why do so many come in here and BASH COPS

[J-cat]

So is possession of a firearm by a felon, but that does not mean a LEO can detain everyone at the range to run their criminal record, does it?

Operating a motor vehicle on the freeway without a license is a crime, but that don't mean a LEO can pull you over just to check.

I know what you are saying, but there is no reasonable suspicion by virtue of possession alone. Otherwise, we would be subjected to constant harassment through daily detentions, all because possession of an unregistered AW is a felony. Hell, nearly everything is a felony nowadays.

[J-cat]

Read this case. Focus on the court's definition of what is reasonable:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

[FLIGHT762]

So is possession of a firearm by a felon, but that does not mean a LEO can detain everyone at the range to run their criminal record, does it?

Funny you mention this. California Fish & Game and US Fish and Wildlife run some public State and Federal Waterfowl hunting refuges in the north Sacramento valley. When you enter and pay your fee to hunt, you have to sign in with your hunting license number and CDL number.

The State was running the names of the hunters through CLETS to find out who were felons and shouldn't be in possession of a firearm. They found a few and got warrants for felons in possession of a firearm.

I see what your point is. I don't have to read Terry VS Ohio over again.

If I came across someone smoking Marijuana, Am I allowed to check them to see if they have a medical Marijuana card before they can be cited for 11357(B)? Or just not check and walk the other way since if they have a card they are legal?
This does get complicated.
I'm relying on my 28 years of working as a Police officer on the street. We can argue this all day. The courts have made fourth amendment decisions back and forth over the years. I've seen the searching of a vehicle change in the past 30 years.

When I mentioned in an earlier post about Game Wardens, my point was SCOTUS have given Wardens much more flexibility in search and seizure than regular L/E Officers. Wardens are allowed to stop and search with no probable cause other than the person being stopped is driving through an area where hunting is occurring even though the person stopped was not seen hunting.

My common sense tells me not to be the first test case for refusing a request by a bona fide L/E Officer to check my AW's.

I will run this past the D A's and see if a detention on mere possession of an AW will fly.

[Jonathan Doe]

If I am on duty and see someone possesses a unregistered AW, ie. Spike lower without a bullet button or other mag lock device, I will inspect it. I know it is not registered, because the Spikes is OLL. I think it is logical.

[J-cat]

It is. But if you see a generic AR, will you do the same?

[Jonathan Doe]

I think any OLL (markings visible) AR with AW features is illegal anyways, unless they have a magazine lock or MMG types. So, if I see one like that, because it is in plain view, it is a fair game. No?

[J-cat]

Funny you mention this. California Fish & Game and US Fish and Wildlife run some public State and Federal Waterfowl hunting refuges in the north Sacramento valley. When you enter and pay your fee to hunt, you have to sign in with your hunting license number and CDL number.

The State was running the names of the hunters through CLETS to find out who were felons and shouldn't be in possession of a firearm. They found a few and got warrants for felons in possession of a firearm.

I see what your point is. I don't have to read Terry VS Ohio over again.

If I came across someone smoking Marijuana, Am I allowed to check them to see if they have a medical Marijuana card before they can be cited for 11357(B)? Or just not check and walk the other way since if they have a card they are legal?
This does get complicated.
I'm relying on my 28 years of working as a Police officer on the street. We can argue this all day. The courts have made fourth amendment decisions back and forth over the years. I've seen the searching of a vehicle change in the past 30 years.

When I mentioned in an earlier post about Game Wardens, my point was SCOTUS have given Wardens much more flexibility in search and seizure than regular L/E Officers. Wardens are allowed to stop and search with no probable cause other than the person being stopped is driving through an area where hunting is occurring even though the person stopped was not seen hunting.

My common sense tells me not to be the first test case for refusing a request by a bona fide L/E Officer to check my AW's.

I will run this past the D A's and see if a detention on mere possession of an AW will fly.

Make sure you specify it is at a public shooting range.

As far as caselaw goes, none of the post-Terry cases dispensed with requiring the officer to articulate specific facts establishing reasonable suspicion. Shooting a gun at the range is not suspicious behavior, to me. Possession of an AW at a public range is not suspicious either. Lots of people have them there at any given time. They are hardly unique. The penal code specifically allows people to shoot AW's at public ranges. Sure, there is always suspicion, but is it reasonable?

How would you articulate that my particular AW may be unregistered. I have a generic semi-auto 16.25" barreled Bushmaster. I look old enough to have one legally. I don't look like I'm on parole. I don't boast about not registering it.

I'm not going to be a test case either. I'll just tell you no when you ask to see it. You will have to order me. I'll comply then. At the same time, do you wanna become embroiled in a lawsuit? Because you can be sure I'll be a pain in your *** for a long time if you ever do that to me.

[FLIGHT762]

I'm not going to be a test case either. I'll just tell you no when you ask to see it. You will have to order me. I'll comply then. At the same time, do you wanna become embroiled in a lawsuit? Because you can be sure I'll be a pain in your *** for a long time if you ever do that to me.

In the 28 years that I worked the streets, I've been read my rights a few times over false accusations, by the FBI(department of justice civil rights division) by my own department over false accusations of stealing jewelery off of DUI suspects, for two coincidental instances in a short period of time in which I was the last person to have contact with two people who ended up dead One drank himself to death after I cited him for 11357(B) and the other was another drunk who accidentally asphyxiated himself after he crashed his bicycle into a parked car and later got into a car in a garage to go pick up his damaged bicycle anfd fell asleep at the wheel. I was also attempted to be sued in Federal court over a false civil rights violation accusation. Nothing was sustained. All false B S.
In my opinion, nearly all active Officers out doing their job will have been sued in Federal Court at some point during their career. The threat of being sued never stopped me from doing my job.

When I'm out in public with my AW's, I expect to be contacted by L/E. I will comply, I will not be offended and I would never dream of filing a suit or being "a pain in your *** for a long time".

Since the AW ban has been in effect, we have confiscated a number of illegal AW's. When I go to my local gun store, hear all the big mouths mouthing off that they didn't register their AW's. I registered mine and believe anyone who didn't should be prosecuted. I'm pro second amendment, but I follow the law even if I disagree with it.

I'm just disturbed that you, who say you're an L/E officer of some kind would sue another L/ E Officer over an Officer doing his/her job with the only intent of the Officer is to check to get another illegal AW off of the street. I expect your attitude from the general public, just not from another L/E Officer.

[J-cat]

Harassing people at the range, without cause, is not "doing your job." It is harassment. It is an inappropriate assertion of your authority. I do not put LEO status on a pedestal. If another LEO does wrong, I'm not going to support him just because he's a "brother."

I'm not a turd. I obey laws. I don't create victims. I deserve respect. If I'm not doing anything wrong YOU NEED TO LEAVE ME ALONE!!!

[J-cat]

the only intent of the Officer is to check to get another illegal AW off of the street.

right...

Because that flash hider poses such a grave danger to the public that you have to throw my constitutional rights into the toilet.

[yzErnie]

This is some entertaining reading...

[Jonathan Doe]

right...

Because that flash hider poses such a grave danger to the public that you have to throw my constitutional rights into the toilet.

YOu have a constitutional rights but you also have to folow the law. If I see that you have an AR OLL rifle that has a pistol grip, and I see you load 30 round magazine and insert it into the gun, fire, and drop the magazine without a tool, I will inspect your rifle whether you object or not, no matter where it is if I happened to be there.

Yes, everyone has constitutional rights. If they do not follow local penal code because they don't believe it is constitutional, what is going to happen? Not only gun issues, but every other issues. Are you not intentionaly going to follow it? I don't like our gun laws as much as anyone else out there, but I have to follow it until they change it.

[Suvorov]

Yes, everyone has constitutional rights. If they do not follow local penal code because they don't believe it is constitutional, what is going to happen? Not only gun issues, but every other issues. Are you not intentionaly going to follow it? I don't like our gun laws as much as anyone else out there, but I have to follow it until they change it.

Which may or may not happen. What it really comes down to is where YOU draw the line? Is arresting an otherwise law abiding person who either knowingly or unknowingly has a rifle in an illegal configuration (but not illegal in 49 other states) going to reduce crime and save lives? I understand that you feel that it is not right to selectively enforce laws, but is that not what you are doing when your sanctuary city policies prevent you from enforcing immigration laws? The sad fact is that corruption has already reached such a level in Kalifornia that the establishment is selectively enforcing laws and turning good people into felons for something that isn't a nuisance in the rest of the nation.

I do not envy the position that you guys who work the street are in and have the utmost respect for you and the job you do. But the time is coming where you will have to decide where to draw the line at continual encroachment on the constitutional rights of those who you are sworn to protect and decide for yourself what is right and what is the law. As I said, I do not envy your position.

[Jonathan Doe]

Every level of governments have laws. From Federal laws to local laws. If there is a violation, it needs to be enforced. California has its laws. I see a lot of illegal unregistered AW's and OLL with illegal configuration end up in my office for examination. Because they are legal in other 49 states, do I say "it is okay to have by people" in my report? If people have illegal weapons, they are not law abiding, whether it is a machine gun, silencer or assault weapons. I hate it as much as, or more than other people, but it is the fact of life in my opinion. I am on the side of people can have "assault weapons" which has nothing to do with lethality of them.

Why do some people relate the LEO to corrupt politicians, or see them as puppets of them? LEO has nothing to do with them and they are to uphold the law. Just because people do not agree with the law, are LEO's bad to enforce that laws that is in the books?

Phone calls and votes may be able to change things, but obviously my vote doesn't count.

[Suvorov]

Why do some people relate the LEO to corrupt politicians, or see them as puppets of them? LEO has nothing to do with them and they are to uphold the law. Just because people do not agree with the law, are LEO bad to enforce that laws that is in the books?

Didn't say or mean to imply that at all, sure some police are corrupt, but the vast majority are good and honorable men who would risk their lives for the lives of others, you have my highest respect. I appreciate your situation and trust me, no one listens to my vote either, but I also understand that "just following the law" is not a defense for enforcing immoral laws. Just what an immoral law is, is something that you will have to decide.