CA Legislature Proposes 3 Gun Control Bills on 1st Day Back


My worst post-election fears are seemingly coming to fruition.  California lawmakers, with no opposition, are off an running with their anti-gun agenda and are likely going to turn me into a felon within six months.

For those that do not follow California politics closely, let me explain.  During the last election, Democrats managed to take a veto proof super majority in both the state Assembly and Senate, as well as putting Gun Grabbing Gavin Newsom in the Governor’s chair.

December 3rd was the first day back in session for the California state legislature.  On that very first day back, three gun control bills were introduced.

AB 18 – Firearms Excise Tax – by Marc Levine (D)
“This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that imposes an excise tax on the sales of handguns and semiautomatic rifles and would require the revenue collected from that tax to be used to fund grants through the CalVIP program.”

So the plan here is to tax the law abiding citizens as punishment for acts performed by criminals?

It is still very early in the life of this bill and at this date, they have not even set the proposed tax rate, but rest assured, CA lawmakers would never levy exorbitant taxes on the citizens without their consent. Oh, wait…

AB 61 – Gun Violence Restraining Orders – by Phil Ting (D)
California already has passed these very worrisome “gun violence restraining orders,” but current law apparently is too restrictive for lawmakers.  Currently, only family members and law enforcement can file an ex parte (in other words, the accused is not even in court) petition to a court that enables law enforcement to forcibly remove guns from someone who legally owns them.

If you are a gun owner or a cop, or God forbid, a gun owner who is a cop, you are probably aware of the recent shooting in Maryland where cops went to a home to serve a gun violence restraining order and ended up shooting the gun owner.  I am not faulting the cops in that situation because other than very generic information, I know nothing about the order or what occurred in that incident, but this is exactly the type of thing I predicted would happen when these laws started getting passed.

With all that in mind, apparently this is not good enough for the anti-gun liberal politicians in California because now that we have that law, it is time to start tweaking it to make it easier for just about anyone to go before a judge and get your guns taken away.

Here is the proposed change that this bill would enact.  Bear in mind, currently only a family member or law enforcement can petition the court to have your guns removed.

“This bill would similarly authorize, an employer, a coworker, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months to file a petition for an ex parte, one-year, or renewed gun violence restraining order.”

So now your boss, a coworker, or anyone who knows you from college can request that the state take your guns away.  Why stop there?  Why not open that list up to friends, neighbors, persons who live in the same state, or anyone on the planet who might not want you to have a gun?

AB 12 – Firearms: Gun violence and mental health – by Jacqui Irwin (D)
“This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to gun violence and mental health.”

This is a veritable Pandora’s box in the making, because this bill does not say anything specific.  This was an “ooh, ooh, let me be the first to get an anti-gun bill on the books even though I have no specific issue to address or any plan on how to address it” bill.

The text of the bill is merely an emotion tugging, anti-gun screed that says nothing more than “guns are bad.”

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:

(a) On November 7, 2018, in the city of Thousand Oaks, a tragic and senseless act of gun violence at the Borderline Bar & Grill resulted in the deaths of 12 Californians, including Sergeant Ronald Lee Helus of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office.

(b) This act of gun violence injured many others who fled the Borderline Bar & Grill and has deeply impacted the surrounding community that is known for its safety and low level of violent crime.

(c) It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to gun violence and mental health, in an effort to prevent future acts of gun violence in California.

I really have no idea what the purpose of this bill is, other than to get another anti-gun bill on the books as early as possible.

Which brings me back to where I started, life in California just got very scary for law abiding gun owners.  Not only are all the same Democrats coming after us, but now there is no one in place to stop them.

No, The CA Legislature Did NOT Exempt Themselves From Gun Laws

First, before I get to the point of this post, before people who don’t know anything about me begin calling me a gun grabbing lefty, let me clarify something:  I am a very pro-gun California cop who absolutely detests the anti-gun politicians that continue to pass law after law that keep whittling away at our constitutionally guaranteed second amendment rights.  If you read any of my other writings or watch any of my YouTube videos, I think you will find that blatantly obvious.


Now, on to the point of this blog post…

I’ve been seeing this tidbit of completely bogus information shared for several years now, and for a long while, I would comment every time I saw it correcting the person who shared it, but I have given up.  It is a completely bullshit internet rumor that just won’t die.  Sadly it continues to be pushed by a website for whom I once wrote, Joe for America*,  and traces back several years further to a Washington Times opinion piece from 2011, the year the law in question was passed.

The claim that California legislators exempted themselves from gun laws is an outright lie that has even been debunked many places, including in the forums on CalGuns.  The original language of SB 610 from 2011 included the following:

(b) The good cause requirement shall be deemed met for either the following:

(1) Any applicant who is a member of Congress, a statewide elected official, or a Member of the Legislature, for protection or self-defense.

(2) The licensing authority fails to make a determination of good cause within 30-days of the application.

That was the original version of the bill, but that whole section was dropped from the bill before it was passed, which is why it is in red and stuck out (see screen grab).  The final version of that bill can be found here.


While it does indeed appear that whomever originally wrote that bill did attempt to exempt the members of the California State Legislature, among other elected officials, from one particular aspect of that one particular gun law, other members thought better of that and dropped that portion from the bill.

Please, for the love of God, stop spreading this horse hockey around!  The anti-gunner’s arguments are easy enough to disprove without needing to resort to easily debunked lies.

In the future, do yourself a huge favor.  Anytime a source, especially an internet source, is claiming a law was passed, especially one that seems quite unbelievable, but fails to provide either the actual bill name and number or a link to the bill, just assume it is a lie, which in this case, it most definitely is.

 *  Ironically, I stopped writing for Joe For America when they began running story after story, loosely based on partial truths, that painted law enforcement in a negative light and pushed the whole “militarization of the cops” narrative.


Enough is Enough! Time to Fight Back!


Attention California Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, law enforcement labor unions, police officers, deputy sheriffs, traffic officers, probation officers, parole officers, correctional officers, and anyone else who is on the front line of the enforcement of California laws.

Attention California District Attorneys, deputy district attorneys, prosecutorial labor unions and anyone involved in the prosecution of criminals in the State of California.

Attention California community leaders and politicians who understand it is our role to make the community safer, not to pass laws making life easier for those who chose to victimize their fellow citizens.

Attention victim advocacy groups, law enforcement support groups, law enforcement chaplaincies, and anyone who has personally been affected by a criminal on the streets due to AB109, Prop47 or Prop57.

I am just a regular old street cop who has been running this blog for about five years.  If you have heard of me, chances are at one point or another, I may have written something with which you did not agree.  The fact of life is that even though we are all on the same side in this fight to maintain public safety, we do not always see eye to eye.  However, there is a growing trend in our state that we should all be able to unite to combat, and that is the movement to decriminalize crime.  It is time to put our differences aside, to come together to fight this dangerous game that our state’s elected officials are playing with the public safety, with our safety.

To the best of my knowledge, this trend began back in 2011 when Governor Brown signed AB-109 into law.  Since then, with the passage of Propositions 47 & 57, the ignorant voting public has believed the misleading proposition names and followed the governor’s lead, voting to either lower the severity of crimes, or completely decriminalize them.

The reduced violent crime rate that our professions fought so hard to accomplish through the 1990’s and into the early 2000’s has slipped, and the crime rate has begun climbing in this state more often than not since 2011.  In fact, it has risen the last three years in a row, with sharp increases in violent crime.

Many of us who chose to be vocal about these horrible laws dreamt up by ivory tower politicians, whom we personally protect on a daily basis, predicted the crime rates would climb, and we were not wrong.  It does not take a gifted prognosticator to figure out that when you put more criminals on the street, crime will rise.  I could point to all the FBI statistics that support my statements here, but if you are in this profession, you already know what I said is true.

However, for those not in this profession, here are those statistics which I took from the annually compiled Uniform Crime Report produced by the FBI.  The chart below shows the rates for each year starting in 2011.  The report for 2016 has not yet been released, but early reports from the FBI showed all violent crimes across the nation rose.


Thus far, AB-109 has cost the lives of several cops in California, the most recent being Deputy Robert French of the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department.*  Before Bob came Officer Keith Boyer of the Whittier Police Department.  In addition to AB-109, when considering the changes that Prop 47 put in place, the death toll for law enforcement rises to five, adding Officer Jose Gil Vega of the Palm Springs Police Department, Officer Lesley Zerebny of the Palm Springs Police Department, and Sergeant Steven Owen of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department.

That is just the number of cops killed as a result of these ridiculous laws.  It does not include those who were shot and survived, or were attacked via other methods by persons who would have been locked up prior to the passage of those criminal coddling laws.  Add to that the number of citizens who have been murdered, raped, robbed or just plain victimized by these early releases, and the extent of this problem becomes abundantly clear.  Not a community in this state has been spared.

The only people who have not been victimized by these dangerous changes to state laws are the very people who created and passed those changes.

California politicians are making the entire state less safe, and they are only doing it to save money.  The even sadder part is they are not attempting to save money in an effort  to lower our taxes, because in fact they have continued voting to raise our taxes.  Instead, they are merely trying to save that money so they can spend it on other projects that do absolutely nothing to enhance public safety and benefit only a small sliver of the population.

I have had enough!  It is time that we, those of us whose professional lives are dedicated to public safety, stand together, face to face with these political elites and tell them “No more! Enough is enough!”  It is time to reverse this doomed course they have set us on, before it kills another member of our law enforcement family.

If these political elites cannot see fit to do something to enhance all of our safety, maybe it is time that we stop taking extra steps to provide for theirs.

* While Deputy French’s murderer was on the streets due directly to the unfathomable decision made by Federal Judge Sallie Kim, the broad changes that AB-109 made to the previous parole system, including what constitutes a parole violation and the length of punishments received for those violations contributed to him being on the streets.  Prior to AB-109, a person on parole who was arrested for a parole violation would not have been eligible for release, bail or not, prior to their hearing.  Deputy French’s murderer bailed out.  Despite what the CDCR press secretary Vicky Waters wrote in a press release, AB-109 absolutely, most definitely played a role in his release from custody.

If you are interested in being part of this project, please like and follow us on Facebook.  Please share both this blog post and our Facebook page on all your social media accounts.  The more exposure this post gets, the more support we will gain.  It is time we fix these laws so more California cops are not killed by violent felons who should have been in prison!

CA Liberals Kill Yet Another Cop


Yesterday, August 30, 2017, Deputy Bob French, a 21 year veteran cop with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, was murdered in cold blood by a worthless piece of crap career criminal who should have been behind bars, but instead was loose on the streets thanks to policies put in place by California liberals.

Normally, I refuse to name the criminal in cases like this, but in this instance I must in order to allow doubters to verify what I am going to say.  Thomas Daniel Littlecloud (32 yrs), who from this point on I shall only refer to as “Scumbag,” should have been in prison yesterday, but thanks to AB-109, the California Prison Realignment Act, which was dreamt up, written, passed by CA democrat politicians and signed into law by CA democrat governor Jerry Brown, Scumbag was loose.

Scumbag has felony convictions going back to at least 2004 in Alameda County.

2800.2 VC [F] ; 29800 PC [F] – 9/10/2013

10851 VC [F]; 2800.2 VC [F]; 29800 PC [F]; 11377 HS [F]; 496 PC [F] – 5/15/2013

245 PC [F] x6, 12021 PC x3 [F] – 12/6/2005

10851 VC [F]; 11378 HS [F]; 11370 HS [F]; 12021 PC [F] – 9/3/2005

10851 VC [F], 69 PC [F], 243(c)(1) PC [F]; 11377 HS [F] – 12/31/2004

12020 PC [M] – 9/1/2004

Then, in December of 2015, Scumbag was arrested again, on new charges which included possession of stolen property, possession of loaded guns by a prohibited person, possession of narcotics, resisting arrest, and a number of other felonies.  At the time of that arrest, for all of those fresh felonies, Scumbag was on active “PRCS” parole.  He was still on “PRCS” parole yesterday when he killed Deputy French.  Hell, even the cop hating, uber-liberal Sacramento Bee freely admits he has a lengthy criminal history.

You might be wondering what the hell “PRCS” parole is.  PRCS was created by AB-109, and what they (CA democrats) did was take “non-violent offenders” out of prison, put them on the streets, and instead of assigning them to a parole officer, they mandated the counties provide supervision of these state prisoners.  The counties were allocated funding to do this new task, however the state all but took their ability to violate these parolee’s parole unless they committed a fresh felony, and even then the maximum amount of time they can get is a joke*.  What it boiled down to was the state, at the direction of the liberals who created these laws, saved a bunch of money by just releasing inmates onto the streets.

So, back to Scumbag here, when he was arrested for all of those fresh felonies back in December of 2015, he had his PRCS parole violated.  But here we are, less than 2 years later, and Scumbag is back on the street with loaded stolen guns, dope, stolen cars, and now instead of just fighting and running from the cops, he shot three cops, killing one.

If you are a California voter, and you voted for the democrat politicians who passed these bills, if you voted for Jerry Brown who signed AB-109 into law, if you voted for other bills decriminalizing crimes (Props 47 & 57) and coddling criminals, you bear some responsibility not only in the death of Deputy Bob French, but in the deaths of all the other cops and regular citizens who have been killed by the people you put back on the streets.

Actions have consequences!  Your vote has consequences!

Today, thousands of cops are mourning the loss of a fellow officer and a family is mourning the loss of a father and grandfather, whose death is one of the direct consequences of your votes.

Please, stop killing us!


Now, based on past experience, I know I will be receiving messages and comments from offended California liberals telling me that they “adamantly support law enforcement” and would not do anything to endanger the cops or to lessen public safety. 

To that I call BULLSHIT!!! 

If you voted for the people who passed these laws, or if you voted for Prop 47 or Prop 57, you did in fact do something that not only endangers yourself and all of California, but has directly lead to the deaths of numerous people, including several cops, the most recent being Deputy Bob French.  You may not have intentionally done so.  You may not have realized that is what you were doing, but sadly, that is exactly what you did.


* This sentence has been edited after an actual PRCS case worker pointed out my error where I said the counties did not get funding.


Copyright (c) 2017 Deputy Matt and Others Who Serve, all rights reserved.

Idiocracy in California Culminates in Cop’s Murders


The 2006 movie Idiocracy was just supposed to be a stupid comedy based on some social commentary.  It is quite an enjoyable movie, so long as you don’t mind a bunch of sexual innuendo and locker room humor.  Sadly though, it seems that the idiot politicians here in California, my home state, have used that movie as a blueprint for how to run the state.

They have ignored infrastructure maintenance to the point that our dams and roadways are crumbling; they throw tax money away on unnecessary pet projects and illegal immigrants; they exacerbated a multiyear drought by mismanaging the existing water resources; prior to that they ignored the growing demand on water and have failed to add water storage capacity even though demand has doubled every decade or so; hell, the California State Senate and Assembly house a collection of idiots that closely resemble President Comacho’s cabinet from the movie; and to top it off, the majority of the population of this state resembles the brainless morons who populate the world in the movie by continually re-electing the idiots who are in charge of this once “golden state” because the idiots say what the moron voters want to hear; those same morons (populace) gather to protest a recently elected president wearing vagina costumes and hats.  Lastly, yesterday, once again, a felon who was released early from prison, due to decisions made by the idiots in charge and the morons who vote for them, shot and killed a fellow cop.  Sadly, he was not remotely the first cop killed by a felon who was released early from prison, and the way things are going, he will not be the last.


At about 18 minutes into the movie, the main character Joe wakes up 500 years in the future to find a society that has let the buildings and roadways crumble (see screen grab).  While it took 500 years in the movie for this to happen, it has only taken a couple decades for California to accomplish this same feat.  The state has known for 12 years that the Oroville dam, a dam that was completed in 1968, needed serious attention but they did nothing during those 12 years and now the dam is quite literally crumbling away.  The seriousness of the situation at the Oroville dam prompted the evacuation of 188,000 people from the city of Oroville, CA and surrounding towns.  State officials managed to drop the water level behind the dam, preventing (at least temporarily) the dam from suffering catastrophic failure by stopping the outflow from multiple dams upstream.  However, those upstream reservoirs are already at capacity and it is still raining, with several more days of rain in the forecast.  In addition to the total fumbling of the Oroville Dam situation thus far, the state fired a number of the workers repairing the dam because they posted photos of the damaged spillway to social media.  Seriously?  Priorities askew much?

Moving on, California state roads and highways have been ignored so long, that they are crumbling and falling apart.  This week, Highway 1 near El Sur, one of the most scenic stretches of one of the most scenic highways was closed because the bridge supports are crumbling.  North of San Francisco, the same highway was closed because portions of it are falling down the hillside.  Just three days ago, the streets in Los Angeles swallowed up an entire fire engine (a mere $600k fire rig) as well as a couple of cars.  Just last night, part of Highway 50 in the Sierra Mountains buckled and collapsed causing one westbound lane to be closed.  According to reports, the roads in California are the worst in the nation.  The situation with the roads in California is so pronounced that there is a coalition of businesses, labor unions, municipal transportation utilities and local governments demanding the roads be repaired.

Bridges copy

Meanwhile, the Democrat leadership in California has been spending Billions of dollars on Jerry Brown’s high speed choo choo train, because he likes trains.  It was originally supposed to be a high speed rail that extended from Los Angeles to San Francisco, but now the high speed portion has been limited to only a stretch in the central valley.  The initial estimates for this high speed train to nowhere came in at $64B (billion), but at last report, the already vastly over budget train is projected to run 171% of that initial estimate.

In addition to wasting nearly $100B dollars on a train, in just 2014, California democrats spent millions to issue over 600K illegal immigrants driver’s licenses.  Those same liberal politicians extended healthcare benefits to those same illegal immigrants at a cost of $1.3B (billion) to the taxpayers.  Lastly, the democrats running the state have burdened the California tax payers with a $14.4B annual cost to educate illegal immigrants in the public schools.

IdiocracyCarlsJrAnother favorite topic of the Democrat politicians running California is the need to raise the minimum wage.  They keep harping that everyone flipping a burger should be earning a “living wage.”   Last year, Jerry Brown signed a bill with the sole purpose of raising the state’s minimum wage.   Oddly enough, the totally foreseeable outcome of an overpriced workforce  was yet another issue that was also addressed in Idiocracy.  I offer you the fully automated Carl’s Jr. store from the movie.  Not surprisingly, as wages have been artificially raised, fast food chains have been seeking ways to lower costs.  One of those ways is to remove workers and introduce automation, and now we are starting to see the introduction of self-serve kiosks in fast food restaurants, and Carl’s Jr. is already heading that way.

In the movie, the idiots populating the world have almost entirely replaced water with Brawndo, a fictional energy drink, because it has to be better than water, it has electrolytes.  They even began watering crops with the stuff, and the only place they used water was in the toilet.  The world in Idiocracy has become a dustbowl because nothing would grow, and thus they are suffering a long term, manmade drought.

Welcome to California, where the total mismanagement of our water resources has greatly worsened a naturally occurring drought.  Despite the population of the state more than doubling since the late 1970’s, our water storage facilities (dams and reservoirs) have had no new additions since 1979.  In fact, since the completion of the last dam built in the state, California has actually removed an absolutely shocking number of dams, and many for reasons as ridiculous as “habitat restoration” or “improving fish passage.”  Yet one more way in which this state wastes millions of gallons of water every year is by maintaining the outflow from dams in order to keep water levels in the San Francisco bay delta waterways in an effort to prevent a tiny 3” long fish, the delta smelt, from going extinct.  Despite those herculean efforts, a recent survey found only 6 of them still alive.  Meanwhile, the statewide water shortage has been forcing farmers to reduce their crop sizes because they do not have enough water to grow the food.  Not only does this drastically hurt the food supply, and thus raise the cost of produce, but California has historically been the largest agricultural producing state in the nation.  With California producing less agriculture, the amount of income from outside the state naturally dwindles.

In Idiocracy, the president’s cabinet is comprised of three complete moron adults, a kid that won a contest and gets to be the Secretary of Energy, and the attorney general who got the job due to her large breasts.  Here in California, the mentally deficient population keeps re-electing a senile, burnt out hippie as governor, and votes for babbling liberal politicians like senators Kevin “Ghost Gun” De Leon and Isadore Hall.  Hell, just recently Democrat Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher introduced Assembly Bill 250 that would create taxpayer funded beach vacations for the poor.  Not only does the bill seek to subsidize those beach vacations, but it aims to use eminent domain to forcibly take beach properties from private citizens so that they can be converted to these new low income, government funded vacation homes, and at a time that the California budget is billions in the red, and is currently asking the federal government for money.


Also, just like in the movie, where the “dumb angry mobs” began to turn against Joe, the entire state of California (via our elected leaders) have turned against the recently elected president.  Governor Moonbeam recently vowed to fight any federal enforcement of immigration laws and to that effect, the state hired former US Attorney General Eric Holder to fight President Trump.  The flat broke state of California is currently paying Holder $25k a month (for those with math difficulties, that is $300k annually) to do that, whatever that is.  In addition to the state’s fight with the current president and his policies, a large number of residents seem intent on proving their similarity to the populous of the Idiocracy world by having various protests against the recently elected leader of the country.  In an apparent attempt to prove their stupidity, many donned pink vagina hats, or dressed in full body vagina costumes to protest his election, while others chose President’s day to stage a “Not my president’s day” protest.


Lastly, and perhaps the most personal aspect of this whole similarity, is the idiotic way in which California is releasing convicted felons from prison en masse.  The ease with which the liberals running California have convinced the voting populace to cut those felons free reminds me of the scene in Idiocracy in which Joe escapes from prison, although it is hard to call it an escape.  The voters in California have twice voted to decriminalize certain felonies, and to shorten sentences, thus releasing thousands of convicted felons from prison, all because some politicians named the ballot initiatives something entirely misleading.  Since those felons have been released early, a number of them have gone on to murder some of my fellow California law enforcement officers.  Just yesterday, Whittier Police Officer Keith Boyer who was shot and killed by a convicted felon gang member who was released early thanks to idiotic liberal policies.  Sadly, Officer Boyer was not the first cop killed because of these lax liberal policies, he is only the most recent.

Just as in the movie where it was not too late to save the country, it is also not too late for California, but it is getting close.  However, as in the movie, it is time to stop doing the same stupid stuff that has got us here.  As a state, we need to stop electing liberal politicians who have mismanaged us into a total state of disrepair and total lawlessness.  Stop voting with your hearts people, start voting with your brains.

California Voters Once Again Vote for More Crime & Less Freedom


California Voters Overwhelmingly Ignored Law Enforcement, Voted Against Law & Order While Shredding Bill of Rights

Here it is, two days after the election and I am finally, barely able to construct sentences that are absent expletives.  In California, there were a large number of propositions on the ballot this year.  Some were quite inconsequential, but some were extremely important and will affect the average citizen in their daily lives.

Prop 57
Near the top of that list, in order of importance, is Prop 57.  I have written about this proposition in the past, and discussed how it will release thousands of “non-violent” violent felons from prison.  The way the proposition does that is by essentially reclassifying the following list of violent felonies as “non-violent.”

  • Rape by intoxication
  • Rape of an unconscious person
  • Human Trafficking involving sex acts with minors
  • Domestic Violence involving trauma
  • Failing to register as a sex offender
  • Lewd acts against a child
  • Drive-by shooting
  • Assault with a deadly weapon
  • Hostage taking
  • Attempting to explode a bomb at a hospital or school
  • Supplying a firearm to a gang member
  • Hate crime causing physical injury
  • Arson
  • Discharging a firearm on school grounds
  • False imprisonment of an elder through violence

With the passage of Prop 57, felons sitting in prison who were convicted of those suddenly no longer violent crimes are now eligible for early release.

You know, because back when the state released thousands of felons under AB109, that had no detrimental effects on public safety (sarcasm).  Just like two years ago when the California voters passed Prop 47 which reducing many crimes that were previously felonies down to misdemeanors, making it impossible for law enforcement to take the criminals to jail.  Many of those reclassified crimes have very real effects on average citizens who end the victims of those crimes, silly little crimes such as business burglaries, vehicle theft (depending on the value of the car), and theft of firearms.  Again, the passage of that has had very little negative repercussions, unless you consider that whole 12% increase in violent crime all over the state in just one year.

Based on the successes (again, heavy sarcasm) of those two previous laws, both heavily pushed by California Governor Jerry Brown, and backed by the Democrat leadership of the state, the California voters decided to ignore the advice of nearly every single chief law enforcement officer in the state, countless law enforcement labor unions, nearly every elected district attorney in the state, numerous mayors, multiple city councils, even several liberal leaning newspapers (the entire list of those opposing Prop 57 can be found here).  The CA voters ignored all those people, all of those experts in the field, and passed the law anyway, and by a significant margin (64% yes to 36% no), because hey, what the hell do cops and district attorneys know about keeping cities free from crime, right?

Prop 63
In the “shredding the Constitution” department, the voters of California, in their never ending drive to eliminate their own rights, decided to pass Proposition 63, which in addition to a few other things, made it illegal to purchase ammo without a special permit.

This unconstitutional proposition was dreamed up, and pushed almost solely by Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom.  It was originally billed as the “Safety for All” act, and Newsom found significant assistance in funding the push to pass this in anti-gun billionaire, Michael Bloomberg.

For that matter, as a career cop who sincerely respects the constitution, I felt strongly enough about this proposition that I volunteered my time, and my gas, to haul my butt in to the FPC studio to film an online add opposing this proposition.

The fact of the matter is, Proposition 63 only affects people who buy their guns, ammo and magazines legally, at stores.  In my 20 years as a cop, I’ve only encountered two (2) armed criminals who bought their guns and ammo that way, and this law would not have stopped either of them because prior to the commissions of the crimes for which they were arrested, they both had clean records.  As I have said many times over, Prop 63 will not prevent a single gun crime.  On the other hand, it will indeed infringe on millions of legal gun owners ability to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights.


The sad/funny part is, despite the name, Proposition 63 does nothing to enhance anyone’s safety, which is why out of all the law enforcement agencies in the entire state, only four (4) current department heads from only two (2) very liberal cities, and one (1) retired police chief (one who is notoriously anti-gun), all of whom represent cities in the San Francisco bay area, are the only LE officials to support it.  A few DA’s, also all from liberal cities, also supported it.  No law enforcement labor unions in the state supported it.   In fact, the list of law enforcement department heads (retired and current), the list of district attorneys, and the list of law enforcement labor unions that opposed it exceed several hundred entries, and all six (6) pages of it can be found here.

Despite all of the evidence that shows this law will be just as ineffective at combating gun violence as every other gun control measure.  Despite the fact that it very clearly violates the bill of rights.  Despite the fact that hundreds of experts on the matter of preventing crime opposed this proposition, the voters of California overwhelmingly voted to pass it (63% yes to 37% no).

Prop 64
The recreational pot proposition.

But it is just weed man.  It is no different from alcohol.  Except that it is most definitely different from alcohol.  I am not a doctor, so I will not even touch on the medical aspects of this, which there are plenty.  That said, both sides of that argument will have their own doctors saying things to back one side or the other.  I will just say this, weed is NOT the same as alcohol for a great number of reasons.

I am here to talk about the legal aspects of this proposition.  Medical marijuana, in one form or another, has been legal in this state for a long time.  Anyone with a few bucks and a few hours to kill can go to one of the hundreds of “doctors” around the state and get a doctor’s note to allow them to legally possess and use weed.  I have seen notes for an astronomical range of reasons including ADHD, frequent headaches, dyslexia and even scoliosis.  The reason I point that out is to show how easy it is to legally get pot.

Since pot was legalized for “medicinal use” in California, the amount of violent crime associated with it has actually increased, despite all the arguments that it would decrease.  In the county where I am employed, more than half of the home invasion robberies are pot related, and a significant number of homicides are also related to pot rip-offs.  Those are a few of the reasons that a huge number of law enforcement officials across the state, both past and present, opposed this proposition.  A large number of elected officials opposed it, including a large number of district attorneys, as did a large number of law enforcement labor unions.  The full list of those opposed can be found here.

lettertocafromdenverda-2On the flip side, the list of those endorsing Proposition 64 includes a number of liberal organizations such as the Democrat party, the NAACP, the ACLU, and about 10 retired cops from all over the state, and one police chief from out of state.  That list can be found here.

By the way, it is not just us silly California cops and district attorneys making stuff up so that people can’t get stoned.  Agencies from other states that recently legalized weed sent warnings to us.  Take for example this letter from the District Attorney of Denver, CO in which he documents the dramatic rise in violent crimes across his entire state since pot was legalized there.  Just for clarification, since the “nonviolent” crimes that are covered by Prop 57 might have confused you, in this case violent crimes include murder, rape and robbery, to name a few.  Not surprisingly, thefts also increased, as they usually do when more people start doing recreational drugs.

And as I have come to expect, the voters of California again completely disregarded the opinions of those tasked with keeping society safe and voted to make recreational pot legal, again by a fairly large margin (56% yes to 44% no).

Fallout Predictions
Currently, law enforcement as a whole is fighting constant battles in the larger War on Cops against the mainstream media and leftist, anarchist organizations like Black Lives Matter.  Simultaneously, cops in California are also dealing with the fact that the very society we are tasked with protecting keeps passing laws which make that very job more and more difficult.  And it happens election after election.

Even when society is shown the negative results of their previous votes every night on the news, and they read about the skyrocketing crime rates in reports by the FBI, they still are easily swayed by flowery words and hollow promises showered on them by the same politicians that sold them the last fake bill of goods.

The best analogy I can offer is that it is like a dysfunctional marriage.  We are the half of the relationship trying our best to make it work, and the voters are the unemployed, alcoholic who keeps cheating on us.  We deal with the new limitations put on us, but in the end, things keep getting worse because the other half keeps drinking and cheating, and each time they do it worse than the previous time.  Then when called on it, they blame us for causing it.

One of the first negative things to happen when society stops supporting their cops (making their job harder by passing laws like these is the exact same thing as not supporting them) has become known as the Ferguson Effect.  If cops know, or can reasonable expect, that they are going to be publicly crucified for simply doing their jobs, then they cease to voluntarily do their job (they stop proactively policing) and instead they do the very minimum they can to get by.  It is not that they do not do their job properly, but they stop looking for extra work (crime)on their own and instead just answer the calls for service that come in.  This very effect has been noted in most major cities across the nation, and it is especially pronounced in cities where there have been significant outcries and demonstrations against the police.  Not surprisingly, the crime rates where that has been happening have skyrocketed.

Currently, California law enforcement agencies, just like agencies all across the country, are having a significantly difficult time filling vacancies.  In this pervasive anti-cop environment, where cops are instantly doubted and the suspect’s word is treated like gospel; where no matter what the situation is, if a cop shoots a black person they can expect to be crucified on both social media and in the mainstream media; where cop’s salaries and pensions are being cut while the public simultaneously demands better training and education, it is no wonder we cannot find enough applicants to fill the vacancies.  Add to that the dismal work ethic and lack of life experience that many members of the current generation of applicants belong to (millennials), and the growing drop out and failure rates in academies are easily explained.

And lastly, the number of vacancies for most agencies is growing larger every year.  Career cops like me are getting fed up with the media, with department politics, with being overworked due to lack of staffing, and with the public constantly sabotaging our efforts by passing these laws.  That growing angst is leading to large numbers of us senior cops are calling it quits.  The desire to leave is especially high with those working for agencies where their management is less prone to defend them publicly if something negative hits the media.  I heard the other day from a person employed by a neighboring agency that 25% of their active sworn staff is currently in the application and background process with other agencies.

Sadly, my prediction is that crime in the once Golden State is going to get far worse before it ever gets better, and it will only get better if the public stops voting these stupid laws into place.

The State of Jefferson


The need for the State of Jefferson!
Its time to become number 51.

As a third generation native Northern Californian, I’m tired of the ultra liberal Los Angeles and SF Bay Areas ruling over me. I’m tired of them
-creating the ever growing taxes that I have to pay;
-creating social policies that further erode our society, sending us further down the drain;
-writing laws that coddle criminals, making them the victims;
-writing laws that interfere with and impede the daily lives of law abiding citizens;
-releasing criminals that I have to police;
-determining what constitutional rights I get to exercise, and where;
-determining how the natural resources of our area are to be used, and for whom;
-misspending billions or our tax dollars on public projects that benefit no one except the politicians who push them (Brown’s high speed train to nowhere);
-and so many other issues that diminish the daily quality of life for us all.

05b5bc440a7fea2a272e70802b610cf9Consider this, the 21 Northern CA counties that are included in the proposed State of Jefferson make up nearly half of the area of California (square mileage wise), yet Northern CA has only 3 out of 80 seats in the California Assembly, only 2 out of 40 seats in the California Senate, and only 2 out of 53 seats in the US House of Representatives. We are VASTLY underrepresented in our own government. We have NO say in our own government. Our voices are NOT heard.

Does the phrase “taxation without representation” sound familiar? Does the call to disarm the citizenry by that same government where the people are not represented ring any bells? That is exactly what we, the people of the 21 counties of Northern California are living under right now. We are overtaxed and unrepresented. It is time we declare our independence from the liberal elites ruling over us. We need to separate from Southern California. We need the State of Jefferson!

If you live in California, please consider signing the declaration found at the top of the website here. You should especially consider it if you live in one of the 21 potentially effected counties.


Law Enforcement Diplomats

Social media is an interesting armchair style warrior. Lots of opinions and sometimes zero experience or knowledge on a subject. The problem is we Cops don’t always know what someone else might have experienced or what their personal Law Enforcement story is. One reader today regarded this page as a “circle jerk LEO” page which made me remember something. Cops aren’t just Cops anymore we are Diplomats and Ambassadors to society. There is a certain responsibilitiy which goes along with the ideal and is inclusive in the duties of a Law Enforcement Officer.

People who are not cops and have never been cops might never fully understand every facet of our calling. Why become angry with those who are under a differing opinion? Obviously it’s ridiculous to think that Law Enforcement Officers are all racially motivated or on the flip side of the coin that we are all “the right hand of the democratic party’s agenda.” Ignorance can be bliss but I would rather enlighten than insult. All may not be enlightened I realize yet in some occasions it is well worth the extra effort which may benefit the Police Reputation.

1I teach my children to ask questions and not simply obey commands given to them by someone claiming to be a leader. I also teach my children to be respectful in the asking of those questions and most importantly to listen to the answer and make their own determination. When people put forth ridiculous ideas regarding cops we should seek to answer those accusations with logic and truth. We can also do it diplomatically if the misguided person isn’t too hostile. We may not reach all using this method but less will also be turned away.

When working the streets I usually allowed the public to ask any question they wanted, so long as it was safe at the time for me to do so. In one particular incident I had made a felony arrest on a subject with a warrant. Several people came out of the buildings nearby and began yelling at me. I feared they would surround me so while I was mentally prepared to kill all of them if needed, I also politely told them to give me a minute and promised to answer their questions.

I put the bad guy in the back seat of my car and secured him safely while asking for a cover unit. The potential mob was still angry but at a safe distance. Once my cover partner arrived I had him keep an eye on my prisoner and I approached the group with a smile. I asked what questions they had and It turned out these people were relatives of the man in my car, or so they claimed to be. It really didn’t matter, at this point I felt a small obligation to attempt an explanation as to why in their eyes “the government was taking away their friend for no reason.”

It was calmly explained I had a warrant for his arrest, explained the booking process and provided information on how they could contact the jail to schedule a 3visit with the subject. I was then asked about the court process, this time they were much less angry in asking the question. I explained the court process and the likelihood the subject would be in jail until his first hearing which would probably occur on the following Tuesday. I was thanked profusely by most of the group and they returned to their homes. One guy even tried to give me a hug and stated: “now that’s respect.”

Later in the day I had a discussion with my partner who told me it was pointless for me to address the small group. I explained I had only done this when it was safe to do so yet he believed I was wasting my time. It was difficult for me at the time to articulate my reasons for doing so but in short I told him this particular neighborhood might be more cooperative with Law Enforcement in the future if we treated them with a little more respect. I tell this story because I believe it is not a waste of time to explain circumstances which the public may not fully understand. Hell, the whole point of writing here is to hopefully enlighten and educate not just to complain. Otherwise our words only serve to rally those who are supportive and turn away those who may be on the fence.

I started a text conversation with one of my favorite and most trusted beat partners regarding this subject and he summed it up quickly and accurately while heading out the door. In a short text message which took him less than a minute to write he hit the nail on the head and went on to prove my point here. Examine the following text message:

“I think we have a responsibility to speak rationally and logically when we speak for the side of law enforcement. It becomes obvious that we are cops in these discussions, so why portray ourselves as irrational asshats. We both know that law enforcement officers in general are not out there hunting minorities and just trying to f with people, but there are people out there who legitimately think otherwise. We have legitimate arguments which carry serious weight. I think we do us and the real issues a huge disservice when we just yell and down talk people. I think some people start seeing the validity of our points when we calmly explain them.”


The nature of The Deputy

Courtroom oath

As a patrol Deputy I always insisted on the public doing ride a longs with a law enforcement officer whenever possible. This practice was heavily advocated because of the difficulties I had in explaining the multifaceted angles of the profession.  Today a friend of mine was speaking with me about a tragic ordeal she both endured and participated in and I remarked about the horrific and wonderful strangeness of the profession. It is true that molecularly each human individual awakes as a physically “different” person each day. I propose The Deputy awakes conceptually or even spiritually different as a person each day.

As a blanket rule, Deputies do not believe in blanket rules so this multifaceted and angular description can only poke small holes into the container which preserves the entire essence of the topic, yet this is endeavored upon in multiple parts here. While certain examples are used, this is not meant to be a collection of cop stories or law enforcement accomplishments nor is it meant to be used as a political tool in any way. My intent is to simply educate and deduce.

Part 1:  The Bonding Pear
Having taught from time to time at the Sheriff’s Academy I see new recruits entering in to the profession from a perspective of naivety as to what kind of career they are embarking upon. As if looking through a foggy (and perhaps somewhat cracked) mirror I have delighted in realizing once again the varied backgrounds of each individual who believe they desire the job of “Protecting and Serving.”

From all walks of life, we get pilots, ex-military, bartenders, hairstylists, stay at home mothers, college students, college professors, doctors,  scientists and youthful wide eyed teenagers to name a few. They all desire to do something more with their life. The first few days of an Academy class are always awkward as each participant attempts to find a way to bond with others who are so different from themselves. As the Academy progresses individuals learn to function as more efficient groups and begin to motivate each other through various intensive training and testing procedures.

As the recruits learn laws, ground combat, defensive driving, report writing, firearms proficiency and physical education they begin to develop the muscle memory which ultimately kicks in when the body produces excess adrenaline. One might become top of the class in a certain area of instruction yet it does little to prepare the recruit for the actual work. If these skill sets can be learned at a fundamental level, the recruit moves into much more intensive training in the field. It is the field where many people, after witnessing the realities and cruelties of life choose to pursue other work.

In the beginning, it is ensured that Deputies plant the bonds of partnership deep within fertile soil. It was put to me years ago in the Academy that if one did not possess a certain “fire” in the belly, succeeding as a Law Enforcement Professional would be difficult. Within the same speech I was also told if I thought I could get through the academy or field training without the help of others then I was stupid. Deputies do almost nothing alone. We have each other read arrest reports, we bounce ideas off one another during complex investigations, we show up for each other when the potential for trouble exists and we offer a brotherly nod when a good job has been done.

Entire novels, psychological studies, endless theorems and both good and terrible television series and movies have attempted to capture the essence of what Law enforcement is. In an effort to demonstrate the temperament of such circumstances and shed light upon the greater existence, certain “stories” must be told. Those beginning bonds which took root within the elementary training environments ultimately yield the fruit of emotional and physical survival in various ways.  If those seeds have not taken root however, The Deputy is, for the lack of a better term, in a bad way. I thank God for those more experienced officers who came so quick to help me before I understood the overall predicament placed upon me.

I can recall, once while I was relatively new to the job and enjoying some personal relief within the heavily graphitized resting area of a gas station, a clerk shrieked to me about someone being shot across the street. While zipping up I remember thinking to myself how important the situation must have been to have the female clerk run screaming into the men’s bathroom while an armed, stone faced Deputy Sheriff in a black uniform urinated in a supposed secure environment.

I walked outside to look across the street and indeed witnessed a mob of people doing…who knows what. I am still not certain to this day what the angry group of people were doing because most of them ran away when I arrived. It didn’t strike me until much later, but the weight and authority of driving by myself in emergency status to a shooting where an angry mob gathered was much more than I could bear psychologically at the time. The thoughts of what could have happened always come much later, sometimes years later.

I remember calling for my partners immediately. Some of them were guys I didn’t quite get along with and others had pulled me aside to specifically tell me they flat out did not like me. Each one still came, and when they arrived upon chariots of salvation they came bearing fruit from those trees long planted.  I had never tasted fear and relief at the same time yet this was the overwhelming flavor. The fruit nourishes and helps to grow, even at times when it has a rotten appearance or taste. Without it, no Deputy could survive during, after or even before a significantly stressful incident.

Situations like having to kill someone, watching someone die, attempting CPR on an infant, rescuing a half burned corpse from a burning car, or attempting to bring order to chaos after an intoxicated teenager has killed the driver of another vehicle. Events such as these provide nightmares to The Deputy either immediately or many years after the fact. The events cannot be erased and they become part of The Deputy; forever to be carried upon high shoulders along with the radio, shotgun, rifle, Taser, baton, gloves, keys, chemical spray and medical kits. Deputies become weary yet they are always sustained by the fruit.