User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 12:38:29 PM EDT
[#1]
And police (either active or retired) should be a special category of people because?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 12:44:38 PM EDT
[#2]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 12:45:10 PM EDT
[#3]
GOOD!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 12:46:40 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: And police (either active or retired) should be a special category of people because? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 12:53:21 PM EDT
[#5]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 12:57:58 PM EDT
[#6]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:07:00 PM EDT
[#7]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:07:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: 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. You can always sell em to another LEO or a FFL, so problem solved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:10:17 PM EDT
[#9]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:13:02 PM EDT
[#10]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:14:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Did somebody get thier Cheerios pissed on?
Good! Welcome to the real world. We've missed you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:15:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Some of you are not getting it. Retired cops, as well as everybody else, should be allowed access to semi-auto "assault" weapons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:18:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: 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? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:19:50 PM EDT
[#14]
Can't get it, sounds about right. Probably he will now move to Idaho with the rest of the retired force.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:27:50 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Some of you are not getting it. Retired cops, as well as everybody else, should be allowed access to semi-auto "assault" weapons. 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:31:14 PM EDT
[#16]
[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]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:35:11 PM EDT
[#17]
How dare they treat JBTs as common citizens! This is an outrage!!!
(heh heh heh, what goes around comes around, heh heh heh...) [}:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:38:00 PM EDT
[#18]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:41:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Now THAT'S a confiscation order I could follow! [(:)]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:48:20 PM EDT
[#20]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:48:48 PM EDT
[#21]
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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:49:52 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: 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. 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:52:06 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: 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? 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:56:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 1:56:08 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: 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! 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 2:00:05 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: 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! 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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 2:06:21 PM EDT
[#27]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 2:07:46 PM EDT
[#28]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 2:17:30 PM EDT
[#29]
I hope the Caliban Prison Guards love this as well. Since they were Gay Davis' largest campaign contributor. Bastards.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 2:22:36 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: 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? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 2:24:23 PM EDT
[#31]
If retired soldiers can't have them why in the world should retired civilians?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 2:31:11 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: If retired soldiers can't have them why in the world should retired civilians? 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".... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 2:36:34 PM EDT
[#33]
True equality's a bitch, ain't it.
You want sympathy, look in the dictionary between "shit" and "syphilis" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 2:40:31 PM EDT
[#34]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 2:45:23 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: 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? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 2:46:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Your no longer serving the State, so you don't need one! CRC The government prefers disarmed pesants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 3:08:32 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: 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? 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. They can and do, the point was made I should be keeping it locked up at work and go get it when "on duty". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 3:11:58 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: 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? 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 3:19:54 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 3:40:06 PM EDT
[#40]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 4:11:15 PM EDT
[#41]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 4:33:38 PM EDT
[#42]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 4:37:16 PM EDT
[#43]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 4:45:29 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: 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. That's retired cops living in California. There is no suffering going on here in Arizona. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 4:50:35 PM EDT
[#45]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 5:15:31 PM EDT
[#46]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 5:27:23 PM EDT
[#47]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 5:39:24 PM EDT
[#48]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 5:48:54 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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? 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. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2002 5:58:49 PM EDT
[#50]
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. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
