LAPD believes only police should have the right to protect their bodies with body armor

imported post

From: TheNixleTeam@emails.nixle.com
Date: December 24, 2009 12:xx:xx PM PST
To: xxxxxxx
Subject: Notification from the LAPD Headquarters

Hi xxxxxx

Community Message has been issued by the LAPD Headquarters.

Thursday December 24, 2009 12:xx PM PST


On February 29, 1997, the calm of the morning in North Hollywood was shattered by the sounds of automatic gunfire

The following letter was sent to the The Honorable Edmond G. Brown Jr. of the CA Office of the Attorney from Chief Charlie Beck:

On February 29, 1997, the calm of the morning in North Hollywood was shattered by the sounds of automatic gunfire as two heavily-armed and armored men left a bank they had just robbed. Plans for a quick getaway were thwarted by responding Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers. Over the next 44-minutes, brave men and women of the LAPD engaged Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu in a ferocious gun battle that eventually left ten police officers and five people injured. It also led to the deaths of the two bank robbers.

The two bank robbers were no strangers to violence, having robbed several other banks prior to their attempt in North Hollywood. Besides carrying fully automatic rifles with ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor, they were also wearing military grade body armor. The carnage on the streets of North Hollywood that day was a wake-up call then and a reminder today of the dangers of allowing convicted violent felons to have access to body armor.

The law prohibiting convicted felons from wearing or possessing body armor was passed by the California State Legislature in 1998 as a measure to protect police officers and those in our communities from violent felons who are increasingly using high-powered firearms. The need for this law is evermore present today.

In 2008, in the City of Los Angeles, four LAPD officers came under unprovoked gunfire attack. In 2009, that number doubled with eight LAPD officers being randomly fired upon. Over the past year alone, there have been seven incidents of officers being fired upon. The increasing number of assaults with deadly weapons against our frontline public safety defenders is a clear indication that we cannot give violent felons the upper hand.

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY – AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER www.LAPDOnline.org www.joinLAPD.com


Last week’s Second District Court of Appeals to overturn the 1998 law gives violent criminals the upper hand. There is an absolute need for a ban on these types of body armor for anyone other than law enforcement personnel or law enforcement related personnel. I urge you to immediately appeal the Second District Court of Appeals decision. The men and women defending public safety across the state and the people of California deserve no less.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, or have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact my Public Information Director, Ms. Mary Grady at (213) 486-5900.

Very truly yours,
CHARLIE BECK Chief of Police

For full details, go to http://local.nixle.com/alert/635979/

Contact Information:

imported post

Well, you can't carry a loaded gun w/o a permit in CA soit makes sense you shouldn't have body armor either. The only people who need body armor are cops because no one else ever gets shot.

imported post

public employees should not be using their employment situation to further their political ends.

imported post

Here is a link to a news article explaining the Court of Appeals decision: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-body-armor20-2009dec20,0,5869498.story

I see it was a ban on "violent felons." I don't know if that really means all felons or just the violent ones.

Anyway, I know here in North Carolina, it is only illegal to possess or wear body armor in the commission of a crime. Well, that's fine with me. Us LAC's won't be committing any crimes.

Anyway, I remember that shootout very well going down in L.A. I even remember the old cop show "High Incident" (apparently the perps in the real life shoot out were called the High Incident Bandits) created their last episode as their own retelling of this event. I don't mind the officers carrying high-powered rifles, in fact, they should. If they had that and perhaps some decent optics, that firefight would have last far shorter than it actually did whether or not the perpetrators had body armor or not.

Here in North Carolina, several of the stage agencies, NC SBI (State Bureau of Investigation), Highway Patrol, and ALE (Alcohol Law Enforcement) carry patrol rifles. Even some of the police and sheriff's departments authorize their officers to carry a patrol rifle if it meets their specifications and the officer can qualify with it.

I don't have body armor, but that is because it is expensive. I have looked and priced and wouldn't mind having one if SHTF down the road.

imported post

ilbob wrote:

public employees should not be using their employment situation to further their political ends.

Click to expand...

ding, ding, ding....Bingo!!!!

imported post

The more crime, the bigger police department budgets become. A self fulfilling prophecy for empire building control freaks who want to lord over a disarmed citizenry. They don't care about us, they only care about growing and extending their own power and maintaining exclusivity of it.

This is particularly true in liberal jurisdictions where armed criminals roam free while we are legislated into cowering in fear, unarmed, at the whim and fancy of violent felons. We, the lawful, are reduced to nothing more than pawns in liberal utopias where thugs own the streets, knowing we have no way to push back on them and cops love out of control crime, driving ever expanding budgets for them and their fraternity.

I am so glad I left California for the USA. Here in northern Nevada everyone carries legally, and I never feel worried for my safety.

I do hope one day Calguns and others fighting the good fight pushes back on the liberals who insist on lording over citizens, I eagerly await the day when I can travel in the state in which I was born and be able to carry the tools necessary to protect myself from the rotten fruits of decades of utterly failed liberal social engineering.

imported post

Which is why I was sort of hoping the Thune ammendment would pass.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea of trumping state authority on certain issues.

But at least that law was aimed at protecting some freedom and rights instead of the steady erosion most other laws accomplish.

I would have loved to be able to have my CPL recognized in states like Hawaii, and California.

imported post

If states have to take each other's ID cards, drivers licenses and have to observe marriages performed in other states, they should have to recognize concealed carry permits as well.

LIberal counties in California hand out concealed carry permits in return for bribes (Sheriff reelection campaign fund) or if you're famous (Sean Penn) even if you have a history of violence as he does which technically disqualifies the applicant. At the very least they should be forced under the guise of equal protection to be forced to "shall issue" to those who are not objectively disqualified, the subjectivity should be removed from the process, it facilitates statewide (in liberal jurisdictions) corruption and a denial of rights. Conservative counties in California are already essentially shall issue and sheriffs in those counties don't run the CCW application process like a shakedown racket or old boys club. The county sheriffs in liberal jurisdictions should not look upon concealed carry permit applicants as an ATM for their reelection campaign fund.

Most people in California simply carry concealed without a permit. I know for a fact my now deceased grandfather did for well over 50 years without incident.

imported post

wayneco wrote:

If states have to take each other's ID cards, drivers licenses and have to observe marriages performed in other states, they should have to recognize concealed carry permits as well.

LIberal counties in California hand out concealed carry permits in return for bribes or if you're famous. At the very least they should be forced under the guise of equal protection to be forced to shall issue. The county sheriff should not look upon concealed carry permit applicants as an ATM for their reelection campaign fund.

Most people in California simply carry concealed without a permit. I know for a fact my now deceased grandfather did for well over 50 years without incident.

Click to expand...

I would agree. Except for a few differences. We pay federal taxes when we buy gasoline that is supposed to help our interstate highways. As of yet I cannot make a connection with how the current system is set up where the Fed. has the authority to force states to accept Concealed permits.

Especially since we have our states and Feds current belief that the 2nd ammendment only applies to the federal government, which is a total perversion of our constitution.What part ofinalienable rights do they not understand?

Also concealed carry is "the priveledge" while open carry is traditionally the "right".

imported post

How do you explain states accepting each other's marriage licenses then?

That has nothing to do with federal highway funds.

Incorporation is going to be a bitch for those who have grown accustomed to lording over us and wholesale infringing on our 2nd A rights. I hope these dark days will one day be past us.

I only really came to understand how screwed up and invasive California's gun laws were when I moved to Nevada 10 years ago and compared their 200 pages of gun laws to Nevada's few (about 10) pages and that was the moment I truly became a 2A rights activist.

If more native Californians who own guns were educated as to the level of infringement they suffer they might all become activists. One of the best ways to do that is to compare and contrast that with the comparative lack of gun laws in adjoining free states like Nevada.

imported post

wayneco wrote:

How do you explain states accepting each other's marriage licenses then?

Click to expand...

Good point!

I don't believe state or Federal government has any business with the religous institution of mairrage.

I myself am looking forward to incorporation. But believe our government already have in the works back door gun control by other methods.

imported post

You shouldn't be allowed to have body armor because that makes it harder to kill you when the time comes. Bottom line.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

You shouldn't be allowed to have body armor because that makes it harder to kill you when the time comes. Bottom line.

Click to expand...

Pretty much.

imported post

Remember kids, the general public is composed entirely of violent felons.

imported post

I see the perfect police chief was chosen by Mayor Villar. One that will get as many law-abiding citizens maimed and killed as possible.

imported post

I really P.O.ed an LEO one time who was telling me everyone is guiltyandsomething it's just a matter of catching them. So asked him what he was doing and who was going to catch him.

imported post

tekshogun wrote:

here in North Carolina, it is only legal to possess or wear body armor in the commission of a crime.

Click to expand...

Yikes. That is a weird law. :shock:

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Well, you can't carry a loaded gun w/o a permit in CA soit makes sense you shouldn't have body armor either. The only people who need body armor are cops because no one else ever gets shot.

Click to expand...

The reason you can't carry a loaded gun is because the racist wanted to stop the Black Panthers, who used to carry loaded shotguns.

imported post

wayneco wrote:

How do you explain states accepting each other's marriage licenses then?

Click to expand...

They don't always.

imported post

buster81 wrote:

tekshogun wrote:

 here in North Carolina, it is only legal to possess or wear body armor in the commission of a crime.

Click to expand...

Yikes. That is a weird law. :shock:

 

Click to expand...

Whoa, I get a little dyslexic when posting on these forums.

Sorry about that...

tekshogun wrote:

here in North Carolina, it is only illegal to possess or wear body armor in the commission of a crime.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...