refusing E check, post mcdonald

[PincheOgro1]

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.

If it's in it's case it's none of their business what it is.

 

[PincheOgro1]

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 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.

 

[Chrisc411]

If it's in it's case it's none of their business what it is.

Precisely, But you know how much they love to exaggerate the truth when it comes to RAS, It's ridiculous how many officers now and days violate or rights and get away with it so easily. Just cause you have a case that says something about firearms or stickers doesnt give them the right to search it, cause by that thinking they would just start searching everyone.

 

[1245A Defender]

NO weapons RAS!

Precisely, But you know how much they love to exaggerate the truth when it comes to RAS, It's ridiculous how many officers now and days violate or rights and get away with it so easily. Just cause you have a case that says something about firearms or stickers doesnt give them the right to search it, cause by that thinking they would just start searching everyone.

an interesting arrest happened about 2 yr ago in reno or vagas, Because the guy wore an EMPTY holster.
the totally unresonable conclussion that the lack of something, gives you RAS to search for it!

 

[1245A Defender]

comply!

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.

another FUN e check scenrio would be a retension holster that will not release the gun!!
your not required to help the cop do his job, just so long as you dont impede his investigation.
how frustrated might he become?

 

[cato]

another FUN e check scenario would be a retention holster that will not release the gun!!
your not required to help the cop do his job, just so long as you don't impede his investigation.
how frustrated might he become?

I really really hope nobody does this.

 

[1245A Defender]

why?

I really really hope nobody does this.

i read and respect your posts here on the forum.
im not seeing why this wouldnt be a great way to demonstrate the obsurdity of the Echeck.

 

[Superlite27]

Making a slight alteration of a stunt pulled off by kwikrnu:

What would happen if one carried an unloaded CAPLOCK BLACKPOWDER PISTOL?

The only way to check if a blackpowder pistol is loaded/unloaded.....is to pull the trigger and see if it goes "BANG".

How, exactly, would an officer perform an E-check on a blackpowder pistol without (unlawfully) siezing your property without a warrant and taking it to a lab (which would cost money) other than to cap a nipple and pull the trigger?

Several questions:

1) If the nipples are capped, but the cylinders are "uncharged", would the caps alone be considered "loaded"?
2) If the cylinders are charged, but the nipples uncapped, is it "loaded"?
3) If the cylinders are charged, how does one determine this (in the field) other than put a cap on it and pull the trigger?
4) If the nipples are uncapped, are you required to give the officer a cap so he may determine wehther or not it is loaded?
5) Wouldn't the act of the officer capping a nipple be considered HIM loading an unloaded gun?

Since the person is, indeed, carrying an unloaded firearm, how does a cop determine that the blackpowder pistol really IS unloaded until HE caps it and pulls the trigger? (resulting in HIM loading, and firing, a previously unloaded pistol)

I'd love to see the cops there tangle with a blackpowder pistol. A video of this would be HUGELY entertaining!

 

[ConditionThree]

Making a slight alteration of a stunt pulled off by kwikrnu:

What would happen if one carried an unloaded CAPLOCK BLACKPOWDER PISTOL?

The only way to check if a blackpowder pistol is loaded/unloaded.....is to pull the trigger and see if it goes "BANG".

How, exactly, would an officer perform an E-check on a blackpowder pistol without (unlawfully) siezing your property without a warrant and taking it to a lab (which would cost money) other than to cap a nipple and pull the trigger?

Several questions:

1) If the nipples are capped, but the cylinders are "uncharged", would the caps alone be considered "loaded"?
2) If the cylinders are charged, but the nipples uncapped, is it "loaded"?
3) If the cylinders are charged, how does one determine this (in the field) other than put a cap on it and pull the trigger?
4) If the nipples are uncapped, are you required to give the officer a cap so he may determine wehther or not it is loaded?
5) Wouldn't the act of the officer capping a nipple be considered HIM loading an unloaded gun?

Since the person is, indeed, carrying an unloaded firearm, how does a cop determine that the blackpowder pistol really IS unloaded until HE caps it and pulls the trigger? (resulting in HIM loading, and firing, a previously unloaded pistol)

I'd love to see the cops there tangle with a blackpowder pistol. A video of this would be HUGELY entertaining!

12031(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

 

[wewd]

12031(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed AND has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

Emphasis added. It must be both primed/capped and have a powder charge and projectile for it to be loaded under the law. Just one or the other alone does not make it loaded. It would be legal to openly carry a black powder pistol that is charged with powder and ball but without any caps on the cylinders. The gun could not fire in that state.

Why do you need both? Because if you take your .75 cal Brown Bess musket out deer hunting and don't bag a deer, the state does not want you to have to shoot it off before you get in your car and drive home. Just empty the flash pan and you're good to go.

 

[bigtoe416]

i read and respect your posts here on the forum.
im not seeing why this wouldnt be a great way to demonstrate the obsurdity of the Echeck.

It'd be a shame if you actually needed your weapon and couldn't remove it from your permanent retention holster.

Another thought would be if you are intentionally putting your firearm in a retention holster where the gun cannot be removed for the sole purpose of making the (e) check impossible to perform that you may actually be violating PC 148.

Every person who willfully resists, delays, or
obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical
technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)
of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to
discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other
punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail
not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

 

[Superlite27]

12031(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed AND has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

I did not know the actual text, so thanks.

After reading it, it seems as if the officer only has to determine that the nipples are not capped, correct?

 

[cato]

i read and respect your posts here on the forum.
im not seeing why this wouldn't be a great way to demonstrate the absurdity of the E check.

It would certainly demonstrate the absurdity. But absent any other way of attacking 'e' for the purposes of finding it unconstitutional this would be the last one I would want to see used because for the risk of physical altercation and other unforeseen issues. We all would chuckle but it would not play well to fence sitters. We are not her to play games or entrap the police. We simply want a usable right to arms. And we need to sway people to our side of the issue with reasonable actions including the need to have officers understand and agree with our position.

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. An enclosed locked case doesn't provide any evidence that there is actually a firearm inside (avoiding the People v Hale logic) and makes for a better vehicle legally to challenge 'e' authorization.

The locked case arrest will, again with the the right planning, legal team and financial backing, suffice to put 'e' in the cross hairs IF that is the chosen route to take based on the coalition legal plan.

I really really don't want individuals to take on criminal liability for RKBA issues in CA courts. They are not friendly to the cause and without clear controlling federal case laws in place will limit RKBA so narrowly as to be unusable. Convictions will take years to undo if ever. We really want to be mostly in federal civil court on RKBA where there is a better chance of judicial honesty.

148 PC or 69 PC (a felony) is not something anyone needs on their record.

 

[Mike Hawk]

Here's an example of a clear violation.

After reading it, it seems as if the officer only has to determine that the nipples are not capped, correct?[/QUOTE]

 

[Gundude]

View attachment 3178 Here's an example of a clear violation.

After reading it, it seems as if the officer only has to determine that the nipples are not capped, correct?

[/QUOTE]

So, where's the powder and ball....or do we wanna go there?

 

[Mike Hawk]

Cap your nipples, go to jail. IT'S THE LAW!

 

[Gundude]

Court docket: SAF vs. Nipples
Oral arguments

 

[demnogis]

Biometric retention holster. Would be the latest-and-greatest technology to prevent "gun grabs".

I really really hope nobody does this.

 

[Superlite27]

Guess my idea was just a flash in the pan.

 

[coolusername2007]

Court docket: SAF vs. Nipples
Oral arguments

LOL. Rebuttals???