| Author | Post |
|---|
inbox485
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 10:51 pm |
|
Gundude wrote:
Problem=solution. Download google earth. Find a route to your frequently frequented destinations so you don't go by a school, and UOC. If you go into unfamiliar territory, Lock it up. When you get to your destination, then UOC. I looked at the Harbor Freight site and saw some book safes that appear to be big enough to hold most semi-autos.
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=95815
I don't imagine you'd fool anybody with one of those in your car. Decent container though.Last edited on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 10:51 pm by inbox485
|
inbox485
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 10:53 pm |
|
Gundude wrote:
Problem=solution. Download google earth. Find a route to your frequently frequented destinations so you don't go by a school, and UOC. If you go into unfamiliar territory, Lock it up. When you get to your destination, then UOC. I looked at the Harbor Freight site and saw some book safes that appear to be big enough to hold most semi-autos.
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=95815
A lot of the private schools and some of the newer schools aren't listed so you have to already know they are there.
|
CA_fr_KS
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 05:48 pm |
|
inbox485 wrote: CA_fr_KS wrote:
inbox485 wrote:
I've thought about that, but I don't think a lock with a key in it would count as being locked under the relevant statutes. I find turning a dial one number easier than inserting a key.
I drive around with the key on the lock. The box is locked for all intents and purposes. And I can pull out the key once stopped by LEO.
I shouldn't have to point it out, but I will. While your chances of being caught are slim, you are violating the law. Should you ever be stopped and found with your locked safe, and the key in your immediate possession, and the officer can claim he saw you leaning over or figgiting, you may be cited/arrested under suspicion of violating the law which you actually are. If at that point your ID is traced back to the post you just made in a public forum, your toast.
I don't like the laws in this state, but I find the risk to benefit ratio of violating firearm laws too high to justify.
I dont understand why a locked container is a violation of the law but since you mentioned it, I will stop doing that until things are more clear. I appreciate that.
But, can you cite any statutes? And an LEO seeing the same safebox with a combo lock (not a key) can also claim during a stop you are leaning over of figgiting, right?
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 05:54 pm |
|
CA_fr_KS wrote: inbox485 wrote: CA_fr_KS wrote:
inbox485 wrote:
I've thought about that, but I don't think a lock with a key in it would count as being locked under the relevant statutes. I find turning a dial one number easier than inserting a key.
I drive around with the key on the lock. The box is locked for all intents and purposes. And I can pull out the key once stopped by LEO.
I shouldn't have to point it out, but I will. While your chances of being caught are slim, you are violating the law. Should you ever be stopped and found with your locked safe, and the key in your immediate possession, and the officer can claim he saw you leaning over or figgiting, you may be cited/arrested under suspicion of violating the law which you actually are. If at that point your ID is traced back to the post you just made in a public forum, your toast.
I don't like the laws in this state, but I find the risk to benefit ratio of violating firearm laws too high to justify.
I dont understand why a locked container is a violation of the law but since you mentioned it, I will stop doing that until things are more clear. I appreciate that.
But, can you cite any statutes? And an LEO seeing the same safebox with a combo lock (not a key) can also claim during a stop you are leaning over of figgiting, right?
There are no citations to any statutes.
An LEO can claim anything he wants to claim. If he wants to say that he say you unload the gun and lock it up as he was approaching the vehicle, then he can. It just makes that particular cop a lying SOB.
Having the gun unloaded and in a locked container IS NOT a violation of California Penal Code. It is actually covered in PC 12026.1 and 12026.2.
I think the poster meant that having the key in the lock, even if the case were locked, could be interpreted by a LEO to be an unlocked case. If the case is unlocked, then you are not exempt from PC 12025 (concealed firearm violation).
|
inbox485
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 06:22 pm |
|
CA_fr_KS wrote:
inbox485 wrote: CA_fr_KS wrote:
inbox485 wrote:
I've thought about that, but I don't think a lock with a key in it would count as being locked under the relevant statutes. I find turning a dial one number easier than inserting a key.
I drive around with the key on the lock. The box is locked for all intents and purposes. And I can pull out the key once stopped by LEO.
I shouldn't have to point it out, but I will. While your chances of being caught are slim, you are violating the law. Should you ever be stopped and found with your locked safe, and the key in your immediate possession, and the officer can claim he saw you leaning over or figgiting, you may be cited/arrested under suspicion of violating the law which you actually are. If at that point your ID is traced back to the post you just made in a public forum, your toast.
I don't like the laws in this state, but I find the risk to benefit ratio of violating firearm laws too high to justify.
I dont understand why a locked container is a violation of the law but since you mentioned it, I will stop doing that until things are more clear. I appreciate that.
But, can you cite any statutes? And an LEO seeing the same safebox with a combo lock (not a key) can also claim during a stop you are leaning over of figgiting, right?
A locked container is not in violation. But a key in a lock is not locked since the pins preventing the turning of the cylinder have been disengaged. That runs contrary to any common understanding of the term locked. The statute mentions "locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device" (PC12026.1(c)). It would not be sufficient to have a lock present. It must be locked in the common use of the term.
An LEO physically can claim anything that wouldn't be directly contradicted by the camera or audio recordings. That is a matter of officer integrity. That is a separate topic I had no intention of raising. I was talking about what the officer actually would see. What I will say is if you are asked what is in the box and you say "It contains personal property and I reserve my right to privacy" that will be the end of it 99% of the time. Even the 1% of officers that would try to subvert your rights would only do so if they actually saw you do something suspicious such as figgiting with a supposedly already locked container as you were being pulled over.
|
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 09:34 pm |
|
Not a lawyer nor am I providing legal advice but it is REALLY EASY to pull out a key when necessary...
|
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 09:34 pm |
|
yelohamr wrote: I UOC'd at Harbor Freight in Escondido today with noone fainting. While there I saw for sale a "book safe". It's metal, looks like a book and has a combo lock.
I ordered the Center Of Mass gun safe, so I didn't get one of the "books". The price is under $20.00 and looks big enough for a 1911.
They are pretty cool about it.
|
mjones
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | SoCal, USA |
| Posts: | 419 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 09:42 pm |
|
inbox485 wrote: An LEO physically can claim anything that wouldn't be directly contradicted by the camera or audio recordings. That is a matter of officer integrity. That is a separate topic I had no intention of raising. I was talking about what the officer actually would see. What I will say is if you are asked what is in the box and you say "It contains personal property and I reserve my right to privacy" that will be the end of it 99% of the time. Even the 1% of officers that would try to subvert your rights would only do so if they actually saw you do something suspicious such as figgiting with a supposedly already locked container as you were being pulled over.
I have a little bit of personal experience in this area with regard to being the person pulled over. Late one evening I was legitimately transporting classified material when I got pulled over.
Ostensibly he pulled me over because my breaklights weren't working when I went around a curve in the road. The reality is I simply didn't use my breaks on the curve, but they worked perfectly when he lit me up and I pulled over. I've actually had this happen a half-dozen times or more over the last 10 years. In the past its always been a simple matter of me waiting with the window down, hands at 10 and 2 on the wheel, engine off. As the officer approaches its usually a quick, 'sorry, I thought your brakelights weren't working'
Not this night. As soon as he got to the car he got very interested in the bag on my passenger seat. The particular deputy wasn't satisfied with my simple answer of, "work stuff." It progressed to the point that he revealed that he knew that the bag had a lock on it, 'why would I need to have a locked bag' It finally got to the point where ordered me out of the car and had me go back and sit on his pushbar.
He immediately went back to my car and opened the passenger door, picked up the bag and tried to open it. He actually cut open the bag only to find yet another bag which was very clearly marked about the sensitive nature. I thought he was gonna have a coronary right there...he made quite a mess for himself. At that point he knew he was screwed and brought out his upper management and let me get mine involved too.
I happened to know the deputy indirectly, my best friend worked the same station. As I understand it this guy had a long career of nearly 30 years with his agency...he was essentially forced into retirement. I have no idea what hapened beyond that, especially with regard to past convictions, etc.
Crazy story...only loosely related. Ultimately anything can happen, do the best you can to protect yourself.
Please noone scream leo-bashing. I'm the last person that would paint any profession with that broad of a brush.
Last edited on Tue Nov 10th, 2009 09:43 pm by mjones
|
inbox485
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 10:36 pm |
|
pullnshoot25 wrote: Not a lawyer nor am I providing legal advice but it is REALLY EASY to pull out a key when necessary...
It is also very easy for the officer to see and draws his attention to what otherwise might be ignored. To each his own in the end.
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 10:41 pm |
|
mjones wrote: inbox485 wrote: An LEO physically can claim anything that wouldn't be directly contradicted by the camera or audio recordings. That is a matter of officer integrity. That is a separate topic I had no intention of raising. I was talking about what the officer actually would see. What I will say is if you are asked what is in the box and you say "It contains personal property and I reserve my right to privacy" that will be the end of it 99% of the time. Even the 1% of officers that would try to subvert your rights would only do so if they actually saw you do something suspicious such as figgiting with a supposedly already locked container as you were being pulled over.
I have a little bit of personal experience in this area with regard to being the person pulled over. Late one evening I was legitimately transporting classified material when I got pulled over.
[snip]
|
inbox485
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 10:43 pm |
|
mjones wrote: inbox485 wrote: An LEO physically can claim anything that wouldn't be directly contradicted by the camera or audio recordings. That is a matter of officer integrity. That is a separate topic I had no intention of raising. I was talking about what the officer actually would see. What I will say is if you are asked what is in the box and you say "It contains personal property and I reserve my right to privacy" that will be the end of it 99% of the time. Even the 1% of officers that would try to subvert your rights would only do so if they actually saw you do something suspicious such as figgiting with a supposedly already locked container as you were being pulled over.
I have a little bit of personal experience in this area with regard to being the person pulled over. Late one evening I was legitimately transporting classified material when I got pulled over.
Ostensibly he pulled me over because my breaklights weren't working when I went around a curve in the road. The reality is I simply didn't use my breaks on the curve, but they worked perfectly when he lit me up and I pulled over. I've actually had this happen a half-dozen times or more over the last 10 years. In the past its always been a simple matter of me waiting with the window down, hands at 10 and 2 on the wheel, engine off. As the officer approaches its usually a quick, 'sorry, I thought your brakelights weren't working'
Not this night. As soon as he got to the car he got very interested in the bag on my passenger seat. The particular deputy wasn't satisfied with my simple answer of, "work stuff." It progressed to the point that he revealed that he knew that the bag had a lock on it, 'why would I need to have a locked bag' It finally got to the point where ordered me out of the car and had me go back and sit on his pushbar.
He immediately went back to my car and opened the passenger door, picked up the bag and tried to open it. He actually cut open the bag only to find yet another bag which was very clearly marked about the sensitive nature. I thought he was gonna have a coronary right there...he made quite a mess for himself. At that point he knew he was screwed and brought out his upper management and let me get mine involved too.
I happened to know the deputy indirectly, my best friend worked the same station. As I understand it this guy had a long career of nearly 30 years with his agency...he was essentially forced into retirement. I have no idea what hapened beyond that, especially with regard to past convictions, etc.
Crazy story...only loosely related. Ultimately anything can happen, do the best you can to protect yourself.
Please noone scream leo-bashing. I'm the last person that would paint any profession with that broad of a brush.
I'm not one for LEO bashing, but the fact that he wasn't raked over the coals for that speaks volumes. If he did it to you I guarantee he did it to a thousand others and made up some lie about after. He should have been publicly crucified and all of his previous convictions and any prior allegations of misconduct reviewed. Part of integrity is accountability and it appears both were lacking here. The only thing worse than the first officer's actions is the fact that while he was forced to resign, he wasn't held accountable by his department.
Anything done outside of department policy are the actions of a citicen subject to the same laws as the rest of us. If I decided to go cutting peoples bags open to see if I could get a citizens arrest, I'd go to jail.
Last edited on Tue Nov 10th, 2009 10:47 pm by inbox485
|
clutchcargo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | Atwater Calif |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12th, 2009 01:55 am |
|
I live in Atwater Ca
I open carry on motorcycle my first encounter with Turlock police was in may of 2009 out side of Les scwabe tire, an off duty officer, who had never identyfied himself as an officer , did not use officer safety or display a badge nor did he have a a weapon that was visable. he had called for back up , if i remember correctly there were three patrol units on each side of me and the off duty officer it took about a half hour before i was released (4th amentmend )it should not have taken a half hour I aksed the reason for being detained, the off duty officer said it didnt look right , I am mexican ,ride a Harley long hair and beard i shook hands with the other officers, and stated that i understood that they were just doing thier job to protect the public ( ONE ADAM TWELVE) I have been open carry for a lot of years never had problem before, I am glad that this encounter had happened, cause it just taught me to re educated myself on the laws of open carry, With the access of the internet, it is much easier to learn more about our rights and how our rights are slowing be ripped away,
My second encounter with Turlock Police was the second week of october (last month) at the valero on lander/99 freeway. this was a respectable stop by the officer in charge, I stated to him that i had an encounter last may. He stated that he was aware of that encounter there was back up he let them go as soon as he saw that i was a law abidding citzen , i usally fuel up at the valero I believe that my bike got the attention of the officer i have a 97 springer classic softail white with red trim we shook hands and departed I have a 1911 A1 45 acp
Albert
|
clutchcargo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | Atwater Calif |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12th, 2009 02:15 am |
|
i found this site after i was detained last may it clearly shows how we as citzen need to know our rights. gun or no gun . just a simple traffic stop or any other kind of questioning the 4th amentmend comes in to play as well as the 5th amenmend . you dont have to say anything or answer thier question, for example; do you know how fast you were going? you dont have to answer. just the same , an officer can't ask me why i am carrying a gun. we dont need to justify we carry
there are times when i have large amounts of cash, when i enter the bank i never have a problem with most of them, there was one bank in modseto, so i just took all my money out, and asked the bank for an escort, they were not too happy about that , gold has gone up in value. is law enforcement going to be there for me to transfer the gold?
Albert
|
J.A.G.
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 37 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12th, 2009 05:58 pm |
|
inbox485 wrote:
CA_fr_KS wrote:
inbox485 wrote: CA_fr_KS wrote:
inbox485 wrote:
I've thought about that, but I don't think a lock with a key in it would count as being locked under the relevant statutes. I find turning a dial one number easier than inserting a key.
I drive around with the key on the lock. The box is locked for all intents and purposes. And I can pull out the key once stopped by LEO.
I shouldn't have to point it out, but I will. While your chances of being caught are slim, you are violating the law. Should you ever be stopped and found with your locked safe, and the key in your immediate possession, and the officer can claim he saw you leaning over or figgiting, you may be cited/arrested under suspicion of violating the law which you actually are. If at that point your ID is traced back to the post you just made in a public forum, your toast.
I don't like the laws in this state, but I find the risk to benefit ratio of violating firearm laws too high to justify.
I dont understand why a locked container is a violation of the law but since you mentioned it, I will stop doing that until things are more clear. I appreciate that.
But, can you cite any statutes? And an LEO seeing the same safebox with a combo lock (not a key) can also claim during a stop you are leaning over of figgiting, right?
A locked container is not in violation. But a key in a lock is not locked since the pins preventing the turning of the cylinder have been disengaged. That runs contrary to any common understanding of the term locked. The statute mentions "locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device" (PC12026.1(c)). It would not be sufficient to have a lock present. It must be locked in the common use of the term.
An LEO physically can claim anything that wouldn't be directly contradicted by the camera or audio recordings. That is a matter of officer integrity. That is a separate topic I had no intention of raising. I was talking about what the officer actually would see. What I will say is if you are asked what is in the box and you say "It contains personal property and I reserve my right to privacy" that will be the end of it 99% of the time. Even the 1% of officers that would try to subvert your rights would only do so if they actually saw you do something suspicious such as figgiting with a supposedly already locked container as you were being pulled over.
Are we not legally obligated to inform a LEO if we have a firearm in the vehicle? Or is it a different situation if he specifically asks, "do you have any weapons/firearms in the vehicle?
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12th, 2009 06:14 pm |
|
J.A.G. wrote: inbox485 wrote:
CA_fr_KS wrote:
inbox485 wrote: CA_fr_KS wrote:
inbox485 wrote:
I've thought about that, but I don't think a lock with a key in it would count as being locked under the relevant statutes. I find turning a dial one number easier than inserting a key.
I drive around with the key on the lock. The box is locked for all intents and purposes. And I can pull out the key once stopped by LEO.
I shouldn't have to point it out, but I will. While your chances of being caught are slim, you are violating the law. Should you ever be stopped and found with your locked safe, and the key in your immediate possession, and the officer can claim he saw you leaning over or figgiting, you may be cited/arrested under suspicion of violating the law which you actually are. If at that point your ID is traced back to the post you just made in a public forum, your toast.
I don't like the laws in this state, but I find the risk to benefit ratio of violating firearm laws too high to justify.
I dont understand why a locked container is a violation of the law but since you mentioned it, I will stop doing that until things are more clear. I appreciate that.
But, can you cite any statutes? And an LEO seeing the same safebox with a combo lock (not a key) can also claim during a stop you are leaning over of figgiting, right?
A locked container is not in violation. But a key in a lock is not locked since the pins preventing the turning of the cylinder have been disengaged. That runs contrary to any common understanding of the term locked. The statute mentions "locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device" (PC12026.1(c)). It would not be sufficient to have a lock present. It must be locked in the common use of the term.
An LEO physically can claim anything that wouldn't be directly contradicted by the camera or audio recordings. That is a matter of officer integrity. That is a separate topic I had no intention of raising. I was talking about what the officer actually would see. What I will say is if you are asked what is in the box and you say "It contains personal property and I reserve my right to privacy" that will be the end of it 99% of the time. Even the 1% of officers that would try to subvert your rights would only do so if they actually saw you do something suspicious such as figgiting with a supposedly already locked container as you were being pulled over.
Are we not legally obligated to inform a LEO if we have a firearm in the vehicle? Or is it a different situation if he specifically asks, "do you have any weapons/firearms in the vehicle?
Since speaking to an LEO in either situation would be used to arrest you, DO NOT waive your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination!
One need not be a lawyer to advise this!
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14th, 2009 08:15 pm |
|
J.A.G. wrote: Are we not legally obligated to inform a LEO if we have a firearm in the vehicle? Or is it a different situation if he specifically asks, "do you have any weapons/firearms in the vehicle?
No and No.
There is no law requiring you to notify an officer you are armed, whether you are concealing or open carrying. Even if (s)he asks, you have no obligation to answer - note that I would discourage lying, simply respond with, "am i free to go?" Then clam up until you are released.
(Unless such requirement is printed on your CCW permit, then it would be a binding requirement, and failing to abide by the requirement may invalidate your permission slip.)
|
J.A.G.
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 37 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 03:17 am |
|
CA_Libertarian wrote:
J.A.G. wrote: Are we not legally obligated to inform a LEO if we have a firearm in the vehicle? Or is it a different situation if he specifically asks, "do you have any weapons/firearms in the vehicle?
No and No.
There is no law requiring you to notify an officer you are armed, whether you are concealing or open carrying. Even if (s)he asks, you have no obligation to answer - note that I would discourage lying, simply respond with, "am i free to go?" Then clam up until you are released.
(Unless such requirement is printed on your CCW permit, then it would be a binding requirement, and failing to abide by the requirement may invalidate your permission slip.)
Very interesting.
The reason I asked, is because for some of the CCW permits in certain states, it is required that you inform a LEO if you are carrying (for instance in a traffic stop).
Thanks for the info.
|
coolusername2007
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 03:25 am |
|
J.A.G. wrote: Very interesting.
The reason I asked, is because for some of the CCW permits in certain states, it is required that you inform a LEO if you are carrying (for instance in a traffic stop).
Thanks for the info.
That's the difference between exercising your rights vs. exercising your permissions.
|
CA_Coyote
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 05:36 am |
|
Okay, I'm working this out, so forgive me if I seem slow.
1: UOC is legal, outside of within 1000 feet of a school.
2: OC is legal in 'unincorporated areas not otherwise restricted by the county"
3: longarms being carried in a vehicle (not counting assault weapons) is legal, as long as they are unloaded. Concealment and locking are not required or prohibited?
4: ammunition (all ammo? or just pistol?) must be locked when not UOC or within 1000 feet of a school.
5: pistols must be locked (and not in glove box) when not UOC, or within 1000 feet of a school. Ammo may be stored in the same container as long as the firearm is not loaded.
I live in yolo county, and am not able to immediately find what unincorporated areas are restricted, so help with that would be appreciated.
|
wewd
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 06:24 am |
|
CA_Coyote wrote:
Okay, I'm working this out, so forgive me if I seem slow.
1: UOC is legal, outside of within 1000 feet of a school.
Correct. There are other restrictions, like most government property, state parks, etc. But otherwise, yes. PC 626.9 applies.
2: OC is legal in 'unincorporated areas not otherwise restricted by the county"
Correct. LOC (loaded open carry) is legal in unincorporated areas where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited. See PC 12031.
3: longarms being carried in a vehicle (not counting assault weapons) is legal, as long as they are unloaded. Concealment and locking are not required or prohibited?
Correct. The concealed weapon law, PC 12025, does not apply to long guns. The 1000-foot school zone does not apply to long guns, but you still cannot have them on school property, parking lots included. PC 626.9.
4: ammunition (all ammo? or just pistol?) must be locked when not UOC or within 1000 feet of a school.
Incorrect. There is no requirement to lock up any ammo.
5: pistols must be locked (and not in glove box) when not UOC, or within 1000 feet of a school. Ammo may be stored in the same container as long as the firearm is not loaded.
Mostly correct. Pistols may be transported in plain sight (on the dashboard, on a seat) or in an openly carried belt holster. But it is impractical to do so and avoid school zones, so most people lock up their pistols. You are correct about ammo in the same container. There is no statutory requirement to store ammo in a separate container, and just because ammo is in proximity to an unloaded gun, the gun does not become loaded as defined by state law. See People v. Clark.
I live in yolo county, and am not able to immediately find what unincorporated areas are restricted, so help with that would be appreciated.
Yolo County Codes, Title 5, Chapter 10 is what you want.
My replies in bold above.
|
Current time is 06:27 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|
