Should there be stricter limits on law enforcement weapons?

[Jefferson Herb]

Leo

I think that Leo's should have the tools to do their job.That being said,If a criminal is spraying lead all over the place should LEO's be doing the same?
I would rather see the LEO use a varment rifle in 22-250,fire one round ,and have the matter at hand.I don't care if it's a criminal,or LEO,if lead is being sprayed on both sides and an innocent bystander [or in building when using ball ammo] whoever fired the shot is in prison.
I realise LEO's have a difficult job,but matching round for round with criminals is'nt the answer in my eyes.
Question for LEO's reading this: How often do you fire a rifle,and how far can you hit a quart oil jug?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

This does not equate a level playing field.


what game are you playing on your field?

and as ann landers said
Life is not fair. Get used to it. The average teenager uses the phrase "It's not fair" 86 times a day.

 

[dmancornell]

and as ann landers said
Life is not fair. Get used to it. The average teenager uses the phrase "It's not fair" 86 times a day.

That's the attitude that allows statist tyrants to take control of the country. NFA34, GCA68 and FOPA86 are all gross constitutional violations.

34 was passed purely to retain employment for treasury agents and extort money to feed FDR's money black hole. 68 was almost a word-for-word copy of Nazi "sporting purpose" gun law. 86's FA ban was added through a dirty procedural trick in the midnight hour.

I've seen plenty of cops at the local range with multiple "duty" FA guns. The LEO exception is a scam, professional courtesy given to coworkers under statist employ.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Life is not fair. Get used to it. -cassandrasdaddy

Yeah... I bet that is the same advice old King George III gave to Jefferson. Thanks for the tip officer. That will help me get through the grieving process next time some lunatic goes ballistic in a Seattle coffee shop.

 

[cambeul41]

javabum, post 19: I'm the first person to say we are restricted too much but really,what the hell do you need a full auto for.Do you have that big of an inadequacy that you need to make up for it with a weapon like that.Other than the military and law enforcement,i see no need for full auto weapons.

I'm sorry, Who is it that said anything about needing? That is the attitude found in such places as L.A. in which some high pooh bah has the power to decide when the serfs are needful enough to be allowed -- whatever.

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, if a group of thugs gets into a shootout with police and they are armed with illegally-modified (and stolen) automatic rifles, the police should have similar to take them out with (if there is an advantage to having them).

There is a slight error in this view, in my very humble opinion. A full-auto carbine is not more deadly/capable, generally, than a semi-auto one. Even our military troops generally use their carbines in semi-auto mode. Precision, aimed fire is VASTLY superior to full-auto in almost every situation.

Even if the "bad guys" are hosing down an area with suppressive fire, our law enforcement officers have no call to return fire in that same manner. As, by nature, most suppressive fire does not hit the object of that fire, all those rounds are going to go elsewhere. That's bad enough when the fire is one-way, but no reasonable SWAT team leader (or whomever is in charge at the scene) would instruct his men to light up the general area where the bad guys are holed up. They'd be responsible for every house, car, kid, dog, and passer-by they ventilated.

The idea that "the bad guys have automatic weapons so we need automatic weapons" is really short-sighted. Even in a horrific situation like the North Hollywood shootout the police did not need automatic fire to answer the machine guns of the robbers. They needed precision rifle fire to make critical shots at moderate ranges. Any reasonably well-trained officer should have been able to make the necessary shots from a stable rest behind cover with any of the standard "patrol rifles." (Ar-15, 7615, etc.)

I don't like to see anyone restricted as to what weapons they can use, but I'd also like to see the highest level of scrutiny applied to what is fielded. An Ar-15 makes just as good a patrol rifle as it does a home-defense weapon. I can't see almost any scenarios where the "happy switch" is the answer to a problem faced by a LEO.

 

[bikerdoc]

Unrestricted, plain and simple. No further discussion required. IMO.

 

[rbernie]

You said:

I asked if that decision was a mistake, and the conversation turned toward not only the tactics of rifle use in rural areas (what I had expected) but also to the politics behind law enforcement weaponry.

The discussion made me curious as to how many people hold the opinion that there should be stricter limits on the types of weapons LEOs are issued or can carry as a duty arm.

And then:

But I don't want to turn this into a political referendum on the role of government; I just want to see how others feel about this particular issue.

I fail to see how this thread can be anything other than a political referendum on the role of government, since it's already been clearly articulated that, as a community, the police have scant access to types of weapons not commonly available to non-police type folk...

Frankly, this thread smacks of a back-door way for folk to bellyache about their views on law enforcement, and that is not a suitable discussion for THR.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Exactly what is it that LEOs can have that you our I can't?

That varies wildly from one jurisdiction to the next.

When it comes to keeping arms, in NJ, the courts fabricated out of thin air a police exemption for personal possession of what they define as "assault weapons" for police officers that was simply not to be found in the statutes, based on nothing more than a tradition of deference to knightly privileges, as indicated by exemptions to other prohibitions in other statutes, such as mag limits and hollow point carriage.

As it pertains to publicly bearing arms, the difference is even more stark. Many of the otherwise 2A sympathetic police I've spoken to in that state have simply lost touch with the fact that citizens endure onerous restrictions, because none of those restrictions apply to them or affect them on a daily basis.

In some dark and fascist jurisdictions in America, the statutes intentionally and explicitly create the greatest possible imbalance between the armament state of the public, and the armament state of the state.

 

[uspJ]

I don't like to see anyone restricted as to what weapons they can use, but I'd also like to see the highest level of scrutiny applied to what is fielded. An Ar-15 makes just as good a patrol rifle as it does a home-defense weapon. I can't see almost any scenarios where the "happy switch" is the answer to a problem faced by a LEO.

exactly.

that is why i chose the restrict patrolman but not swat option. your average patrolman rarely touches his sidearm except during qualification, it's safe to say that any other weapon that is issued to him receives about the same amount of attention. i wouldn't feel to safe with someone who is undertrained responding to a call and grabbing a fa weapon because the situation is getting hairy.

on the other hand swat teams should be allowed more leeway imo. many times they are doing raids on drughouses and apprehending fugitives who are known to be quite dangerous, these are not tasks that regular patrolman participate in (due to the lower level of training they have received). swat teams train for these operations, maybe not as much as they really need to but they do receive more training time on average than a regular patrolman.

 

[ArmedBear]

the police have scant access to types of weapons not commonly available to non-police type folk...

This may be true in states with strong RKBA, but it is utterly false in those states with the most restrictive gun laws -- which happen also to contain a large segment of our population.

Of the 307 million people in the United States, 65 million live in New York, California and New Jersey. Add Chicagoland (NOT all of Illinois), Hawaii, DC, and that's 70 million.

So, 70 million Americans, just off the cuff, do not have access to weapons that LEOs in their jurisdictions routinely carry. This is hardly trivial. And I'm not even considering NFA here; I'm talking only about the regular pistols on cops' belts and non-NFA carbines in their cars, especially with respect to, but not limited to, magazine capacity.

 

[Mags]

It really isn't LE should have more restrictions but that citizens should have less restrictions. The goverment should not be allowed to be more heavily armed than it's citizens. The way it is now it would be too easy for a the goverment to oppress it's citizens. I think we should be able to legally own without going through hoops anything the feds can have.

 

[rbernie]

So, 70 million Americans, just off the cuff, do not have access to weapons that LEOs in their jurisdictions routinely carry. This is hardly trivial. And I'm not even considering NFA here; I'm talking only about the regular pistols on cops' belts and non-NFA carbines in their cars, especially with respect to, but not limited to, magazine capacity.

But that wasn't the question being asked. The question was whether the POLICE should be restricted, but you're addressing how the PEOPLE are restricted.

The answer to the first issue is either political (and as a result likely to be off limits here) or operational (and therefore driven by the TTPs of LE and probably not appropriate for THR either). The answer to the second issue is specific to the RKBA efforts in the occupied territories.

 

[MisterMike]

I voted for no restrictions. If we advocate for expansive gun ownership rights for ordinary citizens, how can you justify having our law enforcement officers undergunned?

Personally, I am in favor of the cops having the tools they need to deal with any situation to which they may respond.

 

[atomd]

It's funny to see some people even in the same paragraph say:

"We can own anything they can own! Some of you just don't know what you're talking about"

And then right after that they write "Except machine guns made after 1986"

What do you think we're talking about here? Flintlocks? We're obviously talking about machine guns. Sure we "may" be able to get one legally but it's certainly not as simple as that.

Well, even if we do go through all the ridiculous mess to get an NFA firearm (depending on your chief LEO you may need to establish a trust, etc...not to mention paying a 200 freaking dollar tax), we must now choose from a much smaller selection of 25 year old firearms or parts of firearms which are sold for much more money than a new machine gun because of supply and demand. This is assuming that you live in a state where it can actually be done with the particular item you want in the first place.

The cheapest FA like a MAC 10 or 11 is at least a few thousand dollars (not including tax/transfer/etc)...the cheapest NFA firearm that would be something that law enforcement would use is much more than that. If we were really playing by the same set of rules then they would be a heck of lot more obtainable by your average joe....but we're not.

 

[wishin]

It's interesting how many RKBAers don't believe there should be any gun restrictions for the common man, but feel LEO's don't need certain weapons. Hmmm.

 

[benEzra]

I think LEO's and executive protection teams should be able to use the weapons ordinary law-abiding homeowners can own and use in that jurisdiction (including SBR's and sound suppressors if ordinary citizens can legally own them there). Since in most cases civilian guns (double-stack pistols, civilian AR's, shotguns) are what most officers already use, no change needed. I would like to see the protection teams of politicians and CEO's have to abide by the same rules as the peons, though.

I *do* think there should be increased scrutiny of the circumstances under which raids may be conducted on occupied homes, though. I think that "knock and announce" warrants should allow for the homeowner to actually respond to the knock and announcement and verify the officers' identity (as originally intended), I think that dynamic raids should not be used to serve most search warrants or for most drug offenses, and I think that raid screwups and related shootings should be held to the same high standards that a non-LEO would be held to, criminally and civilly.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Only LEO agencies can purchase post-86 machine guns, otherwise LEOs are restricted to the same things the rest of us can have.

Of course, since most agencies issue weapons, what individual LEOs can purchase is mostly irrelevant.

I can't think of any reason why LEOs need automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc.

Heck, the average soldier doesn't need automatic weapons, unless he or she is assigned to a machine gun. The average rifleman doesn't use burst, and the Army for the most part doesn't train you to do so, ever since the controlled pair/hammer pair doctrines showed up.

 

[Taurus 617 CCW]

The trick is to be better armed than the bad guys. In rural areas drugs area common crime. With drugs you find weapons and we're not talking single shot guns. Most people involved in drugs buy semi-automatic weapons. Refer back to the days of prohibition when the bad guys outgunned the cops. Fast forward to modern day, the North Hollywood police shootout. It's not a good thing for the bad guys to be better armed than law enforcement. I agree that training is an important thing as well.

 

[easyg]

Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. have become much too militant in my opinion.

When police agencies start looking like, and training, and equipping themselves the same (or similarly) as to the military, then the citizens need to wake up and pay attention.

 

[easyg]

Fast forward to modern day, the North Hollywood police shootout. It's not a good thing for the bad guys to be better armed than law enforcement. I agree that training is an important thing as well.

The North Hollywood shootout was a good example of poor tactics and poor decision making by the police.

 

[Water-Man]

I'm for more restrictions and the elimination of SWAT. Cops are out of control and it's about time measures are taken to control them. Start enforcing existing laws!

 

[danprkr]

I'm with the They-Shouldn't-Have-It-Unless-I-Can-Have-It crowd.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You left one option out on the poll, so I could not vote...

Law Enforcement Officers should have neither more nor less restrictions than the civilian population, in my humble opinion. Whatever gun/carry method is legal and/or illegal for me as a civilian should be legal/illegal for a cop. IMHO. Why should a cop have any more freedom and rights to self protection than I do, because of the career path that they chose and volunteered to do.

 

[marv]

Ask the LE survivors of the LA and Miami shootouts if they think their choice of weapons should be restricted.