PDA

View Full Version : The Impact of CA Gun Law Complexity & Compliance


lhecker51
02-17-2012, 11:06 AM
Fellow members of CGN, over the years I have actively engaged in CGN forum debates, I have come to the realization that even amongst veteran members, the definition of CA gun laws and the advice given is not clear and mainly we as individuals are left to evaluating the general forum consensus and apply individual common sense regarding the most likely valid common sense advice. Thankfully there are some lawyers that provide regular clarity to many of the issues in this forum, yet even they have admitted that there is substantial risk due to some of the vague and poorly written laws.

The fact that the law in many cases is poorly written leaving it up to multiple interpretations by any given LEO or agency, the common citizen, or any combination of those, indicates that only those that can afford to defend themselves in court regardless of your correct interpretation of the law, can realistically exercise their 2nd amendment rights. In other words, it can be a crap shoot in a courtroom to determine if you are a good citizen legally exercising your rights or a criminal. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse, to which I reply: Given the complexity and sheer voluminous space of 2nd amendment law at all levels, ignorance of the law is to be expected and common among LE agencies leaving us mere mortal citizens more confused and vulnerable to government abuse of power.

In these forums, I have seen folks with good intent attack each other. I would not allow the complexity and idiocy of CA gun laws polarize this group of well intentioned 2A advocates. I seriously do not feel that CA gun law will not be constitutionally compliant in my lifetime. Given this realization, one must ask themselves: Is the law just? If not, will it change in my lifetime and am I willing to wait to exercise my plainly worded 2A rights or risk arrest, jail, or prison time?

It is due to the complexity of gun laws that many law-abiding citizens that would like to own guns, get training, and legally carry but are intimidated by the complexity and threat of a state government that grudgingly recognizes our 2A rights. After moving to California and reading the horror stories regarding LEO vs gun owner encounters that went horribly wrong, it took my wife becoming a victim of armed robbery and attempted sexual assault to motivate me to arm myself and my wife with a handgun.

Yes there are good LEO's out there that know the difference between an armed thug and an armed citizen, but many do not.

I personally prefer to do what makes common sense, complies with the law as I understand it, in a low key, low profile manner that does not attract attention and maintain a level head by following my attorney's advice during any LEO encounter to inform them of my intent to answer all questions in the presence of my attorney and to never give permission to search my person nor property and communicate this to the LEO in a polite manner. When it comes to enforcing gun law, LEO's represent the people and you are the potential defendant. It is because of what I have learned based on actual CA court cases that I have very mixed feelings when it comes to LEO's and the agencies they represent. They do not know me and I do not know them so therefore I treat all encounters from the perspective that they will arrest me if given the chance.

Given the nature of certain federal, state and local LE departments, I do believe it makes sense for them to lurk in these forums with the intent of building borderline cases against well intentioned citizens so I must end this post by stating that I do not advocate folks break the law. I am only communicating my observations of the disagreement amongst all state, county, city, and federal LE agencies regarding interpretation of any gun related laws. If our leaders cannot even come to a conclusion regarding the definition and intent of the plain language interpretation of the 2nd amendment even though the authors made it perfectly clear, then the complexity of CA and federal gun law has doomed us all because in many cases gun owners are perceived as potential threats depending on the state, county, city, day of the week, time of the day, as the interpretation of the laws have become very elastic and pliable to fit their own personal, political, or agencies intent rather than that of the 2nd Amendment.

BusBoy
02-17-2012, 11:35 AM
Fellow members of CGN, over the years I have actively engaged in CGN forum debates, I have come to the realization that even amongst veteran members, the definition of CA gun laws and the advice given is not clear and mainly we as individuals are left to evaluating the general forum consensus and apply individual common sense regarding the most likely valid common sense advice. Thankfully there are some lawyers that provide regular clarity to many of the issues in this forum, yet even they have admitted that there is substantial risk due to some of the vague and poorly written laws.

The fact that the law in many cases is poorly written leaving it up to multiple interpretations by any given LEO or agency, the common citizen, or any combination of those, indicates that only those that can afford to defend themselves in court regardless of your correct interpretation of the law, can realistically exercise their 2nd amendment rights. In other words, it can be a crap shoot in a courtroom to determine if you are a good citizen legally exercising your rights or a criminal. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse, to which I reply: Given the complexity and sheer voluminous space of 2nd amendment law at all levels, ignorance of the law is to be expected and common among LE agencies leaving us mere mortal citizens more confused and vulnerable to government abuse of power.

In these forums, I have seen folks with good intent attack each other. I would not allow the complexity and idiocy of CA gun laws polarize this group of well intentioned 2A advocates. I seriously do not feel that CA gun law will not be constitutionally compliant in my lifetime. Given this realization, one must ask themselves: Is the law just? If not, will it change in my lifetime and am I willing to wait to exercise my plainly worded 2A rights or risk arrest, jail, or prison time?

It is due to the complexity of gun laws that many law-abiding citizens that would like to own guns, get training, and legally carry but are intimidated by the complexity and threat of a state government that grudgingly recognizes our 2A rights. After moving to California and reading the horror stories regarding LEO vs gun owner encounters that went horribly wrong, it took my wife becoming a victim of armed robbery and attempted sexual assault to motivate me to arm myself and my wife with a handgun.

Yes there are good LEO's out there that know the difference between an armed thug and an armed citizen, but many do not.

I personally prefer to do what makes common sense, complies with the law as I understand it, in a low key, low profile manner that does not attract attention and maintain a level head by following my attorney's advice during any LEO encounter to inform them of my intent to answer all questions in the presence of my attorney and to never give permission to search my person nor property and communicate this to the LEO in a polite manner. When it comes to enforcing gun law, LEO's represent the people and you are the potential defendant. It is because of what I have learned based on actual CA court cases that I have very mixed feelings when it comes to LEO's and the agencies they represent. They do not know me and I do not know them so therefore I treat all encounters from the perspective that they will arrest me if given the chance.

Given the nature of certain federal, state and local LE departments, I do believe it makes sense for them to lurk in these forums with the intent of building borderline cases against well intentioned citizens so I must end this post by stating that I do not advocate folks break the law. I am only communicating my observations of the disagreement amongst all state, county, city, and federal LE agencies regarding interpretation of any gun related laws. If our leaders cannot even come to a conclusion regarding the definition and intent of the plain language interpretation of the 2nd amendment even though the authors made it perfectly clear, then the complexity of CA and federal gun law has doomed us all because in many cases gun owners are perceived as potential threats depending on the state, county, city, day of the week, time of the day, as the interpretation of the laws have become very elastic and pliable to fit their own personal, political, or agencies intent rather than that of the 2nd Amendment.


Decent post... the above emphasis is mine and please take no offense to me saying that I hope youre in your 90s! ;)

lhecker51
02-17-2012, 11:54 AM
Lol! I too hope that by some freakish chance I am wrong.

command_liner
02-17-2012, 12:06 PM
The issue of excess complexity and incoherence of law was well known at the time of the founding. The Roman Empire used complexity and incoherence of the law to make every man a criminal. (See, Atlas Shrugged for a modern interpretation.)

The founders knew about this issue as they were serious students of history. Federalist 62 specifically addresses this point:
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

What is happening with California firearms code, and certainly with the US tax code,
is a direct attack on the populace via complexity. The US Constitution was specifically
written to prevent this sort of thing. The 10th Amendment was created, in part,
to satisfy the concerns of Hamilton as expressed in Federalist 62.

But the 10th is certainly widely ignored.

And here we are with incomprehensible nonsense which is law.

CHS
02-17-2012, 12:36 PM
And here we are with incomprehensible nonsense which is law.

What's worse, is that people still bang the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" drum (look at the NYC carriers arrested recently).

I'm sorry, but California adds from 400 to 800 new laws PER YEAR. I've lived in California for 2/3 of my life, which means THOUSANDS of new laws on top of the existing ones. It is literally impossible for anyone to know all of the law. It is literally impossible for anyone to even know all of the law regarding a given subject.

I don't see how it's right or just that "ignorance of the law" is no excuse. With the laws we have now, that's a PERFECTLY REASONABLE excuse.

command_liner
02-17-2012, 2:24 PM
The law in California is fundamentally unknowable.

It is not possible for a human to read the law, and then read the case law that applies
the law as it is written, then read the regulations published by agents of the state.

Nobody can know the law. Even if some omnipotent person could know the law
himself, any agent of the government he might run across would not know the law.
Even the omnipotent have to live in fear of government agents with finite understanding
of the law.

I think there are a few passages in the Declaration of Independence on this very
subject.

lhecker51
02-17-2012, 2:33 PM
The issue of excess complexity and incoherence of law was well known at the time of the founding. The Roman Empire used complexity and incoherence of the law to make every man a criminal. (See, Atlas Shrugged for a modern interpretation.)

The founders knew about this issue as they were serious students of history. Federalist 62 specifically addresses this point:
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

What is happening with California firearms code, and certainly with the US tax code,
is a direct attack on the populace via complexity. The US Constitution was specifically
written to prevent this sort of thing. The 10th Amendment was created, in part,
to satisfy the concerns of Hamilton as expressed in Federalist 62.

But the 10th is certainly widely ignored.

And here we are with incomprehensible nonsense which is law.

Thanks for the Hamilton quote that supports my points to the letter! I am enrolled in a course on the history of the Constitution from the time it was authored to include the commentaries of the federalist papers. The course begins this coming Monday and should be very insightful.

I get the feeling that Judges that preside over these cases tend to rule in favor of the law and against a defense that it is impossible to know the law in order to comply due to the complexity and burden using the "rational person" expectation.

Paul S
02-17-2012, 5:44 PM
From the OP
I seriously do not feel that CA gun law will not be constitutionally compliant in my lifetime.

This double negative syntax confuses me. "Not constitutionally compliant" = unconstitutional.

"I seriously do not feel that..." = I do not believe.

Therefore.. I do not believe that CA gun law will be unconstitutional in my lifetime.

I believe a great number of California gun laws are unconstitutional and the likelihood that they will be struck down in my lifetime is unlikely at best.

Is this what the OP really means? Or have I misconstrued the whole she-bang?

Jack L
02-17-2012, 6:27 PM
The law in California is fundamentally unknowable.

It is not possible for a human to read the law, and then read the case law that applies
the law as it is written, then read the regulations published by agents of the state.

Nobody can know the law. Even if some omnipotent person could know the law
himself, any agent of the government he might run across would not know the law.
Even the omnipotent have to live in fear of government agents with finite understanding
of the law.

I think there are a few passages in the Declaration of Independence on this very
subject.

Hence...... line up 10 LEOs and ask them the same firearms law question and see how many answers you get. It's become a game of chance out there for an 'Average Joe'.

1911_sfca
02-17-2012, 7:34 PM
Hence...... line up 10 LEOs and ask them the same firearms law question and see how many answers you get. It's become a game of chance out there for an 'Average Joe'.

This would actually be an interesting experiment for CGF or an associated educational institution to perform. I'd be interested in the outcome of a scholarly study on this topic.

Librarian
02-17-2012, 7:39 PM
Hence...... line up 10 LEOs and ask them the same firearms law question and see how many answers you get. It's become a game of chance out there for an 'Average Joe'.

This is part of the argument in Richards v Harris (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Harris).

cdtx2001
02-17-2012, 7:44 PM
What's worse, is that people still bang the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" drum (look at the NYC carriers arrested recently).

I'm sorry, but California adds from 400 to 800 new laws PER YEAR. I've lived in California for 2/3 of my life, which means THOUSANDS of new laws on top of the existing ones. It is literally impossible for anyone to know all of the law. It is literally impossible for anyone to even know all of the law regarding a given subject.

I don't see how it's right or just that "ignorance of the law" is no excuse. With the laws we have now, that's a PERFECTLY REASONABLE excuse.

Couldn't agree with you more. How is one supposed to keep on top of everything when it's always being added to or changed?

lhecker51
02-17-2012, 9:40 PM
From the OP
I seriously do not feel that CA gun law will not be constitutionally compliant in my lifetime.

This double negative syntax confuses me. "Not constitutionally compliant" = unconstitutional.

"I seriously do not feel that..." = I do not believe.

Therefore.. I do not believe that CA gun law will be unconstitutional in my lifetime.

I believe a great number of California gun laws are unconstitutional and the likelihood that they will be struck down in my lifetime is unlikely at best.

Is this what the OP really means? Or have I misconstrued the whole she-bang?
You win the prize. Yes that is what I meant, lol. Although some of the structure is awkward, it should be very clear what my point is.

I know we go back and forth in this forum and have all come to a general consensus that these laws are beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. We do not have solid answers regarding gun laws that can get one fined, guns confiscated, thrown in prison, or all three, should one unintentionally run afoul of the many interpretations of those laws. We can't even get CA DOJ to define them regarding firearms definitions. Imagine how daunting this is to a citizen that does not regularly visit these forums.

It very well could be that the state and federal government intend for the gun laws to be this complex in order to keep a boot on the throat of those that choose to own guns and should you not walk lock step to their beat, they choke the life force out of you.

We have laws that cannot be physically complied with and if they were enforced the way they were written, we are all guilty of breaking the law. The Gun-Free School zones come to mind if you live in one. Technically I must be in my home driveway and not on the curb if I am to transfer uncased guns from the locked and mounted gun safe that is in my trunk. Even my driveway is a gray area as it is not fenced, and therefore, accessible to the public. I have come to the conclusion that school zones are measured from the property lines of the schools and would need a professional surveyor to determine were they are. This was more of an issue with UOC when it was legal but still is an issue with those of us that live within school zones. We had a member of this forum that was charged and convicted for running afoul of these laws.

You may have rights on paper, but try to exercise them in a rational manner without permission. Do we really have these rights if they cannot be exercised by the common law abiding citizen? I say the 2nd Amendment has a token existence in California due to the onerous nature of state gun laws. The state government has done a great job scaring the public regarding guns and gun owners. Even when the majority of California residents wish to have a shall issue CCW policy, it is their elected DEMOCRAT officials that kill any hope. I know I may be hurting some democrat feelings here, but the proof is in the voting records of our legislators.

mag360
02-18-2012, 7:32 PM
What's worse, is that people still bang the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" drum (look at the NYC carriers arrested recently).

I'm sorry, but California adds from 400 to 800 new laws PER YEAR. I've lived in California for 2/3 of my life, which means THOUSANDS of new laws on top of the existing ones. It is literally impossible for anyone to know all of the law. It is literally impossible for anyone to even know all of the law regarding a given subject.

I don't see how it's right or just that "ignorance of the law" is no excuse. With the laws we have now, that's a PERFECTLY REASONABLE excuse.

OMG I hate that attitude. "Those people should have known that NYC doesn't accept other states carry permits" But even if they didn't "ignorance is no excuse"... The I'm so smart even a chimp must know you can't take a gun to new york, BS.

Paul S
02-18-2012, 8:59 PM
You win the prize. Yes that is what I meant, lol. Although some of the structure is awkward, it should be very clear what my point is................

It very well could be that the state and federal government intend for the gun laws to be this complex in order to keep a boot on the throat of those that choose to own guns and should you not walk lock step to their beat, they choke the life force out of you.

We have laws that cannot be physically complied with and if they were enforced the way they were written, we are all guilty of breaking the law........................

I agree sir. I do not for an instant believe the horrid complexity and contradictions are happenstance.

SimpleCountryActuary
02-19-2012, 6:02 PM
I agree sir. I do not for an instant believe the horrid complexity and contradictions are happenstance.

Correct. Gun laws are seemingly intended to create criminals, not punish them.

Best!

Maybejim
02-19-2012, 6:23 PM
The law in California is fundamentally unknowable.

It is not possible for a human to read the law, and then read the case law that applies
the law as it is written, then read the regulations published by agents of the state.

Nobody can know the law. Even if some omnipotent person could know the law
himself, any agent of the government he might run across would not know the law.
Even the omnipotent have to live in fear of government agents with finite understanding
of the law.

I think there are a few passages in the Declaration of Independence on this very
subject.

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. —JAMES MADISON

donw
02-20-2012, 9:02 AM
i was taught that if you had a question about a law to ask about it...

randian
02-20-2012, 9:24 AM
Correct. Gun laws are seemingly intended to create criminals, not punish them.
I think the goal is to eliminate gun ownership by creating classes of prohibited persons more than it's about creating criminals (which it does most effectively) per se. How else do you explain misdemeanors making you a prohibited person?

CHS
02-20-2012, 9:43 AM
i was taught that if you had a question about a law to ask about it...

But who do you ask? Lawyers won't tell you the law unless you pay them, and even then many of them are quick to point out that they aren't giving legal advice.

If you ask 10 policemen about a given area of law, you'll get 12 different answers.

Your local DA isn't going to make the time to help you understand the law.

So who do you ask, hoping to get ACCURATE information about the law?

A-J
02-20-2012, 12:46 PM
The fact that the law in many cases is poorly written leaving it up to multiple interpretations by any given LEO or agency, the common citizen, or any combination of those, indicates that only those that can afford to defend themselves in court regardless of your correct interpretation of the law, can realistically exercise their 2nd amendment rights. In other words, it can be a crap shoot in a courtroom to determine if you are a good citizen legally exercising your rights or a criminal. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse, to which I reply: Given the complexity and sheer voluminous space of 2nd amendment law at all levels, ignorance of the law is to be expected and common among LE agencies leaving us mere mortal citizens more confused and vulnerable to government abuse of power.

See, that's the scariest part for me. In any interaction with a LEO relating to guns, you probably have an equal shot at going to jail, being cited, having the wepaons confiscated, a combination of these, or nothing at all happening. There's an old saying that the side of the road with a LEO is no place to argue the finer points of the law, and you will never win when the officer believes that you are in the wrong. This is due entirely to the poorly worded and pointless laws crafted by idiots who have no clue how to achieve their stated goals, but never let that stop them from "doing something" anyway.

randian
02-20-2012, 2:10 PM
This is due entirely to the poorly worded and pointless laws crafted by idiots who have no clue how to achieve their stated goals, but never let that stop them from "doing something" anyway.
I disagree. Departments should make sure all their officers are up to date on the law, no matter how complex the legislature makes it. The problem is that there's little incentive for a department to have an effective continuing education effort. If an officer is mistaken on the law and arrests you, are there fines are or at least payment of your legal fees? Nope, neither the cop nor their department will make you whole.

lhecker51
02-22-2012, 8:16 AM
I disagree. Departments should make sure all their officers are up to date on the law, no matter how complex the legislature makes it. The problem is that there's little incentive for a department to have an effective continuing education effort. If an officer is mistaken on the law and arrests you, are there fines are or at least payment of your legal fees? Nope, neither the cop nor their department will make you whole.

Yes they should. But is it even humanly possible?

Even if you win in court, you loose. Any firearms confiscated MAY be returned but it is not mandatory. If your case took 8 months to go to trial, only the gun you used will be kept as evidence and all others can and have been destroyed.

randian
02-22-2012, 8:35 AM
If your case took 8 months to go to trial, only the gun you used will be kept as evidence and all others can and have been destroyed.
You can't ask the judge for an injunction to prevent the department from destroying your property?

Gray Peterson
02-22-2012, 10:32 AM
The term is in terrorrem effect.

lhecker51
02-22-2012, 1:51 PM
You can't ask the judge for an injunction to prevent the department from destroying your property?

In the cases that were written about, the gun owners did not think they would need to, and in one case when he did request his firearms back, he received no reply for months even after inquiring numerous times. He was finally told that he had not followed their procedure so therefore the firearms were destroyed.

lhecker51
02-22-2012, 1:53 PM
The term is in terrorrem effect.

Not sure I get what you are saying, Gray.

Gray Peterson
02-22-2012, 2:19 PM
Not sure I get what you are saying, Gray.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1909617

lhecker51
02-22-2012, 3:07 PM
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1909617

Thanks for the link! Very interesting post-Heller analysis that parallels some of the points I made. I find the reference to Eugene Volokh's argument for medical self-defense interesting regarding the arguments application to the Second Amendment.

POLICESTATE
02-22-2012, 3:19 PM
Yeah I agree, unless someone knows ALL of the laws and their associated case law then they can stuff it when it comes to that ignorance of the law BS.




What's worse, is that people still bang the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" drum (look at the NYC carriers arrested recently).

I'm sorry, but California adds from 400 to 800 new laws PER YEAR. I've lived in California for 2/3 of my life, which means THOUSANDS of new laws on top of the existing ones. It is literally impossible for anyone to know all of the law. It is literally impossible for anyone to even know all of the law regarding a given subject.

I don't see how it's right or just that "ignorance of the law" is no excuse. With the laws we have now, that's a PERFECTLY REASONABLE excuse.

Wherryj
02-22-2012, 4:51 PM
Hence...... line up 10 LEOs and ask them the same firearms law question and see how many answers you get. It's become a game of chance out there for an 'Average Joe'.

To make things even worse, the rules aren't "loser pays". The citizen pays 100% of the time-right or wrong. Unless you happen to recoup your costs in a counter suit, you will be out legal fees even when your were right the entire time.

Wherryj
02-22-2012, 4:55 PM
Couldn't agree with you more. How is one supposed to keep on top of everything when it's always being added to or changed?

I'm a physician, and I'm not only held to this standard, I'm also expected to know what isn't known yet.

Ford8N
02-22-2012, 5:56 PM
Fellow members of CGN, over the years I have actively engaged in CGN forum debates, I have come to the realization that even amongst veteran members, the definition of CA gun laws and the advice given is not clear and mainly we as individuals are left to evaluating the general forum consensus and apply individual common sense regarding the most likely valid common sense advice. Thankfully there are some lawyers that provide regular clarity to many of the issues in this forum, yet even they have admitted that there is substantial risk due to some of the vague and poorly written laws.

The fact that the law in many cases is poorly written leaving it up to multiple interpretations by any given LEO or agency, the common citizen, or any combination of those, indicates that only those that can afford to defend themselves in court regardless of your correct interpretation of the law, can realistically exercise their 2nd amendment rights. In other words, it can be a crap shoot in a courtroom to determine if you are a good citizen legally exercising your rights or a criminal. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse, to which I reply: Given the complexity and sheer voluminous space of 2nd amendment law at all levels, ignorance of the law is to be expected and common among LE agencies leaving us mere mortal citizens more confused and vulnerable to government abuse of power.

In these forums, I have seen folks with good intent attack each other. I would not allow the complexity and idiocy of CA gun laws polarize this group of well intentioned 2A advocates. I seriously do not feel that CA gun law will not be constitutionally compliant in my lifetime. Given this realization, one must ask themselves: Is the law just? If not, will it change in my lifetime and am I willing to wait to exercise my plainly worded 2A rights or risk arrest, jail, or prison time?

It is due to the complexity of gun laws that many law-abiding citizens that would like to own guns, get training, and legally carry but are intimidated by the complexity and threat of a state government that grudgingly recognizes our 2A rights. After moving to California and reading the horror stories regarding LEO vs gun owner encounters that went horribly wrong, it took my wife becoming a victim of armed robbery and attempted sexual assault to motivate me to arm myself and my wife with a handgun.

Yes there are good LEO's out there that know the difference between an armed thug and an armed citizen, but many do not.

I personally prefer to do what makes common sense, complies with the law as I understand it, in a low key, low profile manner that does not attract attention and maintain a level head by following my attorney's advice during any LEO encounter to inform them of my intent to answer all questions in the presence of my attorney and to never give permission to search my person nor property and communicate this to the LEO in a polite manner. When it comes to enforcing gun law, LEO's represent the people and you are the potential defendant. It is because of what I have learned based on actual CA court cases that I have very mixed feelings when it comes to LEO's and the agencies they represent. They do not know me and I do not know them so therefore I treat all encounters from the perspective that they will arrest me if given the chance.

Given the nature of certain federal, state and local LE departments, I do believe it makes sense for them to lurk in these forums with the intent of building borderline cases against well intentioned citizens so I must end this post by stating that I do not advocate folks break the law. I am only communicating my observations of the disagreement amongst all state, county, city, and federal LE agencies regarding interpretation of any gun related laws. If our leaders cannot even come to a conclusion regarding the definition and intent of the plain language interpretation of the 2nd amendment even though the authors made it perfectly clear, then the complexity of CA and federal gun law has doomed us all because in many cases gun owners are perceived as potential threats depending on the state, county, city, day of the week, time of the day, as the interpretation of the laws have become very elastic and pliable to fit their own personal, political, or agencies intent rather than that of the 2nd Amendment.

Your final paragraph hits it square in the bulls eye. The Rulers twist the gun laws to suit their political whims. California is NOT part of the United States and ALL gun owners are potential criminals in the eyes of the Rulers. I've been outside of the border of California regularly and trust me, things are quite different for the law abiding gun owner.

Gray Peterson
02-22-2012, 6:29 PM
Thanks for the link! Very interesting post-Heller analysis that parallels some of the points I made. I find the reference to Eugene Volokh's argument for medical self-defense interesting regarding the arguments application to the Second Amendment.

Specifically:

First Amendment analogies, in fact, suggest another doctrine that might
apply: Chilling effect. Traditionally, violation of gun laws was treated as
mere malum prohibitum, and penalties for violations were generally light.
During our nation's interlude of hostility toward guns during the latter
half of the twentieth century, penalties for violations of gun laws,
especially in states with generally anti-gun philosophies, became much
stiffer. Gun ownership was treated as a suspect (or perhaps “deviant” is a
better word) act, one to be engaged in, if at all, at the actor's peril.

But with gun ownership now recognized as an important constitutional
right belonging to all Americans, that deviant characterization cannot be
correct. Regulation of firearms cannot now justifiably proceed on an in
terrorem approach, in which the underlying goal is to discourage people
from having anything to do with firearms at all. Laws treating fairly
minor or technical violations as felonies, it seems to me, must be
regarded with the same sort of suspicion as pre-New York Times v.
Sullivan laws on criminal libel: As improper burdens on the exercise of a
constitutional right.

This change has important penumbral implications. At present,
Americans face a patchwork of gun laws that often vary unpredictably
from state to state, and sometimes from town to town. Travelers must
thus either surrender their Second Amendment rights, or risk prosecution.
Two recent cases from the state of New Jersey illustrate the risks.

joash
02-22-2012, 6:38 PM
It's not just gun laws.


http://www.economist.com/node/21547789

viet4lifeOC
02-22-2012, 6:44 PM
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made
by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. —JAMES MADISON

THIS

dustoff31
02-22-2012, 8:16 PM
Hence...... line up 10 LEOs and ask them the same firearms law question and see how many answers you get. It's become a game of chance out there for an 'Average Joe'.

Now this is what I don't understand. Which is not to say that I don't believe.

I know that they don't spend a whole lot of time on gun laws per se, but since every say, LAPD officer attends the same academy which covers the same subject matter in class after class, why would one get different answers to the same question.

Even with different academys, the curriculum is standardized by POST so in theory at least, the answer should be the same statewide. It may be the wrong answer, but it should be the same wrong answer.

Paul S
02-22-2012, 10:00 PM
Now this is what I don't understand. Which is not to say that I don't believe.

I know that they don't spend a whole lot of time on gun laws per se, but since every say, LAPD officer attends the same academy which covers the same subject matter in class after class, why would one get different answers to the same question.

Even with different academys, the curriculum is standardized by POST so in theory at least, the answer should be the same statewide. It may be the wrong answer, but it should be the same wrong answer.

While you are correct noting the POST mandated curriculum is standardized you need to understand WHICH firearms related laws are covered. Trust me it is only the most common laws that street cops will need on a regular basis. e.g. unlicensed concealed carry, convicted felon w/firearm and some other commonly used PC sections. The technical and complicated sections relating to definitions ( Short Barreled Shot Gun, Assault Rifle, transfer-sales and purchase sections) are just not covered in any detail if at all. There just isn't the time nor the core knowledge of most instructors to do it. This is probably at the center of why you get so much FUD when asking the average working cop about gun laws. You'd be amazed at the technical crap cops need to deal with. As to newly instituted complexity...check out AB109...part of the so called prison realignment scheme. It is insanely complicated in the manner in which it limits an officer's ability to arrest a probationer or parolee. It is absolutely insane.