Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 90 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,035 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Banned
Joined
·
894 Posts
There are cities where the reserve officers are not allowed to carry a weapon. Flashlight is okay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gatorbait51

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,099 Posts
Thing is...

you are only a "Reserve" when you aren't on duty.

If you are expected to respond to calls, then you should be equipped no different than a full timer, because when you are on duty you are on "full time".

And this case is nothing more than politics. Politics can and does get officers killed and death makes no distinction between ranks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,035 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
If you are expected to respond to calls, then you should be equipped no different than a full timer, because when you are on duty you are on "full time".
Right. Which is why the police department should be responsible for providing them the equipment they need. In fact, no officer - reserve or otherwise - should be allowed to personally own weapons that the average law abiding citizen can own. I think it is fine for their department to provide the equipment that they need and even allow them to keep them at their home in order to be able to respond to situations as needed. But, allowing them to personally own firearms restricted to THE PEOPLE is incongruous to me. I find it especially egregious when laws are passed that provide exceptions for retired LEOs. While they deserve our admiration and respect, I don't see why they should be afforded more "rights" than other citizens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,912 Posts
I find it especially egregious when laws are passed that provide exceptions for retired LEOs. While they deserve our admiration and respect, I don't see why they should be afforded more "rights" than other citizens.
I disagree with you on this issue. Peace officers often run into people they have previously arrested long after the officer is retired. In California, where carry permits are severely restricted (I used to live there and had a carry permit there) peace officers should be granted carry permits, no questions asked. I don't agree with California's permit system, which is one of the main reasons I no longer live there, but I don't believe that LEOs should suffer the possibility of assault because of the states asinine laws.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,099 Posts
Right. Which is why the police department should be responsible for providing them the equipment they need. In fact, no officer - reserve or otherwise - should be allowed to personally own weapons that the average law abiding citizen can own. I think it is fine for their department to provide the equipment that they need and even allow them to keep them at their home in order to be able to respond to situations as needed. But, allowing them to personally own firearms restricted to THE PEOPLE is incongruous to me. I find it especially egregious when laws are passed that provide exceptions for retired LEOs. While they deserve our admiration and respect, I don't see why they should be afforded more "rights" than other citizens.
Fact of the matter is...any law restricting a weapon based upon appearance or function should be illegal.

I personally believe that if you want to own a fully automatic, sure enough assault weapon (not the California definition of it which means just about anything they want it to) then you should be able to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,952 Posts
I disagree with you on this issue. Peace officers often run into people they have previously arrested long after the officer is retired. In California, where carry permits are severely restricted (I used to live there and had a carry permit there) peace officers should be granted carry permits, no questions asked. I don't agree with California's permit system, which is one of the main reasons I no longer live there, but I don't believe that LEOs should suffer the possibility of assault because of the states asinine laws.
Why are retired peace officers exempt from asinine laws? Shouldn't the right of the People be considered somewhere in this? Is it a simple matter of percentages? A retired officer has an X% chance of running into someone they arrested, but the average citizen has less chance of running into a criminal, so they get less rights.

CA shouldn't carve out any special privileges for police, active or retired. The right of the People should not be infringed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,912 Posts
The right of the People should not be infringed.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
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.
Their not talking about the ability to defend from prior arrestees which they can do with their LESO carry rights. They are referring to the fact that they are exempt from "all" firearms laws". A police office active or retired is first a citizen, and then a LEO. Some could make a case for "Retired Seals" to carry and be exempt from these laws also, as a lot are on hit list and could have radicalized citizens out to get them. But that is not the case. JMO, but a LEO active or retired is not a super class citizen a trend we have been on for quite awhile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,133 Posts
LEO's are citizens and should be subject to the same laws as the citizens in my opinion. I dont blame the guy for wanting to own a scary rifle. However, if he is allowed to, everyone else should be allowed to. If everyone else isnt allowed to, he shouldnt be allowed to. He's not special.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,455 Posts
Fact of the matter is...any law restricting a weapon based upon appearance or function should be illegal.

I personally believe that if you want to own a fully automatic, sure enough assault weapon (not the California definition of it which means just about anything they want it it) then you should be able to.
Hotguns for President!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,952 Posts
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.
Exactly my point. The premise is that people who can prove a higher percentage of risk can have more access to self defense rights. So the philosophy is that rights are based on a percentage of need.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,388 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,035 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I disagree with you on this issue. Peace officers often run into people they have previously arrested long after the officer is retired. In California, where carry permits are severely restricted (I used to live there and had a carry permit there) peace officers should be granted carry permits, no questions asked. I don't agree with California's permit system, which is one of the main reasons I no longer live there, but I don't believe that LEOs should suffer the possibility of assault because of the states asinine laws.
Putting aside whether any particular gun law is right, just:

The argument, then, is that retired police officers are at a higher risk of being in a violent confrontation and, therefore, any gun restriction laws should not apply to them. So, what about a LAC that happens to live in a high crime area? Are they not also at a higher risk of violence being perpetrated against them? Why are they supposed to be left defenseless against violent, armed attackers? You stated that you "don't agree with California's permit system", but that there should be an exception for retired LEO. I assume that is because you are current or retired LEO yourself. But, why only for "retired" LEOs. What about someone that may have worked as an LEO for 5 years and then moved on to another career? Would that person not also be at a higher risk based on the people they interacted with in those five years?

Forgive me if I am misrepresenting your position, but I think it is that LAC should generally be able to carry, but since they can't there should at least be an exception for retired LEOs. Stated another way, the law(s) are a bad idea, but if they are implemented then there needs to be an exception for "me". I support the police, but it is this kind of thinking that makes many people have a negative attitude to the LE community. While many charges of police brutality are unfounded, there are plenty that are where the police investigate themselves and they find no wrongdoing. This is just another example where the police are not held to the same standards as the people they are supposed to serve.

I would be interested to see any statistics that show that retired LEOs are at a significantly higher risk of violence than the average populace. I still don't think that justifies them being above the law. But, I also doubt that there is any evidence of that. With the generous retirement packages that many LEOs get I'm betting they don't retire in very low crime communities away from any violent areas which they may have worked in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
Why are retired peace officers exempt from asinine laws? Shouldn't the right of the People be considered somewhere in this? Is it a simple matter of percentages? A retired officer has an X% chance of running into someone they arrested, but the average citizen has less chance of running into a criminal, so they get less rights.

CA shouldn't carve out any special privileges for police, active or retired. The right of the People should not be infringed.
I'm very tired of any special privilege to ANYONE. Especially to the wealthy. American citizens should all be afforded equal rights.


I really get a kick when I hear folks talk about "white privilege" There has always been "wealth privilege", I am white and I have never seen "white privilege" :blink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,992 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
859 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,133 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 90 Posts
Top