Roster should apply to LEOs

[Tanner68]

As a way to defeat this insane roster, why can't we get it to apply to LEOs as well... by ballot initiative or some other means. If the DOJ is concerned about handgun safety, why wouldn't they be concerned for LEOs. I know the non-gun public thinks they are more qualified than us civis to evaluate and handle handguns, but after all they are civilians too. Shouldn't the DOJ, out of concern for their welfare and safety, make sure the roster applies to LEOs too?

[hoffmang]

The roster will either fall in court or apply to LEO via court order in the next few years.

Ballot initiatives are not a good idea.

-Gene

[freakshow10mm]

I say get rid of the roster. Call it the California Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

[Tanner68]

I am no fan of ballot initiatives. So much crap that should be decided by our reps and not by the populace.

So how can I follow and track this challenge to the roster through the courts... and help out?

[rue]

The roster will either fall in court or apply to LEO via court order in the next few years.

Ballot initiatives are not a good idea.

-Gene

Gene, not questioning you or anything but why do you say that? Is there something in the works on this?

[FEDUPWBS]

Gene, not questioning you or anything but why do you say that? Is there something in the works on this?

I thought that went without saying?

[Mr. Meeseeks]

I say get rid of the roster. Call it the California Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

[SkyStorm82]

The roster will either fall in court or apply to LEO via court order in the next few years.

Ballot initiatives are not a good idea.

-Gene

And which way do you see it going?

[Spyder]

Nooo! Don't make it apply to LEO's! I'll be one soon and I want to buy lots of cool stuff!

[Miltiades]

Let's tell the truth here...

As a way to defeat this insane roster, why can't we get it to apply to LEOs as well... by ballot initiative or some other means. If the DOJ is concerned about handgun safety, why wouldn't they be concerned for LEOs?

I believe in plain talk and calling a spade a spade.

The CA "safe gun list" has nothing to do with safety. As you point out, if it were about safety, then LEO safety should be a concern. And private party transfer of "unsafe" guns not on the list should not be possible. The whole "safety" label is a lie and a charade, which is typical of the CA legislature's actions.

The legislature, dominated by anti gun liberals, would like to ban private ownership of guns. But they don't have the political muscle or legal authority to do that. So they have decided to pursue the old Chinese method called the "death of 1000 cuts" to ban guns. They will keep complicating and punishing gun ownership with a myriad of small barriers until the cumulative difficulty of buying and owning a gun is too much trouble for 99.9% of the population.

The gun safety roster is just one small cut. Other cuts include handgun safety cards, 10 day waiting periods, ammunition marking, magazine drop safeties, 10 round magazine bans, assault weapon bans, and 100 other things you can find in the CA laws.

This is like having ants or roaches that invade your kitchen periodically. You have to keep fighting them or they will take over. But you can never eliminate them.

[Warhawk014]

I believe in plain talk and calling a spade a spade.

The CA "safe gun list" has nothing to do with safety. As you point out, if it were about safety, then LEO safety should be a concern. And private party transfer of "unsafe" guns not on the list should not be possible. The whole "safety" label is a lie and a charade, which is typical of the CA legislature's actions.

The legislature, dominated by anti gun liberals, would like to ban private ownership of guns. But they don't have the political muscle or legal authority to do that. So they have decided to pursue the old Chinese method called the "death of 1000 cuts" to ban guns. They will keep complicating and punishing gun ownership with a myriad of small barriers until the cumulative difficulty of buying and owning a gun is too much trouble for 99.9% of the population.

The gun safety roster is just one small cut. Other cuts include handgun safety cards, 10 day waiting periods, ammunition marking, magazine drop safeties, 10 round magazine bans, assault weapon bans, and 100 other things you can find in the CA laws.

This is like having ants or roaches that invade your kitchen periodically. You have to keep fighting them or they will take over. But you can never eliminate them.

yeah what he said.

[nobs11]

LEO friendly gun laws is taught in 101: Creating a Police State.

Every single gun banner is in favor of "giving the cops what they need," while stripping citizens of their rights.

[Mr. Meeseeks]

Nooo! Don't make it apply to LEO's! I'll be one soon and I want to buy lots of cool stuff!

And lots of us will want to buy them from you, when you grow tired of them.

[Greg-Dawg]

I will not apply to LEOs because CA want to keep its citizens in check.

[Tanner68]

I am well acquainted with the ridiculous hurdles and obstacles placed before CA handgun buyers. Yes, I agree, death by a thousand cuts is their strategy.

But the roster is a huge slash, not a paper cut. I think there is a chance to defeat the roster by arguing that it should apply to LEOs. At a minimum, it would illuminate the legislature's hypocrisy, and make them live with the consequences of their actions. We should not stand by for such an obvious double standard.

So what I am asking, is it a good tactic to try to get the roster to apply to LEOs?