[California]: do you lknow any CA cops having (likely) illegal assault weapons?


PDA






billwiese
November 10, 2008, 11:07 PM
(I'd appreciate if non-Californians would refrain from posting in this thread unless they have directly relevant info, which should be emailed to me as per below.)


PLEASE DON'T REPLY TO THIS (nor PM me about this) EXCEPT FOR ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.


PLEASE DIRECT ALL RESPONSES VIA EMAIL TO ME AT 'wmwiesejr@yahoo.com'


PLEASE ENTER "[PROJECT-58]" IN YOUR EMAIL 'SUBJECT'


It appears there are quite a few cops spread throughout California who own
what are most likely unregistered/unpermitted CA-defined "assault weapons".

Surprisingly, these situations are not necessarily clustered in 'rural' or 'Northern'
or 'Central Valley' cities/counties. It appears quite a few cops & sheriff's deputies
have thought they were immune from Roberti-Roos/ SB23 registration requirements,
and/or are confusing the parameters of the now-sunset Federal 1994 AW ban with
those of the two CA bans.

For a variety of reasons, knowing the number of such miscreants within given cities
and counties will be very, very helpful to our cause.

AT THIS POINT I DO NOT WISH TO GET INTO ANY FINGER-POINTING GAMES,
"Officer X in Dept Y has unreg'd guns 1,2,3...". This is NOT about the *individual*
cop in question (unless he were to bust a legit 'off-list' rifle guy on a bogus AW
charge, etc.)


NOTE ALSO: THIS REGARDS LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL ONLY (primarily
Police & sheriff's deputies - but info about CHP or other state agency LE groups'
officers could be useful too.)

[Right now, I don't care if a noted politician or notable or other non-LEO owns illegal AWs in
CA; that is not relevant to this particular situation/strategy.]

What I need:

no name, just knowing cop vs. sheriff and which department/county;


overall type/style of gun (AR, AK, HK, FAL, Uzi, SKS w/detach mag, etc.)
including configured features suite. Make/model is important. If you are
unsure about a specific aspect/feature, do please say so: for example,
flash hiders vs. brakes can be difficult to differentiate. Please try to be as
accurate (specifics) as possible. Be aware of NFA issues (shorty SBRs and
SBSes) as well.


grounds for belief the gun is an AW (known banned make/model, saw
it up close during use at range, handled it yourself, etc.) - as opposed to a
non-AW (say, a manually cycled off-list rifle or fixed-mag OLL, etc.). Please
ensure that you're properly differentiating between OLL and a true AW. Please
describe any element/aspect of which you're uncertain.


anything the cop said to you directly (or within earshot) about 'being special',
not having to register AWs due to LE status, lack of chance of being arrested or
prosecuted, etc.


Remember, the purpose of this is to get a hand on the scale of the issue by
region in CA -- and not to get an individual cop in trouble.

I do not forsee any issues coming back at you as an individual for sending me emails
about such matters. This is being dealt with on a 'bulk' scale for now. [Ultimately we
could (already) make an example of various officers if folks who reported these issues
to me were hassled, but I simply don't expect this chain of events to occur.]

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ABOUT GOING AFTER COPS. THIS IS ABOUT GOING AFTER A BAD
STATEWIDE SITUATION REGARDING "Assault Weapons".

I THANK THE FOLKS THAT HAVE REPLIED TO ME PRIVATELY ALREADY. YOUR KNOWLEDGE
AND LEVEL OF DETAIL IN REPORTING OF ITEMS & BEHAVIORS IS GREATLY APPRECIATED AND
GIVES ME GREAT CONFIDENCE IN CALIFORNIA GUNNIES.



Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

If you enjoyed reading about "[California]: do you lknow any CA cops having (likely) illegal assault weapons?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
pbearperry
November 10, 2008, 11:09 PM
Joe Friday has a bunch of them.They are in his closet next to his cigarettes.

billwiese
November 12, 2008, 02:30 PM
bumpity

DontBurnMyFlag
November 12, 2008, 05:27 PM
:rolleyes:

ridata
November 12, 2008, 08:25 PM
Seeing as you are a long standing member here I do not want to insult you or call you a troll.

But ... why would anyone on this board want to 'tattle-tale' on their 'neighbors' illegal activities regarding guns that we all think should be legal? It is quite possible this information is going to be used for a 'good' purpose, but it doesn't have to be. Some departments are bigger than others, but for some departments it wouldn't be terribly hard to track down the person with the weapon. Just sayin'...

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 08:54 PM
Seeing as you are a long standing member here I do not want to insult you or call you a troll.

But ... why would anyone on this board want to 'tattle-tale' on their 'neighbors' illegal activities regarding guns that we all think should be legal? It is quite possible this information is going to be used for a 'good' purpose, but it doesn't have to be. Some departments are bigger than others, but for some departments it wouldn't be terribly hard to track down the person with the weapon. Just sayin'...


I don't think the point is to track down individuals or make an example out of any one person(s). I gather this is more an exercise in aggregate statistics for the purpose of making a broader point as to the futility of AWBs.

Although certainly i'm in no position to be an authority on the purpose.

billwiese
November 13, 2008, 04:15 PM
... why would anyone on this board want to 'tattle-tale' on their 'neighbors' illegal activities regarding guns that we all think should be legal? It is quite possible this information is going to be used for a 'good' purpose, but it doesn't have to be. Some departments are bigger than others, but for some departments it wouldn't be terribly hard to track down the person with the weapon.

The results rolling in reveal several things...
a large fraction have frequently and repeated bragged to many folks over
a long period of time they have a 'brass pass' (i.e., they think they'd never
be arrested/prosecuted);


some of the cops are just plain unaware of the law and think they're
legally exempt from it (like they are from the approved handgun Roster);


some cops are confusing CA's laws vs. the expired 1994 Fed AW ban;


some of these AWs may be seizure guns wandering out of the dept.
locker to fall into an unpapered personal/patrol gun category;


some of these appear to be 'drug cops', which raises spectre of blackmail
vs. drug locker theft or turn-your-head enforcement worries;

The problem appears to be at a larger scale than I first thought.

I am impressed with the quality of reports I have been getting as to the type of gun, its possible origins, duration of ownership, etc. So far the reporters have been ones not bearing a grudge (i.e, not ratting a cop out 'cuz they got a traffic ticket from him, etc.) and who understand why this is a systemic problem.

My work here is about gross stats and not popping an individual cop. But if a cop has bragged repeatedly for the past 8 or 18 years about illegal AW possession and that gets him in trouble, well, that's his problem - he failed the Big IQ Test. Also, we have at least one cop that seems to have been in illegal possession of AWs but has popped someone else (a relative) for AW. (Unsure how the relative's charges were disposed of or how far it went.) If I knew such a cop were to have popped someone for a legal off-list rifle (i.e., non-AW) obviously we'd have to take his situation further.

Part of the problem is due to our DOJ Firearms Bureau (demoted from Firearms Division in 2007) past conduct, hiding from issues involved in complexity of laws, not promulgating things properly, and some of their own incompetence.

At this point it seems it's large enough to require a politico-legal solution, and cops won't go to jail or lose their jobs.

Unless fixed (and perhaps even afterward) it raises questions about credibility of cop testimony in prior cases during course of cops' felonious AW possession during his career. When PDs/defense lawyers start asking questions of every cop known to be gun-oriented, "Do you own an illlegal assault weapon?", etc. things will come to a crux.



Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

M14/11B
November 13, 2008, 04:33 PM
I always thought that it was unfair that cops could buy restricted guns but we civilians could not. Talk about equal protection under the law. Also sets the stage for civilians to not have the same weapons as cops, military, para-military, etc. Gets people used to the idea that those are military or cop weapons only. Bunch of BS.

M14

Zoogster
November 13, 2008, 05:19 PM
Why would we benefit from reporting that?

Wouldn't possession of such private weapons by many officers help to show they are "in common use" within the state?

Insuring they are not in common use by the most populous state in the nation is not the best way to insure such firearms are protected in future rulings.

I do understand your angle, that if police realized they are not exempt, LEO are less likely to back the stupid state laws.
The state could then of course make an exemption. That exemption could then be declared discriminatory and illegal, as police especialy when off duty are citizens and civilians, no different under the Constitution.

However currently what is in "common use" is still left to be decided by the courts. I would not be taking actions to remove firearms from use at this time, because the more in use they are, the more common they are. That means they are more likely to be deemed "in common use" by citizens of the United States of America, and prohibitions on them illegal.

Now if you could make them legal for all Californians, it would help that cause. However if your only aim is to reduce thier possession by police, whether for thier benefit or to hold them accountable, then it could have a negative impact in the battle against "Assault weapons" restrictions.

Kino74
November 15, 2008, 09:47 AM
The way I see it is this: The constitution should apply to everyone. I don't believe in certain classes of people having certain rights. The law is the law and no one is above it. Taxpayers have a right to ensure that their public servants are upholding the law AND obeying the law themselves.

While most LEOs are highly supportive of our 2A rights, there are some, particularly from states witih restrictive gun rights, that need to learn a lesson about equality under the law. If those LEOs don't like the law, then they have the choice of living with a absurd law or helping us get rid of it.

Frog48
November 15, 2008, 05:01 PM
as police especialy when off duty are citizens and civilians, no different under the Constitution.


Cops ARE civilians, regardless whether on-duty or off-duty.

A civilian is anybody not currently serving on active duty with the Armed Forces of the United States.

BHP FAN
November 15, 2008, 05:12 PM
In the next town up,the [now ex-]police chief just got busted for a machine gun and a silencer.He traded evidence for it.

Zoogster
November 15, 2008, 05:25 PM
Cops ARE civilians, regardless whether on-duty or off-duty.

A civilian is anybody not currently serving on active duty with the Armed Forces of the United States.

Yes, but the distinction of equality for all has been greatly blurred in the latest generation.

Take the Coast Guard, both a branch of the armed forces, and part of Homeland Security, and a "police" agency.

Numerous exemptions and precedents have been created to make police seperate.
Many state laws do exempt officers, both while on duty, and some statutes while they are off duty.

H.R. 218 the National Concealed Carry for Cops law was signed into law and Amended the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, essentialy making them unique citizens, entitled to different privelidges than the serfs.

Military hardware can be used by LEO any time they declare drugs are involved, drasticly blurring the lines between Law Enforcement and the Armed Forces. Just planting a little drugs after the fact can make any use of military hardware or personel legal afterwards.
The National Guard helicopters used in the Waco Siege were allowed because they said drugs were involved even when none were.

Homeland Security links Federal LEO, and previously military Intelligence Agencies together along with some departments with militant responsibilities.
What is the Armed Forces and what are LEO is less clear, and LEO now have much of the tools of the military at thier disposal. They have been reluctant to use them for civilian law enforcement tasks, but they do have the option now.

Posse Comitatus was overwritten by Congress and Bush in recent years. Fortunately some of the things signed into law have been repealed, like the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. That essentialy allowed the Federal Government to use the Military against civilians any time they wished to declare martial law, or a national emergency.
We barely avoided the potential tragedies of that legislation.
So while use of the actual military on civilians has been kept somewhat limited, many former LEO agencies are the same in name only, and are becoming essentialy part of the military themselves, and are much more paramilitary.

Police departments and agencies have been moving towards increased use of select fire weapons for "SWAT" and similar teams by other names, as well as increased use of semi auto "Assault weapons" while the same things have been increasingly restricted or banned for regular citizens.
So just over 20 years ago a person could build, convert, or buy thier own machinegun cheap (prior to Hughes) while most police were using revolvers.
Now police have progressed to current hardware, while other citizens have been increasingly restricted.
Almost a complete reversal.

So there is certainly different classes of citizens entitled to different privelidges now. The lines between police and military are being blurred. Police have both state and national privelidges above and beyond other civilians, even after retiring.
It is not your grandfather's America, and not even your dad's America.

Jeff White
November 15, 2008, 06:19 PM
A civilian is anybody not currently serving on active duty with the Armed Forces of the United States.

I suggest you look the word civilian up in a dictionary and correct your post...We've been down this road before. The antis are the ones who change the meaning of words to reflect their political agenda. We don't. :banghead:

Frog48
November 16, 2008, 01:26 AM
I suggest you look the word civilian up in a dictionary and correct your post...We've been down this road before. The antis are the ones who change the meaning of words to reflect their political agenda. We don't.

Nice try, but the dictionary you're using is wrong.

The Geneva Convention, Hague Convention, International Red Cross, and the US Dept of Defense all define "civilian" the same way as my previous post... Anybody not in the Armed Forces. The term "civilian", colloquially, has not been applied to non law enforcement personnel, but legally law enforcement personnel ARE civilians.

If you still dont get it, try researching the etymology of the word "civilian".

VINTAGE-SLOTCARS
November 16, 2008, 02:50 AM
You should have asked how many of your friends never registered guns under the weapons ban. There would thousands listed by now.

tnegiet
November 16, 2008, 11:20 AM
Nice try, but the dictionary you're using is wrong.
The term "civilian", colloquially, has not been applied to non law enforcement personnel, but legally law enforcement personnel ARE civilians.


WRONG

Merriam-Webster:

civilian
One entry found.

Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1
— civilian adjective

YourDictionary.com:

civilian Definition
ci·vil·ian (sə vil′yən)

noun

any person not an active member of the armed forces or of an official force having police power
Archaic a specialist in civil or Roman law
Etymology: ME < OFr civilien < L civilis, civil
adjective

of or for civilians; nonmilitary

Dictionary.com:

ci⋅vil⋅ian   /sɪˈvɪlyən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [si-vil-yuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2. Informal. anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3. a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.
–adjective 4. of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians.


Oxford Dictionary:

Civilian
• noun a person not in the armed services or the police force.

• adjective relating to a civilian.

— ORIGIN Old French civilien, in the phrase droit civilien ‘civil law’.

Jeff White
November 16, 2008, 01:17 PM
Grant 48 said;

The Geneva Convention, Hague Convention, International Red Cross, and the US Dept of Defense all define "civilian" the same way as my previous post... Anybody not in the Armed Forces. The term "civilian", colloquially, has not been applied to non law enforcement personnel, but legally law enforcement personnel ARE civilians.

Law Enforcement personnel are only legally civilians for the purposes defined in the the references you cited. Have you never read a law where they start it off with definitions? Why do you think they have to do that? They do that because words in common use often have meanings that are different from how the authors of the document want them to be used for the purposes of that law or treaty. They simply narrow the scope of the common meaning, they don't limit the meaning of the word to that.

When the Geneva or Hague Conventions or any of the international Red Cross/Red Crescent agreements are under discussion here, feel free to limit the meaning of the term civilian to military personnel. For all other uses, civilian means what the dictionary says it means. Surely that can't be too hard to comprehend.

In the past I have posted the definition of civilian from the Official US Government Edition of the dictionary. A search of my posts bring it up, but it's essentially the same as tnegiet posted.

That ends the discussion of word use on THR. We will not change the common meaning of words to fit yours or anyone else's political agenda. The antis do that. We are better then that.

Frog48
November 16, 2008, 03:05 PM
For all other uses, civilian means what the dictionary says it means. Surely that can't be too hard to comprehend.

Yall have merely confirmed my point, that "civilian" has been misused colloquially, as Mirriam Webster, et al are not LEGAL definitions, but common-use definitions.

I'm not going to be baited into a pissing contest with you, or anyone else. I have no "political agenda" of any kind, as you say. I simply dont like it when something untrue is perpetuated.

That ends the discussion of word use on THR. We will not change the common meaning of words to fit yours or anyone else's political agenda. The antis do that.

In fact, the broad overencompassing use of a term is very much an "anti" technique, IE the labeling of semiautomatic rifles as "assault weapons". Yall might want to think about that a minute before you accuse others of something.

Jeff White
November 16, 2008, 03:50 PM
In fact, the broad overencompassing use of a term is very much an "anti" technique,

Explain how the use of the commonly accepted definition of a word is broad over encompassing. It would be broad over encompassing if the definition was altered. But it hasn't been. That definition has been used for decades.

I have no "political agenda" of any kind, as you say. I simply dont like it when something untrue is perpetuated.

You are the one who is perpetrating the untruth. If the word civilian excluded everyone but those people with a Geneva Convention Card in their pocket, then there would have been no need for the diplomats who wrote the documents to define the scope of word in the document.

chriso
November 16, 2008, 03:59 PM
Don't worry what's in other peoples safes worry about your own S**T.

billwiese
November 16, 2008, 04:59 PM
The thread has drifted to BS about 'civilian', etc. by out-of-staters.

The only way to take down CA's AW law is by tactics like these.

Some friggin' people can't read between the lines. Cops will not get hurt in this, but it would affect cases they're on. This is turning out to be a larger problem than I thought - and many many cops have freely admitted to others they have a 'brass pass' for felonious conduct. The scary thing is that some of these are drug cops and could be blackmailable.

ChrisO: don't tell me what to worry about I know the gun laws a helluva lot better than you do.
VintageSlotCars: I don't have any friends with illegal guns, it's too much risk to me hanging with felons.



Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Jeff White
November 16, 2008, 05:57 PM
The only way to take down CA's AW law is by tactics like these.

I don't know about that. You could always participate in the legislative process and elect representatives that would vote it out. That's the traditional way these things are done. Of course I guess the framers of the constitution were just totally off their rockers when they devised it. We all know the real way to get rid of a bad law is to turn people in for violating it...:rolleyes:

TAB
November 16, 2008, 06:01 PM
I've always said the easyest way to get rid of the CA gun laws is have them apply to every one equally.

Rifleman 173
November 16, 2008, 06:30 PM
<Cough> Out of stater here. I think that nobody has mentioned the word "exclusion." As in police in most states get exclusions from some laws to allow them to do their jobs more effectively. So the Peoples' Republic of ********** has a law against ownership of magazines with over 10 rounds. That same law probably has an exclusion in it allowing police officers to have, use and possession magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. That is what is meant as "a brass pass."

TAB
November 16, 2008, 06:55 PM
It goes alot further then that... they can Own AW, they can buy off list hand guns, they can buy "hi cap mags" They can also own all the class III stuff, if thier cheif signs off... does not happen very otfen.

So why can officer bob buy a fully built race gun from say STI, but the average person can't?

I have no doubt several LEOs out there are making big bucks buying guns that normal people can't buy new and then selling them.( saw it happen all the time working for a FFL)

billwiese
November 16, 2008, 09:30 PM
billwiese wrote:
The only way to take down CA's AW law is by tactics like these.


Jeff White wrote:
I don't know about that. You could always participate in the legislative process and elect representatives that would vote it out. That's the traditional way these things are done. Of course I guess the framers of the constitution were just totally off their rockers when they devised it. We all know the real way to get rid of a bad law is to turn people in for violating it...

Cute, and devoid of reality. The undercurrent of your statement is "don't bust my fellow buddies in blue for felony conduct". I note you're from Illinois, which in some ways is more screwed up than CA (i.e, lack of FOID card = illegal, etc.) I think CA gun laws will befar more fixable in the next 3-5 years than Illinois' will - we're gonna get RKBA incorporation soon.

CA's problems are screwed by urban demographics plus a state Republican party that has screwed itself into oblivion by being seen by many as a religious party - as opposed to the party of small gov't, growth, etc.

And no one said we're turning in dirty cops. But the problem is large enough now that it goes way beyond the individual cop and requires a systemic solution.

If the cops do get popped what'll happen is that the judge'll hold things up for "deferred adjudication", the PD or Sheriff's office will magically generate a "we approve Ossifer Fife to have an AW..." letter they formerly wouldn't sign/issue, and then the DOJ Firearms Bureau will issue an AW registration for that gun, cleaning up the situation for the cop (other than perhaps a nastygram in his personnel file). Nevertheless, the fact that the cop had felonious conduct for some period of his career will have a variety of interesting side effects.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

billwiese
November 16, 2008, 09:31 PM
Rifleman73 wrote:
Out of stater here. I think that nobody has mentioned the word "exclusion." As in police in most states get exclusions from some laws to allow them to do their jobs more effectively. So the Peoples' Republic of ********** has a law against ownership of magazines with over 10 rounds. That same law probably has an exclusion in it allowing police officers to have, use and possession magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. That is what is meant as "a brass pass".

This is a perfect example of why I had asked for outta-staters to not reply because, as usual, they don't have CA-relevant info and live in a league of misinformation about CA matters.

Yes, CA *magazine* law has a direct allowance for officer exemption.

Yes, CA "safe handgun" law has a direct allowance for officer exemption.

No, CA *assault weapons* law does not have a *direct* officer exemption (unless it's a department/agency issue duty gun, which bypassess everything). Officers wanting a personal AW have to get a letter signed by command in their agency, after which they can get a registration from DOJ Firearms Bureau - after which they can acquire the specified AW or convert the non-AW into an AW configuration. If they don't have this paperwork for the specific gun they are in violation of the law: they are in felonious possession of an AW and are likely transporting it illegally as well (separate charge).


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Gewehr98
November 16, 2008, 10:01 PM
But it ain't just cops keeping hidden weapons banned by the ********** DOJ.

This long-time ********** resident left there in 1999 just as SB-23 went into effect. I took my collection of banned firearms with me, and all the illegal magazines they didn't want me to have. As an example, I had 300 each 30-round AK mags in my household goods shipment, alone.

One thing I heard from my fellow gun owners as I left ********** was that they simply were going to ignore the requirements to register their now-banned firearms. As I read the DOJ registration paperwork, which basically forced you to deed the firearm to them and lease it back until the day you died, at which point it couldn't go to your children or heirs, then I knew that civil disobedience would be the norm vs. the exception. I've been back a couple times since then, to visit family and friends. I'm not about to rat them out, but they have indeed ignored Lockyer since 1 Jan 2000.

Somewhere out there one can find a news article or three listing the DOJ's dismay at the abysmally few numbers of banned firearms that were actually registered with them, compared to the estimate of guns that were supposed to be submitted. It would appear that the DOJ was simply ignored by the majority of folks out there who were supposed to comply.

It was ironic to me that a short time after I left, I received a forwarded postcard from then AG Lockyer's office, notifying me of my requirement to register my AK/AR/FAL etc. within so many days, or else. I'm assuming they got the address through the 4473s of my purchases, which is onerous in and of itself. I sent the postcard back, telling them in no uncertain terms that they were more than welcome to try to take them from my home in Florida. ;)

It's way larger than just cops that went underground. Compliance with Roberti-Roos was estimated to be maybe all of 15%. I'd wager compliance with SB-23 would be near that, too. Lockyer went on record to report they had all of 10,000 guns registered with the $20 fee before the 1 Jan 2000 deadline. That speaks volumes about ********** gunowners, and what they really thought about SB-23. ;)

Jeff White
November 16, 2008, 10:08 PM
Cute, and devoid of reality. The undercurrent of your statement is "don't bust my fellow buddies in blue for felony conduct". I note you're from Illinois, which in some ways is more screwed up than CA (i.e, lack of FOID card = illegal, etc.) I think CA gun laws will befar more fixable in the next 3-5 years than Illinois' will - we're gonna get RKBA incorporation soon.

Outside of the ignorant FOID card, we have much better gun laws then California. We can have any evil assault rifle we want as long as we don't live in Cook County. My statement has nothing to do with don't bust my "fellow buddies in blue" but everything to do with wondering how that will influence the legislature to change the law. If you think you are going to fix your gun laws in 3 to 5 years with this campaign, I've got some prime oceanfront property here in Southern Illinois I think,you should look at, it's a heck of a deal....

CA's problems are screwed by urban demographics plus a state Republican party that has screwed itself into oblivion by being seen by many as a religious party - as opposed to the party of small gov't, growth, etc.

And your present campaign is going to fix the urban demographics, get conservatives into leadership positions in the state republican party and fix their image as the voice of the religious right how?

And no one said we're turning in dirty cops. But the problem is large enough now that it goes way beyond the individual cop and requires a systemic solution.

And you think the systematic solution to the problem will be to repeal your assault weapons ban? I think that's pretty naive thinking. There are all kinds of systematic solutions that wouldn't involve repealing the law.

If the cops do get popped what'll happen is that the judge'll hold things up for "deferred adjudication", the PD or Sheriff's office will magically generate a "we approve Ossifer Fife to have an AW..."

That could happen, or they could write an exemption into the law and make it retroactive to the date it was enacted. What makes you think the California Attorney General won't take fast action to clean the mess up.

Nevertheless, the fact that the cop had felonious conduct for some period of his career will have a variety of interesting side effects.

And just what interesting side effects to you expect to happen? Despite everything you read on the gun forums, for the most part, cops are pretty law abiding people. If you think that the training officers are going to approve the on duty use of illegal weapons, you are dreaming. The liability if an officer was ever involved in a shooting with an illegal weapon is staggering. I would bet money that if you were to file FOIA requests you could find out how many letters were issued. I assume that California has a state law that somewhat mirrors the federal law or some other open government laws.

My personal opinion is that you are jealous and just trying to stir the pot. I'm interested in hearing how you think this will force the legislature to repeal the law. Show me a real plan and I'll believe you are sincere.

billwiese
November 16, 2008, 10:23 PM
Jeff,

I am not jealous of cops. Out here in Silicon Valley we laugh at 'em and how they're breaking our city budgets with their $100K salaries and 90% pensions @ 55 indexed for inflation.

I will not tilt my hand, but having cops commit felonies is an untenable situation with significant side effects in the justice system.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

chriso
November 17, 2008, 02:02 AM
Im sure you know the laws better than me and I don't really care I just think you shouldn't worry about what's in other peoples safes. Haha wow that makes you cool you know the laws better than me... jee wiz man... good luck at arresting a cop for having a class 3 weapon or weapon on the AWB. HAHA

TAB
November 17, 2008, 02:45 AM
I don't know, I think its rather important to know if the people that are there to protect the population and up hold the law are commiting felonys.

Tyris
November 17, 2008, 04:47 AM
I am not jealous of cops. Out here in Silicon Valley we laugh at 'em and how they're breaking our city budgets with their $100K salaries and 90% pensions @ 55 indexed for inflation.


Not to worry. California's pending default on debt will fix that problem.


Bill Wiese, good on you. The more corrupt police you can throw under the bus the better.

-T

Beatnik
November 17, 2008, 09:42 AM
billwiese, I fully realize I have no more business getting involved than you do in Virginia politics, and I have stated as much in the past - you stay out of my state, and I stay out of yours....

....but I also need to let you know that I too see clearly what others here do not.

having cops commit felonies is an untenable situation with significant side effects in the justice system.

I think most THR readers need to tatoo this backwards on their foreheads so they can read it clearly every time they wash their faces.

The US Constitution - the supreme law of the land - is more than just the 27 words of the 2nd Amendment. Setting up police officers as a separate caste of citizen with assumed legal immunities is as unconstitutional as the AWB is.

I commend you for your effort.

JImbothefiveth
November 17, 2008, 10:42 AM
Now police have progressed to current hardware
And how is using modern weapons a bad thing?

The National Guard helicopters used in the Waco Siege were allowed because they said drugs were involved even when none were.
That wasn't the work of local law enforcement, and would you please cite a source for the "drugs were involved" thing?

billwiese
November 19, 2008, 01:24 PM
Bumpitybump.
If we could please have the out-of-staters restrain themselves it'd be appreciated.

-Bill

BHP FAN
November 19, 2008, 01:49 PM
I pretty much agree with the guy from Virginia.

Jefferson Herb
November 19, 2008, 03:45 PM
Bill, I moved my bushmaster xm15 to another state to meet compliance.I will someday follow.BHP is right ,we have an x chief being prosicuted for class3 and silencer,and the arrogant form of trash does'nt think it's wrong

billwiese
November 21, 2008, 04:05 PM
Bumpity-bump.
Any more responses from Californians w/relevant info appreciated.

-Bill

Sinixstar
November 21, 2008, 04:35 PM
Bumpity-bump.
Any more responses from Californians w/relevant info appreciated.


You might have better luck on a CA specific site...

billwiese
November 21, 2008, 06:52 PM
sinixstar wrote:
You might have better luck on a CA specific site...


I am getting good results from a variety of CA-specific forums & subforums as well as from here (and **.us).

Figured there'd be some THR-only folks that are not on other forums.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

BHP FAN
November 22, 2008, 03:01 AM
and like Beatnik from Va. said:
''I commend you for your effort...''

If you enjoyed reading about "[California]: do you lknow any CA cops having (likely) illegal assault weapons?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!