Chico PD asks for military weapons, Sci Fi animals and gets name-dropped for an officer-owned gun range displaying political signage
By Ken Magri
Watching Chico City Council meetings can sometimes be mundane. But then come the moments when it feels like living in a Phillip K. Dick novel.
Some residents could have sensed that vibe at the April 15 city council meeting, after Chico Police Chief Billy Aldridge began a presentation on the department’s use of military equipment and new requests for the canine equivalent of RoboCop.
The evening was highlighted by a two-pronged conversation about what activists fear is the militarization of police departments, as well as the appropriateness of an officer-owned gun range that displays controversial political signs while being patronized by local police.
Chief Aldridge’s presentation was required by AB 481, a California state law that makes all local law enforcement agencies report on their acquisition, funding and use of military equipment. The information must be made public, reviewed annually and approved by a local governing body – in this case the Chico City Council.
Why is it important to know what military weapons local police use?
In 2025, the increasing militarization of local law enforcement agencies has become a national concern among some progressives and libertarians.
In the case of Chico PD, included in the chief’s requests was an additional 40mm multi-barrel grenade launcher for use with different types of non-lethal anti-riot munitions.
Additionally, in place of one huge command vehicle, three smaller mobile command vehicles were requested, one customized for drone operators, one for hostage negotiators and one for SWAT teams.
More patrol rifles were requested so that every CPD officer has a customized one. The CPD uses Sionic SAR-15 patrol rifles, which are like AR-15 models, but semi-automatic. Unlike some similar brands, they are not designed to be ambidextrous out of the box. Aldridge made the argument that, due to left or right-handedness, every rifle needs to be personally fitted to a specific officer.
“We don’t want someone grabbing a rifle that, maybe someone is left-eye dominant but they shoot right handed, so it’s a different sighting system,” the chief asserted.
Councilwoman Hawley noted in the AB 481 report that, out of the 72 Sionic patrol rifles already owned by CPD, only one has been used in the last year. When asked why the department needed more, Chief Aldridge answered that the word “used” in the report meant “fired,” but the rifles were deployed at other times without firing.
Then the chief got to his final request for a robotic dog.
“I want to explain it a little bit, it’s called Spot Robo, it’s the robot dog,” Aldridge explained. “This thing is pretty amazing with the sensor technology and things like that on it, places you can put it where you can’t put a human … One of the things I thought about was the community engagement piece with this thing for Science, Technology, English and Math students. They’re using it around the nation for those community engagement events for students in schools, STEM technology, you know.”
Spot Robo is not a weaponized robot. It is used for surveillance, delivering payloads and going into toxic areas where humans cannot.
Aldridge was quick to add that the department will seek grant-funding and wouldn’t ask the city to pay for such a purchase. He only wants the council’s approval to seek the outside funding, but gave no other reason for needing Spot Robo beyond demonstrating it at public outreach events.
Councilmember Goldstein asked about the difference between Spot Robo and the $48,000 Vantage Robot vehicle the CPD already owns.
“If you’ve never seen it, it’s a dog-looking thing that walks, pretty cool,” answered Aldridge.
By contrast, he described the Vantage Robot vehicle as “just a larger version of a remote control car.”
After Chief Aldridge’s presentation, there was some consensus about the need for AB 481 and having transparent public dialogue on police weaponry.
“These concerns and these issues, I think that’s healthy,” said Councilmember Mike O’Brien. “That’s how we should police.”
But O’Brien felt that not everything in Chief Aldridge’s AB 481 report should even be classified as military equipment.
“I think we also need to be clear that this equipment, mostly, is defensive in nature and designed to save lives,” added O’Brien.
Council member Addison Winslow voiced concerns about “glorifying violence and militarism” and what he characterized as a “slippery slope” where “people are attracted to a profession like that.”
“I think there is a balance you strike in all of this,” said Winslow. “It is a tremendous amount of responsibility to be holding this arsenal of weaponry as a means of violence.”
After O’Brien made a motion to accept the AB 481 report and make the equipment purchases, Councilmember Hawley made a substitute motion to eliminate one of the command vehicles, the additional patrol rifles and Spot Robo. Hawley’s motion was voted down by a 4-3 margin and O’Brien’s original motion passed by the same margin, with O’Brien, Van Overbeek, Bennett and Reynolds voting yes.
Sign of the times?
During the public’s opportunity to speak on AB 481, several Chico residents expressed concerns about the increasing militarization of police departments, but resident Margaret Swick took the conversation in another direction when she asked about an indoor shooting range the local police department does business with.
“Is there a symbiotic relationship between the Chico Police Department and Down Range Indoor Training Center?” Swick pressed. “Are any of our military equipment dollars being spent at that business?”
Swick described a large “disturbing” banner displayed at the business on Garner Lane, which also sells law enforcement equipment, uniforms and operates a shooting range. The sign shows a giant white letter “F” on a black background next to an unflattering photograph of Governor Gavin Newsom. To the right of Newsom’s image is the Down Range logo, which includes a gun sight’s cross-hairs.
After the city council meeting, News & Review talked with Swick, who is a non-partisan member of the League of Women Voters and has her own distinguished background in law enforcement.
“I think that Down Range has a history of using what I call double-entendre signs,” Swick cautioned. “They know what they’re saying, but they can stand up and say “that’s not what we meant.’”
While Swick wants more clarity on the city’s business relationship with Down Range.
“I assume these public servants are all trying to do their best,” she said. “One of the things I’ve tried to do in my work as a police reformer is stay clear of the personalities.”
Down Range Indoor Training Center is owned by two active Chico police officers, Steve Dyke and Will Clark. Chief Aldridge said the police department does have a “direct-bill agreement with Down Range” for officers’ annual uniform allowances, according to the Chico Enterprise-Record.
In 2017, ChicoSol.com broke the story of some Chico Police officers using their $900 uniform allowance to purchase guns at Down Range.
“During the three years Down Range has been in full operation (2014-2016) Chico officers averaged buying 13 guns per year with their uniform allowances, with an annual average of $8,200 in gun purchases,” the article detailed.
In December of that year, ChicoSol.com reported on the gun range’s display of a “Black Fridays Matter” sign with white letters on a black background. Critics accused the business of mocking a commonly known “Black Lives Matter” graphic to draw attention to its own Christmas assault-rifle sales campaign.
But co-owner Dyke dismissed the criticism.
“Dyke argued that Black Lives Matter is based on an argument that ‘police are indiscriminately shooting unarmed black men.’ But, he continued, unarmed white men are shot more often than unarmed black men. He also claimed that Black Lives Matter protesters chant ‘Kill white people,’” reported Leslie Layton for ChicoSol.com.
The owners of Down Range Indoor Training Center did not respond to News & Review’s request for comment about Swick’s question at the April 15 council meeting.
City council members were asked to comment on the controversial signs and whether they think there is an inappropriate relationship between the CPD and Down Range Indoor Training Center.
The only two responses came from Mayor Kasey Reynolds and Councilmember Tom Van Overbeek.
“The City of Chico provides employees in some departments, as part of their compensation package, a uniform allowance,” Mayor Reynolds pointed out. “Where employees choose to shop and spend their uniform allowance is up to them,” she said without offering an opinion on the political signs.
Councilmember Tom Van Overbeek, who sometimes uses the local shooting range, agreed with the mayor that officers can spend their allowance as they wish.
“They are free to use it to buy uniforms wherever they prefer,” Van Overbeek observed. “As far as I know, Down Range is the only store selling police uniforms in Chico.”
He added, “As far as political posters, police officers have 1st Amendment rights like the rest of us, as long as they are not on duty. I don’t think it unreasonable that they would express criticism of what they might view as government infringing on people’s 2nd Amendment rights given the business they are in.”
“I think we also need to be clear that this equipment, mostly, is defensive in nature and designed to save lives,” added O’Brien. This quote from O’Brien is insulting to the intelligence of Chicoans. The lethal weapons will be used on civilians. CPD killed three civilians with traditional lethal pistols, tasers, and dogs during the short time O’Brien was the chief of CPD—no expensive “military style” weaponry was required.
corrections are required in this article. the author states that the SAR15 used by Chico PD is semiautomatic, unlike the AR15. The AR15 is a semiautomatic rifle based off the design originally created by Eugene Stoner.