Why should police be exempt from laws, mag limits? - Page 9

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; Police are a reactionary force by nature, something happens and they react to it...thus the saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away". ...

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 121 to 131 of 131
Like Tree165Likes

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

  1. #121
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Police are a reactionary force by nature, something happens and they react to it...thus the saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away". John Q. Public must deal with the bad guys of society before officers even know they exist.....citizens are on the front lines in the fight against bad guys in our society. I see ZERO reason that they should be less armed than our police.
    mcp1810 likes this.


  2. #122
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    Police are a reactionary force by nature, something happens and they react to it...thus the saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away". John Q. Public must deal with the bad guys of society before officers even know they exist.....citizens are on the front lines in the fight against bad guys in our society. I see ZERO reason that they should be less armed than our police.
    Yup. Citizens, each of us, are the first responders when crimes go down. If we're going to be made effectively incapable of surviving situations sufficiently long to call in the cavalry, then there's not much point to cavalry.

    I'm all for doing whatever we can such that felons decide that heavily arming themselves and going after innocents is low on their list of wonderful things to do on a given day. But it's ludicrous to believe that castrating citizens via reduced function (capacity, caliber, whatever) is overall in citizens' best interests. What we can do within the Constitution and laws is to dramatically reduce the revolving door element of the "justice" system, dramatically boost mental health treatment and the identification/handling of its warning signs, dramatically stiffen penalties for convictions for violent crime (ie, including 10:20:life/execution), and so on.
    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.

  3. #123
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,212
    Im a bit tired of the supreme court argument. Infringed is infringed regardless of what some court loaded politically one way or the other says it means. Im afraid we are rapidly coming to a point and being driven there by ultra libs where what a Federal anything says isnt going to just cow down the public. At this moment one state after the other is enacting legislation to prevent the feds from doing squat in their state. Sherriffs Associations from an awful lot of states are saying in no uncertain terms that they will not allow Federal infringement of 2A in their states and counties. A sheriff is the ultimate law of his county by law.

    Now it is easy in this day and age of news blurbs to miss something here. Im half a centry old. This is the first time I can remember States and Sheriffs along with a good number of the public that would rally to these patriot officers. in open defiance of the Federal government over a plainly stated founding right of this nation in the constitution.
    I hope that over this four years this assault can be battered back successfully with words. I dearly do pray for that.
    B94 and ccw9mm like this.

  4. #124
    Senior Member
    Array DaveWorkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    617
    This might bring the thread back on track:

    Our new gun law:*Rushed and wrong* - NY Daily News

    The NY Daily News is not so keen on this new law, and the editorial makes some very good points. Give it a read.

  5. #125
    VIP Member Array Kilowatt3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SW Louisiana
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Snub44 View Post
    ...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...
    Actually, I am all in favor of a cop "giving a break with only a warning", based upon the circumstances and the nature and seriousness of the offense. I am not suggesting that police have NO discretion in writing someone up (or arresting them). What I object to is basing that decision on WHO someone is, rather than what they have done and under what circumstances.

    The Equal Protection clause was intended to prevent the formation of an elite class to whom the laws are not applied equally. If you support preferential treatment of cops & firefighters, how much of a stretch is it to include EPA agents, "community organizers", or any other government or quasi-government groups? Someone in power is ultimately going to decide which groups are entitled to preferential treatment and which are not. The inevitable outcome is the creation of precisely the sort of privileged class that the Equal Protection clause was written to prevent. I sure as heck wouldn't want those decisions to be made by the Obamanation, and they really shouldn't be made by anybody.

    The other side of the coin is the groups that will be deemed NOT entitled to equal protection. Let the wrong people make the decisions, and we might find that at some point Republicans, NRA members, pro-lifers, or [fill-in-the-blank] are formally denied the same rights as the rest of the citizenry.

    I understand the Equal Protection clause just fine, thank you, but you might want to brush up on it.
    Regards,
    Jim
    NRA Life Member
    Charter Member (#00002) of the DC .41 LC Society
    He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave. - Andrew Carnegie

  6. #126
    Senior Member Array SigPapa226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    588
    All the Pigs are equal, just some are more equal - Animal Farm
    peckman28 and Kilowatt3 like this.
    Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men.

  7. #127
    Member Array azretired's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    215
    I agree that police should not have special consideration as far as off-duty carry goes. The NYS law is stupid as is any 10 round limit that might go into effect. However, should a state pass such a limit, off-duty police should have to comply. However, if their department issues high capacity mags for duty use and if the department also requires them to be armed when off duty, then as long as they are carrying their duty weapon they should not have to comply with a mag restriction.

  8. #128
    Member Array FUZZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    75
    I'm not in favor of a large portion of the proposed gun control legislation. However, I'm shocked that some people can't understand why LE and Military should be able to carry more rounds or carry firearms that civilians might not be able to own. I've seen a lot of personal opinions on the magic internet in the past couple weeks and an alarming portion of it is people bitching that LE may be allowed things that we are not.

    How can anyone say that if WE (civilians) can't carry more than 10 rounds, Law Enforcement shouldn't be allowed to either?
    Hopyard likes this.
    -You know Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help.

    -Susie, if you want to see your doll again, leave $100 in this envelope by the tree out front. Do not call the police. You cannot trace us. You cannot find us. Sincerely, Calvin

  9. #129
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,379
    Quote Originally Posted by FUZZ View Post
    How can anyone say that if WE (civilians) can't carry more than 10 rounds, Law Enforcement shouldn't be allowed to either?
    I highly doubt anyone is saying that in order to restrict the LE round count.

    Rather, the point is being made that it's as pointless to restrict the round count of any upstanding citizens at all, as deadly threatening situations are just as potentially deadly when it comes, irrespective of who's fighting for life (an LEO or citizen). Makes little sense to value a citizen's life any less than that of any other upstanding person, in such a situation. The way I've read such statements about tying any attempts at round count reduction on citizens to that of LE is strictly from the perspective of forcing politicians' hands to avoid doing something so monumentally stupid to citizens; that, if it takes tying such attempts in that way to stop those attempts, so be it. The bet is: politicians won't dare castrate LE in such a way, at the expense of all upstanding citizens' (LE & civilian) lives.
    zacii and Kilowatt3 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, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  10. #130
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by FUZZ View Post
    I'm not in favor of a large portion of the proposed gun control legislation. However, I'm shocked that some people can't understand why LE and Military should be able to carry more rounds or carry firearms that civilians might not be able to own. I've seen a lot of personal opinions on the magic internet in the past couple weeks and an alarming portion of it is people bitching that LE may be allowed things that we are not.

    How can anyone say that if WE (civilians) can't carry more than 10 rounds, Law Enforcement shouldn't be allowed to either?
    Because your life is not worth more than mine because you put on the uniform of a police officer. This should be completely obvious to everyone here, and the fact that it isn't is just plain pathetic. It shouldn't be up for debate anyway, because the idea of restricting civilians in the first place never should've even come about in a supposedly free country.
    KoolBreeze and SigPapa226 like this.

  11. #131
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...there's a quantum leap, not a stretch, between officers' giving certain people a break and denying ANYONE their rights...or "equal protection"...
    ...the equal protection clause was not intended to "prevent the formation of an elite class to which laws are not applied equally"...it was specifically written and intended to protect the rights of slaves...if you want to accuse someone of violating something...it helps to know what you're talking about...giving any group of people a warning instead of hitting their back pocket with a fine has nothing to do with the equal protection clause...didn't then...doesn't now...
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilowatt3 View Post
    Actually, I am all in favor of a cop "giving a break with only a warning", based upon the circumstances and the nature and seriousness of the offense. I am not suggesting that police have NO discretion in writing someone up (or arresting them). What I object to is basing that decision on WHO someone is, rather than what they have done and under what circumstances.

    The Equal Protection clause was intended to prevent the formation of an elite class to whom the laws are not applied equally. If you support preferential treatment of cops & firefighters, how much of a stretch is it to include EPA agents, "community organizers", or any other government or quasi-government groups? Someone in power is ultimately going to decide which groups are entitled to preferential treatment and which are not. The inevitable outcome is the creation of precisely the sort of privileged class that the Equal Protection clause was written to prevent. I sure as heck wouldn't want those decisions to be made by the Obamanation, and they really shouldn't be made by anybody.

    The other side of the coin is the groups that will be deemed NOT entitled to equal protection. Let the wrong people make the decisions, and we might find that at some point Republicans, NRA members, pro-lifers, or [fill-in-the-blank] are formally denied the same rights as the rest of the citizenry.

    I understand the Equal Protection clause just fine, thank you, but you might want to brush up on it.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

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.