Refusing LEO exemptions for firearms

[SVT-40]

Since everyone's is so concerned with "exceptions" certain groups have does that mean everyone is in favor of eliminating all special exemptions when it comes to firearms laws???

[CBR_rider]

So I assume the same level of support would be shown for a poll recommending gun stores stop selling "large capacity" magazines to armored car businesses, right?

[Bongo Truck]

Originally Posted by CBR_rider

So I assume the same level of support would be shown for a poll recommending gun stores stop selling "large capacity" magazines to armored car businesses, right?

Correct.

[fullrearview]

Originally Posted by 762ch

These guys shouldn't be allowed to have ANY firearms. NO this doesn't mean ALL leo, but there needs to be some better protocols put in place to prevent this from happening as much as it does...

LEO should have strict enforcement when off duty, maybe as far as ONLY keeping the weapons in vehicle or in the armory.

Yep. And citizens should not be allowed any guns.

[fullrearview]

Jesus Christ you people really don't like cops do you. Just come out with, make it know, and lets move on.

I'm pretty sure that the cops you find in here hate the firearms laws as much as most of you do... But we are not any more effective in the removal of the laws that you are.

Want to refuse a transfer for cops??? Fine. I know of at least three FFL's in the Amador/El Dorado/Sacramento region that are owned by cops, and have a large LEO customer base because of antics like this. They thank you for the business.

[todd2968]

Originally Posted by fullrearview

Jesus Christ you people really don't like cops do you. Just come out with, make it know, and lets move on.

I'm pretty sure that the cops you find in here hate the firearms laws as much as most of you do... But we are not any more effective in the removal of the laws that you are.

Want to refuse a transfer for cops??? Fine. I know of at least three FFL's in the Amador/El Dorado/Sacramento region that are owned by cops, and have a large LEO customer base because of antics like this. They thank you for the business.

We would not want the brave men and women of the police force to be put in harms way by having a weapon that has not been drop tested.

[Oldmandan]

LE will always be able to get what they want, a movement like this just makes it inconvenient for them. This isn't news to anyone. Don't take it as a personal attack.

The police union is strong in CA, and could help law abiding citizens if they chose too, but they choose to stand quiet on the sidelines for political reasons. If FFL's around the state decided to make this stand, to get the attention of those who can help, I'm all for it. I applaud the guys who are willing to sacrifice profits for principle and the rights of others.

[SVT-40]

So would individual FFL holders also be willing to give up their special exemptions related to their acquisition of their own personal firearms ???

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by SVT-40

So would individual FFL holders also be willing to give up their special exemptions related to their acquisition of their own personal firearms ???

This is just a strawman argument.

You mean the lack of waiting period? If so, do you think that FFLs should not honor that for LEO if they have a letter from their dept.? How about C&R FFL holders who also have a COE for C&R firearms?

FFLs are not exempt from the certified list, which is what this issue is about. Some people are allowed to buy certain firearms and others are not, based on their job, not the use of the firearm (personal use is still exempt).

Oh, so far no one who is not LE has admitted to voting "No, if the exemption exists, the FFL should honor it ". So perhaps only LE have voted that way.

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by SVT-40

So would individual FFL holders also be willing to give up their special exemptions related to their acquisition of their own personal firearms ???

There is not really much to give up. I already have an FFL03+COE to get around handgun 1-30 day rule. If I had to wait the 10 days for the firearm it doesn't really bother me. I can still take the firearm out of the "business" safe to use. That's really the only "exemption" I get being an FFL dealer.. I'm not aware of any other laws I'm exempt from. I still can only transfer what is on the roster for handguns and I can't sell myself hi-cap mags.

What special exemptions are you referring to since I may be missing out on some of those!

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by todd2968

We would not want the brave men and women of the police force to be put in harms way by having a weapon that has not been drop tested.

Then you would not buy a single shot exempt pistol either would you?

[JM2012]

Philosophically, I appreciate the idea behind polls and arguments such as this. I am an active duty California police officer, and I absolutely support RKBA, equal protection under the law, and equal rights for all.

However in reality, polls such as this one, and focus on arguments such as this, do nothing but divide the gun rights community. It alienates the law enforcement community from the larger gun rights community by using us as a target for your ire. I already work in a large, highly politicized city. I spend most of my day as a target for the ire of others - I don't appreciate being made into a target here.

I'd like to see the abolition of all special exemptions, including movie studio possession of NFA weapons that I - even as a police officer - cannot personally own in this state. Where's the poll about that exemption? Where's the outrage over that?

Instead of arguing that NO ONE should have off roster handguns, it might be more positive (and ultimately beneficial to everyone) to use the off roster guns already in California (in the hands of police officers who purchased them from dealers and private persons who bought them PPT from cops) as a way of saying, "See? There are already thousands of off roster guns lawfully in the hands of both police officers and private persons alike. The roster serves no practical purpose, so let's get rid of it. We might even save some state cash that was used in the maintenance and administration of this ridiculous program."

Is it a long shot? Sure, but so is regaining any of our already-lost gun rights in California. And it's an approach that is far more likely to unify the California firearms community. Remember that the rank and file cop is not usually the enemy. Most of us are just as ticked off about the laws in this state as you are.

[cire raeb]

There are ways to get LEO type handguns that are not available on the roster. You could go the PPT or SSE route for non-neutered handgun. Note that just b/c it is not on the roster does not mean they are not unsafe, it meant they would not pay the CA extortion fees.

[kemasa]

Since LE is exempt from the certified list, do you think that they really care about it?

It is not about alienation or ire, it is making a point, not making anyone a target. Look at the comments from LE and see where the ire is. If they are treated the same as everyone else, then they will be upset.

Most dealers don't deal with the exemptions for the entertainment industry, so that is not the same.

Yes, the certified list is bogus, so why don't LE come out against it? Because it does not affect them, so they don't care. By denying the exemption, then it serves to unify the CA firearms community.

[JM2012]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Since LE is exempt from the certified list, do you think that they really care about it?

It is not about alienation or ire, it is making a point, not making anyone a target. Look at the comments from LE and see where the ire is. If they are treated the same as everyone else, then they will be upset.

Most dealers don't deal with the exemptions for the entertainment industry, so that is not the same.

Yes, the certified list is bogus, so why don't LE come out against it? Because it does not affect them, so they don't care. By denying the exemption, then it serves to unify the CA firearms community.

Why doesn't LE come out against it? Most of us are against it, personally. However, the vast majority of us do not speak for our unions or agencies. Most association presidents are concerned with managing their association and other usual union issues to bother with 2A rights unless some specific issue occurs in their jurisdiction. Most chiefs are politicians who, even if they are 2A supporters, must toe a very narrow line or risk losing their jobs.

Any dealer that refuses to honor the LE exemption for off roster guns (or agency letterhead for avoiding the 10 day waiting period) will just lose business, as there are plenty of active and retired cops who hold FFLs who will be happy to do the transfers, honoring the existing exemptions. That's just a simple business decision. Yes, there are far more non-LE gun buyers than cops, but frankly, most gun buyers don't care if a dealer honors exemptions for LE or not. They care more about price, availability, and geographic convenience. In the grand scheme of things, this is a relatively minor issue that only serves to divide the community.

I think that we, as a 2A community, can spend our time, effort, and political capital better on other issues. Plus, I don't honestly think that most cops care much about this exemption. I, personally, only own one off roster handgun, and I'd be just fine without it. If I lost this exemption, I would not be crying into my whiskey. I'd much rather campaign for CCW reform, getting the ridiculous magazine lock off my personally owned rifles, and defeating the numerous asinine bills that are currently before the California legislature. Oh, yeah, and I'd really dig not having to jump thru a million hoops for that suppressed SBR that my buddy from Arizona can buy pretty much off the shelf. And it'd be awesome if you could too, because frankly, I'm probably not going to be dealing with you in a professional capacity any time soon, unless you're talking on your cell phone or some other chicken---- nonsense. And you're probably not going to shoot me over a traffic ticket, even if I was inclined to write it. However, the gangsters I do take on don't give a damn that there's a law against suppressed SBRs with standard capacity magazines in this state.

If the goal is to get the support of law enforcement, the route is not to campaign against LE-specific exemptions, it's to find common ground and issues that we can ALL get behind, cop or not, and campaign hard for those. Like it or not, there are already plenty of retailers that cater to the LE community. Don't penalize the individual cop, penalize the agency (e.g., Franklin Armory, who purportedly restricts sales to specific anti-2A police agencies) if you can. Hit the chief/sheriff/city manager in his/her pocket book and you MIGHT make a difference.

[SVT-40]

Originally Posted by kemasa

This is just a strawman argument.

You mean the lack of waiting period? If so, do you think that FFLs should not honor that for LEO if they have a letter from their dept.? How about C&R FFL holders who also have a COE for C&R firearms?

FFLs are not exempt from the certified list, which is what this issue is about. Some people are allowed to buy certain firearms and others are not, based on their job, not the use of the firearm (personal use is still exempt).

Oh, so far no one who is not LE has admitted to voting "No, if the exemption exists, the FFL should honor it ". So perhaps only LE have voted that way.

FFL's don't have any "waiting periods" when they DROS a hand gun from their inventory...

No "letter" proving the firearm is for duty use...

FFL's don't even DROS long guns. All they do is complete the 4473 then take home any number of long guns, also without a waiting period...

So if the laws are supposed to apply to everyone then these "exemptions" written into California law should also be revoked....

No "straw man". Just pointing out other "exemptions" written into California laws which benefit a group of individuals....

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by SVT-40

FFL's don't have any "waiting periods" when they DROS a hand gun from their inventory...

No "letter" proving the firearm is for duty use...

FFL's don't even DROS long guns. All they do is complete the 4473 then take home any number of long guns, also without a waiting period...

So if the laws are supposed to apply to everyone then these "exemptions" written into California law should also be revoked....

No "straw man". Just pointing out other "exemptions" written into California laws which benefit a group of individuals....

Great point! Let's boycott CA FFLs until they stop using these exemptions. Fair is fair!

[Patrick Aherne]

This is America. You run your business the way you see fit. I'm never going to be one of your customers because I don't live near you. However, if you did do this to me, I would tell every cop in the area to avoid your business, as is my right as a consumer. In the end, I would steer my business to the FFLs that cater to cops and would get my firearm that way. You might or might not lose business. It would not, however, keep me from getting the firearm I wanted.

[halifax]

Originally Posted by kemasa

...Oh, so far no one who is not LE has admitted to voting "No, if the exemption exists, the FFL should honor it ". So perhaps only LE have voted that way.

Wrong

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by SVT-40

FFL's don't have any "waiting periods" when they DROS a hand gun from their inventory...

No "letter" proving the firearm is for duty use...

FFL's don't even DROS long guns. All they do is complete the 4473 then take home any number of long guns, also without a waiting period...

So if the laws are supposed to apply to everyone then these "exemptions" written into California law should also be revoked....

No "straw man". Just pointing out other "exemptions" written into California laws which benefit a group of individuals....

Ok, I would agree to all that, ignoring that a FFL is licensed and have all sorts of permits, but then it means that CCW should also be to same for everyone and all the exemptions on LE carrying would be eliminated.

FFLs used to be subject to the waiting period.

FFLs don't need to DROS a long gun because they have to have a CA DOJ COE, which is a constant background check.

Don't forget CA DOJ inspections and BATF inspections for all, right???

So yes, it is a strawman argument.

[SVT-40]

Once you start whining about "exceptions" written into California or Federal laws how far do you take it??

Again just pointing out there are exceptions written into the laws of every state where groups of individuals are granted exceptions.

Some are granted exceptions because of licenses, certificates or employment.

So whats the difference between the "licenses" or "permits" which a FFL has and the "certificates" which LEO's have?

The answer is nothing.

Both have to pass inspections and are are fingerprinted to obtain these certificates, permits and licenses.

Both have training which allows them to be licensed, permitted or certificated.....

If a COE is a "constant" background check then why do holders of C&R FFL's who also have COE's have to DROS long guns???

Someone with a COE could be convicted of a crime which would cause that person to be prohibited from firearm ownership the day after the COE was issued....No one would know...

So it's far from a "constant" background check...

It's just a certificate issued by the state of California. Just like the certificates issued to LEO's for their training.

[kemasa]

Well, when you start whining about why some people should be treated special, you tend to get a reaction.

Please explain why a LEO should be allowed to purchase a firearm which is not on the certified list for their own personal use when the average citizen can not. All the other issues is about how the transfer is done, which is a different issue.

A FFL is not exempt from the certified list in terms of personal transfers. So, if you say that there is no different between the licenses/permits that a FFL has vs. a LEO, then you need to explain why a LEO can buy firearms not on the certified list, among other things.

You are wrong about a person with a C&R FFL and COE in terms of a DROS for C&R long guns since the firearms can be directly sent to them. For modern firearms, it is a different story, but it is just another example of bad laws.

[Rockit]

It's your business to run how you want.

I personally don't think alienating LE will change the current status. I don't know what would, but I feel it's misdirected energy in this instance.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by Rockit

It's your business to run how you want.

I personally don't think alienating LE will change the current status. I don't know what would, but I feel it's misdirected energy in this instance.

Interesting, but you actually have it backwards. Doing this makes everyone in the same boat, instead of the alienation which occurred when LEO made a deal with the devil to accept special treatment in order to not be against the law.

If people stood up for what is right, instead of what is in it for themselves, then things would be very different. All the LEOs could say that the law and the exemption is not right and fight against it, but that is not happening.

Would you be against a law which was wrong, but which you personally were exempted from it? Would you still stand up and fight against it? Would you organize and say in public that it is wrong?

I have been in the position multiple times for defending a person I did not like when groups were taking action against the person which was wrong. As much as I would have liked to let the person be railroaded, it would just be the wrong thing to do, regardless of my personal feelings.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by kemasa

A FFL is not exempt from the certified list in terms of personal transfers. So, if you say that there is no different between the licenses/permits that a FFL has vs. a LEO, then you need to explain why a LEO can buy firearms not on the certified list, among other things.

LEO firearms are intended to be bought for duty use. They argue since they are on duty all the time this is why.

FFLs can order non-roster guns and then keep them in the company inventory indefinitely. If you are a sole proprietership, you just got yourself a non-roster handgun.

SOTs can get suppressors and possess them. Something rank and file officers cannot do unless it is a company suppressor.

There are many things an FFL can get away with. If we are going to boycott LEOs, we ought to boycott ourselves.

That is why I just choose not to boycott anyone. If it is legal for me to sell, I sell it.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

LEO firearms are intended to be bought for duty use. They argue since they are on duty all the time this is why.

You mean if a LEO buys a single shot .22LR it is for duty use? What if they buy the firearm for as a gift? You really want to claim it ALL is for duty use?

FFLs can order non-roster guns and then keep them in the company inventory indefinitely. If you are a sole proprietership, you just got yourself a non-roster handgun.

Yes, but it is a bit different since it is not in your name and so it could be an issue.

SOTs can get suppressors and possess them. Something rank and file officers cannot do unless it is a company suppressor.

There are many things an FFL can get away with. If we are going to boycott LEOs, we ought to boycott ourselves.

That is why I just choose not to boycott anyone. If it is legal for me to sell, I sell it.

It is not a boycott:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott

I guess it helps to try to claim it is something that it isn't in order to help a poor position.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by kemasa

You mean if a LEO buys a single shot .22LR it is for duty use? What if they buy the firearm for as a gift? You really want to claim it ALL is for duty use?

A bolt action .22 LR is not a LEO firearm. A LEO firearm would be a non-roster firearm. The reason they can buy non-roster firearms is they are claiming it is for duty use. It is a huge stretch, but it is what it is. Sorry you thought I meant any firearm a LEO buys. I did not. A LEO firearm in my definition is a non-roster firearm. If you would like to argue my definition of a LEO firearm is in correct, good luck with that since it is my definition. If it makes you feel better correct it to be "non-roster" firearm.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Yes, but it is a bit different since it is not in your name and so it could be an issue.

It cannot be an issue. Company property is available to be in company possession at any and all times for company use. If you use a company firearm for self-defense while in the course of business, that is company use. Since someone might try to roll me and take the keys to the gun shop or kidnap me to take me back to the store, defending myself is always a company issue. It is the same stretch cops are using to justify buying non-rostered handguns.

Originally Posted by kemasa

It is not a boycott:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott

If I refuse to sell lawful firearms to law enforcement because I expect them to abide by the same laws I abide by, how is it not

an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social or political reasons.

Sometimes you make zero sense. If I refuse to sell firearms to LEO because they are LEO and expect them to follow the same rules, I am boycotting them. Period.

Originally Posted by kemasa

I guess it helps to try to claim it is something that it isn't in order to help a poor position.

Why yes, yes it is. LOL!

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

A bolt action .22 LR is not a LEO firearm. A LEO firearm would be a non-roster firearm. The reason they can buy non-roster firearms is they are claiming it is for duty use. It is a huge stretch, but it is what it is.

I have a bolt action .22LR pistol. It is not on the certified list.

Oh, so only handguns not on the certified list are duty weapons? So a .22LR handgun not on the certified list is a duty weapon?

Remember the law does not restrict it that they are exempt for only duty weapons.

It cannot be an issue. Company property is available to be in company possession at any and all times for company use. If you use a company firearm for self-defense while in the course of business, that is company use. Since someone might try to roll me and take the keys to the gun shop or kidnap me to take me back to the store, defending myself is always a company issue. It is the same stretch cops are using to justify buying non-rostered handguns.

I am glad to know that it is not an issue from such a good source. So it would not be a problem trying to get such a firearm on a CCW in any County in CA, right?

If I refuse to sell lawful firearms to law enforcement because I expect them to abide by the same laws I abide by, how is it notSometimes you make zero sense. If I refuse to sell firearms to LEO because they are LEO and expect them to follow the same rules, I am boycotting them. Period.

Actually, you are the one who is making zero sense. If you refuse to sell or order firearms not on the certified list, but do order and sell firearms which are on the list to the person, then how exactly is it refusing to do business with someone?

So if you refuse to sell a handgun to someone under 21, that is a boycott of the person even if you sell them a rifle?

Why yes, yes it is. LOL!

I am glad to see that you agree with what you are doing.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by kemasa

I have a bolt action .22LR pistol. It is not on the certified list.

Is it a single shot? If so it is exempt.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Oh, so only handguns not on the certified list are duty weapons? So a .22LR handgun not on the certified list is a duty weapon?

Yes.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Remember the law does not restrict it that they are exempt for only duty weapons.

True. I think I was still thinking of the old language before the clarification.

Originally Posted by kemasa

I am glad to know that it is not an issue from such a good source. So it would not be a problem trying to get such a firearm on a CCW in any County in CA, right?

You can't get a CCW in LA County, so that is a loaded question. I have company firearms on my CCW. So I don't know how your county would view it, but my chief had no problem with it.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Actually, you are the one who is making zero sense. If you refuse to sell or order firearms not on the certified list, but do order and sell firearms which are on the list to the person, then how exactly is it refusing to do business with someone?

If you will not order them firearms they can lawful purchase because of political motives, you are boycotting them. Hey you posted the wiki definition. If you think you are still not boycotting law enforcement when they ask you to order a non-roster firearm and you say you will only order them rostered firearms, that's cool. It doesn't bother me one bit.

For me, I know I would be boycotting them. Choosing not to conduct lawful business for political purposes.

Originally Posted by kemasa

So if you refuse to sell a handgun to someone under 21, that is a boycott of the person even if you sell them a rifle?

What in the hell are you talking about? Your example makes no sense. Either you are going to sell firearms to people who are elibible to buy them or you aren't. And I don't even care what you do.

Personally, if a cop wants a non-roster gun, I will sell it to him. It is legal to do and I do not wish to boycott his sale of that lawful purchase. That is my choice and it really has nothing to do with anyone else.

Originally Posted by kemasa

I am glad to see that you agree with what you are doing.

Again, you have no clue what is going on here. I was clearly pointing out your hypocrisy. It is like you live in a dream world or something. An alternate reality.

Do what you want. I am not sure why what I do what I want is such an issue with you. If I don't want to boycott lawful law enforcement sales, why does that matter to you? I certainly don't care that you refusing to sell non-rostered handguns isn't "voluntarily abstaining from dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social or political reasons." Hey, do your thing Ken. Whatever you have to tell yourself. It doesn't matter to me.

Be comfortable with your own policies. Whatever it takes and keeps you sleeping at night.

I am comfortable with all lawful transactions as allowed by the penal code. Really, I would be more satisfied conducting all transactions that didn't infringe upon another human being's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, the State of California clearly disagrees and thinks I need permission to do everything. So much for liberty.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

Is it a single shot? If so it is exempt.

No, it is not a signal shot, it is magazine fed.

You can't get a CCW in LA County, so that is a loaded question. I have company firearms on my CCW. So I don't know how your county would view it, but my chief had no problem with it.

I am not sure of what LA County has to do with anything since I don't live or work there.

I know that some people have reported that the Sheriff will only allow firearms on the Certified list to be on their CCW.

If you will not order them firearms they can lawful purchase because of political motives, you are boycotting them. Hey you posted the wiki definition. If you think you are still not boycotting law enforcement when they ask you to order a non-roster firearm and you say you will only order them rostered firearms, that's cool. It doesn't bother me one bit.

It is not a boycott. Yes, I posted it, but it seems that you can't read it. Refusing to sell them certain items is not a boycott when you will sell them other items.

...
What in the hell are you talking about? Your example makes no sense. Either you are going to sell firearms to people who are elibible to buy them or you aren't. And I don't even care what you do.

Sorry, it seems it is impossible to explain things to you. Some things you just refuse to understand.

Personally, if a cop wants a non-roster gun, I will sell it to him. It is legal to do and I do not wish to boycott his sale of that lawful purchase. That is my choice and it really has nothing to do with anyone else.

Again, you have no clue what is going on here. I was clearly pointing out your hypocrisy. It is like you live in a dream world or something. An alternate reality.

Nice attack, but it is false. You don't understand words and it is clear to me that you are the one who is living in an alternate reality.

...
I am comfortable with all lawful transactions as allowed by the penal code. Really, I would be more satisfied conducting all transactions that didn't infringe upon another human being's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, the State of California clearly disagrees and thinks I need permission to do everything. So much for liberty.

Which means that nothing will change for the better.

[rla_2000]

Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry! (I think this includes local governments as well.)

[TahoeTim]

So I guess if I work in a mine and use dynamite at work to blast rocks I should get to have dynamite at home too?

There are enough cops gone wild incidents to remove their special right to the exemptions. They are NOT on duty 24/7.

I don't hate cops (except one in Carson City that writes turn signal tickets) but I think that I am more skilled with guns than some cops. Besides, I am entitled to the same protection tools that they are...

[SVT-40]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Well, when you start whining about why some people should be treated special, you tend to get a reaction.

The only one whining here is you. Quoted below...IT'S NOT FAIR!@!!!!

Originally Posted by kemasa

It is one thing for duty use, but a LEO can buy a firearm for personal use that is not on the CA certified list, which is not right, nor fair.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Please explain why a LEO should be allowed to purchase a firearm which is not on the certified list for their own personal use when the average citizen can not. All the other issues is about how the transfer is done, which is a different issue.

Because of exemptions written into the law just like the exemptions which FFL's enjoy. In addition LEO's are on duty 24-7. So they are never really "off duty".

Originally Posted by kemasa

A FFL is not exempt from the certified list in terms of personal transfers. So, if you say that there is no different between the licenses/permits that a FFL has vs. a LEO, then you need to explain why a LEO can buy firearms not on the certified list, among other things.

As TPC said a FFL can have a off roster handgun in his inventory, and used it as any other gun in his inventory. So FFL's can have and use off roster handguns.....

FFL's can buy firearms from out of state and have them shipped to them..... LEO's cannot.

You are confusing my analogy about licenses, permits and certificates. I didn't say they allowed the exact same exceptions which are written into California law. I did say they all allowed exceptions.

Originally Posted by kemasa

You are wrong about a person with a C&R FFL and COE in terms of a DROS for C&R long guns since the firearms can be directly sent to them. For modern firearms, it is a different story, but it is just another example of bad laws.

So if a person with a C&R FFL and a COE comes into your shop Do you have them do a DROS for the firearms they purchase from you??? Of course you do, because it's required under the law.

A COE is a California BS document. It's not a "constant" background check as you wrote....

It's really a hoax, because as I said before the day after it's issued the licensee could become a prohibited party and no one would know!!!!

Just like a regular DROS!!


Now since everyone is up in arms about exceptions LEO's have which are written to law related to firearms how about LEO exceptions related to traffic laws??? Or other legal exceptions?

Or is that not an issue?

[SVT-40]

What is the real point of this whole issue? Does anyone really believe the California legislature will ever really change the exemptions in the law given to LEO's?

Seriously does anyone really believe this?

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by SVT-40

The only one whining here is you. Quoted below...IT'S NOT FAIR!@!!!!

You are whining quite a bit. Yes, I said it is not fair, but I also said that it is not right, which most people agree with and with the poll, it seems that you are in the minority (until you rig the vote.

Because of exemptions written into the law just like the exemptions which FFL's enjoy. In addition LEO's are on duty 24-7. So they are never really "off duty".

That is BS. If LEOs are on duty 24/7, that would mean that they can never drink since drinking while on duty would be a serious problem. This is claimed as to why they should get certain perks. If the average citizen was drunk and had a firearm on them they would have a problem.

As TPC said a FFL can have a off roster handgun in his inventory, and used it as any other gun in his inventory. So FFL's can have and use off roster handguns.....

As said, there are issues and having a firearm in inventory is not the same. The firearm could not be sold to just anyone, which is a problem if the FFL decided to sell it.

FFL's can buy firearms from out of state and have them shipped to them..... LEO's cannot.

Yes and LEOs can arrest people while FFLs can not. LEOs can carry just about anywhere, wheres FFLs can not. LEOs often don't get tickets, whereas FFLs do not. A LEO can get a FFL, whereas it is not always possible for a FFL to become a LEO, although I heard of a place that will make anyone one.

....
A COE is a California BS document. It's not a "constant" background check as you wrote....

So you think that the CA DOJ just issues it and forgets about the person?

It's really a hoax, because as I said before the day after it's issued the licensee could become a prohibited party and no one would know!!!!

Really? You don't think that the CA DOJ checks to see if the person has a COE or some means to flag the person?

...
Now since everyone is up in arms about exceptions LEO's have which are written to law related to firearms how about LEO exceptions related to traffic laws??? Or other legal exceptions?

Or is that not an issue?

That is also an issue, but unless you pass a law requiring LEOs to give other LEOs tickets, that is never going to change, plus even if you did, it would be hard to enforce. I have seen LEOs get pulled over and not be written up when the average person would (45 mph in a 25mph residential zone and the officer was very upset, but did not write him because he was a LEO).

Do you really want to go there as well?

[Ron-Solo]

Gentlemen, as business owners you are entitled to run your business how you see fit. As a retired LEO, now subject to the roster and hicap magazine restrictions, I no longer have a dog in this fight.

That said, I look at it no differently than an FFL refusing to sell a legal AR receiver simply because they don't think it is right. It is their decision, but it doesn't make it right.

Refusing to sell to individual LEOs will have no impact on the politics of it, since those that make the laws, and the political LEOs (Chiefs and Sheriffs) who support those politicians could really care less about the rank and file in this area.

I look at it this way, any opportunity to get another off roster handgun into California is a good thing. That LEO spending money on off roster guns may get married, have kids, have a financial situation where he needs to sell them to raise cash, or he may simply decide he doesnt like it after all. I sold several off roster guns that after firing or carrying I decided I didn't like it anymore. Every one went to a non-LEO via ppt.

I'd really like to see more places where LE could buy such guns they can't afford and sell to non-LE.

Just my $0.02 worth fellas. I thought the roster was stupid before I retired, and still feel that way after two years of retirement.

Aloha,

Ron

[loopsb]

Kemasa - are you associated with a business/ gun shop in the Ventura area? If so do let us know which one so you can stand proudly by your well thought out convictions

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by loopsb

Kemasa - are you associated with a business/ gun shop in the Ventura area? If so do let us know which one so you can stand proudly by your well thought out convictions

I am a FFL.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by Ron-Solo

...
Refusing to sell to individual LEOs will have no impact on the politics of it, since those that make the laws, and the political LEOs (Chiefs and Sheriffs) who support those politicians could really care less about the rank and file in this area.

Not true since things like this do happen to get media attention. That is what can cause change. If people don't stand up for what it right, then nothing will change. The officers, through their Union, can also take a stand as well, but they won't unless there is something in it for them. If they can no longer get the non-roster firearms for their personal use, then that would be the something in it for them.

I look at it this way, any opportunity to get another off roster handgun into California is a good thing. That LEO spending money on off roster guns may get married, have kids, have a financial situation where he needs to sell them to raise cash, or he may simply decide he doesnt like it after all. I sold several off roster guns that after firing or carrying I decided I didn't like it anymore. Every one went to a non-LEO via ppt.

That is true and that is a good aspect, although it seems that the government would like to have this shut down, which, clearly, the officers would be against.

Currently, LEO can profit from the law. Those who don't go too far can get away with it, those that do can be made an example of.

How much profit did you make by selling the used firearms? I suspect each went for more than you paid. If that is the case, then you personally profited by the law, which is also wrong, but you did make it possible for someone in CA to get a firearm that they wanted. This is also part of the issue.

I'd really like to see more places where LE could buy such guns they can't afford and sell to non-LE.

Hmmm, are your suggesting illegal straw purchases? Take a look at what is going on in the Sacramento area, which I personally don't consider a straw purchase, but the government seems to.

Just my $0.02 worth fellas. I thought the roster was stupid before I retired, and still feel that way after two years of retirement.

Yep, but what is being done about it? I hear there is a lawsuit, but that is taking far too long.

[SVT-40]

Bottom line is the law will never change.

So what's the point of arguing?

Would it not be better to fight against the upcoming stupid feel good gun laws proposed in California?

Or fight to overturn the law related to the handgun list itself?