PDA

View Full Version : PoliceOne article on CCW for citizens


CalCop
07-29-2010, 6:18 PM
At least some cops are trying to help educate other cops that citizen CCW is okay...

"Dealing with civilians' right to carry"
By Ron Avery , PoliceOne columnist

As the ‘right to carry’ spreads across the United States, many law enforcement agencies and police officers express their unease — and for some, outright alarm — at the idea of citizens carrying concealed weapons.

In an effort to disseminate useful information that would be of benefit to law enforcement, let me talk about this issue from both sides of the fence so to speak.

As a former law enforcement officer, I have had to address concealed carry issues as part of my regular duties. In Colorado, where I live, guns are as natural a part of life as putting on your pants and hat. It is not uncommon to see a rifle or shotgun in the rifle rack in the back of any pickup truck window.

I live in one of the best parts of the country for deer and elk hunting. Come hunting season and we have literally thousands of hunters coming to Colorado to hunt. I never worried about contacting individuals where the guns were in plain sight. Without fail, the people contacted were forthright and honest in their manner and deeds. When I would ask if they had any handguns, they would tell me where they were and what they had.

The Master of Science in Law degree at Champlain College is designed for students who seek an understanding of the law and the legal system. Champlain College is accredited by the New England Association of Schools & Colleges. Operator Pants by LA Police Gear have taken the industry by storm! Try and pair and you won't be sorry.

Philosophically, I support the right to carry for anyone who can exercise the responsibility for proper care and awareness. I have found, by and large, that citizens who do carry concealed are very pro-law enforcement and would be very willing to come to your aid if you were in the middle of a fire fight. This can be good and bad but I try never to forget that they are supporters of law enforcement, not felons. This is a BIG difference.

Here are some thoughts to share with your personnel when they have to contact citizens who may be carrying concealed.

People who have gone through the process of getting a concealed carry permit are, in general, law abiding citizens, not felons.
Do not expect them to know the letter of the law or the interpretations of the law in various districts—they will have a general idea what the law states
IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE to treat someone who may be carrying a concealed weapon as an armed criminal, by all means do so — however, when you make a contact with a CCW, proning them out wouldn’t be my first option without digging a little deeper.

article here (http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/2144601-Dealing-with-citizens-legally-carrying-a-concealed-weapon/)

wildhawker
07-29-2010, 6:48 PM
Full article here:
Dealing with citizens legally carrying a concealed weapon

With 48 of our 50 states allowing some form of CCW permit, the possibility of encountering a law-abiding, pro-law enforcement person carrying a gun is significant, and growing
As the ‘right to carry’ spreads across the United States, many law enforcement agencies and police officers express their unease — and for some, outright alarm — at the idea of citizens carrying concealed weapons.

In an effort to disseminate useful information that would be of benefit to law enforcement, let me talk about this issue from both sides of the fence so to speak.

As a former law enforcement officer, I have had to address concealed carry issues as part of my regular duties. In Colorado, where I live, guns are as natural a part of life as putting on your pants and hat. It is not uncommon to see a rifle or shotgun in the rifle rack in the back of any pickup truck window.

I live in one of the best parts of the country for deer and elk hunting. Come hunting season and we have literally thousands of hunters coming to Colorado to hunt. I never worried about contacting individuals where the guns were in plain sight. Without fail, the people contacted were forthright and honest in their manner and deeds. When I would ask if they had any handguns, they would tell me where they were and what they had.


Philosophically, I support the right to carry for anyone who can exercise the responsibility for proper care and awareness. I have found, by and large, that citizens who do carry concealed are very pro-law enforcement and would be very willing to come to your aid if you were in the middle of a fire fight. This can be good and bad but I try never to forget that they are supporters of law enforcement, not felons. This is a BIG difference.

Here are some thoughts to share with your personnel when they have to contact citizens who may be carrying concealed.

• People who have gone through the process of getting a concealed carry permit are, in general, law abiding citizens, not felons.
• Do not expect them to know the letter of the law or the interpretations of the law in various districts—they will have a general idea what the law states
• IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE to treat someone who may be carrying a concealed weapon as an armed criminal, by all means do so — however, when you make a contact with a CCW, proning them out wouldn’t be my first option without digging a little deeper

Here are some more thoughts to consider.

Manner of Dress
Concealed carry folks and cops seem to go to the same tailor — generally speaking, most will not look like dirt bags. They are generally conservatives in viewpoint and tend to dress the part. Many are professional people who will be more neatly dressed. They don’t generally have the crotch of their pants at knee height or wear their baseball hat cocked at a ridiculous angle.

The discriminating CCW carrier also falls prey to fashion just like cops do. The “tactical look” is in. Look at the various brands of advertised tactical gear and clothing or concealed carry wear. Study the brand names and learn what the clothes look like. Felons don’t generally go for this look but CCW carriers and many cops do.

I look for “tactical carry” vests — such as 5.11 Tactical, Blackhawk, Concealed Carry Clothiers or other “brand name” items — along with some sort logo baseball hat, long sleeved shirt, side cargo pocket pants or jeans with sturdy, lightweight, and hiking footwear to complete the “uniform.”

Colder weather finds CCW carriers wearing jackets and windbreakers — unzipped jackets can be an indicator of concealed carry in cold weather.

They may or may not be wearing some sort of sporting goods or gun manufacturer logo.

Oakley or similar impact resistant, higher profile eye wear in daylight rounds out the basics.

In hot weather, some will have a shirt hanging over the belt line to conceal an in the pants holster. Any sort of outer garment in hot weather or the shirt hanging out over the pants is cause for further scrutiny.

Concealed carriers generally wear holsters! This is a key point. Most felons I have known or have heard about won’t carry a firearm in a holster. Also common are fanny packs. These two things alone can be a big tip off that you are not dealing with a felon. Day planners, briefcases, backpacks are less common but available. Study the gear catalogs and remember the look of those products.

Off duty cops will also wear the above many times. Look at the shoes. In my area, if they are black, nine times out of ten they are either a cop or a security guard. Areas with military personnel have other indicators to look at.

Look at the belt line. Are they even wearing a belt? Look at the belt and the buckle if they are wearing one. Gun belts are generally a bit thicker and most times wider than a standard dress belt. Web belts with hard core buckles, 1.5” thick leather belts with strong buckles are indicators of concealed carry.

BlackHawk has a dress belt that is 1 ¼” that simulates a smaller dress belt. Look at it. There are only a couple of styles and colors. They have some sort of reptile skin pattern.

Look for bulges on one side of the body which you can see under clothing. Some wear a T-shirt over their gun and it will bulge conspicuously. Bulges in the pocket for the small autos or revolvers are something to look for. Look for bulges when they bend over and the butt of the gun may stick out slightly.

I don’t know of any CCW carriers that carry a gun in the hood of their sweatshirt like felons are known to do. I do know many that carry one in a jacket or coat pocket. Look for the sag on that side.

Look at the hem line of long pants, one side may droop more if the gun is pulling that side down. If carrying an ankle holster, it will bulge the inner part of the pant around the ankle.

Deep cover carry around the groin (and elsewhere) will be hard to pick up visually, particularly when dealing with a small gun. Only a pat down search will reveal it.

Watch for accessories — CCW’s carry the same gear as cops. An expensive folding knife in the pocket, a Surefire flashlight, and even magazine pouches are all indicators.

Are they right- or left-handed? Most carry the gun on the strong side of the body. What side of the body is the wrist watch on (if you can see it)? Right handers generally wear the watch on the opposite hand. This will tip you off on where to look. Is there a cell phone that you can see? What side are they wearing it on? If not on the strong side, then maybe there is a reason for the off-side carry? Possible indicator.

Important note: Don’t stop looking when you find one gun. Look for a second gun, as well as any number of knives, pepper spray, or other weapons.

Demeanor
Most concealed gun carriers have nothing to hide. They are generally not evasive in their speech or mannerisms. They may be nervous, but they are generally forthright in their dealings with law enforcement. If you ask them if they are carrying a handgun, they will most likely tell you. The law in many areas demands that they tell you upon contact.

Don’t expect them to share this information with you on contact though. Some will be nervous enough to forget to tell you or just hope to get through the contact without you noticing. This may be true on car stops for traffic infractions — a technical foul, but not a deal-breaker for me personally.

Being around cops will make many gun carriers nervous. They become self conscious about carrying their gun and will demonstrate that nervousness by their body language. You may key into this as being suspicious behavior. I would suggest evaluating further before you make an assumption.

Off-duty cops have a bad habit of not really concealing the gun well. They don’t seem to mind that it will show or that people may notice and take alarm. After all, they are cops and not bad guys right?

Lawful concealed gun carriers also feel as if they are the “good guys.”

I once had a driver/bodyguard for a foreign dignitary during a car stop come out of the car quickly and come rapidly my way while reaching behind him to his right rear waistband. I had already drawn my weapon at that threat indicator, and when I commanded him to stop he was suddenly acutely aware of his faux pas.

He was in a hurry to get the dignitary to a meeting and wanted to establish his bona fides with me ASAP. In his mind, he was a “good guy” and didn’t realize what he had done when reaching for his wallet while rapidly coming out of the vehicle toward me. Remember, they don’t always think ahead or have rehearsal training in how to interact with law enforcement.

Again, this demeanor will show upon contact if you are a uniformed officer contacting an off duty one. Smart idea to carry the badge next to the gun if you are going to advertise that you are a cop.

Be aware that there are “concealed carry” badges for sale out there that look similar to cop badges. Really check to see what you are looking at and check other forms of ID as well.

I would expect there will be forgeries out there as well. Know what the concealed carry license looks like from your area and see if you can get photos of concealed carry ID cards from other areas of the country. Other forms of ID to compare with the concealed carry ID would be helpful such as driver’s license, etc.

Behaviors
Among the things that I look for when evaluating a potential gun carrier are various forms of evasive behaviors

• Looking away or avoiding eye contact when talking to them — this is suspicious to me and is not in the manner of a law abiding gun carrier
• Moving away, getting out of sight when they see a uniformed officer— again, suspicious to me

Behaviors not typical of lawful CCW carriers

• Challenging to fight
• Gang style clothing and manner of dress.
• Gang signs and posturing
• Belligerent attitude unless provoked

Obviously there are many others but I am sure you get the basic picture.

Shared Behaviors
This is normal behavior and/ or indicators from most of the gun carriers I see, cops, CCW carriers and other gun carrying personnel carrying discreetly.

• Shifting of the clothing — such as hitching up the pants, moving a jacket in place, pulling a pant leg over something, etc. — especially when getting in or out of a vehicle or getting up from sitting
• Not zipping up a jacket when it’s cold out
• Touching the area of clothing over the gun with any part of the forearm, elbow or hand
• Checking out their surrounding constantly — the head on a swivel
• Stopping with back to a wall

wildhawker
07-29-2010, 6:48 PM
contd:


I’m not quite sure whether this is a subconscious affirmation of protection or self conscious behavior. I just know they do it. Again, only the highly trained and disciplined ones don’t do it.

Stances or Postures
A bladed stance upon contact — combined with manner of dress and demeanor — would be indicative of concealed carry. Many will do this without realizing they are doing it. I don’t really see it as aggressive behavior. They are just being cautious like you or I would be.

Sometimes a CCW carrier will touch their fingertips to each other in front when contacted. They often have a more alert, balanced stance than the typical, sitting-on—the-heels, slouched back posture of the average person. A perception of “readiness” will be conveyed to you quite clearly.

Education and Public Awareness
Rather than seeing CCW as a necessary evil, I would look upon it as an opportunity to work with your citizens. In talking with CCW carriers in my courses I have had numerous opportunities to get their point of view on this subject. By and large, they are very pro-law enforcement and will go out of their way to help you should the need arise. I treat them with respect and as a resource.

Law abiding citizens do not expect to be treated like a felon — nor should they be. They will be angry if you prone them out, spread eagle them against a wall, or take their firearm from them without just cause. Good point to remember: A little thought and common sense goes a long way here.

When I made contacts with suspected concealed gun carriers, I would first position myself to advantage and then ask if they were carrying a firearm. If they replied in the affirmative, I would then ask them not to touch it and tell me where it was. I would them have them put their hands away from it during the time of the contact if it was in public. I would not disarm them unless there was demonstrated cause and/or I was going to arrest.

On traffic stops, I would ask them to keep their hands on the steering wheel at all times unless I asked them to do something. If I needed more from them, I would ask them to remove the firearm, after I have stepped back, and then get out of the vehicle so I can finish the contact. A pat down search is appropriate after they have left the vehicle.


I don’t expect them to be experts on the law. Most will understand the gist of it but may get lost on certain points.

In some parts of the country, it is legal to carry a handgun within the confines of your vehicle while traveling. If you ask them to get out of the car however, they are now “carrying concealed” and it’s you who has put them in this position. They may be flustered or nervous and not know what to do. I advocate education, not enforcement, under these circumstances.

If they grossly violated provisions of statute, then it is your call on what to do. There is a culture and custom that exists in every area of the country on what is expected on both sides of the aisle — law enforcement and the general public. It is largely unwritten, but definitely there.

If it was a traffic or other violation combined with being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, then you have a couple of problems to deal with. Disarming is appropriate without letting them handle the firearm as soon as it is safe for you to do so. Proceed as per your usual policies, putting them in a position of disadvantage and controlling the arm on the side of the gun when you take it from them. Make sure you deal with the gun safely when you do take it.

Obviously, hostile behavior should be treated just like any other felon contact.

Consider having a pamphlet made up that explains concealed carry in layman’s terms instead of dry legal prose. Have a question and answer section of the most commonly asked questions that you will get. When you make a citizen contact with a CCW, give them a pamphlet.

Keep in mind that though they carry firearms, CCW permit holders don’t expect to be treated like felons when contacted for minor infractions or otherwise. A little care and consideration goes a long way in avoiding unnecessary conflict.


About the author
Ron Avery is President and Director of Training for The Practical Shooting Academy, Inc. and Executive Director of the non-profit, Rocky Mountain Tactical Institute - both training institutions dedicated to professional firearms and tactics courses, higher police standards and training and use of force research. Train with Ron Avery. Visit his Course Calendar. Ron is a former police officer with many years of street experience, which he brings into the training environment. He is internationally recognized as a researcher, firearms trainer and world class shooter. His training methodology is currently being used by hundreds of agencies and thousands of individuals across the US and internationally. Ron has worked as a consultant and trainer for top level federal agencies, special operations military from all branches of the armed forces and law enforcement agencies across the US. He is a weapons and tactics trainer for handgun, carbine, select fire, precision rifle and shotgun, as well as advanced instructor schools, defensive tactics, team skills and tactics, low light tactics, arrest and control and officer survival.

bigstick61
07-29-2010, 6:55 PM
My godfather is one of those cops (CHP sergeant) who is alarmed by law-abiding citizens carrying guns. I had a conversation on the topic with him at my grandmother's funeral a couple of weeks ago. My father started by asking what he thought of open carry. My godfather said anyone who open carries is a fool and an idiot, even someone who conceals and carries who is not a cop, and he said something to the effect if he sees someone carrying a gun in a holster or printing, regardless if they are behaving completely lawfully, unless he knows they are a cop, he will draw on them, point the gun at their head, and disarm them, etc. and if they make any move he feels threatened by he will not hesitate to shoot them. Basically if he notices someone open or concealed carrying that's not a cop he will start a confrontation. All the while he was carrying his Glock partially concealed in an IWB holster in plain clothes with no badge exposed. Hypocrisy if I ever saw it. I didn't push the matter because as he was saying it his tone rose up like the thought of it upset him and I didn't want to get into a big ol' argument and create bad blood right there, especially since my father in an argument with a cop will always take the pro-LEO side since on an issue likee this he will defer to whatever opinion a LEO has, regardless of the facts.

NiteQwill
07-29-2010, 7:22 PM
The article only applies to the other free states, not California.

jaymz
07-29-2010, 7:44 PM
:dupe:http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=326029:dupe:

exklusve
07-29-2010, 7:45 PM
someone who conceals and carries who is not a cop, and he said something to the effect if he sees someone carrying a gun in a holster or printing, regardless if they are behaving completely lawfully, unless he knows they are a cop, he will draw on them, point the gun at their head, and disarm them, etc. and if they make any move he feels threatened by he will not hesitate to shoot them.

Some people wonder why everyone doesn't have a positive view/attitude about the law enforcement...
Case and point right here.

Pig Rifle
07-29-2010, 7:59 PM
This article was just great. This guy sounds like one of the good ones for sure.:patriot:

Stonewalker
07-29-2010, 8:00 PM
My godfather is one of those cops (CHP sergeant) who is alarmed by law-abiding citizens carrying guns. I had a conversation on the topic with him at my grandmother's funeral a couple of weeks ago. My father started by asking what he thought of open carry. My godfather said anyone who open carries is a fool and an idiot, even someone who conceals and carries who is not a cop, and he said something to the effect if he sees someone carrying a gun in a holster or printing, regardless if they are behaving completely lawfully, unless he knows they are a cop, he will draw on them, point the gun at their head, and disarm them, etc. and if they make any move he feels threatened by he will not hesitate to shoot them. Basically if he notices someone open or concealed carrying that's not a cop he will start a confrontation. All the while he was carrying his Glock partially concealed in an IWB holster in plain clothes with no badge exposed. Hypocrisy if I ever saw it. I didn't push the matter because as he was saying it his tone rose up like the thought of it upset him and I didn't want to get into a big ol' argument and create bad blood right there, especially since my father in an argument with a cop will always take the pro-LEO side since on an issue likee this he will defer to whatever opinion a LEO has, regardless of the facts.

It sounds like you've already arrived at this conclusion, but your godfather is bastard, an elitist and a bad cop and shouldn't be in authority over us 2nd-class-sheep-citizens.

I'm sorry for my harsh words, but his attitude is extremely anti-liberty and anti-2A. Our freedom in America would be safer if he wasn't a cop.

morfeeis
07-29-2010, 8:10 PM
• Checking out their surrounding constantly — the head on a swivel
• Stopping with back to a wall

i do these two all the time no matter what....

RomanDad
07-29-2010, 8:13 PM
My godfather is one of those cops (CHP sergeant) who is alarmed by law-abiding citizens carrying guns. I had a conversation on the topic with him at my grandmother's funeral a couple of weeks ago. My father started by asking what he thought of open carry. My godfather said anyone who open carries is a fool and an idiot, even someone who conceals and carries who is not a cop, and he said something to the effect if he sees someone carrying a gun in a holster or printing, regardless if they are behaving completely lawfully, unless he knows they are a cop, he will draw on them, point the gun at their head, and disarm them, etc. and if they make any move he feels threatened by he will not hesitate to shoot them. Basically if he notices someone open or concealed carrying that's not a cop he will start a confrontation. All the while he was carrying his Glock partially concealed in an IWB holster in plain clothes with no badge exposed. Hypocrisy if I ever saw it. I didn't push the matter because as he was saying it his tone rose up like the thought of it upset him and I didn't want to get into a big ol' argument and create bad blood right there, especially since my father in an argument with a cop will always take the pro-LEO side since on an issue likee this he will defer to whatever opinion a LEO has, regardless of the facts.



Wow..... What a dick.

morfeeis
07-29-2010, 8:14 PM
My godfather is one of those cops (CHP sergeant) who is alarmed by law-abiding citizens carrying guns. I had a conversation on the topic with him at my grandmother's funeral a couple of weeks ago. My father started by asking what he thought of open carry. My godfather said anyone who open carries is a fool and an idiot, even someone who conceals and carries who is not a cop, and he said something to the effect if he sees someone carrying a gun in a holster or printing, regardless if they are behaving completely lawfully, unless he knows they are a cop, he will draw on them, point the gun at their head, and disarm them, etc. and if they make any move he feels threatened by he will not hesitate to shoot them. Basically if he notices someone open or concealed carrying that's not a cop he will start a confrontation. All the while he was carrying his Glock partially concealed in an IWB holster in plain clothes with no badge exposed. Hypocrisy if I ever saw it. I didn't push the matter because as he was saying it his tone rose up like the thought of it upset him and I didn't want to get into a big ol' argument and create bad blood right there, especially since my father in an argument with a cop will always take the pro-LEO side since on an issue likee this he will defer to whatever opinion a LEO has, regardless of the facts.
as stonewalker said my words will be harsh but the truth is the truth, it sounds more like fear then anything. he's uneasy with anyone being on even footing with him and when they are there's a big problem and he threatened by it. sounds like a wimp with a gun, drawing on someone should be the thing you do when there is no other option.

Pixs
07-30-2010, 2:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
My godfather is one of those cops (CHP sergeant) who is alarmed by law-abiding citizens carrying guns. I had a conversation on the topic with him at my grandmother's funeral a couple of weeks ago. My father started by asking what he thought of open carry. My godfather said anyone who open carries is a fool and an idiot, even someone who conceals and carries who is not a cop, and he said something to the effect if he sees someone carrying a gun in a holster or printing, regardless if they are behaving completely lawfully, unless he knows they are a cop, he will draw on them, point the gun at their head, and disarm them, etc. and if they make any move he feels threatened by he will not hesitate to shoot them. Basically if he notices someone open or concealed carrying that's not a cop he will start a confrontation. All the while he was carrying his Glock partially concealed in an IWB holster in plain clothes with no badge exposed. Hypocrisy if I ever saw it. I didn't push the matter because as he was saying it his tone rose up like the thought of it upset him and I didn't want to get into a big ol' argument and create bad blood right there, especially since my father in an argument with a cop will always take the pro-LEO side since on an issue likee this he will defer to whatever opinion a LEO has, regardless of the facts.

as stonewalker said my words will be harsh but the truth is the truth, it sounds more like fear then anything. he's uneasy with anyone being on even footing with him and when they are there's a big problem and he threatened by it. sounds like a wimp with a gun, drawing on someone should be the thing you do when there is no other option.

Hi Folks,
This is a much more positive approach to a problem than name calling and anger. The CHP srg. in the post makes me wounder just how prevalent this attitude is among Cal LEOs. Certainly, the individual needs intervention for a problem that can best be recognized by trained professionals from the mental health field. At the very least he needs to read the posted article that is linked in the first post. I would hope that no law abiding person would suffer an injury at this guy's hands or a certain E. Paolo Alto . LEO mentioned in another post on this board.
Best to all,
Pixs

tonelar
07-30-2010, 4:19 PM
My godfather...

displays the mode of thinking encountered in people who get into Law Enforcement for the wrong reasons. His is NOT the prevalent attitude in the majority of LEOs I run into professionally.
He should draw down on a State or Federal security detail sometime... if one is ever likely to make its way into Mayberry, CA.

Left Coast Conservative
07-30-2010, 4:43 PM
This is a really great article, but did anyone take the time to read the article linked within it on citizens assisting LEOs? (http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2143085-Would-be-warriors-in-waiting-Getting-help-when-you-need-it/)

Here is an interesting quote:

They are not aware that many states authorize officers to request and even demand assistance from citizens who are then bound by law to assist.

Does there exist a legal obligation to assist and officer, if requested, in California? :confused:

gobler
07-30-2010, 5:00 PM
This is a really great article, but did anyone take the time to read the article linked within it on citizens assisting LEOs? (http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2143085-Would-be-warriors-in-waiting-Getting-help-when-you-need-it/)

Here is an interesting quote:



Does there exist a legal obligation to assist and officer, if requested, in California? :confused:

Yes. Or at least there was in 1986/87

CCWFacts
07-30-2010, 5:10 PM
I believe that most cops in the shall-issue states feel basically the same way as that author, and that's great. I wish the others who don't feel that way would read it. The author puts it very well: CCWers who are stopped for infractions don't expect to be treated as felons. I like his attitude and I believe it is a common attitude among LEOs in the CCW regions.

bigstick61
07-30-2010, 5:29 PM
displays the mode of thinking encountered in people who get into Law Enforcement for the wrong reasons. His is NOT the prevalent attitude in the majority of LEOs I run into professionally.
He should draw down on a State or Federal security detail sometime... if one is ever likely to make its way into Mayberry, CA.

The impression he gave is one of the LEOs he works with mostly having views on the issue similar to his. His reaction is actually the most common I have run across when talking to LEOs outside of places like Calguns.

And I don't take offense at the name-caling. As I said, the only reason I didn't say anything was because I knew it would get very heated very fast.

FastFinger
07-30-2010, 5:37 PM
Not to threadjack, but in a similar vein..



INSIDER RUMINATIONS - By Suzi Huntington

Cops and the 2nd Amendment
Our forefathers really knew how to speak eloquently — if only they realized how their beautiful words ould become twisted in modern society. The debate over their meaning rages on and you and I must continue to navigate the minefield of new gun laws created every year. Depending upon who’s controlling the House and Senate, the laws ebb and flow much like the ocean tide on a sandy beach. Can I carry today, tomorrow, next Tuesday or when I’m retired? Who’s on first? Why has this become such a confusing subject?


Constitution For Beginners
Although there are a total of 27 amendments, the first ten are what we’re most familiar with and referred to as The Bill of Rights. These ten amendments were proposed March 4, 1789 and ratified December 15, 1791. All laws, new and old, have their roots in the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution and should not be taken lightly.

The Second Amendment has been interpreted so much and by so many it makes my head spin. Each time it’s reinterpreted it seems to have about a dozen extra special interest groups adding their two cents-worth because one person was tragically killed by some turd who should have been exterminated years ago. I’m not heartless, I’m just tired of seeing the special “So-and-so Act of Whenever” being passed with much fanfare as a feel-good, this is gonna solve our society’s problems legislation. These laws generally only add extra penalties onto the sentences of those same turds who don’t respect anything or anybody already — they have no effect on their mindset when deciding to victimize innocents.

I think of the Second Amendment as a means for society not only being able to fend for itself, but as one more way of helping you and I on the street. Society has the right and should be expected to take care of themselves. We’ve made too many people dependent on government to do everything for them. I hated all that responsibility when I was on the street and resented it when the community blamed me (the government) for their victimization. I loved it when someone would step in and help quell crime — especially if they were using their rightfully owned gun to do it! We should applaud the people who confront and claim victory over bad guys. Shake the hand and thank the storeowner or clerk who nails the would be robber. Yeah, what they did is dangerous, but it’s their right to protect themselves and others. They don’t have to wait in the equally dangerous situation for one of us to show up and save them. Think about it, they’re taking action. Good vs. evil, and right and wrong must be important to them. Cops are minutes away — when seconds count.


Good For The Goose
Every citizen living in and wanting to keep their state free should be allowed to keep and bear arms, plain and simple. No elitist attitude in that statement. Remember, you and I are citizens first, cops second. There should be none of this “I can carry a gun whenever I want because I’m a cop, but you can’t” mentality. What’s good for us is good for The People too. Society is just as responsible for knowing what’s right and wrong; the only difference between them and us is we’ve got a little more training on the subject and have chosen to be in this profession.

Since moving to a much smaller community than San Diego, I put myself in the boots of the local cops here and think if I were patrolling this vast rural area, I’d feel a comfort in knowing the community was well armed (and they are). My cover unit might have to respond from a neighboring county. If Mr. Smith happened to hear the commotion and showed up with his lever action .30-30 to help my sorry butt, I’d be most appreciative. It’s a simple idea and one I think our founding fathers meant to keep simple. It’s those who don’t want to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty who want to disarm society. They’ve convinced themselves they’ll be taken care of by someone or something else, but I can tell you we simply can’t take care of everybody and everything. I want people to be empowered to take back their lives, to stand up and be responsible for every aspect of their lives — including their safety.

American Cop Magazine November / December 2009

GuyW
07-30-2010, 6:17 PM
The impression he gave is one of the LEOs he works with mostly having views on the issue similar to his. His reaction is actually the most common I have run across when talking to LEOs outside of places like Calguns.


He is the most common LEO. They don't necessarily really think about these issues before they adopt the consensus of the LEOs around them (aka groupthink).

My buddy is a retired CHP Sgt. Before he retired, he admits he was a "guns only for cops" guy (I don't think he was as extreme as this dinosaur). He went to law school, where he had occasion to actually think about the issues, and turned 180 degrees. Now he's done legal work with Team Billy Jack, joined the NRA, and other things.

Effective outreach to LEO would be good for our community - but I don't know the "how" of it - ESPECIALLY since the LEOs think that citizens don't know jack-**** about the topic (a variation of the "guys automatically know all about shooting" mindset). I think its going to default to painful OJT legal re-training, post Court cases...
.

Californio
07-30-2010, 6:45 PM
I believe your Godfather has been indoctrinated into the New California Order preached by the current trainers. When I go to AZ and visit my BIL who is now a retired LEO the mentality is 180. I happen to know two, close to retirement CHP officers, that don't think that way but their politics bends towards Libertarian.

CalCop thank for the read.

advocatusdiaboli
07-30-2010, 7:11 PM
My godfather said anyone who open carries is a fool and an idiot, even someone who conceals and carries who is not a cop, and he said something to the effect if he sees someone carrying a gun in a holster or printing, regardless if they are behaving completely lawfully, unless he knows they are a cop, he will draw on them, point the gun at their head, and disarm them, etc. and if they make any move he feels threatened by he will not hesitate to shoot them. Basically if he notices someone open or concealed carrying that's not a cop he will start a confrontation. All the while he was carrying his Glock partially concealed in an IWB holster

So how'd you end up marrying into a family headed by the Gestapo any who?

bigstick61
07-30-2010, 7:15 PM
So how'd you end up marrying into a family headed by the Gestapo any who?

I'm not married. He's my godfather not my father-in-law. He has been friends with my father since they were in Junior High. They both come from the same area (El Sereno in East L.A.). My father chose him to be my godfather before my baptism. He didn't join the CHP until some time later. I think his time in law enforcement changed him to some degree.

Wherryj
07-30-2010, 7:23 PM
It sounds like you've already arrived at this conclusion, but your godfather is bastard, an elitist and a bad cop and shouldn't be in authority over us 2nd-class-sheep-citizens.

I'm sorry for my harsh words, but his attitude is extremely anti-liberty and anti-2A. Our freedom in America would be safer if he wasn't a cop.

His behavior is at least unbecoming of someone charged with protecting and serving the population. Why is he so intent upon shooting law-abiding citizens?

Does it threaten his machismo if someone other than a cop has a weapon? Perhaps he needs some psychiatric help. I believe that he's compensating for something-and probably chose this job for the same reason.

Stonewalker
07-30-2010, 8:08 PM
Hey bigstick61, I should probably apologize for the 'bastard' name-calling. I'm sorry, I wrote that quickly and angrily. It angers me that LEO, those who have specifically been put in authority over us, are allowed to have this kind of attitude. It's so far from servitude. Every LEO needs to have a servant's heart to be an effective keeper of justice.

I just have so little hope for Police Departments, Sheriff Departments and Federal LE Agencies. It seems that most LEO just want to suck on the teat of a government who promises to take care of them if they keep the status quo. Anyways, thanks for being mature and not jumping on me for my name calling.

The attitude of the officer who wrote the article seems to be pretty good. He seems to know the constitution and he truly seems to want to serve society. These are the kind of attitudes that need to be TAUGHT in criminal justice classes and TRAINED in PD's. Officers need to be PUNISHED for having attitudes of anything other than servitude and upholding the constitution. I'm of the opinion that all public servants need to face SEVERE penalties for partaking in actions that violate the constitution and serve themselves.

Just my feelings on the subject.

Wulf
07-30-2010, 8:17 PM
This article was just great. This guy sounds like one of the good ones for sure.:patriot:

Ron Avery is a long time action pistol/3-gun shooter. It wouldn't surprise me if he's a lot cooler about the idea of civilian CCW than most cops because he's seen a lot of really competent handgunning by joe blow's.

Not to take anything away from what he wrote, but he's had a lot of good exposure to civilians with guns.

Scott Connors
07-30-2010, 8:53 PM
It sounds like you've already arrived at this conclusion, but your godfather is bastard, an elitist and a bad cop and shouldn't be in authority over us 2nd-class-sheep-citizens.

I'm sorry for my harsh words, but his attitude is extremely anti-liberty and anti-2A. Our freedom in America would be safer if he wasn't a cop.

Remember the line from Blade Runner? "You know the deal, Dekker: if you're not cop, you're little people." The original article should be made required reading for all LEO CE. It might also be a good idea to have LEOs attend a civilian CCW course so as to decrease tensions on both sides: they'll be more familiar with civilians carrying, and there can be some exchange of concerns which will hopefully lead to improved communications.

Veggie
07-30-2010, 8:55 PM
The aforementioned godfather seems to forget that police, like military are in a role were they are there to protect and lay down their lives for the people. Not blow them away they second the flinch.

GuyW
07-30-2010, 8:57 PM
The aforementioned godfather seems to forget that police, like military are in a role were they are there to protect and lay down their lives for the people. Not blow them away they second the flinch.

Huh? You mean it isn't "To Prone and Shoot"??

.

Veggie
07-30-2010, 9:00 PM
Maybe I am young in age but ancient I thinking. :P

CenterX
07-30-2010, 9:21 PM
I grew up in a cop neighborhood and cop family hearing, "everyone is guilty of something - all you have to do is write it on the report, and it is so."

I sure hope I don't get caught for my cell phone printing. Slamming me prone could easily end my days of walking and breathing. All for printing - ouch.

What district is he in so I can keep on the spy?

But we are all guilty. Aren't we?

BillCA
07-30-2010, 9:22 PM
The OP gives a lot of good information in his article about how CCW holders view themselves as "part of the solution" and are not part of the problem. LEOs should note that the cost to CCW varies but generally speaking, by the time a citizen has obtained that permission slip, he's spent somewhere near $700 to $1100 on the gun, fees, holster, ammo, training, etc. If they have spent that kind of money just to carry legally, they won't want to jeopardize their investment by being stupid or committing crimes.

All of us: Take note of the "identifiers" he lists for spotting a CCW. The sagging hemline of slacks (angled belts too), the types of belts worn, etc. I think it's safe to say that most CCW carriers will be more careful about their clothing and ensuring it hangs or covers adequately when exiting a car or contacting a LEO. It's human nature. But I think they'll only do it once (if confident), such as making sure the suit jacket is fully covering.

This is as opposed to the BG's -- research has shown that BGs illegally carrying will almost always touch the concealed gun multiple times to reassure themselves that it's not exposed and still in place. Repeated touching around a concealed belt line or patting a jacket pocket should be a serious signal to LE.

My godfather is one of those cops (CHP sergeant) who is alarmed by law-abiding citizens carrying guns. I had a conversation on the topic with him at my grandmother's funeral a couple of weeks ago. My father started by asking what he thought of open carry. My godfather said anyone who open carries is a fool and an idiot, even someone who conceals and carries who is not a cop, and he said something to the effect if he sees someone carrying a gun in a holster or printing, regardless if they are behaving completely lawfully, unless he knows they are a cop, he will draw on them, point the gun at their head, and disarm them, etc. and if they make any move he feels threatened by he will not hesitate to shoot them. Basically if he notices someone open or concealed carrying that's not a cop he will start a confrontation.

The highlighted phrase is of major concern to me as a citizen and taxpayer. Except for a §12031(e) stop, a person who is otherwise behaving lawfully requires no contact from LE. If the LEO sees what he believes is a firearm printing through the clothing and responds with the immediate threat of deadly force, how is that different than pulling a gun on someone simply because they are wearing a legally sheathed knife on their belt?

It doesn't. And should that citizen with the firearm have a CCW or a legal reason for carrying (§12025.5 or is another officer) your godfather's actions could be viewed as excessive force and subject his employer to a costly lawsuit. And should he be mistaken and that "printing gun" turn out to be a Blackberry phone, some audio device or medical device, I can guarantee that he'd be facing a hellva lawsuit.

I'd suggest a casual sitdown with your godfather in a peaceful and low key setting. Let him read the OP's full post and ask him what his thoughts are. Ask him if he'd actually shoot someone over a concealed "bulge" on the strong side. Ask him IF he'd look for other tell-tales that might indicate it's not a gun (e.g. an earbud or its wires). Ask him what he'll do if it turns out it really isn't a gun and the citizen is irate at his treatment. If he suggests he'll "find" some PC to cover his butt, then it's time to have a talk with his superiors. He needs an attitude adjustment.

And I say that not in a vindictive or LEO-bashing tone. I say that to save his career and some citizen the danger he presents. What will he do in another 1-3 years if courts force shall-issue CCW in California? Will he force legal CCW holders out of their cars at gun point, prone them out on a rain-soaked freeway shoulder and seize their firearm? Or shoot them if he "feels threatened" by them lowering a hand to lay down? That will certainly end up being expensive for him and the CHP/State.


Does there exist a legal obligation to assist and officer, if requested, in California?
Yes. It's §150 of the Penal Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=55033718480+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve).

150. Every able-bodied person above 18 years of age who neglects or refuses to join the posse comitatus or power of the county, by neglecting or refusing to aid and assist in taking or arresting any person against whom there may be issued any process, or by neglecting to aid and assist in retaking any person who, after being arrested or confined, may have escaped from arrest or imprisonment, or by neglecting or refusing to aid and assist in preventing any breach of the peace, or the commission of any criminal offense, being thereto lawfully required by any uniformed peace officer, or by any peace officer described in Section 830.1, subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of Section 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, who identifies himself or herself with a badge or identification card issued by the officer's employing agency, or by any judge, is punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
The key here is "able-bodied". That lets off the hook those persons who have some medical or physical condition that would make it dangerous or likey injurious to them to render said assistance. For instance, a pregnant woman, a heart patient, a person with a bad knee, etc., may be justifiably exempt from assisting in a physical sense.

JimSar
07-31-2010, 1:33 AM
I sure hope I don't get caught for my cell phone printing. Slamming me prone could easily end my days of walking and breathing. All for printing - ouch.


Nuff lurking. May be off tipic, but this reminds me of a call to Len Tillem, KGO radio "I'm a lawyah" talk show host. A lady in her late 40's went to a supermarket (which I won't name) after her cardiologist fitted her with a heart monitor. Apparently a wire was exposed and the bulge showed through her garb (I guess east Indian from the accent and the community where the supermarket is located). A customer was alarmed and reported an explosive belt, ala suiside bomber, and out of nowhere a security person tackled her to the ground. No tap on the shoulder, just wham, bam, sorry, ma'am. Her first recollection after regaining consciousness was the manager apologizing profusely to her. Of course this never made the papers, so I don't know the outcome. Kinda curious what the cardio monitor showed.

creekside
07-31-2010, 2:37 AM
Yes. It's §150 of the Penal Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=55033718480+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve).



Am I the only one who looked at this and saw "5150 W&IC" instead of "150 PC"?

(5150 is the "danger to self or others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold))" statute.)

FastFinger
08-02-2010, 11:45 AM
Nuff lurking. May be off tipic, but this reminds me of a call to Len Tillem, KGO radio "I'm a lawyah" talk show host. A lady in her late 40's went to a supermarket (which I won't name) after her cardiologist fitted her with a heart monitor...

Why won't the supermarket be identified?

JimSar
08-02-2010, 12:09 PM
Why won't the supermarket be identified?

I'm not naming the store because I heard this on a radio talk show, with no independent confirmation from other media or even the internet.

ddestruel
08-02-2010, 10:46 PM
I believe that most cops in the shall-issue states feel basically the same way as that author, and that's great. I wish the others who don't feel that way would read it. The author puts it very well: CCWers who are stopped for infractions don't expect to be treated as felons. I like his attitude and I believe it is a common attitude among LEOs in the CCW regions.

I have to agree. In Montana you still needed to apply (though the process was simple) to get a CCW permit for inside the city limits of Missoula. You could not carry in a Bar or into a Bank, otherwise you carried just about everywhere else. Interactions with LEO's were always very friendly, in a traffic stop as the officer approached the vehicle it was a common courtesy to notify the officer that you had a concealed firearm. In numerous interactions, where you might be coincidentally in the vicinity of police action, the dialogue was typically Officer to me or another individual as he approached "Are you carrying"? any you would respond with a yes or no that was immediately followed by a conversation about what the officer was preparing to do, how to stay out of his way and if he needed help he would hollar. I was never dis-armed or even asked to relinquish my weapon by a trooper, sheriff or police officer at any time from 21 on when i had my permit. Never an issue and unfortunate that CA LEO's feel so threatened by the people they are supposed to serve not govern over. Let me also point out though that this is not always the case in Ca but it is prevelent. That said most of the LEO's that i know i CA are very cordual friendly people who have a difficult job in a tough enviroment. The contrast in approaches and dialogue with LEO's from one state to another is very different and visable. In Montana most LEO's I knew viewed most law abiding as an asset, resource, peers and treated you as such.

It is a striking contrast now that i live down here in Kalifornia, in many areas but not all. I have experienced similar LEO positive dialogue and treatement by Mendocino county Sheriffs but in other countys or in conversations with LEO's in city's and or with CHP and Sheriffs departments that are not firearm friendly their approach and attitude is different if you even mention private citiznes CCWing.

locosway
08-03-2010, 8:01 AM
Yes. It's §150 of the Penal Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=55033718480+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve).


The key here is "able-bodied". That lets off the hook those persons who have some medical or physical condition that would make it dangerous or likey injurious to them to render said assistance. For instance, a pregnant woman, a heart patient, a person with a bad knee, etc., may be justifiably exempt from assisting in a physical sense.




Couldn't one argue that by not being armed, one is not "able-bodied" as say an officer is?

Arondos
08-03-2010, 11:38 AM
What I see posted here is exactly the problem when it comes to LEO's. They have been trained, fed, taught, and retrained that everyone a suspect, person of interest, or has done something wrong.

Anymore if I have contact with an LEO even when making a report as a witness, or a victim I spend more time worried about is this LEO going to try to find a reason to harass me than I do worrying about why I am talking to them.

I saw a poster a while back that talked about law enforcement then versus now. One on side was the I believe Norman Rockwell of a kid and a cop sitting beside each other on bar stools at a diner talking. The new side the cop that on had the swat gear, helmet, and AW.

The police need to realize that the VAST majority the people they serve and protect aren't hardened criminals and they deserve at least some basic courtesy and respect. If I get pulled over, stopped, or interviewed and the LEO doesn't want to give me any respect except to act like I am already guilty then they better be ready for me to give them the same amount of respect in return.

KylaGWolf
08-03-2010, 11:44 PM
i do these two all the time no matter what....

I do that even when I don't carry a gun then again I worked in Juvenile probation and not being aware could be a bad thing.

Meplat
08-04-2010, 12:16 AM
I live in a part of Ca. that is one hell of a lot closer to being Mayberry than San Francisco. I have been 'made' several times by LEOs. I have never been abuse, proned out, disarmed, cuffed, and most certainly not drawn down on. I have been treated with respect and dignity by local LE. I know there are some miserably bad cops out there but in my experience it's maybe one percent. And in CA it seems to be a coastal phenomena. I'm sure you have a lot higher percentage of ******* cops in SF than we have here in Mayberry.:p

displays the mode of thinking encountered in people who get into Law Enforcement for the wrong reasons. His is NOT the prevalent attitude in the majority of LEOs I run into professionally.
He should draw down on a State or Federal security detail sometime... if one is ever likely to make its way into Mayberry, CA.

SVT-40
08-04-2010, 12:45 AM
Why is so many here are experts in how LEO are trained, live and think... That is without any real experience. It's really sad. So many mind readers..

Good luck in life walking around with that big chip on your shoulder...

It's amazing how the O/P posted a positive article about the interaction between LEO's and CCW holders.

Somehow some of the "LEO haters" here just couldn't resist showing their true colors.

Oh and Guy regarding your signature line. Do you really think you would be causing any impact on LEO's or D.A.'s if your wish came true?

In fact the only people you would hurt would be the victims and their families.

I really hope no one you care for is ever the victim of a violent crime. If so you might change your mine.

nobody_special
08-04-2010, 1:25 AM
SVT-40, exactly what sort of attitude do you expect on this forum?

The attitude displayed in the OP's article is good. But that attitude is not universal. For example, it is not shared by many officers in my locale; rather, my impression is that they're cut from the same cloth as bigstick61's godfather.

There is a reason for the anti-police bias: police are the instruments by which the legislature prevents many of us from exercising certain 2nd amendment rights. And this isn't the first time we've heard of an officer who would threaten someone for exercising those rights (even though such a threat would violate a wide (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html) variety (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html) of (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html) laws (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/245.html) - note the federal felony if two or more officers even contemplate such delinquency).

bigcalidave
08-04-2010, 1:28 AM
Wow the stereotyping in the original article is kinda absurd, I wouldn't go so far as to say offensive, since I know a few guys that dress and act like that, but I hope that there is some free thinking in the approach that anyone may be a CCW holder. Niteqwill, there are many thousands of CCW holders in CA!! Soon there will be many more. Getting laid out like a felon simply because I carry every day with a license? Unacceptable.

sandwich
08-04-2010, 1:40 AM
His behavior is at least unbecoming of someone charged with protecting and serving the population Constitution.

and

The aforementioned godfather seems to forget that police, like military are in a role were they are there to protect and lay down their lives for the people Constitution.

Fixed them both for you (two).

Constitution always comes first. Constitution applies to everyone equally.

On the other hand, if one thinks of "protecting the people," then he will give priority to those who are closest to him: those who give him the paycheck, those who love him, support him, etc.

Meplat
08-04-2010, 7:27 AM
Does anyone else find it interesting that if an officer asks a citizen for help the citizen has to render assistance or can be arrested? But, if a citizen asks an officer for help the officer is under no obligation to act?

War is peace, less is more, hate is love. (Orwell)

Kind of bassackwards is it not?

greg36f
08-04-2010, 7:47 AM
SVT-40, exactly what sort of attitude do you expect on this forum?

The attitude displayed in the OP's article is good. But that attitude is not universal. For example, it is not shared by many officers in my locale; rather, my impression is that they're cut from the same cloth as bigstick61's godfather.

There is a reason for the anti-police bias: police are the instruments by which the legislature prevents many of us from exercising certain 2nd amendment rights. And this isn't the first time we've heard of an officer who would threaten someone for exercising those rights (even though such a threat would violate a wide (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html) variety (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html) of (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html) laws (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/245.html) - note the federal felony if two or more officers even contemplate such delinquency).

So let me get this straight, you are angry at LEO’s because they enforce the laws that you as a citizen are partly responsible for creating (you can vote and be politically active right) and you are angry at all LEO’s because some LEO’s treat some gun owners badly.

It seems to me that this post started as one LEO going on record and publishing an opinion in a police magazine that people who hold CCW's should be treated respectfully, but you want to focus on the fact that someone heard it from a LEO that this LEO did not like people who were not LEO’s carrying guns. Other than talk garbage, what supposedly this LEO DONE?.

You say that a lot of the LEO’s in your local seem to have a poor attitude. Have you ever though that YOUR ATTITUDE may be a contributing factor on that.

I’m not saying that some LEO’s do not have poor attitudes, I’m just saying that it is a two way street and that there are some LEO’s here on this site that are bending over backwards to meet you more than half way.

greg36f
08-04-2010, 8:06 AM
Does anyone else find it interesting that if an officer asks a citizen for help the citizen has to render assistance or can be arrested? But, if a citizen asks an officer for help the officer is under no obligation to act?

War is peace, less is more, hate is love. (Orwell)

Kind of bassackwards is it not?

Interesting anti LEO interpretation.

I have never heard of anyone being arrested for not helping a LEO when requested.

The law that I believe that you are referring to says that a LEO has no obligation to help you is basically a civil thing that prevents a city, county, whatever from getting sued. Meaning in part that if during a riot; if the police don't get to your particular emergency, you cannot sue us (the riot is only one example, there are many more).

I know of very few if any officers that would not do whatever they could to help when someone reached out and asked for help. You may not agree with the help you get because you did not think that the outcome was fair (you got arrested for DV instead of your wife, or your drunken butt got taken to jail instead of driven home) but most officers that I know have a deep sense of a moral and ethical obligation to help. In my opinion, I think that moral and ethical is more important and better standard than legal anyway.

ddestruel
08-04-2010, 8:27 AM
So let me get this straight, you are angry at LEO’s because they enforce the laws that you as a citizen are partly responsible for creating (you can vote and be politically active right) and you are angry at all LEO’s because some LEO’s treat some gun owners badly.

It seems to me that this post started as one LEO going on record and publishing an opinion in a police magazine that people who hold CCW's should be treated respectfully, but you want to focus on the fact that someone heard it from a LEO that this LEO did not like people who were not LEO’s carrying guns. Other than talk garbage, what supposedly this LEO DONE?.

You say that a lot of the LEO’s in your local seem to have a poor attitude. Have you ever though that YOUR ATTITUDE may be a contributing factor on that.

I’m not saying that some LEO’s do not have poor attitudes, I’m just saying that it is a two way street and that there are some LEO’s here on this site that are bending over backwards to meet you more than half way.



I believe the contrast that some are expressing here is that LEO's in different areas (CA specifically) have stated in new articles that they are trained to view citizens with firearms as potential threats, this has translated into CCW or UOC private individuals being percieved as a threat, something that needs to be neutralized or stopped and assessed with regularity where as in other states or areas where CCW or LOC is considered mainstream or common place the LEO's are far more respectful of those carrying.

The attitudes recently expressed by a LEO in the Bay Area or comments by LEO's concerning the UOC movement mirror the sentiments and concerns being expressed by many on here about a stark attitude and approach difference by LEO's in various municipalities vs how firearm carrying non LEO's are viewed or trated in other states.

Stonewalker
08-04-2010, 8:27 AM
Wow the stereotyping in the original article is kinda absurd, I wouldn't go so far as to say offensive, since I know a few guys that dress and act like that, but I hope that there is some free thinking in the approach that anyone may be a CCW holder. Niteqwill, there are many thousands of CCW holders in CA!! Soon there will be many more. Getting laid out like a felon simply because I carry every day with a license? Unacceptable.

I noticed the stereotyping too. While I myself would be more suspicious of somebody who was dressed poorly as well, every single person in the USA is protected by the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments. Being poorly dressed doesn't make a person any less a citizen and it doesn't make CCW a crime. Dressing like a thug may be a reason to *attempt* to investigate further but the Constitution still applies.

nobody_special
08-04-2010, 8:30 AM
So let me get this straight, you are angry at LEO’s because they enforce the laws that you as a citizen are partly responsible for creating (you can vote and be politically active right) and you are angry at all LEO’s because some LEO’s treat some gun owners badly.


I have no responsibility for the actions of other people, such as legislators. I didn't vote for any of my so-called representatives.


You say that a lot of the LEO’s in your local seem to have a poor attitude. Have you ever though that YOUR ATTITUDE may be a contributing factor on that.

I'm pretty confident that my attitude has no influence on their policies or behaviors.

SVT-40
08-04-2010, 12:16 PM
SVT-40, exactly what sort of attitude do you expect on this forum?

How about an attitude of fairness and honesty? Don't you expect, and in fact many times demand that from LEO's?

The attitude displayed in the OP's article is good. But that attitude is not universal. For example, it is not shared by many officers in my locale; rather, my impression is that they're cut from the same cloth as bigstick61's godfather.

So because a few officers don't have the proper attitude you lump the tens of thousands LEO's in California together? How is that reasonable.

You decry when LEO's lump gun owners together. But then turn around and lump all LEO's together.

Using your own logic it would be perfectly reasonable for LEO's to fear all gun owners. Because as you said "they're cut from the same cloth". Aren't they? Or should each man be judged by his own individual actions and words. LEO's and gun owners alike?


There is a reason for the anti-police bias:

So you think it's Okay and reasonable to have anti-LEO bias? So bias is okay as long as it fits your agenda? Bias of any sort is just wrong and shows a lack of reason and an elitist attitude.

Police are the instruments by which the legislature prevents many of us from exercising certain 2nd amendment rights. And this isn't the first time we've heard of an officer who would threaten someone for exercising those rights (even though such a threat would violate a wide (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html) variety (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html) of (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html) laws (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/245.html) - note the federal felony if two or more officers even contemplate such delinquency).


Sorry but this argument is just baseless. The police enforce the laws which are on the books. If laws are changed enforcement changes. So stop scapegoating LEO's because you don't like certain laws.

Regarding your reference to the 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights. Your point is?

If you are somehow linking this to the story told by bigstick61 about his god father. Well stories are one thing and actuality is another. Personally I would disagree with anyone who had a similar attitude and would tell them to their face how wrong they were. But having an opinion is not a violation of the 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Nor any other section of law.

nobody_special
08-04-2010, 2:04 PM
How about an attitude of fairness and honesty? Don't you expect, and in fact many times demand that from LEO's?

To be honest, I have never "demanded" anything from LEO in any real sense. But if I were able to legally carry, I'd certainly expect not to have a gun pointed at me for the mere fact that I am legally exercising my right to carry.

Of course, what I expect and what would actually occur are two different things... and that is honesty for you.


So because a few officers don't have the proper attitude you lump the tens of thousands LEO's in California together? How is that reasonable.

You decry when LEO's lump gun owners together. But then turn around and lump all LEO's together.

Woah, hold on; I never lumped all California LEO's together. That said, I've seen substantial evidence that the predominant view in urban coastal areas is very much against citizen carry.


Using your own logic it would be perfectly reasonable for LEO's to fear all gun owners. Because as you said "they're cut from the same cloth". Aren't they? Or should each man be judged by his own individual actions and words. LEO's and gun owners alike?

I did not say that all LEO are "cut from the same cloth." Read my post again.


So you think it's Okay and reasonable to have anti-LEO bias? So bias is okay as long as it fits your agenda? Bias of any sort is just wrong and shows a lack of reason and an elitist attitude.

Bias, insomuch as it prevents a rational examination of the issues, is not good. But there is a rational basis for some (not all) of the anti-police sentiment here.

I think it's pretty reasonable for the average gun-owner who wishes to carry for protection in LA or the bay area to have a negative view of their local police. Look at pullnshoot's experiences while legally open carrying; he's received multiple threats and had guns drawn and pointed at him. Police in my city have said that they would do the same. This is the sort of treatment that law-abiding citizens get in certain parts of this state, and as a result the attitude that you're decrying is absolutely reasonable, because quite frankly such conduct by LEO is indefensible and indeed criminal.


Sorry but this argument is just baseless. The police enforce the laws which are on the books. If laws are changed enforcement changes. So stop scapegoating LEO's because you don't like certain laws.

You can't pass this off to the legislature, that's the Nuremberg defense. Those who enforce unjust laws are in fact enforcing injustice. By definition they are instruments of oppression.

If the legislature passed a law that required all people of a certain race to be rounded up and interned without trial, should the police enforce that? Don't scoff, this has happened before on several (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment) occasions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal) in this country, and judicial remedy was ineffective.

If that were to occur again, by your argument we should just blame the legislature while holding the people who actually carry out the heinous act blameless. That is not right.


Regarding your reference to the 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights. Your point is?

After MacDonald, the right to bear arms is a civil right in California. The stated behavior (pointing a gun at a person for no reason other than the fact that he is openly carrying a weapon) is a likely violation of all four statutes that I linked.


If you are somehow linking this to the story told by bigstick61 about his god father. Well stories are one thing and actuality is another. Personally I would disagree with anyone who had a similar attitude and would tell them to their face how wrong they were. But having an opinion is not a violation of the 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Nor any other section of law.

Yes I am specifically referring to bigstick61's story, though you could also include the EPA facebook hubbub, pullnshoot's experiences as detailed on his blog, etc. -- there are plenty of examples. You decry the anti-LEO attitude here, while ignoring the obvious anti-gun-owner bias expressed by numerous LEO.

As for "stories being one thing and actuality is another," plenty of people exercising UOC have had guns pointed at them.

I never said that having an opinion is a 1983 violation; I said that the threat (drawing and pointing a gun at someone for UOC) is a violation. And in fact the conspiracy law in section 241 only requires that two people "conspire to... threaten, or intimidate" -- it does not even require that the threat or intimidation actually occur. That felony is only a small step beyond two officers merely "having an opinion" together.

SVT-40
08-04-2010, 4:17 PM
Sorry but you cannot parse your words and say "I have never "demanded" anything from LEO in any real sense" If you mean you have never walked up to a LEO and to his face demanded anything. Yes, I believe that.

But your words assert your demands upon LEO's as a whole.


Below are both verbatim quotes from your posts.

"Woah, hold on; I never lumped all California LEO's together."

"The attitude displayed in the OP's article is good. But that attitude is not universal. For example, it is not shared by many officers in my locale; rather, my impression is that they're cut from the same cloth as bigstick61's godfather."

So you did lump LEO's together. At least "many" of the LEO's in your local.

And of course no group of any sort LEO's or gun owners have a attitude which is "universal" as you call it.

You say:

"But there is a rational basis for some (not all) of the anti-police sentiment here."

Given the same logic you are saying that LEO's should have a rational basis for being suspect of gun owners??

Bias is bias. No way to pretty it up to make it acceptable.

If you have bias toward LEO's in general. Or bias against gun owners in general then those views are just plain wrong.

Another of your flawed reasoning's.

You can't pass this off to the legislature, that's the Nuremberg defense. Those who enforce unjust laws are in fact enforcing injustice. By definition they are instruments of oppression.


Comparing LEO's to NAZIS, which you do when you raise "the Nuremberg defense". Is absolutely bias.
Our system of justice is nothing like the NAZI's


Until laws are legally changed they are legal and enforceable. Just because you don't like them does not change that fact. Your stance is an opinion and nothing more. LEO's don't enforce "opinions". If that were the case it would be anarchy.

You are entitled to your opinion. But it is just your opinion.

As I said before when laws change then LEO's will also change their enforcement.

Your quote
After MacDonald, the right to bear arms is a civil right in California. The stated behavior (pointing a gun at a person for no reason other than the fact that he is openly carrying a weapon) is a likely violation of all four statutes that I linked.

As above. NOTHING in California law has changed. When it does enforcement will change. LEO's don't get to cherry pick which laws they enforce.

You also oversimplify by stating that LEO's pointed guns at individuals for:
"no reason other than the fact that he is openly carrying a weapon".

You nor I know the circumstances of these encounters. Were the police called because of a armed individual? what was the situation at the time?

I'm sure many have had guns pointed at them? But just because the police point guns at an individual does not mean the police were guilty of any misconduct.

Yes I am specifically referring to bigstick61's story, though you could also include the EPA facebook hubbub, pullnshoot's experiences as detailed on his blog, etc. -- there are plenty of examples. You decry the anti-LEO attitude here, while ignoring the obvious anti-gun-owner bias expressed by numerous LEO.

I guess you missed my comments above.

"Or should each man be judged by his own individual actions and words. LEO's and gun owners alike?

"Bias of any sort is just wrong and shows a lack of reason and an elitist attitude."

"Personally I would disagree with anyone who had a similar attitude and would tell them to their face how wrong they were."

Three examples of my equal and ethical treatment of both LEO's and gun owners.

But I guess you don't get it.

It's about an individuals actions and words. Not a group.

If you have a issue with a certain LEO address that issue with the appropriate agency.

As in the EPA officer. There was a complaint made. It was investigated and he was found to have been guilty of improper conduct.

Judging any other LEO because of this fools stupid words. is absolutely wrong.


As above each situation is different.

As for "stories being one thing and actuality is another," plenty of people exercising UOC have had guns pointed at them.

I'm sure they have. But there are always two sides to each story. Making an assumption or forming an opinion without both sides input is ignorant and foolish.

I if you were to ask the officers involved in those situations I would bet there would be some legal or reasonable justification for pointing guns at armed individuals. Not all the time, but I'm sure it would add at least another side to the story.

I never said that having an opinion is a 1983 violation; I said that the threat (drawing and pointing a gun at someone for UOC) is a violation. And in fact the conspiracy law in section 241 only requires that two people "conspire to... threaten, or intimidate" -- it does not even require that the threat or intimidation actually occur. That felony is only a small step beyond two officers merely "having an opinion" together.

Sorry but your interpretation and application of 1983 regarding LEO's pointing guns at UOC folks is flawed.

LEO's have the very complicated job of separating people who are acting in a legal way from folks who are committing crimes. Time after time it has been found legal for LEO's to point weapons at individuals when they (the LEO) have a reasonable fear of their lives.

Regarding section 241, again you analysis is flawed. As long as LEO's are acting "reasonably" there cannot be any constitutional violations.

But again I return to the main premise of my comments.

Stop the anti LEO bias.

It's individuals not groups.


If it were applicable it would have been raised by persons more intelligent than either of us.

SVT-40
08-04-2010, 4:59 PM
I believe the contrast that some are expressing here is that LEO's in different areas (CA specifically) have stated in new articles that they are trained to view citizens with firearms as potential threats, this has translated into CCW or UOC private individuals being percieved as a threat, something that needs to be neutralized or stopped and assessed with regularity where as in other states or areas where CCW or LOC is considered mainstream or common place the LEO's are far more respectful of those carrying.

The attitudes recently expressed by a LEO in the Bay Area or comments by LEO's concerning the UOC movement mirror the sentiments and concerns being expressed by many on here about a stark attitude and approach difference by LEO's in various municipalities vs how firearm carrying non LEO's are viewed or trated in other states.

I think there is to much oversimplification. I've taken this quote from your statement:

"they are trained to view citizens with firearms as potential threats"

This is true. Because anyone who is armed COULD be a potential threat. The active word is COULD. Not that they are a threat. But they could be a threat. BIG difference.

But that is only one of many concerns LEO's have when thrown into any situation.

So having an armed individual involved in any situation just adds another complication. Even an armed off duty LEO adds to the "threats".

Remember LEO's know very little about most if not all situations before they arrive. They can never know what someone is thinking or why they are armed before any confrontation.

Training in most states is not really different from training here in California. All LEO's where ever are trained to evaluate each situation based of what is actually happening. ALL LEO's are concerned about armed individuals. Only because of the added layer of issues being armed bring up no matter what the state.

Here is the thing. When firearms laws here in California change it will be a non issue for LEO's Laws change all the time so LEO's change their tactics and responses based on those changes.

There are many many lawful CCW'ers in California now. They are really a zero issue to LEO's because 99% of them are good lawful folks who have little contact with LEO's.

Adding more will really not be an issue because again 99% are good guys.

CCW'ers do have a responsibility to act in the proper way during any LEO contact. Just like off duty LEO's

Always be calm.

Never act in an aggressive or violent way.

Tell the LEO that you have a CCW permit and are armed.

If instructed, follow the LEO's instructions. Don't argue. Just do as they ask. If you don't understand the instructions ask them to repeat them.

If you want to know why you were treated in a certain way. Ask in a professional and non confrontational way. AFTER the incident is over.

If you have an issue with the way you were treated address that issue later with the LEO's supervisor.

One other thing the biggest concern LEO's have regarding firearms is retaining their own in any situation. Believe me gun retention is an LEO's number one concern. Anyone else's firearm is secondary.

stix213
08-04-2010, 5:12 PM
Interesting article

My biggest issue is that the fact this article needed to be written in the first place means there are plenty of LEO's who will go the prone you first and ask questions later route.

I'm optimistic that once all of CA goes shall issue this situation will improve. If only like 6 people have been issued CCW's in San Francisco county today, it does make sense to treat anyone carrying as an automatic criminal (since they probably are), regardless of if that is right or wrong. When there are thousands of people in the urban counties with CCW's the attitude will start changing I believe.

heliopolissolutions
08-04-2010, 6:04 PM
Article made me sick to my stomach.

...imagine if all those who are so blessed to have a magic permission slip from the State to exercise their rights started getting hassled as much as the UOCers.

Harumph.

Meplat
08-04-2010, 6:13 PM
I agree with you on most of what you say. Except I do not agree it is an anti LEO interpretation. It is just a factual interpretation of laws that neither you nor I passed. They are the responsibility of politicians. Admittedly some of us must have voted fore at least some of them, but it seems lately they are not listening to the people who put them in office. So blaming the existence of the laws on citizens or cops either one is unfair.

You may want to refer to my post in this thread where I said I had always been treated with respect and dignity by LE, at it pertains to 2A, and I reckoned that no more than 1% had a dangerous attitude problem.;)


Interesting anti LEO interpretation.

I have never heard of anyone being arrested for not helping a LEO when requested.

The law that I believe that you are referring to says that a LEO has no obligation to help you is basically a civil thing that prevents a city, county, whatever from getting sued. Meaning in part that if during a riot; if the police don't get to your particular emergency, you cannot sue us (the riot is only one example, there are many more).

I know of very few if any officers that would not do whatever they could to help when someone reached out and asked for help. You may not agree with the help you get because you did not think that the outcome was fair (you got arrested for DV instead of your wife, or your drunken butt got taken to jail instead of driven home) but most officers that I know have a deep sense of a moral and ethical obligation to help. In my opinion, I think that moral and ethical is more important and better standard than legal anyway.

joedogboy
08-04-2010, 6:40 PM
My godfather is one of those cops (CHP sergeant) who is alarmed by law-abiding citizens carrying guns. I had a conversation on the topic with him at my grandmother's funeral a couple of weeks ago. My father started by asking what he thought of open carry. My godfather said anyone who open carries is a fool and an idiot, even someone who conceals and carries who is not a cop, and he said something to the effect if he sees someone carrying a gun in a holster or printing, regardless if they are behaving completely lawfully, unless he knows they are a cop, he will draw on them, point the gun at their head, and disarm them, etc. and if they make any move he feels threatened by he will not hesitate to shoot them. Basically if he notices someone open or concealed carrying that's not a cop he will start a confrontation. All the while he was carrying his Glock partially concealed in an IWB holster in plain clothes with no badge exposed. Hypocrisy if I ever saw it. I didn't push the matter because as he was saying it his tone rose up like the thought of it upset him and I didn't want to get into a big ol' argument and create bad blood right there, especially since my father in an argument with a cop will always take the pro-LEO side since on an issue likee this he will defer to whatever opinion a LEO has, regardless of the facts.

You should have asked him how he would feel if some other cop treated him that way - pointing a gun at his head without any actual cause, and threatening to shoot him if he twitched - since he appeared to be a citizen openly (or poorly concealed) carrying a firearm.

That moment could have changed his outlook, and maybe saved someone's life in the future.

joedogboy
08-04-2010, 7:26 PM
Why is so many here are experts in how LEO are trained, live and think... That is without any real experience. It's really sad.

Personally:

U.S. Army MP
USAF SP
worked side by side with multiple civilian LEAs

non-sworn civilian PD employee
multiple Administration of Justice courses, CA
multiple Criminal Justice courses, KY
multiple criminal justice courses, CCAF

I have had dozens of friends, coworkers, and associates who work in civilian LE, in several states, including CA - many of themm are good cops (uniformly good, professional, trustworthy, and 100% legit in what they do), more of them are okay cops (good cops if they stick to enforcement areas that they know well, less good in other areas - but who are willing to own up to mistakes, take advice, and learn to do better next time), and a few of them are dirtbags who do sketchy things to advance personal agendas and cover up their mistakes (and yes, their supervisors have been notified, because their continued presence on the job makes all cops look bad).

Many others here may have explored the possibility of a career in LE, or becoming a reserve LEO. When a state grants special exceptions to unconstitutional gun restrictions for LEOs, it is natural for a gun enthusiast to consider becoming an LEO - just as an aircraft enthusiast would consider joining teh Air Force of civilian flying were banned.

It's not like the law enforcement field is some secret society that outsiders know nothing about.

SVT-40
08-04-2010, 8:06 PM
So you may have some insight. Good for you. I applaud your service.

I agree there are some great, some good and some poor LEO's. Just like in all other areas of endeavor.

However mere exploring the possibility of being a LEO does not really grant anyone any insight to what is involved in actually doing the job.

Of course being a LEO is not some "secret society". But is is a very complex job and takes both training and experience to actually begin to understand the ins and outs of the job.

So why the crack about as you say "When a state grants special exceptions to unconstitutional gun restrictions for LEOs"

Sorry you lost me there. The state "grants" many exemptions to many different fields of endeavor. As far as I know none of the laws pertaining to California firearms laws have yet to be found unconstitutional.

In addition I think becoming a LEO simply because in your words "a state grants special exceptions to unconstitutional gun restrictions for LEOs, it is natural for a gun enthusiast to consider becoming an LEO."

Is a very poor idea.

So maybe it would be best to wait on that assertion.

nobody_special
08-04-2010, 8:25 PM
Below are both verbatim quotes from your posts.


"Woah, hold on; I never lumped all California LEO's together."

"The attitude displayed in the OP's article is good. But that attitude is not universal. For example, it is not shared by many officers in my locale; rather, my impression is that they're cut from the same cloth as bigstick61's godfather."


So you did lump LEO's together. At least "many" of the LEO's in your local.


So, you assert that "many ... in my locale" equals "all". :rolleyes:

Quite simply, you're wrong here.



You say:

"But there is a rational basis for some (not all) of the anti-police sentiment here."

Given the same logic you are saying that LEO's should have a rational basis for being suspect of gun owners??

I'm not sure I'm able to parse your statement correctly, but I think the answer is "no." What basis is there for LEO to be suspicious of legal gun owners? Are open carry activists walking around pointing guns at LEO? I think not.



Bias is bias. No way to pretty it up to make it acceptable.

If you have bias toward LEO's in general. Or bias against gun owners in general then those views are just plain wrong.


There is a difference between an opinion which is based upon reason and fact, and an irrational bigotry. My point is that some of the anti-LEO sentiment that you see here is the former. You seem to be arguing that any anti-LEO sentiment must be irrational. Clearly that is not a logical position.


Another of your flawed reasoning's.
You can't pass this off to the legislature, that's the Nuremberg defense. Those who enforce unjust laws are in fact enforcing injustice. By definition they are instruments of oppression.

Comparing LEO's to NAZIS, which you do when you raise "the Nuremberg defense". Is absolutely bias.
Our system of justice is nothing like the NAZI's

Until laws are legally changed they are legal and enforceable. Just because you don't like them does not change that fact. Your stance is an opinion and nothing more. LEO's don't enforce "opinions". If that were the case it would be anarchy.


You invited the comparison when you used the same defense they did. It's just as morally bankrupt now as it was then. The Nuremberg defense is a legal argument; the fact that it was used by Nazis is irrelevant. The point is that it is not a good excuse. It's the legal equivalent of passing the buck.

And nothing I said had anything to do with the Nazi system of justice.

As for LEO's not enforcing opinions, tell that to those LEO's in Maryland and Florida who arrested people for recording police. While I agree with you in principle, I think this counterexample demonstrates that things sometimes work out differently in practice.


As I said before when laws change then LEO's will also change their enforcement.

Your quote

After MacDonald, the right to bear arms is a civil right in California. The stated behavior (pointing a gun at a person for no reason other than the fact that he is openly carrying a weapon) is a likely violation of all four statutes that I linked.

As above. NOTHING in California law has changed. When it does enforcement will change. LEO's don't get to cherry pick which laws they enforce.


Again, you're wrong. Something very significant has changed since Heller and MacDonald: the 2nd amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and that right now binds the state of California. One may now sue any person who, under "color of law", deprives someone of that right; and federal attorneys may now prosecute anyone who conspires to intimidate or threaten someone for exercising that right.

Three years ago, a judge would have thrown such a case out because the 9th Circuit had ruled for the collective rights theory. Heller invalidated that interpretation.

Three months ago, a judge might have thrown out such a case because the 2nd amendment had not been incorporated. MacDonald says otherwise. Only after Heller and MacDonald has the 2nd amendment really become one of the "rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution" and thus subject to federal civil rights law.

So, if two state police officers conspire to intimidate or threaten someone for the exercise of their second amendment rights, it is a felony. That is a significant change.


You also oversimplify by stating that LEO's pointed guns at individuals for:
"no reason other than the fact that he is openly carrying a weapon".

You nor I know the circumstances of these encounters. Were the police called because of a armed individual? what was the situation at the time?


There are videos of police executing "e" checks while backup officers hold AR-15s (ready but not pointed) on youtube. That's not a threat, but it might qualify as intimidation. Other incidents have voice recordings available.


Sorry but your interpretation and application of 1983 regarding LEO's pointing guns at UOC folks is flawed.

LEO's have the very complicated job of separating people who are acting in a legal way from folks who are committing crimes. Time after time it has been found legal for LEO's to point weapons at individuals when they (the LEO) have a reasonable fear of their lives.

Regarding section 241, again you analysis is flawed. As long as LEO's are acting "reasonably" there cannot be any constitutional violations.

My analysis is not flawed, you're just assuming a different set of facts from me. I don't have the citations handy, but courts in other jurisdictions have found that simply carrying a gun in a legal manner is not cause for detention. I'm pretty certain that the question would be answered the same way here after Heller and MacDonald; it would be odd in the extreme for a court to rule that a person could be detained at gunpoint for nothing more than exercising a fundamental right. I'm also pretty sure that an officer would be found guilty of a civil rights violation for excessive force if he were to point a gun at someone whom he couldn't even legally detain.

But that's exactly what some departments are doing.


But again I return to the main premise of my comments.

Stop the anti LEO bias.

It's individuals not groups.


A group is nothing more than a collection of individuals.


If it were applicable it would have been raised by persons more intelligent than either of us.
It wasn't appliable before Heller, and probably not before MacDonald; but it is now. I would not be surprised to see such a lawsuit filed in California before long.

Meplat
08-04-2010, 8:32 PM
Our LEOs here are by and large part of the solution not part of the problem. But we need a lot less animosity and a lot more understanding of the other person's viewpoint. On both sides. Information is power. Information can keep you alive at times. Why do we want to throw tantrums and crawl into our shells and shout past each other? A frank discussion that can inform us of the other guy's point of view can save lives on both sides.

I urge even those who even have just cause for animus to be amicable and diplomatic.

kcbrown
08-04-2010, 9:50 PM
NOTHING in California law has changed. When it does enforcement will change. LEO's don't get to cherry pick which laws they enforce.

A couple of comments on the above:


Of course you get to cherry pick which laws you enforce. Happens all the time. A trivial example is speeding. LEOs clock people going faster (if only by a few miles an hour) than the speed limit all the time, but it is quite common for them to ignore that fact unless they see something else indicating that their intervention is needed. ETA: However, I do recognize that in the event someone specifically calls your attention to something, you may be considerably more restricted.
You and your fellow LEOs took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. If you enforce all laws then you are ipso facto violating your oath, because a law isn't Constitutional merely because it is on the books. And if there is any ambiguity at all, it is your responsibility to err on the side of the Constitution (which generally means erring on the side of non-enforcement since most laws are a restriction on someone's freedom). That means, in the context of firearms, that it is your responsibility to not enforce a law which even has the appearance of infringing upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms unless you know that the law in question is Constitutional, and for that to be the case you'll have to, as of now, know that the law has been tested and found Constitutional by the Supreme Court (or know that the Supreme Court denied cert and the lower court ruled in favor of the law in question). The Constitution isn't the last thing to look at when evaluating whether or not it is proper to enforce a given law, it's the first thing to look at. It is, after all, the supreme law of the land. If you do not do the above, then your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution means nothing -- it may as well not exist at that point, for what difference does it then make in the real world?


As for my views on LEOs in general, LEOs are as individual as we are. If you have to interact with one then it's the luck of the draw as to how he'll treat you, so it's best to not make any assumptions whatsoever. And that means treating him the same as you would anyone else you know nothing about. For me, that means treating him with respect, civility, compassion, etc., because it's the right thing to do. I will do everything I can to put his mind at ease and make him comfortable, because I know he's got a tough job and there's a good chance he sees a lot more bad things out there every day than most people see in a year.

GuyW
08-04-2010, 10:42 PM
Now, now, KC - if you insist on stating inconvenient truths, you are in danger of being IDd and banned as an LEO basher on CalGuns.

If you offer opinions or reasonable extrapolations based on those inconvenient truths, you are doubly at risk...
.

SVT-40
08-04-2010, 10:47 PM
A couple of comments on the above:


Of course you get to cherry pick which laws you enforce. Happens all the time. A trivial example is speeding. LEOs clock people going faster (if only by a few miles an hour) than the speed limit all the time, but it is quite common for them to ignore that fact unless they see something else indicating that their intervention is needed.
You and your fellow LEOs took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. If you enforce all laws then you are ipso facto violating your oath, because a law isn't Constitutional merely because it is on the books. And if there is any ambiguity at all, it is your responsibility to err on the side of the Constitution (which generally means erring on the side of non-enforcement since most laws are a restriction on someone's freedom). That means, in the context of firearms, that it is your responsibility to not enforce a law which even has the appearance of infringing upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms unless you know that the law in question is Constitutional, and for that to be the case you'll have to, as of now, know that the law has been tested and found Constitutional by the Supreme Court (or know that the Supreme Court denied cert and the lower court ruled in favor of the law in question). The Constitution isn't the last thing to look at when evaluating whether or not it is proper to enforce a given law, it's the first thing to look at. It is, after all, the supreme law of the land. If you do not do the above, then your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution means nothing -- it may as well not exist at that point, for what difference does it then make in the real world?


As for my views on LEOs in general, LEOs are as individual as we are. If you have to interact with one then it's the luck of the draw as to how he'll treat you, so it's best to not make any assumptions whatsoever. And that means treating him the same as you would anyone else you know nothing about. For me, that means treating him with respect, civility, compassion, etc., because it's the right thing to do. I will do everything I can to put his mind at ease and make him comfortable, because I know he's got a tough job and there's a good chance he sees a lot more bad things out there every day than most people see in a year.

The application of discretion is much different from a total refusal to enforce certain laws. Which is what some here want.

Regarding "constitutional laws". Until the various courts hand down opinions which actually apply to laws in each state just how is a LEO to know which laws are "constitutional"?

The real answer they cannot. So until opinions which actually apply to states and actually effect or change laws LEO's have no other legal recourse but to enforce the current laws.

Regarding "ambiguous" laws. If you checked any legal decision you would know that any law which is "ambiguous" is not valid on it's face.

Maybe your argument might get some play in a collegiate setting. But remember we deal in the real world. Not the land of what if.

Thank you for your views on the "care and feeding of LEO's". As I have said before it's about individuals not groups.

kcbrown
08-04-2010, 11:32 PM
The application of discretion is much different from a total refusal to enforce certain laws. Which is what some here want.

Regarding "constitutional laws". Until the various courts hand down opinions which actually apply to laws in each state just how is a LEO to know which laws are "constitutional"?


You don't. Which is why, if you have any reason to believe it may violate the Constitution, it is your duty to not enforce it.

Like I said: err on the side of the Constitution. If you do not, then your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution means nothing, because in practice it means said oath may as well not exist at all for all the difference it makes.



Regarding "ambiguous" laws. If you checked any legal decision you would know that any law which is "ambiguous" is not valid on it's face.
I'm not referring to ambiguity with respect to the definition of the law, I'm referring to ambiguity in your own mind as to its Constitutionality. Which is to say: I believe it's inappropriate for you to enforce a law that you don't know for a fact is Constitutional, unless you can think of no way in which it could be Unconstitutional in the context of your enforcement of it. The Constitution isn't a difficult document to read and understand, nor was it ever intended to be. People within our legal system have managed to twist and mangle its interpretation beyond recognition, but that doesn't mean they're right. Most certainly that's not what the founders of the country intended.

Maybe I can say it another way that will make things a little more clear. You are the people's first line of defense against Unconstitutional laws. If there is even a reasonable possibility that a law is Unconstitutional, it is your duty to not enforce it. The Constitutionality of a law, or its lack thereof, is a property of the law itself, not of whether or not it's been challenged, or whether or not it's been ruled on by a court. Those are only the elements within the process to definitively determine that a given law is Constitutional or not. That process was intended by the founders to be a process of discovery, not of determination.

Your role in the above is a direct consequence of your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.



Maybe your argument might get some play in a collegiate setting. But remember we deal in the real world. Not the land of what if.
Yes, you do. But you must remember your purpose as a LEO: to uphold and defend the rights and liberty of the people, first and foremost. This has been oversimplified to mean "enforce the law", but that oversimplification has occurred as a result of people assuming that the existence of a law is the same as its Constitutionality -- an assumption that is now quite clearly false.



Thank you for your views on the "care and feeding of LEO's". As I have said before it's about individuals not groups.You're quite welcome! I would most certainly hope for exactly what I mentioned if I were in the shoes of the LEO in question! LEOs are supposed to be the good guys, and to a very large degree they are. It is my job as a citizen to help them be that as much as I can.

SVT-40
08-04-2010, 11:50 PM
So, you assert that "many ... in my locale" equals "all".

Quite simply, you're wrong here.

Nope, please post where I used the word "all". Besides your use of many is it's self a bias.

Would it be proper to say "many" gun owners when referencing negative behavior??

I'm not sure I'm able to parse your statement correctly, but I think the answer is "no." What basis is there for LEO to be suspicious of legal gun owners? Are open carry activists walking around pointing guns at LEO? I think not.


You presuppose that LEO's know the armed individuals they contact are "legal gun owners" before they contact them.

Just how does that magic occur? It's nice to sit at the computer and second guess LEO's when you have nothing at risk.


There is a difference between an opinion which is based upon reason and fact, and an irrational bigotry. My point is that some of the anti-LEO sentiment that you see here is the former. You seem to be arguing that any anti-LEO sentiment must be irrational. Clearly that is not a logical position.

Again re read my posts. As I said it's about individuals. I said if there is wrong doing as in the EPA case. Make a complaint let the investigation occur.

Blanket anti LEO sentiment is wrong. Just like blanket anti gun ownership is wrong.

If you have a beef with what a LEO does well then make a complaint. But don't relate one individual LEO's behavior to anothers. That is bias.



You invited the comparison when you used the same defense they did. It's just as morally bankrupt now as it was then. The Nuremberg defense is a legal argument; the fact that it was used by Nazis is irrelevant. The point is that it is not a good excuse. It's the legal equivalent of passing the buck.

And nothing I said had anything to do with the Nazi system of justice.

Sorry dude you brought it up and made the reference. We here in the U.S are a nation of laws. LEO's simply enforce the laws on the books, nothing sinister.

Your referenced Nuremberg, as a comparison between NAZI's and LEO's.

I simply stated current laws and norms here in the U.S. LEO's enforce the laws which are currently on the books. When laws change enforcement changes. LEO's don't bend in the wind depending on which way the wind blows.

Besides this is not war time here in the U.S.



As for LEO's not enforcing opinions, tell that to those LEO's in Maryland and Florida who arrested people for recording police. While I agree with you in principle, I think this counterexample demonstrates that things sometimes work out differently in practice.

Those are laws, stupid and wrong headed laws. But laws none the less. Not "opinions". Leo's have to deal with real situations and apply the laws which are currently on the books.

Again, you're wrong. Something very significant has changed since Heller and MacDonald: the 2nd amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and that right now binds the state of California. One may now sue any person who, under "color of law", deprives someone of that right; and federal attorneys may now prosecute anyone who conspires to intimidate or threaten someone for exercising that right.

Three years ago, a judge would have thrown such a case out because the 9th Circuit had ruled for the collective rights theory. Heller invalidated that interpretation.

Three months ago, a judge might have thrown out such a case because the 2nd amendment had not been incorporated. MacDonald says otherwise. Only after Heller and MacDonald has the 2nd amendment really become one of the "rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution" and thus subject to federal civil rights law.

Again as I said before laws do change. But you apparently do not understand the actual process which occurs. I too wish it could be a short and quick change regarding some of the silly firearms laws here in California. But unfortunately it's not a short process.

So, if two state police officers conspire to intimidate or threaten someone for the exercise of their second amendment rights, it is a felony. That is a significant change.

No change. Same old law. Again you miss the subtleties of the law and it's actual application. In order for there to be a violation the parties MUST actually conspire to deprive a person of their rights.

Enforcing valid laws which are on the books is not a constitutional violation.

So are you asserting that any two LEO's who arrests a individual for violating a current California firearms law have violated this federal statute??

Seriously. Dude unwrap that tin foil.

There are videos of police executing "e" checks while backup officers hold AR-15s (ready but not pointed) on youtube. That's not a threat, but it might qualify as intimidation. Other incidents have voice recordings available.

Again LEO's have the right of self defense. As I said above just how would a LEO know a armed individual was a good legal gun owner or a violent criminal?

The simple answer is they don't before any contact.

Again it's nice to sit in front of your computer and bemoan past incidents. Knowing full well that you have all the information related to the incident and the officers at the time had only limited info at best.


My analysis is not flawed, you're just assuming a different set of facts from me. I don't have the citations handy, but courts in other jurisdictions have found that simply carrying a gun in a legal manner is not cause for detention. I'm pretty certain that the question would be answered the same way here after Heller and MacDonald; it would be odd in the extreme for a court to rule that a person could be detained at gunpoint for nothing more than exercising a fundamental right. I'm also pretty sure that an officer would be found guilty of a civil rights violation for excessive force if he were to point a gun at someone whom he couldn't even legally detain.

But that's exactly what some departments are doing.

You again presuppose that officers in any given situation knew that an individual was acting in a legal manner. LEO's in the field don't have your luxury.

no cop wants to waste his time on people who are acting in a legal manner. Period it's that simple.

The rub is sorting the lawful from the unlawful. That problem has existed for centuries and will continue to exist.

As long as LEO's act in a reasonable manner they cannot be found in violation of a persons rights.


You continue to bag on the police. That's unfortunate but in a way it's understandable. The police are the most visible arm of the government. So it's natural for some to lash out at what is visible instead of blaming the true source of their anger and frustration. Which are the lawmakers.

Not the Law enforcers.

A group is nothing more than a collection of individuals.

Absolutely. And as such you cannot reasonably judge the whole group by the actions of a few individuals. LEO's or gun owners.

It wasn't appliable before Heller, and probably not before MacDonald; but it is now. I would not be surprised to see such a lawsuit filed in California before long.

Federal rights violation cases have always been applicable to California residents. But you imply to much from the recent court decisions. And they are good decisions. don't get me wrong. But it's not an automatic rights violation for LEO's to enforce current firearms laws.

They are just not the remedy to all supposed wrongs you think they are.

SVT-40
08-05-2010, 12:14 AM
You don't. Which is why, if you have any reason to believe it may violate the Constitution, it is your duty to not enforce it.

Like I said: err on the side of the Constitution. If you do not, then your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution means nothing, because in practice it means said oath may as well not exist at all for all the difference it makes.


I'm not referring to ambiguity with respect to the definition of the law, I'm referring to ambiguity in your own mind as to its Constitutionality. Which is to say: I believe it's inappropriate for you to enforce a law that you don't know for a fact is Constitutional, unless you can think of no way in which it could be Unconstitutional in the context of your enforcement of it. The Constitution isn't a difficult document to read and understand, nor was it ever intended to be. People within our legal system have managed to twist and mangle its interpretation beyond recognition, but that doesn't mean they're right. Most certainly that's not what the founders of the country intended.

Maybe I can say it another way that will make things a little more clear. You are the people's first line of defense against Unconstitutional laws. If there is even a reasonable possibility that a law is Unconstitutional, it is your duty to not enforce it. The Constitutionality of a law, or its lack thereof, is a property of the law itself, not of whether or not it's been challenged, or whether or not it's been ruled on by a court. Those are only the elements within the process to definitively determine that a given law is Constitutional or not. That process was intended by the founders to be a process of discovery, not of determination.

You are the people's first line of defense against Unconstitutional laws[/I]. If there is even a reasonable possibility that a law

Yes, you do. But you must remember your purpose as a LEO: to uphold and defend the rights and liberty of the people, first and foremost. This has been oversimplified to mean "enforce the law", but that oversimplification has occurred as a result of people assuming that the existence of a law is the same as its Constitutionality -- an assumption that is now quite clearly false.


You're quite welcome! I would most certainly hope for exactly what I mentioned if I were in the shoes of the LEO in question! LEOs are supposed to be the good guys, and to a very large degree they are. It is my job as a citizen to help them be that as much as I can.

I can understand your opinions. But you must realize that LEO's cannot just refuse to enforce laws based on an individuals feelings. It's just not that simple.

LEO's use "discretion" to allow for issues and situations. Hopefully local D.A.'s and states attorneys will hand down some rulings to give guidance to LEO's.

It's not fair to rest the weight of making constitutional decisions on the shoulders of officers in the field who usually have very little time, if any to sit back and debate constitutional law before they act.

It's just not reasonable.

Those debates are for the law makers, judges and lawyers.

And yes, Thanks 99.9% of all LEO's are good guys. Guys who are mainly trying to make sense and fairly apply the literally thousands and thousands of various local, state and federal statutes they are tasked to enforce. Even if the damned laws are constantly being changed and modified. This is in addition to trying to keep some of our less than civilized fellow citizens from tearing one another apart whenever they can.

It's a great gig if you can get it!!!:D

kcbrown
08-05-2010, 1:40 AM
I can understand your opinions. But you must realize that LEO's cannot just refuse to enforce laws based on an individuals feelings. It's just not that simple.

LEO's use "discretion" to allow for issues and situations. Hopefully local D.A.'s and states attorneys will hand down some rulings to give guidance to LEO's.

It's not fair to rest the weight of making constitutional decisions on the shoulders of officers in the field who usually have very little time, if any to sit back and debate constitutional law before they act.

It's just not reasonable.

Those debates are for the law makers, judges and lawyers.


Then tell me: what exactly does your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution mean in practice? If you do not use the Constitution as the litmus test to determine whether or not to enforce a law in a given situation then your oath makes no difference whatsoever in practice.

Do you think you took the oath as merely some sort of formality?


The entire point of the Nuremberg trials is that people who enforce the law and who carry out orders are not mindless automatons who are limited to using their brains only to decide how to enforce a law or carry out an order -- they have a moral obligation to also decide whether to enforce a law or to carry out an order. Your situation as a LEO is no different than the situation of a soldier who has been given an order. The soldier must evaluate the order to determine for himself if it is Constitutional, and has the duty to refuse to obey the order if it is not. You as a LEO have the same duty with respect to the law. The law to you is the same as an order is to a soldier.

Ask yourself what your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution could possibly mean if not that.


The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It means it is the law that you and all other LEOs should be most familiar with, by far. It supercedes and overrules all other law. It cannot be the supreme law of the land any other way.


ETA: To make things abundantly clear, I should note that the Constitution does not say that it is the supreme law of the land "except in the face of a law which hasn't been challenged or which hasn't yet been ruled upon by the Supreme court". It says it is the supreme law of the land, period. For it to be the supreme law of the land it must at all times override any other conflicting law. And so it is not the case that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land in practice if LEOs are enforcing laws which are Unconstitutional just because they happen to be on the books at the time. The enforcement of a law is what defines, in practice, whether or not a law is in effect. An Unconstitutional law is never supposed to be in effect, and by enforcing such a law, LEOs are actually breaking the supreme law of the land. And those LEOs took a direct and solemn oath to not do that.

Milsurp Collector
08-05-2010, 2:25 AM
And yes, Thanks 99.9% of all LEO's are good guys.

Now who's showing bias and making blanket generalizations. No profession - doctors, lawyers, judges, politicians, Catholic priests - is composed of 99.9% "good guys".

nobody_special
08-05-2010, 2:47 AM
Nope, please post where I used the word "all".


You used it here (emphasis added):
You decry when LEO's lump gun owners together. But then turn around and lump all LEO's together.
...though I did neither.


Besides your use of many is it's self a bias.
Would it be proper to say "many" gun owners when referencing negative behavior??

:rolleyes: The use of "many" is hardly bias; that's a preposterous statement. My use of the word is based on observation as well as some knowledge of the department policies. As for your question, the answer is "if evidence supports it."


You presuppose that LEO's know the armed individuals they contact are "legal gun owners" before they contact them.

Just how does that magic occur? It's nice to sit at the computer and second guess LEO's when you have nothing at risk.

Of course LEO doesn't know if an armed individual is a dangerous or not; but that doesn't make it okay for them to treat every armed person as dangerous.

Carrying a gun (in a legal manner) is now a civil right, according to the Supreme Court. I'm not worried about those cases where police detain or arrest an armed criminal* based on reasonable suspicion of a crime; but police can't detain or threaten someone solely on the basis that they are exercising a civil right, either. (Except in California, with the "e" check. :rolleyes:)

If an officer sees someone carrying, obviously they don't know if it's legal. Similarly, they don't know if a guy walking down the street with a camera (1st amendment) is in legal possession; but that alone doesn't give the officer cause to make a stop.

* Whatever that means... look closely enough and I'm sure everyone violates a law. So by criminal I mean people engaged in criminal enterprise.


Again re read my posts. As I said it's about individuals. I said if there is wrong doing as in the EPA case. Make a complaint let the investigation occur.


I saw that, and it's fine. But look at it from the other perspective: those comments display a certain attitude, and I think there is significant evidence that, in certain parts of the state, this attitude is shared by more than "a few individuals." In some departments, it's virtually policy. (And yes, I know that some officers privately might not agree with some of their departmental policies. Clearly some do however.)

This is not a blanket statement,: it's a statistical estimate. Your 99.9% figure is way off.


Sorry dude you brought it up and made the reference. We here in the U.S are a nation of laws. LEO's simply enforce the laws on the books, nothing sinister.

Your referenced Nuremberg, as a comparison between NAZI's and LEO's.


Except that enforcing the laws on the books can be sinister, and I gave examples of that -- the forced internment of Japanese and the forced relocation of American Indians. Both were illegal, and one was the result of an act of Congress.

At no time did I ever make a comparison between LEO and Nazis. I merely pointed out that your excuse was the same defense used in their war crimes trials; an excuse that was rejected.


Those are laws, stupid and wrong headed laws. But laws none the less. Not "opinions". Leo's have to deal with real situations and apply the laws which are currently on the books.

No, this is not a case of police enforcing laws -- these are examples of LEO enforcing their own opinions. It happens. In the Maryland case, the attorney general's office even issued an opinion admitting as much (their 2-party consent law requires an expectation of privacy, just like California's, and LEO have no such expectation when acting in the course of their duties.)


So are you asserting that any two LEO's who arrests a individual for violating a current
California firearms law have violated this federal statute??

[... I'm re-arranging your post as I think these bits belong together ...]

Federal rights violation cases have always been applicable to California residents. But you imply to much from the recent court decisions. And they are good decisions. don't get me wrong. But it's not an automatic rights violation for LEO's to enforce current firearms laws.

They are just not the remedy to all supposed wrongs you think they are.

No no no, I never suggested that federal civil rights law would apply against LEO who were enforcing current law. Though now that you mention it, a section 1983 lawsuit could conceivably be filed for the "e" check. But that's not what I meant..

Those federal civil rights laws do apply to currently legal 2nd amendment activities; they likely did not before MacDonald. Let me give some relevant examples:


Confiscation of legally-configured weapons by LEO who are ignorant of the fine points of CA's AW law is a deprivation of 2nd amendment rights, and may expose the officers to civil liability.
If two or more LEO were to discuss tactics for detaining people at gunpoint solely for the purpose of an "e" check, that constitutes conspiracy to intimidate or threaten for the exercise of an enumerated right. This is the context for most of my arguments here! It is a situation like those described by Tuason's facebook comments, or bigstick61's conversation with his godfather. This exposes the officers to criminal liability.
Failure to issue a permit to carry a loaded weapon is a violation; hence, Sykes.


Seriously. Dude unwrap that tin foil.

No tin foil. Honest.


Again LEO's have the right of self defense. As I said above just how would a LEO know a armed individual was a good legal gun owner or a violent criminal?

The simple answer is they don't before any contact.

I'm all for the right of self-defense for everybody. But preemptively threatening people for exercising their right to be armed for self-defense is another matter. Note again my context.


no cop wants to waste his time on people who are acting in a legal manner. Period it's that simple.

Ah, that explains all the "e" checks. I see. :rolleyes: Actually I largely agree with you, which is why I've had very little interaction with LEO acting in their official capacity. But plenty of police have wasted time on people acting in a legal manner with firearms. We hear about it all the time on this forum.


You continue to bag on the police. That's unfortunate but in a way it's understandable. The police are the most visible arm of the government. So it's natural for some to lash out at what is visible instead of blaming the true source of their anger and frustration. Which are the lawmakers.

Not the Law enforcers.

Funny, that statement (that it's natural to be angry at police) is what I was trying to point out in my first post to this thread! And I agree the legislature is a serious problem; but I also stand by my statement: "those who enforce unjust laws are in fact enforcing injustice." Passing an unjust law does little harm in and of itself; it is the enforcement of such laws that causes harm. So I'm not sure that it's fair to wholly pass the buck to the legislature.

joedogboy
08-05-2010, 1:58 PM
So why the crack about as you say "When a state grants special exceptions to unconstitutional gun restrictions for LEOs"
It was not a "crack", it was a valid statement. Why are you so defensive about it? Does the truth hurt you that much?


Sorry you lost me there. The state "grants" many exemptions to many different fields of endeavor.

This is true - for example, utility meter readers can come into your yard to read the meters, and it isn't trespassing. However, if they come into your house when they are off work, without your permission, it is trespassing.


As far as I know none of the laws pertaining to California firearms laws have yet to be found unconstitutional.

As far as I know, no CA firearms laws have yet passed muster with the SCOTUS.

Just because there hasn't yet been a legal challenge to prove the unconstitutionality of many of California's gun laws, that doesn't mean that they are constitutional - they have not yet been determined by the SCOTUS to be constitutional or unconstitutional.

Many of them, especially in light of the recent SCOTUS 2A decisions (essentially the first time that the SCOTUS has made any real decisions regarding the 2A), seem to violate the 2A, as they infringe upon the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The fact that a special, protected class of people get to exercise their rights, while others rights are being infringed also clearly violates the "equal protections" clause of the 14th Amendment.

In addition I think becoming a LEO simply because in your words "a state grants special exceptions to unconstitutional gun restrictions for LEOs, it is natural for a gun enthusiast to consider becoming an LEO."

Is a very poor idea.

While it may be a "poor idea" for someone to become an LEO for any reason other than a desire to serve the public and promote public safety, the fact is that many are drawn to the field for other reasons. I would much rather that someone become an LEO because they like guns, and being an LEO allows them greater opportunities to own and work with guns, than to have someone become an LEO because they just want the fat paycheck, with overtime, good benefits, and a great retirement, or to become an LEO because they are a bully that is looking for a power trip, or have them become an LEO because they are a racist and want to use their authority to "get back at" other races. The fact is that there are good, sub-optimal, and downright bad reasons to become an LEO.

So maybe it would be best to wait on that assertion.

There is abundant evidence to support the assertions that I have made. Are you so used to being blindly obeyed that you think that you can demand that I give up my 1A right to speak out on issues of importance to me?

I am still waiting to hear from you about your credentials to speak about this issue - your LEO credentials, as well as your non-LEO, "just plain citizen, subject to the normal laws" credentials.

joedogboy
08-05-2010, 2:31 PM
Now, now, KC - if you insist on stating inconvenient truths, you are in danger of being IDd as an LEO basher on CalGuns.

If you offer opinions or reasonable extrapolations based on those inconvenient truths, you are doubly at risk...
.

Heck, here on CalGuns, you can be attacked as an "LEO basher" and have posts removed, simply for pointing out actual examples of specific LEO misbehavior and pointing out that LEOs have the obligation to police their own, as well as other citizens, and that allowing unprofessional/bad/dirty LEOs to continue to "do the wrong thing" and violate citizens' rights makes all LEOs look bad, and makes LEOs jobs harder to do.

I find it interesting that I, a LEO (retired LEO to be exact), am frequently attacked by unprofessional, thin skinned, apologists for bad LEOs, who seem to wish to deny that any LEO has ever done anything wrong.

As the author of the article in the op states, gun owners are inclined to be some of LE's strongest supporters. One has to wonder what CA LE has done to turn so many CA gun owners against them?

Of course, my hypothesis is that this is an intended consequence of the special privileges and immunities CA grants LEOs from CA gun laws.

If all off duty police were subject to the same laws as other citizens (as off duty military are), then much of the LE community would be strongly supportive of the same things that other gun owners support. Political Police Chiefs and Sheriffs who came out against gun ownership would face a backlash from within their own departments, and would likely be opposed by the LE unions.

The LE unions would also give tremendous political support to defeating gun restrictions, and fighting for gun rights.

By creating special rights and privileges for off duty cops, CA gun laws undermine the relationship between LEOs and citizens - establishing LEOs as a privileged elite, that is less likely to care about "the little people" - even if they are supposedly sworn to serve and protect those people.

This is how a violation of the 14th Amendment makes possible violations of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments - by creating artificial barriers between LEOs and citizens.

joedogboy
08-05-2010, 2:51 PM
Nope, please post where I used the word "all". Besides your use of many is it's self a bias.

Would it be proper to say "many" gun owners when referencing negative behavior??


As in this statement: It often seems that many gun owning LEOs are lax in their care and handling of firearms, resulting in unsafe acts including negligent discharges, and shooting of innocent citizens. Statistics show that LEOs are five times more likely to shoot an innocent citizen than are other gun owners.

Is "many" the appropriate term?
Would "some" or "a few" be more accurate?

How about changing it to "too many"? I don't think that anyone could argue against the idea that too many LEOs are lax in their care and handling of firearms, or that too many LEOs shoot innocent people every year - since even ONE is too many in a group that is given special status based on the assumption (often incorrect) that they are highly trained and prepared.

joedogboy
08-05-2010, 3:02 PM
Besides this is not war time here in the U.S.

Our nation is actively engaged in a war right now. You may have missed the news, but if you google "September 11th", "WTC", "Iraq", "Afghanistan", "OIF", and "Global War on Terror", you may get up to speed on that.




Again LEO's have the right of self defense. As I said above just how would a LEO know a armed individual was a good legal gun owner or a violent criminal?

The simple answer is they don't before any contact.

Let's turn that around:
Citizen's have the right of self defense. As I said above just how would a citizen know an armed LEO was a good legal LEO or a violent/dangerous criminal operating under the color of authority*?

The simple answer is they don't before any contact.

The other part of the answer is that the citizen has no duty to risk or lay down their life on behalf of an LEO, while an LEO has such a duty to the citizen.

Anyone that didn't know that being a cop is a dangerous job before they signed up is far too stupid to be trusted with public safety and law enforcement.



*Yes, this applies both to "dirty" cops and to criminals who use fake badges and/or uniforms, and fake police vehicles or lighting systems to lure citizens into a trap.

Meplat
08-05-2010, 4:01 PM
Excellent points all. However, the theory that CA LEOs are 'on duty' 24-7-365 even when they are actually off duty puts a big fat blow fly right in the middle of the special class ointment. My best buddy from high school went into police work and he once told me they were required to carry off duty, buy he usually didn't because it was a pail in the butt.

Heck, here on CalGuns, you can be attacked as an "LEO basher" and have posts removed, simply for pointing out actual examples of specific LEO misbehavior and pointing out that LEOs have the obligation to police their own, as well as other citizens, and that allowing unprofessional/bad/dirty LEOs to continue to "do the wrong thing" and violate citizens' rights makes all LEOs look bad, and makes LEOs jobs harder to do.

I find it interesting that I, a LEO (retired LEO to be exact), am frequently attacked by unprofessional, thin skinned, apologists for bad LEOs, who seem to wish to deny that any LEO has ever done anything wrong.

As the author of the article in the op states, gun owners are inclined to be some of LE's strongest supporters. One has to wonder what CA LE has done to turn so many CA gun owners against them?

Of course, my hypothesis is that this is an intended consequence of the special privileges and immunities CA grants LEOs from CA gun laws.

If all off duty police were subject to the same laws as other citizens (as off duty military are), then much of the LE community would be strongly supportive of the same things that other gun owners support. Political Police Chiefs and Sheriffs who came out against gun ownership would face a backlash from within their own departments, and would likely be opposed by the LE unions.

The LE unions would also give tremendous political support to defeating gun restrictions, and fighting for gun rights.

By creating special rights and privileges for off duty cops, CA gun laws undermine the relationship between LEOs and citizens - establishing LEOs as a privileged elite, that is less likely to care about "the little people" - even if they are supposedly sworn to serve and protect those people.

This is how a violation of the 14th Amendment makes possible violations of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments - by creating artificial barriers between LEOs and citizens.

Meplat
08-05-2010, 4:44 PM
How about changing it to "too many"? I don't think that anyone could argue against the idea that too many LEOs are lax in their care and handling of firearms, or that too many LEOs shoot innocent people every year - since even ONE is too many in a group that is given special status based on the assumption (often incorrect) that they are highly trained and prepared.

My theory on that is that a certain number of LEOs are 'gun people' but a large percentage arent. By gun people I mean persons who had an affinity for firearms before they entered LE. Many if not most have had safe and proper gun handling repeatedly drilled into them sense they were toddlers. It's second nature. But many LEOs have no interest in guns outside of there profession. A mere list of safety rules, taught later in life, cannot replace living the creed throughout your formative years. My buddy told me he had hell learning to point his weapon in real life situations. He would hold off slightly to one side unless he was certain the person was a real, immediate, threat. Cops are trained how to shoot people, gun people are taught how to avoid shooting people.

Thousands of folks carrying every day who don't know any more about guns than they were taught in the academy and caring less, is going to add up to some accidents.

joedogboy
08-05-2010, 5:25 PM
Excellent points all. However, the theory that CA LEOs are 'on duty' 24-7-365 even when they are actually off duty puts a big fat blow fly right in the middle of the special class ointment. My best buddy from high school went into police work and he once told me they were required to carry off duty, buy he usually didn't because it was a pail in the butt.

Military service is also a 24/7 job, yet the CA "military and police" exceptions only allow for military to carry government owned firearms, in the manner prescribed by the government agency, while on duty and in uniform.

If a department wants to issue their cops concealment guns and rigs for off duty carry, and require them to carry when off duty, that is then a department requirement - and there should be serious consequences for both the LEO and the LEA if they then choose not to protect a citizen from a criminal because they are "off duty". With every right comes a responsibility, and with every privilege comes an obligation.

If a cop wants to buy a standard capacity magazine, an off-roster handgun, or an "assault weapon", or if they want to ccw a personal weapon, they need to do it under the same laws as the rest of the citizens, or the rest of the citizens are being denied equal protection under the law.

kcbrown
08-05-2010, 5:54 PM
Hate to derail the ongoing conversation, but this calls for an answer...

Our nation is actively engaged in a war right now. You may have missed the news, but if you google "September 11th", "WTC", "Iraq", "Afghanistan", "OIF", and "Global War on Terror", you may get up to speed on that.


Really?

Where's the official declaration of war from Congress, then? Authorization of limited military force is not the same as a declaration of war.

If we were really at war then there would be a draft, the civilian population would be concentrating the vast majority of its efforts on building planes, ships, tanks, missiles, bombs, guns, and ammunition, and the unemployment rate would be at a record low.


No, don't be fooled into thinking that just because the politicians call some military excursion a "war" that it actually is one.

joedogboy
08-06-2010, 12:18 AM
Hate to derail the ongoing conversation, but this calls for an answer...



Really?

Where's the official declaration of war from Congress, then? Authorization of limited military force is not the same as a declaration of war.

If we were really at war then there would be a draft, the civilian population would be concentrating the vast majority of its efforts on building planes, ships, tanks, missiles, bombs, guns, and ammunition, and the unemployment rate would be at a record low.


No, don't be fooled into thinking that just because the politicians call some military excursion a "war" that it actually is one.

There is no required "declaration of war" for the U.S. to be at war. Congress authorizes "war" every time they pass a military appropriations bill/budget that includes funding for combat operations. In fact, U.S. Law codifies the fact that Presidential "war powers" only extend to a maximum of 90 days, after which Congress must authorize continued combat/warfare, using their Congresses "war powers" - a declaration of war (although what constitutes such a declaration is not specified) is only one means that the War Powers act has for the United States to become "at war", the others are response to attack (which covers the GWOT), and a specific authorization - which the Congress gave for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Continuation of war is dependent on Congress authorizing appropriations to fund combat operations.

Historically, not all wars have required full mobilization of the citizenry or of the economy. There is no legal requirement for a draft, increased production of military equipment, or even of full employment during wartime.

If a masked man with a gun comes into a bank and demands all the money, it is still a robbery, even if he never specifically states "this is a robbery"?

If you want to deny that we are at war, I suggest you go to the local VA or military hospital and explain to the wounded veterans of this war that they need to get out of the hospital and go to work - since they are evidently just imagining that they were in a war.

No, don't be fooled into thinking that just because some people find it politically expedient to claim that an ongoing active military conflict isn't "war", we aren't in one.

joedogboy
08-06-2010, 1:18 AM
But you must realize that LEO's cannot just refuse to enforce laws based on an individuals feelings. It's just not that simple.

So every time an LEO sees a young looking person smoking, they should immediately demand to see proof of age because they might be violating PC 308b? Or should they do something else first?


You justify LEOs reacting to an otherwise unsuspicious UOC citizen by pointing out that they COULD be a threat, so the LEOs might need to escalate up the force ladder by brandishing their firearms, etc.
This is true. Because anyone who is armed COULD be a potential threat. The active word is COULD. Not that they are a threat. But they could be a threat. BIG difference.
But the truth is that anyone COULD be a threat. They could have a concealed weapon - in fact, a criminal will probably want to conceal their weapon.

So the young smokers could be violating PC 308b, and until they've frisked them for weapons, the LEOs can't be sure that they aren't a threat.

So every time an LEO sees a young looking person smoking, they should immediately draw down on them, maybe even prone them out, and then demand to see proof of age?

You claim that
LEO's don't get to cherry pick which laws they enforce., yet I see young people smoking all the time, often in clothing or places that give probable cause to believe that they are under 18 (standing in front of a school, wearing a youth sports team shirt, etc.) and cops not doing anything to enforce the law.

kcbrown
08-06-2010, 2:12 AM
There is no required "declaration of war" for the U.S. to be at war.


This is nonsensical. If there is no requirement for a declaration of war, then provision for such would not have been explicitly included in the Constitution.

If you insist on calling every combat operation a "war" or part of a "war", then you render the term meaningless and valueless.

The notion that we are at "war" is used as justification for many rights violations, the implication being that a "war" by its nature requires a significantly heightened sense of preparedness and alertness than is required during peacetime, and that certain sacrifices are required because a real war is an all-out fight for survival. That state of affairs is most certainly not what we have currently.

And so, to call the current state of affairs a "war" makes a complete mockery of the term and does great disservice to those who actually fought and died in real wars where the very survival of the nation itself was in significant jeopardy.


I've no illusion that we are engaged in combat operations in various parts of the globe, and most certainly that combat will seem no different in its ferocity than any previous combat to those who are actively engaged in it, but from a national perspective, which is what we're talking about here, it is a monumental difference.

Pont
08-06-2010, 2:33 AM
And so, to call the current state of affairs a "war" makes a complete mockery of the term and does great disservice to those who actually fought and died in real wars where the very survival of the nation itself was in significant jeopardy.
I would go further and claim that to say, "we as a nation are at war" is a farce. Our military men and women are at war. Our nation is going about its daily business. There is no rationing of steel, cotton, and other war essentials. The war news doesn't even bump Brangelina's latest marital spat out of its news spot. Does the war even have it's own budget or is it still "that supplemental military funding thing"?

joedogboy
08-06-2010, 4:01 PM
I would go further and claim that to say, "we as a nation are at war" is a farce. Our military men and women are at war. Our nation is going about its daily business. There is no rationing of steel, cotton, and other war essentials. The war news doesn't even bump Brangelina's latest marital spat out of its news spot. Does the war even have it's own budget or is it still "that supplemental military funding thing"?

Rationing is not a requirement for war. The fact that there is rationing during some wars does not mean that there is rationing during all wars.

While I am not particularly enthusiastic about the idea that we are engaged in limited wars, against opponents who often are engaged in "total war" against us and our allies, it beats the alternative - where they are at war with us, and we only respond with "law enforcement" solutions.

Meplat
08-06-2010, 4:34 PM
You claim that
, yet I see young people smoking all the time, often in clothing or places that give probable cause to believe that they are under 18 (standing in front of a school, wearing a youth sports team shirt, etc.) and cops not doing anything to enforce the law.

Good Lord Joe!

Don't give them any ideas!

Meplat
08-08-2010, 8:43 PM
The US can be at war without a congressional declaration. However, in my opinion it is not a good idea, and puts non-combatant citizens at risk for several reasons. Just one of which is that ordinary citizens can't engage / resist hostel forces without fear of prosecution later. Letters of marque and reprisal, that permit US merchant ships to defend themselves, and so on. Don't talk to me talk to our p****y congress.



Hate to derail the ongoing conversation, but this calls for an answer...



Really?

Where's the official declaration of war from Congress, then? Authorization of limited military force is not the same as a declaration of war.

If we were really at war then there would be a draft, the civilian population would be concentrating the vast majority of its efforts on building planes, ships, tanks, missiles, bombs, guns, and ammunition, and the unemployment rate would be at a record low.


No, don't be fooled into thinking that just because the politicians call some military excursion a "war" that it actually is one.