Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/6/2002 12:36:43 PM EDT
The 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals struck out an exemption to CA's AW Ban. Retired law enforcement can no longer buy assault weapons or copycats. The court's reasoning? Your no longer serving the State, so you don't need one! CRC
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:38:29 PM EDT
And police (either active or retired) should be a special category of people because?
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:44:38 PM EDT
Why should ex-LEO be "more equal" than Joe Blow? To me, they did the right thing in this regard. Ever hear of equal protection?
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:45:10 PM EDT
GOOD!!
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:46:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence: And police (either active or retired) should be a special category of people because?
View Quote
Agreed 100 percent. Why should they (retired LEOs) [b]not[/b] get "screwed" by having to turn in their ARs, etc. when they leave the force. If the so-called civilians in California have no justifiable need for these weapons, then neither do retired LEOs when they become just another lowly civilian citizen. Go ahead and convince me otherwise.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:53:21 PM EDT
They never should have been able to buy them after retirement. However I bought my duty mags with my own cash, and i should be able to keep them, or be reimbursed by my employer for them, when i retire.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:57:58 PM EDT
Maby this will convince a few CA LEO's that the state doesn't give a dam about them after they retire. I wonder if a few leo's will see that this AWB is just a pile of stinkin BS.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:07:00 PM EDT
Explain to me why ACTIVE LEO's should be able to "own" these weapons? Their weapons should be issued by their department and should be stored there, as well.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:07:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:10:17 PM EDT
My point is that if your no longer serving THE STATE you no longer need guns. Thats a Communist/Socialist attitude! Guns are good in government hands, is what they are saying (and evil outside of govt use). CRC
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:13:02 PM EDT
That part of the decision could be a bombshell. Is the Caliban now obligated to contact all retired LEOs who obtained "AWs" through that exemption, and demand that they surrender or destroy their weapons?
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:14:18 PM EDT
Did somebody get thier Cheerios pissed on? Good! Welcome to the real world. We've missed you.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:15:43 PM EDT
Some of you are not getting it. Retired cops, as well as everybody else, should be allowed access to semi-auto "assault" weapons.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:18:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By California_Kid: That part of the decision could be a bombshell. Is the Caliban now obligated to contact all retired LEOs who obtained "AWs" through that exemption, and demand that they surrender or destroy their weapons?
View Quote
You know, you have a point. I wonder, I guess I have to reread that idiotic decision to get exactly wht they decided in that part, since I ignored it the time I skimmed through it.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:19:50 PM EDT
Can't get it, sounds about right. Probably he will now move to Idaho with the rest of the retired force.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:27:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Da_Bunny: Some of you are not getting it. Retired cops, as well as everybody else, should be allowed access to semi-auto "assault" weapons.
View Quote
No. I think most of us do understand. What we don't understand is why there should be two separate classes of individuals; those who are above the law in certain instances by virtue of their current or former occupation, and those who are not. I see what you're saying and I agree, but how hard would retired LEOs fight for the rights of other gun owners if they didn't face the same stupid restrictions themselves?
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:31:14 PM EDT
[size=3]If, as the topic says, retired police officers get screwed, then I will say welcome to the club. The only difference between you and me was that I'm up in the front of the line. Enough said.[/size=3]
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:35:11 PM EDT
How dare they treat JBTs as common citizens! This is an outrage!!! (heh heh heh, what goes around comes around, heh heh heh...) [}:D]
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:38:00 PM EDT
Another point about the demise of the "retired cops" exemption: The Caliban can no longer include that in their new gun control bills. They've often done so in the past, as a way of ensuring support from active LEOs.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:41:15 PM EDT
Now THAT'S a confiscation order I could follow! [(:)]
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:48:20 PM EDT
Maby some anti-gun LEOs will wake up once they have to obey the same bs laws that the rest of us gun owners have to follow.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:48:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:49:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By blackmanta: Explain to me why ACTIVE LEO's should be able to "own" these weapons? Their weapons should be issued by their department and should be stored there, as well.
View Quote
That's right: If citizenship alone isn't a legal basis for ownership, then why should active LEO's ever "own" a device which is generally illegal to own? They should be allowed to "own" and take home only that which is legal for every citizen. Upon arriving at work, they can be issued any other gear or weapon, as required by their daily responsibilities. Richardson
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:52:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By California_Kid: Is the Caliban now obligated to contact all retired LEOs who obtained "AWs" through that exemption, and demand that they surrender or destroy their weapons?
View Quote
Since they already have a list of these former officers who have illegal weapons, a lack of following up and confiscating these weapons would be dereliction of duty. Richardson
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:56:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Richardson:
Originally Posted By blackmanta: Explain to me why ACTIVE LEO's should be able to "own" these weapons? Their weapons should be issued by their department and should be stored there, as well.
View Quote
That's right: If citizenship alone isn't a legal basis for ownership, then why should active LEO's ever "own" a device which is generally illegal to own? They should be allowed to "own" and take home only that which is legal for every citizen. Upon arriving at work, they can be issued any other gear or weapon, as required by their daily responsibilities. Richardson
View Quote
I agree that the AWB is bull, all around. Some of us are on duty 24/7, and are paid for it and expected to repond at any time. Should I have to swing by work 1st to get my gear?
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:56:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TomJefferson: Years back we all had Personel Departments now they are Human Resource Departments which means you are a lump of coal meant to be used abused burnt out then discarded. These guys put their lives on the line for decades to insure the safety of the people of CA and if they were good, made a few enemies with the bad guys along the way. How does the state repay them. Make them an easy target for revenge. TREE HUGGERS UGHHHHH!
View Quote
I guess that's how they treat anyone that would come forward and testify against a dangerous criminal... So if you're ever asked to testify against a dangerous criminal, remind the officer that you do no have sufficient means to protect yourself, and they are not under legal obligation to do so, and since they're not going to give you a permanent body guard...... C'ya Richardson
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 2:00:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TomJefferson: Years back we all had Personel Departments now they are Human Resource Departments which means you are a lump of coal meant to be used abused burnt out then discarded. These guys put their lives on the line for decades to insure the safety of the people of CA and if they were good, made a few enemies with the bad guys along the way. How does the state repay them. Make them an easy target for revenge. TREE HUGGERS UGHHHHH!
View Quote
Yup, targets for revenge...(un)armed just like the rest of us! Fair and equal protection under the law. They don't have anymore to worry about then the lowley peons, the police will serve and protect them too!
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 2:06:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2002 2:29:46 PM EDT by warlord]
I'm not anti-LE or anything, but the Calif. politicos bought support for the original AW ban from the PDs by giving them the retired exemption, and a lot of the PD folks took advantage of that fact to support the new law because they thought it wasn't going to affect them, but it has come back to bit them in the tail. But when they retire, they will just be another civilian in the state.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 2:07:46 PM EDT
DAMN! Ok, You people saying that police SHOULD be special people, you do realize that the REASON that police got to carry guns at ALL was the fact they are citizens, not because of the job, dont you?
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 2:17:30 PM EDT
I hope the Caliban Prison Guards love this as well. Since they were Gay Davis' largest campaign contributor. Bastards.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 2:22:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 2:24:23 PM EDT
If retired soldiers can't have them why in the world should retired civilians?
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 2:31:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Delta_3_63: If retired soldiers can't have them why in the world should retired civilians?
View Quote
I was saving that one for when a LEO started with "I'm the one who was on the front lines saving your second class civilian butts...I DESERVE IT"....
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 2:36:34 PM EDT
True equality's a bitch, ain't it. You want sympathy, look in the dictionary between "shit" and "syphilis"
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 2:40:31 PM EDT
Good, the 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals finally did somthing right. Retired cops should suffer along with the rest of us then maybe the cops will learn not support bullshit anti-gun laws.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 2:45:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LE6920: I agree that the AWB is bull, all around. Some of us are on duty 24/7, and are paid for it and expected to repond at any time. Should I have to swing by work 1st to get my gear?
View Quote
All civilians (yes, that includes you, you are a civilian) are on duty 24/7. They have a duty to protect themselves from crime and tyranny. All civilians have a right to own those arms they deem necessary to ensure their own safety.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 2:46:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CRC: Your no longer serving the State, so you don't need one! CRC
View Quote
The government prefers disarmed pesants.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 3:08:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By LE6920: I agree that the AWB is bull, all around. Some of us are on duty 24/7, and are paid for it and expected to repond at any time. Should I have to swing by work 1st to get my gear?
View Quote
No, if your employer requires you to be "on duty" 24/7, they should equip you 24/7. Pretty simple. If my low budget volunteer fire dept can afford to give me thousands of dollars worth of gear to take home, your employer should be able to afford a $600 LEO AR and some $15 post ban mags.
View Quote
They can and do, the point was made I should be keeping it locked up at work and go get it when "on duty".
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 3:11:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GovtThug:
Originally Posted By LE6920: I agree that the AWB is bull, all around. Some of us are on duty 24/7, and are paid for it and expected to repond at any time. Should I have to swing by work 1st to get my gear?
View Quote
All civilians (yes, that includes you, you are a civilian) are on duty 24/7. They have a duty to protect themselves from crime and tyranny. All civilians have a right to own those arms they deem necessary to ensure their own safety.
View Quote
Thug, I agree with all your points. If ALL people (that could) decided to actually protect themselves instead of cowering in fear and acting like robots, we'd all be better off.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 3:19:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By blackmanta: Explain to me why ACTIVE LEO's should be able to "own" these weapons? Their weapons should be issued by their department and should be stored there, as well.
View Quote
Because many agencies will not pay for them out of agency funds. There are still agencies, mostly out west, where officers STILL buy their gear, including their sidearm, out of pocket.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 3:40:06 PM EDT
Perhaps if more of the cops in Ca. would have spoken up for normal citizens(gun owners) at the start of all the gun laws there we wouldn't be waiting for this to be shot down in a higher court, after all it was the 9th. Welcome to being a normal citizen! So are going to sit on your A$$ and bitch about it? Or you finely going to start doing something about it? Organize like the anti's, a few thou people in front of your elected officials offices might be a start(you know the ones), phone calls and Emails wouldn't hurt either. That is what started the laws, what if it was machete at the school yard and McDonalds? Would they take away all sharp and pointy things?
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 4:11:15 PM EDT
If we are lucky, this decision will be a wake up call for all those 'moderates' who say what happened in Australia can't/won't happen here.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 4:33:38 PM EDT
Do retired LEOs retain their right to carry? This would seem to fall in the same realm as the AWB whereby once retired they are normal serfs of the state of CA.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 4:37:16 PM EDT
I support anyone who serves with all my heart as long as they arent one of the bad cops. That said they should follow the same rules the rest of us slobs do.. the departments should be allowed to own anything they can justify - the LEOs should not be able to own anything I can not. Ropes
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 4:45:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hellraiser: Good, the 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals finally did somthing right. Retired cops should suffer along with the rest of us then maybe the cops will learn not support bullshit anti-gun laws.
View Quote
That's retired cops living in California. There is no suffering going on here in Arizona. Jay
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 4:50:35 PM EDT
Nothing will bring ALL gun owners over to our side as effectively as an attempt by the socialist gun-grabbing cocksuckers to ban ALL guns. Billy Bob the Squirrel Hunter doesn't care about a ban of those evil black assault rifles because he doesn't own one....but when that ban is extended to include his lever action .22 that he hunts squirrels with, suddenly he'll have a change of heart. Sooner or later, that'll happen. Hopefully it won't be too late when it does. Condolences to the CA LEO's on their loss, but now you don't have any reason to ignore a ban that doesn't include you because suddenly, IT DOES. Welcome to the club. Now get organized and join the ranks of the righteously angry and DO something about it! CJ
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 5:15:31 PM EDT
FWIW, there's no provision in the 2nd that allows exemptions for [b]active[/b] duty LEOs to posses firearms that are otherwise restricted to the rest of us. The Brady/MMM/VPC types rely heavily on support from law enforcement talking heads, unions and organizations (although in most circumstances it's the supervisors and not the rank and file that back them). So they compromise or turn a blind eye to these sort of things. How many gun control laws (on the books or [b]proposed[/b]), can you think of that grant exemptions or bestow more privileges on law enforcement that us commoners can't share? Possession of SAWs and Hi-Cap mags... National reciprocity for CCW... "Smart gun" technology... Mind you, I'm not unsupportive of the police or the job they do, but as individuals and citizens we [b]all[/b] should be equal and be treated as such.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 5:27:23 PM EDT
CRC, guess what .....TOUGH F'ING LUCK. Cops are a waste. We need Peace Officers. People who KNOW what protect and serve mean, not gun carrying tax collectors. Aw.. the poor retired cops can't keep their guns and mags... Guess what, a retired Marine doesn't get to keep them either, nor do disabled and Honoarbly Discharged military people. So you get NO sympathy here. As a matter of fact, all retired cops in Cali should have been given 24 hours notice to turn in the weapons, and if they don't, prosocute them as criminals. That might send a wake up call to all the people who think that they are a priviledged class.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 5:39:24 PM EDT
Well first the ONLY guns CA retired LEOS can buy are the POST BAN California defined guns we buy elsewhere. The Fed law only allows active LEOs to buy Fed defined AWs. So guns they are allowed to buy aren't Federally defined AWs- they're the post ban target rifles. The point is this more BS gun control no matter what. Individual police officers can't buy post 86 machine guns and can't buy Fed defined AWs w/o chief approval so tell me what guns can the individual officer get that you can't without official approval? Even for the cops it's a bitch to get restricted weapons and they'll get their you-know-what thrown in jail for using them off duty- you know not for THE STATE. Most big city police brass are liberal and they claim to represent ALL cops which isn't true. So to say cops support AWBs, back it up. CRC
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 5:48:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LE6920:
Originally Posted By GovtThug:
Originally Posted By LE6920: I agree that the AWB is bull, all around. Some of us are on duty 24/7, and are paid for it and expected to repond at any time. Should I have to swing by work 1st to get my gear?
View Quote
All civilians (yes, that includes you, you are a civilian) are on duty 24/7. They have a duty to protect themselves from crime and tyranny. All civilians have a right to own those arms they deem necessary to ensure their own safety.
View Quote
Thug, I agree with all your points. If ALL people (that could) decided to actually protect themselves instead of cowering in fear and acting like robots, we'd all be better off.
View Quote
Now that I read that again, I see how you could have taken offense at my comments. I'm glad you read it in the vein it was written in.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 5:58:49 PM EDT
I am actually quite happy with the whole ruling. Hopefully this will be finally taken up by the Supremes. We have the Pres. and the 4th Circuit saying one thing and the 9th saying another. Should be fun.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top