AB 48 Skinner and PORAC

[MACGEARAILT]

Good morning folks, PORAC had a board meeting on Friday,2013 January 25 and amongst the many topics for discussion was wether to support or oppose AB48 which is designed to greatly restrict the availability of ammunition to citizens residing in California.Porac decided after 20 minutes of discussion to support because serving and retired peace officers will be unaffected by the most onerous aspects of the bill.We've got ours,screw everyone else.Porac did the same thing last year with open carry. Texas is looking better as I approach my retirement date.Be Safe.

[Ron-Solo]

In 32 years of LE, the only interaction I ever had with PORAC was arresting one of their representatives for DUI. He kept throwing out the fact he worked for PORAC as the cell door shut on him. I never met a single officer that was a member.

PORAC does not, in my opinion, represent rank and file of law enforcement.

[MaHoTex]

That is really great to hear Ron. I read the OP and was like but you have put my mind at ease.

BTW, Non-LEO here.

[retired]

In 32 years of LE, the only interaction I ever had with PORAC was arresting one of their representatives for DUI. He kept throwing out the fact he worked for PORAC as the cell door shut on him. I never met a single officer that was a member.

PORAC does not, in my opinion, represent rank and file of law enforcement.

Just like a Sheriff and Chief of Police do not either.

[CBR_rider]

Wow, I'm sure my union will be right behind PORAC in supporting this piece of legislation.. If I could find an economical way to obtain legal defense for on duty incidents I would most certainly drop my union membership due to crap like this...

[Grumpyoldretiredcop]

PORAC sucks.

[1911_sfca]

Many departments are members of PORAC, primarily for the legal representation available in the case of a disciplinary hearing, on-duty shooting, etc.

[DEPUTYBILL]

PORAC first and formost is a labor organization. I would hazard that any bills that deal with guns and ammo will be supported by them IF peace officers,and retirees are exempt. Sad but true. That said,I feel most rank and file officers would not support an outright ban of guns or ammo.

[jaysen]

Wow, I'm sure my union will be right behind PORAC in supporting this piece of legislation.. If I could find an economical way to obtain legal defense for on duty incidents I would most certainly drop my union membership due to crap like this...

You always can, and there's FOP but have fun trying to obtain representation without paying out of pocket if it extends past an IA interview.

Don't believe me, ask around...

Unfortunately, as much as people bash PORAC they have done some GOOD... There was the bill they supported and eventually passed RE: retired officers and dept letterhead purchased AR's; you can now keep them.

[1911_sfca]

Unfortunately, as much as people bash PORAC they have done some GOOD... There was the bill they supported and eventually passed RE: retired officers and dept letterhead purchased AR's; you can now keep them.

Sorry, I missed this as I haven't been watching this issue closely. Are you saying there's a law PORAC supported which usurps opinion No. 09-901 (12/31/10) which says retired LEOs must relinquish their legal personally owned and registered AWs?

Can you send a link, as although I'm not near retirement age, I'm interested in the topic.
Thanks

[jaysen]

Sorry, I missed this as I haven't been watching this issue closely. Are you saying there's a law PORAC supported which usurps opinion No. 09-901 (12/31/10) which says retired LEOs must relinquish their legal personally owned and registered AWs?

Can you send a link, as although I'm not near retirement age, I'm interested in the topic.
Thanks

Yes, it was in my conference book but I'm sure I can find it online...

I'll edit this once I do.


Edit;
AB2549 addresses this.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2549_bill_20120224_introduced.html

http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/iphone/article.php?id=1022788&id_issue=105962&src=&ref=

[jaysen]

Penal Code 30630(2);

If a peace officer who lawfully
purchased an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle pursuant to paragraph
(1) and properly registered the firearm in his or her name, and who
has honorably retired from the law enforcement agency, the officer
shall notify the Department of Justice of his or her change in status
and continued ownership of the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle. The
notification shall include written documentation from the head of the
law enforcement agency from which the officer retired, or a designee
of the department head, stating that the officer
honorably retired from the agency. As used in this section,
"honorably retired" includes all peace officers who have qualified
for, and have accepted, a service or disability retirement. For
purposes of this section, "honorably retired" does not include an
officer who has agreed to a service retire ment in lieu of
termination.

(3) The Department of Justice shall develop a program authorizing
a retired officer to file a "change of status" form for purposes of
paragraph (2), shall develop and adopt a form for that purpose, and
may charge the retired officer seeking to file that form a fee
covering the reasonable cost of providing this service.

[cowboykenny]

PORAC IS A DEMOCRAT SUPPORTING ORG. THAT SHOULD SAY IT ALL.