Controversial Gun Law Change, Discuss.

SoCalShooter: in California? Not even close. In addition to being able to purchase new "assault weapons," police can purchase handguns for personal use that have not received the state's "safety" imprimatur, and they are completely exempt from the HSC requirement, the waiting period requirement, and the one-handgun-per-month restriction.

Click to expand...

I did forget, thanks for reminding me. FFL told me about that one.

IMO it doesn't matter if the LEO or his department is the technical owner/possessor of an NFA item. It boils down to the LEO is the one armed with it and we are not. That shifts the balance of power to a government and not that of "We the People...".
__________________

Click to expand...

Ah, excuse me....

The only time the LEO has the eeeevil full auto is on duty. The only ones that have them are SRT/Lab teams, and in most cases they come from a central storage facility.

When "everyone else" starts spending 8 hours a day, 5 days a week on the streets confronting drug dealers, gang bangers, addicts, sociopaths, neurotics, drunks, and the other scum of society, then yes, I agree that such a change should be made to the law.

Click to expand...

Welcome to Phoenix.

Ah, excuse me....

The only time the LEO has the eeeevil full auto is on duty. The only ones that have them are SRT/Lab teams, and in most cases they come from a central storage facility.

Click to expand...

And? SWAT or no SWAT, they shouldn't be allowed to touch them. If our lives are only worth a 16" or greater* semi auto, then thats all anyones life should be worth.

*Yes I realize we can still get a short barrel with a tax stamp, but its the total package I am disgusted with.

How About This:

Wha'd'ya say we just enforce the restrictions in the Second Amendment and make all this moot? If you've got some bad guys who can't be trusted with arms, lock 'em up!

Woody

How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights were there to deter? B.E.Wood

Powderman, maybe in the agency you are familiar with but in other places the cops keep them in their homes, not any central armoury. Heck LE members of the this very forum keep full auto weapons. Heck, LEOs of this forum have written in gun rags about how they keep full auto Steyr AUGs and HK54s in their homes--Mas Ayoob for one.

RNB, I spend far more than 8 hours a day with the people you cite. What about me, aren't I special enought? Can I now be exempt from the NFA as well? Oh, yeah, I want to carry wherever I please like they do and be exempt from excise taxes. Deal, right?

Outlaws, amen. The law codifies the inane notion that a government agent's life is more valuable than my own. I deeply resent this moronic theory.

Woody, that would be nice but government likes power and will do anything to keep it. If we enforce the rules we serfs live under on them, then the rules will be done anyway with overnight.

Woody, that would be nice but government likes power and will do anything to keep it. If we enforce the rules we serfs live under on them, then the rules will be done anyway with overnight.

Click to expand...

'Tis true! Let's enforce the rules we're supposed to live under, though, and get to the cure directly instead!

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

I do reflect from time to time that I am fortunate to live in a state with very reasonable equity in carry laws, meaning I am allowed to carry in a bar or a school, and police are very respectful and supportive of CCW holders in my experience. I'm going to Monterey for a year to learn a language, I think I'm going to feel the difference.

There was a cop in some city who got a UMP45 stolen out of his unmarked car near his house. Some central armory. And as far as cop/civilian weapons disparity goes, there's the fact that if an ordinary person shoots an attacker, the DA will pull out all the stops in hopes of finding a way to paint them as a psychopathic murderer. Cops can spray bullets around crowded areas, slaughter people who make them feel uneasy and get "punished" with a short, paid vacation from duty.

Loyalist Dave said:

We are only authorized to carry what we have qualified with, just as the civilian is only authorized to carry what is specified on their concealed carry permit.

Click to expand...

Maryland does not issue permits to the people. We technically can't even stop to pee on the way to or from the range with an unloaded handgun locked in the trunk with the ammo stored separately. Do you carry your handguns like this everywhere you go?

All non prison dwelling US citizens should have equal access to firearms regardless of occupation. Trying to get police under more restriction will not help reach this goal. It will not cause public outrage (reference chicago cops early trouble with leosa or unarmed/poorly armed police around the world). Over time it will just become an arguement of "if the police haven't even needed to have them for this long or could have been trusted with them neither can the average citizen."

Work for more freedom, not less freedom gentlemen

No I wasn't joking...,

WOW El Tejon sure is uninformed, or perhaps he just thinks the entire world is exactly like his little corner?

Machine guns? Boo Hoo. I'll just go down to my locker and take it out...., OH wait, I don't have access to one. If I wanted to buy one, I'd have to go through the same check by the feds and pay the same fees. (I had easier access to one when I was in 2d Recon Battalion) Any cop who tells you he "bought" one through his department and doesn't have to follow the federal laws to "own" it is either unwittingly committing a serious felony, or is fibbing.

Exempt from the 1986 freeze, or the 1934 NFA- I think not. Yes the 12 guys on the SWAT team have them issued to them, new ones too..., that leaves 988 of us that ain't. (Before they took them home, the civilians complained that it took too long for the SWAT team to arrive 'cause they had to go to the armory first. When we thought about SWAT being on duty 24/7 the civilians complained it was a waste of money.) I know more civilians who legally own supressors or full auto-subguns in my county than guys who get to take home their MP5's.

We had the beltway sniper with a civilian AR-15 (he was better armed than us). We just had a guy take an AKM against officers at a station in the adjoining county, he was better armed than us. Some of our sergeants have standard, civilain AR-15's, I don't. If I owned one I couldn't put it in the trunk of my cruiser, 'cause I've never been given the opportunity to qualify with one. (Nobody cares about the 4 USMC expert rifle awards.) Quite frankly, a lever action .30-30 would have the VAST majority of departments in the country outgunned.

Exempt from Federal P-R taxes? Gee maybe I should ask for a refund? OH if you mean the single box of ammo the department bought and handed me this year for carry on the street??? The free practice ammo is used on the range; I don't get to take it home. I do get to take home the one "free gun". (Wow I feel special. I'll send you one box at a tax free price if that's such an issue.) Otherwise ALL of my additional ammo comes out of my pocket, as well as any ammo that I use for any other guns. I started with a .38, so I BOUGHT the .357 and paid all taxes, and waited 7 days too. Then I BOUGHT a SA 9mm plus leather, and paid all taxes and waited 7 days. Then they changed guns, and I couldn't carry it. I'm carrying the first "free gun" I've had in a long time, as they changed guns again. This is in one of the wealthiest counties in the nation.

Police get to carry concealed? DUDE I SPENT 6 MONTHS, 10 HOURS A DAY, FIVE DAYS A WEEK, EARNING MY PERMIT TO CARRY, it's called police credentials. I have to requalify as often as three times a year. SHOW ME someplace in the country, where civilian carry permits are permitted, that they require that? Armored car drivers get ONE DAY of training (5 hours) on firearms out here to carry in the open. Civilians don't have to range qualify, though it's tough to get the permit in MD. In VA they get 'em easy, all they have to do is apply, and be able to legally own the gun.

Sure some places are Draconian, NOBODY ever held a binding vote where only patrol officers and street detectives could vote on the gun laws. You might find most of us are on the same side as you.

LD

Cops can spray bullets around crowded areas, slaughter people who make them feel uneasy and get "punished" with a short, paid vacation from duty.

Click to expand...

Name one incident. Back up your specious claims with cited FACT, or you owe every LEO on this board an apology.

Sometimes I really, REALLY wonder why I don't just unsubscribe from this board.

This thread wasn't intended to become a measuring contest between cops and everyone else. Maybe the mods should close it.

Either way, COPS ARE CIVILIANS.

Quote:
Cops can spray bullets around crowded areas, slaughter people who make them feel uneasy and get "punished" with a short, paid vacation from duty.

Name one incident. Back up your specious claims with cited FACT, or you owe every LEO on this board an apology.

Click to expand...

I submit the recent shooting by the NYPD of the man on the day he was to be married could qualify for the above statement. The number of rounds fired could be called "spraying bullets", an unarmed man was killed because the officer "thought he was going to have a gun", no gun was found. To date nothing has happened to these officers other than removal from duty with full pay. So yes, it could be argued that the quote above actually refers to a real world incident. Perhaps more than one.

As in everything in life personal opinion colors the outlook on such issues. The position taken by
LEO is almost always different from the rest of us. Why? Because they are humans. It is only natural
for people to feel as if privileges given to others are special and perhaps not necessary but privileges that they possess are necessary and not subject to review. Just human nature.

Loyalist Dave,

I am not unsympathedic to your line of work, or to the fact that many PD's are hard up for cash to supply their officers with even the most basics of supplies. But some departments around the country have some more cash to toss around than others.

Plus, when the SHTF, cops in N.O. had some stuff with them. They didn't feel safe on the street for the same reason no one else felt safe on the street. But they didn't just take their duty pistols for protection, they took what they could get...I don't blame them, but its only fair for us to be able to protect ourselves just as well.






I can't say for certain all those are full auto M16's, but there were plenty of them based on the news articles. Most new sources now seem to notice a difference when saying M16 and AR15, so when they say M16, I take their word for it.

I also dislike the special firearms status of The Police®.

Some LEOs seem upset by the contents of this thread. I am sorry that your departments treat you so similarly to the rest of the citizenry. The least they could do is toss you a few crumbs and let you enjoy the privileges of special firearms status in your individual capacity.

Regardless of whether The Police® share their special firearms status with individual LEOs, there should be no legal differences between the firearms available to The Police® and the citizenry. The only way special firearms status makes any sense is take it to the ultimate extension - The Police® can have firearms and citizens can not. That is an unacceptable outcome.

Click to expand...

Painted on the Stryker/APC/what-have-you: "Police State Tactical Unit".

I am amused. In a somewhat cynical way. :/

Originally Posted by El Tejon:

Loyalist, come now is that a joke? Off the top of my head, here are the following laws that the knights of government (cops) are not subjected to as we mere serfs are:

Federal law exemptions: the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Safe Streets Act of 1968, LEOs are exempt from the FOPA of '86 freeze on new machine guns, the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 (now expired), oh, you guys have nationwide reciprocity and can carry in places where I cannot think of carrying (NYC, Chicago, etc.) (remember how LEOs told us that once you got yours, you would help us [the serfs] get nationwide carry--where's mine?), you are not subject to the federal P-R excise taxes that I am when I buy guns and ammo.

State: police can carry on school grounds, I cannot; police do not need a license to carry a handgun, I do; police can own all kinds of weapons that mere serfs cannot in many state.

*serf bow*

I have long argued that all we need to do is to apply all gun laws to the police. "Gun control" would end overnight.

Click to expand...

I agree with this sentiment almost to a T. I think perhaps the police should be able to use their duty weapon(s) as tax writeoffs. I am assuming the PR tax is a Purpose Requisition tax?

I especially like the last sentence in this post. Gun control would end overnight if police were subject to the same laws as non-LEOs. It would be nice to have it applied to judges who can CCW in courtrooms in some states and for city alderman (in Chicago they can CCW) to live by the same rules as us.

I would like to do away with permits altogether and have Vermont carry everywhere but I dont think that will happen. Since that would not happen I would like national reciprocity and for every state to become shall issue. Their should also not be any training requirement and the price should be the equivalent of the cost of the permit. IF it cost the state $5.00 to issue it then it should only be $5.00 passed onto the taxpayer.

Before anyone says that there should be a training requirment equivalent
to that of an LEO remember this. A LEO is expected to carry a gun and represents a government entity that wants a certain performance out of them (hence the qualifications they have every so often). They are expected to meet a minimum standard as a condition of their employment.

However if they retire/fired/quit/get laid off before the LEO NAtional Reciprocity would take effect (15 years I believe) they would still be able to carry under the way I feel it should work.

I personally feel anyone who is not in prison should be able to carry. Even a convicted felon. IF they are so dangerous that they cannot carry then they should not be released from prison. I understand this is part of some Libertarian Utopian fantasy but let a guy dream of freedom and justice for all.

Wow, Dave - more wrong with your post than I have time for.

I'll tackle just one:

Police get to carry concealed? DUDE I SPENT 6 MONTHS, 10 HOURS A DAY, FIVE DAYS A WEEK, EARNING MY PERMIT TO CARRY, it's called police credentials.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize we had to qualify to excercise our 2nd Amendment rights . . .

That aside, and your probably reasonable complaints about your JOB, you just can't argue the fact that police are defacto super citizens.

Also, to the general audience, I'd like to see everyone stay calm and come to some end product here regarding a concise description of just what being a super citizen means both officially (legal differences) and unofficially (functional differences - like never getting a speeding ticket).

Just a comment:

DUDE I SPENT 6 MONTHS, 10 HOURS A DAY, FIVE DAYS A WEEK, EARNING MY PERMIT TO CARRY, it's called police credentials.

Click to expand...

And you "re-earn" it every time you place yourself in a situation where a reasonably prudent individual would refuse to get involved because of the personal danger, because if you didn't, you'd be out of a job. The basic difference between police officers and civilians is this: y'all get to walk away from a situation you don't like with no repercussions. Do that as a cop and you'll be looking for another job very shortly. Anyone care to dispute this fact?

May I interject? As a correctional sergeant, I am in the middle of this, neither fish nor fowl, as it were. We have statuatory right to carry concealed on our ID, same as any other LEO, but no outside arrest authority. No biggie. We get issued firearms at work, but not for take home. That's why I have an off duty pistol. Why should I have one? Inmates see us for years, and some of them don't like us, for some odd reason. And 96% of all inmates WILL be released, someday. Yes, into your community. That's why you should carry, too.
But, anyone here in AZ can carry openly with no permit, license, registration, etc. Our CCW permit is shall issue, and gets easier to get/longer to expire every year. Oh, unlike MD, our permit is non weapon specific, so you cancarry aything you legally own concealed, including legally owned NFA weapons.
Now, to one argument I don't here a single person adressing - not one cop ever voted in a law stating they have to be armed, and regular Joes can't be. Not one police officer ever signed into law a bill requireing the people to be defenseless, while they are not. Not a single serving law enforcement officer ever had legislation cross his/her desk to disarm the public, and issue NFA weapons to the PD. Not...one...because laws are passed by the legislature and signed by the executive. If you feel you are being treated unfairly, please address this with those actually responsable, your elected officials.
Thank you for your time.

What fries me about threads like this--and this is an umpteenth repetitions of the same-old same-old--is that the wrong folks are getting flamed.

It's not the cops who say, "Toys for us, nothing for them." It's your elected officials. Got that? Legislators say that the cops should be exempt from any restrictions as compared to the non-cop citizen.

California, New Jersey and Maryland seem to make my case for me.

Cops don't pass laws. Legislatures do.

And when it comes to elections, gun owners as a group are more apathetic than gun-control people as a group. The result is that gun-control folks elect more anti-honest-citizen folks who think cops can have toys but just-folks shouldn't.

Art

Art, of that fact there is no doubt, but cops receive the benefit of such legislation. The thread discussed the differences between cops and us serfs. The knights now are in denial that there are differences. There are and plenty of them.

Loyalist, you call me uninformed but yet you do not dispute that the police are exempt from the laws I cite, only that your little agency does things a certain way. Inidividual agency policy does not control as it is not law.

The law states that LEOs are exempt from a whole bunch of laws, many beyond the ones I listed. The problem is these exemptions, not how your agency is your little corner of the world applies it. You agency does not by law have to have the policies it does.

If you want to end gun control, eliminate the exemptions for police and militree, a la Lautenberg, and there would be no more gun control.