Why don't we demand that states with 10 round magazine limits apply them to police too?

[franktheitaliantank]

If 10 round magazines are good enough for UNTRAINED civilians to defend themselves, they aught to be MORE THAN good enough for TRAINED law enforcement professionals.

A lot of police officers in New York (and elsewhere) think strict gun control is great. It makes them feel safer. (as if their job is about THEM and not the public which they are supposed to serve)

Did you know that in New York, RETIRED police officers can KEEP their service pistols with MORE THAN 10 round magazines in their homes??... that is a CLEAR violation of "equal protection under the law". Why would they need their service pistol while they are NO LONGER OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC??? For sentimental reasons? (as if only THEIR guns/magazines have sentimental value)

Police shouldn't need more than 10 rounds if that's what the civilians are limited to. Police don't need to outgun an individual civilian (that's kind of the point of 2A). Police are a FORCE with strength in numbers. Not just strength in numbers from other police officers, but strength in numbers from the support of people in the COMMUNITIES which they serve. The day the community is NOT on the police's side IS THE DAY THE POLICE ARE IN THE WRONG!

But that doesn't matter because not only are their weapons NOT being limited like ours... THEY HAVE BEEN MILITARIZING THE POLICE!

I FIRMLY BELIEVE that if us gun rights activists pressed the issue of EQUAL DISARMAMENT of police as well as civilians, we would have A LOT of success because we would also have liberals who don't like guns on our side for that issue.

THAT is how you get these anti-gun police chiefs, DA's, and politicians to shut up; Shove the gun control down their throats!

I'm sick of us gun owners having to convince them to let us keep our rights... Let's turn the tables!

Police in Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Iceland pretty much don't even carry guns, so this is not as radical of an idea as it might sound like.

 

[RX-79G]

I don't like mag bans, but I don't think it is strictly logical that citizens defending themselves represents an identical situation to police offensively taking on criminals. As an argument, I don't think it holds up.

There are some real problems with how the government protects the police and how the police protect themselves, but the police have a function that is different from what I do as a private person. So I don't think comparing the two helps us.

 

[franktheitaliantank]

I don't like mag bans, but I don't think it is strictly logical that citizens defending themselves represents an identical situation to police offensively taking on criminals. As an argument, I don't think it holds up.

There are some real problems with how the government protects the police and how the police protect themselves, but the police have a function that is different from what I do as a private person. So I don't think comparing the two helps us.

The whole point is to put them on the defensive and or get them to shut up and back off. If they still want to press the issue, they can deal with the consequences. "Logical" is an opinion. A lot of people OUTSIDE of gun owner's political spectrum would LOVE the idea of disarming police. Us gun owners need to quit coddling our police and be more demanding when it comes to our rights. Police who enforce unconstitutional gun laws are NOT our friends. I don't care if it's their job. Their is no ball and chain on them. They took an oath. We need to go full throttle in the struggle for our rights. "No more Mr. Nice guy"

 

[Cannibul]

Personally, I think that ANY firearms laws should apply equally across the board.

It would make things like the California roster go away real quick.

 

[franktheitaliantank]

Personally, I think that ANY firearms laws should apply equally across the board.

It would make things like the California roster go away real quick.

Thank you. Yes, all firearm laws. I picked magazine capacity because I find that easy to use as an example. I could have went on and on... But yeah, limit the California police to bullet buttons and all that... If they are even going to allow bullet buttons... maybe limit them to bolt actions. Whatever they allow civilians to have.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Yes, clearly, the logical counter to gun control is more gun control... Because if we help the gun control crowd enact more gun control we've totally stuck it to them.. Oh... wait... no....

How about instead of your idea, we go a 180 route. Instead of forcing gun control on the police, use the police being exempted from gun control to point out how arbitrary and pointless those laws are.

Also, it's hard to take anyone seriously when the talk about:

. THEY HAVE BEEN MILITARIZING THE POLICE!

Yeah... the entire history of law enforcement is tightly bound to military forces. Why do you think a badge is still referred to as a shield? Hint: Romans

Also:

 

[franktheitaliantank]

Yes, clearly, the logical counter to gun control is more gun control... Because if we help the gun control crowd enact more gun control we've totally stuck it to them.. Oh... wait... no....

How about instead of your idea, we go a 180 route. Instead of forcing gun control on the police, use the police being exempted from gun control to point out how arbitrary and pointless those laws are.

Also, it's hard to take anyone seriously when the talk about:


Yeah... the entire history of law enforcement is tightly bound to military forces. Why do you think a badge is still referred to as a shield? Hint: Romans

 

[RX-79G]

The whole point is to put them on the defensive and or get them to shut up and back off. If they still want to press the issue, they can deal with the consequences. "Logical" is an opinion. A lot of people OUTSIDE of gun owner's political spectrum would LOVE the idea of disarming police. Us gun owners need to quit coddling our police and be more demanding when it comes to our rights. Police who enforce unconstitutional gun laws are NOT our friends. I don't care if it's their job. Their is no ball and chain on them. They took an oath. We need to go full throttle in the struggle for our rights. "No more Mr. Nice guy"

I agree. The problem is partially that gun people tend to be conservative, and conservatives tend to be 'law and order' supporters as well. Not all, but mostly.

This is why I recently suggested that gun people (and especially the NRA), should protest along with groups like BLM in cases where someone was shot by police because of the mere presence or suspected presence of a gun. But this crosses several lines for most gun people.

LE is not the friend of gun owners. We make their job harder and that makes us inconvenient.

 

[bubba in ca]

It might make a good political ploy to force the police to go public with WHY sometimes 10 rounds isn't enough, but by and large the reason is that Knights and Peasants have to live by different rules. Neither the Knights nor the Kings are going to be impressed by logic.

 

[WhiteRabbit]

The proposed California law does limit police recruits:

" '(Prop 63) has also drawn criticism from groups representing local law enforcement. In a public statement, Ken Corney, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, said the proposition 'fails to meet the appropriate balance between public safety and individual gun rights.' One provision, for example, would have the unintended consequence of prohibiting police recruits from training with large-capacity ammunition magazines. Getting a super majority of lawmakers to agree to an exemption for cadets would be 'almost unattainable when dealing with an issue as controversial as firearms regulation,' he wrote." http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-2016-gun-ballot-measures.html

"The proposition fails to meet the appropriate balance between public safety and individual gun rights." He's right. But this is an highly emotional issue, and Gavin Newsom is preparing to run for Governor and he's taking advantage of that for personal gain. Typical manipulative politician. (He looks just like Patrick Bates in Psycho, doesn't he?)

In the Virginia Tech tragedy, the shooter used 15- and 10-round magazines to fire 174 shots and kill 32 people. He re-loaded many times. He was in no rush; he shot slowly and methodically. The whole incident lasted nine minutes. No one tackled him as he reloaded. Not until the police got there---with their guns---did it end. Limiting magazine capacity isn't the answer. All of us know what is, but somehow the obvious is lost on a lot of people. I don't understand how restricting the rights of legal, law-abiding gun owners, who will only shoot in self-defense and hope they'll never have to, is seen as a way to control criminals.

In January 2006, prior to the shootings, VA legislator Todd Gilbert introduced bill HB 1572, which was intended to forbid public universities in Virginia from preventing students from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun on campus.The university opposed the bill, which quickly died in subcommittee. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the defeat of the bill, stating, "This will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." (wikipedia) "Feeling" safe is different than actually being safe. but many people need illusions, and the new restrictions will enable them to continue having them.

"Illusions are to the soul what atmosphere is to the earth... Life is a dream. ‘Tis waking that kills us. He who robs us of our dreams robs us of our life." Virginia Woolf

All this law will do is get people acting in self-defense killed. The only people who'll have so-called high-capacity magazines will be those who couldn't care less about the law. It's a "feel good" law, that's all. It makes the gun control folks feel like they're doing something. Criminals are not going to turn in their magazines to the govt when the time comes to do that, like everyone else will have to do, or they'll be able to buy all they want on the black market, or they'll just use 10-round mags on defenseless people who've chosen to make their safety the responsibility of the police, who won't be there at the moment they're needed. How can they be?

I believe the restriction to 10-round mags, and the onerous ammunition purchase requirements, are undue burdens. I'm glad I don't live in California. But who knows what might come in the future for the rest of us...

 

[Dog Soldier]

Do we as gun owners want to aligned with Black Lives Matter? I agree there are some civil differences in our laws. That said, Police are allowed Class 3 weapons without personally holding a CLass 3 Tax stamp. They are allowed to display red lights and use sirens etc. Police powers are needed to control civil disobedience.

 

[franktheitaliantank]

Criminals are not going to turn in their magazines to the govt when the time comes to do that... I'm glad I don't live in California. But who knows what might come in the future for the rest of us...

No one in Cali should turn them in. I am not suggesting that people should go out of their way to TRY to break the law in California, but I look down on turning in something that you already own AND HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN. I don't necessarily judge people who would turn them in, but I do look down on the ACT of turning them in; it is most definitely a cowardly thing to do. I can understand someone not wanting to go to prison... good reason but still cowardly.

California is a nice state. It is absolutely ridiculous that I wold have to limit myself from either going to that state or from owning common guns. This is a REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY. I don't care how the people or politicians of Cali vote. Our constitutional rights were never supposed to be up for a vote!

And for the record, I am not anti-government. I can understand having to turn in property by eminent domain if it is for something important. But you would be able to buy new property in a situation like that... Not so with handing in your rights.

 

[franktheitaliantank]

Do we as gun owners want to aligned with Black Lives Matter? I agree there are some civil differences in our laws. That said, Police are allowed Class 3 weapons without personally holding a CLass 3 Tax stamp. They are allowed to display red lights and use sirens etc. Police powers are needed to control civil disobedience.

Police lights are a different story. As for firearms, the whole point of the Second Amendment is to have a balance of power between people and officials. Police having better guns sabotages that balance. As for controlling civil disobedience, they certainly shouldn't need "class 3 weapons" for that. The day civil disobedience is THAT out of control is the day the police are in the wrong. They are here to serve the civilians. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

 

[RX-79G]

Do we as gun owners want to aligned with Black Lives Matter?

It depends. Do you want to be aligned with the people that poorly defend the status quo, or do you want to align yourself with growing movements that stand for civil liberty and protection against institutional tyranny?

BLM seems like a more suitable and useful group to align ourselves with than David Karesh. That didn't work out too well for the NRA.

 

[RX-79G]

Police lights are a different story. As for firearms, the whole point of the Second Amendment is to have a balance of power between people and officials. Police having better guns sabotages that balance. As for controlling civil disobedience, they certainly shouldn't need "class 3 weapons" for that. The day civil disobedience is THAT out of control is the day the police are in the wrong. They are here to serve the civilians. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

But who is going to back a movement to take any advantage police have over armed criminals? A few gun owners would, and no one else.

The fairness of the idea is one thing, getting a reasonable number of people to want it enough for a measure to pass is completely different.

 

[WhiteRabbit]

As for controlling civil disobedience, they certainly shouldn't need "class 3 weapons" for that.

Of course not... but if they have them, one day they're going to use them. They'll find a reason, just like they do with all those SWAT teams that conduct violent, deadly raids on people who were spotted buying hydroponics equipment at the local nursery (for growing tomatoes!), or threw a baggie of loose tea leaves in the garbage, or is suspected of having a half-ounce of pot or of buying clothes with a stolen credit card. How did we get here? That's exactly how using class 3 weapons will come about.

Federal judge: Drinking tea, shopping at a gardening store is probable cause for a SWAT raid on your home

 

[franktheitaliantank]

But who is going to back a movement to take any advantage police have over armed criminals? A few gun owners would, and no one else.

The fairness of the idea is one thing, getting a reasonable number of people to want it enough for a measure to pass is completely different.

People can be on board with it for different reasons. One reason is fairness for gun owners. Other reasons would be because a lot of people believe that police have too much power and sometimes abuse it. A lot of those people aren't gun owners and might even be anti-gun. It doesn't matter who they are. Just gotta get the ball rolling on a single issue. People of all kinds can flock to it. I would rather see no gun control at all. I believe a lot of anti gun people would choose between the lesser of the two evils and concede on the gun control all together because of something like that. It would take away just enough support for gun control in a lot of places. The issue wouldn't be "gun control" it would be "equality vs oppression" or "fairness" or "strength in unity between police and community... not strength through firepower".

There has been a situation where both environmentalists and the state's "tea party" were advocating for the same issue. They were both advocating to make it easier for people to have their own solar power on their homes. The groups don't typically have anything in common. One was in it for individual property rights and energy independence. The other was in it for the environment and reducing carbon emissions. 2 different groups for the same issue. No relation because of it. Probably happens a lot.

 

[CapnMac]

Well, the first thing that needs correcting is that what "we" want can be made to matter. After all, if "we" had the power to demand things of our legislatures, the SAFE act would never have passed. Or most of the CA laws, or the NJ laws, and so on.

 

[jhb]

special class of citizen problem. while i respect ex military, retired police, firefighters,etc...somehow they have been dubbed a special class of citizen. with more rights and special abilities over other citizens in many states as well as a national belief across this country that they deserve it. even though they themselves are just citizens now too.

many argue they deserve this due the services they did for the people, but once retired they are just citizens like everyone else. i dislike this special class of citizen attitude. people should be equal and treated as such. regular citizens or retired or ex whatever now a citizen. same applies for tax breaks and other nonsense. there are different opinions and i respect folks having one different than mine, but this is my opinion.

 

[JSH1]

No one in Cali should turn them in. I am not suggesting that people should go out of their way to TRY to break the law in California, but I look down on turning in something that you already own AND HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN. I don't necessarily judge people who would turn them in, but I do look down on the ACT of turning them in; it is most definitely a cowardly thing to do. I can understand someone not wanting to go to prison... good reason but still cowardly.

Fyock v. Sunnyvale found that bans on magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges are legal.

I don't think magazine limits are good policy but they certainly aren't unconstitutional.

 

[franktheitaliantank]

Fyock v. Sunnyvale found that bans on magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges are legal.

I don't think magazine limits are good policy but they certainly aren't unconstitutional.

What?! You must be joking, right? It doesn't take a law degree to see that magazine bans are DEFINITELY an infringement on our right to bear arms! It's not even questionable. It's obvious. I don't care HOW the judge(s) ruled... Judges will rule however they want based on whatever they want... Seriously. By your logic, a judge can say blue is red and you'd go with it because "he's a judge"... The Bill of Rights was written very plainly so the average citizen can understand it. Citizens should NEVER give judges the benefit of the doubt just so we can keep the illusion of integrity in our system of law... Because either that's what you are doing, or this isn't your area of expertise... to put it as nicely as I can.

 

[JSH1]

What?! You must be joking, right? It doesn't take a law degree to see that magazine bans are DEFINITELY an infringement on our right to bear arms! It's not even questionable. It's obvious. I don't care HOW the judge(s) ruled... Judges will rule however they want based on whatever they want... Seriously. By your logic, a judge can say blue is red and you'd go with it because "he's a judge"... The Bill of Rights was written very plainly so the average citizen can understand it. Citizens should NEVER give judges the benefit of the doubt just so we can keep the illusion of integrity in our system of law... Because either that's what you are doing, or this isn't your area of expertise... to put it as nicely as I can.

The Constitution also says in very plain language that the courts are there to decided who is correct when there is a disagreement about what the law means. In this case the District Court found that a 10 round magazine ban is legal, it went to the Appeals courts, they found it to be legal, It was appealed to the Supreme Court which refused to hear it. If you don't like how our system of law works in the USA take it up with the Founders.

With that I'm done. There is no point in arguing with people that believe their own personal opinions of the law trump the actual rulings of courts.

 

[franktheitaliantank]

The Constitution also says in very plain language that the courts are there to decided who is correct when there is a disagreement about what the law means. In this case the District Court found that a 10 round magazine ban is legal, it went to the Appeals courts, they found it to be legal, It was appealed to the Supreme Court which refused to hear it. If you don't like how our system of law works in the USA take it up with the Founders.

With that I'm done. There is no point in arguing with people that believe their own personal opinions of the law trump the actual rulings of courts.

Ok if you're done. That's your prerogative. I'll go on for the next person who might read this.

It's not an opinion. It is an infringement. Look up infringement in the dictionary. There is no opinion about it. The constitution has ONE flaw. It can't uphold itself. It relies on the honor of the officials in power and they dishonored it for their own separate ideology. I refuse to bend over because judges said so. It's an insult to us that they would expect us to go with whatever ludicrousness the judges say is constitutional.

The founding fathers expected our judges to have some honor and I know I would be preaching to the choir if I took this up with them...

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

The judges put their ideas of safety in front of liberty and the statement above says exactly how the founders feel about doing that.

I am honestly very sad and disappointed that a fellow American who should value the Bill of Rights would concede like that. I guess it's hard for some people to accept that our system is broken yet WE still have to follow the rules of the broken system.

 

[hso]

Idon't care HOW the judge(s) ruled

We loved the the decision in DC, but the Antis hated it. By that reasoning the local law enforcement could just ignore the court and continue to arrest anyone that followed the court ruling.

Since the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, makes the decisions on the Constitutional test we have to care how judges rule since their rulings determine how laws are applied. We don't have to like it, but we can't live in a fantasy and ignore what we don't like without willfully subjecting ourselves to risk of prosecution. The courts are vitaly important in the 2A struggle.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

We should demand that states with 10 round magazine limits repeal them. And demand legalizing the sale of "Lady Chatterly's Lover" in Boston. These symbolic bans do nothing to enhance public safety and make the law look like a farce. There must be something in the water in the Northeast.

OP #1
A lot of police officers in New York (and elsewhere) think strict gun control is great.

I have had conversations with police. A lot more police outside New York think strict gun control does not affect bad behavior by bad people, and that gun rights exercised by lawabiding gun owners enhance public safety. The majority of the country is tired of the century long progressive crusade by New Yorkers like Michael Bloomberg, trying to shove the N.Y . Sullivan Act of 1911 down their throats.
OP#1 makes a point that in New York, retired police can keep service weapons with high capacity magazines for self-defense as retired police, but civilians are limited to 10 rounds under NY law. Retired police should be subject to the same rules as civilians. And goes on to why should civilians self-defense weapons be inferior to police weapons?
Post #2 "... I don't think it is strictly logical that citizens defending themselves represents an identical situation to police offensively taking on criminals. ..."
Store owners in the the L.A. Riots were abandoned and left to defend themselves against rioting mobs. That certainly was not identical. In fact it called for superior weapons, although anecdotes say warning shots from an 18 round Marlin 60 .22 were often enough to deter rioters from burning down a store.
Citizens who chose to be armed should be armed equal to the police. In Jolly old England. Sir Robert Peel's original "Bobbies" (organized uniformed police) were armed with a night stick and a stern demeanor. If a situation arose where a firearm might be needed, a Bobbie could knock on a citizen's door and borrow their gun (politely comandeering private arms in the name of public safety, and returning them after use). I believe sheriffs today in the US still retain the power of the county (posse comitatus) to deputize citizens to raise a posse in emergency. Therefore, citizens, including retired police, should be armed with standard weapons suitable for the purpose and citizens should be familiar (trained or experienced) with their use as a civic duty. New York police cadets and retired police officers should be subject to the same gun laws as any other lawabiding citizen: all should have standard capacity magazines.
For the record, I am in Tennessee and I particpate in modern and vintage military matchs which require as-issued military rifles. I have shot my M1 carbine, M70AB2, and Thompson TM1 all of which use as-issued 30 round magazines. I have no fear that local police will arrest me. New Yorkers using arms for lawful purposes should not be subject to a 10 shot limit either. Whether they are active duty police or citizens (and police cadets and retirees are citizens).