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 01-28-2013, 10:35 AM
MACGEARAILT MACGEARAILT is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default AB 48 Skinner and PORAC

Good morning folks, PORAC had a board meeting on Friday,2013 January 25 and amongst the many topics for discussion was wether to support or oppose AB48 which is designed to greatly restrict the availability of ammunition to citizens residing in California.Porac decided after 20 minutes of discussion to support because serving and retired peace officers will be unaffected by the most onerous aspects of the bill.We've got ours,screw everyone else.Porac did the same thing last year with open carry. Texas is looking better as I approach my retirement date.Be Safe.
__________________
THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS ARE NOT CONTINGENT ON THE REASONABLE EXCERCISE OF THOSE RIGHTS BY ALL CITIZENS
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-28-2013, 11:20 AM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ramblin' Man
Posts: 8,013
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

In 32 years of LE, the only interaction I ever had with PORAC was arresting one of their representatives for DUI. He kept throwing out the fact he worked for PORAC as the cell door shut on him. I never met a single officer that was a member.

PORAC does not, in my opinion, represent rank and file of law enforcement.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011

NRA Life Member
CRPA Life Member
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-28-2013, 11:36 AM
MaHoTex's Avatar
MaHoTex MaHoTex is offline
You're a daisy if you do!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Isola di Linosa
Posts: 5,199
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

That is really great to hear Ron. I read the OP and was like but you have put my mind at ease.

BTW, Non-LEO here.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-28-2013, 6:08 PM
retired retired is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 9,229
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
In 32 years of LE, the only interaction I ever had with PORAC was arresting one of their representatives for DUI. He kept throwing out the fact he worked for PORAC as the cell door shut on him. I never met a single officer that was a member.

PORAC does not, in my opinion, represent rank and file of law enforcement.

Just like a Sheriff and Chief of Police do not either.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-28-2013, 9:59 PM
CBR_rider CBR_rider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,775
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Wow, I'm sure my union will be right behind PORAC in supporting this piece of legislation.. If I could find an economical way to obtain legal defense for on duty incidents I would most certainly drop my union membership due to crap like this...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-28-2013, 11:18 PM
Grumpyoldretiredcop's Avatar
Grumpyoldretiredcop Grumpyoldretiredcop is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Escape tunnel successful!
Posts: 5,833
iTrader: 117 / 100%
Default

PORAC sucks.
__________________
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
  #7  
Old 01-30-2013, 12:21 AM
1911_sfca's Avatar
1911_sfca 1911_sfca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,213
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Many departments are members of PORAC, primarily for the legal representation available in the case of a disciplinary hearing, on-duty shooting, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-30-2013, 5:28 PM
DEPUTYBILL DEPUTYBILL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: LODI,CA.
Posts: 732
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

PORAC first and formost is a labor organization. I would hazard that any bills that deal with guns and ammo will be supported by them IF peace officers,and retirees are exempt. Sad but true. That said,I feel most rank and file officers would not support an outright ban of guns or ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-30-2013, 6:10 PM
jaysen jaysen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 305
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR_rider View Post
Wow, I'm sure my union will be right behind PORAC in supporting this piece of legislation.. If I could find an economical way to obtain legal defense for on duty incidents I would most certainly drop my union membership due to crap like this...
You always can, and there's FOP but have fun trying to obtain representation without paying out of pocket if it extends past an IA interview.

Don't believe me, ask around...

Unfortunately, as much as people bash PORAC they have done some GOOD... There was the bill they supported and eventually passed RE: retired officers and dept letterhead purchased AR's; you can now keep them.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-05-2013, 12:42 AM
1911_sfca's Avatar
1911_sfca 1911_sfca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,213
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysen View Post
Unfortunately, as much as people bash PORAC they have done some GOOD... There was the bill they supported and eventually passed RE: retired officers and dept letterhead purchased AR's; you can now keep them.
Sorry, I missed this as I haven't been watching this issue closely. Are you saying there's a law PORAC supported which usurps opinion No. 09-901 (12/31/10) which says retired LEOs must relinquish their legal personally owned and registered AWs?

Can you send a link, as although I'm not near retirement age, I'm interested in the topic.
Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-05-2013, 12:51 PM
jaysen jaysen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 305
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911_sfca View Post
Sorry, I missed this as I haven't been watching this issue closely. Are you saying there's a law PORAC supported which usurps opinion No. 09-901 (12/31/10) which says retired LEOs must relinquish their legal personally owned and registered AWs?

Can you send a link, as although I'm not near retirement age, I'm interested in the topic.
Thanks
Yes, it was in my conference book but I'm sure I can find it online...

I'll edit this once I do.


Edit;
AB2549 addresses this.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...ntroduced.html

http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/...5962&src=&ref=

Last edited by jaysen; 02-05-2013 at 8:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-05-2013, 8:20 PM
jaysen jaysen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 305
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Penal Code 30630(2);

Quote:
If a peace officer who lawfully
purchased an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle pursuant to paragraph
(1) and properly registered the firearm in his or her name, and who
has honorably retired from the law enforcement agency, the officer
shall notify the Department of Justice of his or her change in status
and continued ownership of the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle. The
notification shall include written documentation from the head of the
law enforcement agency from which the officer retired, or a designee
of the department head, stating that the officer
honorably retired from the agency. As used in this section,
"honorably retired" includes all peace officers who have qualified
for, and have accepted, a service or disability retirement. For
purposes of this section, "honorably retired" does not include an
officer who has agreed to a service retire ment in lieu of
termination.

(3) The Department of Justice shall develop a program authorizing
a retired officer to file a "change of status" form for purposes of
paragraph (2), shall develop and adopt a form for that purpose, and
may charge the retired officer seeking to file that form a fee
covering the reasonable cost of providing this service.

Last edited by jaysen; 02-05-2013 at 8:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:16 PM
cowboykenny cowboykenny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: So-cal
Posts: 207
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

PORAC IS A DEMOCRAT SUPPORTING ORG. THAT SHOULD SAY IT ALL.
__________________
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 11:14 PM.




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