Defensive Carry banner

Why should police be exempt from laws, mag limits?

12K views 134 replies 53 participants last post by  Havok 
#1 ·
#112 ·
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.
 
#120 ·
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.
 
#113 ·
"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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CCCRich
#114 ·
"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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snub44 and RonM0710
#117 ·
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".
 
#119 ·
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.
 
#121 ·
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.
 
#122 ·
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.
 
#123 ·
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.
 
#127 ·
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.
 
#128 ·
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hopyard
#129 ·
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.
 
#135 ·
I don’t know who the good ones are but the bad ones have identified themselves with a “D” next to their name.
 
#133 ·
I think the proper question is why are there magazine limits on any law abiding citizen in the first place?

Shall not be infringed. Repeat that slowly.

The police as well as the law abiding should both be able to carry what the anti's refer to as "high" capacity magazines even if they are standard capacity for the firearm.
 
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