Routine traffic stop, asked about my registered firearms

[lorax3]

As I understand it, there is no reason to expect privacy in a public place.

Does not apply, Gibbons secretly recorded women during sexual intercourse in a private bedroom.

I agree with both of you. My previous comment was in response to the the general statement that CA wiretapping laws do not apply to video recoding. His context was in a dash cam, which is why I said "not quite". As my latter half of my comment notes, if you are in place where there is no expectation of privacy (like a vehicle stop)/or an LEO in the course of their duties, you are free to record them.

[MaHoTex]

Thanks for the clarification Lorax.

[billrd]

Just out of curiosity, do you understand the meanings of, and difference between, probable cause and reasonable suspicion?

I must be able to articulate "probable cause" to arrest you or get a warrant.
Reasonable suspicion is one small step below that but I can stop and question you and search you based on "reasonable suspicion" and that may just be a short stop to PC. Some judges may not quibble over the difference except possibly in CA. They are practically synonymous in usage - a very small technical difference. That's why I posted "probable cause" as requirement originally. You said you wouldn't have a problem with "reasonable suspicion". I would and so would my sgt if I told him that's why I stopped you and asked you those questions If you are an LEO or in the legal profession you know that. Basically PC is just a higher level of RS but with legal differences. Years ago a black man was stopped about 2AM while walking down the street in Irvine, CA - almost totally white at that time. Leo gave several reasons for the stop but failed to convinced the judge it was a good stop. Pretty much became a landmark case in OC. And that was back when things were a lot looser than now.

[five.five-six]

The .gov can monitor every phone call we make and read every email we send and you're surprised that the cops know you have guns?


.

Correction, the NAS records every phone call you make and the position of your phone at all times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

They can go back and review it any time they like

[dorbie]

Correction, the NAS

Correction, it's the NSA.

[five.five-six]

Correction, it's the NSA.

Well, aren't you just adorable

Who were you before you got permabaned?

[Doheny]

....snip....

Also I'm surprised no one post this yet....

Maybe because we've seen it a few dozen times already?

.

[Mayor McRifle]

I'm thinking doing a data base check and discovering the driver has zero registered firearms would be a better reason to ask about firearms.
Asking about your legal ownership of anything seems absurd.
Here in Bakersfield, it's a felony if you are pulled over and not armed.

I hear you. The more I read posts on Calguns, the more I think there must be two completely different Californias.

Last night was National Night Out. We had a block party in my court. Local police, firefighters, and city officials drove around from party to party. When they came to our street, the new Chief of Police walked up and introduced himself. We were in front of my house, and he saw my new "5.56" magnet on my truck (I bought it through another thread here -- they are great, and I highly recommend them). He smiled and said, "5.56, huh?" I smiled back and said, "Yep!" Guess what happened next . . . we spent the next 10 minutes talking about GUNS. It reinforced a few things I already knew: 1) cops are regular people, 2) cops like guns, too, and 3) guns are legal, and we don't need to hide or be ashamed of them.

If I get pulled over, they don't need a database to find out I own guns. They can figure it out from my NRA sticker and my new "5.56" magnet. Or, I'm happy to just tell them.

[Decoligny]

Remember back when the law said it was illegal for a slave to run away?

Are you calling me OLD?

[OlderThanDirt]

I agree. To me, the cop's question was on par with asking, "Have you been drinking tonight?" Not many people (even here) would have a problem with being asked that, because deep down inside they don't view drinking as doing something wrong or illegal. I don't have a problem being asked about my guns for the same reason. And, frankly, as a responsible, nonprohibited person, it doesn't bother me in the least that an LEO might find out about them via a database. Owning guns is not a crime, and if enough people stand up and be counted, it never will be. Soap box plea to all: stop thinking and acting like you're doing something wrong. Help make gun ownership normal and socially acceptable again in all parts of this state.

By the way, I listened to the recording, and I thought the OP's response was completely appropriate, and the entire situation was well handled by both parties involved. Good job, dorbie!

Yeths occifer, I ben drinkn and my gun is altho loaded.

Questions about drinking and firearms are just part of the officer's fishing expedition. Legitimate questions, but clearly looking to uncover other potential infractions. I have cute responses for both inquiries.

[Bansh88]

You say, "yes, I have a gun in the car". Then what?

[OlderThanDirt]

You say, "yes, I have a gun in the car". Then what?

Or they follow up and ask if you have a dog in the car?

Actually, they could inspect the firearm to make sure you are transporting it correctly (i.e., unloaded and locked up).

[shda5582]

You say, "yes, I have a gun in the car". Then what?

Then they automatically have the ability to search your car without your consent OR a warrant to find the firearm to verify that it is being transported in accordance with the law.

[AmericanRedoubt]

Love the snarkiness I guess you feel you need it to strengthen your position. Are you even aware of the 4th Amendment? How about you grab your own ears and pull down. Then maybe you can see what is going on. Yes I'm a little freedom fighter because I believe in protecting my rights. If you don't, then what does your position make you? A dog waiting for its master's voice to command you what to do next? Sit? Stay? Roll over?

This is about your right to privacy and protection against unwarranted searches.
Its an intrusion, nothing more. An attempt to get you to admit something and give them an opportunity to detain you/search you and your property.

If you are happy with that then so be it
I hope for better.

well said GW.

You can simply elect not to answer that question. Answering one question opens the door to another, and remain mindful of the fact that once they are aware that there is a firearm in the vehicle, without your consent, they have the right to ensure that there are no rounds in the chamber, no loaded magazines in the gun, and being transported in accordance with CA guidelines.

As someone above noted, the moment you are pulled over, they are conducting an investigation. Mind you, an investigation that you should never willfully participate in. By participating, you are not gaining their trust, establishing camaraderie, making a friend, or anything else.

Folks routinely sacrifice their rights and participate in these investigation as not upset, provoke, or draw suspicion from LE, and we really need to gravitate away from that thinking.

Thank you for eloquently defending the Bill of Rights Press Check.

Look at AB 1014.
Possible reason for restraining order--Recent purchase of a firearm

(c) In determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining
order exist, the magistrate may consider any of the following:
(1) The reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the
named person.
(2) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of
physical force by the named person against other persons.
(3) Any prior arrest of the named person for a felony offense.
(4) Any history of a violation by the named person of an emergency
protective order issued pursuant to Section 646.91 or Part 3
(commencing with Section 6240) of Division 10 of the Family Code.
(5) Any history of a violation by the named person of a protective
order issued pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 6300) of
Division 10 of the Family Code, Section 136.2, Section 527.6 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 213.5 or 15657.03 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code.
(6) Evidence of recent or ongoing abuse of controlled substances
or alcohol by the named person.
(7) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly
weapons.

The ****e just keeps getting deeper

Appreciate you spot on comments GW

[sl0re10]

Good one for the cop....why not ask?...make sure if you do have them with you they're being properly secured and transported...a perfectly polite inquiry

too many Zimmermans / paranoids out there to count, too easy to get guns even when you have a screw loose or bad intentions

all for polite, good thorough police work anytime, keeps everyone on point and observing the rules

if your illegally carrying around a concealable weapon (and carrying it around, even locked up, routinely / not on your way to do something specific with it... is illegal on its own)... why would you tell a cop about it if asked... like usual; your excuses for power don't add up...