Remove LEO exemption from firearm laws?

[JohnBT]

I can understand why officers are allowed to carry in places that I can't. They have a whole lot of ex-inmates who are angry at them and I've never locked anybody up. I think I should be allowed the same latitude, but I can see why they definitely need to be armed 24/7.

John

 

[TAB]

can understand why officers are allowed to carry in places that I can't. They have a whole lot of ex-inmates who are angry at them and I've never locked anybody up. I think I should be allowed the same latitude, but I can see why they definitely need to be armed 24/7.

John

Several other professions get people mad enough to kill, laywers, insurance professionals, building inspectors( god knows I've wanted to kill a few of them) Should those professions be allowed to carry 24/7?

 

[Ash]

I know Foresters get shot at, and have guns pulled on them.

Ash

 

[JWarren]

Ever been mad at your stockbroker because his crystal ball was broken???

On Black Tuesday, a Merrill Lynch broker got shot in the face with a .357 magnum. I've had bomb threats called into our building before.

-- John

 

[buzz_knox]

Several other professions get people mad enough to kill, laywers, insurance professionals, building inspectors( god knows I've wanted to kill a few of them) Should those professions be allowed to carry 24/7?

An attorney I worked with is on currently on a hit list over a land dispute. We are pretty sure he's in danger as the person who threatened him has already murdered one person on the list.

Another attorney was threatened in federal court by a plantiff that had just lost. The judge had the security pull the jury into chambers, and left the attorney on his own.

I've been threatened by angry plaintiffs who started talking about killing gov't agents.

A doctor I worked with received a bullet in the brain from an employee he had held off duty. The employee ended up killing himself in a high-speed one car accident on his way to kill the plant manager.

 

[JohnBT]

Let me get this straight. Because one lawyer here and one doctor there has somebody out to get them the entire profession ranks as high on the danger scale as being a police officer? I don't think so.

In any case, that's why I said, "I think I should be allowed the same latitude, but I can see why they definitely need to be armed 24/7."


I used to do tree service work. Now there's a truly dangerous profession, you can look up the stats. I had to defend myself with a chainsaw one day in D.C. I know I shouldn't have flipped the truck driver off, but he should have known better than to jump down and run at a guy holding a running chainsaw. (My dumptruck was blocking most of one lane.) Luckily he stopped about 10 feet away and thought it over when I waved it at him while revving it.

John

 

[Deanimator]

Why some feel that cops write these laws, is beyond me.

Well, I can give you an example of the ELECTED union reps of police actively campaigning for the police to be exempt from domestic violence laws which disarm batterers. They weren't talking about eliminating the law. They just wanted police to be EXEMPT. It was just icing on the cake that they did so in front of an audience of millions and in the most bizarre, thuggish, Talibanesque fashion. I was simply astonished to hear a Chicago FOP spokesman say that you couldn't take the gun from an angry, violent cop because that would just make him MORE angry and violent. Being the twits they are, nobody from NPR asked why the same argument didn't apply to MS13, the Aryan Brotherhood and pretty much every serial killer who ever lived.

These may not be YOUR attitudes, but they are most definitely the attitudes of a LOT of cops, at least as expressed by their duly constituted union reps. If you don't believe me, you can get a transcript from NPR. That interview literally changed my opinion of police.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Chances are that whomever had to go to prison didn't get there by attacking a police officer, but some other person who was unarmed. Just because a police officer catches and a court convicts the perp doesn't mean the perp, once released, will only go after the police henceforth. The perp will continue to go after unarmed people - yes, the easy targets.

The answer to this kind of crime is to keep such perps locked up, institutionalized, under full time guardianship, or execute them, and the people should be armed to thwart these perps in the first place.

If those people in government would abide the Constitution and all its amendments, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

Woody

"Give a man a policeman and (maybe) protect him for a day; give him a gun and protect him for life." Elzorro

 

[JMusic]

Why would we vote to restrict ANY firearms carry? I think that is just plain stupid! I voted NO.:banghead:


Jim

 

[buzz_knox]

Why we would vote to restrict ANY firearms carry? I think that is just plain stupid! I voted NO.

Many of the restrictions are put in place using the LE exemptions to get agency support. The "this is a good bill" speech wouldn't get trotted out as much if it applied universally. Efforts to obtain support for civilian carry via HB 218 failed, so the question is would going the other way have any effect.

As for the professions, the post mentioned other individuals who were in danger due to their careers, and some of us offered our experience.

 

[Deanimator]

LEO's are held to a much higher standard when they fire or even present their weapon.

Not in Chicago. A Chicago cop blew a guy's brains out for no discernible reason while standing under a battery of Transit Authority video cameras (which he forgot about) spun a vast web of lies about it, and got a THIRTY DAY SUSPENSION. That's ALL the punishment he got from the Chicago PD.

Somehow, I expect that if _I_ were to murder someone and have it captured on video, I'd get a little more than an unpaid vacation...

 

[Blackfork]

American Ideas.

The country was founded on the premise that all men are equal under the law. We would be better off it that were the case.

 

[buzz_knox]

And before we progress down the "this is cop bashing" argument, the question presented is valid, regardless of the particular group at issue. If some are privileged to perform an action (and these are privileges we are talking about under the current state of the law, not rights), and that privilege has been used as a tool by which to remove the rights of others, can the rights be recovered by removing the privilege?

Consider this question: would the AWB have passed it if had univeral application to non-military? Would any other gun control law or restriction? Would there be the pantheon of uniforms behind Governors and Presidents as this kind of legislation was proposed or signed?

 

[ilbob]

It won't happen. Government needs LEOs to keep the rest of us in line. That's mostly why they get special privileges in the first place.

BTW, I realize it is not quite that simple, but its pretty close.

 

[buzz_knox]

AThe country was founded on the premise that all men are equal under the law. We would be better off it that were the case.

LEOs have always had special authority by virtue of their status as representatives of the government. That authority (the power to make arrests, serve warrants, etc) wouldn't be changed nor realistically should it be. It's part of our legal system and heritage, and has been every since the decision was "made" for society exchange the immediate remedy of individual self-help (with the problems inherent with that) for the promise that society as a whole would take care of certain situations.

That's mostly why they get special privileges in the first place.

They received the privileges because it goes with the police power the states possess under our system, and the LEOs position as the enforcers of that power. The abuse of those provileges is a separate issue.

 

[buzz_knox]

There's another issue that has to be considered.

If LEOs weren't exempt from firearms laws, that would not relieve the state of its burden (and desire) to carry out police powers. The issue would be how that was done. You'd likely see higher curtailment of rights as well as increased budgets due to needing/desiring greater manpower to deal with situations.

 

[dewage83]

Forgot the name of the law, the Federal law that disbarrs anyone from owning a firearm if they were "ever" convicted of a domestic violence, includes cops & soldiers stationed in the US. It passed anyway. I've always thought that all laws that apply to citizens should also apply to police & Congress (Congress is speciffically exempt from the laws they pass for us.

do you know where i could find information on this topic??? Im pretty sure that corrections and police have the highest rate of domestic violence. (http://www.purpleberets.org/violence_police_families.html) not the site i was looking for but you can surely do your own research. but heres my OPINION(gotta say that around here) that if a police officer is convicted of domestice violence whos to say he wouldnt hurt anyone who he dosent live with and "love". i am not sure where i stand on the exemption but i do believe the police should be held under the same laws we do as citizens. we need more police who really want to clean up the streets, not bust a couple skateboarders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgWrV8TcUc&feature=related)... or any nonsence. and btw i do believe this video makes all cops look bad and i dont think that is truley the case but there are alot mroe "officer riveri's" out there.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Not to come here and complain about laws.

Seems to be more prevalent in the last few weeks, too much talk not enough action.

 

[buzz_knox]

Seems to be more prevalent in the last few weeks, too much talk not enough action.

If we focus on the question embodied in the OP, and not get sidetracked into whose more at risk or who does what wrong, the question of whether or not the action suggested will be dealt with.

Besides, if we don't talk (or even complain) about laws we disagree with or question, then there's no reason to worry about taking action.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"Low pay you know. LEO's are held to a much higher standard when they fire or even present their weapon."

Baloney!

"I have no prob with agencys buying what ever they want for thier officers, I do have a prob with individual officers buying what they want."

I don't have a problem with it as long as the citizenry can also buy whatever they want.

 

[buzz_knox]

One last thought for consideration. Assuming that removing the exemption is even possible (which is somewhat unlikely but has been reported as a goal of anti-gun groups), would it be worth it? There is already a divide between law enforcement and the population, which is perpetuated and broadened by both sides. Discussing these kind of issues leads to accusations of cop bashing or being anti-cop; what would actually going forward cause?

It's one thing to oppose legislation like HR 218 to prevent a privilege from being granted, it's quite another to argue for removing a privilege that already exists.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I'd prefer to keep LEO's having the exception and add the Law-abiding Citizen Exception.

I agree!

 

[Harve Curry]

Yes 154 84.15%
No 29 15.85%

I know police didn't write the law, But their lobby groups do , or support it.

It is fundamentally un-American from the get-go, to have any law giving special rights to one group of citizens and not another, or simply taking that right away from one and not the other.

 

[Nebor]

If I don't need a 15 round magazine, or a threaded barrel, neither do the police. Oh, and the mac daddy of greater equality, MACHINE GUNS. They get new ones on the cheap, subsidized by the federal government. We pay $20,000 for antiques.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.