Do the police carry FULL AUTO weapons?

[henschman]

There is an exception in the NFA for individuals who possess restricted items which are issued to them by a city, state, or local government or law enforcement agency, and an exception for transfers of restricted items to such governments and law enforcement agencies.

I've had the thought that a good way around the NFA would be for a pro 2A sheriff to deputize individuals, and allow the individuals to pay the department to purchase whatever restricted items they want, to be issued it to the individual. The department could call those individuals "special deputies" or whatever it wanted... basically they would not have any duties or salary, and it would be purely for the purpose of issuing them a restricted item.

The LE exception in the NFA is worded fairly broadly. The only possible issue would be that the ATF might try to go after such individuals for participating in a "straw purchase" under the Brady Act. I am actually not sure whether the Brady Act exempts government issued firearms from this. I will have to check -- but I've been doing a bunch of legal research at work all week and don't really feel like any more right now! But seems to me that I have heard of departments allowing officers to pay for the department to buy them a firearm, and then issuing it to them.

 

[HorseSoldier]

If the persons in question actually functioned as reserve peace officers that would probably pass muster, legally, as long as "their" weapons actually belonged to the department and reverted to it if they ever stopped functioning in that capacity. If they weren't sworn peace officers with some training, some enforcement authority and some recognition by state credentialing committees, I could see the ATF going to town on that one in a big way.

 

[GRIZ22]

I've had the thought that a good way around the NFA would be for a pro 2A sheriff to deputize individuals, and allow the individuals to pay the department to purchase whatever restricted items they want, to be issued it to the individual. The department could call those individuals "special deputies" or whatever it wanted... basically they would not have any duties or salary, and it would be purely for the purpose of issuing them a restricted item.


So then we would gave this sheriff decide who he wants to deputize and "issue" NFA items. I suppose a "campaign contribution" would help him make the decision on who gets and who doesn't. Doing what you propose would be very illegal as "they would not have any duties or salary, and it would be purely for the purpose of issuing them a restricted item..

A sheriff who would do as you propose would be obviously abusing his or her position. It would be misfeasance at the least.

 

[henschman]

The idea is that the sheriff in question would deputize anyone who is interested in participating -- not form some kind of good ol boys' club. As far as the language of the NFA goes, the exceptions for gov't/LE do not require any minimum level of training or duties. If the sheriff wanted to give such deputies any duties, it could be something like a duty to defend the liberties of the people of the state.

What laws do you believe would be violated by this scheme?

I believe providing for the protection and defense of the liberty of the citizens of his State and County would be within the authority and duties of any Sheriff. I am unaware of any laws, at least in my state, that would prevent such a scheme.

 

[rscalzo]

While we have them, the use and issuing is restricted. Training requirements are higher for anyone certified and cost has become a big factor. In the case of our AR15's, they are all semi-auto. The need for FA is not there. FA is limited to our MP5's.

Ownership of FA for personal use is no different than private citizen's regulations.

I've had the thought that a good way around the NFA would be for a pro 2A sheriff to deputize individuals, and allow the individuals to pay the department to purchase whatever restricted items they want

the exceptions for gov't/LE do not require any minimum level of training

Not going to work out that way. No doubt most states are the same as NJ requiring attenande and passing of a state police academy training course. I've never seen a department approved, privately owned FA firearm. The NFA does not address training. State law does. That would be a great way to get one's self jammed up.

 

[GRIZ22]

The idea is that the sheriff in question would deputize anyone who is interested in participating -- not form some kind of good ol boys' club.

So this sheriff would deputize anyone who wants to get a NFA item? This would include people who really can't qualify as LEOs (can't pass a written test, can't pass a psychological test, etc). It wouldn't be seen as vote for Sheriff Jones he'll give you a machine gun?

As far as the language of the NFA goes, the exceptions for gov't/LE do not require any minimum level of training or duties. If the sheriff wanted to give such deputies any duties, it could be something like a duty to defend the liberties of the people of the state.


But as has been said states have minmum levels of training to be a LEO. Are all of these people going to attend an academy and get the firearms training required by your state? Defend liberties of the people of the state? What would that mean they do?

What laws do you believe would be violated by this scheme?

How about fraud for starters? You said this would be for the purpose of them acquiring a NFA item and really for nothing else. This scheme is designed to get people "issued" NFA items that would really not be LEOs. Deputy would then be only a bogus title.

I believe providing for the protection and defense of the liberty of the citizens of his State and County would be within the authority and duties of any Sheriff. I am unaware of any laws, at least in my state, that would prevent such a scheme.

Please explain how the liberty of citizens are better protected and defended buy this scheme? If you found a sheriff who would do this I wouldn't think very much of his honesty and integrity.

 

[henschman]

How would the liberty of the citizens be better protected and defended by an armed populace? I suppose for the same reason that the Second Amendment was written.

Upon a little resarch, I found that in my state (Oklahoma), we have laws mandating the amount of training of peace officers. For reserve officers, 240 hours of training in a Basic Police course certified by the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training is required, plus a mental health test and background check. If a Sheriff required the "special deputies" pay for and take this training, he would be free to hire them as "reserve peace officers" and give them whatever duties he sees fit.

However, Sheriff's offices employ jailers, etc. that do not undergo this training and are still employees of the agency, yet are issued equipment for their job (handcuffs, uniforms, rubber gloves, etc.). I know of no law that would prevent a Sheriff's department from issuing weapons as well as any other equipment to non-peace-officer employees. Even if they don't satisfy the State's definition of a "peace officer," the NFA is only concerned with whether the firearm is in fact owned by a law enforcement agency.

Another way to accomplish this same thing that would probably be a little more air-tight would require a State's government to go along with it. They would simply have to pass a law providing for the issuance of firearms to citizens. They could create an agency to procure and issue the weapons or they could put it under the duties of an existing agency. All costs could be paid by the citizens who wish to arm themselves pursuant to this law. Since we have States who are apparently fed up with federal law enough to pass things like the Firearms Freedom Acts that several states have passed, which purport to nullify the NFA, it may be feasible for a pro-2A state to pass something like this. They could even provide for the issuance of weapons to non-residents, much like a non-resident CCL. Once again, the NFA is satisfied as long as a governmental unit owns and issues the firearms.

 

[22-rimfire]

Only the SWAT and narcotics officers have full autos on a regular basis based on what I have been told. A full auto may be issued for a bust to narcotics but they don't carry them routinely.

 

[GRIZ22]

How would the liberty of the citizens be better protected and defended by an armed populace? I suppose for the same reason that the Second Amendment was written.


I have no problem with people owning NFA stuff and think current laws are too restrictive but you really need to develop some solid reasons this would work if you want to gain support from anyone who doesn't really care for this idea. You need to give specific examples of how liberty will be better protected and defended if

I know of no law that would prevent a Sheriff's department from issuing weapons as well as any other equipment to non-peace-officer employees.

No law but there are too many liability issues associated with issuing firearms of any type to people without proper training. There will be liability issues if you indiscriminately issue firearms through an agency. I doubt you would be able to get any liability insurance.

For reserve officers, 240 hours of training in a Basic Police course certified by the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training is required, plus a mental health test and background check. If a Sheriff required the "special deputies" pay for and take this training, he would be free to hire them as "reserve peace officers" and give them whatever duties he sees fit.


Just how many people are willing to go through this time and expense. The expense part means if you can afford it you can get a NFA weapon, pretty much the way it is now. You're saying poor people need not apply. The training would be interesting with Joe having a M2 carbine, Charlie's got a MP5, and Frank's got a BAR.

Even if they don't satisfy the State's definition of a "peace officer," the NFA is only concerned with whether the firearm is in fact owned by a law enforcement agency.


If your plan were to happen I'm sure the sheriff would hear from ATF on this. Remember a lot depends on ATFs interpretation and application of the law. A LEO is someone who enforces the law not someone who is deputized so they can have a DA weapon.

Another way to accomplish this same thing that would probably be a little more air-tight would require a State's government to go along with it. They would simply have to pass a law providing for the issuance of firearms to citizens

The state doesn't provide me with a PC to exercise my freedom of speech or makes sure the church roof isn't leaking I sure don't want them issuing firearms so I can exercise the 2A. The government is way too involved with our lives I'm sure don't want them in the business of issuing firearms.

All costs could be paid by the citizens who wish to arm themselves pursuant to this law. Since we have States who are apparently fed up with federal law enough to pass things like the Firearms Freedom Acts that several states have passed, which purport to nullify the NFA, it may be feasible for a pro-2A state to pass something like this.

Once again only the ones who can afford it need apply. Yes several states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts and I believe it is a way to let the Feds know how you feel. Don't count on any one of these laws to pass muster by the Feds because they won't. I don't see anyone rushing to build full auto weapons in Montana or anywhere else these laws have been passed. I don't expect anyone who doesn't have 10 or 20 years to spare in a Federal prison.

 

[Unkei]

Police and FA

As a retired LEO of 34 years, and this from a large metropolitan Sheriff's Office, I can tell you that while the Office had full auto weaponry, it was issued only to SWAT and other special units. These officers trained constantly with those weapons and were very proficient with them.
Regular officers were issued only handguns and shotguns. In my experience, the regular officers simply didn't train often enough to be safe with FA weapons. Besides, the street officer, may never draw his weapon on duty during his entire career. When he does, enough firepower can usually be brought to bear in a given situation.
For the most part, FA weapons just aren't necessary on a day to day basis. On the other hand all officers were issued Biological Warfare Gear, and to me, that seems a bit ludicrous.
Unkei

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

My local PD has some Full auto M14s I believe in their weapons locker.

 

[lizziedog1]

No one here is bothered by regular "beat" officers being armed with full automatic weapons?

 

[GRIZ22]

No one here is bothered by regular "beat" officers being armed with full automatic weapons?


The need for FA weapons by LE is so limited I see no reason for them to be issued on a widespread basis. I say this being a LEO for over 30 years and a firearms instructor for longer than that. I also spent some time with the military going on active duty in 1967 and retiring from the reserves in 2009.

To be certified as a FA instructor by my agency took about 60 hrs of training with each different weapon. That's after I thought I knew how to use a M16 or M4 FA. Regardless of what many think (including those who own FA hand held weapons) these are not easy weapons to use properly. Not only knowing how to shoot FA but knowing when FA fire is appropriate.

 

[HorseSoldier]

However, Sheriff's offices employ jailers, etc. that do not undergo this training and are still employees of the agency, yet are issued equipment for their job (handcuffs, uniforms, rubber gloves, etc.). I know of no law that would prevent a Sheriff's department from issuing weapons as well as any other equipment to non-peace-officer employees. Even if they don't satisfy the State's definition of a "peace officer," the NFA is only concerned with whether the firearm is in fact owned by a law enforcement agency.

This is seriously a plan for a litigious citizen in some way harmed by such a policy to become the first citizen in American history to privately own a county sheriff's department and the rest of the county government.

There is a pretty good body of case law finding departments liable for use of force by reserve officers who were not properly trained, which is where things like the 240 hours training requirement you reference come from. No department run by anyone remotely sane is going risk the liability of issuing non-sworn pseudo-employees weapons that have nothing to do with their duties. It's a recipe for financial destruction, and possible criminal prosecution as well. (Though after the recent Detroit shooting incident, I'm pretty sure every clerk, dispatcher, evidence technician and janitor with Detroit PD is feeling like they should also be issued body armor and weapons . . .)

 

[Jonah71]

I wasn't neccessarily advocating FA carry. I was thinking more in the line of Glock or Sig? .40 vs .45....etc. Again, I do understand the reasons for standard issue and I agree that it's practical. But if someone wants to carry the G 23 as opposed to the G 19 because they are more efficient, (alothough this may not be a good or likely example/ lol) then they sould be able to do so imo. But of course the argument could be made that they simply need to practice more with standard issue. In the case of a bug...that should definately be left up to the person carrying it.

 

[hso]

No one here is bothered by regular "beat" officers being armed with full automatic weapons?

Because regular "beat" officers are NOT issued selective fire weapons and being bothered by something that doesn't take place is pointless. There are also sound economic reasons this doesn't happen.

Selective fire weapons require specialized training, additional training costs money and takes time, money and training time isn't something that most police departments have excess budget to work on.

Regulare patrol officers are not issued selective fire weapons and being concerned about something that doesn't happen and there are sound reasons for not happening is a waste of effort.

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

Depends on the agency, but, "Yes" is the short answer.

SWAT people carry their MP5s and M4s; Patrol carry M4s or AS-15s. Shotguns have disappeared due to the lack of range and ammo capacity.

 

[henschman]

I wouldn't have a problem with any policeman carrying a fully automatic weapon as part of his duties, as long as all citizens have equal access to such weapons.