refusing E check, post mcdonald

[Ca Patriot]

anyone want to be the test case ? lol

 

[Gundude]

anyone want to be the test case ? lol

:idea: Good idea, run with it. :shocker:

 

[CA_Libertarian]

I would LOVE to be the test case. Anybody want to front my attorney fees? Think of it as an investment. If/when the federal suit pays out I'll return your money with 25% interest.

Tapley v California... I like the sound of that.

 

[cato]

I would LOVE to be the test case. Anybody want to front my attorney fees? Think of it as an investment. If/when the federal suit pays out I'll return your money with 25% interest.

Tapley v California... I like the sound of that.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4567362&postcount=14

 

[demnogis]

You know I would drop some coin in an instant for your case. I would love to see it come to fruition. Of course, with you keeping your rights til the end...

 

[wewd]

   (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.
[i]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]

Not sure where an "arrest" would go in this case, unless you physically resist the officer. I suppose if you are walking down the street and a cop comes up to you and says he wants to e-check you, you could say "No, thank you", and keep walking. I'm not sure where it would go from there, but I would not recommend physical resistance of any kind. In a worse-case scenario you could end up Tased or held at gunpoint depending on the demeanor of the officer. It's also possible that they could simply let you go about your business, but that is a novel concept and you should not expect that kind of treatment.

The recommended way to handle e-checks currently is to verbally inform the officer that you do not consent to any searches of your person or property, and not to aid them in searching you, i.e. if they have trouble removing your sidearm from your retention holster, do not aid them in doing it. Do not offer any physical resistance, but make it clear to them that you are not cooperating with their detainment and inspection. If they ask you for any personal information such as your name, you are recommended to remain silent, as you are not legally obligated to divulge that information.

 

[cato]

   (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.
[i]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]

Not sure where an "arrest" would go in this case, unless you physically resist the officer.

This is why carrying an empty yet obvious 'rife' or 'pistol' case (locked) would be a better prop for a 12031e challenge then OC. The case would have to taken as evidence and forced open after you're arrested for refusing to open the case pursuant to an 'e' check .

A glock case or one with NRA or 'gun control means using two hands' stickers would complete the look.

 

[demnogis]

This is why carrying an empty yet obvious 'rife' or 'pistol' case (locked) would be a better prop for a 12031e challenge then OC. The case would have to taken as evidence and forced open after you're arrested for refusing to open the case pursuant to an 'e' check .

A glock case or one with NRA or 'gun control means using two hands' stickers would complete the look.

A 12031(e) check demand for a firearm in a locked case [should] net the response "Got a warrant?". If they broke into the case without a warrant or consented search it would be the equivalent of breaking into your home to find evidence without a warrant. Private property and possessions are exactly that - private.

- How do they know a firearm is in there? Hunches don't count.

 

[cato]

A 12031(e) check demand for a firearm in a locked case [should] net the response "Got a warrant?". If they broke into the case without a warrant or consented search it would be the equivalent of breaking into your home to find evidence without a warrant. Private property and possessions are exactly that - private.

- How do they know a firearm is in there? Hunches don't count.

CA Case law (which I can't quote) has supported the detention and opening of a 'gun' case for a purpose of an 'e' check.

A arrest for this provides for a more interesting 4th A. challenge to 'e'. But should not be attempted without the required planning and backing and support of the right legal team.

 

[bigtoe416]

CA Case law (which I can't quote) has supported the detention and opening of a 'gun' case for a purpose of an 'e' check.

I'm assuming you're not citing People v. Delong (rifles in locked trunk of car) here? In that case the officers knew there were rifles in the trunk, and they opened the trunk after the defendant refused. The proposed scenario from above is to walk around with a rifle case that is locked where an officer wouldn't have anything other than a hunch that a firearm existed.

 

[wewd]

I'm going to buy the most obvious gun case I can find, and fill it with nothing but very large, anatomically-correct silicone sex toys. Then I will walk around town with it and see how long it takes to get an e-check on my "gun".

 

[bigtoe416]

I'm going to buy the most obvious gun case I can find, and fill it with nothing but very large, anatomically-correct silicone sex toys. Then I will walk around town with it and see how long it takes to get an e-check on my "gun".

Just make sure you lock it so there's very little doubt that they violated your fourth amendment rights.

 

[Gundude]

I'm going to buy the most obvious gun case I can find, and fill it with nothing but very large, anatomically-correct silicone sex toys. Then I will walk around town with it and see how long it takes to get an e-check on my "gun".

This thread has the potential to go off topic in a hurry.

 

[coolusername2007]

I would LOVE to be the test case. Anybody want to front my attorney fees? Think of it as an investment. If/when the federal suit pays out I'll return your money with 25% interest.

Tapley v California... I like the sound of that.

Tapley, et al. v California sounds a lot better!

 

[coolusername2007]

I'm going to buy the most obvious gun case I can find, and fill it with nothing but very large, anatomically-correct silicone sex toys. Then I will walk around town with it and see how long it takes to get an e-check on my "gun".

A large jump-out-at-you spring loaded 'snake' would be way more fun! With confetti!! Because when its all over you'll be partying all the way to the BANK!!

 

[cato]

A large jump-out-at-you spring loaded 'snake' would be way more fun! With confetti!! Because when its all over you'll be partying all the way to the BANK!!

Civil rights damages are: attorney fees paid. And maybe $1 for punitive damages. Do this for love not for money.

 

[coolusername2007]

Civil rights damages are: attorney fees paid. And maybe $1 for punitive damages. Do this for love not for money.

I open carry for the preservation of my rights and for my posterity, not for money. Snakes and confetti jumping out of locked gun boxes is just fanciful forum fun. Maybe a $1 for that, but not for the real deal. Though, if my rights were violated, you betcha I'll take their money, and a lot more than $21K.

 

[Mr. C]

I would have to assume that upon an arrest based on probable cause that the weapon was loaded, and after retrieving the firearm for evidence and determining that it was, in fact, UNLOADED, the crime being not complete, you would be immediately released from custody for a violation of 12031e PC...that being said, a charge of 148a1 PC (resisting, obstruction, or delaying a peace officer in the performance of their duty) COULD result, since the refusal could be intepreted as delaying the officer in his/her 12031e PC check, which should normally occupy only a minute or two. Not sure how that would go when it came time for filing, but I would recommend cooperation with the check for loaded, as long as the detention is not prolonged into a fishing expedition.

 

[Decoligny]

I would have to assume that upon an arrest based on probable cause that the weapon was loaded, and after retrieving the firearm for evidence and determining that it was, in fact, UNLOADED, the crime being not complete, you would be immediately released from custody for a violation of 12031e PC...that being said, a charge of 148a1 PC (resisting, obstruction, or delaying a peace officer in the performance of their duty) COULD result, since the refusal could be intepreted as delaying the officer in his/her 12031e PC check, which should normally occupy only a minute or two. Not sure how that would go when it came time for filing, but I would recommend cooperation with the check for loaded, as long as the detention is not prolonged into a fishing expedition.

I believe we are talking about someone carrying a gun case without a gun in it. Kind of like carrying a guitar case with Smith & Wesson stickers and Glock stickers all over it.

An affinity for decorating your guitar case with gun stickers is NOT reasonable suspiscion that you are carrying a firearm.

Or even using your gun case to carry around a pipe wrench. Carrying a case is NOT reasonable suspiscion that a gun is in the case.

 

[DrTodd]

An affinity for decorating your guitar case with gun stickers is NOT reasonable suspiscion that you are carrying a firearm.

Huh? Please cite.