Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Disappointed by California LEO friends--thought I'd share

  1. #1
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Disappointed by California LEO friends--thought I'd share

    I wrote the following letter after the Supreme Court decision in Chicago vs. McDonald. I emailed it to over 20 law enforcement acquaintances in California, including two L.A. County chief of police, several lieutenants, and over a dozen sergeants and patrolmen. Sadly, not even one responded. As an ex-California law enforcement officer, I am appalled that out of twenty emails sent, no one would even have a disucssion on it or acknowledge it. These are people I knew personally, and kept in contact regularly through email or FaceBook. It really opened my eyes to the California mindset of law enforcement that I walked away from years ago. I thought I’d share it with you guys:

    <<>>
    I am writing this to all my California law enforcement friends, to challenge you to live up to your oath of office, to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

    I am arguing that CPC 12031 is a violation of Civil Rights.

    The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental Right (akin to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure).

    As a Fundamental Right, the Court ruled only 'Reasonable Restrictions' with compelling government interest may infringe upon it (such as prohibitions on felons, mentally ill, and locations such as gov't buildings and schools).

    I view this ruling against CPC12031 (possession of loaded firearms in public).

    The Court has said that a state may REGULATE how firearms are carried, but they may not ban it. Unlicensed open carry of firearms has been the norm in this nation since before its inception, and is still the norm in over 30 states. Several states have ‘Carry Permits’ (concealed or open), bringing the total states that allow citizens to regularly carry firearms to 43 states. Numerous state constitutions and courts have always declared that while open carry is a right, the states may ban or regulate concealed carry.

    California has declined to have a fair and equitable 'shall issue' concealed weapons license that is available to everyone. Instead, CCW’s are issued by regional police or sheriffs. CCW's are few and far between, usually given to campaign donors or friends. Open Carry was legal in California until the 1960’s, when it was banned for racial reasons (the Black Panther party marching on Sacramento). By not creating a fair and equitable process to allow people to carry concealed weapons (and thereby allowing regulation of bearing arms to those with said permits), and by banning unlicensed open carry (PC12031), California law is denying a Fundamental Right, as decided by McDonald vs. Chicago.

    If a person chooses to exercise his Fundamental Rights in your city, by openly carrying a loaded firearm in a holster, are you going to detain or arrest him on that mere fact? Are you going to order subordinates to do so? You can’t very well tell him he should have gotten a permit first, since your police department is not going to issue one to him. The fact that the government is not going to exercise its duty to reasonably regulate a Right, does not prohibit a person from exercising that Right.

    California police officers can no longer hide behind the fallacy that people do not have a Right to Bear Arms. The Supreme Court has ruled people do have that Right. To arrest a person for openly carrying a firearm, when no provision is made to reasonably regulate it, is a Civil Rights Violation. Every officer swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. State law does not trump the Constitution.

    Some might argue you can “get away with it”, because the law is the law. Or some might say that it is not a violation of civil rights until a court says otherwise. If that is the given defense to this matter, I would argue that those that would make such an argument are no better than those State Troopers in Alabama in the 1960’s who upheld segregation, or no better than a Gestapo, and have violated their oath.

    Thank you.

    <<>>

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    210
    I haven't seen much evidence that there are many police left in places like California who actually care about any kind of rights at all.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by JesseL View Post
    I haven't seen much evidence that there are many police left in places like California who actually care about any kind of rights at all.
    First, you are talking about a communistic state. Yes, harsh words but ever more true every day. Unarguable. Law enforcement has plenty of crimes to deal with. DEAL WITH CRIMINALS! DO YOUR JOB! I promise you their is plenty to do. A thought. Leave the legal american citizen who supports 2A alone. It is our constitutional right. Oh, but this is California.

  4. #4
    28kfps
    Guest
    Nice try. It is said when you did not get the professional consideration of not one reply. Too bad there is not an organization of like-minded California officers that does not have to worry about job security and possible repercussions. An e-mail sent from a supporting group instead of a single person may have stirred up a better result.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by bed92186 View Post
    First, you are talking about a communistic state. Yes, harsh words but ever more true every day. Unarguable. Law enforcement has plenty of crimes to deal with. DEAL WITH CRIMINALS! DO YOUR JOB! I promise you their is plenty to do. A thought. Leave the legal american citizen who supports 2A alone. It is our constitutional right. Oh, but this is California.
    But it is easier to harass the law abiding rather than the criminals...
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    I wrote the following letter after the Supreme Court decision in Chicago vs. McDonald. I emailed it to over 20 law enforcement acquaintances in California, including two L.A. County chief of police, several lieutenants, and over a dozen sergeants and patrolmen. Sadly, not even one responded. As an ex-California law enforcement officer, I am appalled that out of twenty emails sent, no one would even have a disucssion on it or acknowledge it. These are people I knew personally, and kept in contact regularly through email or FaceBook. It really opened my eyes to the California mindset of law enforcement that I walked away from years ago. I thought I’d share it with you guys:

    <<>>
    I am writing this to all my California law enforcement friends, to challenge you to live up to your oath of office, to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

    I am arguing that CPC 12031 is a violation of Civil Rights.

    The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental Right (akin to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure).

    As a Fundamental Right, the Court ruled only 'Reasonable Restrictions' with compelling government interest may infringe upon it (such as prohibitions on felons, mentally ill, and locations such as gov't buildings and schools).

    I view this ruling against CPC12031 (possession of loaded firearms in public).

    The Court has said that a state may REGULATE how firearms are carried, but they may not ban it. Unlicensed open carry of firearms has been the norm in this nation since before its inception, and is still the norm in over 30 states. Several states have ‘Carry Permits’ (concealed or open), bringing the total states that allow citizens to regularly carry firearms to 43 states. Numerous state constitutions and courts have always declared that while open carry is a right, the states may ban or regulate concealed carry.

    California has declined to have a fair and equitable 'shall issue' concealed weapons license that is available to everyone. Instead, CCW’s are issued by regional police or sheriffs. CCW's are few and far between, usually given to campaign donors or friends. Open Carry was legal in California until the 1960’s, when it was banned for racial reasons (the Black Panther party marching on Sacramento). By not creating a fair and equitable process to allow people to carry concealed weapons (and thereby allowing regulation of bearing arms to those with said permits), and by banning unlicensed open carry (PC12031), California law is denying a Fundamental Right, as decided by McDonald vs. Chicago.

    If a person chooses to exercise his Fundamental Rights in your city, by openly carrying a loaded firearm in a holster, are you going to detain or arrest him on that mere fact? Are you going to order subordinates to do so? You can’t very well tell him he should have gotten a permit first, since your police department is not going to issue one to him. The fact that the government is not going to exercise its duty to reasonably regulate a Right, does not prohibit a person from exercising that Right.

    California police officers can no longer hide behind the fallacy that people do not have a Right to Bear Arms. The Supreme Court has ruled people do have that Right. To arrest a person for openly carrying a firearm, when no provision is made to reasonably regulate it, is a Civil Rights Violation. Every officer swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. State law does not trump the Constitution.

    Some might argue you can “get away with it”, because the law is the law. Or some might say that it is not a violation of civil rights until a court says otherwise. If that is the given defense to this matter, I would argue that those that would make such an argument are no better than those State Troopers in Alabama in the 1960’s who upheld segregation, or no better than a Gestapo, and have violated their oath.

    Thank you.

    <<>>
    Good letter AZ kopper,

    And thanks for trying to help us kalifornian's out too.
    But even though " They are( Not bound) by their oath to enforce unconstitutional laws",
    most I think are threatened with there Jobs if they don't do what their told.
    There's not many free people here in Cal.
    Many free thinking people are moving out, In your lingo its "Getting the H#$$ out of Dodge".

    The truth is Kalifornia is a "Test State" if (whoever) can control 30 million people in this state
    then the thinking goes, the rest would be a cake walk.
    Yes we OCers here are on the front line.( 12031e ) .
    One good Sheriff in a county could change much of that. Two or three, joining would even be better.
    Sheriff Richard Mack is an example of a great sheriff. He was from AZ.

    The repercussions of not keeping their oath and not using common sense, will also sink their ship.
    With all the crime that's picking up, and people wanting to protect themselves from muggers and robbers
    they will start demanding their right to do so. And LEO's in the middle.
    The LEO's in Cal will have to make up their mind who are they going to serve ?

    The "Oath" they took by the way was "To Their God and to the People" I was once a
    " Peace Officer" myself for DOD.

    Thanks again AZkopper, and carry on Bro ! Robin47

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Could it be? a Cop I like?

    I'm not as closed-minded as many would say.

Posting Permissions

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