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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 02-27-2012, 10:44 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,137
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
Kinda OT but this part
Under existing law, a person in this state who manufactures or
causes to be manufactured
, imports into the state for sale, keeps for
sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun

interests me. How is the conversion of a SSE pistol into a non rostered pistol not manufacturing in the same way that taking a 10/30 and making it a hi cap is manufacturing?
How is changing the sights not 'manufacturing' - that also changes the gun from the 'as tested' configuration.

Answer: it's legal to do things to the guns you already own - the Roster is a limitation on what a CA-licensed FFL may sell. (Don't create an 'assault weapon'.)
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #82  
Old 02-27-2012, 10:47 AM
ap3572001 ap3572001 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco/East Bay
Posts: 4,979
iTrader: 44 / 96%
Default

Exactly .

If a handgun is already HERE in the State. (It got here somehow and its not wanted or stolen.)

You can do what You want to it ( As long as it does not become AW)
And You can sell it to via PPT to anyone who can own a handgun.
  #83  
Old 02-27-2012, 11:21 AM
Hopalong's Avatar
Hopalong Hopalong is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: CA.
Posts: 2,271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It never ends.
  #84  
Old 02-27-2012, 3:22 PM
ALSystems's Avatar
ALSystems ALSystems is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: On the Far Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,160
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopalong View Post
It never ends.


It seems like for every step forward there are three steps backward.

California is swamped with endless new anti-gun laws faster than they can be challenged in court.
  #85  
Old 02-27-2012, 10:06 PM
raycm2's Avatar
raycm2 raycm2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 116
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
dickinson is now my assemblyman. What is his motivation for doing this?
His campaign advisers are across the breezeway from my office. Last week I took a printout on the local "NSSF First Shots" event over there. I think I'll go pay a visit and ask what problem this bill is supposed to solve. Probably need to brush up on the relevant PC before the visit...

Ray
__________________
NRA Benefactor
Quote:
Untamed1972: "I'm sorry Sir.....but the 2A is specifically intended to make sure gov't, at any level, DOES NOT have a monopoly on deadly force."
  #86  
Old 02-28-2012, 7:26 AM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,037
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

please do, I'm looking forward to reading his description of this bill on his home page. "this bill will keep those dangerous cop guns off the street that are exactly like the gun that is on a special list but wasn't put on the list because they want children to starve from lowered revenues"
  #87  
Old 02-28-2012, 7:27 AM
NotEnufGarage's Avatar
NotEnufGarage NotEnufGarage is offline
C3 Coordinator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Carmichael, CA
Posts: 4,741
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raycm2 View Post
His campaign advisers are across the breezeway from my office. Last week I took a printout on the local "NSSF First Shots" event over there. I think I'll go pay a visit and ask what problem this bill is supposed to solve. Probably need to brush up on the relevant PC before the visit...

Ray
Also, if it's addressing the Sac PD and Sheriffs that were PPT'ing here, brush up on the Federal laws on strawman purchases, etc.
__________________

NRA Life Member (Benefactor level)

"Those who give up some of their liberty in order to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty, nor safety." B. Franklin
Calguns Community Chapters (C3) in Your Community
Calguns Community Chapters (C3) and Appleseed Event Calendar

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or competition shooting. It's all about your inalienable rights to life and liberty.
  #88  
Old 02-28-2012, 7:52 AM
ap3572001 ap3572001 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco/East Bay
Posts: 4,979
iTrader: 44 / 96%
Default

The way I understand this bill is that an LEO will not be able to PPT an off roster pistol REAGARDLESS of how they got it.

If the bill will become a law, an LEO will not be able to sell their part of their collection in CA via PPT.

Right?

Or are they talking about off roster handguns that LEO bought USING their status?

I have a Ruger Speed six in 9mm that I bought in the 80's. With the new law I will never be able to sell it the state.
  #89  
Old 02-28-2012, 8:48 AM
bcj128's Avatar
bcj128 bcj128 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: off to the races
Posts: 350
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

OK...as an LEO, I fully support dumping the stupid roster...it's merely a veiled threat to take away the options of other types of guns that may be older design, cheaper, etc. It also encompasses "safety measures" that are invented in the minds of people who have no idea about what they are doing. Basically, it was only made to make guns harder to possess.

The bill irritates me, because I have one or two guns that I can now sell only to fellow LEO's or out of state. However a few of my comrades made this mess by the issues in Sacramento, and we're going to be stuck with it if the bill passes.

As for the bill that created the roster itself, PORAC, I believe opposed the actual bill. However, when the exemption was put in, they lost any standing to challenge it in court.

Would PORAC generally go out after a bad bill because it's "bad" when it doesn't affect it's members. Probably not, because that's not their mission. They may all agree it's a stupid law, and will oppose it as a bad idea, but will not likely go on the lobby warpath over it, because that's spent political capital they may need for something else. Not to mention, there are a good number of officers who may believe in gun control, so now you're pitting members against members. Thats politics, and it stinks, but that's how our jacked up state works.

Our problem is that we have a vocal minority here in CA who are pro gun. The vast majority don't care, or listen to the drivel put out by the press. The you have the vocal minority on the other side who want gun control, and they have all the media to trumpet their agenda, and 60-80% of the politicians.

If we want change, we need to import more conservative gun-friendly people and tip the scales. I don't know how you make that happen.
  #90  
Old 02-28-2012, 8:49 AM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,037
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

ap3572001, might be worth a call to chat with a staffer and let them know. Only takes 5 mins.
  #91  
Old 02-28-2012, 8:56 AM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcj128 View Post
The bill irritates me, because I have one or two guns that I can now sell only to fellow LEO's or out of state.
Wat? Unless they are assault weapons, you can PPT non-rostered handguns to any eligible buyer in the state.

This legislation is about non-rostered handguns.
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com
  #92  
Old 02-28-2012, 9:04 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,934
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcj128 View Post
OK...as an LEO, I fully support dumping the stupid roster...it's merely a veiled threat to take away the options of other types of guns that may be older design, cheaper, etc. It also encompasses "safety measures" that are invented in the minds of people who have no idea about what they are doing. Basically, it was only made to make guns harder to possess.

The bill irritates me, because I have one or two guns that I can now sell only to fellow LEO's or out of state. However a few of my comrades made this mess by the issues in Sacramento, and we're going to be stuck with it if the bill passes.

As for the bill that created the roster itself, PORAC, I believe opposed the actual bill. However, when the exemption was put in, they lost any standing to challenge it in court.

Would PORAC generally go out after a bad bill because it's "bad" when it doesn't affect it's members. Probably not, because that's not their mission. They may all agree it's a stupid law, and will oppose it as a bad idea, but will not likely go on the lobby warpath over it, because that's spent political capital they may need for something else. Not to mention, there are a good number of officers who may believe in gun control, so now you're pitting members against members. Thats politics, and it stinks, but that's how our jacked up state works.

Our problem is that we have a vocal minority here in CA who are pro gun. The vast majority don't care, or listen to the drivel put out by the press. The you have the vocal minority on the other side who want gun control, and they have all the media to trumpet their agenda, and 60-80% of the politicians.

If we want change, we need to import more conservative gun-friendly people and tip the scales. I don't know how you make that happen.
Welp...perhaps PORAC should start looking past their own noses.

They oppose a bill until their constituency is exempted, then they drop their opposition (which is a tacit endorsement). But when the exemption is deemed unfair, and it's decided that citizens need to be treated equally with respect to the law, they sqwak. First it happened with AWs, now it's happening with rostered guns.

Again, PORAC is a membership organization. It does what the members tell it. If I was a member of an organization that was heading in a direction I didn't like, I'd:

*Try to change it.
*Quit
*Create one that did do what I want

It's not rocket science.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
  #93  
Old 02-28-2012, 10:56 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,089
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think he was explaining what PORAC does and will do, not endorsing their mode of behavior.

I'd not be surprised if he is trying to change it from within.
  #94  
Old 02-28-2012, 11:09 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,934
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Yes. I get that. I wasn't (or didn't mean to) excoriate bcj128.

My problem is with PORAC.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
  #95  
Old 02-28-2012, 1:15 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
They oppose a bill until their constituency is exempted, then they drop their opposition (which is a tacit endorsement). But when the exemption is deemed unfair, and it's decided that citizens need to be treated equally with respect to the law, they sqwak. First it happened with AWs, now it's happening with rostered guns.
Isn't this the same behavior that people were up in arms with the NRA over? Remember the bill to make the membership rolls of all non-profits public information? The NRA opposed the bill until there was an exemption for .orgs over a certain number which effectively protected the NRA and ACLU. Suddenly the NRA dropped their objection because it no longer effected their members. Isn't this the same thing PORAC is doing?
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
  #96  
Old 02-28-2012, 1:29 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,934
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Isn't this the same behavior that people were up in arms with the NRA over? Remember the bill to make the membership rolls of all non-profits public information? The NRA opposed the bill until there was an exemption for .orgs over a certain number which effectively protected the NRA and ACLU. Suddenly the NRA dropped their objection because it no longer effected their members. Isn't this the same thing PORAC is doing?
The point of the bill was to "expose" the membership lists of non-profits who were opposed to the current administration (remember who sponsored and pushed it).

But the point of the NRA objection was to kill the bill - which it did. They essentially inserted a poison pill into it.

Chess. Not checkers. Remember.

I don't think that the PORAC carve-out was intended to do the same (actually, I know it wasn't since the carve-out was a seperate piece of legislation proffered in the wake of Silveria.)
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
  #97  
Old 02-28-2012, 1:36 PM
bcj128's Avatar
bcj128 bcj128 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: off to the races
Posts: 350
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
Yes. I get that. I wasn't (or didn't mean to) excoriate bcj128.

My problem is with PORAC.
Agreed. I believe the way to best address the issue is get rid of the roster.

When I complained about the Brown legal opinion, and they said they couldn't do anything- so I took them to task on the whole AWB. They agreed its a bad law, but believed they could never repeal it...it's just too ingrained in the political landscape in Sacramento. I was frustrated, but the guy in PORAC was someone I've worked with in the past, and know he is trying to do what is best for the whole of his membership, not just me...

That said, I think we need to remember that cops are pulled from the gnereal public at large, and fewer and fewer are as pro gun as I am. I would wager to say that many of them work areas like LA and Oakland and have seen what the AK can do. Others just don't beleive in guns. So to direct your ire at cops, expecting them to be pro gun, it may be misdirected...

Just trying to change them one opinion at a time.

As for the assault weapon cleanup legislation, the cleanest way to do it, and the most fair would be to remove the named and Kassner guns from the assault weapons ban so it's by characteristic only. Then when you retire, you throw on a bullet button and keep your gun, no one's out any money except the cost of the bullet button. Then the officer advises the state that the gun has been made non-assault weapon-ish...and it drops off the registration.

Last edited by bcj128; 02-28-2012 at 1:41 PM..
  #98  
Old 02-28-2012, 2:22 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,934
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcj128 View Post
Agreed. I believe the way to best address the issue is get rid of the roster.

When I complained about the Brown legal opinion, and they said they couldn't do anything- so I took them to task on the whole AWB. They agreed its a bad law, but believed they could never repeal it...it's just too ingrained in the political landscape in Sacramento. I was frustrated, but the guy in PORAC was someone I've worked with in the past, and know he is trying to do what is best for the whole of his membership, not just me...

That said, I think we need to remember that cops are pulled from the gnereal public at large, and fewer and fewer are as pro gun as I am. I would wager to say that many of them work areas like LA and Oakland and have seen what the AK can do. Others just don't beleive in guns. So to direct your ire at cops, expecting them to be pro gun, it may be misdirected...

Just trying to change them one opinion at a time.

As for the assault weapon cleanup legislation, the cleanest way to do it, and the most fair would be to remove the named and Kassner guns from the assault weapons ban so it's by characteristic only. Then when you retire, you throw on a bullet button and keep your gun, no one's out any money except the cost of the bullet button. Then the officer advises the state that the gun has been made non-assault weapon-ish...and it drops off the registration.
Regarding the AWs, there was a concerted effort between some Gunny lobbyists and the PORAC lobbyist to create an amnesty period for folks to register AWs. They were just about agreed on it when PORAC backed out, said that they were going to go for an LEO registration only and that they Gunnies could "just sue" on equal protection grounds.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
  #99  
Old 02-28-2012, 3:25 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,037
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

@jdberger...bummer, they coudnt agree on something. Is there a chance equal protection will work? I mean retired LEO can carry in 50 states but we cant. But no challenge to that right?
  #100  
Old 02-28-2012, 3:32 PM
Bobula's Avatar
Bobula Bobula is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Amador County
Posts: 8,984
iTrader: 147 / 100%
Default

So I can't sell a gun once is falls off?
  #101  
Old 02-28-2012, 3:50 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,137
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobula View Post
So I can't sell a gun once is falls off?
Quote:
A person exempted pursuant to this paragraph shall not give a handgun
to a person who is not exempted under this section .
As written, if you are exempt from the Roster and bought it off-Roster, you would not be able to PPT it to anyone not also exempt from the Roster.

That language ALSO includes handguns a LEO bought PPT - because such a sale is to an exempt buyer, even though the sale, under current law, is not dependent on that.

And I do wonder at the use of 'give' in that text; 'transfer' I would understand.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #102  
Old 02-28-2012, 6:33 PM
ap3572001 ap3572001 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco/East Bay
Posts: 4,979
iTrader: 44 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
@jdberger...bummer, they coudnt agree on something. Is there a chance equal protection will work? I mean retired LEO can carry in 50 states but we cant. But no challenge to that right?
I understand....

But I can arrest someone on or off duty, check out a full auto , carry where others can't , tell someone what they can and can't do, etc due to my employment.

Why not just challenge everything? Would that make any sense?.

I was not an LE in my early life. I never questioned why I cant do what federal agent,local cop or US Marine can.

Making any sense?
I am very much for SHALL ISSUE CCW. But LE will always be able to do things or to have things that most people can't.

FBI can do what people in my agency can't. We live with it ....

Last edited by ap3572001; 02-29-2012 at 8:29 AM..
  #103  
Old 02-29-2012, 10:45 AM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,309
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3572001 View Post
They CAN NOT control what You sell out of state. I dont think ...
Think again. They apparently already want to control what we legally hunt out of state.
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran


"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- John Dean "Jeff" Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
  #104  
Old 02-29-2012, 10:49 AM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,309
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3572001 View Post
I understand....

But I can arrest someone on or off duty, check out a full auto , carry where others can't , tell someone what they can and can't do, etc due to my employment.

Why not just challenge everything? Would that make any sense?.

I was not an LE in my early life. I never questioned why I cant do what federal agent,local cop or US Marine can.

Making any sense?
I am very much for SHALL ISSUE CCW. But LE will always be able to do things or to have things that most people can't.

FBI can do what people in my agency can't. We live with it ....
The flaw in your argument is you don't distinguish the difference between in the line of duty, in which case I support some special powers, and off-duty as a citizen which I think should not carry over LEO special powers. Selling off Roster firearms is not a duty function.
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran


"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- John Dean "Jeff" Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
  #105  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:19 PM
ap3572001 ap3572001 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco/East Bay
Posts: 4,979
iTrader: 44 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli View Post
The flaw in your argument is you don't distinguish the difference between in the line of duty, in which case I support some special powers, and off-duty as a citizen which I think should not carry over LEO special powers. Selling off Roster firearms is not a duty function.
OK. Understand Your point . I also see few issues here....Let me brake it down.

Just few facts.
1). When I change out of my uniform ( on days I do wear a uniform) , clip and LE only knife to my jeans, holster a GEN4 .40 cal Glock (with another 15rd or 22rd magazines) , clip on a badge , put on a shirt and go home , I am STILL an LEO.
BY STATE LAW and Department policy.
I am just not working right that moment.

2). If and when I will have to draw my weapon to save a life , I will be acting as an LEO , NOT a civilian.

3). When I am off I can be called back to work anytime . In some situations , I have to keep with me stuff that 99% of the people CAN'T even own.

4). Last one.

I have not visited or worked in in a single county in the world where LE officers and armed Government agents are treated EXACTLY the same way as everyone else when they are not working.

PS. My agency and many others DO CONTROL what we can and can not carry . ON and OFF duty.

Last edited by ap3572001; 02-29-2012 at 12:30 PM..
  #106  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:27 PM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3572001 View Post
Just few facts.
1). When I change out of my uniform ( on days I do wear a uniform) , clip and LE only knife to my jeans...
What the heck is an LE-only knife?
  #107  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:28 PM
ap3572001 ap3572001 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco/East Bay
Posts: 4,979
iTrader: 44 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mej16489 View Post
What the heck is an LE-only knife?
The ones that are only sold to LE in Ca. Some stores have them .
  #108  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:30 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,309
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3572001 View Post
OK. Understand Your point . I also see few issues here....Let me brake it down.

Just few facts.
1). When I change out of my uniform ( on days I do wear a uniform) , clip and LE only knife to my jeans, holster a GEN4 .40 cal Glock (with another 15rd or 22rd magazines) , clip on a badge , put on a shirt and go home , I am STILL an LEO.
BY STATE LAW and Department policy.
I am just not working right that moment.

2). If and when I will have to draw my weapon to save a life , I will be acting as an LEO , NOT a civilian.

3). When I am off I can be called back to work anytime . In some situations , I have to keep with me stuff that 99% of the people CAN'T even own.

4). Last one.

I have not visited or worked in in a single county in the world where LE officers and armed Government agents are treated EXACTLY the same way as everyone else when they are not working.

PS. My agency and many others DO CONTROL what we can and can not carry . ON and OFF duty.
You raise good general points and I agree with you in as far as off-duty LEO privileges benefit society as the ones you mention do. How does having special sales privileges of privately-owned arms benefit public safety? It doesn't so it doesn't pass the utility to public safety test. that's was the real point I intended to make.
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran


"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- John Dean "Jeff" Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
  #109  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:32 PM
thebronze's Avatar
thebronze thebronze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sack of Tomatoes
Posts: 922
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baconator View Post
Don't worry, I was told by so many CalGunners that Jerry Brown is super pro gun and will never sign such a law.

This.
__________________
Retired Mil & former Cop

Semper Fi!

  #110  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:40 PM
ap3572001 ap3572001 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco/East Bay
Posts: 4,979
iTrader: 44 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli View Post
You raise good general points and I agree with you in as far as off-duty LEO privileges benefit society as the ones you mention do. How does having special sales privileges of privately-owned arms benefit public safety? It doesn't so it doesn't pass the utility to public safety test. that's was the real point I intended to make.
I see.

I can take it one step firther. ROSTER makes no sense. There is nothing unsafe about modern handguns that are not ont he roster. They would not be issued to us if they were unsafe.

NOW. Since we are on the subject, THERE are handguns (old , modified, poor quality) that are not very safe to cary with a round in the chamber or under a hammer.

But thats a different subject.
  #111  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:42 PM
ap3572001 ap3572001 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco/East Bay
Posts: 4,979
iTrader: 44 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebronze View Post
This.
I agree with You .
  #112  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:52 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,309
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3572001 View Post
I see.

I can take it one step firther. ROSTER makes no sense. There is nothing unsafe about modern handguns that are not ont he roster. They would not be issued to us if they were unsafe.

NOW. Since we are on the subject, THERE are handguns (old , modified, poor quality) that are not very safe to cary with a round in the chamber or under a hammer.

But thats a different subject.
No argument from me that the Roster is not at all about safety. I cannot buy a different finish identical pistol if it too wasn't tested and approved.
It is clear it is a thinly veiled attempt to make acquiring and owning handguns more difficult and one day I hope the courts will strike it down. I 'd like LEOs to lose their non-public safety oriented privileges so they stop supporting anti-gun laws for the rest of us. I know not all of you support them, but clearly a lot do.
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran


"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- John Dean "Jeff" Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
  #113  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:53 PM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3572001 View Post
The ones that are only sold to LE in Ca. Some stores have them .
That's what I figured...there is no such thing...legally.

Just because dealers are doing it doesn't make it legal...

From the LEO forum:
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...d.php?t=527580

Plus many other threads.
  #114  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:53 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,309
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mej16489 View Post
What the heck is an LE-only knife?
Spring-loaded blades for one: active duty military and LEO only for instance.
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran


"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- John Dean "Jeff" Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
  #115  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:55 PM
ap3572001 ap3572001 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco/East Bay
Posts: 4,979
iTrader: 44 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli View Post
Spring-loaded blades for one: active duty military and LEO only for instance.
Yep.
  #116  
Old 02-29-2012, 4:45 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is online now
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,262
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli View Post
Spring-loaded blades for one: active duty military and LEO only for instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3572001 View Post
Yep.

what exemption to CA's switchblade laws do active-duty .mil and LEO fall under?
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
  #117  
Old 03-01-2012, 12:18 AM
ErikTheRed's Avatar
ErikTheRed ErikTheRed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Marysville
Posts: 1,619
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baconator View Post
Don't worry, I was told by so many CalGunners that Jerry Brown is super pro gun and will never sign such a law.
I take great pride in reminding you (and everyone else) that I was NOT one of those Calgunners. I still can't believe all the people who thought JB was going to be our friend somehow. Just amazing.
__________________
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.


I've comitted $10 a month to the CalGuns Foundation. Have you??? Join us and donate here!
  #118  
Old 03-01-2012, 10:18 AM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 2,692
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikTheRed View Post
I take great pride in reminding you (and everyone else) that I was NOT one of those Calgunners. I still can't believe all the people who thought JB was going to be our friend somehow. Just amazing.
NO, they said that EMeg was worse for gun rights.
__________________

...... you cant have no idea how little I care "

Monte (Tom Selleck) - 'Monte Walsh'

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger--and I won't."

John Wayne as John Bernard (J. B.) Books in The Shootist
  #119  
Old 03-01-2012, 6:15 PM
rromeo's Avatar
rromeo rromeo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Radford, VA
Posts: 5,812
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3572001 View Post
I see.

I can take it one step firther. ROSTER makes no sense. There is nothing unsafe about modern handguns that are not ont he roster. They would not be issued to us if they were unsafe.

NOW. Since we are on the subject, THERE are handguns (old , modified, poor quality) that are not very safe to cary with a round in the chamber or under a hammer.

But thats a different subject.
Yep, the real unsafe guns are roster exempt.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.
__________________
Never initiate force against another. That should be the underlying principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming - you or yours again.

- from THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO
(Revised Eastern Sect Edition)
  #120  
Old 03-01-2012, 7:20 PM
Shotgun Man's Avatar
Shotgun Man Shotgun Man is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,054
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If the gun lobby opposes this and other LEO-targeted bills, we should get something in return from the police unions/associations.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but years ago, didn't the largest national police association lobby congress for a LEO exception to the Lautenberg amendment? I believe the police association courted the NRA's support, but the NRA declined and may have even actively opposed such an exception. It was the NRA's big F-U to the police association because the police association had supported the federal AWB. Actions have consequences. To this day, there is no LEO exception to the Lautenberg amendment.

I tried to google it and find a cite, but I failed. Do I have my facts straight?

Last edited by Shotgun Man; 03-01-2012 at 8:26 PM..
Closed Thread

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 1:48 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.