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/htm...2_0001_ZO.html

[FLIGHT762]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

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?

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]

Originally Posted by FLIGHT762

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]

Originally Posted by J-cat

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]

Originally Posted by FLIGHT762

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...

Originally Posted by J-cat

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]

Originally Posted by topgun7

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.

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]

Originally Posted by topgun7

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.

[J-cat]

Originally Posted by topgun7

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. And then you'll regret it.

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.

I follow the penal code. You have to follow caselaw. What specific facts can you articulate that make you think my AW is unregistered?

[SVT-40]

Originally Posted by J-cat

I follow the penal code. You have to follow caselaw. What specific facts can you articulate that make you think my AW is unregistered?

J-cat you are missing the point. Before most if not all contacts LEO's don't have "facts" they have suspicions based on observations or information which is reported or told to them by others.

Based on these suspicions or reported information LEO's then investigate to determine if any violation of law has occurred. LEO's don't absolutely need to know a crime has occurred before they investigate.

I used this analogy before. An officer does not absolutely need to know a baggie containing white powder is an illegal drug before he would contact and investigate the possessor of the baggie with white powder. Mere appearance of the baggie with the white powder is probable cause to check both the possessor of the baggie as well as the baggie it's self.

The same could apply to someone possessing what appears to be a illegal weapon of any type. Just a short contact to determine legality.

[J-cat]

I'm not missing the point. You keep changing the scenario by adding variables. I have said before that if an officer receives information that is corroborated by what he sees, then he certainly has reasonable suspicion to detain me. And I have no problem with that.

Originally Posted by J-cat

I follow the penal code. You have to follow caselaw. What specific facts can you articulate that make you think my AW is unregistered?

Like I described, if I see your OLL rifle with marked "Spikes" in plain view, you release the mag with a finger, and the mag takes 30 rounds, I think I have every right and duty to check your rifle, believing it is an assault weapon. It could have not been registered because Spikes Tactical was not in production before 2000, and you have assault weapon features.

When you say I will regret it, it sounds like a threat to me for doing my job. Not good. Maybe you will regret it. I see no point for argueing. I will do my job, and you do your thing.

If you want, you can visit my office and I will show you all the asssault weapons that were confiscated. Then we can discuss further.

[J-cat]

I don't have a "Spikes" OLL. I have a milspec Bushmaster.

Originally Posted by J-cat

I don't have a "Spikes" OLL. I have a milspec Bushmaster.

I am using "Spikes" for an example, and won't be a matter if it was a CMMG, DF, Double Star or DPMS and so on. Any OLL's will fall under this category. All Bushmaster XM-15 rifles are category 2 assault weapon per DOJ unless it is marked otherwise. Possession of unregistered Bushmaster XM-15's will be a violation. Anyways, it is besides my point.

I also received this info from a member through a PM:

"In regards to your statement about a Spikes lower not able to have been registered, you are missing at least one thing, Military Assault Weapons Permit. Im sure there are other means by which an OLL could have been registered but the MAWP is the one that comes to mind.

Heres a scenario for you:

You see a guy at the range with an OLL doing 30 round mag dumps and dropping mags without a tool.

According to your statements, you would assume that this guy is breaking the law. However what you dont know is that this individual was a resident of the state until 2003 when he enlisted in the Military.

From 2003 until 2008 he was stationed outside of CA. In 2008 he was put on orders to CA and as a result is eligible for the MAWP. And since he was a prior resident of CA, had placed his belongings in storage which included his (prior to 2000) legally purchased normal cap magazines.

Given the large number of Military personel from the state of CA and the large Military presence in the state, this could be a very common situation that any reasonable LEO should be aware of.

Since I am no longer able to post in the LEO forum, I hope you will pass this along with your thoughts included. "

I am not familiar with MAWP. Need more info. Anyone familiar?

I spoke to DOJ today regarding MAWP. Those soldiers from out of state stationed in CA on order are allowed to apply for the permit. They will have to carry the permit and valid military ID with them with the rifle, and present them to LEO upon request.

When they get out of service,
1. They can take it out of California with them , or
2. If they decide to stay in CA, they will have to get rid of the AW.

[J-cat]

Originally Posted by topgun7

I am using "Spikes" for an example, and won't be a matter if it was a CMMG, DF, Double Star or DPMS and so on. Any OLL's will fall under this category. All Bushmaster XM-15 rifles are category 2 assault weapon per DOJ unless it is marked otherwise. Possession of unregistered Bushmaster XM-15's will be a violation. Anyways, it is besides my point.

I also received this info from a member through a PM:

"In regards to your statement about a Spikes lower not able to have been registered, you are missing at least one thing, Military Assault Weapons Permit. Im sure there are other means by which an OLL could have been registered but the MAWP is the one that comes to mind.

Heres a scenario for you:

You see a guy at the range with an OLL doing 30 round mag dumps and dropping mags without a tool.

According to your statements, you would assume that this guy is breaking the law. However what you dont know is that this individual was a resident of the state until 2003 when he enlisted in the Military.

From 2003 until 2008 he was stationed outside of CA. In 2008 he was put on orders to CA and as a result is eligible for the MAWP. And since he was a prior resident of CA, had placed his belongings in storage which included his (prior to 2000) legally purchased normal cap magazines.

Given the large number of Military personel from the state of CA and the large Military presence in the state, this could be a very common situation that any reasonable LEO should be aware of.

Since I am no longer able to post in the LEO forum, I hope you will pass this along with your thoughts included. "

I am not familiar with MAWP. Need more info. Anyone familiar?

You keep missing the point.

I have always said that if you have factors other than mere possession, then you may have RS.

If someone is dropping 30-round mags with a bullet button, then hell yes you have RS.

If someone has a Spikes lower and all eht evil features, then you have RS.

But if I have a generic lower and nothing else, then no you do not have RS. You need to articulate a specific fact that leads you to believe that my generic Bushy is unregistered. Hell, you can't read the name on the side of the rifle without a magnifying glass. How are you going to use the name itself as a factor?

The very same PC section you are relying on specifically says it don't apply to registered rifles. Does that not cancel out your RS?

(o) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not apply to any of the
following persons:
(1) A person acting in accordance with Section 12285.

[J-cat]

Have you heard of rules of statutory interpretation? Do you think the legislature intended to permit you to harass law abiding citizens at a public shooting range? Do you think PC 12280 should be liberally construed?

Because everything you have said to this point violates well established court precedent.

[Ron-Solo]

J-Cat,

Give it up. You keep changing the scenarios to meet your point of view. Read the writing on the wall, you are mis-intrepreting almost every law you quote.

Your opinions and advice, while possibly well intended, are off base in almost every aspect. This is based on your advice to one post to "tell the LE to 'F-Off' when contacted" to your belief that there is a criminal violation for simple possession of an unregistered handgun. When backed into a corner, you throw in the issue of a Picatinny rail on the gun. It doesn't matter if it has a 'hootenanny' rail, Kung-Fu grips, G.I. Joe camo job,etc. There is no penal code section for the simple violation of possession of an unregistered handgun. I am not the only one who has told you this. Just because you don't get the answer you like, doesn't mean we are wrong.

As far as contacting people based on probable cause, you can't seem to grasp the difference between what is legally possible, and what is practical and can be reasonably applied.

Only so much can be gained from taking classes and attending school. The real knowledge comes from the application of the law in a day-to-day law enforcement environment practiced by police officers, deputy sheriff's and CHP officers. The 'other' classifications of 'peace officers' have their specific fields of expertise (and some of them are damn good at what they do) but they should stay away from basic street police work. It is beyond their field of expertise, just like some of their duties are beyond mine.

Here's is a section that I'm not sure you grasp based on your repeated attempts to say a police officer 'can't do that' because there is, in your opinion, no crime.

836(a) PC A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by Chapter 4.5 (commencing with section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever the following circumstances occur:

(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence.

(2) The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the officer's presence.

(3) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony, in fact, has been committed.

There is a reason that certain peace officers (830.3, 830.5, 830.5, 830.6, 830.7) have limited peace officer powers in this state. It is because of training and experience. It's not because any of the others are better people or anything like that, it is because of their training and experience, and the limited field of their jobs. A 'peace officer' with the State Gaming Commission doesn't need to know pullover and approach techniques like a city police officer, CHP, or deputy sheriff to the same degree because they don't do that on a regular basis. I don't have a clue about most gaming regulations, because I don't encounter those types of situations. I call the experts when I do.


As Dirty Harry once said, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Aloha,

Ron

[scootergmc]

Can we close this thread since its purpose was addressed in the rules?

We're way OT now....

Seems pointless to keep it open.

[goathead]

Originally Posted by scootergmc

Can we close this thread since its purpose was addressed in the rules?

We're way OT now....

Seems pointless to keep it open.

im the op i say no

[CaliTheKid]

I am not going to argue with anyone. I just stated my point and offered to meet if you wanted. I will do my work and you do your thing. If you want to tell me --- off, I will do whatever I need to to my job. My intention is not to harrass anyone,but doing the job. You can interprete the law anyway you want it. The court will determine how it supposed to apply. There is also a thing called common sense.

I have several civil rights violation law suits against me for doing my job. Yours will not be the first one.

[J-cat]

Originally Posted by Ron-Solo

J-Cat,

Give it up. You keep changing the scenarios to meet your point of view. Read the writing on the wall, you are mis-intrepreting almost every law you quote.

Your opinions and advice, while possibly well intended, are off base in almost every aspect. This is based on your advice to one post to "tell the LE to 'F-Off' when contacted" to your belief that there is a criminal violation for simple possession of an unregistered handgun. When backed into a corner, you throw in the issue of a Picatinny rail on the gun. It doesn't matter if it has a 'hootenanny' rail, Kung-Fu grips, G.I. Joe camo job,etc. There is no penal code section for the simple violation of possession of an unregistered handgun. I am not the only one who has told you this. Just because you don't get the answer you like, doesn't mean we are wrong.

As far as contacting people based on probable cause, you can't seem to grasp the difference between what is legally possible, and what is practical and can be reasonably applied.

Only so much can be gained from taking classes and attending school. The real knowledge comes from the application of the law in a day-to-day law enforcement environment practiced by police officers, deputy sheriff's and CHP officers. The 'other' classifications of 'peace officers' have their specific fields of expertise (and some of them are damn good at what they do) but they should stay away from basic street police work. It is beyond their field of expertise, just like some of their duties are beyond mine.

Here's is a section that I'm not sure you grasp based on your repeated attempts to say a police officer 'can't do that' because there is, in your opinion, no crime.

836(a) PC A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by Chapter 4.5 (commencing with section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever the following circumstances occur:

(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence.

(2) The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the officer's presence.

(3) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony, in fact, has been committed.

There is a reason that certain peace officers (830.3, 830.5, 830.5, 830.6, 830.7) have limited peace officer powers in this state. It is because of training and experience. It's not because any of the others are better people or anything like that, it is because of their training and experience, and the limited field of their jobs. A 'peace officer' with the State Gaming Commission doesn't need to know pullover and approach techniques like a city police officer, CHP, or deputy sheriff to the same degree because they don't do that on a regular basis. I don't have a clue about most gaming regulations, because I don't encounter those types of situations. I call the experts when I do.


As Dirty Harry once said, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Aloha,

Ron

The law you are lelying on for your RS to detain states explicitly that it does not pertain to REGISTERED AW's. How do you rationalize this?

Stop talking about my credentials. You don't know what I do. Please stick to the issue, i.e. Assault Weapons at a public shooting range.