LEO checking guns at the range

[TrailerparkTrash]

Eh, no.

It's not reasonable just because it's a firearm and/or because he is a cop.
In my America, so is defending our rights.

Sorry, but outside of someone's home, a police officer in this state has every right to check a firearm for his/her safety if it's loaded while encountering a citizen in a public area. That has been ruled "reasonable" by the courts.

[pepsi2451]

Sorry, but outside of someone's home, a police officer in this state has every right to check a firearm for his/her safety if it's loaded while encountering a citizen in a public area. That has been ruled "reasonable" by the courts.

How is checking guns on a range for the officers safety? Its legal for them to be loaded there so I wouldn't think the (e) check would apply.

[TrailerparkTrash]

How is checking guns on a range for the officers safety? Its legal for them to be loaded there so I wouldn't think the (e) check would apply.

As far as on the forest land at Lytle creek, it's on NF land. The range is administered by the NF. Again, play by their rules or don't shoot on their range. If one doesn't like the fact that the LE forest rangers are checking guns on a NF managed range, then take one's guns off the range before they check yours (if you don't like it).

My comment above about cops being able to check a firearm in a publicaly accessed place was a tangent answer given to someone that asked a question not exactly related to the OP's question about Lytle Creek NF shooting range.

Im not positive, but I believe the Lytle Creek range is not a privately owned business that's run on leased land owned by the NF service. That is why the NF cops can go onto their range and check target shooter's guns all day long. Nobody is forced to use that range, so the expectation of any sort of "gun-inspection" privacy is a moot point.

Bring a cloth to cover your rifle with when you leave it on the line.

A firearm thats sitting on a range table exposed with or without a blanket on it to cover it up doesn't give anyone "privacy" rights on that public range. The range table is NOT someone's campsite, temporary dwelling or home. Period.

Can someone fill me on on the PC used by forestry service for the inspection? I am not aware of sine age stating you agree to waive your right against search on forestry land. Am I missing something?

Case law. Search for it on Google, perhaps it will show up. It's not "probable cause" that allows the cop to merely "inspect" the gun on the publicaly accessed range. "Probable cause" is only required to make an arrest, not inspect a firearm in public. Most people don't seem to understand the law when it comes to the term "PC."

Case law has dictated that openely exposed firearms in a public place give LE the right to inspect them. It doesn't mean they can prolong a detention or even take the gun away from someone, it just means they can inspect them, unload them while speaking to you and then hand it all back to you within a reasonable time period. Reasonable is all subjective in a court's eye. Also, if a LE is walking up/down the range line and sees an "AR" style weapon here in Cali and hypothetically can't really see if it's a Cali legal AR style, he has every right to now detain the owner of that exposed gun to ascertain if a crime is being comitted in his presence! That crime of possibly being in possession of an illegal firearm (that just so happens to be at a NF public range!). There is a big difference between the legal definitions of "detention" and "probable cause" for LE authority.

Range employees routinely and are legally withing the scope and bounds of their job to inspect firearms. If that range employee happens to be a NF LEO, then so be it. They haven't lost that right to inspect one's firearms yet while on the range land. That's just reality. I know some here don't like that fact, but what part of that law does one not understand relating to Lytle Creek or any other NF range?

If one doesn't want a NF cop to inspect their openly exposed gun on NF land, may I suggest you then go somewhere deep within the Mojave desert where the chances of someone finding you target shooting is nil.

I hope that explains my earlier posting.

[ke6guj]

How is checking guns on a range for the officers safety? Its legal for them to be loaded there so I wouldn't think the (e) check would apply.

12031(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

and since you are exmept from 12031 when at a range,

12031(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following:
(5) Persons who are using target ranges for the purpose of practice shooting with a firearm or who are members of shooting clubs while hunting on the premises of those clubs.

there would be no reason for an (e) check by an LEO.

[pepsi2451]

As far as on the forest land at Lytle creek, it's on NF land. The range is administered by the NF. Again, play by their rules or don't shoot on their range. If one doesn't like the fact that the LE forest rangers are checking guns on a NF run range, then take one's guns off the range before they check yours (if you don't like it).

If people agree to allow LEO to inspect their guns as a condition of using the range I guess I don't have any problem with that. Maybe there was a posted sign or something in the fine print when the OP signed in?

I still don't think just because the range is on forest service land forest service can do whatever they want. If its a rule it must be written down somewhere, they can't just make them up as they go along.

[sandman21]

Plain view is not a search, thus no warrant is needed.

Just a hint. If something is in plain sight it's not a search.

A LEO cannot search/seizure an object unless he has PC to believe it is contraband. Moving/handling a firearm would be a search and would require PC to believe the firearm is contraband.

[AJAX22]

A firearm thats sitting on a range table exposed with or without a blanket on it to cover it up doesn't give anyone "privacy" rights on that public range. The range table is NOT someone's campsite, temporary dwelling or home. Period.

Case law. Search for it on Google, perhaps it will show up. It's not "probable cause" that allows the cop to merely "inspect" the gun on the publicaly accessed range. "Probable cause" is only required to make an arrest, not inspect a firearm in public. Most people don't seem to understand the law when it comes to the term "PC."

Case law has dictated that openely exposed firearms in a public place give LE the right to inspect them. It doesn't mean they can prolong a detention or even take the gun away from someone, it just means they can inspect them, unload them while speaking to you and then hand it all back to you within a reasonable time period. Reasonable is all subjective in a court's eye. Also, if a LE is walking up/down the range line and sees an "AR" style weapon here in Cali and hypothetically can't really see if it's a Cali legal AR style, he has every right to now detain the owner of that exposed gun to ascertain if a crime is being comitted in his presence! That crime of possibly being in possession of an illegal firearm (that just so happens to be at a NF public range!). There is a big difference between the legal definitions of "detention" and "probable cause" for LE authority.

I'd love to see that case law... particularly the part that says an officer can search private property absent PC and absent reasonable suspicion of a crime..

I'd also love to see how a venue that charges for admission constitutes a publicly accessed space.

If your assertion is that the range is a private space and that you implicitly or explicitly agree to a search of yourself and your posessions by an employee or designee as a condition of purchasing admission... that would seem to fly in the face of any assertion that the officer has the right to inspect your posessions because they are posessed in a public space.. particularly if it is not 'in plain sight'.

Pretty sure you're wrong on this... but please provide the case law so we can look into it.

[TrailerparkTrash]

I'd love to see that case law... particularly the part that says an officer can search private property absent PC and absent reasonable suspicion of a crime..

I'd also love to see how a venue that charges for admission constitutes a publicly accessed space.

If your assertion is that the range is a private space and that you implicitly or explicitly agree to a search of yourself and your posessions by an employee or designee as a condition of purchasing admission... that would seem to fly in the face of any assertion that the officer has the right to inspect your posessions because they are posessed in a public space.. particularly if it is not 'in plain sight'.

Pretty sure you're wrong on this... but please provide the case law so we can look into it.

I'm not going to research the case law, because I really don't care. I don't know the case off the top of my head because I don't memorize them. You look it up if you're so worried about it.

I know that a LEO can check a firearm for his safety or if he has reasonable suspicion that a firearm out on a range is possibly illegal. The LEO must articulate why he believes the weapon is possibly illegal and then the "reasonable suspicion" to ascertain for sure if the gun is legal, warrants a simple "detention." Thousands upon thousands of cops do it all the time and every day across America. So did I when I was assigned to patrol. It's legal and it stands.

Don't believe me? Ask yourself then why does the NF LEO's continue to check the firearms in the manner in which the OP described? Because they know what they can and can't do.

You obviously don't know what the LE's can and can't do. Plain and simple. Not trying to be mean, but I'm calling it like it is.

[Librarian]

I'm not going to research the case law, because I really don't care. I don't know the case off the top of my head because I don't memorize them. You look it up if you're so worried about it.

No.

You have made a claim. Others do not accept your claim. If there is case law to support your assertion, it's up to you to dig it up and post the references.

If you don't care to support your assertions, you can say so and drop out of the thread.

[TrailerparkTrash]

Huh? Your jumping from topic to topic. I explained some scenarious of how a LE can check your guns on NF land (public range in this case). Your starting to confuse yourself. May i suggest that you dont believe everything you think. You lost me when you turned to the topic of "pixies.".

[TheExpertish]

TrailerparkTrash and everyone else stating that what the LEO's are doing is legal is the truth. You and everyone else are not providing anything to the contrary other than flawed personal opinion. There is no evidence to support arguments that what Federal and State LEO's are doing is wrong because there is none. Plain and simple, leased Federal land is still Federal land and applicable to all laws. It's not private property so 12031 does NOT apply. A warrant is not needed because if a gun is in plain sight, aka I can see it, it's fair game. Covering it with a blanket is not going to work. Locking it in a case then maybe you have something you can work with. However, I can guarantee there is a sign somewhere or something you signed waiving your rights just by being there.

[pepsi2451]

I would like to see that case law that it seems at least a few LEO on here believe exists.

[Oceanbob]

A few weeks back I was at a public range and during a cease fire, two Forestry officers went up the line and checked every gun for bullet buttons etc., they pulled one guy off the line, not sure what the outcome was for him.

Is this legal? Do we have the right to ask them not to handle our weapons? My stuff is legal, it is just uncomfortable to have someone looking and touching my guns.

Actually that kind of behavior is disturbing. What would happen if I brought one of my RAWs and they became Unhinged? Would they take it and make me spend time and money to get it back?

Bob

[pepsi2451]

TrailerparkTrash and everyone else stating that what the LEO's are doing is legal is the truth. You and everyone else are not providing anything to the contrary other than flawed personal opinion. There is no evidence to support arguments that what Federal and State LEO's are doing is wrong because there is none. Plain and simple, leased Federal land is still Federal land and applicable to all laws. It's not private property so 12031 does NOT apply. A warrant is not needed because if a gun is in plain sight, aka I can see it, it's fair game. Covering it with a blanket is not going to work. Locking it in a case then maybe you have something you can work with.

Are you saying they can inspect your gun at any time without any reason to believe its illegal? What would give them the power to do this? Can they open the hood of my car and inspect it just because its in plain sight?

These are serious questions. If there is case law that says an LEO may take my guns and inspect them I would like to read it.

However, I can guarantee there is a sign somewhere or something you signed waiving your rights just by being there.

If thats the case then I don't see any problem with it. It sounded to me like like TrailerparkTrash was trying to say they could inspect your firearms anywhere on forest service land just because they are firearms.

[TrailerparkTrash]

No.

You have made a claim. Others do not accept your claim. If there is case law to support your assertion, it's up to you to dig it up and post the references.

If you don't care to support your assertions, you can say so and drop out of the thread.

Okay, respectfully, I don't care to support my assertions because i know I'm right on this topic of probable cause, reasonable suspicion, weapons in public view and what LE can do.

I respectfully say that if someone doesn't like what those LE's are doing at the range, then challenge them legally. It's not the first time they or their agency has been challenged by what they are doing with respect of what the OP originally mentioned.

I know many here don't like that, but it's legal what they do there. I don't know how else to say it. The guns are out on the bench, exposed in a public area, if they believe the gun may be illegal, they can check it! No warrant or permission needed.

With that, i'll drop out of this thread.