Special Citizens

[I'vebeenduped]

"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."

Perhaps you could point out the comments which you felt were hostile toward LEO's? It may very well be that you read them wrong or simply misconstrued them. It may also be that you are either an active or retired LEO and maybe a bit oversensitive to a conversation about them. I don't think anyone here in this forum is hostile towards LEO's but to a system that divides people further into castes.

[JimDandy]

i have to admit that i am surprised by the hostility, vehemence, and ignorance toward LEO's displayed in this thread

Heyjoe-

For most of us- obviously some of us DO have an anti-authority bias that goes beyond police but again for most of us- Its not the police we have a problem with, but the special treatment they're getting in legislation crafting.

I have zero problem with the goal of the LEOSA act for example. I have a problem with the principle of how they got there. If I were to challenge the law, and win, I'd even go so far as to ask the court to announce their verdict but somehow delay the application of the verdict for a reasonable period for the Congress to craft something constitutional that does the same thing- perhaps national reciprocity perhaps something else.

I can't think of a single special privilege- well official one anyway- law enforcement has BEYOND arms. Even the immunity from prosecution for committing crimes extends to civilians acting in concert with police forces in an undercover sting. Children buying tobacco or alcohol is just one example that leaps off the page at me.

[I'vebeenduped]

Heyjoe,

I have re-read this post from beginning to end. I could not see anything that I would construe of as offensive. However, since I was the one that started this thread, I apologize that you felt so. I do hope that you re-read the very first post and see that this thread was intentionally written with the hopes that no one would be offended. This having been stated, I look forward to you continuing in this thread for a civilized, courteous debate.

David

[Punisher_1]

What I find amusing is that, at least in the Sheriff's Department I served in for 26 years, that most of the deputies don't really care about the shooting sports or owning rifles. It was hard to find someone interested in going shooting on weekends and if I could find somebody who was interested they didn't own the right type of firearm or have any ammunition. I had to lend them my stuff half the time. I found it amusing that a group of people who carry for a living never had much more than what was issued to them. These are the same people I would get a kick out of on that "once a year" qualification of 40 rounds for their performance. I'd like to know what study or information was obtained to make LEOs a necessary exception to a possible future law in the politicians mind or was it just to quell any complaining or road blocks on the issue.

[MLeake]

heyjoe, I don't have to dislike or disrespect cops to think that they should not be afforded special privileges.

A couple of my best friends are cops, in fact, and they are pro-RKBA.

LEOSA is a special privilege; until we have national reciprocity for all law-abiding citizens, I do not see why we should have extra-jurisdictional reciprocity for active LEOs, nor national reciprocity for retired LEOs.

While you may think that viewpoint is divisive, my take on it is different - the existence of LEOSA allows antis to say "the rest of you don't need guns, we have all these police officers carrying." It allows anti pols to claim they reached across the aisle in crafting pro-RKBA legislation.

To that extent, LEOs have been used as pawns.

[Willie Sutton]

"To that extent, LEOs have been used as pawns."

And have not exactly been found complaining about it either.....



Willie



.

The early apples were now ripening, and the grass of the orchard was littered with windfalls. The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally; one day, however, the order went forth that all the windfalls were to be collected and brought to the harness-room for the use of the pigs. At this some of the other animals murmured, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon. Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others."Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades," cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?" Now if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this light, they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the pigs in good health was all too obvious. So it was agreed without further argument that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone.

In a way, the world-view of the party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violation, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything and what they swallowed did them no harm because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.

George Orwell, Animal Farm

.

[Sarge]

On the cop thing... there are a certain number of folks who just don't like the po-po. Sometimes this is caused by random contact with a badge-wearing wanker. (I don't like badge-wearing wankers either.)

Sometimes this the irrational reaction of people who were caught consciously doing something blatantly illegal (child molestation, armed robbery, felon in possession of a firearm, etc.) and they refuse to accept responsibility for the unpleasant consequences that result. "Damn pigs singled me out/set me up" etc. "I gonna keel that mofo when I get out!!"

You stay in the biz long enough, you make enemies. You make enough enemies, sooner or later one will try to settle your hash. That alone is justification enough for cops to carry 24/7. I've experienced it, so It doesn't bother me that some folks disagree with that on its face. I simply don't care what anybody else thinks of it.

There is a widespread notion that cops don't like to shoot, can't shoot or are buffoons with guns. Not in my circles... but I've been a handgun aficionado since my teens. Heck one of the reasons LE interested me was because I loved to shoot. The guys in my outfit are shooters to the last man- always dragging in some new acquisition or asking about one they want to buy. Repeat cycle with holsters, scopes, magazines and accessories. A HUGE number of us are pro-2A. We have, in some cases, drawn the ire of our superiors and compromised out careers because of our stance on this subject. We are not the uniforms you see standing behind the anti-gun politician at the press conference. There are, unfortunately, a few of my number who will do it.

I'm not going to change anybody's mind here and that's cool. I'll just suggest that you rethink the notion that every cop lives it and breathes 'the job' all the time. If you knew me, you'd know how small a part of me the badge really occupies. I do my job with it on and I am glad to take it off at the end of the day. I sure as heck don't go looking for stuff on my days off.

Except gun bargains, ammo & reloading components. I still love to shoot.

[JimDandy]

That's about what I said Sarge. And like most of us have said, we don't object to LEOSA, we just feel its only half of what should have been enacted. Especially to be "legal" constitutionally- and that national reciprocity or some form of civilian inclusion should have been there to maintain equal protection.

The notion that cops don't like to shoot, or as a generality are bufoons is not widespread here. More than just you are LEO's who post here. I had a teacher who was married to the sheriff of my county, though she wasn't at the time, she was still working her way up. He routinely outshot his wife, but she was no slouch.

Some of the recent posts may not have been clear. LEO's have been used as pawns... not just the police chief up there reading the speech written by the Mayor's staff, or the Sheriff pandering to his pro-2A county in preparation for his/her next election. Both aren't unheard of- but even the rank and file who don't have a "voice".

By including LEO exemptions, they both nullify the drive for most of the rank and file to speak out, heading off that argument before it's made, AND subtly divide gun owners into two camps of "responsible law enforcement" and "reckless gun nuts". Now Willie pointed out the rank and file officers aren't saying much about this, but its difficult to blame them. I don't see a lot of men commenting on sexual assault in the military, or abortion rights either. If you don't have a dog in the pony show, you don't work too hard selling tickets- See that nullification point above-

[Sarge]

As far as I'm concerned Jim, national reciprocity of CCW permits should be a given. Of course when you request a 'national' acceptance of anything, you invite federal oversight of it.

[breakingcontact]

Glad to see the LEO worship is subsiding.

[Punisher_1]

Yeah, "LEO worship" is subsiding at the same rate as "citizens are basically good people".

LEOs are getting less respect than they used to because of the way they act or the things that they do. This is because LEOs come from society not some magical ethics world. As society degrades so will those who serve the public.

[Evan Thomas]

Most LEOs deserve respect.

That said, this thread is about specific legislation and its consequences, and neither worship or cop-bashing will add to the discussion. The latter, especially, will have its own consequences.

[breakingcontact]

Originally Posted by Punisher_1

LEOs are getting less respect than they used to because of the way they act or the things that they do. This is because LEOs come from society not some magical ethics world. As society degrades so will those who serve the public.

Agreed. They come from the society and are empowered by the government. And government as well comes from the people. Its all connected eh?

Originally Posted by Vanya

Most ...neither worship or cop-bashing will add to the discussion. The latter, especially, will have its own consequences.

Bashing...I'd agree is a NO GO. Being critical of LEOs shouldn't be seen as bashing however and we shouldn't be so terrified of exposing them as individuals or PDs as institutions when the "special citizens" or the organizations the empower them get out of line.

[JimDandy]

Being critical of LEOs shouldn't be seen as bashing

Depends on how it's done. A generic negative categorization of all LEO's everywhere is bashing. An historic pattern referenced of ONE department, or several specific departments that share that same historic pattern evidenced by federal investigations and mandates isn't.

To me: LEO's are turning to crap is bashing however -> LAPD and Seattle PD have both had a history of poor choices from management on down leading to the Feds getting directly involved in those management decisions trickling down to the rank and file... is not. Neither is: NYPD has some image rehab to do following their stop and frisk program. The difference is a specific pattern or program that can be attributed to a specific department.

[shootniron]

Also, I do not think that is bashing when exposing what appears to be a discriminatory trend in laws favoring LAW ENFORCEMENT as a whole.

[breakingcontact]

^of course^ that's why I said criticize (meaning it stemmed from study) and not bash (meaning it stemmed from emotion).

Ill upgrade my comment with the adjective "specific". We should have specific criticism and skepticism of LEOs and PDs. Not for recreational purposes but so they improve. After all, they are OUR servants. Not the other way around.

ATX has an interested police chief and PD. Good and bad. I never bash him/them but there are appropriate and specific criticisms to offer up.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

Depends on how it's done. A generic negative categorization of all LEO's everywhere is bashing. An historic pattern referenced of ONE department, or several specific departments that share that same historic pattern evidenced by federal investigations and mandates isn't.

And we have a winner! Thank you, JD.

<nudges thread back on topic>

[Fishing_Cabin]

I do not feel there is a special citizen status applied to LEO's. Many of the politicians though want to keep either their level of security (for those that have security details), or to be able to say "Hey, the public is still protected because we allow LE to carry/possess certain firearms." I think this aspect is what has been pushing for some of the LE exemptions over the years, and not a specific feeling that LE is greater then the public.

Getting back to the OP:

Originally Posted by OP

...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.

I do agree with the sentiment about personal ownership you mentioned for the most part. The part I do disagree with you is that due to the budget situation, there are departments that refuse to purchase the item (mostly carbines) and basically push the officer to do without, or purchase hisself (where legal).

Also, for some of the small towns/rural counties, there may not be a SWAT unit to call (speaking of a useful response time) nor may there be a huge availability of officers to respond to assist. I know where I work, there is 1 or 2 officers working (depending on day/time/etc) and even though its fairly normal calls (nothing major usually), I do see a need for an officer to be able to carry a carbine because he/she may be on their own for a bit if a shooting was called dispatched out. Nearest available deputy may be in the far corner of the county and be 30-45 min out or more. So I do realize I am a bit biased here with this view. Also, for the record, I do not feel that the public should be restricted from owning the various firearms and mags that are being discussed, or banned in some states.

Originally Posted by JimDandy

...And like most of us have said, we don't object to LEOSA, we just feel its only half of what should have been enacted...

I hear a good bit of complaints about the public about LEOSA from non-LE folks, and I see what they are getting at with respect to being able to carry a few more places under LEOSA, then is able to with a CCW permit. What most fail to see is how LEOSA is essentially a "may issue" and comes with the whim of the admin of the department, which is vastly different from how a "shall issue" CCW permit is.

Like it or not, I prefer an interstate compact type system for the CCW's and every state being "shall issue" and my view is due to the states rights side of the issue. Also, due to LE agencies restricting an officers ability to carry with a CCW permit off duty, I do feel that either, the ability to restrict off duty carry needs to change, or there should be some level of "shall issue" for law enforcement also (speaking of LEOSA), as it is for the public in many states.

[basilisk4]

I'm fairly new to the site, and I'm basically continuing off-topic, so I guess that's two strikes against me. But I have been reading this thread and I can't help but think of a conversation my wife and I have had repeatedly as long as I've known her. I think that police officers, judges, etc. are entitled to respect by virtue of their position. The individual officer/judge may be a jerk, but the "system" only works when those people have the public's respect. If officers and/or judges are on average of such low quality at this point, then we are in trouble.

[mrbatchelor]

Originally Posted by basilisk4

The individual officer/judge may be a jerk, but the "system" only works when those people have the public's respect. If officers and/or judges are on average of such low quality at this point, then we are in trouble.

I think this is part of the problem. We are in trouble, but not necessarily because the individual people filling the positions are "such low quality" to make it so. Although I'll not deny knowing a few specific bad apples myself. And I know good ones too.

I come from a family that is basically "full of cops" if you will. A number of LEOs as cousins, though neither I nor my wife work in enforcement. And previous generations as well. So I saw some changes.

And I can certainly say that the days of the friendly officer sitting at the lunch counter talking to the little boy in the Norman Rockwell picture are long gone. Forever.

In part it's sociological change in how a far more densely congregated and sophisticated criminal element interacts with law enforcement. After the fourth or fifth gang murder of Barney Fife occurs the small towns police department gets far less friendly. And just because you might not be out to kill Barney doesn't mean he knows that when he stops you.

After a while Barney can't take police work any more, and Kojak shows up.

Certainly I've condensed 65 years into 50 words, but I hope you get the point. The police *ARE* different today. They have to be. And it's a shame, no kidding.

And I agree that a lot of law enforcement agencies are reaching a tipping point that they're loosing the confidence of the citizenry, which is dangerous. They have to correct and step back. I'm not going to rehash the recent LAPD debacle in this post, but I think that set them back quite a few yards behind the scrimmage in the public trust game.

I don't have those answers. Wish I did.

[TDL]

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.

Maybe but the response is to this assertion of special rights. for police officers. It isn't just carry, it is even soley non official, not department owner home defense weapons lases that police and polciue organizaitosn have insisted on special exemptions.

Look at the comment below:

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 ?

There is no evidence that retired or active police are at any more risk at home from felons than the general public is at risk. In fact the numbers show they are in less danger at home.


If anything police and retired police are MUCH more likely to use a weapon to commit suicide, so to apply the current climate's logic it is specifically active and retired police who should be the most prohibited class for home weapons ownership.

When you couple those facts with the evident presence of a large number of high ranking police officials donning their uniforms to publically support gun control -- and participate in the smearing, stigmatizing and scapegoating of law abiding owners --and not raise the issue of felons on the street, you get a natural and just resentment.

Do you think a retired NY cop ought to be able to keep a 10 round clip on his home defense weapons when he is factually in no more danger than anyone else or not? If you think so you are part of the smear and irrational fear campaign. Do you think retired cops who hire themselves out as private security to the wealthy ought to be able to have 10 round clips? If so you are asserting special status for the wealthy as well as for the cops

[basilisk4]

Very insightful post, mrbatchelor. As with many issues, there are multiple potential causes and no obvious solution. But I think you hit on one of the real problems with police forces today: how militarized they are. It has occurred to me more than once in the last few years -- and the specific issue posed by this thread really brings it home -- that some of our law enforcement agencies may be in the process of becoming exactly what our founding fathers were afraid of.

[terzmo]

"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. "

I understand the above position, being a Father, also retired military, but in most circumstances, the police are responding after the fact. And when they do get active, they respond in numbers, have swat teams, negotiators, other special units and the "every day LEO is mostly backup,crowd control or traffic.

We, on the otherhand, in a situation, it's US as in singular. I'm not saying anything to lower the value of any LEO, or simplify their duties but "WE" are mostly defending ourselves alone. And "WE" don't have kevlar and bullet resistent vests.

I believe in equal armament as to say if "WE" can't have semi automatic weopons and large magazines, why should "they" or anyone else in a domestic setting.

The "safe act" was a knee jerk oportunity for a shot at the fast track to the presidency. It is not "common sense" as the dictator states.

All the mass shootings are horrible. But so is the manner the president used with live children to support his values. The anti gunners are fueled by mass murders but fail to acknowlege that law abiding sane citizens who are following current restrictive laws, are not involved but the proposed legislation,and current, mostly affects the sane,law abiding citizen.

Change the laws that upon a pat down, if an illegal weopon is found..5 years minimum with no parole. 10 years minimum for a crime with a weopon..no parole...20 years to life if injury or death....no parole....no exceptions.
Get the illegal people off the streets. Leave the sane,law abiding citizen alone.

[mrbatchelor]

Originally Posted by basilisk4

Very insightful post, mrbatchelor. As with many issues, there are multiple potential causes and no obvious solution. But I think you hit on one of the real problems with police forces today: how militarized they are. It has occurred to me more than once in the last few years -- and the specific issue posed by this thread really brings it home -- that some of our law enforcement agencies may be in the process of becoming exactly what our founding fathers were afraid of.

There weren't any "police forces" in 1776. The whole concept is relatively new in history. Not to say that there hasn't been a "high sheriff" for centuries. Especially in places under English common law.

But the militarization of crime is driving the militarization of law enforcement. And that comes from money. Profit. Pure and simple. Nothing more. The number of weirdos in crime for the power trip is vanishingly small.

[heyjoe]

TDL

There is no evidence that retired or active police are at any more risk at home from felons than the general public is at risk. In fact the numbers show they are in less danger at home.

do you have a citation for that? this is the first i have heard of that.