AB-357 on Officer.com

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. :uhoh:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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."

imported post

I'm not sure calling a member of the species Homo sapiens an "animal" is really constructive, but then that's one aspect to the "viscous cycle" I was referring to earlier. Even bad people have human thoughts. It certainly doesn't justify their behavior, but ignoring this reality doesn't help us avert future tragedy. Which, believe it or not, is what I would like to see.

Sure, those cops were killed by a person who should not have been in society. But what kind of sense does it make to tell dangerous people they can be free -- just so long as they don't possess weapons (when we know they're likely to possess weapons regardless) -- and then arrest them for exercising that freedom just as soon as they have it?

Prison is no longer about rehabilitation, it's role has been reduced to merely locking "animals" away from society. This is because a great many of those "animals" (I'm not referring to Mixon here) are actually in prison for crimes which do not constitute acts of aggression, thus no "rehabilitation" is possible. However, since the system does not "rehabilitate" and it is overfilled with people who do not need to be locked up, there is strong incentive to release prisoners on parole. Since the system has already confused the "animals" with the merely statutorily guilty, it is unable to later differentiate between the two groups when it comes time to parole (some of) them. In effect, the system now fails to accomplish the meager task its role has been reduced to.

In this case, Mixon wasn't a cop killer until he was about to be re-arrested. He clearly wasn't deemed trustworthy to possess firearms, yet he was released into society where nothing substantial prevented him from doing just that.

So, yes, when you consider the totality of the numerous errors committed by our current system with regards to the incarceration and/or rehabilitation of Mixon, I believe assigning some blame to escalatory law and Law Enforcement practice is quite reasonable.

This does not mitigate the blame which falls upon Mixon. Blame does not work that way. Multiple evils may be done which inflame, rather than mitigate, the overall undesirableness of the final outcome.

There is room to fix errors in the system. Every problem is not attributable to "animals" in society. Maybe Mixon could have been rehabilitated, maybe not. Either way, the system failed: it didn't rehabilitate, and it didn't keep him removed from society in case that rehabilitation was impossible.

And it's not like the system didn't have a chance. The guy was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, for f***s sake.


Edited for clarity of ideas.

imported post

CaCop wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

Capitalizing choice words doesn't detract from the underlying meaning of your thoughts. I like to think that I can see the web that has no weaver (shamelessly stolen from one of my favorite books, The Web That Has No Weaver by Ted Kaptchuk) and that I am able to see what lies beneath.

I never thought that my morbid thoughts could be considered "cute" in any capacity... intriguing.

imported post

Marshaul,

I began formulating a response to your...thoughts. I just erased it. I doubt anything I say to you will do any good. I strongly disagree with just about everything you wrote. The only thing we agree on is that the ANIMAL should have never been released. Death was too good for him.

As much as I enjoy stimulating conversation, I am coming to realize that some of the things I read here anger my to such a point that I need to move on. I feel sorry for the young men and woman who listen to nonsense such as yours and take it to heart.

imported post

CaCop wrote:

Marshaul,

I began formulating a response to your...thoughts. I just erased it. I doubt anything I say to you will do any good. I strongly disagree with just about everything you wrote. The only thing we agree on is that the ANIMAL should have never been released. Death was too good for him.

As much as I enjoy stimulating conversation, I am coming to realize that some of the things I read here anger my to such a point that I need to move on. I feel sorry for the young men and woman who listen to nonsense such as yours and take it to heart.

Click to expand...

The song "Laid" by James comes to mind while reading this, though it is only one line...

You're driving me crazy, when are you coming home?

imported post

I don't see any disrespect of the officers involved in the shooting in that quote. I see a comment about the underlying cause that drove Mixon to the state where he started killing people, but I just can't wrap my mind around that being disrespectful. If Joe punches Fred, talking about why Joe punched Fred isn't disrespecting Fred, to oversimplify it.

Furthermore, Mixon was no more animal than you, me, or any other person. Denying his humanity, regardless of his actions, is the only really disrespectful thing I see going on here. He's a human that had come unhinged needed to be put to death, clearly, but he was still human.

Your temper concerns me considerably, considering that you're in law enforcement, and I worry for those whom you encounter that aggravate you, if you're reduced to being unable to continue civil conversation so easily. Also, I couldn't help but notice that you received an even worse response in that other forum you linked a few days ago, where the people were outright insulting. If you're getting responses like that on all the forums you go to, there's only one common factor.

I sincerely encourage you to seek counseling, or at least take a vacation, you seem to be wound tighter than a spring.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I'm not sure calling a member of the species Homo sapiens an "animal" is really constructive...

Click to expand...

Well, homo sapiens are among the kingdom animalia. So, "animal" is a technically correct term. Of course, that was cacop's intended use of the term. And I agree that name-calling doesn't contribute much to the discussion of causality.

Our 'criminal justice' system is broken. Let's not let emotions over this incident prevent us from focusing on the cause.

imported post

I fail to see how my comments are disrespectful.

Four police officers were killed in the line of duty, and I bring up my views on how the system they swore to serve failed them and contributed to the circumstances which ultimately lead to their tragic and preventable deaths, and I'm being disrespectful?

I agree with NightOwl; far more disrespectful (and counterproductive) is your implication that criminal behavior renders a person subhuman and any attempts to analyze his behavior futile. This is simply not a correct view you possess, objectively speaking.

I find it interesting that you enjoy "stimulating" conversation, until you come across a person with a radically different worldview from your own, at which point you become incoherent with rage.

I suspect there is too much truth in my words, of a nature that simply precludes acceptance from someone in your state of denial about the system you serve. The conflict this causes (unwanted truth vs. denial) is what leads to your anger, despite your "usual" "enjoyment" of "stimulating" conversation.

Notice nobody else ran screaming out of the thread and made a new one crying about how they're quitting the forum, even though I'm sure many disagree with some of the things I write.

imported post

I get a kick out this!! The "good cause" malarkey is booted but the applicant still has to "prove" he/she is of "good moral character"!! Now you KNOW without having to be told that any sheriff who does not want to issue CCWs will hang'm all up with that "proof of good moral character" phrase. It is, of course, flat out impossible to "prove" one is of "good moral character".

imported post

fighting_for_freedom wrote:

bigtoe416 wrote:

SNIP:

Click to expand...

No police officers I know outside of the ones on this forum have shown any support for open carry. I

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

LAME!!!

imported post

CaCop wrotez;

"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."



Well, it seems to work just fine in Vt. and AK.

imported post

HariCarry wrote:

fighting_for_freedom wrote:

bigtoe416 wrote:

SNIP:

Click to expand...

No police officers I know outside of the ones on this forum have shown any support for open carry. I

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

LAME!!!

Click to expand...

Lame how, I must ask?

Oh, and by the way, I must add that I've always tried to use constructive criticism and debate to get my point across. The single word 'lame' doesn't quite measure up as an argument.

imported post

fighting_for_freedom wrote:

HariCarry wrote:

LAME!!!

Click to expand...

Lame how, I must ask?

Oh, and by the way, I must add that I've always tried to use constructive criticism and debate to get my point across. The single word 'lame' doesn't quite measure up as an argument.

Click to expand...

It's called trolling. Just ignore it.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

It's called trolling. Just ignore it.

Click to expand...

Good point. Shoulda figured it out myself, I guess.