The bigger issue here is that the 9th Circuit (the most liberal court in the land) has said in their ruling that individuals do not have the right to own firearms.  They are now in conflict with the 5th Circuit and the Bush administration's position on the 2nd.  Hopefully this goes to the Supreme and we will finally put this issue to rest.  Given the fact that the Supreme overturn's something like 80% of the 9th's decisions, we could have a real chance there.

[url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/12/06/MN211218.DTL[/url]
An unusually objective (i.e. not slanted) article from a SF CA paper.

STAGE SET FOR HIGH COURT ACTION

The ruling paves the way for the controversial issue to be addressed by the nation's highest court, which has not touched the topic since 1939.

"When you have something like the Ninth Circuit, the largest judicial federal circuit in the country, coming out with a ruling like this, it means we're within a couple years of it coming before the Supreme Court," said Peter Keane, dean of the Golden Gate University Law School. "Because it's a hot issue, the Supreme Court hasn't wanted to deal with it."....

...The court then went a step further and broadened the law by striking down an exemption that allowed retired police officers to own assault weapons, ruling that it served no public purpose.

That could lead to an interesting legal challenge by retired LEO here in CA. Fed law will let anyone own a post ban AW, which is now illegal (for the most part) here in CA. How will CA justify not letting retired LEO own one under equal protection laws?

An additional thought for the CA law gurus. If a retired CA LEO purchased an AR after the last registration period was over, will it suffice for them to just turn it in or remove it from the state or will ( should? ) the state go after them for illegally owning a CA AW? Not sure if I made it clear but hopefully you'll get the drift.

I believe it is relatively easy for a former police office to get a CCW, that is one of the perks for cop, they can work as armed security after they finish their 25 years.

The only part of the ruling I agree to was the removal of the exemption.[^]

No special privileges ![xx(]

I don't care. If I can't defend myself for any of the 24/7, then neither should you. You should only be allowed to carry a firearm only while on duty.

When I, as normal Citizen of California, can not own a AR-15, then neither should you. All of the police guns should be either with LEO's on-duty or locked away at the station. You have no more rights than me!