Why should police be exempt from laws, mag limits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcp1810

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?

---

Because if average Joe is allowed the same weaponry as the police, you can bet the BG in the theater or where ever
will have an easier time amassing firepower equivalent or perhaps superior (if only in a specific tactical setting).

The Aurora shooter being a pretty good example. The average Joe who might have gone to that theater armed
would have at best had a hidden handgun in his pants v all the crap Holmes brought in. It was fortunate indeed
for the responding police and for the remaining survivors in there that he didn't stand and fight.

Sorry, there is (whether some here want it or not) a practical aspect to all of this and we would be collectively insane
to allow (continue to allow) the sort of situation we find ourselves in now to continue unabated.

e.g., That kid who killed his family in NM was planning a massacre at a nearby Walmart, one he luckily
didn't attempt, and one which we collectively enable by refusing to face certain realities; we have lunatics
amongst us. You know, like the guys you were once mistakenly suspected of being.

Under your theory the states which have chosen to outlaw FA have made a mistake, as in your view
their citizens should be allowed to have exactly what the police have.

Thankfully, most of our legislatures and judges are wiser than that.

Well respectully from a ever increasing number of state officals and states thankfully FA may not be quite the force it thinks it is.
Its a simple as falling off a log. NO law or gun reg will stop or even slow down what a BG wants to amass as far a weaponry goes. Citizens being on par with police only helps to fight the threat when it rears its ugly head.
To believe gun laws and reg will somehow magically now stop BGs from getting what they want when they want it to do with what they want is simply fantasy. It makes some feel safer to think the FA acting as their nanny will be able to do squat other than weaken the rest of us, but facts proven over and over again for years plainly show otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Because if average Joe is allowed the same weaponry as the police, you can bet the BG in the theater or where ever
will have an easier time amassing firepower equivalent or perhaps superior (if only in a specific tactical setting).

---

Just like the LA bank robbers had a harder time amassing automatic AKs and body armor during the last AWB.

Neither the police, or the citizens should have their weapons neutered. This point has been well made, and I also believe this thread has run its course.

Besides, 2A wasn't written exclusively to arm the people to fight common criminals.




Sent from my Galaxy S2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

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.

---

I wasn't labeling the police "liberals". I was labeling those that wish infringe upon our 2nd Amendment rights liberals. I don't feel the police should be hamstrung but I also don't feel us law aiding citizens should be either. This is similar to the point that the NRA tried to make with their recent commercial. If the President doesn't have an issue with armed guards protecting his own children, then he shouldn't have an issue with armed guards protecting mine. Same deal with the police and their weapons, if they are allowed to carry certain weapons to protect themselves and others, then I feel I should have that same right.

Ahem, the title of the thread is "why should" not "are they". Using the decisions of the NY legislature to support the assertion that they should be is pretty sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Because if average Joe is allowed the same weaponry as the police, you can bet the BG in the theater or where ever
will have an easier time amassing firepower equivalent or perhaps superior (if only in a specific tactical setting).

The Aurora shooter being a pretty good example. The average Joe who might have gone to that theater armed
would have at best had a hidden handgun in his pants v all the crap Holmes brought in. It was fortunate indeed
for the responding police and for the remaining survivors in there that he didn't stand and fight.

Sorry, there is (whether some here want it or not) a practical aspect to all of this and we would be collectively insane
to allow (continue to allow) the sort of situation we find ourselves in now to continue unabated.

e.g., That kid who killed his family in NM was planning a massacre at a nearby Walmart, one he luckily
didn't attempt, and one which we collectively enable by refusing to face certain realities; we have lunatics
amongst us. You know, like the guys you were once mistakenly suspected of being.

Under your theory the states which have chosen to outlaw FA have made a mistake, as in your view
their citizens should be allowed to have exactly what the police have.

Thankfully, most of our legislatures and judges are wiser than that.

---

It would seem that you are buying into the theory that once a ban or limit is imposed the criminals are going to willingly obey that limit. History does not support that.

The argument that police need higher capacity weapons because they are expected to go up against these well armed looney tunes and we are not is a false one.
The BG in the theater or the mall is never as well armed as he is the instant just before he pulls the trigger the first time. Every shot he fires he is decreasing his threat potential. John Q. Public sitting there minding his own business when the first shot is fired is faced with a greater and more capable threat than the police who arrive a few minutes and god knows how many shots later.

Using Aurora or Sandy Hook as an argument to support police needing greater magazine capacity than civilians is ridiculous. Not a single officer in either of those incidents even fired a shot much less had to reload. As the situations resolved themselves the officers in those cases did not even need to be armed. They could have left their weapons in their cars.

The officers that responded to those incidents were wearing armor and had long guns available to them as well as their sidearms. And with all that going for them you think it is not enough to limit civilians to handguns but now you also want to reduce the capacity of those handguns to protect the guys with the vests, body bunkers and rifles.

Did it ever occur to you that you are also making it safer for the bad guys?

According to the media, and what seems to be the accepted facts on most chats is that active shooters are rare. Is there really a difference between an active shooter who shoots one person, and one who shoots multiple? The police respond to shootings, shots fired, and person with a gun calls all the time. The probability that a police officer will run into a shooter is much, much higher. Of course a non-sworn civilian could run into a situation where he has to make the decision to act, or how to act. A police Officer has a completely different set of options.

A uniformed patrol officer dont have the two most important tactical advantages every non-sworn civilian carrier has. The police do not have the option of retreat. And the police do not have the advantage of surprise. If a non-sworn civilian wants to carry the same load out as a uniformed officer... GOD bless him. There shouldnt be any restrictions... but this dont make him as capable of handling a situation as an Officer would be.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I swear, some of you must be reading a different constitution than me. Because when I see the words "shall not be infringed", it means shall not be infringed. It doesn't say anything about a police force, or because some JOBS are more arguably more dangerous than others, they deserve special treatment. Because that is what they are. Occupations. If you don't like the job, don't go into the field. Don't try and trample all over my rights because of an elitist opinion, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotus222

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I swear, some of you must be reading a different constitution than me.

---

Before Heller was heard I often stated on here that the end result would not be good. In a sense that
has turned out true. The folks in WA DC are hardly if at all any better off then in the pre-Heller world,
but Heller did change the rules.

The Heller ruling t made clear that gun owners and ownership and related issues could be
regulated without infringing on our constitutional rights. Now that may seem illogical to many, or it may seem
counter intuitive, but that is what a conservative dominated court, in a decision written by a conservative darling, Scalia,
determined.

The right to keep and bear arms can be regulated without infringing on 2A rights. The precise parameters of that
regulation haven't really been determined yet, but seem to be rather broad if you look at what the various
Circuit Courts have agreed is OK.

We are each entitled to our opinion, but the only opinion that actually counts in terms of what our various legislatures
may or may not do is the written decision by Scalia in Heller.

It is fine to persuade legislators that certain regulations should not be enacted, but simply because they exist does not
make them automatically unconstitutional--- so says The Supremes.

So, starting from a position that it is per Heller OK to reasonably regulate (their ruling not my opinion) I personally
think I want the advantage to go with our police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Before Heller was heard I often stated on here that the end result would not be good. In a sense that
has turned out true. The folks in WA DC are hardly if at all any better off then in the pre-Heller world,
but Heller did change the rules.

The Heller ruling t made clear that gun owners and ownership and related issues could be
regulated without infringing on our constitutional rights. Now that may seem illogical to many, or it may seem
counter intuitive, but that is what a conservative dominated court, in a decision written by a conservative darling, Scalia,
determined.

The right to keep and bear arms can be regulated without infringing on 2A rights. The precise parameters of that
regulation haven't really been determined yet, but seem to be rather broad if you look at what the various
Circuit Courts have agreed is OK.

We are each entitled to our opinion, but the only opinion that actually counts in terms of what our various legislatures
may or may not do is the written decision by Scalia in Heller.

It is fine to persuade legislators that certain regulations should not be enacted, but simply because they exist does not
make them automatically unconstitutional--- so says The Supremes.

So, starting from a position that it is per Heller OK to reasonably regulate (their ruling not my opinion) I personally
think I want the advantage to go with our police.

---

Not disagreeing with your statement - but because a couple of lifelong bureaucrats who decide something via one court case can trump what is written in our constitution is beyond me. Accepting the premise as acceptable law just because of a justices opinionated ideology (who are appointed, not elected) is something that I can't personally do. It may be "law", but I'm not ever going to be ok with it.

Even with the aftermath of the Heller case, I still don't understand any reasoning that the police deserve any greater means to protect themselves than any other decent citizen in this country. Because when you say "advantage", it implies they deserve an advantage over common citizens - not an advantage over criminals. You and I both know that criminals will obtain illegal firearms, anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotus222

Not disagreeing with your statement - but because a couple of lifelong bureaucrats who decide something via one court case can trump what is written in our constitution is beyond me. Accepting the premise as acceptable law just because of a justices opinionated ideology (who are appointed, not elected) is something that I can't personally do. It may be "law", but I'm not ever going to be ok with it.

Even with the aftermath of the Heller case, I still don't understand any reasoning that the police deserve any greater means to protect themselves than any other decent citizen in this country. Because when you say "advantage", it implies they deserve an advantage over common citizens - not an advantage over criminals. You and I both know that criminals will obtain illegal firearms, anyways.

---

Your first paragraph shows a certain naive misunderstanding of our constitution and our history. What has occurred
is how our system works, how it was intended to work, and how it has worked with only one single weird exception
during the Andrew Jackson administration.

Quote:

---

Even with the aftermath of the Heller case, I still don't understand any reasoning that the police deserve any greater means to protect themselves than any other decent citizen in this country. Because when you say "advantage", it implies they deserve an advantage over common citizens - not an advantage over criminals.

---

I absolutely concur with this statement. The issue isn't police having advantage over criminals. The issue is limiting the civilian, especially the citizen who has and will not do anything wrong, against both the police and the criminals. To me, doing so is amongst the first steps on a road that leads to a place called "police state".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

The Heller ruling t made clear that gun owners and ownership and related issues could be
regulated without infringing on our constitutional rights. . ... OK to reasonably regulate (their ruling not my opinion) I personally
think I want the advantage to go with our police.

---

There's already plenty of regulation, what is being proposed is definitely infringement. There is absolutely no reason to give an advantage to police over law abiding citizens and others have covered that well. The anti's have already used the "logic" that there's no way law abiding citizens could fend off our military to justify banning AR's, AK's, and 30 rnd mags. If the police have a decided advantage, next will come the argument that there's no way we could fend off the police anyway so there's no reason for us to have whatever they want to ban next.

Secret Spuk, apparently you can't count. In the theater and mall shootings there were over a hundred non-LEO's in each instance that encountered a shooter vs a few LEO's. LEO's do have the option to retreat, they have the option to plan a counterattack from cover (unlike the victims), they get to approach the shooter with guns drawn (unlike non-LEO's), they still maintain the advantage of surprise as they can set up an ambush if the shooter is moving or surprise is a wash as they could approach the shooter from many angles. LEO's can easily id each other by uniform while we have to be on the lookout for the shooter and any approaching LEO's or other CCW'ers. The whole argument that LEO's have less advantages is bull. All those reasons are reasons to not restrict law abiding citizens.

There is a difference between misunderstanding and being un-accepting of a terrible interpretation turned law. When the people become complacent with the government and allows it to run amok, laws will lead to ogliarchy and tyranny.

And being on-topic, I still am unconvinced, regardless of hypothetically described situations, that the police should have special privilege armaments over the people. If that premise doesn't trample all over the 2a, I don't know what does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secret Spuk

According to the media, and what seems to be the accepted facts on most chats is that active shooters are rare. Is there really a difference between an active shooter who shoots one person, and one who shoots multiple? The police respond to shootings, shots fired, and person with a gun calls all the time. The probability that a police officer will run into a shooter is much, much higher. Of course a non-sworn civilian could run into a situation where he has to make the decision to act, or how to act. A police Officer has a completely different set of options.

A uniformed patrol officer dont have the two most important tactical advantages every non-sworn civilian carrier has. The police do not have the option of retreat. And the police do not have the advantage of surprise. If a non-sworn civilian wants to carry the same load out as a uniformed officer... GOD bless him. There shouldnt be any restrictions... but this dont make him as capable of handling a situation as an Officer would be.

---

EVERY SHOOTER is an "active shooter" until they stop shooting. What people refer to as an "active shooter" scenario would more accurately be described and a "multiple victim" scenario because that is the defining characteristic.

If someone had dropped the movie shooter after his first or second shot would he be an "active shooter" or just a well equipped whacko who shot one or two people?

While an individual officer is more likely than an individual member of the general public to be involved in an "active shooter" scenario, police officers are less likely to be in a position to stop it. Just look at the numbers. Of all the "active shooter" events how many had the shooter actually being stopped by police gunfire?
Not all shooters are "active" when the police arrive but they sure are active while civilians are there.

As far as options I have to disagree. The most basic human right is the right to life. I have never seen a general order or bargaining agreement for a law enforcement agency that requires an officer to completely disregard his or her own safety and forfeit their life. They do have the option to retreat and they do have the option to wait for back up.

That many do lose their lives is a testament to dedication of those on the job. But that is a decision they make of their own free will. There are plenty of people that are not police officers who react the same way and would not retreat. That has to do with their personality type not necessarily their occupation. It is not so coincidental that these personality types gravitate toward jobs in the military or emergency services.