User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 7:22:36 PM EDT
[#1]
I hope this ruling catches on.
«tc2k11» |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 7:25:43 PM EDT
[#2]
I think it will...
in Kalistan...weapons such as Cane Swords, Nunchuka's, Switch Blades and Stilletto's are illegal |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 8:10:40 PM EDT
[#3]
Connecticut threw out a weapons ban? Holy shit!
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 8:12:41 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Connecticut threw out a weapons ban? Holy shit! http://byt.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/surprise.gif Pretty much |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 8:14:11 PM EDT
[#5]
This widespread acceptance of batons within the law enforcement community also supports the conclusion that they are not so dangerous or unusual as to fall outside the purview of the second amendment. To this end, the fact that police batons are inherently less lethal, and therefore less dangerous and less intrinsically harmful, than handguns, which clearly constitute “arms” within the meaning of the second amendment, provides further reason to conclude that they are entitled to constitutional protection. It's bullshit. They are saying you can have sticks but not guns. The first line could easily be applied to AR's as well. The second line is the reason they won't apply that reasoning to AR's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 11:28:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Sounds like they just broadened the definition of "arms" - which means that they also broadened the number of items they can regulate as "arms".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 11:37:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's bullshit. They are saying you can have sticks but not guns. The first line could easily be applied to AR's as well. The second line is the reason they won't apply that reasoning to AR's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
This widespread acceptance of batons within the law enforcement community also supports the conclusion that they are not so dangerous or unusual as to fall outside the purview of the second amendment. To this end, the fact that police batons are inherently less lethal, and therefore less dangerous and less intrinsically harmful, than handguns, which clearly constitute “arms” within the meaning of the second amendment, provides further reason to conclude that they are entitled to constitutional protection. It's bullshit. They are saying you can have sticks but not guns. The first line could easily be applied to AR's as well. The second line is the reason they won't apply that reasoning to AR's. That would not be logical. The logical conclusion is that "arms" applies not only to batons, pistols, and AR-15s, but also to M-4/M-16s, which are also in common use by state LE, and are equally appropriate for use by the everyday person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 11:39:24 PM EDT
[#8]
but also to M-4/M-16s, which are also in common use by state LE Uhhh no. Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 11:40:39 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's bullshit. They are saying you can have sticks but not guns. The first line could easily be applied to AR's as well. The second line is the reason they won't apply that reasoning to AR's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
This widespread acceptance of batons within the law enforcement community also supports the conclusion that they are not so dangerous or unusual as to fall outside the purview of the second amendment. To this end, the fact that police batons are inherently less lethal, and therefore less dangerous and less intrinsically harmful, than handguns, which clearly constitute “arms” within the meaning of the second amendment, provides further reason to conclude that they are entitled to constitutional protection. It's bullshit. They are saying you can have sticks but not guns. The first line could easily be applied to AR's as well. The second line is the reason they won't apply that reasoning to AR's. Seems more like they're saying "handguns are more lethal than sticks, and those are obviously 'arms' for 2A purposes, but lots of cops also use sticks, so those are protected too" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 11:44:00 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uhhh no. Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
but also to M-4/M-16s, which are also in common use by state LE Uhhh no. Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. Really? I assumed they were. Maybe not rural, but metro pds? Certainly federal agencies |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 12:21:05 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uhhh no. Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. Quote HistoryQuoted: but also to M-4/M-16s, which are also in common use by state LE Uhhh no. Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. they are common especially with swat teams and large departments. My dad is A LEO his department has several MP5s, which he could take home with storage requirements.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 3:18:41 AM EDT
[#12]
No, they're not.
Common means everyone has one. Fully automatic weapons are a rarity in most places. Even at Federal agencies. That's extra training, certification, costs to secure the weapon in the vehicle if issued, ammunition... not to mention the cost of the weapon itself. Plus the added liability. Hell, a lot of departments are queasy about letting line troops loose with shotguns. They are starting to become more plentiful thanks to military sourcing, but no. They're not common. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 3:21:27 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, they're not. Common means everyone has one. Fully automatic weapons are a rarity in most places. Even at Federal agencies. That's extra training, certification, costs to secure the weapon in the vehicle if issued, ammunition... not to mention the cost of the weapon itself. Plus the added liability. Hell, a lot of departments are queasy about letting line troops loose with shotguns. They are starting to become more plentiful thanks to military sourcing, but no. They're not common. Tshirts are common, does everyone wear a tshirt every time? You're certainly full of derp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 3:45:36 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tshirts are common, does everyone wear a tshirt every time? You're certainly full of derp. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, they're not. Common means everyone has one. Fully automatic weapons are a rarity in most places. Even at Federal agencies. That's extra training, certification, costs to secure the weapon in the vehicle if issued, ammunition... not to mention the cost of the weapon itself. Plus the added liability. Hell, a lot of departments are queasy about letting line troops loose with shotguns. They are starting to become more plentiful thanks to military sourcing, but no. They're not common. Tshirts are common, does everyone wear a tshirt every time? You're certainly full of derp. What are you even saying? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:01:55 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What are you even saying? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, they're not. Common means everyone has one. Fully automatic weapons are a rarity in most places. Even at Federal agencies. That's extra training, certification, costs to secure the weapon in the vehicle if issued, ammunition... not to mention the cost of the weapon itself. Plus the added liability. Hell, a lot of departments are queasy about letting line troops loose with shotguns. They are starting to become more plentiful thanks to military sourcing, but no. They're not common. Tshirts are common, does everyone wear a tshirt every time? You're certainly full of derp. What are you even saying? He is saying that the fact that LE Departments have them and are in use. they are defacto common. The reality is not every agency or officer has them, but every agency or officer can. By numbers I would say there are easily 40 thousand full auto weapons (by ATF classification) in the hands of LE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:07:58 AM EDT
[#16]
You can have my katana when you extract it from my twitching bleeding shin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:09:58 AM EDT
[#17]
i want to know when did people start thinking that 'arms' only meant firearms?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:28:13 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uhhh no. Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
but also to M-4/M-16s, which are also in common use by state LE Uhhh no. Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. Yes, they are. I have worked for four LE agencies. The only one that had no automatic weapons was a 3-4 man campus pd for a state college. Fifteen person PD in the late 80's early 90's had a couple m16s. Last SO 95-2000? Half a dozen m14's (they have since added m16s.). Current SO ? Multiple m14s, m16s and two uzis. Hell a bordering county with maybe 6-8 certified cops and a bunch of specialist in the jail has multiple uzis and is trying to get m16s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:44:42 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it will... in Kalistan...weapons such as Cane Swords, Nunchuka's, Switch Blades and Stilletto's are illegal Unless they are under two inches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:45:41 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uhhh no. Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. Quote HistoryQuoted: but also to M-4/M-16s, which are also in common use by state LE Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. Where have you been?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:53:48 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, they are. I have worked for four LE agencies. The only one that had no automatic weapons was a 3-4 man campus pd for a state college. Fifteen person PD in the late 80's early 90's had a couple m16s. Last SO 95-2000? Half a dozen m14's (they have since added m16s.). Current SO ? Multiple m14s, m16s and two uzis. Hell a bordering county with maybe 6-8 certified cops and a bunch of specialist in the jail has multiple uzis and is trying to get m16s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
but also to M-4/M-16s, which are also in common use by state LE Uhhh no. Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. Yes, they are. I have worked for four LE agencies. The only one that had no automatic weapons was a 3-4 man campus pd for a state college. Fifteen person PD in the late 80's early 90's had a couple m16s. Last SO 95-2000? Half a dozen m14's (they have since added m16s.). Current SO ? Multiple m14s, m16s and two uzis. Hell a bordering county with maybe 6-8 certified cops and a bunch of specialist in the jail has multiple uzis and is trying to get m16s. If they are found in various agencies armories, that would be "common-use". If SWAT/Tactical has them, that would be "common-use". The federal agencies have them, so that is "common-use" as well. And it's not like LE implementation is the standard to meet on this issue, anyhow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 7:00:55 AM EDT
[#22]
My asp is sitting three feet behind me. Bought it when I was in VA from Galls.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 7:07:49 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope this ruling catches on. «tc2k11» I hope not. So the 2A is there to protect arms, but the only arms that need regulating are firearms? Makes no sense. The point was to protect people from having their guns taken away by government interest, not support more widespread taking based on lethality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 7:18:45 AM EDT
[#24]
The "common use" argument is not exclusive; if something isn't in common use, how could it otherwise be covered? Semi auto is because it was invented before the lawyers got involved?
A new class of weapons can be banned, despite the 2nd, because they haven't a chance to be widely distributed before the government pre empts them due to imagined fear of possible future crimes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 7:25:31 AM EDT
[#25]
Where is the lethality clause in the 2nd Amendment? Is it with the "sporting" clause too, cause I can't find either? I still wish more attention would be brought up nation wide that Liberals who are anti-gun als: a. Don't want the police to either be armed or protect you; and b. Don't want you to have ANY means of self defense and have restrict and banned all kinds of things less dangerous than firearms already. Then they don't want to press charges against criminals, or at least certain criminals and then they'd like to empty the prisons. Taken all together their views are absurdly suicidal and they want to force them on everyone. They get Republicans to "compromise" on their absurd vision bits at a time and Yada Yada Yada the inmates are running the asylum.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 7:30:31 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can have my katana when you extract it from my twitching bleeding shin. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 2:25:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they are found in various agencies armories, that would be "common-use". If SWAT/Tactical has them, that would be "common-use". The federal agencies have them, so that is "common-use" as well. And it's not like LE implementation is the standard to meet on this issue, anyhow. Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they are found in various agencies armories, that would be "common-use". If SWAT/Tactical has them, that would be "common-use". The federal agencies have them, so that is "common-use" as well. And it's not like LE implementation is the standard to meet on this issue, anyhow. Quoted:
He is saying that the fact that LE Departments have them and are in use. they are defacto common. The reality is not every agency or officer has them, but every agency or officer can. By numbers I would say there are easily 40 thousand full auto weapons (by ATF classification) in the hands of LE. Thanks for the explanation. That's much clearer. I still disagree. In my way of thinking, an item would be common if they were readily available to all officers. Yes, there's going to always be that agency that had a hard charger in administration and gets a bunch of gear for their Patrolmen. But, by and large, fully automatic weapons have never been issued to first line officers. Just because there are some in the vault, doesn't make them a common item. Batons are common to law enforcement. Handcuffs are common to law enforcement. Machine guns are a rarity. And, they're not commonly used. The media uses pictures of officers with long guns and carbines because that's unusual. Could you imagine the costs of trying to arm up the LAPD? Or NYPD?
Irrelevant to this discussion, so sorry for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 2:34:05 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, they are. I have worked for four LE agencies. The only one that had no automatic weapons was a 3-4 man campus pd for a state college. Fifteen person PD in the late 80's early 90's had a couple m16s. Last SO 95-2000? Half a dozen m14's (they have since added m16s.). Current SO ? Multiple m14s, m16s and two uzis. Hell a bordering county with maybe 6-8 certified cops and a bunch of specialist in the jail has multiple uzis and is trying to get m16s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
but also to M-4/M-16s, which are also in common use by state LE Uhhh no. Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. Yes, they are. I have worked for four LE agencies. The only one that had no automatic weapons was a 3-4 man campus pd for a state college. Fifteen person PD in the late 80's early 90's had a couple m16s. Last SO 95-2000? Half a dozen m14's (they have since added m16s.). Current SO ? Multiple m14s, m16s and two uzis. Hell a bordering county with maybe 6-8 certified cops and a bunch of specialist in the jail has multiple uzis and is trying to get m16s. Bounced around there a little, huh? 
That doesn't make them common. That's based on the few places you've been. Was every one issued one? Were most? Probably not. Common to me means most roll out with the item every day. This doesn't happen. They're typically issued to special teams or designated individuals, which to me, means they aren't common, they are special tools usually given to the snowflakes. As an officer myself with time on federal task forces, when you look around and can't find one, that's an indicator of not being common. When you pull one out and a Federal Agent says "You guys get all the toys!", that's another indicator. When you talk to officers around the country, as I've done as a columnist for a large law enforcement website, and they say no, no machine guns here, that's an indicator. But again, my info is dated. Maybe every department has automatic weapon capability now. A lot can happen in a couple of years. I know that in a lot of agencies, just getting ammo to train with is a big budget issue, and practically nonexistent. Maybe that's changed, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 3:39:26 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Common to me means most roll out with the item every day. This doesn't happen. They're typically issued to special teams or designated individuals, which to me, means they aren't common, they are special tools usually given to the snowflakes. Which is why the "common" requirement is completely useless. There is no consistent definition of "common" that can be applied, it's completely arbitrary. To you it's if 100% of people have it, which means you don't think they're common until they start issuing Glock 18s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html If those numbers from the DoD are correct, that's an automatic weapon for roughly 1 in every 10 officers. That would fall under my definition of "common", but it might not for other people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 3:49:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, they're not. Common means everyone has one. Fully automatic weapons are a rarity in most places. Even at Federal agencies. That's extra training, certification, costs to secure the weapon in the vehicle if issued, ammunition... not to mention the cost of the weapon itself. Plus the added liability. Hell, a lot of departments are queasy about letting line troops loose with shotguns. They are starting to become more plentiful thanks to military sourcing, but no. They're not common. No that's universal, common means the opposite of rare, can easily be found, but not necessarily ubiquitous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 3:53:46 PM EDT
[#31]
I didn't know Diggler had a line of knives. I'll bet they're real big.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:19:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is why the "common" requirement is completely useless. There is no consistent definition of "common" that can be applied, it's completely arbitrary. To you it's if 100% of people have it, which means you don't think they're common until they start issuing Glock 18s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html If those numbers from the DoD are correct, that's an automatic weapon for roughly 1 in every 10 officers. That would fall under my definition of "common", but it might not for other people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Common to me means most roll out with the item every day. This doesn't happen. They're typically issued to special teams or designated individuals, which to me, means they aren't common, they are special tools usually given to the snowflakes. Which is why the "common" requirement is completely useless. There is no consistent definition of "common" that can be applied, it's completely arbitrary. To you it's if 100% of people have it, which means you don't think they're common until they start issuing Glock 18s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html If those numbers from the DoD are correct, that's an automatic weapon for roughly 1 in every 10 officers. That would fall under my definition of "common", but it might not for other people. I agree on the concept of common being nebulous especially in the context of a legal ruling. I don't believe 100% issue is common, although it would be. I mean that if I am on a shift, the majority of us would have one, on us. I don't believe that to be the case in the overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies. However, if DoD has transferred enough to arm 1 out of every 10 officers, I am wrong and stand corrected. I will wager though, what's happened there is a minority of authorized screeners (they use the term 'criminal justice agency', which is about as concrete as jello) got an assload of weapons, like enough to issue each of their employees five or six weapons. Why would they do that? They either probably think they can sell them after X number of months, which is right for certain items, but I bet for arms and NVG, is wrong, or they plan to accidentally lose a few, or maybe a supervisor likes to throw them on the floor in the evidence room and roll around in them. (shrugs)
I will go so far as to opine that in a select few cases, the weapons were probably issued to animal control, selectmen, guards at shit plants, and other politically connected people who are 'reserves' / 'auxiliary'/ civil defense police / whatever for the purpose of getting access to those kinds of things. I dunno. I spent the majority of my life wearing a badge, and still have friends that do it. It just strikes me as odd to hear that Class III hardware has finally made it to the rank and file, especially when they balk at stuff that matters, like extra training, ppe, or vehicle upkeep. Interesting thread; thanks. Shawn PS - I wanted to add, that one of the reasons for my opinion is the fact that most senior leafeating management in US police service would prefer no officer had access to a gun, ever. Police supervisors are by and far the most risk-adverse, we'd-rather-you-get-hurt-than-issue types you'll ever meet. Maybe that has changed also, but I suspect not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:36:20 PM EDT
[#33]
high_order1,
Do you understand why people in this thread are arguing with you over the definition of "common"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 7:03:30 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for the explanation. That's much clearer. I still disagree. In my way of thinking, an item would be common if they were readily available to all officers. Yes, there's going to always be that agency that had a hard charger in administration and gets a bunch of gear for their Patrolmen. But, by and large, fully automatic weapons have never been issued to first line officers. Just because there are some in the vault, doesn't make them a common item. Batons are common to law enforcement. Handcuffs are common to law enforcement. Machine guns are a rarity. And, they're not commonly used. The media uses pictures of officers with long guns and carbines because that's unusual. Could you imagine the costs of trying to arm up the LAPD? Or NYPD?
Irrelevant to this discussion, so sorry for that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If they are found in various agencies armories, that would be "common-use". If SWAT/Tactical has them, that would be "common-use". The federal agencies have them, so that is "common-use" as well. And it's not like LE implementation is the standard to meet on this issue, anyhow. Quoted:
He is saying that the fact that LE Departments have them and are in use. they are defacto common. The reality is not every agency or officer has them, but every agency or officer can. By numbers I would say there are easily 40 thousand full auto weapons (by ATF classification) in the hands of LE. Thanks for the explanation. That's much clearer. I still disagree. In my way of thinking, an item would be common if they were readily available to all officers. Yes, there's going to always be that agency that had a hard charger in administration and gets a bunch of gear for their Patrolmen. But, by and large, fully automatic weapons have never been issued to first line officers. Just because there are some in the vault, doesn't make them a common item. Batons are common to law enforcement. Handcuffs are common to law enforcement. Machine guns are a rarity. And, they're not commonly used. The media uses pictures of officers with long guns and carbines because that's unusual. Could you imagine the costs of trying to arm up the LAPD? Or NYPD?
Irrelevant to this discussion, so sorry for that. ALMOST EVERY DOD GIVE AWAY RIFLE IS A MACHINE GUN PER ATF REGS. If a rifle( M4/M16 or M14) was part of the DOD DRMO program it was likely either a full auto or 3 round burst, it is per ATF regs a fully automatic firearm and the DOD have been giving them away for at least a decade. It does not matter if the rifle has been altered to semi auto only, it is per the regs a machine gun. That is on top of the thousands that have been purchased by individual agencies, going back as far as the 1920s. edit Beaten to the Punch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 7:08:24 PM EDT
[#35]
Texas needs their knife laws overturned. You can't have a Bowie knife in the city named Bowie.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 7:14:23 PM EDT
[#36]
So does this mean that AR-15s and 30 round magazines, that are also in common use by police, are "arms" protected by the 2nd Amendment? The CT high court may have some more laws to look at here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 7:20:01 PM EDT
[#37]
Pikes are in common use and double nicely as seats for tyrants. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 8:17:07 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Connecticut threw out a weapons ban? Holy shit! http://byt.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/surprise.gif That is pretty much my reaction. When I originally read the thread title I thought this would be some sort of parody thread, boy was I pleasantly surprised!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 8:37:23 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bounced around there a little, huh? That doesn't make them common. That's based on the few places you've been. Was every one issued one? Were most? Probably not. Common to me means most roll out with the item every day. This doesn't happen. They're typically issued to special teams or designated individuals, which to me, means they aren't common, they are special tools usually given to the snowflakes. As an officer myself with time on federal task forces, when you look around and can't find one, that's an indicator of not being common. When you pull one out and a Federal Agent says "You guys get all the toys!", that's another indicator. When you talk to officers around the country, as I've done as a columnist for a large law enforcement website, and they say no, no machine guns here, that's an indicator. But again, my info is dated. Maybe every department has automatic weapon capability now. A lot can happen in a couple of years. I know that in a lot of agencies, just getting ammo to train with is a big budget issue, and practically nonexistent. Maybe that's changed, too. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: but also to M-4/M-16s, which are also in common use by state LE Uhhh no. Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. Yes, they are. I have worked for four LE agencies. The only one that had no automatic weapons was a 3-4 man campus pd for a state college. Fifteen person PD in the late 80's early 90's had a couple m16s. Last SO 95-2000? Half a dozen m14's (they have since added m16s.). Current SO ? Multiple m14s, m16s and two uzis. Hell a bordering county with maybe 6-8 certified cops and a bunch of specialist in the jail has multiple uzis and is trying to get m16s. Bounced around there a little, huh? That doesn't make them common. That's based on the few places you've been. Was every one issued one? Were most? Probably not. Common to me means most roll out with the item every day. This doesn't happen. They're typically issued to special teams or designated individuals, which to me, means they aren't common, they are special tools usually given to the snowflakes. As an officer myself with time on federal task forces, when you look around and can't find one, that's an indicator of not being common. When you pull one out and a Federal Agent says "You guys get all the toys!", that's another indicator. When you talk to officers around the country, as I've done as a columnist for a large law enforcement website, and they say no, no machine guns here, that's an indicator. But again, my info is dated. Maybe every department has automatic weapon capability now. A lot can happen in a couple of years. I know that in a lot of agencies, just getting ammo to train with is a big budget issue, and practically nonexistent. Maybe that's changed, too. Remember the american revolution started because of gun confiscation and not tea taxes. Go read about Ditsons revenge and how thomas ditson being persecuted for wanting to own a military rifle led to lexington and concord which was another confiscation of military styled arms. Under ATF definitions there were automatic rifles at the time of the american revolution. One even the founders tried to arm the troops with. The becton flintlock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 11:55:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for the explanation. That's much clearer. I still disagree. In my way of thinking, an item would be common if they were readily available to all officers. Yes, there's going to always be that agency that had a hard charger in administration and gets a bunch of gear for their Patrolmen. But, by and large, fully automatic weapons have never been issued to first line officers. Just because there are some in the vault, doesn't make them a common item. Batons are common to law enforcement. Handcuffs are common to law enforcement. Machine guns are a rarity. And, they're not commonly used. The media uses pictures of officers with long guns and carbines because that's unusual. Could you imagine the costs of trying to arm up the LAPD? Or NYPD? Irrelevant to this discussion, so sorry for that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If they are found in various agencies armories, that would be "common-use". If SWAT/Tactical has them, that would be "common-use". The federal agencies have them, so that is "common-use" as well. And it's not like LE implementation is the standard to meet on this issue, anyhow. Quoted: He is saying that the fact that LE Departments have them and are in use. they are defacto common. The reality is not every agency or officer has them, but every agency or officer can. By numbers I would say there are easily 40 thousand full auto weapons (by ATF classification) in the hands of LE. Thanks for the explanation. That's much clearer. I still disagree. In my way of thinking, an item would be common if they were readily available to all officers. Yes, there's going to always be that agency that had a hard charger in administration and gets a bunch of gear for their Patrolmen. But, by and large, fully automatic weapons have never been issued to first line officers. Just because there are some in the vault, doesn't make them a common item. Batons are common to law enforcement. Handcuffs are common to law enforcement. Machine guns are a rarity. And, they're not commonly used. The media uses pictures of officers with long guns and carbines because that's unusual. Could you imagine the costs of trying to arm up the LAPD? Or NYPD? Irrelevant to this discussion, so sorry for that. All depends on the department. I knew one in Alabama where MAC-10's were frequently found in bags in patrol cars (SRT had MP-5's and such). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 8:40:53 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So do you think the 2nd amendment as written by george mason and james madison ratified by the states does not protect automatic rifles? Remember the american revolution started because of gun confiscation and not tea taxes. Go read about Ditsons revenge and how thomas ditson being persecuted for wanting to own a military rifle led to lexington and concord which was another confiscation of military styled arms. Under ATF definitions there were automatic rifles at the time of the american revolution. One even the founders tried to arm the troops with. The becton flintlock. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
but also to M-4/M-16s, which are also in common use by state LE Uhhh no. Automatic capable firearms are NOT in common use with US law enforcement. Yes, they are. I have worked for four LE agencies. The only one that had no automatic weapons was a 3-4 man campus pd for a state college. Fifteen person PD in the late 80's early 90's had a couple m16s. Last SO 95-2000? Half a dozen m14's (they have since added m16s.). Current SO ? Multiple m14s, m16s and two uzis. Hell a bordering county with maybe 6-8 certified cops and a bunch of specialist in the jail has multiple uzis and is trying to get m16s. Bounced around there a little, huh?
That doesn't make them common. That's based on the few places you've been. Was every one issued one? Were most? Probably not. Common to me means most roll out with the item every day. This doesn't happen. They're typically issued to special teams or designated individuals, which to me, means they aren't common, they are special tools usually given to the snowflakes. As an officer myself with time on federal task forces, when you look around and can't find one, that's an indicator of not being common. When you pull one out and a Federal Agent says "You guys get all the toys!", that's another indicator. When you talk to officers around the country, as I've done as a columnist for a large law enforcement website, and they say no, no machine guns here, that's an indicator. But again, my info is dated. Maybe every department has automatic weapon capability now. A lot can happen in a couple of years. I know that in a lot of agencies, just getting ammo to train with is a big budget issue, and practically nonexistent. Maybe that's changed, too. Remember the american revolution started because of gun confiscation and not tea taxes. Go read about Ditsons revenge and how thomas ditson being persecuted for wanting to own a military rifle led to lexington and concord which was another confiscation of military styled arms. Under ATF definitions there were automatic rifles at the time of the american revolution. One even the founders tried to arm the troops with. The becton flintlock. Where did you gather that from this conversation? I think 2A covers ALL firearms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 8:41:44 PM EDT
[#42]
MURICA!
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 8:42:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
high_order1, Do you understand why people in this thread are arguing with you over the definition of "common"? Because it's the internet, and specifically arfcom?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 8:46:47 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ALMOST EVERY DOD GIVE AWAY RIFLE IS A MACHINE GUN PER ATF REGS. If a rifle( M4/M16 or M14) was part of the DOD DRMO program it was likely either a full auto or 3 round burst, it is per ATF regs a fully automatic firearm and the DOD have been giving them away for at least a decade. It does not matter if the rifle has been altered to semi auto only, it is per the regs a machine gun. That is on top of the thousands that have been purchased by individual agencies, going back as far as the 1920s. edit Beaten to the Punch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they are found in various agencies armories, that would be "common-use". If SWAT/Tactical has them, that would be "common-use". The federal agencies have them, so that is "common-use" as well. And it's not like LE implementation is the standard to meet on this issue, anyhow. Quoted:
He is saying that the fact that LE Departments have them and are in use. they are defacto common. The reality is not every agency or officer has them, but every agency or officer can. By numbers I would say there are easily 40 thousand full auto weapons (by ATF classification) in the hands of LE. Thanks for the explanation. That's much clearer. I still disagree. In my way of thinking, an item would be common if they were readily available to all officers. Yes, there's going to always be that agency that had a hard charger in administration and gets a bunch of gear for their Patrolmen. But, by and large, fully automatic weapons have never been issued to first line officers. Just because there are some in the vault, doesn't make them a common item. Batons are common to law enforcement. Handcuffs are common to law enforcement. Machine guns are a rarity. And, they're not commonly used. The media uses pictures of officers with long guns and carbines because that's unusual. Could you imagine the costs of trying to arm up the LAPD? Or NYPD?
Irrelevant to this discussion, so sorry for that. ALMOST EVERY DOD GIVE AWAY RIFLE IS A MACHINE GUN PER ATF REGS. If a rifle( M4/M16 or M14) was part of the DOD DRMO program it was likely either a full auto or 3 round burst, it is per ATF regs a fully automatic firearm and the DOD have been giving them away for at least a decade. It does not matter if the rifle has been altered to semi auto only, it is per the regs a machine gun. That is on top of the thousands that have been purchased by individual agencies, going back as far as the 1920s. edit Beaten to the Punch. Right. But not every agency has availed themselves of the program. All I was trying to say was that they aren't commonly found, but I've gotten myself into a semantics argument, and maybe I've dated myself somewhat. Maybe the majority of departments now DO have access to automatic weapons. Doesn't change the fact that there's been some movement in the favor of the public on laws, which I think is great. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 8:48:16 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Texas needs their knife laws overturned. You can't have a Bowie knife in the city named Bowie. Tennessee just had theirs reamed out. Citizens can carry basically anything they want bladewise now. Wonder how auto opener sales are doing up at Smoky Mountain Knife Works? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 9:05:30 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Connecticut threw out a weapons ban? Holy shit! http://byt.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/surprise.gif No they didn't throw a weapons ban out as much as I wished they did. There is a lot of derp with this particular case including some unsavory history of the guy arrested who had these two particular charges/convictions reversed. One can see the discussion in the CTHTF for our discussion on the case and the ruling. The bottom line is the guy shouldn't have been arrested and charged with violating this state's Sec. 29-38. Weapons in vehicles. Penalty. Exceptions. statute. The jury convicted him on two of six charges related to weapons in vehicles even though the statute appears to specifically indicate the guy wasn't breaking any laws.. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
