The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 31, 2017, 01:50 AM   #26
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
I disagree with you, Al, modestly. Police UNIONS are always against laws without a LEO carve out; police CHIEFS are ALWAYS in favor of new restrictions on gun owners.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old January 31, 2017, 06:54 AM   #27
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
In visiting Sacramento, two beautiful Grandchildren, aged 3 and 4 make it palatable.

But living there? And my Glock 19 stays at home. Can not wait for the President to get around to reciprocity, reference CCW at home, goes with you when you travel!

Love my State, Florida!
Brit is offline  
Old January 31, 2017, 07:05 AM   #28
Texas45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2016
Posts: 223
Should never have made it to become a LAW in first place.

Brit although I believe reciprocity on a national level should be a given dont really see it become so by stroke of DTs pen but we can hope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Texas45 is offline  
Old January 31, 2017, 09:11 AM   #29
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas45
Brit although I believe reciprocity on a national level should be a given dont really see it become so by stroke of DTs pen but we can hope.
If it happens, it won't be by a stroke of DT's pen. He can't do that by Executive Order. If it happens, it will be by act of Congress, the same way the LEOSA happened.

I'll be waiting to see how many of the law enforcement officers who begged us to support HR 218 (LEOSA) and promised to support national reciprocity for the rest of us "down the road" will actually bother to write a letter or send an e-mail to support national reciprocity. I keep seeing people writing that rank and file police officers "overwhelmingly" support citizen CCW but, as the saying goes, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." It doesn't help us one iota if 100 percent of the rank-and-file officers support national reciprocity if they won't bother to tell their legislators to vote for it.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 31, 2017, 11:03 AM   #30
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
aquila blanca:
Quote:
I'll be waiting to see how many of the law enforcement officers who begged us to support HR 218 (LEOSA) and promised to support national reciprocity for the rest of us "down the road" will actually bother to write a letter or send an e-mail to support national reciprocity.
Didn't know about this; is there a list somewhere? Not that you can vote them out of office...
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old January 31, 2017, 12:39 PM   #31
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
No list that I'm aware of. If you go back to the time HR 218 was going through the legislative process, you can look through this forum, The High Road, and many other "gun" forums and you'll find numerous posts by police officers asking for the support of gun owners to pass HR 218 (which was the number of the bill that became the LEOSA). Their selling point was that, although it only helped cops, it would be "a good first step," supposedly making it easier to enact universal reciprocity for the rest of us once anti-gun states saw that allowing police officers from other states to carry everywhere didn't result in blood running in the streets. And, of course, there were the promises: "If you all help us get this passed, we'll be there to support national reciprocity for the rest of you when that's being debated."

Well, this isn't the first time national reciprocity has been proposed, and there weren't many (maybe none) police officers doing any supporting -- at least not publicly. And now that Trump has made it a more prominent issue -- there haven't been any posts of support from police as a group. Maybe one or two isolated officers, who are regular contributors to the forums they're on and who have always supported "civilian" carry. But the widespread support of police, as thanks to us for having helped them get the LEOSA passed? Doesn't exist. They used us, they got what they wanted, and they threw us under the bus.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 31, 2017, 10:34 PM   #32
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
Quote:
Uh huh, so the police. The ones who go out and protect us as citizens, even those like us who carry, should be subject to new laws that effect their weapons? The guys who in the event of major shootings respond to the scene in the midst of gun fire at times should have to be limited to 10 rounds? They should have to have an added feature on their guns that could fail? Don't get me wrong I 110% agree that the whole microatamping is an absurd concept. I don't think any of these dream gun liberal laws should be passed. But some people around here seem to have the idea in their heads that a whole bunch of guys with their CCW are going to band together and go take care of criminals and active shooters. Granted if there is a permit holder on scene prior to police arriving and he/she eliminates the threat that would be great. It's all about saving lives. I guess what I am trying to say is that it isn't an unreasonable request for the police to be better equipped than civilians. Civilians carry to protect themselves and their loved ones. Police carry to protect everyone that lives, visits, comes through, or whatever it may be within their jurisdiction. If I were to live in a state that had strict gun laws, and it upset me that much I would move, before starting a family, to a state that is more friendly to my hobby.
A few points:

1) Not everyone can just pick up and move. People have careers, lives, roots, etc...it is not so simple.

2) Police are civilians too

3) IMO it is unreasonable for police to be better-equipped than normal citizens, as police themselves are civilians. Anything that is police work can be handled with normal arms civilians use. If the situation is something too severe, then that is when the National Guard would have to be mobilized with tanks and the like.

4) It also isn't so much about police being better-equipped than normal citizens as it is normal citizens being restricted in terms of their equipment in comparison to the police.
LogicMan is offline  
Old February 1, 2017, 07:56 PM   #33
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
The problem with micro stamping is that:
1. it is difficult to read even when new
2. it wears very fast
3. it can be misleading because of the mistakes of reading the stampings.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old February 1, 2017, 10:57 PM   #34
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
As far as I can see, microstamping, is kind of the "complete idiot's" version of requiring a fired case be submitted to a database. Instead of having to compare the minutia of markings on a fired case to ID it, they can just read the stamped number.

Assuming, of course, that they CAN read the stamped number...

No place I ever heard of has found the fired case database being of any use in solving crimes, and a tremendous waste of money and manpower.

I don't see how microstamping could be any different.

While the physical side of microstamping has yet to be proven the political side is already a success, if you believe the actual reason behind the law is not to help law enforcement but to provide yet another legal reason to exclude handguns from being sold in California.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 2, 2017, 12:37 AM   #35
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,930
Quote:
You do realize if you don't like the police being better equipped than you then you CAN go become a police officer, correct?
Without addressing the idea that it is or isn't ok for police to be better equipped than non-law enforcement, it's worth pointing out that it's not always possible for a person to just go become a police officer. Some people may be able to. Others may not be able to meet the physical requirements, others may be too old, some may not qualify in other ways.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old February 2, 2017, 11:32 AM   #36
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
You do realize if you don't like the police being better equipped than you then you CAN go become a police officer, correct?
How is this attitude different from "if you want a machine gun, join the Army!"

or "if you want a gun, join the military"??? Police armament, and the militarization of the police (and I include ALL law enforcement in that) are fine topics for discussion, but not the point of this thread. (hint, hint..)

The fact that the police are EXEMPT from the CA law is valid point, I think.

Do you think the police would use their political power to support microstamping if they were NOT exempt from it??? Unlike laws forcing unproven (and so far, unworkable) "smart gun" tech down our throats, I don't see microstamping as something that puts anyone at physical risk of harm or death, INCLUDING the police. That being the case, why would they need an exemption???

The stated purpose of microstamping is to allow rapid (and assumedly foolproof) identification of fired cases found at crime scenes, with the database telling us what gun they came from, and who owns it. Would not having the police using microstamping guns simply add to the efficiency of the proposed system, by being able to easily remove police guns from the suspect pool when non microstamped cases are recovered?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 2, 2017, 08:05 PM   #37
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
Quote:
You do realize if you don't like the police being better equipped than you then you CAN go become a police officer, correct? While police are on duty they are more than citizens. They are law enforcement. Meaning they hold more power than us. That's how it goes. However I am going to withdraw from this argument as I would hate to be one of the reasons a thread closes when more useful information may come in.
That side-skirts the issue. And not everyone wants to become a police officer. You could also extend that logic to complete civilian disarmament altogether: "So if you are so concerned about protection and want the ability to own a gun, you do realize that you CAN become a police officer?" I suspect that is the mindset of many in countries like Germany, France, England, etc...
LogicMan is offline  
Old February 2, 2017, 10:38 PM   #38
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
I think it is important to note that the CACP is not representative of law enforcement in general throughout the nation.

Quote:
But the widespread support of police, as thanks to us for having helped them get the LEOSA passed? Doesn't exist. They used us, they got what they wanted, and they threw us under the bus
Tons of local chapters of the FOP (a little more conservative than the PBA, which is why I choose them) will happily support national reciprocity. I happily support it if a workable solution can be found. I have some concern over federal mandate over anything (as I have discussed previously), but I have also since changed my mind a little. A federal mandate that dictates its citizens can exercise a constitutional right is appropriate.
5whiskey is offline  
Old February 2, 2017, 10:55 PM   #39
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Don't assume police are stridently pro-RKBA. In many ways they mirror the general populace as compared to the gun world choir.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/...-public-views/

They do support gun ownership more than the general public and the males are against AWBs while the females support.

They are in favor of background checks in various versions.

If you ask about CCW, I'd bet (if it's been studied - I should search) that the police in the major antigun regions and locales probably aren't in favor while the progun areas have progun cops.

It's obvious when you look at counties across the country where you need approval to carry. County and city law (even in places like TX) can be adamantly opposed when they have discretion on permits, NFA items and the like.

I do remember the HR 218 fight and police begged RKBA supporters not to tie it to reciprocity as it would kill the bill but they would fight for it later - never happened.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 2, 2017, 11:20 PM   #40
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Whiskey
Tons of local chapters of the FOP (a little more conservative than the PBA, which is why I choose them) will happily support national reciprocity.
"Will" connotes future. When, exactly "will" they "happily support national reciprocity"? National reciprocity is on the table right now, so this would be the time for them to start supporting it. Not some day in the future.

The language of the bill parallels the LEOSA very closely, so police who aren't anti-2A should have no problem suporting it -- it's basically the same language that has been benefiting them since HR218 became the LEOSA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
I do remember the HR 218 fight and police begged RKBA supporters not to tie it to reciprocity as it would kill the bill but they would fight for it later - never happened.
Exactly.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 17, 2017, 06:43 AM   #41
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
I'm going to take a not-so-wild guess that the appellate court will allow enforcement of a microstamping mandate.

Maybe not this time, but it will happen because technology will advance and end the "is it possible?" argument. It will be. On the other arguments, the courts will say that the legislature might reasonably conclude this is a good idea so they can't say no.

So it will happen.

I wonder what will happen with the ever-shrinking "Safe Gun List" in Cali and Mass? The lack of microstamping is only one way that guns can be "unsafe" and as the requirements get more stringent and the list gets shorter, you eventually arrive at a day when only one new handgun is legal to sell in the state.

That's when we'll finally win on this issue in court, if we do. Meanwhile, write your legislators because that's where you really win.
publius42 is offline  
Old February 17, 2017, 12:38 PM   #42
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
I support the fight against worthless "microstamping" and other laws designed to disarm citizens or price firearms out of civilian hands.

Last edited by armoredman; February 17, 2017 at 10:47 PM.
armoredman is offline  
Old February 17, 2017, 06:23 PM   #43
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
Publius, the issue is not necessarily the law itself--as you say, it might be possible in the future to microstamp cases in two separate places as the statute mandates. The issue is that the Attorney General certified that the technology to comply with the statue was available now. But it isn't. The only available technology imprints a unique identifier on the primer when the gun is fired, but the statute requires that the identifier be stampted in two places on the case.

As a result, the certification has blocked the sale of any new models or "materially modified" rostered firearms. To add to insult to injury, the DOJ has very broadly construed what constitutes a "material" change, as Ruger found out to its dismay when it modified a takedown lever or pin from forged to MIM. The DOJ said the change was material, and thus the firearm, otherwise unchanged, was required to comply with the microstamping law, which of course it could not. Since it could not, it could not be sold in California. Colt changed its manufacturing of 1911s to new CNC machinery--yes, material change. The only firearms Colt is authorized to sell in California (last I checked) was the Python and the Colt Commander (which did not get a new manufacturing line). Thus, as manufacturers change, modify and improve firearms, they necessarily fall off the Roster as there is not one manufacdturer who possesses the technology to comply with the AG's improperly certified microstamping law.

The state Court of Appeal held that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury as to whether the certification was improper because the conditions of the statute are not satisfied by extant technology. If the jury finds that the certification was improper, the microstamping rule is not necessarily eliminated, but instead suspended until the conditions for the law to take effect are met.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old May 23, 2017, 06:26 PM   #44
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
Since I last posted on this case, the State appealed the decision of the Court of appeal to the California Supreme court. That court has granted review. The date for filing of the State's opening brief on appeal has been extended twice, and is now June 21, 2017. The issue, as framed by the court is: This case presents the following issues: (1) Can a statute be challenged on the ground that compliance with it is allegedly impossible? (2) If so, how is the trial court to make that determination?
62coltnavy is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 06:29 PM   #45
Bluecthomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2017
Posts: 102
My very low opinion of cops has been well earned. Among the reasons why is leading by example.
Just as a very mild example, I'm supposed to follow speed limits, stop at the sign and use turn signals. Without lights and/or sirens being on, so are the cops. Good luck on ever seeing that happen...

Microstamping is just stupid. Even if the gun isn't stolen, or pre dating the law, quick stroke of a file and it's all gone. Or pick up your cases or use a revolver...
And what happens if a money conscious killer uses cases collected at a range to reload his pre law murder weapon with?

I can easily think of a more reliable way to add that traceability to fired ammo. But I'm not gonna give my enemies another tool to use against me.
Bluecthomas is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 07:12 PM   #46
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
Quote:
Bluecthomas My very low opinion of cops has been well earned. Among the reasons why is leading by example.
Just as a very mild example, I'm supposed to follow speed limits, stop at the sign and use turn signals. Without lights and/or sirens being on, so are the cops. Good luck on ever seeing that happen..
apparantly so since this is the second post of yours i have come across on the subject. Perhaps some therapy would help you to overcome the trauma.
heyjoe is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 08:45 PM   #47
Bluecthomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2017
Posts: 102
Lawsuit that's filed, if justice prevails, might improve my opinion on judges...

Nothing gonna change my opinion of cops after what the supposed protector and servers did to me a hard-working tax paying law abiding victim of a crime.

If a rapist expected his victims to say thanks, what would you think of the rapist?
What would you think appropriate punishment would be?
Bluecthomas is offline  
Old May 28, 2017, 01:05 AM   #48
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Your and my opinion of the police isn't relevant to the discussion.

I would point out that holding a bad opinion of an entire group of people based on the bad actions of a few is exactly what anti-gunners and other bigots do. We should do better.

Holding the bad actors personally responsible for their acts is entirely correct. Painting all with the same broad brush, isn't.

The point with the microstamping law is that it was passed and made law. It doesn't have to work, doesn't have to actually do what it's sponsors claimed, it doesn't matter if there are simple easy workarounds. IT's the law, now, and the only way to challenge it is through the law, or having the legislature repeal it (which isn't bloody likely in the forseeable future).

It doesn't matter if it isn't cheaply or easily accomplished, the law doesn't care about that. (though I'm certain the sponsors counted on the expense to further their real aims)

What matters to the law is if microstamping is legally possible.

As I understand it, when the law was passed the technology was still under patent protection to a single company, and therefore, "not readily available". Immediate implementation was challenged in court, and the court agreed to stay implementing the law until the tech was "readily available"

This lasted a while, but when the patent ran out, someone in CA govt (attorney general??) declared the tech readily available, so the law could be implemented.

This also was challenged in court, the argument being that despite what one official decrees, the tech is NOT (yet) readily available. This has now reached the CA Supreme Court and thanks to 62coltnavy we now know arguments will be heard beginning in late june this year. (unless, of course, postponed by the court before then)
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 29, 2017, 12:12 AM   #49
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
Unsurprisingly, the case has been delayed. the state has been granted another 30 day extension to file its opening brief, which now isn't due until the end of June. Plaintiffs will then have thirty days (subject to extensions, of course) to file their brief, and the State will have another 20 days to file its rebuttal. There is always the possibility that amicus briefs will be files, but since the plaintiff here is the representative of the industry as a whole, it is iffy whether individual manufacturers will chime in separately, since the penultimate question is whether anyone gets to challenge the certification, and the ultimate question being what standards are to be applied by a trial court in determining the issue of whether the existing technology can actually do what the statute requires it to do.

The latter question is more arcane than it might facially appear. While governmental actions are subject to challenge, most governmental action is reviewed by a trial court not as to whether the opinion was right or wrong, but whether the official "prejudicially abused his or her discretion" in making the determination being challenged. Discretion is abused whenever, in its exercise, the official exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered. The burden is on the party complaining to establish an abuse of discretion....”
To put that another way, it is arguably possible for the AG to have been wrong (factually) in issuing her certification, but also possible for her not to have abused her discretion in deciding a question of fact.

The final result will be interesting.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old May 29, 2017, 07:41 PM   #50
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Interesting in the sense of the Chinese/Hebrew curse??
(May you live in interesting times!)

OK, so, in small words (that are easier for me to type );

The AG's decision could be found to be wrong, BUT, the AG could be found to have made no error in making the wrong decision??

Is that about right?

IF so, where does it go, then???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.14496 seconds with 10 queries