rr762mmfmj

High capacity magazines

45 posts in this topic

I dont have a problem with law enforcment.Most of my gunsmith customers are law enforcment.But its like anything else it takes one bad apple to make the rest look bad in the publics eye.
I agree with you on the "bad apple" concept that makes everyone look bad. Thats why I took exception to your blanket statement about the "Barney Fifes" as if they all were bad apples. I've known several "bad apples" in my years as an LEO. Believe me the rest of us dislike them as much as the citizens we serve. But the majority of them are very hard working men and women who have chosen a difficult profession. Thanks for clearing up your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, almost every single encounter I've had with an officer, they've had a real bad attitude and the problem was either not taken care of or worsened on my end. The problem is there are SO MANY "bad apple" cops, that the "good apples" seem to be the minority. The laws have too many grey areas that the LEO's can twist around in any way that best suits them and many times when they take inappropriate actions, it is simply excused because "they were just doing their job". LEO's are nothing more than human beings doing a job, they are no more or less important than a janitor or a CEO. The difference is if the janitor or CEO slips up, they are held accountable. Yes, LEO's "lay their lives on the line" everyday, but so do a whole lot of other workers only they don't get the pay & benefits to compensate for it. Many officers see themselves as elitists but need to realize they are just the same as every other law abiding citizen. Their job is "To protect and to SERVE"!!!To any LEO's on this board, if you follow the laws and respect your job, congratulations and this shouldn't offend you. But if you are offended by it, maybe you need to take a step back and reconsider your attitude & actions. It's only a job & a shiny piece of metal on your chest. It does not make you better than everyone else, it does not mean the laws do not apply to you, it does not make you the judge, jury, & exectutioner, and it does not give you a free pass to treat people like dog poop.
'lilwes,I truly believe that if you treat others the way you would want to be treated in a given set of circumstances it will go a long way. And if "almost every single encounter" I had with an LEO turned out bad, I would probably loose faith in them too. The "good apples" are not the minority. I for one hate the "bad apples" because when they have treated somebody badly that person is most likely going to hold that against the next LEO they encounter no matter how they are treated. So, that being said, if somebody starts giving me a bad time when I started out being polite, guess what? That grey area that may have allowed me to not write a ticket or make an arrest, just got black and white. Our system of law enforcement is based on the "Spirit of the Law" vs. the "Letter of the Law" which gives the officer discretion to weigh as to what is served best, the interest of the community as a whole, or what is in the best interest of the people involved. I do not think any of us would like a total "Letter of the Law" type of law enforcement. As a LEO I sure wouldn't. That would mean for every violation no matter how minor or petty, I would be required to take official action. And it is not "only a job & shiny piece of metal on your chest". Most of us take great pride in doing a job others won't or simply can't do. A person must go through a very difficult testing process that will hopefully weed out the "bad apples". These include a written test, agility test, background, psych, medical, polygraph and more. But nothing is perfect and they, "bad apples", do get through. And we are held accountable for our actions. If somebody is treated badly by an LEO, that person should follow up with a complaint to that LEO's dept. If that does not work contact the City Council or County Board of Supervisors. If valid complaints are made guess what? Maybe we do have a "bad apple" here. But we are human and we will make mistakes, just like the janitor or CEO.In closing, I would think that if almost every encounter I had with an LEO turned out negative, I just might take a good hard look at how I represented myself during those encounters, and evaluate if my actions may have contributed to the LEO to view me, the citizen, as a "bad apple". Thank goodness there are more 'good apples" than "bad apples" in every bunch. For all the "bad apples" out there in law enforcement, I apologize. Ok, now I am off my soap box. I encourage each and every one of you to go out and ride with a LEO in your area if you have the time. Not one who is a friend of yours because that could slant opinions/perceptions. If it is a slow shift you will think they get paid for that? If it is a busy one with eyes wide open, and a very elevated heart rate, you will think they don't get paid enough!! I still love it after 25+ years. Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If somebody is treated badly by an LEO, that person should follow up with a complaint to that LEO's dept. If that does not work contact the City Council or County Board of Supervisors. If valid complaints are made guess what? Maybe we do have a "bad apple" here.
I did try to file a complaint. It was the officer's supervisor that told me "this isn't TV, we don't have to read you your rights". When I tried to contact the chief to complain about the supervisor, I was told they would file harassment charges against me if I didn't let it drop. How's that for a "bad apple"? Instead, I fought the charges over the time span of one year, finally went to trail, and within exactly 27 minutes of closing arguements (it was THAT obvious) the jury decided I was innocent and the officer was wrong to arrest me. There's much more to the story than that, and I have several other stories to go along with it (including an encounter with a certain forest ranger that I went to court for and won). I'm going to refrain from posting them here because I'm sure not everyone wants to hear them. If anyone does want to hear them, or thinks I'm blowing things out of proportion, I'll be happy to explain further in PM's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys kill me sometimes. Do you only refer to us LEO's, (there a a few that are CPC members), as "Barney Fifes" when YOU need a cop, or only when they are doing thier job upholding the laws of this state which you may not agree with? We just enforce the laws as enacted by people elected by who.... Us who vote.
If you LEO's are so concerened with upholding the law, why arn't you deporting the illegal Mexicans, seems the LEO's pick and choose the laws you want to enforce. Deporting illegals costs money,busting tax paying americans makes you money.That is the bottom line.,,300wsm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did try to file a complaint. It was the officer's supervisor that told me "this isn't TV, we don't have to read you your rights". When I tried to contact the chief to complain about the supervisor, I was told they would file harassment charges against me if I didn't let it drop. How's that for a "bad apple"? Instead, I fought the charges over the time span of one year, finally went to trail, and within exactly 27 minutes of closing arguements (it was THAT obvious) the jury decided I was innocent and the officer was wrong to arrest me. There's much more to the story than that, and I have several other stories to go along with it (including an encounter with a certain forest ranger that I went to court for and won). I'm going to refrain from posting them here because I'm sure not everyone wants to hear them. If anyone does want to hear them, or thinks I'm blowing things out of proportion, I'll be happy to explain further in PM's.
Sounds like it was a good thing for you that the Officer or the Forest Ranger were not the "Judge, Jury or Executioner", or else you surely would not have prevailed in those two cases. I am glad to hear a Jury of your peers did their civic duty. I have one question though...was it a "bad apple" District Attorney who filed the criminal complaint after the arrest? I am sure they have "bad apples" too. You see the Police need Probable Cause to make an arrest, meaning given a set of circumstances and/or evidence known to the officer, and based on his training and experience it is probable that the person committed a crime, giving the Officer the Probable Cause to make an arrest. After the arrest, the case goes to the District Attorney's office for filing of a criminal complaint where the DA reviews the case and decides to file or not. I would hope if an illegal arrest was made, one without Probable Cause, civil remedies were sought.As far as trying to complain to the Chief and being threatened, I would then contact the City Council and complain about the Chief, after all, the Chief does work for them. And as we all know....there are some really "bad apples" on those City Councils. See, they are everywhere !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you LEO's are so concerened with upholding the law, why arn't you deporting the illegal Mexicans, seems the LEO's pick and choose the laws you want to enforce. Deporting illegals costs money,busting tax paying americans makes you money.That is the bottom line.,,300wsm
WOW. So if a person is a tax paying American who is committing crimes they should not be arrested? So the next time I get a call to look for the hard working, tax paying American, who has just bounced his car off four parked cars, maybe yours, and hit the kid on a bike, again maybe yours, because he was drunk, I should go look for an Illegal Alien to deport instead? OMG. But I would guess if the drunk driver was an Illegal Alien that would be a 2fer right? And I guess it also stands to reason if we spent our time deporting Illegal Aliens the hard working, tax paying, American criminals would have nothing to worry about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, please un-confuse me. I am under the impression that any high capacity mag built prior to the ban is legal to own and use in CA. So, how do I tell if the mag is pre-ban? I have access to a couple of 30 round AR15 mags that were discarded by the military in the 80's.Thanks
See what you started, I blame you for this. :smiley-innocent-halo-yellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See what you started, I blame you for this. :smiley-innocent-halo-yellow:
Funny, last night I decided I would post this morning and ask everyone to knock it off.soSTOP IT !!Now go start a pissing contest thread somewhere else, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, last night I decided I would post this morning and ask everyone to knock it off.soSTOP IT !!Now go start a pissing contest thread somewhere else, thank you.
Sorry :smiley-innocent-halo-yellow: I should not have walked all over your thread. :roflmao3[1]: I should have started my own thread :roflmao3[1]: on the unrelated topic. You are right. SO the answer is...don't get those high cap mags cuz a "Barney" may be just around the corner!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, last night I decided I would post this morning and ask everyone to knock it off.soSTOP IT !!Now go start a pissing contest thread somewhere else, thank you.
There's much more to the story than that, and I have several other stories to go along with it (including an encounter with a certain forest ranger that I went to court for and won). I'm going to refrain from posting them here because I'm sure not everyone wants to hear them. If anyone does want to hear them, or thinks I'm blowing things out of proportion, I'll be happy to explain further in PM's.
No pissing match here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression if you own a pre-ban AR-15 then you can still use the Hi Cap mags but if your AR-15 is Post Ban then theres no reason for you to own the Hi Cap mags because your mag should be pinned so they would be illegal to own or use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mags that hold more than 10 rounds in any centerfire semi-auto rifle are not allowed. The way I understand it, not even the registered pre-ban AR-15 with removable magazines are allowed to have more than 10 round capacity (but I may be wrong on that specific statement).Now, a handgun is a different story. You are allowed to have more than 10 rounds in your handgun if you owned that clip before the ban. It would be the officer's responsibility to prove that you didn't own that clip prior to the ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh, The plan was to use a couple of 30 round mags for a M-16 that I had kicking around back in NY. The bottom line is that I called my dad and told him to toss them in the trash, done. Ain't worth the effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mags that hold more than 10 rounds in any centerfire semi-auto rifle are not allowed. The way I understand it, not even the registered pre-ban AR-15 with removable magazines are allowed to have more than 10 round capacity (but I may be wrong on that specific statement).Now, a handgun is a different story. You are allowed to have more than 10 rounds in your handgun if you owned that clip before the ban. It would be the officer's responsibility to prove that you didn't own that clip prior to the ban.
My understanding as well. I happen to own a couple 15rd mags from a Ruger P85 I bought back in 92. I have the paperwork right here in my office showing the purchase. :) It sure is nice shooting 15rd mags at the in-door range. My friend gives me that look :roflmao3[1]: cause we share a lane and take turns after each mag. When I bring the P85, I get 50% more shooting in than he does. :roflmao3[1]::roflmao3[1]:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question for the LEO's Do you take an oath to uphold the law, if so and i assume the answer is yes, Then why do you arrest law abiding citizens for carrying arms when the Bill of rights states "own and bear" which to me supercedes the state law of California . So which is it the law of the country or the law of California. And I'm not trying to be insulting but how do you come to terms with that conflict, Is it assumed that the carrier is atomaticly wrong . I don't know but that is why I am not in law enforcement. I admire those that are and recognize thier service with discounts, but I don't envy those who need to make those diccisions every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Got upset and didn't read entire post before opening the my big mouth, :yikes[1]::drool: :drool: :pirashoot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now