Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LEOs subject to same restrictions as peasants?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by MudPuppy, Aug 6, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MudPuppy

    MudPuppy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,529
    Location:
    UK and Texas
    What do you think, good or bad to have a Federal Law requiring law enforcement to abide by the law?
    No SBRs without permits, no FA (although they'd just buy all the legal ones with our money...grrr), no evil normal cap magazines, etc.
     
  2. DeseoUnTaco

    DeseoUnTaco Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2005
    Messages:
    290
    I think that LEOs should be subject to same gun laws we all are. Basically in the US, LEOs are not a privileged class of people. They are just people who have volunteered for a special and dangerous responsibility, but it doesn't come with any privileges. It does come with some extra powers and some extra legal protections, and some extra respect, but no privileges.

    It's not like that in other countries. In many parts of the world, LEOs and military are a privileged class, and everyone else has to give them special treatment, bribes, etc, and they are not bound by the same laws. Fortunately that's not the case here.

    You'll note in the constitution that our government may not give titles. We have no titles, no royalty, no legally-established classes of people.
     
  3. Eightball

    Eightball Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,257
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    I agree. Make them abide by the same standards as the rest of us, and then see how effective the laws make them. That way, mayhaps people will realize how innately idiotic the rules against firearms really are :fire: . That, and maybe we'd recruit LEO's to our side in repealing/preventing other antigun measures from taking place :) . Hopefully they'd repeal the no FA thing, and allow civvies to purchase the weapons that only they were allowed to purchase beforehand (since, if they abide by the same laws as civilians, they'd have a very limited choice of firearms to choose from, which is a problem they'd presumably want to fix).
     
  4. Firethorn

    Firethorn Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,386
    I'm all for it.
     
  5. seed

    seed Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    425
    Agreed...with all of you. But don't forget that everytime a law is introduced, not only are LEO's exempted from restrictions, but they are practically bribed to endorse their implementation amongst us peasants.

    One more thing...Isn't it funny how certain guns are considered unsafe (in California, for instance...drop test) and yet LEO's are exempted from being restricted from owning/carrying them? If the the damned thing is considered to be "too dangerous" for people to carry, then why are you allowing our mighty, holier than thou protectors to have them? Just another example how gun laws are made for the sole purpose of slowly, but surely bypassing the 2A and taking away gun choices from us peasants...always under the BS transparent guise of "safety".
     
  6. Powderman

    Powderman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,626
    Location:
    Washington State
    Friend, wake up and smell the coffee.

    WE ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME LAWS THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS!!!!

    The FA's that you see are owned by the DEPARTMENT.

    And, as far as normal capacity magazines, you DO know that the Assault Weapons Ban :barf: is long gone, right? You can buy factory fresh hi-caps now, for pre-ban prices.

    If I decided to buy a full-auto, I would have to go through all the paperwork with the .gov, same as everyone else. I would also have to find a fully transferable pre '86 firearm, too. And, I would have to pay the same premium price everyone else pays.

    Wake up call coming up:

    WE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN YOU ARE--WE ARE PEOPLE GOVERNED BY THE SAME LAWS THAT YOU ARE!!!

    So, can we PLEASE have an end to all the cop bashing? Please?
     
  7. Otherguy Overby

    Otherguy Overby member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    Refrigerator box
    Restrictions

    There are several states that still restrict magazine capacity for civilians.
    ---------

    Regardless, the proposal was to apply citizen/civilian restrictions to police.

    I'd really like to see this applicable to police carry because it would instantly show the idiocy of carry restrictions.

    IOW, police should NOT be allowed to carry anywhere a citizen can't.

    In someplace like LA, SF or NYC, the number of police allowed to actually carry weapons should be about the same percentage as the general population can obtain CCW.

    Police should also be restricted to the same vehicle carry laws citizens are.

    CA cops should have to carry their handguns unloaded and locked in a hard sided case in the trunk of their cars, separate from the ammunition. The ammunition must NOT be loaded into magazines because that makes the locked up handgun "loaded".
    In California, cops should be restricted to "safe" guns like every other CA citizen and also a 10 day waiting/cooling off period before actually being able to take a "secured" gun along while on duty.

    If there's a no guns sign, the cop would have to disarm prior to entry.

    It's for the children, doncha know...

    Of course the above is ludicrous. Leftists would be the first to say the police wouldn't be able to protect us with their guns securely locked up while conveniently overlooking the fact that police don't have to protect us anyway...

    Besides adding guns to a dangerous situation just makes it more dangerous. :banghead:
     
  8. DMF

    DMF Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    Powderman hit the nail on the head.

    If I want a shotgun with a 14" barrel, I must jump through all the same hoops someone who is not a cop must go through to buy an NFA weapon. Same for full auto. If I'd like to get a brand new select fire M-4 for my personal collection, I can't do it, I've got find something built and registered prior to 1986.

    Cops don't get any exemption from those laws, the agencies do.
     
  9. Steve in PA

    Steve in PA Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,564
    Location:
    NE PA
    :barf: Yawn :barf:

    I'll leave it go at that.
     
  10. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    Doesnt the 14th amendment specify that states must give equal protection of the law to all people? Wouldnt that include themselves as well? Or is the government no longer comprised of the People?
     
  11. Greg L

    Greg L Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,381
    Location:
    Northern KY
    I think the (not clearly stated) point was that the police should have to follow the same rules while on duty. Obviously while off duty you need to follow the same rules/jump through the same hoops as any other citizen. However if the street LEOs had to live by them, hopefully their screaming would penetrate the thick skulls of management/politicians about how asinine some of the rules are.
     
  12. BryanP

    BryanP Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,420
    Location:
    Lavergne, TN
    Law enforcement officers are subject to the same laws we are, just as members of the United States Armed Forces are individually subjected to the same (or more restrictive) laws. It is only when acting in their capacity as agents of their agency (be it a police department or the army) they are permitted to use these things of which you speak.

    Now, if you wish to argue that Law Enforcement Agencies should be subject to the same restrictions as everyone else, that's a different question altogether.
     
  13. mercedesrules

    mercedesrules Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,010
    Give me a break. :scrutiny:

    You are allowed to lie to suspects. Civilians are punished for lying to agents of the state.

    You carry guns around openly on your hip. Civilians are usually punished for that.

    You speed whenever you think it's necessary. Civilians get tickets for speeding.

    You stop us for questioning and searches. Civilians can't stop you for questioning or searches.

    That's a distinction without a difference. That's like saying, "I didn't run over you; my car did." The department is above the law. Somebody is the department. They are above the law.

    As long as you work for the state you cannot claim to be my fellow traveler. I don't fall for that fiction that you are my servant. You are, or work for, my master.
     
  14. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    But the PEOPLE who work for the DEPARTMENT shouldn't be priviledged to possess weapons that I am not priviledged to possess.
     
  15. Telperion

    Telperion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Oregon
    (cough) ... HR218 ... (cough)
     
  16. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    I recommend Judge Napalitano's new book. It covers this topic in detail. He would have policemen subject to the same laws everyone else is subject to. There is no room in a free society for police who are above the law. Police are civilians who are doing a job, like anyone else. If a pole climber cannot do it, a cop shouldn't be allowed to.
     
  17. dustind

    dustind Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,581
    Location:
    St. Michael, MN
    I think the police in this thread missed the point. I think MudPuppy was refering to using while on duty, or put another way he was refering to the police departments.
     
  18. Steve in PA

    Steve in PA Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,564
    Location:
    NE PA
  19. Shield529

    Shield529 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Location:
    Arkansas
    You expect us to be held to a much higher standard of conduct then everyone else. A small error or one "attitude" you don't like and people scream for IA, job loss, and jail. For minor issues that non-police do all the time. So if you expect us to be held to such high standards, then don't complain when we get a few extra on-duty privlages.
    Please keep in mind that I support your rights to own FA weapons, have nation wide carry, and the removal of most gun law, (sorry felons I still think you lose your rights), but when I get bashed and abused because I happen to be a cop who does not even get such nice things I do find it offensive.
     
  20. Kurush

    Kurush Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    I'll start believing that cops have no special priveleges as soon as I stop seeing little "Member, Fraternal Order of Police" stickers dead center on private license plates :barf:
     
  21. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    North Carolina
    This is not cop-bashing, just fact.

    EVERY one of the 9 states in which I have lived has allowed off-duty police CCW, and well before the recent spread of citizen CCW.

    Maybe cops don't consider that sort of distinction from citizens a privilege, but I do.
     
  22. Harve Curry

    Harve Curry Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Black Range of New Mexico
    Policeman have special privledges:
    This elite class now have the new federal interstate CCW after they retire, with qaulifying. The same police lobby groups that vote against the people made sure thay got thiers. Peasants don't.
    The present mayor of Elephant Butte New Mexico (also a retired policeman), just introduced and was passed a city ordinance against citizens with CCW cannot carry on any property owned by that city. BUT he can carry as well as the police. Peasants cannot.
    This smell of free coffee & donuts is making me sick again :barf:
     
  23. MudPuppy

    MudPuppy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,529
    Location:
    UK and Texas
    Sorry, I wasn't clear on the original post--I did indeed mean Police Departments and and such (not individuals of the departments, who, of course, must follow the same rules to obtain personal SBRs/FAs/Suppressors).

    I'm saying, if the people can't have it, neither should those that police us (the DEPARTMENTS). I'd say its different for Military--unless they're deployed against the population.

    Not meant to be a cop-bashing thread at all, rather a "this land is your land, this land is my land" or a "we the people" thread.
     
  24. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    42,990
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Until gunfolks get personally involved in local politcs and elect people who see it "our way" and then work to get the same sorts of folks elected to state and then federal positions, we're gonna keep on being second-class citizens.

    I'm happy for the LEOs to be exempt from any restrictions that have been placed upon us. The deal is to get those restrictions removed from us.

    That can't be done by arising from the bitch-box every two or four years and ambling off to the ballot box.

    Art
     
  25. charliew

    charliew Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    Middle Tennessee
    For your information MudPuppy, police departments have to follow BATF regs when purchasing automatic weapons, short barreled weapons, or another other class of controlled firearms and accessories. I know from personal experience as a purchaser for my department that the paperwork takes MONTHS..the only difference is that a departmental (government) purchase does not pay the fee or tax.

    If I buy, as a personal purchase, a controlled firearm or accessory I pay the tax and file the paperwork just like you do. When I buy a gun, I fill out the same forms and have a TBI check just like everyone else in my state.

    For those who would take the time to study HR318 rather than mouth off about the cops vs. the peasants, us vs. them, etc., they would find that police officers permitted to carry off duty or retired face the same basic restrictions as do those with CCW permits. The Tennessee State Attorney General two or three years ago ruled that OFF DUTY police officers are subject to the same restrictions as those with a CCW permit, examples: can't carry on school property, can't carry in a place that serves alcoholic beverages, can't carry in a community center, and many others.

    I rarely visit Glock talk anymore because of the constant cop bashing there. Seems to be fairly prevalent here too. Too bad that we all live in the most free society in the world and many have to constantly bitch about their lack of rights. And no wonder so many cops develop, after a number of years on the job, an us vs. them mentality too. I've been at it for 25 years and feel like I might have made a little difference and done some good. Before that spent four years in the military. Hopefully my service to my country and to my community has meant something to someone....and for those who only criticize and bash, you know what ? you are nothing to me and not deserving of the freedom paid for with the blood of soldiers and the blood of public safety officials fighting for your freedoms for over 200 years.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page