Retired cop denied right to CCW

Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
1,764
Reaction score
4,766
Location
New England
The cop whose instincts lead to the rescue of Jaycee Dugard is denied the right to carry concealed because she went out on a disability in California. Liberals must giggle and high-five each other as they pass illogical and nonsensical laws or rules that they know will frustrate law abiding people who have an interest that is counter to their own.


Cop who helped rescue Jaycee Dugard sues for right to carry concealed weapon | Fox News
 
Register to hide this ad
Shouldn't this be in the 2nd Amendment forum? I'm just thinking that as long as the disability was for physical reasons and not mental...
 
My guess is that the UC folks got crummy legal advice, if they sought it, and that this will be ugly and expensive. This looks like a physical disability retirement, so mental health status is not relevant to the issue.
 
Last edited:
Or if Peruta holds up, she & every other Californian who isn't a criminal should soon be able to claim self defense as the only valid reason they need to receive a CCW permit in EVERY county, including the elitist *** governments & their Big Brother Sheriff's/Chiefs of Police in the Bay Area.

Hmmm... I didn't realize that Positively Offending Sensibilities would get bleeped...
 
Using the Hubble Telescope scientists could look back billions of years and, assuming they find another civilization, the dumbest one they observe will not compare to the stupidity of these people. They are living proof of the old saying, the difference between stupidity and intelligence is.....there are limits to intelligence.
 
The problem is with how they worded her medical pension.
She technically is not "retired", she opted to leave her sworn status with a medical percentage.
That isn't covered by LEOSA.

May be a technicality but it is something to look at when you are given the choice for a medical pension / retirement.
 
Yep sucks here.

1-salt-creek-beach.jpg


Even this is not enough anymore.
 
I don't know if it is still true, but I remember hearing that in some municipality's even full time cops could only carry a gun if they were on duty.
 
In Texas LEO's can carry 24/7, and in most departments it is mandatory. Also they can obtain a CHL for $25/5yrs no additional training. The reason for a CHL is it makes it easier to buy a firearm. With a CHL no Brady check, show CHL, pay your money, and take your firearm home.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk
 
I'm no expert or lawyer but if they do not consider her " retired ", and is still an " employee ", then she still carries a shield and is technically " active " so why can't she carry with that criteria? If not, sue 'em.
 
Ok... After reading the story....

It sounds like California law allows retired officers preferential treatment. Unlike everyone else, retired cops are automatically issued a carry permit without having to go through the normal process. But because she (and others) aren't fitting the exact definition of retirement that allows preferential treatment for a carry permit, they will be treated like any other California resident. She don't like it.

Some will complain that she isn't being treated the same as other retired officers. I say that she and everyone else should be treated equally, whether they be retired cops or retired oil refinery workers, all should suffer equally under the "May issue" system they have. She can apply for a permit. Maybe she'll get one, maybe not. That's the way it goes for everyone else in California.
 
Last edited:
That was my feeling too after reading the article. I don't believe anyone should get special treatment, retired officer or not, she should be required to jump through the same ridiculous hoops as everyone else. If the hoops are too onerous then she and other retired officers should be working with the rest of the gun owners in CA to get them changed for everyone not just make it easier for their special interest.
 
Back
Top