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

The "officer 4473 dilema"

Discussion in 'Legal' started by StopTheGrays, Jun 2, 2005.

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

    StopTheGrays Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    600
    Location:
    WI
    I was snooping for some info on another topic and ran across this thread on the Officer.com forum. I found it interesting and did not realize this was even a problem.

    (I assume this is when a LEO buys a personal firearm and not one for the job.)
     
  2. GreenFurniture

    GreenFurniture Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    673
    Location:
    East Tennessee
    Interesting and good to know.
     
  3. shermacman

    shermacman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,754
    Why does this surprise you? You obviously haven't read the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is all spelled out there: bayonet lugs, the temperature for the solder on a flash suppressor, forward pistol grips, the legality of the 4473 form. Read it! :eek:

    We clearly need a few more gun laws... they make for great reading!
     
  4. Blackcloud6

    Blackcloud6 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    601
    Why does a LEO get this "right" and I don't?

    If they want this soc-called protection, then get go get a non-drivers license state ID with their home address on it and use it to purchase firearms.
     
  5. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Good!

    Their privacy is no more important than mine.
     
  6. centac

    centac member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    355
    And how many people have you put in prison?

    It is really rare for law officers to be the victim of revenge crimes, but it is by no means out of the realm of possibility. Complaining that they have a distinction that you dont seems petty and spiteful. You would deprive us of this just because you cannot have it?
     
  7. Gordon Fink

    Gordon Fink Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,322
    Location:
    California
    Yes.

    ~G. Fink
     
  8. VARifleman

    VARifleman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Northern VA
    centac, that attitude that you're better than us is EXACTLY why some of us despise a lot of cops. You are not better, and you have apparently forgot who you work for. You're supposed to work for us. Instead, you just go on trashing liberty in your wake.
     
  9. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    You're RIGHT! Amazing. I just read it and found all those clauses, right after "shall not be infringed - unless bla, bla, bla"
     
  10. dasmi

    dasmi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Until the police can guarantee my safety, then yes, I would. Why should police have more privacy than me? Why should they be better protected?
     
  11. skidmark

    skidmark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    451
    Location:
    virginia
    Please play nicely!

    There are many reasons why LEO would not want their residence info on a publically available document, just as there are many reasons "ordinary" citizens would not want that information publically available.

    But did I forget something? IIRC, the 4473 is not a public document. Unless I'm wrong there, there is no NEED for LEO to have any greater degree of privacy protection offered to them.

    If I'm wrong, then I'm going to change my residence address to where I spend the greatest portion of the week - to right here behind this desk. :D Dual-residency laws allow the person to choose between locations, but favor the location where the majority of time is spent. Maybe my lack of a real life will finally provide some benefit.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
     
  12. Blue Jays

    Blue Jays Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    356
    Location:
    USA
    Hi All-

    Centac, that's awfully high-falootin' of you to want extended privacy protections for LEO personnel.

    As a matter-of-fact, my compelling testimony in a murder trial eleven years ago resulted in a man (already with a lengthy criminal record) being sentenced to nearly seventy years in prison. Pretty risky for a technology professional with no special protections under law. Now, can someone please provide me with a sterile Driver License?

    ~ Blue Jays ~
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2005
  13. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Yeah, but at least we're keeping ex-cons from buying guns ... :rolleyes:
     
  14. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    Sorry, but 'regular people' can testify and put people away for a long time, too. Why can't they have their address hidden?

    If the risk is too great, get into witness protection. Else, officers buying personal weapons follow the same rules as everyone else.

    If you really are that concerned, maybe being an officer isn't for you.
     
  15. mitchshrader

    mitchshrader Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    56
    Gosh, what a great place for opinions

    Police officers should have privacy, and the ATF should get their 'legal address' (as required ) and the officer who needs to purchase a weapon CAN get the paperwork (ID) required to so do.

    Hassle? Did I hear anyone say being a policeman avoided hassle? Conflicting legal requirements? Not EXACTLY.. just inconvenient ones.
     
  16. Blue Jays

    Blue Jays Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    356
    Location:
    USA
    Hi jefnvk-

    Regular people testifying is exactly my point! I'm a law-abiding technology professional who was thrust into the midst of a murder trial without warning.

    Can someone please send me a sterile Driver License now?

    ~ Blue Jays ~
     
  17. cordex

    cordex Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,714
    Location:
    Indiana
    I'm all for offering protection to police officers and (more importantly, IMO) their families. Concealing their real address seems like a fine step to me. Of course, I'm not sure the same policy shouldn't be offered to others who might be "at risk" - after all, police aren't the only ones at risk.

    But ... the law is the law and it must be upheld. Your elected officials made the laws. Don't dog and moan about it, use your vote. Anyone who thinks we should just throw out laws that someone doesn't like is just an anarchist. Who are you to decide for yourself that the law is wrong? The courts get to decide that.

    Isn't that the canned response when someone doesn't like a law? No reason it shouldn't apply here, right?
     
  18. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    I would be more than happy to deprive you of special priviledges just because I can't have them.
     
  19. NHBB

    NHBB Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    319
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    I have to agree with the sentiment that if an LEO is allowed a phantom residence, than citizens concerned with their own well being should not be excluded.
     
  20. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    Oops, Blue, thought you were a police oficer saying that. But my point remains the same, officers are not the only ones that have to worry about retaliation.
     
  21. RevDisk

    RevDisk Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,737
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Two. How many do I need to qualify as special? From what I understand, this protection does not apply to only police officers that have put people in prison. (ie, you need to have sent X number of dangerous persons to prison before you can get a sterile ID.)


    I have had to deal with revenge crimes. But that really doesn't have to do with anything, does it? No meantion in the law saying "Officer needs to have been subject to x number of revenge crimes." from what I saw. Please explain to me why I should not be extended the same level of rights?

    Yes, if I could, I would deprive you of this because I cannot have it. Why? Because I swore an oath to support the Constitution. Did you? It's called "equal protection under the law".

    In case you are unfamiliar with this rule, it's called Amendment XIV, Section 1.

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


    Nope. Unconstitutional laws do not have to be upheld. However, that's just theory. Putting it in practice is not so easy. Sometimes all the branches of govt violate the Constitution and get away with it. You can do your best with the ballot box and the jury box.

    The example I use here is NFA. NFA is clearly unconstitutional in its current form. It's an illegal law.
     
  22. centac

    centac member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    355
    This just reeks of "If I can't have an ice cream cone, aint nobody having an ice cream cone"

    Your need to conceal your addy equals that of an officer in the organized crime bureau? Y'all must lead some exciting lives.
     
  23. orionengnr

    orionengnr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,434
    Guess I won't bring up the thread on the A-hole NW Florida newspaper

    who decided to publish the names and addresses of law-abiding CCW licensees...

    If LEO's get privacy protection, so should other law-abiding citizens who happen to have exercised their right to complete the paperwork, take the class and, in general...act lawfully.

    In TX, it is specified that the information gathered in the licensing process is NOT public information. Problem solved?
     
  24. shermacman

    shermacman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,754
    RevDisk, great analysis; centac, where did you get that attitude?
    There is only one thing I would add to the issue of: "how many people have you put in prison?"

    I was involved as a witness to an assault and battery, like an idiot I trusted the arresting officer that my personal information would not be publicly available until the actual court hearing. Didn't work that way. Everything about me and my family was made available to the wack-job who tried to run down an absolutely innocent group of people who were walking to lunch. The driver/assailant admitted it was a case of mistaken identity...he thought someone he wanted to kill was in the group.

    So, I have put away exactly zero people; and my life (and my family's) was threatened. I want, at the very least, the same anonymity that the police get. Ain't about ice cream cones, centac.
     
  25. kel

    kel Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    155
    Why let them hide?

    Have they done something they are going to regret? Why don't I get that protection?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page