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
  #1  
Old 04-25-2012, 6:41 PM
creekside creekside is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 424
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default What our police are learning in the academy about guns . . . [motherlode of FUD?]

I am reading through my recently acquired copy of POST LD 40: Weapons Violations (v. 6.0) to start memorizing the new Penal Code numbers for our favorite body of law. Thank you POST and Kinkos. Get your own here: https://docstore.fedex.com/post_ca While I understand that this material is copyrighted by POST, I am quoting from it in a public discussion forum for both educational and legal reasons.

This is part of the training curriculum for all California police officers. Every police officer has to read, attend class and take a test on this material.

For this particular section, "Weapons Violations," there are five chapters titled:

1) Prohibited Weapons
2) Possession of Firearms
3) Concealment of Firearms
4) Possession of Firearms by Restricted Persons or Within Restricted Locations
5) Unlawful Use of Weapons

As I started reading, I started to feel a growing sense of unease.

1-4 and 1-5 define short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles. "NOTE: When measuring the overall length ... the officer should ignore any removable or folding shoulder-stock or shoulder-rest, as long as the weapon is capable of being fired ... barrel length is measured from the closed breach face to the tip of the muzzle excluding any removable flash suppressors." This doesn't sound right, but I'm not a firearms technical expert. So I keep reading.

1-6 defines a zip gun. "NOTE: Almost any homemade firearm can qualify as a zip gun." Really? That doesn't sound right either.

1-15 defines a large capacity magazine. "Any ammunition-feeding device which has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds: *may not be manufactured, imported, kept or exposed for sale, given or loaned except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers; * importation not continuously possessed by the same owner prior to January 1, 2000" (PC 32310)

This seems wrong. So I pull up the actual PC using Leginfo:

Quote:
32310. Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section
32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing January 1, 2000, any
person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured,
imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for
sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine is
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or
in the state prison.
Wait a second . . . the POST book says "imports, kept or exposed for sale" and the law says "imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale."

What's the difference? When I read the POST version, I think of three separate acts: 1) import, 2) keep (as in possess) or 3) exposed for sale. When I read the law, I see that there is no possession restriction.

That's a really big difference.

I am beginning to understand why some police officers think that a high capacity magazine is illegal to possess.

Then I get to 1-20, Tear Gas Weapons, which is introduced as "Only specified individuals can lawfully possess a tear gas weapon."

That's simply not correct, and I know it this time. I keep reading, now horrified.

"The crime of possession of tear gas or a tear gas weapon is a misdemeanor."

Say what?

This time I'll use Onecle:

Quote:
PC 22810: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person may purchase, possess, or use tear gas or any tear gas weapon for the projection or release of tear gas if the tear gas or tear gas weapon is used solely for self-defense purposes, subject to the following requirements:[/URL]
That's what I thought. Tear gas weapons (i.e. pepper spray) are indeed quite legal.

How did we get from "Tear gas is legal except if you're a minor, felon or addict" to "Tear gas possession is a misdemeanor unless (list of exceptions) . . ."?

1-21 has a header titled "Permitted Use" that explains ". . . it is lawful to purchase, possess or use tear gas in the form of an aerosol spray with a net weight of 2.5 ounces or less, solely for self defense."

From one perspective, the authors of this POST LD simply combined the text of the statute to fit it on two pages.

However, there is a big difference between "it's legal as long as you do X, Y and Z" and "it's always illegal unless you are X, Y and Z."

The law hasn't changed. The average person is allowed to have pepper spray for self defense. Addicts, felons and minors are not.

But if you read the POST materials, you get a different message. People aren't allowed to have pepper spray UNLESS it weighs 2.5 ounces or less, it's for self defense, and you can't be a felon or addict or minor.

The summary of the section is 1-24, which gets even better:

"Any person, firm or corporation who knowingly possesses, or sells, offers for sale, exposes for sale, or transports any prohibited tear gas or tear gas weapons, except when otherwise permitted is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Really? You can buy pepper spray at Big 5, even in San Francisco; or at Fry's Electronics; or Harbor Freight Tools; or any number of gun stores or police uniform shops.

But the summary of the "tear gas" section, the take home lesson intended for all aspiring California cops, is that "Tear Gas" == "illegal."

I'd like someone smarter than I am to read through this LD with particular attention to Chapter 2: Possession of Firearms and Chapter 3: Concealment of Firearms.

Why? Because I think I've found the mother-lode of FUD.
  #2  
Old 04-25-2012, 7:19 PM
GaryV's Avatar
GaryV GaryV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 886
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekside View Post
I am reading through my recently acquired copy of POST LD 40: Weapons Violations (v. 6.0) to start memorizing the new Penal Code numbers for our favorite body of law. Thank you POST and Kinkos. Get your own here: https://docstore.fedex.com/post_ca While I understand that this material is copyrighted by POST, I am quoting from it in a public discussion forum for both educational and legal reasons.

This is part of the training curriculum for all California police officers. Every police officer has to read, attend class and take a test on this material.

For this particular section, "Weapons Violations," there are five chapters titled:

1) Prohibited Weapons
2) Possession of Firearms
3) Concealment of Firearms
4) Possession of Firearms by Restricted Persons or Within Restricted Locations
5) Unlawful Use of Weapons

As I started reading, I started to feel a growing sense of unease.

1-4 and 1-5 define short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles. "NOTE: When measuring the overall length ... the officer should ignore any removable or folding shoulder-stock or shoulder-rest, as long as the weapon is capable of being fired ... barrel length is measured from the closed breach face to the tip of the muzzle excluding any removable flash suppressors." This doesn't sound right, but I'm not a firearms technical expert. So I keep reading.
That's correct. If it has a folding stock then you measure overall length with it folded. Barrel length is measured from the breach face to the end of the muzzle, and any barrel attachments don't count unless they are welded or permanently pinned on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekside View Post
1-6 defines a zip gun. "NOTE: Almost any homemade firearm can qualify as a zip gun." Really? That doesn't sound right either.
Probably pushing the bounds a bit, but California law on this isn't great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekside View Post
1-15 defines a large capacity magazine. "Any ammunition-feeding device which has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds: *may not be manufactured, imported, kept or exposed for sale, given or loaned except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers; * importation not continuously possessed by the same owner prior to January 1, 2000" (PC 32310)

This seems wrong. So I pull up the actual PC using Leginfo:



Wait a second . . . the POST book says "imports, kept or exposed for sale" and the law says "imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale."

What's the difference? When I read the POST version, I think of three separate acts: 1) import, 2) keep (as in possess) or 3) exposed for sale. When I read the law, I see that there is no possession restriction.

That's a really big difference.

I am beginning to understand why some police officers think that a high capacity magazine is illegal to possess.
You just read it wrong. It's not "1) import, 2) keep (as in possess) or 3) exposed for sale", it's: 1) import, 2) kept or exposed, for sale. "For sale" refers to both "kept" and "exposed" together, not just to "exposed" with "kept" set apart.

As for the tear gas sections, I agree that the wording gives the wrong tone to the law, but it isn't factually incorrect. It just projects a mind set that it is generally illegal, with some exceptions, when the law, as written, gives more of the impression that it is generally legal with some exceptions. I do have a problem with that, because it does potentially set officers up with the wrong attitude, but it is at least not factually wrong.
  #3  
Old 04-25-2012, 7:23 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,873
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

You are taking things out of context and applying your opinion to the law. The POST learning domains are part of the information taught by a qualified instructor.

Tear gas weapons, with the exception of pepper spray, are illegal. You are missing out on the exceptions to the laws.

Partial information an be more dangerous than no information.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
  #4  
Old 04-25-2012, 8:30 PM
creekside creekside is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 424
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
You are taking things out of context and applying your opinion to the law. The POST learning domains are part of the information taught by a qualified instructor.
All POST academies must teach and test to the LDs by state law, so when there is an error in the LDs it will spread and be amplified statewide. I'll note that certain academy instructors seem to be as big a source of FUD as gun shop clerks, so counting on them to correct errors in the LDs doesn't seem like a viable strategy. Because of this, I'd like to focus on the actual LDs and state law and not get into a discussion of criminal justice education.

My contention is that this particular LD is supplying a context that is not accurate, by saying as a sweeping generality that certain lawful acts are prohibited, when the actual law says exactly the opposite.

Quote:
Tear gas weapons, with the exception of pepper spray, are illegal. You are missing out on the exceptions to the laws.
That's not how the statute reads. What the law actually says is that the "tear gas" must be projected by an aerosol spray. So CS tear gas is just as legal an aerosol load as pepper spray. Another option is CN, first introduced as Mace.

Note this press release (PDF) from the UC Berkeley police department, confirming that both pepper spray (OC or oleoresin capsicum) and Mace are valid self-defense options in this state.

Pepper spray is a lot more common and is arguably the better tool, but when you say "Tear gas weapons, with the exception of pepper spray, are illegal." you are wrong on the actual facts.

Bear spray and wasp spray are another story, as these are poisons. There's been a lot of Calguns discussions on these.

Here's the Leginfo link and section:

Quote:
(e) (1) No person shall purchase, possess, or use any tear gas
weapon that expels a projectile, or that expels the tear gas by any
method other than an aerosol spray, or that contains more than 2.5
ounces net weight of aerosol spray.
The method of expulsion is what makes devices such as the Pepper Blaster illegal, as discussed previously here and with a legal warning from a prominent law firm here. (PDF file)

A typical tear gas grenade that generated tear gas by a burning process would be unlawful as well.

Quote:
Partial information an be more dangerous than no information
Precisely my point. This POST module is providing BAD information by implying that most people can't have tear gas weapons and that the default is that pepper spray is illegal.

This isn't true. Lots of people buy and carry pepper spray legally. But a new police cadet reading this and being tested on it will conclude, "Pepper spray is illegal, see, it says right there in LD40, it's in Chapter 1 under "Prohibited Weapons."
  #5  
Old 04-25-2012, 8:38 PM
creekside creekside is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 424
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I really appreciate your feedback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryV View Post
You just read it wrong. It's not "1) import, 2) keep (as in possess) or 3) exposed for sale", it's: 1) import, 2) kept or exposed, for sale. "For sale" refers to both "kept" and "exposed" together, not just to "exposed" with "kept" set apart.
Someone decided to format it that way instead of quoting the statute. It may seem like nit-picking, but I don't think I'm going to be the only person who reads it that way. Writing it this way with "kept" broken out saves what, one word? -- while implying possession instead of sale.

I'm concerned with tone and impressions as much as I am with accuracy. That's why I think some of the Real Experts (TM) should read the whole LD.

Quote:
As for the tear gas sections, I agree that the wording gives the wrong tone to the law, but it isn't factually incorrect. It just projects a mind set that it is generally illegal, with some exceptions, when the law, as written, gives more of the impression that it is generally legal with some exceptions. I do have a problem with that, because it does potentially set officers up with the wrong attitude, but it is at least not factually wrong.
This is exactly what I'm getting at -- because in Chapter 2 and 3, it seems that new peace officers are getting set up with the anti-firearms attitude in much the same way.
  #6  
Old 04-25-2012, 9:08 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekside View Post
*may not be manufactured, imported, kept or exposed for sale,
I can see how someone unfamiliar with the law could read into the text that "kept" and "exposed for sale" are two separate violations. If you expect the Oxford Comma, it totally changes the meaning of the LD language as I suggest. It would have been clearer if the LD said "kept for sale or exposed for sale".....for the sake of clarity. And, yes, some POST instructors are not as familiar with the actual law as you would like them to be.........
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel

Last edited by CalCop; 04-25-2012 at 9:13 PM..
  #7  
Old 04-25-2012, 9:25 PM
CBruce's Avatar
CBruce CBruce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,994
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekside View Post
Wait a second . . . the POST book says "imports, kept or exposed for sale" and the law says "imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale."
oxford comma:
"manufactured, imported, kept [for sale] or exposed for sale, given or loaned except by law enforcement agencies"

had it read:
"manufactured, imported, kept, exposed for sale, given or loaned except by law enforcement agencies" then you'd have a point, but not at all how I read it.
  #8  
Old 04-25-2012, 9:30 PM
IrishPirate's Avatar
IrishPirate IrishPirate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Roseville, PRK
Posts: 6,401
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
*may not be manufactured, imported, kept or exposed for sale, given or loaned except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers
understanding how commas work is an important skill to have....

So you had no problem with the "given or loaned" part, but you got confused by the "kept or exposed" part right before it?

You're right, other might read it wrong too. But that doesn't change what the law says. Just means more poeople should have paid attention in English.
__________________

Most civilization is based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.
People Should Not Be Afraid Of Their Governments, Governments Should Be Afraid Of Their People

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Last edited by IrishPirate; 04-25-2012 at 9:33 PM..
  #9  
Old 04-25-2012, 9:35 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBruce View Post
oxford comma:
"manufactured, imported, kept [for sale] or exposed for sale, given or loaned except by law enforcement agencies"

had it read:
"manufactured, imported, kept, exposed for sale, given or loaned except by law enforcement agencies" then you'd have a point, but not at all how I read it.
I don't read it that way either. What I was saying is that if someone knows that others don't use the Oxford Comma, because it is optional, they could think the author didn't like Oxford Commas and read it the second way you wrote it. Or, if they just misunderstand the use of commas, there is a problem. Since different writing manuals suggest different appropriate ways to use commas, it is plausible that it causes confusion. Also, when you have anti-gunners (unfortunately some cops are) they could inadvertently read it incorrectly because of their subliminal leanings. You would eventually win, but the confusion the LD can cause, then the trouble the cop could subsequently cause you, is an issue in my opinion.
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel

Last edited by CalCop; 04-25-2012 at 9:37 PM..
  #10  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:19 PM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,387
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

I too think you are trying to read too much into the LD and are judging it based on your own preconceived opinions.

To reinforce Ron-Solo's point, the printed material in the LD by itself is not the training. The information and additional material presented by the instructor complete the package.

The information on how to measure SBS / SBR is spot on correct. No FUD there.

Non aerosol tear gas weapons are generally illegal. Bear in mind also that any malicious use of an aerosol tear gas weapon could be charged as an assault with a caustic chemical. There is much more nuance that an instructor would bring in this area. So again, not really seeing the FUD.

The language on the magazines is correct in both cases, Penal Code and LD. It's just expressed with slightly different construction in the LD. I can see where that could create confusion, I taught report writing for a number of years so reading things critically and for clarity is something I do, but again an instructor should be giving that full clarity when presenting it.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
  #11  
Old 04-25-2012, 11:28 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,873
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Creekside,

I WAS in instructor in several subjects at a POST academy. I know exactly what the responsibilities of the instructor are in those areas.

I spent 32 1/2 years in law enforcement, working a variety of assignments. Your comments are inappropriate as someone who "hopes" to attend a POST academy someday. You have ZERO experience in applying book learning to the real world, and like I said, you are taking things way out of context.

If you want to succeed in law enforcement, pull your head back into the sunshine where your ears aren't plugged by other body parts.

Your misunderstanding of the LD is excusable, other things are not.

Your quote on the pepper spray clearly states that aerosol sprays over 2.5 ounces are illegal except for law enforcement. You are simply misreading it. No where does it say that pepper spray is illegal.


Quote:
(e) (1) No person shall purchase, possess, or use any tear gas
weapon that expels a projectile, or that expels the tear gas by any
method other than an aerosol spray, or that contains more than 2.5
ounces net weight of aerosol spray.


Reading comprehension is important in law enforcement. Please work on yours before you waste a valuable slot in a POST academy.

Now, drop and give me 50 recruit.........
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target

Last edited by Ron-Solo; 04-25-2012 at 11:32 PM..
  #12  
Old 04-25-2012, 11:36 PM
nick nick is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,078
iTrader: 135 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryV View Post
That's correct. If it has a folding stock then you measure overall length with it folded. Barrel length is measured from the breach face to the end of the muzzle, and any barrel attachments don't count unless they are welded or permanently pinned on.
Correct for NFA barrel length, however, for the federal law you measure the firearm with the stock extended, and if the rifle barrel is over 16", your muzzle attachment, permanent or not, does count towards the OAL.

Wrong on the CA law. It doesn't matter whether or not the muzzle attachment is permanently fixed to the barrel for OAL. However, the stock is measured for OAL when folded (if it can be folded).
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


WTB: Saiga .223 bolt; HK G3 bolt; Chinese AK pistol grips; milled AK cut receiver pieces and stubs.
  #13  
Old 04-26-2012, 7:10 AM
BobB35 BobB35 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 580
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
Creekside,

I WAS in instructor in several subjects at a POST academy. I know exactly what the responsibilities of the instructor are in those areas.

I spent 32 1/2 years in law enforcement, working a variety of assignments. Your comments are inappropriate as someone who "hopes" to attend a POST academy someday. You have ZERO experience in applying book learning to the real world, and like I said, you are taking things way out of context.

If you want to succeed in law enforcement, pull your head back into the sunshine where your ears aren't plugged by other body parts.

Your misunderstanding of the LD is excusable, other things are not.

Your quote on the pepper spray clearly states that aerosol sprays over 2.5 ounces are illegal except for law enforcement. You are simply misreading it. No where does it say that pepper spray is illegal.


Quote:
(e) (1) No person shall purchase, possess, or use any tear gas
weapon that expels a projectile, or that expels the tear gas by any
method other than an aerosol spray, or that contains more than 2.5
ounces net weight of aerosol spray.


Reading comprehension is important in law enforcement. Please work on yours before you waste a valuable slot in a POST academy.

Now, drop and give me 50 recruit.........
Really, so your experience in LE and as an instructor is the same as everyone else. We've gone around on this and let's just sum it up as situation bias and say...if it isn't clear it will be misinterpreted the wrong way. Why make things difficult. I guarantee you the average cadet in an academy will have never heard of the Oxford or Harvard comma and will not be familiar with it's use.
  #14  
Old 04-26-2012, 7:20 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

"Kept for sale" does seem to be a bit confusing and/or contradictory phrasing.

For clarity is should say something like "Kept or Posessed with intent to sell".
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
  #15  
Old 04-26-2012, 7:23 AM
Merc1138 Merc1138 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,278
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
Correct for NFA barrel length, however, for the federal law you measure the firearm with the stock extended, and if the rifle barrel is over 16", your muzzle attachment, permanent or not, does count towards the OAL.

Wrong on the CA law. It doesn't matter whether or not the muzzle attachment is permanently fixed to the barrel for OAL. However, the stock is measured for OAL when folded (if it can be folded).
He's not wrong. Notice the period separating the sentence about OAL and the sentence about barrel length.

Quote:
If it has a folding stock then you measure overall length with it folded.
This is correct.

Quote:
Barrel length is measured from the breach face to the end of the muzzle, and any barrel attachments don't count unless they are welded or permanently pinned on.
This is also correct.

Measuring barrel length is not the same as measuring OAL. Why are people so confused by punctuation in this thread?
  #16  
Old 04-26-2012, 7:23 AM
YubaRiver YubaRiver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: polaris
Posts: 864
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here is a question on OAL then. A child's rifle meets the CA OAL and barrel standards. If the thick recoil pad is unscrewed from the stock it is a bit under
OAL. Since the recoil pad (and the buttstock for that matter) can be removed
with a screwdriver, is the rifle not CA compliant?
  #17  
Old 04-26-2012, 7:26 AM
Merc1138 Merc1138 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,278
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YubaRiver View Post
Here is a question on OAL then. A child's rifle meets the CA OAL and barrel standards. If the thick recoil pad is unscrewed from the stock it is a bit under
OAL. Since the recoil pad (and the buttstock for that matter) can be removed
with a screwdriver, is the rifle not CA compliant?
Yes, it's CA compliant. OAL doesn't require permanence.

If that child's rifle had a 14.5" barrel with a 1.7" flash hider that was simply screwed on, you've got a serious problem.
  #18  
Old 04-26-2012, 7:38 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,929
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPirate View Post
understanding how commas work is an important skill to have....

So you had no problem with the "given or loaned" part, but you got confused by the "kept or exposed" part right before it?

You're right, other might read it wrong too.But that doesn't change what the law says. Just means more poeople should have paid attention in English.
There's nothing wrong with being polite when explaining something, either.
__________________
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
  #19  
Old 04-26-2012, 8:02 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBruce View Post
oxford comma:
"manufactured, imported, kept [for sale] or exposed for sale, given or loaned except by law enforcement agencies"

had it read:
"manufactured, imported, kept, exposed for sale, given or loaned except by law enforcement agencies" then you'd have a point, but not at all how I read it.
Yes, putting a comma after "kept" would make the original quote mean what the OP thought it meant, but (as the comma was not there) the original meaning was in accordance with the law and "kept" must be associated with "or exposed to sale" and does not stand alone.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

  #20  
Old 04-26-2012, 8:09 AM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,994
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.... just sayin
  #21  
Old 04-26-2012, 8:16 AM
GMANtt's Avatar
GMANtt GMANtt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 472
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,unless you are in California.... just sayin
Fixed.

Last edited by GMANtt; 04-26-2012 at 8:18 AM..
  #22  
Old 04-26-2012, 8:24 AM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,994
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

I hate you and your commas
  #23  
Old 04-26-2012, 9:28 AM
Mazdaspeed Jon's Avatar
Mazdaspeed Jon Mazdaspeed Jon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Reseda, CA
Posts: 615
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekside View Post
Wait a second . . . the POST book says "imports, kept or exposed for sale" and the law says "imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale."

What's the difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBruce View Post
oxford comma:
"manufactured, imported, kept [for sale] or exposed for sale, given or loaned except by law enforcement agencies"

had it read:
"manufactured, imported, kept, exposed for sale, given or loaned except by law enforcement agencies" then you'd have a point, but not at all how I read it.

Oh the Oxford Comma. Gotta love it.

  #24  
Old 04-26-2012, 9:50 AM
lhecker51's Avatar
lhecker51 lhecker51 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Corona
Posts: 571
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

The bottom line is if the is a chance of misinterpretation, it will be and should be clarified. I have had LE friends claim my hi cap mags are illegal until I showed them the P.C. Citizens have a right to expect our LE's to be properly instructed. I developed training for the Army for years and had my material sent back for correction on a few occasions for similar issues that caused enough students to be confused. The op has made a valid point due to the potential for confusion IMHO.
  #25  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:13 AM
12voltguy's Avatar
12voltguy 12voltguy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: ....
Posts: 4,037
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
There's nothing wrong with being polite when explaining something, either.
*******s can't be polite
  #26  
Old 04-26-2012, 11:03 AM
creekside creekside is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 424
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDogatPlay View Post
I too think you are trying to read too much into the LD and are judging it based on your own preconceived opinions.

To reinforce Ron-Solo's point, the printed material in the LD by itself is not the training. The information and additional material presented by the instructor complete the package.
Thank you for your feedback. I do have a strong pre-conceived opinion, that the right to keep and bear arms means exactly what it says. That's why I'm posting this on a political board instead of sending in a workbook modification request.

Quote:
Non aerosol tear gas weapons are generally illegal. Bear in mind also that any malicious use of an aerosol tear gas weapon could be charged as an assault with a caustic chemical. There is much more nuance that an instructor would bring in this area. So again, not really seeing the FUD.
The FUD has to do with what is the default -- are tear gas weapons illegal, with a limited exception for "Special People"; or legal for law-abiding adults if certain requirements are complied with?

In my opinion, the LD says the 1st and the law says the 2nd.

Any use of an aerosol tear gas weapon, other than self defense, can be charged as a wobbler. This can create serious problems when people take law enforcement training and apply it outside a law enforcement context. Spraying someone to make a lawful arrest is something a peace officer can do, but a private person cannot do.

The pepper spray issue isn't nearly as complicated as firearms transportation or bullet buttons. That's why I wanted to start the discussion here -- and motivate people to get a copy of the LD for themselves.

Quote:
The language on the magazines is correct in both cases, Penal Code and LD. It's just expressed with slightly different construction in the LD. I can see where that could create confusion, I taught report writing for a number of years so reading things critically and for clarity is something I do, but again an instructor should be giving that full clarity when presenting it.
This comment is exactly why I posted this in the way that I did.

Why should the law be presented in the LD as anything other than the law?

(Including case law, Constitutional rights, and so on.)
  #27  
Old 04-26-2012, 11:23 AM
DRH DRH is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 641
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
Creekside,
Your comments are inappropriate as someone who "hopes" to attend a POST academy someday. You have ZERO experience in applying book learning to the real world, and like I said, you are taking things way out of context.

If you want to succeed in law enforcement, pull your head back into the sunshine where your ears aren't plugged by other body parts.

Your misunderstanding of the LD is excusable, other things are not.
Creekside, What Rolo Solo is saying here is to ignore his avatar and just drink the kool Aid (it tastes great). What were you thinking! You don't question authority, it is absolute.
  #28  
Old 04-26-2012, 11:28 AM
creekside creekside is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 424
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
Creekside,

I WAS in instructor in several subjects at a POST academy. I know exactly what the responsibilities of the instructor are in those areas.

I spent 32 1/2 years in law enforcement, working a variety of assignments. Your comments are inappropriate as someone who "hopes" to attend a POST academy someday. You have ZERO experience in applying book learning to the real world, and like I said, you are taking things way out of context.
With respect for your POST instructor experience and public service in law enforcement, you have no idea what my background is or what I do for a living. You don't know whether I have a POST profile, what schools I have attended, what instructor certifications I've held and presently hold, or just about anything else about me other than what I've posted on Calguns -- and I've taken care to avoid outing myself.

I'm still learning, and I hope to keep learning for the rest of my life. Please don't mistake this for being either a recruit or a novice to either the law or The Real World (TM).

Do you feel that my comments are inappropriate because they are 1) not factually correct, 2) because I am not a Special Person and therefore have no right to comment, or 3) some other reason?

Quote:
If you want to succeed in law enforcement, pull your head back into the sunshine where your ears aren't plugged by other body parts.
What a graceful example of Verbal Judo (TM).

I don't want to succeed in law enforcement, because I prefer to work for a living.

I do want peace officers to actually know the law. I'm personally motivated, because I'm sick of educating at the side of the road, unpaid. I'm politically motivated, because law-abiding firearms owners suffer when police overstep their boundaries. I'm even worried for both public and officer safety, because the law-abiding public and the police should have each other's back rather than be put into unnecessary and avoidable conflicts.

Quote:
Your misunderstanding of the LD is excusable, other things are not.
I'm not misunderstanding the LD. I'm alleging that the LD is doing a poor job of representing state law.

Quote:
Reading comprehension is important in law enforcement. Please work on yours before you waste a valuable slot in a POST academy.
Tell me you didn't go there. OK, you went there. Please take your own advice and re-read what you yourself have said. As for a valuable slot in a POST academy, it's far too late for that.

Quote:
Now, drop and give me 50 recruit.........
Does being Tasered twice count instead? I do need the exercise, I've gotten swivel chair butt . . . OK, OK, I'll make it a hundred. Grumble, grumble. 1, 2, 3 . . .

I appreciate your comments both in this thread and on other threads, as well as your service. Thank you for your time.
  #29  
Old 04-26-2012, 12:11 PM
prc104's Avatar
prc104 prc104 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside 92504
Posts: 404
iTrader: 69 / 100%
Default

The LD books are not meant to be used as a standalone learning guide. They are used to summarize what you are taught in the class by the instructor.

The instructors use a variety of multimedia and hands-on teaching methods.

If you go to the Academy you will be writing a lot of detailed notes as the instructor goes over the subject matter. The LD40 test was one of the hardest due to the PC codes and specifications you have to memorize.

Wait a second . . . the POST book says "imports, kept or exposed for sale" and the law says "imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale."

Just as an example, it is explained clearly in the class, by the instructor, that "keeps for sale" is exactly that. It's to separate the people who are illegally keeping hi-caps to sell versus the citizen that can legally own hi-caps.

Self-sponsor through an academy and check out how they do the training, it's not like any kind of school you've ever been to.
__________________
Know what's right, To know what's wrong.
  #30  
Old 04-26-2012, 12:18 PM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,839
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Yeah the Oxford comma is necessary since our schools completely fail to teach decent grammar to students anymore. Much less anything else. My mistake, the do an excellent job teaching things like social responsibility, that tolerance and acceptance mean the same thing, and violence is never an option.

I use the Oxford comma now only because I've worked with enough dumb ***es to make it necessary.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazdaspeed Jon View Post
Oh the Oxford Comma. Gotta love it.

__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
  #31  
Old 04-26-2012, 12:37 PM
non sequitur's Avatar
non sequitur non sequitur is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 312
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default LDs & FUD

Perhaps we should petition POST to create a new Learning Domain on proper use of the comma...

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

See section 2.
__________________
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*

*Not valid in CA, NY, HI, MD, NJ or DC
  #32  
Old 04-26-2012, 1:02 PM
calif 15-22's Avatar
calif 15-22 calif 15-22 is offline
Paid Government Shill
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 4,467
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by non sequitur View Post
Perhaps we should petition POST to create a new Learning Domain on proper use of the comma...

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

See section 2.
Damn I really didn't know there was a difference in commas. Learned something new today.

Damn California public school system. I wonder if there is a lawsuit I can bring??
__________________

I will no longer respond to posts where I am quoted. It's a matter of insanity!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
It's one thing to question everything . . . It's entirely another thing to reject simple, rational explanations in favor of ever more fantastic and far reaching explanations because you've decided the government cannot be trusted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
Anyone who says the American dream requires a specific pay range doesn't understand the meaning of the American dream
  #33  
Old 04-26-2012, 1:11 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,256
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobB35 View Post
...I guarantee you the average cadet in an academy will have never heard of the Oxford or Harvard comma and will not be familiar with it's use.
Yeah, but they will probably have heard of not using "it's" (as in 'it is') when it should only be "its."

It's called a contraction, Mr. grammar police; look it up.
  #34  
Old 04-26-2012, 1:40 PM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,387
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekside View Post
Thank you for your feedback. I do have a strong pre-conceived opinion, that the right to keep and bear arms means exactly what it says.
As do I. However it is not an absolute as there an entire framework of statutory law, case law and regulation built on top.

Quote:
The FUD has to do with what is the default -- are tear gas weapons illegal, with a limited exception for "Special People"; or legal for law-abiding adults if certain requirements are complied with?

In my opinion, the LD says the 1st and the law says the 2nd.
And, I think, that with veteran peace officers, some of them past instructors, weighing into the thread with opinions that are more fully informed that point out the potential holes in your analysis it might be worth re-thinking it a bit and waiting to see how it shakes down when you actually do the LD in the classroom and in the practical exercises. At the least, the class discussions with your instructor on that LD should be both interesting and spirited.

Quote:
Any use of an aerosol tear gas weapon, other than self defense, can be charged as a wobbler.
Actually it will be charged as a felony. It can be adjudicated as a wobbler.

Quote:
This can create serious problems when people take law enforcement training and apply it outside a law enforcement context. Spraying someone to make a lawful arrest is something a peace officer can do, but a private person cannot do.
Not necessarily. If a private person is making a lawful arrest and the person to be arrested attacks them, then that private person is perfectly within their rights to defend themselves. The dividing line, in a very strict sense, is that the peace officer uses the spray to overcome 'resistance to the arrest', while the private person may use the spray to 'keep from getting their butt kicked'. Both of those are the same thing, at their core, just expressed differently.

And what purpose would it serve to take basic law enforcement training and then try to apply that outside a law enforcement context? The training is specific to law enforcement applications. Or is the purpose merely to debate how POST is writing the LDs?

Quote:
The pepper spray issue isn't nearly as complicated as firearms transportation or bullet buttons. That's why I wanted to start the discussion here -- and motivate people to get a copy of the LD for themselves.
To what end?



This comment is exactly why I posted this in the way that I did.

Why should the law be presented in the LD as anything other than the law?

(Including case law, Constitutional rights, and so on.)[/QUOTE]
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison

Last edited by BigDogatPlay; 04-26-2012 at 1:45 PM..
  #35  
Old 04-26-2012, 2:50 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 95492
Posts: 17,836
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

i do not keep them for sale i keep them for use
__________________
  #36  
Old 04-26-2012, 3:35 PM
sharxbyte's Avatar
sharxbyte sharxbyte is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Kommifornistan
Posts: 2,376
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekside View Post
1-6 defines a zip gun. "NOTE: Almost any homemade firearm can qualify as a zip gun." Really? That doesn't sound right either.
For this reason I ALWAYS have this (highlighted) with my 80%:
Original Document


Quote:
Originally Posted by ATF.gov, page 177, column 2


(A6) Does the GCA prohibit anyone
from making a handgun, shotgun
or rifle?

With certain exceptions a firearm
may be made by a nonlicensee provided
it is not for sale and the maker
is not prohibited from possessing
firearms. However, a person is prohibited
from assembling a nonsporting
semi-automatic rifle or nonsporting
shotgun from imported parts. In addition,
the making of an NFA firearm
requires a tax payment and approval
by ATF. An application to make a
machinegun will not be approved
unless documentation is submitted
showing that the firearm is being
made for a Federal or State agency.
[18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C.
5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and
479.105]
Also keep a copy of the flowchart. Are they required? No. Do I want to keep my rifle and not have to deal with hefty legal fees to prove that its legal? Nope.
__________________
My AR is 7.62x39, so that if/when we get invaded, I can shoot their ammo back at them!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
Where is this ammo "Black market" he speaks of? Do they have .223 in stock?
My Home-Made Recurve Bow Thread


Own An 80%? CLICK HERE!


Kevin de Leon, on minority women and profiling.

Last edited by sharxbyte; 08-01-2013 at 12:14 AM..
  #37  
Old 04-26-2012, 4:45 PM
HBrebel's Avatar
HBrebel HBrebel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: HB
Posts: 543
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.... just sayin
true dat!
  #38  
Old 04-26-2012, 6:51 PM
BobB35 BobB35 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 580
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Yeah, but they will probably have heard of not using "it's" (as in 'it is') when it should only be "its."

It's called a contraction, Mr. grammar police; look it up.
And I corrected whose grammar? I am a terrible typist, I spell bad and don't correct other people. Take a page out of the MYOB book and worry just about yourself....
  #39  
Old 04-26-2012, 7:39 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,873
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I feel like I'm having a battle of wits with an unarmed person, and I'm taking unfair advantage.



I'm done. KMA628, Frequency Clear.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
  #40  
Old 04-26-2012, 9:22 PM
ar15robert ar15robert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,437
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

guess i better take my old Okay 30 rounders out of their wrappers.LOL.honestly had them since 97 3 are in wrap the other 7 i use.Kept it like this so i know which ones are the newer ones.

As far as the barrel measurements they are correct.That is why some with the 14.5 barrels welded the flash hider on to make it permanent.I aint in LE but from reading the original post i didnt see it as FUD.
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 7:43 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.