PDA

View Full Version : LE cant get a new AW.


CavTrooper
12-13-2007, 6:09 AM
text lifted from a post on another site... Whattya mean I cant buy an AR10! I am the PO-PO!

I just learned that DPMS wont do business in CA. Not cant, just wont. I ordered an LR-308 to replace my duty Dalphon M16 sniper/observer. The Dalphon is great-1/4 MOA on a good day, but I wanted a 308 so we can all use the same ammo. I've heard good things, and Im the one that can and will make decisions for the team. Our admin will not, however let me order on a whim- so I usually buy/order something and shoot the crap out of it. Plus then its mine, and I dont have to give it back.

So I call the shop, they place the order, no problem. I call DPMS as I have a thousand questions about what will fit, trigger options, shipping times(2007 taxes you know). DPMS confirms the order has been placed, mentions that they have been doing business with the shop for years. I ask them if they need a dept letter, blessing from DOJ, first born child. Nope, just have the shop send us a current FFL stating that they can handle the evil black rifle. Told me the rifle is in stock- just waiting for the paperwork.

Time goes by. No rifle. Call the shop- we are waiting for it we'll call you. I call DPMS. Oh yeah, sorry we wont ship any firearms to CA. CA said that we were "bad" so we wont do business there. Not cant, just wont. They even said that I could buy a diff lower that would work with the DPMS upper.

So CA cops(of what ever variety) are the only ones to be able to buy these things. So what DPMS is really saying is -we wont sell to cops in CA.

Shop told me yesterday- buy an Armalite AR10, they'll send it, no problem. Armalite=$$$
Id buy a PSG1 if money wasn't an factor, but this is something that Im gonna have to defend to admin.

A couple of posts go by, most saying "too bad, thats CA for ya" and a couple where the OP whines a bit, no bigge. Then this:

Louis- DPMS will sell to an agency in CA. They CAN sell to officers also. They just wont. I have purchased several banned guns here with a letter from the big guy saying it is for duty use, etc. For another $1000 I can buy the same gun from Armalite, and for a second mortgage I can buy the same gun from Knights.
I can buy anything except a short barreled rifle/shotgun or a select fire weapon.
Smokshwn- DPMS said they WONT. One of their guys is supposed to be going to bat for me with the owner to see if he'll make an exception. Sure doesn't sound like a can't to me. At this point I'm waiting, as asked, to see what happens. I am liking that FAR308 from Fulton Armory though. My gun guy says he can get it. Even here in Lil ol CA
I hate the politics behind firearms. I'm a shooter. There's some pretty cool stuff here on this site, I'm glad I found it. Great info.
And to the guy who said I should just buy one out of state- uh no can do, wish I could. Things are going to get worse in 2008, part of the reason I'm in such a rush. Now, does anyone know where I can buy an M60 and 3 micro Uzi's.

Just kidding.

Whattya supposed hes speaking of?

OK, so Bushy isnt selling to CA LE? Good!
Every firearms manufacture needs to stop sales to CA LE, (maybe the body armor guys as well. :cool:)

RANGER295
12-13-2007, 6:41 AM
I think that it is great that DPMS will not sell to CA LE. I know I sure as hell wouldnít and I agree with CavTrooper that no firearms company and I would go as far as to say any pro-firearms company should do so.

But yea, I am really curious as to what is going to get so bad in 2008. Is there something obvious that I have somehow missed? Should I put in some rush orders in the next TWO MORE WEEKS?

formerTexan
12-13-2007, 9:24 AM
I think DPMS, in addition to getting screwed around by the CADOJ/FD-BOF, also don't agree with CA's policy of allowing LE to buy AW's that they can keep after quiting, that regular folks can't.

It seems like the agency can get the rifle, just not the individual officer, so whats the problem if its primarily for "duty use"?

bwiese
12-13-2007, 9:29 AM
Seems DPMS has been confused about a variety of CA issues and I think they just voted with their feet. I think they're actually a fairly small operation and just don't wanna put staff time on such details.

I spoke to some senior DPMS folks on tour this April, and they were very nice, glad to sell parts but wanted to shy away otherwise. I was trying to get them to get rid of "Panther" on LR308 but their response was to go buy a Fulton - aside from OLL matters, "Panther Arms" is part of their branding strategy and they don't wanna deviate from that.

5150-417
12-13-2007, 9:30 AM
What brand of m-16's do the Marines use? I was talking with one of my Marine buddies and he couldn't stop talking about dpms, so I assumed that they use dpms. Any Marines here that could answer my question?

bwiese
12-13-2007, 9:37 AM
What brand of m-16's do the Marines use? I was talking with one of my Marine buddies and he couldn't stop talking about dpms, so I assumed that they use dpms. Any Marines here that could answer my question?

Your friend is just talking about DPMS cuz he likes 'em for whatever reason.

It is so HIGHLY unlikely it's essentially impossible that a DPMS rifle of any sort would be in general use by USMC. Sure, some special unit or the marksmanship unit might have one or two in house for eval, etc. But that's not 'part of the system'.

They'll either be FN-mfg'd M16s (Colt lost the contract a decade or so ago), older Colt M16s, or Colt M4s - just like the rest of US .mil.

Even if everything about DPMS were OK, they don't generally produce chrome-lined bbls on 4150 steel so that eliminates the upper (and thus the system) from consideration.

When you sell something to Uncle Sugar there's a whole line of approvals, testing, training, spares, etc. that need to be part of the deal. Little guys can't do this. It takes a Colt or FN with a whole department/team set up for gov't relations as well as a test/compliance group, etc.

mk19
12-13-2007, 9:41 AM
What brand of m-16's do the Marines use? I was talking with one of my Marine buddies and he couldn't stop talking about dpms, so I assumed that they use dpms. Any Marines here that could answer my question?

military m16/m4 are made by colt, at least that is what i had.

dicast
12-13-2007, 10:19 AM
I think DPMS, in addition to getting screwed around by the CADOJ/FD-BOF, also don't agree with CA's policy of allowing LE to buy AW's that they can keep after quiting, that regular folks can't.

It seems like the agency can get the rifle, just not the individual officer, so whats the problem if its primarily for "duty use"?

Keeping it after quiting? I don't think so not unless DOJ changed their policy that I don't know of.

bwiese
12-13-2007, 10:40 AM
Keeping it after quiting? I don't think so not unless DOJ changed their policy that I don't know of.

Yes, IIRC, they can keep after quitting. I think it's not DOJ policy but hidden in the law - haven't really looked in that area for awhile.

Sgt Raven
12-13-2007, 10:50 AM
Your friend is just talking about DPMS cuz he likes 'em for whatever reason.

It is so HIGHLY unlikely it's essentially impossible that a DPMS rifle of any sort would be in general use by USMC. Sure, some special unit or the marksmanship unit might have one or two in house for eval, etc. But that's not 'part of the system'.

They'll either be FN-mfg'd M16s (Colt lost the contract a decade or so ago), older Colt M16s, or Colt M4s - just like the rest of US .mil.

Even if everything about DPMS were OK, they don't generally produce chrome-lined bbls on 4150 steel so that eliminates the upper (and thus the system) from consideration.

When you sell something to Uncle Sugar there's a whole line of approvals, testing, training, spares, etc. that need to be part of the deal. Little guys can't do this. It takes a Colt or FN with a whole department/team set up for gov't relations as well as a test/compliance group, etc.

I think Remington/DPMS submited a rifle to the SAS 7.62 test that KAC won.

hoffmang
12-13-2007, 10:58 AM
New AWs that are purchased by a LEO with a letter from his department get registered in his name. Once it's registered to him and belongs to him its like any other regged AW from the law's perspective.

-Gene

MaceWindu
12-13-2007, 11:28 AM
I think that it is great that DPMS will not sell to CA LE. I know I sure as hell wouldnít and I agree with CavTrooper that no firearms company and I would go as far as to say any pro-firearms company should do so.


Bingo.

Louis- DPMS will sell to an agency in CA. They CAN sell to officers also. They just wont.

Even better.

Mace

chris
12-13-2007, 1:03 PM
a win for the good guys. glad to see another firearms company doing the same thing barret is doing. there is no reason police should be expempt from the dracoinian laws we are subjected to. not to bash LE. but i'm glad he did not get one. if we serfs can't get one he should not. maybe it's time for him to speak up for firearms rights in this state now.

AfricanHunter
12-13-2007, 1:13 PM
Things are going to get worse in 2008, part of the reason I'm in such a rush.

So is this comment just the result of DOJ FUD?

draconianruler
12-13-2007, 2:47 PM
Way to go DPMS. LE do not deserve special treatment over regular civilians. If the officer really wanted one, they even suggested getting a OLL :D

1911_sfca
12-13-2007, 3:04 PM
Have to admit.. I agree here and don't blame DPMS. If the officer wants to get teed off and raise a stink, he should do it regarding the complicated CA firearms laws and their enforcement (i.e. that the DOJ may have threatened DPMS about selling in CA), and not get angry at DPMS. If I were them I'd probably do the same thing.

USMC_2651_E5
12-13-2007, 7:12 PM
Hey guys, lets not start an us and them mentality because we just may split the calguns membership. There are a lot of LEO's here including me. I don't think that we, the people of California, should fight to make a LEO lose a rifle...I think we should fight to gain rifles for all (law abiding at least).

dustoff31
12-13-2007, 7:28 PM
I think we should fight to gain rifles for all (law abiding at least).

It seems to me that this is exactly what DPMS is doing. If an officer needs a DPMS rifle for duty use, they will sell it to his/her agency and they can issue it to him.

I'm sure they will be happy to sell to individual officers as soon as they can sell to any other non-prohibited person.

I'm certainly not anti-cop, but there is no denying that the current law is clearly a double standard.

CavTrooper
12-13-2007, 7:32 PM
Hey guys, lets not start an us and them mentality because we just may split the calguns membership. There are a lot of LEO's here including me. I don't think that we, the people of California, should fight to make a LEO lose a rifle...I think we should fight to gain rifles for all (law abiding at least).

I agree that we need to have a unified effort to rid ourselves of these crazy firearms laws, however, the line has been drawn between US and THEM by these laws and SOME LEOs feelings about thier position in the grand scheme of things. I would hope that MOST LEOs would feel the way WE (as calgunners) feel about the laws, but clearly there are some out there that feel they deserve special treatment because they are LE. Its unfortunate that the laws support this perception.
Hopefully, it gets worked out before it turns ugly for all of us.

Draven
12-13-2007, 8:15 PM
military m16/m4 are made by colt, at least that is what i had.

Not anymore. FN makes the M16s and many M4s now- in the U.S., though.

Hoop
12-13-2007, 8:36 PM
So is this comment just the result of DOJ FUD?

Maybe, could be changes in LEO dept's as well. I hear they are tightening up the "who can get a letter for what" type stuff.

CalNRA
12-13-2007, 9:37 PM
I'm sure they will be happy to sell to individual officers as soon as they can sell to any other non-prohibited person.

I'm certainly not anti-cop, but there is no denying that the current law is clearly a double standard.

yep.

Hey guys, lets not start an us and them mentality because we just may split the calguns membership. There are a lot of LEO's here including me. I don't think that we, the people of California, should fight to make a LEO lose a rifle...I think we should fight to gain rifles for all (law abiding at least).

the LEO community hasn't really shown themselves to care about what the civilians can buy. I'm curious as to why all of a sudden now there is a "gain rifles for all" when we are talking about a blanket ban on civilian ownership that makes exceptions for LEOs who can get letters. They can certainly buy OLLs and stick to ten round mags like the rest of Calguns is doing, and take the same risks with the 58 DAs.

I would be more than willing to help if there is any current effort in a major LEO group that wants to help to upturn the SB23.

J_Rock
12-13-2007, 9:45 PM
Like that will ever happen :rolleyes:

since most LEOs are more concerned with hassling civvies instead of taking the time to listen and learn about OLLs, bullet buttons and evil features

MrLogan
12-13-2007, 9:47 PM
Hell yeah. Bravo to DPMS. I wish more companies would stop selling to CA LE's. :mad:

socom308
12-13-2007, 9:53 PM
Two of my buddies at work recently received their freshly manufactured DPMS SASS rifles, and they are not for duty use. Maybe the guy in question just went through an FFL that pisssed off DPMS or something, I'm sure they'll never know.

dicast
12-13-2007, 10:39 PM
New AWs that are purchased by a LEO with a letter from his department get registered in his name. Once it's registered to him and belongs to him its like any other regged AW from the law's perspective.

-Gene

not according to DOJ. (09) page 5/5
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/0105.pdf

Gene, I wish that was true. I'll get the damn letter so last and long time ago. It's useless at this point.

USMC_2651_E5
12-13-2007, 11:43 PM
yep.



the LEO community hasn't really shown themselves to care about what the civilians can buy. I'm curious as to why all of a sudden now there is a "gain rifles for all" when we are talking about a blanket ban on civilian ownership that makes exceptions for LEOs who can get letters. They can certainly buy OLLs and stick to ten round mags like the rest of Calguns is doing, and take the same risks with the 58 DAs.

I would be more than willing to help if there is any current effort in a major LEO group that wants to help to upturn the SB23.

My chief refuses to sign letters so I am in the same group as you. I do not own an AW. But I have been here on Calguns since late 2006 doing my research and passing on the info. I personally have four OLLs and have assisted others, non-LEOs and LEOs in obtaining them. I can think of about eight off the top of my head, although I wish it were more. They each have OLLs and have been spreading the word too. Dont tell me that LEOs dont care, because I am and I do.

Another thing to think about is that the rank and file LEOs did not write the stupid laws that our fellow californians voted into existance. Why do you want to scare away the LEOs that do care by inadvertantly placing the blame on them rather than the legislators that wrote this crap or the idiots that voted for it?

Granted that not all LEOs support our beliefs, but why generalize and disuade those that do.

Draven
12-14-2007, 12:01 AM
Maybe, could be changes in LEO dept's as well. I hear they are tightening up the "who can get a letter for what" type stuff.

And they should tighten up on it. Equal protection violations aren't pretty.

dicast
12-14-2007, 12:10 AM
My chief refuses to sign letters so I am in the same group as you. I do not own an AW. But I have been here on Calguns since late 2006 doing my research and passing on the info. I personally have four OLLs and have assisted others, non-LEOs and LEOs in obtaining them. I can think of about eight off the top of my head, although I wish it were more. They each have OLLs and have been spreading the word too. Dont tell me that LEOs dont care, because I am and I do.

Another thing to think about is that the rank and file LEOs did not write the stupid laws that our fellow californians voted into existance. Why do you want to scare away the LEOs that do care by inadvertantly placing the blame on them rather than the legislators that wrote this crap or the idiots that voted for it?

Granted that not all LEOs support our beliefs, but why generalize and disuade those that do.

you said it! I'm in the same boat.

CalNRA
12-14-2007, 12:11 AM
Dont tell me that LEOs dont care, because I am and I do.



notice I said the LEO community. I don't doubt there are many LEOs who like to have ARs without having to beg for a letter, but the proportion of 2nd-friendly LEOs is much like the proportion of pro-2nd Democrats in the United States and pro-2nd Republicans in California, falling fast.

Like I said, I would be more than happy to help if a major LEO organization wants to work with the California gun owners to use common sense to deal with SB23. I hope I am proving wrong, because nothing will make me happier than seeing any California police organization to take a stand on civilian ownership of AR type rifles that doesn't end we "we are here to enforce the laws made by the people of California". I am also a realist and gather that it may not happen for a while.

Cpl. Haas
12-14-2007, 12:14 AM
not according to DOJ. (09) page 5/5
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/0105.pdf

Gene, I wish that was true. I'll get the damn letter so last and long time ago. It's useless at this point.

That FAQ on Pg. 5 referrenced federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(v)(4),(w)(3))... I think that was referring to the now non-existant federal AWs.

From Pg. 2 -

Peace officers may not lawfully keep federally defined assault weapons that they
purchased or acquired as their own property when they retire or leave their
employment with a law enforcement agency. However, federal law does provide an
exception for assault weapons that belong to a law enforcement agency and are
transferred by the agency to an officer upon the officer’s retirement from, or
termination of his or her employment with the agency.

USMC_2651_E5
12-14-2007, 12:39 AM
notice I said the LEO community. I don't doubt there are many LEOs who like to have ARs without having to beg for a letter, but the proportion of 2nd-friendly LEOs is much like the proportion of pro-2nd Democrats in the United States and pro-2nd Republicans in California, falling fast.

Like I said, I would be more than happy to help if a major LEO organization wants to work with the California gun owners to use common sense to deal with SB23. I hope I am proving wrong, because nothing will make me happier than seeing any California police organization to take a stand on civilian ownership of AR type rifles that doesn't end we "we are here to enforce the laws made by the people of California". I am also a realist and gather that it may not happen for a while.

Points understood and I agree that we may never get an organization to join our ranks. I am just trying to convey that there are many individual LEOs that support our pro-2A beliefs and we shouldn't draw a line in the sand between us and them. They are an asset rather than an opponent.

M5police
12-14-2007, 9:09 AM
Ronnie Barrett of Barrett firearms led the way first and even proudly advertises in his ads as such. The day the laws change is when they will change since CA banned the .50 already.

Sgt Raven
12-14-2007, 9:38 AM
If you want to be fair LEOs should only be able to buy/ carry off duty the same stuff anyone else could buy/ carry. Their ‘duty’ weapons should be checked out of the arms room when going on duty the same as any .mil person has to. If that system is good enough for the US Army then it’s good enough for LEOs too. Get rid of the off duty exemption for LEOs and maybe they’ll back change for everyone.

MikeK
12-14-2007, 9:41 AM
If you want to be fair LEOs should only be able to buy/ carry off duty the same stuff anyone else could buy/ carry. Their Ďdutyí weapons should be checked out of the arms room when going on duty the same as any .mil person has to. If that system is good enough for the US Army then itís good enough for LEOs too. Get rid of the off duty exemption for LEOs and maybe theyíll back change for everyone.
Difference being, LEO's are LEO's 24/7.

.mil are .mil while on duty only.

Sgt Raven
12-14-2007, 10:02 AM
Difference being, LEO's are LEO's 24/7.

.mil are .mil while on duty only.

According to US Army regulations, I was 'on duty' 24/7/365 except when on 'official' leave'. With my post as an LEO you could carry any pistol that a non-LEO could buy, off duty. All that would do is make weapons the rest of us can't buy, 'official' duty weapons only.

MikeK
12-14-2007, 10:16 AM
According to US Army regulations, I was 'on duty' 24/7/365 except when on 'official' leave'. With my post as an LEO you could carry any pistol that a non-LEO could buy, off duty. All that would do is make weapons the rest of us can't buy, 'official' duty weapons only.
I would imagine that most State regulations would differ on your authority when not performing your duties.

Sgt Raven
12-14-2007, 10:33 AM
I would imagine that most State regulations would differ on your authority when not performing your duties.

It's simple, if you're off the clock and not being paid, you shouldn't have anything the rest of us can't have. You could still carry like anyone with a CCW could, but the 'fun' toys should be restricted to 'official' duty time. ;)

MikeK
12-14-2007, 10:34 AM
It's simple, if you're off the clock and not being paid, you shouldn't have anything the rest of us can't have. You could still carry like anyone with a CCW could, but the 'fun' toys should be restricted to 'official' duty time. ;)
*refuses to argue further*

Sgt Raven
12-14-2007, 10:49 AM
*refuses to argue further*

Why do you think you're special? Why should you have any rifles that the rest of us can't when you're not performing 'official' duties?

dustoff31
12-14-2007, 10:49 AM
Difference being, LEO's are LEO's 24/7.

Fine. Then the agency can buy and issue rifles to LEOs for duty use when they are off duty, but really not off duty as they are LEOs 24/7.

formerTexan
12-14-2007, 10:51 AM
If there are *many* people in the LE community that share pro-2A thoughts, why haven't they grouped together and stand/speak up for 2A rights? Is it a job-security thing (don't rock the boat)?

I ask because LE's have been granted some significant "exemptions" from laws such as being able to continue to buy standard-capacity mags, and being able to bypass the gun roster when purchasing handguns for *private* use. Certainly, these are "good* for the LEO's, but bad for everyone else, so why haven't we heard, in the mass media, about "Cops for the 2A"?

I can remember the video a San Jose LEO made regarding "assault weapons", that showed how easily a non-AW can be made into an AW with just a stock change (a Mini-14 IIRC), but even that didn't get much attention. So perhaps the perceived silence from the LEO's is partly media bias as well, but still, a group of cops standing in front of the Cali-legislature denouncing these laws would make the news.

We hear so much about how a lot of cops are pro-2A, just like us (like CHP wanting to be assigned to the underground regulation hearing). How about being more active/vocal given their position in the community? As the saying goes, "evil prevails when good men do nothing", or something like that. Maybe its time to start "California LEOs for RKBA", if there isn't one already.

MikeK
12-14-2007, 10:52 AM
Why do you think you're special? Why should you have any rifles that the rest of us can't when you're not performing 'official' duties?
*looks for where I said *I* was special*

*fails to find it*

DougH9
12-14-2007, 11:56 AM
If LEO are on duty 24/7 they should be "issued" equipment for that purpose (I am not required by buy my own pager for my work). If an AR15 is deemed necessary and "issued" from the armory for this purpose, it should be boldly marked as such, and should only be operated in an "official" training enviroment (dept. range). It should not be shot causually at public ranges, nor retained after service, nor passed on to relatives.

formerTexan
12-14-2007, 12:16 PM
If LEO are on duty 24/7 they should be "issued" equipment for that purpose (I am not required by buy my own pager for my work). If an AR15 is deemed necessary and "issued" from the armory for this purpose, it should be boldly marked as such, and should only be operated in an "official" training enviroment (dept. range). It should not be shot causually at public ranges, nor retained after service, nor passed on to relatives.

+1 :)

Though I don't think even LE's can pass on reg'ed AWs upon their death, unless there is yet another exemption(!). I figure reg'ed AWs, whether they are reg'ed through letters from the officer's department, or from the '89/00 reg. periods, are allowed to remain in the state after the person who reg'ed it passes. They must be sold/transferred out of state within 90 days, or surrendered.

dfletcher
12-14-2007, 12:32 PM
New AWs that are purchased by a LEO with a letter from his department get registered in his name. Once it's registered to him and belongs to him its like any other regged AW from the law's perspective.

-Gene

So if I happen to become an LE of some sort - pick one of the small communities north or east of the leftiest coast cites - for a short time and get an AW, it's mine in CA for perpetuity?

chris
12-14-2007, 1:05 PM
Difference being, LEO's are LEO's 24/7.

.mil are .mil while on duty only.

sorry to break the news to you. but things have changed we are on duty 24/.
the old addage of off duty and on duty are a thing of the past. that goes for reserve and guard also. there are no more weekend warriors anymore. that has forever changed since 9/11.

i will not bash LEO but the exemption granted to them stinks IMO. Why? i think that since the public is limited in what arms they can own they should have the same. 10 rd magazines and the like. yeas criminals ignore the law but we don't we are hamstrung by police organizations when these laws are brought forth and in the end we get screwed while LE community is left unscathed by such laws.

for the LE here when something is wrong dammit say something. you are pillar of the community and should in times that we are dacing in this F*d up state it's time for you to stand with us and not standing in the corner letting someone else do it for you! we are in the predickerment we are in now because many waited for someone else to do it for them.

i do wish that some in LE would stand up and be counted now. we need the support when stupid laws are proposed someone would listen since you are considered different and exempt in the politicians eyes you opposing laws would help out.

but if you are worried about your job and won't stand up for the community you serve then i have no solution for it. it's up to you.

MikeK
12-14-2007, 1:07 PM
sorry to break the news to you. but things have changed we are on duty 24/.
So of course, state laws are okay with you guys wandering around with your weapons while off base just hanging out?

Gotcha. :rolleyes:

dustoff31
12-14-2007, 1:30 PM
So of course, state laws are okay with you guys wandering around with your weapons while off base just hanging out?

Gotcha. :rolleyes:

Not quite. The military commander makes the determination as to if and when military members are armed according to their duties. If a commander determines that miltary necessity dictates that members be armed whether on or off post, that is his call. The state has nothing to say about it.

MikeK
12-14-2007, 1:42 PM
The state has nothing to say about it.
I would imagine that the state would differ in your opinion.

Once they leave the federal reservation, they're stuck. Just like the rest of us.

dustoff31
12-14-2007, 1:46 PM
I would imagine that the state would differ in your opinion.

Once they leave the federal reservation, they're stuck. Just like the rest of us.

Actually they don't differ. Please read the CA penal code.

MikeK
12-14-2007, 1:49 PM
Actually they don't differ. Please read the CA penal code.
Link to applicable law?

I'm up for being wrong. ;)

dustoff31
12-14-2007, 1:57 PM
Link to applicable law?


Here ya go. Go to the dangerous weapons law section. You will see that in virtually every section, loaded carry, CCW, AW, DD, machine guns, etc., members of the military are specifcally exempted while performing their duties.

http://http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/index.html (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/index.html)

MikeK
12-14-2007, 2:00 PM
Here ya go. Go to the dangerous weapons law section. You will see that in virtually every section, loaded carry, CCW, AW, DD, machine guns, etc., members of the military are specifcally exempted while performing their duties.

http://http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/index.html (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/index.html)
I think where you and I are butting heads is over the "for use in the discharge of their official duties"

dustoff31
12-14-2007, 2:13 PM
I think where you and I are butting heads is over the "for use in the discharge of their official duties"

Well, yes and no. For a military member, his or her "official duties" are whatever his/her commander says they are. I am hypothetically speaking of course, but if a solder's commander determines that it is necessary for that soldier to keep his issued M16/M4 with him at all times, where ever he may go, then that's an official duty. Granted, I never saw that happen in 25 years service. But I think you see my point.

This brings me back to my eariler post. If the chief/sheriff thinks that his LEOs need special weapons for some reason, issue them.

Hopi
12-14-2007, 2:17 PM
There are no "special classes" that deserve or should be granted weapons that voting citizens cannot also procure. This is what the 2nd am. is specifically written for. Period.

tacticalcity
12-14-2007, 3:10 PM
There you go using the "S" word again..."should".

I am all for voting to make the laws and life work the way they/it "should". However, if you stress out too much about all the things in life that do not work the way they "should" you'll have a heart attack or a mental break down by 30.

In the mean time, don't hate over it. If they serve their country, I am cool with them getting a few perks from it. Not that I am cool with us not getting them. I am just glad they are not being messed with as much as we are.

If you didn't serve (by your own choosing)...***** to somebody else because I sure as heck am not going to listen. That's like people complaining about the results of an election they did not even bother to vote in.

As far as I am concerned those who serve and those who have served are in a special class of their own...and don't forget!

Now in practical applications. Except during exercises or while on deployment I was never allowed to carry off base. Each base has very specific rules about what you can and can't do. There is rarely a need to do it.

If you're transporting explosives, you might get to carry. However usually that is done by civilian trucking companies. Same with firearms. The detonators and ammo is always shipped seperately (respectively). Nukes are always transported within the US by the DOE unless they are actually in an aircraft, ship, or sub. Not sure who transports chemical weapons, but it is probably the DOE. So unless there is an exercise, or they are on their way to the airport to deploy using civilian aircraft, or their is a national emergency there is no need to carry off base...so they don't get to.

Usually there is a blanket rule forbidding concealled carry or carry in general, and then exceptions are made to specific organizations. The only ones I am aware of that have this exception are: OSI, CID, NCIS, and Delta Force. That's it. The first three are criminal investigators who are essential federal agents so they have simular responsibilities as the FBI. They carry because if they see a crime happening is is their duty to try and stop it, even off base. Delta carries because their duty is anti-terrorism and they are on duty 24/7. If they are on vacation, and something happens in their area...they could be called in to work that situation and will not have time to come back to base to grab their firearm.

As far as the commanding officer who has the authority to make that decision? I would assume it would be the base commander. But odds are he takes his cues from the Pentagon.

Your individual commander does not have the authority to give you permission to carry off base. It comes from the base commander who gets his directive on when you can and can not carry from the pentagon. You have to keep in mind that 50% of the population hates and fears the military. They are happy to lie and say they don't...but their actions prove that they do. The military is very much aware of this. They also know that if military personnel were allowed to carry firearms off base, and something happened, the media and congress would tear them a new one. So it is not allowed, even if the laws in that State say it is acceptable. They just don't do it. The risk out weighs the rewards.

Hopi
12-14-2007, 3:25 PM
There you go using the "S" word again..."should".

"should", is used, not because i want it that way, but because it is mandated by the 2nd am. Freemen need arms to protect themselves from the tyranny of those in federal positions. Understand?

I am all for voting to make the laws and life work the way they/it "should". However, if you stress out too much about all the things in life that do not work the way they "should" you'll have a heart attack or a mental break down by 30.
I'm sorry, but i take personal responsibility and the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness a little more seriously than you apparently. This is a bigger issue than just my opinion. This is the discourse that needs be had to make it clear that THERE CANNOT BE A DIVISION BETWEEN THE RULING CLASS AND IT'S SUBJECTS


In the mean time, don't hate over it. If they serve their country, I am cool with them getting a few perks from it. Not that I am cool with us not getting them. I am just glad they are not being messed with as much as we are.
If you didn't serve (by your own choosing)...***** to somebody else because I sure as heck am not going to listen. That's like people complaining about the results of an election they did not even bother to vote in.

thank you for that, as irrellevant as it may be, you nor any military/leo has any more 'rights" than other citizens. Again, this is the fork in the road. Either you believe that there are "super-citizens" allowed to be above the "common-citizens" or you don't believe it. Choose carefully or you might find yourself on the fascist side of the fence.

As far as I am concerned those who serve and those who have served are in a special class of their own...and don't forget!
Yes, we owe them respect, honor, and our support for doing their jobs, but you are dead wrong, and THEY ARE NOT IN A SPECIAL CLASS OF THEIR OWN when it comes to rights granted by our doctrines



.................

dustoff31
12-14-2007, 3:41 PM
You have to keep in mind that 50% of the population hates and fears the military. They are happy to lie and say they don't...but their actions prove that they do. The military is very much aware of this. They also know that if military personnel were allowed to carry firearms off base, and something happened, the media and congress would tear them a new one. So it is not allowed, even if the laws in that State say it is acceptable. They just don't do it. The risk out weighs the rewards.

I agree completely. My point is that there are already adequate laws to deal with those who need certain weapons for the discharge of their governmental duties. If a cop or a soldier needs an M16 for work, issue it to him. He then gives it back when his duties no longer require it.

A law that allows LEOs to privately purchase AWs, while not allowing a regular citizen, or even a soldier to buy one is something that is simply unnecesary and devisive.

Sgt Raven
12-14-2007, 3:41 PM
There you go using the "S" word again..."should".

I am all for voting to make the laws and life work the way they/it "should". However, if you stress out too much about all the things in life that do not work the way they "should" you'll have a heart attack or a mental break down by 30.

In the mean time, don't hate over it. If they serve their country, I am cool with them getting a few perks from it. Not that I am cool with us not getting them. I am just glad they are not being messed with as much as we are.
If you didn't serve (by your own choosing)...***** to somebody else because I sure as heck am not going to listen. That's like people complaining about the results of an election they did not even bother to vote in.

As far as I am concerned those who serve and those who have served are in a special class of their own...and don't forget!..........snip........

Those Ďperksí are the problem. We have the 10 round magazine limits and the safe hand gun roster because SASS got their exemption from them for their lever action rifles and their single action revolvers.

If all LEOs had to get a CCW from their CLEO then we would have shall issue CCW, because some CLEOs wouldnít issue CCWs to their officers.

Itís the rule of enlightened self interest, when others donít have their exemptions they either stand with us or lose their rights too. The demorats and republicrats in Sacto wouldnít get enough votes without carving out those exemptions.

BTW RA '73-'77/ AR '77-'79

chris
12-14-2007, 3:51 PM
So of course, state laws are okay with you guys wandering around with your weapons while off base just hanging out?

Gotcha. :rolleyes:

nope sorry to break that one for you. the only time i carry a M16 outside the base is to and from my destination that could be Camp Pendelton or Ft. Hunter Ligget, and when we stop the weapons are on the truck or bus under guard. so no we don't get to walk around with our M16's.

Now the exception to that is if I'm transporting weapons or ammo. that is required to be armed at ALL times. so there is a seperation there.

hoffmang
12-14-2007, 6:50 PM
That FAQ on Pg. 5 referrenced federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(v)(4),(w)(3))... I think that was referring to the now non-existant federal AWs.

From Pg. 2 -

To be clear, what I posted above is correct. The Federal AW ban is long gone. The state AW laws mean that once you're registered in your own name, you get to keep the AW.

Here's Iggy's letter - http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Ignatius_Chinn-M4-Letter-2005-05-17.pdf .

-Gene

CavTrooper
12-14-2007, 7:35 PM
Soldiers are routinely armed when traveling off base. Transporting weapons and equipment to and fro, partaking in excercises that require travel on public roadways and when participating in joint operations with the local authorities.
I think it would be quite amusing to see some LEO TRY to pull over a Humvee loaded with Soldiers, carrying thier rifles, with the 240 mounted in the turret, that would be a classic Barney Fife maneuver.

chris
12-15-2007, 12:57 PM
Soldiers are routinely armed when traveling off base. Transporting weapons and equipment to and fro, partaking in excercises that require travel on public roadways and when participating in joint operations with the local authorities.
I think it would be quite amusing to see some LEO TRY to pull over a Humvee loaded with Soldiers, carrying thier rifles, with the 240 mounted in the turret, that would be a classic Barney Fife maneuver.

i think a Darwin award is in order for that one.:)

Shane916
12-15-2007, 1:32 PM
Hell yeah. Bravo to DPMS. I wish more companies would stop selling to CA LE's. :mad:

yeah damn those LEO for trying to help protect and serve us and our communities... they should be ashamed of themselves....every company should stop selling ALL firearms to LE.... in fact LE should be banned from owning firearms!!! yeah thats it! :willy_nilly:

Rockit
12-15-2007, 1:46 PM
So if I happen to become an LE of some sort - pick one of the small communities north or east of the leftiest coast cites - for a short time and get an AW, it's mine in CA for perpetuity?


No. You quit or retire you have to surrender the weapon.

I am a LEO for a large dept. In 5+ years I know of no one that has gotten a letter for an AW. Our opps orders specifically prohibit using personal AR while on duty. All of our rifles are issued.

Some of my friends work for a small rural dept. Due to their extremely small operating budget, if they wanted to have an AR in their car, they had purchase it themselves.

hoffmang
12-15-2007, 1:58 PM
No. You quit or retire you have to surrender the weapon.

I am a LEO for a large dept. In 5+ years I know of no one that has gotten a letter for an AW. Our opps orders specifically prohibit using personal AR while on duty. All of our rifles are issued.

Some of my friends work for a small rural dept. Due to their extremely small operating budget, if they wanted to have an AR in their car, they had purchase it themselves.

Rockit, this is not correct for the case where a LEO gets a department letter like Iggy's above and the LEO buys it with his own money. Once the LEO purchases the rifle, he registers it under his own name. Once its registered it is no different than an AW personally registered to a civilian during the registration windows.

You are probably quite correct for your force that since you don't own the AR you thus have to give it back to the department on quiting or retiring. In that case it's kind of like your black and white.

-Gene

aileron
12-15-2007, 2:38 PM
Hey guys, lets not start an us and them mentality because we just may split the calguns membership. There are a lot of LEO's here including me. I don't think that we, the people of California, should fight to make a LEO lose a rifle...I think we should fight to gain rifles for all (law abiding at least).

No disrespect to LEO's but "we the people" should burn together, no reason why "we the LEO's" should be allowed an exemption.

Rights infringement is rights infringement; eventually they will come after retired LEO's anyways. So were in this together, and should fight together for our rights as people.

The us and them mentality is there because government put it there by allowing the exemption. Because of that exemption it upsets people greatly. Because the bill of rights was about not trusting the government and such laws are a reversal of fate; the government not trusting its people. Which isn't suppose to exist because its unconstitutional and is a punch in the face to the people.

LEO's like there exemption, granted, but nice as it is, its still wrong. So what are the people suppose to do? Smile??? Its a political move... hopefully it will have a positive outcome in the end.

I hope my point got across enough that you understand, I don't hold anything against a police officer who wants an AW. Or hold anything against LEO's at all. I agree with you that we are in this situation together and need to fight together. But being on the lowest end of the sh** stick, your not going to get much sympathy from me about losing a manufacturer.

I kinda prefer your in the exact same boat as me, so we HAVE to fight the same battles for freedom. But hey its just my line of thinking, its not reality anyways.

Clodbuster
12-16-2007, 12:19 AM
Wierd, it seems there are more incident reports of armed "regular joes" having gun fights with the "bad guys" than of "LE" having gun fights with the "bad guys".

Seems "regular joes" need guns more than "LE"....yet the "regular joes" are the ones being banned from owning firearms.

Clod


yeah damn those LEO for trying to help protect and serve us and our communities... they should be ashamed of themselves....every company should stop selling ALL firearms to LE.... in fact LE should be banned from owning firearms!!! yeah thats it! :willy_nilly:

Clodbuster
12-16-2007, 12:23 AM
Not that the "bad guys" are not equally banned from owning firearms similar to the "regular joes". But somehow doesn't seem to be effective due to non-compliance from the "bad guys". :cool:

Clod

Wierd, it seems there are more incident reports of armed "regular joes" having gun fights with the "bad guys" than of "LE" having gun fights with the "bad guys".

Seems "regular joes" need guns more than "LE"....yet the "regular joes" are the ones being banned from owning firearms.

Clod

USMC_2651_E5
12-16-2007, 11:00 AM
No disrespect to LEO's but "we the people" should burn together, no reason why "we the LEO's" should be allowed an exemption.

Rights infringement is rights infringement; eventually they will come after retired LEO's anyways. So were in this together, and should fight together for our rights as people.

The us and them mentality is there because government put it there by allowing the exemption. Because of that exemption it upsets people greatly. Because the bill of rights was about not trusting the government and such laws are a reversal of fate; the government not trusting its people. Which isn't suppose to exist because its unconstitutional and is a punch in the face to the people.

LEO's like there exemption, granted, but nice as it is, its still wrong. So what are the people suppose to do? Smile??? Its a political move... hopefully it will have a positive outcome in the end.

I hope my point got across enough that you understand, I don't hold anything against a police officer who wants an AW. Or hold anything against LEO's at all. I agree with you that we are in this situation together and need to fight together. But being on the lowest end of the sh** stick, your not going to get much sympathy from me about losing a manufacturer.

I kinda prefer your in the exact same boat as me, so we HAVE to fight the same battles for freedom. But hey its just my line of thinking, its not reality anyways.

Great points. And I think you nailed it in respects to who to blame. In my opinion it is the govt and politicians for having these crazy laws. Bummer that it took 8 pages to clarify that. With or without the exemption, lets not blame LEOs, lets blame the legislators and politicians for these laws. And if it took losing the exemption for all of us to get them, I would be in. The exemption hasn't worked for me anyways.

lavgrunt
12-16-2007, 11:28 AM
Bottom line.......You can blame the voters who put these morons in offfice and continue to re-elect them...........Where will you be in November 2008 ????

heycorey
12-16-2007, 11:35 AM
CavTrooper,

Maybe someone already answered your original question (related to the red-highlighted statement in your first post) ... I skimmed over most of this jumbled mess. But just in case the question didn't get answered, I believe it relates to this: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2521_cfa_20060502_170712_asm_comm.html


And to the person who suggested that when a sworn peace officer is "off the clock", they're "just like the rest of us" ... they are never "off the clock".

Draven
12-16-2007, 1:39 PM
Bottom line.......You can blame the voters who put these morons in offfice and continue to re-elect them...........Where will you be in November 2008 ????

If all goes well? Arizona, Georgia or Virginia.

JarenC81
12-16-2007, 6:39 PM
Last i checked, LEOs aren't paid 24 hrs a day. There does in fact exist "off the clock." Since they do get paid over-time, this suggests that they have off-hours. I think its important to realize that LEOs aren't morally superior to civilians, just like the rest of us they have to work for a living, have to pay bills, have bosses. They are paid to enforce laws not whats "wrong or right." Their choice of profession doesn't make them more honorable, honest or deserving than the "regular joe."
I have a buddy who was a very vocal supporter of 2a, however after he joined a sheriffs dept. he no longer cared so much because many of the restrictions didn't apply to him. It's unfortunate, but there are many within the "rank and file" that are complacent or don't understand the pains civilians have. It would go extremely far if those that deal with crime would largely support the notion that a person with a gun is not a criminal and does not need to be treated with suspect. Unfortunately, i haven't seen a unified voice to that effect.
I agree, police should have no more access to arms than civilians. Generally, that doesn't mean that cops shouldn't have access to effective arms, but that the civilian population has access to those same arms. However, in our current climate I believe if arms are to be denied they should be categorically denied to all so as to unite the votes and light the proverbial fire underneath our arses.

Pred@tor
12-16-2007, 7:55 PM
http://www.2ampd.net/ Here is a LEO organization for the 2nd Amendment I think it was started by Leeroy Pyle the man who created this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

JarenC81
12-16-2007, 9:24 PM
Thats a great link and thanks for passing on the info. Great articles! Some even identify the growing rift between law enforcement and civilians. One article even articulated a fear of police disarmament. Unfortunately, the site is amateurish (broken links, etc...) and 2001 seems to be when the most recent article was submitted. It only serves to strengthen my suspicion, that while many "old timers" are on the same page, new recruits/cadets are being indoctrinated to believe that it is unusual for anyone to have a gun unless they are law enforcement.

veeklog
12-17-2007, 11:01 AM
Like that will ever happen :rolleyes:

since most LEOs are more concerned with hassling civvies instead of taking the time to listen and learn about OLLs, bullet buttons and evil features

See, that's just a blanket statement that's not cool.

You see, I'm a LEO, and I have told a lot of fellow LEO's at work about OLL's, bullet buttons, and evil feature. A Lot of people now have OLL's at work because I told them about it. The truth be told not all cops are gun guys, only firing their weapons every quarter at the range. But the true gun cop will want to know about OLL's and such.

I have built quite a few OLL's to fellow LEO's, and we love them. We, the pro-gun LEO's, believe that all law abiding citizens should be allowed to own standard capacity magazines and AR's with evil features. Why? Because it would be easier and cheaper for us to get AR's and otehr new weapons being introduced today. I have followed the law, even registering a AR during the ban. I, like many of fellow LEO's, believe that the laws written by the politicians are ignorant and infringe on everyone, including LEO's. I will say that I have built five OLL's thanks to this board, and without it, I would have some toys.

As far as hassling law abiding citizens, I don't do it; neither do my friends that own OLL's. But the small few that do make us all look bad. I apologize for that.

chris
12-17-2007, 11:08 AM
Bottom line.......You can blame the voters who put these morons in offfice and continue to re-elect them...........Where will you be in November 2008 ????

i will vote as always. with that being said. the states districts are so gerrymandered all legislators and state senators are guarenteed re-election time and time again. it will take a frikin miracle to fix this.

hoffmang
12-17-2007, 11:20 AM
Harshing on the LEO's on our side is just dumb.

One can make the political observation that the other side has thrown special perks to LEOs to remove their opposition to the anti's attempt to disarm us, but blaming the actual Officers makes you sound petty. Supporting officers who are explaining OLL's to other officers is the right way to go about things.

-Gene

ibanezfoo
12-17-2007, 11:23 AM
The us and them mentality is there because government put it there....

Divide and conquer. Isn't that War 101 ?

-Bryan

milsurpshooter
12-17-2007, 12:15 PM
good. now the cops can see what its like to get jerked around by the retarded ca gun laws.

zinfull
12-17-2007, 12:30 PM
You think the special areas of gun law offered to the LEOs were a mistake? They do not have the same hassle we do so they are happy, just like a couch potato. They can have that gun with out all the safety bull and other features. The power in charge did not want a lot of LEOs *****ing on the news about not having the guns they liked so they exempted them as a normal citizen. It is just a way to keep the LEOs from complaining to the public. They complain and some elected official will piss on the department enough to reverse they extras. Simple divide and conquer.

Jerry

830man
12-17-2007, 8:47 PM
OK, so Bushy isnt selling to CA LE? Good!
Every firearms manufacture needs to stop sales to CA LE, (maybe the body armor guys as well. :cool:)[/QUOTE]

LEOs read I want cops to die.

I have been reading this site for a long time although I donít post here. It has gotten so anti law enforcement that there I no way that I would stick my neck out for anyone here.

retired
12-18-2007, 12:22 AM
I know that it would be career suicide for an individual or even a group of leos on a dept. to actively become involved in promoting ccws, AR15/AK47 weapons for civilians and advocating a repeal of the AW ban here.

If they did it on duty there are policies in place wherein they would be in violation and more than likely lose their job. If they did it off duty and mentioned the dept. they worked for, they would probably be fired for other policy violations.

It they were to write letters to the papers and I.D. themselves as working for a particular dept., rather than just le, the same would probably occur.

If a retired leo who has been issued a ccw by his former dept. were to become active in promoting the above for civilians and he either mentioned the dept. he had worked for or it was discovered by that dept. (not hard to do), he would probably lose his ccw.

LASD Sheriff Baca rescinded one of his former Capt.s ccw who had retired to run against him in the recent election. He told a Commander and sgt. who had also ran their careers were over.

Carona, Sheriff of OC (who knows for how long tho), suspended the Lt. who ran against him. This Lt. had been the acting Chief of Police in a small OC city for about 5yrs. IIRC and the city loved him. He eventually demoted him to a deputy, so the lt. retired.

There have been numerous times I have wanted to write a letter to the papers (microstamping bill being the most recent) protesting my former boss' support for it, but I was afraid I'd lose my ccw. I cherish my ability to have one and do not want to lose it. If I did, I know that I would not be able to obtain one from the Sheriff in Riverside County as he doesn't issue them unless you donate money to his political fund. Of course, the same goes for L.A. County.

As far as organizations; I'm still an associate member, tho retired of the union I belonged to when working. They represent the majority of the sgt.s and lt.s. I am a former member of the deputy union. I will attempt to contact them and see what their respective stance is on the issues and see if they are willing to do something about becoming one of those organizations that will actively support ccw for civilians and the repeal of the AW in this state. For all I know, they are already do something along those lines, but behind the scenes. I will try to ascertain what their positions are on the issues and if able, post something here.

a fyi on these organizations; these two are perhaps the strongest 2 le unions in this state.

Sgt Raven
12-18-2007, 6:03 AM
I know that it would be career suicide for an individual or even a group of leos on a dept. to actively become involved in promoting ccws, AR15/AK47 weapons for civilians and advocating a repeal of the AW ban here.

If they did it on duty there are policies in place wherein they would be in violation and more than likely lose their job. If they did it off duty and mentioned the dept. they worked for, they would probably be fired for other policy violations.

It they were to write letters to the papers and I.D. themselves as working for a particular dept., rather than just le, the same would probably occur.

If a retired leo who has been issued a ccw by his former dept. were to become active in promoting the above for civilians and he either mentioned the dept. he had worked for or it was discovered by that dept. (not hard to do), he would probably lose his ccw.

LASD Sheriff Baca rescinded one of his former Capt.s ccw who had retired to run against him in the recent election. He told a Commander and sgt. who had also ran their careers were over.

Carona, Sheriff of OC (who knows for how long tho), suspended the Lt. who ran against him. This Lt. had been the acting Chief of Police in a small OC city for about 5yrs. IIRC and the city loved him. He eventually demoted him to a deputy, so the lt. retired.

There have been numerous times I have wanted to write a letter to the papers (microstamping bill being the most recent) protesting my former boss' support for it, but I was afraid I'd lose my ccw. I cherish my ability to have one and do not want to lose it. If I did, I know that I would not be able to obtain one from the Sheriff in Riverside County as he doesn't issue them unless you donate money to his political fund. Of course, the same goes for L.A. County.

As far as organizations; I'm still an associate member, tho retired of the union I belonged to when working. They represent the majority of the sgt.s and lt.s. I am a former member of the deputy union. I will attempt to contact them and see what their respective stance is on the issues and see if they are willing to do something about becoming one of those organizations that will actively support ccw for civilians and the repeal of the AW in this state. For all I know, they are already do something along those lines, but behind the scenes. I will try to ascertain what their positions are on the issues and if able, post something here.

a fyi on these organizations; these two are perhaps the strongest 2 le unions in this state.

How can a CLEO pull any RETIRED LEO's CCW without cause? With H.R. 218 being the 'law of the law' CCWs are 'shall issue' for retired LEOs, any CLEO's who pull a retired LEO's CCW without cause needs to feal the heat of the FED's so they see the light.

CalNRA
12-18-2007, 10:08 AM
How can a CLEO pull any RETIRED LEO's CCW without cause? With H.R. 218 being the 'law of the law' CCWs are 'shall issue' for retired LEOs, any CLEO's who pull a retired LEO's CCW without cause needs to feal the heat of the FED's so they see the light.

there was a time when HR218 didn't exist(pre 2004), and many retired cops may still not be aware of that.

on top of that the bill gives retired cops the right to carry, but to get a CCW permit you still have to go through the CLEO and AFAIK if you are not on his/her good side a "self-protection" cause may be just as useless for this person as it is for 99.9% of the people out there.

Clodbuster
12-18-2007, 11:22 AM
With the huge pending shortage in LE staffing due to retirements (which I have been hearing anyways), is there such a thing as career suicide for an officer due to this?

If pro-gun LE are truly a large majority of the force, then I don't see how a department is going to fire them if they all voice support. That would be career suicide for the Police Chief. There is no Omni Consumer Products to produce Robocops as replacement...

Clod


[QUOTE=retired;887799]I know that it would be career suicide for an individual or even a group of leos on a dept. to actively become involved in promoting ccws, AR15/AK47 weapons for civilians and advocating a repeal of the AW ban here.

If they did it on duty there are policies in place wherein they would be in violation and more than likely lose their job. If they did it off duty and mentioned the dept. they worked for, they would probably be fired for other policy violations.

It they were to write letters to the papers and I.D. themselves as working for a particular dept., rather than just le, the same would probably occur.

QUOTE]

pnkssbtz
12-18-2007, 11:54 AM
OK, so Bushy isnt selling to CA LE? Good!
Every firearms manufacture needs to stop sales to CA LE, (maybe the body armor guys as well. :cool:)

LEOs read I want cops to die.

I have been reading this site for a long time although I don’t post here. It has gotten so anti law enforcement that there I no way that I would stick my neck out for anyone here.

No offense, but I have no clue what you are trying to say...

chris
12-18-2007, 12:56 PM
I know that it would be career suicide for an individual or even a group of leos on a dept. to actively become involved in promoting ccws, AR15/AK47 weapons for civilians and advocating a repeal of the AW ban here.

If they did it on duty there are policies in place wherein they would be in violation and more than likely lose their job. If they did it off duty and mentioned the dept. they worked for, they would probably be fired for other policy violations.

It they were to write letters to the papers and I.D. themselves as working for a particular dept., rather than just le, the same would probably occur.

If a retired leo who has been issued a ccw by his former dept. were to become active in promoting the above for civilians and he either mentioned the dept. he had worked for or it was discovered by that dept. (not hard to do), he would probably lose his ccw.

LASD Sheriff Baca rescinded one of his former Capt.s ccw who had retired to run against him in the recent election. He told a Commander and sgt. who had also ran their careers were over.

Carona, Sheriff of OC (who knows for how long tho), suspended the Lt. who ran against him. This Lt. had been the acting Chief of Police in a small OC city for about 5yrs. IIRC and the city loved him. He eventually demoted him to a deputy, so the lt. retired.

There have been numerous times I have wanted to write a letter to the papers (microstamping bill being the most recent) protesting my former boss' support for it, but I was afraid I'd lose my ccw. I cherish my ability to have one and do not want to lose it. If I did, I know that I would not be able to obtain one from the Sheriff in Riverside County as he doesn't issue them unless you donate money to his political fund. Of course, the same goes for L.A. County.

As far as organizations; I'm still an associate member, tho retired of the union I belonged to when working. They represent the majority of the sgt.s and lt.s. I am a former member of the deputy union. I will attempt to contact them and see what their respective stance is on the issues and see if they are willing to do something about becoming one of those organizations that will actively support ccw for civilians and the repeal of the AW in this state. For all I know, they are already do something along those lines, but behind the scenes. I will try to ascertain what their positions are on the issues and if able, post something here.

a fyi on these organizations; these two are perhaps the strongest 2 le unions in this state.

I now see where the average gun owner stands with that mentality in the first couple of paragraphs in your post. they should write letters and not identify themselves for god's sake. this makes me sick.

it would be nice to know that someone in LE is on our side. no names need to presented just knowing would be great.

whomper
12-18-2007, 1:35 PM
As far as hassling law abiding citizens, I don't do it; neither do my friends that own OLL's. But the small few that do make us all look bad. I apologize for that.

Good Job! I'm glad you're here down in San Diego.

My humble opinion, though, is that if us peons can't own them, neither should LEO's (no offense veeklog). I just do not get why LEO's are "exempt" from safe handgun restrictions and "AWBs."

Hopi
12-18-2007, 2:24 PM
OK, so Bushy isnt selling to CA LE? Good!
Every firearms manufacture needs to stop sales to CA LE, (maybe the body armor guys as well. :cool:)

LEOs read I want cops to die.

I have been reading this site for a long time although I donít post here. It has gotten so anti law enforcement that there I no way that I would stick my neck out for anyone here.

I have been reading this site for a long time although I donít post here.

And with only 2 posts, a thanks is in order for sparring us from your obviously useless and insignificant contributions.

It has gotten so anti law enforcement There is an overwhelming initiative here to return our country and our citizens to an even playing field. That includes dissent when the existence of "privileged classes" become apparent.

there I no way that I would stick my neck out for anyone here. Thank you and go (*$*$& yourself. You are the problem, not part of the solution.

retired
12-18-2007, 3:36 PM
Sgt. Raven, I should have been more specific in the Capt's case and I apologize for that. From what I read, the Capt. violated some obscure financial rule that he wasn't aware of. His mistake and he owned up to it. Once he became aware of it, he returned the donation.

The Sheriff used that to remove his ccw. That, in my opinion, was to teach him a lesson for running against him. Ironic, since Baca himself ran against an incumbent Sheriff. I don't think that was right, but then I didn't feel what Carona did was right either. I imagine that former lt. is having the last laugh considering Carona's legal problems, tho it is bittersweet. Perhaps if he is removed if convicted, the lt. will be given the position since he had the 2nd highest ballot count IIRC. Now, that would be great IMO.

The ccw afforded by HR218 would still be available I presume for the retired LASD Capt., unless the range was made off limits. I was referring to the dept. issued 5yr. ccw that was taken away.

retired
12-20-2007, 4:17 PM
To follow up with what I said in my previous post; I checked with my association and was given the following info.

Re the microstamping bill: They, along with every other le union/association in Ca. fought this bill in Sac. I'm referring to line, supervisory and low level management personnel associations/unions. The chiefs/sheriffs organization of course was for it. They want to keep their jobs.

Re CCW: In the person's opinion I spoke to, no large metropolitan area will loosen/change their policy in issuing ccws. When I mentioned there are some smaller counties in N. Ca. that are almost "shall" issue, he said that is because they are in fact smaller ones. It won't happen in the areas I mentioned and he said he knows of no organization that plans to try to change that. They realize it will be fruitless and a waste of money since bosses like Bratton, Baca and the one in Frisco will never change their stance.

Re AWB: Same thing.

Sorry I don't have happier news, but I don't really think anyone thought otherwise; especially on the latter two.

mauritz45
12-20-2007, 5:02 PM
gentlemen, my head is very full now. i still dont know what important event will begin 1-1-2008, that i better buy guns now. i've been racking my brains.
the only thing i can think of is the "new" CA reg about bringing guns into the state requiring some sort of authorization number from the DOJ??
could this be what was being refered to?-cam

Ak47owner
12-20-2007, 5:27 PM
that is the way it should be if we cant have AWs they shouldnt be allowed to have AWs

carsonwales
12-20-2007, 6:05 PM
that is the way it should be if we cant have AWs they shouldnt be allowed to have AWs

I totally agree.

LEO's should not be allowed to purchase AW's period...zip, zilch, nada...NEVER.

Further, LEO's who own un-registered AW's from the pre-ban era should be charged with felony possession, lose all rights to own any weapons , be barred from ever buying a weapon in the future and should be fired immediately. As it is now...even LEO's that failed to register can still get a pass with an after the fact application....

Further still, LEO's should be barred from any and all weapons, mags, configurations that we 'average' citizens cannot have. LEO's should suffer felony charges for ANY violation however trivial. LEO's are supposed to know the law and obey it...ignorance should have drastic consequences for LEO's that violate ANY firearms law.

I have zero sympathy for LEO's who complain about ANY firearm law and its consequences, if that complaint is couched in the fact they ARE LEO's and feel they deserve special treatment or a 'break'.

I have tremendous sympathy (empathy) for any LEO who suffer along with the rest of us...

NO AW'S FOR LEO

Sgt Raven
12-20-2007, 6:52 PM
I totally agree.

LEO's should not be allowed to purchase AW's period...zip, zilch, nada...NEVER.

Further, LEO's who own un-registered AW's from the pre-ban era should be charged with felony possession, lose all rights to own any weapons , be barred from ever buying a weapon in the future and should be fired immediately. As it is now...even LEO's that failed to register can still get a pass with an after the fact application....
Further still, LEO's should be barred from any and all weapons, mags, configurations that we 'average' citizens cannot have. LEO's should suffer felony charges for ANY violation however trivial. LEO's are supposed to know the law and obey it...ignorance should have drastic consequences for LEO's that violate ANY firearms law.

I have zero sympathy for LEO's who complain about ANY firearm law and its consequences, if that complaint is couched in the fact they ARE LEO's and feel they deserve special treatment or a 'break'.

I have tremendous sympathy (empathy) for any LEO who suffer along with the rest of us...

NO AW'S FOR LEO

Since R-R became law and then SB23 Iíve read about, IIRC, 6 or 7 cases of LEOs being arrested for AW possession . They, LEOs, donít always get a pass from other officers.

carsonwales
12-20-2007, 7:31 PM
Since R-R became law and then SB23 Iíve read about, IIRC, 6 or 7 cases of LEOs being arrested for AW possession . They, LEOs, donít always get a pass from other officers.

I would like to see the circumstances of those arrests...they were probably bad cops under the eye of the IAD..or something else was going on...I would wager real money that NOT one single cop who has come forward with his unregistered AW has been thrown in jail or prosecuted...

....and the exemption is pretty damn loose too...all the cop has to do is claim he came into possession on XX date and register the thing within 90 days...further...how many stories have you heard of cops being turned down by their bosses when they say they want to buy a new toy that can also be used at work?

NO AW'S FOR LEO'S

http://www.whitneyearnhardt.com/temp/copawreg.gif

Sgt Raven
12-20-2007, 7:45 PM
I would like to see the circumstances of those arrests...they were probably bad cops under the eye of the IAD..or something else was going on...I would wager real money that NOT one single cop who has come forward with his unregistered AW has been thrown in jail or prosecuted...

....and the exemption is pretty damn loose too...all the cop has to do is claim he came into possession on XX date and register the thing within 90 days...further...how many stories have you heard of cops being turned down by their bosses when they say they want to buy a new toy that can also be used at work?
NO AW'S FOR LEO'S

http://www.whitneyearnhardt.com/temp/copawreg.gif

With a letter from the CLEO of their department. They can't buy them without the letter.

Why are some LEOs buying OLL, because they can't get the letter form their CLEO.

carsonwales
12-20-2007, 8:01 PM
With a letter from the CLEO of their department. They can't buy them without the letter.

Why are some LEOs buying OLL, because they can't get the letter form their CLEO.

That makes sense...why would they buy them then....

I wonder if they buy them with the knowledge of their bosses. In other words I wonder if they get turned down from the boss, and then go get the OLL and then go show it to their crop friends and the boss?

I kind of hope they feel shamed and don't or feel threatened in a sense...then they will get a taste of the police state they are policing...

retired
12-20-2007, 11:18 PM
Further still, LEO's should be barred from any and all weapons, mags, configurations that we 'average' citizens cannot have. LEO's should suffer felony charges for ANY violation however trivial.

So carsonwales, would look me to turn myself in to the local le agency for two 15 round mags I have. When I retired, I purchased my issued Beretta 92f from the dept. I was able to keep 2 of the 3 15 round mags. The weapon and mags had been issued to me in 1990 if that means anything. By your statement above, I should suffer felony charges, correct. Just wondering. Thanks.

My question then to you; should I just go to any agency to do so, or turn myself in to my former dept. Which would make you happier.

BTW, since retiring, I had occasion to buy another mag. I bought a 10 round one at a gun show, since that is allowed I'm allowed now as a civilian.

ColdSteel
12-22-2007, 11:27 AM
GOOD! Barrett Firearms has already told CA LEAs to go pound sand. I buy from and support Barrett Firearms.
Way to go DPMS!
Maybe if more LEOs were active in defending THEIR personal rights they would'nt have such a hard time getting good equipment.
Remember. Behind that badge, you're still John Q. Public.