PDA

View Full Version : Lee Baca on patrol? Re-Election?


Sobriquet
03-19-2010, 4:58 AM
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-lee-baca,0,4688612.story

LOS ANGELES -- L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca will go on patrol in East Los Angeles on Friday, as part of an effort to cut down on overtime pay by deputies.

Baca will hit the streets from 2 to 10 p.m. Friday in a two-person patrol car, according to spokesman Steve Whitmore.

"He grew up in East L.A., so he knows the neighborhood," Whitmore said. "He patrolled the same streets when he was a deputy, and he was a lieutenant at the East Los Angeles Station."'

Baca has checked out equipment he will need, including body armor and a ticket book, Whitmore said.

The Sheriff's Department and several other county departments have been asked to cut 9 percent from already stretched budgets in order to make ends meet. Each eight-hour shift covered by an executive saves the county $660 in overtime that would have been paid to a deputy, Whitmore said.

Overtime by sheriff's deputies has been the subject of scrutiny by county officials since an audit found that the department had exceeded its overtime budget by an average of 104 percent for each of the last five years.

Some deputies worked more than 900 hours of overtime in a single year.

Whitmore said money also could be saved in the Sheriff's Department budget by downsizing the north facility at the Pitchess jail in Castaic.

He was elected to a third term in 2006. When is the next election for LA County Sheriff? Perhaps we should start organizing an effort to put someone with healthier attitudes towards self-defense in office. It sounds like he's gearing up for re-election.

yellowfin
03-19-2010, 5:38 AM
Publicity stunt, probably to address our assertions that he's nothing but an oligarch in a cop's uniform.

GuyW
03-19-2010, 5:53 AM
What gives? I had heard that Lee Baca allegedly cannot carry a firearm due to an incident with an ex-wife.


More on this?

.

geeknow
03-19-2010, 5:59 AM
Publicity stunt, probably to address our assertions that he's nothing but an oligarch in a cop's uniform.

^^^this^^^

so, he will "save" the dept 660 bucks by taking a shift...?

yeah, right.

I wonder how much, exactly, this stunt is going to 'cost' us.

660 bucks...sheesh

how much do LEO's get...overtime-wise? even factoring in employee expenses (taxes and such), 660 bucks still seems steep.

Dont get me wrong, I am happy to pay LEO's to be out there....I just question the accounting.

n2k
03-19-2010, 6:07 AM
He was elected to a third term in 2006. When is the next election for LA County Sheriff? Perhaps we should start organizing an effort to put someone with healthier attitudes towards self-defense in office. It sounds like he's gearing up for re-election.

To late:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/la-county-sheriff-lee-baca-running-unopposed-for-4th-term-his-spokesman-says.html

Baca running unopposed for fourth term, official says
March 12, 2010*|* 7:57 pm
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca will not be opposed in his bid to win election to a fourth term, a department spokesman said Friday.
As of the 5 p.m. Friday filing deadline for the June 8 primary, no one other than Baca had completed the necessary paperwork to participate in the election, said Sheriff's Department spokesman Steve Whitmore.
Baca last ran for -- and won -- a third term in 2006, defeating two Sheriff's Department employees.
The apparent de facto victory comes as Baca announced that he is cutting $128 million from his budget over the next 16 months, through reductions in overtime and drastically reducing the number of inmates at the north facility of the Pitchess detention center in Castaic.
As result, the department is releasing hundreds of nonviolent offenders from the county's jail system. It was unclear how long the releases would continue, but the sheriff said inmates incarcerated for crimes including check-kiting, petty theft and drunk driving will serve only 50% of their time compared to 80% before the cuts.
In addition, the department is forcing supervisors to go out into the field to cover the shifts of officers who are taking days off. Whitmore said Baca would be among those pitching in. His first patrol will be from 2 to 10 p.m. March 19 in East Los Angeles.
--Andrew Blankstein

geeknow
03-19-2010, 6:15 AM
To late:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/la-county-sheriff-lee-baca-running-unopposed-for-4th-term-his-spokesman-says.html

Baca running unopposed for fourth term, official says
March 12, 2010*|* 7:57 pm
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca will not be opposed in his bid to win election to a fourth term, a department spokesman said Friday.
As of the 5 p.m. Friday filing deadline for the June 8 primary, no one other than Baca had completed the necessary paperwork to participate in the election, said Sheriff's Department spokesman Steve Whitmore.
Baca last ran for -- and won -- a third term in 2006, defeating two Sheriff's Department employees.
The apparent de facto victory comes as Baca announced that he is cutting $128 million from his budget over the next 16 months, through reductions in overtime and drastically reducing the number of inmates at the north facility of the Pitchess detention center in Castaic.
As result, the department is releasing hundreds of nonviolent offenders from the county's jail system. It was unclear how long the releases would continue, but the sheriff said inmates incarcerated for crimes including check-kiting, petty theft and drunk driving will serve only 50% of their time compared to 80% before the cuts.
In addition, the department is forcing supervisors to go out into the field to cover the shifts of officers who are taking days off. Whitmore said Baca would be among those pitching in. His first patrol will be from 2 to 10 p.m. March 19 in East Los Angeles.
--Andrew Blankstein



insane...:eek:

so, the guy in charge of law enforcement gets 'credit' for 'cutting' their budget.

ok, lets look at this closer.

is he really 'cutting' the budget, or is he simply not doing a portion of his job?

I would argue that he is simply not doing a portion of his job.

Now, if he was accomplishing the same things with less money, than I would say that the budget has, indeed, been cut.

But what do you call it when you receive the same pay but just dont do as much for it?

Politics make me slightly dizzy, and feeling like I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

Sobriquet
03-19-2010, 6:24 AM
To late:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/la-county-sheriff-lee-baca-running-unopposed-for-4th-term-his-spokesman-says.html

Baca running unopposed for fourth term, official says
March 12, 2010*|* 7:57 pm
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca will not be opposed in his bid to win election to a fourth term, a department spokesman said Friday.
As of the 5 p.m. Friday filing deadline for the June 8 primary, no one other than Baca had completed the necessary paperwork to participate in the election, said Sheriff's Department spokesman Steve Whitmore.
Baca last ran for -- and won -- a third term in 2006, defeating two Sheriff's Department employees.
The apparent de facto victory comes as Baca announced that he is cutting $128 million from his budget over the next 16 months, through reductions in overtime and drastically reducing the number of inmates at the north facility of the Pitchess detention center in Castaic.
As result, the department is releasing hundreds of nonviolent offenders from the county's jail system. It was unclear how long the releases would continue, but the sheriff said inmates incarcerated for crimes including check-kiting, petty theft and drunk driving will serve only 50% of their time compared to 80% before the cuts.
In addition, the department is forcing supervisors to go out into the field to cover the shifts of officers who are taking days off. Whitmore said Baca would be among those pitching in. His first patrol will be from 2 to 10 p.m. March 19 in East Los Angeles.
--Andrew Blankstein

I hadn't heard - thanks for your reply. So he's going to be in office until 2014 I suppose. Wonderful.

BigDogatPlay
03-19-2010, 10:46 AM
There is kind of an unwritten rule that the person with the most stars on their collar shouldn't be out working patrol. What happens, after all, when he does something contrary to one of his own published policies and gets beefed for it? To me this smacks of a Steven Segal - Lawman moment and I wouldn't expect him to do much more than what a well trained Level Two reserve would be doing.

This is a pure publicity play and nothing more. The 'Sheriff to the Stars' rides again. I am kind of curious who he is going to ride with.... a deputy, a senior deputy or FTO, or maybe a sergeant?

HowardW56
03-19-2010, 10:49 AM
There is kind of an unwritten rule that the person with the most stars on their collar shouldn't be out working patrol. What happens, after all, when he does something contrary to one of his own published policies and gets beefed for it? To me this smacks of a Steven Segal - Lawman moment and I wouldn't expect him to do much more than what a well trained Level Two reserve would be doing.

This is a pure publicity play and nothing more. The 'Sheriff to the Stars' rides again. I am kind of curious who he is going to ride with.... a deputy, a senior deputy or FTO, or maybe a sergeant?

And when they make a t-stop, they will get multiple back up units and air support....

There goes the savings....

Flopper
03-19-2010, 11:07 AM
I want to know how he's carrying a firearm if he apparently is not allowed to do so.

If that's the case, he needs to get charged with a crime, removed from office, and locked up.

Crazed_SS
03-19-2010, 11:29 AM
Why wouldnt he be carrying a firearm? Everytime I've seen him, he's been carrying what looks like a Beretta 92

yellowfin
03-19-2010, 11:36 AM
Nobody had the fortitude to stand up against him. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON. Wow. That Incumbent Sheriff Protection Law you guys have sure works its magic, eh? Nobody wants to run against their own boss.

BigDogatPlay
03-19-2010, 1:18 PM
I want to know how he's carrying a firearm if he apparently is not allowed to do so.

Do you have a link to source material that bears out this allegation? If not, then I have to call FUD until proven otherwise.

Baca makes a point, when in uniform, to wear regulation gear and (I presume) a department issued Berretta. If he was barred by law from carrying a firearm, he would be ineligible under his own department's policy to be a peace officer... elected sheriff or not.

Now if he is like the now retired Chief Heather Fong of SFPD, who let her department firearms qualification lapse and went at least two years unqualified... yet still carried, then that might be another story. It's an internal matter, but still of consequence. But I can't imagine Baca, who is a stickler for the rules I've heard, would let his qual lapse and not do anything about it.

And two of his staff ran against him four years ago... were beaten badly, and I would assume they've since retired or moved to another agency.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-19-2010, 1:46 PM
I've heard the rumor before, too, but for some reason it might have been applied to the now departed LAPD Chief. He wasn't CA POST cert'd, IIRC. At least at the beginning.

BTW, when KTLA played this story on the morngin news, walking by the TV for a split second I thought they were showing a pic of Jerry Brown. The two look a lot alike if you are not paying close attention!

bigcalidave
03-19-2010, 1:57 PM
It's really sad that NOBODY runs against him....

BigDogatPlay
03-19-2010, 2:09 PM
I've heard the rumor before, too, but for some reason it might have been applied to the now departed LAPD Chief. He wasn't CA POST cert'd, IIRC. At least at the beginning.

That would be former LAPD chief Willie Williams....

Initially in Los Angeles, Williams was not even certified to carry a gun. The Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) is a state agency that is responsible for certifying and setting the standards for all sworn peace officers in the state of California. This agency gives training, course work, and an initial test that must be passed by all peace officers. Williams was said to have failed the level one "Basic Course Waiver Exam" on three occasions. The state assembly passed a bill in 1993 exempting police chiefs from POST certification, hence, allowing them to carry guns. Some suggest this bill was passed to save Williams' from embarrassment. Williams' inability to pass a basic exam inevitably undermined his credibility (Shah, p.48, 1997; Santolla, 1998; Alpizar, 1999).

Source here. (http://www.csupomona.edu/~rrreese/WILLIAMS.HTML)

By the way.... Lee Baca is going to be 67 on his next birthday. I know he keeps himself in pretty good shape.... but.

SteveH
03-19-2010, 2:31 PM
I feel bad for the real cop that gets stuck riding with him, and writing the bossess paper for him. I doubt an administrator is even current on the legal updates and 2010 changes to the CVC & CPC.

1911su16b870
03-19-2010, 4:12 PM
Why wouldnt he be carrying a firearm? Everytime I've seen him, he's been carrying what looks like a Beretta 92

I saw him two weeks ago and he was not carrying a firearm.

Sobriquet
03-19-2010, 5:14 PM
I have absolutely no first hand knowledge of it. The person that told me is professionally involved with law enforcement all over Southern California. A quick Google search does reveal pictures as recently as 2007 with Baca carrying a gun. Maybe it's a rumor.

marc4
03-19-2010, 8:30 PM
I have absolutely no first hand knowledge of it. The person that told me is professionally involved with law enforcement all over Southern California. A quick Google search does reveal pictures as recently as 2007 with Baca carrying a gun. Maybe it's a rumor.

Your not the only one to hear that info. But what I heard concerns what goes on with his current wife and this info I heard comes from people who get invited to his birthday parties. So unless we witness it ourselves or his wife or Baca himself comes on board here and admits it, its still hearsay.

Edit: I ask a source and found out his current wife I speak of is actually already an ex, so the ex you speak about might be one and the same (Carol?)

CCWFacts
03-19-2010, 8:43 PM
He was elected to a third term in 2006. When is the next election for LA County Sheriff? Perhaps we should start organizing an effort to put someone with healthier attitudes towards self-defense in office. It sounds like he's gearing up for re-election.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

He's up for reelection this year, and he's the only one on the ballot.

I'm not sure why he's doing that publicity stunt. The only way he could fail to win the election would be if he were convicted of a felony before November, or dead.

I have absolutely no first hand knowledge of it. The person that told me is professionally involved with law enforcement all over Southern California. A quick Google search does reveal pictures as recently as 2007 with Baca carrying a gun. Maybe it's a rumor.

Pictures of him carrying a gun, or even seeing him carrying a gun, proves nothing. If he really were legally a disqualified person, I expect he would avoid embarrassing himself by carrying an airsoft. It is impossible to distinguish a good airsoft from the real thing, without handling it and inspecting it carefully.

bodger
03-19-2010, 9:56 PM
He probably just needs the overtime.

RomanDad
03-19-2010, 10:14 PM
As far as Lee Baca is concerned.... I dont know what the deal is with the whole "gun thing" (whether he carries one, doesnt, fake, whatever). I've heard the rumor as well... And there DOES APPEAR to be some truth at the heart of it. We may have even found the original charge... But it would take an interested media outlet to pick up the digging we've done and run with it... And there is none in Southern California.

My money says he will leave that office the same way his predecessor did. And then THE BOS gets to hand pick the (obviously anti-ccw) replacement.

CCWFacts
03-19-2010, 10:47 PM
As far as Lee Baca is concerned.... I dont know what the deal is with the whole "gun thing" (whether he carries one, doesnt, fake, whatever). I've heard the rumor as well... And there DOES APPEAR to be some truth at the heart of it. We may have even found the original charge... But it would take an interested media outlet to pick up the digging we've done and run with it... And there is none in Southern California.

Sure, I can well imagine that no one in SoCal wants to take him on, what with him being one of the most powerful LE executives in the country, and also with access to whatever Scientology goon squads are out there.

But what kind of digging is necessary? Aren't arrest records public records? And surely any kind of conviction is a public record?

RomanDad
03-20-2010, 8:40 AM
But what kind of digging is necessary? Aren't arrest records public records? And surely any kind of conviction is a public record?

So one would think?

Apparently there is a local jurisdiction that doesn't necessarily feel that way.

What we've found is a criminal case against a person named LeRoy David Baca in Riverside County. However the case number uses a different "Format" than the regular criminal cases (It begins with an "X" which is not standard for Riverside) and the record has been obviously sanitized. When our person went to the clerk to retrieve the file, she said that the birth date was all zeros on her screen. The clerk refused to print that out for us.

We've asked some local people "in the know" and they tell us that odd case numbering/ birth date convention is reserved for cases against police and fire agents popped for Misdemeanor DUIs and DV. I understand that SOME information about police and fire agents are by law restricted (namely ADDRESSES) but this jurisdiction has reportedly gone a step further and made it so the entire case files are in a black hole. Is this true? I dont know. I've been an attorney for a while now and I've seen some peculiar file keeping conventions from courthouse to courthouse, and there are lots of valid reasons to SEAL a file... But this is up there on the weird-o-meter. The file isn't SEALED.... You cant even touch it.


And without looking at the actual case files/ birth dates, its difficult to determine if the person with the similar name, IS IN FACT the person you think they might be or what the charge was. In fact, there is another case in the same jurisdiction against a person named Leroy David Baca, however that case file has a "normal" case number and its DEFINITELY NOT the Sheriff of Los Angeles.


So knowing that there were at least TWO records against "Leroy David Baca" in riverside (One normal and one "special") we sent our person back with hopes of getting a different clerk.... They requested the criminal history for Leroy David Baca and this time were told "there is nobody by that name in our system"- A flat out lie.... Because theres not only the mystery Baca, there is the other common criminal.

Other records put whatever offense triggered this to have occurred in 2000 or 2001. Following this there are is a very interesting correlation between donations by huge Baca supporters to the next Sheriff of Riverside County. For anyone willing to look, all the info is there. And much more that we can't let out just yet.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/BacaRecord.jpg

The Director
03-20-2010, 8:55 AM
We need to get that record somehow in it's entirety. Someone really needs to chew baca!:43::D

CCWFacts
03-20-2010, 10:18 AM
What we've found is a criminal case against a person named LeRoy David Baca in Riverside County. However the case number uses a different "Format" than the regular criminal cases (It begins with an "X" which is not standard for Riverside) and the record has been obviously sanitized. When our person went to the clerk to retrieve the file, she said that the birth date was all zeros on her screen. The clerk refused to print that out for us.

Wow.

That's a lot of smoke, enough for me to believe there's fire.

It would take some more aggressive digging, as you say, to figure it out.

What about court transcripts for the days in question? I guess it would all take a lot of digging.

retired
03-20-2010, 11:00 PM
Nobody had the fortitude to stand up against him. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON. Wow. That Incumbent Sheriff Protection Law you guys have sure works its magic, eh? Nobody wants to run against their own boss.

Self preservation wins out all the time.

bigj0hn
03-20-2010, 11:23 PM
I have heard from deputies that he carries a rubber gun due to a domestic violence conviction. No proof just have heard things. What about Jon and Ken on KFI? They do all sorts of investigating reporting.

M198
03-21-2010, 12:28 AM
None of this can be true because we all know how tough on guns the LASO and LAPD are. Certainly Bratton and the other nameless pain the brass would have arrested him.

http://www.laobserved.com/images/brattonbacaatmlk.jpg

marc4
03-21-2010, 8:01 PM
He's making himself a big target for those gangs out there. Imagine the street creed or bragging rights that gang member would have if he did take a shot at Baca. He should pull out of patrol and work the desk. It will save the same amount of manpower..
(Definitely not trying to imply that they should go after him. Just that putting himself out there is a big risk and an invite to the bad guys.)

CCWFacts
03-21-2010, 8:08 PM
He's making himself a big target for those gangs out there. Imagine the street creed or bragging rights that gang member would have if he did take a shot at Baca.

Sorry to say, but LA's Sheriff to the stars is probably going to be "on patrol" in Bel Aire, and he's more at risk of gaining weight at Spago's than he is of being shot by anyone.

Shotgun Man
03-21-2010, 9:35 PM
I saw this on tv-- it is a shrewd political move to exploit the media into reporting how his budget has been cut.

Soon, we'll see DA Steve Cooley personally prosecuting murder cases and City Attorney Trutanich personally prosecuting DUIs, both hoping to gain more funding for their departments. (Of course both would be shrewd enough to ensure their cases are bullet-proof, dead-bang winners, for the prosecution).

OlderThanDirt
03-21-2010, 11:09 PM
Flash back over thirty years. The Lieutenant in charge of LA County Sheriff courthouse security (Civil Division) noted that young deputy Leroy Baca would do well in the department. Young, smart and shrewd were used to describe Leroy. Pop was right on this one...

Unless the Sheriff steps on his dick, running unopposed is the norm, and has been for decades, at least until Baca looks vulnerable and there is another young, qualified and aggressive deputy waiting to pounce on the old fart.

lehn20
03-22-2010, 1:25 AM
I have been around Baca a lot over the years and have never seen him with a loaded handgun on his belt. In public the magwell has always been empty on his Beretta 92.
Not sure if it has anything to do with the reasons mentioned here.
I can't be too mad at him. He did issue me a CCW for 4 years:).
But as everything he does. No money, no honey.

marc4
04-25-2010, 10:34 PM
Someone is trying to hide his "Naughty Deeds" behind this Bill.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/rds_search/ci_14954479#

Local police back bill to restrict access to information about crime witnesses
By Nathan McIntire, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/24/2010 09:02:48 PM PDT

Invariably when a crime happens, police begin an investigation and, most times, produce a trove of information.

Just who has access to that information, and how much of it they can obtain, remains a balancing act for lawmakers. The smallest details of what can - or should be - publicly released often spark debates between competing interests.

It usually requires the state Legislature to step in and re-interpret the California Public Records Act, which has been on the books since 1968.

"I know it's a balancing act," Whittier police Chief David Singer said.

It pits "public information versus what we need to do or what the victims need or want," said Singer, who also heads LA IMPACT, a regional narcotics task force.

That debate, mostly dormant since the mid-1990s, was reignited last week with the consideration of a bill authored by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The proposal would allow law enforcement agencies to withhold the address of a victim of a crime from journalists or any other member of the public.

That change would represent a marked departure from the way crime information has been handled for decades, according to Terry Francke, founder of Californians Aware, a public records advocacy group.

"For the garden variety crime, a robbery or burglary or other crimes against property or against a person, the default rule has been that the name and address of a victim be accessible," Francke said.
Advertisement

Public records advocates won the initial battle in Sacramento on Thursday when an amended version of the bill did not survive the state Assembly's Public Safety Committee, losing by a 5-2 margin.

But the committee pledged to take the bill up once again on May 4 if it is further revised. Meanwhile, law enforcement and public records advocates have continued to weigh in on it.

Law enforcement officials, including police chiefs from three San Gabriel Valley cities, firmly back the bill, arguing it would help protect crime victims from being further victimized by people searching them out at their home.

"A victim who seeks privacy should have it," said Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who authored the bill. "I think what (the bill) is designed to do is not allow people who are mentally unstable or criminally- minded to know the address of a victim."

Public records advocates and the California Newspaper Publishers Association fiercely oppose Baca's plan, saying the bill is actually meant to disable the media and give police authority to keep crucial information about a crime secret and immune from public scrutiny.

"Records associated with crime are gathered at tremendous taxpayer expense and are the property of the public," wrote CNPA lawyer Thomas Newton in a letter last week to state Assemblywoman Norma Torres, D-Pomona, the bill's sponsor.

"Law enforcement agencies are mere custodians of the public's records, not paternalistic protectors that get to decide for their subjects just what information they think the public needs and what information it doesn't need, as this bill suggests."

The amount of information that can be released from a criminal investigation is governed by the California Public Records Act. It allows police to withhold information such as suspect and victim names, the crime's circumstances, and details of the arrest only if releasing such information would compromise an investigation.

Baca's bill would effectively broaden restrictions in the public records act by allowing cities to enact policies that would automatically keep a victim's address secret. Police chiefs in Pasadena, West Covina and Whittier all said they supported such a policy.

"The safety of a victim, the integrity of an investigation, I think outweighs in some cases the need for transparency," said interim Pasadena police Chief Christopher Vicino. "I don't see the general public benefit from knowing the exact address (of a victim)."

But Francke said that interviewing crime victims is an important method of holding law enforcement officials accountable for their actions. The protections afforded to victims by the bill would effectively disable the press from informing the public about many crimes, he said.

"The ability of the press to independently interview crime victims is one of the things that keeps the police honest," Francke said. "I'm not suggesting that they're dishonest but if there's no one able to check on what they're saying about crime then that's going to give them a lot freer hand in how they describe alleged criminal events."

Despite the bill's initial failure, West Covina police Chief Frank Wills said he would like to see it go even further. Currently, police must withhold the names and addresses of sexual assault victims, and Wills said that restriction should be extended to victims of all violent crimes.

"I have seen time and time again where the release of this information has exacerbated a trauma already suffered by victims," Wills said.

Baca and Singer each agreed and said victims are often reluctant to come forward because they fear their personal information will become public.

"They don't want to cooperate if they know people can get their names and address," Singer said.

Francke said those worries are unfounded, however, because a victim's address is merely used by the press to find victims and never published in media reports.

"The purpose isn't to put it in a news story," Francke said. "Whether they've noticed this or not, it just isn't done. The purpose is to be able to locate a crime victim and ask them some questions if they're willing to talk."

Read more: http://www.sgvtribune.com/rds_search/ci_14954479##ixzz0mBJfukjB

Ron-Solo
04-25-2010, 10:56 PM
[QUOTE=lehn20;3996675]I have been around Baca a lot over the years and have never seen him with a loaded handgun on his belt. In public the magwell has always been empty on his Beretta 92.
/QUOTE]

Sorry, got to call BS on this one. I saw him a month ago and he's carrying a real 92F with real magazines and bullets.

He was never convicted of any crime, so why would there be a firearms restirction?

CCWFacts
04-25-2010, 11:44 PM
Sorry, got to call BS on this one. I saw him a month ago and he's carrying a real 92F with real magazines and bullets.

Unless you actually handled it, or observed it being loaded with real ammo or being fired, how could you tell it's not an airsoft? The good airsofts today are totally indistinguishable without a close inspection and handling.

BigDogatPlay
04-26-2010, 10:00 AM
I'm not a big fan of Sheriff Baca's policies and politics, but how does the linked article prove that he is trying to conceal his own background?

And yes, I get it that there is something out there.... but I am not really seeing the nexus to the linked article.

darksands
04-26-2010, 10:10 AM
I have a buddy with an airsoft Beretta 92fs and it looks nearly identical. Put on the tin foil hats!

marc4
04-26-2010, 7:56 PM
I'm not a big fan of Sheriff Baca's policies and politics, but how does the linked article prove that he is trying to conceal his own background?

And yes, I get it that there is something out there.... but I am not really seeing the nexus to the linked article.

Once the bill is approved, no why you can get the name/info of the victim (wife) to connect to the subject. Without the name of the victim (wife), the convicted person can say its someone else with the same name.

Example: John Smith got convicted of domestic violence on his wife Jane Smith. There are hundreds of John Smith out there but only maybe one who is actually married to Jane Smith. Without the name of the victim, how would we know which John Smith got convicted.
I'm not a lawyer and there may be more ways to find out.