Calguns.net  

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

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

View Poll Results: How much would you pay for Law Enforcement Credentials
$0 I don't want them at any price 380 15.34%
$100 308 12.43%
$500 730 29.47%
$1000 512 20.67%
$1500 102 4.12%
$2000 205 8.28%
$5000 127 5.13%
$10000 50 2.02%
$Whatever it takes I'll take out a second mortgage 63 2.54%
Voters: 2477. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2521  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:17 PM
brian5271's Avatar
brian5271 brian5271 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
The minimum peace officer selection standards are set forth in Government Code Sections 1029 and 1031

Some departments are more strict than the minimum standards.





http://www.post.ca.gov/overview-sele...standards.aspx
This is a California standard, it has nothing to do with Montana or LEOSA.
__________________
If i had to decribe myself in one word it would be "bad at following directions"

www.CaliforniaFishingHoles.com Your guide to the best fishing holes in California.

www.facebook.com/CaliforniaFishingHoles
Reply With Quote
  #2522  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:39 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,787
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brian5271 View Post
This is a California standard, it has nothing to do with Montana or LEOSA.
Can you post the law for Montana Leo's that states they do not go through a background investigation?

Last edited by skyscraper; 12-07-2012 at 5:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2523  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:55 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,694
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
Can you post the law for Montana Leo's that states they do not go through a background investigation?
The idea is to create a new class of Montana LEO that is narrowly tailored to meet requirements of LEOSA, while not exposing anyone to liability.

The law that you would like referenced is exactly the one being created.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2524  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:56 PM
brian5271's Avatar
brian5271 brian5271 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
Can you post the law for Montana Leo's that states they do not go through a background investigation?
I never said that they don't have to. I just said that your stament below is not correct.


Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
Some food for thought:

If a person wants to become a peace officer, he/she must go through an in depth background check,provide 7-10 character references, polygraph, psychological exam, and psychological evaluation by a doctor, to then become an LEO and covered under LEOSA. Why would states allow people to bypass all of those steps and be covered? Kind of seems hypocritical that people are upset about having to provide character references but want to bypass the rest of the requirements LEO's go through to be covered under LEOSA.
__________________
If i had to decribe myself in one word it would be "bad at following directions"

www.CaliforniaFishingHoles.com Your guide to the best fishing holes in California.

www.facebook.com/CaliforniaFishingHoles
Reply With Quote
  #2525  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:57 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,787
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The idea is to create a new class of Montana LEO that is narrowly tailored to meet requirements of LEOSA, while not exposing anyone to liability.

The law that you would like referenced is exactly the one being created.
I see. Thank you
Reply With Quote
  #2526  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:04 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,787
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brian5271 View Post
I never said that they don't have to. I just said that your stament below is not correct.
Incorrect? How so?
Reply With Quote
  #2527  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:16 PM
brian5271's Avatar
brian5271 brian5271 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brian5271 View Post
I never said that they don't have to. I just said that your stament below is not correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
Some food for thought:

If a person wants to become a peace officer, he/she must go through an in depth background check,provide 7-10 character references, polygraph, psychological exam, and psychological evaluation by a doctor, to then become an LEO and covered under LEOSA. Why would states allow people to bypass all of those steps and be covered? Kind of seems hypocritical that people are upset about having to provide character references but want to bypass the rest of the requirements LEO's go through to be covered under LEOSA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
Incorrect? How so?
There is no federal standard that says you have to meet the requirements that you claim in order to be a LEO and covered under LEOSA.
__________________
If i had to decribe myself in one word it would be "bad at following directions"

www.CaliforniaFishingHoles.com Your guide to the best fishing holes in California.

www.facebook.com/CaliforniaFishingHoles
Reply With Quote
  #2528  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:59 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,787
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brian5271 View Post
There is no federal standard that says you have to meet the requirements that you claim in order to be a LEO and covered under LEOSA.
I'm curious as to where you are getting that from in my post... Here's the breakdown:

There are state standards to become LEO, which are all similar. Once an LEO, one is covered under LEOSA(if they meet the definition).

Of course there is no federal standard that applies to local police , they are not federal employees.



Comprende?

Last edited by skyscraper; 12-07-2012 at 7:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2529  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:41 PM
brian5271's Avatar
brian5271 brian5271 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
I'm curious as to where you are getting that from in my post... Here's the breakdown:

There are state standards to become LEO, which are all similar. Once an LEO, one is covered under LEOSA(if they meet the definition).

Of course there is no federal standard that applies to local police , they are not federal employees.



Comprende?
I must have misinterpreted what you were saying. I read your statement to mean that there was a minimum standard for LEOSA to apply to a police officer. After re-reading a couple of times I realize that this is not what you were saying.
__________________
If i had to decribe myself in one word it would be "bad at following directions"

www.CaliforniaFishingHoles.com Your guide to the best fishing holes in California.

www.facebook.com/CaliforniaFishingHoles
Reply With Quote
  #2530  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:45 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,787
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

No worries
Reply With Quote
  #2531  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:11 PM
pitchbaby's Avatar
pitchbaby pitchbaby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Placer County, CA
Posts: 1,328
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I believe somewhere in the 64 pages of this thread there is mention of POST standards being voluntary for municipalities to participate in. Is this not true? Can someone with a better understanding of this requirement please chime in? I am curious to know how that could change the direction of the banter we are all engaged in watching unfold.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2532  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:33 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Live in AZ, 2nd Home in So. CA
Posts: 7,938
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pitchbaby View Post
I believe somewhere in the 64 pages of this thread there is mention of POST standards being voluntary for municipalities to participate in. Is this not true? Can someone with a better understanding of this requirement please chime in? I am curious to know how that could change the direction of the banter we are all engaged in watching unfold.
The application of POST standards are generally a matter of state law. MT law does not appear to provide any exceptions or allow for voluntary participation.

https://doj.mt.gov/post/applicant-new/

Quote:
All public safety officer positions have minimum requirements established by Montana law and the Montana Public Safety Officer Standards and Training (POST) Council.
An applicant:
· must be a citizen of the United States
· must be at least 18 years of age
· must be fingerprinted and subject to a background check to disclose any criminal records
· may not have been convicted of a crime for which he or she could have been imprisoned in a federal or state penitentiary
· must be of good moral character, as determined by a thorough background investigation
· must be a high school graduate or have passed the general education development test and have been issued an equivalency certificate by the superintendent of public instruction, an appropriate issuing agency, another state or the federal government
· must meet any additional qualifications established by the POST Council

In addition, Montana law requires that individuals seeking employment as peace officers – deputy sheriffs, undersheriffs, police officers, highway patrol officers, fish and game wardens, park rangers, campus security officers or airport police officers – have a medical exam conducted by a licensed physician appointed by the employing agency.

This POST requirement has the potential to prove fatal to the project.

Quote:
Once you are employed as a public safety officer, you have one year from the date of your initial appointment to attend the appropriate Basic course at the Montana Law Enforcement Academy. (see Attorney General’s Opinion)
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler

Last edited by dustoff31; 12-07-2012 at 8:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2533  
Old 12-07-2012, 9:04 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In terms of liability, if we were discussing this hypothetical town with hypothetical LEOs being issued hypothetical credentials in order to qualify for hypothetical nation-wide CCW permit status recognition, why couldn't you just require that each person sign paperwork that said any action that you're involved in outside of your scheduled shift as a LEO is your own actions, and you recognize that the City is completely held harmless? I mean, there have been numerous supreme court rulings preventing LEAs from being held civilly liable for failing to protect, so couldn't a disclaimer or waiver somehow connected to that premise be created? If worse came to worse, you could always require recipient to maintain an insurance bond listing the City as the beneficiary in order to have their creds in good standing.
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton
Reply With Quote
  #2534  
Old 12-07-2012, 11:27 PM
pitchbaby's Avatar
pitchbaby pitchbaby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Placer County, CA
Posts: 1,328
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_D View Post
In terms of liability, if we were discussing this hypothetical town with hypothetical LEOs being issued hypothetical credentials in order to qualify for hypothetical nation-wide CCW permit status recognition, why couldn't you just require that each person sign paperwork that said any action that you're involved in outside of your scheduled shift as a LEO is your own actions, and you recognize that the City is completely held harmless? I mean, there have been numerous supreme court rulings preventing LEAs from being held civilly liable for failing to protect, so couldn't a disclaimer or waiver somehow connected to that premise be created? If worse came to worse, you could always require recipient to maintain an insurance bond listing the City as the beneficiary in order to have their creds in good standing.
Duty to protect as sworn officers is not required of off duty "reserves" anyway, that much I am fairly certain of. At least... This is how I understand it to be throughout most of California.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2535  
Old 12-08-2012, 8:23 AM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,118
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustoff31 View Post
The application of POST standards are generally a matter of state law. MT law does not appear to provide any exceptions or allow for voluntary participation.

https://doj.mt.gov/post/applicant-new/




This POST requirement has the potential to prove fatal to the project.
The proposed legislation, as discussed previously in this thread, addresses this.
__________________

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson.
"a system of licensing the right of
self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause”
Don Kilmer
Reply With Quote
  #2536  
Old 12-08-2012, 9:09 AM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Live in AZ, 2nd Home in So. CA
Posts: 7,938
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple K View Post
The proposed legislation, as discussed previously in this thread, addresses this.
Yes, it addresses it. But it doesn't sell it.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
Reply With Quote
  #2537  
Old 12-08-2012, 10:52 AM
Falconis Falconis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,691
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Does Montana have a doj in addition to their state troopers? I'm just wondering how all these agencies are just gonna stand around and do nothing. Seems to me if this were to pass and something bad happens Montana would be on the hook for liabilty for allowing it to happen. Yeah I researched this for some friends and there just seems to be too many questions.
Reply With Quote
  #2538  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:19 AM
socalblue socalblue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 745
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple K View Post
The proposed legislation, as discussed previously in this thread, addresses this.
Which will work for the 30 seconds it takes for a discrimination action to be filed.
Reply With Quote
  #2539  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:27 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,694
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

What discrimination?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2540  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:54 AM
Alan Block Alan Block is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,698
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If a civil court in a lawsuit sees that Montana acted recklessly in issuing these credentials, they would surely be on the hook for meg*****.
Reply With Quote
  #2541  
Old 12-08-2012, 12:23 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,118
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Read before you type! All this has been addressed several times over the life of this thread.
__________________

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson.
"a system of licensing the right of
self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause”
Don Kilmer
Reply With Quote
  #2542  
Old 12-31-2012, 10:07 AM
tango-52's Avatar
tango-52 tango-52 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 780
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Is there a bill number for this yet? I just scrolled through all of the submitted and pending legislation for Montana and couldn't find a title that looked like it fit.
__________________
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” - Lazarus Long
Reply With Quote
  #2543  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:25 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,726
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tango-52 View Post
Is there a bill number for this yet? I just scrolled through all of the submitted and pending legislation for Montana and couldn't find a title that looked like it fit.
I will circle back with Gary and see if we have that, it may take me a while, i'm on the other side of the planet right now.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #2544  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:28 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,584
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
I will circle back with Gary and see if we have that, it may take me a while, i'm on the other side of the planet right now.
I hope it is at least moving forward and not going to get missed and have to wait another 2 years.
Reply With Quote
  #2545  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:34 PM
tango-52's Avatar
tango-52 tango-52 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 780
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
I will circle back with Gary and see if we have that, it may take me a while, i'm on the other side of the planet right now.
Thanks. Travel safely. Watch your six.
__________________
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” - Lazarus Long
Reply With Quote
  #2546  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:34 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,726
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
I hope it is at least moving forward and not going to get missed and have to wait another 2 years.
It should be, I will follow up to make sure.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #2547  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:48 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,584
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
It should be, I will follow up to make sure.
Excellent

When it gets up, I'm not sure if this fits with the strategy, but we might want some OPSEC by not discussing the exact bill # publicly, and hopefully having its summery something not too eye catching.

A description like "Create new entry level peace officer position" while way less awesome sounding would none the less attract less unwanted attention than "SB357: Override all gun carry bans nationwide, GO 2A!"
Reply With Quote
  #2548  
Old 12-31-2012, 1:50 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,037
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Stix you violated your own rule of OpSec, delete the last part of your message
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

NRA Member JOIN HERE/
Reply With Quote
  #2549  
Old 12-31-2012, 5:51 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,309
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grammaton76 View Post
It would even out if the criminals really considered the consequences of his actions. However, to a substantial subset it's about thug fame, and they don't care if they get the death penalty. The existence (and percentage) of those monsters is exactly why the guy running the gas station is not in as great a risk. The gas station guy, too, is no longer at risk once he has a better job. The cop however, is a marked man as long as he can be recognized.

Now, the animal responsible for the Granada Liquor Store shootings (my wife served on the jury for the trial of the bag man in that case - for what it's worth, she found him guilty) was exactly such a man.

Although I'm not sure why you think I'd have a need to be special - I don't have a CCW, I'm not an LEO, and the only special gun-related privileges I ever enjoy is occasional review samples of tactical gear.
If you look at assault statistics and separate out those that occur during police actions, I think you'll find the average Joe is in a lot more danger—criminals might have a grudge with an LEO but the LEO is very likely armed, while Joe is probably not and he has a wallet or a car they want. Criminals aren't rocket scientists but they can figure that out, why can't you?
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran


"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- John Dean "Jeff" Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
Reply With Quote
  #2550  
Old 12-31-2012, 6:25 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,787
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli View Post
If you look at assault statistics and separate out those that occur during police actions, I think you'll find the average Joe is in a lot more danger—criminals might have a grudge with an LEO but the LEO is very likely armed, while Joe is probably not and he has a wallet or a car they want. Criminals aren't rocket scientists but they can figure that out, why can't you?
Average joe is in a lot more danger than an LEO? Are you taking into consideration the amount of average joes vs LEO's? What are the stats?
Reply With Quote
  #2551  
Old 12-31-2012, 8:25 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,584
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
Average joe is in a lot more danger than an LEO? Are you taking into consideration the amount of average joes vs LEO's? What are the stats?
Yeah that is what I was thinking. My assumption is the numbers would show average joe's are targeted at a considerably higher rate than LEO's in raw numbers, but LEO's individually are at higher risk due to the ratio of LEO's to Joe's being smaller than the ratio of attacks on LEO's to Joe's.
Reply With Quote
  #2552  
Old 12-31-2012, 10:38 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is online now
★ Junior G Man ✈
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 USC Section 798
Posts: 12,598
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Have fun in Asia AJAX. Looking forward to an update.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #2553  
Old 01-03-2013, 7:23 PM
surplus-addict's Avatar
surplus-addict surplus-addict is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: The capital provence of Kalifornistan
Posts: 6,501
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Anything happen with this AJAX? I've got 6 people in my family asking if this has become law yet
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by loophole View Post
What's a PIN number? Or an ATM?
You don't watch much porn, do you?
Hammer
1. The weapon of Kestryll
Hammered:
1. Getting BTFO by Kestryll with the hammer

Reply With Quote
  #2554  
Old 01-03-2013, 8:08 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For better or for worse, this cannot take effect before Jan2014. Which means few to none of us will have the credentials before, conservatively, Apr2014.

And meanwhile, we need to be saving our nickels and dimes for plane tickets to Montana. and a non hoplophobic hotel.
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #2555  
Old 01-03-2013, 8:24 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,584
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabrisnet View Post
For better or for worse, this cannot take effect before Jan2014. Which means few to none of us will have the credentials before, conservatively, Apr2014.

And meanwhile, we need to be saving our nickels and dimes for plane tickets to Montana. and a non hoplophobic hotel.
I'd probably drive personally, and I think gun friendly hotels in Montana aren't a big issue. CCW for currently non-issuing counties are probably on a worse timeline unless we get a win out of left field from CA9.
Reply With Quote
  #2556  
Old 01-17-2013, 6:01 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,853
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Bumping for public awareness given the amount of traffic that CGN is getting right now.

.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #2557  
Old 01-17-2013, 6:23 AM
Lives_In_Fresno Lives_In_Fresno is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 814
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_D View Post
In terms of liability, if we were discussing this hypothetical town with hypothetical LEOs being issued hypothetical credentials in order to qualify for hypothetical nation-wide CCW permit status recognition, why couldn't you just require that each person sign paperwork that said any action that you're involved in outside of your scheduled shift as a LEO is your own actions, and you recognize that the City is completely held harmless? I mean, there have been numerous supreme court rulings preventing LEAs from being held civilly liable for failing to protect, so couldn't a disclaimer or waiver somehow connected to that premise be created? If worse came to worse, you could always require recipient to maintain an insurance bond listing the City as the beneficiary in order to have their creds in good standing.
Two comments:

First, if you took an action that caused someone to sue, that person would likely argue (possibly successfully) that the city is responsible, because they held you out as a LEO, issuing you creds and such, and thus are responsible for the resulting consequences, since your carrying a firearm was allowed through the issuance of the creds. Although, people do sign similar waivers when they get a CCW issued, but the CCW permit doesn't provide the same effect as LEO credentials.

Second, as to the insurance comment, it isn't clear to me that you could find an insurance company to insure you for that condition...No formal training as a LEO, issued creds, and the city wants to disclaim responsibility for your actions? If you could find such insurance, it might not be cheap enough to make it worthwhile.
Reply With Quote
  #2558  
Old 01-17-2013, 6:35 AM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives_In_Fresno View Post
Two comments:

First, if you took an action that caused someone to sue, that person would likely argue (possibly successfully) that the city is responsible, because they held you out as a LEO, issuing you creds and such, and thus are responsible for the resulting consequences, since your carrying a firearm was allowed through the issuance of the creds. Although, people do sign similar waivers when they get a CCW issued, but the CCW permit doesn't provide the same effect as LEO credentials.

Second, as to the insurance comment, it isn't clear to me that you could find an insurance company to insure you for that condition...No formal training as a LEO, issued creds, and the city wants to disclaim responsibility for your actions? If you could find such insurance, it might not be cheap enough to make it worthwhile.
Well, as I have stated, the SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that LEOs have no duty to protect you and cannot be held liable for failing to do so. If the "City" says you weren't on shift at the time of the incident, then how could they be held liable for their actions? I recognize that LEOs are expected to maintain a higher moral standard, but IDK that courts would consider a city liable for every single action a LEO took 24x7x365, even when off-duty.
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton
Reply With Quote
  #2559  
Old 01-17-2013, 7:15 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,853
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Any word from Ajax on this lately? Is he back in the country?

.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #2560  
Old 01-17-2013, 7:15 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,853
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Any word from Ajax on this lately? Is he back in the country?

.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:39 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.