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 > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-25-2018, 2:53 PM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 744
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default AB 3131

Now they are coming for your weapons too. Now they want YOUR dangerous weapons off the streets too.
AB 3131
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01720180AB3131

Quote:
SECTION 1. Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read:
CHAPTER 12.8. Funding, Acquisition, and Use of Military Equipment
7070. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities can adversely impact the public’s safety and welfare, including significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological well-being, and incur significant financial costs.
(b) The public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by state or local government officials, as well as a right to participate in any government agency’s decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment.
(c) Decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used should give strong consideration to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, and should be based on meaningful public input.
(d) Legally enforceable safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures, must be in place to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used.
(e) The lack of a public forum to discuss the acquisition of military equipment jeopardizes the relationship police have with the community, which can be undermined when law enforcement is seen as an occupying force rather than a public safety service.
7071. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Governing body” means the elected body that oversees a law enforcement agency or, if there is no elected body that directly oversees the law enforcement agency, the appointed body that oversees a law enforcement agency. In the case of a law enforcement agency of a county, including a sheriff’s department or a district attorney’s office, “governing body” means the board of supervisors of the county.
(b) “Law enforcement agency” means any of the following:
(1) A police department, including the police department of a transit agency, school district, or any campus of the University of California, the California State University, or California Community Colleges.
(2) A sheriff’s department.
(3) A district attorney’s office.
(4) A county probation department.
(5) The Department of the California Highway Patrol.
(6) The Department of Justice.
(7) Any other state or local agency authorized to conduct criminal investigations or prosecutions.
(c) “Military equipment” means equipment that is militaristic in nature and includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) Powered aircraft with a crew aboard, such as an airplane, that use a fixed wing for lift.
(2) Powered aircraft with a crew aboard that use a rotary wing for lift, such as a helicopter.
(3) Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial vehicles.
(4) Wheeled armored vehicles that are either built or modified to provide ballistic protection to their occupants, including a mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicle or an armored personnel carrier.
(5) Wheeled tactical vehicles that are either built to operate both onroad and offroad in supporting military operations, such as a high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV), commonly referred to as a Humvee, a two and one-half-ton truck, a five-ton truck, or have a breaching or entry apparatus attached.
(6) Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.
(7) Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.
(8) Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.
(9) Breaching apparatus designed to provide rapid entry into a building or through a secured doorway, including equipment that is mechanical, such as a battering ram, ballistic, such as a slug, or explosive in nature.
(10) Firearms of .50 caliber or greater.
(11) Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater.
(12) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, other than service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency.

(13) Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch small, explosive projectiles.
(14) Any large knife designed to be attached to the muzzle of a rifle, shotgun, or long gun for purposes of hand-to-hand combat.
(15) Explosives and pyrotechnics, including grenades referred to as flashbang grenades and explosive breaching tools.
(16) Riot batons, riot helmets, and riot shields, but excluding service-issued telescopic or fixed-length straight batons.
(17) Long-range acoustic devices.
(18) Camouflage uniforms, other than uniforms with woodland or desert patterns or solid color uniforms.
(19) Any other equipment as determined by the Attorney General pursuant to Section 7074.
(d) “Military equipment impact statement” means a publicly released, legally enforceable written document that includes, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1) A description of each piece of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, intended uses and effects, and how it works, including product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment.
(2) The purposes and reasons for which the law enforcement agency proposes to use each piece of military equipment.
(3) The fiscal impact of each piece of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment, the costs of each proposed use, the costs of potential adverse impacts, and the annual, ongoing costs of the equipment, including operating, training, transportation, storage, maintenance, and upgrade costs.
(4) An assessment specifically identifying any potential impacts that the use of military equipment might have on the welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties of the public, and what specific affirmative measures will be implemented to safeguard the public from potential adverse impacts.
(5) Alternative method or methods by which the law enforcement agency can accomplish the purposes for which the military equipment is proposed to be used, the annual costs of alternative method or methods, and the potential impacts of alternative method or methods on the welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties of the public.
(e) “Military equipment use policy” means a publicly released, legally enforceable written document governing the use of military equipment by a law enforcement agency that addresses, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1) The specific purpose or purposes that each piece of military equipment is intended to achieve.
(2) The specific capabilities and authorized uses of military equipment, the legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use, and the potential uses of the military equipment that are prohibited.
(3) The course of training that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy.
(4) The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.
(5) The procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and how the law enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.
Section 7074
7074. (a) The Attorney General, by January 31, 2019, shall develop a list of military equipment that warrants public input pursuant to this chapter. The Attorney General shall post this list on his or her Internet Web site and update it at least annually.
(b) The list required by this section shall include, at a minimum, the military equipment expressly listed in paragraphs (1) to (18), inclusive, of subdivision (c) of Section 7071.
(c) The Attorney General shall make available on his or her Internet Web site a form by which members of the public may submit suggestions for equipment to be included as military equipment on the list required by this section.

Backed by the ACLU
Quote:
REIN IN POLICE MILITARIZATION IN CALIFORNIA!
Support AB 3131
President Obama on police militarization
Since 1993, almost all 58 California counties have acquired military equipment – including grenade launchers, armored tanks, and assault rifles – to police our neighborhoods. But our neighborhoods are not war zones and Californians are not enemy combatants.

Act now to support an important bill that would rein in police militarization in California and put communities back in control. The bill, AB 3131 (Gloria), would make sure that communities and local governments can weigh in and decide if and how police can acquire and use military equipment.

Use the form below to email your state assemblymember and ask them to support AB 3131.

Message Recipients:

California State Assembly
Will the state follow the existing definition of an assault rifle? or make up a "NEW" standard for Law Enforcement? Will LE support featureless and 10 round maximum feeding devices? Will LE Bring in an "Military Expert" to state that the AR-15 is NOT military equipment or an assault rifle, debunking the civilian scheme?

This is what they want to turn you into:


No Tools of Self Defense other than a collapsible baton and mace/pepper spray, handcuffs. and only one pair visible at that.

I am reminded by this poem:
First they came for the Assault Weapons, and I did not speak out—
Because I was exempt as a Cop.
Then they came for the Magazines, and I did not speak out—
Because I was exempt as a Cop.
Then they came for the semi auto handguns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was exempt as a Cop.
Then they came for Law Enforcement firearms/weapons—and there was no one left to speak for Us.

Taken from:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
By; German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-26-2018, 10:05 AM
Samuelx's Avatar
Samuelx Samuelx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,401
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

First they came for the Assault Weapons, and I did not speak out—
Because I was a lazy voter and left it up to others.
Then they came for the Magazines, and I did speak out—
But I blamed the Cops.
Then they came for the semi auto handguns, and I spoke out again—
But I was still blaming the Cops.
Then they came for Law Enforcement firearms/weapons—and was no one left to speak for Them.
Because I (and most everyone else) had placed the blame and focused on the wrong people for too long.

fixed it for you
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-27-2018, 8:03 AM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 744
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuelx View Post
First they came for the Assault Weapons, and I did not speak out—
Because I was a lazy voter and left it up to others.
Then they came for the Magazines, and I did speak out—
But I blamed the Cops.
Then they came for the semi auto handguns, and I spoke out again—
But I was still blaming the Cops.
Then they came for Law Enforcement firearms/weapons—and was no one left to speak for Them.
Because I (and most everyone else) had placed the blame and focused on the wrong people for too long.

fixed it for you
Great except that LE took the exemptions because it didn't affect them. Had they stood shoulder to shoulder with firearms owners in the state we might not be where we are today and they wouldn't be looking at the same.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:38 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 12,150
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DolphinFan View Post
Great except that LE took the exemptions because it didn't affect them. Had they stood shoulder to shoulder with firearms owners in the state we might not be where we are today and they wouldn't be looking at the same.
Because LE is such a huge voting block in CA.

The truth is that firearms owners in this state didn't and still don't stand shoulder to shoulder, and many, even on this forum, continue to vote for and support democrats. But lets blame LE because it's easier than accepting the truth.
__________________


You can't buy happiness but you can buy guns and that's pretty much the same thing.

NRA Benefactor Member

Police brutality? Visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRd5oucG114 to learn more about "isolated incidents"
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-27-2018, 5:40 PM
Samuelx's Avatar
Samuelx Samuelx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,401
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
Because LE is such a huge voting block in CA.

The truth is that firearms owners in this state didn't and still don't stand shoulder to shoulder, and many, even on this forum, continue to vote for and support democrats. But lets blame LE because it's easier than accepting the truth.
Exactly and Exactly!!!

A website chosen at random when searching "how many law enforcement officers in California"
http://www.ppic.org/publication/law-...in-california/
Excerpt:
"Almost half of California’s law enforcement officers work for municipal police departments.
In 2015 there were more than 118,000 full-time law enforcement employees in California; roughly 77,000 were sworn law enforcement officers (with full arrest powers) and 41,000 were civilian staff. About 48% of sworn officers were municipal police officers, 39% were county sheriff officers, and almost 10% were with the California Highway Patrol (CHP). About 3% were employed by other agencies, such as university, port, and transportation districts and the State Department of Parks and Recreation."

A website chosen at random when searching total number of registered voters in California"
http://www.latimes.com/politics/esse...htmlstory.html
Excerpt (Oct 5, 2016)
"There are now more registered voters in California than the population of 46 states
(Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)
California last month hit a new record of more than 18.2 million registered voters, as state elections officials say registration continues to surge."

And let's not talk about or point any fingers at the idiots in government (again, voted/kept in by whom???) who are the ones coming up with all the stupidity and idiocy to begin with!!!

Last edited by Samuelx; 05-27-2018 at 5:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-27-2018, 8:17 PM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 723
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
Because LE is such a huge voting block in CA.

The truth is that firearms owners in this state didn't and still don't stand shoulder to shoulder, and many, even on this forum, continue to vote for and support democrats. But lets blame LE because it's easier than accepting the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuelx View Post
Exactly and Exactly!!!

A website chosen at random when searching "how many law enforcement officers in California"
http://www.ppic.org/publication/law-...in-california/
Excerpt:
"Almost half of California’s law enforcement officers work for municipal police departments.
In 2015 there were more than 118,000 full-time law enforcement employees in California; roughly 77,000 were sworn law enforcement officers (with full arrest powers) and 41,000 were civilian staff. About 48% of sworn officers were municipal police officers, 39% were county sheriff officers, and almost 10% were with the California Highway Patrol (CHP). About 3% were employed by other agencies, such as university, port, and transportation districts and the State Department of Parks and Recreation."

A website chosen at random when searching total number of registered voters in California"
http://www.latimes.com/politics/esse...htmlstory.html
Excerpt (Oct 5, 2016)
"There are now more registered voters in California than the population of 46 states
(Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)
California last month hit a new record of more than 18.2 million registered voters, as state elections officials say registration continues to surge."

And let's not talk about or point any fingers at the idiots in government (again, voted/kept in by whom???) who are the ones coming up with all the stupidity and idiocy to begin with!!!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-31-2018, 6:46 PM
yzernie's Avatar
yzernie yzernie is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oak Hills/Hesperia, Ca.
Posts: 5,482
iTrader: 565 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
The truth is that firearms owners in this state didn't and still don't stand shoulder to shoulder, and many, even on this forum, continue to vote for and support democrats.
Been saying that very thing for years. But, I am hoping with this latest round of stupidity, gas tax & registration increases, that some of them will wake the hell up and quit voting party line.
__________________
My Commercial Sales Ad >>> http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=257865

TinStarSupply@aol.com

The satisfaction of a job well done is to be the one who has done it

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazoE
I don't feel a thing when some cop gets ghosted.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-01-2018, 2:33 PM
Country_Jim Country_Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 332
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuelx View Post
Exactly and Exactly!!!

A website chosen at random when searching "how many law enforcement officers in California"
http://www.ppic.org/publication/law-...in-california/
Excerpt:
"Almost half of California’s law enforcement officers work for municipal police departments.
In 2015 there were more than 118,000 full-time law enforcement employees in California; roughly 77,000 were sworn law enforcement officers (with full arrest powers) and 41,000 were civilian staff. About 48% of sworn officers were municipal police officers, 39% were county sheriff officers, and almost 10% were with the California Highway Patrol (CHP). About 3% were employed by other agencies, such as university, port, and transportation districts and the State Department of Parks and Recreation."

A website chosen at random when searching total number of registered voters in California"
http://www.latimes.com/politics/esse...htmlstory.html
Excerpt (Oct 5, 2016)
"There are now more registered voters in California than the population of 46 states
(Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)
California last month hit a new record of more than 18.2 million registered voters, as state elections officials say registration continues to surge."

And let's not talk about or point any fingers at the idiots in government (again, voted/kept in by whom???) who are the ones coming up with all the stupidity and idiocy to begin with!!!
Please don't confront the trolls with facts, it confuses them.

Last edited by Country_Jim; 06-03-2018 at 4:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-02-2018, 8:17 AM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I've tried to say over and over again that we don't have the political power that everyone seems to think we have. I don't know where this idea came from. There are only about 1 million sworn officers nation wide.

AB 3131 is still retarded though.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-02-2018, 5:24 PM
chsk9's Avatar
chsk9 chsk9 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,257
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I believe that in part the LEO exemption is how they believed appeased part of the population when they enacted these unconstitutional laws in the first place.

Trickster is spot on though. The gun owners in this state would rather watch reruns of the family guy than write letters, form grass roots groups and donate a bit of money toward 2A issues.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:14 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.