LEO perspectives and understanding the CA drop test exemption

[wrench]

Hi all,
I have two questions, actually. Both are not intended to be confrontational so please no responses from anyone (public or LEO) that go down that path. My questions actually are sincere.

Question 1:
I assume that most LEOs on this board would fall more into the "pro" second amendment than against. Therefore, my question is not about your personal views. What I am interested in is this... Are you the norm? When you talk with your fellow LEOs, are they rabidly for or against the public's ownership of firearms? Feel free to expand on this with regards to things like so-called assault weapons, "high" capacity magazines and such. I have one master marksman LEO family member and he makes it seem as though most LEOs are against the current political flow in Sacramento. However, I find this a bit surprising so I am curious to hear from you guys (and gals) on the subject.

Question 2:
I have never really understood why LEOs are exempt from the drop test and I would like to have a LEO explain the reason for this (if you know). Here is my rationale for why the exemption doesn't make sense to me, which I present only as a reference should you wish to refute the logic...

Fundamentally, the selling point of the drop test was that it would ensure unsafe guns (those that might AD when dropped) would not be sold within California. OK, I can see the pure logic in that. However, I don't understand why a LEO would be exempt. If anything, the standard for someone carrying a firearm continuously in CA would, logically, be more restrictive. A LEO, for instance, is more likely to get into a scuffle with a perp and have his/her firearm dropped. Having it AD in this scenario would be very very bad. In fact, it would be a huge lawsuit waiting to happen. So, logically, the standard for "drop safety" in a LEO carried weapon should probably the *higher* than for the general public. That would be for both the potential for AD injuries and the legitimate lawsuits (which the public would have to defend/pay) resulting from such an unfortunate case.

I am guessing there is some governmental logic as to why a LEO should be exempt from the drop test. I would be very interested if you can help me understand what that might be.

Again, none of this is intended to be confrontational and I have no desire to incite a bunch of rhetoric on either side of the whole debate. If kept civil, there is some interesting information that I'm hoping may help everyone understand one another better.... Question 1 simply is trying to delve into the quorum of LEO thought. Question 2 is trying to understand the LEO exclusion.

Thank you.

[jemswirl]

1. 80 percent rank and file pro 2A, but the higher you promote the more you are forced to take up liberal ideals.

2. For Kali congress to get support from most agencies they needed too show some love for law enforcement, a long with the idea of "leaders" not biting the hand the protects you. Although that seems to changing little at a time.
Also, LEO's in some instances whether on or off duty need an "off roster" firearm. Leaves options open for agencies. My 2 cents.

[TKM]

The drop test was designed to eliminate the "ring of fire" el cheapo pocket pistols, Lorcin, Davis and such. IIRC they all passed the test. And here we are, stuck with a required test that miraculously eliminated the out of state used handgun market.




Here's an unbiased PBS article on the subject. Note the incredibly powerful .380s that they were in fear of.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/ring/companies.html

[wrench]

Interesting. I actually hadn't heard of the term 'Ring of Fire' before although the Saturday Night Special is a cornerstone of movie lore so I definitely was familiar with that.

I guess there is a secondary question relates to TKM's comment.... In what percentage of the departments within the State does are the firearms issued (and owned) by the department. As a taxpayer, and hence one of the people that has to pay out liability lawsuits, it seems like it would make sense for LEO firearms being owned by the department. In that case, the logic of a LEO ever needing a firearm specialized beyond what an 'average' citizen may own seems to be somewhat handled. I guess I don't quite understand what the exceptional circumstances are to which you refer.

[edit: sorry... it looks like you edited that comment out so my follow-up doesn't make much sense]

Thank you for the responses.... FWIW, I've somewhat seen the morphing of the political views as one rises. My next door neighbor used to be the police chief. He and I had an interesting CCW conversation once. He proudly told me that he "never have and never will" issue a CCW. We then went down the path of whether or not this was a good measure of democracy in the United States as his personal opinions, though legitimate and fair, were being impressed upon everyone else in the community simply because he had the power to do so.... He was a decent guy and, as one might expect, very political. I don't think I could really characterize him as anti-2A, to be honest. If anything, he was pretty pro... but he had his own twists to what that meant.

[SkyHawk]

The drop test, or LCI, or micro stamping, or mag disconnect safety, aren't about safety - they are about stifling firearms sales and ownership, period. So the exemption for LE to buy 'unsafe' handguns has nothing to do with safety or their (LE) training or whatever. Your mistake is taking their (Democrats) word that it is about safety. Just.... Don't.

Note that people (anyone) can move here with 'unsafe' handguns, and people can be gifted them from out of state family, and people can also buy them from LE. If they were really unsafe, none of that would be allowed, and as you noted, neither would it be allowed for officers to carry them.

It isn't about safety, it is about suppressing the 2nd Amendment rights of CA citizens, with the ultimate goal of disarming them; and on a related note it is about exemptions that LE unions can get for their members in trade for supporting Democratic rule and the nanny-state.

[wrench]

SkyHawk: I actually am not naive enough to believe it really is about safety either. However, that was what the whole bill was sold as and hence was the basis for the discussion. But, for the record, I completely get where you are coming from and I'm in agreement with you there...

I do have some strong political views on the subject (which likely are in complete agreement with yours) but I was trying to keep my question "clean" of those so that the dialog would be based on the ideology of the laws taken at face value.

[Mack661]

the way to stop off roster exemption is anyone being shot by an officer with an off roster (unsafe) handgun needs to sue the agency. once the money starts being paid out the agencies will have no choice but to switch to rostered (safe handguns). then magically the roster will go away and all handguns will be safe again so the officers will once again be allowed to carry the now safe firearms.

[Atomic Donut]

SkyHawk: I actually am not naive enough to believe it really is about safety either. However, that was what the whole bill was sold as and hence was the basis for the discussion. But, for the record, I completely get where you are coming from and I'm in agreement with you there...

And prop 47 was sold as a "Safe nieghborhood and schools act" but we all have seen how true that was been. California politicians will sell their agendas as whatever people will accept, regardless of true intentions.

[pacrat]

I do have some strong political views on the subject (which likely are in complete agreement with yours) but I was trying to keep my question "clean" of those so that the dialog would be based on the ideology of the laws taken at face value.

And therein lies the fault in asking a question based on logic. And expecting a "clean" answer. When the subject of the question is anything but logical or "clean". The legislation you are asking about is based on lies, politics, money, and power over the citizens.

Just as "Rscan925" pointed out in his Prop 47 name comparison.

[mixicus]

#1 very few non-admin LEO's are "anti-gun". For most though, the issue is not even on their radar on a weekly basis. Police One conducted a survey of over 15,000 current and retired LEOs on topics related to gun control. The results are overwhelming against GC measures. Take a look: https://www.policeone.com/police-pro...utive-Summary/

#2 "...and I would like to have a LEO explain the reason for this (if you know)". This question is best addressed by those that write (legislature), approve (governor) or adjudicate (courts) the law. The thought process behind many laws is foreign (and illogical) to LEO's.

[Mack661]

law enforcement in general are not going to object to the gun control laws until it effects them personally. I also hear people complain that law enforcement does not support Calguns. well law enforcement is the first people sued by calguns so they find it hard to support an entity that one day may be suing them.

[DEPUTYBILL]

The roster was the brain child of anti-gunners. They learned that they couldn't ban handguns outright, so the hit on "the roster".
They got law enforcement labor groups to support it by exempting them from it. Same deal for law enforcement agencies.
I also see a lot of blame on the gun makers who thought it would not have a major impact on sales since they could send new models in for testing. They should have fought the roster while it was still a pending bill.
Then the LCI. mag disconnect. and micro stamping were added to the "safety"
features.
Now we are paying for those mistakes!

[M1NM]

The drop test, or LCI, or micro stamping, or mag disconnect safety, aren't about safety - they are about stifling firearms sales and ownership, .

100% right.
Also why does a gun become unsafe just because the mfg won't keep paying the fee to keep it on the list. It's still the same gun so logic would say once a safe gun always a safe gun.

[Redemption]

This topic and responses is 1A and 2A porn for me. Not LEO myself but former active duty enlisted. My experience with LEO has been overwhelmingly pro 2A.

[1911man]

Great thread

Awesome thread!