PDA

View Full Version : AB 2460 (Dickinson) 2012: LEO may not PPT off-Roster handguns: VETOED


Librarian
02-25-2012, 6:21 PM
SEE Veto Thread - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=625640

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2460&sess=CUR&house=B&author=dickinson

AB 2460, as introduced, Dickinson. Firearms.
Under existing law, a person in this state who manufactures or
causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for
sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun
shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year. Existing law exempts from this requirement the purchase of a
handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department
of Justice, a police department, a sheriff's official, a marshal's
office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the
California Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, or the
military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for
use in the discharge of their official duties.
This bill would prohibit a person exempted under the above
provision from giving a handgun to a person who is not exempted under
the same provision.

Super Spy
02-25-2012, 6:22 PM
What a bunch of BS. I'm sure it will pass and JB will sign it.

valkylrie
02-25-2012, 6:27 PM
What he said!

gonzo1510
02-25-2012, 6:51 PM
They shouldn't be able to buy them in the first place... if we can't why should they be able to?

Casey
02-25-2012, 6:57 PM
It says " from giving" . How about selling ?

Ubermcoupe
02-25-2012, 7:05 PM
Are you kidding me??? They cannot be serious.

cdtx2001
02-25-2012, 7:18 PM
They shouldn't be able to buy them in the first place... if we can't why should they be able to?

For me, not for thee.

notme92069
02-25-2012, 7:24 PM
Yet any non-LEO that legally owns a non-roster handgun can PPT to anyone that can legally own a handgun.

WOW. Just WOW.

Do they get paid for each bill they introduce?

huntercf
02-25-2012, 7:27 PM
Uh, what would this do to SSE? and since it says "from giving" does that mean they can still sell them. Also, does this mean they can just convert them to SSE and still PPT them?
I still cannot understand how all these stupid idiots get elected.

mag360
02-25-2012, 7:46 PM
I don't thnk it gets passed.

chiselchst
02-25-2012, 7:54 PM
Can the definition of "unsafe handgun" be challenged in court if it does pass?

Amazing bills from amazing people...

ewarmour
02-25-2012, 8:05 PM
Stupid is as stupid does. :facepalm:

socal2310
02-25-2012, 8:06 PM
As written it would do nothing to the SSE, but it would make it difficult for a cop to sell off an unwanted handgun. Perhaps it should be titled the "Police Officer's Handgun Arsenal Act."

Ryan

InGrAM
02-25-2012, 8:16 PM
How long would it take for this to become law? Sorry for the ignorant question.

dave_cg
02-25-2012, 8:16 PM
So, I wouldn't get too worked up on the "giving v. selling" wording -- there is plenty of time for clean-up amendments before it gets out of committee.

Anyway, I think this runs into problems with the LEO having a right to dispose of personal property the way he/she wants to. And then as a practical matter, I wonder how much LEO support such a bill with have -- ha ha! Watch them line up to give their reasons to the committee why this is a bad idea.

ShootinMedic
02-25-2012, 8:17 PM
I'm sure it will pass. Just another reason to donate to the CGF.

curtisfong
02-25-2012, 8:37 PM
I support this bill. NO MORE LEO exemptions. The sooner you do this, the sooner CLEO will start taking the 2A seriously.

If this makes me a pariah here, I don't care.

mag360
02-25-2012, 8:41 PM
if the rank and file would actually push their union to not support stupid gun bills we wouldn't have stupid gun bills, but they are married to the good paychecks the union secures so they don't. Darn shame.

notme92069
02-25-2012, 8:45 PM
I support this bill. NO MORE LEO exemptions. The sooner you do this, the sooner CLEO will start taking the 2A seriously.

If this makes me a pariah here, I don't care.

While I am against LEO exemptions that were originally given to obtain votes to deny us our 2A rights, this causes even more 14A equal protection issues (just like the original LEO exemption) I don't think another bad gun law helps us.

curtisfong
02-25-2012, 8:56 PM
In my experience the ONLY way to get a law repealed by the legislature is to have it so onerous that it negatively affects people that matter, rather than the general population.

curtisfong
02-25-2012, 9:01 PM
While I am against LEO exemptions that were originally given to obtain votes to deny us our 2A rights, this causes even more 14A equal protection issues (just like the original LEO exemption) .

Disagree. Only the original exemption had equal protection issues. The only "issue" removing the exemption has is due process issues, and you'll NEVER see that EVER have any effect on a gun control law in CA. Even less so than equal protection, which really isn't just ignored in the extremely corrupt CA system, but blatantly and openly violated frequently.

If equal protection doesn't have meaning in CA, how can due process?

adamsreeftank
02-25-2012, 9:19 PM
This bill would prohibit a person exempted under the above
provision from giving a handgun to a person who is not exempted under
the same provision.

This bill, as currently written, does not just limit the transfer of off-roster handguns by LEOs. Which I think was probably the intention.

It would prevent any roster-exempt person from giving any handgun to anyone who is not roster-exempt.

BRANCHER
02-25-2012, 9:44 PM
It would seem SSE is under attack as well. IE you could not re-manufacture back into a non SSE gun, since it is unsafe... Think about it...

OleCuss
02-25-2012, 10:24 PM
The cops are unionized. The bill is not likely to pass.

mag360
02-26-2012, 12:40 AM
dickinson is now my assemblyman. What is his motivation for doing this?

safewaysecurity
02-26-2012, 1:04 AM
dickinson is now my assemblyman. What is his motivation for doing this?

Do you really need to ask this question? You have to understand the system. Politicians like to attach their names to things. They like to say " I'm tough on this and I supported this " in order to get political points. It's all a game and they are trying to win. There doesn't need to be a crisis ( though that's more ideal ) but as long as they can get a change in something and pass a bill that's more points in the game of politics.

tenpercentfirearms
02-26-2012, 6:07 AM
Do you guys really think removing selling of non-roster from LEOs is going to help us out in this state? Seriously? It won't stop cops from getting non-roster guns, it will only stop them from selling them to you if they decide they do not want the firearm anymore.

Why would this be a good thing in any way shape or form?

Some of you scare me. This bill will not help anyone in this state. Period.

NotEnufGarage
02-26-2012, 6:14 AM
What a bunch of BS. I'm sure it will pass and JB will sign it.

But JB is Pro-2A. He owns a hunting rifle.

RP1911
02-26-2012, 7:37 AM
Looks like this bill is the collateral result of the BATFE investigation that is going on in Sacramento.

Dickinson is an opportunist.

BigDogatPlay
02-26-2012, 7:43 AM
Looks like this bill is the collateral result of the BATFE investigation that is going on in Sacramento.

Dickinson is an opportunist.

^^^
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. That is exactly what this is about.

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 7:48 AM
Its a very interesting bill....

As an LEO , I have a question .

If an LEO buy's an OFF ROSTER USED handgun via PPT in CA.(W/O using their LE status) under the new Law they won't be able to sell it at all? Never?

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 7:57 AM
Can the definition of "unsafe handgun" be challenged in court if it does pass?

Amazing bills from amazing people...

Yes it can . Many agencies are issued GEN4 Glocks. "Unsafe handguns"?
Is GEN3 then a "SAFE HANDGUN"?

Is SIG P226 any safer than SIG MK23 9mm? Its the same gun.

How can a Smth and Wesson model 13 three inch (the one I carry off-duty a lot ) be unsafe when for years it was issued to FBI?????

I guess 1911 Colt Series 70 is also unsafe . It was used by our forces for over 70 years.

rromeo
02-26-2012, 8:04 AM
So am I reading it that most off roster PPTs would not be affected, only PPTs by roster exempt people? So if you receive an off roster handgun from an out of state family member, are you now barred from ever selling it?

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 8:08 AM
So am I reading it that most off roster PPTs would not be affected, only PPTs by roster exempt people? So if you receive an off roster handgun from an out of state family member, are you now barred from ever selling it?

They CAN NOT control what You sell out of state. I dont think ...

Baconator
02-26-2012, 8:15 AM
Don't worry, I was told by so many CalGunners that Jerry Brown is super pro gun and will never sign such a law.:cool:

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 8:53 AM
Just talked to a couple of partners from work.
This CAN NOT pass .

We (LEO's) and ALL OTHER people in California, can pick up plenty of OFF ROSTER handguns buy just walking into out local shop and looking at consingment section or finding a private seller right here on Calguns or at Your local range.

They can't say that I can never sell my Browning Hi Power that I bought years ago via PPT.

I never used my LE status to buy it . Any Calguns member LEO or NOT could have bought it .

rromeo
02-26-2012, 8:59 AM
Btw, nice carry piece. I carry a 3" 65, but I wish I had a 13 also.

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 9:02 AM
Btw, nice carry piece. I carry a 3" 65, but I wish I had a 13 also.

Yeah. I also have a 65 three inch . 1981.

Love three inch pre lock K frames!. (We can only use +P or +P+) . No magnums:(

Mesa Tactical
02-26-2012, 9:03 AM
Just talked to a couple of partners from work.
This CAN NOT pass .

We (LEO's) and ALL OTHER people in California, can pick up plenty of OFF ROSTER handguns buy just walking into out local shop and looking at consingment section or finding a private seller right here on Calguns or at Your local range.

They can't say that I can never sell my Browning Hi Power that I bought years ago via PPT.

I never used my LE status to buy it . Any Calguns member LEO or NOT could have bought it .

So what? The assault weapon bans passed, and RAWs cannot be sold or transferred, either.

Or are you saying that if the Legislature plays fast and loose like that with cops instead of ordinary gun owners they can't get it passed?

notme92069
02-26-2012, 9:10 AM
Its a very interesting bill....

As an LEO , I have a question .

If an LEO buy's an OFF ROSTER USED handgun via PPT in CA.(W/O using their LE status) under the new Law they won't be able to sell it at all? Never?

And this is what causes equal protection issues. What is the State's interest in preventing a LEO from selling a OFF ROSTER USED handgun acquired via PPT in CA.(W/O using their LE status)???

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 9:16 AM
So what? The assault weapon bans passed, and RAWs cannot be sold or transferred, either.

Or are you saying that if the Legislature plays fast and loose like that with cops instead of ordinary gun owners they can't get it passed?

NO. RAW's can not be sold or transferred . NO ONE CAN. LEO or NOT.

I am talking about an LEO who collected Colt Pythons for the last 20 years.

He can't sell them anymore? That sounds crazy.....

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 9:18 AM
And this is what causes equal protection issues. What is the State's interest in preventing a LEO from selling a OFF ROSTER USED handgun acquired via PPT in CA.(W/O using their LE status)???

If You have a Mauser HSC or a Walther PPK (German) and You post them for sale here on Calguns. I can buy them, many other people can buy them.

But I guess if I buy them, I can never sell them again.

Thats a bunch of BS. I really dont see how it can pass.

glockman19
02-26-2012, 9:27 AM
With single shot exemptions... Who cares?
But...it clearly shows a divide between those are elected to represent.
There is a difference between being Governed over and represented.
Today our representatives no longer represent they govern.

Just another reason we need to eliminate the Roster.

Mesa Tactical
02-26-2012, 9:30 AM
NO. RAW's can not be sold or transferred . NO ONE CAN. LEO or NOT.

I am talking about an LEO who collected Colt Pythons for the last 20 years.

He can't sell them anymore? That sounds crazy.....

Lots of crazy things get legislated.

rromeo
02-26-2012, 9:40 AM
Glockman19, saying "who cares?" Is part of the problem.

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 9:44 AM
Lots of crazy things get legislated.

I know , but this is REALLY crazy.

I guess all the gun collectors who are also LEO's will now have to sell all their collections out of state.......

Can You see any sense in this???

Even is I get a pistol that is off roster ( new or used) using my exemption, are they saying that I better like it because I will never sell it again?

I bought a couple of used pistols on GB (off roster) and when I got them they did shoot the way I like . ( Would not feed JHP ammo, THE ONLY AMMO I CAN CARRY) .

So are they saying I am stuck with them for life?!!!!!

HowardW56
02-26-2012, 9:48 AM
Yeah. I also have a 65 three inch . 1981.

Love three inch pre lock K frames!. (We can only use +P or +P+) . No magnums:(

In my 3" K frames, model 10, 13, 65, I prefer .38 +P. In a 3" K frame +P+ is plenty... Unless you are using Hogue stocks, it is tough to hang onto the gun with factory or compact stocks when shooting magnums. (I have fairly large hands)

Librarian
02-26-2012, 10:03 AM
How long would it take for this to become law? Sorry for the ignorant question.

What you need, sir, is the information in the sticky http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161873

The short answer is, if it gets through to the governor, it would be signed, vetoed, or allowed to become law without signature in September/October, and would become law Jan 1 2013.

Sgt Raven
02-26-2012, 10:31 AM
NO. RAW's can not be sold or transferred . NO ONE CAN. LEO or NOT.

I am talking about an LEO who collected Colt Pythons for the last 20 years.

He can't sell them anymore? That sounds crazy.....

Well a LEO could sell his RAW to another LEO with a letter, so they could be sold in Ca.

Those Pythons you collected, once you retire, are you still an LEO? Would this law apply to retired LEOs?

notme92069
02-26-2012, 10:35 AM
The problem is, this is a result of the BATFE investigation in Sacramento with LEOs supposedly straw buying for someone else. THIS IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. Why do we need another law?. The answer is, of course, we don't. Unless we want to get rid of the original exemption.

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 10:38 AM
The problem is, this is a result of the BATFE investigation in Sacramento with LEOs supposedly straw buying for someone else. THIS IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. Why do we need another law?. The answer is, of course, we don't. Unless we want to get rid of the original exemption.

I understand. I heard about Sac.

What my point is , that an LEO who buys an OFF ROSTER handgun W/O using His exemption should be able to PPT it to anyone who can buy a gun.

Makes any sense????

Maestro Pistolero
02-26-2012, 11:41 AM
This is no good for anyone. Cops will still get their O.R. guns and will simply sell them out of state when they want to move them. It only affects non-LE by preventing them one narrow means of acquiring them. Who's it hurting? Non-LE. Us.

Also, by continuing to allow off-roster guns to be sold to non-LE, the argument for prohibiting them to everyone else is weakened.

ewarmour
02-26-2012, 11:46 AM
Makes any sense????

Nope. This proposed law makes zero sense.

ALSystems
02-26-2012, 11:48 AM
Originally Posted by InGrAM
How long would it take for this to become law?
The short answer is, if it gets through to the governor, it would be signed, vetoed, or allowed to become law without signature in September/October, and would become law Jan 1 2013.
The Handgun "Roster" is being challenged with "Pena v. Cid"
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Pena_v._Cid
Pena is stayed until a decision is made in Nordyke (VI) v. King
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Nordyke_v._King#Nordyke_VI
Nordyke's oral arguments are scheduled for March 19, 2012.

Based on this, I would guess this might become law before the Pena case makes a ruling.

I wouldn't hold my breath counting on Jerry Brown to veto such a law. :eek:

I know this new law is pure BS. :(:mad::(

eaglemike
02-26-2012, 12:03 PM
No more 80% as I read this as well............ No AR pistol builds, no 80% 1911's, etc. :(

ETA: I mis-read the original post, please disregard.......

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 12:16 PM
No more 80% as I read this as well............ No AR pistol builds, no 80% 1911's, etc. :(

How ??? WHy no more?

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 12:19 PM
I agree with you on this. The sooner we are all treated like citizens, instead of LEO vs. general public the better.

Instead of not supporting the Roster, the LEO community supported it while giving themselves an out. Now it's time to be treated like the rest of us shlubs you tossed under the bus. LEO should be forced to buy non-rostered weapons via SSE and then in that circumstance only should they be able to turn around and sell their weapons in-state, like the rest of us. Equal protection under the law all around.

Not anti-leo but just tired of groups of folks having special priveledges over your average honest law abiding tax paying citizen.

I know what You mean...
The only REAL priveledge we got was a 50 States "No questions asked"CCW in 2004. For active and retired.

I dont see me buying a GEN4 Glock instead of GEN3 or just a Beretta 92 as a priveledge.

I just think the whole thing with ROSTER is BS.

nick
02-26-2012, 12:27 PM
So, I wouldn't get too worked up on the "giving v. selling" wording -- there is plenty of time for clean-up amendments before it gets out of committee.

Anyway, I think this runs into problems with the LEO having a right to dispose of personal property the way he/she wants to. And then as a practical matter, I wonder how much LEO support such a bill with have -- ha ha! Watch them line up to give their reasons to the committee why this is a bad idea.

That hasn't stopped our elected morons before. Try selling a RAW in-state. Right, you can't. So you can only sell it out-of-state. Interestingly enough, in the Ezell case it was ruled that you can't force people to exercise their rights "elsewhere". Pity it's not binding in CA.

dantodd
02-26-2012, 1:17 PM
I dont see me buying a GEN4 Glock instead of GEN3 or just a Beretta 92 as a priveledge.


If non-LEO funnies were allowed to buy GEN4s and you were restricted to a short list of handguns you wouldn't have a problem with that?

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 1:57 PM
If non-LEO funnies were allowed to buy GEN4s and you were restricted to a short list of handguns you wouldn't have a problem with that?


I think we about to enter a new topic here :)

I am RESTRICTED to what handguns I can carry on and off duty.
Not buy LAW but by my department.

I dont have a problem with it.

CHP can ONLY carry a 4006 on duty.
SFPD can ONLY carry SIG's in .40 on duty.
I can name few more.

Off duty I am also restricted. Cant carry a 1911, 32acp, Wather PPK etc.

I feel fine with it.

If they said that I can only own what I can carry , I may wonder why they want it that way, but I would NOT feel like they are taking away my right to protect myself.

As a very young man , all I had for HD was Browning Hi Power, Smith Wesson model 66 2 1/2 barrel .357 magnum and a Remington 870 with buckshot and slugs.

I felt very good :)

NOW if I was a gun COLLECTOR , and was not able to buy handguns for my collection (that others , in other states can buy ) I would not feel good at all.

If we are talking about self defense , there are MANY , very nice and very effective handguns on the roster that anyone can buy .

As I said before , to me ROSTER makes no sense.

OleCuss
02-26-2012, 2:45 PM
.
.
.
As I said before , to me ROSTER makes no sense.

It makes money for the state.

And I've been appreciating your comments. You've generally been making good sense and good points.

Casey
02-26-2012, 3:34 PM
You think the CA Police Chiefs Assoiaation will show up at all the committee meetings to get this one passed like they did with all the other crap they shoved down our throat while exempting themselves?

Casey
02-26-2012, 3:37 PM
Whats the beef? This is just a common sense gun law that closes the Law Enforcment Loophole.

jdberger
02-26-2012, 5:22 PM
I'm willing to bet that if rank and file got with their PORAC reps and had them instruct their lobbyist to work with the CRPA lobbyist on this and other matters, that this would most likely be resolved in everyone's favor.

But what do I know?

Mesa Tactical
02-27-2012, 6:27 AM
LEO should be forced to buy non-rostered weapons via SSE and then in that circumstance only should they be able to turn around and sell their weapons in-state, like the rest of us. Equal protection under the law all around.

It's not even a matter of equal protection. According to the Legislature, non-rostered handguns are UNSAFE! Who the hell wants to see LEOs carrying unsafe handguns around all day long?

BobB35
02-27-2012, 6:34 AM
this could pass...but it will depend on if the CLEO's support it or not. A single letter in support of this from a CLEO and the chance of it passing go up dramatically....converse for letters against. You have to realize this is effecting a large union support block for the dems...so if this effect thier funding they will vote the way that keeps the money coming....who cares about the rest. it is all about the money.

ap3572001
02-27-2012, 7:34 AM
It's not even a matter of equal protection. According to the Legislature, non-rostered handguns are UNSAFE! Who the hell wants to see LEOs carrying unsafe handguns around all day long?

Glock GEN4 are being issued already. They seem to be VERY safe :). I have one.

tpc13
02-27-2012, 7:34 AM
This is why we need to take power away from the government. Too many people in power have bad ideas that effect good citizens especially cops. Cops work hard to protect us. Guess that's why they are called sheep, cops are the protectors.

Mesa Tactical
02-27-2012, 8:05 AM
Glock GEN4 are being issued already. They seem to be VERY safe :). I have one.

Yabbut State of California says they aren't safe. Who to believe, who to believe?

ap3572001
02-27-2012, 8:21 AM
Yabbut State of California says they aren't safe. Who to believe, who to believe?

Some laws make no sense....:(

Glock GEN4 is just as safe , if not safer than GEN1/2/3 ( safer , because a lefty can switch the magazine release so dont have to use the trigger finger to release magazines. Also they are safer because they recoil less and the user will less likely to hit unintended targets. Safer for people who wear gloves, because GEN4 will be more secure in their hands)

HK45 is VERY,VERY safe . Just as safe as HK USP45.

Pre -lock S&W revolvers are safer then the new ones , because You will never forget to unlock it .

AR's are very safe and very good when it comes to HD.

WIth proper ammo they DO NOT overpenetrate. Because of great ergonomics and because they are easy to shoot, a citizen , under pressure will less likely to hit unintended targets.

Also , AR's are very politically correct since American military and LE are using them for years.

They are also "sporting guns" since AR is the most popular platform for High Power shooters, 3 gun match shooters, plinkers and many varmint hunters.

WHo do You believe??????

robcoe
02-27-2012, 8:36 AM
They shouldn't be able to buy them in the first place... if we can't why should they be able to?

I'm going with this one, I hate the whole idea of police being a separate, higher class of citizen, the rules should apply equally to everyone.

Either anyone can buy a non-rostered gun, or nobody can, no more of this "LEO's are special" bull****.

Same goes for magazine capacity limits.

taperxz
02-27-2012, 8:37 AM
Some laws make no sense....:(

Glock GEN4 is just as safe , if not safer than GEN1/2/3 ( safer , because a lefty can switch the magazine release so dont have to use the trigger finger to release magazines. Also they are safer because they recoil less and the user will less likely to hit unintended targets. Safer for people who wear gloves, because GEN4 will be more secure in their hands)

HK45 is VERY,VERY safe . Just as safe as HK USP45.

Pre -lock S&W revolvers are safer then the new ones , because You will never forget to unlock it .

AR's are very safe and very good when it comes to HD.

WIth proper ammo they DO NOT overpenetrate. Because of great ergonomics and because they are easy to shoot, a citizen , under pressure will less likely to hit unintended targets.

Also , AR's are very politically correct since American military and LE are using them for years.

They are also "sporting guns" since AR is the most popular platform for High Power shooters, 3 gun match shooters, plinkers and many varmint hunters.

WHo do You believe??????


It doesn't matter. We are now being told what to shoot, what to eat, how best to care for ourselves, ect. ect....

Paul S
02-27-2012, 8:38 AM
if the rank and file would actually push their union to not support stupid gun bills we wouldn't have stupid gun bills, but they are married to the good paychecks the union secures so they don't. Darn shame.

Say what...why the anti union screed here? I don't see anyplace a union is mentioned.
Me thinks your animosity toward unions is clouding your analysis on this one.

taperxz
02-27-2012, 8:41 AM
I'm going with this one, I hate the whole idea of police being a separate, higher class of citizen, the rules should apply equally to everyone.

Either anyone can buy a non-rostered gun, or nobody can, no more of this "LEO's are special" bull****.

In the eyes of the CA gov, this gives LE an advantage when needed (assinine) and their belief is that LE are shooting experts and can handle an unsafe firearm that doesn't meet safety standards.

taperxz
02-27-2012, 8:43 AM
Say what...why the anti union screed here? I don't see anyplace a union is mentioned.
Me thinks your animosity toward unions is clouding your analysis on this one.

The police union carries no political clout in Sacramento?

ap3572001
02-27-2012, 8:45 AM
I'm going with this one, I hate the whole idea of police being a separate, higher class of citizen, the rules should apply equally to everyone.

Either anyone can buy a non-rostered gun, or nobody can, no more of this "LEO's are special" bull****.

Same goes for magazine capacity limits.

I understand what You mean , I was not ALWAYS an LEO.

However as long as I can remember , here in US and abroad, LE or other government agents have SOME pliveleges that others do not.

Right or wrong , but this is what see all over.

HBrebel
02-27-2012, 8:55 AM
If you need an illegal gun just ask somebody in the batfe. Tell 'em you are with a cartel. you may get it for free

robcoe
02-27-2012, 9:15 AM
I understand what You mean , I was not ALWAYS an LEO.

However as long as I can remember , here in US and abroad, LE or other government agents have SOME pliveleges that others do not.

Right or wrong , but this is what see all over.

to completely rewrite a quote from Alan Gura

"ap3572001, Police may have grown accustomed to having more rights than other citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that that the rest of us have to accept"

And I am certainly not going to accept is just because it's always been that way, or because everyone else is doing it.

If LEO's want to know why there is an us vs them attitude coming from all of us peasants one thing they can look to is their insistence at having special rights written into the laws for themselves.

If an agency wants its officers to carry a gun that's not on the roster or has a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds it can issue them the weapon, but for their own personal weapons LEO's need to abide by the same restrictions as the rest of us.

jdberger
02-27-2012, 10:14 AM
Say what...why the anti union screed here? I don't see anyplace a union is mentioned.
Me thinks your animosity toward unions is clouding your analysis on this one.

The unions have requested and received various "carve outs" with regards to firearms over the last few decades. Standard capacity magazines, purchases of "assault rifles" and guns deemed too dangerous for untrained citizens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU) are just a few. These were done to overcome objections to proposed restrictions on certain guns.

Bhobbs
02-27-2012, 10:39 AM
Kinda OT but this part
Under existing law, a person in this state who manufactures or
causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for
sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun

interests me. How is the conversion of a SSE pistol into a non rostered pistol not manufacturing in the same way that taking a 10/30 and making it a hi cap is manufacturing?

Librarian
02-27-2012, 10:44 AM
Kinda OT but this part
Under existing law, a person in this state who manufactures or
causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for
sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun

interests me. How is the conversion of a SSE pistol into a non rostered pistol not manufacturing in the same way that taking a 10/30 and making it a hi cap is manufacturing?

How is changing the sights not 'manufacturing' - that also changes the gun from the 'as tested' configuration.

Answer: it's legal to do things to the guns you already own - the Roster is a limitation on what a CA-licensed FFL may sell. (Don't create an 'assault weapon'.)

ap3572001
02-27-2012, 10:47 AM
Exactly .

If a handgun is already HERE in the State. (It got here somehow and its not wanted or stolen.)

You can do what You want to it ( As long as it does not become AW)
And You can sell it to via PPT to anyone who can own a handgun.

Hopalong
02-27-2012, 11:21 AM
It never ends.

ALSystems
02-27-2012, 3:22 PM
It never ends.
:iagree:

It seems like for every step forward there are three steps backward.

California is swamped with endless new anti-gun laws faster than they can be challenged in court.:(

raycm2
02-27-2012, 10:06 PM
dickinson is now my assemblyman. What is his motivation for doing this?
His campaign advisers are across the breezeway from my office. Last week I took a printout on the local "NSSF First Shots" event over there. :43: I think I'll go pay a visit and ask what problem this bill is supposed to solve. Probably need to brush up on the relevant PC before the visit... :gnorsi:

Ray

mag360
02-28-2012, 7:26 AM
please do, I'm looking forward to reading his description of this bill on his home page. "this bill will keep those dangerous cop guns off the street that are exactly like the gun that is on a special list but wasn't put on the list because they want children to starve from lowered revenues"

NotEnufGarage
02-28-2012, 7:27 AM
His campaign advisers are across the breezeway from my office. Last week I took a printout on the local "NSSF First Shots" event over there. :43: I think I'll go pay a visit and ask what problem this bill is supposed to solve. Probably need to brush up on the relevant PC before the visit... :gnorsi:

Ray

Also, if it's addressing the Sac PD and Sheriffs that were PPT'ing here, brush up on the Federal laws on strawman purchases, etc.

ap3572001
02-28-2012, 7:52 AM
The way I understand this bill is that an LEO will not be able to PPT an off roster pistol REAGARDLESS of how they got it.

If the bill will become a law, an LEO will not be able to sell their part of their collection in CA via PPT.

Right?

Or are they talking about off roster handguns that LEO bought USING their status?

I have a Ruger Speed six in 9mm that I bought in the 80's. With the new law I will never be able to sell it the state.

bcj128
02-28-2012, 8:48 AM
OK...as an LEO, I fully support dumping the stupid roster...it's merely a veiled threat to take away the options of other types of guns that may be older design, cheaper, etc. It also encompasses "safety measures" that are invented in the minds of people who have no idea about what they are doing. Basically, it was only made to make guns harder to possess.

The bill irritates me, because I have one or two guns that I can now sell only to fellow LEO's or out of state. However a few of my comrades made this mess by the issues in Sacramento, and we're going to be stuck with it if the bill passes.

As for the bill that created the roster itself, PORAC, I believe opposed the actual bill. However, when the exemption was put in, they lost any standing to challenge it in court.

Would PORAC generally go out after a bad bill because it's "bad" when it doesn't affect it's members. Probably not, because that's not their mission. They may all agree it's a stupid law, and will oppose it as a bad idea, but will not likely go on the lobby warpath over it, because that's spent political capital they may need for something else. Not to mention, there are a good number of officers who may believe in gun control, so now you're pitting members against members. Thats politics, and it stinks, but that's how our jacked up state works.

Our problem is that we have a vocal minority here in CA who are pro gun. The vast majority don't care, or listen to the drivel put out by the press. The you have the vocal minority on the other side who want gun control, and they have all the media to trumpet their agenda, and 60-80% of the politicians.

If we want change, we need to import more conservative gun-friendly people and tip the scales. I don't know how you make that happen.

mag360
02-28-2012, 8:49 AM
ap3572001, might be worth a call to chat with a staffer and let them know. Only takes 5 mins.

Mesa Tactical
02-28-2012, 8:56 AM
The bill irritates me, because I have one or two guns that I can now sell only to fellow LEO's or out of state.

Wat? Unless they are assault weapons, you can PPT non-rostered handguns to any eligible buyer in the state.

This legislation is about non-rostered handguns.

jdberger
02-28-2012, 9:04 AM
OK...as an LEO, I fully support dumping the stupid roster...it's merely a veiled threat to take away the options of other types of guns that may be older design, cheaper, etc. It also encompasses "safety measures" that are invented in the minds of people who have no idea about what they are doing. Basically, it was only made to make guns harder to possess.

The bill irritates me, because I have one or two guns that I can now sell only to fellow LEO's or out of state. However a few of my comrades made this mess by the issues in Sacramento, and we're going to be stuck with it if the bill passes.

As for the bill that created the roster itself, PORAC, I believe opposed the actual bill. However, when the exemption was put in, they lost any standing to challenge it in court.

Would PORAC generally go out after a bad bill because it's "bad" when it doesn't affect it's members. Probably not, because that's not their mission. They may all agree it's a stupid law, and will oppose it as a bad idea, but will not likely go on the lobby warpath over it, because that's spent political capital they may need for something else. Not to mention, there are a good number of officers who may believe in gun control, so now you're pitting members against members. Thats politics, and it stinks, but that's how our jacked up state works.

Our problem is that we have a vocal minority here in CA who are pro gun. The vast majority don't care, or listen to the drivel put out by the press. The you have the vocal minority on the other side who want gun control, and they have all the media to trumpet their agenda, and 60-80% of the politicians.

If we want change, we need to import more conservative gun-friendly people and tip the scales. I don't know how you make that happen.

Welp...perhaps PORAC should start looking past their own noses.

They oppose a bill until their constituency is exempted, then they drop their opposition (which is a tacit endorsement). But when the exemption is deemed unfair, and it's decided that citizens need to be treated equally with respect to the law, they sqwak. First it happened with AWs, now it's happening with rostered guns.

Again, PORAC is a membership organization. It does what the members tell it. If I was a member of an organization that was heading in a direction I didn't like, I'd:

*Try to change it.
*Quit
*Create one that did do what I want

It's not rocket science.

OleCuss
02-28-2012, 10:56 AM
I think he was explaining what PORAC does and will do, not endorsing their mode of behavior.

I'd not be surprised if he is trying to change it from within.

jdberger
02-28-2012, 11:09 AM
Yes. I get that. I wasn't (or didn't mean to) excoriate bcj128.

My problem is with PORAC.

dantodd
02-28-2012, 1:15 PM
They oppose a bill until their constituency is exempted, then they drop their opposition (which is a tacit endorsement). But when the exemption is deemed unfair, and it's decided that citizens need to be treated equally with respect to the law, they sqwak. First it happened with AWs, now it's happening with rostered guns.


Isn't this the same behavior that people were up in arms with the NRA over? Remember the bill to make the membership rolls of all non-profits public information? The NRA opposed the bill until there was an exemption for .orgs over a certain number which effectively protected the NRA and ACLU. Suddenly the NRA dropped their objection because it no longer effected their members. Isn't this the same thing PORAC is doing?

jdberger
02-28-2012, 1:29 PM
Isn't this the same behavior that people were up in arms with the NRA over? Remember the bill to make the membership rolls of all non-profits public information? The NRA opposed the bill until there was an exemption for .orgs over a certain number which effectively protected the NRA and ACLU. Suddenly the NRA dropped their objection because it no longer effected their members. Isn't this the same thing PORAC is doing?

The point of the bill was to "expose" the membership lists of non-profits who were opposed to the current administration (remember who sponsored and pushed it).

But the point of the NRA objection was to kill the bill - which it did. They essentially inserted a poison pill into it.

Chess. Not checkers. Remember.

I don't think that the PORAC carve-out was intended to do the same (actually, I know it wasn't since the carve-out was a seperate piece of legislation proffered in the wake of Silveria.)

bcj128
02-28-2012, 1:36 PM
Yes. I get that. I wasn't (or didn't mean to) excoriate bcj128.

My problem is with PORAC.

Agreed. I believe the way to best address the issue is get rid of the roster.

When I complained about the Brown legal opinion, and they said they couldn't do anything- so I took them to task on the whole AWB. They agreed its a bad law, but believed they could never repeal it...it's just too ingrained in the political landscape in Sacramento. I was frustrated, but the guy in PORAC was someone I've worked with in the past, and know he is trying to do what is best for the whole of his membership, not just me...

That said, I think we need to remember that cops are pulled from the gnereal public at large, and fewer and fewer are as pro gun as I am. I would wager to say that many of them work areas like LA and Oakland and have seen what the AK can do. Others just don't beleive in guns. So to direct your ire at cops, expecting them to be pro gun, it may be misdirected...

Just trying to change them one opinion at a time.

As for the assault weapon cleanup legislation, the cleanest way to do it, and the most fair would be to remove the named and Kassner guns from the assault weapons ban so it's by characteristic only. Then when you retire, you throw on a bullet button and keep your gun, no one's out any money except the cost of the bullet button. Then the officer advises the state that the gun has been made non-assault weapon-ish...and it drops off the registration.

jdberger
02-28-2012, 2:22 PM
Agreed. I believe the way to best address the issue is get rid of the roster.

When I complained about the Brown legal opinion, and they said they couldn't do anything- so I took them to task on the whole AWB. They agreed its a bad law, but believed they could never repeal it...it's just too ingrained in the political landscape in Sacramento. I was frustrated, but the guy in PORAC was someone I've worked with in the past, and know he is trying to do what is best for the whole of his membership, not just me...

That said, I think we need to remember that cops are pulled from the gnereal public at large, and fewer and fewer are as pro gun as I am. I would wager to say that many of them work areas like LA and Oakland and have seen what the AK can do. Others just don't beleive in guns. So to direct your ire at cops, expecting them to be pro gun, it may be misdirected...

Just trying to change them one opinion at a time.

As for the assault weapon cleanup legislation, the cleanest way to do it, and the most fair would be to remove the named and Kassner guns from the assault weapons ban so it's by characteristic only. Then when you retire, you throw on a bullet button and keep your gun, no one's out any money except the cost of the bullet button. Then the officer advises the state that the gun has been made non-assault weapon-ish...and it drops off the registration.

Regarding the AWs, there was a concerted effort between some Gunny lobbyists and the PORAC lobbyist to create an amnesty period for folks to register AWs. They were just about agreed on it when PORAC backed out, said that they were going to go for an LEO registration only and that they Gunnies could "just sue" on equal protection grounds.

mag360
02-28-2012, 3:25 PM
@jdberger...bummer, they coudnt agree on something. Is there a chance equal protection will work? I mean retired LEO can carry in 50 states but we cant. But no challenge to that right?

Bobula
02-28-2012, 3:32 PM
So I can't sell a gun once is falls off?

Librarian
02-28-2012, 3:50 PM
So I can't sell a gun once is falls off?

A person exempted pursuant to this paragraph shall not give a handgun
to a person who is not exempted under this section .

As written, if you are exempt from the Roster and bought it off-Roster, you would not be able to PPT it to anyone not also exempt from the Roster.

That language ALSO includes handguns a LEO bought PPT - because such a sale is to an exempt buyer, even though the sale, under current law, is not dependent on that.

And I do wonder at the use of 'give' in that text; 'transfer' I would understand.

ap3572001
02-28-2012, 6:33 PM
@jdberger...bummer, they coudnt agree on something. Is there a chance equal protection will work? I mean retired LEO can carry in 50 states but we cant. But no challenge to that right?

I understand....

But I can arrest someone on or off duty, check out a full auto , carry where others can't , tell someone what they can and can't do, etc due to my employment.

Why not just challenge everything? Would that make any sense?.

I was not an LE in my early life. I never questioned why I cant do what federal agent,local cop or US Marine can.

Making any sense?
I am very much for SHALL ISSUE CCW. But LE will always be able to do things or to have things that most people can't.

FBI can do what people in my agency can't. We live with it ....

advocatusdiaboli
02-29-2012, 10:45 AM
They CAN NOT control what You sell out of state. I dont think ...

Think again. They apparently already want to control what we legally hunt out of state.

advocatusdiaboli
02-29-2012, 10:49 AM
I understand....

But I can arrest someone on or off duty, check out a full auto , carry where others can't , tell someone what they can and can't do, etc due to my employment.

Why not just challenge everything? Would that make any sense?.

I was not an LE in my early life. I never questioned why I cant do what federal agent,local cop or US Marine can.

Making any sense?
I am very much for SHALL ISSUE CCW. But LE will always be able to do things or to have things that most people can't.

FBI can do what people in my agency can't. We live with it ....

The flaw in your argument is you don't distinguish the difference between in the line of duty, in which case I support some special powers, and off-duty as a citizen which I think should not carry over LEO special powers. Selling off Roster firearms is not a duty function.

ap3572001
02-29-2012, 12:19 PM
The flaw in your argument is you don't distinguish the difference between in the line of duty, in which case I support some special powers, and off-duty as a citizen which I think should not carry over LEO special powers. Selling off Roster firearms is not a duty function.

OK. Understand Your point . I also see few issues here....Let me brake it down.

Just few facts.
1). When I change out of my uniform ( on days I do wear a uniform) , clip and LE only knife to my jeans, holster a GEN4 .40 cal Glock (with another 15rd or 22rd magazines) , clip on a badge , put on a shirt and go home , I am STILL an LEO.
BY STATE LAW and Department policy.
I am just not working right that moment.

2). If and when I will have to draw my weapon to save a life , I will be acting as an LEO , NOT a civilian.

3). When I am off I can be called back to work anytime . In some situations , I have to keep with me stuff that 99% of the people CAN'T even own.

4). Last one.

I have not visited or worked in in a single county in the world where LE officers and armed Government agents are treated EXACTLY the same way as everyone else when they are not working.

PS. My agency and many others DO CONTROL what we can and can not carry . ON and OFF duty.

mej16489
02-29-2012, 12:27 PM
Just few facts.
1). When I change out of my uniform ( on days I do wear a uniform) , clip and LE only knife to my jeans...


What the heck is an LE-only knife?

ap3572001
02-29-2012, 12:28 PM
What the heck is an LE-only knife?

The ones that are only sold to LE in Ca. Some stores have them .

advocatusdiaboli
02-29-2012, 12:30 PM
OK. Understand Your point . I also see few issues here....Let me brake it down.

Just few facts.
1). When I change out of my uniform ( on days I do wear a uniform) , clip and LE only knife to my jeans, holster a GEN4 .40 cal Glock (with another 15rd or 22rd magazines) , clip on a badge , put on a shirt and go home , I am STILL an LEO.
BY STATE LAW and Department policy.
I am just not working right that moment.

2). If and when I will have to draw my weapon to save a life , I will be acting as an LEO , NOT a civilian.

3). When I am off I can be called back to work anytime . In some situations , I have to keep with me stuff that 99% of the people CAN'T even own.

4). Last one.

I have not visited or worked in in a single county in the world where LE officers and armed Government agents are treated EXACTLY the same way as everyone else when they are not working.

PS. My agency and many others DO CONTROL what we can and can not carry . ON and OFF duty.

You raise good general points and I agree with you in as far as off-duty LEO privileges benefit society as the ones you mention do. How does having special sales privileges of privately-owned arms benefit public safety? It doesn't so it doesn't pass the utility to public safety test. that's was the real point I intended to make.

thebronze
02-29-2012, 12:32 PM
Don't worry, I was told by so many CalGunners that Jerry Brown is super pro gun and will never sign such a law.:cool:


This.

ap3572001
02-29-2012, 12:40 PM
You raise good general points and I agree with you in as far as off-duty LEO privileges benefit society as the ones you mention do. How does having special sales privileges of privately-owned arms benefit public safety? It doesn't so it doesn't pass the utility to public safety test. that's was the real point I intended to make.

I see.

I can take it one step firther. ROSTER makes no sense. There is nothing unsafe about modern handguns that are not ont he roster. They would not be issued to us if they were unsafe.

NOW. Since we are on the subject, THERE are handguns (old , modified, poor quality) that are not very safe to cary with a round in the chamber or under a hammer.

But thats a different subject.

ap3572001
02-29-2012, 12:42 PM
This.

I agree with You .

advocatusdiaboli
02-29-2012, 12:52 PM
I see.

I can take it one step firther. ROSTER makes no sense. There is nothing unsafe about modern handguns that are not ont he roster. They would not be issued to us if they were unsafe.

NOW. Since we are on the subject, THERE are handguns (old , modified, poor quality) that are not very safe to cary with a round in the chamber or under a hammer.

But thats a different subject.

No argument from me that the Roster is not at all about safety. I cannot buy a different finish identical pistol if it too wasn't tested and approved.
It is clear it is a thinly veiled attempt to make acquiring and owning handguns more difficult and one day I hope the courts will strike it down. I 'd like LEOs to lose their non-public safety oriented privileges so they stop supporting anti-gun laws for the rest of us. I know not all of you support them, but clearly a lot do.

mej16489
02-29-2012, 12:53 PM
The ones that are only sold to LE in Ca. Some stores have them .

That's what I figured...there is no such thing...legally.

Just because dealers are doing it doesn't make it legal...

From the LEO forum:
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=527580

Plus many other threads.

advocatusdiaboli
02-29-2012, 12:53 PM
What the heck is an LE-only knife?
Spring-loaded blades for one: active duty military and LEO only for instance.

ap3572001
02-29-2012, 12:55 PM
Spring-loaded blades for one: active duty military and LEO only for instance.

Yep.

ke6guj
02-29-2012, 4:45 PM
Spring-loaded blades for one: active duty military and LEO only for instance.

Yep.


what exemption to CA's switchblade laws do active-duty .mil and LEO fall under?

ErikTheRed
03-01-2012, 12:18 AM
Don't worry, I was told by so many CalGunners that Jerry Brown is super pro gun and will never sign such a law.:cool:

I take great pride in reminding you (and everyone else) that I was NOT one of those Calgunners. I still can't believe all the people who thought JB was going to be our friend somehow. Just amazing.

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 10:18 AM
I take great pride in reminding you (and everyone else) that I was NOT one of those Calgunners. I still can't believe all the people who thought JB was going to be our friend somehow. Just amazing.

NO, they said that EMeg was worse for gun rights.

rromeo
03-01-2012, 6:15 PM
I see.

I can take it one step firther. ROSTER makes no sense. There is nothing unsafe about modern handguns that are not ont he roster. They would not be issued to us if they were unsafe.

NOW. Since we are on the subject, THERE are handguns (old , modified, poor quality) that are not very safe to cary with a round in the chamber or under a hammer.

But thats a different subject.Yep, the real unsafe guns are roster exempt.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.

Shotgun Man
03-01-2012, 7:20 PM
If the gun lobby opposes this and other LEO-targeted bills, we should get something in return from the police unions/associations.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but years ago, didn't the largest national police association lobby congress for a LEO exception to the Lautenberg amendment? I believe the police association courted the NRA's support, but the NRA declined and may have even actively opposed such an exception. It was the NRA's big F-U to the police association because the police association had supported the federal AWB. Actions have consequences. To this day, there is no LEO exception to the Lautenberg amendment.

I tried to google it and find a cite, but I failed. Do I have my facts straight?

Shotgun Man
03-01-2012, 7:20 PM
deleted repost

dantodd
03-01-2012, 8:09 PM
what exemption to CA's switchblade laws do active-duty .mil and LEO fall under?

It's called the brass pass, it isn't statutory but what cop is gonna jam another one up and potentially lose his job over a switchblade?

ke6guj
03-01-2012, 8:38 PM
It's called the brass pass, it isn't statutory but what cop is gonna jam another one up and potentially lose his job over a switchblade?

I am aware of the brass pass, I'm trying to figure out what legal exemption advocatusdiaboli and ap3572001 think they fall under. Even more so, what exemption to the possible felony charge if the off-duty carrying of that switchblade is concealed.

And what exemption are the knife shops using to sell those "LEO-only" knives to those cops, "brass pass by proxy"?

advocatusdiaboli
03-02-2012, 5:37 AM
I am aware of the brass pass, I'm trying to figure out what legal exemption advocatusdiaboli and ap3572001 think they fall under. Even more so, what exemption to the possible felony charge if the off-duty carrying of that switchblade is concealed.

And what exemption are the knife shops using to sell those "LEO-only" knives to those cops, "brass pass by proxy"?

I didn't to mean to imply it is legal per se because I cannot cite the CA code. All I know is that is the justification retailers give for selling them to LEOs and they do it without prosecution. I suppose, now that I think it over, it would be similar to the pass on hi-cap magazine LEOs get but it's speculation without a cite and I don't know the codes. Somewhere in the dirk/dagger codes maybe? Or maybe it's an urban legend retailers abide by like some still don't believe the bullet button is legal. I know out-of-state on-line retailers claim to allow sales of spring-loaded blades to LEOs an active duty military but no one else. I noticed that when buying a Benchmark last year. Either way,codified or not, I believe it's wrong to give police special rights and powers that don't benefit pubic safety. It swells their heads into thinking they are super-citizens; a class our Founders tried not to create.

advocatusdiaboli
03-02-2012, 5:40 AM
If the gun lobby opposes this and other LEO-targeted bills, we should get something in return from the police unions/associations.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but years ago, didn't the largest national police association lobby congress for a LEO exception to the Lautenberg amendment? I believe the police association courted the NRA's support, but the NRA declined and may have even actively opposed such an exception. It was the NRA's big F-U to the police association because the police association had supported the federal AWB. Actions have consequences. To this day, there is no LEO exception to the Lautenberg amendment.

I tried to google it and find a cite, but I failed. Do I have my facts straight?

So the logic you propose is this: because the NRA wouldn't consent to special powers for police beyond citizens allowing police superior 2A rights than the rest of us which had nothing to do with their duty to public safety, the police were justified in supporting further curtailing citizens 2A rights but not their own.

IF true, that stinks and you know it.

dantodd
03-02-2012, 5:49 AM
It's quite simple. Let officers PPT off-roster weapons and don't let them buy off-roster weapons except through PPT, just like everyone else in CA. If they need an off-roster weapon have the dept. buy it. Why would an officer need an off-roster weapon other than his duty weapon anyway? If the officer wants to carry off-duty he or she can source a gun the same as every other Californian. If the department wants them to carry off-duty and use a specific off-roster weapon the department can buy it, they are exempt.

Problem solved. If the police don't like having to abide by the same laws as the rest of us they can work to get the law changed for everyone.

This is not to say that any officer shouldn't buy as many off-roster weapons as he wants right now, the more that get into the state the better as far as I'm concerned.

bcj128
03-02-2012, 6:57 AM
AS a cop of 20 years, I have NEVER carried a switchblade, and NO officer who works for me will get by me unscathed if he does. It's illegal, and while I see the utlitarian need for them for cops and firefighters, the law is the law.

Brass pass, my *****. There is no great conspiracy, no secret handshake society, the law is what the law is.

As far as someone calling it a felony, I have never charged a felony for a concealed switchblade, the appropriate charge is a misdemeanor.

Mesa Tactical
03-02-2012, 7:21 AM
Problem solved. If the police don't like having to abide by the same laws as the rest of us they can work to get the law changed for everyone.

Don't confuse this with the assault weapon thread. There is actually no problem out there that needs to be solved with regard to police, PPTs and the roster. This law is a response to the investigations in Sacramento area LEOs into unlicensed dealing of non-rostered handguns, in violation of Federal, not state, law. The roster has nothing to do with this activity, except that the fact the guns are prohibited to non-LEOs is what tempted the LEOs into alleged unlicensed dealing to begin with.

The bill under discussion is simply some grandstanding yahoo trying to ladle on additional unnecessary legislation, apparently from a sense of outrage that LEOs being investigated for Federal crimes have not actually violated any state laws. While the practical state-level solution to the Sacramento investigations is to get rid of the roster so as to eliminate the illegal gray market, the natural inclination of our brave legislators is to instead add more unnecessary and intrusive state laws.

However, the practical objections some of the LEOs in this thread, out of a sense of fairness, mean nothing. The Legislature has been perfectly willing to impose unfair restrictions on non-LEO gun owners in the past.

ke6guj
03-02-2012, 8:48 AM
AS a cop of 20 years, I have NEVER carried a switchblade, and NO officer who works for me will get by me unscathed if he does. It's illegal, and while I see the utlitarian need for them for cops and firefighters, the law is the law. thank you for following the law.

Brass pass, my *****. There is no great conspiracy, no secret handshake society, the law is what the law is. you may not rely on it, but I know that others do. We have even had LEO/Fire admit on this forum that they carry switchblades. If there is no exemption for them to do so, then they must be relying on the brass pass, or else they are ignorant of the fact that there is no exemption for them to carry a switchblade.

Forgetting about the LEO carrying, why aren't they arresting the knife shop owners for selling switchblades in violation of CA law? There is no PC that I am aware of that exempts LEO-only sales.

As far as someone calling it a felony, I have never charged a felony for a concealed switchblade, the appropriate charge is a misdemeanor.
Ccase law says that a 2+" switchblade carried concealed can be consdiered a concealed dirk or dagger, which would be a violation of 12020/16590 and is a felony. However, there is a on-duty LEO exemption to 16590, 17730(b) which states that the exemption applies "when the officer is on duty and the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of the officer's duties." If the LEO is off-duty, then I don't see how they have an exemption to 16590 if they are carrying a concealed 2+" switchblade (dirk or dagger).


people v. plumlee

OPINION

A switchblade knife as defined in Penal Code section 653k*fn1 can also be a dirk or dagger concealed on the person as defined in section 12020, even if it is concealed in its closed position. The superior court erred when, taking the contrary view, it refused to hold defendant Gary Plumlee to answer to a charge of violating section 12020 and later denied the People's motion to reinstate the charge. The record reveals rational grounds for holding Plumlee to answer, so the charge must be reinstated.http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5C2008%5C20080910_0008091.CA.htm/qx

winnre
03-02-2012, 8:53 AM
Because criminals always buy guns off of COPS.

newbee1111
03-02-2012, 12:07 PM
Because criminals always buy guns off of COPS.

That's the best part of this meaningless puppet show. While it sounds like there were a few cops trying to make an extra buck with their on the side PPT business I really doubt they were selling them out of the back of a van to whoever had a wad of twenties. It sounds like every individual transaction was done as a legal PPT to someone who was allowed to have the gun anyways.

Since the legislature has time for this I'm sure they will have the budget done on time this year.

Sgt Raven
03-02-2012, 12:36 PM
Since the legislature has time for this I'm sure they will have the budget done on time this year.

:gene:

pepsi2451
03-04-2012, 11:33 AM
Spring-loaded blades for one: active duty military and LEO only for instance.

Yep.

what exemption to CA's switchblade laws do active-duty .mil and LEO fall under?

:popcorn:

If you can't find an exemption and you have ever arrested someone for a spring loaded knife, I think you should turn yourself in. Its only fair.

bcj128
03-04-2012, 4:38 PM
OPINION

A switchblade knife as defined in Penal Code section 653k*fn1 can also be a dirk or dagger concealed on the person as defined in section 12020, even if it is concealed in its closed position. The superior court erred when, taking the contrary view, it refused to hold defendant Gary Plumlee to answer to a charge of violating section 12020 and later denied the People's motion to reinstate the charge. The record reveals rational grounds for holding Plumlee to answer, so the charge must be reinstated.

This may be an opinion, but it's not how we charge at my work (unless there is some other outside issue perhaps). 653k and it's new version 21510(b) pc is specific enough so 12020 (now 21310 pc) is more "shoe horn-ing" a felony in a misdemeanor

Decoligny
04-20-2012, 12:15 PM
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

As amended on 9 April 2012

AB 2460, as amended, Dickinson. Firearms.

Under existing law, a person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year. Existing law exempts from this requirement the purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff's official, a marshal's office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties.
This bill would prohibit a person exempted under the above provision from giving a selling or otherwise transferring the ownership of the handgun to a person who is not exempted under the same provision. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would also make nonsubstantive, technical corrections.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bhobbs
04-20-2012, 2:18 PM
Brass pass, my *****. There is no great conspiracy, no secret handshake society, the law is what the law is.

I have to call bullsh*t on this. I have seen it happen with my own eyes. I was with an off duty LEO. An on duty LEO comes over and tells him that he is doing something that isn't allowed on the property and the fine is pretty expensive now. The off duty LEO pulls out his badge and asks if this makes it ok. The on duty LEO said sure, gets back on his motorcycle and takes off. I couldn't believe it. If it was me, non special regular guy, I would have been fined.

Bobula
04-20-2012, 2:22 PM
So what if I own a gun that falls off the roster? I can never sell it? Someone needs to see if this can be stopped with an injunction before it passes.

DSB
04-20-2012, 2:27 PM
I support this bill. NO MORE LEO exemptions. The sooner you do this, the sooner CLEO will start taking the 2A seriously.

If this makes me a pariah here, I don't care.

The bill would only prohibit an exempt person (LEO) from re-selling to a non-exempt person. It does not prohibit the LEO from obtaining the "unsafe" firearm in the first place (as I read it).

SO, it appears it would have minimum impact on law enforcement officers, but it would prohibit your average citizen from purchasing a gun that the citizen cannot otherwise obtain (except through SSE) from a LEO officer who no longer wants his/her "unsafe" gun. That stinks.

curtisfong
04-20-2012, 3:05 PM
DSB, you're right. I was wrong about this bill.

It does stink. It makes things worse for everybody.

kcbrown
04-20-2012, 3:23 PM
DSB, you're right. I was wrong about this bill.

It does stink. It makes things worse for everybody.

That's why it will be enacted.

puppy8a9
04-23-2012, 4:41 PM
Don't worry, I was told by so many CalGunners that Jerry Brown is super pro gun and will never sign such a law.:cool:


REALLY! WTF, you are hallucinating, he signs anti-gun bills he said he would veto.

Echidin
04-23-2012, 5:58 PM
REALLY! WTF, you are hallucinating, he signs anti-gun bills he said he would veto.

I believe he was being facetious.

SARC_Mike
05-03-2012, 4:41 PM
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/05/california-assembly-passes-bill-to-bar-police-from-selling-unsafe-guns.html

The "roster" still boggles my mind.

Joshk
05-03-2012, 4:45 PM
Sucks for officers trying to sell their off roster handgun but doesn't really matter with SSE being available.

Dark Sky Solutions
05-03-2012, 4:47 PM
They say "safe" like they are going to blow up in your hand or kill someone by themselves. Ridiculous!!!

The fact of the matter is that the companies have not paid te money to cal DOJ to get "safety" tested and put on the roster.

Ridiculous!!!

tazmanian devil dog
05-03-2012, 6:26 PM
OMG!!! All this freakin BS drama!!!! Good grief!

tacticalcity
05-04-2012, 2:37 PM
Announced on my distributors website today was the latest on this bill.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/04/4465171/assembly-oks-bill-limiting-officers.html

California Assembly OKs bill limiting officers' gun sales

The Assembly passed legislation Thursday stemming from an investigation into Sacramento-area peace officers suspected of using their positions to buy weapons not available to the public, then selling them for profit.

Please do not post whole articles - see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=363956

We are still in the "one (short) paragraph and a link is low-risk." mode, despite appropriate legal action against the major risk provider. Righthaven is not the only offender…

See the stickies http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=394912

// Librarian

Write Winger
05-04-2012, 5:10 PM
We're just one more law closer to utopia!

dustoff31
05-05-2012, 4:10 PM
dickinson is now my assemblyman. What is his motivation for doing this?

That's a joke right?


Dickinson is a Democrat. He not only has this bill, AB 2470 to his credit, but also voted for AB 809 - Long Gun Registration, AB 1527-LG Open Carry Ban, and AB 144 - UOC Ban.

There was no motivation involved. It was an involuntary reaction. He heard the words "gun" and "ban" in the same sentence and he couldn't stop himself.

mag360
05-22-2012, 3:13 PM
well the staffer for Roger Dickinson at his district office sounds really cool. Spoke to him on the phone at length about problems with the handgun roster, his bill AB2460 to ban transfer of off-roster guns by police, etc. When I was done he said that was all new to him and he would pass it on to Roger. He seemed pretty interested, surprisingly. A young guy it sounded like. I should stop in and buy him a coffee!

problems:

cops with old guns
buying in bulk and reselling is already illegal
guns that arent on the roster because california says they can't be (gen 4 glock)
roster problems in general with classic guns

advocatusdiaboli
05-22-2012, 3:52 PM
I too at first thought this was okay because I thought it would end all LEO exemptions to the Roster and therefore "encourage" them to help us abolish it. Now I realize it doesn't do that and is really designed as a "camel's nose in the tent" move closer to prohibiting all civilian ownership. I now completely oppose it. More and more, we are seeing this trick proposing a "common-sense" restriction that turns out to be a calculated erosion of rights they hope they can slip by us.

Deadbolt
05-22-2012, 4:07 PM
I support this bill. NO MORE LEO exemptions. The sooner you do this, the sooner CLEO will start taking the 2A seriously.

If this makes me a pariah here, I don't care.

that saloon door could come swinging back and catch us if we aren't careful. Though I am intended to agree with this - the separation between citizen A and citizen B (leos are not military) needs to end. However I would like to see the inverse of this applied (no roster). Slippery slope but hey - "why not" right? Poster above hit the nail on the head - "camel" metaphor noted, i'll use that sometime haha

rromeo
05-22-2012, 4:13 PM
Don't be fooled by how well someone nods at your argument. I stood in my senator's office for 25 minutes as her and her staffer nodded at everything we said, both of them agreed that many parts of the bills made no sense at all, and she told us she would reconsider how she was voting. Of course she voted for the stupid bills and against the common sense bills.

mag360
05-22-2012, 6:48 PM
it was more or less a nice change vs getting hung up on by simitians office when he was proposing new green energy requirrements.

puppy8a9
05-22-2012, 10:00 PM
Is there a "legitimate" law enforcement purpose for unsafe handguns if they really are unsafe and do police really all carry "off roster" or unsafe guns?

Idiocy

mag360
05-22-2012, 10:45 PM
nothing is legitimate about the roster

twoforme2
05-23-2012, 8:22 PM
"The bill targets weapons on California's "unsafe handgun roster," such as firearms that do not have a chamber load indicator or that fail a firing or drop-safety test."
OR Made by manufacturers that refuse to be victims of extorsion.

HMMMM...The unsafe Handgun roster? If we have to have a list, maybe that is what we need. If not specifically included then it is excluded, more like OLL's.

It is ironic that the allowance of those supposedly responsible for our "safety" are using weapons that are admittedly "unsafe" thus causing an undue risk to the safety of the minorities and children of the State of California. [/sarcasm]

wyrm2021
05-24-2012, 4:25 PM
Just something to think about.If a LEO shoots an assaillant (other criminal, let your imagination run a little) with an off roster (read unsafe here) handgun. A very savy lawyer could sue said officer, Department, State for negligance for allowing such exemptions for LEO`s. He just has to win in the court of public opinion and thats not so hard in the circus of the media. They`ll do anything to paint cops as bad, guns as evil, and criminals as victims for ratings.
The LEO, Department, State only defence would be to prove that the handgun was safe, leaving the neccessity for a roster mute.

I of course realize in this scenario the LEO would not have been negligent else where in his/ her duties for this to really be probable, if I could think of it a lawyer could so it might just be possible.

kcbrown
05-24-2012, 4:35 PM
Just something to think about.If a LEO shoots an assaillant (other criminal, let your imagination run a little) with an off roster (read unsafe here) handgun. A very savy lawyer could sue said officer, Department, State for negligance for allowing such exemptions for LEO`s. He just has to win in the court of public opinion and thats not so hard in the circus of the media. They`ll do anything to paint cops as bad, guns as evil, and criminals as victims for ratings.

I'm not so sure about this.

It seems to me that in the eyes of the media, guns in the hands of cops is a good thing, and criminals are "victims" primarily (if not only) when they lose against ordinary citizens.

spiderpigs
05-24-2012, 4:39 PM
Just something to think about.If a LEO shoots an assaillant (other criminal, let your imagination run a little) with an off roster (read unsafe here) handgun. A very savy lawyer could sue said officer, Department, State for negligance for allowing such exemptions for LEO`s. He just has to win in the court of public opinion and thats not so hard in the circus of the media. They`ll do anything to paint cops as bad, guns as evil, and criminals as victims for ratings.

but then you would have to show in court why they are "more dangerous" than those on the roster. Which he could not actually accomplish.

Librarian
05-24-2012, 4:55 PM
Allowing LEO to purchase 'unsafe' guns, and use them on duty, is one of the ways we can be sure the Roster is not about 'safety' in any normal sense.

Using them on duty obviously exposes the officers, their fellow officers, and the public to whatever may be 'unsafe', and taking them home exposes the families of officers to whatever may be 'unsafe'.

It's a crock.

kcbrown
05-24-2012, 5:05 PM
Allowing LEO to purchase 'unsafe' guns, and use them on duty, is one of the ways we can be sure the Roster is not about 'safety' in any normal sense.

Using them on duty obviously exposes the officers, their fellow officers, and the public to whatever may be 'unsafe', and taking them home exposes the families of officers to whatever may be 'unsafe'.

It's a crock.

It's certainly a crock, but the opposition will claim that officers are "far better trained" than us "ordinary" folks and are thus "trustworthy" with "more dangerous" firearms, and that us normal people are somehow "inferior" and therefore the firearms in question are "too dangerous" for us. :facepalm:

USMCM16A2
05-24-2012, 5:20 PM
Guys,


But if a handgun is not purchased as duty weapon no special treatment should be extended. Same with Assault Weapons, if you retire, you turn it in. This is with all due respect to all of our LEO personnel that frequent our forum. But once you leave the job, you are a regular civilian, and treated under the same laws as regular civilians. A2

wyrm2021
05-27-2012, 1:12 PM
I'm not so sure about this.

It seems to me that in the eyes of the media, guns in the hands of cops is a good thing, and criminals are "victims" primarily (if not only) when they lose against ordinary citizens.

Still it does`nt seem to be a stretch of the imagination as a possibility, although I agree you, the media does see it as a good thing, for now.

gatdammit
05-27-2012, 1:32 PM
It's certainly a crock, but the opposition will claim that officers are "far better trained" than us "ordinary" folks and are thus "trustworthy" with "more dangerous" firearms, and that us normal people are somehow "inferior" and therefore the firearms in question are "too dangerous" for us. :facepalm:

I'm sure this what they will claim. They are 'far better trained' with a different color of the same model gun than us 'ordinary' folk. No way to blow a hole in the 'unsafe' handgun argument when certain models are restricted because of color? Well, I guess the argument is already there, but does the opposition just refuse to see it?

wyrm2021
05-27-2012, 8:25 PM
I'm sure this what they will claim. They are 'far better trained' with a different color of the same model gun than us 'ordinary' folk. No way to blow a hole in the 'unsafe' handgun argument when certain models are restricted because of color? Well, I guess the argument is already there, but does the opposition just refuse to see it?

With their heads in the sand, YES.

kcbrown
05-27-2012, 8:58 PM
I'm sure this what they will claim. They are 'far better trained' with a different color of the same model gun than us 'ordinary' folk. No way to blow a hole in the 'unsafe' handgun argument when certain models are restricted because of color? Well, I guess the argument is already there, but does the opposition just refuse to see it?

The opposition isn't interested in equality under the law or any other such "inconveniences" that would impede their march towards the bliss of total dependence upon the state.

That there is irrationality in the implementation of the law is of no consequence to them as long as the law serves to bring us closer towards total disarmament (a necessary precondition for total dependence upon the state).

ap3572001
05-27-2012, 9:43 PM
Guys,


But if a handgun is not purchased as duty weapon no special treatment should be extended. Same with Assault Weapons, if you retire, you turn it in. This is with all due respect to all of our LEO personnel that frequent our forum. But once you leave the job, you are a regular civilian, and treated under the same laws as regular civilians. A2

Not really. Once LEO retires He can carry anywhere in the US no questions asked. Keep and use all the pistols and magazines. Some of my partners are retired. The AW's is another story.

USMCM16A2
05-28-2012, 10:22 AM
ap,



As I said ONCE the officer is retired, there should be NO special considerations. The officer is no longer on duty, you are a civilian, and subject to the laws that regulate civilians. This hypocritical bull**** needs to stop, no Assault Weapons, officers should buy from the same Handgun list as regular folks and as a group they should have to apply for a CC Permit like the rest of us. I am tired of LEO Organizations throwing the Civilians under the bus every time there is a bill that takes 2A rights. Yes I have an agenda. A2

Bhobbs
05-28-2012, 10:43 AM
Allowing LEO to purchase 'unsafe' guns, and use them on duty, is one of the ways we can be sure the Roster is not about 'safety' in any normal sense.

Using them on duty obviously exposes the officers, their fellow officers, and the public to whatever may be 'unsafe', and taking them home exposes the families of officers to whatever may be 'unsafe'.

It's a crock.

This argument applies to a lot of the laws that we don't like. The AW ban, hi cap mag ban, .50 BMG rifle ban, hand gun roster and I'm sure there are others. It seems like the most obvious route of attack.

If these things are so dangerous to the general population, then why are our LEOs openly carrying them in public? If they serve no purpose other than causing mayhem and destruction, the last people to have them should be our cops.

tonelar
05-30-2012, 2:19 AM
The AW thing sucks, but it levels the playing field. Now we have a whole other group of owners to side with us ordinary citizens.

Hate to say it, but maybe a PPT lockdown can ensure LEOs in CA have even more skin in the game.

akcooper9
05-30-2012, 3:46 AM
They shouldn't be able to buy them in the first place... if we can't why should they be able to?

Ditto. They put their pants on just like the rest of us. They shouldnt be treated any differently.

Same goes for regular capacity magazines...If they need more rounds to protect themselves, then so do I

eeeeman
06-14-2012, 9:39 PM
All departments have a list of approved carry guns. This is all they should be able to buy if its not on the roster and if purchesed from out of state.They should get a letter from there department to purchase any gun not on the roster if using a exception.They should be able to transfer what the already own. Just stop any profit motive.

akcooper9
06-15-2012, 4:11 AM
All departments have a list of approved carry guns. This is all they should be able to buy if its not on the roster and if purchesed from out of state.They should get a letter from there department to purchase any gun not on the roster if using a exception.They should be able to transfer what the already own. Just stop any profit motive.

Why should a cop have more rights then a non cop?

bcj128
06-15-2012, 7:09 AM
All departments have a list of approved carry guns. This is all they should be able to buy if its not on the roster and if purchesed from out of state.They should get a letter from there department to purchase any gun not on the roster if using a exception.They should be able to transfer what the already own. Just stop any profit motive.

No they don't. My current department does not. To do so is shortsighted and does not allow for developments in the industry IMHO. The problem was a few profiteers who took advantage of the loophole in the law. Now we have this. I disagree with the roster, but will abide by the rules.

DGoodale
08-21-2012, 3:48 PM
This Bill, AB2460, is now on the Governor's desk awaiting his signature.
Bill Text (http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2451-2500/ab_2460_bill_20120409_amended_asm_v98.pdf)

ETA:
Well now I'm unsure, they announced on the radio it was awaiting Brown's signature but looking at the Bill Status I'm unsure...

BILL HISTORY
2012
Aug. 20 In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling.

ETA2:
Learn something about the Legislative process everyday... Sure would be easier just to say its passed to the Gov. for signature...
Enrolling: Once a bill has finally passed the Legislature, it is enrolled. A certificate proclaiming that it has passed is attached and, if necessary, the amendments from the second house or conference committee are incorporated into the body of the bill. The bill is signed by the Speaker of the House, the Chief Clerk of the House, the President of the Senate, and the Secretary of the Senate and is sent to the Governor for his or her action.
-
Engrossing a bill means incorporating the amendments into the body of the bill so that the second house gets one document. If a bill has been amended in the second house, it is returned to the first house with the amendments attached so that the first house can decide whether or not it wishes to agree with the changes the second house made.

hornswaggled
08-21-2012, 4:36 PM
Any time & money that would be spent fighting this bill should instead go into the general warchest to fight the existence of the safe handgun roster itself.

FisterD
08-21-2012, 5:14 PM
So does this mean if I want to buy an off-roster gun from an LEO, I should do it soon?

johnny_22
08-22-2012, 1:35 PM
AB 2460 is one of the options on his pull down menu. He wants to cut pensions; this could be a carrot. Just say it isn't fair that you can sell your "unsafe" guns and LEOs can't with this bill.

CEDaytonaRydr
09-13-2012, 2:16 PM
Shouldn't there be a lengthy discussion in the assembly about why the police are allowed to purchase "unsafe" firearms? :rolleyes:

OleCuss
09-13-2012, 2:28 PM
There won't be.

I'd kind of like to see someone who was shot by an LEO sue a department because they were shot by an "unsafe" handgun and that was then negligent behavior. I don't think it'd get very far, but I'd kinda like to see it.

Bhobbs
09-13-2012, 2:32 PM
Shouldn't there be a lengthy discussion in the assembly about why the police are allowed to purchase "unsafe" firearms? :rolleyes:

There needs to be a lengthy discussion on why cops need evil unsafe handguns, assault weapons, hi capacity bullet spraying magazines, cop killer explosive armor piercing bullets and all the other goodies we don't get to have.

Wiz-of-Awd
09-13-2012, 2:54 PM
There needs to be a lengthy discussion on why cops need evil unsafe handguns, assault weapons, hi capacity bullet spraying magazines, cop killer explosive armor piercing bullets and all the other goodies we don't get to have.

But we already know the answer/s.

"So that they are better equipped than the citizens they control."
...or so they wish to think :)

A.W.D.

Wherryj
09-13-2012, 3:07 PM
Yet any non-LEO that legally owns a non-roster handgun can PPT to anyone that can legally own a handgun.

WOW. Just WOW.

Do they get paid for each bill they introduce?

They are attempting to "close this loophole" as well. There is legislation currently in process to prevent anyone from selling a handgun currently not on the roster to anyone except a LEO. I guess that this bill might even close THAT "loophole".

Wherryj
09-13-2012, 3:10 PM
Ditto. They put their pants on just like the rest of us. They shouldnt be treated any differently.

Same goes for regular capacity magazines...If they need more rounds to protect themselves, then so do I

No they don't. My congress critter told me that the police are much more highly trained on putting on their pants. They can do so much more quickly and safely than the rest of us.

Bhobbs
09-13-2012, 3:14 PM
But we already know the answer/s.

"So that they are better equipped than the citizens they control."
...or so they wish to think :)

A.W.D.

That's always something I have wanted to ask an anti that exempts cops from these bans. It's either abou control, like you say, or they feel cops are better than us.

mrdd
09-13-2012, 4:13 PM
I suspect the Governor will veto this one. Seems like it might not pass constitutional muster, since it limits how LEOs can dispose of their personal property.

lost.in.cali.
09-13-2012, 5:41 PM
Has this bill been approved or vetoed?

IVC
09-13-2012, 5:48 PM
No they don't. My congress critter told me that the police are much more highly trained on putting on their pants. They can do so much more quickly and safely than the rest of us.

Yeah, we saw how it worked in NYC with all the bystanders. Even that argument is losing steam.

5thgen4runner
09-13-2012, 5:48 PM
I support this bill. NO MORE LEO exemptions. The sooner you do this, the sooner CLEO will start taking the 2A seriously.

If this makes me a pariah here, I don't care.

Im with you, I support any law that cuts leo exemptions.

hermosabeach
09-13-2012, 7:01 PM
This legislation is flawed enough to become a perfect california law

I cant wait to see what else they come up with.....

Hopefully they make murder illegal in 2012

HowardW56
09-13-2012, 7:15 PM
Hopefully they make murder illegal in 2012

Murder is already illegal, they would add an extra penalty if the murderer used his or her hands during the commission of the murder... Maybe they will find an additional death penalty is appropriate?

That way they the murderer will be condemned to die twice...

This sounds useless doesn’t it? I wouldn’t put it past them…

Moonshine
09-14-2012, 9:41 AM
I guess if this passes some LEOs will have to get bigger safes because when they make certain handgun purchases they end up stuck with the gun. This law makes no sense.

mygun
09-25-2012, 7:05 PM
Called Brown's office today on AB2460, SB1366, and AB1527. The representative was vague on where Brown was leaning and from the conversation he didn't give me any comfort in what will most likely happen. If these pass, we are going to get even more restrictions unless people start flooding their office 916-445-2841 with calls. Maybe it doesn't matter but it certainly doesn't hurt.

ronlglock
09-26-2012, 11:06 AM
Called Brown's office today on AB2460, SB1366, and AB1527. The representative was vague on where Brown was leaning and from the conversation he didn't give me any comfort in what will most likely happen. If these pass, we are going to get even more restrictions unless people start flooding their office 916-445-2841 with calls. Maybe it doesn't matter but it certainly doesn't hurt.

Called, FAXed, mailed. Person answering the phone said, "I'm guessing that these are gun bills?" So I suppose they're getting flooded.

ap3572001
09-26-2012, 11:09 AM
The LAW makes no sense at all , because as an LEO I can buy off roster handguns at stores than are on consignment or via PPT.

Which means that I AM NOT USING MY EXEMPTION. Right?
Anyone can buy via PPT or on consignment.

THis will make no sense at all.

ap3572001
09-26-2012, 11:13 AM
Im with you, I support any law that cuts leo exemptions.

They are NOT cutting LEO exemption. They are saying that if I buy an off reoster handgun from You via PPT, I can only sell it to another LEO or out of state.

Hopalong
09-26-2012, 11:30 AM
It never ends

And the reason it continues down this path

Is that the lawmakers believe this is what they need to do

To score political points with their constituency, and get re-elected

It has absolutely nothing to do with common sense, rationality, logic, LEOs, safety, children, the Constitution, 2A

These are all collateral damage.

raycm2
09-26-2012, 11:34 AM
Please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. The bill adds and changes language in Penal Code DIVISION 10, Chapter 4, Article 5 (Section 32000) only.

2. Article 6 of the same chapter, titled "Exceptions to Rules Governing Unsafe Handguns" says

32110. Article 4 (commencing with Section 31900) and Article 5
(commencing with Section 32000) shall not apply to any of the
following:
(a) The sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm pursuant to Chapter
5 (commencing with Section 28050) of Division 6 in order to comply
with Section 27545.


27545. Where neither party to the transaction holds a dealer's
license issued pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, the
parties to the transaction shall complete the sale, loan, or transfer
of that firearm through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant to
Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050).


28050. (a) A person shall complete any sale, loan, or transfer of a
firearm through a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to
26915, inclusive, in accordance with this chapter in order to comply
with Section 27545.
(b) The seller or transferor or the person loaning the firearm
shall deliver the firearm to the dealer who shall retain possession
of that firearm.
(c) The dealer shall then deliver the firearm to the purchaser or
transferee or the person being loaned the firearm, if it is not
prohibited, in accordance with Section 27540.
(d) If the dealer cannot legally deliver the firearm to the
purchaser or transferee or the person being loaned the firearm, the
dealer shall forthwith, without waiting for the conclusion of the
waiting period described in Sections 26815 and 27540, return the
firearm to the transferor or seller or the person loaning the
firearm. The dealer shall not return the firearm to the seller or
transferor or the person loaning the firearm when to do so would
constitute a violation of Section 27500, 27505, 27515, 27520, 27525,
27530, or 27535. If the dealer cannot legally return the firearm to
the transferor or seller or the person loaning the firearm, then the
dealer shall forthwith deliver the firearm to the sheriff of the
county or the chief of police or other head of a municipal police
department of any city or city and county, who shall then dispose of
the firearm in the manner provided by Sections 18000, 18005, and
34000.

32110 and 28050 are both unchanged by this bill, so any PPT would still be exempted from 32000 as I see it, whether or not an LEO is one of the parties.

Ray

Librarian
09-26-2012, 11:58 AM
Please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. The bill adds and changes language in Penal Code DIVISION 10, Chapter 4, Article 5 (Section 32000) only.

2. Article 6 of the same chapter, titled "Exceptions to Rules Governing Unsafe Handguns" says



32110 and 28050 are both unchanged by this bill, so any PPT would still be exempted from 32000 as I see it, whether or not an LEO is one of the parties.

Ray

32000 (b)(4) would have this additional language (bolded) (4) The sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to,
or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a
sheriff's official, a marshal's office, the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation, the California Highway Patrol, any district
attorney's office, or the military or naval forces of this state or
of the United States for use in the discharge of their official
duties. Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the sale to, or
purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun. A person
who, under this paragraph, acquires a handgun that is not on the
roster required by Section 32015, shall not sell or otherwise
transfer ownership of the handgun to a person who is not exempted
under this paragraph. "shall not transfer" is the key - can't give, sell, lend, trade, offer as security or any other way of divesting oneself of possession or ownership to anyone not excepted from 32000.

That other provisions are not changed does not matter.

Vacaville
09-26-2012, 12:02 PM
I support this bill. NO MORE LEO exemptions. The sooner you do this, the sooner CLEO will start taking the 2A seriously.

If this makes me a pariah here, I don't care.

+1

Same laws should apply to LEOs that apply to everyone else. This should give us more support from the LEO community. I view this as a positive.

raycm2
09-26-2012, 1:12 PM
32000 (b)(4) would have this additional language (bolded) "shall not transfer" is the key - can't give, sell, lend, trade, offer as security or any other way of divesting oneself of possession or ownership to anyone not excepted from 32000.

That other provisions are not changed does not matter.

The key is that 32110(a) exempts anyone from 32000 as long as the transaction is "... in order to comply with Section 27545". 27545 refers to 28050 for the requirements for a transaction where "... neither party to the transaction holds a dealer's license", i.e. any PPT through an FFL.

Unless I'm crazy. :wacko:

Ray

scarville
09-26-2012, 6:47 PM
if the rank and file would actually push their union to not support stupid gun bills we wouldn't have stupid gun bills, but they are married to the good paychecks the union secures so they don't. Darn shame.

Maybe their paychecks are more important to them than the Constitution is.:shrug:

ap3572001
09-27-2012, 6:44 AM
One of the issues with this bill ( which I pointed out several times) is that for some STRANGE reason people think that LEO's can ONLY get off roster handguns using their status .

NOT TRUE.

I also see that many people also forget that LEO's (just like anyone else) can just buy handguns that are on consignment at stores or just via PPT.

rromeo
09-27-2012, 7:48 AM
What LEO exemption is this eliminating? Every citizen in the state can sell off-roster handguns.

CaliB&R
09-27-2012, 7:58 AM
What LEO exemption is this eliminating? Every citizen in the state can sell off-roster handguns.

I thought this law changed it so only a LEO can purchase an off-roster handgun. So a LEO can't PPT it to a citizen, and a citizen can't PPT it to a citizen. Or maybe I misread to whole thing.

ap3572001
09-27-2012, 8:28 AM
For some strange reason, many people think that LEO's can get off roster handguns ONLY by using their LEO status. 100% not true.

Librarian
09-27-2012, 10:05 AM
The key is that 32110(a) exempts anyone from 32000 as long as the transaction is "... in order to comply with Section 27545". 27545 refers to 28050 for the requirements for a transaction where "... neither party to the transaction holds a dealer's license", i.e. any PPT through an FFL.

Unless I'm crazy. :wacko:

Ray

True, until/unless this bill is signed into law. Then 32110 no longer applies to LEO unreservedly - they would get special restriction (presumably, LEO purchases of off-Roster guns made beginning Jan 1 2013, which would be the effective date, and their subsequent resale via PPT).

Kind of the point of new bills - they change the laws.

Librarian
09-27-2012, 10:14 AM
What LEO exemption is this eliminating? Every citizen in the state can sell off-roster handguns.

I thought this law changed it so only a LEO can purchase an off-roster handgun. So a LEO can't PPT it to a citizen, and a citizen can't PPT it to a citizen. Or maybe I misread to whole thing.

The law is intended to prevent LEO from 'flipping' off-Roster handguns.

IF and ONLY IF a LEO has purchased an off-Roster handgun because of LEO status, THEN (if the bill is signed into law) said LEO is prohibited from selling such handgun to someone who is not ALSO exempt from the Roster requirement.

As ap3572001 correctly points out, LEO can buy off-Roster handguns PPT, or get them through inheritance or intrafamilial transfer, and handguns acquired that way would not be affected by this change.

So, we have a pool of handguns acquired by LEOs before this law takes effect, which the law should not cover. There's a pool of handguns acquired after the law goes into effect, but not via a LEO exemption.

And there would be a pool of off-Roster handguns acquired via LEO exemption, after the law takes effect.

Mesa Tactical
09-27-2012, 10:18 AM
As ap3572001 correctly points out, LEO can buy off-Roster handguns PPT, or get them through inheritance or intrafamilial transfer, and handguns acquired that way would not be affected by this change.

Actually, ap3572001 has been insisting that off-roster handguns acquired in these ways by LEOS would also be affected by this bill. I thought hat sounded strange.

raycm2
09-27-2012, 10:24 AM
Even though this bill tries to set special restrictions, the changes are made to 32000 and 32110 _specifically_ exempts _all_ PPTs from 32000. The special restrictions simply do not apply to PPTs, whether LEO or not.

ap3572001
09-27-2012, 11:24 AM
Actually, ap3572001 has been insisting that off-roster handguns acquired in these ways by LEOS would also be affected by this bill. I thought hat sounded strange.

They way that I understood the bill is that if LEO's can only PPT off roster handguns to other LEO's. NO MATTER HOW THEY GOT THEM.

Librarian
09-27-2012, 11:44 AM
Even though this bill tries to set special restrictions, the changes are made to 32000 and 32110 _specifically_ exempts _all_ PPTs from 32000. The special restrictions simply do not apply to PPTs, whether LEO or not.

Why do you keep looping back to that?

The law regarding LEOS would change if this bill is signed. It is the intent of the legislature to make the law apply differently.

Librarian
09-27-2012, 11:50 AM
They way that I understood the bill is that if LEO's can only PPT off roster handguns to other LEO's. NO MATTER HOW THEY GOT THEM.

I think that's incorrect. The change is (4) The sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to,
or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff's official, a marshal's office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official
duties. Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun. A person who, under this paragraph, acquires a handgun that is not on the roster required by Section 32015, shall not sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the handgun to a person who is not exempted under this paragraph."under this paragraph" means 'acquired using the LEO exemption' as described immediately above; the change is a part of the paragraph 32000(b)(4).

The Legislative Counsel's digest does say "This bill would prohibit a person exempted under the above provision from selling or otherwise transferring the ownership of the handgun to a person who is not exempted under the same provision.... ", but the law as passed is not that sweeping.

ap3572001
09-27-2012, 12:37 PM
Thank You.

skyscraper
09-27-2012, 2:30 PM
There needs to be a lengthy discussion on why cops need evil unsafe handguns, assault weapons, hi capacity bullet spraying magazines, cop killer explosive armor piercing bullets and all the other goodies we don't get to have.

How about people get off the anti-cop privileges subject and focus on why these laws are on the books for everyone in the first place? Which one is a more worthy fight: Crying and complaining about LEO's getting off-roster guns, or going after the roster itself. Only one of those fights ends up with us getting a bigger selection of guns without having to jump through hoops.

Mesa Tactical
09-27-2012, 3:08 PM
How about people get off the anti-cop privileges subject and focus on why these laws are on the books for everyone in the first place?

Because of the LE exemptions. Otherwise they would never have passed.

That accounts for some of the bitterness around here.

Darklyte27
09-27-2012, 3:23 PM
^^^
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. That is exactly what this is about.

Is there any more news about that Sacramento deal? did the FFL go to jail?

scootergmc
09-27-2012, 5:34 PM
A deputy pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with the US atty. The rest are pending.

jamesob
09-27-2012, 5:52 PM
dickinson is now my assemblyman. What is his motivation for doing this?

Does it say "D" or "R" after his title? That will most likely give his motivation.