beararmsca

When it comes to gun rights, Californians are some of the most restricted groups in the United States. Thanks to Proposition 63 it’s about to get worse. But Golden State gun owners may be cheered to discover that the state’s police chiefs are objecting to “prohibiting the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring certain individuals to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition.”

kimber_blk_logo_smallOfficially, the California Police Chiefs Association has decided to oppose Proposition 63 because it “fails to meet the appropriate balance between public safety and individual gun rights.” The real reason Golden State police chiefs don’t support this measure: law enforcement won’t be exempt from its provisions. At least not yet. From latimes.com:

Ventura Police Chief Ken Corney, who is president of the association, wrote that his group supported legislation enacted this year that requires background checks for those buying ammunition. But Corney said Proposition 63 reverses some exemptions that allow law enforcement to continue purchasing ammunition freely for on-duty purposes.

California gun owners are having their Constitutionally protected property demonized, fined, and regulated to the point where many are leaving. Gun rights advocates who can’t afford to leave — for personal or financial reason — keep trying to fight a system they can’t beat. Short of the unthinkable, nothing will change.

The more I read about California’s tyrannical government, the more I believe that my decision to leave the state was a good one. Police chiefs aren’t siding with civilians because the gun laws are tyrannical, but because the laws now affect them as well. That’s a new kind of terrifying.

37 Responses to Kimber Gun Rights Bulletin: California Police Chief’s Group Opposes Gun Control

  1. You haven’t seen a temper tantrum until cops realize that they’re required to follow the same laws as the common folk. The jumping, stomping and screaming can be quite entertaining.

    • This. Too little too late imo.

      “…fails to meet the appropriate balance between public safety and individual gun rights.”

      And all the other draconian BS that got passed was a good balance? I’m sure for mr and Mrs LEO it was. The smugness of some LE down here when they buy an off roster pistol and walk out same day. Actually had a guy tell me that if someone wants a g43 then they can go to the academy and wear a badge, THEN they can buy it.

      I respect LE and know there’s some awesome officers, don’t get me wrong, but I abhor the LE superiority attitudes.

      /rant

  2. I think ultimately this should be a federal law. If we can’t have it they don’t need it either.

    Our odds to use a gun may be a lot lower than a polices officer’s but their odds to have one are a lot higher. That needs to be taken into account with things like “safe storage” or similar BS.

    • “I think ultimately this should be a federal law. If we can’t have it they don’t need it either.”

      That will work about as well as the provision in the (Un)affordable Care act where Congress and their staff was to be *required* to buy the same crap plans with the same ridiculous deductibles as the general public.

      That’s actually in the law. Not optional, *required*.

      Then they discovered the real financial horror of the ACA:

      “Many who were critical of this law felt the reality of ObamaCare would prove so painful for Congress–as it is for many citizens–that the law would quickly be re-opened, heavily amended or even repealed with Democrat’s help. But that calculation must have also occurred at the White House. The Administration quickly came forward with an illegal sweetheart waiver for Congress alone.

      Congressional leaders from both parties quietly and gratefully accepted the special deal from the administration’s Office of Personnel Management. It gives legislators and staff “Gold Level” ObamaCare coverage with a 75 percent subsidy paid by taxpayers or even the option of opting out and retaining their previous heavily subsidized plan. The income of members and staff is simply not counted.”

      Require ‘law enforcement’ to be held to the same gun laws of the citizens?

      Fat fvcking chance…

      http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/242140-just-wrong-congress-quietly-takes-obamacare-waiver

      • Law Enforcement Officers (and agents) should ABSOLUTELY be held to the exact same law as the rest of the population:

        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.

        That’s the law. Everybody should be required to abide by it.

      • If the courts still believed the equal protection clause in the Constitution was valid, yes law enforcement could and should be held to the same gun laws imposed on civilians. Unfortunately special rights and elitism has taken deep roots into government.

  3. They don’t oppose Gun Control. They oppose gun control that they are not exempted from. See the recently CA laws passed, that they “didn’t have a problem with” as soon as they were exempted.

  4. Don’t really know what to make of this one. It is always nice to have the support of law-enforcement when it comes to gun-rights. But knowing that the support isn’t based on Constitutional principles sucks.

  5. So he was fine with the law, until he lost his carveout and had to play by the same rules as the peasants, then it was unacceptable.

    • “Bear’s Arms”!
      You figured it out, but I sure didn’t.
      I was going to ask why the bear’s forelegs were removed, and why all the bear shit was faded in color. Actually, I still want to know why the bear turds aren’t starkly brown like in other images of the flag I’ve seen. Then maybe somebody can tell me why the bear is walking in a field of shit to begin with.

  6. This is the same old story we see over and over. For some reason, cops think that they are a privileged class above and beyond us mere citizenry. While I am willing to entertain certain allowances for police who are on duty or who, while off duty, put their lives on the line to deal with a problem, once a cop stops being a cop, then he/she should no longer have any rights beyond what is afforded the rest of us “citizenry.”

    LEOSA is pile of crap – retired cops should be entitled to no more and no less than what the rest of us get and when a police officer is off duty, he/she should also conform to standard laws. If, for example, citizens are limited to certain guns and magazine sizes, then off-duty and retired cops should be held to the same standard. This also means that cops in CA have to follow the same AR laws as the rest of the populace when not actively on duty.

    • Funny you should say that. A federal court rejected an equal protection attacvk on the retired police carve out to the ban on CCW carriers being allowed to carry on scholl campuses–because retired cops face a higher risk, supposedly…

  7. I saw the writing on the wall 20 years ago when I bailed on out of Northern California.

    Most folks that I knew have also departed, in no small part to this backwards direction.

    Heck, I even drug my native Californian wife out of there, and she is having few regrets,
    save for missing the relatives left behind. Sad, really.

  8. Still voting for Hillary Sara? This is why I cannot stand transplants from CA. They poop on their living room floor until they can no longer stand the stench and then come over to your house to poop on your floor and cannot understand your objection to their presence and behavior. If you are voting for Illary, move back to California where you belong.

    • She never said she was voting for Hillary — just that she can’t make herself vote for Trump. I’m not voting for the Great Trumpkin either.

      • When you choke on your ‘principles’ (this is not glee club), please understand if none of the POTG are willing to perform the hindlick maneuver.

        • Just so you know, this IS how it works:
          Except for Nebraska and Maine, electors from each state vote for whichever party candidate gets the most votes on what we call “Election Day” (November). That means whichever candidate gets the most votes is allocated ALL the electors (except Nebraska and Maine). Thus, with sufficient numbers of people refusing to vote for the party candidate can be a factor in the opposition party candidate being elected. In the instant case, if insufficient numbers of voters choose Trump, Hillary will gain the most electoral votes. Popular vote makes a difference in each state.

          So, IF one lives in a state where the popular vote will always be greater for the opposition, voter choice may not make a difference (so do a better job of persuasion, move to where your vote counts, or stop whining). Where the outcome might be close (regardless of the names of the candidates), not voting can be a deciding factor.

          For those who are conveniently voting their “principles” by not voting for their party’s candidate because your candidate can never win, “principles” are not being exercised; they are being used as an excuse. If your state is overwhelmingly Demoncrat, don’t vote. But don’t pretend “principles” are at stake.
          http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

        • So you do know. I’m impressed. Now I’ll tell you that I’ve thought through all of that and taken it into account. And you’re making an awful lot of unfounded assumptions about my personal values.

        • It’s what we do here.

          But…..even a ‘wasted vote’ is an advertisement for your side. Enough ‘waste’, and it might get some attention that causes others to re-think their choice. Enough ‘not voting’ reduces the count, reinforcing the notion your candidate is a loser.

          Jes assuming.

        • I think Al Gore built the original internet entirely from unfounded assumptions.

          Bottom line for this conversation: There are more than two presidential candidates out there, and I’m going to vote for the best one, whoever that is. The fact that my vote is entirely superfluous in practical terms makes it a less stressful decision, but Trump and Clinton both have made it very easy to vote for someone else.

    • Bloomberg is working on that. He hit a home run in Washington with their outrageous universal background check law that requires a background check every time you hand a gun to someone else, and again when they hand it back. He is trying to pass a similar–but less obviously defective–law in Nevada, and efforts have been made in Oregon as well, as usual emanating from the population centers. That leaves only Arizona as a state unaffected by his reach.

  9. When the law is changed to provide LEOs and retired LEOs their normal capacity magazines, purchase ammo without a background check and fee, and the ability to purchase non-roster pistols, they will shut up and leave us hanging. Again. Still.

  10. Just wait until the illegal aliens and the Mexican Mafia figure out that they can make more money importing AR-15s and ammunition of all calibers than they can importing marijuana.

    Fun times are ahead for the state!

  11. As if the Proposition itself wasn’t bad enough, this is just a big ol’ F you to the pissant citizens of the state. The citizens who aren’t cops, I mean.

    “Prop what? Does what to whom now? And takes away their– well, that doesn’t seem– oh, didn’t apply to cops? Yeah great, whatever. Fuck ’em.

    Wait. Now the rules might apply to me and mine? Whoa now. That’s gonna be a problem for us.”

    What a colossal festering rectum that… person… is.

  12. So, what does that FASCIST Newsom (Lt Gov of Kalli and father of this trash) have to say?
    Living (if one can call it that) in this lefty lib cesspool, truly sucks! Welcome to N Korea lite.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *