It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Police Attempt To Raid Garage Sale with AirSoft gear, Get Kicked To Curb (video)

page: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:19 PM
Third party must go through dealer. I can see why they would be interested in verifying the weapons.

I want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?

Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.

Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer. Example:
For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction.
For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of$10.00 per each additional firearm transferred.

(PC section 12072(d))

CA firearms FAQ

California firearms laws
edit on 7/5/2012 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Sek82
Okay Ben I like your threads but this one... I'm not taking the bait.
So they are selling Airsoft guns, no big deal once that is known. But they could very well be real M4s from a distance, can they not? They got a call from some other concerned citizen and are just responding to it.

So residents are holding a Garage Sale, and when a cop steps up to check out the wares, the "Private Property" card gets pulled and I'm supposed to side with the idiots selling this stuff?

This can be compared to that guy who was questioned by police while carrying an arsenal of weapons, you are right. They are trolling for police response just to put it on YouTube while crying about their rights being infringed upon.

oh .. and

they're rights WERE NOT infringed upon .. is that what you're stating?? !!!

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:21 PM
awesome video if only more people really knew there rights, i absolutly love it when cops are shown that not all of us r gonna asumme the position,S&F

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:26 PM
reply to post by CaptainIraq

It may have been posted at some point in this thread, but there was one phrase I heard that played a key part in my judgment of the video...

Toward the end of the video, the lady can be heard saying something similar, 'Well, it doesn't matter... We will file a formal complaint - AGAIN'

When she said 'AGAIN' it made me feel as if they set a trap for the cops and made me feel the real possibility of them being the citizens who actually called the cops to begin with.

So maybe they set the situation up, got their camera ready to roll, left their kids to tend to the sale, stepped inside and made the call to cops, waited for the cops to show and allowed them to get a good ways onto their property before initiating the confrontation.

Just thought it a plausible possibility after hearing her say 'AGAIN', as if it was not the first time they had encounters with leo's.

It is very poor taste to bait officers, especially with an unpredicatble outcome. I still agree with the civilians, whether they baited and entrapped the officers, the officers should have adhered to their rights.

Setting cops up like this is not a good way to repect other tax payers. At the same time, keeping officers honest is very good and could lead to many other officers seeing the videos and as a result having more respect for civilian rights.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Ben81

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by nenothtu

Kind of scary too what they are teaching their kid. Seems the kid will look at police in all forms as the enemy and a showdown always in order. Would like to see how that ends up.

Teaching their kids to never trust anyone is a good thing to do
but they also need to teach them respect
if you want the kid to have a good balance in life

My dad taught me to pick my battles.

I never translated that to mean "pick any fight you can".

IMO, they intended to provoke a confrontation, just from evidence in the video, and to do so unnecessarily and without cause.

"not trusting anyone" is not the same thing as baiting them in and then jumping them. In those circumstances, they are correct not to trust YOU.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:29 PM

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by jude11

It was over the top on the folks selling their stuff... bottom line.

They created a scene, where one wasn't needed..

I see no evidence of cops bashing the citizens here, does it happen? yes.. does it disturb me? yes..

Does it mean that I will take every opportunity to say the cops are thugs! Hell no...

They are for the most part, good folks, doing a job, and while there are quite a few that tarnish their reputation, these particular officers should not be included in the group.

They were merely doing their job.






STUFF~!!!!! know HAVING A GARAGE sale.. !!!!

GET REAL~!!!!!

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by HomerinNC
I have airsoft guns, an m4 variant and a 9mm baretta lookalike. you can take these and place them next to the real thing, and you'd NEVER been able to tell the difference.
I think the LEOs had EVERY right to investigate what MIGHT be someone selling 'assault styled weapons' at a yard sale.

Also, funny how its a 'cop watch' person who JUST happens to be there, WITH a video camera, to catch the big bad cops, who happen to be acting on an anonymous phone call about someone selling weapons....
Setup anyone???

I gave you a star. The only gripe I have with this post is the use of the inflammatory phrase "assault-style weapons". the cosmetics of a weapon make no difference at all. The correct question is: can one legally sell firearms in that jurisdiction? What "style" they are is irrelevant.

You're right though - it has all the earmarks of a setup to provoke a confrontation.

Notice how the woman backed off from demanding a supervisor when they said "we'll get one right out here for ya"? Instead she just backed right down from that demand when she saw it might actually happen, and fell back to "we'll just file a complaint" repeated ad nauseum.

Yup. Smells of setup to me.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:45 PM
I have watched this about 5 times. I have came to the conclusion that both sides of this particular video, are equally to blame. Did the law use the standard "lie" of we had a call? They said they did, problem is how does one prove that some one in fact did call the law? Or did they just happen by on patrol & decide to "look see"?

The folks who were filming were really carefull with their words. IMHO, they were looking for a opportunity for a video. It's obvious by the banter between the cop and the lady speaking that he knew who she was, because of her work with this Copblock org. I have found when one looks for a confrontation they normally find it. Hell they could be the ones to have "called the law" after all they were inside, when law arrived, & daughter "seen them coming" and starts filming sounds a little contrived to me.

IMHO, The person filming was waiting for them to arrive. It was contrived for the reasons of the ones who did it. To show their support for Copblock and make themselves look good. I am all for all my rights, but these cops will remember these people, and they will spread the word about these people to all their cop friends.

When seeking a confrontation, one will find it. Some even contrive it. Both sides were wrong, cop has "no right" just grabbing their stuff without consent or warrant. If they have that many airsoft guns in a yard sale. You know the real deal is sitting right in side that house. It all just seems a little to contrived , fake , set-up what ever you want to call it.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Masterjaden

HE doesn't have any right to be there.

Having a gun hanging on a rack is NOT a crime. Without witnessing a crime, or having reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime HAS ALREADY been committed, he cannot go onto private property just to MAKE SURE that a crime hasn't been committed.


I have to differ here. if the yard sale is open to the public, he has as much right to be there as anyone else does. By opening their property to all comers, they open their property to ALL comers.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by nenothtu

You are right there. If you open your yard to the public than you can't discriminate. A business, which is open to the public, cannot stop a cop from coming in to the business.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by nenothtu

You are completely correct. Unless thay had a sign stating " Open to all persons EXCEPT UNIFORMED LAW ENFORCMENT OFFICERS" then those cops could just be shopping early for christmas. It was a set-up, and I would bet bottom dollar , their the ones that called the law....It's folks like this that allready take a serious problem and just make it worse...for all of us.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:55 PM

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Masterjaden

It was a yard sale. We've established this. A concerned citizen called it in. We've also established this. The cop had no choice but to investigate. It's the law. We've established this as well.

What part of "safe community" escapes your little brain? One would think you were born in the back hills of Louisiana.

Without witnessing a crime, or having reasonable suspicion

Exposed firearms at a yard sale is reasonable cause. I'm glad you don't live near me...I'd be worried for my life, the way you treat this. No crime has to be committed for public safety to be at risk. It's called NEGLIGENCE.

I AM from the back hills. A "safe community" has nary a damned thing to do with it. No one was being shot at. so the community was safe.

Exposed firearms are NOT "probable cause", which is more likely the phrase you were looking for. "Probable cause" is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Exposed firearms on private property are not a crime.

The police right to be there was the same as any other shoppers right, not any "probable cause" based argument.

"Negligence" is something entirely different from display for sale. Look it up, understand what "negligence" means. In order for negligence to occur, some negligent act must be committed. What is negligent about displaying goods for sale?

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:59 PM

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Masterjaden

Someone called it in so there was probable cause. One citizens concerns can give reason for the police to be there. If I was the cop I would have got a search warrant and tore apart their house.

No. Anonymous calls are not "probable cause". If you believe they are, try to get a search warrant on one some time.

If you had been the cop, and tried to get a search warrant on such flimsy evidence, things would have gone poorly for you. Under those circumstances, I could see a performance review in your near future for overreaction.

These officers did not overreact.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:59 PM
things would have gone alot smoother if the cops dressed like everyone else on her private property to go and see lol.
She didnt seem to mind the other people on her private property lol. Strangers who she has no idea who they are or criminal background walking around touching her stuff? *shrug*
Guess she trusts strangers more than cops?

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:05 PM
"I'm with cop watch...I delt with you...."

Hmmm I wonder if they called themselves about their own guns just to video anything that might transpire? BTW, unless she owns the Appts then it is not her private property...

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:06 PM
This is stupid.

This is manipulated hate. I got beat up by cops because I slugged one for asking me for I.D. when all I was doing was walking down the street. Sure, a chip on my shoulder. I deserved to be knocked down a level. I hate cops over reacting and exuding their "law enforcement" on me.

These people were selling guns that looked real. A citizen, requesting protection from the police, made a call. This isn't a bull$hit call either. If I was the caller, which I could well have been, and was watching from my window when the rollers arrived...and they tucked tail because of some "private property rights" b.s., I would be livid. Especially, as the saying goes, "my taxes pay your wages and bla bla..."

I won't get to know that those guns aren't real. How do I feel safe?

lol. People thinking this woman did the right thing need to give their head a shake. You are likely the same people who would feel good about shooting an "intruder" (with unknown intentions), with your right to bear arms, and protect your property and person. Only then to bitch that cops used TOO much force pepper spraying a non compliant drunk.

Makes me sick to think of the rights people think they deserve, when they act like idiots.

And yes I grouped people with assumptions and judgement. Because I am entitled to, whether you agree or not. That is another freedom granted, that I might as well deserve.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:24 PM
They are gonna pull her over when shes going 41 in a 40 zone for fun now LoL. If she really wants to get all technical and not be polight im sure they can also. If she really wanted to I guess she could have told a person with a certain skin color that showed up at the garage sell to get off her private property also. Because she seems to single out people on looks who she does not want to be polight too. Just because they are wearing cop uniforms does not mean they are not humans who deserve polightness just like anyone else.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Foxy1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Masterjaden
Actually maybe YOU should learn the law. While I don't consider the Supreme court the final authority, the supreme court has ruled that someone possessing a firearm in public IS NOT reasonable suspicion of a crime taking place.

Funny since the Supreme Court is the final authority when it comes to the law. No, but a report of an illegal firearms sale in addition to what appeared to be firearms at a yard SALE, is more than enough to result in a search.

Only an actual SALE of a firearm would have constituted an illegal act. That's why when cops bust prostitutes they have to wait until money either changes hands or a deal is made.

You miss the whole "report of selling firearms" portion? And they have to wait until money changes hand or a deal is made to make an arrest. If there's a report somebody is selling firearms, I pull up and see what looks like a firearm on the table at a yard SALE, that's enough to search the items in question. It would not be enough to search the premise (search warrant) and it wouldn't be enough to outright make an arrest, but it would be more than enough to check out those items in view from the street.

If it were some guy sitting on his porch, with a shotgun by his chair, you'd have a point. This was a yard SALE, with what appeared to be firearms among the sale items.

So, even had they been ACTUAL firearms, until a deal has been made and or money has changed hands, nothing illegal has been done, no crime, no just cause for intruding on private property and touching or seizing property that they do not have consent, or a warrant allowing them to do so...

Again, wrong. While there's nothing illegal has been done, that is only necessary if they are trying to make an arrest on probable cause. You are right in the sense if they turned out to be actual firearms, so long as the people did not say explicitly "we're selling these" the cop wouldn't be able to arrest them, but in every other sense you are wrong. He has perfect cause for intruding on "private property" and touching property without a warrant because of what was mentioned before. Report of firearms sales and what appeared to be firearms in a yard sale. But even if that ISN'T enough for you, these people don't have protection under the 4th amendment as I mentioned prior because it requires a reasonable expectation of privacy. At a yard sale, there's no reasonable expectation for privacy in the vicinity of the yard sale.

Nevertheless, he still had the authority by law via probable cause, to inspect the items viewed from the street because the future sale of firearms illegally would be covered under probable cause even though a crime has not yet been committed. Would he be able to arrest them? No, not even if they were firearms. Unless of course they said, "we're going to sell those" then I'm sure they could be brought up on some charges. But did he have probable cause to inspect said items in regards to whether a crime had been committed or was planning to be committed? Yes.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:30 PM

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
I have watched this about 5 times. I have came to the conclusion that both sides of this particular video, are equally to blame. Did the law use the standard "lie" of we had a call? They said they did, problem is how does one prove that some one in fact did call the law? Or did they just happen by on patrol & decide to "look see"?

You prove whether you really had a call or not by producing the call center logs during an investigation into impropriety, Every call is logged.

When seeking a confrontation, one will find it. Some even contrive it. Both sides were wrong, cop has "no right" just grabbing their stuff without consent or warrant.

They had the same right as any other citizen to inspect the merchandise. No one needs a warrant to go into Walmart and inspect the power tools on display for sale.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by esteay812

Well, just to bring you to speed, in California it is illegal to do what you were suggesting. Also, these people didn't exercise their rights, they simply gave the cop a hard time despite acting within the law. You basically just gave they a thumbs up for being jerks and hassling the cop for doing his job correctly.

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in