Defensive Carry banner

Why should police be exempt from laws, mag limits?

12K views 134 replies 53 participants last post by  Havok 
#1 ·
#2 ·
Working together, the gun folks and law enforcement. Good idea. Of course, the opposition will say that we will end up with a police state.

Well, a police state is always a danger from all sides and we need to be vigilant to not let that happen, but we can still work together on common issues when we can.
 
#3 ·
Do away with limits and there's no issue regarding special treatment. I believe that EVERYONE including citizens, police, and retired police should be able to legally be on a level playing field with the criminals. Limits only favor the criminals and give them an advantage. Crazy.
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#35 ·
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.
Red herring, IMO.

Whenever a citizen comes face to face with one of those same violent criminals, the threat of death is just as real.

Sure, I suppose the claim can be put forth that criminals will fight tooth-and-nail when the world's crashing down about their ears in ways the average civilian can only imagine. Perhaps. But that doesn't hold much water.

Situation-specific requirements for specialized gear aside (such as door-breaching equipment, flash-bang stuff, handcuffs, 'sniper' rifles for hostage situations ...

At best, the claim can be made that the probability of such encounters is less likely, with the average citizen. But if attacked with deadly force by a violent criminal, one is at least as likely to be harmed as anyone else in such a situation, though one has to do it without a vest, without other team members there as back-up in the situation.

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.
Upstanding citizens equally want to survive their counters with violent criminals. Yet, they're supposed to be neutered? (And I'm not speaking of the mission-specific gear that's reasonably justified given the role of police, versus [generally] no civilian needing such gear due to not having such mission situations requiring such specialized firepower.)

I agree with the idea that ceasing restriction of civilian-obtainable arms opens up the field to criminals obtaining the same sorts of things. But then, criminals already do obtain such things. Right now, it's citizens who are restricted by these silly laws.
 
#5 ·
It's true, the regular people ought to have the same weapons as the police because they're exposed to the same criminal element.

And unfortunately, the regular people run into the criminals first, then the police come.



Sent from my Galaxy S2
 
#11 ·
Because the "elites" need to be protected and their guards need more bullets.
 
#12 ·
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.
 
#17 ·
One more and Im out of this one. Its very simple. LE and government officals should have to live under the laws they impose on the rest of us. If that were the case there would not be so many nanny state ignorant and utterly senseless laws concerning a host of issues.
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?
 
#16 ·
The LEO's do not make the laws. Aside from the very accurate apples and oranges comment - believe it or not, cops are just guys doing their middle class job. If the legislative branch of government takes something away from me, I wouldn't insist that they take something away from my friend too.
 
#18 ·
OK. Everybody gets to have all the guns, ammo, and high cap mags they desire except the law abiding citizens who are gun owners. Makes sense to me. What's next? I know, let's change the name of this country to " The United States of The Oppressed". Our flag can have a sheep on it and a guy with a crown. Pardon me, I have to go take my meds now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B94 and SigPapa226
#19 ·
That argument is fantasy world bull corn. Its popular but it isn't right.
 
#20 ·
IMO...on duty LEOs should have access to "evil guns." However, as soon as the shift ends, ordinary laws should apply. If NY insists on keeping the moronic 7 round law, then the "high-cap" mags should be stored at the station and they should have access at home to the same mags that regular citizens do. Same should go for the politicians who carve out exemptions in the law for themselves, retirees etc. It needs to be a level playing field. Maybe if the law applied unilaterally to all citizens then we wouldn't have so many outrageous ban proposals being thrown around.
 
#30 ·
1) I could agree to what you wrote in the first part of your post regarding on and off duty weaponry, but it isn't that simple.
Some take the job home with them, or have had direct threats from BGs and their accomplices. In some places they
don't really distinguish between on and off duty; and the car goes home at the end of the shift too.

2) With regard to that politicians shouldn't be any different from anyone
else; maybe some judges could have handled cases which would indicate need, but except for the highest officials there
is no need for them to get special treatment. Here, our concealed carry law was implemented in part due to an incident in
which a state legislator was threatened and he then discovered he could not carry (maybe when he was arrested, I don't recall the details). People focus on the horrid restaurant incident, but it was the legislator's troubles that brought things to a head.
 
#24 ·
I said I was out but since you asked me directly Ill reply Hop. Lets be realistic instead of living in some perfect world for a moment.
Violent Criminals as often as not out gun individual LEO daily. Because criminals do not obey regulations, possessing full auto weapons etc if they want to and regs be darned.
You and I, presumably not criminals are not the LEOs problem. Violent criminals that will arm themselves with whatever they wish are.

We are not the problem for LEO, but may have to deal with the same problem alone without the benefit of an army of back up.

Parity of firepower between police and citizens is not the problem for leo. Parity of firepower between bad guys and police has nothing to with regulation because BGs wont pay any attention to regs. The rock solid downfall of all firearm regulations end of story.

As to security for Government officals I dont begrudge elected officials their security details armed with whatever they need as they have to deal with directed attacks by possibly foreign agents armed to the teeth.
Individually however if say Diane Frankinstien wants to limit me to 5 rounds of bbs in a blow gun then that is all she should be able to carry as an individual. She does after all have the heavily armed security detail to protect her while I have the bbs and soda straw.
 
#26 ·
The hypocritical-ness that cracks me up the most:

"No one but the police and military need a gun designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time"


Huh? The job of police isn't to kill a lot of people. It's not even to kill any people. Their job is to investigate crimes, and to a lesser extent, preserve life by taking it if necessary. A cop doesn't need to 'kill a lot of people fast'... the likelihood that they will ever be involved with a firefight of just 2 people itself are very remote.
 
#27 ·
IMHO, This entire gun control charade is designed to take the guns out of the hands of anyone who is a potential political enemy of the present administration. There won't be any concerted effort to take guns/ high capacity magazines from law enforcement or the bureaucrats armed bodyguards. NY will simply amend the just passed law to exempt all law enforcement from the ban. The gangs will continue to be as well armed as ever. This is all about disarming the masses who are presently a threat to the present administrations agenda of "Change".
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldnfat
#29 ·
IMHO, This entire gun control charade is designed to take the guns out of the hands of anyone who is a potential political enemy of the present administration. There won't be any concerted effort to take guns/ high capacity magazines from law enforcement or the bureaucrats armed bodyguards. NY will simply amend the just passed law to exempt all law enforcement from the ban. The gangs will continue to be as well armed as ever. This is all about disarming the masses who are presently a threat to the present administrations agenda of "Change".
I've tried for so long to convince myself otherwise...but I can't argue logically with your point. Those who fail history are doomed to repeat it. Simply put, bans of any type do not work. Prohibition, drugs, prostitution, et al. It only drives the market underground. I find it hard to believe that so many college educated politicians can't see the trend. The street gangs laugh at these laws. They will continue to get their guns...same way they get their drugs. They will find a way, just like Al Capone and prohibition gangsters did.
 
#32 ·
I'm sure I'm about to make people mad. Luckily, I don't care.

First, it is asinine to restrict the magazine capacity for gun owners. Bad guys will still use high capacity magazines as long as they are available. And armed citizens (whether a LEO or not) may well have to face that BG. Not allowing a level playing field doesn't help anyone.

With that said, limiting a LEO's magazine takes an extra special kind of stupid. Yes, an armed individual may come into contact with a bad guy. The cop WILL come into contact with a bad guy. A rookie LEO will be hands on with more felons than the average person will ever meet. The places you avoid are the same places the LEO must go, often several times during the same shift. It doesn't have anything to do with being elite, it has to do with probability. And when the next BG starts shooting in a school, church, mall, or where ever most citizens of the community will be shocked and thankful that they and their loved ones aren't at that location. Meanwhile the police officers are doing everything possible to get to that location to stop the situation. Arguing that they shouldn't have the tools is just ridiculous. Trying to prove a political point at the expense of those that will be facing the evil man is totally unacceptable.
 
#33 ·
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.

Let the consequences happen. For the ultra-stupid, it the only way to get the point across.

Sorry LEOs, I love ya, I really do, but in this case, having a Chief stand in front of a politicians desk and say right into their eyes, "You got my Officer killed." is powerful.

Have him say it to a TV camera if the politician is belligerent, and it's a career-ended for the politician.

I honestly want our LEOs to be safe and have whatever they feel they need to do their duty under the law. But if an municipality wants to play fast and loose with civilians lives, they should be required to make it stick for all citizens equally.

Let them have their cake and eat it too. And see how long you have qualified police academy applicants. Or how much money you have to offer to attract them... along with BUGs.
 
#34 ·
Yes the cop will come into contact with the BG. Along with 24 other cops dogs, tazers guns etc etc etc. And when will they do that exactly??? AFTER said BG has splattered Joe Citizen individually or in a mass shooting or robbery or rape or murder.
The BG did something to a citizen or citizens or the cops would not be after him now would they???
And that civilian or civilians that faced the BG before the cops is somehow less?? His or her life is less valuable? He/she doesnt deserve the same tools to defend themselves as the cops have or should they as they draw their last breath comfort themselve with Oh well the cops have enough firepower to get the guy that killed raped etc etc??? That comfort for the family of the victim???
Nobody here advocated this lunacy in New York. And Im pretty sure with the number of cops in NY had they known that they would also be forced to knuckle under to this stupidity these laws would never have gotten voted on much less passed.
Cops should have anything and everything they need to do their job. And law abiding civilians should be able to match that firepower at any level. LE has nothing to fear from the citizenry unless they become a tool for government to carry out clearly illegal orders such as disarmament of the population.
Any other course simply guarantees two things. One BGS will be better armed than anyone which likely they will be to a point anyway. And that the temptation for government officials to pass illegal laws counting on their LE to enforce them on a under armed public is simply stronger.

Just an add on here then ive quit this little dance. Fact, every violent felon the cop lays hands on already laid HIS hands gun knife bomb on a civilian or the cop wouldnt be involved. So in the final analysis the cop is as usual in 99 percent of the cases not preventing anything. The victim could probably have had they not been regulated to defending him or her self with a level of weaponry that wasnt up to the task.
 
#41 ·
I truly do not believe the issue being raised is "Limit the Police", the issue is "Don't Limit Citizens." I can't imagine anyone really wants to limit the police, they just don't want citizens to be limited. We're all walking around on the same streets, allbeit with different levels of responsibility when something happens. I have a duty to go home, police have a duty to go to the aid of others, often into an already escalated and unknown situation. Different responsibilities, same streets. I don't want ANYONE to be at a disadvantage when dealing with the criminal element.
 
#46 ·
RE to part in bold: Followed to the logical end, you are proposing an arms race with citizens getting more and more firepower
and police having to keep ahead of the curve. We are (and have been for too long) in such an arms race. I don't know how
to stop it, but its long past time to stop it.
 
#43 ·
We are arguing two different arguments. Say there is an outright ban on civilian firearm ownership. If your stash is confiscated, are you going to tell them about your neighbor's or friend's stash so things are "fair?" What's the point and does it make you safer? No one here has defended limiting the citizen's mag capacity. Some of us just believe that ALSO taking away tools from good men and women who are unarguable at greater risk than the rest of us - whose job it is to intervene on OUR behalf - is ridiculous.

How many civilian confrontations have you heard of where there was a sustained firefight? Bad guys bail as soon as they realize you are armed and willing to use it. It's a different world for LEO's that have to pursue.
 
#45 ·
Need to start limiting hi-capacity vehicles.
No more high capacity school buses: just in case the bus is involved in a crash, or God forbid, the bus driver is a raving lunatic and decides to take all the "Children" AkA little darlings with him.
Better limit all high capacity airplanes to 10 people; just in case they have a malfunction, or God forbid another terrorist plot, and the pilot cannot land the plane safely.

Those High capacity -speed passenger rails/commuter trains they have need to be limited to 10 passengers as well.

Just looking at things from an anti-gunners perspective.

Oh the insanity of socialism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Secret Spuk
#48 ·
The opinion, of some, that the police should be allowed more firepower than the law abiding citizen, why? Are we the threat? It has been proven over and over that a WB does not reduce criminal activity with guns or the type guns used, but does limit the law abiding the right to protect themselves against the criminals. In my area convenience store, gas station, car jacking, bump and rob, home invasions, and pedestrian robberies saw a drastic reduction after the the 1987 right to carry law and the recent Castle laws were approved.

There has been an increasing amount of concern by a large percentage of citizens as to why the increased need of local police departments to be equipped with military style combat gear. Who are there intended enemy? Quite evident it is not the terrorist or the gangs. Must be me and you.

I also believe the direction our present administration is taking is to limit our armed ability to not allow them to carry out their present agenda. Read my signature below.
 
#52 ·
This is a great place to vent frustrations. We all do to a degree. Police have a job to enforce the law, which includes placing themselves directly in danger. We do not. So while on "duty" yes, police should have unlimited resources to include as many rounds as their weapon can hold and still be carried to do their job. If you can carry 100 rounds more power to you, however off duty should be held to the same laws they inforce. Nothing wrong with LEO and civilians working together on anything.
 
#69 ·
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.

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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top