Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

View Poll Results: How much would you pay for Law Enforcement Credentials
$0 I don't want them at any price 380 15.35%
$100 308 12.44%
$500 730 29.48%
$1000 511 20.64%
$1500 102 4.12%
$2000 205 8.28%
$5000 127 5.13%
$10000 50 2.02%
$Whatever it takes I'll take out a second mortgage 63 2.54%
Voters: 2476. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old 11-20-2009, 5:02 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,830
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
Well, AJAX22's done his research on the states that don't have the residency other requirements. I thought, the point of this exercise was to look for that kind of states/LEAs, not the ones that wouldn't work out. After all, we already know plenty of those
You are exactly correct Nick, and California does NOT require residency at the state level. Individual departments might vary, but it is not because of state law.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 11-20-2009, 12:56 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
California and Federal law is on our side here. It is very clear. I agree with what others have said regarding the LEA's policies needing to support off duty carry by Level II or III's for this to be completely above board. Any LEA can write department policy supporting this. They can follow the letter of the law and accomadate us at the same time. The CA law says background investigation. As a volunteer with my local department, I had to do the live fingerprint scan and get a background check. Why would independent contractors need anything more? The CA requirements can be fulfilled at a lower threshold for a lower threshold position. Again, city level policy will dictate.

To support this plan is to support the department hosting it. Even if they spend 1/2 of the $1000 in up front fees, they will make a ton of money off of it. New cruisers, better body armor, the list goes on and on. The contract could even specify a yearly background check be done at my expense. The contract can be configured so that the department is protected, makes money at it, and we have some safeguards that the rug won't be pulled out at the LEA level.

I fail to see why people are so scared of pursuing this. This will go nationwide in a matter of months once it starts. It is a ready source of revenue for cash strapped cities and they are all going to want to get in on it once they see the cash flowing. Once it goes nationwide, LEOs will be aware of it and problems will disappear quickly. However, the first guy doing it at the first LEA better be well bankrolled or have the support of a good legal defense fund. Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

Except that when you're talking about CA LEA's, those LEA's are some of the biggests obstacles to getting shall issue CCW as it is. Why would they turn around and voluntarily impliment a program like this when if they were CCW friendly they would just issue CCWs? Plus I dont think you're being reasonable about the cost to the dept. run such a program. You $1000 would not even come close to covering the admin costs to the dept. A dept. would be better off just charing $1000 for a shall issue CCW and just running a basic NCIC check and verfiying your residency. That could be done in a couple of hours.

And as I've stated before, the minimum requirements to qualify as a LEO in CA along with the exemptions are requirements of the PC. An individual dept. can't make up it's own lesser rules. To get the LEO exemptions for buying off the roster and CCW and all that you have to meet the requirements set forth in PC 830.1 & .2 I believe it is, and ALL agencies are bound by those standards statewide.
__________________
"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; 11-20-2009 at 1:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 11-20-2009, 1:02 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
LEOSA specifically states that if you qualify under it, legally you can still carry. Department/Agency's policy isn't a law.

What you're referring to is that you might have a problem within your department if you do it despite the department's policy. You can be fired, but not prosecuted, in short.

However, why would we want to work with a department that does have such a restrictive policy?

But the point being if you get fired from your dept. for violating policy then there goes your eligibilty right? And getting fired from a LEA is not a black mark you want on your record.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 11-21-2009, 9:00 AM
nick nick is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,075
iTrader: 135 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
But the point being if you get fired from your dept. for violating policy then there goes your eligibilty right? And getting fired from a LEA is not a black mark you want on your record.
Which is why the idea is to work with a specific LEA(s), not just any one out there.

I doubt anyone here's talking about working with SFPD or LAPD.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


WTB: Saiga .223 bolt; HK G3 bolt; Chinese AK pistol grips; milled AK cut receiver pieces and stubs.
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 11-21-2009, 12:45 PM
Wrangler John Wrangler John is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,649
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default LEO Credentials

Well, it's all a pipe dream, IMHO. Look, I was a reserve police sergeant for four years, worked patrol and carried. Had a concealed weapons permit from a Bay Area County. Went to work as a Park Ranger for 32 years for the county, had 832 pc law enforcement powers, but was restricted from carrying firearms. I worked a county firing range, was a certified Hunter Safety Instructor, NRA Pistol Instructor and taught classes in basic rifle and reloading. Part of of my last park assignment as a district supervisor entailed being a Special Deputy Sheriff for thirteen years and maintaining custody of inmate work crews from the Men's Correctional Facility. I retired after becoming disabled, but under a general retirement. I can not qualify under the provisions of this law, or under California law. I can't obtain a new CCW permit from the Sheriff's Office and have been told so, because I don't have a sufficient reason to carry.

One major obstacle will be agency liability for any application of deadly force by a permit holder, and I can't see interstate use simplifying the issue. Just the liability of defending a wrongful death suit or some criminal charges brought by a local prosecutor would be prohibitive.

Last edited by Wrangler John; 11-21-2009 at 12:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 11-21-2009, 2:01 PM
JDoe JDoe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrangler John View Post
One major obstacle will be agency liability for any application of deadly force by a permit holder, and I can't see interstate use simplifying the issue. Just the liability of defending a wrongful death suit or some criminal charges brought by a local prosecutor would be prohibitive.
What liability would there be if the holder of the valid LEO credentials acted outside of the scope of the contract between them and the LEA?

If a LEO commits a crime while off duty is the LEA that they work at liable as well?

Why would this situation be different than Utah granting me a CCW permit? Utah isn't liable for my actions as a CCW permit holder.

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand.
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 11-21-2009, 2:13 PM
hollabillz hollabillz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 313
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDoe View Post
What liability would there be if the holder of the valid LEO credentials acted outside of the scope of the contract between them and the LEA?

If a LEO commits a crime while off duty is the LEA that they work at liable as well?

Why would this situation be different than Utah granting me a CCW permit? Utah isn't liable for my actions as a CCW permit holder.

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand.

If LEOSA required agency approval for off duty CCW, maybe it could be construed that the LEA is liable. But LEA approval is not required (and perhaps liability issues such as this is a reason why). I think you're rightly questioning some FUD. There's an awful lot of it in this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 11-21-2009, 4:50 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

As far as I know most state have some kinds of POST standards that set forth by law what the minimum requirements are to be a LEO in that state, so I doubt if you will be able to find an individual dept in any state that has the power to make up their standards, I'm sure most states would require some kind of academy training to get LEO creds, not to mention that any state that shall issue CCW wouldn't have a need to impliment such a program with all the associate admin costs and liabilities.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 11-21-2009, 5:01 PM
nick nick is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,075
iTrader: 135 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
As far as I know most state have some kinds of POST standards that set forth by law what the minimum requirements are to be a LEO in that state, so I doubt if you will be able to find an individual dept in any state that has the power to make up their standards, I'm sure most states would require some kind of academy training to get LEO creds, not to mention that any state that shall issue CCW wouldn't have a need to impliment such a program with all the associate admin costs and liabilities.
The training standards part has been addressed very early in the thread.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


WTB: Saiga .223 bolt; HK G3 bolt; Chinese AK pistol grips; milled AK cut receiver pieces and stubs.
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 11-21-2009, 5:05 PM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrangler John View Post
One major obstacle will be agency liability for any application of deadly force by a permit holder
There is no liability to a CA agency for issuing a CCW - that's LE FUD propogated to confuse the sheep....

.
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 11-21-2009, 5:18 PM
dansgold dansgold is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
As far as I know most state have some kinds of POST standards that set forth by law what the minimum requirements are to be a LEO in that state, so I doubt if you will be able to find an individual dept in any state that has the power to make up their standards, I'm sure most states would require some kind of academy training to get LEO creds, not to mention that any state that shall issue CCW wouldn't have a need to impliment such a program with all the associate admin costs and liabilities.
Given the number of politicians, celebrities, big campaign donors, etc. who have been issue LEO credentials with zero training requirement ... I can't imagine this being a genuine problem.
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 11-23-2009, 11:57 AM
hollabillz hollabillz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 313
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So... two weeks then?
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 11-23-2009, 12:15 PM
grammaton76's Avatar
grammaton76 grammaton76 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,540
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansgold View Post
Given the number of politicians, celebrities, big campaign donors, etc. who have been issue LEO credentials with zero training requirement ... I can't imagine this being a genuine problem.
I view it as a win/win.

Path A: We get credentials and get CCW's throughout the US. Life is good.

Path B: They shut the door on us, but end up having to also shut the door on most of the politicians, celebrities, and big campaign donors. Said individuals start clamoring for CCW issuance (they'd still get it under may-issue, but it'd have more stink of corruption than the current LEO status they enjoy).

I don't see a down side. However, my original statement remains in effect: I'm in for it if and only if CGF says this isn't a horrible thing.
__________________
Primary author of gunwiki.net - 'like' it on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Gunwiki/242578512591 to see whenever new content gets added!
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 11-23-2009, 1:26 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansgold View Post
Given the number of politicians, celebrities, big campaign donors, etc. who have been issue LEO credentials with zero training requirement ... I can't imagine this being a genuine problem.

So you're saying agencies who have engaged in that kind of corruption in the past should just increase the scale of their corruption by selling LEO creds to everyone in exchange for money.

Yeah.....that sounds like a good plan.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 11-23-2009, 2:02 PM
dansgold dansgold is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No, I am saying that many LE agencies legally have far wider latitude for granting LEO credentials than many here have asserted. The notions that all of these training restrictions are absolute requirements is simply not true on it's face.

It seems that anytime someone suggests doing something 100% legal - but you don't like it personally - you take great issue with it. As a potential LE candidate, do you feel it is your duty to enforce the law or act as cop/judge/jury based upon only your personal opinions about what the law should be?

Further, I have been very specific in this thread that I believe we should not simply be "buying" credentials. My opinion is that we should offer genuine service of some kind, especially such kind as allows better trained personnel to better protect the public.

I think you need to acknowledge that LE agency requirement vary widely throughout the nation. The 19-year-old girl in some podunk county serving as the dispatcher for animal control is considered an "law enforcement officer", although she is little more than a glorified receptionist and has no real formal LE training. The same goes for all sorts of mosquito-abatement, wildlife management, meter-maid type positions all over the place. This seems to be OK with you.

But, if well-meaning, better-trained people are willing to offer their services for budget-strapped towns in CA or elsewhere - thereby offering legitimate service and improving public safety ... this is a problem?

I don't see the rational basis for such a position, although you are well entitled to whatever opinion you hold.
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 11-23-2009, 2:24 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,866
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

This entire thread stinks of a lack of morals and ethics.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 11-23-2009, 2:40 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansgold View Post

But, if well-meaning, better-trained people are willing to offer their services for budget-strapped towns in CA or elsewhere - thereby offering legitimate service and improving public safety ... this is a problem?

I don't see the rational basis for such a position, although you are well entitled to whatever opinion you hold.

Because again I think that you are failing to fully comprehend and accept the cost involved to an agency even to employ a volunteer who is working for no pay. All you're looking at is you wouldn't be getting paid, but there is still considerable cost to an agency to employ volunteers. Hence I don't think it would really pan out at the big financial boon to those agencies you claim it would be. $1000 would not even come close to covering the costs. Do some research on the beaurcratic costs of public agencies hiring volunteers.

So morals and ethics and all that aside. Financially.....I don't see it attracting an serious interest.....especially in states that already offer readily accessible shall-issue CCW.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 11-23-2009, 3:04 PM
hollabillz hollabillz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 313
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
This entire thread stinks of a lack of morals and ethics.
Nice. You enjoy special privileges in an entitled class and don't want the commoners to have the same rights as you, yet you preach about morals and ethics? At least you protect the constitution you swore to uphold. Wait, errr, nevermind.
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 11-23-2009, 3:06 PM
locosway's Avatar
locosway locosway is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 11,343
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
This entire thread stinks of a lack of morals and ethics.
Yep, I read the little LEO thread on this one. It's a profession, LEO's shouldn't have any more rights or privileges from the normal citizens. This thread is an attempt at hashing out how people can pay a nominal fee and gain their 2A rights statewide. People here don't want LEO powers, I think you're confusing that part.
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
CA DOJ Certified Instructor
Glock Certified Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 11-23-2009, 3:08 PM
berto's Avatar
berto berto is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 7,758
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
This entire thread stinks of a lack of morals and ethics.
Do you take advantage of LEO privilege (off roster handguns, out of state carry, etc.)? Or do you refrain and suffer like the rest of us?
Reply With Quote
  #421  
Old 11-23-2009, 3:24 PM
Fate's Avatar
Fate Fate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Proud Member of the Quitter Club. Moscow, ID
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
This entire thread stinks of a lack of morals and ethics.
No sir. That's the smell of Liberty. Get used to it.
__________________
"On bended knee is no way to be free." - Eddie Vedder, "Guaranteed"

"Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson
, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr dated August 19, 1785
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 11-23-2009, 4:10 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,726
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Keep on topic guys

No updates yet

My phone is dead again, but hopefully the new battery will show up today or in the next few days

I've been in midterms and term papers so I haven't had much free time.

I could use some help with the cold calls (essentially just the first call where you ask to schedule a phone appointment for me to talk with the mayor/sherrif)

As to the ethics and morals issue, I adhere strictly to the principle that all men are equal in the eyes of the law. And I believe that the free market is the most powerfull tool we have to effect meaningfull change in this world... Period
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 11-23-2009, 6:42 PM
vrand's Avatar
vrand vrand is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fate View Post
No sir. That's the smell of Liberty. Get used to it.
__________________
Have a great day

"Opposing secession changes the nature of government "from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves."--New York Journal of Commerce 1/12/61

"[I]t is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!"--Patrick Henry

http://www.state-citizen.org/
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 11-23-2009, 6:55 PM
chief003's Avatar
chief003 chief003 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Riverside
Posts: 173
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Ok, this post is on page 43, so please forgive me if this suggestion appears somewhere prior.

How about attaching all relevant rights of a LEO (as requested) to the CCW Permit? Require some appropriate level of training commensurate with the rights and (dare I say) privileges requested. Attach ‘shall issue’ status to the change in statewide CCW law.

No additional charge (except reasonable administrative fees) for the permit.
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 11-24-2009, 9:27 AM
dansgold dansgold is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
... again I think that you are failing to fully comprehend and accept the cost involved to an agency even to employ a volunteer who is working for no pay. ... [etc.]
Interesting idea. If you claim to have actual knowledge of these costs and can detail them authoritatively, that would be helpful information regarding this discussion. More so if you can provide costs/overhead figures which are reasonably universal and not simply the result of cherry-picking some particular agency or jurisdiction.

You could instantly disabuse everyone of the notion that something like this is even workable, and thereby eliminate the necessity for any further discussion. Being that you think the whole idea is a bad one, this would effectively be game/set/match for your position.

On the other hand, it occurs to me that you could just be spreading FUD, or perhaps basing your opinion on a very limited scope of actual knowledge. I suspect strongly that this is more likely.

I don't claim to know for sure which case is accurate, but you could certainly demonstrate the former and disprove the latter, if you have any actual knowledge in this regard.
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 11-25-2009, 9:43 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,830
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I had an informal sit down with my mayor this morning after another meeting that we were in. I gave him a quick run down of what current CA law states and how this idea can be incorporated into a city program. I asked what it costs the city to do background checks on their police volunteers. He indicated that he was sure that it would be way under $500. I then proposed a plan whereby independent contractors would pay an administrative fee of $1500. He was very interested and asked me to provide more specific information. I am moving forward with his request in the form of a letter that I will hand deliver to him. I will post it below and quote this post. Please review the letter and offer constructive criticism and ideas. I am not interested in personal viewpoints about moral issues, but rather seek to ensure that it moves forward within the letter of the law.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman

Last edited by choprzrul; 11-25-2009 at 10:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 11-25-2009, 9:47 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,830
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
I had an informal sit down with my mayor this morning after another meeting that we were in. I gave him a quick run down of what current CA law states and how this idea can be incorporated into a city program. I asked what it costs the city to do background checks on their police volunteers. He indicated that he was sure that it would be way under $500. I then proposed a plan whereby independent contractors would pay an administrative fee of $1500. He was very interested and asked me to provide more specific information. I am moving forward with his request in the form of a letter that I will hand deliver to him. I will post it below and quote this post. Please review the letter and offer constructive criticism and ideas. I am not interested in personal viewpoints about moral issues, but rather seek to ensure that it moves forward within the letter of the law.
The following criteria is taken from:
http://www.post.ca.gov/Hiring/Peace_..._Standards.asp which specifies the requirements for California Peace Officers.
Overview of Peace Officer Selection Standards
California peace officers undergo an extensive selection process before they are hired by law enforcement agencies. The role of the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) includes establishing minimum selection standards for peace officers in California and conducting research that results in the development of the tests and procedures used by local law enforcement agencies to adhere to these minimum selection standards.

Minimum Selection Standards

The minimum peace officer selection standards are set forth in Government Code Sections 1029 and 1031. Every California peace officer must be:
--free of any felony convictions;
--a citizen of the United States or a permanent resident alien who is eligible for and has applied for citizenship (CHP officers must be US citizens at time of appointment);
--at least 18 years of age;
--fingerprinted for purposes of search of local, state, and national fingerprint files to disclose any criminal record;
--of good moral character, as determined by a thorough background investigation;
--a high school graduate, pass the General Education Development test or have attained a two-year, four-year, or advanced degree from an accredited or approved institution, and
--found to be free from any physical, emotional, or mental condition which might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer.

California Penal Code Section 830.6 outlines a very specific situation whereby previously vetted pool of auxillary/reserve personnel can be a very valuable resource for our city when pressed into service:

(c) Whenever any person is summoned to the aid of any uniformed
peace officer, the summoned person is vested with the powers of a
peace officer that are expressly delegated to him or her by the
summoning officer or that are otherwise reasonably necessary to
properly assist the officer.



I propose that our city accept applications for contracted special reserve peace officers. These officers must meet the POST Minimum Selection Standards outlined above. These independant contractors will be expected to pay for the administrative fees associated with vetting them for employment. The amount of these fees are to be $1,500.00. Additionally, each applicant will be expected to pay for an annual background check in the amount of $200.00. Each applicant will be expected to attend a handgun training course for a minimum of 16 hours on 2 consecutive days prior to employment and each year thereafter. Independent contractors will be sworn Level III (see definition below) reserve officers ONLY for the purposes outlined in California Penal Code Section 830.6 paragraph (c). Independent contractors are expected to carry a legally concealable weapon (within the legal confines of their location) at all times. These independent contractors are to be paid $1.00 per year for their services. They will be retained in an Administrative Leave status until such time as their services are required under 830.6 paragraph (c).


California Penal Code Section 832.6
(a) Every person deputized or appointed, as described in
subdivision (a) of Section 830.6, shall have the powers of a peace
officer only when the person is any of the following:
...

(3) Level III reserve officers may be deployed and are authorized
only to carry out limited support duties not requiring general law
enforcement powers in their routine performance. Those limited
duties shall include traffic control, security at parades and
sporting events, report taking, evidence transportation, parking
enforcement, and other duties that are not likely to result in
physical arrests. Level III reserve officers while assigned these
duties shall be supervised in the accessible vicinity by a level I
reserve officer or a full-time, regular peace officer employed by a
law enforcement agency authorized to have reserve officers. Level
III reserve officers may transport prisoners without immediate
supervision. Those persons shall have completed the training
required under Section 832 and any other training prescribed by the
commission for those persons.

Since these independent contractors are to be employed but kept in reserve on paid Administrative Leave, they will not be required to attend the California POST training. This is supported in:
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 1007
...

(3) Level III Reserve Peace Officers
(A) Minimum Training Requirement. Every Level III reserve peace officer [defined in PAM, section H-1-2(c)], before being assigned to duties which include the exercise of peace officer powers, shall satisfactorily complete the POST-certified Module III (PAM, section D-1-3).
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman

Last edited by choprzrul; 11-25-2009 at 10:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:07 AM
thefinger's Avatar
thefinger thefinger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sacto.
Posts: 1,604
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

@choprzrul

Way to go! So in the proposal are you going to mention anything in particular about the residential status of applicants that the city would be interested in "hiring"? For example, is there a need to make it explicit in the proposal that your city would be hiring people from other towns around the state of CA? And also something to the effect that "all applicants that meet the minimum qualifications and pay the administrative fee will be accepted and retained for as long as they maintain their firearms training and good-standing in the eyes of the law"? Or maybe those specifics are best left for later discussions if the initial proposal gains your mayor's interest.

-finger
__________________
كافر INFIDEL
SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM

Last edited by thefinger; 11-25-2009 at 10:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:11 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

"Since these independent contractors are to be employed but kept in reserve on paid Administrative Leave, they will not be required to attend the California POST training. This is supported in:
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 1007
...

(3) Level III Reserve Peace Officers
(A) Minimum Training Requirement. Every Level III reserve peace officer [defined in PAM, section H-1-2(c)], before being assigned to duties which include the exercise of peace officer powers, shall satisfactorily complete the POST-certified Module III (PAM, section D-1-3)."


But if you have not yet undergone the training then how are you going to be given credentials as a LEO? You don't get a badge before you go to the academy.....you have hafta graduate to get that.

Again I think you're missing out on some key factors on where most people get cut in the selection process which is the background check and the psych eval, which must be cleared before you can even be offered a position.
__________________
"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; 11-25-2009 at 10:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:14 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,830
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefinger View Post
@choprzul

Way to go! So in the proposal are you going to mention anything in particular about the residential status of applicants that the city would be interested in "hiring"? For example, is there a need to make it explicit in the proposal that your city would be hiring people from other towns around the state of CA? And also something to the effect that "all applicants that meet the minimum qualifications and pay the administrative fee will be accepted and retained for as long as they maintain their firearms training and good-standing in the eyes of the law"? Or maybe those specifics are best left for later discussions if the initial proposal gains your mayor's interest.
That would come later. I want to get the general idea in front of them and let them see that it is indeed completely legal and a great way to fund projects. I was thinking that the final proposal should specify a minimum of 10% of net proceeds should go to the police department for improved training, equipment, and staffing. If my PD is going to host this, I want them to be the best staffed, the best trained, and the best equiped in the state.

As far as contractor location, as long as the basic requiremnts are met, I see no reason to add any additional residency requiremnts above what the state of CA outlines.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:14 AM
The Director's Avatar
The Director The Director is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hollywood, baby
Posts: 2,771
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Wow...choprzul....very nice work.
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:19 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansgold View Post
Interesting idea. If you claim to have actual knowledge of these costs and can detail them authoritatively, that would be helpful information regarding this discussion. More so if you can provide costs/overhead figures which are reasonably universal and not simply the result of cherry-picking some particular agency or jurisdiction.

You could instantly disabuse everyone of the notion that something like this is even workable, and thereby eliminate the necessity for any further discussion. Being that you think the whole idea is a bad one, this would effectively be game/set/match for your position.

On the other hand, it occurs to me that you could just be spreading FUD, or perhaps basing your opinion on a very limited scope of actual knowledge. I suspect strongly that this is more likely.

I don't claim to know for sure which case is accurate, but you could certainly demonstrate the former and disprove the latter, if you have any actual knowledge in this regard.

Yes.....I do have ACTUAL knowledge of such things but it would tak far too much time and space to list it out, not to mention it required divulging of far to much personal information on a public forum then I care to do.

But the costs of employing volunteers is real.....it is not free to the agency. There are things like mandatory internal training, oversight of the volunteer programs, providing of equipment, safety training, sexual harrassement training, computer security training.

Back during the last state budget crisis PDs were not hiring at all, not even reserves because even the cost of employing reserves was more then they could afford.....that I know from first hand knowledge.

I think the mayor who said it cost less than $500 to do a check is out of touch. Heck.....the PD shrink prolly charges that much alone just to do the psych eval, let alone the labor cost of a detective who's prolly making $3-400 a day at least doing your background check which can take many, many hours/days depending on the persons background. That's why PDs try to eliminate as many candidates as possible early on with things like written tests and PFTs before they get to the more costly background check and psych evals and prollygraphs. They don't wanna waste the time and money.

My point is try going thru the actual selection process sometime and you'll find it's not as simple as you want to make it out to be.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:25 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,830
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
"Since these independent contractors are to be employed but kept in reserve on paid Administrative Leave, they will not be required to attend the California POST training. This is supported in:
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 1007
...

(3) Level III Reserve Peace Officers
(A) Minimum Training Requirement. Every Level III reserve peace officer [defined in PAM, section H-1-2(c)], before being assigned to duties which include the exercise of peace officer powers, shall satisfactorily complete the POST-certified Module III (PAM, section D-1-3)."


But if you have not yet undergone the training then how are you going to be given credentials as a LEO? You don't a badge before you go to the academy.....you have hafta graduate to get that.

Again I think you're missing out on some key factors on where most people get cut in the selection process which is the background check and the psych eval, which must be cleared before you can even be offered a position.
Here is the process:

1. the city follows the general guidelines outlined in the POST Minimum Selection Standards
2. Applicants that get through #1 are APPOINTED under California Penal Code Section 832.6 ((a) Every person deputized or appointed, as described in
subdivision (a) of Section 830.6, shall have the powers of a peace
officer only when the person is any of the following as Level III officers. This gives them the required status as a peace officer.
3. They have now been duly APPOINTED, but are now in an interim state where they have been APPOINTED, but not yet ASSIGNED to any duties.
4. They are retained as contracted employees in this interim state.

Note that POST certification IS NOT REQUIRED "...before being assigned to duties..." These independent contractors can be called to duty by an active Level I officer at any time under California Penal Code Section 830.6:

(c) Whenever any person is summoned to the aid of any uniformed
peace officer, the summoned person is vested with the powers of a
peace officer that are expressly delegated to him or her by the
summoning officer or that are otherwise reasonably necessary to
properly assist the officer.

That is, unless you care to argue that an independent contractor is not "...ANY PERSON...".
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:25 AM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,320
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Is this proposal being presented to the city as anything more than a revenue stream? In other words, is the city going to expect any specific services to be provided by participants in the proposed program?

What's involved in the POST-certified Module III?
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:35 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,830
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Yes.....I do have ACTUAL knowledge of such things but it would tak far too much time and space to list it out, not to mention it required divulging of far to much personal information on a public forum then I care to do.

But the costs of employing volunteers is real.....it is not free to the agency. There are things like mandatory internal training, oversight of the volunteer programs, providing of equipment, safety training, sexual harrassement training, computer security training.

Back during the last state budget crisis PDs were not hiring at all, not even reserves because even the cost of employing reserves was more then they could afford.....that I know from first hand knowledge.

I think the mayor who said it cost less than $500 to do a check is out of touch. Heck.....the PD shrink prolly charges that much alone just to do the psych eval, let alone the labor cost of a detective who's prolly making $3-400 a day at least doing your background check which can take many, many hours/days depending on the persons background. That's why PDs try to eliminate as many candidates as possible early on with things like written tests and PFTs before they get to the more costly background check and psych evals and prollygraphs. They don't wanna waste the time and money.

My point is try going thru the actual selection process sometime and you'll find it's not as simple as you want to make it out to be.
Those expenses are based in DEPARTMENT policy, not by the POST Minimum Selection Standards. You are losing sight of this program as a whole. An independent contractor at Level III does NOT necessarily require the same level of vetting as a full time Level I officer. This is SIMPLY a matter of policy development at the department level.

Heck, a policy can be made regarding a special program for these independent contractors that is completely separate from any other department policies. You keep getting hung up on your personal experiences in the past and are losing sight of the fact that policy CAN be made to facilitate this program.

You say "There are things like mandatory internal training, oversight of the volunteer programs, providing of equipment, safety training, sexual harrassement training, computer security training.", but if none of this is required in a department policy, NONE of it applies here.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:36 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,830
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Bumping the letter

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
The following criteria is taken from:
http://www.post.ca.gov/Hiring/Peace_..._Standards.asp which specifies the requirements for California Peace Officers.
Overview of Peace Officer Selection Standards
California peace officers undergo an extensive selection process before they are hired by law enforcement agencies. The role of the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) includes establishing minimum selection standards for peace officers in California and conducting research that results in the development of the tests and procedures used by local law enforcement agencies to adhere to these minimum selection standards.

Minimum Selection Standards

The minimum peace officer selection standards are set forth in Government Code Sections 1029 and 1031. Every California peace officer must be:
--free of any felony convictions;
--a citizen of the United States or a permanent resident alien who is eligible for and has applied for citizenship (CHP officers must be US citizens at time of appointment);
--at least 18 years of age;
--fingerprinted for purposes of search of local, state, and national fingerprint files to disclose any criminal record;
--of good moral character, as determined by a thorough background investigation;
--a high school graduate, pass the General Education Development test or have attained a two-year, four-year, or advanced degree from an accredited or approved institution, and
--found to be free from any physical, emotional, or mental condition which might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer.

California Penal Code Section 830.6 outlines a very specific situation whereby previously vetted pool of auxillary/reserve personnel can be a very valuable resource for our city when pressed into service:

(c) Whenever any person is summoned to the aid of any uniformed
peace officer, the summoned person is vested with the powers of a
peace officer that are expressly delegated to him or her by the
summoning officer or that are otherwise reasonably necessary to
properly assist the officer.



I propose that our city accept applications for contracted special reserve peace officers. These officers must meet the POST Minimum Selection Standards outlined above. These independant contractors will be expected to pay for the administrative fees associated with vetting them for employment. The amount of these fees are to be $1,500.00. Additionally, each applicant will be expected to pay for an annual background check in the amount of $200.00. Each applicant will be expected to attend a handgun training course for a minimum of 16 hours on 2 consecutive days prior to employment and each year thereafter. Independent contractors will be sworn Level III (see definition below) reserve officers ONLY for the purposes outlined in California Penal Code Section 830.6 paragraph (c). Independent contractors are expected to carry a legally concealable weapon (within the legal confines of their location) at all times. These independent contractors are to be paid $1.00 per year for their services. They will be retained in an Administrative Leave status until such time as their services are required under 830.6 paragraph (c).


California Penal Code Section 832.6
(a) Every person deputized or appointed, as described in
subdivision (a) of Section 830.6, shall have the powers of a peace
officer only when the person is any of the following:
...

(3) Level III reserve officers may be deployed and are authorized
only to carry out limited support duties not requiring general law
enforcement powers in their routine performance. Those limited
duties shall include traffic control, security at parades and
sporting events, report taking, evidence transportation, parking
enforcement, and other duties that are not likely to result in
physical arrests. Level III reserve officers while assigned these
duties shall be supervised in the accessible vicinity by a level I
reserve officer or a full-time, regular peace officer employed by a
law enforcement agency authorized to have reserve officers. Level
III reserve officers may transport prisoners without immediate
supervision. Those persons shall have completed the training
required under Section 832 and any other training prescribed by the
commission for those persons.

Since these independent contractors are to be employed but kept in reserve on paid Administrative Leave, they will not be required to attend the California POST training. This is supported in:
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 1007
...

(3) Level III Reserve Peace Officers
(A) Minimum Training Requirement. Every Level III reserve peace officer [defined in PAM, section H-1-2(c)], before being assigned to duties which include the exercise of peace officer powers, shall satisfactorily complete the POST-certified Module III (PAM, section D-1-3).
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:39 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,830
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 383green View Post
Is this proposal being presented to the city as anything more than a revenue stream? In other words, is the city going to expect any specific services to be provided by participants in the proposed program?

What's involved in the POST-certified Module III?
It will be presented as a contract where both parties stand to gain. The contractor becomes a VERY limited officer, and the city retains the balance of the up front administrative fee minus expenses.

POST-certified Module III is only required "...before being assigned to duties...", so it does not apply.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:50 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
An independent contractor at Level III does NOT necessarily require the same level of vetting as a full time Level I officer. This is SIMPLY a matter of policy development at the department level.
I would say you are incorrect in this statement. The vetting process is EXACTLY the same whether you are Level 1 or Level 3.....the only difference is the amount of training required, and the duties one is allowed to perform at the different levels.

ETA: Reserve peace officers are required by Commission Regulations 9050-9055 (pdf) to meet the same selection standards (e.g. personal history investigation and medical and psychological screening) as full-time regular officers. Commission Regulation1007(a) (doc) outlines the minimum training requirements for reserve peace officers.

http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Rese...ficer_Program/

There is no distinction made by POST allowing "less vetting" for level 3 reserves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
You say "There are things like mandatory internal training, oversight of the volunteer programs, providing of equipment, safety training, sexual harrassement training, computer security training.", but if none of this is required in a department policy, NONE of it applies here.
Except that those things are usually made mandatory as a matter of limiting departmental liability. If you are on the roles of the city in any fashion you are liability to the city as well and they will hafta cover their butts. Or you might be required to provide a sizeable liability policy with the city as the beneficiary.

I simply do not see any PD giving out creds and CCW authority to an non-POST trained, non-sworn "private contractor" to carry a weapon off duty. Especially since as a Level 3 reserve your peace officers powers are only in effect WHILE YOU ARE ON DUTY AND SUPERVISED.

So explain to me how you'd be able to carry off duty under the LEO provision when according to the PC a level 3 is only a LEO when he is ON duty?

The reason most PDs don't have level 3 reserves anymore is because it costs to much to hire, train and employ them for the services they can get from them in return.

Also.....don't forget to factor in that there could be some union issues that might arise too. Just something to think about.
__________________
"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; 11-25-2009 at 12:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:57 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
It will be presented as a contract where both parties stand to gain. The contractor becomes a VERY limited officer, and the city retains the balance of the up front administrative fee minus expenses.
I see some potential Equal Opportunity issues with this arrangement. The city could be sued by people who do not have the funds to "buy" a contract from the city.


Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
POST-certified Module III is only required "...before being assigned to duties...", so it does not apply.

I think you are overly-optomistic in the kind of privileges you think you'd be granted a level 3 reserve prior to completing any training. If you're carrying a gun off duty based on creds given to you by the dept.....you are a potential liability to them, hence they they reason they'd likely never give such authority to someone who is not trained and not sworn.


I applaud your thinking outside the box....but I dont see it flying in reality.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 11-25-2009, 11:03 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,830
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
I see some potential Equal Opportunity issues with this arrangement. The city could be sued by people who do not have the funds to "buy" a contract from the city.





I think you are overly-optomistic in the kind of privileges you think you'd be granted a level 3 reserve prior to completing any training. If you're carrying a gun off duty based on creds given to you by the dept.....you are a potential liability to them, hence they they reason they'd likely never give such authority to someone who is not trained and not sworn.


I applaud your thinking outside the box....but I dont see it flying in reality.
Can we discuss, based on membership's experience and expertise, exactly how much liability a PD department would have? Keep in mind that we are talking about an INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR ON PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.

Exactly what kind of liability would the department have if this person gets drunk, gets in a fight, rams their car into someone's house, and then shoots them?
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
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 9:10 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.