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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-19-2016, 12:29 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,958
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bblr View Post
I would think that if the courts rule on our side, SB707 would be thrown out as unconstitutional. Wouldn't this automatically revert the law (PC 626.9) back to the pre-SB707 status?
Depends on "severability." Most laws can have individual portions stricken down.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-19-2016, 5:47 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,976
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Depends on "severability." Most laws can have individual portions stricken down.
Correct. 707 could stay intact other than "retired LE don't get to CCW
on school grounds differently than anyone else."
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-19-2016, 5:49 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,976
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Most of the support of LE organizations has come with exemptions for their people. If they can't get the exemptions anymore, it is less likely they will support 2a infringments.
Yup.

And the immediate past history of lobbyists for PORAC, XYZ Dept. Sheriff's Assn (i.e, from large counties/many members) etc is "add LE exemption and then we remove our opposition."
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-20-2016, 2:44 PM
jrr jrr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 569
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I always find it frustrating/amusing that the same people who line up to protest against police misuse of force are the ones arguing that only police are well trained and disciplined enough to be trusted with firearms.

Cognitive dissonance much?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-20-2016, 2:45 PM
PackingHeatInSDCA PackingHeatInSDCA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

usually same ones who line up for free benefits at the expense of taxpayers.
__________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-20-2016, 8:45 PM
Running_Gunning's Avatar
Running_Gunning Running_Gunning is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 252
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

How long will this be held up in court is my?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-20-2016, 10:13 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,882
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Running_Gunning View Post
How long will this be held up in court is my?
Five years.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-21-2016, 10:26 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,958
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Running_Gunning View Post
How long will this be held up in court is my?
I believe we already have a precedent that *retired* LEOs are no special flakes.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-21-2016, 1:31 PM
bblr's Avatar
bblr bblr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 235
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Depends on "severability." Most laws can have individual portions stricken down.
I guess I misunderstood how the lawsuits work. I really hoped the CCW exemption could be reinstated, as it is truly a pain for me to pick up my kids at school now. I understand the long-term effects of the lawsuit, but in the short term it really won't benefit me at all to donate any more money to fight this.
__________________
My LTC's: CAAZNV
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-21-2016, 3:20 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,583
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bblr View Post
I guess I misunderstood how the lawsuits work. I really hoped the CCW exemption could be reinstated, as it is truly a pain for me to pick up my kids at school now. I understand the long-term effects of the lawsuit, but in the short term it really won't benefit me at all to donate any more money to fight this.
But bringing an end to LEO exemptions would be huge!

And concealed is concealed.....yuh know....just sayin'
__________________
"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

Last edited by Untamed1972; 04-21-2016 at 3:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-21-2016, 5:08 PM
dael dael is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm not sure how challenging retired LE exemptions helps anyone. If anything this is just leading to exactly what we don't want...more people without guns. I don't know about you guys but I want every law abiding adult citizen carrying, including retired LEOs who served our communities with honor.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-21-2016, 6:40 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,571
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dael View Post
I'm not sure how challenging retired LE exemptions helps anyone. If anything this is just leading to exactly what we don't want...more people without guns. I don't know about you guys but I want every law abiding adult citizen carrying, including retired LEOs who served our communities with honor.
Because of this reason:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Most of the support of LE organizations has come with exemptions for their people. If they can't get the exemptions anymore, it is less likely they will support 2a infringments.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-23-2016, 9:06 AM
Dr.Lou's Avatar
Dr.Lou Dr.Lou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 693
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Always thought it was odd that active reserve LEOs had to apply for a CCW though?
Depends on the type of reserve.

Level 3 - only peace officer while on duty, needs CCW
Level 2 - only peace officer while on duty, needs CCW
Level 1 non designated - only peace officer while on duty, needs CCW
Level 1 designated - has 24 hour peace officer status and can carry the same as full time.
__________________


NRA Patron-Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-23-2016, 9:22 AM
Dr.Lou's Avatar
Dr.Lou Dr.Lou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 693
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrr View Post
I always find it frustrating/amusing that the same people who line up to protest against police misuse of force are the ones arguing that only police are well trained and disciplined enough to be trusted with firearms.

Cognitive dissonance much?
Is this an unsupported opinion or can you cite specific studies, articles, etc. that support your statement?
__________________


NRA Patron-Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-23-2016, 10:11 AM
Dr.Lou's Avatar
Dr.Lou Dr.Lou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 693
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dael View Post
I'm not sure how challenging retired LE exemptions helps anyone. If anything this is just leading to exactly what we don't want...more people without guns. I don't know about you guys but I want every law abiding adult citizen carrying, including retired LEOs who served our communities with honor.
Exactly!

There's a lot of jealousy and spitefulness among the membership regarding CCW privlidges. Though I fully understand folks frustration, taking privlidges away from anyone is a step backwards. Instead of holding the sour grapes attitude of "if we can't have it, nobody should have it; "the battle cry should be, "if It's good enough for the retired cops, then it's good for the rest of us."
__________________


NRA Patron-Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-23-2016, 10:17 AM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,571
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Lou View Post
Exactly!

There's a lot of jealousy and spitefulness among the membership regarding CCW privlidges. Though I fully understand folks frustration, taking privlidges away from anyone is a step backwards. Instead of holding the sour grapes attitude of "if we can't have it, nobody should have it; "the battle cry should be, "if It's good enough for the retired cops, then it's good for the rest of us."
You failed to address the main reasoning for this lawsuit.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-23-2016, 11:09 PM
Running_Gunning's Avatar
Running_Gunning Running_Gunning is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 252
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

^^^^^^^^
What he said!
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-24-2016, 5:42 AM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,796
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dael View Post
I'm not sure how challenging retired LE exemptions helps anyone. If anything this is just leading to exactly what we don't want...more people without guns. I don't know about you guys but I want every law abiding adult citizen carrying, including retired LEOs who served our communities with honor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Lou View Post
Exactly!

There's a lot of jealousy and spitefulness among the membership regarding CCW privlidges. Though I fully understand folks frustration, taking privlidges away from anyone is a step backwards. Instead of holding the sour grapes attitude of "if we can't have it, nobody should have it; "the battle cry should be, "if It's good enough for the retired cops, then it's good for the rest of us."

chess, not checkers.

many feel that a little temporary pain (taking away a gun privilege from some) will have a long-term benefit when those that lost their privilege will no longer support anti-gun laws when they aren't exempted from it.
__________________
Jack



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

No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-24-2016, 7:04 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,882
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Lou View Post
Exactly!

There's a lot of jealousy and spitefulness among the membership regarding CCW privlidges. Though I fully understand folks frustration, taking privlidges away from anyone is a step backwards. Instead of holding the sour grapes attitude of "if we can't have it, nobody should have it; "the battle cry should be, "if It's good enough for the retired cops, then it's good for the rest of us."
What arrogance. The "Battle Cry" should be, "It's good enough for all of us."

It isn't "jealousy" or "spitefulness"

It's a demand for equal rights.

Did women want to vote because they were "jealous" of male voters?
Did minorities want to drink from the same water fountains as whites, or sit at the same lunch counter or ride the same bus as whites because they were "jealous"?

No. They wanted these things because, in this country, all men (and women and minorities) are created equal.

But, in your Animal Farm view, some LEOs are a little more equal.

Honorably retired LEOs are not LEOS. They are citizens just like the rest of us.

The fact LEOs chose a different career path from the majority of the populace should NEVER be the reason to separate their rights from ours nor to grant privilege not allowed to all. It certainly should not be used to validate a requirement that we lower peons must ride in the back of the bus.

Law enforcement is a strong voice in the political process. The strategy, then, is to silence that voice or co-opt it to support egregious transgressions of the rights of the general populace by simply exempting active and retired LEOs from the indignity of the constraint.

If law enforcement is forced to feel the same pain and indignity of these acts, the acts would never see the light of day.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-24-2016, 1:51 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,571
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Dr. Lou thinks carrying a gun is a privilege, as he stated twice in his post. If that's not a complete misunderstanding of civil rights, I don't know what is.

Last edited by skyscraper; 04-24-2016 at 1:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 04-25-2016, 11:10 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,958
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Lou View Post
Though I fully understand folks frustration, taking privlidges away from anyone is a step backwards.
By itself, this statement is true. However, the context changes everything: the goal is NOT to go after the retired LEOs, but to go after the LEO unions which are an integral and significant factor in passing bad gun legislation in CA.

If (and only if) LEO unions keep their support of gun control in spite of their members not getting "special snowflake status," then (and only then) is your statement above fully correct. My money is that unions will change their position once they cannot negotiate special deals. For example, do you really think we would have "handgun roster" if LEOs were not exempt both privately and on duty? Do you really think we would have the 10 round capacity limit if LEOs couldn't have the extra capacity?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 04-25-2016, 11:13 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,958
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Lou View Post
Instead of holding the sour grapes attitude of "if we can't have it, nobody should have it; "the battle cry should be, "if It's good enough for the retired cops, then it's good for the rest of us."
The battle cry should be "if it's a right it should be treated as a right."

It's the LEO unions that are culpable in our inability to exercise our rights. Get them on our side, get them to stop negotiating special deals, get them to be in the same position as we are, then we become brothers in arms and share the rallying cry.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-25-2016, 8:46 PM
Running_Gunning's Avatar
Running_Gunning Running_Gunning is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 252
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Amen Brother!
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-26-2016, 8:26 AM
manfred manfred is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

LEO Unions are the only reason California is in the state its in concerning 2A.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq
Typically those who maintain the mindset of chasing a non-violent utopia are those who live in a world of privilege. Those people have the luxury of looking at violence and societal turmoil from an ivory tower, rather than from an earthbound perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-26-2016, 10:54 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,287
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Lou View Post
Exactly!

There's a lot of jealousy and spitefulness among the membership regarding CCW privlidges. Though I fully understand folks frustration, taking privlidges away from anyone is a step backwards. Instead of holding the sour grapes attitude of "if we can't have it, nobody should have it; "the battle cry should be, "if It's good enough for the retired cops, then it's good for the rest of us."
It's funny how so many LEOs and retired LEOs think that they are entitled to special treatment and more rights than the general public. They pay their unions to protect them from the effects same laws that their unions support and that they then enforce against to the rest of us. If I had my way there would be no >10rd mags in a duty weapon or on a duty belt until the limit is lifted for the rest of us. No exemptions from the roster. No exemptions, on or off duty from the AWB. And no off duty carry until carry laws are lifted for the rest of us. Trust me, those anti-2A laws would all be repealed in less than a year if LEOs were subjected to the same laws that they enforce on the rest of us. It's not jealousy, LEOs helped make this bed and they should have to sleep in it - just like they force on us peasants - at gun point.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-26-2016, 12:44 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 973
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
It's funny how so many LEOs and retired LEOs think that they are entitled to special treatment and more rights than the general public. They pay their unions to protect them from the effects same laws that their unions support and that they then enforce against to the rest of us. If I had my way there would be no >10rd mags in a duty weapon or on a duty belt until the limit is lifted for the rest of us. No exemptions from the roster. No exemptions, on or off duty from the AWB. And no off duty carry until carry laws are lifted for the rest of us. Trust me, those anti-2A laws would all be repealed in less than a year if LEOs were subjected to the same laws that they enforce on the rest of us. It's not jealousy, LEOs helped make this bed and they should have to sleep in it - just like they force on us peasants - at gun point.
Amen!.....Exactly the way I see it. Well said.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-26-2016, 1:17 PM
KC_to_CA KC_to_CA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 427
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3200OUT View Post
I agree one hundred percent. If it's too dangerous for the general public it's too dangerous to allow the Government to have them for control of the general public. Take it all away. No "high capacity magazines", mandatory bullet buttons, etc.

No exceptions for anyone.
I totally agree l. But as a matter of legal strategy, which would be better, get 707 out of the way first and use that to piggyback on the roster, BB and 10-round mags, or, hit them all at the same time?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-26-2016, 1:35 PM
KC_to_CA KC_to_CA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 427
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
chess, not checkers.

many feel that a little temporary pain (taking away a gun privilege from some) will have a long-term benefit when those that lost their privilege will no longer support anti-gun laws when they aren't exempted from it.
^^^ This.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-26-2016, 1:41 PM
KC_to_CA KC_to_CA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 427
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=Dvrjon;18054780]What arrogance. The "Battle Cry" should be, "It's good enough for all of us."

It isn't "jealousy" or "spitefulness"

It's a demand for equal rights.

Honorably retired LEOs are not LEOS.

^^^ This.

Dr Lou, want a retired lawyer that no longer holds a license to practice law to defend you in court? Same question with being operated on by a retired, no longer licensed surgeon.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-27-2016, 2:07 PM
Uncle Leo's Avatar
Uncle Leo Uncle Leo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 190
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I really never understood how retired LEOs could have the privilege. It seems really unfair.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-27-2016, 6:58 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,882
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Leo View Post
I really never understood how retired LEOs could have the privilege. It seems really unfair.
Inequality of rights often feels that way to those deprived of the right.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-30-2016, 7:45 AM
PackingHeatInSDCA PackingHeatInSDCA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Lou View Post
Exactly!

There's a lot of jealousy and spitefulness among the membership regarding CCW privlidges. Though I fully understand folks frustration, taking privlidges away from anyone is a step backwards. Instead of holding the sour grapes attitude of "if we can't have it, nobody should have it; "the battle cry should be, "if It's good enough for the retired cops, then it's good for the rest of us."
I seem to remember some BS about a rule in the past giving LEO's some sort of exemptions. We all shut up because we were told shhhhhh this is just a first step, we will support you next. It's just strategy.

Ya well I don't remember being supported by LEO's for anything, in fact seems the LEO groups are sell outs. So it's time to fix that mistake.
__________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-30-2016, 10:01 AM
JDoe JDoe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,830
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PackingHeatInSDCA View Post
I seem to remember some BS about a rule in the past giving LEO's some sort of exemptions. We all shut up because we were told shhhhhh this is just a first step, we will support you next. It's just strategy.



Ya well I don't remember being supported by LEO's for anything, in fact seems the LEO groups are sell outs. So it's time to fix that mistake.

I'd like to know why LEOs are allowed to carry off duty. If they want to carry off duty then make them carry a radio on their person and out fit their personal vehicles with lights and siren too.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-30-2016, 10:06 AM
BrokerB's Avatar
BrokerB BrokerB is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Folsom , outside the walls
Posts: 2,688
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

That is dumb. Why would you be against another responsible trained citizen working for free. ..

Cops can carry anytime they want. Im fine ..and agree they should if they want to off official duty.

Of course the "regular " citizens should also.
__________________
Beans and Bullets
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-30-2016, 10:17 AM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central California
Posts: 5,134
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Lou View Post
"the battle cry should be, "if It's good enough for the retired cops, then it's good for the rest of us."
I hope you're rallying the police unions, and both active and retired LEOs, to adopt this stance. Maybe if LEO "exemptions" are taken away, you and other LEOs will finally do just that. An "it's the right thing for all of us" approach is what the 2nd Amendment is all about anyway . . . isn't it?
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-30-2016, 10:45 AM
JDoe JDoe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,830
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrokerB View Post
That is dumb. Why would you be against another responsible trained citizen working for free. ..

Cops can carry anytime they want. Im fine ..and agree they should if they want to off official duty.

Of course the "regular " citizens should also.


Chess not checkers. Pain is a great motivator. Make em feel our pain. That might get them on "our" side instead of being in the "I've got mine so I don't care about you" position they take, in general, now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-30-2016, 11:03 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,405
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Given that a similar case by the CO sheriff's was tossed due to them not having standing, this might suffer the same fate.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-01-2016, 9:30 PM
Bunyfofu69 Bunyfofu69 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 107
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Garcia, et al. v. Attorney General Kamala Harris - against 707 LE exemption

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
It's funny how so many LEOs and retired LEOs think that they are entitled to special treatment and more rights than the general public. They pay their unions to protect them from the effects same laws that their unions support and that they then enforce against to the rest of us. If I had my way there would be no >10rd mags in a duty weapon or on a duty belt until the limit is lifted for the rest of us. No exemptions from the roster. No exemptions, on or off duty from the AWB. And no off duty carry until carry laws are lifted for the rest of us. Trust me, those anti-2A laws would all be repealed in less than a year if LEOs were subjected to the same laws that they enforce on the rest of us. It's not jealousy, LEOs helped make this bed and they should have to sleep in it - just like they force on us peasants - at gun point.


Yea. Let's limit 10rnds for LEO's since criminals will obviously follow the 10rnd limit as well, because that's who the police deal with, criminals.

Roster exemptions could be done away with.

Don't allow an LEO to carry off duty? When was the last time you arrested someone and ran into them off the clock days later.

Better yet, when are you going to make a Citizens arrest in the commission of a crime? Are you going to stick your neck out legally and physically for someone else? Time and time again when there is a violent crime in progress, the public freeze or pull out their cell phones to record it. Are you going to be that guy to stop it in the face of public scrutiny? Possibly endangering yourself or family?

Or are you going to call the police instead?

This is entirely separate from your right to protect yourself. Which you should absolutely do when confronted, and I support your right to carry.

But LEO's have the added moral/ethical duty to act in exigency. Which is beyond the scope of "self-protection". For this very reason is why LEOs carry off duty.

Last edited by Bunyfofu69; 05-01-2016 at 9:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-02-2016, 8:34 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 538
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunyfofu69 View Post
But LEO's have the added moral/ethical duty to act in exigency. Which is beyond the scope of "self-protection". For this very reason is why LEOs carry off duty.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Warren vs. DC case which established that police have no duty to protect you - even when in uniform/on duty. This is why they shouldn't be allowed to carry without a permit once retired, likely shouldn't be allowed to carry when off duty without a permit issued under the same circumstances as the Average Joe in their jurisdiction and possibly should not be allowed to carry without a permit period *from an equal rights perspective*.
Yes they are charged with enforcing the law. Yes, in the course of their duties they are more theoretically more likely to encounter a violent criminal and require an arm of some type for self defense. I'd argue that any individual officer's likelihood to encounter a violent criminal depends on your locality and the patrol area in that locality - just as it would with any other individual who is not a member of law enforcement.
However, in the broad scope of things, if they have no duty to protect the general public from harm (as determined in Warren and re-affirmed in numerous other cases), then their carrying of a firearm is solely for self defense. Under which circumstances their reason for having what is essentially a carry permit is issued with "self defense" listed as the cause. Boiled down to that basic level, it becomes clear that they are receiving unequal treatment under the law.
I'm not advocating the disarming of police - the vast majority of my family has either served in law enforcement or the military at some point in their lives and I understand the need to be armed in case of confrontation. What I am hoping for is for each and every single person who wishes to be able to defend themselves with a firearm be allowed to do so.
Most police never have to fire their firearm in the line of duty except when visiting the range. Some go their entire careers without even having to draw their weapon on someone. The same is true of most carry permit holders. But like the law enforcement officer who carries a sidearm and a backup just in case - we ought to be afforded the same tools to defend ourselves - in case we are confronted by a violent criminal and no law enforcement is nearby and willing or able to assist us.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-02-2016, 8:57 AM
Bunyfofu69 Bunyfofu69 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 107
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpegasus View Post
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Warren vs. DC case which established that police have no duty to protect you - even when in uniform/on duty. This is why they shouldn't be allowed to carry without a permit once retired, likely shouldn't be allowed to carry when off duty without a permit issued under the same circumstances as the Average Joe in their jurisdiction and possibly should not be allowed to carry without a permit period *from an equal rights perspective*.

Yes they are charged with enforcing the law. Yes, in the course of their duties they are more theoretically more likely to encounter a violent criminal and require an arm of some type for self defense. I'd argue that any individual officer's likelihood to encounter a violent criminal depends on your locality and the patrol area in that locality - just as it would with any other individual who is not a member of law enforcement.

However, in the broad scope of things, if they have no duty to protect the general public from harm (as determined in Warren and re-affirmed in numerous other cases), then their carrying of a firearm is solely for self defense. Under which circumstances their reason for having what is essentially a carry permit is issued with "self defense" listed as the cause. Boiled down to that basic level, it becomes clear that they are receiving unequal treatment under the law.

I'm not advocating the disarming of police - the vast majority of my family has either served in law enforcement or the military at some point in their lives and I understand the need to be armed in case of confrontation. What I am hoping for is for each and every single person who wishes to be able to defend themselves with a firearm be allowed to do so.

Most police never have to fire their firearm in the line of duty except when visiting the range. Some go their entire careers without even having to draw their weapon on someone. The same is true of most carry permit holders. But like the law enforcement officer who carries a sidearm and a backup just in case - we ought to be afforded the same tools to defend ourselves - in case we are confronted by a violent criminal and no law enforcement is nearby and willing or able to assist us.


Theoretically more likely to encounter a violent criminal? How about in all probability a Patrol LEO will encounter one on his shift!

Yes quote the decision based on your argument. LEOs are not bound to act by law. But as I stated in my previous post, there is a moral/ethical duty to act if the conditions are right. These morals are played out again and again throughout the US.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-o...lives-in-mall/

Just one quick example I googled. Sure there are some desk jockeys that have never drawn their gun and never will. But that doesn't make them any less willing to help in a exigent circumstance.

Do not lump retired LEOs with Active ones and try and argue to degrade their ability to do their duties. Retired is retired. Should they get some exemptions I could careless about.

Active should always be allowed to carry, and be exempt from magazine capacity, because criminals don't care about such nuisance laws.

And a good LEO, in exigency of life or limb, when conditions warrant, will act with far greater certainty.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:06 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.