)
Well then it IS murky. The chapter (7) you quoted in your post above can be interpreted any number of ways. A cardboard box from the factory, even complete with twine tying it up, would qualify as encased and with no part of the gun showing. "a case made for the purpose......" is that cardboard box. And the chapter doesnt even say STEEL LOCK or anything. And do I correctly assume we are talking about rifles in the car and not in the trunk? Do trunks qualify as further "encasement" or do they not because trunks were not made for the sole purpose of encasing a gun?

The word "murky" is to say that if I can interpret a law in some direction, a cop can interpret in another and everyone would be right. Thats not good news.
__________________
Slim River Carry Slings for Henry AR-7
Reply With Quote
  #536  
Old 01-03-2019, 7:25 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesV View Post
Well then it IS murky. The chapter (7) you quoted in your post above can be interpreted any number of ways. A cardboard box from the factory, even complete with twine tying it up, would qualify as encased and with no part of the gun showing. "a case made for the purpose......" is that cardboard box. And the chapter doesnt even say STEEL LOCK or anything. And do I correctly assume we are talk<ing about rifles in the car and not in the trunk? Do trunks qualify as further "encasement" or do they not because trunks were not made for the sole purpose of encasing a gun?
It’s irrelevant. The post to which I responded was a thread drift from the main subject of guns in vehicles. The poster referenced PEN 26405(c)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark C. Friedman View Post
The question comes up:
"Do I have the enclose my unloaded rifle, in a hard-sided rifle case, with a means to lock he case, when transporting my unloaded rifle?"

Looking at CA Penal Code, Section 26405(c)
"When the firearm is either in a locked container or encased....."

Looking at that CA Penal Code Section, which is an exemption regarding carrying "firearms," (not a handgun), in an automobile, is a bit murky. The word "encased," is problematic.

"Encased" like in the manufacturer's shipping box? It is assumed the rifle has a cable lock secured and it is unloaded. Would a "gun sock" work to "enclose" the rifle?
But, PEN 26405(c) governs only those actions described in PEN 26400:
Quote:
26400.
(a) A person is guilty of carrying an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun when that person carries upon his or her person an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun outside a vehicle while in any of the following areas:
For the record, a “locked container” is defined in PEN 16850.
Quote:
As used in this part, “locked container” means a secure container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, keylock, combination lock, or similar locking device. The term “locked container” does not include the utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle.
PEN 25610(a)(1) provides further guidance (regarding concealable arms):
Quote:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle.
So, no, the trunk of a vehicle isn’t an issue in this particular discussion as it has the same status as a “locked container”. But, that is moot, as no one carries their car trunk when outside of the vehicle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesV View Post
The word "murky" is to say that if I can interpret a law in some direction, a cop can interpret in another and everyone would be right. Thats not good news.
So, under your construct, a DA can charge 1st degree homicide and the defendant can claim self defense...and they’re both right. Conflict of interpretation comes from either ignorance of one (or both) parties, or an ambiguity in the statute which makes it unclear. That puts it in the courts to determine the true meaning, but it’s not unreasonable to believe that the courts won’t rule that both parties are right.

It should also be noted that in SCOTUS has ruled that LEOs do not need to know the law to enforce it. In Heien, the Supreme Court ruled a “police officer’s reasonable mistake of law gives rise to reasonable suspicion that justifies a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment.”

And, after U.S. v Shelton Barnes the less an understanding of the laws they’re supposed to enforce, the better off police are in effecting arrests in cases which might not otherwise be provable in court.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #537  
Old 02-05-2019, 11:08 AM
Smedkcuf Smedkcuf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 385
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not sure if this has been answered already but would having a registered assault weapon change anything regarding having to tell an officer that you have one in the car?
Reply With Quote
  #538  
Old 02-05-2019, 11:15 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,246
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smedkcuf View Post
Not sure if this has been answered already but would having a registered assault weapon change anything regarding having to tell an officer that you have one in the car?

It doesn't change anything regarding notification. But remember that you are subject to destination requirements when transporting a RAW.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #539  
Old 02-08-2019, 4:18 PM
jcnyct jcnyct is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

quick quesion..

non-resident driving into CA with unloaded handgun in locked container under driver's seat --- loaded 10rd mags inside unlocked container on passenger side --- legal or illegal?
Reply With Quote
  #540  
Old 02-08-2019, 5:40 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcnyct View Post
quick quesion..

non-resident driving into CA with unloaded handgun in locked container under driver's seat --- loaded 10rd mags inside unlocked container on passenger side --- legal or illegal?
CHP FAQ quick answer. The question regards CCW, but the answer covers your question.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #541  
Old 02-10-2019, 5:44 PM
PeterGunner PeterGunner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 22
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I’m very late to this conversation because I just discovered it. My take as a CCW holder: as soon as stoped, all windows down, interior lights on at night, hands on the steering wheel. When the LEO comes to the window, early in the conversation, advise you’re a CCW holder, advise where your driver license is located, and ditto registration and insurance card. Give the LEO the opportunity to tell you what he wants. From all encounters I’ve heard of, you’ll be treated with respect. LEOs, for the most part, recognize CCW holders as good law abiding citizens. They appreciate the respect shown to them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
I am pleased to see this a sticky. The question does get asked all too often and never does seem to go away.

If an officer asks if there are weapons in the car, IMHO, the best thing to do is simply say "yes" or "no" as the facts of the circumstance dictate.

Many folks on this board seem to believe that officers are looking for an excuse to take anyone to jail, and will mistakenly take innocent folks to jail. When I read this in postings, I also note the absence of first hand experience. Officers are not perfect there will always be anecdotes of bad experience, but lets keep them in perspective.

A lot of folks recommend some version of denial when asked the question. That may prevent a search, and any issue from coming up. California has no broadly written statute (unlike the feds) that makes illegal to lie to an officer. There are many narrow instances where it is illegal to lie to a California LEO. The problem with this one is that if you're caught in the lie, stand by for the officer to take the maximum measures against you that are permitted by law.

Other folks recommend some version of "I have nothing illegal in the car." IMHO, this is the worst one of all. Here's why - The answer is evasive, and intentionally so. There is a large body of law concerning "adoptive admissions." Where a person refuses to answer a reasonable question (prior to Miranda being triggered), or is evasive in response to a question, the LEO is entitled to draw reasonable conclusions as a result. If the question was 'Do you have any guns in the car?" and the answer is "I have nothing illegal in the car", the officer has probable cause to believe there is a lawful gun in the car. That conclusion reconciles the evaded part of the question, and is consistent with the statement of the driver. If the stop occurs in an incorporated city, or in an unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited (which is nearly all of the state), the officer has the right to inspect firearms to determine if they are loaded. The law allows LEOs to search vehicles (without a warrant, and without consent) where there is probable cause to believe contraband is in the vehicle. A lawfully possessed weapon is not contraband, but California courts have allowed officers to search for firearms, for the purpose of inspection, under the same conditions. The net effect of "I have nothing illegal in the car" is that you just gave the LEO a "fishing license" to conduct a lawful search. Isn't that what you were attempting to avoid in the first place?

If you do answer "yes", then the officer has the same right to conduct an inspection to determine if they are loaded. Don't expect that to automatically happen. Officers generally do traffic stops for one of two reasons: 1) They're performing traffic duties, in which case they want to maximize the number of citations written, or 2) They're looking for criminals to place into jail. If your weapon is lawfully possessed, and there is not indication of deceit in your statement, and no other suggestion of criminality, it's pretty much a waste of my time to search. Additionally, there's kinda an unwritten code that we want to promote candor of the folks we interact with.

If for some reason, you just can't muster an honest reply, then the best thing to say is "Officer, no disrespect intended, but I'm declining to answer. Is there any law that compels me to?" This will avoid the whole "adoptive admissions" issue and will keep you on the best possible terms with the LEO. At the same time, it will prompt the officer to respond that there is no law compelling a reply. There are a few things we can compel a driver to do, but discussing guns with us isn't one of them.

Of course, always make sure your weapons are lawfully possessed and lawfully carried. If you do wind up being improperly arrested by a "one percenter" LEO, you'll want to create the most accurate record for your attorney to deal with. It happens, but happens very rarely.
__________________
Peter


NRA Benefactor Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #542  
Old 02-10-2019, 6:20 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterGunner View Post
I’m very late to this conversation because I just discovered it. My take as a CCW holder: as soon as stoped, all windows down, interior lights on at night, hands on the steering wheel. When the LEO comes to the window, early in the conversation, advise you’re a CCW holder, advise where your driver license is located, and ditto registration and insurance card. Give the LEO the opportunity to tell you what he wants. From all encounters I’ve heard of, you’ll be treated with respect. LEOs, for the most part, recognize CCW holders as good law abiding citizens. They appreciate the respect shown to them.
Absolutely agreed.

But that is a completely different situation than having a few rifles and handguns locked away in the trunk, in a situation where there is no legal or moral need to reveal to the officer that guns are in the trunk.

Unless asked, don't volunteer (unless you are CCW.) Obviously, if asked, don't lie.

You don't tell a cop that you have a bag of groceries in the trunk, you don't tell a cop that you have a new circular saw in the trunk, you don't tell a cop that you have a new guitar in the trunk.... why would you volunteer the fact that you have a rifle in the trunk?
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #543  
Old 02-23-2019, 12:02 PM
Alxcrys Alxcrys is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 53
iTrader: 6 / 88%
Default

....
Reply With Quote
  #544  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:55 AM
Pessimist Pessimist is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My issuing agency requires notifying LEO if carrying at time of contact. If I inform them I am carrying, I understand they have the right to check all weapons to make sure of legal status, etc. I don't really have a problem with that, as I always transport all firearms, both those on my permit and others, according to currents laws.

My question is this - if pulled over in my car and I inform them I am carrying, does that give them the right to search my vehicle without my permission, or just to check the firearms I have in the vehicle?

I don't carry or transport illegal items but I object, in principle, to LE searching my vehicle for no reason. I would of course refuse permission to search entire vehicle on principle, but would like to know what to expect if that ever happens.
__________________
Si vis pacem para bellum.
Reply With Quote
  #545  
Old 05-21-2019, 7:01 PM
whatevs09 whatevs09 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

your consent, a warrant, or being on probation or parole with search terms, or "plain view" of contraband, or probable cause of a crime allows search of your car under most circumstances. A CCW issuing agency will NOT force you to consent to ANY search as that would be unconstitutional. Any officer that paid attention in the academy understands this. If an officer pushes you beyond inspection of your firearm being carried by permit, they are nothing but a tyrant and should NOT be working as a cop. If they forcefully search your car, video the encounter, and call an attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #546  
Old 05-21-2019, 7:10 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatevs09 View Post
your consent, a warrant, or being on probation or parole with search terms, or "plain view" of contraband, or probable cause of a crime allows search of your car under most circumstances. A CCW issuing agency will NOT force you to consent to ANY search as that would be unconstitutional. Any officer that paid attention in the academy understands this. If an officer pushes you beyond inspection of your firearm being carried by permit, they are nothing but a tyrant and should NOT be working as a cop. If they forcefully search your car, video the encounter, and call an attorney.
The problem is, if an officer is made aware that you have firearms in the vehicle, he does have the ability to inspect them to confirm that they are being transported legally, which for a CCW holder would not require being unloaded and locked UNLESS they are not listed on the permit.


The question is:
Does informing the officer that you are lawfully carrying *a* gun give him legal PC to search the vehicle for other guns.
IMHO, outside of plain view or other evidence in plain view (shot up targets and ammo boxes), it does not.
However, if he then asks "Do you have any other firearms in the vehicle", you are in the tight spot of being exposed to a legal search, or lying, and if he feels that he can articulate RS, then again, you are exposed to a legal search, and if he then find weapons that you denied having, it could present a problem for your continued possession of a CCW.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #547  
Old 05-21-2019, 8:52 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,246
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pessimist View Post
My issuing agency requires notifying LEO if carrying at time of contact. If I inform them I am carrying, I understand they have the right to check all weapons to make sure of legal status, etc. I don't really have a problem with that, as I always transport all firearms, both those on my permit and others, according to currents laws.

My question is this - if pulled over in my car and I inform them I am carrying, does that give them the right to search my vehicle without my permission, or just to check the firearms I have in the vehicle?

I don't carry or transport illegal items but I object, in principle, to LE searching my vehicle for no reason. I would of course refuse permission to search entire vehicle on principle, but would like to know what to expect if that ever happens.
You're referring to Penal Code section 25850(b) (Formerly section 12031(e)) which allows officers to inspect firearms in incorporated city areas and in unincorporated areas where shooting is prohibited (which includes all public roadways).

When you inform the nice LEO that you're CCW, that provides them a basis to inspect your firearm to determine if it is loaded (yeah, I know it's a rather nonsensical thing. one would reasonably expect your CCW weapon to be loaded, but it's what the law provides for). There is no aspect of a CCW permit that would allow a LEO to search your vehicle based only on your possession of a CCW permit.

But you should be aware of the provisions of People v DeLong. That case provided that LEO's could search vehicles based on Probable Cause (as opposed to "Reasonable Cause" discussed in an above post) to believe that there were firearms in the vehicle. DeLong is an interesting case. It's the only one that I know of where the court applied criminal search and seizure law to a compliance inspection.

IMHO, the possession of a single weapon, and where the presence of that weapon was disclosed to the LEO, could not provide PC to believe that additional weapons are in the vehicle.

If the LEO asks if there are other weapons in the vehicle, and they can ask, the First Amendment is a marvelous thing and it applies to the LEO, then things get a little sticky. My advice is to answer he question honestly, as the facts of the situation dictate. If you disclose the presence of additional weapons, then the officer has the authority to inspect them to determine if loaded. If you disclose the presence of additional weapons, and their location in the vehicle, then the scope of the officer's search is limited to those places, unless the LEO develops sufficient PC to allow search of other parts of the vehicle. The scope of the search is also limited to determining that the weapon is unloaded. Once that determination is made, further search requires an additional source of legal standing.

If you should choose to lie about the presence of additional weapons, several bad things can occur:

1) Evasive responses to the question can provide the officer with PC to believe that weapons are in the vehicle, and therefore trigger a search under DeLong. Please refer to my discussion of "Adoptive Admissions" in my earlier posts in this thread.

2) Should a subsequent search of the vehicle produce any additional weapons, and the officer was involved in the enforcement of the Vehicle Code at the time of the traffic stop, then stand by for a misdemeanor charge of 31 VC (Lying to an officer).

3) In addition to the potential jail term for 31 VC, expect your IA to send your CCW permit to the paper shredder.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #548  
Old 05-22-2019, 8:01 AM
Pessimist Pessimist is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you for the informative responses.
__________________
Si vis pacem para bellum.
Reply With Quote
  #549  
Old 05-27-2019, 7:54 AM
Uncle Leo's Avatar
Uncle Leo Uncle Leo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 237
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Question. Did I read the law right... Basically you have to have your guns locked in a box or case while walking around with them. Like if I'm going to the range, when I take it out of the trunk, it has to be locked up while transporting it into the range?
Reply With Quote
  #550  
Old 05-27-2019, 7:57 PM
dvaz dvaz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 79
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What reason gives the cop to even ask that question to begin with?
Is it standard procedure taught these days these? Does it show that someone is a registered gun owner by just running his plates?
Why even ask? Other than go to fishing.
Reply With Quote
  #551  
Old 08-01-2019, 6:14 AM
Brown Guy Brown Guy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 48
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Say you don’t have a trunk and drive either a SUV type vehicle or hatchback would you be required to use a hard case or can you use a soft case? Is a padlock required also?
Reply With Quote
  #552  
Old 08-01-2019, 6:23 AM
Betfair39's Avatar
Betfair39 Betfair39 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When cops stop you or even without stopping you by checking the plate can they see how many guns you own or have FSC? do they have access to systems like DOJ ATF etc.?
Reply With Quote
  #553  
Old 08-01-2019, 8:00 AM
wpod's Avatar
wpod wpod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,015
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betfair39 View Post
When cops stop you or even without stopping you by checking the plate can they see how many guns you own or have FSC? do they have access to systems like DOJ ATF etc.?
They would get no info from my AZ plate. No firearm registration here. And my AZ plate is not linked to my old CA plate.
Possibly off the VIN.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #554  
Old 08-01-2019, 8:50 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Guy View Post
Say you don’t have a trunk and drive either a SUV type vehicle or hatchback would you be required to use a hard case or can you use a soft case? Is a padlock required also?
Secure, locked container. See the Wiki.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #555  
Old 08-01-2019, 9:08 AM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 5,112
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betfair39 View Post
When cops stop you or even without stopping you by checking the plate can they see how many guns you own or have FSC? do they have access to systems like DOJ ATF etc.?
Depends on how the query software is set up on the in car computer's. I've never seen a system that check's without a specific inquiry to that system with a name not a vehicle license number. Firearms are not linked to vehicle registration, they are linked to individual's. There is also no way to tell who is driving a car until it is stopped, and the DL is handed over.

As far as access goes, yes AFS can be checked in the field, if it is set up or "hot keyed". No one want's to try to look up the query code while driving. I don't think any ATF database's can be checked on mobile systems. Keep in mind that ATF does not have a record of transaction's, all that is kept by the dealer, until the dealer stops operating or maintaining an FFL. Then it is all hard copies sent to ATF, if they digitize those record's in a database that is externally accessible I have no idea. I believe there is federal law preventing that though.
Reply With Quote
  #556  
Old 08-01-2019, 6:38 PM
johncage johncage is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 8
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

if you've got anything illegal, don't get stopped. at all. if you don't have anything illegal, why lie? they can't arrest you for not breaking the law.
Reply With Quote
  #557  
Old 09-05-2019, 10:29 AM
NorthBay Shooter's Avatar
NorthBay Shooter NorthBay Shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 263
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So you are going to or from the range. Your handgun is in a locked container separate from any ammo. The locked container has a combo lock. The nice officer searched the car and located the locked container. Are you now required to provide the combo to the lock so they can check if the handgun is loaded?

What if your locked container is in the bed of a pick-up with a shell and no access from the passenger area of the truck?
Reply With Quote
  #558  
Old 09-05-2019, 10:59 AM
DVSmith DVSmith is offline
Cantankerous old coot
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The OC
Posts: 3,697
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I have only been pulled over a handful of times in my entire life. More before 30 than after. I have never been asked if I have any guns in the car. If I were asked, my first inclination would be to answer honestly and cooperate with the officer. I am sure that opens me up to some form of risk, but that is just me.

Coincidentally, I was just pulled over (first time in over 20 years) by a CHP because I was driving my wife's car and her tags were expired. She had paid the fees, but hadn't gotten the required smog check done yet. It was a quick errand and I had left my wallet on the counter at home. Between my wife explaining, in great detail about the smog check and the technician that didn't show up for work the day she scheduled it and her having to reschedule and forgeting about it, and my explanation about how I took off without my wallet, I am quite sure he was sorry he pulled over this little old married couple! Total questions asked:
Can I see you DL, registration and insurance. long explanations ensued...
Do you have your front plate on the car (yes sir, he didn't bother looking)
Did you have anything to drink prior to driving? (no sir)
I offered him my DL number, which he wrote down and verified.
Sent us on our way... nice guy.
Reply With Quote
  #559  
Old 09-26-2019, 9:55 PM
Lex Talionis's Avatar
Lex Talionis Lex Talionis is offline
Loose Cannon Factory
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"Officer, no disrespect intended but I don't answer questions. Why did you stop me?"


easy peasy Japanesey
__________________


THE LAW OF RETALIATION
Leviticus 24:19–21 "an eye for an eye" (עין תחת עין‬, ayin tachat ayin)
Reply With Quote
  #560  
Old 09-26-2019, 10:19 PM
Win231 Win231 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,040
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
My answer to the question of weapons in the car is no. I interpret that question to mean,"Do you have any illegal weapons in the car"? I will explain my interpretation if the need arises.
LOL. "I did not have sex with Miss Lewinsky as I understood the term to be defined."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:11 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.