|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
View Poll Results: Would you arrest a non felon for carrying a gun who has no permission slip? | |||
Yes, the law's the law. I am Judge Dredd! | 32 | 39.02% | |
No, as long as they have no "history" and are cool with me, they can be on there marry way. | 50 | 60.98% | |
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Too late. They're already connected and you're wrong. Quote:
Earlier I wrote, Quote:
Quote:
Earlier I wrote, Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So in response to my request to "give us an example of when this has happened. And this means proving that the CLEO is 'fully aware of the likely unconstitutionality of [the] law.' " you give us the vague, unsupported opinion of "more than one officer?" Sorry, but this HARDLY supports your argument on any dependable or reasonable level. |
#122
|
||||
|
||||
That would be LAWFUL orders.......As well as honesty, service to the community, and life experience...
Quote:
Quote:
Your probably right about the "3rd" Amendment to the US constitution though... Even most here on Calguns probably know nothing about the prohibition of quartering military troops in private homes...... Not so true many cops are gun guys.. You just don't know that because you are not around a large number of LEO's....
__________________
Poke'm with a stick! |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
[QUOTE= ]
As for taking up sides on legislation... Can you please post any proof regarding any LEO association supporting any gun control legislation here in California???? [ QUOTE] Yes, the California Peace Officers Association (www.cpoa.org) not only supports gun control bills, they on occasion help draft them. Last edited by nwgunslinger; 09-06-2013 at 1:56 PM.. |
#124
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If you have more specific information or links which support your assertion please post them. However just posting a link to a LEO groups web site, and saying "they support gun control, and have drafted gun control legislation" Is far far from any evidence. And not one shred of proof...
__________________
Poke'm with a stick! |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Some history I have found on the site: "AB 1527 would ban the open carry of an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun. There are several exemptions including an honorably retired peace officer authorized to openly carry an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun. This bill is currently with the Governor awaiting action. CPOA is in support of this bill." In reference to SB249 by Yee which died last year: " The probability of this type of legislation emerging during the next legislative year is likely and CPOA will work with any author to make sure that any legislation brought fourth is well thought out and not simply a hasty reaction to specific events." In a May 20, 2013 post they stated "CPOA has been tracking 25 pieces of legislation pertaining to gun/ammunition and will begin taking formal positions at the end of May." So far, I haven't seen them take any formal positions beyond "watch" but I expect they will soon. Rest assured they are doing a lot of lobbying behind the scenes to get the bills crafted to their liking. Watch the site in the coming days, we should see them state their positions as the current crop of bills get nailed down and brought to the floor. Since you're an officer I suggest you contact them directly, they'll communicate with you, they won't communicate with me. I really urge you to do so. They claim to represent California peace officers so if enough officers actually call them and express opposition to all these gun control laws they may actually oppose them. That said, they don't support ALL gun control laws but they historically have not supported any increase in 2A rights that I've seen. The CPOA is in Sacramento talking to lawmakers and telling them that they represent the rank and file law enforcement officers of CA and they're telling them that you support stronger gun control. If you don't, you need to let the CPOA know that. Last edited by nwgunslinger; 09-06-2013 at 2:59 PM.. |
#126
|
||||
|
||||
once again, cops are caught guns smuggling:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/...muggling-ring/ and the rest of us will pay....
__________________
"What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???" |
#127
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Someone wrote,
Quote:
Quote:
Please provide proof. This means that you supply the links to the statements that you are quoting. nwgunslinger says that he's quoting from the site, Quote:
Quote:
Now you bring up the CPOA. So let's look at some facts. Some of this is from their site, www.cpoa.org
As if all that wasn't enough for you, here's a list of their BOD (Board of Directors)
The lowest ranking officer on the BOD is a captain. Are you seeing a pattern here? Do you see any rank and file officers here? I think it's pretty clear that this IS NOT what ANYONE is talking about when referring to "police unions." Yes, the CPOA bears the name "Association." But it's obvious that no one is talking about such a group. And AGAIN, as I, and others have said, OVERWHELMINGLY the rank and file LEO's in CA support the right "of the people to keep and bear Arms." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You say it makes no difference but it does. They are an organization that tells lawmakers that they are representing the rank and file officers of CA. The lawmakers believe that and listen to them. They have the ear of the lawmakers and that's what makes it matter. yes, their actual membership may be small but they get heard by the lawmakers and that matters a lot. It's obvious that lawmakers don't listen to us. Yes, their board is made up of admin types but their claim is that they represent ALL officers. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter if the legislature believes it's true. I personally don't think it would be a waste of time if officers called them and made their opinions known. I think it would be more effective than any regular citizen calling Yee or Steinberg. You have said that OVERWHELMINGLY the rank and file LEO's in CA support the right "of the people to keep and bear Arms." That hasn't been my experience here in CA. There are many but not an overwhelming number. I will often engage officers in conversations about this when I see them at a coffee shop or other place where it might be appropriate to just talk to them. If I'm up here in the mountains then yes, just about every one of them is supportive of 2A rights. Down in the bay area, not so much. Most of the officers I've spoken with down there (Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Mountain View) believe that they are better off if no citizen has guns outside the home and generally think that no one outside LE should have "assault weapons". This is the biggest difference I've seen between LE in CA and LE in WA where I lived prior to here. In WA the law enforcement community really did support the peoples rights. More than that, they actively and openly opposed gun control regs and they let the lawmakers there know it. The result is that gun control democrats get no traction even though they control both houses and the governors office. If we are ever going to win the gun rights battle in CA we need the LE community to be more like they are in WA. They need to actively oppose these laws and actively support rights. The people, the average citizen, in this state no longer matter on this issue. If you ask any democrat in Sacramento if law enforcement supports the gun control laws they're considering they will answer "yes". If you ask a random citizen who isn't into guns or shooting if law enforcement supports strong gun control most of them will answer "yes". Even if it's not true, it's the perception and that is helping to rapidly erode our rights. |
#129
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Please supply proof that legislators "believe that and listen to them." The truth is that legislators "listen to" anyone who agrees with them and they ignore those who disagree. Quote:
Of course the legislators don't listen to us, they have an opposite opinion from us. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
See above. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to stay in a state of denial about the CPOA feel free.
They exist. They're a lobbying organization in Sacramento. The lawmakers listen to them. You're statement that the open support for gun rights and open opposition to gun control laws is "never gonna happen" says it all. That's why CA laws are so different from surrounding states. LE in other states don't have that attitude. The position that LE takes on gun laws carries a lot of weight with lawmakers, far more than that of any other lobbying group. |
#131
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yes, they do. Yes they are. The "lawmakers listen to them" when they agree with them. When they don't, they don't. And I noticed that you completely have avoided my request for proof that it works any other way, making your point highly doubtful. Quote:
Quote:
Another opinion masquerading as fact. Please supply us with proof that Police "unions/associations" in other states have come out in open opposition to gun control laws. MORE NONSENSE. AGAIN, please provide proof to support this opinion. Without it, your statements are just your opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
If the rank and file officers support 2a rights why don't they donate a little money and form their own political lobby organization which can lobby for 2A rights without danger to their careers?
Having an LEO pro 2A organization to counter the lobby efforts of the anti rights Chiefs associations might be a big help. |
#133
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As an example of the kind of LE support gun rights receive in WA, a WACOPS rep appeared at a hearing on HB-1016 in 2011. According to another hearing attendee: "He also gave healthy support to the notion that civilians should be able to use silencers too". That's the kind of support WA officers show publicly. The bill passed and became law. WA residents can now legally own and use suppressors. To date, as far as I've been able to determine, not one single crime has been committed with a lawfully owned suppressor. Is there an organization similar to WACOPS in CA? I hope so and if there is I'd like to give them money !! I left WA over a year ago. I don't know what "proof" you would require that Seattle and other population centers in WA are liberal but in my "opinion", they are just as liberal as CA population centers. As for lawmakers listening to LEOs, I asked my rep personally if they weighed the opinions of LEOs more that that of regular citizens and he said "It depends. On matters of public safety, absolutely an officer's opinion carries more weight. in other matters, no it does not." Of course I have no "proof" of this conversation with Rep. Reichert. I did not tape it, I did not transcribe it and have him sign it and I suspect that is the only proof you would accept. Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you guys about CPOA. In fact, I think the CPOA is a pretty good organization. If you take the time to look at all that they do in Sacramento on behalf of law enforcement officers I think you might agree. They are there for you and I think they work hard on behalf of all CA officers. I just happen to think that on this issue they are wrong and I think it would help if LEOs called them and told them basically that. If you called and said "Hey guys, Thanks for all you do for us. It's appreciated. But on the gun issue I think you're wrong." I don't believe any harm could come from that call and it just might help in our fight for our rights. I don't understand why you want to be so argumentative about this. This is a discussion board, not a court room subject to rules of evidence. Most of what we speak here is opinion and recollections based on experience and attempts to convey perceptions that exist. Last edited by nwgunslinger; 09-07-2013 at 4:56 PM.. |
#135
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The only experience he will consider as fact is his own. You could have 270 pages of documented and notarized incident reports, but bigger hammer will inform you that your evidence is unsatisfactory or subject to wide interpretation. According to bigger hammer, there is always another explanation for anything that may or may not have happened. Even if you personally experienced some incident, he will refuse to acknowledge it ever happened, because he wasn't there. Cue bigger hammer to school me in the errors of my ways.
__________________
Just taking up space in (what is no longer) the second-worst small town in California. |
#136
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Quote:
Some of them may not be. One works for the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorneys Office, although I realize that there may be some sworn officers in such a position. In order to view the "Executive Board Bios" one must be a registered member. Why would this information not be available to the general public on their website? Such info certainly is available to anyone who visit the CPOA website or the website for other police unions. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
They are there for themselves. And given their anti gun positions, I'll have nothing to do with them. Feel free to support them all you like. Quote:
Quote:
Yes, I know. But when one spouts a nonsense opinion as fact, it needs to be supported if you want anyone to accept it and agree with it. When I ask for support for your contentious statements and you fail to provide it, or worse, twist the main thrust of a discussion in a vain attempt to make yourself right, YOU are the one who is being argumentative. Again, I'm just pointing it out. |
#137
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No cue needed. You're just butt hurt because I've spanked you so soundly in previous discussions and you're not man enough to admit it. And so, you take these cheap shots. No facts. No substance. No honesty. No integrity. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Just shoddy personal attacks. You just revealed the kind of person you are. I'm not the slightest bit surprised. |
#138
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But "constitutional" sheriffs that disregard the 2A are a pet peeve of mine. They're not the main topic of discussion. So, more to the main point that you so poorly understood at the beginning: You seem to be claiming that because a law has technically not been declared unconstitutional, no harm has been committed if applied, even if that law is later deemed unconstitutional, right? Please, no more bigger and bigger stammer responses. Let's try to keep the response brief. |
#139
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
No personal attacks, just pointing out to the other poster that it can be difficult to have a conversation with you because you believe your position is always right and everyone else is always wrong. Again, not a personal attack, but my observation based upon what you post. You state that I cannot accept any explanation other than the one I have already formed, but I would say the same applies to you, although you must always take it to the extreme. I will certainly accept an interpretation of events given reasonable evidence combined with some logic. Sometimes the sky is just blue, and arguing about the probability that it isn't makes for difficult conversation. No honesty or integrity? I assure you that you are wrong in that assumption, but you will argue that as well. Please accept my apologies for disturbing the tranquility of 'your' thread.
__________________
Just taking up space in (what is no longer) the second-worst small town in California. |
#140
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Quote:
That too is how forums work. Anyone can respond at anytime to any post. Quote:
Earlier I wrote, Quote:
Quote:
I'll go slowly so you can keep up. When I wrote that the law is based on technicalities it was an obvious reference to the fact that ONLY SCOTUS makes a decision as to whether a law in constitutional or not,. NOT YOU, not me, and not anyone else. Note the last part of my statement, which directly address this issue. "Similarly since ONLY SCOTUS has the power to decide if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, until they make that decision, a law is technically constitutional." The fact is that until SCOTUS makes this decision, laws are technically considered under the law to be constitutional. They were not unconstitutional until that moment. Now to my example of "the technicality of the law" which obviously was too deep for you. I was illustrating the concept of this "technicality" with the definition of burglary. The intent part of the statement applied to burglary, not to all laws. If you had even the most basic understanding of the law you'd know that some crimes are "specific intent," that is, in order to have committed a crime one must have the intent to commit the crime ALONG with a physical act. Other crimes are general intent and one merely has to commit the physical act. With those crimes intent is not necessary. Burglary is an example of a specific intent law and CCW (without a permit) is a general intent crime. So, yes, you can be arrested for CCW without a permit, without the intent to commit a crime. There, that should be easy to understand, even for you. Quote:
Quote:
Earlier I wrote, Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Still as confused as ever I see. Since YOU seem to think that I'm "claiming" this, please show us a post where I made such a "claim." Here's ANOTHER situation that you probably will run and hide from. The topic of "harm" has not arisen in anything I've said. |
#141
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course I will. You're wrong AGAIN! LOL. Quote:
But now, as often happens in "Off Topic" we're arguing about arguing, and are completely off the topic. Please, can we get back to the discussion? |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
lol
Quote:
Yeah dude these are the unions. Doesn't mean we actually support Yee. We have no say so. |
#143
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course. How could you have it any other way? Sounds good to me. Unless I am wrong. I'm sure you will let me know.
__________________
Just taking up space in (what is no longer) the second-worst small town in California. |
#144
|
||||
|
||||
The same issue with other public unions exists. They don't speak for the rank & file but have no problem using member contributions to support the clowns in office.
__________________
Just taking up space in (what is no longer) the second-worst small town in California. |
#145
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Yep I'm usually careful to say that I'm stating an opinion when I make statements that are based on my opinion. YOU OTOH often state your opinion as if it was a fact. And often you have your facts wrong. For example, you said, "The only experience [ I ] will consider is [my] own." The FACT is that anytime someone gives their experience I "consider" it. In our previous discussion where you talked about your BIL's experience, I never denied that something happened. I gave alternative explanations for the ones that you drew from that experience and I pointed out that accuracy in our recollection of an incident is colored by our own perception.
You also wrote, "Even if you personally experienced some incident, he will refuse to acknowledge it ever happened, because he wasn't there." Again, referring to your BIL's experience, I never "refuse[d] to acknowledge that it ... happened." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Earlier I wrote, Quote:
Quote:
I'd just as soon have an argument where you're not wrong so often, but you keep doing it. LOL. It's not on me, it's on you. Earlier I wrote, Quote:
|
#146
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This is a matter of "Hate the game, not the player." These people may be distasteful, to put it mildly, but giving funds is how the "game" is played if one wants to sway their votes. |
#147
|
||||
|
||||
.....Because they are generally exempt from Ca's tyrannical laws. This is by design.
Last edited by StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca; 09-09-2013 at 10:00 AM.. |
#148
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#149
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You want to reward a politician for their vote on a single bill or single subject, fine. But money is fungible. The politician doesn't spend that cash on print/radio/tv ads that only tout their vote on bill A. They don't list those groups as "bill A" supporters of theirs on their campaign website. Perhaps what our 2A supporting LEOs need to do is get together and form a PAC--ask the CalGuns Foundation for assistance--and start speaking out as both LEOs AND 2A supporters. You'd have quite a bit of sway. Stop telling us you're on the side of California citizen-ownership of firearms and start showing us. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is a big reason why a lot of people resent police. The huge double standard. Exempt from virtually all the gun control laws and when they screw up they usually get little or no punishment. If a citizen uses a gun in self defense in his own home there is a very good chance he will be charged with something. Yet 2 officers fire over 100 rounds at some women simply delivering newspapers in a vehicle which did not match a suspects vehicle and they get their wrists slapped ( gently). |
#151
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The problem is those cases don't fit the cozy agenda that some here are looking for, so they are ignored. Yet the alleged cases of "self defense" where the shooter is arrested are in reality not as portrayed by members here. Hell, there was a local case recently where a Pimp heard his prostitute being robbed, so he kicked in the hotel door. The john pointed a gun at the pimp, who shot and killed the john. That was ruled a good shoot. The OTHER problem is you have people who buy a firearm for protection, but don't bother to take the time to learn when they can legally defend themself. Chasing the tweaker down the street who you saw trying to break into your car and shooting him in the back is NOT self defense and will get you arrested. You would never have an unloaded firearm at home for defense, why would you ever set yourself up where you might have to take a life and not bother to understand the scope of that use of force? THAT is where your average citizen gets in trouble.
__________________
Urban legends are a poor basis for making public policy. Last edited by IrishJoe3; 09-09-2013 at 10:57 AM.. |
#152
|
||||
|
||||
Yet ANOTHER opinion masquerading as fact. Do you have any FACTS to back this up?
|
#153
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Just about every LEO here has said that sometimes cops do the wrong thing and need to be disciplined, fired, and/or jailed. But those cases are very rare. It's not making "excuse[s]" to explain the training, logic and reasoning behind why things are done a certain way. You just don't want to see it. You'd prefer to believe that there's a vast LE conspiracy against you. |
#154
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
No thanks. Not interested. And I disagree that we "have quite a bit of sway." I've yet to see anything but opinion behind this statement. Do you have any facts to back it up? In fact if you'll look at how donations went in my post #120, you'll see that a lot of times the politician voted against what the association wanted done. |
#155
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
What is the nature of this "wrist slap[ping]?" I haven't heard about any discipline coming down. |
#156
|
||||
|
||||
Forget LEO's... How much $$$ is the NRA or any other "gun rights" organization spending in California to stop the pending laws...
That would be very little to nothing, as the handwriting is on the wall. No matter how much money is spent, or who opposes it, the legislation it WILL pass.. Just a sad fact. California has gone down the tube... It's one of the main reasons I left.. Good luck to all you gun owners there...
__________________
Poke'm with a stick! |
#157
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You know, bigger hammer, you could be taken more seriously if you leave emotion out of your answers and actually got to the point every once in awhile. You seem to have a huge problem admitting you can make a mistake. It feels like an insecurity thing. I don't know. What I do know is that you've spend about half a dozen posts trying to avoid this issue: A law that is later deemed unconstitutional by the courts does cause harm whenever it's presently enforced, all of the technicalities and other hiding places aside. My point from the beginning has been simple: Officers have to live with the reality that in some cases, they will harm the public that they've sworn to protect just because of the nature of how the system works, but their choices and discretion also play a part. There is no way around that. I don't know why you take that point so personally and why you get so bent out of shape. It's just the nature of the beast. When it comes to "right to bear arms" CLEOs (particularly sheriffs), have power that can either put them in the right side or what many of us believe will be the wrong side of history (if and when shall-issue comes to Cali. I know, huge "IF"). This isn't a direct attack on bigger hammer or whatever do you think you represent (unless of course you happen to be one of those fake "constitutional" sheriffs, which I doubt). So just chill and stop trying to intimidate others down in this forum through mischaracterization, deflection, and downright nastiness. It only speaks badly about all of us as a community. Let's try to contribute productively instead. |
#158
|
||||
|
||||
Well, there's the safe handgun roster to start with. How's that for a FACT?
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
I have not come across even one single LEO who is against legal concealed carry by a law abiding citizen.
FYI this poll is pointless. LEO's are NOT and DO NOT have the ability to change the laws on the books. Getting 100% of LEO's in California to unite and come to a consensus to not enforce the laws will never happen. There will always be those who will uphold the entire laws and make arrests. In order for change to happen; -The representatives need to be replaced or -The PEOPLE (citizens) need a MASS display of defiance over the law. IE thousands in one group all carrying loaded guns. (I am not encouraging or promoting this in any manner). Last edited by cr250chevy; 11-25-2013 at 9:23 PM.. |
#160
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You know, bigger hammer, you could be taken more seriously if you leave emotion out of your answers and actually got to the point every once in awhile. You seem to have a huge problem admitting you can make a mistake. It feels like an insecurity thing. I don't know. What I do know is that you've spend about half a dozen posts trying to avoid this issue: A law that is later deemed unconstitutional by the courts does cause harm whenever it's presently enforced, all of the technicalities and other hiding places aside. My point from the beginning has been simple: Officers have to live with the reality that in some cases, they will harm the public that they've sworn to protect just because of the nature of how the system works, but their choices and discretion also play a part. There is no way around that. I don't know why you take that point so personally and why you get so bent out of shape. It's just the nature of the beast. When it comes to "right to bear arms" CLEOs (particularly sheriffs), have power that can either put them in the right side or what many of us believe will be the wrong side of history (if and when shall-issue comes to Cali. I know, huge "IF"). This isn't a direct attack on bigger hammer or whatever do you think you represent (unless of course you happen to be one of those fake "constitutional" sheriffs, which I doubt). So just chill and stop trying to intimidate others down in this forum through mischaracterization, deflection, and downright nastiness. It only speaks badly about all of us as a community. Let's try to contribute productively instead. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|