View Single Post
Old March 4, 2013, 02:53 PM   #35
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
As I understand it, the newly ordered 2850(b) is the same as the old 12031(e). Just renumbered. So if, as Frank says, the E Check has been upheld in a CA court, the "B" Check will be upheld on the same grounds. No difference in wording, other than the renumbering of the CA codes.

Quote:
25850. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

(b) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.
As I said before, this is nothing more than a legislative general warrant and is repugnant to the 4A. How this state of affairs has existed this long, is anyone guess.

This is currently being litigated in the combined Haynie v. Harris (#46 on The List), SAC, Second Claim for Relief (Pp 26 & 27)
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04036 seconds with 8 queries