Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 3/7/2005 1:30:51 PM EDT
No Hoax or prize give away.

I was test firing my duty carbine at a relatives land in a neighboring county after a barrel and lower parts swap. My agency owns registered lightning links and I installed a selector kit.

After running through a few magazines. I look behind me and see a Sheriff's Office car pull in. I laid the weapon down and approached the deputy keeping my hands in plain sight.

He said "what are you shooting" I replied, an AR-15. He said "Is it modified" I said, yes. He asked if I had an FFL. I said, no but I have my ATF forms with me.

So, along with my ATF form copies I presented my Police ID. He reviwed my forms and ID.

A Conservation Agent also showed up, both were curious on how NFA weapons are registered, manufactured, etc.

We had a long conversation, they learned a lot. A good experience all the way around.

I never knew anything about NFA till several years back when I researched it on my own. They dont teach gun laws in the academy.

BTW my dog survived the incident.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:32:38 PM EDT
I am not in the least bit surprised by this.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:37:14 PM EDT


This is wrong on so many levels.

Just counting the years, waiting, preparing for next civil war.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:39:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2005 1:40:07 PM EDT by mayday]
Sounds about right I know sometimes Customs agents used to shoot their F/A Steyr AUGs at our range. Sometimes other agencies would bring out the fun stuff like HK G36's and such.

Same thing, local LEO would stop by but as soon as they saw the G36's, they knew the people shooting were LEO's. They usually know regular folks cant get G36 and P90's ....so they just turn around and leave.

But I have the feeling that if the shooter was a "thug-type" with a MAK90 blasting away full-out.....I think the outcome would have been different.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:41:24 PM EDT
Not surprising. At least they didn't draw down on you.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:42:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:44:47 PM EDT
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:46:27 PM EDT
With more city folk moving out here, it's only a matter of time until somebody calls the cops on me.

Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:46:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hank_Rearden1:


This is wrong on so many levels.

Just counting the years, waiting, preparing for next civil war.



you and I both, friend. Feinstein and her gestapos sure seem to want to start one.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:53:37 PM EDT
If the police could hear, everytime a person lights a cigerette, would they come running?
If they could hear every time a cap is unscrewed from the top of a whiskey bottle?
Everytime a person opens a can of beer?
What about everytime a persons starts their car, buys a playboy, enters a bar, votes.... etc.

Just like the above examples, full-auto is legal in some states and by certain people, you just have to meet the reqs and follow the rules. The fact the it is looked at as "illegal" first, is the part that bothers me the most. Inoccent until proven guilty is only on the movies as its certainly not on the streets of america.
CH
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:54:20 PM EDT
Lightning links? That seems like an odd choice. I'm assuming that these aren't transferable LLs, or else your agency could make a killing if they traded them to a dealer for post samples.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:56:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HKocher:
Lightning links? That seems like an odd choice. I'm assuming that these aren't transferable LLs, or else your agency could make a killing if they traded them to a dealer for post samples.



I thought that was a bit odd myself.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:56:33 PM EDT
I can tell you from expierence people will call
in a revolver as being full auto fire.

Getting a call to check on someone shooting
is not uncommon. Particuarly if it is more than
a few shots.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:57:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:58:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lt557:

BTW my dog survived the incident.



Well be sure to be on the look out. Those JBT's are crazy
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:59:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.



Link Posted: 3/7/2005 1:59:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2005 2:05:42 PM EDT by Hank_Rearden1]

Originally Posted By Voldermortist:

Originally Posted By Hank_Rearden1:


This is wrong on so many levels.

Just counting the years, waiting, preparing for next civil war.



you and I both, friend. Feinstein and her gestapos sure seem to want to start one.



Let me clarify, I don't want to interject the attitude that "well, we can't have them why should they".. two wrongs don't make a right... and limiting the rights or privileges of LEOs doesn't necessarily help non-LEOs. Indeed, it was my opinion that national CCW for LEOs was fine.. I saw it as "glass is half full" issue... i.e. since they have them, well we can have it too. But clearly, that is not the intent of the Statist powers engaged in the attempt to strip us down to servants.

The fact that private citizens have slowed the gun grabbing momentum can be categorized as legal, momentary political victories. However, culturally the issue is different. I am losing faith in our ability to turn the cultural momentum around.

I want to see LEOs openly advocating and supporting the NRA and private folks in far greater numbers. I want to see LEOs speaking out againt their polical leadership (i.e. chiefs of police) when the chiefs stand with the gun grabbers. I want to see police departments sponsoring safe weapons training courses to the public, etc, etc.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:01:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2005 2:01:55 PM EDT by Blackriflefever]

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.




Get out there and go on a ride along with one. Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5. Once you see what they deal with then you say that.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:01:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.



my issue isn't so much the agencies having full auto, it's the fact that the full auto guns can go home and be used by officers on their personal time and property
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:02:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:05:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:06:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:07:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2005 2:08:26 PM EDT by Hank_Rearden1]

Originally Posted By Blackriflefever:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.




Get out there and go on a ride along with one. Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5. Once you see what they deal with then you say that.



I would be happy to go on a ride.. I think these types of activites should be encrouged. I would expect however that If I am on the ride-along that no one would object to my bringing along my side arm and AR, as well.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:08:25 PM EDT
What is most distressing to me is that the folks charged with enforcing the laws know so little about the laws. But it's not surprising given that laws are the work of politicians and bureaucrats, and there are so many of the damn things. It's a wonder there is sense to any of them. And firearms laws are some of the most senseless.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:08:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:

Originally Posted By LPDtactical:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.






+1

I know of a few Tyler, TX officers who benefitted from their ARs.




They were not select fire.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:11:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blackriflefever:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.




Get out there and go on a ride along with one. Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5. Once you see what they deal with then you say that.



I'm sure the LE in Selma, AL would have appreciated having a few Tommy Guns 40 years ago.

Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:13:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blackriflefever:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.




Get out there and go on a ride along with one. Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5. Once you see what they deal with then you say that.



Get a little bit over 19, and an education, and you'll see why ipschoser1 thinks the way he does.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:20:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blackriflefever:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.




Get out there and go on a ride along with one. Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5. Once you see what they deal with then you say that.



Really? There are two difference between Mil and LEO shooting. One, if a cop has to shoot, he is shooting to STOP. Shooting to stop means getting hits. It is a proven fact that hit ratios with semi auto are much better than with full auto. Second, every round downrange must be accounted for. Full auto drastically increases the possibility of stray rounds going who knows where.

Full auto is truly an advantage is for suppressive or area fire, such as breaking an ambush or extracting personnel from the kill zone. Domestic LEO does not need to generate a large amount of suppressive fire or break ambushes. Even if you did, semi auto fire using a rifle caliber, hi cap weapon is certainly sufficient for all but a large scale armed confrontation with similiarly armed group of people. When is the last time YOU had a firefight with a squad sized element armed with rifles, and didn't have to worry about your backstop?
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:24:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 2:54:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2005 2:55:01 PM EDT by Hank_Rearden1]

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:

Originally Posted By TxLewis:

Originally Posted By Blackriflefever:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.




Get out there and go on a ride along with one. Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5. Once you see what they deal with then you say that.



Get a little bit over 19, and an education, and you'll see why ipschoser1 thinks the way he does.



Very true.

With the pathetic LACK of training in most LEO circles, I would prefer Andy Griffith's method of arming deputies.

I teach, and the profession of educators leaves me wondering about society in general. If there are as many screw ups WITH college degrees that cannot even manage a classroom full of kids, then I am curious why we think we need even more heavily armed LEOs.

I have an 80/20 rule. 80% of the people in each chosen profession are unfit/unqualified/unable to do thier job. The other 20% spend their time trying to keep the profession on track.

I see the same thing in the LEO trade. 80% should be summarily fired, so the other 20% can be effective.

TRG




+1 zillion on that redgoat!
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 3:04:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2005 3:06:15 PM EDT by Sturmwehr]

Originally Posted By TxLewis:

Originally Posted By Blackriflefever:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.




Get out there and go on a ride along with one. Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5. Once you see what they deal with then you say that.



Get a little bit over 19, and an education, and you'll see why ipschoser1 thinks the way he does.



Being 19, I take offense to that statement.

I agree with TxLewis and you. Most LEOs don't need select-fire weapons, hell, some can barely manage with their sidearms.

I would say that if you can qualify with the weapon, you should be able to use it, however. But, I don't see why we should shell out $1,200 per officer for a weapon that we can't even legally own (post-86).
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 3:10:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By joker581:
Not surprising. At least they didn't draw down on you.



Thats why I approached them, away from the weapon and hands in sight.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 3:13:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HKocher:
Lightning links? That seems like an odd choice. I'm assuming that these aren't transferable LLs, or else your agency could make a killing if they traded them to a dealer for post samples.



The city is ultra cheap. The rifles belong to the Individual Officer. Only command staff have the links. No, they are not transferable. If they were we have Department owned selecatble M-4s.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 3:15:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sharky30:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.



my issue isn't so much the agencies having full auto, it's the fact that the full auto guns can go home and be used by officers on their personal time and property



I was test firing before putting the weapon back into service. Read the post.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 3:20:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Originally Posted By Blackriflefever:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.




Get out there and go on a ride along with one. Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5. Once you see what they deal with then you say that.



Really? There are two difference between Mil and LEO shooting. One, if a cop has to shoot, he is shooting to STOP. Shooting to stop means getting hits. It is a proven fact that hit ratios with semi auto are much better than with full auto. Second, every round downrange must be accounted for. Full auto drastically increases the possibility of stray rounds going who knows where.

Full auto is truly an advantage is for suppressive or area fire, such as breaking an ambush or extracting personnel from the kill zone. Domestic LEO does not need to generate a large amount of suppressive fire or break ambushes. Even if you did, semi auto fire using a rifle caliber, hi cap weapon is certainly sufficient for all but a large scale armed confrontation with similiarly armed group of people. When is the last time YOU had a firefight with a squad sized element armed with rifles, and didn't have to worry about your backstop?



That is why we installed the selector kits. Assistance for us is always at least 30 minutes away.

Meth cooks are the modern day "moonshiners", and can be quite dangerous.

Better to have it and not need it, that to need it and not have it.

Link Posted: 3/7/2005 3:23:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
With more city folk moving out here, it's only a matter of time until somebody calls the cops on me.


So get to work making sure all your neighbors and the cops / township mucks luv you. You know its coming, WIN the first rounds at least.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 3:53:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 4:08:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TxLewis:

Originally Posted By Blackriflefever:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.




Get out there and go on a ride along with one. Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5. Once you see what they deal with then you say that.



Get a little bit over 19, and an education, and you'll see why ipschoser1 thinks the way he does.



I want no edumacation
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 4:28:11 PM EDT
I didn't know ir was SOP when a neighbor is shooting FA to call the law. Guess I'll have to do better next time he takes them out.

How about if he is shooting his new 50 BMG? It is either a 50 or a 20mm, and semi to boot! Does this warrant calling in CAS?

Link Posted: 3/7/2005 4:33:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 4:35:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lt557:
They dont teach gun laws in the academy.




Not even STATE law?
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 4:41:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Originally Posted By Blackriflefever:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.




Get out there and go on a ride along with one. Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5. Once you see what they deal with then you say that.



Really? There are two difference between Mil and LEO shooting. One, if a cop has to shoot, he is shooting to STOP. Shooting to stop means getting hits. It is a proven fact that hit ratios with semi auto are much better than with full auto. Second, every round downrange must be accounted for. Full auto drastically increases the possibility of stray rounds going who knows where.

Full auto is truly an advantage is for suppressive or area fire, such as breaking an ambush or extracting personnel from the kill zone. Domestic LEO does not need to generate a large amount of suppressive fire or break ambushes....



You had me agreeing with you until you essentially claimed LE officers are not ambushed. If you have a good backstop and clear field of fire there is nothing wrong with putting a steady stream of bullets into the cover the bad guy is hiding behind to keep his head down while your partner flanks him. Supressive fire in the LE role just needs to be a little slower, alot more accurate, and more attention paid to backstop and fields of fire than military supressive fire.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 4:43:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Originally Posted By Blackriflefever:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.




Get out there and go on a ride along with one. Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5. Once you see what they deal with then you say that.



Really? There are two difference between Mil and LEO shooting. One, if a cop has to shoot, he is shooting to STOP. Shooting to stop means getting hits. It is a proven fact that hit ratios with semi auto are much better than with full auto. Second, every round downrange must be accounted for. Full auto drastically increases the possibility of stray rounds going who knows where.

Full auto is truly an advantage is for suppressive or area fire, such as breaking an ambush or extracting personnel from the kill zone. Domestic LEO does not need to generate a large amount of suppressive fire or break ambushes. Even if you did, semi auto fire using a rifle caliber, hi cap weapon is certainly sufficient for all but a large scale armed confrontation with similiarly armed group of people. When is the last time YOU had a firefight with a squad sized element armed with rifles, and didn't have to worry about your backstop?




I was working up in my mind what I wanted to say while reading this, you

put it as well or better than I could, so bump to you, very eloquent
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 4:46:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:


It might be a 10.5" AR15, of all the firearms I have shot, it is hands-down the loudest of them all.

TRG



This guy is almost a mile away, no way it is a small bore. This thing is loud in a very deep throated way. Sounds louder than when the ma duce was fired off the helo deck while under way.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 4:55:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2005 4:59:24 PM EDT by ipschoser1]
After reading page one I was set to post the reasons for my stance on cops with FA weapons but some of you guys have already expressed my concerns very eloquently. I'd like to add a couple more reasons to the list though. SOME (many) cops like to play ARMY. So do many of us "civilians" but in some states we can't. We are THE PEOPLE. We pay your salary. We should be treated equally. Also, we pay the PAYOUTS for the LAWSUITS in which each round isn't accounted for and WE and our FAMILIES are the bystanders that are downrange when Barney cuts loose. Rant mode off...
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 4:59:08 PM EDT
LEO's are civilians and should not have any priviledges that we lesser civilians don't have. LEO's should not have access to FA weapons. The reason so many LEO's are unsupportive of our gun rights is that they get to operate under a different set of rules.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 5:03:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lt557:

Originally Posted By HKocher:
Lightning links? That seems like an odd choice. I'm assuming that these aren't transferable LLs, or else your agency could make a killing if they traded them to a dealer for post samples.



The city is ultra cheap. The rifles belong to the Individual Officer. Only command staff have the links. No, they are not transferable. If they were we have Department owned selecatble M-4s.



Yikes, I'd be worried about using a LL for anything other than plinking!

There is a government program where they will sell a dept. M16A1s for next to nothing. I'm sure that this is a much better way to go than using LL.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 5:04:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.



Well to return the thought...

From a cop's standpoint.... NO non-cops need them at all.

Sounds a lot different when the sentiment is reversed, don't you think?

You must be one of those gun control freaks.

Link Posted: 3/7/2005 5:05:03 PM EDT
The best one is when antis try to act smart, had this one moron in my class tell the class that now that the AWB is done anybody can walk into a gunstore and buy, get this, A SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINEGUN, I almost died laughing. And then I owned him on all the facts and the only defense he had was, guns are only used to kill things.
Then I pretended to agree, and then I said knives are only meant to kill things, we should ban those next! Lets just say, it made him look even more like an idiot.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 5:07:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sturmwehr:

Originally Posted By TxLewis:

Originally Posted By Blackriflefever:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.




Get out there and go on a ride along with one. Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5. Once you see what they deal with then you say that.



Get a little bit over 19, and an education, and you'll see why ipschoser1 thinks the way he does.



Being 19, I take offense to that statement.

I agree with TxLewis and you. Most LEOs don't need select-fire weapons, hell, some can barely manage with their sidearms.

I would say that if you can qualify with the weapon, you should be able to use it, however. But, I don't see why we should shell out $1,200 per officer for a weapon that we can't even legally own (post-86).



Why you think they cost $1200 I don't know. They cost is usually the same as semi's to an agency.
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 5:07:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.



Well to return the thought...

From a cop's standpoint.... NO non-cops need them at all.

Sounds a lot different when the sentiment is reversed, don't you think?

You must be one of those gun control freaks.




The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow cops to determine our rights! God bless America.

Do I really sound like a gun control freak? If you think so, you need to read my posts more.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top