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
  #41  
Old 09-03-2013, 4:00 PM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 865
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
LOL educate yourself a little, OK?

A Sheriffs discretion on the issuing of CCW's IS IN THE STATUTE.
Did I say otherwise?

Please don't put words in my mouth. Whether it is discretion in the statute or not, the point still stands: A sheriff's understanding regarding the constitutionality of concealed carry comes at play in that discretion (particulary in California, where there isn't any other type of carry for most practical purposes).

When I asked you to grow up, it wasn't a gratuitous insult. I meant it, Mr. LOL. Your responses are too emotional for someone who is interested in real discussion. You're merely interested on inventing points I never made so you can jump at them. Surely, an emotional button of yours was pressed at some point in this thread.

Look, it isn't that I don't have some sympathy for the dilemmas that LEOs sometimes face. Their is often a difficult, thankless job. I do however, like to call a spade a spade. If a law is declared unconstitutional tomorrow, that doesn't mean that those who enforce it yesterday did not violate someone's rights. Law enforcement is tasked with enforcing good laws and bad laws, which means that they will in fact, from time to time, enforce bad laws that harm people. That is a tough burden to bear, but that is the bottom line and there is no way around it. The question is, if given the leeway, how will they act?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-03-2013, 4:11 PM
Ronin2 Ronin2 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Newport Beach/PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia)
Posts: 5,687
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

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

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.
Thats a good point.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-03-2013, 4:15 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
Did I say otherwise?

Please don't put words in my mouth. Whether it is discretion in the statute or not, the point still stands: A sheriff's understanding regarding the constitutionality of concealed carry comes at play in that discretion (particulary in California, where there isn't any other type of carry for most practical purposes).

When I asked you to grow up, it wasn't a gratuitous insult. I meant it, Mr. LOL. Your responses are too emotional for someone who is interested in real discussion. You're merely interested on inventing points I never made so you can jump at them. Surely, an emotional button of yours was pressed at some point in this thread.

Look, it isn't that I don't have some sympathy for the dilemmas that LEOs sometimes face. Their is often a difficult, thankless job. I do however, like to call a spade a spade. If a law is declared unconstitutional tomorrow, that doesn't mean that those who enforce it yesterday did not violate someone's rights. Law enforcement is tasked with enforcing good laws and bad laws, which means that they will in fact, from time to time, enforce bad laws that harm people. That is a tough burden to bear, but that is the bottom line and there is no way around it. The question is, if given the leeway, how will they act?
You certainly have more emotion in this than i do. I have no emotion involved in my post.

My posts simply reflect reality. LEO have a job to do, they are required by their superiors to reflect the will of the local constituency and local government and if they don't follow those orders they lose their job.

You on the other hand, seem to insist that because your analogy of the Constitution and current laws can either be bad or unconstitutional and LEO's should reject what you and/or others think is bad or unconstitutional.

What if 50% of the people disagree with your opinion on a law or its constitutionality? How is a LEO supposed to react?

LEO enforce the laws on the books regardless of their personal opinions and thats the way it should be. A Sheriff is an elected official and the top cop in the county. He has the ability to voice his opinion. However, that opinion may get him voted out of office too. Everyone is accountable to the laws on the books. Perhaps you would have access to a political science class to take a refresher course?

Your entire premise is based on emotion and opinion. Nothing you have brought here is fact. There is a process for these types of things and you can't seem to inject that into your argument/analogy.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-03-2013, 4:23 PM
Hogstir Hogstir is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sometimes it may just come down to not if it is unconstitutional or not, but is just plain wrong to enforce it. The LEOs and National Guard had to have known it was just wrong to confiscate people's firearms in the aftermath of Katrina. Especially the one who were simply guarding their homes.
I personally do not want a bunch of robot cops who can't tell the difference between right and wrong or who use the excuse I was just following orders. How many times have we heard that excuse. The SS used it a lot.
If an officer cannot determine , given the circumstances, if it is right or wrong to enforce a law he should turn in his badge.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-03-2013, 4:27 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogstir View Post
Sometimes it may just come down to not if it is unconstitutional or not, but is just plain wrong to enforce it. The LEOs and National Guard had to have known it was just wrong to confiscate people's firearms in the aftermath of Katrina. Especially the one who were simply guarding their homes.
I personally do not want a bunch of robot cops who can't tell the difference between right and wrong or who use the excuse I was just following orders. How many times have we heard that excuse. The SS used it a lot.
If an officer cannot determine , given the circumstances, if it is right or wrong to enforce a law he should turn in his badge.
If LEO refuse to follow orders they will be forced to turn in their shield. Which basically means they are stuck in the middle. (i do agree with the Katrina incident though) There was no law allowing that behavior. Just a simple illegal order.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-03-2013, 4:39 PM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 865
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You certainly have more emotion in this than i do. I have no emotion involved in my post.

My posts simply reflect reality. LEO have a job to do, they are required by their superiors to reflect the will of the local constituency and local government and if they don't follow those orders they lose their job.

You on the other hand, seem to insist that because your analogy of the Constitution and current laws can either be bad or unconstitutional and LEO's should reject what you and/or others think is bad or unconstitutional.

What if 50% of the people disagree with your opinion on a law or its constitutionality? How is a LEO supposed to react?

LEO enforce the laws on the books regardless of their personal opinions and thats the way it should be. A Sheriff is an elected official and the top cop in the county. He has the ability to voice his opinion. However, that opinion may get him voted out of office too. Everyone is accountable to the laws on the books. Perhaps you would have access to a political science class to take a refresher course?

Your entire premise is based on emotion and opinion. Nothing you have brought here is fact. There is a process for these types of things and you can't seem to inject that into your argument/analogy.
Really? Where did I insist that LEOs should reject those laws they think are unconstitutional? Please post a quote ad verbatim please.

Like I said, your emotion is making you read into my words things I didn't say. Obviously, it is a stupid idea for LEOs to do what they want, just like it's a stupid idea for people to do what they want. It's so obvious, I find it hard to believe that's the crux of your argument.

I think you need to chill and re-read my point. My point is simpler: Just because a LEO is tasked with enforcing bad law does not mean it should be acceptable WHEN GIVEN THE LEEWAY (and that is particularly true for those in higher positions such as sheriffs). Bottom line, a bad law being enforced is still a bad law being enforced.

Oh, and if you don't find that "let's have the cops do what they want and have chaos" quote from me, I would at least appreciate an acknlowedgment. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-03-2013, 5:32 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,472
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

OK I see some don't understand my point. Let me rephrase the question as such.

If Ca passed a law tomorrow that banned the worship of Christianity would you as a LEO's arrest people wearing crosses, going to church or having an assault bible?

Or would you, knowing this is a violation on the 1st A ignore this law?

It is apples to apples comparison. Both the 1st and 2nd Amendments are part of our bill of rights.
__________________
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
  #48  
Old 09-03-2013, 5:36 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
Really? Where did I insist that LEOs should reject those laws they think are unconstitutional? Please post a quote ad verbatim please.

Like I said, your emotion is making you read into my words things I didn't say. Obviously, it is a stupid idea for LEOs to do what they want, just like it's a stupid idea for people to do what they want. It's so obvious, I find it hard to believe that's the crux of your argument.

I think you need to chill and re-read my point. My point is simpler: Just because a LEO is tasked with enforcing bad law does not mean it should be acceptable WHEN GIVEN THE LEEWAY (and that is particularly true for those in higher positions such as sheriffs). Bottom line, a bad law being enforced is still a bad law being enforced.

Oh, and if you don't find that "let's have the cops do what they want and have chaos" quote from me, I would at least appreciate an acknlowedgment. Thanks.
Quote:
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.
You're implying that cops have authority to be judicial in how to interpret but leave out dept policy which dictates employment
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-03-2013, 6:03 PM
GraveTPO GraveTPO is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Inside the "Vast Confederacy of Fools".
Posts: 304
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
We are not the enemy, sole judge, jury or executioners.
Unfortunately, to most of us, you are perceived as the enemy.
Quote:
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.
Except it doesn't ruin peoples lives or cost them tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and very possibly their livelihood, freedom and civil liberties for an action that, across an imaginary state line, is perfectly moral and legal.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-03-2013, 6:11 PM
G21Shooter's Avatar
G21Shooter G21Shooter is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 3,512
iTrader: 8 / 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!
Exactly, there are pro-gun LEOs and anti gun FUD LEOs

Of course, the ones that post on here are Pro-gun. Thing is, they are not going to go on here and tell the world they won't do their job and enforce a PC code that is being violated.

Carry without a permit will land you in big trouble cool cop or not.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-03-2013, 6:26 PM
scarville's Avatar
scarville scarville is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendora, CA
Posts: 2,306
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Justice View Post
Also BTW: some years ago I swore an oath very similar to yours, so I could practice law.
Cops, lawyers and members of the Legislature all take the same oath in California. It's in Article 20, Sec 3 of the California Constitution.
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-03-2013, 6:46 PM
Lone_Gunman Lone_Gunman is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 8,315
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
OK I see some don't understand my point. Let me rephrase the question as such.

If Ca passed a law tomorrow that banned the worship of Christianity would you as a LEO's arrest people wearing crosses, going to church or having an assault bible?

Or would you, knowing this is a violation on the 1st A ignore this law?

It is apples to apples comparison. Both the 1st and 2nd Amendments are part of our bill of rights.
Excellent point. I doubt you will bet an honest answer. It would be really easy to say "of course I wouldn't enforce such a law", yet they'll gladly enforce anti Second Amendment laws.

As I said in another thread- the Constitution was written to limit Government, and law enforcement officers are agents of the government. They should be very interested in whether or not something is constitutional on its face, rather than enforcing laws until they are deemed unconstitutional.
This "who are they to decide" argument is bullshiznit, it's document that anyone can read, and shall not be infringed is pretty damned simple to understand. Just because politicians and lawyers have chipped away at that statement for years, twisting it into something unrecognizable, doesn't mean that their infringements are constitutional. It just means that they have perverted justice, and our rights.
__________________


If this latest (2016) assault weapon (semi auto) ban passes... I will simply install hydraulically actuated rotating bolts, and jimmy slap triggers. They can't regulate what they don't understand.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1153858
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-03-2013, 8:18 PM
nwgunslinger nwgunslinger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 28
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).
And there lies the root of the problem in CA.

There are plenty of LEOs who will stand in front of the cameras and lobby the lawmakers in support of all these gun control laws and there are very, very, very few that will openly oppose them.

I've said it here before but that's the significant difference between here and other states, especially WA. The gun control democrats in WA get ZERO support from LEOs or their unions and LEOs are openly and publicly pro second amendment. They support civilian concealed carry and lawful self defense. Sure the police chief of Seattle and the chief in Spokane support gun control but they're the only two.

What we as citizens in CA do at this point is fruitless. Every one of us could call and write our lawmaker, every one of us could show up on the steps of the capitol and it would make no difference. The supermajority of Democrats will continue to pass these laws. It won't stop until law enforcement starts openly and publicly opposing them. It seems that here in CA they wont do that because the laws don't apply to them.

It's anecdotal I know but from my discussions with LEOs since I've returned to CA I would estimate that about 10% of them support armed civilians, the rest believe that no civilian should ever be armed in public. They're mostly OK with citizens having a gun in their home for protection but they don't want anyone but police carrying guns in public and they don't want ANY civilian to own an AR-15 or AK-47.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-03-2013, 8:24 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
And there lies the root of the problem in CA.

There are plenty of LEOs who will stand in front of the cameras and lobby the lawmakers in support of all these gun control laws and there are very, very, very few that will openly oppose them.
Thats not true. The Sheriffs association opposed many of the the key bills that infringe on our rights and sent a lobbyist to Sac to express their displeasure at the committee meetings.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-03-2013, 8:29 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,207
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's 'merry way'.

And to peace officers who believe they are obligated to enforce all laws- a question;

If a law is enacted, and it is incongruous or inconsistant with the constitution, was it ever really law that can be enforced?
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-03-2013, 8:38 PM
nwgunslinger nwgunslinger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Justice View Post
1.
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.
.
So a LEO can stand up in uniform and support a proposed gun control law but they can't stand up in uniform and oppose gun control law? Sorry, I don't buy that.

Police unions take positions on proposed legislation all the time, especially if that legislation is about their pensions. Until the law enforcement community changes direction and starts openly opposing these laws instead of openly supporting them they will continue to be passed.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-03-2013, 8:43 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 16,953
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
If LEO refuse to follow orders they will be forced to turn in their shield. Which basically means they are stuck in the middle. (i do agree with the Katrina incident though) There was no law allowing that behavior. Just a simple illegal order.
that some CHP from here were more than gladly obey to take away guns from people defending their homes and there is plenty of video out there to show our CHP taking arms from people in their residences.
__________________
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
  #58  
Old 09-03-2013, 8:44 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=CitaDeL;12225814]It's 'merry way'.

And to peace officers who believe they are obligated to enforce all laws- a question;

If a law is enacted, and it is incongruous or inconsistant with the constitution, was it ever really law that can be enforced?[/QUOTE]

Who is going to tell them if its constitutional or not? Many LEO have nothing but high school diplomas. Do you really think its fair to have them take the word of CitaDel or taperxz on CGN??
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-03-2013, 8:48 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
that some CHP from here were more than gladly obey to take away guns from people defending their homes and there is plenty of video out there to show our CHP taking arms from people in their residences.
Their ignorance of the constitution enables them to do so.

What part of LEO's are not lawyers or constitutional scholars don't people get??

You were military!! TY BTW! Were you privy to political decisions in the pentagon and the white house as to why you were ordered to kill in war and why you needed to kill certain people in a certain place? Or did you just do it?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-03-2013, 9:02 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 16,953
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Their ignorance of the constitution enables them to do so.

What part of LEO's are not lawyers or constitutional scholars don't people get??

You were military!! TY BTW! Were you privy to political decisions in the pentagon and the white house as to why you were ordered to kill in war and why you needed to kill certain people in a certain place? Or did you just do it?
^^^^ are you that F******* serious with that last question? if you are then you need to have your head examined.
you don't JACK about what I did in Iraq and I would never ever follow an illegal order in fact we are required not to follow and illegal order. IIRC the Geneva Convention prohibits the following of an illegal order and the UCMJ as well.

first of all never ever ask a Soldier, Marine, Seaman or Airmen if they killed someone that really pisses me off to no F****** end. it's none of your business nor your concern as to what my mission was in Iraq nor will you ever know.



now that's out of the way. first off before anyone even steps foot in theater you are taught the rules of war and the rules of engagement PERIOD deviation from either of those will land your A** in front of people you never ever want to meet. and the media will be all over it especially in Iraq at the time I was there in 05.

I'm still in the military.
__________________
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
  #61  
Old 09-03-2013, 9:14 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
you don't JACK about what I did in Iraq and I would never ever follow an illegal order in fact we are required not to follow and illegal order. IIRC the Geneva Convention prohibits the following of an illegal order and the UCMJ as well.

first of all never ever ask a Soldier, Marine, Seaman or Airmen if they killed someone that really pisses me off to no F****** end. it's none of your business nor your concern as to what my mission was in Iraq nor will you ever know.



now that's out of the way. first off before anyone even steps foot in theater you are taught the rules of war and the rules of engagement PERIOD deviation from either of those will land your A** in front of people you never ever want to meet. and the media will be all over it especially in Iraq at the time I was there in 05.

I'm still in the military.
You think i don't know? LOL!! You have no idea. Answer the tough questions or log off. I love it when people put up there defense mechanisms. I sure hope you take advantage of the college offered to you!
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-03-2013, 9:31 PM
nwgunslinger nwgunslinger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Thats not true. The Sheriffs association opposed many of the the key bills that infringe on our rights and sent a lobbyist to Sac to express their displeasure at the committee meetings.
that's good to hear. I see no coverage of that anywhere. Maybe they need to get a PR person so their deeds are publicized. When the Emeryville chief or the San Diego chief tout their support for disarming citizens it gets on the nightly news !
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-03-2013, 9:39 PM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 865
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You're implying that cops have authority to be judicial in how to interpret but leave out dept policy which dictates employment
My quote:
Quote:
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.
Your Quote:
Quote:
LOL educate yourself a little, OK?

A Sheriffs discretion on the issuing of CCW's IS IN THE STATUTE.
So I basically said the same thing you did regarding sheriffs and CCWs, but yet I am wrong and you're not? Wow, just wow.

But more to the point. Before that exchange, you had already taken issue with my original post. Where, pray tell, in that original post, do I say that cops can just pick and choose what to enforce?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-03-2013, 10:36 PM
R1145 R1145 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default I try to be professional.

I'm not "Judge Dredd", but I am a professional. I don't know who the "good" people are or who the "bad" people are: All I do is enforce the law.

That said, I have some discretion. I have never taken a gun off a detained suspect, though I have found firearms in vehicles (including stolen cars), where the driver/occupants were arrested, and added the firearms violations to the charges.

I have contacted plinkers and illegal hunters: Usually, the plinkers get a warning and the hunters get cited, with the weapon booked into evidence.

One time, I found an illegally parked car with a handgun carrying case plainly visible on the passenger seat. The driver was clueless but otherwise law-abiding and got off with a warning (the handgun was not loaded).

I usually CCW off-duty, and am in favor of less restrictive CCW laws in California. However, if I found someone carrying illegally, I would probably arrest them.

In fact, if I was on a contact where a firearm (or any weapon) was involved, I would probably do my job, which is to keep the peace, gather evidence and make a report. We go to court, the attorneys argue it out and the judge/jury decide: The system is not perfect, but it's the best we can do.

Incidentally, it irks me when I go to the gun range (off-duty) with my dorky bullet-button AR and some yay-hoo in the next lane is blasting away with their 30-rd mags. While I am personally opposed to magazine capacity restrictions, I am also offended by blatant disregard for the law.

Last edited by R1145; 09-03-2013 at 11:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:10 PM
R1145 R1145 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've read the other posts now, and I'll make a few more comments:

- I agree it's unfair for peace officers to be exempt from various firearms restrictions off-duty. I would not favor a law that removed the ability of a peace officer to CCW off duty, but if one were to be enacted, I would obey it.

- I would not make any political statement in uniform, because I don't want my personal opinions to be taken as official policy (I vote, I belong to organizations, I comment on forums, etc., but as a private citizen only).

- I think zealotry and loose talk of insurrection is counter-productive IN THE EXTREME: I believe in the system and the Constitution, and think the courts are where this issue should be decided.

- I actually think a magazine-capacity restriction is constitutional ONLY if it applies also to law enforcement and domestic military operations.

- I think nearly all of my colleagues are well-intentioned professionals who do their best every day to enforce the law and play by the rules, in spite of what I read on the internet.

- I don't see a big conspiracy, just shifting demographics, clueless politicians and sloppy laws.

So, yeah, if you get caught breaking the law, expect to deal with the consequences, and don't take out your anger on the guy trying to do his job keeping society safe within the framework established by the political process and the justice system. Keep your mouth shut, do what the nice officer says and get an attorney to have your day in court.

I also think it's communist that you can't ride in the back of a pickup truck anymore, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet...but I've written tickets for those offenses.

OK, back to my cubbyhole...

Last edited by R1145; 09-03-2013 at 11:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:33 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 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!
Many if not most of our CG LEO's, that let their profession be known, are retired. Retired or not, I think a statement of support equals a non-actionable admission that they let it slide.

Officers have discretion. I know because I was "made" three times before I got my LTC and all three contacts ended with the return of my gun and a: "Have a nice day".

The fail I see is that there is no way to see the results unless you claim to be LE.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:52 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
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.
But like every sane person they do have a moral compass to guide them, and they need to consult it.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:57 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
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).
Kind of a dumb one also, just ask LeRoy Pyle.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-04-2013, 12:40 AM
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca's Avatar
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,135
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
OK I see some don't understand my point. Let me rephrase the question as such.

If Ca passed a law tomorrow that banned the worship of Christianity would you as a LEO's arrest people wearing crosses, going to church or having an assault bible?

.
If it was the law, of course they would enforce it. From what I have read from the Ca LEO's on this forum I have little doubt they would not enforce it. I really don't think there is any line they wouldn't cross, at least in Ca.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-04-2013, 1:36 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,472
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Question for CalGun LEO's

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca View Post
If it was the law, of course they would enforce it. From what I have read from the Ca LEO's on this forum I have little doubt they would not enforce it. I really don't think there is any line they wouldn't cross, at least in Ca.
Let's be carful on attacking LEO's. I know it's very frustrating that a select few get to exorcize there constitutional rights yet prohibit others from doing the same. I would like to thank R1145 for his honesty. I still think if one takes an oath defending the US Constitution one should do every thing to uphold that oath.

It really is sad that so many these days don't understand the basic grammar and definitions of words like "Keep", "Bear", "Shall" and "Infringed". Oh yeah "Right" that's another one. I believe it stems from our crappy public schools. There is also a lack of critical thinking these days. This to comes from our sad school system. This breeds bad politicians who the write bad laws that LEO's enforce due to the fact there is an inherent lack of understanding on our founding documents. It's not there fault. It's the .gov fault for getting in the teaching game.


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

Last edited by gobler; 09-04-2013 at 1:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-04-2013, 2:14 AM
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca's Avatar
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,135
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
Let's be carful on attacking LEO's. I know it's very frustrating that a select few get to exorcize there constitutional rights yet prohibit others from doing the same. I would like to thank R1145 for his honesty. I still think if one takes an oath defending the US Constitution one should do every thing to uphold that oath.

It really is sad that so many these days don't understand the basic grammar and definitions of words like "Keep", "Bear", "Shall" and "Infringed". Oh yeah "Right" that's another one. I believe it stems from our crappy public schools. There is also a lack of critical thinking these days. This to comes from our sad school system. This breeds bad politicians who the write bad laws that LEO's enforce due to the fact there is an inherent lack of understanding on our founding documents. It's not there fault. It's the .gov fault for getting in the teaching game.


Sent from somewhere in time & space...
There is no "attack" in what I said. I am just stating what I believe to be a fact. No matter how unconstitutional or just plain wrong a law is, if it is a law in this state the majority of Ca LEO will enforce it. I do think LEO in quite a few other states wouldn't go along with blatently unconstitutional laws but I can't honestly say I feel the same for Ca LE. The precedent so far has shown this to be true.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-04-2013, 2:48 AM
2nd Mass 2nd Mass is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,248
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Justice View Post
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.
Now that is interesting. It almost sounds like if LEO's knew they would not lose their jobs over publicly stating they're against gun control legislation that they would do so. Sadly I believe they're union is supposed to bar against wrongful termination. So can LEOs take back their unions? Can they vote pro 2A union leaders to head their unions? Can one of them stand up to be the pro 2A LEO that runs for union office? What kind of support would they need?

Honestly, I understand the politically precarious nature of unions and how easily they turn on those they're supposed to protect. But if there is a away to help LEOs take back their unions what would it be? Can we help?

No thread jack intended.
__________________
“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” Mitt Romney 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-04-2013, 4:19 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,221
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
So a LEO can stand up in uniform and support a proposed gun control law but they can't stand up in uniform and oppose gun control law? Sorry, I don't buy that.
You are ignorant to how police agencies work... In the case where the chief or Sheriff orders a Officer or Deputy to appear in uniform at some function YOU will show up or face discipline.....It does not matter one bit whether you support the issue or not....You are strictly window dressing....

However if you on your own, without approval from the department show up in uniform to support any political agenda, you WILL face discipline up to and including termination...

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
Police unions take positions on proposed legislation all the time, especially if that legislation is about their pensions. Until the law enforcement community changes direction and starts openly opposing these laws instead of openly supporting them they will continue to be passed.
Yup police 'unions" (Associations) are in place to support LEO's and bargain for wages, benefits and working conditions....Not necessarily to act in support of any other legislation... That would be like asking the NRA or the Calguns Foundation to act in support of wage and benefit issues on behalf of law enforcement....

As for taking up sides on legislation... Can you please post any proof regarding any LEO association supporting any gun control legislation here in California????


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
Now that is interesting. It almost sounds like if LEO's knew they would not lose their jobs over publicly stating they're against gun control legislation that they would do so. Sadly I believe they're union is supposed to bar against wrongful termination. So can LEOs take back their unions? Can they vote pro 2A union leaders to head their unions? Can one of them stand up to be the pro 2A LEO that runs for union office? What kind of support would they need?
Off duty LEO's are entitled as private citizens to support any political issue..

They are however specifically prohibited from doing so in uniform without specific permission from the department. Every department has a specific rule preventing this...

So the department would not be acting in a wrongful manner if they were to discipline or terminate a officer who violated this rule....

Again Police associations don't exist to further 2a rights... They exist to better the wages, benefits and working conditions of the officers in their associations..

Everything else is secondary.....


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
Honestly, I understand the politically precarious nature of unions and how easily they turn on those they're supposed to protect. But if there is a away to help LEOs take back their unions what would it be? Can we help?

No thread jack intended.
Again you are lacking in knowledge as to specifically why LEO associations exist... It's specifically to bargain for the officers in for wages, benefits and working conditions.

Not be a catch all for various political positions....
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-04-2013, 4:39 PM
GrizzlyGuy's Avatar
GrizzlyGuy GrizzlyGuy is offline
Gun Runner to The Stars
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Sierras
Posts: 5,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Rather than trust the results of this poll that will get many responses from non-LEOs, you can just refer to this one: PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives

See especially Q15 and Q16.
__________________
Gun law complexity got you down? Get the FAQs, Jack!

Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-04-2013, 4:43 PM
ASTMedic's Avatar
ASTMedic ASTMedic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Yuba Co
Posts: 386
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
As for taking up sides on legislation... Can you please post any proof regarding any LEO association supporting any gun control legislation here in California????
Wasn't LAPD in uniform at one the most recent debates on the current gun laws???
__________________
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it you'll never need it again.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-04-2013, 5:55 PM
1stLineGear's Avatar
1stLineGear 1stLineGear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,663
iTrader: 3 / 100%
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.
Yes!! Well some of us anyways.
__________________
Lifes questions answered here. www.lds.org and here www.mormon.org

C.S. Lewis once observed, "Once we allow people to start spiritualizing and refining, or as they might say 'deepening' the sense of the word Christian...it will become a useless word....It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge...It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian."
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-04-2013, 7:05 PM
2nd Mass 2nd Mass is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,248
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Again Police associations don't exist to further 2a rights... They exist to better the wages, benefits and working conditions of the officers in their associations..

Everything else is secondary.....

Again you are lacking in knowledge as to specifically why LEO associations exist... It's specifically to bargain for the officers in for wages, benefits and working conditions.

Not be a catch all for various political positions....
Hmm...that's odd since police associations and unions are top contributors to democratic political campaigns along with endorsing gun control legislation on numerous occasions. Guessing all those funds from dues being spent to elect democrats is still considered secondary and civil rights such as the second amendment aren't?

My question stemmed from various comments that LEOs can't stop their unions from endorsing gun control and the results of recent polls showing LEOs overwhelming in favor of CCW and second amendment rights. If that was the case I was honestly asking what we could do to help.
__________________
“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” Mitt Romney 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-04-2013, 8:39 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,221
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
Hmm...that's odd since police associations and unions are top contributors to democratic political campaigns
Yes because those candidates are the candidates who best support LEO's for wages and benefits....

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
along with endorsing gun control legislation on numerous occasions.
Please post any proof that any California police association "endorsed" any gun control legislation....



Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
Guessing all those funds from dues being spent to elect democrats is still considered secondary and civil rights such as the second amendment aren't?
Police associations exist to benefit the members of that particular association. The associations negotiate wages, benefits and working conditions for the officers.

Other political issues are secondary..

Would you expect the NRA or Calguns foundation to spend their money to lobby on behalf of LEO's for better wages and benefits?

Of course not. That is not the intent of those groups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
My question stemmed from various comments that LEOs can't stop their unions from endorsing gun control and the results of recent polls showing LEOs overwhelming in favor of CCW and second amendment rights. If that was the case I was honestly asking what we could do to help.
Please show any comments or official positions where ANY California police association "endorsed" gun control...

You post these internet lies as facts, when in fact they are not the truth.

Maybe you should believe the recent polls of LEO's instead of falsehoods, and unsubstantiated lies you read on the internet.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-04-2013, 8:44 PM
Frito Bandido's Avatar
Frito Bandido Frito Bandido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 555
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If an employer asks you to do something possibly illegal while on the job, your union can certainly go to bat for you as this falls within the scope of your working conditions.
__________________
When shopping at Amazon.com, enter Shop42A.com in the address bar, and Amazon donates money to the Calguns Foundation.

Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-04-2013, 9:10 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,472
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Looking at the articles, responses and other input it would appear that "local" PD is less likely to honor their oaths while county sheriffs are more likely to honor their oaths. It also seams that the larger the population with a larger police force, the more they are willing to infringe our our Bill of Rights to "secure the safety".
__________________
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
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 7:09 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.