Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 08-03-2010, 11:16 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I live in a part of Ca. that is one hell of a lot closer to being Mayberry than San Francisco. I have been 'made' several times by LEOs. I have never been abuse, proned out, disarmed, cuffed, and most certainly not drawn down on. I have been treated with respect and dignity by local LE. I know there are some miserably bad cops out there but in my experience it's maybe one percent. And in CA it seems to be a coastal phenomena. I'm sure you have a lot higher percentage of ******* cops in SF than we have here in Mayberry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonelar View Post
displays the mode of thinking encountered in people who get into Law Enforcement for the wrong reasons. His is NOT the prevalent attitude in the majority of LEOs I run into professionally.
He should draw down on a State or Federal security detail sometime... if one is ever likely to make its way into Mayberry, CA.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-03-2010, 11:45 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,531
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Why is so many here are experts in how LEO are trained, live and think... That is without any real experience. It's really sad. So many mind readers..

Good luck in life walking around with that big chip on your shoulder...

It's amazing how the O/P posted a positive article about the interaction between LEO's and CCW holders.

Somehow some of the "LEO haters" here just couldn't resist showing their true colors.

Oh and Guy regarding your signature line. Do you really think you would be causing any impact on LEO's or D.A.'s if your wish came true?

In fact the only people you would hurt would be the victims and their families.

I really hope no one you care for is ever the victim of a violent crime. If so you might change your mine.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.



Last edited by leelaw; 08-04-2010 at 7:58 AM.. Reason: edited
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-04-2010, 12:25 AM
nobody_special nobody_special is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

SVT-40, exactly what sort of attitude do you expect on this forum?

The attitude displayed in the OP's article is good. But that attitude is not universal. For example, it is not shared by many officers in my locale; rather, my impression is that they're cut from the same cloth as bigstick61's godfather.

There is a reason for the anti-police bias: police are the instruments by which the legislature prevents many of us from exercising certain 2nd amendment rights. And this isn't the first time we've heard of an officer who would threaten someone for exercising those rights (even though such a threat would violate a wide variety of laws - note the federal felony if two or more officers even contemplate such delinquency).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmund G. Brown
There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffyhog
When the governor vetoes a bill that would make it a felony to steal a gun, but signs a bill into law that makes it a felony not to register a gun you already legally own, you know something isn't right.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-04-2010, 12:28 AM
bigcalidave's Avatar
bigcalidave bigcalidave is offline
Pre-Banned
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: St. George, UT
Posts: 4,755
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Wow the stereotyping in the original article is kinda absurd, I wouldn't go so far as to say offensive, since I know a few guys that dress and act like that, but I hope that there is some free thinking in the approach that anyone may be a CCW holder. Niteqwill, there are many thousands of CCW holders in CA!! Soon there will be many more. Getting laid out like a felon simply because I carry every day with a license? Unacceptable.
__________________
Contact me about Advertising on Calguns.net
Marketing Director, Calguns.net
Dave Shore
NRA Life Member


Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-04-2010, 12:40 AM
sandwich sandwich is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
His behavior is at least unbecoming of someone charged with protecting and serving the population Constitution.
and

Quote:
Originally Posted by Veggie View Post
The aforementioned godfather seems to forget that police, like military are in a role were they are there to protect and lay down their lives for the people Constitution.
Fixed them both for you (two).

Constitution always comes first. Constitution applies to everyone equally.

On the other hand, if one thinks of "protecting the people," then he will give priority to those who are closest to him: those who give him the paycheck, those who love him, support him, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-04-2010, 6:27 AM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Does anyone else find it interesting that if an officer asks a citizen for help the citizen has to render assistance or can be arrested? But, if a citizen asks an officer for help the officer is under no obligation to act?

War is peace, less is more, hate is love. (Orwell)

Kind of bassackwards is it not?
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-04-2010, 6:47 AM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
SVT-40, exactly what sort of attitude do you expect on this forum?

The attitude displayed in the OP's article is good. But that attitude is not universal. For example, it is not shared by many officers in my locale; rather, my impression is that they're cut from the same cloth as bigstick61's godfather.

There is a reason for the anti-police bias: police are the instruments by which the legislature prevents many of us from exercising certain 2nd amendment rights. And this isn't the first time we've heard of an officer who would threaten someone for exercising those rights (even though such a threat would violate a wide variety of laws - note the federal felony if two or more officers even contemplate such delinquency).
So let me get this straight, you are angry at LEO’s because they enforce the laws that you as a citizen are partly responsible for creating (you can vote and be politically active right) and you are angry at all LEO’s because some LEO’s treat some gun owners badly.

It seems to me that this post started as one LEO going on record and publishing an opinion in a police magazine that people who hold CCW's should be treated respectfully, but you want to focus on the fact that someone heard it from a LEO that this LEO did not like people who were not LEO’s carrying guns. Other than talk garbage, what supposedly this LEO DONE?.

You say that a lot of the LEO’s in your local seem to have a poor attitude. Have you ever though that YOUR ATTITUDE may be a contributing factor on that.

I’m not saying that some LEO’s do not have poor attitudes, I’m just saying that it is a two way street and that there are some LEO’s here on this site that are bending over backwards to meet you more than half way.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-04-2010, 7:06 AM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Does anyone else find it interesting that if an officer asks a citizen for help the citizen has to render assistance or can be arrested? But, if a citizen asks an officer for help the officer is under no obligation to act?

War is peace, less is more, hate is love. (Orwell)

Kind of bassackwards is it not?
Interesting anti LEO interpretation.

I have never heard of anyone being arrested for not helping a LEO when requested.

The law that I believe that you are referring to says that a LEO has no obligation to help you is basically a civil thing that prevents a city, county, whatever from getting sued. Meaning in part that if during a riot; if the police don't get to your particular emergency, you cannot sue us (the riot is only one example, there are many more).

I know of very few if any officers that would not do whatever they could to help when someone reached out and asked for help. You may not agree with the help you get because you did not think that the outcome was fair (you got arrested for DV instead of your wife, or your drunken butt got taken to jail instead of driven home) but most officers that I know have a deep sense of a moral and ethical obligation to help. In my opinion, I think that moral and ethical is more important and better standard than legal anyway.

Last edited by greg36f; 08-04-2010 at 7:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-04-2010, 7:27 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 794
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
So let me get this straight, you are angry at LEOís because they enforce the laws that you as a citizen are partly responsible for creating (you can vote and be politically active right) and you are angry at all LEOís because some LEOís treat some gun owners badly.

It seems to me that this post started as one LEO going on record and publishing an opinion in a police magazine that people who hold CCW's should be treated respectfully, but you want to focus on the fact that someone heard it from a LEO that this LEO did not like people who were not LEOís carrying guns. Other than talk garbage, what supposedly this LEO DONE?.

You say that a lot of the LEOís in your local seem to have a poor attitude. Have you ever though that YOUR ATTITUDE may be a contributing factor on that.

Iím not saying that some LEOís do not have poor attitudes, Iím just saying that it is a two way street and that there are some LEOís here on this site that are bending over backwards to meet you more than half way.


I believe the contrast that some are expressing here is that LEO's in different areas (CA specifically) have stated in new articles that they are trained to view citizens with firearms as potential threats, this has translated into CCW or UOC private individuals being percieved as a threat, something that needs to be neutralized or stopped and assessed with regularity where as in other states or areas where CCW or LOC is considered mainstream or common place the LEO's are far more respectful of those carrying.

The attitudes recently expressed by a LEO in the Bay Area or comments by LEO's concerning the UOC movement mirror the sentiments and concerns being expressed by many on here about a stark attitude and approach difference by LEO's in various municipalities vs how firearm carrying non LEO's are viewed or trated in other states.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-04-2010, 7:27 AM
Stonewalker's Avatar
Stonewalker Stonewalker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigcalidave View Post
Wow the stereotyping in the original article is kinda absurd, I wouldn't go so far as to say offensive, since I know a few guys that dress and act like that, but I hope that there is some free thinking in the approach that anyone may be a CCW holder. Niteqwill, there are many thousands of CCW holders in CA!! Soon there will be many more. Getting laid out like a felon simply because I carry every day with a license? Unacceptable.
I noticed the stereotyping too. While I myself would be more suspicious of somebody who was dressed poorly as well, every single person in the USA is protected by the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments. Being poorly dressed doesn't make a person any less a citizen and it doesn't make CCW a crime. Dressing like a thug may be a reason to *attempt* to investigate further but the Constitution still applies.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-04-2010, 7:30 AM
nobody_special nobody_special is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
So let me get this straight, you are angry at LEO’s because they enforce the laws that you as a citizen are partly responsible for creating (you can vote and be politically active right) and you are angry at all LEO’s because some LEO’s treat some gun owners badly.
I have no responsibility for the actions of other people, such as legislators. I didn't vote for any of my so-called representatives.

Quote:
You say that a lot of the LEO’s in your local seem to have a poor attitude. Have you ever though that YOUR ATTITUDE may be a contributing factor on that.
I'm pretty confident that my attitude has no influence on their policies or behaviors.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmund G. Brown
There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffyhog
When the governor vetoes a bill that would make it a felony to steal a gun, but signs a bill into law that makes it a felony not to register a gun you already legally own, you know something isn't right.

Last edited by nobody_special; 08-05-2010 at 2:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-04-2010, 11:16 AM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,531
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
SVT-40, exactly what sort of attitude do you expect on this forum?
How about an attitude of fairness and honesty? Don't you expect, and in fact many times demand that from LEO's?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
The attitude displayed in the OP's article is good. But that attitude is not universal. For example, it is not shared by many officers in my locale; rather, my impression is that they're cut from the same cloth as bigstick61's godfather.
So because a few officers don't have the proper attitude you lump the tens of thousands LEO's in California together? How is that reasonable.

You decry when LEO's lump gun owners together. But then turn around and lump all LEO's together.

Using your own logic it would be perfectly reasonable for LEO's to fear all gun owners. Because as you said "they're cut from the same cloth". Aren't they? Or should each man be judged by his own individual actions and words. LEO's and gun owners alike?


Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
There is a reason for the anti-police bias:
So you think it's Okay and reasonable to have anti-LEO bias? So bias is okay as long as it fits your agenda? Bias of any sort is just wrong and shows a lack of reason and an elitist attitude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
Police are the instruments by which the legislature prevents many of us from exercising certain 2nd amendment rights. And this isn't the first time we've heard of an officer who would threaten someone for exercising those rights (even though such a threat would violate a wide variety of laws - note the federal felony if two or more officers even contemplate such delinquency).

Sorry but this argument is just baseless. The police enforce the laws which are on the books. If laws are changed enforcement changes. So stop scapegoating LEO's because you don't like certain laws.

Regarding your reference to the 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights. Your point is?

If you are somehow linking this to the story told by bigstick61 about his god father. Well stories are one thing and actuality is another. Personally I would disagree with anyone who had a similar attitude and would tell them to their face how wrong they were. But having an opinion is not a violation of the 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Nor any other section of law.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-04-2010, 1:04 PM
nobody_special nobody_special is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
How about an attitude of fairness and honesty? Don't you expect, and in fact many times demand that from LEO's?
To be honest, I have never "demanded" anything from LEO in any real sense. But if I were able to legally carry, I'd certainly expect not to have a gun pointed at me for the mere fact that I am legally exercising my right to carry.

Of course, what I expect and what would actually occur are two different things... and that is honesty for you.

Quote:
So because a few officers don't have the proper attitude you lump the tens of thousands LEO's in California together? How is that reasonable.

You decry when LEO's lump gun owners together. But then turn around and lump all LEO's together.
Woah, hold on; I never lumped all California LEO's together. That said, I've seen substantial evidence that the predominant view in urban coastal areas is very much against citizen carry.

Quote:
Using your own logic it would be perfectly reasonable for LEO's to fear all gun owners. Because as you said "they're cut from the same cloth". Aren't they? Or should each man be judged by his own individual actions and words. LEO's and gun owners alike?
I did not say that all LEO are "cut from the same cloth." Read my post again.

Quote:
So you think it's Okay and reasonable to have anti-LEO bias? So bias is okay as long as it fits your agenda? Bias of any sort is just wrong and shows a lack of reason and an elitist attitude.
Bias, insomuch as it prevents a rational examination of the issues, is not good. But there is a rational basis for some (not all) of the anti-police sentiment here.

I think it's pretty reasonable for the average gun-owner who wishes to carry for protection in LA or the bay area to have a negative view of their local police. Look at pullnshoot's experiences while legally open carrying; he's received multiple threats and had guns drawn and pointed at him. Police in my city have said that they would do the same. This is the sort of treatment that law-abiding citizens get in certain parts of this state, and as a result the attitude that you're decrying is absolutely reasonable, because quite frankly such conduct by LEO is indefensible and indeed criminal.

Quote:
Sorry but this argument is just baseless. The police enforce the laws which are on the books. If laws are changed enforcement changes. So stop scapegoating LEO's because you don't like certain laws.
You can't pass this off to the legislature, that's the Nuremberg defense. Those who enforce unjust laws are in fact enforcing injustice. By definition they are instruments of oppression.

If the legislature passed a law that required all people of a certain race to be rounded up and interned without trial, should the police enforce that? Don't scoff, this has happened before on several occasions in this country, and judicial remedy was ineffective.

If that were to occur again, by your argument we should just blame the legislature while holding the people who actually carry out the heinous act blameless. That is not right.

Quote:
Regarding your reference to the 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights. Your point is?
After MacDonald, the right to bear arms is a civil right in California. The stated behavior (pointing a gun at a person for no reason other than the fact that he is openly carrying a weapon) is a likely violation of all four statutes that I linked.

Quote:
If you are somehow linking this to the story told by bigstick61 about his god father. Well stories are one thing and actuality is another. Personally I would disagree with anyone who had a similar attitude and would tell them to their face how wrong they were. But having an opinion is not a violation of the 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Nor any other section of law.
Yes I am specifically referring to bigstick61's story, though you could also include the EPA facebook hubbub, pullnshoot's experiences as detailed on his blog, etc. -- there are plenty of examples. You decry the anti-LEO attitude here, while ignoring the obvious anti-gun-owner bias expressed by numerous LEO.

As for "stories being one thing and actuality is another," plenty of people exercising UOC have had guns pointed at them.

I never said that having an opinion is a 1983 violation; I said that the threat (drawing and pointing a gun at someone for UOC) is a violation. And in fact the conspiracy law in section 241 only requires that two people "conspire to... threaten, or intimidate" -- it does not even require that the threat or intimidation actually occur. That felony is only a small step beyond two officers merely "having an opinion" together.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmund G. Brown
There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffyhog
When the governor vetoes a bill that would make it a felony to steal a gun, but signs a bill into law that makes it a felony not to register a gun you already legally own, you know something isn't right.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-04-2010, 3:17 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,531
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Sorry but you cannot parse your words and say "I have never "demanded" anything from LEO in any real sense" If you mean you have never walked up to a LEO and to his face demanded anything. Yes, I believe that.

But your words assert your demands upon LEO's as a whole.


Below are both verbatim quotes from your posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
"Woah, hold on; I never lumped all California LEO's together."

"The attitude displayed in the OP's article is good. But that attitude is not universal. For example, it is not shared by many officers in my locale; rather, my impression is that they're cut from the same cloth as bigstick61's godfather."
So you did lump LEO's together. At least "many" of the LEO's in your local.

And of course no group of any sort LEO's or gun owners have a attitude which is "universal" as you call it.

You say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
"But there is a rational basis for some (not all) of the anti-police sentiment here."
Given the same logic you are saying that LEO's should have a rational basis for being suspect of gun owners??

Bias is bias. No way to pretty it up to make it acceptable.

If you have bias toward LEO's in general. Or bias against gun owners in general then those views are just plain wrong.

Another of your flawed reasoning's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
You can't pass this off to the legislature, that's the Nuremberg defense. Those who enforce unjust laws are in fact enforcing injustice. By definition they are instruments of oppression.

Comparing LEO's to NAZIS, which you do when you raise "the Nuremberg defense". Is absolutely bias.
Our system of justice is nothing like the NAZI's


Until laws are legally changed they are legal and enforceable. Just because you don't like them does not change that fact. Your stance is an opinion and nothing more. LEO's don't enforce "opinions". If that were the case it would be anarchy.

You are entitled to your opinion. But it is just your opinion.

As I said before when laws change then LEO's will also change their enforcement.

Your quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
After MacDonald, the right to bear arms is a civil right in California. The stated behavior (pointing a gun at a person for no reason other than the fact that he is openly carrying a weapon) is a likely violation of all four statutes that I linked.
As above. NOTHING in California law has changed. When it does enforcement will change. LEO's don't get to cherry pick which laws they enforce.

You also oversimplify by stating that LEO's pointed guns at individuals for:
"no reason other than the fact that he is openly carrying a weapon".

You nor I know the circumstances of these encounters. Were the police called because of a armed individual? what was the situation at the time?

I'm sure many have had guns pointed at them? But just because the police point guns at an individual does not mean the police were guilty of any misconduct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
Yes I am specifically referring to bigstick61's story, though you could also include the EPA facebook hubbub, pullnshoot's experiences as detailed on his blog, etc. -- there are plenty of examples. You decry the anti-LEO attitude here, while ignoring the obvious anti-gun-owner bias expressed by numerous LEO.
I guess you missed my comments above.

"Or should each man be judged by his own individual actions and words. LEO's and gun owners alike?

"Bias of any sort is just wrong and shows a lack of reason and an elitist attitude."

"Personally I would disagree with anyone who had a similar attitude and would tell them to their face how wrong they were."

Three examples of my equal and ethical treatment of both LEO's and gun owners.

But I guess you don't get it.

It's about an individuals actions and words. Not a group.

If you have a issue with a certain LEO address that issue with the appropriate agency.

As in the EPA officer. There was a complaint made. It was investigated and he was found to have been guilty of improper conduct.

Judging any other LEO because of this fools stupid words. is absolutely wrong.


As above each situation is different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
As for "stories being one thing and actuality is another," plenty of people exercising UOC have had guns pointed at them.
I'm sure they have. But there are always two sides to each story. Making an assumption or forming an opinion without both sides input is ignorant and foolish.

I if you were to ask the officers involved in those situations I would bet there would be some legal or reasonable justification for pointing guns at armed individuals. Not all the time, but I'm sure it would add at least another side to the story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
I never said that having an opinion is a 1983 violation; I said that the threat (drawing and pointing a gun at someone for UOC) is a violation. And in fact the conspiracy law in section 241 only requires that two people "conspire to... threaten, or intimidate" -- it does not even require that the threat or intimidation actually occur. That felony is only a small step beyond two officers merely "having an opinion" together.
Sorry but your interpretation and application of 1983 regarding LEO's pointing guns at UOC folks is flawed.

LEO's have the very complicated job of separating people who are acting in a legal way from folks who are committing crimes. Time after time it has been found legal for LEO's to point weapons at individuals when they (the LEO) have a reasonable fear of their lives.

Regarding section 241, again you analysis is flawed. As long as LEO's are acting "reasonably" there cannot be any constitutional violations.

But again I return to the main premise of my comments.

Stop the anti LEO bias.

It's individuals not groups.


If it were applicable it would have been raised by persons more intelligent than either of us.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-04-2010, 3:59 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,531
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
I believe the contrast that some are expressing here is that LEO's in different areas (CA specifically) have stated in new articles that they are trained to view citizens with firearms as potential threats, this has translated into CCW or UOC private individuals being percieved as a threat, something that needs to be neutralized or stopped and assessed with regularity where as in other states or areas where CCW or LOC is considered mainstream or common place the LEO's are far more respectful of those carrying.

The attitudes recently expressed by a LEO in the Bay Area or comments by LEO's concerning the UOC movement mirror the sentiments and concerns being expressed by many on here about a stark attitude and approach difference by LEO's in various municipalities vs how firearm carrying non LEO's are viewed or trated in other states.
I think there is to much oversimplification. I've taken this quote from your statement:

"they are trained to view citizens with firearms as potential threats"

This is true. Because anyone who is armed COULD be a potential threat. The active word is COULD. Not that they are a threat. But they could be a threat. BIG difference.

But that is only one of many concerns LEO's have when thrown into any situation.

So having an armed individual involved in any situation just adds another complication. Even an armed off duty LEO adds to the "threats".

Remember LEO's know very little about most if not all situations before they arrive. They can never know what someone is thinking or why they are armed before any confrontation.

Training in most states is not really different from training here in California. All LEO's where ever are trained to evaluate each situation based of what is actually happening. ALL LEO's are concerned about armed individuals. Only because of the added layer of issues being armed bring up no matter what the state.

Here is the thing. When firearms laws here in California change it will be a non issue for LEO's Laws change all the time so LEO's change their tactics and responses based on those changes.

There are many many lawful CCW'ers in California now. They are really a zero issue to LEO's because 99% of them are good lawful folks who have little contact with LEO's.

Adding more will really not be an issue because again 99% are good guys.

CCW'ers do have a responsibility to act in the proper way during any LEO contact. Just like off duty LEO's

Always be calm.

Never act in an aggressive or violent way.

Tell the LEO that you have a CCW permit and are armed.

If instructed, follow the LEO's instructions. Don't argue. Just do as they ask. If you don't understand the instructions ask them to repeat them.

If you want to know why you were treated in a certain way. Ask in a professional and non confrontational way. AFTER the incident is over.

If you have an issue with the way you were treated address that issue later with the LEO's supervisor.

One other thing the biggest concern LEO's have regarding firearms is retaining their own in any situation. Believe me gun retention is an LEO's number one concern. Anyone else's firearm is secondary.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.



Last edited by SVT-40; 08-04-2010 at 4:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-04-2010, 4:12 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,748
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Interesting article

My biggest issue is that the fact this article needed to be written in the first place means there are plenty of LEO's who will go the prone you first and ask questions later route.

I'm optimistic that once all of CA goes shall issue this situation will improve. If only like 6 people have been issued CCW's in San Francisco county today, it does make sense to treat anyone carrying as an automatic criminal (since they probably are), regardless of if that is right or wrong. When there are thousands of people in the urban counties with CCW's the attitude will start changing I believe.

Last edited by stix213; 08-04-2010 at 4:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-04-2010, 5:04 PM
heliopolissolutions heliopolissolutions is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Article made me sick to my stomach.

...imagine if all those who are so blessed to have a magic permission slip from the State to exercise their rights started getting hassled as much as the UOCers.

Harumph.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-04-2010, 5:13 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I agree with you on most of what you say. Except I do not agree it is an anti LEO interpretation. It is just a factual interpretation of laws that neither you nor I passed. They are the responsibility of politicians. Admittedly some of us must have voted fore at least some of them, but it seems lately they are not listening to the people who put them in office. So blaming the existence of the laws on citizens or cops either one is unfair.

You may want to refer to my post in this thread where I said I had always been treated with respect and dignity by LE, at it pertains to 2A, and I reckoned that no more than 1% had a dangerous attitude problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Interesting anti LEO interpretation.

I have never heard of anyone being arrested for not helping a LEO when requested.

The law that I believe that you are referring to says that a LEO has no obligation to help you is basically a civil thing that prevents a city, county, whatever from getting sued. Meaning in part that if during a riot; if the police don't get to your particular emergency, you cannot sue us (the riot is only one example, there are many more).

I know of very few if any officers that would not do whatever they could to help when someone reached out and asked for help. You may not agree with the help you get because you did not think that the outcome was fair (you got arrested for DV instead of your wife, or your drunken butt got taken to jail instead of driven home) but most officers that I know have a deep sense of a moral and ethical obligation to help. In my opinion, I think that moral and ethical is more important and better standard than legal anyway.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-04-2010, 5:40 PM
joedogboy joedogboy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East Bay / Co-Co County
Posts: 1,444
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
My godfather is one of those cops (CHP sergeant) who is alarmed by law-abiding citizens carrying guns. I had a conversation on the topic with him at my grandmother's funeral a couple of weeks ago. My father started by asking what he thought of open carry. My godfather said anyone who open carries is a fool and an idiot, even someone who conceals and carries who is not a cop, and he said something to the effect if he sees someone carrying a gun in a holster or printing, regardless if they are behaving completely lawfully, unless he knows they are a cop, he will draw on them, point the gun at their head, and disarm them, etc. and if they make any move he feels threatened by he will not hesitate to shoot them. Basically if he notices someone open or concealed carrying that's not a cop he will start a confrontation. All the while he was carrying his Glock partially concealed in an IWB holster in plain clothes with no badge exposed. Hypocrisy if I ever saw it. I didn't push the matter because as he was saying it his tone rose up like the thought of it upset him and I didn't want to get into a big ol' argument and create bad blood right there, especially since my father in an argument with a cop will always take the pro-LEO side since on an issue likee this he will defer to whatever opinion a LEO has, regardless of the facts.
You should have asked him how he would feel if some other cop treated him that way - pointing a gun at his head without any actual cause, and threatening to shoot him if he twitched - since he appeared to be a citizen openly (or poorly concealed) carrying a firearm.

That moment could have changed his outlook, and maybe saved someone's life in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-04-2010, 6:26 PM
joedogboy joedogboy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East Bay / Co-Co County
Posts: 1,444
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Why is so many here are experts in how LEO are trained, live and think... That is without any real experience. It's really sad.
Personally:

U.S. Army MP
USAF SP
worked side by side with multiple civilian LEAs

non-sworn civilian PD employee
multiple Administration of Justice courses, CA
multiple Criminal Justice courses, KY
multiple criminal justice courses, CCAF

I have had dozens of friends, coworkers, and associates who work in civilian LE, in several states, including CA - many of themm are good cops (uniformly good, professional, trustworthy, and 100% legit in what they do), more of them are okay cops (good cops if they stick to enforcement areas that they know well, less good in other areas - but who are willing to own up to mistakes, take advice, and learn to do better next time), and a few of them are dirtbags who do sketchy things to advance personal agendas and cover up their mistakes (and yes, their supervisors have been notified, because their continued presence on the job makes all cops look bad).

Many others here may have explored the possibility of a career in LE, or becoming a reserve LEO. When a state grants special exceptions to unconstitutional gun restrictions for LEOs, it is natural for a gun enthusiast to consider becoming an LEO - just as an aircraft enthusiast would consider joining teh Air Force of civilian flying were banned.

It's not like the law enforcement field is some secret society that outsiders know nothing about.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 08-04-2010, 7:06 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,531
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

So you may have some insight. Good for you. I applaud your service.

I agree there are some great, some good and some poor LEO's. Just like in all other areas of endeavor.

However mere exploring the possibility of being a LEO does not really grant anyone any insight to what is involved in actually doing the job.

Of course being a LEO is not some "secret society". But is is a very complex job and takes both training and experience to actually begin to understand the ins and outs of the job.

So why the crack about as you say "When a state grants special exceptions to unconstitutional gun restrictions for LEOs"

Sorry you lost me there. The state "grants" many exemptions to many different fields of endeavor. As far as I know none of the laws pertaining to California firearms laws have yet to be found unconstitutional.

In addition I think becoming a LEO simply because in your words "a state grants special exceptions to unconstitutional gun restrictions for LEOs, it is natural for a gun enthusiast to consider becoming an LEO."

Is a very poor idea.

So maybe it would be best to wait on that assertion.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-04-2010, 7:25 PM
nobody_special nobody_special is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Below are both verbatim quotes from your posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special
"Woah, hold on; I never lumped all California LEO's together."

"The attitude displayed in the OP's article is good. But that attitude is not universal. For example, it is not shared by many officers in my locale; rather, my impression is that they're cut from the same cloth as bigstick61's godfather."
So you did lump LEO's together. At least "many" of the LEO's in your local.
So, you assert that "many ... in my locale" equals "all".

Quite simply, you're wrong here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40
You say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special
"But there is a rational basis for some (not all) of the anti-police sentiment here."
Given the same logic you are saying that LEO's should have a rational basis for being suspect of gun owners??
I'm not sure I'm able to parse your statement correctly, but I think the answer is "no." What basis is there for LEO to be suspicious of legal gun owners? Are open carry activists walking around pointing guns at LEO? I think not.


Quote:
Bias is bias. No way to pretty it up to make it acceptable.

If you have bias toward LEO's in general. Or bias against gun owners in general then those views are just plain wrong.
There is a difference between an opinion which is based upon reason and fact, and an irrational bigotry. My point is that some of the anti-LEO sentiment that you see here is the former. You seem to be arguing that any anti-LEO sentiment must be irrational. Clearly that is not a logical position.

Quote:
Another of your flawed reasoning's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special
You can't pass this off to the legislature, that's the Nuremberg defense. Those who enforce unjust laws are in fact enforcing injustice. By definition they are instruments of oppression.
Comparing LEO's to NAZIS, which you do when you raise "the Nuremberg defense". Is absolutely bias.
Our system of justice is nothing like the NAZI's

Until laws are legally changed they are legal and enforceable. Just because you don't like them does not change that fact. Your stance is an opinion and nothing more. LEO's don't enforce "opinions". If that were the case it would be anarchy.
You invited the comparison when you used the same defense they did. It's just as morally bankrupt now as it was then. The Nuremberg defense is a legal argument; the fact that it was used by Nazis is irrelevant. The point is that it is not a good excuse. It's the legal equivalent of passing the buck.

And nothing I said had anything to do with the Nazi system of justice.

As for LEO's not enforcing opinions, tell that to those LEO's in Maryland and Florida who arrested people for recording police. While I agree with you in principle, I think this counterexample demonstrates that things sometimes work out differently in practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40
As I said before when laws change then LEO's will also change their enforcement.

Your quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special
After MacDonald, the right to bear arms is a civil right in California. The stated behavior (pointing a gun at a person for no reason other than the fact that he is openly carrying a weapon) is a likely violation of all four statutes that I linked.
As above. NOTHING in California law has changed. When it does enforcement will change. LEO's don't get to cherry pick which laws they enforce.
Again, you're wrong. Something very significant has changed since Heller and MacDonald: the 2nd amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and that right now binds the state of California. One may now sue any person who, under "color of law", deprives someone of that right; and federal attorneys may now prosecute anyone who conspires to intimidate or threaten someone for exercising that right.

Three years ago, a judge would have thrown such a case out because the 9th Circuit had ruled for the collective rights theory. Heller invalidated that interpretation.

Three months ago, a judge might have thrown out such a case because the 2nd amendment had not been incorporated. MacDonald says otherwise. Only after Heller and MacDonald has the 2nd amendment really become one of the "rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution" and thus subject to federal civil rights law.

So, if two state police officers conspire to intimidate or threaten someone for the exercise of their second amendment rights, it is a felony. That is a significant change.

Quote:
You also oversimplify by stating that LEO's pointed guns at individuals for:
"no reason other than the fact that he is openly carrying a weapon".

You nor I know the circumstances of these encounters. Were the police called because of a armed individual? what was the situation at the time?
There are videos of police executing "e" checks while backup officers hold AR-15s (ready but not pointed) on youtube. That's not a threat, but it might qualify as intimidation. Other incidents have voice recordings available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40
Sorry but your interpretation and application of 1983 regarding LEO's pointing guns at UOC folks is flawed.

LEO's have the very complicated job of separating people who are acting in a legal way from folks who are committing crimes. Time after time it has been found legal for LEO's to point weapons at individuals when they (the LEO) have a reasonable fear of their lives.

Regarding section 241, again you analysis is flawed. As long as LEO's are acting "reasonably" there cannot be any constitutional violations.
My analysis is not flawed, you're just assuming a different set of facts from me. I don't have the citations handy, but courts in other jurisdictions have found that simply carrying a gun in a legal manner is not cause for detention. I'm pretty certain that the question would be answered the same way here after Heller and MacDonald; it would be odd in the extreme for a court to rule that a person could be detained at gunpoint for nothing more than exercising a fundamental right. I'm also pretty sure that an officer would be found guilty of a civil rights violation for excessive force if he were to point a gun at someone whom he couldn't even legally detain.

But that's exactly what some departments are doing.

Quote:
But again I return to the main premise of my comments.

Stop the anti LEO bias.

It's individuals not groups.
A group is nothing more than a collection of individuals.

Quote:
If it were applicable it would have been raised by persons more intelligent than either of us.
It wasn't appliable before Heller, and probably not before MacDonald; but it is now. I would not be surprised to see such a lawsuit filed in California before long.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmund G. Brown
There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffyhog
When the governor vetoes a bill that would make it a felony to steal a gun, but signs a bill into law that makes it a felony not to register a gun you already legally own, you know something isn't right.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-04-2010, 7:32 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Our LEOs here are by and large part of the solution not part of the problem. But we need a lot less animosity and a lot more understanding of the other person's viewpoint. On both sides. Information is power. Information can keep you alive at times. Why do we want to throw tantrums and crawl into our shells and shout past each other? A frank discussion that can inform us of the other guy's point of view can save lives on both sides.

I urge even those who even have just cause for animus to be amicable and diplomatic.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-04-2010, 8:50 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
NOTHING in California law has changed. When it does enforcement will change. LEO's don't get to cherry pick which laws they enforce.
A couple of comments on the above:
  1. Of course you get to cherry pick which laws you enforce. Happens all the time. A trivial example is speeding. LEOs clock people going faster (if only by a few miles an hour) than the speed limit all the time, but it is quite common for them to ignore that fact unless they see something else indicating that their intervention is needed. ETA: However, I do recognize that in the event someone specifically calls your attention to something, you may be considerably more restricted.
  2. You and your fellow LEOs took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. If you enforce all laws then you are ipso facto violating your oath, because a law isn't Constitutional merely because it is on the books. And if there is any ambiguity at all, it is your responsibility to err on the side of the Constitution (which generally means erring on the side of non-enforcement since most laws are a restriction on someone's freedom). That means, in the context of firearms, that it is your responsibility to not enforce a law which even has the appearance of infringing upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms unless you know that the law in question is Constitutional, and for that to be the case you'll have to, as of now, know that the law has been tested and found Constitutional by the Supreme Court (or know that the Supreme Court denied cert and the lower court ruled in favor of the law in question). The Constitution isn't the last thing to look at when evaluating whether or not it is proper to enforce a given law, it's the first thing to look at. It is, after all, the supreme law of the land. If you do not do the above, then your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution means nothing -- it may as well not exist at that point, for what difference does it then make in the real world?

As for my views on LEOs in general, LEOs are as individual as we are. If you have to interact with one then it's the luck of the draw as to how he'll treat you, so it's best to not make any assumptions whatsoever. And that means treating him the same as you would anyone else you know nothing about. For me, that means treating him with respect, civility, compassion, etc., because it's the right thing to do. I will do everything I can to put his mind at ease and make him comfortable, because I know he's got a tough job and there's a good chance he sees a lot more bad things out there every day than most people see in a year.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 08-04-2010 at 9:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-04-2010, 9:42 PM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Now, now, KC - if you insist on stating inconvenient truths, you are in danger of being IDd and banned as an LEO basher on CalGuns.

If you offer opinions or reasonable extrapolations based on those inconvenient truths, you are doubly at risk...
.

Last edited by GuyW; 08-09-2010 at 12:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-04-2010, 9:47 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,531
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
A couple of comments on the above:
  1. Of course you get to cherry pick which laws you enforce. Happens all the time. A trivial example is speeding. LEOs clock people going faster (if only by a few miles an hour) than the speed limit all the time, but it is quite common for them to ignore that fact unless they see something else indicating that their intervention is needed.
  2. You and your fellow LEOs took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. If you enforce all laws then you are ipso facto violating your oath, because a law isn't Constitutional merely because it is on the books. And if there is any ambiguity at all, it is your responsibility to err on the side of the Constitution (which generally means erring on the side of non-enforcement since most laws are a restriction on someone's freedom). That means, in the context of firearms, that it is your responsibility to not enforce a law which even has the appearance of infringing upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms unless you know that the law in question is Constitutional, and for that to be the case you'll have to, as of now, know that the law has been tested and found Constitutional by the Supreme Court (or know that the Supreme Court denied cert and the lower court ruled in favor of the law in question). The Constitution isn't the last thing to look at when evaluating whether or not it is proper to enforce a given law, it's the first thing to look at. It is, after all, the supreme law of the land. If you do not do the above, then your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution means nothing -- it may as well not exist at that point, for what difference does it then make in the real world?

As for my views on LEOs in general, LEOs are as individual as we are. If you have to interact with one then it's the luck of the draw as to how he'll treat you, so it's best to not make any assumptions whatsoever. And that means treating him the same as you would anyone else you know nothing about. For me, that means treating him with respect, civility, compassion, etc., because it's the right thing to do. I will do everything I can to put his mind at ease and make him comfortable, because I know he's got a tough job and there's a good chance he sees a lot more bad things out there every day than most people see in a year.
The application of discretion is much different from a total refusal to enforce certain laws. Which is what some here want.

Regarding "constitutional laws". Until the various courts hand down opinions which actually apply to laws in each state just how is a LEO to know which laws are "constitutional"?

The real answer they cannot. So until opinions which actually apply to states and actually effect or change laws LEO's have no other legal recourse but to enforce the current laws.

Regarding "ambiguous" laws. If you checked any legal decision you would know that any law which is "ambiguous" is not valid on it's face.

Maybe your argument might get some play in a collegiate setting. But remember we deal in the real world. Not the land of what if.

Thank you for your views on the "care and feeding of LEO's". As I have said before it's about individuals not groups.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-04-2010, 10:32 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
The application of discretion is much different from a total refusal to enforce certain laws. Which is what some here want.

Regarding "constitutional laws". Until the various courts hand down opinions which actually apply to laws in each state just how is a LEO to know which laws are "constitutional"?
You don't. Which is why, if you have any reason to believe it may violate the Constitution, it is your duty to not enforce it.

Like I said: err on the side of the Constitution. If you do not, then your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution means nothing, because in practice it means said oath may as well not exist at all for all the difference it makes.


Quote:
Regarding "ambiguous" laws. If you checked any legal decision you would know that any law which is "ambiguous" is not valid on it's face.
I'm not referring to ambiguity with respect to the definition of the law, I'm referring to ambiguity in your own mind as to its Constitutionality. Which is to say: I believe it's inappropriate for you to enforce a law that you don't know for a fact is Constitutional, unless you can think of no way in which it could be Unconstitutional in the context of your enforcement of it. The Constitution isn't a difficult document to read and understand, nor was it ever intended to be. People within our legal system have managed to twist and mangle its interpretation beyond recognition, but that doesn't mean they're right. Most certainly that's not what the founders of the country intended.

Maybe I can say it another way that will make things a little more clear. You are the people's first line of defense against Unconstitutional laws. If there is even a reasonable possibility that a law is Unconstitutional, it is your duty to not enforce it. The Constitutionality of a law, or its lack thereof, is a property of the law itself, not of whether or not it's been challenged, or whether or not it's been ruled on by a court. Those are only the elements within the process to definitively determine that a given law is Constitutional or not. That process was intended by the founders to be a process of discovery, not of determination.

Your role in the above is a direct consequence of your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.


Quote:
Maybe your argument might get some play in a collegiate setting. But remember we deal in the real world. Not the land of what if.
Yes, you do. But you must remember your purpose as a LEO: to uphold and defend the rights and liberty of the people, first and foremost. This has been oversimplified to mean "enforce the law", but that oversimplification has occurred as a result of people assuming that the existence of a law is the same as its Constitutionality -- an assumption that is now quite clearly false.


Quote:
Thank you for your views on the "care and feeding of LEO's". As I have said before it's about individuals not groups.
You're quite welcome! I would most certainly hope for exactly what I mentioned if I were in the shoes of the LEO in question! LEOs are supposed to be the good guys, and to a very large degree they are. It is my job as a citizen to help them be that as much as I can.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 08-04-2010 at 10:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-04-2010, 10:50 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,531
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
So, you assert that "many ... in my locale" equals "all".

Quite simply, you're wrong here.
Nope, please post where I used the word "all". Besides your use of many is it's self a bias.

Would it be proper to say "many" gun owners when referencing negative behavior??

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
I'm not sure I'm able to parse your statement correctly, but I think the answer is "no." What basis is there for LEO to be suspicious of legal gun owners? Are open carry activists walking around pointing guns at LEO? I think not.
You presuppose that LEO's know the armed individuals they contact are "legal gun owners" before they contact them.

Just how does that magic occur? It's nice to sit at the computer and second guess LEO's when you have nothing at risk.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
There is a difference between an opinion which is based upon reason and fact, and an irrational bigotry. My point is that some of the anti-LEO sentiment that you see here is the former. You seem to be arguing that any anti-LEO sentiment must be irrational. Clearly that is not a logical position.
Again re read my posts. As I said it's about individuals. I said if there is wrong doing as in the EPA case. Make a complaint let the investigation occur.

Blanket anti LEO sentiment is wrong. Just like blanket anti gun ownership is wrong.

If you have a beef with what a LEO does well then make a complaint. But don't relate one individual LEO's behavior to anothers. That is bias.



Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
You invited the comparison when you used the same defense they did. It's just as morally bankrupt now as it was then. The Nuremberg defense is a legal argument; the fact that it was used by Nazis is irrelevant. The point is that it is not a good excuse. It's the legal equivalent of passing the buck.

And nothing I said had anything to do with the Nazi system of justice.
Sorry dude you brought it up and made the reference. We here in the U.S are a nation of laws. LEO's simply enforce the laws on the books, nothing sinister.

Your referenced Nuremberg, as a comparison between NAZI's and LEO's.

I simply stated current laws and norms here in the U.S. LEO's enforce the laws which are currently on the books. When laws change enforcement changes. LEO's don't bend in the wind depending on which way the wind blows.

Besides this is not war time here in the U.S.



Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
As for LEO's not enforcing opinions, tell that to those LEO's in Maryland and Florida who arrested people for recording police. While I agree with you in principle, I think this counterexample demonstrates that things sometimes work out differently in practice.
Those are laws, stupid and wrong headed laws. But laws none the less. Not "opinions". Leo's have to deal with real situations and apply the laws which are currently on the books.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
Again, you're wrong. Something very significant has changed since Heller and MacDonald: the 2nd amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and that right now binds the state of California. One may now sue any person who, under "color of law", deprives someone of that right; and federal attorneys may now prosecute anyone who conspires to intimidate or threaten someone for exercising that right.

Three years ago, a judge would have thrown such a case out because the 9th Circuit had ruled for the collective rights theory. Heller invalidated that interpretation.

Three months ago, a judge might have thrown out such a case because the 2nd amendment had not been incorporated. MacDonald says otherwise. Only after Heller and MacDonald has the 2nd amendment really become one of the "rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution" and thus subject to federal civil rights law.
Again as I said before laws do change. But you apparently do not understand the actual process which occurs. I too wish it could be a short and quick change regarding some of the silly firearms laws here in California. But unfortunately it's not a short process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
So, if two state police officers conspire to intimidate or threaten someone for the exercise of their second amendment rights, it is a felony. That is a significant change.
No change. Same old law. Again you miss the subtleties of the law and it's actual application. In order for there to be a violation the parties MUST actually conspire to deprive a person of their rights.

Enforcing valid laws which are on the books is not a constitutional violation.

So are you asserting that any two LEO's who arrests a individual for violating a current California firearms law have violated this federal statute??

Seriously. Dude unwrap that tin foil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
There are videos of police executing "e" checks while backup officers hold AR-15s (ready but not pointed) on youtube. That's not a threat, but it might qualify as intimidation. Other incidents have voice recordings available.
Again LEO's have the right of self defense. As I said above just how would a LEO know a armed individual was a good legal gun owner or a violent criminal?

The simple answer is they don't before any contact.

Again it's nice to sit in front of your computer and bemoan past incidents. Knowing full well that you have all the information related to the incident and the officers at the time had only limited info at best.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
My analysis is not flawed, you're just assuming a different set of facts from me. I don't have the citations handy, but courts in other jurisdictions have found that simply carrying a gun in a legal manner is not cause for detention. I'm pretty certain that the question would be answered the same way here after Heller and MacDonald; it would be odd in the extreme for a court to rule that a person could be detained at gunpoint for nothing more than exercising a fundamental right. I'm also pretty sure that an officer would be found guilty of a civil rights violation for excessive force if he were to point a gun at someone whom he couldn't even legally detain.

But that's exactly what some departments are doing.
You again presuppose that officers in any given situation knew that an individual was acting in a legal manner. LEO's in the field don't have your luxury.

no cop wants to waste his time on people who are acting in a legal manner. Period it's that simple.

The rub is sorting the lawful from the unlawful. That problem has existed for centuries and will continue to exist.

As long as LEO's act in a reasonable manner they cannot be found in violation of a persons rights.


You continue to bag on the police. That's unfortunate but in a way it's understandable. The police are the most visible arm of the government. So it's natural for some to lash out at what is visible instead of blaming the true source of their anger and frustration. Which are the lawmakers.

Not the Law enforcers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
A group is nothing more than a collection of individuals.
Absolutely. And as such you cannot reasonably judge the whole group by the actions of a few individuals. LEO's or gun owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
It wasn't appliable before Heller, and probably not before MacDonald; but it is now. I would not be surprised to see such a lawsuit filed in California before long.
Federal rights violation cases have always been applicable to California residents. But you imply to much from the recent court decisions. And they are good decisions. don't get me wrong. But it's not an automatic rights violation for LEO's to enforce current firearms laws.

They are just not the remedy to all supposed wrongs you think they are.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-04-2010, 11:14 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,531
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
You don't. Which is why, if you have any reason to believe it may violate the Constitution, it is your duty to not enforce it.

Like I said: err on the side of the Constitution. If you do not, then your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution means nothing, because in practice it means said oath may as well not exist at all for all the difference it makes.


I'm not referring to ambiguity with respect to the definition of the law, I'm referring to ambiguity in your own mind as to its Constitutionality. Which is to say: I believe it's inappropriate for you to enforce a law that you don't know for a fact is Constitutional, unless you can think of no way in which it could be Unconstitutional in the context of your enforcement of it. The Constitution isn't a difficult document to read and understand, nor was it ever intended to be. People within our legal system have managed to twist and mangle its interpretation beyond recognition, but that doesn't mean they're right. Most certainly that's not what the founders of the country intended.

Maybe I can say it another way that will make things a little more clear. You are the people's first line of defense against Unconstitutional laws. If there is even a reasonable possibility that a law is Unconstitutional, it is your duty to not enforce it. The Constitutionality of a law, or its lack thereof, is a property of the law itself, not of whether or not it's been challenged, or whether or not it's been ruled on by a court. Those are only the elements within the process to definitively determine that a given law is Constitutional or not. That process was intended by the founders to be a process of discovery, not of determination.

You are the people's first line of defense against Unconstitutional laws[/I]. If there is even a reasonable possibility that a law

Yes, you do. But you must remember your purpose as a LEO: to uphold and defend the rights and liberty of the people, first and foremost. This has been oversimplified to mean "enforce the law", but that oversimplification has occurred as a result of people assuming that the existence of a law is the same as its Constitutionality -- an assumption that is now quite clearly false.


You're quite welcome! I would most certainly hope for exactly what I mentioned if I were in the shoes of the LEO in question! LEOs are supposed to be the good guys, and to a very large degree they are. It is my job as a citizen to help them be that as much as I can.
I can understand your opinions. But you must realize that LEO's cannot just refuse to enforce laws based on an individuals feelings. It's just not that simple.

LEO's use "discretion" to allow for issues and situations. Hopefully local D.A.'s and states attorneys will hand down some rulings to give guidance to LEO's.

It's not fair to rest the weight of making constitutional decisions on the shoulders of officers in the field who usually have very little time, if any to sit back and debate constitutional law before they act.

It's just not reasonable.

Those debates are for the law makers, judges and lawyers.

And yes, Thanks 99.9% of all LEO's are good guys. Guys who are mainly trying to make sense and fairly apply the literally thousands and thousands of various local, state and federal statutes they are tasked to enforce. Even if the damned laws are constantly being changed and modified. This is in addition to trying to keep some of our less than civilized fellow citizens from tearing one another apart whenever they can.

It's a great gig if you can get it!!!
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-05-2010, 12:40 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
I can understand your opinions. But you must realize that LEO's cannot just refuse to enforce laws based on an individuals feelings. It's just not that simple.

LEO's use "discretion" to allow for issues and situations. Hopefully local D.A.'s and states attorneys will hand down some rulings to give guidance to LEO's.

It's not fair to rest the weight of making constitutional decisions on the shoulders of officers in the field who usually have very little time, if any to sit back and debate constitutional law before they act.

It's just not reasonable.

Those debates are for the law makers, judges and lawyers.
Then tell me: what exactly does your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution mean in practice? If you do not use the Constitution as the litmus test to determine whether or not to enforce a law in a given situation then your oath makes no difference whatsoever in practice.

Do you think you took the oath as merely some sort of formality?


The entire point of the Nuremberg trials is that people who enforce the law and who carry out orders are not mindless automatons who are limited to using their brains only to decide how to enforce a law or carry out an order -- they have a moral obligation to also decide whether to enforce a law or to carry out an order. Your situation as a LEO is no different than the situation of a soldier who has been given an order. The soldier must evaluate the order to determine for himself if it is Constitutional, and has the duty to refuse to obey the order if it is not. You as a LEO have the same duty with respect to the law. The law to you is the same as an order is to a soldier.

Ask yourself what your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution could possibly mean if not that.


The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It means it is the law that you and all other LEOs should be most familiar with, by far. It supercedes and overrules all other law. It cannot be the supreme law of the land any other way.


ETA: To make things abundantly clear, I should note that the Constitution does not say that it is the supreme law of the land "except in the face of a law which hasn't been challenged or which hasn't yet been ruled upon by the Supreme court". It says it is the supreme law of the land, period. For it to be the supreme law of the land it must at all times override any other conflicting law. And so it is not the case that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land in practice if LEOs are enforcing laws which are Unconstitutional just because they happen to be on the books at the time. The enforcement of a law is what defines, in practice, whether or not a law is in effect. An Unconstitutional law is never supposed to be in effect, and by enforcing such a law, LEOs are actually breaking the supreme law of the land. And those LEOs took a direct and solemn oath to not do that.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 08-05-2010 at 2:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 08-05-2010, 1:25 AM
Milsurp Collector's Avatar
Milsurp Collector Milsurp Collector is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Free America
Posts: 4,513
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
And yes, Thanks 99.9% of all LEO's are good guys.
Now who's showing bias and making blanket generalizations. No profession - doctors, lawyers, judges, politicians, Catholic priests - is composed of 99.9% "good guys".
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-05-2010, 1:47 AM
nobody_special nobody_special is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Nope, please post where I used the word "all".
You used it here (emphasis added):
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40
You decry when LEO's lump gun owners together. But then turn around and lump all LEO's together.
...though I did neither.

Quote:
Besides your use of many is it's self a bias.
Would it be proper to say "many" gun owners when referencing negative behavior??
The use of "many" is hardly bias; that's a preposterous statement. My use of the word is based on observation as well as some knowledge of the department policies. As for your question, the answer is "if evidence supports it."

Quote:
You presuppose that LEO's know the armed individuals they contact are "legal gun owners" before they contact them.

Just how does that magic occur? It's nice to sit at the computer and second guess LEO's when you have nothing at risk.
Of course LEO doesn't know if an armed individual is a dangerous or not; but that doesn't make it okay for them to treat every armed person as dangerous.

Carrying a gun (in a legal manner) is now a civil right, according to the Supreme Court. I'm not worried about those cases where police detain or arrest an armed criminal* based on reasonable suspicion of a crime; but police can't detain or threaten someone solely on the basis that they are exercising a civil right, either. (Except in California, with the "e" check. )

If an officer sees someone carrying, obviously they don't know if it's legal. Similarly, they don't know if a guy walking down the street with a camera (1st amendment) is in legal possession; but that alone doesn't give the officer cause to make a stop.

* Whatever that means... look closely enough and I'm sure everyone violates a law. So by criminal I mean people engaged in criminal enterprise.

Quote:
Again re read my posts. As I said it's about individuals. I said if there is wrong doing as in the EPA case. Make a complaint let the investigation occur.
I saw that, and it's fine. But look at it from the other perspective: those comments display a certain attitude, and I think there is significant evidence that, in certain parts of the state, this attitude is shared by more than "a few individuals." In some departments, it's virtually policy. (And yes, I know that some officers privately might not agree with some of their departmental policies. Clearly some do however.)

This is not a blanket statement,: it's a statistical estimate. Your 99.9% figure is way off.

Quote:
Sorry dude you brought it up and made the reference. We here in the U.S are a nation of laws. LEO's simply enforce the laws on the books, nothing sinister.

Your referenced Nuremberg, as a comparison between NAZI's and LEO's.
Except that enforcing the laws on the books can be sinister, and I gave examples of that -- the forced internment of Japanese and the forced relocation of American Indians. Both were illegal, and one was the result of an act of Congress.

At no time did I ever make a comparison between LEO and Nazis. I merely pointed out that your excuse was the same defense used in their war crimes trials; an excuse that was rejected.

Quote:
Those are laws, stupid and wrong headed laws. But laws none the less. Not "opinions". Leo's have to deal with real situations and apply the laws which are currently on the books.
No, this is not a case of police enforcing laws -- these are examples of LEO enforcing their own opinions. It happens. In the Maryland case, the attorney general's office even issued an opinion admitting as much (their 2-party consent law requires an expectation of privacy, just like California's, and LEO have no such expectation when acting in the course of their duties.)

Quote:
So are you asserting that any two LEO's who arrests a individual for violating a current
California firearms law have violated this federal statute??

[... I'm re-arranging your post as I think these bits belong together ...]

Federal rights violation cases have always been applicable to California residents. But you imply to much from the recent court decisions. And they are good decisions. don't get me wrong. But it's not an automatic rights violation for LEO's to enforce current firearms laws.

They are just not the remedy to all supposed wrongs you think they are.
No no no, I never suggested that federal civil rights law would apply against LEO who were enforcing current law. Though now that you mention it, a section 1983 lawsuit could conceivably be filed for the "e" check. But that's not what I meant..

Those federal civil rights laws do apply to currently legal 2nd amendment activities; they likely did not before MacDonald. Let me give some relevant examples:
  • Confiscation of legally-configured weapons by LEO who are ignorant of the fine points of CA's AW law is a deprivation of 2nd amendment rights, and may expose the officers to civil liability.
  • If two or more LEO were to discuss tactics for detaining people at gunpoint solely for the purpose of an "e" check, that constitutes conspiracy to intimidate or threaten for the exercise of an enumerated right. This is the context for most of my arguments here! It is a situation like those described by Tuason's facebook comments, or bigstick61's conversation with his godfather. This exposes the officers to criminal liability.
  • Failure to issue a permit to carry a loaded weapon is a violation; hence, Sykes.
Quote:
Seriously. Dude unwrap that tin foil.
No tin foil. Honest.

Quote:
Again LEO's have the right of self defense. As I said above just how would a LEO know a armed individual was a good legal gun owner or a violent criminal?

The simple answer is they don't before any contact.
I'm all for the right of self-defense for everybody. But preemptively threatening people for exercising their right to be armed for self-defense is another matter. Note again my context.

Quote:
no cop wants to waste his time on people who are acting in a legal manner. Period it's that simple.
Ah, that explains all the "e" checks. I see. Actually I largely agree with you, which is why I've had very little interaction with LEO acting in their official capacity. But plenty of police have wasted time on people acting in a legal manner with firearms. We hear about it all the time on this forum.

Quote:
You continue to bag on the police. That's unfortunate but in a way it's understandable. The police are the most visible arm of the government. So it's natural for some to lash out at what is visible instead of blaming the true source of their anger and frustration. Which are the lawmakers.

Not the Law enforcers.
Funny, that statement (that it's natural to be angry at police) is what I was trying to point out in my first post to this thread! And I agree the legislature is a serious problem; but I also stand by my statement: "those who enforce unjust laws are in fact enforcing injustice." Passing an unjust law does little harm in and of itself; it is the enforcement of such laws that causes harm. So I'm not sure that it's fair to wholly pass the buck to the legislature.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmund G. Brown
There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffyhog
When the governor vetoes a bill that would make it a felony to steal a gun, but signs a bill into law that makes it a felony not to register a gun you already legally own, you know something isn't right.

Last edited by nobody_special; 08-05-2010 at 2:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-05-2010, 12:58 PM
joedogboy joedogboy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East Bay / Co-Co County
Posts: 1,444
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
So why the crack about as you say "When a state grants special exceptions to unconstitutional gun restrictions for LEOs"
It was not a "crack", it was a valid statement. Why are you so defensive about it? Does the truth hurt you that much?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Sorry you lost me there. The state "grants" many exemptions to many different fields of endeavor.
This is true - for example, utility meter readers can come into your yard to read the meters, and it isn't trespassing. However, if they come into your house when they are off work, without your permission, it is trespassing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
As far as I know none of the laws pertaining to California firearms laws have yet to be found unconstitutional.
As far as I know, no CA firearms laws have yet passed muster with the SCOTUS.

Just because there hasn't yet been a legal challenge to prove the unconstitutionality of many of California's gun laws, that doesn't mean that they are constitutional - they have not yet been determined by the SCOTUS to be constitutional or unconstitutional.

Many of them, especially in light of the recent SCOTUS 2A decisions (essentially the first time that the SCOTUS has made any real decisions regarding the 2A), seem to violate the 2A, as they infringe upon the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The fact that a special, protected class of people get to exercise their rights, while others rights are being infringed also clearly violates the "equal protections" clause of the 14th Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
In addition I think becoming a LEO simply because in your words "a state grants special exceptions to unconstitutional gun restrictions for LEOs, it is natural for a gun enthusiast to consider becoming an LEO."

Is a very poor idea.
While it may be a "poor idea" for someone to become an LEO for any reason other than a desire to serve the public and promote public safety, the fact is that many are drawn to the field for other reasons. I would much rather that someone become an LEO because they like guns, and being an LEO allows them greater opportunities to own and work with guns, than to have someone become an LEO because they just want the fat paycheck, with overtime, good benefits, and a great retirement, or to become an LEO because they are a bully that is looking for a power trip, or have them become an LEO because they are a racist and want to use their authority to "get back at" other races. The fact is that there are good, sub-optimal, and downright bad reasons to become an LEO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
So maybe it would be best to wait on that assertion.
There is abundant evidence to support the assertions that I have made. Are you so used to being blindly obeyed that you think that you can demand that I give up my 1A right to speak out on issues of importance to me?

I am still waiting to hear from you about your credentials to speak about this issue - your LEO credentials, as well as your non-LEO, "just plain citizen, subject to the normal laws" credentials.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-05-2010, 1:31 PM
joedogboy joedogboy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East Bay / Co-Co County
Posts: 1,444
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
Now, now, KC - if you insist on stating inconvenient truths, you are in danger of being IDd as an LEO basher on CalGuns.

If you offer opinions or reasonable extrapolations based on those inconvenient truths, you are doubly at risk...
.
Heck, here on CalGuns, you can be attacked as an "LEO basher" and have posts removed, simply for pointing out actual examples of specific LEO misbehavior and pointing out that LEOs have the obligation to police their own, as well as other citizens, and that allowing unprofessional/bad/dirty LEOs to continue to "do the wrong thing" and violate citizens' rights makes all LEOs look bad, and makes LEOs jobs harder to do.

I find it interesting that I, a LEO (retired LEO to be exact), am frequently attacked by unprofessional, thin skinned, apologists for bad LEOs, who seem to wish to deny that any LEO has ever done anything wrong.

As the author of the article in the op states, gun owners are inclined to be some of LE's strongest supporters. One has to wonder what CA LE has done to turn so many CA gun owners against them?

Of course, my hypothesis is that this is an intended consequence of the special privileges and immunities CA grants LEOs from CA gun laws.

If all off duty police were subject to the same laws as other citizens (as off duty military are), then much of the LE community would be strongly supportive of the same things that other gun owners support. Political Police Chiefs and Sheriffs who came out against gun ownership would face a backlash from within their own departments, and would likely be opposed by the LE unions.

The LE unions would also give tremendous political support to defeating gun restrictions, and fighting for gun rights.

By creating special rights and privileges for off duty cops, CA gun laws undermine the relationship between LEOs and citizens - establishing LEOs as a privileged elite, that is less likely to care about "the little people" - even if they are supposedly sworn to serve and protect those people.

This is how a violation of the 14th Amendment makes possible violations of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments - by creating artificial barriers between LEOs and citizens.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 08-05-2010, 1:51 PM
joedogboy joedogboy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East Bay / Co-Co County
Posts: 1,444
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Nope, please post where I used the word "all". Besides your use of many is it's self a bias.

Would it be proper to say "many" gun owners when referencing negative behavior??
As in this statement: It often seems that many gun owning LEOs are lax in their care and handling of firearms, resulting in unsafe acts including negligent discharges, and shooting of innocent citizens. Statistics show that LEOs are five times more likely to shoot an innocent citizen than are other gun owners.

Is "many" the appropriate term?
Would "some" or "a few" be more accurate?

How about changing it to "too many"? I don't think that anyone could argue against the idea that too many LEOs are lax in their care and handling of firearms, or that too many LEOs shoot innocent people every year - since even ONE is too many in a group that is given special status based on the assumption (often incorrect) that they are highly trained and prepared.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 08-05-2010, 2:02 PM
joedogboy joedogboy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East Bay / Co-Co County
Posts: 1,444
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Besides this is not war time here in the U.S.
Our nation is actively engaged in a war right now. You may have missed the news, but if you google "September 11th", "WTC", "Iraq", "Afghanistan", "OIF", and "Global War on Terror", you may get up to speed on that.




Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Again LEO's have the right of self defense. As I said above just how would a LEO know a armed individual was a good legal gun owner or a violent criminal?

The simple answer is they don't before any contact.
Let's turn that around:
Citizen's have the right of self defense. As I said above just how would a citizen know an armed LEO was a good legal LEO or a violent/dangerous criminal operating under the color of authority*?

The simple answer is they don't before any contact.

The other part of the answer is that the citizen has no duty to risk or lay down their life on behalf of an LEO, while an LEO has such a duty to the citizen.

Anyone that didn't know that being a cop is a dangerous job before they signed up is far too stupid to be trusted with public safety and law enforcement.



*Yes, this applies both to "dirty" cops and to criminals who use fake badges and/or uniforms, and fake police vehicles or lighting systems to lure citizens into a trap.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-05-2010, 3:01 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Excellent points all. However, the theory that CA LEOs are 'on duty' 24-7-365 even when they are actually off duty puts a big fat blow fly right in the middle of the special class ointment. My best buddy from high school went into police work and he once told me they were required to carry off duty, buy he usually didn't because it was a pail in the butt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joedogboy View Post
Heck, here on CalGuns, you can be attacked as an "LEO basher" and have posts removed, simply for pointing out actual examples of specific LEO misbehavior and pointing out that LEOs have the obligation to police their own, as well as other citizens, and that allowing unprofessional/bad/dirty LEOs to continue to "do the wrong thing" and violate citizens' rights makes all LEOs look bad, and makes LEOs jobs harder to do.

I find it interesting that I, a LEO (retired LEO to be exact), am frequently attacked by unprofessional, thin skinned, apologists for bad LEOs, who seem to wish to deny that any LEO has ever done anything wrong.

As the author of the article in the op states, gun owners are inclined to be some of LE's strongest supporters. One has to wonder what CA LE has done to turn so many CA gun owners against them?

Of course, my hypothesis is that this is an intended consequence of the special privileges and immunities CA grants LEOs from CA gun laws.

If all off duty police were subject to the same laws as other citizens (as off duty military are), then much of the LE community would be strongly supportive of the same things that other gun owners support. Political Police Chiefs and Sheriffs who came out against gun ownership would face a backlash from within their own departments, and would likely be opposed by the LE unions.

The LE unions would also give tremendous political support to defeating gun restrictions, and fighting for gun rights.

By creating special rights and privileges for off duty cops, CA gun laws undermine the relationship between LEOs and citizens - establishing LEOs as a privileged elite, that is less likely to care about "the little people" - even if they are supposedly sworn to serve and protect those people.

This is how a violation of the 14th Amendment makes possible violations of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments - by creating artificial barriers between LEOs and citizens.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 08-05-2010, 3:44 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joedogboy View Post
How about changing it to "too many"? I don't think that anyone could argue against the idea that too many LEOs are lax in their care and handling of firearms, or that too many LEOs shoot innocent people every year - since even ONE is too many in a group that is given special status based on the assumption (often incorrect) that they are highly trained and prepared.
My theory on that is that a certain number of LEOs are 'gun people' but a large percentage arent. By gun people I mean persons who had an affinity for firearms before they entered LE. Many if not most have had safe and proper gun handling repeatedly drilled into them sense they were toddlers. It's second nature. But many LEOs have no interest in guns outside of there profession. A mere list of safety rules, taught later in life, cannot replace living the creed throughout your formative years. My buddy told me he had hell learning to point his weapon in real life situations. He would hold off slightly to one side unless he was certain the person was a real, immediate, threat. Cops are trained how to shoot people, gun people are taught how to avoid shooting people.

Thousands of folks carrying every day who don't know any more about guns than they were taught in the academy and caring less, is going to add up to some accidents.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 08-05-2010, 4:25 PM
joedogboy joedogboy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East Bay / Co-Co County
Posts: 1,444
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Excellent points all. However, the theory that CA LEOs are 'on duty' 24-7-365 even when they are actually off duty puts a big fat blow fly right in the middle of the special class ointment. My best buddy from high school went into police work and he once told me they were required to carry off duty, buy he usually didn't because it was a pail in the butt.
Military service is also a 24/7 job, yet the CA "military and police" exceptions only allow for military to carry government owned firearms, in the manner prescribed by the government agency, while on duty and in uniform.

If a department wants to issue their cops concealment guns and rigs for off duty carry, and require them to carry when off duty, that is then a department requirement - and there should be serious consequences for both the LEO and the LEA if they then choose not to protect a citizen from a criminal because they are "off duty". With every right comes a responsibility, and with every privilege comes an obligation.

If a cop wants to buy a standard capacity magazine, an off-roster handgun, or an "assault weapon", or if they want to ccw a personal weapon, they need to do it under the same laws as the rest of the citizens, or the rest of the citizens are being denied equal protection under the law.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 08-05-2010, 4:54 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Hate to derail the ongoing conversation, but this calls for an answer...

Quote:
Originally Posted by joedogboy View Post
Our nation is actively engaged in a war right now. You may have missed the news, but if you google "September 11th", "WTC", "Iraq", "Afghanistan", "OIF", and "Global War on Terror", you may get up to speed on that.
Really?

Where's the official declaration of war from Congress, then? Authorization of limited military force is not the same as a declaration of war.

If we were really at war then there would be a draft, the civilian population would be concentrating the vast majority of its efforts on building planes, ships, tanks, missiles, bombs, guns, and ammunition, and the unemployment rate would be at a record low.


No, don't be fooled into thinking that just because the politicians call some military excursion a "war" that it actually is one.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:10 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.