Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 2/24/2002 4:21:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2002 11:06:46 AM EDT by sulaco]
Now this question isn’t intended to start a flame war, I just want to get your opinions about this – hopefully opinions from both sides. Law Enforcement Officers need special right in order for them to conduct their duties as Peace Officers. Their rights include the right to detain a suspect, to arrest a suspect and to exercise force when needed. Legally, a citizens cannot detain a suspect, can conduct a citizens arrest but not a true arrest and cannot use force unless in self-defense. However, beyond the scope of there duties, they should not be given any more personal rights than an ordinary citizen. The system that is in place right now allows for LEOs to buy restricted equipment, such as post-ban high capacity magazines, assault rifles and in rare cases post-ban machineguns. In order for an officer to buy restricted equipment that officer requires them to purchase these items with there own money on department letterhead when approval buy the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in that area. When that officer leaves the department they can sell that item or in some cases have that item ‘gifted’ to them. Now the only problem I see with the current system is that it allows for the private ownership and the use of private funds of restricted equipment that could potently be used for none duty purposes. The problem with that is that our society is built up on a foundation of equality, no single individual is better than anyone else, we are all equal. With that in mind LEOs should not be exempt from the same laws that ordinary citizens must comply to when it comes to restricted equipment for personal use. The services that our officers render for our communities are greatly appreciated, however there are many other people out there that serve our communities in other ways and there services are just as important. A better systems would involve officers requesting equipment, having there department buy the equipment and issue it to the officer and then they can return the equipment when it is no longer required for there duties or when the officer retires. Edited notes… It was noted earlier that we are talking about special firearm privileges for none duty purposes. Example, if an officer wanted to buy a post-ban CAR with all the trimmings for personal use at the range.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 4:26:57 PM EDT
Some animals are more equal than others.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 4:39:34 PM EDT
Well, yes, of course they should have special rights. Ever heard of "professional courtesy" How dare we serfs think we should be allowed to have the same rights as leo's.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 4:45:21 PM EDT
Honestly...I believe that police officers should all have their weapons issued to them, nobody should get to carry their own weapon. Not saying they shouldn't have a choice of their gun, but it should be the departments gun. They show up to work and check out their gun and check it back in when the shift is over. If they want to practice on their time off, same thing, check it in and out. If they want to carry concealed then they need a license just like everybody else. If their state doesn't issue one then they're just SOL. All high caps should be purchased by the dept only, and must be checked in and out with the weapon they belong to. No taking home of department weapons or magazines. This goes for all LEO's including federal. If you aren't on duty then you're just Joe Citizen.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 6:21:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 6:33:59 PM EDT
Chalk another one up for PonyBoy. I concur 100%.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 6:52:22 PM EDT
Its special privileges that start revolutions. Equal access to the courts,equal access to gun rights, equal access to health care, equal access to education, and equal access to the Congress are the issues that will drive the next Revolution. Its not time for it yet, but considering the frustration level in this country its time to start talking about it.There are a lot of people asking themselves now, if we are going to lose more rights, are we ready to throw down for something better, more along the lines of the original Constitution?
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 7:06:04 PM EDT
Im with Ponyboy 100%.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 7:07:19 PM EDT
Just a couple of corrections, post-86 MG's must be owned by the department individual's can't possess them unless they are an SOT, former SOT in some cases. Secondly, at least in Arkansas an LEO can carry concealed off-duty, but cannot carry concealed in another state unless he/she has a CCW issued in Arkansas and the state in which he/she is traveling has reciprocity with Arkansas. Other than that I would agree with Ponyboy.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 7:11:36 PM EDT
To my understanding, when an LEO leaves the force, the weopon has to be sold to another officer/force or to a dealer. Or, the weopon has to be altered into the 'civilian' version. You are right about 'professional courtesy'. It's a reality that most people do not know of or care not to mention. There's the all ways 'how thing should be' and 'how things really are'. If he/she leaves the force, then they are 'civilians'. And that SHOULD be that.....
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 7:27:01 PM EDT
Department owned, okay I can live with that. Personal owned, no way, they should be equal with citizens. Funny thing is, in FL, a person with a CCW actually has it better than a LEO buying a firearm. While we now have to do the NICS (so does the LEO) we don't have to wait the 3-days (the LEO does, unless he has a CCW.)
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 8:55:01 PM EDT
First we all need to get our collective heads out of our rectum!!!! An LEO is a citizen, nothing less nothing more. Just a citizen employed by all the non LEO's to enforce our laws.] As a citizen the LEO should not have any "rights" not granted to any other citizen. If we continue to reclassify groups of people into their jobs and education and grant them rights on this basis we are nothing more than a totalitarian society..... if Bob, the guy down the street, has more rights because he is employed by the city isn't this class distinction? If I have more rights because I am educated doesn't this devaluate others? If one can carry a gun and one can't who is at fault ? It is the voters fault. The LEO is not superhuman, just a guy or gal employed by the rest of us to keep the peace!
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 8:58:36 PM EDT
Well since they already have access to all kinds of NFA weapons without having to pay a dime in taxes or worry about what year the damn guns were built, I'd say they already have special firearms rights, lots of them.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 9:06:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Honestly...I believe that police officers should all have their weapons issued to them, nobody should get to carry their own weapon. Not saying they shouldn't have a choice of their gun, but it should be the departments gun. They show up to work and check out their gun and check it back in when the shift is over. If they want to practice on their time off, same thing, check it in and out. If they want to carry concealed then they need a license just like everybody else. If their state doesn't issue one then they're just SOL. All high caps should be purchased by the dept only, and must be checked in and out with the weapon they belong to. No taking home of department weapons or magazines. This goes for all LEO's including federal. If you aren't on duty then you're just Joe Citizen.
View Quote
Couldn't agree more! [smash] Bulldog OUT
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 9:31:52 PM EDT
Here are two terms that I would like to define: Civilian Police- Law enforcement personnel using the same weapons as are legal to other civilians who they are employed to protect. Military Police- Law enforcement personnel using weapons superior to those available to the civilians they are employed to control. Now, let me make it clear that I have great respect for police officers and the vital role that they play in fighting crime. However, honest police officers are often put in a bad position by certain politicians who place more value on their own power than the rights of the people who they where elected to serve. Remember: Arming police well is showing respect for the crime problem, but disarming law abiding citizens can only come from a government that does not trust its own people. All men ARE created equal and should be treated likewise.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 9:57:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 9:59:26 PM EDT
It would be amusing to see the looks on the founding father's faces, if one could go back in time, and inform them that in the future, the standing army and assorted government employees would have access to small arms that are prohibited from ownership by the common man.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 10:00:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Honestly...I believe that police officers should all have their weapons issued to them, nobody should get to carry their own weapon. Not saying they shouldn't have a choice of their gun, but it should be the departments gun. They show up to work and check out their gun and check it back in when the shift is over. If they want to practice on their time off, same thing, check it in and out. If they want to carry concealed then they need a license just like everybody else. If their state doesn't issue one then they're just SOL. All high caps should be purchased by the dept only, and must be checked in and out with the weapon they belong to. No taking home of department weapons or magazines. This goes for all LEO's including federal. If you aren't on duty then you're just Joe Citizen.
View Quote
I think I'm going to need a flame resistant suit, but here goes. LEO's are citizens. We do have a license. A Peace Officer's license. For it we had to not put in 10 hours of training but several hundred. The idea that departments should issue firearms is a good one. It would have saved me hundreds of dollars. The idea that I should check it in every night is IMHO not a good one. I have had occasions while "off duty" when I've run into someone that I have arrested. They don't see you as "off duty" and sometimes want to harm you regardless. Most of the people in my community know that I am a LEO. They would have my head on the chopping block if something happened that needed an immediate response, and I walked away saying, "Sorry I'm off duty." LEO's have more reasons to carry off duty then just because we have "more" rights then anyone else. When I purchased my AR, I went with a post ban Bushmaster because I don't want to have to sell it as soon as I leave the department. Under federal law as soon as we turn in the badge we are no longer able to possess LE rifles or hi-cap mags. I like being "Joe Citizen", but I have sworn to uphold the constitution on or off duty. Everyone in my community expects it of me. SK
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 10:14:04 PM EDT
I have a few of these restricted items you mention. No mg but other equipment. I carry/supply my own weapon cause out dept does not supply any weapons, mags or anything except ammo and uniforms. If I am not allowed to buy it with my money,,,,,I would have to do with out. I am expected to respond to any criminal act even when off duty...so yes off duty carry has a function. I do have a CCW. Another reason for off duty carry is when you run into some ass you put in jail for a few months and he gets out and comes looking for you. He might find you as you and your 6 yr old son walk out of the local 7-11. Not a good thing when its him and two buds and you and your son. I think some of the big Dept do the weapon check in thing as Ponyboy mentioned. They lose a few officers every year because of this policy. Many criminal acts are stopped by off duty police who just happen to be in the right place a the right time. Ponyboy...did you have a bad experience with a leo? LEO are citizens.....not any better than anyone else. I understand some take advantage of the situation but most do not. Think about your job....if you and a customer have a bad transaction...will he be out to get you later???ie...my example..7-11 As for mags and ccw....I wish all states were shall issue and no such thing as high cap ban. This would take care of many problems... Axeldawg
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 10:19:04 PM EDT
If you think private citizens can not detain you then just try walking out of WalMart without paying.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 10:39:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sulaco: Now this question isn’t intended to start a flame war, I just want to get your opinions about this – hopefully opinions from both sides. Law Enforcement Officers need special right in order for them to conduct their duties as Peace Officers. Their rights include the right to detain a suspect, to arrest a suspect and to exercise force when needed. Legally, a citizens cannot detain a suspect, can conduct a citizens arrest but not a true arrest and cannot use force unless in self-defense. However, beyond the scope of there duties, they should not be given any more personal rights than an ordinary citizen. The system that is in place right now allows for LEOs to buy restricted equipment, such as post-ban high capacity magazines, assault rifles and in rare cases post-ban machineguns. In order for an officer to buy restricted equipment that officer requires them to purchase these items with there own money on department letterhead when approval buy the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in that area. When that officer leaves the department they can sell that item or in some cases have that item ‘gifted’ to them. Now the only problem I see with the current system is that it allows for the private ownership and the use of private funds of restricted equipment that could potently be used for none duty purposes. The problem with that is that our society is built up on a foundation of equality, no single individual is better than anyone else, we are all equal. With that in mind LEOs should not be exempt from the same laws that ordinary citizens must comply to when it comes to restricted equipment for personal use. The services that our officers render for our communities are greatly appreciated, however there are many other people out there that serve our communities in other ways and there services are just as important. A better systems would involve officers requesting equipment, having there department buy the equipment and issue it to the officer and then they can return the equipment when it is no longer required for there duties or when the officer retires.
View Quote
First off: Police Officers do NOT have "Special Rights". Instead they have certain POWERS which allow them to use deadly force, conduct searches, make arrests etc. in order to enforce the law. A RIGHT is a LIMITATION on the POWER that a Government has over an individual. Clear ? It is a minor but very important point. Under current Gun Control Legislation: Law Enforcement officers as well as Retired LEO's have certain PRIVILEDGES. (At least in some states such as California which allow them to obtain "Assault Weapons" or high capacity magazines, etc.) This is the trend of current gun control legislation: increased restrictions on gun ownership by the citizenry with exemptions for LEO's. Now here is an interesting historical point. In FUEDAL societies (such as Mideaval Europe or Japan) only the Nobility ("Rich and Famous") and their hired thugs (Sherriff of Nottingham, etc) would be allowed to OWN and CARRY WEAPONS.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 10:40:49 PM EDT
Just my .02. I get the impression that the resentment shown toward LEO's about being able to possess special equipment is shown toward the LEO his/herself. Don't be a dumbass. Of course, I have the "special" equipment to safely do my job, everyday. You would too. But...and here is the big bomb....I disagree that you cannot also have this gear. I wish there was no ban on mags, etc. Don't confuse the law that bans it from you with even having to compare whether we are different classes of citizens. If you do, you are driving yet another wedge between fellow "good guys".
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 10:43:13 PM EDT
LMAO! What an amusing collection of people who are angry because they couldn't pass the police exam! Hahahaha!!
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 10:56:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 11:15:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2002 11:16:13 PM EDT by Waverunner]
Originally Posted By trickshot: Well since they already have access to all kinds of NFA weapons without having to pay a dime in taxes or worry about what year the damn guns were built, I'd say they already have special firearms rights, lots of them.
View Quote
Honestly, please show me how I can obtain NFA weapons in the NYPD. The best I get is my duty 9mm(S&W 5946). NO AR15's, NO Shotguns, NO Scoped Tac-Rifles, No Grenade Launchers. NOTHING!
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 11:20:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dc306: Just my .02. I get the impression that the resentment shown toward LEO's about being able to possess special equipment is shown toward the LEO his/herself. Don't be a dumbass. Of course, I have the "special" equipment to safely do my job, everyday. You would too. But...and here is the big bomb....I disagree that you cannot also have this gear. I wish there was no ban on mags, etc. Don't confuse the law that bans it from you with even having to compare whether we are different classes of citizens. If you do, you are driving yet another wedge between fellow "good guys".
View Quote
I agree 100%, many Police Officers want the good citizens to own firearms. The hi-cap ban is bullshit anyway, 1 bullet in a perps gun is as dangerous to everyone as 10 is. Hell, bad guys file off the serial#'s of the guns they carry anyhow, do you think they'll limit the capacity to 10 rounds too?
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 11:32:50 PM EDT
There should be no disparity between LEOs and the ordinary Joe. I do think the department should issue the equipment to the officer and it would be returned at the end of his employment. The LEO exemption or "privlidge" puts the police officers in a special class of people without justification. I once had a federal officer brag to me that the gunlaws did not apply to him. If they don't apply then they are wrong. The argument will be made "they are trained in their use". Well if I go to frontsight I would be trained as well, most likely better than most officers. I do take issue with Police departments being sold m-16s at a greatly reduced rate ($500) when we cannot even own one at a reasonable price. (Sorry $5000 is not a reasonable price) I have no desire to become a "peace officer" but the artificial restrictions that are PC motivated are nonsense, thats putting the good word on it. _________________________________________________________________________ Originally Posted By grimshaw There are a lot of people asking themselves now, if we are going to lose more rights, are we ready to throw down for something better, more along the lines of the original Constitution? __________________________________________________________________________ I do know that the laws are not going to fix anything, then they need to be nullified or repealed. I know that when TSHF the police will be up to their eyeballs in it, they will then have to make a choice. Hopefully they won't just say "I don't make the laws". When do we draw the line. #############################################­######################################[soapbo­x] The Democrats got kicked at the polls, this time its time to hand them their head on a platter. Don't buy the "we like gunowners routine". Ask them why they voted for the 94 ban and ask them if they are going to vote to renew the ban, why they voted for son of cara, and why they voted to start killing the 1st amendment. Time for some VERY hard questions and some VERY hard rebuttal.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 12:04:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 12:56:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2002 12:59:50 AM EDT by Master_Blaster]
Originally Posted By dc306: ...Don't confuse the law that bans it from you with even having to compare whether we are different classes of citizens. If you do, you are driving yet another wedge between fellow "good guys".
View Quote
Agreed, but I think the point is that if LE and the [i]rest of the citizenry[/i] are truly equal, then it should be reflected in the code that we are all governed by. The fact that certain set-asides [i]might[/i] be made for LE has already created a sense of a 3rd tier for LE personnel, whether they want it this way or not. Maybe this is simply a perception, but it is becoming more generally accepted. Politicos have, in essence, already made it a reality by crafting the laws into what we have today. If LE & citizens are actually affected by the, then lawmakers would have to consider the effects of legal constructs on the greater populace. As it is today, the 3rd tier is rationalized & propogated under the guise of fighting various wars. I personally don't begrudge the need for LE to carry FA, SB weapons both on & off duty. The avg. joe-punk certainly isn't following any codified rules. I only wish that LE Associations would consider Joe-citizen's rights to be relevant to their own. Sadly, this is not the case across the board. We [i]are[/i] slowly being marginalized, fear being the rallying mechanism behind it. No offense to the female persuasion, but certain shrill voters carry a louder voice that garners the lion's share of political support. They are the squeaky political wheels that keep getting greased. They don't speak for everyone of either sex, but there are enough of them to stir up considerable noise, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. I don't begrudge LE the tools of their trade, but if current trends continue, theoretically, you might have to pay a visit to the house of the friend you used to see/meet at the range to confiscate his stuff. Or arrest him. Or worse. There was a saying I heard regarding the slow descent of the German populace into its dim state as the 3rd reich gained power. The gist of it was that as people of various classes were incrementally "led away", the sayer later realized, but all too late, that there was no one left to say anything. I don't see a Dochau or Auschwitz in my future. But, I'm not so sure what the future does hold. If I'd been told back in 1985, when I used to live there, that CA would confiscate certain firearms from the public before the end of the next decade, I would have laughed. If you haven't yet noticed from my profile, I don't live there anymore.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 4:30:57 AM EDT
For those that are wondering...No, I haven't had many negative experiences with police, I just don't think they should be allowed special privelages when off duty. I'm sorry if you are afraid of people that you arrested comming after you when they get out of jail. Either get a concealed handgun license or call 9-1-1 just like everybody else. I think a search on murder rates of LEO's made to check in their guns vs. non-LEO's would show that there isn't much of a difference, if any. I'm all for law enforcement having all of the tools that they need to get the job done, I just think that those tools need to be left at the station house when your shift is done. And for the smartass with 12 posts that thinks some of us are too stupid to be in law enforcement......I started off my schooling with a degree in criminal justice with the intention of getting into law enforcement at some level, until I learned what a thankless job it is. Low pay, high stress, etc, etc...so I went into the electronics field. I'm very thankful for the LEO's out there doing the job that a lot of us don't want to do. I just think that any special privelages that is afforded to you by your position should end when you punch out everyday.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 5:00:34 AM EDT
I have been in a leo for 11 years and have had 2 occasions off duty to need a weapon to defend myself and my family. In each incident just having the weapon stopped the assault. How would you like to be out and have someone attack because you put him in jail a few weeks before. From this attack I had 3 broken fingers and the fear of catching aides or hep because the suspect bit my right hand causing an open wound. The state were I live does not issue ccw permits yet and if I were not able to carry a weapon off duty and another incident occurred I think I would be able to my employer and the state liable for my injuries because my job would be the underlying cause of them.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 5:21:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BC1303: I have been in a leo for 11 years and have had 2 occasions off duty to need a weapon to defend myself and my family. In each incident just having the weapon stopped the assault. How would you like to be out and have someone attack because you put him in jail a few weeks before. From this attack I had 3 broken fingers and the fear of catching aides or hep because the suspect bit my right hand causing an open wound. The state were I live does not issue ccw permits yet and if I were not able to carry a weapon off duty and another incident occurred I think I would be able to my employer and the state liable for my injuries because my job would be the underlying cause of them.
View Quote
So you believe that you are special in that you 'need' a weapon to defend yourself and nobody else does? So should lawyers also be allowed to carry weapons because they tend to piss people off in the course of their job? What about the f*cker at the credit card company that disconnects you while trying to transfer you to someone else after you've been talking to a recording for 30 minutes? Should he get to carry a gun too, cause if I could find that guy on the street I would surely whip his ass. While your arguement is sound that you, and everyone else, should be allowed to carry a weapon for their own protection, you are at the same time putting yourself into a special class because you think you should be 'allowed' to carry off duty while others can't. I'm sorry to hear about your experiences, but unless the laws are changed for everyone I still believe that you should have been limited to a cell phone and pepper spray like everyone else in your state. You are sworn to uphold the laws but for some reason think that not all of the laws should apply to you because of your job as an LEO, which doesn't really make sense to me.....
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 5:33:29 AM EDT
Come on guys........ If your job puts you in harms way...taking a weapon home should be considered normal. I am not afraid of the people I have put in jail assualting me...but my son and wife are at a higher risk. As Ponyboy stated...get a CCW...I have one and use it when traveling. My weapon has stopped a problem while off duty...the 7-11 event with my son. Thank God I did not have to shoot a person in front of my son. LEO should have access to whatever he needs to do his job! I wish my dept could supply these things also. Would save me alot of money. Taking home this equipment is basically required cause I might be called on or out at any time.If I am eating lunch on my day off and we are held up and I say to the perp..."I'm off duty...dont mind me...just eating over here." Everyone in our area knows I am LEO. Small towns are that way. That is a good way to get shot or having my chief crawl up my ass wondering why I am not doing my job. It's not a ha ha I got the cool/restricted stuff special right...it's job necessary equipment. I will again state that I think we all should be able to carry after passing a class and background checks and hi-cap bans are total BULLSHIT. The poster with the remark about not passing the entrance test needs his head examined....Dumbass...I doubt he is LEO...and if so his dept is lacking in certian training areas. He would be an example of the problem attitude officer. Axeldawg
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 5:35:22 AM EDT
Ponyboy, I understand your point. I think there are 2 questions here though, "restricted" equipment and CCW. I work for a dept. of 400+ people. "We" have 2 1920's Thompsons, 2 M-16's, and 3 MP-5's, as far as "auto" weapons. The Thompsons were bought in the '20-'30's new, there were 3 of them. In the late 80's one of the "tranferable" Thompsons was traded for the LEO/GOV only M-16's and MP-5's. The "auto" weapons stay locked up, unless a call merits their presence or for training. 870 shotguns are the long arm in use for the dept., and the only "issue" weapon that most get to use. We are required to purchase our own handguns. We are required to have handguns shipped to the dept. All "hi-caps" issued are marked with a dept. logo. If an officer quits, gets fired, or retires they are required to trade in the "hi-caps" for 10 rounders with the dept. I'm not sure that we have that much access to "restricted items". The dept. serves an area of just under 500,000
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 5:47:11 AM EDT
As far as CCW...... I don't agree with you, this weekend I: Arrested a DUI suspect after a high-speed chase. Arrested a suspect for hitting and kicking his girlfriend. Arrested a suspect for DUI - .16 Arrested a suspect for 80+/55 and DUI 2nd, he was totally PO'ed that he was caught..... Arrested a suspect for DUI, Driving with a suspended license, and a warrant. FYI he was the "getaway driver" his passenger, also arrested, had just robbed a gas station at gunpoint. I know WI doesn't have CCW, expect for LEO's. To be a LEO, I needed a college degree, pass multiple oral interviews, pass a background check, pass psychological testing, complete an LEO acadamy, pass basic skills assesments at work, and if I decide to do something stupid at work or at home, since they monitor me, the will fire me. Just a little more rigorous than most CCW licensing I have heard about........ I'm more then willing to go find BG's if at all possible at work, so hopefully you and yours won't meet those same BG's at home. Are you willing to do the same for me?? Especially since most of the people I meet at work are not people I wouldn't EVER meet if I wasn't doing this job.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 5:48:42 AM EDT
I don't really care about the machineguns. Like I said in a previous post, law enforcement should have what ever tools are necessary and I can see in some cases where machineguns could be deemed necessary. Any officer on duty should be allowed to use a machinegun or whatever else is needed to get the job done. However, when he gets off of his shift all of those privalages should end. No concealed handguns, no using department equipment, etc unless it is needed for training. Basically, I don't believe that LEO's should be allowed to skirt virtually every firearm law known to man while off duty. They should be made to follow the same laws as the rest of the population when not on duty. A few have already came out with the protection arguement saying that they 'need' a weapon when off duty to protect themselves. Well, I hate to burst their bubble but so does everyone else. Police aren't the only ones who get murdered or are assaulted. Why is their life or the life of their families any more important than the rest of society?
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 6:13:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 6:25:22 AM EDT
The person who became a LEO did it voluntarily. It, in itself, is a job. There should be no different rules for any citizen of this country, state county or municipality. Period.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 7:08:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2002 7:10:22 AM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 7:17:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2002 7:38:07 AM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 7:20:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dcar: LMAO! What an amusing collection of people who are angry because they couldn't pass the police exam! Hahahaha!!
View Quote
BWAAAHHAAAAA !!!! What an arrogant statement from someone who thinks they are better than others just because they passed a "gubmint" test. dcar, are you leo? if so, your attitude is the reason people dislike cops. [img]www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/kiss.gif[/img][moon]
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 7:31:32 AM EDT
IMHO, LEOs should not have acess to any weapon that is not avalible to the general public. It's simply a matter of equality. Again, in a perfect world both LEO's and mere mortals such as myself should have equal acess to whatever small amrs their hearts desire.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 8:03:09 AM EDT
You know Garand Shooter, that last post just shows how class-less, and clue-less you are. You had to take a debate about some fairly important ideas and bring it down to a personal attack. From your post you not only denegrated me and minimized the work I do, but you showed yourself as someome who think he is the center of the universe. And who cares about your ASVAB score?? What does it matter? As far as "if my unit gets called........" I was in the active army for 3 years, I never EVER had reason to believe that my life was in signifgant danger during that ENTIRE time. I was in Germany, Honduras, LA, and AL during that time. Including some time within spitting distance of Nicaruaga. If you think it is dangerous being in the military, but not as a LEO you don't have a realistic idea of what both jobs are.....
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 8:11:12 AM EDT
Wow, there’s a lot of posts here – last time I checked there were only 3 posts here. I appreciate everyone input on this matter, going to read them when I get back from work and post some responses. This question isn’t intended to attack the law enforcement community, it’s for building up complaints about for our local legislators – they are the real criminals and abusers of power out there.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 8:22:04 AM EDT
I agree with Ponyboy 100%. I also think that police departments should not be allowed to use ANY weapons that civilians can not own. No MG's not even hi cap mags. If we can't have them you can't either, simple as that.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 8:31:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 8:44:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 8:57:59 AM EDT
I read/found/whatever, no I can't verify it, a statistic that 1 in 7 LEO deaths, criminal type, not heart attacks etc., are "off-duty". Now some places define that different than others. In the South many officers are working "off duty" in full uniform, doing private security. One of the things that I have learned is that many crimes involve people that "associate" with one another. Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas. Fits, "patterns of crime". There have alway been "super criminals" they are ready to commit a crime anywhere, anytime, by whatever means neccesary. In the past there were very few of these types of BG's. They are still a tiny minority. There are more than ever though, at least as best as I can tell. Your chances of running into one of these types is slim, but if you do it is nasty. If you don't hang out with low-lifes, or work as a gas station attendant, convinience store clerk, or cab driver, your chances of being a victim of serious crimes is slim. I feel for all the people except the low-lifes. As a LEO my job is to find good people that made bad choices, low-lifes, and the occasional hard core criminal. Most people don't/won't hurt others including the LEO arresting them. Some people might attack a LEO if the situation is right. Some might attack a LEO if they can get the advantage first, if they can't the won't. Some will actively try to create a sitution of advantage, the attack a LEO. A few will attack if they want to no matter what. The last three groups don't care if a LEO is on duty or not. It is unlikely most LEO's would meet those kinds of rascals except when they are doing their job, protecting other people. I'm not saying that a LEO is anymore deserving than anyone else. I also know that in many places LEA's expect LEO's to do their duty whether or not they are "on duty". Some agencies, after Columbine, devised "active shooter" responses that say if a LEO is off duty and near that type of incident, they are supposed to respond to the incident and seek out the BG's, tough to do w/o a firearm. Most LEA's have a list of incident types that they expect off duty LEO's to take action if they encounter. The badge doesn't get you "privileges" it gets you responsibilities, at least in a profesional organization that is trying to serve the public.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 9:10:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2002 9:21:42 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter: I wouldn't be insulted if someone who makes twice what I do told me that they didn't do what I do because they have skills that are marketable at a higher level of return than mine our, its just how the job market works. I looked into LE at one time, and for a career that starts out here at $19,500-$22,000 a year, with a max 0f $31,00-34,000 after a 25-30 year career with crappy hours, high risk, and few benifits, I decieded it just wasn't for me. It may pay better in some places, but around here it sucks
View Quote
Just so long as you remember that wages, and worth are 2 different things. It not how much you make, but the effect you have. EDIT: FWIW, even though WI doesn't have CCW, it has very few laws regulating firearms. There are no State laws about mag. capacity, flash hiders, or bayonet lugs. There are laws about barrel lenght, which mirror federal laws, also mg's and silencers are allowed. WI of course has regulations related to firearms used for hunting. WI seemingly cares less about "guns" and more about the operator. If you are responsible, enjoy. If you are reckless or negligent with a firearm you may have some trouble. Storage laws are simple if a 14 yo or younger gets your gun and commits a crime, and you didn't take reasonable steps to keep it from the kid, you can be charged with a crime. There are no mandatory locks, weapons can be stored with ammo. What is reasonable is also judged on the circumstances, ie if you have kids, live alone, etc. It's much more closer to the way it should be than a lot of other places, and yes they are working on the CCW.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 9:14:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2002 9:30:20 AM EDT by shotar]
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 9:37:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2002 9:51:10 AM EDT by Energizer]
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: I believe that police officers should all have their weapons issued to them, nobody should get to carry their own weapon.
View Quote
I agree. And, if they claim that they are always on duty, then they should carry only department issued weapons while not on the job... And, I think that they should NOT be able to moonlight as security guards using department equipment. This includes all guns, high capacity magazines, patrol cars and fuel/miles, radios, unitforms, etc. They should provide that equipment themselves, or have the company they are moonlight for provide it for them, and not use tax-payer's money. Also, if they claim they are always on duty, then they should they be able to moonlight...?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top