Two questions for LEOs

[CalCop]

25610. (a) Section 25400 shall not be construed to prohibit any
citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or
is temporarily within this state, and who is not prohibited by state
or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a
firearm, from transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that
the following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the
vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle.

[LtJim]

Never said your stupid! I just follow the old principle! Got that from an old FTO in the 1970's. I was told way back then-"rookie, just follow the rules and don't try and complicate things". If ya stop and think about it, it really works!

That small basic theory got me through a career as well as helped me raise 3 kids! Sometimes getting that theory through the heads of your children can be the toughest of all.

[undercow16969]

Never said your stupid! I just follow the old principle! Got that from an old FTO in the 1970's. I was told way back then-"rookie, just follow the rules and don't try and complicate things". If ya stop and think about it, it really works!

That small basic theory got me through a career as well as helped me raise 3 kids! Sometimes getting that theory through the heads of your children can be the toughest of all.

Haha. I can relate to that.

[IrishJoe3]

maybe its because I am not an officer but If I were I would think that I would have used a little more common sense and let him know what was right instead of ruining a career of a military member.

Slightly irritated is all.

Okay, this has me slightly irritated. The deputies didn't ruin his career, he ruined his own career. He didn't have common sense and he committed a misdemeanor. Sucks to be him, he should have known better, but that falls right on his shoulders and no one else.

Pretty much every person I've ever arrested has claimed innocence, ignorance of the law, that its a misunderstanding or that they are someone elses pants. He chose to ignore the law. He got burned. He's an idiot.

And really, being a military member does not give someone a free pass. In my military career I have known several soldiers that have committed murder/kidnaping etc. I have run into a LOT of service members that feel they can do whatever they want because they are military and laws don't apply to them. That is a very foolish mentaility, don't be that service member.

[undercow16969]

I don't know many military members that think they can get away everything. I do however expect a little more leniency twords things that do not hurt anyone... harsh crimes are not acceptable by any means. I'm mainly talking about small violations like going 6mph over or doing the california roll through a stop sign at 3am when no traffic is around.

Military has it bad enough with the media these days alone and that is not counting how easily one can get the boot for something much smaller because of force shaping actions. What you are saying is something similar to the problems we face but on a world wide level; It is not the fault of the military, we do what we are told. Hate the government not us. I have personally been spit on just for standing guard at a gate for being military and to boot we do not have the option of discretion. Everything is in black and white and even then it leans more twords getting hurt first before we can do anything.

Now I am not saying I disagree with you, it was ignorance of the law, my intention was NOT to say that it was the deputies fault either. I am a little flustered because discretion could have been used and wasn't.

[emvampyre]

These posts always start with "...a normally law abiding citizen was arrested because this one time he... (did what ever he did and broke the law)." Key words "HE BROKE THE LAW." He/she/they have to pay for their actions. That's just they way it is... It's not the LEO's fault he chose to enforce that particular law and not let his buddy go. Even if that LEO has limited discretion at the time.

This wonderful site is firearm centric and the members here love our firearms and hate our rights being infringed on constantly. That includes the LEOs on this site as well. Me included. And we gripe and complain about the laws that are on the books, the laws others want to put on the books, and the enforcement of those laws. None of us like to hear about a buddy getting hooked up especially when it regards our shared hobby/passion. It sucks. But, cruise some forums catering to drug use, or open blatant racism, facism. Those members complain as loudly as we do about infrigement by the government on their chosen passion.

All of the hundreds (thousands?) of laws on the books regarding firearms possession, use, ownership, ransport, etc. are just that. Laws that need to be followed, and enforced. Equally to all. I don't agree with every law on the book be it regarding firearms or the raising of homing pigeons, but they are laws. My job is to enforce them

But come on! Don't blame the LEO, do something about the law. Change it at the ballot box, don't just rail against the cop.

That being said, I have acted with discretion in the past when I stopped individuals on the way to or on the way home from the range. I worked an area with a popular shooting range in the hills above Foothill Blvd. in the Tujunga area. Not everyone went to jail, but I took a few, yes.

Oh, and remember, you know your friend, that LEO didn't. How does he know your buddy is a "good person"? HE doesn't. In over 25 years of LEO experience, I've never arrested anything but "good guys". I know, because their mommas always told the watch commmander that, and their lawyers tell the jury that during every trial I've ever testified at. I'm not saying your buddy isn't, but I don't know him.

[CalCop]

I agree with emvampyre's words. The problem really is the asinine, unconstitutional gun laws of our state. And I also agree with emvampyre's use of discretion. A law abiding citizen who happens to be breaking the "gun-goes-in-the-trunk law," but there is absolutely no indication of ill will, deserves discretion. He does not deserve to have the same charges as the gang member with a history, carrying the same weapon.

[Bobby Ricigliano]

I am all for discretion. I have used it often, and liberally in the field. However, no one with any knowledge of the law would classify carrying a firearm in an illegal manner as a "small infraction".

The entire question loses its credibility when framed in such inaccurate terms.

[undercow16969]

I agree with emvampyre's words. The problem really is the asinine, unconstitutional gun laws of our state. And I also agree with emvampyre's use of discretion. A law abiding citizen who happens to be breaking the "gun-goes-in-the-trunk law," but there is absolutely no indication of ill will, deserves discretion. He does not deserve to have the same charges as the gang member with a history, carrying the same weapon.

I only partially agree with emvampyre. As far as discretion goes I agree 100%.

I am all for discretion. I have used it often, and liberally in the field. However, no one with any knowledge of the law would classify carrying a firearm in an illegal manner as a "small infraction".

The entire question loses its credibility when framed in such inaccurate terms.

Thank you for your use of discretion. Even though I have never met you and hope to never meet you on the buisness end thank you. Now for my rant about what is a small infraction. (this one has a part for you and evampyre

Example: Open carry laws are gone in CA (relatively speaking), A guy walks out from his house that he owns and resides at which happens to be in a school zone to put a weapon in the trunk of his car which is in a case but not locked. Evampyre sees this pulls up and arrests him. The man stepped on the sidewalk which means he is in public, open carrying and in a school zone....Felony, fined,jailtime .... house, kids, wife, career and so on are gone because of what most of the country would think to be a small infraction. According to you (bobby, Evampyre's partner) you say we should just let him know that he needs to pull into his driveway next time to load up. Evampyre cuts you off and says "No, everyone needs to be treated equally so he is just the same as that one guy we arrested last week, you remember the one that stole the bait car and came out waving the gun when we pulled up that had 9 different peoples credit cards and had been recently parolled and on his third strike right? Yeah the same as that guy." That sir is what I mean by small infraction.

These posts always start with "...a normally law abiding citizen was arrested because this one time he... (did what ever he did and broke the law)." Key words "HE BROKE THE LAW." He/she/they have to pay for their actions. That's just they way it is... It's not the LEO's fault he chose to enforce that particular law and not let his buddy go. Even if that LEO has limited discretion at the time.

All of the hundreds (thousands?) of laws on the books regarding firearms possession, use, ownership, ransport, etc. are just that. Laws that need to be followed, and enforced. Equally to all. I don't agree with every law on the book be it regarding firearms or the raising of homing pigeons, but they are laws. My job is to enforce them

But come on! Don't blame the LEO, do something about the law. Change it at the ballot box, don't just rail against the cop.

That being said, I have acted with discretion in the past when I stopped individuals on the way to or on the way home from the range. I worked an area with a popular shooting range in the hills above Foothill Blvd. in the Tujunga area. Not everyone went to jail, but I took a few, yes.

Oh, and remember, you know your friend, that LEO didn't. How does he know your buddy is a "good person"? HE doesn't.

Most of what you have said have has been covered in the posts above. Again not blaming the officer, I know you dont know my friend. Even though you are contradicting yourself, Thankyou for your use of discretion. Thankyou for your response and helping me to understand why some officers think and act the way they do. Please see the comment above in this post.


Thank you everyone.

[Kerplow]

I've been wondering if CA LE enforces the GFSZ and how often officers give a pass during a traffic stop when everything else passes the smell test. It just seems like it's such a silly law that many officers might be sympathetic. Then again, I'm sure there's plenty of officers out there who don't appreciate the RKBA and will pursue any violation they can find, no matter what the circumstances.

[CalCop]

However, no one with any knowledge of the law would classify carrying a firearm in an illegal manner as a "small infraction".

This is an absolute and unequivocal statement that you cannot possibly believe to be true; I hope you are exaggerating.

I have many years as a LEO, and a LEO firearms trainer in particular. Therefore I have the knowledge you refer to, and still consider some instances of "illegal carry" (tongue in cheek) to indeed be a small infraction. Carrying a firearm in many states in the USA is perfectly legal in almost every way imaginable. Only in gun-hating states like California, do we, even LEOs, become brainwashed by the mentality that guns are "bad."
And, therefore, CA's asinine and unconstitutional gun laws become our "new normal." Somehow many CA cops have decided they cannot use discretion when confronted with an otherwise law abiding citizen who happened to exercise his second amendment rights in a way Nanny CA decided it didn't like.

What do I think is illegal?.....some of CA's gun laws, you know, the unconstitutional ones.

I took my oath to uphold the constitution very seriously. If you feel a law is unconstitutional, you must weigh your oath to uphold the constitution against what you think a supervisor or politician might want you to do. No one can tell you how to reconcile these two sometimes conflicting interests. I cannot tell you when to err either way; and likewise, you can't tell me when to. The OP cannot tell the cop who arrested his friend how to make his decision either. Each of us must find our own peace when deciding to follow our oath to the constitution when it conflicts with "laws."

[5thgen4runner]

This is an absolute and unequivocal statement that you cannot possibly believe to be true; I hope you are exaggerating.

I have many years as a LEO, and a LEO firearms trainer in particular. Therefore I have the knowledge you refer to, and still consider some instances of "illegal carry" (tongue in cheek) to indeed be a small infraction. Carrying a firearm in many states in the USA is perfectly legal in almost every way imaginable. Only in gun-hating states like California, do we, even LEOs, become brainwashed by the mentality that guns are "bad."
And, therefore, CA's asinine and unconstitutional gun laws become our "new normal." Somehow many CA cops have decided they cannot use discretion when confronted with an otherwise law abiding citizen who happened to exercise his second amendment rights in a way Nanny CA decided it didn't like.

What do I think is illegal?.....CA's unconstitutional gun laws.

You sir are awesome!!!!! I vote for calcop as most down to earth, for the people leo on this forum.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

[Kerplow]

This is an absolute and unequivocal statement that you cannot possibly believe to be true; I hope you are exaggerating.

I have many years as a LEO, and a LEO firearms trainer in particular. Therefore I have the knowledge you refer to, and still consider some instances of "illegal carry" (tongue in cheek) to indeed be a small infraction. Carrying a firearm in many states in the USA is perfectly legal in almost every way imaginable. Only in gun-hating states like California, do we, even LEOs, become brainwashed by the mentality that guns are "bad." And, therefore, CA's asinine and unconstitutional gun laws become our "new normal." Somehow many CA cops have decided they cannot use discretion when confronted with an otherwise law abiding citizen who happened to exercise his second amendment rights in a way Nanny CA decided it didn't like.

What do I think is illegal?.....some of CA's gun laws, you know, the unconstitutional ones.

I took my oath to uphold the constitution very seriously. If you feel a law is unconstitutional, you must weigh your oath to uphold the constitution against what you think a supervisor or politician might want you to do. No one can tell you how to reconcile these two sometimes conflicting interests. I cannot tell you when to err either way; and likewise, you can't tell me when to. The OP cannot tell the cop who arrested his friend how to make his decision either. Each of us must find our own peace when deciding to follow our oath to the constitution when it conflicts with "laws."

Quoted for posterity! I wish all LE had this mentality, we'd probably have a lot less asinine gun laws.

[CalCop]

I've been wondering if CA LE enforces the GFSZ and how often officers give a pass during a traffic stop when everything else passes the smell test. It just seems like it's such a silly law that many officers might be sympathetic.

Agree.

Then again, I'm sure there's plenty of officers out there who don't appreciate the RKBA and will pursue any violation they can find, no matter what the circumstances.

Agree.

Courts have often ruled that a law contrary to the Constitution is NULL and VOID. Watch the first video here: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/

You should keep in mind that I know my enforcement attitude is not in the majority. However, I can also tell you that some of my fellow LEOs at my agency feel the same way I do. I agree with Bobby Ricigliano that there are several LEOs who will strictly enforce every violation of CA gun law, no matter what. Might be the same LEOs who would give a speeding ticket to a woman in labor on the way to the hospital. Okay, maybe not quite that extreme, but you get my point. With this in mind, you must make an informed decision when you choose to carry "illegally" but according to your 2nd Amendment right to do so. You must accept the reality that you may encounter one of the LEOs who will jam you up for every speck of gun law they think you might have violated. We need to keep overturning these unconstitutional laws. We have started to with McDonald, Heller, etc. But we must continue, until the present discussion becomes irrelevant.

[me109g4]

Calcop,, great answers and i like your approach to the way you enforce gun laws in that cesspool of a state. A lot of cops could learn a lot from you if they would let themselves learn. I am a very pro law enforcement kind of guy, but to be honest its getting harder and harder to support when we see some members of law enforcement getting further and further out of control. I would suggest to the more gung ho that rather than usiing "guidelines, rules, stipulations " etc. they try a little common sense and use thier judgement.