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
  #81  
Old 05-02-2016, 9:15 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 538
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

But that's the same for any moral, ethical person - they'll try to do the right thing in any given circumstances. I also specifically said I wasn't advocating for making it harder for LEOs to do their job. I was simply stating from a boiled down perspective that the reason that LEOs are allowed to carry a weapon is for self defense - and that if it's sufficient cause for them, it ought to be sufficient cause for any other law abiding citizen.
To your other argument, even your average patrol officer doesn't necessarily come across a violent criminal every day. Think of the highway patrol officer or motor cop on traffic duty in a nice section of town - unlikely to come across a violent criminal in the course of their day unless by happenstance. Same for the average deputy in a quiet county up in the mountains. So your argument is invalidated - as I said before -it depends on where you are. East LA? Yes, probably going to come across a bad guy. On duty in Pollock Pines? Not so much. It's all about where and when. And the average person is also more or less likely to come across a violent criminal in those same environs.
But again - you don't answer the fundamental question - why should the officer be entitled to means of defense that the Average Joe isn't entitled to? After all, it often isn't until after Average Joe encountered the violent criminal and called the police that they are asked to look for the criminal. If the officer needs a weapon to confront the criminal, then so did the victim of the crime. It's not about taking tools away from the LEOs - it's about making sure the rest of us have access should we require them.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 05-02-2016, 9:45 AM
PackingHeatInSDCA PackingHeatInSDCA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunyfofu69 View Post
...

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

Logic dictates the same issue on magazine capacity will apply to anyone - LEO or not LEO - because criminals do not suddenly care about such "nuisance laws" simply because someone is not a LEO.
__________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 05-03-2016, 12:20 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,967
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
Given that a similar case by the CO sheriff's was tossed due to them not having standing, this might suffer the same fate.
It depends on how it's phrased - our attorneys are well aware of case law around the country.

To bring a 14th amendment claim, one cannot say "hey, retried LEOs have it better," but instead has to say "hey, the law discriminates against *me* because I cannot carry." Striking down the law is the remedy in both cases, but for a different reason.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 05-05-2016, 11:24 PM
cuchillo negro's Avatar
cuchillo negro cuchillo negro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Indio, California
Posts: 151
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Retired LEOs have been allowed to carry since before LEOSA came about. I was referring specifically to the section of state law that allows a LEOs former agency to give them a carry ID, vs. the regular CCW process the rest of us would have to go thru. But I agree the Federal legislation needs to be attacked as well.

Always thought it was odd that active reserve LEOs had to apply for a CCW though?
Technically they don't ....they are covered under LEOSA as well. However their agencies can prevent them from doing so.
__________________
"Not everyone can be a U.S. Marine that is why there is the Army, Navy and Air Force"
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05-08-2016, 7:26 AM
gesundheit's Avatar
gesundheit gesundheit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,152
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Great! Now we need a similar lawsuit against the law allowing retired cops the ability to own standard capacity magazines in LA. The police union's complicity is passing that law against legal gun owners was disgusting.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05-08-2016, 7:44 AM
Gonumber24's Avatar
Gonumber24 Gonumber24 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Southern California
Posts: 351
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpegasus View Post
But that's the same for any moral, ethical person - they'll try to do the right thing in any given circumstances. I also specifically said I wasn't advocating for making it harder for LEOs to do their job. I was simply stating from a boiled down perspective that the reason that LEOs are allowed to carry a weapon is for self defense - and that if it's sufficient cause for them, it ought to be sufficient cause for any other law abiding citizen.
To your other argument, even your average patrol officer doesn't necessarily come across a violent criminal every day. Think of the highway patrol officer or motor cop on traffic duty in a nice section of town - unlikely to come across a violent criminal in the course of their day unless by happenstance. Same for the average deputy in a quiet county up in the mountains. So your argument is invalidated - as I said before -it depends on where you are. East LA? Yes, probably going to come across a bad guy. On duty in Pollock Pines? Not so much. It's all about where and when. And the average person is also more or less likely to come across a violent criminal in those same environs.
But again - you don't answer the fundamental question - why should the officer be entitled to means of defense that the Average Joe isn't entitled to? After all, it often isn't until after Average Joe encountered the violent criminal and called the police that they are asked to look for the criminal. If the officer needs a weapon to confront the criminal, then so did the victim of the crime. It's not about taking tools away from the LEOs - it's about making sure the rest of us have access should we require them.
I will answer the fundamental question: Officers are entitled to carry off duty because individuals that were cited or arrested by the officer in the course of his employment may encounter the officer while off duty (by chance or the individual may seek out the officer for revenge, etc.), so the officer needs to be able to employ lethal force at any time it is needed, on or off duty.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-08-2016, 8:28 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,939
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gesundheit View Post
Great! Now we need a similar lawsuit against the law allowing retired cops the ability to own standard capacity magazines in LA. The police union's complicity is passing that law against legal gun owners was disgusting.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ate-Relief.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-08-2016, 8:39 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,939
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You almost got it right....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gonumber24 View Post
I will answer the fundamental question: Officers All Citizens are entitled to carry off duty at any time because individuals criminals that were cited or arrested by the an officer in the course of his employment may encounter the officer while off duty Citizen (by chance or the individual criminal may seek out the Citizen officer for revenge to commit additional crimes, etc.), so the officer Citizen needs to be able to employ lethal force at any time it is needed., on or off duty
There, that's more accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-08-2016, 10:54 AM
Gonumber24's Avatar
Gonumber24 Gonumber24 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Southern California
Posts: 351
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
You almost got it right.... There, that's more accurate.
Yeah, your average every day citizen issues speeding citations, arrests drunk drivers, rapists, thieves, etc. Fundamentally, from a standpoint of why off duty Law Enforcement is entitled to carry, YOU ARE INCORRECT.

Now, if you are strictly referring to the 2nd Amendment, I challenge you to ask the founding fathers themselves what they think of the current state of affairs. Oh, yes, you are unable to, so there you have it. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. But, I'll fall back on my first paragraph, above. Average citizens do not enforce the law day in and day out.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 05-08-2016, 11:14 AM
Section 101 Section 101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 200
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gonumber24 View Post
I will answer the fundamental question: Officers are entitled to carry off duty because individuals that were cited or arrested by the officer in the course of his employment may encounter the officer while off duty (by chance or the individual may seek out the officer for revenge, etc.), so the officer needs to be able to employ lethal force at any time it is needed, on or off duty.
And if I'm standing in line next to the former LEO shouldn't I be able to protect myself too?
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 05-08-2016, 1:32 PM
Gonumber24's Avatar
Gonumber24 Gonumber24 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Southern California
Posts: 351
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 101 View Post
And if I'm standing in line next to the former LEO shouldn't I be able to protect myself too?
Sure, get a CCW, so you'll be legit.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-08-2016, 2:58 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,382
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Folks, the LEO vs non-LEO argument is both old and political. Please take the discussion to http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...splay.php?f=71

I'll re-open this one when the case has some activity.

And, 7/29/16, it does - open!
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 07-29-2016 at 9:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-29-2016, 9:38 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 867
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What's your prediction Fabio? I think the government's motion will be granted with leave to amend. Hearing is on Aug the 8th for the motion to dimiss.Linked below

https://www.scribd.com/document/3196...tion-to-Dimiss

Us Calgunner should make a presence at the courtroom and hold a rally outside in support.

Last edited by wolfwood; 07-30-2016 at 5:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 07-30-2016, 12:54 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 800
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It sounds like Harris is stating/arguing that retired officers are a privileged class and should be treated differently than law abiding citizens.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 07-31-2016, 12:41 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,967
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Motion is about "technicalities" - standing and relief.

It wouldn't be unusual for an unfriendly court to grant motion to dismiss based on standing. It's all about how broad or narrow interpretation the court wants to adopt, which in turn is a function of "friendliness to the cause."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-31-2016, 2:29 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,939
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It is ironic that OAG demanded late admission to standing in Peruta and now seeks to deny others basic standing in this case.

Makes one begin to believe the system is broken.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-31-2016, 6:16 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,268
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
It is ironic that OAG demanded late admission to standing in Peruta and now seeks to deny others basic standing in this case.

Makes one begin to believe the system is broken FIXED.
FIFY
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-01-2016, 10:33 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 538
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"Rigged" or "working by design" would appear to be better terms there - fixed would imply that it was working how it was intended to always work, something which I believe the founding fathers would dispute quite heartily. Fixed, in this instance, would be a restoration of "justice is blind" and "equal treatment under the law" rather than deferential treatment of a person because of their position in society as a state actor, wealth, genetic makeup, genitalia, sexual orientation, et cetera.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-01-2016, 11:42 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,382
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpegasus View Post
"Rigged" or "working by design" would appear to be better terms there - fixed would imply that it was working how it was intended to always work, something which I believe the founding fathers would dispute quite heartily. Fixed, in this instance, would be a restoration of "justice is blind" and "equal treatment under the law" rather than deferential treatment of a person because of their position in society as a state actor, wealth, genetic makeup, genitalia, sexual orientation, et cetera.
"Fixed" in the sense of 'the fight is fixed' ('he'll take a dive in the 4th round") or 'the race is fixed' - an outcome is determined by the will of someone, without regard to rules or expected performance of the participants.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-01-2016, 1:38 PM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 538
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I understand what he was saying, but some people might not. I feel that precision in language is something that helps us further our arguments better - like taking the language back and pushing for "large/high" capacity magazines to rightly be called standard capacity. The less room there is for misinterpretation, the less the antis can twist the meaning.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 08-01-2016, 3:00 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,382
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpegasus View Post
I feel that precision in language is something that helps us further our arguments better - like taking the language back and pushing for "large/high" capacity magazines to rightly be called standard capacity.
1) 'standard capacity' is not the same as either 'high capacity' or 'large-capacity' - CA's legal definition of 'large-capacity' is 'more than 10 rounds'; the 'standard capacity' for a 1911 model handgun magazine is SEVEN.

2) the time to argue the point was 1999. We lost. Refusing to recognize that reality hinders getting it changed (not that I think there is much likelihood of that with our current - and foreseeable - crop of politicians).
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 08-08-2016, 9:55 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 867
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://13832-presscdn-0-1-pagely.ne...8/20-order.pdf
\Plaintiffs’ claim that the
Retired Peace Officer Exemption is unconstitutional under
the Equal Protection Clause
cannot be cured by amendment because so long as the
government has an interest in protecting re
tired peace officers, it will survive rational
basis scrutiny. Further, as the legislative hi
story of the Act has already been judicially
noticed and it includes no evidence of legi
slative intent to harm civilian California
firearm owners, it appears that allowing Plain
tiffs to amend the Complaint regarding its
claim of improper treatment
of a politically unpopular cla
ss would also be futile.


loss

Last edited by wolfwood; 08-08-2016 at 10:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 08-08-2016, 10:14 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,268
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Phuque.

Another court conveniently ignoring a concerted effort by Liberal legislators in Ca to strip Ca citizens of any and all 2a protections.

Quote:
it includes no evidence of legislative intent to harm civilian California firearm owners,
And the Special Class gets to remain Special. Even though they vehemently claim not to be Special. All those Union Dollars well spent, and public podium appearances paying off, again.

Quote:
because so long as the
government has an interest in protecting retired peace officers, it will survive rational
basis scrutiny.

Last edited by retired; 08-20-2017 at 5:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 08-08-2016, 10:21 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,939
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
FIFY
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpegasus View Post
"Rigged" or "working by design" would appear to be better terms there - fixed would imply that it was working how it was intended to always work, something which I believe the founding fathers would dispute quite heartily. Fixed, in this instance, would be a restoration of "justice is blind" and "equal treatment under the law" rather than deferential treatment of a person because of their position in society as a state actor, wealth, genetic makeup, genitalia, sexual orientation, et cetera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpegasus View Post
I understand what he was saying, but some people might not. I feel that precision in language is something that helps us further our arguments better - like taking the language back and pushing for "large/high" capacity magazines to rightly be called standard capacity. The less room there is for misinterpretation, the less the antis can twist the meaning.
The word I used was "broken", as I said, "Makes one believe the system is broken."

Not "fixed", not "rigged", not "working by design"...."BROKEN".

Best.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 08-08-2016, 10:30 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,268
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
The word I used was "broken", as I said, "Makes one believe the system is broken."

Not "fixed", not "rigged", not "working by design"...."BROKEN".

Best.
And the word I used was "fixed", as in not only "fixed" as in repaired. [pun]

But "fixed" as in crooked. Agreeing with your "Broken". Humorous double entendres not your strong suit I see.

Oh, never mind. When you have to break down a joke word for word, for people who just don't get it, it loses its zing.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 08-08-2016, 10:59 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,382
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Absent evidence of explicit legislative intent to
cause harm to civilian gun owners, Plaintiffs cannot establish a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause under this theory
I believe the adage 'Actions speak louder than words' applies here. None so blind as he that will not see.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 08-09-2016, 6:31 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,939
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
And the word I used was "fixed", as in not only "fixed" as in repaired. [pun]

But "fixed" as in crooked. Agreeing with your "Broken". Humorous double entendres not your strong suit I see.

Oh, never mind. When you have to break down a joke word for word, for people who just don't get it, it loses its zing.
I've been misunderstood. Your adept application of paronomasia was succinct, subtle, multi-layered and pithy. Upon reading, I roared out loud and then giggled like a school girl. (In remembering that moment, I must pause to daub the tears from my eyes...good stuff.)

Yet, to then have others suggest different wording as being more apropos, diminished the brilliance of your effort while undermining the uncompromising condition I described as "broken".

It is to that which I object.

Best.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 08-09-2016, 4:58 PM
velmingrafter velmingrafter is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 45
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Do I have this right? Gun owners can have lesser rights than retired LEO because they are not a protected class? By that logic, the government should be able to outlaw white men from using the public library to check out books. Legal logic is insane!
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 08-09-2016, 5:35 PM
green grunt's Avatar
green grunt green grunt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lodi
Posts: 632
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

so...... by that thinking ALL the retired US Military are/should also be a "special class" , well trained and probably better then some LEO's how come this won't apply to them ......

not LEO bashing !

but .... what do I know





Semper Fi.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 08-09-2016, 6:48 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,268
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
I've been misunderstood. Your adept application of paronomasia was succinct, subtle, multi-layered and pithy. Upon reading, I roared out loud and then giggled like a school girl. (In remembering that moment, I must pause to daub the tears from my eyes...good stuff.)

Yet, to then have others suggest different wording as being more apropos, diminished the brilliance of your effort while undermining the uncompromising condition I described as "broken".

It is to that which I object.

Best.
Thank you Sir. In truth, and in keeping with true CalGunner fashion. I did misconstrue your reasoning.

Your verisimilitude is duly noted and appreciated.

Carry On
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 08-09-2016, 10:07 PM
dekul34 dekul34 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by velmingrafter View Post
Do I have this right? Gun owners can have lesser rights than retired LEO because they are not a protected class? By that logic, the government should be able to outlaw white men from using the public library to check out books. Legal logic is insane!
CA might have their hands tied anyway because federal law (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004) specifically allows retired LEO to conceal carry without a permit regardless of local laws... something about former inmates coming back to try to kill them years later. It's stupid since EVERYONE should have the right to carry but there it is.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 08-09-2016, 11:17 PM
FalconLair's Avatar
FalconLair FalconLair is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Summerlin, NV.
Posts: 2,748
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dekul34 View Post
CA might have their hands tied anyway because federal law (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004) specifically allows retired LEO to conceal carry without a permit regardless of local laws... something about former inmates coming back to try to kill them years later. It's stupid since EVERYONE should have the right to carry but there it is.
i really have to wonder how many instances there are on record of some old retired LEO having to defend himself against some former convict that he put away

i bet it's minuscule
__________________
Yesterday the Devil whispered in my ear, "You're not strong enough to weather the storm."

Today I whispered in the Devil's ear, "I AM THE STORM."


Quote:
Originally Posted by someoneeasy View Post
I got eager cuz I love me some 20"
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 08-09-2016, 11:38 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,169
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconLair View Post
i really have to wonder how many instances there are on record of some old retired LEO having to defend himself against some former convict that he put away

i bet it's minuscule
If it saves one retired LEO its worth it (or something like that)
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 08-10-2016, 12:17 AM
socalblue socalblue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 816
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconLair View Post
i really have to wonder how many instances there are on record of some old retired LEO having to defend himself against some former convict that he put away

i bet it's minuscule
You may be surprised. More an issue are family & 'associates' (IE: other gang members) who are quite willing to "get some for Johnny".
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 08-10-2016, 1:42 AM
FalconLair's Avatar
FalconLair FalconLair is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Summerlin, NV.
Posts: 2,748
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalblue View Post
You may be surprised. More an issue are family & 'associates' (IE: other gang members) who are quite willing to "get some for Johnny".
yet witness', and THEIR families, who are more instrumental in putting away bad guys have to deal with the "get some for Johnny" gang with the same restrictions as everyone else

besides, the "get some for Johnny" mentality is usually during the course of a trial, or investigation, betting not 15-20 years later when these guys are grazing in the pastures

on a serious note, i think Ron Solo mentioned something in a post one day about running into a guy he had arrested before, don't remember the details, maybe im mistaken
__________________
Yesterday the Devil whispered in my ear, "You're not strong enough to weather the storm."

Today I whispered in the Devil's ear, "I AM THE STORM."


Quote:
Originally Posted by someoneeasy View Post
I got eager cuz I love me some 20"
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 08-10-2016, 6:50 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,939
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
...so long as the government has an interest in protecting retired peace officers,.....
And the court has now put in play two issues:
1. The government sees its interest in protecting retired peace officers is met by allowing them the means for direct and immediate self defense, and;
2. The government has no interest in protecting the general population.

Wonderful.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 08-10-2016, 6:58 AM
BobB35 BobB35 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 591
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
And the court has now put in play two issues:
1. The government sees its interest in protecting retired peace officers is met by allowing them the means for direct and immediate self defense, and;
2. The government has no interest in protecting the general population.

Wonderful.
Why are you surprised? For decades the government has disavowed the responsibility to protect anyone. The myth of LEO being there to protect people is one of the greatest PR shows of all time and the LIV have bought it hook line and sinker. I think there is a very high probability that in the next 10 years that myth will be exposed and things will get very interesting then when the sheeple realize they are on there own as the criminals role through.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 08-10-2016, 10:07 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,939
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobB35 View Post
Why are you surprised? For decades the government has disavowed the responsibility to protect anyone. The myth of LEO being there to protect people is one of the greatest PR shows of all time and the LIV have bought it hook line and sinker. I think there is a very high probability that in the next 10 years that myth will be exposed and things will get very interesting then when the sheeple realize they are on there own as the criminals role through.
Not surprised at all.

Warren v. Dist of Columbia told us that there is no duty for the police (or the state) to protect individuals. Now the court tells us that when there is an interest, then CCW is the vehicle to that meet that interest.

Perhaps now, the case can be made that the state has an interest (not a general duty, but an interest) in protection of the individual, and CCW is the means.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 08-10-2016, 10:33 AM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,578
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
And the court has now put in play two issues:
1. The government sees its interest in protecting retired peace officers is met by allowing them the means for direct and immediate self defense, and;
2. The government has no interest in protecting the general population.

Wonderful.
Saw the same thing. Very interesting that the court believes the government should have a greater interest in protecting retired police than the general populace.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 08-10-2016, 11:47 AM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 3,588
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
If it saves one retired LEO its worth it (or something like that)
That same argument could be applied to reason for CCW issue to all non-prohibited persons. If it saves one civi life, is that not equally worth it?
__________________
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 5:49 PM.




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.