LEO checking guns at the range

[sandman21]

"Back handed insult" ?? You seriously don't get it! There was no insult there, and you are just reaching now.

I don't know what you do for a living, but knowing the basics of how a car works does not make me an automotive repairman. Reading a few case law citations and taking things out of context, does not qualify you on search and seizure.

I have tried to explain things to you, and you keep throwing up smoke and mirrors, so I'm done waiting my breath.

Tried to explain that a LEO does not need all the pieces to seize a firearm, never said otherwise, tried to explain that there circumstance which would allow a LEO to seize a weapon, never said there was no circumstances. You simply said I was interpreting the case wrong without even attempting to show which part or how I was misinterpreting. That does not show how my “knowledge” was lacking, you didn’t hurt my feelings so it has nothing to do with the thickness of my skin. You also sated that there are cases to back up your position yet never say what they are, you only mention that you have testified some motions to suppress, I am supposed to take on faith that they cover the topic we are discussing.

Therefore, with your knowledge as a LEO you can answer the question I asked,

Sorry Sandman, but you are interpreting these cases incorrectly. Like SVT-40 said, they apply to different types of situations.

If I see a rifle that "could" be a prohibited weapon based on my training and experience, I do not need a warrant to examine it further. The courts have held that said inspection is reasonable under the circumstances.

Which case am I interpreting incorrectly? Are you suggesting that RAS is all that is needed to seize an item thought to be contraband? Which case is that?

Your backhanded insult aside, I never said that every piece needs to be there, I have said that PC is needed to seize items in plain view Coolidge, Horton, and Hicks, call for PC as the standard. If you have some further information that can clear up the issue for me I would like to read it. However, I do not know the circumstances of your motions so if you could show me the case you mention in the first have, I would appreciate it. Horton’s test was; the officer to be lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed, the officer to have a lawful right of access to the object, and the incriminating character of the object to be “immediately apparent.”

I was just stating fact, based on years of experience. If someone feels that is an insult, they are reaching in my opinion.

Please post the cases, then you posted facts.

Reading a book on plumbing does not make me an expert on plumbing, but I'm not insulted by that.:

Doesn't mean the person who read the plumbing book is wrong, now does it?

[pepsi2451]

If I see a rifle that "could" be a prohibited weapon based on my training and experience, I do not need a warrant to examine it further. The courts have held that said inspection is reasonable under the circumstances.

Could you point me to the case law? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just curious.

That only applies to firearms correct? Otherwise you would be able to search my car because it 'could' be illegally modified. Could you pop my hood and check that my engine still has smog equipment just because in your experience it 'could' be illegal?

[FLIGHT762]

Otherwise you would be able to search my car because it 'could' be illegally modified. Could you pop my hood and check that my engine still has smog equipment just because in your experience it 'could' be illegal?

Yes, If an Officer believes you may have Illegal (illegally modified) or
unsafe equipment.

The authority Section:

2806. Any regularly employed and salaried police officer or deputy sheriff, or any reserve police officer or reserve deputy sheriff listed in Section 830.6 of the Penal Code, having reasonable cause to believe that any vehicle or combination of vehicles is not equipped as required by this code or is in any unsafe condition as to endanger any person, may require the driver to stop and submit the vehicle or combination of vehicles to an inspection and those tests as may be appropriate to determine the safety to persons and compliance with the code.

Amended Sec. 5, Ch. 292, Stats. 2003. Effective January 1, 2004

The section for refusal:
2800. (a) It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties pursuant to any of the provisions of this code, or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to this code.

[pepsi2451]

Yes, If an Officer believes you may have Illegal (illegally modified) or
unsafe equipment.

The authority Section:

2806. Any regularly employed and salaried police officer or deputy sheriff, or any reserve police officer or reserve deputy sheriff listed in Section 830.6 of the Penal Code, having reasonable cause to believe that any vehicle or combination of vehicles is not equipped as required by this code or is in any unsafe condition as to endanger any person, may require the driver to stop and submit the vehicle or combination of vehicles to an inspection and those tests as may be appropriate to determine the safety to persons and compliance with the code.

Amended Sec. 5, Ch. 292, Stats. 2003. Effective January 1, 2004

The section for refusal:
2800. (a) It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties pursuant to any of the provisions of this code, or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to this code.

That doesn't say they can check just because it 'could' be illegal it says they need reasonable cause to believe it is.

Is it reasonable to assume every firearm is illegal until they inspect it? How about every car?

I'm not saying the FS officers in this case didn't have reasonable cause to think they were illegal, I wasn't there. I'm just trying to make sense of some of the stuff posted in this thread.

[winston1911]

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.

Wow, I really started something here.

To be clear on this, I have been to this range twice on weekends. Both times the guns were examined. This was during a cease fire and all of the guns owners were 4-5 feet away from their guns. Every AR was checked for a Bullet Button. I can not say for sure if any of the rifles were turned over if the release was face down. Normally, it would be up so the the RO can check the status of the weapons prior to people resetting targets.

I did not see any one have their bags searched etc. No one was asked if they could check their guns.

[ke6guj]

Wow, I really started something here.

To be clear on this, I have been to this range twice on weekends. Both times the guns were examined. This was during a cease fire and all of the guns owners were 4-5 feet away from their guns. Every AR was checked for a Bullet Button. I can not say for sure if any of the rifles were turned over if the release was face down. Normally, it would be up so the the RO can check the status of the weapons prior to people resetting targets.
.

someone needs to throw a left-hand Stag upper on so that the the maglock can be down on the bench with the loading port up

[MAC USMC]

I am glad shooter scrutiny and weapon inspections are taking place. I have been to ranges and open area shooting spots where "gang-banger" types showed up and were mis-handling guns, acting irresponsibly and were outright dangerous. Hearing them refer to a "guage", a "gat", a "nine" and discuss "wasting some dudes" is enough to make me gag with disgust.

The law is NOT open for interpretation. It is what it is stated. If someone cannot abide by the laws, regardless of how asinine, then consequences will surely follow.

[2Bear]

The law is NOT open for interpretation. It is what it is stated.

Would that it were so simple.

[JaeOne3345]

It's easier to simply stay away from Lytle Creek.

They do not understand what a featureless rifle is up there. I was treated like crap and spoken too extremely disrespectfully about my rifle, which is featureless. And yes, this took place during the check on the line.

It didn't matter that I had a flow chart, and explained in full detail why my rifle was in a legal configuration.

I simply just left rather than argue with idiots.

[mille806]

It's easier to simply stay away from Lytle Creek.

They do not understand what a featureless rifle is up there. I was treated like crap and spoken too extremely disrespectfully about my rifle, which is featureless. And yes, this took place during the check on the line.

It didn't matter that I had a flow chart, and explained in full detail why my rifle was in a legal configuration.

I simply just left rather than argue with idiots.

Agreed nothing worse then a Leo ignorant to its own state laws

[dart368]

I was searching and couldn't find anything substantial regarding anyone being arrested for possessing an "Assault Rifle" unless they were caught selling it in a "Sting" operation or it was due to them being on parole/probation and a search of their house/car resulted in officers finding an illegal AR or AK (Detachable magazine, etc.).

Does anyone know anyone who has been arrested and charged with possession a rifle that had a pistol grip and a detachable magazine?

[10-8Gunslinger]

1234567890

[jeep7081]

Don't want to add or get into the sword fight. Just a question. Is Lytle Creek privately owned? Just for personal knowledge.

Thanks.

[ke6guj]

Don't want to add or get into the sword fight. Just a question. Is Lytle Creek privately owned? Just for personal knowledge.

Thanks.

The Lytle Creek Range is on leased Forestry land.