Politicsgunslosangeles

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:37 PM

Los Angeles proposes high capacity magazine ban despite court opposition

http://www.guns.com/2014/06/30/los-angeles-proposes-high-capacity-magazine-ban-despite-court-opposition/

The Los Angeles City Council is considering a measure that mirrors two Northern California cities’ laws already in effect that ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammo. “This is about preventing murder in our neighborhoods and preventing death in streets,” Councilman Mike Bonin, who is on the City Council’s Public Safety Committee reviewing the proposal, told the Los Angeles Daily News.

Council attorneys contend that 42 percent of the mass shootings in the past three decades have involved “assault weapons, large capacity magazines or both.” The ban, with some exceptions, would mandate that high capacity magazines be removed from the city, sold or turned over to police within 60 days of coming into effect. Bonin voiced that the measure could help address an “epidemic of death and gun violence in this country.”

The committee sent the draft ordinance, submitted on June 26, back to city attorneys to ensure that it would be virtually impregnable to future legal challenges, such as those weathered so far by the similar Sunnyvale and San Francisco bans. The proposed ordinance would prohibit any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds inside the city, which has a population of nearly 4 million. As such, it would target magazines previously classified as “pre-ban” since it does not have a grandfather clause.

Among a series of exceptions would be for .22-caliber firearms with tubular magazines, film props, museum pieces and guns used by armored car companies, law enforcement and the military. Those who do not relinquish or transfer banned magazines would be liable to a misdemeanor penalty.

(Excerpt, remainder of article at link)


106 replies, 8451 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 106 replies Author Time Post
Reply Los Angeles proposes high capacity magazine ban despite court opposition (Original post)
Juan Rico Jun 2014 OP
His Daughter Jun 2014 #1
Duke Lacrosse Jun 2014 #2
saundersnorvell Jun 2014 #3
Valishin Jun 2014 #6
skipping_lemurs Jun 2014 #4
Juan Rico Jun 2014 #5
saundersnorvell Jun 2014 #7
skipping_lemurs Jun 2014 #8
saundersnorvell Jun 2014 #10
skipping_lemurs Jun 2014 #11
.30M1 Jun 2014 #12
skipping_lemurs Jun 2014 #13
Lars1701c Jun 2014 #14
skipping_lemurs Jun 2014 #16
Lars1701c Jun 2014 #17
Juan Rico Jun 2014 #19
Muddling Through Jun 2014 #20
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #31
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #34
fools_gold Jul 2014 #70
.30M1 Jun 2014 #22
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #33
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #36
_eek Jul 2014 #63
MountainDew Jun 2014 #23
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #32
.30M1 Jul 2014 #37
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #40
.30M1 Jul 2014 #43
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #59
.30M1 Jul 2014 #62
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #64
.30M1 Jul 2014 #65
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #66
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #67
.30M1 Jul 2014 #68
MountainDew Jul 2014 #97
Dukota01 Jul 2014 #72
JoeNikon Jun 2014 #9
Lars1701c Jun 2014 #15
Cave Dweller Jun 2014 #18
pavulon-lives Jun 2014 #21
Hades Jun 2014 #24
Graniteman Jun 2014 #25
Juan Rico Jun 2014 #26
Graniteman Jun 2014 #28
Juan Rico Jul 2014 #29
Graniteman Jul 2014 #35
Juan Rico Jul 2014 #38
Tovera Jul 2014 #44
Graniteman Jul 2014 #45
Tovera Jul 2014 #46
Graniteman Jul 2014 #55
Tovera Jul 2014 #57
fools_gold Jul 2014 #77
Tovera Jul 2014 #105
ToBeIgnoredIsWinning Jul 2014 #54
fools_gold Jul 2014 #80
grisd3 Jul 2014 #90
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #30
Juan Rico Jul 2014 #39
Duke Lacrosse Jul 2014 #52
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #58
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #60
Duke Lacrosse Jul 2014 #61
_eek Jul 2014 #69
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #71
_eek Jul 2014 #73
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #75
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #84
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #87
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #93
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #98
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #100
Dukota01 Jul 2014 #81
saundersnorvell Jul 2014 #56
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #86
saundersnorvell Jul 2014 #95
skipping_lemurs Jul 2014 #96
Dukota01 Jul 2014 #78
Hades Jul 2014 #41
pavulon-lives Jul 2014 #42
Dukota01 Jul 2014 #74
Graniteman Jul 2014 #76
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #79
Graniteman Jul 2014 #82
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #85
Graniteman Jul 2014 #88
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #89
Graniteman Jul 2014 #91
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #92
Graniteman Jul 2014 #94
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #99
Graniteman Jul 2014 #101
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #102
Graniteman Jul 2014 #103
Muddling Through Jul 2014 #104
Dukota01 Jul 2014 #83
Hades Jul 2014 #106
FeartheRedRaider Jun 2014 #27
Tovera Jul 2014 #47
FeartheRedRaider Jul 2014 #48
Tovera Jul 2014 #49
pavulon-lives Jul 2014 #50
FeartheRedRaider Jul 2014 #51
pavulon-lives Jul 2014 #53

Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:39 PM

1. I thought CA had a state premeption when it came to firearms

Did that change? Have not been in a position to pay attention for a while

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:42 PM

2. Yes it does. The two Northern California community ordinances haven't been tested in court yet.

They're probably unenforceable, and if someone did get popped for one it would probably get thrown out because the ordinances are unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:53 PM

3. curious how many of the 300 or so

Murders in LA each year involve less than 10 rounds being fired? My guess is over 90%...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saundersnorvell (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:03 PM

6. My guess

is that number is very low. I would be surprised if it is lower than 99% especially if you edited it to say ...10 rounds being fired from the same weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:58 PM

4. A good first step. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:02 PM

5. If this is a first step, what's your end game goal as regards civilian ownership of firearms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:11 PM

7. Exactly why there will never be more gun control

Without a fight. ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saundersnorvell (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:22 PM

8. They have to keep on fighting, that's for sure.

 

It never comes easy when fighting big money, ignorance and fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:52 PM

10. And people who wish to incrimentally eliminate the second amendment. ..

Always complaining about no compromise while unwilling to compromise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saundersnorvell (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:54 PM

11. Riiiight..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:04 PM

12. Try again when you find an example of compromise. ..

... from any gun-control group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .30M1 (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:08 PM

13. You wouldn't recognize a compromise if it slapped you in

 

the face so this is a faux request.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:28 PM

14. I haven't see any willingness on the part of any gun control group to give something

 

up to get something, its always demand demand demand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lars1701c (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:40 PM

16. Awwww...

 

need a hanky?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:44 PM

17. No but you need to answer the question

 

instead of acting like a 5 year old.


WHAT has any gun control group been willing to give up to get what they want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:29 PM

19. How's this for a compromise? Background checks on all firearms transfers. In exchange,

national concealed carry reciprocity between states, and SBRs (short barreled rifles) and silencers are taken off the NFA registry, allowing them to be sold over the counter.

What do you say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:43 PM

20. I'm afraid you misunderstand.

The controller's concept of "compromise" is you give up something and as a compromise is you get to keep your guns. For now. Maybe. If they feel like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #20)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:21 AM

31. Who is the controller? You're the one with

 

the gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #31)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:24 AM

34. The controller is the one

Who wants to use the power of government to infringe upon my civil rights. But, you knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Reply #19)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:38 PM

70. Their lack of response to your proposal is their answer

No compromise for them. It only works in one direction in their world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:56 PM

22. Webster's is not a friend of yours apparently.

Gun-control advocate talking about compromise. How precious...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .30M1 (Reply #22)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:32 AM

33. Gun advocates talking about compromise is

 

is the joke! Honesty is not their strong suit, it doesn't have to be in their authoritarian world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #33)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:43 AM

36. The authoritarian

Is the one proposing using the power of government to restrict the rights of others. But, you knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #33)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:13 PM

63. you were just offered a compromise

What objection do you have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:26 PM

23. And yet you can't provide one or even a little

 

linky thing. You've nothing and are trying to cover for it by posting childish snark.

Keep it up, you're doing nothing but harm to your authoritarian cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MountainDew (Reply #23)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:26 AM

32. Now pull out your gun because someone

 

peed in your cornflakes this morning and you're going to tell them what for....
now who here is the authoritarian ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #32)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:19 AM

37. You are.

Projecting the typical violent mindset of gun-control advocates too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .30M1 (Reply #37)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:00 AM

40. I don't have to project you not only eat and

 

breath it, you even name yourself it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #40)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:22 AM

43. You do and you are.

Nobody fantasizes about gun violence and murdering quite like serious gun-control advocates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .30M1 (Reply #43)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:51 PM

59. You're wrong, at least when it comes to myself. I don't think about guns and

 

such as a rule. The only time guns come to the forefront for me is if they are in the news, or when coming to this forum and invariably someone posts pro or con OP's about them. I know a lot of people here want to speak for others but they really need to start addressing the words in front of them as opposed to extrapolating out of thin air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #59)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:10 PM

62. No I'm not.

You specifically suggested someone pull out a gun. Absolutely no reason to do so other than to project an irrational fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .30M1 (Reply #62)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:18 PM

64. I never " suggested someone pull out a gun"...

 

you really do interject with BS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #64)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:20 PM

65. "Now pull out your gun because someone..."

Your words. Own them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .30M1 (Reply #65)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:24 PM

66. My words were not "someone" they were specific to an individual who has

 

already posted about their gun ownership. They say we are authoritarian which is a joke because as I was pointing out we are not the ones with the muscles i.e., guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #66)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:28 PM

67. Owning a gun does not make one an authoritarian.

The individual could be anarchist or libertarian just as easily. One can be authoritarian by seeking to have government exercise "muscles" on their behalf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #66)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:30 PM

68. Doesn't matter...

... and authoritarian doesn't require the use of guns. It is an ideology of blind or absolute obedience to authority. It abhors personal freedom, in this case the individual ownership of firearms. So yes, most if not all advocates of strict gun-control policies cam be accurately described as authoritarian in that respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #32)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:31 PM

97. So as usual you've got absolutely nothing and make no sense --

 

Your post to me is just as pathetic as most of your responses in this thread. It's what I expect from controllers though so it's not surprising. Keep up your childish nonsense. It does nothing but help the cause of the pro 2A side. The more of you there are the better for us. We appreciate your contributions.

TTFN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:51 PM

72. Seems to most the ignorance and fear is on the controllers side

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:52 PM

9. Are the Council attorneys that inept?

California has state preemption on firearm laws. The courts have repeatedly slapped down the cities that over-step their bounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:29 PM

15. I love it when a city/state has to cut a check to a gun rights group

 

because they lost in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:56 PM

18. Those

folks in Compton are just lining up to turn them in I am sure. Don't want to be breaking the law now do they.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:43 PM

21. It will be ignored, just like CT's ban

puts them in a pickle when they pass a law and everyone ignores it. undermines the authority of the state.

you people are pushing so much the police have actually started refusing to enforce what you pass.

think about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:34 PM

24. Police exempted; surprise, surprise!

If the ban is good enough for citizens, it is good enough for the police; otherwise if the police can have it, so can the citizens.

Not to mention , the police can call for back-up, citizens can't; so they need more rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:47 PM

25. Good.

 

If you need more than 10 shots to "protect yourself" you shouldn't be allowed within a mile ofa gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:57 PM

26. Quiz time: how many rounds are in the average police officer's gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:18 PM

28. Don't care.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #28)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:04 AM

29. Given that you said, "If you need more than 10 shots to "protect yourself" you shouldn't be allowed

within a mile of a gun", it appears you wish to completely disarm the police, given that the overwhelming majority of them carry pistols that hold more than 10 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Reply #29)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:41 AM

35. Don't tell what I think and I'll do the same for you.

 

You clearly know squat as to my opinions, so quit pretending you do. It makes you appear a fool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:43 AM

38. You said, "If you need more than 10 shots to "protect yourself" you shouldn't be allowed within a

mile of a gun".

Virtually every police officer in this country carries a gun that holds more than 10 shots.

Why do you suppose this is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:33 AM

44. When you explicitly state an opinion, people know more than "squat" about it.

Funny how that works...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #44)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:17 AM

45. And when you conjecture meanings from. .

 

... whole cloth, you are full of shit.

Funny how that works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #45)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:33 AM

46. No conjecture necessary.

You explicitly stated your opinion: "If you need more than 10 shots to 'protect yourself' you shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a gun."

Stop flailing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #46)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:35 AM

55. Stop appearing I my browser.

 

Bub bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #55)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:38 AM

57. pwnd

Pure. Comedy. Gold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #57)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:05 PM

77. Isn't it kinda entertaining when

someone gets caught out and can't come up with a coherent response, and they just shuffle away spitting and sputtering?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #77)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:22 PM

105. Yes...but also disappointing.

I have zero respect for people that respond that way to making a mistake. When I screw up (and that's certainly "when," not "if"), I try to remember to take my lumps, learn something, and move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:28 AM

54. You are being laughably silly here

You said words. YOUR words. Those words reflect YOUR thoughts. You chose to put them on the internet. Your thought process was clearly limited and shortsighted if you didnt realize you were making a statement that could and would be applied to all that carry a gun, including officers. You have the responsibility to retract your opinion, or clarify it.

You refuse to address that point or question in any meaningful way. Its clear that's because you cannot figure out how to properly back-peddle from your original statement.

You get to choose now...continue making a fool out of yourself by putting your fingers in your ears and trying to flip the tables and make this into people characterizing your thoughts or you can clarify, support and defend your statement in a normal manner.

If you do neither, your post just gets added to the long list of thoughtless, meaningless and unhelpful knee-jerk liberal rants about gun control that do nothing but further expose the thinly-built and undefensible rationale of the average anti-gun advocate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ToBeIgnoredIsWinning (Reply #54)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:07 PM

80. Most excellently said, Sir! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ToBeIgnoredIsWinning (Reply #54)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:37 PM

90. Your post is worth two thumbs up. Nice response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Reply #26)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:16 AM

30. They are there to protect you so what

 

should it matter? Wouldn't you want more than the "bad guys" have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #30)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:46 AM

39. "Wouldn't you want more than the "bad guys" have?" I certainly do...so why would you want to

restrict what I can have? Shouldn't I, a law-abiding citizen, have access to the most effective self-defense tools available?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #30)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:55 AM

52. That's so wrong I have to chime in here.

The reason police officers carry firearms is to protect themselves. The courts have consistently held that officers have no obligation to protect individual members of the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #52)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:42 PM

58. Do you have the links to these courts transcripts stating that

 

they are not obligated to protect the individual public? I ask because that seems the direct antithesis of "to serve and protect".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #58)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:02 PM

60. Here's one:

www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

The ruling is an unfortunate necessity in light of the tragedy that was the source of the lawsuit. Otherwise anytime a LEO was running a license check point or traffic interdiction and another crime happened at the time the officer/agency could be sued for "failure to protect". The general concept is that while police have a job description of "protect and serve" there is local discretion on how to best carry this out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #58)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:08 PM

61. Link to a 2005 decision courtesy of the New York Times

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #58)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:31 PM

69. The big three .. just for you.

Warren v. District of Columbia,
Castle Rock v. Gonzales
DeShaney v. Winnebago County..


Here is a link to an LEO site, discussing the idea of a Public Duty Doctrine.. one sentance from the site I find quite interesting...
"While this desire to serve the public is commendable, police officers must understand that they have no obligation to protect any one individual unless a “special relationship” exists. Rather, an officer’s sworn duty is to the general public. "

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/4913117-Addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #69)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:46 PM

71. Wow, all of the links you and others have provided are really

 

good and to say the least, enlightening. Thanks! Cops have a sketching public image, at best, and I don't think, from this reading that they have done anything to improve it. Seems to me they are selective in their application of their "duties", that is not very reassuring

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #71)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:54 PM

73. Agreed,

The rulings in thier purest form do make a certain sense, but I also recognize my safety can only be my responsibility, and I truly do see the need for self protection.
Just owning/possesing a gun is not all that responsibilty encompasses. Safe and responsible storage, proper and realistic training, practice and familiarization.. the list is long.
Anybody that thinks that the mere act of just having a gun is some kind of safety in and of itself is just as foolish as one that relies on the apparatus of the state for thier protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #71)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:02 PM

75. I have to ask:

What was your view of law enforcement prior to reading these decision? Did you actually think there was a legal responsibility to protect any specific individual from being a crime victim? While police do have problems with how the public views them ( a problem they exacerbate by their behavior quite often), sometimes the public seems to have an unreasonable expectation of the requirements and abilities of law enforcement to address certain issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #75)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:12 PM

84. On the whole, prior to reading the above, my view on them was low to

 

loathing. I had however pollyanishly, hoped that maybe they did something beyond self preservation and I thought they were mandated to do so. I learn something new everyday

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #84)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:20 PM

87. Why low to loathing?

They do many things beyond "self preservation". Do some research on the number of LEO's who perish in the line of duty while working wrecks on the side of the road for example. It's a tough job that takes a lot out of the people who volunteer to go into harm's way when others are running away.

As I noted earlier, the court cases indicate that no specific duty exits due to necessity. Without that ruling, police could be sued every time a serious crime occurs while they are dealing with a less critical issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #87)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:53 PM

93. Low to loathing comes from personal experience. It used to be

 

in my city when an ambulance was called to a home that along with the fire department (because they were always the quickest and got there first) that the police would go to the home as well. I was unconscious and being attended to by EMT's and the firemen were in the hallway. Police arrive and barged into the bedroom and my cat whom the EMT's had calm and he was letting them do their work at that point got freaked out. My daughter tells me that the firemen had told the cops they were not needed as it was a clear case of chemo and radiation reaction and that once the EMT's had me stabilized they would transport me with my daughter. I guess my Himalayan had jumped on the one and bit into his jacket. The cops yelled at my daughter (15 at the time) that they were going to notify animal control because of our dangerous animal and child welfare. This is a cat who had saved my life twice and the only reason 911 was rang that night was because of him. The next day in ICU the EMT's and firemen came to visit me and said that if I had any trouble because of the police to let them know because what happened didn't have to. This is just one of several incidences I am relaying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #93)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:53 PM

98. Sorry you ran into a couple of bad ones.

Did you file a complaint? The circumstances, as you report them, indicate the response was completely unprofessional. If the firemen and EMT's could support your claim the officers should have been disciplined. I'm kind of surprised they reacted that way if fire personnel and EMT's were already on the scene; of course I was not there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #98)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:56 PM

100. I didn't but the chaps that came to me the next day did.

 

My daughter was interviewed about it weeks later, I never was because in essence, I wasn't there either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #58)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:08 PM

81. Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #30)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:37 AM

56. Maybe you can post some examples of police using their guns to protect anyone

But themselves? No it isn't their obligation or goal to protect anyone regardless their lying moto. Police are to investigate crime that has already occurred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saundersnorvell (Reply #56)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:15 PM

86. I asked because I was genuinely unaware and thought they had more

 

knowledge of it, sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #86)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:24 PM

95. Thank you. ..

There are many on another site who refuse to read the decisions and go on to make the claim that we should all trust the police to protect us. I assumed you already knew...I am sorry for assuming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saundersnorvell (Reply #95)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:27 PM

96. Hey NP...

 

I've done the same...no saints here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skipping_lemurs (Reply #30)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:05 PM

78. No, they are not there to protect you

The Supreme Court has ruled the police have no duty to protect anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #25)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:00 AM

41. It will be ignored, just like in CT.

And, just like in CT, the police won't be able to enforce it. Nobody is going to hand their property over to the police. "Here you go, take my expensive property and melt it down. I'm ok with now being out of that money."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hades (Reply #41)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:04 AM

42. bingo, i'm done

i have absolutely zero intention of following any new laws passed on firearms in the future. They can't take on a mass of people who civilly disobey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #25)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:00 PM

74. Then the same goes for the cops, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dukota01 (Reply #74)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:03 PM

76. Why? Are you planning to have a.gun battle with them?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #76)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:06 PM

79. Reading comprehension fail, much?

Did anyone say anything about having a gun battle with the police?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #79)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:09 PM

82. Serms all of you gun...

 

... enthusiasts are all butthurt that they may be allowed to have bigger loads than you are.Why would that bother you if you didn't have criminal intent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #82)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:15 PM

85. No butthurt. (Why are controllers always obsessed with my genitilia/buttocks?)

Simple legal precept that whatever civilian law enforcement is allowed to possess should be available for the rest of the citizenry that can legally possess firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #85)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:26 PM

88. The only person speaking of your genitalia and buttocks is you.

 

As to why only you can answer that. Seems pretty bizarre to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #88)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:35 PM

89. You're the one that brought "butthurt" into the discussion, not me.

Care to address the actual issue of citizens being allowed to own the same technology as civilian law enforcement? Or is snark and one-liners all that you have to offer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #89)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:48 PM

91. Whatc are you so damned afraid of?

 

What an awful place you must exist in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #91)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:50 PM

92. Not afraid of much, really.

Dentists. Poking my mouth with metal hooks. Ughhh. Carnies. General principal, just creepy.
Authoritarians who want to use the power of government to deprive me of my rights. That's about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #92)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:55 PM

94. People who aren't afraid don't have to go armed .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #94)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:54 PM

99. I'll be sure to tell my LEO colleagues that they must be afraid since they go armed. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #99)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:09 PM

101. Thought you were all butthurt they get to carry bigger loads than you do?

 

Wires crossed? Or just wired wrong to start with?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #101)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:16 PM

102. You keep using that word.

I don't think it means what you think it means. Just because I work as an LEO doesn't mean I cannot support the right of the citizens to carry what we do. Here's a news flash for you; it's not the law-abiding people that concern me. It's the crooks, who, being crooks will manage to acquire whatever they want regardless of the legislation. I'm more concerned with the .22 caliber pocket pistol I cannot see than the long gun that is clearly displayed. You, on the other hand, seem to have an inordinate fear of inanimate objects and do not appear to have put much thought into the people who wield them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #102)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:25 PM

103. I know exactly what it meansand it's entirely appropriate.

 

You're all butthurt your toys are getting limited.

I think it's a tiny but good start. The movement has started.

The pendulum always swings back the other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #103)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:27 PM

104. Good luck with that.

Your side has been claiming that for the last 20 years while civil rights for gun owners keep increasing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #76)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:11 PM

83. Why should I, I'm a law abiding gun owner.

But if I have to deal with any criminals and can only have ten rounds, because that's all I should need according to you, then the cops, as highly trained as they are should be able to do it with less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Graniteman (Reply #76)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:57 AM

106. Everyone wants peace.

But when you try to take away the best self defense from people:



Citizens outnumber police and military combined.

Not that there is any need for that; just a friendly reminder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:58 PM

27. A solution in search of a problem. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FeartheRedRaider (Reply #27)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:35 AM

47. Precisely. Pure "security theater."

Magazine capacity limits are feel-good window dressing designed to appeal to hand-wringers with no actual knowledge of how gun-related crime actually happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #47)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:41 AM

48. I used to be for "gun control"

But it seems to me that all these "fixes" for gun violence address the symptoms, not the root cause. Instead of asking HOW people are murdering others, we should be asking WHY. But that is a harder road to take, and is the road less travelled. We will never get rid of murder, but I feel we can take some necessary steps to minimize the occurrence.

A few ideas:

1. End the war on drugs

2. Progressive taxation and actually USE that money to "teach men to fish", as the old saying goes, instead of giving them fish.

3. A cultural shift away from solving your problems or differences by using violence.

My last point is probably the hardest, and quite honestly I have no idea how I would even begin. Anyone have any thoughts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FeartheRedRaider (Reply #48)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:48 AM

49. Agree on all three.

And yeah, the last is the most difficult, and "Rome wasn't build in a day."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FeartheRedRaider (Reply #48)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:49 AM

50. Its really not complex at all, you touch on it.

reasonable mental health care. up to managed care where violently insane people are force medicated. This is not prediction, just treating people who need help now.

these guys generate the most press with the spree template in the press, but actually are the least frequent events. Suicide and prevention using mental health care would go along way.

Decriminalization goes toward removing the motive for people to kill each other, the money is now going to CVS not guys on the corner.

There is lots of culture around drug activity in the black community (and others), some help keeping fathers in the home (change welfare rules to encourage not discourage this) would improve the path for the black community greatly. This goes beyond violence as well, many indications of future success are greatly improved by having two active parents.

With a little effort the violence could be reduced, it will never completely stop, violence is part of the human animal but some simple things would help.

regretfully these things are politically difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pavulon-lives (Reply #50)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:51 AM

51. I KNEW I left something out...

...but you brought it up, thank you. Yes, a well funded mental health care "safety net" would do wonders for this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FeartheRedRaider (Reply #51)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:17 AM

53. With ACA its showing up

i'm no big ACA supporter or hater (jury is out for me), problem is most really mentally ill people don't think they are ill. This would require a better system of balancing someone's rights against the rights of others around them.

I believe its possible but would need to be gradual and non political (difficult), but ultimately would help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicsgunslosangeles