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
  #81  
Old 09-04-2013, 9:16 PM
marcusrn marcusrn is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 582
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

LEO recruits are prescreened on obedience and following orders.
There is no presceening on american history or constitutional law.

Most know more about labor laws and overtime rules than about the 3rd amendment.

Cops who even come on this site are part of a small minority.

Last edited by marcusrn; 11-15-2013 at 9:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-04-2013, 11:28 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

CLEO's are politicians. Union bosses are politicians. politicians are politicians. They are all part of an incestuous back scratching circle. The system is rigged. Rank and file LEO's are being used as political pawns. Anyone with their head far enough up their rectum that they can't see that, is too stupid to vote. I mean really, if you let the polticians convince you that rank and file law enforcement is anti gun what other BS are you swallowing?

Honestly I can't believe the number of people here who are all butt hurt and will believe anything bad about LEO's in general. All I can figure is envy. There are some rotten apples for sure, but nothing like a majority.

Really, I think what bothers me most is ignorance like; "well if the chief can stand up on TV in his uniform and say political stuff, then it has to be OK for a street cop to do the same; or it wouldn't be fare." Who ever told you geniuses the world was fare.
__________________
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)

Last edited by Meplat; 09-04-2013 at 11:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-05-2013, 12:56 AM
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
Yes because those candidates are the candidates who best support LEO's for wages and benefits....
So LEO's endorse the likes of Yee and Steinberg who work to remove us of our 2A rights so LEO's can make more money. Good to know were LEOs stand on the 2A.

Quote:
Please post any proof that any California police association "endorsed" any gun control legislation....
Actually Wisconsin Sheriffs came out in endorsement of Clintons 1994 ban. If you want just California we'll see what we can find.

Quote:
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.
Again, you admit to funding anti's election campaigns in favor for your wallet at the cost of our rights. As for better wages please cite any opponent of Yee or Steinberg that said they would reduce your pay.

In actuality the anti's that receive your dues in the form of contributions make sure LEO's are exempt from most of the gun control legislation they pass in a form of quid pro quo. Looks like the contributions ensure more than wages which is contrary to your statement.

As for the NRA and calguns I believe they both take donations for families of officers that have fallen in the line of duty. Noble cause that should continue however, doesn't exactly contribute to our 2A goals.



Quote:
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.
Again to your point of unsubstantiated how about Feinstein's federal legislation endorsements? Are you suggesting our dear state senator is lying?
  • International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
  • International Association of Chiefs of Police
  • Major Cities Chiefs Association
  • National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives
  • National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence
  • National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
  • Police Executive Research Forum
  • Police Foundation
  • Women in Federal Law Enforcement
  • Chaska, Minn., Police Chief Scott Knight, former chairman of the Firearms Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police
  • Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca
  • Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck
  • San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne

If the unions and associations are truly about wages then why don't they simply support 2A candidates. Are we lead to believe that 2A candidates would pay law enforcement less?
__________________
“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

Last edited by 2nd Mass; 09-05-2013 at 1:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-05-2013, 5:31 AM
a1fabweld's Avatar
a1fabweld a1fabweld is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,422
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Anyone Remember when CO recently passed their magazine ban how the LEO united and stated they will not be enforcing that magazine ban? If our LEO made the same stand, statewide, it would have a huge impact. I won't be holding my breath however. If enough officers make a stand, our corrupt politicians will be left with nothing. After all, it comes down to enforcement which is in the hands of our local officers. They can't fire thousands of cops for refusing to comply.
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-05-2013, 6:54 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone_Gunman View Post
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.
Sorry but this is blatantly and obviously wrong. You and I have OPINIONS that these laws are unconstitutional but we are not the ones who make that final decision. That's SCOTUS' job. They and they alone are in charge of that. I find it fascinating how some folks here focus on ONLY ONE part of the Constitution, while completely ignoring the rest, the part that puts this job squarely on SCOTUS, Article III.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone_Gunman View Post
If you believe in the Second will you enforce those laws.
Here's two questions in response to yours. If you believe in Article III, will you allow SCOTUS to make the decision as to whether these laws are constitutional or unconstitutional? Or will you make the decision yourself? There are lots of people out there who think that slavery should still be legal, do they get to decide?

The truth is that you DO NOT support the US Constitution. You only support the parts that you think are important. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The ENTIRE Constitution is the law of the land, not just the parts that you like.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-05-2013, 6:57 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
So LEO's endorse the likes of Yee and Steinberg who work to remove us of our 2A rights so LEO's can make more money. Good to know were LEOs stand on the 2A.
Enforcing laws is hardly an "endorse[ment]" of the legislators who proposed or who passed it. Fact is MOST LEO's support the 2nd Amendment AND the rest of the constitution too. That includes Article III which many seem to have forgotten, gives SCOTUS the exclusive right to determine what is, and what isn't, constitutional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
Actually Wisconsin Sheriffs came out in endorsement of Clintons 1994 ban. If you want just California we'll see what we can find.
The point that you missed again is that LEA executives are not the rank and file that some keep saying does not support the 2nd amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
Again, you admit to funding anti's election campaigns
I have yet to see anyone "admit to funding ... [anyone's] election campaigns." You've been told a number of times the facts, that police unions don't take political stands except as it directly affects their members on such matters as pay and working conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
In actuality the anti's that receive your dues in the form of contributions ...
Please show us proof of such "contributions." In the absence of them, and having served on the board of my own department's POA for many years in many capacities, I'll deny that they're happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
As for the NRA and calguns I believe they both take donations for families of officers that have fallen in the line of duty. Noble cause that should continue however, doesn't exactly contribute to our 2A goals.
Multitasking is a good thing. It's possible for these organizations to do BOTH.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
Again to your point of unsubstantiated how about Feinstein's federal legislation endorsements? Are you suggesting our dear state senator is lying?
  • International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
  • International Association of Chiefs of Police
  • Major Cities Chiefs Association
  • National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives
  • National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
  • Police Executive Research Forum
  • Chaska, Minn., Police Chief Scott Knight, former chairman of the Firearms Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police
  • Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca
  • Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck
  • San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne
Thanks for the list. I've placed into bold what I'm saying. In the overwhelming majority, it's NOT the rank and file that opposes gun rights, it's police executives.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-05-2013, 6:58 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1fabweld View Post
Anyone Remember when CO recently passed their magazine ban how the LEO united and stated they will not be enforcing that magazine ban?
I didn't see anyone but LE EXECUTIVES taking that position. They have the authority to make such decisions for their agencies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1fabweld View Post
If our LEO made the same stand, statewide, it would have a huge impact. I won't be holding my breath however.
As well you should. California LE executive don't seem to have the same political views as those in CO. Or, they're too scared for their jobs to say that they do. But you're not talking to any of them here. You're talking to several LEO's. Some of us have or had some rank, but I'm pretty sure that no one here was an executive with the authority to make such decisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1fabweld View Post
If enough officers make a stand, our corrupt politicians will be left with nothing.
Nonsense. Even if every LEO in California "ma[d]e a stand" it would not affect a thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1fabweld View Post
After all, it comes down to enforcement which is in the hands of our local officers. They can't fire thousands of cops for refusing to comply.
It doesn't take "fir[ing] thousands of cops" to get compliance. AGAIN, you've decided that some laws, and some soon−to−be laws are a violation of the Constitution and you aren't the decision maker in this.

Last edited by bigger hammer; 09-05-2013 at 7:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-05-2013, 8:02 AM
pepsi2451 pepsi2451 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Del Norte County
Posts: 1,567
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

bigger_hammer, it sounds like you are saying lawmakers and law enforcement can make and enforce any laws they like with no thought given to peoples rights. They can just pass and enforce whatever they want and it doesn't violate anyones rights until SCOTUS says it does. By this logic CA could ban all guns and go door to door confiscating them and it would be constitutional until SCOTUS said otherwise. Is this correct?

I asked you this a few times in another thread and never got a straight answer, if it doesn't protect my rights, what does your oath to the constitution accomplish?
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:28 AM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 842
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepsi2451 View Post
bigger_hammer, it sounds like you are saying lawmakers and law enforcement can make and enforce any laws they like with no thought given to peoples rights. They can just pass and enforce whatever they want and it doesn't violate anyones rights until SCOTUS says it does. By this logic CA could ban all guns and go door to door confiscating them and it would be constitutional until SCOTUS said otherwise. Is this correct?

I asked you this a few times in another thread and never got a straight answer, if it doesn't protect my rights, what does your oath to the constitution accomplish?
EXACTLY. Sorry to butt in but that's the point I made earlier in this thread, too. As I put it, a ruling which declares a law to be unconstitutional does not change the constitution.

The bottom line is that as it stands, along with all of the many good things that they do for their communities, LEOs HAVE AND WILL violate people's civil rights in the course of their careers because chances are that they will enforce bad laws before those laws are officially declared bad. I'm not saying that the other hypothetical extreme where a LEO is given complete discretion is a better alternative, but the truth is that in an imperfect world the good guys in blue cannot possibly be good guys all the time if they always stick to the rules, especially in states such as this one.

But what irks me is not the LEO that adheres to the rules. It's the CLEO that decides, while fully aware of the likely unconstitutionality of a law, to enforce that law or make use of it in one capacity or another. Whether it's a complete refusal to issue CCWs, or to enact any extra "sensible" guidelines based on "may issue" discretion.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:07 AM
hellayella's Avatar
hellayella hellayella is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: every big urban city
Posts: 4,507
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stryper View Post
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.................
when u break them thinking u are above the law, u are also subject to them too
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:13 AM
barrage barrage is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,330
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

It's interesting to me how the term "LEO" has been adopted and embraced even by said LEO's.

Law Enforcement Officer

All I can conclude from that is that their only purpose is to enforce any and all State dictates objectively and without emotion.

You guys seem to be expecting the same behavior from LEO's as you would from someone who would be better described as an actual peace officer. They wear the same uniform sometimes, but they certainly aren't the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:42 AM
Mr. P's Avatar
Mr. P Mr. P is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 67
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R1145 View Post
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.
Pardon my ignorance, but when did it become "illegal" to possess or use standard round magazines (in non bullet-button semi auto rifle)? I am aware it is "illegal" in California to purchase/sell/import said magazines but...
__________________
Gun Owners of America
National Rifle Association
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 09-05-2013, 11:11 AM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,138
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
It's interesting to me how the term "LEO" has been adopted and embraced even by said LEO's.

Law Enforcement Officer

All I can conclude from that is that their only purpose is to enforce any and all State dictates objectively and without emotion.

You guys seem to be expecting the same behavior from LEO's as you would from someone who would be better described as an actual peace officer. They wear the same uniform sometimes, but they certainly aren't the same thing.
The term "LEO" is used, at least by me because it's a easily recognizable acronym.....to describe a "peace officer"...

Not a Parole Officer "PO"..
Not a Probation Officer "PO"
Not the Post Office "PO"

So if the acronym "PO" was used many would confuse that acronym with parole officer, probation officer, or any other job title which has the same beginning letters.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
All I can conclude from that is that their only purpose is to enforce any and all State dictates objectively and without emotion.
When you use the terms "only" and "all" you loose credibility, and show a bias against "Peace Officers".

Because LEO's certainly have many other purposes than simply "only" enforcing, laws, or as you snidely put it "all state dictates". Any reasonable person would recognize that truth...

So your conclusion is based in your bias not reality.
__________________
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.



Last edited by SVT-40; 09-05-2013 at 4:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 09-05-2013, 2:31 PM
barrage barrage is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,330
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
The term "LEO" is used, at least by me because it's a easily recognizable acronym.....to describe a "peace officer"...
That's certainly understandable. However, my interest in the term is rooted in the evolution of peace officers from a few decades ago to the militarized LEO's of today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
...

When you use the terms "only" and "all" you loose credibility, and show a bias against "Peace Officers".

Because LEO's certainly have many other purposes than simply "only" enforcing, laws, or as you snidely put it "all state dictates". Any reasonable person would recognize that truth...

So your conclusion is based in your bias not reality.
I'd venture to expand on this by suggesting that I've lost credibility with you and your coworkers in particular because I'm skeptical and even hostile to you for your choice of work, and while I openly admit a bias, it's rooted very much in the reality of what small government police forces have been allowed to become. Not because I've even had a particularly negative experience with law enforcement. Never been arrested or even detained for that matter, but I do live in a fairly large city and get to feel the contempt and uneasiness that the presence of police officers create when they're in the area.

Do forgive me for using absolutes, though. I'm sure there are a ton of positive things police officers do as with any generalization, but when weighed against the negative perception I have of them, it doesn't amount to anything worthwhile.

That's my own perception though and I own it completely. Whether you think it's rooted in reality or not is your own, but it is a fact that people, good people who aren't actually criminals or bad guys, dislike police officers for a myriad of their own reasons at what appears to be an increasing rate.

What I was alluding to with my original comment and what might even change my opinion, if you care... try being more of a peace officer and less of a law enforcement officer.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 09-05-2013, 3:10 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepsi2451 View Post
bigger_hammer, it sounds like you are saying lawmakers and law enforcement can make and enforce any laws they like with no thought given to peoples rights.
A clear and obvious MISinterpretation of what I wrote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepsi2451 View Post
I asked you this a few times in another thread and never got a straight answer, if it doesn't protect my rights, what does your oath to the constitution accomplish?
I answered you several times in that thread. You just didn't like my answers. I see no need to have the conversation again. BTW, I asked YOU several questions in that thread that YOU didn't answer. Why do you think I'm required to answer your questions, while you avoid mine?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-05-2013, 3:11 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
EXACTLY. Sorry to butt in but that's the point I made earlier in this thread, too. As I put it, a ruling which declares a law to be unconstitutional does not change the constitution.
A non-sequitur if there ever was. The law doesn't change the Constitution and neither does having it declared unconstitutional. What has this to do with anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
The bottom line is that as it stands, along with all of the many good things that they do for their communities, LEOs HAVE AND WILL violate people's civil rights in the course of their careers because chances are that they will enforce bad laws before those laws are officially declared bad.
It's up to the legislators to pass laws that will pass constitutional muster. If they don't, then it's up to organizations and individuals to fight those laws. If it's obvious, then they can find a judge that will put a hold on the law until it can make it to the court system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
I'm not saying that the other hypothetical extreme where a LEO is given complete discretion is a better alternative, but the truth is that in an imperfect world the good guys in blue cannot possibly be good guys all the time if they always stick to the rules, especially in states such as this one.
"The rules" include discretion. Officers don't have to enforce all laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
But what irks me is not the LEO that adheres to the rules. It's the CLEO that decides, while fully aware of the likely unconstitutionality of a law, to enforce that law or make use of it in one capacity or another.
Please give us an example of when this has happened. And this means proving that the CLEO is "fully aware of the likely unconstitutionality of [the] law." I think that you'll find that they believe that the laws that they're having their officers enforce, are constitutional.

BTW your posts #89 and 90 are dupes.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 09-05-2013, 3:11 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
It's interesting to me how the term "LEO" has been adopted and embraced even by said LEO's.

Law Enforcement Officer

All I can conclude from that is that their only purpose is to enforce any and all State dictates objectively and without emotion.

You guys seem to be expecting the same behavior from LEO's as you would from someone who would be better described as an actual peace officer. They wear the same uniform sometimes, but they certainly aren't the same thing.
You are free to think that this semantic word game means something. But NO LEO "enforces [as you claim] any and all state dictates." There isn't one of us who doesn't use his discretion when he deems it appropriate.

And LEO is just to separate police officers from others whose abbreviations would be PO: Peace Officer, Parole Officer, police officer, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 09-05-2013, 3:12 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
That's certainly understandable. However, my interest in the term is rooted in the evolution of peace officers from a few decades ago to the militarized LEO's of today.
This nonsense AGAIN?! The argument about "the militarization of the police" is the same argument that idiot politicians and some libs made against the AR-15 as an "assault rifle." The difference ... you were foolish enough to buy into the "militarization" argument. I’m reminded of when LAPD went from 158 Gr. round nose lead bullets to hollow points. And then again, when they went from revolvers to semi-automatic handguns. By the outcry you'd have thought that they'd started carrying low yield nukes. Now the whining is about helmets, heavy vests, BDU's, AR-15's with 30 round mags, and armored vehicles. Same whining, different era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
I'd venture to expand on this by suggesting that I've lost credibility with you and your coworkers in particular because I'm skeptical and even hostile to you for your choice of work, and while I openly admit a bias, it's rooted very much in the reality of what small government police forces have been allowed to become. Not because I've even had a particularly negative experience with law enforcement. Never been arrested or even detained for that matter, but I do live in a fairly large city and get to feel the contempt and uneasiness that the presence of police officers create when they're in the area.
Oddly most of my friends DO NOT have this "feel[ing of] contempt and uneasiness that the presence of police officers create when they're in the area." It must be you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
Do forgive me for using absolutes, though.
Sorry, can't forgive it. There's no need for you to write in such a fashion UNLESS that's the perception you want to leave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
I'm sure there are a ton of positive things police officers do as with any generalization, but when weighed against the negative perception I have of them, it doesn't amount to anything worthwhile.
A "glass half empty" kinda guy eh? LOL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
it is a fact that people, good people who aren't actually criminals or bad guys, dislike police officers for a myriad of their own reasons at what appears to be an increasing rate.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Please realize that's all it is. Unless of course you can show us some proof of it. Can you do so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
What I was alluding to with my original comment and what might even change my opinion, if you care... try being more of a peace officer and less of a law enforcement officer.
In reality, the terms are interchangeable.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 09-05-2013, 3:12 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

... Deleted -- dupe post

Last edited by bigger hammer; 09-06-2013 at 7:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 09-05-2013, 3:32 PM
barrage barrage is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,330
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

What's the point, Bigger Hammer? You come off exactly like the kind of LEO I've mentioned having contempt for. I could try having a discussion with you on the subject till the cows came home, but my opinion or existence likely don't matter to you beyond what you can forcibly control.

I have however had similar discussions with SVT in the past and am happy to have the opportunity to try and do so again. While he's certainly not on my Christmas list, he at least comes off as a decent enough human being to be able to talk to about something as contentious as this very subject without having to worry about being browbeat for having an opinion.

EDIT, btw your posts #99 and #100 are dupes.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 09-05-2013, 3:37 PM
Eggman12 Eggman12 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 39
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1fabweld View Post
Anyone Remember when CO recently passed their magazine ban how the LEO united and stated they will not be enforcing that magazine ban? If our LEO made the same stand, statewide, it would have a huge impact. I won't be holding my breath however. If enough officers make a stand, our corrupt politicians will be left with nothing. After all, it comes down to enforcement which is in the hands of our local officers. They can't fire thousands of cops for refusing to comply.
except their more concerned about their f**king paycheck than peoples rights.

Dont trust cops.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 09-05-2013, 3:56 PM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 2,408
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think the issue is that is kind of a catch 22 for LEOs to talk about how they feel in regards to 2A and RKBA.

On one hand, there are a lot of LEOs who get ostracized within their own agencies for being "gun nuts" and on the other hand many citizens view all LEOs as agents of a government that wants to strip them of their RKBA.

Given this, why would you expect members of of the LE community, specifically those who may have strong opinions about 2A and RKBA to come out and talk openly about their beliefs? No matter what they say, they will be viewed as wrong.

Last edited by omgwtfbbq; 09-05-2013 at 3:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 09-05-2013, 4:53 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,138
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
That's certainly understandable. However, my interest in the term is rooted in the evolution of peace officers from a few decades ago to the militarized LEO's of today.
Your average beat cop and detective (which comprises about 90% or more of all police officers), are no more "militarized" than any other police officer in the past...

If you consider wearing light weight body armor, and carrying a TASER "militarized". Then I guess they are "militarized".... But that would be a real stretch....

However your average beat cop and detective are equipped just like they always have been, and drive the same vehicles as they always have....



Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
I'd venture to expand on this by suggesting that I've lost credibility with you and your coworkers in particular because I'm skeptical and even hostile to you for your choice of work, and while I openly admit a bias, it's rooted very much in the reality of what small government police forces have been allowed to become. Not because I've even had a particularly negative experience with law enforcement. Never been arrested or even detained for that matter, but I do live in a fairly large city and get to feel the contempt and uneasiness that the presence of police officers create when they're in the area.

Do forgive me for using absolutes, though. I'm sure there are a ton of positive things police officers do as with any generalization, but when weighed against the negative perception I have of them, it doesn't amount to anything worthwhile.

That's my own perception though and I own it completely. Whether you think it's rooted in reality or not is your own, but it is a fact that people, good people who aren't actually criminals or bad guys, dislike police officers for a myriad of their own reasons at what appears to be an increasing rate.

What I was alluding to with my original comment and what might even change my opinion, if you care... try being more of a peace officer and less of a law enforcement officer.
Your "reality" is not based on any real experience... So why would you form such a biased view point?

Let me get this right. You want the police to change based on your "opinion", which is in fact and admittedly not based on any real personal knowledge...

You have formed a bias against all LEO's simply because they chose to be LEO's .....without any real experience...

That make zero sense. That is the definition of ignorance.

You, ARE the definition of a "us Vs them mentality"

When you grow up maybe you will realize perceptions are not reality.

The old axiom should apply.."Don't believe everything you read on the internet".....

Maybe you should try being less of a bigot, and really get some first hand experience before you form such bigoted opinions...

Go on a ride along with your local PD. I know you will find it very informative. Maybe you might even change your opinion just a bit.....

But I do salute you, as you own your bigotry...Many here just hide it.
__________________
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
  #104  
Old 09-05-2013, 4:54 PM
mage mage is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
It's interesting to me how the term "LEO" has been adopted and embraced even by said LEO's.

Law Enforcement Officer

All I can conclude from that is that their only purpose is to enforce any and all State dictates objectively and without emotion.

You guys seem to be expecting the same behavior from LEO's as you would from someone who would be better described as an actual peace officer. They wear the same uniform sometimes, but they certainly aren't the same thing.
OMFG. It's just a useful acronym.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 09-05-2013, 4:57 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,138
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
What's the point, Bigger Hammer? You come off exactly like the kind of LEO I've mentioned having contempt for. I could try having a discussion with you on the subject till the cows came home, but my opinion or existence likely don't matter to you beyond what you can forcibly control.

I have however had similar discussions with SVT in the past and am happy to have the opportunity to try and do so again. While he's certainly not on my Christmas list, he at least comes off as a decent enough human being to be able to talk to about something as contentious as this very subject without having to worry about being browbeat for having an opinion.

EDIT, btw your posts #99 and #100 are dupes.
Oh come on You know what I want for Xmas...

(That would be for you to open your mind to differing viewpoints and actually get some real experience mingling with real cops).

But If I were in the SD area I would meet you for a beer or six... I can be a pretty persuasive person!!!
__________________
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
  #106  
Old 09-05-2013, 5:06 PM
barrage barrage is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,330
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Oh come on You know what I want for Xmas...

(That would be for you to open your mind to differing viewpoints and actually get some real experience mingling with real cops).

But If I were in the SD area I would meet you for a beer or six... I can be a pretty persuasive person!!!
Well, there's an outstanding cigar lounge in Old Town over this way that's actually great for that kind of thing if you ever do find yourself here.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 09-05-2013, 5:17 PM
USMC0621 USMC0621 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: so cal
Posts: 352
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I find it amusing when I see people that think cops are anti gun or anti 2A. Yeah u pay our salaries blah blah blah. Depending on what u do I probably pay your salary too. We all pay each others salaries. Anyway, just because you see the president on tv with a bunch of cops in uniform standing behind him at a anti gun rally, does not mean that is the consensus in law enforcement. Who's to say they weren't ordered to be there?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 09-05-2013, 5:21 PM
2nd Mass 2nd Mass is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,248
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Bigger Hammer, thank you continuing to clarify.

As for our discussion on Unions and Associations it seems that you're saying many of the LEO associations that do endorse gun control and anti politicians are associations made up of only executives within law enforcement. Correct me if I'm wrong you're also saying to your knowledge unions and rank and file LEO associations do not endorse candidates?

I ask because I'm certain I've seen contributor numbers for various anti's that listed police unions in the top 5 of contributors. I'll recheck and see if those where unions or just executive associations.

This debate isn't necessarily about being proven wrong or right, rather understanding why anti's appear to always cite law enforcement support. If it's not true then maybe there's a way to prevent such citations or at least create counter associations to oppose gun control. Perhaps even a Sheriffs org made up of rural pro 2A Sheriffs in Cali.
__________________
“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
  #109  
Old 09-05-2013, 5:25 PM
IrishJoe3's Avatar
IrishJoe3 IrishJoe3 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,984
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post


Your "reality" is not based on any real experience... So why would you form such a biased view point?

Let me get this right. You want the police to change based on your "opinion", which is in fact and admittedly not based on any real personal knowledge...

You have formed a bias against all LEO's simply because they chose to be LEO's .....without any real experience...

That make zero sense. That is the definition of ignorance.

You, ARE the definition of a "us Vs them mentality"

When you grow up maybe you will realize perceptions are not reality.

The old axiom should apply.."Don't believe everything you read on the internet".....

Maybe you should try being less of a bigot, and really get some first hand experience before you form such bigoted opinions...

Go on a ride along with your local PD. I know you will find it very informative. Maybe you might even change your opinion just a bit.....

But I do salute you, as you own your bigotry...Many here just hide it.
Bravo...

Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 09-05-2013, 5:27 PM
IrishJoe3's Avatar
IrishJoe3 IrishJoe3 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,984
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
It's interesting to me how the term "LEO" has been adopted and embraced even by said LEO's.

Law Enforcement Officer

All I can conclude from that is that their only purpose is to enforce any and all State dictates objectively and without emotion.

You guys seem to be expecting the same behavior from LEO's as you would from someone who would be better described as an actual peace officer. They wear the same uniform sometimes, but they certainly aren't the same thing.
Because PO was already taken for "Pissed Off" and "Probation Officer". LEO is a useful acronym, get over it.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:39 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,138
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
Well, there's an outstanding cigar lounge in Old Town over this way that's actually great for that kind of thing if you ever do find yourself here.
I'm not into cigars... But any bar where the beer is cold would be good....

I'm particularly fond of Dicks last resort.....Great place.....

You might have to buy though... As I'm just an old retired LEO living on my Calif Pers pension......

Ha... Only kidding.....

I have no plans to be back in Ca, however if in the future I'm in the area I'll drop you a PM....
__________________
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
  #112  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:20 PM
2nd Mass 2nd Mass is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,248
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
I have yet to see anyone "admit to funding ... [anyone's] election campaigns." You've been told a number of times the facts, that police unions don't take political stands except as it directly affects their members on such matters as pay and working conditions.

Please show us proof of such "contributions." In the absence of them, and having served on the board of my own department's POA for many years in many capacities, I'll deny that they're happening.
Senator Leland Yee alone received donations from the following agencies.
  • CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HIGHWAY PATROLMEN
  • CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
  • CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION
  • SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION FUND
  • SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (SF POA)

SF POA is hardly an executive association with it's members ranging from traffic division to admin staff.
__________________
“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
  #113  
Old 09-05-2013, 11:25 PM
sdsguy87 sdsguy87 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chula Vista
Posts: 163
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I would hope most LEO would actually take the spirit of the law when it comes to this but I know not every officer does this and I would never blame an officer who followed the letter of the law. In my opinion, if you knowingly break the law and expect to not get punished you're living in a dream world.

For LEO exemptions, do I like them? No. Do I understand them? Yes. Sure we all have to defend ourselves and our family 24/7. Imagine you're a LEO and pull over some guy on a normal stop and turns out he's carrying tons of illegal weapons, drugs, etc. and this guy is a gang member. This gang now wants your head. Since LEO have to put their necks out on the line more than the average person, I can understand why they have these exemptions.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 09-05-2013, 11:27 PM
pastureofmuppets's Avatar
pastureofmuppets pastureofmuppets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California
Posts: 1,801
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggman12 View Post
except their more concerned about their f**king paycheck than peoples rights.

Dont trust cops.
There are far easier and safer ways to make a decent paycheck than being a cop, most of them have pretty much zero risk of getting shot, stabbed, bitten, spat on, being involved in an RTA, cleaning up an RTA, responding domestic violence... then writing paperwork and being in courts.
__________________
Host of the FAST OC podcast. and holster maker at Overwatch Holsters

Last edited by pastureofmuppets; 09-05-2013 at 11:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 09-06-2013, 5:52 AM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 842
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
A non-sequitur if there ever was. The law doesn't change the Constitution and neither does having it declared unconstitutional. What has this to do with anything?
If you'd ever bother to read the rest of my first post you'd understand, but why read when you can just lash out at someone by taking things without context, right? The point is that a law either adheres to the constitution or it doesn't, which mean it is unconstitutional or it isn't, even before it is ruled on. Now, let me connect the dots for you OK? If a law blatantly violates civil rights and is enforced before it is challenged on the courts, it will still be, in reality, a violation of civil rights. Got it? Good. Now, please try not to be so lazy next time and follow the thread of the discussion, OK?


Quote:
It's up to the legislators to pass laws that will pass constitutional muster. If they don't, then it's up to organizations and individuals to fight those laws. If it's obvious, then they can find a judge that will put a hold on the law until it can make it to the court system.
Thanks for that info, I think. You and I know that reality does not quite work that way, but I guess in theory there is no difference between theory and reality.

Quote:
"The rules" include discretion. Officers don't have to enforce all laws.
Agreed. I'm sure some choose not to or are unable to enforce discretion, though.

Quote:
Please give us an example of when this has happened. And this means proving that the CLEO is "fully aware of the likely unconstitutionality of [the] law." I think that you'll find that they believe that the laws that they're having their officers enforce, are constitutional.
I haven't spoken to my local CLEO, but I've had discussions with local sheriff's deputies that seem to indicate their boss is aware that the only means to legally carry are CCWs and it's the only way the "bear" portion of the 2A can be essentially satisfied, yet they have "sensible" laws that disqualify someone on mere suspicion, and in fact state publicly that there are no legal 2A rights in California so they essentially can do whatever they want. More than one officer has told me that, so I know is more than just a personal opinion.

Quote:
BTW your posts #89 and 90 are dupes.
Thanks, I'll remove one.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-06-2013, 7:56 AM
BlueRidge62 BlueRidge62 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 231
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!

Gotta agree with the above..beside what a cop in the boonies would do if he found you with a gun on your person and no CCW...is not the same as what a cop from Oakland or LA would do..in those cities you can consider your self lucky if you DON'T get shot ...add in skin color and location\time of day..and taking your clues from the answers here on how to CCW without a CCW in those cities can get you killed...
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 09-06-2013, 7:59 AM
Artema's Avatar
Artema Artema is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 3,838
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You can also choose where you want to live, and analyze the local or state government in which you want to live with.
If only Active Military could do that.
__________________
- SAAMI Pressure Specs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artema View Post
I'd go to the grocery store with polymer, and I'd go to war with steel.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 09-06-2013, 8:41 AM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 2,408
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
I'm sure some choose not to or are unable to enforce discretion, though.
It would also be good to understand that Officer Discretion will only be used in-so-far as the officer can get away with it. If the agency administration has a problem with the officer letting certain things go, the officer can be disciplined.

Agency administration looks at these sort of things from a different POV. They see a line staff LEO letting an armed citizen off with a warning as letting a potentially dangerous subject free. Guess who also sees it this way? The Legislature and the majority of voters in the state of CA. Does that make them right? Of course not, but again, it's something to consider.

The citizenry looks at LEOs and think exactly like the OP alluded to in his poll; that every LEO thinks he/she is Judge Dredd, that THEY ARE THE LAW. Which, for some people who got into the profession for the wrong reasons, I would say that could be true.

However, from my experience, this is not the typical LEO, only the one we hear the most about. Few people walk away from an encounter with an LEO that went well or just "okay" and talks much about it. It's the people who meet up with the "Super Cops" of the world and come away tasting sour grapes that are the most vocal about their interactions.

LEOs have a specific job, enforce the laws. It's up to the courts to interpret and apply them, and yet you don't see activitist judges being targetted with anywhere near the the degree of vitriol that LEOs are. It's the uniform and the badge that people remember, not the dude in the black gown. Based on my experience, about 8 times out of 10 people convicted of a crime can probably tell you the name of the officer who arrest them, but maybe 5 out of 10 can tell you name of the judge who sentence them.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 09-06-2013, 9:54 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
What's the point, Bigger Hammer?
Seems clear to me but since you're having difficulty I'll sum up for you.
  1. You seemed "put off" by the fact that many of us use the abbreviation LEO. I explained that you were merely playing semantics.
  2. You jumped on the "militarization" bandwagon. I pointed out that it was more of the same emotional nonsense that we've seen here before.
  3. You told us that you think LEO's have "lost credibility" and insinuated that EVERYONE agrees with you on this. I showed you that you were just plain ol' wrong.
  4. You asked for "forgive[ness]" for "using absolutes." I replied that I could not do so. Basically it was a false apology. You don't have to write in absolutes, yet you choose to do so.
  5. You said that the good that most cops do "doesn't amount to anything worthwhile." I merely showed the negativity in your statement. It just so happens that as I was writing this I had an older episode of [EDIT: sorry it was "World's Wildest Police Videos" not COPS] on the TV. In just one show I saw a cop run up to a car that was just about fully engulfed in flames, break out the window and pull the occupant to safety. Next up a cop pull two girls out of a car that had gone into a lake. They didn't swim and were afraid to get themselves out. A moment after he pulled them out, the car sank. Then another cop stopped a vehicle that was going over 100 mph. He discovered that a woman in the car was about to give birth. He was also trained as an EMT and he delivered the baby, rather than let them continue in their reckless fashion. It was his SECOND such delivery. I think those folks would disagree with you, but it's just a guess.
  6. You made a claim that "good people ... dislike police officers ..." I asked for proof of this which you FAILED to provide. Instead you avoided my very simple, very direct question. Fact is, you were expressing, in a roundabout way, YOUR OPINION. While you certainly are entitled to it, you are not entitled to your own facts.
  7. You tried to show a disparity between the terms "law enforcement officer" and "peace officer." I responded that the terms are "interchangeable."

Clearer now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
You come off exactly like the kind of LEO I've mentioned having contempt for.
ROFL. Now you've hurt my feelings. I'm gonna go curl up with my blankie and cry myself to sleep. Sniff sniff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
I could try having a discussion with you on the subject till the cows came home, but my opinion or existence likely don't matter to you beyond what you can forcibly control.
Quite the absurd statement there barrage. I can't "forcibly control" your opinion. I can forcibly control your "existence" but of course, you'll have to do something quite illegal in my immediate presence for that to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
I have however had similar discussions with SVT in the past and am happy to have the opportunity to try and do so again. While he's certainly not on my Christmas list, he at least comes off as a decent enough human being to be able to talk to about something as contentious as this very subject without having to worry about being browbeat for having an opinion.
I understand your love fest with SVT−40, he's much more conciliatory than I am. When I was working, I was like that. Now that I've retired, I no longer do so. When I see BS, I call BS. I have little tolerance for the nonsense that you're spouting and rather than hold your hand through it, I'll hit it head on. You demonstrated your feelings and mindset. I doubt that it's going to be changed by anything that anyone here says. Rather than trying to change your mind, I'll just point out the fallacies in your statements. If you think this is browbeating, I'd say that you need a sensitivity check. You came off as "in your face." I returned the favor. If you don't like it, I suggest that you not start it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
EDIT, btw your posts #99 and #100 are dupes.
Thanks, I'll remove one.

Last edited by bigger hammer; 09-06-2013 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-06-2013, 9:54 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Earlier I wrote,
Quote:
I have yet to see anyone "admit to funding ... [anyone's] election campaigns." You've been told a number of times the facts, that police unions don't take political stands except as it directly affects their members on such matters as pay and working conditions.

Please show us proof of such "contributions." In the absence of them, and having served on the board of my own department's POA for many years in many capacities, I'll deny that they're happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
Senator Leland Yee alone received donations from the following agencies.
NICE CHERRY PICK. SOMEHOW you very conveniently left off the part of my statement that puts the lie to your response. I've placed it bold just above to help you out. Quite misleading of you. Let's look at these contributions.
  • CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HIGHWAY PATROLMEN – Their contribution was in support of SB 1391 - An Act to Add Sections 17060 and 23603 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Taxation. Summary: The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law authorize various credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and other tax benefits with respect to the taxes imposed by those laws. NOTHING to do with guns or gun control. And it DOES, as I said "directly affect their members on such matters as pay and working conditions." Hmmm.

  • CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION – Several contributions here. One supporting AB 2666 - An Act to Add Section 19571 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Taxation. Summary: The Corporation Tax Law, which is administered by the Franchise Tax Board, authorizes various credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and other tax benefits with respect to the taxes imposed by that law. NOTHING to do with guns or gun control. And it DOES, as I said "directly affect their members on such matters as pay and working conditions." Hmmm.

    Another supporting AB 1652 - An Act to Add Article 4 (Commencing with Section 115815) to Chapter 4 of Part 10 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Public Safety. Summary: Existing law regulates certain behavior related to recreational activities and public safety, including, among other activities, skateboarding and recreational water use. NOTHING to do with guns or gun control. And it DOES, as I said "directly affect their members on such matters as pay and working conditions." Hmmm.

    Another opposing AB 1858 - An Act to Amend, Repeal, and Add Sections 121349, 121349.1, 121349.2, and 121349.3 Of, and to Add and Repeal Section 121349.4 To, the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Public Health. Summary: Existing law regulates the sale, possession, and disposal of hypodermic needles and syringes, and requires, with certain exceptions, a prescription to purchase a hypodermic needle or syringe for human use. Existing law prohibits any person from possessing or having under his or her control any hypodermic needle or syringe, except in accordance with those regulatory provisions. NOTHING to do with guns or gun control. And it DOES, as I said "directly affect their members on such matters as pay and working conditions." Hmmm.

    There are more contributions but NONE of them have anything to do with guns or gun control. And they DO, as I said "directly affect their members on such matters as pay and working conditions."

  • CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION – This contribution was in support of SB 1391 - An Act to Add Sections 17060 and 23603 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Taxation. Summary: The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law authorize various credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and other tax benefits with respect to the taxes imposed by those laws. NOTHING to do with guns or gun control. And it DOES, as I said "directly affect their members on such matters as pay and working conditions." Hmmm.


Want me to put the lie to your last two associations too, or do you get the point? NONE of these contributions had any effect on guns or gun control laws. THEY ALL had to do with legislation that "directly affects their members on such matters as pay and working conditions."

That you deliberately twist the facts to support your argument that these organizations contribute to Senator Yee seemingly to support his anti gun stance is deplorable. The fact is that OVERWHELMINGLY, rank and file LEO's support the right of the individual to "keep and bear Arms."
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 7:07 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.