The Firearms Policy Coalition writes [via ammoland.com]:
Attorneys for four civil rights advocacy organizations and 11 individuals filed an opening brief yesterday afternoon at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a federal lawsuit challenging the State’s many special statutory exemptions to gun laws for retired “peace officers” as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
The brief argues, among other things, that the retired “peace officer” exemption to California’s Gun-Free School Zone Act violates the Equal Protection Clause because it bears no rational relation to the purpose of the Act, that the classification favors retired “peace officers” over a similarly-situated group (civilians with a carry license), and that the retired peace officer classification further violates the equal protection clause because it is simply a benefit conferred on a politically powerful class that is denied to a politically unpopular class.
“The exemption is so broad that it even applies to retirees from ‘any federal law enforcement agency’ now authorized to carry a concealed weapon, regardless of whether they ever used a weapon in their pre-retirement duties,” wrote attorney Bradley Benbrook in the brief. “Thus, for instance, retired Internal Revenue Service agents and other federal agents are exempt simply by virtue of retiring in California or working for the agency in California for more than a year.”
The case, captioned Ulises Garcia, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, was filed after California enacted Senate Bill 707 (SB 707) in 2015, which was originally written to remove all civilian exemptions to the Gun-Free School Zone Act—including those for both retired “peace officers” and CCW licensees—but was later amended to re-include the exemption for retirees following significant lobbying by law enforcement associations and government employee special interest groups.
Craig DeLuz, an individual plaintiff in the case and a spokesperson for Firearms Policy Coalition, believes this case is about justice and equality. “As both a parent and a school board member, I believe it’s important that our children see that the justice system does not allow the government to play favorites,” DeLuz said.
In 2002, the Ninth Circuit held in Silveira v. Lockyer that a “retired officers exception [to the Assault Weapons Control Act] arbitrarily and unreasonably affords a privilege to one group of individuals that is denied to others.” That legal analysis was reinforced in a 2010 opinion by then-Attorney General Jerry Brown, in which he held that “Silveira teaches that it is….a peace officer’s role as a law enforcement agent that provides a rational basis for distinguishing between a peace officer and a private citizen for purposes of possessing and using assault weapons. A retired officer is not authorized to engage in law enforcement activities.”
Civil rights groups Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, and Madison Society Foundation are organizational plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Key filings, including the appeal brief and related request for judicial notice (as well as 39 related exhibits) filed today, can be viewed or downloaded at www.firearmsfoundation.org/sb707.
Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, through advocacy, legal action, education, and outreach.
The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.
Madison Society Foundation (www.madison-society.org) was founded in 2001 as a tax exempt (501)(c)(3) organization. The mission and objective of the foundation is to serve and protect citizens of the United States their constitutional and civil rights as defined in the Bill of Rights Second Amendment.
Let’s sit back, quaff a few brewskis and watch the 9th Circus be consistent.
They have a point there with the 14th amendment.
EVERYBODY is protected under the second amendment (except for convicted felons) so we should all be able to carry on californias campuses.
Where are convicted felons mentioned the the 2nd amendment?
They’re not, but they are mentioned in the 14A. It states “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The 5A says the same thing about the federal gov. It is implicit in each statement that a person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property with due process of law. Convicted felons, having been convicted, (hopefully) have been given due process.
It’s amazing how many people do not understand this basic Constitutional tenant and think they’re very clever until it’s pointed out.
Is a life sentence not cruel and unusual in many circumstances? To deprive someone of a right, or brand them with a physical or virtual mark, for the remainder of their lives often seems excessive when the crime is related. To require a petition for return of those rights when the crime is wholly unrelated is all the more so.
What does your point have to do with my point, which is a response to Desert Dave’s sarcastic question?
Does a felon have 2A rights “if a person’s felony conviction is many decades in the past, is for a not very serious felony, or both[?] Some federal courts have stated that the answer would be “yes” under the right circumstances. United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313, 320 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168, 174 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685, 693 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Duckett, 406 Fed. Appx. 185, 187 (9th Cir. 2010) (Ikuta, J., concurring); United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1049-50 (10th Cir. 2009) (Tymkovich, J., concurring).” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/27/a-rare-second-amendment-exemption-from-federal-ban-on-felons-possessing-guns/?utm_term=.738fa343b047
I really don’t see the point of a blanket ban on people who have committed non violent felonies from possessing firearms. There is some room for argument as to what a violent felony is. It’s also not really a lifetime ban in many places. It pretty much is in Texas, though.
“…due process of law.”
A legally enacted law, regardless of impact, is “due process”. One day, everyone who does not conform to the majority of the day will be relieved of all their rights by “Due process of law.”
In college, I suffered “due process”. Found guilty of misdemeanor “minor in possession of alcohol beverage”, I was informed of the fine of $25. I asked to be brought before the magistrate. Upon which demand I was told “the process” would be remaining in jail until a court date was convenient to the judge. Then, I would be allowed to argue my point, be found ‘guilty’ regardless, and then pay the fine plus court costs. When I protested that the process was rigged, and illegal, the police watch sergeant leaned back in his chair and asked, “Think you can beat an additional charge of resisting arrest? All your witnesses are in this room.”
“A legally enacted law, regardless of impact, is ‘due process.'” No, it is not. Due process includes all sorts of rights.
In college, your due process rights were violated, and you got fucked. It happens; I never pretended that it doesn’t happen. That is why I said “hopefully.” (Convicted felons, having been convicted, (hopefully) have been given due process).
I fear, sir, that “due process” has a common understanding that does not comport with judges, nor politicians.
“In college, your due process rights were violated,…”
Yes, they were. All with the secure knowledge I was completely unable to mount, much less win, a challenge. In such a case, my inability forfeited my right to due process in an attempt to correct the abuse by the court and LE.
In short, “due process” is generally what the authorities say it is. One can obtain only the amount of “due process” and justice that one’s checkbook can secure.
And that’s the way it is.
“I fear, sir, that “due process” has a common understanding that does not comport with judges” (not that I know what the “common understanding” of due process is) and “One can obtain only the amount of “due process” and justice that one’s checkbook can secure.”
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.
I don’t entirely agree with you Sam, but I don’t entirely disagree either. Especially about the checkbook statement. A great deal of the time, the accused plea guilty or don’t fight the charges because of economic considerations. And those considerations are not just monetary. They also include things such as time, stress, and the cost-benefit analysis of fighting the charges.
The “common understanding” of “due process” is that the “process” is rational, fair, meets common sense, provides ample safeguards against abuse of the process (including punishments for abuse of authority), objective. There is no room for “due process” that allows property to be taken, and people jailed without a warrant, formal charge, or commission of any infraction (asset forfeiture).
The “common” method of dealing with people and systems is far distant from the world of legality, wherein “fair”, “just”, and “logical” (as pertains to the public) are not matters of concern. Few people understand the difference between administrative law and civil/criminal law. The reversal of “innocent until proven guilty” is entirely missing from administrative law (not to mention juries). People are frequently caught up in administrative law, expecting the accuser to prove the allegation. The shock of reality can only diminish the people’s belief in law and order.
To borrow freely, “The law is a ass.”
There not. There mentioned elsewhere in the constitution were it says that after due process you can be striped of your rights to include your freedom, your gun rights, and your right to vote among others.
You are all morons, or at least pretending to be. This “exception” to liberties with the “due process of law” bullshit loses all meaning and @TX_lawyer and @Hannibal make less sense than sovereign citizens do because all of you are pretending not to understand the intent of the constitution and how it has been trampled.
TX_lawyer and Hannibal seem to be claiming that a felony conviction is enough to warrant any treatment of anybody, for any reason.
Desert Dave claims that anyone who isn’t in prison should be able to do anything they want without fear or expectation of immediate taxpayer-funded lethal retribution.
Dave is less wrong by far, but must acknowledge that there are a myriad of murderers, rapists, armed robbers, and other miscreants wandering the streets thanks to your elected judges letting them go. The scum should have been hanged, else should have been locked up forever. their having miraculously escaped justice does not entitle them to all of the liberties that normal people have.
TX_lawyer and Hannibal are far worse here. Basically from what I can tell, your stance is “Because there is some foul individual walking the street today who got loose with a slap on the wrist, any number of restrictions are permissible if an individual has ever seen the inside of a courtroom for any reason whatsoever, and couldn’t afford to get out of it. Of the small percentage of people who are felons, a smaller percentage of those were dangerous, and a smaller yet percentage of those are loose in society. You’re letting the .01% wag the entire dog.
Let’s count the ways that you can become a felon in direct violation to the constitution of the United States (gun related only, just because those are the ones I have off the top of my head)
1st amendment – State department demands polymer gun plan taken off website because it violates “export” regulations
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/09/state-department-demands-takedown-of-3d-printable-gun-for-possible-export-control-violation/#34b6a0c375ff
2nd amendment – Choose whatever you want. GCA, NFA, etc.
3rd amendment – Kind of tricky because this doesn’t come up much, but you can take an restrictions for bearing arms at home if you live on post, or forcing military families to relocate then forbidding pistol sales as related to soldier quartering and troop-stationing abuses if you like. The US is abusing their own soldier’s and soldier’s family rights.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/11/senators-want-to-make-it-easier-for-military-spouses-to-possess-firearms/
4th – Any patdown of any individual. Any law or decision where the magical constitution-proof “officer’s safety” phrase is used. No firearm is illegal if the 2nd amendment is respected, so seizing firearms at a counterfeiting raid or any other type is no different than stealing the TVs and the silver candlesticks for hope of auctioning them off later and adding to the slush fund. Probable cause, and secure in house, papers, and effects do not apply if someone claims you are suicidal or threatened them. These are all violations of the 4th amendment. All can lead to felony convictions when they comb through your stuff and look for something to indict you for.
5th – People are deprived of liberty and property tons of times without due process of law. A small example is the guy who the ATF jailed and locked his AR15 “evidence” in a glass box where no expert was able to examine it and testify. ATyou’llhavetotakeourwordforitF. Guy could have been guilty as sin, but we’ll never know. They wouldn’t reveal “test procedures” either. If they can do that, you can be arrested for cocaine smuggling and the jury gets to see a locked glass box with something white in it, and no lab or testing can be verified. It’s a farce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Olofson
6th – United States v. Olofson again, they can cheat you of witnesses and anything else at the trial if the judge is threatened by the ATF and folds.
7th – Gun manufacturers are sued for things they can’t control, and must move heaven and earth to get a reimbursement order, which will probably not be paid.
8th – Everyone in the Twin Peaks in Waco (those hiding under the tables too) get held on $1,000,000 bail. No consequences for crooked prosecutor or judge. Excessive fines and cruel long periods of imprisonment and slavery are common for esoteric “crimes” involving where a certain metal part in your rifle of metal parts was manufactured.
9th – Unconstitutional law enacted –> person tried –> 5th amendment says we can do whatever we want to you for any reason! And that’s just the enumerated parts of the constitution. Don’t even get started on the “rights” people claim to “feel safe”
10th – Any federal gun law is a violation of this, and any state gun law is a violation of the 14th amendment.
Nicely done. Have not seen anything like this, here.
Uncle Piggy, you could at least read the rest of my comments before reading into my statement all sorts of things that aren’t there.
Desert Dave asked a question from which I inferred he was saying something along the lines “since the 2A doesn’t mention felons, felons have the same 2A rights as the rest of us.” I just pointed out that the constitution allows for people to be deprived of their rights. I even hedged, saying that people would hopefully have been given due process. That should at least suggest the possibility that I believe people sometimes get screwed. If you couldn’t get that, then my response to Sam on that very point should have cleared that up.
Then Katy went and read into my statement about as much as you did and responded with a coherent criticism of lifetime penalties that have no relation to the crime committed. I responded to Katy saying she basically missed my point. Then showed that the courts are at least considering moving in the right direction on this issue. Then I stated my opinion (everything I said before that is an accurate statement of the law as it is applied in this country, whether or not any of us like it). You can go back and read my opinion before criticizing it. I’ll even put it in the terms that I would as a judge in the case of some paperwork felon. “Prohibiting non-violent felons from possessing firearms serves no government interest and, therefore, can not stand any level of judicial scrutiny. There are surely exceptions to this rule that we need not imagine here.”
“Basically from what I can tell, your stance is “Because there is some foul individual walking the street today who got loose with a slap on the wrist, any number of restrictions are permissible if an individual has ever seen the inside of a courtroom for any reason whatsoever, and couldn’t afford to get out of it.” – You, sir, need to work on your reading comprehension. Firstly, our discussion was of convicted felons. Without even taking the liberal interpretation you took with Hannibal and my statements, your statement could be taken to include people who couldn’t get out of jury duty, much less anyone who fought and didn’t beat a traffic ticket. Not that we were talking about it, but there is only one class of misdemeanors (taking the generally accepted distinction between felonies and misdemeanors) for which one can be denied his 2A rights, domestic violence.
Your interpretation of the 3A and “forcing” are moronic.
“…there is only one class of misdemeanors (taking the generally accepted distinction between felonies and misdemeanors) for which one can be denied his 2A rights, domestic violence.”
True statement…for the moment. Have been reading several commentaries about how jurisdictions are moving more misdemeanors into felony status. That fluidity is something to be monitored (and feared). Are these status upgrades designed specifically to include more of the public into “prohibited person” classification?
The general trend of everything can be regulated by the government and violations will be punished severely is to be feared.
I think we have moved to far from the common law where things generally were not proscribed until an actual physical/monetary harm of another came about. This was true of both criminal and civil law. So many of our crimes today are things we have forbidden because they “lead” to harm/crime. Almost all of our gun laws are a perfect example of this.
“So many of our crimes today are things we have forbidden because they “lead” to harm/crime. Almost all of our gun laws are a perfect example of this.”
Could this be traced to the fact that virtually 100% of legislators are lawyers? And that lawyers like law? And that the more law, the more the need for dues paying lawyers?
Shakespeare had a really solid idea for day one after the coup.
Those “kill all the lawyers” guys were establishing what looks like a socialist utopia. No money and everyone eats for free and wears the same clothes while worshiping the state.
If that’s what you want Sam, go for it.
A good idea used for a different outcome doesn’t make the idea bad, now does it?
Yes, I am one of those who hates lawyers until I need one….to get me out of the mess lawyers created in the first place.
It is about time. Giving LEOs and retired civil servants rights that the normal denizon can never hope to get creates a “warrior” class above others. It also fits hand in glove with the militariaztion of the police.
Of course vets are not mentioned here, that would mean people outside of stateside LE could carry.
I think we all know how the 9th will rule on this.
Will the US Supreme Court take this one on…………
Even IF the U.S. Supreme Court takes this case (after the 9th Circuit rules and someone appeals), the Supremes will probably punt and cite the Supreme Court’s holding in District of Columbia v. Heller:
The more interesting question: will the U.S. Supreme Court rule that neither retired government agents nor citizens can carry in schools? At this point I cannot predict what our courts will do.
A famous quote goes something like this” some pigs are more equal than others”
Animal Farm – “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
(underrated book, everyone should read it)
When I was in college, the leftists all claimed Animal Farm and 1984 were about right wing fascists and Führer Reagan. Refused to believe Orwell was not a socialist politician and writer defending the proles.
He was most definitely a socialist though- just a socialist who was much more aware of history and realistic about human nature compared to the modern left.
“When I was in college, the leftists all claimed Animal Farm and 1984 were about right wing fascists and Führer Reagan.”
You see, a Fascist isn’t a Fascist when they are doing *your* bidding.
That’s why Progressives love activist judges and have no problem excusing them with terms like “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.”
Progressive sleep soundly with their conscience as clean as fresh-driven snow, pious in their belief society is improving under their care…
Were they oblivious to the fact that the book was published in 1945? And it was not about any particular political individual, e.g. Hitler, but how the power in a democratic society can be usurped by a powerful interest group, as was the case in the Soviet Union as well as Germany, and can happen anywhwere.
“…but how the power in a democratic society can be usurped by a powerful interest group,…”
Nope. Any activity, rule, law, prohibition that curtailed whatever entertained the lefties was considered fascist. Even back when, the popular stance was that law and order was tyrannical, and only freedom to do as one pleases was considered legitimate. The mantra was that so long as you did not harm anyone, or anything, nothing should be illegal. If you just happened to harm or damage someone/thing, well, “Oh, wow, dude. My bad.”
“The mantra was that so long as you did not harm anyone, or anything, nothing should be illegal.”
Who could disagree? That’s the philosophical basis upon which civil rights are often defined.
“Who could disagree? That’s the philosophical basis upon which civil rights are often defined.”
Except in my explanation, actions that do/did harm/damage were simply excused as something unavoidable, excusable, and exempt from criticism.
I don’t understand why the police are “allowed”, or better yet, expected to carry guns at all; and that we are not. The idea that police “need” guns to deal with bad guys all the time and that we don’t is non sequitur on every level. The police respond to crime after the fact. We however are forced to deal with it in real time. If we mandated that all citizens carried guns at all times and in all places, wouldn’t that necessarily eliminate the need for police to carry? Or maybe even the need for them in the first place.
The notion that police are more law abiding and less violent (on or off duty) than the average citizen is not one that is supported by the facts.
“The notion that police are more law abiding and less violent (on or off duty) than the average citizen is not one that is supported by the facts.”
No, but the public accepts the ‘fact’ that police are the most highly trained and experienced with guns, that police sometimes make mistakes, and that average citizens cannot approach the level of training and competence of police. Therefore, ‘fact’, guns in the hands of the public are a roaring danger to civil society.
“An dat’s de name of dat tune.”
Except when you look closely at how many cops have had domestics that would have barred any other CIVILIAN
(unless you’re an MP, you are a CITIZEN) from owning guns and how those incidents seem to disappear. How many cops are on their second or third marriage?
Take away their fancy uniform, armor, and radio and they look just like us. Except their life is worth exponentially more if someone harms them or their dog.
Prove it. Where are you getting your statistics from?
Statistics show that cops are more law abiding than the general public. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/
Statistics also show that we are more law abiding than cops. Id.
The counter argument to that is that cops don’t get charged or convicted for their crimes because of the “blue wall.” I do believe that cops are held to a lower standard than the general public outside of a courtroom. (Before being charged, which may often prevent a cop from being charged when a non-cop would be).
The “blue wall” is well reinforced with democrat party city councils and democrat mayors. As well as a democrat district attorney.
The democrats control every major city in america. Thats why so few are ever prosecuted in LA or Chicago or any democrat controlled city. .
Never have been able to figure out what to make of it, but I did experience one place where police actually deterred crime of a serious nature (well, deterred more than anything seen in this country).
Spent some time in Taiwan. In the largest towns and cities there was a very interesting law enforcement structure, virtually on every street corner. There were three layers of enforcement: city/town police; government police; army. Three different uniforms.
The really interesting part was the thriving society, and private commerce. Learning from a local guide, the best places to eat were in alleyways. At no time did I feel insecure walking through alleys, stopping to eat or buy something from a street vendor. Although it was strange to find very few of the populace spoke any English/American at all. The smaller hotels and businesses were a challenge, but the larger places always had at least one official English speaking greeter/translator.
The upshot is/was, living in a benign police state was quite remarkable; emphasis on benign. None of my co-workers had tales of late night round-ups of dissidents, no cinder block ghettos of destitute slave labor, really cheap transportation (and coinage that looked like aluminum shavings, weighed nothing, and apparently was virtually worthless…except for locals using the public transit). Being taller (a first) than the rest of the crowd made it easy to check for surveillance, of which there appeared to be none for us outsiders.
Like I said, still have not resolved all the implications of what I experienced.
I have no doubt that the streets of Paris are much safer now then they were a year ago since the emergency powers act has been extended, and extended, and extended. I wonder how Americans would react to having the US Army in full battle gear massed about NYC. Would that make them “feel” safer? Would you “feel” safer?
“I wonder how American would react to having the US Army in full battle gear massed about NYC. Would that make them “feel” safer? ”
I think that happened right after 9/11, and the people DID feel safer.
In Taiwan, the army on the streets had an M-1 Carbine slung over the shoulder, and a plastic helmet liner on the head. And yes, I WAS safer, and I did FEEL safer.
Which is why I said the experience is still, years later, not resolved in my mind.
As I understand the term, a police state is more than simply having a large police presence. If the police aren’t violating anyone’s rights, then it’s not a police state.
” If the police aren’t violating anyone’s rights, then it’s not a police state.”
I understand the distinction, but in this country such a heavily visible police presence would be construed ipse dixit as a police state, resisted at all costs.
Someone would have a sponsor to support claims that massive police presence implies impending oppression of human rights, thus restricting free thought and action.
I won’t disagree with that. I know it would make me uncomfortable.
Gman – While the requirement varies from place to place, for the most part cops are considered to be “on duty” 24/7/365 and their departments require them to carry a firearm and police identification with them at all times should it become necessary for them to exercise their police powers when they’re not “on the clock”. Some departments even issue their police officers their marked cruisers and encourage them to use them off-duty so that they can monitor the radio and respond to emergencies.
First, the original post was about retarded (er retired) police, not active. However, I was pondering the prevalent mentality that police need guns to protect themselves from the bad guys even though we wee citizens are typically the unwilling first responders, and that we are seen as not needing guns. Are you and I not on duty 24/7/365? If you are carrying concealed and a LEO is under attack wouldn’t you come to her rescue? Doesn’t that make you “on duty”? And how does being retired (LEO) change anything? Isn’t that reverse age discrimination?
The difference is that felons who get out often target the cops who arrested them for revenge whereas normal citizens are rarely ever targeted. Criminals don’t care about Active or retired status when they plan revenge.
“Criminals don’t care about Active or retired status when they plan revenge.”
Good point, except…..
A home defender also becomes a potential revenge target for the homies of the dead home invader, but in too many places, the defending homeowner cannot carry a gun everywhere to defend against revenge seekers. Anyway you cut it, the current laws discriminate between two groups of true civilians. Retired cops no longer have law enforcement authority, any more than I (as a retired military aviator) have authority to access my former weapon systems in the event my town suffers an air attack from Russia.
Lots of times criminal target the weak to commit their crimes against. How often have cops been targeted while off duty in civilian clothes by someone they arrested in the past? Further more it has been ruled in the courts that cops are not under any legal requirement to come to the aid of a person in distress. There is no valid reason for retired cops to have carve outs. It creates two sets of laws. One for the rulers and one for the ruled.
“There is no valid reason for retired cops to have carve outs. It creates two sets of laws. One for the rulers and one for the ruled.”
What’s the point of elective office if you can’t reward your friends, or enrich yourself?
SurfGW – Citation? These often attacks never seem to be in the media.
Gman – Hey, I’m as pro-Second Amendment as you are. It says what it says, particularly the “shall not be infringed” part. Should an average citizen who is packing come to the aid of a police officer in trouble? Absolutely, as the man in Florida recently did, shooting the miscreant who was pummeling a police officer stone dead. Did he have an obligation to do what he did? Only perhaps in a moral sense. Cops, on the other hand, are obligated by their departments to take such police action as may be necessary or risk being disciplined up to and including their dismissal.
Cops put people in jail, something which oft-times leaves those people embittered and perhaps hankering for revenge. While I haven’t experienced any such incident, I know some cops, a few of them retirees, who have. I’m not saying that non-cops don’t make enemies, too – and should be allowed to arm themselves for protection – but the likelihood is greater for cops.
“I’m not saying that non-cops don’t make enemies, too …but the likelihood is greater for cops.”
Do not the statistics show that more non-cops are assaulted each year, than are cops assaulted?
Mike Betts –
” Did he have an obligation to do what he did?” YES! Not because it was a LEO, but because he could. It is moral imperative. The Declaration put it best…
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
If you can, you must.
I have no legal duty to render aid to anyone being attacked. On the other hand, neither does the state (including the individual police officer).
Retired police can still exercise a good bit of police powers. On the other hand, so can everyone else in most states.
Wrong and simple minded.
“Wrong and simple minded.”
Really?
We disarm those who endure the immediate threat/damage/injury, yet herald the arming of those the courts have determined have no duty to respond, protect, prevent?
A cop might be fired for refusing to respond to a crime in progress (defy department policy/procedure), but no officer or PD will be held liable for failing to arrive in time to be a difference-maker. The attack victim pays that entire freight bill.
B/C, after all, they do have a “right” to return home safe to their families at night.
“B/C, after all, they do have a “right” to return home safe to their families at night.”
Oh yeah. There’s that.
I forgot.
Your premise that police respond to crime only after the fact and that they therefore do not need guns is fundamentally flawed. How many times have police officers become in gun fights as a result of a traffic stop? Remember that case just recently where a cop in Aridzone responded to a roll-over accident and then as attacked by the driver? Similar circumstances are reported often. What do you think drug dealers would do if they knew that police officers were unarmed? Do you think they’d surrender quietly? A friend of mine who had been a cop said that the scariest thing in his law enforcement career was pulling over a drunk driver at night, because you could not see the driver’s hands and drunks can be unpredictable and violent. How many cops have responded to a domestic incident that suddenly turns violent? How many cops chase after fleeing suspects who have just committed an armed felony? It happens often enough that it would be stupid to disarm cops.
I am not suggesting that cops are more equal than others–they are not. But they should be able to carry arms, as should we. Now as to retired cops, more than a few have put people in prison–and some of those prisoners bear grudges. Moreover, there is no more reason to disarm retired LEOs than there are to disarm the typical law abiding citizens of this country.
I believe his point isn’t that cops should be disarmed, but that the reasoning that cops must have guns all the time and civilians shouldn’t be allowed to is flawed.
It is more likely that a civilian will need a gun than a cop will at any given moment. I’m not making a per capita argument. I’m saying that it is more likely that a criminal will violently confront a civilian than a cop.
There are about 16,000 murders per year in the US. In 2016, 140 cops were “killed in the line of duty.” Let’s assume they were all murdered (most cops die in traffic accidents, many of those are probably murder under the felony murder rule). Let’s also assume these statistics I found on the internet are accurate and hold out to be roughly the same from year to year. If that’s the case, then the victim of a murder is about 115 times more likely to be a civilian than a cop. If all citizens are armed, then murders are more likely to confront armed resistance from a civilian than a cop.
While the situation is not persuasive, I always wonder why we do not read of wholesale killings of police in every other former British colony. Maybe they do not have drunks, domestic violence, or drug dealers to contend with. Maybe just everyone in all those other former colonies are just more polite, all the way around.
I’ve been a cop long enough that I’ll give you an eye-roll at the whole “police respond to crime after the fact” thing. Unless you’re in Chicago I come across violent crimes in progress a helluva lot more than you. And, funny thing, I carry a gun all the time and the only times I need to draw it are on-duty.
But: I agree that it makes no sense that regular lawful citizens can’t carry guns. Because while cops have more need of them, if you happen to be the citizen who needs one this second, even if it was an improbable event, you shouldn’t be disallowed from having one.
“The idea that police “need” guns to deal with bad guys all the time and that we don’t is non sequitur on every level.”
You’re absolutely right. The reason that police carry guns has less to do with defending themselves from armed attackers and more to do with forcing compliance. If the police didn’t have guns, would you stop for their DUI checkpoints? Would you register your guns? Your car? Would you pay property taxes? Would you put up with ANY of their shenanigans if they didn’t have guns? I know I wouldn’t. And they know it too.
Police guns are all pointed at us, even when they’re holstered.
“First Responders” are there second.
Or third.
Sometimes they are even the harbingers of a secondary attack.
The 9th will strike down the lawsuit. There are good reasons for letting cops and retired cops carry everywhere:
1) cops put away felons who often want revenge when they are released and cops (active or retired) need protection because they are targeted by criminals. Regular citizens can be attacked by criminals also, but they are rarely specifically targeted.
2) Gun safety. Cops and retired cops are much better at gun handling than most CCW holders. Having seen Police Academy POST standards and the standards for CCW class, POST is much tougher. A retired cop must pass POST and requalify (usually every 3 months) many times in their career which builds gun-handling habits. CCW holders just take the class every 3 years.
Experiencing the presence of police “practicing” at the gun range, the situation is not encouraging. The cops were shooting targets at 50ft. Mucho hits outside the colored center circle. Mucho. When considering carrying a gun for self-defense, I wonder how to respond when those cops are shooting at a target across the street, and I am a bystander to the perp. Do I shoot back at cops who are hitting bystanders? Anyway, watching law enforcement “practicing”, creates instant recall of that shooting in NYC a few years ago, where 12 bystanders were hit by multiple cops.
All California cops have to pass POST standards which are a little tougher than what you mention but there are many cops who cannot hit in the center ring regularly.
CCW standards mostly focus on safely drawing the weapon (unloaded) and the shooting is 50 rounds (not timed) at a target almost the size of a sheet of paper:
You must score 70% at the following distances from the target…
3 yards – 6 rounds
5 yards – 12 rounds
7 yards – 12 rounds
Tell me if even bad shooting cops would fail this
Would you argue that most people at the gun range are cops “practicing”? Or more likely the common citizen?
Interesting is the overall success rate of non-police who have little or no training, but manage to avoid losing their life in a self-defense shooting. Actually, it is more than interesting, it is amazing how many untrained citizens take down bad guys. So…..my take would be that any LEO who cannot remain in the 8/10 inch colored target with every shot at 50ft should be relieved of duty. Conditions will make for problems with handgun accuracy, but on a range, near perfect conditions, no cop should be allowed to serve if they cannot keep all rounds inside the target.
Shooting proficiency requirements in California vary widely from county to county, starting at essentially nothing but safe gun handling and the judgment of the instructor to passing the same shooting test as police officers (at least it would if San Francisco actually issued CCWs. For a while, the City by the Bay had posted that you had to pass the same proficiency exam on its own course with its own range officer–all of which the candidate had to pay for. That this violated state law did not seem to matter until someone threatened to sue.) I think I’ve read that San Diego requires an 85 and the shooting distance is out to 15 yards, but it’s been a while since I saw that.There is no state standard, just a minimum of “up to 16 hours of training” half of which is classroom and the other half is range time.
I’ve also read that NYC cops, because of budgetary constraints, have to requalify only once a year. And it shows, with only a 19% hit rate. Then again, I bet it would be a logistical nightmare to run 35,000 cops through recertification every three months. By my math, that would be over 100 officers a day, five days a week, year round.
yes, yes, we always hear about how “I’m way better than the cops at my range!”
The courts doesn’t care about how you think cops shot on a range one day. They care about certifications. Cops have them (even retired cops have to pass quals).
“yes, yes, we always hear about how “I’m way better than the cops at my range!” ”
Not my claim. Certainly not my claim. But cops should be more accurate on the range than the average gun owner. My point was that the demonstrations I observed make me question my safety should an incident arise where cops end up firing shots in any situation there are bystanders. The NYC episode cannot be dismissed, or justified.
Since when has “good reason” ever been considered by the 9th? This is the court that thinks the Constitution isn’t good enough reason.
Trying not to flame anyone, but there is a brown substance I would equate to the rest of your post. Even if any of it were true, if retired cops need protection they can follow the same rules as the rest of us “CITIZENS”.
@SurfGW definitely was is a cop. How often are cops in plain cloths targeted by people they arrested in the past? I can’t think of any. Only while on duty ambush.
I was not a cop or an actor who played one. I was military and many close friends became cops or firearms instructors after retiring from Active Duty military.
GMan, I cannot find a media citation of cops being targeted for revenge. Unfortunately revenge attacks on cops is not a tracked statistical category, but it happens pretty regularly if you ask cops.
And what does it say above the entrance at Bass Pro Shop stores?
“Unfortunately revenge attacks on cops is not a tracked statistical category, but it happens pretty regularly if you ask cops.”
The same risk is borne by everyone who harms or testifies against a perp. The risk is greater because the general populace is not granted permission to be armed. There is not moral, or tactical justification for allowing retired cops more rights than the citizen who fund the police retirement fund,
While I agree that the retired LE carve-out may violate the 14th amendment, I don’t really see how this is going to help anyone. What would a court’s solution be? Strike down the carve-out (except for active LE) would be my guess. That would mean that everybody has their 2nd amendment rights violated equally, as required by the 14th amendment.
I understand the frustration that people who live in states like California have. However- I think that these carve-outs are a more politically viable way to get draconian laws in place. Later, the carve outs can be removed. The long game for the gun grabbers is to take guns from everybody- first the average citizens, then the retired LE, then active LE. The gun grabbers will eventually ally with groups like BLM to demand that patrol officers not carry firearms- similar to western Europe. That’s the final step, the last frontier, for the gun grabbers. Only agents of the federal government will have firearms. Leftists worship the federal government, and are eager to live as subjects. That’s the goal, period.
The LE/retired LE groups who supported the laws so long as they were excepted made a serious error to do so. I wouldn’t hold my breath for them to figure it out. By the time they do, it will be too late.
Good judges rule on the constitutionality of law. Not on whether they would like its outcome.
And that is EXACTLY why Gorsuch scares the crap out of Democrats.
In the case they cited, Silveria (since overturned), the court decided that the retired police exemption made no rational sense. Because pretty much every law now has a ‘severability’ clause, the effect was that the exemption was nullified (for retired police) and that was it. So the final result was that less people were able to legally carry guns on school grounds.
Surprisingly, cops as a whole did not rise up and start a revolution that wiped out California’s overlords. Instead they kept voting conservative (because that’s what cops do) while the politically appointed chiefs continued to talk about gun control.
I’m happy I’m not a lawyer. I would start every case by closing my eyes, letting out a slow sigh and saying, “So, it clearly states in the Constitution…” to a bunch of people that aren’t interested in the Constitution.
“The brief argues, among other things, that the retired “peace officer” exemption to California’s Gun-Free School Zone Act violates the Equal Protection Clause because it bears no rational relation to the purpose of the Act, that the classification favors retired “peace officers” over a similarly-situated group (civilians with a carry license)…”
The article mentions Silveira v. Lockyer as a precedent for their argument. First of all, let’s remember that Silveira v. Lockyer was overturned by SCOTUS. But even if we assume that the opinions in there have some value, it was a different case. The reason Silveira denied the ‘retired LEO’ exemption was because it was regarding the possession of ‘assault weapons’ and that the purpose of the prohibition was “…to eliminate the availability of the weapons generally.” In this case the goal is not to eliminate the availability of weapons from the state, so I doubt the judges will bite.
But seriously, hanging your hat on Silveira? Let’s take another quote from that illustrious opinion:
“There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.”
These school gun laws are stupid, of course. But this just smells like lawyers wasting money to me. I guess if you’re in CA everything is a hail-mary. But then again, what’s the end game here? If this lawsuit succeeds and retired IRS agents living in California can’t legally carry a gun on school grounds anymore… what does that do, exactly?
Cops and criminals. I have no use for either. Paramedics, rescue and firefighters yes. The only reason I “need” cops is that I would be shot or imprisoned by said cops if I carried to defend myself where I reside. So yes, my heros, I guess I need you to watch my back.
Comments are closed.