gc70
Member
Ankeny said:
If LEOs on duty have extra privileges, should off-duty and/or retired LEOs have the same special privileges? If so, why?
Should they get an exception?
- Thread starter TanklessPro
- Start date
- Status
If LEOs on duty have extra privileges, should off-duty and/or retired LEOs have the same special privileges? If so, why?
It seems the civilians here are the ones always claiming victim. Do you really think your opinion will change the outcome of what is inevitable.
Just as soon as the ban is announced, I'll sell my soon to be pre-ban mags to eligible civilians at "current market prices" and replace them at 1/3 the cost with restricted hi-cap magazines which will be readily available, cheap, and plentiful to LEO's.
Being a civilian you may not be aware, dedicated LEO's are really never "off duty."
Also, to those citing Israel. Israel is only a plane ride away if you find it a 2A paradise. Let me know how you like it.
Last edited:
Nickel Plated
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 385
Remember, you're still a "civilian" too. Being a cop does not make you special, it's just a job.
And? There's a difference between trained and well trained. Most military personell are not even issued a firearm, besides the occasional qualification. Yet they are somehow more qualified than the "civilian" who goes to the range to practice on a almost weekly basis.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
We've been having this same discussion here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=704706) for a couple weeks now.
Personally I see no reason for any Law Enforcement Officer to be granted access to any weapon not available to any other law-abiding citizen of their state. Regardless of what "but I might need a big bad gun to..." argument that is raised, if a cop can't get it done with the same defensive weapons available to his neighbors, that's a fact that is enlightening in a great many ways.
Personally I see no reason for any Law Enforcement Officer to be granted access to any weapon not available to any other law-abiding citizen of their state. Regardless of what "but I might need a big bad gun to..." argument that is raised, if a cop can't get it done with the same defensive weapons available to his neighbors, that's a fact that is enlightening in a great many ways.
OP
OP
TanklessPro
Member
+1
I just think its funny how it seems that LEO's will jump ship when it comes to us regular civilians. Call me a nut job or paranoid, but that still does not stop the truth.
Twmaster
Member
No, LEOs should not be allowed any arms the public are restricted from possessing.
I think the argument against LEOs being exempt begins with the (flawed) assumption that these laws work. If the laws that the antis pass are effective enough to keep banned items out of the hands of criminals, and the items that we are left with are sufficient (by non-expert opinion) to defend ourselves with, then law enforcement should be able to do their job with the same. Likewise, a LEO is not always within minutes of an incident, leaving civilians to fend for themselves in that critical timeframe. Whether you agree or disagree with that thought, we're all supposed to be on the same side. It does none of us any good to turn this into a civilian versus cop debate. Why not focus our efforts on keeping the RKBA for all instead of arguing about what level of infringement screws everybody equally?
Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
VINTAGE-SLOTCARS
member
Madmonkey is on "The High Road" . Well put !!!
There should be no exemption because there should be no anti-gun laws. It's called the Constitution. And to those who say nukes, we are not talking about explosives we are talking about personal firearms. It was pretty clearly spelled out that our Rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED which is what's happening.
MikeS.
Member
This sums it up pretty well.I look at it a different way - any citizen should have the right to acquire any firearm "in common use" by the PD or military.
It's not a matter of LEOs being "exempted" - no citizen should be "excluded".
Nukes, rocket launchers, armored vehicles, etc ... those are not firearms.
I'm undecided on light artillery, however
No one should be exempted from any firearms legislation in the state be it a Leo, or military period. Many who are arguing they should be exempted have a bias, they believe they deserve special privilege because of their job. As many pointed out you are just as much a civilian as the rest of us. Remember "All men are created equal" and should be treated AS equals.
Well said mad monkey +1
Well said mad monkey +1
Last edited:
Realistically, I kind of support exemptions, as I understand the challenges LEOs face in the line of duty. Plus, they're more likely statistically to be involved in a situation requiring the use of these tools. Ideologically, I hate them as a tacit admission that their (congress') laws are crap and they know it.
As a political tool, however, I wish more firearms-related companies would refuse sales to states who pass restrictive laws. It amounts to the same thing, but applied as free market pressure to politicians exercising a double standard it might have an impact.
Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
As a political tool, however, I wish more firearms-related companies would refuse sales to states who pass restrictive laws. It amounts to the same thing, but applied as free market pressure to politicians exercising a double standard it might have an impact.
Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
No, they should have the same restrictions as we do.
HorseSoldier
Member
And therein is the problem. Every one of these threads I've seen on THR pretty much immediately takes on an us (gun owners) versus them (police) slant pretty much immediately. These debates tend to ignore the third member of the debate, criminals, and exist in complete denial of the different missions private citizens and law enforcement have concerning criminals.
Law enforcement needs a tool set to address the criminal element in a way (duty to pursue and apprehend) that private citizens do not. I oppose magazine bans and all the current stupidity trying to come down the pipeline, and a good deal of the stupidity we already have on the books, but "if it can't be done with what is available to a private citizen, it shouldn't be done" as an argument is intellectually and morally bankrupt. I don't expect my doctor to fix critical medical problems with only OTC medications and supplies, nor do I expect the people whose job is to resolve life threatening law enforcement situations to do so with a flawed and partial tool kit because it's cosmically not fair and I want my pouting to translate to increased risk to officers and members of the public.
(And before anyone posts pictures of LAPD-blasted pick up trucks and frothy diatribes about public safety based on NYPD blasting away into crowds -- bad shoots can and should translate into civil and criminal penalties for officers and agencies involved. The system has to be kept honest, and if someone demonstrates they cannot safely do the work involved they should be held fully accountable for their lapses -- again, the medical comparison seems apt.)
gc70
Member
rooter said:
Your dedication to help others when "off the clock" is shared with many other citizens whose day jobs are not in law enforcement.
RiverPerson
Member
I'm not interested in special classes of citizens being created.
Though we already seem to have that in this country.
Though we already seem to have that in this country.
Last edited:
ThatGuyHank
Member
I personally believe that there should be no exemptions or exceptions for LEO's, Retired, off duty, or whoever government or otherwise. There really shouldn't be restrictions in the first place where we would have to argue who's subject to them.
Here in NJ we have a CCW system but, only LEO's and retired LEO's can be granted one. Us civilians can apply but we won't be issued a permit unless we meet some incredible circumstances; what makes a Law Enforcement officer more important than me that he/she is privileged to carry a gun or have magazines bigger than mine and guns that .gov says I can not?
Here in NJ we have a CCW system but, only LEO's and retired LEO's can be granted one. Us civilians can apply but we won't be issued a permit unless we meet some incredible circumstances; what makes a Law Enforcement officer more important than me that he/she is privileged to carry a gun or have magazines bigger than mine and guns that .gov says I can not?
With all due respect for your service to the community.
First off lets get this cristal clear, you are not the first responder to a criminal act, the victim is, and you are saying that they should respond with a flawed and partial tool kit??
The problem is that the criminal, once he or she knows the victim is defenseless or unable to ward off an attack, will take advantage of that. Not only do I want the criminal to fear Law Enforcement, but fear the victim as well, the threat of prison does not do it, maybe the fear of death will. But that is cruel and unusal punishment right?
Jim
Last edited:
Sam Cade
Member
Taking a more macro view, I would go so far as to say that the greatest possible threat to the Republic would be a significant Δ between the amount of force able to be leveraged by agents of the state vs. force under the control of the common citizenry.
General Geoff
Member
The medical comparison is absolutely apt, though in a way you perhaps didn't intend. Regular people should absolutely have access to the same variety of drugs that doctors do.
newfalguy101
Member
Personally I have always found it rather ironic when Law enforcement doesnt have to follow the same laws they enforce
- Status
