refusing E check, post mcdonald

[wewd]

I already use a retention holster that cops have trouble with (Safariland 6378, level II retention). The release mechanism is not usually visible to the casual observer, and its operation is only intuitive to the person carrying the firearm. In fact, none of the half dozen officers that have e-checked me have been able to extract the firearm without aid. In the past, I have aided them in removal of the firearm when asked to, but I will no longer do it. It's not my job to help them violate my rights. I may soon buy an even more difficult holster to defeat (Safariland 6360, level III/IV retention, this time with tactical light capability for my TLR-1) to further confuse and confound them. We'll see what happens next time I am e-violated.

 

[coolusername2007]

I already use a retention holster that cops have trouble with (Safariland 6378, level II retention). The release mechanism is not usually visible to the casual observer, and its operation is only intuitive to the person carrying the firearm. In fact, none of the half dozen officers that have e-checked me have been able to extract the firearm without aid. In the past, I have aided them in removal of the firearm when asked to, but I will no longer do it. It's not my job to help them violate my rights. I may soon buy an even more difficult holster to defeat (Safariland 6360, level III/IV retention, this time with tactical light capability for my TLR-1) to further confuse and confound them. We'll see what happens next time I am e-violated.

What he said. +1

 

[Mr. C]

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.

I thought the thread was about refusing a 12031e check...

I went through a discussion similar to this with another OCer here. He said you couldn't be charged with a 148 violation because you were not being "detained". A PC 12031(e) check is to verify that a weapon is not loaded. If the weapon were not loaded no crime has been commited. if the weapon is in a locked case, you are under no obligation to open it. If they want to see what's in the container, they need RAS that you have commited a crime and a PC to charge you with and a warrant.

148a1 PC does not require a detention; in fact the section (quoted elsewhere in this thread) applies to EMT's as well! Even though, once the firearm was determined to be unloaded, the charge of 12031a PC would no longer be applicable, I doubt if you would just be dusted off and sent on your way...and your firearm would get booked at the station as property, if not evidence...

 

[bigtoe416]

Also the exposed firearm in the holster leaves no doubt that a firearm is present. Then a demand for inspection is allowed for in 'e'. This may also include a 'lawful order' for you to remove the firearm.

Do you have a citation for this? The only place in the penal code I can find where one must obey a police officer's lawful order is when in presence of a burning building.

 

[cato]

Do you have a citation for this? The only place in the penal code I can find where one must obey a police officer's lawful order is when in presence of a burning building.

When a detention is justified (under RAS which isn't the case during an 'e' check) disobedience to verbal commands have resulted in 148 PC convictions in my experience. Now if DeLong's poor logic is some how upheld as permissible as an 'inspection' (like it is under current CA jurisprudence) I can see a CA court or Fed district/appellate ct. finding that if the officer needs you to do something to accomplish that task you must comply.

I've seen drivers arrested for refusing a CHP vehicle inspection for instance where there was no other RAS/PC (they do numerically random stops at a fixed locations). Do I think 'e' is the same personally? No. But until there is a clear line from a judicially honest court I do not want to see anyone here dragged through the courts like Theseus. We can accomplish this civilly.

If CGF sees a legal advantage to having an 'e' arrest occur I would leave that up to their team to plan, fund, and execute.