OFF THE WIRE
Meeting reminder: Wednesday, Oct 5th, 8PM, San Francisco. A few of us will be coming from the California Motorcycle Safety Program (CMSP) Advisory Committee Meeting at CHP Headquarters in Sacramento and will be providing our debrief from that meeting. We are hoping to hear of what educational guidelines the CHP may be developing for motorcycle lane splitting in 2017 after AB51 goes into effect in January.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Area United Motorcycle Rider Coalition meetings provide informative updates on National, State and Local issues, events, Legislation and Litigation that affect our biker community and civil rights.
The meetings are run by local volunteers. There is no board, no organizational hierarchy, no memberships, fees or other monetary, time or resource expectations. Just people getting together and helping one another in mutually respectful and constructive ways. It was created and developed by our local community for our local community.
We welcome all like-minded riders who share the same values and goals as they relate to our lifestyle and culture.
We believe that by sharing common values we can increase the opportunity of each individual in the community to become more involved in a productive and responsible way.
Our goal is to make a positive difference in your life and those around you.
We want to know what you think is important. Bring your questions for our attorney and ideas for topics that you would like to see presented or discussed during future meetings.
Don't just stand on the sideline; get engaged in your motorcycle community, help protect your individual freedoms, civil liberties and your neighbors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: Any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental, public or private structure, including but not limited to the United States Federal Government, also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information, or any of the content contained herein, including, but not limited... to, my photographs/images, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other "picture" art posted on my profile. You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against my person with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee(s), agent(s), student(s), or any personnel under your direction or control or commission. The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law.
UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Friday, September 30, 2016
California lawmakers move toward limiting police seizures of property without a criminal conviction
OFF THE WIRE
As a reminder, SB 443 Civil Forfeiture Loophole Closure bill has been sitting on Governor Brown's desk since 8/30. He has until this Friday to sign or veto it. If he ignores it completely, it will go into law by default on 1/1/17. This is an extremely important bill for everyone and I'm frustrated that Moonbeam hasn't done the right thing and signed it already.
Liam Dillon
Major law enforcement groups and state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) have reached a deal on legislation to limit the ability of police in California to permanently seize cars, cash, homes and other property from suspected criminals without a conviction, potentially paving the way for California to join the growing list of states that have reined in the practice.
Known as civil asset forfeiture, the tactic began in earnest as a response to the drug war in the 1980s, allowing law enforcement to fund their anti-narcotics operations by taking drug dealers’ property. But a diverse group of critics, including immigrant and anti-poverty groups alongside libertarians such as billionaire Republican donor Charles Koch, have argued that the law has allowed officers to take innocent, impoverished residents’ property without providing enough recourse to get it back.
ADVERTISING
Under changes to Mitchell’s bill introduced Thursday, any property seizure in California worth less than $40,000 would now require a criminal conviction before police could take permanent action. Seizures higher than that amount would still allow for a lower burden of proof, such as the standard used in civil cases.
The $40,000 threshold is an attempt to balance advocates’ desire that those in poverty don’t lose their property unless they’re convicted of wrongdoing and law enforcement’s interest in preserving its ability to go after large criminal enterprises, Mitchell said.
Paid Post What's This?
Search Your Name on This Site, then Brace Yourself!
A Message from TruthFinder
Just type in a Name and select a State.. Then brace yourself for what you might find on you or anyone else!
See More
“It's those private citizens who could not be convicted of a crime whose assets that we need to protect,” Mitchell said.
As a result of the compromise, major law enforcement groups, including organizations representing police chiefs and district attorneys statewide, have dropped their opposition to the bill, SB 443.
Last year, that opposition stymied Mitchell’s original version of the measure, which would have required a criminal conviction before the permanent forfeiture of property in nearly all cases.
Ventura Police Chief Ken Corney, the head of the California Police Chiefs Assn., said in a statement that his group was comfortable that under the new language police could still use the practice for its primary purpose.
See the most-read stories this hour >>
“With the agreement on SB 443, conflicting sides took into consideration each other’s views and found a compromise that enhances safeguards on Californians’ rights, while ensuring law enforcement has the tools necessary to combat the gangs and drug traffickers damaging our communities,” Corney said. “This kind of proactive and collaborative effort demonstrates the strength between California law enforcement, political leadership and our communities.”
At least four other states have passed similarly strict asset forfeiture reforms in recent years. But Lee McGrath, an attorney with the libertarian Institute of Justice advocacy group, which is tracking reforms nationwide, said Mitchell’s bill stands out because of the across-the-board threshold requiring a criminal conviction before a permanent seizure.
“This is one of the strongest reforms enacted in any state,” McGrath said.
Mitchell expects to have a full vote in the Assembly on her bill in the coming days. The bill would still need approval in the state Senate and Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature before it would become law.
liam.dillon@latimes.com
Follow me at @dillonliam on Twitter
ALSO
Will California stop police from taking people's property without a criminal conviction?
Assembly rejects measure to limit police seizure of assets
Lawmakers seek to curb police seizures of assets
Updates on California politics
As a reminder, SB 443 Civil Forfeiture Loophole Closure bill has been sitting on Governor Brown's desk since 8/30. He has until this Friday to sign or veto it. If he ignores it completely, it will go into law by default on 1/1/17. This is an extremely important bill for everyone and I'm frustrated that Moonbeam hasn't done the right thing and signed it already.
Liam Dillon
Major law enforcement groups and state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) have reached a deal on legislation to limit the ability of police in California to permanently seize cars, cash, homes and other property from suspected criminals without a conviction, potentially paving the way for California to join the growing list of states that have reined in the practice.
Known as civil asset forfeiture, the tactic began in earnest as a response to the drug war in the 1980s, allowing law enforcement to fund their anti-narcotics operations by taking drug dealers’ property. But a diverse group of critics, including immigrant and anti-poverty groups alongside libertarians such as billionaire Republican donor Charles Koch, have argued that the law has allowed officers to take innocent, impoverished residents’ property without providing enough recourse to get it back.
ADVERTISING
Under changes to Mitchell’s bill introduced Thursday, any property seizure in California worth less than $40,000 would now require a criminal conviction before police could take permanent action. Seizures higher than that amount would still allow for a lower burden of proof, such as the standard used in civil cases.
The $40,000 threshold is an attempt to balance advocates’ desire that those in poverty don’t lose their property unless they’re convicted of wrongdoing and law enforcement’s interest in preserving its ability to go after large criminal enterprises, Mitchell said.
Paid Post What's This?
Search Your Name on This Site, then Brace Yourself!
A Message from TruthFinder
Just type in a Name and select a State.. Then brace yourself for what you might find on you or anyone else!
See More
“It's those private citizens who could not be convicted of a crime whose assets that we need to protect,” Mitchell said.
As a result of the compromise, major law enforcement groups, including organizations representing police chiefs and district attorneys statewide, have dropped their opposition to the bill, SB 443.
Last year, that opposition stymied Mitchell’s original version of the measure, which would have required a criminal conviction before the permanent forfeiture of property in nearly all cases.
Ventura Police Chief Ken Corney, the head of the California Police Chiefs Assn., said in a statement that his group was comfortable that under the new language police could still use the practice for its primary purpose.
See the most-read stories this hour >>
“With the agreement on SB 443, conflicting sides took into consideration each other’s views and found a compromise that enhances safeguards on Californians’ rights, while ensuring law enforcement has the tools necessary to combat the gangs and drug traffickers damaging our communities,” Corney said. “This kind of proactive and collaborative effort demonstrates the strength between California law enforcement, political leadership and our communities.”
At least four other states have passed similarly strict asset forfeiture reforms in recent years. But Lee McGrath, an attorney with the libertarian Institute of Justice advocacy group, which is tracking reforms nationwide, said Mitchell’s bill stands out because of the across-the-board threshold requiring a criminal conviction before a permanent seizure.
“This is one of the strongest reforms enacted in any state,” McGrath said.
Mitchell expects to have a full vote in the Assembly on her bill in the coming days. The bill would still need approval in the state Senate and Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature before it would become law.
liam.dillon@latimes.com
Follow me at @dillonliam on Twitter
ALSO
Will California stop police from taking people's property without a criminal conviction?
Assembly rejects measure to limit police seizure of assets
Lawmakers seek to curb police seizures of assets
Updates on California politics
Thursday, September 29, 2016
You Won't Believe the Truth About Motorcycle Lane Splitting
OFF THE WIRE
VIDEO - https://youtu.be/oqRcZR70Zhc
Lane splitting or better said lane sharing is crazy right? Not so fast. Watch the video, filmed during actual lane splitting in California with Nutnfancy, as we discuss the scientific and now proven facts of the practice. Amazingly it is safer for a motorcyclist when in heavy traffic. Like all "dangerous things" it is done safely by millions of people everyday, reducing pollution, traffic delays, drive times, and congestion. Discussed in the video is the amazing parallel between gun ownership/use and lane sharing. If you are against lane sharing, for the fear of abuse [seen or imagined] by the “fools” of society, then you should be probably against gun ownership as well to maintain integrity. Watch my 2009 video “Dangerous Things” for this foundational philosophy in TNP. This is consistent with that. Statisically proven in 2013, lane sharing reduces injuries and fatalities of motorcyclists when done responsibly. It should be passed in all 50 states./////////////////Nutnfancy Likability Scale: 11 out of 10
From American Motorcycle Assoc: "Perhaps one of the most dangerous situations for any motorcyclist is being caught in congested traffic, where stop-and-go vehicles, distracted and inattentive vehicle operators, and environmental conditions increase the risk of physical contact with another vehicle or hazard.
Reducing a motorcyclist's exposure to vehicles that are frequently accelerating and decelerating on congested roadways can be one way to reduce front- and rear-end collisions for those most vulnerable in traffic. A 2014 study conducted in California supports this assertion by demonstrating that motorcyclists engaging in responsible lane splitting were less likely to be rear ended, suffer a head injury or be involved in a fatal crash.
Other potential benefits include an increase in conspicuity because the motorcyclist is moving relative to other traffic; a reduction in motorcyclist fatigue from constant shifting and braking in stop-and-go traffic; a lessening of the risk for engine damage for air-cooled engines; a reduction in motorcyclists' exposure to ambient heat in the summer and car exhaust year-round due to fewer hours spent in traffic. "
AMEN!!!
VIDEO - https://youtu.be/oqRcZR70Zhc
Lane splitting or better said lane sharing is crazy right? Not so fast. Watch the video, filmed during actual lane splitting in California with Nutnfancy, as we discuss the scientific and now proven facts of the practice. Amazingly it is safer for a motorcyclist when in heavy traffic. Like all "dangerous things" it is done safely by millions of people everyday, reducing pollution, traffic delays, drive times, and congestion. Discussed in the video is the amazing parallel between gun ownership/use and lane sharing. If you are against lane sharing, for the fear of abuse [seen or imagined] by the “fools” of society, then you should be probably against gun ownership as well to maintain integrity. Watch my 2009 video “Dangerous Things” for this foundational philosophy in TNP. This is consistent with that. Statisically proven in 2013, lane sharing reduces injuries and fatalities of motorcyclists when done responsibly. It should be passed in all 50 states./////////////////Nutnfancy Likability Scale: 11 out of 10
From American Motorcycle Assoc: "Perhaps one of the most dangerous situations for any motorcyclist is being caught in congested traffic, where stop-and-go vehicles, distracted and inattentive vehicle operators, and environmental conditions increase the risk of physical contact with another vehicle or hazard.
Reducing a motorcyclist's exposure to vehicles that are frequently accelerating and decelerating on congested roadways can be one way to reduce front- and rear-end collisions for those most vulnerable in traffic. A 2014 study conducted in California supports this assertion by demonstrating that motorcyclists engaging in responsible lane splitting were less likely to be rear ended, suffer a head injury or be involved in a fatal crash.
Other potential benefits include an increase in conspicuity because the motorcyclist is moving relative to other traffic; a reduction in motorcyclist fatigue from constant shifting and braking in stop-and-go traffic; a lessening of the risk for engine damage for air-cooled engines; a reduction in motorcyclists' exposure to ambient heat in the summer and car exhaust year-round due to fewer hours spent in traffic. "
AMEN!!!
10 Motorcycling Strategies to Keep You Alive
OFF THE WIRE
Always think safety when riding motorcycles.
Subscribe to TNP for more videos like this
Nutnfancy: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
TheNutnfancyProject: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
Freedom lifestyle apparel and other cool TNP stuff at: www.nutnfancy.bigcartel.com
Drawing upon decades of experience riding all types of motorcycles, Nutnfancy lays out some proven safety tips for motorcycling. Group rides, keeping ego in check, practice/practice/practice, how you can minimize risk by "driving like a car," target fixation, multi-tasking, traffic anticipation, surface evaluation, knowing your machine and own limits, making your mistakes CHEAP, safety gear, safety courses, and more are covered. If you're a dirt, dual sport, street, cruiser, or adventure motorcycle rider, you'll find a lot of truth in this touchstone motorcycle safety video.
https://youtu.be/fKZ8KT9As8U
Always think safety when riding motorcycles.
Subscribe to TNP for more videos like this
Nutnfancy: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
TheNutnfancyProject: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
Freedom lifestyle apparel and other cool TNP stuff at: www.nutnfancy.bigcartel.com
Drawing upon decades of experience riding all types of motorcycles, Nutnfancy lays out some proven safety tips for motorcycling. Group rides, keeping ego in check, practice/practice/practice, how you can minimize risk by "driving like a car," target fixation, multi-tasking, traffic anticipation, surface evaluation, knowing your machine and own limits, making your mistakes CHEAP, safety gear, safety courses, and more are covered. If you're a dirt, dual sport, street, cruiser, or adventure motorcycle rider, you'll find a lot of truth in this touchstone motorcycle safety video.
https://youtu.be/fKZ8KT9As8U
California Lawmakers Send Governor Bill to Curb Controversial Practice that Lets Police Take and Keep Innocent People’s Property
OFF THE WIRE
If signed, SB 443 would establish some of the strongest property protections in the country.
For Immediate Release :
August 24, 2016
Media Contact: (415) 621-2493 (press@aclunc.org)
police with cash / shutterstock
Sacramento - A state bill to reform civil asset forfeiture, a practice that has come under fire nationwide following widespread claims of abuse, received strong, bipartisan approval from the California Senate today. Senate Bill 443 will now head to Governor Jerry Brown for his signature.
>> Take action: Ask Gov. Brown to sign SB 443
SB 443, co-authored by Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblymember David Hadley (R-Torrance), would prohibit California law enforcement agencies from permanently taking and keeping someone’s money or property in a majority of cases where there is no criminal conviction.
“Current asset forfeiture practices have wreaked havoc on innocent people throughout the country, especially people of color, immigrants, and those who can’t afford to fight the government in court,” said Mica Doctoroff, Legislative Advocate with the ACLU of California. “SB 443 will not only safeguard Californians’ property and constitutional rights, but also offer a blueprint for workable solutions to other states seeking reforms.”
Created at the height of the war on drugs, state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws gave law enforcement agencies the power to take and keep money or property from someone without first convicting the person of a crime. Approximately 15 years ago, California established greater protections for its residents to prevent abuse. Unfortunately, state and local law enforcement agencies found a lucrative loophole in federal law, which does not require a criminal conviction.
“Today’s concurrence vote is another example of how broad support is for civil asset forfeiture reform, with overwhelming majorities in both houses and public opinion over 75%,” said Lynne Lyman, State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “I hope Governor Brown will reflect the will of the people by signing SB 443.”
Over the last ten years, the number of cases in which California law enforcement agencies circumvented state law in favor of federal law tripled, while state cases remained flat. Federal law allows state and local law enforcement to keep a greater portion of money or property that is taken: 80 percent, instead of the 65 percent permissible under state law. In addition, federal law does not provide the same protections to guiltless spouses and family members as does California law, leaving countless Californians vulnerable to abuse.
In one instance, a San Diego woman was driving down the I-5 when she was pulled over for what officers from a Los Angeles law enforcement agency said was a routine traffic stop. She had done nothing wrong but the officers took $18,000 in cash from her. Although she had the paperwork to prove the money was to pay employees of her janitorial company, she was forced to hire a private attorney to get it back.
"The passage of SB 443 is a step towards rebuilding trust between law enforcement and communities of color. We applaud the Legislature for passing SB 443. Now it is Governor Brown’s turn to sign this proposal into law." Joseph Villela, Director of Policy at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA).
Under SB 443
Federal Cases: State and local law enforcement may only receive a share of forfeited property if there is an underlying conviction, or if the forfeited property is $40,000 or more in cash. Cash under $40,000 will require a conviction, as will vehicles, boats, homes, and other types of personal property regardless of their value;
State Cases: Cash under $40,000 may be forfeited if there is an underlying conviction, increasing the cash threshold from the current $25,000. Boats, vehicles, and homes will still require a conviction regardless of value.
SB 443 is co-sponsored by the ACLU of California, CHIRLA-Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and the Institute for Justice.
Although law enforcement groups opposed earlier versions of the bill, most have withdrawn their opposition.
If signed, SB 443 would establish some of the strongest property protections in the country.
For Immediate Release :
August 24, 2016
Media Contact: (415) 621-2493 (press@aclunc.org)
police with cash / shutterstock
Sacramento - A state bill to reform civil asset forfeiture, a practice that has come under fire nationwide following widespread claims of abuse, received strong, bipartisan approval from the California Senate today. Senate Bill 443 will now head to Governor Jerry Brown for his signature.
>> Take action: Ask Gov. Brown to sign SB 443
SB 443, co-authored by Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblymember David Hadley (R-Torrance), would prohibit California law enforcement agencies from permanently taking and keeping someone’s money or property in a majority of cases where there is no criminal conviction.
“Current asset forfeiture practices have wreaked havoc on innocent people throughout the country, especially people of color, immigrants, and those who can’t afford to fight the government in court,” said Mica Doctoroff, Legislative Advocate with the ACLU of California. “SB 443 will not only safeguard Californians’ property and constitutional rights, but also offer a blueprint for workable solutions to other states seeking reforms.”
Created at the height of the war on drugs, state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws gave law enforcement agencies the power to take and keep money or property from someone without first convicting the person of a crime. Approximately 15 years ago, California established greater protections for its residents to prevent abuse. Unfortunately, state and local law enforcement agencies found a lucrative loophole in federal law, which does not require a criminal conviction.
“Today’s concurrence vote is another example of how broad support is for civil asset forfeiture reform, with overwhelming majorities in both houses and public opinion over 75%,” said Lynne Lyman, State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “I hope Governor Brown will reflect the will of the people by signing SB 443.”
Over the last ten years, the number of cases in which California law enforcement agencies circumvented state law in favor of federal law tripled, while state cases remained flat. Federal law allows state and local law enforcement to keep a greater portion of money or property that is taken: 80 percent, instead of the 65 percent permissible under state law. In addition, federal law does not provide the same protections to guiltless spouses and family members as does California law, leaving countless Californians vulnerable to abuse.
In one instance, a San Diego woman was driving down the I-5 when she was pulled over for what officers from a Los Angeles law enforcement agency said was a routine traffic stop. She had done nothing wrong but the officers took $18,000 in cash from her. Although she had the paperwork to prove the money was to pay employees of her janitorial company, she was forced to hire a private attorney to get it back.
"The passage of SB 443 is a step towards rebuilding trust between law enforcement and communities of color. We applaud the Legislature for passing SB 443. Now it is Governor Brown’s turn to sign this proposal into law." Joseph Villela, Director of Policy at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA).
Under SB 443
Federal Cases: State and local law enforcement may only receive a share of forfeited property if there is an underlying conviction, or if the forfeited property is $40,000 or more in cash. Cash under $40,000 will require a conviction, as will vehicles, boats, homes, and other types of personal property regardless of their value;
State Cases: Cash under $40,000 may be forfeited if there is an underlying conviction, increasing the cash threshold from the current $25,000. Boats, vehicles, and homes will still require a conviction regardless of value.
SB 443 is co-sponsored by the ACLU of California, CHIRLA-Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and the Institute for Justice.
Although law enforcement groups opposed earlier versions of the bill, most have withdrawn their opposition.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Report: Police Use Loophole to Profit from Innocent, Vulnerable Californians
OFF THE WIRE
Policy brief exposes alarming cases of civil asset forfeiture abuse.
Media Contact: (415) 621-2493 (press@aclunc.org)
asset forfeiture report cover
Sacramento - Today the American Civil Liberties Union of California released a policy brief, Civil Asset Forfeiture: Profiting from California’s Most Vulnerable, examining civil asset forfeiture abuse by California law enforcement agencies, a practice that greatly impacts communities of color and low-income Californians.
Under federal asset forfeiture laws, the government can legally and permanently forfeit a person’s property and money without charging the person with a crime, or seeking a conviction. California laws offer stronger protections, but state and local law enforcement agencies can circumvent them and operate under federal law by using the federal government’s “equitable sharing” program. Under this program, California police can take and keep 80 percent of the profits from seizures, thus providing agencies with a financial incentive to use federal law instead of state law. The ACLU brief reveals that California’s most vulnerable, largely people who do not have the means to fight the government in court or who are susceptible to law enforcement intimidation tactics, are falling prey.
“Civil asset forfeiture has allowed for rampant abuse, exploitation, and marginalization of low-income communities and people of color,” said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, criminal justice and drug policy director with the ACLU of California. “California police are padding their budgets with innocent Californians’ hard-earned money and property.”
Among the report findings:
The vast majority (85%) of the proceeds of federal asset forfeiture in California goes to agencies that police communities that are majority people of color;
Half of DEA seizures from California involved people with Latino surnames;
Counties with higher per capita seizure rates have an annual household income below the state median; and
The number of California law enforcement agencies taking advantage of federal civil asset forfeiture laws has increased from 200 to 232 in just the last two years.
The findings underscore an urgent need for reform. Fortunately, the California Legislature has the ability to close the door on civil asset forfeiture abuse by passing Senate Bill 443, introduced last year by Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) and co-authored by Assemblymember David Hadley (R-Manhattan Beach). SB 443 would prevent California police from forfeiting a person’s money or property if the person has not been convicted of a crime. The bill is currently pending on the Assembly floor and will likely be brought up for a vote later this month.
SB 443 is co-sponsored by the ACLU of California, CHIRLA-Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and the Institute for Justice.
Policy brief exposes alarming cases of civil asset forfeiture abuse.
Media Contact: (415) 621-2493 (press@aclunc.org)
asset forfeiture report cover
Sacramento - Today the American Civil Liberties Union of California released a policy brief, Civil Asset Forfeiture: Profiting from California’s Most Vulnerable, examining civil asset forfeiture abuse by California law enforcement agencies, a practice that greatly impacts communities of color and low-income Californians.
Under federal asset forfeiture laws, the government can legally and permanently forfeit a person’s property and money without charging the person with a crime, or seeking a conviction. California laws offer stronger protections, but state and local law enforcement agencies can circumvent them and operate under federal law by using the federal government’s “equitable sharing” program. Under this program, California police can take and keep 80 percent of the profits from seizures, thus providing agencies with a financial incentive to use federal law instead of state law. The ACLU brief reveals that California’s most vulnerable, largely people who do not have the means to fight the government in court or who are susceptible to law enforcement intimidation tactics, are falling prey.
“Civil asset forfeiture has allowed for rampant abuse, exploitation, and marginalization of low-income communities and people of color,” said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, criminal justice and drug policy director with the ACLU of California. “California police are padding their budgets with innocent Californians’ hard-earned money and property.”
Among the report findings:
The vast majority (85%) of the proceeds of federal asset forfeiture in California goes to agencies that police communities that are majority people of color;
Half of DEA seizures from California involved people with Latino surnames;
Counties with higher per capita seizure rates have an annual household income below the state median; and
The number of California law enforcement agencies taking advantage of federal civil asset forfeiture laws has increased from 200 to 232 in just the last two years.
The findings underscore an urgent need for reform. Fortunately, the California Legislature has the ability to close the door on civil asset forfeiture abuse by passing Senate Bill 443, introduced last year by Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) and co-authored by Assemblymember David Hadley (R-Manhattan Beach). SB 443 would prevent California police from forfeiting a person’s money or property if the person has not been convicted of a crime. The bill is currently pending on the Assembly floor and will likely be brought up for a vote later this month.
SB 443 is co-sponsored by the ACLU of California, CHIRLA-Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and the Institute for Justice.
CA - Another important piece of California legislation is AB 2298 – Cal/Gang Database Reform (awaiting Gov signature)
OFF THE WIRE
Another important piece of California legislation is AB 2298 – Cal/Gang Database Reform (awaiting Gov signature)
An independent audit of CalGang was released last month showing that it violates people’s rights, operates with no oversight, is chock full of unsubstantiated information and data that should have been purged, and has diminished value in protecting public safety.
This bill would write into law all new transparency and accountability measures for the controversial CalGang database and at least 11 other gang databases managed by local law enforcement agencies in California.
Another important piece of California legislation is AB 2298 – Cal/Gang Database Reform (awaiting Gov signature)
An independent audit of CalGang was released last month showing that it violates people’s rights, operates with no oversight, is chock full of unsubstantiated information and data that should have been purged, and has diminished value in protecting public safety.
This bill would write into law all new transparency and accountability measures for the controversial CalGang database and at least 11 other gang databases managed by local law enforcement agencies in California.
For example:
Law enforcement would be required to notify you if they intend to add you to the database.
You would have the opportunity to challenge your inclusion in a gang database.
Law enforcement agencies would have to produce transparency reports for anyone to look at with statistics on CalGang additions, removals, and demographics.
- This bill is awaiting signature by governor Brown. He has until 10/7 to veto or sign it. If does neither by then, it will go into law 1/1/17 by default.
State Audit Affirms ACLU of California Concerns on Gang Database
For Immediate Release :
August 11, 2016
Media Contact: (415) 621-2493 (press@aclunc.org)
fingerprints / shutterstock
Los Angeles - A state audit finding that the CalGang database is plagued by inaccuracies and weak oversight provides further evidence of the long-held position of the ACLU of California that the controversial intelligence-gathering system violates individuals’ rights to privacy and fair treatment.
The report, released today by the California State Auditor, found a wide range of flaws in the CalGang system, which is used by more than 6,000 law enforcement officers in 58 counties.
Among them:
A weak leadership structure and lack of clear standards or criteria, resulting in a failure to ensure that information entered into the database on alleged gang members and gang-related activity is accurate;
Failure to substantiate the validity of CalGang entries, leading to unjustified accusations that can impact employment opportunities and otherwise violate privacy rights;
Failure to ensure that CalGang records are added, removed, and shared in ways that maintain accuracy and safeguard individuals’ rights;
Failure to properly notify juveniles that they had been added to the database, effectively taking away the right of juveniles and their parents to contest the gang designations. Los Angeles and Santa Ana, for example, “failed to provide proper notification for more than 70 percent of the 129 juvenile records we reviewed”; and
Failure to adhere to federal regulations for protecting criminal intelligence information.
The report cites several instances of egregious violations of due process and privacy rights. “For example,” the audit reveals, “we found 42 individuals in CalGang who were supposedly younger than one year of age at the time of entry—28 of whom were entered for ‘admitting to being gang members.’”
“Today’s state audit confirms what communities have known for years—that CalGang is an ineffective tool full of inaccuracies that results in violations of people’s rights,” said Peter Bibring, director of police practices of the ACLU of California. “The poor oversight, errors and inconsistent standards have a real impact on people’s lives when law enforcement relies on such a flawed system for judgments about prosecutions, employment and even deportation.”
The audit reemphasizes the need for comprehensive legislative reform of gang-related databases and enforcement. “Mislabeling people as gang members not only amounts to profiling, but also functions as a form of stigma that imposes severe livelihood consequences, such as being unable to obtain employment or immigration relief,” said Chauncee Smith, legislative advocate at the ACLU of California Center for Advocacy & Policy. “This harm all too often disproportionately impacts poor people of color.”
Several remedies are laid out in AB 2298, introduced by Assembly Member Shirley N. Weber (D-San Diego). It would, among other things, extend to adults the current requirement that juveniles under 18 receive notice as well as an opportunity to contest inclusion in the CalGang database, and require that data on the numbers and demographics of people included in gang databases be annually reported. AB 2298 is sponsored by the Youth Justice Coalition, Urban Peace Institute, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, PolicyLink and the National Immigration Law Center, and supported by the ACLU of California.
As the audit makes clear, AB 2298, while critical to addressing the serious privacy and fairness concerns connected with the CalGang database, is only the beginning of what must be a complete overhaul of the CalGang system if we are to ensure Californians’ rights are protected. The ACLU of California urges the governor and the state legislature to take this audit seriously, adopt and fully implement AB 2298, and take steps to address the oversight, transparency and other concerns identified by the state auditor.
Law enforcement would be required to notify you if they intend to add you to the database.
You would have the opportunity to challenge your inclusion in a gang database.
Law enforcement agencies would have to produce transparency reports for anyone to look at with statistics on CalGang additions, removals, and demographics.
- This bill is awaiting signature by governor Brown. He has until 10/7 to veto or sign it. If does neither by then, it will go into law 1/1/17 by default.
State Audit Affirms ACLU of California Concerns on Gang Database
For Immediate Release :
August 11, 2016
Media Contact: (415) 621-2493 (press@aclunc.org)
fingerprints / shutterstock
Los Angeles - A state audit finding that the CalGang database is plagued by inaccuracies and weak oversight provides further evidence of the long-held position of the ACLU of California that the controversial intelligence-gathering system violates individuals’ rights to privacy and fair treatment.
The report, released today by the California State Auditor, found a wide range of flaws in the CalGang system, which is used by more than 6,000 law enforcement officers in 58 counties.
Among them:
A weak leadership structure and lack of clear standards or criteria, resulting in a failure to ensure that information entered into the database on alleged gang members and gang-related activity is accurate;
Failure to substantiate the validity of CalGang entries, leading to unjustified accusations that can impact employment opportunities and otherwise violate privacy rights;
Failure to ensure that CalGang records are added, removed, and shared in ways that maintain accuracy and safeguard individuals’ rights;
Failure to properly notify juveniles that they had been added to the database, effectively taking away the right of juveniles and their parents to contest the gang designations. Los Angeles and Santa Ana, for example, “failed to provide proper notification for more than 70 percent of the 129 juvenile records we reviewed”; and
Failure to adhere to federal regulations for protecting criminal intelligence information.
The report cites several instances of egregious violations of due process and privacy rights. “For example,” the audit reveals, “we found 42 individuals in CalGang who were supposedly younger than one year of age at the time of entry—28 of whom were entered for ‘admitting to being gang members.’”
“Today’s state audit confirms what communities have known for years—that CalGang is an ineffective tool full of inaccuracies that results in violations of people’s rights,” said Peter Bibring, director of police practices of the ACLU of California. “The poor oversight, errors and inconsistent standards have a real impact on people’s lives when law enforcement relies on such a flawed system for judgments about prosecutions, employment and even deportation.”
The audit reemphasizes the need for comprehensive legislative reform of gang-related databases and enforcement. “Mislabeling people as gang members not only amounts to profiling, but also functions as a form of stigma that imposes severe livelihood consequences, such as being unable to obtain employment or immigration relief,” said Chauncee Smith, legislative advocate at the ACLU of California Center for Advocacy & Policy. “This harm all too often disproportionately impacts poor people of color.”
Several remedies are laid out in AB 2298, introduced by Assembly Member Shirley N. Weber (D-San Diego). It would, among other things, extend to adults the current requirement that juveniles under 18 receive notice as well as an opportunity to contest inclusion in the CalGang database, and require that data on the numbers and demographics of people included in gang databases be annually reported. AB 2298 is sponsored by the Youth Justice Coalition, Urban Peace Institute, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, PolicyLink and the National Immigration Law Center, and supported by the ACLU of California.
As the audit makes clear, AB 2298, while critical to addressing the serious privacy and fairness concerns connected with the CalGang database, is only the beginning of what must be a complete overhaul of the CalGang system if we are to ensure Californians’ rights are protected. The ACLU of California urges the governor and the state legislature to take this audit seriously, adopt and fully implement AB 2298, and take steps to address the oversight, transparency and other concerns identified by the state auditor.
USA - Millions Impacted by Motorcycle Profiling
OFF THE WIRE
Millions Impacted by Motorcycle Profiling
Many motorcyclists would say profiling is an issue. Most club members would say profiling is an epidemic. Despite this belief, until now there has never been any reliable data to substantiate this reality. The ongoing National Motorcycle Profiling Survey 2016 (NMPS) is beginning to show definitive trends as participation continues to accelerate. Thousands of individuals have taken the survey nationwide and the reality of motorcycle profiling is evident. The NMPS is undeniable proof that legislative relief is needed at both the state and federal level addressing the issue of motorcycle profiling and discrimination.
The NMPS Is Statistically Representative of The Entire Motorcycling Population
The NMPS has reached a participation level of nearly 5,000 randomly selected individuals. According to Creative Research Systems, 5,000 participants results in a mere 1.4% margin of error. The means the NMPS results are over 98% reliable in terms of representing the general motorcycling population.
(Creative Research Systems calculates the sample size required for a desired confidence interval, or the confidence interval for a given survey sample size: Creative Research Systems, 2003. “Sample Size Calculator.”)
Over 5 Million Motorcyclists Have Been Profiled
According to the NMPS, 50.86% of motorcyclists say they have been unjustifiably stopped by police at least once while riding their motorcycles. 37% say they have been unjustifiably stopped more than once. Using the American Motorcycle Association’s estimate of 10,000,000 motorcyclists in America, over 5 million motorcyclists say they have been the victim of profiling at least once in the past. 3.7 million motorcyclists say they have been profiled more than once.
Over 5 Million People Profiled At Public Motorcycle Rally’s.
The NMPS says 46.71% of motorcyclists (4.6 million) have witnessed police actively gathering intelligence on motorcyclists and rally participants. 9.97% of motorcyclists (987,000) have been harassed or denied entrance to public events. The numbers mean motorcyclists have witnessed mass surveillance at public events and 987,000 motorcyclists have been harassed or denied entrance altogether.
Profiling is a Motorcycling Issue- It’s Not Just 1%’ers Being Profiled
Only 7% of respondents are members of 1% motorcycle clubs. In fact, 43% of survey respondents have no club affiliations of any type. Yet over 50% say they have experienced profiling. This means that members of veterans clubs, Christian clubs, and even independents have been victims of unjustified stops. The perception held by some that anti-profiling measures are primarily an issue impacting outlaw motorcycle clubs is simply not validated by the data.
86% of Survey Participants Are Registered Voters
86% is a very high concentration of registered voters in such a large sample size. Victims of motorcycle profiling are extremely active in electoral politics. Legislators ought to be motivated by their voting constituents confirmation that motorcycle profiling is a widespread epidemic in America.
Millions Impacted by Motorcycle Profiling
Millions Impacted by Motorcycle Profiling
Many motorcyclists would say profiling is an issue. Most club members would say profiling is an epidemic. Despite this belief, until now there has never been any reliable data to substantiate this reality. The ongoing National Motorcycle Profiling Survey 2016 (NMPS) is beginning to show definitive trends as participation continues to accelerate. Thousands of individuals have taken the survey nationwide and the reality of motorcycle profiling is evident. The NMPS is undeniable proof that legislative relief is needed at both the state and federal level addressing the issue of motorcycle profiling and discrimination.
The NMPS Is Statistically Representative of The Entire Motorcycling Population
The NMPS has reached a participation level of nearly 5,000 randomly selected individuals. According to Creative Research Systems, 5,000 participants results in a mere 1.4% margin of error. The means the NMPS results are over 98% reliable in terms of representing the general motorcycling population.
(Creative Research Systems calculates the sample size required for a desired confidence interval, or the confidence interval for a given survey sample size: Creative Research Systems, 2003. “Sample Size Calculator.”)
Over 5 Million Motorcyclists Have Been Profiled
According to the NMPS, 50.86% of motorcyclists say they have been unjustifiably stopped by police at least once while riding their motorcycles. 37% say they have been unjustifiably stopped more than once. Using the American Motorcycle Association’s estimate of 10,000,000 motorcyclists in America, over 5 million motorcyclists say they have been the victim of profiling at least once in the past. 3.7 million motorcyclists say they have been profiled more than once.
Over 5 Million People Profiled At Public Motorcycle Rally’s.
The NMPS says 46.71% of motorcyclists (4.6 million) have witnessed police actively gathering intelligence on motorcyclists and rally participants. 9.97% of motorcyclists (987,000) have been harassed or denied entrance to public events. The numbers mean motorcyclists have witnessed mass surveillance at public events and 987,000 motorcyclists have been harassed or denied entrance altogether.
Profiling is a Motorcycling Issue- It’s Not Just 1%’ers Being Profiled
Only 7% of respondents are members of 1% motorcycle clubs. In fact, 43% of survey respondents have no club affiliations of any type. Yet over 50% say they have experienced profiling. This means that members of veterans clubs, Christian clubs, and even independents have been victims of unjustified stops. The perception held by some that anti-profiling measures are primarily an issue impacting outlaw motorcycle clubs is simply not validated by the data.
86% of Survey Participants Are Registered Voters
86% is a very high concentration of registered voters in such a large sample size. Victims of motorcycle profiling are extremely active in electoral politics. Legislators ought to be motivated by their voting constituents confirmation that motorcycle profiling is a widespread epidemic in America.
Millions Impacted by Motorcycle Profiling
Many motorcyclists would say profiling is an issue. Most club members would say profiling is an epidemic. Despite this belief, until now there has never been any reliable data to substantiate this reality. The ongoing National Motorcycle Profiling Survey 2016 (NMPS) is beginning to show definitive trends as participation continues to accelerate. Thousands of individuals have taken the survey nationwide and the reality of motorcycle profiling is evident. The NMPS is undeniable proof that legislative relief is needed at both the state and federal level addressing the issue of motorcycle profiling and discrimination.
The NMPS Is Statistically Representative of The Entire Motorcycling Population
The NMPS has reached a participation level of nearly 5,000 randomly selected individuals. According to Creative Research Systems, 5,000 participants results in a mere 1.4% margin of error. The means the NMPS results are over 98% reliable in terms of representing the general motorcycling population.
(Creative Research Systems calculates the sample size required for a desired confidence interval, or the confidence interval for a given survey sample size: Creative Research Systems, 2003. “Sample Size Calculator.”)
Over 5 Million Motorcyclists Have Been Profiled
According to the NMPS, 50.86% of motorcyclists say they have been unjustifiably stopped by police at least once while riding their motorcycles. 37% say they have been unjustifiably stopped more than once. Using the American Motorcycle Association’s estimate of 10,000,000 motorcyclists in America, over 5 million motorcyclists say they have been the victim of profiling at least once in the past. 3.7 million motorcyclists say they have been profiled more than once.
survey_motorcycle_profiling_august_pic1
Over 5 Million People Profiled At Public Motorcycle Rally’s.
The NMPS says 46.71% of motorcyclists (4.6 million) have witnessed police actively gathering intelligence on motorcyclists and rally participants. 9.97% of motorcyclists (987,000) have been harassed or denied entrance to public events. The numbers mean motorcyclists have witnessed mass surveillance at public events and 987,000 motorcyclists have been harassed or denied entrance altogether.
survey_motorcycle_profiling_august_pic2
Profiling is a Motorcycling Issue- It’s Not Just 1%’ers Being Profiled
Only 7% of respondents are members of 1% motorcycle clubs. In fact, 43% of survey respondents have no club affiliations of any type. Yet over 50% say they have experienced profiling. This means that members of veterans clubs, Christian clubs, and even independents have been victims of unjustified stops. The perception held by some that anti-profiling measures are primarily an issue impacting outlaw motorcycle clubs is simply not validated by the data.
86% of Survey Participants Are Registered Voters
86% is a very high concentration of registered voters in such a large sample size. Victims of motorcycle profiling are extremely active in electoral politics. Legislators ought to be motivated by their voting constituents confirmation that motorcycle profiling is a widespread epidemic in America.
Survey results showing 85.81% of participants are registered voters
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Another important piece of California legislation is AB 2298 – Cal/Gang Database Reform (awaiting Gov signature)
OFF THE WIRE
Another important piece of California legislation is AB 2298 – Cal/Gang Database Reform (awaiting Gov signature)
An independent audit of CalGang was released last month showing that it violates people’s rights, operates with no oversight, is chock full of unsubstantiated information and data that should have been purged, and has diminished value in protecting public safety.
This bill would write into law all new transparency and accountability measures for the controversial CalGang database and at least 11 other gang databases managed by local law enforcement agencies in California.
For example:
Law enforcement would be required to notify you if they intend to add you to the database.
You would have the opportunity to challenge your inclusion in a gang database.
Law enforcement agencies would have to produce transparency reports for anyone to look at with statistics on CalGang additions, removals, and demographics.
- This bill is awaiting signature by governor Brown. He has until 10/7 to veto or sign it. If does neither by then, it will go into law 1/1/17 by default.
https://www.aclunc.org/…/state-audit-affirms-aclu-californi…
Another important piece of California legislation is AB 2298 – Cal/Gang Database Reform (awaiting Gov signature)
An independent audit of CalGang was released last month showing that it violates people’s rights, operates with no oversight, is chock full of unsubstantiated information and data that should have been purged, and has diminished value in protecting public safety.
This bill would write into law all new transparency and accountability measures for the controversial CalGang database and at least 11 other gang databases managed by local law enforcement agencies in California.
For example:
Law enforcement would be required to notify you if they intend to add you to the database.
You would have the opportunity to challenge your inclusion in a gang database.
Law enforcement agencies would have to produce transparency reports for anyone to look at with statistics on CalGang additions, removals, and demographics.
- This bill is awaiting signature by governor Brown. He has until 10/7 to veto or sign it. If does neither by then, it will go into law 1/1/17 by default.
https://www.aclunc.org/…/state-audit-affirms-aclu-californi…
DOJ to require tracking of fatal police encounters under new system
OFF THE WIRE
Police agencies will be asked to submit one report this year and quarterly reports beginning next year.
By PoliceOne Staff
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department announced this week that it is rolling out a new program that requires law enforcement agencies and medical examiner’s offices to fill out forms tracking “arrest-related deaths” of civilians during police-citizen encounters.
According to the Guardian, the proposed system, which would cover 19,450 state and local law enforcement agencies and about 685 medical examiner’s or coroner’s offices, will require them to submit one report this year and quarterly reports beginning next year.
Related Article
DOJ report: Baltimore police show bias, overuse force
According to the New York Times, the existing system, the Arrest-Related Deaths Program, is intended to be a census of different causes of death, including suicides, accidents, and deaths from natural causes. But critics believe that it does not provide accurate data about fatal police encounters because it relies on self-reporting by agencies.
“Because of concerns about variations in data collection methodology and coverage,” the Justice Department notice said, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has “developed and tested new methodologies for collecting data” aimed at enabling “accurate and comprehensive accounting of deaths that occur during the process of arrest,” the New York Times reports.
The notice did not make clear whether killings by federal law enforcement agents would be included in the new system.
Police agencies will be asked to submit one report this year and quarterly reports beginning next year.
By PoliceOne Staff
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department announced this week that it is rolling out a new program that requires law enforcement agencies and medical examiner’s offices to fill out forms tracking “arrest-related deaths” of civilians during police-citizen encounters.
According to the Guardian, the proposed system, which would cover 19,450 state and local law enforcement agencies and about 685 medical examiner’s or coroner’s offices, will require them to submit one report this year and quarterly reports beginning next year.
Related Article
DOJ report: Baltimore police show bias, overuse force
According to the New York Times, the existing system, the Arrest-Related Deaths Program, is intended to be a census of different causes of death, including suicides, accidents, and deaths from natural causes. But critics believe that it does not provide accurate data about fatal police encounters because it relies on self-reporting by agencies.
“Because of concerns about variations in data collection methodology and coverage,” the Justice Department notice said, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has “developed and tested new methodologies for collecting data” aimed at enabling “accurate and comprehensive accounting of deaths that occur during the process of arrest,” the New York Times reports.
The notice did not make clear whether killings by federal law enforcement agents would be included in the new system.
Southern Calif. police agencies missing 329 weapons
OFF THE WIRE
The cops are probably have them as trow down weapons.
Some of the guns were involved in crimes.
Associated Press
SANTA ANA, Calif. — Southern California police agencies have had more than 300 weapons lost or stolen over the past five years.
The Orange County Register reports Sunday that an investigation of 134 state and local police agencies from Kern County to the Mexican border showed 329 firearms were lost or stolen and some were involved in crimes.
The newspaper says the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department reported that at least 103 of the agency's 20,000 guns were lost or stolen over the past five years.
In Hermosa Beach, the police department conducts an annual internal audit of its weapons, and hasn't lost any.
But many agencies don't track their guns.
California law doesn't require officers to report lost or stolen weapons, but departments voluntarily report missing guns to a state database.
Copyright 2016 The Associated Press
The cops are probably have them as trow down weapons.
Some of the guns were involved in crimes.
Associated Press
SANTA ANA, Calif. — Southern California police agencies have had more than 300 weapons lost or stolen over the past five years.
The Orange County Register reports Sunday that an investigation of 134 state and local police agencies from Kern County to the Mexican border showed 329 firearms were lost or stolen and some were involved in crimes.
The newspaper says the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department reported that at least 103 of the agency's 20,000 guns were lost or stolen over the past five years.
In Hermosa Beach, the police department conducts an annual internal audit of its weapons, and hasn't lost any.
But many agencies don't track their guns.
California law doesn't require officers to report lost or stolen weapons, but departments voluntarily report missing guns to a state database.
Copyright 2016 The Associated Press
Monday, September 26, 2016
Guns, Weed, Bikers And Judges
OFF THE WIRE
agingrebel
Let’s start with guns.
The Second Amendment – the amendment immediately after the amendment that makes it legal for you to read these words – simply says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
For 152 years the point of the Second Amendment was understood to mean that power should legally reside with the people and, as Chairman Mao wrote in 1938, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” In the United States the Second Amendment was understood to mean that individuals enjoy the right to be armed – with guns, switchblade knives, brass knuckles, cutlasses and so on – in order to defend themselves and their neighbors and as a last resort against tyranny. As recently as 1933, individuals could buy a Thompson sub-machine gun in a drug store. In 1934, Congress sought to discourage those sales with a tax authorized by the National Firearms Act.
In 1939, the Supreme Court disagreed with the traditional reading of the Second Amendment and ruled that the right to be armed was a “collective right.” What the collective right interpretation meant was that as long as the police are armed you do not need to be.
In 2008, by the narrowest of margins, the Supremes ruled that: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” So the right to bear arms became a limited individual right.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” the learned jurists opined. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Citing the 1939 decision of their forebears, five of nine justices decided it was lawful for the police unions lobby to bribe politicians to enact a law that “limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those…in common use for lawful purposes.” So switchblades and sawed off shotguns were out but nobody could take away your right to own a little .38 or a bolt action 30.06.
Whether individuals should enjoy the right to be armed is a matter of continuing debate that falls along ideological lines.
Weed
Virginia colonists began growing hemp, by order of King James I, in 1619. George Washington grew hemp. The medicinal use of cannabis began no later than 1839. In 1854 the New York Times called cannabis “a fashionable narcotic.” By the 1880s there were numerous hashish parlors as well as opium dens in most American cities.
In general, the temperance movement frowned on all forms of intoxication and states began to regulate the sale of cannabis in about 1905. The regulation was not so much intended to specifically regulate cannabis use as much as to regulate medicines. If a tonic had marijuana in it, that ingredient had to be listed on the label. In 1914, New York passed a law that said cannabis could only be sold by prescription.
During the depression, small farmers began to complain that they were being driven out of business by large farms that employed Mexican field hands who smoked marijuana. Marijuana use was generally seen as un-patriotic and in 1937 the United States outlawed marijuana because Harry J. Anslinger, who was America’s first drug czar, argued, it was a “killer drug” that made its users violent, irrational and promiscuous – like the Mexicans.
Marijuana became legal again, with a prescription or a doctor’s recommendation, in California in 1996. It is probably reasonable to say that most, but hardly all, people who have a doctor’s recommendation for marijuana use the drug as a recreational intoxicant at least sometimes.
Currently 21 states and the District of Columbia have legalized “medical marijuana.” Four states, all in the West – Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Colorado – have legalized marijuana for use as a recreational intoxicant. All of those states and all of those users defy federal law. Under federal law, marijuana remains a so-called “Schedule 1 substance” without any legal medical use.
Under federal law, possession of marijuana, hashish or hashish oil is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine the first time they catch you. The penalties double if they have caught you with killer weed before.
Bikers
Selective enforcement of the federal prohibition on marijuana possession and use has become a law enforcement tool in the war on motorcycle clubs.
For example, the racketeering indictment of 16 members of the Kingsmen Motorcycle Club this year is padded with marijuana charges. Seven of the 46 counts are federal marijuana offenses. Before the indictment was unsealed, a Kingsmen regional officer told The Aging Rebel, “We don’t condone drug use but we aren’t the party police.”
The Department of Justice thinks they should have been. Among the allegations in the indictment is “Kingsmen Motorcycle Club chapter clubhouses permitted illicit drug use and distribution, including cocaine, marijuana, and other controlled substances, between club members, associates, friends, and supporters of the Kingsmen Motorcycle Club.” The key word is “permitted.”
One Kingsmen, “did knowingly, intentionally and unlawfully possess with the intent to distribute, and distribute, a quantity of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance. All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(I)(D), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.”
A little more chilling is the grand jury charge that: “On or about August 26, 2015, in the Western District of New York, the defendant, Jack Wood, also known as Jake, also known as Snake, then being an unlawful user of a controlled substance as defined in Title 21, United States Code, Section 802, namely marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, unlawfully did knowingly possess…firearms.
The legal concept is fairly straightforward: If you smoke marijuana you forfeit your Second Amendment rights. You cannot legally possess a firearm. If you smoke marijuana and possess a firearm and you are a member of an indicted motorcycle club you may face 20 years in federal prison.
Judges
All of the above lends context to a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, The Ninth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Alaska, Oregon and Washington permit the recreational use of marijuana. Arizona, California, Hawaii, Montana and Nevada allow the use of medical marijuana. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over federal case in nine states. Eight of those states allow residents to ingest marijuana.
Last month the Ninth Circuit, in an appeal brought by a Nevada woman named S. Rowan Wilson against United States Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ruled that if you smoke marijuana, or even if you threaten to smoke marijuana, you cannot legally purchase a gun. The court also reaffirmed a 2011 Ninth Circuit ruling, United States v. Dugan, “which held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms.”
Nevada law requires medical marijuana users to register with the state. Rowan had argued that she registered with the state as a political statement in favor of cannabis legalization but that she never actually used the substance. The ATF, meanwhile, had told Nevada gun dealers not to sell guns to anyone whose name appeared in the registry. The letter read, in part: “Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”
When Rowan was denied the right to buy a gun for self-defense she sued. A lower court ruled against her and the Ninth agreed.
“As we recently observed” the learned justices began to quote themselves, “The Controlled Substances Act prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime.”
“Studies and surveys relied on in similar cases suggest a significant link between drug use, including marijuana use, and violence,” the court continued. “Moreover, legislative determinations also support the link between drug use and violence. In particular, Congress enacted” the law “which bars unlawful drug users from possessing firearms, ‘to keep firearms out of the hands of presumptively risky people.’ It is beyond dispute that illegal drug users, including marijuana users, are likely as a consequence of that use to experience altered or impaired mental states that affect their judgment and that can lead to irrational or unpredictable behavior. They are also more likely to have negative interactions with law enforcement officers because they engage in criminal activity. Finally, they frequently make their purchases through black market sources who themselves frequently resort to violence. It may be argued that medical marijuana users are less likely to commit violent crimes, as they often suffer from debilitating illnesses, for which marijuana may be an effective palliative. They also may be less likely than other illegal drug users to interact with law enforcement officers or make purchases through illicit channels. But those hypotheses are not sufficient to overcome Congress’s reasonable conclusion that the use of such drugs raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”
Heads up. Watch your six.
agingrebel
Let’s start with guns.
The Second Amendment – the amendment immediately after the amendment that makes it legal for you to read these words – simply says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
For 152 years the point of the Second Amendment was understood to mean that power should legally reside with the people and, as Chairman Mao wrote in 1938, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” In the United States the Second Amendment was understood to mean that individuals enjoy the right to be armed – with guns, switchblade knives, brass knuckles, cutlasses and so on – in order to defend themselves and their neighbors and as a last resort against tyranny. As recently as 1933, individuals could buy a Thompson sub-machine gun in a drug store. In 1934, Congress sought to discourage those sales with a tax authorized by the National Firearms Act.
In 1939, the Supreme Court disagreed with the traditional reading of the Second Amendment and ruled that the right to be armed was a “collective right.” What the collective right interpretation meant was that as long as the police are armed you do not need to be.
In 2008, by the narrowest of margins, the Supremes ruled that: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” So the right to bear arms became a limited individual right.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” the learned jurists opined. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Citing the 1939 decision of their forebears, five of nine justices decided it was lawful for the police unions lobby to bribe politicians to enact a law that “limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those…in common use for lawful purposes.” So switchblades and sawed off shotguns were out but nobody could take away your right to own a little .38 or a bolt action 30.06.
Whether individuals should enjoy the right to be armed is a matter of continuing debate that falls along ideological lines.
Weed
Virginia colonists began growing hemp, by order of King James I, in 1619. George Washington grew hemp. The medicinal use of cannabis began no later than 1839. In 1854 the New York Times called cannabis “a fashionable narcotic.” By the 1880s there were numerous hashish parlors as well as opium dens in most American cities.
In general, the temperance movement frowned on all forms of intoxication and states began to regulate the sale of cannabis in about 1905. The regulation was not so much intended to specifically regulate cannabis use as much as to regulate medicines. If a tonic had marijuana in it, that ingredient had to be listed on the label. In 1914, New York passed a law that said cannabis could only be sold by prescription.
During the depression, small farmers began to complain that they were being driven out of business by large farms that employed Mexican field hands who smoked marijuana. Marijuana use was generally seen as un-patriotic and in 1937 the United States outlawed marijuana because Harry J. Anslinger, who was America’s first drug czar, argued, it was a “killer drug” that made its users violent, irrational and promiscuous – like the Mexicans.
Marijuana became legal again, with a prescription or a doctor’s recommendation, in California in 1996. It is probably reasonable to say that most, but hardly all, people who have a doctor’s recommendation for marijuana use the drug as a recreational intoxicant at least sometimes.
Currently 21 states and the District of Columbia have legalized “medical marijuana.” Four states, all in the West – Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Colorado – have legalized marijuana for use as a recreational intoxicant. All of those states and all of those users defy federal law. Under federal law, marijuana remains a so-called “Schedule 1 substance” without any legal medical use.
Under federal law, possession of marijuana, hashish or hashish oil is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine the first time they catch you. The penalties double if they have caught you with killer weed before.
Bikers
Selective enforcement of the federal prohibition on marijuana possession and use has become a law enforcement tool in the war on motorcycle clubs.
For example, the racketeering indictment of 16 members of the Kingsmen Motorcycle Club this year is padded with marijuana charges. Seven of the 46 counts are federal marijuana offenses. Before the indictment was unsealed, a Kingsmen regional officer told The Aging Rebel, “We don’t condone drug use but we aren’t the party police.”
The Department of Justice thinks they should have been. Among the allegations in the indictment is “Kingsmen Motorcycle Club chapter clubhouses permitted illicit drug use and distribution, including cocaine, marijuana, and other controlled substances, between club members, associates, friends, and supporters of the Kingsmen Motorcycle Club.” The key word is “permitted.”
One Kingsmen, “did knowingly, intentionally and unlawfully possess with the intent to distribute, and distribute, a quantity of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance. All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(I)(D), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.”
A little more chilling is the grand jury charge that: “On or about August 26, 2015, in the Western District of New York, the defendant, Jack Wood, also known as Jake, also known as Snake, then being an unlawful user of a controlled substance as defined in Title 21, United States Code, Section 802, namely marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, unlawfully did knowingly possess…firearms.
The legal concept is fairly straightforward: If you smoke marijuana you forfeit your Second Amendment rights. You cannot legally possess a firearm. If you smoke marijuana and possess a firearm and you are a member of an indicted motorcycle club you may face 20 years in federal prison.
Judges
All of the above lends context to a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, The Ninth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Alaska, Oregon and Washington permit the recreational use of marijuana. Arizona, California, Hawaii, Montana and Nevada allow the use of medical marijuana. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over federal case in nine states. Eight of those states allow residents to ingest marijuana.
Last month the Ninth Circuit, in an appeal brought by a Nevada woman named S. Rowan Wilson against United States Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ruled that if you smoke marijuana, or even if you threaten to smoke marijuana, you cannot legally purchase a gun. The court also reaffirmed a 2011 Ninth Circuit ruling, United States v. Dugan, “which held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms.”
Nevada law requires medical marijuana users to register with the state. Rowan had argued that she registered with the state as a political statement in favor of cannabis legalization but that she never actually used the substance. The ATF, meanwhile, had told Nevada gun dealers not to sell guns to anyone whose name appeared in the registry. The letter read, in part: “Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”
When Rowan was denied the right to buy a gun for self-defense she sued. A lower court ruled against her and the Ninth agreed.
“As we recently observed” the learned justices began to quote themselves, “The Controlled Substances Act prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime.”
“Studies and surveys relied on in similar cases suggest a significant link between drug use, including marijuana use, and violence,” the court continued. “Moreover, legislative determinations also support the link between drug use and violence. In particular, Congress enacted” the law “which bars unlawful drug users from possessing firearms, ‘to keep firearms out of the hands of presumptively risky people.’ It is beyond dispute that illegal drug users, including marijuana users, are likely as a consequence of that use to experience altered or impaired mental states that affect their judgment and that can lead to irrational or unpredictable behavior. They are also more likely to have negative interactions with law enforcement officers because they engage in criminal activity. Finally, they frequently make their purchases through black market sources who themselves frequently resort to violence. It may be argued that medical marijuana users are less likely to commit violent crimes, as they often suffer from debilitating illnesses, for which marijuana may be an effective palliative. They also may be less likely than other illegal drug users to interact with law enforcement officers or make purchases through illicit channels. But those hypotheses are not sufficient to overcome Congress’s reasonable conclusion that the use of such drugs raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”
Heads up. Watch your six.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
California Gun Control VetoGunmageddon Update!
OFF THE WIRE
California gun owners, patriots and friends....we are still behind the eightball here. With just 5 days to go, we still need a ton more 'valid' signatures on these petitions. Remember that you have to be a registered voter and can only sign petitions in and for your county of residence. Call or text your family and friends to take the few minutes to make a difference for us all. This is an opportunity to show state government that people can unite and overturn bad laws that don't represent the will of "...the people". There is incredible power in this. We don't have to live with even more regulation being shoved down our throats. Exercise your power....now...before the deadline...please!
California gun owners, patriots and friends....we are still behind the eightball here. With just 5 days to go, we still need a ton more 'valid' signatures on these petitions. Remember that you have to be a registered voter and can only sign petitions in and for your county of residence. Call or text your family and friends to take the few minutes to make a difference for us all. This is an opportunity to show state government that people can unite and overturn bad laws that don't represent the will of "...the people". There is incredible power in this. We don't have to live with even more regulation being shoved down our throats. Exercise your power....now...before the deadline...please!
Find the closest petition station to you at this link...
https://www.vetogunmageddon.org/petition-locator/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhWP3l6uHu4
We need people to get out and sign the VetoGunmageddon Petitions soon. We have less than a week left to change things before our rights are a loss. https://www.vetogunmageddon.org/
https://www.vetogunmageddon.org/petition-locator/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhWP3l6uHu4
We need people to get out and sign the VetoGunmageddon Petitions soon. We have less than a week left to change things before our rights are a loss. https://www.vetogunmageddon.org/
BABE OF THE DAY ....
What sometimes call it seduction, call competence.
Why ability, skill, intelligence and sincerity
In Relations... it also entices.
Why ability, skill, intelligence and sincerity
In Relations... it also entices.
Monday, September 19, 2016
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Friday, September 16, 2016
The U.S. Department of Transportation
OFF THE WIRE
The U.S. Department of Transportation just released an open data set that contains detailed, anonymized information about tragic incidents. As the new data being released show, and as DOT reported earlier this summer, 2015 showed a marked increase in traffic fatalities nationwide.
Nationally, 7.2% more people died in traffic-related accidents in 2015 than in 2014. This unfortunate data point breaks a recent historical trend of fewer deaths occurring per year.
------------------------------------------------------------
Although the main study report aggregates data for all fifty states, the link below provides a query tool to show data broken down for individual states and counties with preset queries of measurements that are useful for your specific county.
The U.S. Department of Transportation just released an open data set that contains detailed, anonymized information about tragic incidents. As the new data being released show, and as DOT reported earlier this summer, 2015 showed a marked increase in traffic fatalities nationwide.
Nationally, 7.2% more people died in traffic-related accidents in 2015 than in 2014. This unfortunate data point breaks a recent historical trend of fewer deaths occurring per year.
------------------------------------------------------------
Although the main study report aggregates data for all fifty states, the link below provides a query tool to show data broken down for individual states and counties with preset queries of measurements that are useful for your specific county.
https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/stsi.htm#
------------------------------------------------------------
The DOT is soliciting your help to better understand what these data is telling us. Whether you’re a non-profit, a tech company, or just a curious citizen wanting to contribute to the conversation in your local community, they want you to jump in and help them understand what you think it all means from your personal perspective.
Some of the key questions they believe are worth exploring:
How might improving economic conditions around the country change how Americans are getting around? What models can we develop to identify communities that might be at a higher risk for fatal crashes?
How might climate change increase the risk of fatal crashes in a community?
How might we use studies of attitudes toward speeding, distracted driving, and seat belt use to better target marketing and behavioral change campaigns?
How might we monitor public health indicators and behavior risk indicators to target communities that might have a high prevalence of behaviors linked with fatal crashes (drinking, drug use/addiction, etc.)?
What countermeasures should we create to address these issues?
The DOT is aggressively seeking ways to improve safety on the roads. From their work with the auto industry to improve vehicle safety, to new solutions to behavioral challenges like drunk, drugged, distracted and drowsy driving.
They are also looking to accelerate technologies that may make driving safer, including connected and highly automated vehicles.
They are calling on data scientists, public health experts, students and researchers — even if you have never thought about road safety before — to dive in to this data and help answer these important questions, especially on tough issues like pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities.
If you wish to participate, start by downloading and playing with the data...use the link below...
ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/fars/2015/
...then share your insights and let them know what you find by sending them a note at...
opendata@dot.gov
------------------------------------------------------------
The DOT is soliciting your help to better understand what these data is telling us. Whether you’re a non-profit, a tech company, or just a curious citizen wanting to contribute to the conversation in your local community, they want you to jump in and help them understand what you think it all means from your personal perspective.
Some of the key questions they believe are worth exploring:
How might improving economic conditions around the country change how Americans are getting around? What models can we develop to identify communities that might be at a higher risk for fatal crashes?
How might climate change increase the risk of fatal crashes in a community?
How might we use studies of attitudes toward speeding, distracted driving, and seat belt use to better target marketing and behavioral change campaigns?
How might we monitor public health indicators and behavior risk indicators to target communities that might have a high prevalence of behaviors linked with fatal crashes (drinking, drug use/addiction, etc.)?
What countermeasures should we create to address these issues?
The DOT is aggressively seeking ways to improve safety on the roads. From their work with the auto industry to improve vehicle safety, to new solutions to behavioral challenges like drunk, drugged, distracted and drowsy driving.
They are also looking to accelerate technologies that may make driving safer, including connected and highly automated vehicles.
They are calling on data scientists, public health experts, students and researchers — even if you have never thought about road safety before — to dive in to this data and help answer these important questions, especially on tough issues like pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities.
If you wish to participate, start by downloading and playing with the data...use the link below...
ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/fars/2015/
...then share your insights and let them know what you find by sending them a note at...
opendata@dot.gov
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Monday, September 12, 2016
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Friday, September 9, 2016
TRANSPORTING A FIREARM WITH A LOADED MAGAZINE WHILE IN CALIFORNIA
OFF THE WIRE
It is also an ad for a simple gun carry case, BUT good info from the CHP. But I say, be an American, do want you want, just don't get caught.
Unfortunately we have people in America that have been working tirelessly to strip us of our rights. As law abiding citizens, in order to remain law abiding, we have to adapt to our legal environment in order to remain tactically functional.
As a citizen that loves my country and my fellow Americans, I would like to share with you some valuable information I discovered regarding your ability to defend yourself while transporting firearms in California.
Have you ever heard the following?
“You cannot carry your loaded magazine or even your ammunition in the same container while driving. In fact you must by law, carry your firearm in a separate area of your car than the ammunition. One has to be in the trunk and the other has to be in your car. Both locked.”
This is false according to the California Highway Patrol and 2016 CA Penal Code.
CA gun laws are so complicated that a lot of misinformation has spread throughout the firearms community over the years. This might be due to gun control propaganda or alternatively could be gun store owners rightfully covering their asses as CA politicians want to eliminate all of us.
In order to clear up any misinformation and provide law abiding CA gun owners with the facts, I wanted to share with everyone the California Highway Patrol’s current information regarding driving with ammunition or a loaded magazine while in California.
According to the CHP while traveling in California, can I legally carry without a CCW the ammunition in the same container or trunk as my firearm? Yes.
“California law does not recognize concealed weapon permits from other states; therefore, they would not be held valid. If you wish to transport a handgun during your California visit, it should be carried unloaded in a locked container. In the absence of a suitable container, you may secure the unloaded handgun in the locked trunk of a passenger car. Ammunition may be kept in the same container or trunk, but the handgun must remain unloaded with no rounds in the cylinder and no loaded magazines in the magazine well.” -CHP’s website.
As the CHP stated above, a locked container is required but you are able to carry a loaded magazine in the same container as your firearm as long as the magazine is not inserted in the magazine well. You can also view this information on the CA DOJ’s website with referenced penal code citation below.
The bottom line…
With a locked container, you are able to transport your firearm with ammunition while in California.
Functional solution…
SUPERTOOL’s Magnetic : Locking : Case
All the products we make were first created for personal use to remain tactically functional in our ever changing legal environment. After 6 years of hard work, our products originally designed for personal use are now available to everyone.
-George Phillips
Founder, Supertool USA
Check our our Magnetic Locking Cases HERE.
In order to view this information on the CHP’s website click HERE.
In order to view this information on the State of California Department of Justice’s (CA DOJ) wesite click HERE.
It is also an ad for a simple gun carry case, BUT good info from the CHP. But I say, be an American, do want you want, just don't get caught.
TRANSPORTING A FIREARM WITH A LOADED MAGAZINE WHILE IN CALIFORNIA
- July 29, 2016
- 0 Comment(s)
***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***
STATEMENT FROM SUPERTOOL’S FOUNDER REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION OF A LOADED MAGAZINE WHILE IN CALIFORNIA
As a US Marine Corps veteran, I understand the importance of not only
self-defense but also eliminating any tactical limitations in an ever
changing environment. I’m sure most of you have heard the motto of the
Marines Corps as “Semper Fi” or “Always faithful” but there’s also
another play on words we use, “Semper Gumby” or “Always flexible”.Unfortunately we have people in America that have been working tirelessly to strip us of our rights. As law abiding citizens, in order to remain law abiding, we have to adapt to our legal environment in order to remain tactically functional.
As a citizen that loves my country and my fellow Americans, I would like to share with you some valuable information I discovered regarding your ability to defend yourself while transporting firearms in California.
Have you ever heard the following?
“You cannot carry your loaded magazine or even your ammunition in the same container while driving. In fact you must by law, carry your firearm in a separate area of your car than the ammunition. One has to be in the trunk and the other has to be in your car. Both locked.”
This is false according to the California Highway Patrol and 2016 CA Penal Code.
CA gun laws are so complicated that a lot of misinformation has spread throughout the firearms community over the years. This might be due to gun control propaganda or alternatively could be gun store owners rightfully covering their asses as CA politicians want to eliminate all of us.
In order to clear up any misinformation and provide law abiding CA gun owners with the facts, I wanted to share with everyone the California Highway Patrol’s current information regarding driving with ammunition or a loaded magazine while in California.
According to the CHP while traveling in California, can I legally carry without a CCW the ammunition in the same container or trunk as my firearm? Yes.
“California law does not recognize concealed weapon permits from other states; therefore, they would not be held valid. If you wish to transport a handgun during your California visit, it should be carried unloaded in a locked container. In the absence of a suitable container, you may secure the unloaded handgun in the locked trunk of a passenger car. Ammunition may be kept in the same container or trunk, but the handgun must remain unloaded with no rounds in the cylinder and no loaded magazines in the magazine well.” -CHP’s website.
As the CHP stated above, a locked container is required but you are able to carry a loaded magazine in the same container as your firearm as long as the magazine is not inserted in the magazine well. You can also view this information on the CA DOJ’s website with referenced penal code citation below.
The bottom line…
With a locked container, you are able to transport your firearm with ammunition while in California.
Functional solution…
SUPERTOOL’s Magnetic : Locking : Case
All the products we make were first created for personal use to remain tactically functional in our ever changing legal environment. After 6 years of hard work, our products originally designed for personal use are now available to everyone.
-George Phillips
Founder, Supertool USA
Check our our Magnetic Locking Cases HERE.
In order to view this information on the CHP’s website click HERE.
In order to view this information on the State of California Department of Justice’s (CA DOJ) wesite click HERE.
Do You Know Why I’m Pulling You Over, Being Wildly Aggressive, And Charging You With Assault Today, Sir?
OFF THE WIRE
I’m going to need to see your driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Thank you, sir. Now, just sit tight in your car while I take a look here and grow increasingly hostile. I’m just going to start addressing you in an unmistakably threatening tone that is specifically meant to intimidate and provoke, and then drastically escalate the situation so that it quickly gets out of hand.
Are you aware of the speed limit on this road, sir? It’s 35. I had you clocked at 52 miles per hour, which is why I had to stop you and exhibit a nakedly confrontational, antagonistic, and condescending attitude, practically daring you to challenge my authority in any way whatsoever. You can’t be driving that fast around here, so I’m going to have to write you a ticket and then violently place you under arrest the moment you do or say anything that isn’t in complete and utter compliance—or which could even be remotely construed as noncompliant—with every single instruction I give to you.
Do you understand all that, sir?
If you have any questions about this ticket, I’d be happy to wildly overreact to anything you say that shows the slightest hint of resentment, annoyance, or resistance. Really, while you have me here, I can easily interpret any snide remark or frustrated comment as a potential threat to my safety—even so much as an angry look—and respond in a disproportionately combative way by erupting in unwarranted rage, taking out either my 50,000-volt Taser or my handgun, and pointing it directly at you through the driver’s side window.
Now, I have to head back to my patrol car real quick, so please bear with me here for a few minutes. Then you can be on your way to jail in no time as soon as I come back and forcibly remove you from your vehicle, slam you into the asphalt, cuff you, and jam my knee into your back as I radio in that I need backup right away because you’re resisting arrest—all the while both outright ignoring your vocalized concerns for your safety and directing my own petty, barbed insults at you. Just so we’re on the same page here, you’ll be getting three points on your license for speeding and also assault charges that carry a minimum sentence of one year in prison, but you’ll be assumed guilty of both while I automatically receive the benefit of the doubt despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
You know what, why don’t you step out of the car, sir? And put that goddamn cell phone away.
Article by Officer Daniel McEwen
Good afternoon, sir. Go ahead and roll your window all the way down for me. My name is Officer Daniel McEwen from the Greene County Police Department. Now, do you know why I’m pulling you over today, being overly aggressive, and charging you with a felony count of assaulting a police officer?I’m going to need to see your driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Thank you, sir. Now, just sit tight in your car while I take a look here and grow increasingly hostile. I’m just going to start addressing you in an unmistakably threatening tone that is specifically meant to intimidate and provoke, and then drastically escalate the situation so that it quickly gets out of hand.
Are you aware of the speed limit on this road, sir? It’s 35. I had you clocked at 52 miles per hour, which is why I had to stop you and exhibit a nakedly confrontational, antagonistic, and condescending attitude, practically daring you to challenge my authority in any way whatsoever. You can’t be driving that fast around here, so I’m going to have to write you a ticket and then violently place you under arrest the moment you do or say anything that isn’t in complete and utter compliance—or which could even be remotely construed as noncompliant—with every single instruction I give to you.
Do you understand all that, sir?
If you have any questions about this ticket, I’d be happy to wildly overreact to anything you say that shows the slightest hint of resentment, annoyance, or resistance. Really, while you have me here, I can easily interpret any snide remark or frustrated comment as a potential threat to my safety—even so much as an angry look—and respond in a disproportionately combative way by erupting in unwarranted rage, taking out either my 50,000-volt Taser or my handgun, and pointing it directly at you through the driver’s side window.
Now, I have to head back to my patrol car real quick, so please bear with me here for a few minutes. Then you can be on your way to jail in no time as soon as I come back and forcibly remove you from your vehicle, slam you into the asphalt, cuff you, and jam my knee into your back as I radio in that I need backup right away because you’re resisting arrest—all the while both outright ignoring your vocalized concerns for your safety and directing my own petty, barbed insults at you. Just so we’re on the same page here, you’ll be getting three points on your license for speeding and also assault charges that carry a minimum sentence of one year in prison, but you’ll be assumed guilty of both while I automatically receive the benefit of the doubt despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
You know what, why don’t you step out of the car, sir? And put that goddamn cell phone away.
8.6 Million Motorcyclists Vote. Holding the Power To Sway Elections
OFF THE WIRE
MCANSG
We just to stay organized and speak with one voice.
813,771 registered motorcycles (2014, Statista) in California, enough to make an impact at the capitol in Sacramento and enough to affect tight races in most local legislative districts, ridding ourselves of nannycrats and electing liberty minded, biker friendly legislators who also desire real change. Remember....80% of congress has elections this year. Even though our vote does not elect presidents, it can change the legislative landscape everywhere else.
MCANSG
We just to stay organized and speak with one voice.
813,771 registered motorcycles (2014, Statista) in California, enough to make an impact at the capitol in Sacramento and enough to affect tight races in most local legislative districts, ridding ourselves of nannycrats and electing liberty minded, biker friendly legislators who also desire real change. Remember....80% of congress has elections this year. Even though our vote does not elect presidents, it can change the legislative landscape everywhere else.
http://www.motorcycleprofilingproject.com/voting-power-mot…/
8.6 Million Motorcyclists Vote. Holding the Power To Sway Elections
As we approach national elections in
November, why is the opinion of the motorcycling community so
important? The answer is simple. Motorcyclists represent a massive and
powerful voting block with the ability to sway national elections. The
vast majority of this demographic are registered and active voters.
According to the National Motorcycle Profiling Survey 2015-16 (NMPS),
86% of motorcyclists have voted in a national election within the last
10 years. The American Motorcycle Association estimates that there are
10,000,000 registered motorcyclists in America. That means motorcyclists
comprise nearly 7% of the active voting population. Many elections are
decided by a smaller margin, including the 2012 presidential election.
Elected officials would be wise to take note that issues of
discrimination and profiling are among motorcyclists greatest concerns.
The NMPS shows that the vast majority of motorcyclists are active voters and participate in US elections. According to Creative Research Systems, the NMPS, with 5,000 participants, has a 99% reliability rating and a margin of error of 1.4%. There is a 99% chance that the survey results translate to the entire target population with a 1.4% margin of error. 86% of 10,000,000 registered motorcyclists in America is 8.6 million motorcyclists that are active voters in the United States.
According to The Center for the Study of the American Electorate, 127,000,000 individuals voted in the national elections in 2012. Using the last national election as a benchmark, 8.6 million voters represents almost 7% of the active voting population. And 7% is large enough to impact the outcome of many national elections.
Consider the last race for President. Obama received about 5 million more votes than Romney. Motorcyclists could cover that difference with 3.5 million votes to spare.
In addition to the presidential race, a total of 469 seats in the U.S. Congress (34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats) are up for election on November 8, 2016. A total of 1,210 (61.4%) of the country’s 1,972 state senate seats and 4,710 (87.0%) of the country’s 5,411 state house seats are up for a vote as well. Altogether, 5,920 (80.2%) of the country’s 7,383 state legislative seats are up for election during the presidential election year.
Motorcyclists can have a dramatic impact on the upcoming election. And elected officials can help secure the motorcycle vote by listening and responding to the legislative demands of the community.
Aside from traditional issues like safety and helmet choice, the NMPS 2015-16 suggests that most motorcyclists are very concerned with police accountability, discrimination and profiling. 50% of motorcyclists surveyed have been unjustifiably stopped while riding their motorcycles, which translates to 5 million Americans.
Legislative demands being made by motorcycle rights organizations echo these findings. Many states are following Washington and Maryland’s lead, the only states with laws addressing the issue, pursuing legislation at the state level. There is also a national coalition of motorcycle organizations that have secured sponsorship for H. Res. 831, which calls for states to implement anti-motorcycle profiling laws. The Motorcycle Riders Foundation, in cooperation with the MPP, the National Council of Clubs, and the National Coalition of Motorcyclists are all working together to secure protection for motorcyclists at the state and federal level.
If politicians realized the impact motorcyclists had on elections in the U.S., then policies protecting motorcyclists would materialize more rapidly. The Center for the Study of the American Electorate says only 57.5% of eligible voters turned out to vote in 2012. The 86% voter participation among motorcyclists is far higher than the general voting population.
They work for the people. Let’s make sure they know what the people want.
86% of Motorcyclists (8.6 Million) Vote
The NMPS shows that the vast majority of motorcyclists are active voters and participate in US elections. According to Creative Research Systems, the NMPS, with 5,000 participants, has a 99% reliability rating and a margin of error of 1.4%. There is a 99% chance that the survey results translate to the entire target population with a 1.4% margin of error. 86% of 10,000,000 registered motorcyclists in America is 8.6 million motorcyclists that are active voters in the United States.
Motorcyclists Comprise 7% of Active Voters, Enough To Sway Elections
According to The Center for the Study of the American Electorate, 127,000,000 individuals voted in the national elections in 2012. Using the last national election as a benchmark, 8.6 million voters represents almost 7% of the active voting population. And 7% is large enough to impact the outcome of many national elections.
Consider the last race for President. Obama received about 5 million more votes than Romney. Motorcyclists could cover that difference with 3.5 million votes to spare.
In addition to the presidential race, a total of 469 seats in the U.S. Congress (34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats) are up for election on November 8, 2016. A total of 1,210 (61.4%) of the country’s 1,972 state senate seats and 4,710 (87.0%) of the country’s 5,411 state house seats are up for a vote as well. Altogether, 5,920 (80.2%) of the country’s 7,383 state legislative seats are up for election during the presidential election year.
Motorcyclists can have a dramatic impact on the upcoming election. And elected officials can help secure the motorcycle vote by listening and responding to the legislative demands of the community.
What Issues Do Motorcyclists Care About?
Aside from traditional issues like safety and helmet choice, the NMPS 2015-16 suggests that most motorcyclists are very concerned with police accountability, discrimination and profiling. 50% of motorcyclists surveyed have been unjustifiably stopped while riding their motorcycles, which translates to 5 million Americans.
Legislative demands being made by motorcycle rights organizations echo these findings. Many states are following Washington and Maryland’s lead, the only states with laws addressing the issue, pursuing legislation at the state level. There is also a national coalition of motorcycle organizations that have secured sponsorship for H. Res. 831, which calls for states to implement anti-motorcycle profiling laws. The Motorcycle Riders Foundation, in cooperation with the MPP, the National Council of Clubs, and the National Coalition of Motorcyclists are all working together to secure protection for motorcyclists at the state and federal level.
Conclusions
If politicians realized the impact motorcyclists had on elections in the U.S., then policies protecting motorcyclists would materialize more rapidly. The Center for the Study of the American Electorate says only 57.5% of eligible voters turned out to vote in 2012. The 86% voter participation among motorcyclists is far higher than the general voting population.
- Res. 831 provides an opportunity for elected officials to prove they embrace civil liberties for motorcyclists and potentially earn 7% of the active vote in November. This election is also an opportunity for motorcyclists to ensure that politicians hear that one of our primary demands is legislation addressing the issue of motorcycle profiling.
They work for the people. Let’s make sure they know what the people want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
