CHRO vrs DVRO

[CdwJava]

And what sugar is in your coffee? Where did I ever mention the AG's opinions in any of this. I stated the report cites case law, sheeze...

A "report" - even by the AG - does not have the force of law. His opinions and conclusions in any report, unless supported by current case law and statutes, are not relevant.

- Carl

 

[its_kathie]

Carl, the Attorney General, Law Enforcement, and Judicial Administration are all saying the issue is being ignored.

I am just citing what they said - and the figures that prove it.

Now for the other two most excellent journals, Paul Seave and Casey Gwinn....I will send you a private message and show you where they will be.

They are an adobe file so I can't send you a link.

 

[its_kathie]

CARL: A "report" - even by the AG - does not have the force of law. His opinions and conclusions in any report, unless supported by current case law and statutes, are not relevant.


AHGGGGGGG...read the freakin' report - you will see what he cites and what law he cites.

His opinions are also very relevant - more than yours and mine together, by simple virtue of his status. Just like yours regarding credibility. And that is how it's weighed in the court and questinging people when asking an expert. Very relevant

 

[CdwJava]

But Carl....think a moment here...if he shows firearms are active in the registry...he did not file a receipt. It's two counts, and again default to PC 12021...therefore, back on law enforcement to enforce and the DA to press charges.

No. It does not definitely show that!

There can be weapons active in the registry that have not been owned or possessed by the owner for many years. That is a separate violation, but does not go to prove that he is indeed in possession of the charges. if the DA and the court want to go for an arrest warrant if the police write it up based upon that, more power to 'em.

I have seen MANY firearms in people's possession that are not registered to them. The registry - by itself - may not be sufficient proof to a court. It will depend on a judge. And in case you were not aware, judges can be a rather independent lot.

And since many firearms (most??) are not registered as they are rifles or shotguns, the registry is not the best source of info. Additionally, DOJ is no Johnny on the spot when it comes to taking these weapons out of the system - sometimes neither is law enforcement.

Having a positive hit in the registry is not the same as not presenting a receipt of the disposition to the court. Additionally, there is no way to confirm or deny instantly whether an exemption has been granted for the possession or distance transfer of the firearms. Again, long form the report to the DA unless there are extenuating circumstances.

Carl, this is NOT a court thing, police thing, or DA thing. Too much "not my job: going on here...it's a cohesive unit, that when in sync...works.

Again, I don't have the resources to hunt down every TRO in my jurisdiction and follow up on these. I was just in Dispatch and they were entering a half dozen TROs issued today ... it appeared that at least two were within my jurisdiction. Chances are, we will never know anything about them until someone reports a violation to us - or, the court issues a warrant for failing to comply. Tell me, HOW am I supposed to know that any violation has occurred? If no one reports this to us, then we do not know. We can not actively pursue every TRO issued in my city looking for compliance - it is simply not possible.

In my 16 years on the job I have had only ONE person call and advise that their restrained ex had firearms - a couple of shotguns or rifles as I recall. he advised he had not owned them for over a year ... she said he owned them a year ago. He voluntarily allowed me to search ... no guns. Should I have arrested him simply because she said he had them several months back?

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, the Attorney General, Law Enforcement, and Judicial Administration are all saying the issue is being ignored.

Perhaps it is. But sometimes the theorists don't live in the real world where the rubber meets the road. When you have a limited number of widgets, and twice as many needs for the widgets, you have to decide where to apply your widgets. It comes down to priorities.

I am just citing what they said - and the figures that prove it.

Maybe it is being ignored ... so is shoplifting ... so is gang violence ... so are issues involving child abuse and enangerment. It's all a matter of resources and priorities.

Now for the other two most excellent journals, Paul Seave and Casey Gwinn....I will send you a private message and show you where they will be.

Cool, thanks.

- Carl

 

[its_kathie]

Maybe this world be a different place and managed much differently if the men moved over and gave the woman control.

You are right, things have been skewed and out of sync for far too long. And too many others are after their own personal gain and glory.

I just don't understand with the billions and billions, and more billions of dollars being funneled out for prevention, there isn't much prevention and whole lot of reactive.

You are right about the theorist...I am a theorists and a macro resolutionist. I can't be on the front-lines because my use is better at served analyzing and theorizing. That said, it's looking at the weaknesses and applying resolution for the weak to become strong.

Without the analysis and legislative processes, the billions and billions and billions would not be funneled. And without the front-line, the billions would be useless, and we would certainly be living in a "state of nature".

That said, the theories HAVE to be applied. Generals plan a war, warriors fight it. The researchers are vital and the officer's and prosecutors are the mechanism that makes it work - the money where the mouth is so to speak.

Now for funding, my god, if we only used some of the billions for prevention instead of the reactive could you imagine where we would be....certainly in a better place than we are. Oh, but I am theorizing.

I think I NEED some sugar in my coffee

 

[its_kathie]

CARL: I have seen MANY firearms in people's possession that are not registered to them. The registry - by itself - may not be sufficient proof to a court. It will depend on a judge. And in case you were not aware, judges can be a rather independent lot.

KATHIE: The UNDERSTATEMENT of the year. Like law enforcement, judges are not immune to the stupidity marker. However, they do have the ability to loss of freedom. So when they make an error, someone most always looses. Oh the stories I could tell.

For law enforcement, their error could cause distress, but usually short term - unless they have a gun and make a grave error.

 

[CdwJava]

Now for funding, my god, if we only used some of the billions for prevention instead of the reactive could you imagine where we would be....certainly in a better place than we are. Oh, but I am theorizing.

I think I NEED some sugar in my coffee

Currently, in California - and to a great degree, nationwide - there is a vast shortage of staffing. Our hiring pool is currently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just a few short years ago people could get out of the service after a dozen years, likely never saw combat, and thought about law enforcement ... today, a 4 year stint has a couple of stints to a shooting war zone and when they get out after 4 the previous potential applicant prefers feng shui or flower arranging. One common comment has been, "You don't want to give me a gun right now."

We anticipate a return to some normalcy in the next couple of years as those who have recently mustered out start to get their direction again. In the meantime agencies here are running 15% - 30% short. Further, with retirements pending like a tidal wave in the next 5 to 10 years, many agencies could be as low as 50% in ten years!

So, all the money in the world does no good if there are no bodies to fill the positions. My department has been fully staffed only for about 10 months out of the 6 years I have been here. We are now at 84% staffing and we're about average in my county.

- Carl

 

[its_kathie]

CARL: And the violation occurs when the restrained party fails to notify the COURT of the disposition of the firearms. Law enforcement is NOT in that process until or unless the court notifies them ... and one would think at that point the subject would be remanded or a warrant would issue for his arrest based on said contempt of the court order.

RESPONSE: It's in the CLETS - that's notification from the court to DOJ disbursed to NICS and CLETS and cross referenced with Prohibited and Armed Persons File.

What do ya want, a personal invitation (sassiness emphasized)? That is the notice from the courts. It's the only one have to date.

 

[CdwJava]

RESPONSE: It's in the CLETS - that's notification from the court to DOJ disbursed to NICS and CLETS and cross referenced with Prohibited and Armed Persons File.

What do ya want, a personal invitation (sassiness emphasized)? That is the notice from the courts. It's the only one have to date.

Perhaps you have not had to deal with DAs and the courts at preliminary hearing ...

The elements of PC 12021(g) include the ownership or possession of a firearm in violation of the court order. Now, that means I have to prove the existance of the TRO (easy enough - I can get that from Dispatch) AND the ownership or possession of a firearm. Maybe in your world someone's say-so is enough, but MY DA will require that I present PROOF of ownership or possession ... he will prefer the gun - in fact, without the gun I doubt he would pursue it as a PC 12021(g). A DOJ registry MIGHT be enough for a search warrant, and with additional credible information it MIGHT be enough to prosecute for the TRO violation, but my DA is almost certainly not going to go for a 12021(g) based on that unless I have the gun or a credible witness that can place the gun in the party's hands in violation of the order.

Since many firearms (and MOST around here) are long guns without DOJ registries, making the 12021 case is very difficult without a confession or some credible witnesses besides the protected party's allegation. MY DA and my court's wouldn't go for that. And Heaven help the people that reside in a jurisdiction where the accusation alone is sufficient to justify an arrest.

When the rubber meets the road, theory can be an impractical impediment.

- Carl

 

[its_kathie]

Yes, we know the "boomers" have been retiring for some time.

We also know that many jobs are being out sourced, and many people are losing jobs and are not trained or skilled or educated. This causes stress, financial issues, families to crumble.

And our workforce is cut in half so we are putting out the fires. Not to mention our society is losing high school students in record numbers. The graduation rate is alarming. And we are sending low skilled jobs overseas. Yet we have low skilled workers here unable to make a living the legitimate way. Crime and destruction - inevitable.

Our resources and tax money will be unable to fund infrastructure, health, wages, law enforcement. And we are send more and more into criminal institutions at $35k a year. We keep on putting the weight on the shoulders of a system that can't take anymore.

Let's not even go into the income gab....GOOD GOD.

And through all this, we fight our internal war and suffer. We aren't paying any attention to the massive technology base of China or Japan or Germany. We will be weak, we are so worried about the people in Iraq....we best start be worrying about our home-front. It isn't going to be able to support itself under these continuing conditions.

And guess who is in the background, silently waiting. The countries that have a secure, strong, stable condition. The countries that educate their children and advance in technology.

Right now, we are not educating, we are outsourcing, and we are creating a system where one can't survive. While we fight in Iraq. Even if the service people all came back to the US, there still wouldn't be enough jobs for them.

 

[its_kathie]

CARL: A DOJ registry MIGHT be enough for a search warrant, and with additional credible information it MIGHT be enough to prosecute for the TRO violation, but my DA is almost certainly not going to go for a 12021(g) based on that unless I have the gun or a credible witness that can place the gun in the party's hands in violation of the order.
KATHIE: Who's theorizing now? "in the party's hands" - Possession OR control. If there is a firearm registered and he was ordered by the court to surrender, and he is too stupid to follow court order when said and written at third grade level - he HAS to be removed from the system. At the very LEAST questioned! And we are waiting for a smoking gun!! Oh Hell NO!

CARL: Since many firearms (and MOST around here) are long guns without DOJ registries, making the 12021 case is very difficult without a confession or some credible witnesses besides the protected party's allegation. MY DA and my court's wouldn't go for that. And Heaven help the people that reside in a jurisdiction where the accusation alone is sufficient to justify an arrest.
KATHIE: Topic isn't long guns - we could "straw man" this to death. And a RO is as good as the paper it is written on. And dang nab it - would you get off the accusation pot - never did I say anything about that for sufficient arrest. Weak argument there "rug"

CARL: When the rubber meets the road, theory can be an impractical impediment.
KATHIE: Then the rubber best keep moving along the road, for it is theory that PAVES the way and legitimizes $$$$$$$$$$ for the road to exist, including avenues for wages and education.

When it is all said and done, the ones with the largest bucket filled are the ones that have made a sound claim. Those claims are justified by analysists and theorists.

 

[its_kathie]

Did you get those articles?

 

[CdwJava]

Did you get those articles?

Yes I did. Thanks. I PM'd you in reply with those.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

KATHIE: Who's theorizing now? "in the party's hands" - Possession OR control. If there is a firearm registered and he was ordered by the court to surrender, and he is too stupid to follow court order when said and written at third grade level - he HAS to be removed from the system. At the very LEAST questioned! And we are waiting for a smoking gun!! Oh Hell NO!

Like I said, a case can be made for PC 166(a) or maybe 273.6, but not for 12021(g). Even for the 166(a)/273.6 I would prefer to long form it to the DA. In my county the DA and the court would want proof of ownership and control ... the DOJ registry is not proof of that ... if it were, then it would not show that my father (deceased) still owns firearms.

Again, many/most firearms aren't even IN the registry.

KATHIE: Topic isn't long guns - we could "straw man" this to death. And a RO is as good as the paper it is written on. And dang nab it - would you get off the accusation pot - never did I say anything about that for sufficient arrest. Weak argument there "rug"

It still comes to the issue of proof. I have to have probable cause to make an arrest. Like I said, maybe your courts where you live believe a woman's word is better than a man's and her word is golden and that is sufficient. My courts (and the courts in the counties I have worked previously) are not goign to go for that.

In the case of the registry, fine - we seek an arrest warrant for violation of the court order. But, someone has to inform us of the violation in the first place. And, as I said, in 16 years I have heard of only one such report being made.

KATHIE: Then the rubber best keep moving along the road, for it is theory that PAVES the way and legitimizes $$$$$$$$$$ for the road to exist, including avenues for wages and education.

When you only have four tires and one vehicle, you have to choose a road. I can only split the car so many ways before it ceases to stand on its own.

When it is all said and done, the ones with the largest bucket filled are the ones that have made a sound claim. Those claims are justified by analysists and theorists.

And theories are the bain of the opractitioner's existance. Theory is nice - so is a plan. But, as they say about plans in time of war: They survive until first contact with the enemy. Same goes with theories. They sound good until you have to actually implement them ... then you risk either clogging the system, overburdening your people, or watchin the whole system collapse under the strain. I watched my department pretty much go into subsistence mode a few years ago because of staffing issue. We answered calls for service, kissed off most misdemeanors without much follow-up (if any), and spent our very limited resources on the felonies. If someone had come to us and asked us to follow-up on every DV RO in the city, my Chief would have laughed himself silly.

My current Chief would tell you we will try, he would give it to me to try to implement, and then I would have to go back to him and ask which program we should shut down or which shift we pull people off of in order to implement it.

Again, it is all about priorities and resources. In my community seeking firearms in the possession of restrained parties is not a great priority - either politically or within the community.

- Carl