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 Hopyard [sarcasm] Well there you go now. The only solution is the British solution. After all, they are dangerous even in the ...

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 131
Like Tree165Likes

Thread: Why should police be exempt from laws, mag limits?

  1. #76
    Distinguished Member Array DontTreadOnI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    [sarcasm] Well there you go now. The only solution is the British solution. After all, they are dangerous even in the
    hands of trained LEOS. [/sarcasm]
    With all due respect, how about a real answer.

    I do not believe one bit that the police should be affected by this legislation, because I believe that this legislation is unlawful in the first place.
    If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    Member Array 91wm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The people you are derisively calling "the elites" are your neighbors, your family members, your friends, your associates.
    Everyone agrees there are bad apples, but I am not going to call the guys I know elites. They are hard working
    good guys doing a lousy dangerous job--- for me.

    I won't list examples because I don't want to give anyone specific information on who I am and where I live,
    so let's leave it at I like the guys I know who work in LE. Every last one of the 6 I deal with are good kind decent
    family people.
    Like it or not they're also the people who illegally siezed firearms and shot unarmed people during Katrina. I do believe the majority of officers are good folks, but a lot of them aren't.

  4. #78
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    I keep saying im out of this one but i keep seeing posts missing the point.
    I'm not missing the point. You make your point quite clear, I just happen to disagree with it quite strongly. You say that whatever limits they pass should apply to LE. I disagree. While I don't think any limits on capacity should be passed I do believe you do greater harm in taking the capacity away from law enforcement. And you're incorrect about NY cops being up in arms and that saving the situation for everyone. They would have been up in arms about themselves, as they are now. Sadly many of them tend to side with the antis and not us. This bill was going to pass one way or the other. The only question is if LE should be included in the ban. I strongly assert that they should not- if for no other reason that because screwing up twice is worse than screwing up once. Though I am quite hopeful that the ban will get tossed by the courts since guns in common use are included and the USSC has indicated that is over the line.

    I typed out a long response about the cavalry but decided to delete it. If you think that 99% of the time cops don't do anything and that the situation is handled by other people I'll just leave that alone.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  5. #79
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo_Four View Post
    You say that whatever limits they pass should apply to LE. I disagree. While I don't think any limits on capacity should be passed I do believe you do greater harm in taking the capacity away from law enforcement.
    IMO, the only value of such a push for limits of this sort is this sort of negative impact on the ability of LEOs to protect themselves. Valuable in the sense that it makes patently clear the stupidity of such limitations. While it's true the average LEO is going to see 100 times the severity and frequency of the average person, when such a deadly situation does arise then a citizen is going to be just as much in need of effective firepower at that moment as anyone else. No real way around that. And the only way to protect that is to cease believing disarming/emasculating citizens is the road to utopia.

    When it comes right down to it, if tying emasculation of the People to that of the hired staff is the only way to ensure practical protections and guards against this sort of lunacy being enacted ... so be it.
    DontTreadOnI likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #80
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,721
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo_Four View Post
    I'm not missing the point. You make your point quite clear, I just happen to disagree with it quite strongly. You say that whatever limits they pass should apply to LE. I disagree. While I don't think any limits on capacity should be passed I do believe you do greater harm in taking the capacity away from law enforcement. And you're incorrect about NY cops being up in arms and that saving the situation for everyone. They would have been up in arms about themselves, as they are now. Sadly many of them tend to side with the antis and not us. This bill was going to pass one way or the other. The only question is if LE should be included in the ban. I strongly assert that they should not- if for no other reason that because screwing up twice is worse than screwing up once. Though I am quite hopeful that the ban will get tossed by the courts since guns in common use are included and the USSC has indicated that is over the line.

    I typed out a long response about the cavalry but decided to delete it. If you think that 99% of the time cops don't do anything and that the situation is handled by other people I'll just leave that alone.
    Ok we arent as far apart as you seem to think but on two points. I dont think LE should be limited. Now thats out of the way.
    IF as it should be LE in NY was going to be held by law to the same limits as NY put on citizens the legislators would not have even proposed the limits in the first place. Now follow me not because of you but because I am not a great speaker or writer. They wouldnt have proposed them in the first place had that been the case for two reasons. One NY cops would have raised such a ruckus they could not have ignored it. And two if the cops were by law to be held to the same standard as civilians even the most idiotic legislator would have realized the cops could not function limited to that level of armament.

    That is my whole point on that and I like you think this wont stand in the courts anyway.

    Now we are from the same state. My 99 percent of the time statement if you read it doesnt state the cops wont do anything. They will come to the scene. They will do their best to try to catch the BG. Both of us know that so 100 percent of the time they will do something. 90 percent of the time however, and lets be honest here regardless of good intentions the cops will be too late to be of any benefit to the victim of a violent crime.
    The victim will either have successfully defended themselves or they will have been victimized and the BG escaped before the police can get there. They will investigate and try to catch the guy but after the fact. Not LE fault its simple logistics. And until the invention of instant transporters its going to stay that way.
    Not proposing to screw up twice. Proposing that LE by law on the same level as civilians prevents the screw up legislation at all.

  7. #81
    Senior Member Array Herknav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Waypoint 0
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The question seems silly to me when you consider the duties of their job and the sort of people they deal with. They
    have responsibilities most of us don't.

    Sorry, I work out or hang out with several cops and although I'm often critical of many police practices, I want
    the good guys to get home safely at night.
    I want the same thing. I'm not sure what "responsibilities" you are referring to, as there have been numerous court cases that say police have no duty to protect. Most cops are good cops, but what happens when things get really ugly (as the do from time to time)? Remember the Rodney King riots? There were places that LAPD feared to tread, and Korean shopkeepers defended their lives and livelihoods with so-called "assault weapons." As previously mentioned, there were cops abusing the badge in Katrina.

    This isn't about disarming cops; it's about getting legislators to stop punishing the good guys for the actions of the bad guys. It's interesting to see which cops shout "me, me, me - cops are special", and which ones want to get the legislature to roll back the ban on everyone.
    I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen

  8. #82
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,844
    numerous court cases that say police have no duty to protect
    And this part is key. While it is true that cops are more likely to encounter deadly violence because of their job, when they do the threat is no more real than it is for anyone else. By the same token, In my job I am more likely than the police to risk exposure to lethal high voltage but it doesn't make it any more or less deadly than it would be to a cop.

  9. #83
    Senior Member Array sonnycrocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Miami Fla and TN
    Posts
    1,044
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveWorkman View Post
    Gun owners wonder why police should get special treatment

    Police in New York are having fits about suddenly being penalized by a hastily-written gun law, and they have company in Washington State, where a new policy banning firearms carried by off-duty law enforcement officers has been enacted at CenturyLink Field.

    Gun owners wonder why police should get special treatment - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com
    .

    If someone in NY had some nuts they would bring the new law to the courts
    I am positive it would be declared un constitutional ..As a former NYker all I can say
    is I am happy I moved...

    I buddy of mine went to the gun shop to pick up his new G19 he ordered and guess what they tried to hand him
    a G19 with NO MAGS.........

  10. #84
    Senior Member Array Kimberpackn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    639
    For the same reason they speed past you on the highway only to get in the best hide to operate their radar.
    We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. -

    Patrick Henry

  11. #85
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    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;
    Those numbers show how often citizens in general are under attack from the criminal element, they are relevant. How about you cite a study that supports, in any way, what you're saying? If LEO's are being hunted down by felons, they are most likely using guns, and someone is keeping track of those stats. For some reason, the CoP's that support gun control never mention this as a problem. My guess is b/c it does not exist.
    (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. ...
    The same is just as true for the average citizen.
    The fact of the matter is, the average LEO is more involved day-to-day with BG's. ...
    Most of whom are non-violent - traffic violations, trespassing, ...
    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.
    Nope, again, cite a study if you want to claim that. And before you go there, no, I'm not claiming that it never happens. Don't forget to account for the times an off-duty LEO is wounded/killed while confronting a criminal committing a crime which is not directly related to said LEO.
    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.
    We'll just have to disagree on this one b/c LEO's are not above any laws; when LEO's get special treatment, there's a problem b/c some will assume they are above the law on all counts.
    Last edited by nedrgr21; January 20th, 2013 at 06:22 PM.

  12. #86
    VIP Member Array Secret Spuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,663
    OK si I actually read the entire thread...

    First off NY Police Officers as defined in the CPLR artical 1.20, and NY Peace Officers as defined in artical 2.10 of the CPLR are exempt under Penal Law 265.20 sub.1 ... So the entire argument that the police cant have more than seven rounds in their magazine is moot.

    A second point is... NY Police Officers are responsible to their oath of office 24 hrs a day, and 7 days a week. In sum and substance they are never off duty.

    The term "Arms Race" is a poor way of putting it. There is no arms race between the police and the criminal element. In some situations the police are out-gunned, and in most situation the criminal is out-gunned. Such is life on the streets.

    While I dont believe the non-sworn citizenry should be limited by magazine capacity, or even the kind of firearm they may choose from. To compare the average armed citizen with even the laziest, most do nothing, house mouse cop is foolishness. While citizens are sometimes confronted with an armed criminal... The police do it for a living... even those municipal patrol cops,and those traffic cops.... even those indoors cops. Armed citizens dont have the resources of the police. Armed citizens dont have the training of the police, Armed citizens dont have the experience of the police. Getting through an armed confrontation takes more than a high cap magazine. I'm not saying that an armed citizen is'nt capable of defending themself... I am saying that they are not the police.
    Hopyard likes this.

  13. #87
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,476
    alll the more reason to not limit the resources available to citizens to protect themselves.

  14. #88
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    I admit I have not read every post in the thread but I am just throwing opinion out there.

    The police should not be exempt. Plenty of cops in my area are walking around with 1911's in .40 or .45acp and I don't hear them whining about being under gunned. For most of the last century most cops were carrying .38 special revolvers. There are plenty of weapons available to law enforcement agencies that are perfectly adequate and conform with the new laws.

    As far as the people the police deal with, lets also not forget the circumstances they deal with them under. Yes, it is their job to go out and hunt the bad guys down. Dangerous work, no doubt about it. But the people they are hunting are being hunted frequently because they have been hunting the general public who are subject to these laws. In general the officers doing the hunting are the ones to determine how the contact is initiated. Not so John Q Public. Officers are generally in an area they know and their back up knows where they are (if they are doing their job properly). Again, not so for John Q. Public. Officers frequently are issued body armor and alternative weapons to their hand gun. Not so for John Q. Public. If an officer's cruiser breaks down at 0300hrs they can usually expect someone on their shift to either pick them up or hang out with them until the tow truck comes. In a lot of places for a police tow the truck has to be there in a certain amount of time (30 minutes in my old county). Not so for John Q. Public.

    Lacking all of the tactical advantages the police have over the general public I think it can be argued that the public needs higher capacity weapons than the police.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  15. #89
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,602
    Quote Originally Posted by 91wm6 View Post
    Like it or not they're also the people who illegally siezed firearms and shot unarmed people during Katrina. I do believe the majority of officers are good folks, but a lot of them aren't.
    I'm sure the guys I know were no where near Katrina. One was too young to even be out of HS back then.
    Maybe that is true of a second as well. The others were here the entire time.

    Look for your bad cops somewhere else.
    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.
    Andrew Jackson

  16. #90
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,476
    I think the ones arguing that cops should not be subject to capacity limits are forgetting what the 2nd is about - protection from tyranny; it goes to the state/local gov'ts as well as federal. If we can't be trusted, neither can they.
    Last edited by nedrgr21; January 20th, 2013 at 11:30 PM.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

amended safe act law enforcement exemption
,
are peace officers exempt from ny safe act
,

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
Click on a term to search for related topics.