Video

If you want to be exempt from breaking the law. Enroll in police training today...

What is a “single purpose container”? A box is a box and I could put Anything in it. That’s why I don’t live in Cali anymore. They don’t like law abiding Americans.

Hang on a second. We have a no fire arms area. Witnesses hearing gunshots. 2 people admitting they were dischargimg fire arms to law enforcement. Doesn't all this rise to probable cause? Meaning no need for a single use container exception?

From what you said, the defendant was not in an area where possession of firearms or discharging firearms was prohibited. (Yes this goes beyond the issue argued at the Circuit Court.) so even when the defendant said the case contained a firearm there is not even a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime had been committed much less probable cause to believe a crime had been committed to justify a search on any grounds. I further believe “officer safety” can not be argued about a cased firearm.

IF the defendant's shotgun had a removable barrel, like many shotguns have. will he get the bulk of the gun back, since it can be outfitted with a "legal size" barrel", like a slugster barrel. the police keep the to short barrel, but return the part of the shotgun that can be equipped legally?

9th circuit. Of course.

Looking at the person to determine legality is the very definition of, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”.

and, what were they doing entering his private property without permission, a warrant, or RAS?

Unless something changed in the last decade in CA, there is no gun registration. There's no such thing as a "registered gun". 2:25

Just carry all of your guns around in a "used tampon" container.

The constitution empowered a ruling class. This is where your rights went. No one reads it.

This was an area of case law that I was unfamiliar with. Thank you so much for presenting it. This is the first time I've seen you, but you earned a subscriber in me.

So what if it's a gun case? You said he told the cops that he had firearms in the case. It doesn't matter what the case looked like at that point. Everyone there knew it likely had firearms. The real question should be, wtf gives cops the right to open a case that they know has firearms without consent?

Ninth circut court sides with the government.

2:33 *NFA item that is not registered. A federal firearm registry is illegal.

I'm listening to this as I'm putting the Pelican-style case my Springfield handgun came in, with a beautiful "Not California Legal" sticker placed on it by Springfield, into my car. I have repurposed it for a radio project I'm working on. It's perfect to hold the radio, antenna and batteries, with some spare room. The sticker will remain there for as long as it can, as an eff you to the tyrants in California. I have _zero_ interest in ever setting foot in California again. If I did, I'd gladly bring that case (sticker and all) to dare the cops to stop me and search it. It would contain anything other than a firearm. Maybe a camera to catch the disappointment on their faces. In my world, there is no such thing as a container that can only serve one purpose.

Spoke with this man over the phone regarding a case. Extremely knowledgeable and would 100% recommend him and his firm.

CAN they? Yes. They have thumbs, they can do a lot of things. Can they LAWFULLY? No. they would have to obtain permission at arm's length, that is, threaten violent force in order to gain access - a crime. Can they LEGALLY? No .. but since proving a case is done after the crime has already been committed, it is rather a moot point .. and one has to rely on the good will of criminals for the legal remedy to function, in any case. They violate Law in order to enforce their Rules every day, and do not know the difference between their Rules and Law. Protect yourself, first. Avoid areas with large populations of armed criminals, and take steps to avoid being singled out by them: Most organizations have a list of criteria that they look for to prioritize victimization, try not to conform to that list. De escalate when possible .. these criminal gangs are extensive, and winning a fight with one or two members only means having to deal with the whole gang, later. Consider relocating to a place where the local population is disinclined to tolerate crime.

At 3:04 I noted that the Defendant said that the case was used for carrying a firearm. Just the mere mention makes it another point of contention. What if the container in question is a vehicle firearm safe ?

My gaydar is spiked

Since they admitted to doing target practice, there was no legal reason to open a case to see the firearms. That was an unnecessary and therefore unreasonable search. Owning and possessing a firearm is a constitutional right that is a protected activity; shooting “near” a “gun free zone” and the arbitrary designation of “sensitive areas” is questionably unconstitutional as well.

This is a bit confusing to me. It’s not clear if they were on a public property where shooting was illegal or on private property where it was. If it was private property, we have an admission of an activity that is legal. An admission that guns are in the cases. There’s no reasonable investigatory need to look at the case to see if there are guns in it. That’s been stipulated. So does the single use container exception suggest that the gun case is only used for illegal weapons? That seems like the biggest hole in the legal logic.

A cop focusing on that gun safe would be a horrible mistake in my house because it would only be a decoy meant for them to focus on. I agree with JD Vance's Nana better to have one in reach no matter where you are in the house

This is really just the same sort of nonsense that officers should be able to seize people’s phones and their data while in custody because of the cop out of face recognition software. Because they don’t need the password or passcode to access the contents, the courts have unjustly ruled they can use your likeness without your consent or permission. As if any person could restrain you and confiscate your phone and hold it up to your face to access it’s contents as if those wouldn’t be violating your rights

I thought single purpose container exception had to be like a drug baggy or a soft rifle case. If it’s a hard pelican case it can contain anything. I carry camera equipment in hard cases.

I believe if it is a violin case, it is safe to assume there is a violin inside.

A safe is not probable cause. Plain and simple. The doctrine of in plain view would apply here. It's a case. You cannot know or presume to know what's inside. Maybe... if you were leaving a gun range it could be presumed. Or in this case the people didn't keep their mouths shut and made the case for the police. Single purpose really only pertains to labeled containers. Like a beer can. I can store all kinds of things in a "gun" case.

Pistol/rifle cases are used by professional cameramen all the time for durability, waterproof, heavy duty locks and rated, etc. As a diver, I would see dive cameras all the time in pistol cases. Dive cases would sometimes just be relabeled ammo/pistol/range cases. Pelican vs plano. I put my high end electronics in Pelican pistol cases back in the day. Before that metal ammo cases with foam. Could imagine what a cop would think if he saw the back of my van. Watching this I thought about El Mariachi 1992 and the Untouchables. Lol.

Money could be inside.

🤔 I didn't know that

There are so many twists and kinks to the 4th ammendment that it renders it useless as a defense to prosecution..

The police had no legal justification to enter the property to conduct a search or investigation of any sort, because they had no reason to suspect that a crime was being committed. The whole thing should be thrown out, and they should be criminally charged for civil rights violations.

Yet another reason to never keep your firearm in one of these.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. Every law pertaining to the prohibition of firearms is a criminal conspiracy against civil rights.

In other words dont keep firearms in firearms cases? Got it

I was pulled out at gun point, put in hand cuffs, and thrown in the back of a police car for a toolset in my truck seat.

Lawstache?

And we should argue that there’s no such thing as a single used container. Therefore, setting president that the single used container exemption should be removed. I need to get back onto the courts.

I'm sure the appearance of a rifle case doesn't differ from the appearance of an electric piano case.

This is the first time I’m hearing of single use container, exception good to know

So single used container exception. So an ammo can is a single used container. If you fill it with saltine crackers and they see it in the trunk of your car they can open it because they think it’s supposed to have ammo in it correct?

Thanks 👍

Plain view Doctrine. Another reason to never answer your door for the police. Talk through the door. They can and will say anything. Also the 9 court is a dam circus they don’t care about the constitution.

Even a single purpose container could be used for other things. Just imagine, cops are called because someone is playing a violin loudly in the middle of the night. They arrive at the scene and see someone leaving with a violin case. They then search that single purpose container and discover a tommy gun inside. They still might be interested in the contents, but that's probably not the source of the noise violation they were looking for.

My question is, what if law enforcement wants to know if the single purpose container, i.e. gun case, is holding a particular style of firearm? More specifically an unregistered assault weapon, in some states, or an NFA item? Without probable cause, or disclosure from the owner, does this single use container rule apply?

Not according to the 4th Amendment. But damn the Amendment.

Put your gun in a lunch box .keep your lunch in your gun box .

The bill of rights are orders not permission slips.

Now we have accord in the 3rd and 9th circuits, with Range and Duarte. My prediction is that the en banc panel will affirm for continuity among the circuits. We also have Rehaif for those who were proceeded against in municipal courts, in violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 3 § 3 of the California Constitution per Prop. 220 of 1998 and 48 of 2002.

Located “near”, not on. Huge difference….