Sad Situation

[EmptyMags]

I got a speeding ticket once...

Personally I have had only very good experiences with police, and I feel like a lot of the resentment comes form the laws you're enforcing. Also what others have said about the 'bad cops' ruining the police image.

[EmptyMags]

Many times police seem to be 'above the law' too. Like LEO-only handguns and magazines at your local FFL. (I understand this isn't 100% the LEO's choice but it still stands) Or some court case where it appears as if a 'normal citizen' would see a different outcome.

[TRICKSTER]

Many times police seem to be 'above the law' too. Like LEO-only handguns and magazines at your local FFL. (I understand this isn't 100% the LEO's choice but it still stands) Or some court case where it appears as if a 'normal citizen' would see a different outcome.

The key words here are "appears" and "seems like". How many people that feel this way actually take the time to look up cases and see if it is actually so?

[micro911]

Many times police seem to be 'above the law' too. Like LEO-only handguns and magazines at your local FFL. (I understand this isn't 100% the LEO's choice but it still stands) Or some court case where it appears as if a 'normal citizen' would see a different outcome.

As far as I know, police officers are not above the law. I don't know about other agencies, but mine has a very strict Manual of Policy and Procedures. If we are out of the policy, we are punished. My association also would not represent us for policy violation penalties.

As soon as we retire, we cannot buy firearms that are not on the roster, and we cannot buy "high capacity" magazines. As I understand, the off roster firearm and high cap magazines are for "work", although many of them may not be used to "work" or off duty.

I don't really agree with the firearms law that we have in this state, but it is what it is until we change it. Too many people are upset that officers can buy certain firearms and citizen cannot. I am kind of the other way around a little bit. It is not fair to me that we can only use firearms and ammo that the department authorize where citizens can use any firearm or ammo of their choice for self defense.

[Citizen_B]

As I understand, the off roster firearm and high cap magazines are for "work", although many of them may not be used to "work" or off duty.

There is no law nor implication that off roster firearms LEOs purchase need to be used for work. Military however need to be used for official duties.

12125. (a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:
(4) The sale or purchase of any pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, if the pistol, revolver, or other firearm is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, any police department, any sheriff's official, any marshal's office, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

I don't really agree with the firearms law that we have in this state, but it is what it is until we change it. Too many people are upset that officers can buy certain firearms and citizen cannot. I am kind of the other way around a little bit. It is not fair to me that we can only use firearms and ammo that the department authorize where citizens can use any firearm or ammo of their choice for self defense.

Not any firearm/ammo. Only on-roster guns or off-roster guns acquired with the limited (and dwindling) exemptions, and any ammo so long as you don't live in a county like San Francisco. This brings up the two main 'gripes' average Joe has with off-duty LEO privileges: (1) exemption from buying only rostered ('safe') handguns for any reason, and (2) allowed concealed carry. Yes, this isn't the average LEOs fault the laws are the way they are. Average Joe is trying to get the laws changed with grassroots efforts and political action. However, I honestly don't see a large contingent of LEOs rocking the boat trying to get their leadership to pressure politicians for citizen gun rights and/or issuing concealed carry permits. It always ends up getting challenged in the courts. Most agencies official policy and those of the unions are generally anti-gun. As members of those organizations, I say try to influence change from within. If you're unhappy with the policies regarding issued sidearms/ammo, that's something you have the power to try and change within your agency. With all your years of service, I'm sure you've made some influential friends.

[TRICKSTER]

There is no law nor implication that off roster firearms LEOs purchase need to be used for work. Military however need to be used for official duties.

Not any firearm/ammo. Only on-roster guns or off-roster guns acquired with the limited (and dwindling) exemptions, and any ammo so long as you don't live in a county like San Francisco. This brings up the two main 'gripes' average Joe has with off-duty LEO privileges: (1) exemption from buying only rostered ('safe') handguns for any reason, and (2) allowed concealed carry. Yes, this isn't the average LEOs fault the laws are the way they are. Average Joe is trying to get the laws changed with grassroots efforts and political action. However, I honestly don't see a large contingent of LEOs rocking the boat trying to get their leadership to pressure politicians for citizen gun rights and/or issuing concealed carry permits. It always ends up getting challenged in the courts. Most agencies official policy and those of the unions are generally anti-gun. As members of those organizations, I say try to influence change from within. If you're unhappy with the policies regarding issued sidearms/ammo, that's something you have the power to try and change within your agency. With all your years of service, I'm sure you've made some influential friends.

Please explain to me how you think that a someone can get a group of pro-gun police officers, (a group that cannot use their position in a department for political purposes), together to change the laws when the simple fact is that no one has been able to get all the gun owners together to change the laws. It is simply unrealistic to believe that someone can get all the pro gun police officers in this state to organize and put enough pressure on the politicians in this state to change the laws when you cant get all the gun owners in this state, which include many LEOs, and therefore have much more political clout, to stand up for themselves to do the same. What you are doing is separating small group of gun owners (pro-gun LEOs) from the larger group, and blaming them for the inaction of the many. It is nothing but an excuse, an attempt to assign blame and use a version of us against them to draw attention away from the real problem which is the apathy of many gun owners.

You want CCW, every Sheriff is elected by the public. Where are all the gun owners in each county? Why isn't every gun owner in a county demanding that a candidate support CCW?

The fact is that the vast majority of gun owners in this state are inactive or don't really care and don't get involved. That is the real problem.

[Rigidarm]

LE were never meant to be babysitters, or the parents, teachers, ministers and mentors of their community. That was supposed to be done by the parents, teachers, ministers and mentors of their community.

In reality.....LE was only supposed to be there when you had an actual bad guy who needed to be dealt with. Problem is we're asking LE to cover roles in the community they were never meant to cover, and in all honestly will never be able to cover given all the factors involved.

Problem is they arrive 15 minutes to an hour AFTER you need them. Not their fault..... just saying.

[Rigidarm]

LE were never meant to be babysitters, or the parents, teachers, ministers and mentors of their community. That was supposed to be done by the parents, teachers, ministers and mentors of their community.

In reality.....LE was only supposed to be there when you had an actual bad guy who needed to be dealt with. Problem is we're asking LE to cover roles in the community they were never meant to cover, and in all honestly will never be able to cover given all the factors involved.

Please explain to me how you think that a someone can get a group of pro-gun police officers, (a group that cannot use their position in a department for political purposes), together to change the laws when the simple fact is that no one has been able to get all the gun owners together to change the laws. It is simply unrealistic to believe that someone can get all the pro gun police officers in this state to organize and put enough pressure on the politicians in this state to change the laws when you cant get all the gun owners in this state, which include many LEOs, and therefore have much more political clout, to stand up for themselves to do the same. What you are doing is separating small group of gun owners (pro-gun LEOs) from the larger group, and blaming them for the inaction of the many. It is nothing but an excuse, an attempt to assign blame and use a version of us against them to draw attention away from the real problem which is the apathy of many gun owners.

You want CCW, every Sheriff is elected by the public. Where are all the gun owners in each county? Why isn't every gun owner in a county demanding that a candidate support CCW?

The fact that the vast majority of gun owners in this state are inactive or don't really care and don't get involved. That is the real problem.

In a democracy the majority can be wrong but because they are a majority they rule. They can infringe on your rights while you're out working, voting, and supporting or defending a legitimate and protected right. Thankfully we have courts to protect these rights from extremists that go so far as to become unconstitutional. What passes here in California as politically correct would never fly in other states.

[IrishJoe3]

Not any firearm/ammo. Only on-roster guns or off-roster guns acquired with the limited (and dwindling) exemptions, and any ammo so long as you don't live in a county like San Francisco. This brings up the two main 'gripes' average Joe has with off-duty LEO privileges: (1) exemption from buying only rostered ('safe') handguns for any reason, and (2) allowed concealed carry. Yes, this isn't the average LEOs fault the laws are the way they are. Average Joe is trying to get the laws changed with grassroots efforts and political action. However, I honestly don't see a large contingent of LEOs rocking the boat trying to get their leadership to pressure politicians for citizen gun rights and/or issuing concealed carry permits. It always ends up getting challenged in the courts.

Priceless. Here is what I am hearing.

YOU want a lollipop. Jimmy has a lollipop. You hate Jimmy because he won't throw a temper tantrum because you didn't get a lollipop.

It is not the job of the police to pressure politicians. In fact, publicly expressing ANY opinion while being associated with any law enforcement agency will get you severely reprimanded and possibly fired. As it should be. Police enforce the law as written by the legislators that were elected by the public. It is YOUR job to elect the legislature. Don't like what they are producing? Yeah, thats YOUR fault.

Regarding your two points. First, the roster. I grew up with guns, I hunted, I target shot. I lived in the country, collected guns and reloaded. I became a cop. Years later I joined calguns. I had NO IDEA what the roster was about until I joined calguns. Most cops are completely clueless about what the roster is about, because it is completely irellevent to their job. Most gun owners are completely clueless as well.

You and I both know the roster is stupid, pointless, and has gotta go. I've said as much many times before. But don't make a laughable claim that the average joe holds that as a gripe against LEOs. I dare you to ask a LEO what he thinks about the roster. I guarantee you he will have no idea what you're talking about. Same is true for the average gun owner. (I did not say average calgunner). You should be heated about the roster, but grow up and blame the people that imposed it on you!

And your second point...CCW. You county sheriff issues CCWs. You elect your sheriff. Your sheriff not issuing CCWs? Sounds like once again you fail miserably.

Most agencies official policy and those of the unions are generally anti-gun.

Oh really....with your level of conviction, you must have proof of that, right? Lets see it. I want to see proof that MOST agencies and associated police unions are anti gun. I am calling you out, I want to see the facts that support your claim.

[IrishJoe3]

In a democracy the majority can be wrong but because they are a majority they rule. They can infringe on your rights while you're out working, voting, and supporting or defending a legitimate and protected right. Thankfully we have courts to protect these rights from extremists that go so far as to become unconstitutional. .

I agree with the bold. I am glad we have the courts, and am very excited about some solid pro 2A wins over the last decade or so.

Here's the kicker. Laws are presumed constitutional until challenged and ruled unconstitutional.

So hurry up and get them challenged and ruled unconstitutional.

[spyde12]

It is not the job of the police to pressure politicians. In fact, publicly expressing ANY opinion while being associated with any law enforcement agency will get you severely reprimanded and possibly fired.

I recall reading an article where LE members were upset when they were used as props during Obama's visit to CO (last month, I think). It just generalized LE to appear like they're all on the same page with the government on this specific agenda. When that's not the case. I believe some even chose not to show up and called in sick, or something.

With that said, just because the law doesn't make sense, doesn't mean the LEO agrees with it. However, it's their job to enforce the laws passed.

This is why as a citizen, I've become more politically involved within my community. Complaining online will not change the status quo.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[Citizen_B]

Please explain to me how you think that a someone can get a group of pro-gun police officers, (a group that cannot use their position in a department for political purposes), together to change the laws when the simple fact is that no one has been able to get all the gun owners together to change the laws. It is simply unrealistic to believe that someone can get all the pro gun police officers in this state to organize and put enough pressure on the politicians in this state to change the laws when you cant get all the gun owners in this state, which include many LEOs, and therefore have much more political clout, to stand up for themselves to do the same. What you are doing is separating small group of gun owners (pro-gun LEOs) from the larger group, and blaming them for the inaction of the many. It is nothing but an excuse, an attempt to assign blame and use a version of us against them to draw attention away from the real problem which is the apathy of many gun owners.

You want CCW, every Sheriff is elected by the public. Where are all the gun owners in each county? Why isn't every gun owner in a county demanding that a candidate support CCW?

The fact is that the vast majority of gun owners in this state are inactive or don't really care and don't get involved. That is the real problem.

I've never blamed the average LEO for the laws in place - you've assumed that.

Let's stay on point. You are a member of an organization. As a member, you move up in rank. You interact with your leadership as well as your peers. Perhaps you are even part of the leadership in some way. You influence culture whether you believe it or not. You are a member of a union. As a member you have voting privileges. You elect your union leader. Are you seriously saying you have NO power to change anything? PD Chiefs and Sheriffs around this state have supported gun control legislation both publicly and in practice. Shall I provide a long list of evidence? There are Sheriffs right now that will not honor the Peruta decision. The public has failed to vote some of these out, but how exactly did they become leaders? To say you have no ability to influence change from within an organization is like saying average Joe is helpless to change laws and shouldn't even vote. The grassroot efforts of Calguns, 2A, etc. is proof change is possible.

[Citizen_B]

lollipops.

I see I've entered the lion's den. My previous post addresses your points, most likely not to your satisfaction.

[TRICKSTER]

I've never blamed the average LEO for the laws in place - you've assumed that.

Let's stay on point. You are a member of an organization. As a member, you move up in rank. You interact with your leadership as well as your peers. Perhaps you are even part of the leadership in some way. You influence culture whether you believe it or not. You are a member of a union. As a member you have voting privileges. You elect your union leader. Are you seriously saying you have NO power to change anything? PD Chiefs and Sheriffs around this state have supported gun control legislation both publicly and in practice. Shall I provide a long list of evidence? There are Sheriffs right now that will not honor the Peruta decision. The public has failed to vote some of these out, but how exactly did they become leaders? To say you have no ability to influence change from within an organization is like saying average Joe is helpless to change laws and shouldn't even vote. The grassroot efforts of Calguns, 2A, etc. is proof change is possible.

It is not the function of police associations to assist in changing gun laws, their function is to represent their members in negotiating work related benefits and rights.
As far as police chiefs, they are not elected by the police associations, in fact, in most cases the associations have zero input on the matter. Police Chiefs are selected by mayors and city councils and are often brought in from somewhere else, not promoted from within the department. Who elected those mayors and city council members? It certainly wasn't the police associations. The Sheriffs are also elected positions, once again voted in by the voters, not the deputy sheriffs associations.
It is not that you have entered the lions den, it's that you are showing that you really have no idea as to the function of police associations or their actual political influence. Because of this lack of knowledge you appear to be trying to make this a us against them situation and place the blame on a small group of people (LE) instead of the inaction of the average gun owner.

[IrishJoe3]

I see I've entered the lion's den. My previous post addresses your points, most likely not to your satisfaction.

Well no, not at all. You made a claim. I told you to prove what you claimed. Lets hear the proof.

You made this very strong claim.

Most agencies official policy and those of the unions are generally anti-gun.

Prove it. Show me how you know this to be so.