CCW Permit revoked for detainment??

[P5Ret]

Cops drink. Occasionally leo gets involved. They can still carry. Do we hold our selves to a higher standard or the same standards?

Sent from my secret bunker using Tapatalk

And I know cops who have been in a similar situation who have been terminated, suspended without pay, placed on probation and, removed from specialized positions. They can be and are held accountable for their actions off duty. That personnel charge of "conduct unbecoming" cover's a lot of actions.

[j-shot]

And I know cops who have been in a similar situation who have been terminated, suspended without pay, placed on probation and, removed from specialized positions. They can be and are held accountable for their actions off duty. That personnel charge of "conduct unbecoming" cover's a lot of actions.

Yikes there we have it then

[Albs]

Sac requires you to inform them of ANY LEO encounters regardless if you had your firearm on you. So he failed on that part.

[Win231]

I don't think drunks should be allowed to own guns; let alone concealed carry. Sooner or later, someone will pay the price for a drunk with a gun. No different than a drunk with a car.

[Sapperforward]

Sac requires you to inform them of ANY LEO encounters regardless if you had your firearm on you. So he failed on that part.

Nobody said he didn't report it though. We are going off the assumption that the only thing at issue is that he was drunk in public. But we do not know if he reported or not.

Sent from my secret bunker using Tapatalk

[mexicangunlover]

all you nay sayers yet hundreds of cops go out and drink like sailers on leave and they do carry their guns with them and its ok for them to keep their guns....smh

[Citadelgrad87]

So, police officers don't intoxicate off duty...?

I know for a fact they do.

I guess the difference is contact was necessary with OP and LEO?

Like drinking is fine if you don't make a spectacle of yourself?

Where did I say anyone else didn't intoxicate? I missed that.

The contact is the problem, of course. My understanding is it's not easy to get arrested or detained for public intox.

[Citadelgrad87]

I don't think drunks should be allowed to own guns; let alone concealed carry. Sooner or later, someone will pay the price for a drunk with a gun. No different than a drunk with a car.

Wow. So since I drink, should I not own a car, either?

[Ron-Solo]

For your brother in law to have been arrested for 647f, he would have to have been pretty tanked (Like barely able to walk) not just a little tipsy.

And usually a bad attitude goes with it. Cops avoid 647(f) arrests because they are a major pain in the rectum.

He showed poor judgement to get popped for that, hence the revocation of his ccw.

[CBR_rider]

Welp, I have seen LEO's/members of the military punished/terminated for getting drunk off duty and causing a scene... So seems like things can be pretty equal.

As for this case; I would bet a donut that I didn't get this week that there is more to the story than simply being popped for being drunk in public. IN MOST CASES, people don't just happen to run into a LEO and get arrested even when they are drunk in public.....

[robert101]

This seems to be a 2nd Amendment Right issue. It is akin to a protester getting arrested/detained for exercising his right to free speech, and now his 1st Amendment right to free speech is revoked. We need to have the same standards apply to all of our Constitutional Rights. The OP did not have his gun with him. So why would his Constitutional Right be revoked? There were no charges and no determination by a Judge or Court of Law. This is not acceptable.

[P5Ret]

This seems to be a 2nd Amendment Right issue. It is akin to a protester getting arrested/detained for exercising his right to free speech, and now his 1st Amendment right to free speech is revoked. We need to have the same standards apply to all of our Constitutional Rights. The OP did not have his gun with him. So why would his Constitutional Right be revoked? There were no charges and no determination by a Judge or Court of Law. This is not acceptable.

Perhaps you can show us all where in Ca you have a Constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm? His rights were not revoked he can still own firearms, his permit to carry one was revoked. And as other's have said there is probably more to the story than simply being intoxicated.

[Fjold]

So, police officers don't intoxicate off duty...?

I know for a fact they do.

I guess the difference is contact was necessary with OP and LEO?

Like drinking is fine if you don't make a spectacle of yourself?

People (including LEO's) can get drunk as long as they don't go out and make themselves a public hazard. Apparently your BIL got drunk to the point where he was such a risk to himself or others that the LEO felt that he had to arrest him. That's a special kind of irresponsible.

[robert101]

P5Ret, The "right to bear arms" is included in the 2nd Amendment. Not right to have at my house and only my house. We have allowed the liberal do-sayers to restrict our rights without compromise. And, CA is a State which should as all States abide by the Constitution.

[esy]

The public simply don't believe that getting tagged for 647f is not an easy task. It truly takes some work to get booked for f unless someone just feels like doing the arrest report, booking, etc.

I had a guy that I contacted outside of our jail, on probation, and was clearly high. We could smell the marijuana about 20 yards away as we were walking up to the car (mind you, this wasn't even the party that we were initially going to make contact with). We were thinking about booking him since we were right there. We decided not to. Didn't even search the car or anything. He was surprised. Just told him to GTFO (the passenger was driving).

Getting picked up for f is tough unless it's Cinco De Mayo or NYE or something like that.