Should we be contacting Police/Sheriff Agencies?

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.'

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.'

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...