PDA

View Full Version : How Do CA LEOs Feel About CA Not Allowing Non-Residents To Carry In CA


ccmc
05-30-2011, 5:15 AM
This is my real bone to pick with CA gun laws ie that non-residents have zero options when visiting CA. CA neither recognizes any other state's permits nor allows non-residents to apply for a CA permit. I'm curious how rank and file CA LEOs feel about this. Obviously it's a law that has to be enforced, but do you think it should be changed? Thanks for any thoughts guys.

eta34
05-30-2011, 9:00 AM
Dumb law. My opinion.

VegasND
05-30-2011, 9:33 AM
I wish you'd explain more.
Dumb law. My opinion.
Obviously, I'm interested in this topic. Would you like to see 50-state reciprocity? Would you rather see California recognize the permits from only 'certain' other states?

Samuelx
05-30-2011, 9:36 AM
Are you talking about non-residents in GENERAL or non-residents with CCWs? Big difference...

MaHoTex
05-30-2011, 11:00 AM
Dude, most residents can not even CCW.

CSACANNONEER
05-30-2011, 11:03 AM
You're not going to get a non-bias sampling on a gun forum.

ccmc
05-30-2011, 11:05 AM
Are you talking about non-residents in GENERAL or non-residents with CCWs? Big difference...

Sorry, I should have made this clear. Let's say US citizens or legal residents who have a resident permit from their home state.

ccmc
05-30-2011, 11:08 AM
Dude, most residents can not even CCW.

Whose fault is that?

ccmc
05-30-2011, 11:10 AM
I wish you'd explain more.

Obviously, I'm interested in this topic. Would you like to see 50-state reciprocity? Would you rather see California recognize the permits from only 'certain' other states?

In the absence of national reciprocity a start would be that CA take FL's approach - you recognize our CWFL (FL's version of CCW permit), we'll recognize yours.

Falconis
05-30-2011, 12:06 PM
Whose fault is that?

our own for letting these moronic law makers get re elected time and time again.

BobFam
05-30-2011, 12:15 PM
Whose fault is that?

The dumb liberal Democrats in Sacramento!

VegasND
05-30-2011, 2:54 PM
Many states recognize California's carry permit but California recognizes none save its own.
http://handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf
In the absence of national reciprocity a start would be that CA take FL's approach - you recognize our CWFL (FL's version of CCW permit), we'll recognize yours.

jjgi5150
05-30-2011, 4:13 PM
Hi all,

It seems to me it's really not as much of a state issue as a local county issue wthin CA. I believe the state would rather we had NO issued CCW permits, much less to honor those from free gun states. It is hard enough for even CA residents to get permits, since the issue of them is controlled by the local jurisdictions far more so than the state.

As a 24 year CA LEO, I very storngly believe that our CA citizens should be able have CCW permits, and let's change the issuance power to the state DOJ. With the caveat that they must be willing to take a proper, well taught CCW course, which requires bi-annual quals and a mandatory carrying of liability insurance. Another law I feel should be added is that if a permit holder ever violates the laws pertaining to his CCW, or commits any other crimes, yes, even DUI, their right for CCW is forever revoked in this state.

All the other laws on the books should easily take care of other situations. For the OP, eventually, if we ever got our own state up to speed for CCW, it would be nice for a state to state reciprocity.

JMO,

Take care,

JJ

yzernie
05-30-2011, 6:49 PM
The dumb liberal Democrats in Sacramento!
Who keeps electing those "dumb liberal Democrats in Sacramento"? Yes, the majority of California voters. :rolleyes:

G17GUY
05-30-2011, 7:07 PM
Hi all,

It seems to me it's really not as much of a state issue as a local county issue wthin CA. I believe the state would rather we had NO issued CCW permits, much less to honor those from free gun states. It is hard enough for even CA residents to get permits, since the issue of them is controlled by the local jurisdictions far more so than the state.

As a 24 year CA LEO, I very storngly believe that our CA citizens should be able have CCW permits, and let's change the issuance power to the state DOJ. With the caveat that they must be willing to take a proper, well taught CCW course, which requires bi-annual quals and a mandatory carrying of liability insurance. Another law I feel should be added is that if a permit holder ever violates the laws pertaining to his CCW, or commits any other crimes, yes, even DUI, their right for CCW is forever revoked in this state.

All the other laws on the books should easily take care of other situations. For the OP, eventually, if we ever got our own state up to speed for CCW, it would be nice for a state to state reciprocity.

JMO,

Take care,

JJ

:rolleyes:

Foriegn power
05-30-2011, 8:17 PM
I view a CCW similar to a drivers license. Both licenses require a whole lot of responsibility 24/7.

eta34
05-30-2011, 8:17 PM
Liability insurance? Seriously? Losing a constitutional right for a DUI? Thankfully you don't speak for other LEO's who actually support the constitution, like me.

To elaborate on my earlier statement. Shouldn't need to get a ccw. I am ok with the average citizen carrying a loaded firearm.

In the absence of that, I am good with 50 state reciprocity.

Liability insurance...wow. I am speechless. I guess the "civilians" aren't "profeshional" enough to ccw without ridiculous restrictions.

ccmc
05-31-2011, 3:41 AM
Many states recognize California's carry permit but California recognizes none save its own.
http://handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

I've wondered about that myself. Many Californians don't see the irony when they complain they can't carry in CO on a CA permit and CO doesn't issue non-resident permits.

Watchur6
05-31-2011, 4:54 AM
As a 24 year old LEO myself I feel the peoples right to bear arms is a right not a privilege. DUI is no reason to revoke a persons rights. And the LAST thing that should be added is more laws. Liability insurance is up to the person. More mandates are not necessary, just more common sense. IMO.

Notorious
05-31-2011, 7:26 AM
I think it's just a another case of picking and choosing laws that you like when it comes to the Constitution. The traveling clause says citizens shall enjoy the rights in 1 state as they do in the several states. Which means states cannot pick and choose which rights they want to recognize to citizens from different states.

So, for example, we recognize driver's licenses and marriage certificates from other states even though the laws are different than ours. You have liberals arguing that if one state recognizes gay marriage then all the states have to. Well, marriage is not in the Constitution. Keeping and bearings arms, otoh, is a Constitutional right.

So which way is it going go be?

Personal feelings aside, from a strictly legal and analytical point of view, that is what I think.

jjgi5150
05-31-2011, 7:09 PM
Hi all,

" Another law I feel should be added is that if a permit holder ever violates the laws pertaining to his CCW, or commits any other crimes, yes, even DUI, their right for CCW is forever revoked in this state. "

I didn't realize that this idea would cause so much fluster... I look at it this way...If a person who is issued a CCW for good cause, etc, etc, cannot have enough responsibility to NOT drive around a 4,000 lb. bullet while DUI, I don't think he/she should maintain the right to CCW. Is it OK for that same DUI driver with his CCW to cart his handgun around while UI? My department has strict rules regarding carrying a weapon when we might be UI; it is not allowed. I certailny think the non-LEO's should have a similar strict law. I am sure that there are many more innocent persons injured by DUI drivers than ever would be by CCW holders, but none-the-less, I still feel there should be a law ...


It's just my opinoin, and I doubt any of it will ever be on a page in the PC anyway.

We have way too many liberals in our state government..

JJ

eta34
05-31-2011, 7:14 PM
Sure...so would the same apply to fellow cops? I have worked with several cops convicted of DUI. If you apply your standard equally, cops would essentially lose their jobs.

Are you willing to go that far? My guess is no.

For the record, I believe a cop who is convicted of DUI should be fired.

mag360
05-31-2011, 8:44 PM
theres a difference between UI and having some wine with your SO while at dinner, and carrying. I think the "no alcohol" clause for CCW use should be removed, or .08 like DUI.

wsmc98
06-02-2011, 7:09 PM
Responsible people act responsibly that is all I would like to add to this conversation, I dont have a ccw, If I could obtain one in California I would. I am 56 years old have owned and used guns since I was 10. I am responsible and will forever act responsibly. I have but one heart given to me by God I feel I have the right to protect that one given heart. You LEO's as much as you try can not be everywhere you are needed everytime. I am not thinking I need to help out society, I need to protect me, my family and my poscessions. I have a right God given and deserved to live on this earth wheather it be in California or Tesas or Arizona or New York to protect my life. If this country was not dangerous LEO would not need weapons either. God bless our troops, our good citizens and our children, The rest be damned.

BobFam
06-02-2011, 7:35 PM
Hi wsmc98. I have a lot more years than you and I agree 100%. I too have used guns since I was 8. Bob.

Notorious
06-03-2011, 12:31 AM
Me too. Been shooting since 8.

ccmc
06-03-2011, 6:19 AM
Thanks to the LEOs that weighed in on this. Hope more do.

On the subject of alcohol, guns and cars. I've never seen anyone who gets smarter, has better judgement, faster reflexes, etc after consumption of alcohol. Driving and carrying a firearm are rights that carry responsibilities with them IMHO. Like it or not convicted felons DO lose some rights in virtually every state whether it comes to voting or possession of firearms. Felony DUI can be a very serious matter. Ask anyone who's lost a loved one to a drunk driver, especially one who's been convicted of multiple DUI offenses. This is probably not the best person to be representative of law abiding gun owners. Having said that in FL CWFL holders are probably the most law abiding group of people in the state. Only a handful of licenses have been revoked out of over one million issued.

SoCalDep
06-03-2011, 6:45 AM
Thanks to the LEOs that weighed in on this. Hope more do.

On the subject of alcohol, guns and cars. I've never seen anyone who gets smarter, has better judgement, faster reflexes, etc after consumption of alcohol. Driving and carrying a firearm are rights that carry responsibilities with them IMHO. Like it or not convicted felons DO lose some rights in virtually every state whether it comes to voting or possession of firearms. Felony DUI can be a very serious matter. Ask anyone who's lost a loved one to a drunk driver, especially one who's been convicted of multiple DUI offenses. This is probably not the best person to be representative of law abiding gun owners. Having said that in FL CWFL holders are probably the most law abiding group of people in the state. Only a handful of licenses have been revoked out of over one million issued.

Cops are generally held to a higher standard of behavior. CCWers should also be held to a higher standard of behavior. At the same time, I firmly believe there is a power vacuum in CA. Criminals commit crimes with general impunity, knowing it is unlikely their actions will be foiled by anyone but law enforcement, and even then they know there is a delay in response and they know the tricks to the game. We do our best, and we're pretty good at it, but we can't be everywhere and the bad guys know this.

Several years ago there was a push to enact national reciprocity...The idea was to avoid the feds getting involved with CCW issuance policy, leaving that to the states, but then making a reciprocity requirement similar to driver licenses. I don't see it in the cards with this administration, but I can see it happening in the future.

ccmc
06-03-2011, 7:00 AM
Cops are generally held to a higher standard of behavior. CCWers should also be held to a higher standard of behavior. At the same time, I firmly believe there is a power vacuum in CA. Criminals commit crimes with general impunity, knowing it is unlikely their actions will be foiled by anyone but law enforcement, and even then they know there is a delay in response and they know the tricks to the game. We do our best, and we're pretty good at it, but we can't be everywhere and the bad guys know this.

Several years ago there was a push to enact national reciprocity...The idea was to avoid the feds getting involved with CCW issuance policy, leaving that to the states, but then making a reciprocity requirement similar to driver licenses. I don't see it in the cards with this administration, but I can see it happening in the future.

I appreciate what you're saying about the higher standard of behaviour, and think this should apply even with constitutional carry (which is what I believe in). I've had conversations and correspondence with some CA LEOs about how a non-CA resident could get a CA CCW permit. Most were sympathetic, but the law is what it is. I can't understand why CA has no way for non-residents to legally carry like most other states do, and hope that will soon be changed whether through national reciprocity or more enlightened laws in CA. The push for national reciprocity a few years ago failed because two republican senators (Lugar and Voynavich (sp)) sided with a majority of democrats (including then Sen Obama, and of course Boxer and Feinstein) to oppose it. The pro votes actually had a majority of 58, but needed 60 to break the filibuster. Bush would have signed it. The measure gets sponsored every year by Reps Stearns (R-FL) and Shuler (D-NC) in the house. This year there are 234 co-sponsors. Obama would veto it as a standalone bill for sure, but maybe not if it were attached to a debt ceiling increase.

Notorious
06-03-2011, 7:57 AM
National reciprocity still leaves out those in CA who are left without. you will see everyone here get their Utah CCW instead. My buddy I'd getting his. I might do it just for S&G.

MountainMike
06-03-2011, 1:25 PM
I am not an officer of the law or even a lawyer for that matter. I'm just a man who takes an interest in the formation of our nation. It seems to me that...
Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
makes any national reciprocity law redundant.

Notorious
06-03-2011, 6:26 PM
I think it's just a another case of picking and choosing laws that you like when it comes to the Constitution. The traveling clause says citizens shall enjoy the rights in 1 state as they do in the several states. Which means states cannot pick and choose which rights they want to recognize to citizens from different states.

So, for example, we recognize driver's licenses and marriage certificates from other states even though the laws are different than ours. You have liberals arguing that if one state recognizes gay marriage then all the states have to. Well, marriage is not in the Constitution. Keeping and bearings arms, otoh, is a Constitutional right.

So which way is it going go be?

Personal feelings aside, from a strictly legal and analytical point of view, that is what I think.

I am not an officer of the law or even a lawyer for that matter. I'm just a man who takes an interest in the formation of our nation. It seems to me that...

makes any national reciprocity law redundant.

Yep, it is just another case of liberals picking and choosing what they want when it works for them.

ccmc
06-05-2011, 4:52 AM
National reciprocity still leaves out those in CA who are left without. you will see everyone here get their Utah CCW instead. My buddy I'd getting his. I might do it just for S&G.

It could also be that the final version of any reciprocity bill would require that the permit or license be a resident one like is the case with driver's licenses.

Notorious
06-05-2011, 9:21 AM
Why you always gotta rain on my parade?

Fine, I'll chip in and we will all rent an apartment in Utah.

jerkyg
06-05-2011, 6:46 PM
Howdy my bothers from another mother....

As a 27 year career LEO...police, corrections, probation (juvenile and adult)...when I retire this year...I can not carry unless I get a CCW from my sheriff in my county that I live. Luckily, I live in a county that will issue one to me. It is not like the criminals that I have put away for many years in prison...are going to not want to kill me and my family regarding the hundreds and hundreds of death threats over the years now that I am retired. Yet, I can not carry unless I get a CCW??? But, that is the law...because our department does not want the liability in issuing me a carry permit after retirement.

So, your question is the "tip" of the iceberg. Yes, we and others should have blanket acceptance regarding CCW's in the nation. But, when a LEO like me can't after all my years of service...that is a huge probelm...yes??? It is more serious than whether you can carry in our state. For example...Nevada...will not allow me right now to bring my firearm and carry in their state. But, prostitution is legal!!!???

Remember, gun laws are in the most part relegated to affect honest, law-abiding citizens...not the criminals who are 99% responsible for the shootings in California...and any other state in the USA.

Logic is not a pre-requisite regarding gun laws. But, then you have to understand that the liberal/anti-gun people don't care about logic. Then again...if some nut pulled out a gun in a Burger King...and I had my weapon to neutralize the situation...I will bet the San Francisco liberal would be real happy I was there.

So, until everyone joins the NRA and other gun groups...stay on top of their represenatives in politics and keep their feet to the fire...it won't happen.

Stay safe...

ccmc
06-06-2011, 5:02 AM
Why you always gotta rain on my parade?


Not my intent.

ccmc
06-06-2011, 5:05 AM
Howdy my bothers from another mother....

As a 27 year career LEO...police, corrections, probation (juvenile and adult)...when I retire this year...I can not carry unless I get a CCW from my sheriff in my county that I live. Luckily, I live in a county that will issue one to me. It is not like the criminals that I have put away for many years in prison...are going to not want to kill me and my family regarding the hundreds and hundreds of death threats over the years now that I am retired. Yet, I can not carry unless I get a CCW??? But, that is the law...because our department does not want the liability in issuing me a carry permit after retirement.

So, your question is the "tip" of the iceberg. Yes, we and others should have blanket acceptance regarding CCW's in the nation. But, when a LEO like me can't after all my years of service...that is a huge probelm...yes??? It is more serious than whether you can carry in our state. For example...Nevada...will not allow me right now to bring my firearm and carry in their state. But, prostitution is legal!!!???

Remember, gun laws are in the most part relegated to affect honest, law-abiding citizens...not the criminals who are 99% responsible for the shootings in California...and any other state in the USA.

Logic is not a pre-requisite regarding gun laws. But, then you have to understand that the liberal/anti-gun people don't care about logic. Then again...if some nut pulled out a gun in a Burger King...and I had my weapon to neutralize the situation...I will bet the San Francisco liberal would be real happy I was there.

So, until everyone joins the NRA and other gun groups...stay on top of their represenatives in politics and keep their feet to the fire...it won't happen.

Stay safe...

Can you not carry under LEOSA?

BTW I agree with your point about staying on top of political representatives.
That's the difference between the gun laws in states like CA, NJ, NY which have 2A unfriendly state government as opposed to AZ, FL, UT which have 2A friendly state government. The judicial route is painfully slow.

Notorious
06-06-2011, 7:46 AM
Not my intent.

I'm joking. As long as you go in on the apartment in Nevada, we are good.

Jared1981
06-06-2011, 9:45 AM
Hi all,

It seems to me it's really not as much of a state issue as a local county issue wthin CA. I believe the state would rather we had NO issued CCW permits, much less to honor those from free gun states. It is hard enough for even CA residents to get permits, since the issue of them is controlled by the local jurisdictions far more so than the state.

As a 24 year CA LEO, I very storngly believe that our CA citizens should be able have CCW permits, and let's change the issuance power to the state DOJ. With the caveat that they must be willing to take a proper, well taught CCW course, which requires bi-annual quals and a mandatory carrying of liability insurance. Another law I feel should be added is that if a permit holder ever violates the laws pertaining to his CCW, or commits any other crimes, yes, even DUI, their right for CCW is forever revoked in this state.

All the other laws on the books should easily take care of other situations. For the OP, eventually, if we ever got our own state up to speed for CCW, it would be nice for a state to state reciprocity.

JMO,

Take care,

JJ

I'm curious, would you like to see that same standard imposed on California LEO's?

jerkyg
06-06-2011, 7:11 PM
Howdy CCMC,

As I stated...and if I am reading wrong then shame on me. If you do not retire from an armed position...you do not come under the provisions of the LEOSA. I work in an institution...thus, we are not armed inside. I could transfer into an armed position next year...work for six months and then, I would be ok. But, due to my upcoming divorce and having full custody of my 14 yr old daughter...I have to retire soon. Thus, I have no choice.

But, the only positive point is that I live in a friendly CCW county.

Stay safe...

Can you not carry under LEOSA?

BTW I agree with your point about staying on top of political representatives.
That's the difference between the gun laws in states like CA, NJ, NY which have 2A unfriendly state government as opposed to AZ, FL, UT which have 2A friendly state government. The judicial route is painfully slow.

retired
06-06-2011, 10:59 PM
For example...Nevada...will not allow me right now to bring my firearm and carry in their state. But, prostitution is legal!!!???

Just so you know if you were not aware; Ca. ccws are recognized in a number of states. Nevada is not one of them. I dont' know the exact reason, but I suspect since Ca. does not recognize any state's CCW permits, Nv. will not recognize ours. It has nothing to do with their legalization of prostitution.

ccmc
06-07-2011, 4:47 AM
Just so you know if you were not aware; Ca. ccws are recognized in a number of states. Nevada is not one of them. I dont' know the exact reason, but I suspect since Ca. does not recognize any state's CCW permits, Nv. will not recognize ours. It has nothing to do with their legalization of prostitution.

That's the reason FL doesn't recognize CA permits. FL recognizes permits of all states that recognize the FL CWFL. We even let CA residents apply for FL CWFLs. Sure would be nice if you all would return the favor :)

Notorious
06-07-2011, 6:17 AM
Don't hold your breath on CA actually getting along with the program. CA Dems think they are the ones who set the trend for the nation so everyone follows their path, not the other way around. From here, it looks like a path to ruin to me.

jerkyg
06-07-2011, 2:02 PM
RETIRED...

That was a joke. I hope I am not as literal as you when I retire. And to not again...even now...as a sworn Officer for the state of California, I can not carry in Nevada.

It was a point that if legalized sex is more important than us LEO's being able to carry in Nevada...is not as important as us having the ability to protect those that we were sworn to do the same in our state when we got paid...sigh

Get it? I hope others on this site realize what I was referring to...unless the joke was on you when you visit Nevada. another joke...

Stay safe...

Just so you know if you were not aware; Ca. ccws are recognized in a number of states. Nevada is not one of them. I dont' know the exact reason, but I suspect since Ca. does not recognize any state's CCW permits, Nv. will not recognize ours. It has nothing to do with their legalization of prostitution.

Notorious
06-07-2011, 2:34 PM
even now...as a sworn Officer for the state of California, I can not carry in Nevada.

ummm... LEOSA?

jerkyg
06-07-2011, 3:17 PM
This is the Federal law that was enacted by Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

ummm... LEOSA?

socalblue
06-07-2011, 4:37 PM
RETIRED...

That was a joke. I hope I am not as literal as you when I retire. And to not again...even now...as a sworn Officer for the state of California, I can not carry in Nevada.

It was a point that if legalized sex is more important than us LEO's being able to carry in Nevada...is not as important as us having the ability to protect those that we were sworn to do the same in our state when we got paid...sigh

Get it? I hope others on this site realize what I was referring to...unless the joke was on you when you visit Nevada. another joke...

Stay safe...

Are you authorized to carry a firearm in the performance of your duties in CA? If so, LEOSA protects you in all other states, no CCW required. In some cases you may have more rights out of state under LEOSA than here in CA ...

Jared1981
06-07-2011, 5:02 PM
I never thought I'd see the day where someone from CA is upset about Nevada's gun laws. If you are not covered by LEOSA, Nevada issues to non-residents. Furthermore, open carry is legal and so is carrying in a vehicle as long as it's not concealed ON your person (Non-LEOSA and non CFP holders).

LEOSA is actually less valuable in Nevada than a carry permit because you can have a BAC of less than 0.10 in NV and still carry.

jerkyg
06-07-2011, 5:55 PM
Hi all,

As it reads....

I must be in an armed position as of retirement.

I am not...

You folks that are not in California have no idea...

SoCal....

I can carry in my state. But, not in Nevada.

Do I need to say more?

Stay safe...

jgraham7897
06-07-2011, 6:03 PM
Hi all,

As it reads....

I must be in an armed position as of retirement.

I am not...

You folks that are not in California have no idea...

SoCal....

I can carry in my state. But, not in Nevada.

Do I need to say more?

Stay safe...

Requirements to be covered by the law

The original requirements of the 2004 Act were later amended by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010, which is included below.[2]
[edit]Meaning of "qualified law enforcement officer"
In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer", a person must meet every one of the following criteria, that is to say they must:[3]
an employee of a governmental agency,
be authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law,
have statutory powers of arrest,
be authorized by the agency to carry a firearm,
not be the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency (which could result in suspension or loss of police powers),[2] and
meet standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm.
The law was specifically extended in 2010 to include:
law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police,
law enforcement officers of the Federal Reserve Police, and
law enforcement or police officers of the executive branch of the Federal Government,
as being "authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law", and to have "have statutory powers of arrest".[2]
In order to exercise the privilege, the person must carry "the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer."[3]
[edit]Meaning of "qualified retired law enforcment officer"
In order to be considered a "qualified retired law enforcment officer", a person must:[4]
have separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer,
before such separation, have been authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest,
either:
before such separation, have been regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more, or
retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency,
during the most recent 12-month period, have met, at their own expense, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by:
their previous agency, the State in which they live or,
if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State, and
either:
have not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health, or
have not entered into an agreement with their previous agency in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health.
Such a person must possess either:[4]
photographic ID issued by their previous agency that indicates that they have, in the previous 12 months, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm, or
both of:
photographic ID issued by their previous agency, and
a certification issued by the State in which they live, or by a certified firearms instructor (qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State) that indicates that they have, in the previous 12 months, been tested or otherwise found by the State (or a certified firearms instructor) to have met either:
the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.
In 2010, the minimum term served was lowered to 10 years, and the provisions for disqualification on mental health grounds and the provisions regarding qualifications to carry a firearm were amended.[2] The law was also specifically extended in 2010 to include:
law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police,
law enforcement officers of the Federal Reserve Police, and
law enforcement or police officers of the executive branch of the Federal Government,
as "service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer".

I don't see where it says you have to be in an armed position.

Jared1981
06-07-2011, 8:15 PM
Hi all,

As it reads....

I must be in an armed position as of retirement.

I am not...

You folks that are not in California have no idea...

SoCal....

I can carry in my state. But, not in Nevada.

Do I need to say more?

Stay safe...

You no longer need to "retire", you only have to "seperate" after 10 years of total service. If your time in adds up to 10 years or more and you were within the LEOSA guidelines, you could be transferred to a janitor, it doesn't matter. You can still get the ID card and qualify.

Other folks on here are trying to help you out. If you have 10 years of government service and during those 10 years you were authorized to carry a firearm and you had statutory power to arrest (no matter how limited it may be) you are good to go.

Notorious
06-07-2011, 10:04 PM
Hi all,

As it reads....

I must be in an armed position as of retirement.

I am not...

You folks that are not in California have no idea...

SoCal....

I can carry in my state. But, not in Nevada.

Do I need to say more?

Stay safe...

If you are in an unarmed position now how are you carrying in CA?

jgraham7897
06-07-2011, 10:07 PM
If you are in an unarmed position now how are you carrying in CA?

My guess is that even in an unarmed position he still qualifies to man the armed position if the need should arise. Which means he is authorized to carry a gun which means he falls under LEOSA.

Notorious
06-07-2011, 10:14 PM
That's that I think. Even cops who are unarmed on duty can carry off duty so they have LEOSA rights.

jgraham7897
06-07-2011, 10:16 PM
I used to work for the BoP and as long as I qualified every year I was able to carry under LEOSA off duty. I may not have worked an armed post every day but was authorized to carry just in case I had to work an armed post.

Notorious
06-07-2011, 10:27 PM
Exactly!

nobody33
06-07-2011, 10:48 PM
Visitors and tourists are some of the last people I want carrying guns in California. Mostly for the fact they will just get them stolen. We have enough tourists cops losing their guns from vehicle and hotel room burglaries as it is. I would bet if I'm ever shot it's going to be with a gun stolen from the f'ing zoo parking lot. And people can carry in the zoo.

eta34
06-08-2011, 6:39 AM
I see. So the possibility of one losing his gun is a reason to deny a constitutional right. If we cops can't even keep track of them, how can we trust lowly "civilians?" Ridiculous and disgusting.

ccmc
06-08-2011, 9:50 AM
Visitors and tourists are some of the last people I want carrying guns in California. Mostly for the fact they will just get them stolen. We have enough tourists cops losing their guns from vehicle and hotel room burglaries as it is. I would bet if I'm ever shot it's going to be with a gun stolen from the f'ing zoo parking lot. And people can carry in the zoo.

Californians are some of the last people I want carrying guns in the free states. Mostly for the fact they will just get them stolen. We have enough California cops losing their guns from vehicle and hotel room burglaries as it is. I would bet if I'm ever shot it's going to be with a gun stolen from a Californian. And Californians can get Florida CWFLs and carry in Florida.

jjgi5150
06-08-2011, 4:31 PM
I'm curious, would you like to see that same standard imposed on California LEO's?

Yes

bohoki
06-08-2011, 6:03 PM
i think it sounds a bit odd to hope to be protected by an out of state tourist since the average joe cant get one here

jerkyg
06-08-2011, 8:01 PM
Thanks Jared and all of you out there...

I have 27 years of service. I do have both 832 a and b...per the penal code. And will be retiring in the next few months.

But, I have not been in an armed position for years. Thus, the way I read the LEOSA...I can not carry...even if my department issues.

Please tell me I am wrong. I am divorced...thus, I am used to being "wrong"!!!

I don't remember who stated how I can carry off-duty...please read my prior posts to understand why I can.

Than you for all your offers of info...it is appreciated.

Stay safe...


You no longer need to "retire", you only have to "seperate" after 10 years of total service. If your time in adds up to 10 years or more and you were within the LEOSA guidelines, you could be transferred to a janitor, it doesn't matter. You can still get the ID card and qualify.

Other folks on here are trying to help you out. If you have 10 years of government service and during those 10 years you were authorized to carry a firearm and you had statutory power to arrest (no matter how limited it may be) you are good to go.

jgraham7897
06-08-2011, 9:54 PM
Thanks Jared and all of you out there...

I have 27 years of service. I do have both 832 a and b...per the penal code. And will be retiring in the next few months.

But, I have not been in an armed position for years. Thus, the way I read the LEOSA...I can not carry...even if my department issues.

Please tell me I am wrong. I am divorced...thus, I am used to being "wrong"!!!

I don't remember who stated how I can carry off-duty...please read my prior posts to understand why I can.

Than you for all your offers of info...it is appreciated.

Stay safe...

If you had to work an armed post could you?

JaMail
06-08-2011, 10:31 PM
Hi all,

It seems to me it's really not as much of a state issue as a local county issue wthin CA. I believe the state would rather we had NO issued CCW permits, much less to honor those from free gun states. It is hard enough for even CA residents to get permits, since the issue of them is controlled by the local jurisdictions far more so than the state.

As a 24 year CA LEO, I very storngly believe that our CA citizens should be able have CCW permits, and let's change the issuance power to the state DOJ. With the caveat that they must be willing to take a proper, well taught CCW course, which requires bi-annual quals and a mandatory carrying of liability insurance. Another law I feel should be added is that if a permit holder ever violates the laws pertaining to his CCW, or commits any other crimes, yes, even DUI, their right for CCW is forever revoked in this state.

All the other laws on the books should easily take care of other situations. For the OP, eventually, if we ever got our own state up to speed for CCW, it would be nice for a state to state reciprocity.

JMO,

Take care,

JJ

Thank you for the honest response, I would like to pose a theoretical question.

Your partner after 10 years of exemplary service, and after driving home from a bbq at your house one night, gets pulled over by a CHP that has a personal bone to pick with your dept and pop's him for a DUI with a .09.

Should an exception be made? or does your partner lose his privilege to carry, thus losing his career.

eta34
06-09-2011, 8:06 AM
Lose his job...yes. lose his right to carry forever...no.

jerkyg
06-13-2011, 4:17 PM
Yes, we could...that is the point. I did not as of retirement.

Thanks...

Stay safe...

If you had to work an armed post could you?

Trailboss60
06-29-2011, 10:34 PM
As a former resident of California for 25 years and as an Arizonan now, I don't have a problem with Arizona honoring California CCW permits, but I think Arizona should pass a law prohibiting any California politician or their security detail from carrying within the Grand Canyon state.
They need to experience the same restrictions that they decree others live under when they travel to and through Arizona.

Lose his job...yes. lose his right to carry forever...no.

I agree...
As a rule, a person that carries, probably shouldn't drink in public...but if a non-prohibited person happens to be drinking when he faces a deadly threat, should he have to relegate himself to being an unarmed victim and beg for mercy from a killer?..I think not...it is legal for an adult person to consume adult beverages, and if it is a "clean shoot" ie, justifiable, the fact that the intended victim had a few drinks shouldn't be a factor, nor should the fact that they have a weapon on them while drinking should be a crime.

Notorious
06-30-2011, 8:35 AM
As a former resident of California for 25 years and as an Arizonan now, I don't have a problem with Arizona honoring California CCW permits, but I think Arizona should pass a law prohibiting any California politician or their security detail from carrying within the Grand Canyon state.
They need to experience the same restrictions that they decree others live under when they travel to and through Arizona.

I agree...
As a rule, a person that carries, probably shouldn't drink in public...but if a non-prohibited person happens to be drinking when he faces a deadly threat, should he have to relegate himself to being an unarmed victim and beg for mercy from a killer?..I think not...it is legal for an adult person to consume adult beverages, and if it is a "clean shoot" ie, justifiable, the fact that the intended victim had a few drinks shouldn't be a factor, nor should the fact that they have a weapon on them while drinking should be a crime.

Best post I read in a long time!

Hopalong
06-30-2011, 8:53 AM
I'll agree with the first part, not the second.

If someone can't stay away from alcohol while armed, they have an issue with alcohol that they don't want to admit.

It's legal for a person to consume alcoholic bevereges, but not while driving.

Isn't your post like saying, if I'm drinking and driving (which by the way is also a deadly weapon) and I don't kill, injure, or get caught, then it's ok?

Sorry, I'll agree to disagree.

Guns and alcohol don't mix.

If you feel the need to be armed, no drinking

If you fell the need drink, leave the gun home.

There is a trade off, in my view.

Also, regarding the concept of "clean shoot"

Attorneys have discussed here that there is nothing etched in stone as to the definition

It is totally subjective

And it would become further clouded by the presence of alcohol

Notorious
06-30-2011, 11:05 AM
Slight difference. If you're drunk, you can call a cab or have a friend drive. You really can't call your friend to come defend you with deadly force or call the police and expect them to get there in time to defend you.

Also, there are drunk driving laws. In CA, there are no drunk carrying laws. So it's not per se illegal. It may not be wise, but it ain't illegal.

jeep7081
06-30-2011, 11:48 AM
RETIRED...

That was a joke. I hope I am not as literal as you when I retire. And to not again...even now...as a sworn Officer for the state of California, I can not carry in Nevada.

It was a point that if legalized sex is more important than us LEO's being able to carry in Nevada...is not as important as us having the ability to protect those that we were sworn to do the same in our state when we got paid...sigh

Get it? I hope others on this site realize what I was referring to...unless the joke was on you when you visit Nevada. another joke...

Stay safe...

I got your joke and agree. ;)

My dad retired as a LEO. Gets a nice pension. Although, when he purchases a firearm in his state, to avoid any handgun test, they want to see his CCW not his badge & i/d he carries that says retired LEO. So, his state feels a 4hr class taught him more, than his career as a LEO. I just laugh.

Hopalong
06-30-2011, 12:24 PM
Slight difference. If you're drunk, you can call a cab or have a friend drive. You really can't call your friend to come defend you with deadly force or call the police and expect them to get there in time to defend you.

Also, there are drunk driving laws. In CA, there are no drunk carrying laws. So it's not per se illegal. It may not be wise, but it ain't illegal.
By the same token, if you're drinking, hire a bodyguard, be with "designated carriers", or stay home.

I'll repeat, if you can't go out with your gun and have a good time without involving alcohol, there is a problem there.

My view is that if you drink, you give up your right to be armed. Your mind, judgement, and motor skills are impaired. Just like driving a car.

I realize one is privilege, while the other is a right (at least in some states). There is however a choice.

You are not being asked to disarm, you are being asked to not drink.

This concept isn't anything new.

Cowboys of the wild west started being disarmed 150 years ago when they'd enter barrooms.

More than likely saved countless lives and injuries.

I might add that, in my view, this attitude that the 2A gives the people the right to be armed anyplace, anytime, anyhow, under any conditions

Plays right into the anti gun lobby.

I've been shooting for over 50 years, I am a 2A advocate .

I'm willing to sacrifice booze and felons to the antis to keep what I have left of my 2A rights.

ap3572001
06-30-2011, 12:31 PM
CCW for qualified people is a VERY good idea. Long overdue

But only if it is controlled. By that , I mean : qualifications ( that You CAN fail) , list of approved handguns, regulations on ammo etc.

Academy trained LEO's have to deal with it . I think its reasonable.

jerkyg
07-01-2011, 9:13 PM
Per the penal code as a full-time peace officer in CA...I can carry off-duty without any say so from my department. But, the way I read the Federal law passed by Bush the second...I cannot if I was not in an armed position prior to retirement.

Stay safe...

If you are in an unarmed position now how are you carrying in CA?

MP301
07-01-2011, 9:48 PM
By the same token, if you're drinking, hire a bodyguard, be with "designated carriers", or stay home.

I'll repeat, if you can't go out with your gun and have a good time without involving alcohol, there is a problem there.

My view is that if you drink, you give up your right to be armed. Your mind, judgement, and motor skills are impaired. Just like driving a car.

I realize one is privilege, while the other is a right (at least in some states). There is however a choice.

You are not being asked to disarm, you are being asked to not drink.

This concept isn't anything new.

Cowboys of the wild west started being disarmed 150 years ago when they'd enter barrooms.

More than likely saved countless lives and injuries.

I might add that, in my view, this attitude that the 2A gives the people the right to be armed anyplace, anytime, anyhow, under any conditions

Plays right into the anti gun lobby.

I've been shooting for over 50 years, I am a 2A advocate .

I'm willing to sacrifice booze and felons to the antis to keep what I have left of my 2A rights.

I hate to break it to ya, but you can legally carry in Nevada up to a .10. And guess what? They are not having any problems with it. Either are the other states that allow you to drink while carrying.

You should take a moment to consider the difference between a "right" and "privledge"

Driving = privledge
Keep & Bear = Right.

Apples and Oranges. Cars kill more people then guns, even without booze anyway.

You get a DUI in Ca, you lose your driving privledge for a short period of time and maybe get it restricted to being able to drive to and from and during the course of employment. But, in Ca its a given you wont see another CCW permit if you get a DUI. Even the shall issue states like Nevada wont give you one for 5 years after a DUI.

Just carrying a gun while drinking should not be a crime. The crime would be doing something stupid with that gun while drinking or not. Carrying a hammer while drinking is not illegal, but you can sure a **** kill someone with it. Should it be illegal to carry a hammer while drinking?

Lets take it a step further and decide that talking out of your *** while drinking should be illegal. See, your first amendment should not apply becuase of the booze, cause you might offend someone and start a fight that could end in someone getting an ice pick stuck in thier eye. You get my point?

Being a true supporter of any of our rights might be uncomfortable at times when we dont like something, but that is the nature of the beast. Either a person is pro liberty or just pro liberty when it suits them.

MP301
07-01-2011, 9:53 PM
CCW for qualified people is a VERY good idea. Long overdue

But only if it is controlled. By that , I mean : qualifications ( that You CAN fail) , list of approved handguns, regulations on ammo etc.

Academy trained LEO's have to deal with it . I think its reasonable.

Seriously? You think a constitutional right needs the nanny treatment? Interesting.

I think the real problem is with the 1st amendment. I dont think you should be allowed to say things that I disagree with. Your mouth should be regulated so as not to offend anyone and possible upset an unbalanced person that could in turn go crazy and kill everyone they can.

A right is a right is a right. Right?:p

Notorious
07-01-2011, 11:45 PM
Cowboys of the wild west started being disarmed 150 years ago when they'd enter barrooms.

That really worked well because as soon as you walked out of the bar, you got your weapons handed back to you by the barkeep. The only incidents avoided with that is shootings inside the bar. They kept it out on the streets after they got their weapons back.

In reality, the old west was not as wild as it is made to be nowadays. When towns got incorporated or civilized, they passed ordinances banning the carrying of weapons in city limits quite regularly. Tombstone did it.

By logical extension of your argument, it's not alcohol that is the problem you have to worry about. It's lack of sleep. Medical studies show that more Americans suffer from lack of sleep more than alcohol and there is a correlation between how much sleep you are missing versus the impact on your alertness and judgment.

So cops who work a double shift should not carry either on their way home, or even on duty. Heck, there were a few shifts where I was barely able to stay awake because it was the 4th or 5th day pulling 10s or 12s when we were short. I should have disarmed in uniform.

Notorious
07-01-2011, 11:48 PM
Seriously? You think a constitutional right needs the nanny treatment? Interesting.

I think the real problem is with the 1st amendment. I dont think you should be allowed to say things that I disagree with. Your mouth should be regulated so as not to offend anyone and possible upset an unbalanced person that could in turn go crazy and kill everyone they can.

A right is a right is a right. Right?:p

Hate to disagree with you because I believe as you do, but our courts and laws have always held that even Constitutional rights have limits and are subject to constraints. Strict constraints which will be interpreted under strict scrutiny, but constraints nonetheless exist.

jeep7081
07-02-2011, 8:27 AM
Flame suit on. Just because you have the "right" doesn't mean you should. DUI while carring don't mix. Period. Those who agree, usually drink themself. Thus, they defend the law.

Personally, I think were to easy on DUI's. Like someone said, until you loose a family member you don't understand. It would take a lot to control me from beating someone's *** who injured my family because the law said he could. Unless you have been in a closet, we all have seen tests on TV how even one-two drinks impares our driving. Then give that person a gun? Respecfully disagree.

It's like Donald Trump taking his $800 social security check. Can he? Yes. Does he need to? No.

My $.02

Notorious
07-02-2011, 12:24 PM
There are so many different things that can cause impairment that unless you are in perfect health and are always well rested, you will have some degree of impairment.

Hopalong
07-02-2011, 12:33 PM
That really worked well because as soon as you walked out of the bar, you got your weapons handed back to you by the barkeep. The only incidents avoided with that is shootings inside the bar. They kept it out on the streets after they got their weapons back.

In reality, the old west was not as wild as it is made to be nowadays. When towns got incorporated or civilized, they passed ordinances banning the carrying of weapons in city limits quite regularly. Tombstone did it.

By logical extension of your argument, it's not alcohol that is the problem you have to worry about. It's lack of sleep. Medical studies show that more Americans suffer from lack of sleep more than alcohol and there is a correlation between how much sleep you are missing versus the impact on your alertness and judgment.

So cops who work a double shift should not carry either on their way home, or even on duty. Heck, there were a few shifts where I was barely able to stay awake because it was the 4th or 5th day pulling 10s or 12s when we were short. I should have disarmed in uniform.
You're right, you should have disarmed and gone home.

You did yourself, the department, and the citizenry no favors by being asleep on the job. I realize it's your superiors who make the policy though.

Nurses and doctors go through the same things (without the guns)

You, the dept., and the citizenry were just plain lucky those days

You fine truckers and make them pull over and rest when their log books don't jive. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As far as my analogy pertaining to the old west

You can parse it out any way you want

My point is that 150 years ago, people started noticing that alcohol and weapons don't mix

You can spin it any way you want.

As far as "a right is a right is a right" goes

And 'Your either pro 2A all the way or not"

Keep that attitude up, and see where it gets us.

Bottom line is this

If you can't carry without drinking

Then drinking is obviously pretty important to you, maybe too much so.

Why don't you ask your superiosr at the dept if you can have a couple beers at lunch?

Should be no problem, right?

I mean after all, you probably won't go over 0.1, you're over 21, and it might relieve some of the stress from the job.

Look, we can both go back and forth forever.

Let me respectfully agree to disagree.

Notorious, let me just add, that I follow your posts

I'm not a cop, but I agree with you pretty much all of the time

I think you have a lot to offer here on the forum, and appreciate your input

I think you're a "good cop".

Notorious
07-02-2011, 12:43 PM
I appreciate your kind words and intelligent discourse. I respect your feelings and I too have seen the effects alcohol can have on otherwise reasonable human beings. My experience is with a family member who finally had to kick the habit after almost killing himself enough times and half the time it didn't even involve a motor vehicle. He almost killed himself walking by falling down and smashing his head open on a dividing wall. Cops found him bleeding from a head gash 2 blocks from home, missing his shoes and socks.

But as to working and drinking, we have policies against drinking on the job but none off duty. I don't make the rules but I don't always need someone to tell me what is right for me to do the right thing.

Trailboss60
07-07-2011, 1:30 PM
Just got back from lake Powell...



My view is that if you drink, you give up your right to be armed.


That might be your view, but it certainly wasn't what the framers intended.
A God given right, is not to be regulated by politicians or bureaucrats, if a group of people that chose to drink alcohol should they be deprived of freely assembling together? Should a forum where free speech takes place be regulated because people are drinking?
In either instance, a large unruly mob could explode into a violent situation!



Cowboys of the wild west started being disarmed 150 years ago when they'd enter barrooms.

More than likely saved countless lives and injuries.


Actually, guns were prohibited in the town of Tombstone and not just the barrooms;

In late 1880, as regional violence ratcheted up, Tombstone strengthened its existing ban on concealed weapons to outlaw the carrying of any deadly weapons within the town limits.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47366.html#ixzz1RSPivsck


So if the Earp plan "more than likely saved lives", would you be willing to adopt the same ordinance in your town or city?


I have a different take than you do Hoss, if a legally armed citizen chooses to carry and decides to have a glass of wine with his dinner, I don't think that his God given rights should be suspended, at that point, it becomes Pete Stark/ Nancy Pelosi (or name another politician's name) given rights, and I don't worship at that altar...not saying you do either....

Hopalong
07-07-2011, 2:57 PM
That's right Boss, it is my view the alcohol and guns don't mix.

As far as your analogy goes

First, speech isn't generally a deadly weapon."

However, if you are drunk and disorderly, or inciting a riot

You will lose your first amendment rights, and get arrested.

Tombstone did get it wrong, they should have said

Alcohol and guns don't mix

I'm fine with that in my city, alcohol is not important to me

It's a choice, one or the other.

Lastly, where would you draw the line?

One glass of wine, or two? How about hard alcohol?

What level of impairment is acceptable?

At what point should God given rights be suspended?

Never? Stumbling drunk, but don't F with my gun?

Bottom line is, the anti gun movement loves your argument.

And will use it against us.

Again, I respectfully disagree.

These all or nothing stances will only erode what 2A rights we have left here in Ca.

Don't take my gun, you can have my booze instead.

Trailboss60
07-07-2011, 3:43 PM
So if the Earp plan "more than likely saved lives", would you be willing to adopt the same ordinance in your town or city?

I'm fine with that in my city, alcohol is not important to me

They didn't ban alcohol in Tombstone, they banned the guns.

Hopalong
07-07-2011, 4:42 PM
They didn't ban alcohol in Tombstone, they banned the guns.

They shouldn't have banned either

They should have banned the mixture.

Notorious
07-07-2011, 5:06 PM
Another difference if that you are not asking people to waive any other constitutional right after drinking and you can't rank the rights. It's all our nothing.

Nobody had said to stop talking or anything else just because you're drinking.

Hopalong
07-07-2011, 5:13 PM
A gun is a dangerous weapon in the hands of an impaired person

Talking, not so much

Although, as mentioned, your free speech stops when inciting a riot

Trailboss60
07-07-2011, 6:19 PM
A gun is a dangerous weapon in the hands of an impaired person

Talking, not so much

Although, as mentioned, your free speech stops when inciting a riot


Regardless, either it is a God given right or it isn't...
A knife can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of an impaired person, so is a chainsaw, chain, cattle prod...

Notorious
07-07-2011, 7:06 PM
Even if you're arrested, you can still continue to talk crap. Any cop that had any street time can tell you how that goes. Also, no felony will impact your other constitutional rights. Like I said, I might not agree with drinking and carrying but I also don't want someone to rank my natural rights.

sunball42
07-07-2011, 8:17 PM
This is just my thought but if everyone carried a gun there would be less crime over all!!!! I would not mind dealing with 100 percent of contacts with guns, because i expect all contacts have one anyway...just dont be stupid and you will not be shot!!!! at the end of the day I am going home to my family no mater what it takes.....

retired
07-07-2011, 9:50 PM
RETIRED...

That was a joke. I hope I am not as literal as you when I retire. And to not again...even now...as a sworn Officer for the state of California, I can not carry in Nevada.

It was a point that if legalized sex is more important than us LEO's being able to carry in Nevada...is not as important as us having the ability to protect those that we were sworn to do the same in our state when we got paid...sigh

Get it? I hope others on this site realize what I was referring to...unless the joke was on you when you visit Nevada. another joke...

Stay safe...

I just saw this thread again having been off site for awhile due to a surgery, otherwise I would have responded earlier.

You could have just said you were joking instead of insulting me and I'm not really sure why you would do so or was that another joke that I just did not get.

I do not take things literally unless they are meant that way. Due to the vagaries of the internet and a lack of some type of smilie, I missed your joke even tho some others did get it. Again, a simple statement to that effect would have been sufficient.

KaTooM
07-07-2011, 10:02 PM
:D

Got you covered....

The cops are simply tools for those that have the real power in this game called life.

:TFH:

Hopalong
07-09-2011, 9:44 AM
Even if you're arrested, you can still continue to talk crap. Any cop that had any street time can tell you how that goes. Also, no felony will impact your other constitutional rights. Like I said, I might not agree with drinking and carrying but I also don't want someone to rank my natural rights.
With all due respect, what natural rights?

Last time I looked, the average Ca citizen had none regarding guns.

In a state with 40 million people, there are 40,000 CCW permits.

Not to mention the Roster, hi cap mags, AW restrictions, and so on.

I'm talking about getting some rights back.

You may not be affected by the above with your "get of jail free" LEO card

So your only issue is, I want a glass of wine with my dinner and gun.

I already agreed to no alcohol, no drugs, and not under the influence of anything, to get my CCW

You know what?

No problema. Easy.

I'd bet the average citizen (especially in LA or SF) would gladly agree to no alcohol (etc), to get the right to carry back.

This all or nothing stance will guarantee a surefire nothing.

And to Trailboss, As far as what I'm talking about, your analogy of impaired people walking the streets

Carrying chainsaws and cattle prods

Is frankly silly.

Notorious
07-09-2011, 1:17 PM
Exactly, carrying weapons and self defense are rights we have as human beings, just like anything else in this world. Animals have natural weaponry and they defend themselves, and so should we.

The state took those rights away under the guide of preserving the public peace which is a crock.

Jack L
07-09-2011, 6:00 PM
Slight difference. If you're drunk, you can call a cab or have a friend drive. You really can't call your friend to come defend you with deadly force or call the police and expect them to get there in time to defend you.

Also, there are drunk driving laws. In CA, there are no drunk carrying laws. So it's not per se illegal. It may not be wise, but it ain't illegal.

SLOC CCW stamp............see attached

Notorious
07-09-2011, 7:02 PM
SLOC CCW stamp............see attached

That's not law, but rules which are made applicable to the individual holder, like policies and procedures, not laws.

The Shadow
07-14-2011, 4:14 PM
Liability insurance? Seriously? Losing a constitutional right for a DUI? Thankfully you don't speak for other LEO's who actually support the constitution, like me.

To elaborate on my earlier statement. Shouldn't need to get a ccw. I am ok with the average citizen carrying a loaded firearm.

In the absence of that, I am good with 50 state reciprocity.

Liability insurance...wow. I am speechless. I guess the "civilians" aren't "profeshional" enough to ccw without ridiculous restrictions.

Sure...so would the same apply to fellow cops? I have worked with several cops convicted of DUI. If you apply your standard equally, cops would essentially lose their jobs.

Are you willing to go that far? My guess is no.

For the record, I believe a cop who is convicted of DUI should be fired.

:iagree::thumbsup:

cmoore
07-14-2011, 6:21 PM
It's moronic. If you've obviously been "vetted" for CCW through your home state, that should be enough. IMHO, the more, the merrier. I've been a cop for almost 22 years and times are lean for agencies right now.

With early retirement incentives and officers punching-out on medicals, it can get dicey when there's no back-fill planned to make up for the loss. Regarding CCW's, I wouldn't turn down the help from a CCW holder if I needed it, but a CCW holder needs to make that decision on their own and understand the litigious arena upon which they are entering. While I'm protected through a POA and the State...:nuts:, they may not be.

Best regards to all,

cmoore

jerkyg
07-14-2011, 7:29 PM
Wow...I hope I am not as cranky as you in another 4 months when I retire. And yes "retired" that was another joke.

I hope you are ok after your surgery...

Relax...you are supposed to enjoy your retirement. I know that I will. Won't have to commute 130 miles each way from my ranch. Jet skis, fishing, hunting and being with my kids all the time. And this attitude is after going through a HORRIBLE divorce and that she gets 47%...LOL...crying. And I agree that the nuances of email...posts...can be lost in translation.

Enjoy your retirement the best you can...send me a note. We have been through too much to be upset with each other...though, I am not mad.

Stay safe...

I just saw this thread again having been off site for awhile due to a surgery, otherwise I would have responded earlier.

You could have just said you were joking instead of insulting me and I'm not really sure why you would do so or was that another joke that I just did not get.

I do not take things literally unless they are meant that way. Due to the vagaries of the internet and a lack of some type of smilie, I missed your joke even tho some others did get it. Again, a simple statement to that effect would have been sufficient.

The Shadow
07-15-2011, 8:19 AM
Going back to alcohol and firearms for a moment, I think the whole argument is completely bogus, and here's why.

In some states, you're prohibited from carrying a firearm into a place that serves alcohol, but you're not prevented from driving to those places. Why ?

If a person who ccw's has a drink, what makes them more dangerous than a person who has a drink and then drives ? The person who ccw's and drinks is less likely to use their firearm, than the person who drives, because you actually have to drive the car for it to be of any use. So why the difference ?

If a person chooses to own firearms, and a person with a firearm has had a drink, and it's is so dangerous to drink with firearms, then why does the state allow a person to have firearms and alcohol in their homes at the same time ?

It's interesting that millions of people have access to some form of alcohol in their homes with their firearms, but it's only dangerous for a person to carry a firearm into a bar and drink. Granted, I realize that when some people drink, they get stupid, but to date, I'm not familiar with people who ccw, going on a drunken rampage after getting drunk in their homes. In other words, if they don't get crazy drunk at home and go on a shooting spree, why would anyone expect them to get crazy drunk and go on a shooting spree from a bar ? I am however familiar with people who have been killed in bars because they were prohibited from carrying, Nikki Goeser and her husband comes to mind here.

So, maybe I'm looking at this all wrong. I don't normally go to bars, but when I do, everybody pretty much minds their own business and is pretty civil. For those that drink one too many, they and their friends are pretty responsible, and they take care of the person who can only put three sheets to the wind. So this fearmongering about firearms seems unfounded to me, and a bit hyperbolic.

Now, I don't claim to have all of the answers, but in my experience, I know that a person who is responsible enough to get a ccw, is probably a good law abiding citizen, with little or no negative contact with the legal system. So what changes when they go from law abiding citizen without a ccw, to law abiding citizen with a ccw ? I mean, if they were potentially violent, they probably wouldn't be able to ccw.

My point is, shall issue states have provisions written into their laws that simply state that if the issuing agency can show a compelling reason not to issue, criminal history being one of them, then the issuing agency is obligated not to issue to that person. So I don't see the problem with allowing a person into a restaurant, and letting them consume a beer or two with their meals. I mean after all, according to numerous MPs I knew way back when, who did tours in Germany, the police were allowed to consume two beers per day while on duty.

In my opinion, I think Letitia Youmans' Temperance movement from 1885 still has a strong influence on how we view alcohol. It's simply not a valid argument when we're talking about responsible law abiding adults, being prohibited from doing something just because they are carrying a firearm.

Notorious
07-15-2011, 11:37 AM
I agree but I also like paragraphs.:rolleyes:

Going back to alcohol and firearms for a moment, I think the whole argument is completely bogus, and here's why.

In some states, you're prohibited from carrying a firearm into a place that serves alcohol, but you're not prevented from driving to those places. Why ? If a person who ccw's has a drink, what makes them more dangerous than a person who has a drink and then drives ? The person who ccw's and drinks is less likely to use their firearm, than the person who drives, because you actually have to drive the car for it to be of any use. So why the difference ? If a person chooses to own firearms, and a person with a firearm has had a drink, and it's is so dangerous to drink with firearms, then why does the state allow a person to have firearms and alcohol in their homes at the same time ? It's interesting that millions of people have access to some form of alcohol in their homes with their firearms, but it's only dangerous for a person to carry a firearm into a bar and drink. Granted, I realize that when some people drink, they get stupid, but to date, I'm not familiar with people who ccw, going on a drunken rampage after getting drunk in their homes. In other words, if they don't get crazy drunk at home and go on a shooting spree, why would anyone expect them to get crazy drunk and go on a shooting spree from a bar ? I am however familiar with people who have been killed in bars because they were prohibited from carrying, Nikki Goeser and her husband comes to mind here. So, maybe I'm looking at this all wrong. I don't normally go to bars, but when I do, everybody pretty much minds their own business and is pretty civil. For those that drink one too many, they and their friends are pretty responsible, and they take care of the person who can only put three sheets to the wind. So this fearmongering about firearms seems unfounded to me, and a bit hyperbolic. Now, I don't claim to have all of the answers, but in my experience, I know that a person who is responsible enough to get a ccw, is probably a good law abiding citizen, with little or no negative contact with the legal system. So what changes when they go from law abiding citizen without a ccw, to law abiding citizen with a ccw ? I mean, if they were potentially violent, they probably wouldn't be able to ccw. My point is, shall issue states have provisions written into their laws that simply state that if the issuing agency can show a compelling reason not to issue, criminal history being one of them, then the issuing agency is obligated not to issue to that person. So I don't see the problem with allowing a person into a restaurant, and letting them consume a beer or two with their meals. I mean after all, according to numerous MPs I knew way back when, who did tours in Germany, the police were allowed to consume two beers per day while on duty. In my opinion, I think Letitia Youmans' Temperance movement from 1885 still has a strong influence on how we view alcohol. It's simply not a valid argument when we're talking about responsible law abiding adults, being prohibited from doing something just because they are carrying a firearm.

Mike-4
07-15-2011, 12:40 PM
Thank you for the honest response, I would like to pose a theoretical question.

Your partner after 10 years of exemplary service, and after driving home from a bbq at your house one night, gets pulled over by a CHP that has a personal bone to pick with your dept and pop's him for a DUI with a .09.

Should an exception be made? or does your partner lose his privilege to carry, thus losing his career.

Wow, I like how JaMail throws in that the CHP officer has to have a "personal bone to pick with your dept" in order to arrest another officer for DUI. This implies that LEOs are exempt from DUI laws unless the officer has ulterior motives. The CHP officer arrests "citizens" for the same offense because of the carnage DUI drivers cause and he's doing the job he gets paid to do. However, if he arrests another cop, he has a bone to pick? Really?

For the record, I don't think an officer should be fired or have his gun rights taken away for a misdemeanor DUI (for a first offense). Most civilians retain their jobs and gun rights with a DUI conviction, so should cops.

Notorious
07-15-2011, 1:31 PM
Doesn't CHP have a bone to pick with everyone?

retired
07-15-2011, 4:11 PM
Wow...I hope I am not as cranky as you in another 4 months when I retire. And yes "retired" that was another joke.

I hope you are ok after your surgery...

Relax...you are supposed to enjoy your retirement. I know that I will. Won't have to commute 130 miles each way from my ranch. Jet skis, fishing, hunting and being with my kids all the time. And this attitude is after going through a HORRIBLE divorce and that she gets 47%...LOL...crying. And I agree that the nuances of email...posts...can be lost in translation.

Enjoy your retirement the best you can...send me a note. We have been through too much to be upset with each other...though, I am not mad.

Stay safe...


Okey dokey.:D :grouphug:

The Shadow
07-15-2011, 6:31 PM
I agree but I also like paragraphs.:rolleyes:

Nah, paragraphs take up time and space. ;)

The Shadow
07-15-2011, 6:50 PM
Wow, I like how JaMail throws in that the CHP officer has to have a "personal bone to pick with your dept" in order to arrest another officer for DUI. This implies that LEOs are exempt from DUI laws unless the officer has ulterior motives. The CHP officer arrests "citizens" for the same offense because of the carnage DUI drivers cause and he's doing the job he gets paid to do. However, if he arrests another cop, he has a bone to pick? Really?

For the record, I don't think an officer should be fired or have his gun rights taken away for a misdemeanor DUI (for a first defense). Most civilians retain their jobs and gun rights with a DUI conviction, so should cops.

I'm not going to go into a long drawn out diatribe about chippies, but here's one little known factoid that I learned years ago.

You know those blues lights that are on LE cars ? The chippies were the ones that introduced it to California. They wanted to be the exclusive agency in California to have blue lights. As I understand it, it was an ego thing, to set them apart from other LEOs.

When I was a police explorer with West Covina PD, I remember seeing blue lights on CHP cars at the Winchell's Donut Shop. LASO and West Covina PD would be on one side of the parking lot, eating donuts (this is not a joke), drinking coffee, and smoking, while the chippies were one the other side talking about whatever chippies talk about. So where am I going with this ? Generally speaking, from what I was told by the LE I was exposed to as an impressionable 16 year old, the Chippies thought they were better than city and county LE, so it doesn't surprise me that there should be some kind of rift between CHP and other LE.

Don't get me wrong, if LE does something wrong, they should be held to the same standard. But it does seem as if chippies are a bit more anal that other LE.

jerkyg
07-15-2011, 9:05 PM
Thanks "retired"...

Let's get together and have a beer.

"Shadow"...awesome post.

Stay safe...

Taggart
07-16-2011, 11:16 PM
As a former resident of California for 25 years and as an Arizonan now, I don't have a problem with Arizona honoring California CCW permits, but I think Arizona should pass a law prohibiting any California politician or their security detail from carrying within the Grand Canyon state.
They need to experience the same restrictions that they decree others live under when they travel to and through Arizona.


Excellent idea.

Taggart
07-16-2011, 11:21 PM
Visitors and tourists are some of the last people I want carrying guns in California. Mostly for the fact they will just get them stolen. We have enough tourists cops losing their guns from vehicle and hotel room burglaries as it is. I would bet if I'm ever shot it's going to be with a gun stolen from the f'ing zoo parking lot. And people can carry in the zoo.

I'd love to see some figures on this, if you have any. I don't remember the last time I stayed in a hotel or motel that didn't have a small safe in the room for valuables... which is where my handgun normally goes when I'm out of the room, and I've never had one stolen nor known anyone who had anything stolen from one.