How many PDs are buying full-auto weapons? Why?

[TwitchALot]

I'm rather curious about the process. As an LEO, if you buy a FA/NFA firearm, is it registered to the department or you (if you buy it personally, for your use)? Do you get to keep it after you retire? What's the deal with that (I'm aware department policies are different, but give it to me in general terms)?

 

[seeker_two]

The only LEO's who need full-autos & belt-feds are the ones on the Southern US border.....

...gotta keep parity with the Mexican Army, you know....

 

[theken206]

"Perhaps the more exotic belt fed weapons like the 249s have a similar, specialized use in mind."

Agin, I think that when alot of hear that X police department has a use for a pair of SQUAD AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, then there might be a problem one way or another.

What are they preparing to assault another Branch Davadian??

 

[simmonsguns]

Twitchalot, in general if you buy the nfa weapon it is yours as long as you are with the department, if you leave you loose the weapon, the paper work and hassel are the same.
There are two smaller departments south of me that i work with that have this arangement with some of there officers, it is a good meth area and they needed to up grade from mini-14's to m-4 and the like for different reasons.
No money for extras and a lack of town support for equipment needed kind of got them to this point, they also have to buy personal sidearm and back-up and some of there uniform pieces.
Wether or not your chief would let you cary the item on duty or not would be interesting to hear about, some departments don't want to go to that point and others would like to have tanks.
There does not seem to be that "you want a what" with short barreled AR's from dept. to dept., the arguement is easier with one of thoes.

 

[DragonRider]

Not a cop, but the only reason I can think of a 249 is in a roadblock situation and all other means have failed in trying to contain the bg's. Similar to Clint Eastwood and that movie with the bus, but even then the 249 might not be the answer.

 

[woodybrighton]

249 being from government stocks probably cost very little if any
Sussex police had a couple of suppressed MP5's nobody was really sure why and that was the armed coppers best guess HK had a cute salesperson
they have changed to g36's mostly for animal control reasons 9mm just does'nt stop a pitbull.

 

[Powderman]

The militarization of American police is unnecessary. In days past, the likes of Bill Jordan, Bill Tilghman, Charles Askins, Clint Peoples, Jim Cirrilo and many others patrolled the roughest of patrol zones with just sidearms, shotguns, and perhaps leverguns and a carbine or two, while facing off against bandits and bank robbery crews that were all carrying full-auto weapons and out numbered the lawmen overwhelmingly, yet the good guys came out on top again and again.....Someone once said," The moral outweighs the physical, 3 to 1." It's the man not the machine, that determines the outcome.

Uh huh.

First of all, please explain to me how Bill Tilghman, born in 1854 fought anyone who carried an automatic weapon.

As far as Charles Askins is concerned, before you get sentimental on him, look up the man's history. This guy was a stone killer; never mind that he was a Border Patrol agent. If any cop today pulled even a fraction of what this guy pulled, he's be in prison for life.

Jim Cirillo was a member of the NYPD Stakeout Squad. While he was a good guy and an outstanding combat shot, when he went on stakeouts, he was usually accompanied by multiple officers carrying a variety of weapons.

Now, for all the other members of this board, I will post some selected responses. I will substitute words in parentheses, and I'll leave it for you to figure out how you sound....

Agin, I think that when alot of hear that X police department (private citizen) has a use for a pair of SQUAD AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, then there might be a problem one way or another.

What are they preparing to assault another Branch Davadian (shoot up a school)??

If I was dictator and (could say right now, Mr. and Mrs America, turn them all in...) had any say in things, I would seriously discourage the carrying of FA firearms by police. There is just not much need for it (They have no sporting purpose). Maybe (shotguns and hunting rifles) a few just for the heck of it, but the (general populace doesn't need assault weapons) need just does not exist.

When I read the figures on how many (children are killed by gunfire) innocents get hit by police fire with semi-auto pistols, the thought of (anyone owning assault weapons) multiple officers firing full auto weapons scares the living **** out of me!!

Do you realize how you all sound?

Do you realize just how close you are, to espousing the antigunner's cause?

You, who say that the police have no use for this or that, and some of you who even advocate DISARMING police officers, are becoming the very thing you rant about--elitists!
_________________________________________________________________

To answer the OP's question, we have HK MP5's, with Gemtech cans. They are equipped with 3 round burst trigger groups, and are used to "triple tap" the target with three rounds of well controlled, aimed fire. Our officers can hit center mass on a silhouette with a tight group from 50 yards with this weapon. We carry it for meth labs. Nuff said.

 

[Firethorn]

One more thing: Quote

"Police shouldn't be allowed to purchase something as outrageous as a 249."

We are starting to sound like the anti's, that concerns me.

There's a major difference here though. A private citizen purchases a weapon on his or her own dime.

A police department is funded by public funds, and therefore we should have some say in how they spend the money as it's coming out of our own wallets.

Kinda like how at work I object to some purchasing decisions - No, we don't have a need for a $5k bigscreen television to show slides in a waiting room where nobody ever waits. We have a greater need to replace the five year old computers and ten year old switches.

Even if the 249's are used milsurp available for essentially nothing - there's still storage and maintenance to be concerned about.

edit - That doesn't mean that I object to police purchasing automatic weapons. Just that they should suit a purpose furthering the police's purpose, upholding the law. Purchasing some equipment for contingencies is justifiable, but must be assessed - more likely and cheaper scenarios first. Multipurpose stuff is good as well.

 

[strangelittleman]

Well, Powderman, Bill Tilghman was killed in the line of duty, in Oklahoma, 1924. he was up against some of the roughest rum runners and other assorted badmen, some of them, in fact the one who killed him, was a dirty prohibition agent, and yes, some of the badmen Tilghman went up against had 1918 B.A.R.s and M1921 smgs. There are several good books on that time period and the old time lawmen of the day, like Tilghman, Tom Threepersons, Lone Wolf and others...Good reading!
Charles Askins was, in fact, a cold killer, why?, The situation called for it. If there were more men like him on the border today, there wouldn't be as many border incursions by corrupt elements of the mexican army escorting drug runners well into sovreign U.S. territory. I know because I've on the border as a part of JTF-6 missions.
I just feel that full-auto fire is best employed in belt fed & crew-served weapons and that belt fed & crew served weapons have no place in law enforcement. Where will it end, w/ m-67 frag grenades, willy-pete & mk-19s?
Everyone should try to be in the best physical shape they can be in, constantly work to maintain mastery of their weapons, and constantly train on their own, because if we wait for our depts to train us and give us the required range time, we'll all have moss growing on our backs! Pause, assess the situation, keep one's head and one will keep alive.....
I guess this is one of a few topics that you and I will just have a difference of opinion on, but I'll bet we share the same opinion on many others...Stay safe out there on the job!

 

[Erik]

Law enforcement agencies are in the business resolving situations which sometimes requires the use of force. Said force is preferably that level being encountered plus one, with the ability to always stay at plus one.

Alas, sometimes plus two, three, or four occurs to the concern of many, including many in law enforcement circles. Sometimes that concern has merit, sometimes not.

 

[TwitchALot]

Twitchalot, in general if you buy the nfa weapon it is yours as long as you are with the department, if you leave you loose the weapon, the paper work and hassel are the same.
There are two smaller departments south of me that i work with that have this arangement with some of there officers, it is a good meth area and they needed to up grade from mini-14's to m-4 and the like for different reasons.
No money for extras and a lack of town support for equipment needed kind of got them to this point, they also have to buy personal sidearm and back-up and some of there uniform pieces.
Wether or not your chief would let you cary the item on duty or not would be interesting to hear about, some departments don't want to go to that point and others would like to have tanks.
There does not seem to be that "you want a what" with short barreled AR's from dept. to dept., the arguement is easier with one of thoes.

But given the fact that police have access to FA firearms, how would it work out if you bought a FA say, M4 as an officer, but retired? Would the BATFE let you actually keep it (FA)? What do you mean by "loose the weapon"?

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Is buying a NFA weapon through the department while a member of said department a backdoor through the 86 registry ban? Could some late 20's cop buy a new UMP 45 for example, complete with select fire? And is there any way at all he can keep it after he retires? Or is it just impossible.

 

[Powderman]

But given the fact that police have access to FA firearms, how would it work out if you bought a FA say, M4 as an officer, but retired? Would the BATFE let you actually keep it (FA)? What do you mean by "loose the weapon"?

Folks, here it is, plain and simple.

We, as law enforcement officers are REQUIRED to follow the same laws as you do. Hard to believe, isn't it? But, it's true.

Remember when the CA Assault Weapons Ban was in the news? The main story was how one day, they told their citizens that the SKS was legal--then, the next day, it was NOT.

Does anyone remember that it was well publicized that cops lost their JOBS because they had registered SKS's--and that possession of a banned weapon in CA is a FELONY?

In answer to the quote above--no.

Individual officers can NOT purchase full auto on their own with any hope of keeping it.

We CAN purchase them with Department approval for duty use. HOWEVER, once we leave that Department, the only hope we have is to have the ownership of the weapon transferred to another Department. You see, even though we pay the tariff, the Department is the LEGAL OWNER. If this does not occur, WE LOSE THE WEAPON. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

The law does NOT recognize occupation when it comes to ownership of regulated firearms such as full auto. If I wanted to buy an MG or SMG to keep as personal property, I would have to:

1. Acquire the tax stamp and fill out the paperwork, just like the rest of my fellow American citizens,

2. Buy ONLY a pre 1986 registered full auto, and...

3. Move out of Washington State. OWNERSHIP OF FULL AUTO IS PROHIBITED BY THE REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON...except if the weapons were properly purchased and registered by a certain date that has LONG since passed.

So, get this through your heads.....

We ARE not exempt from the law! We can carry firearms on duty and are required in most cases to carry them OFF duty--but when it comes to the stuff with the go-fast switch, we have NO special privileges.

 

[Firethorn]

Powderman is right.

IE if they issue you a select fire P90, you may carry it. You must, however, turn it back in when you leave the department or they ask for it back.

Same deal with military - I'd love to purchase my own M16/4, but I can't*. I certainly can't take it to deployments - even if I agree that if it's lost the military isn't replacing it.

Now, I did have the idea once where a state forms a reserve force, allows people to select their weapon, pay a 'deposit', receive said select fire weapon, in exchange for being available for a certain period of time for training(IE shoot), and emergencies.

They'd be able to turn it in and receive most of their deposit back, with the weapon going to somebody else willing to make a deposit.

*Or at least, I'm not willing to take the financial cost of a pre '86 M16.

 

[simmonsguns]

Kansas is where i can't own one but i get to repair and test fire them alot.
Police departments are different, where as they can own full auto weapons, it is city property and a not cheap property, most are bought used from other departments or our goverment.
From what i know from the local departments here, the chief has the say if an officer may or may not use any non-issued not in inventory item, whether it is a different pair of boots, flashlight or full-auto firearm.
If you guys want me to find out any information for local departments i can, it will take me 2 or 3 days and any information i get for here most likely will not help with any other department.
Local perception of police officers are different from area to area, millitary looking to button-down stiff looking officers are in this part of the world,
The other part of Simmons is the law enforcement/millitary side, i will ask the GM to get me some specific full-auto, officer/ department owned information that might help.

 

[Powderman]

Hey, Firethorn, I would LOVE to pay the true cost of a pre-1986 M16...I remember when I was in the service, and operating as a unit armorer, the Rifle, 5.56x45mm NATO, M16A1 cost the gov't $416.00 each. I'd LOVE to buy one at those prices!!!

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

It's great to see a good lot on this board spout of anti-gun arguments (No practical use, not needed, they can use "x, y, and z" instead) from the lefty loonies trying to disarm individuals and using the same crap on why the police should not be allowed to have NFA stuff. Nevermind the fact that the police go home and are average-Joe again, except they get the right to CCW, which is what most of want across the nation for everyone. "If we can't have it, neither can the police." They have to leave it all on the field too. They don't get to take the stuff home. Being divided on the 2nd Amendment has really helped out the gun owners over the years.

Hypocrites.

 

[30 cal slob]

military, police, law-abiding responsible private citizen ...

level the playing field.

full-autos should be available to all of the above, even those evil m-249's that are so much fun to shoot.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

I can see many uses for full auto weapons. Cops should be allowed to use full auto... and it should be just as easy and affordable for the average citizen to get full autos as well.

 

[TwitchALot]

Thanks for the info Powderman. If I ask you a question in the future, though, I'll be sure to remember to ask you not to yell in a rather impolite fashion too. It's really not necessary.

 

[Powderman]

Sir or ma'am, please read the message again; note the verbiage, diction, usage and punctuation. Then, read the message aloud to yourself, using the parts in capitals as emphasis to your tone of voice.

Posting a message in all caps--for the entire message--is considered yelling on line.

Capitalizing certain parts of the message are meant to emphasize those parts, not to give the impression that the speaker is literally yelling in your face.

However, I will not argue the finer points of internet etiquette here.

My post is meant to demonstrate one point, and one point only: As Dr. Venkman noted after my post, it seems to be OK to demonize and vilify those who would deprive us of our rights. Yet, some of us--supposedly pro-gun and pro-rights--use EXACTLY the same rhetoric and send the SAME message concerning cops and guns.

My impression--take it for what it's worth to you--that these people who are soooooo scared about what police officers carry on their persons and in their cruisers, or have available to them for use are the people who would embrace a type of laissez-faire society; free-reign, where anyone can do what they want when they want without consequences.

Ironically, most police officers do NOT feel threatened by an armed citizen, like themselves. I know I don't.

Yet some feel in imminent danger because those HORRIBLE cops have access to automatic weapons!!! OMGWTHBBQ!!! The sky is falling! The dam has failed! The tornado is coming! Terror in the streets! The Crips are raiding the liquor store and cats and dogs are living together!!!!! THE HORROR!!!!!

These are the types of folks that preach to me--when they're caught breaking the law--about their sovereign rights not to pay taxes, put a license plate on their car, or have a driver's license. Oh, well.

Of course, when I issue the citation or (depending on the offense) place them under arrest, they will (fill in the blank) own me/own my house/own the city/ruin me/destroy my career/see me in court/and in extreme cases, kill me, beat my you know what, jack me up, go upside my head, visit my family, burn down my house, etc, etc, etc.....

Funny thing, though....

In almost eleven years of doing this, I have yet to see a single one in court. And even though I take threats seriously, I have yet to see one near my home.

I have run into a couple on the street, though--both times with my wife. One particularly "bad" guy turned tail and walked away--really fast. The other started in my direction with a big grin, and changed his mind when he saw a half drawn 1911.

Ah, well.

I've said it before, as have hundreds if not thousands of others: If you don't like the law, CHANGE IT. You do NOT have to take what politicians stuff down your throats.

You have the most potent weapon in the United States, if not the world--the vote. Use your vote to effect change at all levels of government. It can be done, and it can be done peacefully, if enough of us take it to the ballot box.

It's up to you and me, folks.

 

[SoCalShooter]

When ya think about it...do the police really need full auto weapons for their job? 3 round burst maybe but I cannot see an application for it. Even if the BG's are armed with them its a spray and pray type thing.

 

[TwitchALot]

Sir or ma'am, please read the message again; note the verbiage, diction, usage and punctuation. Then, read the message aloud to yourself, using the parts in capitals as emphasis to your tone of voice.

Posting a message in all caps--for the entire message--is considered yelling on line.

Capitalizing certain parts of the message are meant to emphasize those parts, not to give the impression that the speaker is literally yelling in your face.

Yeah, I still don't think statements like "We, as law enforcement officers are REQUIRED to follow the same laws as you do. Hard to believe, isn't it? But, it's true," and "So, get this through your heads....." are particularly polite or necessary. But if you disagree, we'll just have to agree to disagree. By the way- if you want to emphasize, use bold, italics, or underlining. That's what it's there for. Caps is considered yelling, or if you prefer "rude emphasizing" as far as I've seen it. Quite frankly, given the statements above, I didn't find that to be a difficult conclusion to reach. But again, if you disagree, there's not much either of us can do about it, so again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

When ya think about it...do the police really need full auto weapons for their job? 3 round burst maybe but I cannot see an application for it. Even if the BG's are armed with them its a spray and pray type thing.

Do we really need full auto weapons to go to the range?

 

[David904]

I think that cops should be able to carry anything they can qualify with. We expect them to go into some truly crappy situations and often they find themselves outgunned.

However, the same should go for the rest of us. We should be able to purchase/carry anything we want. Equal footing for everyone.

 

[SG Merc]

I have no problem with civilian law enforcement professionals having access to any weapon that any other upstanding member of the private community can possess as well.

If it's impossible or extremely difficult (read: expensive) for an average citizen to acquire a certain type of firearm, then it would be difficult to justify the need--or indeed the fairness--of city representatives being able to obtain said firearm.