PDA

View Full Version : LEO Exemption !?


InFlamez
04-27-2007, 1:09 AM
Just curious....I was wondering what sort of exemption LEOs have in terms of owning/operating "illegaly" configured ARs in CA. Also, i know peace officers, even SWAT officers, don't carry AK47s, but would they be allowed to own/operate them with all of their evil features? Also, what sort of exemptions/limitations are there on peace officers owning burst/full-auto mode weapons?
I know there has to be some peace officers, or atleast very knowledgeable citizens, on the forum that can give me some insight.
Thanks

DesertDawg
04-27-2007, 5:49 AM
The "exemption" is through the law enforcement agency, who issues the firearms to trained/authorized individual officers. The officers do NOT own the firearms. When they quit or retire, those issued firearms have to be returned to the agency.

There IS an "exemption" given to individual officers, but that only covers their issued handguns. When an officer retires, he/she has the option of buying their issued handgun from the agency.

rod
04-27-2007, 6:28 AM
LEO's are subject to the same laws everyone else in CA are in regards to their personal weapons ...for the most part. I believe they can purchase normal capacity mags and listed handguns. I'm not the expert on this subject but I'm sure someone will educate all of us soon.

socom308
04-27-2007, 8:15 AM
Desert Dawg is 100% wrong. The law in CA allows for individually purchased and owned assault weapons by LEO's, and no you don't have to turn them in when you retire. I don't feel like looking up the penal code for you, but look for posts under my name and you will find it. I personally have three AR15's an M1A SOCOM in a SAGE stock and some Soviet Bloc hardware on the way.

By the way, I don't make the rules, so don't ***** to me about all the "LEO's shouldn't have special rights" BS. You wanna do something about that go out and campaign/vote for change, or move.:cool:

scootergmc
04-27-2007, 8:16 AM
I have the time :) Sticky this:

LEOs can purchase personal "AWs" (non-machine guns) w/ letterhead from agency authorizing the purchase. It does not have to be returned upon severence of employment (unless it was a department purchase). It is also required to be registered as an "AW" w/ DOJ w/in 90 days. 12280(f)(2) PC
LEOs can purchase "high" capacity mags w/out anything but ID. 12020(b)(20)
LEOs can purchase "unsafe" hanguns w/out anything but ID. 12125(b)(4) PC
LEOs are still subject to the 10 day wait unless they have agency letterhead approving purchase. 12078(a)(1) PC
LEOs cannot personally purchase machine guns. LEO agencies can and can issue them.

That's it in a nutshell. Hope it helps.

KenpoProfessor
04-27-2007, 8:52 AM
By the way, I don't make the rules, so don't ***** to me about all the "LEO's shouldn't have special rights" BS. You wanna do something about that go out and campaign/vote for change, or move.:cool:


So, as a LEO, it's your RIGHT to have special rights beyond the average citizen?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

scootergmc
04-27-2007, 9:04 AM
So, as a LEO, it's your RIGHT to have special rights beyond the average citizen?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Nowhere did he even allude to the fact it's a right to have rights beyond the "normal citizens." It's just given by code, which I cited. And it's often complained about by the "normal citizens" and members on this forum. I think he was just trying to head off the complaining once again.

FWIW, I don't think it's fair or constitutional either, but such is the law.

KenpoProfessor
04-27-2007, 9:12 AM
Nowhere did he even allude to the fact it's a right to have rights beyond the "normal citizens." It's just given by code, which I cited. And it's often complained about by the "normal citizens" and members on this forum. I think he was just trying to head off the complaining once again.

FWIW, I don't think it's fair or constitutional either, but such is the law.


Seems to me the attitude is an "Us vs. Them" mentality by sheer nature of the post. The whole "Don't like it campaign against it or move" is a LOT over the top yes?

I've been trying to get a job in a free state, as of yet, no luck.

Campaigning for more repeal of unconstitutional laws, wow, 9th circuit is killing us with no help in sight other than DC v Parker.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

scootergmc
04-27-2007, 9:17 AM
Seems to me the attitude is an "Us vs. Them" mentality by sheer nature of the post. The whole "Don't like it campaign against it or move" is a LOT over the top yes?

I've been trying to get a job in a free state, as of yet, no luck.

Campaigning for more repeal of unconstitutional laws, wow, 9th circuit is killing us with no help in sight other than DC v Parker.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Naw, it's not over the top, and if you look through the LEO exemption posts, someone is ususally crying foul... It does get tiring. We all know it's not changing. He's apparently tired of the "foul cryers." I think it's understandable.

9th circuit... no kidding there, we could designate an entire forum to their loony decisions. I think they still remain the most overturned circuit court by the supreme court....

KenpoProfessor
04-27-2007, 9:25 AM
Naw, it's not over the top, and if you look through the LEO exemption posts, someone is ususally crying foul... It does get tiring. We all know it's not changing. He's apparently tired of the "foul cryers." I think it's understandable.

9th circuit... no kidding there, we could designate an entire forum to their loony decisions. I think they still remain the most overturned circuit court by the supreme court....


Yes, it WAS over the top. Most of us stuck here don't have a choice by nature of work or business and his/her attitude only ads fuel to the fire. We've lost control of the legislation and courts here and we don't seem to be making any headroom as much as we try.

I'm sure he/she would feel differently if we tried to enact legislation to remove the LEO's special rights, yes? No more CCW, AW's, no full auto's at any time, etc., etc.. Things like this the sheeple really go for, you know, that feel good thing that does nothing but create problems.

Instead of writing as if LEO's are special, what is he/she doing to ensure the rest of the law abiding citizens can have the same rights?

BTW, you seem to have your self together in this regard, thank you.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

InFlamez
04-28-2007, 4:36 PM
I have the time :) Sticky this:

LEOs can purchase personal "AWs" (non-machine guns) w/ letterhead from agency authorizing the purchase. It does not have to be returned upon severence of employment (unless it was a department purchase). It is also required to be registered as an "AW" w/ DOJ w/in 90 days. 12280(f)(2) PC
LEOs can purchase "high" capacity mags w/out anything but ID. 12020(b)(20)
LEOs can purchase "unsafe" hanguns w/out anything but ID. 12125(b)(4) PC
LEOs are still subject to the 10 day wait unless they have agency letterhead approving purchase. 12078(a)(1) PC
LEOs cannot personally purchase machine guns. LEO agencies can and can issue them.

That's it in a nutshell. Hope it helps.


That's pretty much the explanation that I was looking for.

I lost track of this thread that I started, so it's really interesting to see the discussion that's come about as a result (LEO vs. Civilian rights debates, argument for civilian equality with LEOs, etc.)

I honestly started this thread out of curiosity and because I haven't asked any of my friends in LE about the legality of these issues in a restricted state like CA, or any other state for that matter. I'm planning on attending a local academy very soon, so I guess I'm just curious about how my private ownership status might be affected after I'm sworn in.

I'm really proud to be apart of this forum where everyone is so evidently proud, responsible, and pro-active about their rights (and maintaining them) as citizens and gun owners.

Thanks all:)

socom308
04-29-2007, 4:25 AM
KenpoProfessor, you want to play the game of "Lets Jump To Conclusions" lets analyze this thread in the context of what was posted:

First off, without any factual basis or citation of verifiable information, DesertDawg fly's off with the assertion that his delusional statement is actual fact (DesertDawg, if your post was in regards to NFA weapons and not standard assault weapons, then I apologize. Otherwise, I don't). InFlamez asked his question to be answered by peace officers or knowledgeable citizens; it appears based on his post that DesertDawg is neither. If you cannot answer the question factually, don't put your "opinion" or what you heard at the gun store on an internet board and represent it as the truth.

I made the statement about the whining because in SO many previous threads on the same topic, people always degenerate into the "LEO's should not have special priveliges" debate. As I stated before, I am not the one you need to complain to, nor do I care to listen.

You stated that, So, as a LEO, it's your RIGHT to have special rights beyond the average citizen?

Let's discuss that topic for a bit. If you understand the role of a peace officer in society and in context of the social contract, you would understand that yes, LEO's are granted rights not allowed for average citizens. An example is the authority to detain an individual based upon reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is taking or likely to take place. Also, LEO's are granted the authority by the vehicle code to disregard the rules of the road while driving Code3 (but are still required to exercise due regard for the safety of others while doing so).

LEO's may carry their concealed weapons on their persons in any place not specifically prohibited by state or federal law. A peace officer in California is a peace officer in California 24/7, regardless of location within the state. The legislature grants the authority for peace officers to personally own/possess assault weapons, as it is implied by the nature of trust bestowed upon peace officers in relation to their powers of authority, that they are inherently responsible enough to be trusted with said weaponry.

So do I have the "RIGHT to have special rights above the average citizen"? No where in my original post did I assert that, but yes I do have rights not afforded to the average citizen because I am a peace officer, not an "average citizen". To be clear on the issue of the AW ban, I do not personally advocate or support the enactment of laws which limit only the law abiding citizenry,and are contrary to the constitution and federal statutes.

Laws that effect the citizenry were put into place by ELECTED officials who require the vote of the people and their support to be in office. Regardless of ones political affiliation, the truth remains that the political climate in this state is either due to apathy on the part of conservative voters, or the fact that the liberal vote outweighs us as the majority. The bed we lay in was not made overnight.

You go on to state that, [Seems to me the attitude is an "Us vs. Them" mentality by sheer nature of the post. The whole "Don't like it campaign against it or move" is a LOT over the top yes?

I've been trying to get a job in a free state, as of yet, no luck.


You have two choices here, you can stay and fight or you can go somewhere else that suits you better. That is the great thing about America, we still have freedom of choice and can move about as we like. The people of South Vietnam didn't want to live under a communist regime, so they put their lives on the line for change. When the South fell many people chose to leave the country rather than face the repercussions of their oppressors. They fled on small boats across a large ocean for a better life in America, knowing that if they stay in their homeland they may die.

An extreme example, yes. But if you truly felt that you could not live under the oppression of California you would do 1 of two things: dedicate all your time to changing the political state or move to a freer state.

But then there's the excuses:

I've been trying to get a job in a free state, as of yet, no luck.

This tells me that either the skills that you possess in your chosen profession are either uncompetitive in the marketplace you whish to move, or there is no market for your desired profession. You might try either a) working at improving your professional equity or b) obtaining a job/career in which the desired marketplace is in demand. And:

Yes, it WAS over the top. Most of us stuck here don't have a choice by nature of work or business and his/her attitude only ads fuel to the fire. We've lost control of the legislation and courts here and we don't seem to be making any headroom as much as we try.


Who is not allowing you the choice to leave California? As I stated before, if you wanted to bad enough, you would have found a way. Before you challenge me to try and do the same, I have considered moving to another state for various reasons (political/economical/personal). I found that I could do so easily because my profession is in high demand in many places, I am highly skilled/trained, and If I chose to do so I would. However, certain things that I value related to staying here outweigh making that move at this point in my life.

And in closing we have this:
Instead of writing as if LEO's are special, what is he/she doing to ensure the rest of the law abiding citizens can have the same rights?


I became a police officer to fight crime, not to hit the campaign trail on behalf of the citizenry. I am not a politician at this point in time, and I have no obligation to rally on behalf of the citizens (professionally) in the name of any given political cause. I implore you to contact your local representative in regards to such matters.

My Kenpo instructor once said, "He who hesitates, meditates in the horizontal position". You sir, have a great Kenpo day as well.

disclaimer: it is 0300 hrs and I am absent a spell check, so if you are a grammer/spelling nazi have fun.:D

ts
04-29-2007, 4:31 AM
Desert Dawg is 100% wrong. The law in CA allows for individually purchased and owned assault weapons by LEO's, and no you don't have to turn them in when you retire. I don't feel like looking up the penal code for you, but look for posts under my name and you will find it. I personally have three AR15's an M1A SOCOM in a SAGE stock and some Soviet Bloc hardware on the way.

By the way, I don't make the rules, so don't ***** to me about all the "LEO's shouldn't have special rights" BS. You wanna do something about that go out and campaign/vote for change, or move.:cool:

total ownage! haha - lets all calm down and give the man with the 3rd sear pin time to relax.

iamp
04-29-2007, 4:49 AM
The "exemption" is through the law enforcement agency, who issues the firearms to trained/authorized individual officers. The officers do NOT own the firearms. When they quit or retire, those issued firearms have to be returned to the agency.

There IS an "exemption" given to individual officers, but that only covers their issued handguns. When an officer retires, he/she has the option of buying their issued handgun from the agency.

Wrong you buy the gun with your money with a letterhead from your agency allowing you to have a a/w. In california you can get a nightvision optics with the appropriate paperwork leo's only. Now getting a letterhead is a different story. Would you sign on the dotted line allowing joe snuffy to own a a/w. At work we have approx 1500 peace officer how many have got a letterhead. To my knowledge 0. theres a catch to everything

iwas830
04-29-2007, 7:08 AM
These laws weren't designed for LE to feel more special they were written for LE to have better weapons than the crooks who are shooting back. Most agencies can't afford to issue patrol rifles to each officer....as you well know, no one takes better care of their weapon than the owner...so the law was enacted to save each of you tax dollars and the agency's budget.
I agree this shouldn't be an "us-vs-them" thing....either direction and you have to admit we wouldn't even be having this conversation in Arizona :)

stator
04-29-2007, 7:21 AM
I have the time :) Sticky this:

LEOs can purchase personal "AWs" (non-machine guns) w/ letterhead from agency authorizing the purchase. It does not have to be returned upon severence of employment (unless it was a department purchase). It is also required to be registered as an "AW" w/ DOJ w/in 90 days. 12280(f)(2) PC
LEOs can purchase "high" capacity mags w/out anything but ID. 12020(b)(20)
LEOs can purchase "unsafe" hanguns w/out anything but ID. 12125(b)(4) PC
LEOs are still subject to the 10 day wait unless they have agency letterhead approving purchase. 12078(a)(1) PC
LEOs cannot personally purchase machine guns. LEO agencies can and can issue them.

That's it in a nutshell. Hope it helps.

Ramon sent me some email asking me not to call LEO's the palace guards, and us commoners. But - when you read that list and add the fact that LEO's had a SB23 do-over in 2002 for registering SB23 AWs, it is easy to conclude that our politicians are royalty (Perata has a CCW, etc.), our LEOs are their palace guards (see scootergmc list above), and we are just commoners getting shafted upon everyday (check with atherd, MGB, and others). You know what flows downhill.

Good thing Ramon does not own this board anymore. ;)

KenpoProfessor
04-29-2007, 7:25 AM
And in closing we have this:


I became a police officer to fight crime, not to hit the campaign trail on behalf of the citizenry. I am not a politician at this point in time, and I have no obligation to rally on behalf of the citizens (professionally) in the name of any given political cause. I implore you to contact your local representative in regards to such matters.

My Kenpo instructor once said, "He who hesitates, meditates in the horizontal position". You sir, have a great Kenpo day as well.

disclaimer: it is 0300 hrs and I am absent a spell check, so if you are a grammer/spelling nazi have fun.:D

Your last statement is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. There is no reason whatsoever for you to rally on behalf of the citizens= Us vs. Them. You've shown nothing in your posts that's indicative of anything that would dispute that. I'm thinking maybe we should campaign to have these privleges for LEO's removed, you know, for the children. It tends to make the sheeple feel better knowing that criminals won't be able break into SWAT vans and steal fully auto firearms and other assault weapons by removing the temptation.

"as it is implied by the nature of trust bestowed upon peace officers in relation to their powers of authority, that they are inherently responsible enough to be trusted with said weaponry."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/26/atlanta.indictments/index.html



You weren't perhaps in that video of the gun confiscations in NOLA were you?


Was your Kenpo instructor Mr. Parker?

Clyde

KenpoProfessor
04-29-2007, 7:37 AM
. Most agencies can't afford to issue patrol rifles to each officer....as you well know, no one takes better care of their weapon than the owner...so the law was enacted to save each of you tax dollars and the agency's budget.
I agree this shouldn't be an "us-vs-them" thing....either direction and you have to admit we wouldn't even be having this conversation in Arizona :)


Most agencies CAN'T afford to issue patrol rifles? Please explain.

And you're absolutley right, this is not a conversation we'd be having in AZ, FL, UT, WA, OR, ID, AK, VT, and many other states. It's become a CA, NY, MA, DC, and Chicago conversation.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

MrTenX
04-29-2007, 8:34 AM
Also, what sort of exemptions/limitations are there on peace officers owning burst/full-auto mode weapons?

Apparently none.

http://www.belleville.com/195/story/19985.html

Firearms case against 3rd trooper dismissed
Rifles at firing range touched off charges
Associated Press

EAST ST. LOUIS --The U.S. government has dropped charges against the last of three Illinois State Police officers who had been accused of illegally having machine guns.

James Crowe, a federal prosecutor, on Tuesday dropped a felony charge that Special Agent John Yard of Collinsville illegally possessed a machine gun. In exchange, 37-year-old Yard accepted responsibility and will do 30 hours of community service.

Charges against Illinois State Police Sgt. James Vest, 40, of O'Fallon and Senior Master Trooper Greg Mugge, 52, of Jerseyville already had been dismissed.

A fourth defendant, Harold Griffiths of Spaulding, Ill., is scheduled for trial in August on related federal charges. But Crowe told the judge Tuesday "there have been communications" between both sides, signaling charges against Griffiths also soon may be addressed.

The three troopers and Griffiths were indicted in January 2006 after officers were seen with automatic AR-15 and M-4 rifles the year before at a Greenville federal prison's firing range.

There was no claim any of the defendants used the weapons in any crimes.

Yard told investigators that he had gotten an AR-15 from Griffiths, according to court documents.

Griffiths, 70, told authorities he was unaware the AR-15 was fully automatic when he bought it, adding that he had been a California reserve officer for 10 years and bought many of the guns he owns during that time. Griffiths said he offered an AR-15 to Yard, a friend, who wanted "a more powerful weapon in today's environment."

The prosecution of the case collapsed after Vest argued that the federal law banning unlicensed possession has an exception for law enforcers. The government countered that the exception applies to a department, not to individual officers.

A federal judge threw out the case against Vest last August, ruling the federal law "unconstitutionally vague."

Mugge pleaded guilty last July to a charge of possessing an unregistered, fully-automatic AR-15. But that officer later successfully asked a judge to throw out the case.

Mugge has retired. Yard and Vest were relieved of duty with pay pending an administrative review, a State Police spokesman has said.

In court Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Michael Reagan offered to write Yard a letter of support. When Reagan asked if he had his job back, the trooper replied, "I believe so."

Afterward, Yard's lawyer, Bill Lucco, called the outcome "a good ending to a strange and bizarre journey."

Obviously Orwell was right, ...."some animals are more equal than others".

This is particularly annoying in light of whats happening to member BlackwaterOps.

ViPER395
04-29-2007, 9:52 AM
Aren't LEOs exempt from required handgun registration?

Dump1567
04-29-2007, 12:46 PM
Aren't LEOs exempt from required handgun registration?

No. Unless it's a dept. issued gun, all new privately purchased handguns require DROS and a 10 day wait. At time of DROS, make, model, serial #, etc. are registered to the purchaser.

ViPER395
04-29-2007, 3:50 PM
No. Unless it's a dept. issued gun, all new privately purchased handguns require DROS and a 10 day wait. At time of DROS, make, model, serial #, etc. are registered to the purchaser.

I misspoke. I meant LEOs are legally allowed to posess UNREGISTERED handguns.

In other words.. like the ones you plant on suspects.

Solidmch
04-29-2007, 4:24 PM
I misspoke. I meant LEOs are legally allowed to posess UNREGISTERED handguns.

In other words.. like the ones you plant on suspects.

What is wrong with you? :confused:

Dump1567
04-29-2007, 4:29 PM
I misspoke. I meant LEOs are legally allowed to posess UNREGISTERED handguns.

In other words.. like the ones you plant on suspects.

Is that your attempt to be funny?

Or to improve an already sour relationship with the few remaining LEO's on this board?

And you wonder why the average street cop isn't getting the info. about off-list lowers.:rolleyes:

SkyStorm82
04-29-2007, 4:31 PM
I misspoke. I meant LEOs are legally allowed to posess UNREGISTERED handguns.

In other words.. like the ones you plant on suspects.


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b279/skystorm82/hre.gif

SkyStorm82
04-29-2007, 4:34 PM
And you wonder why the average street cop isn't getting the info. about off-list lowers.:rolleyes:

I'm doing my best to let all my buddies know. My reach isn't far yet but I'm doing what I can.

gunrun45
04-29-2007, 4:55 PM
The AW must be purchased on Department letterhead with the authorization of your Chief, Sheriff, etc...
They ARE NOT that easy to come by in most dept. due to political antics and worries about liability to the dept. Some CHP Lt's have issued letters and I know CHP officers that have bought them (one recently bought one of mine).

I do know some Chief's that are really cool and will issue a letter for just about anything.

I do know a DOJ firearms officer that recently bought a Galil assault rifle on DOJ leterhead...try and prove that he carries that while on duty! I gues I'm jsut jealous though becasue my Chief won't write any more letters :(

By the way, I pass the word on legal configured AR's and AK's etc... on the OLL issue almost every day to officers that don't know. Your welcome for trying to pass the good word.

socom308
04-29-2007, 4:58 PM
I stated the following regarding Desertdawgs post:First off, without any factual basis or citation of verifiable information, DesertDawg fly's off with the assertion that his delusional statement is actual fact (DesertDawg, if your post was in regards to NFA weapons and not standard assault weapons, then I apologize. Otherwise, I don't). InFlamez asked his question to be answered by peace officers or knowledgeable citizens; it appears based on his post that DesertDawg is neither. If you cannot answer the question factually, don't put your "opinion" or what you heard at the gun store on an internet board and represent it as the truth.

DesertDawg contacted me regarding his post and clarified the context of his statement. I therefore rescind the above.

KenpoProfessor, your reading comprehension skills seem to be lacking. Maybe you should think about what you read rather than worry about how you feel about what you are reading, this appears to be clouding your logic:

Your last statement is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. There is no reason whatsoever for you to rally on behalf of the citizens= Us vs. Them. You've shown nothing in your posts that's indicative of anything that would dispute that. I'm thinking maybe we should campaign to have these privleges for LEO's removed, you know, for the children. It tends to make the sheeple feel better knowing that criminals won't be able break into SWAT vans and steal fully auto firearms and other assault weapons by removing the temptation.


That sounds like it makes a whole lot of sense to me, try and take something away from someone else because they can have it and you can't. Is this what you told mommy to do when Billy was given a go kart and you couldn't have one. I guess that Billy shouldn't have that go kart because that would make him "better than the average kid". As if Billy had control over the matter.:rolleyes:

You then state: You weren't perhaps in that video of the gun confiscations in NOLA were you?

I would not be caught dead participating in such an activity, but thanks for the inflammatory statement. You must have been too busy feeling your way through my response to have read the following:To be clear on the issue of the AW ban, I do not personally advocate or support the enactment of laws which limit only the law abiding citizenry,and are contrary to the constitution and federal statutes.



Was your Kenpo instructor Mr. Parker?


No he was not, I studied under one of his first generation black belts (whose name need not be involved in this conversation) and my stepfather is a 5th degree under said instructor as well. I stopped studying Kenpo many years ago as a green belt, if that's important to you. But none of that is really relevant to the topic, so lets keep the honorable Ed Parkers name out of this please.

veeklog
04-29-2007, 5:49 PM
I misspoke. I meant LEOs are legally allowed to posess UNREGISTERED handguns.

In other words.. like the ones you plant on suspects.

Dude, You have been watching too much television. Do you honestly believe that I or any other LEO on this board would plant a gun on someone? I make six figures in my job, and I'll be damned if I plant a gun on anyone, even the worst human being I have ever met!! I know that many of us LEO's on this board feel the same way, and don't feel special about it.

As far as the a/w laws goes, I have my AUG and short barreled shotgun issued to me by my agency; Yet I own five OLL's and registered AR. Do I believe that every person in California be allowed to own a/w's and standard capacity magazines? Absolutely!! If you pay your taxes and are a good citizen, then by all means, own what you want within the scope of the law.

1911_sfca
04-29-2007, 7:09 PM
Wow.. p4wn3d by socom308. Let's close the thread and move on.

ViPER395
04-29-2007, 10:16 PM
So LEOs cannot posess undocumented handguns?
Thank God.


I was kiddin' about the gun planting part. You guys must wear tight panties.

InFlamez
04-29-2007, 10:18 PM
I feel like I just watched a Jerry Springer show (eventhough I don't). :D This has no doubt been evidence of message board entertainment at its best.
But seriously, isn't this what America's all about. Speak your mind, just don't fly off the handle and threaten or kill the person next to you because it's not going to solve a darn thing.
Everyone seems to have valid opinions for the most part; some more than others of course. All in all, I was initially looking for a simple answer to a simple question. Somehow a debate arose about whether or not LEOs should have the authority that they do have. I think it's stupid to question that authority, unless of course that authority is ever abused, because sworn officers have to jump through so many "hoops" to become public servants 24/7.
I don't know about some of you, but I'd hate to work my current day job 24/7. Ugghh!
Peace officers swear an oath to do so with honor, honesty, integrity, and dedication regardless of the circumstances (meaning it doesn't matter if they found out their best friend killed someone, they're required by oath to take action). God forbid a police officer try to do their duty (whether in uniform or not) to save the lives of others holding a 6 shot revolver while a criminal wreaks havoc with an illegaly acquired AKM. That used to be the case and it's pretty obvious that the law has changed for the better to allow for LEOs to better defend themselves and the public since.
I could go on forever, but i'm sure so many other debates could arise just from the past two paragraphs that I've written. Bottom line.....or atleast what I've learned, and probably knew all along but just needed some clarification is that....Peace Officers aren't "ordinary citizens" in alot of ways; and they do have special priviledges when it comes to the possession and use of specialized weaponry as a necessity for doing their jobs.
That just makes sense to me. Especially since I'm quickly finding out about all that I have to go through just to get into the academy to try and become a sworn peace officer in this state. But you know what......it's worth it to me, and I'm sure it was worth it to every other LEO on this board that was once in my shoes. Enough said.

InFlamez
04-29-2007, 11:03 PM
P.S.

...It tends to make the sheeple feel better knowing that criminals won't be able break into SWAT vans and steal fully auto firearms and other assault weapons by removing the temptation.



No offense buddy...but I'd like to see you try and break into a SWAT vehicle. From what I understand they're more like armored trucks nowadays and usually heavily guarded by well trained SWAT officers when they are in use or carrying any cache of weapons.
Now I know criminals are dumb, but most of them aren't stupid enough to try and break into a SWAT vehicle for guns they can most likely get on their own.
I'm not too worried about that temptation.

Just a thought. :)

KenpoProfessor
04-30-2007, 6:07 AM
P.S.



No offense buddy...but I'd like to see you try and break into a SWAT vehicle. From what I understand they're more like armored trucks nowadays and usually heavily guarded by well trained SWAT officers when they are in use or carrying any cache of weapons.
Now I know criminals are dumb, but most of them aren't stupid enough to try and break into a SWAT vehicle for guns they can most likely get on their own.
I'm not too worried about that temptation.

Just a thought. :)

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=56087&highlight=stolen+weapons

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

iwas830
04-30-2007, 9:46 AM
[QUOTE=KenpoProfessor;592115]Most agencies CAN'T afford to issue patrol rifles? Please explain.

I work for a 25 man agency who can only afford to have 4 ARs...and only has a $7,000 firearms training/purchase budget, and a range we have to pay to use for training. If you factor in ammunition, including taser and pepperball and range costs we go in the red about this time each fiscal year.

Most people think all LE agencies are huge 250 man depts, when the truth is in CA most agencies are under 60 officers. Firearms budgets set most agencies into the red each year.

So the International Chiefs of Police petitioned DOJ to make the LEO exemption which allows for LEOs to buy personal ARs to better equip their officers.

Sure one added bonus was the fact that we now own an AR, but that was not it's original intent and hey are you telling me given the opportunity you wouldn't buy one because you didn't want to feel superior to your civilian counterpart, I mean really!!!

KenpoProfessor
04-30-2007, 10:00 AM
[QUOTE=KenpoProfessor;592115]Most agencies CAN'T afford to issue patrol rifles? Please explain.

I work for a 25 man agency who can only afford to have 4 ARs...and only has a $7,000 firearms training/purchase budget, and a range we have to pay to use for training. If you factor in ammunition, including taser and pepperball and range costs we go in the red about this time each fiscal year.

Most people think all LE agencies are huge 250 man depts, when the truth is in CA most agencies are under 60 officers. Firearms budgets set most agencies into the red each year.

So the International Chiefs of Police petitioned DOJ to make the LEO exemption which allows for LEOs to buy personal ARs to better equip their officers.

Sure one added bonus was the fact that we now own an AR, but that was not it's original intent and hey are you telling me given the opportunity you wouldn't buy one because you didn't want to feel superior to your civilian counterpart, I mean really!!!


Thank you, this is very interesting and I had no idea, well, which is why I asked.

With what you've said, are there any cost cutting areas to better your firearms budget? Has anyone searched for BLM land to train instead of using a paid for range. As a LEA, I'm sure you guys could get permission to use it for free or find alternatives to the dilemma (personally I'd vote for you to come to Compton LOL)

I've got a C & R and a COE which is evidence that I'm not a hazard to the general population LOL. Shouldn't credentials such as these also give us the ability to buy what's NOT on the list or to register what CA deems as an AW? The thing is, if everyone could own one, you wouldn't need special treatment to get one for your job either. And as was said before, we wouldn't be having this chat in AZ, NM, PA, AK, VT, etc. LOL.

Thanks for your openess

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

iwas830
04-30-2007, 10:15 AM
Kenpo,

We have explored using public lands, but then you have to expect a minimum of 1 hours drive in Ventura County and then you would have to pay the officer, overitme if he's off, and the ones on duty wouldn't be able to attend.
And trust me this generation of cops its all about the money!!!

Just joking...young bucks, don't bite my head off, I know there are cops that still do it for the right reasons...sheees!!!

You know I'm one of those lifetime members of the NRA so I personally think you should be able to own anything you want as long as you are responsible and don't endanger the lives of others....then again that's why when I retire in 7 years I'm going to AZ.

KenpoProfessor
04-30-2007, 10:23 AM
Kenpo,

We have explored using public lands, but then you have to expect a minimum of 1 hours drive in Ventura County and then you would have to pay the officer, overitme if he's off, and the ones on duty wouldn't be able to attend.
And trust me this generation of cops its all about the money!!!

Just joking...young bucks, don't bite my head off, I know there are cops that still do it for the right reasons...sheees!!!

You know I'm one of those lifetime members of the NRA so I personally think you should be able to own anything you want as long as you are responsible and don't endanger the lives of others....then again that's why when I retire in 7 years I'm going to AZ.

Not just money, power. Both of my brothers are LEOs, and one I don't talk to anymore because he's got an US vs. Them mentality. He's getting the charma back from his choice in wives though LOL.

Have a great Kenpo day

Cyde

InFlamez
04-30-2007, 11:04 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=56087&highlight=stolen+weapons

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

That is pretty unbelievable. I like the comments about Reno 911. :D
In the back of my mind something is telling me that these SWAT officers might have been a bunch of Memphis yokels, pretending to be as well trained as some of the more elite law enforcement agencies in the U.S. (i.e. LAPD, NYPD, etc.) I'm not hating on the Memphis PD or anything, but it does make sense and might be possible that some departments within the U.S. make poor efforts in establishing and properly training their SWAT teams.
It just makes me wonder whether or not someone would be able to get away with that sort of heist in LA or Oakland for instance. I highly doubt it, but evidently some criminals are stupid enough to try.

Thanks for the info.

mcubed4130
04-30-2007, 11:47 PM
LEO's have all the exemptions that *we the people* (i.e. everyone who votes in this country - including the arbitrary dead people that still vote absentee, or the people who don't seem to have any record of being a US citizen - but law says you aren't allowed to check their ID) gave them.

Get over it...

You don't like the laws... contact your "Elected Representative" and tell them what you think...

I have my local, state, and federal representatives - in my bookmark list, and fax numbers in speed dial on my fax machine.

You don't like the additional "perks" that LEO have. Deal with the people that gave them the "perks" - deal with the real problem... We have elected "representatives" who don't represent any of us, 95% of the time.

Ok fine... make that 99.99% of the time. :mad:

And they stay in power, because more than 50% of the people who vote, don't know or care that they are only being served 0.01% of the time.

-M3

hardkore909
05-01-2007, 10:12 AM
Desert Dawg is 100% wrong. The law in CA allows for individually purchased and owned assault weapons by LEO's, and no you don't have to turn them in when you retire. I don't feel like looking up the penal code for you, but look for posts under my name and you will find it. I personally have three AR15's an M1A SOCOM in a SAGE stock and some Soviet Bloc hardware on the way.

By the way, I don't make the rules, so don't ***** to me about all the "LEO's shouldn't have special rights" BS. You wanna do something about that go out and campaign/vote for change, or move.:cool:


It's up to the LEO's agency if he can get them. LEO's can not get banned weapons just because they want them. If they do get them it has to be approved by the chief of their department and the said weapon has to be for department use.

scootergmc
05-01-2007, 10:16 AM
It's up to the LEO's agency if he can get them. LEO's can not get banned weapons just because they want them. If they do get them it has to be approved by the chief of their department and the said weapon has to be for department use.


You are wrong. They don't have to be for department use. See my post. Look it up.

hardkore909
05-01-2007, 10:18 AM
You are wrong. They don't have to be for department use. See my post. Look it up.

ca penal code 12280

(2) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not prohibit the delivery, transfer, or sale of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle to, or the possession of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle by, a sworn peace officer member of an agency specified in subdivision (e), provided that the peace officer is authorized by his or her employer to possess or receive the assault weapon or the .50 BMG rifle. Required authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the head of the agency, identifying the recipient or possessor of the assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to receive or possess the specific assault weapon. For this exemption to apply, in the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2002, the officer shall register the assault weapon pursuant to Section 12285 on or before April 1, 2002; in the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives the assault weapon on or after January 1, 2002, the officer shall register the assault weapon pursuant to Section 12285 not later than 90 days after possession or receipt. In the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives a .50 BMG rifle on or before January 1, 2005, the officer shall register the .50 BMG rifle on or before April 30, 2006. In the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives a .50 BMG rifle after January 1, 2005, the officer shall register the .50 BMG rifle not later than one year after possession or receipt. The peace officer must include with the registration, a copy of the authorization required pursuant to this paragraph.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or prohibit the delivery, transfer, or sale of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle to, or the possession of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle by, a member of a federal law enforcement agency provided that person is authorized by the employing agency to possess the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle.

scootergmc
05-01-2007, 10:23 AM
ca penal code 12280

(2) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not prohibit the delivery, transfer, or sale of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle to, or the possession of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle by, a sworn peace officer member of an agency specified in subdivision (e), provided that the peace officer is authorized by his or her employer to possess or receive the assault weapon or the .50 BMG rifle. Required authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the head of the agency, identifying the recipient or possessor of the assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to receive or possess the specific assault weapon. For this exemption to apply, in the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2002, the officer shall register the assault weapon pursuant to Section 12285 on or before April 1, 2002; in the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives the assault weapon on or after January 1, 2002, the officer shall register the assault weapon pursuant to Section 12285 not later than 90 days after possession or receipt. In the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives a .50 BMG rifle on or before January 1, 2005, the officer shall register the .50 BMG rifle on or before April 30, 2006. In the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives a .50 BMG rifle after January 1, 2005, the officer shall register the .50 BMG rifle not later than one year after possession or receipt. The peace officer must include with the registration, a copy of the authorization required pursuant to this paragraph.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or prohibit the delivery, transfer, or sale of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle to, or the possession of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle by, a member of a federal law enforcement agency provided that person is authorized by the employing agency to possess the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle.


Good job!! Now show me where it has to be for department use. Oh wait, you won't find it, because it's not a requirement. It just requires an agency letter indicating, "identifying the recipient or possessor of the assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to receive or possess the specific assault weapon."

Trust me, LEO's can get personal AW's.

eta34
05-01-2007, 10:30 AM
I can vouch for that. Our last chief signed off on AR's. We have our own department-issued ones, so these were clearly for personal use.

hardkore909
05-01-2007, 10:40 AM
Good job!! Now show me where it has to be for department use. Oh wait, you won't find it, because it's not a requirement. It just requires an agency letter indicating, "identifying the recipient or possessor of the assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to receive or possess the specific assault weapon."

Trust me, LEO's can get personal AW's.
(PC12280)
(f) (1) Subdivisions (b) and (c) shall not prohibit the possession or use of assault weapons or a .50 BMG rifle by sworn peace officer members of those agencies specified in subdivision (e) for law enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty.

Need more proof that LEO's are not supposed to get AW's for personal use?

scootergmc
05-01-2007, 11:04 AM
(PC12280)
(f) (1) Subdivisions (b) and (c) shall not prohibit the possession or use of assault weapons or a .50 BMG rifle by sworn peace officer members of those agencies specified in subdivision (e) for law enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty.
nothing in the PC states anything about personal use


Good work, you're almost there. ;)

12280(f)(1) specifically refers to possession by peace officers for department purposes, whether on or off duty, i.e., a take home weapon, making them exempt from prosecution under 12280(b) and (c).

The NEXT section, 12280(f)(2), the one you already quoted, specifically allows personal possession of AW's.

An LEO on this board is telling you that it's legal. What don't you get? There are departments doing illegal activity? How does DOJ stand for this?

edit: cliffnotes: (f)(1) allows for possession for LEO purposes. (f)(2) allows for possession just because they're LEO's.

hardkore909
05-01-2007, 11:13 AM
section (f)(2) specifically refers back to subdivision (e)

(2) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not prohibit the delivery, transfer, or sale of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle to, or the possession of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle by, a sworn peace officer member of an agency specified in subdivision (e),which requires that it be used for law enforcement purposes.

You are wrong. The authorization is given so that the rifle can be used personally during the course of the job or for job related events (law enforcement purposes). That is stated right in the PC. If you want to consider that personal use then so be it. Like most cops you will never admit when you are wrong.

scootergmc
05-01-2007, 11:20 AM
section (f)(2) specifically refers back to section (e) which requires that it be used for law enforcement purposes. You are wrong. The authorization is given so that the rifle can be used personally during the course of the job or for job related events. If you want to consider that personal use then so be it. Like most cops you will never admit when you are wrong.

Read it dude: it says shall not prohibit the delivery, transfer, or sale of an assault weapon .... by, a sworn peace officer member of an agency specified in subdivision (e) (there's your referral to (e)) if the peace officer is authorized by his or her employer to possess or receive the assault weapon, etc.......

The referral to 12280(e) is specifically for the purpose of identifying who is a peace officer. One more time--- nothing prohibits LEOs from owning AW's. You just need a letter....

:rolleyes:

hardkore909
05-01-2007, 11:21 AM
Good work, you're almost there. ;)

12280(f)(1) specifically refers to possession by peace officers for department purposes, whether on or off duty, i.e., a take home weapon, making them exempt from prosecution under 12280(b) and (c).

The NEXT section, 12280(f)(2), the one you already quoted, specifically allows personal possession of AW's.

An LEO on this board is telling you that it's legal. What don't you get? There are departments doing illegal activity? How does DOJ stand for this?

edit: cliffnotes: (f)(1) allows for possession for LEO purposes. (f)(2) allows for possession just because they're LEO's.


I didnt say they can not possess them. Im just saying that they are not for personal use, which as quoted in the PC they are for law enforcement purposes. The point I was making was for whoever said they purchased them for "personal use".

scootergmc
05-01-2007, 11:23 AM
They can be for personal use. Sorry man.

hardkore909
05-01-2007, 11:27 AM
I believe you are wrong my new friend. We can go back and forth on this for hours. This is how jacked up the CA gun laws are. Everyone has a different interpretation of what they read. Someone might read this and agree with me, while another may agree with you. Lets just let them come to their own conclusions. I must go now and process some stolen weapons b4 my Sgt catches me on here. Have a great cali day :D

eta34
05-01-2007, 11:31 AM
"Like most cops you will never admit when you are wrong."

Take your anti-cop nonsense elsewhere....I don't appreciate how your disagreement over the interpretation of a law now turns into a personal attack against all LEOs. Grow up or go away.

scootergmc
05-01-2007, 11:32 AM
believe you are wrong my new friend. We can go back and forth on this for hours. This is how jacked up the CA gun laws are. Everyone has a different interpretation of what they read. Someone might read this and agree with me, while another may agree with you. Lets just let them come to their own conclusions. I must go now and process some stolen weapons b4 my Sgt catches me on here. Have a great cali day


They're not jacked up as to this issue (well it is jacked up prohibiting us commoners). It's very clear. Here's the DOJ old school memo on the issue...
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/0105.pdf You can ignore the federal BS since it doesn't apply anymore.

You have a good day too!

hardkore909
05-01-2007, 11:49 AM
"Like most cops you will never admit when you are wrong."

Take your anti-cop nonsense elsewhere....I don't appreciate how your disagreement over the interpretation of a law now turns into a personal attack against all LEOs. Grow up or go away.

anti-cop nonsense?? Saying cops dont like to admit when they are wrong is not anti-cop. HA! Me go away? I dont think so. My family works for the DA's office, my spouse works for sbso, and i work for an IE department. so how about you go away and dont accuse me of being something that you have no idea about. Not only do I work for an IE department im also an OIF OEF VET. Want to also accuse me of being anti-military or US govt?

scootergmc
05-01-2007, 11:53 AM
If your family works for the DA's office, just ask them on this AW issue. It's abundantly clear.

hardkore909
05-01-2007, 11:55 AM
If your family works for the DA's office, just ask them on this AW issue. It's abundantly clear.

They told me its up to the department chief to sign off on it. My chief will not let regular officers have AW's for off duty use unless they are SWAT.

Rem1492
05-01-2007, 12:03 PM
My chief will not let regular officers have AW's for off duty use unless they are SWAT.


good to know they trust you with civilian lives, but not a rifle in your free time :)

eta34
05-01-2007, 12:10 PM
Well, I have worked for two departments...both chiefs have signed off on them for PERSONAL use...that is a fact.

scootergmc
05-01-2007, 12:21 PM
They told me its up to the department chief to sign off on it. My chief will not let regular officers have AW's for off duty use unless they are SWAT.


EXACTLY. Department policy dictates. If the department head (Chief) doesn't want to give an employee a letter, then that employee can't get an AW. Simple as that.

hardkore909
05-01-2007, 12:31 PM
EXACTLY. Department policy dictates. If the department head (Chief) doesn't want to give an employee a letter, then that employee can't get an AW. Simple as that.

They also stated for use as authorized by the chief, not for personal use.

scootergmc
05-01-2007, 1:10 PM
I give up. You need to learn to read.

socom308
05-01-2007, 2:38 PM
Lets put it this way, name one thing that I might be doing legally with my registered AW's off duty that doesn't directly relate to the handling/use of said equipment on duty? Marksmanship training? Check. Tactical training? Check. Safe handling and or rendering the firearm safe? Check. All of those actions are performed whenever I use my personally owned, departmentally approved AW's (that are not permitted to be used on duty) on my personal time.

InFlamez
05-01-2007, 10:29 PM
Wow! I can't believe that this has now turned into a debate amongst law enforcement personnel.
Apparently my initial question is recieving the most accurate answer possible. I'm grateful for the extensive and thorough info since this is an important question amongst most civilians that I know who do privately own "Assault Weapons."
Most agree that the possession and use of AWs for on-duty purposes would of course be legal, but they also believe that it'd be illegal for personnel to possess and use personal AWs while not on duty. It's a strange situation, but it does make sense that a department chief's approval would certify possession and use for either purpose since the overall emphasis is on essential training and tactics.

Moonclip
05-01-2007, 10:45 PM
Dude, You have been watching too much television. Do you honestly believe that I or any other LEO on this board would plant a gun on someone? I make six figures in my job, and I'll be damned if I plant a gun on anyone, even the worst human being I have ever met!! I know that many of us LEO's on this board feel the same way, and don't feel special about it.

As far as the a/w laws goes, I have my AUG and short barreled shotgun issued to me by my agency; Yet I own five OLL's and registered AR. Do I believe that every person in California be allowed to own a/w's and standard capacity magazines? Absolutely!! If you pay your taxes and are a good citizen, then by all means, own what you want within the scope of the law.


I do agree with you and seriously doubt LE members of this board or the vast majority of LE personel "plant guns" (or drugs) on people. However like most elements of society there are those bad apples who taint the whole batch, especially bad in a LE context due to them being sworn to uphold the law.

Rampart and the recent case in Atlanta being two examples. The "us vs. them" mentality and increased militarization of LE in the USA I'm sure also bugs many people.

scootergmc
05-02-2007, 7:19 AM
Wow! I can't believe that this has now turned into a debate amongst law enforcement personnel.
Apparently my initial question is recieving the most accurate answer possible. I'm grateful for the extensive and thorough info since this is an important question amongst most civilians that I know who do privately own "Assault Weapons."
Most agree that the possession and use of AWs for on-duty purposes would of course be legal, but they also believe that it'd be illegal for personnel to possess and use personal AWs while not on duty. It's a strange situation, but it does make sense that a department chief's approval would certify possession and use for either purpose since the overall emphasis is on essential training and tactics.

You think it wouldn't turn into a debate, but such is the nature of the internet...

Here's all you need to know. Read my posts. I'm right. Anyone in disagreement is wrong. :D

KenpoProfessor
05-02-2007, 8:41 AM
Here's a few words from Wikipedia.

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

I would also suggest reading these as well.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=273829

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=272193&highlight=National+Reciprocity





Police Reform
It was at this point that he established Metropolitan Police Force for London based at Scotland Yard. The 1,000 constables employed were affectionately nicknamed 'Bobbies' or, somewhat less affectionately, 'Peelers' (both terms are still used today). Although at first unpopular, they proved very successful in cutting crime in London, and by 1835 all cities in the UK were being directed to form their own police forces—see Policing in the United Kingdom. (Actually, the authorities in Stalybridge, Cheshire had set up their own police force some two years earlier and so Peel was aware of this success of "police forces" before he "introduced" them in London.[citation needed] The city of Glasgow, Scotland had also had its own police force since 1800.) Known as the father of modern policing, Robert Peel developed the Peelian Principles which defined the ethical requirements police officers must follow in order to be effective. His most memorable principle was, "the police are the public, and the public are the police."

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

KenpoProfessor
05-02-2007, 3:36 PM
And here's yet another reason we don't have trust in LEOs, and why they should NOT have special considerations. These guys exist in all forms, but this is an exception.

http://usmarshals.gov/investigations/most_wanted/freeman/freeman15.pdf


http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=24358

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

hardkore909
05-02-2007, 4:09 PM
I might be wrong but will never admit it... Just ask the ex-wife..lol Wait, that skank is wrong, dont ask her!!! :D

LAHeat
12-22-2007, 10:46 PM
And here's yet another reason we don't have trust in LEOs, and why they should NOT have special considerations. These guys exist in all forms, but this is an exception.

http://usmarshals.gov/investigations/most_wanted/freeman/freeman15.pdf


http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=24358

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

And your point is?