Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: AB-357 on Officer.com

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    Hey guys. i would like to invite you all to check out out discussion on this subject at Officer.com. You will find that alot of Police Officers are very pro-AB357.

    http://forums.officer.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=115719

    My name is "IE Copper" on Officer.com. Please disregard my initial comments on the topic. As you can see, those comments were made the same day I first posted here. My opinion has changed drastically on the topic, and I expressed that towards the end of the thread.




  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    I for one, hope this passes with a veto-proof majority.

    As is said: One wouldn't need a gun, if they could carry a cop with them everywhere they went.

    But then, if we could carry cops with us everywhere, there wouldn't be need for lawyers really, as there would always be a "reputable" witness to crimes!

    Since we can't all carry cops, and since we don't want to put those nice lawyers out of a job, we need the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, as defined in the constitution.

    I just can't wait to see the Brady Campain give California a B minus minus for this!

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Wow, I'm legitimately surprised.

    No police officers I know outside of the ones on this forum have shown any support for open carry. I guess the logic must be that police officers are concerned that openly carrying firearms would give criminals more of a heads up as to who has a gun and who doesn't. There might be concern by police that open carriers might open themselves up to unwanted criminal attention.

    Concealed carry is more of a hidden deterrent. Nobody can have a concealed weapon but the criminals wouldn't know that for sure.

    Of course, with both concealed carry readily available to the public along with open carry available (in the form of no police harassment and the removal of 626.9), then the criminals would really not know what to do. Get day jobs perhaps?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    105

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    SNIP:
    No police officers I know outside of the ones on this forum have shown any support for open carry. I
    You'd be surprised at how many LEO actually support OC, or the Second Amendment in general. I'm sure a lot of them aren't to vocal about it, as that can be looked upon unfavorably, but a lot of them DO support our rights. Sometimes rights go out the window when a cop is doing their job... but then again... they're human, aren't they? Sure, discipline or a complaint may be in order, but they learn, just like any of us. I believe that most LEO are inherently good; they sometimes just make poor and hasty decisions in the name of safety.

    And hey, if I'm wrong, and most LEO actually hate our rights.... then go make friends with one and convince them otherwise!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    CaCop wrote:
    Hey guys. i would like to invite you all to check out out discussion on this subject at Officer.com. You will find that alot of Police Officers are very pro-AB357.

    http://forums.officer.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=115719

    My name is "IE Copper" on Officer.com. Please disregard my initial comments on the topic. As you can see, those comments were made the same day I first posted here. My opinion has changed drastically on the topic, and I expressed that towards the end of the thread.


    Hmmm? Isn't this the same guy that said he was done with this website because we were too immature for him (articulated our positions better than he did)? Guess that didn't last too long

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/22819-8.html

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    Hey, he's already admitted to changing his mind more than once. That alone puts him head and shoulders above some of the members here.

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    Having read a sampling of the posts over there, I am really encouraged by the general tone of the discussion.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Woodland, California, USA
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    It looks halfway good over there. Some of those officers are a little paranoid but I do understand why.

    As for CA Cop. I am glad that even though there have been a lot of people who didn't like his presence on the site, and didn't like his views and voiced them very loudly, that he has changed his mind on OC and CCW.

    That is the kind of change we need. I personally, am very very happy that being anti OC, that he is now pro OC. If more officers had an open mind like him, we would have a much much easier time carrying.

    I hope more officers look at the CPOA memo on their cork board, because I have seen them up, and come check out this site. Maybe we can open some LEO's eyes.

  9. #9
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    I noticed a LOT of positive comments about Law Abiding Citizens carrying from some Inland Empire (Riverside, Corona, San Bernadino, Norco, etc) officers. This makes me a little more confident when I take trips out there to see the family :celebrate
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    I noticed a LOT of positive comments about Law Abiding Citizens carrying from some Inland Empire (Riverside, Corona, San Bernadino, Norco, etc) officers. This makes me a little more confident when I take trips out there to see the family :celebrate
    I hate to rain on your dancing banana, but I don't think there's much cause for excitement here... yet.

    Keep in mind that the topic is the permit system we live with. Even "shall issue" will continue to require lots of tests, taxes, and associated costs. So these officers are only expressing support for the permit system. IMO, the permit system is a gross violation of the 2nd Amendment, and an affront to the rights of those too poor to be able to pay all the fees.
    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Is it just me or isthe bill's 357 nameironic or done on purpose?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I think bill numbers are assigned sequentially... can't remember where I read that, so I may be wrong. I suppose it's still possible the introduction of the bill was timed to get the number they wanted...
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Either way it makes it easier for me to remember it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    CaCop wrote:
    Hey guys. i would like to invite you all to check out out discussion on this subject at Officer.com. You will find that alot of Police Officers are very pro-AB357.

    http://forums.officer.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=115719

    My name is "IE Copper" on Officer.com. Please disregard my initial comments on the topic. As you can see, those comments were made the same day I first posted here. My opinion has changed drastically on the topic, and I expressed that towards the end of the thread.


    You still say "If these requirements are met, citizens should be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights."

    As weak as I believe the Second is, what part of "shall not be infringed" are you still a bit cloudy on? Freedom should have no requirements. The laws you and your fellow lawmen enforce are farcical.

    I recommend you reevaluate the term "liberty" and get back to us.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    SOneThreeCoupe wrote:
    CaCop wrote:
    Hey guys. i would like to invite you all to check out out discussion on this subject at Officer.com. You will find that alot of Police Officers are very pro-AB357.

    http://forums.officer.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=115719

    My name is "IE Copper" on Officer.com. Please disregard my initial comments on the topic. As you can see, those comments were made the same day I first posted here. My opinion has changed drastically on the topic, and I expressed that towards the end of the thread.


    You still say "If these requirements are met, citizens should be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights."

    As weak as I believe the Second is, what part of "shall not be infringed" are you still a bit cloudy on? Freedom should have no requirements. The laws you and your fellow lawmen enforce are farcical.

    I recommend you reevaluate the term "liberty" and get back to us.

    OK, I reevaluated the term "liberty", and I feel the same...what was supposed to happen? Was I supposed to all the sudden think that it would be OK to allow violent criminals to carry concealed legally? Yeah it is a great idea to hand out CCWs without a background check and mandatory training....

    I think that armed, law abiding citizens are a great idea. Giving out CCWs to everyone that asked without checking them out first is irresponsible and will NEVER happen in California.




  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I've become so sick of the Law Enforcement State. This whole thing is a viscous cycle where circumstances are exacerbated and truly criminal behavior is created as a self-fulfilling prophecy through the arbitrary assignation of criminal status.

    If there weren't so many damn laws, we wouldn't have so many damn criminals. Tragic situations like Mixon vs OPD are just as much a result of escalatory, prohibitive Law and Law Enforcement Practice as they are a result of people like Mixon actually being dangerous scumbags.

    This isn't making America safer, and it isn't "responsible" for California. The government is only capable of creating problems in our hyper-authoritarian society of Prison Industry and Police Lobbies.

    If we want to make society peaceable and nonaggressive, the first thing we need to do is stop initiating aggressive action against nonaggressive "offenders" at such an unprecedented scale. CCW is inherently not an aggressive act. Therefore, the prohibition of CCW is part of the very system that is tearing our society apart, and leading to violence in the streets. It is neither a "responsible" reaction to violence nor is it somehow any more reasonable, effective, ethical or moral than any other arbitrary, immoral prohibition of nonaggressive behavior.

    /rant

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    CaCop wrote:
    SOneThreeCoupe wrote:
    CaCop wrote:
    Hey guys. i would like to invite you all to check out out discussion on this subject at Officer.com. You will find that alot of Police Officers are very pro-AB357.

    http://forums.officer.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=115719

    My name is "IE Copper" on Officer.com. Please disregard my initial comments on the topic. As you can see, those comments were made the same day I first posted here. My opinion has changed drastically on the topic, and I expressed that towards the end of the thread.


    You still say "If these requirements are met, citizens should be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights."

    As weak as I believe the Second is, what part of "shall not be infringed" are you still a bit cloudy on? Freedom should have no requirements. The laws you and your fellow lawmen enforce are farcical.

    I recommend you reevaluate the term "liberty" and get back to us.

    OK, I reevaluated the term "liberty", and I feel the same...what was supposed to happen? Was I supposed to all the sudden think that it would be OK to allow violent criminals to carry concealed legally? Yeah it is a great idea to hand out CCWs without a background check and mandatory training....

    I think that armed, law abiding citizens are a great idea. Giving out CCWs to everyone that asked without checking them out first is irresponsible and will NEVER happen in California.


    Doesn't the whole "no background check" thing happen in Vermont and Alaska with alarmingly good results?

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    But, there aren't (insert undesirable social element here) in Alaska/Vermont!

    :quirky

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    But, there aren't (insert undesirable social element here) in Alaska/Vermont!

    :quirky
    Except those godless killing machines... BEARS!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    I've become so sick of the Law Enforcement State. This whole thing is a viscous cycle where circumstances are exacerbated and truly criminal behavior is created as a self-fulfilling prophecy through the arbitrary assignation of criminal status.

    If there weren't so many damn laws, we wouldn't have so many damn criminals. Tragic situations like Mixon vs OPD are just as much a result of escalatory, prohibitive Law and Law Enforcement Practice as they are a result of people like Mixon actually being dangerous scumbags.

    This isn't making America safer, and it isn't "responsible" for California. The government is only capable of creating problems in our hyper-authoritarian society of Prison Industry and Police Lobbies.

    If we want to make society peaceable and nonaggressive, the first thing we need to do is stop initiating aggressive action against nonaggressive "offenders" at such an unprecedented scale. CCW is inherently not an aggressive act. Therefore, the prohibition of CCW is part of the very system that is tearing our society apart, and leading to violence in the streets. It is neither a "responsible" reaction to violence nor is it somehow any more reasonable, effective, ethical or moral than any other arbitrary, immoral prohibition of nonaggressive behavior.

    /rant
    I had a hard time reading all of your nonsense after I reading this :

    "Tragic situations like Mixon vs OPD are just as much a result of escalatory, prohibitive Law and Law Enforcement Practice as they are a result of people like Mixon actually being dangerous scumbags. "

    How dare you disrespect the memory ofthe officers that were killed by this ANIMAL. To say that these officers where killed as a result of Police practice and escalatory law.... I can't respond with how I feel because I will probably get banned. They were killed because an ANIMAL had access to a gun and KILLED THEM.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Indeed. My grandfather had a stuffed bear... we all knew better than to fool around with it. Drop it the wrong way, and it was liable to spontaneously malfunction and go into full-auto every-bullet-kills-a-child-assault-weapon-machine-gun mode.

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    CaCop wrote:
    OK, I reevaluated the term "liberty", and I feel the same...what was supposed to happen? Was I supposed to all the sudden think that it would be OK to allow violent criminals to carry concealed legally? Yeah it is a great idea to hand out CCWs without a background check and mandatory training....

    I think that armed, law abiding citizens are a great idea. Giving out CCWs to everyone that asked without checking them out first is irresponsible and will NEVER happen in California.
    1) If a criminal is too violent to trust carrying a concealed weapon, then you better keep him locked up. In case you haven't heard, they ignore 12025 anyhow.

    2) We have no reason to believe that background checks or mandatory training reduce crime or enhance public safety. (If you have some data I'm unaware of, please share it with me.) In fact, CCWs are handed out without background checks (except to make sure you have no felony prohibition) or mandatory training in many states. A few states don't even bother with the permit system (Alaska, Vermont, and soon Arizona).

    3) I agree CA will probably never decriminalize concealed carry in our lifetimes, unless it is forced by the feds, which I think is equally unlikely. We will almost certainly see it get easier, but the system will still be a gross infringement on our rights.
    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.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    CaCop wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    I've become so sick of the Law Enforcement State. This whole thing is a viscous cycle where circumstances are exacerbated and truly criminal behavior is created as a self-fulfilling prophecy through the arbitrary assignation of criminal status.

    If there weren't so many damn laws, we wouldn't have so many damn criminals. Tragic situations like Mixon vs OPD are just as much a result of escalatory, prohibitive Law and Law Enforcement Practice as they are a result of people like Mixon actually being dangerous scumbags.

    This isn't making America safer, and it isn't "responsible" for California. The government is only capable of creating problems in our hyper-authoritarian society of Prison Industry and Police Lobbies.

    If we want to make society peaceable and nonaggressive, the first thing we need to do is stop initiating aggressive action against nonaggressive "offenders" at such an unprecedented scale. CCW is inherently not an aggressive act. Therefore, the prohibition of CCW is part of the very system that is tearing our society apart, and leading to violence in the streets. It is neither a "responsible" reaction to violence nor is it somehow any more reasonable, effective, ethical or moral than any other arbitrary, immoral prohibition of nonaggressive behavior.

    /rant
    I had a hard time reading all of your nonsense after I reading this :

    "Tragic situations like Mixon vs OPD are just as much a result of escalatory, prohibitive Law and Law Enforcement Practice as they are a result of people like Mixon actually being dangerous scumbags. "

    How dare you disrespect the memory ofthe officers that were killed by this ANIMAL. To say that these officers where killed as a result of Police practice and escalatory law.... I can't respond with how I feel because I will probably get banned. They were killed because an ANIMAL had access to a gun and KILLED THEM.
    No, they got killed because this guy wanted to kill those cops and used the most expedient method available, the gun. He could have used poison-laced DMSO on his car door, dry ice bombs, a bow or any other lethal weapon but the rhetoric used in those cases wouldn't be "He had access to frozen carbon dioxide and that is why the cops were killed!" or "He had access to strychnine and a massage parlor and thats why those cops got killed!" or "He had access to that bow and thats why the cops were killed!" To me, that is almost akin to saying that you get cancer because you have access to cigarettes.

    Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Woodland, California, USA
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    CaCop wrote:
    OK, I reevaluated the term "liberty", and I feel the same...what was supposed to happen? Was I supposed to all the sudden think that it would be OK to allow violent criminals to carry concealed legally? Yeah it is a great idea to hand out CCWs without a background check and mandatory training....

    I think that armed, law abiding citizens are a great idea. Giving out CCWs to everyone that asked without checking them out first is irresponsible and will NEVER happen in California.
    1) If a criminal is too violent to trust carrying a concealed weapon, then you better keep him locked up. In case you haven't heard, they ignore 12025 anyhow.

    2) We have no reason to believe that background checks or mandatory training reduce crime or enhance public safety. (If you have some data I'm unaware of, please share it with me.) In fact, CCWs are handed out without background checks (except to make sure you have no felony prohibition) or mandatory training in many states. A few states don't even bother with the permit system (Alaska, Vermont, and soon Arizona).

    3) I agree CA will probably never decriminalize concealed carry in our lifetimes, unless it is forced by the feds, which I think is equally unlikely. We will almost certainly see it get easier, but the system will still be a gross infringement on our rights.
    I agree with CA_Libertarian.
    Violent criminals most likely wont even try to get a CCW in this state because they are going to carry no matter what. I have seen it happen in this town I live in and they just don't care. I know people in all walks of life, from the richest of rich to the poorest of poor. Criminals, cops, dealers, and military its a relatively small town and I know just about everyone. That is why i watch my back everywhere I go and its why i OC in my town. Everyone knows me, I know everyone. Everyone knows my dad is an LEO and everyone knows that I know their secrets. They all carry, ALL THE TIME, no matter what. They know that I will tell the cops exactly where everything they have is, because I respect the officer's safety and I despise people who unlawfully carry. I want to carry legally and they dont care they will anyways. I have been shot at in my town because of my last name......

    I feel that background checks are neccesary however, and that training should be required. I just think that uneducated and thug life style people should not be allowed to concealed carry.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    CaCop wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    I've become so sick of the Law Enforcement State. This whole thing is a viscous cycle where circumstances are exacerbated and truly criminal behavior is created as a self-fulfilling prophecy through the arbitrary assignation of criminal status.

    If there weren't so many damn laws, we wouldn't have so many damn criminals. Tragic situations like Mixon vs OPD are just as much a result of escalatory, prohibitive Law and Law Enforcement Practice as they are a result of people like Mixon actually being dangerous scumbags.

    This isn't making America safer, and it isn't "responsible" for California. The government is only capable of creating problems in our hyper-authoritarian society of Prison Industry and Police Lobbies.

    If we want to make society peaceable and nonaggressive, the first thing we need to do is stop initiating aggressive action against nonaggressive "offenders" at such an unprecedented scale. CCW is inherently not an aggressive act. Therefore, the prohibition of CCW is part of the very system that is tearing our society apart, and leading to violence in the streets. It is neither a "responsible" reaction to violence nor is it somehow any more reasonable, effective, ethical or moral than any other arbitrary, immoral prohibition of nonaggressive behavior.

    /rant
    I had a hard time reading all of your nonsense after I reading this :

    "Tragic situations like Mixon vs OPD are just as much a result of escalatory, prohibitive Law and Law Enforcement Practice as they are a result of people like Mixon actually being dangerous scumbags. "

    How dare you disrespect the memory ofthe officers that were killed by this ANIMAL. To say that these officers where killed as a result of Police practice and escalatory law.... I can't respond with how I feel because I will probably get banned. They were killed because an ANIMAL had access to a gun and KILLED THEM.
    No, they got killed because this guy wanted to kill those cops and used the most expedient method available, the gun. He could have used poison-laced DMSO on his car door, dry ice bombs, a bow or any other lethal weapon but the rhetoric used in those cases wouldn't be "He had access to frozen carbon dioxide and that is why the cops were killed!" or "He had access to strychnine and a massage parlor and thats why those cops got killed!" or "He had access to that bow and thats why the cops were killed!" To me, that is almost akin to saying that you get cancer because you have access to cigarettes.

    Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
    Typical...I capitalize ANIMAL and KILLED THEM. I did this to indicate that they were killed by this animal. Of course you only focus on the part where I mention that he did it with a gun. Of course he could have killed them in many ways. I don't think that your list of imaginative list of ways to murder Police was cute. The method of murder wasn't my point. My point was that they were killed by this animal, not by their tactics or "escalatory Law."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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