AWB question... not what you think.

[TAB]

Lets just say for the sake of argument that another AWB is going to happen... no ifs ands or buts...

Would you support a cluase in the AWB that stated it applied to LEOs and LEAs? In other words, every one but the miltary had to fallow it.

 

[mstirton]

Secret service running alongside Obama's car with double-barrelled 26" shotguns. ATF knocking on your door with a knife in hand. At least those police shootings would be limited to 10 shots instead of 47.

 

[bthest86]

Aside from all else, it would be pretty fair wouldn't it.

 

[RX-178]

It is entirely possible (and I believe preferable) for LEOs to do their jobs without ANY special privileges that other citizens would not enjoy.

And I mean ANY. Citizens can make an arrest and hold a suspect until police arrive. There's no reason that police should automatically be any more free from the threat of unlawful detainment prosecution than other citizens. (I'm sure they AREN'T truly free from that threat, having said that. Just giving scenarios to support my point.)

A warrant is a warrant. It wouldn't matter if it was issued to federal, state, or local police. There's no reason it should be any different if the warrant was issued to private citizens. That being said, I can't think of ANY scenario where a private party would be selected over actual professional law enforcement to execute a warrant, but it's still something that is not necessary to mandate as a LEO only privilege.

Is there any reason why police use of force policy should be any different than the deadly force laws of the applicable region?

Law Enforcement are civilians doing a service to the public, as their profession. For this service they are paid with public money, and are equipped with many expensive tools to make their job easier.

At some point in times, public view has been twisted to make these civilians out to be superior than their fellow civilians, and giving them exclusive privileges under letter of law.

It's analogous to the knights of medieval times. They were a class above the 'common folk', and were given the right to enforce their will over them, with the logic that they are entitled to this superior position because they were their protectors. In medieval times, the knights were the ones called to war to protect the towns they ruled over, after all.

I know it's (currently) still a minority, but is it any wonder that some law enforcement officers have let it go to their head?

Some years ago there was a story about a CCW holder who shot an off duty police officer for physically attacking his wife while in a drunken rage. That police department filed murder charges on the CCW holder, and (to my knowledge) STILL maintains that they are seeking further evidence for future indictments when the charge was thrown out by a Grand Jury. The logic isn't hard to grasp. This 'peasant' had killed a 'knight'.

I will say again that I have met VERY FEW law enforcement officers that have this mindset, and have met MANY more that hold these self-imagined 'knights' in utter contempt.

It just leaves you to wonder though, with more and more laws being written expressly FOR law enforcement, is this situation going to get better or worse over time?

 

[Shweboner]

I agree, the police are waaaay to over-militarized!

We should be on an even field with them. Military, and possibly federal agents could be exempt. But state and local authorities do not need half of the stuff they've added to their arsenal recently... especially some of the high tech crowd control weapons in use.

 

[RX-178]

I don't really think of it as an us-and-them kind of situation, Shweboner.

It's not that we should be on an even playing field with them.

It's that THEY should have never been separated from us the way that they have been. It should be citizens, doing a legal activity as a profession. The legal activity being to arrest those suspected of committing illegal acts (after all, everyone's a 'suspect' until a conviction) as defined by a warrant, or by probable cause. In which case ANY citizen should be able to perform an arrest (for the purpose of this discussion, I will not use the term 'citizen's arrest').

The only distinction between a law enforcement officer is that they would be doing this for a living, while other citizens would not. As part of their employment, they would be equipped with firearms, handcuffs, identifying uniforms, a vehicle, and other equipment to make their job easier.

It shouldn't be any different from a pizza delivery person being equipped with a vehicle (a scooter, going by the stereotype), a uniform, and other equipment to make their job easier. In fact, going by some of the threads on THR, there would be a compelling argument to issue pizza delivery men a sidearm as well!

 

[BBQLS1]

Great post RX-178!

 

[Neo-Luddite]

I would INCLUDE the military and the government.

There, now I can start my day.

 

[smee781]

As much as I would like to see them pay for the stupid factor, I would not like to see a rise of cop killings because an honest cop could not defend himself against a crook.

 

[DSAPT9]

My problem is I can not support any type of AWB for them or us. I feel we should have the same right to protect ourselves with the same tools as our Military, Law Enforcement and even the Secret Service. I feel my life and my family’s lives are just as important as the President’s is and I should be able to use the same tools to protect them as the Secret Service does to protect him/her as the case may be. With that said you would never see it happen. The AWB is for our protection according the anti-gun folks and if only the police have them they intern would be better able to protect us from ourselves.

Remember that man currently has the knowledge to make firearms so even if there was a magic button that would make all guns and ammo disappear with a simple push it would not be long before new ones would get manufactured and in use!!!

 

[smee781]

The fact still remains, (even though I hate all forms of an awb) cops/sec service/military still have more criminal contact than the average joe. I am not trying to sound like an anti but it is what it is. People failed to give a ***** about the 2nd and now it is at risk again.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Lets just say for the sake of argument that another AWB is going to happen... no ifs ands or buts...

This already smells of capitulation and I will take no part in it.

 

[RX-178]

Cops will have more criminal contact than the average joe, but the majority of shootouts are still with pistols and shotguns, not 'assault weapons', and there is NO competent police department that authorizes fully automatic fire (short bursts, maybe. But the majority of departments that are even equipped with selective fire weapons train their officers to only use semi-auto fire).

Police officers carry weapons for the same reason that average citizens would carry weapons. To defend themselves, and others, from criminal attack. They don't carry rifles slung on their back whenever they get out of their vehicle, at least I would certainly HOPE that they do not. When they knock on the door from a call, they're armed with the same thing most CC and OC'ers have. A handgun.

When it comes to the point where police demand that they need select fire assault rifles to serve a search warrant, or decides that an M113 APC WITH the ma-deuce still on top has a legitimate law enforcement purpose (I don't remember which sheriff's department purchased this, but I'm sure a few of our members can), well then I think it's time someone had a long talk with the chief and discussed the priorities of their department.

IF they still feel the need for such things, well, as a commercial entity (which is what they really are, no matter how you look at it) I think they do have the right to spend their budget how they want. I just don't think they should be able to spend it in ways that the average citizen can not.

In fact, my whole point is that there should BE no comparison to the 'average citizen', because police SHOULD be average citizens.

If they decide they need AR-15s, they should be able to go to a local gun shop and pick up a dozen, THE SAME WAY WE DO. If they need a select fire weapon, well, find a pre-86 version and spend 5 figures on it, just the way we do. And if that sounds unreasonable, get the law changed so that we ALL can buy them again.

WE all. They WERE the same as us. Some still ARE the same as us. Many would like to THINK of themselves as the same as us still. But some still want more power to RULE over us than they even currently have.

 

[1911 guy]

No exceptions. Maybe get a few police chiefs to actually think about the stupid stuff that falls out of their mouths. The majority of them are in favor of restrictions (as long as they are exempted) while the rank and file are often pro-gun or at least ambivalent.

 

[texaspunk]

I think local and state LEOs are all in the same sinking ship as the rest of us. I won't support it at all, but there should be no ADDITIONAL laws exempting any agency from laws that other citizens must follow, IMO.

 

[Landric]

First off, I don't support any sort of new AWB, and I'll like to see a lot of the 1968 and 1934 restrictions rolled back.

That said, speaking as an LEO, if there is some sort of future ban, I don't think any civilian LEOs (local, state, federal) should be exempt from the restrictions, especially the feds.

I was an LEO for most of the last ban, and I can say from experience that it was not any easier for me to get banned items than it was for anyone, it was just easier for the department to purchase said items and issue them to me. I was just as effected, and just as offended by the ban, as everyone else.

I do, however, take issue with some of the comments posted here. The primary reason that LEOs carry weapons is self-defense, but we are called upon to put ourselves into situations (by policy and community expectation if not law) that non-LEOs could retreat from or not involve themselves in. We are granted more authority to use force because of our job (i.e. we do not have to retreat before using force), and in my state only LEOs are empowered to make arrests, there is not citizen's arrest in NC.

All that said, I could do my job effectively using only weapons that were not banned under the previous ban. If it really is true, as our president elect says, that "assault weapons" do not belong on our streets, then law enforcement shouldn't be using them either, both to set an example and to prevent such weapons being stolen by criminals.

I would never support any sort of ban on military weapons used outside the US, but any military action inside the US (like national guard delployments) should also be subject to the ban for the same reasons as law enforcement.

 

[cigardad]

We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we most assuredly hang separately.

Ben Franklin

 

[KBintheSLC]

No way! The point of the 2A is to keep "the people" armed with the same toys the government gets to have. The fact that we can't own a select fire rifle is already a violation of the 2A. If we only include the police in this ban, then the government can still use federal forces against us.
I won't support any further bans, weather they include cops or not.

 

[RX-178]

Landric, my argument is not that Law Enforcement officers should be restricted.

My argument is that the CITIZENRY should be given the same powers that Law Enforcement officers have, under letter of law.

I do not believe that citizens should have a duty to retreat when threatened with violence. I do not believe citizens should be prohibited from making an arrest of someone that is clearly committing a violent, criminal act.

This isn't because I think that the citizenry should all be cops. This is because I think the cops should be citizenry.

Yes, you are called upon to put yourself in situations that non LEOs could retreat from. But as part of your employment, you are (or SHOULD be) issued, at no cost to yourself, proper weapons and equipment to deal with those situations.

It is also the nature of your profession that YOU freely chose to accept. You are compensated for this service financially.

Non LEO citizens are not paid to stop crimes and protect others. If they are equipped to do so, they have equipped themselves at their own expense. Yet there are stories told right here on THR where it came to a CCW holder to stop an assault, while police were just looking on, and ostensibly waiting for backup.

In one such story, the CCW holder was threatened with a charge for brandishing a weapon.

A citizen should be able to legally prevent a crime from happening, especially acts of violence. If the citizen is irresponsible and causes harm to others, then that citizen should be punished.

That's no different than LEOs in the same situation. The ONLY difference there should be, is that LEOs have chosen this as a profession, while non LEO citizens have not.

Just the same way that a person can choose to provide a ride in their car as a service to someone (I've been driven to work by a friend plenty of times myself). Taxi drivers have chosen it as their profession, other citizens have not.

 

[matrem]

I'm appalled at the number of people that don't understand why the 2nd amendment is there!

 

[Kind of Blued]

Absolutely. In fact, I'd prefer that the military abide by it as well.

Perhaps I'm an extremist, but I think that I have the Constitution on my side; it's absolutely an "extreme" document, even today. I don't think that the military should be able to more readily access ANY small arms than their civilian counterparts, save for the factor of cost. In this case, I find it wrong that my tax dollars buy the military weapons which I personally can't buy.

 

[Landric]

Landric, my argument is not that Law Enforcement officers should be restricted.

My argument is that the CITIZENRY should be given the same powers that Law Enforcement officers have, under letter of law.

We don't disagree about the issue involving weapons at all. As far as citizens having arrest powers, I think that might cause more problems than it solves, if people actually tried to use them. I understand that many states have citizen's arrests, I just don't work in one that does. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue at all.

I do not believe that citizens should have a duty to retreat when threatened with violence. I do not believe citizens should be prohibited from making an arrest of someone that is clearly committing a violent, criminal act.

This isn't because I think that the citizenry should all be cops. This is because I think the cops should be citizenry.

I agree that someone who is somewhere they are lawfully allowed to be shouldn't be required to retreat before using force, but that has been the law of the land for years and I don't expect it to change.

Yes, you are called upon to put yourself in situations that non LEOs could retreat from. But as part of your employment, you are (or SHOULD be) issued, at no cost to yourself, proper weapons and equipment to deal with those situations.

It is also the nature of your profession that YOU freely chose to accept. You are compensated for this service financially.

I wasn't complaining about the situation, just pointing out that there is a reason that LEOs generally have less restrictions on the use of force, its not because we are better, but because we are required to insert ourselves into situations that non-LEOs are not.

Non LEO citizens are not paid to stop crimes and protect others. If they are equipped to do so, they have equipped themselves at their own expense. Yet there are stories told right here on THR where it came to a CCW holder to stop an assault, while police were just looking on, and ostensibly waiting for backup.

In one such story, the CCW holder was threatened with a charge for brandishing a weapon.

I can't comment on the stories you reference because I neither read them or was present when the situations occured. I can tell you that I have never personally observed a LEO stand by and allow an obvious good guy to be threatened or assaulted. Sometimes in mutual combat situations where there is no obvious agressor, we have to allow people to fight until we have enough help to control them, but if it appears someone is obviously on the bad end, we do what we have to.

A citizen should be able to legally prevent a crime from happening, especially acts of violence. If the citizen is irresponsible and causes harm to others, then that citizen should be punished.

I'm not aware of anything that prohibits citizens from doing so. In NC they are not allowed to arrest, but they can detain someone for an LEO for all felonies and many misdemeanors that occur in their presence.

That's no different than LEOs in the same situation. The ONLY difference there should be, is that LEOs have chosen this as a profession, while non LEO citizens have not.

LEOs also, at least ideally, have a much better understanding of the elements required to make up various offenses and the necessary procedures required to make a valid arrest.

Just the same way that a person can choose to provide a ride in their car as a service to someone (I've been driven to work by a friend plenty of times myself). Taxi drivers have chosen it as their profession, other citizens have not.

True enough, but there is a little bit more involved in knowing how and when to make an arrest than there is to driving a taxi.

I'm not saying citizens can't be trusted with the responsibility, but someone who chooses to act in such a way should make sure that they know what they are doing. The best way to do that is get training from people who do know.

 

[CoRoMo]

Sure.

However, in the eyes of our gub'mint, LEOs and LEAs are not a threat. Law abiding voters are.

 

[RX-178]

IF a citizen makes a misunderstanding of a situation, and detains someone without cause, and/or causes physical harm to another human being as a result of that misunderstanding, they should be punished for that.

LEOs should be punished for the same misunderstanding, if the same situation would be turned on them.

Saying that citizens are lawfully ALLOWED to make an arrest isn't the same as giving them the right to arrest others. If this citizen does not understand the offenses and necessary procedures, then he would be punished for making an arrest without cause.

Are LEOs never punished for making an arrest without just cause? I'd certainly hope they would be.

I'm not going to argue that there isn't a difference between the job of an LEO, and the job that I have. I don't think that difference would EVER require laws that were written specifically for one profession over the other.

Here's another question. Why is 'assaulting a police officer' a different charge than 'assault'? Why is causing physical harm to one person any more or less serious a crime than causing physical harm to another person?

 

[Landric]

IF a citizen makes a misunderstanding of a situation, and detains someone without cause, and/or causes physical harm to another human being as a result of that misunderstanding, they should be punished for that.

LEOs should be punished for the same misunderstanding, if the same situation would be turned on them.

That is fine as far as it goes. It doesn't do the person caused harm any good though.

Saying that citizens are lawfully ALLOWED to make an arrest isn't the same as giving them the right to arrest others. If this citizen does not understand the offenses and necessary procedures, then he would be punished for making an arrest without cause.

Sure it is. If the law says someone can do something, then they can. If they screw up, they can be punished for it, whether you call it a "right" or "allowed".

Are LEOs never punished for making an arrest without just cause? I'd certainly hope they would be.

Yes, they are. There are civil and criminal penalities for unlawful arrests, civil is the more common of the two.

I'm not going to argue that there isn't a difference between the job of an LEO, and the job that I have. I don't think that difference would EVER require laws that were written specifically for one profession over the other.

In that case, one wouldn't need a license to practice medicine, law, etc. There are plenty of laws specific to professions.

another question. Why is 'assaulting a police officer' a different charge than 'assault'? Why is causing physical harm to one person any more or less serious a crime than causing physical harm to another person?

You'd have to ask the legislatures in the states where that is true for the answer. I can tell you what I think.

In North Carolina LEOs are just one protected class when it comes to assaults. Women (when assaulted by a male at least 18), children, handicapped people, and various others are also protected by increased penalities for simple assaults. In the case of LEOs, the reason, IMO, is that we are siginificantly more likely to be assaulted because of the job we do than the average person. In order to discourage that, there is an increased penalty. I've never been assaulted other than in the course of my duties as an LEO. If I wasn't an LEO, I've never have been the victim of an assault. That, IMO, is the reason.

When it comes to arrests, I don't think its unreasonable to limit the ability to people who have been trained how and when to do so. We don't let people not trained as doctors practice medicine, we don't let people who arn't trained as lawyers practice law. Our society is full of people who are empowered to do things the average person is not by virtue of their training, education, experience, etc.

If one wants to make arrests, one can become an LEO, if one wants to practice medicine, one can become a doctor.

As it stands now, citizen detention accomplishes everything needed for a citizen who is not a trained LEO to stop or prevent criminal activity.