Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Policy & Issues

In California it just gets better and better

 The second Amendment is needed more than ever!  Oakland, California  announced  yesterday a list of crimes they simply can't get to if they lay off officers to balance the budget. The city says that each of the 776 police officers currently employed at OPD costs around $188,000 per year.  The Oakland Police department say that in the face of force reductions due to budget limits, there is a whole list of crimes they just won't be able to respond to:

Here's a partial list:

  • burglary
  • theft
  • embezzlement
  • grand theft
  • grand theft:dog
  • identity theft
  • false information to peace officer
  • required to register as sex or arson offender
  • dump waste or offensive matter
  • discard appliance with lock
  • loud music
  • possess forged notes
  • pass fictitious check
  • obtain money by false voucher
  • fraudulent use of access cards
  • stolen license plate
  • embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
  • extortion
  • attempted extortion
  • false personification of other
  • injure telephone/ power line
  • interfere with power line
  • unauthorized cable tv connection
  • vandalism
  • administer/expose poison to another

(Remember that burglary becomes robbery when you show up unexpectedly.) Isn't it interesting that whenever a city faces a budget crisis, it is public safety that is the first thing cut? It is like school districts that cut the bus schedules first when the budget gets tight. These are the things that focus your mind, and encourage you to submit to more taxes.

In the case of Oakland, they are in effect telling you that your personal safety is now, more than before, your own responsibility. To add insult to injury, Oakland is in California where gun control is very tight. A very impressive 79 out of 100 possible points on the Brady Campaign Scorecard for 2009. Ultimately you are responsible for your own safety, but the state shouldn't stack the deck against you. Oakland is only the first to threaten payroll cuts to police to balance the budget. The whole state of California is in debt, and other cities will not be far behind.

The gun rights cases that will flower after the Heller and McDonald decisions had better get decided fast. The need for real self defense in California is growing.

More from Gun Rights Examiners 

Atlanta: Ed Stone  |  Austin: Howard Nemerov  |  Boston: Ron Bokleman  |  Charlotte: Paul Valone  | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard  |  Chicago: Don Gwinn  |  Cleveland: Daniel White  |  DC: Mike Stollenwerk  |  Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines: Sean McClanahan | Detroit: Rob Reed |  Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones  |  Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel  |  Knoxville: Liston Matthews |   |  Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce  |  National: David Codrea  | Parkersburg: Nicholas Arnold  | Phoenix: Douglas Little  | Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell  |  Seattle: Dave Workman  |  St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann  |  Tucson: Chris Woodard  |  Wisconsin: Gene German

Comments

  • Curious George 4 years ago

    Your facts are wrong. Public safety is one of the LAST items cut during recessions. Colorado Springs put off such cuts for a long, long time. Oakland has done the same.

  • Robert 4 years ago

    I would beg to differ in California. Public safety has been on the chopping block for a decade. The sheriffs and police chiefs have been threatening to issue concealed weapons permits more freely to force politicians to restore some of the money but the attacks on police departments in California has been ongoing for more than a decade. I would like to see curious George's "facts" to support his comments. There are news broadcasts of local California sheriffs and police chiefs in the past saying they cannot protect the public with the cuts and the public is going to have to protect itself. So Curious George I am not sure what you are smoking or where you subscribe to your news but come back to reality and start listening to the news channels in California.

  • JJ_Swiontek 4 years ago

    If I may clarify...

    Curious George is referring to Colorado Springs, CO. In that fine city, the leaders of the city are very aware that a threat to funding of public safety would invoke a response of a complete change in leadership at the next election.

    However, it seems, in the city of Oakland, CA, the leadership is very secure in issuing threats against the public welfare.

    It may be of interest to note that Colorado Springs is fairly conservative while Oakland is ... well ... much less so.

    JJ Swiontek
    Denver, CO

  • JohnF Boulder, Co 4 years ago

    $188,000 a year?

    For a while, in a sort of sarcastic way I've been saying we should use government funds to subsidize poor people in inner-cities to get first-rate training and small carry pistols and permits. (love to see the Tea Partiers complain about this use of tax money for those who might not be able to afford a thing for themselves).
    It would be more effective against crime and cheaper than hiring more police (who'd only patrol the richer neighborhoods). It would also send a better message to trust & empower the people, instead of continuing to say that we can't be trusted with the ability to defend ourselves, despite the fact that the police have no requirement to help us.

    Things similar to my experiment have happened in the past (besides Lott's book): in her book "Armed and Female" Paxton Quigley cites Orlando Fl in the 60s, where there were 40 rapes a year until they gave women free training and publicized it.

    It's such a non-P.C. idea I just love it

  • straightarrow 4 years ago

    Robert and Curious George, let me correct you both. The first threat they levy when they can't take more of your money, is to your children. That's right, your children are threatened with loss of education, or exposure to danger amongst other things. The second threat is aimed at your parents. That's right your parents and grandparents are threatened with loss of health services, loss of pension etc., either of which can be fatal for our elderly.

    The third threat is against your person by denying your right defend your own life while informing those that threaten your life and property that they now have a free pass to do what they will.

    Third is still a high priority threat.

  • straightarrow 4 years ago

    Police forces which will not do their jobs at all times, and administrations which will not see that they do are all useless at best, and criminal at worst.

  • 2outspoken 4 years ago

    And not a gun store in whole d--- town. Isn't that amazing? No cops!, over abundance of "jolly on the spot" thugs and criminals, with a "I want dat or gimme dat" mentality, knowing good and well there are no cops to protect the sheeple from the miniscule brained thug with the IQ of -0.0.

  • 2outspoken 4 years ago

    Curious George, you need to remove your head from your rectum and breathe some fresh air. The first thing all the blood sucking city, county, state and federal governments do is threaten the citizens safety and then they try and succeed in raising taxes. You need to start getting your thinking right and don't place so much of your trust in governments to have common sense. If governments had common sense, there wouldn't be much need for these types of "Blogs".

  • Luis 4 years ago

    Oakland's last gunshop was forced to close down by then-mayor Jerry Brown. Now, Oakland is run by ex-Black Panther, Ron Dellums. Since 80 cops have been cut, we shall see whether the good citizens of Oakland will be responsible for their own safety. Maybe Dellums can get his old fellow Panther, Geronimo Pratt to take care of Oakland's subjects.

    Even as another ex-Panther Bobby Rush seeks to disarm the rest of the country.

  • Anonymous 3 years ago

    This is robert-For the last two decades California politicians have been very systematic in their efforts to strip away any chance of honest citizens being able to defend themselves and now are cutting police departments to the point that one female who was a hit and run victim where the driver ran her down was told by the CHP she did not have a case because they took too long to start the investigation and she could not supply witnesses that met their criteria even though those witnesses would tesify the woman in question was driving. This is california today under "new" legal system. The police supported stripping away guns from citizens because their unions thought that would force governments to hire more cops as crime rates went up and would raise taxes to do it. People in california have no more tax money and are defaulting on everything. Governments have no more money to support the huge police forces and cops have quit doing their jobs. They have no resigned from the departmetns. They just will not do their jobs but they want the paychecks. Now the layoffs are coming and honest citizens are becoming criminals by obtaining guns because they are finally realizing that the best cops can do is solve crimes not prevent them. Policiticans have lied to the people, cops have lied to the people, and now the people have to pay the price for those lies. Welcome to California. No wonder businesses and talented people are leaving. It is not safe in california and I have lived here since 1958.

Advertisement