Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/3/2002 9:40:20 AM EDT
Is anyone sueing over this issue. I know that it has been talked about here before. However, it is clearly against the California state constitution, article 1, section 7, title a which states:
"A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation.
View Quote
Here's the info bulletin from the CA DOJ: [url] http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/infobuls/0105.pdf[/url] It says:
Effective January 1,2002, amendments to California Penal Code (PC) Section 12280 will enable law enforcement officers, with authorization from their employing agencies and subject to federal restrictions (see Attachment 1, 18 USC 922 (v)(4)), to acquire, register, and personally possess assault weapons. The amended law also provides a 90-day registration period commencing January 1, 2002, for authorized peace officers to lawfully register assault weapons they currently possess.
View Quote
Is Anyone here a laid-off registered lawyer for CA. Maybe we should pass the collection plate around for someone to file a lawsuit.
Link Posted: 3/3/2002 9:59:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2002 10:00:54 AM EDT by sulaco]
I think LEOs are allowed to buy post-ban SAWs in other states. If anyone here wants to raise some hell with the guy that wrote this “I think peace officers are better people” bill, hears his email [email]Senator.Perata@sen.ca.gov[/email] [:D] Pretty much everyone here is in agreement that we all should have the same access to firearms, and not discriminate against the job we chose.
Link Posted: 3/3/2002 11:59:17 AM EDT
Sulaco, you probably know the issue is not about the job and equipment required by the job, but I will repeat it here so others can understand. Any assault weapons required for employment or being used on the job has already been exempted. These are for rifles that were personally bought, nothing to do with the officer or deputy's purchase department or approval, and was approved by the DOJ through the normal DROS system just like you and me. It is all about private purchase and either ignorance or unwilling to register. The NRA made a big deal about cops being trapped by poor gun laws and lobbied for this. So, to the NRA, where is my personal exemption? Am I worth it being a life member and contributor to you guys/gals?
Link Posted: 3/3/2002 12:15:37 PM EDT
Yup – that’s pretty much what I meant – guess I gust condensed it too much. In a nutshell, I think that LEOs should have all equipment issued to them. If a LEO wants an AR15 he should be able to get it like the rest of us . If he needs it for target practice for work, have his department issue one to him for that. Then he can give back all issued equipment upon retirement. That’s just my personal opinion.
Link Posted: 3/3/2002 6:31:28 PM EDT
You guys need to readjust your tinfoil hats. The law allows officers to register "postban" 921(a)(30) AW's, or non-921(a)(30) "California" AW's, obtained in accordance with 922(a)(4) and California law for on-duty use. The 90-day registration period effective 1/1/2002, commences on the day the weapon is obtained. If you don't like the fact that qualified officers can still purchase weapons for on-duty use that you can't buy, that's too bad. Elect legislators and a Governor who will roll the laws back so everyone can buy them. Whining like a spoiled little brat and demanding that a new law banning guns be passed to prevent officers from buying duty weapons is an immature and very childish response. And sulaco, your opinion is yours and you do have the right to express it, but it is an uninformed one.
Link Posted: 3/3/2002 8:04:27 PM EDT
Dave, read the reg again, and also the penal code section in question before accusing others of donning the proverbial tin foil hat. Maybe your was on when you read this and it slipped over your eyes? The state reg quoted above says nothing about on duty use being required for the purchase of a new AW (as defined by the state), or even registration of currently owned AW's (as defined by the state) by certain listed peace officers. The clue is the word "personal" as used in the reg. The sections you are quoting are FEDERAL law, which the reg is careful to point out, still have to be followed by peace officers when acting as civilians. I read this to mean that peace officers cannot buy post ban firearms and take them home for personal use or transfer them when they retire because federal law says they cannot. So, plain and simple, CA citizens that happen to be peace officers, can buy and use personal AW's (as defined by the state) as long as they do not violate federal law in doing so and get their department to sign off on it. They can have one transferred to them when they retire as well. We cannot even leave one to our heirs as the law stands now. If this is equal treatment under the law, so was slavery. Ray
Link Posted: 3/3/2002 8:05:32 PM EDT
SB626 is misleading, after reviewing the information bulletin on it. Yes you can buy post-ban rifles for personnel use, just need to pay $20 and register them as SAWs. You do need to prove that there is a duty purpose for a post-ban assault weapon, if you can justify that it is for duty use then yes you can buy one of those too. So you’re right in those respects. As far as peace officers and duty weapons are concerned, if they need that weapon to perform your duties as a peace officer then yes you should have access to that weapon. I would [b]prefer[/b] if your department paid for that weapon and issued it to you rather than the officer buying it with there own money, but things don’t work that way.
Link Posted: 3/3/2002 9:46:43 PM EDT
[b]California Penal Code Section 12280. (g) (1) Subdivision (b) shall not prohibit the possession or use of assault weapons by sworn peace officer members of those agencies specified in subdivision (f) for law enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty. (2) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not prohibit the delivery, transfer, or sale of an assault weapon to, or the possession of an assault weapon by, a sworn peace officer member of an agency specified in subdivision (f), provided that the peace officer is authorized by his or her employer to posses or receive the assault weapon. Required authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the head of the agency, identifying the recipient or possessor of the assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to receive or possess the specific assault weapon. For this exemption to apply, in the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2002, the officer shall register the assault weapon pursuant to Section 12285 on or before April 1, 2002; in the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives the assault weapon on or after January 1, 2002, the officer shall register the assault weapon pursuant to Section 12285 not later than 90 days after possession or receipt. The peace officer must include with the registration, a copy of the authorization required pursuant to this paragraph.[/b] This section authorizes an officer, with the appropriate certification of the head of his/her agency, to purchase to purchase a post-9/13/1994 921(a)(30) AW or a (federal) "postban" AW-type weapon. The word "personal" is not in the authorizing section. No head of any law enforcement agency is going to authorize the purchase of any 921(a)(30) AW for personal use. That would be a federal felony. I also doubt that more than one oe two would even be aware that the California and federal definitions are different. Whether you like it or not, the legislators appear to trust officers with weapons more than they do you. If you don't like it, elect friendly legislators. Until then, quit your whining.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:56:38 PM EDT
So Dave, according to you, no law enforcement agency would approve purchase of an AW for personal use? You know this how? Maybe you surveyed every law enforcement agency in the state? I know for a fact the LEO's buy handguns (not on the tested list) and magazines (high cap) that are restricted to LEO use only, for personal use, with authorization letters from their command. I watched one do so less than two weeks ago. I also would have to see a lot more evidence than your say so that no command is ever going to let one of their own by an AR-15 if he wants one. Some would, others might not. It all depends upon your command and where you are located and even upon politics and the good ol boy system. Regardless, you missed the point. The law does NOT restrict purchase of an AW in this state to on duty uses only as you stated after telling others to adjust their tinfoil hats. The regulations issued by the AG office (which have the force of law and are the operating guidelines for implementation of most laws) do explicity state "personal possession" is not restricted. Read it for the third time, maybe you'll get it this time. As for whining, I vote every election, am active in local politics, belong to one gun club, two state or national firearms groups, am just about the only consistent pro-gun letter to the editor writer in my town, and have taken a time off work to visit Sacramento to speak my mind on the AW ban (taped, recorded on video and added to who knows how many lists, I am sure)to the firearms division when the regs were issued concerning BS23. I am working on how I can self file a state and federal lawsuit in the near future to try and attack some of these laws where I think there are obvious flaws and unconstitutional parts. You're damn straight that I am going to speak up when my government continues to ignore the Constitution and treats me as a second class citizen. What have you done lately? Ray
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 9:29:49 PM EDT
240z, If it's a California AW, but not a 921(A)(30) AW, then I suppose you may be right as I haven't seen the AG opinion. If it's a 921(a)(30) semiautomatic assault weapon, no head of any state law enforcement agency can legally authorize purchase for personal use, though 922(v)(4) does authorize individual officer purchase within guidelines for use for law enforcement purposes, on or off duty. Now, if you're unhappy that an officer can buy such a weapon...well it's still too darn bad. Elect friendly legislators and Bill Simon for Governor and it may change. Until then, quit whining about the officers being able to buy things you can't. They're the camel's nose under the tent that just might help you tear the whole tent down and overturn those stupid laws. You're acting like a selfish, whiny little kid, so unhappy that somebody else gets a toy that you can't have that you would try to take it away from the other guy rather than get the toys for everyone. Grow up and act like an adult.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 11:44:41 PM EDT
Well guys, my buddy told me about such a loop hole and I wanted to see some thing in writting to give me a leg to stand on before I brought it up to my Command. Thanks to this forum, I found and printed the DOJ amendments. I will give it a try and see if my Dept will let me register my "currently out of state" (SB23)banned AR15's. It states that my Dept can authorize pre-ban (Robbertie Roose)guns, but only as Dept issue for "duty use only." I would only be able to keep them when I leave, if the Dept transfers them to me (good luck). I just want to register my (out of state)"SB23" pre-ban guns. We will see what luck I will have (I will keep you up dated). Since the news of this law (24hrs), I have dreamed of guns I would like to Buy, "Milled" AK, Cemte, another FAL, ect,,,. What would you buy if you lived in Kalif and had another chance? The above mentioned guns would never fly with my Dept, but it's good to dream. I doubt if I can get a Hi-Profile Kalif PD to let me do a late Reg, but I will try. Luckily they are "out of state" right now or I might be subject to some sort of violation (hehehe). I don't blame any one that is mad as h*ll because they don't have the same opertunity. I would be, as I'm sure to be when they turn me down for political reasons. Maybe Dave is right, it might open the law up for others. I think it's some kind of politcal palm greasing. Whos palm, who knows, but I will never help to elect another gun grabbing b*sterd.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 7:57:14 PM EDT
Dave, Let me summarize your responses: "LEO's can buy an AW for duty use" Quit whining. "The law does not say personal anywhere" Quit whining. "Ok I was completely wrong" Quit whining. I'll ask again as you seem to have a propensity to miss certain parts of things you read (and to regurgitate the same stupid response to every question), what have you done lately to further the cause beyond voting? tick-tick-tick........ Ray
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 9:04:36 PM EDT
I'm not whining about not getting to play with the same toys as others. I have all the AW's I need. Don't have room for more. I have CCW priviledges. Any time I want to pop off with full autos, I take a short trip and enjoy my time. I don't begrudge another his or her percs. And most important of all, I don't owe you an answer.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 9:41:45 PM EDT
Dave G, I value your opinion and most of the time agree with your posts but I can't agree with you here. You tell us to quit whinning and vote gun friendly politicians in. Well it ain't up to just us. You are berating the CaliBan members here for the acts of others. With your reasoning we should tell you to stop bashing us and move here and help. You won't? Wimp! That really doesn't help does it? I'm sure the CaliBan members here are doing their share for RKBA. The whining as you put it does serve some purpose. It gives you an idea as to what to expect next. We aren't on the front lines as you are. We are operating behind enemy lines, deep in their teritory. Our efforts here will help to stem the tide in other states. So please stop bashing the resistance fighters.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 10:18:07 PM EDT
BKinzey, This topic is a whine-fest. These people are complaining because LEO's can still get AW's in California and it's not fair. Well that's just too damn bad. Life isn't fair. I'm not "berating" the folks here for the acts of others, I'm berating them for behaving like spoiled, whining little children which exposes them for what they are...whining, spoiled little children. As for moving to California and helping, take a look at where I'm from. It's in my profile. Finally, you aren't a resistance fighter. You are just an everyday guy stuck in a liberal state. It's hard to "stem the tide' when you've already been engulfed by it.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 12:28:41 PM EDT
I believe the original question centers around the rumor LEOs are going to be given an extended amount of time to register AWs. AWs that should have been registered on a deadline already passed. If this is true I don't agree with it either. The upside to all this would be to help show the AW laws are so confusing that Law Enforcement has problems complying. If it's hard to stem the tide when you have been engulfed by it, a statement I agree with, why do you keep saying elect politicians who will roll back the laws? Sorry, I forgot you do live in CaliBan country. I don't consider myself an "everyday guy" and you shouldn't consider yourself one either. I make an effort to inform people of RKBA issues as I am sure you do. The tide could be turned in CaliBan if we could just get people to vote.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 8:19:01 PM EDT
Actually, the new law revision corrects an error in SB23 that prohibited LEO's from purchasing a new California or federal AW for duty use. A non-federal California AW can be purchased by a qualified peace officer with the approval the head of his/her agency. There is no restriction in the law pertaining to duty or personal use. It also permits the purchase of a new 921(a)(30) federal assault weapon, also without use restrictions, however, federal law mandates that it be for law enforcement purposes, on or off duty. The only other thing it does is provide for a 90 period during which the weapon may be registered...until April 1, 2002 for those weapons purchased prior to 12/31/2001, and 90 days for those purchased after 01/01/2002. If you don't like the fact that officers can purchase AW's for duty use when you can'r purchase any, then it's just too bad. elect friendly legislators or move out of California. Trying to "close the loophole' and prevent LEO purchases will cause many a deaf ear to be turned your way.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 5:47:38 AM EDT
You do not owe anyone an answer, but you are somehow uniquely the position of judge when it comes to the motives and reasons of someone else? Must be nice to be so gifted and special. Sitting on the sidelines calling people names doesn't take much thought, and sounds a whole lot more like the actions of a 6 year old than discussing the constituionality or merits of a given piece of legislation. Plunk! (Dave and his future opinions hits the kill file). Ray
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 8:53:22 AM EDT
Damn; This is old news..... Fuck it, good for the cops! Now we need to get some of OUR rights back! Some guys can buy Ferrari's ........
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 3:32:39 PM EDT
BigMac, Yup. I agree 100%. One step in the right direction. Time for Step 2. 240z, It's as long as the various gun bans are not deemed unconstitutional, this amendment is both constitutional and a step in the right direction. Any further debate is a waste of time and bandwidth as nothing would ever come of it. And the "whining, spoiled littel children" comment is accurate. Sometimes the truth hurts. Live with it and move on like an adult.
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 12:04:39 AM EDT
Thought I caught a little teaser on the news tonight that a number of LAPD officers got caught buying "assault weapons" illegally by allegedly using forged department letterhead okaying the purchases. Didn't stick around to hear the story. Anyone know details?
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 7:55:35 AM EDT
Yeah I saw a CNN teaser...I thought they said the LEOs were selling them??? I was sure somebody here was up on the story....Dave are you listening?
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 9:23:01 AM EDT
According to a quote of Chief Parks, the investigation is looking at the FFL who sold the weapons as the likely forger of the department letters, not the officers. No excuse if the officers knew the letters were being forged, but if they were under the impression that the FFL was obtaining the letters from the department, it's a different story. Wait until it plays out a bit and more info becomes available. Right now every news agency is rushing every rumor out on the air as they play catch up with the radio station reporter who broke the story with incomplete info himself.
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 11:43:53 AM EDT
I have heard as many as 40 officers including detectives and sargeants are involved. Still invsetigating if FFl dealer is also involved. Parks is just trying to cover his sorry ass.
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 2:59:24 PM EDT
Additional Info: KFI reported that one active LASD deputy, one retired officer from an un-named agency and the FFL holder in question have been arrested in connection with this investigation. It has also been reported that as many as [b]400[/b] weapons/officers may be involved. Some may have been legal transfers under both state and federal law. Developing...
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 1:20:27 PM EDT
Damm, is mean the tide never gonna change? It running off like a water fall. Thing like this happens, they will going to tighten up with more and more laws. Even though my government is not hearing me now, but I will keep going to the voting booth.
Top Top