Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   (operation started) How much would you pay for Valid LEO credentials (issued to you)? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=238977)

AJAX22 11-08-2009 8:41 AM

(operation started) How much would you pay for Valid LEO credentials (issued to you)?
 
For a summary of this thread please go to www.ccwforall.com
----
Just an update:

We incorporated the New Promethean Initiative to pursue this (and other 2A projects), and will be applying for 501c3 status during fiscal 2011. we are not yet a 501c3 organization.

If you want to support our efforts,

We can accept Paypal donations at: DonateNPI@gmail.com

or we can accept checks at:

New Promethean Initiative
P.O. Box 811353
Los Angeles CA 90081
__________________

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...r77/graph1.jpg

Quote:

INTRODUCED BY ___________________________________
AN ACT CREATING A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MEMBER KNOWN AS SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER; AMENDING SECTIONS 7-32-201, 7-32-212 AND 7-32-234 MCA; ADDING NEW SECTIONS 7-32-240, 7-32-241, 7-32-242, 7-32-243, 7-32-244, 7-32-245, 7-32-246, and 46-6-209 TO MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Legislature declares that it is in the best interest of the People of the State of Montana to create a new law enforcement agency member known as auxiliary reserve officer.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
Section 1. Section 7-32-201, MCA, is amended to read:
“7-32-201. Definitions.
As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Auxiliary officer” means an unsworn, part-time, volunteer member of a law enforcement agency who may perform but is not limited to the performance of such functions as civil defense, search and rescue, office duties, crowd and traffic control, and crime prevention activities.
(2) “Council” means the Montana public safety officer standards and training council established in 2-15-2029.
(3) “General law enforcement duties” means patrol operations performed for detection, prevention, and suppression of crime and the enforcement of criminal and traffic codes of this state and its local governments.
(4) “Law enforcement agency” means a law enforcement service provided directly by a local government.
(5) “Law enforcement officer” means a sworn, full-time, employed member of a law enforcement agency who is a peace officer, as defined in 46-1-202, and has arrest authority, as described in 46-6-210.
(6) “Reserve officer” means a sworn, part-time, volunteer member of a law enforcement agency who is a peace officer, as defined in 46-1-202, and has arrest authority, as described in 46-6-210, only when authorized to perform these functions as a representative of the law enforcement agency.
(7) “Special services officer” means an unsworn, part-time, volunteer member of a law enforcement agency who may perform functions, other than general law enforcement duties, that require specialized skills, training, and qualifications, who may be required to train with a firearm, and who may carry a firearm while on assigned duty as provided in 7-32-239.
(8) “Auxiliary reserve officer” means a sworn, part-time member of a law enforcement agency who is not a peace officer as defined in 46-1-202, and who engages in the prevention, detection and investigation of violations of law, who may carry a firearm as provided in 7-32-241 and has arrest authority, as described in 46-6-209.”
Section 2. Section 7-32-212, MCA, is amended to read:
“7-32-212. Prohibition on reduction of full-time officers.
A local government may not reduce the authorized number of full-time law enforcement officers through the appointment or utilization of reserve officers or auxiliary reserve officers.”
Section 3. Section 7-32-234, MCA, is amended to read:
“7-32-234. Exceptions.
Provisions of 7-32-211, 7-32-213, and 7-32-214 do not apply to auxiliary officers, to special services officers, to auxiliary reserve officers, to sworn volunteer peace officers who are not assigned to general law enforcement duties, or to members of a posse organized to quell public disturbance or domestic violence in accordance with 7-32-2121(6).”
Section 4. Following new Sections 7-32-240, 7-32-241, 7-32-242, 7-32-243, 7-32-244, 7-32-245, 7-32-246, and 46-6-209, are hereby added to MCA:
7-32-240. LEOSA Qualification.
It is the express intent of the Legislature that each of the following offices qualify as a “qualified law enforcement officer” a such term is used in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004: (1) law enforcement officer, (2) special services officer, and (3) auxiliary reserve officer.
7-32-241. Auxiliary reserve officers -- authorization -- role.
(1) Auxiliary reserve officers:
(a) are subordinate to full-time law enforcement officers;
(b) may carry a weapon while on assigned duty and while off duty upon successful completion of training described in 7-32-245;
(c) have arrest authority described in 46-6-209.
(2) A local government may authorize auxiliary reserve officers only on the orders and at the direction of the chief law enforcement administrator of the local government.
7-32-242. Qualifications for appointment as auxiliary reserve officer.
To be appointed an auxiliary reserve officer, a person:
(1) must be a citizen of the United States or legal resident of the United States in good standing;
(2) must be at least 18 years of age;
(3) must be fingerprinted, and a search must be made of local, state, and national fingerprint files to disclose any criminal record;
(4) may not have been convicted of a crime for which the person could have been imprisoned in a federal penitentiary or state prison;
(5) must be of good moral character as determined by a thorough background investigation through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System;
(6) must have completed the training described in 7-32-244; and
(7) must have paid the application fee, completed the appointment application, and signed the employment agreement, in each case as established by the chief law enforcement administrator.
7-32-243. Auxiliary reserve officer employment.
(1) A local government authorized by its chief law enforcement administrator to appoint auxiliary reserve officers shall appoint any person that satisfies the qualifications for appointment as a special conditional officer set forth in 7-329-242.
(2) The application fee described in 7-329-242(1)(h) shall not exceed $___________ for applicants that are residents of the State of Montana, $_____________ for applicants that are not residents of the State of Montana, or $_________ for any applicant with prior military service.
(3) At the time of appointment, an auxiliary reserve officer shall take a formal oath of office.
(4) The appointment of auxiliary reserve officer shall be a salaried position with an annual salary equal to $1.00 per year.
(5) Any action taken by any auxiliary reserve officer that is not taken under the direct supervision, or at the express direction, of a law enforcement officer, shall be deemed action taken by the auxiliary reserve officer as a private citizen.
(6) An auxiliary reserve officer may only be terminated by the appointing agency in writing and for cause. Any of the following shall be deemed cause sufficient to termination an auxiliary reserve officer appointment: (a) the conviction of the auxiliary reserve officer of a crime for which a person may be imprisoned in a federal penitentiary or state prison, and (b) the incurrence by the auxiliary reserve officer of any civil or criminal liability involving a firearm, or other deadly weapon, assault, or battery.
(7) In the event of any natural disaster or state of emergency, the governor of the State of Montana or an issuing agency may declare a recall of all auxiliary reserve officers appointed by such agency. In the event of such declaration, any auxiliary reserve officers notified thereof in writing, shall make a good faith effort to report to such issuing agency in person as soon as practical; provided however, such auxiliary reserve officer shall have to provide for his/her own food, boarding and other provisions. It shall be the responsibility of all auxiliary reserve officers to maintain and verify that the issuing agency has current contact information on file should an emergency recall be declared.
7-32-244. Auxiliary reserve officer training. Prior to appointment, an auxiliary reserve officer shall have successfully completed ___ hours of training, which may be completed online and which shall include, without limitation, the following subject matters:
7-32-245. Auxiliary reserve officer firearm training. Prior to carrying a weapon while on duty or off duty, an auxiliary reserve officer shall have successfully completed the NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Course, or, if no such course is then available, an equivalent course then certified by the National Rifle Association (or other association approved by the appointing agency), or any other course approved by the appointing agency.
7-32-246. Auxiliary reserve officers -- exemptions.
The authorization and appointment of auxiliary reserve officers shall be exempt from:
(1) any and all residency requirements;
(2) any collective bargaining agreements and/or participation requirements;
(3) any insurance participation or coverage requirements;
(4) any and all minimum wage requirements;
(5) any and all pension and retirement plan participation requirements;
(6) any and all minimum time on duty;
(7) all training, education, and certification standards outlined in 7-32-303; and
(8) any and all qualifying standards for employment promulgated by the Montana public safety officer standards and training council established in 2-15-2029.
46-6-209. Arrest by auxiliary reserve officer.
An auxiliary reserve officer may arrest a person when:
(1) the officer has an arrest warrant as defined in 46-1-202 commanding that the person be arrested;
(2) the arrest is made within the jurisdiction of the local government that authorized and appointed the officer; and
(3) the arrest is made under the direct supervision of a full-time law enforcement officer.
Section 4. Effective date. This act is effective on passage and approval.
- END -
________________________________________
Latest Version of HB _____ (HB__________)
Processed for the Web on _____________
New language in a bill appears underlined, deleted material appears stricken.
Sponsor names are handwritten on introduced bills, hence do not appear on the bill until it is reprinted.
Working on an interesting idea, trying to get some market data.

If you could be legally considered a Law enforcement officer under HR218, and able to carry concealed in any state in the union... how much would it be worth to you?

credentials would be valid over 5 year renewal intervals, after 3 renewal periods you would be eligable for 'retirement' credentials.... and background check etc... and all sundry processing fees would be included..

please vote for the maximum which you would actually pay.

And be honest.

Thank you


edit:

Added graph of market data. revenue is in $1000's

Added text of primary proposal

Dr. Peter Venkman 11-08-2009 9:00 AM

Those are to be earned, not bought.

Nikola 11-08-2009 9:04 AM

Sounds weird...what's the idea?

AJAX22 11-08-2009 9:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Peter Venkman (Post 3332038)
Those are to be earned, not bought.

Um... no... they are NOT earned, they are simply issued, by cities or other governing entities... and in some places it is done with little or no qualification or requirements... CA has some requirements that must be met, but there are other places which do NOT have the same criteria, but still issue credentials which are valid for the purpose of concealed cary under the Law enforcement protection act.

Look, you may disagree with it morally/ethically etc. But it gets you a concealed Cary permit that is valid in any state in the union. INCLUDING CA and NYC.

AJAX22 11-08-2009 9:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikola (Post 3332050)
Sounds weird...what's the idea?

Don't want to get into details right now, I'm just trying to get some data.

Mitch 11-08-2009 9:08 AM

I would contribute to Carona's re-election campaign.

Whoops, did I just post that?

bodger 11-08-2009 9:10 AM

I'd donate $1000 to a movement to have LeRoy Baca removed from office and replaced by a shall issue sheriff.

command_liner 11-08-2009 9:18 AM

I would pay $500 without a problem.

Based on history from the past ~20 years, I can see where this is going.
EG, in Texas, IIRC on US 10, a town was incorporated for the express
purpose of writing speeding tickets! There were not residents of
the town, just police. Speeders on 10 got tickets, and that paid the
cost of the town PD.

Similarly, there are whole towns for sale occasionally in the west. Buy
one and make a PD. Set the PD hiring policies, and have some reasonable
restrictions.

Probably most people here are good candidates.

Roadrunner 11-08-2009 9:24 AM

Sounds like someone on a power trip. Unless you're going to actually do the job and go through all of the training, why would you want them other than for your own personal agenda? I think a better question would be how can we go about getting lawful CCW in all states and not have the Antigun Ted Kennedy types throw a fit like they did the last time.

I might also add that I think they are earned. If you see the kind of training they go through and actually stick it out, I'd say they earned it. On the other hand there are those that probably shouldn't be there and should have everything revoked.

GrizzlyGuy 11-08-2009 9:29 AM

Interesting idea, but I wonder how you plan to meet these employment requirements:

"In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer," a person must meet each and every one of the following criteria: He or she must be (1) "an employee of a governmental agency..."

"In order to exercise the privilege, the LEOSA-qualified individual must carry "the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enf...ers_Safety_Act

cineski 11-08-2009 9:31 AM

Should cost $0 and that's what I'd pay. Change your poll's #1 and I'll vote.

M. Sage 11-08-2009 9:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Peter Venkman (Post 3332038)
Those are to be earned, not bought.

:rofl2: Are you sure you even live in California!?

Ladyfox 11-08-2009 9:42 AM

I'd be willing to pony up $500 for something like this. Any more than that and it would really not be cost effective IMHO.

Still, on a deeper level I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand it would be nice to have a CCW that covers the entire country.

But on the other hand it brings up my frustration over the fact that in order to get access to something that should already be my right to have I would have to be "qualified" as "law enforcement" which is a load of bunk. But that gets into something entirely different and outside the scope of the OP.

B Strong 11-08-2009 10:37 AM

Right on the face of it, I see a major problem.

With respect to selling/issuing/granting LEO status to any individual outside of some odd bod, I have no trouble seeing any agency being slapped right down by either the state or federal authorities - the ATF has shown no hesitation in going after agencies issuing "love letters" for post-ban samples in cahoots with a dealer, so why wouldn't the authorities take action against an agency or municipality selling LE creds?

BTW, I've got an extra $1K sitting in the safe, so if you know something I don't know...;)

Window_Seat 11-08-2009 10:42 AM

I don't believe it should cost me anything to the Govt to be able to exercise my right. The firearms, ammunition, etc; yes, but the Govt, no... This is not what the Framers wanted.

Erik.

AJAX22 11-08-2009 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrizzlyGuy (Post 3332129)
Interesting idea, but I wonder how you plan to meet these employment requirements:

"In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer," a person must meet each and every one of the following criteria: He or she must be (1) "an employee of a governmental agency..."

"In order to exercise the privilege, the LEOSA-qualified individual must carry "the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enf...ers_Safety_Act

I agree that it SHOULD be free to exercise your rights... however, until that occurs, this would be an incremental approach which would effectively allow an individual to Cary a concealed weapon for the protection of his/her family regardless of state or local municipality law.

Photo ID and employment are easily satisfied... an independent contractor working for $1 meets the legal definition of an employee... and a photo ID can be whipped up with a digital camera and a laminating machine.

Note this would not confer any special powers or privileges beyond being considered to be a law enforcement officer, you would have statutory powers of arrest within a tiny little jurisdiction in a different state, and then only for gross violations of constitutional law.

You would be Just LEO enough to satisfy the federal requirements...

Think of this like the town sheriff swearing in the whole town, (and a few other towns) as deputies just in case they need a posse some day.... You'd be surprised how little requirements some states have as to what constitutes a law enforcement officer.

There is a reason the ABC, animal control, etc. etc. etc. all get to carry guns... and it ain't because they have some magical qualifications... the state says they are a LEO/Code enforcement officer.... so they get to carry a gun.... Now expand your thinking to include the fact that ANY citizen can perform a citizens arrest on anyone who commits a felony in their presence... If a LEO who is outside of their jurisdiction performs an arrest, it is no different than a citizens arrest... they are NOT enforcing law under the jurisdiction of their LEO credentials, they are simply acting as a private citizen performing a citizens arrest.

LEO credentials are not a license to run around playing cop... all they are is a license to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the united states (with a few exceptions... i.e. private property etc.)

With that in mind, how much would it be worth to you to have a guaranteed method of providing protection for your person and your family? Heck a good 1911 costs more than 1K.... how much is your life worth to you?

Serpentine 11-08-2009 11:22 AM

Well, when you start considering the the homeland foreign invasion provisions of the US Constitution 2A, the current and increasing in-country attacks in the news about "the killer is/or was a Muslim," the World Trade Center bombing, the 9/11 attack. EVERY US citizen should be armed either by some sort of national deputizing, coupled with a PC 832 course, background checks, and competency training, and with the "law enforcement" capacities limited to personal and national defense events only.

Can't we work this out with a reasonable 2A addendum with this national approved training course. The anti's might meet us in the middle on this sort of setup?

What do you think?

Linh 11-08-2009 11:25 AM

Cost me?

Well it would cost the Government $50k+ per year and that's just the starting salary for me to start.

I already get paid $24k per year to go to school 7 hours a week. Plus my regular full time job. I'm pulling in a total of $61k.

So I'm willing to take a pay cut but it will be worth it in the long run since it will open up more opportunities such as retirement after 20 years etc.............

Legasat 11-08-2009 11:25 AM

If there was a legal way to do this, I would do it.

Mitch 11-08-2009 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Sage (Post 3332137)
:rofl2: Are you sure you even live in California!?

Maybe he doesn't live in Orange County.

M. Sage 11-08-2009 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitch (Post 3332508)
Maybe he doesn't live in Orange County.

Ooooh good one!

dansgold 11-08-2009 11:40 AM

It's an interesting idea, if I properly grok what you are proposing.

I don't see how the whole "but what about the TRAINING, what about EARNING it?" argument follows logically. I base this on the (fairly large, I am told) number of of LE agencies and departments who deputize volunteer officers with minimal training. Sometimes it's no more than "hey I know old Bill's a good guy and can handle a gun". Ditto x 10 for the large number of celebrity deputies out there ... hell, ELVIS PRESLEY, Johnny Cash, Shaq, Lou Ferrigno, Steven Tyler (Aerosmith) anyone? When you consider that this extends to desk-jobs, traffic enforcement, part-time animal control or even mosquito-abatement(!?) positions ... why are we fussing over this?

I see some possible legal gotchas, but I love this out-of-box thinking.

AJAX22 11-08-2009 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serpentine (Post 3332493)
Well, when you start considering the the homeland foreign invasion provisions of the US Constitution 2A, the current and increasing in-country attacks in the news about "the killer is/or was a Muslim," the World Trade Center bombing, the 9/11 attack. EVERY US citizen should be armed either by some sort of national deputizing, coupled with a PC 832 course, background checks, and competency training, and with the "law enforcement" capacities limited to personal and national defense events only.

Can't we work this out with a reasonable 2A addendum with this national approved training course. The anti's might meet us in the middle on this sort of setup?

What do you think?

The legal structures are already in place which allow for this.

We don't have to meet ANYONE in the middle of anything... we can just do it.

And it may surprise you to know that there are a number of states which have no training/competency/qualification provisions for armed LEO status... which is why the HR218 text was drafted to include:

Quote:

‘‘(c) As used in this section, the term ‘qualified law enforcement
officer’ means an employee of a governmental agency who—
‘‘(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the
prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the
incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has
statutory powers of arrest;
‘‘(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
‘‘(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the
agency;
‘‘(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency
which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use
of a firearm;
H. R. 218—2
‘‘(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating
or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
‘‘(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a
firearm.
emphaisis mine


***edited to add**** Lol Grok.... Heinlein rocks.

GrizzlyGuy 11-08-2009 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJAX22 (Post 3332451)
Note this would not confer any special powers or privileges beyond being considered to be a law enforcement officer, you would have statutory powers of arrest within a tiny little jurisdiction in a different state, and then only for gross violations of constitutional law.

Ahhhh.... Thanks, that was a key piece of info for me. At first I thought there would be an obligation to deny my fellow citizens liberty by enforcing silly laws. I was going to suggest that you add some negative numbers to the poll (you pay me), even though no amount of money would cause me to do that. :D

I'm in, Dog Catcher for Podunk County, KY works for me. ;)

Meplat 11-08-2009 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serpentine (Post 3332493)
The anti's might meet us in the middle on this sort of setup?

What do you think?

I think you should check the color of the sun in your world.:rolleyes:

USAFTS 11-08-2009 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cineski (Post 3332133)
Should cost $0 and that's what I'd pay. Change your poll's #1 and I'll vote.

THIS (above)....Is the correct answer.

It should not cost a penny to exercise a God given, natural and Constitutionally guaranteed, individual right.

AJAX22 11-08-2009 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USAFTS (Post 3332607)
THIS (above)....Is the correct answer.

It should not cost a penny to exercise a God given, natural and Constitutionally guaranteed, individual right.

Could should would... ok I agree.

However here in the real world sometimes you gotta pay to play.

it'll cost you a heckuva lot more to fight a concealed weapons charge once you get busted for it than just throwing down a few bills up front for some 'auxiliary reserve deputy' credentials.

bohoki 11-08-2009 12:13 PM

i'd just like some for a couple days so i could buy a bunch of magazines and non rostered pistols then resign

Fjold 11-08-2009 12:16 PM

"Steven Seagal Lawman"

USAFTS 11-08-2009 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJAX22 (Post 3332652)
Could should would... ok I agree.

However here in the real world sometimes you gotta pay to play.

it'll cost you a heckuva lot more to fight a concealed weapons charge once you get busted for it than just throwing down a few bills up front for some 'auxiliary reserve deputy' credentials.

Sadly, you are probably right...but it would only take about 4 seconds for our own government to slam the door on this idea.

Meplat 11-08-2009 12:22 PM

I voted zero but on further review I would proly kick down $1000. But if we bought a cruiser and some of us volunteered to spend our vacation time writing tickets I think it could be at least a break even deal.

rambo 11-08-2009 2:15 PM

i voted zero as well but as reading i would pay 1000 plus maybe more would depend. Let me know soon i need to get some of this cash out of the safe to make room for more guns!

swaits 11-08-2009 2:24 PM

Count me in.

Carnivore 11-08-2009 2:26 PM

This is the first time I had heard of this in the open. I know of more then one person that has a "bought badge". For those that think they should be earned, I whole heartedly agree but they unfortunately aren't in all cases.

Since I lost my CCW after Baca took it away when getting his office, I would be real interested in this idea. Problem is I am with most thinking the government will put the kibosh on this in some way once it is out in the open for every one to see.

Ross 11-08-2009 2:42 PM

To be a Secret Squirrel and able to leagally protect my neighbors and those around me? - maybe 6 - 12 weeks of night classes.

If it will also require responding to an incedent where the bad guys aren't clearly defined - never.

jtippins 11-08-2009 2:48 PM

Something that needs to be considered: Statutory rights to arrest is a HUGE authority. If a civilian detains another person it can be kidnapping. A great deal of authority is given to police for a reason. IT cannot just be given out for the sake of CCW and any agency that would do it should be shut down.

However, in a manner of gathering data, which is what this thread was intended, if agencies could offer such credentials that would give a person this right, what would you pay for it?

Hmmmm... not sure. Probably not as much as most would think. :)

I love the convo on these forums, it's delightful to see the passion and expression of such among the brotherhood!

SkatinJJ 11-08-2009 2:52 PM

$500 plus my time to train and be sure to stay current with all laws pertaining to the responsibility of carrying the badge.

Count me in.

Semper FI!!!

JJ

bigcalidave 11-08-2009 2:54 PM

I'm so in. I like this idea :) And seriously, steven seagal gets to be a cop and go aikido nuts on perps, that means anyone should be able to !

That said, I don't really care about the starting fee, but it can't be so much that it really sucks to lose it when the state in question revokes all the credentials. Few hundred bucks should be ok? Whomever is organizing it would really need to make sure it's a-ok with the state affected. If suddenly there are 20,000 california gun nuts working as sheriff deputies for a rural kansas town it's going to create some news.

trashman 11-08-2009 2:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Peter Venkman (Post 3332038)
Those are to be earned, not bought.

I think you're confusing legal LEO credentials with the job of actually being a peace officer. Ethically I agree being a Peace Officer requires skill and training. Credentials, well....legally...that's another story.

The oddities of California law on this issue received a little sunlight in the media after the infamous Ferrari Enzo crash in Los Angeles involving Stefan Eriksson, who as it turns out was a "Deputy Police Commissioner" of the San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority. Here is a link to an LA Times article (cached because the LA Times archives are down).

--Neill

torsf 11-08-2009 3:11 PM

Hmm, I should just call the Contra Costa Sheriff Posse and find out... :rolleyes:


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.