The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 21, 2013, 03:53 PM   #1
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 202
Special Citizens

I am hoping to get a discussion on this. I do not mean to offend anyone or stir up angst. I would love to know if my thoughts are wrong and the reasons why. I just feel that this needs attention. Especially so since manufacturers are starting to draw the lines in the sand as well.

All men are created equal;

With the states that are doing away with the RKBA, they are allowing a special class of citizens to own the very same arms that are being made illegal. While I have no problem with nor history against any police officers, I grew up in the era where we were raised to have a profound respect of them, I do have a problem with them being able to own them in their personal inventory if they are illegal to the general public. I feel it should be the property of the state and they should be the caretakers of said weapons. The states should purchase these, maintain these, and issue them as needed. I understand the special circumstances of an individual who may be on a SWAT team and that they may need to carry the dreaded black rifle in their trunk. Other that truly special circumstances, I feel that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Thoughts?
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 05:01 PM   #2
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,136
I once considered equal protection under the "Law". I concluded that it was dependent on how much "Law" you can afford. That's when I decided to handle matters through attorneys, as appropriate.
That is my advice.
My question for today is: When public officials ramrod bad laws in the dark of night, with waivers and exceptions such as the Safe act, why can't they be sued for malfeasance?
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 05:03 PM   #3
BigD_in_FL
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
Better yet, why can't they be tried for treason? Much harsher penalty
BigD_in_FL is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 05:31 PM   #4
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 4,009
I agree, delarosadavid.

As much as police culture has been militarized, they are still civilians and still subject to the law of the land. (Unlike actual members of the armed forces, who are subject to the UCMJ and are tried in a different court system.)

The idea that there should be one set of laws for some civilians and a different one for others should be abhorrent. It's especially egregious if less severe restrictions are put in place for ex-policemen, as some states are proposing. [TINFOIL HAT] One effect might be to create, in effect, a kind of "reserve" of former LEOs, should they be needed, for example, to curb civil unrest. Not sure I like that idea.[/TINFOIL HAT]
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 05:46 PM   #5
Punisher_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 136
It would be helpful to see the verbage you are referring to in these locations that spell out who can own what. Are we talking about full time employed officers or retired?

Officers should always be ahead of the bad guy when it comes to protection so they should have superior firearms at work. Some agencies supply them while others let you purchase one if you want to carry it (semi-auto).

If you lock people up for 25 to 30 years in the county you live in and then retire I don't think you want to be walking around unarmed.

Last edited by Punisher_1; February 21, 2013 at 05:57 PM.
Punisher_1 is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 06:28 PM   #6
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 4,009
Punisher, no one is suggesting that police officers shouldn't be able to protect themselves. The point is that many of the proposed bans on so-called "assault weapons" make exceptions for current and former LEOs, which would create a double standard that's yet another reason why these bans are utterly wrongheaded in the first place.

According to FactCheck.org, Sen. Feinstein's bill would exempt "...from the prohibition against having an assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition magazine... “a qualified law enforcement officer” (whether on or off duty, and sometimes even if retired)..."

I think delarosadavid's point that this would create two classes of citizens, especially with regard to retired officers, is a good one.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

Last edited by Vanya; February 21, 2013 at 07:46 PM.
Vanya is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 06:51 PM   #7
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Something I've been saying for quite awhile. There is no better place to draw a circle around for the "Common use for lawful purpose" test than a police car.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 08:46 PM   #8
shootniron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Posts: 1,147
LEOSA is another example of what you are talking about. LEO, active or retired, are entitled to carry almost anywhere and in any state in this country "just because" they are law enforcement.

LEOSA U.S. Code

Last edited by shootniron; February 21, 2013 at 08:58 PM.
shootniron is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 08:52 PM   #9
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,285
My son is an LEO and has arrested drug felons as well as other violent felons. He has appeared in court and testified against them, some are in prison for a very long time, others not so long. My feeling is that I want my son to have whatever weapon is necessary to protect himself, his wife and my grand children. I would not want him out gunned by the criminals. Also why disarm him after he has served the public for many years making him an easier target for payback from the felons he protected us from ?
Don't get me wrong, I am as upset and angry as anyone over the NY Safe act and other laws like it, I have and continue to write letters, send emails and make phone calls to let my representatives know how I feel and who will and won't get my vote for re election.
rebs is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 08:59 PM   #10
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
We don't want to take away his gun. We just don't want him taking away OURS. We shouldn't be outgunned by him or the criminals anymore than he should be outgunned by the criminals.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 09:03 PM   #11
shootniron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
My son is an LEO and has arrested drug felons as well as other violent felons. He has appeared in court and testified against them, some are in prison for a very long time, others not so long. My feeling is that I want my son to have whatever weapon is necessary to protect himself, his wife and my grand children. I would not want him out gunned by the criminals. Also why disarm him after he has served the public for many years making him an easier target for payback from the felons he protected us from ?
Don't get me wrong, I am as upset and angry as anyone over the NY Safe act and other laws like it, I have and continue to write letters, send emails and make phone calls to let my representatives know how I feel and who will and won't get my vote for re election.
With all due respect, your son made the decision to do this...

I do not feel like his voluntary paid service entitles him to be above the law that governs the folks that pay his salary and supports his family (your grandchildren).
shootniron is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 09:10 PM   #12
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Special Citizens

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy View Post
We don't want to take away his gun. We just don't want him taking away OURS. We shouldn't be outgunned by him or the criminals anymore than he should be outgunned by the criminals.
Exactly!

It's not "Why CAN he?" it's "Why CAN'T we?"
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 10:14 AM   #13
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 202
My son is an LEO and has arrested drug felons as well as other violent felons. He has appeared in court and testified against them, some are in prison for a very long time, others not so long.


I understand this. My questions to this are; What about the lawyers that help to prosecute them? If the police can maintain arms after assisting the prosecution, what about the prosecuting attorneys? Shouldn't they then be able to maintain firearms? Since we are now going down this route, what about any potential witnesses? Shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves since they are obvious targets to retaliation? Now we have a jury to contend with. Shouldn't our peers, who take part in the prosecuting process be able to defend themselves? Certainly, even defense attorneys, who were deemed by their client to not be aggressive or protective enough have been targets of retaliation. I hate to coin too many phrases, but slippery slope is pretty appropriate here.

Again, I cannot say this enough; I support our police forces. I teach my son to wave whenever he sees one driving down our street. I encourage him to speak to any that he sees in parking lots and they normally turn on the lights and sirens for him. He loves them! I don't, however, think that they should be given special status.
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 10:29 AM   #14
pgdion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
Also why disarm him after he has served the public for many years making him an easier target for payback from the felons he protected us from ?
For the same reason you would disarm the rest of the law abiding US citizens that also deserve to be able to protect themselves just as much against the felons who will pray on them even more so than on the police.

It's a bad idea no matter who you apply it too. And I have to agree with delarosadavid, you can't make a special class that gets to keep guns while the rest are prohibited. That is simply discrimination.
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time!
pgdion is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 11:01 AM   #15
Ronbert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2009
Location: Ft. Collins, CO.
Posts: 398
It should not be forgotten that ordinary citizens who are willing to testify against criminals are in a similar situation as LEOs who testify.

Yet those same ordinary citizens wouldn't be allowed to protect themselves in many (most?) jurisdictions.

This leads to thoughtful citizens being unwilling to turn in the bad guys which leads to general destruction of law and order.

This is not a new problem. It was notable in the 1920's in Chicago and NY when the word "gangster" was invented. And wasn't it Chicago that popularized the driveby shooting????
Ronbert is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 11:03 AM   #16
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
We don't want to take away his gun. We just don't want him taking away OURS. We shouldn't be outgunned by him or the criminals anymore than he should be outgunned by the criminals.
Exactly!

It's not "Why CAN he?" it's "Why CAN'T we?"
Can I get an AMEN?!? The two posts above are dead on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by delarosadavid
I understand this. My questions to this are; What about the lawyers that help to prosecute them? If the police can maintain arms after assisting the prosecution, what about the prosecuting attorneys? Shouldn't they then be able to maintain firearms? Since we are now going down this route, what about any potential witnesses? Shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves since they are obvious targets to retaliation? Now we have a jury to contend with. Shouldn't our peers, who take part in the prosecuting process be able to defend themselves? Certainly, even defense attorneys, who were deemed by their client to not be aggressive or protective enough have been targets of retaliation. I hate to coin too many phrases, but slippery slope is pretty appropriate here.
Your concerns are not lost on the legal community, at least in my state. Around here, most of the lawyers involved in the criminal justice system (on either side of the fence) have their CHCLs. Unfortunately, we generally cannot carry in courthouses. Prosecutors can get special permission to carry, but I know of no defense attorney that has gotten permission to carry into the courthouse. What I tell my officers is: You may be the guy that put him in jail, but I'm the guy telling the judge that he needs to stay there for six more months.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 11:18 AM   #17
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 202
“Personal Defense Weapons”

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-buys-700...efense-weapons

I am not trying to re-direct this thread and I know that this article has been posted and discussed to no end. Does anyone think that there is any additional meaning to "Personal" in the above link? Is it possible that these officers could potentially be able to take these weapons home with them? It seems that these are fully automatic and not only self-loading.

I certainly don't mean to go all "conspiracy theorist" here although Mel Gibson had it right when he said, "Coffee is our friend." (Can't stand the man, love the actor)

It just seems as though the tide is being steadily tipped against us into that of a police state. It may very well be that there is no intention of this being put in to play right now but the more it is facilitated, the more tempting of an offer it might become in the future. Arm the police, even in their personal residences, disarm the people, and eliminate the threat of any resistance to any future repugnant proposals. This is just a dangerous path. Again, I can't stress this enough, I like to believe that it is not intentional at this stage. It is just like wandering down a different path very slowly.
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 12:55 PM   #18
thecelt
Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2005
Location: ny
Posts: 87
jimdandy said it very well.

LEO'S should have the right to carry the best firearms available, with the highest capacity available.. and since we face the same threats in society we should have that same right.

this push for manufacturers to support us by not selling to anyone what has been deemed illegal for civilians is a good idea in my opinion. this will not support a "special class" and with enough support perhaps our lawmakers will come to realize that they have to "stop the madness" and stop violating the Constitution!
thecelt is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 02:48 PM   #19
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,750
LEO's rights are exactly the same as the rest of us. Period. They do not have any rights that the rest of us do not.

What to do have is certain privledges, and certain authority that the rest of us do not have. Because of their job.

Didn't you hear the VP the other day? "NO ONE needs 30 rnds!" TO me, that's clear, no one means no one. It does not mean no one except the police!

Of course, the VP is wrong, some people do need 30 rnds. But, what people need has no place in the discussion. I can find no place in our legal system that gives politicians the legal ability to determine, and restrict people to what they need.....

They do it, for certain things, and have done it for a long time, but that fact neither makes it legal, nor proper.

The other flaw in the gun control argument is the simple difference between ownership and illegal use. They all constantly refuse to see that. TO them, there is no valid legal use (their opinion) therefore, ownership is the guaranteed precursor to illegal use.

We have, and have had laws against shooting people for fun or profit since the founding of our nation (and before..), they do not stop people from shooting people. The do give us something to arrest them for, but they do not stop them. The law may deter many, but it stops no one who is determined to break the law.

Make no mistake, we are being discriminated against. Not becuase of the color of our skin, or our age, gender, religion, or even sexual identity, but because of the property we own. Or wish to own.

Ban the ARs! Buy a shotgun! That's what I hear them say. Of course, most of the people I hear saying that publically have paid armed security protecting their precious selves and families 24/7. And those people, in uniform, or out, paid to be the protectors, DO have ARs, and much, much more.

One law for them, another for us? How is that not Jim Crow in a different suit?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 02:56 PM   #20
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,214
Seems to me like LEOSA violates the Title of Nobility Clause of the Constitution (it's in Article 1 Section 9) and probably the 14th Amendment.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 05:16 PM   #21
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,515
Quote:
DHS buys 7000 full-auto assault rifles, calls them ‘personal defense weapons
I'm not a conspiracy dude either so I did some thinking. There are approx 50,000 fed LEO of one sort or other. Knowing how things break and wear out, buying 7000 replacement or spars doesn't seem to bother me.

Same with the ammo, 20 mil rounds per year, or whatever.

Again you have 50K fed LEO, including the Coast Guard. Most, including the Coast guard are required to qualify 4 times a year.

Thats ruffly 1600 rounds per person per year...............Heck I shoot a heck of a lot more then that.

When I was in LE we took our patrol cars home. I was EOD and carried what I needed in emergencies in my patrol car. I also carried a sniper rifle.

So "I took my stuff home".....................yeap, and I got called out quite a bit. Sure cuts down on the response time if I didn't have to run by the station to pick up my gear.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment as much as anybody, WITHOUT RESTRCTINS.

I just don't believe in conspiracy theories.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 07:08 PM   #22
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
kraigwy, it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to say, "Hey, wait, why are these 'personal defense weapons' if used by a DHS agent, but 'assault weapons' if owned by Joe Citizen?"

I don't worry about numbers of rifles, ammo, etc bought by the feds (other than out of sheer budgetary concerns), but I do worry about the Orwellian double-speak in play.
MLeake is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 07:22 PM   #23
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,134
A big part of the anti-gun mentality has been the "Police or Military Only" mantra, or, what I like to call the "Statist" attitude-the idea that those in government are a superior caste to us mere mortals-helots, perhaps. I have never been an LEO nor a government employee, I do know the Army I served in 1967-1971 did a very poor job of firearms training and regarding such training as an intrusion that could be easily dealt with via the old M-1 Pencil
and small arms were seen as an annoyance and a PITB, the firearms aficionado was derided as a "nut".
SIGSHR is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 07:45 PM   #24
Warrior1256
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 156
I am former law enforcement, now retired. That being said I still believe that all citizens, law enforcement or not, are entitled by the Constitution to own and possess the same types of firearms. No one group of citizens is entitled to more "rights" than any other.
Warrior1256 is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 07:59 PM   #25
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,515
Quote:
"Hey, wait, why are these 'personal defense weapons'
Samatics.............

Call it what you want. I was issued a service revolver, I was issued uniforms, I was issued a car. They were my personal items............as long as I was with APD.

(With the exception of my duty revolver, the Department gave it to me when I retired).

Same as when I was in the Army, I had my issued rifles & pistols, they were mine...............as long as I was in the Army.

When I was in the National Guard, shooting for the Rifle and Pistol Teams, I was issued my personal M14, my personal 1911, and personal 22 pistol. I took them home, kept them in my house............but they weren't mine.

My son works for DHS, (Federal Protective Service), he is the head firearms instructor for his office. He's got an M4 he carries in his Govt. SUV. He also carries quite a bit of ammo. But he also is their Bomb Guy, so he has his bomb equipment. It's his "personal stuff", takes it home, the works.

But is it really his, per his departments policy no one but DHS personal or bandits can ride in the car. Not even his retired LE daddy.

I'm a firm believer in "personal weapons" for military and LEOs. I've seen too many military units issue guns, first come first serve, when you hit the arms room. Never got the same weapon twice. Never knew your zero, never knew the feel of the trigger.

Same with civilian shooters, you'd never draw a different gun every time you went to a match, or took a different gun every time you stepped out of the house carrying.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13896 seconds with 9 queries