PDA

View Full Version : Sad Day...


Triad
06-12-2011, 4:03 PM
Due to the recent opinion piece penned by the AG, our Sheriff will no longer issue letters for AR-15 (RAW).

I'd been saving...

4FTTY
06-12-2011, 5:07 PM
Welcome to the club... Our boss made that decision before the AG put his opinion out. It's going to take some kind of active shooter incident or a Deputy getting outgunned for the admin to figure out that we need rifles instead of shoulder fired 9mms. It sucks.

1911su16b870
06-12-2011, 5:12 PM
Sorry to hear that Triad...tis a very sad day.

Posting this in the LE forum, I just wanted to say that any pro 2A person who for whatever reason (jealousy, contempt, feeling "un-equal") and feels that LE should not be have ARs really needs to examine their pro 2A.

I am resolved to go featureless and be exceptionally good with what I have.

Falconis
06-12-2011, 5:57 PM
Sorry to hear that Triad...tis a very sad day.

Posting this in the LE forum, I just wanted to say that any pro 2A person who for whatever reason (jealousy, contempt, feeling "un-equal") and feels that LE should not be have ARs really needs to examine their pro 2A.

I am resolved to go featureless and be exceptionally good with what I have.

+1 x100

Convo I had earlier seemed to revolved around if I can't have one, why should you instead of nobody should be getting rifles taken away period.

sfpcservice
06-12-2011, 8:57 PM
If I were in charge I would make a law that says all good people can have any firearm they want and all bad people cannot have a firearm.... Hmmm.. :-)

Notorious
06-12-2011, 11:23 PM
The stupid thing is that these people argue about if they can't have it, then LEO's can't either, forget that when they get the guns taken away from LEO's, they lose all hope of it ever being available to the civilians too.

At least with LEO's getting them, the market is still there and we can change it and expand it eventually. With the LE market gone, what incentive is there to bring more of those guns into CA?

Stupid short-sighted people.

Roddd
06-13-2011, 2:31 AM
Are there any ARs out in the field on your department? I feel naked without mine while on duty. To me, it's an officer safety issue. It's not something you take out everyday, but it sure is comforting to know you have it.

Triad
06-13-2011, 8:08 AM
We have about ~200 Patrol deputies. 1/4 of those have AR's....1/2 of that 1/4 use their personal (purchased) AR's on duty.

BigDogatPlay
06-13-2011, 10:33 AM
Posting this in the LE forum, I just wanted to say that any pro 2A person who for whatever reason (jealousy, contempt, feeling "un-equal") and feels that LE should not be have ARs really needs to examine their pro 2A.

While I am sure that sentiment wouldn't play well with some outside the business, it is spot on.

I am resolved to go featureless and be exceptionally good with what I have.

Were I in that position, I'd be inclined to agree with you that featureless might indeed be the most logical alternative. And imagine the looks you'd get showing up to a call or to training sporting a (found by court to not be a thumbhole stock) U-15. While it's still not optimal, it's certainly better than some type of grip glove or the like.

http://californiarifles.com/content/uploads/2011/03/cropped-rifle.jpg

PolishMike
06-13-2011, 10:35 AM
, they lose all hope of it ever being available to the civilians too.


A police officer is just as much a civilian as anywhere else.

We REALLY need to get rid of this sense of police officers being more than "civilians"

Falconis
06-13-2011, 11:14 AM
A police officer is just as much a civilian as anywhere else.

We REALLY need to get rid of this sense of police officers being more than "civilians"

What are your reasonings?

tgriffin
06-13-2011, 11:23 AM
It promotes an "us vs them" mentality. Officers are subject to the same laws as non-officers. Unless you are .mil, you are a civilian. Period.

PolishMike
06-13-2011, 11:26 AM
What are your reasonings?

It promotes an "us vs them" mentality. Officers are subject to the same laws as non-officers. Unless you are .mil, you are a civilian. Period.


Exactly

r3dn3ck
06-13-2011, 12:05 PM
I'm not a fan of much of the way modern LE operates but, denying them one form of lethal force tool over a different lethal force tool is retarded. All guns in the hands of LEO's are weapons meant to stop lethal encounters. Which part of lethal was unclear to someone?

Fine, if they're going to cockblock you on penetration, counter with a flying train wreck. 12ga slugs. Body armor doesn't matter against a slug, bad guy will still probably die even though it probably won't penetrate the vest (the vest is liable to penetrate the bad guy though). Then issue FN5-7 pistols and a mag of AP to every officer.

1911su16b870
06-13-2011, 12:15 PM
A police officer is just as much a civilian as anywhere else.

We REALLY need to get rid of this sense of police officers being more than "civilians"

The "sense" is a perception and "perception is your reality", and IMO that perception is short sighted and incorrect.

We are all first and foremost citizens of this great United States of America. :patriot:

CA law gives peace officers a little more authority (830PC etc.) and to call for diminishing LE right/ability to own firearms is anti-2A.

yzernie
06-13-2011, 12:50 PM
A police officer is just as much a civilian as anywhere else.

We REALLY need to get rid of this sense of police officers being more than "civilians"
Oh God, not this again :rolleyes:

Falconis
06-13-2011, 5:19 PM
Well I could rant about this for days on end, but I'll start with this one. When people (General Pubilc i.e. civilians) stop saying they expect more out of Police Personel we can talk.

As far as the AR, I already argued this at length with other people. They are necessary tools for the job and we don't live in a perfect society. Private purchase programs were intended for agencies who couldnt afford them as an agency. If you truely believe that LEO's are civilians just like you guys, I don't understand why you would want to strip anyone of their 2A rights. Energies in this matter should be directed at the writers of the legislation and not the people that need AR's on the street.

If you truely believe an AR should be "returned" after retirement, come up with a proposal that fairly compensates the Peace Officer that has purchased, trained, used, and maintained the piece of equipment he bought for use. No matter how you argue it, it's a due process and 14th amendment clause like every CIVILIAN here argues and screams their heads about. The fact that you guys are anti LEO about it and only say that it promotes an us vs. them attitude screams nothing but hypocrisy.

Notorious
06-13-2011, 5:32 PM
Oh God, not this again :rolleyes:

Yep, out of respect for you, yz, I won't quote it. See Mariam-Webster and get back to me. I don't make the rules.

biochembruin
06-13-2011, 5:34 PM
Think of it this way: You own a legally purchased weapon, and a government agency says you can no longer keep it, so you must destroy it, sell it, or move it out of state. Sound scary?

That's the situation with requiring retired officers to dispose of their legally purchased and registered assault weapons. I don't see how anyone on this forum could argue for that. But some do. They are their own worst enemies.

epilepticninja
06-13-2011, 8:59 PM
When I was an LEO, I never felt I needed anything other then my trusty 870. Until I got a MWG call one summer evening. Dude was about 80 yards out in a field with a 30-06. I'm standing there with 00 buckshot. I'll I could do was crouch behind my front tire of the patrol car and peek out. Thankfully the patrol sergeant rolled up with his AR. Us lowly peons only got shotguns, the brass got the carbines. Nowadays, everyone at my old dept. has AR's or Mini-14's. For sure all LEO's should have a dept. issued rifle to supplement the shottie.

IrishJoe3
06-13-2011, 10:38 PM
A police officer is just as much a civilian as anywhere else.

We REALLY need to get rid of this sense of police officers being more than "civilians"

Oh lordy... :rolleyes:

When I am on active military orders, I refer to my job of being an LEO as my Civilian career. When I am working as a LEO and want to differentiate, I refer to non first responders as civilians.

Y'all read waaaaay to much into this.

Ed_Hazard
06-13-2011, 10:52 PM
Does'nt your dept. issue you a patrol rifle?

If they do are they featurless, bb, or "normal"?


If your patrol rifle is issued why do you need a personal non-duty AW? Would'nt your non-duty personal rifle be fine`w/out receiveing privately owned RAW status?

Really if your useing it for patrol it should be the best rifle available to you from your dept.

But just because your a LEO should not make you exempt from AW laws/restictions for personal rifles.

Just my opinion...

Notorious
06-13-2011, 11:45 PM
Does'nt your dept. issue you a patrol rifle?

If they do are they featurless, bb, or "normal"?

If your patrol rifle is issued why do you need a personal non-duty AW? Would'nt your non-duty personal rifle be fine`w/out receiveing privately owned RAW status?

Really if your useing it for patrol it should be the best rifle available to you from your dept.

But just because your a LEO should not make you exempt from AW laws/restictions for personal rifles.

Just my opinion...

Departments that cannot afford to issue rifles but want to let their officers have the discretion have little choice but to allow the individual purchase option. It's the same as those departments that allow officers to purchase their own sidearms. I can use the issued gun but I prefer my own gun and it saves the department money. Why not?

As for the assertion that we should not be exempt, well, we are not exempt unless we get clearance from the department and not all LEO's can get it so within the 2 classes you speak of, there is another sub- class of LEO's who actually are blessed and those who are not.

However, I doubt the non-blessed LEO's begrudge those who can get the letters from their department either. We just don't work that way.

Finally, we definitely are not exempt for "personal" rifles. I have more than 1 personal AR that is BB'ed. The exemption only applies for those rifles that a department certifies is for "duty" use. That is one reason the letter lets us buy a new rifle and register it at point of sale. We cannot convert our own personal firearm even with a letter.

Falconis
06-14-2011, 7:45 AM
it's actually "official" use. doesnt have to be for duty.

Falconis
06-14-2011, 8:05 AM
Does'nt your dept. issue you a patrol rifle?

Yes, but for budgetary reasons we don't have enough of them. Some departments that do want their officers properly equipped don't have any agency owned ones at all.


Normal, I think we can all agree SB-23 and AW laws in general are ridiculous. For official duty use, it's beyond moronic to use a featureless or BB'd rifle.

[QUOTE=Ed_Hazard;6587546If your patrol rifle is issued why do you need a personal non-duty AW? Would'nt your non-duty personal rifle be fine`w/out receiveing privately owned RAW status?

Goes back to the above statement about not all departments issue rifles. If they do, some officers have to turn them in at the end of shift. On days off they want to train, they need something else. Since you are eluding that LEO's and civilians are alike, why do you feel a desire to strip anyone of their 2A rights?


Sure, under ideal circumstances. What ideal world do you live in?

[QUOTE=Ed_Hazard;6587546But just because your a LEO should not make you exempt from AW laws/restictions for personal rifles.

Just my opinion...

You are entitled to your opinion, but if a department can't afford rifles for their officers why shouldnt they be exempt? Do you have a fair way to compensate the officer after he retires for the purchase, maintainence, and everything else he has to do during his career with the rifle?

If you truely believe that being able to buy an AW makes you a second class citizen here in Ca, why are you not going after movie production companies or any other companies that received a AW permit from DOJ? Do you think making movies is a better excuse than an officer that should have a rifle to begin with? Do you think a person who once had a Hollywood prop rental business needs his AW permit still? Have you written anyone about that? Do you think because he's a private citizen, he should be stripped of all his property just because the person isn't doing any business anymore? Well you probably do.

Notorious
06-14-2011, 8:28 AM
it's actually "official" use. doesnt have to be for duty.

Yes. Official. Meaning not personal or own business.

Which also includes us using the authorized weapons for training or practice on our own time because it is still official purposes.

PaperPuncher
06-14-2011, 9:03 AM
I think people just want to feel like we are all fighting the same battle here. It is not really a "well, if I can't have it, you can't have it" even though it comes across that way.

It probably holds no water but even I feel like if someone is protected form a law like the assault weapon law and they are given an exemption they are less likely to fight for me to have the same treatment since their battle has already been won. You have to admit that this is probably true in certain individual situations and at minimum you have to admit that the feeling makes sense. Couple that with the few high profile law enforcement officials who are blatantly outright anti-gun and you start to develop a stigma. Thanks to CalGuns I get to hear from officers who are not anti and that helps my opinion of LEO immensely.

However when I see some of them trying to push the "two separate classes" thing, that deposit in my emotional bank account is immediately withdrawn upon. In a world of cowboys and Indians the cowboys need not fight amongst themselves. There are plenty of Indians out there. Remember, we are cowboys too.

Officers definitely need a platform such as the AR while on duty. I agree with that completely. What I see missing is officers agreeing that a gun fight is just as dangerous and requires the same tools to get out of regardless of you being an officer. This being the case, there is no reason for officers to hold a grudge to civilians who would like the same protection as them and the same goes for civilians when it comes to officers having these tools.

If it is well known and excepted that the AR platform is an important tool for self defense we should all be able to own the same stuff without permission from mom and dad.

Can we all at least agree on that?

bluestaterebel
06-14-2011, 9:10 AM
Yep, out of respect for you, yz, I won't quote it. See Mariam-Webster and get back to me. I don't make the rules.

I'll quote it...

Merriam-Webster

ci·vil·ian noun \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
Definition of CIVILIAN

1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law

2a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

yzernie
06-14-2011, 9:53 AM
To the OP, we have not been able to get letters for a couple years now. It irritates me the powers to be feel the need to eliminate that tool from our box of tricks. On my dept, they do issue Mini-14s that are assigned to each patrol car so at least we have something. For those of us who are anally retentive, we used to be able to carry our own Mini-14 rifles but they discontinued that option as well. Sadly, a sign of the times where County Counsel has more say in what we do than those of us out there doing it.

Notorious
06-14-2011, 11:44 AM
To the OP, we have not been able to get letters for a couple years now. It irritates me the powers to be feel the need to eliminate that tool from our box of tricks. On my dept, they do issue Mini-14s that are assigned to each patrol car so at least we have something. For those of us who are anally retentive, we used to be able to carry our own Mini-14 rifles but they discontinued that option as well. Sadly, a sign of the times where County Counsel has more say in what we do than those of us out there doing it.

I don't mind the stainless mini-14 at all. They are very handy little carbines.

And the Rem870's have a nice 14" barrel so the kick generated pushes your right hand straight into your nose. Oh wait... That's a Class 3 NFA weapon but it's not owned by the officer so I guess it's okay then.

HotRails
06-14-2011, 3:32 PM
OP- Sorry I missed it but, is this Eric Holder the US AG or Kamala Harris, the CA AG?

Triad
06-14-2011, 3:46 PM
Jerry Brown, on one of his last days.

yzernie
06-14-2011, 5:04 PM
The saddest thing of it all is the fact the mess he wrote is merely an opinion. To many people misread the writing and believe it to be law. I get admin staff from several depts calling me all the time about that correspondence. When I tried to tell some higher ups from a local city PD that they got all indignent with me. Funny how people call you for an opinion and when it isn't what they wanted to hear they get oll goofy!!

Notorious
06-14-2011, 5:36 PM
The saddest thing of it all is the fact the mess he wrote is merely an opinion. To many people misread the writing and believe it to be law. I get admin staff from several depts calling me all the time about that correspondence. When I tried to tell some higher ups from a local city PD that they got all indignent with me. Funny how people call you for an opinion and when it isn't what they wanted to hear they get oll goofy!!

Ain't that something that the AG's opinion is taken as law and yours is taken as blasphemy even though both have pretty much have the same weight as a hot fart on a winter's day when it comes to how property law applies in this case?

RollingCode3
06-14-2011, 7:29 PM
The stupid thing is that these people argue about if they can't have it, then LEO's can't either, forget that when they get the guns taken away from LEO's, they lose all hope of it ever being available to the civilians too.

At least with LEO's getting them, the market is still there and we can change it and expand it eventually. With the LE market gone, what incentive is there to bring more of those guns into CA?

Stupid short-sighted people.

+1... I've noticed that this forum slowly turn into an anti-police forum. "Correction officers dont have the right to carry off duty" or "Retired cops don't have the right to carry off duty; they are just a civilian." :rolleyes: They will throw any officer under the bus any chance they get especially those threads about "officer involved shooting"

A police officer is just as much a civilian as anywhere else.

We REALLY need to get rid of this sense of police officers being more than "civilians"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v105/cadetcode3/guns/IMG_0963.jpg

Notorious
06-14-2011, 7:38 PM
See... When the civilans get non-roster guns via PPT, and there's enough of them out there in civilian hands, how hard would it be to then make an empirical argument that these guns aren't so dangerous after all?

What is the DOJ going to refute that with? They have no data to refute real world numbers. Keep on the pressure this way and we have more arguments. Take it away from LE and you have nothing.

Falconis
06-14-2011, 10:06 PM
I noticed long ago some people here just hate cops. They do all they can to disguise it with arguments of us vs. them (usually implying we are the ones that propagate it), fairness, strict adherence to law, etc. I still wonder why I come here. In the end, I think this site is a good site for informational exchange and the CGF board members are doing a good thing.

I just wish people here weren't so short sighted as someone above mentioned, but I wish for a lot of things.

The arguments people felt they had to insert themselves here are meaningless once you look at the big picture. I am seeing they usually avoid subjects such as property rights and why officers buy rifles to begin with. With our department, it was the hope that a private purchase rifle program could be introduced like our shotguns were. Due to logistical reasons it was put on hold but not terminated. The opinion from Brown put it on further hold and temporarily placed the private purchase program on indefinite hold with our agency (much to the joy of some of the civilians here). In the end, it means we have to hope the guy with the rifle doesn't call in sick the night we need him sometimes. I am sure the civilians are ok with our officer safety being compromised since to them it's just a "catch all", but let me tell you, not having that extra "security net" sucks ***.