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 > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-06-2011, 3:02 PM
1911su16b870's Avatar
1911su16b870 1911su16b870 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,116
iTrader: 127 / 100%
Default Did the AG just throw retired LEOs under the bus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
From the California Attorney General's website:

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/opi...564_09-901.pdf
Just finished reading the AG's opinion that retired LEOs who purchased and registered their personal AWs are not allowed to keep them after they retire.
__________________
"The message we’re sending is…not here, not now, we’re prepared for you. And if you seek to harm our children, we will neutralize that threat and you will most likely be killed." Fontana PD Chief Rodney Jones on the FUSD decision to have AR-15s on school campuses.

CGF Contributor
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Beretta, GLOCK, SA-Colt AR15/M16, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-06-2011, 3:25 PM
FLIGHT762's Avatar
FLIGHT762 FLIGHT762 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern Calif. / SFO Area
Posts: 2,190
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

It does look that way. You do know that the AG was Jerry Brown on his last day as AG.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-06-2011, 3:28 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,053
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow, on the last day of his term. We shall see what he does next. Looking forward to retiring in another state someday. stay safe everyone
__________________
A life is not important, except for the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-06-2011, 3:47 PM
capo's Avatar
capo capo is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: That's Secret
Posts: 4,466
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Your top cop even hates you guys too...wow!
__________________
The reserve, to the reserve. Last in, first out.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-06-2011, 3:56 PM
Jonathan Doe
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Maybe one day he will make us not carry any guns even on duty.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-06-2011, 3:58 PM
556fmj 556fmj is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 255
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by topgun7 View Post
Maybe one day he will make us not carry any guns even on duty.
No kidding. We will be carrying rubber band guns.
__________________
Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-06-2011, 4:02 PM
003 003 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,377
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

http://www.policelawblog.com/blog/hr-218/

I suspect the LEOSA is going to be tested sooner than I original thought.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-06-2011, 4:04 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

Not to say that this is his intention, but I imagine that the police unions will not be too dead-set against rescinding CA's AWB if their special status is taken away from them.

Before: "Eh, I get to keep mine. I'm trained, therefore I get to keep this as a perk. The law doesn't bother me."
After: "Oh crap, I'm going to have to give up ALL these weapons? Man, this law sucks."
__________________
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
  #9  
Old 01-06-2011, 4:09 PM
4ME&MYHOUSE 4ME&MYHOUSE is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 158
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

^^^ this
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-06-2011, 4:43 PM
SoCalDep SoCalDep is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 857
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

I wonder why he did this at the end of his term?....Possibly to avoid the embarrassment when it's thrown out in court on multiple grounds...I read the statement and it sounds about as brilliant as the AR and AK series designation. I severely doubt it will hold up in court under the scrutiny of recent Supreme Court decisions, LEOSA, and the law itself...

You know their full of it when they use the word "intent" as much as they did...Here's a good translation:

"We know the law says one thing but we're going to say the law really means something else and since we're going to say something opposite what is actually written into law we're going to tell everyone that when we wrote the law we actually meant to say something else, though we say in this decision that if we meant to say something else we could have actually said it....But we really meant something else."
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-06-2011, 4:48 PM
foxtrotuniformlima foxtrotuniformlima is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,652
iTrader: 165 / 100%
Default

So the AG says that LEOs are just like non-LEOs when not employed as one ? For all those folks that have been complaining that they get exemptions from all the laws we hate so much, now you should be happy.

Perhaps another Chief of Police should ask for the AG's opinion on if officers who got a handgun that was not on the roster would have to give them up when they retire too. That would be a hoot.
__________________
California - Come for the taxes, stay for the gun laws.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-06-2011, 4:51 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrotuniformlima View Post
Perhaps another Chief of Police should ask for the AG's opinion on if officers who got a handgun that was not on the roster would have to give them up when they retire too. That would be a hoot.
This would be a moot question to ask. I have a non-rostered handgun from my dad; they'd just point to PPTs and say that the rest of us aren't completely stopped by the roster.

The AWB however is a clear cut night and day comparison.
__________________
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
  #13  
Old 01-06-2011, 4:54 PM
IrishPirate's Avatar
IrishPirate IrishPirate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Roseville, PRK
Posts: 6,401
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

But police officers aren't normal citizens! that's why they can have unsafe handguns, evil black rifles, and hi-cap mags.....because they are not normal people right? So where's the logic now???


oh i get it.....they finally realized that LEO's ARE normal people too but instead of rescinding the rediculous laws that prevent the rest of us normal people from enjoying our civil liberties, they just lumped LEO's in with the normal group so they can continue to sh*t on everyone......makes sense
__________________

Most civilization is based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.
People Should Not Be Afraid Of Their Governments, Governments Should Be Afraid Of Their People

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-06-2011, 5:01 PM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,387
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Well if nothing else it's going to give the new AG and her staff something to litigate at some point. As opined above, I can't imagine this is going to play well with the rank and file. Gun hating CLEOs will, I'm sure in some cases, roll over and say "yeah boys... turn them in".

I personally think it's a very tough argument to make to say to a retiring LEO that their property, which they purchased with their own funds and the state's blessing is imperiled simply because their ID now says "retired".

Our tax dollars hard at work... someplace other than where our team can do the most good with them.

Of course, considering the large equal protection window that (IMO) the entire business of active LEOs being able to buy off roster and AW already opens........................
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-06-2011, 6:17 PM
SoCalDep SoCalDep is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 857
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grammaton76 View Post
The AWB however is a clear cut night and day comparison.
Not true. Normal people own registered assault weapons.

What the AG is advocating is the confiscation of legally registered assault weapons pursuant to CA law. If they get away with it with cops...Who's next?

C.O.N.F.I.S.C.A.T.I.O.N.

This is not a "I get to have what you don't get to have" issue...This is a "Bring in your guns" issue.

The ramifications are far greater than LE...And I say this owning a BB equipped AR. We have a liberal Governor, liberal AG, who were both elected by the people of this state...The last thing I want is them thinking they can start pushing the issue...

My Sheriff won't sign an AW letter anyway so I don't have a big dog in this fight, but to say it's night and day...Well, not so much.

Get ready...The fight's a-comin'.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-06-2011, 7:00 PM
Sniper3142's Avatar
Sniper3142 Sniper3142 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tustin, CA
Posts: 2,386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911su16b870 View Post
Just finished reading the AG's opinion that retired LEOs who purchased and registered their personal AWs are not allowed to keep them after they retire.
Yup... it does look that way.

To all of our outstanding, hardworking, greatly under-appreciated LEOs in this state...

Welcome to the STRUGGLE!!
__________________
Internet Talk is Cheap

Man Up, Show Up, or Shut the @#$! Up.

America's Largest Street Gang:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qEr_mZf06Y
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-06-2011, 7:45 PM
Fastattack's Avatar
Fastattack Fastattack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North Central Arizona (formerly So Cal)
Posts: 506
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Well, it chaffs my hide when I'm at the range and a retired LEO shows up with gear I can't legally get *only* because I didn't happen to choose law enforcement as my profession. The law STINKS. And Moonbeam is supposed to be more friendly toward 2A in his old age? Well, we now know where he really stands.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-06-2011, 7:56 PM
BillCA's Avatar
BillCA BillCA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 3,832
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalDep View Post
I wonder why he did this at the end of his term?....Possibly to avoid the embarrassment when it's thrown out in court on multiple grounds...I read the statement and it sounds about as brilliant as the AR and AK series designation. I severely doubt it will hold up in court under the scrutiny of recent Supreme Court decisions, LEOSA, and the law itself...
OR... JB could be just "priming the pump" for a repeal of the AWB.

As others put it, the LEOs will not want to give up their guns and if the law says they'll have to, then that's just more voices arguing that the AWB in unconstitutional.

Note that in a court, it'll be rather difficult for the POA and retired officers to contend;
Ordinary citizens have no legitimate need for these weapons, but our police officers need them to combat crime and protect their own families, even when retired.

They can't show evidence that retired LEOs are at special risk that requires or justifies an AW in their possession. That will leave them the 2A arguments that these are militia rifles, the modern day equivilent of the Brown Bess, Squirrel Rifle, Trapdoor Springfield or the 1903 rifle.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-06-2011, 8:11 PM
armygunsmith's Avatar
armygunsmith armygunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,096
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grammaton76 View Post
Not to say that this is his intention, but I imagine that the police unions will not be too dead-set against rescinding CA's AWB if their special status is taken away from them.

Before: "Eh, I get to keep mine. I'm trained, therefore I get to keep this as a perk. The law doesn't bother me."
After: "Oh crap, I'm going to have to give up ALL these weapons? Man, this law sucks."
I agree. Hopefully we'll see more people joining the fight against the AWB. Reminds me of the following quote:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
__________________
SECRET//NOFORN
"Sometimes it's easier to do it the hard way."
Sgt. E <--(That's me)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-06-2011, 8:29 PM
bcj128's Avatar
bcj128 bcj128 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: off to the races
Posts: 350
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Sheriff Gore lost my vote.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-06-2011, 8:41 PM
coltds coltds is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

thats awesome....muy bueno
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-06-2011, 8:52 PM
1911su16b870's Avatar
1911su16b870 1911su16b870 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,116
iTrader: 127 / 100%
Default

IMO this AG opinion only forces POAs and LE unions to pressure the legislature to enact a clear, specific exemption for LE and retired LE to own CA "AWs".

The state can not allow people to legally buy something and then make those same people criminals because they still own that same item after they retire.
__________________
"The message we’re sending is…not here, not now, we’re prepared for you. And if you seek to harm our children, we will neutralize that threat and you will most likely be killed." Fontana PD Chief Rodney Jones on the FUSD decision to have AR-15s on school campuses.

CGF Contributor
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Beretta, GLOCK, SA-Colt AR15/M16, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-06-2011, 8:58 PM
lavgrunt's Avatar
lavgrunt lavgrunt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 801
iTrader: 62 / 100%
Default

.......Who cares.........Most retired cops move to Idaho anyway !!!
__________________
"......I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you f**k with me, I'll kill you all......"

Marine Corps General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders, 2003
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-06-2011, 9:05 PM
DannyInSoCal's Avatar
DannyInSoCal DannyInSoCal is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 8,071
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

What's next - LEO's won't be allowed to carry while off duty...?
__________________
.
$500 Donation to any Veterans Charity - Plus $500 Gift Card to any gun store: Visit 2nd Amendment Mortgage / www.2AMortgage.com
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-06-2011, 9:05 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 17,243
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grammaton76 View Post
Not to say that this is his intention, but I imagine that the police unions will not be too dead-set against rescinding CA's AWB if their special status is taken away from them.

Before: "Eh, I get to keep mine. I'm trained, therefore I get to keep this as a perk. The law doesn't bother me."
After: "Oh crap, I'm going to have to give up ALL these weapons? Man, this law sucks."
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ME&MYHOUSE View Post
^^^ this
agree 100%
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-06-2011, 9:47 PM
yzernie's Avatar
yzernie yzernie is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oak Hills/Hesperia, Ca.
Posts: 5,115
iTrader: 541 / 100%
Default

I have not read the entire publication yet but I do have this opinion so far.

If someone jumps through all of the hoops required from California to be able to purchase the rifle land then lawfully purchases and possesses one, I don't see how they can tell you must have to get rid of it. Maybe a grandfather clause to be added?
__________________
My Commercial Sales Ad >>> http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=257865

TinStarSupply@aol.com

The satisfaction of a job well done is to be the one who has done it
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-06-2011, 9:57 PM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,387
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Having read through the entire opinion after dinner... yeah, I need a life... I think you may be onto what the motivation is; prompting the legislature to amend and clean up the law a bit to remove all doubt.

Or to screw the retirees....

I did find it somewhat hopeful that the deputy AG who wrote the opinion is clear on the concept that Silviera is more than a little moot now post McDonald.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-06-2011, 10:47 PM
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

"Opinions" are like rectums, everyone has one, and they all stink.

This does not have the force of law.

A peace officer who is able to purchase an AW is able to register it as an AW, just like people who did during the 89 & 90 registrations. They don't become 'unregistered' later, they remain registered AWs. If they were able to take them away, they would be able to take away ALL registered AWs.

Just don't see it happening.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-06-2011, 11:32 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,471
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInSoCal View Post
What's next - LEO's won't be allowed to carry while off duty...?
Don't laugh... until LEOSA... there were more than enough LEO's who were not allowed to carry off duty, either by law or policy.

It's also standard in a few other countries, and we all know how libs love to model the US after foreign countries because they think they are more civilized and advanced than ours.

In Hong Kong, the officer turns in his issue weapon at the end of the shift because they are not allowed to carry when not working. So... gangsters were known to wait at the station for the off-duty officer to come out that door. That's just one of the places that I know of with this kind of rule.

In a related story, cops in Australia and UK don't routinely carry guns on duty. There are a few departments that don't allow on duty carry... Pasadena College Police being one... I feel for those guys.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-06-2011, 11:57 PM
alex00's Avatar
alex00 alex00 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 841
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
"Opinions" are like rectums, everyone has one, and they all stink.

This does not have the force of law.

A peace officer who is able to purchase an AW is able to register it as an AW, just like people who did during the 89 & 90 registrations. They don't become 'unregistered' later, they remain registered AWs. If they were able to take them away, they would be able to take away ALL registered AWs.

Just don't see it happening.
Even though it doesn't have the force of law, I could see Departments requiring officers to turn in or de-register the rifles as a condition of being issued a retiree identification card.

I'm interested to see where this heads.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-07-2011, 9:33 AM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,387
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alex00 View Post
Even though it doesn't have the force of law, I could see Departments requiring officers to turn in or de-register the rifles as a condition of being issued a retiree identification card.
+1

Force of law aside, if a CLEO (such as Sheriff Gore) feels emboldened to act within his authority to create department policy based on this opinion, that's where the rubber is going to meet the road. While I would agree that it's not reasonable and perhaps wouldn't happen, we all have had times where we've looked at something our CLEO has done and scratched our heads.

Who knows, after all, what Sheriff Gore was being advised by his own inside counsel or what his thinking was when he requested the opinion in the first place? It's all speculation, but the analogy of where there is smoke, there is fire, has to be considered.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison

Last edited by BigDogatPlay; 01-07-2011 at 9:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-07-2011, 10:56 AM
oddjob oddjob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lodi, California
Posts: 1,878
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

I will admit I didn't read the whole opinion. The AG opinion is just that.....an opinion. Bottom line is that its up to each of the 58 District Attorney's Office's to prosecute or even confiscate the AW's.

Years ago there was an opinion about off duty officer's carrying CCW's. This was under Bill Lockyer. Its been too long ago for me, but I think it was regarding if an off duty officer has a "right" to CCW as opposed to being "allowed."

It didn't affect a thing.....zip, zero, zilch.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-07-2011, 10:58 AM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 10,912
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

If this is the case, the result will be fewer departments with patrol rifles on the street. My department does not have the money to purchase enough patrol rifles but they do allow personal rifles, but the officer must go through an approved Patrol Rifle course. How many officers will be willing to purchase their own rifle if they will have to give it up when they retire?

As for those who complain about LEO's being able to purchase something they can't, most LEO's purchase these as tools of the job, not range toys.
How many of you would invest $1000+ on tool for work knowing that if you ever had to use it, it could be taken away for several years without compensation from your employer. That is the way it is with my department. If I have to use my rifle at work, it's gone until whatever court case it is involved in is done. No compensation, no replacement while it's tied up in evidence for court.
__________________


Ignorance can be educated.
Crazy can be medicated.
But there is no cure for stupid.


Police Brutality? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRd5oucG114

NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by TRICKSTER; 01-07-2011 at 1:14 PM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-07-2011, 11:14 AM
nobody33 nobody33 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 287
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Interesting that Gore asked this opinion as I don't believe SDSO even allows their deputies to buy rifles. Other agencies in the county do. I have 22 years left so hopefully this changes. Realistically this only an opinion and unenforceable... my registration is no different than any other.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-07-2011, 11:37 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,471
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

San Diego doesn't have rifles in their cars. San Fran doesn't even have shotguns in their cars. Thank the progressives and their touchy feely approach to policing.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-07-2011, 11:41 AM
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious View Post
San Diego doesn't have rifles in their cars. San Fran doesn't even have shotguns in their cars. Thank the progressives and their touchy feely approach to policing.
I know I used to see rifles in Oceanside PD cars. I'm pretty sure I may have seen the muzzle of an AR in a San Diego car too, unless perhaps this is a recent change.
__________________
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
  #37  
Old 01-07-2011, 11:57 AM
trendar5's Avatar
trendar5 trendar5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Jose CA
Posts: 966
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grammaton76 View Post
Not to say that this is his intention, but I imagine that the police unions will not be too dead-set against rescinding CA's AWB if their special status is taken away from them.

Before: "Eh, I get to keep mine. I'm trained, therefore I get to keep this as a perk. The law doesn't bother me."
After: "Oh crap, I'm going to have to give up ALL these weapons? Man, this law sucks."
This forum has rules, even for moderators. Are you a LEO?

You start off making the claim that police unions are against the repeal of the AWB. I have worked for three agencies, one of them is the 10th largest city in the nation. None of my unions has ever made a public statement on this issue. Perhaps you wanted them to come out and demand the repeal of the AWB. I'm all for a repeal, for the record.

But your second bit about individual officers essentially having an attitude that they don't care about the ban because they are exempt seems like an insult to LEO's. By the way, if you are not an LEO, come out and try the job for a few months and see how great all the "perks" are, like getting shot down in the street by some animal.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-07-2011, 12:06 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,471
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grammaton76 View Post
I know I used to see rifles in Oceanside PD cars. I'm pretty sure I may have seen the muzzle of an AR in a San Diego car too, unless perhaps this is a recent change.
San Diego County? You talking about PD.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-07-2011, 12:32 PM
bcj128's Avatar
bcj128 bcj128 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: off to the races
Posts: 350
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious View Post
San Diego doesn't have rifles in their cars. San Fran doesn't even have shotguns in their cars. Thank the progressives and their touchy feely approach to policing.
Oh contrair monfrair...

SDPD allows officers to buy AR's that they carry on patrol, so they will be directly affected. There are tens or more of retired SDPD officers with AR's purchased under this program.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-07-2011, 12:34 PM
cmichini cmichini is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: On the lam in NC
Posts: 1,700
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grammaton76 View Post
Not to say that this is his intention, but I imagine that the police unions will not be too dead-set against rescinding CA's AWB if their special status is taken away from them.

Before: "Eh, I get to keep mine. I'm trained, therefore I get to keep this as a perk. The law doesn't bother me."
After: "Oh crap, I'm going to have to give up ALL these weapons? Man, this law sucks."
I like this development. It adds another class of citizens who are now subject to the draconian, unjust and amoral laws on the books.

Misery loves company and now there's a harmed group with a powerful lobby arm that actually gets attention from legislatures.

Seems like a group that was a little more equal than others, just became merely equal.
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 8:25 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.