LEO checking guns at the range

[TRICKSTER]

I get what you're saying, but just because a law is views as unconstitutional, until it is overturned and deemed as such it is still an enforceable law. Also, if you don't think Feds will use state laws to their advantage think again. Just look at this memo.

http://norcaloc.com/LawEnforcementMemos/files/US%20PARKS%20OC%20.pdf

Back to the OP's issue; I called Lytle Creek Firing Line and they confirmed they have a conditional use permit which subjects them to the searches. It's just part of doing business with the government. I just spoke with a federal officer and he said simply the permit and the fact that it's federal land gives them the right to be there. During their inspections they can enforce CA law which is what they are doing and mostly going by PC 12020, and 12275 thru 12290.

That's my last 2 cents. Take it or leave it. Anyone else interested in going the Gandhi route with "passive resistance" and fighting it, let me know how it turns out.

Wow, someone actually took the time to call and get the real info instead of speculating and accusing with no facts. Good job. Wish it happened more often.

[ke6guj]

Back to the OP's issue; I called Lytle Creek Firing Line and they confirmed they have a conditional use permit which subjects them to the searches. It's just part of doing business with the government. I just spoke with a federal officer and he said simply the permit and the fact that it's federal land gives them the right to be there. During their inspections they can enforce CA law which is what they are doing and mostly going by PC 12020, and 12275 thru 12290.

That's my last 2 cents. Take it or leave it. Anyone else interested in going the Gandhi route with "passive resistance" and fighting it, let me know how it turns out.

LCFL's conditional use permit may allow the federal officers access, and I'm not arguing that they don't, but does my presense there waive my rights against searches? If an officer sees my rifle, can he break open the action to see if there are any illegal FA parts in it? If so, why? he didn't see or hear me shooting FA. Can he do a function check to make sure the hammer doesn't fall when the bolt goes forward and the trigger is being held back?



Now, if the waiver that people sign at LCFL says that they are waiving their rights against warrantless searches, then that is different, but I don't recall seeing that on the form.

[sandman21]

I get what you're saying, but just because a law is views as unconstitutional, until it is overturned and deemed as such it is still an enforceable law. Also, if you don't think Feds will use state laws to their advantage think again. Just look at this memo.

http://norcaloc.com/LawEnforcementMemos/files/US%20PARKS%20OC%20.pdf

Back to the OP's issue; I called Lytle Creek Firing Line and they confirmed they have a conditional use permit which subjects them to the searches. It's just part of doing business with the government. I just spoke with a federal officer and he said simply the permit and the fact that it's federal land gives them the right to be there. During their inspections they can enforce CA law which is what they are doing and mostly going by PC 12020, and 12275 thru 12290.

That's my last 2 cents. Take it or leave it. Anyone else interested in going the Gandhi route with "passive resistance" and fighting it, let me know how it turns out.

12031e DOES NOT APPLY, it does not apply on BLM land and many other places. A LEO has no legal authority to inspect a weapon it see if it loaded at the range. A law is unconstitutional from the day it was passed not the day it was overturned and 12031e IS unconstitutional.

Lytle Creek permit has NOTHING to do with the people using the facility. The FS can inspect the firing range all the want with people there if they see a violation they can arrest. They cannot move/handle a firearm without PC that it is illegal; they cant require you to remove it from a range bag, the permit does not change any of that. So the federal officer is incorrect, AZ v. Hicks still applies.

[CSACANNONEER]

I get what you're saying, but just because a law is views as unconstitutional, until it is overturned and deemed as such it is still an enforceable law. Also, if you don't think Feds will use state laws to their advantage think again. Just look at this memo.

http://norcaloc.com/LawEnforcementMemos/files/US%20PARKS%20OC%20.pdf

Back to the OP's issue; I called Lytle Creek Firing Line and they confirmed they have a conditional use permit which subjects them to the searches. It's just part of doing business with the government. I just spoke with a federal officer and he said simply the permit and the fact that it's federal land gives them the right to be there. During their inspections they can enforce CA law which is what they are doing and mostly going by PC 12020, and 12275 thru 12290.

That's my last 2 cents. Take it or leave it. Anyone else interested in going the Gandhi route with "passive resistance" and fighting it, let me know how it turns out.

Unconsitutional or not is not the issue. The mere fact that an exception (which clearly applies here) is written right into the law is enough for even the dumbest attorney to understand that this law simply does not apply in this case period.

Glad you called and got information about the range being subject to searches. Having never been there, I don't know if the ranges patrons sign away their personal rights not to be search or if the searches you are speaking of are just for the range and it's personal property. I totally agree that Federal LEOs have the right to be there and to enforce both state and local laws. However, I still don't see anything in writting giving them the legal authority to randomly search anyone's personal property. So, if they are going to enforce the law, the either have the legal authority to do these searches or, they should be arresting themselves. All anyone here is asking is for someone to cite why, if indeed they do, have the legal authority to do what they are doing. All you have done is spouted some babble and shown everone here how a good sheeple acts.

[TheExpertish]

12031e DOES NOT APPLY, it does not apply on BLM land and many other places. A LEO has no legal authority to inspect a weapon it see if it loaded at the range. A law is unconstitutional from the day it was passed not the day it was overturned and 12031e IS unconstitutional.

Lytle Creek permit has NOTHING to do with the people using the facility. The FS can inspect the firing range all the want with people there if they see a violation they can arrest. They cannot move/handle a firearm without PC that it is illegal; they cant require you to remove it from a range bag, the permit does not change any of that. So the federal officer is incorrect, AZ v. Hicks still applies.

12031e does not apply to this particular matter in regards to Lytle Creek, you are right. However, it does and is being applied in regards to UOC anywhere in CA, BLA or otherwise. If you run a stop sign in Yosemite you're going to get cited for violating CA VC. It's unconstitutionality as of right now is a matter of conjecture, not fact. However, I assume that we are all on the same page as Calgunners in feeling that we obey a law until it is overturned. Plain and simple.

I think we have a disconnect in regards to what exactly the officers are or are not doing. I don't know if the OP witnessed officers fondling weapons without consent. In my experience consent is usually readily given. I think he simply wanted to know why officers were there and what gave them that authority.

[pepsi2451]

I think we have a disconnect in regards to what exactly the officers are or are not doing. I don't know if the OP witnessed officers fondling weapons without consent. In my experience consent is usually readily given. I think he simply wanted to know why officers were there and what gave them that authority.

I think its pretty clear what he wanted to know. He asked "Do we have the right to ask them not to handle our weapons?" The first couple answers basically said no, yet no one can say why. Some have mentioned case law but no one can seem to find it.

Who knows what actually happened, they were probably justified in their searches, maybe they had consent. That doesn't change the fact there is a lot of stuff in this thread that could be considered fud if there turns out there is nothing backing it up. It would be nice if we could get to the bottom of it before the thread gets locked.

[TheExpertish]

Unconsitutional or not is not the issue. The mere fact that an exception (which clearly applies here) is written right into the law is enough for even the dumbest attorney to understand that this law simply does not apply in this case period.

Glad you called and got information about the range being subject to searches. Having never been there, I don't know if the ranges patrons sign away their personal rights not to be search or if the searches you are speaking of are just for the range and it's personal property. I totally agree that Federal LEOs have the right to be there and to enforce both state and local laws. However, I still don't see anything in writting giving them the legal authority to randomly search anyone's personal property. So, if they are going to enforce the law, the either have the legal authority to do these searches or, they should be arresting themselves. All anyone here is asking is for someone to cite why, if indeed they do, have the legal authority to do what they are doing. All you have done is spouted some babble and shown everone here how a good sheeple acts.

I don't know where you get off being thankful I called and then go off calling me a good sheeple. As a former LEO I don't need sh*t like that. I'm simply trying to answer the question as best I can.

You guys are getting off track. No where did the OP, myself, or anyone else say the officers were searching range bags or otherwise without consent. People were obviously on the firing line with weapons in hand during a called cease fire. I'm sure the officers ASKED to see the mag releases. If someone showed them willingly that is consent. PC is not needed.

[sandman21]

12031e does not apply to this particular matter in regards to Lytle Creek, you are right. However, it does and is being applied in regards to UOC anywhere in CA. It's unconstitutionality as of right now is a matter of conjecture, not fact. However, I assume that we are all on the same page as Calgunners in feeling that we obey a law until it is overturned. Plain and simple.

I think we have a disconnect in regards to what exactly the officers are or are not doing. I don't know if the OP witnessed officers fondling weapons without consent. In my experience consent is usually readily given. I think he simply wanted to know why officers were there and what gave them that authority.

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.

He wants to know if he they can search without his permission. They cannot move, handle, remove from a case, and remove a blanket without permission unless the LEO has PC to believe the firearm is illegal.

[CSACANNONEER]

I don't know where you get off being thankful I called and then go off calling me a good sheeple. As a former LEO I don't need sh*t like that. I'm simply trying to answer the question as best I can.

You guys are getting off track. No where did the OP, myself, or anyone else say the officers were searching range bags or otherwise without consent. People were obviously on the firing line with weapons in hand during a called cease fire. I'm sure the officers ASKED to see the mag releases. If someone showed them willingly that is consent. PC is not needed.

I think this is the problem. I've seen many posts about these guys not asking and just going up and handling other people's property without asking first. I completely agree that if they are given consent, whether by asking for it or even in the release of liablity that ever shooter signs, then, they have the RIGHT to handle and inspect each firearm. The question here is, under what authority is that right being granted to them or are they oversteping their authority?


BTW, I didn't mean to attack you because you are a former LEO. Based on your posts (about non existent laws) in this thread, I had no idea that you had any legal training.

[ke6guj]

I don't know where you get off being thankful I called and then go off calling me a good sheeple. As a former LEO I don't need sh*t like that. I'm simply trying to answer the question as best I can.

You guys are getting off track. No where did the OP, myself, or anyone else say the officers were searching range bags or otherwise without consent. People were obviously on the firing line with weapons in hand during a called cease fire. I'm sure the officers ASKED to see the mag releases. If someone showed them willingly that is consent. PC is not needed.

others have mentioned how the checks have gone down at lytle creek. The RO will call a cease fire which means tht you can't touch your firearms and must leave the line. At that point, the rangers/LEOs will start walking the line looking (and sometimes touching) firearms. I do not know how much manipulation they do (but I do think they do some since IIRC some people complained that they were downrange tending to targets and they saw that the rangers/LEOs were touching the firearms with people downrange, which is a no-no). Those people also mentioned taht the check took a long time, like 20-30 minutes where they couldn't even leave since the rangers/LEOs had the line shut down and you couldn't even case up and leave if you were already ready to leave.

[sandman21]

You guys are getting off track. No where did the OP, myself, or anyone else say the officers were searching range bags or otherwise without consent. People were obviously on the firing line with weapons in hand during a called cease fire. I'm sure the officers ASKED to see the mag releases. If someone showed them willingly that is consent. PC is not needed.

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.

We are responding to what is written in this thread, and trying to be as clear as possible.

[TheExpertish]

I think its pretty clear what he wanted to know. He asked "Do we have the right to ask them not to handle our weapons?" The first couple answers basically said no, yet no one can say why. Some have mentioned case law but no one can seem to find it.

Who knows what actually happened, they were probably justified in their searches, maybe they had consent. That doesn't change the fact there is a lot of stuff in this thread that could be considered fud if there turns out there is nothing backing it up. It would be nice if we could get to the bottom of it before the thread gets locked.

Thank you for reminding us what the real question is. Now I'm realizing it hasn't really been answered.

Okay, to put this simply; if your gun is compliant easiest thing to do is to simply comply and show that it is. If they're looking for bullet buttons it does not take a physical inspection to verify this. Visual hands off is good enough. If you say no to an officer in regards to consent it's going to be up to his personal ability to articulate PC on paper. Can he feel he has PC to physically inspect a weapon if you fail to consent? Sure. Will he get away with it in court. It will depend, but case law has dictated that failure to consent is not PC in and of itself. It may never go that far. Just use good judgement and if you're feeling Gandhi be prepared for a fight. Unfortunately not all LEO's are as good at knowing elements of a law and articulating PC.

[TheExpertish]

Okay, so I am starting to get more of what is going on here. I wasn't sure how they were being inspected. Without consent or the owner present I am not sure how much manipulation an officer is allowed to do in order to verify a weapon is legal or not. If a weapon visually looks like it meets elements of being illegal then it might meet PC. Sounds like someone might need to video this happening.

I think this is the problem. I've seen many posts about these guys not asking and just going up and handling other people's property without asking first. I completely agree that if they are given consent, whether by asking for it or even in the release of liablity that ever shooter signs, then, they have the RIGHT to handle and inspect each firearm. The question here is, under what authority is that right being granted to them or are they oversteping their authority?


BTW, I didn't mean to attack you because you are a former LEO. Based on your posts (about non existent laws) in this thread, I had no idea that you had any legal training.

I appreciate that and am now starting to feel in over my head since PC 12275-12290 were written after I left my department. One thing being left out is Reasonable Suspicion. If a gun simply looks like an AW (AR, SKS, whatever) that may be what they are using to physically hand weapons. The rangemaster I spoke to said inspections are daily which leads me to believe that the officers are probably more well briefed on what to do than officers at other locations. However, I am assuming my own experience of CYA and that does not apply across the LEO board.

[sandman21]

Okay, so I am starting to get more of what is going on here. I wasn't sure how they were being inspected. Without consent or the owner present I am not sure how much manipulation an officer is allowed to do in order to verify a weapon is legal or not. If a weapon visually looks like it meets elements of being illegal then it might meet PC. Sounds like someone might need to video this happening.

Zero, he can look all day long, but without consent or PC he cannot move the firearm.

I appreciate that and am now starting to feel in over my head since PC 12275-12290 were written after I left my department. One thing being left out is Reasonable Suspicion. If a gun simply looks like an AW (AR, SKS, whatever) that may be what they are using to physically hand weapons. The rangemaster I spoke to said inspections are daily which leads me to believe that the officers are probably more well briefed on what to do than officers at other locations. However, I am assuming my own experience of CYA and that does not apply across the LEO board.

Reasonable suspicion is not the standard when dealing with plain view searches/seizures, probable cause is required.

Thank you for reminding us what the real question is. Now I'm realizing it hasn't really been answered.

Okay, to put this simply; if your gun is compliant easiest thing to do is to simply comply and show that it is. If they're looking for bullet buttons it does not take a physical inspection to verify this. Visual hands off is good enough. If you say no to an officer in regards to consent it's going to be up to his personal ability to articulate PC on paper. Can he feel he has PC to physically inspect a weapon if you fail to consent? Sure. Will he get away with it in court. It will depend, but case law has dictated that failure to consent is not PC in and of itself. It may never go that far. Just use good judgement and if you're feeling Gandhi be prepared for a fight. Unfortunately not all LEO's are as good at knowing elements of a law and articulating PC.

Easy is not always right. I would love to see PC for a search of a AR-15 with a .22 bolt.

[GunSafari]

I've heard of people having their weapons checked at ranges before but never seen it, and all the years I've been going to Angeles Shooting range haven't seen it once or even heard of it happening there. Does this go on just at Burros or has it happened to any of you at Angeles as well?