Results 1 to 11 of 11

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 acknowledge the email or have a discussion. 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 Id 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, CCWs 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 1960s, 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 cant 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 1960s who upheld segregation, or no better than a Gestapo, and have violated their oath.

    Thank you.

    <<>>

  2. #2
    Regular Member ryanburbridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Long beach ca, , USA
    Posts
    299
    Well said and thank you. It is a sad day.

    WE the PEOPLE must stand against up against TYRANNY NOW!

    If not now when?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    83
    Very well said!
    I can't believe that ab144 is up ban open carry and we are now allowed to get CCW's, but California will say CCW's are legal to have so we are not infringing on your rights to bear arms.
    But it's impossible to get one!!!

  4. #4
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    AZkopper - Thank you for your help and support

  5. #5
    Regular Member Mike Hunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    293
    Well put, AZkopper! Nice to know there are still cops out there who believe in Constitutional freedom. Bummer that none of these guys replied though.

  6. #6
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    My only disagreement in your letter is on the "regulation of a right." Once a right is regulated, it is no longer a right. It is a privilege. And that is practically where we are today. Once it is unquestionably treated as a privilege, that privilege will soon be taken away.

    The SCOTUS ruled wrongly on the state telling its citizens what method one is to carry. The Constitution does not state how one may "bear" his firearm. It only states that he has the right to bear a firearm. The decision on how should be left up to the person carrying.

    The last thing I will contend for is the state has no right to charge a fee or issue a license or permit to carry. Rights are free from any hindrances.
    Last edited by CenTex; 01-18-2011 at 12:19 AM.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  7. #7
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by CenTex View Post
    My only disagreement in your letter is on the "regulation of a right." Once a right is regulated, it is no longer a right. It is a privilege. And that is practically where we are today. Once it is unquestionably treated as a privilege, that privilege will soon be taken away.

    The SCOTUS ruled wrongly on the state telling its citizens what method one is to carry. The Constitution does not state how one may "bear" his firearm. It only states that he has the right to bear a firearm. The decision on how should be left up to the person carrying.
    I agree with you 100%, however I was directing this letter to California LEO's, and using the wording of the MacDonald ruling to support my arguement. The nuanced difference in argument was needed, otherwise it would have been like arguing that salt water tanks are better than fresh water tanks, to someone who hates fish.

  8. #8
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    I agree with you 100%, however I was directing this letter to California LEO's, and using the wording of the MacDonald ruling to support my arguement. The nuanced difference in argument was needed, otherwise it would have been like arguing that salt water tanks are better than fresh water tanks, to someone who hates fish.
    Thank you for your clarification and your great support. Your former position should have at least some LEOs thinking...if that means anything in today's PC world.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by CenTex View Post
    My only disagreement in your letter is on the "regulation of a right." Once a right is regulated, it is no longer a right. It is a privilege. And that is practically where we are today. Once it is unquestionably treated as a privilege, that privilege will soon be taken away.

    The SCOTUS ruled wrongly on the state telling its citizens what method one is to carry. The Constitution does not state how one may "bear" his firearm. It only states that he has the right to bear a firearm. The decision on how should be left up to the person carrying.

    The last thing I will contend for is the state has no right to charge a fee or issue a license or permit to carry. Rights are free from any hindrances.
    Yes Thank you! I was beginning to think that many did not care about the outrageous fees to obtain licenses that "allow" you to excersise a Right. This is akin to tax laws aimed at preventing votes. I do have a firearm permit for use with Security and sometimes I think those fees are even excessive.

  10. #10
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Nice letter AZkopper. Clearly its not an accident you're "AZkopper" instead of "PRKkopper".

    ETA: Care to come back and run for Riverside County Sheriff? Just thought I'd ask.
    Last edited by coolusername2007; 01-18-2011 at 11:55 PM.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  11. #11
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    Nice letter AZkopper. Clearly its not an accident you're "AZkopper" instead of "PRKkopper".

    ETA: Care to come back and run for Riverside County Sheriff? Just thought I'd ask.
    It would take a court order and an armed (forced) escort to get me to go back. But thanks for asking.

Posting Permissions

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