Expiration Of Ban Pushes Police To Get Assault Rifles


PDA






Spieler
April 26, 2005, 01:17 AM
Expiration Of Ban Pushes Police To Get Assault Rifles

POSTED: 5:47 am EDT April 25, 2005

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- The expiration of the nation's ban on the sale of assault rifles and the appearance of more heavily armed criminals have pushed more than 100 St. Petersburg police officers to order assault rifles of their own for official duty.

The first group of officers completed the required 16 hours of instruction for using Colt AR-15s in January. The semiautomatic weapons fire bullets that travel up to 2,700 feet per second and are powerful enough to penetrate body armor.

"St. Petersburg -- it's not so sleepy any more," said Tom Jacwin, a 22-year veteran who is getting used to his new weapon. "The bad guys are smarter and better armed."

Police Chief Chuck Harmon approved use of the AR-15s last June with guidelines that took months to develop. Officers who want the weapons must buy them for $1,100.

The rifles may be used only in "a high-risk situation, such as to overcome suspects with superior firepower, in response to an active shooter situation, when confronted by barricaded subjects, during stakeout and perimeter operations, for felony vehicle stops."

The weapons must be stored in a hard case in the trunk of a patrol car except when being used. They can't be modified for automatic fire, and officers must qualify with them in the shooting range each year.

Critics say that the speed and 300-yard range of the bullets pose a threat to bystanders. Advocates say the assault rifles are vastly better than the standard Glock handguns assigned to officers and are more accurate than the pump-action shotguns that the department makes available.

story here (http://www.local6.com/news/4411374/detail.html)

If you enjoyed reading about "Expiration Of Ban Pushes Police To Get Assault Rifles" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GSMD Fan
April 26, 2005, 01:35 AM
WOW :what:

Those bullets go 300 YARDS :eek:

That is very dangerous. ;)

Gunpacker
April 26, 2005, 01:42 AM
More accurate than a shotgun???? I don't think so. Another misinformed statement. Still there are rifle situations, and I think police are wise to have them available. It is simply using them correctly that is necessary.

nico
April 26, 2005, 02:09 AM
why is it that "critics" always seem to be so damn stupid. I wonder what one of these people would say if someone told them that a bullet from the Glocks that the cops already carry can travel 300 yards too.

El Rojo
April 26, 2005, 02:09 AM
Well they aren't select fire and they are buying them just like everyone else in Florida can, so there is nothing for the anti-leo crowd to complain about. Now if it were in the PRK, it would be different.

AK-74me
April 26, 2005, 02:17 AM
300 yds . so what. lol

What bullet can't go 300 yds.

On a good day I can hit a golf ball that far.

I think that a .223 round goes a lot further that 300 yds. but shhhhh god forbid they find that out.

DarkKnight01
April 26, 2005, 02:45 AM
I think their meaning to say an effective range of 300 yards..

AK-74me
April 26, 2005, 03:38 AM
yeah I know but it is all still ridiculous, I mean at 800 meters bystanders that could struck with a .223 round and are still in danger

justashooter
April 26, 2005, 04:06 AM
in a conversation with 3 local pd in york restaraunt, i discover their chief has set up so many road blocks as to make nearly impossible to obtain. chief is a political appointee, and PC because of that.

i support the improvement of firepower if accompanied by training and practice, but am concerned with the swat mentality. best of both worlds? not likely. maybe during the next hostage situation, i will be driving by and arrange to lend an ak-47 or a shorty ar from the trunk.

some drug traffickers in the puerto rican neighborhood in york have good firepower, but it's not so bad, here, and response time is good from support units.

Vernal45
April 26, 2005, 04:38 AM
Didnt police have those evil black assault rifles during the ban? :uhoh: :confused:


Someone has been inhaling way to much.

Commissar Gribb
April 26, 2005, 04:57 AM
The expiration of the nation's ban on the sale of assault rifles and the appearance of more heavily armed criminals have pushed more than 100 St. Petersburg police officers to order assault rifles of their own for official duty.
What stopped the criminals from getting them before? the City isn't exactly known for having the least amount of contraband flowing into it.

The first group of officers completed the required 16 hours of instruction for using Colt AR-15s in January. The semiautomatic weapons fire bullets that travel up to 2,700 feet per second and are powerful enough to penetrate body armor.

I like how the anti-gun media uses "body armor" without telling what kind of body armor is being discussed. a 9mm can penetrate a level 1 or 2 vest easily as could about any combat round since these vests are made to protect against debris and low velocity schrapnel.


"St. Petersburg -- it's not so sleepy any more," said Tom Jacwin, a 22-year veteran who is getting used to his new weapon. "The bad guys are smarter and better armed."
this is one of those paragraphs that makes you want to stab the writer in the face. Let me reprint this how the author probably wanted it to be read.


"It's dangerous out there with those assault weapons!" said honorable justice protector Jacwin, who's advanced special ops style police training keeps him from going on a killing spree with his evil black gun. "The bad guys were given evil assault rifles by the NRA so they can kill babies."

Navy joe
April 26, 2005, 10:52 AM
So, a process approved by the chief in June that took months to develop guidelines for is in response to a ban that expired in September? This writer must be related to the one that brought us the news that the National Guard is the militia referred to in the 2A.

VaughnT
April 26, 2005, 11:01 AM
What make/model could cost $1100? At that price range, you're looking at a topshelf custom rifle, not the more expected Bushmaster. Bet they went with Colts if anything.

Need? Heck, I have one and face far less danger than a cop, regardless of his locale.

As to the article, situation normal....

More power to the popo!

thatguy
April 26, 2005, 11:01 AM
OH, GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK!!!!!! Like the criminals were UNABLE to obtain weapons because of the ban? What a load, a great big steaming load, of CRAP!

Propaganda. Nothing more than propaganda from anti-gun press and anti-gun (or very stupid) cops.

I need a pill.

1911JMB
April 26, 2005, 11:15 AM
The media always seems to like to make people think superior firepower was banned by Clinton. Some people love propoganda and just can't understand that a flash suppressor and a bayonet couldn't have done that much to improve an AR with a cheaply aquired preban 30 round magazine.

ckyllo
April 26, 2005, 12:34 PM
it is most likely that it was a $500 ar with $600 of lazers, lights, scopes and other toys hanging on it to make it mall ninja cool and $1100.

LawDog
April 26, 2005, 01:50 PM
*snort*

They got a word wrong in the headline. It should read:
Expiration Of Ban Allows Police To Get Assault Rifles

LawDog

Pilgrim
April 26, 2005, 02:43 PM
A more appropriate headline would be, "Police Use Scare Tactics to Con Chief to Buy New Rifles."

A similar tactic is used by PDs and SOs to get new handguns.

Officers: "We need a new handgun."

Chief/Sheriff: "Why?"

Officers: "Our guns are obsolete. They are inaccurate. They are breaking all the time. We are outgunned."

Chief/Sheriff to city/county fathers: "My officers need a new handgun."

City/County fathers: "Why?"

Chief/Sheriff: "Our guns are obsolete. They are inaccurate. They are breaking all the time. We are outgunned."

City/County fathers: "Ok, if they are that bad, buy new ones."

After Chief/Sheriff purchases new guns, officers are permitted to buy their old guns at discounted prices from vendor who took old guns in trade.

City/County fathers: "If the old guns were obsolete, inaccurate, were breaking all the time, and the officers were outgunned, why are so many buying their old guns from the vendor?"

Chief/Sheriff: "Duh, I don't know."

Pilgrim

Sam Adams
April 26, 2005, 03:24 PM
What I'd like to know is why the police need guns whose only purpose is to kill people? :what:

This is a simple case of some officer with a few extra IQ points and a burning desire to have the taxpayers pay for his fun. You can't make a good case to just buy one of these, therefore many in the department "need" them. Of course, then you have to establish the "need," so there's where the AWB expiration and the fact-deficient fear-mongering came in...

...but of course, the fact that the original "assault weapons" that existed before the ban on new production were never illegal to own under federal or Florida law, and were still "on the streets," never appeared on anyone's radar screen - not the chief's, not the city council's, and not the putz reporter's. :fire:

BlackCat
April 26, 2005, 04:09 PM
instruction for using Colt AR-15s...Officers who want the weapons must buy them for $1,100.

They are Colts, not Bushmasters, and the article seems to say the officers paid for them on their own.

LawDog
April 26, 2005, 06:08 PM
This is a simple case of some officer with a few extra IQ points and a burning desire to have the taxpayers pay for his fun. You can't make a good case to just buy one of these, therefore many in the department "need" them. Of course, then you have to establish the "need," so there's where the AWB expiration and the fact-deficient fear-mongering came in...

From the original post:

Officers who want the weapons must buy them for $1,100.

City/County fathers: "Ok, if they are that bad, buy new ones."

From the original post:

Officers who want the weapons must buy them for $1,100.

Oh, dear, am I posting facts in the middle of a knee-jerk cop-hate? Sorry. Carry on, don't mind me.

LawDog

whm1974
April 26, 2005, 07:06 PM
How are these weapons any diffecnte form the ones I could have brought before september?

And you lever action 30-30 winchester is just as capable of going through body armor as an AR-15. They are also far more common.

-Bill

Pilgrim
April 26, 2005, 08:10 PM
Quote:
City/County fathers: "Ok, if they are that bad, buy new ones."

Oh, dear, am I posting facts in the middle of a knee-jerk cop-hate? Sorry. Carry on, don't mind me.

LawDog

I don't think it is a matter of 'knee-jerk' cop-hate. I saw that the basic theme of the story is that with the expiration of the '94 EBR ban, the officers made up a bogey man story to con the chief into letting them buy AR-15s. They could have bought the rifles before the expiration of the ban. What changed that they have to buy them now? The only real change is the average 'joe' can buy now what the officers could buy before the ban with department letterhead.

As for the "our guns are no good" story, I have seen it happen several times in departments who are maneuvering to convince the city/county fathers to buy them new guns. In my last department, the entire department was issued S&W 5906s in 1990. Ten years later, the guns were "no good, they break too often, and we are outgunned by carrying the 9mm." The average round count per gun was 4,000 rounds. The SWAT guys shot their guns more, but there were guns issued that sat in the deputy's chest of drawers the entire time because their deputy was command staff and had the option of carrying his little five shot revolver instead of the 9mm.

Now, do you consider a stainless steel handgun shot out when it has 4,000 rounds through it? I don't think so. I personally think it is just getting broken in.

Pilgrim

Randy in Arizona
April 26, 2005, 08:15 PM
And you lever action 30-30 winchester is just as capable of going through body armor as an AR-15. They are also far more common.

ALSO Cheaper, Less threatening, (To the Sheeple) Easy to maintain, Very fast to get into action, BUT definitely lacking the 'Cool Factor' some GunKid Wannabees desire so highly.

I mean come on fellas, $250 for a great used 30-30 vs. $1100 for a new AR?
I wonder if the Saint Pete PD is buying the ammo for practice and Annual Qualification. :D

P5 Guy
April 26, 2005, 09:06 PM
The article in the Times yesterday said a box of ammo cost $250. :what:
Allowing the St Pete Police to arm themselves with AR15s is in response to a run and gun incedent back at the beging of the year. My problem with this is they use reduced size targets in their 25 yard range to qualify. There is nothing IMO like shooting 300 yards. Reduced size targets don't make it!

nico
April 26, 2005, 10:08 PM
This looks like a case of sensationalism on the part of the author of the article. I don't see anything in the article that supports the assertion made in the headline, which leads me to think they're just trying to get attention.

"St. Petersburg -- it's not so sleepy any more," said Tom Jacwin, a 22-year veteran who is getting used to his new weapon. "The bad guys are smarter and better armed."
that could be a reference to the AWB ending, but the whole "criminals are better armed than in the good old days" sentiment isn't all that uncommon. That being said, I don't see any problem with allowing cops to carry AR-15s in their cruisers, ESPECIALLY if it's their personal weapon. Also, I think it's pretty hypocritical that on a site where so many people have ARs as HD guns (and are generally well informed), people have nerve enough to talk about what a cop "needs." I bet the cops in the West Hollywood shootout didn't "need" ARs either :rolleyes:

whm1974
April 26, 2005, 10:26 PM
The article in the Times yesterday said a box of ammo cost $250

I hope we are talking about a 1000(or more) round box and not 20...

people have nerve enough to talk about what a cop "needs." I bet the cops in the West Hollywood shootout didn't "need" ARs either

The "cops" have nerve enough to say they need same weapons now after the AWB expired they could have had before the AWB expired. I doubt that crimanerls are running around with "AW" that they were not six or seven months ago.

-Bill

nico
April 26, 2005, 10:34 PM
The "cops" have nerve enough to say they need same weapons now after the AWB expired they could have had before the AWB expired. I doubt that crimanerls are running around with "AW" that they were not six or seven months ago
if that were the case in this situation (and I've seen articles that quoted cops as saying that kind of thing), I would completely agree with you. However, in this article, the AWB is only mentioned in the title and the first sentence, which leads me to believe it was sensationalist bs made up by the reporter. Asside from the general comment I quoted, there's nothing factual in the article that says the cops are buying the guns because of the expiration of the AWB.

BluesBear
April 27, 2005, 01:40 AM
Personally I think EVERY peace officer should be ABLE to carry a carbine/rifle in their patrol car. For decades there have been instances where a rifle was needed. If you recall back in the 1920s and 1930s there are many recorded instances of law enforcement rifle use. Bonny & Clyde is probably the most well known. They were subdued with rifle fire.

Having said that I also believe that EVERY citizen should be able to carry a long gun of their choice in their car. Hell's Bells™ if I could afford one there'd be a cased Scout M1A in my trunk right now.




One thing I miss about my old hometown is the total absence of gun racks in pickup trucks out here.

Don Gwinn
April 27, 2005, 01:41 AM
I don't see anybody saying these officers don't "need" the rifles. . . . simply that it's asinine to suggest that they "need" these rifles because the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban has left the streets awash in legal machine guns which drug dealers use to shoot it out with the vice squad.

c_yeager
April 27, 2005, 04:29 AM
I like how the chief is REQUIRING his men to buy just about the most expensive option available, how nice of him. Obviously the guys wouldnt be well protected by anything that didnt bear the dancing pony. I don't have a problem with Colts, but as far as a working-gun is concerned an AR-15 is an AR-15 from any of the big manufactures. I bet the price difference between the Colt and the equally suitable offerings from RRA and Bushmaster is pretty significant to a lot of cops.

Commissar Gribb
April 27, 2005, 08:47 AM
personally, having fired both, I prefer the bushmaster over the colt.

Onmilo
April 27, 2005, 10:39 AM
Go St. Pete!

Good to see a progressive city allowing officers to carry the tools neccessary to get the job done.

The writer who was freaking out about the Police carry these evil assault rifles probably doesn't realize that they are loaded with specialty ammunition such as TAP or frangible to prevent overpenetration and over ranging.

Of course the bad guys are very careful to make this ammunition selection before they haul their assault rifles out I'm sure,,,,,,

Randy in Arizona
April 27, 2005, 07:37 PM
I like how the chief is REQUIRING his men to buy just about the most expensive option available, how nice of him. Obviously the guys wouldnt be well protected by anything that didnt bear the dancing pony. I don't have a problem with Colts, but as far as a working-gun is concerned an AR-15 is an AR-15 from any of the big manufactures. I bet the price difference between the Colt and the equally suitable offerings from RRA and Bushmaster is pretty significant to a lot of cops.
Police Chief Chuck Harmon approved use of the AR-15s last June with guidelines that took months to develop. Officers who want the weapons must buy them for $1,100.

Does not sound like a requirement, just a specification the officers need to adhere to IF they purchase a rifle.

The rifles may be used only in "a high-risk situation, such as to overcome suspects with superior firepower, in response to an active shooter situation, when confronted by barricaded subjects, during stakeout and perimeter operations, for felony vehicle stops."

I would want a MBR for most of these situations, and the SPPD Chief could get them from Uncle Sam for a song, through one of the Law Enforcement Assistance programs. But then the Department would be responsible for keeping track of them, not the individual Officer. :(

Delmar
April 27, 2005, 08:21 PM
I find it difficult to believe that any medium to large city does not REQUIRE the uniformed officers to qualify and ISSUE high powered rifles.
Does the bank robbery in LA mean nothing to these fools?

That is not directed at the rank and file-99.99% of which are the good guys, but their politically elected bosses.

If nothing else, there seems to be a lot of Garands and such which is being chopped up as we speak :cuss: Seems there are more bad guys strapping on the armor these days, but I suspect an AP 30-06 would defeat it easily. I'd even venture to say a good old bolt action Remchestruger, but a quick follow up shot might save a life.

I understand some locales might have issues with select fire weapons, but there should be no reason why the select feature cannot be removed with parts changes, or equipped with a lock such as the M-14's.

Doesn't seem to matter to the politicians what the size of the population they represent. They will ignore it until a catastrophy strikes, then act all surprised that what they were warned about actually happened. Then, they will finally get off their duff and pass the needed legislation. After a while, when the threat has subsided, they will toss it out and wait for the next catastrophic event and be surprised all over again.

c_yeager
April 28, 2005, 02:34 AM
Does not sound like a requirement, just a specification the officers need to adhere to IF they purchase a rifle.

The point that i was making is that anyone who wants a patrol rifle is required to buy the most expensive option available. If he is comfortable with his staff carrying rifles in the first place why does it matter what brand they are?

Mannlicher
April 28, 2005, 08:35 AM
How moronic. The sunset of the AWB did really nothing more than make legal again, cosmetics, and the purchase of newly made magazines. StPete is pretty much populated with old blue haired liberal yankee women anyway. pfffffffft.

Harry Tuttle
April 28, 2005, 08:51 AM
you all are reading a "News 6" pick up from the AP wire of this story:

St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
April 25, 2005 Monday
Pg. 1B

Police arm themselves with high-powered rifles

ALEX LEARY

More than 100 St. Petersburg officers have ordered assault rifles.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/25/Southpinellas/Police_arm_themselves.shtml

Randy in Arizona
April 28, 2005, 08:51 PM
From the link Harry Tuttle posted - -
"Our cities are not combat zones, but when you arm the police with assault rifles, you run the risk of turning them into combat zones," said Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C. "I doubt there very many communities outside Iraq where you need that kind of firepower."

Dear Mr. D-ass,
It won't be the police that start the fight, but hopefully it will be them that finish the fight. I realize that your job at the VPC is to prevent people from having arms to protect themselves, but the policeman killed in the line of duty for lack of an Evil Black Rifle might be the one that would have saved your worthless butt from a mugger that kills his victims.

Randy in Arizona

PS Here’s your sign. :evil:


Here's your sign (http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/heresign.htm)

Stevie-Ray
April 28, 2005, 09:19 PM
Tom Diaz is one dangerous idiot. He's to be afforded all the contempt and seriousness you would Sarah Brady.

If you enjoyed reading about "Expiration Of Ban Pushes Police To Get Assault Rifles" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!