Question to LEO’s

[esy]

Could you show me where the 2nd amendment states concealed carry is a god given, unalienable right?

I’d love it if it were. It’s not though.

And thank you. I love compliments.

[Kestryll]

Since you asked...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is the right of all people to protect and defend themselves.

It is the enumerated right of American citizens to both possess (keep) and carry (bear) the means to defend and protect themselves (arms).

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

[esy]

That’s a great breakdown, Kestryll.

While I agree that bearing arms is to be able to carry, I don’t believe it means to carry concealed. I think it applies more to the ability to openly carry. Many would say it’s a blanket statement and should cover all. I personally don’t see it that way. Having said that, the ability to open carry is also illegalized by CA and much like I said earlier, I wish it weren’t. As peace officers (that I’m certain you agree with), we have to abide by the law and enforce it. There are things that we must abide by thus my “preaching to the choir” statement.

To say that peace officers vote against 2A rights is rather ridiculous is all. Of the hundreds of officers that I know, I can literally name one that would vote in several anti-2A laws.

[micro911]

The problem is we have the California Penal Code. I don't think the federal government cannot interfere with the state law.

[Country_Jim]

Im sure this has been covered ad nauseam..but here i go...
I live in los angeles. There is no way i can get a ccw...however i am no less susceptible to violence than anyone who lives an in area where ccw is attainable.
Background... i am a white male with no police record. Own a house and business. Conservative family guy.
as much as i feel i should be able to, i do not carry as i dont want the legal headache of violating the law.
Hypothetical....
I decide to carry with me, as i travel all around the county for work.
I get pulled over Because i “match the description” or whatever reason you guys have to pull people over and search them (no wreckless driving or dui type thing).
Im courteous and respectful and comply with all orders during the stop.
In your search, of course there is nothing other than my legally obtained and registerd gun.
I have no criminal record, all my docs for the car and license and insurance are in order.
How do you go about this situation? Would you arrest me?
Im curious of your mindset in this situation.
Thanks!!!

I can only speak for myself. That being said, I have not and will not arrest an otherwise law abiding citizen for carrying a firearm.

My department knows this about me and to my knowledge it has not hurt my career.

[eltee]

Bear in mind that police "discretionary decision making" has gotten less discretionary with the advent of body cams which record contacts with citizens. In the old days if you were caught with weed but otherwise harmless, the cop COULD decide to toss it out and scatter it, etc. Same with a concealed firearm. We might tell you to pick it up at the station unloaded, maybe (depending on jurisdiction and totality of circumstances) we might unload it and have you lock it in the trunk and give you a lecture and official finger wag. Now, if policy is zero tolerance the finding / declaration of a gun would be recorded and no wiggle room.

[code_blue]

With that discretion, we always risk falling in the blame IF something were to happen after our contact with the individual. In the current political climate, we'd be demonized for failing to take action and become martyrs for political gain.

That being said, the 4th is coming up. There will be plenty of 25400 PC violations as well as the obvious 246.3 PC. For those going 10-8 that evening, find a cozy parking structure, my friends.

[RickD427]

I can only speak for myself. That being said, I have not and will not arrest an otherwise law abiding citizen for carrying a firearm.

My department knows this about me and to my knowledge it has not hurt my career.

Bear in mind that police "discretionary decision making" has gotten less discretionary with the advent of body cams which record contacts with citizens. In the old days if you were caught with weed but otherwise harmless, the cop COULD decide to toss it out and scatter it, etc. Same with a concealed firearm. We might tell you to pick it up at the station unloaded, maybe (depending on jurisdiction and totality of circumstances) we might unload it and have you lock it in the trunk and give you a lecture and official finger wag. Now, if policy is zero tolerance the finding / declaration of a gun would be recorded and no wiggle room.

Good advice above from two obviously seasoned officers.

The law was intended to provide a tool for LEO's to solve problems. It was never intended to be blindly enforced to serve it's own ends. The state of California made that quite clear when adopting the Penal Code, that philosophy went right in there at the beginning in section 4.

IMHO, there has been to much movement away from PC4 and toward a "one size fits all" mentality. The problem with affording discretion to LEO's is that there will always be some knucklehead who abuses it. No system is perfect. A lot of young juveniles benefited from having their marijuana dumped, being given the scare of their young lives, and then there being no record to haunt them ten years later when they matured and needed a security clearance. But at the same time, a lot of marijuana got dumped because officers were too lazy to write paper.

[dogrunner]

Somerset Maugham comes to mind: "Do what you are going to do with due regard to the cop around the corner".

[CinnamonBear723]

Good advice above from two obviously seasoned officers.

The law was intended to provide a tool for LEO's to solve problems. It was never intended to be blindly enforced to serve it's own ends. The state of California made that quite clear when adopting the Penal Code, that philosophy went right in there at the beginning in section 4.

IMHO, there has been to much movement away from PC4 and toward a "one size fits all" mentality. The problem with affording discretion to LEO's is that there will always be some knucklehead who abuses it. No system is perfect. A lot of young juveniles benefited from having their marijuana dumped, being given the scare of their young lives, and then there being no record to haunt them ten years later when they matured and needed a security clearance. But at the same time, a lot of marijuana got dumped because officers were too lazy to write paper.

Reminds me of the recent thread about CCW notifications. Newer cops are much more likely to stick to the letter of the law than the spirit of the law. Also, not every cop is a "gun guy/gal."

Also another important fact for those claiming CA cops are enforcing unconstitutional laws, remember we are only CA peace officers. Unless we get cross deputized, we do not have the authority to enforce federal laws. We enforce only CA code (penal, vehicle, WIC etc.)

[RickD427]

Reminds me of the recent thread about CCW notifications. Newer cops are much more likely to stick to the letter of the law than the spirit of the law. Also, not every cop is a "gun guy/gal."

Also another important fact for those claiming CA cops are enforcing unconstitutional laws, remember we are only CA peace officers. Unless we get cross deputized, we do not have the authority to enforce federal laws. We enforce only CA code (penal, vehicle, WIC etc.)

A California state peace officer does have the authority to arrest for violations of federal law without need of federal deputation, but there are a plethora of reasons that made it inadvisable to do so. The LASD had enough procedural difficulties processing such arrestees that our custody division implemented a policy more than 10 years ago not to accept such bookings.

At the end of my career, I ran a task force where a number of our state officers were federally deputized. The reasons weren't to make their arrests lawful, it did make it possible for them to obtain federal search warrants and provided them more ready access to AUSAs for case filing. One of the big problems with state officers making federal arrests is that there is no requirement for an AUSA to respond to a filing request.

[CinnamonBear723]

A California state peace officer does have the authority to arrest for violations of federal law without need of federal deputation, but there are a plethora of reasons that made it inadvisable to do so. The LASD had enough procedural difficulties processing such arrestees that our custody division implemented a policy more than 10 years ago not to accept such bookings.

At the end of my career, I ran a task force we a number of our state officers were federally deputized. The reasons weren't to make their arrests lawful, it did make it possible for them to obtain federal search warrants and provided them more ready access to AUSAs for case filing. One of the big problems with state officers making federal arrests is that there is no requirement for an AUSA to respond to a filing request.

Well hey, you learn something new everyday I guess. From my experience the Feds like local filings better and constantly ask me to write warrants and file on a state level first, then take that to the AUSA. It seems they have a tough time if the case isn't big enough for whatever reason. Also, they have told me that local warrants are easier to obtain that federal. I haven't been on a task force and have never tried so I guess I'll take their word for it.

[John1960]

Surely many of you have arrested people or written reports for possession of Counterfeit money or Theft of US Mail, both federal sections.....

[code_blue]

Surely many of you have arrested people or written reports for possession of Counterfeit money or Theft of US Mail, both federal sections.....

Those federal sections were also adopted into the CA constitution giving CA charge authority. Counterfeit monies under PC 470(d) and mail theft under PC 530.5(e).

[CinnamonBear723]

Those federal sections were also adopted into the CA constitution giving CA charge authority. Counterfeit monies under PC 470(d) and mail theft under PC 530.5(e).

This. Mail theft and counterfeit currency reports are taken under CA Penal code sections and typically forwarded to the post master and secret service respectively.