Why should police be exempt from laws, mag limits?

[Hopyard]

I truly do not believe the issue being raised is "Limit the Police", the issue is "Don't Limit Citizens." I can't imagine anyone really wants to limit the police, they just don't want citizens to be limited. We're all walking around on the same streets, allbeit with different levels of responsibility when something happens. I have a duty to go home, police have a duty to go to the aid of others, often into an already escalated and unknown situation. Different responsibilities, same streets. I don't want ANYONE to be at a disadvantage when dealing with the criminal element.

RE to part in bold: Followed to the logical end, you are proposing an arms race with citizens getting more and more firepower
and police having to keep ahead of the curve. We are (and have been for too long) in such an arms race. I don't know how
to stop it, but its long past time to stop it.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Hopyard]

Let met start by saying I don't agree with what the guy at Penny's did. It comes down to the just because something is legal doesn't make it smart argument that we've had over similar incidents time and again.

Now, with respect to the part I quoted above, the day that the average citizen needs to be curtailed for the protection of the police, we've got a really big problem. This is the same sort of garbage reasoning that I see coming from the antis on the left, that the citizens need to be limited because a few of them might go crazy and shoot up a school but if we pass a law that prohibits them we'll all be safe.

Re: Part in bold, we do have a really big problem. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

[chuckusaret]

The opinion, of some, that the police should be allowed more firepower than the law abiding citizen, why? Are we the threat? It has been proven over and over that a WB does not reduce criminal activity with guns or the type guns used, but does limit the law abiding the right to protect themselves against the criminals. In my area convenience store, gas station, car jacking, bump and rob, home invasions, and pedestrian robberies saw a drastic reduction after the the 1987 right to carry law and the recent Castle laws were approved.

There has been an increasing amount of concern by a large percentage of citizens as to why the increased need of local police departments to be equipped with military style combat gear. Who are there intended enemy? Quite evident it is not the terrorist or the gangs. Must be me and you.

I also believe the direction our present administration is taking is to limit our armed ability to not allow them to carry out their present agenda. Read my signature below.

[BugDude]

RE to part in bold: Followed to the logical end, you are proposing an arms race with citizens getting more and more firepower
and police having to keep ahead of the curve. We are (and have been for too long) in such an arms race. I don't know how
to stop it, but its long past time to stop it.

The arms race is not between LEO and law-abiding citizens. It is between LEO and Criminals. Limiting the capacity of the law-abiding citizens does not impact the race with the criminals. It simply puts the law-abiding citizen at a distinct disadvantage when confronting the criminals. Otherwise, you would limit the citizens to snubnose revolvers, while the police AND criminals have hi capacity semi-autos. Put the citizenry on a level playing field with the criminals.

[Hopyard]

The arms race is not between LEO and law-abiding citizens. It is between LEO and Criminals. Limiting the capacity of the law-abiding citizens does not impact the race with the criminals. It simply puts the law-abiding citizen at a distinct disadvantage when confronting the criminals. Otherwise, you would limit the citizens to snubnose revolvers, while the police AND criminals have hi capacity semi-autos. Put the citizenry on a level playing field with the criminals.

For discussion sake, I want to separate out two portions of the law abiding gun owning community: the license holder and
everyone else. The segment of the gun owning community which concerns me is the portion who are not license holders.

We know that license holders aren't the problem, but non-license holders with access to weapons are. We have no way
of knowing if any one particular owner of a rifle with a high cap is law abiding or not. Maybe the NICS was done, but
not the more thorough background check typically done in most states of CC holders.

I'd gladly let the CHL holder have whatever they want in both pistols, and rifles, because that is not where the problems come from. This of course runs counter to the intuitive instinct of many on 2A issues; it sounds like a step too far from
pure 2A libertarian principles. Well if we go that route, we are going to have to make sure our LEs can outgun the
folks who haven't submitted 10 fingers for printing, had inquiries made about them at their local police department, had record
searches done beyond NICs, submitted photos, and in my state personally appeared before an instructor who just might
decide to quietly let DPS know not to issue out of a MH concern.

We need real world solutions to our problems and right now neither side, not NRA nor Bloomberg, not GOA nor Brady, are
working towards solving our problems; everyone is just yelling at each other and some are making threats.

[Cupcake]

The arms race is not between LEO and law-abiding citizens. It is between LEO and Criminals. Limiting the capacity of the law-abiding citizens does not impact the race with the criminals. It simply puts the law-abiding citizen at a distinct disadvantage when confronting the criminals. Otherwise, you would limit the citizens to snubnose revolvers, while the police AND criminals have hi capacity semi-autos. Put the citizenry on a level playing field with the criminals.

That's what we're saying We want to stay on a level playing field with the criminals, but it does not benefit us to ALSO put the guy across the street from me at a disadvantage just because we feel cheated by legislation that he did not create.

[Buzz64]

This is a great place to vent frustrations. We all do to a degree. Police have a job to enforce the law, which includes placing themselves directly in danger. We do not. So while on "duty" yes, police should have unlimited resources to include as many rounds as their weapon can hold and still be carried to do their job. If you can carry 100 rounds more power to you, however off duty should be held to the same laws they inforce. Nothing wrong with LEO and civilians working together on anything.

[SIXTO]

LE is also exempt from Class III stuff.
My guess is they are on the offense with a target on their back. We are just defense and should be off the radar.

To proctect and serve

No they're not.

[chuckusaret]

No they're not.

They are not exempt Class lll? My department must be, they have at least 6 HK MP5's and they are full auto.

[noway2]

For discussion sake, I want to separate out two portions of the law abiding gun owning community: the license holder and
everyone else. (The rest of the post was snipped for brevity.)

Thank you for raising this point. I have been trying to raise it in other areas. Yes, I realize that the idea of needing a permit at all is offensive to the Libertarian.
A very large part of what I see being the problem with the push from coming down from 1600 Penn Ave. and being regurgitated by the antis and the Left is that there has been no such distinction. It has been all or nothing and the position has been that we need to get rid of these things to save the children and call it "common sense". One man's common sense is another man's tomfoolery to borrow a word from you.

Those who have taken the steps to stand up and declare themselves law abiding are being squashed. This needs to stop.

[Kilowatt3]

Do you go looking for criminals for a living? If not don't compare yourself with working officers...

No, I don't. But there are criminals looking for me (and you) for a living. I think we're just as entitled to survive as the cops are.

It's kind of a moot point, anyway. As BugDude said, "Do away with limits and there's no issue regarding special treatment."

[Kilowatt3]

...Well if we go that route, we are going to have to make sure our LEs can outgun the
folks who haven't submitted 10 fingers for printing, had inquiries made about them at their local police department, had record
searches done beyond NICs, submitted photos, and in my state personally appeared before an instructor who just might
decide to quietly let DPS know not to issue out of a MH concern...

Please enlighten us as to how ANY gun law can change that?

[Echo_Four]

They are not exempt Class lll? My department must be, they have at least 6 HK MP5's and they are full auto.

The department can own Class 3 stuff, the officers have the same restrictions as everyone else.

[ccw9mm]

The arms race is not between LEO and law-abiding citizens. It is between LEO and Criminals.

Correction: It's between criminals and everyone else. Or, at least it should be.

You're right when you suggest that only those who follow statutes are limited. Translation is, upstanding citizens are the ones behind the ball in the "arms race." That's the primary effect of these feel-good statues. If anything, the constitutional-carry states have shown blood does not magically begin flooding the streets simply due to ceasing the administrative hurdles to the 2A placed in front of everyone like so many legal landmines.

[DontTreadOnI]

Is the LEO community not also susceptible to the same negligence and mental health concerns that the community of law abiding citizens are?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/ny...anted=all&_r=0

N.Y. police officer charged in alleged cannibal plot is U-Md. grad - Rosenwald, Md. - The Washington Post