AG Opinion re LEOs and AWs

[BigDogatPlay]

I don't know, brass pass is no good for DUIs?

It's not in my county...... just saying.

To Gene's "yes and yes"..... I usually don't like being teased, but the payoff here is liable to be well worth the petty annoyance.

[Untamed1972]

If Gore doesn't want them to keep them, then he should issue them a Department owned one instead.

SDSO patrol cars already have ARs in them. so why should any of them need to purchase their own "for use on duty?"

[N6ATF]

2 man cars? They're particular about the equipment they use? Poor maintenance record at the armory?

[hoffmang]

The reason a retired LEO who had a personal AW registered is unprosecuteable is that I believe the penal code exempts anyone whose firearm is registered on the face of the law. It's hard to find the LEO guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a constitutional interpretation that is parallel but not directly on point.

-Gene

[flyingcaveman]

What the hell happened to the 14th amendment?

[N6ATF]

It only applies in the home.

[Stonewalker]

Perhaps I am being a bit hypocritical -

On one hand I am upset they let leo's have RAWs
On the other hand I get upset when they take them away.

Right, you are thinking about the specific consequences of each scenario, you aren't thinking about principles. And the Bill of Rights is all about principles.

It only applies in the home.

I almost spit tea all over my computer!

[paladin4415]

SDSO patrol cars already have ARs in them. so why should any of them need to purchase their own "for use on duty?"

Are they issued to each Deputy, or are they "pool" guns that live in the car? "Pool" rifles are not a good idea. IMO

[tomo2068]

[jpigeon]

Major Pimp slap from the CA hustlers...

[mezz]

I got a memo and form to sign from my chief, stating that I acknowledge and have read the opinion, and upon retirement or separation, I will privide proof to my agency that it has been disposed of, sold or a permit from DOJ saying its lawful for me to continue to possess it. If I refuse to sign the form, the chief will notify DOJ that the permission to continue to possess is recinded by my agency.

I dont have a big problem with signing it, because I have a permit from DOJ (the original registration letter). And I called DOJ and spoke with "Dana" in firearms. I asked him if DOJ was revoking registrations if the agency recinds permission to possess, or notifies them of a retirement. He said they are NOT revoking the registrations.

But who knows what will happen in the future and what this new AG will do...

[Maestro Pistolero]

That is not AT ALL clear from the Heller decision. Here's what the court said:

It may be objectedthat if weapons M-16 rifles and the likemay be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clauseIndeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

Bold mine. To paraphrase: If M-16s may be banned, then the first clause of the amendment no longer applies. Short of a constitutional convention that overturns the amendment, I contend that it certainly does still apply.

To continue paraphrasing: Even if M16s can't overcome modern tanks and bombers for the original anti-tyranny purpose, they are still protected.

[jwkincal]

I'm willing to bet that if you had a time machine you might learn that the framers felt the 2A was to apply to things like artillery as well.

It was not unheard of for large landowners to have such things.

[ke6guj]

I'm willing to bet that if you had a time machine you might learn that the framers felt the 2A was to apply to things like artillery as well.

It was not unheard of for large landowners to have such things.

yup, you should hear hoffmang talk about "letters of Marque" where citizens actually owned their own warships to attack pirates.

[Maestro Pistolero]

If the principle of the anti-tyranny purpose of the 2A is to balance power of government with a peaceable armed populace, then isn't it obvious that the firearms would need to be up to the task? Otherwise, isn't that primary purpose of the amendment then rendered moot and null?

So, what antis won't say, but what is inherent in any argument that the police be better armed than law-abiding citizens, is that they disagree with the principles behind the second amendment but are unwilling to say so outright, and they don't have the balls or the ability to repeal it through the process laid out in the constitution itself.

So, instead of using due process to change what they don't like and don't agree with, they undermine the integrity of the entire constitution by making a mockery of it with their circumventions.