| Author | Post |
|---|
MudCamper
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 08:29 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Theseus wrote: MudCamper wroteThis right here is a damn good reason to leave one's ID at home. Not only that but it makes me consider only carrying handguns that I bought in the 80's that aren't in the DOJ database.
The problem here is that if they do run the serials and it is not in your name they confiscate it. Sure there is no law that says you have to be registered, but if you aren't they can confiscate it according to the law.
What statute allows confiscation of legally unregistered guns?
Without arresting you for a crime I am not aware of any statutes that would allow this.
The original Sacramento PD memo even interpreted this correctly:
Scenario: a person is walking down the street with an unloaded pistol carried openly on their belt. There is a loaded magazine for the pistol located next to the pistol in a magazine pouch. You run the pistol through the automated firearm system and there is no dealer record of sale. ** NOT a violation of PC 12025 or PC 12031.
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 09:48 pm |
|
MudCamper wrote: Mike wrote: Theseus wrote: MudCamper wroteThis right here is a damn good reason to leave one's ID at home. Not only that but it makes me consider only carrying handguns that I bought in the 80's that aren't in the DOJ database.
The problem here is that if they do run the serials and it is not in your name they confiscate it. Sure there is no law that says you have to be registered, but if you aren't they can confiscate it according to the law.
What statute allows confiscation of legally unregistered guns?
Without arresting you for a crime I am not aware of any statutes that would allow this.
The original Sacramento PD memo even interpreted this correctly:
Scenario: a person is walking down the street with an unloaded pistol carried openly on their belt. There is a loaded magazine for the pistol located next to the pistol in a magazine pouch. You run the pistol through the automated firearm system and there is no dealer record of sale. ** NOT a violation of PC 12025 or PC 12031.
I will withdraw my commend pending my further investigation. I do recall seeing it stated and again supported by a CHP officer.
They are told that if a firearm is not registered then they are to confiscate it. Period.
Again, I will withdraw the comment until I can find my link and evidence to support my comment.
Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 09:50 pm by Theseus
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 10:02 pm |
|
You know, it was the Sacramento PD memo. . . It mentions an enhancement to a charge of loaded if the weapon isn't registered to the carrier.
PC 12031(a)(2)(f).
|
MudCamper
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 11:58 pm |
|
Theseus wrote: You know, it was the Sacramento PD memo. . . It mentions an enhancement to a charge of loaded if the weapon isn't registered to the carrier.
PC 12031(a)(2)(f).
Yes. There is also a sentence enhancement for 12025 if the firearm is not registered to you. But you first have to violate one of these sections.
It is perfectly legal to own, possess, and carry an "unregistered" handgun. I legally own several that I purchased prior to the current DROS/registration system.
Theseus wrote: I do recall seeing it stated and again supported by a CHP officer.
They are told that if a firearm is not registered then they are to confiscate it. Period.
It would not surprise me if many CHP officers believe this. They believe lots of things that are not true.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 08:38 pm |
|
CrewDog wrote: First forgive me if my first post is answered somewhere else I could not find a thread about this specific thing.
Why are several of you saying to stop carring ID with you
"Self command" issue - binds the gun owner internally to follow thru with the desire to not show ID - he has none to show so he can;t be pressured to give in! Also, if you want to make a point to police about ID, not having ID makes you look all the more reasonable (e.g., you don;t have any to show) and further, educate folks that nobody has to have or carry ID.
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 11:50 pm |
|
In RE: sterile carry.
I think Thesues' case is a good argument for not letting them know who you are, but I think Stuckinchico's experience is even more convincing.
I don't believe it ever got it's own thread, but it should have. I'll relate what I recall reading from Stuckinchico's posts:
He called his local PD to get a feel for what they think about open carry. SWAT Sgt makes some animated comments. Some time after the phone call, Stuckinchico finds out said SWAT Sgt paid a visit to his home, harassing his family, and calling Stuckinchico's sanity into question.
Bottom Line: if they don't know where you live, they can't harass you "above and beyond the call of duty". If you carry ID, they are likely to just take it without even asking, and with very little liklihood repurcussion to them. Don't carry it, or hide it well.
And, even if there was absolutely no risk to giving them that information... why do it? It's none of their damn business who I am, where I live, how tall I am, or how old I am. If they aren't investigating a crime, and if they have no legal right to demand my ID, then they're being rude by even asking for it. Why should we jump through hoops for someone willfully trampling our rights?
|
bigtoe416
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 04:53 am |
|
JeffW, not StuckInChico: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/26932.html
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10th, 2009 10:18 am |
|
bigtoe416 wrote: JeffW, not StuckInChico: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/26932.html
Thank you... I was looking for that post. For some reason I was fairly certain it was StuckInChico. I stand corrected.
|
Current time is 11:54 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
