Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Should we be contacting Police/Sheriff Agencies?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Window_Seat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vacaville, California, USA
    Posts
    123

    Post imported post

    I am all for LOC where it is legal, but my attitude about UOC is that what good is a FA if it's not loaded and chambered?

    That said, I am seriously tempted to contact my local PD via email and sending them This Link from OC.net and/or This Link from CG.net, just to make sure they are aware & educated on this step in the right direction. Is this a good idea, or should we wait until they "educate themselves" because of their lack of trust from LACs?

    Erik.


  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I think they are going to disregard most anything we put together. The real victory in educating LE is the CPOA memo that went out recently.

    Of course, it wouldn't hurt to send them a copy of that memo, just to make sure they got it...

    I don't think any harm could come of sending them any info, except to out yourself as one of "us" and possibly making yourself a target of 'special treatment.'
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  3. #3
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    I think they are going to disregard most anything we put together. The real victory in educating LE is the CPOA memo that went out recently.

    Of course, it wouldn't hurt to send them a copy of that memo, just to make sure they got it...

    I don't think any harm could come of sending them any info, except to out yourself as one of "us" and possibly making yourself a target of 'special treatment.'
    Agreed.

    In most instances, unsolicited information from citizens is apt to be roundfiled. Rest assured, this movement is gaining ground. As a target of "special treatment", I would say the best advice is to let the legal department of your local law enforcement do the education- that is, unless there are reasons to litigate...
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  4. #4
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    The word is out. Police Management is viewing OCDO and Calguns.net and more and more training memos have been issued about UOC. Whether or not it will translate down to lawful action or no action and respect for the Right toKeep and Bearby patrol elements is yet to be seen. The ball is rolling.

    I expect we'll see the Legislature attempt some kind of OC ban or redefinition of loaded in the next year but they are certainly preoccupied with the budget. The more restrictions they place on OC the weaker their defense against 2nd A. federal suits will become.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    I believe they tried to push something through this year, but the Gov vetoed it.

    I forget which one.
    cato wrote:
    The word is out. Police Management is viewing OCDO and Calguns.net and more and more training memos have been issued about UOC. Whether or not it will translate down to lawful action or no action and respect for the Right toKeep and Bearby patrol elements is yet to be seen. The ball is rolling.

    I expect we'll see the Legislature attempt some kind of OC ban or redefinition of loaded in the next year but they are certainly preoccupied with the budget. The more restrictions they place on OC the weaker their defense against 2nd A. federal suits will become.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, ,
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    I think they are going to disregard most anything we put together. The real victory in educating LE is the CPOA memo that went out recently.

    Of course, it wouldn't hurt to send them a copy of that memo, just to make sure they got it...

    I don't think any harm could come of sending them any info, except to out yourself as one of "us" and possibly making yourself a target of 'special treatment.'
    Agreed.

    In most instances, unsolicited information from citizens is apt to be roundfiled. Rest assured, this movement is gaining ground. As a target of "special treatment", I would say the best advice is to let the legal department of your local law enforcement do the education- that is, unless there are reasons to litigate...
    Isn't everyone presumed to know the law? And isn't ignorance of the law no excuse? Don't we hear that all the time? I believe it to be an absurdity to "educate" law enforcement. How ridiculous does that sound? (Not an attack on the question with respect to the thread.) But, I think this SCOTUS statement sums it up.

    Take the case of a local officer who persists in enforcing a type of ordinance which the Court has held invalid as violative of the guarantees of free speech or freedom of worship. Or a local official continues to select juries in manner which flies in the teeth of decisions of the Court. If those acts are done willfully, how can the officer possibly claim that he had no fair warning that his acts were prohibited by the statute? He violates the statute not merely because he has a bad purpose but because he acts in defiance of announced rules of law. He who defies a [325 U.S. 91, 105] decision interpreting the Constitution knows precisely what he is doing. If sane, he hardly may be heard to say that he knew not what he did. Of course, willful conduct cannot make definite that which is undefined. But willful violators of constitutional requirements, which have been defined, certainly are in no position to say that they had no adequate advance notice that they would be visited with punishment. When they act willfully in the sense in which we use the word, they act in open defiance or in reckless disregard of a constitutional requirement which has been made specific and definite. When they are convicted for so acting, they are not punished for violating an unknowable something.
    SCREWS v. U.S., 325 U.S. 91 (1945)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •