Assault Rifles Reported at Spenceville Range

[Wes C Addle]

Read my lips: AK47 with 100 round mag is NOT against the law in CA, if you have a registered AW and preban mags. No bullet button, 100rd magazine - legal. Those ARE the rules - you don't like it, leave.

read mine...

IF



according to the article, the two guys didn't have registered AWs.

[Citadelgrad87]

Be that as it may, when the cop arrives at the scene he is restrained by the "goofy mental gymnastics" so if you want to have an effect and not get slapped back by harassment accusations, you have to understand what is and what isn't allowed.

There are people who are using your logic to call cops on neighbors shooting on their own land in unincorporated areas. It doesn't end well if they keep on doing it even after they are told there is nothing illegal going on.

No, people are t using my logic to do anything. I set forth my logic, above. I fully understand what constitutes harassment in a legal sense.

Two scumbags got popped. The was something illegal going on.

[Dutch3]

Maybe it was the tattoos on their faces????...

No booking photos yet online... but Plascencia was the felon.

http://jailalert.com/arrest-records/anthony-plascencia-2480185.html

http://jailalert.com/arrest-records/omar-ramirez-2480184.html

Anthony Plascencia, 28, of New Jersey was arrested by the Yuba County Sheriff's Department at 7:15 p.m. Aug. 8 on Waldo Road on suspicion of possessing an assault weapon, large capacity magazine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was booked into Yuba County Jail.
Omar Ramirez, 22, of Sacramento was arrested by the Yuba County Sheriff's Department at 7:15 p.m. Aug. 8 on Waldo Road on suspicion of possessing an assault weapon and a large capacity magazine. He was booked into Yuba County Jail.


Neither show as still being in The Yuba County jail....

I am wondering if the charges will include 'possession' of a large-capacity magazine, since that is not a crime. (Excluding felon-in-possession, of course).

[Dutch3]

"Assault rifles" may be legally owned (not by a felon) if registered under the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989.





Statists abound everywhere - even on Calguns. I thought long and hard about registering my "assault rifles" all those years ago and, ultimately, chose registration. I wanted to shoot my legally possessed property and never be bothered by the prying eyes of some tattletale panting for a "good boy" pat on the back by law enforcement.
When shooting my legally acquired and registered "assault rifles" I make sure to have copies of my registration on hand for this exact scenario.

You should research the difference between 'assault rifles' and 'assault weapons', since you seem to be confused on the details. I sincerely doubt you have legally registered 'assault rifles', since those are classified as military select-fire weapons.

[StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca]

Hopefully it was their actions that brought the negative attention. Otherwise I don't agree with how this went down.

[Dutch3]

Hopefully it was their actions that brought the negative attention. Otherwise I don't agree with how this went down.

I would have to think it was their actions/behavior. Spenceville is a freak show even on a good day, so these guys must have really been attracting attention.

[IVC]

And how is

A) A civilian report of an assault weapon
B) A rifle that meets every definition of an assault weapon
C) No one claiming weapon

NOT 'reasonable suscpicion'?

Yes there is the possibility that its all legal, but if that's your argument you have no understanding of what 'reasonable suspicion' actually is.

Apart from (C), the first two are no problem because "Assault Weapons" are NOT illegal - we even have a term "Registered Assault Weapon" (RAW) for those that are both an "assault weapon" and legal. RAWs fit right in with the pre-ban high (standard) capacity magazines.

Reasonable suspicion must involve suspected criminal activity. Possessing a RAW is NOT criminal activity. Sure RAWs are relatively rare, but so are many other things. For example, here is what Fourth Circuit had to say on the issue of harassment of open carriers under the guise of "reasonable suspicion."

I would hold on with jumping to conclusion about "OMG, he has an AW!" being sufficient to harass people.

[hermosabeach]

Omar was 22

He purchased the magazine in 1999........ When he was 6

[IVC]

No, people are (no)t using my logic to do anything.

Sure are. People call the cops all the time about activity they believe should be illegal but is not.

How many OC-ers were confronted by the police after someone called in "man with a gun?" The only reason it worked out was because the e-check allowed police to initiate contact, but e-check and a Terry stop was about it when it came to what the police could do.

[IVC]

Omar was 22

He purchased the magazine in 1999........ When he was 6

Felon in possession is the real problem. For magazines, the state has to prove not only that the magazine was illegally imported, but that it happened within the statute of limitations. It's this latter part that makes magazine charges really hard to stick to anyone without color.

[IrishJoe3]

Apart from (C), the first two are no problem because "Assault Weapons" are NOT illegal - we even have a term "Registered Assault Weapon" (RAW) for those that are both an "assault weapon" and legal. RAWs fit right in with the pre-ban high (standard) capacity magazines.

Reasonable suspicion must involve suspected criminal activity. Possessing a RAW is NOT criminal activity. Sure RAWs are relatively rare, but so are many other things. For example, here is what Fourth Circuit had to say on the issue of harassment of open carriers under the guise of "reasonable suspicion."

I would hold on with jumping to conclusion about "OMG, he has an AW!" being sufficient to harass people.

I HIGHLY suggest you do a little self enrichment in order to understand the difference between Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion.

If you said there was no probable cause that a crime occurred based on those facts, you would be absolutely correct.

However those facts DO establish reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred/is occurring/will occur. Again. Google 'reasonable suspicion' to understand the legal definition.

[IrishJoe3]

Sure are. People call the cops all the time about activity they believe should be illegal but is not.

Exactly. They develop suspicion of a crime and report it. Police investigate that suspicion to determine if its unfounded or legit.

If that suspicion developes into probable cause, an arrest is made. If that suspicion proves unfounded and baseless, the cops go away.

[wpage]

The dude from Jersey thought heading west ment freedom...

[Wes C Addle]

I am wondering if the charges will include 'possession' of a large-capacity magazine, since that is not a crime. (Excluding felon-in-possession, of course).

in addition to being in possession of ammunition.

[noozeyeguy]

I don't own any RAWs. I don't own any pre-ban "standard"-capacity magazines. I DO own some CA-legal EBRs, both of the AR and AK families, some homebuilt. I also have a couple blocked and epoxied 10-30 mags; those are usually left at home.

Whenever I take the EBRs to the range I toss a copy of the CalGuns AW flowchart in the bag for s**ts and grins. While I've never had a problem, I prefer to be demonstrably in the clear as far as the law is concerned. Do I *need* to do this? No, all my guns are GTG as far as AW rules and 922R are concerned. But rather than have FUD ruin my day, I prefer to be proactive.

YMMV.