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 373 15.34%
$100 305 12.55%
$500 716 29.45%
$1000 497 20.44%
$1500 102 4.20%
$2000 202 8.31%
$5000 125 5.14%
$10000 49 2.02%
$Whatever it takes I'll take out a second mortgage 62 2.55%
Voters: 2431. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #561  
Old 11-30-2009, 12:59 PM
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 curtisfong View Post
Don't forget the reason Baca is doing it this way. He could, of course, simply issue a CCW instead. However, that would make it subject to a PRAR....
Excuse the stupidity...what's a PRAR?
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 11-30-2009, 1:02 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,511
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Director View Post
Excuse the stupidity...what's a PRAR?
Public Records Act Request

Basically, step 1 when you get denied a CCW in a may issue state. Find out who got CCWs, and try to prove (in court) that your good cause is at least as good as others who have succeeded.
Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 11-30-2009, 1:04 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 22,721
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

PRAR = public records act request, CA version of a FOIA
__________________
Jack
Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 11-30-2009, 1:11 PM
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

Ah, got it thanks guys.

Yes, obviously a CCW on record would be bad, especially if you are denying them to law abiding citizens and giving them only to the elite. Baca made a tactical move, as obviously other CLEOs have done.

Which is why we'll never get to know exactly who has these powers...no publicly searchable records......very nice.
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 11-30-2009, 1:40 PM
dansgold dansgold is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's amazing how we have gone from some offering the opinion (with a tone of absolute certainty) that "No department would ever, ever, ever, evvvaaarrrr do such a thing"

to

We can confirm that all sorts of agencies and departments are doing it all the time ... "business as usual"

Another tidbit in the news: Has anyone noted that Tiger Woods lives in a gated community for the rich/famous which has established itself as a separate, incoroprated town with its own police force, and the community association electing the mayor and appointing the chief of police? It seems the whole "buy a town" idea is "business as usual" as well.
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 11-30-2009, 1:49 PM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 8,867
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansgold View Post
Another tidbit in the news: Has anyone noted that Tiger Woods lives in a gated community for the rich/famous which has established itself as a separate, incoroprated town with its own police force, and the community association electing the mayor and appointing the chief of police? It seems the whole "buy a town" idea is "business as usual" as well.
No one has disputed this fact in this thread that I can remember. But it's been mentioned several times that incorporating and running a municipality is a very big endeavor.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 11-30-2009, 1:53 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,814
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansgold View Post
It's amazing how we have gone from some offering the opinion (with a tone of absolute certainty) that "No department would ever, ever, ever, evvvaaarrrr do such a thing"

to

We can confirm that all sorts of agencies and departments are doing it all the time ... "business as usual"

Another tidbit in the news: Has anyone noted that Tiger Woods lives in a gated community for the rich/famous which has established itself as a separate, incoroprated town with its own police force, and the community association electing the mayor and appointing the chief of police? It seems the whole "buy a town" idea is "business as usual" as well.
I am looking forward, with great eagerness, to what we will know by Christmas. Look at how far we have come in the 22 days since this thread began. You guys ROCK!
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 11-30-2009, 1:53 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,898
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansgold View Post
It's amazing how we have gone from some offering the opinion (with a tone of absolute certainty) that "No department would ever, ever, ever, evvvaaarrrr do such a thing"

to

We can confirm that all sorts of agencies and departments are doing it all the time ... "business as usual"

Another tidbit in the news: Has anyone noted that Tiger Woods lives in a gated community for the rich/famous which has established itself as a separate, incoroprated town with its own police force, and the community association electing the mayor and appointing the chief of police? It seems the whole "buy a town" idea is "business as usual" as well.

And why did Baca's program get shut down after only 6 months? Because one of the 20 people who participated promptly went out and flashed his gun and badge at someone w/o cause, and another indicted for money laundering. IE.....VERY BAD PR for the dept. All it would take is for 1 or 2 bad apples in your program to screw it up for everyone because the "priviledge" being granted to you as a "special reserve officer" could be taken away from you in a heart beat at the whim of the CoP or Sheriff (or whoever replaces him when he retires or loses the next election) or at the uring of the city counsel if someone in the program screws up.

So altough you might be able to "buy" this special privilege, realize that what you are doing does not secure a "right" like pressuring for shall-issue CCW would.
__________________
"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
  #569  
Old 11-30-2009, 1:54 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,814
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
No one has disputed this fact in this thread that I can remember. But it's been mentioned several times that incorporating and running a municipality is a very big endeavor.
Agreed a1c. That is why we started searching for Incorporated cities that might be CCW friendly.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 11-30-2009, 2:11 PM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 2,692
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

IIRC Isn't the basic 832 class that lets LEO's buy handguns without a HSC a 40 hour class?
Here's what I was thinking of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
64 hours sounds like they will be required to take the POST PC832 Laws of Arrest course which is a 40 hours, and the POST PC832 Firearms course which is 24 hours and can be taken at numerous community colleges around the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Director View Post
From the LA Times Archives....
64 hours? Are you bull****ting me? Where are all you guys screaming about POST requirements now?
This is definitive proof that a CLEO can and will grant a special reserve status to whomever he pleases with a minimum of training. That's eight days of training, in LASD's case, people.
So what if the program was cancelled. The point is that they did it legally.
__________________

...... you cant have no idea how little I care "

Monte (Tom Selleck) - 'Monte Walsh'

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger--and I won't."

John Wayne as John Bernard (J. B.) Books in The Shootist

Last edited by Sgt Raven; 11-30-2009 at 2:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 11-30-2009, 2:13 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,898
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Raven View Post
IIRC Isn't the basic 832 class that lets LEO's buy handguns without a HSC a 40 hour class?
I believe it is the 24 hour 832 firearms class that gets you out of the HSC requirement. Some colleges require the 40 hour laws of arrest class as a pre-req for taking the firearms class though.
__________________
"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; 11-30-2009 at 2:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 11-30-2009, 2:19 PM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 2,692
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
I believe it is the 24 hour 832 firearms class that gets you out of the HSC requirement. Some colleges require the 40 hour laws of arrest class as a pre-req for taking the firearms class though.
Yeah I saw your post after I made mine. I forgot that there was 2 separate parts to the 832 classes.
__________________

...... you cant have no idea how little I care "

Monte (Tom Selleck) - 'Monte Walsh'

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger--and I won't."

John Wayne as John Bernard (J. B.) Books in The Shootist

Last edited by Sgt Raven; 11-30-2009 at 2:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 11-30-2009, 2:22 PM
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 a1c View Post
No one has disputed this fact in this thread that I can remember. But it's been mentioned several times that incorporating and running a municipality is a very big endeavor.
I think some of the LEOs and detractors posted here and acted like we were perpetrating some sort of fraud, and now it's abundantly clear that there are many LEAs and many CLEOs who are granting the sorts of privileges routinely.

Also, many LEOs were under the mistaken impression that we were seeking powers of arrest and clearly that is not the thrust of this movement. I don't think anyone here wants to actually actively perform LE duties. I know I don't.
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 11-30-2009, 2:26 PM
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
And why did Baca's program get shut down after only 6 months? Because one of the 20 people who participated promptly went out and flashed his gun and badge at someone w/o cause, and another indicted for money laundering. IE.....VERY BAD PR for the dept. All it would take is for 1 or 2 bad apples in your program to screw it up for everyone because the "priviledge" being granted to you as a "special reserve officer" could be taken away from you in a heart beat at the whim of the CoP or Sheriff (or whoever replaces him when he retires or loses the next election) or at the uring of the city counsel if someone in the program screws up.

So altough you might be able to "buy" this special privilege, realize that what you are doing does not secure a "right" like pressuring for shall-issue CCW would.
Just a risk we need to take. People misuse firearms every day, making the rest of us look bad and subject to punitive and retaliatory legislation. Nothing we can do about that.

And just so you know, when we get this thing up and running I'm charging you double just for the fight you've put up!
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 11-30-2009, 2:39 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,898
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Director View Post
And just so you know, when we get this thing up and running I'm charging you double just for the fight you've put up!


Nice to see the corruption and abuse already creeping in. But then again you assume I'd even want to participate. I have no desire to kiss the arse of some corrupt CoP to buy a privilege that he can take away in heart beat because of some other idiot's screw-ups.

I think it's funny how people even in this thread act with outrage about this "special privilege" being granted to some, but then turn around and basically say "but if you do it for me too then I'm ok with it."

I think our rights should be respected by the law and those sworn to uphold it. I dont want the CoP or an elected Sheriff deciding that right for me......let alone paying them for the privilege of doing what is already my right only to have them take it away because of political whim.
__________________
"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
  #576  
Old 11-30-2009, 2:46 PM
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
Nice to see the corruption and abuse already creeping in. But then again you assume I'd even want to participate. I have no desire to kiss the arse of some corrupt CoP to buy a privilege that he can take away in heart beat because of some other idiot's screw-ups.

I think it's funny how people even in this thread act with outrage about this "special privilege" being granted to some, but then turn around and basically say "but if you do it for me too then I'm ok with it."

I think our rights should be respected by the law and those sworn to uphold it. I dont want the CoP or an elected Sheriff deciding that right for me......let alone paying them for the privilege of doing what is already my right only to have them take it away because of political whim.
Lighten up dude it was a joke.
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 11-30-2009, 3:17 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,898
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Director View Post
Lighten up dude it was a joke.

After the immature bashing I took in this thread for simply pointing people to what the law says.....I'm not inclined to.


And for the record I am not "fighting against" this idea. I was simply pointing out things for those pursuing this to consider when it comes to how public agencies operate and why I didn't think it would work, for which I got treated to some jr. high school level name calling responses.


But for the record.....I don't support it either. Not because I'm a LEO or I'm protecting anyone or anything. I'm a regular Joe like most everyone else here. I don't support it because I think it starts leaning towards a trend of sending the message that if you take enough rights away from people that they will end up being willing to buy them back from you as a "privilege". That's not a trend I like to see gain ground. Nor do I want to see public agencies that are already bloated on mismanaged tax dollars to start getting the notion of "selling privileges" to the communities they are supposed to be serving to further fund their mismanaged agencies.


There is that saying "If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem." I don't see this as being a solution to any problem. It doesn't encourage fiscal responsibility on the part of the participating agency, it enables the irresponsibility. It doesn't solve the lack of respect for the 2A by our state and local governments, it encourages further disrespect for it. It doesn't encourage honesty in our public officals, it lays the ground work for further corruption. And it is my personal feeling that this is why you have not seen any support for this notion by "the right people" at CGF, because it works directly contrary to everything they are working so hard for.


It really seems to me like it's more of a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach.....and you know where that road leads? It leads to the kind of corruption you see in places like Mexico. I for one do not want to encourage that to flouish in the place I have to live. If you believe it is outrageous for Baca or any other CLEO to use his authority to grant such special privileges to his buddies and celebs then it's outrageous for them to do it for you too. You don't fight abuse of power by encouraging it.


So my objection to this is basically on ethical/philisophical grounds.
__________________
"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
  #578  
Old 11-30-2009, 3:27 PM
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
After the immature bashing I took in this thread for simply pointing people to what the law says.....I'm not inclined to.


And for the record I am not "fighting against" this idea. I was simply pointing out things for those pursuing this to consider when it comes to how public agencies operate and why I didn't think it would work, for which I got treated to some jr. high school level name calling responses.


But for the record.....I don't support it either. Not because I'm a LEO or I'm protecting anyone or anything. I'm a regular Joe like most everyone else here. I don't support it because I think it starts leaning towards a trend of sending the message that if you take enough rights away from people that they will end up being willing to buy them back from you as a "privilege". That's not a trend I like to see gain ground. Nor do I want to see public agencies that are already bloated on mismanaged tax dollars to start getting the notion of "selling privileges" to the communities they are supposed to be serving to further fund their mismanaged agencies.


There is that saying "If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem." I don't see this as being a solution to any problem. It doesn't encourage fiscal responsibility on the part of the participating agency, it enables the irresponsibility. It doesn't solve the lack of respect for the 2A by our state and local governments, it encourages further disrespect for it. It doesn't encourage honesty in our public officals, it lays the ground work for further corruption. And it is my personal feeling that this is why you have not seen any support for this notion by "the right people" at CGF, because it works directly contrary to everything they are working so hard for.


It really seems to me like it's more of a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach.....and you know where that road leads? It leads to the kind of corruption you see in places like Mexico. I for one do not want to encourage that to flouish in the place I have to live. If you believe it is outrageous for Baca or any other CLEO to use his authority to grant such special privileges to his buddies and celebs then it's outrageous for them to do it for you too. You don't fight abuse of power by encouraging it.


So my objection to this is basically on ethical/philisophical grounds.
Fair enough, I understand and respect your position.
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 11-30-2009, 3:53 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,227
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
So, it would seem that we know a lot more about making this happen now than we did a week or two ago:

1. There is a mechanism at the state and local level that allows CLEO to appoint "Special Reserve" credentials
Yes, AFAIK something like that probably exists in every state, however with considerable variations in the details.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
2. These mechanisms have been, and currently are, being used.
Oh yes. Have been for a long time, are widely used now, and it's all hush-hush stuff for the rich / VIPs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
3. So far no one has said anything about lawsuits stemming from the "Special Reserve" officers.
No. These things are issued selectively to certain people who are unlikely to result in issues.

One big exception: Naish Piazza, founder of Front Sight, had one issued out of Nye County, which allowed him a) to carry in California (he lives in Aptos and could never get a permit there and b) allowed him to carry on commercial flights! When it came out in the news that he had this credential, and that he is a sleaze, that didn't result in any liability but did result in enough embarrassment that the sheriff lost his job.

That's the kind of stuff they are worried about. That's the biggest obstacle here.

You just know that if 1,000 of these were issued, one out of these thousand would be an idiot, and try to use it to get out of a ticket or arrest someone in a bar or bring a gun onto a plane, and then the chief / sheriff who issued it could lose his job. That's the problem here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
4. The "Special Reserve" officers are gaining LEO credentials for the expressed purpose of CCW and NOT arrest powers.
Yes, that is the most essential point here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
5. This is most likely going on nationwide.
Absolutely. How do you think SF's 14 billionaires carry without SF-issued CCWs? How do VIPs or their bodyguards carry when visiting DC or NYC?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
6. Firearms and POST training are not prerequisites to gain the credentials.
Varies considerably by state law, but in many case, nope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
7. The "moral issues" arguments go flying out the window as this would seem to be standard operating procedure already.
Yes, the moral arguments are ridiculous. LEOs aren't morally different from anyone else, these LEO credentials don't make someone a law enforcer, and the express purpose of these things is for CCW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
8. Employment law does not apply since it is an appointment to an unpaid position.
Yup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
I personally see no difference between having my PD charge $1500 for a "Special Reserve" credential and city hall charging $5000 for a building permit. Both are quite obviously way out of whack compared to actual expenses.
Yeah.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?

Last edited by CCWFacts; 11-30-2009 at 3:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 11-30-2009, 4:07 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,722
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

I compleatly understand the ethical dillemma

However I make peace with it on the grounds that:

A) this will be done with complete transparency and full accountability, this is not a wink and nudge under the table good ol boy hookup

B) all funds go directly to the municipality to fund their social programs and services, there is no incentive from personal proffit, and no skimming of funds for personal use

Anything which is done in the full light of day from which no individual stands to gain personaly does not (to me) smell of corruption
Reply With Quote
  #581  
Old 11-30-2009, 4:23 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,227
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Btw, I would like to point out, I believe a similar system exists at the Federal level as well: people can be made into Federal marshals with no duties. I believe Elvis had that, rumors are that Feinstein had that, and the DoJ published a paper saying "we should stop issuing these Federal LEO credentials to Congressmen because it violates the separation of branches". They wouldn't have written that paper if it weren't a common practice.

Given that no private individual has enough money to make any difference to the Federal budget, these were not given for any budgetary motivation, but rather due to power and connections. At the local level, it's entirely different; small departments could easily benefit from a $100k here and there, and that's well within the means of individuals or small groups.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #582  
Old 11-30-2009, 5:43 PM
dansgold dansgold is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
I compleatly understand the ethical dillemma

However I make peace with it on the grounds that:

A) this will be done with complete transparency and full accountability, this is not a wink and nudge under the table good ol boy hookup

B) all funds go directly to the municipality to fund their social programs and services, there is no incentive from personal proffit, and no skimming of funds for personal use

Anything which is done in the full light of day from which no individual stands to gain personaly does not (to me) smell of corruption
I would add that I'd feel much more comfortable if we actually provided service of some kind as well, especially anything which frees up Level 1 officers to devote time to more important duties. I'd have no problem doing forensic computer analysis, parade duty, etc. ... anything which is of genuine benefit to the LEO agency and/or the public in general.
Reply With Quote
  #583  
Old 11-30-2009, 6:09 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,227
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansgold View Post
I would add that I'd feel much more comfortable if we actually provided service of some kind as well, especially anything which frees up Level 1 officers to devote time to more important duties. I'd have no problem doing forensic computer analysis, parade duty, etc. ... anything which is of genuine benefit to the LEO agency and/or the public in general.
Ditto.

Although in some ways, I would say that the being a trained, armed, responsible person is a form of service all by itself. And there's nothing wrong with the help that comes in the form of $$. They always have something they can buy to make their jobs easier, more efficient, and safer. $1,000 or so buys a new ballistic vest to replace an old one that may be out of date or degraded, for example. That's a direct impact that may directly save a life of an officer. It's hard to think of a service or benefit that's more valuable than that.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #584  
Old 11-30-2009, 6:10 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,722
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansgold View Post
I would add that I'd feel much more comfortable if we actually provided service of some kind as well, especially anything which frees up Level 1 officers to devote time to more important duties. I'd have no problem doing forensic computer analysis, parade duty, etc. ... anything which is of genuine benefit to the LEO agency and/or the public in general.
our administrative fees collectively have the same affect.... more funds to pay for more officers on the streets...

it will not be practical or possible for everyone to help out in a physical capacity, but money can accomplish the same effect.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #585  
Old 11-30-2009, 6:12 PM
JDoe JDoe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,775
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
You just know that if 1,000 of these were issued, one out of these thousand would be an idiot, and try to use it to get out of a ticket or arrest someone in a bar or bring a gun onto a plane, and then the chief / sheriff who issued it could lose his job. That's the problem here.
Forgive my ignorance but couldn't the credentials be issued with conditions that limit what the holder can do?

Couldn't the limitations on these credentials be at the sole and arbitrary discretion of the issuing authority?
Reply With Quote
  #586  
Old 11-30-2009, 6:14 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,814
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansgold View Post
I would add that I'd feel much more comfortable if we actually provided service of some kind as well, especially anything which frees up Level 1 officers to devote time to more important duties. I'd have no problem doing forensic computer analysis, parade duty, etc. ... anything which is of genuine benefit to the LEO agency and/or the public in general.
Absolutely, 100%, positively, exactly; you hit the nail on the head. Even if a recipient is from out of state, they should volunteer with their local department as a way to give back to the community.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #587  
Old 11-30-2009, 6:33 PM
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 choprzrul View Post
Absolutely, 100%, positively, exactly; you hit the nail on the head. Even if a recipient is from out of state, they should volunteer with their local department as a way to give back to the community.
I'd volunteer in a heartbeat. The thing we are describing is very similar to the Patrol Special model that SF has - private citizens on patrol. They are paid by shopkeepers for their services, we are unpaid.

They are full POST level 1 but this is a recent development as for decades it was an almost hereditary position.
Reply With Quote
  #588  
Old 11-30-2009, 6:50 PM
hollabillz hollabillz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 313
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
After the immature bashing I took in this thread for simply pointing people to what the law says.....I'm not inclined to.


And for the record I am not "fighting against" this idea. I was simply pointing out things for those pursuing this to consider when it comes to how public agencies operate and why I didn't think it would work, for which I got treated to some jr. high school level name calling responses.


But for the record.....I don't support it either. Not because I'm a LEO or I'm protecting anyone or anything. I'm a regular Joe like most everyone else here. I don't support it because I think it starts leaning towards a trend of sending the message that if you take enough rights away from people that they will end up being willing to buy them back from you as a "privilege". That's not a trend I like to see gain ground. Nor do I want to see public agencies that are already bloated on mismanaged tax dollars to start getting the notion of "selling privileges" to the communities they are supposed to be serving to further fund their mismanaged agencies.


There is that saying "If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem." I don't see this as being a solution to any problem. It doesn't encourage fiscal responsibility on the part of the participating agency, it enables the irresponsibility. It doesn't solve the lack of respect for the 2A by our state and local governments, it encourages further disrespect for it. It doesn't encourage honesty in our public officals, it lays the ground work for further corruption. And it is my personal feeling that this is why you have not seen any support for this notion by "the right people" at CGF, because it works directly contrary to everything they are working so hard for.


It really seems to me like it's more of a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach.....and you know where that road leads? It leads to the kind of corruption you see in places like Mexico. I for one do not want to encourage that to flouish in the place I have to live. If you believe it is outrageous for Baca or any other CLEO to use his authority to grant such special privileges to his buddies and celebs then it's outrageous for them to do it for you too. You don't fight abuse of power by encouraging it.


So my objection to this is basically on ethical/philisophical grounds.
That sucks, I'd expect more from CG members... I'd try not to take any direct insults personally.

Anyways, while I agree with most of your ideological beliefs, I think you're letting your emotions draw too many conclusions. When we look at this realistically, it would be hard to draw a causal link between a cash injection into a gun-friendly municipality and an overall decrease in CA/nationwide citizen CCW rights. The worst that would happen is the bad PR everyone's mentioned, which could only result in closing the "loophole" you so protest. But that's not really a strong argument if you're trying to dissuade others from this idea by claiming they wouldn't be "fighting the power".

The other sad reality... even if this did encourage more restrictions on the unrelated topic of citizen CCW, the fact remains that 99% of California doesn't care about carry rights. While it is a fundamental right, issuance in even pro-gun states are single digit percentages of the population. Who exactly would we be vicariously oppressing? Those too cheap to fork up the admin fees? Guess what, shall-issue CCW costs the honest citizen just as much as this would.

So tell me, if CA got shall-issue CCW, would you pay the yearly $500-$1000+ for fees and training required to carry? If so, re-read your post with shall-issue CCW in mind instead of this. Both require: (1) legally owned firearms (2) good moral character (3) knowledge of the law and how to follow it in order to exercise ones rights, (4) pay the evil, Mexico-like (hey, does this mean I can't go to Chipotle anymore? ) big government oppressors their filthy lucre of an annual $500-$1000+ (5) you're now a part of a privileged, entitled, elite, class that gets special rights the majority of the population doesn't even care about; you and your corrupted cronies sit at the top of the 90th percentile, relishing and laughing at the little people who don't have CCWs. Bwahahahaha.

Ideologically, yes, Vermont and Alaska make the most sense in their stance on concealed carry. Beyond that, this idea sits with shall-issue CCW in the moral regard: less than ideal, but workable. Then, we have being helpless in a "may"-issue state, and finally, Illinois status. Why would you want to settle for that? C'mon man, fight the power.

* Nothing in this post should be construed as a personal attack, but rather a satirical, borderline juvenile, and frankly unnecessary rant. Thanks for your understanding.
Reply With Quote
  #589  
Old 11-30-2009, 7:00 PM
hollabillz hollabillz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 313
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Ditto.

Although in some ways, I would say that the being a trained, armed, responsible person is a form of service all by itself. And there's nothing wrong with the help that comes in the form of $$. They always have something they can buy to make their jobs easier, more efficient, and safer. $1,000 or so buys a new ballistic vest to replace an old one that may be out of date or degraded, for example. That's a direct impact that may directly save a life of an officer. It's hard to think of a service or benefit that's more valuable than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
our administrative fees collectively have the same affect.... more funds to pay for more officers on the streets...

it will not be practical or possible for everyone to help out in a physical capacity, but money can accomplish the same effect.
Bingo. If people want to volunteer as well, that's great, but I wouldn't tie it directly to this idea. $1,500 each from 1,000 hardworking CGers is a whole lot of blood, sweat, and tears.
Reply With Quote
  #590  
Old 11-30-2009, 7:09 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,227
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDoe View Post
Forgive my ignorance but couldn't the credentials be issued with conditions that limit what the holder can do?

Couldn't the limitations on these credentials be at the sole and arbitrary discretion of the issuing authority?
Yes, sure. But my point is, no matter what they put on, you just know that someone will be an idiot (sooner or later) and try to use it for things that it shouldn't be used for. Such things have happened in the past. That is the biggest flaw in this whole concept. I'm not saying it's a fatal flaw but that is going to be the biggest concern: the chief will issue one of these "reserve officer" credentials to someone, and that person will be an idiot and attempt to use it to get out of a traffic ticket, or worse a DUI or something, and of course it ends up in the papers, and the police chief has a major PR disaster on his hands.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #591  
Old 11-30-2009, 7:17 PM
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 CCWFacts View Post
Yes, sure. But my point is, no matter what they put on, you just know that someone will be an idiot (sooner or later) and try to use it for things that it shouldn't be used for. Such things have happened in the past. That is the biggest flaw in this whole concept. I'm not saying it's a fatal flaw but that is going to be the biggest concern: the chief will issue one of these "reserve officer" credentials to someone, and that person will be an idiot and attempt to use it to get out of a traffic ticket, or worse a DUI or something, and of course it ends up in the papers, and the police chief has a major PR disaster on his hands.
Which is why the people who get it should be vetted for a history of stuff like this. We are still fundamentally looking for good moral character here.

Remember that Carona and Baca gave these things away without a whole lot of checking. Campaign contributions = good moral character in their book.
Reply With Quote
  #592  
Old 11-30-2009, 8:04 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,227
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Director View Post
Which is why the people who get it should be vetted for a history of stuff like this. We are still fundamentally looking for good moral character here.
Yes, but unfortunately that's hard to judge. Even full LEOs who go through the whole BG check with psyche eval, interviews, trial period and so on sometimes are screw-ups.

Ultimately, I hate to say it, but if AJAX's concept here is implemented for more than a handful of people, sooner or later some idiot will end up flashing a "badge" or "LEO ID" to try to get out of a DUI or some similar problem. Even if the people are thoroughly checked, my hunch is, it will happen sooner or later.

If it's issued by a chief from a small town that is going broke, and this program is what's keeping his department able to pay its gas bills, and the town knows it, he may be able to survive the PR from that. But that's something that the chief in question will need to understand and weigh.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #593  
Old 11-30-2009, 8:15 PM
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 CCWFacts View Post
Yes, but unfortunately that's hard to judge. Even full LEOs who go through the whole BG check with psyche eval, interviews, trial period and so on sometimes are screw-ups.

Ultimately, I hate to say it, but if AJAX's concept here is implemented for more than a handful of people, sooner or later some idiot will end up flashing a "badge" or "LEO ID" to try to get out of a DUI or some similar problem. Even if the people are thoroughly checked, my hunch is, it will happen sooner or later.

If it's issued by a chief from a small town that is going broke, and this program is what's keeping his department able to pay its gas bills, and the town knows it, he may be able to survive the PR from that. But that's something that the chief in question will need to understand and weigh.

Hey, since we're all "corrupt and lack a moral compass", we'll self police too. The first time someone screws it up for everyone, ten calgunner "designees" will pay the moron a visit and "reason with him".

That should pretty much prevent anyone from stepping out of line.





You know this is a joke, right? Too many hair triggers on this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #594  
Old 11-30-2009, 8:32 PM
gcrtkd gcrtkd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 141
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So, reading this thread reminds me... Steven Segal "Lawman", starts on A&E on 12/2...
__________________
I don't always carry a gun, but when I do, I prefer Glock.
Reply With Quote
  #595  
Old 11-30-2009, 8:51 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,814
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I want to take this opportunity to personally thank AJAX22 for bringing this thread to us. I salute you for thinking outside of the box.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #596  
Old 11-30-2009, 8:53 PM
USAFTS's Avatar
USAFTS USAFTS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hollabillz View Post
* Nothing in this post should be construed as a personal attack, but rather a satirical, borderline juvenile, and frankly unnecessary rant. Thanks for your understanding.
This may end up as my tag-line! LOL. Great!
__________________
• “A fear-based approach to regulation will always infringe.”
• “Chance favors the prepared mind.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Meg won. Life sucks. Elections have consequences.
Reply With Quote
  #597  
Old 11-30-2009, 9:03 PM
USAFTS's Avatar
USAFTS USAFTS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
...Ultimately, I hate to say it, but if AJAX's concept here is implemented for more than a handful of people, sooner or later some idiot will end up flashing a "badge" or "LEO ID" to try to get out of a DUI or some similar problem. Even if the people are thoroughly checked, my hunch is, it will happen sooner or later.

If it's issued by a chief from a small town that is going broke, and this program is what's keeping his department able to pay its gas bills, and the town knows it, he may be able to survive the PR from that. But that's something that the chief in question will need to understand and weigh.
EXACTLY. AND.....even if the "idiot" manages to avoid criminal charges, would the LEA, county and associated officials be able to withstand the staggering civil lawsuit that would likely land directly on their budgets? A single civil suit against the jurisdiction in question would probably bankrupt the very department to whom this program was sold as a financial savior.
__________________
• “A fear-based approach to regulation will always infringe.”
• “Chance favors the prepared mind.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Meg won. Life sucks. Elections have consequences.
Reply With Quote
  #598  
Old 11-30-2009, 9:15 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,227
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFTS View Post
EXACTLY. AND.....even if the "idiot" manages to avoid criminal charges, would the LEA, county and associated officials be able to withstand the staggering civil lawsuit that would likely land directly on their budgets? A single civil suit against the jurisdiction in question would probably bankrupt the very department to whom this program was sold as a financial savior.
Well...

We must consider two categories of risk: high-embarrassment / low liability, and high-embarrassment / high liability.

First the high-embarrassment / low-liability: The archetypal example of this would be some moron who flashes his ID to try to get out of a DUI stop. You can clearly see, there's no "liability" there, there's just some idiot who is going to go to jail and has at the same time caused a big PR mess for the chief. In that case, it could be a major problem for the chief's career, even though it has no financial risks for the city.

Second, the high-embarrassment / high-liability: The same moron does something even worse: he gets in an argument, and ends up shooting someone. You might worry about liability in this case, but I would say, there is none, for several reasons.
  • Most states have sweeping immunity for public servants and public entities. California, for example, has iron-clad immunity for almost anything that a public servant does or does not do in the scope of his duties.
  • Of course, this type of scenario isn't in the scope of anyone's duties. It is the same as what a LEO is doing when he is off duty. And you know what, when an off-duty officer does something stupid and bad, the city doesn't have liability for it, any more than McDonalds would have liability for what their burger-flippers do when they are away from work.

Just because the guy is carrying a gun, which he was able to carry thanks to some chief, does not make him "on duty".

Think about it: if, say, an LAPD officer gets into an argument and shoots someone while he is off duty, LA really has no liability for that action, even though the LAPD officer was only able to carry a gun thanks to his connection with LAPD.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #599  
Old 11-30-2009, 9:24 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,814
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFTS View Post
EXACTLY. AND.....even if the "idiot" manages to avoid criminal charges, would the LEA, county and associated officials be able to withstand the staggering civil lawsuit that would likely land directly on their budgets? A single civil suit against the jurisdiction in question would probably bankrupt the very department to whom this program was sold as a financial savior.
This is where we need input from The Right People. Those with the really big brains can hopefully clarify, but I believe that the same safety that protects public employees performing their duties (i.e. the state, the DMV, and guy working the counter don't get sued for issuing a DL to an idiot that gets in a wreck and harms someone) will also protect a CLEO & department when lawfully exercising their duties.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #600  
Old 11-30-2009, 9:28 PM
lhecker51's Avatar
lhecker51 lhecker51 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Corona
Posts: 517
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
Um... no... they are NOT earned, they are simply issued, by cities or other governing entities... and in some places it is done with little or no qualification or requirements... CA has some requirements that must be met, but there are other places which do NOT have the same criteria, but still issue credentials which are valid for the purpose of concealed cary under the Law enforcement protection act.

Look, you may disagree with it morally/ethically etc. But it gets you a concealed Cary permit that is valid in any state in the union. INCLUDING CA and NYC.
So what are the states with the most lenient requirements and what are those requirements?
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 2:14 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.