Latest UOC LEA Memo

[Sgt Raven]

Many will disagree with you here. It's been discussed a lot over on OCDO but I do not have an informed opinion on it.

Although reading the PC 537e(a) and 12090 citations makes it pretty clear that it is illegal IMO.

ETA here's a lengthy discussion about this: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...=serial+number

Take a pistol like my G23 with a M3 light mounted, the light covers the SN, but why would they need to remove the light during an 'E' check?

[pullnshoot25]

Would someone please explain to me, in a non-inflammatory or rhetorical manner, why there is such resistance to allowing a LEO to do a serial number check on a weapon?

Save/spare me the constitutional/4th Amendment argument standing alone. I'm asking what's the practical effect that concerns you all?

Decoligny gave a good response.

My response: I am not legally required to do so, I am not helping cops to screw me over and this is not Germany.

[wash]

Would someone please explain to me, in a non-inflammatory or rhetorical manner, why there is such resistance to allowing a LEO to do a serial number check on a weapon?

Save/spare me the constitutional/4th Amendment argument standing alone. I'm asking what's the practical effect that concerns you all?

If they run the serial # the check takes longer.

Also, what do they expect to find?

Could it be your name and address?

Wait a minute, I thought they couldn't demand ID...

[Whiskey_Sauer]

It's mostly a 4A issue. Seriously. Some of us don't like to have any of our rights violated, no matter how insignificant. Also, like the ID issue, it could land you in Theseus' situation, facing criminal charges (BS unconstitutional charges, but costly non-the-less).

If your only argument is that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to your serial number, I think it's a weak one. My humble suggestion is that you not spend time and energy thinking of or devising ways to hinder law enforcement, but embrace it as a reasonable byproduct of lawful UOC.

[wash]

I would be very tempted to find some sort of 80% frame to finish for a UOC gun.

No registration and 100% legal if not concealed.

[Whiskey_Sauer]

Why does it seem that it is always an us versus them with the police.

This is the funniest, and perhaps most ironic thing I've ever seen written on one of these UOC/OC threads.

[Whiskey_Sauer]

The practical effect can be seen in a case like Theseus's.

He had his ID taken without permission or probably cause so it is only a close analogy but here goes.

Let's say you are on private property, the parking lot of a laundrymat.
Let's say that the laundrymat is within 1,000 feet of a school, but you are exempt from 626.9 because you are on private property and you walked there entering the parking lot from the side farthest from the school (over 1,000 feet from the school).
You are carrying without ID.
The LEO performs an e-check and then runs your serial number. There is now a record of an e-check being done on your firearm in the system.
The LEO a few days later reads 626.9 and realizes that you may have been within 1,000.
The LEO goes back and measure and sure enough 878 feet from school property.
The LEO reviews the log and sees that you, Mr. XXXXXX who lives at 123 MyHouse Lane was the registered owner of the handgun.
The LEO drives to 123 MyHouse Lane, rings your doorbell and you answer.
The LEO tells you that you are under arrest for violating PC 626.9.
You have to put out over $10,000 in lawyers fees to try to keep you butt out of Prison.

The police have no need to know any information about a law abiding citizen.

Ok, I respect that answer.

The tradeoff, of course, is that occasionally a serial number check will presumably come up with either a stolen weapon or a prohibited person. I will concede, however, that that is unlikely to happen in an unloaded open carry context, or of course, within your movement.

[MudCamper]

If your only argument is that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to your serial number, I think it's a weak one. My humble suggestion is that you not spend time and energy thinking of or devising ways to hinder law enforcement, but embrace it as a reasonable byproduct of lawful UOC.

Look pal, I'm not the one advocating taping up serial numbers. Save your bad attitude for somebody else. Plus, did you READ Decoligny's post? That happened to Theseus!

[JDoe]

This is the item I do not like in this memo "The Citizens Perceive themselves as law abiding people exercising their rights." Perceive my *****. Why does it seem that it is always an us versus them with the police.

I think this is a good thing because it portrays UOCers as NOT having a guilty mind.

[Whiskey_Sauer]

Look pal, I'm not the one advocating taping up serial numbers.

Didn't mean to lump you in with others who seem to be leaning in that direction, sorry.

[MudCamper]

Didn't mean to lump you in with others who seem to be leaning in that direction, sorry.

I was just attempting to answer your question. Plus, although I am not "one of them", I understand and respect those that want to tape up their serial numbers. A serial number on a firearm is another form of ID. There are some pretty compelling arguments as to why it's a bad idea to show cops your ID. Please don't come into this otherwise civil thread and start insulting people's views.

[woodsman]

Wow and from Sunnyvale. Not bad..

[wash]

I'm leery of taping over serial #'s but I will go to some lengths to make sure the cops get nothing by running the serial #.

I would recommend that anyone with a legal unregistered pistol should use that if they UOC (after the right people give us the OK).

[pnkssbtz]

Mark Stivers, Deputy Police Chief, seems to be uninformed about Kolender vs. Lawson.

To quote from the memo:

3) Once the firearm is determined to be unloaded, there is no further law enforcement action called for.

a. While Hibel v Sixth Judicial District allows for a demand for I.D., this case was in Nevada which has a "Stop and I.D." statute. California has no requirement for I.D., so the question of identifying someone is not clear. The Santa Clara District Attorney position is not to detain or arrest for failure to provide I.D.

First, I'd like to say, how polite of him and the DA's position to not detain or arrest for failure to provide I.D.. Too bad it's not within his or the DA's f***ing discretion to even have the leeway to make such a position.

Kolender V. Lawson.

A California statute requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer. The California Court of Appeal has construed the statute to require a person to provide "credible and reliable" identification when requested by a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 . The California court has defined "credible and reliable" identification as "carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself." Appellee, who had been arrested and convicted under the statute, brought an action in Federal District Court challenging the statute's constitutionality. The District Court held the statute unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. Pp. 355-361.

Some highlights from the case:

"An individual, whom police may think is suspicious but do not have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, is entitled to continue to walk the public streets "only at the whim of any police officer" who happens to stop that individual under 647(e)." ~ Justice O'Connor

"I join the Court's opinion; it demonstrates convincingly that the California statute at issue in this case, Cal. Penal Code Ann. 647(e) (West 1970), as interpreted by California courts, is unconstitutionally vague. Even if the defect identified by the Court were cured, however, I would hold that this statute violates the Fourth Amendment." ~ Justice Brennan

"We have held that the intrusiveness of even these brief stops for purposes of questioning is sufficient to render them "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 16 ." ~ Justice Brennan

"California cannot abridge this constitutional rule by making it a crime to refuse to answer police questions during a [461 U.S. 352, 367] Terry encounter, any more than it could abridge the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by making it a crime to refuse to answer police questions once a suspect has been taken into custody." ~ Justice Brennan

[KylaGWolf]

If your only argument is that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to your serial number, I think it's a weak one. My humble suggestion is that you not spend time and energy thinking of or devising ways to hinder law enforcement, but embrace it as a reasonable byproduct of lawful UOC.

OK here is an example. I got stopped during an UOC incident. I wasn't even UOC my gun was in a locked container. They not only ran my SN once but twice and my ID. And while yes I did nothing wrong my information is now in a database that I was stopped. No big deal you say it could be if I ever go for a job that requires a security clearance. No I am no paranoid I have seen clearances get blown for things like this and other stupid things that on the surface look like no big deal. I have no desire to hinder any LEO...I actually think the LEOs have a damn hard job to do and most are great at their job. Unfortunately its the few that have no regard for my 4A rights (which were broken and even the department agreed that they were violated). Personally I would rather work with LEO to make 2A rights be without hassle for either side.