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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06-08-2020, 4:14 PM
morleda's Avatar
morleda morleda is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northern CA - Shasta County
Posts: 160
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

The “Bill Analysis” that goes along with AB-2699 is full of lies.


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01920200AB2699



4) Argument in Support: The California Statewide Law Enforcement Association states, “In 2001, Penal Code § 32000 created a list of non-exempt agencies who may purchase non- roster firearms for use in the discharge of their official duties. Questionably, certain trained peace officers and law enforcement personnel were left off the list. These peace officers are often required to participate in mutual aid situations, task forces, sting operations and arrests. These high risk situations require that these officers be properly armed.

“In years past DOJ permitted these officers and departments to acquire these firearms for their public safety personnel.

((Dave: the BS starts here there are no laws that would “require thousands of law Enforcement to forfeit their guns”) (and “repurchase new firearms”)

However, recent enforcement of the gun roster would require thousands of law enforcement to forfeit their guns. This legislation is necessary because it will allow officers, who have gone through the appropriate training to carry and keep their ’non-roster’ handguns while on active duty. Thereby, also not creating a new expense for the state to repurchase new firearms and to retrain these personnel on these new firearms.


In particular, this bill will expand the unsafe handgun to sworn officers within various state departments, including the California Horse Racing Board, the State Department of Public Health, the Department of Toxic Substance Control, Investigators at the at the Department of Business Oversight, and others who have the necessary training to carry these particular handguns. ”
5) Prior Legislation: AB 1794 (Jones-Sawyer) of the 2019 Legislative Session was almost
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-08-2020, 4:25 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morleda View Post

((Dave: the BS starts here there are no laws that would “require thousands of law Enforcement to forfeit their guns”) (and “repurchase new firearms”)

However, recent enforcement of the gun roster would require thousands of law enforcement to forfeit their guns. This legislation is necessary because it will allow officers, who have gone through the appropriate training to carry and keep their ’non-roster’ handguns while on active duty. Thereby, also not creating a new expense for the state to repurchase new firearms and to retrain these personnel on these new firearms.

This is from the author of the bill.. I doubt the author has any clue what the changes in this bill actually do .. She was just paid or whatever to make the bill.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-08-2020, 4:37 PM
seaweedsoyboy seaweedsoyboy is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morleda View Post
The “Bill Analysis” that goes along with AB-2699 is full of lies.


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01920200AB2699



4) Argument in Support: The California Statewide Law Enforcement Association states, “In 2001, Penal Code § 32000 created a list of non-exempt agencies who may purchase non- roster firearms for use in the discharge of their official duties. Questionably, certain trained peace officers and law enforcement personnel were left off the list. These peace officers are often required to participate in mutual aid situations, task forces, sting operations and arrests. These high risk situations require that these officers be properly armed.

“In years past DOJ permitted these officers and departments to acquire these firearms for their public safety personnel.

((Dave: the BS starts here there are no laws that would “require thousands of law Enforcement to forfeit their guns”) (and “repurchase new firearms”)

However, recent enforcement of the gun roster would require thousands of law enforcement to forfeit their guns. This legislation is necessary because it will allow officers, who have gone through the appropriate training to carry and keep their ’non-roster’ handguns while on active duty. Thereby, also not creating a new expense for the state to repurchase new firearms and to retrain these personnel on these new firearms.


In particular, this bill will expand the unsafe handgun to sworn officers within various state departments, including the California Horse Racing Board, the State Department of Public Health, the Department of Toxic Substance Control, Investigators at the at the Department of Business Oversight, and others who have the necessary training to carry these particular handguns. ”
5) Prior Legislation: AB 1794 (Jones-Sawyer) of the 2019 Legislative Session was almost
Nah, the best is in the 05/31/2020 - Assembly Appropriations analysis:

COMMENTS:

2) Background. "...Some newer model firearms are not yet fully compliant with California’s microstamping law and, as a result, are technically considered “unsafe” and not listed on the DOJ’s Roster. This bill states specified law enforcement agencies may legally purchase newer model weapons that might not be listed on the Roster, but are still safe to operate. If a manufacturer wants a newer model to appear on the Roster, it must pay the $200 fee assessed by DOJ."

So if they're still safe to operate, just not "safe" enough to be "not unsafe," then... **** it I can't even begin to try and engage in the gymnastics required to justify this ****. People (myself included) need to stop letting legislators get away with continuing to push these things through the process, with no hesitation or questions, like a particle accelerator. Keep calling and keep emailing your Assembly Members and State Senators.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-09-2020, 6:55 AM
Quickdraw559 Quickdraw559 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Madera, CA
Posts: 1,639
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
It has been said that the best horse is in a can of dog food.
My dad used to say something similar. Did they used to put horse meat in dog food?
__________________
WTB CZ stamped Oakhurst
WTB 12 gauge Wingmasters
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-25-2020, 1:41 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

06/23/20 Referred to Senate Committee on Public Safety

No schedule time yet.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-28-2020, 12:44 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This bill is on the agenda in the Senate Public Safety committee Friday July 31 9am.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-29-2020, 2:08 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 772
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quickdraw559 View Post
My dad used to say something similar. Did they used to put horse meat in dog food?
Yes and the hooves went to the glue factory.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-01-2020, 6:03 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Looks like the public safety committee didn't vote on this one during the July 31 meeting.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-01-2020, 6:47 AM
JDoe JDoe is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,062
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaweedsoyboy View Post
Nah, the best is in the 05/31/2020 - Assembly Appropriations analysis:

COMMENTS:

2) Background. "...Some newer model firearms are not yet fully compliant with California’s microstamping law and, as a result, are technically considered “unsafe” and not listed on the DOJ’s Roster. This bill states specified law enforcement agencies may legally purchase newer model weapons that might not be listed on the Roster, but are still safe to operate. If a manufacturer wants a newer model to appear on the Roster, it must pay the $200 fee assessed by DOJ."

So if they're still safe to operate, just not "safe" enough to be "not unsafe," then... **** it I can't even begin to try and engage in the gymnastics required to justify this ****. People (myself included) need to stop letting legislators get away with continuing to push these things through the process, with no hesitation or questions, like a particle accelerator. Keep calling and keep emailing your Assembly Members and State Senators.

Maybe we need to go all black lives matter on them at their homes, businesses and communities. I’m not going to organize anything but I’ll show up for something that is organized properly and with my megaphone and verbally engage them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-01-2020, 7:25 AM
Cactus_Tim's Avatar
Cactus_Tim Cactus_Tim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,321
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I have three megaphones.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-01-2020, 9:09 AM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,870
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

I dont get why roster exemptions dont apply to military police.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-01-2020, 9:24 AM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,161
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
I dont get why roster exemptions dont apply to military police.
Because like federal agents, they are not cops. They can investigate and apprehend but arrest at the federal level is reserved for the US Marshal. A couple of FBI agents found that out last year, here in California.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-01-2020, 10:07 AM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,870
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby View Post
Because like federal agents, they are not cops. They can investigate and apprehend but arrest at the federal level is reserved for the US Marshal. A couple of FBI agents found that out last year, here in California.
Can you drop a link for that please?
And MP’s are sworn police officers.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-08-2020, 4:32 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

On the agenda for Aug. 12 Senate public safety committee meeting.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-11-2020, 3:51 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 940
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well... we have lots of amendments as of 8/10/2020. AB-2699... evolved. I don't think this bill went the way the author (or at least the agencies asking the author for the exemptions) like they thought it would.

So, as I mentioned originally, this bill adds a new type of LEO exemption where these agencies (like the Franchise Tax Board) can purchase off-roster firearms for their agency-LEOs, but said LEOs can't purchase or sell themselves. It also added local park rangers to the first group of LEOs who can purchase and sell off-roster handguns themselves.

This most recent amendment does the following to not just the new type of LEOs, but also the first group of LEOs:
1.) Specifies that the off-roster exemption is for purchase of a "handgun for use as a service weapon". This is likely to be used to file charges against LEOs purchasing for resale.
2.) Said LEOs must have completed POST firearms portion training before being eligible.
3.) Said LEOs must complete live-fire qualifications as prescribed by their employing entity once every six months.
4.) Creates a civil penalty (fine) not to exceed $10,000 for unlawful sale or transfer of off-roster handguns obtained by LEOs through said exemption.
5.) Creates a DOJ LEO-exemption Offroster Handgun Registry.
6.) Talks about notification requirements when said LEOs or entities sell or transfer one of these handguns, however it says transferring through a dealer satisfies that requirement... I'm a bit foggy on when you can transfer handguns outside of a dealer. Nothing is coming to mind.
7.) Provides that CA DoJ shall annually notify persons/entities with said off-roster handguns about the prohibitions on sale or transfer.

These amendments are all very much about the LEOs arrested within the last... five years?... doing high volume (and sometimes illegal) off-roster firearm sales.
Edit: Reading from the Analysis from the 7/30 Senate Public Safety Committee... it looks to be a lot in line with amendments suggested by the President of Brady's Oakland Chapter, Griffin Dix, who according to the analysis only spoke for them self.

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 08-11-2020 at 2:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-11-2020, 4:46 PM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 582
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

PC32000(b)(4) is how most law enforcement, such as police, sheriff, or CDCR, obtain off-rosters.

PC32000 would be amended under AB2699 to now include the following:
(f) (1) The Department of Justice shall compile and maintain a database of unsafe handguns obtained pursuant to paragraph (4), (6), or (7) of subdivision (b).
(2) A person or entity that in possession of an unsafe handgun obtained pursuant to paragraph (4), (6), or (7) of subdivision (b), shall notify the department of any sale or transfer of that handgun. This requirement shall be deemed satisfied if the sale or transfer is processed through a licensed firearms dealer.
(3) Commencing no later than March 1, 2021, the department shall annually provide a notification to persons or entities possessing an unsafe handgun pursuant to paragraph (4), (6), or (7) of subdivision (b) regarding the prohibitions on the sale or transfer of that handgun contained in this section
The Legislative Counsel summarizes it as:
This bill would require the Department of Justice to compile and maintain a database of unsafe handguns obtained pursuant to these exemptions, and would require the department to annually provide a notification to the persons and entities possessing these handguns regarding the prohibitions on the sale and transfer of those handguns. The bill would also require these persons or entities to notify the department of the sale of transfer of such a handgun, but would provide that a sale or transfer made through a licensed firearm dealer would satisfy this requirement.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-11-2020, 5:23 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
1.) Specifies that the off-roster exemption is for purchase of a "handgun for use as a service weapon". This is likely to be used to file charges against LEOs purchasing for resale.
Doesn't this obliterate the LEO exemption ? I mean if they can't buy it for personal use, then they can't sell it to normal people.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-11-2020, 5:24 PM
Hornetsnest Hornetsnest is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 131
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby View Post
Because like federal agents, they are not cops. They can investigate and apprehend but arrest at the federal level is reserved for the US Marshal. A couple of FBI agents found that out last year, here in California.
I agree that CA does not consider Feds as peace officers except for limited circumstances in 830.8 PC.

But, arrest at the federal level is reserved for the US Marshal? What led you to that determination? I dont know what situation you are referring to between the FBI and CA. Are you talking about the US Marshal being responsible for presenting federal arrestees before the US Magistrate Judge? Or are you saying that only US Marshals can make federal arrests (in CA?)? Please elaborate.

As a reminder....
830.8.**
(a)*Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers are not California peace officers, but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer in any of the following circumstances:
(2)*When these investigators and law enforcement officers are engaged in the enforcement of federal criminal laws and exercise the arrest powers only incidental to the performance of these duties.
(4)*When probable cause exists to believe that a public offense that involves immediate danger to persons or property has just occurred or is being committed.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-11-2020, 8:01 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 940
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
PC32000(b)(4) is how most law enforcement, such as police, sheriff, or CDCR, obtain off-rosters.

PC32000 would be amended under AB2699 to now include the following:
(f) (1) The Department of Justice shall compile and maintain a database of unsafe handguns obtained pursuant to paragraph (4), (6), or (7) of subdivision (b).
(2) A person or entity that in possession of an unsafe handgun obtained pursuant to paragraph (4), (6), or (7) of subdivision (b), shall notify the department of any sale or transfer of that handgun. This requirement shall be deemed satisfied if the sale or transfer is processed through a licensed firearms dealer.
(3) Commencing no later than March 1, 2021, the department shall annually provide a notification to persons or entities possessing an unsafe handgun pursuant to paragraph (4), (6), or (7) of subdivision (b) regarding the prohibitions on the sale or transfer of that handgun contained in this section
The Legislative Counsel summarizes it as:
This bill would require the Department of Justice to compile and maintain a database of unsafe handguns obtained pursuant to these exemptions, and would require the department to annually provide a notification to the persons and entities possessing these handguns regarding the prohibitions on the sale and transfer of those handguns. The bill would also require these persons or entities to notify the department of the sale of transfer of such a handgun, but would provide that a sale or transfer made through a licensed firearm dealer would satisfy this requirement.
Good points, I was posting this too quick it seems. So what most of us generally think of as police officers will just have their transfers in a database, notification requirements (aren't all handguns processed through a licensed dealer now, one way or the other?), and annual reminder about the prohibitions on certain sales.

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Doesn't this obliterate the LEO exemption ? I mean if they can't buy it for personal use, then they can't sell it to normal people.
So as Molon Labe was pointing out I was getting overly broad; the service weapon language exists in paragraph 4, which covers what most the LEOs that most of us think of when we think about Police Officers, as well as a number of other agencies, in that it says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA PC 32000(b)(4)
(4) The sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, any federal law enforcement agency, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun.
So the service weapon language effectively exists there, and the part at the end means that individual sworn members (which probably already have POST training? Someone can confirm) can purchase said handguns, and the language kind of implies that it's as a service weapon. iirc from previous stuff I've read the whole idea was so that LEOs could offload firearms they either don't like, or firearms as they buy new ones to upgrade over their current ones, which is why they have been allowed to sell them with little stipulation.
This comes back to 32000(c)(1)
Quote:
(c) (1) Notwithstanding Section 26825, a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, shall not process the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun between a person who has obtained an unsafe handgun pursuant to an exemption specified in paragraph (6) or (7) of subdivision (b) and a person who is not exempt from the requirements of this section.
So that prohibition doesn't affect Paragraph 4 LEOs.

So, okay... let's reconstruct this into a class list.. There's basically 3 classes of LEOs: Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6, and Paragraph 7 (of CA PC 32000(b)).
Paragraph 4 LEOs (which includes police, sheriff, and CHP departments) can purchase a service offroster handgun personally, and sell to anyone through a licensed dealer.
Paragraph 6 LEOs (which includes various groups like the Parks and Rec, DMV, and Fish and Wildlife) can purchase a handgun personally (bill clarifies that it's a service handgun), and can only sell to other exempted persons.
The bill introduced Paragraph 7 LEOs (which includes groups like the Franchise Tax Board and California State Lottery) can have a service offroster handgun purchased for them by their department for their own use, and the department can only sell them to other exempt persons.

And then all of them have the aforementioned new requirements with regard to a registry/database, the fine for unlawful sale, notification requirements (which doesn't make much sense), and annual notification to exempted handgun firearm owners regarding specific prohibitions on sale.

Why there are 3 tiers of LEOs seems kind of mind boggling, but that's California.

Edit: As an additional thought, if I'm reading this right, Paragraph 4 and 6 LEOs can't sell directly to Paragraph 7 LEOs.

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 08-11-2020 at 9:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-12-2020, 7:02 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Doesn't paragraph 4 exempt active duty military also ?

I don't think the registry/database will do anything more than the one for everyone currently, but the legal notification may chill the secondary off roster market.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 08-12-2020, 9:10 AM
qdx450 qdx450 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: way south
Posts: 409
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

that means that everyone not listed is 2nd class citizen, peasant, peeon, slave,black, old. Only cops and politicians are better,smarter,worth more than the rest of the citizens. half of calif. population are illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-12-2020, 9:25 AM
ShaneB ShaneB is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 385
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by qdx450 View Post
that means that everyone not listed is 2nd class citizen, peasant, peeon, slave,black, old. Only cops and politicians are better,smarter,worth more than the rest of the citizens. half of calif. population are illegal.
Been like that for a long time.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-12-2020, 10:50 AM
sonofeugene's Avatar
sonofeugene sonofeugene is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The author' statement about off roster guns being safety tested is very telling. The whole roster will eventually fail. Sooner than later, I hope.
__________________
Let us not pray to be sheltered from dangers but to be fearless when facing them. - Rabindranath Tagore

A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it. - Rabindranath Tagore

Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhaur
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-12-2020, 3:32 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

they haven't started yet, but the meeting will start soon,

Here is the link,
https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/sena...ideo?id=182971
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-12-2020, 4:47 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There's almost ready to bring this bill in the meeting. This appears to be a long session for two bills.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-12-2020, 5:03 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

No one in opposition ..
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-12-2020, 5:10 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

passed 4-1 from Senate Public Safety committee.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-12-2020, 8:01 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 940
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
No one in opposition ..
The new analysis is up for that committee. Support is unknown; Opposition is Women Against Gun Violence (but noted that it's for the prior version of the bill). Previously CSLEA was listed in support, however their noted support was dropped eventually...

It does list them and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority as the "Source"... I'm guessing that's background info on the bill?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-13-2020, 7:29 AM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,892
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Law Enforcement getting an exemption again. Call me shocked I tell you.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
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.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-13-2020, 8:23 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,160
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
Law Enforcement getting an exemption again. Call me shocked I tell you.
All this from the party who is terrified of police.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
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 12:46 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical