I do not think that LEOs should have any of the special firearms priveledges they enjoy now.  

The way to correct this imbalance is not by restricting what LEOs have access to, but to give ordinary citizens access to the same cool goodies the police have.  I do not blame the cop on the beat for the political process that creates a special class of citizen.

and i raise your 100% to 120%.

they should all be just as 'special' as joe citizen.  that includes no 'special/tactical weapons' that are not available to the general public.

typical leo attitude towards the citizens that they are sworn to serve.

I really think there needs to be some reform in our laws.  Machinegun bans have increased there prices 10~200 times there original amount.  And then we have High-Cap magazine bans and the assault weapon bans.  Agencies should all pay taxes on all firearms , much like how schools are required to pay sales tax.

I do think that officers should have all their equipment issued to them and returned to the department when they no longer require it.  Service equipment should go home with the officer if they can provide a safe place to store it while it is not in use and if there is a compelling reason why they cannot simply go to the department to pick it up.  Should officers have the privilege to carry weapons while off duty or after they have left the force?  I think they should, I also think that anyone who has the training with a firearm should be allowed to carry one for self defense or the protection of others.  

These privileges vary state to state – some like NY may have vary restricted privileges while states like CA grant extensions for personal ownership of assault weapons to LEOs.  The whole granting of an extension for personal ownership is what really pissed me off enough to write this in the first place.

SB 626
Effective January 1, 2002, allows specified law enforcement officers with the authorization of their employing agencies to retain and personally possess assault weapons that they have possessed or owned prior to January 1, 2002...

LEO's own special weapons?  Hell yes.  While we are on the subject, why should I not be able to own them.  The 2nd amendment does not specify LEO only, right?  Could I not be a defender of democracy?

The difference is they are trained for tactical situations where I am not.  That means that they are much more qualified in a firefight than I am. It's not to say that I cannot contribute to law and order, just that it's down to training and knowledge of personal defense which does not stop at "duty".  

I am a responsible law-abiding citizen permitted by the local yokels, FBI and ATF to carry. I have demonstrated that ability.  They have MORE than done as much.  

I'm definately pro-LE.  I admire the men/women that protect those idiots that chose not to carry. Let's not forget our military while we are asking the strong to protect the weak!

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, I as a LEO can carry a concealed weapon. It must be dept. authorized and inspected. Currently that would mean a .45 or 9mm Glock, G-18 specifically excluded, with the 8 lb trigger. The weapon must be "registered" as a duty weapon. We are allowed a max. of 2 registered weapons.

Currently only TRT types can register any weapons other than handguns. Everyone else is restricted to their registered handguns and dept. supplied Remington 870's.

Are you saying that all of you want to be similarly restricted?

There's a reason why LEO's are armed, and I think that if the SHTF and you are in the stink or a loved one is taken hostage your thoughts about what weapons the LEO's responding to the incident should have will change.

LEA's should have weapons to deal with situations that could realistically occur, that doesn't neccesarily mean that individual LEO's should own those weapons. I keep seeing references to "cheap" M-16's, most are converted to semi only weapons before being released to LEA's, and they are SURPLUS, any guesses what kind of condition they are in? Many dept's that purchase "surplus" weapons do it because the can't AFFORD to by new Bushmasters.........

Garand_Shooter, Maybe you should be more ticked by the goofy CHL restrictions than where LEO's get to carry............

That's not nice.  If you're going to let a man carry, let him carry what he feels is best.  Honestly, what was the person thinking that made that decision?  "I trust you with a handgun and the power to arrest, but I don't trust you to pick the make and model of handgun to carry."  The difference in responsibility between no gun and gun is a whole lot larger than the responsibility of picking between, for example, a Ruger or a Glock.


Agreed.  The problem comes when I can't legally carry concealed (except on my own property and at work) and some kid (I'm 73, so 20-something year-old officers, like my wife's great-nephew, are kids to me) can.  I know logically I should be mad at the politicians, but when I see him, for example, carry his Glock where it prints and where you can see the top of the grip, I start to resent the fact that he can carry and I can't.  I know it's illogical, but it's the way I feel at times.z

New to the site and enjoy the discussions.  Speaking as a LEO, my state does not have concealed carry permits, unfortunately.  I also believe that most officers favor them but are not allowed to publicly speak out on them on orders from the chiefs who are politicians.  Magazine capacities are basically a mute point because you can have one 19 round magazine or just carry 2 10 round magazines.  Most people who are interested in guns know how to use them well.  I also believe there should be mandatory training in not only use of the gun but also the laws behind them to let people know what they can and cannot do.  I for one own a Colt AR-15 which I purchased.  My department only has two of these and it is impractical for me to try to get one when I need one to respond to SWAT callouts.  I can get to a callout quicker from my house then to go to the department and pick up the guns.  I'd also hate to be in the position of not taking action during a crime while off duty because I wasn't armed.  I've been confronted numerous times off duty with my family from people I've arrested.  If we weren't allowed to carry off-duty and the people knew that, there would be a lot more crimes against the police off duty.  That is another reason everyone qualified should be armed.  The bad guy would have a 50-50 chance of getting an armed citizen.  No bad guy wants those odds.  Sorry so long.  Just wanted to put in my two cents.

Sorry my friend but that is just the biggest crock of BS and I am sick of hearing it from LEO. Why would a perp you [i]arrested[/i] go after you? Much more likely, once he gets out, is that the perp will go after me, the good citizen who called you and [i]pointed him out in court for identification to a jury where the perp could get a good long look at my face[/i]! Said perp can stake me out to find the best time to jump me or my family because the kids go to school everyday. I go to the same place to work every day. I do not drive around randomly like LEOs do. And I while I do not dispute that some LEO are harmed by revenge minded convicts I dare any LEO here to post proof positive that more LEO are killed/injured this way than the Joe Citizen who fingered the BG to begin with.

And FYI, yes I have been in the position of the good citizen being staked out by a fingered convict.

Leo's are government workers, not servants.  You obviously think that leo's are sub-human & not even at least equal to any other citizen.  Get it right & help yourself to an open face ba-low me sandwich!

Oh think thats bad? NYPD - You are allowed either a Glock 19 or S&W 5946, both 9mm semi autos, Glock has the infamous NY2 spring...12 pounds of trigger pull = outstanding accuracy![pissed]

So are these 2 "registered" duty weapons purchased by your department, or do you purchase them, possibly with a department discount? Does that include your standard sidearm?

Are High Capacity LEO magazines provided?

I believe thats' a moot point, they would have been putting theirs to good use over 70 years ago.......

I purchased them at the local gun shop, regular price. #1 is a G-21 (Duty weapon) #2 is a G-30. I have nine magazines G-30 2-9 rounders, 2-10 rounders, G-21 2-10 rounders, 3-13 rounders. The 13 rounders are "restricted" and will have to be traded in for 10 rounders if I leave the dept, FWIW then rarely leave work.

I also have some AR mags, all pre-ban.

THats not true...I have been in Law-Enforcement for 3 years I was military before that...before I was L.E.O.....I never had an incident where I was a victim(or almost vistim) to a crime...after becoming L.E.O. I have had about 17 incidents where when I was off duty a criminal I had been involved with has tryed something or said something that could have gone south fast....Its a pride thing to them...what saved me my Off duty weapon oncethey relized I was armed they calmed down and stoped eyeballing my small child.....now I do belive C.C.W. should be unilateral and no restrictions on any weapon to any non-prior felon...but if I cant have that for the service I am providing the comunity with I should have the right to carry off duty.....

I wanted to ad that 95% of the time I go to
Wal-Mart or the MALL I see a person that I have "meet" in my duty's in which they were "upset" with me for my involvment with them.

FBI OFFICERS KILLED SUMMARY

According to preliminary information received by the FBI, 65 city, county, state, and federal law enforcement officers were killed due to criminal action during 2001. During the same time period in 2000, 51 officers were slain. In 2001, 26 officers were slain in the southern region, 17 in the western region, 14 in the midwestern region, three in the northeastern region, and five in the U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico. Of the 65 officers slain, 16 were answering disturbance calls, [red]nine were ambushed,[/red] eight were killed during narcotics investigations, [red]eight were killed while investigating suspicious persons or circumstances,[/red] eight were attempting other arrests, seven were killed during traffic stops, four were responding to robbery calls, two were answering burglary calls, two were handling mental person(s), and one officer was handling a prisoner. Firearms were used in 58 of the killings (44 handguns, ten rifles, and four shotguns). Five officers were killed with vehicles, one was killed with personal weapons, and one officer was killed with an iron bar. Thirty-three of the officers were wearing protective vests. There have been 61 separate incidents in which these 65 officers have been slain. Fifty-seven of these incidents have been cleared by arrest or exceptional means. Also during 2001, 73 law enforcement officers have been killed in accidental incidents. During the same time period in 2000, 84 officers were accidentally killed. Thirty-seven of the 73 officers were killed in automobile accidents, 18 were fatally struck by vehicles, five officers were fatally injured in aircraft accidents, five were accidentally shot, five were killed in motorcycle accidents (one during a training exercise), two officers were killed in falls, and one officer drowned.


******************************************

I posted that because it relates to this topic and the SF shooting incident. It doesn't list whether the officers were on or off duty when ambushed.....

The one officer that was killed with "iron bar" was visiting relatives and asked the neighbors if they would turn down their stereo. 2 brothers beat him with iron bars that had their names engraved in them. When on duty officers arrived and arrested the brothers, one of the handcuffed suspects kicked the dying officer's body as EMT's were attending to him and the suspects were being escorted to a patrol car.

As far as "I as a victim........am more likely to be retaliated against". Most of the time the criminals don't feel any ill will to their victims, victims also rarely have to testify.

The officer on the other hand is the one that finds, arrests, searches, questions, and incarcerates the subject. If there are pre-trial hearings it is often the investigating officer and only the investigating officer that testifies against the suspect, or details how evidence was obtained and handled.

The sad fact is in many smaller communities and some larger ones officers arrest the same people over and over again. Many criminals have been arrested so often that they often know the arrest procedures, as well or better than the arresting officer. You may see a criminal once, but an officer may see him multiple times, and often times many of his family members. Not just when he is arresting the person, but issuing citations, or investigating noise complaints, or asking yesterdays arrestee about a crime he witnessed today.........

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MOST AT RISK FOR WORKPLACE VIOLENCE

College and University Faculty Members Have Lowest Rates

     WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. residents suffered an annual average of 1.7 million violent workplace victimizations between 1993 and 1999, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. In addition to those non-fatal workplace crimes against people 12 years old and older, there were about 900 workplace-related homicides annually during those years, according to the new BJS study. Workplace violence accounted for 18 percent of all violent crime during the seven-year period.

    Of the occupations examined, police officers experienced such crimes at the highest rate (260.8 per 1,000 police officers), whereas college or university professors and teachers had the lowest rate (1.6 per 1,000 teachers). Government employees had violent victimization rates (28.6 per 1,000 government worker) that were higher than those people who work for private companies (9.9 per 1,000 workers) or self-employed people (7.4 per 1,000).

    Rates for the 1993-1999 period for selected occupations as measured by BJS' National Crime Victimization Survey were as follows:

Occupation Average Annual Rate
per 1,000 Workers
     
Law enforcement officers 260.8  
Corrections officers 155.7  
Taxicab drivers 128.3  
Bartenders 81.6  
Mental health custodians 69.0  
Special education teachers 68.4  
Gas station attendants 68.3  
Mental health professionals 68.2  
Junior high school teachers 54.2  
Convenience store workers 53.9  
Bus drivers  38.2  
High school teachers 38.1  
Nurses 21.9  
Physicians 16.2  
All workers 12.6  
College teachers 1.6  

    The non-fatal workplace crime rate declined 44 percent from 1993 through 1999, and the number of workplace homicides fell 39 percent during the same period.

    White workers experienced workplace victimization (13.0 per 1,000 workers) at a rate 25 percent higher than blacks (10.4 per 1,000 blacks) and 59 percent higher than for other races (8.2 per 1,000 such workers). About 60 percent of workplace violence against whites and blacks was committed by offenders of the same race as the victim.

    Almost one in eight victimized workers were injured during the act of violence, about one in nine faced multiple offenders and about four in 10 had a prior relationship with the offender. In about 11 percent of the workplace homicides the offender was a coworker, former coworker or a customer. About three-quarters of all workplace violence was committed by unarmed offenders, but more than 80 percent of the workplace homicides were committed with firearms.

Funny the last time I checked being a police officer was a 24/7 job. Your always on duty when your a police officer.

But yes Ponyboy I don't think that LEO should be able to have a full auto rifle at home just to use for fun. We the full auto rifle unless it's in the back of your squad and it was issued to you by your department that's the only reason it should be at your home.

I also know a few PD's that have take home car's that you can use off duty but you have to respond to any calls that you might be near if your in your squad so you have to be armed.

Also being a police officer is like being a doctor or a nurse if some one is in need of medical help you just can say "Sorry I'm off duty." It's the same thing if there is a crime going on.

It's also a 2 class system in that if a CHL holder and an off duty LEO are in a restaraunt that is being robbed the CHL holder has no obligation to do anything but if a LEO doesn't do anything many jursidictions will say the LEO had A LEGAL OBLIGATION to act, and/or a responsibilty imposed upon them a condition of their employement. So if the LEO doesn't act they could be charged criminally or fired, and if they do act they may get judged much more critically on their response.

I understand WI doesn't have CHL. It also has very few gun restrictions on the State level, it is far better than some States overall to be a gun owner in and fairly close to others if you look at gun rights/laws as a whole, I know it isn't Vermont......

And the phrase goes something like you are always a LEO, although you only get paid for duty assignments.

What about prosecutors who try to put people prison but meet up with them on the street when spineless judges given them probation?  What about when they are threatened?

In WI, they aren't legally allowed to carry concealed firearms.  Neither are judges, attorneys, probation and parole agents, some corrections employees, etc.

A few years back, a DA in a northern county had his house firebombed by some BG's he was trying to lock up.  An incumbent judge, who lost an election, shot and killed the judge-elect (attorney who beat him) in that attorney's law office.  This was also in WI's recent past.  Last year at least 3 Asst. US Atty's were killed -- 2 in a robbery attempt while at a job related conference in NC and another in a NW state killed with a rifle shot through his basement window.  These all subject to an IIRC caveat, but demonstrate that non-LEO's do have the need to protect themselves.

Heck, my father is a banker in a small town who is sometimes forced to foreclose on people's houses.  He's gotten more than a few calls from them, drunk off their @sses, threatening him.  He can't legally carry a concealed firearm.

No flame, but the only issue I have is that LEO's cite the threats or potential threats of BG's they put away.  Please don't disregard the fact that many other non-LEO's have similar legitimate concerns for their safety.

All major WI police unions, agencies, etc., have NOT SUPPORTED the Personal Protection Act.  They say "call 911" and are content to let me be a victim.  Apparently they don't care if my family is victimized by "job related" crime.

OLY-M4gery, this may explain some of our frustration with LEO agencies.  I know many line cops who support the PPA, but their bosses (like Chief Richard "one part turkey, one part Glock" Williams of the MAPD) all are against it.  Line cops in WI need to get their unions to support the PPA.  Otherwise you'll find that citizens like me won't be very sympathetic when LEO's look for concealed carry for retired LEO's.  We all gotta realize that we're all (at some point) in the same boat.  Heck, if I understand it correctly, chief LEO's in WI don't support retired CCW because it's one step closer to citizen CCW.

BTW, by your description of your agencies firearms, I know your don't work in the jurisdiction I live/work in.  Drop me an email if you care to.

[stick] stop it my sides hurt from laughing......



It depends, I think by the reference I know where you are, and no I don't work there.(they have about 100 AR-15's........)

more of that typical attitude.....

"...ASVAB GT score was 129".
Duuuuuuuuude ...[i]Your shit dont stink [/i]!!!!!!!!!

Your right Mike, you don't make the laws - you just have to enforce them.  It’s those morons that run the government that must answer for this, it’s unfortunate that good people like your self get thrown in between.  

OLY-M4gery, do you have any statistics of officers that were killed with there own weapons?  I remember it being something like 20%.  Has there ever been any thoughts of caring less than lethal weapons instead of firearms, or dose the dangers of not caring a firearm out way the danger of being killed by your own weapon?  I know there are companies out there trying to make products what will solve that problem, but as far as I know they haven’t sold a single unit that will do that.

As far as Machineguns go, it may be possible for an officer to own a post-ban machinegun.  I remember reading a post a while back that went over the details, weather it will work or not I can’t be for sure.  Basically MG’s can’t be sold to individual officers, only departments.  So an officer must give money to the department so that the department would buy that officer that weapon and then issue the weapon to that officer.  Being on good terms with your CLEO will defiantly help.  Do you own the weapon, no.  Do you get to keep the weapon after you leave, no – you just made a very generous donation to your department.  

A little bit off topic.  On paper a citizen has a better chance of getting a MG permit in CA than an assault weapons permit.  

And LEO's get killed in car crashes every year too, maybe we should stop driving. The benefit of the "tool" far outwieghs the risk, be it car or gun. Less Lethal weapons are being used more and more, but they supplememnt the the other force options, they don't replace them.

One of the things I've figured out is statistics often say what the people tabulating them want to say.

In reading summaries of officers killed, looking at officers killed with their own weapons, the factoid that is often left out is that in many instances the officer is incapacitated prior to their weapon being taken. In other words the BG shoots, stabs, clubs, or just pummels until the officer can't effectively resist. Then the officer's gun is taken and used against him or her. (this type of incapacitate then grab the gun accounts for over 50% of the officer being killed with their own weapon incidents)

It isn't very often that the BG "pick-pockets" the officer's weapon and the officer has no idea what is going on until the gun is gone. (d'oh)

I doubt if he/she/it is a peace officer, and if he/she/it is, IMHO that atitude is not "typical". In my state anyway.....

I wasn't going to post on this as I am an LEO but I am not one to just stand by and
get kicked so here it goes:

First I must state that I am split on the issue,  LEO weapons and mags are tools of
the trade and I think they are needed.  However they are not as easy to obtain or
possess as most people believe.  There are a lot of rumors and tall tales that are not
true.  I can't just buy any assault weapon of hi-cap mag because I want it.
I do not agree with e assault weapon ban and I believe that any responsible citizen
should have the right to own the highly acclaimed "assault weapon" and or hi cap
magazines if he or she so chooses.  Again I say the word responsible.  They should
be treated like booze and vehicles.  If you display a bad decision making process
then you don't deserve to own theses types of weapons.  If you commit a crime
under the influence of alcohol or that funny little leaf that ponyboy so proudly
displays and you are in the possession of an assault weapon then you should lose
your right.  Plain and simple.
Speaking of ponyboy; I think his idea is moronic but I expect that from the
uneducated and close minded people.  Maybe I am out of line with that statement as
I believe that you shouldn't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes.  
How many here have actually had felons and citizens of other countries make death
threats to you and or your family.  I have on many occasions.  In the last two years I
have taken over a ton of illegal narcotics off of the streets.  Narcotics that could have
ended up in the hands of your school children.  That tends to upset some people in
the illegal drug industry.  The perceived and actual threat to me as an LEO is not the same as to an accountant in Denver.  That threat does not end at the end of my work day.  As I
live very near the border, harms way can be right around the corner 24/7.  
If I sound bitter it is because I am.  I have eight years of military experience, a combat vetern and about eight years as a LEO.  I tend take it person when the people I swore to
protect tell me that I shouldn't have the right to go to work with the proper tools or
defend myself and my family from the inherent dangers of my profession.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Should cops be able to buy assault rifles, hi-cap mags, and machine guns??  Most definetly!

Should the average citizen be able to do the same??  Sure!

Don't blame cops for being able to have cool toys!

Blame the loser politicians that you guys elected who took away your rights to have those cool toys!!!!!!!

You know who scares me more than those politicians ???
The idiots who elected em!!!!!

I think every law abiding citizen should be able to own ANY type of weapon, machine gun, rocket launcher, anti-tank weapon, F-15 etc.

BUT THEY CAN'T.

SO GO VOTE AND CHANGE IT!!!!

Saying police officers should not be able to carry off-duty is like saying;

"When the President is not engaged in his official capacity, then he cannot have Secret Service protection"

All of you a**holes out there don't bitch about not having a bullet proof limo, or 24/7 secret service protection do you?

But according to your logic we all should have it.

Get Real.

Let's frame the issue.  It's not what LEO's CAN do, it's what citizens CANNOT do.

I appreciate what LEO's do, but just because your threats are more constant and apparent doesn't mean that random violence can't strike you.  Random violence exists and no one can deny it.  Living in today's day and age can be dangerous, no matter what you do.

Incidentally, I see some of the federal guidelines, mandates, etc. being forced down PD's throats as similar to some of the anti-gun stuff that citizens are dealing with.  Cops are feeling a lot of heat too.  [And yes, I do realize cops are citizens as well.]

There are not a lot of job out there that are as dangerous as the LEO profession.  I'll give you that.  But does that mean that you've cornered the market on being crime victims?  I don't think so.  My guess is the number of LEO's who are crime victims pales in comparison to the number of citizens who are crime victims every year.

I think that LEO chiefs largely have their heads up their arshes on issues such as these.  They think "comply with federal mandates for funding" and "say no to citizen CCW because that's our job."

We need to differentiate between the line LEO's who are WITH us, and the political hacks who are not.  The line LEO's need to get their unions to back citizen CCW and other RIGHTS that have been denied.  Citizens need to back LEO's in their jobs and get rid of the administrators who are against us exercising our rights.

And, re: the following:


Yes, OLY-M4gery, the MAPD now has new Colt Gov't Carbines (collapsable stock, 16" LW bbl, A2 upper) in their patrol squads.  Funny thing is, in their press release, the made a big deal (obviously to minimize any publicity problems with them carrying AR15's) about how these are the "same rifles available to the public."  Of course, they didn't mention that they have FS's and collapsable stocks, which are NOT available on postban rifles.  They also have 20 round mags which are again taboo in postban status.  Just so you don't jump to the wrong conclusion, I think that AR15's are the right tool for the job and I support them carrying this rifle.

But what really gets my goat is that they misled the public to ease the transition to their new federally funded rifles.

And, if you'd now ask the MAPD chief of police or the WI chiefs of police association what they thought about citizen ownership of AR15's and highcap mags, I'd bet my next paycheck that they'd be against it.  Just like they're against citizen CCW.

That my friends is a double standard no if's, ands or but's about it.  THAT's what should be tweaking non-LEO's and LEO's alike.

I would like to say that I think we all appreciate LEO's who come on here and say that they fully support our rights.  Most of you have your own mismanaged bureacracies to deal with (particularly in the larger PD's I'd guess).  Thanks for doing the job and putting up with the flack, whether it's from the fickle public or your desk jockey supervisors.

Only if they can shoot
I can shoot better than 65%(conservative estimate) than most LEO's that coem to our indoor pistol range
-Chuck

Only if they can shoot
I can shoot better than 65%(conservative estimate) than most LEO's that coem to our indoor pistol range
-Chuck

Right on! ponyboy!

Gee, in my town, a couple of weekends ago, they arrested an off duty police officer for DUI after a high speed chase that required spike belts to stop him.

I don't think any police officer should be able to carry concealed, off duty, in a state where regular citizens cannot.

Well.....we ALWAYS hear about the negative.............2 officers per car...shotgun AND select fire m4 per vehicle.......this is a dream...sure...but in reality...All leo`s are held to a higher degree of responsibility...at all times...not just in uniform.....this is a fact...so then should they have the right to properly defend themselves.....special peiveledge?....only on duty....dept issue?....in the real world this does`nt always happen.....but that officer...placed in harms way...should have every means to carry out his/her duties as effectively as possible.......Politics be damned!........[heavy]

If LEO's are held to a higher degree of responsibility, then why don't they take responsibility for their lack of firearm safety skills, instead of blaming Glock?

[50]

Who are "they" ???

He's refering to the Philadelphia PD ND where a kid in school was shot.

Of course since 1 officer/dept. did it we must all be behind it. It's the "them vs. us" thing........(and who keeps starting it?)  Of course if an officer does something heroic, he was just doing his job, or he alone was responsible for the heroism. If one officer did something bad it's ALL officers fault.

Gee think if that standard was applied to whatever career field they work in or as gun owners.......

Yeah...like all auto mechanics are crooks....................

You are correct-- I was referring to the PA PD incident, where (according to the news articles) the department was blaming Glock. (They = PA PD)

But there you go interpreting what you "think" I meant. All I was doing is pointing out that [b]some[/b] LEOs do not take responsibility for their actions.



It does apply. If a I passed around a loaded gun in a school (any school) and accidentally  shot some kid, I don't know how many laws I would have just violated-- probably many, and I would not have been able to blame Glock either.

First off, I don't know how the whole cop blaming thing got into this thread or why any LEO's are taking anything I've said as a personal attack. The title of this thread is [b]"Should LEOs be given special firearms privileges?"[/b]. LEOs don't make the rules, they just follow them. Also, I don't blame LEOs for taking advantage of the special rights afforded to them. I just think that LEOs who are not on duty and non-LEOs should be on equal footing with no special privileges given to either.

[b]To Mr. Dave McDonald....I have every right to my opinion and if you don't like it then you can suck my dick. If you want to start talking about the educated and uneducated then I would be more than happy to trade fax numbers with you and we could share our college transcripts and you can decide for yourself who is the more "educated".

As to your stupid little, judging a man before you walk in his shoes...exactly who have I judged here? I've made broad sweeping statements concerning my opinion on the firearms laws relating to LEOs and non-LEOs. That statement is that the laws should be equal regardless of your field of employment.

If you want to talk about judging someone scroll up and reread your historic 1st post here on ar15.com then get back with me.[/b]

Then why don't you walk in the shoes of a woman fleeing from violent domestic abuse being told that the only thing standing in the way of the abuser is a little piece of paper signed by a judge. Walk that line and then tell me as an LEO you have more a right than her. Before you start slinging the shit you might check to see if you're standing in it.

And if I sound bitter, it's because I'm getting sick of us/them-ers telling me they have more right to self defense than the peons. Simply put, there ARE life situations the little folk encounter that can be just as dangerous....only difference being the little folk don't have the badge. Why should they be treated any differently?

A) I read what YOU posted, you were unclear what YOU meant.
B) They tried to "spin" the incident...... I don't think they were very sucesful, at least here. Sometimes the truth gets in the way of "spin".
C) I'm not sure what laws a non-LEO would have violated in that circumstance. Of course common sense got it's butt kicked.
D) Yes you could try to blame Glock and you'd probably just as succesful.

Please don't stereotype. If you mean a particular person or incident say so, but don't try to make that circumstance apply to a whole class of people.