PDA

View Full Version : SF/Sunnyvale Mag Bans Force Cops to Surrender Off-duty & Personal Standard Cap Mags


CMonfort
11-25-2013, 10:25 AM
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/11/california-bay-area-gun-laws-will-result-in-confiscation-of-police-gun-magazines.aspx

falbuff
11-25-2013, 10:44 AM
So much for the old double standard you can but I can't.

RipVanWinkle
11-25-2013, 12:03 PM
San Francisco and Sunnyvale officers, like law-abiding citizens, will have until the first week of March to turn in their prohibited magazines in one of three ways: turn them over to the police (strangely enough).........


:rofl2:

Gutz
11-25-2013, 12:05 PM
I like this...

But I hate the fact 30 round (standard capacity mags) are seen as evil... ****ing libtards... >:(

RobG
11-25-2013, 12:26 PM
http://img.pandawhale.com/41622-Grumpy-cat-good-uUqS.jpeg

They should have to buy from the "safe list" of guns, too.

nadodave
11-25-2013, 12:33 PM
"Turn them over to the police" So just trade 'em with your buddies!

chainsaw
11-25-2013, 12:49 PM
Can we please merge this thread with the exiting one? It's confusing to have the facts (or opinions) spread over two places.

CMonfort
11-25-2013, 1:14 PM
Can we please merge this thread with the exiting one? It's confusing to have the facts (or opinions) spread over two places.

The active leo possession issue is a separate issue that isn't specific to that lawsuit. And it is an issue in Sunnyvale, too. But I'll leave it up to the mods.

Librarian
11-25-2013, 1:26 PM
The active leo possession issue is a separate issue that isn't specific to that lawsuit. And it is an issue in Sunnyvale, too. But I'll leave it up to the mods.

Last one I agreed with chainsaw; this time I agree with Clint.

taperxz
11-25-2013, 1:41 PM
Looks like somebody opened up Pandoras box. LOL

Even if they go back and add an exemption of these mags for LE (for personal use) Its not going to go well. LOL.

chainsaw
11-25-2013, 1:43 PM
Last one I agreed with chainsaw; this time I agree with Clint.

Happy to concede and retract my request.

POLICESTATE
11-25-2013, 2:07 PM
Looks like somebody opened up Pandoras box. LOL

Even if they go back and add an exemption of these mags for LE (for personal use) Its not going to go well. LOL.

This is what will happen in Sunnyvale. The residents voted in the ordinance, and then the city council will vote in an exemption.

CMonfort
11-25-2013, 2:11 PM
As am I for the previous thread. I initially posted the case update in the other sub-forum only because the new litigation forum is just starting to catch on with CGN members.

I'm still a little unsure where to post certain updates, but I'm happy to have them repositioned as Librarian sees fit.

This forum now seems like it is attracting a growing number of readers. Good work on the site, guys.

taperxz
11-25-2013, 2:16 PM
This is what will happen in Sunnyvale. The residents voted in the ordinance, and then the city council will vote in an exemption.

Can you do that with a voter initiative?

POLICESTATE
11-25-2013, 3:23 PM
Can you do that with a voter initiative?

Not sure, if they can they will, if they can't they'll find some other work-around for it.

If nothing else they'll just tell the Public Safety Dept, off the record of course, to look the other way when it comes to their own. Don't ask don't tell or something to that effect.

taperxz
11-25-2013, 3:35 PM
Not sure, if they can they will, if they can't they'll find some other work-around for it.

If nothing else they'll just tell the Public Safety Dept, off the record of course, to look the other way when it comes to their own. Don't ask don't tell or something to that effect.

Kinda hard to do if the NRA is suing them.

riddler408
11-25-2013, 3:49 PM
GOOD!

a1c
11-25-2013, 3:51 PM
I'm quite dumbfounded to see some of you root for this.

Your petty reasoning seems to be "If I can't have it, they shouldn't either".

Which I find incredibly childish. It's an "us vs. them" mentality, which completely negates the fact that many LEOs are on our side.

So grow up.

Dutch3
11-25-2013, 4:08 PM
It has seemed to me that there is sort of a de facto 'gray area' in regard to LE and duty use vs. non-duty use.

If a LEO can purchase a RAW for duty use by virtue of a letter from a superior, does that mean that personally-owned firearm can only be used while on duty? What about magazines personally purchased?

I have interacted with LEO's at the range shooting registered firearms using 30-round mags while obviously not on duty, as I am sure many others have.

There is always the argument that LE is never really "off duty" and that in some departments, duty gear is personally purchased.

Flame on, but I think I am asking a legitimate question.

curtisfong
11-25-2013, 4:25 PM
I'm quite dumbfounded to see some of you root for this.

Your petty reasoning seems to be "If I can't have it, they shouldn't either".

Which I find incredibly childish. It's an "us vs. them" mentality, which completely negates the fact that many LEOs are on our side.

So grow up.

No. That isn't the reasoning. The reasoning is that exemptions are toxic because it not only fosters an "us v. them" mentality, but makes gun control that much easier, since we all know "cops have to have guns".

To that extent, it is much easier to defeat gun control efforts that do not have carve outs for LEO (or politicians, judges, etc. for that matter).

You've been here long enough to understand this, so I am surprised you need it explained to you.

taperxz
11-25-2013, 4:31 PM
It has seemed to me that there is sort of a de facto 'gray area' in regard to LE and duty use vs. non-duty use.

If a LEO can purchase a RAW for duty use by virtue of a letter from a superior, does that mean that personally-owned firearm can only be used while on duty? What about magazines personally purchased?

I have interacted with LEO's at the range shooting registered firearms using 30-round mags while obviously not on duty, as I am sure many others have.

There is always the argument that LE is never really "off duty" and that in some departments, duty gear is personally purchased.

Flame on, but I think I am asking a legitimate question.

In some cases you might be right, (depends on the city) In SF everything they have on them is purchased for them by the city. SF is actually a perfect place to play this court game. SF LEO's for the most part, don't need to supply themselves with anything accept perhaps their off duty concealed carry as that is optional for them to carry.

Gryff
11-25-2013, 4:34 PM
They should have to buy from the "safe list" of guns, too.

Agreed. It is even more critical that people who carry handguns as part of their be employment be required to only carry "safe" ones.

a1c
11-25-2013, 4:41 PM
No. That isn't the reasoning. The reasoning is that exemptions are toxic because it not only fosters an "us v. them" mentality, but makes gun control that much easier, since we all know "cops have to have guns".

To that extent, it is much easier to defeat gun control efforts that do not have carve outs for LEO (or politicians, judges, etc. for that matter).

You've been here long enough to understand this, so I am surprised you need it explained to you.

I don't like exemptions either.

But here we have people cheering that LEOs would have to surrender standard capacity magazines.

How can anyone rejoice about this?

The only upside is that we might have a case if this thing develops like some suggest it might.

Dutch3
11-25-2013, 4:49 PM
How can anyone rejoice about this?



I am certainly not rejoicing about it, but have often wondered when legislators would end up 'shooting themselves in the foot', so to speak, when enacting overreaching firearms legislation.

Perhaps this is it.

curtisfong
11-25-2013, 4:52 PM
But here we have people cheering that LEOs would have to surrender standard capacity magazines.

I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing people happy that CLEOs (for once) are being forced to help us fight an unjust law.

ke6guj
11-25-2013, 5:10 PM
I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing people happy that CLEOs (for once) are being forced to help us fight an unjust law.
this.

some of us are upset that LEOs are "bought" off with most of these anti-gun laws by writing in exemptions so that the LE-lobbyists will either support (or take no position) on a proposed ban.

I remember that it wasn't too long ago that there was heavy lobbying, by both LEO groups and pro-gun groups, for a nationwide CCW law that would be for the public and LEOs. Well, the bill got amended to just cover LEOs, they got their bill passed (LEOSA) and it seemed like the LEO groups disappeared from the push for the public's nationwide CCW needs.

So, if an LEO group loses an exemption that was used to "buy" they off while the rest of us lose gun rights, don't expect me to shed a tear. Does that mean that I'm sorry for my LEO friends that can't use that exemption anymore, sure, but that doesn't mean that as a whole I'm sorry about it.

Rumline
11-25-2013, 5:11 PM
I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing people happy that CLEOs (for once) are being forced to help us fight an unjust law.
Speaking for myself, THIS ^

Like it or not, legislators (and judges) give law enforcement more credibility and deference than the rest of the population at large. If this is what it takes to get someone involved in our cause who the Powers That Be will listen to, then so be it.

a1c
11-25-2013, 5:52 PM
I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing people happy that CLEOs (for once) are being forced to help us fight an unjust law.

If that's the reason behind the rejoicing of a couple of posters in here, then I retract what I said.

curtisfong
11-25-2013, 6:12 PM
Well who knows? Perhaps I am just projecting :)

arsilva32
11-25-2013, 8:26 PM
I'm quite dumbfounded to see some of you root for this.

Your petty reasoning seems to be "If I can't have it, they shouldn't either".

Which I find incredibly childish. It's an "us vs. them" mentality, which completely negates the fact that many LEOs are on our side.

So grow up.

well this brings even more to our side doesn't it!

Dragunov
11-25-2013, 8:32 PM
I'm quite dumbfounded to see some of you root for this.

Your petty reasoning seems to be #1 "If I can't have it, they shouldn't either".

Which I find incredibly childish. It's an "us vs. them" mentality, which completely negates the fact that #2 many LEOs are on our side.

So grow up.ExACTly!!!!!

Then perhaps they should be in the FOREFRONT of this battle. I haven't seen it.

rips31
11-25-2013, 8:42 PM
Thanks, clint. Glad i wasn't imagining this omission when i read the bill's text.

Let's see how this will all play out.

curtisfong
11-25-2013, 8:46 PM
ExACTly!!!!!

Then perhaps they should be in the FOREFRONT of this battle. I haven't seen it.

Until CLEO is on our side, LEOs are irrelevant. They don't write laws. They don't advise the legislature. They don't lend public support to laws. They don't drive enforcement policy. They don't issue statements to the media.

Tincon
11-25-2013, 8:47 PM
It has seemed to me that there is sort of a de facto 'gray area' in regard to LE and duty use vs. non-duty use.

If a LEO can purchase a RAW for duty use by virtue of a letter from a superior, does that mean that personally-owned firearm can only be used while on duty? What about magazines personally purchased?

I have interacted with LEO's at the range shooting registered firearms using 30-round mags while obviously not on duty, as I am sure many others have.

There is always the argument that LE is never really "off duty" and that in some departments, duty gear is personally purchased.

Flame on, but I think I am asking a legitimate question.

Active Leo magazines that were issued to them for official duty use are exempted. i.e. when the cop is off-duty he can’t be busted for possessing his official-duty magazine.

But cops are often authorized to buy their own firearms and mags for “off-duty” use. This law bans them from possessing any mags for off-duty use if they are over ten rounds. And it bans them from possessing any that they may have in their private collections.

I'm quite dumbfounded to see some of you root for this.

Your petty reasoning seems to be "If I can't have it, they shouldn't either".

Which I find incredibly childish. It's an "us vs. them" mentality, which completely negates the fact that many LEOs are on our side.

So grow up.

Rooting for what? We didn't pass this law, and doubt many people here supported it. It does what it does.

And what it does is it puts LEOs on OUR side. They want to be able to possess standard cap mags for their private purposes, the same as the rest of us. That's fine. This law prevents everyone from doing so. Therefore, the cops will make a fine ally, which is what our opponents have accomplished.

The fact that this is being exposed is a good thing, and I think that’s what people are happy about. Not that Cops are getting screwed.

That said, cops have no right to have magazines they own for their personal use beyond the rights of the rest of us. We should oppose all "special" classes of citizens, some of which are "more equal than others".

CBR_rider
11-25-2013, 10:18 PM
That said, cops have no right to have magazines they own for their personal use beyond the rights of the rest of us. We should oppose all "special" classes of citizens, some of which are "more equal than others".

Probably one of the few times you and I will agree...

kcbrown
11-25-2013, 10:18 PM
Kinda hard to do if the NRA is suing them.

Why?

Unofficial communications are, well, unofficial and off the record. How is a lawsuit going to change that?

And even if that winds up getting out, nothing will happen to the individuals in question. Any damages won by the plaintiffs will be paid out of the city's coffers, not the individuals' own funds. I wouldn't be surprised if the damages wind up being paid by some insurance plan the city has.

The bottom line is that it's not really their money that's on the line, so they don't have to care. If you don't believe me, just look at what happened to the city officials that lost the last lawsuit. Zilch. Squat. Nada. That's what.

wolfwood
11-25-2013, 10:57 PM
How do they think this is going to be enforced? Are the cops going to start arresting each other?

LoneYote
11-25-2013, 11:12 PM
How do they think this is going to be enforced? Are the cops going to start arresting each other?

Would be kinda comical to see it on the evening news...

curtisfong
11-25-2013, 11:14 PM
Of course not. An exemption will be added. The courts won't do a damn thing.

Patrick Aherne
11-25-2013, 11:47 PM
This is a state preemption issue. It's not going to do ANYTHING to convince the majority of cops to support the 2a fight. Keep thinking it will, but it won't. And, it won't convince Chiefs to act like reasonable, freedom-loving Americans either.

Tincon
11-25-2013, 11:50 PM
This is a state preemption issue.

Actually, it isn't. Have you read the complaint?

sl0re10
11-26-2013, 6:45 AM
I'm quite dumbfounded to see some of you root for this.

Your petty reasoning seems to be "If I can't have it, they shouldn't either".

Which I find incredibly childish. It's an "us vs. them" mentality, which completely negates the fact that many LEOs are on our side.

So grow up.

A: I don't think it is. Police are just citizens. We shouldn't give them special status. Smells aristocratic to hand out special dispensations to some groups. Re: we'll keep working to disarm you serfs but these state employees can have "whatever they need".
B: For some people it is strategic. They (I included) think they exempt police to pry a interest group away from us anti [in general] people. When the police feel the pain with us... they're more likely to help us fight these laws.

sl0re10
11-26-2013, 6:56 AM
How do they think this is going to be enforced? Are the cops going to start arresting each other?

Call the CHP or a Federal Ranger (if they're at a range on the edge of a NP)?

curtisfong
11-26-2013, 8:47 AM
Actually, it isn't. Have you read the complaint?

http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SFVPOA-v-San-Francisco_Complaint__.pdf

They went out of their way to avoid a pre-emption argument. I assume this is because they actually wanted a 2A case, rather than going for the easy win?

REH
11-26-2013, 9:19 AM
Until CLEO is on our side, LEOs are irrelevant. They don't write laws. They don't advise the legislature. They don't lend public support to laws. They don't drive enforcement policy. They don't issue statements to the media.

They do have strong unions that donate to the politicians.........

curtisfong
11-26-2013, 9:31 AM
They do have strong unions that donate to the politicians.........

Compared to the influence CLEO have, it's almost irrelevant.

Unions almost never participate in the PR blitz that accompanies gun control legislation; it's almost always sheriffs or police chiefs doing the grandstanding.

The media gets its news from CLEO, not unions, so when there is a shooting (or any other violent crime), CLEO has an opportunity to feed the media their special brand of gun control spin. You know the phrases CLEO loves to use that the media blindly parrot:

"assault weapon"

"military style"

"high powered"

"guns on the streets"

"deadly hollow point bullets"

"cop killer armor penetrating bullets"

And, of course:

"high capacity bullet clips" LOL.

chainsaw
11-26-2013, 9:33 AM
How do they think this is going to be enforced? Are the cops going to start arresting each other?

There is some saying that goes "all the code, all the time, every place". I don't remember the details.

County park rangers, state park rangers, and the CHP are all sworn state law enforcement officers, with badges (in the case of county park rangers unarmed), and can all detain, arrest, cite, and bring cases to the local DA. Same with fire department arson investigators and state DoJ criminal investigators, I think (although their powers might be limited to their specific subject matter expertise, I'm not an expert on those unusual parts of the law enforcement business).

Where I agree with wolfwood: The specter of having a county park ranger arrest the bulk of the Sunnyvale DPS is so laughable, it's unlikely to happen.

RobG
11-26-2013, 10:26 AM
I'm quite dumbfounded to see some of you root for this.

Your petty reasoning seems to be "If I can't have it, they shouldn't either".

Which I find incredibly childish. It's an "us vs. them" mentality, which completely negates the fact that many LEOs are on our side.

So grow up.

I see it as putting off duty LE and "ordinary citizens" on equal footing and not perpetuating the "us vs. them" mentality. It really has nothing to do with the magazines at all.

LE officers get the benefit of buying pretty much whatever they want and not be work related in any way. That is just not right.

a1c
11-26-2013, 10:29 AM
I see it as putting off duty LE and "ordinary citizens" on equal footing and not perpetuating the "us vs. them" mentality. It really has nothing to do with the magazines at all.

LE officers get the benefit of buying pretty much whatever they want and not be work related in any way. That is just not right.

It's not right. But it's not right either to be happy to see their privileges restricted just because we don't have them. That's just petty.

POLICESTATE
11-26-2013, 10:39 AM
It's not right. But it's not right either to be happy to see their privileges restricted just because we don't have them. That's just petty.

No, it's not petty. Not in a free and EQUAL society. That's the whole point. There is no law saying that their issued or department sanctioned guns and magazines must comply with laws affecting private ownership, only their privately owned guns and magazines.

I think we should be happy when the system works to the extent that certain groups are not allowed "privileges" that are beyond any other group, it's an indication that we mean what we say when we say liberty and justice for ALL.

Now there can be a different type of happy where it is more petty but I don't really care about that, it's just a distraction from the real issue which is that our rights are being more and more restricted and in some cases little more than a glorified privilege. That's the real issue with Measure C in Sunnyvale.

It has little to do with whether cops get to have 11+ round magazines for their own private use while the rest of us do not. These laws are unconstitutional, whether the courts agree or not. The more the courts want to say this or that is constitutional when it is really not the more we move into tyranny.

That's the issue here. In fact I would say that cops getting to privately own things that the rest of us cannot is a piece of tyranny, so be happy this particular law does not do that.

a1c
11-26-2013, 11:10 AM
No, it's not petty. Not in a free and EQUAL society.

What you're advocating is the smallest denominator. Whomever has the least freedom should be the model for everyone's amount of freedom.

Equal, sure. Kinda like in communist regimes. But I'm not sure that's a "free" society.

Tincon
11-26-2013, 11:14 AM
What you're advocating is the smallest denominator. Whomever has the least freedom should be the model for everyone's amount of freedom.

Equal, sure. Kinda like in communist regimes. But I'm not sure that's a "free" society.

I take it you are a glass is half empty kind of guy? You could just as easily say that whomever has the MOST freedom should be the model for everyone's amount of freedom. Again, the point is that no one should have special rights.

randomBytes
11-26-2013, 11:15 AM
Can you do that with a voter initiative?

If they had any respect for the law we wouldn't be discussing this....

curtisfong
11-26-2013, 11:24 AM
What you're advocating is the smallest denominator. Whomever has the least freedom should be the model for everyone's amount of freedom.

Equal, sure. Kinda like in communist regimes. But I'm not sure that's a "free" society.

Are you really equating equal protection under the law as a communist principle worthy of derision?

There is nothing as corrosive as selectively enforced laws. If all laws were always enforced equally, you'd have a lot less dumb laws.

taperxz
11-26-2013, 11:57 AM
If they had any respect for the law we wouldn't be discussing this....

HUH? I think you are taking the thread out of context. Or you are not sure about what you saying.

kcbrown
11-26-2013, 11:59 AM
It's not right. But it's not right either to be happy to see their privileges restricted just because we don't have them. That's just petty.

Would your argument be the same if the privileges in question were restricted to members of the legislature, rather than police?

RobG
11-26-2013, 8:33 PM
It's not right. But it's not right either to be happy to see their privileges restricted just because we don't have them. That's just petty.

Has nothing to do with being happy that they are being restricted. Has everything to do with the fact that having a badge no longer means, in this particular case, that you are somehow better than those of us without one.

taperxz
11-26-2013, 8:46 PM
It appears my very good friend A1C is getting pounded here. So let me help out in his defense. (he really is a great guy)

I can see his point on getting excited about anyone losing a right in this state!

I think what most people are saying here is that, since the Jerry Brown letter as AG limiting the AW status to the retired, we really have not been able to get LE on our side fully. (they like their protected class)

This case will begin to bring them around to the 2A rights for all class IMHO.

This will be the first lawsuit where LE needs to be on our side or THEY will fall down the slippery slope. I think its important to distinguish the difference here so that all can understand the concept.

Patrick Aherne
11-26-2013, 11:42 PM
Actually, it isn't. Have you read the complaint?

I stand corrected, sir, thank you for pointing out my error.

wobbleside
11-27-2013, 12:24 AM
Wait.. someone applied gun control to everyone equally? Well bravo. While I do not support gun control or most of our current gun law, LEOs should not be exempt from any of it. They are no -more- or less equal to every other citizen.

DannyInSoCal
11-27-2013, 12:40 AM
I'm quite dumbfounded to see some of you root for this.

Your petty reasoning seems to be "If I can't have it, they shouldn't either".

Which I find incredibly childish. It's an "us vs. them" mentality, which completely negates the fact that many LEOs are on our side.

So grow up.

Actually - It's about time the police union gets a reason to pull the purse strings on their union owned political hacks.

They didn't do it for the public -

Maybe they'll do it for their own.

Besides - It's good for LEO's to be reminded what it's like to have to deal with the constant barage of unconstitutional bullcrap - Tha the law abiding taxpaying citizens and veterans have to deal with....

nobody_special
11-27-2013, 12:51 AM
I'm quite dumbfounded to see some of you root for this.

Your petty reasoning seems to be "If I can't have it, they shouldn't either".

Which I find incredibly childish. It's an "us vs. them" mentality, which completely negates the fact that many LEOs are on our side.

So grow up.

It's called equal protection and the rule of law. Maybe you've heard of it?

nobody_special
11-27-2013, 1:00 AM
I can see his point on getting excited about anyone losing a right in this state!


Only, that isn't his point. He thinks it's preferable to void equal protection in order to preserve special rights for special people. That is wrong.

There are many rights and freedoms beyond the 2nd amendment. Equal protection was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education. Let's not throw it under the bus.

Sakiri
11-27-2013, 1:20 AM
I don't like exemptions either.

But here we have people cheering that LEOs would have to surrender standard capacity magazines.

How can anyone rejoice about this?

The only upside is that we might have a case if this thing develops like some suggest it might.

I'm not rejoicing about the topic of the bill, I'm rejoicing that the bill applies equally.

If that makes sense. It's a stupid bill, but since it applies to both parties I'm marginally amused.

Exemptions are stupid.

sholling
11-27-2013, 1:50 AM
Compared to the influence CLEO have, it's almost irrelevant.

Unions almost never participate in the PR blitz that accompanies gun control legislation; it's almost always sheriffs or police chiefs doing the grandstanding.
You're missing the most important part - LE unions control the campaign finance purse strings and rank and file LEOs control the amount of city/county income derived from traffic tickets. CLEOs can mouth off all that they like but it's the unions with the power to target politicians for defeat, and it's the unions with the power to call out those politicians for putting their lives at risk. Public employees' unions rule this state with an iron fist.

curtisfong
11-27-2013, 9:30 AM
You're missing the most important part - LE unions control the campaign finance purse strings and rank and file LEOs control the amount of city/county income derived from traffic tickets. CLEOs can mouth off all that they like but it's the unions with the power to target politicians for defeat, and it's the unions with the power to call out those politicians for putting their lives at risk. Public employees' unions rule this state with an iron fist.

As far as I can tell, union policy is driven by the equivalent of CLEO, not the rank and file.

tonelar
11-27-2013, 9:40 AM
It's not right. But it's not right either to be happy to see their privileges restricted just because we don't have them. That's just petty.

If it weren't for the exemption of law enforcement, how many gun control laws do you think we'd be living under? Buying them off was instrumental in passing the original AWB.

I agree wholeheartedly, if EVERYONE has to live equally under all these BS laws, we all benefit because they'd be fixed pronto. Just like healthcare. If we all had to be in the same system, the 1% would guarantee that our health care would be top notch.

POLICESTATE
11-27-2013, 9:46 AM
What you're advocating is the smallest denominator. Whomever has the least freedom should be the model for everyone's amount of freedom.

Equal, sure. Kinda like in communist regimes. But I'm not sure that's a "free" society.


Actually I advocate quite the opposite, whoever has the most freedom should be the standard. Ideally everyone should have the same freedoms.

If people are found to have more freedom than others then others should have their freedoms increased.

taperxz
11-27-2013, 10:05 AM
Actually I advocate quite the opposite, whoever has the most freedom should be the standard. Ideally everyone should have the same freedoms.

If people are found to have more MONEY than others then others should have their Wealth increased.

Read what i corrected in your post^^^ I think A1C is trying to make this point.

POLICESTATE
11-27-2013, 10:07 AM
Read what i corrected in your post^^^ I think A1C is trying to make this point.

I'm sure he was. But Wealth is not the same thing as Freedom. It's not even relevant to this thread.

There is no guarantee of equal wealth or health for that matter.

We are supposed to have equal liberties and justice.

sholling
11-27-2013, 10:21 AM
It's not right. But it's not right either to be happy to see their privileges restricted just because we don't have them. That's just petty.
We aren't talking about privileges - we're talking about rights denied the general public. You may have missed it but the US Constitution calls for equal protection under the law, not more equal protection for government officials (including LEOs) and less equal for the rest of us (the peasants). Only by making government officials "eat their own dogfood" and live by the same restrictions that they impose and enforce on the rest of us will we give them any reason to respect our rights.

As far as I can tell, union policy is driven by the equivalent of CLEO, not the rank and file.
Union policy is driven by the need to keep money flowing from members by keeping those members happy and well paid. But perhaps you haven't noticed that not only were LEOs exempted from the state's 10rd ban for both duty and personal off duty weapons, they were also exempted from the state's "not unsafe handgun roster" for both duty and personal off duty weapons. That's union power in action! It's a blatant carve-out to get LE unions to sit by quietly, safe in the knowledge that their members are exempt, while our rights are taken away. Special rights are not good for LEOs because it drives a larger wedge between the public and law enforcement, and it's not good for the general public who are betrayed by LEOs solemnly sworn to uphold and defend the US constitution, and it's sure as heck not good the victims of those laws.

Bhobbs
11-27-2013, 10:37 AM
It's not right. But it's not right either to be happy to see their privileges restricted just because we don't have them. That's just petty.

I don't see it as restricting their privileges. I see it as ending the hypocrisy we face as gun owners. No cop should be able to go and buy an off roster hand gun, a listed AW or hi cap mags and use them for personal enjoyment. If it is illegal for us to have, buy or use, they should have to leave it all at work.

Californio
11-27-2013, 12:46 PM
I believe Line 21. should read December 8, 2013


Great I hope the Judge rules honestly.



GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
San Francisco Police Code Section 619:
20. On or about November 8, 2013, Defendant Lee signed into law San
Francisco Police Code Section 619. (A copy of San Francisco Police Code Section
619 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein.)
21. Section 619 takes effect on December 8, 2014, thirty (30) days after the
date that it was signed into law.

jdberger
11-28-2013, 2:31 AM
Might be interesting to see the results of a PRAR requesting statistics on numbers of magazines turned in by folks. Especially if there was a way to get some sort of demographic breakdown.

Just_some_guy
12-07-2013, 12:28 PM
The truth is, a LEO is a citizen and a civilian. Law enforcement is a civilian duty. I can see making certain weapons available for on-duty use, but they need to be owned by the agency and kept in the custody and armory of the agency when not in use on duty.

There is no difference between an off-duty LEO and any other citizen. Any argument that can be made for an off-duty LEO carrying or possessing any firearm can be made for any law-abiding citizen to possess the same.

The LEO exemptions are often intended as a way to buy off law enforcement, generally at the political layer. There are plenty of LEO's who don't think ordinary citizens should have firearms at all. But my experience is that many LEO's are supportive of lawful 2nd-A rights.

LEO's should keep in mind that the exemptions they get today will be next to be taken. Authority will be centralized and there is no desire to have lower minions as well armed as the higher-up minions.

So, I say, the same rules for all citizens.