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 15.32%
$100 305 12.53%
$500 716 29.42%
$1000 500 20.54%
$1500 102 4.19%
$2000 202 8.30%
$5000 125 5.14%
$10000 49 2.01%
$Whatever it takes I'll take out a second mortgage 62 2.55%
Voters: 2434. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2441  
Old 11-17-2012, 8:32 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There _will_ be test-cases... and although I want to be among the first to get such a credential, I'm not quite sure I want to be the first to be california test-case...
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #2442  
Old 11-17-2012, 8:48 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,355
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabrisnet View Post
There _will_ be test-cases... and although I want to be among the first to get such a credential, I'm not quite sure I want to be the first to be california test-case...
Don't get ahead of yourself. I doubt this thing will even see the light of day.

Last edited by skyscraper; 11-17-2012 at 8:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2443  
Old 11-17-2012, 9:09 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nice way of just slightly backing down from your absolute statement.

and you're still not my favourite cynic on this board. that honour lies with kcbrown.
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #2444  
Old 11-17-2012, 9:32 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,355
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabrisnet View Post
Nice way of just slightly backing down from your absolute statement.

and you're still not my favourite cynic on this board. that honour lies with kcbrown.
Oh my thoughts are still absolute. I just didnt want to upset the masses. You are welcome to tell me differently if the time comes.
Reply With Quote
  #2445  
Old 11-17-2012, 9:54 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

And here I was hoping to have an intellectually honest conversation in this thread...
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #2446  
Old 11-17-2012, 10:02 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,356
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
I have no problem with people having to qualify. What's the big deal? Anyone who carries should be able to qualify. I carry, and would have no issue with it.
Outside the scope of this LEOSA discussion, the real problem with "having to qualify" is that it is often used to deny rights. Few would have a problem with the proper national carry that required standardized qualification approved by the NRA.

However, Chicago is currently using "having to qualify" as a way to obstruct implementation of Heller. No different than using "good moral character" and "good cause" to deny carry in CA. The people who have guns are really not "immoral" and protection from criminals and personal safety are really pretty good reasons to carry.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2447  
Old 11-17-2012, 11:03 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabrisnet View Post
As best I understand it, it's rarely about "having to qualify" but rather about "what will qualifying entail"
Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Outside the scope of this LEOSA discussion, the real problem with "having to qualify" is that it is often used to deny rights. Few would have a problem with the proper national carry that required standardized qualification approved by the NRA.

However, Chicago is currently using "having to qualify" as a way to obstruct implementation of Heller. No different than using "good moral character" and "good cause" to deny carry in CA. The people who have guns are really not "immoral" and protection from criminals and personal safety are really pretty good reasons to carry.
Exactly. No different from how poll taxes (with grandfather clauses exempting those who had grandparents or parents who had registered to vote before abolition) or literacy tests were used to deny rights.
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #2448  
Old 11-18-2012, 2:38 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,677
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabrisnet View Post
Nice way of just slightly backing down from your absolute statement.

and you're still not my favourite cynic on this board. that honour lies with kcbrown.


I think there's a reasonable chance this will pass. However, once it does, the effort will be neutered at the federal level, and yes, there are ways of accomplishing that. There's no way I'm saying what those ways are -- I will not aid the enemy like that.

And I agree -- there will be test cases for sure. Don't be surprised if the antis manage to get an injunction against this at the federal level.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-18-2012 at 2:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2449  
Old 11-18-2012, 3:07 PM
Meplat1's Avatar
Meplat1 Meplat1 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post


I think there's a reasonable chance this will pass. However, once it does, the effort will be neutered at the federal level, and yes, there are ways of accomplishing that. There's no way I'm saying what those ways are -- I will not aid the enemy like that.

And I agree -- there will be test cases for sure. Don't be surprised if the antis manage to get an injunction against this at the federal level.
You must be having an unusually bright day KC. Into the hot spiced Christmas wine already?
__________________
May all your enemies be on full-auto
Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #2450  
Old 11-18-2012, 3:14 PM
scarville's Avatar
scarville scarville is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendora, CA
Posts: 2,306
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post


I think there's a reasonable chance this will pass. However, once it does, the effort will be neutered at the federal level, and yes, there are ways of accomplishing that. There's no way I'm saying what those ways are -- I will not aid the enemy like that.

And I agree -- there will be test cases for sure. Don't be surprised if the antis manage to get an injunction against this at the federal level.
Neutering this would have to be done very carefully since it is based on exploiting provisions in LEOSA. It is unlikely the police unions will look kindly on any attempt to restrict LEO privileges to carry in all fifty states. This is one case where union influence may work in favor of gun rights.
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction.
Reply With Quote
  #2451  
Old 11-18-2012, 3:43 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarville View Post
Neutering this would have to be done very carefully since it is based on exploiting provisions in LEOSA. It is unlikely the police unions will look kindly on any attempt to restrict LEO privileges to carry in all fifty states. This is one case where union influence may work in favor of gun rights.
Unfortunately, in line with rcbrown's comment about loose lips sinking ships, I cannot publiclly articulate some of my ideas on how best to stop this idea.
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #2452  
Old 11-18-2012, 5:09 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,677
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarville View Post
Neutering this would have to be done very carefully since it is based on exploiting provisions in LEOSA. It is unlikely the police unions will look kindly on any attempt to restrict LEO privileges to carry in all fifty states. This is one case where union influence may work in favor of gun rights.
The method I'm thinking of here would be something that the police unions would have no objection to whatsoever.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-18-2012 at 5:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2453  
Old 11-18-2012, 5:25 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can think of two flaws in the proposal... at least one fixable.
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #2454  
Old 11-18-2012, 9:39 PM
Wojtek's Avatar
Wojtek Wojtek is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,299
iTrader: 141 / 100%
Default

I want to see this happen in a bad way.
Reply With Quote
  #2455  
Old 11-19-2012, 8:18 AM
Flopper's Avatar
Flopper Flopper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,285
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Qualification in order to carry is absurd.

If qualification actually tested firearms safety and legal use of deadly force I would be completely behind it, but as it is now, qualifications test accuracy.

How one's accuracy on a static target correlates to safe and legal use is beyond me.
__________________
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. -- L. Neil Smith

Reply With Quote
  #2456  
Old 11-19-2012, 9:33 AM
TATER313's Avatar
TATER313 TATER313 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brentwood norcal
Posts: 1,642
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

I would be willing for $500 for 5 years. when do we start.
Reply With Quote
  #2457  
Old 11-19-2012, 9:34 AM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,355
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

In two weeks.
Reply With Quote
  #2458  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:04 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is online now
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,497
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

On the question of qualification, the LEOSA law requires the following:

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

....

‘‘(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which
the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer
So the "agency" created for this can create criteria for qualifying with your firearm, and I'd be surprised if they didn't.

Also when you "retire" from this agency after 10 years it seems a bit more restrictive, as if qualification training is required:

Quote:
‘‘(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met,
at the expense of the individual, the State’s standards for
training and qualification for active law enforcement officers
to carry firearms;

...

‘‘(d) The identification required by this subsection is—
‘‘(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from
which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement
officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently
than one year before the date the individual is carrying the
concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency
to meet the standards established by the agency for training
and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry
a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
‘‘(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency
from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and
‘‘(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less
recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying
the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the
State to meet the standards established by the State for
training and qualification for active law enforcement officers
to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm
I am not a lawyer, and don't know exactly what qualification would be required, nor do I know if Montana has any existing state standards for all LEO that qualify for LEOSA, but I'd expect to have to do something at least on the level of a CCW handgun qual.
__________________
Support my Steam Greenlight campaign for Omega Reaction!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=618002901

Just vote Yes please, not asking for money.

Last edited by stix213; 11-19-2012 at 11:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2459  
Old 11-20-2012, 4:14 PM
Rugerdaddy's Avatar
Rugerdaddy Rugerdaddy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Near Sacramento
Posts: 668
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
In two weeks.




Yahoo! That's what I'm talking about! I can't WAIT!
__________________
MSGT, USAF Ret.
NRA Member
Monthly Contributor to CGF

"A city's strongest tower of defense is brave men" -Alcaeus
Reply With Quote
  #2460  
Old 11-29-2012, 2:02 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Alright guys,

I just got off the phone with Gary out in Montana.

There will probably be a few alterations to the draft language before this gets introduced... But he is working closely with some legislators and senior local law enforcement to have it be palatable.

1) There will likely be a 'local references' requirement, requiring you to get a bunch of people you know to write you stellar references.

2) There will be an in person interview requirement (in Montana) with the CLEO who will be your 'boss'

3) There will be a training/safety requirement, probably requiring you to spend a week in Montana doing firearms training.

4) There may possibly be language inserted that requires that you "be available to perform service" for 6 hours a month.... this service would be specified to not require you to physically be anywhere, and this provision would likely never be used, (it would just be added to make everything more palatable to the legislature and local LEO in Montana) I think the idea would be that if there was a local meeting or event that the CLEO in Montana wanted someone to attend and then write up a summary of what happened, he could reach out and tap a local resource..... highly unlikely that this would ever get used.


The important thing is to get the bill introduced, even with a few less than ideal concessions in it, once Montana introduces an idea like this, it tends to be picked up by other states.

Once we have a track record of successful implementation in Montana we can work on streamlining the application/training process.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance

Last edited by AJAX22; 11-29-2012 at 2:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2461  
Old 11-29-2012, 2:20 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,245
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
1) There will likely be a 'local references' requirement, requiring you to get a bunch of people you know to write you stellar references.
I hate requirements like these. They screw people with a small circle of friends, or whose friends won't write references because they "don't want to get involved".

If by "local" they mean "local to Montana" this will gut the bill's usefulness. The whole point of the bill, at least around here, is for non-Montanans to make use of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
2) There will be an in person interview requirement (in Montana) with the CLEO who will be your 'boss'
I understand this in principle, but depending on what, exactly, the requirement is for it's easily another "gut it" requirement. Things like this are usually used to reject everybody, if experience in may-issue states are any indication.
Reply With Quote
  #2462  
Old 11-29-2012, 2:36 PM
aklover_91 aklover_91 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 809
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Baby steps, randian.

Gotta get our toe in the door, first.
Reply With Quote
  #2463  
Old 11-29-2012, 2:38 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
I hate requirements like these. They screw people with a small circle of friends, or whose friends won't write references because they "don't want to get involved".

If by "local" they mean "local to Montana" this will gut the bill's usefulness. The whole point of the bill, at least around here, is for non-Montanans to make use of it.

I understand this in principle, but depending on what, exactly, the requirement is for it's easily another "gut it" requirement. Things like this are usually used to reject everybody, if experience in may-issue states are any indication.
I had to dig deep into my past and ask people I had not seen for years when I applied to become a Reserve.

These days there is almost nobody new on that list, and several that I've lost touch with. My nearest neighbors are some quarter mile or so away, and I know them merely to wave at as we drive past each other's houses.

When you work from home and don't socialize much, it's not an easy task. It's more than five years since I stopped getting out and stopped serving in the LASD volunteers, both due to family illness. Surely the fact that I have had nearly seventy years of blameless existence on this world and no adverse trace of me on any L.E. database should count for something?

My views on enforced training are probably well known, but I must say that if I have to do any, visiting Montana could be fun and would maybe give me an incentive.

Not that my wife and I am necessarily planning to participate in this program, just saying.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.


Last edited by Glock22Fan; 11-29-2012 at 4:18 PM.. Reason: Corrected math error
Reply With Quote
  #2464  
Old 11-29-2012, 3:18 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,449
iTrader: 46 / 88%
Default

Local references as in local to where we reside, or local to Montana?
__________________
Visit http://www.policemisconduct.net to learn more about "isolated incidents"
Obama's Favorite TV show? "Homeland", about a Muslim who betrays his nation on the way to the White House...http://tinyurl.com/c8tvk92
Reply With Quote
  #2465  
Old 11-29-2012, 3:39 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post
Local references as in local to where we reside, or local to Montana?
Local as in Local to where you reside, (standard character reference stuff)
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #2466  
Old 11-29-2012, 4:01 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,245
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
Surely the fact that I have had nearly sixty years of blameless existence on this world and no adverse trace of me on any L.E. database should count for something?
Exactly my point. Presuming nobody ever sends a negative reference, which is standard for these things, character references are either redundant (good character) or misleading (bad character). It's your social circle being measured, not your character.
Reply With Quote
  #2467  
Old 11-29-2012, 4:17 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
Exactly my point. Presuming nobody ever sends a negative reference, which is standard for these things, character references are either redundant (good character) or misleading (bad character). It's your social circle being measured, not your character.
Gosh, read this and reread mine, and I guess I made a senior error. Should have written nearly SEVENTY blameless years.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #2468  
Old 11-29-2012, 4:43 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,823
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
Gosh, read this and reread mine, and I guess I made a senior error. Should have written nearly SEVENTY blameless years.

After that many birthdays, you are entitled to forget about a few...

.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #2469  
Old 11-29-2012, 5:59 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I really think that most of that hoop-jumping is to be expected. This is kind of a case of not looking a gift horse in the mouth. But if this thing works out and any significant number of folks take advantage of it; people like Schumer, Boxer, and DI-FI are going to just $#!T themselves! And something will be done at the federal level; count on it!

Now, Montana is a beautiful state, and I would not mind spending a week or two there. But after doing that, paying all the fees and travel expenses you are going to be in for at least a couple grand. For some folks that’s chump change; I’m not one of those people.

I wish you all the luck in the world, but I’m not ready to let Lucy (DI-FI) jerk the foot ball on me again. I am going to keep following this effort though.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)

Last edited by Meplat; 11-29-2012 at 6:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2470  
Old 11-29-2012, 6:11 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Does LEOSA allow LEO's to carry on air liners? It might be worth the gamble for that.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #2471  
Old 11-29-2012, 6:24 PM
fighter4cage's Avatar
fighter4cage fighter4cage is offline
Veteran/Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ask
Posts: 827
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

I am in.... Heck I used to do this stuff in uniform anyway. Sign me up !
Reply With Quote
  #2472  
Old 11-29-2012, 6:28 PM
socalblue socalblue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 743
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Does LEOSA allow LEO's to carry on air liners? It might be worth the gamble for that.
Only after a 2 hour training class & agency request. Has to be a valid reason (Prisoner/witness transport, etc.) Whole on line, verified PITA now days.
Reply With Quote
  #2473  
Old 11-29-2012, 6:39 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalblue View Post
Only after a 2 hour training class & agency request. Has to be a valid reason (Prisoner/witness transport, etc.) Whole on line, verified PITA now days.
Bummer! How many millions per year to we spend to create these victim disarmament zones?

__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #2474  
Old 11-29-2012, 8:02 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
Local as in Local to where you reside, (standard character reference stuff)
Hmm. Interesting... but difficult...
a) I mostly know ppl from where I grew up in Western Michigan
b) I spent 5 years in CA, and know a few ppl out there.
c) I know nobody from where I live now... just moved out here in September.

How does that work?
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #2475  
Old 11-29-2012, 8:45 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,004
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yeah, asking for references would almost certainly kill it for me.

I don't doubt that I could get the references - but I object to it being done here in California and I'd object to it in Montana.

And as at least one other intimated, having had a long life without any arrests and such should count for something. Honorable discharge/resignation, recent security clearance, professional license, no arrests, no moving violation, etc. and I should have to be supplying references?

I can understand why Montana might want the references, but they're not likely to get either the references or the fees from me.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #2476  
Old 11-29-2012, 8:58 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

The references issue will likely go away eventually.

The important thing now is to get the bill introduced so that it can get noticed, picked up, adapted and implemented by other states looking for pro 2A methodology.

Yes the reference thing kind of sucks, but even with the reference requirement still in place, this is a HUGE step in the right direction.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #2477  
Old 11-29-2012, 8:59 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

The references issue will likely go away eventually.

The important thing now is to get the bill introduced so that it can get noticed, picked up, adapted and implemented by other states looking for pro 2A methodology.

Yes the reference thing kind of sucks, but even with the reference requirement still in place, this is a HUGE step in the right direction.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #2478  
Old 11-30-2012, 4:00 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,004
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
The references issue will likely go away eventually.

The important thing now is to get the bill introduced so that it can get noticed, picked up, adapted and implemented by other states looking for pro 2A methodology.

Yes the reference thing kind of sucks, but even with the reference requirement still in place, this is a HUGE step in the right direction.
I heartily agree that this is a big step in the right direction and I am really grateful to you and your team for advancing this.

I probably won't participate myself, however.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #2479  
Old 11-30-2012, 4:15 AM
stingray4540's Avatar
stingray4540 stingray4540 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Bay Area
Posts: 434
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Tagged to follow this.
__________________
Quote:
“Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759)
Reply With Quote
  #2480  
Old 11-30-2012, 6:29 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,823
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
To whom it may concern:

I am writing this reference letter in support of AJAX22's Montana reserve LE application. From my experiences with him online, he is a very upstanding cyber citizen. He thinks outside of the box and always displays kindness and courtesy in his replies & retorts.

Based upon my experiences with AJAX22, I can provide this letter of reference without hesitation. He is an excellent candidate for being free to exercise his civil rights.

Sincerely,

Choprzrul

Absent guidelines for reference sources/knowledge, I don't think the reference letter thing is going to be a problem. We can all do a circular reference chain letter

.
__________________
"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 2:10 PM.




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