AZkopper
Regular Member
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.
<<>>
<<>>
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.
<<>>
