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 382 15.34%
$100 309 12.41%
$500 734 29.48%
$1000 514 20.64%
$1500 102 4.10%
$2000 207 8.31%
$5000 127 5.10%
$10000 50 2.01%
$Whatever it takes I'll take out a second mortgage 65 2.61%
Voters: 2490. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #441  
Old 11-25-2009, 11:18 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
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?

Minus the gun....the dept. would have no liability. If the only reason you are being able to carry the gun is because of the creds provided you by the city.....you can damn sure bet the dept. will get named in the suit. They might be excused from suit later, but it would still cost the dept. time, money, and bad PR.

Can you imagine the bad PR for a dept if something like that happened it got to the media that the PD was taking money in exchange for giving untrained people LEO creds and permission to carry guns? That would be a PR disaster. Not to mention could bring into question the trustworthiness of the dept. in the eyes of the community.

In all honesty......I would have zero respect for a PD that would impliment such a program because it seems way to close to accepting bribes. I dont like the notion of a public agency making money off of selling "priviledged status" to anyone. How is this really a whole lot different the contributors to a sheriff's campaign getting CCWs? Yeah...they submitted a proper CCW app, but it got approved because they paid for it with contributions. And so basically you're proposing the same thing. Yeah....you went thru the POST selection procedures, but you got the creds because you paid for it. A public agency simply cannot do that legally.

And I still contend there could be EEO issues with the dept. MAKING money off of essentially selling these contracts.
__________________
"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
  #442  
Old 11-25-2009, 11:29 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
In all honesty......I would have zero respect for a PD that would impliment such a program because it seems way to close to accepting bribes. I dont like the notion of a public agency making money off of selling "priviledged status" to anyone.

How about having zero respect for PDs that won't issue CCWs at all? How about respect for CLEOs who feel they are the only social caste smart enough to carry weapons? How about LEOs who are completely above a set of onerous and arbitrary laws the rest of us must shoulder?

You nailed it when you said "priviledged (sic) status"
Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 11-25-2009, 11:36 AM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,320
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Director View Post
How about having zero respect for PDs that won't issue CCWs at all?
One agency not issuing CCWs at all does not justify another agency granting special privileges in exchange for cash contributions. The first is allowed under state law at this time, like it or not. The second is an easy target for a lawsuit, and I don't see how it's different from a sheriff issuing CCWs only in exchange for cash contributions.
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 11-25-2009, 11:39 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Minus the gun....the dept. would have no liability. If the only reason you are being able to carry the gun is because of the creds provided you by the city.....you can damn sure bet the dept. will get named in the suit. They might be excused from suit later, but it would still cost the dept. time, money, and bad PR.

Can you imagine the bad PR for a dept if something like that happened it got to the media that the PD was taking money in exchange for giving untrained people LEO creds and permission to carry guns? That would be a PR disaster. Not to mention could bring into question the trustworthiness of the dept. in the eyes of the community.

In all honesty......I would have zero respect for a PD that would impliment such a program because it seems way to close to accepting bribes. I dont like the notion of a public agency making money off of selling "priviledged status" to anyone. How is this really a whole lot different the contributors to a sheriff's campaign getting CCWs? Yeah...they submitted a proper CCW app, but it got approved because they paid for it with contributions. And so basically you're proposing the same thing. Yeah....you went thru the POST selection procedures, but you got the creds because you paid for it. A public agency simply cannot do that legally.

And I still contend there could be EEO issues with the dept. MAKING money off of essentially selling these contracts.
"Minus the gun..." so if the contract required the contractor to drive their car, then you would contend that breaking the law using a car would also create a PR nighmare? After all, the gun, the car, etc are just tools.

How much liability and bad PR are associated with a state entity that issues special credentials (a drivers license) to someone who goes out and get in a wreck killing several people? If the credentials are issued per the policies and procedures of the issuing department, the department bears no liability resultant of the actions of the recipient. Further, the fees collected by the department can be used for the general good of society as a whole. I am not bribing DMV when I pay for my driver's license. If they set the DL fee at $500, are you saying the $500 would be considered a bribe? Are you saying DMV would be sued under equal opportunity?
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 11-25-2009, 11:43 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
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?
Please post that PC number or CCR number where you are getting this from. I am not finding it.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 11-25-2009, 11:44 AM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,320
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
If they set the DL fee at $500, are you saying the $500 would be considered a bribe? Are you saying DMV would be sued under equal opportunity?
I think they would be. If they set the fee so far beyond the cost of administering the license that it turned into a profit center, then I think it could be argued that they are in effect discriminating against the poor, much like a poll tax.
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 11-25-2009, 11:47 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Director View Post
How about having zero respect for PDs that won't issue CCWs at all? How about respect for CLEOs who feel they are the only social caste smart enough to carry weapons? How about LEOs who are completely above a set of onerous and arbitrary laws the rest of us must shoulder?

You nailed it when you said "priviledged (sic) status"

I have zero respect for that too, but that is being currently addressed thru legal channels.

What is being proposed here is more of a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach and to me would further encourage corruption and the selling of rights/priviledges by public agencies which is not something I want to support or encourage in the least.
__________________
"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
  #448  
Old 11-25-2009, 11:47 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 383green View Post
One agency not issuing CCWs at all does not justify another agency granting special privileges in exchange for cash contributions. The first is allowed under state law at this time, like it or not. The second is an easy target for a lawsuit, and I don't see how it's different from a sheriff issuing CCWs only in exchange for cash contributions.
I see it as completely different from giving an individual money for a political campaign. The balance of the administrative fee goes into the general fund to be used for the benefit of society as a whole. Political contributions in no way benefit society as a whole. The two examples are completely dissimiliar in nature and scope.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 11-25-2009, 11:52 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The only LEOs who have 24/7 authority are Level 1 reserves and full-time officers. Level 2 & 3 reserves only have limited authority while on duty and under the supervision of a Level 1 reserve ot full-time officer.

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

Level III Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(2)

Level III reserve officers may perform specified limited support duties, and other duties that are not likely to result in physical arrests, while supervised in the accessible vicinity by a Level I reserve officer or a full-time regular officer. Additionally, Level III reserve officers may transport prisoners without immediate supervision.
__________________
"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
  #450  
Old 11-25-2009, 11:52 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by 383green View Post
special privileges
You are the second person to use this phrase. Doesn't it bother you? What makes a certain class of people more special than others? Nothing that I can discern within constitution.

If you think selling "special privileges" is wrong, certainly granting them to only a certain subset of society is just as wrong.

Don't like the idea? Don't get the LEO creds when the plan gets sorted out.
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 11-25-2009, 11:56 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 383green View Post
I think they would be. If they set the fee so far beyond the cost of administering the license that it turned into a profit center, then I think it could be argued that they are in effect discriminating against the poor, much like a poll tax.
Would you also argue that the current CA DMV DL fee of $28 is discriminatory against the homeless? Is the driving requirement discriminitory against that population since they can't afford to own a car? That fee goes back to fund an agency, so is it a bribe simply because some can't afford it?
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:00 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
The only LEOs who have 24/7 authority are Level 1 reserves and full-time officers. Level 2 & 3 reserves only have limited authority while on duty and under the supervision of a Level 1 reserve ot full-time officer.

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

Level III Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(2)

Level III reserve officers may perform specified limited support duties, and other duties that are not likely to result in physical arrests, while supervised in the accessible vicinity by a Level I reserve officer or a full-time regular officer. Additionally, Level III reserve officers may transport prisoners without immediate supervision.
SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.


Where in HR218 does it say anything about needing 24/7 authority?
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:00 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
I see it as completely different from giving an individual money for a political campaign. The balance of the administrative fee goes into the general fund to be used for the benefit of society as a whole. Political contributions in no way benefit society as a whole. The two examples are completely dissimiliar in nature and scope.

You are still essentially BUYING creditials and the associated privileges that go with from a public agency. If this is such a good idea why don't public agencies just make a business out of selling all kinds of other goods and services and privileges to those willing to pay for them as well?


I also think there is a disconnect in the "private contractor" part of your plan. In employment terms you are either an employee OR a contractor. You can't be both. To qualifiy as a LEO you must go thru the selection process as outlined and be EMPLOYED by a recognized LEA. An employee cannot be a contractor. There are specific criteria on the distictions between the 2, and hence I don't think a reserve officer under any conditions could legally qualify as a contractor. This is one of those areas that companies try to exploit all the time to try and avoid taxes and workers comp and all that stuff and they get busted for it all the time.

So if you propose the "private contractor" aspect as means to limit liability and cost to the city, then you've just negated the whole purpose of your idea because to be a LEO you must be EMPLOYED by the dept. Otherwise if a PD could do this why not just have all their full time LEOs be classified as contractors as well so they could avoid all the costs of having employees?
__________________
"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
  #454  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:05 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
I also think there is a disconnect in the "private contractor" part of your plan. ...I don't think a reserve officer under any conditions could legally qualify as a contractor.
Can we stay firmly rooted in the letter of the law? Please provide a PC or CCR citation that provides a foundation for "I think".
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:06 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
Where in HR218 does it say anything about needing 24/7 authority?

You are comparing state law to federal law.


And has been stated NUMEROUS times in this thread your ability to carry off duty it ultimately decided by your Dept's policy. If dept. policy does not allow you to carry off duty then to do so puts you at risk of being fired for violation of dept. policy hence losing your LEO status.


And it could be contended that if only have LEO status when on duty per the legal terms of your state then when you're off duty you wouldn't technically be a LEO hence HR218 wouldn't apply to you now would it since any of the listed critera you quoted only aplly to you when you're on duty.


Check out the pdf.....it clearly shows a level 3 has authority "Only for the duration of the person’s specific assignment".

http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Rese...OP-summary.pdf
__________________
"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 12:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:14 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
You are comparing state law to federal law.


And has been stated NUMEROUS times in this thread your ability to carry off duty it ultimately decided by your Dept's policy. If dept. policy does not allow you to carry off duty then to do so puts you at risk of being fired for violation of dept. policy hence losing your LEO status.


And it could be contended that if only have LEO status when on duty per the legal terms of your state then when you're off duty you wouldn't technically be a LEO hence HR218 wouldn't apply to you now would it since any of the listed critera you quoted only aplly to you when you're on duty.
Umm...I think that it would be very safe to say that none of us would enter into this type of arrangement if department policy did not allow off duty carry. As such, this is simply a none-issue at this point of the discussion.

I have seen no mention of a CA PC or CCR that states an off duty LEO has no LEO status???

Again, please give citations of CA PC or CCR related to your postings.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:16 PM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,320
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
Would you also argue that the current CA DMV DL fee of $28 is discriminatory against the homeless?
Not if the $28 fee reasonably covers expenses of administering the license. If the DMV arbitrarily tacked on another $462 of pure profit on top of that, then I think it may be challengeable in court.

Quote:
Is the driving requirement discriminitory against that population since they can't afford to own a car?
That's not a valid argument. The price of the car is not a fee imposed by the agency as a condition of getting the license. A person does not need to purchase a car in order to obtain a driver's license. They don't even need to purchase a car in order to exercise the privilege granted by that license, since a car may be borrowed, rented or gifted.

Quote:
That fee goes back to fund an agency, so is it a bribe simply because some can't afford it?
I'm not sure; I have some skepticism and concern about this. I'm not fundamentally opposed to this idea, but I have concerns that I would like to hash out.

I think it's important to consider this angle in any case, because I think a program like this would draw a lot of attention from the anti-gun crowd, and they'd look for any excuse to stop it or slow it down. If this smells enough like corruption, even if it actually isn't, then a city enacting this program could face financial liability from lawsuits brought by anti-gun activists. Even if the city could successfully defend themselves from such lawsuits, this would be a financial liability that they'd need to carefully balance against the expected revenue from the program.
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:19 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
Can we stay firmly rooted in the letter of the law? Please provide a PC or CCR citation that provides a foundation for "I think".
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_indep...contractor.htm

Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal;


Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer;


Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;


The alleged employee’s investment in the equipment or materials required by his or her task or his or her employment of helpers;


Whether the service rendered requires a special skill;


The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;


The alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill;


The length of time for which the services are to be performed;


The degree of permanence of the working relationship;


The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and


Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship may have some bearing on the question, but is not determinative since this is a question of law based on objective tests.



Simply by the mere fact that a level 3 may not perform ANY duty unsupervised would likely in and of itself disqualify them as a contractor, as well the fact tht you would be contracting with only ONE dept. and that the term of your contract is indefinite rather then for the completion of a specific job for a specified time all would point to you being an employee NOT a contractor.
__________________
"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
  #459  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:24 PM
thefinger's Avatar
thefinger thefinger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sacto.
Posts: 1,604
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Of course this is different from getting a ccw license by making contributions to someone's political campaign. The money goes towards services to the public if choprzrul's plan goes through, not an individual' political campaign. The two cases are vastly different.

@ Untamed:
You seem to just have a gut feeling that this is the wrong way to go about finding a way for people to exercize their rights. And I know a lot of cops personally who would say the same thing. And you know what, I think it boils down to the culture of the LEO brotherhood. My father is a retired cop and I know that he still highly values being a part of the LEO club, which is like a fraternity. To have others try to get into the club without paying the cost of membership (going through POST academy) is unsettling and angering. Like if your frat in college started admitting members without making them pledge, it is unpalatable. But you need to look at this from another angle. Imagine if you were a regular joe who wanted a ccw, but your sheriff refused to issue you one. Would you be satisfied just waiting around for the law to change? I'm betting not.

I think that if LE departments want to maintain the purity of their fraternity they should just respect the 2A rights of regular citizens and issue ccw's so we don't ALL become appointed LEOs in order to get legal ccw. Maybe this method we're all discussing will put some pressure on local sheriff's from their deputies to issue more ccw so their badge will continue to mean something special.
__________________
كافر INFIDEL
SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:25 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
Umm...I think that it would be very safe to say that none of us would enter into this type of arrangement if department policy did not allow off duty carry. As such, this is simply a none-issue at this point of the discussion.

I have seen no mention of a CA PC or CCR that states an off duty LEO has no LEO status???

Again, please give citations of CA PC or CCR related to your postings.
For the 2nd time!

Check out the pdf.....it clearly shows a level 3 has authority "Only for the duration of the person’s specific assignment".

http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Rese...OP-summary.pdf


The reason fulltime LEOs are allowed to carry off duty is because they are considered LEOs 24/7 and therefore may act in an offical capacity even when "off duty". Level 2 and 3 reserves do not have that capacity, they may only act as LEOs when supervised. If you dont beleive me, start calling some PDs and enquire about their reserve programs and whether 2s & 3s are allowed to carry off duty......that is, if you can even find a PD that still has 2s & 3s.
__________________
"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
  #461  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:30 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefinger View Post
Of course this is different from getting a ccw license by making contributions to someone's political campaign. The money goes towards services to the public if choprzrul's plan goes through, not an individual' political campaign. The two cases are vastly different.

@ Untamed:
You seem to just have a gut feeling that this is the wrong way to go about finding a way for people to exercize their rights. And I know a lot of cops personally who would say the same thing. And you know what, I think it boils down to the culture of the LEO brotherhood. My father is a retired cop and I know that he still highly values being a part of the LEO club, which is like a fraternity. To have others try to get into the club without paying the cost of membership (going through POST academy) is unsettling and angering. Like if your frat in college started admitting members without making them pledge, it is unpalatable. But you need to look at this from another angle. Imagine if you were a regular joe who wanted a ccw, but your sheriff refused to issue you one. Would you be satisfied just waiting around for the law to change? I'm betting not.

I think that if LE departments want to maintain the purity of their fraternity they should just respect the 2A rights of regular citizens and issue ccw's so we don't ALL become appointed LEOs in order to get legal ccw. Maybe this method we're all discussing will put some pressure on local sheriff's from their deputies to issue more ccw so their badge will continue to mean something special.

For LEOs in CA who like to brag about all the special treatment they get.....yeah that would likely be why they'd be against it.

I'm not a LEO.....I am against it because I dont want to encourage the gov't on any level, fed, state, or local to get the notion that they can start selling me my rights back to fund their waste, fraud and abuse. Especially when it comes to the one agency in your community who is SUPPOSED to be the most upright, moral and ethical of them all and who have sworn to respect the rights of the people.

So as much as waiting for things to work thru the legal system sucks, I'd rather fight the battle the right way and win a REAL victory then to join in the corrupt system and engage in actions which just encourage further corruption.
__________________
"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
  #462  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:32 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
Would you also argue that the current CA DMV DL fee of $28 is discriminatory against the homeless? Is the driving requirement discriminitory against that population since they can't afford to own a car? That fee goes back to fund an agency, so is it a bribe simply because some can't afford it?

you're comparing apples and oranges on that one man.
__________________
"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
  #463  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:36 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
For the 2nd time!

Check out the pdf.....it clearly shows a level 3 has authority "Only for the duration of the person’s specific assignment".

http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Rese...OP-summary.pdf


The reason fulltime LEOs are allowed to carry off duty is because they are considered LEOs 24/7 and therefore may act in an offical capacity even when "off duty". Level 2 and 3 reserves do not have that capacity, they may only act as LEOs when supervised. If you dont beleive me, start calling some PDs and enquire about their reserve programs and whether 2s & 3s are allowed to carry off duty......that is, if you can even find a PD that still has 2s & 3s.
2 things:

1) broken link, will not work in my browser.
2) POST regulations do not trump PC or CCR
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:41 PM
thefinger's Avatar
thefinger thefinger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sacto.
Posts: 1,604
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
For LEOs in CA who like to brag about all the special treatment they get.....yeah that would likely be why they'd be against it.

I'm not a LEO.....I am against it because I dont want to encourage the gov't on any level, fed, state, or local to get the notion that they can start selling me my rights back to fund their waste, fraud and abuse. Especially when it comes to the one agency in your community who is SUPPOSED to be the most upright, moral and ethical of them all and who have sworn to respect the rights of the people.

So as much as waiting for things to work thru the legal system sucks, I'd rather fight the battle the right way and win a REAL victory then to join in the corrupt system and engage in actions which just encourage further corruption.
So you don't think you're paying for a ccw when you pay $500+ in fees to apply for one in pro-ccw counties? Even in shall-issue states they still charge $500-1000 in fees to get a license. Its unrealistic to think our state will do anything different. Either way we're going to be paying money to the government for a license to carry. Its not like if we become a shall-issue state its going to be free.
__________________
كافر INFIDEL
SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:44 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Bumping the text of the letter I am going to submit to my mayor per our conversation this morning. Please add comments that will help support this position, based in the letter of the LAW. Please post any findings with a link or citation to where you found it.

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
  #466  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:49 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
2 things:

1) broken link, will not work in my browser.
2) POST regulations do not trump PC or CCR
http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Rese...ficer_Program/


The duties allowed for different levels of reserves are in the PC and a matter of law.
__________________
"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 12:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:58 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefinger View Post
So you don't think you're paying for a ccw when you pay $500+ in fees to apply for one in pro-ccw counties? Even in shall-issue states they still charge $500-1000 in fees to get a license. Its unrealistic to think our state will do anything different. Either way we're going to be paying money to the government for a license to carry. Its not like if we become a shall-issue state its going to be free.

That is different, because it would be available to EVERYONE provided they can pay the fee.

What you propose will NOT be available to everyone because not everyone can meet the selection criteria as required by the law, hence it would still only be available to SOME people and not equally available to all. And I still see it opening the door for further corruption and abuse which is exactly the opposite of what we're working towards. This does not encourage the respecting the rights of ALL citizens.
__________________
"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
  #468  
Old 11-25-2009, 12:58 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
For the 2nd time!

Check out the pdf.....it clearly shows a level 3 has authority "Only for the duration of the person’s specific assignment".

http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Rese...OP-summary.pdf


The reason fulltime LEOs are allowed to carry off duty is because they are considered LEOs 24/7 and therefore may act in an offical capacity even when "off duty". Level 2 and 3 reserves do not have that capacity, they may only act as LEOs when supervised. If you dont beleive me, start calling some PDs and enquire about their reserve programs and whether 2s & 3s are allowed to carry off duty......that is, if you can even find a PD that still has 2s & 3s.
Direct quote from the link Untamed provides above:

Level III Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(2)
Level III reserve officers may perform specified limited support duties, and other duties that are not likely to result in physical arrests, while supervised in the accessible vicinity by a Level I reserve officer or a full-time regular officer. Additionally, Level III reserve officers may transport prisoners without immediate supervision.

Your post very plainly displays the following direct quote and uses quotation marks: "Only for the duration of the person’s specific assignment". Yet, when I search the document on the link you provide, that quote is not found. You are making arguments using quotations and citations that I am unable to verify. Perhaps someone else can attempt to verify the authenticity of Untamed quotations as I am unable to do so.

I wonder how many Level III LEOs would take you to task on your assertion that they are only LEOs from 9 to 5? That they somehow lose their LEO status upon clocking out.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #469  
Old 11-25-2009, 1:00 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Rese...ficer_Program/


The duties allowed for different levels of reserves are in the PC and a matter of law.
Again, please show me where you are finding this in the CA Penal Code or the California Code of Regulations.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #470  
Old 11-25-2009, 1:02 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
Direct quote from the link Untamed provides above:

Level III Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(2)
Level III reserve officers may perform specified limited support duties, and other duties that are not likely to result in physical arrests, while supervised in the accessible vicinity by a Level I reserve officer or a full-time regular officer. Additionally, Level III reserve officers may transport prisoners without immediate supervision.

Your post very plainly displays the following direct quote and uses quotation marks: "Only for the duration of the person’s specific assignment". Yet, when I search the document on the link you provide, that quote is not found. You are making arguments using quotations and citations that I am unable to verify. Perhaps someone else can attempt to verify the authenticity of Untamed quotations as I am unable to do so.

I wonder how many Level III LEOs would take you to task on your assertion that they are only LEOs from 9 to 5? That they somehow lose their LEO status upon clocking out.
Go to the bottom of this page I linkd and clink on the link that says "Peace Officer Status Summary Table" it will take you to a PDF table where I copied and pasted that quote from smart ***. You asked for the links and law....I gave it to you....you just hafta read it!

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

direct link to the PDF if you're not smart enough to find it on your own

http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Rese...OP-summary.pdf
__________________
"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
  #471  
Old 11-25-2009, 1:04 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
That is different, because it would be available to EVERYONE provided they can pay the fee.

What you propose will NOT be available to everyone because not everyone can meet the selection criteria as required by the law, hence it would still only be available to SOME people and not equally available to all. And I still see it opening the door for further corruption and abuse which is exactly the opposite of what we're working towards. This does not encourage the respecting the rights of ALL citizens.
Of course everyone cannot meet the criteria, but do you see LEA getting sued because not everyone meets their criteria? Where exactly do you see corruption happening? The fees would be paid to the city's administrative offices, not the PD. This is not like writing a campaign check to a candidate, the same as I don't write the check for my water bill to "Mary Smith" working the window at city hall that day.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman

Last edited by choprzrul; 11-25-2009 at 1:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #472  
Old 11-25-2009, 1:06 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Go to the bottom of this page I linkd and clink on the link that says "Peace Officer Status Summary Table" it will take you to a PDF table where I copied and pasted that quote from smart ***. You asked for the links and law....I gave it to you....you just hafta read it!

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

direct link to the PDF if you're not smart enough to find it on your own

http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Rese...OP-summary.pdf
You are contending that "RESERVE PEACE OFFICER STATUS SUMMARY – JULY 2008" pdf document found on the internet is the law of the land and trumps PC and CCR?
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #473  
Old 11-25-2009, 1:07 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
Again, please show me where you are finding this in the CA Penal Code or the California Code of Regulations.
830.6. (a) (1) Whenever any qualified person is deputized or
appointed by the proper authority as a reserve or auxiliary sheriff
or city police officer, a reserve deputy sheriff, a reserve deputy
marshal, a reserve police officer of a regional park district or of a
transit district, a reserve park ranger, a reserve harbor or port
police officer of a county, city, or district as specified in Section
663.5 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, a reserve deputy of the
Department of Fish and Game, a reserve special agent of the
Department of Justice, a reserve officer of a community service
district which is authorized under subdivision (h) of Section 61600
of the Government Code to maintain a police department or other
police protection, a reserve officer of a school district police
department under Section 35021.5 of the Education Code, a reserve
officer of a community college police department under Section 72330,
a reserve officer of a police protection district formed under Part
1 (commencing with Section 20000) of Division 14 of the Health and
Safety Code, or a reserve housing authority patrol officer employed
by a housing authority defined in subdivision (d) of Section 830.31,
and is assigned specific police functions by that authority, the
person is a peace officer, if the person qualifies as set forth in
Section 832.6. The authority of a person designated as a peace
officer pursuant to this paragraph extends only for the duration of
the person's specific assignment. A reserve park ranger or a transit,
harbor, or port district reserve officer may carry firearms only if
authorized by, and under those terms and conditions as are specified
by, his or her employing agency.



Doesn't get much more clear that does it? Perhaps you should read the WHOLE code sections before you start talkin' smack!
__________________
"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
  #474  
Old 11-25-2009, 1:10 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
You are contending that "RESERVE PEACE OFFICER STATUS SUMMARY – JULY 2008" pdf document found on the internet is the law of the land and trumps PC and CCR?
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:
(1) A level I reserve officer deputized or appointed pursuant to
paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) or subdivision (b) of Section
830.6 and assigned to the prevention and detection of crime and the
general enforcement of the laws of this state, whether or not working
alone, and the person has completed the basic training course for
deputy sheriffs and police officers prescribed by the Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training. For level I reserve officers
appointed prior to January 1, 1997, the basic training requirement
shall be the course that was prescribed at the time of their
appointment. Reserve officers appointed pursuant to this paragraph
shall satisfy the continuing professional training requirement
prescribed by the commission.
(2) A level II reserve officer assigned to the prevention and
detection of crime and the general enforcement of the laws of this
state while under the immediate supervision of a peace officer who
has completed the basic training course for deputy sheriffs and
police officers prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training, and the level II reserve officer has
completed the course required by Section 832 and any other training
prescribed by the commission.
Level II reserve officers appointed pursuant to this paragraph may
be assigned, without immediate supervision, to those limited duties
that are authorized for level III reserve officers pursuant to
paragraph (3). Reserve officers appointed pursuant to this paragraph
shall satisfy the continuing professional training requirement
prescribed by the commission.
(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.


No....but the PDF is from CA POST who writes the stardards that become that law as quoted here smart ***!

Would you care to continue talking smack?

BTW all of these code sections were quoted as the header for each reserve level shown on the POST webpage I linked. So it was all there....you just didn't read it because it wasn't telling you what you wanted to hear.
__________________
"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
  #475  
Old 11-25-2009, 1:15 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

For review, here is the California Penal Code section that applies:

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.


Here is the California Code of Regulations section that applies:

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).

The emphasis areas are critical here. As soon as you are hired, you "is" a LEO under the Penal Code. The CCR very plainly specifies that "...before being assigned..." you have to complete the training. There is naturally an interim period between being hired and being trained. It is at this state of "is" that we are concerned. You are a LEO, you have the agency issued ID & badge, but you have not yet attended training. As long as department policy allows you to carry a weapon, you fall under HR218.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #476  
Old 11-25-2009, 1:21 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
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.


No....but the PDF is from CA POST who writes the stardards that become that law as quoted here smart ***!

Would you care to continue talking smack?

BTW all of these code sections were quoted as the header for each reserve level shown on the POST webpage I linked. So it was all there....you just didn't read it because it wasn't telling you what you wanted to hear.
Oh my, where do I begin. First, no matter how hard you try, I will not resort to calling you names. Secondly, read the paragraph in its entirety, not cherry picking parts, highlighting them, and reassembling to support your argument. When you consider 832.6(a)(3), you must consider context. Perhaps this will help: "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." The paragraph plainly contains more than one thought.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #477  
Old 11-25-2009, 1:26 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
For review, here is the California Penal Code section that applies:

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.


Here is the California Code of Regulations section that applies:

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).

The emphasis areas are critical here. As soon as you are hired, you "is" a LEO under the Penal Code. The CCR very plainly specifies that "...before being assigned..." you have to complete the training. There is naturally an interim period between being hired and being trained. It is at this state of "is" that we are concerned. You are a LEO, you have the agency issued ID & badge, but you have not yet attended training. As long as department policy allows you to carry a weapon, you fall under HR218.
And right there is the whole in your plan. That aint ever gonna happen. Why would a dept who won't issue a CCW which has nearly zero cost and NO liability to them go to the expense of hiring you as a reserve and give you permission to carry a gun with no training and not being a sworn officer?

You might have a dept. emplyee ID, but you don't get a badge till you're sworn in, which doesn't happen till you've finshed training.
__________________
"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
  #478  
Old 11-25-2009, 1:26 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
830.6. (a) (1) Whenever any qualified person is deputized or
appointed by the proper authority as a reserve or auxiliary sheriff
or city police officer, a reserve deputy sheriff, a reserve deputy
marshal, a reserve police officer of a regional park district or of a
transit district, a reserve park ranger, a reserve harbor or port
police officer of a county, city, or district as specified in Section
663.5 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, a reserve deputy of the
Department of Fish and Game, a reserve special agent of the
Department of Justice, a reserve officer of a community service
district which is authorized under subdivision (h) of Section 61600
of the Government Code to maintain a police department or other
police protection, a reserve officer of a school district police
department under Section 35021.5 of the Education Code, a reserve
officer of a community college police department under Section 72330,
a reserve officer of a police protection district formed under Part
1 (commencing with Section 20000) of Division 14 of the Health and
Safety Code, or a reserve housing authority patrol officer employed
by a housing authority defined in subdivision (d) of Section 830.31,
and is assigned specific police functions by that authority, the
person is a peace officer, if the person qualifies as set forth in
Section 832.6. The authority of a person designated as a peace
officer pursuant to this paragraph extends only for the duration of
the person's specific assignment. A reserve park ranger or a transit,
harbor, or port district reserve officer may carry firearms only if
authorized by, and under those terms and conditions as are specified
by, his or her employing agency.



Doesn't get much more clear that does it? Perhaps you should read the WHOLE code sections before you start talkin' smack!
I completely agree with your emphasis quote above: "The authority of a person designated as a peace officer pursuant to this paragraph extends only for the duration of the person's specific assignment. A reserve park ranger or a transit, harbor, or port district reserve officer may carry firearms only if
authorized by, and under those terms and conditions as are specified
by, his or her employing agency." This is all about "...the person's specific assignment..." as a Level III reserve officer. Thank you for grabbing this section of code for me.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #479  
Old 11-25-2009, 1:30 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
Oh my, where do I begin. First, no matter how hard you try, I will not resort to calling you names. Secondly, read the paragraph in its entirety, not cherry picking parts, highlighting them, and reassembling to support your argument. When you consider 832.6(a)(3), you must consider context. Perhaps this will help: "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." The paragraph plainly contains more than one thought.
You asked me to show you where in the PC is says a LEVEL 3 only has authority on duty. I showed you! And BTW where it says "training prescribed by the commission for those persons" that means the "Commision on Police Officer Standards and Training" ie "POST". So when you look at the POST website it IS the law! The sections I quoted you are the same sections that POST cites regarding the authority of level 3 reserves. Are you saying they dont know what they're talking 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
Reply With Quote
  #480  
Old 11-25-2009, 1:31 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
And right there is the whole in your plan. That aint ever gonna happen. Why would a dept who won't issue a CCW which has nearly zero cost and NO liability to them go to the expense of hiring you as a reserve and give you permission to carry a gun with no training and not being a sworn officer?

You might have a dept. emplyee ID, but you don't get a badge till you're sworn in, which doesn't happen till you've finshed training.
My most humble apologies, I fear that you have been mislead. We are in search of a sympathetic department to partner with. We are not advocating doing this with every department in the state, just very specific ones. CA law does not have any kind of residency requirements, so anyone throughout the state or anywhere in the other 49 states can apply.

I now see why you are aguing so strongly. I completely agree with your assertion that an agency that would turn down your CCW would not hire you as a reserver officer. Perhaps you can help us identify those agencies that would be impossible to work with, it would be a big help.
__________________
"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 1:19 AM.




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.