LEO checking guns at the range

[TheExpertish]

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

If you have a RAW you are required to carry all paperwork and registration related to it. As long as everything is in order you'll be good to go. If you don't they'll likely take it and that will be your fault. Regardless many ranges do not allow RAW's simply because their insurance prohibits it.

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.



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.

CA PC 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.

Again, the Fed's probably have something different for going on the range and inspecting like I said before. There's probably a sign or fine print in a waiver. In general the "harassment" claims are BS and this is the PC used in regards to unloaded open carry.

[LTP90]

Several nit picky things
1) It's the Forest Service not the Forestry Service, not forestry lands. Forestry officers would be Cal-Fire personnel not USFS, which in this case it was USFS LEO's. They are not rangers they are LEO's, rangers in the Forest Service are civilians in charge of all the USFS personnel in a district
2) The Lytle Creek Range is on USFS leased land
3) There has been more than 1 fire started because of the Lytle creek range, so its very likely they were doing their due diligence as far as fire prevention goes. Its likely that at a certain level of fire danger that in the lease they are allowed to make checks, if not completely shut down the range. I don't know cause I haven't worked in Lytle creek, but that would not surprise me.
4) Just be glad you can shoot there are all.
5)USFS LEO's tend to not be out looking to nit pick/harass campers as some would believe, or bust people for petty things. I suspect there was a complaint filed or an incident in days leading up to this walk through that lead to the walk through
6)someone mentioned Marijuana and money/time better spent on that. Trust me there is plenty of time and money spent in that arena. Where I work there is a whole separate division of personnel that don't exist and that we never see that only work marijuana cultivation and eradication, and 50% of our regular LE's are tied up dealing with it from august to october as well.

[TRICKSTER]

If you have a RAW you are required to carry all paperwork and registration related to it. As long as everything is in order you'll be good to go.

Been awhile since I dealt with this, but I don't believe this is true. I believe that the only requirement is that it be registered, you do not need to carry the paperwork with you.

[grammaton76]

Wouldn't SEEING (not even having to touch) a featured AR without a bullet button in the hands of someone who appears to be too young to have acquired it in 2000 constitute Reasonable Articulable Suspicion for a violation of AW law anyway?

My understanding is that once they have RAS, escalating to detention is well within their rights.

[CSACANNONEER]

If you have a RAW you are required to carry all paperwork and registration related to it. As long as everything is in order you'll be good to go.



CA PC 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.

Again, the Fed's probably have something different for going on the range and inspecting, but in general the "harassment" claims are BS and this is the PC used in regards to unloaded open carry.

Sorry, did you notice Jack's post above yours? It pretty clearly shows that e checks don't apply in this case. So, unless there is a range rule that everyone agrees to when signing in or another law out there, it still might be harassment.

Also, there is ZERO requirement to carry any type of documentation on RAWs and 50BMG rifles. If you know otherwise, please post proof because, I have never seen nor heard of it and, I doubt anyone else has either.

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]

CA PC 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.

I don't believe this would apply in an area where it is legal to have a loaded firearm.

Again, the Fed's probably have something different for going on the range and inspecting like I said before. There's probably a sign or fine print in a waiver. In general the "harassment" claims are BS and this is the PC used in regards to unloaded open carry.

I agree that is probably the case and I have no problem with that.

I still find it a little disturbing that some LEO here seem to think there is case law that lets them inspect firearms with no reason yet none of them can find that case law.

[mag360]

If you have a RAW you are required to carry all paperwork and registration related to it. As long as everything is in order you'll be good to go. If you don't they'll likely take it and that will be your fault. Regardless many ranges do not allow RAW's simply because their insurance prohibits it.

I'm gonna pounce on this. you are plain wrong. go look through the penal code. there is NOTHING that says you have to bring paperwork. Only rules on how to transport the registered banned semi-automatic rifle or "RAW".

people carry their paperwork because of FUD spreaders like you and overzealous LEO who do not know the unconstitutional rules they are charged with enforcing. So they screw up on all accounts.

[TheExpertish]

Been awhile since I dealt with this, but I don't believe this is true. I believe that the only requirement is that it be registered, you do not need to carry the paperwork with you.

I double checked on that and you are right. However, some ranges will require the documentation to allow you to shoot.

[sandman21]

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.

If you have a RAW you are required to carry all paperwork and registration related to it. As long as everything is in order you'll be good to go. If you don't they'll likely take it and that will be your fault. Regardless many ranges do not allow RAW's simply because their insurance prohibits it.

No, you do not need to carry your papers, good idea sure. What a range allows has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

CA PC 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.

Again, the Fed's probably have something different for going on the range and inspecting like I said before. There's probably a sign or fine print in a waiver. In general the "harassment" claims are BS and this is the PC used in regards to unloaded open carry.

Wouldn't SEEING (not even having to touch) a featured AR without a bullet button in the hands of someone who appears to be too young to have acquired it in 2000 constitute Reasonable Articulable Suspicion for a violation of AW law anyway?

My understanding is that once they have RAS, escalating to detention is well within their rights.

PC is required not RAS for seizures and search with objects in plain view. The person could be in the military and received a permit, could be a LEO, the RAW could be in a trust.

[LTP90]

One other USFS LEO tidbit of info. USFS LEO's normally have an agreement with the state and normally the county to enforce each other's rules, and so that they can perform their functions inside and outside their official jurisdictions.

[Matt C]

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

This is correct, so far as it goes. You can walk up and look at the gun, just like any other person there. If you can see a violation, then you can take action. I was responding to this statement which is quite a bit more broad:

All law enforcement has the option to verify any firearm is legal and safely handled.

As has been cited, if you move, open, operate or seize a firearm you do need a warrant.

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.

Indeed, including the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. There are many exceptions to the 4th amendment these days, but unless you can cite one that applies, a warrant is needed for a search or seizure.

I still find it a little disturbing that some LEO here seem to think there is case law that lets them inspect firearms with no reason yet none of them can find that case law.

Same here, this is my concern, it's not anti-cop, but cops need to know EXACTLY where their authority ends, and IMO should gave that line a wide berth 99% of the time.

I believe a choice was made when this country was founded to error on the side of freedom over government authority, and that the American people would rather risk a few criminals with illegal things going free than have the authorities constantly digging into their business.

[lockpicker70]

WOW ! I do not shoot there . But i have seen the signs that state something to the effect that it is Forestry(?) Land / leased / whatever & that all Federal / state laws are to be followed .

people have posted about not taking anything over 10 rds because you can get crap for it .

As far a 50BMG they only allow the plastic bullet cartridge due to " fire danger " . I know as a kid they had an " Annual " brush fire up there every year for 5-7 years in a row . Claimed it was all of the shooters at the end . Then they built the range .

But I have to ask , All of you that are stating " it's not right / legal , refuse , confront " the Leo's that are doing it , why not go there & check it out for yourself ? Start a movement , legal action , etc .

But from what I have read from people that go there , they follow what the range tells them and they do not have problems . Most of the people that I know that go there go there because they can rapid fire .

[Ron-Solo]

This thread has become useless IMO.

[TheExpertish]

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.

[Matt C]

12031 (e) IS unconstitutional, however it does not apply here for reasons mentioned. Personally I would refuse to use it if I was a CA LEO, but I'll agree that until a higher court rules on it, it remains the law of land for all practical purposes. If you can cite a similar law that would apply in an area where loaded guns are legal, it would support your argument, otherwise however, there is no argument.