Complying with an e-check?

[dieselpower]

Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

so you are arrested when you dont answer the question. They can then open the case without consent... see how that works.

its now a (b) check....

[dantodd]

If you refuse to open the case you will be refusing the e check and can be arrested.

I don't think that will fly. Not opening the case is not the same thing as refusing the request. One could quite conceivably leave his gun rag key at home when you stop him. Not producing the key when requested is not violative.

[dieselpower]

I don't think that will fly. Not opening the case is not the same thing as refusing the request. One could quite conceivably leave his gun rag key at home when you stop him. Not producing the key when requested is not violative.

keep thinking that through.... you either break it open or allow them to break it open. The Officer isnt going to just say, "oh well you say you dont have the key I guess I'll just go away now."

[IGOTDIRT4U]

I don't think that will fly. Not opening the case is not the same thing as refusing the request. One could quite conceivably leave his gun rag key at home when you stop him. Not producing the key when requested is not violative.

Boy, talk about a grey line. Yeah, the "e" check PC has language that says there is a law being broken by not complying, but non-compliance could come about due to legal means.

It's a bad law, it needs to be dumped. Maybe the only "e" check needed is for GFSZ, but I can't see what use it has in it's current iteration as it is one big unconstitutional clusterbug.

[tyrist]

I don't think that will fly. Not opening the case is not the same thing as refusing the request. One could quite conceivably leave his gun rag key at home when you stop him. Not producing the key when requested is not violative.

The only question is whether the Officer is giving a lawful order. I don't think there is a doubt that it's a lawful order; so refusal to obey a lawful order is now resistance and probable cause for arrest.

[dantodd]

keep thinking that through.... you either break it open or allow them to break it open. The Officer isnt going to just say, "oh well you say you dont have the key I guess I'll just go away now."

Yep. If the officer wants to see inside that bad they can legally destroy the case to get to the gun. An "e" check is optional and not a mandatory search. I did not say the gun wouldn't be checked, only that you are under no obligation to assist in the search.

[dantodd]

The only question is whether the Officer is giving a lawful order. I don't think there is a doubt that it's a lawful order; so refusal to obey a lawful order is now resistance and probable cause for arrest.

I don't think one can be compelled to produce evidence against himself.

[Don29palms]

The state has the right to make unconstitutional laws. They are reasonable restrictions in the name of public safety. It's for the children.

[tyrist]

I don't think one can be compelled to produce evidence against himself.

It isn't evidence; The reason the e check passed judicial scrutiny is because it is only a check for the condition of the weapon.

Also remember there is such a thing as active AND passive resistance.

[Aldemar]

How did the officer know there was a firearm in the locked case. If you told him/her, that was your first mistake.
If they ask you to open it, tell them you might be breaking the law by being in a GFSZ.

For myself.....
I would never answer if they asked if I had any firearms.
I wouldn't consent to any search or open any locked cases.

Don't talk to the police!!!

Is there a clear answer to this issue? If the officer opens the case in a GFSZ, who, if anyone has violated federal law?

I ask this because as soon as I leave my property, I am in a GFSZ.

[dantodd]

It isn't evidence; The reason the e check passed judicial scrutiny is because it is only a check for the condition of the weapon.

Also remember there is such a thing as active AND passive resistance.

See what happened inRichards/Haynie v. Harris. If refusing to assist but not impeding the search was violative of 12031(e) he would almost certainly have been charged with that since he was arrested for violating the AWB.

[sofbak]

Something about this law that I have never been able to reconcile is the wording. It says:

peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone......

not "required", just authorized. So what basis do they need in order to exercise this authority; their mood at the time, or their opinion of you and/or your appearance, probable cause or reasonable suspsicion (of what)? This has always seemed to be incredibly vague.....

[dantodd]

Something about this law that I have never been able to reconcile is the wording. It says:



not "required", just authorized. So what basis do they need in order to exercise this authority; their mood at the time, or their opinion of you and/or your appearance, probable cause or reasonable suspsicion (of what)? This has always seemed to be incredibly vague.....

No requirement for PC or RAS. Yes, a perfectly open law set perfectly for abuse by the authorities. Tha this also why it is u constitutional. I fully expect the law to be found unconstitutional and then moved to the VC so they can simply revoke your DL if you refuse the search.

If your pulled over just lie or tell the officer you aren't interested in answering questions and any further questions can be asked via your attorney. Assume if you choose the latter that the officer will hold you "in comtempt of cop" and write you for any and everything he can find. That's why lying is much easier and less likely to create drama.

[sofbak]

No requirement for PC or RAS. Yes, a perfectly open law set perfectly for abuse by the authorities. Tha this also why it is u constitutional. I fully expect the law to be found unconstitutional and then moved to the VC so they can simply revoke your DL if you refuse the search.

If your pulled over just lie or tell the officer you aren't interested in answering questions and any further questions can be asked via your attorney. Assume if you choose the latter that the officer will hold you "in comtempt of cop" and write you for any and everything he can find. That's why lying is much easier and less likely to create drama.

I always interpreted "authorized" as used here, as a cheap "backdoor" path around the 4th, but I'm curious as to why none of the legal community has jumped on this. Seems like an easy payday for Kilmer, Michel, Davis, etc....

[ke6guj]

I always interpreted "authorized" as used here, as a cheap "backdoor" path around the 4th, but I'm curious as to why none of the legal community has jumped on this. Seems like an easy payday for Kilmer, Michel, Davis, etc....

I seem to recall that there is an e-check component in one or more of the current lawsuits.