Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 02-13-2019, 11:31 AM
eta34's Avatar
eta34 eta34 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,059
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Perhaps you should be the test case then. Seems that there are literally hundreds of private businesses "violating the law daily." Theme parks, sports stadiums, concert venues, etc. All of those places routinely deny off-duty officers the ability to carry firearms in their respective venues. You say you have retirement credentials...go make your case. It is curious that if these places were truly violating the law, no major police union has filed suit.

You have also referenced your DNA relation to some high-powered attorney. If you are so confident in his opinion, why not state his name? Why does your relation to him/her provide you with any credibility?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-13-2019, 11:38 AM
code_blue's Avatar
code_blue code_blue is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sack-O-Tomatos
Posts: 3,077
iTrader: 117 / 100%
Default

Ya know, even in free states with constitutional open and concealed carry, private business owners can still put up signs not allowing firearms on/in the premises. The patrons must comply or risk being asked to leave and face trespassing charges for refusing if the authorities get involved.

Also, the "murder on private property" analogy... it's bad. There is a big difference between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes. Mala in se crimes are never OK (assuming the mens rea is present); anytime or anywhere. Mala prohibita crimes have a lot more flexibility in operation and practical application.

Last edited by code_blue; 02-13-2019 at 11:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-13-2019, 6:38 PM
Samuelx's Avatar
Samuelx Samuelx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,424
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eta34 View Post
Perhaps you should be the test case then. Seems that there are literally hundreds of private businesses "violating the law daily." Theme parks, sports stadiums, concert venues, etc. All of those places routinely deny off-duty officers the ability to carry firearms in their respective venues. You say you have retirement credentials...go make your case. It is curious that if these places were truly violating the law, no major police union has filed suit.

You have also referenced your DNA relation to some high-powered attorney. If you are so confident in his opinion, why not state his name? Why does your relation to him/her provide you with any credibility?
This, that, and the other thing!

If we're going to keep going round and round, let's at least make it interesting:

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-13-2019, 8:06 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,447
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Thumbs up

And "Samuelx" is declared the winner of the most interesting circular post.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-13-2019, 8:19 PM
Yodaman Yodaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,818
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
And "Samuelx" is declared the winner of the most interesting circular post.


Lol
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:03 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 4,647
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMP3 View Post
Cops are sworn to enforce law. They are given legal authority to practice their profession consistent with law. Calling cops a special class is pejorative. It is an elite class that operates consistent with law.

Cops are granted legal authority to carry guns in order to protect themselves from retribution arising from the performance of their duties. Its very common for cops to be threatened with murder by criminals they've arrested. Not granting cops legal authority to defend themselves when they're most vulnerable would be insanity.
Wow, you really are full of yourself aren't you? Elite class, what a joke, that is everything that people see wrong with LE in two words congratulation's on pulling that out of your a@%.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:16 PM
Yodaman Yodaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,818
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
Wow, you really are full of yourself aren't you? Elite class, what a joke, that is everything that people see wrong with LE in two words congratulation's on pulling that out of your a@%.


EXACTLY! Wow...”elite class”
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-14-2019, 8:51 AM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 791
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
Wow, you really are full of yourself aren't you? Elite class, what a joke, that is everything that people see wrong with LE in two words congratulation's on pulling that out of your a@%.
Good catch! I didn’t even see that because everything just looked like
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-14-2019, 7:28 PM
GizmoSD GizmoSD is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 90
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

He keeps referring to cops in third person...themselves, them, etc. doesn’t say we, us, etc. Makes me think he was never actually a street cop who had to process these types of situations regularly, in the real world, despite whatever “retirement credentials” he possesses.
Just my .02
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-17-2019, 2:43 PM
hmvan's Avatar
hmvan hmvan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 235
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
EMP3,



We're going around in circles here.



There is no legal source that accords the private property owner the ability to "deny application of the Penal Code." Stop looking for it. It ain't there.



Methinks that you're trying the frame the question to support the position that you'd like to have - that CCW holders and LEOSA covered folks could carry concealed on private property. It don't work that way.



PC section 25450 gives an exemption from the Penal Code provisions that would otherwise make concealed carry illegal. It only applies to the Penal Code prohibition on concealed carry. It does not give you the right to concealed carry. There's a distinction between these two things that you're just not getting.



When the private property owner elects to prohibit concealed carry, he is doing so under his rights as a property owner. There's no involvement of the Penal Code at that point. Now if you refuse to leave the property at the owner's request (because you refuse to disarm), then Penal Code section 602 comes into play. The PC exemption that you claim under section 25450 don't extend to section 602.


Well put. Thanks RickD!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:47 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.