The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 22, 2013, 08:23 PM   #26
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 4,893
I've carried one badge or another for a shade over thirty years. I have consistently advocated against any law that treats one class of citizen any differently from another. That includes laws that create stiffer penalties for the assault or killing of any 'special' class of citizen, including police officers. Why? Because I believe 'equal protection under the law' means just what it says.

If you're talking about NFA weapons, individual officers are subject the same hoop-jump as everyone else. Last year I acquired some 14" 870's for the Department (Surprise-our new Caprice PPV's have a much lower headliner!) and I had to submit forms repeatedly and wait, wait, WAIT before the Department could pick them up.

So , we can't just run out and buy full autos or saw the barrels off our shotguns on a whim.
__________________
Visit us at The Sixgun Journal or the archive, at http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/
Sarge is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 07:01 AM   #27
GM2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2011
Location: Southeast, USA
Posts: 350
One might encounter a threat in his or her life time and should be able to defend themselves if they do. However, How many posting here with the exception of military or police officers have been sent to situations where violence was occurring involving firearms on a regular basis?.

I was Military for 6 yrs and LEO for 32 yrs and carried what weapon's were issued to me. During my career as a LEO when in uniform division I carried revolvers, pistols and a Shotgun in my vehicle .During that time was a SWAT member for 10 years and had use of heavier fire power if needed. I was Detective Lieutenant for the last 18 yrs and carried a snub nose revolver or a 9 mm sig.

With that said, I never felt like because I was a Police officer I was any better than anyone else, However, will have to say there were many times I sure would have liked to have been better armed.

Now retired, and in my middle seventy's I Still carry a sidearm and have some rifles and shotguns.

Last edited by GM2; February 23, 2013 at 10:40 AM.
GM2 is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 07:20 AM   #28
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I like cops; a lot of my friends and some of my relatives are cops. I am in favor of "officer safety."

But I am also in favor of my own personal safety, and even more in favor of my family's safety.

So my preference would be to keep LEOSA, but expand it to regular law-abiding citizens.

Meanwhile, kraigwy, it isn't "semantics" when an agency under the administration that is trying to ban "assault weapons" for the rest of us calls them "personal defense weapons" when speaking about agents having them. That's double-speak, and deliberately done.

If a 5.56mm carbine with a 30rd box magazine is an ideal "personal defense weapon" for an agent, why is it massive overkill for a homeowner?

Please note that I am very much in favor of officers having patrol rifles, and I clearly see the need for them.

I also see that my wife shoots a carbine much better than she shoots a handgun, and where we live, out in the sticks, a carbine may have more applications.

Even in a more urban setting, better accuracy and ease of use, plus higher muzzle energy mean LESS rounds are likely to miss the target and go who knows where.

So, it is NOT semantics. That personal defense weapon, with its many merits as such for DHS personnel, is a "personal defense weapon" at my place, too.
MLeake is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 09:26 AM   #29
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,360
MLeake:

I think you misunderstood me. No where have I ever indicated the private citizen has no use for a AR or such type weapon.

Anyone who's read many of my post have seen me indicate otherwise.

First, being a history nut I've read many of the thoughts of our founders on the 2nd A. Seldom did they mention hunting or self defense. The mention the need for checks and balances, meaning an armed citizenry should be a check on the government. At the time period the Constitution was written the people were armed with the same weapons as the military, muskets or rifles (citizens more then the military when it comes to rifles).

I have also stressed over the years that the main reason I like the AR system is for competition. Since the ARs took over from the M14/M1A and M1 Garands in high power rifle (which was my main sport), more women and juniors have gotten in volved and successfully compete against us old guys, and we need women and juniors to keep our sport alive.

As too defense, I know every situation is different. But its my opinion that the pistol/revolver is a much better SD platform, mainly because its available. Not saying a AR type rifle wont work, it will, and quite well, but its the availability of the firearm. Not many of us set around with a rifle in our lap at home encase some bandit crashed through the door, but we have (or should have) a means to protect our selves handy in case someone does crash in. Its easier to pull your revolver from your pocket then to run to the next room and grab your rifle.

Not many of us take our rifles to the ATM late at night, or have one ready when we stop at a red light in case a car jacker appears.

Even in LE I hardly ever took a shotgun or rifle on a call. They seem to always be in the way. Yes I carried a Sniper Rifle, but only dug it out when I got a call, calling for the rifle.

The pistol/revolver leaves one hand free for the flash light, door knob, ticket book, or any of the other hundreds of things we need a free hand for.

We never know when a self defense situation may occur but we have to be ready. Sure, if I knew, the rifle would be my second choice, since I'm not a "first responder" I don't have to respond, so my first choice would to be somewhere else.

No sir, the rifle is not always handy, my revolver is always in my pocket.

Most of my guns are locked in a gun safe, but yes I do keep a rifle handy. Its a bolt gun I keep available, not so much for self defense but to protect my critters from other critters that want to eat them. There has been a mountain lion hanging around most of the winter and I'd rather he not eat my horses.

But NO, I'm not against the private person from having any gun he chooses, that's ANY TYPE GUN. Even full auto if he has the means to afford the ammo for such.

Notice I didn't say citizen, I don't think the right of self protection and having any gun you choose should be limited to citizens.

I believe "Shell Not Infringe" means just that.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 12:32 PM   #30
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 200
It sounds like a universal agreement, mostly. I would say that the biggest issue after this is what to do about it. I makes sense for the police to not want to be outgunned by the bad guy. It also makes sense for the average citizen to have that same request. This 2A fight is not going to end with this current struggle. The anti's have an attack plan in place, throw as much mud against wall as possible. Do we even have a plan other than reactionary???
__________________
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 23, 2013, 02:59 PM   #31
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by delarosadavid
Do we even have a plan other than reactionary???
Yes. We call, we write, we donate and we vote. On The High Road, I've seen members put up their proposed communications with their congressfolks, and I try to help them write more effective letters. The NRA has some 4 million members, and I don't think they represent even 10% of the legal gun owners out there, according to the estimates I've seen.
__________________
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 23, 2013, 03:05 PM   #32
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Notice I didn't say citizen, I don't think the right of self protection and having any gun you choose should be limited to citizens
That's a gray area for me. Our constitution doesn't strictly apply to visitors. They are not part of "the people" (Yes I realize Heller said individual right) They are not part of the militia, they are not draftable, their home jurisdiction does NOT report to the NICS check. I believe someone who is not a citizen, naturalized or otherwise, has a PRIVILEGE to own a gun as well as any other "rights" extended to them as privileges.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 03:12 PM   #33
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Officers should always be ahead of the bad guy when it comes to protection so they should have superior firearms at work
While I agree the police should have appropriate arms I think since they are servants of the public they should be compelled to be highly proficient with the arms they bear. They should be shooting at least monthly and it should be a high enough number of sessions to meet some sort of standardized training requirement... Cant shoot then you don't get to be a possessor of whatever weapon as a public servant.

In my view states and counties should be liable if it can be reasonably shown that their officers are so un-proficient with weapons as to be a menace to the public due to inaccuracy. I wouldn't hold the individuals liable but rather those who should be funding the training.

Of course in my view military style weapons and military weapons (small arms) are all protected under the 2A and should not be the sole domain of law enforcement and the military and the handful of people with pre 86 weapons.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 06:52 PM   #34
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
kraigwy, I understand that you are not in favor of creating elites, and that you are in favor of the general citizenry being allowed to own any grade of small arm.

We are not in disagreement over that.

My sole point of contention was that by writing off the DHS "personal defense weapon" as mere semantics, it's easy to overlook that those semantics were almost certainly deliberately chosen, by a hypocritical administration that has a serious double standard.
MLeake is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 10:24 PM   #35
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,053
Quote:
I makes sense for the police to not want to be outgunned by the bad guy.
Here's the kicker: they aren't outgunned. Criminals favor cheap, concealable handguns and shotguns. The few semiauto rifles that are "used" in crimes are usually guns that were confiscated as part of a search.

Despite the propaganda, the police are not engaging in urban warfare, and they do outgun the bad guys. I'm fine with that.

But I'm not a bad guy, nor should I be treated as one without the benefit of due process. Until that time, there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to protect myself with the same tools the police do.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 10:47 PM   #36
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 4,893
Beg to differ with you Tom, but stolen AK clones are indeed being used in banger shootings and a good friend of mine got his squad car shot full of holes by a bank robber with an AR15. There are several cases where dead-enders have used AK's against officers on car stops, too.

Do I advocate regulating them? Not on your life. But those guns in the hands of criminals are definitely a part of the landscape, for us.
__________________
Visit us at The Sixgun Journal or the archive, at http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/
Sarge is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 11:21 PM   #37
shootniron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
Despite the propaganda, the police are not engaging in urban warfare, and they do outgun the bad guys.
I could not agree more and I get sick of the constant drivel we hear about the police being at a great disadvantage while doing their job. This is a complete load of crap.
shootniron is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 11:56 PM   #38
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,053
Quote:
Beg to differ with you Tom, but stolen AK clones are indeed being used in banger shootings and a good friend of mine got his squad car shot full of holes by a bank robber with an AR15.
Ah, look at Sarge, catching a Staff member at an overbroad statement! That's going in my list...[scribble, scribble, frowny face]

It does happen. That's why I'm glad the shotgun has been augmented by the M4 in the patrol car.

Even if such incidents were an everyday occurrence, they should highlight the necessity for civilians to have such implements at their disposal as well.

(I am the model of rhetorical sloppiness tonight, aren't I?)
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 24, 2013, 03:41 AM   #39
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 4,893
No offense intended or taken, Tom.
__________________
Visit us at The Sixgun Journal or the archive, at http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/
Sarge is offline  
Old February 24, 2013, 12:41 PM   #40
dajowi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 976
Didn't we just have a great example of an ex-cop with a gun - Dorner. Now there's one poster child.

How about another.

Why do we need assault weapons - Charles Whitmen. I've often wondered if anyone had any idea on the number of civilians who showed up that day and started firing on the tower.
dajowi is offline  
Old February 24, 2013, 08:28 PM   #41
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,053
Quote:
I've often wondered if anyone had any idea on the number of civilians who showed up that day and started firing on the tower.
Whitman had elevation, concealment, cover, and weapons with more range and power. I doubt someone on the ground with a pistol would have been much of a deterrent.

Quote:
Our constitution doesn't strictly apply to visitors.
Some parts of it do. Consider Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

Quote:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has held that the protections of the 1st, 5th, and 6th Amendments apply to all persons within our borders, not just citizens.

Certain political rights, such as voting and jury duty, don't apply, but the implication is that natural rights are protected. That would include the right to defend one's life.

As it stands now, resident and nonimmigrant aliens can buy and own firearms, and in many states, they can get carry permits.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 09:36 AM   #42
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
The Dorner issue certainly is a poster child but to my mind the truck that came under fire by police who miss identified it as Dorners vehicle are also poster children on this issue.

Im my personal opinion the average officer is out there doing the best they can do on one of the worlds most thankless jobs. I get it that not every officer is worthy of that badge but that kind of thing applies to every profession.

As a exercise in though only, I can see how an argument might be made that the women in the truck needed full auto Ars to counter the illegal attack they came under. An argument could also be made that the people of that county need full auto arms in case the police in general go on a killing rampage in either by being the inciting criminal rampaging through town or in being an officer who decides justice is spraying the public with lead for having a truck that's not even close to being a match.

Then there's the cop that's being charged that's related to the blade runner case, who apparently shot randomly at a buss full of people or some such thing. Can you imagine being a CCW carrier on that bus?

I totally honor what the general men and women in blue do for us as a whole, but there seems to be a ever growing body of evidence that innocent law abiding citizens are being attacked with police weapons by former and current police using Ar's and whatever other weapons. I think the ones that are under gunned are the law abiding citizens who are being denied the weapons we are constitutionally allowed.
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; February 25, 2013 at 11:19 AM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 09:58 AM   #43
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
The Supreme Court has held that the protections of the 1st, 5th, and 6th Amendments apply to all persons within our borders, not just citizens.

Certain political rights, such as voting and jury duty, don't apply, but the implication is that natural rights are protected. That would include the right to defend one's life.

As it stands now, resident and nonimmigrant aliens can buy and own firearms, and in many states, they can get carry permits.
And yet in Heller both the Majority opinion, and Stevens' dissent define the people as respectively
Quote:
...members of the political community
and
Quote:
...law-abiding citizens
This is not inconsistent with extending 5th and 6th amendment protections to non-citizenry as those amendments refer to a person or an accused. The First Amendment protections also refer to Congress with only two clauses held for "The People" - peaceable assembly and the right of the people to redress grievances. That reads to me that Congress may make no law prohibiting a visitor from speaking, but nothing prevents laws prohibiting non-citizens from assembling on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue- or necessarily gives them standing to petition the City of New York in a New York court- though they may have standing in Federal court as a foreign national. At least as I understand this stuff as a layman.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 12:22 PM   #44
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,346
Sound like the LEOSA act to you guys?

Someone mentioned the Titles of Nobility Clause(s), and that got me searching around. I can't find a whole lot of case law, or even a lawyer to normal person dictionary definition of Titles of Nobility, but this wiki definition had a lot of similarities to LEOSA and AWB etc exemptions to me...

Last edited by JimDandy; February 26, 2013 at 12:43 PM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 27, 2013, 10:40 AM   #45
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 200
Jim Dandy

You make a good point. There are many areas where it sounds close.

Once the commendation ceremony was complete, the lord and vassal were in a feudal relationship with agreed obligations to one another. The vassal's principal obligation to the lord was to "aid", or military service. Using whatever equipment the vassal could obtain by virtue of the revenues from the fief, the vassal was responsible to answer calls to military service on behalf of the lord. This security of military help was the primary reason the lord entered into the feudal relationship. In addition, the vassal could have other obligations to his lord, such as attendance at his court, whether manorial, baronial, both termed court baron, or at the king's court.[12]

I have a Bachelor's in Life Science, not law. Can anyone with the knowledge chime in here? Am I COMPLETELY off base?
__________________
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 March 1, 2013, 11:21 AM   #46
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 164
i have to admit that i am surprised by the hostility, vehemence, and ignorance toward LEO's displayed in this thread. No, i am not surprised that some posters feel that way or express those opinions, what i am surprised about is that the moderators encourage it and participate in it themselves. That I have not experienced in any other gun forum that i have participated in.

The overwhelming majority of police officers and firefighters for that matter are strongly patriotic and strongly pro second amendment for everyone. I personally in the last few months have made numerous phone calls, written numerous letters and emails to my federal and state representatives opposing any negative changes in gun laws for anyone. I have also contributed to a lawsuit here in New York to overturn the SAFE Act for all.

I support national reciprocity but after reading these comments perhaps I should just dedicate my time, effort and money into improving LEOSA for myself and other active and retired LEO's.

At a time when unity is vital, threads like this play right into the anti's aim of dividing and conquering. I think that the moderators of this forum have done a diservice and harm to the pro second amendment community with their behavior in this thread.
heyjoe is offline  
Old March 1, 2013, 11:45 AM   #47
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
^^ I disagree. I don't think that we are targeting the average LEO "per se", but that we believe that pressure is exerted on politicians by other politicians, that Police Chiefs and Sheriffs *are* other politicians, and that they will respond to complaints brought to them by individual officers and their union leaders, and that this will ONLY happen when the line-officer feels the pain.

So... it's a trickle-up effect we are looking for, and the way to do that is to hold everyones feet to the same fire. So, sad to say... you're gonna feel the pain. Part of that pain is feeling it here in the forums. Like the man said: "Nothing personal, it's just business". We are not against the man, we are against special privileges for the few.

There is no reason a retired LEO should have more rights than a citizen. That does not mean I want to take away their rights... I want to increase the ability of the average man to enjoy the same rights. But restrict mine and I'm going to encourage people to restrict yours.


Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old March 1, 2013, 11:49 AM   #48
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,350
Special Citizens

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyjoe View Post
i have to admit that i am surprised by the hostility, vehemence, and ignorance toward LEO's displayed in this thread.
I'm surprised that you can so thoroughly misconstrue the positions taken as being hostility and ignorance toward police.

Vehemence, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old March 1, 2013, 01:18 PM   #49
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 545
Quote:
There is no reason a retired LEO should have more rights than a citizen. That does not mean I want to take away their rights... I want to increase the ability of the average man to enjoy the same rights. But restrict mine and I'm going to encourage people to restrict yours.
There are plenty of people whose self-approval ratings are consistently above 100% and who think they are "special" compared to...a whole bunch of other people, and for a lot of different reasons.

Personally, I have met some LEO's with the "special" complex and met others who don't have it. My distaste for such people is equal, regardless of their profession.

In this narrow matter, some LEO's and politicians are tell me I don't need things they regard as special to them. Since they have no idea when or where or what danger I may face and need a firearm for, I cannot agree with their ideas.

If they need AR's and big magazines because of the local gangs, then I might, too. The LEO's and pols cannot tell me I don't from any rational basis they can prove. In fact, there is more rational evidence available that says I should be equally armed, if I choose to be.

I ride with Willie on this one. Since the anti's cannot be rational, we have to take other paths.

It wasn't me who said "hit back twice as hard..."
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old March 1, 2013, 02:08 PM   #50
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 164
I personally am not feeling any pain. I have no "special" weapons. I dont even own a rifle. I do have a nice collection of handguns, nothing larger than 45 lc, mostly small caliber, only one handgun even affected by the NY Safe Act for magazine capacity.
I understand posts from people who have had negative interactions with law enforcement who have had the "special" complex or who felt that they were wronged at one time or another. I also live in the real world and realize that not everyone does the right thing and that there are less than stellar leo's out there . Your posts are not making me feel any pain and i could care less if you like me based on what work i have done in the past. I make the phone calls, emails and contribute because it is the right thing to do for my family, friends, other gun owners, the future of the second amendment etc. even though I dont personally own much that would be affected at this present time.

Fostering division is just going to create further division. This is the worst possible time for that.

Yes, Brian i do know what vehemence means and i misconstrued nothing.
I find the site as a whole enjoyable and the legal section usually enlightening and educational. I found this thread to be less so.
heyjoe 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 08:35 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 0.15912 seconds with 9 queries