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: Would you arrest a non felon for carrying a gun who has no permission slip?
Yes, the law's the law. I am Judge Dredd! 32 39.02%
No, as long as they have no "history" and are cool with me, they can be on there marry way. 50 60.98%
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-03-2013, 1:31 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,479
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Question for CalGun LEO's

OK, so this topic and question is a result from another thread but I wanted to expand on it.

Bearing the current political shenanigans and out right civil liberty violations how do you stand on the average honest person carrying a gun? You can explain your answer if you wish but I will have a anonymous vote.

EDIT. Let's keep cop bashing out of this. I don't want to see anyone attack LEO's for there answer. Now you can argue with rational logic but please no "He's a poo poo head..." kind of answers.
__________________
Quote:
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed
- Thomas Jefferson -
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA

Last edited by gobler; 09-03-2013 at 2:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-03-2013, 2:13 AM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,037
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I've only met one cop that didn't support concealed carry. Old sac pd sgt that didn't understand the background and training process to get one in most states.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-03-2013, 4:33 AM
AceGirlsHusband's Avatar
AceGirlsHusband AceGirlsHusband is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,888
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am NRA; I am very pro-2A. It is a guaranteed right and it is an American heritage, too. I have no problem with, and support, responsible, law-abiding gun owners.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-03-2013, 5:50 AM
SemperFi1775's Avatar
SemperFi1775 SemperFi1775 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 686
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AceGirlsHusband View Post
I am NRA; I am very pro-2A. It is a guaranteed right and it is an American heritage, too. I have no problem with, and support, responsible, law-abiding gun owners.
nice PC answer...

1. would you support removing all LEOs exemptions from CA firearms law?

2. would you be willing to participate in a video tapping speaking out against 2A restrictions in uniform?
__________________
"What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???"

"I want the truth! You can't handle the truth!!!" A Few Good Men
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-03-2013, 6:41 AM
Lone_Gunman Lone_Gunman is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In the wind
Posts: 8,412
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

To the all the LEO who say that they support law abiding responsible gun ownership I have a question.

The laws that our legislature is on the verge of passing are blatantly unconstitutional, you know it, and I know it. They are set to classify every single semi auto as an AW. They are set to seize legally owned magazines, they are set to require permits to purchase ammo. So here is the question.

If you believe in the Second will you enforce those laws. Will you seize an unregistered AW from an otherwise law abiding citizen? I'm not talking about going door to door. I'm talking about the guy you pull over for a busted tail light. He has a semi auto that has been classified as an AW, and a couple 20 or 30 round mags. Lets say it's a Mini-14. The AW registration has passed, and he either didn't know, or chose not to comply. It isn't loaded, it's even in a gun case.

How about CCW without a permit? Saying you support "law abiding gun owners" isn't going to fly for much longer. Are you going to follow the Constitution, or the BS laws that they are trying to pass. Now I know that it isn't law yet. I know that the registration period has not passed, but there'd is a good chance the laws will pass. You will at some point be tasked with enforcing (even more) blatantly unconstitutional laws. What's it going to be?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-03-2013, 7:04 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

This is a pretty lame thread.

You are asking paid, employed, LEO to go on the record in a public forum about what they would or wouldn't do while conducting a criminal investigation?


fail!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-03-2013, 7:23 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 331
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
This is a pretty lame thread.

You are asking paid, employed, LEO to go on the record in a public forum about what they would or wouldn't do while conducting a criminal investigation?


fail!
Or maybe he's asking a public servant, paid by the PEOPLE with our tax dollars whether thy are going to uphold their oath to protect the ultimate law of the land as they are sworn to do instead of violating that law to serve the interests of a politician not in permanent office. As their employers, we have a right to know if our employees are willing to do their job.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-03-2013, 7:25 AM
IPSICK's Avatar
IPSICK IPSICK is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: East Bay Area
Posts: 4,200
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
This is a pretty lame thread.

You are asking paid, employed, LEO to go on the record in a public forum about what they would or wouldn't do while conducting a criminal investigation?


fail!
I agree, this is a shi-tey question.

Although, I do wonder how many LEO's see private citizens who wish to or already do carry as "gun nuts"?

This was recently stated by an Alameda County Deputy after a safety meeting regarding a robbery incident with public employees at a job site. It felt a little off-putting.
__________________
"When you get the (men) to the range, you just get the men. But when you bring the (women) to the range, you get the (whole family). And that's what's going to save our 2nd Amendment."--Dianna Liedorff

"Since self-preservation is the 1st law of nature, we assert the...right to self-defense. The Constitution...clearly affirms the right of every American...to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guaranteed under the Constitution." --Malcolm X
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-03-2013, 7:32 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpegasus;12219799[B
]Or maybe he's asking a public servant, paid by the PEOPLE [/B]with our tax dollars whether thy are going to uphold their oath to protect the ultimate law of the land as they are sworn to do instead of violating that law to serve the interests of a politician not in permanent office. As their employers, we have a right to know if our employees are willing to do their job.


You guys really need to get over this mentality. You are not their boss and you do not pay their salary.

Just because you own stock in a company, does not mean you can control what the the board does with the money or how it makes policy and enforce it. All you have is the power to vote and the legal system, thats it!! Its the same thing with local politics.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-03-2013, 7:36 AM
Frito Bandido's Avatar
Frito Bandido Frito Bandido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 555
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
This is a pretty lame thread.

You are asking paid, employed, LEO to go on the record in a public forum about what they would or wouldn't do while conducting a criminal investigation?


fail!
Agreed. I think most people on this forum already know the answer to that question. The police will enforce whatever the law is, whether it's blatantly unconstitutional or not. They're not going to put their careers on the line for us or for a principled stance on the Constitution. Whatever their PD says to do, they'll do, because they have wives, kids, mortgages, etc. Trying to fight a one-man war against their own PD is a lose-lose that will get nothing done.

The real question should be whether these officers will use their union to start putting pressure on their PD to oppose these laws, or to work with their CLEO to agree that such-and-such law should be as loosely enforced as possible as a matter of policy... at least until things inevitably get straightened out in court.
__________________
When shopping at Amazon.com, enter Shop42A.com in the address bar, and Amazon donates money to the Calguns Foundation.

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-03-2013, 7:42 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 331
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You guys really need to get over this mentality. You are not their boss and you do not pay their salary.

Just because you own stock in a company does not mean you can control what he the board does with the money or how it makes policy and enforce it. All you have is the power to vote and the legal system, thats it!!
You make a fundamental mistake - where do the taxpayer dollars come from to pay those salaries? Private sector employees who actually generate wealth. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how government is supposed to work. I can choose whether or not to invest in a company and whether or not to buy their product. That is my choice. A company can change their bylaws to govern how changes are made, including allowing stockholders to vote on policy.
A constitutional government requires both the consent of the governed and the understanding that the framework that we all live under (in this case the Constitution) means what it says it means and that all parties are bound to it regardless of their own personal likes or dislikes. It requires an acknowledgement that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in such cases as the 2nd Amendment and provides mechanisms for amendment if you don't like it. If you don't believe me, read the arguments of the founding fathers - I'm pretty sure they knew what they intended.
Additionally, if they are not accountable to us, then who are they accountable to? That's part of the problem with the trust relationship between "LEO" and "civilians" today - people believe that peace officers are never held to account to the people for their actions, and in a number of cases, like the Dorner shootings, I would argue that they appear to be correct- any other group of people would have been sent up for attempted murder, no excuses, including real soldiers. Yes the job is hard and thankless and at times dangerous - but you know those risks when you take them and law enforcement should be willing to be held to the same standard and be accountable to the people.

Last edited by ironpegasus; 09-03-2013 at 7:54 AM.. Reason: Adding
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-03-2013, 7:50 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=ironpegasus;12219900]
Quote:
You make a fundamental mistake - where do the taxpayer dollars come from to pay those salaries? Private sector employees who actually generate wealth.
As a business owner i know exactly who pays taxes around here.


Quote:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how government is supposed to work.
I know exactly how it is supposed to work.


Quote:
I can choose whether or not to invest in a company and whether or not to buy their product. That is my choice. A company can change their bylaws to govern how changes are made, including allowing stockholders to vote on policy.
You can also choose where you want to live, and analyze the local or state government in which you want to live with.

Quote:
A constitutional government requires both the consent of the governed and the understanding that the framework that we all live under (in this case the Constitution) means what it says it means and that all parties are bound to it regardless of their own personal likes or dislikes.
Of course you do realize that everything is up to interpretation. If it wasn't we would have no need for courts or the SCOTUS.

Quote:
It requires an acknowledgement that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in such cases as the 2nd Amendment and provides mechanisms for amendment if you don't like it. If you don't believe me, read the arguments of the founding fathers - I'm pretty sure they knew what they intended.

Are you going to sit there on the keyboard and try to convince the forum that the founding fathers didn't have differing of opinions/interpretations?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-03-2013, 8:04 AM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 17,322
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frito Bandido View Post
Agreed. I think most people on this forum already know the answer to that question. The police will enforce whatever the law is, whether it's blatantly unconstitutional or not. They're not going to put their careers on the line for us or for a principled stance on the Constitution. Whatever their PD says to do, they'll do, because they have wives, kids, mortgages, etc. Trying to fight a one-man war against their own PD is a lose-lose that will get nothing done.

The real question should be whether these officers will use their union to start putting pressure on their PD to oppose these laws, or to work with their CLEO to agree that such-and-such law should be as loosely enforced as possible as a matter of policy... at least until things inevitably get straightened out in court.
Many years ago in traffic school the instructor mentioned the letter of the law officer that will pull you over for anything and the spirit of the law officer the one that will pull you over for being really stupid.

Now im not saying that LEO will enforce every law that comes down the pike but i believe that so LEO will see these laws for what they are blantantly stupid and will have zero impact on real criminals and not the guy or gal shooting at the range. Remember acting like an idiot can bring unwanted attention.
__________________
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
  #14  
Old 09-03-2013, 8:26 AM
Lone_Gunman Lone_Gunman is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In the wind
Posts: 8,412
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

I don't necessarily expect an answer, I do expect them to think about it. Do you honor your oath or bow to the will of the totalitarian statists? It's an important decision that requires soul searching, and I expect some deep thought on the issue. Of course there will be those that follow unconstitutional laws. They aren't worth a damn in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-03-2013, 8:59 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone_Gunman View Post
I don't necessarily expect an answer, I do expect them to think about it. Do you honor your oath or bow to the will of the totalitarian statists? It's an important decision that requires soul searching, and I expect some deep thought on the issue. Of course there will be those that follow unconstitutional laws. They aren't worth a damn in my opinion.
I guess the question should be, "are LEO educated enough to decide for themselves while being paid to be a COP if a law is indeed constitutional or not"

Until a court has deemed a law "unconstitutional" it isn't. That's why we have the judicial branch of government.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-03-2013, 9:13 AM
barrage barrage is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,359
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

OP should change the answers to simple "Yes" or "No" options rather than leading with things like "I am Judge Dredd" in order to attract more honest and objective answers.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-03-2013, 9:32 AM
sl0re10 sl0re10 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,681
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
[/B]

You guys really need to get over this mentality. You are not their boss and you do not pay their salary.
I think they have and that's the rub.

They're not public servants; they work for the state and do it's bidding.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-03-2013, 9:59 AM
Lone_Gunman Lone_Gunman is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In the wind
Posts: 8,412
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

So, were the officers who enforced Jim Crow laws right or wrong?

We seem to be getting awfully close to the "just following orders" defense here. Why even have officers bother swearing to uphold the constitution if they can't figure out what it says?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-03-2013, 10:06 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
" I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
They appear to swear to uphold the CA constitution also.

Since the 2A is non existent in the CA constitution but still bound by Heller, and since the laws of the state have not met much scrutiny in SCOTUS, and COPS are generally NOT Constitutional Scholars, what would you do?

I know "I" would try not to get removed from my job that supports a house payment and the welfare of my wife and kids.

We kinda need to get real on this whole thing.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-03-2013, 10:13 AM
jonc's Avatar
jonc jonc is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: THE 626
Posts: 6,943
iTrader: 176 / 100%
Default

+1 for me!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-03-2013, 10:35 AM
AceGirlsHusband's Avatar
AceGirlsHusband AceGirlsHusband is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,888
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi1775 View Post
nice PC answer...

1. would you support removing all LEOs exemptions from CA firearms law?

2. would you be willing to participate in a video tapping speaking out against 2A restrictions in uniform?
1. All exemptions? No. Some exemptions are necessary since I'm sworn 24/7.

2. No. (And that's a loaded question).
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-03-2013, 10:58 AM
Nick Justice's Avatar
Nick Justice Nick Justice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 1,935
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AceGirlsHusband View Post
1. All exemptions? No. Some exemptions are necessary since I'm sworn 24/7.

2. No. (And that's a loaded question).
1. I have the right and duty to defend my life and family 24/7.

2. The day may come when you will be forced into just that position: enforce a law or quit.

BTW: You swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not to defend me, or anyone else, as an individual.

Also BTW: some years ago I swore an oath very similar to yours, so I could practice law.
__________________
It doesn't matter how scary, ugly, uncomfortable, or inconvenient self defense can be. Like it or not, you will never, ever be relieved of your duty and responsibility to defend your life, your family, your country and your freedom.

How much ammo do I need? Enough to last me the rest of my life, and then lot more for later.

The government does not come knocking at your door. It comes knocking down your door.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:06 AM
fanof1911forlife fanof1911forlife is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: N/A
Posts: 271
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
OK, so this topic and question is a result from another thread but I wanted to expand on it.

Bearing the current political shenanigans and out right civil liberty violations how do you stand on the average honest person carrying a gun? You can explain your answer if you wish but I will have a anonymous vote.

EDIT. Let's keep cop bashing out of this. I don't want to see anyone attack LEO's for there answer. Now you can argue with rational logic but please no "He's a poo poo head..." kind of answers.


IMHO, LEO members are caught in the middle of this mess. On one hand, they have to obey orders to have a paycheck and support their families. On the other hand, the guilt for enforcing misguided laws may be too burdensome on their conscience. It's a tough situation for these folks and I have the utmost respect for this group.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:08 AM
2Fowl 2Fowl is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frito Bandido View Post
Agreed. I think most people on this forum already know the answer to that question. The police will enforce whatever the law is, whether it's blatantly unconstitutional or not. They're not going to put their careers on the line for us or for a principled stance on the Constitution. Whatever their PD says to do, they'll do, because they have wives, kids, mortgages, etc. Trying to fight a one-man war against their own PD is a lose-lose that will get nothing done.

The real question should be whether these officers will use their union to start putting pressure on their PD to oppose these laws, or to work with their CLEO to agree that such-and-such law should be as loosely enforced as possible as a matter of policy... at least until things inevitably get straightened out in court.

This....^^^

I thought the PD was for the people, not The Government...must be The Sheriff Dept. I'm thinking about....
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:16 AM
mage mage is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have plenty of respect for officers that respect our right as much as they can, without getting fired. I have friends who would be felons now, but were merely given a warning about there illegally configured weapons.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:21 AM
AceGirlsHusband's Avatar
AceGirlsHusband AceGirlsHusband is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,888
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Justice View Post
1. I have the right and duty to defend my life and family 24/7.

2. The day may come when you will be forced into just that position: enforce a law or quit.
1. Yes, but that has nothing to do with LE exemptions that I can see. That issue would be removing the laws which disarm citizens and hamper those duties.

2. The 2nd question was whether I would appear in uniform to criticize the legislature and support 2A. What is enforcing a law or quitting have to do with that?

This topic is starting to go in a direction that is beginning to become confrontational. And that I do not wish. I gave straightforward answers to the two original questions. It would seem that the great issue here is not law enforcement exemptions, but the basic rights of citizens as a whole. There is no "cops against citizens" issue here. And as for the question of appearing in uniform to support gun rights... it is the same as military personnel. When I was active duty military I was forbidden to appear in uniform at any protest or public criticism of governmental policies whether I liked it or not. That was a punishable offense under the UCMJ. My personal opinions are expressed in private, to my representatives and at the ballot box. I have no right to imply my department's participation in a political protest.

Most LE, I believe, are just as 2A supportive as any other citizens. And with that declaration, I will bid this discussion adieu.

Last edited by AceGirlsHusband; 09-03-2013 at 11:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:36 AM
Nick Justice's Avatar
Nick Justice Nick Justice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 1,935
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AceGirlsHusband View Post
1. Yes, but that has nothing to do with LE exemptions that I can see. That issue would be removing the laws which disarm citizens and hamper those duties.

2. The 2nd question was whether I would appear in uniform to criticize the legislature and support 2A. What is enforcing a law or quitting have to do with that?
1. Exemptions like off-roster handguns? Carry in any manner? +10 round mags? Short barreled shotguns? Full auto? Please identify them.

2. Because if you appear in uniform to criticize the legislature, you could lose your job. Not just asked to resign or loose a promotion. Outright fired.

The scenarios are somewhat parallel. I have never met an officer who has stated that he is willing to risk his career over a law he does not agree with. The legislature is counting on that.
__________________
It doesn't matter how scary, ugly, uncomfortable, or inconvenient self defense can be. Like it or not, you will never, ever be relieved of your duty and responsibility to defend your life, your family, your country and your freedom.

How much ammo do I need? Enough to last me the rest of my life, and then lot more for later.

The government does not come knocking at your door. It comes knocking down your door.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-03-2013, 12:21 PM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,022
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
I guess the question should be, "are LEO educated enough to decide for themselves while being paid to be a COP if a law is indeed constitutional or not"

Until a court has deemed a law "unconstitutional" it isn't. That's why we have the judicial branch of government.
Sometimes education has nothing to do with it. The LEOs that don't know simply don't care to know. They will enforce the law, period. I'm sure there are those cops who believe that their status as LEOs somehow means they're superior to the rest of us when it comes to firearms, but I'm also sure they're a minority.

There are those LEOs that know a law is unconstitutional and may even be conflicted about enforcing it, but when the rubber hits the road they will enforce it because of job security or what have you, which is why all of those "will not enforce" votes should be taken with a metric ton of salt or two. Though there is still no justification, it's understandable given human nature.

Then there are others who know a law is unconstitutional but since after all, the courts haven't decided otherwise, they might as well make full use of it for whatever reason (anything from genuine good intentions to downright personal gain). Since officers near the top of their respective organizations stand to gain the most from such a position (votes, political favor, etc.), it's no wonder we usually find that kind of thinking on the upper echelons of PDs and Sheriff Departments state-wide.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-03-2013, 12:34 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
Sometimes education has nothing to do with it. The LEOs that don't know simply don't care to know. They will enforce the law, period. I'm sure there are those cops who believe that their status as LEOs somehow means they're superior to the rest of us when it comes to firearms, but I'm also sure they're a minority.

There are those LEOs that know a law is unconstitutional and may even be conflicted about enforcing it, but when the rubber hits the road they will enforce it because of job security or what have you, which is why all of those "will not enforce" votes should be taken with a metric ton of salt or two. Though there is still no justification, it's understandable given human nature.

Then there are others who know a law is unconstitutional but since after all, the courts haven't decided otherwise, they might as well make full use of it for whatever reason (anything from genuine good intentions to downright personal gain). Since officers near the top of their respective organizations stand to gain the most from such a position (votes, political favor, etc.), it's no wonder we usually find that kind of thinking on the upper echelons of PDs and Sheriff Departments state-wide.
Please! Tell me how a LEO can be an ultimate decision maker on how a law is unconstitutional. They may have their opinion one way or the other, as you do too, however, your logic makes no sense.

Are you a SCOTUS judge or constitutional scholar? Even they don't always get it right sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-03-2013, 1:01 PM
sl0re10 sl0re10 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,681
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Please! Tell me how a LEO can be an ultimate decision maker on how a law is unconstitutional. They may have their opinion one way or the other, as you do too, however, your logic makes no sense.

Are you a SCOTUS judge or constitutional scholar? Even they don't always get it right sometimes.
The answer is simple but unhelpful. If you think it is unconstitutional; don't go out of your way to enforce it. Move on and find someone breaking a law that there is no question about.

Problem is a lot of leos want to enforce 'AW' law.... which is moving out of the silly features debate into tomorrow's possible Orwellian "truth" that an "AW" might be anything non rimfire with a removable mag.

Last edited by sl0re10; 09-03-2013 at 1:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-03-2013, 1:37 PM
stryper's Avatar
stryper stryper is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Delano, Ca
Posts: 557
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

I'm an LEO, NRA member, and a strong believer in our second amendment right as do most other officers. I have spoken to my partners about the impending new gun laws and we agree that they will do nothing to solve gun violence. I will say this, it is our duty to uphold current laws and to ensure the safety of the public. We are not the enemy, sole judge, jury or executioners. Just like in any job, sometimes your boss assigns you a job that you don't particularly like or agree with but you know you have to do it.

In our training, we were taught that there is the "spirit of the law" and the "letter of the law". Depending on the situation and crime being committed, we can choose to give a verbal warning or arrest the subject. A more simplified example: Have you ever been caught speeding or for another traffic violation by an officer knowing full well you deserve to get a ticket but you give the officer a lame excuse and he lets you off with a warning? Spirit of the law. He issues you a citation, letter of the law. Truth be told, we don't buy your stories.

That being said, CalGuns community, don't be stupid. If you know what the laws are, follow them. If you decide to go the other route, you know the consequences. I don't believe in arresting anyone for spitting on the sidewalk but if you spit near my boots.................
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-03-2013, 1:43 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,479
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Ok, I will drop to "Yes" "No" answers when I can edit the post. As for this were waiting on SCOTUS, I really don't need 9 robes to decipher what "The right of the People to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" It's basic English and grammar. This trumps any law(s) that are written. If you want to change or enforce this, there is an option. It's called amending the bill of rights. The reason why they never have tried this is they do not have 2/3 majority to do this.


Sent from somewhere in time & space...
__________________
Quote:
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed
- Thomas Jefferson -
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-03-2013, 1:49 PM
pepsi2451 pepsi2451 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Del Norte County
Posts: 1,580
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I have a question for the LEOs on here that feel all laws are constitutional until SCOTUS says they aren't. What good is your oath to the constitution? I always thought it was to protect my rights since that is what the constitution is supposed to protect, but if your going to enforce every law on the books regardless if you personally feel it violates my rights, what does your oath accomplish?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-03-2013, 2:08 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,479
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Well I tried to edit the poll but I cannot. I guess that's good since it prohibits voting for one thing and then swapping the answers... Sorry for the smarmy choices.. I was tired and really cranky.
__________________
Quote:
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed
- Thomas Jefferson -
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-03-2013, 2:36 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sl0re10 View Post
The answer is simple but unhelpful. If you think it is unconstitutional; don't go out of your way to enforce it. Move on and find someone breaking a law that there is no question about.

Problem is a lot of leos want to enforce 'AW' law.... which is moving out of the silly features debate into tomorrow's possible Orwellian "truth" that an "AW" might be anything non rimfire with a removable mag.
You need to have a broader idea of what you think.

If a LEO sees you with a rifle that is illegal and does nothing about it, cite you, take the weapon for evidence ect. AND the person who just got to walk away, has an accidental discharge and hits someones house or even another person, what do you think they will tell the cops?

I bet it will be "the LEO that saw me with this said it was not OK to have but because he believes the law is unconstitutional, he let me go with the rifle"

What do you think will happen to that LEO that let you go in the scenario i present to you???

I only ask because if the same thing happened during a DUI.....
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-03-2013, 2:42 PM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,022
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Please! Tell me how a LEO can be an ultimate decision maker on how a law is unconstitutional. They may have their opinion one way or the other, as you do too, however, your logic makes no sense.

Are you a SCOTUS judge or constitutional scholar? Even they don't always get it right sometimes.
Laws are either unconstitutional or they aren't. That they haven't been tested by SCOTUS is a different story. The constitution does not change when a ruling is made.

Just because a law hasn't been declared unconstitutional does not mean it's not. Some are blatantly obvious. Let's not kid ourselves by playing dumb or by fallacious appeals to authority arguments. Otherwise, no one would be able to talk about anything because we're not the ultimate authority at pretty much ANYTHING we talk about. Grow up a little, OK?

And when it comes to certain laws, LEOs are, while not the ultimate authority as to constitutionality, they are in fact in positions where their personal interpretation of law and constitutionality come into play in whether a law is exercised or not. As an example, sheriffs and their power over CCWs come to mind.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-03-2013, 2:49 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
. Grow up a little, OK?

And when it comes to certain laws, LEOs are, while not the ultimate authority as to constitutionality, they are in fact in positions where their personal interpretation of law and constitutionality come into play in whether a law is exercised or not. As an example, sheriffs and their power over CCWs come to mind.
LOL educate yourself a little, OK?

A Sheriffs discretion on the issuing of CCW's IS IN THE STATUTE.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-03-2013, 3:02 PM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,069
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

I wonder how many non LEO voted in this pole.
























Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-03-2013, 3:13 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,479
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
I wonder how many non LEO voted in this pole.
I am wondering that myself. I would hope folks would allow LEO or perhaps retired LEO only to vote. I really wanted an honest response to ether affirm or rebut my point. So come on folks, let LEO only vote. You can still post an opinion and all but please do not vote.
__________________
Quote:
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed
- Thomas Jefferson -
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-03-2013, 3:54 PM
epilepticninja's Avatar
epilepticninja epilepticninja is offline
misanthrope
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river...
Posts: 3,762
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

An LEO is sworn to uphold the law, that's part of what is stated when they raised their right hand. It doesn't matter what they think of the law, that isn't up to them. People need to quit asking the question on whether LEO's will support certain laws, as most will do what they were sworn to do, regardless of personal feelings.
__________________
Don't have anything clever to say at this time...
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 2:25 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.