Reserve Officers sue CA Attorney General to own "Assault Rifles" - Page 2

Reserve Officers sue CA Attorney General to own "Assault Rifles"

This is a discussion on Reserve Officers sue CA Attorney General to own "Assault Rifles" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by G26Raven I agree with you on that issue. But the safety of retired officers is a separate issue. There's a quantitative difference ...

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 90
Like Tree152Likes

Thread: Reserve Officers sue CA Attorney General to own "Assault Rifles"

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array blackhawkfann24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by G26Raven View Post
    I agree with you on that issue. But the safety of retired officers is a separate issue. There's a quantitative difference between a civilian and a peace officer who has arrested multiple gang members or other bad guys. If you can't see the difference, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
    I understand what you are saying seeing as I have had problems with people because I work in a jail and they remember me out and about. But I am no police officer or reserve. But they are also nothing more then civilians and people, and allowing them to do stuff that the average citizens can't do is not right and un constitutional. Doing that would make them no better then the BS congress or the president is doing to us now. What is good for one sold be good for all....no exemptions .....JMO
    gatorbait51 and Nmuskier like this.

  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array blackhawkfann24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
    The way I look at it is if private citizens are banned from owning certain classes of firearms in a state, then no government official in that state should have the privilege of their security detail having those firearms, either. And the police in that state also shouldn't have them.
    Exactly!!!
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    2,660
    Police shouldn't be able to obtain any firearms that the citizens are prohibited.

    Gun makers shouldn't sell guns to the police that they can't sell to the citizens of the state.

    Just my 2 cents.
    ~~~~~
    The only common sense gun legislation was written about 229 years ago.

    I carry always not because I go places trouble is likely, but because trouble has a habit of not staying in its assigned zone.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #19
    Senior Member Array RonM0710's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Spring City, TN
    Posts
    834
    I have a question for all you that do not think off duty and retired police should have some exceptions that the normal citizen doesn't have.

    If you were in Dallas when the shooting started, which way would you have run. Towards the gunfire or away? Police officers and retired police officers are trained all their careers to RUN TOWARDS THE GUNFIRE. Most of you say if you were where an active shoot was, you would leave the area. Most officers, active and retired, do not think like that.

    Those of you that think LEO should not have any weapon that is not legal for citizens to have, would expect LEO to go against criminals that have illegal weapons without anything like the criminal. Look at the LA Bank robbery where the criminal had automatic weapons and the officers only had handguns. Officers had to go to gun stores and borrow rifles.
    "Lets Be Careful Out There!"

    Ron

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,766
    Quote Originally Posted by RonM0710 View Post
    I have a question for all you that do not think off duty and retired police should have some exceptions that the normal citizen doesn't have.

    If you were in Dallas when the shooting started, which way would you have run. Towards the gunfire or away? Police officers and retired police officers are trained all their careers to RUN TOWARDS THE GUNFIRE. Most of you say if you were where an active shoot was, you would leave the area. Most officers, active and retired, do not think like that.

    Those of you that think LEO should not have any weapon that is not legal for citizens to have, would expect LEO to go against criminals that have illegal weapons without anything like the criminal. Look at the LA Bank robbery where the criminal had automatic weapons and the officers only had handguns. Officers had to go to gun stores and borrow rifles.
    Then the obvious solution is to change the gun laws for everyone. Until then, they can deal with it the same way as everyone else. You or I would never be able to get exemptions, or the benefit of the LEOSA if we said "but I run toward the fight!". Like I said before, they aren't special. In Texas there is no restrictions on mag capacity limits and OC and CC are both legal. You can even OC a long gun if you want. The fact remains that they are citizens just like everyone else. If they are that bothered by the law, they should work to get it changed. With as much as the police union likes to get involved with things, and as pro gun as everyone says police are, I dont hear many officers, or union officials speaking out against the draconian gun laws in many states.
    gatorbait51, Nmuskier and sdprof like this.

  7. #21
    Member Array con42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    High Desert
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by RonM0710 View Post
    I have a question for all you that do not think off duty and retired police should have some exceptions that the normal citizen doesn't have.

    If you were in Dallas when the shooting started, which way would you have run. Towards the gunfire or away? Police officers and retired police officers are trained all their careers to RUN TOWARDS THE GUNFIRE. Most of you say if you were where an active shoot was, you would leave the area. Most officers, active and retired, do not think like that.

    Those of you that think LEO should not have any weapon that is not legal for citizens to have, would expect LEO to go against criminals that have illegal weapons without anything like the criminal. Look at the LA Bank robbery where the criminal had automatic weapons and the officers only had handguns. Officers had to go to gun stores and borrow rifles.

    Not all LEO's are trained to run towards gunfire. Many work their entire career in support fields and have no idea how they would react to gunfire. Another example in a friends ex-department. Officer received a call for man with a knife walking the street shouting at people. Arrived at the scene, observed and decided to lock himself in the car until back-up arrived. We are not talking about on the line officers who should and do have the equipment they need in most cases. We are talking retired officers who are now normal citizens. Citizens I might add who already can carry in all 50 states under LESO should they desire. JMO, line officers should have all the equipment "department issued" they need period. Retired officers need only what private citizens have access to.
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array RonM0710's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Spring City, TN
    Posts
    834
    Quote Originally Posted by con42 View Post
    Not all LEO's are trained to run towards gunfire. Many work their entire career in support fields and have no idea how they would react to gunfire. Another example in a friends ex-department. Officer received a call for man with a knife walking the street shouting at people. Arrived at the scene, observed and decided to lock himself in the car until back-up arrived. We are not talking about on the line officers who should and do have the equipment they need in most cases. We are talking retired officers who are now normal citizens. Citizens I might add who already can carry in all 50 states under LESO should they desire. JMO, line officers should have all the equipment "department issued" they need period. Retired officers need only what private citizens have access to.
    This article was about a reserve officer that wants to purchase a patrol rifle with his own money. That is a CIVILIAN that has gone through police training and is not normally paid to put his life on the line. I know this because I happen to be a reserve officer. I also happen to be a retired LEO. Reserves have to buy all their firearms, uniforms and other equipment just so they can serve their community WITHOUT PAY. Why should they have to go out against bad guys with just a pistol because you can't buy the gun they want?
    "Lets Be Careful Out There!"

    Ron

  9. #23
    Member Array slayer61's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Stuck in Lodi again
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by RonM0710 View Post
    I have a question for all you that do not think off duty and retired police should have some exceptions that the normal citizen doesn't have.

    If you were in Dallas when the shooting started, which way would you have run. Towards the gunfire or away? Police officers and retired police officers are trained all their careers to RUN TOWARDS THE GUNFIRE. Most of you say if you were where an active shoot was, you would leave the area. Most officers, active and retired, do not think like that.

    Those of you that think LEO should not have any weapon that is not legal for citizens to have, would expect LEO to go against criminals that have illegal weapons without anything like the criminal. Look at the LA Bank robbery where the criminal had automatic weapons and the officers only had handguns. Officers had to go to gun stores and borrow rifles.
    Why can't I run away from gunfire carrying the same weapon as the LEO running towards it?
    RonM0710, gatorbait51 and Havok like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Snake45
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms--That shouldn't be a federal agency, that should be a convenience store chain.
    Paul

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,766
    Quote Originally Posted by RonM0710 View Post
    This article was about a reserve officer that wants to purchase a patrol rifle with his own money. That is a CIVILIAN that has gone through police training and is not normally paid to put his life on the line. I know this because I happen to be a reserve officer. I also happen to be a retired LEO. Reserves have to buy all their firearms, uniforms and other equipment just so they can serve their community WITHOUT PAY. Why should they have to go out against bad guys with just a pistol because you can't buy the gun they want?
    You chose to become a reserve officer. If you dont like the requirements, then dont sign up. You brought up the Dallas shooting, and officers running towards the fight. Well unless they are OCing a rifle in plain clothes, then he wouldn't even have the rifle that you are looking so hard for a justification to need. If there was half as much effort put into getting laws changed as there was police wanting special privileges, there wouldn't be an issue.

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array G26Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    7,157
    Reserve officers provide significant services to their community. They frequently must confront bad guys who pose a significant threat. When was the last time any of you who are critical of them made a felony arrest?
    RonM0710 and Tundra5.7 like this.
    "If you look like food, you will be eaten." Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

    Learning occurs only after repetitive, demoralizing failures.

    "Who needs your truth if it stands in our way?"
    General Alexei Yepishev, political commissar of the Soviet Armed Forces

  12. #26
    Lead Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    17,982
    Iif there was half as much effort put into getting laws changed as there was police wanting special privileges, there wouldn't be an issue.
    Only issue that I can see is a guy wanting to spend his own money for a rifle to defend himself with and because of political anti-gun BS he cant do it.

    And you support that?

    Seriously?
    blackhawkfann24 and JAG45 like this.
    Universal Background Checks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    https://www.facebook.com/baileysigna...?ref=bookmarks

  13. #27
    Distinguished Member Array GpTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Kankakee County Il.
    Posts
    1,752
    Let the jurisdiction hire enough officers that they don't need volunteers. From what I have seen most of the volunteers are so into wanting to be a cop that they go overboard. One I knew was a volunteer in a forest preserve and he would go around like a cowboy with six guns hanging on his hips. He finally got arrested for scaring the hell out of people. A good way to start a lot of trouble is to let some nut think that he has some kind of authority.

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array RScottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,163
    Quote Originally Posted by GpTom View Post
    Let the jurisdiction hire enough officers that they don't need volunteers. From what I have seen most of the volunteers are so into wanting to be a cop that they go overboard. One I knew was a volunteer in a forest preserve and he would go around like a cowboy with six guns hanging on his hips. He finally got arrested for scaring the hell out of people. A good way to start a lot of trouble is to let some nut think that he has some kind of authority.
    Seriously? There is a law against scaring people that have phobias against guns?

    What exactly constitutes "scaring the hell out of someone?" Does a priest have to verify it or do they just take the person's word?

    Sent from my LT30at using Tapatalk

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by RonM0710 View Post
    Why should they have to go out against bad guys with just a pistol because you can't buy the gun they want?
    These bad guys that the cops are having to go up against are the same bad guys that try to victimize the rest of us. Why should we be less able to protect ourselves than the cops?
    RScottie and Nmuskier like this.

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array RScottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,163
    Shall not be infringed, quite easy to understand.

    And I agree with the sentiment that these officers should be just as worried about the rights of others as they are about theirs.


    Sent from my LT30at using Tapatalk

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •