Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > FFL's Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

FFL's Forum For open discussion between FFLs and polite questions for FFLs.

View Poll Results: Should FFLs refuse to honor exemptions for LEO firearm purchases?
Yes, either all should be able to buy it or none. 216 72.73%
Yes, but only for personal use, not for duty use. 9 3.03%
Yes, but only for duty use, not for personal use. 4 1.35%
No, if the exemption exists, the FFL should honor it 65 21.89%
I have no opinion 3 1.01%
Voters: 297. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 04-24-2013, 4:37 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,540
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

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?
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 04-24-2013, 6:09 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 7,224
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Bottom line is the law will never change.
Sorry you have given up. The law does change, sometime for the better, sometimes not.

Quote:
So what's the point of arguing?
It is a discussion.

Quote:
Would it not be better to fight against the upcoming stupid feel good gun laws proposed in California?
There are many things to fight.

Quote:
Or fight to overturn the law related to the handgun list itself?
That is the point. If LEOs get annoyed with the law because their exemption is not being honored, then they too will fight to get the law changed/removed.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 04-24-2013, 6:50 PM
asm_'s Avatar
asm_ asm_ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 744
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I personally think, when it comes to firearm, if LEO are going to be treated different based on the reasons that they are trained in handling 30 round mag, or off-roster gun, the same training should be available to any citizen. If not, the government have effectively created a specially "elite class" by appointment.

When I into my LGS, there is a section for LEO only, or should I say VIP. Than there is the another section for the rest of us commoner...

B
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 04-24-2013, 7:00 PM
skisly skisly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 76
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Four legs good, two legs bad.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 04-24-2013, 8:14 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,540
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Not giving up... just not gong to waste any more time on this issue. It's a dead end.


I equate this issue to complaining about weeds in your yard while ignoring that your house is on fire.

I'm really glad I'm out of California. And all the silliness there.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 04-25-2013, 4:30 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ramblin' Man
Posts: 7,980
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
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.

LE unions sadly do not represent the rank and file in this area. They are traditionally democrat leaning, in spite of the fact that more of their members are republican leaning. The union's first priority is what is good for the union. The democrats are more union friendly, so they will lean that way, regardless of what the rank and file wants.

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 never did it for profit. I only sold guns that I no longer wanted, and they were sold for a fair price. Mostly here on CalGuns, always following every letter of the law. I make it a personally policy to never sell anything at a loss, but I have sold several for what I paid for them. A lot were actually trades for something else I wanted, so value is subjective.

Hmmm, are your suggesting illegal straw purchases?

Absolutely not. I was referring to guys who buy a lot of "toys" such as guns, boats, jet skis, etc when the OT is flowing, then have to sell them when the OT dries up. Happens all the time

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.

I think they pushed it a little too far. One guy had 40+ sales of unfired guns in a year.

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

That's part of the problem with lawsuits. They take too long.
I just think the anger is misdirected at the rank and file guys. In reality, many are totally unaware of the roster issues unless shooting is a hobby for them. I can't tell you how many times I had to explain some of our current stupid gun laws.

Bottom line, you can choose how you run your business.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target

Last edited by Ron-Solo; 04-25-2013 at 4:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-10-2013, 10:04 PM
2nd Mass 2nd Mass is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,250
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Is part of the argument not that LEO's shouldn't have "special privileges" but rather that we should all have the same rights? LEO's are gun owners too however their exemptions to the laws they enforce allows politicians to use Department endorsements for their Gun Control legislation which hurts us all.

Btw like this list that was posted http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-11-2013, 6:12 AM
Bobby Ricigliano's Avatar
Bobby Ricigliano Bobby Ricigliano is online now
Mit Gott und Mauser
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The People's Glorious Republik of Southern Kalifornistan
Posts: 13,520
iTrader: 297 / 100%
Default

Calguns and cop bashing go together like peanut butter & jelly.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-11-2013, 9:38 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 7,224
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
Is part of the argument not that LEO's shouldn't have "special privileges" but rather that we should all have the same rights? LEO's are gun owners too however their exemptions to the laws they enforce allows politicians to use Department endorsements for their Gun Control legislation which hurts us all.
Yes, that is the argument. On the other side they want to claim it is bashing since they have nothing else. How do you explain why a LEO should be allowed to have a firearm for their own personal use that another person can not if the issue is about safety?

And yes, the law would not have gone through if the exemption was not there.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 05-12-2013, 9:45 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Do you sell guns to non-residents aliens with a hunting license? Those are exceptions too! One could take the viewpoint that nobody is above the law, that only US residents should be allowed guns, and that by allowing the special exception for hunting license to be used, one is implicitly endorsing it.

Or look at the CA AWB. Why can I buy a Stag-15 from you, when a Colt or Armalite AR-15 is banned? By selling stripped Stag lowers (or whatever brand of OLL you happen to carry), are you not putting one manufacturer of rifles above the law?

Why do I bring up those examples? To demonstrate the hypocrisy of your viewpoint. Face it, most of federal and state gun law is a set of exceptions to general bans. Why did you pick out this particular exception to be the one you don't want to honor any longer? Your political arguments make no sense. The press will not pick it up, individual LEOs will not apply political pressure, and even if they did, it wouldn't make any difference (the other 99% of gun owners in California aren't getting anywhere with their political pressure either). Your claim that the power of police unions is such that they can block gun legislation in Sacramento is laughable; I know lobbyists for some public safety unions, and they complain that they have no political power at all, not even to stop 15% pay cuts and mandatory furlough days.

So, why is this particular exception one you want to battle? What is your ulterior motive? For most Calguns posters, the general anti-authoritarian (i.e., cop-hating) attitude would be the first guess. I don't know whether you fall into that category or not.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 05-12-2013, 9:53 PM
Rm7pr Rm7pr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 281
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
Do you sell guns to non-residents aliens with a hunting license? Those are exceptions too! One could take the viewpoint that nobody is above the law, that only US residents should be allowed guns, and that by allowing the special exception for hunting license to be used, one is implicitly endorsing it.

Or look at the CA AWB. Why can I buy a Stag-15 from you, when a Colt or Armalite AR-15 is banned? By selling stripped Stag lowers (or whatever brand of OLL you happen to carry), are you not putting one manufacturer of rifles above the law?

Why do I bring up those examples? To demonstrate the hypocrisy of your viewpoint. Face it, most of federal and state gun law is a set of exceptions to general bans. Why did you pick out this particular exception to be the one you don't want to honor any longer? Your political arguments make no sense. The press will not pick it up, individual LEOs will not apply political pressure, and even if they did, it wouldn't make any difference (the other 99% of gun owners in California aren't getting anywhere with their political pressure either). Your claim that the power of police unions is such that they can block gun legislation in Sacramento is laughable; I know lobbyists for some public safety unions, and they complain that they have no political power at all, not even to stop 15% pay cuts and mandatory furlough days.

So, why is this particular exception one you want to battle? What is your ulterior motive? For most Calguns posters, the general anti-authoritarian (i.e., cop-hating) attitude would be the first guess. I don't know whether you fall into that category or not.
Well said, especially the last paragraph. Couldn't of said it better myself.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-13-2013, 12:02 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 7,224
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
Do you sell guns to non-residents aliens with a hunting license? Those are exceptions too! One could take the viewpoint that nobody is above the law, that only US residents should be allowed guns, and that by allowing the special exception for hunting license to be used, one is implicitly endorsing it.
That is not an exception, it is a requirement for the person to be able to buy the firearm, just like needing additional documentation if your ID does not have your current residence address.

Then you go on to say that additional limits should be placed on the sale of firearms, which is the exact opposite of the issue.

Quote:
Or look at the CA AWB. Why can I buy a Stag-15 from you, when a Colt or Armalite AR-15 is banned? By selling stripped Stag lowers (or whatever brand of OLL you happen to carry), are you not putting one manufacturer of rifles above the law?
Apples and oranges. Yes, the law is stupid and does not make sense, but that does not have anything to do with the issue in this thread. It seems like you are just grasping at straws.

Quote:
Why do I bring up those examples? To demonstrate the hypocrisy of your viewpoint.
Well, it is a very bad demonstration since the issues are very different.

Quote:
Face it, most of federal and state gun law is a set of exceptions to general bans. Why did you pick out this particular exception to be the one you don't want to honor any longer?
I did not pick it out, others did. Answer the question as to why a LEO should be allowed to purchase a firearm for their own personal use when a non-LEO can not.

The LEO exemption creates a different class of citizen, an elite, but more importantly the exemption allowed the law to get passed.

Quote:
Your political arguments make no sense. The press will not pick it up, individual LEOs will not apply political pressure, and even if they did, it wouldn't make any difference (the other 99% of gun owners in California aren't getting anywhere with their political pressure either). Your claim that the power of police unions is such that they can block gun legislation in Sacramento is laughable; I know lobbyists for some public safety unions, and they complain that they have no political power at all, not even to stop 15% pay cuts and mandatory furlough days.
Really? The press has picked it up, at least to some degree, so that makes your statement false. LEOs can apply pressure, if they want, but if the exemption is honored there is no reason for them to do so.

The argument actually makes sense, although some don't like it because they believe that LEOs should be an elite.

Money issues are different.

Quote:
So, why is this particular exception one you want to battle? What is your ulterior motive? For most Calguns posters, the general anti-authoritarian (i.e., cop-hating) attitude would be the first guess. I don't know whether you fall into that category or not.
Nice strawman argument. This is not about cop-hating. The point to this, as has been pointed out, it to point out the hypocritical nature of the law and showing that it is not about the issues which it is claimed to be. The certified list is supposed to be about safety, so then why would it not apply to LEOs? Don't they need safe firearms?

It is a means of fighting the propaganda in which these stupid laws are pushed. Obama said that AR firearms should be military only, have no business on the streets of America and are only used to kill large number of people, so then please explain why non-military government employees have these weapons for use on civilians? Why do they have a need to kill a large number of civilians? You know that there will be an exemption for LEOs, right? It is a lie to push the law. Civilians have the same reason to have these weapons as LEOs, Rangers, etc.

Again, answer the question as to why a LEO should be allowed to purchase a firearm for their own personal use when a non-LEO can not.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-13-2013, 12:04 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 7,224
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rm7pr View Post
Well said, especially the last paragraph. Couldn't of said it better myself.
That is funny since the last paragraph is just an attack and does not address the actual issues, which if you had read things you would know.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-13-2013, 1:11 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There is no point arguing with you, as you clearly do not wish to have your viewpoint questioned or criticized. The arguing I'm doing below is for the benefit of the general public, not for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
That is not an exception, it is a requirement for the person to be able to buy the firearm, just like needing additional documentation if your ID does not have your current residence address.
Wrong. Read the federal law. It says: no guns for non-immigrant aliens (see 922(d)(5)(B). Then it lists a variety of exceptions in 922(y)(2), beginning with hunting licenses, and I'll skip the rest of the list as it is not relevant. Matter-of-fact, it explicitly uses the word "except" in it.

Quote:
Then you go on to say that additional limits should be placed on the sale of firearms, which is the exact opposite of the issue.
False. Nowhere did I advocate that the hunting license exception be removed. I'm just pointing out that fallacy of your argument. California's handgun buying law has an exception for LEOs. You argue that this exception should be de-facto removed, by FFLs not honoring it, therefore de-facto placing additional limits on the sale of handguns to LEOs. I ask: why don't you use the same logic to remove other exceptions? After all, by allowing non-resident aliens with hunting licenses to buy guns, aren't we creating two classes of non-citizens? Are the hunters among the foreigners more equal?

My personal viewpoint: I'm happy for LEOs that they have an exception. I would love it if everybody could buy these guns, but that's not the world we live in.

Quote:
Apples and oranges. Yes, the law is stupid and does not make sense, but that does not have anything to do with the issue in this thread.
Oh yes, it does. Once again, there is an exception in the law (although it wasn't written into the law intentionally, it was created by mistake). The exception is that although AR-series rifles are banned, OLLs can be freely sold. The law is indeed stupid. My question is again: Why aren't you advocating against exploiting that exception too?

Quote:
Well, it is a very bad demonstration since the issues are very different.
They are not. All the cases we are discussing here are specific exceptions to general gun bans. Some of those you are OK with, others you are not.

Quote:
I did not pick it out, others did. Answer the question as to why a LEO should be allowed to purchase a firearm for their own personal use when a non-LEO can not.
Because the law says so. Good for them.

I can also give a more factual answer. LEOs are guaranteed to be trained in handling guns. While some non-LEOs are also such trained (sometimes far better than the the average LEO), the vast majority of non-LEOs have not been trained. And in particular, there is no guarantee that a non-LEO gun buyer has any familiarity with guns and gun safety procedures (other than the very superficial HSC and handling demonstration). Therefore, LEOs can be expected to be able to handle inherently unsafe handguns better than general non-LEOs. Furthermore, some LEOs are issued guns that are not on the roster, and it makes sense that a LEO should be able to buy, for home use, another copy (or a close relative) of the model he carries on his belt for 40 hours a week.

Quote:
The LEO exemption creates a different class of citizen, an elite, but more importantly the exemption allowed the law to get passed.
We have lots of elites. They exist. Denying their existence is pointless.

The law creates different classes of citizens or people all the time. An example from the current political debate: Only about half the people in this country are allowed to marry a man (namely only women). That right there creates a different class of citizen. Doesn't it bug you greatly that you or me will never be able to enter into the holy bond of matrimony with Chuck Norris? All that stands between each of us and wedded bliss is the little thing called "DOMA" (and the fact that neither of the two of us are Chuck Norris' type).

And the fact that the LEO exception allowed the roster to pass: Even if that's true (and one might argue that the SASS exception was much more important, do you refuse to sell single-action six shooters), there is no need to punish current LEOs for the fact that their particular group was exploited for political gain a few decades ago. It's not the fault of the average beat copy of today that the legislature did something stupid when it passed the roster.

Quote:
Really? The press has picked it up, at least to some degree, so that makes your statement false.
I'll concede that there has been a tiny amount of press coverage. Enough to cause the legislature to overturn it? Did you see it on the front page of the LA Times, SF Chronicle, or Sacto Bee? Until politics reaches the front page, the press coverage is not going to have any influence. If you believe a few scattered news articles about LGS refusing to sell off-roster pistols to LEOs are going to get the legislature to abandon the roster, you are deluded.

Quote:
LEOs can apply pressure, if they want, but if the exemption is honored there is no reason for them to do so.
Even if LEOs started applying pressure, it would make no different. Look, the NRA and the CGF and CRPA and ..., all working together, have not been able to budge the California legislature one iota. Do you think adding a few LEOs contacting politicians will change anything?

Quote:
The argument actually makes sense, although some don't like it because they believe that LEOs should be an elite.
They are an elite. You can deny that all you want, it doesn't change the fact. They are allowed to run around town with a loaded gun openly on their belt. Once in a while, they are allowed to shoot people (although the ones I talk to really hate that part of their job). They are allowed to drive fast and run red lights, if performing their job requires it. They are allowed to take people's personal freedom away (that's called detain and arrest). They can give orders that we all need to follow, with legal penalties (interestingly, so are firefighters). If you mess with me trying to perform my job, the best I can do is to ask corporate security to make you leave my office; if you mess with a cop when he is doing his job, you're likely spend some time in the big house.

Most people are not only OK with LEOs being an elite, they like it. You are free to advocate that LEOs should have their privileges removed. Two words of warning though. First, you won't get very far with the general population (outside a small group of anti-authoritarians on the left and right fringe of the political spectrum). Second, starting that by the least important part (namely the safe handgun roster exception) is the wrong end.

By the way, do you know about another legal benefit that LEOs have: they don't have to divulge their address on their driver's license. Instead, it says "confidential" there. Which is a great way to get out of speeding tickets. A friend of mine (whose license does say "confidential") has had to threaten CHiPpies with filing complaints to force them to get him the speeding ticket he justly deserved.

Quote:
Nice strawman argument. This is not about cop-hating. The point to this, as has been pointed out, it to point out the hypocritical nature of the law and showing that it is not about the issues which it is claimed to be. The certified list is supposed to be about safety, so then why would it not apply to LEOs? Don't they need safe firearms?
See above. If they want to buy safe firearms (meaning those certified by the state to pass the drop test), they are free to do so. Unlike the general public, they can and sometimes have to use firearms that have not passed the drop test.

(For amusement, I know cops that used to carry a 1911 cocked and locked with a round in the chamber, and retired recently, and none of those 1911 models were ever drop tested).

Quote:
It is a means of fighting the propaganda in which these stupid laws are pushed. Obama said that AR firearms should be military only, have no business on the streets of America and are only used to kill large number of people,
Please find a quote where he actually said that. I very much doubt you can.

Quote:
so then please explain why non-military government employees have these weapons for use on civilians?
Talk to a LEO who carries a real M4 or M16, with the happy switch. We have long had exceptions for police to be better armed than the population in general. This is not the wild west any more (the version in the movies, the real wild west was completely different). The idea is not that the battle between good and evil is a fair fight, where both sides are armed equally.

By the way, I object to the term "civilian" being used as the opposite of LEO. Most LEOs are civilians too (except for the ones that are current or former members of the military).

Quote:
Why do they have a need to kill a large number of civilians?
To put it the Texas way: Because sometimes they need killin'

Quote:
You know that there will be an exemption for LEOs, right? It is a lie to push the law. Civilians have the same reason to have these weapons as LEOs, Rangers, etc.
You seem to be argueing that all special privileges that are available to LEOs as far as the use of force is concerned should also be available to everyone in the general public. That argument is laughable, for the reasons outlined above. It is also not at all supported by the majority of the population.

Quote:
Again, answer the question as to why a LEO should be allowed to purchase a firearm for their own personal use when a non-LEO can not.
If I were a LEO (which I am not, but I know quite a few of them), then I would only want a fair fight if I'm participating in a competitive chess event. On the job, I would want to be armed and protected as well as is practical, so I get to go home at the end of my shift (or when wandering around town while off-duty, remember that a LEO is a sworn officer 24x7). I would not want to be out-gunned by a bad guy (classic example: North Hollywood). If that requires me to carry guns that are not available to the public, so be it.

Personally, while I (as a harmless non-LEO, what you call "civilian") would love to have flash grenades, armored vehicles, full-auto M4s, flashing red lights on my car, government-paid body armor, and fabulously good walkie-talkies, those items have to be restricted, for public safety. That has long been the consensus, and will probably remain so. It has even entered political theory (look up "monopoly on the use of force" sometime).

Last edited by chainsaw; 05-13-2013 at 1:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-13-2013, 2:12 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 7,224
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
There is no point arguing with you, as you clearly do not wish to have your viewpoint questioned or criticized. The arguing I'm doing below is for the benefit of the general public, not for you.
Nice personal attack. You are the one who does not want their view questioned or criticized. You keep bringing up non-related things to ignore addressing the actual issue.

Due to the character limit, some quotes had to be reduced/eliminated.

Quote:
...
False. Nowhere did I advocate that the hunting license exception be removed. I'm just pointing out that fallacy of your argument. California's handgun buying law has an exception for LEOs.
...
No, you are making a strawman argument and then knocking it down claiming you are making a point.

Gotta love it. You really want to claim that there are two classes of non-citizens if someone has a hunting license? ANYONE can get a hunting license, which means that ALL would be allowed to buy a firearm. Not everyone can be a LEO unless they want to change the system so that a citizen can become a LEO for $1/year.

Quote:
My personal viewpoint: I'm happy for LEOs that they have an exception. I would love it if everybody could buy these guns, but that's not the world we live in.
Oh, ok, I guess we should just give up trying to correct things, right?

Quote:
Oh yes, it does. Once again, there is an exception in the law (although it wasn't written into the law intentionally, it was created by mistake). The exception is that although AR-series rifles are banned, OLLs can be freely sold. The law is indeed stupid. My question is again: Why aren't you advocating against exploiting that exception too?
You are not making any sense. OLL are not listed, so people can buy them. It is not based on what job you have either.

Quote:
They are not. All the cases we are discussing here are specific exceptions to general gun bans. Some of those you are OK with, others you are not.
We are talking about the police loophole and your trying to claim other things are the same does not make it true.

Quote:
...
I can also give a more factual answer. LEOs are guaranteed to be trained in handling guns.
That is false. There are examples of LEOs not having a clue about firearms and being dangerous. In some cases LEOs consider firearms to be a tool, nothing more. Civilians can have more training, but it does not matter since the exemption still would not apply to them.

Quote:
While some non-LEOs are also such trained (sometimes far better than the the average LEO), ... Therefore, LEOs can be expected to be able to handle inherently unsafe handguns better than general non-LEOs. ...
So a LEO can ensure that they will not drop their "unsafe" firearm and so it won't discharge? What world are you living in? You are just making things up to support your view.

Quote:
We have lots of elites. They exist. Denying their existence is pointless.
Oh, I see, so we should allow the elite system to exist and not do anything about it at all.

Quote:
The law creates different classes of citizens or people all the time. An example from the current political debate: Only about half the people in this country are allowed to marry a man (namely only women). That right there creates a different class of citizen.
...
Wow. You really want to bring marriage into this discussion? It does not create a different class of citizen at all. But to further your absurd argument, what about poly-marriages? Why shouldn't people be able to marry more than one person? What about the rights of a single person? None of that has a thing to to with this discussion, but I guess if that is all you have, that is what you have to go with.

Quote:
And the fact that the LEO exception allowed the roster to pass: Even if that's true (and one might argue that the SASS exception was much more important, do you refuse to sell single-action six shooters), there is no need to punish current LEOs ...
The other exemptions don't apply to specific jobs and so it applies to anyone. A difference, which it seems that you can not understand at all.

So, you seem to be saying again that we should not do anything about it. Under that view, then I guess nothing should have been done about all the Civil Rights issues because that it just the way it was and there will always be elites, so people should have just accepted it.

It is not about punishment, it is about treating all the same.

Quote:
I'll concede that there has been a tiny amount of press coverage. ... Did you see it on the front page of the LA Times, SF Chronicle, or Sacto Bee? Until politics reaches the front page, the press coverage is not going to have any influence. ...
At least there are those who are trying to do something about it, rather than people like you who say we should accept our lot in life.

Things don't get on the front page at the start, often it starts small and gets bigger.

Quote:
Even if LEOs started applying pressure, it would make no different. ...
There is a thing called a tipping point. Look it up. It can make a difference.

What does not make a difference is your view of not doing anything at all.

Quote:
They are an elite. You can deny that all you want, it doesn't change the fact. ...
So just accept the caste system, right? Yes, they have their job, but allowing a LEO to buy a .22LR pistol when someone else can't is just wrong.

Quote:
Most people are not only OK with LEOs being an elite, they like it. You are free to advocate that LEOs should have their privileges removed. ...
Really? Please provide proof that people, other than LEOs, like it.

Quote:
By the way, do you know about another legal benefit that LEOs have: they don't have to divulge their address on their driver's license. Instead, it says "confidential" there. Which is a great way to get out of speeding tickets. A friend of mine (whose license does say "confidential") has had to threaten CHiPpies with filing complaints to force them to get him the speeding ticket he justly deserved.
There is a reason for that, but it is a different issue. LEOs can violate the law and get away with it, even when not on duty, which is wrong and should be changed, but again, that is a different issue. Personally I think that officers should be forced to give other officers a ticket or have to document and explain it.

Quote:
See above. If they want to buy safe firearms (meaning those certified by the state to pass the drop test), they are free to do so. Unlike the general public, they can and sometimes have to use firearms that have not passed the drop test.
Have to use? Under the (bogus) safety reason for the certified list, they should only be allowed to use duty weapons which are deemed to be safe. The fact is that it is all a lie, which is why it is not the case.

Quote:
(For amusement, I know cops that used to carry a 1911 cocked and locked with a round in the chamber, and retired recently, and none of those 1911 models were ever drop tested).
Quote:
Please find a quote where he actually said that. I very much doubt you can.
I saw him say that on the News. Are you trying to say that the video was faked? You can doubt all you like, but that does not make it so.

You are being very dishonest with this statement as you have no proof that he didn't say it, but I guess anything to promote your personal agenda.

Quote:
Talk to a LEO who carries a real M4 or M16, with the happy switch. We have long had exceptions for police to be better armed than the population in general. This is not the wild west any more (the version in the movies, the real wild west was completely different). The idea is not that the battle between good and evil is a fair fight, where both sides are armed equally.
Perhaps you need to study history and see what the history of who was better armed actually was.

Why do you bring up the "wild west"? That is not the issue, but you did not mention the "civilized east" either, which is not what people think it was either.

Quote:
By the way, I object to the term "civilian" being used as the opposite of LEO. Most LEOs are civilians too (except for the ones that are current or former members of the military).
Object all you want, but you are wrong:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian?s=t

Quote:

ci·vil·ian [si-vil-yuhn]
noun
1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
Quote:
...
You seem to be argueing that all special privileges that are available to LEOs as far as the use of force is concerned should also be available to everyone in the general public. That argument is laughable, for the reasons outlined above. It is also not at all supported by the majority of the population.
Only in your own delusional mind. Again, just another strawman argument. You really should learn to stick to reality.

Quote:
If I were a LEO (which I am not, but I know quite a few of them), then I would only want a fair fight if I'm participating in a competitive chess event. On the job, I would want to be armed and protected as well as is practical, so I get to go home at the end of my shift (or when wandering around town while off-duty, remember that a LEO is a sworn officer 24x7). I would not want to be out-gunned by a bad guy (classic example: North Hollywood). If that requires me to carry guns that are not available to the public, so be it.
So, you are saying that instead of the police, we should have the military, right?

The funny thing is that you are saying the civilians should not be better armed than the criminals, but my guess you have not put that much thought into your statements to realize that.

Quote:
Personally, while I (as a harmless non-LEO, what you call "civilian") would love to have flash grenades, armored vehicles, full-auto M4s, flashing red lights on my car, government-paid body armor, and fabulously good walkie-talkies, those items have to be restricted, for public safety. That has long been the consensus, and will probably remain so. It has even entered political theory (look up "monopoly on the use of force" sometime).
Again, you are talking about other issues, but you are forced to claim all of that due to not being able to address the issue of the certified list.

All of those items, which you say needs to be restricted, are also restricted for criminals as well, right? Oh, they can bring in drugs, but they won't bring in or steal any of those items, so all of those restrictions only apply to the law abiding and not the criminals.

It seems that you have been brainwashed very well.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-13-2013, 3:13 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
Not everyone can be a LEO unless they want to change the system so that a citizen can become a LEO for $1/year.
You or I can become a LEO. It is a little expensive, we would have to give up our current careers, spend a few years on training (get a degree in criminal justice first), and probably have a big pay cut. But the career is open to us. The only difference is one of degree: A hunting licenses takes 2 days of training, and about $100 to get. A LEO license takes about 4 years and a few hundred thousand $.

Quote:
We are talking about the police loophole and your trying to claim other things are the same does not make it true.
So how about the SASS loophole? Why are you not arguing against that one? My Ruger Single Six at home is not drop-tested. Would have sold it to me?

Quote:
That is false. There are examples of LEOs not having a clue about firearms and being dangerous. In some cases LEOs consider firearms to be a tool, nothing more. Civilians can have more training,
Certainly, there exist some LEOs who are clueless. But they are guaranteed to have taken firearms training, and passed it. And that was exactly my point (which you didn't get): LEOs are guaranteed to at least have taken and passed firearms training, while non-LEOs are not guaranteed to have any safety training. Therefore I argue that LEOs are more qualified to handle unsafe guns.

Quote:
So a LEO can ensure that they will not drop their "unsafe" firearm and so it won't discharge? What world are you living in? You are just making things up to support your view.
They have at least been trained to not drop it. That's more than you can say for non-LEOs.

Quote:
Wow. You really want to bring marriage into this discussion? It does not create a different class of citizen at all.
Sorry, it does create two classes of citizens. Namely men (who can only marry women) and women (who can only marry men). Personally, I have my preferences in that regard, but you can't decide that there are classes of citizens. If I had a serious crush on Chuck Norris (which I do not, being a hetero male), I would be very upset about the lack of gay marriage.

The marriage example is just to show you that our law segregates people all the time. The fact that LEOs are "more equal than others" is just one example of many. If you want to be consistent, you need to start getting upset about a myriad of other special rights.

Quote:
The other exemptions don't apply to specific jobs and so it applies to anyone. A difference, which it seems that you can not understand at all.
How about politicians? They have special rights (look up where they can register to vote sometime, and non-disclosure of their residence address). Why are you not doing something about that? How about doctors? They also have special rights (namely to break traffic laws if needed). There are lots of cases where there are job-specific duties and privileges. You happen to have targeted one specific group.

Quote:
It is not about punishment, it is about treating all the same.
By taking away a right that they currently enjoy. I would call that "punishment".

Quote:
There is a thing called a tipping point. Look it up. It can make a difference.
Trust me, I know about that. I do political activism for a living.

But a few LEOs in the state are very far away from the tipping point. All you would manage to accomplish by your proposed action is to piss off a few LEOs, put the pro-gun camp in dangerous proximity to anti-authoritarian fringe groups (a.k.a. cop haters), and not accomplish any pro-gun legislative success.

Quote:
So just accept the caste system, right? Yes, they have their job, but allowing a LEO to buy a .22LR pistol when someone else can't is just wrong.
Where I agree: From a technical viewpoint, it's insane that a LEO can buy a .22LR target shooting pistol that non-LEOs are not allowed to have.

But: It is very sane that a LEO who is issued a certain model pistol (say the S&W M&P) can buy the compact model of the same pistol for personal off-duty carry, regardless whether that second one has passed the roster or not. Or that a LEO can buy a tiny revolver for a personal BUG that he keeps in an ankle holster, whether that model is on the roster or not. The problem is that gun law can't easily distinguish between a .22LR target shooting pistol, a compact semi-auto pistol, and a 5-shot J-frame .38SP revolver. So it errs on the side of caution, and allows LEOs any handguns, roster or not.

Quote:
Really? Please provide proof that people, other than LEOs, like it.
Look at the poll in this thread. Do you think all the no voters are from LEOs?

I'm 100% sure that a majority of the population would agree with the following statement: "LEOs should have access to guns that are more powerful than what other people can legally buy". Perhaps not a 90% majority, but definitely a majority.

Quote:
There is a reason for that, but it is a different issue. LEOs can violate the law and get away with it, even when not on duty, which is wrong and should be changed, but again, that is a different issue. Personally I think that officers should be forced to give other officers a ticket or have to document and explain it.
I completely agree, as does my LEO friend (who did pay the ticket and go to traffic school, which is kind of embarassing if you admit in traffic school that you're a copy who drove too fast).

Quote:
Have to use? Under the (bogus) safety reason for the certified list, they should only be allowed to use duty weapons which are deemed to be safe. The fact is that it is all a lie, which is why it is not the case.
Are you saying that the roster should be expanded, to also apply to on-duty issue guns?

Quote:
So, you are saying that instead of the police, we should have the military, right?
I didn't talk at all about the military. Only about police, a.k.a. law enforcement, a.k.a. LEOs.

Quote:
The funny thing is that you are saying the civilians should not be better armed than the criminals, but my guess you have not put that much thought into your statements to realize that.
Rather on the contrary. I'm saying that law enforcement should be significantly better armed than non-law enforcements (lawful citizens and criminals both included).

Quote:
All of those items, which you say needs to be restricted, are also restricted for criminals as well, right? Oh, they can bring in drugs, but they won't bring in or steal any of those items, so all of those restrictions only apply to the law abiding and not the criminals.
Criminals are a totally different story. You can prohibit criminals from having drugs, guns, whatever, and as we both know, they will violate that occasionally. Which is why we have a criminal justice system. We are not talking about the balance of firepower between non-LEO law-abiding citizens and criminals, but about the balance of firepower between LEOs and the rest of the world here. You seem to be of the opinion that LEOs should be restricted to exactly the same firepower as the rest of the population. I disagree

Quote:
It seems that you have been brainwashed very well.
At least I have one body part that is regularly washed, unlike you.

I'm sorry about that last statement, that was meant as humor. Claiming that your opponent is brainwashed is not a tenable argument.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-13-2013, 4:29 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 7,224
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
You or I can become a LEO.
Not true. In case you don't get it, you would need to be able to get hired.

Quote:

So how about the SASS loophole? Why are you not arguing against that one? My Ruger Single Six at home is not drop-tested. Would have sold it to me?
I did, but it seems you missed it. That applies to everyone.

Quote:
Certainly, there exist some LEOs who are clueless. But they are guaranteed to have taken firearms training, and passed it. And that was exactly my point (which you didn't get): LEOs are guaranteed to at least have taken and passed firearms training, while non-LEOs are not guaranteed to have any safety training. Therefore I argue that LEOs are more qualified to handle unsafe guns.
You guarantee is meaningless, by your own words. You are making false assumptions, further you are claiming that it also means something which it doesn't.

Quote:
They have at least been trained to not drop it. That's more than you can say for non-LEOs.
That is funny!!! Are you really trying to claim that the LE training includes to not drop a firearm? Most people have enough common sense to know to not drop something.

Quote:
Sorry, it does create two classes of citizens. Namely men (who can only marry women) and women (who can only marry men). Personally, I have my preferences in that regard, but you can't decide that there are classes of citizens. If I had a serious crush on Chuck Norris (which I do not, being a hetero male), I would be very upset about the lack of gay marriage.
No, it does not create two classes of people. Your argument seems to indicate that you consider men and women in two separate classes, but somehow are trying to claim that the classes are "created". Well, there are those who can get pregnant and have children and those who can't (not just men). Which has nothing to do with this issue. There is nothing with either of those groups in regards to what firearms they can purchase.

Based on your comments, it seems that you do have a serious crush on Chuck Norris.

Quote:
The marriage example is just to show you that our law segregates people all the time. The fact that LEOs are "more equal than others" is just one example of many. If you want to be consistent, you need to start getting upset about a myriad of other special rights.
No, it shows how clueless you are and that you are willing to make any possible claims to defend your position. Your opinion as to what I should do is worthless, as is your arguments.

Quote:
How about politicians? They have special rights (look up where they can register to vote sometime, and non-disclosure of their residence address). Why are you not doing something about that? How about doctors? They also have special rights (namely to break traffic laws if needed). There are lots of cases where there are job-specific duties and privileges. You happen to have targeted one specific group.
So, you seem to be saying that if someone does not go after EVERYTHING, that they should go after NOTHING? What a world you live in.

Quote:

By taking away a right that they currently enjoy. I would call that "punishment".
Interesting. So, to take away something which they should not have ever had is punishment? Really?

Quote:
Trust me, I know about that. I do political activism for a living.
Oh, that explains things. You are willing to do or say anything for your cause. The truth does not matter, nor anything else other than getting your way.

Quote:
But a few LEOs in the state are very far away from the tipping point. All you would manage to accomplish by your proposed action is to piss off a few LEOs, put the pro-gun camp in dangerous proximity to anti-authoritarian fringe groups (a.k.a. cop haters), and not accomplish any pro-gun legislative success.
Really? You want to claim that you know everything and what it means and what will happen, but sorry to break this to you, you don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:
Where I agree: From a technical viewpoint, it's insane that a LEO can buy a .22LR target shooting pistol that non-LEOs are not allowed to have.
How about that, yet you defend the whole thing. Interesting.

Quote:
But: It is very sane that a LEO who is issued a certain model pistol (say the S&W M&P) can buy the compact model of the same pistol for personal off-duty carry, regardless whether that second one has passed the roster or not. Or that a LEO can buy a tiny revolver for a personal BUG that he keeps in an ankle holster, whether that model is on the roster or not. The problem is that gun law can't easily distinguish between a .22LR target shooting pistol, a compact semi-auto pistol, and a 5-shot J-frame .38SP revolver. So it errs on the side of caution, and allows LEOs any handguns, roster or not.
Interesting, but the law can distinguish between the two. All it has to say is that the exemption is for duty use only, but the fact is that if the claim for the reason for the certified list were true, then ALL firearms, especially for duty use, would be required to be tested. A LEO can get a letter to exempt them from the waiting period, the same exact thing could be done with the exemption of the certified list, so why do you say otherwise?

Do you think that the testing is too difficult?

Quote:
Look at the poll in this thread. Do you think all the no voters are from LEOs?
I suspect most of them are. I asked if any were not from LEOs and for some reason no one admitted that they said no and were not LEOs. I wonder why.

Quote:
I'm 100% sure that a majority of the population would agree with the following statement: "LEOs should have access to guns that are more powerful than what other people can legally buy". Perhaps not a 90% majority, but definitely a majority.
Perhaps, but that is just a guess on your part, no proof or anything else to show that it is true. Most would agree that criminals should not be allowed to have firearms, but how it is implemented is a different story. Look at the polls for the so-called a-salt weapons. The problem is that most people don't know what it really means.

Quote:
I completely agree, as does my LEO friend (who did pay the ticket and go to traffic school, which is kind of embarassing if you admit in traffic school that you're a copy who drove too fast).
No, the embarrassing part is that he pissed off another officer enough to actually get a ticket, which also gets reported to the department, which is often why officers won't give tickets to other officers.

Quote:
Are you saying that the roster should be expanded, to also apply to on-duty issue guns?
I am saying that if the claim that it is about safety, then it should apply to all guns. The reality is that it is not about safety, which is why it should go away. The color of a firearm does not affect safety. Once tested, it should always remain on the list unless there is a change. The real thing is that if a firearm manufacturer produced an unsafe firearm, they would get sued out of existence, so the list is not needed.

Quote:
I didn't talk at all about the military. Only about police, a.k.a. law enforcement, a.k.a. LEOs.
Well, on that basis Military should be exempt, far more so than LEOs. Why are you not for that? Oh, I know, you don't want any change.

Quote:
Rather on the contrary. I'm saying that law enforcement should be significantly better armed than non-law enforcements (lawful citizens and criminals both included).
That is not what the law is about. That is yet another different issue. So you want civilians to not be better armed than criminals? How nice.

Quote:
Criminals are a totally different story. You can prohibit criminals from having drugs, guns, whatever, and as we both know, they will violate that occasionally. Which is why we have a criminal justice system. We are not talking about the balance of firepower between non-LEO law-abiding citizens and criminals, but about the balance of firepower between LEOs and the rest of the world here. You seem to be of the opinion that LEOs should be restricted to exactly the same firepower as the rest of the population. I disagree
Quote:
At least I have one body part that is regularly washed, unlike you.
What a nice personal attack!! How pathetic of you!!!

Quote:
I'm sorry about that last statement, that was meant as humor. Claiming that your opponent is brainwashed is not a tenable argument.
No, you are not sorry about the last statement as you would have removed it if you were.

You are brainwashed, your statements show that.

Oh, no response to what a civilian is?
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-15-2013, 5:51 PM
Rudolf the Red's Avatar
Rudolf the Red Rudolf the Red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 1,300
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I used to refuse to do this. Now I do it. I love the exemptions. Gets more non-roster guns into CA. That is a good thing.
__________________

NRA Benefactor Life Member
01 Dealer 3xGuns Redding, CA
US Army MP Corps Veteran
NRA Pistol Coach Level 3

I am always looking for Beretta D models in 9mm or a Compact Type M.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-01-2013, 12:36 PM
DBoulant DBoulant is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 201
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My Wife is a LEO, Before she was able to carry she had to take the PC 832 class. Which was available to anyone.

If only I could take the course and get the off rosters and std cap mags. Maybe the Sheriff could give me a letter to exempt me from the 10 day wait too.

*drifts off to the land of make believe*
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-06-2013, 10:19 PM
thedrickel's Avatar
thedrickel thedrickel is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lost in the wheels of confusion
Posts: 5,380
iTrader: 128 / 100%
Default

Good luck trying to convince a correctional officer that he is on duty 24/7!
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 07-31-2013, 7:32 PM
BlackonBlack's Avatar
BlackonBlack BlackonBlack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,089
iTrader: 23 / 96%
Default

Few weeks ago I was in a local shop and a sheriff was picking up like 5 gen 4 glocks. All bragging about how he can buy them online and have him shipped here with no 10 day wait, mag limits, or purchase restrictions. Then he said how cheap he can get him. He didn't make friends in the gunshop thats for sure.
__________________
Good decisions come from experience. Experience comes from poor decisions.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 07-31-2013, 7:33 PM
BlackonBlack's Avatar
BlackonBlack BlackonBlack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,089
iTrader: 23 / 96%
Default

You married a female police officer? I assumed most of them preferred the ladies by the look of em.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBoulant View Post
My Wife is a LEO, Before she was able to carry she had to take the PC 832 class. Which was available to anyone.

If only I could take the course and get the off rosters and std cap mags. Maybe the Sheriff could give me a letter to exempt me from the 10 day wait too.

*drifts off to the land of make believe*
__________________
Good decisions come from experience. Experience comes from poor decisions.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:58 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.