PDA

View Full Version : Prop. 8


jaymz
06-16-2010, 6:53 PM
If the CA. Supreme Court decides that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the 14th Amendment by treating one class of citizens (homosexual) different than another (heterosexual). Would it be possible/feasable to fight the "not unsafe handgun" law on the same grounds as it creates two classes of citizens - law enforcement and non-law enforcement? If so, it could be used to repeal other laws as well such as seat belt laws, no phones while driving, etc. What say you all? Am I wishful thinking?

wilit
06-16-2010, 7:03 PM
I've often wondered that because there are apparently quite a few exceptions to gun laws extended to LEO and .MIL. It's my understanding at one time, even some out of state cowboy action shooters were given permission to bring in +10 round centerfire lever actions into the state to compete. Not quite sure how any of that is legal.

Cokebottle
06-16-2010, 7:07 PM
I've often wondered that because there are apparently quite a few exceptions to gun laws extended to LEO and .MIL.
Scratch that... it's OBVIOUSLY not a "Safety" issue because it's not illegal to import off-roster handguns as a new resident, and it's not illegal to PPT them.

I suspect that these "exemptions" were written into the law to head off the claims that "it's a gun ban".

383green
06-16-2010, 7:08 PM
The handgun roster is already being challenged:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid

This case includes a similar sort of claim: One of the plaintiffs doesn't have a right hand, and thus is harmed by the exclusion of (much less common, and generally not rostered) left-handed versions of guns.

The case is on hold pending the outcome of the McDonald case, which is due to be decided in a couple weeks or so.

Barabas
06-16-2010, 7:19 PM
I suspect that these "exemptions" were written into the law to prevent poor people from defending themselves.

Here's the real, flawed reasoning. Unsafe handguns are cheap handguns. Remember the "ring of fire" pistols? Only economically disadvantaged persons with abundant melanin were taken advantage of by evil gun manufacturers attempting to kill them all off with unsafe firearms. Eliminating those unsafe firearms keeps them safe, see?

"Those people" aren't friends with law enforcement and aren't familiar enough with the law to get around the roster.

Shotgun Man
06-16-2010, 7:20 PM
If the CA. Supreme Court decides that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the 14th Amendment by treating one class of citizens (homosexual) different than another (heterosexual). Would it be possible/feasable to fight the "not unsafe handgun" law on the same grounds as it creates two classes of citizens - law enforcement and non-law enforcement? If so, it could be used to repeal other laws as well such as seat belt laws, no phones while driving, etc. What say you all? Am I wishful thinking?

As a point of clarification, it is a federal district court up in SF that is currently deciding the federal constitutionality of Prop. 8.

Although there was a state court challenge on different grounds, the CASC upheld Prop. 8. last year.

The state court challenge did not involve equal protection issues, rather it was asserted that Prop. 8 was a revision of the CA Constitution requiring voter support or some such thing.

I don't think the state case dealt with federal issues. I theorize that the reason the gay marriage proponents did raise equal protection under the federal constitution is that they feared they would be shot down by CASC. Their only recourse would be to seek certiorari with SCOTUS. They likely figured the timing was poor.

This current challenge is headed to SCOTUS anyway. I believe some gay marriage proponents similary protested the timing.

An equal protection challenge based on LEO and non-LEO is a valid legal theory.

stix213
06-16-2010, 7:28 PM
The handgun roster is already being challenged:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid

This case includes a similar sort of claim: One of the plaintiffs doesn't have a right hand, and thus is harmed by the exclusion of (much less common, and generally not rostered) left-handed versions of guns.

The case is on hold pending the outcome of the McDonald case, which is due to be decided in a couple weeks or so.

Oh I like this one, as it even includes the touchy feely state of CA discriminating against the handicapped :D

Cokebottle
06-16-2010, 7:31 PM
Here's the real, flawed reasoning. Unsafe handguns are cheap handguns. Remember the "ring of fire" pistols?
And to the dismay of Sacramento, most of those guns passed the tests.
"Those people" aren't friends with law enforcement and aren't familiar enough with the law to get around the roster.
That's assuming that they care about the law... (referring to "those people" as "gangbangers" and other criminals).
The roster doesn't matter to someone who is obtaining a gun illegally.

That's the fact that the idiots in Sacramento keep forgetting....
VERY FEW crimes are committed with a gun legally registered or purchased by the perp.

383green
06-16-2010, 7:34 PM
Oh I like this one, as it even includes the touchy feely state of CA discriminating against the handicapped :D

He's a member of this board, and I've met him a couple times... I'm pretty sure he's laughing his backside off about that part, too! :43:

Anchors
06-16-2010, 9:05 PM
Scratch that... it's OBVIOUSLY not a "Safety" issue because it's not illegal to import off-roster handguns as a new resident, and it's not illegal to PPT them.

I suspect that these "exemptions" were written into the law to head off the claims that "it's a gun ban".

I'm under the opinion that it was passed to
A. Make money and get free firearms from manufactures or make them weary of dealing with CA.
B. Cause a price increase in handguns that aren't on the safe list, to essentially "dry up" their supply.
C. Make a dumb law, so everyone can "feel good" just like the trigger locks for handguns law. Like I couldn't find my parent's keys and figure that one out even when I was five (not that I ever did that, just saying that any half mentally competent child is capable of seeking out a key and using it with a lock.)

stix213
06-16-2010, 9:11 PM
I'm under the opinion that it was passed to
A. Make money and get free firearms from manufactures or make them weary of dealing with CA.
B. Cause a price increase in handguns that aren't on the safe list, to essentially "dry up" their supply.
C. Make a dumb law, so everyone can "feel good" just like the trigger locks for handguns law. Like I couldn't find my parent's keys and figure that one out even when I was five (not that I ever did that, just saying that any half mentally competent child is capable of seeking out a key and using it with a lock.)

I would bet on C as the biggest reason

bigstick61
06-16-2010, 9:33 PM
If the CA. Supreme Court decides that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the 14th Amendment by treating one class of citizens (homosexual) different than another (heterosexual). Would it be possible/feasable to fight the "not unsafe handgun" law on the same grounds as it creates two classes of citizens - law enforcement and non-law enforcement? If so, it could be used to repeal other laws as well such as seat belt laws, no phones while driving, etc. What say you all? Am I wishful thinking?

I think it would probably stand, since technically speaking, homosexuals can get married in California per the definition, which is the one we have been using for millenia; said definition naturally excludes same-sex unions from falling under it. People don't have a right to have definitions changed to suit the lifestyle they want publicly acknowledged. I don't see using definitions with such longstanding history as being any sort of rights violation or going against equality before the law.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 9:47 PM
Sorry to say, but the question is slight flame-bait. Peña v. Cid has already been filed and includes an equal protection claim. I am sure that if there is positive language from the Perry case decision, it will be submitted to the judge via what is called a 28(j) letter. It *would* be interesting if a Perry win would help Peña, but the possibility is too remote.

Completely unrelated, but 1000th post!

jaymz
06-16-2010, 10:30 PM
The question is not intended to be "flame bait", Prop. 8 is news today Peña is not, and it made me wonder if a decision against the constitutionality (?) would somehow help the "not unsafe" list, as well as other preferential treatment laws, go away. Sorry for thinking out loud about a possible backup plan.

Untamed1972
06-17-2010, 9:45 AM
An equal protection challenge based on LEO and non-LEO is a valid legal theory.


Especially since all of the LEO exemptions allow LEOs to buy items for their personal use which they have no intention of using in the course of their employment, or might not be allowed to use because of dept. policy.

The only exemptions that should be remotely acceptable should be for dept. purchased and issued equipment for use ON DUTY only.

loather
06-17-2010, 10:26 AM
The only exemptions that should be remotely acceptable should be for dept. purchased and issued equipment for use ON DUTY only.

Even that's unacceptable, perhaps even moreso than in the hands of regular citizens. If a gun is unsafe in my hands, it's unsafe in a cop's hands, too; cops have reason to draw their weapons more often than I do (since, after all, I'm not legally allowed to carry mine anyways) -- obviously that which makes the handgun unsafe is more likely to be encountered when a cop is wielding it. It's a completely nonsensical exemption in regards to the stated purpose of the law.

fatirishman
06-17-2010, 10:58 AM
There are two issues here - the legal issue and the policy issue. On the legal side, I seriously doubt this will help much, if at all (for a bunch of technical legal reasons, for reasons of timing and for the likely result of the case which will not be helpful, I fear, for advocates of marriage neutrality). On the moral issue, though, I think the only thing more repugnant than only "permitting" state agents to have weapons is to restrict the selfsame state agents to only having weapons when in costume. Much though I loath the Police state, prison-industrial complex, etc. it is true that a non-trivial number of them are, in many ways, on our side.

Untamed1972
06-17-2010, 11:14 AM
Even that's unacceptable, perhaps even moreso than in the hands of regular citizens. If a gun is unsafe in my hands, it's unsafe in a cop's hands, too; cops have reason to draw their weapons more often than I do (since, after all, I'm not legally allowed to carry mine anyways) -- obviously that which makes the handgun unsafe is more likely to be encountered when a cop is wielding it. It's a completely nonsensical exemption in regards to the stated purpose of the law.


That's why I said "remotely acceptable". The system as is stands grants personal benefits/privileges to someone because of their employment that are not directly related to their employment for required for performance of their duties.

Giving them access to thing for on-duty use would be a "little bit acceptable" because we also give LEOs access or ability to do other things ON DUTY they are not allowed to do off-duty, like exceeding the speed limit to get to a call, or running red lights and stuff like that. So allowing them access to certain kinds of equipment while on-duty to perform their job is one thing. Giving them special perks to have personal access to certain objects for their own personal and private use simply because of their job title is quite another.

For the record I dont think LE should have anything a regular joe can't have, but if they do it should be only dept. purchased and issued for on-duty use only.

jamesob
06-17-2010, 12:06 PM
any law could be like that. any gun laws separate law abiding and criminals, laws for criminals discriminate against law abiding citizens.

Meplat
06-17-2010, 12:36 PM
Seat belts & cell phones? How so?
:confused:


If the CA. Supreme Court decides that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the 14th Amendment by treating one class of citizens (homosexual) different than another (heterosexual). Would it be possible/feasable to fight the "not unsafe handgun" law on the same grounds as it creates two classes of citizens - law enforcement and non-law enforcement? If so, it could be used to repeal other laws as well such as seat belt laws, no phones while driving, etc. What say you all? Am I wishful thinking?

Untamed1972
06-17-2010, 12:43 PM
Seat belts & cell phones? How so?
:confused:

Not sure about the seat belts but I'm pretty sure there is an exception in the law about cell phone use while driving for LEOs....at least while they are on duty.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23123.htm

Hand-Held Wireless Telephone: Prohibited Use
23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.

(b) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.

(c) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.

(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.
(e) This section does not apply to a person when using a digital two-way radio that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate proximity to the ear of the user, and the person is driving one of the following vehicles:

(1) (A) A motor truck, as defined in Section 410, or a truck tractor, as defined in Section 655, that requires either a commercial class A or class B driver’s license to operate.

(B) The exemption under subparagraph (A) does not apply to a person driving a pickup truck, as defined in Section 471.

(2) An implement of husbandry that is listed or described in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 36000) of Division 16.

(3) A farm vehicle that is exempt from registration and displays an identification plate as specified in Section 5014 and is listed in Section 36101.

(4) A commercial vehicle, as defined in Section 260, that is registered to a farmer and driven by the farmer or an employee of the farmer, and is used in conducting commercial agricultural operations, including, but not limited to, transporting agricultural products, farm machinery, or farm supplies to, or from, a farm.

(5) A tow truck, as defined in Section 615.

(f) This section does not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125.

(g) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor vehicle on private property.

(h) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2008, and shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2011, and, as of July 1, 2011, is repealed.

Meplat
06-17-2010, 12:48 PM
That's the fact that the idiots in Sacramento keep forgetting.....

They are not forgetting a dam thing. They know the agenda is disarmament. It's to propagate government power. They don't give a rat's *** about safety and they know it. It's time we stopped perpetuating the myth that they are misguided. They are not. They are evil.

Meplat
06-17-2010, 12:49 PM
Not sure about the seat belts but I'm pretty sure there is an exception in the law about cell phone use while driving for LEOs....at least while they are on duty.

I see. Thanks.

jaymz
06-17-2010, 4:50 PM
I don't know for a fact, but I'm pretty sure that cops are exempt from wearing seat belts while on duty - even though they probably spend more time driving than most of us and therefore more likely to need a seat belt.

Billy Jack
06-17-2010, 5:19 PM
I don't know for a fact, but I'm pretty sure that cops are exempt from wearing seat belts while on duty - even though they probably spend more time driving than most of us and therefore more likely to need a seat belt.


Public safety employees are in fact exempt from wearing seat belts while on duty unless their employer has a written policy requiring them to do so.

I am not going to explain it, but it goes to their safety and their ability to safely execute their jobs.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

jaymz
06-17-2010, 8:47 PM
Yeah yeah, the gear they wear on their belts could get hung up while they exit the car in a shtf scenario. So what. I wear stuff on my belt too. I think if there's a law on the books, everyone needs to follow it. Period.

Ron-Solo
06-17-2010, 9:23 PM
Yeah yeah, the gear they wear on their belts could get hung up while they exit the car in a shtf scenario. So what. I wear stuff on my belt too. I think if there's a law on the books, everyone needs to follow it. Period.

The seat belt DOES get hung up on all that gear and it can be very dangerous. For your info, every department I know requires their officers to wear seatbelts while driving. We are allowed to unbuckle as we approach a scene or effect a traffic stop. Getting hung up in a seat belt can cost someone their life in a tactical situation. I've been hurt because my gear got caught on the seatbelt when responding to a baby not breathing call. After doing CPR and getting the baby breathing before paramedics arrived, I had to have help getting myself to the doctor. When lives are on the line, you work thru the pain.

It amazes me how a thread on Prop 8 turns into LEO bashing, which is what has happened here. Quit blaming LE for the screwed up laws the legislature has crammed down all our throats.

It amazes me how little people really know about what we do on a daily basis. I'm proud of every day of the last 32 years I've spent wearing the badge.

CavTrooper
06-17-2010, 9:32 PM
The seat belt DOES get hung up on all that gear and it can be very dangerous. For your info, every department I know requires their officers to wear seatbelts while driving. We are allowed to unbuckle as we approach a scene or effect a traffic stop. Getting hung up in a seat belt can cost someone their life in a tactical situation. I've been hurt because my gear got caught on the seatbelt when responding to a baby not breathing call. After doing CPR and getting the baby breathing before paramedics arrived, I had to have help getting myself to the doctor. When lives are on the line, you work thru the pain.

It amazes me how a thread on Prop 8 turns into LEO bashing, which is what has happened here. Quit blaming LE for the screwed up laws the legislature has crammed down all our throats.

It amazes me how little people really know about what we do on a daily basis. I'm proud of every day of the last 32 years I've spent wearing the badge.


Whats funnier is when a simple desire for citizens to be treated equal to LEOs draws complaints of "COP BASHING".

How many times can a boy cry wolf before we let him be eaten?

bodger
06-17-2010, 9:40 PM
And to the dismay of Sacramento, most of those guns passed the tests.

That's assuming that they care about the law... (referring to "those people" as "gangbangers" and other criminals).
The roster doesn't matter to someone who is obtaining a gun illegally.

That's the fact that the idiots in Sacramento keep forgetting....
VERY FEW crimes are committed with a gun legally registered or purchased by the perp.


They pretend to forget, or to not know in the first place, and they don't acknowledge that fact.

It's good political business in this state to keep the liberal voters believing that any gun law is a crime stopper, and any politician who is anti-gun is keeping them safe from armed criminals.

fd15k
06-17-2010, 9:40 PM
Whats funnier is when a simple desire for citizens to be treated equal to LEOs draws complaints of "COP BASHING".

How many times can a boy cry wolf before we let him be eaten?

True that.

jaymz
06-18-2010, 6:49 AM
The seat belt DOES get hung up on all that gear and it can be very dangerous. I'm sure it does, but cops are not the only ones that wear stuff on their belt. Why's it ok for me to get stuck in my car, but not you?For your info, every department I know requires their officers to wear seatbelts while driving. We are allowed to unbuckle as we approach a scene or effect a traffic stop. Fine. But the law says that you don't have to - that's a violation of the 14th Amendment. It may sound trivial but it is a "death by a thousand paper cuts" scenario. I don't like it. Getting hung up in a seat belt can cost someone their life in a tactical situation. Could - but probably not very likely. I've been hurt because my gear got caught on the seatbelt when responding to a baby not breathing call. After doing CPR and getting the baby breathing before paramedics arrived, I had to have help getting myself to the doctor. When lives are on the line, you work thru the pain.I've been hurt at work as well. And at home. And at play. I work through the pain all the time. Not that big of a deal. Lot's of people in lots of professions do. It's not exclusive to law enforcement.

It amazes me how a thread on Prop 8 turns into LEO bashing, which is what has happened here. Quit blaming LE for the screwed up laws the legislature has crammed down all our throats.
I absolutely am not, have not and will not participate in "cop bashing". Aside from the many friends I have in that are in law enforcement, my dad put in over 30 years with LAPD. My mom has 23 years and counting at LAPD. My brother is CHP (well, he will be on July 9th). All I'm asking is that the laws that get put on the books apply to everyone equally, or don't put them on the books.
It amazes me how little people really know about what we do on a daily basis. I'm proud of every day of the last 32 years I've spent wearing the badge.
I very much know what cops do on a daily basis - and it isn't Miami Vice. It's for the most part routine and mundane. Not trying to trivialize what cops do, it's just not an exciting job on a day to day basis at most departments.