IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
CanRay
post Feb 15 2011, 03:35 PM
Post #26


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,358
Joined: 2-December 07
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Member No.: 14,465



QUOTE (onlyghostdanceswhiledrunk @ Feb 15 2011, 04:07 AM) *
I really hate CA sometimes...

Try Canada. Whole damned country... Don't get me started.

*Sighs* And it's only going to get worse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Feb 16 2011, 10:16 AM
Post #27


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



Why not everyone move to arizona and have it declare itself independent? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)

seriously, i just found the idea of a bullet proof briefcase a very cyberpunk/SR one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fatum
post Feb 16 2011, 11:19 AM
Post #28


Runner
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,801
Joined: 2-September 09
From: Moscow, Russia
Member No.: 17,589



QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Feb 16 2011, 01:16 PM) *
Why not everyone move to arizona and have it declare itself independent? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)

seriously, i just found the idea of a bullet proof briefcase a very cyberpunk/SR one.

Know what's cyberpunk?
Google.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mardrax
post Feb 16 2011, 11:57 AM
Post #29


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,083
Joined: 13-December 10
From: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Member No.: 19,228



A dystopic, almost oniscient Big Brother, acting like it has nothing but the good of humankind in mind?
What's that Android phone in my ears? I can't say that? Oh.
*ahum*
Naw. Google might be cyber, but there's nothing punk about it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doc Chase
post Feb 16 2011, 03:20 PM
Post #30


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,179
Joined: 10-June 10
From: St. Louis, UCAS/CAS Border
Member No.: 18,688



QUOTE (Mardrax @ Feb 16 2011, 11:57 AM) *
Naw. Google might be cyber, but there's nothing punk about it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)


You saw what happened in Egypt, right? The .gov takes one of their people, and days later they unveil the 'dial in Tweet' service to ensure that the people can continue to coordinate protests. I keep wondering if David Gavillan made a startup instead of working with Echo Mirage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Feb 18 2011, 04:11 PM
Post #31


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



QUOTE (Fatum @ Feb 16 2011, 12:19 PM) *
Know what's cyberpunk?
Google.

And that is why i have stopped using its search as much as possible, and ever made use of any of its other services.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post Feb 18 2011, 10:28 PM
Post #32


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



QUOTE (onlyghostdanceswhiledrunk @ Feb 15 2011, 03:07 AM) *
I was very sad today when i asked one of my SWAT buddies if you could even obtain a license for Class III (or any body armor for that matter) in CA... he said its super illegal, and if you get caught with it, your ass is going to jail. I really hate CA sometimes, I know you can have it in AZ, had to leave my damned SKS and class 3 wpns there when I left (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) .


Your swat buddy is misinformed.

The relevant law is

QUOTE (California Penal Code )
12370. (a) Any person who has been convicted of a violent felony, as defined in subdivision © of Section 667.5, under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, who purchases, owns, or possesses body armor, as defined by Section 942 of Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations, except as authorized under subdivision (b), is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three years.

(b) Any person whose employment, livelihood, or safety is dependent on the ability to legally possess and use body armor, who is subject to the prohibition imposed by subdivision (a) due to a prior violent felony conviction, may file a petition with the chief of police or county sheriff of the jurisdiction in which he or she seeks to possess and use the body armor for an exception to this prohibition. The chief of police or sheriff may reduce or eliminate the prohibition, impose conditions on reduction or elimination of the prohibition, or otherwise grant relief from the prohibition as he or she deems appropriate, based on the following:


(1) A finding that the petitioner is likely to use body armor in a safe and lawful manner.

(2) A finding that the petitioner has a reasonable need for this type of protection under the circumstances.

In making its decision, the chief of police or sheriff shall consider the petitioner's continued employment, the interests of justice, any relevant evidence, and the totality of the circumstances. It is the intent of the Legislature that law enforcement officials exercise broad discretion in fashioning appropriate relief under this paragraph in cases in which relief is warranted. However, this paragraph may not be construed to require law enforcement officials to grant relief to any particular petitioner. Relief from this prohibition does not relieve any other person or entity from any liability that might otherwise be imposed.

© The chief of police or sheriff shall require, as a condition of granting an exception under subdivision (b), that the petitioner agree to maintain on his or her person a certified copy of the law enforcement official's permission to possess and use body armor, including any conditions or limitations.

(d) Law enforcement officials who enforce the prohibition specified in subdivision (a) against a person who has been granted relief pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be immune from any liability for false arrest arising from the enforcement of this subdivision unless the person has in his or her possession a certified copy of the permission granting the person relief from the prohibition, as required by subdivision ©. This immunity from liability does not relieve any person or entity from any other liability that might otherwise be imposed.

(e) For purposes of this section only, "violent felony" refers to the specific crimes listed in subdivision © of Section 667.5, and to crimes defined under the applicable laws of the United States or any other state, government, or country that are reasonably equivalent to the crimes listed in subdivision © of Section 667.5.


Notice the part that I've bolded. It is only illegal for a person who has been convicted of a violent felony to wear body armor in California, and even then such a person can get an exemption.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CanRay
post Feb 18 2011, 10:53 PM
Post #33


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,358
Joined: 2-December 07
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Member No.: 14,465



QUOTE
(b) Any person whose employment, livelihood, or safety is dependent on the ability to legally possess and use body armor...


Would "I drive on the LA Freeways. A lot." count? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fatum
post Feb 19 2011, 08:25 AM
Post #34


Runner
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,801
Joined: 2-September 09
From: Moscow, Russia
Member No.: 17,589



QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Feb 19 2011, 01:28 AM) *
Notice the part that I've bolded. It is only illegal for a person who has been convicted of a violent felony to wear body armor in California, and even then such a person can get an exemption.

Is it an exemption so that ex-convicts could serve in the SWAT or wha?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stingray
post Feb 19 2011, 11:22 AM
Post #35


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 695
Joined: 21-March 09
Member No.: 17,002



QUOTE (Fatum @ Feb 19 2011, 10:25 AM) *
Is it an exemption so that ex-convicts could serve in the SWAT or wha?

..being convicted felon, right to own a gun (2nd am. (USA) ) is denied for them
but as negotiator (unarmed) for SWAT...( i do not know...)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fatum
post Feb 19 2011, 12:27 PM
Post #36


Runner
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,801
Joined: 2-September 09
From: Moscow, Russia
Member No.: 17,589



Why would you need a right to own a gun to serve? State owns the guns they issue to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CanRay
post Feb 19 2011, 02:23 PM
Post #37


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,358
Joined: 2-December 07
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Member No.: 14,465



I'm pretty sure you need to pass a criminal background check to be a police officer.

If you don't, well, it just leads even more credence to people believing that they're "The World's Largest Street Gang".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Feb 22 2011, 02:17 PM
Post #38


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,547
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



I suspect SWAT buddy is speaking of reality, at times diametrically opposed to the law.

In California, like a number of states, it's perfectly legal for any citizen to get X, Y or Z - assuming they can get a judge to agree they have 'need'. In order to establish 'need' normally requires you be someone of note, like the mayor, or the mayor's body guards. You know, the sort of people an officer would recognize walking down the street and so not arrest. There are plenty of stories in my area of people who tried to establish need for concealed carry - regular threatening phone calls from an enraged ex being the one I remember best. The judge ruled, since phone calls leave no physical evidence of the message, they can't be submitted as evidence of a threat, and the request was denied.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chrome Tiger
post Feb 22 2011, 03:29 PM
Post #39


Shiny Metal Kitty Head
**

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 252
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Grand Rapids, MI
Member No.: 146



We have the same thing here in Michigan. The big caveat to purchase and owning body armor is committing a violent felony. And even if you have committed said violent felony, you can get an exemption if you can show to a judge that your employment or livelihood depended on it.

And let me tell you as a side note... Owning a Blackhawk MOLLE rig with level IV rifle plates in it helps give you a very firm understanding of armor encumbrance rules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CanRay
post Feb 22 2011, 04:42 PM
Post #40


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,358
Joined: 2-December 07
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Member No.: 14,465



I own a Swiss Army Surplus Mountain Greatcoat from the... '60s, I think? Treated canvas and Fur. Lots of fur.

That alone taught me encumbrance rules.

Also, the usefulness of my Tilley Vest when I was doing field work as a computer tech showed me just how much gear a person can really hump without a backpack if he's wearing the right type of rig. (It's a type of hiking vest, BTW.). My boss scoffed at it when I first put it on, then stopped when I pulled out everything we needed for the job out of it alone.

I only added more as the job went on. I figure I was about 15 pounds of gear alone for my "Standard Carry", and had specialty items for specific jobs that I could load up into it. In all the runs we did outside of the office, we only had to go back to the car for equipment once, and it was something that didn't fit into a briefcase, forget the pockets of a vest.

I got a lot of weird looks from clients, but they turned into looks of admiration as we got the job done quickly and professionally despite how weird I looked.

It's downstairs right now, stripped down to bare minimum of equipment as part of my GoTH plan, ready to be filled with whatever's needed for the drekpot I'm dropped into. Planning on moving it upstairs as flooding is a potential issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chrome Tiger
post Feb 22 2011, 04:48 PM
Post #41


Shiny Metal Kitty Head
**

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 252
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Grand Rapids, MI
Member No.: 146



I have a photo/field vest that is probably very similar to what you have. I can pack that thing to insane levels. I use it for photog outings as well as doing search and recovery/disaster management for the Sheriff department (my part time volunteer gig when needed). One of the best articles of clothing I have ever purchased, really. And laugh if you want, but I bought it at Disney's Animal Kingdom a few years back. I looked like a damn tour guide, but it was nice not having to carry my full camera bag around.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post Feb 22 2011, 05:47 PM
Post #42


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



QUOTE (nezumi @ Feb 22 2011, 09:17 AM) *
I suspect SWAT buddy is speaking of reality, at times diametrically opposed to the law.

In California, like a number of states, it's perfectly legal for any citizen to get X, Y or Z - assuming they can get a judge to agree they have 'need'. In order to establish 'need' normally requires you be someone of note, like the mayor, or the mayor's body guards. You know, the sort of people an officer would recognize walking down the street and so not arrest. There are plenty of stories in my area of people who tried to establish need for concealed carry - regular threatening phone calls from an enraged ex being the one I remember best. The judge ruled, since phone calls leave no physical evidence of the message, they can't be submitted as evidence of a threat, and the request was denied.


Swat buddy was mistaken, though. There is no licensing requirement for body armor. It might get some strange looks from the police, but they can't actually arrest you for it, not legally.

By the same token, you can openly carry a weapon in California cities provided that the weapon isn't loaded (and you can have a loaded magazine on your gunbelt). This will get you some funny looks at might even get you stopped, but the police can't arrest you for it. They might, anyway, though, if they haven't been informed of the law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CanRay
post Feb 22 2011, 05:55 PM
Post #43


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,358
Joined: 2-December 07
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Member No.: 14,465



QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Feb 22 2011, 01:47 PM) *
By the same token, you can openly carry a weapon in California cities provided that the weapon isn't loaded (and you can have a loaded magazine on your gunbelt). This will get you some funny looks at might even get you stopped, but the police can't arrest you for it. They might, anyway, though, if they haven't been informed of the law.

Police arrest people for taking pictures with their cell phones. In public places. Where there's no expectation of privacy.

There's a lot of "haven't been informed of the law" going around, and they keep making sure they aren't informed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thirty Second Ar...
post Feb 22 2011, 06:39 PM
Post #44


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 106
Joined: 27-March 10
From: California
Member No.: 18,371



QUOTE (onlyghostdanceswhiledrunk @ Feb 15 2011, 12:07 AM) *
I was very sad today when i asked one of my SWAT buddies if you could even obtain a license for Class III (or any body armor for that matter) in CA... he said its super illegal, and if you get caught with it, your ass is going to jail. I really hate CA sometimes, I know you can have it in AZ, had to leave my damned SKS and class 3 wpns there when I left (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) .


Here, have the only reference I could find to body armor in the CA penal code.

QUOTE (California Penal Code Section 12022.2)
(a) Any person who, while armed with a firearm in the commission or attempted commission of any felony, has in his or her immediate possession ammunition for the firearm designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, shall upon conviction of that felony or attempted felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony, be punished by an additional term of 3, 4, or 10 years. The court shall order the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the reasons for its enhancement choice on the record at the time of the sentence.
(b) Any person who wears a body vest in the commission or attempted commission of a violent offense, as defined in Section 29905, shall, upon conviction of that felony or attempted felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which he or she has been convicted, be punished by an additional term of one, two, or five years. The court shall order the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the reasons for its enhancement choice on the record at the time of the sentence.
© As used in this section, "body vest" means any bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection for the wearer.

(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2012.

Emphasis mine. Additionally, please note that Class III body armor is an entirely different beast than Class III firearms: classes of body armor describe how well they protect you, with Class III being one of four classes of protection; "Class III firearms", by contrast, are a variety of Toys What Go Bang Or Boom that are regulated by the National Firearms Act, and you only require a "Class 3 license" if you intend to import, manufacture and sell, or just plain sell NFA-regulated items. If you simply wish to own one yourself, you need:
  • approval from the ATF
  • a signature from the county sheriff, or city/town chief of police
  • to pass an extensive background check (including submitting a photograph and fingerprints)
  • to fully register the firearm
  • to receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines
  • to, finally, pay a tax - typically $200, but it varies depending on the device you want to get your mitts on.

And of course, the device you want has to be legal to own under the destination state's laws in the first place, or the state troopers are going to want to have Words with you...

Please, please note that I am not the most well-educated person on this subject. After all, I'm stuck in California too. All of my information comes from a series of google searches, a firehose of raw boredom, and a ham-handed compression of the information on Wikipedia about the NFA. Don't you just love the internet? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Feb 22 2011, 07:06 PM
Post #45


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,547
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



I would encourage anyone following hyzamarca's line of thought to grab his AR and trot down to wal-mart and see what happens. While he not may technically be arrested, for most of us it will seem eerily similar.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chrome Tiger
post Feb 22 2011, 07:20 PM
Post #46


Shiny Metal Kitty Head
**

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 252
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Grand Rapids, MI
Member No.: 146



QUOTE (nezumi @ Feb 22 2011, 02:06 PM) *
I would encourage anyone following hyzamarca's line of thought to grab his AR and trot down to wal-mart and see what happens. While he not may technically be arrested, for most of us it will seem eerily similar.


Yeah, I will let someone else do that. All it takes is one nutjob 'vigilante' citizen that does not understand the law or a police office with the same lack of understanding, and it would make for one upset and possibly wounded/kill legal firearm carrier.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CanRay
post Feb 22 2011, 09:40 PM
Post #47


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,358
Joined: 2-December 07
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Member No.: 14,465



I'd offer, but I'm Canadian, we can't even buy firearms at Wal-Mart. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

Canadian Tire, on the other hand...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post Feb 23 2011, 12:18 AM
Post #48


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



QUOTE (nezumi @ Feb 22 2011, 02:06 PM) *
I would encourage anyone following hyzamarca's line of thought to grab his AR and trot down to wal-mart and see what happens. While he not may technically be arrested, for most of us it will seem eerily similar.


A pistol in a belt holster is more reasonable. And there is an organization of people who do just that in California.

http://www.californiaopencarry.org/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 9th July 2025 - 01:12 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.