|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 1, 2014, 07:28 AM | #76 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
|
Quote:
|
|
July 1, 2014, 08:42 AM | #77 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
And the recent brouhaha over the Arizona English professor, and the guy shaking his junk at law enforcement daring them to shoot him in another recent altercation tells me it's probably not a problem with Officers. Look at the dash cams and cell phone videos out there. How often do you see one and groan at the people in them? Reese Witherspoon playing the famous card was a pretty good example of the general sense of entitlement and antagonism that usually turns a normal stop into those situations.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
July 1, 2014, 12:04 PM | #78 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Quote:
And while you are considering the "militarization" of the police, consider also the Federal "police", all those armed agents who work for various "alphabet" agencies. They all have access to military equipment when desired. Remember Waco? There's a LOT to that story as well.... A point to remember when you give people military equipment, train them to act like soldiers in combat, and send them on "houseclearing" missions, they are going to act like soldiers in combat. No matter what else their jobs are, or who signs their paycheck, if you are taught you are going into combat, and gear up to go into combat, then what ever the actual situation is, you are going to see it as combat, until and unless something changes your mind. And by the time that usually happens, the combat is over....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
July 1, 2014, 06:56 PM | #79 | |||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 1,085
|
Fun fact; our military is planning on putting retired A-10 Warthogs complete with GAU-8's still mounted out for surplus. I'll bet armed Predators start being blown out at surplus-subsized rates before the decade is out. Something to think about (and alternately lament & drool over )
So many really good statements and arguments on this thread; I can see many people have pondered on this as much as I have. Hopefully that in and of itself is illustrative that there just may be something to our worries about authoritarian police. I wish I'd been able to post more frequently throughout the discussion Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's okay, right? They were hunting a terrorist, after all (okay, so maybe not routine patrol) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I noticed the Mods were pruning references to Nazis; can we do the same for the even more ridiculous references to Call of Duty/Red Dawn as well as Mayberry? Robocop, too, if that's been mentioned. At least abusive Nazi police* were a real thing, working at the individual level under the same sort of motivations as any patrol officer (just doin' my job the best I can, for those I care about, to help my community). TCB *Which, as far as police operations before the war, were predominantly not much different from any other run of the mill unaccountable police state organization, and highly regarded by many around the world. How that is not relevant today escapes me
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things." -- Alex Rosewater |
|||||||||||||||
July 1, 2014, 06:59 PM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 1,085
|
Quote:
TCB
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things." -- Alex Rosewater |
|
July 2, 2014, 02:24 AM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,286
|
barnbwt,I guess I did not clearly make my point about Mayberry.
Columbine occurred about 65 miles from my house and I watched the live feed. It has been a while,but,as I recall,critical time was spent running around outside the building in formation.I do not care what reality was in the heads of the team,the true reality was each time Klebold and Harris fired there was another tragedy. Yes,it was just a sitcom.But the salt of the earth local constable of character that Andy played would have headed to the sound of the guns to stop the killing of his local kids,and IMO,a good man who was not surprised could have got the job done with a model 13 S+W or a lever action Marlin 357.Of couse,two men is better,but an army of one with even a good 22 rifle would have stopped Klebold and Harris. I have the idea that the woman who stopped the killer at the New Life Church prefers anonymity and wants to be left alone.I'll not mention her name.She went to the mega-church with her CCW,and was serving as church security. The bad guy killed coming into the building,wounded some once inside.As I recall,he was carrying an AR,multiple handguns,and approx. 1000 rounds.He was there to rack up a body count. Dressed for church,one woman with her handgun went to the gunfire and put him down. IIRC,it was not a SWAT TEAM that put down the first Ft Hood shooter,either.Seems like a woman officer with a handgun had somethind to do with it.She was hit,too. I used Andy Griffin and Mayberry I could have used Jimmy Stewart in High Noon. See,I work in a school,an elementary school. No gun. I do have a hardwood mop handle. If something like a Sandy Hook began at my school,I guess I do not know how I would do.Talk is cheap. I hope I would do as well as the teachers at Sandy Hook.Its my school,my kids. Sometimes,"It is a good day to die" I recall a youtube about an old woman who took on a bear that was mauling her husband.She had a shovel or a broom or something. She won,when the bear left,she was surprised to find it was her husband.She thought it was her dog. Then there is the woman who bit the ear off of the pit bull that was mauling her 3 year old. She did not take time to get on her black suit...and,she risked her own life. It was her kid. Many years ago a nut here,next town south,took a waitress hostage in a busy restaurant.There was a standoff.police sniper took a through the glass shot with his .243.Didn't work out.Bad guy killed the woman. An old guy customer had been hiding in the restroom.He tried escaping out the restroom window.He was an unarmed old guy.In the real world,he was no threat. But,to some of the officers in the parking lot,in the reality in their head,he was a good reason for a hi-cap 9 mm mag dump. The old guy took a lot of hits.He died.How come? Serve and protect,or kill people and break things? Last edited by HiBC; July 2, 2014 at 02:47 AM. |
July 2, 2014, 05:52 AM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 720
|
HiBC,
Your last post makes no sense to me. How are your examples relevant to the topic? |
July 2, 2014, 07:30 AM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
|
One problem is that the Gov't in it's generocity gives local police funds for equipment etc .So they form SWAT teams .
Then ?? Well the police think we have to use those things , so SWAT is used when it's not needed ! Down the road to ruin ! BTW the agent who killed a civilian at Ruby Ridge was also at Waco. He was a member of FBI HRT - Hostage RESCUE Team ! Every cop I asked said without any doubt Ruby Ridge was murder !!
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver ! |
July 2, 2014, 09:31 AM | #84 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
July 2, 2014, 10:32 AM | #85 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 2, 2014, 11:25 AM | #86 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Minor thread hijack...
Quote:
AFAIK the US military has not sold significant numbers of surplus combat aircraft (as opposed to transports, unarmed trainers, and light utility aircraft) to civilians since the end of WWII. Some of today's flyable WWII warbirds were sold outright, but the military was wary of creating a light aircraft glut like the one that occurred post-WWI, and they also rapidly figured out that aircraft made great party favors for friendly (i.e. anti-Soviet) 3rd-world governments in the developing Cold War. Most flyable post-WWII Western warbirds in civilian hands passed through a foreign military owner on the way, and many are actually on semi-permanent loan from the US military. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; July 2, 2014 at 11:29 AM. Reason: reword |
||
July 2, 2014, 11:25 AM | #87 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
What I read was that the sentences but not the convictions were vacated - i.e. they served no time for them, but still have that conviction on their record. But my source could be inaccurate. I'll have to look further.
As for "constructive possession" that's led to any number of searches and convictions. I haven't yet seen any court case that deems the practice unlawful. Edit to Add: It's Castillo v US 530 U.S. 120 (2000) Where the question appealed was whether it was proved to jury that machine guns were used, not whether machine guns were present at all. Had machine guns not been present at all, would it have even gotten that far? Last edited by JimDandy; July 2, 2014 at 11:32 AM. |
July 2, 2014, 01:59 PM | #88 | |
Junior member
Join Date: June 17, 2014
Posts: 242
|
Quote:
|
|
July 2, 2014, 02:30 PM | #89 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
That's some pretty dark humor, but also a valid point. There was some attempt at prosecuting at least one of the officers/agents involved.
|
July 2, 2014, 07:31 PM | #90 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 1,085
|
"You're assuming that was an accident..."
I truly think it was. If the sniper was aiming to kill anyone, it would have been her husband. I think he was an incompetent idiot (see Waco, also on his resume) ginned up by the earlier fatal shootout, and screwed up royally. There was no logical or nefarious reason to kill that woman the way he did. "...our military is planning on putting retired A-10 Warthogs complete with GAU-8's still mounted out for surplus." "And you think local police forces are going to just pick one up at the auction?" What? No. Screw the police; I'm talking about me . I could maybe afford a parts-kit, at least I'm dead serious on the Predators, though; I think their re-deployment is as plain as day already (since one or two precincts have already purchased their own). Much like police helicopters and wildly expensive fire trucks, they will be a preposterous waste of taxpayer resources, which are unnecessary more than 99% of the time, while eating expensive service/fuel contracts until something big finally breaks and it then sits idle forever more until being surplused at auction years later. In my experience, the worst offending agencies in this regard are suburban ones, especially ones that are growing; they/city govt. are all convinced the boom will turn them into the adjacent metroplex, 'so they better gear up in advance' and buy the same toys and capabilities as a city five times the size with three times the crime rate And we've only been talking about visible shows of force up to now; many police are rapidly acquiring straight-up signals intelligence, integrated surveillance, and electronic warfare capabilities. To tell you the truth, the little miniature FLIR turrets popping up atop squad cars give me the most worry for tomorrow. If they all aren't already, those cameras will be collecting 24-7, tagging faces, license plates, and GPS coordinates --all of it perfectly legal, individually-- and either storing the data for later evidence, or more likely, distilling it into dossiers which make accessing the data more convenient. With significant development of the technology along its current direction, suspicious behavior could very easily consist of significantly deviating from your daily routine, and elicit a walk-up by an officer as your phone is jammed --again, perfectly legal, and quite arguably justifiable since a deviation from your daily routine is more likely to end in deviant behavior. A brave new world of proactive policing, but do we really want to live in one? Quote:
For low-level crimes like hunting without a magazine tube plug, I can see constructive intent (lack of a plug or possession of hi cap mags outside the rifle) being acceptable when the issues are simple and explanations sparse. But for NFA items the penalties are positively Draconian, the rules the epitome of Byzantine, and that's when there are rules. The ATF can still decide at any time to prosecute you regardless what you have done or made, so long as they believe a case can be made against you; there is no legal definition, direction, or case law in many areas of the gun building hobby, and you must fly blind and low lest you attract the dragon's gaze. Their experts are given enormous leeway by ignorant judges, rarely questioned, and practically incontrovertible by outside opinions. The H&K G3 trigger pack is simultaneously subject to the harshest semi-auto conversion criteria, widely available in legal full-auto format, has at least three different ways of being registered as a machine gun, is still convertible to full auto fire, and in original full-auto form can still be fitted into the legally-compliant and denial-featured receivers. It is the definition of Kafka-esque regulatory insanity. Fortunately, up to now the ATF has been reticent to use this often-questionable tactic against people except as an added/base charge to other serious crimes like outright machinegun manufacture, illegal sales, or drug charges. I personally see it as unacceptably close to trumping charges, and would greatly prefer their prosecutorial authority be curtailed to cases of actual possession, which has no room for abuse of enforcement in this manner. Imagine if merely buying a rope and shovel at Home Depot could get you nailed for attempted murder. Quote:
"A UPS driver described a package that had broken open on delivery to the Branch Davidian residence, revealing firearms, inert grenade casings, and black powder" --Wikipedia, crappy source but whatever Not that the BD's were blameless, but the 'precursor grenades' were hardly the source of danger in the attack (rather, the CS gas grenades were), nor their alleged machine guns. I also don't see the circumstantial evidence recovered, after the very tenuous initial suspicions, after the very questionable investigator conduct, or the very provocative enforcement response to be much justification for the whole affair, even if it had been found ahead of time through legal means. This whole thing started as a personal beef between the Branch and trunk cults/groups that was exploited by local/federal authorities in order to rid themselves of that no-good weirdo Davidian cult compound that hadn't gotten along with the police for some time. Like many unjustified displays of excessive government force, it got out of hand and had terrible consequences when the citizens resisted. Ruby Ridge was a smaller scale, but actually had far worse blantant abuses IMO, since the Davidians' paranoia was at least half the problem in Waco and made the situation irreconcilable. Quote:
"foolish to pretend our choice of kit has no bearing on our mindset." "Really? I have an AR-15. I plink away with it...My mindset in no way includes the idea I should run around in tactical gear...I have a whimsical half-formed plan to get a shotgun for three-gun. This doesn't mean my mindset involves pulling on some Camo, and all that gear, plus getting a surplus plate carrier, and PASGT if I ever hear a noise in the kitchen at night. Probably good news for one of the guys I live with as he's a midnight snacker." So you listed some guns, kinda dismissively, making me think they aren't your choice...so what is? I am not calling attention to equipment, but choice of equipment for a purpose. Choosing an AR15 for home defense is one thing, slinging up for a walk down the street another. I support your ability to legally do so, but I think such an act is indicative of a mindset geared towards intimidation and civil disturbance. I have a pistol at the bedside; seems adequate for my needs and mindset of low-profile, effective, and simple home defense. Mindset is revealed by choices. "the police are less so [constrained by laws], so we get to see their motivations more plainly." "I'm confused. You start out strongly agreeing with the idea that police, as civilians, should be treated exactly as we are. Then you yourself separate them out and treat them differently giving them far less of a benefit of the doubt." I am building a semi-auto belt-fed weapon; a ZB37. Once it is built, I have no intentions of mounting it to my car, rooftop, or even aiming it at the front door as a primary position of home defense. It will only be transported and used for range fun; that is indicative of a mindset of peaceful recreation. Were I to use it for any of those other legal activities, it could easily be argued I am seeking to intimidate and strike fear in others. How is this not the case for our police officers as well when they parade with heavy weapons and military tactics/vehicles? Because they might actually use them on people?! Talk about counter-intuitive! Contrary to your accusation, I perceive police officers exactly like my fellow non-LEOs; and I would not appreciate a neighbor's public arms race being rubbed in my face either (let alone pay for it). Nor would I appreciate them dressing in all-black with dark sunglasses complete with surly demeanor in order to better 'maintain control' (intimidate) in our casual interactions or conversations. Way too common a sight in the LEO community (seems worst in suburban locales, though) TCB
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things." -- Alex Rosewater |
|||
July 3, 2014, 09:11 AM | #91 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Fire trucks are monstrous pieces of machinery and sadly cost money to make. Additionally they're made by private companies who can charge market rate for them, and the intellectual property ideas involved in their customisation. Are you suggesting Pierce and other firetruck companies should be required to work for free, and/or provide the raw materials for these trucks on a gratis basis? Police helicopters are or were frequently military surplus that didn't cost the police departments any more than the cost to pick them up and then the costs to maintain and them. As they'd already been paid for with tax revenue giving them a second life and preventing the cost of MORE taxes to buy a DIFFERENT helicopter for police doesn't stress me too much. Quote:
Can people force others not to take their picture? Is it a crime to jot down the license plate of a car parked on the street? GPS locations? Really? You have some problem with recording the physical location of a patrol car 24/7? Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
July 3, 2014, 09:20 AM | #92 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 668
|
On the unrelated topic- the A-10s being retired and surplused out is a Damn Shame, and one I think we will come to regret when we finally realize that the F-35 cannot do the same thing.
I want to separate this militarization-of-the-police thing into two separate categories. If you want to argue about military-style tactics being used by law enforcement, then feel free. I'm not going to participate in that argument anymore. But I think it's pretty dumb to argue about military-style equipment being used by law enforcement agencies. Those arguments typically go like this: Poster 1: "Why do the police need body armor, military-style assault rifles, and armored Humvees? Nobody needs that stuff! If they get military-style equipment, they'll start acting like soldiers!" That SAME poster will find no cognitive dissonance in posting in another thread: Poster 1: "Michael Bloomberg has no right to tell me what kind of rifle I need RAWR the difference between an AR-15 and a Mini-14 is only cosmetic anyway military-style assault rifle is a made-up term by rabid Communist antigunners RAAAAAAAAGE my AK-47 has never killed anybody my modern sporting rifles don't make me some frothing mercenary commando killer WHIIIINE." Seriously. Is there military equipment for which there is no law enforcement use? Sure. But 99.9% of what gets surplused out from DoD to local law enforcement agencies has a valid law enforcement purpose. Why are the same people who complain about their guns being judged solely on their cosmetic appearance moaning about police using equipment that differs from non-military law enforcement equipment solely by provenance and cosmetic appearance? Will you see armored Humvees on patrol in your neighborhood? I doubt it. For one, they accelerate like dying cows, and I've never been able to get one to go much more than 60 mph even with my foot mashed on the accelerator. Did your local PD get a surplus UH-1? So what? They'll find they don't have the funds or expertise to maintain it, and it'll become a relatively minor example of government waste and inefficiency, not the first step to the blue-helmeted jackboots going door to door asking for your papers. |
July 3, 2014, 09:32 AM | #93 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
July 3, 2014, 09:53 AM | #94 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
|
July 3, 2014, 10:25 AM | #95 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 3, 2014, 10:26 AM | #96 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
July 3, 2014, 10:46 AM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The NFA fee isn't the crucial problem, it is the ban on new fully auto guns.
If we had to pay the 200 bucks and get them - many would jump at the chance. That's a different issue from the fee.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 3, 2014, 10:55 AM | #98 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Quote:
Are you saying that LEO's who are issued full auto firearms go through the same background checks and WAIT as private citizens? Does the dept pay the $200 tax every time they issue the gun to someone else? I don't think so. While LEOs who personally own full autos should be just the same as everyone else (private ownership), they probably have a leg up when it comes to getting the CLEO sign off. But Dept. owned weapons? Aren't they different (ATF process)? Issued arms are not "ownership transfers", are they? I don't think they are, and I don't think the officer being issued the weapon goes through the same process as those who privately own full auto arms. Really, I'd love to see the situation where officers who are going to be using full auto weapons on duty have to wait the same months/years for BATFE approval, and pay the transfer fee out of their own pocket that "civilians" do, before they can take possession of that M4, or whatever, and put it in the patrol car.... IF, somehow, you could force them to have to live under the same rules and laws as the rest of us, you just might see some return to sanity in gun laws. Of course, I'm not holding my breath...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
July 3, 2014, 11:06 AM | #99 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
As for the tax stamp, I'm not sure if the department pays it or if it's not paid at all. I just remember someone mentioning they had all sorts of NFA paperwork to do when the department gets this stuff in. Regardless, the department owns the firearm, and does whatever is legally required, not the officer. Nor does the officer get to keep it when they're no longer an officer. Quote:
|
||
July 3, 2014, 12:43 PM | #100 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nati...-firearms.html So it is tax exempt, as are other typical government purchases. Non-NFA firearms also are typically tax (FET) exempt as is ammo. As to if the wait time is different, no clue. My take on the ownership/transfer is that it is not a change of ownership when the firearm is issued because it would still not belong to the officer to do as he/she wishes. That is just a non-professional opinion though. As to the loaned firearms from the military it would vary on the state office handling it. Generally speaking has to be physically inventoried by taking it to the state office annually to be inventoried. Doesn't matter of it is restricted or not. Even a lowly pump shotgun gets inventoried and treated the same as it is on loan. |
||
|
|