Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Once again, the LEO's prove they do not care about Citizen's Rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    Believe the 'spokeshole' for the California State Sheriffs' Association just said,

    "AB 357 not only removes the good cause requirement but it also requires, rather than authorizes, a sheriff to issue the applicant a concealed weapon permit if the applicant meets other requirements. The removal of law enforcement discretion sets a dangerous precedent, particularly in regards to firearm possession."

    Not sure who said 'cops are caught in the middle' butthat is a complete falsehood. 'Peace Officers' (as a whole) do not have any desire forCitizens to excercise their fundamental Rights. They do not want an armed Citizenry How many times must 'they' broadcast to u, that they simply do not care about u the Citizen Master?

    The Cal Const, recognizes the U.S. cont is the sup law of the land. Where doesit say in u must beg the guvt for a piece of paper to have ur guaranteed and protect Right? If they cannot adhere to their oath to support, affirm, protect the constitution(s)...then simply resign.

    here's another fine recent example of a 'peace officer' w/ an apparent Napoleon complex.(LOL) http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=10216950

  2. #2
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    You gotta ask yourself this when reading something like that.

    Where in the hell do the police get off by questioning citizens possessing arms? Who do the hell do they think they are? Do they not know they work for us?

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Rayce Bannon wrote:
    Believe the 'spokeshole' for the California State Sheriffs' Association just said,

    "AB 357 not only removes the good cause requirement but it also requires, rather than authorizes, a sheriff to issue the applicant a concealed weapon permit if the applicant meets other requirements. The removal of law enforcement discretion sets a dangerous precedent, particularly in regards to firearm possession."

    Not sure who said 'cops are caught in the middle' butthat is a complete falsehood. 'Peace Officers' (as a whole) do not have any desire forCitizens to excercise their fundamental Rights. They do not want an armed Citizenry How many times must 'they' broadcast to u, that they simply do not care about u the Citizen Master?

    The Cal Const, recognizes the U.S. cont is the sup law of the land. Where doesit say in u must beg the guvt for a piece of paper to have ur guaranteed and protect Right? If they cannot adhere to their oath to support, affirm, protect the constitution(s)...then simply resign.

    here's another fine recent example of a 'peace officer' w/ an apparent Napoleon complex. (LOL) http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=10216950
    Cite please that shows that.. and I quote...

    " 'Peace Officers' (as a whole) do not have any desire forCitizens to excercise their fundamental Rights. "


    I happen to know you are wrong here. I know of only 1 guy that feels that way and I know hundreds more that don't.

    I get what was being said by the spokesman too.

    If you shall issue permits then anyone can get one and there are people out there that probably should not have them.

    There is a laundry list of reasons why people are disqualified. People that are simply dangerous but have not committed a felony.. yet. Petty criminals and chronic drunks.

    I do not make the decisions on who gets a permit. But I like knowing that there is some type of check in place to stop a few from getting it that should not.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    You gotta ask yourself this when reading something like that.

    Where in the hell do the police get off by questioning citizens possessing arms? Who do the hell do they think they are? Do they not know they work for us?
    I do not work for you.

    I work for the CLEO and he works for the board of supervisors and they work for you.



    I will agree that I work for you when you sign my paycheck and can grant me a raise.

    Because you pay federal taxes.. does that mean the FBI works for you too?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Rayce Bannon wrote:
    Believe the 'spokeshole' for the California State Sheriffs' Association just said,

    "AB 357 not only removes the good cause requirement but it also requires, rather than authorizes, a sheriff to issue the applicant a concealed weapon permit if the applicant meets other requirements. The removal of law enforcement discretion sets a dangerous precedent, particularly in regards to firearm possession."

    Not sure who said 'cops are caught in the middle' butthat is a complete falsehood. 'Peace Officers' (as a whole) do not have any desire forCitizens to excercise their fundamental Rights. They do not want an armed Citizenry How many times must 'they' broadcast to u, that they simply do not care about u the Citizen Master?

    The Cal Const, recognizes the U.S. cont is the sup law of the land. Where doesit say in u must beg the guvt for a piece of paper to have ur guaranteed and protect Right? If they cannot adhere to their oath to support, affirm, protect the constitution(s)...then simply resign.

    here's another fine recent example of a 'peace officer' w/ an apparent Napoleon complex. (LOL) http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=10216950
    Cite please that shows that.. and I quote...

    " 'Peace Officers' (as a whole) do not have any desire forCitizens to excercise their fundamental Rights. "


    I happen to know you are wrong here. I know of only 1 guy that feels that way and I know hundreds more that don't.

    I get what was being said by the spokesman too.

    If you shall issue permits then anyone can get one and there are people out there that probably should not have them.

    There is a laundry list of reasons why people are disqualified. People that are simply dangerous but have not committed a felony.. yet. Petty criminals and chronic drunks.

    I do not make the decisions on who gets a permit. But I like knowing that there is some type of check in place to stop a few from getting it that should not.
    The peace officer quote is 'mine' - my opinon. If we r going to regulate fundamental Rights....then let's regulate all Rights. Who u can enter into wholly matroney, who can vote, who can 'speak', etc. I don't care 'what u like'....the fed const does not read, "right to bear arms but only by whou say."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    You gotta ask yourself this when reading something like that.

    Where in the hell do the police get off by questioning citizens possessing arms? Who do the hell do they think they are? Do they not know they work for us?
    I do not work for you.

    I work for the CLEO and he works for the board of supervisors and they work for you.



    I will agree that I work for you when you sign my paycheck and can grant me a raise.

    Because you pay federal taxes.. does that mean the FBI works for you too?

    If u r paid by a 'treasury' or 'state of whatever' then the people funding that treasury is ur servant. btw, who is the 'they' u speak of. Also mr. CLEO...please tell me does the state/ fed const trump mere administrative codes?

    Most copsr worthless. Unfortunately, it's just the way it is. The LEO generally don't know the law if ithit them in the face. they do not know thedifference between an administrative code and a law. And if an administrative code is UNlawful. copsr worthless...lol.



  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    No police bashing, please.

    Please see the forum rules.

    Separately, the information I have is that many police chiefs and pretty much all sheriffs are politicians first, cops second. I am told by more than one LEO that the average cop supports 2A rights. Its their bosses, the chiefs and sheriffs, that do not.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    No police bashing, please.

    Please see the forum rules.

    Separately, the information I have is that many police chiefs and pretty much all sheriffs are politicians first, cops second. I am told by more than one LEO that the average cop supports 2A rights. Its their bosses, the chiefs and sheriffs, that do not.
    Amajor legal decision that would hav upheld our fundamental Rightsof Citizens was turned down because the sheriffs clearly do not want the average Citizen to excercise their Rights....and u want menot tomention it? LOL

    UnfortunatelyLEO are a major part of the problem. A major part. there is no 2 ways to slice it.Banning this debate is kinda rediculous.Cops can turn their backs and ignore illegal aliens but arrestCitizens excercising Rights? LOL

    If a cop has a problem w/ their bosses, the chiefs, and the sheriffs, then the cop should resign. Selling out the public for a paycheck is pathedic!

    Re-read ur rules. Did not see anything about bashing worthless cops who will not respect the Citizen's fundamental Right to protect themselves with whatever means necessary. I understand it's ur forum but...c'mon but letting cops off the hook for being spinless is kinda rediculous.



Posting Permissions

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