I strongly support concealed weapon permits...
Too bad those who (rarely) issue them in the State of California do so at one-tenth the rate as are issued throughout the United States as a whole.
...and am disappointed in the difficulties in acquiring them. Concealed weapon wearing civilians would ACTUALLY be effective in response, should they choose, to a critical violent event....
Then why do most law enforcement officers open carry?
Unlike OCers, who would simply be targeted first or have their unloaded weapon taken from them.
Then why do nearly all street cops OC?
Why would I review, or give a crap, about MWG calls in Arizona?
Because they're approaching the issues at most levels appropriately, while California is not.
Did you not read my post about different environments. I only know California
If you only know California, how in the world can you claim the Arizona is a different environment? The rates of violent and property crime are very similar. Both AZ and CA have gangs.
I'm only responsible for LE supervision in California.
As a supervisor, you should be better informed. Throughout my 20 years of service on active duty military, we did not "know only" U.S. military tactics. We studied the tactics of other militaries, both friend and foe, as well as what to expect among the general populace. To do anything less would have been foolish.
And unless you've done what I've done and seen what I've seen over these last nearly 3 decades, your opinion is not going to carry to much weight with me...
I find that rather pompous. I could cite 5 decades, similar to what you're doing, but on a more global scale. However, I don't count my childhood and teen years, so it's just three decades of adulthood.
And over the last 3 years, I've gotten on your forum about 6 times. Each time, when an opinion differing from the site norm is given, the "Troll" title is tossed out.
As a long-term (26 years) forum administrator, I've seen the term "troll" brought out in response to most posts which go against the general grain of the forums, particularly if it's from a person with a low post count. It's not good form, and is fallacious argument, but people do it anyway. To correct the perception, however, you might stick around for a while, do some interaction, and get to know us as human beings. It's not a sure-fire solution, as there are folks here with high post counts who nevertheless get the "troll" label tossed at them when they disagree with the general mindset of the forum. I've been slapped with the "troll" label both here as well as on officer.com, even though I have never fit the technical definition of a troll.
What the hell do you people call this a forum for???
We call it a forum for the rational, intelligent, and dispassionate discussion of open carry.
I'm trying to give some insight into a perspective few of you share.
And we're trying to give you some insight into a perspective some law enforcement types don't share.
If you don't welcome that...
Are you welcoming our insight? Our perspectives? Our experiences? I've been carrying firearms for 23 years, both on and off duty, OC and CC, and have been shooting since I was nine (hence my username). That's 39 years of experience with firearms, and twenty years of safe and effective employment of various military weapons systems, including nuclear weapons.
Would you say my insight, perspective, and experience are worth your attention?
I'm not going to disrespect my fine brothers and sisters in Arizona law enforcement. That said, I would imagine they would disproportionately agree with these two positions: 1) California law enforcement officers, ON THE WHOLE, are better trained and are tactically sound with the latest in dynamic response to critical events.
I agree you're well-trained to tackled hoards of bad guys. How well are you trained with respect to handling good guys? i.e. law-abiding citizens who're lawfully-carrying a legal firearm? What what I've been able to discern, not so good. Yes, under California law, you have the authority to conduct a UA stop. That law, however, is quite un-Constitutional, a point which U.S. District Court Judge Black made perfectly clear in his ruling which forbade the practice when it was attempted in New Mexico (St. John vs Alamogordo)* Sadly, the case was decided there, instead of the district court over California. Nevertheless, his judgement* is clear, and will take some serious judicial squirming for any other district court or higher judge to wrangle out of it.
2) THE SOCIETAL ATMOSPHERE REGARDING GUNS, THE USE OF GUNS, THE WEARING OF GUNS ETC. IS EXTREMELY DIFFERENT IN AZ. COMPARED TO CA. (emphasis to bring clarity....). It is for that reason that reviewing AZ. response for this particular issue carries little to no benefit for CA. tactical officers. It is apples and oranges. Comprende'?
All too well. You however, are failing to consider the underlying problem: Pandering. Officers in Arizona (or Colorado, for that matter) don't pander to mentally unstable hoplophobes who errantly believe that a law-abiding citizens carrying a properly-holstered firearm is cause for alarm. Judge Black didn't pander to the irrational fear of the officers in New Mexico, either.
So, has it occurred to me that my department is doing it wrong? No. We've been handling armed subject calls every week since the emergence of gang violence in the late 80's. Our officers have gone home every time (from this type of call) and only the bad guys have taken losses (arrest/injury/death). Though the good tactician is always open to change, I'm thinking we've been doing pretty good...
You're good at finding criminals by searching through the haystacks of honest, law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately, California has a poor record when it comes to respecting the Constitutional rights of those honest, law-abiding citizens. If I'm not mistaken, you took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, did you not? If you do not believe UA checks trample on the Constitution, you don't know your Constitution as well as you think you do. If you believe the recent legislation banning OC in California is a good thing, you don't know your Constitution at all, and you're ignorant of FBI crime statistics with respect to both OC and CC among law-abiding citizens.
How can you honestly go to work day after day, as an enemy of our Constitution, after having taken an oath to support and defend it? If you're not an enemy of our Constitution, then start supporting it and defending it. Stop the UA checks. Stop the OC ban.
The ends do not justify the means, Mr. Supervisor. I've talked with a handful of our officers here in Colorado, city police, county sheriffs, and state troopers. They're not perfect. Who is? But they know, understand, and respect the Constitutions of our nation and of our state.
In so doing, they respect The People.
Having lived in California for more than two years, with my best friend of 21 years having been a sworn law enforcement officer in that state for more than a decade, I cannot honestly say the majority of law enforcement officials in California understand, much less respect, our Constitution. The "senior law enforcement officials" referred to in the news certainly don't. Governor Brown certainly doesn't. By supporting the OC ban, all of them have countered the Constitution and have thus violated their oaths of office.
That's despicable behavior for any American, Sir!
*If, during the course of a valid investigatory detention, an officer has an articulable and
reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed and dangerous, the officer may conduct a limited
protective search. U.S. v. Davis, 94 F.3d 1465, 1468 (10th Cir. 1996). Such a search must be
"reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first
place," Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968), and should be limited to ensuring that the suspect is
unarmed. King, 990 F.2d at 1558 (citing Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968)).
As discussed above, Defendants' detention of Mr. St. John was not a "valid investigatory
detention." Defendants had no reason to suspect that Mr. St. John was involved in, or was about
to become involved in, any criminal activity. Nor did they have any reason to believe that Mr. St.
John posed a safety threat. Accordingly, Defendants' search of Mr. St. John was invalid.
Case 6:08-cv-00994-BB-LAM Document 48 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 10 of 16
11
Additionally, Defendants lacked any reasonable suspicion for believing that Mr. St. John
was armed and dangerous, as required by Tenth Circuit jurisprudence. See Davis, 94 F.3d at
1468. Defendants ask the Court to ignore the conjunctive phrasing of the rule and find, in
essence, that anyone who is armed is, by virtue of that fact, dangerous. In light of the extensive,
controlling and compelling jurisprudence to the contrary, the Court declines to do so.
In sum, Defendants had no reason for seizing Mr. St. John other than the fact that he was
lawfully carrying a weapon in a public place. Because New Mexico law allows individuals to
openly carry weapons in public—and Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion, create
tumult or endanger anyone's well-being—there were no articulable facts to indicate either
criminal activity or a threat to safety. Accordingly, Defendants' seizure of Mr. St. John violated
his Fourth Amendment rights.
Judge Black, St. John vs Alamagordo, Case 6:08-cv-00994-BB-LAM Document 48 Filed 09/08/2009
Constitutionally, "MWAG" status is NOT sufficient to stop an individual, and it's high time the state of California un-screw it's head from its nether regions and smell some fresh air. While they're at it, they should wonder why the two most anti-gun locations in our country, Chicago and Washington D.C., got WORSE with respect to crime when gun laws were piled on higher and deeper, yet got better with respect to crime after SCOTUS ruled on McDonald and Heller.
I wonder how soon and how fast crime rates in California will increase? If there's a silver lining, perhaps some of the gangs who've moved out of California will move back now that they've managed to (temporarily) disarm your general populace.
Good luck with that! It didn't work at Virginia Tech, either.
Sincerely,
Since 9, retired US Military, and a graduate of Virginia Tech.
