Why should police be exempt from laws, mag limits?
This is a discussion on Why should police be exempt from laws, mag limits? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by DaveWorkman
Gun owners wonder why police should get special treatment
Police in New York are having fits about suddenly being penalized by ...
January 19th, 2013 04:47 PM
An honest citizen who pays his taxes, wants to protect his family and goes through a NICS check should be able to carry any weapons the police carry.
Originally Posted by DaveWorkman
"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less".
General Robert E. Lee
January 19th, 2013 07:10 PM
I don't know of any LEOs that would disagree that you should be able to carry any freaking gun you want to carry with whatever magazine you feel is necessary. Saying you should be able to over and over does nothing. The issue is that New York has passed a law saying you cannot and whether that should apply to police officers. I don't see any logic in arguing that cops should have to have a limited magazine because non LEOs have to have a limited magazine. Just because stupid people passed a stupid law you want people who will run to the sound of guns to be underarmed? Are the people on this forum really so self absorbed and self centered to believe that others should be at risk just because you don't like the law that passed? I'd think people would at least be glad that the cavalry that is coming to help them when things go south won't be hamstrung by the idiots that limited your magazine capacity.
"The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
- Lt. Col. Oliver North
January 19th, 2013 09:20 PM
What horsepuckey! In the event of violent crimes, non-LEO's are first to encounter criminals and usually many encounter the criminal before the police do. LEO's don't deserve to have any better weapons than non-LEO's. Criminals tend to avoid LEO's and target non-LEO's. Who come's up with this crud?
Having a police force that is, by law, better armed than the average citizenry just separates us that much more. Seems some are still under the false impression that police are always there when needed.
Are you freakin' kidding me - non-license holders are a problem? You're off your rocker. ...... I better shut up now.
January 19th, 2013 09:25 PM
I keep saying im out of this one but i keep seeing posts missing the point.
Originally Posted by Echo_Four
Nobody wants LE underarmed. We dont want us less armed than LE. But the point is if Mr. New York had know up front that whatever limits he set on civilians would apply to LE in that state regardless, as it should be anyway, this stupidity would never have happened.
NY cops would have been up in arms so fast you wouldnt have time to say the word Dictator. And the whole liberal idea that LE eventually will be used to disarm the public wouldnt be worth a spit since the public would have numbers and parity of firepower hence the advantage.
To make LE have to be equal with the public at whatever level the idiots set up by itself would have stopped this nonsense from ever coming up.
No disrespect to LE I love you guys. But the cavalry coming??? Joe citizen 99 precent of the time is either a victim or has defended him herself by the time the "cavalry" is dispatched much less got there to help.
January 19th, 2013 09:25 PM
Short answer they shouldn't IMO.
Originally Posted by DaveWorkman
"The only thing I'm an expert about is my experience."
January 19th, 2013 09:32 PM
...as a former LEO, I feel they surely need all the firepower thery can manage...not uncommon for a lone officer to stop a car with 3-4 bangers in it who are armed...back in the 70s, when we were sporting new M66 .357s, an officer walked up on a 17-year-old dope dealer...carrying an UZI...said he felt kinda naked...
...that being said, I believe private citizens should be just as unrestricted...when seconds count...officers are usually minutes away...
January 19th, 2013 09:45 PM
[sarcasm] Well there you go now. The only solution is the British solution. After all, they are dangerous even in the
Originally Posted by DontTreadOnI
hands of trained LEOS. [/sarcasm]
If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
January 19th, 2013 09:54 PM
The thing is, we solved this years ago. But we left in the pesky democracy part.
Words are truly mightier than the sword.
There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
We have deep thinkers and stinkers in this group that could come up with a solution...
January 19th, 2013 10:22 PM
IMO, that's foolish. It seems no one is thinking at the second level here. Yes, an average citizen may run into a felon. He or she calls the police and the they come out. From that point on, the felon's focal point in normal, everyday situation is the police. It's not uncommon for the police to arrest the same people two, three, four times.
Originally Posted by Buzz64
So, someone please tell me how, when a police officer gets off duty, the criminals somehow decide, "Oh, wait, he's off duty and with his family, I'm not going to retaliate until he puts the uniform back on."
Sorry, but the LEO has a completely different "Off duty" life than you or I do. There is no comparison between the two when it comes to facing criminals or dangers.
That said, I don't think ANYONE here is arguing that civilians should be armed to a less degree than the police. What's being argued here, is that when idiotic legislation is passed conerning gun-control like in NY, it puts the LEO in MORE danger than the average person, both because of what they have to face every day while at work, and because even while off-duty, they're still on duty and have to watch their back much more than the average citizen.
January 19th, 2013 10:41 PM
That's ignorant. "A National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund preliminary report said that in 2011, 62 law enforcement deaths are attributed to firearms, 60 deaths are attributed to traffic-related instances and 44 are attributed to other causes. " You can also go to Law Enforcement Line of Duty Deaths in 2012 to get more stats.
Originally Posted by Jemsaal
Compare that number to the number of homicides in the US, number of justifiable homicides in the US, and the number of defensive uses of guns in the US (you can even pick the most conservative number of 80,000). Felons do not go looking for cops, they avoid them - that's why increased patrols curb crime.
January 20th, 2013 01:26 AM
Okay, first, if you're going to call my post "ignorant," please actually response to my post, instead of what you think I said in my post. When you state "increased patrols curb crime" you are speaking of ON duty, IN uniform officers. My argument, was that when an LEO is OFF duty and OUT OF UNIFORM, they are still on duty because they still live in the same areas (within 20 miles or so) of the people they've arrested. Therefore, they must always be aware of who's around them. They have a much larger target on their back because they have come into contact in a very negative way with KNOWN criminals, often times VIOLENT known criminals as part of their everyday job.
Originally Posted by nedrgr21
Moreover, your "stats" prove nothing against my point for a number of reasons, I'll only point out two: (1) internally, your using different numbers that are not comparable. The first set of numbers are law enforcement deaths attributed to firearms. The second set of numbers however, (the only number you give) is "defensive uses of firearms" which is completely different. How many times did an officer have to use his firearm defensively? How about off duty? This question leads to a second problem; (2) it is impossible to quantify the number of times a policeman that was carrying a weapon off duty in a way that was visible by a criminal stopped a criminal from making an approach on him or his family. Moreover, the idea that an officer has the ability to have a firearm at all times, regardless of civil laws, is itself a deterrent to such an approach. Therefore, it's virtually impossible to quantify how many times an off-duty LEO has been protected from a threat deriving specifically from his line of work. So, for your argument to work here, first you need to use numbers that are internally equal to each other, and then also quantify how many times an attack on an LEO has been thwarted in the dreaming, planning, or execution stages because of the idea that the police officer has the ability to carry all the time (regardless of civil laws) and will be well-armed, also regardless of civil laws.
The fact of the matter is, the average LEO is more involved day-to-day with BG's. The larger exposure to BG's grows, the more risk there is of one coming back after the one being exposed. LEO's also are necessarily in a confrontational position with BG's by definition of LEO vs. BG (felon, person committing crime, etc). The only logical conclusion then, is that a LEO is at more risk than an average non-LEO at facing a BG when not "on the job" by virtue of their much greater exposure, their necessary confrontational position, and thus the greater risk of a BG coming after them in retaliation than anyone else.
The last point here, is that the 80,000 is going to INCLUDE off-duty officers in domestic/normal everyday situations, since that's a general stat. THEN, you have to add ON TOP of that the extra threat of retaliation from criminals.
In the end, the quoted post above just doesn't make sense in light of my earlier post. That's why I assumed you misread it. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or degrading, it just didn't deal with my arguments at all.
EDIT: This doesn't mean I think that the law-abiding public should not be able to arm themselves with hi-cap mags, "assault rifles" etc. Instead, this means that regardless of whether civil laws are passed, the LEO's still should be able to, because in the end, even off duty, they are faced with a greater threat than the average citizen due to their job. For that reason, they should not be treated as an "average citizen" when it comes to firearms off duty.
tl;dr version: The better solution is to treat all law-abiding citizens, as off-duty policemen when it comes to gun-laws.
January 20th, 2013 02:09 AM
I have issues with exempting any one group over others. I really want the police officers to have all the tools and equipment they need to safely do there job, I think that's our responsibility to provide them. However, when you start creating law that applies to one, and not all, your carving out exceptions that definitely cause me pause.
Originally Posted by DaveWorkman
We're all supposed to be "Equal under the law", and creating these special use classes is to our detriment.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal...
Alabama Constitution of 1901 - That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
January 20th, 2013 02:23 AM
The only reason a felon is a felon is that he is a criminal. And unless it is some white collar non violent felony then he has for every time the police are looking for him or dealing with him already victimized someone. That cannot be argued away.
Originally Posted by Jemsaal
As far as off duty criminals violent felons 98 percent of the time do not go hunting down police off duty.
They may be evil but not entirely stupid. To become a cop killer is effectively to sign your own death certificate. LE wont admit that except in LE circles but it is a fact. Hence violent felons dont open season on off duy or on duty cops. That logic in truth doesnt hold water.
Im not saying I want LE to have their level of firepower reduced. Nor mine to a level below theirs.
That being said if it was as it should be and was intended to be by our founding fathers that any laws passed by legislation should apply to the idiots that passed it and everyone else.
If that were the case then these stupid laws would not be proposed in the first place since they are unworkable for the public and the LE that politicians feel they can count on to do their bidding legal or not.
I move in LE circles quite a bit though I am not one. I understand they feel quite entitled to run 90 mph everywhere they go even when not responding to anything which is illegal and a host of other things that the rest of us would be arrested for. And im fine with that. Perks of the thin blue line. I get that. I get that they need every bullet they can carry and whatever weaponary is available to them. I have no problem with that.
But forcing them to be on the same level that idiots in office want to put the rest of us in would stop the idiots from passing these dump laws to start with because their LE forces couldnt function under those restrictions. This NY debacle would be repealed overnight like it was passed and we would not have to be bothered with it again.
I hope im getting my point across this time.
January 20th, 2013 02:53 AM
The "limits" are not to accomplish anything ..... other than taking the guns. Keep making restrictions so absurd and then banning any guns that can't meet them.... e.g. any gun capable of using a 10 rd mag would also be "banned" and illegal to own (IE NEW YORK).
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
January 20th, 2013 03:52 AM
Beyond which, we started out as a Republic in which all power was derived from the People, those powers subordinated to that of the People, and elements were put in place to avoid the threat of standing armies. Based on these principles, it's clear to me the goal really should be no restrictions on the People as to what their basic weaponry should be. After all, the point is to keep the People strong, not emasculated.
Originally Posted by Bhamrichard
It's not as though criminals care anything for a prohibition on this or that feature when they're already ignoring "bans" on murder, robbery, rape and all the rest; and it's not as though a weakened/disarmed citizenry is going to be more capable of withstanding and surviving threats. Such steps aren't hardly in our best interests, either as a People or as individuals.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
Search tags for this page
amended safe act law enforcement exemption
are police exempt from ny safe
ct. retired police officers angry about high capacity mag proposals
ny cops angry over gun law
ny safe act of 2013 police exemptions
ny safe act police exemption
ny safe act retired police
ny safe act retired police exemption
ny safe gun peace officer exeption
retired police exempt from ny safe act
why are california police exempted from gun laws
why are police exempt from smart gun laws
Click on a term to search for related topics.