California cops own 7,600 assault rifles, federal probe prompts investigation

[old greybeard]

If a non le can't own it neither can a le in my views. That includes the actual agency as well. If a state wants to limit it's residents from possesing a particular weapon, then no person or agency in that state should be allowed to posses it on or off duty.

Anything different is tyranny.

There's no some are more equal logic in my mind.

Amen, many LEO's already think they are above the law, this just reenforces it in their minds.

More criminals are shot by citizens than LEO's. Many more crimes are stopped by armed citizens than LEO's. Check out John Lott's numbers on the subject. Also do some research on police actions in New Orleans during Katrina, SHTF these LEO's will be using the AW's to protect their families, Joe Average will be on his own.

Basic tenant of Communism, all are equal, some are just more equal than others.

[392heminut]

Well, I have to say that both of the above posts put a negative spin on this deal. Wouldn't it be much better to have the opinion that anything a LEO can own should be available to any citizen too? Just sayin................. <munch>

[98Z5V]

Exactly - don't get down on the LEOs for what they ARE allowed to own - get after the state government that creates the dumbass laws that restrict the civilians so much.  I still hold the opinion that the LEOs need to be armed, greatly, when off duty  - in that crazyass state, they're certainly targets. 

It's sad how there's such little respect for law enforcement anymore - some of the BS that people actually say to police when they're pulled over (not talking about this discussion, in the least...).  Worse yet, the disregard for the law, when some freak jumps out of a car and starts shooting at them.  The frequency that this happens nowadays is mind boggling.

[Timing]

I believe the lack of respect leos experience is through their own actions. I'm not here to bash cops or anything, my personal level of respect for them has greatly diminished over the last few years, while I have not had any interactions myself (haven't even been pulled over in the last 4 yrs or so) the non stop reports of leos over stepping their boundaries or acting "above the law" combined with the lack of prosecution against the ones that do get caught leave a lot of distrust among the general population. I also believe that it's partly due to the transformation from police officers to leo, it seems that it used to be police officers were for bettering society, providing a feeling of security, and a level of trust among citizens that the police were there to assist and generally be helpful and friendly to citizens.

Then the transformation to leos began, enforcing unjust laws and generally looking to make a criminal out of every person they encounter. No matter how petty.

It feels to me that a large portion of leos, be it city cops, mps, state troopers, fbi, dea, atf, forest service, noaa, tsa, or etc think or act like they are a higher class citizen or somehow above the common folk and thus they can do whatever they feel like.

The only ones I left out are sheriffs, I've never in my life met a sheriff that had a chip on his shoulder or acted in anyway unprofessional.

I also think a good portion of the distrust towards that profession stems from the burden on the tax payers of lucrative pensions and collective bargaining against the taxpayers. Eliminating the unions would help improve their public image significantly.

Also the "thin blue line" of protecting each other or looking the other way when one does do wrong has to stop, otherwise everyone looks bad.

Again not trying to bash leos here, I have a lot of respect and appreciate the good ones for the hard work they do. I know I couldn't do that job, physically it wouldn't be a problem, mentally I would become one of the ones that gives the good ones a bad image (too much arrogance, antagonistic, and easily prone to over reacting to a situation(thanks USMC) to be a good police officer.)

Back on subject, any laws such as this, serve only to divide the population further. What would the reaction be if the law stated only white male landowners were allowed to own "assault rifles" how about a law that stated only recipients of welfare were allowed to own firearms?

[unforgiven]

I am proud to be union 3rd generation to be exact,organized labor is what built this country,if you want to work for less,little or no pension,little or no health insurance then go for it.Organized labor sacrificed greatly for the gains made,many people suffered and died as a result.The sacrifices were made for for the whole not the few.Nonunion has benefited greatly and didn't have to lift a finger for the benefits they enjoy today, a safe work environment,a 40 hour work week,and health insurance for their families.No would provide this if they did not have to, how else could someone make a better life for their family.People now want the wages and benefits of unions but don't want to pay dues and that's bullpoopy.As far as LEO's, would you be willing to stick your neck out everyday,put a target on your back as you say good bye to your family and walk out the door?Put up with poop from ungrateful pukes that turn around and scream save, help me a second later?Brother IMO you paint a lot of people with a very,very broad brush.We are human no one is perfect when you look at the populous as a whole,their are still more good people than bad.More good cops than bad.Now you want to bring race into the mix IMO you got issues,so do you infer that those on welfare as in minorities should not be allowed to have firearm? I am also a 3rd generation Mex-American my entire family is Army.The only people that should have firearms are lawful people with an ability to safely handle and operate such arms regardless of race or gender or religious convictions.

[Timing]

You seem to have taken my post personal, and I'm not sure why.

There's a big difference between public sector unions and private sector unions. While I'm sure there is a more appropriate thread to discuss the un-sustainability of unions regarding pensions and paying people to not work, when that liability is placed on tax payers it is another situation.

Not once did I say there is more bad cops than good, I said the bad cops out there taint the image the good ones. You can have 1,000 nuclear power plants running flawlessly, but when 1 blows up it kinda makes the good ones not matter as much.

I did not bring race into this except as a hypothetical situation, perhaps you would have preferred me to use a different analogy? In fact I did not relate welfare to minorities what so ever. I used two different analogies and the one referring to welfare suggested that only welfare recipients have access to firearms.

"The only people that should have firearms are lawful people with an ability to safely handle and operate such arms regardless of race or gender or religious convictions."

Really? That sounds like an infringement to me.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I'm pretty sure that Jefferson didn't intend this to only apply to government employees.

[MaDuce]

The only ones I left out are sheriffs, I've never in my life met a sheriff that had a chip on his shoulder or acted in anyway unprofessional.

Bordering Sacramento County here in California is this county called Placer. That county sheriff's department's reputation for all the above spans far and wide. Locals often refer to them as the "Barney Fifes". I even have a gun buddy who's dad worked for that department and he (my gun buddy) has downright ventilated to me how bad they've gotten.

Don't get me wrong, they have some good cops in that department. One even picked me up and gave me a ride home when I was broke down and stranded and the conversation on the ride home convinced me that this was a good fellow. But police harassment and bullying stands out in that county over others and most of the reports seam to be directed at the sheriff's department.

[planeflyer21]

Yup...it was LA County Sherrif's that raided a home in the next county, killed the home owner, then siezed the home under RICO.

Having worked corrections, I know it is 3 or 4 percent of the officers that make it hard for the other 96 or 97%...big chips on their shoulders, can't do their job right, instigate crap between officers/inmates or officers/public or officers/administration.

The majority of the rest are doing their job and real nice folks.

Jon

[Robocop1051]

"In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect."

[Robocop1051]

"The right to bear arms is not about hunting. It's not about target practice ... The right to bear arms is a political right designed to safeguard freedom so that no government can take away from you the rights that God has given you, and it was written by people who had spent their lifetime fighting the greatest empire in the world and they knew that if they had not had the right to bear arms, they would have been enslaved. And they did not want us to be enslaved. And that is why they guaranteed us the right to protect ourselves. It is a political right of the deepest importance to the survival of freedom in America."

[392heminut]

I would like to touch upon the subject of unions since it was brought up. When I started at my PD in 1980 I made just a little over $6.00 an hour. We got a cost of living increase most years that was then eaten up by an increase in our health insurance and felt we were lucky if the increase was not enough that our take home pay went DOWN. The only real raises we got were our step increases, which were raises based on employment longevity. A few years after I started, the State of New Mexico passed a collective bargaining law which allowed state, county, and city employees to form a collective bargaining association, what most would call a union. When we served notice to our city council that we were forming a collective bargaining association within our dept. (NO outside entities involved!) our City Administrator threw a fit and wanted to disband the PD. His solution was to put over 30 people out of work, hire private security to patrol the town (approx. population of 12,000) and let the Sheriff's Dept. handle criminal matters. This was how little regard the head of the city had for the police dept. Fortunately, New Mexico has a law that a town of our size has to have a PD. Our collective bargaining association made some gains and when I retired in 2002 my retirement, which is a percentage of your highest paid 3 years of your career times years served, was at it's max. At the time I retired as a Lieutenant I made about $17.00 an hour. Now that's a lot of bank for putting your butt out on the street day in and day out for 22 years and missing birthdays, holidays, etc. with your family! Yep, our union really raped the taxpayers! As for the pension that I paid into for over 22 years, yes it's a state run system but is totally self sustaining. The monies paid by employees are invested and fund the pensions of retirees. NO taxes are used to fund our pensions and we actually had to go to the polls and vote in an amendment to our state constitution making it impossible for our state legislators to have access to our pension funds! The general voting population passed that amendment by a huge margin because we made sure they knew that none of their tax dollars were used to fund our pensions. It is my understanding that a many states' public employee pensions are based on the same system we use here in New Mexico and are self funded. BTW, my pension has a cost of living increase every year too, and just like back when I was a cop, my insurance rates keep going up. I've been retired for almost 10 years now and my monthly retirement checks are about $50 more than the ones I got when I first retired in 2002! Fortunately, I put my wife through nursing school and as an RN she brings home twice as much as I did as a cop. I recently checked with an officer at the PD who is at the level I was when I retired and found that my wife still makes about 30% more than he does! Yep, our union really put it to the taxpayers! Sorry for the long post, but it just rubs me the wrong way when someone starts carrying on about something that they haven't researched and really have no idea what they are talking about. I'll get off my soapbox now. Let the flaming commence! ::)

[MaDuce]

I never looked much in to how much cops make, but don't have the impression that they're over paid.

I DO however have some issues with police departments making $ off of crime. It's not hard to see the potential problems with turning crime fighting in to a money making business.

In any case, it sounds pretty sad, the way you guys got treated over there in New Mexico. Sounds like that politician could have used a few home invasions and muggings to take him off his high horse.

Robobot, good quotations. I voted for Ron Paul last election and will again this time around. Mine and his political views are virtually identical.

[Robocop1051]

I DO however have some issues with police departments making $ off of crime. It's not hard to see the potential problems with turning crime fighting in to a money making business.

Make money how?

[planeflyer21]

Just guessing here but via RICO is one way.  All an agency has to do is allege that your property was used in a crime or that cash money is the proceeds of crime, and they can sieze it.

X-percentage of cash goes directly into the police budget.  Possessions like real estate can be owned by the agency or sold for proceeds.

Jon

[MaDuce]

Make money how?

Impounds, fines, prison labor etc. Basically anything that financially motivates anyone within the law enforcement business to punish folks.

I'm not sure how the above are currently practiced, but I'm sure you know that it can lead to corruption and wrongful punishment if not treated very carefully.

[hobbesgunner]

Wow....never saw a thread blow up like this.....Commies, Kalifornicators, good cops, bad cops, unions and politics.....if somebody would throw in a little religion then everyone could be offended, slighted or appeased.......but that's in poor taste and impolite ....... now for the opinion.....I don't believe ANYONE should be allowed to own ANYTHING that I as a law abiding citizen can't own......regardless of where you reside or what youri line of work is......brother and my wife are county/state workers that have pretty sweet insurance and retirement.packages and myself ..as a 25 yr union member that's held officers positions I still feel unions are killing New York state financially

[edgecrusher]

i spite religion…..  <dontknow> , didn't want to leave anyone out, eh hobbes?  ;)

[392heminut]

MaDuce, the City Administrator's position here isn't a political position, it's appointed by the city council, who is elected. Problem is, once someone is appointed to that position they usually stay there until they retire which fortunately that a**hole has! Also, any money taken in from law enforcement activities by our PD goes into the city's general fund, not the PD budget, which basically takes some burden off the taxpayers and also takes away the financial motivation you referred to. I think it is that way throughout New Mexico.

[survivalshop]

Haha, I'm here. Just reading and trying to keep up. You wake up 3 hours before me bro. I gotta get that first cup of joe in before I post.

This has been a topic at the briefing table for about three or four years now. Especially in the Sacramento area. I know of several officers that are several thousands of dollars invested into their rifles/equipment and are not happy about the situation. We have to look at the the most important fact right now though.

Fact: The AG's "official opinion" was that officers should not be allowed to keep their AW's after retirement. That is not a judgement. That was an opinion Jerry Brown made in an open conference just before he became Governor. While the Lib's are hanging everything they have on that comment, it is not a final judgement. There has not been a case* brought to the courts yet to demand a decision.

*I mean a case that deals specifically in a retired LEO's ownership of an AW. Not some jackass selling department property from the trunk of his car or on eb@y

Isn't the basic concept of Communism, allowing everyone to equal privilege? I agree that Joe Citizen should have the right to own whatever he wants. My opinion is biased though. Remember that I deal with a LOT of shitheads on a daily (sometimes hourly) basis. These people need to NOT own any weapons. While I think it should be made easier for some to own, I still believe there is a need for checks and balances for those who shouldn't own.

I do have a problem with this though:Joe Citizen is not going to instinctively put himself in harms way just because he owns an AW. I understand wanting to own it for personal/home use, but a LEO's personal/home use is not the same as Joe Citizen's personal/home use. We react 100% of the time, to all threats. Joe Citizen isn't required to, nor expected to, react to anything. Sure there are "good Samaritans" out there, but the good:bad ratio is a bit off balance.

A prime example happened just a few years ago. A friend of mine, off duty LEO, was driving on the freeway when he saw a deputy in a shootout with a suspect in the center divide. Without hesitation he stopped his car on the freeway, removed his AW from the trunk of his car, identified himself (they already knew each other, same dept), and engaged the suspect with the deputy. Hundreds of cars passed during that time... no one else stopped. There is currently work being done to write a bill that would amend the current law and establish a secondary exemption for those who leave LE on positive terms (ie. retirement). This would not include those bad eggs who are dismissed from duty for whatever reasons. I think they may also have to establish that they were in LE for a period long enough to justify the need. Very similar to how our CCW's work for retired officers. You can't just come in, work a year, then quit and have the eternal LEO CCW.

Those LEO's that registered AW's, purchased under the color of authority, may have to re-register those AW's as "Ret. LEO". Currently the California Department of Justice has the authority to grant all California residents the exemption to own any Assault Weapon, SBR, SBS, or .50 BMG. All they have to do is justify the need in the eyes of the DOJ. $35 and an online application [and a good reason] is all that's required.

If you look at the scenario you use for an example , I would be real hesitant to roll out & jump into any gun fight & there are some good reasons for not jumping in , unless you are uniformed LEO or as said in your example , know to the other officer(s).

One , are you sure you know who is the bad guy & who is LE .

Two , you could be misstaken for a bad guy (firearm in hand  & maybe firing it ),by other LE coming to back up LEO that was in trouble, not to mention the LEO that is in trouble & not knowing who you are .

I would not have a problem helping ,if I saw a LEO wrestling with some one one the side of the road & one could clearly identify him/her as LE, but just any joe blow citizen stopping & jumping into a fire fight, no I would highly not recommend it .

Now on to the all being equal , that's not how Communism / Socialism work , its the privileged who are good party members or relatives of said party members that get the perks of life . We here have as has been posted ,all have the same rights , no matter who we are or what we do for a living . Of course that doesn't include convicted Felons.

I do have one comment on unions , I see there use & the history of what they have done for the labor movement in this country , but they have taken to abusing what the real unions stood for . Its all about more money ,way past there working worth .

The Private sector unions can do what ever they want ,because the products they make will control some what how much they can make out it . If they make the product too expensive & its not selling , the co.s profits suffer & concessions will be made( well except for some auto co.s ,we have to pay for them too ) ,but in the public sector , it doesn't matter , they just keep milking the tax payers. That is coming to a head in this country now , as it should .

The unions have lost sight of what they are & where they came from .

Man , this thread did go to the dark side like my barrel thread .

[unforgiven]

The problem with unions is the people at the top,the officers primarily as with the management and officers at the corporate level. Those that run for office at the local level tell the membership,I can do more for you get you more money,better benefits etc. etc. as you Glad hand everyone promising the world to get elected.Then your in office with a separate retirement,insurance and a way high wage then the rank and file you took an oath to serve.Well now you got yours and are going to throw the rank and file under the bus,what a surprise I only wish your membership could find out how you really felt about them.I belong to one of the largest locals in the nation,and in this depression the International is asking the membership to sacrifice and we have.We took no raise the officers within the local took a pay cut and because the International gambled our pension to poop the hours we work toward our credit is worth less.Yet not a single person at the International level took a pay cut.They live high on the hog on our dime.They rule unto themselves,appoint there own people without any input from the rank and file.They have no term limits,if it was up to the rank and file they would be gone in a heartbeat.You do a great disservice to your membership now that you got yours by throwing the same people that you asked for their vote under the bus.Everyone wants to hit the working that's just trying to survive,while those at the top get fatter everyday[both at the public and private sector] at our expense.Our country is not a one size fits all and I can respect those that chose not to join a union.If you are happy with you lot in life then god bless you.Those that no longer work with the tools like politicians have lost touch with those that actually have to work for a living.The people at the top getting fat on my dime as a union member and taxpayer make me sick......I gotta go fill some mags >:(

[unforgiven]

I want to apologize if I have offended any one with my last rant,I'm not here to change the world just to understand Eugene Stoner's platform better,become a better marksman and maybe make a couple of friends.....and yea mags topped off.

[survivalshop]

Any discussion in these threads  is considered , at least to me , as informative in many ways . Gets us to know each other better & bond us all with a common passion we have together , AR's in any caliber & all the second amendment troubles & tribulations that go with them .

If any of you have had or have brothers/sisters , lively discusions are always going to happen. Kinda clears the air between us.

What this thread has shown me is there is a lot of different opinions here , as there should be.

It is clear that there are States , Cities that do not conform to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I often wounder why , we are always having to fight for the rights that are plain as day to us , but there are those that believe we shouldn't have or need this right .

As with all the Amendments to & of the Constitution its self , should not be compromised in any way, but for those who want to interpet them to mean some thing that is clearly not what was intended , is  traitorous to me & should be dealt with accordingly .

The same Politicions that are screwing this country up , are sworn to abide to the Constitution , are not adhering to said sworn allegiance & to me are also traitors.

Politicians are just looking for there next vote & if you think they really care about you or any organisation you belong to or represent , than that's your folly  to believe them .

The trouble with that statement is there are a few who really care , but are overshadowed by the much larger percentage that are there just for the free ride on the tax payers dime .

We can take this further , the law in 1986 that was passed for the production of title II weapons for sale to the generial public is also unconstitutional  & should be repealed. No where in the second amendment does it say we can't own machine guns . " shall not be infringed " means just that . 

I have sold & owned many & still do , but what was there reasoning to ban the manufacturing of said firearms  ? None . There has never been any crime committed by a legally owned & registered Title II firearm.

[planeflyer21]

God our Creator wants everybody with a working moral compass to own weapons in general, guns in particular.

It is now a full-bodied thread.  <thumbsup>

Jon

[Matt.Cross]

God our Creator wants everybody with a working moral compass to own weapons in general, guns in particular.

It is now a full-bodied thread.  <thumbsup>

Jon

<laughs> <lmao> <munch>

Epic!

[Timing]

Another one of the problems in my opinion is the people that should be in office have no desire to be, while the people with the desire are placed there.

The mindset of a politician is that of a ruling class mentality, they want the power to control people. Hence the reason we end up with senseless and retarded legislation, the justification for banning firearms is that they pose an inherent risk of being used against the type of people that create unjust laws. It started with full autos to test the water so to say. When "they" saw there was a lack of people taking to the streets armed in opposition to it, they attack on the next level. Then they went after "assault weapons" (the name shows their ignorance on the subject and the bill shows their stupidity) when "they" realized that this woke people up and voted their asses out, they knew they had found the next step, too much that people reacted in opposition yet not enough to force the citizens to overthrow. The next attack will be slightly less.

Actually it's kinda funny, we saw with Katrina that the citizens of this country will willingly surrender their weapons without question. The people that do decide to stand up are shunned by society as "it's not time yet" but by the time it is "time" the citizens will be too weak and de-armed to successfully resist.

Oh well, apathy has been built up for far too long to de-rail this train.