What do you Coppers do.....

[ARtistinCA]

All those mandated body cameras make situations like this less fun for LEO's.... Especially when staff gets to randomly watch the videos to decide if the LEO is "doing their job."

I attempt to do my job in a manner that I as a tax-paying and moral citizen would approve of. That's all I have to say.

Yup.... cameras are a double edged sword. What we could of used as discretion is now taken away.

[Cokebottle]

Coming here to admit (document) illegal behavior is incredibly short sighted and only further confirms the OP's bad judgement...

And may come back to bite them if they ever DO live in a county that issues, given that one of the interview questions is "Have you ever carried a handgun concealed in California?"

That answer had better match their research, and if the answer is yes, it may get uncomfortable.

[RickD427]

Something that unequivocally violates the constitution is not a law. We are not bound to enforce laws that are direct violations of the United States Constitution. Any "law" that prevents a law abiding citizen from protecting themselves or their families should not be enforced. If you're a LEO, that was in your oath. "To defend the constitution."

Wyatt,

My oath was to support and defend the Constitution. That oath includes the whole of the Constitution, specifically including the Second Amendment and Article III.

I suspect that you're familiar with the Second Amendment, let me bring you up to speed on Article III. Article III provides a system of courts to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

You are maintaining that prohibitions on CCW "unequivocally violates" the Constitution, but that's quite far from being true. There is quite a bit of equivocation on that point, and no court has published an opinion, binding in California, that the Second Amendment provides a right to CCW.

You certainly have the right to hold your own opinion on the matter, but without a published court decision on the subject, you have no right to impose that opinion on others.

You can't pick and chose what parts of the Constitution you want to follow, and what parts you want to ignore. If you want to embrace the Second Amendment, then you also have to accept Article III.

If "WeStayClean" choses to arrest a CCW violator, he can do so in complete harmony with his oath of office.

I gave my personal opinion at the beginning of the thread.

[WyattandDoc]

Wyatt,

My oath was to support and defend the Constitution. That oath includes the whole of the Constitution, specifically including the Second Amendment and Article III.

I suspect that you're familiar with the Second Amendment, let me bring you up to speed on Article III. Article III provides a system of courts to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

You are maintaining that prohibitions on CCW "unequivocally violates" the Constitution, but that's quite far from being true. There is quite a bit of equivocation on that point, and no court has published an opinion, binding in California, that the Second Amendment provides a right to CCW.

You certainly have the right to hold your own opinion on the matter, but without a published court decision on the subject, you have no right to impose that opinion on others.

You can't pick and chose what parts of the Constitution you want to follow, and what parts you want to ignore. If you want to embrace the Second Amendment, then you also have to accept Article III.

If "WeStayClean" choses to arrest a CCW violator, he can do so in complete harmony with his oath of office.

I gave my personal opinion at the beginning of the thread.

And just when did I "impose" my opinion on others?!?! I simply stated my opinion and that part of our oath was to defend the constitution. I thought we were all big boys and girls in here.

[RickD427]

And just when did I "impose" my opinion on others?!?! I simply stated my opinion and that part of our oath was to defend the constitution. I thought we were all big boys and girls in here.

Here's where you crossed the line:

"If you're a LEO, that was in your oath. "To defend the constitution." "

The context is that he is violating his oath by not subscribing to your view of Constitution.

[WyattandDoc]

Here's where you crossed the line:

"If you're a LEO, that was in your oath. "To defend the constitution." "

The context is that he is violating his oath by not subscribing to your view of Constitution.

Guess we'll just agree to disagree. I for one will not be playing pawn as California Legislatures blatantly violate the US Constitution. If you and WeStayClean feel good about preventing a law abiding citizen from protecting them self and their families, well hey, a stats a stat. Pretty friggin sad , but as long as you guys can look in the mirror.

[Bruiser12]

HAHA. The only time I heard the term "Copper" was when James Cagney said it in a movie.

This is where I heard it also...I liked the term.

[Bruiser12]

I would arrest you. You are already showing an inability to follow the law, so what would make me believe you would be disciplined enough to use that weapon. I would let the jury decide that.

I respect that. I do have the discipline and training.

Thanks for you response.

[Bruiser12]

I would say, "Have a great day and be safe. Finger off trigger until circumstances dictate different."

Thanks for your response.

[Bruiser12]

And may come back to bite them if they ever DO live in a county that issues, given that one of the interview questions is "Have you ever carried a handgun concealed in California?"

That answer had better match their research, and if the answer is yes, it may get uncomfortable.

I won't be applying for my CCW in this state again. Where I plan to move in the future doesn't require a permit to open or CCW.

[ChrisO]

Your blatant disregard for the law is bothersome. The fact you are openly admitting to breaking the law on a public forum isn't the smartest thing to do. As I've said before sometimes folks catch a break. However, if I came across someone with this attitude (the I don't need a CCW attitude) especially in my county (shall issue) i'd make the arrest. There is absolutely no reason to not have a CCW in a county that is shall issue. This is the type of attitude I see from folks who get denied CCW due to poor decision making abilities that come to fruition during the background portion of the CCW application process.

[Bruiser12]

Your blatant disregard for the law is bothersome. The fact you are openly admitting to breaking the law on a public forum isn't the smartest thing to do. As I've said before sometimes folks catch a break. However, if I came across someone with this attitude (the I don't need a CCW attitude) especially in my county (shall issue) i'd make the arrest. There is absolutely no reason to not have a CCW in a county that is shall issue. This is the type of attitude I see from folks who get denied CCW due to poor decision making abilities that come to fruition during the background portion of the CCW application process.

As I have stated before. I was approved for my CCW when I applied. But due to The Sheriff's Dept not accepting Self defense as good cause now(before I finished my live scan) I was advised to pull my application before I was denied on the good cause.

If I lived in a Shall Issue county, then I would have my permit and wouldn't be here asking this question.

I have no attitude about any of this. I have no bad decisions that came up during my back ground check.

I am simply asking a question to all the LEO's on here. It was something I was wondering about.

[Zulu1]

Interesting but possibly doesnt tell the whole story

FWIW...

BATFE does a firearm trace, in CA, when the firearm is not registered in CLETS-AFS.

BATFE firearm trace data, for CA 2015, indicates 1381 handguns were traced due to being confiscated for concealed carry.

This would indicate that, last year in CA, 1381 unregistered handguns were confiscated for illegal concealed carry.

Conceal carry of an unregistered handgun is a felony in CA.

Great to see this figure, but does it include all the low life gang bangers etc that were gleaned. If so it is no indication on otherwise law abiding citizens that chose to exercise their right to carry. As far as I am concerned it is pure stupidity to do so without a CCW, but that's me. Even with a CCW the legal implications of having to use the firearm are daunting. I would hate to see a non registered user go to court.

[WeStayClean]

Your blatant disregard for the law is bothersome. The fact you are openly admitting to breaking the law on a public forum isn't the smartest thing to do. As I've said before sometimes folks catch a break. However, if I came across someone with this attitude (the I don't need a CCW attitude) especially in my county (shall issue) i'd make the arrest. There is absolutely no reason to not have a CCW in a county that is shall issue. This is the type of attitude I see from folks who get denied CCW due to poor decision making abilities that come to fruition during the background portion of the CCW application process.

This.

[spoon01]

Your blatant disregard for the law is bothersome. The fact you are openly admitting to breaking the law on a public forum isn't the smartest thing to do. As I've said before sometimes folks catch a break. However, if I came across someone with this attitude (the I don't need a CCW attitude) especially in my county (shall issue) i'd make the arrest. There is absolutely no reason to not have a CCW in a county that is shall issue. This is the type of attitude I see from folks who get denied CCW due to poor decision making abilities that come to fruition during the background portion of the CCW application process.

This.

I can respect that. But what about in San Francisco? Does your opinion change at all on this?

What if you find a law abiding citizen who happens to be carrying without carry permit in a city where all law abiding citizens have had their hands tied, rights stripped, can no longer effectively protect themselves or their loved ones, and are forced to put up with the infestation of drugs, gangs, drugs, homelessness, drugs, and all else that terrorizes our neighborhoods?

And believe me, not for all but for alot of residents of San Francisco, the terror is very real.