California Microstamping law sent back on appeal
- Thread starter Aguila Blanca
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It's not a question of "bashing" the police, or blaming them for bad gun laws. The problem is that the police are citizens, the same as the rest of us, and should be subject to the same laws. But whenever the politicians dream up more restrictive anti-gun laws, they write in exceptions for the police.
Especially a new law that proclaims it enhances "safety" should certainly apply to the police, perhaps more than to anyone else.
Especially a new law that proclaims it enhances "safety" should certainly apply to the police, perhaps more than to anyone else.
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.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Yes, absolutely.Mikef262 said:
I carry a pistol for the same reason a police officer carries a pistol, and if mine malfunctions due to some new-fangled anti-gun requirement, I'll be just as dead as a ploice officer would be if his malfunctioned. If these new technologies are indeed reliable and make guns safer, then they should be required for use by all police officers. If the new technology isn't reliable enough for police use, or doesn't make guns safer for police officers, then the technology isn't reliable enough or safe enough to force it on the rest of us.
Are you unaware that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the police do NOT have a duty to protect us? In most cases, the police arrive after the fact, to collect evidence and interview witnesses. If I am unfortunate enough to find myself in a situation that requires me to use (or even just display) my firearm, the odds are overwhelming that the nearest police officer will be at least fifteen minutes away. The vast majority of police officers in the U.S. go through their entire career without ever firing their duty weapon except for annual qualification.Mikef262 said:
This is precisely my point. I'm not bashing the cops, the point is that if it IS what they claim it to be (safer or whatever) then the police should use it, and if its not what the politicians claim, if it is something that puts the police at risk, it ALSO puts US at risk and it should not be a law.
Has no one else noticed that whenever these types of law come up, generally the various police organizations are all for them? That is to say, that if the exception is already written in the proposed law, you will find LEO's agree with the law. If the exception isn't written, then LEO's are against the change in law... Until the proposed law is amended and has the exception written. Then they are for it.
This goes directly to what was said below:
I take exception to the above. Why? Because the police are civilians, just as we are. To cast me as a mere civilian and LEO as something else, is to continue the "Us vs. Them" mentality that seems to be the prevailing thought.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but police are not the military. At least, not in this country. So to be clear, the police must be subject to the same laws that the rest of the civilian population is subject to.
Exceptions, for LEO's, written into laws are nothing more than a means to divide us and should be viewed in that manner. You had better damn well believe that the politicians know this and use it every chance they can, when it comes to firearms restrictions on the population in general.
This goes directly to what was said below:
I take exception to the above. Why? Because the police are civilians, just as we are. To cast me as a mere civilian and LEO as something else, is to continue the "Us vs. Them" mentality that seems to be the prevailing thought.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but police are not the military. At least, not in this country. So to be clear, the police must be subject to the same laws that the rest of the civilian population is subject to.
Exceptions, for LEO's, written into laws are nothing more than a means to divide us and should be viewed in that manner. You had better damn well believe that the politicians know this and use it every chance they can, when it comes to firearms restrictions on the population in general.
62coltnavy
New member
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.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
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.Texas45 said:
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
Staff
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.
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.
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.
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.
ShootistPRS
New member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...