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; ...when I was a cop...we didn't write other cops...or firemen...or nurses...some folks deserve all the breaks they can get...a cop or a fireman can have ...

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 131
Like Tree165Likes

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

  1. #91
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...when I was a cop...we didn't write other cops...or firemen...or nurses...some folks deserve all the breaks they can get...a cop or a fireman can have any equipment they deem necessary to protect those I love...no apologies...
    Hopyard likes this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #92
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Secret Spuk View Post
    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.

    .
    And if true, makes the entire thread rather ridiculous.

    And, to help my Bronx buddy Secret out,
    here's the text: He is right.

    a. Sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11,
    265.12, 265.13, 265.15 and 270.05 shall not apply to:
    1. Possession of any of the weapons, instruments, appliances or
    substances specified in sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05
    and 270.05 by the following:
    (a) Persons in the military service of the state of New York when duly
    authorized by regulations issued by the adjutant general to possess the
    same.
    (b) Police officers as defined in subdivision thirty-four of section
    1.20 of the criminal procedure law.
    (c) Peace officers as defined by section 2.10 of the criminal
    procedure law.



    Don't let the facts get in the way of a hot thread--- carry on.
    mcp1810 and Secret Spuk like this.
    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

  4. #93
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Don't let the facts get in the way of a hot thread--- carry on.
    To be fair, nobody did, at least until the facts arrived (at 3pm yesterday).

    It's a good reminder, though, particularly in this choke-the-2A climate we're all experiencing. Check the info before it gets taken as fact, given how many "spinner" sources there are, how many in the media fail to do so and how many are prepared to run with something, anything, once they hear/read it.
    Hopyard and Secret Spuk like 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, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #94
    VIP Member Array Kilowatt3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SW Louisiana
    Posts
    2,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Snub44 View Post
    ...when I was a cop...we didn't write other cops...or firemen...or nurses...some folks deserve all the breaks they can get...a cop or a fireman can have any equipment they deem necessary to protect those I love...no apologies...
    So, you knowingly violated Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and your sworn oath to uphold the law:

    "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    "Some folks deserve all the breaks they can get" can be used by almost anyone, to justify almost any violation. Who, outside the Legislature or the Courts, is going to choose just which folks "deserve all the breaks they can get?" In the Obamanation, I think you'll find it'll be illegal aliens, atheists, welfare recipients, and any other special-interest group that will provide votes and/or campaign contributions.

    NO slam against LEO's here - just sayin'. I don't want any compromises on the 2nd Amendment, or any of the others, either.
    Regards,
    Jim
    NRA Life Member

    He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave. - Andrew Carnegie

  6. #95
    Member Array RonM0710's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Spring City, TN
    Posts
    124

    Why should police be exempt from laws, mag limits?

    While I do not believe any law biding citizen should have their mag capacity limited, the question was why should police officers be exempt.

    First most officers by law are NEVER OFF DUTY.

    Second, how many of you will run towards gunfire when none of your family or friends are in danger? That is part of the job.

    Before Columbine, it was acceptable police practice to wait for SWAT before entering a live fire situation. Now "Active Shooter" situations require immediate action upon the first officer's arrival. Would you expect that officer to go in with his NY legal 7 round magazine?

    If so, ....


    Lets Be Careful Out There!
    Ron
    Hopyard likes this.
    "Lets Be Careful Out There!"

    Ron

  7. #96
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    It's my opinion that First responders should have the necessary tools to defend themselves and carry out their duties. I also believe that every-day citizens should also have the same tools necessary to defend themselves, especially since they are the ones the criminals prey on, and thus, are the first to need such protection. Also, we don't have the luxury of backup, so being prepared to defend ourselves against attackers is doubly important.

    I would not limit law enforcement to reduce their effectiveness against threats. Instead, I would want civilians to be properly equipped to meet the same dangers.
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

    “The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand

  8. #97
    Distinguished Member Array Exacto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,613
    They shouldn't. In fact there is no need for them to carry a gun in the first place. They don't in the UK and look how good it works there.
    Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunder bolt...... Sun Tzu.

    The supreme art of war is to defeat the enemy without fighting........ Sun Tzu.

  9. #98
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by RonM0710 View Post
    While I do not believe any law biding citizen should have their mag capacity limited, the question was why should police officers be exempt.

    First most officers by law are NEVER OFF DUTY.
    So were the victims in the theater in Aurora on duty or off duty?

    Second, how many of you will run towards gunfire when none of your family or friends are in danger? That is part of the job.
    Yup and that is a risk they assume when they apply for the job. If they don't like it they should seek other employment. And running toward the gunfire is irrelevant. If you are sitting in the food court or the theater or where ever when the shooting starts you don't get to run toward it, you are in it. You don't have the luxury of time to come up with your tactical plan. The police are not really the "first responders". The people that are at the scene when the incident goes down are the true first responders. Their response will have a much larger impact on if they live or die than that of the officers that show up a few minutes after the shooting starts.
    Before Columbine, it was acceptable police practice to wait for SWAT before entering a live fire situation. Now "Active Shooter" situations require immediate action upon the first officer's arrival. Would you expect that officer to go in with his NY legal 7 round magazine?

    If so, ....


    Lets Be Careful Out There!
    Ron
    And officers responding to an active shooter have back up on the way, should in their "active shooter bag" have armor, medical kit and spare magazines for both sidearm and long arms. The general population going to movies (other than Gecko45) don't have that. Officers responding to an active shooter are by definition getting involved after bullets have started flying. With the luxuries of time, training and equipment on their side why do they need more firepower than Joe Citizen who only went there with the intent of watching a movie?

    I find it amusing how many folks over the years have been whining about getting the military to drop the double stack 9mm pistol and go back to the 1911 but now people are saying that the 1911 isn't enough gun. If a single stack .45 isn't enough gun for cops why would it be enough for our war fighters?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #99
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...an officer giving a break with only a warning isn't even CLOSE to your accusation...but, believing as you do, I'm sure you'll refuse the courtesy of a warning should an officer ever want to honor your being a CHL holder and DEMAND a ticket...
    ...equal protection is slightly different...if you understand it...
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilowatt3 View Post
    So, you knowingly violated Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and your sworn oath to uphold the law:

    "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    "Some folks deserve all the breaks they can get" can be used by almost anyone, to justify almost any violation. Who, outside the Legislature or the Courts, is going to choose just which folks "deserve all the breaks they can get?" In the Obamanation, I think you'll find it'll be illegal aliens, atheists, welfare recipients, and any other special-interest group that will provide votes and/or campaign contributions.

    NO slam against LEO's here - just sayin'. I don't want any compromises on the 2nd Amendment, or any of the others, either.
    Hopyard likes this.

  11. #100
    Member Array KoolBreeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    MS
    Posts
    68
    I don't think any of us should be limited but if you ask me, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. This is just another step to the liberals ultimate goal of the only people with guns being the military, police, and criminals. Today it's 7 round magazines, tomorrow after that doesn't work, it will be 0 rounds.
    ”Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.”
    Ben Franklin

  12. #101
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by KoolBreeze View Post
    I don't think any of us should be limited but if you ask me, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. This is just another step to the liberals ultimate goal of the only people with guns being the military, police, and criminals. Today it's 7 round magazines, tomorrow after that doesn't work, it will be 0 rounds.
    Most if not all states have laws giving officers places they can go the rest of us can't depending on circumstances, things they can do to perform their duty which the rest of can't, access to weapons and other instruments of force which the rest of us don't have.

    THe exemptions or privileges accorded to our officers are necessary for our protection; you can't hold them to observance of a gun free zone for example if they are in hot pursuit or investigating an incident. We don't keep armed police from entering a school or a court or if needed, even an operating room.

    State legislators throughout the country have given police powers and authority under statutes that go back decades in most instances, statutes which pre-date most of our lives, statutes and case law which go back to before we were the USA when they had night watchmen on the streets of Philadelphia (I would think).

    I mention this because police authority isn't as stated in post 100 by KoolBreeze anything "liberal" or new or different.
    Granting of authority to law enforcement is a long standing practice which is apolitical.

    Few sane people want to tie the hands of the honest police officer and hamstring him in the ability to keep crime under control. To label a desire for law and order "liberal" is to twist the very meaning of the word as you can't have liberty in a world of chaos. Moreover, traditionally in our country the "law and order crowd" were labelled (insultingly) conservatives. Policing is neither liberal nor conservative, Dem or Repub., nor is it a political act or statement: It is even handed
    (hopefully) fair application of the law as set forth by our legislators and interpreted by our courts.

    We don't have, never have had, and never can have a "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" approach.
    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

  13. #102
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,599
    Simply put without an essay again. Nobody wants PD to be underarmed etc. We should be on parity with LE in relation to firepower however. The whole premise of at least my argument is that if and I repeat if Legislatures knew they were not going to be able to reduce firepower on civilians without also reducing it on LE then they would not and could not even propose such idiocy. To do so would gut their own LE agency to a point of being irrelevant which they would not consider or do.
    It probably took five minutes to correct that little oversight if that in NY for PD. But they shouldnt have been able to correct it without dumping the whole legislation because it should be illegal for PD to better armed than citizens precisely in order to prevent such stupid legislation from being proposed in the first place.

  14. #103
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,075
    Concern over an "arms race" between civilians and police has seriously got to be just about the most ridiculous, baseless, statist and illogical crap I've seen in a long time. The life of a cop is not worth any more or less than the life of a civilian, and complaining about something like that shows thinking contrary to that basic fact. It is insulting. And to insinuate that someone needs more than just a NICS check to be able to own an AR-15 because they might go shoot a cop is equally insulting. Your average .30-30 deer rifle from Wal-Mart will zip right through a cop's vest just as surely as anything an AR fires, so should we restrict them too? We have far more than enough gun laws on the books already, and the nonsense I see some advocating on here is reprehensible. Cops outgunned and stuck in the middle of an arms race. Give me a break. This represents shallow and frankly pathetic levels of "thinking" if I've ever seen it.
    zacii and SIGguy229 like this.

  15. #104
    Senior Member
    Array DaveWorkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If by that you mean that there should be fire-power parity between the police and the rest of us, let me ask you a simple question? Who in their right mind would take that job under such circumstances?
    Somebody who isn't afraid of a legally-armed private citizen, that's who. There are plenty of jobs for people who don't care to be on an equal footing with the good citizens they serve.

    The bad guys may or may not be comparably armed, but they should be less well armed than police or law-abiding private citizens.

    I've done stories on police who were gunned down by scumbags using cheap crap handguns loaded with 5-6 rounds of .380 ACP. We ought to be far better armed than those jerks, but B.S. magazine limits puts us on their level while upper level scum still have 15-rounders. Where is the sense in that?

  16. #105
    Senior Member
    Array DaveWorkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by DenverPilot View Post
    I think anyplace dumb enough to put limits on magazine size should have to live with it for their police force too. Police are not greater citizens under the law than civilians.
    Uhhh, police ARE civilians. They are civilian law enforcement.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 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.