Remove LEO exemption from firearm laws?

[keeleon]

I was actually having this conversation with a friend last night. It is a very touchty subject because of the difficulties, but I can completely see how this line of thinking IS beneficial to lightening up gun laws. My question is, Why do LEOs need high capacity magazines? Why do they need folding stocks on their rifles? Why do they need short barrels and suppressors? You can not possibly answer those questions without admitting that civillians should have the same rights, unless you are talkng about "dirty cops" which is a whole different ball of wax.

If the logic is that they need access to a "heavier" arsenal to combat the criminals, then why is it fair that while those criminals obviously have equal weapons to the police, the population is not allowed to be equal. I say make a law removing exemptions from LEOs, then the only way they can "fight fair", is by campaigning to lighten the laws themslves. The cops OBVIOUSLY don't want to be outgunned by the criminals, and by fighting such a law, they would be admitting that what's good for the goose is definitely NOT good for the gander.

 

[ilbob]

I won't respond to the poll because it ignores the reality that in some states sworn police officers are considered sworn police officers 24/7 and are required to carry even when off-duty.

Easy enough to change that law.

 

[flyboyldb]

In reference to the OP. I understand your view point. But I truely believe this would be a step backwards. In some states, off duty LEOs are treated the same as non LEO in regards to carry. You used the term "Citizens", LEOs are citizens too. And since they are non military - they are also civilians. If a state allows off duty LEOs to be present in a particular local with a firearm where a non LEO cannot attend with a firearm, then that is better than no persons with a firearm. On duty LEOs should be allowed to have their firearm anywhere that their daily duty takes them! I do not want to handicap our on/off duty LEOs in an effort to justify carry in most places for non LEOs. Think about the ramifications of your poll. If LEOs were stripped from carrying privileges to that equal to non LEOs, then the ANTI groups would just utilize it to make their stance something like "LEOs have no need to carry in these places, why should the non LEOs". A fair majority of LEOs already support non LEO carrying and our rights to carry in most places. Let's not take the stance "but he/she (LEO) can carry here or there, why can't we - if we can't, then neither can they (LEOs)". Keep up our fight to change the laws and not make our LEOs' job any tougher. jmo

 

[Louisiana Carry]

 

[REOIV]

Equal laws for everyone including members of the government.

If a law abiding citizen cannot do it, agents of the government shouldn't be allowed to do so either.

Open carry illegal in your state, cops shouldn't be allowed to open carry.

If you kill/assault a person the punishment shouldn't change based upon their occupation. Their death/assault should be enough. Killing/assaulting a cop should be the same legally as killing/assaulting anyone else.

There is no reason to create a second class of citizens that laws apply differently too.

 

[MakAttak]

Keep up our fight to change the laws and not make our LEOs' job any tougher. jmo

I would be happy to if we didn't have to fight against the large number of Law Enforcement representatives trying to take away our civil rights.

 

[Zangetsu]

I won't respond to the poll because it ignores the reality that in some states sworn police officers are considered sworn police officers 24/7 and are required to carry even when off-duty. That's not really a RKBA provision, that's a "keep police available" issue that even some LEOs don't like because they would prefer to be off-duty when they're off-duty ... but it's the law.

See, that's what I'm talking about. If there is no LEO exemption, and they are forced to carry 24/7, then in order for them to be able to do their job as written, it must also be legal for citizens to do it as well. That's why I think a law like this would really help things out, because chances are police aren't going to like being disarmed (whether they are "gun nuts" or not), and if they are upset enough by it they can strike over it and really make things hairy. The only option then is to either repeal stupid gun control or repeal the LEO exemption law. Either way, it shakes things up and gets people talking, so I'm all for it

 

[JohnBT]

I don't think it's fair that the cops get sirens and cool lightbars and I can't run them on my car. Sirens and lights for everybody.

John

 

[grog18b]

Well said John.

 

[grog18b]

How about the citizens worry about their rights, and leave the boogymanevil cops out of this. We as a membership have NO say in the anti gun nonsense spouted by our "supposed" representitives. Let me tell you civvies something... The chiefs AND the unions DO NOT represent us. They are just things we as peons have to deal with, and can't do anything about. Don't speak as an expert, unless you've walked a mile in MY shoes.

 

[Soybomb]

If you're going to spend your time working for legislation make it to get more people with guns, not less.

 

[MrAnteater]

I would be happy to if we didn't have to fight against the large number of Law Enforcement representatives trying to take away our civil rights.

Agreed. The association of police chiefs is not very friendly to gun owners at all.

There is the mentality of some law enforcement that they are the only ones capable of carrying a weapon. The rest of us sheep need to fall in line.

Its funny, because the last IDPA match I attended the highest any of the 3 cops finished was 5th, (I finished third, haha)...... And I'm not worthy of carrying? Hmmmm.......

 

[drphil]

We as a membership have NO say in the anti gun nonsense spouted by our "supposed" representatives.

Well, I don’t believe that and even if it was true it is still not an excuse. Many posts so far have simply told us proles to write our representatives and stop complaining. I think it is easier to get a new union rep elected than a new senator JMHO. Also, the LEO community would ACTIVELY oppose any gun control legislation if a law like this was passed.

Also, I didn’t intend this to be an LEO bashing thread. I should have been more specific in my question. I would like to see this law applied to judges, DAs, the secret service, elected officials, etc. In general, I think all exceptions from all laws should be removed. I don’t understand how a free society can have different sets of laws for different people.

Would the “No” people change your answer if the firearm exemption laws were only for people who make over 200K a year?

 

[buzz_knox]

How about the citizens worry about their rights, and leave the boogymanevil cops out of this.

We are worried about our rights. That's the whole point. The representatives you don't care for argue for and support the abrogation of our rights. The question is, would they do so if they did not receive exemptions in exchange?

How long would these representatives remain in their positions if they supported laws that did not have LE exemptions?

 

[Crow1108]

I voted for Yes, but I'm more for allowing civilians to own weapons that are available to police, rather than limiting police to what civilians can own. I do like that certain companies stopped selling to the PRK though.

 

[buzz_knox]

I voted for Yes, but I'm more for allowing civilians to own weapons that are available to police, rather than limiting police to what civilians can own. I do like that certain companies stopped selling to the PRK though.

As to the first point, absolutely. The 2nd Amendment was intended to provide for (at a minimum) parity of the citizenry with gov't. I really couldn't care less what LEOs had, as long as its not at the expense of the rights of the citizenry.

As to the latter point, that will get interesting. It's unlikely to have a major impact, but avalanches have started with less.

 

[230RN]

Music to my ears... music, I tell ya:

This type of nibbling process has been historically successful in civilian disarmament of other nations governed by totalitarian and other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States .

...snip....

I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.

Thank you, Mr Barrett. Well said!

Source:

http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/la50banbarrett.shtml

I voted yes on General Principles.

-- Terry

 

[OMGWTFBBQ]

Remove LEO exemption?

I'd rather the stupid law be removed instead.

And all those "anti" cops you see are under treat of replacement if they don't stay in line with the mayor.

 

[fchavis]

I went ahead and voted yes, but only because I think those exceptions create an unnecessary and harmful double standard. I am certainly not in favor of disarming police officers, on or off duty, but we should remember one thing. We are all ultimately civvies, with the concession of active military, and they have their own restrictions. The double standard just puts us all at odds and does half the Brady/VPCs work for them.

 

[RP88]

the fact that (most) LEOs, etc. want to be exempt and dont care about our rights is a clear-cut example of classism. If LEOs were truly concerned, then they would be next to us in the fight and campaign against the laws in-whole instead of asking to be exempt because of their job description.

I'll just say that I support that they'd be treated like us, and that is not only with guns. Same thing goes for everyone else.

 

[Deanimator]

We as a membership have NO say in the anti gun nonsense spouted by our "supposed" representitives.

Don't you elect your union representatives? I'm pretty sure they're not appointed. If they are, by WHOM?

Sorry, when some guy from the FOP says in his official capacity that nobody but cops should have guns, or that cops [and ONLY cops] should be able to beat their wives and keep their guns, he's speaking for YOU, every bit as much as Dennis Kucinich is speaking for ME as a resident in his district in the State of Ohio. I may not like it, but I don't have to like things in order for them to be true. And it's the truth that more people vote for Dennis than vote for someone else. Similarly, if you have rabidly anti-gun... and anti-woman union reps, it's because the rank and file SUPPORT the candidates who promote those views. Again, you may not like that, but existential truth is not contingent on either of our likes and dislikes.

 

[Steve in PA]

A non-LEO can buy anything a LEO can, you just need to go through more paper work.

A non-LEO's weaponry remains his. A LEO's remains "his" (actually the depts) only as long as he is employed by the dept.

 

[keeleon]

This isn't about "disarming" LEOs. This is about asking why they need to have such superior firepower? If the logic behind the original laws is that civilians don't need access to "tactical" weapons to defend themselves, then what reason to the police have for them either? Do the police have them because they are admitting that there are criminals who might be armed similarly, and equal force is the only way to win? If so, then how come civilians aren't allowed equal force? If the lawmakers have decided that I don't need to have anything more than 10 rounds in my magazine, or that I don't need a pistol grip on my rifle, then why do the police need it? Answer that question and you will be admitting that civilians might have a need for it too. I think proposing something like this would be a good idea, because it would force them to answer that question.

It's about setting precedent. If you propose this, and the police fight it, then you have a perfect grounds to argue back, why would anyone need those "assault weapons" at all.

How's this for an example, what if you wanted to remodel your house. But only licensed carpenters have access to power tools, so you have to use the old hammer and screwdriver to get everything done. If you tried to take the power tools away from carpenters they would throw a fit. But then that makes it a lot easier to ask, "why do carpenters need power tools"? when they say because it makes th ejob easier, that's when you strike with "why shouldn't I be able to do it easier by myself"? To which they will have no answer.

A non-LEO can buy anything a LEO can, you just need to go through more paper work.

A non-LEO's weaponry remains his. A LEO's remains "his" (actually the depts) only as long as he is employed by the dept.

I don't know if that is necessarily true. I don't think I can fill out paperwork in CA to buy high capacity magazines. And as far as I know cops are allowed to own and purchase their own equipment, of course I don't know the legality of owning high caps after you stop being a cop. But they still belong to him. Same thing with automatic knives, cops (and used to be paramedics) could buy as many switchblades as they wanted with the proper paperwork and identification, and I know for a fact they weren't required to turn them in when they stopped being a cop.

 

[Deanimator]

A non-LEO can buy anything a LEO can, you just need to go through more paper work.

A non-LEO's weaponry remains his. A LEO's remains "his" (actually the depts) only as long as he is employed by the dept.

Really? So then if I lived in Chicago, I could buy [and carry] a handgun, just like a Chicago cop (or a City Council member)?

I'm sorry, you're simply mistaken.

 

[Rachen]

I think LEOs should follow the same restrictions as citizens.

If citizens can open carry, so could they. If it's like NYC where armed citizens are forbidden from carrying, LEOs there should have no reasonable excuse to carry while they are off duty either.

Not really about crime rates. More about the fact that LEOs can be kept in check to make sure they don't go out of hand and start bullying the populace.

It's a measure we can all use to prevent the country turning into a police state.