California Open Carry Law Enforcement Training Bulletins

[The Straight Story]

http://publicintelligence.net/california-open-carry-law-enforcement-training-bulletins/

(items are in PDF format)

Oceanside Police Field Operations Division

* Training Alert “Open Carry” Handgun Advocacy
* 4 pages
* March 12, 2009

Download
Orange County Sheriff’s Department

* CITIZEN CARRYING FIREARM IN PLAIN VIEW
* 5 pages
* January 2009

[sharesunited]

1. (1) Identify yourself as a police officer. (2) Disarm and arrest the gunman.

[jeepnstein]

2. Good luck with that.

"BOTTOM LINE: Police may stop a person who is openly carrying a firearm in a belt holster and may inspect to see if the firearm is loaded. Prompt incidental checks on the person and the weapon may provide probable cause for arrest; however, the person may not be arrested for violating PC § 12031 if ammunition is not in or attached to the weapon so as to allow it to be fired, even though the person may have access to matching ammunition." http://info.publicintelligence.net/LAOpenCarry.pdf

You can't arrest someone for obeying the law.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Police departments are smarter than you are...they are also losing lawsuits on this right and left

[proteus_lives]

9. SU: "Civil Rights are garage. Get those icky guns."

:eyes:

I truly wish you never have to live in the world you so desperately dream of.

[virginia mountainman]

10. (3) Get a lawyer, prepare to loose lawsuit., and possibly job. NT

[aikoaiko]

15. Thank you once again for taking the extremist which makes everyone else look reasonable.

[Euromutt]

3. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I find it vaguely terrifying...

...that law enforcement officers evidently need to have it spelled out to them that a firearm carried in plain view is not concealed, and that a firearm isn't loaded if there's no ammunition in the weapon. Because the fact that they have case law to cite means that, at some juncture, someone was arrested by a cop and prosecuted by a D.A., both of whom argued that the definition of "concealed" includes "openly, in plain view" and that the definition of "loaded" includes "unloaded." In other words, the criminal justice system contains people who don't see the problem with arguing that X includes not-X.

[sharesunited]

5. If they are discouraging the display of guns, then they are advancing the common good.

[shadowrider]

6. So you're for concealed carry? Good to know.

[sharesunited]

7. Allow me this measure of internal consistency.

Carrying them is bad enough. Showing them is even worse.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. "Showing them is even worse." Is the mere sight of them somehow harmful?

Do they emit N-rays or phlogiston?

[one-eyed fat man]

11. He has a point.

Give him a break, Depends will only hold so much.

[PavePusher]

14. I don't like your books.

I don't think you should be allowed to display them in public.

Or your skin color.

Or your religion.

Or your voting in public.

You should only be able to claim your Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights while standing in a dark closet in your own home.

Etc.

Etc.

[Euromutt]

12. By undermining the rule of law?

You appear to have missed the cardinal point I was trying to get across, to wit that I find it highly disconcerting that there are evidently members of the law enforcement community and the public prosecution who have arrested and prosecuted people on the basis of an interpretation of the law which is diametrically opposed to the language of the statute. In this case, that a weapon carried unconcealed is, for legal purposes, "concealed" and that a firearm that does not have live ammunition placed in it in a position from which that ammunition may be readily chambered and/or fired is (i.e. unloaded) is, for legal purposes, "loaded." I'm not a lawyer, I'm a political science major, and I have long held the opinion that the maxim that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" can only be sustained if the law is readily comprehensible to the layman.

Try to forget for a moment that this is a firearm-specific issue in this instance, and imagine that you were engaging in some (non-firearm-related) activity you enjoy, and you were arrested and prosecuted for doing something that the law does not say is illegal. Would you accept that kind of thing if someone told you it was "advancing the common good" for the executive branch of government to discourage you from engaging in that activity, so it was okay to arrest and try you and force you to pay for a lawyer for doing something that is not illegal except by the most tortuous interpretation of the English language?

[HALO141]

13. How totalitarian of you. n/t