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
  #281  
Old 11-16-2009, 1:50 PM
thefinger's Avatar
thefinger thefinger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sacto.
Posts: 1,604
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

I think its great that AJAX has taken it upon himself to do the footwork to get this project started.

This is the type of thing that seems so big that most people have no idea where to start. However, more often than not, if the project can get started and get some momentum this is precisely the type of project that people like to throw their weight behind. If AJAX can find the right formula and a willing candidate-town, I would bet my left-nut that this thing really takes-off.

And I'd bet again that many of the current naysayers will be ponying up the administrative fee if this project becomes a reality.
__________________
كافر INFIDEL
SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 11-16-2009, 2:30 PM
berto's Avatar
berto berto is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 7,761
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPirate View Post
+1,000

you want the badge, get the job.
I don't want the badge or the job, I simply want to be able to CCW. Becoming a reserve officer of sorts is the only way I'll be able to carry in the near future. If the idea offends some, well, I'm sorry but my my desire to carry and take responsibility for my own safety matters more to me than your feelings.

Last edited by berto; 11-16-2009 at 6:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 11-16-2009, 2:30 PM
hollabillz hollabillz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 313
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPirate View Post
+1,000

you want the badge, get the job.
I'm not sure if you read the rest of thread, but that's what's being proposed.
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 11-16-2009, 2:37 PM
blackberg's Avatar
blackberg blackberg is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,752
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFTS View Post
I'm happy that we can even entertain this idea. I am not a nay-sayer but rather a realistic, life-long resident of california. While it may be an actual possibility in some states, I truly don't see california receiving this as valid as they ("Government") would stand behind the need for detailed training and registration. Whether we do this in a small california town or in another gun-friendly state, it will simply be legislated away or at the very least, held in a permanent legislative limbo. There would likely be many unlawful detentions and arrests during this limbo period...and those that were being used as examples would now find themselves inelligible for CCW due to existing law. A huge, unfair and vicious circle that works against us.

I would love to see this work for several reasons but I fear we may be spinning our wheels. I wonder if our time, energy and money would be better used in the fight for a shall-issue California and an eventual national shall-issue CCW.

As I said before...If this was able to be designed as a solidly legal and lasting option for us...I would be quite interested.

One thing that has to be remembered if that someone wants to stop this, be "legistlated away", it not only affects those involved here, but everyone in the whole US that is exercising their rights as the law is written.

-bb
__________________
Donate to the CalGuns Foundation Today!

NRA Life Endowment Member - CRPA Member

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Ben Franklin, 1759
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 11-16-2009, 4:07 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 choprzrul View Post
......snip......I do, however, continue to worry about instances where CA LE starts asking questions about a CA drivers license and an out of state LE credential. Perhaps a LEO can answer if having a contact phone number from the issuing agency would be enough to ward off an impersonating a law enforcement officer charge? ...snip.......
There was a case in the news around the SF bay area IIRC it was 2-3 years ago where an older lady was arrested in maybe Moraga who ID'd herself as a LEO and they didn't believe her. And she really was a SGT with UCSF or UCB or somewhere like that.
__________________

...... 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
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 11-16-2009, 4:51 PM
hollabillz hollabillz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 313
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
The Legislature has established three levels of reserve peace officer to provide flexibility to law enforcement agencies. The duties of the different levels of reserve officer are described below:

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

Level II Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(2)
Level II reserve officers may perform general law enforcement assignments while under the immediate supervision of a peace officer who has completed the Regular Basic Course. These officers may also work assignments authorized for Level III reserve officers without immediate supervision.

Level I Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(1)
Level I reserve officers may work alone and perform the same duties as full-time regular officers.


So, it looks to me like the town can hire independent contractors for the purpose of transporting prisoners or backing up county or state LEOs when they are in the town of Amador City. The contractors would be required to be armed during transport or other duties and be expected to maintain proficiency with firearms while in the employ of the town. Contractors will also be required to carry concealed while off duty and while on administrative leave. The town will provide a photo ID and a badge.
My concern is that lower level reserve officers would not be protected under 18 USC 926B because they lack statutory powers of arrest while not accompanied by a Level I or full-time regular officers. I'm not sure this is the case, can someone make sure I'm wrong? If so, that offers a possible route we could take that would satisfy the law, and Amador City looks like a great candidate!
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 11-16-2009, 5:06 PM
grammaton76's Avatar
grammaton76 grammaton76 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,540
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Provided that CGF isn't raising any red flags on it, I'd be in for $1k at least.
__________________
Primary author of gunwiki.net - 'like' it on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Gunwiki/242578512591 to see whenever new content gets added!
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 11-16-2009, 5:28 PM
Doggboy's Avatar
Doggboy Doggboy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 956
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

While I think that this is a great idea, and I love this kind of "out of the box" thinking, I would be concerned about choosing a town in CA. I may be wrong, but wouldn't CA be able to fairly easily change their standards for which LEO's may carry off duty to much more restrictive, with out violating HR218 as it would only apply to their officers? As long as they honor out of state standards, I would think they would change the instate standards rather quickly to stop this.

I am obviously not a lawyer, so just thinking out loud here...

Oh yeah and i am definitely in if this gets worked out!
__________________
Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 11-16-2009, 6:07 PM
berto's Avatar
berto berto is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 7,761
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Raven View Post
There was a case in the news around the SF bay area IIRC it was 2-3 years ago where an older lady was arrested in maybe Moraga who ID'd herself as a LEO and they didn't believe her. And she really was a SGT with UCSF or UCB or somewhere like that.
It was in Kensington. A 69 year old woman was a member of the City and County of San Francisco Institutional Police.

The San Francisco Institutional Police perform a variety of duties in San Francisco. All carry badges; some have authority to make arrests all the time, some only when they are working. Some are under the Sheriff's Department jurisdiction, others work for city departments. The lady, a veteran officer, provided security at city buildings such as the San Francisco Symphony.

Last edited by berto; 11-16-2009 at 6:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 11-16-2009, 6:46 PM
hollabillz hollabillz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 313
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doggboy View Post
While I think that this is a great idea, and I love this kind of "out of the box" thinking, I would be concerned about choosing a town in CA. I may be wrong, but wouldn't CA be able to fairly easily change their standards for which LEO's may carry off duty to much more restrictive, with out violating HR218 as it would only apply to their officers? As long as they honor out of state standards, I would think they would change the instate standards rather quickly to stop this.

I am obviously not a lawyer, so just thinking out loud here...

Oh yeah and i am definitely in if this gets worked out!
The very first line of 18 USC 926B reads "Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof..." What this means is the federal law explicitly overrides State law and local ordinances. The general consensus of the law as it stands is that not even local LEAs can restrict this privilege. This memo from California Attorney General regarding LEOSA poses the question "Does this Act trump state law, local ordinances, and local policy restricting carrying off-duty?" with the answer... "Yes, as it relates to an officer’s ability to carry a concealed weapon off-duty... Off-duty restrictions appear to be superseded by this Act." (This memo would be a great print out to keep while carrying, along with a copy of 18 US 926B and your LEO ID when we go forward with this...) However, 18 USC 926B does allow State law to "prohibit or restrict" carry on private and government property.

Cliff notes: This is a federal law that supersedes all State law and local ordinances. The Attorney General of California has posted a memo specifically confirming this. The one exception is State law that restricts carry on private and/or government property. That is all State law can restrict.

I remain skeptical to the fear that Sacramento is going to wave their hands, snap their fingers, and make federal law disappear. This fear is unfounded until proven otherwise.

Small, incorporated, California city in a shall-issue county is ideal (Amador City fits the bill). As far as extending this nationwide, there's no reason people from other states can't join the force in California, same as any other state. Unless we do this in all 50 states someone will always be "left out". Well even then, D.C. would be left out.

Onward!
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 11-16-2009, 7:00 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 blackberg View Post
One thing that has to be remembered if that someone wants to stop this, be "legistlated away", it not only affects those involved here, but everyone in the whole US that is exercising their rights as the law is written.

-bb
That was largely my point. They would likely just "fix" the current law and simply eliminate US from the fold. This would, however, create a bunch of cost and hassle for the little jurisdictions that would be forced to train...retrain, relocate or rehire their reserve officers.

Maybe it would, at least, get some serious national airtime.
__________________
• “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
  #292  
Old 11-16-2009, 7:20 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 USAFTS View Post
That was largely my point. They would likely just "fix" the current law and simply eliminate US from the fold. This would, however, create a bunch of cost and hassle for the little jurisdictions that would be forced to train...retrain, relocate or rehire their reserve officers.

Maybe it would, at least, get some serious national airtime.
If they try, they better be real careful how they do it. They don't want to tick off a bunch of LEO groups.
__________________

...... 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
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 11-16-2009, 7:31 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,852
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I am new here and unfamiliar with the resources that can be brought to bear in support of a project of this scope and scale. It is sounding like the idea is passing the initial sniff test of the members who have been visiting and following this thread. We have explored several options and have mostly settled on a small, incorporated city here in CA.

My thought on the discussion of in or out of state city comes down to this: if I can afford $1000 for a CA city, I can probably come up with another $1000 for a city somewhere else also. I would be, after all, an independent contractor who is available in more than 1 location to provide services. If CA legislates the in state option out of existance, I will still be an independent contractor in other jurisdictions. Seriously, don't we think that once we provide the example here in CA, the rest of the country will be falling over themselves to copy us? I really think that once the flood gates open, Sacramento and D.C. will have a heck of a time stopping it.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 11-16-2009, 7:40 PM
hollabillz hollabillz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 313
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

In addition, keep in mind, a carve-out to the federal law would need to be made; Sacramento/CA cannot simply legislate this away, as LEOSA supersedes State law and local ordinances.

If CA law said "Level II and Level III reserve officers, under the jurisdiction of a city LEA, cannot concealed carry off duty under 18 USC 926B, unless their city has fewer residents than reserve officers." It wouldn't change a thing, LEOSA supersedes...
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 11-16-2009, 8:08 PM
JaMail's Avatar
JaMail JaMail is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,910
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

http://www.voteoneto.com/endorse_brian_oneto.htm one of amadors people running for city council, and a picture of their mayor on facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/#/search/?q=Aaron%20Brusatori

amador would be the best bet, the city signs us all up as reserve police officers Level 2

- background checks
- fingerprinting
- a small class in amador on the responsibilities of being a reserve level 2 that happens to cost 1k each that covers the training, background check with the understanding that we follow all the below, and go through periodic back ground checks to stay current on our reserve roster. and that everyone that signes up understands 100% the limitations that an amador reserve LEO would operate under.

a) do not have the ability to arrest someone unless under the supervision of a Level 1 LEO

b) if they had the classes in amador, it would be a major influx of money to a small town that needs tourism

c) i would be there and in the first class
__________________
Jason M- My 5 year old is a NRA life member, are you?

WTB: 28"+ VersaMax or 28"+ 930 barrel
WTB: Stoeger Condor Competition Combo (I'll trade 1911's or other handguns)

Free rides with Lyft

Starline Brass for Sale
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 11-16-2009, 8:09 PM
JaMail's Avatar
JaMail JaMail is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,910
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

or we buy 1000 acres in some unincorporated area, put trailers on our land, and we just make our own town.
__________________
Jason M- My 5 year old is a NRA life member, are you?

WTB: 28"+ VersaMax or 28"+ 930 barrel
WTB: Stoeger Condor Competition Combo (I'll trade 1911's or other handguns)

Free rides with Lyft

Starline Brass for Sale
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 11-16-2009, 8:17 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,852
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Great find JaMail!!! I love it, the mayor's facebook photo has him holding a bud light.

The fellow running for supervisor makes me wish I could clone him and vote for him here. What he has on his webpage caught my attention:

"I see nothing wrong with the Pledge of Allegiance. I love the rights, freedoms and opportunities we have as Americans that our Constitution ensures.

I am dedicated to the limited government principles on which our country was founded. I will protect our second amendment rights. I believe in the Constitution and I will uphold it."


AJAX22: can you put together a synopsis of what we have here and have someone with a legal brain parse through our thought process? This is looking more promising by the day.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 11-16-2009, 10:31 PM
nick nick is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,131
iTrader: 137 / 100%
Default

CA can do the following though:

1. Change the standards as to who may or may not be granted the statutory powers of arrest. The LEAs may get onboard because they may see this as an affront to them (see some of the comments in this thread for examples); as many of them are against anything like shall-issue; and if the current LEOs are grandfathered in, so they won't have re-training costs, only the costs of hiring new people (which they may just shift to taxpayers). For that matter, CA may just come up with a new bond for "helping LEAs defray the costs of training new officers to make our streets safer". It's not like CA legislature was ever stopped by wasting money it doesn't have.

2. CA can also bully a smaller town through withdrawing state money, etc. A small town doesn't have as much money to fight this out in courts as a state does.

3. Neighboring cities or the county can bully it.

4. Someone(s) opposed to this may be elected and revoke the LEO status. In case you haven't noticed, politicians are often perfectly willing to ignore the consequences if it's someone else's (taxpayers') money that gets wasted on lawsuits for their follies.

With all that in mind, I think, it's a better idea to do this in a state which would think it's a great idea (Montana? Vermont? Virginia?) or at least wouldn't actively think of opposing it.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


WTB: Saiga .223 bolt; HK G3 bolt; Chinese AK pistol grips; milled AK cut receiver pieces and stubs.

Last edited by nick; 11-16-2009 at 10:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 11-16-2009, 10:45 PM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 8,874
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaMail View Post
or we buy 1000 acres in some unincorporated area, put trailers on our land, and we just make our own town.
Municipal incorporation is a pain in the butt, means more taxes and a ton of red tape and mandates you really don't want to tackle. Better to start with an existing city.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 11-16-2009, 11:23 PM
hollabillz hollabillz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 313
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaMail View Post
[url]
a) do not have the ability to arrest someone unless under the supervision of a Level 1 LEO
This isn't true of any active CA reserve officers.

Lower level officers need supervision for certain activities, but even a Level III officer (who can only transport prisoners without supervision) has statutory powers of arrest. If a L3 officer was transporting prisoners unsupervised and a random person (not a prisoner) attempted to help one escape, obviously the L3 is authorized to make the arrest.

This is exceedingly important because it qualifies all active CA reserve officers for protection under LEOSA (which requires "statutory powers of arrest"), as confirmed by this memo from the CA Attorney General, which states:

Quote:
Are all active reserve officers authorized to carry?
Yes, if they meet the criteria of the Act...
(The criteria of the act including being authorized by the agency to carry a firearm, not under the influence while carrying, etc. etc.)

Last edited by hollabillz; 11-16-2009 at 11:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #301  
Old 11-16-2009, 11:32 PM
hollabillz hollabillz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 313
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
CA can do the following though:

1. Change the standards as to who may or may not be granted the statutory powers of arrest. The LEAs may get onboard because they may see this as an affront to them (see some of the comments in this thread for examples); as many of them are against anything like shall-issue; and if the current LEOs are grandfathered in, so they won't have re-training costs, only the costs of hiring new people (which they may just shift to taxpayers). For that matter, CA may just come up with a new bond for "helping LEAs defray the costs of training new officers to make our streets safer". It's not like CA legislature was ever stopped by wasting money it doesn't have.

2. CA can also bully a smaller town through withdrawing state money, etc. A small town doesn't have as much money to fight this out in courts as a state does.

3. Neighboring cities or the county can bully it.

4. Someone(s) opposed to this may be elected and revoke the LEO status. In case you haven't noticed, politicians are often perfectly willing to ignore the consequences if it's someone else's (taxpayers') money that gets wasted on lawsuits for their follies.

With all that in mind, I think, it's a better idea to do this in a state which would think it's a great idea (Montana? Vermont? Virginia?) or at least wouldn't actively think of opposing it.
Yep, there's always a chance they could try something just as "out of the box" to counter this.

Seems like there's a trade-off between two hypothetical worst case scenarios:

(1) Harassment & False Arrest from LEOs and other cool members of the government for out-of-state LEO credentials
(2) Harassment & Legislation from Legislators and other cool members of the government for in-state LEO credentials

It's good to at least identify and be aware of the challenges as we move forward.
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 11-16-2009, 11:49 PM
Jpach's Avatar
Jpach Jpach is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Santa Clarita
Posts: 4,721
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Im down. I would pay 2K for every 5 years I guess. 5K for a onetime fee as someone posted would be really nice. I like this idea
__________________
PM or Email me if you have questions: Jpach89@gmail.com

Check out my LMT .308 AR
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotton View Post
I have to try that method of attaching the front of a sling to the gun via pubic hair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomb_on_bus View Post
Best part of buying that stock is it comes with its own complimentary jar of anal lube! There were several flavors to choose from, regular, hot cinnamon, or bacon. Im a man of danger so I chose Hot cinnamon to use with my bump fire buttstock.
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 11-16-2009, 11:54 PM
gunrun45 gunrun45 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Redding area sorta... North of Sacramento
Posts: 1,923
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

... I don't like the morals that this portrays... I am not speaking of the posters above me, I am speaking of the general principle voiced by the original thread author in SELLING police credentials... This also means that you would be SELLING police powers, trust, obligation and duty?

Those who have earned that sadi privilege have a purpose outlined in the federal act that granted them. You want your own rights? Figure out how to get a bill passed like the one that narrowly failed recently that would have granted CCW reciprocity in all states.

This is NOT part of the tactics that I wish to collaborate with as a member of calguns. By the very nature of posting a "price range" for BUYING police powers, you spit on the principles of police officers everywhere. This reaks of the very principles of coruption and destitute morals character that Police Officers have been fighting against for decades.

Last edited by gunrun45; 11-16-2009 at 11:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 11-17-2009, 5:29 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,852
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunrun45 View Post
This is NOT part of the tactics that I wish to collaborate with as a member of calguns. By the very nature of posting a "price range" for BUYING police powers, you spit on the principles of police officers everywhere. This reaks of the very principles of coruption and destitute morals character that Police Officers have been fighting against for decades.
I think that you have completely missed the thrust of this entire thread and discussion. This is about ordinary citizens exercising the same RKBA through CCW as is granted to a small subset of society, or LEOs. The price range you mention is a poll of how much we would pay to be able to carry concealed nationwide. We are actually looking for ways to completely limit the amount of police powers that you speak of. We are not looking to be the boys in blue, but rather be citizens who have taken responsibility for our own safety and security. These are God-given rights that have been taken away by our government. We are actively seeking a path by which we can restore our rights within the framework of the law as it currently stands. I would also argue that this reeks of a very high moral character and solid principles of a group of citizens who have chosen to seek a way of being able to carry concealed inside the confines of our laws rather than chose to carry illegally.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 11-17-2009, 7:35 AM
USAFTS's Avatar
USAFTS USAFTS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunrun45 View Post
... I don't like the morals that this portrays... I am not speaking of the posters above me, I am speaking of the general principle voiced by the original thread author in SELLING police credentials... This also means that you would be SELLING police powers, trust, obligation and duty?

Those who have earned that sadi privilege have a purpose outlined in the federal act that granted them. You want your own rights? Figure out how to get a bill passed like the one that narrowly failed recently that would have granted CCW reciprocity in all states.

This is NOT part of the tactics that I wish to collaborate with as a member of calguns. By the very nature of posting a "price range" for BUYING police powers, you spit on the principles of police officers everywhere. This reaks of the very principles of coruption and destitute morals character that Police Officers have been fighting against for decades.
Gunrun45,

I understand your concern as I too was concerned about the way the initial post was worded. BUT after reading the entire thread, it is clear that it is not so much about "buying police credentials" and more about securing a LEGAL status that authorizes one to, not only, get at CCW, but also to be able to carry on a national level.

Winning a legislative battle for national reciprocity does not help those of us who do not have the possibility of obtaining a CCW to begin with, as that bill will only provide national carry to existing permit holders.

The price-range that was posted was a tool to determine what the financial baseline might be if, in fact, there was a possibility to design a program that could legally provide a small town with much needed revenue and services as well as to secure our ability to exercise our Constitutionally guaranteed right through a limited credential as a contract provider for that town.

Somebody please correct me if I'm incorrect.
__________________
• “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
  #306  
Old 11-17-2009, 8:11 AM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,938
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFTS View Post
Gunrun45,

I understand your concern as I too was concerned about the way the initial post was worded. BUT after reading the entire thread, it is clear that it is not so much about "buying police credentials" and more about securing a LEGAL status that authorizes one to, not only, get at CCW, but also to be able to carry on a national level.

Winning a legislative battle for national reciprocity does not help those of us who do not have the possibility of obtaining a CCW to begin with, as that bill will only provide national carry to existing permit holders.

The price-range that was posted was a tool to determine what the financial baseline might be if, in fact, there was a possibility to design a program that could legally provide a small town with much needed revenue and services as well as to secure our ability to exercise our Constitutionally guaranteed right through a limited credential as a contract provider for that town.

Somebody please correct me if I'm incorrect.
I don't think he missed the point at all. People are discussing the setup of a bogus municipal agency and then selling police credentials.

I strongly support reform nationwide on CCW, but this crosses the line and is pure fraud in my opinion. Anyone who participates in fradulent activities such as this SHOULDN'T be allowed to CCW in my opinion. If you're going to cheat on this, where do you draw the line?

Let's work on getting the laws changed. Do it right.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 11-17-2009, 8:21 AM
tgriffin's Avatar
tgriffin tgriffin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vallejo
Posts: 5,125
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
I don't think he missed the point at all. People are discussing the setup of a bogus municipal agency and then selling police credentials.

I strongly support reform nationwide on CCW, but this crosses the line and is pure fraud in my opinion. Anyone who participates in fradulent activities such as this SHOULDN'T be allowed to CCW in my opinion. If you're going to cheat on this, where do you draw the line?

Let's work on getting the laws changed. Do it right.
Are OLL's cheating? No its the prevailing law of the land followed to the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

I see no distinction here made otherwise.
__________________
www.ccwforall.com
Donate to the New Promethean Initiative: DonateNPI@Gmail.com

Quote:
Originally Posted by pullnshoot25
I would love to have a hole cut in the ceiling so I could pop out and BAM! Hit 'em with my spice weasel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aileron
The hassle would be between this. (_._) and this (_0_).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil McCauley View Post
When Im wearing a miniskirt than yeah sure I use my foot to flush the urinals all the time!
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 11-17-2009, 8:24 AM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 8,874
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
I think that you have completely missed the thrust of this entire thread and discussion. This is about ordinary citizens exercising the same RKBA through CCW as is granted to a small subset of society, or LEOs.
Come on. We all know what this is about. It's about giving some average citizens the power - not the right - to carry under the guise of law enforcement credentials.

Yes, we should all have that right to carry. But let's not kid ourselves about the way it would be achieved here: only citizens who pay would get those credentials. This is not about a fight for a right. This would be a clever way to get that right, but only for some citizens who can afford it.

I'm curious to see where this is headed, but to present it as some civil right fight is delusional and dishonest.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 11-17-2009, 8:25 AM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgriffin View Post
Are OLL's cheating? No its the prevailing law of the land followed to the letter of the law, if not the spirit.
Yep. Why is it that when we comply with / work within the laws, we're accused of cheating?

.

Last edited by GuyW; 11-17-2009 at 9:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 11-17-2009, 8:25 AM
USAFTS's Avatar
USAFTS USAFTS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
I don't think he missed the point at all. People are discussing the setup of a bogus municipal agency and then selling police credentials.

I strongly support reform nationwide on CCW, but this crosses the line and is pure fraud in my opinion. Anyone who participates in fradulent activities such as this SHOULDN'T be allowed to CCW in my opinion. If you're going to cheat on this, where do you draw the line?

Let's work on getting the laws changed. Do it right.
Ron-Solo

I am not necessarily sold on this idea at this point and I too would much rather see the law reflect the Constitution...but I also think it's clear that the author and the majority of the members posting here are not seeking to set up a bogus municipal agency at all. It appears, at least to me, that we are all looking for sound LEGAL options for working with an existing and established agency. I also don't believe that anyone wants to go out and play cop. I have a great deal of respect for most LEO's and the training and effort necessary to do the toughest job out there. This project is not being discussed with any disrespect for LEO's or for the law in general. In fact, I think it's just the opposite. Any and / or all of us could simply lock-load and carry illegally. We could also be looking for some podunk sherriff that would write us a credential for a fee. I believe that the effort here is testiment to the fact that we, as law abiding citizens are trying to be just that.
__________________
• “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
  #311  
Old 11-17-2009, 9:13 AM
Grumpyoldretiredcop's Avatar
Grumpyoldretiredcop Grumpyoldretiredcop is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Escape tunnel successful!
Posts: 5,774
iTrader: 117 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunrun45 View Post
... I don't like the morals that this portrays... I am not speaking of the posters above me, I am speaking of the general principle voiced by the original thread author in SELLING police credentials... This also means that you would be SELLING police powers, trust, obligation and duty?

Those who have earned that sadi privilege have a purpose outlined in the federal act that granted them. You want your own rights? Figure out how to get a bill passed like the one that narrowly failed recently that would have granted CCW reciprocity in all states.

This is NOT part of the tactics that I wish to collaborate with as a member of calguns. By the very nature of posting a "price range" for BUYING police powers, you spit on the principles of police officers everywhere. This reaks of the very principles of coruption and destitute morals character that Police Officers have been fighting against for decades.
Agree with this. If the "thrust of the thread" were, "How much would you pay for a CCW good in all 50 states", that would be different. This is too much like Third World corruption.
__________________
I'm retired. That's right, retired. I don't want to hear about the cop who stopped you today or how you didn't think you should get a ticket. That just makes me grumpy!
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 11-17-2009, 9:32 AM
berto's Avatar
berto berto is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 7,761
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunrun45 View Post
... I don't like the morals that this portrays... I am not speaking of the posters above me, I am speaking of the general principle voiced by the original thread author in SELLING police credentials... This also means that you would be SELLING police powers, trust, obligation and duty?

Those who have earned that sadi privilege have a purpose outlined in the federal act that granted them. You want your own rights? Figure out how to get a bill passed like the one that narrowly failed recently that would have granted CCW reciprocity in all states.

This is NOT part of the tactics that I wish to collaborate with as a member of calguns. By the very nature of posting a "price range" for BUYING police powers, you spit on the principles of police officers everywhere. This reaks of the very principles of coruption and destitute morals character that Police Officers have been fighting against for decades.
Let's call it an administrative processing fee for becoming a LEO. Better?

Will nationwide reciprocity get me CCW in CA? Will I, as a CA resident, be able to CCW in CA with a non-resident permit from another state?

How about the principle that we're all equal under the law except for the lucky few who through their employment are allowed to buy "unsafe" handguns for purely personal use while the majority can't? So much for principle.
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 11-17-2009, 9:54 AM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,320
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpyoldretiredcop View Post
Agree with this. If the "thrust of the thread" were, "How much would you pay for a CCW good in all 50 states", that would be different. This is too much like Third World corruption.
That is the thrust of the thread. It's just not the title of the thread.
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 11-17-2009, 10:07 AM
hollabillz hollabillz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 313
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Yep, the title sounds misleading which is why lots of skeptical people (myself included) under-voted.

Anyways, it seems the two most popular options seem to be Level II or Level III Active Reserve officers in a small, incorporated CA city or some sort of Honorary or Special Deputy in a small, pro-gun rights town in any US State that allows non-resident LEOs.

AJAX, do you have any more news on progress?
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 11-17-2009, 10:46 AM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,026
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
Come on. We all know what this is about. It's about giving some average citizens the power - not the right - to carry under the guise of law enforcement credentials.

Yes, we should all have that right to carry. But let's not kid ourselves about the way it would be achieved here: only citizens who pay would get those credentials. This is not about a fight for a right. This would be a clever way to get that right, but only for some citizens who can afford it.

I'm curious to see where this is headed, but to present it as some civil right fight is delusional and dishonest.
With CCW, you still have to basically pay for the right (really, it is treated more like a privilege) to carry and also have to submit to things like background checks and interviews, among other things, which you should absolutely not have to to exercise a right (as I said, this relegates it in practice to a mere privilege). In most of CA, even when you pay you can still be denied. This is simply a way to try to undermine those laws which restrict our rights, a case of using the laws against those who would like to see us not be able to carry. If this means using the law to buy LEO credentials to get national CCW (and in CA, potentially other stuff), than so be it. LEOs should never have been given special privileges; they are not more entitled to carry or any other things than the rest of us, from a moral perspective; while treated as such, they are not a special class. I am completely behind this sort of effort.
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 11-17-2009, 12:30 PM
Skullster's Avatar
Skullster Skullster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oceanside CA
Posts: 281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

To Carry or Not To Carry? That is the Question!

Well not really. It seems the question is it morally right to "purchase" the credentials under current laws in order to carry concealed versus work to change the current law through the "proper channels" that allow us to carry concealed nationwide.

This is a great discussion but what bugs me is where did we loose the part about "... the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" in the first place?

The Bill of Rights if I recall correctly was written to remind the government what it cannot do in regards to the PEOPLES God given rights.

So how is it and under what authority am I "supposedly by law"not allowed to carry concealed in this day and age to protecct my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness no matter the time or place I may be. I realize if caught I would be arrested but I can read the highest law in the land and...and well you all know what is sez too so by what authority what law (I am a simple guy and I understand there are more than 10,000 gun laws) but which one of them supersedes the FIRST gun law that says my right to one shall not be infringed? Any lawyerly types put it into laymans terms

Gun Laws started somewhere but where was the first one refuting the first one? Was it check your guns the door in a saloon perhaps? Ok, if everyone else does right? But what about the derringer concealed up the sleeve? I mean really I don't understand why we have this battle before us. I jump through all the fricken hoops to get my guns and I am told it's against the law to carry it concealed so I don't but WHY WHY WHY.
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 11-17-2009, 1:23 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,726
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hollabillz View Post
Yep, the title sounds misleading which is why lots of skeptical people (myself included) under-voted.

Anyways, it seems the two most popular options seem to be Level II or Level III Active Reserve officers in a small, incorporated CA city or some sort of Honorary or Special Deputy in a small, pro-gun rights town in any US State that allows non-resident LEOs.

AJAX, do you have any more news on progress?
No updates or progress..... My cellphone had a bios crash and won't come back to life... I suspect that I have a few voice mail messages waiting for me on it from some of the agencies that have been contacted... but until I can resurrect my phone I have no way of checking.

I suspect it may be down for the count this time... if I can't get it coaxed to fire up in the next 24 hours I'll have to take it in to see if they can salvage the memory (I have a lot of important phone numbers on it) and I'll get a new phone... This isn't the first time my razr2 has done this... I can usually coax it back to life...

once I resolve these 'technical difficulties' I'll see if we've got any hits yet.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 11-17-2009, 2:43 PM
Jonnyboy182 Jonnyboy182 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 104
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Hmm, well-I don't have an issue with the idea that we need a federal-Nationwide CCW-but going around it this way seems wrong to me. It is my opinion that LEO Creds are earned. Yes, maybe there are a few bad eggs out there that mess with the system, but does that give us the right to go through the same hole? Or should we close up the hole and go about this the right way. HR 218 was not intended to allow citizens to CCW nationwide. It was written for LEOS, to protect the community better and to protect their families better as they can be much bigger targets than most of us. I am about to enter the Academy-and I am a CCW applicant as well. As harsh as this sounds, anyone who would try to lie or manipulate this to gain a Nationwide CCW, doesn't deserve one.

Last edited by Jonnyboy182; 11-17-2009 at 2:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 11-17-2009, 2:58 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonnyboy182 View Post
As harsh as this sounds, anyone who would try to lie or manipulate this to gain a Nationwide CCW, doesn't deserve one.
We all DESERVE one already, but we can't get one.

So I'm fine with manipulating the law to achieve the goal.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 11-17-2009, 2:58 PM
berto's Avatar
berto berto is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 7,761
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonnyboy182 View Post
Hmm, well-I don't have an issue with the idea that we need a federal CCW-but going around it this way seems wrong to me. It is my opinion that LEO Creds are earned. Yes, maybe there are a few bad eggs out there that mess with the system, but does that give us the right to go through the same hole? Or should we close up the hole and go about this the right way. HR 218 was not intended to allow citizens to CCW nationwide. It was written for LEOS, to protect the community better and to protect their families better as they can be much bigger targets than most of us. I am about to enter the Academy-and I am a CCW applicant as well. As harsh as this sounds, anyone who would try to lie or manipulate this to gain a Nationwide CCW, doesn't deserve one.
So LEOs and their families are more worthy of protection than the rest of us? Even while off duty on vacation in a state where they don't reside?

Anybody participating in this plan would earn their credentials. That those credentials might be more easily obtained than credentials elsewhere is beside the point. It might be easier to become a LEO in Kansas than it is in New York but that doesn't make the Kansas LEO any less of a LEO or restrict his rights under HR218.

Equal under the law or special rights for special people?
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 2:44 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.