2023 SB377 Skinner -Outlaws off roster handgun sales to law-enforcement

[skyscraper]

Imagine that. Porac, the very entity some in this thread were bashing, makes a statement In support of civilians owning the same guns that off roster Leo's can buy. How does that crow taste?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

Imagine that. Porac, the very entity some in this thread were bashing, makes a statement In support of civilians owning the same guns that off roster Leo's can buy. How does that crow taste?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Their stance on this is very new, and in the past they have supported laws that gave their members specific carve-outs. No crow eating here. It’s about f-king time they did this after years of being on the other side.

[Milsurp1]

There is no crow to eat. Did this LEO union speak out against the roster prior to the existence of a bill trying to impose the roster on those union members?

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

Imagine that. Porac, the very entity some in this thread were bashing, makes a statement In support of civilians owning the same guns that off roster Leo's can buy. How does that crow taste?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I thought we went over this here.

The Legislature literally put a gun to their heads, so now they’re on our side.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Bart1015

The police unions support the cops, not the general public, no different than any other union representation. However PORAC is supporting the public on this one.

Literally only because of Skinner and SB377.

I don't think this would have happened without Skinner's help, unless there is another reason for the sea change you can cite.

This recent language of the PORAC statements stands in stark contrast to all other times police politicians have taken public positions on firearms legislation.

Just look at the exemptions expanding here:

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...4&postcount=54

It isn't clear the public is aware of how this game is played.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Bart1015

Because details count, you referenced a CCW restriction, not the handgun roster.

If you want to post out the CCW restriction support, I absolutely agree with you.

Brett

Not really clear on the concept of an example are you?

Let's do it this way...you are invited to show LEO opposition to the Roster prior to this month.

[DolphinFan]

How about LE start following the Constitution they took an oath to.

LE should stop enforcing unconstitutional laws.

FFL’s are Federally regulated, maybe like Immigration and Marijuana state LE should not enforce federal regulation.
Finally, where is the FFL willing to do a transfer?

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Bart1015

Don't be a jerk, your example did not apply to your point.

Thanks for the invite, but I know most LEO oppose the roster. I am sure you have read the same from various LEO postings.

You can call PORAC and ask them directly about what restrictions they support, don't support, or have been neutral on.

The discussion at that time was LEO representatives only supporting legislation which exempts them. The CCW prohibition example clearly was on that point and showed the change of LEA from Oppose to Support after they were exempted.

Out of reason so you resort to name calling. Have a nice anguish-ridden retirement.

Bye.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Bart1015

Thanks for the invite, but I know most LEO oppose the roster.

Nobody has said they do not. Again, *most LEO* clearly do not control what police politicians say publicly, or what legislature unions et al support or oppose

[pacrat]

TO BE CLEAR;

Peace Officers Research Association of California

IS NOT A UNION! AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RESEARCH.

Unless they are researching how many UNION DOLLARS it takes to BUY A POLITICIAN.

They are LOBBYISTS contracted with LE UNIONS. To influence legislation, and negotiate contacts between LEOs and municipalities.

[bwiese]

re:PORAC...

Originally Posted by lastinline

Their stance on this is very new, and in the past they have supported laws that gave their members specific carve-outs. No crow eating here. It’s about f-king time they did this after years of being on the other side.

Yup.We are lucky for once.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by pacrat

TO BE CLEAR;

Peace Officers Research Association of California

IS NOT A UNION! AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RESEARCH.

Unless they are researching how many UNION DOLLARS it takes to BUY A POLITICIAN.

They are LOBBYISTS contracted with LE UNIONS. To influence legislation, and negotiate contacts between LEOs and municipalities.

They often share same contract lobbyist(s) with POAs and DSAs.

[riderr]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

Nobody has said they do not. Again, *most LEO* clearly do not control what police politicians say publicly, or what legislature unions et al support or oppose

Being members of those unions, LEO vote for the said politicians, don't they.
It's like you would say that the *most of Californians* are not responsible for the politicians they elect.

[riderr]

Originally Posted by lastinline

Their stance on this is very new, and in the past they have supported laws that gave their members specific carve-outs. No crow eating here. It’s about f-king time they did this after years of being on the other side.

What surprises me is that the various police unions didn't see it coming. They lived in their beautiful this-for-that world and believed it would last forever. Well, the political winds have changed. Dems feel their electoral base mood and they happily started an assault on loyal allies.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by riderr

Being members of those unions, LEO vote for the said politicians, don't they.
It's like you would say that the *most of Californians* are not responsible for the politicians they elect.

Nope. I've never voted for police representation that supports gun control. Have you voted for politicians that propose and pass these bills? My guess is no. So how about we dont make assumptions. This is what they want, and you are feeding into it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[fordfreak510]

Originally Posted by Usual_Suspect

Just think, before there was a roster, if you were an LEO, you had to have a ink signature on Departmental Letterhead from your Chief of Police, or Sheriff to purchase it and have the 10 days waiting period waived. Now there is a roster, and no wait if you show your ID and you are good to go.

Not exactly true. If you are using the firearm as a duty weapon and the department produces a letter then yes you can waive the 10 day wait. But showing your ID with no letter does not waive the waiting period. ID just gets you around the roster.
ID= off roster and wait.
Letter= off roster and no wait.

[The Gleam]

So.... any guess as to what will happen now with Skinner's waste of space on this one?

---

[Scratch705]

it will continue on and most likely pass?

and when it does, barely anything will change besides off-roster sales.

either way, no skin off my back. i couldn't go buy off-roster pistols from a FFL nor would i pay the greed prices of off-roster.

[Scooooter7]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

Wow, surprising to see all the gun control supporters here. Who would have thought....

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I was thinking the same thing.

Just cuz someone has little to no rights to purchase what they want they seem to can't wait to bring others down with them.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

So.... any guess as to what will happen now with Skinner's waste of space on this one?

---

It?s not for her agenda. In fact, Skinner probably already knew that Boland would win. If my ideas are correct, since Boland will allow more guns on the Roster, she is taking the opportunity to even the playing field so off roster extortion ends, cops don?t get special privileges and the State maintains control of a more abundant roster.

[Scooooter7]

A LEO will never earn enough selling off roster firearms when he gets arrested for straw purchases and loses his career.

All this union bashing is funny. All they are is a paid third party representative for their members. Don't like the views they are representing? Then get more involved and break down the good 'ol boy mentality.

Careful though, they blackball well.

And for those that don't pay dues, ha ha, DFR. Good luck getting any representation when needed.

[DolphinFan]

With the roster requirements determined unconstitutional yesterday, I think this legislation is moot.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

With the roster requirements determined unconstitutional yesterday, I think this legislation is moot.

Not even close

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by taperxz

It?s not for her agenda. In fact, Skinner probably already knew that Boland would win. If my ideas are correct, since Boland will allow more guns on the Roster, she is taking the opportunity to even the playing field so off roster extortion ends, cops don't get special privileges and the State maintains control of a more abundant roster.

Good point - thought that might also be a goal she's 'copping'.

---

[Midtown Gunner]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

With the roster requirements determined unconstitutional yesterday, I think this legislation is moot.

I think you're wrong. This bill isn't just about guns, but police accountability. Making LEOs have the same "cooling off period" lets police know they aren't above the law. With the roster declared unconstitutional we may also see the end of the LEO-only list.

I think the more interesting part will be when LEOs get declined because they failed the background check. THAT is what the unions are most worried about, because we know that the cops are above the law, and they want it to stay that way.

[johncage]

it almost feels like skinner is double agent secretly working to undermine the roster

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Midtown Gunner

I think you're wrong. This bill isn't just about guns, but police accountability. Making LEOs have the same "cooling off period" lets police know they aren't above the law. With the roster declared unconstitutional we may also see the end of the LEO-only list.

I think the more interesting part will be when LEOs get declined because they failed the background check. THAT is what the unions are most worried about, because we know that the cops are above the law, and they want it to stay that way.

A LEO cannot fail the background check. Failing the check means that the officer is a prohibited person, and as such cannot keep or bear arms. Thus prohibited persons cannot be LEOs. This is why there can be many DV calls involving officers that do not result in arrests, because the charge will result in that officer losing his/her job.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by TruOil

A LEO cannot fail the background check. Failing the check means that the officer is a prohibited person, and as such cannot keep or bear arms. Thus prohibited persons cannot be LEOs. This is why there can be many DV calls involving officers that do not result in arrests, because the charge will result in that officer losing his/her job.

Ca DOJ firearms BG checks are done in such a shoddy half Azzed manner that anyone can fail one.

Just ask the tens of thousands of law abiding Ca citizens that get delay-denied by DOJ. For no discernable reason.

The "brass pass" thing. Yeah, it exists on many levels. And even if an arrest is made, on prohibiting crimes. Many DAs step up, and cut deals, by only charging for non prohibiting crimes in exchange for easy guilty pleas.

But thankfully becoming less of an issue across the spectrum, due to body cams, greater transparency for LE, and increased accountability demands from citizens.

Big picture. Under Section One of the 14th-A.

Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Carve outs for LEO are forbidden, as unequal protections under the law.

While, so are infringements to RKBA under the 2A. Ergo, had not the leftist politicos in Ca, crapped on the 2A. They would not have felt the need, to crap on the 14th-A, by buying approval from the LE community, by exempting them from their crap.

Just ask this guy; ... https://youtu.be/Z6Dj8tdSC1A

[REDdawn6]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Maybe police will finally support the people.

My thoughts exactly

[Can't buy anything here]

As a peace officer I have always felt the roster was unfair. All Californians should be able to buy what the rest of the country enjoys. Sadly, our idiots in Sacramento concentrate on loaded chamber indicators and magazine capacities for legal gun owners instead of going after the real safety problem…the criminal behind the gun.

[WeekendWarriorz]

https://michellawyers.com/boland-v-bonta/

Look at what was filed today by PORAC Boland v. Bonta

[ritter]

Originally Posted by WeekendWarriorz

https://michellawyers.com/boland-v-bonta/

Look at what was filed today by PORAC Boland v. Bonta

Nice! It is telling that the state and CA9 have pushed beyond the comfort of law enforcement. Will it make a difference? Doubt it.

[Helmut]

Originally Posted by WeekendWarriorz

https://michellawyers.com/boland-v-bonta/

Look at what was filed today by PORAC Boland v. Bonta

What is the significance of this in layman's terms?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Helmut

What is the significance of this in layman's terms?

The police unions aren't supporting gun control any longer.

[WithinReason]

Nice!

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

The police unions aren't supporting gun control any longer.

How generous of them to finally start opposing a gun control law after acting like the King's footsoldiers and supporting every single bill in the past.

The police unions have tyranny in their hearts. Here in Virginia, law enforcement organizations are the biggest supporters of our red flag law and some of the strongest opposition to legislative efforts to repeal the 1-per-month handgun limit and enact constitutional carry.

It is only because of the recent rise of the defund movement among Democrats and the slow inevitable expansion of gun control laws to cover law enforcement, that they are singing a different tune.

[Russian Bot]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

Wow, surprising to see all the gun control supporters here. Who would have thought....

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

It was your union's support that helped pass the roster to begin with. Now that the shoe is on the other foot you want to cry foul.

[Russian Bot]

Originally Posted by jay3303

Exactly my point, people are making it appear as though we (police) are the ones specifically asking for these exemptions and supporting that they take rights away from CA citizens which isn’t the case. We don’t make up the laws and bills nor do we really have any impact on thus ultimate decision on whether it passes or not, aside from voting “no”.

It doesn’t make sense for Police unions to support democratic candidates since they’re the ones that specifically target us when it comes to cuts, policies, and more. Would it not make more sense for them to support republican lawmakers? As our union has openly supported in the past. And when no republican candidate is available they choose the lesser of two evils to support when it comes to things that are going to be directly affecting their members, the people paying for their services. Of course, I can only speak for my union as they’re the only ones I’ve had any experience with.

As for it irking someone that we don’t actively monitor where our money is being used do you actively look into where every bit of your money goes? Where all your taxes are being utilized? What percentage of what you’ve put in? One could argue that your taxes are going to support these bills that are ultimately taking rights away from you. I know, apples to oranges. You can’t outright stop paying taxes or you face consequences. But, the services provided by our unions, like other jobs out their that are represented by their own unions, provides an invaluable service for us. Also a number of us donate what we can to 2A groups such as FPC, GOA, etc.

As for police having that exemption that people have profited from (some more than others). We also did not make up that up. Our unions may have requested the exemption knowing it would negatively impact our duties (we all know PD’s don’t provide adequate training or equipment. We’re often forced to buy our own equipment, weapon systems included). While the roster itself should’ve never been implemented, it was. Many of us who work for a PD now aren’t even old enough to be included in the, “your dues paid for that piece of legislation” as it was before our time.

But let’s be honest, you purchase a PS5 back when it was near impossible to get you’re going to resell that sucker for more than MSRP. It’s human nature and “market price” due to the limited amount available to purchase. If it were illegal to resell these firearms, we wouldn’t do it. Only difference in purchasing hard to get items and reselling them for more as opposed to firearms is that darn roster. An inadvertent result of the way that bill was written? Probably. Have people made money because of it? Yes. Would you be any different? Who knows, you can say you wouldn’t resell something at a mark up all you want until faced with the ability to. I’m not going to lie and say I haven’t sold a firearm for more than it was worth. But I also haven’t made a living off of it like some have who gotten busted for doing just that. I’ve also sold firearms at cost. Just depends.

You can say what you want about that but at the end of the day there’s a listed price for an item we legally possess. If someone wants to pay that price to own a handgun you can’t possess any other way aside from intrafamiliar transfer then so be it. If you don’t want to pay that price, wait until the roster is repealed. I can almost guarantee you a non LEO owner of an off roster gun isn’t going to resell the firearm for less than what its worth in the “CA market” that some of these ridiculous laws have created.

If this bill passes, so be it. I’m more on the side of any gun law against law abiding citizens is an infringement. Being exempted doesn’t change my views on that and I can’t control the fact that I am. I don’t consider myself better than anyone because of these exemptions nor do a lot of others who are in the same shoes. Anyone supporting this seems to be in the mindset of “if I can’t have something, no one else should” instead.

I think this whole post was more of a rant than anything. Oh well.

TLDR; cops didn’t create the law. We pay union dues for services necessary to us, it wouldn’t make sense for unions to pay democratic lawmakers because they’re always targeting us. Voters approve laws. Yes cops have exemptions, no we don’t have any direct effect on these exemptions aside from the unions asking for them. Yes people have profited from exemptions, it can be illegal and officers have been caught for it. Off roster guns are selling for off roster prices. Regardless of who sells them.

LE threw support at the roster in exchange for exemptions, now that those exemptions are being threatened LE want to cry about "Gun control supporters". It's not that we support gun control or hate LE, it's that we believe the rules should be the same across the board.

[AlmostHeaven]

In my experience, it really depends on whether a law enforcement officer is from an urban or rural background and the specific agency he works for.

I've known great, pro-constitutional cops whom I trust to make gun bans dead letters on arrival if they ever were to pass. They rightly see armed law-abiding citizens as an integral part of the community and an ally in the fight against crime.

I also have had the unfortunate experience of talking to some policemen who thought themselves above the common masses, normal "untrained" individuals with "military weapons" are more of a danger than help, and that red flag laws should be used liberally to disarm "dangerous people".

The city cops have tended to be much less friendly to the Second Amendment, just like urban voters and the politicians they elect.

As always, judge each person as an individual.

[Jimi Jah]

Some animals are more equal than others.